Conflict Management, Team Coordina2on, and Performance within Mul2cultural Temporary Projects

Evidence from the Construc2on Industry

h@ps://www.pmi.org/learning/library/conflict-management-team-coordina2on-performance-
mul2cultural-projects-11471
Ar#cle Teams, Leadership, Construc#on, Transporta#on & Infrastructure 1 February 2019
Project Management Journal
Akhavan Tabassi, Amin | Abdullah, Aldrin | Bryde, David
How to cite this ar#cle:
Akhavan Tabassi, A., Abdullah, A., & Bryde, D. (2019). Conflict Management, Team Coordina2on, and
Performance within Mul2cultural Temporary Projects: Evidence from the Construc2on
Industry. Project Management Journal, 50, 101–114.
Reprints and Permissions
Amin Akhavan Tabassi1, Aldrin Abdullah1, and David James Bryde2
Project Management Journal
Vol. 50(1) 101–114
© 2019 Project Management Ins2tute, Inc.
Ar2cle reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/8756972818818257
journals.sagepub.com/home/pmx

Abstract
The purpose of our study is to enhance the understanding of rela2onships between conflict
management style, team coordina2on, and performance in mul2cultural project team contexts. We
inves2gate how conflict management can contribute to team effec2veness through the media2on of
the level of team coordina2on by collec2ng data from 126 team leaders and supervisors and 378
members nested in different mul2cultural projects in the construc2on industry. Our results show that,
contrary to the findings from prior research in other team contexts, an avoiding style of conflict
management can have a posi2ve impact on the performance of mul2cultural project teams.
Keywords
conflict management style, construc2on projects, team coordina2on, Malaysia, team performance,
temporary project organiza2ons
Introduc2on
Conflict is a process whereby one side perceives that self-interests are adversely influenced by another
party's ac2ons (Wall & Callister, 1995). This implies that conflict is a process incorpora2ng two or more
people or groups within which one party has to perceive the other party's ac2ons as in opposi2on to
its own. Researchers have asserted that conflict is a common trait in every teamwork ac2vity and
inherent within daily interac2ons (Jehn & Mannix, 2001; Jia, Yang, Wang, Hong, & You, 2011; Müller,
Turner, Andersen, Shao, & Kvalnes, 2016; Tjosvold, 2008). Prior works highlighted that the way a team
deals with conflict significantly impacts its performance (De Dreu & Gelfand, 2008; Liu & Cross, 2016;
Prieto-Remón, Cobo-Benita, Or2z-Marcos, & Uruburu, 2015; Tjosvold, 2008; Yousefi, Hipel, & Hegazy,
2010). However, conflict is seen not only to have harmful consequences but also to be remarkably
construc2ve in some team-based work environments (De Dreu, 2007; De Dreu & Gelfand, 2008; Jehn
& Mannix, 2001; Li & Li, 2009; Tjosvold, 2008). Team members’ percep2on of the way in which their
desired goals may be affected by ac2ons significantly influences both the nature of interac2ons and
the final results of conflict management (Deutsch, 1990). Preceding studies also outlined that conflict
is more likely to arise and escalate when cultural differences are present among the par2es (Fisher,
1990). Consequently, different cultures may possibly use different methods in dealing with conflict in
the course of managing mul2cultural teams. It has also been noted that how a team manages conflict
greatly affects team performance (De Dreu, 2007; De Dreu & Gelfand, 2008; Jehn & Mannix, 2001;
Tjosvold, 2008). Consequently, different approaches to managing conflict in group environments may
affect the way teams are coordina2ng. Furthermore, earlier research in predominantly Western
contexts suggests that in temporary organiza2ons, the coordina2on of a team influences team
efficiency along with overall project performance (Mitropoulos & Cupido, 2009; O'Leary-Kelly,
Martocchio, & Frink, 1994; Sto@ & Walker, 1995). However, these rela2onships have not been widely
tested in other cultural contexts, such as East Asia.
In temporary organiza2ons, coordina2on is a core competency of the team leader (Project
Management Ins2tute, 2017). Coordina2on issues have been emphasized by researchers in a wide
range of contexts, including organiza2onal design, technology adop2on and innova2on, and group
compe22on, to name just a few (De Dreu, 2007; Müller et al., 2016; Yousefi et al., 2010; Zhang, Cao, &
Tjosvold, 2011). Team coordina2on in many temporary organiza2ons, such as those in the
construc2on industry, takes place in the context of highly complex and dynamic environments
(Loosemore, Dainty, & Lingard, 2003). Therefore, it presents a challenging context for achieving
effec2ve teamwork (Tabassi & Bakar, 2009; Tabassi, Ramli, & Bakar, 2012).
To contribute to our understanding of one par2cular challenging context, the objec2ve of this study is
to inves2gate the rela2onships between conflict management approaches, team coordina2on, and
the performance of mul2cultural project teams. Our understanding of the mechanisms by which team
leaders exert influence at the team level, through such ac2ons as conflict management and
coordina2on, is s2ll limited (Sun, Xu, & Shang, 2014); hence, by inves2ga2ng the prac2ces and
performance of project teams in this context, our study has significant theore2cal contribu2ons.
The empirical context for this study was the Malaysian construc2on industry. This industry was chosen
because the temporary organiza2ons undertaking projects in this sector are typically mul2cultural,
being made up of three main ethnic groups, with each having their own cultural norms and values:
Malays, Chinese, and Indians. This reflects the composi2on of the general popula2on in the country
(i.e., in 2010, Malays made up 60.3%, Chinese 24.6%, and Indians 7.1% of the total popula2on)
(Department of Sta2s2cs Malaysia, 2018). Generally, the limited prior research has inves2gated East
Asians’ approaches to managing conflict, specifically looking at temporary mul2cultural (TMC) teams.
Furthermore, in project management, as with other management disciplines, people-related issues
have been geung more a@en2on in East Asian countries, such as Malaysia, as firms are recognizing
the impact of the management of human resources on organiza2onal performance (Chen, Uen, &
Chen, 2016).
We sought to answer the following broad ques2on: How do Malaysians approach the management of
conflict in TMC teams, and do these approaches lead to different outcomes, in terms of team
coordina2on and performance? We sought to answer this ques2on through a hierarchical regression
analysis of data from 126 teams in TMC organiza2ons undertaking construc2on projects in Malaysia.
Conflict-Handling Styles
The rapid growth of complex projects in the construc2on industry across the world has resulted in
varied interorganiza2onal conflicts (Hu, Chen, Gu, Huang, & Liu, 2017; Wu, Zhao, & Zuo, 2017). The
influences of conflicts among team members on project performance in the industry could be
destruc2ve or construc2ve, relying on plenty of variables, such as conflict management style of
leaders, nature of conflict, the percep2ons of team members in working with conflict, and so on (Wu
et al., 2017). However, there are different conflict-handling styles that individuals may employ when
interac2ng with others in interpersonal or business engagements (Chiocchio, Forgues, Paradis, &
Iordanova, 2011; Kleinman, Palmon, & Lee, 2003; Wu et al., 2017). Effec2ve styles lead to conflict
resolu2on, enhance work steadiness (Wu et al., 2017), promote feelings of self-efficacy among team
members, minimize the likelihood of nega2ve conflicts in future work, and also result in a company's
long-term financial growth (Cheung & Chuah, 1999; Rubin, Prui@, & Kim, 1994).
