Journal of African Business
ISSN: 1522-8916 (Print) 1522-9076 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjab20
The Moderating Role of Affective Interpersonal
Conflict on Managerial Decision-making and
Organizational Performance in Private Sector
Organizations: A Study of Ghana
James B. Abugre
To cite this article: James B. Abugre (2019): The Moderating Role of Affective
Interpersonal Conflict on Managerial Decision-making and Organizational Performance
in Private Sector Organizations: A Study of Ghana, Journal of African Business, DOI:
10.1080/15228916.2019.1596707
To link to this article:  https://doi.org/10.1080/15228916.2019.1596707
Published online: 19 Apr 2019.
Submit your article to this journal 
Article views: 18
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wjab20
JOURNAL OF AFRICAN BUSINESS
https://doi.org/10.1080/15228916.2019.1596707
The Moderating Role of Affective Interpersonal Conflict on
Managerial Decision-making and Organizational
Performance in Private Sector Organizations: A Study of
Ghana
James B. Abugre
Department of Organisation & HRM, University of Ghana Business School, Accra, Ghana
ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
The issue of interpersonal conflict has been a thorny issue in high- Managerial decision-making;
power distant environments due to disagreement and divergence affective interpersonal
of superior and subordinate views resulting from managerial deci- conflict; organizational
sion-making. This work looks at the moderating role of a ective performance; sub-Saharanff
interpersonal con ict on managerial decision-making and organiza- Africa; Ghanafl
tional performance. A quantitative methodology was used to sam-
ple 197 managers from 10 private sector organizations in Ghana. By
means of structural equation modeling and hierarchical regression,
findings showed that there is a significant positive relationship
between managerial decision-making and how organizations per-
formance. Findings also showed that there is a negative relationship
between affective interpersonal conflict and organizational perfor-
mance. Our major finding revealed that affective interpersonal
conflict moderates the relationship between managerial decision-
making and organizational performance. The article recommends
prudence in decision-making by managers in the sub-Saharan
African business environment. Prudent decision-making by man-
agers is akin to ethical decision-making, which resides in moral and
theological philosophies that are fundamentally in the realm of
management and business and are also concerned with explaining
and predicting employees’ actual behaviors.
Introduction
The focal point of this article is to explore the role of affective interpersonal conflict on
managerial decision-making in work organizations and how it contributes to organizational
performance or otherwise. As managers are key players in the decision-making process in
organizations, we explore some managerial decision-making variables that can enhance
organizational performance in the private sector. To effectively do so, we examine the
moderating role/effect of affective interpersonal conflict between managers and suggest that
the presence of affective interpersonal conflict betweenmanagers and, betweenmanagers and
CONTACT James B. Abugre jbabugre@ug.edu.gh Department of Organisation & HRM, University of Ghana
Business School, Box LG 78, Legon, Accra, Ghana
Note: A preliminary version of this work was presented at the 18th Annual International Academy of African Business
and Development (IAABD) conference in Atlanta- Georgia State University, May 2017.
© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 J.B. ABUGRE
their subordinates, decreases organizational performance. The article argues that failure of
managerial decisions or directions in many work organizations are mostly due to manage-
ment’s inability to solve interpersonal conflict, or the seeming confrontations of individuals to
commit to strategic decisions by agreeing to the expected behaviors that can effectively
accomplish the organization’s strategic objective (Gagnon, Jansen, & Judd, 2008) to perform.
Thus, the lack of limited engagement and interactions in work organizations can seriously
hamper the strategic decision-making of managers. This perspective of interpersonal differ-
ences in managerial decision-making and its effect on organizational performance is an area
where there is still deficiency of studies, despite the importance that managers are largely
responsible for strategic decision-making in organizations (Elbanna, 2006; Quick & Nelson,
2009).
According to Quick and Nelson (2009), the success of any organization depends on the
managers’ abilities to make effective decisions. Decision-making is defined as the process
by which a course of action is selected as the solution to a specific problem (Stoner,
Yetton, Craig, & Johnston, 1994). Thus, decision-making is the most engaged activity of
managers in all types of organizations and at all levels of management (Harrison, 1996),
making it one of the most important management activities (Drucker, 2010; Mintzberg,
2008). Moreover, decision-making has become more important than ever now because
the contemporary business environment is characterized by intense rivalry and competi-
tion, swift technological advancement, and globalization, which impose much pressure
on managers to make effective decisions that would help the organization to survive and
attain competitive advantage (Daft & Lane, 2007). Similarly, Moss and Kinnear (2007)
affirm that today’s business environment has become increasingly turbulent, requiring
managers to take responsibility for making good decisions in order to ensure the
organization’s survival. Managers are mainly responsible for strategic decision-making
in organizations (Elbanna, 2006; Quick & Nelson, 2009). Consequently, much is expected
of managers, because it is the decisions theymake that carry the organization to success or
failure. As a result, managers usually identify organizational problems and attempt to
resolve them in order to increase organizational performance (Bartol, Martin, Tein, &
Matthews, 1998). Similarly, Tatum, Eberlin, Kottraba, and Bradberry (2003) argue that
every decision by management of a business influences the overall business performance.
Therefore, organizational performance is normally linked to factors such as profitability,
improved service delivery, customer satisfaction, market share growth, and improved
productivity and sales (Richard, Devinney, Yip, & Johnson, 2009). For this reason, if
organizations want to increase performance and ensure sustainability, they must depend
hugely on effective managerial decision-making (Lunenburg, 2011; Quick & Nelson,
2009).
Nonetheless, as social systems, organizations are made up of individual employees who
have different behaviors, interests, ambitions and conducts that may cause conflicts among
managers in the decision-making process. Conflict is described as part of organizational life
and may occur between managers, between individuals and the group, and between groups
(Weihrich, 1992). Hence, Townsend (2007) indicates that although interpersonal conflict is
inevitable in a human workplace, the existence of interpersonal conflict among managers has
a possible inverse effect on effective decision-making (Hartnett, 2011). Therefore, interper-
sonal conflict plays a preponderant role in managerial decision-making and subsequently
affects organizational performance. However, the concept of interpersonal conflict has not
JOURNAL OF AFRICAN BUSINESS 3
been extensively investigated in the managerial and work-related literature, in spite of the
indications that interpersonal conflict is one of the most important stressors (Keenan &
Newton, 1985) in managerial work. More importantly, using affective interpersonal conflict
as a moderating variable that may influence managerial decision-making and the overall
performance of the organization has scarcely been examined in the African context. Thus,
drawing from the viewpoints of managerial psychology, we seek to understand whether
affective interpersonal conflict impacts on managerial decision-making and organizational
performance.
Consequently, the present study has three main objectives: (1) to develop a better
understanding of the relationship between managerial decision-making and organiza-
tional performance through the theoretical lens of managers in private organizations in
Ghana; (2) to determine the moderated role of affective interpersonal conflict on
managerial decision-making and organizational performance in private organizations;
(3) to investigate the impact of affective interpersonal conflict on managerial decision-
making and organizational performance in private organizations. By these objectives,
this work contributes to the theory and practice of the underlying mechanism of
interpersonal conflict on management decision-making and organizational perfor-
mance. These contributions would undoubtedly help managers appreciate the signifi-
cance of managerial decision-making that leverages institutional performance.
