Can Ubuntu philosophy mitigate conflict in supply chain management and improve value creation?

Abstract

This study examines the extent to which Ubuntu ideology may provide a relational mechanism for mitigating inter-organisational managerial conflict and supporting value creation in supply chain operations. Drawing on survey data from 394 managers and supply chain operations supervisors, the study uses PLS-SEM to test four interrelated hypotheses. The findings show that Ubuntu-oriented conflict management is positively associated with cooperative behaviour and value creation. The results also indicate that cooperative behaviour and value creation are associated with lower levels of inter-organisational conflict. In addition, perceptions of Ubuntu ideology are negatively related to inter-organisational conflict. Taken together, the findings suggest that Ubuntu offers a culturally grounded relational lens through which cooperation, value creation and conflict reduction across organisational boundaries may be better understood.

Keywords

Ubuntu ideology conflict management value creation supply chain management ubuntuism

Introduction

Although the exact appearance of Ubuntu ideology as a concept in management science remains unclear, its application has significantly gained momentum as a critical pillar in shaping Afrocentric managerial culture (Okereke et al., 2018). Ubuntu’s notion purports that individual existence depends on the more expansive collectivist existence; in other words, ‘I am who I am because of others’ (Akanji et al., 2020; Horwitz, 2017). Yet, the application of Ubuntu to the field of supply chain has not adequately been studied, especially with regard to how it mitigates inter-organisational conflict at the managerial level. With business interest in Africa rising and African indigenous businesses proliferating more than they did in the 20^th century, some are questioning the compatibility of Ubuntu values as they relate to corporate social responsibility, global capitalism (Okereke et al., 2018) and Ubuntu and capitalism (McDonald, 2010). These concerns are not without implications for value creation within supply chain operations, as supply chain operations are neither limited by continental boundaries nor ideology. As African businesses expand, they are faced with technical issues such as digitisation (Demuyakor, 2020; Rutashobya et al., 2021), entrepreneurial human capital, social networks, institutional co-evolution, and the expansion of the informal economy (Nachum et al., 2023). African cultural idealists may normally see effective supply chain management through the lens of Ubuntu because as different cultures come together to transact supply chain-related activities, there would likely be disagreements as cultures are innately conflictful or cooperative (Caputo and Ayoko, 2015). While some consider the Ubuntu ideology a potential panacea for organisational conflict, these relationships have not yet been studied, tested or formalized.

Ideally, Ubuntu relationships must emphasise collaboration and eschew human conflict. It is unsurprising, therefore, that some earlier studies have studied the importance of the ‘human element’ in operations, projects and supply chain structures (Derwik and Hellström, 2021; Dolan, 2004), yet far often, the research focus moves away from the people element and primarily onto non-human aspects of business activities such as lean management (Hernandez-Matias et al., 2019), total quality management (Mensah et al., 2012) and operational tools like cycle time shortening (Diaby et al., 2013). As a concept with broad application in other fields (Mugumbate et al., 2023; Okereke et al., 2018), this study only focuses on the application of Ubuntu’s value creation and conflict-minimising effect among businesses that have a significant interest in Africa. To study the possible relationships, cross-sectional data obtained from 394 senior managers, managers and supervisors who operate businesses in the field of supply chain or work closely with supply chain operations was analysed to test the four hypotheses stated in the subsequent sections. The respondents identified as employees working in different industries, including aviation, education, automobile, and construction; and were drawn from English-speaking countries such as Kenya, Nigeria, Uganda, Ghana and South Africa. Francophone countries were not included in this study due to the language constraints and the comparatively small trade volume among them.

Literature

Ubuntu ideology and its application in international business

As African businesses interact more and more with the rest of the world (Barnes and Morris, 2008; Belton et al., 2021), the region’s way of doing business defined by Ubuntu, a term from the Bantu tribe of southern Africa (Okereke et al., 2018) becomes the focal point of ‘the way of doing business’. Ubuntu, from an ideological standpoint, is identical to communitarianism (Benuyenah and Pandya, 2020) or collectivism (Hofstede and Minkov, 2010), yet Ubuntu is entrenched in cultures found in the Southern, Central and Eastern regions of Africa with variants of it found in the Western parts of Africa (Abubakre et al., 2021). As a binding philosophy, Ubuntu may enhance value creation as has been noted in fields such as social work education (Mugumbate et al., 2023), global value systems (Amanor, 2019) and digital entrepreneurship and indigenous value systems. Other studies have assessed the concept in relation to capitalism (McDonald, 2010), corporate social responsibility (Okereke et al., 2018) and digital supply chain (Abubakre et al., 2021). Despite this progress, the current literature lacks specific studies that measure the influence of Ubuntu and its value creation on how managerial conflict management can benefit from the so-called ‘African worldview’ that places communal interest over those of the individual (McDonald, 2010).

Nature of organisational conflict from a cross-cultural perspective

Both Thomas and Kilmann (1978) and Rahim (2014) studied the nature of conflict, but it is the latter that emphasised the integrating nature of conflict management. Similar to cooperative conflict its manifestation depends on factors such as organisational setting, business context and culture. Differing cultures may play a role in how parties deal with cooperation or competition, yet, cooperation is at the core of Ubuntu. Like Rahim’s integrating style, cooperation combines the concern for self with concern for others to mediate in the organisational conflict. Therefore, the integrative or cooperative style is in principle seen as a communitarian or collectivist philosophy (Benuyenah and Pandya, 2020; Kurzynski, 2009) and, consequently, Ubuntuist. The academic literature, however, has not adequately demonstrated how Ubuntu might serve as a panacea for conflict in general; and the evidence that Ubuntu provides absolute protection from interpersonal and cultural conflict in organisational settings in Sub-Saharan Africa businesses is non-existent. To some in other parts of Africa, especially in West and Central Africa, the concept might not even be known as Africa is not linguistically and culturally homogenous. Therefore, to assume that Ubuntu could serve as a panacea to cross-cultural conflict is a hypothesis yet to be tested, and one which, if supported, may offer a long-term remedy to some of the conflict situations found in organisations operating within the supply chain sector. To fully explore the nature of conflict from the supply chain standpoint, two types of conflict may be taxonomised (1) intra-organisational conflict which relates to interpersonal, task-related, and to some extent, cross-cultural conflict (Caputo et al., 2018; Kiitam et al., 2016), and (2) inter-organizational conflict that relates to conflict between managers working for different organisations and may occur when negotiations or contracts are made (Lumineau et al., 2015). What is however more common in the supply chain is the inter-organisational conflict (Cheng, 2011; Kumar and Van Dissel, 1996). In particular, Cheng (2011) reported that dysfunctional conflict is inversely related to information sharing which is a key aspect of the supply chain. Information sharing may impact supplier integration which is perceived to have a positive effect on operational performance (therefore, value creation). The epistemic challenge still exists within the supply chain literature, where these relationships have not been wholly explored, especially within the context of Ubuntu philosophy in African businesses.

