Variant Conflict Management: Conceptualizing and Investigating Team Conflict Management as a Configural Construct Yunzi Tan Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy under the Executive Committee of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 2013
177
Embed
Variant Conflict Management: Conceptualizing and ...
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Variant Conflict Management: Conceptualizing and Investigating Team Conflict Management as a Configural Construct
Yunzi Tan
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
under the Executive Committee of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences
Variant Conflict Management: Conceptualizing and Investigating Team Conflict Management as a Configural Construct
Yunzi Tan
The key purpose of this dissertation was to empirically test a new conceptual model of
team conflict management (Tan, 2011). Central to this model is a configural team-level construct
called variant conflict management (VCM), which refers to the relative levels of cooperative and
competitive conflict management among members in a team. This model also identifies three key
antecedent categories likely to predict VCM in teams: salient conflict-relevant member
characteristics, team contextual determinants, and divergent team dynamics. Three archetypal
profiles of VCM, i.e., distinct distributional patterns in members’ conflict management
approaches, are also proposed: minimum, moderate and maximum VCM profiles. These three
profiles are further organized into five sub-types: minimum cooperative, minimum competitive,
moderate cooperative, moderate competitive, and maximum VCM profiles.
Specifically, this study sought to assess whether the proposed VCM profiles are present
in 79 student project teams. It also compared the effects of VCM (based on teams’ standard
deviation scores) and of mean team conflict management (based on teams’ means scores) on
three team outcomes: team conflict efficacy, members’ satisfaction with their teams’ conflict
management process, and team effectiveness. This study also investigated the relative effects of
the proposed VCM profiles on each of the three team outcomes. Three indicators representing
each of the antecedent categories, i.e., gender role diversity, team goal interdependence, and
subgroup formation, were also examined as potential predictors of VCM.
Using qualitative content coding analyses, it was revealed that all five VCM profiles
proposed in the model, i.e., minimum cooperative, minimum competitive, moderate cooperative,
moderate competitive, and maximum VCM profiles, were indeed evident in the teams sampled.
Three additional profiles described as ‘distributed,’ ‘multiple clusters’ and ‘midpoint cluster’
were also uncovered in the content coding analyses. In the supplementary latent class analyses,
four latent classes were identified. Two of these classes corresponded with two of the five
proposed VCM profiles: the moderate cooperative and moderate competitive VCM profiles. The
third latent class was aligned with the new ‘distributed’ profile identified in the content coding
analyses. As for the fourth latent class, it consisted of the other three proposed VCM profiles,
i.e., minimum cooperative, minimum competitive and maximum VCM profiles, as well as the
two additional profiles uncovered in the content coding analyses, i.e., ‘multiple clusters’ and
‘midpoint cluster’ profiles.
Comparisons among the five proposed VCM profiles of their effects on the three team
outcomes showed that teams with minimum cooperative VCM profiles reported higher levels of
team conflict efficacy than teams with moderate competitive VCM profiles, and they were also
more effective than teams with minimum competitive VCM profiles. Teams with minimum
competitive VCM profiles, on the other hand, reported the lowest levels of member satisfaction
compared to teams with the four other proposed VCM profiles; teams with minimum
competitive VCM profiles were also less effective than teams with minimum cooperative and
moderate cooperative VCM profiles. Teams with moderate cooperative VCM profiles, relative to
those with moderate competitive VCM profiles reported greater team conflict efficacy and team
effectiveness.
The study results also found no significant effects of VCM (based on teams’ standard
deviation scores) and of mean team conflict management (based on teams’ means scores on
cooperative and competitive conflict management respectively) on team conflict efficacy,
members’ satisfaction with their teams’ conflict management process, and team effectiveness.
Additionally, no significant associations were found between the three proposed predictor
variables, i.e., gender role diversity, team goal interdependence and subgroup formation, and
VCM.
Implications of these findings for theory, research and practice, along with limitations
and future research directions, were also discussed.
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
LIST OF TABLES vii
LIST OF FIGURES ix
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS x
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION 1
Overview 1
Study Purpose 3
Study Contributions 4
Key Perspectives Underlying the Variant Conflict Management Model
5
The ‘Interactionist’ Perspective: Person versus Situation 5
The ‘Process’ Perspective: Team Dynamics Matter 6
The ‘Levels’ Perspective: “The Whole does not Equal the Sum of its Parts”
8
Dissertation Structure 9
CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW 10
Overview 10
Team Conflict Management: A Critical Review 10
Common Theories and Typologies in Team Conflict Management Research
11
Antecedents of Team Conflict Management 15
Effects of Team Conflict Management 17
Conceptualizing Variant Conflict Management 19
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
PAGE
Variant Conflict Management Profiles 22
Minimum VCM 22
Moderate VCM 23
Maximum VCM 23
Effects of Variant Conflict Management 24
Relative Effects of VCM and Mean Cooperative Team Conflict Management
24
Relative Effects of VCM and Mean Competitive Team Conflict Management
27
Relative Effects of Various VCM Profiles 29
Antecedents of Variant Conflict Management 35
Salient Conflict-Relevant Member Characteristics 35
Gender Role Diversity 37
Team Contextual Determinants 39
Goal Interdependence 40
Divergent Team Dynamics 43
Subgroup Formation 44
CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY 46
Overview 46
Participants 46
Sample 46
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
PAGE
Design and Procedures 48
Measures 49
Conflict Management Measures 49
VCM Profiles 49
Variant Conflict Management 50
Cooperative and Competitive Team Conflict Management
51
Predictor Measures 51
Gender Role Diversity
51
Team Goal Interdependence 52
Mixed Goal Interdependence 53
Subgroup Formation 53
Outcome Measures 54
Team Conflict Efficacy 54
Member Satisfaction with the Team Conflict Management Process
54
Team Effectiveness 54
Controls and Other Measures 54
Intra-Team Conflict Types 54
Perceived Conflict Importance and Intensity 55
Course Affiliation and Team Size 56
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
PAGE
Participant Demographics 56
CHAPTER IV: RESULTS 57
Overview 57
Preliminary Analyses 57
Descriptive Statistics 57
Team-Level Reliability and Data Aggregation Indices 57
Common Method Variance 59
Intercorrelational Analyses 59
Main Analyses
61
Assessing Presence of VCM Profiles in Teams 61
Hypothesis 1: Presence of Proposed VCM Profiles
61
Assessing Relative Effects of VCM and Mean Team Conflict Management on Team Outcomes
63
Hypotheses 2a to 2c: Cooperative Team Conflict Management versus VCM
63
Hypotheses 3a to 3c: Competitive Team Conflict Management versus VCM
67
Assessing Relative Effects of VCM Profiles on Team Outcomes
70
Hypotheses 4a to 4c: Minimum Cooperative VCM versus All Other VCM Profiles
70
Hypotheses 5a to 5c: Minimum Competitive VCM versus All Other VCM Profiles
72
Hypotheses 6a to 6c: Moderate Cooperative VCM versus Moderate Competitive VCM Profiles
73
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
PAGE
Hypotheses 7a to 7c: Maximum VCM versus Moderate Competitive VCM Profiles
74
Assessing Potential Antecedents of VCM 76
Hypothesis 8: Gender Role Diversity and VCM 76
Hypothesis 9: Team Goal Interdependence and VCM
76
Hypothesis 10: Subgroup Formation as A Mediator
77
Supplementary Analyses 78
Assessing VCM Profiles using Latent Class Analyses 78
Exploring Group Differences among VCM Categories on Team Outcomes
81
VCM Categories on Team Conflict Efficacy
82
VCM Categories on Member Satisfaction with Team Conflict Management Process
83
VCM Categories on Team Effectiveness
83
CHAPTER V: DISCUSSION 84
Theoretical Implications 92
Research Implications 94
Practical Implications 95
Study Limitations 96
Future Research Directions 97
Conclusion
98
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
PAGE
REFERENCES 100
APPENDICES 145
Appendix A: Email Requests for Study Recruitment and Participation
145
Appendix B: Study Questionnaire 147
Appendix C: Study Measures 159
vii
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE DESCRIPTION PAGE
1 Descriptive Statistics for all Key Team Variables 120
2 Reliability and Aggregation Indices for all Team Measures
121
3 Intercorrelations for all Key Team Variables 122
4 Coding Definitions of VCM Profiles used in the Content Coding Analyses
124
5 Classification of Teams based on the Content Coding Analyses
125
6 Hierarchical Regression Analysis Predicting Team Conflict Efficacy from Cooperative Team Conflict Management and VCM
126
7 Hierarchical Regression Analysis Predicting Member Satisfaction with Team Conflict Management Process from Cooperative Team Conflict Management and VCM
127
8 Hierarchical Regression Analysis Predicting Team Effectiveness from Cooperative Team Conflict Management and VCM
128
9 Hierarchical Regression Analysis Predicting Team Conflict Efficacy from Competitive Team Conflict Management and VCM
129
10 Hierarchical Regression Analysis Predicting Member Satisfaction with Team Conflict Management Process from Competitive Team Conflict Management and VCM
130
11 Hierarchical Regression Analysis Predicting Team Effectiveness from Competitive Team Conflict Management and VCM
131
12 Medians and Number of Cases for the Effects of VCM Profiles on Team Conflict Efficacy
132
13 Means and Standard Deviations for the Effects of VCM Profiles on Member Satisfaction with the Team’s Conflict Management Process and Team Effectiveness
132
14 Simple Regression Analysis Predicting VCM with Gender Role Diversity
133
viii
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
TABLE DESCRIPTION PAGE
15 Polynomial Regression Analysis Predicting VCM with Team Goal Interdependence Variables
134
16 Simple Regression Analysis Predicting Subgroup Formation with Gender Role Diversity
135
17 Hierarchical Regression Analysis Predicting Subgroup Formation as a Mediator between Gender Role Diversity and VCM
135
18 Model Fit Statistics for the Latent Class Analyses 136
19 Classification of VCM Profiles based on Latent Class Memberships
137
20 Medians and Number of Cases for the Effects of VCM Categories (Identified in the Latent Class Analyses) on Team Conflict Efficacy
138
21 Means and Standard Deviations for the Effects of VCM Categories (Identified in the Latent Class Analyses) on Member Satisfaction with the Team’s Conflict Management Process and Team Effectiveness
138
22 Summary Findings for the Main and Supplementary Analyses
139
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE DESCRIPTION PAGE
1 Conceptual Model of Variant Conflict Management 113
2 Minimum VCM Profiles 114
3 Moderate VCM Profiles 115
4 Maximum VCM Profiles 116
5 VCM Profiles Identified from Content Coding 117
6 Graph showing Estimated Conditional Probabilities for the Four-Class Model Solution
118
7 VCM Profiles Identified from Latent Class Analyses 119
x
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my two primary
program advisors and mentors, Dr. Loriann Roberson and Dr. Peter T. Coleman, for their
ongoing advisement and guidance, throughout my years as a Ph.D. student in the Social-
Organizational Psychology Program at Teachers College. Thank you both, for your positive
encouragement and support over the years, and for making my doctoral student experience a
most rewarding and fulfilling one. I would also like to thank the rest of my dissertation
committee, Dr. Madhabi Chatterji, Dr. James Westaby, Dr. Joel Brockner, and Dr. Lyle Yorks,
for their thoughtful questions and insightful comments, and for making my defense a truly
memorable and intellectually stimulating event.
Special thanks go to the sponsor of the Lim Kim San Fellowship for Ph.D. Students, i.e.,
the Lee Kong Chian School of Business at the Singapore Management University, for awarding
me this competitive fellowship, and in turn, for making the data collection and funding of my
dissertation possible. I would also like to express my thanks to my fellowship faculty host, Dr.
Hwee Hoon Tan, the rest of the Organizational Behavior and Human Resources Division faculty,
and the student participants, for making my fellowship visit a productive and engaging
experience.
I am also greatly indebted to my Ph.D. program community, particularly Dr. Marina
Field, Dr. Frank Golom, Mekayla Castro, Nishita Rai, and Apiwat Hanvongse. Thank you all for
your friendship, love and support throughout my Ph.D. journey, and I could never have made it
this far without having all of you along the way. To my closest friends and allies in life, Dr. Cui
Su, Dr. Thiam Hui Lee, Arwa Jumkawala, Lisa Choo, Lynn Jiang, Winston Len, Karen Frank,
Laurie Barrueta, and Dr. June Lee, this dissertation would never have been possible without your
xi
tireless encouragement and deep support for me as well. I would also like to thank Hui Hui
Chong and Lily Ng for volunteering to code data for my study.
To my immediate and extended family in Singapore: thank you for your continuing
support in my pursuit of the doctorate over the years, despite being thousands of miles away. I
finally did it – becoming the first Dr. in our family!
To my husband, Sebastian Christoph Wagner, and my son, Leo Rui Hao Wagner: Thank
you both for being the two greatest pillars of strength, joy, inspiration and love in my life!
Completing this Ph.D. journey would also never have been possible without you two by my side.
Ich liebe dich beide!
Last but not least, to my parents, Tan Beng Soon and Ling Lee Keow: I dedicate this
dissertation to both of you. Thank you for all that you have done for me, and for giving me your
best in support of my doctoral goals! (爸,妈:我把这本论文典献给你们。感谢你们多年以来
所为我做的一切,也感谢你们支持我当博士的目标!)
1
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION
Overview
For decades, organizational scholars and researchers have expended much effort studying
the antecedents, dynamics and consequences of conflict and its management (Lewicki, Weiss, &
Lewin, 1992). Today, we have amassed a considerable body of knowledge about how, when and
why conflict occurs, and at various levels of analysis; a significant portion of this knowledge has
also been dedicated to understanding how conflicts are managed or resolved (De Dreu &
Gelfand, 2008; Rahim, 2001). Despite this substantial attention to conflict management, most of
the research in this area has been directed at the individual and interpersonal levels (e.g.,
Deutsch, 1973; Rahim, 1983; Thomas, 1992), and to some extent, at the organizational level
(e.g., Pondy, 1967). By contrast, relatively little research has been conducted on conflict
management at the team level. This is particularly noteworthy given the increasing use of work
teams in organizations today (Ilgen, 1999). In light of this, researchers have begun to focus on
team-level conflict management in recent years (e.g., Alper, Tjosvold, & Law, 2000; Behfar,
Peterson, Mannix, & Trochim, 2008; De Dreu & Van Vianen, 2001; DeChurch, Hamilton, &
Haas, 2007; Kuhn & Poole, 2000).
However, in spite of this promising trend, current research in team conflict management
remains subject to several limitations. Arguably, one of the most significant limitations concerns
the heavy reliance on existing conflict management theories and typologies (e.g., Blake &
Mouton, 1964; Deutsch, 1949, 1973; Rahim, 1983; Thomas & Kilmann, 1974; Van de Vliert &
Euwema, 1994) that are typically conceptualized at the individual level. More specifically,
existing studies in team conflict management have tended to assume similar or shared conflict
management approaches among individual members in the team (e.g., Alper, et al., 2000;
2
DeChurch & Marks, 2001; Jordan & Troth, 2004; Somech, Desivilya, & Lidogoster, 2008). For
example, a team may be characterized as having a cooperative, competitive, or avoidant conflict
management approach (Chen & Tjosvold, 2002a; De Dreu & Van Vianen, 2001; Tjosvold, Yu &
Wu, 2009). While a few studies in the literature have also looked at teams with two or more
conflict management approaches, such approaches were still assessed at the team rather than the
individual level; in other words, these multiple approaches within the team were still assumed to
be displayed by all individual members (e.g., Behfar, et al., 2008; Kuhn & Poole, 2000; Poole &
Dobosh, 2010).
