emotions_and_conflict.pdf

The Intemational Journal of Conflict Management2005, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 55-69

THE ROLE OF EMOTIONS IN CONFLICTMANAGEMENT: THE CASE OF WORK TEAMS

Helena Syna DesivilyaEmek Yezreel College, Israel

Dana YagilUniversity of Haifa, Israel

The current study aims to identify the factors underlying differing pref-erences for conflict-management patterns within work teams. Two majorantecedents of dispute resolution modes were examined: the team mem-bers' emotional reactions to and their perceptions ofthe type of conflictsencountered in their work group. The sample consisted of 69 medicalteams, comprising 331 employees (nurses and physicians) employed inseveral medical organizations. Self-report structured questionnaireswere used to assess the research variables. A series of regression analy-ses showed that cooperative (integrating and compromising) patterns ofconflict management were associated with positive intragroup emo-tional states; contentious (dominating) patterns were associated withpositive as well as negative emotions; and an avoidance pattern wasassociated with negative emotions only. Additionally, negative emotionswere found to mediate the association of relationship conflict with adominating pattern of conflict management. The flndings point to thecentrality of emotional states in determining conflict management pref-erences at the intragroup level

Keywords: Organizational cotiflict, Intragroup processes. Emotions

With the growing popularity of work teams as a means to improve quality,increase efficiency and ensure organizational sustainability, effective intragroupconflict management is regarded as a vital asset (Alper, Tjosvold, & Law, 2000;DeDreu & Weingart, 2003; Pfeffer & Veiga, 1999). Notwithstanding a recentrevival of research on group dynamics generally and conflict in work groups and

Note: Correspondence conceming this article should be addressed to Helena SynaDesivilya, Emek Yezreel College, Emek Yezreel 19300, Israel, Phone/Fax: 972-4-6423041/6423422. ([email protected])

56 CONFLICT MANAGEMENT AND EMOTIONS

teams specifically (Alper, Tjosvold, & Law, 2000; Ayoko, Hartel, & CuUen, 2002;Jehn, Nortcraft, & Neale, 1999; Simons & Peterson, 2000; Van de Vliert &Janssen, 2001), little attention has been paid to factors guiding the choice of dis-pute resolution modes. In light of the importance of effective intra-team conflictmanagement to organizational survival, the current study was designed to addressthis gap.

The study aimed to identify the factors underlying different preferences forconflict-management patterns within work teams. Among the potential antecedentsof intra-team strategic choice, we focused on the role of the team members' emo-tions and their perceptions of the nature of the conflicts experienced in their workgroup.

Extant research on conflict resolution tends to view coping modes as productsof a purely rational choice, thereby discounting the impact of the disputants' emo-tional state (Brodtker & Jameson, 2001; Jones, 2000; Kolb & Bartunek, 1992; Put-nam, 2001). Moreover, research on the role of emotions in work groups and teamsis sparse (Barsade, 2002; Kelley & Barsade, 2001). The present research therefore,aimed to fill these conceptual gaps, by demonstrating the significant role of teammembers' emotional state in their choice of conflict-management patterns. Fur-thermore, the study explored the assumption that group members' perceptions ofthe nature of conflicts encountered in the work unit (task conflicts, relationshipconflicts) significantly affect their emotional reactions toward teammates.

Conflict Managennent Patterns in Work Teams

Most studies on interpersonal conflict-management patterns have adopted theDual Concem Model as a theoretical framework (Blake & Mouton, 1964; Pruitt &Rubin, 1986; Rahim, 1983). The basic tenet of this model postulates that the con-flict-management mode adopted by an individual stems from two underlyingmotives: concem for self and concem for the other party. The strength of each ofthese two motivational orientations according to Blake and Mouton (1964), Pruittand Rubin (1986) and Rahim (1983), may vary as a function of the particular con-flict situation, with differing emphases yielding five major conflict-managementpatterns: (1) Dominating (high concem for self and low concem for the other); (2)Obliging (low concem for self and high concem for the other); (3) Avoiding (lowconcem for self and low concem for the other); (4) Integrating (high concem forself and high concem for the other); and (5) Compromising (moderate concem forself and moderate concem for the other, in Rahim's 1983 version of the model).The present study adapted this underlying typology of conflict-management pat-terns to research on work teams.

