Journal of Organizational Behavior

J. Organiz. Behav. 29, 5–18 (2008)

Published online 12 July 2007 in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/job.474

Point/ The virtue and vice of workplace conflict:

Counterpoint food for (pessimistic) thought
CARSTEN K.W. DE DREU*
Department of Psychology, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Summary Many authors, myself included, have suggested that workplace conflict may be beneficial to
the organization. I argue that the support for this conclusion is rather weak. A selective and
necessarily limited review of the literature shows that: (1) the positive functions of conflict are
found only under an exceedingly narrow set of circumstances, (2) the conclusion that
(particular forms of) conflict and conflict management has positive functions can be criticized
on methodological grounds, (3) even under favorable circumstances a number of serious
negative functions can be identified as well, (4) negative functions easily outweigh positive
functions, prohibiting the emergence of ‘positive workplace conflict’ (where conflict has
predominantly positive consequences), and (5) organizations need cooperative conflict
management not because it brings positive conflict, but because it prevents workplace conflict
to hurt too much. Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Introduction

For several decades now, scholars in psychology and organizational behavior have explored the positive
functions of workplace conflict. Conflict has been linked to learning, to higher levels of creativity and
innovation, to improved quality of group decision-making, and to increased overall team effectiveness.
Some have located these positive functions in the issues the conflict is about, with task-related issues (e.g.,
what is the best company strategy) generating more positive consequences than relationship and
person-related issues (e.g., bad chemistry, disagreements about political values) (e.g., Amason, 1996;
Jehn, 1994, 1995). Others have located these positive functions in the way conflict situations are perceived
and managed, with perceived cooperative goal interdependence and ensuing constructive controversy
generating more positive consequences than perceived competitive goal interdependence and
concomitant lack of constructive controversy (e.g., Tjosvold, 1991, 1998; also see Deutsch, 1973).
The above positions and accompanying research findings may suggest that workplace conflict is
quite desirable, should be welcomed and, where possible, stimulated (Pondy, 1992, p. 259). In fact, this
is exactly what Van de Vliert and De Dreu (1994) suggested some time ago: ‘In overly harmonious or
protest-repressive situations, therefore, encouragement and intensification rather than prevention and
mitigation of conflict may often be recommended’ (p. 211). More recently, and writing for a broader
(text-book) audience, George and Jones (2005) note that ‘the current view of conflict, however, is that,

* Correspondence to: Carsten K.W. De Dreu, Department of Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Roetersstraat 15, 1018 WB
Amsterdam, The Netherlands. E-mail: c.k.w.dedreu@uva.nl

Received 14 March 2007

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Accepted 21 April 2007
6 C. K. W. DE DREU

although unavoidable, it can often increase organizational performance if it is carefully managed and
negotiated’ (p. 418).
In a recent publication, and grounded in the firm belief that social systems benefit from conflict and
controversy, Tjosvold (2007) suggested that we need more conflict about conflict research, that we
should critically assess and debate our definitions, perspectives, and lines of inquiry. Thus, instead of
providing a balanced and nuanced view of conflict’s consequences, in this essay I will critically assess
the evidence for the positive functions of workplace conflict and wonder what value conflict has. I first
provide a brief overview of conflict theory, distinguishing between conflict issues—what is the conflict
about—and the management of conflict—how do parties handle their (perceived) differences. Then I
move on to critically discuss the evidence for the positive consequences of conflict and conflict
management. I will identify some potentially negative consequences of conflict that may have been
ignored in our collective quest to find ‘positive conflict’—conflicts that have predominantly positive
consequences for the parties, their group, and the organization at large.
My conclusion will be fivefold: (1) the positive functions of conflict are found only under an
exceedingly narrow set of circumstances, (2) the conclusion that (particular forms of) conflict and
conflict management has positive functions can be criticized on methodological grounds, (3) even
under particularly favorable circumstances a number of serious negative functions can be identified as
well, (4) negative functions easily outweigh positive functions, prohibiting the emergence of positive
conflicts, and (5) organizations need cooperative conflict management not so much to bring about
positive conflict, but rather to mitigate or prevent workplace conflict to hurt too much.

Conflict issues and conflict management

Workplace conflict emerges when one party—be it an individual or a group of individuals—perceives

its goals, values, or opinions being thwarted by an interdependent counterpart (Pondy, 1967; Thomas,
1992; Wall & Callister, 1995). Note that although workplace conflicts may emerge at all levels of
analysis within and between organizations (De Dreu & Gelfand, 2007), and notwithstanding the fact
that several of my conclusions may generalize across levels of analysis, the focus of this essay is at the
interpersonal and small group level—the level at which most evidence for the putative positive effects
of conflict has been gathered.
Workplace conflicts may be about scarce resources, such as time, responsibilities, status or budgets,
they may be about values, such as political preferences, religious convictions, and deep-seated
morality, they may be about insights, facts, and the way we understand the world, and they may involve
any possible combination of issues (De Dreu & Gelfand, 2007; Deutsch, 1973; Druckman, 1994;
Kelley & Thibaut, 1969; Rapoport, 1960). Note that certain combinations of issues more readily give
rise to what has been called task-related conflicts—conflicts that are about the way the team is doing its
job, about the pros and cons of certain task-approaches, and so on (Jehn, 1994). Other combinations
more readily give rise to what has been called relationship conflicts—conflicts that are about people,
their values, humor, and so on (e.g., Amason, 1996; De Dreu & Van de Vliert, 1997; Jehn, 1994, 1995;
Simons & Peterson, 2000).
Whether the conflict is task-related, or person-related can be separated from the way these conflicts
are managed. In his Theory of Cooperation and Competition, Deutsch (1973) proposed that people may
view their interdependent relationship as involving shared interests and common goals—they swim or
sink together (cooperative outcome interdependence). Alternatively, they may view their
interdependent relationship as involving opposing interests and goals—when one swims the other

