Sunteți pe pagina 1din 45

Bachelor Thesis

The interdependence between types of conflict in teams A literature review

Claudio Simon Wolske (1052006)

Supervisor: Mag. Ursula Pregernig

Examiner: Prof. Dr. Jonas Puck

Institute for International Business


Abstract

This thesis is a literature review on the different types of conflict and their interde-
pendence. Following up on the contradiction postulated by De Dreu and Weingart
(2003), we investigate how task, process and relationship conflict are linked to each
other. We identify the underlying mechanisms that cause this linkage, and review
studies that look into possible moderators and mediators. As our findings clearly
show that the association between conflict types can be mitigated, we conclude the
thesis with recommendations for dealing with conflict in managerial practice.

Keywords: task conflict, process conflict, relationship conflict, transformation, mod-


erator
TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Problem definition .................................................................................................... 2
1.2 Relevance................................................................................................................ 2
1.3 Research questions ................................................................................................. 3
1.4 Methodology ............................................................................................................ 3

2 Review ............................................................................................................................. 5
2.1 Mechanisms of conflict transformation ..................................................................... 5
2.1.1 Attribution theory .......................................................................................... 5
2.1.2 Inappropriate behaviour................................................................................ 6
2.2 Antecedents............................................................................................................. 6
2.3 Moderators .............................................................................................................. 7
2.3.1 Emotions ...................................................................................................... 7
2.3.1.1 Emotional intelligence ..................................................................... 8
2.3.1.2 Emotion regulation .......................................................................... 9
2.3.2 Trust ............................................................................................................10
2.3.3 Task properties............................................................................................12
2.3.3.1 Role ambiguity ...............................................................................12
2.3.3.2 Task conflict issue importance .......................................................12
2.3.4 Team properties ..........................................................................................13
2.3.4.1 Goal orientation .............................................................................13
2.3.4.2 Goal interdependence....................................................................14
2.3.4.3 Team member interaction ..............................................................16
2.3.4.4 Group fragmentation ......................................................................17
2.3.4.5 Group dispersion ...........................................................................17
2.3.4.6 Group tenure .................................................................................18
2.3.5 Conflict management...................................................................................20
2.3.5.1 Coping ...........................................................................................20
2.3.5.2 Conflict resolution ..........................................................................21
2.3.5.3 Leadership and conflict management ............................................22
2.4 Alternative transformation directions .......................................................................23
2.4.1 Transformation of process conflict ...............................................................23
2.4.2 Transformation of relationship conflict .........................................................24

3 Discussion .....................................................................................................................26
3.1 Theoretical implications and directions for future research ......................................26
3.2 Practical implications ..............................................................................................30

4 Conclusion .....................................................................................................................32

References ..........................................................................................................................33

Appendix: Reviewed studies .............................................................................................38


1 INTRODUCTION

Scholars are hardly the breed of person that is ever united in agreement. Still, it can
seem somewhat ironic to see the discipline of conflict research, of all fields, thor-
oughly split by contradictory findings. Such contradiction will be the starting point for
our investigations in the ever-expanding field of conflict research.

Conflict takes places on all scopes of human interaction, but this thesis focuses on
group conflict, which is the most relevant aspect of conflict for every-day business
life. Team work is a pervasive aspect of business culture, and the success of almost
any business venture is predicated on people cooperating effectively in order to
achieve something they could not achieve individually. But whenever teams come
together, there is the possibility of conflict, and therein lies the potential for good as
well as for bad. On one hand, conflict among group members can create a hostile
work environment and bring team performance to a standstill. On the other hand,
conflict research beginning in the nineties began to suggest that in the right form and
context, conflict can foster critical thinking and be beneficial to a teams performance
(Jehn, 1995, 1997). But different types of conflict not only have very different out-
comes, but they also do not operate independently, which makes the idea of con-
structive conflict substantially more complex.

As Nair (2008) notes in her review of emotions and conflict, various definitions of con-
flict have been brought forward over the past decades without clearing up the ambi-
guity pertaining to them. According to Jehn (1995, p. 57), conflict can simply be de-
fined as perceived incompatibilities. In an attempt to better describe conflict, re-
searchers have suggested various multidimensional models. This thesis works with
the typology used by Jehn (1995). Building on a dichotomy first established by
Guetzkow and Gyr (1954), it mainly distinguishes between two types of conflict. Task
conflict (cognitive conflict) describes a disagreement among group members about
the content of the task. Relationship conflict (affective conflict), on the other hand, is
caused by interpersonal incompatibilities. These two are sometimes complemented
by a third type: Process conflict entails disagreements about the work process, task
accomplishment, and the delegation of responsibilities (Jehn, 1997). However, litera-
ture including process conflict is comparatively scarce, as most studies presented in
this thesis work with the two-dimensional model of task vs. relationship conflict.
1
1.1 Problem definition

Early studies examined the effects of these types of conflict individually. Initial propo-
nents suggested that task conflict, in moderation, could have beneficial effects, such
as promoting innovation and critical thinking, whereas relationship conflict was detri-
mental for team performance and satisfaction (for a review: de Wit et al. 2012). But
while consensus about the detriments of relationship conflict has held up, the findings
of De Dreu and Weingart (2003) have questioned the established notion of construc-
tive task conflict. The researchers subjected thirty studies from 1993 to 2001 to a
meta-analysis, concluding that it seems safe to stop assuming that, whereas rela-
tionship conflict is detrimental to team performance, task conflict improves team per-
formance (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003, p. 748). Task conflict had a negative influence
as well, which was a contradiction to the consensus in the literature that needed to
be resolved. The negative effects of task conflict got stronger with increasing correla-
tion to relationship conflict, which suggested that the linkage between the two conflict
types could be the reason. The average correlation was .54, similarly to the result
Simons and Peterson (2000) had obtained three years earlier (.47).

1.2 Relevance

These findings call for a more refined approach to the subject of cognitive vs. affec-
tive conflict. If we want to resolve this dilemma and prevent task conflict from degen-
erating into relationship conflict, we have to understand the link between the conflict
types. We have to investigate as to why and how they relate to each other, the
strength and the direction of this relation, and how to take advantage of it. In search
of a more comprehensive contingency model of group conflict, researchers have
suggested and tested a variety of factors that moderate this relationship.

The necessity to understand how conflict works in organisational practice cannot be


overstated. Conflict is a constant in human interaction and an every-day part of or-
ganisational life, and it must first be understood before it can be managed diligently.
Only then can managers give sensible advice and make the right decisions to guide
their team through debates in a constructive manner. Understanding the link between
conflict types allows us to leverage the potential of constructive conflict while minimis-
ing the risk of conflict becoming personal, a development that is as complex as it is

2
detrimental. Conflict escalation affects performance and productivity and decreases
employee satisfaction (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003) - outcomes that are costly for a
business.

1.3 Research questions

The objective of this thesis is to examine the links between task, relationship and
process conflict. We seek to understand how they impact on each other, and what
variables moderate this relation. This thesis concentrates on task conflict and rela-
tionship conflict, as most of the academic literature does. However, studies on proc-
ess conflict will be included, as scholars have stressed the importance of its addition
and the benefits of a tripartite model for conflict research (Martnez-Moreno et al.
2012).

Therefore, we state the following research questions:

Question 1: Do different types of conflict affect each other?

Question 2: What are the underlying mechanisms of their relation?

Question 3: Which variables moderate this relation?

The second and third question entail a variety of issues, such as strength of correla-
tion, direction, and reciprocity. By giving an answer to these three questions, we also
provide a comprehensive review on the current state of the research on conflict trans-
formation.

1.4 Methodology

The research for this thesis was conducted as a literature review. Focussing on sci-
entific articles in peer-reviewed journals, I searched databases (e.g. EBSCO, Jstor,
Google Scholar) for sources that can contribute to answering the research questions.
Journal ratings such as the VHB Ranking helped me determine the quality and integ-
rity of the sources I found.

I combined several methods of literature research. Keeping the three central ques-
tions in mind, I followed the research lines in scientific articles, working from old to
new (using cited by searches in databases) and vice versa (using the references

3
listed). The context in which an older paper is cited in-text serves as a valuable first
indicator of its relevance to my research. Especially the introduction and the discus-
sion section of an article provide direction for further reading, as do more compre-
hensive review articles and meta-analyses. Secondly, I used a keyword search in
databases to find additional sources to help me answer my questions. I derived these
keywords from the research questions I formulated, and added further keywords as
the research progressed.

I then developed criteria to assess the relevance of the articles I found, to see
whether they could contribute to answering my research questions. The most impor-
tant criterion was the articles hypothesis: The most relevant studies were those that
somehow examined the relation between conflict types, e.g. via modera-
tors/mediators. I also looked for related theoretical constructs, such as conflict man-
agement strategies that prevent escalation of task conflict. Furthermore, I needed the
theoretical foundation for my research questions. The most important indicator for a
study to contain this background information was the context in which it was refer-
enced in other articles.

I then assigned each source a ranking from 1 (irrelevant) to 5 (directly assesses the
relation between conflict types), ranks in between being assigned to studies with re-
lated questions and background knowledge. The reference management program
Citavi helped me collect all the found sources, rate them according to their relevance,
and assign keywords for faster access. The directly relevant sources were gathered
in the datasheet in the appendix, while the results of my analysis are compiled, struc-
tured and documented in this thesis.

4
2 REVIEW

In this chapter, we review the current literature on the linkage between task, process
and relationship conflict. We start with the theoretical background conflict antece-
dents and the mechanisms of conflict transformation before going into more detail
about the specific variables that moderate the linkage between conflict types. We
conclude the review with a look into less explored conflict type linkages.

2.1 Mechanisms of conflict transformation

Our review of the contingencies that link the different types of conflict revealed two 1
main mechanisms that underlie them: Attribution and aggressive behaviour. Which
one is proposed varies from study to study (some suggest both). In the studies we
reviewed in this thesis, attribution theory is brought forward more often.