Overall, this over-reliance on existing individual-level conflict management theories and
typologies inadvertently constrains our current understanding of team conflict management. So
far, we know very little about what causes individual team members to vary, rather than
converge, in their conflict management approaches within a given team. What are the critical
factors shaping variability in team conflict management, and what consequences might such
variability lead to? These are questions yet to be addressed in current team conflict management
research.
Further, some team conflict management scholars have highlighted the need for future
research to improve or refine our theorizing about conflict management at the team level (e.g.,
Behfar, et al., 2008; DeChurch & Marks, 2001). Research in other team-related domains, such as
group dynamics and social influence processes (e.g., Abrams, Wetherell, Cochrane, Hogg, &
Statistical Information Criteria (IC), such as the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC), the
Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) and the Sample-size Adjusted Bayesian Information
Criterion (aBIC), are typical indices used to guide the decision on the number of latent classes
80
identified in LCA modeling (Nylund, et al., 2007). Generally, the lower the value of these
indices, the better the model fit. Of the three, aBIC has been found to be superior to the other two
ICs in LCA modeling simulation studies (Yang, 2006).
The Lo-Mendell-Rubin adjusted Likelihood Test (LMRT) and the Bootstrap Likelihood
Ratio Test (BLRT) are two recommended fit indexes used to perform significance testing in
evaluating model fit (Nylund et al., 2007). The LMRT compares two neighboring class models
and determines whether there is improvement in model fit with the addition of one more class.
When the test value for LMRT is significant at the p-value of .05, this indicates that the model
with k classes fits the data better than the model with k – 1 classes. As for the BLRT, this test
uses bootstrap samples to estimate log likelihood difference distribution between the k – 1 and k
class models (Nylund et al., 2007). Similar to the LMRT, when the test value for the BLRT is
significant at p-value of .05, this also suggests that the k class model is sufficient in fitting the
observed data compared to the k – 1 class model.
Table 18 shows the fit statistics for the various model comparisons in the LCAs. Based
on the fit statistics, the model with a four-class solution appears to fit the data best. The four-
class model solution has the second lowest aBIC value, coupled with both significant LMRT and
BLRT results. Both the significant LMRT and BLRT results suggest that four (k) classes fit the
observed data better than three (k - 1) classes.
Figure 6 shows a graph depicting the estimated conditional probabilities for the four-class
solution. The x-axis represents the eight binary items, while the y-axis represents the range of
conditional probabilities for each class. Each line on the graph represents a distinct latent class
identified in the analysis. The estimated conditional probabilities are specific to each class and
provide information on the probability of each team as belonging in that class. For example, the
81
conditional probability for Class 1 is 26.6%, and this indicates that 26.6% of all the teams are
most likely to belong to Class 1 rather than to the other three classes.
Table 19 shows how the various proposed VCM profiles corresponded with the four
distinct latent classes identified in the analysis (for a graphical depiction, see Figure 7). The
“Count” and “Proportions” columns refer to the number and percentage of teams that are
classified into each latent class respectively. This four-class model solution identified four
distinct latent classes or categories, three of which aligned with the VCM profiles identified in
the content coding analysis. These three categories were moderate cooperative VCM, moderate
competitive VCM, and ‘distributed’ profiles. Consistent with earlier observations in the content
coding analysis, the highest number of teams also had moderate cooperative VCM profiles. The
next most prevalent profiles were moderate competitive VCM and ‘distributed’ profiles. The last
latent class identified in the analysis consisted of all the teams that were described as having
minimum cooperative VCM, maximum VCM, minimum competitive VCM, ‘multiple clusters,’
and ‘midpoint cluster’ profiles (for simplicity, I refer to this class as the ‘combination’ category).
There were 17 such teams in this category, and together, they made up 26.6% of all the teams
examined.
The “Threshold estimate” column in Table 7 refers to the threshold values of teams
belonging to the binary items for the four-class model. Larger positive threshold values indicate
a lower likelihood of teams belonging to a given item (i.e., having a value of “1” instead of “0”
for that item), while large negative values indicate the opposite (Finch & Bronk, 2011). Three of
the four latent classes each had threshold estimates of -15.000. These estimates indicated the
highest possible likelihood of teams belonging to each class or VCM profile.
Exploring group differences among VCM categories on team outcomes
82
VCM categories on team conflict efficacy. Using the four VCM categories identified in
the LCAs, I then proceeded to explore possible group differences among these four categories in
terms of their effects on the three team outcomes: team conflict efficacy, member satisfaction
with the team’s conflict management process, and team effectiveness. Preliminary analyses were
conducted to assess the assumptions of homoscedasticity, independence, linearity, normality, and
multicollinearity, and it was found that the distributions of team conflict efficacy scores for
teams with moderate competitive VCM profiles, W (10) = .26, p < .01, and teams with profiles
that fall under the ‘combination’ category were significantly non-normal, W (21) = .89, p < .05.
As a result, the Kruskall-Wallis Test and a series of Mann-Whitney U tests were used to assess
group differences in team conflict efficacy scores among the four VCM categories identified in
the latent class analyses. On the other hand, group differences in member satisfaction with the
team’s conflict management process and team effectiveness scores among the four VCM
categories were explored using one-way between-groups ANOVAs.
Findings from the Kruskall-Wallis test showed that there was no significant overall
difference in team conflict efficacy scores across all four VCM categories: H (3) = 5.74, ns (see
Table 20). To follow-up on this finding, dummy variables were created to compare each of the
four VCM categories with one another in six Mann-Whitney U tests. Two of the six Mann-
Whitney U test findings were significant: Teams with profiles under the ‘combination’ category
(i.e., minimum cooperative, maximum, minimum competitive, ‘multiple clusters,’ and ‘midpoint
cluster’; Mdn = 19.25, n = 21) reported significantly higher levels of team conflict efficacy than
teams with moderate competitive VCM profiles (Mdn = 18.58, n = 10), U = 54.00, z = -2.16, p <
.05, r = .39; Teams with the moderate cooperative VCM profiles (Mdn = 19.71 n = 37) also
83
reported significantly higher levels of team conflict efficacy than teams with moderate
competitive VCM profiles (Mdn = 18.58, n = 10), U = 101.00, z = -2.26, p < .05, r = .33.
VCM categories on member satisfaction with the team’s conflict management process.
Results from the one-way ANOVA revealed that there was no significant group difference in
member satisfaction with the team’s conflict management process scores across all four VCM
categories, F (3, 75) = .29, ns (see Table 21).
VCM categories on team effectiveness. The ANOVA findings showed that there was no
significant overall group difference in team effectiveness scores across all four VCM categories
as well, F (3, 75) = 1.03, ns (see Table 21).
Table 22 provides a summary of all the findings reported in the main and supplementary
analyses in this chapter.
84
CHAPTER V: DISCUSSION
The overall purpose of this dissertation study was to empirically test Tan’s (2011)
conceptual model, which proposes a new team-level construct of conflict management, known as
variant conflict management (VCM). In this model, VCM is defined as the degree and pattern of
differences in the ways individual members handle conflicts cooperatively and/or competitively
among themselves within teams. Further, VCM is posited to consist of five distributional
patterns or ‘profiles’ that characterize member differences in conflict handling: minimum
cooperative, minimum competitive, moderate cooperative, moderate competitive and maximum
VCM profiles. Tan’s (2011) model also suggests that factors within three antecedent categories,
namely salient conflict-relevant member characteristics, team contextual determinants and
divergent team dynamics, will predict the development of VCM. The model further notes that the
various VCM profiles are likely to exert differential effects on key team outcomes, such as
member satisfaction and team effectiveness; the effects of VCM (based on teams’ standard
deviation scores) are also likely to be above and beyond those of traditional concepts of team
conflict management, i.e., homogeneous or means-based team conflict management (Tan, 2011).
This study sought to accomplish four key research objectives. The first objective was to
assess whether the five proposed VCM profiles (minimum cooperative, minimum competitive,
moderate cooperative, moderate competitive and maximum VCM profiles) are evident in the
student project teams sampled. Based on findings from the qualitative content coding analyses, it
was observed that within-team differences in members’ conflict management approaches could
indeed be organized into distinct configurations aligned with the five VCM profile types
proposed in Tan’s (2011) model. Moreover, it was also noted that among the teams sampled, a
majority of them exhibited moderate cooperative VCM profiles, followed by moderate
85
competitive, minimum cooperative, maximum, and minimum competitive VCM profiles. Such
frequency distributions of VCM profiles are understandable given the nature of the sampled
teams. Since this study involved teams comprised of students who needed to rely on one another
in order to complete their team projects, it is reasonable to expect that team members would be
relatively cooperative with one another when handling team conflict situations in the process of
working on their projects. Additionally, the interdependent nature of the team task would also
preclude most teams from developing minimum competitive VCM profiles, since it would be
challenging for highly competitive members to work together effectively toward their team
goals.
Aside from the five VCM profiles discussed above, the content coding analyses also
revealed other VCM profiles that were not included in Tan’s (2011) conceptual model. This set
of VCM profiles were tentatively described as ‘distributed,’ ‘multiple clusters,’ and ‘midpoint
cluster.’ Teams with the ‘distributed’ VCM profiles were characterized by members who were
relatively spread out along the conflict management continuum; in these teams, no discernible
clusters were observed along the continuum as well. As for teams with the ‘multiple clusters’
VCM profiles, these were characterized by the presence of smaller subgroups or clusters that
were distributed along the conflict management continuum; no single majority subgroup was
observed in such profiles. When it comes to teams described with the ‘midpoint cluster’ VCM
profiles, these were characterized by all members being co-located around the midpoint of the
conflict management continuum.
One possible explanation for the emergence of the ‘distributed’ and ‘multiple clusters’
VCM profiles could be that team members were not subject to relatively strong situational or
team-level pressures that would sway them to act more similarly with most of their teammates
86
(Meyer, et al., 2010; Mischel 1977). As a result, members in such teams may be free to rely on
their own natural proclivities in conflict management when conflict situations arise in their
teams, thus leading to more diversity or spreading out of individual conflict approaches within
the teams. More research would certainly be needed to better understand the conditions under
and mechanisms through which ‘distributed’ and ‘multiple clusters’ VCM profiles are likely to
occur.
Further, the presence of ‘midpoint cluster’ VCM profiles among some of the teams
observed suggests that individual members may not always veer toward the cooperative or
competitive end of the one-dimensional conflict management continuum, as postulated in Tan’s
(2011) model. Rather, it is possible for teams to comprise of all members whose preferences
involve using conflict management strategies that lie somewhere in between cooperative and
competitive conflict management. Such conflict management strategies also parallel the concepts
of compromising, accommodating or obliging styles of conflict management, as discussed in
other existing conflict management theories or typologies (e.g., Rahim & Bonoma, 1979;
Thomas & Kilmann, 1974). As such, the presence of ‘midpoint cluster’ VCM profiles in teams
suggests that the proposed VCM theory would also require more development and refinement in
order to better explain and predict the possibilities of such distributional patterns in conflict
management approaches among team members.
From an empirical standpoint, the supplementary latent class analyses (LCAs) provided
further validation to some of the VCM profiles proposed in the model, as well as the need to
consider additional profiles in the model. Specifically, the LCAs identified two of the proposed
VCM profiles, i.e., moderate cooperative and moderate competitive VCM profiles, as distinct
latent classes in the data. The new ‘distributed’ profile was also identified as a distinct latent
87
class in the LCAs, thus supporting the discovery of this profile in the content coding analyses.
The LCA results were also consistent with those from the content coding analyses in noting that
the moderate cooperative VCM profiles were most prevalent in the teams sampled.
The LCA findings supported the conclusion that other profiles that are not currently
included in Tan’s (2011) model may be present in teams as well. In particular, the analyses
revealed a “combination” category that encompasses three of the proposed VCM profiles (i.e.,
minimum cooperative, maximum and minimum competitive VCM profiles) and two of the new
profiles (i.e., ‘multiple clusters’ and ‘midpoint cluster’) identified in the content coding. While
these findings may, in part, be due to the small sample sizes associated with these profiles, they
nonetheless indicate the need for future research to assess the possibility of new profiles that may
emerge by using larger team samples in comparable settings.
The second research objective of this study was to examine whether the overall degree of
variability in team members’ conflict management approaches, i.e., VCM based on teams’
standard deviation scores, would predict team outcomes (team conflict efficacy, members’
satisfaction with the team’s conflict management process, and team effectiveness) above and
beyond conventional measures of team conflict management, i.e., cooperative and competitive
team conflict management based on group means’ scores respectively. Preliminary correlational
analyses showed that consistent with prior research (e.g., Alper et al., 2000), mean cooperative
team conflict management was positively associated with team outcomes, i.e., team conflict
efficacy, member satisfaction and team effectiveness. In the main hypothesis tests, however,
these effects of cooperative team conflict management on team conflict efficacy and member
satisfaction were removed when control variables, such as team goal interdependence and
conflict intensity, were included. Such findings also supported earlier research in noting that the
88
effects of mean cooperative team conflict management on team outcomes are, in part, dependent
on other factors such as goal interdependence (e.g., Alper et al., 1998) and conflict intensity
(e.g., Barker et al., 1988).
When it comes to competitive team conflict management, however, findings from both
the correlations and main hypothesis tests contradicted those of prior research (e.g., Alper et al.,
2000; Tjosvold, Law & Sun, 2006): mean competitive team conflict management was found to
be uncorrelated with team conflict efficacy, member satisfaction, and team effectiveness. This
absence of effects may be explained by the relatively cooperative nature of the teams sampled.
Since the teams in this study were found to be generally cooperative, the individual and team
scores obtained on the competitive conflict management sub-scale were therefore likely to be
lower (i.e., less competitive) compared to other teams sampled in earlier studies. As such, the
relatively cooperative team sample in this study would also result in a reduced likelihood of
detecting significant effects of competitive team conflict management on team outcomes.
As for overall VCM, the correlational analyses indicated that it was uncorrelated with
team conflict efficacy, member satisfaction with the team’s conflict management process, and
team effectiveness. Overall VCM was also uncorrelated with cooperative and competitive team
conflict management. Results from the main hypothesis tests also indicated that it did not predict
all three team outcome variables above and beyond mean cooperative or competitive team
conflict management. This lack of effects of overall VCM on team outcomes, above and beyond
those of mean team conflict management may be partly due to the fact that the same measure
was used to assess the team conflict management and VCM variables. Since the conflict
management measure was adapted to assess individual perceptions about individuals’ conflict
handling approaches within the team, rather than individual perceptions about the team’s conflict
89
handling approaches as a whole, this adjustment may have affected the construct validity of team
conflict management as well (Chan, 1998). As such, future research should attempt to assess the
team conflict management and VCM constructs using separate and different measures or
instruments. Other reasons that may explain the absence of effects of overall VCM on team
outcomes include the generally cooperative nature of the teams sampled and the collectivistic
cultural context (Singapore) in which these teams were embedded. Such team and contextual
characteristics are thus likely to lower the degree of overall variability in members’ conflict
management approaches, and as such, also reduce the likelihood of finding significant effects of
overall VCM on team outcomes.
Additionally, the lack of associations between overall VCM and team outcomes also
suggests that VCM may be better construed as a categorical rather than a continuous variable.
