The buffering role of employee resilience in the Relationship between project conflicts and employee burnout with the mediation of negative emotions

Aslam, Muhammad Syam; Ul Islam, Shuja Article The buffering role of employee resilience in the Relationship between project conflicts and employee burnout with the mediation of negative emotions Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences (PJCSS) Provided in Cooperation with: Johar Education Society, Pakistan (JESPK) Suggested Citation: Aslam, Muhammad Syam; Ul Islam, Shuja (2024) : The buffering role of employee resilience in the Relationship between project conflicts and employee burnout with the mediation of negative emotions, Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences (PJCSS), ISSN 2309-8619, Johar Education Society, Pakistan (JESPK), Lahore, Vol. 18, Iss. 3, pp. 592-618 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/305447 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences 2024, Vol. 18(3), 592-618 Pak J Commer Soc Sci The Buffering Role of Employee Resilience in The Relationship Between Project Conflicts and Employee Burnout with The Mediation of Negative Emotions Muhammad Syam Aslam* Dr. Shuja Ul Islam FAST School of Management National University of Computer and Emerging Sciences, Islamabad, Pakistan *Corresponding author, E-Mail: [email protected] Article History Received: 04 June 2024 Revised: 11 Sept 2024 Accepted: 14 Sep 2024 Published: 30 Sept 2024 Abstract This study aims to test the hypothesized moderated mediation process combining project conflicts, negative emotions, employee resilience, and employee burnout. It proposes that negative emotions can be considered as a mediator between the relationship of project conflicts and employee burnout, and this mediation effect is moderated by the level of employee resilience. Data were collected from employees working in project-based organizations. The final number of responses was 389. We used structural equation modelling for model fitness and direct relationships, and PROCESS macro model 4 and 14 were used for mediation and moderated mediation analysis respectively. The main finding is that employee resilience moderates the indirect relationship between project conflict and employee burnout via negative emotions. Project conflict has a positive and significant effect on employee burnout. The results of this study help us understand why the higher management of a project-based organization should consider employee resilience to avoid the negative consequences of project conflicts. Resting on the research gaps identified, this study proposes a unique conflict model that hypothesizes a moderated mediation process. Keywords: Project conflict, task conflict, relationship conflict, process conflict, status conflict, negative emotions, employee resilience, employee burnout, project-based organizations, Pakistan. 1. Introduction In the modern era, a number of projects are underway and the market is going to be more competitive. These projects face many issues, especially conflicts related to the project (Wu et al., 2017). For better performance, the project manager gives authority to team members to work in their way for high performance, which leads to conflict (Wong et al., 1999). The complexity of project design has increased, and a specific division of labor is observed. Such features involve a high level of commitment and cooperation among project team members, leading to project conflicts (Wu et al., 2017). Conflicts among team Aslam & Islam 593 members are very common in the workplace, and must be tackled in a timely (Yang et al., 2019; Tremmel et al., 2019). Some research studies have shown that conflicts among team members regulate the moderator that regulates the relationship of conflicts with their outcome (Kuriakose et al., 2019). Research studies indicate that conflicts at workplaces are an important stressor in employees’ lives (Kundi and Badar, 2021; Beitler et al., 2018) During the project phase, these conflicts are inevitable because there are distinct views on project objectives, such as time, quality, security, and weak communication among project team members (Wu et al., 2017; Harmon, 2003). Conflicts among team members tarnish satisfaction and a sense of belongingness with the organization (Yue, & Thelen, 2023). According to Jelodar et al. (2015), project disputes can lead to challenging connections between different teams and make it difficult to attain the goals of the project. Conservation of resources (COR) theory (Hobfoll et al., 2018) argues that workplace stressors deplete individuals' resources, leading to negative outcomes. According to Hobfoll (2001), the corollary of COR states that loss begets loss, which means depletion in resources will further lead to a negative impact on individual resources. Based on this statement, we argue that project conflicts (loss tied with team members) will trigger negative emotions that will lead to loss of resources (employee burnout). COR theory assumes that employees use their resources to reduce the negative impact, so the moderating role of employee resilience is tested through a moderated mediation model. Workplace stressors trigger negative emotions among team members that act as mediators between project conflicts and employee burnout, which will cover the issue mentioned by Humphrey et al. (2017) that emotions that pertain to conflicts (Rispens and Demerouti, 2016), further Roderiguez-Rey et al. (2024) recommended studying the relationship between negative emotions and burnout. Shin et al. (2012) argued that an employee’s resilience focuses on the ability to recover from disruptions while performing tasks. Cooke et al. (2020) and Bardoel et al. (2014) investigated the role of resilience in the workplace because it has received little academic scrutiny. The main aim of this study is to address the problem of how project conflicts affect employee burnout, and as many conflict studies have investigated their outcomes, those studies showed detrimental effects, and few studies showed curvilinear effects. According to COR theory, workplace stressors trigger negative emotions that can boost the negative relationship between project conflicts and employee burnout. This study covered the gap mentioned by Humphrey et al. (2017) that the relationship between conflicts