Why won’t task conflict cooperate? Deciphering stubborn results

International Journal of Conflict ManagementWhy won’t task conflict cooperate? Deciphering stubborn resultsMisty L. Loughry Allen C. Amason

Article information:To cite this document:Misty L. Loughry Allen C. Amason , (2014),"Why won’t task conflict cooperate? Deciphering stubbornresults", International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 25 Iss 4 pp. 333 - 358Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJCMA-01-2014-0005

Downloaded on: 17 November 2014, At: 11:58 (PT)References: this document contains references to 100 other documents.To copy this document: [email protected] fulltext of this document has been downloaded 190 times since 2014*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:Richard A Posthuma, Elizabeth Ruth Wilson, Leigh L. Thompson, (2014),"Creativity and negotiationresearch: the integrative potential", International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 25 Iss 4 pp. 359-386http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJCMA-05-2014-0033Richard A Posthuma, Karen A. Jehn, Pirathat Techakesari, (2014),"High reliability teams: new directions fordisaster management and conflict", International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 25 Iss 4 pp. 407-430http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJCMA-02-2014-0019Richard A Posthuma, Maria Dijkstra, Bianca Beersma, Jelle van Leeuwen, (2014),"Gossiping as a responseto conflict with the boss: alternative conflict management behavior?", International Journal of ConflictManagement, Vol. 25 Iss 4 pp. 431-454 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJCMA-08-2014-0059

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by All users group

For AuthorsIf you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald forAuthors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelinesare available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The companymanages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well asproviding an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committeeon Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archivepreservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Dow

nloa

ded

by G

eorg

ia S

outh

ern

Uni

vers

ity A

t 11:

58 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

Why won’t task conflictcooperate? Deciphering

stubborn resultsMisty L. Loughry

Department of Management, Georgia Southern University, Statesboro,Georgia, USA, and

Allen C. AmasonCollege of Business Administration, Georgia Southern University,

Statesboro, Georgia, USA

AbstractPurpose – The purpose of this paper is to suggest why the theoretically positive relationship betweentask conflict and team performance has received mixed empirical support.Design/methodology/approach – We review the literature on task conflict and offer explanationsfor findings that contradict the expected positive relationship between task conflict and teamperformance.Findings – High levels of correlation among task, relationship and process conflict, and measurementand data analysis issues make it difficult to isolate the effects of each type of conflict. Group-levelmoderators, including values congruence, goal alignment, norms for debate and the group’sperformance history and conflict history affect the relationship between task conflict and performance.The complex relationship between conflict and trust may cause task conflict to have mixed effects onperformance. Individual differences and conflict management approaches also affect the relationshipbetween task conflict and performance. Temporal issues and stages of group development are otherrelevant influences.Practical implications – To better achieve the theorized performance benefits of task conflict, acontext characterized by trust is needed. Then norms fostering task conflict can be cultivated andemployees can be trained in conflict management. Individual differences that affect team members’ability to confidently accept task conflict can be considered in selection.Originality/value – Suggestions are presented for future research that may explain discrepantfindings in the past empirical literature. In particular, it may be difficult for some team members toperceive task conflict in well-functioning teams. Measures of task conflict that avoid the use of wordswith a negative connotation should be tested.

Keywords Relationship conflict, Team performance, Conflict, Process conflict, Task conflict,Functional conflict

Paper type Viewpoint

It is now generally accepted that conflict is a multidimensional construct comprisingtwo principal types. The first type has been called task, cognitive, information,substantive, functional or good conflict, and is thought to improve team performance onnon-routine tasks unless it becomes excessive. The second type is called relationship,affective, socio-emotional, dysfunctional or bad conflict, and it is thought to alwaysaffect performance negatively (Amason, 1996, 1998; Amason and Schweiger, 1994;

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available atwww.emeraldinsight.com/1044-4068.htm

Why won’t taskconflict

cooperate?

