How age similarity preference,uncertainty,and workplace challenges affect conflict

Abstract

In this article, we propose that age similarity preference (ASP) among employees increases workplace difficulties in an age-diverse environment. Individuals use social categorizations such as age groupings to help minimize uncertainty, cope with change, and deal with complexity. When placed in an age-diverse work environment, intergroup comparisons regarding age become more salient. We suggest that when a preference exists among employees to work and interact with those similar in age to themselves in an age-diverse workplace, this will lead to an increase in uncertainty, perceived workplace challenges, and subsequently conflict. Data were collected from 262 employees of an organization in the US Midwest to test our hypotheses. Using multiple mediation modeling, our results suggest that ASP influences the degree of conflict reported, and that uncertainty and perceived work-related challenges mediate the relationship between ASP and conflict. A post-hoc ANOVA analysis of our data also showed a significant relationship between employee age and ASP, indicating that this preference was more likely to be reported by individuals younger in age.

Keywords

age diversity age similarity communication conflict − interpersonal work challenges

Workplaces are evolving and one noticeable change concerns workforce aging. While diversity in age has always been present in the US workforce to some extent, it is widely acknowledged that age diversity is becoming increasingly prevalent (Jehn et al., 1999). A 2008 report by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics predicts the number of US workers in the 55−64 years age range will be more than 35 percent greater in 2016 as compared with 2006 and forecasts an 80 percent increase in workers age 65 and up. Historically, managers were older than the people they led and became managers by virtue of seniority and tenure with an organization. The assumption was that older, more experienced workers would coach, train, and mentor younger workers who joined organizations in entry level positions of lower status and advanced through organizational hierarchies over time. However, technological innovations, demographic changes, and educational advances have increased opportunities for younger employees. As a result, the nature of employee interactions is changing, often occurring without the traditional constraints of “position and protocol” (Weston, 2001: 19).

In contemporary workplace environments, employees often work alongside coworkers who may, or may not, be of similar age to them; there are now four generations working simultaneously in the US workforce. Furthermore, as organizations increasingly engage in cross-functional collaboration, lateral and vertical communication, and team-oriented work, the need for employee interaction in a multitude of settings increases. The result is a greater likelihood that employees will be expected to interact and work with employees who are younger/older than they are.

Individuals form opinions regarding age-diverse interactions; people will vary on the extent to which they like (or dislike) interacting and working with those different from them in age. This raises the following research question: to what extent does a preference to work with others of a similar age create the potential for issues related to workplace perceptions and workplace outcomes? This article strives to answer this question. Specifically, we explore whether age similarity preference (ASP) is associated with a greater degree of perceived work-related challenges and increased uncertainty, and how this preference may affect relational outcomes – specifically, perceived workplace conflict.

Through this article, we wish to contribute to existing research in two key ways: first, to investigate whether there is a direct effect between ASP and employee perceptions of conflict in the workplace; and second, to explore possible indirect effects on the relationship between ASP and conflict. Past researchers (e.g. Liao et al., 2004) have called for further examination of constructs that may serve as possible mediators/moderators among the types of socially-based relationships studied by management researchers. Here, we consider both uncertainty and workplace challenges as potential mediators of the relationship between ASP and conflict.

To accomplish these goals, we first provide a description of the focal variable, ASP, and present an illustration of a general, conceptual model of ASP’s influence in the workplace. Next, we define the other study variables of interest, present our theoretical reasoning for the relationships between these variables and ASP, and offer hypotheses derived from this reasoning. We then describe our methods and results, and conclude with a discussion of the article’s implications, limitations, and avenues for future research.

Age similarity preference

We use the term age similarity preference (ASP) to describe whether or not a person prefers to work with others of their own age. In other words, to what extent does an individual prefer to engage in age-diverse interactions in the course of performing their job? Although there is past research on age and age diversity in the workforce, there is little evidence of work that examines explicitly whether such a preference exists and what the implications of such a preference might be in a workplace environment. One exception is a study conducted by Avery et al. (2007), which examined the relationship between perceived employee−coworker age similarity and levels of engagement. Their study revealed that perceptions of coworker engagement and dedication in the workplace were age-related and problematic, if negative, in terms of communication and collaborative tendencies.

As such, we look to past research to further explain why someone might have such a preference. Possible answers lie in relational demography and in theories such as similarity-attraction, self-categorization, and social identity theory. Relational demography holds that individuals compare their own surface-level, demographic characteristics with those of their colleagues and that a perceived similarity enhances work-related attitudes and behavior (Hogg and Terry, 2000; McGuire et al., 2007). In particular, people note differences (or lack of differences) that are particularly evident in their environment (such as an age-diverse work context or a males-only social club). Individuals classify themselves and others into groups using dimensions that are meaningful and salient to them (Avery et al., 2007), and these groupings are described in self-categorization theory as powerful determinants of social behavior (Demoulin and Teixeira, 2010). One of the most noticeable demographic characteristics is age, making apparent age homogeneity or heterogeneity among individuals easy to detect. In fact, “age cohorts” is one of the social categorizations specifically identified in seminal social identity literature (Ashforth and Mael, 1989; Tajfel and Turner, 1985).

According to social identity and self-categorization theories, one way in which people cognitively minimize uncertainty in the midst of evolving interactions with others is through intergroup social comparisons. Comparisons are used to confirm those individuals who are similar (or dissimilar) to oneself and to define in-group, out-group categorizations between oneself and those with whom the person is interacting (Ashforth and Mael, 1989; Hogg and Terry, 2000). Such groupings allow individuals to make attributions about coworkers, their values, and their attitudes. Those whom an individual identifies as “similar” are assumed to hold similar values and attitudes, whereas those deemed “dissimilar” are expected to hold beliefs and values different from that individual (Avery et al., 2007; Tajfel and Turner, 1985). Social identity theory would suggest that, when interacting with others, particularly those who might have a stake in the same resources and outcomes as the individual, an out-group comparison will result in a greater likelihood of negative stereotyping and selective recall that emphasizes differences rather than similarities on other dimensions (Ashforth and Mael, 1989; Tajfel and Turner, 1985). Given this, we assert that such an ASP is possible. Furthermore, we expect that ASP is likely to have both direct effects and indirect effects on the conflict that employees perceive in the workplace.

Hypothesis development

Figure 1 presents a general conceptual model identifying proposed relationships among the study variables. Our first hypothesis concerns the proposed direct effect of ASP on conflict.

Figure 1.

Conceptual model.

