The bright and dark sides of creativity in employee conflict management; the moderating role of competitive climate Open Access

Creativity, commonly characterized as the capacity to produce novel and valuable ideas, solutions or products (Runco and Jaeger, 2012; Sternberg and Lubart, 1995) is immensely valuable in the workplace. Creativity drives innovation, allowing organizations to meet evolving market demands and stay ahead of competitors (De Jonge et al., in press; Lax and Sebenius, 1986). Moreover, creativity fuels individual growth and satisfaction, as it provides opportunities for self-expression, autonomy and mastery (Coskun, 2005). Finally, creativity has also been closely associated with effective conflict management as it fosters collaboration and problem-solving by encouraging individuals to think out-of-the-box and explore diverse solutions to complex challenges and conflicts (Fousiani et al., 2022; for a review see Wilson and Thompson, 2014).

Indeed, conflict, characterized by opposing interests, goals or viewpoints between two or more parties (Lewicki et al., 2020) requires exploration and flexible thinking to discover alternatives, all inherent in creativity (Fousiani et al., 2022; Lax and Sebenius, 1986, p. 31; Lewicki et al., 2020; Raiffa, 1982). However, creativity can also be a tool for advancing self-interest and achieving personal goals at others’ expense (Bazerman and Gillespie, 1999; Perchtold-Stefan et al., 2021). This darker aspect of creativity, known as malevolent creativity, includes actions such as deceptive marketing, harmful product design, tax evasion and unethical business practices (Cropley et al., 2008; Gino and Ariely, 2012; Harris and Reiter-Palmon, 2015). Thus, while creativity is celebrated for driving innovation and organizational progress, it can also lead to destructive and unethical behaviors with serious ramifications (Cropley, 2006; Zhao et al., 2022).

Accordingly, this study argues that while creativity has a positive role in conflict management (Fousiani et al., 2022; Wilson and Thompson, 2014), it can also have negative effects, potentially hindering collaboration and fostering competitive, self-interested strategies. In this study, we particularly focus on contextual creativity, which refers to creativity fostered by one’s environment rather than being an inherent personality trait (Guilford, 1967). This concept suggests that creativity can be cultivated through external factors like an individual’s surroundings, such as organizational culture, social interactions and situational dynamics. In other words, unlike the traditional view of creativity as a personality trait, contextual creativity emphasizes the role of external factors in stimulating and nurturing creative thinking and behavior (De Jonge et al., 2018, in press; Fousiani et al., 2022; Gustafsson, 2023). Because contextual creativity arises from an individual’s external environment, in this study, we refer to it as perceived (or experienced) creativity, acknowledging that it is subjective and varies based on individual perception (De Jonge et al., in press). Accordingly, we refer to contextual creativity as perceived creativity henceforth.

Our research specifically delves into the role of employee-perceived creativity in navigating conflicts with leaders. Employees, due to their lower power and dependent position relative to their leaders (Rus et al., 2010), often adopt passive conflict strategies, such as accommodating (i.e. complying with their leaders’ wishes; De Dreu et al., 2001), as they are typically more attuned to others’ goals and interests (Fousiani, 2020; Van Kleef et al., 2006). Indeed, according to the approach-inhibition theory (Cho and Keltner, 2020; Keltner et al., 2003), low power often leads to an inhibition orientation, marked by caution, avoidance and submissiveness rather than approach and activity (Fousiani, 2020; Lam and Xu, 2019). In this study, we integrate approach-inhibition theory with the creativity literature to focus on employee active conflict management strategies, specifically collaboration and competition (De Dreu et al., 2001; Lewicki et al., 2020). We argue that when employees perceive opportunities for creative thinking, they overcome the inherent passivity of their position and engage in two opposing – yet active – conflict management strategies: collaboration (focusing on mutual goals) and competition (focusing on self-interested goals), to achieve better outcomes.

It is noteworthy that organizational climate significantly influences employee behavior, including how conflicts are managed (Fousiani et al., 2024; Fousiani and Wisse, 2022; Vieira Dos Santos et al., 2023). Organizational climate encompasses elements like the workplace atmosphere, culture and interpersonal dynamics (Nerstad et al., 2013), which can shape how employees leverage creativity in conflicts with leaders. For instance, a competitive organizational climate, characterized by its focus on excellence, initiative and success, pressures employees to outperform others to access resources (Brown et al., 1998; Spurk et al., 2021). Accordingly, we argue that such an environment may amplify the effects of creativity, leading employees to engage in active conflict behaviors – whether collaboration or competition – to achieve better conflict outcomes. For a graphical illustration of the research model see Figure 1.

Our study offers several theoretical and practical contributions. First, by integrating approach-inhibition theory with the creativity literature, it emphasizes the dual nature of creativity in conflict management. This approach reveals creativity’s positive role in fostering collaboration while also recognizing its potential to encourage competitive strategies (both active strategies) in conflict situations. Second, by focusing on the interaction between creativity and competitive climate, the study underscores organizational climate as an important factor in strengthening the relationship between contextual creativity and employee active conflict management, such as collaboration and competition (De Dreu et al., 2001). Third, this research contributes to the limited body of literature concerning conflict management strategies used by individuals with less power (such as employees) when navigating conflicts involving those in positions of authority (such as leaders) (Fousiani, 2020; Fousiani et al., 2021, 2022; Van Kleef et al., 2006). From a practical standpoint, leaders can use these insights to understand the dual role of creativity in conflict management. While fostering creativity is generally beneficial and advisable, leaders should also be aware of its potential downsides and be prepared to address any negative consequences.

