Ratna Lindawati Lubis, Institut Manajemen Telkom ... - WACE

WORK-INTEGRATED EDUCATION:
HOW STUDENTS’ ENTREPRENEURIAL TEAM
CAN CAPITALIZE ON CONFLICT
Category: Refereed Paper / Research Paper
Abstract:
This paper builds on previous study undertaken by the author, a discussion paper presented at the
following events: (1) The 5 th Asia-Pacific Cooperative Education Conference 2004, Auckland,
New Zealand; (2) The World Association for Cooperative Education (WACE) Asia-Pacific
Conference 2006, Shanghai, China; (3) International Conference on Work Integrated Learning
2010, Hong Kong SAR, China; (4) 17 th World Conference on Cooperative & Work-Integrated
Education 2011, Philadelphia, USA.
The present work is a continued action-research effort by the author to support the claims relating
to the students’ benefit from work-integrated education, through the formation of entrepreneurial
team.
As organizations now rely heavily on teams and teamwork to conduct much of their business; the
purpose of this paper is to examine the students’ perceptions on how students realize the potential
inherent in conflict and capitalize on it. Thirty-six students’ entrepreneurial team from
entrepreneurship course participated in this study during academic year of 2011/12, using a selfcompletion
questionnaire.
The findings, by and large, indicate that the burgeoning diversity of team members, which
increases the likelihood of divergent perspectives, is simultaneously strength and a challenge. This
paper is also aimed to illustrate on how the students’ entrepreneurial team turn conflict into an
effective work-integrated education process. The paper continues with propositions that can lead
to further research in this relatively unexplored field.
Keywords:
action-research, work-integrated education, entrepreneurial team, conflict
Page 1 of 14

INTRODUCTION
A definition of Work-integrated Education (WIE) appears on at least three webpages of The Hong
Kong Polytechnic University (PolyU), namely the Faculty of Business, the Institute of Textiles
and Clothing, and Hong Kong Community College: “work-based learning experiences which take
place in an organizational context relevant to a student’s future profession, or the development of
generic skills that will be valuable in that profession”. Apparently the current choice of education
(WIE) in the World Association for Cooperative Education (WACE) byline, which is a deviation
from the former notion learning (WIL), is because education is considered the more complete,
fuller term (learning and teaching combined). WACE is apparently also shifting away from using
the original term cooperative education (Groenewald, 2012).
While perceptions of ideal cooperative education differ across cultures and settings, this term is
generally viewed as a learning situation where a group of students set up a common goal and solve
problems through discussion within the group. Cooperative education is seen as an important
mechanism for dealing with the complex and rapidly changing learning environment. For the
purpose of this paper, the author defined WIE as a learning situation where a group of students set
up a common goal and solve the problems through entrepreneurial team (ET).
With an aim to explore the potential of teamwork experiences, starting from academic year 2003/4
the author conducted the delivery of Entrepreneurship subject to undergraduate programs at
Institut Manajemen Telkom (IM TELKOM), Bandung, West Java, Indonesia. All students have to
take the Entrepreneurship subject – a-three credit points, consists of 14 weeks class sessions – that
has included a compulsory entrepreneurial project to be eligible for graduation. This
entrepreneurial team-based project gives students the opportunity to relate theory to practice and to
be well prepared in the workplace. Furthermore, IM TELKOM strives to develop its students and
equip them with its core values, stated as Integrity, Entrepreneurship and Best for Excellence.
There are few studies to date concerning students’ views about WIE in the form of students’
entrepreneurial activity at IM TELKOM. Lubis (2004) reported a study of “Walkabout” project as
Page 2 of 14