and emotions should be studied. Shin et al. (2012) and Tugade and Fredrickson (2004) argued that research studies indicate that resilient employees are well equipped to cope with unforeseen stressful events; thus, employee resilience hampers negative outcomes, such as employee burnout. Therefore, this study covered the gap mentioned by Cooke et al. (2020) and Bardoel et al. (2014) that limited studies have been conducted to investigate the role of resilience in the workplace. Therefore, based on these research gaps, there is a need to Project Conflicts and Employee Burnout 594 investigate the impact of project conflicts on employee burnout through the mediation of negative emotions and moderation of employee resilience in project-based organizations. This is an individual-based study in which responses are recorded by individual employees working in a project-based organization. Based on the research objectives and gaps identified in the literature This study is supported by the conservation of resources (COR) theory (Hobfoll, 2018), which proposes that employees with higher resources are less vulnerable to workplace stressors, so we can assume that employee resilience hampers negative outcomes due to workplace stressors and emotions. With the support of COR, this study investigated the moderated mediation role of employee resilience through the indirect relationship between project conflicts and employee burnout through negative emotions. This study intends to provide a deep understanding of how project conflicts affect burnout among employees working in project-based organizations. In addition, a moderated mediation model of negative emotions and employee resilience was studied. 2. Literature Review 2.1 Project Conflicts and Employee Burnout Researchers have defined conflict as psychological and social, which vary from context to context. According to Thomas (1973), conflict is a process that begins when an individual tries to take advantage of or benefit from another individual, resulting in frustration. Conflict is a state in which someone feels hostile and fears showing their emotions (Wang et al. 2012). Wall and Callister (1995) explain conflict as a process in which one perceives concerns that are opposed to others. The traditional view of conflict highlights conflict as an opposition of individuals during competition with one another, and it is assumed that the opposing party has some sort of advantage over this conflict (Jehn, 1995). Employee burnout is a psychological strain or distress that can arise due to organizational stressors as well as individual stressors during task performance. If such stressors are not tackled, it leads to burnout in the workplace, feelings of detachment, exhaustion, cynicism, and ineffectiveness. Furthermore, burnout leads to a decrease in organizational commitment. The literature has explored many factors that cause burnout as a combination of individual risks and organizational stressors, such as intra-team conflicts (task conflict, relationship conflict, process conflict, and status conflict). Schaufeli and Salanova (2014) explained the antecedents of burnout as highly qualitative (lack of information to perform tasks, work-family conflicts, and discrepant work roles), quantitative (urgency, excessive work, frequent contact with customers/clients, and long working hours), and lack of job resources. Stress between team members leads to negative emotions, which leads to employee burnout (Kim & Lee, 2023). Schaufeli and Buunk, (2003) concluded that conflicts among the team are the stressor which leads toward burnout among team members. Zhang et al. (2022) argued that conflict employees are positively related to their Aslam & Islam 595 deviant behaviors and argued that there is a need to study the role of conflicts in fostering employee behaviors (Ma & Liu, 2019) Shaukat et al. (2017) argue that conflict causes resource loss, which further increases employee burnout. Task conflict is the most common type of conflict, but it does affect employee burnout less than relationship and process conflicts; conflict increases depression, stress, and burnout among employees (Tafvelin et al., 2020). Several studies resulted that task conflict is unrelated to employee well-being i.e. Burnout (Leon-Perez et al., 2016). Based on the COR theory, ego threats can develop hostility among team members, leading to distrust, stress, burnout, and depression over time. Relationship conflict leads to a loss of resources such as team member support (Hobfoll et al., 2018), which increases employee burnout. Studies have confirmed the negative influence of relationship conflicts on employee well-being, that is, negative emotions (De Wit et al. 2012), and stress (Sonnentag et al., 2013). Jimmieson et al. (2017) argued that research studies on employee burnout are less conclusive and suggested that relationship conflict increases employee burnout. Leon-Perez et al. (2016) conducted a study among employees working in a safe inspection department and found no relationship between process conflict and employee burnout, while Rispens and Demerouti (2016) conducted a diary study, which resulted in process conflict leading to negative emotions. Conflicts among team members undermine their association with team members and the organization, as they do not want to remain in that team because of their negative experiences (Jungst and Blumberg, 2016). Li (2023) argued that relationship conflicts have an indirect effect on disengagement through exhaustion, and a direct effect on performance (Zhang & Zhou, 2019; Venz & Nesher Shoshan, 2022). Moreover, Hwang and Shin (2023) argued that task conflict transform to relationship conflict which leads to employee burnout, it means that these conflicts are not static in nature. It means that conflicts are dynamic in nature and transform to one another (Ullah, 2022). Based on COR theory, workplace stressors (intra team conflicts) generates negative consequences for employees, so we can assume task, relationship, process and status conflict will lead to disagreements on tasks among the teams, and they will consider it a personal insult and generate stress. Prolonged stress and depression lead to employee burnout. Harris et al. (2015) argued that COR theory explains that individual’s feel stressed when situations do not meet their expectations. Research on conflicts has ignored the impact on employee burnout, which includes the dimensions of emotional exhaustion, cynicism, and lack of professional efficacy. Based on empirical evidence and the above discussion, we propose the following: ➢ H1. Project conflicts are positively related to employee burnout. ➢ H1a. Task conflict is positively related to employee burnout. Project Conflicts and Employee Burnout 596 ➢ H1b. Relationship conflict is positively related to employee burnout. ➢ H1c. Process conflict is positively related to employee burnout. ➢ H1d. Status conflict is positively related to employee burnout. 