How social interaction can prevent interpersonal conflict from inducing turnover intentions and diminishing championing behaviour
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this study is to draw from conservation of resources theory to examine how employees’ experience of resource-draining interpersonal conflict might diminish the likelihood that they engage in championing behaviour. Its specific focus is on the mediating effect of their motivation to leave the organization and the moderating effect of their peer-oriented social interaction in this connection. Design/methodology/approach The research hypotheses are empirically assessed with quantitative survey data gathered from 632 employees who work in a large Mexican-based pharmacy chain. The statistical analyses involved an application of the Process macro, which enabled concurrent estimations of the direct, mediating and moderating effects predicted by the proposed conceptual framework. Findings Emotion-based tensions in co-worker relationships decrease employees’ propensity to mobilize support for innovative ideas, because employees make plans to abandon their jobs. This mediating role of turnover intentions is mitigated when employees maintain close social relationships with their co-workers. Practical implications For organizational practitioners, this study identifies a core explanation (i.e. employees want to quit the company) for why frustrations with emotion-based quarrels can lead to a reluctance to promote novel ideas – ideas that otherwise could add to organizational effectiveness. It also highlights how this harmful process can be avoided if employees maintain good, informal relationships with their colleagues. Originality/value For organizational scholars, this study explicates why and when employees’ experience of interpersonal conflict translates into complacent work behaviours, in the form of tarnished idea championing. It also identifies informal peer relationships as critical contingency factors that disrupt this negative dynamic.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".