an example of academic-based and practice-based of cooperative education. In another study,
Lubis (2006) suggests that students’ preferences on partnership between the team members were
predominantly the opportunity for professional growth. It has also been found that WIE has been
an eye-opener to the students and WIE was contributing to the students’ skills and knowledge of
becoming the self employment business ownership (Lubis, 2010). The latest study – a continued
action-research effort by the author – reported the findings that WIE in terms of a practice-based
entrepreneurship course was being a promising experiment in students’ entrepreneurial activity
(Lubis, 2011).
The context of the inquiry reported in this paper was limited to the students who experienced WIE
during academic year of 2011/12, by conducting a self-completion questionnaire and semistructured
interviews. This questionnaire is intended to address on how students must embrace
methods and approaches to resolve the conflicts that most assuredly will arise when doing their
entrepreneurial activity. Of interest also was the extent to which the idea behind students’ ET of
WIE was being a catalyst to the students’ perception on how they realize the potential inherent in
conflict and capitalizes on it.
PREVIOUS RESEARCH
One of the most outstanding aspects of conflict is that it is practically intrinsic to the life and
dynamics of teams. Conflict is present in interpersonal relations (Pruitt & Carnevale, 1993), in
intragroup and intergroup relations (Jehn, 1995), in strategic decision-making (Amason, 1996),
and other organizational episodes. As many authors have pointed out (De Dreu & Van de Vliert,
1997; Pondy, 1967) conflict is a phenomenon that may give rise to both beneficial and
dysfunctional effects on individuals, groups and organizations. Early group theorists have focuses
on the negative consequences of conflict for teams. Conflict difficulties communications between
individuals, breaks personal and professional relationships, and reduces effectiveness, because it
produces tension and distracts team members from performing the task (Wall & Callister, 1995).
Thus, it is no surprise that today’s managers and employees still overwhelmingly view conflict as
Page 3 of 14

negative and something to be avoided or resolved as soon as possible (Stone, 1995). Indeed,
growing evidence suggests that conflict may be beneficial to team performance. Suppressing
conflict could reduce creativity, innovation, performance, quality of decisions, and communication
between group’s members (De Dreu & Van de Vliert, 1997). Research by Jehn (1994, 1995),
Amason (1996) or De Dreu and Weingart (2003) provides evidence that this double-edged effect
is attributable to different dimensions of conflict. Research has shown conflict to be
multidimensional (e.g. Amason, 1996; Cosier & Schwenck, 1990; Jehn, 1995; Van de Vliert & De
Dreu, 1994). Thus, it is possible for one dimension of conflict to enhance effectiveness whereas
another hinders consensus and commitment between group members.
Jehn and Mannix (2001) proposed that conflict in work groups may be categorized into three
types, namely relationship, task and process conflict. Relationship conflict is an awareness of
interpersonal incompatibilities, which includes affective components such as feeling tension and
friction. Relationship conflict involves personal issues such as dislike among group members and
feelings such as annoyance, frustration, irritation, and dislike. Task conflict is an awareness of
differences in viewpoints and opinions pertaining to the group’s task. It pertains to conflict about
ideas and differences of opinion about the task, similar to cognitive conflict. Task conflicts may
coincide with animated discussions and personal excitement but, by definition, are void of intense
interpersonal negative emotions that are more commonly associated with relationship conflict.
Process conflict is an awareness of controversies about aspects of how task accomplishment will
proceed. More specifically, process conflict pertains to issues of duty and resource delegation such
as who should do what or how much should one get. For example, when group members disagree
about whose responsibility it is to complete a specific duty, they are experiencing process conflict.
As many organizations have discovered, teams are being asked for new ideas, better methods and
novel approaches to help their organizations compete. However, competition is so relentless that
even successful teams that help catapult organizations into industry-leading positions one year can
soon find themselves struggling. As teams are formed and challenged to contribute in these
Page 4 of 14

conditions, conflict is inevitable. The author believes that a critical challenge for educators is how
to get the best from the inevitable differences and disagreements that arise while minimizing the
harm and discomfort routinely associated with conflict. The author believes it is necessary to
examine patterns of conflict among students as part of the effort to build WIE in higher education
institution.
RESEARCH APPROACH
The present work is a continued action-research effort by the author to support the claims relating
to the students’ benefit from WIE, through the formation of ET. For the purposes of this research,
the term “action-research” will be defined as an approach that is intended “to enable practitioners
and social scientists to collaborate to find different means by which to bring about necessary
change” (Leitch, 2007). According to Cooper and Daily (1997), an entrepreneurial team is more
than a group because it involves a shared commitment to the new venture. Building on that view
and for the purposes of this research, the following definition of “students’ ET” is proposed:
Students’ ET consists of three or more students in the form of a practice-based entrepreneurship
course in which members are more closely connected and stand up for one another; who have a
common interest and commitment to a venture’s future and success; whose work is focused on the
proactive and creative search for opportunities with the target of bringing future goods and
services into existence.
DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
The Aims of the Research
Researching the students’ entrepreneurial activity at IM TELKOM was seen as a significant
opportunity as it strongly encapsulated the institution’s strategic imperative which strives to
produce more employable, well rounded and skilled graduates in Indonesia. Since 2004, the author
suggests that the practice-based entrepreneurship course appears promising and The Department of
Business and Management Education that runs it would undoubtedly feel encouraged by the
findings which could act as a promising experiment in students’ entrepreneurial activity (Lubis
2004, 2006, 2010, 2011). A continued action-research would identify the possible causes of the
course’s success, and thereafter, institute could measures to maintain the identified success factors
Page 5 of 14

