How competitive climates trigger conflict with colleagues and supervisors and how team knowledge sharing helps Open Access

A CPC in the workplace can have profound implications for interpersonal relationships (Fousiani et al., 2024; Fousiani et al., 2025a, 2025b, 2025c, 2025d; Fousiani and Wisse, 2022). Prior research suggests that some level of competition can spur motivation and innovation (Chen and Chiu, 2016; Eisenberg and Thompson, 2011). For instance, when competition is perceived as fair, transparent and linked to clear performance standards, competition can function as a challenge and enhance task engagement (Aslan et al., 2025; Chen et al., 2019; David et al., 2020). However, research increasingly shows that under certain conditions, CPC can increase unethical behavior (Rai and Kim, 2023) and workplace conflict (dos Santos et al., 2023). According to the Job Demands–Resources theory (; Bakker and Demerouti, 2007; Demerouti et al., 2001) but also the Conservation of Resources theory (Hobfoll, 1989), CPC functions as a job demand that depletes emotional and cognitive resources, leaving employees more vulnerable to interpersonal strain and reactive behaviors. Empirical studies support this perspective: for instance, Murtza and Rasheed (2023) found that CPC is positively associated with workplace envy, a corrosive emotion that contributes to interpersonal tension, resentment and social undermining. Similarly, Han et al. (2023) showed that CPC exacerbates conflict, as employees experience elevated stress, reduced collaboration and heightened competition for limited resources. Overall, employees working in CPC may become more defensive and less trusting.

Empirical research has begun to unpack the effects of CPC on distinct types of workplace conflict—namely, task, relationship and process conflict (Jehn, 1997). Previous research (dos Santos et al., 2023) has found that CPC not only triggers task conflict with team members (i.e. colleagues), such as disagreements over work goals and differences of opinions, but also intensifies relationship conflict, marked by interpersonal frustration, mistrust and tension (see also Fousiani et al., 2025a, 2025b, 2025c, 2025d; Way et al., 2016; Wu et al., 2021). These conflict types further mediated the relationship between CPC and psychological contract breach (dos Santos et al., 2023), highlighting their centrality in explaining the negative consequences of CPCs. Although, to the best of our knowledge, there is no empirical study that directly examines CPC’s relationship with process conflict with colleagues, theoretical and contextual reasoning suggests a strong likelihood of its emergence. CPC emphasizes outperforming others for scarce resources, often under conditions of role ambiguity and pressure for individual performance (Nurlinawati et al., 2024). In such contexts, employees may be more likely to question how tasks are executed, who controls what and how responsibilities among team members are distributed—core features of process conflict (DeChurch and Marks, 2001; Jehn, 1997). Additionally, meta-analytic evidence demonstrates that task, relationship and process conflict are often interrelated and co-occur in high-strain environments (De Dreu and Weingart, 2003; De Wit et al., 2012), such as those characterized by competition and resource scarcity. Based on the above, we argue that CPCs elicit task, relationship and process conflict among colleagues because competitive strain erodes the supportive, cooperative conditions that typically help teams coordinate and resolve disagreements.

Importantly, we argue that CPC-related conflict is not confined to interactions with colleagues (horizontal interactions), but also extends to relationships with supervisors (vertical interactions). To integrate these targets within a single explanatory framework, we conceptualize CPC as a climate that strains the relational fabric of the work unit—that is, it makes supportive, cooperative coordination less likely and less expected. When competition for scarce outcomes becomes salient, employees are less inclined to rely on one another for help, information exchange, perspective taking and informal backing, which weakens the day-to-day conditions that typically enable smooth collaboration and constructive disagreement. This shift provides a common basis for why conflict becomes more likely across relationship types:

In horizontal relationships, where employees occupy comparable positions and are evaluated against one another, weakened expectations of collegial support make routine interdependence harder to manage. Disagreements about priorities and work goals are less easily negotiated (task conflict), ambiguities about “who should do what” and “how work should be organized” are more likely to become contested (process conflict), and coordination breakdowns are more likely to acquire an interpersonal tone marked by mistrust and frustration (relationship conflict) (Brown et al., 1998; Duffy et al., 2012; Jehn, 1997). In other words, peer rivalry (i.e. competitive climate) is one surface manifestation, but the deeper implication is that the relational conditions that normally buffer strain and facilitate resolution are less available.

In vertical relationships, the same strained relational context becomes consequential in a different way because employees are hierarchically dependent on supervisors for direction, evaluation, recognition and access to valued outcomes. In CPCs, this dependence unfolds against a backdrop in which coworker interactions are often more guarded and less supportive, making it harder for employees to obtain informal help, perspective and clarification from colleagues. When competition erodes cooperative support within the team, employees have fewer relational resources and fewer opportunities to informally clarify expectations, reality-check their interpretations of supervisory actions and incorporate alternative perspectives before tensions with their supervisors build. As a result, supervisory behaviors—such as feedback, recognition, task assignments or resource allocations—are more likely to become focal points for disagreement about expectations and responsibilities (task and process conflict) and for interpersonal tension when interactions are experienced as lacking consideration (relationship conflict) (Khajavi, 2023; Sofyan et al., 2022; cf. Tepper, 2000; Inness et al., 2005).

Taken together, both horizontal and vertical conflict reflect how competitive strain permeates the broader relational environment (Fousiani et al., 2025a, 2025b, 2025c, 2025d). Among colleagues, competitive strain primarily destabilizes coordination among equals by weakening everyday cooperation and support; with supervisors, it amplifies friction in interactions that carry clear implications for evaluation and opportunity, particularly when employees have fewer collegial resources to clarify and buffer those exchanges. By treating horizontal and vertical conflict as complementary expressions of the same CPC-driven relational strain, our framework moves beyond a descriptive distinction and clarifies why competitive climates can simultaneously undermine both peer relations and employee–supervisor relationships. Based on the above, we hypothesize that:

Recent studies have increasingly emphasized that CPC does not uniformly lead to negative outcomes but operates through specific mechanisms and boundary conditions and is shaped by contextual moderators such individual traits, organizational justice and leadership quality (Chen and Liao, 2025; Fletcher et al., 2008; Fousiani et al., 2024; Fousiani and Wisse, 2022; Han et al., 2020; Yıldız et al., 2023). These studies highlight that CPC is not inherently harmful but becomes problematic when social resources are scarce, ambiguity is high or competition is perceived as unfair. Extending this literature, in this study we argue that although CPC is generally associated with heightened conflict, the strength of this relationship may vary across teams depending on how effectively they engage in knowledge sharing. In other words, we posit that knowledge sharing (or transfer) (Chuang et al., 2016; Faraj and Sproull, 2000) may act as a crucial buffer that weakens the negative interpersonal consequences of CPC. We focus on knowledge sharing because it represents one of the most proximal and actionable team-level processes through which social coordination is built, as knowledge sharing directly captures the behavioral foundation of collaboration—the open exchange of task-relevant information that enables alignment, transparency and trust (DeChurch and Marks, 2001; Mesmer-Magnus and DeChurch, 2009). In competitive environments, where secrecy and self-protection are likely to emerge, this behavioral openness is particularly critical.

