Personality and Individual Differences 113 (2017) 209–218

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Task conflict leads to relationship conflict when employees are low in

trait self-control: Implications for employee strain☆

Nerina L. Jimmieson a,⁎, Michelle K. Tucker a, Jack L. Campbell b

a
School of Management, Queensland University of Technology, Australia
b
School of Psychology, The University of Queensland, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This research advances our theoretical understanding of interpersonal conflict in the workplace by examining the
Received 13 December 2016 process underpinning the escalation of task conflict to relationship conflict with one's supervisor and the moder-
Received in revised form 13 March 2017 ating effect of employee trait self-control (TSC) to predict employee strain. Study 1 with 160 employees from the
Accepted 14 March 2017
healthcare sector showed that the positive effect of task conflict on relationship conflict was significant for low
Available online 21 March 2017
TSC employees and non-existent for high TSC employees. Study 2 with 106 local council employees used a
Keywords:
time-ordered research design (time lag of 10 months) and replicated the TSC moderation effect in the context
Trait self-control of an indirect positive effect of task conflict (through relationship conflict) on psychological strain, job burnout,
Task conflict and turnover intentions, but not job dissatisfaction. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed in
Relationship conflict regards to the role of individual differences in TSC in supervisor-employee interpersonal relations.
Employee strain © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
One set of psychosocial risk factors in the workplace is stress arising
from interpersonal conflict, defined as a process in which an individual
perceives that something he or she cares about, for instance interests
and goals, are being blocked, opposed, or affected in a negative manner
by another (Wall & Callister, 1995). Interpersonal conflict in the work-
place has been categorized as a social stressor and is considered to be
a common and detrimental source of stress for employees in regards
to their physical and psychological functioning (De Dreu & Beersma,
2005; Spector & Bruk-Lee, 2008). Such a process sits within the stress-
or-strain framework underpinning many theories of stress, such as the
cognitive-phenomenological model of stress and coping proposed by
Lazarus and Folkman (1984).
In the context of the conflict escalation model that specifies that con-
flicts can strengthen and deepen into more extreme forms of conflict
over time and one such reason being contentious reactions and behav-
iors from one of the parties encouraging or fostering those of the other
(Glasl, 1982), we draw on self-control theory (Carver & Scheier, 1981)
and investigate the moderating role of employees' trait self-control
☆ Author noteAn Australian Research Council Future Fellowship (FT110100083)
awarded to the first author funded this research. The funder had no involvement in any
parts of the study.
⁎ Corresponding author at: School of Management, Queensland University of
Technology, Brisbane, Queensland 4000, Australia.
E-mail address: n.jimmieson@qut.edu.au (N.L. Jimmieson).
(TSC). TSC can be viewed as a personal resource that can be drawn
upon to regulate responses to conflict, minimize conflict escalation,
and subsequent stress reactions. As such, we focus on the distinction be-
tween task conflict and relationship conflict with one's supervisor and
examine the extent to which employee TSC helps to minimize escala-
tion, thus having implications for employee strain.
1.1. Types of interpersonal conflict
Interpersonal conflict may be either task-oriented or relationship-
oriented in nature (Jehn, 1994, 1995). Task conflict is largely based on
non-relationship issues and pertains to disagreements regarding the
work to be undertaken (Giebels & Janssen, 2005), and may involve dif-
ferences in views about policies and procedures, disputes regarding al-
location and distribution of resources, or disagreements in judgments
and interpretation of facts (De Dreu & Van de Vliert, 1997; De Dreu &
Weingart, 2003). Task conflict has sometimes been shown to be func-
tional for teams and organizations because it is thought to enable better
decision-making as this type of conflict encourages greater cognitive
understanding of the issue being considered, and is thought to stimulate
critical-thinking and prevent premature consensus. For example, the
meta-analysis of 116 team studies by de Wit, Greer, and Jehn (2012)
showed that task conflict was good for team performance (but only
when process conflict and relationship conflict were controlled for). An-
other meta-analysis of 45 team-level studies showed that task conflict
had positive implications for team performance (DeChurch, Mesmer-
Magnus, & Doty, 2013).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.03.035
0191-8869/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
210 N.L. Jimmieson et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 113 (2017) 209–218
However, task conflict also can be an impediment to performance
because it adds to cognitive load redirecting resources away from the
task at hand (Carnevale & Probst, 1998; van Woerkom & van Engen,
2009). The 2003 meta-analysis by De Dreu and Weingart revealed
that task conflict had a negative relationship with performance, as did
the more recent 2013 meta-analysis by O'Neill, Allen, and Hastings
(2013). Overall, the current understanding is that the extent to which
task conflict is good for performance depends on a host of contingen-
cies, including the presence of curvilinear effects, the extent to which re-
lationship conflict also exists, and moderators that capture team
characteristics (trust and norms for conflict) and individual differences
in demographics (education and skills levels) and traits, such as open-
ness to experience (Loughry & Amason, 2014).
Relationship conflict, on the other hand, refers to conflict that stems
from opposing or incompatible differences in interpersonal style/attri-
butes, preferences/personal taste, attitudes, and values (De Dreu &
Van de Vliert, 1997; Pinkley, 1990; Yang & Mossholder, 2004). Relation-
ship conflict is thought to inhibit group processes and reduce the fre-
quency and quality of communications. Relationship conflict impairs
information processing as individuals spend more cognitive time on
each other than on the task. As such, multiple meta-analyses have
found that relationship conflict impairs performance (DeChurch et al.,
2013; De Dreu & Weingart, 2003; de Ent, Baumeister, & Tice, 2015;
O'Neill et al., 2013).
1.2. Task to relationship conflict escalation
One negative outcome of task conflict is relationship conflict. Task
conflict can harm relationships (Jehn, 1997) and is therefore viewed
as an antecedent to relationship conflict (Curseu & Schruijer, 2010).
Such a proposal recognizes that interpersonal conflict is dynamic in
nature and escalates over time. According to Glasl's (1982) conflict
escalation model, when conflict arises during the undertaking of a
task, there is the potential for that conflict to increase in its duration
and become intensified, with individuals' positions and differences
becoming polarized as time goes on. As individuals experience
heightened negative reactions to conflict events, subsequent person-
al issues can arise.
As reviewed by Simons and Peterson (2000), task conflict escalates
into relationship conflict because of cognitive misattributions or the
use of inappropriate emotional and behavioral reactions. First, some
people interpret disagreements about the task as personal attacks and
come to dislike people who present task-related criticism. The tendency
to internalize the cause of task conflict occurs as a result of individuals'
information processing biases and self-fulfilling prophecies (Fiske &
Taylor, 1991). Over time, continued challenges to individuals' opinions
may strengthen such biases and self-fulfilling prophecies, which lead in-
dividuals to increasingly appraise their interpersonal interactions as
threatening. Second, individuals debating a work task may intentionally
or unintentionally respond to each other in a harsh and aggressive man-
ner. This may signal disrespect and dislike to the opposing individual,
triggering threat appraisals and negative emotions, allowing relation-
ship conflict to emerge.
The fact that task conflict and relationship conflict go hand in hand is
evidenced by a review of correlations by Simons and Peterson (2000)
and the later meta-analysis by de Wit et al. (2012) showed that task
conflict is correlated with relationship conflict (0.54). However, it
should be noted that much of this research is cross-sectional. Some ex-
ceptions include the studies by Curseu and colleagues. Curseu and
Schruijer (2010, Study 2) showed that task conflict at the beginning of
the semester predicted end-of-semester assessments of relationship
conflict in student teams. In a multi-level analysis also with student
teams, Pluut and Curşeu (2013) observed a significant correlation be-
tween Time 1 individual-level task conflict and Time 2 group-level rela-
tionship conflict, as reported 2 weeks later.
1.3. Conflict escalation and employee strain
Over and above performance implications, both task conflict and re-
lationship conflict can be upsetting and stressful to the recipient. First,
conflict brings obstruction in one's goal directed actions (Bruk-Lee &
Spector, 2012; Spector & Bruk-Lee, 2008) and this may trigger thoughts
and feelings that act as prerequisites for a stress response. Second, con-
flict elicits negative emotions that can undermine one's sense of identi-
fication and self-worth and self-esteem, and also similarities and social
belonging with others, and subsequently, be related to physiological
and psychological strain (De Dreu, van Dierendonck, & De
Best-Waldhober, 2003, Frone, 2000, Spector & Bruk-Lee, 2008). Indeed,
multiple meta-analyses have demonstrated that relationship conflict
has robust negative implications for physical health (Nixon, Mazzola,
Bauer, Krueger, & Spector, 2011) and attitudinal outcomes for em-
ployees and/or teams (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003; de Wit et al., 2012;
DeChurch et al., 2013).
Task conflict also has been associated with poor health outcomes
such as psychological strain (Dijkstra, Beersma, & Cornelissen, 2012;
Dijkstra, Beersma, & Evers, 2011; Guerra, Martínez, Munduate, &
Medina, 2005, Sample 1; Sonnentag, Unger, & Nägel, 2013), as well as
negative attitudes such as job dissatisfaction (De Dreu & Weingart,
2003; de Wit et al., 2012; Guerra et al., 2005, Sample 1). However,
other empirical research has shown that task conflict is good for team
attitudinal outcomes (DeChurch et al., 2013); whereas other studies
