Research Article

Does Cooperative Conflict Management mediate the relationship between Diversity Appreciation and Self-Efficacy for Teamwork with Dissimilar Team-mates?

Graeme Coetzer¹*, Ronald Jackson² and Jocelyn Evans³

¹Associate Professor of Organizational Management and Development, College of Business, Southern University, USA

²Professor of Human Resources, College of Business, Southern University, USA

³Professor of Management, University of Missouri-Kansas City, USA

Submission: August 22, 2023; Published: September 14, 2023

*Corresponding author: Graeme Coetzer, Associate Professor of Organizational Management and Development, College of Business, Southern University, 801 Harding Blvd, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 70807 USA, Email: graeme.coetzer@sus.edu

How to cite this article:Graeme C, Ronald J, Jocelyn E. Does Cooperative Conflict Management mediate the relationship between Diversity Appreciation and Self-Efficacy for Teamwork with Dissimilar Team-mates?. Ann Soc Sci Manage Stud. 2023; 9(3): 555762. DOI: 10.19080/ASM.2023.09.555762

Abstract

This research study examines the mediating influence of a problem-solving conflict style (PSCMS) on the relationship between diversity appreciation (DA) and self-efficacy for teamwork with team-mates who are perceived as dissimilar (SEDT). One hundred and ninety-six undergraduate business management students completed self-assessment measures of DA and SEDT, and identified a close associate who completed an observer version of the Dutch conflict management style scale. Product moment correlations were used to examine the hypothesized relationships between SEDT and both DA and PSCMS, and both the Hayes process and the Sobel test were used to test the hypothesis that PSCMS mediates the relationship between DA and SEDT. SEDT was significantly correlated with both DA (r = 0.34, p < 0.01) and PSCMS (r = 0.43, p < 0.01). DA was significantly correlated with PSCMS (r = 0.37, p < 0.01). Both the Hayes process and Sobel test (Z = 3.91, p < 0.001) confirmed that PSCMS partially mediated the relationship between DA and SEDT. Educators and practitioners need to be aware of the influence of DA and PSCMS on SEDT. Development activities that promote both diversity appreciation and use of a problem-solving conflict management style should help improve team member confidence in their ability to work with team-mates who they perceive as significantly different from themselves. This is the first study to examine the relationships between DA, PSCMS and SEDT. The results of this study highlight the importance of promoting both diversity appreciation and a problem-solving conflict management style as part of the process of helping team members develop confidence in their ability to successfully work with team-mates who they perceive as dissimilar.

Keywords: Conflict Management; Cooperative Conflict Management Style; Diversity Appreciation; Attitude toward Diversity; Teamwork; Self-Efficacy; Self-Efficacy for Teamwork

Keywords: CEM: Categorization-Elaboration Model; DA: Diversity Appreciation; DIPN: Diversity-Inclusion-Performance Network of Relationships; PSCMS: Problem-Solving Conflict Style; ODT: Optimal Distinctiveness Theory

Introduction

Strategic commitments to diversity, inclusion and teamwork within organizations continues to expand [1]. This has intensified research on the performance of diverse teams which has produced mixed results, suggesting that the diversity-inclusion-performance network of relationships (DIPN) has not been sufficiently specified [2-5]. The dominant theoretical model of the diversity-performance relationship is the Categorization-Elaboration Model (CEM) [6]. The CEM explains the mixed research results by means of two independent but interacting processes. Diversity constrains dysfunctional majority influences and supports information elaboration which improves decision-making (process 1) [6-9]. Diversity may also encourage social categorization, in-out group perceptions, and dysfunctional team dynamics arising from interpersonal resistance, rejection, and exclusion (process 2) [6,9,10-12]. Optimal distinctiveness theory (ODT) suggests that group participation is motivated by needs for engagement with supportive groups that can provide and reinforce preferred identities without loss of desired individuation [13-16].

Participation therefore involves decisions about the potential of group members and groups to satisfy needs for support, identity, and individuation, which helps determine the attractiveness of the group. Preference for groups that appear to possess greater likelihood of being supportive and reinforcing preferred identities makes similarity both an attractive feature and influential within the dynamics of group attachment, identification, commitment, functioning and performance [17-19].

Identifying a model of the diversity-inclusion-performance network that reliably predicts performance depends on identifying key mediating and moderating variables within both of the core processes [6,9,20-23]. Identifying mediating and moderating influences within process 1 (diversity-information elaboration process) should help address concerns that the diversity-information elaboration relationship is overly simplistic. Research confirms that workgroup diversity is often associated with tension and conflict that can disrupt communication and information sharing [24]. Variables like conflict management and team reflection appear to assist in establishing a more reliable diversity-information elaboration process [25,26].

Sources of mediation and moderation within process 2 (experience of differences) include both salience of differences and attitudes toward diversity [10,27]. The salience perspective suggests that the extent to which differences are noticed, focused on, and influential within the perceptual process varies among individuals and groups, which may reveal different diversityinclusion- performance relationships at different levels of salience [28,29]. Individuals and groups that are less attentive to differences that typically get entangled within social resistance processes may be less likely to introduce social impediments into the diversity-inclusion-performance system [10,30]. Diversity appreciation refers to the influence of attitudes toward diversity on experiences, orientations, and responses to differences [27]. Research on positive attitudes toward diversity suggests that diversity appreciation supports improved functioning of the diversity-inclusion-performance network within both core processes [22,27]. Diversity appreciation may assist the diversityinformation elaboration process via improved engagement and knowledge sharing [31], and may also constrain or prevent socially disruptive experiences of differences and promote more collaborative and productive relationships [32,33]. Attitudes towards diversity, and in particular appreciation of diversity, is an important variable whose determinants and influences require further research [27].

