Research Introduction Conflict is inevitable in social interactions at work (Danielsson et al., 2015; De Dreu, 2008; O’Neill & McLarnon, 2018). However, the prevalence of workplace conflict is now alarming as evidences have shown that several employees are increasingly involved in conflicts. For instance, Chartered Institute Personnel and Development (CIPD, 2008) found that 85% of employees deal with conflicts to some degree and 29% do so ‘always’ or ‘frequently. Likewise, our own preliminary analyses indicate that workplace conflict is fairly high in the Ghanaian local government service as more than half (55.80%, based on the mean score for interpersonal conflict in Table 1) of the workers agreed that conflict among Workplace Conflict and Job-related Wellbeing Among Local Government Servants: The Role of Job Resources Eunice Esimebia Glilekpe,1 Alex Anlesinya,2 Gerald Joseph Nii Tetteh Nyanyofio,3 Sampson Kudjo Adeti2 and Ebenezer Malcalm4 Abstract Drawing on the job demands–resources model, this study examined the effect of workplace conflict as a work demand on job-related well-being (proxy by job satisfaction) while assessing the direct and buffering roles of job resources (employee development and supervisor support). The study employed a survey data from 130 employees of a major local government institution in Accra, Ghana, and the data were analysed using multiple regression and Hayes’ PROCESS macro moderation technique. The findings revealed that while workplace conflict has a significant negative effect on employee job-related well-being, employee development and supervisor support have significant positive effects but their interactions with workplace conflict show insignificant effects on employee job- related well-being. Our study provides new empirical evidence to extend the workplace conflict and employee well-being literature generally, and within the local government setting in particular. Furthermore, it contributes to the job demands–resources model by validating the dual pathways (job resources and job demands) of improving well-being while suggesting that a mismatch between the level of job demands and job resources may render their interactive effects ineffective. Keywords Employee development, workplace conflict, supervisor support, job-related well-being, job satisfaction, Ghana, local government servants, job demands–resources model 1 AIT Business School, Accra Institute of Technology, University Tower Seaview Campus-Weija, Accra-North, Ghana. 2 Department of Organization & Human Resource Management, University of Ghana Business School, Legon, Ghana. 3 Faculty of Management, University of Professional Studies Accra, Ghana. 4 School of Graduate Studies, Ghana Communication Technology University, Tesano, Accra, Ghana. Corresponding author: Alex Anlesinya, Department of Organization & Human Resource Management, University of Ghana Business School, P. O. Box LG, 78, Legon, Ghana. E-mail: alexanlesinya@gmail.com FIIB Business Review 1–14 2022 Fortune Institute of International Business Reprints and permissions: in.sagepub.com/journals-permissions-india DOI: 10.1177/23197145221105983 journals.sagepub.com/home/fib members is a common phenomenon in their work unit/ department. As a result, Wayne (2005) posits that managers spend nearly 25%–45% of their time dealing with conflicts within their work units and departments. Besides, high prevalence of workplace conflicts is a major concern as it has been found to be detrimental to the health and well-being of employees. For instance, some scholars such as George and Zakkariya (2015), Hagemeister and Volmer (2018), Kundi and Badar (2021) and Meier et al. (2013) suggested that, conflicts within the work environment is a major threat to the well-being of employees as it increases anxiety, tension, accidents, sickness, job dissatisfaction and other undesirable outcomes. http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1177%2F23197145221105983&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2022-06-26 2 FIIB Business Review While several researches have examined workplace conflicts, and employee health and well-being (e.g., Hagemeister & Volmer, 2018; Kuriakose et al., 2019; Spector & Bruk-Lee, 2008), more different researches on workplace conflicts are still needed (Hagemeister & Volmer, 2018). Again, the two main forms of conflicts within the workplace are interpersonal (social) and task conflicts. However, workplace relationship or social conflict is examined less relative to task conflict (Ismail et al., 2012) even though it is perceived to have more adverse impacts on workers and organizations compared to task conflicts (De Wit et al., 2012; Meier et al., 2013). Interpersonal or social conflict is a common source of personal insults and attacks, sicknesses, absenteeism, failures, disrespect, tension and rejection among employees (CIPD, 2008; De Dreu & Gelfand, 2008; Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Shaukat et al., 2017). Consequently, Kundi and Badar (2021) argued that future research on the role of interpersonal conflict on employee job-related well- being and other behavioural outcomes should be encouraged. In response to the above concerns, our study focuses on interpersonal or relationship conflict and its influence on employee job-related well-being. Furthermore, culture is a major determinant of perceived causes of workplace conflicts (CIPD, 2008), and the influence of workplace conflict on job-related well-being may be affected by cultural values (see Ye et al., 2019). This means that existing findings by limited in their applications in different contexts, and they may not reflect the experiences of the local government servants generally and Ghanaian workers specifically. As well-being and conflicts in the workplace continue to remain a major concern for both managers and employees alike, the present study is necessary not only to validate existing findings in different settings but also to generate new insights to highlight the need to pay more attention to social conflicts in order to promote a healthy and safer work environment for enhanced employee job-related well-being. Moreover, it has been acknowledged that some contingency variables can amplify, suppress, and ameliorate the negative consequences of conflict (Bradley et al., 2013; Hagemeister & Volmer, 2018; Korsgaard et al., 2008). Consequently, some past studies have examined moderators such as collectivism (Ye et al., 2019), core self-evaluation (Krajcsák, 2020), emotion regulation (Hagemeister & Volmer, 2018), emotional intelligence, gender (Kundi & Badar, 2021), among others in the relationship between workplace conflict and job-related well-being measures. Despite this, empirical research on the moderators in relation to workplace conflicts is still limited (De Dreu, 2008; Hagemeister & Volmer, 2018). So, there have been consistent calls for more researches on conditional factors with capacity to reduce the adverse effects of workplace conflicts on employees’ well-being (e.g., De Dreu, 2008; Hagemeister & Volmer, 2018; Kuriakose et al., 2019). Hence, drawing on the job demands–resources model (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Demerouti & Bakker, 2011), we tested supervisor support and employee development as potential moderators in the relationship between workplace conflict and employee job-related well-being. The job demands–resources model (Demerouti et al., 2001) argues that the work environment is characterized by job demands and job resources, and consequently, identifies two processes (health impairment and motivational) to examine and understand employee well-being. While the health impairment process of job demands leads to occupational strain and negative well-being outcomes (e.g., burnout and job stress), the motivational process of job resources results in favourable well-being outcomes (work engagement) (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Demerouti & Bakker, 2011). Therefore, we consider employee development (job resource) as a potential moderator because the motivational aspect of the model suggests that it can improve