2.1.1 Attribution theory

Attribution theory states that team members constantly evaluate and interpret one
anothers actions: They attribute motivations and intentions to other peoples behav-
iour (for a review: Harvey & Weary, 1985). They try to rationalise what they see using
information from their environment. These attributions can be benevolent, but with
rising complexity of the task at hand, decision-making becomes a quasi-rational
process guided by intuitive judgment that is more difficult to justify and explain. The
resulting ambiguity leads other team members to misattribute sinister intent to task-
related behaviour, such as the expression of divergent ideas or objective criticism.
This perceived hostility can easily spiral into personal conflict: Through biased infor-
mation processing, ambiguous behaviour is interpreted according to the (negative)
expectations team members hold about each other. They will adopt an attitude that is
actually hostile and defensive, which is in turn reciprocated by their peers a self-
fulfilling prophecy (Fiske & Taylor, 1991).

1
For the sake of completeness we mention the sabotage mechanism, which occurs when a team
member interferes with task-related arguments out of personal animosity. Simons and Peterson (2000)
note that this kind of task conflict is simply relationship conflict in disguise, and should be correctly
labeled as such. However, while this mechanism has received considerably less attention than the
other two in the studies reviewed herein, it has been proposed in a few, most notably by Choi and Cho
(2011) in their examination of reverse causality.

5
Researchers have suggested several motives for such misattribution. Team mem-
bers may see their own competence challenged and interpret their peers behaviour
as a personal attack (Jehn, 1997). Amason (1996) suggests that even impersonal
task conflict can lead team members to think that their peers care about the group
more than about themselves. If they believe to see other team members promoting
their own hidden agenda, task conflict becomes personal. Amason and Sapienza
(1997) conclude that teams without openness and mutuality will attribute opportunis-
tic intentions to one anothers actions.

2.1.2 Inappropriate behaviour

A second mechanism, closely linked to the process of attribution, is the use of harsh,
aggressive behaviour (Pelled, 1996; Simons & Peterson, 2000). In order to make
their opinions heard in a task-related debate, team members may employ harsh lan-
guage or even intimidation tactics. This upsets their colleagues, who interpret such
behaviour as hurtful, disrespectful and insulting, irrespective of the root message.
They will start fostering personal animosity and reciprocate, and thus poorly ex-
pressed and managed task conflict leads to relationship conflict. Simons and Peter-
son (2000) were the first to empirically test the effects of this mechanism on conflict
transformation. They obtained marginally significant results indicating that the loud-
ness in a group aids conflict transformation. More differentiated future research will
have to determine the exact role that inadequate behaviour plays in this matter.

2.2 Antecedents

Even though the variety of conflict antecedents studied in the past is not the subject
of this paper, the concept itself needs to be included in the context of conflict trans-
formation: Some researchers have suggested that task and relationship conflict co-
occur because they share common determinants (Amason & Sapienza, 1997; Jehn,
1994, 1995), while others have found indication that at least some antecedents are
distinct for each type of conflict (Amason & Mooney, 1999; Pelled et al. 1999).

Antecedents can be classified into three categories: Team antecedents (e.g. team
size, composition, diversity), task antecedents (e.g. task complexity) and organisa-
tional antecedents (e.g. norms, strategies) (Mooney et al. 2007). Mooney et al.
(2007) studied antecedents from all three categories using a mediation model. They
6
hypothesised that conflict determinants do not directly stimulate relationship conflict,
but work with task conflict as a mediator: Antecedents drive task conflict, and as task
conflict increases, misattribution and social judgment are more and more likely to
trigger relationship conflict. In their study conducted among 94 project teams, the re-
searchers found evidence of full mediation for team size, and support for partial me-
diation for goal uncertainty and team-based rewards. These results call for a more
refined approach to the subject of conflict determinants, one that considers the
mechanism of conflict transformation. In any case, they confirm that affective conflict
is, in some cases, cognitive conflict gone awry (Mooney et al. 2007, p. 752).

The findings on behavioural integration from the same study are summarised in
chapter 2.3.4.3. Next, we review the various moderators and mediators of conflict
transformation, mostly of task conflict triggering relationship conflict.

2.3 Moderators and mediators

We subdivide this chapter into five subsections. Emotions and trust have received
enough attention in academic literature to warrant their own subchapters. Moderators
pertaining to conflict management, be it on an individual, group or managerial level,
form another category. Other moderators are classified according to whether they are
team-related or task-related.

2.3.1 Emotions

This line of research often uses the umbrella term affect, which encompasses emo-
tions (more intense and short-term) and moods (diffused, but enduring) on a group
level (Gamero et al. 2008). Past research has suggested that affect can be both an
antecedent and a result of conflict, but only recently did scholars look into the effect
of emotions on conflict transformation (Choi & Cho, 2011).

Yang and Mossholder (2004) stimulated discussion by providing four propositions on


how intragroup emotion can help uncover the link between task and relationship con-
flict. Based on Affective Events Theory, they argue that emotional expression influ-
ences group member behaviour: Emotions, especially the negative kind, facilitate the
(mis)attribution process that constantly takes place in groups, and lead to the mani-
festation of emotional behaviour. This starts a spiral that gathers momentum and de-

7
rails constructive conflict into personal antagonism. Rispens (2012) looked at the
connection from the opposite perspective, arguing that reduced negative emotionality
(caused by increased task conflict issue importance) mitigates the correlation be-
tween conflict types. She only found partial support for this mediation model.

Subsequent research has also investigated other causalities and linkages between
emotion and conflict types: While Yang and Mossholder (2004) propose emotion as a
moderator of the link between cognitive and affective conflict, Medina et al. (2005)
came to the conclusion that relationship conflict mediates task conflict and affective
reaction. Gamero et al. (2008) came to similar results, stating that team task conflict
is not directly related to affective climate; this relationship is fully mediated by rela-
tionship conflict (p. 64).

2.3.1.1 Emotional intelligence

Emotional intelligence refers to the ability to deal with emotions (both ones own and
others) that arise from group interaction (for a review: Salovey & Mayer, 1990). This
includes not only the perception and expression of emotion, but also the ability to
manage them constructively. In groups, collective emotional intelligence emerges
from the individual members and their interaction with each other. It helps to create
norms that facilitate emotion regulation and conflict resolution. All these properties of
emotional intelligence make it a prime candidate as a moderator of the task-
relationship conflict interplay. Groups that score high on emotional intelligence should
be less prone to disruptive conflict episodes and generally cooperate better (Yang &
Mossholder, 2004).

Ayoko et al. (2008) studied the elements that influence the emotional intelligence cli-
mate in work groups with regard to task and relationship conflict, although they did
not examine their effect on the linkage between conflict types. Team empathic con-
cern allows team members to comprehend one anothers feelings and should create
an environment of understanding and non-conflict. The results of Ayoko et al. (2008)
indeed show that it reduces both cognitive and affective conflict. The same study
shows that team conflict management norms, which diffuse negative emotion and
emphasise problem-solving, are associated with less destructive relationship conflict.
Team emotion management allows for more effective planning and motivating and
helps to focus on the task at hand. The researchers found that effective team emo-
8
tion management is associated with significantly less task and relationship conflict.
On the other hand, their results also showed a significant positive link to conflict dura-
tion, which suggests that managers must find a balance between emotion manage-
ment and self-regulation.

2.3.1.2 Emotion regulation

Group emotion regulation is an emergent state (like conflict, cohesion, trust) that
arises from the group and, at the same type, influences its dynamics. As a critical
part of emotional intelligence, emotion regulation impacts on the link between nega-
tive emotionality and overt (behavioural) manifestation of emotions (Cureu et al.
2012). Van den Berg et al. (2014) illustrate how emotion regulation controls the
spreading of negative group affect via conflict contagion, thus playing a vital role in
conflict transformation.

Yang & Mossholder (2004) outline several forms that emotion regulation can take in
managerial practice. Attention deployment refers to the practice of deliberately redi-
recting attention, ideally at task-related (and non-personal) issues. Reappraisal
means to interpret stimuli in an unemotional way, which prevents misattribution and
deflects personal attacks. Suppression of emotion-expressive behaviour helps group
members to keep their emotions under control and contributes to a more positive af-
fective group environment (Yang & Mossholder, 2004). Managers should train their
team in emotion regulation in order to build collective cognitive competencies that
prevent conflict transformation and escalation (van den Berg et al. 2014). Druskat
and Wolff (2001) offer a framework for building these norms based on establishing
ground rules for confrontation, caring, and working with emotions.

Cureu et al. (2012) were among the first to empirically test the influence of emotion
regulation on conflict transformation. Groups whose members have the ability to deal
with arising emotions show a weaker association between cognitive and affective
conflict, and can generally keep relationship conflict at bay. Emotion regulation there-
fore benefits groups in two ways by directly reducing relationship conflict, and by
preventing task conflict from escalating into it. This moderating effect itself is further
influenced by group tenure (see 2.3.4.6) (Cureu et al. (2012)).

9
Van den Berg et al. (2014) looked at the moderating effects of emotion regulation on
the link between process conflict and relationship conflict. Again, groups with good
emotion regulation proved to be less likely to let process conflict escalate into rela-
tionship conflict. Their results also concur with earlier studies (Greer et al. 2008;
Martnez-Moreno et al. 2012) that early process conflict is a predictor of conflict trans-
formation in later stages. Process conflict acts as a mediator between task and rela-
tionship conflict: A group may experience task-related disagreements which lead to
process conflict, which then escalates into personal hostility. Emotion regulation can
disentangle these associations and prevent this chain reaction from happening (van
den Berg et al. 2014).

2.3.2 Trust

Trust was one of the first moderators whose effect on conflict linkage was investi-
gated (Simons & Peterson, 2000). Trust is a deliberate action, the willingness of the
trustor to engage in risk-taking behaviour (Parayitam & Dooley, 2007, p. 44). Trust-
worthiness, on the other hand, determines the willingness of members to be vulner-
able to risk (Parayitam & Dooley, 2007, p. 44).