Elsewhere in Asia, earlier evidence of organisations leveraging cooperative conflict in dealing with supply chain issues was reported in China (Wong et al., 1999). With Ubuntu being broadly related to cooperative conflict, research needs to carefully explore the spheres of conflict, possible solutions to supply chain-related conflicts and how such practices can be evaluated over time and across the business landscape.

Cooperative conflict and its impact on value chains

What has been discussed so far relates to the broader conflict framework rather than specific conflict styles. However, within the Ubuntu ideology is the tendency of actors to be cooperative (Okereke et al., 2018) a feature that can be beneficial to business operations. Simatupang and Sridharan’s (2002) earlier contention that manufacturers and retailers need to collaborate in the supply chain to be effective in matching demand and supply, yet only a few follow-up scholarly research provide supporting insights into how integrating different cultural values, such as power distance and collectivism can influence cross-cultural conflict management (Chen et al., 2018). Like Africa, cooperative style is predominant among Asian cultures (Lewis, 2006; Tjosvold et al., 2009) and as African businesses turn East to foster more trade collaborations estimated to be around $540 billion by 2030 (Ombok and Genga, 2022) it is vital to measure the influence of culture within such relationships. Similar attempts to study culture by Hofstede (1980) purported that American values such as individualism may not function well abroad as this runs counter to Chinese collectivist culture (Dutta and Mishra, 2021). Studying cooperative conflict can help alleviate the strains on management and its associated influence on value chain challenges for managerial decisions relating to sustainability (Shahi et al., 2021) and firm performance (Agyei-Owusu et al., 2022; Akenroye et al., 2023). Without clear research in the field, the knowledge of supply chain operations will be incomplete but at the same time, actors may encounter more competitive scenarios (Rahim, 2014). As a result, two arguments are laid out to exemplify how lack of cooperation may interfere with supply chain value systems: First, the inter-organisational conflict assumes the form of opposing interests at the organisational level, such that the common good suffers; for example purchasing decisions (Plank et al., 2006). Second, intra-organisational conflict scenarios tend to impact teamwork (Caputo et al., 2018; Kiitam et al., 2016) and organisational performance (Hjerto and Kuvaas, 2017; Shaukat et al., 2017), thereby limiting the value of the supply chain.

Based on the preceding assessment of available studies and the critical view that Ubuntu’s effect on value creation and managerial conflict is untested, the following four hypotheses are suggested:

Hypothesis 1

Ubuntu ideology in managing conflict has a positive effect on cooperative behaviour and value creation.

Hypothesis 2

Cooperative Behaviour and Value Creation have a significant influence in eliminating inter-organisational managerial conflicts.

Hypothesis 3

Perceptions of Ubuntu ideology have a negative relationship with inter-organisational managerial conflict.

Hypothesis 4

Cooperative behaviour and value creation significantly mediate the relationship between Ubuntu Ideology in managing conflict and Inter-Organizational Managerial Conflict.

Methodology

Instrument

In line with the literature, an 18-item instrument was developed from an earlier scale by Spector and Jex (1998). The instrument was subdivided into three categories: cooperative behaviour and value creation, Ubuntu ideology in managing conflict and inter-organisational managerial conflict. An additional section of the survey was used to obtain demographic data among the respondents who were nationals of English-speaking African countries, working in industries such as Construction, Automobile and Aviation and Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. The modified instrument items were carefully reviewed by two professors, one of whom has significant expertise in statistical methodology. All items were evaluated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to, strongly agree (5).

Participants, responses and ethical approval

Supply chain operators with business interests in Africa are hard to reach as limited organisations have a cogent registry for such populations. Therefore, a convenience non-probability sampling technique was used whereby 700 questionnaires were distributed through professional connections and Tablon B2B Network (a UAE-based business group with a substantial African business membership) to identify senior managers (business owners), managers and supervisors who indicated they have experience in supply chain as long as they fall into the English-speaking nations engaged in supply chain activities specified by AUC/OECD (2022) criteria; however, participants were asked to indicate the industry they work in (See Table 1). A total of 394 responses were returned, indicating a response rate of 56.3%. Respondents with roles associated with or in supply chain functions were particularly targeted as they are likely to understand Ubuntu and cooperative behaviour more.

Table 1.

Demographic results.

Demographics	Frequency	%
Gender
Male	253	64.2
Female	141	35.8
Total	394	100.0
Nationality
Ghanaian	40	10.2
Kenyan	100	25.4
Nigerian	8	2.0
South African	6	1.5
Ugandan	198	50.3
Zimbabwean	42	10.7
Total	394	100.0
Organisation category
Agriculture, forestry and fisheries	37	9.4
Automobile and aviation	74	18.8
Construction	71	18.0
Education	22	5.6
Electronic retail	40	10.2
Fashion retail	8	2.0
Health	83	21.1
Tourism and hospitality	58	14.7
Total	394	100.0
Position
Manager	203	51.5
Senior manager	50	12.7
Supervisor	141	35.8
Total	394	100.0

Data analysis and results

Demographic results

Analysis of the demographic data revealed that the majority of the sample comprised males (64.2%) with Ugandan (50.3%) nationality. However, the least reported nationality was Nigerian (2%), and South African (1.5%). In the context of professional information, Health (21.1%), Automobile and Aviation (18.8%), and Construction (18.0%) are the common organisational affiliation of the sample. Furthermore, the majority of the sample had a Manager position (51.5%). The full demographic data is represented in Table 1.