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 29, 5–18 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/job
 CONFLICT HURTS MORE THAN IT HELPS 7

sinks, and vice versa (competitive outcome interdependence). When people perceive cooperative
outcome interdependence, they are more likely to value their own as well as their counterpart’s
interests, opinions, and values; When in conflict, they engage in integrative negotiation, open-mindedly
debate issues and opposing points of view, and seek solutions that benefit all rather than some. When
conflict parties perceive competitive outcome interdependence, they are more likely to value relative
advantage, and to derogate the interest, opinions, and values of their counterpart. Under perceived
competitive interdependence, conflict parties are more likely to engage in persuasive bolstering, in
distributive bargaining, to derogate their counterpart, and to ridicule the other’s values (De Dreu,
Weingart & Kwon, 2000; Rubin, Pruitt & Kim, 1994; Tjosvold, 1991, 1998). Thus, both within
task-related conflicts and within relationship-related conflicts parties perceive either cooperative or
competitive goal interdependence and, concomitantly, engage in more or less constructive controversy.

Positive (functions of) conflict

When thinking about the positive functions conflict may have, it is critical to incorporate into the
analysis a multi-level perspective, as well as a short-term versus long-term time horizon. Thus, conflict
within a team (group level) may affect group processes and outcomes (group level), individual states
such as their job satisfaction, turnover intentions, and general well-being (individual level), and
organizational outcomes such as stability, profitability, and reputation (organization level). Clearly,
positive outcomes at one level (e.g., group-level innovations) may co-occur with negative outcomes at
another level (e.g., individual stress, and lowered job satisfaction). From a multi-level perspective, it is
difficult to assess whether conflict has positive effects and oftentimes such an assessment forces one to
compare apples and oranges.
A similar problem emerges when one takes short versus long time horizons into account (cf.,
Thomas, 1992). Given that organizations, and their groups, exist over longer periods of time and cycle
through multiple conflicts, it is important to consider both immediate outcomes a conflict may have
(e.g., lowered job satisfaction, creative ideas) and the more distal, long-term effects it exerts (e.g.,
increased turnover, increased market share). Immediate and more distal outcomes may not be aligned
(O’Connor, Gruenfeld, & McGrath, 1993; Saunders, 1985). For example, Beersma and De Dreu (2005)
showed that groups who constructively and via logrolling negotiated agreements of high joint value
subsequently performed quite poorly on tasks requiring group members to be creative, and quite well
on tasks requiring planning and coordination. In the short run, constructive conflict management and
integrative negotiation yielded high joint value, but in the longer run, this cooperative approach seemed
to predispose the group toward being overly harmonious, reducing the tendency toward independent
thinking needed to perform creatively, and stimulating within-group coordination.
Although more can be said, the above should clarify that ‘positive conflict’—conflict that has
primarily positive consequences—is exceedingly difficult to track down. Either at other levels, or in the
farther distance, workplace conflict may have effects that counter, or even reverse the balance from
being seemingly positive into utterly negative. In the remainder of this essay I therefore will focus on
positive functions in isolation, and detect conditions under which workplace conflict relates to aspects
of organizational life that are consensually seen as positive and beneficial.1 First I will consider whether
1
Even this may be rather difficult and open to debate. For example, innovation is often deemed as a positive outcome, but it is not
necessarily. Innovations may generate all kinds of conflict due to new tasks and jobs people (have to) perform (e.g., Janssen,
2003), or undermine efficient work processes up to a point where organizational survival is at risk (Anderson, De Dreu, & Nijstad,
2004).

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 29, 5–18 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/job
8 C. K. W. DE DREU

specific types of conflict may have positive functions. Then I will consider whether specific forms of
conflict management may have positive functions, alone or in conjunction with the specific conflict
issues.

Positive functions of conflict issues: only under very specific circumstances

Beginning with the pioneering work by Jehn (1994, 1995) and Amason (1996), many have argued that
relationship, and person-related conflicts, hurt the quality of group decision-making, reduce creativity
and innovation, and undermine team effectiveness. Task-related conflicts, however, are supposed to
have positive consequences for the quality of group decision-making, innovation, and team
effectiveness (for a review, see Jehn & Bendersky, 2003). De Dreu and Weingart (2003) summarized
this literature in a meta-analysis. Across 30 published and unpublished research reports, they found that
relationship conflict negatively related to team effectiveness and team member satisfaction. Somewhat
surprisingly, however, it appeared that task-related conflict was equally negatively related to team
effectiveness and to team member satisfaction. They concluded that ‘. . . results show that for team
performance, both task conflict and relationship conflict are equally disruptive. Even when we
considered the complexity and nonroutiness of group task as a moderator of the conflict type—team
performance relationships, no single [meta-analytic] correlation appeared positive’ (De Dreu &
Weingart, 2003, p. 746).
The outcome of the meta-analysis could be used to put an end to our collective quest to find ‘positive
conflict’. However, this is not what has happened. Some critically evaluate the study designs and
measurements used in the studies summarized in the meta-analysis (e.g., Hjertø, 2006), or identified
moderators of the conflict—performance relationship (e.g., Jehn & Bendersky, 2003). As a case in
point, research has uncovered that moderate (as opposed to low or high) levels of task conflict relates to
innovation (De Dreu, 2006; Lovelace, Shapiro, & Weingart, 2001). And provided high levels of
intra-group trust and psychological safety, debates induced by minority factions lead to higher levels of
creativity (Nemeth, 1986) and innovation (De Dreu & West, 2001; also see Simons & Peterson, 2000).
An area that is traditionally associated with positive conflict and that relates to the work on dissent
and creativity is that of group decision-making. The idea here is that dissent and (moderate) conflict in
groups prevent premature consensus, and lead to group decisions of higher quality (Janis & Mann,
1977; see also Brodbeck, Kerschreiter, Mojzisch, Frey, & Schulz-Hardt, 2002; Schulz-Hardt, Jochims
& Frey, 2002). For example, work shows that when group members share the same sub-optimal
preference early on, they are less likely to critically evaluate and debate decision options, and reach
decisions of lower quality, than when group members have different, opposing preferences. Preference
heterogeneity is said to lead to better decision quality, in part because of greater conflict, debate, and
concomitant critical reflection (e.g., Brodbeck et al., 2002; Scholten, Van Knippenberg, Nijstad, & De
Dreu, 2007; for a review, see Schulz-Hardt, Mojzisch, & Vogelgesang, 2007).
Although this is exciting work, I have three concerns that are particularly relevant in the current
context. First, the above work refers to situations in which group members share the cooperative goal of
reaching a joint decision, thus limiting generalizability to situations in which group members have
vested interests in particular decision alternatives (Wittenbaum, Hollingshead, & Botero, 2004). As
with the literature on creativity and innovation, an important boundary condition appears the extent to
which group climate is typified by psychological safety, high levels of within-group trust, and so on.
Unfortunately, group members often have vested interests that interfere with an open-minded,
constructive debate (cf., Tjosvold, 1998) and it remains to be seen whether conclusions based on the
experimental literature on dissent and conflict in group decision-making comfortably generalize to
organizational settings.