Most of the extant research on interpersonal conflict management has dealtwith active and open attenipts by disputants to deal with their differences. Yet,some research findings, notably those emerging from qualitative studies, have indi-cated that members of work groups often resort to passive approaches in conflictmanagement. For example, Ayoko et al. (2002) showed a 75% avoidance rate inthe reactions of members of work groups to communication breakdowns. In asimilar vein, Kolb and Bartunek (1992) and Roloff and Ifert (2000) found that

The International Journal of Conflict Management,Yo]. 16, No. 1,2005

H. S. DESrVILYA AND D. YAGIL 57

avoiding disputes, i.e., refraining from direct confrontation with conflict issues informal or public sphere, was a prevailing mode of conflict management in organi-zations, especially by low-status individuals and members of minorities.

Notwithstanding this apparent pervasiveness of a passive approach to workteam conflict, its underlying features, antecedents and outcomes have seldom beeninvestigated (Roloff & Ifert, 2000; Tjosvold & Sun, 2002). Rusbult's (1993)research on dissatisfaction and crisis in close relationships showed that a passiveconflict-management pattem may have two different meanings: it may imply loy-alty to the oAer, i.e., a constructive intention of repairing the relationship, andhence the use of an obliging mode; or it may convey a destmctive attitude of con-tempt and disregard for the other thus leading to the choice of an avoiding mode.The present study explored both these representations of the passive approach(obliging and avoiding) as well as the three pattems associated with an activeapproach (integrating, compromising and dominating) in a work team context.

Role of Emotion in Conflict-Management Strategies in Work Teams

In line with the premise that strategic choice may be affected by particularcircumstances faced by disputants (Blake & Mouton, 1964; Pmitt & Rubin, 1986;Rahim, 1983), the present study shows that the emotional state of team membersconstitutes an important determinant of their conflict-management preference.Three underlying components of emotional state have been proposed: behavioral,physiological and cognitive (Brodtker & Jameson, 2001; Jones, 2000). The behav-ioral element refers to the way individuals express their emotional reactions. Thephysiological dimension pertains to the bodily experience of emotion. The cogni-tive component entails the perception and appraisal of the particular situation thathas prompted the emotional state. It is this element that is most relevant to the pre-sent topic. According to appraisal theories of emotion (e.g., Lazams, 1991), nega-tive feelings stem from a perceived obstruction of one's expectations and goals,while positive feelings result from a perception of attaining one's goals or receivingunexpected gains.

More specifrcally, Jones (2000) and Brodtker and Jameson (2001) view therole of emotion in situations of conflict as fundamental. Unlike previous research,which has treated emotions as a discrete variable, Brodtker and Jameson contend"that conflict is an emotionally defrned and driven process, and that recognizingthis fact fundamentally alters one's approach to conflict management" (p. 263). In asimilar vein, Thompson, Nadler, and Kim (1999), argue that emotions constitute anintegral element of human relations, and hence of negotiations and conflict man-agement. Based on these premises, the present research posited the emotional reac-tions with both positive and negative valence of members of work teams as majorpredictors of their overall orientation to conflict management within their workunit. Following Lazarus' (1991) defmition, positive and negative emotions wereviewed as separate elements rather than as opposite poles of the same dimension.Consequently, each might have different antecedents as well as different effects onconflict-management pattems.

Research on conflict has emphasized the role of emotions in the dispute-man-agement process. Specifically, several empirical studies have investigated the

The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 16, No. 1 2005


effect of emotions on negotiations. Druckman and Broome (1991) showed thatliking and familiarity were related to negotiators' flexibility and strategic choice inpre-negotiation. Similarly, Camevale and Isen (1986), Baron et al. (1990) and For-gas (1998) found that a positive mood led to more cooperative and less con^etitivebehavior in negotiation than either a neutral or a negative mood. Rhoades, Arnold,and Clifford (2001) showed that self-reported positive affect associated with workdisputes elicited problem-solving tendencies. Barsade's (2002) study, conducted ina group context, showed that positive emotional contagion improved cooperationamong group members. Other studies focusing on the effects of specific emotionsdemonstrated the negative impact of anger on individuals' attitudes towards anopponent, on their actual behavior in the course of conflict, and on negotiation out-comes (Alh-ed, 2000; Allred, Mallozzi, Matsui, & Raia, 1997; Baron, 1993).

Conceivably, positive emotional experiences in the work team would facili-tate the open discussion of differences, which was found to facilitate constructiveconflict management (Ayoko et al., 2002; Hobman et al., 2003; Kay, Shapiro, &Weingart, 2001; Pruitt & Syna, 1989). This can be acconq)lished either by pas-sively obliging teammates or by actively attempting to cooperate with them. Con-versely, adverse emotional experiences would hinder open communication aboutdisparities and disagreements, which in tum would mitigate problem solving,motivating the use of either confrontational, active, contentious patterns or non-confrontational modes, such as avoidance (Allred et al., 1997; Ayoko et al., 2002;Canary, Cupach, & Messman, 1995).