Importantly, the choice of knowledge sharing as a team-level resource (Hou et al., 2021; Kipkosgei et al., 2020; Qian et al., 2020), than an individual strategy is theoretically motivated by the nature of CPC and the specific conflict outcomes examined here. Such collective information sharing functions as a coordination resource that enhances mutual understanding, clarifies roles and reduces ambiguity within teams (Duva et al., 2024; Wang et al., 2018) while allowing members to capitalize on their combined knowledge, skills and perspectives (Mesmer-Magnus and DeChurch, 2009). Because CPCs heighten vigilance and competitive strain, they can undermine the informal coordination and sensemaking processes teams rely on to align interpretations and responsibilities; knowledge sharing directly addresses this vulnerability by building shared understanding of goals, role boundaries, procedures and performance criteria—domains that are central to task, relationship and, of course, process conflict (DeChurch and Marks, 2001; Jehn and Mannix, 2001).In CPCs, this transparency makes employees less likely to misinterpret others’ intentions or view decisions as unfair, thereby lowering the risk that CPC leads to task, process or relationship conflict. When teams engage in regular and open knowledge sharing, they are better equipped to align expectations, clarify task responsibilities and resolve misunderstandings before they escalate into conflict (DeChurch and Marks, 2001; Jehn and Mannix, 2001).

Furthermore, high levels of knowledge sharing create an environment of transparency and reciprocity, reducing suspicion and helping employees interpret each other’s behavior as collaborative rather than competitive (Chiaburu and Harrison, 2008). In teams, knowledge sharing is not only a mechanism for collective learning, but also a vital source of informal workplace development and adaptive capacity (Torrado et al., 2022). Regular team interactions, such as joint meetings and feedback exchanges, offer opportunities to share experiential insights and task-related information, fostering trust and reducing interpersonal friction. These dynamics are especially critical in CPCs, where the pressure to outperform peers can otherwise result in secrecy, defensiveness and social comparison (Han et al., 2023; Shamsudin et al., 2022; Sofyan et al., 2022). Conversely, when team knowledge sharing is low, employees may lack access to essential context, operate on inaccurate assumptions or misinterpret others’ motives (Jeong et al., 2025). In such situations, the conflict-enhancing effects of CPC are likely to be magnified.

Based on the above, we argue that team knowledge sharing helps employees navigate the social and performance pressures of competitive environments without descending into dysfunctional conflict. By promoting clarity, shared understanding and interpersonal trust (Kipkosgei et al., 2020; Liang and Yin, 2024), team knowledge sharing serves as a critical moderator in the relationship between CPC and conflict. In teams where knowledge is frequently and openly exchanged, employees are better able to interpret each other’s goals, constraints and intentions, which reduces ambiguity and fosters alignment (Burmeister et al., 2019; Mehta and Mehta, 2018; Zahedi and Tessier, 2019). This clarity in expectations helps prevent misunderstandings that might otherwise escalate into task or process conflict. When individuals know how responsibilities are distributed, how decisions are made and what others are working on, they are less likely to duplicate efforts, misallocate resources or question task execution processes—common triggers of process and task conflict under competitive pressure.

Furthermore, the shared understanding that emerges from team knowledge sharing supports a more collaborative mindset, even in contexts where competition is salient. Rather than viewing colleagues as obstacles to personal success, employees are more likely to perceive them as complementary partners with distinct but interdependent roles. This shift in perception helps to contain the interpersonal friction and mistrust that typically give rise to relationship conflict in competitive settings. Instead of attributing setbacks to others’ incompetence or ill intent, employees in high-knowledge-transfer teams are more inclined to approach conflict with openness and constructive attitude.

Crucially, we argue that the benefits of team knowledge sharing go beyond horizontal interactions, extending to vertical interactions as well. When knowledge sharing is routine, teams develop a clearer, more aligned understanding of goals, role requirements and performance standards, and employees have more opportunities to exchange perspectives and clarify ambiguities before issues surface in hierarchical interactions (Goswami and Agrawal, 2023; Liu et al., 2021; Munawir and Suseno, 2024; Yin et al., 2020). This shared sense of mutual understanding makes supervisory actions—such as feedback, evaluations, task assignments or resource allocations—less likely to be experienced as opaque or difficult to interpret, and reduces the scope for uncertainty or ambiguity to escalate into disagreement. As a result, employees are less likely to enter supervisor interactions with confusion, mistrust or heightened defensiveness—reactions that can fuel process, relationship and task conflict—and are more likely to raise concerns constructively, seek clarification and resolve differences through dialogue before they become confrontational.

Taken together, we argue that team knowledge sharing helps mitigate the CPC’s propensity to elicit process ambiguity, task misalignment and relational tension—across both horizontal (colleague-to-colleague) and vertical (employee-supervisor) relationships. Specifically, we propose that the positive association between CPC and process, relationship and task conflict is weaker when team knowledge sharing is high and stronger when stronger when team knowledge sharing is low. More specifically, we state these hypotheses:

The positive association between CPC and process, relationship and task conflict is stronger when team knowledge sharing is low and weaker when team knowledge sharing is high.

To better understand the mechanisms through which CPC influences conflict with colleagues and supervisors, we introduce perceived colleague support as a key mediating variable in the conditional relationship between CPC and conflict—moderated by team knowledge sharing. Although CPC represents a social and emotional job demand that taxes employees’ internal and interpersonal resources (see JD-R theory: Bakker and Demerouti, 2007; Demerouti et al., 2001; and Conservation of Resources theory: Hobfoll, 1989) teams that engage in frequent knowledge sharing in such climates are more likely to foster a sense of colleague support (see also Fousiani and Wisse, 2022). This perceived support functions as a vital job resource that helps alleviate the strain introduced by a CPC, thereby reducing the likelihood of conflict escalation. In other words, we propose that the conditional relationship between CPC and interpersonal conflict is mediated by perceived colleague support, such that in highly competitive environments, greater team knowledge sharing enhances perceptions of colleague support, which in turn is negatively associated with process, relationship and task conflict among colleagues.

We further propose that colleague support not only explains how CPC leads to reduced conflict among colleagues in high knowledge sharing teams, but also extends to lower levels of conflict with supervisors. Drawing on the spillover logic of JD-R theory (Bakker and Demerouti, 2007, 2014; Demerouti et al., 2001), when employees experience stronger support from colleagues, they are less likely to feel emotionally depleted, frustrated or psychologically threatened—states that can otherwise narrow attention and make supervisory cues harder to interpret constructively (Bakker et al., 2005). In this relational context, employees may approach feedback, performance evaluations and resource allocation decisions with greater composure and perspective-taking, making these events less likely to be experienced as personally threatening or unfair (Pinna et al., 2020; Sias, 2005). Accordingly, collegial support may be associated with a lower likelihood that supervisory interactions escalate into disagreements about responsibilities and procedures (process conflict), disputes over priorities and expectations (task conflict) or interpersonal tension (relationship conflict).