2.2 Negative Emotions as Mediator The corollary of COR states that loss begets loss, which means depletion in resources, will further lead to a negative impact on individual resources. Based on this statement, we argue that project conflicts (loss tied with team members) will trigger negative emotions that will lead to loss of resources such as employee burnout (Hobfoll, 2001). Baele et al. (2016) argued that emotion is a vital outcome, but this relationship has been under-theorized and ignored by researchers. Previous research indicates that conflict is one of the significant workplace stressors (Hahn, 2000) and negative emotions negatively impact employees’ motivations. Task conflict has a positive relationship with psychological strain (Sonnentag et al., 2013), and employees’ negative attitudes, such as job dissatisfaction (de Wit et al., 2012). Moreover, studies have indicated that task conflict has positive effects on employee attitudes (DeChurch et al., 2013); some studies have shown that task conflict does not lead to negative emotions (Meier et al., 2013). Rispens and Demerouti (2016) found that relationship and process conflict experienced negative emotions (sadness, guilt, anger, and contempt), while task conflict did not elicit negative emotions. Research studies have consistently found that the negative consequences of relationship conflict elicit negative emotions among employees, and social stress experiences lead employees towards negative emotions such as anxiety, frustration, and anger (Jehn, 1994). Wu et al. (2018) argue that relationship conflict leads to anger, tension, hostility, and other types of negative emotions, leading to a harmful impact on employee dissatisfaction, depression, and burnout. De Wit et al. (2012) argued that there is a positive relationship between process conflict and negative emotions, Kuriakose et al. (2019) investigated the mediating role of negative emotions between process conflict and individual well-being, which resulted in the partial mediation of negative emotions. Feeney and Collins (2015) studied negative emotions as a mediator, in which individuals with low support show more negative emotions that lead to emotional distress (Wilson et al., 2021; Jacobson et al., 2013). Employees involved in team conflicts experience negative emotions (Venz and Nesher Shoshan, 2022), but there is little literature available on the detrimental outcomes of these emotions (Zhang and Zhou, 2019; Venz and Nesher Shoshan, 2022). Ullah (2022) pointed out that task conflicts and process conflicts lead to relationship conflicts through negative emotions, which is a concern when studying all the dimensions of conflicts. Several studies have investigated the relationship between workplace conflicts and negative emotions among employees working in an organization, but they have mainly focused on anger (Rispens, 2012) while Watson et al. (1988) proposed 10 items on negative Aslam & Islam 597 emotions in their PANES items. Based on the above empirical studies and discussion we can assume the following hypothesis: ➢ H2. Negative emotions mediate the relationship between project conflicts and employee burnout. ➢ H2a. Negative emotions mediate the relationship between task conflict and employee burnout. ➢ H2b. Negative emotions mediate the relationship between relationship conflict and employee burnout. ➢ H2c. Negative emotions mediate the relationship between process conflict and employee burnout. ➢ H2d. Negative emotions mediate the relationship between status conflict and employee burnout. 2.3 Moderation of Employee Resilience Resilience is defined as a person's ability to adapt to difficult events and hardships, as well as to overcome challenges (Tonkin et al., 2018; Chi et al., 2016). There is significant evidence in the literature that difficult job settings or stresses can contribute to poor employee results and burnout (Maslach et al., 2003). Employees with resilience as a resource capability may be able to recover from situations such as organizational commitment, job satisfaction, flexibility, employee behavior, employee performance, and effectiveness (Luthans et al., 2014; Cai et al., 2024). Individual variables, such as personality, determine the level to which an individual may suffer emotional tiredness or stress, as well as repercussions such as burnout. Greater resilience protects employees from emotional tiredness and leads to better personal performance (Rushton et al., 2015). Given the relationship between resilience and burnout in high-intensity nursing specialties (Rushton et al. 2015), one option for helping nursing students manage their stress is to teach them positive adaptive coping skills (Sanderson & Brewer 2017). Value of social capital in improving psychological resilience and reducing burnout in the workplace. Khaksar et al. (2019) observed that psychological resilience helps mitigate the negative link between social capital and job burnout in individuals who work in hazardous environments, and we suggest that resilience is important for limiting job burnout in people who work in hazardous environments (Khaksar et al., 2019). Resilient workers perform better in difficult work situations (Shatté et al., 2017). Furthermore, research suggests that people with high resilience are better able to cope with adversity and change (Rossi et al., 2013). However, some researchers argue that it is unclear whether employee resilience shows the same level of adaptation (Britt et al., 2016). Resilience is an employee’s resource that helps to cope with stressful situations (De Clercq et al., 2021), and researchers suggest that employee resilience moderates psychological stress and outcomes. Project Conflicts