Based on the above reasoning and on extant research, the following twohypotheses were posited:

Hypothesis 1: A team member's positive emotions toward teammates willbe positively related to a preference for conflict-managementpatterns that are integrating, conq)romising, and obliging.

Hypothesis 2: A team member's negative emotions toward teammates willbe positively associated with a preference for conflict-man-agement patterns that are dominating and avoiding pattems.

Relationships of Type of conflict with Team Members' Emotional Reactions

Davidson and Greenhalgh (1999) suggested that emotion state in the contextof conflict management derives from the way a particular dispute is perceived.Akin to this assumption, Kelley and Barsade (2001) contended that intragroupemotional responses emanate to a large extent from the overall interpersonalatmosphere within the group. Presumably, the nature of conflicts, as viewed byteam members, constitutes a relevant aspect of the work team's emotional climate,thereby indirectly affecting their conflict-management patterns.

Interactions among members of work teams reflect both social as well as mis-sion-related aspects. Consequently, intragroup disputes comprise both relationshipand task conflicts (Amason & Schweiger, 1997; DeDreu & Weingart, 2003; Jehn,1997). According to Jehn (1992; 1994), relationship conflicts involves personaland affective elements, including tension, dislike, disagreements about values, per-sonal taste and interpersonal styles. Task conflicts entail disparities in opinions

The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 16, No. 1,2005

H. S. DESrVILYA AND D. YAGIL 59

about distribution of resources, procedures and other task-related issues. Conceiva-bly, work groups tend to face both types of conflicts in tandem. Nevertheless, someresearchers have emphasized the importance of distinguishing between relationshipand task conflict due to their differential consequences on group outcomes (e.g.,Amason & Schweiger, 1997; Jehn, 1997). Although a recent nieta-analytical study(DeDreu & Weingart, 2003) has cast some doubt on the functional aspects of taskconflict in terms of group performance, it did not totally preclude the benevolenteffects of task conflict, but rather suggested that such effects might be restricted tospecific conditions and situations.

Any type of conflict engenders some degree of stress, frustration and tension,thereby creating unpleasant feelings or disrupting a positive emotional atmosphere.Indeed, DeDreu and Weingart (2003) clearly demonstrated that both relationshipconflict and task conflict were adversely associated with satisfaction. Nevertheless,task conflict appeared less harmful than its relationship counterpart in terms ofgroup members' overall contentment.

The present study assumed therefore, that relationship conflict will have astronger adverse effect on work team members' emotional state than task conflict.Specifically, perceived pervasiveness of relationship-type conflicts will markedlyenhance the negative feelings of individuals toward other employees in their workteam. A group member's perception of frequent task conflicts within the workgroup will also create unpleasant feelings toward teammates, but not nearly asintense as in the case of relationship conflicts. Following this line of reasoning, athird hypothesis was posited thus:

Hypothesis 3. Both task conflict and relationship conflict will be positivelyassociated with negative emotions of work group memberstoward teammates. However, the association of relationshipconflict with negative emotions will be stronger than that oftask conflict.

In summary, the team members' emotional state is thought to play a centralrole in their preferences for conflict-management pattems. At the same time,prevalence of two conflict types—task and relationship—is expected to affect theteam members' emotional state.

Method

SampleA total of 69 medical teams, comprising 331 employees (nurses and physi-

cians) participated in the study. Of the respondents, 81.9% were women, mean agewas 40.33 (SD = 10.22), mean years of education 16.18 (SD = 2.65), and meanyears of tenure in current work group 9.38 (S£> = 7.84). All the respondents wereemployed in public sector medical organizations—^both inpatient medical centersand outpatient clinics—in northem Israel. The average team size was 15.22 (SD =11.51).

The International Journal of Conflict Management. Vol. 16, No. 1 2005


Measures

Three measures were filled out by the respondents with regard to their workgroup:

Conflict-Management Styles. The subjects' conflict-management pattemswere assessed with Rahim Organizational Conflict Inventory (ROCI-II) (Rahim,1983).' Respondents were asked to rate 28 items, representing five pattems of con-flict management, on 5-point Likert-type scales (5 = strongly agree to 1 = stronglydisagree) with regard to the strategies they use to cope with conflicts with mem-bers of their work group. The internal consistency reliabilities of the five scales—integration, obliging, avoiding, compromising and dominating—were satisfactory,ranging from .69 to .80.