Research on team diversity, conflict and performance suggests that the translation of conflict into improved performance is assisted by team members with pro-diversity attitudes [34,35] and the use of a cooperative conflict management approach [36- 38]. This suggests that team members with pro-diversity attitudes and cooperative conflict management approaches should be more confident about their ability to perform in diverse teams. A search of the popular research publication databases produced no research on the relationship between pro-diversity attitudes, conflict management styles and self-efficacy for teamwork. This study examines the mediating influence of problem-solving oriented conflict management on the relationship between diversity appreciation and self-efficacy for teamwork with teammates who are perceived as different from oneself.

Variables

Dependent Variable – Self-Efficacy for Teamwork

Social cognitive theory [39] suggests that cognitive processing of social information influences human performance. Beliefs about one’s ability to mobilize sufficient effort, cognitive resources, and the behavioral strategies necessary for successful task completion, are important determinants of performance and satisfaction [40]. Self-efficacy is generally defined as the perceived capacity to perform tasks [41], and is developed through mastery experiences, exposure to performance modeling, social persuasion, and judgements about performance readiness [42-44]. Positive or negative efficacy information is generated by evaluating task requirements, related personal experiences, and relevant personal and situational resources and constraints [45]. Numerous studies have confirmed self-efficacy as a valid predictor of satisfaction, effort, persistence, and performance across a wide range of tasks [45-48]. Meta-analysis of the efficacy-performance relationship suggests that efficacy is one of the better general predictors of performance [49,50].

Development and measurement of the self-efficacy construct has included global, domain, and task specific dimensions suggesting that efficacy assessments occur at different levels of specificity [51-53]. The inclusion of domain and task specific efficacy has given risen to numerous task and contextually oriented forms of efficacy, like efficacy for teaching [54], career decision making [53], smoking cessation [55] and teamwork [56-59]. The expanding use of teams within the workplace and higher education has increased the importance of researching the key determinants of team performance, including various forms of team related efficacies [60,61]. Research on student and organizational teams has mostly used the aggregation of team member general selfefficacy or efficacy beliefs about team performance as a measure of team efficacy (potency) [62]. Research suggests that team efficacy (potency) is an important determinant of student and organizational team performance [63,64], and a mediator of the team inputs-performance relationship [65]. Multiple research studies conducted by Coetzer [66-69] identified relationships between self-efficacy for teamwork and a variety of individual level variables like task attentiveness, critical thinking, cooperative conflict management, and role stress. This suggests that self efficacy for teamwork is an important part of the efficacies that influence both team member and team performance.

Team related efficacies continue to be contextualized as new forms of teamwork emerge like efficacy for technology mediated teamwork [70]. The increasing emphasis on teams with diverse members combined with the influence of team related efficacies supports further contextualization of self-efficacy for teamwork with an emphasis on teamwork with team-mates who are perceived as significantly different from onself. This research study examines the influence of both diversity appreciation and a problem-solving conflict management style on self-efficacy for teamwork with team-mates who are perceived as significantly different from oneself.

Independent variable – Diversity Appreciation

Attitude toward diversity is generally defined as beliefs about the value of diversity [17]. Research has confirmed that people possess differing attitudes and preferences regarding the dissimilarity of others that influences their social behavior [71- 73]. Research by Miville et al. [74] described a positive attitude toward diversity as “an attitude toward all other persons that is inclusive yet differentiating in that similarities and differences are both recognized and accepted; the shared experience of being human results in a sense of connectedness with people and is associated with a plurality or diversity of interactions with others (p. 252).” Attitudes are comprised of cognitive, affective, and behavioral intention components [75]. The cognitive component of attitude toward diversity refers to the recognition, acceptance and valuing of similarities and differences. Behavioral intention is associated with seeking diverse interactions, whereas the affective component refers to the sense of connection with diverse others arising from the shared experience of being human. Research supports these components of diversity appreciation which have been labeled as relativistic appreciation, diversity of contact, and sense of connection with others who are different (comfort with differences) [76,77]. Research on pro-diversity attitudes have identified a positive effect on social integration [32,78], information elaboration [33], creativity [27], prevention of nonproductive in-out group perceptions [33] and team performance [6,27,33].

Meditating Variable – Problem-Solving Conflict Management Approach

Conflict is defined as incompatible actions or states, where one person’s actions or state is experienced as interfering with the preferences of others [79]. Conflicts occur in a variety of contexts including both competitive and cooperative situations [80], and there are various types of conflict including both task and relationship conflict [81]. Conflict participants have a variety of orientations toward the conflict management process, including avoidant, submissive, aggressive, and cooperative approaches [82]. Conflict management orientations are defined as consistent cognitive and behavioral patterns used to frame and manage conflicts [81,83,84]. The identification of conflict management orientations emerged out of dual concern theory [85,86] and the theory of cooperation and conflict [87]. These theories argue that conflict management is a function of high or low concern for self, combined with high or low concern for others. High concern for self and others produces a problem-solving style which involves seeking outcomes that satisfy the needs for both parties as much as possible (win-win). An intermediate concern for self and others produces a compromising style which involves making matching concessions to reach agreement. The compromising style has been referred to as half-hearted problem solving [86].

