Aslam, Muhammad Syam; Ul Islam, Shuja
A icle
The bu e ing ole o employee esilience in he
Rela ionship be ween p ojec con lic s and employee
bu nou wi h he media ion o nega i e emo ions
Pakis an Jou nal o Comme ce and Social Sciences (PJCSS)
P o ided in Coope a ion wi h:
Joha Educa ion Socie y, Pakis an (JESPK)
Sugges ed Ci a ion: Aslam, Muhammad Syam; Ul Islam, Shuja (2024) : The bu e ing ole o employee
esilience in he Rela ionship be ween p ojec con lic s and employee bu nou wi h he media ion
o nega i e emo ions, Pakis an Jou nal o Comme ce and Social Sciences (PJCSS), ISSN 2309-8619,
Joha Educa ion Socie y, Pakis an (JESPK), Laho e, Vol. 18, Iss. 3, pp. 592-618
This Ve sion is a ailable a :
h ps://hdl.handle.ne /10419/305447
S anda d-Nu zungsbedingungen:
Die Dokumen e au EconS o dü en zu eigenen wissenscha lichen
Zwecken und zum P i a geb auch gespeiche und kopie we den.
Sie dü en die Dokumen e nich ü ö en liche ode komme zielle
Zwecke e iel äl igen, ö en lich auss ellen, ö en lich zugänglich
machen, e eiben ode ande wei ig nu zen.
So e n die Ve asse die Dokumen e un e Open-Con en -Lizenzen
(insbesonde e CC-Lizenzen) zu Ve ügung ges ell haben soll en,
gel en abweichend on diesen Nu zungsbedingungen die in de do
genann en Lizenz gewäh en Nu zungs ech e.
Te ms o use:
Documen s in EconS o may be sa ed and copied o you pe sonal
and schola ly pu poses.
You a e no o copy documen s o public o comme cial pu poses, o
exhibi he documen s publicly, o make hem publicly a ailable on he
in e ne , o o dis ibu e o o he wise use he documen s in public.
I he documen s ha e been made a ailable unde an Open Con en
Licence (especially C ea i e Commons Licences), you may exe cise
u he usage igh s as speci ied in he indica ed licence.
h ps://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
Pakis an Jou nal o Comme ce and Social Sciences
2024, Vol. 18(3), 592-618
Pak J Comme Soc Sci
The Bu e ing Role o Employee Resilience in The
Rela ionship Be ween P ojec Con lic s and Employee
Bu nou wi h The Media ion o Nega i e Emo ions
Muhammad Syam Aslam*
D . Shuja Ul Islam
FAST School o Managemen
Na ional Uni e si y o Compu e and Eme ging Sciences, Islamabad, Pakis an
*Co esponding au ho , E-Mail: syam.schola @gmail.com
A icle His o y
Recei ed: 04 June 2024
Re ised: 11 Sep 2024
Accep ed: 14 Sep 2024
Published: 30 Sep 2024
Abs ac
This s udy aims o es he hypo hesized mode a ed media ion p ocess combining p ojec
con lic s, nega i e emo ions, employee esilience, and employee bu nou . I p oposes ha
nega i e emo ions can be conside ed as a media o be ween he ela ionship o p ojec
con lic s and employee bu nou , and his media ion e ec is mode a ed by he le el o
employee esilience. Da a we e collec ed om employees wo king in p ojec -based
o ganiza ions. The inal numbe o esponses was 389. We used s uc u al equa ion
modelling o model i ness and di ec ela ionships, and PROCESS mac o model 4 and 14
we e used o media ion and mode a ed media ion analysis espec i ely. The main inding
is ha employee esilience mode a es he indi ec ela ionship be ween p ojec con lic and
employee bu nou ia nega i e emo ions. P ojec con lic has a posi i e and signi ican
e ec on employee bu nou . The esul s o his s udy help us unde s and why he highe
managemen o a p ojec -based o ganiza ion should conside employee esilience o a oid
he nega i e consequences o p ojec con lic s. Res ing on he esea ch gaps iden i ied, his
s udy p oposes a unique con lic model ha hypo hesizes a mode a ed media ion p ocess.
Keywo ds: P ojec con lic , ask con lic , ela ionship con lic , p ocess con lic , s a us
con lic , nega i e emo ions, employee esilience, employee bu nou , p ojec -based
o ganiza ions, Pakis an.
1. In oduc ion
In he mode n e a, a numbe o p ojec s a e unde way and he ma ke is going o be mo e
compe i i e. These p ojec s ace many issues, especially con lic s ela ed o he p ojec
(Wu e al., 2017). Fo be e pe o mance, he p ojec manage gi es au ho i y o eam
membe s o wo k in hei way o high pe o mance, which leads o con lic (Wong e al.,
1999). The complexi y o p ojec design has inc eased, and a speci ic di ision o labo is
obse ed. Such ea u es in ol e a high le el o commi men and coope a ion among p ojec
eam membe s, leading o p ojec con lic s (Wu e al., 2017). Con lic s among eam
Aslam & Islam
593
membe s a e e y common in he wo kplace, and mus be ackled in a imely (Yang e al.,
2019; T emmel e al., 2019). Some esea ch s udies ha e shown ha con lic s among eam
membe s egula e he mode a o ha egula es he ela ionship o con lic s wi h hei
ou come (Ku iakose e al., 2019). Resea ch s udies indica e ha con lic s a wo kplaces a e
an impo an s esso in employees’ li es (Kundi and Bada , 2021; Bei le e al., 2018)
Du ing he p ojec phase, hese con lic s a e ine i able because he e a e dis inc iews on
p ojec objec i es, such as ime, quali y, secu i y, and weak communica ion among p ojec
eam membe s (Wu e al., 2017; Ha mon, 2003). Con lic s among eam membe s a nish
sa is ac ion and a sense o belongingness wi h he o ganiza ion (Yue, & Thelen, 2023).
Acco ding o Jeloda e al. (2015), p ojec dispu es can lead o challenging connec ions
be ween di e en eams and make i di icul o a ain he goals o he p ojec . Conse a ion
o esou ces (COR) heo y (Hob oll e al., 2018) a gues ha wo kplace s esso s deple e
indi iduals' esou ces, leading o nega i e ou comes. Acco ding o Hob oll (2001), he
co olla y o COR s a es ha loss bege s loss, which means deple ion in esou ces will
u he lead o a nega i e impac on indi idual esou ces. Based on his s a emen , we a gue
ha p ojec con lic s (loss ied wi h eam membe s) will igge nega i e emo ions ha will
lead o loss o esou ces (employee bu nou ). COR heo y assumes ha employees use hei
esou ces o educe he nega i e impac , so he mode a ing ole o employee esilience is
es ed h ough a mode a ed media ion model.
Wo kplace s esso s igge nega i e emo ions among eam membe s ha ac as media o s
be ween p ojec con lic s and employee bu nou , which will co e he issue men ioned by
Humph ey e al. (2017) ha emo ions ha pe ain o con lic s (Rispens and Deme ou i,
2016), u he Rode iguez-Rey e al. (2024) ecommended s udying he ela ionship
be ween nega i e emo ions and bu nou . Shin e al. (2012) a gued ha an employee’s
esilience ocuses on he abili y o eco e om dis up ions while pe o ming asks. Cooke
e al. (2020) and Ba doel e al. (2014) in es iga ed he ole o esilience in he wo kplace
because i has ecei ed li le academic sc u iny.