and Employee Burnout 598 The moderating role of employee resilience has received less attention from researchers, whereas AlHawari et al. (2020) studied resilience as a moderator between stressors and outcomes (Hudgins, 2016; Kumari & Sangwan, 2015). Borden et al. (2018) argued that resilient employees, who suffer less from stressful events, consider themselves self-worthy (Erkutlu & Chafra, 2017). Yasami et al., (2024) argued that employee resilience enhances the relationship of work engagement and psychological withdrawal behavior. Employee resilience is a personal resource that motivates employees to cope with unforeseen situations (Caniëls & Baaten, 2019), and highly resilient employees have the habit of dealing with negative emotions (Al-Hawari et al., 2019). Based on the above discussion, we propose the following moderated mediation hypothesis: ➢ H3: Employee resilience moderates the indirect relationship between project conflict and employee burnout through emotions. The indirect effect will be weaker for employees who report high levels of resilience than for those who report low levels of resilience. ➢ H3a: Employee resilience moderates the indirect relationship between task conflict and burnout via negative emotions. The indirect effect will be weaker for employees who report high levels of resilience than for those who report low levels of resilience. ➢ H3b: Employee resilience moderates the indirect relationship between relationship conflict and employee burnout through negative emotions. The indirect effect will be weaker for employees who report high levels of resilience than for those who report low levels of resilience. ➢ H3c: Employee resilience moderates the indirect relationship between process conflict and employee burnout through negative emotions. The indirect effect will be weaker for employees who report high levels of resilience than for those who report low levels of resilience. ➢ H3d: Employee resilience moderates the indirect relationship between status conflict and employee burnout through negative emotions. The indirect effect will be weaker for employees who report high levels of resilience than for those who report low levels of resilience. 2.4 Research Framework In this research framework (Figure: 1), project conflicts are conceptualized as the independent variable with a mediating variable negative emotion, employee resilience is a moderating variable, and the outcome variable is employee burnout. Aslam & Islam 599 Figure 1: Research Framework 3. Research Methodology 3.1 Sample and Procedure This study uses a quantitative methodology. The population selected for this survey consisted of employees working in project-based organizations. All research ethics were strictly followed, with written consent obtained from all respondents before distributing the questionnaire. Participant confidentiality and anonymity were fully maintained. Following the rule of thumb, the sample size for this study should be 385. A time-lagged design of the research was used instead of a cross-sectional design to avoid the problem of a common method of variance (Mehmood et al., 2024; Shang et al., 2022). Data were collected in three waves with a minimum gap of 15 days between the two time periods. Data are collected from high-level officers in the project-based organization as they are well aware of the importance and sensitivity of the data collection, and with higher qualifications (bachelor ’sand master’s level education), they can easily understand English and be able to answer properly. National Managers of these employees were contacted face-to-face in their head office, and the objective of the study was explained. After obtaining their consent, research ethics and Covid-19 SOPs were ensured. They helped us arrange the meeting at different venues, and the objective of the study was explained to those respondents who came while the rest were contacted through their contact numbers and email addresses. A total of 650 questionnaires were distributed through random sampling at Time 1, as the data were collected through a three-time lag design; thus, the Project Conflicts and Employee Burnout 606 Table 6 result showed that project conflicts positively influence significantly negative emotions (b = 0.712) and employee burnout (b = 0.451) because there is no zero in-between confidence interval. Further, the result also depicts the unconditional indirect effect of project conflict on employee burnout (b = 0.182) through negative emotion and there is no zero in-between confidence intervals which prove our H2. Moreover, the result showed that task conflict positively and significantly influences negative emotions (b = 0.429) and employee burnout (b = 0.235) because there is no zero in-between confidence interval. Table 6 result depicted the unconditional indirect effect of project conflict on employee burnout (b = 0.146) through negative emotion and there are no zero in-between confidence intervals which proves our H2 (a). Table 6 result showed that relationship conflict positively and significantly influences negative emotions (b = 0.407) and employee burnout (b = 0.266) because there is no zero in-between confidence interval. Table 6 result also depicted the unconditional indirect effect of project conflict on employee burnout (b = 0.136) through negative emotion and there is no zero in-between confidence intervals which proves our H2 (b). Table 6 result showed that process conflict positively influences significantly negative emotions (b = 0.412) and employee burnout (b = 0.246) because there is no zero in-between confidence interval. Table 4 result depicted the unconditional indirect effect of project conflict on employee burnout (b = 0.137) through negative emotion and there is no zero in-between confidence intervals which proves our H2 (c). Table 4 result showed that status conflict positively and significantly influences negative emotions (b = 0.322) and employee burnout (b = 0.100) because there is no zero in-between confidence interval. Further, the unconditional indirect effect of project conflict on employee burnout (b = 0.133) through negative emotion and there is no zero in-between confidence intervals which prove our H2 (d). In summary, our all-mediating hypotheses are proven and these results supports previous research studies (Venz & Nesher Shoshan, 2022; Ullah, 2022). 