Additionally, it would develop the administrative skills that will help management in
developing countries understand how best to deal with interpersonal conflict in order to
maximize organizational performance. The reason is that, as organizations are micro-
cosms of national behaviors, the findings of this work can be generalized to most
private organizations within sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), since most SSA countries lie
within the same cultural and social systems (Abugre, 2016; Hofstede, 1983).
Conceptual background and motivation for the study
The sub-Saharan African business landscape and political system have been in the twilight
of world economy for a long time. In spite of the abundance of natural resources, including
the availability of strong human capital, the sub-continent is still reeling from problems of
performance and productivity of its public sector (Abugre, 2014). This condition of non-
performance has mostly been attributed to poor policies which emanate from bad manage-
ment decisions (Morriset, 2000). In fact, according to World Bank (2010), Nearly 80% of
the world’s Heavily Indebted Poor Countries are to be found on the African continent, yet
Africa’s savannahs and river basins host the planet’s largest expanses of underutilized land
and water (Brautigam, 2015). The decision to make use of these resources to alleviate
poverty is not harnessed in spite of the fact that everything we do, consciously or
unconsciously, is the outcome of some decision-making. Similarly, the lack of effective
decision-making policies has presented Africa as a glaring paradox. The continent has
received over $1 trillion of aid in the last half-century, equivalent to $5,000 for every African
living today if distributed per head in current rates. Nevertheless, it is the only region in
which the proportion of poor inhabitants has increased over the past 30 years, and is
expected to increase by one-hundred-fold in the near future (The Commission for Africa
Report, 2005). These shortfalls emanate from leadership or managerial decision-making as
to where to allocate resource for the benefit of organizational good (Elbanna, 2017). The
4 J.B. ABUGRE
reason is that the process of selecting among alternative choices and implementing a
decision on the choices available for a good outcome (Lawson and Shen (1998) is what is
needed by managers. Additionally, strategic decisions are shaped within contexts that
incorporate some characteristics like urgency, ambiguity, time, and composition of the
management decision-making team (Clark & Maggitti, 2012; Haider & Mariotti, 2016).
Thus, managers gather resources to help us understand occurrences in order to develop
good judgements to make decisions about these occurrences (Saaty, 2008).
Building on the recent calls to examine both positive and negative aspects of
decision-making in organizations (Elbanna, 2017; Eldor, 2017), this study focuses on
the impact of managerial decision-making on organizational performance in a sub-
Saharan Africa context. Specifically, it investigates the role of affective interpersonal
conflict in influencing managerial decision-making and organizational performance in
private sector organizations in Ghana as a microcosm of the SSA socioeconomic
environment.
Theory and hypotheses
Managerial decision-making
Management decision-making can be defined as the process by which a course of action
is selected as the solution to a specific management problem in organizations (Stoner et
al., 1994). Managers carry out many activities in their daily work, but decision-making
is crucial (Locke & Schweiger, 1997). The reason is that today’s work environment has
become increasingly unstable, and therefore managers must take responsibility for
making good decisions in order to ensure the firm’s stability and survival. Harrison
(1996) asserts that decision-making is the most significant activity engaged in by
managers in all types of organizations and at any level. According to Huber (1980),
there is a distinction between decision-making between “choice-making” and “problem-
solving.” He argues that choice-making refers to the narrow set of activities involved in
choosing one option from a set of alternatives. Problem-solving, on the other hand,
refers to the broad set of activities involved in finding and implementing a course of
action to correct an unsatisfactory situation. However, decision-making incorporates
both components of choice making and problem solving (Huber, 1980).
Similarly, Lawson and Shen (1998) state that decision-making is the process of
choosing among alternatives, implementing a decision, and using the subsequent out-
come data to shape any further decisions associated with the earlier one. The process of
choosing among alternatives mostly involves some combination of evaluation of data
on the alternatives, one’s values or preference about what is important, one’s expecta-
tions or predictions about what is likely to happen at some future time, and some
emotional signals about the alternatives. Considering the above definitions, the manage-
rial role is extremely critical in all decision-making in organizations. Komakech (2009)
claims that decision-making is an integral part of modern management. For this reason,
the decision-making process is a continuous and indispensable component of managing
any organization or business activity. However, in decision-making, there is the like-
lihood of disagreement of thought which may introduce conflict among participants, as
conflict is unavoidable and inherent in all organizations (Brockman, 2014). But in the
JOURNAL OF AFRICAN BUSINESS 5
conflict literature, two dimensions of conflict, cognitive and affective, have come into
focus. Cognitive conflict occurs when group members discuss their various opinions
about organizational tasks. This kind of discussion stimulate positive and healthy
decision making by compelling group members to accommodate the multiple view-
points of colleagues (Schweiger, Sandberg, & Rechner, 1989). On the other hand,
affective conflict ensues when group members differ in organizational issues based on
their personal and emotional standpoints. This kind of conflict can hurt management
decision-making by generating individual bitterness and group disturbances in work
(Jehn, 1995).
In this study, we examine whether affective interpersonal conflict impacts on man-
agerial decision-making in private firms. Additionally, we examine whether affective
interpersonal conflict serves as a moderator between managerial decision-making and
organizational performance of private firms in Ghana. To the best of our knowledge, we
are unaware of any studies that have examined the potential for moderation of inter-
personal conflict in managerial decision-making. Besides, given our belief that affective
interpersonal conflict is destructive, we examine whether this effect can trigger organi-
zational performance of private firms in Ghana. Thus, it is appropriate that we examine
the moderating role of affective interpersonal conflict on managerial decision-making
and organizational performance.
The concept of conflict
Conflict can be considered as a struggle or a contest between people with opposing
needs, ideas, values, or goals (Algert & Watson, 2002). Similarly, conflict can create
both negative and positive emotions by an individual depending on the attributional or
cognitive level of the person. Hence, results of most research indicate that managers
have rated several negative effects significantly higher than any positive effects of
conflict (Baron, 1991). Accordingly, DuBrin (2002) assert that there are two types of
conflict which can either be cognitive (task) or affective (emotional). The cognitive, also
known as C-type conflict, focuses on substantive, issue-related differences. The C stands
for cognitive, indicating that the conflict relates to tangible, concrete issues that can be
dealt with more intellectually than emotionally. The affective or A-type conflict focuses
on personalized, individually oriented issues. The A stands for affective, indicating that
the conflict relates to subjective issues that are dealt with more emotionally than
intellectually. Whatever the case, these two categories of conflict often occur together
and exert a disruptive influence on management in many situations (Baron, 1991).
This suggests that a conflict is the friction felt when two or more people or groups
disagree about something. Accordingly, Lam, Chin, and Pun (2007) describe conflict as
the disagreements among the working parties about the tasks being performed, includ-
ing differences in viewpoint, ideas, and opinions. It exists whenever one party perceives
that its interests are being opposed or negatively affected by another. For Robbins and
Judge (2009), conflict is a process that begins where one party perceives that another
party has negatively affected, or is about to negatively affect, something that the first
party cares about. This is a disagreement between persons, and thus carries the weight
of interpersonal conflict which can negatively affect organizational output. In this
article, we focus on affective interpersonal conflict, which emphasizes subjective and
6 J.B. ABUGRE
individually oriented issues between workers, and provide empirical evidence that
interpersonal conflict can contribute to emotional and destructive effect on managerial
decision-making in organizations.