The main aim o his s udy is o add ess he p oblem o how p ojec con lic s a ec
employee bu nou , and as many con lic s udies ha e in es iga ed hei ou comes, hose
s udies showed de imen al e ec s, and ew s udies showed cu ilinea e ec s. Acco ding
o COR heo y, wo kplace s esso s igge nega i e emo ions ha can boos he nega i e
ela ionship be ween p ojec con lic s and employee bu nou . This s udy co e ed he gap
men ioned by Humph ey e al. (2017) ha he ela ionship be ween con lic s and emo ions
should be s udied. Shin e al. (2012) and Tugade and F ed ickson (2004) a gued ha
esea ch s udies indica e ha esilien employees a e well equipped o cope wi h un o eseen
s ess ul e en s; hus, employee esilience hampe s nega i e ou comes, such as employee
bu nou . The e o e, his s udy co e ed he gap men ioned by Cooke e al. (2020) and
Ba doel e al. (2014) ha limi ed s udies ha e been conduc ed o in es iga e he ole o
esilience in he wo kplace. The e o e, based on hese esea ch gaps, he e is a need o
P ojec Con lic s and Employee Bu nou
594
in es iga e he impac o p ojec con lic s on employee bu nou h ough he media ion o
nega i e emo ions and mode a ion o employee esilience in p ojec -based o ganiza ions.
This is an indi idual-based s udy in which esponses a e eco ded by indi idual employees
wo king in a p ojec -based o ganiza ion. Based on he esea ch objec i es and gaps
iden i ied in he li e a u e
This s udy is suppo ed by he conse a ion o esou ces (COR) heo y (Hob oll, 2018),
which p oposes ha employees wi h highe esou ces a e less ulne able o wo kplace
s esso s, so we can assume ha employee esilience hampe s nega i e ou comes due o
wo kplace s esso s and emo ions. Wi h he suppo o COR, his s udy in es iga ed he
mode a ed media ion ole o employee esilience h ough he indi ec ela ionship be ween
p ojec con lic s and employee bu nou h ough nega i e emo ions.
This s udy in ends o p o ide a deep unde s anding o how p ojec con lic s a ec bu nou
among employees wo king in p ojec -based o ganiza ions. In addi ion, a mode a ed
media ion model o nega i e emo ions and employee esilience was s udied.
2. Li e a u e Re iew
2.1 P ojec Con lic s and Employee Bu nou
Resea che s ha e de ined con lic as psychological and social, which a y om con ex o
con ex . Acco ding o Thomas (1973), con lic is a p ocess ha begins when an indi idual
ies o ake ad an age o o bene i om ano he indi idual, esul ing in us a ion.
Con lic is a s a e in which someone eels hos ile and ea s showing hei emo ions (Wang
e al. 2012). Wall and Callis e (1995) explain con lic as a p ocess in which one pe cei es
conce ns ha a e opposed o o he s. The adi ional iew o con lic highligh s con lic as
an opposi ion o indi iduals du ing compe i ion wi h one ano he , and i is assumed ha
he opposing pa y has some so o ad an age o e his con lic (Jehn, 1995).
Employee bu nou is a psychological s ain o dis ess ha can a ise due o o ganiza ional
s esso s as well as indi idual s esso s du ing ask pe o mance. I such s esso s a e no
ackled, i leads o bu nou in he wo kplace, eelings o de achmen , exhaus ion, cynicism,
and ine ec i eness. Fu he mo e, bu nou leads o a dec ease in o ganiza ional
commi men . The li e a u e has explo ed many ac o s ha cause bu nou as a combina ion
o indi idual isks and o ganiza ional s esso s, such as in a- eam con lic s ( ask con lic ,
ela ionship con lic , p ocess con lic , and s a us con lic ). Schau eli and Salano a (2014)
explained he an eceden s o bu nou as highly quali a i e (lack o in o ma ion o pe o m
asks, wo k- amily con lic s, and disc epan wo k oles), quan i a i e (u gency, excessi e
wo k, equen con ac wi h cus ome s/clien s, and long wo king hou s), and lack o job
esou ces. S ess be ween eam membe s leads o nega i e emo ions, which leads o
employee bu nou (Kim & Lee, 2023). Schau eli and Buunk, (2003) concluded ha
con lic s among he eam a e he s esso which leads owa d bu nou among eam
membe s. Zhang e al. (2022) a gued ha con lic employees a e posi i ely ela ed o hei
Aslam & Islam
595
de ian beha io s and a gued ha he e is a need o s udy he ole o con lic s in os e ing
employee beha io s (Ma & Liu, 2019)
Shauka e al. (2017) a gue ha con lic causes esou ce loss, which u he inc eases
employee bu nou . Task con lic is he mos common ype o con lic , bu i does a ec
employee bu nou less han ela ionship and p ocess con lic s; con lic inc eases
dep ession, s ess, and bu nou among employees (Ta elin e al., 2020). Se e al s udies
esul ed ha ask con lic is un ela ed o employee well-being i.e. Bu nou (Leon-Pe ez e
al., 2016).
Based on he COR heo y, ego h ea s can de elop hos ili y among eam membe s, leading
o dis us , s ess, bu nou , and dep ession o e ime. Rela ionship con lic leads o a loss
o esou ces such as eam membe suppo (Hob oll e al., 2018), which inc eases employee
bu nou . S udies ha e con i med he nega i e in luence o ela ionship con lic s on
employee well-being, ha is, nega i e emo ions (De Wi e al. 2012), and s ess (Sonnen ag
e al., 2013). Jimmieson e al. (2017) a gued ha esea ch s udies on employee bu nou a e
less conclusi e and sugges ed ha ela ionship con lic inc eases employee bu nou .
Leon-Pe ez e al. (2016) conduc ed a s udy among employees wo king in a sa e inspec ion
depa men and ound no ela ionship be ween p ocess con lic and employee bu nou ,
while Rispens and Deme ou i (2016) conduc ed a dia y s udy, which esul ed in p ocess
con lic leading o nega i e emo ions. Con lic s among eam membe s unde mine hei
associa ion wi h eam membe s and he o ganiza ion, as hey do no wan o emain in ha
eam because o hei nega i e expe iences (Jungs and Blumbe g, 2016). Li (2023) a gued
ha ela ionship con lic s ha e an indi ec e ec on disengagemen h ough exhaus ion,
and a di ec e ec on pe o mance (Zhang & Zhou, 2019; Venz & Neshe Shoshan, 2022).
Mo eo e , Hwang and Shin (2023) a gued ha ask con lic ans o m o ela ionship
con lic which leads o employee bu nou , i means ha hese con lic s a e no s a ic in
na u e. I means ha con lic s a e dynamic in na u e and ans o m o one ano he (Ullah,
2022).