have shown that task conflict was not predictive of anger emotions
(Meier, Gross, Spector, & Semmer, 2013), psychological strain (Guerra
et al., 2005, Sample 2), emotional exhaustion (Giebels & Janssen,
2005), and job dissatisfaction (Guerra et al., 2005, Sample 2), once rela-
tionship conflict was controlled for. Irrespective of relationship conflict,
Giebels and Janssen showed that task conflict was unrelated to turnover
intentions and absenteeism, and Meier et al. showed no association for
somatic complaints. Some have speculated that, during task conflict,
employees attribute disputes to external characteristics (e.g., situation
or task) that are short-term and controllable which bypasses threats
to the self and the resultant negative emotional and stress reactions
(Bruk-Lee & Spector, 2012; De Dreu & Gelfand, 2008).
In response to these mixed results, it has been suggested that an in-
direct relationship exists such that task conflict leads to relationship
conflict that in turn has implications for employee strain. Two studies
concluded this to be the case in the prediction of psychological strain
in a sample of 82 employees in a medical department (Friedman, Tidd,
Currall, & Tsai, 2000) and for psychological strain and job dissatisfaction
in a sample of 169 Spanish hotel workers (Medina, Munduate, Dorado,
Martínez, & Guerra, 2005). In both studies, task conflict did not have a
direct effect on employee strain when relationship conflict was in the
model. Although these studies provided initial support for an indirect
effects model of task conflict on employee strain through relationship
conflict, both used a cross-sectional research design, limiting causal di-
rection of the hypothesized relationships. As such, we incorporate the
element of time into the research design and hypothesize that:
Hypothesis 1. Task conflict at Time 1 will have a positive indirect effect
on employee strain at Time 2 through relationship conflict at Time 2.
1.4. Preventing conflict escalation
Even though the above studies show that task conflict has the poten-
tial to increase relationship conflict, task conflict does not always lead to
relationship conflict over time (Bono, Boles, Judge, & Lauver, 2002;
Greer, Jehn, & Manniz, 2008; Guenter et al., 2016), leading to a search
for moderating variables. For example, Simons and Peterson (2000)
found that, in top management teams, high pre-existing trust prevented
escalation and the use of raised voices promoted escalation. Curseu and
Schruijer (2010, Study 1) also showed that trust weakened the positive
 N.L. Jimmieson et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 113 (2017) 209–218
association between task conflict and relationship conflict in a sample of
student teams reflecting on their semester together. Tidd, McIntyre, and
Friedman (2004) found that, when one's role was ambiguous, individ-
uals were less inclined to interpret task conflict as relational because it
was considered to be arising from the work itself, an interactive effect
that also was present at high rather than low trust. Bai, Han, and
Harms (2016) showed that political climate was the trigger for task to
relationship escalation in teams. Longitudinal studies also have shown
support for moderators. Pluut and Curşeu (2013) found that Time 1 in-
dividual-level task conflict predicted Time 2 group-level relationship
conflict when the team was low in the use of problem-focused coping
strategies, whereas high problem-focused coping strategies reduced
the relationship between conflict types over time. Guenter et al. showed
that task conflict in teams relates to growth in relationship conflict only
when team performance was perceived as problematic.
Yang and Mossholder (2004) argue in their model of decoupling task
conflict and relationship conflict that collective emotional intelligence is
a core team competence that determines how the two conflict types op-
erate together. Several studies have since found that the emotion man-
agement skills of the team are a moderator. Curseu, Boros, and
Oerlemans (2012) found that the positive association between task con-
flict and relationship conflict was less marked when emotion manage-
ment was rated as high by students performing group activities, an
effect more prominent for the long-term teams compared to the
short-term teams. van den Berg, Curseu, and Meeus (2014) showed
that the positive association between the two conflict types was no lon-
ger present at high emotion management in an individual-level analysis
of 94 employees across 23 IS-development teams. Accordingly, in con-
sidering which individual traits determine an employee's ability to ac-
cept task conflict with confidence and manage the emotions of the
situation so that escalate to relationship conflict is minimized, we
focus on employees' TSC.
1.5. Moderating role of trait self-control
Self-control is a core feature of the self and considered to be essential
for achieving happiness and life success. It refers to how capable an in-
dividual is in overriding, interrupting, or changing thoughts, emotions,
impulses, and behavioral tendencies and refraining from acting on
them in situations that would otherwise interfere with desired out-
comes (Tangney, Baumeister, & Boone, 2004). Individuals are regularly
exposed to self-control dilemmas and such dilemmas create unresolved
conflict. This conflict, also known as response conflict, is experienced as
a result of competing urges and desires between short-term rewards
and long-term goals. High TSC individuals tend to avoid or experience
less response conflict situations in their lives (Ent et al., 2015;
Hofmann, Baumeister, Forster, & Vohs, 2012; Hofmann, Luhmann,
Fisher, Vohs, & Baumeister, 2014) and when they do, they are better
at managing, or balancing, their response to achieve an optimal out-
come (Hofmann et al., 2014).
Over the past 30 years, scholars have conducted an extensive
amount of research on self-control (see de Ridder, Lensvelt-Mulders,
Finkenauer, Stok, & Baumeister, 2011, for a meta-analysis), with
scholars taking both state- and trait-based views on self-control. In ac-
cord with the Limited Strength Model of Self-Control (Muraven &
Baumeister, 2000), the state-based perspective considers the enactment
of self-control to be a conscious process that draws on a limited resource
that is effortful and fatiguing. This ego depletion is thought to compro-
mise continued capacity to engage in self-control over time. The trait-
based perspective considers self-control as a dispositional difference be-
tween individuals. As reviewed by Olson (1995), TSC is a superordinate
trait dimension that is underscored by, for example, dimensions of the
Big 5, such as restraint of uncooperative, hostile, and aggressive behav-
iors (Agreeableness), irresponsible, careless behaviors (Conscientious-
ness), and negative, distressing emotions (Emotional Stability).
211
Increased interest in TSC was ignited by the meta-analysis finding
(de Ridder et al., 2011) that TSC had a stronger impact on automatic be-
haviors than conscious behaviors. It has since been shown that high TSC
individuals automatically and with little conscious intent or effort select
the desired behavioral response that aligns with their long-term goals, a
process thought to be a reflection of their well-formed habits (Galla &
Duckworth, 2015; Gillebaart & de Ridder, 2015). Gillebaart and de
Ridder proposed that high TSC individuals rely on two habitual tenden-
cies to maintain goal pursuit. First, high TSC individuals automatically
avoid situations or experiences that elicit response conflict. Second, if
high TSC individuals do experience response conflict, they automatically
employ strategies to down-regulate the experience (Gillebaart & de
Ridder, 2015). These habits ensure that goal pursuit is not impeded by
changes in motivation, lapses of attention, stress, or effortful inhibition
(Galla & Duckworth, 2015).
To date, no research has investigated the relationship between TSC
and interpersonal conflict in the work context. Nevertheless, the
meta-analysis by de Ridder et al. (2011) explored the relationship be-
tween TSC and a range of life outcomes and showed that TSC was a pos-
itive predictor of interpersonal relationships and personal adjustment.
This conclusion also aligns with earlier research demonstrating that
high TSC is associated with better interpersonal relationships
(Tangney et al., 2004). Overall, such research suggests that TSC has an
important role in mitigating the escalation of task conflict into relation-
ship conflict. During encounters of task conflict, high TSC employees
should have responses that minimize or prevent inappropriate cogni-
tive, emotional, and behavioral responses to task conflict. These tenden-
cies ensure that the focus remains on task-oriented goal attainment and
minimizes the likelihood that task conflict will escalate into one about
relationships. Therefore, we hypothesize that:
Hypothesis 2. TSC will moderate the direct positive effect of task con-
flict at Time 1 on relationship conflict at Time 2, such that the effect
will be stronger for employees low in TSC and weaker for employees
high in TSC.
Following on from this proposition, we seek to understand the ex-
tent to which TSC also moderates the conflict escalation process in the
prediction of employee strain. In this respect, individuals high in TSC
who appropriately manage task conflict and minimize conflict escala-
tion to relationship conflict should be protected, or buffered, from the
negative effects of the stress-inducing consequences of relationship
conflict. Based on this rationale, we hypothesize that:
Hypothesis 3. TSC will act as a first-stage moderator of the positive in-
direct effect of task conflict at Time 1 on employee strain at Time 2
through relationship conflict at Time 2, such that the relationship will
be stronger for employees low in TSC and weaker for employees high
in TSC.
1.6. The present research
Although task conflict has been heavily studied in groups and teams,
it has not been extensively studied within vertical dyads. Thus, we con-
sider task conflict and its consequences in supervisor-subordinate
dyads from a subordinate's perspective. This decision was influenced
by previous research (Frone, 2000; McMillan, Chen, Richard, & Bhuian,
2012; Xin & Pelled, 2003) that has highlighted the importance of the su-
pervisor-subordinate relationship for employee adjustment, and called
for further research into the dynamics of supervisor-subordinate con-
flict. Study 1 was intended to provide an initial test of the hypothesized
task conflict × TSC interaction on relationship conflict in an employee
sample and Study 2 aimed to replicate this interaction in the context
of moderated mediation using a time-ordered research design, also
with an employee sample.
212 N.L. Jimmieson et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 113 (2017) 209–218