This observation is further supported by the significant associations between specific VCM
profiles and the various team outcomes examined in the planned comparisons. Findings from the
planned comparisons and correlational analyses seem to suggest that how variability in
members’ conflict management strategies are organized within their teams, i.e., VCM profiles,
may be associated with distinctly different dynamics and interaction patterns (e.g., different
numbers of subgroups formed or the amount of intense conflicts experienced) that, in turn, can
produce differential effects on important team outcomes. When only the impact on the overall
degree of members’ conflict management differences within their teams, i.e., overall VCM, was
examined, then, it is possible that the distinctly different dynamics and processes associated with
different VCM profiles would have been masked or overlooked in the analyses, thus leading to
possible ‘canceling out’ of opposing effects in the findings.
90
Accordingly, the definition of the VCM construct should be revised to indicate only the
patterns, and not the degree, of differences in which members handle conflicts within their
teams.
The third research objective of this study was to compare the effects of various VCM
profiles on team conflict efficacy, member satisfaction with the team’s conflict management
process, and team effectiveness. Results from the study revealed that teams with minimum
cooperative or moderate cooperative VCM profiles reported higher levels of conflict efficacy
than those with moderate competitive VCM profiles. Teams with minimum competitive VCM
profiles reported the lowest levels of member satisfaction, when compared to teams with the
other four VCM profiles proposed in Tan’s (2011) model. Teams with minimum cooperative
VCM profiles were found to be more effective than those with minimum competitive VCM
profiles. Teams with moderate cooperative profiles were also more effective than those with
minimum competitive VCM profiles, as well as those with moderate competitive VCM profiles.
As for comparisons between teams with maximum and moderate competitive VCM profiles, no
significant effects were observed between these two types of teams on all three outcomes.
Taken altogether, it can be concluded that these findings on various VCM profiles’
impact on team outcomes also paralleled prior research on the effects of cooperative and
competitive conflict management in teams (e.g., Alper et al., 2000; Tjosvold, Law & Sun, 2006).
Overall, teams with VCM profiles that are more cooperative in nature (i.e., minimum
cooperative and moderate cooperative VCM profiles) are more likely to experience positive team
outcomes (i.e., higher levels of team conflict efficacy, member satisfaction with the team conflict
management process, and team effectiveness), when compared to those with VCM profiles that
91
are more competitive in nature (i.e., minimum competitive and moderate competitive VCM
profiles).
As for the absence of effects comparing maximum and moderate competitive VCM
profiles, this may be due to the relatively small group sizes involving teams with these two
profile types. It was also observed in the data, based on the qualitative content coding analyses,
that some of the teams that were coded as having maximum VCM profiles may not have enough
“distance” between the opposing subgroups within them. In other words, the two subgroups in
these teams may not be far apart enough for opposing cooperative and competitive dynamics to
truly emerge and significantly influence team outcomes. Future investigations should attempt to
identify large enough samples of teams with “true” maximum VCM profiles and to replicate the
comparison study of how these teams may differ from those with moderate competitive VCM
profiles in affecting team outcomes.
Last but not least, the fourth research objective of this study was to investigate whether
gender role diversity, team goal interdependence and subgroup formation are likely to predict the
development of VCM in teams. Contrary to the hypotheses, all three predictor variables were
found to be unrelated to VCM in both the correlations and main hypothesis tests. For the lack of
association between gender role diversity and VCM, one possible explanation may be that at the
team level, differences in members’ gender role orientations among two or more members within
the teams were simply not salient enough to affect team functioning and outcomes. The
relatively low standard deviation and variance scores obtained for gender role diversity (SD =
.15, S2 = .02) in Table 1 also suggest that there was limited variability in this variable across the
teams sampled, thus perhaps making the construct less salient than expected. Prior studies have
suggested that saliency in member differences may play a role in determining whether diversity
92
in member attributes affect important outcomes (e.g., Zellmer-Bruhn, Maloney, Bhappu, et al.,
2010). Further research should therefore examine whether team members perceive salient
differences in gender role orientations among one another in their teams, and in turn, whether
such salient differences influence team outcomes.
The absence of relationship between team goal interdependence and VCM was
surprising, given the consistently strong associations between goal interdependence and conflict
management that have been noted in past research (e.g., Tjosvold, 1998). This absence of
associations may be traced back to the earlier conclusion that the VCM construct would be better
conceived as a categorical rather than a continuous variable. In a similar vein, possible opposing
effects of cooperative and competitive goal interdependence on overall VCM may have been
masked by the continuous nature of the VCM construct conceptualized here. Future research
should therefore examine whether team goal interdependence would significantly predict the
various VCM profiles instead.
As for the lack of evidence supporting subgroup formation as a mediator in the gender
role diversity-VCM relationship, this may in part be due to the ‘generic’ nature of the subgroup
formation measure. Since the measure items only surveyed for the presence and nature of
subgroups in the teams, it was unclear whether the subgroups formed were, in fact, relevant or
specific to the team conflicts experienced within the teams. Future research should adapt the
subgroup formation measure such that it is conflict-specific. Additional research is also needed
to identify other potential mediating factors that may influence possible antecedent-VCM
linkages.
Theoretical implications
93
From a theoretical perspective, this study contributed to existing theory on conflict
management by examining Tan’s (2011) VCM model, which is the first theoretical model that
was formulated to describe and explain conflict management at the team level. Study results also
provided initial support for the presence of VCM profiles as proposed in Tan’s (2011) model,
corroborated prior research on team conflict management and on existing conflict management
theories, as well as provided insights into possible extensions or refinements of the VCM model
with the discovery of ‘new’ VCM profiles.
Most notably, findings from this study offered preliminary support to the argument that
the present study of team conflict management based on teams’ means scores limits our
understanding of the phenomenon. While some of the findings did support prior research
regarding the impact of mean cooperative and competitive team conflict management on team
outcomes (e.g., Alper et al., 2000; Tjosvold, Law & Sun, 2006), it was also observed that
individual members do not always converge or share similar conflict management approaches
within their teams. This divergence or diversity of individual differences in conflict management
approaches was evidenced by the presence of distinct VCM profiles uncovered in both the
content coding and latent class analyses in this study. Findings from this study also indicated that
different VCM profiles could exert differential effects on important outcomes, such as team
conflict efficacy, member satisfaction and team effectiveness. The uncovering of ‘new’ VCM
profiles in these analyses also indicates the need to further refine or extend the proposed VCM
model.
From the study results, it was also inferred that VCM might be better conceptualized in
terms of the distributional patterns of individual conflict management approaches within teams
(i.e., VCM profiles), rather than the extent of such differences within teams (i.e., standard
94
deviations-based VCM). This inference is supported by the fact that some of the VCM profiles
were found to influence critical team outcomes differently, whereas VCM, when based on team
standard-deviation scores, did not have a significant effect on the same team outcomes
examined. Accordingly, assessing the degree to which members differ in the ways they handle
team conflicts alone is insufficient in advancing our knowledge in team conflict management.
Researchers need to explore beyond shared team conflict management, and to further assess the
patterns in which differences in members’ conflict management approaches are or can be
manifested within teams.
Research implications
From an empirical standpoint, this study was one of the first to examine the presence of
variability in individual conflict management at the team level, how such variability may impact
team outcomes differently from traditional concepts of team conflict management, as well as
how such variability may form distinct and meaningful patterns that have consequential effects
on important team outcomes. Furthermore, this study also investigated whether gender role
diversity, team goal interdependence, and subgroup formation predicted variability in individual
conflict management within teams.
By examining these relationships, this study contributed to our current knowledge of
team conflict management with preliminary evidence supporting the presence of member
differences in conflict management within teams, in terms of distinct configurations, that could,
in turn, exert varying effects on team conflict efficacy, member satisfaction and team
effectiveness. The study findings also indicated that there are nuanced differences in terms of
how cooperative or competitive conflict management in teams may influence certain team
outcomes. For instance, it was noted that teams with minimum cooperative VCM profiles were
95
more effective than teams with minimum competitive VCM profiles, but not those with moderate
competitive VCM profiles. On the other hand, teams with moderate cooperative VCM profiles
were more effective than both teams with minimum and moderate competitive VCM profiles.
What, then, are some reasons that may account for such differences?
One possible direction to explore would be the interplays among within-team conflicts
(especially intense and important ones), team goal interdependence, and subgroup formation, in
the VCM profile-team outcome linkages. Based on the correlational findings, it was noted that
both cooperative and competitive conflict management were strongly correlated with team goal
interdependence, subgroup formation, within-team conflict and conflict intensity. Specifically,
these correlations suggest that cooperative teams are likely to have more positive interdependent
goals among members, fewer opposing subgroups, less within-team conflicts (especially intense
ones), and improved eventual team outcomes. By contrast, competitive teams are likely to have
more negative interdependent goals among members, more conflicting subgroups, and increased
within-team conflicts that are also experienced as intense and important. As such, it may be
inferred from these correlations that whether a team’s VCM profile is relatively cooperative or
competitive in nature and how the nature of the profile is patterned (i.e., whether there is a
cooperative or competitive majority subgroup, or no majority subgroups at all) can significantly
influence the team’s dynamics and processes, which can in turn lead to improvements or
detriments on team functioning and effectiveness. Accordingly, these observations and
conclusions help extend our current understanding about the mechanisms and factors that explain
how individual differences in conflict management within teams affect team process and outputs.
Practical implications
96
As for practice-related implications, findings from this study may be able to help
managers, team leaders or self-managed teams better understand how differences in the ways
their team members handle conflict situations can significantly impact effective team processes
and outcomes. For example, a team may recognize that when its members are organized into a
cooperative majority subgroup and a competitive minority subgroup in their conflict
management approaches; this configuration may actually facilitate its performance compared to
when all its members are highly competitive in handling conflict situations.
Furthermore, by identifying specific VCM profiles that are likely to enhance rather than
undermine effectiveness or team functioning, managers, team leaders or self-managed teams
may also be better able to steer their teams away from more ‘detrimental’ VCM profiles or
promote the development of more ‘productive’ ones in their teams. Encouraging a team to shift
from a moderate competitive VCM profile to a minimum cooperative or moderate cooperative
VCM profile by providing opportunities for team members to learn and apply more cooperative
conflict management skills, for instance, may in turn help increase the team’s effectiveness.
Last but not least, results from this study may also help inform managers, team leaders or
self-managed teams about specific factors that are likely to influence the development of specific
VCM profiles in teams. For example, promoting positive interdependent goals among its
members and discouraging the formation of member ‘cliques’ or subgroups may help reduce the
likelihood of the team developing a minimum competitive or moderate competitive VCM
profile.
Study limitations
As with all research, this study was also subject to a number of limitations. As a cross-
sectional field study, it is important to note that the results obtained in this study only indicate
97
correlational, and not causal, relationships among the variables examined. The teams sampled in
this study were also comprised of student project teams with relatively young members, and with
clear team goals that existed for a relatively short period of time (i.e., an academic semester).
Although such a sample may suggest limited generalizability of the results, prior research has
shown that studies using student teams often found comparable findings to those using
organizational teams (see Van Vianen & De Dreu, 2001).
Since the teams involved in this study were identified based on available member
responses, and that a considerable number of the teams included in the analyses were not
complete teams, the variance of scores within the teams may have been restricted, and thereby
reducing the likelihood of detecting more significant effects. The sizes of teams sampled were
also relatively small (i.e., 3 to 8). Future investigations should attempt to use complete intact
teams and with larger team samples.
The use of unequal and relatively small group sizes used in the group comparison
analyses among VCM profiles, and the application of less powerful non-parametric tests also
suggest a lower likelihood in detecting significant effects. As such, the results obtained from
these analyses should also be interpreted with caution.
Future research directions
Considering the findings obtained in this study, there are numerous questions that may be
answered and addressed in future research. For instance, researchers should attempt to further
refine Tan’s (2011) VCM theory, given the discovery of other possible VCM profiles in teams.
Specifically, one may develop additional theorizing to explain the occurrence and impact of the
‘distributed,’ ‘multiple clusters,’ and ‘midpoint cluster’ VCM profiles.
98
Researchers should also consider developing new measures or methods to assess VCM
profiles instead of relying on existing survey instruments. For example, using objective
measures, such as behavioral observations of participants’ conflict management approaches in
teams over time, may help reduce potential self-report biases and better assess the presence and
nature of VCM profiles formed within teams. The use of other research designs, such as
experiments and longitudinal surveys, may also help better establish the validity and causality of
relationships among the VCM construct, various VCM profiles, with their potential predictors
and outcomes.
Other variables representing each of the three antecedent categories (viz., salient conflict-
relevant member characteristics, team contextual determinants, and divergent team dynamics) of
VCM and its profiles should also be identified and examined in future investigations. For
example, investigators may want to consider examining the impact of cultural diversity among
team members, as another possible indicator of salient member characteristics, on various VCM
profiles. Cultural differences among members within teams have been found to influence team
conflict management (Boros et al., 2010), and as such, these differences may also be likely to
influence patterns of variability in how members manage internal team conflicts.
Future studies should also look into using organizational team samples or other types of
teams in various organizational settings, such that the predictors and outcomes of VCM profiles
may be better understood across a broader range of teams and contexts.
Conclusion
As the formation and use of work teams continue to accelerate in contemporary
organizations, the need to understand the conditions and mechanisms that can either enhance or
undermine effective team conflict management will undoubtedly also increase in both
99
importance and relevance to organizational scholars, managers and team leaders. To that end, I
urge both current and future researchers to advance the VCM theory, by taking on the challenges
of further examining the nature and impact of VCM profiles. It is with much hope that we may
begin to take further strides on our journey to deepen our knowledge of team conflict
management, particularly as it relates to enriching our understanding of how differences in
individual conflict handling approaches may develop and in turn affect team process and
important outcomes.
100
REFERENCES
Abrams, D., Wetherell, M., Cochrane, S., Hogg, M. A., & Turner, J. C. (1990). Knowing what to think by knowing who you are: Self-categorization and the nature of norm formation, conformity and group polarization. British Journal of Social Psychology, 29(2), 97-119.
Alderfer, C. P. (1977). Group and intergroup relations. In J. R. Hackman & J. L. Suttle (Eds.), Improving the quality of work life (pp. 227-296). Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear.
Alper, S., Tjosvold, D., & Law, K. S. (1998). Interdependence and controversy in group decision making: Antecedents to effective self-managing teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 74(1), 33-52.
Alper, S., Tjosvold, D., & Law, K. S. (2000). Conflict management, efficacy and performance in organizational teams. Personnel Psychology, 53(3), 625-642.
Andrews, I. R., & Tjosvold, D. (1983). Conflict management under different levels of conflict intensity. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 4(3), 223-228.
Antonioni, D. (1998). Relationship between the Big Five personality factors and conflict management styles. International Journal of Conflict Management, 9(4), 336-355. doi: 10.1108/eb022814
Asch, S. E. (1952). Some forms of interpersonal influence. In G. E. Swanson, T. M. Newcomb & E. L. Hartley (Eds.), Readings in social psychology. New York, NY: Holt.
Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and submission to group pressure: I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs, 70(9), Whole No. 416.
Axelrod, R. (1984). The evolution of cooperation. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Bales, R. F. (1950). Interaction process analysis: A method for the study of small groups. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley Press.
Bantel, K. A., & Jackson, S. E. (1989). Top management and innovations in banking: Does the composition of the top team make a difference? Strategic Management Journal, 10(S1), 107-124. doi: 10.1002/smj.4250100709
Barker, J., Tjosvold, D., & Andrews, I. R. (1988). Conflict approaches of effective and ineffective project managers: A field study in a matrix organization. Journal of Management Studies, 25(2), 167-178. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.1988.tb00030.x
Baron, R. S. (1989). Personality and organizational conflict: Effects of the type a behavior pattern and self-monitoring. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 44(2), 281-296.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182.