Based on COR heo y, wo kplace s esso s (in a eam con lic s) gene a es nega i e
consequences o employees, so we can assume ask, ela ionship, p ocess and s a us
con lic will lead o disag eemen s on asks among he eams, and hey will conside i a
pe sonal insul and gene a e s ess. P olonged s ess and dep ession lead o employee
bu nou . Ha is e al. (2015) a gued ha COR heo y explains ha indi idual’s eel s essed
when si ua ions do no mee hei expec a ions. Resea ch on con lic s has igno ed he
impac on employee bu nou , which includes he dimensions o emo ional exhaus ion,
cynicism, and lack o p o essional e icacy. Based on empi ical e idence and he abo e
discussion, we p opose he ollowing:
➢ H1. P ojec con lic s a e posi i ely ela ed o employee bu nou .
➢ H1a. Task con lic is posi i ely ela ed o employee bu nou .
P ojec Con lic s and Employee Bu nou
596
➢ H1b. Rela ionship con lic is posi i ely ela ed o employee bu nou .
➢ H1c. P ocess con lic is posi i ely ela ed o employee bu nou .
➢ H1d. S a us con lic is posi i ely ela ed o employee bu nou .
2.2 Nega i e Emo ions as Media o
The co olla y o COR s a es ha loss bege s loss, which means deple ion in esou ces, will
u he lead o a nega i e impac on indi idual esou ces. Based on his s a emen , we a gue
ha p ojec con lic s (loss ied wi h eam membe s) will igge nega i e emo ions ha will
lead o loss o esou ces such as employee bu nou (Hob oll, 2001). Baele e al. (2016)
a gued ha emo ion is a i al ou come, bu his ela ionship has been unde - heo ized and
igno ed by esea che s. P e ious esea ch indica es ha con lic is one o he signi ican
wo kplace s esso s (Hahn, 2000) and nega i e emo ions nega i ely impac employees’
mo i a ions. Task con lic has a posi i e ela ionship wi h psychological s ain (Sonnen ag
e al., 2013), and employees’ nega i e a i udes, such as job dissa is ac ion (de Wi e al.,
2012). Mo eo e , s udies ha e indica ed ha ask con lic has posi i e e ec s on employee
a i udes (DeChu ch e al., 2013); some s udies ha e shown ha ask con lic does no lead
o nega i e emo ions (Meie e al., 2013).
Rispens and Deme ou i (2016) ound ha ela ionship and p ocess con lic expe ienced
nega i e emo ions (sadness, guil , ange , and con emp ), while ask con lic did no elici
nega i e emo ions. Resea ch s udies ha e consis en ly ound ha he nega i e
consequences o ela ionship con lic elici nega i e emo ions among employees, and
social s ess expe iences lead employees owa ds nega i e emo ions such as anxie y,
us a ion, and ange (Jehn, 1994). Wu e al. (2018) a gue ha ela ionship con lic leads
o ange , ension, hos ili y, and o he ypes o nega i e emo ions, leading o a ha m ul
impac on employee dissa is ac ion, dep ession, and bu nou . De Wi e al. (2012) a gued
ha he e is a posi i e ela ionship be ween p ocess con lic and nega i e emo ions,
Ku iakose e al. (2019) in es iga ed he media ing ole o nega i e emo ions be ween
p ocess con lic and indi idual well-being, which esul ed in he pa ial media ion o
nega i e emo ions. Feeney and Collins (2015) s udied nega i e emo ions as a media o , in
which indi iduals wi h low suppo show mo e nega i e emo ions ha lead o emo ional
dis ess (Wilson e al., 2021; Jacobson e al., 2013). Employees in ol ed in eam con lic s
expe ience nega i e emo ions (Venz and Neshe Shoshan, 2022), bu he e is li le li e a u e
a ailable on he de imen al ou comes o hese emo ions (Zhang and Zhou, 2019; Venz and
Neshe Shoshan, 2022). Ullah (2022) poin ed ou ha ask con lic s and p ocess con lic s
lead o ela ionship con lic s h ough nega i e emo ions, which is a conce n when s udying
all he dimensions o con lic s.
Se e al s udies ha e in es iga ed he ela ionship be ween wo kplace con lic s and
nega i e emo ions among employees wo king in an o ganiza ion, bu hey ha e mainly
ocused on ange (Rispens, 2012) while Wa son e al. (1988) p oposed 10 i ems on nega i e
Aslam & Islam
597
emo ions in hei PANES i ems. Based on he abo e empi ical s udies and discussion we
can assume he ollowing hypo hesis:
➢ H2. Nega i e emo ions media e he ela ionship be ween p ojec con lic s and
employee bu nou .
➢ H2a. Nega i e emo ions media e he ela ionship be ween ask con lic and
employee bu nou .
➢ H2b. Nega i e emo ions media e he ela ionship be ween ela ionship con lic
and employee bu nou .
➢ H2c. Nega i e emo ions media e he ela ionship be ween p ocess con lic and
employee bu nou .
➢ H2d. Nega i e emo ions media e he ela ionship be ween s a us con lic and
employee bu nou .
2.3 Mode a ion o Employee Resilience
Resilience is de ined as a pe son's abili y o adap o di icul e en s and ha dships, as well
as o o e come challenges (Tonkin e al., 2018; Chi e al., 2016). The e is signi ican
e idence in he li e a u e ha di icul job se ings o s esses can con ibu e o poo
employee esul s and bu nou (Maslach e al., 2003). Employees wi h esilience as a
esou ce capabili y may be able o eco e om si ua ions such as o ganiza ional
commi men , job sa is ac ion, lexibili y, employee beha io , employee pe o mance, and
e ec i eness (Lu hans e al., 2014; Cai e al., 2024). Indi idual a iables, such as
pe sonali y, de e mine he le el o which an indi idual may su e emo ional i edness o
s ess, as well as epe cussions such as bu nou . G ea e esilience p o ec s employees om
emo ional i edness and leads o be e pe sonal pe o mance (Rush on e al., 2015). Gi en
he ela ionship be ween esilience and bu nou in high-in ensi y nu sing special ies
(Rush on e al. 2015), one op ion o helping nu sing s uden s manage hei s ess is o
each hem posi i e adap i e coping skills (Sande son & B ewe 2017).
Value o social capi al in imp o ing psychological esilience and educing bu nou in he
wo kplace. Khaksa e al. (2019) obse ed ha psychological esilience helps mi iga e he
nega i e link be ween social capi al and job bu nou in indi iduals who wo k in haza dous
en i onmen s, and we sugges ha esilience is impo an o limi ing job bu nou in people
who wo k in haza dous en i onmen s (Khaksa e al., 2019). Resilien wo ke s pe o m
be e in di icul wo k si ua ions (Sha é e al., 2017). Fu he mo e, esea ch sugges s ha
people wi h high esilience a e be e able o cope wi h ad e si y and change (Rossi e al.,
2013). Howe e , some esea che s a gue ha i is unclea whe he employee esilience
shows he same le el o adap a ion (B i e al., 2016). Resilience is an employee’s esou ce
ha helps o cope wi h s ess ul si ua ions (De Cle cq e al., 2021), and esea che s sugges
ha employee esilience mode a es psychological s ess and ou comes.