job-related well-being by minimizing the adverse influence of job demands (in this case, workplace conflicts) on employees (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Demerouti & Bakker, 2011; Hu et al., 2013; Lizano & Barak, 2015). Some studies indicated that employee training and development interventions can improve job-related well-being (Hu et al., 2013; Lizano & Barak, 2015) and conflict management by positioning employees to address conflict situations with confidence. It has also been found that more than half (58%) of well-trained employees look for win-win outcomes in conflict situations (CIPD, 2008). However, there is a paucity of research on the moderating role of employee development in the workplace conflict and employee well-being research. Hence, a study like ours is necessary to fill this void in the literature. Likewise, we consider social support (job resource) as a potential contingency condition since its presence can develop positive psychological outcomes like well-being by improving the negative aspects of employees’ jobs and their work environment (Bakker et al., 2007; Harney & Jordan, 2008; Kuriakose et al., 2019; Sharma & Aggarwal, 2017). While some empirical evidence indicated that social support can enhance employee job-related well-being (Han et al., 2020; Harney & Jordan, 2008; Sharma & Aggarwal, 2017), only a few studies have assessed the moderating role of social support (e.g., Kuriakose et al., 2019; Martínez Corts et al., 2011) on the influence of workplace relationship conflict on employee well-being. Moreover, attention to social support from supervisors still needs more investigation as the above limited prior research largely focused on social support from the organization or co-workers. In this light, we aimed to examine the: (a) effect of workplace (interpersonal) conflict on job-related well- being, (b) direct effect of employee development on employee job-related well-being, and its moderating role in the relationship between workplace conflict and job- related well-being and (c) direct effect of supervisor support on job-related well-being, as well as its moderating role in the relationship between workplace conflict and job-related well-being. Glilekpe et al. 3 Accordingly, our study makes four main contributions: First, it contributes to workplace conflicts—employee well-being literature by showing that workplace conflict negatively influences the job-related well-being of employees but employee development and supervisor support directly improve employees’ job-related well-being. Second and relatedly, our findings contribute to the job demands–resources model (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Demerouti & Bakker, 2011) by validating the dual pathways (job resources and job demands) of improving job-related well-being while suggesting that it is possible for interactions between job resources and job demands to play no significant role in enhancing the well-being of employees. The latter situation is possible because while job resources such as employee development and supervisor support may be available, workers can still feel susceptible and frustrated as soon as crises associated with a job demand, in this case, conflicts in the workplace emerge. As a result, and as suggested by Schaufeli and Taris (2014), our findings draw the attention of managers and policymakers to do more to balance resources (employee development and supervisor support) with demands (workplace conflicts) for their interactions to positively affect the job-related well-being of employees. Third, our study responded to research calls for the search and validation of conditional or contingency variables that affect the adverse influence of workplace conflicts on employees’ wellbeing. Fourth and finally, given that employees’ experience of workplace conflicts, and work environment varies from one individual and context to another (see CIPD, 2008; Chhabra, 2016), we contribute to research on the topic in the local government setting and the Ghanaian context. The remainder of the article is organized as follows: theory and hypotheses, methodology, results and findings, discussions, and conclusion. Theory and Hypotheses Job Demand–Resource Model The job demands–resources model was initially proposed by Demerouti et al. (2001) to understand the causes of burnout. It maintains that the workplace can be divided into job demands and job resources (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Demerouti et al., 2001; Demerouti & Bakker, 2011). Job demands refer to unfavourable working conditions and can negatively affect employee well-being. It consists of physical, psychological, social, or organizational characteristics of a job that adversely affect general health and well-being of employees (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Demerouti & Bakker, 2011; Schaufeli & Taris, 2014). Workplace conflict is a major example of job demands (Demerouti & Bakker, 2011; Meier et al., 2013; Schaufeli & Taris, 2014). However, job resources refer to ‘those physical, social, or organizational aspects of the job that may do any of the following: (a) be functional in achieving work goals; (b) reduce job demands and the associated physiological and psychological costs; (c) stimulate personal growth and development’ (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Demerouti et al., 2001, p. 501). Employee training and development, and social support are major examples of job resources (Schaufeli & Taris, 2014). The early version of the model argues that: First, excessive job demands may lead to emotional exhaustion which is the energetic aspect of burnout via the process of health impairment. Second, lack of job resources weakens the ability of employees to cope with job demands, which consequently results in withdrawal behaviours. Having witnessed several revisions, the main concern of the model now is how interactions between job demands and resources can affect well-being outcomes to enhance performance and health (Schaufeli & Taris, 2014). We consider the job demands–resource model to be appropriate for our study because it is a useful framework for investigating how work environment and job characteristics affect employee well-being (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017; Schaufeli & Taris, 2014). Importantly, it is a flexible model with broad scope as it ‘does not restrict itself to specific job demands or job resources. It assumes that any demand and any resource may affect employee health and well-being … and can be tailored to a much wider variety of work settings’ (Schaufeli & Taris, 2014, p. 44). In the next sections, we deployed the job demands– resources model to frame how workplace conflict as a job demand, and employee development and supervisor support as job resources can directly and interactively affect job-related well-being. Workplace Conflict as a Job Demand on Job-related Wellbeing Workplace conflict is generally defined as ‘a process that begins when an individual or group perceives differences and opposition between itself and another individual or group about interests, resources, beliefs, values or practices that matter to them’ (De Dreu & Gelfand, 2008, p. 6). As noted, the two main types of workplace conflicts are task conflict, and relationship or interpersonal conflict (Jehn, 1995; Jehn & Bendersky, 2003; Simons & Peterson, 2000). Task conflict refers to ‘disagreements among group members about the content of the tasks being performed, including differences in viewpoints, ideas, and opinions’ (Jehn, 1995, p. 258). Interpersonal conflict occurs between two or more individuals when they encounter negative emotions caused by perceived disagreement and interference with the attainment of their interests, values and goals (Barki & Hartwick, 2004; Shaukat et al., 2017). This study focuses on interpersonal or relationship conflicts because it is perceived to have more adverse impacts on workers and the organization relative to task conflicts (De Wit et al., 2012; Meier et al., 2013) but it has been given less research attention compared to task conflicts (Ismail et al., 2012). 