Conflict

Conflict is a social process involving multiple parties, which begins when one party perceives that another has negatively affected (or is about to negatively affect) something that he or she cares about (Thomas, 1992: 653). According to conflict researchers, conflict can emerge in a variety of forms (Pearson et al., 2002). Three such forms include process conflict, task conflict, and relationship conflict. Process conflict involves disagreements about task process (rather than task content). This may include selecting a course of action or determining the allocation of resources and the timing of their distribution (Jehn, 1995, 1997). Jehn et al. (1999) refer to task conflict as disagreements “about what to do” (p. 743), or the actual nature or elements that make up the task. Finally, relationship conflict (also referred to as “affective conflict”) concerns disputes of an emotional nature involving personal and interpersonal components (Jehn, 1992; Pearson et al., 2002). For the purposes of this article, we consider all of the forms of conflict together as one aggregated measure of “conflict.”

The prevailing view among conflict researchers is that conflict outcomes may be either functional (and beneficial) or dysfunctional (and detrimental) to organizations and teams (Van de Vliert et al., 1997). It should be noted that the focus of this article is not whether the conflict reported is functional or dysfunctional – rather it is the degree to which conflict in and of itself is reported by participants and to what extent this is related to or influenced by ASP.

ASP and conflict

We suggest that as ASP increases among a group of people, reported conflict of various types will also increase. Past research stipulates that when differences are perceived by participants in a group, the likelihood of conflict increases as people become aware and more sensitive to dissimilarities in others (e.g. Chatman and Flynn, 2001; Jehn et al., 1999). Given the evolution of the workplace environment and its emphasis on communication and teamwork, there is an increased need for employee interaction in a multitude of settings. This increases the opportunity for “evaluative intergroup comparisons,” which social identity theory specifies will heighten the salience of differences and enhance their effect (Ashforth and Mael, 1989; Brown, 2000; Tajfel and Turner, 1985). Similarly, diversity research promotes the idea that noticeable differences among individuals may provoke social categorization processes (e.g. stereotypic perceptions of dissimilar others and intergroup biases) that can decrease effective functioning and negatively influence relational and affective outcomes like conflict (Earley and Mosakowski, 2000; van Knippenberg and Schippers, 2007). Some studies provide evidence of negative relationships between diversity and team cooperation or social integration (Chatman and Flynn, 2001). Other studies point to positive associations between diversity and conflict, with specific references made to individual demographic differences (Jehn et al., 1999; Pelled et al., 1999) that are consistent with ideas put forth in social categorization theory (van Knippenberg and Schippers, 2007: 526).

Related to age specifically, DeArmond et al. (2006) found that age-related perceptions form more frequently when people have limited contact with members outside their age group. In this type of situation, members of the out-group were found to be viewed more homogeneously (and generally more negatively) than in-group members. Furthermore, the findings of Korndat and Rothermund (2011) suggest that personal experience can be the basis of judgment during interactions with older individuals which leads to a strengthening of negative age stereotypes.

Given these findings, we expect that when age dissimilarity is perceived an employee’s attention to age-related differences may be heightened, leading to an increased chance of conflict (Chattopadhyay et al., 2004). In short, when dissimilarity (or diversity) is noted, conflict tends to follow.

Another explanation for why ASP is related positively to conflict lies in value similarity judgments and the resultant behavior borne out of these judgments. Social identity research indicates that judgments on value similarities and differences may be based on personal differences such as age categorization and, as such, out-group salience with regard to age may be heightened in individuals expressing ASP (Ashforth and Mael, 1989). When values similarity is exhibited among members, research shows that this will influence the amount of conflict exhibited in groups negatively (Pelled, 1996). As individuals build social categorizations about themselves and others with whom they interact, these categorizations tend to produce more favorable attitudes toward others viewed as similar. This can lead to an increase in a person’s willingness to trust and cooperate with those viewed as being part of that person’s in-group (van Knippenberg and Schippers, 2007). Group members who share values are more likely to agree on goals, approaches, and group actions. Ideas from the similarity−attraction paradigm suggest that when one encounters a person who thinks, feels, or values the same things as she/he does, it is easier to understand the other person and develop a liking for her/him (Byrne, 1971; Jehn et al., 1999). In contrast, when a person perceives someone as demonstrating views or values incompatible with her/his own, this may be perceived as a challenge or threat, as they imply that one’s interpretation is wrong (Nass and Yen, 2010). For instance, prior studies have found that people with dissimilar experiences, beliefs, and values can have difficulties in communication and diminished social integration (Van der Vegt, 2002; Wiersema and Bantel, 1992). Others have pointed to a relationship between shared identity and/or a sense of similar context and conflict, such that conflict is lower in those situations (Hinds and Bailey, 2003; Hinds and Mortensen, 2005).

When employees experience value similarity with those perceived as part of their in-group (like age-similar cohorts) this confirms the “correctness” of their approaches and, because of this, those employees will tend to choose activities congruent with the in-group and incongruent with those of the out-group (Ashforth and Mael, 1989; Nass and Yen, 2010). This reduces the likelihood of interactions involving different approaches or perspectives (this may be particularly pertinent as it relates to methods of communication, to uncertainty, and to workplace challenges). This also increases the chance for conflict with the out-group (Krauss and Morsella, 2000).

Hypothesis 1: There will be a significant, positive relationship between age similarity preference and conflict.

Mediating influences: Uncertainty

Uncertainty

Uncertainty refers to the extent to which variability exists within a specific context and the degree to which one is able to predict that variability (Scott, 1990). One of the more popular interpretations of uncertainty comes from Lawrence and Lorsch, who described the construct as consisting primarily of three components: (a) lack of clarity in information; (b) long time spans of waiting before receiving definitive feedback; and (c) general uncertainty of causal relationships (Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967: 27). In the context of work, uncertainty has been studied in terms of the extent to which the work environment is predictable, stable, and structured (Champoux, 2011). Certainty of one’s environment, therefore, is related in part to the predictability, stability, and clarity of the interactions one has with others.

ASP, uncertainty, and conflict

One mediating construct of interest in this article is the uncertainty experienced by employees. We hypothesize that the presence of ASP among participants increases the level of uncertainty experienced by these individuals, and that this increase in uncertainty will subsequently exacerbate the level of conflict.

In terms of the predictor variable ASP’s effect on uncertainty, we did not find previous research that outlines this relationship explicitly. That said, we could consider how ASP may affect uncertainty experienced using the dimensions of uncertainty outlined earlier and related to extant theory. These uncertainty dimensions (in particular, a lack of clarity and delay in receiving information or feedback) reflect issues with communication effectiveness. As described earlier in our discussion of Hypothesis 1, when an individual’s communication and behavior is influenced by preferences, attributions, or value judgments based on in/out-group categorizations, this tends to decrease the frequency and efficacy of interactions with others. If an employee prefers age similarity in their cohorts and allows in/out-group distinctions to dictate their behavior, level of trust, and so forth, this ASP will affect the amount and quality of the information they receive and process negatively, thus increasing their uncertainty.