P ojec Con lic s and Employee Bu nou
598
The mode a ing ole o employee esilience has ecei ed less a en ion om esea che s,
whe eas AlHawa i e al. (2020) s udied esilience as a mode a o be ween s esso s and
ou comes (Hudgins, 2016; Kuma i & Sangwan, 2015). Bo den e al. (2018) a gued ha
esilien employees, who su e less om s ess ul e en s, conside hemsel es sel -wo hy
(E ku lu & Cha a, 2017). Yasami e al., (2024) a gued ha employee esilience enhances
he ela ionship o wo k engagemen and psychological wi hd awal beha io . Employee
esilience is a pe sonal esou ce ha mo i a es employees o cope wi h un o eseen
si ua ions (Caniëls & Baa en, 2019), and highly esilien employees ha e he habi o
dealing wi h nega i e emo ions (Al-Hawa i e al., 2019). Based on he abo e discussion,
we p opose he ollowing mode a ed media ion hypo hesis:
➢ H3: Employee esilience mode a es he indi ec ela ionship be ween p ojec
con lic and employee bu nou h ough emo ions. The indi ec e ec will be
weake o employees who epo high le els o esilience han o hose who
epo low le els o esilience.
➢ H3a: Employee esilience mode a es he indi ec ela ionship be ween ask
con lic and bu nou ia nega i e emo ions. The indi ec e ec will be weake o
employees who epo high le els o esilience han o hose who epo low
le els o esilience.
➢ H3b: Employee esilience mode a es he indi ec ela ionship be ween
ela ionship con lic and employee bu nou h ough nega i e emo ions. The
indi ec e ec will be weake o employees who epo high le els o esilience
han o hose who epo low le els o esilience.
➢ H3c: Employee esilience mode a es he indi ec ela ionship be ween p ocess
con lic and employee bu nou h ough nega i e emo ions. The indi ec e ec will
be weake o employees who epo high le els o esilience han o hose who
epo low le els o esilience.
➢ H3d: Employee esilience mode a es he indi ec ela ionship be ween s a us
con lic and employee bu nou h ough nega i e emo ions. The indi ec e ec will
be weake o employees who epo high le els o esilience han o hose who
epo low le els o esilience.
2.4 Resea ch F amewo k
In his esea ch amewo k (Figu e: 1), p ojec con lic s a e concep ualized as he
independen a iable wi h a media ing a iable nega i e emo ion, employee esilience is a
mode a ing a iable, and he ou come a iable is employee bu nou .
Aslam & Islam
599
Figu e 1: Resea ch F amewo k
3. Resea ch Me hodology
3.1 Sample and P ocedu e
This s udy uses a quan i a i e me hodology. The popula ion selec ed o his su ey
consis ed o employees wo king in p ojec -based o ganiza ions. All esea ch e hics we e
s ic ly ollowed, wi h w i en consen ob ained om all esponden s be o e dis ibu ing
he ques ionnai e. Pa icipan con iden iali y and anonymi y we e ully main ained.
Following he ule o humb, he sample size o his s udy should be 385. A ime-lagged
design o he esea ch was used ins ead o a c oss-sec ional design o a oid he p oblem o
a common me hod o a iance (Mehmood e al., 2024; Shang e al., 2022). Da a we e
collec ed in h ee wa es wi h a minimum gap o 15 days be ween he wo ime pe iods.
Da a a e collec ed om high-le el o ice s in he p ojec -based o ganiza ion as hey a e
well awa e o he impo ance and sensi i i y o he da a collec ion, and wi h highe
quali ica ions (bachelo ’sand mas e ’s le el educa ion), hey can easily unde s and English
and be able o answe p ope ly. Na ional Manage s o hese employees we e con ac ed
ace- o- ace in hei head o ice, and he objec i e o he s udy was explained. A e
ob aining hei consen , esea ch e hics and Co id-19 SOPs we e ensu ed. They helped us
a ange he mee ing a di e en enues, and he objec i e o he s udy was explained o
hose esponden s who came while he es we e con ac ed h ough hei con ac numbe s
and email add esses. A o al o 650 ques ionnai es we e dis ibu ed h ough andom
sampling a Time 1, as he da a we e collec ed h ough a h ee- ime lag design; hus, he
P ojec Con lic s and Employee Bu nou
606
Table 6 esul showed ha p ojec con lic s posi i ely in luence signi ican ly nega i e
emo ions (b = 0.712) and employee bu nou (b = 0.451) because he e is no ze o in-be ween
con idence in e al. Fu he , he esul also depic s he uncondi ional indi ec e ec o
p ojec con lic on employee bu nou (b = 0.182) h ough nega i e emo ion and he e is no
ze o in-be ween con idence in e als which p o e ou H2. Mo eo e , he esul showed
ha ask con lic posi i ely and signi ican ly in luences nega i e emo ions (b = 0.429) and
employee bu nou (b = 0.235) because he e is no ze o in-be ween con idence in e al.
Table 6 esul depic ed he uncondi ional indi ec e ec o p ojec con lic on employee
bu nou (b = 0.146) h ough nega i e emo ion and he e a e no ze o in-be ween con idence
in e als which p o es ou H2 (a).
Table 6 esul showed ha ela ionship con lic posi i ely and signi ican ly in luences
nega i e emo ions (b = 0.407) and employee bu nou (b = 0.266) because he e is no ze o
in-be ween con idence in e al. Table 6 esul also depic ed he uncondi ional indi ec
e ec o p ojec con lic on employee bu nou (b = 0.136) h ough nega i e emo ion and
he e is no ze o in-be ween con idence in e als which p o es ou H2 (b). Table 6 esul
showed ha p ocess con lic posi i ely in luences signi ican ly nega i e emo ions (b =
0.412) and employee bu nou (b = 0.246) because he e is no ze o in-be ween con idence
in e al. Table 4 esul depic ed he uncondi ional indi ec e ec o p ojec con lic on
employee bu nou (b = 0.137) h ough nega i e emo ion and he e is no ze o in-be ween
con idence in e als which p o es ou H2 (c).
Table 4 esul showed ha s a us con lic posi i ely and signi ican ly in luences nega i e
emo ions (b = 0.322) and employee bu nou (b = 0.100) because he e is no ze o in-be ween
con idence in e al. Fu he , he uncondi ional indi ec e ec o p ojec con lic on
employee bu nou (b = 0.133) h ough nega i e emo ion and he e is no ze o in-be ween
con idence in e als which p o e ou H2 (d). In summa y, ou all-media ing hypo heses
a e p o en and hese esul s suppo s p e ious esea ch s udies (Venz & Neshe Shoshan,
2022; Ullah, 2022).
