Table 8.

Summary of hypotheses and related empirical findings

Variable relations [Hyp]	Support?	Comments
Baseline Prediction: Channel Conflict-Business Performance [−]	√	The negative conflict–performance link is robust to individual or joint channel performance and different research frameworks. Suggests conflict management efforts and (joint) resource commitments can have a clear bottom-line impact.
Time
H1a: Time [−]	√	More recent studies show a stronger negative conflict–performance link. The negative impact becomes stronger post-1991 (after the advent of the internet). Suggestive that the addition of new types of channels and internet-based commerce has spawned more unforgiving channel relationships.
H1b: Time (post-2005) [+]	√	The negative link becomes weaker post-2005 compared to 1991–2005. Indication that maturing digital technology ushered in greater capabilities to manage channel conflict. Suggests ROI from new technologies includes improvement in the bottom-line impact of conflict.
Channel characteristics
H2: Resale (vs. VAR channels) [−]	n.s.	No evidence of any difference between resale and VAR channels in impact on conflict–performance link.
H3: Agency [−]	√	Conflict more consequential for channels with stronger dependency. Formal conflict management protocols welcome despite greater transaction costs.
H4: International (vs. domestic channels) [−]	√	The negative impact of conflict on performance likely inflated by higher transaction costs of international channels. So, increasing the pie effect of globalization comes at a cost: greater governance challenges.
H5: North America (vs. non–North America) [−]	√	Conflict more consequential for North American channels. Culture is a key contributor to effectiveness of porting best practices. North American business culture is less forgiving towards channel conflict.
Measurement
H6: Objective (vs. subjective measure of performance) [+]	√	Common method bias (CMB) associated with subjective performance measures may inflate the negative conflict–performance link compared to objective measures (some evidence).
H7: Relative (vs. absolute performance measures) [−]	n.s.	No evidence of any impact of whether performance is measured in relative or absolute terms.
H8: Latent/ Aggregate (vs. “separate” measures of performance) [−]	√	Latent or aggregate measures show a stronger negative effect for the conflict–performance link than separate measures, suggesting that separate measures might underestimate the consequential nature of conflict by missing specific components.
H9: Affective (vs. Manifest conflict) [−]	n.s.	No evidence of any impact of whether type of conflict measured is affective or manifest.
Sampling
H10: Multi-industry (vs. single-industry study) [+]	√	The conflict–performance link is weaker for multi-industry studies, suggesting that sample heterogeneity might dilute the link.
H11: Focal firm (vs. multi-firm sample) [+]	√	Studies with a focal firm show a weaker negative link than studies with a cross-sectional sample, suggesting shared conflict management practices help in mitigating negative impact of conflict.
Controls for data collection procedures
Self-administered (vs. from managers)	n.s.	No evidence of any impact of whether data collection is self-administered or directly from managers.
Dyadic (vs. Single-sided data collection)	(+)	Data collected from both sides of the channel show a weaker conflict–performance link, suggesting measurement errors associated with single-sided measures may overestimate the consequence of conflict.