Research suggests that people have a preferred or default conflict management style [88] which they can adapt depending on both the demands of the situation and their preferences [89]. The term style is used when referring to the general behavioral preference across situations, whereas the term approach refers to a conflict style profile (particular levels and proportions of problem-solving, compromising, yielding, forcing and avoiding) used in a particular situation or type of situation. Conflict management orientation (style and approach) has a significant influence on performance at the individual, relational and team levels [81,85,90-96]. Problem solving, and to a lesser extent compromising, are traditionally viewed as cooperative problemsolving styles [97]. Research supports the view that cooperative approaches capture most of the benefits that can be derived from conflict [97,98] and is positively associated with team performance [99,100].

The type of expectations, conflict management approaches, and conflict outcomes that occur within team conflicts, partly depends on the whether the participants perceive each other’s goals and posture as cooperative or competitive [79]. Co-operative approaches typically arise when those involved believe that the other party is not deliberately and unjustifiably engaging in blocking actions, and that an opportunity for a win-win solution is available [101,102]. Competitive approaches are more likely when the participants believe that the other party is intentionally and unfairly frustrating them, and the only possible outcome is win-lose [88,101,103]. The choice of how to frame the conflict and which conflict management approach to take impacts team functioning and effectiveness. Suspicious and competitive approaches typically elicit similar responses which reinforce winlose beliefs [87], and once initiated, are hard to reverse [103]. Cooperative approaches typically elicit more positive responses, and reinforce beliefs that some degree of compatibility exists within each person’s goals. This supports the search for win-win outcomes [79]. Research by Tjosvold, Poon & Yu (2005) supports an association between cooperative conflict management and team effectiveness.

Research on team diversity, conflict and performance suggests that diversity influences performance via both task and relationship (emotional) conflict processes [104]. Task conflict refers to disagreement about task issues among people of different functional backgrounds which can be a source of useful information elaboration that supports improved performance on complex cognitive tasks [105]. Relationship (emotional) conflict refers to interpersonal conflict arising from either negative stereotyping or competitive responses to similar others [98,104]. Relationship conflict is mostly viewed as a constraint on performance [36]. Translating diversity-based team conflict into performance or preventing diversity-based conflict from undermining performance is assisted by team members with pro-diversity attitudes [34,35] and the use of a cooperative conflict management orientation [36-38]. This suggests that team members with pro-diversity attitudes and cooperative conflict management styles should be more confident about their ability to perform in diverse teams. Research by Coetzer, Trimble [68] confirmed a relationship between cooperative conflict management styles and general self-efficacy for teamwork [68].

Hypotheses

The general proposition guiding this research is that SEDT is positively related to both DA and PSCMS, DA is positively related to PSCMS, and PSCMS mediates the relationship between DA and SETDTM. This expands the specification and examination of the categorization-elaboration model (CEM) by investigating the influence of diversity appreciation on important performance related variables like team efficacies, and the influence of cooperative conflict management.

Engagement with increasingly diverse team-mates within both higher education and the workplace has elevated the importance of personal experiences and responses to diversity. People who have more positive attitudes and expectations regarding their engagements with others in their academic and work life, who they perceive as significantly different from themselves, are more likely to have productive experiences of team diversity. A positive orientation is derived from the suspension of fears often generated by uncertainty, combined with orienting oneself toward engagement with different others as if some of the requirements for trust have already been established. This encourages more cooperative opening gestures which is more likely to elicit similar responses producing a more cooperative culture of engagement. Participants with more pro-diversity attitudes are therefore more likely to perceive themselves as ready to perform within diverse teams. This should produce greater personal confidence in successfully working with team-mates they experience as significantly different from themselves.

Hypothesis 1: Diversity appreciation is positively associated with self-efficacy for teamwork with team-mates who are perceived as significantly different from oneself

Problem solving, and to a lesser extent compromising, are traditionally viewed as cooperative problem-solving styles that capture most of the benefits derived from conflict [97,98] and help support team performance [99,100]. Research conducted by Coetzer & Trimble [68] confirms a positive association between cooperative conflict management styles and general self-efficacy for teamwork. Team members who encourage everyone to express their perceptions, experiences and preferences; actively work to understand the perspective and preferences of others, and seek creative ways to maximize satisfaction of different preferences (win-win), including their own, are more likely to be confident in their ability to work in socially diverse settings.

Hypothesis 2: Problem-solving conflict management style is positively associated with self-efficacy for teamwork with team-mates who are perceived as significantly different from oneself

People with pro-diversity attitudes are more likely to perceive potential value in differences and are more likely to actively identify and acknowledge, seek to understand, and integrate differences into the process of problem-solving. As a result, they are more likely to encourage everyone to express their perspective and preferences, actively work to understand the perspective and preferences of others, and seek creative ways to maximize satisfaction of different preferences (win-win).

Hypothesis 3: Diversity appreciation is positively associated with a problem-solving conflict management style

As suggested previously, team members with pro-diversity attitudes are more likely to use a problem-solving conflict management approach and feel confident about working in teams with team-mates perceived as different, and a problemsolving conflict management approach is more likely to promote confidence in working in diverse teams. This suggests that a problem-solving conflict management approach is likely to mediate the relationship between diversity appreciation and confidence in working in teams with team-mates who are perceived as significantly different from oneself.

Hypothesis 4: Problem-solving conflict management style mediates the relationship between diversity appreciation and self-efficacy for teamwork with team-mates who are perceived as significantly different from oneself.