Positive and Negative Emotions. These were measured by the PANAS scaledeveloped by Watson, Clark, and Tellegen, (1988). The inventory consists of 9positive emotions (e.g., "active," "alert," "excited") and 10 negative emotions(e.g., "distressed," "hostile," "ashamed"). Respondents were asked to rate eachemotion on a 5-point Likert-type scale (5 = strongly agree to 1 = strongly dis-agree), with regard to their feelings toward members of their group. This general-ized measurement of emotions was based on the assertion of Watson et al. (1988)that the PANAS can be used to examine emotions at varying degrees of generality(ranging from "right now" to "in general"). The intemal consistency of the scaleswas .77 and .87 for the positive and negative scale, respectively.

Conflict Types. These were measured by the refined version (Pearson, Ens-ley, & Amason, 2002) of the Intragroup Conflict Scale (ICS) developed by Jehn(1992; 1994). The instmment comprises two dimensions: relationship (affective)conflict, measured by 3 items (anger, personal friction, and tension), and task (cog-nitive) conflict, also measured by 3 items (disagreements about ideas, differencesof opinion, and the need to settle disagreements). Respondents rated the frequencyof each type of conflict in his/her respective work team. The instrument was trans-lated into Hebrew using the back translation method. The Cronbach a intemal con-sistency of the scales was .84 and .74, for relationship conflict and task conflict,respectively.

ProcedureRegistered nurses who were enrolled in a college program to complete their

undergraduate degree were requested to administer the questionnaires in the 69work teams participating in the research. The questionnaires were administeredindividually in each workplace. An explanation was given to each participant thatthe study examines relationships within work teams, and all were assured of thesecrecy of their responses.

'The instrument was used with permission from the Center for Advanced Studies inManagement. Copyright © 2005 by the Center for Advanced Studies in Management. Allrights reserved.

The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol 16, No. 1,2005

U.S. DESIVILYA AND D. YAGIL 61

Results

The first set of analyses included Pearson correlations followed by multipleregressions to test the research hypotheses. Status (i.e., physician or nurse) wasentered as a control variable. The mediating processes were then tested, using themultiple regression procedure suggested by Baron and Kenny (1986).

Table 1 shows the means, standard deviations and intercorrelations matrixbetween conflict management stategies, emotions and conflict type.

Table 1Means, Standard Deviations and Correlations Among the Research Variables

1.2.3.4.5.6.

7.

8.

9.

*P

IntegratingDominating

AvoidingCompromisingObligingPositiveemotionsNegativeemotionsRelationshipconflictTask conflict

M

3.972.643.233.693.32

3.86

1.90

2.892.91

<.05.**p<.0\.

SD

.51

.84

.67

.65

.59

.53

.63

.51

.39

1

-.01-.02

.63**

.19**

.48**

-.22**

-.01-.04

2

.10

.03

.04

.09

.21**

.14**

.13*

3

.12*

.43**

.00

.18**

.02-.09

4

.24**

.36**

-.17**

-.00-.00

5

.06

.08

.00

.03

6 7 8

-.29**

.03 .28-.02 .27 .66**

Table 2 shows the regressions of conflict management stategies on emotionsand conflict type. As seen in the table, integrating and compromising conflictmanagement patterns were positively related to positive emotions therebyconfirming Hypothesis 1. Hypothesis 2 was also supported, namely, bothdominating and avoiding patterns were positively related to negative emotions, ashypothesized. Additionally, the dominating pattern was found to be positivelyrelated to positive emotions.

Table 3 presents the regressions of positive and negative emotions onrelationship conflict and task conflict. Hypothesis 3 was partially supported: asexpected, relationship conflict was positively associated with negative emotions.However, task conflict was not significantly related to negative emotions.

As can be seen in tables 2 and 3, task conflict is directly related to bothdominating and avoiding patterns (Table 2), while relationship conflict isassociated with negative emotions (Table 3). This led to an examination of thepossibility that negative emotions mediate the effect of relationship conflict onconflict-management strategies. Mediation testing followed Baron and Kenny's



(1986) guidelines: (1) each conflict-management strategy was regressed onrelationship conflict; (2) each conflict-management strategy was regressed onnegative emotions and relationship conflict; and (3) negative emotions—theexpected mediator—was regressed on relationship conflict. Table 4 shows theresults of the three regressions. As can be seen, relationship conflict is mediated bynegative emotions in its effect on dominating pattern. The same procedure wasapplied for relationship conflict, negative emotions and integrating, avoiding,compromising and obliging conflict-management patterns, but no direct effect ofconflict type on either of these patterns was obtained, thus precluding inference ofmediation.