Simons and Peterson (2000) hypothesised that trust is a key variable in conflict trans-
formation because of its moderating influence on misattribution. When intragroup
trust is high, group members are less likely to misinterpret task conflict behaviour as
personal antagonism, while low intragroup trust more easily triggers misattribution.
Parayitam and Dooley (2007), in a study on strategic decision-making teams, elabo-
rate on this theory: Complex decisions require lots of information. Task conflict can
generate this information, which is why it has been suggested that it can be beneficial
to the decision-making process. However, this information needs to be interpreted,
which happens trough the (subjective) process of attribution by the team members. If
they perceive each other as trustworthy, they are more likely to accept the informa-
tion given at face value.

Amason and Sapienza (1997) suggested that in teams which score high on open-
ness and mutuality, task and relationship conflict are less likely to co-occur. Simons
and Peterson (2000) empirically tested this link and found intragroup trust can indeed
remedy the problem of task-related conflict escalating into a personal conflict. In their
study on feedback and conflict development, Peterson and Behfar (2003) also inves-
10
tigated the effect of trust. They concluded that intragroup trust, especially if estab-
lished early on, can act as a buffer between task and relationship conflict. This was
again confirmed by Choi and Cho (2011), who found that high levels of trust could
prevent early task conflict from escalating into relationship conflict later on. The re-
sults obtained by Tidd et al. (2004) were more mixed: While they did not find signifi-
cant empirical evidence of trust moderating the transformation of cognitive into affec-
tive conflict, their study showed that high levels of trust can amplify the beneficial ef-
fects of other moderators (in their case, role ambiguity). This indicates that trust may
be a necessary element, without which individuals are less willing to consider more
benign explanations for task conflict. (Tidd et al. 2004, p. 375)

Parayitam and Dooley (2007) expanded this line of research by distinguishing cogni-
tion-based and affect-based trust. The former is based on competence, responsibility
and reliability, while the latter is grounded in personal and emotional connections.
Cognition-based is crucial for taking advantage of the benefits of task conflict. Team
members build up trust in their peers competence and reliability based on how they
interacted with them in the past. Successful cooperation instils trust in each others
capabilities, which positively influences how people interpret group decisions. As the
study by Parayitam and Dooley (2007) shows, cognition-based trust positively mod-
erates the link between task conflict and decision quality, as well as the understand-
ing of and the commitment to those decisions. Affect-based trust, on the other hand,
is the key to the link between task and relationship conflict. Team members are emo-
tionally invested in their work environment, and affect-trust influences how they inter-
pret the information they gather from it. If it is high, team members can communicate
openly, without fear of antagonising their fellow workers. If it is low, they are more
likely to misinterpret the information generated by task conflict, which leads to emo-
tional misbehaviour (such as personal attack) and conflict escalation. The results of
the study confirm that the association between task and relationship conflict is signifi-
cantly weaker in groups with high affect-based trust. In their conclusion, the authors
also note that researchers need to consider the distinction between types of trust, as
cognition-based trust does not moderate the linkage between conflict types (Parayi-
tam and Dooley, 2007).

11
2.3.3 Task properties

In this relatively short section on task-related moderators, we review the effects of


role ambiguity and issue importance.

2.3.3.1 Role ambiguity

Following in the line of Simons and Peterson (2000), Tidd et al. (2004) examined the
mechanism of misattribution in more detail. In addition to the role of trust as a mod-
erator, they looked into the moderating effects of role ambiguity. Role ambiguity is
characterised by the absence or lack of information about the task and team member
responsibilities (Tidd et al. 2004). Under such circumstances, team members are
more likely to interpret other peoples behaviour as a response to the needs of the
task at hand. As uncertainty in the task decreases, group members will be more in-
clined to interpret ambiguous signals as a personal attack instead of a means of task
accomplishment, which is likely to be reciprocated. This goes in line with Jehn
(1995), who noted that in complex non-routine operations, task conflict was more
beneficial for performance and less detrimental to satisfaction. The empirical study
conducted by Tidd et al. (2004) confirmed that high levels of role ambiguity weaken
the association between task and relationship conflict. Trust, even though on its own
not a significant moderator of this linkage, amplifies the moderating effect of role am-
biguity.

2.3.3.2 Task conflict issue importance

Task conflict issue importance is the extent to which team members perceive that
the consequences of the task conflict issue threaten team task performance (Ris-
pens, 2012, p. 350), irrespective of conflict level or frequency. Rispens (2012) argues
that teams which experience task conflict about an important issue are less likely to
experience relationship conflict at the same time. This can be explained, once more,
with attribution theory. Firstly, team members feel more motivated to resolve the is-
sue of their task conflict when working towards an important goal, which is best at-
tained with good cooperation. This means that they are less inclined to take task-
related debate personally. Secondly, higher issue importance also mitigates the ef-
fects of negative team emotionality. When some team members express negative
emotions while working on an important goal, other members are less likely to attrib-

12
ute this behaviour to personal antagonism. This avoids the cycle of blaming that in-
evitably leads to escalating levels of relationship conflict. The empirical study con-
firmed the moderating effect of task conflict issue importance on the link between
cognitive and affective conflict (Rispens, 2012). The researcher suggests that man-
agers should identify whether the issue at hand is important or trivial, and choose
their conflict management strategy accordingly.

2.3.4 Team properties

Moderators pertaining to the team environment make up the majority of our findings.
We start this section with goal-related moderators before we look at how team mem-
ber interaction can improve group cohesion. From there, we move on to the opposing
concept of group fragmentation. We conclude the chapter with a look at the recent
findings on geographic team distribution and group tenure.

2.3.4.1 Goal orientation

Huang (2010) studied the moderating effect of goal orientation on conflict transforma-
tion. The concept of goal orientation categorises peoples personalities according to
the goals they pursue: Individuals with learning orientation strive to develop their
skills and capabilities, whereas people with a performance orientation are driven by
the need to prove their abilities and seek validation from others (Dweck, 1986).
These two personality types have a fundamentally different view on of their abilities:
Learning-oriented people see ability as something that can be developed with work,
while performance-oriented individuals see it as fixed and unchangeable. These be-
liefs influence how people interpret feedback, especially criticism (Bobco & Colella,
1994). Learning orientation takes well to criticism, as such people tend to see this
information as a way to improve their skills, not a denial of their capability. On the
other hand, performance orientation clashes with negative feedback, because per-
formance-oriented people see their abilities as fixed, and criticism demeans them in
their need for validation. The different ways of interpreting feedback lead to different
reactions when task conflict arises: Performance-oriented team members are much
more prone to being offended by their co-workers task-related suggestions, which
increases the likelihood of conflict escalation. Furthermore, they are more likely to
adopt a defensive stance in order to cope with the negative emotional arousal

13
evoked by the received feedback, which can also trigger relationship conflict (Huang,
2010).

Huang (2010) conducted a study among 120 R&D teams two test this model on a
group level. The results confirmed the influence of goal orientation on conflict linkage:
Teams in which the average learning orientation was high showed a weaker connec-
tion between task conflict and relationship conflict. Conversely, groups that are char-
acterised by high average performance orientation have a significantly stronger link-
age between conflict types. The researcher therefore suggests that managers use
goal orientation as a selection criterion for their team members: If the task demands
the stimulus of task conflict (e.g. innovative and non-routine tasks), they should fa-
vour learning-oriented team members over performance-oriented ones, as such
teams will be less prone to conflict escalation (Huang, 2010).

2.3.4.2 Goal interdependence

Goal interdependence conceptualises a perceived relatedness between individual


team members goals. According to Deutsch (1973), these goals can be seen as
linked cooperatively or competitively, which in turn influences how well people work
together. Under perceived cooperative goal interdependence, people see their own
success as predicated on the goal attainment of their team members. In other words,
they want each other to be successful, which leads to better communication and co-
operation. With competitive goal interdependence, on the other hand, people act un-
der the assumption of a zero-sum game in which their fellow workers goal attainment
will prevent them from achieving their own success. This leads to team members
working against each other instead of with each other (Deutsch, 1973). Schaeffner et
al. (2015) hypothesised that cooperative goal interdependence could be a possible
moderator of the cognitive-affective conflict linkage. To determine how team mem-
bers perceive goal interdependence in their group they studied two indicators.

The first indicator that characterises cooperative goal interdependence is collective


team identification. Collective team identification constitutes an affective bond evolv-
ing between team members which reinforces a feeling of interdependence and goal-
relatedness (Schaeffner et al. 2015, p. 3). It is a form of social identification between
the individuals and their work team. Team members who identify with their team are
willing to work for its well-being, and consequently cooperate better. Team identifica-
14
tion strengthens cooperative goal interdependence because people assume that their
peers actions are guided by the goals of the entire team, not those of a subgroup or
individual. A common social identity should therefore reduce the likelihood of task
conflict turning into interpersonal animosity, as team members are less likely to mis-
attribute task-related dissent to goal incompatibility (Schaeffner et al. 2015). Further-
more, it promotes team reflexivity, which can help the group to actively separate task-
related conflict from interpersonal conflict (Gebert et al. 2006).

Gebert et al. (2006) proposed that a common social identity could weaken the bond
between desired (task) conflict and undesired (relationship) conflict. The empirical
study conducted by Schaeffner et al. (2015) confirms that collective team identifica-
tion does indeed have a strong impact on the linkage between task and relationship
conflict. The results indicate that the linkage between conflict types can actually be
severed completely if the circumstances are right: If collective team identification is
high and task conflict is at a medium level, the dilemma of conflict transformation can
be completely resolved. The study not only proves that there is a contingency that
can disassociate task and relationship completely, it also underlines the importance
of a variable that had not been empirically tested before the level of task conflict to
transform (Schaeffner et al. 2015).