Pressure to come to an agreement (Baron, 1988), power differences (Zartman & Touval, 1985),
complexity of the organiza2on's task (Chiocchio et al., 2011), interdependence of the units (Lawrence
& Lorsch, 1986), and culture and leadership styles (Chiocchio et al., 2011; Kozan, 1989) all influence
the way conflict ought to be managed. The literature indicates that the success or otherwise of dealing
with conflict has a direct impact on the project performance of temporary organiza2ons (Lundin &
Soderholm, 1995; Müller et al., 2016). In such organiza2ons, the nega2ve consequences of a failure to
deal with conflict have two root causes: first, failure to deal with technical conflicts that arise from
different role perspec2ves (Chen, Zhang, & Zhang, 2014), and second, distrust among team members
or different personal behaviors (Tjosvold, 2008). As stated above, conflict per se is not necessarily
nega2ve. Therefore, conflict should be effec2vely managed in order to realize the op2mum level
(Leung, Yu, & Liang, 2014).
A number of theore2cal styles of dealing with interpersonal conflict have been proposed (Kleinman et
al., 2003; Rahim & Magner, 1995; Rubin et al., 1994). These theorists build on the pioneering work of
Blake and Mouton (1964), who classed conflict-managing strategies into five styles: forcing,
withdrawing, smoothing, compromising, and confronta2on. The authors further grouped these five
strategies under two broad dimensions, which are associated with the behavior of the team leader,
namely: (1) concern for people, and (2) concern for task. In 1976, Blake and Mouton's styles for
handling conflicts in team environments were reviewed and refined by Thomas (1976, cited in Rahim
& Magner, 1995). Thomas also grouped the methods of coping with conflict into five styles, and he
also iden2fied two main dimensions: (1) coopera2veness, within which individual's concerns are
higher for peers; and (2) asser2veness, when self-concerns are more significant. Along with these two
dimensions, five different conflict resolu2on styles were presented, based on the degree to which an
individual prac2ces coopera2veness or asser2veness: coopera2ve, compe22ve, accommoda2ng,
avoiding, and compromising (Rahim & Magner, 1995).
Coopera2ve Approach to Conflict Management and Team Coordina2on
Interdependence in conflict management, which was proposed by Deutsch (1990), outlines a scenario
in which individuals value peers’ abili2es and op2ons, which primarily leads to coopera2ve goal
achievement and open communica2on in dealing with conflict (Tjosvold et al., 2001). In the event that
people feel they need others’ abili2es, opinions, and resources, they are more likely to be encouraged
to cope with conflict coopera2vely. Accordingly, they may also reach a point where to have a long-
term rela2onship and to be able to con2nue to work together in an effec2ve fashion, it would be
necessary to resolve conflict coopera2vely for mutual gain. Project managers with coopera2ve conflict
management style are more open in coping with conflict and even rated as more successful leaders.
Moreover, it can be concluded that mutual dependence aids coopera2ve conflict management, which
could result in be@er project coordina2on. In collec2vist socie2es, such as China, where empirical
study has been undertaken, it has also been found that managing conflict coopera2vely can lead to
higher percep2ons of fair treatment among individuals, which in turn leads to be@er team
performance (Chen & Tjosvold, 2002).
In terms of achieving win-win situa2ons, a coopera2ve style encourages open-minded interac2ons, in
order to realize opposing concepts, assimilate opposing views, develop acceptable alterna2ves, and
strengthen individuals’ rela2onships. This results in mutual solu2ons that are favorable to both par2es
(Walton & McKersie, 1965). Team members can adopt a coopera2ve conflict resolu2on strategy by
concentra2ng on their shared aims. They will demonstrate that they seek mutual profit from an
ac2vity, are seeking to solicit everyone's point of view, and are available to integrate different
sugges2ons in order to set up a mutually prac2cal solu2on (Deutsch, 1990; Tjosvold, 1985). A
coopera2ve style is characterized by open communica2on, responsiveness to others, shared
understanding, and the development of mutually favorable alterna2ves (Ayoko, 2016; Sanders &
Schyns, 2006).
A coopera2ve conflict management style is seen to promote high team performance and desirable
individual behavior (Tjosvold, Poon, & Yu, 2005). In addi2on, teams that are able to deal with conflict
coopera2vely are also able to improve their own performance (Tjosvold, Hui, & Yu, 2003). Specifically,
expressions of individual sa2sfac2on of being part of the team, team efficacy, boosts to innova2on and
crea2vity, and be@er goal achievement are all claimed as outcomes of coopera2ve approaches to the
management of conflict (Tjosvold, 2008).
It is hypothesized that there will be a posi2ve rela2onship between this style of conflict management
and team coordina2on. Hence, the first hypothesis to test is:
H1: The coopera2ve conflict management approach within the TMC organiza2on undertaking projects
is posi2vely related to effec2ve team coordina2on.
Compe22ve Approach to Conflict Management and Team Coordina2on
Compe22ve conflict increases independence among team members. A compe22ve style (high
concern for self and low concern for others) has been linked with a win-lose scenario. This is a
confronta2onal approach that leads to one side capitula2ng to the other. Yang, Cheng, and Chuang
(2013) listed some of the commonly used tac2cs in this style, which include: direct communica2on
with regard to the issues, persistent disagreement with other par2es’ opinion and remaining rooted to
one's own posi2on, and a@empts to seize control of communica2on channels.
Managers or team leaders who implement this strategy typically impose their thoughts or opinions
onto their subordinates, and the conflict owen ends with undesirable results. Such leaders emphasize
their compe22ve pursuits, which may result in others moving away from a@ainment of the project
goal. They are inclined to look at conflict as a win-lose challenge: If the other wins, they lose. This
discourages effec2ve communica2on and leads to the imposi2on of an opinion by the most powerful
party on the conflict. Individuals with more focus on independence and with less emphasis on
interdependence may gravitate toward the compe22ve style in coping with conflict, which increases
the probability of a perceived maximum personal gain, as opposed to the gain in win-win situa2ons
(De Dreu & Gelfand, 2008; Prieto-Remón et al., 2015; Tjosvold, 2008). To explore the impact of the
compe22ve style of conflict on the workings of the team, in the context of the effec2veness of
coordina2on ac2vi2es, we hypothesized that a nega2ve rela2onship exists between this style of
conflict management and team coordina2on:
H2: The compe22ve conflict management approach within the TMC organiza2on undertaking projects
is nega2vely related to effec2ve team coordina2on.
Avoiding Approach to Conflict Management and Team Coordina2on
The avoiding approach seeks to smooth over conflicts quickly, by minimizing dialogue on the issues.
The avoiding conflict management style typically is predicated on the fact that pixalls and issues
should not be brought into the open and discussed between the par2es. It is characterized as having
low concern for the self and for others and seeks ac2ons that will serve to limit dealing with the
conflict clearly, either by disregarding it or switching discussions to a new subject. This style of conflict
management has been compared to disengagement, buck-passing, and sidestepping scenarios
(Rahim, 2002). Those who adopt this style of conflict management do not show strong emo2ons of
anger and irrita2on. They are inclined to act as if they are indifferent both to their own personal
concerns and to the concerns of other team members.