2. Study 1 Table 2
Study 1 hierarchical regression analysis (n = 160).

2.1. Procedure and participants Supervisor relationship conflict B (SE) at step in which entered

Step 1
An online survey was distributed to 1066 employees of an Australian Supervisor task conflict 0.40⁎⁎⁎ (0.05)
disability and aged care support service, and 225 were returned, giving a Trait self-control −0.30⁎⁎ (0.11)
response rate of 21.1%. Listwise deletion occurred at the item-level, R2 0.35⁎⁎⁎ [0.23; 0.44]
F 41.57⁎⁎⁎
prior to calculation of the composite scales. Thus, the final useable sam-
ple was 160 employees. This sample comprised 10.6% men and 88.1% Step 2
women (1.3% missing). The average age of participants was Supervisor task conflict × trait self-control −0.44⁎⁎⁎ (0.10)
ΔR2 due to two-way interaction term 0.07⁎⁎⁎ [0.03; 0.21]
44.85 years (SD = 11.05), ranging from 20 to 68 years. In terms of occu-
ΔF due to two-way interaction term 19.05⁎⁎⁎
pations, 85.6% were carers, 10.0% were professionals, and 3.1% were ad-
ministration/clerical workers (and 1.3% other). Employees had been B = unstandardized regression coefficient; SE = standard error; 95% confidence interval
for effect size estimate in square brackets.
working with their supervisor for an average of 2.31 years (SD = ⁎⁎ p b 0.01.
2.72), ranging from 1 month to 12.42 years. ⁎⁎⁎ p b 0.001.

2.2. Measures
TSC was assessed with the 13-item Brief Self-Control Scale devel-
oped by Tangney et al. (2004). The scale is designed to capture both re-
straint (e.g., “People would say that I have iron self-discipline”) and
impulse control (e.g., “I often act without thinking through all of the al-
ternatives”). The rating scale ranged from (1) “not at all like me” to (5)
“very much like me”. Nine items were reverse-scored so that higher
scores reflected higher TSC. Supervisor task (e.g., “Do you and your su-
pervisor disagree about the work being done?”) and relationship (e.g.,
“Are personality conflicts evident between you and your supervisor?”)
conflict were each measured with four items adapted from Jehn
(1995), with supervisor as the referent. Responses options ranged
from (1) “never” to (7) “always”. All scales had acceptable Cronbach
(1951) alpha coefficients (see Table 1).
conditional effect of supervisor task conflict on supervisor relationship
conflict. When TSC was 0.362 or less, which was true for 75.6% of the
sample, the relationship between supervisor task conflict and supervi-
sor relationship conflict was positive and significant. When TSC was
higher than 0.362 (24.4% of the sample), the effect of supervisor task
conflict on supervisor relationship conflict was not significant. Overall,
the results supported Hypothesis 2 because the expected positive rela-
tionship between the two conflict types became weaker as a function
of TSC, becoming non-existent for employees high in TSC.
3. Study 2
3.1. Research design

2.3. Results
Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, and correlations. A
hierarchical regression analysis was conducted using mean-centred
predictors (see Table 2). Sex, age, and supervisor tenure were not in-
cluded as covariates as these were not related to the focal variables
(see Table 1). Step 1 was significant, R2 = 0.35, p b 0.001, 95% CI [0.23,
0.44], with supervisor task conflict a significant positive predictor of su-
pervisor relationship conflict, B = 0.40, p b 0.001, and trait self-control a
significant negative predictor of supervisor relationship conflict, B =
−0.30, p b 0.01. At Step 2, the interaction between supervisor task con-
flict and TSC on supervisor relationship conflict was significant, B =
− 0.44, p b 0.001, and the addition of this interaction term accounted
for a significant increment in variance, ΔR2 = 0.07, p b 0.001, 95% CI
[0.03, 0.21].
The interaction was probed with simple slopes and presented in
Fig. 1. The positive relationship between the two conflict types was sig-
nificant at low TSC, b = 0.54, t = 9.22, p b 0.001, and medium TSC, b =
0.31, t = 5.76, p b 0.001, but not significant at high TSC, b = 0.08, t =
0.93, p = 0.356 (see Fig. 1). The Johnson-Neyman Technique (Johnson
& Fey, 1950) was used to estimate the regions of significance for the
The full model incorporating employee strain was tested using a
time-ordered research design with a time lag of 10 months. Supervisor
relationship conflict was measured at both time points in order to en-
sure baseline levels of supervisor relationship conflict could be
accounted for, allowing for a more accurate test of the predictive effect
of task conflict on relationship conflict with one's supervisor over time.
In addition, Time 1 employee strain was measured and results involving
the prediction of Time 2 employee strain were checked for robustness in
light of baseline levels.
3.2. Procedure
Data were from a sample of employees working for a local council in
Australia that provides a range of facilities and services to ratepayers.
Surveys were distributed electronically via an email that contained an
online link, and also in person as paper copies at employee training ses-
sions and toolbox talks. Employees who received paper copies were
provided with reply paid envelopes to post their survey back to the re-
searchers. Both methods of survey distribution were used at Time 1 and
Time 2.

Table 1
Study 1 descriptive data and inter-correlations (n = 160).

Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Sex – – –
2. Age (years) 44.85 11.05 0.04 –
3. Tenure with supervisor (years) 2.31 2.72 0.06 0.20⁎ –
4. Trait self-control 3.68 0.52 0.07 0.09 −0.09 (0.78)
5. Supervisor task conflict 1.82 1.10 0.01 −0.06 0.10 −0.26⁎⁎⁎ (0.93)
6. Supervisor relationship conflict 1.38 0.86 0.04 −0.08 −0.09 −0.31⁎⁎⁎ 0.56⁎⁎⁎ (0.96)

Cronbach's (1951) alpha coefficients for multi-item scales are in parentheses along main diagonal.
⁎ p b 0.05.
⁎⁎⁎ p b 0.001.
 N.L. Jimmieson et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 113 (2017) 209–218 213

Fig. 1. Relationship between supervisor task conflict and supervisor relationship conflict at levels of trait self-control in Study 1.