4.4 Mode a ed Media ion Analysis
In his s udy, mode a ed media ion was es ed using SPSS mac o-PROCESS, and Model
14 was u ilized o he analysis (Hayes, 2013; P eache e al., 2007). Table 7 shows ha all
independen a iables posi i ely and signi ican ly in luence nega i e emo ions and
employee bu nou , because he e is no ze o be ween hei con idence in e als. Table 7
indica es ha a e adding he media o nega i e emo ions, all condi ional indi ec e ec s
o p ojec con lic s on employee bu nou h ough nega i e emo ions we e signi ican
because he e we e no ze o in-be ween con idence in e als, which suppo s ou media ing
hypo hesis. The mode a ed media ion esul s o p ojec con lic on employee bu nou we e
also signi ican (b = -0.073; LLCI = -0.154; ULCI= -0.001). The indi ec condi ional e ec
o p ojec con lic s on employee bu nou h ough nega i e emo ions a h ee le els o
employee esilience: mean (M), one s anda d de ia ion abo e he mean (+1 SD), and one
s anda d de ia ion below he mean (-1 SD). The esul s e ealed ha he condi ional
Aslam & Islam
607
indi ec e ec o p ojec con lic s on employee bu nou h ough nega i e emo ions is
weake a +1 SD employee esilience (b = 0.150) han a -1 SD employee esilience (b =
0.280), which p o es H3 ha employee esilience mode a es he indi ec ela ionship
be ween p ojec con lic s and employee bu nou ia nega i e emo ions. The indi ec e ec
will be weake o employees who epo high le els o esilience han o hose who epo
low le els o esilience.
Table 7: Mode a ed Media ion Resul s
Nega i e Emo ions
Employee Bu nou
P edic o
E ec
Boo
SE
Boo
LLCI
Boo
ULCI
E ec
Boo
SE
Boo
LLCI
Boo
ULCI
P ojec Con lic s
0.712
0.054
0.605
0.819
0.397
0.0613
0.276
0.517
Task con lic
0.429
0.043
0.343
0.515
0.198
0.043
0.114
0.283
Rela ionship
con lic
0.407
0.044
0.318
0.495
0.239
0.042
0.157
0.322
P ocess con lic
0.412
0.042
0.328
0.495
0.22
0.040
0.140
0.301
S a us con lic
0.322
0.045
0.233
0.411
0.064
0.040
0.015
0.145
Uncondi ional Indi ec E ec s (Va ious Le els o he Mode a o )
P edic o
Le el o Mode a o
(Employee
Resilience)
E ec
Boo
SE
Boo LLCI
Boo ULCI
P ojec Con lic s
-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 con lic
-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
Rela ionship
con lic
-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
P ocess con lic
-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
S a us con lic
-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 o Mode a ed Media ion
P edic o
E ec on Employee
Bu nou
Boo SE
Boo LLCI
Boo ULCI
P ojec Con lic s
-0.073
0.039
-0.154
-0.001
Task con lic
-0.058
0.024
-0.112
-0.013
Rela ionship
con lic
-0.052
0.022
-0.100
-0.010
P ocess con lic
-0.054
0.022
-0.102
-0.014
S a us con lic
-0.053
0.019
-0.095
-0.017
P ojec Con lic s and Employee Bu nou
608
The mode a ed media ion esul s o ask con lic on employee bu nou we e signi ican (b
= -0.058; LLCI = -0.112; ULCI= -0.013). The indi ec condi ional e ec o ask con lic
on employee bu nou h ough nega i e emo ions a he h ee le els o employee esilience
is signi ican because he e a e no ze o in-be ween con idence in e als. The esul s
e ealed ha he condi ional indi ec e ec o ask con lic on employee bu nou h ough
nega i e emo ions is weake a +1 SD employee esilience (b = 0.113) han a -1 SD
employee esilience (b = 0.216), which p o es H3 (a) ha employee esilience mode a es
he indi ec ela ionship be ween ask con lic and employee bu nou ia nega i e
emo ions. The indi ec e ec will be weake o employees who epo high le els o
esilience han o hose who epo low le els o esilience.
The mode a ed media ion esul s o ela ionship con lic wi h employee bu nou we e
signi ican (b = -0.052; LLCI = -0.100; ULCI= -0.010). The indi ec condi ional e ec o
ela ionship con lic on employee bu nou h ough nega i e emo ions a he h ee le els o
employee esilience is signi ican because he e a e no ze o in-be ween con idence
in e als. The esul s e ealed ha he condi ional indi ec e ec o ela ionship con lic on
employee bu nou h ough nega i e emo ions is weake a +1 SD employee esilience (b =
0.105) han a -1 SD employee esilience (b = 0.199), which p o es H3 (b) ha employee
esilience mode a es he indi ec ela ionship be ween p ocess con lic and employee
bu nou ia nega i e emo ions. The indi ec e ec will be weake o employees who epo
high le els o esilience han o hose who epo low le els o esilience. The mode a ed
media ion esul s o p ocess con lic on employee bu nou we e signi ican (b = -0.054;
LLCI = -0.102; ULCI= -0.017). The indi ec condi ional e ec o p ocess con lic on
employee bu nou h ough nega i e emo ions a he h ee le els o employee esilience is
signi ican because he e a e no ze o in-be ween con idence in e als. The esul s e ealed
ha he condi ional indi ec e ec o p ocess con lic on employee bu nou h ough
nega i e emo ions is weake a +1 SD employee esilience (b = 0.105) han a -1 SD
employee esilience (b = 0.202), which p o es H3 (c) ha employee esilience mode a es
he indi ec ela ionship be ween p ocess con lic and employee bu nou ia nega i e
emo ions. The indi ec e ec will be weake o employees who epo high le els o
esilience han o hose who epo low le els o esilience.
The mode a ed media ion esul s o ask con lic on employee bu nou we e signi ican (b
= -0.053; LLCI = -0.095; ULCI= -0.017). The indi ec condi ional e ec o ask con lic
on employee bu nou h ough nega i e emo ions a he h ee le els o employee esilience
is signi ican because he e a e no ze o in-be ween con idence in e als. The esul s
e ealed ha he condi ional indi ec e ec o p ojec con lic s on employee bu nou
h ough nega i e emo ions is weake a +1 SD employee esilience (b = 0.099) han a -1
SD employee esilience (b = 0.194), which p o es H3 (d) ha employee esilience
mode a es he indi ec ela ionship be ween s a us con lic and employee bu nou ia
nega i e emo ions. The indi ec e ec will be weake o employees who epo high le els
o esilience han o hose who epo low le els o esilience. Ou mode a ed media ion
esul s suppo p e ious s udies ha highpoin he ole o employee esilience in
Aslam & Islam
609
mode a ing he abili y o cope wi h s ess ul e en s (Khaksa e al., 2019; Yasami e al.,
2024).
5. Discussion
5.1 Theo e ical Implica ions
Conse a ion o esou ce heo y explains wo kplace s esso s and hei nega i e ou comes
and explains how indi iduals a e mo i a ed o use hei esou ces o mi iga e he nega i e
impac o hose s esso s (Hob oll e al., 2018). D awing on COR heo y, his s udy
explained he media ing ole o nega i e emo ions in he ela ionship be ween p ojec
con lic s and employee bu nou . Co olla ies 1 and 2 o COR heo y explain ha employees
wi h high esou ces a e less ulne able o s ess ul si ua ions and hey y o de elop hei
esou ces; he e o e, based on his a gumen , we used employee esilience as mode a ed
ha high- esilience employees will be less a ec ed han low- esilience ones (Hob oll e
al., 2018).