An avoiding style of conflict management has been observed in East Asian contexts. The East Asian
collec2vist cultures tend to be thought to focus on interdependence and a tacit acknowledgment that
individuals greatly depend upon each other (Tjosvold, 2008; Tjosvold et al., 2001). Accordingly, some
people may adopt this style of conflict resolu2on only because they intend to maintain their
rela2onships, which might, however, result in dysfunc2onal project team opera2on. To explore the
likelihood of such an outcome arising from prac2cing the avoidance style of conflict management, we
generate our third hypothesis:
H3: The avoiding conflict management approach within the TMC organiza2on undertaking projects is
nega2vely related to effec2ve team coordina2on.
Accommoda2ng Approach to Conflict Management and Team Coordina2on
An accommoda2ng style (low concern for self and high concern for others) is characterized by an
imperfect assessment of alternate op2ons, as well as one-sided func2ons of giving in to others, which
usually results in lower quality decision making (Kuhn & Poole, 2000). An accommoda2ng individual
disregards her own concerns in order to take care of others’. This style of conflict management usually
happens when conflicts are going to be managed with superiors, in par2cular, whenever the managers
or superiors are seen as being quite domina2ng. In addi2on to the above, an accommoda2ng
approach has been observed in situa2ons where personal interests clash with those of the project,
organiza2on, or even when a minority point of view conflicts with that of the majority. It is associated
with amenable behavior that consists of puung aside one's own desires in order to be able to sa2sfy
the other party, agreeing with the other party's decisions, and giving way to the arguments or
statements of others by denying or declining to express one's own ideas (Liu, Fu, & Liu, 2009). Such
behaviors may well nega2vely impact the func2oning of the team; hence, our fourth hypothesis is:
H4: The accommoda2ng conflict resolu2on approach within the TMC organiza2on undertaking
projects is nega2vely related to effec2ve team coordina2on.
Compromising Approach to Conflict Management and Team Coordina2on
The compromising conflict management style is placed in the middle of the con2nuum of the two
dimensions: concern for self, and concern for others. Compromising strategies exhibit moderate
a@en2on to seek mutual agreements, but have less interest in puung forth a collabora2ve effort to
achieve them. This style has been characterized as a half-hearted problem-solving alterna2ve (Prui@,
Kim, & Rubin, 2004). Both sides could possibly achieve certain benefits, as well as some losses,
through the give-and-take in which each party may give up some necessary desires or targets—with a
less-than-op2mal result being agreed upon (Rahim & Magner, 1995). People typically adopt this style
in the event that a willingness to unravel the root causes of conflict is not completely sustained. A
compromising approach entails different tac2cs, such as: bowing to the concept of jus2ce, advising on
trade-offs, increasing gains and reducing losses, mee2ng the par2es midway, spliung the costs of
varia2ons, and looking for rapid and short-term resolu2on to the conflict at hand (Liu et al., 2009). It
has also been outlined as unique in the sense that it focuses on mee2ng the individual's self-needs
along with the needs of others (Gross & Guerrero, 2000). Compromising is typically perceived as an
essen2al complement to other strategies in solving conflicts in not only Western organiza2onal
contexts and companies, but also in some East Asian environments (e.g., styles adopted by Chinese
managers [Liu et al., 2009]). Prior research suggests that a compromising style has posi2ve
consequences on the innova2on success of companies (Gobeli, Koenig, & Bechinger, 1998), is
posi2vely related to team performance (Coetzer & Trimble, 2010), and is nega2vely related to harmful
aspects of conflicts (Vollmer, 2015). Hence, our fiwh hypothesis is as follows:
H5: The compromising conflict management approach within the TMC organiza2on undertaking
projects team is posi2vely related to effec2ve team coordina2on.
Conceptual Framework Development
The term performance in a group work environment has been widely put in place to reflect the
ac2vi2es’ ul2mate outcomes as well as to figure out whether or not an individual and/or a team is
remaining produc2ve (Tabassi, Roufechaei, Bakar, & NorAini, 2017). In the construc2on industry,
different project teams mostly form the focal point of project delivery. For that reason, the dynamic
transforming characteris2cs of construc2on ac2vi2es demand construc2on organiza2ons to gain or
even develop several teams whenever a new project or a new phase of a project is carried out (Raiden
& Dainty, 2006). Therefore, any techniques and procedures that are appointed by the organiza2on as a
means to further improve teamwork coordina2on could possibly convey favorable results to the
overall team or project performance (Tabassi, Ramli, Roufechaei, & Tabassi, 2014; Tabassi et al., 2017).
Thus far, research on conflict management has shown more focus on the rela2onships between
conflict-handling style of the leader and team performance (De Dreu & Gelfand, 2008; Prieto-Remón
et al., 2015; Rahim, 2002; Tjosvold, 2008; Tjosvold et al., 2001). Alterna2vely, the rela2onship
between team coordina2on and team performance has been the focus of a number of prior studies in
the management literature (Banks, Pollack, & Seers, 2016; Rico, Sánchez-Manzanares, Gil, & Gibson,
2008; Tuncdogan, Boon, Mom, Bosch, & Volberda, 2017; Yukl, 2006; Zhang et al., 2011). Coordina2on
processes involve the ac2vi2es orchestra2ng the rela2onship and scheduling interdependent tasks in
the team environment (e.g., managing work, seung up the tasks of each member, and detailing
guidelines and regular procedures) (Yukl, 2006; Zalesny, Salas, & Prince, 1995). In the same way,
coordina2on ac2vi2es are observed as necessary conduct for teams to be able to exchange
informa2on and straighten the course of team member ac2ons (Marks, Mathieu, & Zaccaro, 2001;
Tuncdogan et al., 2017). Even though we are aware of the cri2cal rela2onship between conflict
management and team performance, limited studies have examined the conflict management style of
leaders, coordina2on, and performance together, par2cularly in mul2cultural team environments in
the construc2on industry. We contribute to enriching such an understanding by inves2ga2ng the
media2ng role of coordina2on mechanisms. The overall conceptual framework for the research
reported in this ar2cle is depicted in Figure 1. The hypotheses focus on three specific rela2onships:
the link between conflict management approaches and team coordina2on; the link between team
coordina2on and team performance; and the link between conflict management approaches and
team performance, mediated by team coordina2on.

Figure 1. Hypothesized model.

The rela2onships between conflict management approaches and team performance, and between
conflict management approaches and team performance, mediated by team coordina2on, are
explored through the following two hypotheses:
H6: Team coordina2on is posi2vely related to team performance within the TMC organiza2on.
H7: Team coordina2on mediates between conflict management approaches and team performance
within the TMC organiza2on.
Measuring Instruments and Data Collec2on
Team performance was measured using an adap2on of Tabassi et al.'s (2017) survey instrument.
Tabassi et al.'s instrument was based on the work of Hirst (1999) and an addi2onal item, team
cohesiveness, which is also pointed out in A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge
(PMBOK® Guide) – Sixth Edi2on (Project Management Ins2tute, 2017).
The study adapted a scale for measuring the team coordina2on that was ini2ally formulated by
Hackman (1983, as cited in Zhang et al., 2011) and is widely applied in organiza2onal research (De
Dreu, 2007; Zhang et al., 2011).
The conflict management styles were measured using a previously validated instrument devised by
Northouse (2011) and available at www.sagepub.com/northouseintro2e. The team members were
asked to rate the conflict management style of the leaders on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = “Never” to 5 =
“Always”).