Measurement model assessments

The use of PLS-SEM incorporates assessment of measurement and structural model. The measurement model assesses reliability and validity before the structural model assessment. It strengthens the psychometric properties, predictive quality, and statistical strength of the focused model. It was done using relevant tests and confirming the minimum thresholds were met.

Reliability measuring consistency as indicated in Table 2 using indicator loading. Following Hair et al. (2017) criterion, indicator loading greater than 0.5 was recommended. Because it explains the 50% variance of indicators, signifying indicator reliability. It was observed in Table 2 that the indicator loading was between 0.50 and 0.70 (see Figure 1). It meets the significant threshold (Hair et al., 2017). However, items having less than 0.50 indicator loading including CBVC1, IOMC2, IOMC4, and UIMC6 were deleted. As to increase the validity of the model. Furthermore, items IOMC6, UIMC2, and UIMC4 had indicator loading lower than 0.50 but they contributed more towards composite reliability and AVE value. Thus, these items were retained in the main model by following Hair et al. (2017).

Table 2.

Assessment results of the measurement model for the constructs.

		Indicators loading	Cronbach’s alpha	Composite reliability	Average variance extracted (AVE)
STEP ONE (1)
Cooperative behavior and value creation	CBVC1	0.086	0.746	0.801	0.455
	CBVC2	0.831
	CBVC3	0.586
	CBVC4	0.842
	CBVC5	0.472
	CBVC6	0.870
Inter-organisational managerial conflicts	IOMC1	0.816	0.744	0.801	0.431
	IOMC2	0.384
	IOMC3	0.842
	IOMC4	0.366
	IOMC5	0.860
	IOMC6	0.438
Ubuntu ideology in managing conflict	UIMC1	0.903	0.784	0.831	0.490
	UIMC2	0.522
	UIMC3	0.872
	UIMC4	0.450
	UIMC5	0.893
	UIMC6	0.217
STEP TWO (2)
Cooperative behavior and value creation	CBVC2	0.822	0.747	0.781	0.517
	CBVC3	0.520
	CBVC4	0.814
	CBVC5	0.493
	CBVC6	0.855
Inter-organisational managerial conflicts	IOMC1	0.802	0.736	0.808	0.568
	IOMC3	0.839
	IOMC5	0.850
	IOMC6	0.448
Ubuntu ideology in managing conflict	UIMC1	0.920	0.834	0.925	0.573
	UIMC2	0.465
	UIMC3	0.878
	UIMC4	0.489
	UIMC5	0.890

Note(s). Item deleted from the model. CBVC: Cooperative behaviour and value creation, IOMC: Inter-organisational managerial conflicts, UIMC: Ubuntu ideology in managing conflict, AVE: Average variance extracted.

Figure 1.

Testing the measurement equation model. Note(s). The numbers on the arrow lines are the partial regression coefficients between the main constructs and indicator loadings between the constructs and their measured qualitative and quantitative variables.

PLS composite reliability is considered for the indication of internal consistency. Generally, a value between 0.60 and 0.70 indicates acceptable reliability while values between 0.70 and 0.90 indicate significant reliability (Hair et al., 2017). Current results are reported in Table 2. It was found that composite reliability ranged from 0.781 (CBVC) to 0.808 (IOMC) to 0.925 (UIMC), respectively. Thus, it dictates the significant composite reliability and consistency of the three constructs i.e. CBVC, IOMC, and UIMC. Besides, another assessment employed to explore the instruments accuracy and reliability for the assessment of construct was the AVE value. Generally, AVE values greater than 0.50 indicate acceptable construct convergence to explain the item’ variance. Table 2 represents the AVE value range from 0.517 to 0.573, respectively. It suggests significant convergent validity in assessing the three key constructs studied herein.

The other confirmation of construct validity was done by the discriminant validity. It suggests that the constructs are empirically different from each other. According to Fornell and Larcker’s (1981) criterion, the square root of the AVE value should always be greater within the construct than in other constructs. The current discriminant validity results in Table 3 supports this rule as the squareroot of the AVE values for each construct is absolutely greater than the correlation it has with any of the other two constructs. As such, it can be seen in the table that the diagonal values of the correlation coefficient were higher than the remaining constructs, thus, discriminant validity is satisfied for all constructs. Alternatively, the HTMT criterion is also being utilised to determine the discriminant validity of the constructs. They suggested that the HTMT criterion is suitable when indicator loading is different, and the model assesses reflective constructs (Henseler et al., 2015; Voorhees et al., 2016). The HTMT signifies when the inter-construct HTMT value is below the 0.85 threshold. The current PLS HTMT results are shown in Table 4. It was reported that all the HTMT values were significantly lower than 0.85. Thus, confirming the discriminant validity of constructs assessing core dimensions.

Table 3.

Square Root of the AVE Values to assess Discriminant validity.

	Cooperative behavior and value creation	Inter-organisational managerial conflicts	Ubuntu ideology in managing conflict
Cooperative behavior and value creation	0.719
Inter-organisational managerial conflicts	−0.524	0.753
Ubuntu ideology in managing conflict	0.430	−0.308	0.757

Table 4.

Heterotrait–Monotrait (HTMT) ratio.

Cooperative behavior and value creation
Inter-organisational managerial conflicts	0.690
Ubuntu ideology in managing conflict	0.394	0.287

Results of the structural model

The confirmation of reliability and validity pointed toward the next step of PLS-SEM. It is about structural model assessment. It incorporates the coefficient of multiple regression to test the relationship between constructs (e.g. cooperative behaviour and value creation, inter-organisational managerial conflicts, and Ubuntu ideology in managing conflict). In the first step, collinearity was assessed between constructs using VIF. This was done to avoid bias and correlation between independent variables. The threshold limit suggested by Kock and Lynn (2012) was followed. Current results show that VIF ranges from 1.133 to 3.314, being lower than 5. Thus, it dictates no multicollinearity between constructs.

The objective of the current research is to confirm the predictors of inter-organisational managerial conflicts. Thus, hypothesis testing assessing these predictions was explained in the second step. This was done using the bootstrapping method (n = 5000). It assumes path coefficient significance, confidence intervals, and avoidance of errors in the estimation of nonparametric distribution (Wong et al., 2012). The regression coefficient and subsequent significance of the path are shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Testing the structural equation model. Note(s). The numbers in the circles are the coefficients of determination (R²): 0.185 between Ubuntu ideology in managing conflict and cooperative behaviour and value creation, and 0.283 between Ubuntu ideology in managing conflict and inter-organisational managerial conflicts. The numbers on the arrow lines are the partial regression coefficients between the constructs and between the constructs and their measured qualitative and quantitative variables.