Conflict management is the process of reducing negative outcomes of conflict while increasing positive outcomes (Lewicki et al., 2020). Based on the dual concern theory (De Dreu et al., 2001; Pruitt and Carnevale, 1993), five conflict management strategies are identified in the literature: collaboration, competition, compromising, accommodation and avoidance. Among these, collaboration (or problem-solving) and competition (or forcing) are the most active and assertive conflict management strategies, requiring proactive engagement and intensive effort to address conflicts. In contrast, compromising, accommodation and avoidance are more passive and reactive strategies, involving less rigorous effort to achieve desired outcomes (De Dreu et al., 2001; Fousiani et al., 2022; Lewicki et al., 2020). More specifically, collaboration involves an intensive effort to solve problems and find mutually beneficial solutions to reach joint outcomes, emphasizing open communication and mutual understanding (Fisher et al., 2011). Conversely, competition involves vigorous effort and assertive actions directed toward accomplishing one’s self-interested goals, often through strategic tactics and persuasive techniques to safeguard one’s interests at the expense of others (De Dreu et al., 2001; Tjosvold, 2008). Afzalur Rahim (2002) further supports the dual concern theory of conflict management, by illustrating how these strategies influence organizational outcomes, emphasizing the necessity of selecting the appropriate approach based on the specific context and desired objectives.

When examining the role of creativity in conflict management, prioritizing highly active strategies over moderately active (e.g. finding a middle-ground solution; compromising) or passive ones (e.g. accommodation and avoidance) is warranted. Integrating approach-inhibition theory (Cho and Keltner, 2020; Keltner et al., 2003) with creativity literature, we posit that creativity reduces the inhibitory effects commonly associated with lower power positions (Lam and Xu, 2019; e.g. being an employee), encouraging individuals to adopt active conflict behaviors. Thus, collaboration and competition, due to their active orientation (De Dreu et al., 2001), are particularly relevant for understanding creativity’s role in conflict management. Therefore, this study focuses on these strategies, as they best reflect the active engagement that creativity facilitates in resolving conflicts.

Creativity is widely acknowledged as a crucial element in effective conflict management (Fousiani et al., 2022; Wilson and Thompson, 2014) as it involves generating novel and, at the same time, practical and feasible ideas to address conflicts (Amabile, 1996; Litchfield et al., 2015). Techniques such as refraining from criticizing ideas, embracing unusual suggestions, generating multiple solutions and building upon each other’s contributions are known to enhance creative idea generation (De Jonge et al., in press; Osborn, 1957). Consequently, creativity has been traditionally related to collaboration and problem-solving approaches to conflict. Indeed, by fostering divergent thinking and exploring alternative solutions – both inherent traits of creativity – individuals can find innovative and valuable answers to complex challenges (Jenkin et al., 2020) and integrate diverse perspectives, leading to enhanced synergy and collaboration (Fousiani et al., 2022; Thompson, 2015; Wilson and Thompson, 2014).

Despite its positive role in collaboration within conflicts, creativity has a dark side as well. Research by Gino and Ariely (2012) found that individuals prompted to think creatively were more likely to engage in dishonest behavior as they could justify their actions more effectively. Similarly, Cropley et al. (2010) reported that creativity can facilitate antisocial behavior and lead to unfair outcomes. Considering this dual role of creativity in conflict, the inconsistent findings regarding its impact on conflict management need to be better understood. For instance, while some research suggests a positive impact of creativity on collaboration and the achievement of joint outcomes (Fousiani et al., 2022; Kurtzberg, 1998; Schei, 2013), other studies have not replicated these findings (De Pauw et al., 2011; Elfenbein et al., 2008; for a review, see Wilson and Thompson, 2014). Importantly, past studies on creativity and conflict management have predominantly treated creativity as an individual trait (De Pauw et al., 2011; Elfenbein et al., 2008; Kurtzberg, 1998; Schei, 2013) rather than a contextual characteristic (Fousiani et al., 2022), representing a significant gap in the literature. This oversight is notable considering that creativity is often influenced by environmental factors (i.e. opportunities for divergent and convergent thinking; Guilford, 1967; Perchtold-Stefan et al., 2021; Wilson and Thompson, 2014) rather than solely being an inherent aspect of an individual’s personality^[1].

In this study, we consider the dual role of creativity in conflict management – and thus the bright and dark sides that it encompasses – and also view creativity as a contextual factor that may influence employee conflict management strategies toward leaders. We propose that creativity serves as a mechanism that enables employees, who are typically in lower power positions and thus more inhibited, to engage in highly active and assertive – yet oppositional – conflict management strategies, namely, collaboration and competition (see also Fousiani, 2020; Fousiani et al., 2022). In other words, when employees harness creativity, they are better equipped to adopt strategies that involve greater initiative and assertiveness to achieve their goals, and collaboration and competition are such strategies. Ultimately, we propose that creativity in conflict with leaders is positively associated with both employee collaboration and competition:

Conflicts unfold within the broader organizational context (Nussbaum et al., 2012), underscoring the importance of considering contextual factors that may influence the relationship between employee creativity during conflicts with leaders and the strategies used to manage these conflicts. Of particular relevance is the competitive organizational climate in particular, wherein employees perceive that organizational rewards hinge on their performance relative to peers (Brown et al., 1998; Nerstad et al., 2013). Elements contributing to a competitive climate include performance comparisons within teams, perceived competition from others and frequent performance assessments (Fousiani et al., 2024; Fousiani and Wisse, 2022; Nerstad et al., 2013; Wisse et al., 2019). In such a climate, rewards such as monetary incentives, promotions or recognition are predominantly provided to the top achievers. Consequently, in competitive environments employees experience an increased pressure for advancement and a stronger reliance on their leaders as the latter has control over resources that affect employees (i.e. Fousiani et al., 2024; Fousiani and Wisse, 2022; Nerstad et al., 2013).