333

International Journal of ConflictManagement

Vol. 25 No. 4, 2014pp. 333-358

© Emerald Group Publishing Limited1044-4068

DOI 10.1108/IJCMA-01-2014-0005

Dow

nloa

ded

by G

eorg

ia S

outh

ern

Uni

vers

ity A

t 11:

58 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

Guetzkow and Gyr, 1954; Jehn, 1995; Levine and Thompson, 1996; Priem and Price,1991). Following recent convention, we use the terms task and relationship conflict.Task conflict involves differences of opinion about the goals or content of the work andis often based on facts, data or evidence or the interpretation and application thereof(Jehn, 1997a; De Dreu and Weingart, 2003a). Relationship conflict pertains tointerpersonal relationships; it is what some people characterize as personality conflictand reflects resentment, animosity or general dislike, stemming from differences invalues or personal style (Jehn, 1997a, 1997b; De Dreu and Weingart, 2003a).

Jehn (1997a) identified a third type of conflict, process conflict, which pertains to thedelegation of responsibilities and resource allocations. She argued that a very smallamount of process conflict could be good for performance, but any more would bedetrimental.

Researchers have since conducted many studies of the different types of conflict,including four meta-analyses of the literature (DeChurch et al., 2013; De Dreu andWeingart, 2003a; de Wit et al., 2012; O’Neill et al., 2013). Although some of these studieshave supported the theorized positive association between task conflict andperformance, others have found that task conflict, like relationship and process conflict,is generally bad for team performance. Hence, researchers have suggested that thesituations in which task conflict is good for team performance may be narrower thanoriginally envisioned (De Dreu, 2008). We attempt to reconcile these discrepant findings,explain the nuanced and complex nature of task conflict’s effects and suggest avenuesfor future research.

Theory on task conflict and team performanceIn top-management teams and other organizational contexts involving non-routinetasks, teams are used because no individual has all of the information, understandingand resources necessary to make and implement good decisions. If there is no questionabout the proper course of action, then there is no need to have a team create alternativesand debate the merits of various approaches. Using a team when an individual can dothe job effectively creates process losses that waste time and frustrate team members.When team decision-making is appropriate and functional, debate and consideration ofvarious perspectives and alternatives is needed to arrive at optimal decisions. Thesedifferences of opinion about what should be done and how best to proceed createtask-related conflict that should result in better decisions and better team performance,as team members work through the advantages and disadvantages of differentapproaches. Team performance should then manifest itself in improved outcomes inareas like financial performance, decision quality, innovativeness, time expended andadherence to budgets (De Dreu and Weingart, 2003b).

Yet, many people avoid task conflict because it can be personally stressful, evenwhen it benefits performance overall. Therefore, techniques to stimulate task conflict innon-threatening ways are widely used when making good decisions is more importantthan speed or personal sentiment. Examples include brainstorming, having a devil’sadvocate and the nominal group technique (Schweiger et al., 1986; Van de Vliert and DeDreu, 1994).

In addition to improving decision quality, task conflict should also enhancecommitment to and satisfaction with team decisions because the discussion and debateallow team members to exercise greater participation and voice in the decision-making

IJCMA25,4

334

Dow

nloa

ded

by G

eorg

ia S

outh

ern

Uni

vers

ity A

t 11:

58 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

process (Amason, 1996; Priem et al., 1995). Perceptions of a fair process in arriving at adecision have important and beneficial effects apart from perceptions of the decisionresult (Colquitt et al., 2013). Thus, participation and voice have positive associationswith team effectiveness (De Dreu and West, 2001; Erez et al., 2002) because when allopinions are heard, team members tend to be satisfied with the process and morecommitted to the decision, even if they disagree with it.

Therefore, the theory linking task conflict to improved decision-making is strong.Moreover, there has been empirical support that task conflict produces better decisionoutcomes, more creative solutions, greater acceptance of the decisions and betterorganizational results. Given all of this, why does debate over task conflict continue andwhy is there lingering doubt about its overall effect? The uncertainty persists largelybecause the empirical support has been inconsistent. Indeed, as we discuss in detaillater, an influential meta-analytic study conducted by De Dreu and Weingart (2003a)found no difference between the performance effects of task and relationship conflicts,although task conflict had a somewhat smaller negative effect on team-membersatisfaction. In essence, they concluded that conflict in all forms was generallydysfunctional. That conclusion raised new questions and stimulated a large number ofnew studies that have had mixed results.