Before hypothesis testing, the coefficient of determination was determined. It was defined as the variance in dependent variables explained by independent variables. The PLS measure of R-squared suggests current variance in DV. Generally, the number of predictors determines the coefficient of determination (Hair et al., 2017). In PLS-SEM analysis, R-squared is generally acceptable in all ranges. However, it ranges in the weak, moderate, or higher range (Raithel et al., 2012). Currently, it ranges from 18.5% (CBCV) to 28.3% (IOMC), respectively (see Figure 2). In other words, the current R² suggests acceptable variance with a low number of predictors. From the R-Squared results, it can be said that 18.5% of variance in the CBCV construct is explained by the UIMC construct. Likewise, 28.3% of the variance in IOMC can be explained by UIMC and CBCV constructs.

The structural model results confirm the significant effect between cooperative behaviour and value creation, inter-organisational managerial conflicts, and Ubuntu ideology in managing conflict. The results in Table 5 pointed out that Ubuntu ideology in managing conflict has a positive effect on cooperative behaviour and value creation (Beta = 0.430, p = 0.000). It means positive Ubuntu ideology boosts cooperative behaviour and value creation. Thus, it supports H1 “Ubuntu ideology in managing conflict has a positive effect on cooperative behaviour and value creation”. The next result dictates that cooperative behaviour and value creation negatively impact inter-organisational managerial conflicts (Beta = −0.480, p = 0.000). In other words, constructive cooperative behaviour and value creation weakened inter-organisational managerial conflicts. Thus, it results in lower inter-organisational managerial conflicts in organisational settings. Hence, it supports the H2 of current research. Lastly, the direct effect measurement suggests Ubuntu ideology in managing conflict negatively influences inter-organisational managerial conflicts (Beta = −0.102, p = 0.027). In other words, when individuals had a positive Ubuntu ideology, their inter-organisational managerial conflicts were minimised. Thus, H3 “Perceptions of Ubuntu ideology have a negative relationship with inter-organisational managerial conflict” was accepted.

Table 5.

Hypothesis testing using PLS structural model.

Hypothesis path	Est (s.e.)	95% CI	t-statistics	p-value
Cooperative behavior and value creation -> inter-organizational managerial conflicts	−0.480 (0.045)	−0.566/−0.392	10.677	0.000***
Ubuntu ideology in managing conflict -> cooperative behavior and value creation	0.430 (0.041)	0.348/0.511	10.386	0.000***
Ubuntu ideology in managing conflict -> inter-organizational managerial conflicts	−0.102 (0.046)	−0.195/−0.014	2.205	0.027*
Ubuntu ideology in managing conflict -> cooperative behavior and value creation -> inter-organizational managerial conflicts	−0.207 (0.029)	−0.269/−0.155	7.143	0.000***

Note(s). *** and * Significant at 1 and 5%.

The indirect effects are also shown in Table 5. The suggestion is that cooperative behaviour and value creation significantly mediate the relationship between Ubuntu ideology in managing conflict and inter-organisational managerial conflict (Beta = −0.207, p = 0.000). The mediating effect of cooperative behaviour and value creation changed the strength of the relationship between Ubuntu ideology and inter-organisational managerial conflict. In other words, changes in Ubuntu ideology and the resultant change in inter-organisational managerial conflicts are strengthened by incorporating cooperative behaviour and value creation in organisations. Hence, the fourth hypothesis (H4) was accepted.

Discussion

The complex effects of Ubuntu ideology focus on collectivist constructs like respect, morality, communality, group solidarity, conciliation, and concepts relating to humanness. In the organisational context, such variables signal collectivist ideology that helps the organisation and its agents form a deep understanding of cooperation and resolve inter-organisational conflicts (Mangaliso et al., 2022). This study follows similar principles by exploring Ubuntu’s ideology in cooperative behaviour and value creation as well as investigating inter-organisational managerial conflicts. The PLS results supported the core hypothesis, thus specifying the role of cooperative behaviour and value creation, and Ubuntu ideology in managing conflict and consequently minimising inter-organisational managerial conflicts.

The PLS results support the first hypothesis (H1): “Ubuntu ideology in managing conflict has a positive effect on cooperative behaviour and value creation”. The previous notion points to the cultural relevance in dealing with cooperative behaviour which was extensively featured in the works of Karsten and Illa (2005) and later, Nhedzi and Azionya (2023). The wider scope of Ubuntu is not only featured in the broader cooperative behaviour but also language appropriateness as a strong contextual feature of the African way of doing business (Nhedzi and Azionya, 2023). In practice, therefore, language becomes a critical tool in cooperative behaviour as it enables managers to better deal with complicated events in the supply chain and the wider international business context and explain the conflicting points of view in language and cultural-specific contexts. Ubuntuism (the act, practice, or nature of Ubuntu) tends to promote conflict management and cooperative behaviour through the effective knowledge construction via practices such as rhetorical stories and metaphors (Nansubuga and Munene, 2019) subsequently leading to a sustainable corporate performance and value creation (Khomba and Kangaude-ulaya, 2013). Similar to the current study, other empirical suggestions explained the interactionalist approach that makes a team fully functional and through social forms, promotion of values and the essence of morality in cooperative behaviours (Abubakre et al., 2021; Okereke et al., 2018; Swartz and Davies, 1997).

Identical to H1 is H2, which aimed at exploring the influence of cooperative behaviour and value creation on eliminating inter-organisational conflict. Whilst eliminating conflict in organisations might present practical challenges (Benuyenah, 2013; Benuyenah, 2025), the acceptance of H2 in the current study suggests that inter-organisational conflict can be minimised with the right cooperative efforts. This study emphasizes the need for cooperation at the macro level rather than a competitive (threats) approach in seeking project effectiveness, including delays (Costanza, 2016). This idea was previously tested through the use of ‘social license to operate’ in communities where conflict might be rife (Costanza, 2016) and where hurdles and barriers restrict effective organisational management because of managerial favouritism, diversified cultural affiliations and unsuitable values (Hussein and Al-Mamary, 2019; Rahim, 2023). Therefore, organisations that minimize the above challenges and hurdles will likely create value and effective structures that maximise productivity, minimise inter-organisational managerial conflicts, increase employee satisfaction, and limit turnover intentions (Carrigan et al., 2017; Weerarathna, 2017).