Taken together, we propose a moderated mediation model in which colleague support explains how CPC impacts on process, relationship and task conflict across both horizontal (colleague) and vertical (supervisor) relationships, and where team knowledge sharing buffers this relationship by sustaining collegial support under competitive pressure. Based on the above, we stated these hypotheses:

To examine how a CPC shapes process, relationship and task conflict with colleagues and supervisors, we conducted three studies using both field (Studies 1 and 2) and experimental designs (Study 3). Study 1 was a cross-sectional field survey conducted among organizational employees, in which we tested the hypothesized positive relationship between CPC and all three conflict types directed toward colleagues (H1a). Study 2 was a time-lagged field study replicating the findings of Study 1 in an independent employee sample. However, Study 2 focused on supervisors-directed conflict (H1b). Moreover, Studies 1 and 2 tested the moderating role of team knowledge sharing (H2); Nevertheless, they did not test the mediating role of perceived support from colleagues (H3a and H3b). Accordingly, Study 3 (preregistered: osfLink to the cited article) ^[1] was designed to both replicate and extend the results of Studies 1 and 2 through an experimental design. In this study, we manipulated CPC and team knowledge sharing to test their interactive effect on conflict intentions toward both colleagues and supervisors. Additionally, we examined perceived support from colleagues as a potential mediator, aiming to explain why high levels of team knowledge sharing may buffer the positive relationship between CPC and conflict with colleagues and supervisors.

It is noteworthy that Study 1 was conducted in Greece, a context where economic instability and competition for limited job resources are particularly salient, making it a relevant setting for examining perceptions of CPC. Given that culture is not the focus of this research, Studies 2 and 3 were conducted with participants living in the UK, that is, within another Western labor context. In all three studies, ethics approval was obtained prior to the data collection. Participants were requested to give their informed consent before completing the questionnaires. Participation was voluntary and anonymous. No identifying information was collected, and all procedures were approved by our institutional ethics committee and adhered to GDPR and ethical research standards.

We conducted a cross-sectional field survey among organizational employees to test the relationship between CPC and all three conflict types directed toward colleagues. Employees were recruited online via Prolific, and the study was programmed in Qualtrics. We recruited 213 employees working in various companies from Greece. 32.86% of the employees were female, and the mean age was 35.65 years (SD = 9.02). Of the employees, 79.81% had obtained a higher education degree (university degree or higher) and had an average of 2.67 years (SD = 1.25) of working at their current company or organization. The participants in Study 1 were employed across a wide range of industries. The largest proportion worked in information technology (20.6%), followed by education (14.8%), public administration and defense (7.2%), human health services (7.7%) and professional, scientific or technical services (6.7%). Smaller but still notable groups were employed in telecommunications (6.2%), retail (5.7%), arts and entertainment (4.8%), construction (3.3%) and accommodation and food services (2.9%). Other sectors—such as manufacturing, finance, agriculture, energy supply and social work—were also represented, each with lower percentages.

CPC. We used the eight-item CPC subscale of the motivational climate scale (Nerstad et al., 2017) to measure employees’ perceptions of organizational climate as competitive. Employees responded on a five-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree; ω = 0.87). A sample item was “In my department/work group, it is important to achieve better than others.”

Team knowledge sharing. We used the seven-item scale to measure team knowledge sharing (Chuang et al., 2016). Employees responded on a seven-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree; ω = 0.87). A sample item was “Members of our team share their special knowledge and expertise with one another.”

Type of conflict with colleagues. We measured the type of conflict between employees and their colleagues with nine items (1 = not at all, 5 = a lot; Jehn and Mannix, 2001). Following previous research, we assessed employees’ process (three items; ω = 0.84; “How often do you have conflict with your colleagues about who should do what?”), relationship (three items; ω = 0.87; “How much relationship tension is there between your colleagues and yourself?”) and task three3 items; ω = 0.88; “How much conflict of ideas is there between your colleagues and yourself?”) conflict with their colleagues.

Control variables. We controlled for participants’ supervisory status (1 = yes, 2 = no), organizational tenure (in years) and age (in years). These controls were included because prior research has shown that managers spend more time handling workplace conflicts than employees (Fousiani et al., 2025b, 2025c), and that conflict involvement and conflict management differ as a function of work experience (Drory and Ritov, 1997) and age (Beitler et al., 2018; Fousiani et al., 2025b, 2025c).

The complete measures can be found in the online supplemental material.

The means, standard deviations and intercorrelations of the study variables are displayed in Table 1.

We first performed a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using JASP 0.19.3.0 (JASP Team, 2024). In the analysis, we included the items of CPC, team knowledge sharing and each type of conflict (process, relationship and task conflict). All items were loaded on their respective factors, allowing no cross-loadings. The model fit was satisfactory for the model (χ2 = 478.797, df = 242, p < 0.001; RMSEA = 0.069, [CI₉₀ = 0.060; 0.078]; CFI = 0.922; SRMR = 0.069).

We also conducted a CFA with only the three types of conflict to assess whether the measurement scales for conflict were distinct. The model included the items of process, relationship and task conflict. All items were loaded on their respective factors, allowing no cross-loadings. The model fit was satisfactory for the model (χ2 = 48.158, df = 24, p = 0.002; RMSEA = 0.070; [CI₉₀ = 0.040; 0.098]; CFI = 0.980; SRMR = 0.039).

To test our hypotheses, we conducted moderation analyses with the PROCESS macro (Model 1) developed by Hayes et al. (2022), with CPC added as the independent variable, team knowledge sharing as the moderator and different types of conflict with colleagues as the dependent variable separately. Supervision role, years of work and age were added as the control variables. Significant interaction effects were probed using the conventional ±1 SD simple slopes approach.

The overall model was significant for all three types of conflict with colleagues (process conflict: R² = 0.28, F (6, 200) = 13.19, p < 0.001; relationship conflict: R² = 0.27, F (6, 200) = 12.12, p < 0.001; task conflict: R² = 0.48, F (6, 200) = 10.06, p < 0.001). Supporting H1a, CPC was positively related to process, relationship and task conflicts between employees and their colleagues. Additionally, the interactions between CPC and team knowledge sharing on process (B = −0.11, SE = 0.05, p = 0.038; 95% CI [−0.22; −0.01]; ΔR² = 0.02, F (1, 200) = 4.39, p = 0.038; f² = 0.03) and relationship (B = −0.14, SE = 0.06, p  = 0.014; 95% CI [−0.44; −0.25]; ΔR² = 0.02, F (1, 200) = 6.10, p = 0.014; f² = 0.03) conflict were significant. Significant interaction effects were then probed using the conventional ±1 SD simple slopes approach. Regarding process conflict (see Figure 2), the effect of CPC on process conflict was significant and positive at low (−1 SD: B = 0.40, SE = 0.10, p = 0.001; 95% CI[0.21; 0.59]) levels of team knowledge sharing, but was not significant at high levels of team knowledge sharing (+1 SD: B = 0.13, SE = 0.09, p = 0.151; 95% CI [−0.05; 0.30]). For relationship conflict (see Figure 3), the effect of CPC on relationship conflict was significant and positive at low (−1 SD: B = 0.45, SE = 0.10, p < 0.001; 95% CI [0.25; 0.65]) levels of team knowledge sharing. However, this effect was non-significant at high levels of team knowledge sharing (+1 SD: B = 0.11, SE  = 0.09, p = 0.215; 95% CI [−0.07; 0.30]). For task conflict, the interaction between CPC and team knowledge sharing on task conflict with colleagues was approaching significance (B = −0.11, SE = 0.05, p = 0.053; 95% CI [−0.21; 0.00]; ΔR² = 0.01, F (1, 200) = 3.78, p = 0.053; f² = 0.02). Hence, H2 was supported for process and relationship conflict between employees and their colleagues but not supported for task conflict.