Since the team formed the unit of assessment in this study, and the data on conflict management
were acquired at the individual team members’ level, the data needed to be aggregated. Yet, any such
aggrega2on needs to be validated by theore2cal as well as empirical jus2fica2ons (Rousseau, 1985).
Whether conflict resolu2on and management ac2vi2es, as perceived by team members, may be
aggregated and used to value the styles of handling conflict is a controversial issue (Yammarino &
Dansereau, 2008). Interac2on among team members allows for sharing and processing of informa2on
regarding the team leader, which probably results in individuals’ homogeneous concepts of
approaches for managing conflicts within the team (Zhang et al., 2011). To achieve the desired
aggrega2on, James, Demaree, and Wolf (1984) recommend the use of the mul2-item, which is
measured as follows:

The rWG(J) index applies the Spearman-Brown prophecy method to incorporate the number of items in
the calcula2on of within-group agreement. Hence, J is the number of items in a measure and Sk2 is the
average variance of the J items in a group of k-raters.
The study evaluates the theorized model (Figure 1) by u2lizing a mul2level design (Ju, Qin, & Xu, 2016)
with individuals (level 1) nested in projects (level 2). Data were collected from three different level 1
sources: Team members rated the five approaches to conflict management that could be exhibited by
team leaders, including coopera2ve, compe22ve, accommoda2ng, avoiding, and compromising; the
team leaders evaluated the level of team coordina2on; and last, the supervisor of each team rated the
team performance. As outlined by Zhang et al. (2011), this method of data collec2on will reduce the
risk of common method variance (CMV) as a possible alterna2ve for jus2fica2on of the results.
With regard to data collec2on, three dis2nct types of survey ques2onnaires were dispersed between
the respondents. The measurement of items was done primarily using the Likert scale of five ordinal
measures, from one (1) to five (5), based on the degree of importance/agreement. An invita2on no2ce
was delivered to 800 large-sized construc2on firms in Malaysia. At the end of a six-month period, 126
teams had agreed to par2cipate in the research. Seven research officers were then directed to the
respondent companies in several loca2ons in Malaysia. In order to reduce likely bias, the three
members from each team were randomly selected to assess the conflict management style of their
team leader.
Sample
The respondents incorporated 378 members of 126 construc2on project teams in Malaysia and their
equivalent 126 team leaders, along with supervisors from the upper-level administra2ve headquarters
for each organiza2on. The minimum sample size was verified and a reac2ve Monte Carlo analysis was
carried out (Chin, 1998). Consequently, the sample size of 126 surpassed the suggested minimum of
54 that is considered sufficient for model tes2ng (Green, 1991).
The size of the teams ranged from three to above 20 members, having an average of six to 10
(Standard Devia2on = 1.47). For all of the team members (excluding team leaders), 48.9% were female
and 50% were male (1.1% did not clarify their gender). The percentages of different ethnic groups
among the team members were: Malay 25.1, Chinese 58, Indian 16, and others 0.9. The degree of
experience in the construc2on industry pertaining to the team members revealed that 55% had one to
five years of experience and 33.6% had six to 10. In terms of educa2on, 71.7% had a bachelor's degree
or higher, 22.4% had acquired a diploma from junior colleges, and 5.9% graduated from technical
secondary schools or others. Furthermore, 61.9% of the team leaders were male and 66.7% had six
years or more experience in the industry. The percentages of different ethnici2es for team leaders
were: Malay 28.6, Chinese 43.7, Indian 27, and others 0.8. With regard to their educa2onal levels,
77.8% had a bachelor's degree or higher, and the rest had graduated from junior colleges.
Data Analysis and Results
To analyze the data and evaluate the hierarchical hypothesized model, Smart PLS path modeling (PLS-
PM) was used, with a path-weigh2ng scheme for inside approxima2on (Chin, 2010; Tenenhaus, Vinzi,
Chatelin, & Lauro, 2005; Wetzels, Schroder, & Oppen, 2009). Subsequently, nonparametric
bootstrapping was employed with 500 replica2ons in order to be able to a@ain the standard es2mate
errors (Chin, 2010). To assess the higher order latent variables, the method of repeated indicators was
also applied, as outlined by Wold (1985), Lohmöller (1989), and Efron and Tibshiran (1993).
Conflict Management Assessment
The degree of explained variance in the hierarchical model was reflected in its components:
coopera2ve (62.6%), compe22ve (1.1%), accommoda2ng (–2.5%), avoiding (23.6%), and
compromising (4%). However, only the path coefficient from the coopera2ve approach to team
coordina2on was sta2s2cally significant (at p < 0.01). In addi2on, the avoiding approach to conflict
management showed a p value less than 0.1, which is par2ally significant to team coordina2on. The
composite reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE) of all constructs were above 0.7 and
0.5, respec2vely, which exceed the recommended cutoff values (Hair, Hult, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2014).
The rWG(J) index scores for each conflict management style were as follows: coopera2ve (0.908),
compe22ve (0.899), accommoda2ng (0.91), avoiding (0.913), and compromising (0.908).
Despite the fact that generally there is some disagreement related to the cutoff value rWG (Lance et al.,
2006), these values are higher than the commonly agreed-upon 0.70 value. Furthermore, the
percentage of rWG > 0.70 for the aggregated parameters was calculated to be 86%. Addi2onal analysis
was carried out and there was no team with an rWG lower than 0.50 across any given construct.
The Measurement Model
To assess the components of the measurement scales, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was
performed, based on the procedure of Chin (2010), to assess the reliability, convergent validity, and
discriminant validity of the scales (see Tables 1 and 2). Table 1 shows the results of CMV.
The AVE for all constructs was more than 0.5 and the CR of the constructs was above 0.7. These values
are above the minimum recommended levels, so as a result CMV was not been deemed to be an issue
in this study (Fornell & Larcker, 1981; Gefen, Straub, & Boudreau, 2000). Also, as revealed by Table 1,
most of the item loadings were close to or larger than 0.7 and significant at 0.01. The items for the
coopera2ve style of conflict management exhibited the lowest CR of 0.7891; even so, all values were
higher than the recommended standard values. The results confirmed convergent validity, as all
indicators loaded significantly higher onto their par2cular hypothesized component as compared to
other factors (own construct loadings were greater than cross loadings; see Chin, 2010). The Fornell-
Larcker criterion approach was used to assess discriminant validity. The square root of the AVEs were
calculated and compared with the latent variable correla2ons. The results, which are presented in
Table 2, demonstrate discriminant validity, as the square root of each construct's AVE was higher than
its largest correla2on, compared with any other construct in the model (Chin, 2010; Fornell & Larcker,
1981). Furthermore, there was no correla2on higher than 0.9 among the constructs observed (Chin,
2010), except for the compromising style of conflict management construct, which was exactly 0.9. As
a result, the proposed model was deemed to be sa2sfactory, with proof of sufficient reliability,
convergent validity, and discriminant validity, and was accepted for evalua2ng the hypotheses and
valida2ng the research model.
Table 1. Common Method Variance
Note: CR = composite reliability; AVE = average variance extracted.
Assessment of the Structural Model
In Table 3, the results give a standardized beta of 0.24 from the avoiding style of conflict management
to team coordina2on, 0.63 from coopera2ve style to team coordina2on, 0.11 from coopera2ve style
to team performance, and 0.35 from team coordina2on to team performance.
Thus, there was support for H6: team coordina2on is posi2vely related to team performance within
the TMC organiza2on and for the alterna2ve to H1: the coopera2ve conflict management approach
within the TMC organiza2on undertaking projects is posi2vely related to effec2ve team coordina2on.