so that the expressed high attainment of the objectives of the course and usefulness would not slip.
Consequently, the author planned to develop a deeper understanding of the value of WIE for
students’ personal development. The aim of this present action-research was to build on the
previous studies with the following objectives:
1. To examine the dynamic nature of ETs conflict with respect to the three type of conflicts,
namely relationship, task and process conflict.
2. To gain information to establish a more rigorous evaluation of the WIE in the form of
practice-based entrepreneurship course.
This action-research was guided by the key question, how can students’ ETs deal with their
inevitable differences in ways that foster constructive forms of conflict while avoiding or lessening
the emergence of destructive conflict Taking students’ perception into consideration, may further
impact the institution’s strategic planning for dealing with the complex and rapidly changing
learning environment.
Research Design
The author requires students to be reflective about their practice-based entrepreneurship course
and use a self-completion questionnaire as an assessment tool for evaluating their ET conflict and
WIE. Since this is an assessment tool used in a practice-based course, rather than a research tool, it
has not been formally checked for reliability or validity. However, the author believes the data
collected would still be useful for further research in order to extend the author understanding of
WIE associated with conflict.
Population and Sample
During the academic year 2011/12, the population for the entrepreneurship course was 541
students. Eleven classes were set up and they were divided into class-A (40 students), class-B (50
students); class-C (50 students), class-D (50 students), class-E (50 students), class-F (50 students),
class-G (50 students); class-H (51 students), class-I (50 students), class-J (50 students) and class-K
(50 students). The author conducted the delivery of the entrepreneurship course in four classes
Page 6 of 14

(class-B, class-C, class-F and class-G) with the total of 200 students. Those four classes were
similar in terms of the courses’ syllabi and the duration of practice-based entrepreneurship course
(up to five months). Each class was then set free to organize themselves into ETs and start
thinking about the entrepreneurial projects they would undertake. All four classes formed
themselves into 36 ET; each team consists of five or six members.
Instrument and Data Collection
Table 1 show the data collection protocol and it was developed based on guidelines suggested by
qualitative research literature (Miles & Huberman, 1994). This protocol provided a framework for
carrying out within class and across class analysis. Having a detailed case study protocol for data
collection and data analysis helped to increase reliability of results (Yin, 2002).
Table 1 - Data Collection Protocol
Data Source
Semi-structured interviews
Progress check
Observation of final presentation
Questionnaires
Project documentation
Details
Interviews with team members (average length of 30 minutes)
All weekly report from 36 entrepreneurial teams (four months period)
All class presentations throughout a 8 day period
Questionnaires completed by team members
(average time to complete questionnaire was 20 minutes)
a. Description of project
b. Personal information of team members
c. Lessons learned papers by team members
d. Grade awarded to team
Data was collected throughout the five-month duration of the course. Data was collected via
weekly report progress check, observation of final presentation and project documentation.
Communication among members of the students’ ET via all communication technology, such as
emails and web board discussion messages, was captured. Final presentations were recorded. All
available project documentation was archived. After the course, data was collected over a twoweek
period via semi-structured interviews with members of the students’ ET and questionnaires
completed by members of the 36 ETs which consist of 200 students.
The type of conflict in the students’ ET was measured by using the Likert-­‐scaled items
questionnaires. The four-­‐point scale was used for the study as against the traditional five-­‐point
scale due to the tendency for individuals to select responses in the center of the scale if an odd
number response scale was used (Anderson, 1985; Casley & Kumar, 1988). The responses for the
Page 7 of 14

