Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-42gr6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T15:41:05.428Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Superficial Harmony and Conflict Avoidance Resulting from Negative Anticipation in the Workplace

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 December 2017

Zhi-Xue Zhang  and
Xin Wei
Zhi-Xue Zhang*
Affiliation:
Peking University, China
Xin Wei
Affiliation:
University of International Business and Economics, China
*
Corresponding author: Zhi-Xue Zhang (zxzhang@gsm.pku.edu.cn)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This research examines how people perceive and respond to potential conflict in work settings. When individuals highly value their interpersonal relationships with others, they may take the potential costs to relationships into consideration in deciding how to handle conflict. We propose that individuals take an avoidance approach to conflict to prevent disruption in relationships from confrontation. Specifically, the value that individuals place on superficial harmony is positively related to their negative anticipation of relationship costs, which in turn leads to conflict avoidance. Furthermore, the direct relationship between superficial harmony and negative anticipation and the indirect relationship between superficial harmony and conflict avoidance are negatively moderated by the closeness of relations between the parties involved. The results of two studies conducted in workplace settings supported our hypothesized moderated mediation model. Highlighting the role of superficial harmony in conflict avoidance, this research contributes to the existing literature on conflict management and has practical implications for effectively managing conflict in the workplace.

摘要:

摘要:

本研究关注人们在工作场合中如何对潜在的冲突进行感知和反应。如果人们非常重视自己与他人之间的关系, 会在决定如何处理冲突时考虑该处理方式的关系成本。我们认为, 人们之所以回避冲突, 是因为他们想保护关系不被直面冲突所破坏。具体而言, 个人的表面和谐价值观与其对关系成本的负面预期正相关, 进而导致其回避冲突。不仅如此, 表面和谐与负面预期之间的关系、表面和谐与冲突回避之间的间接关系, 都受到冲突双方的关系亲密度的负向调节作用。我们在工作场景中开展了两个研究, 结果支持了我们假设的受到调节作用的中介模型。本研究揭示了表面和谐的价值观对于冲突回避的影响, 对冲突管理的文献有所贡献, 并对如何有效管理工作场合中的冲突提供了实践启示。

यह शोध यह अध्ययन करता है की किस प्रकार लोग प्रत्याशित संघर्ष को अनुभूत करते हैं व उस पर प्रतिक्रिया देते हैं. जब लोग अपने अंतर्वैयक्तिक संबंधों को अधिक महत्व देते हैं तो वे अपने संघर्ष प्रतिक्रिया सम्बन्धी निर्णयों में उसको संबंधों पर संभावित मूल्य का लिहाज़ करते हैं. हमारा यह मत है की लोग मुकाबले से संबंधों में खलल रोकने के लिए संघर्ष वर्जन का दृष्टिकोण लेते हैं. विशेषतः लोगों द्वारा सतही समन्वय को दिया गया महत्व सम्बन्ध-मूल्य की नकारात्मक प्रत्याशा से सीधा सम्बन्ध रखता है जिसका परिणाम संघर्ष वर्जन होता है. साथ ही में सतही समन्वय व नकारात्मक प्रत्याशा के सीधे सम्बन्ध तथा सतही समन्वय व संघर्ष वर्जन के परोक्ष सम्बन्ध पर पक्षों की घनिष्ठता नकारात्मक संयमन दिखती है. दो कार्यस्थलों में किये गए हमारे अध्ययन के परिणाम हमारे अनुमानित संयमित मध्यस्थ आदर्श को समर्थन देते हैं. संघर्ष वर्जन में सतही समन्वय की विशिष्टता को उजागर करते हुए यह शोध पत्र संघर्ष प्रबंधन के सम्प्रति शोध साहित्य में योगदान करता है. इस शोध पत्र के कार्यस्थल में संघर्ष के प्रभावी प्रबंधन के लिए व्यावहारिक आशय हैं.

Sumário:

SUMÁRIO:

Esta pesquisa examina como as pessoas percebem e respondem a conflitos potenciais em ambientes de trabalho. Quando os indivíduos valorizam suas relações interpessoais com outros, eles podem levar em consideração os custos potenciais aos relacionamentos ao decidir como lidar com conflitos. Nós propomos que indivíduos adotam uma abordagem de evitar o conflito para impedir a ruptura em relacionamentos devido ao confronto. Especificamente, o valor que os indivíduos dedicam à harmonia superficial está positivamente relacionado com sua antecipação negativa de custos de relacionamento, o que, por sua vez, leva a evitar conflitos. Além disso, a relação direta entre harmonia superficial e antecipação negativa e a relação indireta entre harmonia superficial e evasão de conflitos são negativamente moderadas pela proximidade das relações entre as partes envolvidas. Os resultados de dois estudos realizados em ambientes de trabalho apoiaram o modelo de mediação moderada hipotetizado. Ao destacar o papel da harmonia superficial na evasão de conflitos, esta pesquisa contribui para a literatura existente sobre o gerenciamento de conflitos e tem implicações práticas para o efetivo gerenciamento de conflitos no local de trabalho.

