Workplace Trust: What has conflict got to do?

Transcription

1 Oluremi B. Ayoko* UQ Business School The University of Queensland Australia, QLD Andre A. Pekerti UQ Business School The University of Queensland Australia, QLD 4305 *Author to whom correspondence should be addressed Oluremi B. Ayoko UQ Business School The University of Queensland AUSTRALIA, QLD Ph: ; Fax:

2 Workplace Trust: What has conflict got to do? Abstract This paper investigates the relationship between conflict and workplace trust. More specifically, it examines the impact of different conflict events/characteristics and reactions to conflict events on perceived workplace trust. Data on 508 people within a public sector organisation confirm a positive link between task conflict, conflict duration and trust. In contrast, social (relationship) conflict, destructive reactions to conflict and conflict intensity were inversely related to workplace trust. Implications of the findings are discussed. Keywords: Conflict, Reaction to conflict and Trust 2

3 INTRODUCTION Organisational researchers emphasise trust as an important antecedent for effective workplace communication, interactivity, cooperative behaviours, problem solving and performance (Zand, 1972; Axelrod, 1984). In particular, trust within and across organisations is conceived as directly linked with the opportunity to form new associations and networks that are imperative to accomplishing business transactions (Shockley-Zalabak, Ellis & Winograd, 2000). In addition, escalated global competitiveness, continued prevalence of downsizing and change in organisations as well as increased workplace diversity point to the significance and prominence management scholars and practitioners place on trust to achieve organisational competitiveness and stability. The prominence of trust in management research may also be attributed to theoretical shifts in the way organisations are viewed. Sheppard and Tuchinsky (1996) as well as Atkinson and Butcher (2003) suggest that economic efficiency and hierarchy are no longer the guiding organisation principles, rather the emphasis now is placed on, co-operative relationships in the context of politically driven structures, flexible networks, strategic alliances and entrepreneurial adaptability (Atkinson & Butcher, 2003; p, 282). In particular, literature establishes direct effects of trust in international business and function in multi-national organisations where developing trust between the partners seems to provide a more robust, effective, and long-term force that reduce alliance tensions. In such environments, trust reduces the competing forces between alliance partners so that neither dominates over the other (Das & Teng, 1998; Madhok, 1995). Similarly, in the organisational daily routine, trust is perceived as vital for the maintenance of cooperation and necessary as grounds for even the most routine and everyday interaction (Zucker, 1986). Nevertheless, our understanding of how to develop and manage trust within organisations, as well as the empirical evidence of factors that facilitate trust has not grown as rapidly as its recognition of its importance in organisations (Atkinson & Butcher, 2003; Rousseau et al., 1998; Shockley- Zalabak, et al., 2000). Yet, little research has systematically investigated the impact of conflict on trust. Specifically, we are not aware of any study that has examined the impact of different conflict events/characteristics and reactions to conflict on the perception of organisation trust. The current research bridges this gap by investigating the type and forms of conflict events and reactions to 3

4 conflict that are important in facilitating or inhibiting the positive perception of trust in the workplace. In particular, the paper focuses on the individual perception of conflict, reactions to conflict and trust in their workgroups. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK AND HYPOTHESES Trust is variously defined and conceptualised (Atkinson & Butcher, 2003). In particular, researchers see trust as an expression of confidence between parties in a given social exchange that they will not be harmed or put at risk by the actions of the other party (Jones & George, 1998). Specifically, after a review of a variety of definitions of organisational trust, Shockley-Zalabak et al. (2000), concluded that organisational trust refers to the positive expectations individuals have about the intent and behaviours of multiple organisational members based on organisational roles, relationships, experiences and interdependencies (pg 37). Thus, we argue that trust is a relational construct that involves one party to act as a trustor and another as a trustee whereby at least one of the parties willingly accepts an element of personal risk (Das & Teng, 1998; Heimer, 2001; Madhok, 1995; Pixley, 1999). In the next section, we review conflict literature and develop conceptual arguments for the hypotheses used as framework for the present research. Conflict. A central theme in organisational research is conflict (Jehn, 1995, 1997; Tjosvold, 1988, 1998). Like trust, there is little consensus regarding the definition of conflict (Jehn, 1992). However, in the current research, we focus on conflict using a social psychology approach and define conflict as the perceived incompatibilities by parties of the views, wishes and desires that each holds (Jehn, 1992). Previous research on workplace conflict suggests that researchers and practitioners consistently perceive conflict as damaging and disadvantageous with adverse effects for individuals, groups, and organisations (Jehn, & Nendersky, 2003). This view is reinforced by the findings from research in this area that concentrated on the negative and destructive nature of conflict in the workplace and ways of ameliorating it. Nevertheless, recent studies reveal the benefits of conflict in organisations. For example, Jehn (1997) reports that conflict may lead to innovation, re-evaluation of the status quo and the elimination of complacency (see also Amason, 1996). In the present study, our goal is to extend previous work in this area by investigating the role of conflict in the perception of trust especially at the individual level. In particular, we draw on the past research (Pelled, 1996; Jehn, 1992, 1997; Jehn 4