four-­‐point scale were: almost never (1), seldom (2), frequently (3), almost always (4). Students
were asked to what extent they experienced the dynamic nature of conflict associated with
relationship, task and process conflict while doing their entrepreneurial project within four months
period. Nine survey items adapted from Jehn and Mannix (2001) to examine the dynamic nature of
conflict. The nine survey items are shown in Table 2.
Table 2 - Survey items for three types of conflict
Survey items (Q1 to Q9): Scale of 1 (Almost never) to 4 (Almost always)
Relationship conflict
1. How much relationship tension is there in your team
2. How often do people get angry while working in your team
3. How much emotional conflict is there in your work team
Task conflict
4. How much conflict of ideas is there in your team
5. How frequently do you have disagreements within your team about the task of the entrepreneurial project you
are working on
6. How often do people in your team have conflicting opinions about the entrepreneurial project you are
working on
Process conflict
7. How often are there disagreements about who should do what in your team
8. How much conflict is there in your team about task responsibilities
9. How often do you disagree about resource allocation in your team
RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS
The research findings are ordinal level, therefore only estimated means can be computed, and the
results can be used only to show the rankings. It is important to note that the focus of this research
was conflict in ETs upon a student perspective, and so the results reported here, particularly
concerning the extent to which the students is addressing conflict as a consequences of the
practice-based assignment – in the form of entrepreneurial project – must be regarded as
descriptive research at this stage.
In response to the survey items Q1, Q2 and Q3, most of the students said that relationship conflict
was frequently and almost always happen in their ET and very few said that it was almost never
happen. A range of views about relationship conflict were shown in Table 3, Table 4 and Table 5.
Table 3 - Students’ responses to item Q1
Survey item on relationship conflict Rating Per cent Respondents
1. How much relationship tension is there in your team
almost never 1 0.99 2
seldom 2 17.33 35
frequently 3 61.88 125
almost always 4 19.80 40
Page 8 of 14

Table 4 - Students’ responses to item Q2
Survey item on relationship conflict Rating Per cent Respondents
2. How often do people get angry while working in your team
almost never 1 2.50 5
seldom 2 22.50 45
frequently 3 57.50 115
almost always 4 17.50 35
Table 5 - Students’ responses to item Q3
Survey item on relationship conflict Rating Per cent Respondents
3. How much emotional conflict is there in your work team
almost never 1 1.50 3
seldom 2 25.00 50
frequently 3 64.50 129
almost always 4 9.00 18
For illustration, conflicts between team members in class-F were considered as a situation caused
by relationship conflict. In a semi-structured interview with the author, a member said, “My
teammate complained that he didn’t like the other team members. He was quite upset about this
but didn’t make this known to the other team members.” In another semi-structured interview, a
team member said, “There were not many disagreements in our team. Even when there were,
people preferred not to face any unpleasant situations. Rather they wished that the problem would
eventually go away.”
Prior studies indicate that employee selection and socialization promoted similarity in values and
demographics as the basis for maintaining effective work environments (Chatman & Barsade,
1995). This has changed subsequently with researchers calling for more team diversity to facilitate
team performance (Gruenfeld, Mannix, Williams & Neale, 1996). However, empirical research on
the effects of team diversity has produced mixed results. Consequently, more complex
conceptualizations of team diversity have been proposed.
Pelled, Eisenhardt and Xin (1999) argued that two important types of team diversity are functional
diversity (arising from differences in educational background, experience, and expertise among
team members) and social category diversity (arising from differences in race, culture, gender, and
age among team members). In traditional teams, functional diversity has been heralded for
increasing innovation, developing clearer strategies and responding faster to changes (Bunderson
& Sutcliffe, 2002). At the same time, differences in opinions and perspectives engendered by
functional diversity have been found to increase task conflict (e.g., Jehn, Northcraft & Neale,
Page 9 of 14

1999; Pelled, Eisenhardt & Xin, 1999). In this students’ ET, relationship conflict among team
members with different experience and expertise has been observed (Lubis 2010, 2011). However,
it is not clear how such differences may impact team performance.
In traditional teams, social category diversity has been found to cause relationship conflict (e.g.,
Jehn, Northcraft & Neale, 1999; Pelled, Eisenhardt & Xin, 1999). Cultural diversity as part of
social category diversity includes linguistic differences among members as well as differences
along broader cultural dimensions (Hofstede, 1991). In this study, the 200 students who
participated in a practice-based entrepreneurship course typically come from different provinces
from all around Indonesia. With over 300 ethnic groups speaking 700 languages on more than
6,000 inhabited islands, the Indonesian archipelago is a showcase of cultural diversity. With these
differences in cultural background, team members might have different viewpoints on some
issues. This was considered a situation of relationship conflict caused by social category diversity.
However, the students’ demographic characteristics were not surveyed by the author.
Another conflict involving disagreements between team members occurred during the preparation
of the project. For example, a team member in class-G proposed a solution for a particular subtask
by email. Though some teammates appreciated this suggestion, it was eventually forgotten.
Concurrently, there was another discussion that generated a large number of emails. After four
days, another member sent an email to the team suggesting the same solution, without reference to
the original suggestion. The member who made the original suggestion felt that his views were not
valued by his teammates, resulting in task conflict. However, he did not blame any teammate but
attributed the problem to information overload. This was considered as task conflict caused by
communication via emails. A range of views about task conflict were shown in Table 6, Table 7
and Table 8 in response to the survey items Q4, Q5 and Q6.
Table 6 - Students’ responses to item Q4
Survey item on task conflict Rating Per cent Respondents
4. How much conflict of ideas is there in your team
almost never 1 2.00 4
seldom 2 11.50 23
frequently 3 61.00 122
almost always 4 25.50 51
Page 10 of 14