In managerial practice, transformational leadership can be an effective measure to


improve team identification. Transformational leaders provide a common vision that
strengthens team members dedication to the team goals. They inspire and motivate,
which builds up team spirit and fosters team identification (Httermann & Boerner,
2011). Schaeffner et al. (2015) suggest team-building exercises and a culture of
open communication and interaction to strengthen group identity. Gebert et al. (2006)
recommend establishing outcome interdependence, under which gains for one team
member also mean gains for the other group members, which improves cooperation.

The second indicator of cooperative goal interdependence investigated by Schaeff-


ner et al. (2015) is team member alignment, a concept that combines team goals and
outcome interdependence. High team member alignment is characterised by clear
long- and short-term goals and a reward structure centered on joint team perform-
ance, which should increase the salience of common team goals (Schippers et al.
2003). Schaeffner et al. (2015) argue that this will weaken the link between task and
relationship conflict. Due to a team-based reward system, team members should be
15
less inclined to misattribute task-related dissent to hidden agendas, and a clear goal
structure will keep task conflict constructive and prevent it from going astray. How-
ever, the empirical study did not confirm this hypothesis: Neither the existence of
team goals, nor a team-based reward structure did significantly weaken the link be-
tween task and relationship conflict. This could indicate that extrinsic factors (team
goals, reward structure) are less effective than intrinsic ones (team identification) in
keeping relationship conflict at bay (Schaeffner et al. 2015).

2.3.4.3 Team member interaction

Building on the theory developed by Hambrick (1994), Mooney et al. (2007) looked
into the influence that behavioural integration has on conflict transformation. Behav-
ioural integration is defined as the extent to which team members engage in mutual
and collective interaction (Mooney et al. 2007, p. 741), specifically their information
exchange, collaboration, and joint decision making. In a team with high behavioural
integration, team members work as a unit, as opposed to independently. The empiri-
cal study among 94 project teams showed that highly integrated teams experience
less transformation of task conflict into relationship conflict. Similarly to cooperative
goal interdependence, behavioural integration strengthens the team as a unit, and
team members who interact well with each other are less likely to infer hidden agen-
das (Mooney et al. 2007). This goes in line with Amason and Sapienza (1997), who
found that high levels of openness and mutuality in a team helped mitigate the level
of relationship conflict.

On a similar note, Yang and Mossholder (2004) proposed (but did not test) that
strong relational ties within a work group will disassociate task and relationship con-
flict. Team members with strong ties have built familiarity through a history of positive
interaction, which provides a reference for interpretation of other team members be-
haviour. This favourably influences the process of attribution and social judgment that
mediates task and relationship by reducing the likelihood of misattribution and per-
sonal offense. Such groups are characterised by high levels of trust, a strong group
identity, and close social interaction. Gamero et al. (2008) followed up on this pro-
posal by investigating the moderating effect of social interaction on conflict transfor-
mation. Their results show that good social interaction weakens the link between
cognitive and affective conflict in work groups.

16
2.3.4.4 Group fragmentation

While the previously discussed studies investigated the contextual factors that unite
the work team, Xie and Luan (2014) went into the opposite direction. They explored
what happens when a group fragments into subgroups, which form according to sali-
ent and stable characteristics that its members share (e.g. Lau & Murnigham, 1998).
When a part of a group perceives a shared attribute (such as age or level of educa-
tion), they may form a subgroup if the attribute is considered significant. Thereby they
divide the group into ingroup (their subgroup) and outgroup (team members who
do not share the attribute) (Xie & Luan, 2014). The more salient this dividing charac-
teristic is, the more strongly the ingroup members will identify with their subgroup
(van Knippenberg et al. 2004). This subgroup identity acts as a catalyst for the attri-
bution mechanism in the work team. Dissent from ingroup members is far more likely
to be interpreted as task-related, whereas opinions voiced by outgroup members are
more readily attributed to personal disliking or sinister intent, which quickly leads from
task conflict to relationship conflict. This imbalance in attribution is further skewed by
the tendency of ingroup members to homogenise their opinions and attitudes with
repeated interaction, which increases tensions between ingroup and outgroup (Xie &
Luan, 2014).

Xie and Luan (2014) hypothesised that a higher level of subgroup perception will in-
crease a teams propensity for conflict transformation, as their common team identity
is weakened. Their two empirical studies confirmed this theory: The stronger a team
is perceived to be divided, the more easily task-related debates spiral into relation-
ship conflict. This also opens new avenues for future research, as the results under-
line the importance of the source of information (as opposed to the information itself)
(Xie & Luan, 2014).

2.3.4.5 Group dispersion

Holahan et al. (2011) expanded research on conflict in geographically distributed


teams by examining the cognitive-affective conflict in such situations and comparing
it to face-to-face teams (co-located teams). Distributed teams operate under funda-
mentally different premises than co-located teams, mainly because their communica-
tion is mediated by some form of technology. Because of the resulting lack of contex-
tual information (situation invisibility: Cramton et al. 2007), team members are more
17
likely to make dispositional attributions rather than situational attributions: They can-
not explain behavioural shortcomings by observing, so they have to assume and
more likely than not, those assumptions will be negative. Therefore, Holahan et al.
(2011) hypothesised that task conflict in geographically dispersed teams will escalate
into relationship conflict more easily than in co-located groups. Another argument to
support this is provided by media synchronicity theory (Dennis et al. 2008), which
categorizes media according to the speed and clarity of communication: Rich media
(face-to-face communication, teleconferencing) allow for highly synchronised com-
munication, while lean media (e-mail) take more time in between each exchange.
The leaner the medium used by the work group is, the more room there is for misat-
tribution, as team members fill in information gaps by making their own inferences
(Holahan et al. 2011). On the other hand, the tacit information conveyed by rich
media can also act as incendiary for relationship conflict, especially if team members
dont know each other very well (Griffith et al. 2003).

The empirical study conducted by Holahan et al. (2011) confirmed that the link be-
tween cognitive and affective conflict was stronger in distributed teams than in co-
located teams. Martnez-Moreno et al. (2012) conducted a more detailed study, com-
paring conflict transformation in face-to-face groups, videoconference teams, and
groups linked only by computer chat. Their findings show that groups connected by
the lean chat medium were actually less likely to have task conflict devolve into re-
lationship conflict. Since this somewhat contradicts the proposals by Holahan et al.
(2011) as to what causes conflict transformation in distributed teams, future research
will have to examine the mechanisms behind it more closely.

2.3.4.6 Group tenure

Group tenure or group temporariness, the amount of time a team has been working
together (Holahan et al. 2011, p. 46) is another factor to be considered. Research on
social processes in groups has found that group member interaction changes over
time: Long-tenure groups exhibit more information sharing, find effective work pat-
terns, assign roles, develop group norms, and build a common identity (Holahan et
al. 2011). These processes change the way teams experience conflict during their
tenure. Earlier studies dealt with the effect of tenure on conflict in general or individ-
ual types of conflict. For instance, Pelled et al. (1999) found that the influence of

18
demographic diversity on conflict weakened as group tenure increased. The results
of Amason and Sapienza (1997) showed that long-term groups experienced less task
conflict than short-term groups.

More recently, researchers have investigated the effects of group tenure on the inter-
play between conflict types. The study conducted by Cureu et al. (2012) on emotion
regulation (see 2.3.1.2) found that the moderating effect of emotion regulation de-
pends on team tenure. Their results show that emotion regulation takes time to be-
come effective, and is therefore more effective in long-term groups. In short-term
groups, there is not enough time for conflict resolution measures to feed back into
performance. Groups with an extended tenure have a history interaction, well-
established and well-tested work processes and a common identity. The norms de-
veloped over time improve emotion regulation and thereby improve conflict resolu-
tion: In long-term groups with high emotion regulation, the linkage between task and
relationship conflict was the weakest (Cureu et al. 2012).

The findings of Holahan et al. (2011) are somewhat more ambiguous. In their study
of conflict linkage in co-located and dispersed groups (see 2.3.4.5), they tested the
effects of team tenure in both types of teams. While longer tenure weakened the link
between cognitive and affective conflict in co-located teams (as predicted), geo-
graphically dispersed teams showed a persistently strong correlation as tenure in-
creased. A possible reason for this is that technologically mediated communication
impedes the socialisation processes because of its lack of context and direct interac-
tion, which makes it more difficult to build a strong team identity. This is further ag-
gravated by the fact that dispersed teams often have more cultural and functional
diversity (Holahan et al. 2011).

Similarly, a recent study by Schaeffner et al. (2015) contradicted the prediction that
longer team tenure would mitigate conflict transformation: Long-term teams showed
higher levels of relationship conflict. This might be because team members become
more aware of their personal incompatibilities over time, which fosters interpersonal
animosity. It can also be argued that well-established teams tend to discuss informa-
tion that has already been shared. Debate about redundant information may fuel frus-
tration and dissatisfaction and give way to relationship conflict (Schaeffner et al.
2015).

19
2.3.5 Conflict management

In our last subsection on moderators we look at various ways of dealing with conflict,
moving from coping mechanisms to conflict resolution and management strategies.

2.3.5.1 Coping

Coping encompasses the cognitive and behavioral efforts to master, tolerate, or re-
duce external and internal demands and conflicts among them (Folkman & Lazarus,
1980, p. 223, as cited in Pluut & Cureu, 2013, p. 2). It is a mechanism for relieving
stress and improving emotional well-being. Even though coping works at the level of
the individual, Pluut and Cureu (2013) argue that over time, a group coping strategy
will form through contagion and polarisation. Coping can either be directed at the
stressor itself or directly at the caused emotional distress, which leads to the distinc-
tion between problem-focused and emotion-focused coping, respectively. Depending
on their personality and the situation at hand, people exhibit a specific coping behav-
iour to deal with conflict. Since the two coping strategies are not suited equally well
for every kind of threat, it is necessary to distinguish between task and relationship
conflict as two different kinds of stressors. The level of stress caused by intragroup
conflict depends on how personally relevant the issue is, which is why challenges to
ones self-concept are especially stressful and can elicit strong emotional reactions.
On the other hand, attitudes and opinions challenged by task conflict are only indi-
rectly linked to ones self-concept (Pluut & Cureu, 2013).