Subjects and Methods

Sample

The subjects were one hundred and ninety-six undergraduate business students attending a public university in the North- Western United States. The average age of the subjects was 22.09 (low = 18, high = 49), and 52 % identified as male and 48% as female. Each subject completed a self-assessment of diversity appreciation and self-efficacy for teamwork under conditions of anonymity. Procedures recommended by Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee & Podsakoff [106] for addressing common method bias were used by administering the surveys at different times, generating psychological separation by associating them with different components and activities within the course, and making use of different scale types. Each subject was also asked to identify someone who knew them well and would be willing to complete an honest assessment of their conflict management style. The identified observers completed an online version of the conflict management style measure developed and validated by De Dreu, Evers, Beersma, Klumer, Nauta [82]. This provided additional protection against single source and common method bias.

Measures

Appreciation of Diversity. The short form of the Universality- Diversity Scale (M-GUDS-S) developed by Feurtes et al. [76] and further validated by Kottke [77] was used to measure appreciation of diversity. The M-GUDS-S has been validated across multiple cultures [107]. The original and long form of the scale was developed and validated by Miville et al. [74], and measures the dimensions of diversity of contact, relativistic appreciation, and sense of connection (comfort with differences). Diversity of contact assesses interest in engaging and learning about people who are different, whereas relativistic appreciation assesses attitudes toward differences and similarities. Sense of connection and comfort with differences assesses discomfort in relating to people who are different. The Universality-Diversity Scale has been associated with individual level variables like identity formation, empathy, dogmatism; and team-oriented variables like aptitude for teamwork and interest in teamwork [108]. The M-GUDS-S contains 15 items with 5 items measuring diversity of contact (e.g. “I would like to join an organization that emphasizes getting to know people from different countries”), 5 items measuring relativistic appreciation (e.g. “Knowing how a person differs from me greatly enhances our friendship”), and 5 items measuring sense of connection and comfort with differences (e.g. “I am only at ease with people of my own race”). Items were measured on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = slightly disagree, 4 = neither agree nor disagree, 5 = slightly agree, 6 = agree, 7 = strongly agree). The total score for appreciation of diversity was derived by adding up the scores on each of the questions.

Self-Efficacy for Teamwork. Self-efficacy for teamwork with team-mates who are perceived as significantly different from oneself was measured by slightly amending a scale developed by Coetzer, Richmond [66]. This scale has been used in multiple studies to examine the influence of individual level cognitive, emotional, and behavioral variables on self-efficacy for teamwork [66,68,69]. Scale items were developed to measure individual team member confidence in their ability to support a team to set team goals, create a division of labor, manage team tasks, integrate team member contributions, promote communication and constructive relationships, resolve problems, provide leadership and motivation, and achieve the team’s overall goal through direct contributions to the team’s task. To focus the respondents on teamwork involving team-mates who are perceived as different from themselves, the instructions for completing the questionnaire asked the respondents to focus on teams that included teammates who were significantly different from the respondent. The measure contains 16 items and example items are “I have the ability to coordinate the tasks and activities of team members,” “I have the ability to energize and keep a team focused on completing key tasks,” “I have the ability to build effective relationships with and between team members,” and “I have the ability to contribute useful ideas and help a team complete key tasks.” Items were measured on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = slightly disagree, 4 = neither agree nor disagree, 5 = slightly agree, 6 = agree, 7 = strongly agree). A total self-efficacy for teamwork score was derived by adding up the scores on each of the questions.

Problem Solving Conflict Management Style. Problem-solving conflict management style was measured using the conflict styles instrument developed and validated by De Dreu, Evers, Beersma, Klumer & Nauta [82] and cross-culturally validated by [109]. The instrument has been widely used to measure the five conflict management styles (problem solving, compromising, forcing, avoiding and yielding) [68,110]. An observer version of instrument was used which asked the respondents to assess the extent to which the observed person demonstrated the behaviors referred to in the questions. This research study used the four items from the conflict styles scale that measure the use of a problem-solving conflict management style. Example items include “examines issues until they find a solution that really satisfies both themselves and others,” “examines ideas from all sides to find a mutually optimal solution,” “works out a solution that serves their own as well as the interests of others, as best they can.” The items were measured on a 5-point behavioral frequency scale (1=not at all, 2=occasionally, 3=about half the time, 4=more often than not, 5=very much) and the total score for problemsolving conflict management orientation was derived by adding up the scores on each of the four items.

Results

Descriptives

Means, standard deviations and correlations among the research variables are reported in Table 1. All variable distributions are approximately normal and demonstrate reasonable variability across their respective scales. Cronbach alpha coefficients ranged from 0.81 to 0.93 suggesting good internal reliabilities. No univariate or bivariate outliers were considered problematic and product moment correlations revealed significant associations between the variables. The distribution of regression residuals produced by the mediation regression was approximately normal with no problematic outliers. None of the simple correlations between the control variables (age and gender) and the other variables were statistically significant. The standardized regression coefficients for the control variables of age β = 0.09 (p = 0.17) and gender β = -0.01 (p = 0.80) were not statistically significant, suggesting that neither had a unique influence within the mediation model after controlling for the influence of the other variables.