4 FIIB Business Review Social or relationship conflicts at work invoke negative emotions including anger, frustration, stress and anxiety (Brockman, 2014; Kuriakose et al., 2019; Ye et al., 2019). These negative emotions have dysfunctional effects on individuals’ behaviour (Mulki et al., 2015; Seo et al., 2004) and their well-being. An interpersonal conflict suggests the existence of lack of respect, interpersonal tension and rejection within the workplace. It also threatens the sense of social belonging, self-esteem and social esteem of employees (Meier et al., 2013; Shaukat et al., 2017; Ye et al., 2019) and, consequently, impairs employee job-related well-being in the form of greater levels of job dissatisfaction. The proceeding is consistent with some empirical findings which have established that conflicts in the workplace can endanger the well-being of people. For instance, a survey of 466 employees in China by Ye et al. (2019) showed that while task conflict has a significant positive influence on job satisfaction, relationship conflict was negatively associated with job satisfaction. They further noted that workplace conflicts and job-related well-being relationships can be affected by different levels of collectivist cultural values. In German civil service agencies, Hagemeister and Volmer (2018), using daily survey data from 98 employees over five consecutive days showed that social conflicts with co-workers affected job satisfaction with co-workers. This is similar to the findings obtained by Kuriakose et al. (2019) in India, which suggested that workplace conflicts negatively affect the well-being of employees in the information technology sector. Furthermore, the relationship between workplace conflict and employee job-related well-being can be explained through the lenses of the job demands–resources model. The health-impairment aspects of this model suggest that workplace conflicts deplete the time and energy of employees, leading to high incidence of frustration which, in turn, makes employees become less happy or satisfied with their job (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003; De Wit et al., 2012). Thus, workplace conflicts can adversely affect employee’s job-related well-being through the depletion of their psychosocial resources. Hence, we argued that: H1: Workplace conflict will have a significant negative effect on job-related well-being. Employee Development as a Job Resource on Job-related Wellbeing Employee development is ‘about equipping workers with skills, knowledge, new capabilities and work attitude to enable them to perform their current job very efficiently and more effectively’ (Anlesinya, 2018, p. 8). It helps employees to keep pace with new trends and developments in their areas of work (Anlesinya, 2018; Dhingra et al., 2012). Empirically, Pousa et al. (2017) found that effective coaching behaviour of managers improves frontline employees’ behaviours among Canadian bankers. Relatedly, Lizano and Barak’s (2015) longitudinal study among public child welfare workers found that job resources like specialized training have reduced the negative effect of job demands on burnout and job satisfaction. In China, Hu et al. (2013) found that opportunities for learning and development have significant positive effects on the well-being (work engagement) of blue-collar workers and nurses. Likewise, a CIPD’s (2008) survey involving 5,000 employees from several countries in Europe and Americas showed that employee training and development interventions can minimize workplace conflict as they make employees become more comfortable and confident in addressing conflict situations. Besides, the job demands–resource model suggests that job resources constitute energy reservoirs to cushion workers in the face of work demands like workplace conflicts (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017). Accordingly, employee development as a form of job resources can improve job- related well-being since they are sources of both internal job satisfaction as well as external job satisfaction (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007), as well as energy reservoirs for coping with the demands of a workplace conflict (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Demerouti & Bakker, 2011). However, research on the moderating role of employee development in the relationship between workplace social conflict and employee well-being is limited. Thus, from the perspective of the job demands–resources model, we contend that employee development is a resource that can serve as a buffer against the adverse effects of demands emanating from interpersonal conflict on the well-being of employees. Consequently, we hypothesized that: H2: Higher levels of employee development opportuni- ties will directly improve job-related well-being (H2a) as well buffer against adverse effects of work- place conflict on job-related well-being (H2b). Supervisor Support as a Job Resource on Job- related Wellbeing Supervisor support describes the extent to which workers or people believe that their immediate supervisors appreciate the inputs they make as well as care about their overall well- being (Buttigieg & West, 2013). According to the job demands–resources model (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007), workplace conflicts as a job demand can drain the energy and intensify the level of strain among employees. However, job resources like social support can protect employees from the demands of conflicts that can deplete their psychosocial resources. Consequently, this suggests that social support can serve as a buffer for employee well-being in the presence of workplace conflicts. Empirically, Han et al. (2020) revealed that social support and administrative support can increase university teachers’ job satisfaction via work engagement in China. Harney and Jordan (2008) similarly found that line-managers’ social Glilekpe et al. 5 support can reduce work demands among workers by improving the negative aspects of their work. In India, Sharma and Aggarwal (2017) showed that social support is helpful in improving well-being by reducing psychological distress among salesperson. Earlier in Finland, Bakker et al. (2007) indicated that job resources in the form of supervisor support have significantly reduced work stress resulting from job demands (misbehaviour of students) among teachers operating in Finland. Recently, Kuriakose et al.’s (2019) findings indicated that social support has significantly moderated the influence of workplace conflicts on employee loneliness at work in the Indian ICT sector. The above suggests that social support can buffer the negative effect of workplace conflicts on employee well- being. However, given that studies on supervisor support as a moderator in the relationship between workplace conflicts and employee job-related well-being is still limited, our study aimed to add to the literature by hypothesizing that: H3: Higher levels of supervisor support will directly enhance job-related well-being (H3a), as well as buffer against negative effects of workplace conflict on job-related well-being. The above hypotheses which we developed based on the job demand–resource model, and the extant literature are summarized in Figure 1. From Figure 1, we hypothesized that workplace conflict as a job demand will negatively influence employee job-related well-being (H1). We further argued that employee development opportunities will have a direct influence on job-related well-being (H2a), as well as moderate the adverse effects of workplace conflict on job-related well-being (H2b). Moreover, supervisor support will have a positive effect on job-related well-being (H3a) while serving as a buffer against the negative effects of workplace conflict on job-related well-being (H3b). Finally, in line with prior studies, we controlled for gender (Chen et al., 2019; Tsaousis & Kazi, 2013), age (Pletzer et al., 2017), education (De Clercq et al., 2019) and organizational tenure (Mickson et al., 2021) since they have been found to affect workplace conflict and employee well- being. These demographic variables were coded as dummies before being used for the analyses. Methodology Research Design and Participants The study used quantitative and cross-sectional survey methods to examine the effect of workplace conflict on job-related well-being while assessing the direct and moderating roles of job resources (supervisor support and training and development) among employees of a major Figure 1. Conceptual Framework Source: Authors’ conceptual framework. 