Study 1 showed that a CPC is positively associated with process, relationship and task conflict toward colleagues (horizontal relationships). Specifically, in CPC, disagreements over workflows, responsibilities and resource allocation are more likely to arise (process conflict). CPC may also relate to interpersonal tension, personality clashes and friction (relationship conflict). Finally, CPC was positively related to opinion differences and clashes over tasks and projects (task conflict). These findings support H1a and highlight the interpersonal costs of cultivating an (competitive) environment where success depends on surpassing colleagues to gain recognition or advancement (Lee et al., 2022; Spurk and Hirschi, 2018; Spurk et al., 2021). Importantly, and in line with H2, process and relationship conflict were moderated by team knowledge sharing: The positive associations between CPC and both (a) process conflict and (b) relationship conflict were significantly stronger when team knowledge sharing was low. At high levels of team knowledge sharing, these associations were non-significant. Although the interaction between CPC and task conflict approached significance, it did not reach the conventional threshold (p = 0.05). This may suggest that task-related disagreements—focused on differing viewpoints or judgments about work content—are less dependent on shared information norms than relational or procedural disputes. In other words, knowledge sharing may be more effective in reducing ambiguity, misunderstandings and interpersonal friction than in eliminating differences in opinions about how tasks should be executed.

Study 1 did not test the association between CPC and conflict directed toward supervisors (H1b), focusing instead on conflict directed toward colleagues. Examining conflict toward supervisors was therefore the primary aim of Study 2. Study 2 was a field study conducted among employees, aiming to examine the role of CPC in predicting different types of conflict directed toward supervisors. Notably, Study 2 used a time-lagged design, in which the main predictors (CPC and team knowledge sharing) were assessed at Time 1 (T1), while the outcome variables (process, relationship and task conflict) were assessed at Time 2 (T2). This design was chosen to strengthen the temporal ordering of variables and reduce concerns about common method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003) while still capturing proximal interpersonal dynamics. This interval is consistent with prior research using weekly designs (e.g. Bakker and Bal, 2010; Tims et al., 2016) and with methodological guidance recommending that time-lag choices be explicitly justified (Griep et al., 2021). By separating the measurement of the predictor and outcome variables over time, we aimed to more accurately capture the hypothesized relationships between CPC and conflict, while minimizing inflation of associations due to same-time data collection.

We conducted a two-wave field study with a one-week interval to assess the role of CPC in predicting different types of conflict directed toward supervisors. We measured CPC (independent variable) and team knowledge sharing (moderator) at T1. Types of conflicts (process, relationship and task conflict) with supervisors experienced by employees (dependent variable) were assessed at T2. Employees were recruited online via Prolific, and the study was programmed in Qualtrics. 292 respondents from the UK and the US took part in T1. The final sample (T2) consisted of 254 supervised employees working in various companies in the UK. Only participants who had indicated in Prolific that they have direct supervisor were allowed to participate. 51.71% of the employees were female, and the mean age was 40.28 years (SD = 11.47). Among the participants, 172 were British, 110 were American, with the remainder representing other nationalities. Of the employees, 62.67% had obtained a higher education degree (university degree or higher) and had an average of 7.07 years (SD = 6.97) of working within the current company or organization. Participants holding supervisory/managerial positions were not allowed to take part in the study and had an average of 3.73 years (SD = 3.33) of working with their supervisors.

CPC (T1). We used the same eight-item CPC subscale of the motivational climate scale (Nerstad et al., 2017) as used in Study 1, with a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree; ω = 0.93). Items were adapted to the specifics of this study.

Team Knowledge Sharing (T1). We used the same seven-item scale to measure team knowledge sharing (Chuang et al., 2016) as used in Study 1(1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree; ω = 0.91). Items were adapted to the specifics of this study.

Type of Conflict with Supervisors (T2). We used the same nine-item type of conflict scale (1 = None or never, 7 = A lot or always; Jehn and Mannix, 2001), with the items adapted to assess the conflict between employees and their supervisors. Following previous research, we assessed followers’ process (3 items; ω = 0.93; “How often do you have conflict with your supervisor about who should do what?”), relationship (3 items; ω = 0.93; “How much relationship tension is there between your supervisor and yourself?”) and task (3 items; ω = 0.95; “How much conflict of ideas is there between your supervisor and yourself?”) conflict with their supervisors.

Control Variables (T1). We again controlled for employees’ age, as in Study 1. In addition, we controlled for participants’ weekly working hours as a proxy for work experience. Because this study included only employees without supervisory responsibilities, supervisory role was not included as a control variable, unlike in Study 1. We also controlled for team identification, assessed with a six-item scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree; ω = 0.91; Goto et al., 2025). A sample item is: “My team’s successes are my successes.” Team identification was considered relevant because prior research has shown that it is negatively associated with both task conflict and relationship conflict (Han and Harms, 2010).

The means, standard deviations and intercorrelations of the study variables are displayed in Table 2.

We first performed a CFA using JASP 0.19.3.0 (JASP Team, 2024). In the analysis, we included the items of CPC (T1), team knowledge sharing (T1) and each type of conflict with supervisors (process, relationship and task conflict; T2). All items were loaded on their respective factors, allowing no cross-loadings. The model fit was satisfactory (χ2 = 806.278, df = 242, p < 0.001; RMSEA = 0.091; [CI₉₀ = 0.084; 0.098]; CFI = 0.922; SRMR = 0.068).

We also conducted a CFA with only the three types of conflict to assess whether the measurement scales for conflict were distinct. The model included the items of process, relationship and task conflict. All items were loaded on their respective factors, allowing no cross-loadings. The model fit was satisfactory (χ2 = 80.517, df = 24, p< 0.001; RMSEA = 0.091; [CI₉₀ = 0.070; 0.113]; CFI = 0.982; SRMR = 0.031).

To test our hypotheses, we conducted moderation analyses with the PROCESS macro (Model 1) developed by Hayes et al. (2022), with CPC added as the independent variable, team knowledge sharing as the moderator and different types of conflict with colleagues as the dependent variable separately. Years of work, age and identification with the team were added as the control variables. Significant interaction effects were probed using the conventional ±1 SD simple slopes approach.