5 & Chatman, 2000) and propose that workplace conflict can be mainly categorised into two types-task and social (relationship) conflict. Task conflict. Task conflict encompasses the disagreement about ideas as well as the content and issues related to task. Jehn (1997) describes it as the consciousness among members that there are disagreements about the actual tasks being performed in the group even though the ultimate goal and objective about task in the group may be shared (Brehmer, 1976; see also Kabanoff, 1985, 1991; Jehn, 1992). Analogous to cognitive conflict, task conflict concerns conflict of ideas, and differences in opinions about task and the way task should be performed. Literature suggests that the consequences of task conflict for organisational outcome are mixed. For example, modest amounts of task conflict are reported as beneficial for group performance (Jehn, 1995). Also, given that the amalgamation of opinions and differing perspectives about task are usually better than individual viewpoint, task conflict is reported to be positively related to quality decision making (Schwenk, 1990). On the contrary, groups that avoid open debate and discussion about task related conflict may increase groupthink (Janis, 1982; Pratkanis & Turner, 1999). Overall, our review of literature indicates that little research (if any) has explored the relationship between task conflict and the development of trust. It is our expectation that task conflict will contribute to the positive perception of trust within organisations through the process of communication. Based on the above discussion, we expect task conflict to be positively associated with trust at the individual level. Therefore, it is hypothesised that: H1: Individuals engaged in task conflict will experience high levels of trust. Social conflict. Unlike task conflict, social (relationship or emotional conflict), pertains to disagreements based on personal and social issues that are not related to work (Jehn & Chatman, 2000). Specifically, relationship conflict involves interpersonal, interactional and relationship issues as evident in friction, frustration, irritation, annoyance and personality clashes within the group (Ross, 1989; Jehn & Mannix, 2001). Literature suggests that relationship conflict leads to negative reactions that may hamper personal relationships and limit group cohesion and efficiency while group members expend more energy and effort in maintaining group processes rather than the completion of the task at hand (Jehn & Chatman, 2000). In summary, research on social conflict suggests that it is 5

6 negatively related to organisational outcomes. However, we are not aware of any study that has examined the relationship between conflict and the perception of trust at the individual level. Given the above discussion, we expect that social conflict will be inversely related to workplace trust and we hypothesise that: H2: Individuals engaged in social (relationship) conflict will experience low levels of trust. Reactions to conflict (productive and destructive). We know that individual s dispositions are rooted in their early social and cultural experiences (Oerter, Oerter, Agostiani, Kim, & Wibowo, 1996). Also, given that conflict is an interpretive behaviour, individuals tend to respond and react to conflict differently. Work in this area suggests that group member's views about conflict impact group and individual outcomes (Deutsch, 1969; Kabanoff, 1985; Levine & Moreland, 1990). Similarly, differences in how members perceive conflict are proposed to cause dissatisfaction and misunderstanding and eventually reduce group performance (Jehn & Chatman, 2000). In general, only a few studies have examined the link between conflict and trust. This recent stream of research only explored the notion that conflict can facilitate the development of trust. For example, trust has been established as an antecedent and/or moderating variable in group processes and conflict situations (Albert & Kelsey, 2003; Jehn & Mannix, 2001; Peterson & Behfar, 2003; Simons & Peterson, 2000). For example, Simons and Peterson (2000) along with Peterson and Behfar (2003) found that in general, conflict has a negative effect; however, the presence of trust moderates the effects of conflict. This means that trust tends to reduce the negative effects of conflict. In the present research, we turn the table around and we investigate the effects of conflict and conflict reactions on the development of trust. In particular, we follow Ayoko and her colleagues (2003) to define reactions to conflict as the productive and destructive reactions to conflict events. Primarily, we use productive reaction to conflict to describe the positive attitude and behaviours towards conflict such as learning from disagreement, settling disagreement and letting things return to normal. Conversely, destructive reaction describes a full range of negative attitudes to conflict, such as finding it difficult to settle conflict, allowing the effect of conflict to stay with the individual for most of the time and finding it difficult to move on from conflicting events in the workgroup. 6