101
Baxter, L. A. (1982). Conflict management: An episodic approach. Small Group Research, 13(1), 23-42. doi: 10.1177/104649648201300102
Behfar, K. J., Peterson, R. S., Mannix, E. A., & Trochim, W. M. K. (2008). The critical role of conflict resolution in teams: A close look at the links between conflict type, conflict management strategies, and team outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 170-188. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.170
Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42(2), 155-162. doi: 10.1037/h0036215
Bem, S. L. (1981). Bem Sex Role Inventory: A professional manual. Palo Alto, Ca: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Bettenhausen, K. L., & Murnighan, J. K. (1985). The emergence of norms in competitive decision-making groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 350-372.
Bettenhausen, K. L., & Murnighan, J. K. (1991). The development of an intragroup norm and the effects of interpersonal and structural challenges. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(1), 20-35.
Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1964). The managerial grid. Houston, TX: Gulf.
Blau, P. M. (1977). Inequality and heterogeneity: A primitive theory of social structure. New York, NY: Free Press.
Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions. (pp. 349-381): San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Boros, S., Meslec, N., Curseu, P. L., & Emons, W. (2010). Struggles for cooperation: conflict resolution strategies in multicultural groups. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 25(5), 539.
Brewer, M. B. (1993). Social identity, distinctiveness, and in-group homogeneity. Social Cognition, 11(1), 150-164. doi: 10.1521/soco.1993.11.1.150
Brewer, M. B. (1995). Managing diversity: The role of social identities. In S. E. Jackson & M. N. Ruderman (Eds.), Diversity in work teams: Research paradigms for a changing workplace. (pp. 47-68). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Brewer, M. B., & Brown, R. J. (1998). Intergroup relations. In D. T. Gilbert & S. T. Fiske (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 554–594). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Brewer, M. B., & Kramer, R. M. (1986). Choice behavior in social dilemmas: Effects of social identity, group size, and decision framing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(3), 543-549. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.50.3.543
102
Brewer, N., Mitchell, P., & Weber, N. (2002). Gender role, organizational status, and conflict management styles. International Journal of Conflict Management, 13(1), 78.
Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2), 234-246.
Chatman, J. A. (2010). Norms in mixed sex and mixed race work groups. Academy of Management Annals, 4, 447 - 484.
Chen, G., Liu, C., & Tjosvold, D. (2005). Conflict management for effective top management teams and innovation in China. Journal of Management Studies, 42(2), 277-300.
Chen, G., & Tjosvold, D. (2002a). Conflict management and team effectiveness in China: The mediating role of justice. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 19(4), 557-572. doi: 10.1023/a:1020573710461
Chen, G., & Tjosvold, D. (2002b). Cooperative goals and constructive controversy for promoting innovation in student groups in China. Journal of Education for Business, 78(1), 46.
Chen, Y., Tjosvold, D., & Su, S. F. (2005). Goal interdependence for working across cultural boundaries: Chinese employees with foreign managers. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29(4), 429-447.
Chou, H.-W., & Yeh, Y.-J. (2007). Conflict, conflict management and performance in ERP teams. Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal, 35(8), 1035-1047.
Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social Influence: Compliance and conformity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55(1), 591-621.
Cosier, R. A., & Dalton, D. (1990). Positive effects of conflict: A field assessment. International Journal of Conflict Management, 1, 81-92.
Cronin, M. A., Bezrukova, K., Weingart, L. R., & Tinsley, C. H. (2011). Subgroups within a team: The role of cognitive and affective integration. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(6), 831-849. doi: 10.1002/job.707
Curhan, J. R., Elfenbein, H. A., & Xu, H. (2006). What do people value when they negotiate? Mapping the domain of subjective value in negotiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(3), 493-512. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.91.3.493
Davidson, J. A., McElwee, G., & Hannan, G. (2004). Trust and power as determinants of conflict resolution strategy and outcome satisfaction. Peace & Conflict, 10(3), 275-292.
De Dreu, C. K. W., & Gelfand, M. J. (Eds.). (2008). The psychology of conflict and conflict management in organizations. London, England and New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
103
De Dreu, C. K. W., & Van Vianen, A. E. M. (2001). Managing relationship conflict and the effectiveness of organizational teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(3), 309-328. doi: 10.1002/job.71
DeChurch, L. A., & Marks, M. A. (2001). Maximizing the benefits of task conflict: The role of conflict management. International Journal of Conflict Management, 12(1), 4-22. doi: 10.1108/eb022847
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. doi: 10.1037/1089-2699.11.1.66
Desivilya, H. S., & Eizen, D. (2005). Conflict management in work teams: The role of social self-efficacy and group identification. International Journal of Conflict Management, 16(2), 183-208.
Desivilya, H. S., & Yagil, D. (2005). The role of emotions in conflict management: The case of work teams. International Journal of Conflict Management, 16(1), 55-69.
Deutsch, M. (1949). A theory of cooperation and competition. Human Relations, 2, 129-152.
Deutsch, M. (1973). The resolution of conflict: Constructive and destructive processes. New Haven, NY: Yale University Press.
Deutsch, M. (1985). Interdependence and psychological orientation. Distributive justice: A social-psychological perspective. New Haven, NY: Yale University Press.
Deutsch, M. (2006). Cooperation and competition. In M. Deutsch, P. T. Coleman & E. C. Marcus (Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice (pp. 1-42). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H. B. (1955). A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51(3), 629-636.
Earley, P. C., & Mosakowski, E. (2000). Creating hybrid team cultures: An empirical test of transnational team functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 43(1), 26-50.
Farmer, S. M., & Roth, J. (1998). Conflict-handling behavior in work groups: Effects of group structure, decision processes, and time. Small Group Research, 29(6), 669-713. doi: 10.1177/1046496498296002
Feldman, D. C. (1984). The development and enforcement of group norms. Academy of Management Review, 9(1), 47-53.
Finch, W. H., & Bronk, K. C. (2011). Conducting confirmatory latent class analysis using Mplus. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 18(1), 132-151. doi: 10.1080/10705511.2011.532732
Gebhardt, L. J., & Meyers, R. A. (1995). Subgroup influence in decision-making groups. Small Group Research, 26(2), 147-168. doi: 10.1177/1046496495262001
104
George, J. M., & Bettenhausen, K. (1990). Understanding prosocial behavior, sales performance, and turnover: A group-level analysis in a service context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(6), 698-709. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.75.6.698
Gersick, C. J. G. (1988). Time and transition in work teams: Toward a new model of group development. Academy of Management Journal, 31(1), 9-41.
Graziano, W. G., Jensen-Campbell, L. A., & Hair, E. (1996). Perceiving interpersonal conflict and reacting to it: The case for agreeableness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 820-835.
Greer, L. L., Jehn, K. A., & Mannix, E. A. (2008). Conflict transformation: A longitudinal investigation of the relationships between different types of intragroup conflict and the moderating role of conflict resolution. Small Group Research, 39(3), 278-302. doi: 10.1177/1046496408317793
Gross, M. A., & Guerrero, L. K. (2000). Managing conflict appropriately and effectively: An application of the competence model to Rahim's organizational conflict styles. International Journal of Conflict Management, 11(3), 200-226.
Hackman, J. R. (1976). Group influences on individuals in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1455-1525). Chicago, IL: Rand-McNall.
Harrison, D., & Klein, K. (2007). What's the difference? Diversity constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations. The Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1199-1228.
Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., & Bell, M. P. (1998). Beyond relational demography: Time and the effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on work group cohesion. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 96-107.
Hempel, P. S., Zhang, Z. X., & Tjosvold, D. (2008). Conflict management between and within teams for trusting relationships and performance in China. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(1), 41-65.
Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. (2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 121-140.
Holt, J. L., & DeVore, C. J. (2005). Culture, gender, organizational role, and styles of conflict resolution: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29(2), 165-196.
Ilgen, D. R. (1999). Teams embedded in organizations: Some implications. American Psychologist, 54(2), 129-139. doi: 10.1037/0003-066x.54.2.129
Isenberg, D. J. (1986). Group polarization: A critical review and meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(6), 1141-1151. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.50.6.1141
105
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 85-98.
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1993). rwg: An assessment of within-group interrater agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 306-309.
Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin.
Janssen, O., Van de Vliert, E., & Veenstra, C. (1999). How task and person conflict shape the role of positive interdependence in management teams. Journal of Management, 25(2), 117-141.
Jarboe, S. C., & Witteman, H. R. (1996). Intragroup conflict management in task-oriented groups. Small Group Research, 27(2), 316-338. doi: 10.1177/1046496496272007
Jehn, K. A. (1997). A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational 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.
Johnson, D. W. (2003). Social interdependence: Interrelationships among theory, research and practice. American Psychologist, 58(11), 934-945.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2005). New developments in social interdependence theory. Genetic, Social & General Psychology Monographs, 131(4), 285-358.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Maruyama, G. (1983). Interdependence and interpersonal attraction among heterogeneous and homogeneous individuals: A theoretical formulation and a meta-analysis of the research. Review of Educational Research, 53(1), 5-54. doi: 10.3102/00346543053001005
Johnson, D. W., Maruyama, G., Johnson, R. T., Nelson, D., & Skon, S. (1981). Effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures on achievement: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 89, 47-62.
Jones, R. E., & White, C. S. (1985). Relationships among personality, conflict resolution styles, and task effectiveness. Group & Organization Management, 10(2), 152-167. doi: 10.1177/105960118501000204
Jordan, P. J., & Troth, A. C. (2004). Managing emotions during team problem solving: Emotional intelligence and conflict resolution. Human Performance, 17(2), 195-218.
Jurma, W. E., & Powell, M. L. (1994). Perceived gender roles of managers and effective conflict management. Psychological Reports, 74(1), 104-106. doi: 10.2466/pr0.1994.74.1.104
Kanter, R. (1977). Men and women of the organization. New York, NY: Basic Books.
106
Kelley, H. H., & Stahelski, A. J. (1970). Social interaction basis of cooperators' and competitors' beliefs about others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16(1), 66-91.
Kilmann, R. H., & Thomas, K. W. (1977). Developing a forced-choice measure of conflict-handling behavior: The "Mode" instrument. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 37(2), 309-325. doi: 10.1177/001316447703700204
Klein, K. J., Dansereau, F., & Hall, R. J. (1994). Levels issues in theory development, data collection, and analysis. Academy of Management Review, 19(2), 195-229.
Kleinman, G., Palmon, D., & Lee, P. (2003). The effects of personal and group level factors on the outcomes of simulate auditor and client teams. Group Decision and Negotiation, 12(1), 57-84.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions. (pp. 3-90): San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kuhn, T., & Poole, S. (2000). Do conflict management styles affect group decision making? Evidence from a longitudinal field study. Human Communication Research, 26(4), 558-590.
Lau, D. C., & Murnighan, J. K. (1998). Demographic diversity and faultlines: The compositional dynamics of organizational groups. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 325-340.
Lau, D. C., & Murnighan, J. K. (2005). Interactions within groups and subgroups: The effects of demographic faultlines. . Academy of Management Journal, 48(4), 645-659.
Lawrence, B. S., & Zyphur, M. J. (2011). Identifying organizational faultlines with latent class cluster analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 14(1), 32-57. doi: 10.1177/1094428110376838
Leon-Perez, J. M., Medina, F. J., & Munduate, L. (2011). Effects of self-efficacy on objective and subjective outcomes in transactions and disputes. International Journal of Conflict Management, 22(2), 170-189. doi: 10.1108/10444061111126693
Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. L. (1990). Progress in small group research. Annual Review of Psychology, 41(1), 585-634. doi: doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.41.020190.003101
Lewicki, R. J., Weiss, S. E., & Lewin, D. (1992). Models of conflict, negotiation and third party intervention: A review and synthesis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(3), 209-252.
Lewin, K. (1997). ‘When facing danger.’ Resolving social conflicts and field theory in social sciences (pp. 116-121). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. (Original work published 1939).
107
Lewin, K. (1997). Behavior and development as a function of the total situation. Resolving social conflicts and field theory in social sciences (pp. 337-381). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. (Original work published 1946).
Li, J., & Hambrick, D. C. (2005). Factional groups: A new vantage on demographic faultlines, conflict, and disintegration in work teams. Academy of Management Journal, 48(5), 794-813.
Liu, J., Fu, P., & Liu, S. (2009). Conflicts in top management teams and team/firm outcomes: The moderating effects of conflict-handling approaches. International journal of Conflict Management, 20(3), 228-250. doi: 10.1108/10444060910974867
Lu, J. F., Tjosvold, D., & Shi, K. (2010). Team training in China: Testing and applying the theory of cooperation andc ompetition. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40(1), 101-134. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2009.00565.x
Maas, C. J. M., & Hox, J. J. (2005). Sufficient sample sizes for multilevel modeling. Methodology: European Journal of Research Methods for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, 1(3), 86-92. doi: 10.1027/1614-2241.1.3.86
Mackie, D. M. (1987). Systematic and nonsystematic processing of majority and minority persuasive communications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(1), 41-52. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.53.1.41
Meyer, R. D., Dalal, R. S., & Hermida, R. (2010). A review and synthesis of situational strength in the organizational sciences. Journal of Management, 36(1), 121-140. doi: 10.1177/0149206309349309
Mischel, W. (1977). The interaction of person and situation. In D. Magnusson & N. S. Endler (Eds.), Personality at the crossroads: Current issues in interactional psychology (pp. 333-352). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Moberg, P. J. (1998). Predicting conflict strategy with personality traits: Incremental validity and the Five Factor model. International Journal of Conflict Management, 9(3), 258-285.
Mohammed, S., & Angell, L. C. (2004). Surface- and deep-level diversity in workgroups: Examining the moderating effects of team orientation and team process on relationship conflict. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(8), 1015-1039. doi: 10.1002/job.293
Molleman, E. (2005). Diversity in demographic characteristics, abilities and personality traits: Do faultlines affect team functioning? Group Decision and Negotiation, 14(3), 173.
Moscovici, S. (1976). Social influence and social change. London, England and New York, NY: Academic Press.
Moscovici, S., & Nemeth, C. (1974). Social influence: II. Minority influence. . In C. Nemeth (Ed.), Social psychology: Classic and contemporary integrations. Oxford: Rand McNally.
Myers, D. G. (1978). Polarizing effects of social comparison. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14(6), 554-563.
Nemeth, C. (1986). Differential contributions of majority and minority influence. Psychological Review, 93(1), 23-32. doi: 10.1037/0033-295x.93.1.23
Newcomb, T. M. (1961). The acquaintance process: New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Nylund, K. L., Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. O. (2007). Deciding on the number of classes in latent class analysis and growth mixture modeling: A Monte Carlo simulation study. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(4), 535-569. doi: 10.1080/10705510701575396
O'Leary, M. B., & Mortensen, M. (2010). Go (con)figure: Subgroups, imbalance, and isolates in geographically dispersed teams. Organization Science, 21(1), 115-131. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1090.0434
Oetzel, J. G. (1999). The influence of situational features on perceived conflict styles and self-construals in work groups. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 23(4), 679-695.
Paul, S., Samarah, I. M., Seetharaman, P., & Mykytyn Jr., P. P. (2004). An empirical investigation of collaborative conflict management style in group support system-based global virtual teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 21(3), 185-222.