Notes: Internal consistency reliabilities are shown in parentheses on the diagonal

* = p > 0.05 (2-tailed), ** = p > 0.01 (2-tailed)

Empirical Tests of Hypotheses

The significant threshold for all the empirical tests was set to α = 0.05 (2-tailed). The correlation between DA and SEDT is statistically significant (r = 0.34, p < 0.01) providing support for the hypothesis that DA is positively associated with SEDT. The correlation between PSCMS and SEDT is statistically significant (r = 0.43, p < 0.01) providing support for the hypothesis that PSCMS is positively associated with SEDT. The correlation between DA and PSCMS is statistically significant (r = 0.37, p < 0.01) providing support for the hypothesis that DA is positively associated with PSCMS. The Sobel test for mediation is statistically significant (Z = 3.91, p = 0.00) and the Hayes bias corrected bootstrap confidence interval (BootLLCI = 0.1772 and BootUCLI = 0.591; α = 0.95) does not contain zero suggesting the presence of mediation. The mediation results suggest that a statistically significant portion of the relationship between DA and SEDT is the result of a problem-solving conflict management style (direct influence = 0.20 and indirect influence = 0.13) (Figure 1). A significant partial correlation between DA and SEDT (r = 0.20, p < 0.01) remains after including the mediator (PSCMS) and the control variables in the regression. This suggests that PSCMS does not fully explain the association between DA and SEDT, and that other unmeasured factors are helping to transmit the effect.

Discussion

The results suggest that SEDT is positively associated with both DA and PSCMS, DA is positively associated with PSCMS, and PSCMS partially mediates the relationship between DA and SEDT. The directionality of this relationship cannot be confirmed from this research study and both opposite and bi-directional effects are possible. Treating diversity appreciation as a trait-based attitude that is hierarchically prior to behavior styles within the structure of personality supports the temporal position of the variables. However, if diversity appreciation is viewed as more of a state-based personality variable then the position of the variable within the personality hierarchy becomes less clear.

Implications for Organizations and Academic Institutions

Research has confirmed that both diversity appreciation and a variety of teamwork related efficacies are positively associated with team performance [27,111,112]. This research study confirms that diversity appreciation is positively associated with self-efficacy for teamwork with team-mates who are perceived as significantly different from oneself, and that problem-solving conflict management style partially mediates the relationship. The results support use of an intervention framework that integrates both diversity appreciation and cooperative conflict management activities to promote confidence in working with team-mate who are perceived as different from oneself [113,114].

Limitations and Suggestions Future Research

Broader generalization of the results of this research requires the use of samples that extend beyond higher education. Further specification of the self-efficacy measure that focuses on specific team-mate differences like ethnicity, gender, disability, and professional background may help to produce more featureoriented insight. To conclude, this study confirms that diversity appreciation is positively associated with self-efficacy for teamwork with team-mates who are perceived as significantly different from oneself, and that a problem-solving conflict management style partially mediates the relationship. The results suggest the need for education, training, coaching and other developmental activities that integrate the promotion of both diversity appreciation and cooperative conflict management to enhance confidence in working with diverse team-mates.