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 29, 5–18 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/job
 CONFLICT HURTS MORE THAN IT HELPS 9

Second, the above work is limited to those situations in which (most) group members’ preferences
prior to decision-making are suboptimal and exchanging information during group decision-making
has the potential to help group members find the best solution (Schulz-Hardt, Brodbeck, Mojzisch,
Kerschreiter, & Frey, 2006). Put differently, if (most) group members a priori prefer the optimal
solution, or if information exchange cannot for some reason create change in member preferences,
group decision-making is unlikely to benefit from preference diversity and (open-minded) debate and
task-related conflict. Indeed, Schulz-Hardt and colleagues showed that when group members share,
a priori, a preference for the correct alternative they reach the correct solution in 100 percent of
the cases; when preference diversity existed, and conflict and debate emerged over different but
otherwise equally sub-optimal decision options, between 30 percent and 60 percent of the groups
reached the correct decision (which was still better that the 7 percent correct decisions made by groups
whose members shared the same preference for the sub-optimal alternative).
Third, and finally, the group decision-making literature is somewhat focused on situations in which
groups have to make a decision, and has not systematically examined the possibility that groups may
delay their decision making, or decide not to decide. An exception is a study by Nijstad and Kaps
(2006) who manipulated preference diversity so that group members either mildly or strongly opposed
each other’s decision preference. Groups were instructed to reach a decision but, in contrast to other
research in this area, were allowed to decide not to make a decision. Results showed that groups
experiencing strong preference opposition more often decided not to make a decision. In other words,
when groups experience conflict over decision preferences, they may be tempted not to make a
decision, rather than continuing their debate until they reach a high quality decision. And because most
groups in organizations have the possibility to delay, procrastinate, and postpone decision making, it
cannot be excluded that decision conflict more readily leads to costly delay than to beneficial decisions.
Taken together, workplace conflict may have some positive functions, but only under an exceedingly
limited set of circumstances. Among these are:
(1) Conflicts should be task-related;
(2) Conflicts should not (also) involve issues related to personality, identity, religious values, humor, or
political ideologies;
(3) (Task-) conflicts should be of moderate intensity;
(4) Most team members should prefer, a priori, suboptimal instead of optimal decision alternatives.
(5) Team climate should be high on psychological safety and within-group trust;
(6) Given (1–5), positive effects may emerge on, and are limited to innovation and decision quality.

Positive functions of conflict management: a methodological concern

In addition to the above work on task-related versus relationship-related conflict a strong and
long-lasting tradition of research has pondered the positive effects of conflict management. This
literature can be broken down in two roughly separate lines of inquiry, one dealing with the effects of
cooperative versus competitive goal interdependence on constructive controversy, and its effects at the
individual, group, and organizational level of analysis, and the other dealing with the consequences of
integrative negotiation on the quality of group-level agreement and, to some extent, individual-level
states.

Constructive controversy
Work on constructive controversy follows the Theory of Cooperation and Competition (Deutsch,
1973), and argues that when conflict parties perceive cooperative rather than competitive outcome
interdependence they are likely to engage in constructive controversy—they open-mindedly debate

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 29, 5–18 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/job
10 C. K. W. DE DREU

issues, try to learn and incorporate other perspectives, and exchange arguments and positions to mutual
benefit. The results of dozens of studies point to the positive consequences of constructive
controversy—compared to competitive goal interdependence, cooperative goal interdependence and
ensuing constructive controversy relates to learning, the development of deep understanding of the
issues under scrutiny, more effective and innovative teamwork, and stronger and more productive
inter-organizational and customer relationships (e.g., Tjosvold, Hui, Ding, & Hu, 2003; Tjosvold &
Tsao, 1989; for reviews, see Tjosvold, 1991, 1998).
Although I greatly value these findings, I wonder whether they demonstrate that workplace conflict
can be positive. Most, if not all of the work on constructive controversy examined the effects of
alternative ways of managing workplace conflict. What it does not speak to is what the immediate or
more distal consequences are of having versus not having workplace conflict. Work on constructive
controversy assumes, quite rightly so, that conflict exists and that it matters how it is managed.
However, from this work we cannot derive solid conclusions about the consequences of constructive
controversy compared to situations in which there was no workplace conflict to begin with. Recent
work by Schulz-Hardt et al. (2006) strongly suggests that constructive controversy helps to move away
from erroneous preferences, but does not move the group beyond those conflict-free situations in which
most team members prefer, a priori, the correct or optimal alternative. Thus, it cannot be excluded that
constructive controversy reduces the negative effects of workplace conflict, instead of boosting the
level of learning, innovation, team effectiveness, and customer relations over and beyond a
‘conflict-free’ situation. In experimental language, we lack the proper control condition to assess
whether constructive controversy actually benefits organizations, and their members, or mitigates the
negative consequences of workplace conflict.