Interpersonal conflict
The concept of interpersonal conflict has been a challenging managerial task and occurs
between two or more individuals who work together in groups or teams (Beheshtifar &
Zare, 2013). The concept can be regarded as a dispute that occurs when interests, goals, or
values of different individuals or groups are incompatible with each other (Henry, 2009).
According toWood et al. (2003), interpersonal conflict is a conflict that occurs between two
or more individuals who work together in groups or teams. This results in a situation
whereby the parties frustrate each other in an attempt to achieve their objectives. Conflict
arises in groups because of the scarcity of freedom, position, and resources. People who
value independence tend to resist the need for interdependence and, to some extent,
conformity within a group. Similarly, people who seek power may struggle with others
for position or status within the group. Conflict is a part of organizational life and may
occur between individuals, between the individual and the group, and between groups
(Weihrich, 1992). When there is a disagreement between people or a group within the
organization, researchers generally view this as an interpersonal conflict. This type of
conflict has a dynamic process that occurs between employees who are in a mutually
dependent and interactive relationship but have diverse believes and values (Barki &
Hartwick, 2004). Hence, interpersonal conflict can be said to consist of three important
elements: some form of interaction between employees; interdependence among them; and
an incompatibility based on their perception or values. Workplace interpersonal conflict
may range from minor disagreements between co-workers to physical assaults on others.
The interpersonal conflict in this case may be overt (e.g. being rude to a workmate or
colleague) or may be covert (e.g. spreading rumors about a workmate or colleague).
Whether interpersonal conflict is covert or overt, it has the tendency to destroy co-worker
relations, since employees involved in interpersonal conflict become cynical to each other
and toward work (Abugre, 2017). Additionally, interpersonal conflict is linked to both
physical and psychological anxieties such as frustration and dejection (Spector & Jex, 1998).
Therefore, workplace interpersonal conflict may be reflected as a broad range of inter-
personal mistreatment behaviors, such as rude behavior and yelling at each other.
Many individual differences lead to interpersonal conflict, including personalities, culture,
attitudes, values, perceptions, and other differences (Elsayed-Elkhouly, 1996). A personality
conflict refers to very strong differences in motives, values, or styles in dealing with people
that are not resolvable. For example, if both parties in a relationship have a high need for
power and both want to be dominant in the relationship, there is no way for both to be
satisfied; thus, a power struggle ensues, resulting in interpersonal conflict. Interpersonal
conflict may include rude behavior but, unlike workplace incivility, interpersonal conflict
would also include instances of respectful yet contentious disagreement. Interpersonal con-
flict has long been considered a stressful job demand and therefore positively influences job
strain (Keenan & Newton, 1985). In the demands–control model, work load demands,
conflicts, or other stressors place the individual in a motivated or energized state of stress.
Unless the individual can somehow take action to cope with the stressor, the unreleased
JOURNAL OF AFRICAN BUSINESS 7
energy induced by job stressors will manifest itself internally, producing distress and strain
(Ilies, Johnson, Judge, & Keeney, 2011), which subsequently can impact negatively on
organizational performance. This is because, if conflict is not well managed, it could escalate
and result in undesirable outcomes related to time delays, cost overruns, and quality defects in
the performance of the organization (Leung, Liu, & Ng, 2005).
Organizational performance
Organizational performance is the primary goal of every manager or leader in an
organization. Thus, organizational performance becomes a very important responsibil-
ity of managers where the decisions they make largely impact on the success or failure
of the organization (Komakech, 2009; Thomas & Kilmann, 2008). Organizational
performance is the transformation of inputs into outputs for achieving certain out-
comes (Chen, Tsui, & Farh, 2002). It is the organization’s ability to attain its goals by
using resources in an efficient and effective manner (Daft, 2000). Similarly, Ricardo and
Wade (2001) define organizational performance as the ability of the organization to
achieve its goals and objectives. It is based upon measures that reflect the performance
of a work unit, business unit and/or firm as exclusive unit (Delery & Shaw, 2001).
Organizational performance comprises the actual output or results of an organization as
measured against its intended outputs. According to Richard et al. (2009) organiza-
tional performance should be related to factors such as profitability, improved service
delivery, customer satisfaction, market share growth, and improved productivity and
sales. Organizational performance is therefore affected by a multiplicity of individuals,
groups, tasks, technology, structures, and managerial and environmental factors (Behn,
2003; Boxall & Purcell, 2011).
The link between managerial decision-making and organizational performance
Some studies have been conducted on the relationship between decision-making and
organizational performance. For instance, Andersen (2004) found that decentralized
decision structure and (strategic) planning activities are associated with higher organi-
zational performance in dynamic environments. Likewise, distributed decision author-
ity, managerial decision-making and strategic planning processes are all positively
correlated with economic performance (Andersen, 2004). Also, Scott-Ladd and
Marshall (2004) argue that managerial decision-making has great influence on the
direction of the organization in all spheres, and if not well taken can be costly to the
firm. Empirically, their study revealed that managerial decision-making impact posi-
tively on the performance of organizations.
Similarly, Ojokuku and Sajuyigb (2014) emphasize the significance of managerial
decision on organizational performance and, propose that increasing employee parti-
cipation in decision-making will impact positively on their growth and potential for
survival. This suggests that there is a positive relationship between decision-making and
organizational performance. That is to say, good decision-making in organizations will
result in increased performance and vice versa. Moreover, Khattak, Igbal, and Bashir
(2012) investigated employee involvement and participation at work and found that the
decisions of top management have significant impact on employees’ job satisfaction,
8 J.B. ABUGRE
which in turn leads to improved organizational performance. This assertion suggests
that there is a link between managerial decision-making and organizational perfor-
mance. As a result, we hypothesize that:
Hypothesis 1: Managerial decision-making is positively related to organizational per-
formance of private firms.
The moderating effect of affective interpersonal conflict
Evidence suggests that there is a relationship between decision-making and organizational
performance (Ducharme & Martin, 2000). Also, extant literature has established that
interpersonal conflict is pervasive in every organizational setting (Brockman, 2014; Leung
et al., 2005). It lingers around the corridors of every organization so far as there is always the
struggle to assume authority and power in organizations (Behfar, Mannix, Peterson, &
Trochim, 2008). For example, Brockman (2014) has emphasized that interpersonal conflict
is arguably one of the most influential factors for organizational success. This is followed by
Hahn (2000), who pointed out that the frequency of interpersonal conflict at work occurs
between 25 to 50% of an employee’s daily work. This suggests that interpersonal conflict is
something that is bound to occur among individual workers. Accordingly, managers spend
30–42% of their productive time dealing with conflict between employees (Bobinski, 2006).
The time spent by managers dealing with interpersonal conflict can really be a bother and a
nuisance to administrative work. Thus, Brockman (2014) indicates that unresolved inter-
personal conflict on the jobsite can be detrimental to organizational work.
Therefore, as individuals make decisions in organizations, the presence of conflict
among such individuals can somewhat impact on the decision-making (Tjosvold, 2008).
In addition, Thomas, Bliese, and Jex (2005) found that interpersonal conflict negatively
intensifies the relationship between decision-making and organizational commitment.