The overall model was significant for all three types of conflict with supervisors (process conflict: R² = 0.21, F (6, 247) = 10.63, p < 0.001; relationship conflict: R² = 0.23, F (6, 247) = 12.11, p < 0.001; task conflict: R² = 0.22, F (6, 247) = 11.84, p < 0.001). Supporting H1b, CPC was positively related to process-, relationship- and task-related conflict between employees and their supervisors. Unexpectedly, the interactions between CPC and team knowledge sharing on relationship- (B = −0.08, SE = 0.05, p = 0.098; 95% CI [−0.16; 0.01]; ΔR² = 0.01, F (1, 247) = 2.77, p = 0.098; f² = 0.01) and task-related conflict were not significant (B = −0.05, SE = 0.04, p = 0.266; 95% CI [−0.14; 0.04]; ΔR² = 0.00, F (1, 247) = 1.24, p = 0.266; f² = 0.01). However, the interaction between CPC and team knowledge sharing on process conflict was significant (B = −0.10, SE = 0.04, p = 0.034; 95% CI[−0.18; −0.01]; ΔR² = 0.01, F (1, 247) = 4.56, p = 0.034; f² = 0.01). We then probed the significant interaction effect using the conventional ±1 SD simple slopes approach. Specifically, the relationship between CPC and process conflict was significant and positive at low (−1 SD: B = 0.46, SE = 0.09, p < 0.001; 95% CI [0.29; 0.64]) and high (+1 SD: B = 0.21, SE = 0.08, p = 0.010; 95% CI [0.05; 0.37]) levels of team knowledge sharing, with the relationship being stronger when team knowledge sharing was low (see Figure 4). Hence, H2 was supported only for process conflicts between employees and their supervisors.

Similar to Study 1, Study 2 found that a CPC (T1) was positively associated with process, relationship and task conflict (T2)—this time directed toward supervisors rather than colleagues. These findings support H1b and highlight the detrimental effects of CPC not only on horizontal relationships (as shown in Study 1), but also on vertical ones. Interestingly, CPC interacted with team knowledge sharing (measured at T1) in predicting process conflict with supervisors (T2): the association was stronger when knowledge sharing was low as compared to high. Unexpectedly, the interactions for relationship and task conflict were non-significant. These findings provide partial support for H2 and suggest that team knowledge sharing may buffer the effects of CPC specifically in the context of process-related conflicts with supervisors—possibly by promoting transparency, shared understanding of roles of supervisors and subordinate employees and clearer expectations. However, team knowledge sharing may be less effective in mitigating the emotional or task-related tensions (relationship and task conflict respectively) that arise in hierarchical relationships under competitive pressure. A possible explanation is that relationship conflict with supervisors often stems from power asymmetries (Fousiani, 2020; Fousiani et al., 2021), perceived injustice or a lack of psychological safety (Graham et al., 2017), which may not be fully resolved through knowledge-transfer among peers. Similarly, task conflict with supervisors may be driven by goal misalignment, opinion mismatch or differing views on projects (Hernaus and Černe, 2022; Liu et al., 2022), which fall outside the domain of team-based informational resources. In other words, while team knowledge sharing may help employees navigate role and responsibility-related ambiguity (inherent in process conflict with supervisors) it may not sufficiently buffer against status threats, emotional strain related to unfairness or conflicting priorities that characterize many supervisor–subordinate dynamics in competitive environments. These findings suggest that future research should explore additional moderators, such as psychological safety (Frazier and Tupper, 2018) leader–member exchange or participative and responsible leadership (Fousiani and Wisse, 2022), which may more effectively buffer relationship and task conflict with supervisors under CPC.

Study 2, like Study 1, did not examine the underlying mechanisms explaining the conditional relationships between CPC and process, relationship and task conflict with colleagues or supervisors. Moreover, neither study tested causal relationships, limiting their internal validity. To address these limitations, Study 3 was designed as an experimental vignette study, in which CPC and team knowledge sharing were manipulated, while the mediator (perceived colleague support) and the conflict outcomes (process, relationship and task conflict with both colleagues and supervisors) were measured. This allowed for a more rigorous test of all hypotheses (H1a, H1b, H2, H3a and H3b) under controlled conditions.

This study had a 2 (CPC: high vs low) x 2 (team knowledge sharing: high vs low) between-subjects experimental design. Employees were recruited online via Prolific using Qualtrics. We recruited 206 employees working in various companies in the UK. 41.26% of the employees were female, and the mean age was 42.85 years (SD = 10.88). Of the employees, 64.56% had obtained a higher education degree (university degree or higher) and had an average of 8.07 years (SD = 6.99) of working at their current company or organization. Similar to Study 2, we only recruited participants who had indicated in their Prolific profile that they have a direct supervisor. Among the participants, 38.83% had employees under their supervision. Similar to Study 1, participants were employed across a wide range of sectors. The most frequently reported category was education (14.1%), manufacturing (12.1%), business and finance (12.1%) and government (11.7%). Human services and technology each accounted for 7.8% of the sample, while smaller proportions worked in science (3.4%), law (2.4%), industry (2.9%) and agriculture (1.0%). Only 0.5% reported working in the arts. 24.3% of participants reported working in a sector not listed in the predefined options and selected the “Other” category.

Following the demographic questions, participants were asked to imagine working for a large multinational company, named PBF. Similar to the experimental procedure adopted in Fousiani and Wisse (2022; see also Fousiani et al., 2025a, 2025b, 2025c, 2025d), participants were instructed to place themselves in the role of team member within a 17-person team, overseen by a supervisor named Bill. Subsequently, they were randomly assigned to one of the four experimental conditions. Participants first read a vignette manipulating the CPC followed by a vignette manipulating team knowledge sharing.

CPC. The CPC manipulation was based on Wisse et al. (2019; see also Fousiani et al., 2024; Fousiani and Wisse, 2022). More specifically, we varied the descriptions about the reward system that the company uses and the sense of competition that such a system causes among employees to create high vs low CPC conditions. In the highly competitive condition, it was highlighted that “only the top achievers have the chance to get rewarded and promoted” and that “there is substantial competitive rivalry among employees at all levels.” On the contrary, the low competitive condition stated that “Most employees have a chance to get rewarded and promoted” and that “there is no competitive rivalry among employees at any levels” (for the complete vignettes see online supplemental material).

Team Knowledge Sharing. To the best of our knowledge, no previous research has experimentally manipulated team knowledge sharing. Accordingly, we generated vignettes based on the items of the team knowledge sharing questionnaire (Chuang et al., 2016). In the high team knowledge sharing condition, it was highlighted that the participants’ team “is known for a strong culture of information sharing” and that “knowledge is openly shared”. On the contrary, the low team knowledge sharing condition stated that their team “is not known for sharing information”, and that “knowledge sharing is minimal” (for the complete vignettes see online supplemental material).

At the end of each vignette, participants completed the manipulation checks. After that, they answered a series of self-report scales, including perceived colleague support and types of conflicts they experienced with their colleagues and supervisors. At the end of the study, they were debriefed and paid.

Manipulation Checks. Three questions were used to test whether our CPC manipulation was successful. The questions were identical to those used in Fousiani and Wisse (2022) and Fousiani et al. (2024) (i.e. “The climate in this company is competitive”, “In this company rivalry among employees is encouraged”, “In this company an individual’s accomplishments are compared with those of other colleagues”; 1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree; ω = 0.98). We computed a mean score for the three CPC manipulation check items.

Two questions were used to check if the team knowledge sharing worked as intended. The questions were inspired by the team knowledge sharing questionnaire that we used in Studies 1 and 2 (Chuang et al., 2016). Specifically, participants were asked to indicate the extent to which they agree with the following items: “In the team that I work with, colleagues openly share useful knowledge and ideas with one another”, “Employees in my team usually keep valuable knowledge to themselves (reverse-coded)” (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree; ω = 0.96). We computed a mean score for the two manipulation check items.