Integrative negotiation
Whereas much of the work on constructive controversy is concerned with opposing insights and
understanding (‘debates’, per Rapoport, 1960) its core conclusions resonate well with studies on
integrative negotiation in resource conflicts (‘games’). Negotiation research can be used to understand
when and why people create specific exchanges and transactions, as between buyers and sellers or
between diplomats of neighboring countries. Alternatively, and of central interest here, we can look at
negotiation research to understand how people manage their workplace conflicts—instead of giving
each other the silent treatment, or bullying one’s counterpart into giving in, organizational citizens may
communicate about their seemingly opposed interests and seek agreements about what each shall give
and take. Seen this way, negotiation is close to what others refer to as problem solving or collaborating
(cf., Blake & Mouton, 1964; De Dreu, Evers, Beersma, Kluwer, & Nauta, 2001; Friedman, 1994;
Rahim & Magner, 1995; Van de Vliert & Kabanoff, 1990).
Starting with the classical work by Siegel and Fouraker (1960) and Walton and McKersie (1965),
numerous studies have uncovered the conditions under which individuals, or small groups, negotiate
agreements that benefit all and meet, to a large extent, the needs and aspirations of all involved. This
work has greatly illuminated our understanding of the cognitive errors and biases that prohibit
disputants from reaching integrative agreements and highlighted the role of pro-social versus selfish
motives in driving individuals toward mutually beneficial, integrative agreements (Carnevale & Pruitt,
1992). At the risk of oversimplifying this broad literature, it can be concluded that individuals negotiate
more integrative agreements when they adopt a pro-social rather than selfish motivation (cf.,
cooperative versus competitive goal interdependence) and, in addition, invest in deliberate and careful
processing of information (De Dreu, Beersma, Steinel, & Van Kleef, 2007).
Many have suggested that reaching integrative agreements benefits both the individual parties and
their collective. We are told that win-win agreements increase individual self-efficacy and satisfaction,
reduce the probability of future conflict, generate economic value, and produce harmony and social

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 29, 5–18 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/job
 CONFLICT HURTS MORE THAN IT HELPS 11

stability (e.g., De Dreu et al., 2000; O’Connor & Arnold, 2001; Rubin et al., 1994; Thompson &
Hrebec, 1996). While certainly true when considering transactions, it is unclear whether negotiation as
a means of managing workplace conflict lives up to this promise. Once again, I believe a proper control
condition is missing. Whereas we do know that integrative negotiations are preferable to win-lose
negotiations, or impasse, it remains to be seen whether the individuals, their collective, and the
organization at large, are better off when they manage their conflicts through integrative negotiation,
than when they had no conflict to begin with. Once again, we do not know whether, compared to a
no-conflict baseline, integrative negotiation in workplace conflict leads to positive outcomes such as
better team performance, greater satisfaction, and self-efficacy. It may well be that at best integrative
negotiation reduces negative outcomes of managing workplace conflict more than other, less
constructive ways of conflict management.
Summarizing the above points suggests that in many types of conflict, joint problem solving
(constructive controversy; integrative negotiation) often leads to better collective outcomes than other,
less cooperative forms of conflict management. The lack of proper baselines in which we compare
constructive conflict management to conflict-free situations prohibits the conclusion that constructive
conflict management leads to positive outcomes. It cannot be excluded that all it does is prevent or
reduce negative outcomes. At the very least, however, the above indicates a further boundary condition
on the emergence of positive functions:
(7) Mutual problem solving (constructive controversy, integrative negotiation) is a necessary but not
sufficient condition for workplace conflicts to have positive functions.

Hidden and not-so-hidden costs of workplace conflict

Thus far I have argued that although workplace conflict may have positive consequences for the
individuals, their collective, and the entire organization, these positive consequences come about only
under very specific circumstances—they probably are exception rather than the rule. In passing, I
alluded to some negative consequences workplace conflict may have. In this section, I highlight three
costs of conflict that tend to be ignored, or not valued as much as they perhaps should be.

Time-of-task
Although conflict and conflict management are an inherent part of organizational life, they are rarely
the ultimate goal of organizations, or their units. Instead, conflict emerges because interdependent
individuals and groups are performing their tasks and coordinating their activities, and conflicts are
managed, more or less constructively, to enable individuals and groups to return to, and continue
performing their tasks. Seen this way, workplace conflict is a hurdle to overcome. It is the collateral
damage of necessarily sub-optimal coordination and joint task performance that needs to be taken care of.
Overcoming obstacles and taking care of collateral damage requires time and money that cannot be
invested directly into task performance and joint coordination. In the Schulz-Hardt et al. (2006) study
on preference diversity and decision quality discussed earlier, dissent led to better decisions than
homogeneity, but discussion time was twice as long. Thus, the debate that resulted in better decisions
also took time that these groups could not invest in other activities. De Dreu, Giebels, and Van de Vliert
(1998) found that cooperative negotiators who reached highly integrative agreements took, on average,
30 percent longer than cooperative negotiators who settled on middle-of-the-road compromises. Again,

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 29, 5–18 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/job
12 C. K. W. DE DREU

the mutual problem solving that results in integrative, collectively beneficial agreements also took time
that these individuals could not invest in other activities.
Although it is clear that constructive conflict management takes time, it is difficult to estimate the
costs associated with time-off-tasks, and the business opportunities that may be missed due to the fact
that employees and their managers are experiencing and managing conflict rather than attending to
their customers. This notwithstanding, the time, money, and related sources of energy that go to conflict
and conflict management represent hidden costs organizational members often are unaware of, and
scholars rarely take into account when assessing the value of workplace conflict. Put differently:
(1) Workplace conflicts require time and other resources that cannot be used to perform concurrent
tasks, to attend to customers, and to pursue transitory business opportunities.