3.3. Participants 3.4. Measures

At Time 1, 1047 surveys were distributed and 534 (51.0%) were
returned. Of these, 44 respondents did not complete the anonymous
identification code needed to match their responses with Time 2, thus
leaving 490 respondents with the potential for a Time 2 follow-up. At
Time 2, 134 respondents could be matched with their Time 1 survey
using the anonymous identification code. t-tests revealed no significant
differences between the matched sample and the valid cases from Time
1 on the focal and demographic variables.
Prior to finalizing the sample for analyses, 12 matched cases were
excluded because the respondents indicated that they had changed su-
pervisor between Time 1 and Time 2, leaving 122 cases. Listwise dele-
tion occurred at the item-level, prior to calculation of the composite
scales. Thus, the final useable sample was 106 employees.
This sample comprised 42.5% men and 57.5% women. Mean age at
Time 1 was 44.10 years (SD = 12.52), ranging from 20 to 71 years. Par-
ticipants held either full-time (92.5%) or part-time/casual (7.5%) posi-
tions. Employees held positions across a range of occupations, the
majority being clerical/administrative workers (50.0%), professionals
(23.6%), managers (13.2%), and technical, trades, or laborers (6.6%). A
small proportion held other job types (0.9%) and 5.7% did not indicate
their occupation. At Time 1, employees had been working with their su-
pervisor for an average of 2.70 years (SD = 3.03), ranging from 1 month
to 18 years.
TSC, supervisor task conflict, and supervisor relationship conflict
were assessed as per Study 1. Psychological distress was measured
using Goldberg's (1972) 12-item General Health Questionnaire (e.g.,
“Over the past 4 weeks, how often have you been feeling unhappy or de-
pressed?”), assessed on a 7-point scale from (1) “never” to (7) “always”.
Six of these items were reverse-scored. Job burnout was measured using
Shirom and Melamed's (2006) 14-item scale (e.g., “I have no energy for
going to the work in the morning”), assessed on a 7-point scale from (1)
“never or almost never” to (7) “always or almost always”. Job dissatis-
faction was measured using Warr's (1991) 3-item scale (e.g., “I am dis-
satisfied with my job”), assessed on a 7-point scale from (1) “strongly
disagree” to (7) “strongly agree”. Turnover intentions were measured
using a single item asking employees if they seriously believe that, in
the future that they would resign because of a stress-related problem,
assessed on a 7-point scale from (1) “extremely unlikely” to (7) “ex-
tremely likely”. All multi-item scales had acceptable Cronbach (1951)
alpha coefficients (see Table 3).
3.5. Data analysis overview
Table 3 presents the means, standard deviations, and correlations.
Given that sex, age, and supervisor tenure had no significant associa-
tions with the focal variables, they were not included as covariates in

Table 3
Study 2 descriptive data and inter-correlations (n = 106).

Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1. Sex – – –
2. Age (years) 44.10 12.52 0.02 –
3. Tenure with supervisor (years) 2.70 3.03 −0.04 0.19 –
4. T1 trait self-control 3.58 0.52 0.01 0.07 0.06 (0.76)
5. T1 supervisor task conflict 2.34 1.10 −0.14 −0.07 0.05 −0.30⁎⁎ (0.95)
6. T1 supervisor relationship conflict 1.74 1.17 −0.14 −0.13 0.03 −0.25⁎ 0.80⁎⁎⁎ (0.98)
7. T2 supervisor relationship conflict 1.67 1.12 −0.04 −0.09 −0.09 −0.29⁎⁎ 0.58⁎⁎⁎ 0.61⁎⁎⁎ (0.98)
8. T2 psychological strain 2.42 0.95 0.01 −0.11 0.02 −0.27⁎⁎ 0.41⁎⁎⁎ 0.38⁎⁎⁎ 0.53⁎⁎⁎ (0.91)
9. T2 job burnout 2.82 1.22 −0.04 −0.08 0.08 −0.31⁎⁎⁎ 0.41⁎⁎⁎ 0.36⁎⁎⁎ 0.44⁎⁎⁎ 0.77⁎⁎⁎ (0.97)
10. T2 job dissatisfaction 2.60 1.37 −0.17 −0.07 −0.08 −0.08 0.33⁎⁎⁎ 0.23⁎ 0.30⁎⁎ 0.64⁎⁎⁎ 0.57⁎⁎⁎ (0.94)
11. T2 turnover intentions 2.08 1.71 −0.06 −0.07 −0.11 −0.22⁎ 0.46⁎⁎⁎ 0.41⁎⁎⁎ 0.56⁎⁎⁎ 0.68⁎⁎⁎ 0.52⁎⁎⁎ 0.61⁎⁎⁎ –

Cronbach's (1951) alpha coefficients for multi-item scales are in parentheses along main diagonal.
⁎ p b 0.05.
⁎⁎ p b 0.01.
⁎⁎⁎ p b 0.001.
214 N.L. Jimmieson et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 113 (2017) 209–218

Table 4
Simple mediation results for T1 supervisor task conflict on T2 employee strain through T2 supervisor relationship conflict (n = 106).

Model 1: T2 supervisor Model 2: T2 psychological Model 2: T2 job burnout Model 2: T2 job Model 2: T2 turnover
relationship conflict strain dissatisfaction intentions

Overall model summary R2 (MSE) F R2 (MSE) F R2 (MSE) F R2 (MSE) F R2 (MSE) F

0.40 (0.77) 33.78⁎⁎⁎ 0.29 (0.66) 13.99⁎⁎⁎ 0.23 (1.15) 10.05⁎⁎⁎ 0.14 (1.67) 5.30⁎⁎ 0.34 (1.98) 17.72⁎⁎⁎

Control variable B (SE) 95% CI B (SE) 95% CI B (SE) 95% CI B (SE) 95% CI B (SE) 95% CI
T1 supervisor relationship 0.38 (0.12)⁎⁎ 0.13; 0.62 −0.03 (0.12) −0.26; 0.21 −0.04 (0.16) −0.36; 0.27 −0.19 (0.19) −0.56; 0.19 −0.09 (0.21) −0.50; 0.32
conflict

Independent variables
T1 supervisor task conflict 0.28 (0.13)⁎ 0.02; 0.54 0.15 (0.12) −0.09; 0.40 0.30 (0.17) −0.03; 0.63 0.42 (0.20)⁎ 0.03; 0.81 0.37 (0.21) −0.06; 0.79
T2 supervisor relationship 0.38 (0.09)⁎⁎⁎ 0.19; 0.56 0.33 (0.12)⁎⁎ 0.09; 0.57 0.25 (0.15) −0.04; 0.54 0.71 (0.16)⁎⁎⁎ 0.39; 1.02
conflict

Indirect effect Effect (SE) 95% CI Effect (SE) 95% CI Effect (SE) 95% CI Effect (SE) 95% CI
0.10 (0.07) −0.00; 0.27 0.09 (0.07) −0.00; 0.27 0.07 (0.07) −0.01; 0.29 0.20 (0.15) −0.03; 0.60

MSE = mean squared error; B = unstandardized regression coefficient; SE = standard error; CI = confidence interval; 95% confidence interval is significant for results in bold.
⁎ p b 0.05.
⁎⁎ p b 0.01.
⁎⁎⁎ p b 0.001.