Along similar lines, we expect that if ASP is present in individuals, salient differences will influence the way they interpret the actions and information of others based on the particular categorization of similarity and difference. Social identity theory suggests that one way individuals attempt to minimize uncertainty is by “partitioning their colleagues on the basis of relative similarity to themselves” (Hinds and Mortensen, 2005), which is characteristic of ASP. People from one’s own in-group are often perceived as known commodities (because it is assumed that they possess similar beliefs), whereas out-groups, which are more likely to have different background experiences, may raise uncertainties about how workplace interactions will evolve. If a person expresses ASP and must work in an age-diverse environment, this preference will increase that person’s uncertainty during the resultant interactions.

As a mediating relationship, ASP will influence conflict (at least partially) through its effect on uncertainty, which subsequently influences conflict as well. The positive relationship between uncertainty and conflict is documented in the conflict literature. As such research describes, uncertainty leads to greater conflict because of less accurate decision-making (Leifer and Delbecq, 1978) and because of rises in anxiety and heightened emotional responses (Standifer, 2004: 45−46). First, uncertain individuals fall back on preconceived notions, categorizations, and cognitive “short-cuts” in an effort to better understand causal relationships (e.g. cause and effect, how people/processes connect and relate) (Bazerman, 1983; Eisenhardt and Zbaracki, 1992). Such simplifications can easily lead to misunderstandings and errors, as people rely more on impressions and inferences than on objective information – labeled “uncertainty absorption” by March and Simon (1958). The result of these misunderstandings and poor decision-making is often conflict (Putnam and Poole, 1987). Second, prior research has found a negative relationship between “attributional confidence” (the inverse of uncertainty) and anxiety in line with anxiety/uncertainty management theory (Gudykunst and Nishida, 2001). An uncertain person is more likely to exhibit more anxiety, less patience, and higher emotional volatility, all of which can have an intervening effect between ASP and conflict, thus heightening the effect (Standifer and Wall, 2010). For these reasons, we hypothesize that a causal chain is created in which the presence of ASP increases uncertainty and subsequently increases conflict directly and indirectly through uncertainty.

Hypothesis 2: There will be a significant, positive relationship between ASP and perceived uncertainty, such that ASP will have an indirect effect on conflict through perceived uncertainty.

Mediating influences: Workplace challenges

Workplace challenges

Workplace challenges are aspects of a job that are perceived by individuals as causing issues or problems experienced in day-to-day work. Such challenges come in a variety of forms; previous studies have explored workplace challenges such as the pace of work, the nature and frequency of feedback with coworkers and management, and the degree of involvement an employee is allowed (Martin, 2005; Myers and Sadaghiani, 2010). A review of past research demonstrates an assortment of work-related challenges for employees (e.g. Ansoorian et al., 2003; Fogg, 2009; Myers and Sadaghiani, 2010; Twenge, 2010). Related to the concept of ASP, past research supports the idea of a relationship between workplace challenges and worker needs and concerns related to age (Avery et al., 2007; DeArmond et al., 2006; Deal et al., 2010). A synthesis of the extant literature reveals six primary categories of work-related challenges pertinent to an age-diverse workforce: (a) keeping up with technology; (b) the pace of work; (c) balancing the demands of work/life; (d) dealing with management; (e) dealing with coworkers; and (f) lack of involvement.

ASP, workplace challenges, and conflict

We propose perceived workplace challenges as another mediator of the relationship between ASP and conflict. Specifically, we hypothesize that ASP increases the extent to which individuals perceive themselves as having work-related challenges when placed in an age-diverse context. Subsequently, the perception of challenges in their work will increase the likelihood of conflict with cohorts.

It is important to note that our review of the extant literature revealed some research examining how age-based preferences and evaluative intergroup comparisons influence the degree to which employees perceive challenges to their work (e.g. Avery et al., 2007; DeArmond et al., 2006; Korndat and Rothermund, 2011). Research and theory more broadly defined is useful as well. Feelings of a common identity (or a sense of similarity) among cohorts incline individuals toward more trust and loyalty (and thereby, a more collaborative attitude) during interactions (Brewer and Miller, 1996). If an individual believes that his/her cohorts share common values and perspectives about things like communication, technology, how work is paced, and so forth, it is reasonable to expect less perceived challenges with regard to these factors. When group members perceive that they share values about things like technology, communication, and work pace, they are more likely to agree on goals, approaches, and group actions. Consequently, we would expect fewer workplace challenges in this situation.

In contrast, when people lack a shared identity with cohorts, they are more likely to evaluate the situation (and particularly their cohorts’ actions) as challenging or problematic (Hinds and Mortensen, 2005; Hogg and Terry, 2000). More workplace challenges are likely to arise in an age-diverse setting, where the surface characteristic of age may raise questions about value congruence (particularly for those expressing ASP). Hence, ASP may reasonably be expected to influence perception of workplace challenges.

Furthermore, these challenges are expected to act as a mediating variable to conflict, acting as a likely precursor to higher levels of perceived conflict. When work-related challenges are perceived as issues or problems (which they often are), these challenges can create a competitive (vs cooperative) mindset which conflict research has shown increases the chances of conflict (Hinds and Mortensen, 2005; Jehn et al., 1999). Conflict is contextual in nature. The characteristics of the task, the culture, and distribution of resources can directly influence conflict levels, as can challenges perceived to be related to these characteristics (Robey, 1984; Thomas, 1992). The sorts of work-related challenges delineated in the extant literature (e.g. the use of, and advancement of, technology in communication, a sense of decreased involvement, an increased pace of work, or trying interactions with managers and coworkers) all speak to these characteristics. If the person perceives the context as problematic, or considers work-related challenges as arising from situational factors, the likelihood of conflict increases because of the individual’s increased propensity to adopt a competitive approach.

Again, as a causal chain of events, we predict that the presence of ASP increases the likelihood of perceived workplace challenges, and indirectly through these challenges increases conflict. Prior research supports this prediction. For example, in organizations with 500 or more employees, 58 per cent of human resource management professionals reported conflict between younger and older workers owing to workplace challenges (Burke and Ng, 2006; Cogin, 2012: 2268). If coworkers perceive dissimilarity and a lack of shared perspective, they are more likely to perceive challenges and to attribute challenges to dissimilar cohorts, thereby promoting an adversarial and conflict-prone perspective (e.g. Pelled, 1996; Van der Vegt, 2002).

Hypothesis 3: There will be a significant, positive relationship between ASP and the extent to which workplace challenges are perceived, such that ASP will have an indirect effect on conflict through these perceived challenges.