Pluut and Cureu (2013) hypothesised that choosing the appropriate coping strategy
could mitigate the transformation of early task conflict into later relationship conflict.
When task conflict first arises, a problem-focused coping strategy should keep dis-
agreement focused on the stressor (the task conflict), whereas emotion-focused cop-
ing will trigger the link between attitudes and self-concept, which increases stress
and leads to interpersonal conflict. However, if the self-concept of team members is
directly challenged (relationship conflict), emotion-focused coping will reduce the im-
pact of the resulting negative emotionality and prevent further escalation. In other
words: Problem-focused coping fits task conflict; emotion-focused coping fits rela-
tionship conflict. Empirical testing by Pluut and Cureu (2013) confirmed that groups
who adapt their coping strategy accordingly experience less conflict transformation of

20
task into relationship conflict from early to later stages, while a mismatch between
coping strategy and conflict type had the opposite effect.

2.3.5.2 Conflict resolution

Conflict management in its broadest terms can be defined as behaviour oriented


toward the intensification, reduction, and resolution of the tension (De Dreu et al.
1999, p. 371, as cited in DeChurch et al. 2007, p. 68). A widely used framework for
conflict management strategies is based on dual concern theory, which posits two
dimensions: Activeness (concern for task) and agreeableness (concern for relation-
ships). This leads to five strategies, which are collaboration (high agreeableness,
high activeness), competition (high activeness, low agreeableness), accommodation
(low activeness, high agreeableness), avoiding (low on both dimensions), and com-
promising (moderate on both dimensions) (DeChurch et al. 2007). A similar frame-
work can be derived using the concept of goal interdependence (Deutsch, 1973) that
we already visited earlier. Huang (2010) used this model to test the influence of con-
flict management on conflict transformation. If team members perceive their goals as
competitively linked, they will try to achieve them at each others expense. Teams
with a competitive conflict management approach are characterised by disrupted
communication and increasingly emotional discussion, which will add a relational
component to task conflict. In contrast, groups that employ a cooperative approach
communicate openly and engage in collective interaction as a group. This prevents
task conflict from becoming personal, as shown in the behavioural integration study
by Mooney et al. (2007). A third strategy is to simply avoid conflict: Issues are not
discussed, negative sentiments suppressed. This will not resolve the conflict at hand,
and can therefore lead to relationship conflict (Huang, 2010).

Following up on a line of research that investigated the link between conflict man-
agement behaviour and group outcome, DeChurch et al. (2007) studied conflict
management strategies as a potential trigger for task conflict turning into relationship
conflict. The proposed mechanism is inappropriate behaviour in the form of aggres-
sive (conflict) management tactics (competing, avoiding), which will trigger hostile
responses from other team members. Conversely, agreeable strategies (collaborat-
ing, accommodating) should result in less relationship conflict. The empirical results
did not draw a line between agreeable and disagreeable styles, but rather singled out

21
the competitive conflict management strategy as the one that will aggravate ongoing
task conflict and transform it into relationship conflict (DeChurch et al. 2007). Interest-
ingly, Huang (2010) did not find significant support for competing as a negative mod-
erator on conflict transformation. On the other hand, their tests confirmed their propo-
sition that avoiding strengthens the link between task and relationship conflict, while
cooperation weakens it.

Greer et al. (2008) conducted a longitudinal study looking into the moderating effects
of conflict resolution, the perception that conflicts have been resolved (cf. Jehn et al.
2008). High conflict resolution implies that a team has effectively employed conflict
resolution strategies (Jehn, 1997), which prevents conflict transformation and per-
petuation in several ways. It promotes trust, respect and open communication, which
reduces the likelihood of personal affront. Resolving conflict also eliminates issues,
thereby preventing conflict from spiralling out of control. Furthermore it promotes a
positive group climate without negative affect (Greer et al. 2008). Empirical testing of
this hypothesis, however, only yielded significant results for the effects of process
conflict resolution. Resolving early process conflict lead to significantly reduced proc-
ess, task and relationship conflict in the medium term, and reduced task conflict in
the long term. Interestingly, it only mitigated process and relationship conflict in the
short term, which indicates that ambiguity and negative emotions evoked by process
conflict can remain for a longer time despite conflict resolution. Nevertheless, these
findings underline the importance of resolving process conflict early on, before it can
develop into a larger problem (Greer et al. 2008).

2.3.5.3 Leadership and conflict management

Conflict management research has also looked into the role of leadership on conflict
transformation. A leader can influence the mechanisms behind conflict transformation
in many ways, depending on his style of leadership. Leadership literature commonly
distinguishes between three types of leadership. Transactional leadership uses re-
wards as a mechanism to gain the compliance of subordinates. In contrast, a trans-
formational leader seeks to motivate his team to change their attitudes, beliefs and
values in order to get them to work towards a team goal. Finally, the concept of ex-
ternal leadership is most commonly found in self-management literature, as it pro-
motes the self-responsible work of team members (Kotlyar & Karakowsky, 2006).

22
In their model of transformational leadership and innovation, Httermann and
Boerner (2011) propose that transformational leadership moderates the cognitive-
affective conflict linkage via team identification. A transformational leader provides a
common vision, serves as a role model, and strengthens the common social identity.
Heightened team spirit will reduce antagonistic behaviour, and the commitment to
team goals will reduce the likelihood of misattribution (Httermann & Boerner, 2011).
However, the validity of this proposition is yet to be empirically tested.

Kotlyar and Karakowsky (2006) studied the different effects these leadership styles
have on group conflict. Contrary to Httermann and Boerner (2011), they argued that
transactional leadership would be more effective at preventing conflict transformation
than transformational leadership. Transactional leaders set clearly defined rules for
group behaviour, discourage and reprimand hostile behaviour and the reciprocation
thereof, and clarify ambiguous signals to avoid misattribution. This reduces negative
emotionality and therefore prevents (task) conflict escalation. In contrast, the ego-
engaging nature of transformational leadership and the laissez-faire approach of ex-
ternal leadership are more likely to let initial task conflict get out of hand. An empirical
study confirmed this hypothesis (Kotlyar & Karakowsky, 2006).

2.4 Alternative transformation directions

Most studies on conflict transformation have focused on task conflict triggering rela-
tionship conflict. Only recently have researchers begun to investigate the possibility
of a different direction in this linkage, i.e. relationship conflict leading to increased
task conflict. These studies often take the form of long a longitudinal analysis (as op-
posed to the more prevalent cross-sectional one) that investigates the development
and transformation of conflict at different stages in a groups life span. In this chapter,
we review the findings of Greer et al. (2008), Martnez-Moreno et al. (2012) and Choi
and Cho (2011) on these alternative linkage directions.

2.4.1 Transformation of process conflict

Process conflict has received much less attention than task and relationship conflict
(Greer et al. 2008), although researchers have made a strong case for its inclusion in
the conflict model (e.g. Martnez-Moreno et al. 2012). Similarly to relationship conflict,
it is thought to have mostly negative effects (for a review: de Wit et al. 2012), with a
23
few studies noting the possibility of process conflict benefits (e.g. Jehn & Mannix,
2001). The root of its detrimental influence is the negative personal connotation that it
carries: Issues like task delegation imply a personal judgement about ones compe-
tence that can easily be taken as an insult (Greer & Jehn, 2007).

Greer et al. (2008) examined the effects of early process conflict on the emergence
of other conflict types in later stages of group interaction. Most importantly, they
found that process conflict which remains unresolved leads to higher levels of all
types of conflict in later stages. There are several explanations for this detrimental
influence. Conflict about inappropriate task assignment, work processes and unjust
resource allocation will upset team members on a personal level. The resulting nega-
tive affect is likely to carry over into later stages of group interaction, where it fosters
personal animosity and makes misattribution more likely. This mechanism will make
the emergence of relationship conflict very likely, as a lack of mitigating information in
these process-related issues makes team members more prone to malign attribu-
tions. Process conflict can also lead to increased task conflict later on. Disagreement
about goal accomplishment can put the task in jeopardy, for instance because team
members lose focus or stop communicating effectively (Greer et al. 2008).

The study by Martnez-Moreno et al. (2012) came to similar conclusions regarding


the role of process conflict. Results showed that process conflict in early stages
makes groups more susceptible to subsequent relationship conflict. In their examina-
tion, process conflict was identified as a moderator of the linkage between task and
relationship conflict: When group members argue about procedural issues early on,
escalation into full-fledged personal conflict becomes more likely. Van den Berg et al.
(2014) concurred with these findings, concluding that early process conflict facilitates
the later transformation of task conflict into relationship conflict.

2.4.2 Transformation of relationship conflict

While most studies investigated the transformation of task conflict into relationship
conflict, Greer et al. (2008) explored the possibility of the opposite causality. They
argued that the negative affect and antagonism spread by unresolved relationship
conflict will impede constructive debate about task-related issues. Frustrated team
members may sabotage or contradict their peers ideas out of personal hostility
(Jehn, 1995; Pelled et al. 1999). Similarly, Choi and Cho (2011) cited Mood Congru-
24
ent Theory to back up negative group affect as a mediator between affective and
cognitive conflict: Team members in a negative mood are more inclined to disagree
with each other. As another possible mechanism, they suggested that distorted per-
ception resulting from relationship conflict could translate into biased decision-making
and thus trigger task conflict.