7 Also, prior research in this area studied conflict in its composite form without differentiating between different forms of conflict and characteristics of conflict. However, we argue that such perspective does not allow the investigation of the full impact of conflict events (per se) and other conflict features such as reaction to conflict, conflict intensity and conflict duration. Consequently, to explore the link between trust and reactions to conflict, the current research departs from the norm by not focusing on the composite effect of conflict on workplace trust but investigating the separate effects of conflict events (task conflict, social conflict) conflict characteristics (conflict intensity and conflict duration) reactions to conflict (productive and destructive) on trust. Based on the above review, this paper argues that differing reactions to conflict will affect the propensity of individuals to trust. Consequently, we hypothesize that: H3a: Individuals with a productive reaction to conflict will be positively associated with increased levels of trust than individuals lower on this dimension. H3b: Individuals with a destructive reaction to conflict will be negatively associated with lower levels of trust than those lower on this dimension. Conflict Intensity. Conflict is considered as intensive when it involves large number of parties, more conflict events, and has greater repercussions on future relationships and interactions (Jehn, 1995). In the present research, we conceptualise conflict intensity as the severity and importance of conflict to parties involved. According to Aschenbrener and Siders (1999), workplace conflict occurs in a continuum of intensity. In particular, conflict intensity can be in a continuum of war, attack (sabotage, undeclared war), litigation, formal complaints and grievances, chronic hostility, clash of personal style and disagreements (Aschenbrener & Siders, 1999). Prior research also indicates that the ability to think clearly declines and reasoning becomes blurry when there is a rise in tension (Thomas, 1990). Also, heated conflict in organisations results in absenteeism, turnover and other negative outcomes (de Vliert, 1996). Given the above discussion, we anticipate that conflict intensity will be inversely related to workplace trust. Consequently, we hypothesise that: H4: Individuals who experience higher levels of conflict intensity will be less likely to develop trust than those lower on this dimension. 7

8 Conflict duration. Prior studies in the area of workplace conflict indicate that conflict can be protracted and long (Jehn 1997; Thomas, 1992). Literature also reveals that conflict of longer duration is detrimental to group and organisational performance and can negatively affect organisational bottom line. For example, the work of Gersick (1989), indicates that protracted conflict saps the energy and consumes the time of the parties involved while conflict of longer duration was positively associated with intragroup bullying emotions where conflict of shorter duration was linked with increased bulling emotions in the workplace (Ayoko et al., 2003). Based on the above, we propose that conflict duration would negatively impact trust in the workplace and therefore we hypothesise that: H5: Individuals who experience conflict of longer duration at work will also experience lower levels of trust than those lower on this dimension. METHOD The current study is part of a larger research program aimed at examining the relationship between conflict, reactions to conflict and individual outcomes at work. A pilot study was conducted to serve as a preliminary validation technique to uncover any noticeable flaws in the questionnaire. Feedback from the pilot study informed the design of the questionnaire for the main study. Measures. The majority of the measures used in this study are pre-existing measures which were then adapted to suit the hypotheses developed for this study. The measures are 5-point Likert-type scales where 1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Not sure, 4 = Agree, and 5 = Strongly Agree. The following measures were used for the study. Conflict Events. In the current research, we isolated the previous composite conflict scales. In particular, to measure task and social conflict events as well as conflict intensity, Jehn s (1995) conflict scales were adapted. Task conflict was measured with a three-item scale e.g., people argue a lot about which work should be done. The reliability score was.86. In contrast, social conflict deals with disagreements that are interpersonal e.g., disagreements are usually about who should do what work in your group? The reliability score is.87. 8