Taken in their entirety, our three hypotheses suggest both direct and indirect effects of ASP to perceived conflict, with a mediating effect exhibited by both perceived uncertainty and perceived workplace challenges. Thus, we are proposing a partially mediated effect by these two intervening variables, rather than a fully mediated effect.

Method

Participants and procedure

To test the above hypotheses, we gathered data from an organization in the Midwest of the US. From an employee pool of 466, we collected responses from a total of 262 employees − a response rate of just over 56 per cent. The organization from which data were collected was identified through past relationships with the researchers and through their association with the researchers’ affiliated university. The organization was in the financial industry sector.

Our subjects ranged in age from 17 to 65 years. An examination of age frequencies indicated that 36 per cent of subjects ranged between the ages of 17 and 32 (a 15-year age span), 32 per cent of subjects ranged between the ages of 33 and 48 (a 15-year age span), and 32 per cent of subjects were age 49 or older (a 16-year age span). Given this age dispersion, we concluded that the work environment of this organization could reasonably be considered “age-diverse” for the purposes of this article. We also noted the percentage of subjects who indicated an ASP and the percentage of those that did not. Our data show that 26 per cent of the subjects indicated such a preference, whereas 74 per cent of subjects did not.

Eighty-four per cent of participants were female. In terms of education, 4 per cent reported having a graduate degree, 30 per cent reported having a bachelor’s degree, 19 per cent reported having a two-year associate’s degree, 30 per cent reported having attended “some college,” and 17 per cent reported having completed high school. With regard to race, the majority of subjects identified themselves as Caucasian (97 per cent). A subsequent analysis revealed no significant relationships between education or gender and any other major construct measured. In addition, there was a significant lack of variance with regard to race. As such, education, gender, and race were removed from consideration as control variables in subsequent analyses.

Participants in the study represented a wide range of positions and levels within the organization. No constraints were placed upon employee involvement; efforts were made by the researchers to obtain data from as wide a sample of employees as possible. Employee titles may not be divulged for reasons of confidentiality; however, employee job positions at all levels of the organization were represented, from frontline employees to the CEO. Data were collected through an online survey. Completion of the survey took approximately 20 to 30 minutes. See below for a description of measures included.

Measures

Preference of age similarity

Subjects were asked to agree or disagree with the statement, “I prefer working with people my own age.” What constituted a similar age was left to the discretion and interpretation of the subject; given that our study focused on perceptions, we felt this was appropriate. “Agree” responses were coded “2” and “disagree” responses were coded “1.”

Uncertainty

For this measure, subjects used a 6-point Likert scale with the anchors “never” to “always” to rate six statements based upon previous measures of uncertainty (Duncan, 1972; Hinings et al., 1974; Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967). A sample item from this measure reads, “Lack of clarity in the information I receive from others causes uncertainty for me.” Cronbach’s alpha for this measure was .91.

Perceived challenges at work

This measure was created by the authors after a review of literature about what constitutes a “challenge” in the workplace, as well as what specific age-related differences in attitudes and expectations were relevant to organizational contexts. Based on this review, the authors codified six distinct categories and developed a statement for each category for subjects to rate. The six categories tested include: (a) keeping up with technology (e.g. Deal et al., 2010; Kupperschmidt, 2000; Myers and Sadaghiani, 2010); (b) the pace of work (e.g. Twenge and Campbell, 2008); (c) balancing the demands of work/life (e.g. Myers and Sadaghiani, 2010; Reynolds et al., 2008); (d) dealing with management (e.g. Crumpacker and Crumpacker, 2007; Fogg, 2009); (e) dealing with coworkers (e.g. Martin, 2005; Twenge, 2010); and (f) lack of involvement (e.g. Lancaster and Stillman, 2005; Twenge and Campbell, 2008). For the measure itself, subjects used a 6-point Likert scale with the anchors “never” to “always” to rate their perception of each of the six challenges with the prompting statement “I experience challenges in the workplace related to.” The score was aggregated across the six responses. Again, the objective level and nature of the challenges were not the focus; the purpose was to measure perceptions, so it was left to the subjects to denote the nature and degree to which they felt challenges were present. Cronbach’s alpha for this measure was .77.

Conflict

To measure process, task, and relationship conflict, an 11-item, 5-point Likert scale with the anchors “none” to “a lot” developed by Jehn (1995) and Shah and Jehn (1993) was used and their Cronbach alphas are presented here (α = .85, .90, .92, respectively). This measure indicates the frequency with which process, task, or relationship-oriented conflict occurs, with four items each related to relationship and task conflict and three items related to process conflict. Sample items for this measure include: “How often do members of your work unit disagree about who should do what?” (process conflict); “How often do people in your work unit disagree about opinions regarding the work being done?” (task conflict); and “How much friction is there among members in your work unit?” (relationship conflict).

Results

The correlations, means, and standard deviations for continuous variables are presented in Table 1. It should be noted that ASP, as it is measured, is a categorical, dichotomous variable and is therefore not included in this matrix.

Table 1.

Descriptives and correlations of continuous variables.

	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5
1 Age	40.67	12.59
2 Uncertainty	2.09	.824	−.05
3 Challenges	2.10	.728	.15*	.57**
4 Process conflict	1.98	.828	−.08	.63**	.46**
5 Task conflict	2.06	.809	−.05	.62**	.48**	.88**
6 Relationship conflict	2.06	.898	−.03	.63**	.51**	.85**	.86**

N= 262.

p < .05.

p < .001.

Testing for multicollinearity was performed among all independent variables. Collinearity diagnostics were run in SPSS to obtain variance inflation factor (VIF) values for each possible iteration. The threshold for acceptable VIF values is 3 or lower (5 or higher is indicative of definite multicollinearity issues – values between 3 and 5 are indicative of moderate issues) (Montgomery and Peck, 1982). Our VIF values among independent variables ranged from 1.02 to 1.49. Collinearity testing was also performed among the three types of conflict. The VIF values here ranged from 3.49 to 4.51 among the three conflict types, indicating moderate levels of multicollinearity. Subsequently, we noted the bi-variate correlations among the three types of conflict, which clearly indicated the interrelatedness of these three constructs (see Table 1). Although process, task, and relationship conflict may be considered distinct constructs, there is acknowledged association among the three types (Jehn, 1997; Jehn and Mannix, 2001). Given this prior acknowledgement and our interrelated results, we created a composite measure of “conflict”, which incorporated all three types into one dependent variable.