Table 2Regression of Conflict Management Patterns

on Emotions and Conflict Types

Integrating Dominating Avoiding Compromising Obliging

Positive emotions .44 .46** .21 .13* .10 .08 .40 .33** .11 .10Negative emotions -.07 -.08 .25 .19* .24 .22**-.08 -.08 .11 .11Relationship conflict -.02 -.03 -.01 -.01 .04 .05 .00 .00 -.03 -.04Task conflict .04 .06 .23 .19**-.15 -.17* .02 .02 .03 .03Status -.09 -.05 .12 .04 .02 .01 -.12 -.06 -.06 -.03

R'F

Note: Status: 1 = physician, 0 = nurse*p<.05. **p<.01.

Table 3Regression of Positive and Negative Emotions

Toward Group Members on Conflict Type

.2526.51**

.086.79**

.065.29**

.1410.20**

.021.09

Relationship conflictTask conflict

/?-F

Positiveb

.06-.13

emotionsP

0079

.06-.10

Negative emotionsb p

.32 .25**

.01 .00

.0711.83**

*p<.05.**p<.0\.

The International Journal of Conflict Management,Vo\. 16, No. 1,2005

H. S. DESIVILYA AND D. YAGIL 63

Discussion

The present research was aimed at identifying factors guiding the choice bymembers of work teams of strategies for dealing with intragroup disputes, focusingon the role of emotions and of the perceived nature of conflicts in their preferencesfor conflict-management pattems. The study examined five categories of disputemanagement modes: integrating, compromising, dominating, obliging and avoid-ing, thus comparing cooperative versus contentious, and active versus passiveapproaches.

Table 4Mediation Tests: Emotions Mediating the Effect of

Conflict Type on Conflict Management Patterns

Integrating Dominating Avoiding Compromising Obliging

SteplRelationship

conflict

Step 2Relationshipconflict

Negativeemotions

R'

-.01 -.01 .24 .14* .03 .02 .01 .02 .01 .01.00 .02** .00 .00 .00

.05 .05 .17 .10 -.04 -.03 .06 -.01 .00 .00

-.19 -.23* .24 .18* .20 .19* -.19** .08 .00 .00.05** .05** .03 .04** .00

Relationship conflictNegative emotions b

.32P

.26**

.07*

*p<.05.**p<.0\.

The authors predicted that team members' choice of a conflict-managementpattem will be related to feelings about their teammates, which in turn will beassociated with conflict type. In line with these expectations, the results show thatconflict management pattems are indeed linked to emotional reactions towardgroup members. These fmdings seem to corroborate the contention by Jones(2000), Brodtker and Jameson (2001), and Thompson et al. (1999) about theimportance of emotions in the conflict-management process. The current studydemonstrates the explicit contribution of emotions in the work-team context,lending further support to Barsade's (2002) and Kelley and Barsade (2001) researchon the relationship between emotional climate and intemal group dynamics.



The present fmdings indicate that the choice of cooperative mode (integratingand conpromising) was positively associated with a positive emotional experience.Conversely, the choice of a contentious pattem was negatively associated with anadverse intragroup emotional experience. Both these links lend additional supportto previous findings in the domain of intragroup and interpersonal conflictresolution (e.g., Alked, 2000; Baron et al., 1990; Barsade, 2002; Canary, Cupach,& Messman, 1995; Camevale & Isen, 1986; Forgas, 1998).

Unexpectedly, the contentious conflict-management preference was alsopositively related to positive emotions, although the relationship of positive emo-tions with a cooperative pattem was much stronger. A possible explanation for thisfinding may stem from the range of nuances contained in the dimension of positiveemotions. Presumably, emotions such as "alert," "excited," or "attentive" (con-tained in the PANAS positive dimension) reflect not just positive mood or affectbut also vigilance. Thus, both types of active pattems, i.e., dominating and inte-grating, were positively related to the "positive" category of emotions comprisingdie vigilance component. By contrast, the passive pattem of avoiding was relatedto negative emotions only. This calls for fiiture in-depth research on the associa-tions of different categories of emotions, including purely positive affective statesas well as trait-related affect, with choice of strategy (Rhoades et al., 2001).