Аннотация:

АННОТАЦИЯ:

В данной работе исследуется, как люди воспринимают и реагируют на потенциальные конфликты на рабочем месте. В процессе принятия решений об урегулировании конфликтов, люди могут принимать во внимание потенциальный ущерб отношениям в том случае, если они высоко ценят межличностные отношения. Мы предполагаем, что люди избегают конфликтов, чтобы не допустить разрушения отношений из-за конфронтации. В частности, существует прямая зависимость между ценностью внешней гармонии и негативными ожиданиями ущерба для отношений, что в свою очередь способствует предотвращению конфликтов. Кроме того, прямая зависимость между внешней гармонией и негативными ожиданиями, а также косвенная зависимость между внешней гармонией и предотвращением конфликтов, обратно пропорциональны близости отношений между заинтересованными сторонами. Результаты двух исследований, проведенных на рабочих местах, подтвердили нашу гипотетическую модель модерируемого посредничества. Подчеркивая роль внешней гармонии в предотвращении конфликтов, это исследование вносит важный вклад в существующую литературу по вопросам урегулирования конфликтов, а также делает практические выводы о том, как эффективно предотвращать конфликты на рабочем месте.

Resumen:

RESUMEN:

Esta investigación examina como las personas perciben y responden a conflictos potenciales en los entornos laborales. Cuando los individuos valoran mucho sus relaciones interpersonales con otros, pueden tener en cuenta los costos potenciales de las relaciones al decidir cómo manejar el conflicto. Proponemos que los individuos adoptan una perspectiva de evitación al conflicto para prevenir disrupciones en las relaciones a partir de confrontación. Específicamente, el valor que los individuos le dan a la armonía superficial se relaciona positivamente con su anticipación negativa de los costos de la relación, la cual a cambio lleva a la evitación de conflictos. Además, la relación directa entre la armonía superficial y la anticipación negativa y la relación indirecta entre la armonía superficial y la evitación del conflicto son negativamente moderadas por la cercanía de las relaciones entre las partes involucradas. Los resultados de estos dos estudios realizados en entornos laborales apoyaron nuestro modelo de mediación hipotético. Resaltando el rol de la armonía superficial en la evitación de conflicto, esta investigación contribuye a la literatura existente en gestión del conflicto y tiene implicaciones prácticas para gestión efectiva del conflicto en el lugar de trabajo.