Park, H., & Antonioni, D. (2007). Personality, reciprocity, and strength of conflict resolution strategy. Journal of Research in Personality, 41(1), 110-125.
Park, H. S., & Park, M. (2008). Multilevel effects of conflict management preferences on satisfaction with group processes. International Journal of Conflict Management, 19(1), 57-71. doi: 10.1108/10444060810849182
Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531-544. doi: 10.1177/014920638601200408
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Pondy, L. R. (1967). Organizational conflict: Concepts and models. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12(2), 296-320.
Poole, M. S., & Dobosh, M. (2010). Exploring conflict management processes in jury deliberations through interaction analysis. Small Group Research, 41(4), 408-426.
Portello, J. Y., & Long, B. C. (1994). Gender role orientation, ethical and interpersonal conflicts, and conflict handling styles of female managers. Sex Roles, 31(11/12), 683-701.
109
Pruitt, D. G., & Kim, S. H. (2004). Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate and settlement (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Putnam, L. L., & Wilson, C. (1982). Communicative strategies in organizational conflict: Reliability and validity of a measurement scale. In M. Burgoon (Ed.), Communication Yearbook (Vol. 6, pp. 629-652). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Quigley, N. R., Tekleab, A. G., & Tesluk, P. E. (2007). Comparing consensus- and aggregation-based methods of measuring team-level variables. Organizational Research Methods, 10(4), 589-608.
Rahim, M. A. (1983). A measurement of styles of handling interpersonal conflict. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 368-376.
Rahim, M. A. (2001). Managing conflict in organizations (3rd ed.). Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
Rahim, M. A., & Bonoma, T. V. (1979). Managing organizational conflict - Model for diagnosis and intervention. Psychological Reports, 44(3), 1323-1344.
Renwick, P. A. (1975). Perception and management of superior-subordinate conflict. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13(3), 444-456. doi: 10.1016/0030-5073(75)90062-8
Rogers, S. J. (1987). The dynamics of conflict behavior in a mediated dispute. In J. A. Lemmon (Ed.), Mediation Quarterly (Vol. 18, pp. 61-71). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Rosenthal, D. B., & Hautaluoma, J. (1988). Effects of importance of issues, gender, and power of contenders on conflict management style. Journal of Social Psychology, 128(5), 699 - 701.
Ross, L., & Nisbett, R. E. (1991). The person and the situation: Perspectives of social psychology: New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Scherbaum, C. A., & Ferreter, J. M. (2009). Estimating statistical power and required sample sizes for organizational research using multilevel modeling. Organizational Research Methods, 12(2), 347-367. doi: 10.1177/1094428107308906
Smith, W. J., Harrington, K. V., & Neck, C. P. (2000). Resolving conflict with humor in a diversity context. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 15(6), 606-625. doi: 10.1108/02683940010346743
Snijders, T., & Bosker, R. (1999). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.
Somech, A. (2008). Managing conflict in school teams: The impact of task and goal interdependence on conflict management and team effectiveness. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(3), 359-390. doi: 10.1177/0013161x08318957
110
Somech, A., Desivilya, H. S., & Lidogoster, H. (2008). Team conflict management and team effectiveness: the effects of task interdependence and team identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(3), 359-378.
Steiner, I. D. (1972). Group process and productivity. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Swann, W. B., Jr. (1983). Self-verification: Bringing social reality into harmony with the self. In J. Suls & A. G. Greenwald (Eds.), Social psychological perspectives on the self (Vol. 2, pp. 33-66). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Tajfel, H. (1978). Social categorization, social identity, and social comparison. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 61-76). London, England: Academic Press.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7-24). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.
Tan, R. Y. (2011). Variant conflict management: A conceptual model on varying conflict management approaches within work teams. Paper presented at the 24th Annual Conference of the International Association for Conflict Management, Istanbul, Turkey. http://ssrn.com/paper=1872913
Tekleab, A. G., Quigley, N. R., & Tesluk, P. E. (2009). A longitudinal study of team conflict, conflict management, cohesion, and team effectiveness. Group & Organization Management, 34(2), 170-205. doi: 10.1177/1059601108331218
Thatcher, S. M. B., Jehn, K. A., & Zanutto, E. (2003). Cracks in diversity research: The effects of diversity faultlines on conflict and performance. Group Decision and Negotiation, 12(3), 217-241.
Thomas, K. W., & Kilmann, R. H. (1974). The Thomas-Kilmann conflict mode instrument. Tuxedo: Xicom.
Thomas, K. W. (1992). Conflict and conflict management: Reflections and update. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(3), 265-274.
Ting-Toomey, S., Gao, G., Trubisky, P., Yang, Z., Kim, H. S., Lin, S., et al. (1991). Culture, face maintenance, and styles of handling interpersonal conflict: A study in five cultures. International Journal of Conflict Management, 2(4), 275-296. doi: 10.1108/eb022702
Tjosvold, D. (1986). The dynamics of interdependence in organizations. Human Relations, 39(6), 517-540.
Tjosvold, D. (1990). Flight crew collaboration to manage safety risks. Group & Organization Management, 15(2), 177-177.
Tjosvold, D. (1998). Cooperative and competitive goal approach to conflict: Accomplishments and challenges. Applied Psychology, 47(3), 285-313. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.1998.tb00025.x
111
Tjosvold, D. (2002). Managing anger for teamwork in Hong Kong: Goal interdependence and open–mindedness. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 5(2), 107-123. doi: 10.1111/1467-839x.00098
Tjosvold, D., Law, K. S., & Sun, H. (2006). Effectiveness of Chinese teams: The role of conflict types and conflict management approaches. Management and Organization Review, 2(2), 231-252. doi: 10.1111/j.1740-8784.2006.00040.x
Tjosvold, D., Wong, A., Nibler, R., & Pounder, J. S. (2002). Teamwork and controversy in undergraduate management courses in Hong Kong: Can the method reinforce the message? Swiss Journal of Psychology, 61(3), 131-138. doi: 10.1024//1421-0185.61.3.131
Tjosvold, D., Yu, Z., & Wu, P. (2009). Empowering individuals for team innovation in China: Conflict management and problem solving. Negotiation & Conflict Management Research, 2(2), 185-205. doi: 10.1111/j.1750-4716.2009.00036.x
Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63(6), 384-399. doi: 10.1037/h0022100
Turner, J. C. (1985). Social categorization and the self-concept: A social cognitive theory of group behavior. In E. J. Lawler (Ed.), Advances in Group Processes: Theory and Research (Vol. 2, pp. 77-122). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Utley, M. E., Richardson, D. R., & Pilkington, C. J. (1989). Personality and interpersonal conflict management. Personality and Individual Differences, 10(3), 287-293.
Van de Vliert, E., & Euwema, M. C. (1994). Agreeableness and activeness as components of conflict behaviors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(4), 674-687. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.66.4.674
Van Knippenberg, D., & Schippers, M. C. (2007). Work group diversity. Annual Review of Psychology, 58(1), 515-541. doi: doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085546
Wageman, R. (1995). Interdependence and group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(1), 145-180.
Wall Jr., J. A., & Callister, R. R. (1995). Conflict and its management. Academy of Management Journal, 21(3), 515-558.
Williams, K. Y., & O'Reilly, C. A. (1998). Demography and diversity in organizations: A review of 40 years of research. Research in Organizational Behavior, 20, 77-140.
Witteman, H. (1991). Group member satisfaction: A conflict-related account. Small Group Research, 22(1), 24-58. doi: 10.1177/1046496491221003
Yang, C. C. (2006). Evaluating latent class analysis models in qualitative phenotype identification. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 50(4), 1090-1104.
112
Yelsma, P., & Brown, C. T. (1985). Gender roles, biological sex, and predisposition to conflict management. Sex Roles, 12(7/8), 731-747.
Zellmer-Bruhn, M. E., Maloney, M. M., Bhappu, A. D., & Salvador, R. (2008). When and how do differences matter? An exploration of perceived similarity in teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 107(1), 41-59.
113
Figu
re 1
. Con
cept
ual m
odel
of v
aria
nt c
onfli
ct m
anag
emen
t
Varia
nt C
onfli
ct M
anag
emen
t (V
CM
)
Ove
rall
VC
M
VC
M
prof
iles
Salie
nt c
onfli
ct-r
elev
ant
mem
ber c
hara
cter
istic
s
Team
con
text
ual
dete
rmin
ants
Div
erge
nt te
am
dyna
mic
s
Team
out
com
es
Min
. C
oop.
M
in.
Com
p.
Mod
. C
omp.
M
ax.
Mod
. C
oop.
114
Coo
pera
tion
Com
petit
ion
Figu
re 2
. Min
imum
VC
M p
rofil
es
Min
imum
co
oper
ativ
e V
CM
: A
ll m
embe
rs
are
coop
erat
ive.
Min
imum
co
mpe
titiv
e V
CM
: A
ll m
embe
rs
are
com
petit
ive.
115
Coo
pera
tion
Com
petit
ion
Figu
re 3
. Mod
erat
e V
CM
pro
files
Mod
erat
e co
oper
ativ
e V
CM
: A
coo
pera
tive
maj
ority
exi
sts
in
the
team
.
Mod
erat
e co
mpe
titiv
e V
CM
: A
com
petit
ive
maj
ority
exi
sts
in
the
team
.
116
Coo
pera
tion
Com
petit
ion
Figu
re 4
. Max
imum
VC
M p
rofil
e
Mem
bers
are
eq
ually
pol
ariz
ed
tow
ard
eith
er e
nd
of th
e co
ntin
uum
.
117
Figu
re 5
. VC
M p
rofil
es id
entif
ied
from
con
tent
cod
ing
VC
M
prof
iles
Min
. C
oop.
M
in.
Com
p.
Mod
. C
omp.
M
ax.
Mod
. C
oop.
M
ulti.
cl
uste
rs
Mid
pt.
clus
ter
Dis
trib.
118
0 0.
1 0.
2 0.
3 0.
4 0.
5 0.
6 0.
7 0.
8 0.
9 1
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
Cla
ss 1
, 26.
6%
Cla
ss 2
, 12.
7%
Cla
ss 3
, 48.
1%
Cla
ss 4
, 12.
7%
Figu
re 6
. Gra
ph s
how
ing
estim
ated
con
ditio
nal p
roba
bilit
ies
for t
he fo
ur-c
lass
mod
el s
olut
ion
Estimated conditional probabilities
Num
ber o
f ind
icat
ors
119
VC
M
prof
iles
Min
. C
oop.
M
in.
Com
p.
Mod
. C
omp.
Max
.
Mod
. C
oop.
D
istri
.
Figu
re 7
. VC
M p
rofil
es id
entif
ied
from
late
nt c
lass
ana
lyse
s Mul
. C
lust
r M
idpt
. C
lust
r.
120
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics for All Key Team Variables (N = 79)
Variable M SD S2 Min Max Predictors
1. Cooperative team conflict management
15.72 1.24 1.54 11.33 19.00
2. Competitive team conflict management
4.19 0.95 0.91 2.33 6.90
3. Variant conflict management
2.25 0.92 0.84 0 5.18
4. Gender role diversity 0.62 0.15 0.02 0 0.86 5. Team goal
8. Team conflict efficacy 19.38 1.49 2.23 16.00 23.67 9. Satisfaction with team
conflict management process
21.85 2.24 5.01 17.00 26.40
10. Team effectiveness 18.74 1.96 3.86 13.33 22.75 Controls
11. Intra-group conflict 17.54 3.57 12.71
12.33 28.75
12. Team conflict intensity 7.95 1.74 3.01 5.25 14.25 13. Team conflict importance 2.33 0.59 0.35 1.00 3.75 14. Team sizeb 4.22 1.00 0.99 3.00 8.00
Other 15. Team agec 21.72 0.95 0.90 19.33 25.75 16. Team interactiond 1.51 0.42 0.17 1.00 3.00
Note. a n = 56. b Team size is based on the number of members who participated from each team. c Team age is calculated using the average age of members in each team. d Team interaction is calculated using the mean scores for reported level of interaction among members in each team.
121
Table 2
Reliability and Aggregation Indices for All Team Measures (N = 79)
Note. a n = 78, due to missing data. α = Cronbach’s alpha based on the group means of individual ratings for each measure. ICC (1) = intra-class correlation for individual ratings based on a one-way random effects ANOVA. ICC (2) = intra-class correlation for team mean ratings based on a one-way random effects ANOVA.
122 (R
ae) Y
unzi
Tan
“V
aria
nt C
onfli
ct M
anag
emen
t: C
once
ptua
lizin
g an
d In
vest
igat
ing
Team
Con
flict
Man
agem
ent a
s a C
onfig
ural
Con
stru
ct”
Rev
ised
Dis
serta
tion
Ana
lyse
s and
Fin
ding
s – O
ctob
er 2
012
!
13!
Tabl
e 3
Inte
rcor
rela
tions
for a
ll K
ey T
eam
Var
iabl
es
Var
iabl
e 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
Pred
icto
rs
1.
C
oope
rativ
e te
am c
onfli
ct
man
agem
ent
!
2.
Com
petit
ive
team
con
flict
m
anag
emen
t -.4
3***
!
3.
Var
iant
con
flict
man
agem
ent
.04
-.02
!
4.
Gen
der r
ole
dive
rsity
.1
5 -.1
1 -.1
2 !
5.
Team
goa
l int
erde
pend
ence
.4
8***
-.3
9***
.0
2 .0
9 !
6.
M
ixed
goa
l int
erde
pend
ence
a .5
6***
-.2
5 .0
9 -.0
5 1.
00**
* !
7.
Subg
roup
form
atio
n -.3
1**
.41*
**
-.07
-.18
-.45*
**
-.22
!
Out
com
es
8.
Te
am c
onfli
ct e
ffic
acy
.36*
* -.1
1 -.2
1 .1
8 .4
4***
.3
6**
-.24*
!
9.
Satis
fact
ion
with
team
co
nflic
t man
agem
ent p
roce
ss
.23*
-.0
6 .0
9 -.0
3 .4
7***
.4
0**
-.09
.52*
** !
10. T
eam
eff
ectiv
enes
s .4
6***
-.1
8 .0
1 .2
0 .5
5***
.4
3***
-.3
1**
.62*
**
.65*
**
Con
trol
s
11. C
ours
e af
filia
tionb
.15
-.06
.01
.23*
.1
6 .2
3 -.1
5 .2
0 .0
3 12
. Tea
m si
ze
.05
-.04
.11
-.07
.06
.05
.18
.15
.19
13. I
ntra
-team
con
flict
-.3
9***
.3
8***
.1
5 -.0
9 -.5
5***
-.3
9**
.53*
**
-.27*
-.3
0**
14. T
eam
con
flict
inte
nsity
-.4
9***
.4
2***
.1
3 -.1
2 -.6
1***
-.4
6***
.5
2***
-.3
3**
-.34*
* 15
. Tea
m c
onfli
ct im
porta
nce
-.11
.27*
.0
1 .0
5 -.0
4 -.0
5 .4
1***
.2
4*
.15
Oth
er
16
. Tea
m a
ge
.23*
-.1
9 .0
7 -.0
8 .0
4 -.0
1 -.0
3 .0
4 .2
7*
17. T
eam
ass
ignm
entc
.06
-.07
.05
.14
.18
-.14
.07
-.02
.05
18. T
eam
inte
ract
ion
.15
.02
-.03
.16
.06
.23
.12
.09
-.01
Not
e. T
he N
var
ies f
rom
72
– 79
due
to o
mis
sion
of o
utlie
rs. a
n =
53 –
56
due
to o
mis
sion
of o
utlie
rs. b
Cou
rse
affil
iatio
n =
1, “
Man
agin
g Pe
ople
at W
ork”
cou
rse;
2, “
Lead
ersh
ip a
nd T
eam
-bui
ldin
g” c
ours
e. c
Team
ass
ignm
ent =
1, “
yes”
; 0, “
no”.