the subsequent analyses. Hayes' (2013) PROCESS macro for SPSS was
used to test the hypotheses (see Tables 4, 5, & 6). Simple mediation
analyses were conducted to test the indirect effects of Time 1 supervisor
task conflict on each of the Time 2 employee strain variables through
Time 2 supervisor relationship conflict (Hypothesis 1). The conditional
effect of TSC on the relationship between the two supervisor conflict
types was assessed with simple moderation (Hypothesis 2). Last, the
Stage 1 moderated mediation effect of TSC on the indirect relationship
between Time 1 supervisor task conflict and Time 2 employee strain
through Time 2 supervisor relationship conflict (Hypothesis 3) was
assessed. All analyses controlled for Time 1 supervisor relationship con-
flict. The analyses used 10,000 bootstrapping resamples to create an ap-
proximation of the sampling distribution, and 95% confidence intervals
(CIs) were used to determine significance. To preserve degrees of free-
dom, baseline employee strain was not controlled for, but when results
change as a result of their inclusion, these have been footnoted.
3.6. Simple mediation results
3.6.1. Direct effects
As shown in Table 4, although not hypothesized, Time 1 supervisor
task conflict had a significant positive direct effect on Time 2 job dissat-
isfaction (B = 0.42, p = 0.034), but did not have a significant direct ef-
fect on the remaining Time 2 employee strain variables. As expected as
part of Hypothesis 1, a significant positive direct effect was identified
between Time 1 supervisor task conflict and Time 2 supervisor relation-
ship conflict, B = 0.28, p = 0.037. Time 2 supervisor relationship con-
flict had a significant positive direct effect on three of the four Time 2
employee strain variables, including psychological strain, B = 0.38, p
= 0.000, job burnout, B = 0.33, p = 0.008, and turnover intentions, B
= 0.71, p = 0.000.
3.6.2. Indirect effects
As shown in Table 4, Hypothesis 1 was not supported, as Time 1 su-
pervisor task conflict did not have a significant indirect effect through
Time 2 supervisor relationship conflict on Time 2 employee strain: psy-
chological strain (indirect effect = 0.10, SE = 0.07, 95% CI [−0.00, 0.27]);
job burnout (indirect effect = 0.09, SE = 0.07, 95% CI [−0.00, 0.27]); job
dissatisfaction (indirect effect = 0.07, SE = 0.07, 95% CI [−0.01, 0.29]);
turnover intentions (indirect effect = 0.20, SE = 0.15, 95% CI [− 0.03,
0.60]). Rather, as demonstrated below, the anticipated positive indirect
effect was contingent on employees' TSC (with the exception of job
dissatisfaction).
3.7. Simple moderation results
The results for the moderating role of TSC on conflict escalation are
presented in Table 5. In accord with Hypothesis 2, TSC moderated the
relationship between Time 1 supervisor task conflict and Time 2 super-
visor relationship conflict, B = − 0.41, p = 0.003, 95% CI [− 0.68,
− 0.14], and accounted for a significant proportion of variance in the
overall model, ΔR2 = 0.05, p b 0.01, 95% CI [0.01, 0.20]. Simple slopes
analysis was conducted 1 SD below the mean, at the mean, and 1 SD
above the mean. For those low in TSC, Time 1 supervisor task conflict
had a significant positive relationship with Time 2 supervisor relation-
ship conflict, b = 0.39, p = 0.005, noting that Time 1 supervisor rela-
tionship was controlled for. In contrast, supervisor task conflict at
Time 1 did not lead to supervisor relationship conflict at Time 2 for
those with high, b = − 0.03, p = 0.836, and medium, b = 0.18, p =
0.162, levels of TSC. Overall, this finding replicates the interaction ob-
served in Study 1. The Johnson-Neyman Technique (Johnson & Fey,
1950) revealed that, when TSC was − 0.172 or lower, which was true
for 38.7% of the sample, the relationship between Time 1 supervisor
task conflict and Time 2 supervisor relationship conflict was positive
and significant. When TSC was higher than −0.172 (61.3% of the sam-
ple), the effect of Time 1 supervisor task conflict on Time 2 supervisor
relationship conflict was not significant.
3.8. Moderated mediation results
Conditional indirect effects were examined to test for moderated
mediation (Hypothesis 3). As shown in Table 6, Hayes' (2015) index
of moderated mediation (IMM) was significant for: psychological strain
(IMM = −0.16, SE = 0.08, 95% CI [−0.32, −0.02]); job burnout (IMM
= − 0.14, SE = 0.07, 95% CI [− 0.30, − 0.02]); turnover intention
(IMM = −0.29, SE = 0.16, 95% CI [−0.67, −0.03]). The IMM for job dis-
satisfaction was not significant (IMM = − 0.10, SE = 0.08, 95% CI
[−0.32, 0.00]).1 The significant positive indirect effects on psychological
strain, job burnout, and turnover intentions then were examined at
three values of TSC: 1 SD below the mean, at the mean, and 1 SD
above the mean. In each case, the positive indirect effect was significant
1
When controlling for the relevant Time 1 dependent variable, the IMM remained sig-
nificant for psychological strain (IMM = −0.15, SE = 0.08, 95% CI [−0.32, −0.02]), job
burnout (IMM = −0.14, SE = 0.07, 95% CI [−0.31, − 0.01]), and turnover intentions
(IMM = −0.28, SE = 0.16, 95% CI [−0.64, −0.03]). The IMM for job dissatisfaction was
not significant (IMM = −0.13, SE = 0.09, 95% CI [−0.38, 0.00]).
 N.L. Jimmieson et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 113 (2017) 209–218 215

Table 5 4.1. Theoretical and practical implications

Moderation of T1 trait self-control on the relationship between T1 supervisor task conflict
and T2 supervisor relationship conflict (n = 106).
These findings shed light on the mixed results seen in the inter-
T2 supervisor relationship conflict personal conflict literature about the effects of task conflict on em-
Overall model summary 95% CI ployee strain. Our findings suggest that supervisor task conflict
R2 (MSE) 0.46 (0.70)⁎⁎⁎ 0.30; 0.55 does not have a direct effect on employee strain but happens
F 21.50⁎⁎⁎ through supervisor relationship conflict but such a process is condi-
tional on an individual's level of TSC. Employees with high levels of
B (SE) 95% CI
Control variable TSC make use of self-regulation strategies that prevent misattribu-
T1 supervisor relationship conflict 0.34 (0.12)⁎⁎ 0.10; 0.57 tion and inappropriate responses to supervisor task conflict. This
stops supervisor task conflict from escalating into supervisor rela-
Independent variables
T1 supervisor task conflict 0.18 (0.13) −0.07; 0.44 tionship conflict and in turn associated detriments to their
T1 trait self-control −0.28 (0.17) −0.61; 0.05 adjustment.
T1 supervisor task conflict × trait self-control −0.41 (0.14)⁎⁎ −0.68; −0.14 It was originally hypothesized that conflict escalation would be
ΔR2 due to two-way interaction term 0.05⁎⁎ 0.01; 0.20 weaker for high TSC individuals but our results showed that they were
Conditional effects able to bypass conflict escalation altogether. The results were not sug-
−1 SD T1 trait self-control 0.39 (0.14)⁎⁎ 0.12; 0.67 gestive that high TSC individuals are sufficiently skilled to turn a high
Mean T1 trait self-control 0.18 (0.13) −0.07; 0.44 task conflict situation into lower levels of relationship conflict. Thus,
+1 SD T1 trait self-control −0.03 (0.16) −0.34; 0.28
an interesting avenue for future research would be to identify the per-
MSE = mean squared error; B = unstandardized regression coefficient; SE = standard sonal resources and skills that foster situations in which task conflict
error; CI = confidence interval; SD = standard deviation; 95% confidence interval is signif-
goes on to strengthen relationships.
icant for results in bold.
⁎⁎ p b 0.01. Results point to the importance of considering TSC in the stressor-
⁎⁎⁎ p b 0.001. strain process in a work context. First, the significant negative relation-
ships between TSC and both types of conflict are indicative of support
for employees with low TSC and not significant for high TSC and medi- for the exposure hypothesis; that individuals low in TSC actually create
um TSC.2 more interpersonal conflict for themselves. Such results are in line with
other trait studies showing that individuals high in negative affect per-
4. General discussion ceive more interpersonal stressors (Bolger & Zuckerman, 2005). Second,
it is interesting to note that TSC (Time 1) had prospective negative di-
This paper explored the mediating and moderating processes that rect effects on Time 2 psychological strain, job burnout, turnover inten-
underpin the relationship between interpersonal conflict types with tions, and job dissatisfaction, confirming it is not effortful or depleting in
one's supervisor, individual differences, and employee strain. First, the long-term to engage in such habitual tendencies. Such findings are
there was evidence of escalation in light of the fact that supervisor in line with Hofmann et al. (2014) who demonstrated that high TSC is
task conflict at Time 1 predicted supervisor relationship conflict at important for affective well-being and life satisfaction. Although TSC is
Time 2, controlling for Time 1 supervisor relationship conflict 10 months just one of many possible traits that could be examined in interpersonal
prior. As to be expected, supervisor relationship conflict at Time 2 was conflict situations, it is a construct that is well-suited to situations that
related to higher psychological strain, job burnout, and stress-related require one to exercise self-control over appropriate emotional, cogni-
turnover intentions at Time 2, but not job dissatisfaction, suggesting tive, and behavioral reactions in the work setting, one that is
that the implications are more salient for health outcomes than job atti- underscored by agreeableness, conscientiousness, and emotional stabil-
tudes. It is interesting to note that Time 1 supervisor task conflict was ity (Olson, 1995). Nevertheless, future research could explore more spe-
not conducive to Time 2 job satisfaction. Time 1 supervisor task conflict cific self-regulation strategies that are amenable to training and
was unrelated to the Time 2 health outcomes and nor did it have a sim- development such as those captured by emotional intelligence and its
ple indirect effect (through supervisor relationship conflict) on the em- sub-facets, such as emotion recognition and management in the self
ployee strain outcomes (Hypothesis 1). and others. Indeed, in a review of factors that facilitate successful re-
Rather, support was shown for Hypothesis 2, as employees' levels of sponses to workplace conflict, emotion regulation was pointed out as
TSC moderated the relationship between supervisor task conflict and an effective workplace skill to have in high-conflict situations (Oore,
supervisor relationship conflict across both studies. In Study 1, the pos- Leiter, & LeBlanc, 2015).
itive effect of supervisor task conflict on supervisor relationship conflict This research could be used to broaden the agenda of employee self-
was evident at low and medium levels of TSC and non-existent at high development programs. Although TSC is exercised in a habitual manner,
TSC. In Study 2, the same pattern was evident but the analyses also individuals also engage in acts of self-control in a conscious manner.
showed that escalation did not happen for those with medium TSC. Previous research has shown that self-control can be strengthened via
Hypothesis 3 was supported, as TSC moderated the positive indirect ef- conscious deliberation such as practice (Muraven, Baumeister, & Tice,
fects of supervisor task conflict (through supervisor relationship con- 1999) and implementation intentions (Webb & Sheeran, 2003) and
flict) on psychological strain, job burnout, and turnover intentions in also via unconscious deliberation such as high-level construal-depen-
the same fashion. dent evaluative associations (Fujita & Han, 1999). Incorporating self-
control development training into workplaces using these techniques
could help to reduce the escalation of interpersonal conflict to one
about relationships and enable effort to be maintained on the task.
Such training would be applicable to both supervisor-subordinate
2
When controlling for psychological strain at Time 1, the conditional indirect effect at dyads and also horizontal and team-based workplace relationships. In
low TSC was not significant (conditional indirect effect = 0.13, SE = 0.08, 95% CI [−0.00, particular, results from Study 2 suggest that an employee just needs to
0.32]) but the direction of the slopes was consistent. When controlling for job burnout be reasonably good at TSC in conflict situations with their supervisor
at Time 1, the conditional indirect effect at low TSC remained significant (conditional indi- to see benefits in terms of both relationship management and their
rect effect = 0.13, SE = 08, 95% CI [0.01, 0.34]). When controlling for turnover intentions at
Time 1, the conditional indirect effect at low TSC was not significant (conditional indirect
own health and well-being. Thus, workplace training that achieves a
effect = 0.25, SE = 0.18, 95% CI [− 0.03, 0.71]) but the direction of the slopes was modest improvement in employees' self-regulation skills will have
consistent. value.
216 N.L. Jimmieson et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 113 (2017) 209–218