The principal proposition of the third accepted hypothesis (H3) is to test the perceptions of Ubuntu ideology and its negative relationship with inter-organisational managerial conflict. The assumption that discernments of Ubuntu ideology fosters less conflict has been confirmed and corroborates earlier studies that purport broad African management practices as a panacea to organisational conflict (Mofuoa, 2014; Ramnund-Mansingh and Naidoo, 2023). Yet, according to Okereke et al. (2018), there is rising evidence for the erosion of typical Ubuntu values due to the competitive pressures for profit within organisations as well as the acculturation of Western values and their influence on indigenous African values. Like collectivism (Hofstede and Minkov, 2010), Guanxi and similar Eastern values (Kim et al., 2007), Ubuntuism needs to retain its core values of ‘brotherhood’ and ‘sisterhood’ that is beyond the family circles and onto the meso (communal) and macro levels of society where organisational engagements occur (Mugumbate et al., 2023). According to Chakabwata and Mukazi (2022), a way to retain communal values would be to reorient the African cultures through multilingual and bilingual education to restore previously lost values. Whilst potential challenges exist for this viewpoint, if done effectively, African businesses might benefit indirectly from restoring Ubuntu values. The outcomes of such core values are metaphorically illustrated as a collectivist plant whereby each part of the plant provides mutual support akin to Ubuntuism: the root symbolizes collectivism, the stem incorporates cultures while its branches cover the whole set of wider cultural norms, values, and customs. Thus, inculcating such a perspective means a culturally absorptive organisation where the benefits of culture outweigh the cons therefore yielding a more balanced treatment of culture in cross-cultural management research (Stahl et al., 2017). What has been established in this area of the current study (H3) and the wider management literature is that peaceful cultural values promote effective inter-organisational conflict management; however, this standpoint is historically and mainly ideological. The call for consideration to be given to other factors, such as differentials in conflict management styles across generations, technology, and diversity among the workforce (Rahim, 2023), suggests that Ubuntu ideology cannot be perceived as the sole and ultimate mediator on inter-organisational conflict.

Finally, the PLS mediation test aimed at exploring the fourth hypothesis (H4) is an attempt to determine the overarching causal mechanisms and pathways through which cooperative behaviour and value creation influence Ubuntu ideology and inter-organisational managerial conflict. The notion that both cooperative behaviour and value creation indirectly play a role in how organisational actors act and interact has been validated and supports earlier views on the subject of value systems and prospects for stakeholder responsibility (Abubakre et al., 2021; Mofuoa, 2014). Therefore, our view of Ubuntu’s ideology and inter-organisational managerial conflict is better explained when viewed from the perspective of what the entire organisational system provides its stakeholders, including suppliers. This arguably illustrates the ideological framework of Guanxi specifically (Horwitz, 2017) and Confucian communitarianism more broadly (Crestani and Taylor, 2021). Other studies that have explored the thesis of value creation indicate the connection between the individual and the collective to the greater good of the organisation (Odari, 2020), including a more expansive marketisation (McDonald, 2010), digital entrepreneurship (Abubakre et al., 2021) and a catalyst in driving socially responsible behaviours in the era of capitalism (Okereke et al., 2018).

Other empirical results also support this mediation. Research results of Odari (2020) argued that cooperative behaviour and value creation act as a source for Ubuntu ideology in an organisational context. This resource and its resultant ideology put limits upon the creation of inter-organisational managerial conflicts. Thus, with no inter-organisational managerial conflicts, the resources and sources of Ubuntu ideology go on in the long term (Lesch, 2017). In short, current research results had strong empirical and theoretical foundations.

Implications and recommendations

Implications

From the findings, a number of implications and recommendations are derived for academic researchers, supply chain managers, and general managers. First, this study provides an essential theoretical footing for subsequent supply chain management (SCM) studies. It provides the impetus for further exploration of several important variables, such as the link between a responsible supply chain, Ubuntuism, and value creation for African businesses (Okereke et al., 2018), and the value of Ubuntu in the digitalization of African business processes. These are crucial areas for research in SCM as they have an indisputable effect on trade development (Mugurusi and Oluka, 2021; Viljoen and Drotskie, 2017) and the indigenisation of management within Africa (Lake, 2022; Ogunyemi et al., 2022). Future studies could, therefore, consider comparisons between existing studies on the theory of collectivism and communitarian ethics elsewhere and Ubuntu studies, specifically looking at the degree of assimilation of Ubuntu values in other parts of Africa where the philosophy is not as popular. Second, it has been established that the concept of Ubuntu is complex as its philosophical boundaries are hard to specify theoretically and in practice. Whilst some believe that the ideology emanated from the Bantu tribe in South Africa and was meant to promote an ‘African worldview’ (McDonald, 2010), such a position can be misleading as Africa is neither homogeneous in culture nor commerce. Third, the field of (SCM) is growing exponentially, especially within the sphere of digitalization. With such rapid growth, SCM must embrace other values within the value chain much as African managers would expect other organisational managers from the rest of the world to understand Ubuntuism. Such an approach is global and inclusive in nature and would ensure that contracts and their outcomes provide a win-win solution to all involved.

Recommendations

As previously reported, conflict can be dysfunctional (Bobot, 2011; Pal and Srivastava, 2016), and inter-organisational conflict, in particular, can impede progress, collaboration, and synergy; therefore, leaders of businesses within the supply chain community need to commit to a more cooperative effort by ensuring their workforces are adequately trained in conflict management. Such training efforts must cut through different layers of culture, including those outside of the African continent, and provide self-awareness and relationship-building. The focus should be on relationship building and less on ideology, as variations in ideologies can sometimes lead to conflict, thereby taking away the benefits of collaborative efforts.