* p
< 0
5. *
* p
< .0
1. *
** p
< .0
01.
123 (R
ae) Y
unzi
Tan
“V
aria
nt C
onfli
ct M
anag
emen
t: C
once
ptua
lizin
g an
d In
vest
igat
ing
Team
Con
flict
Man
agem
ent a
s a C
onfig
ural
Con
stru
ct”
Rev
ised
Dis
serta
tion
Ana
lyse
s and
Fin
ding
s – O
ctob
er 2
012
!
14!
Tabl
e 3
(Con
tinue
d)
Inte
rcor
rela
tions
for a
ll K
ey T
eam
Var
iabl
es
Var
iabl
e 10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
10
. Tea
m e
ffec
tiven
ess
!
Con
trol
s
11. C
ours
e af
filia
tionb
.16
!
12
. Tea
m si
ze
.18
-.06
!
13. I
ntra
-team
con
flict
-.4
2***
.0
3 .1
8 !
14. T
eam
con
flict
inte
nsity
-.4
8***
-.0
1 .1
8 .9
5***
!
15
. Tea
m c
onfli
ct im
porta
nce
.22
.12
.25*
.4
2***
.3
7**
!
O
ther
16. T
eam
age
.1
9 -.4
1***
.1
1 -.1
2 -.1
2 -.0
1 !
17
. Tea
m a
ssig
nmen
tc .1
0 -.2
1 .1
5 -.0
6 -.0
7 .1
2 .1
5 !
18. T
eam
inte
ract
ion
.10
.17
-.03
.04
.03
.18
-.17
.25*
!
N
ote.
The
N v
arie
s fro
m 7
2 –
79 d
ue to
om
issi
on o
f out
liers
. a n =
53
– 56
due
to o
mis
sion
of o
utlie
rs. b
Cou
rse
affil
iatio
n =
1, “
Man
agin
g Pe
ople
at W
ork”
cou
rse;
2, “
Lead
ersh
ip a
nd T
eam
-bui
ldin
g” c
ours
e. b
Team
ass
ignm
ent =
1, “
yes”
; 0, “
no”.
* p
< 0
5. *
* p
< .0
1. *
** p
< .0
01.
124
Table 4
Coding Definitions of Variant Conflict Management Profiles for the Content Coding Analysis
1 Minimum cooperative When all scores are clustered between the midpoint and the high end of the cooperative conflict management continuum.
2 Moderate cooperative When a majority cluster of scores is observed between the midpoint and the high end of the cooperative conflict management continuum.
3 Maximum When two distinct and evenly sized clusters are observed along the continuum.
4 Moderate competitive When a majority cluster of scores is observed between the midpoint and the low end of the cooperative conflict management continuum.
5 Minimum competitive When all scores are clustered between the midpoint and the low end of the cooperative conflict management continuum.
6 Other When the distribution of individual scores for the team does not fall into any of the above five categories. (If a team falls under this category, each coder also provides detailed comments describing the specific nature of the score distribution for the given team.)
125
Table 5
Classification of Teams Based on the Content Coding Analysis
Coding category Variant conflict management profile N 1 Minimum cooperative 6 2 Moderate cooperative 38 3 Maximum 5 4 Moderate competitive 10 5 Minimum competitive 3 6 Other
Hierarchical Regression Analysis Predicting Member Satisfaction with Team Conflict Management Process from Cooperative Team Conflict Management and Variant Conflict Management (N = 79)
Member satisfaction with team conflict management process
Model 1 Model 2 Predictor B SE B β B SE B β
Step 1: Team goal interdependence .36 .11 .43** .33 .12 .39** Team conflict intensity -.08 .17 -.07 -.13 .18 -.10 Team age .53 .23 .23* .49 .24 .21*
Step 2: Cooperative team conflict management .06 .20 .03
Hierarchical Regression Analysis Predicting Member Satisfaction with Team Conflict Management Process from Competitive Team Conflict Management and Variant Conflict Management (N = 79)
Member satisfaction with team conflict management process
Model 1 Model 2 Predictor B SE B β B SE B β
Step 1: Team goal interdependence .36 .11 .43** .37 .11 .44** Team conflict intensity -.08 .17 -.07 -.21 .18 -.16 Team age .53 .23 .23* .51 .24 .21*
Step 2: Competitive team conflict management .46 .25 .20
Model Fit Statistics for the Latent Class Analyses
Model AIC BIC aBIC LMRT BLRT 8-class 401.944 570.175 346.308 p < .05 p < .05 7-class 392.262 539.168 343.678 p < .05 p > .05 6-class 382.061 507.642 340.530 p < .05 p > .05 5-class 373.588 477.843 339.109 p < .05 p > .05 4-class 367.023 449.954 339.597 p < .05 p < .05 3-class 367.063 428.669 346.689 p < .05 p < .05 2-class 368.198 408.479 354.877 p < .05 p < .05
Note. The LCAs were conducted with 100 random starts and 100 optimizations.
137
Table 19
Classification of Variant Conflict Management Profiles Based on Latent Class Memberships (N = 79)
Latent class Variant conflict management profilea Count Proportion Threshold
estimate 1 Minimum cooperative
Maximum Minimum competitive ‘Multiple clusters’ ‘Midpoint cluster’
6 5 3 4 3
7.6% 6.3% 3.8% 5.1% 3.8%
0.916 1.163 1.792 1.447 1.792
2 ‘Distributed’ 10 12.7% -15.000
3 Moderate cooperative 38 48.1% -15.000
4 Moderate competitive 10 12.7% -15.000
Note. aThese profiles were identified in the content coding analyses.
138 (R
ae) Y
unzi
Tan
“V
aria
nt C
onfli
ct M
anag
emen
t: C
once
ptua
lizin
g an
d In
vest
igat
ing
Team
Con
flict
Man
agem
ent a
s a C
onfig
ural
Con
stru
ct”
Rev
ised
Dis
serta
tion
Ana
lyse
s and
Fin
ding
s – O
ctob
er 2
012
!
30!
Tabl
e 20
Med
ians
and
Num
ber
of C
ases
for
the
Effe
cts
of V
aria
nt C
onfli
ct M
anag
emen
t Cat
egor
ies
(Ide
ntifi
ed in
the
Late
nt C
lass
Ana
lyse
s)
on T
eam
Con
flict
Effi
cacy
V
aria
nt c
onfli
ct m
anag
emen
t cat
egor
ies
‘C
ombi
natio
n’
M
oder
ate
coop
erat
ive
‘D
istri
bute
d’
M
oder
ate
com
petit
ive
Var
iabl
e M
dn
n
Mdn
n
M
dn
n
Mdn
n
Team
con
flict
eff
icac
y 19
.25
21
19
.71
38
19
.25
10
18
.58
10
! Tabl
e 21
Mea
ns a
nd S
tand
ard
Dev
iatio
ns fo
r th
e Ef
fect
s of
Var
iant
Con
flict
Man
agem
ent C
ateg
orie
s (I
dent
ified
in th
e La
tent
Cla
ss
Anal
yses
) on
Mem
ber
Satis
fact
ion
with
the
Team
’s C
onfli
ct M
anag
emen
t Pro
cess
and
Tea
m E
ffect
iven
ess
V
aria
nt c
onfli
ct m
anag
emen
t cat
egor
ies
‘C
ombi
natio
n’
M
oder
ate
coop
erat
ive
‘D
istri
bute
d’
M
oder
ate
com
petit
ive
Var
iabl
e M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
Mem
ber s
atis
fact
ion
with
th
e te
am’s
con
flict
m
anag
emen
t pro
cess
21
.96
2.30
21.8
8 2.
30
22
.13
2.56
21.2
7 1.
69
Team
eff
ectiv
enes
s 18
.69
2.04
19.0
4 1.
75
18
.63
2.92
17.8
3 1.
29
! !
139 !
1!
Tabl
e 22
Sum
mar
y Fi
ndin
gs fo
r th
e M
ain
and
Supp
lem
enta
ry A
naly
ses
Res
earc
h H
ypot
hese
s St
atis
tical
Ana
lyse
s Fi
ndin
gs
H1:
Th
e fiv
e pr
opos
ed V
CM
pro
files
, i.e
., m
inim
um
coop
erat
ive,
min
imum
com
petit
ive,
mod
erat
e co
oper
ativ
e, m
oder
ate
com
petit
ive,
and
max
imum
V
CM
pro
files
, will
be
pres
ent i
n te
ams.
Qua
litat
ive
cont
ent
codi
ng
Yes
. All
five
prop
osed
VC
M p
rofil
es
wer
e id
entif
ied
in th
e co
nten
t cod
ing
anal
ysis
. Add
ition
al p
rofil
es w
ere
also
un
cove
red;
thes
e w
ere
desc
ribed
as
‘dis
tribu
ted,
’ ‘m
ultip
le c
lust
ers,’
and
‘m
idpo
int c
lust
er’ V
CM
pro
files
. See
Ta
bles
4 &
5.
H
2a:
VC
M w
ill b
e ne
gativ
ely
asso
ciat
ed w
ith te
am c
onfli
ct
effic
acy,
with
mea
n co
oper
ativ
e te
am c
onfli
ct
man
agem
ent s
core
s bei
ng h
eld
cons
tant
.
Hie
rarc
hica
l mul
tiple
re
gres
sion!
Not
supp
orte
d. S
ee T
able
6.
H2b
: V
CM
will
be
nega
tivel
y as
soci
ated
with
mem
ber
satis
fact
ion
with
the
team
’s c
onfli
ct m
anag
emen
t pr
oces
s, w
ith m
ean
coop
erat
ive
team
con
flict
m
anag
emen
t sco
res b
eing
hel
d co
nsta
nt.
Hie
rarc
hica
l mul
tiple
re
gres
sion!
Not
supp
orte
d. S
ee T
able
7.
H2c
: V
CM
will
be
nega
tivel
y as
soci
ated
with
team
ef
fect
iven
ess,
with
mea
n co
oper
ativ
e te
am c
onfli
ct
man
agem
ent s
core
s bei
ng h
eld
cons
tant
.
Hie
rarc
hica
l mul
tiple
re
gres
sion!
Not
supp
orte
d. S
ee T
able
8.
! !
140
!
2!
Tabl
e 22
(Con
tinue
d)
Sum
mar
y Fi
ndin
gs fo
r th
e M
ain
and
Supp
lem
enta
ry A
naly
ses
Res
earc
h H
ypot
hese
s St
atis
tical
Ana
lyse
s Fi
ndin
gs
H3a
: VC
M w
ill b
e po
sitiv
ely
asso
ciat
ed w
ith te
am c
onfli
ct
effic
acy,
with
mea
n co
mpe
titiv
e te
am c
onfli
ct
man
agem
ent s
core
s bei
ng h
eld
cons
tant
.
Hie
rarc
hica
l mul
tiple
re
gres
sion!
Not
supp
orte
d. S
ee T
able
9.
H3b
: VC
M w
ill b
e po
sitiv
ely
asso
ciat
ed w
ith m
embe
r sa
tisfa
ctio
n w
ith th
e te
am’s
con
flict
man
agem
ent
proc
ess,
with
mea
n co
mpe
titiv
e te
am c
onfli
ct
man
agem
ent s
core
s bei
ng h
eld
cons
tant
.
Hie
rarc
hica
l mul
tiple
re
gres
sion!
Not
supp
orte
d. S
ee T
able
10.
H3c
: VC
M w
ill b
e po
sitiv
ely
asso
ciat
ed w
ith te
am
effe
ctiv
enes
s, w
ith m
ean
com
petit
ive
team
con
flict
m
anag
emen
t sco
res b
eing
hel
d co
nsta
nt.
Hie
rarc
hica
l mul
tiple
re
gres
sion!
Not
supp
orte
d. S
ee T
able
11.
H4a
: M
inim
um c
oope
rativ
e V
CM
pro
files
will
be
mos
t po
sitiv
ely
asso
ciat
ed w
ith te
am c
onfli
ct e
ffic
acy.
Man
n-W
hitn
ey U
Te
sts
Parti
ally
supp
orte
d. T
eam
s with
m
inim
um c
oope
rativ
e V
CM
pro
files
re
porte
d hi
gher
leve
ls o
f tea
m c
onfli
ct
effic
acy
than
team
s with
mod
erat
e co
mpe
titiv
e V
CM
pro
files
. See
Tab
le
12.
H4b
: M
inim
um c
oope
rativ
e V
CM
pro
files
will
be
mos
t po
sitiv
ely
asso
ciat
ed w
ith m
embe
r sat
isfa
ctio
n w
ith
the
team
’s c
onfli
ct m
anag
emen
t pro
cess
.
Plan
ned
com
paris
ons
Not
supp
orte
d. T
able
13.
H4c
: M
inim
um c
oope
rativ
e V
CM
pro
files
will
be
mos
t po
sitiv
ely
asso
ciat
ed w
ith te
am e
ffec
tiven
ess.
Plan
ned
com
paris
ons
Parti
ally
supp
orte
d. T
eam
s with
m
inim
um c
oope
rativ
e V
CM
pro
files
w
ere
mor
e ef
fect
ive
than
team
s with
m
inim
um c
ompe
titiv
e V
CM
pro
files
. Se
e Ta
ble
13.
141
!
3!
Tabl
e 22
(Con
tinue
d)
Sum
mar
y Fi
ndin
gs fo
r th
e M
ain
and
Supp
lem
enta
ry A
naly
ses
Res
earc
h H
ypot
hese
s St
atis
tical
Ana
lyse
s Fi
ndin
gs
H5a
: M
inim
um c
ompe
titiv
e V
CM
pro
files
will
be
mos
t ne
gativ
ely
asso
ciat
ed w
ith te
am c
onfli
ct e
ffic
acy.
Man
n-W
hitn
ey U
Te
sts
Not
supp
orte
d. S
ee T
able
12.
H5b
: M
inim
um c
ompe
titiv
e V
CM
pro
files
will
be
mos
t ne
gativ
ely
asso
ciat
ed w
ith m
embe
r sat
isfa
ctio
n w
ith
the
team
’s c
onfli
ct m
anag
emen
t pro
cess
.
Plan
ned
com
paris
ons
Supp
orte
d. S
ee T
able
13.
H5c
: M
inim
um c
ompe
titiv
e V
CM
pro
files
will
be
mos
t ne
gativ
ely
asso
ciat
ed w
ith te
am e
ffec
tiven
ess.
Plan
ned
com
paris
ons
Parti
ally
supp
orte
d. T
eam
s with
m
inim
um c
ompe
titiv
e V
CM
pro
files
w
ere
less
eff
ectiv
e th
an te
ams w
ith
min
imum
coo
pera
tive
and
mod
erat
e co
oper
ativ
e V
CM
pro
files
. See
Tab
le
13.
H6a
: M
oder
ate
coop
erat
ive
VC
M p
rofil
es, r
elat
ive
to
mod
erat
e co
mpe
titiv
e V
CM
pro
files
, will
be
mor
e po
sitiv
ely
asso
ciat
ed w
ith te
am c
onfli
ct e
ffic
acy.