To test our hypotheses, we used a macro developed for SPSS by Preacher and Hayes (2008) to test a Multiple-Step Multiple Mediator Model. This macro provides inferential statistics for testing the direct effect of the predictor variable (ASP) on the outcome variable (in this case, conflict), as well as the two indirect, mediating effects of uncertainty and workplace challenges. Traditional methods for testing mediation include the causal steps strategy (e.g. Baron and Kenny, 1986), which estimates the paths of the model using regression or standard error of the mean (SEM) to assess the extent to which specific criteria are met (Preacher and Hayes, 2008: 880; Shaver, 2005) or a product-of-coefficients approach known as the Sobel test (e.g. Sobel, 1982). However, both methods have drawn criticism from methodologists, related to problems with the correlation of error terms and the fact that a normal distribution is rarely achieved without large samples (Hayes, 2009; Preacher and Hayes, 2008; Shaver, 1998, 2005). To address these issues, it is recommended that researchers employ analytic procedures that take these issues into account and respect the non-normality of the sampling distribution of indirect effects (Hayes and Preacher, 2012; Shaver, 2005).

In the macro for the Multiple-Step Multiple Mediator Model, one indirect effect progresses through the first mediator (designated ‘M1’) and the second progresses only through the second mediator (designated ‘M2’), before ending at the outcome variable (Y). Figure 2 illustrates both the direct and indirect paths of the multiple mediator model. The standard errors for indirect effects and the contrasts produced do not assume zero correlation between the errors in estimation of the proposed mediators. There are several benefits to specifying and testing a single mediation model rather than conducting a series of single mediator models: (a) it allows the investigator to test the total indirect effect of X on Y; (b) it determines the extent of the mediating effect by making each specific mediating variable conditional on the presence of other mediators in the model; and (c) it reduces the likelihood of parameter bias due to omitted variables or “unmeasured effects” (James and Brett, 1984; Preacher and Hayes, 2008: 881). For a detailed explanation of this analytical procedure and its advantages, see Preacher and Hayes (2004, 2008) and Hayes (2009).

Figure 2.

Representation of results for multiple mediator model testing the effect of ASP on conflict with uncertainty and workplace challenges as mediators.

For our purposes, we evaluated the direct and indirect effects of ASP (X) on conflict (Y), with uncertainty (M1) and workplace challenges (M2) as the mediators. We first tested the direct path of ASP to conflict, which was found to be positive and significant. Figure 2 presents the direct and indirect results of the multiple mediator model on conflict. These results support Hypothesis 1.

With regard to other direct effects, ASP was estimated from a model predicting uncertainty from only ASP (a₁). The regression coefficient was positive and significant (a₁ = .33, t = 2.84, p < .01). The path from ASP to workplace challenges (a₂) revealed a coefficient that was also positive and significant (a₂ = 0.26, t = 2.55, p < .01).

In terms of indirect effects, the first progresses only through uncertainty, and predicts conflict from uncertainty (b₁) while controlling for ASP. The second indirect effect progresses only through workplace challenges (b₂) while controlling for ASP. The results were positive and significant in terms of both mediating variables for conflict. Finally, the weight for ASP in a model estimating conflict from ASP, uncertainty, and workplace challenges (c’) was positive and significant (see Figure 2 for coefficients and p-values).

To test if mediation occurs and to evaluate indirect effects, we used bootstrapping, as recommended by Preacher and Hayes (2008). Bootstrapping is a nonparametric approach that estimates the indirect effect through repeated samples from the data set. Based on bootstrapped sampling distribution, a confidence interval band is produced. We re-sampled 5000 times and examined for 95 per cent confidence intervals. Results indicate whether mediation occurs in the total model, as well as whether simple mediation occurs for each mediating variable. Table 2 provides the results for the total model and each mediating variable to conflict. With regard to these total effects, results showed evidence of mediation. The results also revealed support for simple mediation of both uncertainty and workplace challenges between ASP and conflict. (Adjusted R² and F-values for the model summary are provided in Figure 2.) Therefore, both Hypotheses 2 and 3 were fully supported.

Table 2.

Bootstrap results for indirect effects.

ASP – conflict	Effect	SE	BC 95% CI
			Lower	Upper
Total	.2237	.1005	.0565	.4716
Uncertainty	.1710	.0806	.0332	.3832
Workplace challenges	.0527	.0297	.0115	.1321

Note: BC, bias corrected; 1000 bootstrap samples.

Post-hoc analysis: Age and ASP

Although it was not a specified relationship in our conceptual model, we were interested in determining whether or not there was a relationship between ASP and employee age. In other words, does a preference to work with those similar in age to oneself occur more as workers age? We conducted a post-hoc analysis to consider this potential connection. A one-way ANOVA was run to determine if there were differences between ASP (“agree” vs “disagree”) and employee age. The assumption of homogeneity of variance was violated; therefore the Welch F-ratio is reported. Results indicated a significant difference, F(1, 129.77) = 14.62, p < .001. An examination of means and pairwise comparisons revealed that subjects with an ASP (M = 35.92) were younger than subjects without an ASP (M = 42.16) and that this difference was significant (p < .001). As such, we concluded that ASP appeared more frequently among younger subjects than older ones.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to investigate whether ASP directly affected conflict and to determine whether indirect effects influenced the relationship between ASP and conflict. Results suggest that such a preference exists and that this preference has a direct influence on conflict. Furthermore, our findings suggest that a mediating relationship exists between ASP and conflict for both uncertainty and work-related challenges.

The idea of ASP, although not represented to any great extent in the literature, is an important one given the acknowledged increase in age diversity within the US workforce. As past theorists have pointed out, preferences with regard to similarity and in/out-group associations can and often will influence our perceptions and actions. Given that age diversity is a real (and most likely long-term) factor in many US workplaces, we feel it is important to explore the ways in which a preference to work with those of similar age might affect work and work-related interactions.

Our findings suggest that such a preference directly influences the amount of total conflict (and by default the amount of process, task, and relationship conflict) reported by participants. The interpersonal differences that lead to relationship conflict were the most obvious, given our previous discussion of surface-level diversity and its potential to generate this type of conflict. However, it may be argued that the more significant issues lie with process and task conflict. Previous studies demonstrate the influence of these types of conflict on a variety of crucial outcomes like performance and team effectiveness (Matsuo, 2006; Standifer and Wall, 2010). As mentioned earlier, however, our findings do not speak to whether this conflict is functional or dysfunctional in nature – merely that conflict is being experienced. This is a crucial thing to note. In no way should our article be construed as advocating against diversity – the benefits inherent in diverse interactions are well documented. It is possible that some of the conflict we found lends itself to positive outcomes; for example, task-related conflict is generally thought to lead to positive outcomes, such as increased group cohesion, creativity, and enriched problem-solving (De Dreu and Weingart, 2003; Jehn and Mannix, 2001).