6 FIIB Business Review local government institution in Accra, Ghana. The total number of employees of the organization was estimated as 250. According to Krejcie and Morgan’s (1970) sample size table, a sample size of 152 is appropriate for this population. However, Bartlett II et al. (2001, p. 44) argued that ‘researchers should use caution when using any of the widely circulated sample size tables based on Krejcie and Morgan’s (1970) formula, as they assume an alpha of .05 and a degree of accuracy of .05’. Consequently, they provided an alternative sample size table intended to address common sampling problems. Their sample size determination table recommended that a population of 200 requires a minimum returned sample size of 102, and a population of 300 needs 123 as its minimum returned sample size. Thus, based on our population of 250, a sample size of 123 is appropriate for our study. In all, a total of 152 questionnaires were administered personally to randomly selected respondents to complete after permission was granted from the Assembly. However, 130 were usable, representing a response rate of 85.53%. This returned sample size is scientifically appropriate (see Bartlett II et al., 2001). Table 1 showed the demographic characteristics of the respondents. The results showed that 52% were females, 63.90% had bachelor’s or master’s degrees and most of them were young adults (below 40 years). Measures Questionnaires measured on a five-point Likert Scale where; ‘1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree)’ were adapted from previous studies to measure job resources (supervisor support and employee development), workplace conflict and employee job-related well-being. The following provided specific details or information about the measures. Supervisor support was assessed by four items from Peeters et al. (1995). Sample items are ‘my supervisor gives me guidance on how to manage my job; my supervisor shows that he/she appreciated the way of doing the job’. This scale was also used in a recent study by Darvishmotevali et al. (2017). Employee development was measured using four items taken from Lee and Bruvold’s (2003) perceived investment in employee development scale. Sample items are ‘my organization trains employees on skills that prepare them for future jobs and career development; my organization clearly demonstrated that it is committed to investing in continuous development of the skills and abilities of its employees’. Workplace conflicts (interpersonal/relationship) were measured using four-item scales from Jehn (1995). Sample items are ‘there is a lot of friction among members in my work unit; there are a lot of personality conflicts in my work unit.’ Job-related well-being: We operationalized employee job-related well-being as the level of employees’ satisfaction with their job. We used this proxy because scholars (e.g., Hackman & Oldham, 1975; Warr, 1996) noted that job satisfaction is a form of context-specific well-being and is concerned with employees’ psychological states and affective responses to their jobs. Besides, it is one of the most common measures of job- related well-being (Anlesinya & Amponsah-Tawiah, 2020; Warr, 1996). The scale was adapted from Hackman and Oldham (1975). Sample items included: I am satisfied with the sense of achievement I get from my job; I am satisfied with the amount of pay and fringe benefits I receive; I am satisfied with the amount of independent thought and action he/she can exercise in his/her job; I am satisfied with the amount of job security I have. This scale has been applied in several recent studies (e.g., Mickson et al., 2021). Control variables: The study collected data on participants’ demographic details, some of which were recoded as dummy and used as control variables: Age (1 = l8–39 years, 0 = 40 or more years); gender (1 = Male, 0 = Female), education (1 = Tertiary, 0 = Pre-tertiary), organizational tenure (1 = 1–5 years and 0 = 6 years or more). Data Analysis The analyses of the hypotheses and objectives were carried out using standard multiple regression and Hayes’ PROCESS Macro moderation technique (Model 1) using SPSS version 22.0. Prior to this, we employed confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) via structural equation modelling with the aid of IBM AMOS version 21.0 to validate the measures to enhance the quality of our findings since it has Table 1. Demographic Characteristics of the Survey Participants Demographic Characteristics Frequency % Gender Female 67 51.50 Male 63 48.50 Age (in years) Less than 20 20 15.38 20–29 79 60.77 30–39 19 14.62 40 and above 12 9.23 Education Senior high school and equivalent 2 1.50 Diploma 5 3.80 Higher national diploma 40 30.80 Bachelor’s degree 75 57.70 Postgraduate degree 8 6.20 Organizational tenure 1–5 years 95 73.10 6–10 years 26 20.00 11 years and above 9 6.90 Source: The authors. Glilekpe et al. 7 the ability to minimize measurement errors (Bryne, 2010). Also, we used Harman one-factor test to investigate common method bias. The results showed that the highest variance accounted for by a single factor was 33.04%, which is less than 50%, implying that common method bias is not an issue (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Similarly, the requirements of normality and multicollinearity were confirmed to be within limit. Results and Findings Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Validation of Measurement Model The result of the CFA validating the measures is presented in Table 2. Given the number of measurement items relative to the sample size, we parcelled the 14 items of job-related well-being into 7 items via a random parcelling of two items into a single measurement item (see Bakker et al., 2010; Little et al., 2002). However, two parcels (i.e., four items in all) were deleted to improve the fitness of the model. The final fitted model had a CMIN/df (χ2/df) of 1.770; CFI of 0.92 and RMSEA of 0.08, thereby indicating that the overall quality of the model is acceptable (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Similarly, Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability values in Table 2 are acceptable because they are all more than 0.70 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981; Nunnally, 1978). Also, convergent validity was achieved because all the standardized factor loadings in the same table are greater than 0.50 (Hair et al., 2010). Likewise, the results in Table 2 indicated that the values of average variance extracted (AVE) satisfied the required threshold of 0.50 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). With respect to divergent validity, the results in Table 3 showed that the measures have demonstrated sufficient discriminate validity since all the squared root values of AVE are more than squared correlations of the variables in their respective rows and columns (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Descriptive and Correlation Analyses Table 4 presents the results of the descriptive and correlation analyses. The results showed that employee job-related well-being correlated negatively and significantly with workplace conflict (r = –0.26, p < .01), but had a significant positive relationship with employee development opportunity (r = 0.42, p < .01) and supervisor support (r = 0.49, p < .01). The correlations between employee development opportunity, supervisor support and the control variables (age, gender, education and organizational tenure) did not raise any multicollinearity concerns. Also, workplace conflict, employee development and social support were mean-centred, after which their products Table 2. Confirmatory Factor Analyses and Validation of the Measurement Model Latent Constructs Measurement Items (Observed Constructs) SFL t-Value AVE C.R Cronbach’s ɑ Supervisor support SS4 0.74*** 6.31 0.51 0.80 0.80SS3 0.72*** 8.24 SS1 0.69 Fixed SS2 0.69*** 5.96 Employee development opportunities TD1 0.81 Fixed 0.54 0.81 0.82TD2 0.80*** 8.86 TD3 0.68*** 7.58 TD4 0.62*** 6.83 Workplace conflict IC3 0.93*** 6.21 0.62 0.83 0.85IC2 0.82*** 5.98 IC4 0.82*** 5.98 IC1 0.52 Fixed Job-related well-being Sat4 0.86 Fixed 0.50 0.87 0.84Sat3 0.74*** 8.12 Sat6 0.68*** 6.95 Sat7 0.63*** 6.98 Sat2 0.59*** 6.31 Source: The authors. Note: SFL = Standardized factor loadings; AVE = Average variance extracted; C.R = Composite reliability. *** coefficients are significant at 0.1% (0.001) level. Table 3. Fornell–Lacker Procedure for Discriminant Validity Analysis Variables 1 2 3 4 1. Job-related well-being 0.71 2. Workplace conflict 0.07 0.79 3. Employee development 0.18 4.9 × 10–3 0.73 4. Supervisor support 0.24 0.06 0.32 0.71 Source: The authors. Note: Bolded elements are the squared roots of AVE and other elements represent the squared correlation. 