The fmdings lend support to our premise based on Davidson and Green-halgh's (1999) argument, that the way conflict issues are perceived determines theindividual's emotional reactions. Specifically, the prevalence of interpersonal ten-sions markedly contributes to adverse emotional responses which in tum fosterpreferences for contentious modes of dealing with intragroup conflicts.

The study thus points to a differentiated pattem underlying the choice ofcontentious in contrast with cooperative modes as demonstrated by the mediationtests. The tests show that negative emotions mediate the association of relationshipconflict with the dominating pattem of conflict management, suggesting that typeof conflict has a more significant, albeit indirect, effect on the choice of conqjeti-tive conflict management modes than on cooperative modes.

The results also suggest that the preference for confirontational approaches todispute resolution in comparison to nonconfrontational orientations are related todifferent factors. Emotional experience is shown to be the sole direct link to theintegrating and conqjromising pattems. By contrast, the pattems of dominating andavoiding are directly related both to emotions and to type of conflict.

Furthermore, the negative relationship between the avoiding mode and taskconflict seems to support the notion that task conflicts might have a degree ofpositive value in work groups (Amason & Schweiger, 1997; Jehn, 1997; Jehn et al.,1999) or it may at least reflect the task conflict's functional aspect in enhancing theinvolvement of team members in group missions (Ayoko et al., 2002; Hobman etal., 2003). More research is necessary to illuminate the relationships between thepassive and active approaches to conflict management, and the nature of conflict inwork teams, including task and relatiotiship conflicts.

The research findings partly corroborated the authors' prediction regarding theassociations between type of conflict and emotional reactions. As expected, rela-tionship conflict was positively related to negative emotions. Further investigation

The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 16, No. 1,2005


of the relationship between conflict type and emotions will be necessary to ascer-tain the potentially distinct effects of different conflict issues on emotional climatein work teams.

Limitations of the StudyThe current study reflects several limitations. The fu:st relates to a potential

methodological flaw: the process of team selection may have hampered the repre-sentativeness of our sample. As indicated in the method section, one member ofeach team was a college student who then recruited other members of his/her teamfor the sample. Conceivably, the recruiters selected individuals with whom theyhad positive or close relationships, thus biasing the sample toward homogeneity.Future studies should seek a more systematic recruitment process, to assure therepresentativeness of the research sample.

Second, the measures used required respondents to report general processes intheir work group, and their emotions in general toward group members. Thesevariables are likely to indicate a certain level of stability over time, rather thanreveal fluctuations. Future research should measure the relationships between thevariables on a more specific level (e.g., the association of positive/negative emo-tions regarding a specific event with the choice of a particular conflict managementstrategy).

Direction for Future ResearchThe present research points to further study in several directions. The

research examined the relationship between the feelings of the individual towardother members of a work team and his/her preferences for conflict-managementpattems. Presumably, emotions within the group and conflict-management modesare likely to assume a cyclical pattem: the individual's conflict-managementapproach might affect the other members' emotional response toward him/her. Itwould be important therefore to explore the recurrent dynamics of the relationshipsbetween these variables, preferably employing longitudinal research designs.

Further research is also called for to examine the mediating role of emotionsin the relationship between conflict-management pattems and variables associatedwith interpersonal ties among group members (e.g., interpersonal tmst) as well asstructural characteristics of the group (e.g., demographic diversity). Additionally,as recommended by DeDreu and Weingart (2003) research should continueinspecting the links between different conflict issues (e.g., affective/identity-relatedor cognitive/task-related issues) and strategic choice, probing further into prefer-ences for cooperative versus contentious and active, open versus passive noncon-frontational approaches to dispute management in work group settings.

ConclusionsThe present study contributes to illuminating the phenomenon of conflict

management in work teams by demonstrating the important role of emotions ingroup members' preferences for intemal dispute resolution. It thereby expanded thechoice of conflict-management strategies beyond purely rational elements, whichhave been investigated in previous research, to include less deliberate elements.



The study also indicates that the team members' perception of the nature of conflictissues they have encountered in the work group constitutes a significant antecedentof their emotional reactions, linking indirectly to their conflict management modes.This link helps closing a gap in the research literature concerning the relationshipsbetween conflict type and dispute resolution preferences.

The present research also has practical ramifications: understanding how teammembers perceive their conflict experiences and appraise their affective states canenhance team-building efforts, including training in the constmctive managementof intemal disputes.

References

Allred, K. (2000). Anger and retaliation in conflict: The role of attribution. In M. Deutsch &P. Coleman (eds.). The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice (pp. 236-256). San-Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Allred, K., Mallozzi, J. S., Matsui, F., & Raia, C. P. (1997). The influence of anger andcompassion on negotiation performance. Organizational Behavior and Human DecisionProcesses, 70, 175-187.