Man
n-W
hitn
ey U
Te
sts
Supp
orte
d. S
ee T
able
12.
H6b
: M
oder
ate
coop
erat
ive
VC
M p
rofil
es, r
elat
ive
to
mod
erat
e co
mpe
titiv
e V
CM
pro
files
, will
be
mor
e po
sitiv
ely
asso
ciat
ed w
ith m
embe
r sat
isfa
ctio
n w
ith
the
team
’s c
onfli
ct m
anag
emen
t pro
cess
.
Plan
ned
com
paris
ons
Not
supp
orte
d. S
ee T
able
13.
H6c
: M
oder
ate
coop
erat
ive
VC
M p
rofil
es, r
elat
ive
to
mod
erat
e co
mpe
titiv
e V
CM
pro
files
, will
be
mor
e po
sitiv
ely
asso
ciat
ed w
ith te
am e
ffec
tiven
ess.
Plan
ned
com
paris
ons
Supp
orte
d. S
ee T
able
13.
!
142
!
4!
Tabl
e 22
(Con
tinue
d)
Sum
mar
y Fi
ndin
gs fo
r th
e M
ain
and
Supp
lem
enta
ry A
naly
ses
Res
earc
h H
ypot
hese
s St
atis
tical
Ana
lyse
s Fi
ndin
gs
H7a
: M
axim
um V
CM
pro
files
, rel
ativ
e to
mod
erat
e co
mpe
titiv
e V
CM
pro
files
, will
be
mor
e ne
gativ
ely
asso
ciat
ed w
ith te
am c
onfli
ct e
ffic
acy.
Man
n-W
hitn
ey U
Te
sts
Not
supp
orte
d. S
ee T
able
12.
H7b
: M
axim
um V
CM
pro
files
, rel
ativ
e to
mod
erat
e co
mpe
titiv
e V
CM
pro
files
, will
be
mor
e ne
gativ
ely
asso
ciat
ed w
ith m
embe
r sat
isfa
ctio
n w
ith th
e te
am’s
co
nflic
t man
agem
ent p
roce
ss.
Plan
ned
com
paris
ons
Not
supp
orte
d. S
ee T
able
13.!
H7c
: M
axim
um V
CM
pro
files
, rel
ativ
e to
mod
erat
e co
mpe
titiv
e V
CM
pro
files
, will
be
mor
e ne
gativ
ely
asso
ciat
ed w
ith te
am e
ffec
tiven
ess.
Plan
ned
com
paris
ons
Not
supp
orte
d. S
ee T
able
13.!
H8:
G
ende
r rol
e di
vers
ity w
ill b
e po
sitiv
ely
asso
ciat
ed
with
VC
M.
Sim
ple
regr
essi
on
Not
supp
orte
d. S
ee T
able
14.
H9:
C
oope
rativ
e an
d co
mpe
titiv
e go
al in
terd
epen
denc
e w
ill b
e ne
gativ
ely
asso
ciat
ed w
ith V
CM
, whi
le m
ixed
go
al in
terd
epen
denc
e w
ill b
e po
sitiv
ely
asso
ciat
ed
with
VC
M.
Poly
nom
ial m
ultip
le
regr
essi
on
Not
supp
orte
d. S
ee T
able
15.
H10
: Su
bgro
up fo
rmat
ion
will
med
iate
the
rela
tions
hip
betw
een
gend
er ro
le d
iver
sity
and
VC
M.
Med
iatio
nal
regr
essi
ons b
ased
on
Bar
on &
Ken
ny’s
(1
986)
app
roac
h
Not
supp
orte
d. S
ee T
able
s 16
and
17.
!
143
!
5!
Tabl
e 22
(Con
tinue
d)
Sum
mar
y Fi
ndin
gs fo
r th
e M
ain
and
Supp
lem
enta
ry A
naly
ses
Res
earc
h Q
uest
ions
St
atis
tical
ana
lyse
s Fi
ndin
gs
Supp
lem
enta
ry a
naly
ses:
A
sses
sing
the
pres
ence
of t
he
prop
osed
VC
M p
rofil
es in
the
mod
el
empi
rical
ly
Late
nt c
lass
ana
lyse
s Th
e be
st fi
tting
mod
el in
the
anal
yses
iden
tifie
d fo
ur la
tent
cl
ass c
ateg
orie
s. Tw
o of
thes
e ca
tego
ries c
orre
spon
ded
with
the
prop
osed
VC
M p
rofil
es: m
oder
ate
coop
erat
ive
and
mod
erat
e co
mpe
titiv
e V
CM
pro
files
. The
oth
er tw
o id
entif
ied
cate
gorie
s wer
e ‘d
istri
bute
d’ a
nd a
com
bina
tion
of ‘m
ultip
le c
lust
ers,’
‘mid
poin
t clu
ster
,’ m
inim
um
coop
erat
ive,
max
imum
, and
min
imum
com
petit
ive
VC
M
prof
iles.
See
Figu
re 5
, Tab
les 1
8 an
d 19
.
Expl
orin
g gr
oup
diff
eren
ces i
n te
am
conf
lict e
ffic
acy
scor
es a
mon
g th
e fo
ur V
CM
cat
egor
ies i
dent
ified
in
the
late
nt c
lass
ana
lyse
s
Kru
skal
l-Wal
lis T
est;
M
ann-
Whi
tney
U T
ests
for
follo
w-u
p co
mpa
rison
s
No
sign
ifica
nt o
vera
ll gr
oup
diff
eren
ce in
team
con
flict
ef
ficac
y sc
ores
acr
oss t
he fo
ur V
CM
cat
egor
ies;
How
ever
, tw
o of
the
six
Man
n-W
hitn
ey U
test
com
paris
ons w
ere
sign
ifica
nt:
1.
Team
s with
pro
files
und
er th
e ‘c
ombi
natio
n’ c
ateg
ory
(i.e.
, min
imum
coo
pera
tive,
max
imum
, min
imum
co
mpe
titiv
e, ‘m
ultip
le c
lust
ers,’
and
‘mid
poin
t clu
ster
’; M
dn =
19.
25, n
= 2
1) re
porte
d hi
gher
leve
ls o
f tea
m
conf
lict e
ffic
acy
than
team
s with
mod
erat
e co
mpe
titiv
e V
CM
pro
files
(Mdn
= 1
8.58
, n =
10)
, U =
54.
00, z
= -
2.16
, p <
.05,
r =
.39.
See
Tab
le 2
0.
2.
Team
s with
the
mod
erat
e co
oper
ativ
e V
CM
pro
files
(M
dn =
19.
71 n
= 3
7) a
lso
repo
rted
high
er le
vels
of
team
con
flict
eff
icac
y th
an te
ams w
ith m
oder
ate
com
petit
ive
VC
M p
rofil
es (M
dn =
18.
58, n
= 1
0), U
=
101.
00, z
= -2
.26,
p <
.05,
r =
.33.
See
Tab
le 2
0.
144
!
6!
Tabl
e 22
(Con
tinue
d)
Sum
mar
y Fi
ndin
gs fo
r th
e M
ain
and
Supp
lem
enta
ry A
naly
ses
Res
earc
h Q
uest
ions
St
atis
tical
ana
lyse
s Fi
ndin
gs
Expl
orin
g gr
oup
diff
eren
ces i
n m
embe
r sat
isfa
ctio
n w
ith te
am
conf
lict m
anag
emen
t pro
cess
scor
es
amon
g th
e fo
ur V
CM
cat
egor
ies
iden
tifie
d in
the
late
nt c
lass
ana
lyse
s
One
-way
AN
OV
A
N
o si
gnifi
cant
ove
rall
grou
p di
ffer
ence
in m
embe
r sa
tisfa
ctio
n w
ith th
e te
am’s
con
flict
man
agem
ent
proc
ess s
core
s acr
oss a
ll fo
ur V
CM
cat
egor
ies,
F (3
, 75
) = .2
9, n
s. Se
e Ta
ble
21.
Expl
orin
g gr
oup
diff
eren
ces i
n te
am
effe
ctiv
enes
s sco
res a
mon
g th
e fo
ur
VC
M c
ateg
orie
s ide
ntifi
ed in
the
late
nt c
lass
ana
lyse
s
One
-way
AN
OV
A
No
sign
ifica
nt o
vera
ll gr
oup
diff
eren
ce in
team
ef
fect
iven
ess s
core
s acr
oss a
ll fo
ur V
CM
cat
egor
ies,
F (3
, 75)
= 1
.03,
ns.
See
Tab
le 2
1.
!
145
Appendix A
Email Request for Recruiting Study Participants
Subject Line: Request for Recruiting Participants for a Dissertation Study on Teamwork Experiences
Dear Professor [NAME],
I am writing to request for your assistance in recruiting participants for my dissertation study on teamwork experiences. This dissertation research is being conducted as part of the Lim Kim San Research Fellowship at the Singapore Management University, under the supervision of Dr. Tan Hwee Hoon, Associate Professor of Organizational Behavior and Human Resources, and at Teachers College, Columbia University, under the supervision of Dr. Peter T. Coleman, Associate Professor of Psychology and Education.
The main purpose of this study is to investigate the effects of team characteristics on teamwork processes, and how these processes may in turn affect important outcomes. For this study, I am interested in recruiting intact student teams whose members are expected to work together on a final team project throughout the academic semester.
Based on the description of the course that you are currently teaching, it appears that the students in your course would meet the sample criterion for my study. As such, I would greatly appreciate it if you would allow me to invite your students to participate in this study. This study will be administered in the form of a short online survey, and all information obtained will be kept strictly confidential and will only be used solely for the purposes of this research.
Your assistance in my efforts to recruit participants would be greatly appreciated, and it would help me tremendously in completing my dissertation.
THANK YOU for considering my request above, and I look forward to hearing from you soon.
Sincerely,
(Rae) Yunzi Tan Visiting Lim Kim San Research Fellow Organizational Behavior and Human Resources Lee Kong Chian School of Business Singapore Management University Doctoral Candidate Program in Social-Organizational Psychology Department of Organization and Leadership Teachers College, Columbia University
146
Appendix A (Continued)
Email Request for Study Participation
Dear Professor [NAME],
Thank you very much for agreeing to assist me in recruiting participants for my dissertation study.
Please feel free to forward the following message with your students, so they can be made aware of this voluntary opportunity for research participation:
Subject Line: Request for Participation in a Study on Teamwork Experiences
Dear [PARTICIPANT NAME],
This is an email to inform you of a voluntary opportunity for research participation. The main purpose of this research is to investigate the effects of team characteristics on teamwork processes, and how these processes may in turn affect important outcomes. Your participation is important because the results will help us better understand individuals’ teamwork experiences and team effectiveness.
This study is being administered in the form of a short online survey. To begin this survey, please click on the following link: [INSERT LINK HERE].
This survey will take approximately 20 minutes to complete. All information gathered in this study will be kept strictly confidential and used solely for the purposes of this research. You will receive more information on how you may collect the monetary incentive offered for your participation on the Informed Consent Form prior to beginning the survey, and again at the end of the survey.
Please complete this survey no later than 11.59pm, March 31, 2012. If you have any questions or would like to receive a copy of the study results, please do not hesitate to email me. Thank you again for your participation!
Sincerely,
(Rae) Yunzi Tan Visiting Lim Kim San Research Fellow Organizational Behavior and Human Resources Lee Kong Chian School of Business Singapore Management University Doctoral Candidate Program in Social-Organizational Psychology Department of Organization and Leadership Teachers College, Columbia University
147
Appendix B
Study Questionnaire
Teamwork Experiences Survey
Thank you for participating in this survey study on teamwork experiences. In this survey, you will be asked to respond to questions concerning your perceptions of and experiences in working with your peers on a specific team project this semester.
As you complete this survey, please provide your responses pertaining to the team you have been working with in the course: OBHR 001 – Leadership and Team Building / OBHR 101 – Management of People at Work.
Please complete this survey by no later than 11:59pm on March 31, 2012.
The survey consists of five sections, and would take approximately 30 minutes to complete. Your participation is entirely voluntary. Any information gathered will be kept strictly confidential and used solely for the purposes of this research.
On the next page, you will see the Informed Consent Form related to this research. Please read this information carefully and indicate your consent to participate in this study where noted.
Thank you once again for your participation!
148
Appendix B (Continued)
Informed Consent Form
DESCRIPTION OF THE RESEARCH: You are invited to participate in a research study on teamwork experiences. Specifically, this study is intended to investigate the effects of team characteristics on teamwork processes, and how these processes may in turn affect important outcomes. You will be asked to complete a short online survey questionnaire that assesses your perceptions of, and experiences in working with a project team throughout the academic semester. All information gathered in this study will be kept strictly confidential and will be used solely for the purposes of this research.
The research is conducted by (Rae) Yunzi Tan, a doctoral candidate in the Social-Organizational Psychology program at Teachers College, Columbia University, under the supervision of Dr. Peter T. Coleman, Associate Professor of Psychology and Education. This research is also conducted at the Lee Kong Chian School of Business at the Singapore Management University, as part of the Lim Kim San Research Fellowship program offered by the Organizational Behavior and Human Resources Division, and under the supervision of Dr. Tan Hwee Hoon, Associate Professor of Organizational Behavior and Human Resources.
TIME INVOLVEMENT: Your participation will involve completing an online questionnaire that will take approximately 20 minutes.
RISKS AND BENEFITS: The risks and possible benefits associated with this study are minimal, as the probability of encountering harm or discomfort in this study is no greater than what is typically encountered in a classroom activity or discussion on an important team-related issue. Some of the questions are of a sensitive nature and may cause some discomfort as you reflect on your team experiences.
However, there are also potential benefits that you may gain from this research. By responding to questions about their perceptions of and experiences with working in teams, you may gain novel and valuable insights about your team experiences. You will also be offered access to the results upon completion of the study.
Participation in this study is entirely voluntary. You may refuse to participate in the study, or withdraw at any time by closing your browser. Refusal or withdrawal from participation at any time will involve no penalty or no loss of accrued benefits to which you are otherwise entitled.
PAYMENTS: (For LTB participants) You will receive a small monetary incentive of $5.00 as payment for your participation. You may collect this payment at Room 5031 between 1:00 to 5:00pm from March 15 to 30, 2012 (Mon-Fri only). (For MPW participants) You will receive a research credit value of 0.5 for your participation.
149
Appendix B (Continued)
DATA STORAGE TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY: All responses to this survey will be kept completely confidential. Your responses will be entered into a database that can only be accessed by the researcher. Any personal or identifying information will be recoded using pseudonyms or non-identifiers as soon as the data is collected, so that responses cannot be linked directly back to individual participants in the database.
HOW WILL RESULTS BE USED: The results of this study will be used to fulfill the partial requirements for a Doctor of Philosophy degree from Teachers College, Columbia University. The reporting of the results will be done in a manner to ensure that all participants’ identities are completely anonymous.
FOR QUESTIONS OR WHOM TO CONTACT: If, at any time, you have questions regarding the research or your participation, you may contact the investigator, Ms. (Rae) Yunzi Tan, at 6828-0597. The project has been reviewed and approved by the Teachers College, Columbia University Human Subjects Committee. If, at any time, you have comments or concerns regarding the conduct of the research or questions about your rights as a research subject, you may contact the Teachers College, Columbia University Institutional Review Board /IRB. The phone number for the IRB is (212) 678-4105. Or, you can write to the IRB at Teachers College, Columbia University, 525 West 120th Street, New York, NY, 10027, Box 151. (SMU IRB contact info: Institutional Review Board Secretariat, Ms. Stephanie Tan, at 6828-1925, or email [email protected])
By clicking on the link below, and by submitting your responses, it is understood that you have consented to participate in the research.