8 FIIB Business Review were computed to construct the interactive terms (i.e., interpersonal conflict X employee development, and interpersonal conflict X supervisor support) to reduce multicollinearity. Hypotheses Testing Table 5 presents the main results. The direct effect of all the predictors on employee job-related well-being is assessed using the results in Model 1, Model 2 assesses the interactive effect of employee development and workplace conflicts, and Model 3 examines the moderated effect of supervisor support and workplace conflict. To start with, Table 4. Descriptive and Correlation Analyses Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1. Job-related well-being 3.47 0.67 1.00 2. Workplace conflict 2.79 0.95 –0.26** 1.00 3. Employee development 3.22 0.85 0.42** –0.07 1.00 4. Supervisor support 3.79 0.83 0.49** –0.25** 0.32** 1.00 5. Age 0.91 0.29 0.28** 0.04 0.37** 0.34** 1.00 6. Education 0.64 0.48 0.06 –0.09 –0.13 0.08 0.04 1.00 7. Tenure 0.73 0.45 0.16 –0.06 0.23** 0.13 0.35** –0.02 1.00 8. Gender 0.48 0.50 –0.05 –0.04 0.003 –0.05 –0.17 –0.20* –0.21* 1.00 Source: The authors. Note: ** and * coefficients are significant at 1% (0.01) and 5% (0.05) levels of significance, respectively. H1 examined the effect of workplace conflict on employee job-related well-being. The results in the Model 1 of Table 5, and Figure 2 showed that workplace conflict has a significant negative effect (β = –0.15, p < .05) on employee job-related well-being. This provided empirical support for H1. H2 examined the direct and interactive effects of employee development opportunities on employee job- related well-being. The regression results in Model 1 of Table 5, and in Figure 2 showed that employee development opportunity has a significant positive effect (β = 0.28, p < .01) on job-related well-being. The result provided empirical support for H2a. Also, in Model 2 of the same table, the interactive term for employee development opportunity and workplace conflict (i.e., workplace conflict X employee development) has insignificant positive effect on job-related well-being (β = 0.06, p > .05). Hence, H2b is not supported by the empirical evidence. Finally, H3 assessed the direct and interactive effects of supervisor support on job-related well-being. The results in Model 1 of Table 5, and in Figure 2 showed that supervisor support has a significant positive effect (β = 0.33, p < .01) on job-related well-being. Thus, H2a is supported. Moreover, in Model 3 of the same table, the interactive term for supervisor support and workplace conflict (i.e., workplace conflict X supervisor support) showed insignificant negative effect on job-related well-being (β = –0.11, p > .05). Hence, H3b is not supported. Discussions In response to research calls (e.g., De Dreu, 2008; Hagemeister & Volmer, 2018; Kuriakose et al., 2019) to search for useful contingency variables that can suppress and ameliorate the adverse effects of workplace conflicts on employee job-related well-being, we proposed and tested employee development opportunity and supervisor support as moderators in the relationship between workplace conflict and job-related well-being. Using empirical data from the local government setting in Ghana, we found that workplace conflict has a significant negative effect on employee well-being. However, employee development and social support have significant positive Table 5. Direct and Interactive Effects of Workplace Conflict, Employee Development Opportunity and Supervisor Support on Employee Job-related Wellbeing Variables Direct Results Moderated Results Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Gender –0.02 –0.02 –0.03 (–0.21) (–0.15) (–0.24) Age 0.06 0.35 0.23 (0.65) (1.70) (1.10) Education 0.06 0.11 0.01 (0.72) (1.01) (0.07) Tenure 0.03 0.02 0.08 (0.31) (0.18) (0.64) Workplace conflict –0.15* –0.17** –0.10 (–1.98) (–2.97) (1.81) Employee development 0.28** 0.28** – (3.37) (0.3.97) – Supervisor support 0.33** – 0.33** (3.94) – (4.77) Workplace conflict × Employee development – 0.03 – – (0.41) – Workplace conflict × Supervisor support – – –0.11 – – (–1.71) R-squared 0.34 0.26 0.30 F-test 8.97** 6.02** 7.30** Source: The authors. Notes: ** and * coefficients are significant at 1% and 5%, respectively. Unstandardized coefficients are reported for the interactive terms in Model 3. Glilekpe et al. 9 effects on employee job-related well-being, but their interactions with workplace conflict show no effect on employee job-related well-being. The following discusses the theoretical and practical implications of the findings. Theoretical Implications The findings of our H1 showed that employees’ job-related well-being will be significantly threatened when they are exposed to more conflicts within the workplace because workplace conflicts can deplete their psychosocial and physical resources. This is consistent with the health- impairment aspect of Demerouti and Bakker’s (2011) job demands-resources model which argues that loss of vital psychosocial and physical resources can negatively impair employee well-being by making them become frustrated and less happy with their job. It also provides support for the assertion by some scholars such as Shaukat et al. (2017), Ye et al. (2019) and Meier et al. (2013) that workplace conflicts negatively affect well-being because it hurts employees’ sense of social belonging and self-esteem. This result means that increases in frictions, tensions and personality conflicts among workers at the Assembly may lower employee job-related well-being. It further implies that prevalence of misunderstanding and lack of cooperative behaviours among employees, working units and departments can impair employee job satisfaction. Consequently, this new empirical evidence from a novel context contributes to knowledge by validating the predictions of the job demand–resource model that workplace conflict is a major source of work demands, exerting adverse effects on employees’ job-related well-being. Our H2a established that employee development opportunity has a significant positive effect on job-related well-being of employees. This implies that work environments that are characterized by developmental opportunities for employees can enhance their job-related well-being as they constitute a critical resource for empowering workers with skills, knowledge and abilities to find their job intrinsically and extrinsically satisfying, leading to improvement in their job-related well-being. This result is consistent with previous findings by Lizano and Barak (2015) and Pousa et al. (2017) and contributes to the validation of the propositions of the job demands–resources model that employee training and development constitute energy reservoirs to cushion workers in the face of work demands like workplace conflicts (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017). Furthermore, given that researches on the moderating role of employee development in the relationship between Figure 2. Conceptual Framework with Summarized Statistical Results Source: The authors. Note: ** and * coefficients are significant at 1% (0.01) and 5% (0.05) levels respectively. 