Improving employees' job satisfaction and innovation performance using conflict management
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The major aim of this study is to explore the mechanism through which conflict management behavior impacts job satisfaction and innovation performance, and to verify this relationship with the empirical analysis in the context of China. Design/methodology/approach A model of the relationship among conflict management behavior, job satisfaction and innovation performance was developed and empirically tested. Based on a survey composed of 333 questionnaires designed for Chinese employees, the authors examine the effects of conflict management behavior on job satisfaction and innovation performance in Chinese contexts. Findings Results show that integrating and compromising conflict management behaviors are positively related to job satisfaction; integrating conflict management behavior is positively related to innovation performance; and avoiding conflict management behavior is negatively related to innovation performance. Research limitations/implications This study does not take the industry differences into consideration, though how to maintain job satisfaction and promote innovation might differ from one industry to another. This study only studied on the personal level, therefore future studies can be extended to the team level. Originality/value This paper offers some useful suggestions for business managers as well as employees to improve employees' job satisfaction and innovation performance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it