Expanding on approach-inhibition theory (Cho and Keltner, 2020; Keltner et al., 2003), we propose that a competitive climate can act as a catalyst that promotes approach-oriented behaviors in conflict. Indeed, a competitive climate is inherently active encouraging employees to put forth vigorous effort and actively pursue behaviors that lead to achievement (Han et al., 2020; Nerstad et al., 2013; Obeng et al., 2021). In such environments, the pressure to perform and succeed and the reliance on leaders for access to resources (Fousiani and Wisse, 2022; Wisse et al., 2019) can motivate employees to harness creative thinking to resolve conflicts, using active strategies like collaboration and competition (De Dreu et al., 2001; Fousiani et al., 2024). Therefore, a competitive climate will drive employees to seize opportunities for creative thinking to actively address conflicts and achieve their goals –whether through collaboration or competition – because in such an environment, delaying progress is not an option. Based on the above, we state the following hypothesis:

To test our hypotheses, we conducted both a field study among employees and an experiment. The field study (Study 1) comprised three waves conducted two weeks apart from each other. At Time 1, we assessed employees’ perceived creativity during conflicts with leaders and the competitive climate within the organization. Subsequently, at both Time 2 and Time 3, we measured employees’ conflict management strategies toward leaders using two different methodological approaches. At Time 2, we measured employees’ general inclination toward collaboration and competition when dealing with conflicts with their leaders. At Time 3, we aimed to replicate the findings of Time 2 and test their robustness by adopting an alternate methodology: presenting employees with specific conflict scenarios likely to arise between them and their leaders (similar to Fousiani et al., 2025). We then asked participants to indicate the extent to which they would use either a competitive or collaborative strategy to navigate these scenarios. This approach allowed us to measure context-specific conflict management strategies of employees, which may yield more precise responses by focusing on employee reactions to specific conflicts, thereby reducing the likelihood of socially desirable responses. In Study 2, we aimed to replicate the findings of Study 1 using an experimental design where creativity in conflicts and competitive climate were manipulated using vignettes.

Of the 316 total participants (all supervised employees) taking part in the first wave (53% female; M_age = 38.3, SD = 10.6), all resided and were full-time employees (M_hours/week = 38.8, SD = 3.9) in the UK and held supervised positions. Wave 2 and wave 3 were completed by 290 and 256 participants, respectively, providing us with a 92% and 75% response rate. Respondents’ highest level of attained education was categorized into four groups with 34.4% reporting a high school education, 44.6% having attained a bachelor’s degree, 18.5% a master’s degree and 2.6% a doctorate degree.

Procedure. We conducted a time-lagged, three-wave study among employees via Prolific (www.prolific.com; see Peer et al., 2017) with a time lag of two weeks between the waves. The time lags were implemented with the aim to mitigate possible common method issues (Podsakoff et al., 2003). The first wave began with questions about participants’ demographic characteristics. Then, in the same wave we measured participants’ experienced creativity when confronting conflict with their leader and perceived competitive climate at work. In the second wave, we measured participants’ general tendency toward collaborative and competitive strategies when dealing with conflicts with their leader (general conflict management strategies). In this wave, we also measured one of the control variables, namely, fixed-pie perception when in conflict with the leader. In the third wave, we aimed to replicate the findings obtained in the second wave and ensure their robustness by using a different methodology. Specifically, we presented employees with two distinct conflict scenarios that could commonly occur between them and their leaders, similar to the approach used by Fousiani et al. (2025). Participants were then asked to indicate the likelihood of using collaborative or competitive strategies in these conflict situations with their leader. Essentially, the third wave aimed to assess employees’ conflict management strategies within specific contexts (context-specific conflict management strategies). This methodological approach holds promise in reducing socially desirable responses by focusing on how employees react to particular conflicts, rather than general tendencies to conflict management (Steinel et al., 2007). Each survey took approximately 10 min to complete. Participants received £3.00 (€3.60) compensation per completed survey (including all three waves). Participation in the study was anonymous, and participants gave their informed consent prior to completing each survey. We obtained ethics approval prior to the data collection.

Measures. Creativity in conflict (Time 1). We assessed participants’ perceptions regarding their freedom to use creative approaches for resolving conflict with their leader through an adapted version of the organizational encouragement subscale of the KEYS scale (Amabile, 1996; Amabile et al., 1995)^[2]. This version was previously used in Fousiani et al. (2022) and Fousiani et al. (2024). An example item was “I usually have a free flow of ideas when in conflict/disagreement with my supervisor”, also measured on a Likert scale with answers between 1 = not at all to 7 = to a great extent. Cronbach’s alpha was high at α = 0.96.