However, results of empirical testing by Greer et al. (2008) did not support the hy-
pothesis of early relationship conflict predicting later task conflict (or process conflict).
Likewise, the longitudinal study by Gamero et al. (2008) only showed task conflict
triggering relationship conflict, but not the other way around. On the other hand, Choi
and Cho (2011) found empirical evidence for relationship conflict causing task con-
flict, as well as for negative affect as a mediator of this linkage. Furthermore they did,
in fact, not find task conflict to be a predictor of later relationship conflict, which con-
tradicts the prevalent notion of cognitive conflict leading to affective conflict. This
adds another argument to the ongoing debate on the merits and detriments of task
conflict: Task conflict may be detrimental because it is the result of relationship con-
flict, not its trigger (Choi & Cho, 2011). Future research will have to determine
whether this proposition holds up.

Following up on a suggestion by Simons and Peterson (2000), Choi and Cho (2011)
also investigated trust as a moderator of the affective-cognitive conflict linkage. The
rationale behind this is that group members who trust each other will not let their
negative attitude towards others affect their task-related judgements. Empirical test-
ing revealed that while a high level of intragroup trust can mitigate the transformation
of task conflict into relationship conflict (in line with Simons & Peterson, 2000), it does
not alleviate the transformation in the opposite direction. Given this invariably nega-
tive influence of early relationship conflict on later conflicts, they point out the impor-
tance of swift conflict resolution.

25
3 DISCUSSION

In the preceding chapter, we reviewed the findings on conflict type linkage, ranging
from the nineties to the current day. We have already used a preliminary categorisa-
tion during our review, sorting the discussed studies into the fields of trust, emotion,
team, task, and resolution. In the following, we are going to discuss and comment on
some of the parallels and contradictions within these findings. Thereby we answer
the questions we asked at the beginning, and provide an outlook on future research
possibilities.

3.1 Theoretical implications and directions for future research

The contradiction postulated by De Dreu and Weingart (2003) started off an entirely
new meta-conflict in this line of research, questioning the beneficial effects that had
been attributed to task conflict in previous research. Subsequent scrutiny may have
revealed minor flaws in this meta-analysis, such as a methodological bias in the re-
viewed studies that failed to control for the effects of other conflict types (Holahan,
2011), but the basic premise still stands: The virtues of task conflict are threatened by
its inherent tendency to transform into destructive relationship conflict. The problem-
atic association between conflict types has been repeatedly confirmed by others (cf.
de Wit, 2012, for a more recent meta-analysis).

Research has come a long way in the twelve years since then. Early studies on task
and relationship conflict, in their efforts to link the different conflict types to specific
team outcomes, implicitly assumed that the forms of conflict were independent (Yang
& Mossholder, 2004). The distinct outcomes for cognitive and affective conflict show
that the two are indeed separate forms of conflict (van den Berg et al. 2014), despite
the strong co-occurrence uncovered by Simons and Peterson (2000) and De Dreu
and Weingart (2003). Studies have also found that even disputants themselves are
able to distinguish different manifestations of conflict (DeChurch et al. 2007). The
findings of strong correlation and the general consensus about distinct conflict types
support the idea of conflict transformation as the reason for supposedly constructive
task conflict going awry. Indeed, one would be hard pressed to find researchers that
still dispute the connection between different types of conflict and the role it plays. So

26
the more relevant question is not if different types of conflict are related, but how
they connect.

A noteworthy observation about the mechanisms behind conflict transformation in the


studies we reviewed is the lack of empirical testing: Even though all authors make a
well-argued case for the most likely mechanism, their studies are not designed to
investigate the exact process, only its outcome (an exception being Simons & Peter-
son (2000), who directly tested for aggressive behaviour). Mooney et al. (2007) gave
impetus by consolidating the theory of conflict antecedents with conflict transforma-
tion, but noted that an empirical study on such mechanisms as attribution in the con-
text of group conflict is still due. Nonetheless, attribution theory is the prevalent ra-
tionale behind conflict transformation in the studies we reviewed. Most of these stud-
ies favour the notion of perceived personal attack (Jehn, 1997) as the linking mecha-
nism. The attribution of a suspected hidden agenda (Amason, 1996) is mostly con-
nected to moderators that stem from team identification (e.g. Schaeffner et al. 2015)
and team member interaction (e.g. Mooney et al. 2007). Similarly, the mechanism of
harsh language and inappropriate conflict behaviour as an explanation for conflict
transformation is only prominent in specific areas, most notably conflict management
and resolution (e.g. DeChurch et al. 2007; Greer et al. 2008).

Moving on to the subject of moderators and mediators, we can see common ele-
ments among various studies. One recurring aspect is, perhaps not surprising con-
sidering the topic, emotion and affect: The stressful nature of conflict inevitably elicits
emotions from all participants (Nair, 2008) - both task and relationship conflict are
emotional (Jehn, 1997). However, results concerning the specific affective reactions
to task conflict are contradictory (Gamero et al. 2008), as are the findings about the
exact role of emotion and affective reaction in conflict transformation. Both Medina et
al. (2006) and Gamero et al. (2008) concluded that task conflict and affective reaction
are mediated by relationship conflict. In opposition to that, the results of Choi and
Cho (2011) support the hypothesis that task conflict and relationship conflict are me-
diated by negative affect.

While several studies we reviewed have identified moderators pertaining to emotions,


such as emotional intelligence and emotion regulation (Yang & Mossholder, 2004;
Cureu et al. 2012; van den Berg et al. 2014), the working mechanisms behind these
moderators have not been tested yet (Cureu et al. 2012). The same can be said
27
about the proposed role of affect and emotions with other moderators, like affect-
based trust (Parayitam & Dooley, 2007), issue importance (Rispens, 2012), coping
(Pluut & Cureu, 2013), or conflict resolution (Greer et al. 2008). However, the fact
that almost all studies reviewed herein mention the role of emotion in some way un-
derlines how closely entwined emotion and conflict transformation are. Nair (2008)
remarks that research on the role of emotions in work conflict still has a lot of ground
to cover, as the field of emotion research was long regarded as the opposite of the
level-headed rationality deemed appropriate for a workplace. Especially the concept
of emotion as a framer that shapes disputants perceptions warrants future research:
The cognitive appraisal of emotions evoked by conflict plays a key role in the process
of attribution that links task and relationship conflict, but has largely been neglected
in the literature (Nair, 2008).

Another recurring concept among several moderators is what could be summarised


under the umbrella term of group cohesion. This aspect is most evident in the mod-
erators categorised as team-related in our review (see 2.3.4): Goal orientation
(Huang, 2010), team identification (Gebert et al. 2006; Httermann & Boerner, 2011;
Schaeffner et al. 2015), behavioural integration (Mooney et al. 2007), team member
interaction (Gamero et al. 2008; Yang & Mossholder, 2004) and the avoidance of
group fragmentation (Xie & Luan, 2014) have been shown to weaken the link be-
tween task and relationship conflict. Leadership tries to strengthen group cohesion
(Httermann & Boerner, 2011), conflict management tries to maintain or repair it
(DeChurch et al. 2007; Huang, 2010). All these moderators strive towards the ideal of
a cohesive group that operates as a unit: Team members have a history of positive
interaction, work towards a common team goal, communicate openly and effectively,
and employ and accept constructive criticism. These characteristics mitigate the
usual process of conflict transformation, helping the team to keep debates focused
on the task at hand without drifting into personal conflict. Similar ideas can be found
in other studies, such as the quality of personal relationships (Simons & Peterson,
2000) and an environment of openness and mutuality (Amason & Sapienza, 1996).
Schaeffner et al. (2015) propose that the kind of intrinsic motivation generated by the
attachment to ones team is more effective at preventing conflict escalation than ra-
tional external incentives (e.g. team-based goals and rewards), evidenced by the lack
of support for team member alignment as a moderator of conflict transformation.

28
Group fragmentation is the antithesis of group cohesion, but as such works under the
same premises ideally, the ingroup comprises all the team members (no fragmen-
tation), which constitutes a perfectly cohesive group. Xie and Luan (2014) offer a new
perspective on the mechanism of attribution, concluding that the source of informa-
tion is more important for conflict processes than the content: Information provided by
ingroup members is interpreted with much more benign assumptions than signals
from outgroup members. This idea can also be applied to the studies on trust (e.g.
Simons & Peterson, 2000), which essentially propose the same model in their case,
the ingroup simply comprises people perceived to be trustworthy (Xie and Luan,
2014).

Trust, as one of the first moderators of conflict transformation to be tested (Simons &
Peterson, 2000), has exhibited little ambiguity in its role as a moderator: The studies
we reviewed all confirmed its moderating effects. Tidd et al. (2004), who found no
support for moderation of conflict transformation, still observed a moderating effect of
trust on role ambiguity. Future research should perhaps look at the distinct compo-
nents and their effects, as Parayitam and Dooley (2007) proposed.

As for less well-explored moderators, group dispersion provides ample opportunity


for future research. Particularly the influence of communication media in distributed
teams remains ambiguous: Between situation invisibility and media richness, the
contradictory results of Holahan et al. (2011) and Martnez-Moreno et al. (2012) could
not establish a consensus about the role of the various forms of media in conflict
transformation. Similarly, results concerning the effects of group tenure still show
contradictions and inconsistencies between studies: Cureu et al. (2012) were able to
confirm the prediction that longer tenure attenuated conflict linkage, whereas
Schaeffner et al. (2015) found their results to contradict this expectation. Results ob-
tained by Holahan et al. (2011) were mixed, showing tenure to moderate conflict
transformation only in co-located, but not in geographically dispersed teams. This
warrants follow-up research to clarify the role of group tenure on conflict develop-
ment. Furthermore, the approach taken by Cureu et al. (2012), who tested the ef-
fects of group tenure in conjunction with another moderating variable (in this case,
emotion regulation), can provide insights on how this moderator influences conflict
processes.