Table 7 - Students’ responses to item Q5
Survey item on task conflict Rating Per cent Respondents
5. How frequently do you have disagreements within your
team about the task of the entrepreneurial project you are
working on
almost never 1 1.00 2
seldom 2 19.00 38
frequently 3 59.00 118
almost always 4 21.00 42
Table 8 - Students’ responses to item Q6
Survey item on task conflict Rating Per cent Respondents
6. How often do people in your team have conflicting opinions
about the entrepreneurial project you are working on
almost never 1 1.50 3
seldom 2 14.50 29
frequently 3 64.50 129
almost always 4 19.50 39
Prior studies indicate that the impact of relationship conflict on team performance may depend on
task interdependence (Jehn, 1995). This impact may be stronger when there is greater task
interdependence. In other words, dislike and friction may be more detrimental to team
performance when team members are required to depend more on each other. In this study, task
interdependence refers to the extent to which five or six students need to rely on each other to
accomplish their entrepreneurial project within four months period.
Questionnaire responses to Q7, Q8 and Q9 suggested that most of the students experienced the
process conflict. The way in which the students view the process conflict is summarized in Table
9, Table 10 and Table 11.
Table 9 - Students’ responses to item Q7
Survey item on process conflict Rating Per cent Respondents
7. How often are there disagreements about who should do
what in your team
almost never 1 0.00 0
seldom 2 9.00 18
frequently 3 66.00 132
almost always 4 25.00 50
Table 10 - Students’ responses to item Q8
Survey item on process conflict Rating Per cent Respondents
8. How much conflict is there in your team about task
responsibilities
almost never 1 3.50 7
seldom 2 12.00 24
frequently 3 55.00 110
almost always 4 29.50 59
Table 11 - Students’ responses to item Q9
Survey item on process conflict Rating Per cent Respondents
9. How often do you disagree about resource allocation in your
team
almost never 1 1.50 3
seldom 2 17.50 35
frequently 3 58.50 117
almost always 4 22.50 45
Page 11 of 14

For illustration, in a semi-structured interview with the author, a member from class-C said, “We
spent time during our weekly meetings to achieve consensus for the interests of all. We were
criticizing each other to decide who is most capable of completing various new task assignments
such as organizing and presenting the compiled information.” In other words, process conflict
may have caused team members to be divided in their opinions on whether to place team interests
before self, whether to adopt individual or group based appraisal.
Although most of the students experienced those three types of destructive behaviors, by contrast,
28 teams obtained the highest project grade based on project documentation. The findings indicate
that majority of the team members can choose to respond their conflict in more constructive ways.
CONCLUSION
This study contributes to the author understanding of conflict in students’ ET. It confirms that
WIE in the form of practice-based entrepreneurship course lead to relationship, task and process
conflict. Despite seeing things differently, the students’ ET was able to addressed their conflicts
competently and demonstrate incredible progress to finish their entrepreneurial project. Most
importantly, the students’ ET demonstrates a willingness to consider the views, positions and
feelings of others as a stable base for managing conflict.
Since students’ ET completed just one entrepreneurial project, the author does not know if these
results transfer to other types of tasks such as to students’ ET that have longer lives and multiple
projects, thus limiting the generalizability of the study.
However, the author sees this study as a step towards facilitating larger scale studies in
organizational contexts, in which the impact of organizational factors on students’ ET conflict
could also be investigated. For instance, conflict phenomena in different domains such as
networked or parallel students’ ET teams, by investigating the antecedents of productive and
destructive conflict in the context of WIE.
Page 12 of 14