Competitive climate (Time 1). To ascertain whether employees perceived their workplace environment as competitive or not, we administered the eight-item performance climate subscale of the motivational climate at work questionnaire by Nerstad et al. (2013). Example items were “In my department/work group, rivalry between employees is encouraged” and “In my department/work group, one is encouraged to perform optimally to achieve monetary rewards” measured on a Likert scale spanning between 1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree, with Cronbach’s alpha at a high level, α = 0.91.

General conflict management strategies (Time 2). We measured participants’ tendency to adopt a collaborative or competitive approach to manage conflict with their leader using the collaboration (i.e. problem-solving) and competition (i.e. forcing) subscales of the Dutch Test for Conflict Handling (De Dreu et al., 2001), respectively. We adapted the measures to fit our specific context. Each measure included four items. An example item for collaboration was “Whenever there is a disagreement or conflict between my supervisor and myself, usually […] […]I stand for my own and my supervisor’s goals and interests” (α = 0.92), while an example item for the competition was “[…] I push my own point of view” (α = 0.87). Participants’ answers were allowed to span from 1 = not at all to 7 = to a great extent.

Context-specific conflict management strategies (Time 3). Participants read two vignettes previously used in Fousiani et al. (2022) and Fousiani et al. (2025), each depicting a different conflict between a leader and an employee (for the complete vignettes see Online Supplementary material). They were asked to imagine themselves in the employee’s role and specify, for each vignette, the extent to which they would use collaborative and competitive conflict management strategies. We used the same collaboration (vignette 1: α = 0.93; vignette 2: α = 0.95) and competition (vignette 1: α = 0.88; vignette 2: α = 0.91) measures as in the second wave (1 = very unlikely, 7 = very likely), slightly modified to fit the vignettes (e.g. forcing: “I will push my own point of view”).

Control variables. Fixed-pie perception (i.e. the tendency to see individuals’ interests in conflict situations as mutually exclusive or opposing; Neale and Bazerman, 1983; Thompson and Hastie, 1990) has been found to influence employee conflict management strategies (Fousiani et al., 2022). Accordingly, we controlled for fixed-pie perception (Time 2) similar to Fousiani et al. (2022), Fousiani et al., 2025 and Liu et al. (2012), using a two-item scale. An example item was “To what extent do you feel that your supervisor’s interests/desires are directly opposite to your own?”, measured on a Likert scale from 1 = not at all to 7 = to a great extent (α = 0.83). Furthermore, we controlled for working hours per week and firm sector, both measured at Time 1, to account for differences in organizational culture and norms.

Perceived creativity was positively related to both competition (r = 0.15, p = 0.01) and collaboration (r = 0.50, p < 0.001) at Time 2 and to collaboration at Time 3 (vignette 1; r = 0.26, p < 0.001; vignette 2: r = 0.31, p < 0.001), while it was negatively related to fixed-pie perception (r = −0.34, p < 0.001). Competitive climate was positively related to competition at Time 2 only (r = 0.15, p = 0.01), fixed-pie perception (r = 0.19, p = 0.001) and weekly working hours (r = 0.16, p < 0.01). Fixed-pie was also negatively related to collaboration at both time points (Time 2: r = −0.42, p < 0.001; Time 3: vignette 1; r = −0.39, p < 0.001; vignette 2: r = −0.38, p < 0.001) and positively related to forcing at Time 3 only (vignette 1: r = 0.13, p < 0.05; vignette 2: r = 0.12, ns).

To test our hypotheses, we run moderation analyses using PROCESS analysis (Model 1; Hayes, 2013) in SPSS. Creativity in conflict (Time 1) was the independent variable, competitive climate (Time 1) was the moderator and conflict management strategies (separately at Time 2 and at Time 3) were the dependent variables. Fixed-pie perception, weekly working hours and sector were added as control variables.

In accordance with H1a and H1b, results showed that creativity in conflict was positively and significantly related to both collaborative and competitive strategies of employees. However, opposite to H2a, the interaction between creativity and competitive climate was not significant when predicting collaborative strategies. Interestingly however, the interaction between creativity and competitive climate significantly predicted competitive strategies of employees. More specifically, the interaction showed that perceived creativity is positively related to competition at high (b = 0.38, SE = 0.07, p < 0.001, 95%CI = 0.23; 0.53) rather than low levels of competitive climate (b = 0.04, SE = 0.07, p = 0.55, 95%CI = −0.10; 0.18); Δ² = 0.05, F_{(1, 249)} = 13.43, p < 0.001. These results provide support for H2b (Figure 2). See Table 1 for the relevant statistics.

We ran separate analyses for conflict management strategies at Time 3 for the two different vignettes.

Collaboration. For the first vignette, the analysis revealed a positive relationship between perceived creativity and collaboration, supporting H1a. The interaction of creativity with competitive climate was marginally significant, while the simple slopes for high creativity were significant and consistent with H2a. Specifically, creativity was positively associated with collaboration under high (b = 0.23, SE = 0.07, p < 0.01, 95%CI = 0.09; 0.37) but not low levels of competitive climate (b = 0.06, SE = 0.07, p = 0.34, 95%CI = −0.07; 0.19); Δ² = 0.01, F_(1,249) = 3.70, p < 0.05 (Figure 3). Regarding the second vignette, although we found a positive relationship between creativity and collaboration, aligning with H1a, the interaction effect was not significant, failing to support H2a (see Table 2).