Table 6
Moderated mediation results and conditional indirect effects (n = 106).

Model 1: T2 supervisor Model 2: T2 psychological Model 2: T2 job burnout Model 2: T2 job Model 2: T2 turnover
relationship conflict strain dissatisfaction intentions

Overall model R2 (MSE) F R2 (MSE) F R2 (MSE) F R2 (MSE) F R2 (MSE) F

summary 0.46 (0.70) 21.50⁎⁎⁎ 0.29 (0.66) 13.99⁎⁎⁎ 0.23 (1.18) 10.05⁎⁎⁎ 0.14 (1.67) 5.30⁎⁎ 0.34 (1.98) 17.72⁎⁎⁎

Control variable B (SE) 95% CI B (SE) 95% CI B (SE) 95% CI B (SE) 95% CI B (SE) 95% CI
T1 supervisor −0.34 (0.12)⁎⁎ 0.10; 0.57 −0.03 (0.12) −0.26; 0.21 −0.04 (0.16) −0.36; 0.27 −0.19 (0.19) −0.56; 0.19 −0.09 (0.21) −0.50; 0.32
relationship conflict

Independent variables
T1 supervisor task 0.18 (0.13) −0.07; 0.44 0.15 (0.12) −0.09; 0.40 0.30 (0.17) −0.03; 0.63 0.42 (0.20)⁎ 0.03; 0.81 0.37 (0.21) −0.06; 0.79
conflict (STC)
T1 trait self-control −0.28 (0.17) −0.61; 0.05 −0.28 (0.17) −0.61; 0.05 −0.28 (0.17) −0.61; 0.05 −0.28 (17) −0.61; 0.05 −0.28 (0.17) −0.61; 0.05
(TSC)
T1 STC × T1 TSC −0.41 (0.14)⁎⁎ −0.68; −0.14
T2 supervisor 0.38 (0.09)⁎⁎⁎ 0.19; 0.56 0.33 (0.12)⁎⁎ 0.09; 0.57 0.25 (0.15) −0.04; 0.54 0.71 (0.16)⁎⁎⁎ 0.39; 1.02
relationship conflict

Index of Moderated Effect (SE) 95% CI Effect (SE) 95% CI Effect (SE) 95% CI Effect (SE) 95% CI
Mediation −0.16 (0.08) −0.32; −0.02 −0.14 (0.07) −0.30; −0.02 −0.10 (0.08) −0.32; 0.00 −0.29 (0.16) −0.67; −0.03

Conditional indirect Effect (SE) 95% CI Effect (SE) 95% CI Effect (SE) 95% CI
effects
−1 SD T1 trait 0.15 (0.08) 0.01; 0.33 0.13 (0.08) 0.01; 0.33 0.28 (0.18) 0.01; 0.74
self-control
Mean T1 trait 0.07 (0.06) −0.04; 0.20 0.06 (0.05) −0.03; 0.19 0.13 (0.12) −0.07; 0.43
self-control
+1 SD T1 trait −0.01 (0.06) −0.15; 0.09 −0.01 (0.05) −0.15; 0.07 −0.02 (0.11) −0.28; 0.17
self-control

MSE = mean squared error; B = unstandardized regression coefficient; SE = standard error; CI = confidence interval; SD = standard deviation; 95% confidence interval is significant for
results in bold.
⁎ p b 0.05.
⁎⁎ p b 0.01.
⁎⁎⁎ p b 0.001.