Someone is paying for it

Integrative agreements are those that are beneficial to all parties involved. At the group or organization
level, however, integrative agreements may occur at the expense of others involved. This idea is
well-captured in the concept of ‘parasitic integration’ (Gillespie & Bazerman, 1997), which occurs
whenever two or more negotiators reach an agreement that is ‘Pareto-superior’ for them, but imposes
cost on other stakeholders in the negotiations.2 Parasitic integration results in a Pareto improvement for
a subset of the negotiating parties, and its results are often described as integrative bargaining. Upon
closer inspection, however, such agreements seem to depend upon parasitic extraction of resources
from other parties, including managers, other departments within the organization, or customers buying
goods and services from the negotiating parties. Thus, to give an example, consider the conflict
between a large European pharmaceutical company Alpha and a company Beta operating a chain of
drugstores in East Asia, over Beta’s allegedly illegal selling of a product owned by Alpha. Rather than
suing Beta, Alpha hires a mediator who hammers out an integrative deal—Beta is allowed to continue
selling the product and thus secures a market Alpha has no access to, yet pays a relatively small royalty
to Alpha for selling the product. Both parties are well off: pharmaceutical Alpha has access to new
markets and distribution channels, and drugstore Beta sells interesting products for a relatively low
price. However, because of the royalty share now included in the pricing, customers in Beta’s stores are
paying a higher price compared to before the deal with Alpha was struck, Alpha faces new drugstores
pursuing similar aggressive and potentially illegal strategies that undermine Alpha’s future profitability,
Beta’s competitors face shrinking market share due to Beta’s competitive pricing, and so on.
Although there may be integrative agreements where new value is created, at times integrative
agreements may take the form of parasitic integration, and go at the expense of individuals or groups
within the same organization. When this happens, gains at the dyadic or small group level need to be
balanced against the costs incurred at other levels of analysis.
(2) Integrative agreements benefiting negotiating parties may take a parasitic form and go at the
expense of other players within, or even outside of the organization.
Health and well-being
Perhaps the most straightforward costs associated with workplace conflict are in terms of individual
health and well-being, and group and organization level stress. The meta-analysis of team conflict
mentioned earlier showed negative correlations between both task-related and relationship conflict on
the one hand, and team member satisfaction on the other (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003). From lowered
job satisfaction to stress, psychosomatic complaints and even feelings of burnout is a small step, as
2
Pareto-superior agreements are ones that involve reallocation of resources making at least one party better off without making
any other party worse off.

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 29, 5–18 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/job
 CONFLICT HURTS MORE THAN IT HELPS 13

several studies by Spector and colleagues have shown (Spector & Jex, 1998). In these studies, conflict
at work was measured with the Interpersonal Conflict at Work Scale, and individual well-being was
measured with a Physical Symptoms Inventory. The Interpersonal Conflict at Work Scale contains four
items including ‘how often do you get into arguments with others at work?’ and ‘how often do other
people do nasty things to you at work?’ The Physical Symptoms Inventory contains 18 items including
‘during the past 30 days did you have . . . ‘‘an upset stomach or nausea?’’’, ‘. . . trouble sleeping’,
‘. . . chest pain’, and ‘. . . headache’.
Spector and Jex (1998) summarize the findings of 13 samples involving over 3000 employees. Their
meta-analysis showed a moderate and positive correlation between conflict at work and psychosomatic
complaints. Other work confirmed positive and moderate correlations between conflict at work and
anxiety and frustration, between conflict at work and physical complaints, and between conflict at work
and the exhaustion dimension of burnout (e.g., Penny & Spector, 2005; for reviews see De Dreu, Van
Dierendonck, & Dijkstra, 2004; Spector & Bruk-Lee, in press).
The reader may argue that the negative health consequences workplace conflict brings about are
probably limited to relationship conflicts, or rather intense and ongoing conflicts in general. Perhaps
these health-related consequences are less strongly present, or perhaps even fully absent, when
individuals engage in problem solving, have constructive controversy, and negotiate integrative
agreements. Unfortunately, the few relevant studies I am aware of do not support such a hopeful view.
Granted, the conflict—psychosomatic complaints relationship is weaker for employees who manage
conflict pro-actively rather than passively (Dijkstra, Van Dierendonck, & Evers, 2005), and is absent for
employees who score high on agreeableness and extraversion, and low on neuroticism (Dijkstra, Van
Dierendonck, Evers, & De Dreu, 2005). But in none of these studies was there a hint of a reversal, in
that workplace conflict positively related to individual health and well-being.
It certainly is true that stress-related complaints and deteriorated health requires prolonged and
rather intense conflict, and it cannot be excluded that (task-related) conflict energizes and induces
positive moods like curiosity and excitement. But even small-scale conflicts that last a few hours
associate with arousal (e.g., Kamarck et al., 1998; Steigleder, Weiss, Balling, Wenninger, & Lombardo,
1980), undermine task-focus, and lead to narrow, black-and-white thinking (e.g., Carnevale & Probst,
1998; Fodor, 1985). In short:
(3) Conflict is stressful and relates to rigidity of thought, psychosomatic complaints, and feelings of
burnout;
(4) Predispositions and circumstances conducive to mutual problem solving in conflict reduce, but do
not reverse, the positive relationship between workplace conflict and stress-related complaints.