Competition. For the first vignette, neither the main effect of perceived creativity nor the interaction of creativity with competitive climate were significant, failing to support H1b and H2b. Concerning the second vignette, the main effect of creativity on competition was nonsignificant. However, the interaction of creativity with competitive climate was significant, indicating that creativity positively related to competition under high (b = 0.16, SE = 0.08, p = 0.05, 95%CI = −0.005; 0.32) but not low levels of competitive climate (b = −0.07, SE = 0.08, p = 0.36, 95%CI = −0.22; 0.08); Δ²= 0.02, F_{(1, 249)} = 5.21, p = 0.02 (Figure 4) (Table 2 for the relevant statistics). These findings did not support H1b but did support H2b.

Study 1 investigated the relationship between creativity and employees’ collaborative and competitive approaches to conflict management with leaders, while also examining the moderating effect of the competitive climate. We hypothesized that perceived creativity would positively correlate with both employee collaboration (H1a) and competition (H1b) toward their leader, with these effects being more pronounced in highly competitive organizational climates compared to less competitive ones (H2a and H2b). Supporting H1a and H1b, findings revealed that creativity at Time 1 was positively associated with both collaboration and competition at Time 2, as measured by scales indicating the general tendency for collaboration or competition with the leader. Furthermore, in line with our predictions, creativity interacted with the competitive climate at Time 1 in predicting competition at Time 2, indicating a stronger relationship in highly competitive climates, thus supporting H2b. However, the interaction between creativity and competitive climate was nonsignificant when predicting collaboration at Time 2, failing to provide support for H2a.

At Time 3, we introduced two distinct conflict scenarios likely to arise between employees and their leaders (first scenario: conflict about working hours per week; second scenario: conflict about deliverables’ deadlines). The results indicated that perceived creativity was positively associated with employee collaboration in both conflict scenarios, thus supporting H1a. However, the relationship between perceived creativity and employee competition did not reach significance in either of the vignettes, thus failing to support H1b. Notably, the interaction between perceived creativity and the competitive climate was significant when predicting collaboration (albeit only for the first scenario; conflict about working hours per week) and competition (albeit only for the second scenario; conflict about deliverables deadlines), partially supporting H2a and H2b, respectively.

The inconsistency in findings across the two distinct conflict scenarios in Time 3 could be attributed to the content of the conflicts presented in each scenario. For example, it is possible that employees are more inclined to problem-solve and collaborate with their leader when they can exercise creativity, particularly in a competitive climate, regarding conflict about working hours (first scenario). As a topic, working hours are typically viewed as more flexible and open to negotiation, allowing adjustments based on mutual needs. Since working hours directly affect employees’ daily routines and work-life balance (cf. Bakker et al., 2014), they may encourage a problem-solving approach when discussed with supervisors. In contrast, deliverable deadlines are typically fixed and externally imposed, offering little room for negotiation (cf. Edwards and Scullion, 1982). This rigidity may lead employees to adopt a forcing strategy to assert their preferences, needs and availability, especially in competitive environments that promote creativity. Unlike working hours, deadlines are seen as critical barriers to employee success. In workplaces that foster competition and creativity, the pressure to excel, gain recognition and stand out among peers may heighten the need to assert control in deadline conflicts. Additionally, the fear of falling behind or being perceived as less competent may motivate employees to secure enough time to complete tasks. Furthermore, in such environments, employees often value autonomy and control over their work processes, viewing deadlines as constraints on their ability to explore creative solutions, thus prompting them to assert their preferences to retain control. Future research should investigate this topic further, considering various topics of leader–employee conflict for more accurate results. Moreover, the inconsistent findings regarding the interaction between creativity and competitive climate in predicting collaboration across Times 2 and 3 may also stem from the type of conflict examined. Unlike the methodology at Time 3, which assessed collaboration on specific topics or disagreements, Time 2 measured employees’ general collaborative tendencies. This broader measure might have overlooked the specific types of conflicts where creativity in a competitive climate would more likely lead to collaborative behavior. Thus, we recommend that organizational leaders consider the unique nature and stakes of different conflicts when managing disputes with employees, as varying interests and contexts may influence the conflict management strategies that are used.

Nevertheless, the findings at Time 3 should be interpreted with caution as the effect sizes were small and the simple slopes for the creativity by competitive climate interaction when predicting competition at Time 3 were only marginally significant. Moreover, this study used a field study design, limiting our ability to establish causality. To address the limitations of Study 1, Study 2 used an experimental approach. In this experiment, we manipulated perceived creativity and competitive climate and assessed their impact on employee collaboration and competition toward leaders in specific conflict scenarios similar to those of Study 1.

In total, 386 full-time employees (M_{hours per week} = 39.3, SD = 3.9; 57.5% female; M_age = 36.9, SD = 10.9) from UK took part in this study. Participants’ highest level of attained education was categorized into the same groups as with Study 1 and yielded similar results. Five individuals (1.3%) answered that their highest degree was that from their primary school. In total, 128 participants (33.2%) held a high-school diploma, while 176 (45.6%) held a bachelor’s degree. In total, 70 participants (18.1%) held a master’s degree and the remaining seven (1.8%) were PhD graduates.

Study design, manipulations and procedure. Participants were randomly assigned to one of four conditions based on a 2 (creativity in conflict: high vs low) × 2 (competitive climate: high vs low) between-subjects design. Both, creativity in conflict and competitive climate were manipulated in vignettes. Before reading the vignettes, participants were instructed to immerse themselves into the situation described in the vignette and imagine being an employee under the supervision of Bill, the supervisor.