[INSERT LINK HERE]
Principal Investigator’s Signature: Date: February 15, 2012
(Rae) Yunzi Tan Visiting Lim Kim San Research Fellow Organizational Behavior and Human Resources Lee Kong Chian School of Business Singapore Management University Doctoral Candidate Program in Social-Organizational Psychology Department of Organization and Leadership Teachers College, Columbia University
150
Appendix B (Continued)
Participant’s Rights Form
Principal Investigator: (Rae) Yunzi Tan Research Title: Teamwork Experiences
• I have read the Research Description described in the preceding page. I have had the opportunity to ask questions about the purposes and procedures, via email, regarding this study. I have received a copy of the Research Description/Informed Consent Form and this Participant's Rights document.
• I understand that my participation is voluntary. Refusal to participate will involve no penalty. I understand that I may discontinue participation at any time without penalty or loss of accrued benefits (Benefits are accrued in proportion to the amount of study complete or otherwise stated by the researcher) to which I am otherwise entitled. I declare that I am at least 18 years of age.
• The researcher may withdraw me from the research at his/her professional discretion. • If, during the course of the study, significant new information that has been developed
becomes available which may relate to my willingness to continue to participate, the investigator will provide this information to me.
• Any information derived from the research project that personally identifies me will not be voluntarily released or disclosed without my separate consent, except as specifically required by law.
• If at any time I have any questions regarding the research or my participation, I can contact the investigator, who will answer my questions. The investigator's phone number is 6828-0597.
• If at any time, I have comments or concerns regarding the conduct of the research or questions about my rights as a research subject, I should contact the Teachers College, Columbia University Institutional Review Board /IRB. The phone number for the IRB is (212) 678-4105. Or, I can write to the IRB at Teachers College, Columbia University, 525 W. 120th Street, New York, NY, 10027, Box 151. (SMU IRB contact info: Institutional Review Board Secretariat, Ms. Stephanie Tan, at 6828-1925, or email [email protected])
• The written materials will be viewed only by the principal investigator and members of the research team. Written materials ( ) may be viewed in an educational setting outside the research OR ( ) may NOT be viewed in an educational setting outside the research.
• My signature below means that I agree to participate in this study.
Participant's signature (please type your name): _______________Date: ____/____/____
For the Principal Investigator: “I have explained and defined in detail the research procedures in which the participant has consented to participate.”
Principal Investigator’s signature: Date: February 15, 2012
To begin the survey, please click on the link below: [INSERT LINK HERE]
151
Appendix B (Continued)
Section I: Team Characteristics
This section contains several characteristics pertaining to individual attributes and traits within your project team for the course: OBHR 001 - Leadership and Team Building / OBHR 101 - Management of People at Work.
Please rate how well each of the following describes you in this team, on a scale of 1 (never or almost never true) to 7 (always or almost always true):
Characteristics
1 = Never to Almost Never True to 7 = Always to Almost Always True
This section contains several statements assessing your perceptions of how your project team has functioned throughout the semester for the course: OBHR 001 - Leadership and Team Building / OBHR 101- Management of People at Work.
Please rate how strongly you agree or disagree with each of the statements below.
1 2 3 4 5 Strongly
Agree Agree Neither Agree
nor Disagree Disagree Strongly
Disagree
1. In this team, members ‘swim or sink’ together. 1 2 3 4 5
2. In this team, members give high priority to the things they want to accomplish and low priority to the things other team members want to accomplish.
1 2 3 4 5
3. In this team, members seek compatible goals. 1 2 3 4 5
4. In this team, members like to show that who is superior to one other.
1 2 3 4 5
5. In this team, members want one other to succeed.
1 2 3 4 5
6. When members work together in this team, they usually have common goals.
1 2 3 4 5
7. In this team, members structure things in ways that favor each member’s own goals rather than the goals of other team members.
1 2 3 4 5
8. In this team, members have a ‘win-lose’ relationship.
1 2 3 4 5
9. In this team, members’ goals go together. 1 2 3 4 5
10. In this team, members’ goals are incompatible with one other.
1 2 3 4 5
153
Appendix B (Continued)
Section II: Team Functioning (Continued)
This section contains several statements assessing your perceptions of how your project team has functioned throughout the semester for the course: OBHR 001 - Leadership and Team Building / OBHR 101 - Management of People at Work.
Please rate the frequency or intensity to which each of the statement describes your team.
Never Occasionally Sometimes Often Always 1 2 3 4 5
Not At All or To a Very Small
Extent
To a Small Extent
To a Moderate Extent
To a Large Extent
To a Very Large Extent
11. How much conflict of ideas is there in this team? 1 2 3 4 5
12. To what extent has your team split into subgroups? 1 2 3 4 5
13. How much relationship tension is there in this team? 1 2 3 4 5
14. How frequently do members have disagreements within this team about the task of the project?
1 2 3 4 5
15. How much conflict is there in this team about task responsibilities?
1 2 3 4 5
16. How much emotional conflict is there in this team? 1 2 3 4 5
17. To what extent has your team split into uneven subgroups?
1 2 3 4 5
18. How often do your teammates have conflicting opinions about the project you are working on?
1 2 3 4 5
19. To what extent has your team split into multiple or smaller cliques?
1 2 3 4 5
20. How often are there disagreements about who should do what in this team?
1 2 3 4 5
21. How often do members get angry while working in this team?
1 2 3 4 5
22. To what extent has your team split into two balanced subgroups?
1 2 3 4 5
23. How often do members disagree about resource allocation in this team?
1 2 3 4 5
24. To what extent do members view conflict in this team as important?
1 2 3 4 5
154
Appendix B (Continued)
Section III: Team Interactions
This section contains several statements pertaining to your perceptions of how you have interacted with your teammates throughout the semester for the course: OBHR 001 - Leadership and Team Building / OBHR 101 - Management of People at Work.
Please rate the extent to which each of the following statement describes you in this team.
1 2 3 4 5 Never Occasionally Sometimes Often Always
1. I encourage a “we are in it together” attitude
with my teammates. 1 2 3 4 5
2. I tend to view conflict as a win-lose contest. 1 2 3 4 5
3. I try to get my teammates to agree with my position.
1 2 3 4 5
4. I work with my teammates to find a solution that will be good for all of us.
1 2 3 4 5
5. I try to persuade my teammates to make concessions without necessarily making concessions myself.
1 2 3 4 5
6. I tend to overstate my position to get my way. 1 2 3 4 5
7. I treat conflict as a mutual problem to solve with my teammates.
1 2 3 4 5
8. I work in a way that will enable everyone to get what he or she really wants.
1 2 3 4 5
9. I work with my teammates to combine the best of positions to make an effective decision.
1 2 3 4 5
155
Appendix B (Continued)
Section IV: Team Outcomes
This section assesses your beliefs and feelings toward your teamwork experiences for the course: OBHR 001 - Leadership and Team Building / OBHR 101 - Management of People at Work.
For each question below, please select a number from 1-7 that most accurately reflects your opinion. If you encounter a particular question that is not applicable to your teamwork experience, simply select “N/A.”
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N/A Not At All Moderately Perfectly Not
Applicable
Please rate how strongly you agree or disagree with each of the following statements by selecting the appropriate number.
1 2 3 4 5 Strongly
Agree Agree Neither Agree
nor Disagree Disagree Strongly
Disagree
1. Do you feel that your teammates listened to your concerns?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N/A
2. How satisfied are you with the ease (or difficulty) of reaching an agreement within the team?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N/A
3. Would you characterize the team conflict management process as fair?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N/A
4. Did your teammates consider your wishes, opinions, or needs?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N/A
5. Generally speaking, team members are very satisfied with their work.
1 2 3 4 5
6. The way this team manages its work inspires its team members to enhance team performance.
1 2 3 4 5
7. Team members feel a strong commitment to their work. 1 2 3 4 5
8. All things considered, this team is highly pleased with the way it manages its work.
1 2 3 4 5
9. Team members feel highly committed to the goals of their work.
1 2 3 4 5
156
Appendix B (Continued)
Section IV: Team Outcomes (Continued)
This section assesses your beliefs and feelings toward your teamwork experiences for the course: OBHR 001 - Leadership and Team Building / OBHR 101 - Management of People at Work.
Please rate how strongly you agree or disagree with each of the following statements by selecting the appropriate number.
1 2 3 4 5 Strongly
Agree Agree Neither Agree
nor Disagree Disagree Strongly
Disagree
10. I believe that this team will manage the following conflicts in an effective manner: a. Among team members concerning personality differences 1 2 3 4 5 b. Among team members concerning work habits 1 2 3 4 5 c. Among team members concerning work roles 1 2 3 4 5 d. Among team members concerning scheduling 1 2 3 4 5 e. Among team members concerning the best way to get the
project done 1 2 3 4 5
157
Appendix B (Continued)
Section V: Participant Demographics
Please answer the following questions about yourself and your team. All information collected will be kept strictly confidential and will be used solely for the purposes of this research.
Your name: ________________________________________________________________
Course title and section number: ________________________________________________
Name of your team (if any): ____________________________________________________
Number of members in your team (including yourself): ______________________________
Names of members in your team (including yourself): _______________________________
Were you assigned to your team by the course instructor (select one)? Yes / No
In general, how often do you interact with your teammates throughout the semester in person, phone and/or online (select one below)?
• Rarely (Less than 5 times a week) • Moderately (5-10 times a week) • Frequently (More than 10 times a week)
Age: _____________ Years of prior and current work experience: _____________________
Gender (select one): Male Female Other (e.g., transgender)
Ethnicity (select one): Chinese Malay Indian Biracial/Multiracial Other (please indicate): _______________________________________
Country of origin (where you were born): _________________________________________
Years of living in Singapore: ___________________________________________________
Area of specialization for your degree: ___________________________________________
158
Appendix B (Continued)
Debriefing Message
Debrief
You have reached the end of the survey. Thank you again for your participation in this study. The specific objective of this research is to examine how team member characteristics and team contextual factors affect the development of variability in team conflict management, and how such variability in turn affect team outcomes.
Once again, please note that all your responses in this survey will be kept strictly confidential and will only be used for the purposes of this research.
(For LTB participants) You will receive $5.00 as payment for your participation. To collect your payment, please go to Room 5031 between 1:00 to 5:00 PM, from March 15 to 30, 2012 (Mon-Fri only). A member of the research team for this study will be available to assist with your collection.
(For MPW participants) You will receive a research credit value of 0.5 for your participation.
If you have any further questions or concerns about this study, please do not hesitate to contact me at [email protected] or call 6828-0597.
Sincerely,
(Rae) Yunzi Tan Visiting Lim Kim San Research Fellow Organizational Behavior and Human Resources Lee Kong Chian School of Business Singapore Management University Doctoral Candidate Program in Social-Organizational Psychology Department of Organization and Leadership Teachers College, Columbia University
All items are rated on a five-point scale (1 = “never”; 3 = “sometimes”; 5 = “always”).
Cooperation
1. I encourage a “we are in it together” attitude with my teammates. 2. I work with my teammates to find a solution that will be good for all of us. 3. I treat conflict as a mutual problem to solve with my teammates 4. I work in a way that will enable everyone to get what they really want. 5. I work with my teammates to combine the best of positions to make an effective decision.
Competition
6. I try to get my teammates to agree with my position. 7. I try to persuade my teammates to make concessions without necessarily making
concessions myself. 8. I tend to view conflict as a win-lose contest. 9. I tend to overstate my position to get my way.
Gender Role Orientations (Bem, 1981)
How well does each of the following describe you in this team? (Items are rated on a scale of 1 = “never or almost never true” to 7 = “always or almost always true”)
Goal Interdependence (Lu, Tjosvold, & Shi, 2010)
All items are rated on a five-point scale (1 = “strongly disagree”; 5 = “strongly agree”).
Positive Interdependence
1. In this team, members ‘swim or sink’ together. 2. In this team, members want each other to succeed.
Masculinity Femininity 1. Assertive 1. Understanding 2. Leadership ability 2. Sympathetic 3. Dominant 3. Eager to soothe hurt feelings 4. Strong personality 4. Sensitive to needs of others 5. Forceful 5. Compassionate 6. Aggressive 6. Affectionate 7. Willing to take a stand 7. Gentle 8. Independent 8. Warm 9. Defends own beliefs 9. Tender 10. Willing to take risks
160
Appendix C (Continued)
3. In this team, members seek compatible goals. 4. In this team, the goals of team members go together. 5. When we work together in this team, we usually have common goals. Negative Interdependence
6. In this team, members structure things in ways that favor their own goals rather than the goals of other team members.
7. In this team, members have a ‘win-lose’ relationship. 8. In this team, members like to show that they are superior to each other. 9. In this team, members’ goals are incompatible with each other. 10. In this team, members give high priority to the things they want to accomplish and low
priority to the things other team members want to accomplish.
All items are rated on a five-point scale (1 = “not at all or a very small extent”; 5 = “to a very large extent”).
1. To what extent has your team split into subgroups? 2. To what extent has your team split into multiple or smaller cliques? 3. To what extent has your team split into uneven subgroups? 4. To what extent has your team split into two balanced subgroups?
Team Conflict Efficacy (Alper, Tjosvold & Law, 2000)
All items are rated on a five-point scale (1 = “strongly disagree”; 5 = “strongly agree”).
I believe that our team will manage the following conflicts in an effective manner:
1. Among team members concerning personality differences 2. Among team members concerning work habits 3. Among team members concerning work roles 4. Among team members concerning scheduling 5. Among team members concerning the best way to get the project done
Satisfaction with Team Conflict Management Process (Curhan, Elfenbein, & Xu, 2006)
All items are rated on a seven-point scale (1 = “not at all”; 4 = “moderately”; 7 = frequently)
1. Do you feel your teammate(s) listened to your concerns? 2. Would you characterize the team conflict management process as fair? 3. How satisfied are you with the ease (or difficulty) of reaching an agreement within the
team? 4. Did your teammate(s) consider your wishes, opinions, or needs?
All items are rated on a five-point scale (1 = “strongly disagree”; 5 = “strongly agree”).
1. Generally speaking, team members are very satisfied with their work. 2. Team members feel a strong commitment to their work. 3. Team members feel highly committed to the goals of their work. 4. The way this team manages its work inspires its teammates to enhance team
performance. 5. All things considered, this team is highly pleased with the way it manages its work.
Intra-team Conflict Types (Jehn & Mannix, 2001)
All items are rated on a five-point scale (1 = “never”; 3 = “sometimes”; 5 = “always”), except items 1, 4, 6 and 8, which are rated on a scale of 1 = “not at all or to a very small extent” to 5 = “to a very large extent”.
Task Conflict
1. How much conflict of ideas is there in this team? 2. How frequently do members have disagreements within this team about the task of the
project? 3. How often do your teammates have conflicting opinions about the project you are
working on?
Relationship Conflict
4. How much relationship tension is there in this team? 5. How often do members get angry while working in this team? 6. How much emotional conflict is there in this team?
Process Conflict
7. How often are there disagreements about who should do what in this team? 8. How much conflict is there in this team about task responsibilities? 9. How often do members disagree about resource allocation in this team?
Intra-team Conflict Importance
To what extent do members view conflict in this team as important? (Item is rated on a scale of 1 = “not at all or a very small extent” to 5 = “to a very large extent”)