Some Conclusions and Recommendations

Conflict and organizations belong together, and within organizations conflict can have a multitude of
valuable and dysfunctional consequences, immediately or in the more distal future. In reflecting back
on his groundbreaking ASQ-article on organizational conflict published 25 years earlier, Pondy (1992)
notes that the traditional view of conflict as episodic but benign ‘has obviously appealed to many
people . . .. It is curious that the model has never . . . been rigorously tested . . .. I can only conclude that
people like the image of conflict as structured, benign, and episodic so much that they did not want to
risk having the model proved wrong by mere data’ (p. 259). My brief, slightly biased and certainly

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 29, 5–18 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/job
14 C. K. W. DE DREU

limited review of the literature, and the available evidence, shows that there is not such a thing as
‘positive conflict’—workplace conflict that produces primarily valued consequences. Furthermore, I
have highlighted the specific conditions under which workplace conflict does have some valued,
positive consequences and noted, quite pessimistically, that as our research progresses more and more
boundary conditions are identified—positive functions of conflict are found only under an exceedingly
limited set of circumstances. Finally, I highlighted several hidden, and not-so-hidden costs of conflict
that, unfortunately, appear to be rather general and applicable to a variety of workplace conflicts.
Throughout, I touched upon issues that may be taken into account when conducting new research on
the positive and negative functions of workplace conflict. First, I believe we need to continue
experimental work comparing conflict to no-conflict conditions. Only then shall we be able to conclude
whether mutual problem solving (constructive controversy, integrative negotiation) really benefits or,
as I cautiously conclude now, primarily serves to mitigate and perhaps neutralize the potentially
negative impact of workplace conflict. This is not an easy task, and providing a detailed outline of how
we may achieve this is beyond the scope of this essay. Useful entries into this endeavor may be the
variety of experimental group tasks in which the quality of group decisions (e.g., Brodbeck et al., 2002),
or group-level creativity (Nijstad & Stroebe, 2006) can be unequivocally established, and in which the
presence versus absence of conflict and dissent can be manipulated. This type of design would also
allow one to improve on past work by separating more clearly the emergence of conflict, and the way
conflicts are managed.
Second, I believe we need to conduct longitudinal studies, assessing not only the immediate, but also
the delayed, and more distal consequences of conflict at work. In the political sciences and
anthropology, there is a whole literature emerging on post-conflict settlement, and these works may
inspire scholars in organizational behavior to adopt a longer-term time horizon when studying effects
of workplace conflict, and dispute resolution.
Third, I believe we need more multi-level studies, where we assess how dispute resolution at one
level of analysis affects the emergence of workplace conflict, and conflict management, at other levels.
Such work may also illuminate the possibility, of which I gave several examples, that positive
consequences at one level backfire, and hurt, at another level. Finally, and related, is that future research
needs to assess multiple, co-occurring consequences of workplace conflict. It is difficult to strike a
balance between, for example, improved team performance and deteriorated job satisfaction. It is quite
doable, however, to assess and report both. Put differently, our understanding of workplace conflict, and
its consequences, will benefit considerably when future work not only considers one particular
outcome-parameter, such as team effectiveness or innovation, but assesses and reports multiple
indicators simultaneously (e.g., besides team effectiveness, also reports on psychosomatic complaints,
learning, turnover intentions, and so on).
Some have argued, quite persuasively, that because organizations consist of numerous pairs of
opposing tendencies (e.g., risk-taking versus risk-avoiding, creativity versus efficiency; autonomy
versus control; see e.g., Jaffee, 2007) active conflicts within these pairs and between their proponents
are needed to prevent that one of the polar extremes would gradually become dominant, reducing the
diversity of behavioral repertoires available to the organization, ultimately leading to reduced capacity
for organizational adaptation and survival. In this view conflict not only is functional, it is essential to
the organization’s very existence. In this view also, managers become ‘orchestrators’ of conflicts who
stage the right episodes of conflict, with the right conflicting parties, over the right issues, operating
under the right ground-rules (Pondy, 1992, p. 260). Obviously, this is an extremely difficult task for
most managers that heavily tax their interpersonal and cognitive skills.
Even when we accept that conflict is not only functional, but essential for organizational adaptation
and survival, we need to ask whether many of the positive consequences conflict may bring cannot be
achieved through different means than workplace conflict, that is, whether we need to stimulate conflict

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 29, 5–18 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/job
 CONFLICT HURTS MORE THAN IT HELPS 15

to further organizational survival, performance, and so on (cf., Van de Vliert & De Dreu, 1994). Can we
have creativity and innovation without conflict and without constructive controversy? Can we stimulate
learning without stimulating conflict and constructive negotiation? Can we improve team performance
and energize individuals without increasing conflict? In short, do organizations have alternatives to
workplace conflict to survive and prosper? I believe they often do and in many cases, alternative
strategies to arrive at these valuable outcomes come together with far less ‘collateral damage’ than
workplace conflicts do, and more often than not stimulating (constructive management of) workplace
conflict represents an unnecessary and potentially painful detour.
To conclude, I believe it is important to realize that workplace conflict is inherent to organizations
and, to a large extent, an autonomous process that is difficult to channel and control. Most of the time,
avoiding or preventing conflict it is not an option, but it is difficult to predict whether a latent conflict
develops into something productive, with positive consequences to the parties and their larger
collective, or into something that is increasingly painful, problematic, distracting, hurting, and
hindering coordination and performance. My conclusion at this point is that on the whole workplace
conflict is hindering rather than helping the individuals and groups involved, and that constructive
conflict management—constructive controversy and integrative negotiation—is critical to mitigate the
potentially very negative effects of workplace conflict on health and well-being, on individual and
group creativity and innovation, on team effectiveness, and on inter-organizational collaboration.
Granted, constructive conflict management takes time away from core business and may go at the
expense of uninvolved yet interdependent others, but these costs are minor compared to those brought
about by poorly managed workplace conflicts.

Acknowledgements

Preparation of this article was facilitated by Grant 410.21.010P of the Netherlands Organization for
Scientific Research (NWO) awarded to Carsten K.W. De Dreu. My thinking about this topic was
stimulated by Paul Spector’s generous invitation to write a positioning and provocative essay. This
article further benefited greatly from comments by Bianca Beersma, Bernard A. Nijstad, and Laurie R.
Weingart.