4.4 Moderated Mediation Analysis In this study, moderated mediation was tested using SPSS macro-PROCESS, and Model 14 was utilized for the analysis (Hayes, 2013; Preacher et al., 2007). Table 7 shows that all independent variables positively and significantly influence negative emotions and employee burnout, because there is no zero between their confidence intervals. Table 7 indicates that after adding the mediator negative emotions, all conditional indirect effects of project conflicts on employee burnout through negative emotions were significant because there were no zero in-between confidence intervals, which supports our mediating hypothesis. The moderated mediation results of project conflict on employee burnout were also significant (b = -0.073; LLCI = -0.154; ULCI= -0.001). The indirect conditional effect of project conflicts on employee burnout through negative emotions at three levels of employee resilience: mean (M), one standard deviation above the mean (+1 SD), and one standard deviation below the mean (-1 SD). The results revealed that the conditional Aslam & Islam 607 indirect effect of project conflicts on employee burnout through negative emotions is weaker at +1 SD employee resilience (b = 0.150) than at -1 SD employee resilience (b = 0.280), which proves H3 that employee resilience moderates the indirect relationship between project conflicts and employee burnout via negative emotions. The indirect effect will be weaker for employees who report high levels of resilience than for those who report low levels of resilience. Table 7: Moderated Mediation Results Negative Emotions Employee Burnout Predictor Effect Boot SE Boot LLCI Boot ULCI Effect Boot SE Boot LLCI Boot ULCI Project Conflicts 0.712 0.054 0.605 0.819 0.397 0.0613 0.276 0.517 Task conflict 0.429 0.043 0.343 0.515 0.198 0.043 0.114 0.283 Relationship conflict 0.407 0.044 0.318 0.495 0.239 0.042 0.157 0.322 Process conflict 0.412 0.042 0.328 0.495 0.22 0.040 0.140 0.301 Status conflict 0.322 0.045 0.233 0.411 0.064 0.040 0.015 0.145 Unconditional Indirect Effects (Various Levels of the Moderator) Predictor Level of Moderator (Employee Resilience) Effect Boot SE Boot LLCI Boot ULCI Project Conflicts -1 SD M +1 SD 0.280 0.215 0.150 0.069 0.053 0.057 0.154 0.115 0.027 0.429 0.324 0.252 Task conflict -1 SD M +1 SD 0.216 0.164 0.113 0.043 0.031 0.032 0.136 0.107 0.047 0.308 0.230 0.173 Relationship conflict -1 SD M +1 SD 0.199 0.152 0.105 0.039 0.029 0.030 0.126 0.098 0.044 0.283 0.214 0.165 Process conflict -1 SD M +1 SD 0.202 0.153 0.105 0.039 0.029 0.030 0.130 0.099 0.045 0.284 0.215 0.167 Status conflict -1 SD M +1 SD 0.194 0.147 0.099 0.039 0.027 0.023 0.119 0.093 0.053 0.271 0.201 0.146 Index of Moderated Mediation Predictor Effect on Employee Burnout Boot SE Boot LLCI Boot ULCI Project Conflicts -0.073 0.039 -0.154 -0.001 Task conflict -0.058 0.024 -0.112 -0.013 Relationship conflict -0.052 0.022 -0.100 -0.010 Process conflict -0.054 0.022 -0.102 -0.014 Status conflict -0.053 0.019 -0.095 -0.017 Project Conflicts and Employee Burnout 608 The moderated mediation results of task conflict on employee burnout were significant (b = -0.058; LLCI = -0.112; ULCI= -0.013). The indirect conditional effect of task conflict on employee burnout through negative emotions at the three levels of employee resilience is significant because there are no zero in-between confidence intervals. The results revealed that the conditional indirect effect of task conflict on employee burnout through negative emotions is weaker at +1 SD employee resilience (b = 0.113) than at -1 SD employee resilience (b = 0.216), which proves H3 (a) that employee resilience moderates the indirect relationship between task conflict and employee burnout via negative emotions. The indirect effect will be weaker for employees who report high levels of resilience than for those who report low levels of resilience. The moderated mediation results of relationship conflict with employee burnout were significant (b = -0.052; LLCI = -0.100; ULCI= -0.010). The indirect conditional effect of relationship conflict on employee burnout through negative emotions at the three levels of employee resilience is significant because there are no zero in-between confidence intervals. The results revealed that the conditional indirect effect of relationship conflict on employee burnout through negative emotions is weaker at +1 SD employee resilience (b = 0.105) than at -1 SD employee resilience (b = 0.199), which proves H3 (b) that employee resilience moderates the indirect relationship between process conflict and employee burnout via negative emotions. The indirect effect will be weaker for employees who report high levels of resilience than for those who report low levels of resilience. The moderated mediation results of process conflict on employee burnout were significant (b = -0.054; LLCI = -0.102; ULCI= -0.017). The indirect conditional effect of process conflict on employee burnout through negative emotions at the three levels of employee resilience is significant because there are no zero in-between confidence intervals. The results revealed that the conditional indirect effect of process conflict on employee burnout through negative emotions is weaker at +1 SD employee resilience (b = 0.105) than at -1 SD employee resilience (b = 0.202), which proves H3 (c) that employee resilience moderates the indirect relationship between process conflict and employee burnout via negative emotions. The indirect effect will be weaker for employees who report high levels of resilience than for those who report low levels of resilience. The moderated mediation results of task conflict on employee burnout were significant (b = -0.053; LLCI = -0.095; ULCI= -0.017). The indirect conditional effect of task conflict on employee burnout through negative emotions at the three levels of employee resilience is significant because there are no zero in-between confidence intervals. The results revealed that the conditional indirect effect of project conflicts on employee burnout through negative emotions is weaker at +1 SD employee resilience (b = 0.099) than at -1 SD employee resilience (b = 0.194), which proves H3 (d) that employee resilience moderates the indirect relationship between status conflict and employee burnout via negative emotions. The indirect effect will be weaker for employees who report high levels of resilience than for those who report low levels of resilience. Our moderated mediation results support previous studies that highpoint the role of employee resilience in Aslam & Islam 609 moderating the ability to cope with stressful events (Khaksar et al., 2019; Yasami et al., 2024). 