In terms of indirect effects, our results suggest that both uncertainty and the perception of workplace challenges mediate the extent to which ASP affects levels of conflict. In both cases, these variables were found to boost the amount of conflict reported. Given that other outcomes derived from these variables tend to be negative in nature (e.g. uncertainty leading to poorer decision-making (Hancock and Mortimer, 2002)), we suspect that this hints at dysfunctional conflict more than functional conflict, but cannot make claims to that based on this article alone.

Our findings provide further support to the established impact that uncertainty has on work-related outcomes. Here, uncertainty added fuel to an existing fire: conflict related to ASP became heightened when uncertainty was added. This suggests that by treating employees as unique individuals (while also mindful of age-based in/out-group comparisons) and by clarifying the expectations they have for their work environment, managers can reduce the uncertainty employees experience when they are working with colleagues of all ages.

With regard to the effect of challenges on conflict, it has been long established in the conflict literature that the kind of anxiety and stress that comes from working in challenging situations can fuel conflict. It is important to remember, however, that there are steps managers can take to minimize and decrease potential issues related to these variables. What intensifies issues among age diverse workers is a lack of understanding of what colleagues value. Current research on generational diversity suggests that the differences perceived among the generations about each other significantly outnumber the actual differences reported, which can lead to misconceptions (Lester et al., 2012). If the possibility of misconceptions (whether specific to “generation” or to “age”) are acknowledged, managers can educate employees about the needs and values of all ages in relation to their own through ongoing dialogue and training.

Lastly, we conducted a post-hoc analysis to explore whether ASP was related in some way with subject age. Our findings indicated that younger workers were more inclined to report this preference than older workers. Although it might just as easily have been proposed that the relationship between age and ASP be positive (as opposed to negative), the idea that younger workers would more often indicate this preference is not without precedent. Previous work by McCann and Giles (2006) demonstrated that young people favor their age in-group over age out-groups. (Notably, this study used age 50 as the designation of “older” – a rather young classification for this category.) According to McCann and Giles, younger workers perceived their interactions with older workers as more problematic than their interactions with other young workers. In addition, Korndat and Rothermund’s study (2011) speaks to the notion that because younger individuals might have limited experiences with older individuals (particularly in a work context), these younger workers may default to inaccurate generalized stereotypes about their older cohorts. These findings (and ours) may be viewed as aligned with the ideas of social identity theory and self-categorization. During age-diverse interactions, younger participants perceived differences between themselves and their older counterparts, attributed these differences to age, and responded negatively.

Implied in this finding is that younger workers, who have been previously characterized as highly adaptable, may not be as flexible in their interactions as was originally thought. With human capital being such a distinctive competitive advantage in today’s work environment, it will be important for organizations to communicate effectively on why employees need to work effectively with coworkers of varying ages. Younger workers may need to be shown the benefits derived from interactions with their senior colleagues and older workers need to be careful not to appear condescending or “nonaccommodative” (McCann and Giles, 2006).

Study limitations

Although the current study produced a number of interesting findings, it is not without some methodological limitations. First, the sample came from a single organization. Second, the demographic make-up of respondents was not equally distributed with regard to gender and ethnicity. As such, one must be careful about generalizing our findings to all populations. It is possible that results may differ across different organizational cultures and workforce composition. On a positive note, we did have a good response rate within the organization, and employees from all levels were represented in the sample. In addition, we ensured that age diversity was indeed adequately present in this organizational environment so that we could reasonably make assertions about our variables within an “age-diverse” context. Future research, however, would, of course, benefit from surveying multiple organizations across diverse locations and industries.

Likewise, we acknowledge problems inherent in the use of self-report measures, such as common method variance (Campbell and Fiske, 1959). It is worth noting, however, that Crampton and Wagner (1994) did not find an issue with inflated results from common method variance in organizational research; their empirical evidence revealed that self-report data were not significantly different than the means for data originating from multiple sources. Be that as it may, we used established measures where possible to minimize such an issue.

Finally, there is the potential issue of omitted variable bias. It was beyond the scope of our study to examine all the possible factors that might lead to the various forms of conflict. Also, although our perceived workplace challenges measure was derived using the six categories commonly discussed in previous research, we recognize that this is not an exhaustive list of all challenges that may arise in an organization. Future research could provide additional insight into the effective management of an age-diverse workforce by examining a broader set of perceived challenges. In the same vein, we also acknowledge that the conflict outcomes examined in this article do not represent a comprehensive list of all the outcomes that may occur in the context of an age-diverse workforce.

Future research

Moving beyond methodological refinements, our article provides support for future research. As mentioned above, further study into the idea of ASP is warranted, both in terms of possible replication of our findings and in order to provide greater depth and overall understanding of the phenomena. Our article raises the larger issue of the accuracy of current characterizations of different age groups. How effectively can people identify the values of others? Research that compares self-perceptions and group perceptions from a more general context of age would be informative. Researchers could also delve into the attributions about value differences made during intergroup evaluative comparisons to determine the extent to which such designations are in error or an artifact of prolonged age-based stereotypes. Furthermore, studies could investigate whether a preference to work with others of similar age creates potential opportunities (e.g. great cohesion), as well as potential threats.

The extent to which ASP leads to identifiable positive and negative outcomes warrants further study. In fact, a potential avenue for future study would be what outcomes occur when little or no ASP is expressed. Although we expect that the conflict derived from ASP will most likely result in dysfunctional outcomes, functional results are certainly possible, especially regarding task conflict. For example, task conflict has been shown to generate knowledge creation and greater flexibility through the consideration of divergent views and critical analysis by heterogeneous groupings of individuals (Sockalingam, 2000). Another avenue for inquiry would be to take a look at specific management practices and see which ones best respond to the varied workplace expectations of an age-diverse workforce. For example, these findings intimate that an organization would experience a lower frequency of workplace challenges and conflict if the amount of uncertainty experienced by its employees were reduced. What specific management practices would enable them to best accomplish this goal? In addition, the finding that younger workers more often reported having ASP should receive further attention to see if our findings can be replicated.

On a different note, we believe it would be interesting to extend our findings by applying different perspectives on workforce diversity and on age itself to study the effects of age diversity and ASP. First, researchers could consider our results through conceptualizations already established in the diversity literature (e.g. the integration-and-learning perspective, the access-and-legitimacy perspective, and the discrimination-and-fairness perspective). In their research, Ely and Thomas found that the perspective on diversity held by a work group influenced how people expressed and managed tensions related to diversity, including the extent to which people felt valued by their colleagues and the way in which people conceptualize their own work identity (Ely and Thomas, 2001: 229). Additionally, the concept of age may be broadened to encompass more than strictly chronological age. The Sloan Center on Aging & Work created a framework it calls The Prism of Age, which includes generational age, life stage, and emotional age (Roundtree, 2011).