4.2. Limitations and future research
Several methodological limitations should be acknowledged. Inter-
personal conflict between an employee and their supervisor was mea-
sured via self-report, thus assessing the employee's perspective only.
However, even if these ratings do not reflect supervisors' experiences
of conflict, they provide insight into employees' perceptions of the con-
flict and their associated stress reactions. Nevertheless, future research
should make use of 360-degree designs to capture a multi-source per-
spective of the conflict situation. Such a design would acknowledge
that the supervisor is not passive in the process. Indeed, Bono et al.
(2002) found that the Big 5 traits of the dyad partner (in this case, room-
mates living in residential halls) influenced the actor's experience of re-
lationship conflict. For example, roommates of extroverted and
conscientious individuals reported more relationship conflict. In addi-
tion, results depended on the mean level within a pair and also differ-
ence effects. In the work context, Camps, Stouten, and Euwema
(2016) showed that supervisors' reported level of conscientiousness
predicted employees' experience of abusive supervision.
There are several methodological limitations that need to be ac-
knowledged, including the small sample size, potential for sampling
bias due to low response rates, and the fact that the mean values for su-
pervisor relationship conflict were low in both studies, suggesting it was
not an overly prevalent stressor for employees, all of which limit statis-
tical power but also might lead to spurious findings. It is important to
acknowledge that the effect size estimates for the supervisor task con-
flict x trait self-control interaction on relationship conflict (ΔR2 = 0.07
in Study 1; ΔR2 = 0.05 in Study 2) were small but nevertheless did
reach Ferguson's (2009) recommended minimum effect size
representing a practically significant effect for social science data of
0.04. It is argued that the detection of even a small increase in supervisor
relationship conflict as a function of high supervisor task conflict and
low TSC is a valuable finding, given that exposure to interpersonal
forms of conflict is especially detrimental to employees. Meta-analytic
evidence shows that even though relationship conflict is lower in prev-
alence than task conflict, as one comparison, it has much stronger and
more consistent negative implications for employee positive affect and
job attitudes (de Wit et al., 2012). Importantly, the interaction was rep-
licated across two different samples of employees, affording greater
confidence in the results and their significance and meaningfulness
(Kirk, 1996; Thompson, 1997).
The research design was limited to a 2-wave design that precluded
the testing of true longitudinal effects and also conflict cycles in which
it is possible that relationship conflict goes on to trigger retaliatory be-
haviors that are task-oriented in nature (Jehn, Chadwick, & Thatcher,
1997). Such an idea is in line with the sabotage hypothesis in which re-
lationship conflict motivates people to undermine other's task perfor-
mance, although considered to be much less common as people tend
to know when task conflict is relational in origin (Jehn, 1997). It also
is important to acknowledge that it is possible that the two types of con-
flict may co-exist with no real causal ordering. As such, future research
should consider shorter and more frequent time intervals than the 10-
month one used here in order to better tease apart their relationship
and unpack dynamic processes.
Future research should test these hypotheses in the context of con-
flict within teams and colleagues. Indeed, much of the literature on
task conflict and relationship conflict has been from this perspective.
Nevertheless, the focus on conflict between supervisors and subordi-
nates in the present research represents an important contribution in
light of research in the colleague context that has identified low-level
conflicts as a precursor to more extreme forms of relationship conflict.
For instance, Baillen et al. (2016) showed that relationship conflict me-
diated the association between task conflict and being a target of bully-
ing. By better understanding the process that underpins early forms of
interpersonal conflict in vertical dyads, it is possible to identify avenues
through which such conflict can be defused or avoided before becoming
a form of abusive supervision and significantly threatening the health
and well-being of employees.
 N.L. Jimmieson et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 113 (2017) 209–218
Last, it would be interesting to explore the extent to which TSC is the
mechanism behind the use of adaptive conflict handling management
styles and strategies such as collaboration and problem-solving. Indeed,
as noted by De Dreu and Beersma (2005), conflict management is not
simply a personality characteristic. Dijkstra et al. (2011) found that in-
ternal locus of control explained the moderating effect of problem-solv-
ing on the relationship between task/relationship conflict and
psychological strain. Dijkstra et al. (2012) found a similar pattern of re-
sults for organization-based self-esteem as a predictor of the stress-
buffering effect of active conflict handling strategies in the context of
task conflict and psychological strain. As such, further research incorpo-
rating both personality characteristics and conflict handling styles in the
context of task to relationship conflict escalation is needed.
4.3. Conclusion
In conclusion, this research advances our theoretical understanding
of interpersonal conflict in the workplace by examining the process un-
derpinning the escalation of task conflict to relationship conflict with
one's supervisor and the moderating effect of TSC to predict employee
strain. Results showed that high and even medium levels of TSC are pro-
tective in conflict situations with one's supervisor, and provides new av-
enues to continue the examination of TSC in task to relationship conflict
escalation in the broader context of occupational stress.
References
Bai, Y., Han, G. H., & Harms, P. D. (2016). Team conflict mediates the effects of organiza-
tional politics on employee performance: A cross-level analysis in China. Journal of
Business Ethics, 139, 95–109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-105-2604-6.
Baillen, E., Camps, J., Van den Broeck, A., Stouten, J., Godderis, L., Sercu, M., & de Whitte, H.
(2016). An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind: Conflict escalation into
workplace bullying and the role of distributive conflict behavior. Journal of Business
Ethics, 137, 415–429. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-105-2563-y.
van den Berg, W., Curseu, P. L., & Meeus, M. T. H. (2014). Emotion regulation and conflict
transformation in multi-team systems. International Journal of Conflict Management,
25, 171–188. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JCMA-05-2012-0038.
Bolger, N., & Zuckerman, A. (2005). A framework for studying personality in the stress
process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 890–902. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/0022-3514.69.5.890.
Bono, J. E., Boles, T. L., Judge, T. A., & Lauver, K. J. (2002). The role of personality in task and
relationship conflict. Journal of Personality, 70, 311–344. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
1467-6494.05007.
Bruk-Lee, V., & Spector, P. E. (2012). Interpersonal conflict and stress at work. In A. Rossi,
P. Perrewe, & J. Meurs (Eds.), Coping and prevention (pp. 3–22). Charlotte, NC: Infor-
mation Age Publishing.
Camps, J., Stouten, J., & Euwema, M. (2016). The relation between supervisors' Big Five
personality traits and employees' experience of abusive supervision. Frontiers in
Psychology, 7, 1–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00112.
Carnevale, P. J., & Probst, T. (1998). Social values and social conflict in creative problem
solving and categorization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74,
1300–1309. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.5.1300.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1981). Attention and self-regulation: A control-theory ap-
proach to human behavior. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika,
16, 297–334. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/bf02310555.
Curseu, P. L., & Schruijer, S. G. L. (2010). Does conflict shatter trust or does trust obliterate
conflict?: Revisiting the relationships between team diversity, conflict, and trust.
Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice, 14, 66–79. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
a0017104.
Curseu, P. L., Boros, S., & Oerlemans, L. A. 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.
De Dreu, C. K. W., & Beersma, B. (2005). Conflict in organizations: Beyond effectiveness
and performance. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 14,
105–117. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13594320444000227.
De Dreu, C. K. W., & de Vliert, Van (1997). Using conflict in organizations. London: Sage.
De Dreu, C. K. W., & Gelfand, M. J. (2008). Conflict in the workplace: Sources, functions,
and dynamics across multiple levels of analysis. In C. K. W. De Dreu, & M. J. Gelfand
(Eds.), The psychology of conflict and conflict management in organizations
(pp. 3–54). New York: Taylor & Francis Group/Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team perfor-
mance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology,
88, 741–749. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/APBPP.2002.7516590.
De Dreu, C. K. W., van Dierendonck, D., & De Best-Waldhober, M. (2003). Conflict at work
and individual wellbeing. In M. Schabracq, J. A. M. Winnubst, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.),
217
Handbook of work and health psychology (pp. 495–516). Chichester, UK: John Wiley
& Sons.
DeChurch, L. A., Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., & Doty, D. (2013). Moving beyond relationship and
task conflict: Toward a process-state perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98,
559–578. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0032896.
Dijkstra, M. T. M., Beersma, B., & Evers, A. (2011). Reducing conflict-related employee
strain: The benefits of an internal locus of control and a problem-solving conflict
management strategy. Work and Stress, 25, 167–184. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
02678373.2011.593344.
Dijkstra, M. T. M., Beersma, B., & Cornelissen, R. A. W. M. (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.
Ent, M. R., Baumeister, R. F., & Tice, D. M. (2015). Trait self-control and the avoidance of
temptation. Personality and Individual Differences, 74, 12–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.paid.2014.09.031.
Ferguson, C. J. (2009). An effect size primer: A guide for clinicians and researchers.
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 40, 532–538. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1037/a0015808.
Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. (1991). Social cognition. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Friedman, R. A., Tidd, S. T., Currall, S. C., & Tsai, J. C. (2000). What goes around comes
around: The impact of personal conflict style on work conflict and stress.
International Journal of Conflict Management, 11, 32–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
eb022834.
Frone, M. R. (2000). Interpersonal conflict at work and psychological outcomes: Testing a