Perceived Colleague Support. Three questions were used to assess perceived colleague support (1 = not at all, 7 = to a great extent; ω = 0.96). The questions come from the reliance on colleagues subscale of the Job Demands-Resources Scale (Bakker and Demerouti, 2014). The items are “To what extent do you think you would be able to rely on your colleagues when facing difficulties in your work if you were working in this team?”, “If you were working in this team, to what extent do you think you could ask your colleagues for help when needed?”, “How well do you think you would get along with your colleagues in this work setting?”

Types of Conflict with Colleagues and with Supervisors. We used the same nine-item type of conflict scale (1 = not at all, 7 = a lot; Jehn and Mannix, 2001), with the items adapted to assess conflict with a) colleagues and b) supervisors. The scales showed excellent reliability for employees’ conflicts with colleagues (process: ω = 0.96; relationship: ω = 0.96; task: ω = 0.91) and with supervisors (process: ω = 0.95; relationship: ω = 0.95; task: ω = 0.93).

Control Variables. We again controlled for employees’ age similar to Studies 1 and 2. Because participants were employees working in real organizations, the actual level of CPC and team knowledge sharing in their workplace might differ from the information presented in our manipulations. To account for this, we controlled for participants’ perceptions of their actual organization’s CPC and team knowledge sharing using two items drawn from established questionnaires. Specifically, we asked: “To what extent is rivalry between employees encouraged at your actual company?” and “To what extent do members of your team share their special knowledge and expertise with one another?” (1 = totally different, 7 = very similar). Finally, and consistently to Study 2, we controlled for employees ‘identification with their (actual) team with the same scale that we used in Study 2; 6 items; ω = 0.95).

The means, standard deviations and intercorrelations of the study variables are displayed in Table 3 ^[2].

To assess whether our manipulation was successful, we ran a multivariate regression with CPC and team knowledge sharing as the independent variables and the computed mean score for CPC and team knowledge sharing as dependent variables. The results showed that the manipulation of CPC was successful, F (1,202) = 1171.52, p < 0.001, ηp² = 0.85, with the climate being perceived as more competitive in the high (M = 6.56, SD = 0.80) versus the low CPC condition (M = 1.72, SD =1.19). Neither the manipulation of team knowledge sharing (F (1,202) = 0.66, p = 0.416, ηp² = 0.00) nor its interaction with CPC (F (1,202) = 0.01, p = 0.939, ηp² = 0.00) significantly influenced the manipulation checks for CPC.

The results also showed that the manipulation of team knowledge sharing was also successful, F (1,202) = 1134.06, p < 0.001, ηp² = 0.85, with the team knowledge sharing being perceived as higher in the high (M = 6.37, SD = 1.03) versus the low team knowledge sharing condition (M = 1.49, SD = 1.04). Neither the manipulation of CPC (F (1,202) = 0.73, p = 0.396, ηp² = 0.00) nor its interaction with team knowledge sharing (F (1,202) = 0.23, p = 0.635, ηp² = 0.00) significantly influenced the manipulation checks for team knowledge sharing. Taken together, the results indicated that participants perceived the manipulations as intended.

To assess whether the measurement scales were distinct, we performed a CFA for types of conflict with colleagues (process, relationship and task conflict) using JASP 0.19.3.0 (JASP Team, 2024). The model included items related to process, relationship and task conflict with colleagues. All items were loaded on their respective factors, allowing no cross-loadings. The model fit was satisfactory for the model (χ2 = 57.388, df = 24, p < 0.001; RMSEA = 0.082; [CI₉₀ = 0.055; 0.110]; CFI = 0.986; SRMR = 0.019). We then conducted a CFA for the items of process, relationship and task conflict with supervisors. All items were loaded on their respective factors, allowing no cross-loadings. The model fit was satisfactory for the model (χ2 = 42.173, df = 24, p = 0.012; RMSEA = 0.061; [CI₉₀ = 0.028; 0.090]; CFI = 0.993; SRMR = 0.012).

To test our moderated mediation model, we conducted analyses with the PROCESS macro (Model 8) developed by Hayes et al. (2022), with CPC added as the independent variable, team knowledge sharing as the moderator, colleague support as the mediator and different types of conflict as the dependent variable separately. Control variables were included in the model. Significant interaction effects were probed using the conventional ±1 SD simple slopes approach.

Conflict with Colleagues. The overall model was significant for all three conflicts with colleagues (process conflict: R² = 0.57, F (7, 219) = 41.18, p < 0.001; relationship conflict: R² = 0.61, F (7, 219) = 48.87, p < 0.001; task conflict: R² = 0.44, F (7, 219) = 25.00, p < 0.001). CPC was positively related to process and relationship conflict between employees and their colleagues. The relationship between CPC and task conflicts with colleagues was not significant. Hence, H1a was partially supported. Contrary to H2, the direct interactions between CPC and team knowledge sharing on process (B = −0.21, SE = 0.31, p = 0.504; 95% CI [−0.81; 0.40]; ΔR² = 0.00, F (1, 219) = 0.45, p = 0.504; f² =0.00), relationship (B = 0.12, SE = 0.32, p = 0.703; 95% CI [−0.50; 0.74]; ΔR² = 0.00, F (1, 219) = 0.15, p = 0.703; f² = 0.00) and task conflict with colleagues (B = 0.24, SE = 0.31, p = 0.446; 95% CI[−0.38; 0.86]; ΔR² = 0.00, F (1, 219) = 0.58, p = 0.446; f² = 0.00) were not significant.

The interaction between CPC and team knowledge sharing on colleague support was significant (B = −0.70, SE = 0.30, p = 0.018; 95% CI [−1.29; −0.12]; ΔR² = 0.01, F(1, 220) = 5.66, p = 0.018; f² = 0.06). Probing the interaction (see Figure 5) using the conventional ±1 SD simple slopes approach revealed that, under low team knowledge sharing, employees in a CPC reported significantly lower colleague support compared to those in a less CPC (−1 SD: B = −0.58, SE = 0.21, p = 0.006; 95% CI [−0.99, −0.17]). Under high team knowledge sharing, colleague support was generally higher, but competition still reduced support (+1 SD: B = −1.29, SE = 0.21, p < 0.001; 95% CI [−1.70, −0.87]). Taken together, this suggests that low knowledge sharing exacerbates the negative consequences of a CPC, as employees in such teams already experience diminished support from colleagues. In turn, lower colleague support was associated with higher conflict with colleagues (moderated mediation index: process conflict: B = 0.37, SE = 0.17, 95% CI [0.06, 0.73]; relationship conflict: B = 0.41, SE = 0.19, 95% CI [0.05, 0.80]; task conflict: B = 0.34, SE = 0.15, 95% CI [0.05, 0.66]). Hence, H3a was supported.