Reference List
Amason, A.C. (1996). Distinguishing the effect of functional and dysfunctional conflict on
strategic decision making: resolving a paradox for top management teams. Academy of
Management Journal (vol. 39, pp.123-148).
Anderson, L.W. (1985). Likert scales. International encyclopedia of education (vol. 5, pp.
3082-­‐3084). Oxford: Pergamon.
Bunderson, J.S., & Sutcliffe, K.M. (2002). Comparing alternative conceptualizations of
functional diversity in management teams: process and performance effects. Academy of
Management Journal (vol. 45, pp. 875-893).
Casely, D., & Kumar, K. (1988). The collection, analysis, and use of monitoring and evaluation
data. New York: The John Hopkins University Press.
Chatman, J. (1991). Matching people and organizations: Selection and socialization in public
accounting firms. Administrative Science Quarterly (vol. 36, pp.459-484).
Cooper, A.C., & Daily, C.M. (1997). Entrepreneurial teams. In Sexton, D.L., & Smilor, R.W.
(Eds.), Entrepreneurship 2000 (pp. 127-150). Chicago, IL: Upstart.
Cosier, R.A., & Schwenck, C.R. (1990). Agreement and thinking alike: ingredients for poor
Decisions. Academy of Management Executive (vol. 4, pp. 69-74).
De Dreu, C.K.W., & Weingart, L.R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict: a meta-analysis.
Journal of Applied Psychology (vol. 88, pp. 741-749).
De Dreu, C.K.W., & Van de Vliert, E. (Eds) (1997). Using Conflict in Organizations.
Sage.
London:
Groenewald, T. (2012). Cooperative & Work-integrated Education. Retrieved January 21, 2012
from http://psychsoma.co.za/learning_in_vivo/2011/08/cooperative-work-integratededucation.html
Gruenfeld, D.H., Mannix, E.A., Williams, K.Y., & Neale, M.A. (1996). Group composition and
decision making: How member familiarity and information distribution affect process
and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67(1), 1-15.
Hofstede, G.H. (1991).Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. London, NY: McGraw
Hill.
Jehn, K.A. (1994). Enhancing effectiveness: an investigation of advantages and disadvantages of
value-based intragroup conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management (vol. 5,
pp. 223-238).
Jehn, K.A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup
Conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly (vol. 40, pp. 256-282).
Jehn, K.A., Northcraft, G.B., & Neale, M.A. (1999). Why differences make a difference: a field
study of diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 44(4), 741-763.
Page 13 of 14

Jehn, K.A., & Mannix, E. (2001). The dynamic nature of conflict: a longitudinal study of
intragroup conflict and group performance. Academy of Management Journal (vol. 44,
pp. 238-251).
Leitch, C. (2007). An action research approach to entrepreneurship. In Helle Neergaard & John
Parm Ulhoi (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods in Entrepreneurship (pp.
144-168). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
Lubis, R.L. (2004, December). An option for cooperative education: Bridging the gap with
“Walkabout” Project. Paper presented at The 5 th Asia-Pacific Cooperative Education
Conference of the Unitec New Zealand, Auckland.
Lubis, R.L. (2006, June). Learning to bridge the outside world: Insights from an evaluation of the
“Walkabout” Project. Paper presented at WACE Asia-Pacific Conference of the Shanghai
Second Polytechnic University (SSPU), Shanghai, China.
Lubis, R.L. (2010, February). Work Integrated Learning (WIL): Moving “from brain to market”.
Paper presented at WACE International Conference of the Hong Kong Polytechnic
University (Hong Kong PolyU), Hong Kong SAR, China.
Lubis, R.L. (2011, June). Work Integrated Learning (WIL): A promising experiment in students’
entrepreneurial activity. Paper presented at WACE 17 th World Conference on Cooperative &
Work-Integrated Education on the campus of Drexel University in Philadelphia, USA.
Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pelled, L.H., Eisenhardt, K.M., & Xin, K.R. (1999). Exploring the black box: An analysis of
work group diversity, conflict, and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly,
44(1), 1-28.
Pondy, L. (1967). Organizational conflict: concepts and models. Administrative Science
Quarterly (vol. 17, pp. 296-320).
Pruitt, D.G., & Carnevale, P.J. (1993). Negotiation in Social Conflict. Open University Press,
Milton Keynes.
R. K. Yin. (2002). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. London: Sage.
Stone, R.A. (1995). Workplace homicide: a time for action. Business Horizon (vol. 34, pp. 17-
20).
Wall, J.A., & Callister, R.R. (1995). Conflict and its management. Journal of Management (vol.
21, pp. 515-558).
Van de Vliert, E., & De Dreu, C. (1994). Optimizing performance by conflict stimulation. The
International Journal of Conflict Management (vol. 5, pp. 211-22).
Page 14 of 14