Creativity in conflict. We created vignettes relying on Osborn's (1957) rules for creativity, such as embracing unusual suggestions and generating multiple solutions. In the high creativity condition, participants were presented with a vignette where their supervisor, Bill, was portrayed as fostering a culture that encourages employees to approach conflicts and challenges with creative solutions. The scenario emphasized that Bill values thinking outside the box and taking calculated risks when addressing disagreements or conflicts. Employees were encouraged to bring fresh and innovative ideas to the table in conflict situations. Finally, the vignette highlighted that during conflicts with supervisor Bill, employees were expected to freely express a stream of creative ideas, exploring unique and unconventional approaches to resolve issues. In contrast, in the low creativity condition, participants read a vignette where their supervisor, Bill, was portrayed as promoting a culture that discourages employees from using creative solutions when facing conflicts and challenges. The supervisor emphasized the importance of thinking conventionally and avoiding risks when addressing disagreements or conflicts, as he valued conventional and commonplace ideas in conflict situations. Finally, employees were not expected to present creative ideas during conflicts with the supervisor, and they were encouraged to use conventional ways to resolve conflicts.

Competitive climate. We manipulated competitive climate in vignettes, similar to Fousiani and Wisse (2022), Fousiani et al. (2024) and Wisse et al. (2019). In the highly competitive condition, participants were placed in a setting where, as employees, they were urged to excel and outperform others to gain access to resources. In contrast, in the low competitive condition, participants were informed that they did not face pressure to compete or strive for excellence to access resources. For a full description of the vignettes see online supplementary material.

After reading the vignettes, participants completed measures to assess manipulation checks. They then read the same conflict scenarios from Time 3 of Study 1, specifically dealing with a conflict about working hours per week in the first scenario and a conflict about deliverables’ deadlines in the second scenario. Following each conflict vignette, perceived fixed-pie perceptions and conflict management strategies toward the leader were measured.

Subsequent to the completion of the experiment, participants were thanked and debriefed. Participants were paid £1.5 (€1.80) compensation for completing the study. Similar to Study 1, participation in the study was anonymous and participants gave their informed consent prior to completing the study. Ethics approval was obtained prior to the data collection.

Measures. Manipulation checks. Two items served as manipulation checks for creativity: “Bill encourages creativity and out-of-the-box thinking when searching for solutions to conflict” and “Bill values commonplace and ordinary solutions to conflicts” (1 = not at all, 7 = to a great extent). After score-reversing the second item, we computed a creativity manipulation check scale (α = 0.95). Three items served as manipulation checks for competitive climate, similar to Fousiani and Wisse (2022) and Fousiani et al. (2024). A sample item was: “In this company rivalry among employees is encouraged”; 1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree (α = 0.97).

Conflict management strategies. We used the same conflict management strategies as in Time 3 of Study 1 (collaboration; α = 0.88 for both collaborative and competitive strategies).

Control variables. Fixed-pie perception was controlled for similar to Study 1. This was measured with this item: “To what extent would you feel that your supervisor’s (Bill) interests/desires are directly opposite to your own?” (1 = not at all, 7 = to a great extent).

To test if our manipulations were successful, we run regression analyses in Process (Hayes, 2013). In the first analysis, we used creativity as the independent variable and competitive climate as the moderator. The creativity manipulation check scale was inserted as a dependent variable. The results revealed a significant and positive main effect of creativity on the creativity manipulation check scale (b = 5.12, SE = 0.09, p < 0.001, 95%CI= 4.94; 5.29). This finding shows that the creativity manipulation worked as intended. However, we also observed a significant yet, weaker, main effect of the competitive climate manipulation on the creativity manipulation scale (b = 0.29, SE = 0.09, p < 0.01, 95%CI= 0.12; 0.46). The creativity by competitive manipulation interaction effect did not come out significant, as expected.

To test if the competitive climate manipulation worked as intended, we ran a similar analysis with competitive climate manipulation check scale as the dependent variable. As expected, the main effect of competitive climate on the competitive climate manipulation check scale was significant and positive (b = 5.19, SE = 0.09, p < 0.001, 95%CI = 5.02; 5.37). Neither the main effect of creativity nor the creativity by competitive climate interaction effects came out significant. We conclude that the competitive climate manipulation was successful.

Preliminary analyses. Similar to Study 1, fixed-pie perception was negatively related to collaboration strategy (vignette 1; r = −0.15, p < 0.01; vignette 2: r = −0.16, p < 0.01) and positively related to competitive strategy (vignette 1; r = 0.07, ns; vignette 2: r = 0.25, p < 0.001).

Hypothesis testing. Similar to Study 1, we ran separate analyses for conflict management strategies for the two different vignettes.

Collaboration. For the first vignette, the analysis revealed no significant relationship between perceived creativity and collaboration, failing to provide support for H1a. However, the interaction of creativity with competitive climate was significant and consistent with H2a. Specifically, creativity was positively associated with collaboration under high (b = 0.47, SE = 0.16, p < 0.01, 95%CI = 0.15; 0.79) but not low levels of competitive climate (b = −0.08, SE = 0.17, p = 0.64, 95%CI = −0.40; 0.25); Δ² = 0.01, F_{(1, 381)} = 5.87, p = 0.02 (Figure 5). Regarding the second vignette, although we found a positive relationship between creativity and collaboration, aligning with H1a, the interaction effect was not significant, failing to support H2a (see Table 3).