However, closer personal relationships among managers would be good for effective
decision-making. Passos and Caetano (2005) argue that conflict has significant relation-
ship with employee performance and job satisfaction. Considering the inevitable char-
acteristic and the injurious effect of interpersonal conflict on management and
organizational outcomes, this work explores the underlying mechanism of affective
interpersonal conflict on organizational performance. Additionally, the work examines
whether affective interpersonal conflict will moderate the relationship between manage-
rial decision-making and organizational performance. Thus, we hypothesize that:
Hypothesis 2: The presence of affective interpersonal conflict between management and
or employees will negatively affect organizational performance of private firms.
Hypothesis 3: Affective interpersonal conflict will moderate the relationship between
managers’ decision-making and organizational performance.
Research design and sample
A descriptive cross-sectional research survey was used as the research design in this
study. In this study, our population comprised of managers of 10 private companies
JOURNAL OF AFRICAN BUSINESS 9
which are part of the Ghana Club 100 list of 2014. The Ghana Club 100 comprises of
the best performing 100 companies annually in Ghana. Organizations or companies
making it into the GC 100 are to serve as role models for the private sector and provide
a forum for corporate Ghana to interact with the government at a high level. These
organizations are usually considered as high-performing enterprises in the country. In
this case, we sampled 200 managers from 10 service companies of the 2014 list of the
Ghana Club 100. We sampled 20 managers comprising lower-level, middle-, and upper-
level managers from each company to arrive at out sample size of 200. However, 197
useable questionnaires were returned for analysis, representing 98.8% of the sample,
which is excellent. A comprehensive information on the demographic characteristics of
the respondents for the study is provided in Table 1 below.
Instrumentation and measures
A structured questionnaire was used as the survey instrument to gather data from
respondents. The measures were adapted from previous research, as well as specifically
developed and tailored for managerial decision-making and organizational perfor-
mance-management research in transitional economies. The instrument comprised of
four parts. Part A contained the demography of respondents, such as age, marital status,
and gender. Part B contained questions on managerial decision-making, such as “My
manager’s mood goes up and down as a result of what happens at work” and “My
manager feels at home in situations where he/she is under pressure to make quick
decisions.” This was adopted from the London Business School decision-making style
research (2004). Part C contained questions on affective interpersonal conflict, such as
“My manager is often seen in arguments with colleagues and subordinates” and “The
extent of control my manager has over the quality of his/her relationship with others at
work is low.” This was adapted and modified from Eatough (2010). Part D contained
Table 1 Demographic Profile of Research Respondents.
Detail Frequency Percentages (%)
Gender
Male 95 48.20
Female 102 51.80
Age
18–27 yrs 82 41.60
28–37 yrs 85 43.10
38–47 yrs 23 11.70
48–57 yrs 5 02.50
58+ 2 01.00
Educational level
WASSCE 10 05.10
Diploma 13 06.60
Bachelor’s degree 133 67.50
Master’s degree 37 18.80
PhD 4 02.00
Length of service
Less than 1 yr 45 22.80
1–5 yrs 89 45.20
6–10 yrs 49 24.90
11–15 yrs 11 05.60
16 yrs and above 3 01.50
10 J.B. ABUGRE
questions on organizational performance. It is generally accepted that no single mea-
sure of performance may fully account for all aspects of organizational performance.
Consequently, most researchers employ several measures of performance (Denison &
Mishra, 1995). Thus, as a perceptual study, we gathered the data on perceptual
indicators of organizational performance. For that matter, respondents were asked to
provide their perceptions on a five-point Likert-type scale of organizational perfor-
mance which we adapted and modified from (Yilmaz, Alpkan, & Ergun, 2005). Some of
the questions were: “My organization makes employees and shareholders happy by
providing satisfactory pay and dividend respectively” and “The objectives set for the
organization are often met at the end of the year.” All sections of the instrument were
measured with a five-point Likert scale, with 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree.
See Table 2 for a confirmation of the variables used for the study.
Control variables
In this study, four control variables (gender, age, tenure, and education) were included
in the analyses in an attempt to cater for alternative explanations for significant
relationships. All four control variables were measured in nominal terms: gender
(coded 0 = female, 1 = male); education (coded 1 to 5); age (coded 1 to 5); length of
service (coded 1 to 5) and educational level (coded 1 to 5).
Data analytical approach
We used three different multivariate approaches to analyze the data. First, we employed
structural equation modeling (SEM) to test the hypothesized relationships. Before
testing the hypothesized model, we used factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis
to determine the validity and reliability of the study measures. SEM is a powerful
collection of multivariate analysis techniques which specifies the relationships between
variables through the use of two main sets of equations: measurement equations and
structural equations (Bryne, 2010). Second, we used multiple regression to test the
relationship between variables (i.e. managerial decision-making and organizational
performance, and affective interpersonal conflict and organizational performance).
Third, a hierarchical moderated regression analysis was also employed to test the
moderating effect of affective interpersonal conflict on the relationship between man-
agerial decision-making and organizational performance.
Measurement fit, validity and reliability analyses
To establish the reliability of the survey instrument, exploratory factor analysis and then
confirmatory factor analysis were both employed for the study. In the exploratory factor
analysis, the KMO indicator and Bartlett’s test of sphericity presented the following
estimates: management decision-making (MDM) (KMO = 0.774, Bartlett test = 0.000;
CVE = 55.953); affective interpersonal conflict (AIC) (KMO = 0.845, Bartlett test = 0.000;
CVE = 69.021), and organizational performance (OP) (KMO = 0.783, Bartlett
test = 0.000; CVE = 47.113). Based on the above figures, the data were considered to
be adequate and more appropriate to run a confirmatory factor analysis, as the KMO
values were more than 0.6 and close to 1; and the significant values of Bartlett’s test
JOURNAL OF AFRICAN BUSINESS 11
were less than 0.05. Thus, we further validated the measurement constructs by perform-
ing confirmatory factory analysis (CFA). (See Table 2 for the summary of individual
factors and their measures.) The goodness-of-fit indices for the measurement model
(CFA) are also shown in Table 3. From the results, the (χ2/df) for the model is well
within the threshold of 3; the GFI value also exceeds 0.90, and the CFI value is also
great (Hu & Bentler, 1999).
The validity and reliability of the measurement constructs or scale are assessed using
various measures. The discriminant validity is assessed using average variance extracted
(AVE). Discriminant validity “differentiates between one construct and another in the
same mode” (Ghadi, Alwi, Bakar, & Talib, 2012, p. 140). An AVE value of more than
0.7 is considered very good, whereas the level of 0.5 and above is acceptable (Hair,
Black, Balin, & Anderson, 2010). The AVE values as shown in Table 2 range from 0.524
to 0.544, indicating that the measurement instrument has demonstrated good discri-
minant validity. There is also discriminant validity when the square root of AVE is
greater than the squared construct correlations (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Thus, all the
squared correlations were below their squared root of AVE values, which implies that
the scale showed a good discriminant validity. In addition, the standardized factor
loading (SFL) ranges from 0.535 to 0.867, which are all above the recommended
threshold of 0.50 (Table 2). The coefficient estimates for each of the measurement
items were also significant at 0.001 level of significance. The results therefore show that
the scale, too, has a good convergent validity. The reliability of the scale is assessed
using Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability (CR) (see Table 2). Both the
Cronbach’s alpha and CR values all demonstrate significant results which are all
above the generally accepted threshold of 0.50 and are within 0.701 and 0.844
respectfully.