10 FIIB Business Review workplace conflict and employee well-being are limited and rare to find in the literature, we contribute to the job demand–resource model by examining employee development opportunity as a job resource that can be used to buffer against the adverse effects of workplace conflict on the job-related well-being of employees. In doing so, we anticipated that employees who are exposed constantly to development opportunities will acquire knowledge and abilities that can make them emotionally mature with increased ability to handle or prevent conflicts from escalating to undesirable levels, and consequently improve their job-related well-being. Contrary to our expectation, the interactive effect of employee development and workplace conflicts has an insignificant positive effect on employee job-related well-being. From the perspective of the job demands–resources model, this may be so because while job resources like employee development may be available; workers can still feel susceptible and frustrated as soon as crisis associated with a job demands, in this case, conflicts in the workplace emerges (see Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). Similarly, the job demands–resource model ‘assumes that employee health and well-being result from a balance between positive (resources) and negative (demands) job characteristics’ (Schaufeli & Taris, 2014, p. 44). Hence, our insignificant interactive effect of employee development (resources) and workplace conflicts (demands) on employee job-related well-being may be attributed to a possible mismatch between the prevalence level of conflicts within the work environment and the prevailing level of opportunities for employees to develop relevant skills and knowledge for effective management of conflicting situations. That being said, although insignificant, it is worth pointing out that employee development as a contingency variable has reversed the ‘significant negative effect’ of workplace conflict to ‘no effect’ on job-related well-being. This with cautions suggests that employee development may potentially ameliorate and suppress the deleterious effects of workplace conflicts on the well-being of employees. Our H3 found that social support has a significant positive effect on employee job-related well-being. This implies that provision of more supervisor social support can enhance job-related well-being of employees. This result supported the findings of other researchers (e.g., Bakker et al., 2007; Han et al., 2020; Harney & Jordan, 2008; Lizano & Barak, 2015). This provides empirical validation for the proposition of the job demands–resources model that the motivational process of job resources like supervisor support can increase employee job-related well- being by protecting employees from the negative aspects of their job and work environment (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Demerouti & Bakker, 2011). Moreover, we sought to add to the literature by throwing more light on the possible interactive role of supervisor support as a job resource in the relationship between workplace conflict and job-related well-being given that it is less researched compared to other forms of social support. However, we did not find a significant interactive effect of supervisor support and workplace conflicts on employee job-related well-being. This finding, on one hand, is similar to prior studies which found no interactive effect between job resources and job demands (see Bakker et al., 2005; Xanthopoulou et al., 2007), and the evidence that the interactive effect of job demands and job resources adds little beyond their additive effects to job-related well- being measures such as burnout and work engagement (Hu et al., 2011). On the other hand, it is inconsistent with the suggestions of the job demands–resources model that supervisor support can protect employees from the demands of conflicts that can deplete their psychosocial resources and can serve as a buffer for employee well- being in the presence of workplace conflicts. A possible explanation for this result is an imbalance between the level of supervisor support provided to employees, and rates and incidences of conflicts within the workplace. It could also mean that because supervisors in the local government service tend to supervise several subordinates, when conflicts arise between members of their unit, they may want to be seen to be fair, neutral and not taking side. As a result, supervisors may be unwilling to provide unequal marginal support to any of the parties to the conflicts, even when one party’s job-related well-being is more endangered. Practical Implications Practically, our study urges employees and their supervisors to become more aware of their specific roles in managing job demands such as conflict in the work environment in order to take measures to ensure that their social interactions’ at work do not burden or threaten their job-related well-being. Besides, the study recommends that managers of local government institutions should reduce conflict in their work units to improve employee well-being by instituting proactive mechanisms such as conflict management committee at the various levels and departments of the organization to anticipate, prevent and resolve conflicts amicably to improve employee’s job-related well-being. Furthermore, more development opportunities should be provided to employees to enhance their job-related well-being. Such interventions can also potentially help them to demonstrate emotional maturity and confidence in handling provocative behaviours from other employees and, consequently, create buffers for them to effectively cope with stressful workplace conflicts to prevent impairment of their job-related well-being. Finally, the study suggests that managers should provide adequate support by way of necessary assistance, guidance and emotional encouragement to employees including timely intervening in conflicting situations to ensure that Glilekpe et al. 11 employees, especially, the vulnerable parties find their job more satisfying. Limitations and Future Research The use of cross-sectional data may limit its findings to the use of longitudinal data in future studies is recommended. Furthermore, this study’s findings may be limited to the local government workers in Ghana. Hence, future studies should be extended to more local government institutions as well as other public sector organizations in Ghana, and other developing countries. Moreover, comparative analyses between public sector and private sector workers may be necessary since there are significant differences in both working environments. Also, more job demands and job resources may be identified and examined to enhance our understanding of how different characteristics of jobs and work environments affect employees’ job-related well- being. Finally, future studies may assess employee well- being by focusing on different facets and indicators of job-related and general well-being since our study proxies job-related well-being with only job satisfaction. Conclusion Our study concludes that workplace conflict is a major job demand that impairs employee job-related well-being. However, supervisor social support and employee development are critical job resources for enhancing employee job-related well-being directly but we could not establish their buffering role in the link between workplace conflict and the job-related well-being of employees. Consequently, we contribute to the job demands– resources model by providing empirical evidence from a novel setting to validate the dual pathways (job resources and job demands) through which job characteristics enhance job-related well-being while highlighting the need for managers to be optimistically cautious in their quest to improve employee well-being via the potential interactive effects of resources (supervisor support and employee development opportunity) and job demands (workplace conflicts) because their interactions may not be significant. Declaration of Conflicting Interests The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article. Funding The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article. ORCID iD Alex Anlesinya https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5439-4672 References Anlesinya, A. (2018). Organizational barriers to employee training and learning: Evidence from the automotive sector. Development and Learning in Organisations: An International Journal, 32(3), 8–10. Anlesinya, A., & Amponsah-Tawiah, K. (2020). Towards a responsible talent management model. European Journal of Training and Development, 44(2/3), 279–303. Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands– resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309–328. Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2017). Job demands–resources theory: Taking stock and looking forward. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(3), 273–285. Bakker, A. B., Hakanen, J. J., Demerouti, E., & Xanthopoulou, D. (2007). Job resources boost work engagement, particularly when job demands are high. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(2), 274. Bakker, A. B., Veldhoven, M. van., & Xanthopoulou, D. (2010). Beyond the demand-control model. Journal of Personnel Psychology. 9(1), 3–16. Barki, H., & Hartwick, J. (2004). Conceptualizing the construct of interpersonal conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management, 15(3), 216–244. Bartlett II, J. E., Kotrlik, J. W., & Higgins, C. C. (2001). Organizational research: Determining appropriate sample size in survey research appropriate sample size in survey research. Information Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal, 19(1), 43–50. Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529. Bradley, B. H., Klotz, A. C., Postlethwaite, B. E., & Brown, K. G. (2013). Ready to rumble: How team personality composition and task conflict interact to improve performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(2), 385. Brockman, J. L. (2014). Interpersonal conflict in construction: Cost, cause, and consequence. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 140(2), 04013050. Bryne, M. B. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Routledge. Buttigieg, S. C., & West, M. A. (2013). Senior management leadership, social support, job design and stressor-to- strain relationships in hospital practice. Journal of Health Organization and Management, 27(2), 171–192. Chartered Institute Personnel and Development. (2008). Fight, flight or face it? Celebrating the effective management of conflict at work. https://eu.themyersbriggs.com/-/media/10e 61ce66e29407080ef0caf9f3dc846.ashx Chen, H. X., Xu, X., & Phillips, P. (2019). Emotional intelligence and conflict management styles. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 27(3), 458–470. Chhabra, B. (2016). Work role stressors and employee outcomes. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 24(3), 390–414. Danielsson, C. B., Bodin, L., Wulff, C., & Theorell, T. (2015). The relation between office type and workplace conflict: A gender and noise perspective. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 42, 161–171. 12 FIIB Business Review Darvishmotevali, M., Arasli, H., & Kilic, H. (2017). Effect of job insecurity on frontline employee’s performance: Looking through the lens of psychological strains and leverages. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 29(6), 1724–1744. De Clercq, D., Haq, I. U., & Azeem, M. U. (2019). Time-related work stress and counterproductive work behavior. Personnel Review, 48(7), 1756–1781. De Dreu, C. K. (2008). The virtue and vice of workplace conflict: Food for (pessimistic) thought. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(1), 5–18. De Dreu, C. K. W., & Gelfand, M. J. (2008). Conflicts in the workplace: Sources, functions, and dynamics across multiple levels of analysis. In C. K. W. De Dreu & M. J. Gelfand (Eds), The psychology of conflict and conflict management in organizations (pp. 3–54). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team member satisfaction, and team effectiveness: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 741–749. De Wit, F. R. C., Greer, L. L., & Jehn, K. A. (2012). The paradox of intragroup conflict: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(2), 360–390. Demerouti, E., & Bakker, A. B. (2011). The job demands– resources model: Challenges for future research. Journal of Industrial Psychology, 37(2), 974–982. Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachrerner, B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands–resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 499–512. Dhingra, V., Ghakar, K., & Sharma, R. C. (2012). Training and employee development: In retrospect and prospect: A conceptual discussion. FIIB Business Review, 1(2), 16–21. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50. George, E., & Zakkariya, K. A. (2015). Job related stress and job satisfaction: A comparative study among bank employees. Journal of Management Development, 34(3), 316–329. Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, C. R. (1975). Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 159–170. Hagemeister, A., & Volmer, J. (2018). Do social conflicts at work affect employees’ job satisfaction? The moderating role of emotion regulation. International Journal of Conflict Management, 29(2), 213–235. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Balin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis. Maxwell Macmillan International Editions. Han, J., Yin, H., Wang, J., & Zhang, J. (2020). Job demands and resources as antecedents of university teachers’ exhaustion, engagement and job satisfaction. Educational Psychology, 40(3), 318–335. Harney, B., & Jordan, C. (2008). Unlocking the black box: Line managers and HRM‐Performance in a call centre context. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 57(4), 275–296. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. Hu, Q., Schaufeli, W. B., & Taris, T. W. (2013). Does equity mediate the effects of job demands and job resources on work outcomes? An extension of the job demands‐resources model. Career Development International, 18(4), 357–376. Ismail, K. M., Richard, O. C., & Taylor, E. C. (2012). Relationship conflict in supervisor-subordinate dyads: A subordinate perspective. International Journal of Conflict Management, 23(2), 192–218. Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(2), 256–282. Jehn, K. A., & Bendersky, C. (2003). Intragroup conflict in organizations: A contingency perspective on the conflict- outcome relationship. In R. M. Kramer & B. M. Staw (Eds), Research in organizational behavior: An annual series of analytical essays and critical reviews (pp. 187–124). Elsevier Science. Korsgaard, M. A., Jeong, S., Mahony, D. M., & Pitariu, A. H. (2008). A multilevel view of intragroup conflict. Journal of Management, 34(6), 1222–1252. Krajcsák, Z. (2020). Solving intra-group conflicts by supporting employees’ identification and commitment. International Journal of Organizational Analysis. https://doi.org/10.1108/ IJOA-04-2020-2138 Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Table for determining sample size from a given population. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30, 607–610. Kundi, Y. M., & Badar, K. (2021). Interpersonal conflict and counterproductive work behavior: The moderating roles of emotional intelligence and gender. International Journal of Conflict Management, 32(3), 514–534. Kuriakose, V., Serenest, S., Wilson, P. R., & Anusree, M. R. (2019). The differential association of workplace conflicts on employee well-being: The moderating role of perceived social support at work. International Journal of Conflict Management, 30(5), 680–705. Lee, C. H., & Bruvold, N. T. (2003). Creating value for employees: Investment in employee development. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14, 981–1000. Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 151–173. Lizano, E. L., & Barak, M. M. (2015). Job burnout and affective wellbeing: A longitudinal study of burnout and job satisfaction among public child welfare workers. Children and Youth Services Review, 55, 18–28. Martínez Corts, I., Benítez González, M., Andrade Boz, M., Munduate Jaca, M. L., & Medina Díaz, F. J. (2011). Coping with interpersonal conflict at work in small business: The moderating role of supervisor and co-worker support. Revista de Psicología del Trabajoy de las Organizaciones, 27(2), 117–129. Meier, L. L., Gross, S., Spector, P. E., & Semmer, N. K. (2013). Relationship and task conflict at work: Interactive short-term effects on angry mood and somatic complaints. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 18(2), 144–156. Mickson, M. K., Anlesinya, A., & Malcalm, E. (2021). Mediation role of diversity climate on leadership and job satisfaction in the Ghanaian public sector. World Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development, 17(2), 167–188. Mulki, J. P., Jaramillo, F., Goad, E. A., & Pesquera, M. R. (2015). Regulation of emotions, interpersonal conflict, Glilekpe et al. 13 and job performance for salespeople. Journal of Business Research, 68(3), 623–630. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill. O’Neill, T. A., & McLarnon, M. J. (2018). Optimizing team conflict dynamics for high performance teamwork. Human Resource Management Review, 28(4), 378–394. Peeters, M. C., Buunk, B. P., & Schaufeli, W. B. (1995). Social interactions, stressful events and negative affect at work: A micro-analytic approach. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 391–401. Pletzer, J. L., Oostrom, J., & Voelpel, S. C. (2017). Age differences in workplace deviance: A meta-analysis (Vol. 2017, p. 11475). Academy of Management. Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. Pousa, C., Pousa, C., Mathieu, A., Mathieu, A., Trepanier, C., & Trepanier, C. (2017). Managing frontline employee performance through coaching: Does selling experience matter? International Journal of Bank Marketing, 35(2), 220–240. Schaufeli, W. B., & Taris, T. W. (2014). A critical review of the job demands–resources model: Implications for improving work and health. In Bridging occupational, organizational and public health (pp. 43–68). Springer. Seo, M. G., Barrett, L. F., & Bartunek, J. M. (2004). The role of affective experience in work motivation. Academy of Management Review, 29(3), 423–439. Sharma, S., & Aggarwal, N. (2017). Sales professional’s commitment to smile: Is social support a moderator between emotional labour and its consequences on well-being? FIIB Business Review, 6(4), 30–38. Shaukat, R., Yousaf, A., & Sanders, K. (2017). Examining the linkages between relationship conflict, performance and turnover intentions: Role of job burnout as a mediator. International Journal of Conflict Management, 28(1), 4–23. Simons, T. L., & Peterson, R. S. (2000). Task conflict and relationship conflict in top management teams: The pivotal role of intragroup trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(1), 102. Spector, P. E., & Bruk-Lee, V. (2008). Conflict, health, and well-being. In C. K. W. De Dreu & M. J. Gelfand (Eds), The psychology of conflict and conflict management in organizations (pp. 267–288). Taylor & Francis Group/ Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Tsaousis, I., & Kazi, S. (2013). Factorial invariance and latent mean differences of scores on trait emotional intelligence across gender and age. Personality and Individual Differences, 54(2), 169–173. Warr, P. (1996). Employee well-being. In P. Warr (Ed.), Psychology at work (pp. 224–253). Penguin Books. Wayne, I. K. (2005, 9 May). It pays to find the hidden, but high, costs of conflict. Washington Business Journal. https://www. bizjournals.com/washington/stories/2005/05/09/smallb6.html Ye, Z., Liu, H., & Gu, J. (2019). Relationships between conflicts and employee perceived job performance: Job satisfaction as mediator and collectivism as moderator. International Journal of Conflict Management, 30(5), 706–728. About the Authors Eunice Esimebia Glilekpe holds a bachelor’s degree and diploma, all in Business Administration (Human Resource & Information Technology option). She has about two years of cumulative working experience in the field of human resource management in the local government and hospitality sectors. She currently works with the La–Nkwantanang Madina Municipal Assembly, Accra as HR Assistant (National Service). Prior to this, she has worked with the HR Division of the Accra Metro Work Department of the Accra Metropolitan Assembly, Accra, and Club 77 Restaurant at Burma Camp, Accra. She can be reached at euniceglilekpe@gmail.com Alex Anlesinya (MPhil, BBA, CA II) is a multiple award-winning Researcher, Training Facilitator and Consultant. He is an Associate Editor of Review of Business Management (RBGN) and has recently completed his PhD at the Department of Organization & HRM, University of Ghana Business School. Alex is an Adjunct Lecturer at the GIMPA Academy of Leadership & Executive Training and a Supervisor at Coventry University-UK/GCTC-Ghana. He researches at the intersection of organization, HRM and sustainability. His specific research interests are talent management, sustainable HRM, decent work, CSR/sustainability and organization development. He published in several ranked journals and has over 30 peer-reviewed articles and conference papers to his credit. Alex has received six Best Paper Awards including the prestigious Emerald Literati Award and Overall Best Student Awards. He can be reached at alexanlesinya@gmail.com Gerald Joseph Nii Tetteh Nyanyofio (PhD) is a Lecturer in Management and Organizational Behaviour in the Faculty of Management at the University of Professional Studies, Accra. He holds PhD in Public Adminis tration and Policy from the University of Ghana Business School, Legon. Prior to joining academia, he worked as a Product Marketing Officer at the Standard Chartered Bank, Ghana for over four years. As a Lecturer, he served as the Organizing Secretary to the UPSA branch of the University Teachers’ Association of Ghana (UTAG) for the past four years. He served as a member of the Academic Board of UPSA as a representative of Convocation. His research interests are public/business policy analysis and strategic management in public and private sector institutions. He can be reached at joseph.nyanyofio@upsamail.edu.gh 14 FIIB Business Review Sampson Kudjo Adeti is a PhD Candidate at the Department of Organization & HRM of the University of Ghana Business School and a retired distinguished officer of the Ghana Armed Forces. His terminal leave ended on 13 August 2018, after nearly 37 years of dedicated and professional service to Ghana. He had served in various important Command and Staff positions in the Ghana Armed Forces. He was the General Officer Commanding the Southern Command of the Ghana Army, Chief of Staff and Member of the Military High Command of the Ghana Armed Forces. He holds four master’s degrees in international affairs, development studies, business administration and defence and strategic studies. His research interests are international HRM, mental health, cross-cultural competence, resilience and strategy. He can be reached at skadeti@yahoo.com Ebenezer Malcalm (PhD) is the Dean of Graduate School at Ghana Communication Technology University (GCTU). He was the founding Pro-Vice Chancellor of Laweh Open University College and former Senior Lecturer and Coordinator of Distance Learning School at the University of Professional Studies, Accra. He is a trained Instructional Designer and Technologist, and Communication and Development Specialist. He obtained a master’s degree in Population Studies from the University of Ghana and a master’s degree in International Affairs (Communication and Development) at Ohio University (USA). He earned his PhD in Curriculum/Instruction and Instructional Technology at Ohio University, USA. Dr Malcalm’s research interests are in distance learning, strategic planning, leadership, collaborative learning and the use of learning platforms in higher education. He can be reached at emalcalm@gtuc.edu.gh