This study has established that Ubuntu’s first principles are collective well-being and mutual value creation. In the context of the supply chain, managers might struggle to ensure that every single stakeholder’s needs are satisfied proportionately; therefore, rather than viewing Ubuntu as the sole cultural framework or criteria by which managerial standards have to conform, it would be more beneficial to combine such views with other principles of effective SCM. These might include, for example, giving consideration to challenges of national regulatory frameworks and insufficient information systems that limit efficiency (Akenroye et al., 2023), and being aware of the impact of regional self-interest defined by economic blocs such as ECOWAS, EAC and COMESA. Additionally, the political influence of different colonial entities (British, French, Portuguese and American) may interfere with the promotion of Ubuntu values as such Western values tend to be individualistic as opposed to the collectivist nature of Ubuntu; as a result, managers require tact and wisdom in weaving through the complex network of events and factors that define the SCM landscape in Africa.

Finally, as the ultimate goal of SCM is efficiency, which leads to customer satisfaction, practitioners must reconsider what value is for stakeholders. Whereas value might be challenging to define, in the context of this current study, it is perceived as a derivative of peaceful relationships and effective conflict management. Considering that political conflicts are rife in some parts of the Sub-Sahara, it is imperative for managers to be aware of the impact of such national and regional conflicts on their external dealings with suppliers and contractors who may decide not to work with African businesses because of such risks. Such non-cooperative decisions are not to be misjudged as anti-Ubuntu, and managers must ensure that foreign players are educated and convinced of the differences.

Limitations

While this empirical study contributes valuably to the understanding of how the Ubuntu philosophy can be leveraged to mitigate inter-organisational conflict within supply chain management, it is subject to some limitations, which can be viewed as avenues for future research. First, the cross-sectional design used in this study limits a definitive causality inference. As such, future studies could assess the tested relationships in this paper by employing a longitudinal research design, which would also allow the study to assess the nature and impact of the Ubuntu on supply chain management (SCM) outcomes. Second, since the survey was self-reported, there is a risk for bias. As such, future research could incorporate more objective metrics rather than relying on self-reported metrics, as this would help reduce bias. Third, future studies could delve further into the nuances of Ubuntu as exhibited across different African countries and cultures. By incorporating the nuances of Ubuntu, different interpretations could be arrived at beyond those presented in this study, where Ubuntu was treated as a homogeneous construct across Africa, without going deep into its nuances.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this study successfully explored and presented empirical evidence on the impact of adopting the Ubuntu philosophy on resolving inter-organisational managerial conflicts and fostering value creation within the African supply chain management context. Where organisations adopted the Ubuntu philosophy in their practices, their workplaces became more cooperative, thereby reducing conflicts among themselves and with other organisations within their respective supply chains. Rather than conflicts, they would focus on mutual value creation. The findings suggest that organisations should embrace the Ubuntu principles of collective well-being to foster more harmonious and productive cooperation and partnerships.

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Vic Benuyenah

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Abubakre

Faik

Mkansi

(2021) Digital entrepreneurship and Indigenous value systems: an ubuntu perspective. Information Systems Journal 31(6): 838–862. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12343

Agyei-Owusu

Asamoah

Nuertey

, et al. (2022) Examining the relationship between dimensions of supply chain integration, operational performance and firm performance: evidence from Ghana. Management Research Review 45(12): 1644–1669. https://doi.org/10.1108/mrr-06-2021-0464

Akanji

Mordi

Ituma

, et al. (2020) The influence of organisational culture on leadership style in higher education institutions. Personnel Review 49(3): 709–732. https://doi.org/10.1108/pr-08-2018-0280

Akenroye

Zsidisin

Mkansi

, et al. (2023) Connecting the dots: uncovering the relationships between challenges confronting Africa ’ s organ transplant supply chain systems. Supply Chain Management 7(3): 43–61.

Amanor

(2019) Global value chains and agribusiness in Africa: upgrading or capturing smallholder production? Agrarian South 8(1–2): 30–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/2277976019838144

AUC/OECD (2022) Africa’s Development Dynamics 2022: Regional Value Chains for a Sustainable Recovery. Paris: AUC, Addis Ababa/OECD Publishing. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1787/2e3b97fd-en

Barnes

Morris

(2008) Staying alive in the global automotive industry: what can developing economies learn from South Africa about linking into global automotive value chains? European Journal of Development Research 20(1): 31–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/09578810701853157

Belton

Rosen

Middleton

, et al. (2021) COVID-19 impacts and adaptations in Asia and Africa’s aquatic food value chains. Marine Policy 129: 104523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2021.104523

Benuyenah

(2013) Conflict perspectives in international business organisations: the changing trends and its management In: Management, Leadership and Governance Conference. V Ribiere and L Worasinchai, p. 417. Thailand, 2013.

10.

Benuyenah

(2025) Conflict barometer: An investigation into cross-cultural conflict and its effect on performance. International Journal of Business and Globalisation 39(1): 83–106. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBG.2025.143576

11.

Benuyenah

Pandya

(2020) Meaning of “employee happiness” within the context of complex organisations? An explanatory review on the UAE labour force. Rajagiri Management Journal 14(2): 169–180. https://doi.org/10.1108/ramj-04-2020-0012

12.

Bobot

(2011) Functional and dysfunctional conflicts in retailer-supplier relationships. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 39(1): 25–50. https://doi.org/10.1108/09590551111104468

13.

Caputo

Ayoko

(2015) Getting to a stranger’s smile: the role of cultural intelligence in negotiation and conflict management. In: The 28th Annual International Association for Conflict Management Conference (June 2015 ). Epub ahead of print 2015.

14.

Caputo

Marzi

Pellegrini

, et al. (2018) Conflict management in family businesses: a bibliometric analysis and systematic literature review. International Journal of Conflict Management 29(4): 519–542. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijcma-02-2018-0027

15.

Carrigan

McEachern

Moraes

, et al. (2017) The fine jewellery industry: corporate responsibility challenges and institutional forces facing SMEs. Journal of Business Ethics 143(4): 681–699. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3071-4

16.

Chakabwata

Mukazi

(2022) Ubuntu philosophy and online assessment in higher education institutions. In: Keengwe

(ed). Handbook of Research on Transformative and Innovative Pedagogies in Education. IGI Global Scientific Publishing, 257–275. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-9561-9.ch014

17.