Competition. For the first vignette, the main effect of perceived creativity on competition was significant and positive, thus providing support for H1b. The main effect of competitive climate also came out significant and positive. Contrary to H2b, the creativity by competitive climate interaction effect was nonsignificant. Concerning the second vignette, neither the main effect of creativity nor the creativity by competitive climate interaction effect were significant. These findings did not support H1b and H2b.

Study 2 aimed to experimentally replicate the findings of Study 1. In line with our expectations, results showed a positive relationship between perceived creativity and employee collaborative approach to conflict with leaders (in both conflict vignettes) supporting H1a. Moreover, we found a positive relationship between perceived creativity and competitive strategy (albeit only for the first scenario; conflict about working hours per week), providing support for H1b. These findings largely replicate those of Study 1. Notably, perceived creativity interacted with the competitive climate in predicting collaboration in the anticipated direction. Specifically, we observed a positive relationship between perceived creativity and collaboration when the organizational climate was highly competitive (particularly evident in the first scenario concerning working hours per week). This finding replicates the results of Study 1 and provides further support for H2a. However, the interaction between creativity and competitive climate was non-significant when predicting employee competition.

This study investigated the relationship between perceived creativity and employee conflict management strategies with leaders, with a focus on employee collaborative and competitive approaches in particular. Additionally, it sought to investigate the moderating role of the competitive organizational climate in this relationship, using both field study and experimental methodologies to provide comprehensive insights. Study 1 was a three-wave field study among employee participants and measured perceived creativity and competitive climate at Time 1. Employee conflict management strategies were measured both at Time 2 (general inclination toward collaboration and competition when dealing with conflicts with leaders) and at Time 3 (context-specific conflict management strategies toward leaders) using different methodological approaches. Results showed that creativity was positively related to both collaboration and competition at Time 2, supporting H1a and H1b. The interaction between creativity and competitive climate significantly predicted competition at Time 2, supporting H2b, though it did not yield significant results for collaboration, failing to support H2a. At Time 3, while H1a was fully supported, H1b lacked support, with perceived creativity showing a positive correlation with employee collaboration but not with competition. Nevertheless, the interaction between perceived creativity and competitive climate was significant for predicting both collaboration and competition in specific scenarios, supporting H2a and H2b. Study 2 aimed to experimentally replicate these findings and partly succeeded, showing a positive relationship between perceived creativity and both collaboration and competition. However, although Study 2 replicated the creativity by competitive climate interaction in the prediction of collaborative strategies, it did not replicate the interaction effect when predicting competition. Taken together, these findings underscore a strong association between creativity and the utilization of collaboration in conflicts involving leaders. Moreover, although, the link between creativity and employee competition appears less consistent, the introduction of competitive climate as a moderating variable reveals the darker aspects of creativity in conflict management, particularly in fostering competitive behaviors. (For a comprehensive summary of the findings across Studies 1 and 2, see Table S1 in the online Supplemental material.)

This research makes four important theoretical contributions: first, it moves forward the creativity literature (Wilson and Thompson, 2014) by highlighting the dual nature of creativity in conflict management and demonstrating its positive role in facilitating collaboration (Fousiani et al., 2022), while also acknowledging its potential for malevolent use in promoting competitive approaches to conflict management (Gino and Ariely, 2012). By shedding light on both the bright and dark sides of creativity, the study provides a better understanding of how creativity influences conflict resolution strategies in organizational contexts, a topic that has been under-investigated despite its theoretical and practical significance.

Second, although previous research has highlighted the importance of organizational climate as a moderator in the relationship between various organizational factors (e.g. leadership) and employee behavior at work (Fousiani et al., 2024; Fousiani and Wisse, 2022; Wisse et al., 2019) no study has investigated to date how organizational climate influences the effects of creativity on conflict management. This study shows how a competitive climate, which emphasizes social comparison, initiative and excellence, influences the relationship between creativity and employee conflict management. More specifically, competitive climate drives employees to seize opportunities for creative thinking in conflicts with leaders and use active conflict management strategies, such as collaboration and competition (De Dreu et al., 2001).

Third, this research contributes to the limited body of literature concerning conflict management strategies used by individuals with less power (such as employees) when faced with conflicts involving those in positions of authority (Fousiani, 2020; Fousiani et al., 2021; Van Kleef et al., 2006). Traditionally, much of the literature on conflict management has focused on strategies used by leaders or those in positions of authority, overlooking the perspectives and experiences of subordinate employees. By shifting the focus toward individuals with less power, such as employees, our study sheds light on a critical aspect of organizational dynamics that has been relatively underexplored. By integrating approach-inhibition theory (Cho and Keltner, 2020; Keltner et al., 2003) with creativity literature, this study provides valuable insights into how individuals leverage creativity to actively assert their interests and effectively address challenges in conflict situations.

Finally, our study makes a significant contribution to the exploration of contextual/perceived creativity (Guilford, 1967; Gustafsson, 2023), which has received limited attention in the conflict management literature (Fousiani et al., 2022) and emphasizes the role of environmental factors on creative thinking and behavior during conflicts. In doing so, we extend the conceptualization of creativity beyond being solely an individual trait, emphasizing its contextual nature (De Jonge, 2019). This broadens the scope of research on creativity in conflict management, shedding light on the dynamic interplay between situational factors and creative responses to conflicts.