Adding o he li e a u e, p ojec con lic s along wi h hei dimensions ha e nega i e
consequences (Kim, Huang, & Lee, 2023; Yue, & Thelen, 2023; Schau eli & Salano a,
2014; Ta elin e al., 2020; Kundi & Bada , 2021; Bei le e al., 2018). Se e al s udies ha e
indica ed ha ask con lic is un ela ed o s ess (F iedman e al., 2000), bu nou (Leon-
Pe ez e al., 2016), and exhaus ion (Giebels & Janssen, 2005) bu he esul s o his s udy
concluded ha ask con lic is posi i e and signi ican ly a ec s employee bu nou , which
suppo s p e ious esea ch s udies (Ullah, 2022; Ta elin e al., 2020) and ela ionship
con lic s a e posi i ely ela ed o employee bu nou (Li, 2023; Venz & Neshe Shoshan,
2022). The esul s o his s udy a e consis en wi h hose o Leon-Pe ez e al. (2016), who
ound ha his ela ionship is posi i ely ela ed o employee bu nou . A numbe o s udies
ha e in es iga ed he impac o p ocess con lic , bu ew s udies ha e ound ha p ocess
con lic is un ela ed o nega i e consequences (Leon-Pe ez e al. 2016) bu his s udy
showed ha p ocess con lic is posi i ely ela ed o nega i e emo ions and employee
bu nou .
Ea ly esea che s ha e a gued ha con lic s ha e nega i e ou comes and mode n
esea che s ha e a gued ha con lic can be bene icial bu ha e d awn on he COR heo y,
explaining ha p ojec con lic leads o nega i e emo ions ha posi i ely a ec employee
bu nou among employees wo king in a p ojec -based o ganiza ion. S udying he
media ing ole o nega i e emo ions be ween p ojec con lic s and employee bu nou has
illed he gap men ioned by (Baele e al., 2016), ou esul s indica e ha nega i e emo ions
media e be ween p ojec con lic s, ask con lic , ela ionship con lic , p ocess con lic ,
s a us con lic , and employee bu nou . The esul s o his s udy a e consis en wi h hose o
Jimmieson e al. (2017), de Wi e al. (2013), and DeChu ch e al. (2013) in ha ask
con lic elici s nega i e emo ions ha lead o nega i e consequences. Rispens and
Deme ou i (2016) a gued ha ela ionship con lic and p ocess con lic lead o nega i e
P ojec Con lic s and Employee Bu nou
610
emo ions, while ask con lic does no elici nega i e emo ions. Ku iakose e al. (2019)
a gued ha nega i e emo ions media e he ela ionship be ween p ocess con lic and well-
being, bu ou s udy esul s indica ed ha all dimensions o p ojec con lic s elici nega i e
emo ions and media e he ela ionship be ween p ojec con lic s and employee bu nou .
P ojec con lic s and nega i e emo ions lead o employee bu nou , which is a se ious
challenge o an o ganiza ion o ackle he employees’ bu nou (Kim & Chang, 2015)
because well-expe ienced and skill ul human capi al is a eal asse o any o ganiza ion
(Ko sakienė e al., 2015). The mode a ing esul s o ou s udy a e consis en in ha
employee esilience mi iga es he ela ionship be ween wo kplace s esso s and hei
ou comes (Khaksa e al., 2019; AlHawa i e al., 2020; Caniëls & Baa en, 2019).
This s udy sheds ligh on c i ical issues o u u e esea che s. This s udy explo ed a no el
model o mode a ed media ion as a mode a ion o employee esilience h ough an indi ec
ela ionship be ween p ojec con lic and employee bu nou ia nega i e emo ions. Ou
s udy ocuses on p ojec -based o ganiza ions wo king in de eloping coun ies, such as
Pakis an. Ou s udy ills he gaps in in es iga ing emo ions aised due o con lic s
(Humph ey e al., 2017), he ela ionship be ween nega i e emo ions and bu nou
(Rode iguez-Rey e al., 2024), and he ole o employee esilience in he wo kplace (Cooke
e al., 2020; and Ba doel e al. 2014). P e ious esea che s ha e s udied p ojec con lic s
in h ee dimensions and igno ed he ou h ype o s a us con lic , which we included in
his s udy. This s udy adds o he li e a u e on he ela ionship be ween p ojec con lic ,
nega i e emo ions, employee esilience, and employee bu nou .
5.2 P ac ical Implica ions
This s udy has p ac ical implica ions o indi idual employees and manage s wo king in
o ganiza ions. P e ious s udies ha e a gued ha con lic s can be bene icial (Ullah, 2022;
Khos a i e al., 2020), and h ough con lic esolu ion, we can e ec i ely manage con lic s
among p ojec eams and esol e hem o mi iga e hei nega i e consequences. The e o e,
o ganiza ions should ocus on employee well-being p og ams ha help employees cope
wi h s ess ul e en s, such as eam building, communica ion channels, and engaging
employees in cons uc i e deba es (Rez ani e al., 2019). The s udy indings show ha
nega i e emo ions media e he ela ionship be ween p ojec con lic s and employee
bu nou ; he e o e, o ganiza ions should in es in employees o ain hem o cope wi h
challenging e en s. Th ough esilience aining, employees’ capaci ies can be inc eased,
which enhances hei abili y o bounce back s ess ul e en s, such as p ojec con lic s, and
does es no allow nega i e emo ions o build and educe employee bu nou (Rez ani e al.,
2019; Kundi & Bada , 2021).
To minimize con lic s, he p ojec managemen uni should ocus on p ojec planning and
esou ce alloca ion, and e ec i e communica ion aining o employees can minimize
cons ain s because e e yone knows hei oles as pe budge and esou ce alloca ion. This
will help he eam membe s o use which ype o one and wo ds should be used, because
dispu ing pa ies do no know abou con lic esol ing op ions (Capu o e al., 2019).
Aslam & Islam
611
5.3 Limi a ions and Fu u e Resea ch
This s udy has added li e a u e o he cu en knowledge and p o ides u u e di ec ions o
o he esea che s as well. Fi s , his s udy used a simple andom sampling echnique, u u e
esea che s should conside s a i ied sampling echniques i he popula ion is di ided in o
dis an g oups, clus e sampling i he popula ion is geog aphically sp ead, pu posi e
sampling i he popula ion has special cha ac e is ics, and snowball sampling echnique,
which can make i easy o iden i y compe en esponden s.
Second, we used a ime-lag design o da a collec ion; u u e esea che s should conside
expe imen al and longi udinal s udies o gain a be e unde s anding o causal ela ionships.
Thi d, we collec ed he da a h ough sel - epo ing, which could be he eason o common
me hod bias and a ec he gene alizabili y o ou s udy. Howe e , we ollowed all esea ch
e hical conside a ions and es ed he CMB using Ha man’s single ac o es .