The other two conflict management approaches, which showed some posi2ve rela2onship with team
coordina2on, compe22ve and compromising, were not sta2s2cally significant. Hence, H2 and H5 are
not supported. The results showed that the avoiding conflict management style posi2vely related to
team coordina2on, being significant at the 0.1 level. So, H3 has been rejected and there is support for
the alterna2ve hypothesis to H3, which can be refined as: The avoiding conflict management approach
within the TMC organiza2on undertaking projects is posi2vely related to effec2ve team coordina2on.
However, the accommoda2ng conflict management style showed a nega2ve rela2onship with team
coordina2on, but it was not sta2s2cally significant. So, H4 was not supported.
Media2ng Effects
In Figure 2, the media2ng effect of team coordina2on on the rela2onship between the conflict
management styles and team performance was analyzed, and H7: team coordina2on mediates
between conflict management approaches and team performance within the TMC organiza2on was
tested. Three criteria for media2on analysis were established as follows:
• Two independent variables (avoiding and coopera2ve styles of conflict management) had a
significant effect on the mediator (team coordina2on);
• The mediator (team coordina2on) had a significant influence on the dependent variable (team
performance); and
• Two independent variables (avoiding and coopera2ve styles of handling conflict) had a
significant influence on the dependent variable in the absence of the influence of the
mediator.
To set up the media2ng influence, the indirect impact of a × b (see Figure 2) must be significant.
The z-sta2s2cs test (Sobel, 1982) was employed, which was significant at p < 0.05. If the z values
surpass 1.96 (p < 0.05), then H2 can be accepted—that is, there is an indirect effect from the conflict
management style (in this par2cular case, avoiding and coopera2ve styles of handling conflict),
through team coordina2on, on team performance. The z values are calculated as follows:

As displayed in Figure 2, there was a significant effect from the coopera2ve conflict management style
on team coordina2on (0.626, p < 0.01), as well as from team coordina2on on team performance
(0.35, p < 0.01). The z value was greater than 1.96 (p < 0.05); consequently, the result confirms the
media2ng role of team coordina2on, indica2ng that it has an indirect effect on team performance—
hence, H7 is supported.
Table 2. Correla2ons Among Constructs

Note: *Square root of the AVE on the diagonal.

Table 3. Total Effects

There was also a significant effect from the avoiding conflict management style on team coordina2on
(0.236, p < 0.01) as well as from team coordina2on on team performance (0.35, p < 0.01, see Figure
2). The z value also exceeds 1.96 (p < 0.05).
To approximate the size of the indirect effect in the model, the variance accounted for (VAF) value was
calculated, which represents the ra2o of the indirect effect to the total effect. The VAF value for the
first model (see Figure 2) shows that almost 67.1% of the total effect of the coopera2ve conflict
management style on team performance is explained by an indirect effect (team coordina2on).

The VAF value for the second model (see Figure 2) indicates that nearly 21.5% of the total effect of the
avoiding conflict management style on team performance is accounted for by the indirect effect (team
coordina2on).

Results and Discussion

Team leaders’ conflict management styles were framed as hierarchical constructs, with the results
indica2ng that two dimensions (coopera2ve and avoiding styles) exert significant posi2ve influence on
team coordina2on. This result adds theore2cal support for Ayoko (2016), Tjosvold (2008) and Chen,
Hou, and Wu (2016), who acknowledged the aforesaid two conflict management styles as methods
that result in enhanced team performance. This contradicts the findings of Chen and Tjosvold (2002),
in rela2on to the impact of the avoiding style. In other words, the coopera2ve and avoiding conflict
management styles are those that are strongly linked to enhanced team performance in temporary
project organiza2ons in the construc2on industry, which has not been studied well by preceding
research.
The prior literature suggests that the crea2on of such organiza2ons in the construc2on industry
presents complex seungs for effec2ve management and leadership due to the dynamic and complex
organiza2onal, project, and skill requirements (Tabassi et al., 2017). In response to this, team leaders
will have the ability to deal with this dynamism and complexity and to enhance teamwork
accomplishments by employing relevant conflict management styles. In line with situa2onal theory,
different circumstances may very well necessitate dis2nct leadership behavior by team leaders.
Therefore, the condi2on in which a project team is performing in a temporary organiza2on may well
influence the appropriate conflict management style to be adopted by the project team leader.
Figure 2. Results of hypotheses tes2ng.
Whereas some earlier research found a nega2ve rela2onship between the accommoda2ng conflict
management style and team performance (Kuhn & Poole, 2000; Liu et al., 2009), our study found no
such sta2s2cally significant rela2onship. In addi2on, the two other conflict management styles,
compe22ve and compromising, had no significant rela2onship with either team coordina2on or team
performance. These results may be due to the fact that in such temporary project organiza2ons there
are certain situa2ons that will ask for accommoda2ng or compe22ve conflict resolu2on styles in order
to achieve be@er team performance. The project teams may not find enough 2me for communica2on
and mutual interac2on, rather, the team leaders need to look for some consensus or even a sense of
quick comple2on in order to reach a solu2on. Although accommoda2ng and compe22ve conflict
management styles showed posi2ve rela2onships with team coordina2on, which are against the ini2al
expecta2on that hypothesized a nega2ve rela2onship, these rela2onships were not sta2s2cally
significant. It can be concluded, therefore, that there are no significant rela2onships between
compromising, compe22ve, and accommoda2ng conflict management styles and team coordina2on
and, accordingly, on team performance.
Based on the ini2al inves2ga2on of the effects of the five conflict management styles on team
coordina2on, the study found that only avoiding and coopera2ve approaches showed a significant
contribu2on to team performance, through the media2on of team coordina2on. As a result, models
were generated and tested to iden2fy the effects of each of the aforesaid two conflict management
styles on team coordina2on and team performance—with the results revealing that of these two ways
of managing conflict, the coopera2ve style (β = 0.6262) is the most significant influence, accompanied
by avoiding conflict resolu2on (β = 0.236), on team coordina2on.
In addi2on, the study has explored the unique role of conflict management, team coordina2on, and
team performance in a nomological network, a measure that has not been demonstrated in prior
research reported in the extant literature. Our study reveals that the coopera2ve and avoiding conflict
management styles have significant influence on team coordina2on (R2 = 0.408), which in turn has an
influence on team performance (R2 = 0.205). In this interdependence, 67% and 21.5% of the influence
of the coopera2ve and avoiding conflict management resolu2ons, respec2vely, on team performance
is mediated by team coordina2on. This finding suggests that team coordina2on has a crucial
media2ng role in the rela2onship between the conflict management style adopted by team leaders
and the effec2veness of team performance. In addi2on, coopera2ve and avoiding conflict
management styles have a direct impact on team performance, together with team coordina2on, and
both constructs explain 20.5% of the variance in team performance.
By using the method of repeated indicators, as recommended by Wold (1985), to iden2fy the higher
order latent variables, this par2cular study has verified fundamental dimensions and structural
solu2ons for the suggested research model. It makes significant contribu2ons to knowledge and
prac2ce by proposing the avoiding conflict style, along with coopera2ve conflict resolu2on
approaches, in temporary project environments in the construc2on industry of Malaysia.