The findings of this research have significant implications for how organizational leaders manage conflicts with their employees. One of the key insights from this study is the importance of recognizing that conflict management strategies should be tailored to the specific nature of the conflict (De Dreu and Weingart, 2003) and the context in which it occurs. The results suggest that creativity in the workplace can drive both collaborative and competitive behaviors of employees, but these effects may differ for conflicts involving more flexible issues, such as working hours, or more rigid issues, such as deliverable deadlines. For conflicts that revolve around working hours, which have a direct impact on employees’ work-life balance (cf. Bakker et al., 2014), taking a collaborative approach is more likely. These topics are generally perceived as more open to negotiation, allowing employees to engage in problem-solving discussions with their leaders, integrating both employee and leader perspectives. However, when it comes to conflicts over deliverable deadlines, which tend to be fixed and imposed by leaders or the organization (Edwards and Scullion, 1982), the situation is markedly different. The rigid nature of deadlines often leaves little room for negotiation, pushing employees to adopt more assertive or even competitive, conflict management strategies toward leaders. In highly competitive climates, where there is pressure to perform and stand out, creativity can intensify employees’ drive to assert control over these deadlines. Employees may feel the need to secure enough time to complete their tasks to avoid falling behind or being perceived as less competent. Leaders must therefore recognize that creativity in these contexts can lead to conflict escalation rather than resolution, as employees might view deadlines as constraints that limit their ability to fully engage in creative processes (De Dreu and Weingart, 2003).

Given this, it is crucial for managers to adapt their approaches to conflicts with employees based on the nature of the conflict at hand and the organizational climate. In environments that promote competition among employees, leaders should be mindful of the potential for creativity to trigger competitive behavior, especially when dealing with more rigid topics like deadlines. Clear communication, structured support and realistic expectations are essential to managing such conflicts effectively. Leaders should also ensure that employees have the resources they need to meet deadlines without feeling overwhelmed, which can mitigate the pressure to assert control aggressively.

Moreover, these findings underscore the need for situational leadership in conflict management. Leaders should avoid adopting a one-size-fits-all approach and instead evaluate the specific characteristics of conflicts with employees (Goleman, 2000). Leaders who can assess the stakes of each conflict and adapt their responses to fit the context will be better positioned to facilitate constructive conflict resolution, maintain team cohesion and enhance overall performance. Moreover, to effectively address the potential downsides of heightened creativity that can lead to competitive behaviors in conflict, leaders must create an environment where creativity is encouraged but also carefully monitored to mitigate any potential negative effects, such as destructive competition and unethical behavior. By implementing such a framework, leaders can harness the full potential of creativity while effectively managing conflicts with employees, thereby promoting a constructive workplace culture.

One of the main strengths of this study is the utilization of a multimethod approach across two distinct studies. In Study 1, a three-wave time-lagged field study design was used, enabling the exploration of the hypothesized relationships in real-world organizational settings and across multiple time points. This design facilitated the chronological separation of the independent variable and moderator from the dependent variables, effectively mitigating common method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Additionally, the use of multiple waves enhanced the robustness of the findings as it enabled the exploration of both employee general conflict management tendencies (measures at Time 2) and context-specific responses to conflicts with leaders (measures at Time 3). Second, Study 2 used an experimental approach to replicate the findings of Study 1 under controlled conditions. By experimentally manipulating perceived creativity and competitive climate, this study provides internal validity and additional evidence for the role of contextual creativity in shaping conflict management behaviors. The complementary nature of these two studies strengthens the overall validity and generalizability of the research findings, offering a better understanding of the relationships between creativity, competitive climate and conflict management strategies.

However, despite its strengths, this study also has several limitations that warrant consideration. One limitation is the absence of mediating variables explaining the observed relationships. While the study examines the direct associations between perceived creativity, competitive climate and conflict management strategies, it does not delve into the underlying mechanisms that may drive these relationships. Future research should explore potential mediating variables, such as resilience and psychological empowerment (Arneson and Ekberg, 2005; Spreitzer et al., 1997), to elucidate the mechanisms through which perceived creativity influences conflict management behaviors. Indeed, it is plausible that employees perceiving greater opportunities for creative thinking may also experience heightened self-efficacy and a sense of control, particularly in highly competitive organizational climates. This sense of empowerment could then fuel their adoption of active conflict management strategies, such as collaboration and competition, when faced with conflicts involving leaders. Additionally, the study’s reliance on self-report measures may have introduced social desirability bias, potentially influencing the accuracy and reliability of the data collected. Using multisource or objective measures in future studies could help mitigate these biases and provide a better understanding of the phenomena under investigation.

Taken together, the findings of this study offer valuable insights into the relationship between perceived creativity and employee conflict management strategies with leaders. The findings highlight the relatively consistent positive relationship between creativity and employee collaborative conflict approaches. However, the effect of creativity on competitive strategies proves less consistent. Finally, while the moderating role of competitive climate on the relationship between creativity and collaborative behaviors was observed, its impact varied across studies. These results highlight the dual nature of creativity in conflict situations, revealing how a competitive climate can amplify both the positive and negative aspects of creative thinking in employee conflict management.

This manuscript utilized AI tools solely to enhance the clarity and quality of the language. No text was generated by AI from scratch.

The supplementary material for this article can be found online.