5. Discussion 5.1 Theoretical Implications Conservation of resource theory explains workplace stressors and their negative outcomes and explains how individuals are motivated to use their resources to mitigate the negative impact of those stressors (Hobfoll et al., 2018). Drawing on COR theory, this study explained the mediating role of negative emotions in the relationship between project conflicts and employee burnout. Corollaries 1 and 2 of COR theory explain that employees with high resources are less vulnerable to stressful situations and they try to develop their resources; therefore, based on this argument, we used employee resilience as moderated that high-resilience employees will be less affected than low-resilience ones (Hobfoll et al., 2018). Adding to the literature, project conflicts along with their dimensions have negative consequences (Kim, Huang, & Lee, 2023; Yue, & Thelen, 2023; Schaufeli & Salanova, 2014; Tafvelin et al., 2020; Kundi & Badar, 2021; Beitler et al., 2018). Several studies have indicated that task conflict is unrelated to stress (Friedman et al., 2000), burnout (LeonPerez et al., 2016), and exhaustion (Giebels & Janssen, 2005) but the results of this study concluded that task conflict is positive and significantly affects employee burnout, which supports previous research studies (Ullah, 2022; Tafvelin et al., 2020) and relationship conflicts are positively related to employee burnout (Li, 2023; Venz & Nesher Shoshan, 2022). The results of this study are consistent with those of Leon-Perez et al. (2016), who found that this relationship is positively related to employee burnout. A number of studies have investigated the impact of process conflict, but few studies have found that process conflict is unrelated to negative consequences (Leon-Perez et al. 2016) but this study showed that process conflict is positively related to negative emotions and employee burnout. Early researchers have argued that conflicts have negative outcomes and modern researchers have argued that conflict can be beneficial but have drawn on the COR theory, explaining that project conflict leads to negative emotions that positively affect employee burnout among employees working in a project-based organization. Studying the mediating role of negative emotions between project conflicts and employee burnout has filled the gap mentioned by (Baele et al., 2016), our results indicate that negative emotions mediate between project conflicts, task conflict, relationship conflict, process conflict, status conflict, and employee burnout. The results of this study are consistent with those of Jimmieson et al. (2017), de Wit et al. (2013), and DeChurch et al. (2013) in that task conflict elicits negative emotions that lead to negative consequences. Rispens and Demerouti (2016) argued that relationship conflict and process conflict lead to negative Project Conflicts and Employee Burnout 610 emotions, while task conflict does not elicit negative emotions. Kuriakose et al. (2019) argued that negative emotions mediate the relationship between process conflict and wellbeing, but our study results indicated that all dimensions of project conflicts elicit negative emotions and mediate the relationship between project conflicts and employee burnout. Project conflicts and negative emotions lead to employee burnout, which is a serious challenge for an organization to tackle the employees’ burnout (Kim & Chang, 2015) because well-experienced and skillful human capital is a real asset for any organization (Korsakienė et al., 2015). The moderating results of our study are consistent in that employee resilience mitigates the relationship between workplace stressors and their outcomes (Khaksar et al., 2019; AlHawari et al., 2020; Caniëls & Baaten, 2019). This study sheds light on critical issues for future researchers. This study explored a novel model of moderated mediation as a moderation of employee resilience through an indirect relationship between project conflict and employee burnout via negative emotions. Our study focuses on project-based organizations working in developing countries, such as Pakistan. Our study fills the gaps in investigating emotions raised due to conflicts (Humphrey et al., 2017), the relationship between negative emotions and burnout (Roderiguez-Rey et al., 2024), and the role of employee resilience in the workplace (Cooke et al., 2020; and Bardoel et al. 2014). Previous researchers have studied project conflicts in three dimensions and ignored the fourth type of status conflict, which we included in this study. This study adds to the literature on the relationship between project conflict, negative emotions, employee resilience, and employee burnout. 5.2 Practical Implications This study has practical implications for individual employees and managers working in organizations. Previous studies have argued that conflicts can be beneficial (Ullah, 2022; Khosravi et al., 2020), and through conflict resolution, we can effectively manage conflicts among project teams and resolve them to mitigate their negative consequences. Therefore, organizations should focus on employee well-being programs that help employees cope with stressful events, such as team building, communication channels, and engaging employees in constructive debates (Rezvani et al., 2019). The study findings show that negative emotions mediate the relationship between project conflicts and employee burnout; therefore, organizations should invest in employees to train them to cope with challenging events. Through resilience training, employees’ capacities can be increased, which enhances their ability to bounce back stressful events, such as project conflicts, and does es not allow negative emotions to build and reduce employee burnout (Rezvani et al., 2019; Kundi & Badar, 2021). To minimize conflicts, the project management unit should focus on project planning and resource allocation, and effective communication training for employees can minimize