Furthermore, assessing the hierarchical conflict management styles of coopera2ng and avoiding,
integra2ng their impact on team coordina2on, and evalua2ng the influence of both styles on team
performance is a further contribu2on of the study in both knowledge and prac2ce.
Figure 3. Possible outcomes for people and project from five conflict management styles.
Given that prior research has mainly focused on exploring the nega2ve impact of conflict on project
performance (Harmon, 2003; Mitkus & Mitkus, 2014; Tazelaar & Snijders, 2010; Yiu & Cheung, 2006),
the suggested posi2ve rela2onships found in our study between certain conflict management styles,
especially avoiding, highlights poten2al team-based strategies for enhancing the performance in
certain mul2cultural project environments in East Asia.
The posi2ve impact of the coopera2ng style of conflict resolu2on reflects the fact that many project
team leaders typically have a democra2c or caring leadership style and that they engage in open and
direct communica2on with all the par2es that make up the temporary organiza2on. Accordingly,
finding such a posi2ve rela2onship between this style of conflict handling and team coordina2on is
not unexpected and indeed lends support to the findings from related studies of other organiza2onal
contexts (Ayoko, 2016; Chen & Tjosvold, 2002; Fehr & Gachter, 2000; Sanders & Schyns, 2006; Tjosvold
et al., 2003, 2005).
The finding that avoidance, as an approach, may be a good choice to reach be@er team coordina2on
and, accordingly, be@er team performance, suggests that in temporary organiza2ons, conflict
management could be considered a situa2onal management prac2ce, in that different styles may be
related to different team characteris2cs, such as being mul2cultural. Accordingly, there may be certain
situa2ons, for example, in which one party in the temporary organiza2on is demonstra2ng a high level
of nega2ve emo2on, such as anger or frustra2on, where perhaps in the short term, the avoiding style
is best for the project. Whereas it is accepted that avoidance, as a passive method of coping with
conflicts, could possibly worsen the unfavorable effects of a conflict, which may result in one's ideas
and opinions not being effec2vely voiced in the conflict condi2on (Chen, Hou, et al., 2016), there may
a case where an ini2al avoidance approach lets a nega2ve situa2on diffuse. Then it could be later
addressed using more ac2ve styles, such as coopera2on. An avoidance approach could be viewed as a
flexible and pragma2c approach, puung a temporary lid on things, while a las2ng solu2on is found
(Fisher, Ury, & Pa@on, 2011). When differing opinions exist among members of the temporary
organiza2on, it might be useful to note them and then seek to resolve the conflict later. This is an
alterna2ve to a passive, avoiding conflict management style, which typically implies not dealing with
the conflict at all. Rather, it is avoiding direct confronta2on or argument in order to seek a be@er 2me
or a more suitable occasion to deal with the conflict.
Synthesizing the findings of the study with those in the extant literature help the authors propose
Figure 3 in order to generate a matrix on possible outcomes for the project and team members from
the five conflict-handling styles. In this figure there are 13 transac2onal results that can take place in
conflict management resolu2on, with two of these conflict management styles being ideal strategies
to ensure win-win scenarios where the concerns of both project and people are met.
Whereas the majority of prior literature states that the avoiding conflict style is a lose-lose scenario,
the findings of our study allow us to accept that there could be situa2ons in which both the project
and the individual par2es within the temporary organiza2on achieve some of their goals, even though
one side wins slightly, or even a great deal, more from the avoiding of conflict than the other. The
study also highlights that the different win-win situa2ons linked to the avoiding conflict style—
represented by boxes A, B, C, and D in Figure 3—are what is typically suggested by mutuality in
avoiding conflictual rela2onships.
Conclusion
The main purpose of this research was to evaluate the effects of the conflict management styles that
are adopted by team leaders in temporary organiza2ons with mul2cultural teams in the construc2on
industry on team coordina2on and, accordingly, on team performance. Hence, the ar2cle has
examined the media2ng impacts of team coordina2on on conflict management and team
performance. The findings show that team leaders working in mul2cultural temporary organiza2ons in
the Malaysian construc2on industry choose avoidance and coopera2ve approaches to manage
conflict, rather than the other three approaches. In the case of the coopera2ve conflict management
style and its effect on overall team performance, our findings are similar to Deutsch (1990) and
Sanders and Schyns (2006), in Western organiza2onal contexts, as well as the works of Tjosvold et al.
(2005), Tjosvold (2008), and Ayoko (2016), which focused on East Asian na2ons and the Australasian
con2nent, but in different contexts and not in temporary organiza2ons. However, our findings on the
effect of the avoiding conflict management style are in contrast with those presented and claimed by
Rahim (2002), but lend prac2cal weight to the sugges2ons of Chen et al. (2016) and Fisher et al.
(2011). Accordingly, our final argument is that if the ideal goals of the team members of the
temporary organiza2on and of the project are noncommensurable, then equity-based, win-win results
in rela2onships can be illusory, and an ideal norma2ve mutuality in rela2onships will never be
reached. As a result, avoiding conflict resolu2on could be deemed as a win-win situa2on for both the
people and the project.
Limita#ons and Future Research Direc#ons
The current study has certain limita2ons that offer direc2on for future studies. The study was carried
out within temporary organiza2ons in the construc2on industry in Malaysia. For that reason,
addi2onal research of a similar nature will be necessary to test whether the findings are generalizable
to other mul2cultural project environments in other East Asian countries and in other industries; how
they differ from the condi2ons found in developed countries can also be studied further. At the same
2me, effec2ve parameters that might assist the predic2ve strength of the model need to be further
explored. A final area for future work is on aspects rela2ng to the temporal nature of the project
organiza2on and how this might have consequences in terms of the interdependencies of the different
conflict management styles.
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to acknowledge the Malaysian government for providing the FRGS Grant No.
203/PPBGN/6711301 as financial support to conduct the research.
Declara#on of Conflic#ng Interests
The authors declared no poten2al conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or
publica2on of this ar2cle.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publica2on of this
ar2cle.
References
Ayoko, O. B. (2016). Workplace conflict and willingness to cooperate: The importance of apology and
forgiveness. Interna2onal Journal of Conflict Management, 27(2), 172–198.
Banks, G. C., Pollack, J. M., & Seers, A. (2016). Team coordina2on and organiza2onal rou2nes: Bo@oms
up—and top down. Management Decision, 54(5), 1059–1072.
Baron, R. A. (1988). A@ribu2ons and organiza2onal conflict: The media2ng role of apparent
sincerity. Organiza2onal Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69, 272–279.
Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1964). The managerial grid. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing.
Chen, A. S., Hou, Y.-h., & Wu, I.-h. (2016). Handling conflict at work—The impact of ac2ve and
agreeable conflict styles. Interna2onal Journal of Conflict Management, 27(1), 50–61.
Chen, G., & Tjosvold, D. (2002). Conflict management and team effec2veness in China: The media2ng
role of jus2ce. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 19(4), 557–572.
Chen, S.-Y., Uen, J. F., & Chen, C.-C. (2016a). Implemen2ng high performance HR prac2ces in Asia: HR
prac2ce consistency, employee roles, and performance. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 33(4),
937–958.
Chen, Y. Q., Zhang, Y. B., & Zhang, S. J. (2014). Impacts of different types of owner-contractor conflict
on cost performance in construc2on projects. Journal of Construc2on Engineering and Management,
140(6), 04014017.
