The impacts of leadership on workplace conflicts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the influence of managers' leadership styles (transformational, transactional and laissez‐faire ) on both the level and the nature of workplace conflicts (cognitive and relational in nature). Design/methodology/approach Data are collected from hospital employees in Canada. A total of 1,031 completed questionnaires are received, representing a response rate of 46 percent. The hypothesis is tested using confirmatory factor analyses and multiple regressions. Findings The results indicate that the two conflict dimensions do not derive completely from the same mechanisms, since only two out of the eight leadership dimensions evaluated influence both cognitive and relational conflicts. On the one hand, inspirational motivation has a negative impact on cognitive conflicts while intellectual stimulation and passive management by exception seem to foster it. On the other hand, inspirational motivation and individualized consideration negatively influence relational conflicts whereas management by exception‐active and management by exception‐passive impact it positively. Research limitations/implications The sample comprises a single organization and the data are collected at one point in time. Also, the model's variables are assessed by the same source (employees). Practical implications The results of this research highlight the importance of a supervisor's ability to introduce a common vision and demonstrate individualized consideration to reduce workplace conflict during periods of organizational change. Originality/value Although researchers stress that conflict management represents an important role for leaders, very few empirical studies have examined how leadership influences workplace conflicts.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".