References

1. Kaur N, Arora P (2020) Acknowledging gender diversity and inclusion as key to organizational growth: a review and trends. Journal of critical reviews 7(6): 125-131.
2. Choi S, Rainey HG (2010) Managing diversity in US federal agencies: Effects of diversity and diversity management on employee perceptions of organizational performance. Public administration review 70(1): 109-121.
3. Ely RJ, Thomas DA (2020) Getting serious about diversity. Harvard business review 98(6): 114-122.
4. Guillaume YR, Dawson JF, Woods SA, Sacramento CA, West MA (2013) Getting diversity at work to work: What we know and what we still don't know. Journal of occupational and organizational psychology 86(2): 123-141.
5. Kochan T, Bezrukova K, Ely R, Jackson S, Joshi A, Jehn K, et al. (2003) The effects of diversity on business performance: Report of the diversity research network. Human Resource Management: Published in Cooperation with the School of Business Administration, The University of Michigan and in alliance with the Society of Human Resources Management 42(1): 3-21.
6. Van Knippenberg D, De Dreu CK, Homan AC (2004) Work group diversity and group performance: an integrative model and research agenda. Journal of applied psychology 89(6): 1008-1022.
7. Jackson SE (1996) The consequences of diversity in multidisciplinary work teams. Handbook of work group psychology, pp. 53-75.
8. Nemeth C, Nemeth-Brown B (2003) Better than individuals. Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration 4: 63-84.
9. Williams KY, O'Reilly III CA (1998) Demography and research in organizational behavior. 20: 77-140.
10. Homan AC, Hollenbeck JR, Humphrey SE, Knippenberg DV, Ilgen DR, et al. (2008) Facing differences with an open mind: Openness to experience, salience of intragroup differences, and performance of diverse work groups. Academy of management journal 51(6): 1204-1222.
11. Mitchell RJ, Parker V, Giles M (2011) When do interprofessional teams succeed? Investigating the moderating roles of team and professional identity in interprofessional effectiveness. Human relations 64(10): 1321-1343.
12. Woehr DJ, Arciniega LM, Poling TL (2013) Exploring the effects of value diversity on team effectiveness. Journal of business and psychology 28(1): 107-121.
13. Brewer MB (1991) The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and social psychology bulletin 17(5): 475-482.
14. Correll J, Park B (2005) A model of the ingroup as a social resource. Personality and social psychology review 9(4): 341-359.
15. Pickett CL, Bonner BL, Coleman JM (2002) Motivated self-stereotyping: heightened assimilation and differentiation needs result in increased levels of positive and negative self-stereotyping. Journal of personality and social psychology 82(4): 543-562.
16. Pickett CL, Silver MD, Brewer MB (2002) The impact of assimilation and differentiation needs on perceived group importance and judgments of ingroup size. Personality and social psychology bulletin 28(4): 546-558.
17. Van Knippenberg D, Haslam SA (2003) Realizing the diversity dividend: Exploring the subtle interplay between identity, ideology, and reality.
18. Haslam SA, Powell C, Turner J (2000) Social identity, self‐categorization, and work motivation: rethinking the contribution of the group to positive and sustainable organisational outcomes. Applied psychology 49(3): 319-339.
19. Van Knippenberg D (2000) Work motivation and performance: A social identity perspective. Applied psychology 49(3): 357-371.
20. Hofhuis J, Van der Zee KI, Otten S (2015) Measuring employee perception on the effects of cultural diversity at work: Development of the benefits and threats of diversity scale. Quality & quantity 49(1): 177-201.
21. Mannix E, Neale MA (2005) What differences make a difference? The promise and reality of diverse teams in organizations. Psychological science in the public interest 6(2): 31-55.
22. Van Knippenberg D, Schippers MC (2007) Work group diversity. Annual review of psychology 58: 515-541.
23. Webber SS, Donahue LM (2001) Impact of highly and less job-related diversity on work group cohesion and performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of management 27(2): 141-162.
24. Kooij-de Bode HJ, Van Knippenberg D, Van Ginkel WP (2008) Ethnic diversity and distributed information in group decision making: The importance of information elaboration. Group dynamics: Theory, research, and practice 12(4): 307.
25. Jehn KA, Bezrukova K, Thatcher S (2007) Conflict, diversity, and fault lines in workgroups. The psychology of conflict and conflict management in organizations, pp. 195-226.
26. Watson WE, Kumar K, Michaelsen LK (1993) Cultural diversity's impact on interaction process and performance: Comparing homogeneous and diverse task groups. Academy of management journal 36(3): 590-602.
27. Nakui T, Paulus PB, Van der Zee KI (2011) The role of attitudes in reactions toward diversity in Workgroups 1. Journal of applied social psychology 41(10): 2327-2351.
28. Chattopadhyay P, Tluchowska M, George E (2004) Identifying the ingroup: A closer look at the influence of demographic dissimilarity on employee social identity. Academy of management review 29(2): 180-202.
29. Tsui AS, Gutek BA (1999) Demographic differences in organizations: Current research and future directions.
30. Reynolds KJ, Turner JC, Haslam SA (2003) Social identity and self-categorization theories’ contribution to understanding identification, salience and diversity in teams and organizations. In Identity issues in groups. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
31. Hofhuis J, Van Der Rijt PG, Vlug M (2016) Diversity climate enhances work outcomes through trust and openness in workgroup communication. SpringerPlus 5(1): 1-14.
32. Van Dick R, Van Knippenberg D, Hägele S, Guillaume YR, Brodbeck FC (2008) Group diversity and group identification: The moderating role of diversity beliefs. Human relations 61(10): 1463-1492.
33. Homan AC, Van Knippenberg D, Van Kleef GA, De Dreu CK (2007) Bridging faultlines by valuing diversity: diversity beliefs, information elaboration, and performance in diverse work groups. Journal of applied psychology 92(5): 1189-1199.
34. Ayub N, Jehn K (2014) When diversity helps performance: Effects of diversity on conflict and performance in workgroups. International Journal of Conflict Management 25(2): 189-212.
35. Brazzel M (2003) Diversity Conflict and Diversity Conflict Management. In: Plummer DL (edt.), Handbook of diversity management: Beyond awareness to competency-based learning. University Press of America, pp. 363-406.
36. Ayoko OB, Konrad AM (2012) Leaders’ transformational, conflict, and emotion management behaviors in culturally diverse workgroups. Equality, Diversity & Inclusion 31(8): 694-724.
37. Liu J, Cui Z, Feng Y, Perera S, Han J (2020) Impact of culture differences on performance of international construction joint ventures: the moderating role of conflict management. Engineering Construction & Architectural Management 27(9): 2353-2377.