Table 2 Validity and Reliability Analysis of the Measures.
Variables Loading T- value
Managerial decision-making (α = 0.585, CR = 0.844, AVE = 0.524)
MD3: My manager’s mood swings as a result of what happens at work. 0.650
MD4: My manager makes decisions without input from employees. 0.753*** 5.383
MD5: When problems arise at the workplace my manager takes a longer time
to get over them. 0.739*** 5.678
MD6: The only thing that matters to my manager is achieving his personal
goals. 0.867*** 5.630
MD8: My manager is much less concerned with the organization’s achievement
than with his/her personal fulfillment. 0.579*** 4.292
Affective interpersonal conflict (α = 0.849, CR = 0.847, AVE = 0.528)
IC2: My manager often yells at others at work. 0.647*** 5.684
IC4: My manager hardly calms his/her temper down when others make 0.819*** 6.782
mistakes at work.
IC5: The extent of control my manager has over the quality of his/her 0.752*** 7.039
relationship with others at work is low.
IC6: My manager fails to exhibit concern and regard for others on the job. 0.755*** 6.843
IC7: My manager engages in limited interactions with others at work. 0.645
Organizational performance (α = 795, CR = 0.701, AVE = 0.544)
OP5: My organization attracts positive attention in what it is engaged in 0.759*** 3.939
because of its operational effectiveness.
OP6: The customer base of my organization has risen remarkably over the 0.535*** 3.603
years.
OP7: My organization has improved its technological capacity over the years. 0.684
Note: α = alpha; CR = composite reliability; AVE = average variance extracted.
12 J.B. ABUGRE
Table 3 Fit Indicators of the Structural Model of the Study.
Indicators CMIN/DF C.F.I G.F.I PClose SRMR TLI IFI RMSEA
Study values 1.589 0.972 0.951 0.351 0.045 0.949 0.973 0.055
Appropriate level < 5 > 0.90 > 0.90 > 0.05 < 0.08 > 0.90 > 0.90 < 0.06
Note: CFI= comparative fit index; GFI= goodness-of-fit index; SRMR= standard root mean residual; TLI= Tucker-Lewis
index; IFI= incremental fit indices; RMSEA=root mean square error of approximation.
Correlation analysis
Correlation analysis was performed to establish preliminary relationship between the
dependent variable, moderator and the independent variable, a pre-condition recom-
mended by Baron and Kenny (1986) for moderation analysis. Additionally, the correla-
tion results are used to determine potential existence of multicollinearity between the
independent variables. The results are shown in Table A2, and indicated significant
correlation between the main variables, thereby satisfying the condition for a modera-
tion analysis.
Test of hypotheses
Hypothesis 1 states that there is a positive relationship between managerial decision-
making and organizational performance. From Table 2, the results show that there is a
significant and positive relationship between managerial decision-making and organi-
zational performance (β = 0.153, p < 0.05). This suggests that there will be an increase
in organizational performance if managerial decision-making is high or increased.
Thus, increased managerial decisions have a great potential to influence the perfor-
mance of employees in the organization.
Hypothesis 2 states that there is a negative relationship between affective interperso-
nal conflict and organizational performance. From Table 5, the results indicate that
Table 4 Pearson’s Correlation Matrix of the Study Variables.
Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Gender 1.52 0.501 1
2. Age 1.78 0.826 –0.034 1
3. Year 2.18 0.900 .021 .732** 1
4. Education 3.06 0.733 –0.100 .123 .277** 1
5. MDM 2.85 0.416 –0.072 –0.059 –0.001 .107 1
6. AIC 2.28 o.827 .012 .072 .108 .093 .437** 1
7. OP 3.78 0.646 .008 .034 –0.020 –0.040 –0.153* –0.184** 1
Note: ** < 0.01; * < 0.05 (2-tailed): MD = managerial decision making, AIC = affective interpersonal conflict, OP =
organizational performance.
Table 5 Multiple Regression for Organizational Performance on Managerial Decision-making and
Interpersonal Conflict.
in variables B Std. Error β sig.
Managerial decision –0.238 0.110 0.153* 0.031
Affective interpersonal –0.144 0.055 –0.184* 0.010
conflict
Note: R2 =.034, F = 6.819, * = p<.05
JOURNAL OF AFRICAN BUSINESS 13
there is a negative relationship between affective interpersonal conflict and organiza-
tional performance (β = −0.184, p < 0.05). This means the presence of affective
interpersonal conflict in work organizations will lead to a decrease in employees’
organizational performance. The F value is 4.695 (p < 0.05), which signifies that the
model is fit for the study.
Hypothesis 3 states that affective interpersonal conflict will moderate the relationship
between managers’ decision-making and organizational performance. Table 3 shows
that a three-step levels of moderated hierarchical regression is used. In step 1, it is
found that there is a significant relationship between managerial decision and organiza-
tional performance (β = 0.153, p < 0.05). However, when affective interpersonal conflict
was introduced into the equation, it is realized that the relationship between managerial
decision and organizational performance is not significant (β = 0.090, p > 0.05). Neither
is the relationship between affective interpersonal conflict and organizational perfor-
mance significant in step 2 (β = −0.144, p > 0.05). In step 3, when the interaction term
was introduced into the equation, it was found that the interaction term explained
approximately 89% of the variance in organizational performance (ΔR2 = 0.887). Also,
it is clear in Table 3 that the interaction term has significant positive relationship with
organizational performance. This simply explains that, in work organizations, manage-
rial decisions will be greatly influenced by organizational performance where there is
affective interpersonal conflict. Research indicates that conflict among individuals can
seriously impact managerial decision-making to their performance (Passos & Caetano,
2005; Tjosvold, 2008). Hence, our findings confirm hypothesis 3. Additionally, an
interaction plot is used to present the moderated relationship in Figure 1. The plot is
fully crossed, which suggests that when there is high interpersonal conflict, managerial
decision-making is low with lower organizational performance. However, when inter-
personal conflict is low, there is higher managerial decision-making with high organi-
zational performance. Therefore, the interaction plot further supports our hypothesis 3.
5
4.5
4
3.5
L  ow IC
3 High IC
2.5
2
1.5
1
Low MD High MD
Figure 1. Interaction Effect of Affective Conflict and Managerial Decision–Making
Organisational performance
14 J.B. ABUGRE
Table 6 Hierarchical Moderated Multiple Regression Analysis.
Variable β R² Δ R2 FΔ F2
Step 1
Managerial decision 0.15* 0.024 0.024 4.695 0.031
Step 2
Managerial decision 0.090 0.04 0.071 3.409 0.066
(A)
Affective interper. conflict –0.144
(B)
Step 3
Managerial decision 0.09** 00.887 1.847 1447.806 0.000
(A)
Affective interper. conflict –0.144**
(B)
Interaction (A) × (B) 0.92**
Note: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01
Discussion
The primary objective of this study is to establish the relationship between managerial
decision-making, affective interpersonal conflict, and organizational performance. More
importantly, the study tried to establish the moderating role of affective interpersonal
conflict in the relationship between managerial decision-making and organizational
performance. In this regard, three hypotheses were gleaned from our theory as instru-
ments to test our findings. Consequently, all three hypotheses of the study are accepted
and supported statistically as follows:
First, the findings of the study revealed that there is a significant positive relationship
between managerial decision-making and organizational performance. Second, our
study findings showed that there is a significant negative relationship between affective
interpersonal conflict and organizational performance. Third and finally, our study
found that affective interpersonal conflict moderates the relationship between manage-
rial decision-making and organizational performance.