Alper, S., Tjosvold, D., & Law, K. S. (2000). Conflict management, efficacy, and perform-ance in organizational teams. Personnel Psychology, 53, dlS-fAl.

Amason, A. C , & Schweiger, D. M. (1997). The effects of conflict on strategic decisionmaking effectiveness and organizational performance. In C. De Dreu & E. Van DeVliert (Eds.), Using conflict in organizations (ffp. 101-116). London: Sage.

Ayoko, 0. B., Hartel, C. E. J., & Cullen, V. J. (2002). Resolving the puzzle of productiveand destructive conflict in culturally heterogeneous work groups: A communication-accommodation theory approach. International Journal of Conflict Management, 13,165-195.

Baron, R. (1993). Affect and organizational behavior: When feeling good (or bad) matters.In J. Mumingham (Ed.), Social psychology in organizations (pp. 63-88). EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Baron, R., Fortin, S. P., Frei, R. L., Hauver, L. A., & Shack, M. L. (1990). Reducing organ-izational conflict: The role of socially-induced positive affect. Intemational Journal ofConflict Management, 1, 132-152.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in socialpsychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. JournalPersonality and Social Psychology, 51, \\ 73-1182.

Barsade, S. G. (2002). The ripple effects: Emotional contagion and its influence on groupbehavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 644—675.

Blake, R. A., & Mouton, J. S. (1964). The managerial grid. Houston: Gulf.Brodtker, A., & Jameson, J. K. (2001). Emotion in conflict formation and its transformation:

Application to organizational conflict management. International Journal of ConflictManagement, 12, 259-275.

Camevale, P. J., & Isen, A. M. (1986). The influence of positive affect and visual access onthe discovery of integrative solutions in bilateral negotiations. Organizational Behaviorand Human Decision Processes, 37, 1—13.

Canary, D. J., Cupach, W. R., & Messman, S. J. (1995). Relationship conflict. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

The International Journal of Conflict Management, Wol. 16, No. 1,2005


Davidson, M. N., & Greenhalgh, L. (1999). The role of emotion in negotiation: The impactof anger and race. In R. J. Bies, R. J. Lewicki, & B. H. Sheppard (Eds.), Research onnegotiation in organizations (Vol. 7, pp. 3-26). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.

Donaldson, L., & Davis, J. H. (1991). Stewardship theory or agency theory: CEO govern-ance and shareholder returns. Australian Journal of Management, 16, 49-64.

DeDreu, C., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance,and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88.741-750.

DeDreu, C , & Van De Vliert, E. (1997). Using conflict in organizations. London: Sage

Publications.Druckman, D., & Broome, B. J. (1991). Value differences and conflict resolution: Familiar-

ity or liking? Journal of Conflict Resolution, 35, 571-593.Forgas, J. P. (1998). On feeling good and getting your way: Mood effects on negotiator cog-

nition and bargaining strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 565-577.

Gully, S., Incalcaterra, K., Joshi, A., & Beaubien, J. M. (2002). A Meta-analysis of teamefficiency, potency, and performance: Interdependence and level of analysis as modera-tors of observed relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87,819-832.

Hobman, E., Bordia, P., & Gallois, C. (2003). Consequences of feeling dissimilar from oth-ers in a work team. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17,301-325.

Jehn, K., Nortcraft, G., & Neale, M. (1999). Why differences make a difference: A fieldstudy of diversity, conflict, and performance in work groups. Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 44, 741-763.

Jehn, K. (1997). Affective and cognitive conflict in work groups: Increasing performancethrough value-based intragroup conflict. In C. De Dreu & E. Van De Vliert (Eds.),Using conflict in organizations (pp. 87-101). London: Sage.

Jehn, K. (1994). Enhancing effectiveness: An investigation of advantages and disadvantagesof value based intragroup conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management, 5,223-238.

Jehn, K. (1992). T/ie impact of intragroup conflict on effectiveness: A multidimensionalexamination of the benefits and detriments of conflict. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.Northwestern University, Chicago, IL.

Jones, T. S. (2000). Emotional communication in conflict: Essence and impact. In W. Eadie& P. Nelson (Eds.), The language of conflict and resolution (pp. 81-104). ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Kay, L., Shapiro, D., & Weingart, L. (2001). Maximizing cross-functional new productteams' innovativeness and constraint adherence: A conflict communications perspective.Academy of Management Journal, 44, 779-793.