38. Samarah P, Seetharaman I, Mykytyn P (2004) An empirical investigation of collaborative conflict management style in group support system-based global virtual teams. Journal of management information systems 21(3): 185-222.
39. Bandura A (1986) The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of social and clinical psychology 4(3): 359-373.
40. Bandura A (1997) The anatomy of stages of change. American journal of health promotion 12(1): 8-10.
41. Wood R, Bandura A (1989) Social cognitive theory of organizational management. Academy of management review 14(3): 361-384.
42. Bandura A (1982) The assessment and predictive generality of self-percepts of efficacy. Journal of behavior therapy and experimental psychiatry 13(3): 195-199.
43. Bandura A (1982) Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American psychologist 37(2): 122-147.
44. Gist ME (1987) Self-efficacy: Implications for organizational behavior and human resource management. Academy of management review 12(3): 472-485.
45. Gist ME, Mitchell TR (1992) Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants and malleability. Academy of management review 17(2): 183-211.
46. Lennings CJ (1994) An evaluation of a generalized self-efficacy scale. Personality and individual differences 16(5): 745-750.
47. Liao H, Chuang A (2007) Transforming service employees and climate: a multilevel, multisource examination of transformational leadership in building long-term service relationships. Journal of applied psychology 92(4): 1006-1019.
48. Stajkovic AD, Luthans F (1998) Self-efficacy and work-related performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological bulletin 124(2): 240.
49. Judge TA, Bono JE (2001) Relationship of core self-evaluations traits—self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability—with job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of applied psychology 86(1): 80-92.
50. Sitzmann T, Yeo G (2013) A meta‐analytic investigation of the within‐person self‐efficacy domain: Is self‐efficacy a product of past performance or a driver of future performance? Personnel psychology 66(3): 531-568.
51. Henson RK, Bennett DT, Sienty SF, Chambers SM (2000) The Relationship between Means-End Task Analysis and Context-Specific and Global Self-Efficacy in Emergency Certification Teachers: Exploring a New Model of Teacher Efficacy.
52. Luszczynska A, Scholz U, Schwarzer R (2005) The general self-efficacy scale: multicultural validation studies. The Journal of psychology 139(5): 439-457.
53. Zhou S, Wu S, Yu X, Chen W, Zheng W (2021) Employment stress as a moderator of the relationship between proactive personality and career decision-making self-efficacy. Social behavior and personality: an international journal 49(10): 1-13.
54. Chan S, Maneewan S, Koul R (2021) Cooperative learning in teacher education: its effects on EFL pre-service teachers’ content knowledge and teaching self-efficacy. Journal of education for teaching 47(5): 654-667.
55. Al Thani M, Leventakou V, Sofroniou A, Butt HI, Hakim IA, et al. (2022) Factors associated with baseline smoking self-efficacy among male Qatari residents enrolled in a quit smoking study. PloS one 17(1): e0263306.
56. Chowdhury S, Endres M, Lanis TW (2002) Preparing students for success in team work environments: The importance of building confidence. Journal of managerial issues 14(3): 346-359.
57. Phillips DT (2001) The founding fathers on leadership: Classic teamwork in changing times. Hachette UK.
58. Cohen SG, Bailey DE (1997) What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of management 23(3): 239-290.
59. Hyatt DE, Ruddy TM (1997) An examination of the relationship between work group characteristics and performance: Once more into the breech. Personnel psychology 50(3): 553-585.
60. Ailes CB, Bosworth CC (2004) The perception and reality of student and workplace teams. Journalism and mass communication educator 59(1): 42-59.
61. Bacon DR (2005) The effect of group projects on content related learning. Journal of management education 29(2): 248-267.
62. Fan M, Cai W, Jiang L (2021) Can Team Resilience Boost Team Creativity Among Undergraduate Students? A Sequential Mediation Model of Team Creative Efficacy and Team Trust. Frontiers in psychology 12: 2033.
63. Gully SM, Payne SC, Koles K, Whiteman JAK (2002) The impact of error training and individual differences on training outcomes: an attribute-treatment interaction perspective. Journal of applied psychology 87(1): 143-155.
64. Lent RW, Schmidt J, Schmidt L (2006) Collective efficacy beliefs in student work teams: Relation to self-efficacy, cohesion, and performance. Journal of vocational behavior 68(1): 73-84.
65. Scott-Young C, Samson D (2008) Project success and project team management: Evidence from capital projects in the process industries. Journal of operations management 26(6): 749-766.
66. Coetzer GH, Richmond L (2007) An empirical analysis of the relationship between Adult Attention Deficit and Efficacy for Working in Teams. International journal of team performance management 13(2): 5-10.
67. Coetzer GH, Trimble R (2009) An empirical examination of the relationships between adult attention deficit, reliance on team mates and team member performance. Team performance management: An international journal.
68. Coetzer GH, Trimble R (2010) An empirical examination of the relationship between Adult Attention Deficit, Co-operative Conflict Management and Efficacy for Working in Teams. American journal of business 25(1): 23-34.
69. Coetzer G (2016) Emotional Intelligence versus Cognitive Intelligence: Which is the better predictor of Efficacy for Working in Teams. Journal of behavioral and applied management 16(2): 116-133.
70. Konak A, Kulturel-Konak S (2019) Impact of Online Teamwork Self-Efficacy on Attitudes Toward Teamwork, International Journal of Information Technology Project Management 10(3): 1-17.
71. Strauss JP, Connerley ML (2003) Demographics, personality, contact, and universal‐diverse orientation: An exploratory examination. Human Resource Management: Published in Cooperation with the School of Business Administration, The University of Michigan and in alliance with the Society of Human Resources Management 42(2): 159-174.
72. Sheehan A, Martin R (2004) On being different: Understanding diversity influences on employee wellbeing and team functioning. Australian Journal of psychology 56: 151-151.
73. Thompson RL, Brossart DF, Carlozzi AF, Miville ML (2002) Five-factor model (Big Five) personality traits and universal-diverse orientation in counselor trainees. The Journal of psychology 136(5): 561-572.
74. Miville ML, Gelso CJ, Pannu R, Lin W, Touradji P, et al. (1999) Appreciating similarities and differences: The Miville-Guzman Universality-Diversity Scale. Journal of counseling psychology 46(3): 291-307.
