← Every exhibit
The conflict-performance reading
A conflict score becomes useful only when its measure, outcome, context, and decision remain visible together.
| Review field | Record | Decision it informs | Boundary |
|---|---|---|---|
| Conflict form | Perceived, affective, latent, task-related, manifest, or another versioned construct | Which instrument and respondent should be reviewed | Unlike forms are not automatically comparable |
| Perspective and unit | Agent, supplier, reseller, buyer, principal, dyad, or channel | Whose disagreement is visible and whose is absent | One side's score is not the channel's whole experience |
| Performance outcome | Sales growth, error rate, effectiveness, efficiency, satisfaction, margin, or another defined object | What the association can inform | Performance labels must not be pooled silently |
| Time window | Measurement period, lag, and status of the channel | Whether the conflict and outcome can be read together | A later outcome is not automatically caused by an earlier score |
| Channel context | Direct or indirect route, dependency, geography, and governance | Which comparison frame is relevant | A coded moderator is not a portable multiplier |
| Shape and decision | Linear, threshold, unresolved, or another tested form, plus the next action | What to test or change next | A review result is not a universal conflict cutoff |
Swipe or scroll horizontally if the table is wider than your screen.
Reference & Evidence
Source: Eshghi & Ray (2021), Duarte & Davies (2003), and Sarkar & Pandey (2025). The review fields are the author's synthesis; no row is a universal scale or threshold.
Each line is a claim from the register this journal publishes against, resolved from the register at build time.
- B The aggregate conflict-performance association is negative across individual and joint outcomes and across the study's relational model specifications Eshghi & Ray. (2020) ·
ER21-C2 - B The negative association is stronger in the coded high-dependency, international, and North American channel settings Eshghi & Ray. (2020) ·
ER21-C3 - B Measurement and sampling characteristics moderate the empirical conflict-performance links reported in the literature Eshghi & Ray. (2020) ·
ER21-C4 - B The meta-analysis is correlational and cannot supply a fine-grained causal inference about a named conflict intervention Eshghi & Ray. (2020) ·
ER21-C5 - B The study measures effectiveness as sales growth and efficiency through error rates Duarte & Davies. (2002) ·
DD03-C2 - B A linear model best fits the conflict-effectiveness relation in the tested data, with no statistically significant support for an inverted-U maximum Duarte & Davies. (2002) ·
DD03-C3 - B An S-shaped threshold relation generally fits the relation between perceived or affective conflict and efficiency, with rapid conflict growth after an observed error-rate threshold Duarte & Davies. (2002) ·
DD03-C4 - B Conflict measures differ by form and perspective, including latent, perceived, affective, agent-only, and dyadic measures Duarte & Davies. (2002) ·
DD03-C5 - B Sarkar and Pandey combine bibliometric analysis, literature review, and semi-structured interviews to study B2B channel conflict Sarkar & Pandey. (2025) ·
SP25-C1 - B The paper's framework is derived from literature and interview themes and is not a causal estimate of a universal conflict threshold Sarkar & Pandey. (2025) ·
SP25-C5 - B A channel-conflict label is incomplete until the measure, perspective, performance outcome, context, and time window are named Author framework grounded in ER21, DD03, and SP25 ·
CCN27-C1 - B The same conflict score can support different decisions when the outcome is effectiveness rather than efficiency Author translation grounded in DD03 ·
CCN27-C2 - B A threshold observed for one efficiency outcome is not a universal cutoff for every channel or performance measure Author boundary grounded in DD03 and ER21 ·
CCN27-C3 - B A usable review record keeps the conflict measure, unit, outcome, time, context, observed shape, and decision together Author framework ·
CCN27-C4 - B A literature map can identify recurring questions without proving that collaboration or one governance action causes performance Author boundary grounded in SP25 ·
CCN27-C5
Grades: A, verified against the printed page of the primary source · B, primary source, text layer only · C, authoritative secondary · D, reported.
Related exhibits
-
The objects behind preferred customer treatment
From the essay Preferred customer treatment is relative resource allocation
-
The synthetic Gabor-Granger intent curve
From the essay What is Gabor-Granger pricing research, and why purchase intent is not a market price
-
The synthetic partner-route comparison
From the essay What is partner-led growth? A channel needs a counterfactual