9 Conflict intensity. Conflict intensity was measured with a five-item scale also adapted from Jehn (1997). The scale captures how long it takes a conflict to be resolved and the length of absolute resolution of conflict in the group. The scale s reliability score was.81. Reactions to conflict. Similar to the conflict events scales, reactions to conflict were measured using an adapted version of Jehn s (1995) reactions to conflict measure. This six-item Likert scale measured the group member s positive (productive) and negative (destructive) reactions to conflict. The reliability score was.72. For the destructive reactions to conflict, items on the scale included I find it difficult to forget the disagreements in my workgroup; they stay with me for most of the time. The reliability score for the scale was.71. Trust. The trust scale comprised of two items developed for this purpose of this present research including items such as I trust my co-workers. The scale formed a single factor with a reliability score of.82 (See Table 1). SAMPLE The sample for the present research consists mainly of employees drawn largely from the public service. Overall, 1200 questionnaires were sent to public organisations in Australian South East. In total, 660 respondents their completed questionnaires, yielding a response rate of 55%. Overall, only 508 questionnaires are usable for the regression analysis. PROCEDURE Each survey packet included a survey, an information sheet and a consent form. The surveys themselves contained full instructions on how to complete them. All ethical considerations were also observed and participants were encouraged to complete the survey and return to the first author. Altogether, 58.5% of the participants were male and majority (31.7%) of them was in the years of age range. Multiple regressions. Although most of the scales used were adapted from pre-existing scales, we followed the recommendation of Coakes and Steed (2001) to factor analyse the scales to ensure content validity. Also, in the present research, we conceptualise conflict events (task conflict, social conflict, conflict duration and conflict intensity) and reactions to conflict as the independent variables (See figure 1) to predict trust (the dependent variable). We then used regression techniques to test 9

10 hypotheses about the effect of individual predictors on the dependent variable or to evaluate their relative importance and significance of the contribution of each of the independent variables on the dependent variable (Mason & Perreault, 1991). RESULTS The predictive relationship between conflict events and trust was tested. Overall, conflict event variables successfully predicted trust F (4, 501) = , p <.001, and explained 41.6% of the variance. All the four conflict events contributed significantly to the variance in trust: social conflict (Beta = -.110, p <.05), conflict intensity (Beta = -.275, p <. 001), conflict duration (Beta =.179, p <. 001) and task conflict (Beta =.122, p <.04). The results suggest that lower levels of social conflict and conflict intensity were associated with increased trust. This means that social conflict and conflict intensity were inversely related to workplace trust. On the contrary, longer conflict duration and higher levels of task conflict were associated with increased workplace trust suggesting a positively relationship with trust. Similarly, the predictive relationship between reactions (productive and destructive) to conflict events and trust was tested. Over all, reactions to conflict event variables successfully predicted trust F (2, 508) = , p <.001, and explained 33% of the variance. However, the analysis indicated that only destructive reaction to conflict (Beta= -.264, p <.001) is associated with trust. This means that destructive reactions to conflict are inversely related to trust in organisations. DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS & CONCLUSION The present research contributes to literature on trust and conflict in several ways. First, it extends research on trust by examining the impact of conflict events, differing conflict characteristics, reactions to conflict events on workplace trust. Previous research considers conflict as an intervening variable for organisational outcomes (e.g., Jehn, 1992, 1997) and even the recent studies that examined conflict and trust tend to focus on trust as an antecedent and/or moderating variable in group processes and conflict situations (Albert & Kelsey, 2003; Jehn & Mannix, 2001). Moreover, these prior studies do not differentiate between the separate effects of the various conflict characteristics and conflict events as well as reactions to conflict events. The present research focused on the relationship between conflict and trust with trust serving as dependent variable. By so doing, 10

