Task Versus Relationship Conflict, Team

Performance, and Team Member Satisfaction: A

Meta-Analysis
This study provides a meta-analysis of research on the associations between
relationship conflict,
task conflict,
team performance,
and team member satisfaction.
Consistent with past theorizing,
Strong and negative (instead of the predicted positive) correlations variables.

Method

Team performance measures in this literature have included

1.decision quality, 2.product quality, 3.production quantity, 4.and team effectiveness.

Some studies reported performance measures obtained from the team members

Most studies (also) provided an objective team performance measure or ratings by supervisors.

we selected

1.performance measures and,

2.

selected supervisor ratings.

Cont..
As a result, the large majority of performance measures were at the group
level of analysis, with the exception of three studies (Gardner, et al 1998).
Fifteen studies included a measure of team member satisfaction, either
assessed directly or indirectly, by asking about the quality of the relationship
(e.g., Bradford, 1999)).

Results

our findings go against current thinking that task conflict is good

for performance and that relationship conflict is worse than task
conflict for performance; rather,
they support the information processing perspective that
suggests that whereas a little conflict may be beneficial,
such positive effects quickly break down as conflict becomes
more intense, cognitive load increases, information processing is
impeded, and team performance suffers.

The Contribution of Shared

Knowledge to IS Group Performance

The relationship of mutual trust, influence, and shared knowledge with IS performance is tested
empirically using
path analysis in a study of 86 IS departments.
The results of this study show that shared knowledge mediates the relationship between IS
performance and trust and influence and that increasing levels of shared knowledge between IS
and line groups leads to increased IS performance.
Recommendations are given for ways managers can develop mutual trust and influence
between these diverse groups and, therefore, achieve higher levels of shared knowledge and IS
performance.

Method
Data to test the model and hypotheses were drawn from a cross-sectional field study of 132
IS departments
Seven organizations were chosen for this study and represent the pharmaceuticals, insurance,
gas and oil, consumer goods, computer manufacturing, and automotive industries.
In addition, each question in the questionnaire was customized to include the names of the
specific IS organization and its corresponding line client.

Results

The path analysis discussed in the previous section shows that our proposed model
best describes the causal relationships between mutual trust, influence, shared
knowledge, and IS group performance.
These models eliminate the possibility that either of these variables, along with
shared knowledge, has a direct effect on IS performance.
Explains the most causality among the variables.