Following our study findings, we learn three major lessons that are very useful for
management in organizations. First, managerial decision-making is considerably
important to the performance of organizations. Therefore, managers must be very
prudent and act with the best of their discretion when taking decisions on organiza-
tional matters. This is particularly important for businesses in sub-Saharan Africa, as
they face critical managerial and structural problems in today’s competitive environ-
ment. Decision-making is one of the important and routine activities in all businesses,
and since the performance of an organization depends on the decisions managers make,
the success of any business or the organization would depend on the managers’ abilities
to make critical decisions. Hence, our finding validates Moss and Kinnear’s (2007) work
that managers must take responsibility for making good decisions in order to ensure the
organization’s survival. Second, we learn from this work that the presence of affective
interpersonal conflict in management would thwart the positive performance of orga-
nizations, since affective interpersonal conflict is negatively related to organizational
performance. The implication of this finding is that irrespective of the knowledge and
good decisions a manager makes for his/her business or the organization, affective
interpersonal conflict amongst individuals or team members would work against all
JOURNAL OF AFRICAN BUSINESS 15
efforts made leading to none performance and willingness of these individuals who
harbor disagreement and divergent views of management. Third, we learn from this
study that affective interpersonal conflict has a major influence on managerial decision-
making and organizational performance. The study findings show that the presence of
high affective interpersonal conflict decreases organizational performance, irrespective
of the magnitude of managerial decision made in the organization. On the other hand,
the lower or reduced incidence of affective interpersonal conflict in organizations, the
better or higher the performance of organizations.
Therefore the significance of this study to management and organizations in the sub-
Saharan African business environment is great. Particularly, the sub-region’s environ-
ment is characterized by high power distance, family-oriented and high fear of decision-
making (Hofstede, 1983), which are prone to interpersonal conflict in organizations.
The negative impact of affective interpersonal conflict on management decision-making
and organizations performance must therefore be a worrying factor for policy-makers
in this region to note seriously.
Theoretical and practical contribution
There are a number of contributions emanating from the findings of this work.
Theoretically, a significant lesson derived from this empirical work is the significant
effect of interpersonal conflict on management decision-making and organizational
performance in developing countries, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. Our results
provide an interesting awareness of the significance of management’s quality of rela-
tionship with co-workers and subordinates, and how this impacts on management
decision-making and the overall effectiveness of the organization. Hence, this research
builds on prior studies on the negative effects of interpersonal conflict on organizational
performance (Thomas et al., 2005; Tjosvold, 2008), but goes further to explore the
unique influence of affective interpersonal conflict on the decisions made by manage-
ment and how the former can hinder the overall productivity of the organization.
A second theoretical contribution of this work is the link between managerial decision-
making and organizational performance. Our findings show that decisions made by
management can impact positively on the performance of organizations. These findings
validate prior research work on decision-making and organizational performance
(Andersen, 2004; Ojokuku & Sajuyigb, 2014). This work, however, advances the impor-
tance of the factors that determine the extent of management decision-making with regard
to employee desired inputs, which could lead to organizational performance. These are
management decisions with inputs from employees, the mood of managers during deci-
sion-making, and decision oriented toward personal goals or organizational goals. Thus,
managers can stimulate employees’ commitment and performance with the adoption of
strategic decision-making.
A third theoretical implication is the impact of affective interpersonal conflict on
organizational performance. The results demonstrate that affective interpersonal conflict
in organizations can be detrimental to performance and organizational outcomes.
Interpersonal conflict is a disagreement between individuals, and this disagreement has
serious consequences on communication and interaction of employees on their work. Lack
of effective interaction or communication between co-workers and/or between supervisors
16 J.B. ABUGRE
and subordinates results in negative organizational outcomes (Abugre, 2012). The impact
of this is consequential to the growth of organizations in developing countries.
Practically, this study brings to bear some important managerial relevance to man-
agement and stakeholders. First, indigenous organizations, including small-scale busi-
nesses, family-oriented businesses, and public sector organizations, take for granted the
implications of interpersonal conflict between managers and subordinates, and between
employees based on differences in sect, ethnicity, and political party relations. These
differences in most cases result in interpersonal conflict and do have negative impact on
the organizations. Managers should therefore take note of the insights from this
investigation if they want their businesses to grow.
Second, our findings provide support for managerial decision-making and organiza-
tional performance. This presupposes the need for robust decision-making strategies,
which may include involving all levels of employees for the sake of high work perfor-
mance systems in sub-Saharan Africa economies. Our findings also suggest that man-
agers should embrace the positive outcomes of decision-making, e.g. increase creativity
and potentiality of employees, and eschew negative outcomes of decision-making, like
unequal demands in resources and conflict that could result in dissatisfaction and
dejection of some workers. The latter is what nurtures affective interpersonal conflict
which can be detrimental to the implementation of positive decision-making in orga-
nizations. Third, the process of choosing among alternatives mostly involves the
evaluation of information on the alternatives. Managers and leaders of businesses
should pay attention to one’s values or preferences about what is important, one’s
expectations or predictions about what is likely to happen at some future time, and
some emotional signals about the alternatives before settling on a decision. In view of
the above explanations, the managerial role is extremely critical in all decision-making
in organizations.
Conclusion and recommendations
Based on the findings and discussion of this study, it is recommended that managers
pay utmost attention to the decisions they make, because if such decisions are convin-
cing, employees will embrace these decisions which positively influence their organiza-
tional performance, leading to the overall performance of macro-states. Managers can
best do this by taking into consideration the ideas, opinions, and views of employees
before making any major decision related to them. This would promote a community of
learning that actively encourages the growth of diverse and conflicting views of employ-
ees. Decision-making has had serious consequences on the sub-region, in particular
spanning from small and family businesses to public sector organizations and then the
political governance of states. Until now, the region is still reeling from these negative
consequences resulting from managerial and administrative decision-making interlaced
with high interpersonal conflict which often characterizes the continent as backward
and retrogressive. These descriptions of the continent gave Tony Blair – the former
British prime minister – the impetus to say “Africa is a scar on the conscience of the
world.” (Blair, 2001)
What sub-Saharan Africa needs now is strategic managerial decision-making linked
to value-based judgment devoid of idiosyncratic ideas to erase her scar in the
JOURNAL OF AFRICAN BUSINESS 17
conscience of the world; values and preferences that would lift the continent from the
current situation of despair; value-based decisions that can turn around the continent
with her abundant resources; value-based decisions that are strategic to our context and
convey hope to workers and the youth.
Therefore, managers should help to reduce the degree of conflicts among employees, as
it tends to decrease employees’ organizational performance. This can be done through
employee socialization, involvement, and participation in management activities.
Occasionally organizing get-togethers and fun fairs for employees to make amends with
colleague workers and to know each other better should be encouraged. An effective
managerial interaction with co-workers and subordinates would reduce interpersonal
conflict and enhance productivity (Abugre, 2012).