Fou h, in his s udy, we in es iga ed he ole o nega i e emo ions as a media o ; u u e
esea che s should also conside o he a iables like social suppo , wo kplace clima e, ole
ambigui y and pe cei ed ai ness. Fi h, he mode a ing ole o employee esilience was
s udied, and u u e esea che s should conside o he a iables, such as e hical alues and
leade ship s yles.
Resea ch Funding
The au ho s ecei ed no esea ch g an o unds o his esea ch s udy.
REFERENCES
Al-Hawa i, M. A., Bani-Melhem, S., & Qu a ulain, S. (2020). Do on line employees cope
e ec i ely wi h abusi e supe ision and cus ome inci ili y? Tes ing he e ec o
employee esilience. Jou nal o Business and Psychology, 35(2), 223-240.
Al-Hawa i, M. A., Bani-Melhem, S., & Shamsudin, F. M. (2019). De e minan s o on line
employee se ice inno a i e beha io : The mode a ing ole o co-wo ke socializing and
se ice clima e. Managemen Resea ch Re iew, 42(9), 1076-1094.
Baele, S.J., S e ck, O.C. & Meu , E., (2016). Theo izing and measu ing emo ions in
con lic : The case o he 2011 Pales inian s a ehood bid. Jou nal o Con lic
Resolu ion, 60(4), pp.718-747.
Ba doel, E.A., Pe i , T.M., De Cie i, H. & McMillan, L., (2014). Employee esilience: An
eme ging challenge o HRM. Asia Paci ic Jou nal o Human Resou ces, 52(3), pp.279-
297.
P ojec Con lic s and Employee Bu nou
612
Bei le , L. A., Sche e , S., & Zap , D. (2018). In e pe sonal con lic a wo k: Age and
emo ional compe ence di e ences in con lic managemen . O ganiza ional Psychology
Re iew, 8(4), 195-227.
Bende sky, C. & Hays, N.A., (2012). S a us con lic in g oups. O ganiza ion
Science, 23(2), 323-340.
Bo den, L., Le y, P. E., & Sil e man, S. B. (2018). Leade a ogance and subo dina e
ou comes: The ole o eedback p ocesses. Jou nal o Business and Psychology, 33, 345-
364.
B i , T. W., Shen, W., Sinclai , R. R., G ossman, M. R., & Kliege , D. M. (2016). How
much do we eally know abou employee esilience?. Indus ial and O ganiza ional
Psychology, 9(2), 378-404.
Cai, M., Wang, M., & Cheng, J. (2024). The E ec o Se an Leade ship on Wo k
Engagemen : The Role o Employee Resilience and O ganiza ional Suppo . Beha io al
Sciences, 14(4), 300.
Campbell‐Sills, L. & S ein, M.B., (2007). Psychome ic analysis and e inemen o he
conno –da idson esilience scale (CD‐RISC): Valida ion o a 10‐i em measu e o
esilience. Jou nal o T auma ic S ess: O icial Publica ion o The In e na ional Socie y
o T auma ic S ess S udies, 20(6), 1019-1028.
Caniëls, M.C. & Baa en, S.M., (2019). How a lea ning-o ien ed o ganiza ional clima e is
linked o di e en p oac i e beha io s: The ole o employee esilience. Social Indica o s
Resea ch, 143(2), 561-577.
Capu o, A., Ma zi, G., Maley, J., & Silic, M. (2019). Ten yea s o con lic managemen
esea ch 2007-2017: An upda e on hemes, concep s and ela ionships. In e na ional
Jou nal o Con lic Managemen , 30(1), 87-110.
Cheung, G. W., Coope -Thomas, H. D., Lau, R. S., & Wang, L. C. (2024). Repo ing
eliabili y, con e gen and disc iminan alidi y wi h s uc u al equa ion modeling: A
e iew and bes -p ac ice ecommenda ions. Asia Paci ic Jou nal o Managemen , 41(2),
745-783.
Chi, P., Li, X., Du, H., Tam, C. C., Zhao, J., & Zhao, G. (2016). Does s igma iza ion wea
down esilience? A longi udinal s udy among child en a ec ed by pa en al HIV.
Pe sonali y and Indi idual Di e ences, 96, 159-163.
Cooke, J.E., Ei ich, R., Racine, N. & Madigan, S., (2020). P e alence o pos auma ic and
gene al psychological s ess du ing COVID-19: A apid e iew and me a-
analysis. Psychia y esea ch, 292, 113347.
De Cle cq, D., Fa ima, T. & Jahanzeb, S., (2021). Gossiping abou an a ogan leade :
Spa ked by inconsis en leade ship, mi iga ed by employee esilience. The Jou nal o
Applied Beha io al Science, 57(3), 269-289.
Aslam & Islam
613
De Wi , F. R., G ee , L. L., & Jehn, K. A. (2012). The pa adox o in ag oup con lic : a
me a-analysis. Jou nal o applied psychology, 97(2), 360-390.
DeChu ch, L. A., Mesme -Magnus, J. R., & Do y, D. (2013). Mo ing beyond ela ionship
and ask con lic : owa d a p ocess-s a e pe spec i e. Jou nal o Applied Psychology, 98(4),
559-578.
E ku lu, H., & Cha a, J. (2017). Leade s’ na cissism and o ganiza ional cynicism in
heal hca e o ganiza ions. In e na ional Jou nal o Wo kplace Heal h Managemen , 10(5),
346-363.
Feeney, B.C. & Collins, N.L., (2015). A new look a social suppo : A heo e ical
pe spec i e on h i ing h ough ela ionships. Pe sonali y and Social Psychology
Re iew, 19(2), 113-147.
Fo nell, C., & La cke , D. F. (1981). S uc u al equa ion models wi h unobse able
a iables and measu emen e o : Algeb a and s a is ics. Jou nal o Ma ke ing Resea ch,
18(3), 382-388.
Hahn, T. (2000). P ope y igh s, e hics and con lic esolu ion: Founda ions o he Sami
economy in Sweden (No. 258, pp. 224-pp). Uppsala: Swedish Uni e si y o Ag icul u al
Sciences.
Hai , J. F., Rishe , J. J., Sa s ed , M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When o use and how o
epo he esul s o PLS-SEM. Eu opean Business Re iew, 31(1), 2-24.
Ha mon, K.M., (2003). Con lic s be ween owne and con ac o s: P oposed in e en ion
p ocess. Jou nal o managemen in Enginee ing, 19(3), 121-125.
Ha is, K. J., Ha is, R. B., Ca lson, J. R., & Ca lson, D. S. (2015). Resou ce loss om
echnology o e load and i s impac on wo k- amily con lic : Can leade s help?. Compu e s
in Human Beha io , 50, 411-417.
Hayes, J.R., 2013. The comple e p oblem sol e . Rou ledge.
He a ian Shandiz, J., Momeni Moghaddam, H., Wol sohn, J. S., & Ka impou , M. (2023).
Explo a o y and con i ma o y ac o analysis o he Pe sian e sion o he low- ision
quali y-o -li e ques ionnai e. B i ish Jou nal o Visual Impai men , 02646196231154473.