Chen

Chao

MCH

Xie

, et al. (2018) Transforming cross-cultural conflict into collaboration: the integration of Western and eastern values. Cross Cultural & Strategic Management 25(1): 70–95. https://doi.org/10.1108/ccsm-10-2016-0187

18.

Cheng

(2011) Inter-organizational relationships and information sharing in supply chains. International Journal of Information Management 31(4): 374–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2010.09.004

19.

Costanza

(2016) Mining conflict and the politics of obtaining a social license: insight from Guatemala. World Development 79: 97–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.10.021

20.

Crestani

Taylor

(2021) Communicate belonging? Duoethnography of an organisational change study. Journal of Organizational Ethnography 10(2): 180–192. https://doi.org/10.1108/joe-01-2019-0004

21.

Demuyakor

(2020) Ghana Go digital agenda: the impact of zipline drone technology on digital emergency health delivery in Ghana. Shanlax International Journal of Arts, Science and Humanities 8(1): 242–253. https://doi.org/10.34293/sijash.v8i1.3301

22.

Derwik

Hellström

(2021) How supply chain professionals learn at work: an investigation of learning mechanisms. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 51(7): 738–763. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijpdlm-11-2019-0335

23.

Diaby

Cruz

Nsakanda

(2013) Shortening cycle times in multi-product, capacitated production environments through quality level improvements and setup reduction. European Journal of Operational Research 228(3): 526–535. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2013.02.026

24.

Dolan

(2004) On farm and packhouse: employment at the bottom of a global value chain. Rural Sociology 69(1): 99–126. https://doi.org/10.1526/003601104322919928

25.

Dutta

Mishra

(2021) Predictors of applicant attraction among Gen-X and millennials: evidence from an emerging economy. International Journal of Manpower 42(8): 1479–1499. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijm-04-2020-0169

26.

Fornell

Larcker

(1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research 18(1): 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104

27.

Hair

Hollingsworth

Randolph

, et al. (2017) An updated and expanded assessment of PLS-SEM in information systems research. Industrial Management & Data Systems 117(3): 442–458. https://doi.org/10.1108/imds-04-2016-0130

28.

Henseler

Ringle

Sarstedt

(2015) A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 43(1): 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8

29.

Hernandez-Matias

Ocampo

Hidalgo

, et al. (2019) Lean manufacturing and operational performance: interrelationships between human-related lean practices. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 31(2): 217–235. https://doi.org/10.1108/jmtm-04-2019-0140

30.

Hjerto

Kuvaas

(2017) Burning hearts in conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management 28(1): 50–73. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijcma-02-2016-0009

31.

Hofstede

(1980) Motivation, leadership, and organization: do American theories apply abroad? Organizational Dynamics 9(1): 42–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-2616(80)90013-3

32.

Hofstede

Minkov

(2010) Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. 3rd edition. USA: McGraw-Hill.

33.

Horwitz

(2017) International HRM in South African multinational companies. Journal of International Management 45(19): 208–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intman.2017.01.005

34.

Hussein

AFF

Al-Mamary

YHS

(2019) Conflicts: their types, and their negative and positive effects on organizations. International Journal of Scientific and Technology Research 8(8): 10–13.

35.

Karsten

Illa

(2005) Ubuntu as a key African management concept: contextual background and practical insights for knowledge application. Journal of Managerial Psychology Fink G 20(7): 607–620. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940510623416

36.

Khomba

Kangaude-ulaya

(2013) Indigenisation of corporate strategies in Africa: lessons from the African ubuntu philosophy. China-USA Business Review 12(07): 672–689.

37.

Kiitam

McLay

Pilli

(2016) Managing conflict in organisational change. International Journal of Agile Systems and Management 9(2): 114–134. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijasm.2016.078575

38.

Kilmann

Thomas

(1978) Conflict management: an attributional framework for organizing normative theory. Academy of Management Review 3(1): 59–68. https://doi.org/10.2307/257577

39.

Kim

T-Y

Wang

Kondo

, et al. (2007) Conflict management styles: the differences among the Chinese, Japanese, and koreans. International Journal of Conflict Management 18(1): 23–41. https://doi.org/10.1108/10444060710759309

40.

Kock

Lynn

(2012) Lateral collinearity and misleading results in variance-based SEM: an illustration and recommendations. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 13(7): 546–580. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00302

41.

Kumar

Van Dissel

(1996) Sustainable collaboration: managing conflict and cooperation in interorganizational systems. MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems 20(3): 279–299. https://doi.org/10.2307/249657

42.

Kurzynski

(2009) Peter drucker: modern day aristotle for the business community. Journal of Management History 15(4): 357–374. https://doi.org/10.1108/17511340910987293

43.

Lake

(2022) Abegar Indigenous conflict resolution system: a community‐based reconciliation. Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research 14(3): 173–184. https://doi.org/10.1108/jacpr-06-2021-0610

44.

Lesch

(2017) Ubuntu 2150: The Co-Creation of Preferable, Inclusive South African Futures. OCAD University. Epub ahead of print 2017.

45.

Lewis

(2006) When cultures collide: Leading across cultures. Nicholas Brealey Inernational. 3rd edition. London.

46.

Lumineau

Eckerd

Handley

(2015) Inter-organizational conflicts. Journal of Strategic Contracting and Negotiation 1(1): 42–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/2055563614568493

47.

Mangaliso

Ndanga

LZB

, et al. (2022) Contextualizing organizational change management in Africa: incorporating the core values of ubuntu. Journal of African Business 23(4): 1029–1048. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228916.2021.1984817

48.

McDonald

(2010) Ubuntu bashing: the marketisation of ‘African values’ in South Africa. Review of African Political Economy 37(124): 139–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/03056244.2010.483902

49.

Mensah

Copuroglu

Fening

(2012) Total quality management in Ghana: critical success factors and model for implementation of a quality revolution. Journal of African Business 13(2): 123–133. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228916.2012.693444

50.

Mofuoa

(2014). In: Duarte A

Simões

(eds) Applying Ubuntu-Botho African Ethics to Stakeholder Corporate Social Responsibility. Management Research: The Journal of the Iberoamerican Academy of Management Gonçalves Das Neves J, Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Vol. 12 3, pp. 222–239.

51.