Limitations and direction for future research
This study is limited in both conceptual and methodological limitations, despite its
overwhelming significance to management and theory. Our first limitation is the
sample size and the use of cross-sectional survey. Inasmuch as the current sample
size may be adequate for a single quantitative study, we advise future research to use an
alternative method to collect data for the study, or even increase the size of the study
sample, as it might be too simplistic to generalize the findings to other organizations or
nation states in the SSA environment. Additionally, contextual control may limit the
generalization of the study. The differences between public sector management and
private sector management in SSA mostly revolves around the corporate culture and
value systems. Given that our study objectives deal with affective interpersonal conflict
and managerial decision-making, it is possible that the variations in public and private
sectors management systems may limit our findings. Thus, we propose a future research
in a comparative study of the two sectors.
Third, we focused only on one attribute or dimension of interpersonal conflict as our
moderating variable – affective conflict. However, interpersonal conflict is a multi-
dimensional construct constituting both affective and cognitive conflicts. We invite
future researchers to also examine cognitive conflict or both dimensions (affective and
cognitive conflicts) for a comprehensive view of interpersonal conflict. Our fourth
potential limitation is the measurement of organizational performance variables.
Measuring performance has always been problematic to researchers – as Denison and
Mishra (1995, p. 205) note, investigation of firm performance requires that it be defined
by a complex set of stakeholders, who may hold differing, incompatible, and changing
criteria. This study used performance variables that relate to the internal organizational
processes and external organizational outcomes using subjective managerial percep-
tions. The reason for using such a subjective scale is that organizations are reluctant to
disclose exact performance records or indices, and managers are less willing to share
objective performance information. Therefore, future studies may explore specific
organizational and associated performance components in more detail.
Nevertheless, since there is hardly a process of research without errors, we believe
that the managerial and theoretical contributions of this work bring a unique insight to
African business and management literature – especially as most SSA countries and
18 J.B. ABUGRE
businesses bear similar characteristics due to their interconnected cultural and social
systems (Abugre, 2016).
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
ORCID
James B. Abugre http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0927-1208
References
Abugre, J. B. (2012). How managerial interactions affect employees’ work output in Ghanaian
Organizations. African Journal of Economic and Management Studies, 3(2), 204–226.
Abugre, J. B. (2014). Job satisfaction of public sector employees in sub-saharan Africa: Testing
the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ) in Ghana. International Journal of Public
Administration, 37(10), 655–665.
Abugre, J. B. (2016). The role of cross-cultural communication in management practices of
multinational companies in Sub-Saharan Africa. In H. H. Kazeroony, Y. Du Plessis, & B. B.
Puplampu (Eds.), Sustainable management development in Africa: Building capabilities to serve
African organisations (pp. 123–140). New York: Routledge.
Abugre, J. B. (2017). Relations at workplace, cynicism and intention to leave: A proposed
conceptual framework for organisations. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 25
(2), 198–216.
Algert, N. E., & Watson, K. (2002). Conflict management: Introductions for individuals and
organizations. Bryan, TX: Center for Change and Conflict Resolution.
Andersen, T. J. (2004). Integrating decentralized strategy making and strategic planning pro-
cesses in dynamic environments. Journal of Management Studies, 41, 1271–1299.
Barki, H., & Hartwick, J. (2004). Conceptualizing the construct of interpersonal conflict.
International Journal of Conflict Management, 15(3), 216–244.
Baron, R. A. (1991). Positive effects of conflict: A cognitive perspective. Employee Responsibilities
and Rights Journal, 2, 25–36.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–Mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173.
Bartol, K., Martin, D., Tein, M., & Matthews, G. (1998). Management: A pacific rim focus.
Sydney: McGraw-Hill.
Beheshtifar, M., & Zare, E. (2013). Interpersonal conflict: A substantial factor to organizational
failure. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 3(5), 400–
407.
Behfar, K. J., Mannix, E. A., Peterson, R. S., & Trochim, W. M. K. (2008). The critical role of
conflict resolution in teams: A close look at the links between conflict type, conflict manage-
ment strategies and team outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 170–188.
Behn, R. D. (2003). Why measure performance? Different purposes require different measures.
Public Administration Review, 63(5), 586–606.
Blair, T. (2001). The independent, Saturday 2 October 2001, UK.
Bobinski, D. (2006). The hidden costs of conflict. Retrieved from: www.hodu.com/conflict-cost.
shtml
Boxall, P., & Purcell, J. (2011). Strategy and human resource management (3rd ed.). New York:
Palgrave Macmillan.
JOURNAL OF AFRICAN BUSINESS 19
Brautigam, D. (2015). Will Africa feed China. New York: Oxford University Press.
Brockman, J. L. (2014). Interpersonal conflict in construction: Cost, cause, and consequence.
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 140, 2.
Bryne, M. B. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and
programming. New York: Routledge.
Chen, Z. X., Tsui, A. S., & Farh, J. L. (2002). Loyalty to supervisor vs. organizational commit-
ment: Relationships to employee performance in China. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 75(3), 339–356.
Clark, K. D., & Maggitti, P. G. (2012). TMT potency and strategic decision-making in high
echnology firms. Journal of Management Studies, 49(7), 1168–1193.
Daft, R. L. (2000). Organization theory and design (7th ed.). Thomson Learning. U.S.A.: South-
Western College Publishing.
Daft, R. L., & Lane, P. G. (2007). Understanding the theory and design of organizations. Mason,
OH: Thomson South-Western.
Delery, J. E., & Shaw, J. D. (2001). The strategic management of people in work organizations:
Review, synthesis, and extension. In Research in personnel and human resources management
(pp. 165-197). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.unfortunately there is no Editor's name
given for this reference.
Denison, D. R., & Mishra, A. (1995). Toward a theory of organizational culture andeffectiveness.
Organ Science, 6, 204–23.
Drucker, P. F. (2010). The practice of management. New York, NY: Harper Collins.
DuBrin, A. J. (2002). Fundamentals of organizational behavior (2nd ed.). Ohio, USA: Thomson
Learning.
Ducharme, L. J., & Martin, J. K. (2000). Unrewarding work, coworker support, and job satisfac-
tion: A test of the buffering hypothesis. Work and Occupations, 27, 223–243.
Eatough, E. M. (2010). Understanding the relationships between interpersonal conflict at work,
perceived control, coping, and employee well-being. (graduate Theses and dissertations),
scholarcommons.usf.edu, UK.
Elbanna, S. (2006). Strategic decision making: Process perspectives. International Journal of
Management Reviews, 8, 1–20.
Elbanna, S. (2017). Decision making. In F. M. Moghaddam (Ed.), The Sage encyclopedia of
political behaviour (1st ed., pp. 163–166). London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Eldor, L. (2017). Looking on the bright side: The positive role of organisational politics in the
relationship between employee engagement and performance at work. Applied Psychology, 66
(2), 233–259.
Elsayed-Elkhouly, S. M. (1996). Styles of handling personal conflict in Egypt. United States,
Africa, and the Gulf States. Cross Cultural Management an International Journal, 3(1), 20–32.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.
Gagnon, M. A., Jansen, K. J., & Judd, M. H. (2008). Employee alignment with strategic change: A
study of strategy-supportive behaviour among blue-collar employees. Journal of Managerial
Issues, 20(4), 425–445.