11 we identified the type of conflict, conflict characteristics and the kind of reactions to conflict that could help facilitate or inhibit workplace trust. The identification of varying relationship between conflict variables and trust has important implications towards understanding the impact of reactions and different types of conflict in management situations. Secondly, the central findings of this study suggest that conflict is not an all negative phenomena (Jehn, 1997; Jehn & Chatman, 2000; Thomas, 1992). Our treatment of conflict characteristics revealed that task conflict and longer conflict duration amongst organisational members facilitated trust supporting Hypotheses 1 and 5. Thirdly, results from the current study indicated that different characteristics and types of conflict also tend to hinder employees perceived trust in organisations. In particular, social (relationship) conflict, high levels of conflict intensity and a destructive reaction to conflict, are inversely linked with workplace trust may inhibit trust supporting Hypotheses 2, 3b and 4. These results also corroborate previous findings that indicate the inverse relationship between conflict and organisational outcomes (Jehn et al., 1999; Jehn & Chatman, 2000; Pelled, 1996). Hypothesis 3a that proposed a positively relationship between productive reactions to conflict and trust was not supported. A possible reason for lack of support may be explained from the field theory (Lewin, 1943). According to the field theory, the more distal elements may impact individual reactions to a greater extent if their features are salient. Our reasoning is that the experience of conflict that elicits a productive reaction may not be as salient as those that elicit destructive reaction to conflict. Consequently, productive reactions to conflict may be have been drowned by the passage of time. Overall, our findings have both theoretical and practical implications. Findings from the current research make significant contributions to the theory of organisational trust and conflict. For example, our findings show the need to incorporate conflict into the theory of organisational trust. In particular, our findings suggest that conflict (especially task conflict and longer conflict duration) can be used to manage trust in organisations. Also, our findings have implications for practice. For example, during task conflict, leaders and managers need to ensure that accurate information concerning organisational goals and task issues are shared amongst group and organisational members 11

12 to facilitate trust and productivity. Finally, our findings show that social (relationship) conflict, high conflict intensity and destructive reaction to conflict are negatively associated with trust underscore the need for managers not only to manage social conflict but also conflict intensity as well as destructive reactions to conflict in order to build trust in the workplace. One of the limitations of the current study is that when we assessed the impact of conflict duration, we did not differentiate between the length of task and social conflict. It is possible that the duration of task or social conflict may affect people s level of trust as it did with the reactions and different types of conflict. Future research may address this limitation by explicating the effect of specific types of conflict duration on trust and organizational performance. Another limitation is that the current research is a cross-sectional study of the relationship between conflict variables and workplace trust. Future studies may alleviate this shortcoming by conducting a longitudinally study using a before and after measure. The current research has contributed to the further development of the constructs of workplace trust and conflict. In particular, the study identified task conflict, longer conflict duration and communication openness as having a positively relationship to trust while social conflict, high conflict intensity and destructive reactions to conflict were inversely related to trust. Overall, findings from the present research have expanded our knowledge about the types of conflict events, conflict characteristics and reactions to conflict that can shape the course and processes of the perception and development of trust in organisations. 12