Author biography

Carsten K.W. De Dreu (PhD, 1993) is professor and chair of the organizational psychology program
at the University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands. He was president of the International Association for
Conflict Management and is scientific director of the Kurt Lewin Graduate School for social and
organizational psychology. His research interests center on the doctrine of self-interest in organiz-
ational behavior and on group processes and performance (including conflict and negotiation and
creativity and innovation). His research, which has been published in major journals in psychology and
organizational behavior, relies on a mixture of laboratory experiments, organizational field studies, and
meta-analytic reviews. He edited several books, including Using Conflict in Organizations (with Evert
van de Vliert; Sage, 1997), Group Consensus and Minority Influence (with Nanne de Vries; Blackwell,
2001), Methods of Negotiation Research (with Peter Carnevale, Martinus Nijhoff, 2006), and

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 29, 5–18 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/job
16 C. K. W. DE DREU

Psychology of Conflict and Conflict Management in Organizations (with Michele Gelfand; Lawrence
Erlbaum, 2007).

References

Amason, A. C. (1996). Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on strategic decision-
making: Resolving a paradox for top management groups. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 123–148.
Anderson, N. R., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Nijstad, B. A. (2004). The routinization of innovation research: A
constructively critical review of the state-of-the-science. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 147–174.
Beersma, B., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2005). Conflict’s consequences: Effects of social motives on postnegotiation
creative and convergent group functioning and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89,
358–374.
Blake, R., & Mouton, J. S. (1964). The managerial grid. Houston, TX: Gulf.
Brodbeck, F. C., Kerschreiter, R., Mojzisch, A., Frey, D., & Schulz-Hardt, S. (2002). The dissemination of critical,
unshared information in decision-making groups: The effects of pre-discussion dissent. European Journal of
Social Psychology, 32, 35–56.
Carnevale, P. J., & Probst, T. M. (1998). Social values and social conflict in creative problem solving and
categorization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1300–1309.
Carnevale, P. J. D., & Pruitt, D. G. (1992). Negotiation and mediation. Annual Review of Psychology, 43, 531–582.
De Dreu, C. K. W. (2006). When too much and too little hurts: Evidence for a curvilinear relationship between task
conflict and innovation in teams. Journal of Management, 32, 83–107.
De Dreu, C. K. W., Beersma, B., Steinel, W., & Van Kleef, G. A. (2007). The psychology of negotiation: Principles
and basic processes. In A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic
principles (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.
De Dreu, C. K. W., Evers, A., Beersma, B., Kluwer, E. S., & Nauta, A. (2001). A theory-based measure of conflict
management strategies in the workplace. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 645–668.
De Dreu, C. K. W., & Gelfand, M. J. (2007). Conflict in the workplace: Sources, dynamics, and functions across
multiple levels of analysis. In C. K. W. De Dreu, & M. J. Gelfand (Eds.), The psychology of conflict and conflict
management in organizations. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
De Dreu, C. K. W., Giebels, E., & Van de Vliert, E. (1998). Social motives and trust in integrative negotiation: The
disruptive effects of punitive capability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 408–422.
De Dreu, C. K. W., & Van de Vliert, E. (Eds.). (1997). Using conflict in organizations. London, UK: Sage.
De Dreu, C. K. W., Van Dierendonck, D., & Dijkstra, M. T. (2004). Looking back, looking ahead: Conflict at work
and individual health and well-being. International Journal of Conflict Management, 15, 1–18.
De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team member satisfaction, and team
effectiveness: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 741–749.
De Dreu, C. K. W., & West, M. A. (2001). Minority dissent and team innovation: The importance of participation in
decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1191–1201.
De Dreu, C. K. W., Weingart, L. R., & Kwon, S. (2000). Influence of social motives in integrative negotiation: A
Meta-analytic review and test of two theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 889–905.
Deutsch, M. (1973). The resolution of conflict: Constructive and destructive processes. New Haven: Yale
University Press.
Druckman, D. (1994). Determinants of compromising behavior in negotiation: A meta-analysis. Journal of
Conflict Resolution, 38, 507–556.
Dijkstra, M. T. M., Van Dierendonck, D., Evers, A., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2005). Conflict and wellbeing: The
moderating role of personality. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20, 87–104.
Dijkstra, M. T. M., Van Dierendonck, D., & Evers, A. (2005). Responding to conflict at work and individual
well-being: The mediating role of flight behaviour and feelings of helplessness. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 14, 119–135.
Fodor, E. M. (1985). The power motive, group conflict, and physiological arousal. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 49, 1408–1415.
Friedman, R. (1994). Front stage, backstage. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 29, 5–18 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/job
 CONFLICT HURTS MORE THAN IT HELPS 17