Conflict with Supervisors. The overall model was significant for all three conflicts with supervisors (process conflict: R² = 0.37, F (7, 219) = 18.34, p < 0.001; relationship conflict: R² = 0.45, F (7, 219) = 25.56, p < 0.001; task conflict: R² = 0.38, F (7, 219) = 19.42, p < 0.001). CPC was positively related to process and relationship conflict between employees and their supervisors. The relationship between CPC and task conflicts with supervisors was not significant. Hence, H1b was partially supported. Contrary to H2, the interactions between CPC and team knowledge sharing on process conflict (B = −0.08, SE = 0.36, p = 0.830; 95% CI [−0.78; 0.63]; ΔR² = 0.00, F (1, 219) = 0.05, p = 0.830; f² = 0.00), relationship conflict (B = −0.14, SE = 0.34, p = 0.694; 95% CI [−0.81; 0.54]; ΔR² = 0.00, F (1, 219) = 0.15, p = 0.694; f² = 0.00) and task conflict with supervisors (B = −0.04, SE = 0.32, p = 0.900; 95% CI [−0.68; 0.60]; ΔR² = 0.00, F (1, 219) = 0.02, p = 0.900; f² = 0.00) were not significant.

Supporting H3b, CPC reduced perceived colleague support, which in turn was associated with higher conflict with supervisors. This indirect effect was significant for process (B = 0.30, SE = 0.15, 95% CI [0.04, 0.62]), relationship (B = 0.38, SE = 0.17, 95% CI [0.07, 0.74]) and task conflict (B = 0.32, SE = 0.15, 95% CI [0.05, 0.63]). Importantly, probing the interaction shows that when team knowledge sharing was low, CPCs already undermined colleague support, which in turn predicted stronger supervisor conflict. In contrast, under high knowledge sharing, support was generally higher, partly offsetting the detrimental effect of competition. Thus, the moderated mediation pathway was particularly evident in low-knowledge sharing contexts.

Study 3 tested all hypotheses (H1a, H1b, H2 and H3a, H3b) using an experimental design and provided support for most of them. In line with Studies 1 and 2, and consistent with H1a and H1b, CPC was positively associated with both process and relationship conflict directed toward colleagues (horizontal relationships) and supervisors (vertical relationships). However, the associations between CPC and task conflict—whether with colleagues or supervisors—were non-significant, offering only partial support for H1a and H1b. These findings suggest that CPCs primarily escalate interpersonal and procedural tensions (i.e. relationship and procedural conflict), rather than disagreements over task content. One possible explanation is that CPC fosters an atmosphere of defensiveness, status comparison and self-protection, which are more directly linked to relationship strain and process ambiguity (cf. Snow, 2011; Wallace and Buchanan, 2019) than to cognitive disagreement over work ideas. However, in CPCs, employees may be less open to voicing differing opinions or challenging others’ ideas, out of fear that doing so could harm their own standing. As a result, task-related disagreements may be suppressed rather than expressed, especially in hierarchical relationships. Future research could focus on identifying variables moderating the expression of task-related conflict in CPCs.

Although none of the direct interactions between CPC and team knowledge sharing on process, relationship or task conflict were significant—contrary to H2—the interaction between CPC and team knowledge sharing significantly predicted perceived colleague support. In turn, perceived support from colleagues significantly predicted all three types of conflict with both colleagues and supervisors, providing support for H3a and H3 b. More specifically, we found that in low knowledge-transfer teams, CPCs already undermined colleague support, which in turn predicted higher levels of conflict with both colleagues and supervisors. In contrast, in high knowledge-transfer teams, overall colleague support was higher, which partly offset the detrimental impact of CPC. These results largely replicate the findings of Studies 1 and 2 within an experimental setting and extend them by identifying perceived colleague support as a key explanatory mechanism underlying the link between CPCs and conflict.

Yet, it is noteworthy that the vignette design in Study 3 limits generalizability. Because participants reacted to hypothetical scenarios rather than real interactions, their responses may not fully capture the emotional, relational and organizational consequences of CPCs. Thus, future research should test these dynamics in real teams using behavioral or multi-source data to enhance ecological validity.

This research aimed to examine how a CPC influences different types of interpersonal conflict—process, relationship and task conflict—in the workplace, and how these effects vary depending on team knowledge sharing. Drawing on the Job Demands–Resources (JD-R) theory (Bakker and Demerouti, 2007, 2024) and Conservation of Resources theory (Hobfoll, 1989), we hypothesized that CPC, as a social and emotional job demand, would be positively associated to various types of conflict both horizontally (with colleagues) and vertically (with supervisors), and that this effect would be moderated by team knowledge sharing and mediated by perceived colleague support.

We tested our hypotheses across three studies using complementary methods. Study 1, a cross-sectional field study, showed that CPC was positively associated with process, relationship and task conflict with colleagues, supporting H1a. Importantly, team knowledge sharing moderated the relationships between CPC and process and relationship conflict (although the interaction predicting task conflict did not reach conventional significance, it approached the threshold; p = 0.05), providing partial support for H2. Study 2 used a time-lagged design and replicated these associations for conflict directed toward supervisors, confirming H1b and extending the relational scope of CPC’s impact. Again, team knowledge sharing buffered the CPC–process conflict link, but not its associations with relationship or task conflict, offering only partial support for H2.

However, neither Study 1 nor Study 2 tested the proposed underlying mechanisms or could establish causal direction. To address these limitations, Study 3 used an experimental vignette design in which CPC and team knowledge sharing were manipulated, and conflict with colleagues and supervisors as well as perceived support from colleagues (mediator) were measured. This study largely replicated the findings of the first two, confirming that CPC is positively associated with process and relationship conflict with both colleagues and supervisors, while its association with task conflict was non-significant—offering partial support for H1a and H1b. Importantly, team knowledge sharing significantly moderated the CPC–perceived colleague support relationship, and this perceived support in turn predicted lower levels of all three types of conflict with both colleagues and supervisors. These results provide strong support for H3a and H3b, identifying perceived support as a key interpersonal resource through which team knowledge sharing can buffer the negative effects of CPC.

This research offers several important theoretical contributions. First, it extends existing work on CPCs (e.g. dos Santos et al., 2023; see also Fousiani and Wisse, 2022; Spurk et al., 2018, 2021) and conflict (Fousiani et al., 2025a) by systematically demonstrating that CPC is associated with multiple types of conflict—not just with colleagues (horizontal relationships), but also with supervisors (vertical relationships). This expands our understanding of CPC from a horizontal rivalry mechanism to a broader interpersonal strain factor that permeates hierarchical dynamics (cf. Fousiani and Wisse, 2022; Sofyan et al., 2022).

Second, our findings highlight the differential vulnerability of conflict types to CPC. While process and relationship conflict were consistently predicted by CPC, task conflict was not consistently linked across studies. This suggests that CPC may be less likely to elicit substantive disagreement over ideas or strategies, and more likely to exacerbate conflict over procedures, authority and personal differences—aligning with theoretical models of threat-rigidity and social comparison (Festinger, 1954; Staw et al., 1981; Tesser, 1988).

Third, we identify team knowledge sharing as a critical contextual buffer that can limit the interpersonal costs of CPC though perceived colleague support. This aligns with the JD-R framework’s emphasis on job resources (Bakker and Demerouti, 2024; Demerouti et al., 2001), demonstrating that shared information and transparency can create a climate of collegial support, which in turn mitigates both horizontal and vertical conflict.