Keywords

conflict avoidancenegative anticipationrelationship closenesssuperficial harmonyworkplace
Type
Special Issue Articles
Information
Management and Organization Review , Volume 13 , Issue 4: Special Issue Celebrating and Advancing the Scholarship of Kwok Leung (1958–2015) , December 2017 , pp. 795 - 820
Copyright
Copyright © The International Association for Chinese Management Research 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Anderson, C., & Thompson, L. L. 2004. Affect from the top down: How powerful individuals' positive affect shapes negotiations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 95 (2): 125–139.Google Scholar
Börger, T. 2013. Keeping up appearances: Motivations for socially desirable responding in contingent valuation interviews. Ecological Economics, 87: 155–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burris, E. R. 2012. The risks and rewards of speaking up: Managerial responses to employee voice. Academy of Management Journal, 55 (4): 851–875.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, X. P., & Chen, C. C. 2004. On the intricacies of the Chinese guanxi: A process model of guanxi development. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 21 (3): 305–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, X. P., & Peng, S. 2008. Guanxi dynamics: Shifts in the closeness of ties between Chinese coworkers. Management and Organization Review, 4 (1): 63–80.Google Scholar
Crowne, D. P. 1979. The experimental study of personality. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
De Dreu, C. K., & Carnevale, P. J. 2003. Motivational bases of information processing and strategy in conflict and negotiation. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 35: 235–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Dreu, C., & Weingart, L. R. 2003. Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88 (4): 741–749.Google Scholar
Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. 2007. Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the door really open? Academy of Management Journal, 50 (4): 869–884.Google Scholar
Detert, J. R., & Edmondson, A. C. 2011. Implicit voice theories: Taken-for-granted rules of self-censorship at work. Academy of Management Journal, 54 (3): 461–488.Google Scholar
Detert, J. R., & Treviño, L. K. 2010. Speaking up to higher-ups: How supervisors and skip-level leaders influence employee voice. Organization Science, 21 (1): 249–270.Google Scholar
Fisher, R., & Ury, W. 1981. Getting to yes. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Fredrickson, B. L. 2001. The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56 (3): 219–226.Google Scholar
Frese, M., Teng, E., & Wijnen, C. J. 1999. Helping to improve suggestion systems: Predictors of making suggestions in companies. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20 (7): 1139–1155.Google Scholar
Friedman, R., Chi, S. C., & Liu, L. A. 2006. An expectancy model of Chinese-American differences in conflict-avoiding. Journal of International Business Studies, 37 (1): 76–91.Google Scholar
Gelfand, M. J., Nishii, L. H., Holcombe, K. M., Dyer, N., Ohbuchi, K. I., & Fukuno, M. 2001. Cultural influences on cognitive representations of conflict: Interpretations of conflict episodes in the United States and Japan. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86 (6): 1059–1074.Google Scholar
Huang, L. L. 1999. Interpersonal harmony and conflict. Taipei: Kwei-Kwan Press (in Chinese).Google Scholar
Huang, X., Van de Vliert, E., Van der Vegt, G. 2005. Breaking the culture of silence: Does the stimulation of participation reduce employee opinion withholding cross-nationally? Management and Organization Review, 1 (3): 459–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hwang, K. K. 2000. Chinese relationalism: Theoretical construction and methodological considerations. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 30 (2): 155–178.Google Scholar
Jehn, K. 1995. A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40 (2): 256–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korchmaros, J. D., & Kenny, D. A. 2001. Emotional closeness as a mediator of the effect of genetic relatedness on altruism. Psychological Science, 12 (3): 262–265.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lalwani, A. K., Shrum, L. J., & Chiu, C. Y. 2009. Motivated response styles: The role of cultural values, regulatory focus, and self-consciousness in socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96 (4): 870–882.Google Scholar
Leung, K. 1988. Some determinants of conflict avoiding. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 19 (1): 125–136.Google Scholar
Leung, K. 1997. Negotiation and reward allocations across cultures. In Christopher, P. E. & Erez, M. (Eds.), New perspectives on international industrial organizational psychology: 640–675. San Francisco: New Lexington.Google Scholar
Leung, K., Brew, F. P., Zhang, Z. X., & Zhang, Y. 2011. Harmony and conflict: A cross-cultural investigation in China and Australia. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42 (5): 795–816.Google Scholar
Leung, K., Koch, P. T., & Lu, L. 2002. A dualistic model of harmony and its implications for conflict management in Asia. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 19 (2–3): 201–220.Google Scholar
Liang, J., Farh, C. I. C., & Farh, J. L. 2012. Psychological antecedents of promotive and prohibitive voice: A two-wave examination. Academy of Management Journal, 55 (1): 71–92.Google Scholar
Lim, L. L. 2009. The influence of harmony motives and implicit beliefs on conflict styles of the collectivist. International Journal of Psychology, 44 (6): 401–409.Google Scholar
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. 2004. Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39 (1): 99–128.Google Scholar
Milliken, F. J., Morrison, E. W., & Hewlin, P. F. 2003. An exploratory study of employee silence: Issues that employees don't communicate upward and why. Journal of Management Studies, 40 (6): 1453–1476.Google Scholar