constraints because everyone knows their roles as per budget and resource allocation. This will help the team members to use which type of tone and words should be used, because disputing parties do not know about conflict resolving options (Caputo et al., 2019). Aslam & Islam 611 5.3 Limitations and Future Research This study has added literature to the current knowledge and provides future directions for other researchers as well. First, this study used a simple random sampling technique, future researchers should consider stratified sampling techniques if the population is divided into distant groups, cluster sampling if the population is geographically spread, purposive sampling if the population has special characteristics, and snowball sampling technique, which can make it easy to identify competent respondents. Second, we used a time-lag design for data collection; future researchers should consider experimental and longitudinal studies to gain a better understanding of causal relationships. Third, we collected the data through self-reporting, which could be the reason for common method bias and affect the generalizability of our study. However, we followed all research ethical considerations and tested the CMB using Harman’s single factor test. Fourth, in this study, we investigated the role of negative emotions as a mediator; future researchers should also consider other variables like social support, workplace climate, role ambiguity and perceived fairness. Fifth, the moderating role of employee resilience was studied, and future researchers should consider other variables, such as ethical values and leadership styles. Research Funding The authors received no research grant or funds for this research study. REFERENCES Al-Hawari, M. A., Bani-Melhem, S., & Quratulain, S. (2020). Do frontline employees cope effectively with abusive supervision and customer incivility? Testing the effect of employee resilience. Journal of Business and Psychology, 35(2), 223-240. Al-Hawari, M. A., Bani-Melhem, S., & Shamsudin, F. M. (2019). Determinants of frontline employee service innovative behavior: The moderating role of co-worker socializing and service climate. Management Research Review, 42(9), 1076-1094. Baele, S.J., Sterck, O.C. & Meur, E., (2016). Theorizing and measuring emotions in conflict: The case of the 2011 Palestinian statehood bid. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 60(4), pp.718-747. Bardoel, E.A., Pettit, T.M., De Cieri, H. & McMillan, L., (2014). Employee resilience: An emerging challenge for HRM. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 52(3), pp.279297. Project Conflicts and Employee Burnout 612 Beitler, L. A., Scherer, S., & Zapf, D. (2018). Interpersonal conflict at work: Age and emotional competence differences in conflict management. Organizational Psychology Review, 8(4), 195-227. Bendersky, C. & Hays, N.A., (2012). Status conflict in groups. Organization Science, 23(2), 323-340. Borden, L., Levy, P. E., & Silverman, S. B. (2018). Leader arrogance and subordinate outcomes: The role of feedback processes. Journal of Business and Psychology, 33, 345364. Britt, T. W., Shen, W., Sinclair, R. R., Grossman, M. R., & Klieger, D. M. (2016). How much do we really know about employee resilience?. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 9(2), 378-404. Cai, M., Wang, M., & Cheng, J. (2024). The Effect of Servant Leadership on Work Engagement: The Role of Employee Resilience and Organizational Support. Behavioral Sciences, 14(4), 300. Campbell‐Sills, L. & Stein, M.B., (2007). Psychometric analysis and refinement of the connor–davidson resilience scale (CD‐RISC): Validation of a 10‐item measure of resilience. Journal of Traumatic Stress: Official Publication of The International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies, 20(6), 1019-1028. Caniëls, M.C. & Baaten, S.M., (2019). How a learning-oriented organizational climate is linked to different proactive behaviors: The role of employee resilience. Social Indicators Research, 143(2), 561-577. Caputo, A., Marzi, G., Maley, J., & Silic, M. (2019). Ten years of conflict management research 2007-2017: An update on themes, concepts and relationships. International Journal of Conflict Management, 30(1), 87-110. Cheung, G. W., Cooper-Thomas, H. D., Lau, R. S., & Wang, L. C. (2024). Reporting reliability, convergent and discriminant validity with structural equation modeling: A review and best-practice recommendations. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 41(2), 745-783. Chi, P., Li, X., Du, H., Tam, C. C., Zhao, J., & Zhao, G. (2016). Does stigmatization wear down resilience? A longitudinal study among children affected by parental HIV. Personality and Individual Differences, 96, 159-163. Cooke, J.E., Eirich, R., Racine, N. & Madigan, S., (2020). Prevalence of posttraumatic and general psychological stress during COVID-19: A rapid review and metaanalysis. Psychiatry research, 292, 113347. De Clercq, D., Fatima, T. & Jahanzeb, S., (2021). Gossiping about an arrogant leader: Sparked by inconsistent leadership, mitigated by employee resilience. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 57(3), 269-289. Aslam & Islam 613 De Wit, F. R., Greer, L. L., & Jehn, K. A. (2012). The paradox of intragroup conflict: a meta-analysis. Journal of applied psychology, 97(2), 360-390. DeChurch, L. A., Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., & Doty, D. (2013). Moving beyond relationship and task conflict: toward a process-state perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(4), 559-578. Erkutlu, H., & Chafra, J. (2017). Leaders’ narcissism and organizational cynicism in healthcare organizations. International Journal of Workplace Health Management, 10(5), 346-363. Feeney, B.C. & Collins, N.L., (2015). A new look at social support: A theoretical perspective on thriving through relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19(2), 113-147. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 382-388. Hahn, T. (2000). Property rights, ethics and conflict resolution: Foundations of the Sami economy in Sweden (No. 258, pp. 224-pp). Uppsala: Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2-24. Harmon, K.M., (2003). Conflicts between owner and contractors: Proposed intervention process. Journal of management in Engineering, 19(3), 121-125. Harris, K. J., Harris, R. B., Carlson, J. R., & Carlson, D. S. (2015). Resource loss from technology overload and its impact on work-family conflict: Can leaders help?. Computers in Human Behavior, 50, 411-417. Hayes, J.R., 2013. The complete problem solver. Routledge. Heravian Shandiz, J., Momeni Moghaddam, H., Wolffsohn, J. S., & Karimpour, M. (2023). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis of the Persian version of the low-vision quality-of-life questionnaire. British Journal of Visual Impairment, 02646196231154473. Hobfoll, S.E., (2001). The influence of culture, community, and the nested‐self in the stress process: Advancing conservation of resources theory. Applied psychology, 50(3), pp.337421. Hobfoll, S.E., Halbesleben, J., Neveu, J.P. & Westman, M., (2018). Conservation of resources in the organizational context: The reality of resources and their consequences. Annual review of organizational psychology and organizational behavior, 5, 103-128. Project Conflicts and Employee Burnout 614 Hudgins, T.A., (2016). Resilience, job satisfaction and anticipated turnover in nurse leaders. Journal of nursing management, 24(1), E62-E69. Humphrey, S.E., Aime, F., Cushenbery, L., Hill, A.D. & Fairchild, J., (2017). Team conflict dynamics: Implications of a dyadic view of conflict for team performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 142, 58-70. Hwang, J., & Shin, K. (2023). Transformation of task conflict into relational conflict and burnout: enhancing effect of leader’s discriminatory effect. Psychological Reports, 00332941231152389. Jacobson, N. C., Erickson, T. M., Quach, C. M., & Singh, N. B. (2023). Low Emotional Complexity as a Transdiagnostic Risk Factor: Comparing Idiographic Markers of Emotional Complexity to Emotional Granularity as Predictors of Anxiety, Depression, and Personality Pathology. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 47(2), 181-194. Jehn, K. A. (1994). Enhancing effectiveness: An investigation of advantages and disadvantages of value‐based intragroup conflict. International journal of conflict management, 5(3), 223-238. Jehn, K.A., (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative science quarterly, 256-282. Jelodar, M.B., Yiu, T.W. & Wilkinson, S., (2015). Systematic representation of relationship quality in conflict and dispute: For construction projects. Construction Economics and Building, 15(1), 89-103. Jimmieson, N.L., Tucker, M.K. & Campbell, J.L., (2017). Task conflict leads to relationship conflict when employees are low in trait self-control: Implications for employee strain. Personality and Individual Differences, 113, 209-218. Jungst, M., & Blumberg, B. (2016). Work relationships: Counteracting the negative effects of conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management, 27(2), 180-204. Khaksar, S.M.S., Maghsoudi, T. & Young, S., (2019). Social capital, psychological resilience and job burnout in hazardous work environments. Labour & Industry: a journal of the social and economic relations of work, 29(2), 155-180. Kim, B., Yu, H., Huang, Y., & Lee, S. (2023). Impact of customer incivility on restaurant employee stress spread and turnover: COVID-19 vaccination mandate. International journal of hospitality management, 113, 103522. Kim, C. S., & Kim, J. (2015). The impact of emotional labor on burnout for caregivers of stroke patients. Korean Journal of Occupational Health Nursing, 24(1), 31-38. Kim, Y. B., & Lee, S. H. (2023, June). The Nursing Work Environment, Supervisory Support, Nurse Characteristics, and Burnout as Predictors of Intent to Stay among Hospital Nurses in the Republic of Korea: A Path Analysis. Healthcare 11(11), 1653 Aslam & Islam 615 Kumari, P., & Sangwan, V. (2015). A Study on Resilience Capacity in Relation to WorkLife Balance of Executives in the Pharmaceutical Industry. Online International Interdisciplinary Research Journal, 5(2), 167-180. Kundi, Y. M., & Badar, K. (2021). Interpersonal conflict and counterproductive work behavior: the moderating roles of emotional intelligence and gender. International Journal of Conflict Management, 32(3), 514-534. Kuriakose, V., Wilson, P. R., & MR, A. (2019). The differential association of workplace conflicts on employee well-being: The moderating role of perceived social support at work. International Journal of Conflict Management, 30(5), 680-705. Leon-Perez, J. M., Antino, M., & Leon-Rubio, J. M. (2016). The role of psychological capital and intragroup conflict on employees' burnout and quality of service: a multilevel approach. Frontiers in psychology, 7, 1755. Li, H. T. (2023). Escalation of relationship conflict into work disengagement: uncovering mediation mechanisms. International Journal of Conflict Management, 34(1), 80-103. Luthans, B. C., Luthans, K. W., & Avey, J. B. (2014). Building the leaders of tomorrow: The development of academic psychological capital. Journal of leadership & organizational studies, 21(2), 191-199. Ma, J., & Liu, C. (2019). The moderating effect of emotional intelligence on the relationship between supervisor conflict and employees’ counterproductive work behaviors. International journal of conflict management, 30(2), 227-245. Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1981). The measurement of experienced burnout. Journal of organizational behavior, 2(2), 99-113. Maslach, C., (2003). Job burnout: New directions in research and intervention. Current directions in psychological science, 12(5), 189-192. Mehmood, K., Jabeen, F., Rashid, M., Alshibani, S. M., Lanteri, A., & Santoro, G. (2024). Unraveling the transformation: The three-wave time-lagged study on big data analytics, green innovation, and their impact on economic and environmental performance in manufacturing SMEs. European Journal of Innovation Management, 27(3), 442-462. Meier, L. L., Gross, S., Spector, P. E., & Semmer, N. K. (2013). Relationship and task conflict at work: interactive short-term effects on angry mood and somatic complaints. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 18(2), 144. Preacher, K.J., Rucker, D.D. & Hayes, A.F., (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate behavioral research, 42(1), 185-227. Revilla, M.A., Saris, W.E. & Krosnick, J.A., (2014). Choosing the number of categories in agree–disagree scales. Sociological Methods & Research, 43(1), 73-97.