29
While new moderators will always provide avenues for future research, scholars
should also consider alternative approaches and research designs that have re-
ceived less attention. Mooney et al. (2007) suggest more researchers use longitudi-
nal studies instead of the more common cross-sectional ones: Given the dynamic
nature of conflict over time, longitudinal studies may be better suited to investigate
the processes of conflict transformation over time, although the researchers suspect
that many of these processes may occur to quickly to be captured. Either way, longi-
tudinal designs are the preferable method for making causal inferences (Choi & Cho,
2011), which has been used to explore alternative directions of conflict linkage. The
notion that relationship conflict triggers task conflict has been rejected by various
studies in the past (e.g. Gamero et al. 2008; Greer et al. 2008), but Choi and Cho
(2011) found significant empirical support for this reverse causality. Should this result
hold up in future testing, it will open a new line of research for the discipline, as both
new and established mechanisms and moderators will have to be tested for this link-
age. The same can be said for process conflict, which has been mostly neglected
(Greer et al. 2008) in the literature even though it has been shown to be an important
predictor of subsequent conflict (Greer et al. 2008; Martnez-Moreno et al. 2012).

3.2 Practical implications

When trying to translate these findings into practical advice for application in real-life
business, the most useful information might be the mere knowledge (and awareness)
that conflict does indeed transform. This insight should be a cautionary reminder to
those who advocate the stimulation of task conflict in order to spark debate and im-
prove decision quality: The danger of conflict escalation is ever-present. And given
that a certain level of task conflict is inevitable, it is necessary to take measures to
counteract this detrimental tendency of conflict transformation.

A look back over the contingency factors reviewed herein reveals an abundance of
potential levers for managers to use. As Huang (2010) pointed out, the process of
dealing with conflict starts with the recruitment of the right team members. Once the
group is assembled, teams need to establish an environment of trust, open commu-
nication, and mutual respect in order to avoid the process of misattribution. Further-
more, team members should ensure the fair delegation of power and responsibilities
and try to avoid competitive tendencies within the group.

30
Team leaders can strengthen the group by providing common goals, vision, and mo-
tivation, e.g. via transformational leadership. As studies on emotion regulation and
conflict management have shown, managers can also help their teams develop the
cognitive competencies that enable them to handle conflict constructively. This allows
for quick identification and resolution of task conflict before it can fester and evolve
into relationship conflict. Several researchers (e.g. De Dreu & Weingart, 2003) have
pointed out that being aware what kind of conflict is occurring is the first step towards
handling and resolving it. Teams should therefore promote self-reflection and meta-
communication (Schaeffner et al. 2015) in order to assess the type of conflict, the
context (e.g. team composition, task complexity), and then the appropriate measures
to deal with the conflict.

31
4 CONCLUSION

In this thesis we reviewed task, process and relationship conflict and their problem-
atic association with each other. We investigated the mechanisms that link them and
discussed moderators and mediators of this conflict linkage in order to better under-
stand how intragroup conflict can transform and escalate.

The contradiction postulated by the meta-analysis of De Dreu and Weingart (2003)


guided conflict research in a new direction. As evidenced by the plethora of studies in
our review, many possibilities have been explored, and much has been found out -
researchers have learned more about the interdependence of conflict types, and
given recommendations for dealing with their co-existence in workgroups. Conflict is
ever-present in workgroups, as is conflict transformation, but this process can be
mitigated in many ways. The meta-conflict that was started by the findings of De Dreu
and Weingart (2003) is closing in on its resolution, but new questions and contradic-
tions have surfaced and as scholars set out to settle them, conflict about conflict
will start anew.

32
REFERENCES

Amason, A. C.; Sapienza, H. J. (1997). The Effects of Top Management Team Size and In-
teraction Norms on Cognitive and Affective Conflict. Journal of Management, 23(4), 495
516.

Amason, A. C.; Mooney, A. C. (1999). The effects of past performance on top management
team conflict in strategic decision making. International Journal of Conflict Management,
10(4), 340-359.

Ayoko, O. B.; Callan, V. J.; Hrtel, C. E. J. (2008). The Influence of Team Emotional Intelli-
gence Climate on Conflict and Team Members' Reactions to Conflict. Small Group Research,
39(2), 121149.

Bobko, P.; Colella, A. (1994). Employee reactions to performance standards: A review and
research propositions. Personnel Psychology, 47(1), 1-29.

Choi, K.; Cho, B. (2011). Competing hypotheses analyses of the associations between group
task conflict and group relationship conflict. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(8), 1106-
1126.

Cramton, C. D.; Orvis, K. L.; Wilson, J. M. (2007). Situation Invisibility and Attribution in Dis-
tributed Collaborations. Journal of Management, 33(4), 525-546.

Cureu, P. L.; Boro, S.; Oerlemans, L. A. G. (2012). Task and relationship conflict in
shortterm and longterm groups: The critical role of emotion regulation. International Journal
of Conflict Management, 23(1), 97-107.

De Dreu, C. K. W.; Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task Versus Relationship Conflict, Team Per-
formance, and Team Member Satisfaction: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology,
88(4), 741-749.

De Dreu, C. K. W.; Harinck, F.; Van Vianen, A. E. M. (1999). Conflict and performance in
groups and organizations. In: Cooper, C. L.; Robertson, I. T. (Eds.). International Review of
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 14. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 369-414.

Dennis, A. R.; Fuller, R. M.; Valacich, J. S. (2008). Media, Tasks, and Communication Proc-
esses: A Theory of Media Synchronicity. MIS Quarterly, 32(3), 575-600.

De Wit, F. R. C.; Greer, L. L.; Jehn, K. A. (2012). The Paradox of Intragroup Conflict: A Meta-
Analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(2), 360390.

DeChurch, L. A.; Hamilton, K. L.; Haas, C. (2007). Effects of Conflict Management Strategies
on Perceptions of Intragroup Conflict. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice,
11(1), 66-78.

Deutsch, M. (1973). The resolution of conflict. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.

33
Druskat, V. U.; Wolff, S. B. (2001). Building the Emotional Intelligence of Groups. Harvard
Business Review, 79(3), 80-91.

Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist,


41(10), 1040-1048.

Fiske, S. T.; Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social Cognition. McGraw Hill, 2nd edition, New York.

Folkman, S.; Lazarus, R. S. (1980). An Analysis of Coping in a Middle-Aged Community


Sample. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 21, 219-239.

Gamero, N.; Gonzlez-Rom, V.; Peir, J. M. (2008). The influence of intra-team conflict on
work teams' affective climate: A longitudinal study. Journal of Occupational and Organiza-
tional Psychology, 81(1), 47-69.

Gebert, D.; Boerner, S.; Kearney, E. (2006). Cross-functionality and innovation in new prod-
uct development teams: A dilemmatic structure and its consequences for the management of
diversity. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 15(4), 431-458.

Greer, L. L.; Jehn, K. A. (2007). The pivotal role of negative affect in understanding the ef-
fects of process conflict on group performance. In: Mannix, E. A.; Neale, M. A.; Anderson, C.
(Eds.). Research on managing groups and teams, Vol. 10. JAI Press, Stanford, 23-45.

Greer, L. L.; Jehn, K. A.; Mannix, E. A. (2008). Conflict Transformation: A Longitudinal Inves-
tigation of the Relationships Between Different Types of Intragroup Conflict and the Moderat-
ing Role of Conflict Resolution. Small Group Research, 39(3), 278-302.

Griffith, T. L.; Mannix, E. A.; Neale, M. A. (2003). Conflict and virtual teams. In: Griffith, T. L.;
Mannix, E. A.; Neale, M. A. (Eds.). Virtual teams that work. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco,
213-233.

Guetzkow, H.; Gyr, J. (1954). An analysis of conflict in decision-making groups. Human Rela-
tions, 7, 367-381.

Hambrick, D. C. (1994). Top Management Groups: A Conceptual Integration and Reconsid-


eration of the Group Label. In: Staw, B. M.; Cummings, L. L. (Eds.). Research in Organiza-
tional Behavior. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, 171-214.

Harvey, J. H.; Weary, G. (1985). Attribution: Basic Issues and Applications. John Wiley and
Sons, New York.

Holahan, P. J.; Mooney, A. C.; Paul, L. F. (2011). Moderating effects of geographic disper-
sion and team tenure on the task-affective conflict relationship. In: Rahim, M. A. (Ed.). Cur-
rent Topics in Management, Vol. 15. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, 41-62.

Huang, J. (2010). Unbundling task conflict and relationship conflict: The moderating role of
team goal orientation and conflict management. International Journal of Conflict Manage-
ment, 21(3), 334-355.

34
Httermann, H.; Boerner, S. (2011). Fostering innovation in functionally diverse teams: The
two faces of transformational leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psy-
chology, 20(6), 833-854.

Jehn, K. A. (1994). Enhancing Effectiveness: An Investigation of Advantages and Disadvan-


tages of Value-based Intragroup Conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management, 5(3),
223238.

Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup


conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(2), 256-282.

Jehn, K. A. (1997). A Qualitative Analysis of Conflict Types and Dimensions in Organiza-


tional Groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(3), 530-557.

Jehn, K. A.; Mannix, E. A. (2001). The Dynamic Nature of Conflict: A Longitudinal Study of
Intragroup Conflict and Group Performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 238
251.

Jehn, K. A.; Greer, L. L.; Levine, S.; Szulanski, G. (2008). The Effects of Conflict Types, Di-
mensions, and Emergent States on Group Outcomes. Group Decision and Negotiation,
17(6), 465495.

Kotlyar, I.; Karakowsky, L. (2006). Leading Conflict? Linkages Between Leader Behaviors
and Group Conflict. Small Group Research, 37(4), 377-403.

Lau, D. C.; Murnighan, J. K. (1998). Demographic Diversity and Faultlines: The Composi-
tional Dynamics of Organizational Groups. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 325-
340.

Martnez-Moreno, E.; Zornoza, A.; Gonzlez-Navarro, P.; Thompson, L. F. (2012). Investigat-


ing Face-to-Face and Virtual Teamwork Over Time: When Does Early Task Conflict Trigger
Relationship conflict? Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 16(3), 159-171.