Morrison, E. W., & Milliken, F. J. 2000. Organizational silence: A barrier to change and development in a pluralistic world. Academy of Management Review, 25: 706–725.Google Scholar
Morris, M. W., Williams, K. Y., Leung, K., Bhatnagar, D., Li, J. F., Kondo, M., Luo, J. L., & Hu, J. C. 1998. Culture, conflict management style, and underlying values: Accounting for cross-national differences in styles of handling conflicts among US, Chinese, Indian and Filipina Managers. Journal of International Business Studies, 29: 729–748.Google Scholar
Ohbuchi, K.-i., & Atsumi, E. 2010. Avoidance brings Japanese employees what they care about in conflict management: Its functionality and ‘good member’ image. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 3 (2): 117–129.Google Scholar
Ohbuchi, K.-i., & Takahashi, Y. 1994. Cultural styles of conflict management in Japanese and Americans: Passivity, covertness, and effectiveness of strategies. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24 (15): 1345–1366.Google Scholar
Paulhus, D. L. 2002. Socially desirable responding: The evolution of a construct. In Braun, H. I., Jackson, D. N., & Wiley, D. E. (Eds.), The role of constructs in psychological and educational measurement: 49–69. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Paulhus, D. L., & Trapnell, P. D. 2008. Self-presentation of personality. Handbook of Personality Psychology, 19: 492–517.Google Scholar
Peng, A. C., & Tjosvold, D., 2011. Social face concerns and conflict avoiding of Chinese employees with their Western and Chinese managers. Human Relations, 64 (8): 1031–1050.Google Scholar
Preacher, K. J., Curran, P. J., & Bauer, D. J. 2006. Computational tools for probing interaction effects in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31 (4): 437–448.Google Scholar
Preacher, K. J., Zyphur, M. J., & Zhang, Z. 2010. A general multilevel SEM framework for assessing multilevel mediation. Psychological Methods, 15 (3): 209–233.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pruitt, D. G., & Carnevale, P. J. 1993. Negotiation in Social Conflict. Pacific Grove, CA: Thomson Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
Rahim, M. A. 1983. A measure of styles of handling interpersonal conflict. Academy of Management Journal, 26 (2): 368–376.Google Scholar
Rempel, J. K., Holmes, J. G., & Zanna, M. D. 1985. Trust in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49 (1): 95–112.Google Scholar
Ruble, T. L., & Thomas, K. W. 1976. Support for a two-dimensional model of conflict behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16 (1): 143–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, S. H. 1992. Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25: 1–65.Google Scholar
Schwartz, S. H., Verkasalo, M., Antonovsky, A., & Sagiv, L. 1997. Value priorities and social desirability: Much substance, some style. British Journal of Social Psychology, 36 (1): 3–18.Google Scholar
Shah, P. P., & Jehn, K. 1993. Do friends perform better than acquaintances? The interaction of friendship, conflict, and task. Group Decision and Negotiation, 2 (2): 149–165.Google Scholar
Tjosvold, D., Hui, C., & Ding, D. Z. 2003. Conflict values and team relationships: Conflict's contribution to team effectiveness and citizenship in China. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24 (1): 69–88.Google Scholar
Tjosvold, D., & Sun, H. 2002. Understanding conflict avoiding: Relationship, motivation, actions, and consequences. International Journal of Conflict Management, 13 (2): 142–164.Google Scholar
Trubisky, P., Ting-Toomey, S., & Lin, S. L. 1991. The influence of individualism-collectivism and self-monitoring on conflict styles. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 15: 65–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, D., & Friend, R. 1969. Measurement of social-evaluative anxiety. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 33 (4): 448–457.Google Scholar
Wei, X., Zhang, Z. X., & Chen, X. P. 2015. I will speak up if my voice is socially desirable: A moderated mediating process of promotive versus prohibitive voice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100 (5): 1641–1652.Google Scholar
Welch, J., & Welch, S. 2005. Winning. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Yang, K. S. 1981. Social orientation and individual modernity among Chinese students in Taiwan. Journal of Social Psychology, 113 (2): 159–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yik, M. S., Bond, M. H., & Paulhus, D. L. 1998. Do Chinese self-enhance or self-efface? It's a matter of domain. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24 (4): 399–406.Google Scholar
Zhang, Y., & Hou, L. 2012. The romance of working together: Benefits of gender diversity on group performance in China. Human Relations, 65 (11): 1487–1508.Google Scholar
Zhang, Z. X., Wei, X., Chao, M. M., & Zheng, Y. 2017. When do conflicts feel right for prevention-focused individuals? The debiasing effect of low need for closure. Management and Organization Review, 13 (2): 375–397.Google Scholar
Zhang, Z. X., Zhang, Y. & Wang, M., 2011. Harmony, illusory relationship costs, and conflict resolution in Chinese contexts. In Leung, K., Chiu, C. Y., & Hong, Y. Y. (Eds.), A social psychology psychological perspective: 188–209. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Zhang and Wei supplementary material

Translated abstracts

Download Zhang and Wei supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 73.7 KB
Supplementary material: PDF

Zhang and Wei supplementary material

Translated abstracts

Download Zhang and Wei supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 61.7 KB
Supplementary material: PDF

Zhang and Wei supplementary material

Translated abstracts

Download Zhang and Wei supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 50.9 KB
Supplementary material: PDF

Zhang and Wei supplementary material

Translated abstracts

Download Zhang and Wei supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 136.2 KB
Supplementary material: PDF

Zhang and Wei supplementary material

Translated abstracts

Download Zhang and Wei supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 52.7 KB