Mugumbate

Mupedziswa

Twikirize

, et al. (2023) Understanding ubuntu and its contribution to social work education in Africa and other regions of the world. Social Work Education 43: 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/02615479.2023.2168638

52.

Mugurusi

Oluka

(2021). Towards Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) in Supply Chain Management: A Typology and Research Agenda. In: Dolgui

Bernard

Lemoine

von Cieminski

Romero

(eds), Advances in Production Management Systems. Artificial Intelligence for Sustainable and Resilient Production Systems. APMS 2021. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, vol 633. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85910-74

53.

Nachum

Stevens

Newenham-Kahindi

, et al. (2023) Africa rising: opportunities for advancing theory on people, institutions, and the nation state in international business. Journal of International Business Studies 54(5): 938–955. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-022-00581-z

54.

Nansubuga

Munene

(2019) Awakening the ubuntu episteme to embrace knowledge management in Africa. Journal of Knowledge Management 24(1): 105–119. https://doi.org/10.1108/jkm-09-2018-0603

55.

Nhedzi

Azionya

(2023) The limited role of African strategic communication practitioners in ethical communication practices. Corporate Communications: An International Journal 28(7): 68–83. https://doi.org/10.1108/ccij-10-2021-0115

56.

Odari

(2020) The role of value creating education and ubuntu philosophy in fostering humanism in Kenya. Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies in Education 9(SI): 56–68. https://doi.org/10.32674/jise.v9is(1).1857

57.

Ogunyemi

Anozie

(2022) Indigenous African wisdom and its orientation to the common good: responsible leadership and principled entrepreneurship. In: Ogunyemi

Ogunyemi

Anozie

(eds) Responsible Management in Africa, Volume 1: Traditions of Principled Entrepreneurship. Emerald Publishing Limited, pp. 1–12. Available at: https://www.emerald.com/books/edited-volume/11934/chapter/81936573

58.

Okereke

Vincent

Mordi

(2018) Determinants of Nigerian managers’ environmental attitude: Africa’s ubuntu ethics versus global capitalism. Thunderbird International Business Review 60(4): 577–590. https://doi.org/10.1002/tie.21974

59.

Ombok

Genga

(2022) African exports seen doubling on Asian shipments. StanChart Says, Available at: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-10-13/african-exports-seen-doubling-on-asian-shipments-stanchart-says

60.

Pal

Srivastava

(2016) An empirical study on psychological capital, demography and employee happiness: a relational perspective. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology 42(1): 63–71.

61.

Plank

Newell

Reid

(2006) Organizational buyers and conflict: the impact of conflict on ongoing and new purchasing situations. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 12(1): 2–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2006.02.004

62.

Rahim

(2014) A measure of styles of handling interpersonal conflict youngstown state university blake and mouton (1964) first presented a conceptual scheme for classi-conflicts into five types: fying the modes (styles) for handling interpersonal their scheme and. 26(2): 368–376.

63.

Rahim

(2023) Managing Conflict in Organizations. New York: Routledge. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003285861

64.

Raithel

Sarstedt

Scharf

, et al. (2012) On the value relevance of customer satisfaction. Multiple drivers and multiple markets. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 40(4): 509–525. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-011-0247-4

65.

Ramnund-Mansingh

Naidoo

(2023) Lead the African way. African Journal of Economic and Management Studies 14(2): 177–187. https://doi.org/10.1108/ajems-07-2022-0270

66.

Rutashobya

Chiwona-karltun

Ilomo

, et al. (2021) Business in Africa in the era of digital technology. In: Abugre

Osabutey

ELC

Siguéeds

(eds). Advances in Theory and Practice of Emerging Markets, Cham: Springer International Publishing. Available at: https://link.springer.com/10-1007/978-3-030-70538-1

67.

Shahi

Shiva

Dia

(2021) Integrated sustainable supply chain management and firm performance in the Indian textile industry. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal 16(3): 614–635. https://doi.org/10.1108/qrom-03-2020-1904

68.

Shaukat

Yousaf

Sanders

(2017) Examining the linkages between relationship conflict, performance and turnover intentions. International Journal of Conflict Management 28(1): 4–23. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijcma-08-2015-0051

69.

Simatupang

Sridharan

(2002) The collaborative supply chain. International Journal of Logistics Management 13(1): 15–30. https://doi.org/10.1108/09574090210806333

70.

Spector

Jex

(1998) Development of four self-report measures of job stressors and strain: interpersonal conflict at work scale, organizational constraints scale, quantitative workload inventory, and physical symptoms inventory. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 3(4): 356–367. https://doi.org/10.1037//1076-8998.3.4.356

71.

Stahl

Miska

Lee

H-J

, et al. (2017) The upside of cultural differences: towards a more balanced treatment of culture in cross-cultural management research. Cross Cultural & Strategic Management 24(1): 2–12. https://doi.org/10.1108/ccsm-11-2016-0191

72.

Swartz

Davies

(1997) Ubuntu ‐ the spirit of African transformation management ‐ a review. The Leadership & Organization Development Journal 18(6): 290–294. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437739710176239

73.

Tjosvold

(2009) Empowering individuals for team innovation in China: conflict management and problem solving. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research 2(2): 185–206. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-4716.2009.00036.x

74.

Viljoen

Drotskie

(2017) Leadership in multicultural environments: a courageous case of forgiveness for South Africa. In: Koonce

(ed) Developing Leaders for Positive Organizing. Emerald Publishing Limited, pp. 135–157.

75.

Voorhees

Brady

Calantone

, et al. (2016) Discriminant validity testing in marketing: an analysis, causes for concern, and proposed remedies. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 44(1): 119–134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-015-0455-4

76.

Weerarathna

(2017) Research gaps in organizational conflicts: future research perspectives. International Journal of Human Resource Studies 7(4): 240. https://doi.org/10.5296/ijhrs.v7i4.12214

77.

Wong

Tjosvold

Wong

WYL

, et al. (1999) Cooperative and competitive conflict for quality supply partnerships between China and Hong Kong. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 29(1): 7–21. https://doi.org/10.1108/09600039910253850

78.

Wong

CWY

Lai

Shang

K-C

, et al. (2012) Green operations and the moderating role of environmental management capability of suppliers on manufacturing firm performance. International Journal of Production Economics 140(1): 283–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2011.08.031