Most importantly, our findings extend the JD-R framework by demonstrating that job demands and resources do not operate solely at the individual level (Bakker and Demerouti, 2024; Demerouti et al., 2001). In this study, both CPC and team knowledge sharing are conceptualized as employees’ perceptions of team-level conditions. We show that these team-based variables interact to shape conflict at the dyadic level—both between colleagues and between employees and supervisors. In teams where competition is salient and rewards are scarce, conflict is more likely to emerge; however, when teams engage in open knowledge sharing, this shared resource helps contain conflict. Thus, our results suggest that the JD-R model can be refined by acknowledging that demands and resources may function as collective social climates that influence relational, rather than solely individual, outcomes.

From a practical perspective, our findings carry important lessons for organizations that seek to maintain performance while preventing workplace dysfunction. If left unchecked, a CPC can erode workplace relationships, particularly through increases in procedural disagreements (i.e. process conflict) and interpersonal friction (i.e. relationship conflict). Our findings suggest that managers should not only promote collaboration but also systematically monitor early signals of excessive competition. Such signals may include increased secrecy in teams, reduced willingness to share task-related information, heightened social comparison and rising complaints about fairness or recognition. Regular pulse surveys, informal check-ins or structured team reflections can help leaders detect when competition begins to undermine cooperation rather than motivate performance. When such patterns emerge, managers can introduce structured practices that encourage cooperative knowledge exchange even under performance pressure—such as joint problem-solving meetings, peer feedback rounds focused on learning rather than evaluation, rotating responsibility for sharing best practices or team-based rewards in addition to individual incentives. These interventions help maintain transparency, psychological safety and knowledge flow without removing performance standards, thereby preventing conflict escalation in competitive environments.

Importantly, managers and HR professionals should be especially aware of the dual impact of CPC: not only does it strain peer relationships, but it also undermines role clarity, trust and communication with supervisors. Promoting transparent communication, inclusivity and fair evaluation procedures, may reduce the interpretive ambiguity that fuels conflict in high-CPC environments. Training programs aimed at psychological safety, constructive feedback and supportive peer behavior may further strengthen team cohesion under competitive pressure.

Moreover, while our findings highlight the protective role of team knowledge sharing in CPCs, it is important to acknowledge that knowledge sharing is not universally beneficial. Excessive or poorly managed knowledge exchange can create unintended downsides, such as cognitive overload, diffusion of responsibility, slower decision-making or the circulation of irrelevant information (cf. Mesmer-Magnus and DeChurch, 2009; van Zoonen et al., 2022). In highly dynamic or time-pressured environments, constant sharing may even impede efficiency if employees spend more time aligning and less time executing tasks. Therefore, the goal is not unlimited knowledge sharing, but rather structured and purpose-driven sharing that supports coordination without overwhelming employees.

Crucially, this study did not focus on a single type of organization and employees came from diverse sectors such as education, public administration, IT, health care, finance and manufacturing. Therefore, the implications of our findings can be flexibly applied across contexts. In public and educational settings—where collaboration and procedural fairness are central—managers may focus on early signs of harmful competition and reinforce structured team discussions or collaborative problem-solving practices. In knowledge-intensive and service sectors (e.g. IT, finance), where performance pressure and individual evaluation are more salient, knowledge-sharing platforms, peer feedback routines and team-based rewards can help prevent competitive climates from escalating into conflict. In more operational environments such as manufacturing, practices like shift handovers, cross-training and process documentation can support knowledge transfer and reduce misunderstandings under competitive pressure.

A key strength of this research lies in its multi-method design. Using triangulation in a mixed-methods research design (Turner et al., 2017), we combined cross-sectional and time-lagged field studies with an experimental study to test causal pathways and extend generalizability. Furthermore, by examining multiple conflict types across horizontal and vertical relationships, we offer a holistic account of CPC’s relational consequences.

Nevertheless, several limitations must be acknowledged. First, although our experimental vignette methodology improves internal validity, it relies on hypothetical scenarios that may not fully capture the emotional intensity of real-world interactions. Future studies should incorporate longitudinal or experience sampling methods to track the dynamic development of conflict under CPC over time. Second, we relied primarily on self-reports, which may be subject to bias. Including peer-reports or behavioral data could improve measurement accuracy. Third, results across studies were not always significant in the absence of control variables, which may diminish the robustness of the findings. This suggests that individual or contextual covariates (e.g. age, team identification) may play a more important role in shaping CPC–conflict links than currently captured. Additionally, while we focused on team knowledge sharing (moderator) and colleague support (mediator), other team-level resources such as team cohesion (Stoverink et al., 2014) and social embeddedness between team members (e.g. Sakalaki and Fousiani, 2012) or psychological safety (Liu et al., 2021) may also moderate CPC–conflict dynamics and deserve future investigation. Another relevant moderator is team reflexivity (i.e. the extent to which teams collectively reflect on goals, strategies and processes; West, 2000) which may help teams reassess competitive pressures and jointly adjust interaction patterns under CPC. Besides, while we explored conflict with supervisors as a relational outcome, it remains unclear how leaders themselves contribute to or buffer the effects of CPC (see Fousiani and Wisse, 2022). Future research could examine leadership behaviors (e.g. inclusive, abusive or competitive leadership styles) as potential moderators of CPC and its consequences. Finally, beyond the conflict forms examined here, recent work highlights moral or value-based conflict—situations in which workplace disagreements become moralized because behaviors are perceived as violating shared norms of fairness or ethical conduct (Brown et al., 2022; Gaudine and Thorne, 2010; Kammeyer-Mueller et al., 2012; Thorne, 2010). In competitive climates, such moralization may be more likely when employees interpret actions such as information withholding, self-serving behavior or selective rewarding as norm-violating rather than merely strategic. Importantly, moral conflict is not simply an additional conflict “type” alongside task, process and relationship conflict; rather, it can overlay these forms by shaping the meaning and intensity employees assign to disagreements. Although the present study focuses on task, process and relationship conflict to align with the dominant taxonomy (Jehn, 1997) and to maintain conceptual comparability across colleague and supervisor targets, this emerging stream helps situate CPC within a broader conflict landscape and highlights that competition may affect not only trust and coordination but also the perceived legitimacy of others’ actions. Future research could build on our findings by explicitly assessing moralization processes (e.g. norm-violation appraisals, moral conviction, ethical climate) to examine when CPC-related disagreements escalate from interpersonal friction to ethically charged disputes, thereby clarifying how CPC intersects with the ethical climate of organizations and the moral meaning employees attach to competitive behavior.

In increasingly competitive organizational environments, employees often face pressure to outperform their peers to earn recognition or advancement. Across three studies, this research demonstrates that such CPCs have substantial interpersonal costs, particularly in the form of process and relationship conflict with both colleagues and supervisors. Yet not all teams are equally vulnerable. When team knowledge sharing is high than low, employees are less likely to engage in conflict with their colleagues or supervisors, which may be explained by their experienced collegial support. Our findings underscore the value of cultivating supportive, transparent and collaborative team environments as a counterbalance to competitive pressures.

This publication is based upon work from COST Action CA22120, Lever-Age, supported by COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology).

This manuscript used 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.