Cheung, C. C., & Chuah, K. B. (1999). Conflict management styles in Hong Kong
industries. Interna2onal Journal of Project Management, 17(6), 393–399.
Chin, W. W. (1998). Issues and opinion on structural equa2on modelling. MIS Quarterly, 22(1), vii–xvi.
Chin, W. W. (2010). How to write up and report PLS analyses. In V. E. Vinzi, W. W. Chin, J. Henseler, & H.
Wang (Eds.), Handbook of par2al least squares: Concepts, methods and applica2on (pp. 645–689).
New York, NY: Springer.
Chiocchio, F., Forgues, D., Paradis, D., & Iordanova, I. (2011). Teamwork in integrated design projects:
Understanding the effects of trust, conflict, and collabora2on on performance. Project Management
Journal, 42(6), 78–91.
Coetzer, G. H., & Trimble, R. (2010). An empirical examina2on of the rela2onship between adult
a@en2on deficit, coopera2ve conflict management and efficacy for working in teams. American
Journal of Business, 25(1), 25–34.
De Dreu, C. K. W. (2007). Coopera2ve outcome interdependence, task reflexivity, and team
effec2veness: A mo2vated informa2on processing perspec2ve. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3),
628–638.
De Dreu, C. K. W., & Gelfand, M. J. (2008). The psychology of conflict and conflict management in
organiza2ons. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Department of Sta2s2cs Malaysia. (2018). Retrieved from h@ps://www.dosm.gov.my/v1/
Deutsch, M. (1990). Sixty years of conflict. Interna2onal Journal of Conflict Management, 1(3), 237–
263.
Efron, B., & Tibshirani, R. J. (1993). An introduc2on to the bootstrap (Monographs on sta2s2cs and
applied probability, #57). New York, NY: Chapman & Hall.
Fehr, E., & Gachter, S. (2000). Coopera2on and punishment in public goods experiments. The
American Economic Review, 90(4), 980–994.
Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Pa@on, B. (2011). Geung to yes: Nego2a2on agreement without giving in. New
York, NY: Penguin Group.
Fisher, R. J. (1990). The social psychology of intergroup and interna2onal conflict resolu2on. New York,
NY: Springer-Verlag.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evalua2ng structural equa2on models with unobserved variables
and measurement error. Journal of Marke2ng Research, 18, 39–50.
Gefen, D., Straub, D. W., & Boudreau, M.-C. (2000). Structural equa2on modeling and regression:
Guidelines for research prac2ce. Communica2ons of the Associa2on for Informa2on Systems, 4, 1–79.
Gobeli, D. H., Koenig, H. F., & Bechinger, I. (1998). Managing conflict in sowware development teams:
A mul2level analysis. Journal of Product Innova2on Management, 15(5), 423–435.
Green, S. B. (1991). How many subjects does it take to do a regression analysis? Mul2variate
Behavioral Research, 26(3), 499–510.
Gross, M. A., & Guerrero, L. K. (2000). Managing conflict appropriately and effec2vely: An applica2on
of the competence model to Rahim's organiza2onal conflict styles. Interna2onal Journal of Conflict
Management, 11(3), 200–226.
Hackman, J. R. (1983). The design of effec2ve work groups. In W. W. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of
organiza2onal behavior (pp. 315–342.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Pren2ce Hall.
Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2014). A primer on Par2al Least Squares
Structural Equa2on Modeling (PLS-SEM). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publica2ons.
Harmon, K. M. J. (2003). Conflicts between owner and contractors: Proposed interven2on
process. Journal of Management in Engineering, ASCE, 19(3), 121–125.
Hirst, G. (1999). The rela2onship between team communica2on and R&D project performance: A five
factor model of team communica2on. Melbourne, Australia: University of Melbourne.
Hu, N., Chen, Z., Gu, J., Huang, S., & Liu, H. (2017). Conflict and crea2vity in inter-organiza2onal teams:
The modera2ng role of shared leadership. Interna2onal Journal of Conflict Management, 28(1), 74–
102.
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Es2ma2ng within-group interrater reliability with and
without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(1), 85–98.
Jehn, K., & Mannix, E. (2001). The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study of intragroup
conflict and group performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 238–251.
Jia, G., Yang, F., Wang, G., Hong, B., & You, R. (2011). A study of mega project from a perspec2ve of
social conflict theory. Interna2onal Journal of Project Management, 29(7), 817–827.
Ju, D., Qin, X., & Xu, M. (2016). Boundary condi2ons of the emo2onal exhaus2on-unsafe behavior link:
The dark side of group norms and personal control. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 33(1), 113–
140.
Kleinman, G., Palmon, D., & Lee, P. (2003). The effects of personal and group level factors on the
outcomes of simulated auditor and client teams. Group Decision and Nego2a2on, 12(1), 57–84.
Kozan, M. K. (1989). Cultural influences on styles of handling interpersonal conflicts: Comparisons
among Jordanian, Turkish, and U.S. managers. Human Rela2ons, 42, 787–799.
Kuhn, T., & Poole, M. S. (2000). Do conflict management styles affect group decision making? Evidence
from a longitudinal field study. Human Communica2on Research, 26(4), 558–590.
Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1986). Organiza2on and environment: Managing differen2a2on and
integra2on. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Leung, M.-Y., Yu, J., & Liang, Q. (2014). Analysis of the rela2onships between value management
techniques, conflict management, and workshop sa2sfac2on of construc2on par2cipants. Journal of
Management in Engineering, 30(3), 1–11.
Li, H., & Li, J. (2009). Top management team conflict and entrepreneurial strategy making in
China. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 26(2), 263–283.
Liu, J., Fu, P., & Liu, S. (2009). Conflicts in top management teams and team/firm outcomes: The
modera2ng effects of conflict-handling approaches. Interna2onal Journal of Conflict Management,
20(3), 228–250.
Liu, W.-H., & Cross, J. A. (2016). A comprehensive model of project team technical
performance. Interna2onal Journal of Project Management, 34(7), 1150–1166.
Lohmöller, J.-B. (1989). Latent variable path modeling with par2al least squares. Heidelberg, Germany:
Physica-Verlag.
Loosemore, M., Dainty, A. R. J., & Lingard, H. (2003). Human resource management in construc2on
projects, strategic and opera2onal approaches. London, England: Spon Press.
Lundin, R. A., & Soderholm, A. (1995). A theory of the temporary organiza2on. Scandinavian Journal of
Management, 11(4), 437–455.
Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of
team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 356–376.
Mitkus, S., & Mitkus, T. (2014). Causes of conflicts in a construc2on industry: A communica2onal
approach. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 110, 777–786.
Mitropoulos, P. T., & Cupido, G. (2009). The role of produc2on and teamwork prac2ces in construc2on
safety: A cogni2ve model and an empirical case study. Journal of Safety Research, 40, 265–275.
Müller, R., Turner, J. R., Andersen, E. S., Shao, J., & Kvalnes, Ø. (2016). Governance and ethics in
temporary organiza2ons: The media2ng role of corporate governance. Project Management Journal,
47(6), 7–23.
Northouse, P. G. (2011). Introduc2on to leadership: Concepts and prac2ce (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publica2ons.
O'Leary-Kelly, A. M., Martocchio, J. J., & Frink, D. D. (1994). A review of the influence of group goals on
group performance. Academy of Management Journal, 37(4), 1285–1301.