13 References Amason, A. C. (1996). Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on strategic decision-making: Resolving a paradox for top management teams. Academy of Management Journal, 39: Aschenbrener, C.A. & Siders, C.T. (1999). Managing low-mid-intensity conflict in the health care setting. Physician Executive. 25, Atkinson, S. & Butcher, D. (2003). Trust in managerial relationships. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18(4), Aubert, B. A. & Kelsey, B. L. (2003). Further understanding of trust and performance in virtual teams. Small Group Research, 34(5), Axelrod, R. (1984). The evolution of cooperation. New York: Basic Books. Ayoko, O. B., Callan, V. & Härtel, C. E. J. (2003). Intragroup conflict, emotional reactions to bullying and counterproductive behaviours. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 11 (4), Baron, 1991 Baron, R. A. (1991). Positive effects of conflict: A cognitive perspective. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 4: Brehmer, 1976; Brehmer, B. (1976). Social judgment theory and the analysis of interpersonal conflict. Psychological Bulletin, 83: Burchfield s (1997 Burchfield, A.M. (1997). Personality composition as it relates to team performance. Doctoral Thesis. Stevens Institute of Technology. United State of America. Coakes, S. J. & Steed, L. G. (2001). SPSS: Analysis Without Anguish: Version Brisbane: John Wiley and Sons. Das, T.K, & Teng, B.-S. (1998). Between trust and control: Developing confidence in partner cooperation in alliances. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), Deutsch, 1969; Deutsch, M. (1969). Conflicts: Productive and destructive. Journal of Social Issues, 25: Gersick, (1989) Marking time: Predictable transitions in task groups. Academy of Management Journal, 32: Grey, C., & Garsten, C. (2003). Trust, control and post-bureaucracy. Organization Studies, 22(2), Gudykunst, W. B., & Hammer, M. R. (1987). Strangers and hosts. An uncertainty reduction based theory of intercultural adaptation. In Y. Y. Kim and W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.), Cross-cultural adaptation, (p ). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Heimer, C. (2001). Solving the problem of trust. In K. S. Cook (Ed). Trust in society. Hosmer, L.T. (1995). Trust: The connecting link between organizational theory and philosophical ethics. Academy of Management Review, 2(2),

14 Janis, 1982; Janis, I. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin. Janssen & Vliert, 1996; Janssen, O. & van de Vliert, E. (1996). Concern for other s goals: Key to (de)escalation of conflict. Journal of Conflict Management, 7: Jehn, K. A. & Chatman, J. A. (2000). The influence of proportional and perceptual conflict composition on team performance. International Journal of Conflict Management, 11(1): Jehn, K. A. & Mannix, E. A. (2001). The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance. Academy of Management Review, 44(2), Jehn, K. A. (1992). The impact of intragroup conflict on group effectiveness: A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of conflict. Doctoral Dissertation, Evanstone, IL: Northwestern University. Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(2): Jehn, K. A. (1997). Qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational groups. Administrative Science Quarterly. 42: Jehn, K. A., Northcraft, G. B. & Neale, M. A. (1999). Why differences make a difference: A study of diversity, conflict and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44: Jehn, K.A. & Mannix, E.A., (2001).The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2): Jehn, K.A. (1997). A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, Jones, G.R, & George, J.M. (1998). The experience and evolution of trust: Implications for cooperation and teamwork. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), Kabanoff, B. (1985). Potential influence structures as sources of interpersonal conflict in groups and organizations. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes. 36: Kabanoff, B. (1991).Equity, equality power, and conflict. Academy of Management Review.16: Levine, J. M. & Moreland, R. L. (1990). Progress in group research. In J.T. Spence, J.M. Darley & D. J. Foss (Eds.), Annual Review of Psychology, 41: M. Kramer & T R. Tyler (Eds.) (1996), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research, (p ). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Madhok, A. (1995). Revisiting multinational firm s tolerance for joint ventures: A trust-based approach. Journal of International Business Studies, 26(1), Mason, C. H. & Perreault, W. D. (1991). Collinearity, power, and interpretation of multiple regression analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 18:

15 Meyer S. (2004). Organizational response to conflict: Future conflict and work outcomes. Social Work Research, 28(3) Nauta, A. (1996). Battle and bossiness in business: interaction patterns in interpersonal conflict within bureaucratic and organic organization departments. Unpublished dissertation, The Netherlands: University of Groningen. Oerter, R., Oerter, R., Agostiani, H., Kim, H-O. & Wibowo, S. (1996). The concept of human nature in East Asia: Etic and Emic characteristics. Culture and Psychology, 2, Pelled, 1996; Pelled, L. H. (1996). Demographic diversity, conflict, and work group outcomes: An intervening process theory. Organization Science, 6: Peterson, R. S. & Behfar, K. J. (2003). The dynamic relationship between performance feedback, trust and conflict in groups: A longitudinal study. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 92, Pinkley, 1990; Pinkley, Robin L. (1990). Dimensions of conflict frame: Disputant interpretations of conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75: Pixley, J. (1999). Impersonal trust in global mediating organization. Sociological Perspectives, 42(4), Pratkanis, A. R. & Turner, M. E. (1999). Groupthink and preparedness for the Loma Prieta earthquake: A social identity maintenance analysis of causes and preventions. In R. Wageman, E. Mannix & M. Neale (Eds.), Research on managing groups and teams: Groups in context: Stamford, CT: JAI Press. Ross, R. S. (1989). Conflict. In R. Ross & J. Ross (Eds.), Small groups in organizational settings: Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Rousseau, D.M., Sitkin, S.B., Burt, R.S. & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A crossdiscipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3): Schwenk, C. (1990). Conflict in organizational decision making: An exploratory study of its effects in for profit and not-for- profit organizations, Decision Sciences, 36, pp Sheppard, B. H. & Tuchinsky, M. (1996). Micro-OB and the network organization. In R. Russell Sage foundation series on trust (pp ), Vol. 2. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation. Shockley-Zalabak, P., Ellis, K., & Winograd, G. (2000). Organizational trust: What it means and why it matters. Organization Development Journal, 18(4), Simons, T. L. & Peterson, R. S. (2000). Task conflict and relationship conflict in top management teams: The pivotal role of intragroup trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(1), Sztompka, P. (1999). Trust: A sociological theory. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. Taylor, P. J. & Donald, I. (2003). Foundations and evidence for an interaction-based approach to conflict negotiation. International Journal of Conflict Management, 14(3/4), Thomas, K. W. (1992). Conflict and negotiation processes in organizations. In M. Dunnette & L. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. 15

16 Tjosvold, D. (1998). Cooperative and competitive goal approach to conflict: Accomplishments and challenges. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 47(3): Tyler, T. & Kramer, M. (1996). Whither trusts? In R. M. Kramer & T R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research, (p. 1-15). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Vliert (1996) Van de Vliert, E. (1997). Complex interpersonal conflict behaviour: Theoretical frontiers. Hove: Psychology Press. Zand, D.E. (1972). Trust in managerial problem-solving, Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, Zucker, L. G. (1986). Production of trust: Institutional sources of economic structure. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.). Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 8, Greenwich. CT: JAI Press. Figure 1. The model of the relationship between conflict events, reactions to conflict and workplace trust Conflict events Task Social Duration Intensity Outcome Reactions to conflict Productive Destructive Trust 16

17 Table 1: Factor loading and reliability scores for scales used in the study Factor loading of communication openness (reliability score: 91) Loading It is easy to talk openly too all members of my workgroup.883 Communication in my workgroup is very open.884 I find it enjoyable to talk to members in my group.825 When people speak to each other in my group, there is great deal of understanding.859 It is easy ask for advice from members of my group.829 Factor loading of social conflict scale (reliability score: 87) How frequently are there disagreements about who should do what work in your group?.888 How often do disagreement result in emotional outburst, (e.g. crying and yelling)?.888 Factor loading of task conflict scale (reliability score: 86) People argue a lot about which work should be done.867 People argue a lot about how (i.e. style and method) work should be done.922 People argue a lot about when the work should be done.876 Factor loading of conflict duration scale (reliability score: 82) How long do disagreements take to be resolved among your group members?.962 How long do disagreements take to get completely resolved in your group?.962 Factor loading of conflict intensity scale (reliability score: 81) There is a lot of disagreements in my workgroup..832 There is lot of emotional friction in my workgroup.750 Friction arises from differences in values and belies about work.736 Disagreements in my workgroup usually get intensive.853 Disagreement in my workgroup is about opinions regarding work.629 Factor loading of productive reaction to conflict scale (reliability score: 72) People in my workgroup react to conflict positively.885 People in my workgroup settle disagreements immediately and things go back to normal as usual.885 Factor loading of destructive reaction to conflict scale (reliability score: 71) People in my workgroup react to disagreements negatively.784 I find it difficult to forget the disagreements in my workgroups; they stay with me for most of the time.746 Disagreements in my workgroup usually get intensive.848 Factor loading for trust (reliability score: 82) I trust my co-workers.873 My co-workers are quite mistrustful of each other.722 I trust my team leader / manager