model among young workers. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 246–255.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.5.2.246.
Fujita, K., & Han, H. A. (1999). Moving beyond deliberative control of impulses: The effect
of construal levels on evaluative associations in self-control conflicts. Psychological
Science, 20, 799–804. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02372.x.
Galla, B. M., & Duckworth, A. L. (2015). More than resisting temptation: Beneficial habits
mediate the relationship between self-control and positive life outcomes. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 109, 508–525. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
pspp0000026.
Giebels, E., & Janssen, O. (2005). Conflict stress and reduced well-being at work: The buff-
ering effect of third-party help. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 14, 137–155. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13594320444000236.
Gillebaart, M., & de Ridder, D. T. D. (2015). Effortless self-control: A novel perspective on
response conflict strategies in trait self-control. Social and Personality Psychology
Compass, 9, 88–99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12160.
Glasl, F. (1982). The process of conflict escalation and role of third parties. In G. B. J.
Bomers, & R. B. Peterson (Eds.), Conflict management and industrial relations
(pp. 119–140). Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff.
Goldberg, D. P. (1972). The detection of psychiatric illness by questionnaire. London: Oxford
University Press.
Greer, L. L., Jehn, K. A., & Manniz, E. A. (2008). Conflict transformation: A longitudinal in-
vestigation of the relationships between different types of intragroup conflict and the
moderating role of conflict resolution. Small Group Research, 39, 278–302. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1177/1046496408317793.
Guenter, H., van Emmerik, H., Schreurs, B., Kuypers, T., van Iterson, A., & Notelaers, G.
(2016). When task conflict becomes personal: The impact of perceived task perfor-
mance. Small Group Research, 47, 569–604. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
1046496416667816.
Guerra, J. M., Martínez, I., Munduate, L., & Medina, F. J. (2005). A contingency perspective
on the study of the consequences of conflict types: The role of organizational culture.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 14, 157–176. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1080/13594320444000245.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis:
A regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Press.
Hayes, A. F. (2015). An index and test of moderated mediation. Multivariate Behavioral
Research, 50, 1–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2014.962683.
Hofmann, W., Baumeister, R. F., Forster, G., & Vohs, K. D. (2012). Everyday temptations:
An experience sampling study of desire, conflict, and self-control. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 1318–1335. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
a0026545.
Hofmann, W., Luhmann, M., Fisher, R. R., Vohs, K. D., & Baumeister, R. F. (2014). Yes, but
are they happy?: Effects of trait self-control on affective well-being and life satisfac-
tion. Journal of Personality, 82, 265–277. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12050.
Jehn, K. A. (1994). Enhancing effectiveness: An investigation of advantages and disadvan-
tages of value-based intragroup conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management,
5, 223–238. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/eb022744.
Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of
intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 256–282. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1177/1558689810380920.
Jehn, K. A. (1997). Qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational
groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 530–557. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/
2393737.
Jehn, K. A., Chadwick, C., & Thatcher, S. M. B. (1997). To agree or not to agree: The effects
of value congruence, individual demographic dissimilarity, and conflict on
workgroup outcomes. International Journal of Conflict Management, 8, 287–305.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/eb022799.
Johnson, P. O., & Fey, L. C. (1950). The Johnson-Neyman Technique: Its theory and appli-
cation. Psychometrika, 15, 349–367. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02288864.
Kirk, R. E. (1996). Practical significance: A concept whose time has come.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56, 746–749. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1177/0013164496056005002.
218 N.L. Jimmieson et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 113 (2017) 209–218
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer.
Loughry, M. L., & Amason, A. C. (2014). Why won't task conflict cooperate?: Deciphering
stubborn results. International Journal of Conflict Management, 25, 333–358. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1108/IJCMA-01-2014-0005.
McMillan, A., Chen, H., Richard, O. C., & Bhuian, S. N. (2012). A mediation model of task
conflict in vertical dyads: Linking organizational culture, subordinate values, and sub-
ordinate outcomes. International Journal of Conflict Management, 23, 307–332. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/10444061211248994.
Medina, F. J., Munduate, L., Dorado, M. A., Martínez, I., & Guerra, J. M. (2005). Types of
intragroup conflict and affective reactions. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20,
219–230. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683940510589019.
Meier, L. L., Gross, S., Spector, P. E., & Semmer, N. K. (2013). Relationship and task conflict
at work: Interactive short-term effects on angry mood and somatic complaints.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 18, 144–156. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
a0032090.
Muraven, M., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). Self-regulation and depletion of limited re-
sources: Does self-control resemble a muscle? Psychological Bulletin, 126, 247–259.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.126.2.247.
Muraven, M., Baumeister, R. F., & Tice, D. M. (1999). Longitudinal improvement of self-
regulation through practice: Building self-control strength through repeated exercise.
Journal of Social Psychology, 139, 446–457. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
00224549909598404.
Nixon, A. E., Mazzola, J. J., Bauer, J., Krueger, J. R., & Spector, P. E. (2011). Can work make
you sick?: A meta-analysis of the relationships between job stressors and physical
symptoms. Work and Stress, 25, 1–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2011.
569175.
Olson, K. R. (1995). Engagement and self-control: Superordinate dimensions of Big Five
traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 1689–1700. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.paid.2004.11003.
O'Neill, T. A., Allen, N. J., & Hastings, S. E. (2013). Examining the “pros” and “cons” of team
conflict: A team-level meta-analysis of task, relationship, and process conflict. Human
Performance, 26, 236–260. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2013.795573.
Oore, D. G., Leiter, M. P., & LeBlanc, D. E. (2015). Individual and organizational factors pro-
moting successful responses to workplace conflict. Canadian Psychology, 56, 301–310.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/cap0000032.
Pinkley, R. L. (1990). Dimensions of conflict frame: Disputant interpretations of conflict.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 117–126. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256687.
Pluut, H., & Curşeu, P. L. (2013). Perceptions of intragroup conflict: The effect of coping
strategies on conflict transformation and escalation. Group Processes & Intergroup
Relations, 16, 412–425. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1368430212453633.
de Ridder, D. T. D., Lensvelt-Mulders, G., Finkenauer, C., Stok, F. M., & Baumeister, R. F.
(2011). Taking stock of self-control: A meta-analysis of how trait self-control relates
to a wide range of behaviors. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16, 76–99.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1088868311418749.
Shirom, A., & Melamed, S. (2006). A comparison of the construct validity of two burnout
measures in two groups of professionals. International Journal of Stress Management,
13, 176–200. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1072-5245.13.2.176.
Simons, T. L., & Peterson, R. S. (2000). Task conflict and relationship conflict in top man-
agement teams: The pivotal role of intragroup trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85,
102–111. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.85.1.102.
Sonnentag, S., Unger, D., & Nägel, I. J. (2013). Workplace conflict and employee well-
being: The moderating role of detachment from work during off-job time.
International Journal of Conflict Management, 24, 166–183. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
10444061311316780.
Spector, P. E., & Bruk-Lee, V. (2008). Conflict, health, and well-being. In C. K. W. De Dreu, &
M. J. Gelfand (Eds.), The psychology of conflict and conflict management in organizations
(pp. 267–288). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Tangney, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Boone, A. L. (2004). High self-control predicts good ad-
justment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. Journal of
Personality, 72, 271–324. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-3506.2004.00263.x.
Thompson, B. (1997). Editorial policies regarding statistical significance tests: Further
comments. Educational Researcher, 26, 29–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/
0013189X026005029.
Tidd, S. T., McIntyre, H. H., & Friedman, R. A. (2004). The importance of role ambiguity and
trust in conflict perception: Unpacking the task conflict to relationship conflict link-
age. International Journal of Conflict Management, 15, 364–380. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1108/eb022918.
Wall, J., & Callister, R. (1995). Conflicts and its management. Journal of Management, 21,
515–538. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014920639502100306.
Warr, P. B. (1991). Mental health, well-being, and job satisfaction. In B. Hesketh, & A.
Adams (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on occupational health and rehabilitation
(pp. 143–165). London: Harcourt Brace.
Webb, T. L., & Sheeran, P. (2003). Can implementation intentions help to overcome ego-
depletion? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 279–286. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/S0022-1031(02)00527-9.
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.
van Woerkom, M., & van Engen, M. L. (2009). Learning from conflicts?: The relations be-
tween task and relationship conflicts, team learning, and task performance. European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 18, 381–404. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1080/13594320802569514.
Xin, K. R., & Pelled, L. H. (2003). Supervisor-subordinate conflict and perceptions of lead-
ership behavior: A field study. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 25–40. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/S1048-9843(02)00185-6.
Yang, J. X., & Mossholder, K. W. (2004). Decoupling task and relationship conflict: The role
of intra-group emotional processing. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 589–605.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.258.