Hob oll, S.E., (2001). The in luence o cul u e, communi y, and he nes ed‐sel in he s ess
p ocess: Ad ancing conse a ion o esou ces heo y. Applied psychology, 50(3), pp.337-
421.
Hob oll, S.E., Halbesleben, J., Ne eu, J.P. & Wes man, M., (2018). Conse a ion o
esou ces in he o ganiza ional con ex : The eali y o esou ces and hei
consequences. Annual e iew o o ganiza ional psychology and o ganiza ional
beha io , 5, 103-128.
P ojec Con lic s and Employee Bu nou
614
Hudgins, T.A., (2016). Resilience, job sa is ac ion and an icipa ed u no e in nu se
leade s. Jou nal o nu sing managemen , 24(1), E62-E69.
Humph ey, S.E., Aime, F., Cushenbe y, L., Hill, A.D. & Fai child, J., (2017). Team
con lic dynamics: Implica ions o a dyadic iew o con lic o eam
pe o mance. O ganiza ional Beha io and Human Decision P ocesses, 142, 58-70.
Hwang, J., & Shin, K. (2023). T ans o ma ion o ask con lic in o ela ional con lic and
bu nou : enhancing e ec o leade ’s disc imina o y e ec . Psychological Repo s,
00332941231152389.
Jacobson, N. C., E ickson, T. M., Quach, C. M., & Singh, N. B. (2023). Low Emo ional
Complexi y as a T ansdiagnos ic Risk Fac o : Compa ing Idiog aphic Ma ke s o
Emo ional Complexi y o Emo ional G anula i y as P edic o s o Anxie y, Dep ession, and
Pe sonali y Pa hology. Cogni i e The apy and Resea ch, 47(2), 181-194.
Jehn, K. A. (1994). Enhancing e ec i eness: An in es iga ion o ad an ages and
disad an ages o alue‐based in ag oup con lic . In e na ional jou nal o con lic
managemen , 5(3), 223-238.
Jehn, K.A., (1995). A mul ime hod examina ion o he bene i s and de imen s o
in ag oup con lic . Adminis a i e science qua e ly, 256-282.
Jeloda , M.B., Yiu, T.W. & Wilkinson, S., (2015). Sys ema ic ep esen a ion o
ela ionship quali y in con lic and dispu e: Fo cons uc ion p ojec s. Cons uc ion
Economics and Building, 15(1), 89-103.
Jimmieson, N.L., Tucke , M.K. & Campbell, J.L., (2017). Task con lic leads o
ela ionship con lic when employees a e low in ai sel -con ol: Implica ions o
employee s ain. Pe sonali y and Indi idual Di e ences, 113, 209-218.
Jungs , M., & Blumbe g, B. (2016). Wo k ela ionships: Coun e ac ing he nega i e e ec s
o con lic . In e na ional Jou nal o Con lic Managemen , 27(2), 180-204.
Khaksa , S.M.S., Maghsoudi, T. & Young, S., (2019). Social capi al, psychological
esilience and job bu nou in haza dous wo k en i onmen s. Labou & Indus y: a jou nal
o he social and economic ela ions o wo k, 29(2), 155-180.
Kim, B., Yu, H., Huang, Y., & Lee, S. (2023). Impac o cus ome inci ili y on es au an
employee s ess sp ead and u no e : COVID-19 accina ion manda e. In e na ional
jou nal o hospi ali y managemen , 113, 103522.
Kim, C. S., & Kim, J. (2015). The impac o emo ional labo on bu nou o ca egi e s o
s oke pa ien s. Ko ean Jou nal o Occupa ional Heal h Nu sing, 24(1), 31-38.
Kim, Y. B., & Lee, S. H. (2023, June). The Nu sing Wo k En i onmen , Supe iso y
Suppo , Nu se Cha ac e is ics, and Bu nou as P edic o s o In en o S ay among Hospi al
Nu ses in he Republic o Ko ea: A Pa h Analysis. Heal hca e 11(11), 1653
Aslam & Islam
615
Kuma i, P., & Sangwan, V. (2015). A S udy on Resilience Capaci y in Rela ion o Wo k-
Li e Balance o Execu i es in he Pha maceu ical Indus y. Online In e na ional
In e disciplina y Resea ch Jou nal, 5(2), 167-180.
Kundi, Y. M., & Bada , K. (2021). In e pe sonal con lic and coun e p oduc i e wo k
beha io : he mode a ing oles o emo ional in elligence and gende . In e na ional Jou nal
o Con lic Managemen , 32(3), 514-534.
Ku iakose, V., Wilson, P. R., & MR, A. (2019). The di e en ial associa ion o wo kplace
con lic s on employee well-being: The mode a ing ole o pe cei ed social suppo a wo k.
In e na ional Jou nal o Con lic Managemen , 30(5), 680-705.
Leon-Pe ez, J. M., An ino, M., & Leon-Rubio, J. M. (2016). The ole o psychological
capi al and in ag oup con lic on employees' bu nou and quali y o se ice: a mul ile el
app oach. F on ie s in psychology, 7, 1755.
Li, H. T. (2023). Escala ion o ela ionship con lic in o wo k disengagemen : unco e ing
media ion mechanisms. In e na ional Jou nal o Con lic Managemen , 34(1), 80-103.
Lu hans, B. C., Lu hans, K. W., & A ey, J. B. (2014). Building he leade s o omo ow:
The de elopmen o academic psychological capi al. Jou nal o leade ship &
o ganiza ional s udies, 21(2), 191-199.
Ma, J., & Liu, C. (2019). The mode a ing e ec o emo ional in elligence on he
ela ionship be ween supe iso con lic and employees’ coun e p oduc i e wo k
beha io s. In e na ional jou nal o con lic managemen , 30(2), 227-245.
Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1981). The measu emen o expe ienced bu nou . Jou nal
o o ganiza ional beha io , 2(2), 99-113.
Maslach, C., (2003). Job bu nou : New di ec ions in esea ch and in e en ion. Cu en
di ec ions in psychological science, 12(5), 189-192.
Mehmood, K., Jabeen, F., Rashid, M., Alshibani, S. M., Lan e i, A., & San o o, G. (2024).
Un a eling he ans o ma ion: The h ee-wa e ime-lagged s udy on big da a analy ics,
g een inno a ion, and hei impac on economic and en i onmen al pe o mance in
manu ac u ing SMEs. Eu opean Jou nal o Inno a ion Managemen , 27(3), 442-462.
Meie , L. L., G oss, S., Spec o , P. E., & Semme , N. K. (2013). Rela ionship and ask
con lic a wo k: in e ac i e sho - e m e ec s on ang y mood and soma ic complain s.
Jou nal o Occupa ional Heal h Psychology, 18(2), 144.
P eache , K.J., Rucke , D.D. & Hayes, A.F., (2007). Add essing mode a ed media ion
hypo heses: Theo y, me hods, and p esc ip ions. Mul i a ia e beha io al esea ch, 42(1),
185-227.
Re illa, M.A., Sa is, W.E. & K osnick, J.A., (2014). Choosing he numbe o ca ego ies in
ag ee–disag ee scales. Sociological Me hods & Resea ch, 43(1), 73-97.