Finally, our study is based in the US cultural perspective − the participants, the organization, and the researchers are all from the US. Therefore, our article represents a western mindset. Other cultures might differ in the extent to which individuals perceive age and age diversity. Future research that examines ASP and its influence on workplace outcomes in different cultural contexts would be both interesting and relevant, especially given the global nature of most businesses today.

In conclusion, the present article examines possible outcomes derived from the frustration of wanting to work with those similar to you in age, but confronted with the reality of an age-diverse workforce. We hope the current findings will spark additional examinations of both the challenges of working in such a diverse environment and the solutions that will enable organizations to thrive in this evolving landscape that represents the workforce of the 21st century.

Footnotes

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Rhetta Standifer is Associate Professor of Management at the University of Wisconsin – Eau Claire, USA. Dr Standifer received her PhD and MBA from the University of Missouri. She researches and consults on a variety of management topics such as leadership, teams and multi-team systems, temporal issues, conflict resolution, and generational diversity. Her research has been published in such journals as Academy of Management Learning & Education, Human Relations, and Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies. She is also the author of a series of books that accompany the software simulation vLeader. [Email: standirl@uwec.edu]

Scott W Lester is Professor of Management and the Director of the Center for Leadership at the University of Wisconsin – Eau Claire, USA. He received his PhD from the University of South Carolina. His current research interests include dyadic trust, work values, generational differences in the workplace, and work−life balance. His research has been published in a number of journals, including the Academy of Management Journal, Academy of Management Learning & Education, Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Management, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, and Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. [Email: lestersw@uwec.edu]

Nicole J Schultz is Assistant Professor of Organizational Communication at the University of Wisconsin − Eau Claire, USA. She was awarded her PhD from Bowling Green State University. Her research interests are focused on organizational generational diversity, work−life balance issues, and gender and sexual orientation studies. She has published works in Human Relations, Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, Qualitative Research Reports in Communication, and Education and Urban Society. [Email: schulnic@uwec.edu]

James M Windsor is Associate Lecturer of Strategic Management at the University of Wisconsin − Eau Claire, USA. His research interests include lean operations, preference of education mode, and actual versus perceived generational differences at work. His research has been published in Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies. [Email: windsojm@uwec.edu]

References

Ansoorian

Good

Samuelson

(2003) Managing generational differences. Leadership 32: 34–36.

Ashforth

Mael

(1989) Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review 14: 20–39.

Avery

McKay

Wilson

(2007) Engaging the aging workforce: The relationship between perceived age similarity, satisfaction with coworkers, and employee engagement. Journal of Applied Psychology 92: 1542−1556.

Baron

Kenny

(1986) The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51: 1173−1182.

Bazerman

(1983) Negotiator judgment. American Behavioral Scientist 27: 211–229.

Brewer

Miller

(1996) Intergroup Relations. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing.

Brown

(2000) Social identity theory: Past achievements, current problems, and future challenges. European Journal of Social Psychology 30: 745–778.

Burke

(2006) The changing nature of work and organizations: Implications for human resource management. Human Resource Management Review 16: 86–94.

Byrne

(1971) The Attraction Paradigm. New York: Academic Press.

10.

Campbell

Fiske

(1959) Convergent and discriminant validation by the multi-trait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin 56: 81–105.

11.

Champoux

(2011) Organizational Behavior: Integrating Individuals, Groups, and Organizations (4th edn). New York: Routledge.

12.

Chatman

Flynn

(2001) The influence of demographic heterogeneity on the emergence and consequences of cooperative norms in work teams. Academy of Management Journal 44: 956–974.

13.

Chattopadhyay

Tluchowska

George

(2004) Identifying the ingroup: A closer look at the influence of demographic dissimilarity on employee social identity. Academy of Management Review 29: 180–202.

14.

Cogin

(2012) Are generational differences in work values fact or fiction? Multi-country evidence and implications. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 23: 2268−2294.

15.

Crampton

Wagner

(1994) Percept-percept inflation in microorganizational research: An investigation of prevalence and effect. Journal of Applied Psychology 79: 67–77.

16.

Crumpacker

(2007) Succession planning and generational stereotypes: Should HR consider age-based values and attitudes a relevant factor or a passing fad? Public Personnel Management 36: 349–369.

17.

De Dreu

CKW

Weingart

(2003) Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology 88: 741−749.

18.

Deal

Altman

Rogelberg

(2010) Millennials at work: What we know and what we need to do (if anything). Journal of Business & Psychology 25: 191–199.

19.

DeArmond

Tye

Chen

Krauss

Apryl

Sintek

(2006) Age and gender stereotypes: New challenges in a changing workplace and workforce. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 36: 2184−2214.

20.

Demoulin

Teixeira

(2010) Social categorization in interpersonal negotiation: How social structural factors shape negotiations. Group Processes Intergroup Relations 13: 765–777.

21.

Duncan

(1972) Characteristics of organizational environments and perceived environmental uncertainty. Administrative Science Quarterly 17: 313–327.

22.

Earley

Mosakowski

(2000) Creating hybrid team cultures: An empirical test of transnational team functioning. Academy of Management Journal 43: 26–49.

23.

Eisenhardt

Zbaracki

(1992) Strategic decision making. Strategic Management Journal 13: 17–37.

24.

Ely

Thomas

(2001) Cultural diversity at work: The effects of diversity perspectives on work group processes and outcomes. Administrative Science Quarterly 46: 229–273.

25.

Fogg

(2009) When generations collide. Education Digest 74: 25–30.

26.

Gudykunst

Nishida

(2001) Anxiety, uncertainty, and perceived effectiveness of communication across relationships and cultures. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 25: 55–71.

27.

Hancock

Mortimer

(2002) Decision Errors Under Stress. White paper in the Multi-Disciplinary University Research Initiative-Operator Performance Under Stress Report: Year One 2002.

28.

Hayes

(2009) Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Communication Monographs 76: 408–420.

29.

Hayes

Preacher

(2012) SPSS INDIRECT Macro Syntax Reference. 15 June. Available at: http://www.afhayes.com/spss-sas-and-mplus-macros-and-code.html.

30.

Hinds

Bailey

(2003) Out of sight, out of synch: Understanding conflict in distributed teams. Organization Science 14: 615–632.

31.

Hinds

Mortensen

(2005) Understanding conflict in geographically distributed teams: The moderating effects of shared identity, shared context, and spontaneous communication. Organization Science 16: 290–307.

32.

Hinings

Hickson

Pennings

Schneck

(1974) Structural conditions of intraorganizational power. Administrative Science Quarterly 19: 22–44.

33.

Hogg

Terry

(2000) Social identity. Academy of Management Review 25: 121–140.