Medina, F. J.; Munduate, L.; Dorado, M. A.; Martnez, I.; Guerra, J. M. (2005). Types of in-
tragroup conflict and affective reactions. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20(3/4), 219-230.

Mooney, A. C.; Holahan, P. J.; Amason, A. C. (2007). Don't Take It Personally: Exploring
Cognitive Conflict as a Mediator of Affective Conflict. Journal of Management Studies, 44(5),
733-758.

Nair (2008). Towards understanding the role of emotions in conflict: A review and future di-
rections. International Journal of Conflict Management, 19(4), 359381.

Parayitam, S.; Dooley, R. S. (2007). The relationship between conflict and decision out-
comes: Moderating effects of cognitive- and affect-based trust in strategic decision-making
teams. International Journal of Conflict Management, 18(1), 42-73.

Parayitam, S.; Olson, B. J.; Bao, Y. (2010). Task conflict, relationship conflict and agree-
mentseeking behavior in Chinese top management teams. International Journal of Conflict
Management, 21(1), 94-116.

35
Pelled, L. H. (1996). Demographic diversity, conflict, and work group outcomes: An interven-
ing process theory. Organization Science, 7(6), 615-631.

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, 1-28.

Peterson, R. S.; Behfar, K. J. (2003). The dynamic relationship between performance feed-
back, trust, and conflict in groups: A longitudinal study. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 92(1/2), 102-112.

Pluut, H.; Curseu, P. L. (2013). Perceptions of intragroup conflict: The effect of coping strate-
gies on conflict transformation and escalation. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations,
16(4), 412-425.

Rispens, S. (2012). The Influence of Conflict Issue Importance on the Co-occurrence of Task
and Relationship Conflict in Teams. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 61(3),
349-367.

Salovey, P.; Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and Person-
ality, 9(3), 185-211.

Schaeffner, M.; Huettermann, H.; Gebert, D.; Boerner, S.; Kearney, E.; Song, L. J. (2015).
Swim or Sink Together: The Potential of Collective Team Identification and Team Member
Alignment for Separating Task and Relationship Conflicts. Group & Organization Manage-
ment, 40(4), 467-499.

Schippers, M. C.; Den Hartog, D. N.; Koopman, P. L.; & Wienk, J. A. (2003). Diversity and
team outcomes: The moderating effects of outcome interdependence and group longevity
and the mediating effect of reflexivity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(6), 779-802.

Simons, T. L.; Peterson, R. S. (2000). Task conflict and relationship conflict in top manage-
ment teams: The pivotal role of intragroup trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(1), 102-
111.

Tidd, S. T.; McIntyre, H. H.; Friedman, R. A. (2004). The Importance of Role Ambiguity and
Trust in Conflict Perception: Unpacking the Task Conflict to Relationship Conflict Linkage.
International Journal of Conflict Management, 15(4), 364-380.

van den Berg, W.; Cureu, P. L.; Meeus, M. T. H. (2014). Emotion regulation and conflict
transformation in multi-team systems. International Journal of Conflict Management, 25(2),
171-188.

Van Knippenberg, D.; De Dreu, C. K. W.; Homan, A. C. (2004). Work Goup Diversity and
Group Performance: An Integrative Model and Research Agenda. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 89(6), 1008-1022.

Xie, X.; Luan, K. (2014). When business becomes personal: The catalyst implication of sub-
group perception underlying the co-occurrence of task and relationship conflict. Group Dy-
namics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 18(1), 87-99.

36
Yang, J.; Mossholder, K. W. (2004). Decoupling task and relationship conflict: the role of in-
tragroup emotional processing. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(5), 589605.

37
APPENDIX: REVIEWED STUDIES

The table only contains studies that directly investigated the linkage between task
conflict (TC), relationship conflict (RC) or process conflict (PC).

Author(s) Year Title Publication Subject of study


Choi, Cho 2011 Competing hypotheses Journal of link: TCRC / RCTC
analyses of the associa- Organizational moderator: trust
tions between group Behavior mediator: negative affect
task conflict and group
relationship conflict
Cureu, 2012 Task and relationship International link: TCRC
Boro, Oerle- conflict in shortterm Journal of moderators: emotion regulation,
mans and longterm groups: Conflict Man- group temporariness
agement
The critical role of emo-
tion regulation
De Dreu, 2003 Task Versus Relation- Journal of link: TCRC
Weingart ship Conflict, Team Applied Psy- meta-analysis
Performance, and chology
Team Member Satisfac-
tion: A Meta-Analysis
DeChurch, 2007 Effects of Conflict Man- Group Dy- link: TCRC
Hamilton, agement Strategies on namics: The- moderator: conflict manage-
Haas Perceptions of In- ory, Re- ment
tragroup Conflict search, and
Practice
Gamero, 2008 The influence of intra- Journal of link: TCRC / RCTC
Gonzlez- team conflict on work Occupational moderator: team interaction
Rom, Peir teams' affective climate: and Organiza-
A longitudinal study tional Psy-
chology

38
Gebert, 2006 Cross-functionality and European link: TCRC
Boerner, innovation in new prod- Journal of no empirical testing
Kearney uct development teams: Work and moderator: common social
A dilemmatic structure Organizational identity
and its consequences Psychology
for the management of
diversity
Greer, Jehn, 2008 Conflict Transformation: Small Group link: TCRC / TCPC /
Mannix A Longitudinal Investi- Research RCTC / PCTC / PCRC
gation of the Relation- moderator: conflict resolution
ships Between Different
Types of Intragroup
Conflict and the Moder-
ating Role of Conflict
Resolution
Holahan, 2011 Moderating effects of Current Top- link: TCRC
Mooney, Paul geographic dispersion ics in Man- moderators: geographic disper-
and team tenure on the agement sion, team tenure
task-affective conflict
relationship
Huang 2010 Unbundling task conflict International link: TCRC
and relationship conflict: Journal of moderators: team goal orienta-
The moderating role of Conflict Man- tion, conflict management
team goal orientation agement
and conflict manage-
ment
Httermann, 2011 Fostering innovation in European link: TCRC
Boerner functionally diverse Journal of no empirical testing
teams: The two faces of Work and moderator: transformational
transformational leader- Organizational leadership
ship Psychology
Kotlyar, Kara- 2006 Leading Conflict? Link- Small Group link: TCRC
kowsky ages Between Leader Research moderator: transactional lead-
Behaviors and Group ership
Conflict

39
Martnez- 2012 Investigating Face-to- Group Dy- link: TC/PCRC
Moreno, Zor- Face and Virtual namics: The- moderators: process conflict,
noza, Gon- Teamwork Over Time: ory, Re- geographic dispersion, com-
zlez- When Does Early Task search, and munication medium
Navarro, Conflict Trigger Rela- Practice
Thompson tionship conflict?

Medina, Mun- 2005 Types of intragroup Journal of link: TCRC (med.)reaction


duate, Do- conflict and affective Managerial
rado, reactions Psychology
Martnez,
Guerra
Mooney, 2007 Don't Take It Person- Journal of link: antecedentsTC
Holahan, ally: Exploring Cognitive Management (med.)RC
Amason Conflict as a Mediator Studies moderator: behavioural integra-
of Affective Conflict tion
Parayitam, 2007 The relationship be- International link: TCRC
Dooley tween conflict and deci- Journal of moderator: trust
sion outcomes: Moder- Conflict Man-
ating effects of cogni- agement
tive- and affect-based
trust in strategic deci-
sion-making teams
Parayitam, 2010 Task conflict, relation- International link: TCRC
Olson, Bao ship conflict and Journal of (trust as moderator between
agreementseeking Conflict Man- affective conflict and its re-
behavior in Chinese top agement sponses)
management teams
Peterson, 2003 The dynamic relation- Organizational link: TCRC
Behfar ship between perform- Behavior and moderator: trust
ance feedback, trust, Human Deci-
and conflict in groups: A sion Proc-
longitudinal study esses

40
Pluut, Cureu 2013 Perceptions of in- Group Proc- link: TCRC
tragroup conflict: The esses & Inter- moderator: coping strategies
effect of coping strate- group Rela-
gies on conflict trans- tions
formation and escala-
tion
Rispens 2012 The Influence of Con- Applied Psy- link: TCRC
flict Issue Importance chology: An moderator: TC issue impor-
on the Co-occurrence of International tance
Task and Relationship Review mediator: negative emotionality
Conflict in Teams
Schaeffner, 2015 Swim or Sink Together: Group & Or- link: TCRC
Httermann, The Potential of Collec- ganization moderators: collective team
Gebert, tive Team Identification Management identification, team member
Boerner, and Team Member alignment, team tenure
Kearney, Alignment for Separat-
Song ing Task and Relation-
ship Conflicts
Simons, Pe- 2000 Task conflict and rela- Journal of link: TCRC
terson tionship conflict in top Applied Psy- moderators: trust, aggressive
management teams: chology conflict management tactics
The pivotal role of in-
tragroup trust
Tidd, McIn- 2004 The Importance of Role International link: TCRC
tyre, Friedman Ambiguity and Trust in Journal of moderators: role ambiguity,
Conflict Perception: Conflict Man- trust
Unpacking the Task agement
Conflict to Relationship
Conflict Linkage
van den Berg, 2014 Emotion regulation and International link: TCRC / PCRC
Cureu, conflict transformation Journal of moderator: emotion regulation
Meeus in multi-team systems Conflict Man-
agement

41
Xie, Luan 2014 When business be- Group Dy- link: TCRC
comes personal: The namics: The- moderator: group fragmentation
catalyst implication of ory, Re-
subgroup perception search, and
underlying the co- Practice
occurrence of task and
relationship conflict
Yang, Moss- 2004 Decoupling task and Journal of link: TCRC
holder relationship conflict: the Organizational no empirical testing
role of intragroup emo- Behavior moderators: negative emotion-
tional processing ality, emotional intelligence,
intergroup relations

42

S-ar putea să vă placă și