Interpersonal Conflict and Its Management in Information System Development1
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
Researchers from a wide range of management areas agree that conflicts are an important part of organizational life and that their study is important. Yet, interpersonal conflict is a neglected topic in information system development (ISD). Based on definitional properties of interpersonal conflict identified in the management and organizational behavior literatures, this paper tests a model of how individuals participating in ISD projects perceive interpersonal conflict and examines the relationships between interpersonal conflict, management of the conflict, and ISD outcomes. Questionnaire data was obtained from 265 IS staff and 272 users working on 162 ISD projects. Results indicated that the construct of interpersonal conflict was reflected by three key dimensions: disagreement, interference, and negative emotion. While conflict management was found to have positive effects on ISD outcomes, it did not substantially mitigate the negative effects of interpersonal conflict on these outcomes. In other words, the impact of interpersonal conflict was perceived to be negative, regardless of how it was managed or resolved.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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