Kelley, J., & Barsade, S. G. (2001). Mood and emotions in small groups and work teams.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 99-130.

Kolb, D. M., & Bartunek, J. M. (Eds.) (1992). Hidden conflict in organizations: Uncoveringthe behind-the scenes disputes. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Kozan, M. K. (1997). Culture and conflict management: A theoretical framework. Interna-tional Journal of Conflict Management, 8, 338-360.

Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. New York: Oxford University Press.O'Connor, K. M., Gruenfeld, D., & McGrath, J. (1993). The experience and effects of con-

flict in continuing work groups. Small Group Research, 24, 362-382.



Pearson, A. W., Ensley, M. D., & Amason, A. C. (2002). An assessment and refinement ofJehn's intragroup conflict scale. InternationalJournal of Conflict Management, 13,110-126.

Pfeffer, J., & Veiga, J. F. (1999). Putting people first for organizational success. Academy ofManagement Executive, 13,37—48.

Pruitt, D. G., & Syna, H. (1989). Successful problem solving. In D. Tjosvold & D. W. John-son (Eds.), Productive conflict management: Perspectives for organizations (pp. 69—90).Minneapolis, MN: Team Media.

Pruitt, D. G., & Rubin, J. Z. (1986). Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate ands settlement.New York: Random House.

Putnam, L. (2001). The language of opposition: Challenges in organizational dispute resolu-tion. In W. Eadie & P. Nelson (Eds.), The language of conflict and resolution (pp. 10-21). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Rahim, M. A. (1983). A measure of styles of handling interpersonal conflicts. Academy ofManagement Journal, 26, 368-376.

Rhoades, J. A., Arnold, J., & Clifford, J. (2001). The role of affective traits and affectivestates in disputants' motivation and behavior during episodes of organizational conflict.Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 329-345.

Roloff, M. E., c& Ifert, D. E. (2000). Conflict management through avoidance: Withholdingcomplaints, suppressing arguments, and declaring topics taboo. In S. Petronio (Ed.),Balancing the secrets of private disclosures {^^. 151-164). Mahwah, NJ: Eribaum.

Rubin, J. Z., & Levinger, G. (1995). Levels of analysis: In search of generalizable knowl-edge. In B. B. Bunker & J. Z. Rubin (Eds.), Conflict, cooperation and justice (pp. 13-38). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Rubin, J. Z., Pruitt, D. G., & Kim S. H. (1994). Social Conflict: Escalation, stalemate andsettlement. New York: Me Graw-Hill.

Rusbult, E. C. (1993). Understanding responses to dissatisfaction in close relationships: Theexit-voice-loyalty-neglect model. In S. Worchel & J. A. Simpson (Eds.), Conflictbetween people and groups: Causes and resolution (pp. 30-59). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

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

Thompson, L., Nadler, J., & Kim, P. H. (1999). Some like it hot: The case for the emotionalnegotiator. In L. Thompson, J. Levine, & D. Messick (Eds.), Shared cognitions inorganizations (pp. 139-161). Mahwah, N.J: Eribaum.

Tjosvold, D., & Sun, H.F. (2002). Understanding conflict avoidance: Relationship, motiva-tions, actions, and consequences. International Journal of Conflict Management, 13,142-164.

Tjosvold, D. (1998). The cooperative and competitive goal approach to conflict: Accom-plishments and challenges. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 47, 285-313.

Van de Vliert, E., & Janssen, O. (2001). Description, explanation, and prescription ofintragroup conflict behaviors. In M. E. Turner (Ed.), Groups at work: Theory andresearch. Applied social research (pp. 267-297). Mahwah, NJ: Eribaum.

Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief meas-ures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 54, 1063-1070.

The International Journal of Conflict Management,VoX. 16, No. 1,2005


Biographical Notes

Helena Syna Desivilya is a senior lecturer in the departments of sociology andanthropology and behavioral sciences at the Emek Yezreel College, Israel. Herresearch includes conflict management processes in various contexts such asorganizations, communities and the intergroup arena. She also engages in actionresearch on public and third sector organizations, ([email protected])

Dana Yagil is a senior lecturer of social and organizational psychology Chair ofthe Department of Human Services, the University of Haifa, Israel. She studiesorganizational behavior relating to the use of power, compliance with laws, anddeviant behaviors, ([email protected])

Received: February 14, 2004Accepted after three revisions: May 26, 2005


emotions_and_conflict.pdf

Documents

dispute resolution modes

work team

international journal

work groups

team member

intemal consistency

69 medical teams

work unit