Hjertø, K. B. (2006). The relationship between intragroup conflict, group size, and work group effectiveness.
Unpublished dissertation, BI Norwegian School of Management, Oslo, Norway.
George, J. M., & Jones, G. R. (2005). Organizational behavior (3rd ed.). New York: Prentice Hall.
Gillespie, J. J., & Bazerman, M. H. (1997). Parasitic integration: Win-win agreements containing losers.
Negotiation Journal, 13, 271–282.
Janis, I. L., & Mann, L. (1977). Decision making: A psychological analysis of conflict, choice and commitment.
New York: Free Press.
Jaffee, D. (2007). Conflict at work throughout the history of organizations. In C. K. W. De Dreu, & M. J. Gelfand
(Eds.), The psychology of conflict and conflict management in organizations. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Janssen, O. (2003). Innovative behaviour and job involvement at the price of conflict and less satisfactory relations
with co-workers. Journal of Occupation and Organizational Psychology, 76, 347–364.
Jehn, K. (1994). Enhancing effectiveness: An investigation of advantages and disadvantages of value-based
intragroup conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management, 5, 223–238.
Jehn, K. (1995). A multi-method examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 40, 256–282.
Jehn, K., & Bendersky, C. (2003). Intragroup conflict in organizations: A contingency perspective on the
conflict-outcome relationship. In R. M. Kramer, & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior
(Vol. 25, pp. 187–242). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.
Kamarck, T. W., Shiffman, S. M., Smithline, L., Goodle, J. L., Paty, J. A., Gnys, M., et al. (1998). Effects of task
strain, social conflict, and emotional activation on ambulatory cardiovascular activity: Daily life consequences
of recurring stress in a multiethnic adult sample. Health Psychology, 17, 17–29.
Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J. (1969). Group problem solving. In G. Lindzey, & E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of
social psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 4). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Lovelace, K., Shapiro, D. L., & Weingart, L. R. (2001). Maximizing crossfunctional new product teams’
innovativeness and constraint adherence: A conflict information exchanges perspective. Academy of Manage-
ment Journal, 44, 779–783.
Nemeth, C. (1986). Differential contributions of majority and minority influence. Psychological Review, 93,
23–32.
Nijstad, B. A., & Kaps, S. (2006). Taking the easy way out: preference diversity and decision refusal in groups.
Unpublished manuscript, University of Amsterdam.
Nijstad, B. A., & Stroebe, W. (2006). How the group affects the mind: A cognitive model of idea generation in
groups. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 186–213.
O’Connor, K. M., & Arnold, J. A. (2001). Distributive spirals: Negotiation impasses and the moderating role of
disputant self-efficacy. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 84, 148–176.
O’Connor, K. M., Gruenfeld, D. H., & McGrath, J. E. (1993). The experience and effects of conflict in continuing
work groups. Small Group Research, 24, 362–382.
Penny, L. M., & Spector, P. E. (2005). Job stress, incivility, and counterproductive work behavior (CWB): The
moderating role of negative affectivity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 777–796.
Pondy, L. (1967). Organizational conflict: Concepts and models. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 296–
320.
Pondy, L. (1992). Reflections on organizational conflict. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 257–261.
Rahim, 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, 122–132.
Rapoport, A. (1960). Fights, games, and debates. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Rubin, J. Z., Pruitt, D. G., & Kim, S. H. (1994). Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate, and settlement. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Saunders, H. (1985). We need a larger theory of negotiation. Negotiation Journal, 3, 249–262.
Scholten, L., Van Knippenberg, D., Nijstad, B. A., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2007). Motivated information processing
and group decision making: Effects of process accountability and information dissemination. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 539–552.
Schulz-Hardt, S., Brodbeck, F. C., Mojzisch, A., Kerschreiter, R., & Frey, D. (2006). Group decision making in
hidden profile situations: Dissent as a facilitator for decision quality. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 91, 1080–1093.
Schulz-Hardt, S., Jochims, M., & Frey, D. (2002). Productive conflict in group decision making: Genuine and
contrived dissent to as strategies to counteract biased information seeking. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 88, 563–586.

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 29, 5–18 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/job
18 C. K. W. DE DREU

Schulz-Hardt, S., Mojzisch, A., & Vogelgesang, F. (in press). Dissent as a facilitator: Individual and group-level
effects on creativity and performance. In C. K. W. De Dreu, & M. J. Gelfand (Eds.), The psychology of conflict
and conflict management in organizations. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Siegel, A. E., & Fouraker, L. E. (1960). Bargaining and group decision making. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Simons, T. L., & Peterson, R. S. (2000). Task conflict and relationship conflict in top management teams: The
pivotal role of intragroup trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 102–111.
Steigleder, M. K., Weiss, R. E., Balling, S. S., Wenninger, V. L., & Lombardo, J. P. (1980). Drivelike motivational
properties of competitive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 93–104.
Spector, P. E., & Bruk-Lee, V. (2007). Conflict, health and well-being. In C. K. W. De Dreu, & M. J. Gelfand
(Eds.), The psychology of conflict and conflict management in organizations. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Spector, P. E., & Jex, S. M. (1998). Development of four self-report measures of job stressors and strain:
Interpersonal Conflict at Work Scale, Organizational Constraints Scale, Quantitative Workload Inventory, and
Physical Symptoms Inventory. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 3, 356–367.
Thomas, K. W. (1992). Conflict and negotiation processes in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette, & L. M. Hough
(Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 651–717). Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologists Press.
Thompson, L., & Hrebec, D. (1996). Lose-lose agreements in interdependent decision making. Psychological
Bulletin, 120, 396–409.
Tjosvold, D. (2007). Conflicts in the study of conflict in organizations. In C. K. W. De Dreu, & M. J. Gelfand
(Eds.), The psychology of conflict and conflict management in organizations. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Tjosvold, D. (1991). The conflict-positive organization. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Tjosvold, D. (1998). Cooperative and competitive goal approach to conflict: Accomplishments and challenges.
Applied Psychology: An International Review, 47, 285–342.
Tjosvold, D., & Tsao, Y. (1989). Productive organizational collaboration: The role of values and cooperative goals.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 10, 189–195.
Tjosvold, D., Hui, C., Ding, D. Z., & Hu, J. (2003). Conflict values and team relationships: Conflict’s contribution
to team effectiveness and citizenship in China. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 69–88.
Van de Vliert, E., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (1994). Optimizing performance by stimulating conflict. International
Journal of Conflict Management, 5, 211–222.
Van de Vliert, E., & Kabanoff, B. (1990). Toward theory-based measures of conflict management. Academy of
Management Journal, 33, 199–209.
Wall, J., & Callister, R. (1995). Conflict and its management. Journal of Management, 21, 515–558.
Walton, R. E., & McKersie, R. B. (1965). A behavioral theory of labor negotiations: An analysis of a social
interaction system. New York: McGraw Hill.
Wittenbaum, G. M., Hollingshead, A. B., & Botero, I. C. (2004). From cooperative to motivated information
sharing in groups: Moving beyond the hidden profile paradigm. Communication Monographs, 71, 286–310.

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 29, 5–18 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/job