75. Ajzen I, Fishbein M (1973) Attitudinal and normative variables as predictors of specific behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 27(1): 41-57
76. Fuertes JN, Miville ML, Mohr JJ, Sedlacek WE, Gretchen D (2000) Factor structure and short form of the Miville-Guzman Universality-Diversity Scale. Measurement and evaluation in counseling and development 33(3): 157-169.
77. Kottke JL (2011) Additional evidence for the short form of the Universality-Diversity Scale. Personality and individual differences 50(4): 464-469.
78. Van Knippenberg D, Haslam SA, Platow MJ (2007) Unity through diversity: Value-in-diversity beliefs, work group diversity, and group identification. Group dynamics: Theory, research, and practice 11(3): 207.
79. Tjosvold D (2006) Defining conflict and making choices about its management. International Journal of Conflict Management 17(2): 87-95.
80. Tjosvold D, Poon M (1998) Dealing with scarce resources: Openminded interaction for resolving budget conflicts. Group & Organization Management 23(3): 237-258.
81. De Dreu C, Weingart LR (2003) Task and relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology 88(4): 741-749.
82. De Dreu C, Evers A, Beersma B, Kluwer ES, Nauta A (2001) A theory-based measure of conflict management strategies in the workplace. Journal of Organizational Behavior 22(6): 645-668.
83. Thomas KW (1976) Conflict and conflict management. In: Dunnette MD (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, Rand McNally, pp. 889-935.
84. Van de Vliert E (1997) Complex interpersonal conflict behavior: Theoretical frontiers. Psychology Press.
85. Blake R, Mouton J (1964) The managerial grid. Houston, TX: Gulf.
86. Pruitt D, Rubin J(1986) Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate, and settlement. New York: Random House.
87. Deutsch M (1973) The resolution of conflict: constructive and destructive processes. Yale University Pres: New Haven, CT.
88. Huang JC (2010) Unbundling task conflict and relationship conflict: The moderating role of team goal orientation and conflict management. International Journal of Conflict Management 21(3): 334-355.
89. Ayub N, AlQurashi SM, Al-Yafi WA, Jehn KA (2017) Personality traits and conflict management styles in predicting job performance and conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management 28(5): 671-694.
90. DeChurch LA, Mesmer-Magnus JR, Doty D (2013) Moving beyond relationship and task conflict: Toward a process-state perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology 98(4): 559-578.
91. de Wit FRC, Greer LL, Jehn KA (2012) The paradox of intragroup conflict: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology 97(2): 360-390.
92. De Dreu C (1997) Productive conflict: The importance of conflict management and conflict issues. In: de Drew C, Van de Vliert E (eds.), Using conflict in organizations. London: Sage, p. 9-22.
93. Morrill C, Thomas K (1992) Organizational conflict-management as disputing process: The problem of social escalation. Human Communication Research 18(3): 400-428.
94. Putnam L, Poole MS (1987) Conflict and negotiation. In: Jablin F, Putnam L, Roberts K, & Porter L (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication: An interdisciplinary perspective. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, pp. 549–599.
95. Rahim MA (1983) A measure of styles of handling interpersonal conflict. Academy of Management Journal 26(2): 368-376.
96. Ruble T, Thomas K (1976) Support for a two-dimensional model of conflict behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 16(1): 143-155.
97. De Dreu C (2006) When too little or too much hurts: Evidence for a curvilinear relationship between task conflict and innovation in teams. Journal of Management 32(1): 83-107.
98. Tjosvold D (1991) The Conflict-Positive Organization: Stimulate Diversity and Create Unity. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
99. De Dreu C, Harinck F, Van Vianem A (1999) Conflict and performance in groups and organizations. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology 14: 376-405.
100. Montoya-Weiss MM, Massey AP, Song M (2001) Getting it together: Temporal coordination and conflict management in global virtual teams. The Academy of Management Journal 44(6): 1251-1262.
101. Akhtar N, Hassan SS (2021) Conflict Management Styles as Predictors of Organizational Commitment in University Teachers. Journal of Behavioural Sciences 31(1): 98-32.
102. Averill JA (1982) Anger and Aggression: An Essay on Emotion. Springer-Verlag, New York.
103. Kelley HH, Stahelski AJ (1970) Social interaction basis of cooperators’ and competitors’ beliefs about others, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 16(1): 66-91
104. Pelled LH, Eisenhardt KM, Xin KR (1999) Exploring the black box: an analysis of work group diversity, conflict, and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly 44(1): 1-28.
105. Van Knippenberg D, Van Ginkel WP, Homan AC (2013) Diversity mindsets and the performance of diverse teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 121(2): 183-193.
106. Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee JY, Podsakoff NP (2003) Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies. Journal of applied psychology 88(5): 879-903.
107. Kegel K, DeBlaere C (2014) Universal-diverse orientation in Asian international students: Confirmatory factor analysis of the Miville-Guzman Universality-Diversity Scale, Short Form. Cultural diversity and ethnic minority psychology 20(3): 469-474.
108. Miville ML, Carlozzi AF, Gushue GV, Schara SL, Ueda M (2006) Mental health counselor qualities for a diverse clientele: Linking empathy, universal-diverse orientation, and emotional intelligence. Journal of mental health counseling 28: 151-165.
109. Bao Y, Zhu F, Hu Y, Cui N, Gu Y (2019) Validation of the Dutch Test of Conflict Handling in Chinese College Students, Social Behavior and Personality: An international Journal 47(4): 1-7.
110. Trudel J, Reio TG (2011) Managing workplace incivility: The role of conflict management styles—antecedent or antidote? Human Resource Development Quarterly 22(4): 395-423.
111. De Jong RD, Bouhuys SA, Barnhoorn JC (1999) Personality, self‐efficacy and functioning in management teams: A contribution to validation. International journal of selection and assessment 7(1): 46-49.
112. Sonnentag S, Volmer J (2009) Individual-level predictors of task-related teamwork processes: The role of expertise and self-efficacy in team meetings. Group and organization management 34(1): 37-66.
113. Jehn KA, Northcraft GB, Neale MA (1999) Why differences make a difference: A field study of diversity, conflict and performance in workgroups. Administrative science quarterly 44(4): 741-763.
114. Van Leeuwen E, Van Knippenberg D, Ellemers N (2003) Continuing and changing group identities: The effects of merging on social identification and ingroup bias. Personality and social psychology bulletin 29(6): 679-690.