Ghadi, I., Alwi, N. H., Bakar, K. A., & Talib, O. (2012). Construct validity examination of critical
thinking dispositions for undergraduate students in University Putra Malaysia. Higher
Education Studies, 2(2), 138–145.
Hahn, S. E. (2000). The effects of locus of control on daily exposure, coping and reactivity to
work interpersonal stressors: A diary study. Personality and Individual Differences, 29(4), 729–
748.
Haider, S., & Mariotti, F. (2016). Unfolding critical events and strategic decisions: The role of
spatial and temporal cognition. Management Decision, 54(7), 1813–1842.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Balin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis. New
York: Maxwell Macmillan International Editions.
Harrison, E. F. (1996). A process perspective on strategic decision making. Management
Decision, 34(1), 46–53.
20 J.B. ABUGRE
Hartnett, T. (2011). Consensus-oriented decision making: The CODM model for facilitating groups
to widespread agreement. Philadelphia, PA: New Society Publishers.
Henry, O. (2009). Organisational conflict and its effects on organisational performance. Research
Journal of Business Management, 2(1), 16–24.
Hofstede, G. (1983). National cultures in four dimensions: A research-based theory of cultur-
aldifferences among nations. International Studies of Management & Organization, 13(1–2),
46–74.
Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.
Huber, G. P. (1980). Managerial decision making. Glenview, Illinois: Scott Foresman & Co.
Ilies, R., Johnson, M. D., Judge, T. A., & Keeney, J. (2011). A within-individual study of
interpersonal conflict as a work stressor: Dispositional and situational moderators. Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 32, 44–64.
Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup
conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(2), 256–282.
Keenan, A., & Newton, T. J. (1985). Stressful events, stressors and psychological strains in young
professional engineers. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 6(2), 151–156.
Khattak, M. A., Igbal, N., & Bashir, F. (2012). Employee involvement and participation at work:
A case study of OTCL after privatization. International Journal of Academic Research in
Business and Social Sciences, 2(6), 469–476.
Komakech, S. (2009). The nature of managerial involvement in strategic investment decisions
(Masters’ Thesis). De Montfort University, Leicester.
Lam, P. K., Chin, K. S., & Pun, K. F. (2007). Managing conflict in collaborative new product
development: A supplier perspective. International Journal of Quality & Reliability
Management, 24(9), 891–907.
Lawson, R., & Shen, Z. (1998). Organisational psychology: Foundations and applications. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Leung, M., Liu, A. M. M., & Ng, S. T. (2005). Is there a relationship between construction
conflicts and participants’ satisfaction? Engineering, Construction and Architectural
Management, 12(2), 149–167.
Locke, E. A., & Schweiger, D. M. (1997). Participation in decision-making: One more look.
Research in Organisational Behaviour, 1, 265–339.
Lunenburg, F. C. (2011). Organisational culture-performance relationships: Views of excellence
and theory z. National Forum of Educational Administration and Supervision Journal, 29(4),
1–10.
Mintzberg, H. (2008). Mintzberg on management: Inside our strange world of organisations. New
York, NY: Free Press.
Morrisset, P. (2000). “Foreign Direct Investment to Africa: Policies also Matter.” Transnational
Corporation 9: 107–125.
Moss, H. K., & Kinnear, T. L. (2007). Nothing can eliminate responsibility. Super Vision, 68(1),
3–4.
Ojokuku, R. M., & Sajuyigb, A. S. (2014). Effect of employee participation in decision making on
performance of selected small and medium scale enterprises in Lagos, Nigeria. European
Journal of Business and Management, 4(10), 93–97.
Passos, M. A., & Caetano, A. (2005). Exploring the effects of intragroup conflict and past
performance feedback on team effectiveness. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20(3/4), 231–
244.
Quick, J. C., & Nelson, D. L. (2009). Principles of organisationl behaviiour: Realities and
challenges. South-Western: Cranage Learning.
Ricardo, R., & Wade, D. (2001). Corporate performance management: How to build a better
organization through measurement driven strategies alignment. Butterworth Heinemann.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 26(4), 71-95.
Richard, P., Devinney, M., Yip, S., & Johnson, G. (2009). Measuring organisational performance.
Towards methodological best practices. Journal of Management, 35(3), 356–368.
JOURNAL OF AFRICAN BUSINESS 21
Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2009). Organisational behaviour (13th ed.). New Jersey, USA:
Prentice Hall.
Saaty, T. L. (2008). Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of
Services Sciences, 1(1), 83–98.
Schweiger, D., Sandberg, W., & Rechner, P. (1989). Experiential effects of dialectical inquiry,
devil’s advocacy, and consensus approaches to strategic decision making. Academy of
Management Journal, 32, 745–772.
Scott-Ladd, B., & Marshall, V. (2004). Participation in decision making: A matter of context.
Leadership and Organisational Development Journal, 25(8), 646–662.
Spector, P. E., & Jex, S. M. (1998). Development of four self-report measures of job stressors and
strain: Interpersonal conflict at work scale, organizational constraints scale, quantitative work-
load inventory, and physical symptoms inventory. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,
3(4), 356.
Stoner, F. A., Yetton, W., Craig, F. J., & Johnston, D. K. (1994). Management (2nd ed.). Sydney:
Prentice Hall.
Tatum, B., Eberlin, R., Kottraba, C., & Bradberry, T. (2003). Leadership, decision-making
organizational justice. Management Decision, 41(10), 1006–1016.
The Commission for Africa Report. (2005, March 11).
The London Business School decision-making styles questionnaire. (2004). Retrieved from:
https://sp.ukdataservice.ac.uk/doc
Thomas, J. L., Bliese, P. D., & Jex, S. M. (2005). Interpersonal conflict and organizational
commitment: Examining two levels of supervisory support as multilevel moderators. Journal
of Applied Social Psychology, 35(11), 2375–2398.
Thomas, K. W., & Kilmann, R. H. (2008). Thomas-Kilmann conflict mode instrument. Mountain
View CA: Xicom CPP, Inc.
Tjosvold, D. (2008). The conflict-positive organisation: It depends upon us. Journal of
Organisational Behavior, 29, 19–28.
Townsend, A. (2007). Assertiveness and diversity. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Weihrich, H. (1992). Management: A global perspective (11th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice-Hall.
Wood, J., Chapman, J., Fromholtz, M., Morrison, V., Wallace, J., Zeffane, M., … Osborne, R.
(2003). Organisational behaviour: A global perspective. Milton Old: John Wiley & Sons
Australia Ltd.
World Bank. (2010). World development report 2010: Development and climate change.
Washington, DC.
Yilmaz, C., Alpkan, L., & Ergun, E. (2005). Cultural determinants of customer- and learning-
oriented value systems and their joint effects on firm performance. Journal of Business
Research, 58, 1340–1352.
22 J.B. ABUGRE
Appendix
Figure A1 Interaction Effect of Affective Conflict and Managerial Decision-making.
Note: MD indicates managerial decision; IC denotes Affective interpersonal conflict
Measurement Model Assessment of SEM (Appendix material only)
Note: MDM = managerial decision making, ICM = interpersonal conflict management, OPM = organizational perfor-
mance measurement