34.

James

Brett

(1984) Mediators, moderators, and tests for mediation. Journal of Applied Psychology 69: 307–321.

35.

Jehn

(1992) The impact of intragroup conflict on effectiveness: A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of conflict. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Northwestern University.

36.

Jehn

(1995) A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly 40: 256–282.

37.

Jehn

(1997) A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational groups. Administrative Science Quarterly 42: 530–557.

38.

Jehn

Mannix

(2001) The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance. Academy of Management Journal 44: 238–251.

39.

Jehn

Northcraft

Neale

(1999) Why differences make a difference: A field study of diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly 44: 741–764.

40.

Korndat

Rothermund

(2011) Contexts of aging: Assessing evaluative age stereotypes in different life domains. Journal of Gerontology 66(B): 547–556.

41.

Krauss

Morsella

(2000) Communication and conflict. In: Deutsch

Coleman

(eds) The Handbook of Constructive Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 131–143.

42.

Kupperschmidt

(2000) Multigenerational employees: Strategies for effective management. The Health Care Manager 19: 65–76.

43.

Lancaster

Stillman

(2005) When Generations Collide. New York: HarperCollins.

44.

Lawrence

Lorsch

(1967) Organization and Environment: Managing Differentiation and Integration. Boston: Harvard University.

45.

Leifer

Delbecq

(1978) Organizational/environmental interchange: A model of boundary spanning activity. Academy of Management Research 3: 40–50.

46.

Lester

Standifer

Schultz

Windsor

(2012) Actual versus perceived generational differences at work: An empirical examination. Journal of Leadership & Organization Studies 19: 341–354.

47.

Liao

Joshi

Chuang

(2004) Sticking out like a sore thumb: Employee dissimilarity and deviance at work. Personnel Psychology 57: 969−1000.

48.

March

Simon

(1958) Organizations. New York: Wiley.

49.

McCann

Giles

(2006) Communication with people of different ages in the workplace: Thai and American data. Human Communication Research 32: 74–108.

50.

McGuire

Hutchings

(2007) Towards a model of human resource solutions for achieving intergenerational interaction in organizations. Journal of European Industrial Training 31: 592–608.

51.

Martin

(2005) From high maintenance to high productivity. Industrial and Commercial Training 37: 39–44.

52.

Matsuo

(2006) Customer orientation, conflict, and innovativeness in Japanese sales departments. Journal of Business Research 59: 242–250.

53.

Montgomery

Peck

(1982) Introduction to Linear Regression Analysis. New York: Wiley.

54.

Myers

Sadaghiani

(2010) Millenials in the workplace: A communication perspective on Millenials’ organizational relationships and performance. Journal of Business Psychology 25: 225–238.

55.

Nass

Yen

(2010) The Man who Lied to his Laptop. New York: Penguin Group.

56.

Pearson

Ensley

Amason

(2002) An assessment and refinement of Jehn’s (1995) Intragroup Conflict Scale (ICS). International Journal of Conflict Management 13: 110–126.

57.

Pelled

(1996) Demographic diversity, conflict, and work group outcomes: An intervening process theory. Organization Science 17: 615–631.

58.

Pelled

Eisenhardt

Xin

(1999) Exploring the black box: An analysis of work group diversity, conflict and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly 44: 1–28.

59.

Preacher

Hayes

(2004) SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers 36: 717–731.

60.

Preacher

Hayes

(2008) Asymptotic and resampling methods for estimating and comparing indirect effects. Behavior Research Methods 40: 879–891.

61.

Putnam

Poole

(1987) Conflict and negotiation. In: Jablin

Putnam

Roberts

Porter

(eds) Handbook of Organization Communication: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE, 549–599.

62.

Reynolds

Bush

Geist

(2008) The Gen Y imperative. Communication World 25: 19–22.

63.

Robey

(1984) Conflict models for implementation research. In: Schultz

Ginzberg

(eds) Applications of Management Science. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 89–105.

64.

Roundtree

(2011) Age: A 21st century diversity imperative: Executive case report. Boston: The Sloan Center on Aging & Work. Available at: http://www.bc.edu/research/agingandwork/archive_pubs/case_AgeDiversity.html.

65.

Scott

(1990) Technology and structure: An organizational-level perspective. In: Goodman

Sproull

(eds) Technology and Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 109–143.

66.

Shah

Jehn

(1993) Do friends perform better than acquaintances: The interaction of friendship, conflict, and task. Group Decision and Negotiation 2: 149–166.

67.

Shaver

(1998) Accounting for endogeneity when assessing strategy performance: Does entry mode choice affect FDI survival? Management Science 44: 571–585.

68.

Shaver

(2005) Testing for mediating variables in management research: Concerns, implications, and alternative strategies. Journal of Management 31: 330–353.

69.

Sobel

(1982) Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equations models. In: Leinhart

(ed.) Sociological Methodology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 290–312.

70.

Sockalingam

(2000) Discontinuity in change: An exploration of the role of conflict in business process reengineering. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Glasgow Caledonian University.

71.

Standifer

(2004) Business-to-business electronic commerce relationships: The impact of B2B structure and other relational antecedents upon conflict and perceived success. Unpublished dissertation, University of Missouri.

72.

Standifer

Wall

Jr (2010) Conflict in business to business e-commerce: A study of B2B relational structure and perceptions of conflict, power, and relationship success. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research Journal 3: 205–231.

73.

Tajfel

Turner

(1985) The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In: Worchel

Austin

(eds) Psychology of Intergroup Relations (2nd edn). Chicago: Nelson-Hall, 7–24.

74.

Thomas

(1992) Conflict and negotiation processes in organizations. In: Dunnette

Hough

(eds) Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, 651–717.

75.

Twenge

(2010) A review of empirical evidence on generational differences in work attitudes. Journal of Business Psychology 25: 201–210.

76.

Twenge

Campbell

(2008) Generational differences in psychological traits and their impact on the workplace. Journal of Managerial Psychology 23: 862–877.

77.

Van der Vegt

(2002) Effects of attitude dissimilarity and time on social integration: A longitudinal panel study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 75: 439–452.

78.

Van de Vliert

Nauta

Euwema

Janssen

(1997) The effectiveness of mixing problem solving and forcing. In: De Dreu

CKW

Van de Vliert

(eds) Using Conflict in Organizations. London: SAGE, 38–52.

79.

van Knippenberg

Schippers

(2007) Work group diversity. Annual Review of Psychology 58: 515–541.

80.

Weston

(2001) Coaching generations in the workplace. Nursing Administration Quarterly 25: 11–21.

81.

Wiersema

Bantel

(1992) Top management team demography and corporate strategic change. Academy of Management Journal 35: 91–121.