Project Management Ins2tute (PMI). (2017). A guide to the project management body of knowledge
(PMBOK® guide) – Sixth edi2on. Newtown Square, PA: Author.
Prieto-Remón, T. C., Cobo-Benita, J. R., Or2z-Marcos, I., & Uruburu, A. (2015). Conflict resolu2on to
project performance. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 194, 155–164.
Prui@, D. G., Kim, S. H., & Rubin, J. Z. (2004). Social conflict: Escala2on, stalemate, and
se@lement. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Rahim, M. A. (2002). Toward a theory of managing organiza2onal conflict. Interna2onal Journal of
Conflict Management, 13(3), 206–235.
Rahim, M. A., & Magner, N. R. (1995). Confirmatory factor analysis of the styles of handling
interpersonal conflict: First-order factor model and its invariance across groups. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 80(1), 122–132.
Raiden, A. B., & Dainty, A. R. J. (2006). Human resource development in construc2on organisa2ons: An
example of a “chaordic” learning organisa2on? The Learning Organiza2on, 13(1), 63–79.
Rico, R., Sánchez-Manzanares, M., Gil, F., & Gibson, C. (2008). Team implicit coordina2on processes: A
team knowledge-based approach. Academy of Management Review, 33(1), 163–184.
Rousseau, D. M. (1985). Issues of level in organiza2onal research: Mul2-level and cross-level
perspec2ves. Research in Organiza2onal Behavior, 7, 1–37.
Rubin, J. Z., Prui@, D. G., & Kim, S. H. (1994). Social conflict: Escala2on, stalemate, and
se@lement. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Sanders, K., & Schyns, B. (2006). Trust, conflict and coopera2ve behaviour: Considering reciprocity
within organiza2ons. Personnel Review, 35(5), 508–518.
Sobel, M. (1982). Asympto2c confidence intervals for indirect effects on structural equa2on models. In
S. Leinhardt (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 290–312). New York, NY: Jossey-Bass.
Sto@, K., & Walker, A. (1995). Teams, teamwork and teambuilding. Singapore: Pren2ce Hall.
Sun, W., Xu, A., & Shang, Y. (2014). Transforma2onal leadership, team climate, and team performance
within the NPD team: Evidence from China. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 31(1), 127–147.
Tabassi, A. A., & Bakar, A. H. A. (2009). Training, mo2va2on, and performance: The case of human
resource management in construc2on projects in Mashhad, Iran. Interna2onal Journal of Project
Management, 27(5), 471–480.
Tabassi, A. A., Ramli, M., & Bakar, A. H. A. (2012). Effects of training and mo2va2on prac2ces on
teamwork improvement and task efficiency: The case of construc2on firms. Interna2onal Journal of
Project Management, 30(2), 213–224.
Tabassi, A. A., Ramli, M., Roufechaei, K. M., & Tabassi, A. A. (2014). Team development and
performance in construc2on design teams: An assessment of a hierarchical model with media2ng
effect of compensa2on. Construc2on Management and Economics, 32(9), 932–949.
Tabassi, A. A., Roufechaei, K. M., Bakar, A. H. A., & NorAini, Y. (2017). Linking team condi2on and team
performance: A transforma2onal leadership approach. Project Management Journal, 48(2), 22–38.
Tazelaar, F., & Snijders, C. (2010). Dispute resolu2on and li2ga2on in the construc2on industry:
Evidence on conflicts and conflict resolu2on in the Netherlands and Germany. Journal of Purchasing
and Supply Management, 16(4), 221–229.
Tenenhaus, M., Vinzi, V. E., Chatelin, Y.-M., & Lauro, C. (2005). PLS path modeling. Computa2onal
Sta2s2cs and Data Analysis, 48(1), 159–205.
Thomas, K. W. (1976). Conflict and conflict management. In M. D. Dunne@e (Ed.), Handbook of
industrial and organiza2onal psychology (pp. 889–935). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
Tjosvold, D. (1985). Implica2ons of controversy research for management. Journal of Management,
11(3), 21–37.
Tjosvold, D. (2008). The conflict-posi2ve organiza2on: It depends upon us. Journal of Organiza2onal
Behavior, 29, 19–28.
Tjosvold, D., Cho, Y.-H., Park, H.-H., Liu, C., Liu, W.-C., & Sasaki, S. (2001). Interdependence and
managing conflict with subcontractors in the construc2on industry in East Asia. Asia Pacific Journal of
Management, 18, 295–313.
Tjosvold, D., Hui, C., & Yu, Z. Y. (2003). Conflict management and task reflexivity for team in-role and
extra-role performance in China. Interna2onal Journal of Conflict Management, 14, 141–163.
Tjosvold, D., Poon, M., & Yu, Z. Y. (2005). Team effec2veness in China: Coopera2ve conflict for
rela2onship building. Human Rela2ons, 58, 341–367.
Tuncdogan, A., Boon, A., Mom, T., Bosch, F. V. D., & Volberda, H. (2017). Management teams’
regulatory foci and organiza2onal units’ exploratory innova2on: The media2ng role of coordina2on
mechanisms. Long Range Planning, 50, 621–635.
Vollmer, A. (2015). Conflicts in innova2on and how to approach the “last mile” of conflict management
research—A literature review. Interna2onal Journal of Conflict Management, 26(2), 192–213.
Wall, J. A., & Callister, R. R. (1995). Conflict and its management. Journal of Management, 21(3), 515–
558.
Walton, R. E., & McKersie, R. B. (1965). A behavioral theory of labor rela2ons. New York, NY: McGraw-
Hill.
Wetzels, M., Schroder, G. O., & Oppen, V. C. (2009). Using PLS path modeling for assessing hierarchical
construct models: Guidelines and empirical illustra2on. MIS Quarterly, 33(1), 177–195.
Wold, H. (1985). Par2al least squares. In S. Kotz & N. L. Johnson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of sta2s2cal
sciences. New York, NY: Wiley.
Wu, G., Zhao, X., & Zuo, J. (2017). Effects of inter-organiza2onal conflicts on construc2on project
added value in China. Interna2onal Journal of Conflict Management, 28(5), 695–723.
Yammarino, F. J., & Dansereau, F. (2008). Mul2-level nature of and mul2-level approaches to
leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(2), 135–141.
Yang, M.-Y., Cheng, F.-C., & Chuang, A. (2013). The role of affects in conflict frames and conflict
management. Interna2onal Journal of Conflict Management, 26(4), 427–449.
Yiu, K. T. W., & Cheung, S. O. (2006). A catastrophe model of construc2on conflict behavior. Building
and Environment, 41(4), 438–447.
Yousefi, S., Hipel, K. W., & Hegazy, T. (2010). Autude-based strategic nego2a2on for conflict
management in construc2on projects. Project Management Journal, 41(4), 99–107.
Yukl, G. (2006). Leadership in organiza2ons. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Pren2ce-Hall.
Zalesny, M. D., Salas, E., & Prince, C. (1995). Conceptual and measurement issues in coordina2on:
Implica2ons for team behavior and performance. Research in Personnel and Human Resources
Management, 13, 81–115.
Zartman, I., & Touval, S. (1985). Interna2onal media2on: Conflict resolu2on and power
poli2cs. Journal of Social Issues, 41, 27–45.
Zhang, X.-A., Cao, Q., & Tjosvold, D. (2011). Linking transforma2onal leadership and team
performance: A conflict management approach. Journal of Management Studies, 48(7), 1586–1611.