Why is the positive effect of task conflict not more evident across a wider body ofstudies? Asked differently, if the theory is sound, then why are the findings not moresupportive? We believe there is an answer and we believe that the answer has two parts.First, the relationship between conflict and team outcomes is complicated by a variety ofintervening effects. Researchers have spent considerable time and effort considering awide range of these effects. However, because each study considers different factors, andbecause each team is unique, facing different problems, operating in different contextsand consisting of different individuals, the effects of these intervening forces areinconsistent across teams and studies. In other words, the effects of task conflict arenuanced and can be positive or negative, making it easy to lose the signal amidst thenoise.

The second reason relates to conflict itself and the perceptions of conflict among thethousands of individuals included in the hundreds of studies that have been conducted.By definition, conflict is about incompatibilities and disputes. Yet, different people cansee and understand such incompatibilities and disputes differently. Put another way,what seems like a conflict to one person may not seem like a conflict to another.Moreover, this sort of perceptual incongruence is more likely with task conflict thanwith relationship conflict. After all, relationship conflict deals with emotion, affect, styleand personal likes and dislikes, whereas task conflict deals merely with facts, data andinterpretations. It might well be that those sorts of task disagreements are oftendismissed as ordinary debates, differences of perspective or new ideas rather than beingseen as real conflict, particularly when team members get along well and the teamperforms well. Combined, these issues make task conflict harder to identify thanrelationship conflict, and its effects harder to isolate.

Therefore, what is the evidence of this and, more importantly, what should be doneabout it? What follows is our assessment of the literature at present. We review the fourmeta-analyses on conflict and discuss some of the constructs and issues that contributeto the intervening noise between task conflict and team outcomes. We also discuss anumber of issues that may contribute to perceptual differences about the conflict itself.

335

Why won’t taskconflict

cooperate?

Dow

nloa

ded

by G

eorg

ia S

outh

ern

Uni

vers

ity A

t 11:

58 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

Finally, we attempt to fashion a set of conclusions that are consistent with the theory butthat can be supported by the data.

Reviewing and interpreting the literature: four meta-analysesDe Dreu and Weingart (2003a). The first meta-analysis of the conflict literature,conducted by De Dreu and Weingart (2003a), has been cited more than 1,200 times andgreatly influenced the field. They analyzed 28 articles and found, contrary to theory, thattask conflict had a negative effect on team performance. The sample-weighted meancorrelation between task conflict and team performance was negative (p � �0.23) andsimilar in size to that between relationship conflict and performance (p � �0.22).Furthermore, task conflict was significantly and negatively related to team performancefor studies of decision-making teams, as well as project teams and studies that includedmultiple types of teams.

Task conflict was also negatively related to team-member satisfaction (p � �0.32),although not as strongly as relationship conflict was (p � �0.54). The results clearlyportrayed task conflict as a bad thing, but at that time there had been few primarystudies.

de Wit et al. (2012). Nine years later, the meta-analysis by de Wit et al. (2012) included116 studies and found a different, but still not supportive result, that task conflict wasunrelated to team performance (p � �0.01), while relationship conflict (p � �0.16) andprocess conflict (p � �0.15) were negatively related as expected. However, they did findthat task conflict was more positively related to performance for top management teams(p � 0.09, non-significant) than non-top management teams (p � �0.21) and for decisionquality or financial performance as the criterion variables. Furthermore, when theyconducted a path analysis with task, relationship, and process conflict as predictors ofteam performance, the relationship between task conflict and performance becamepositive.

As the de Wit et al. (2012) meta-analysis shows, one thing that makes finding positiveeffects of task conflict difficult is that it is highly correlated with relationship (p � 0.54)and process conflicts (p � 0.72), which theory expects to be negatively related toperformance. Task conflict can spiral into relationship conflict because some peopleinterpret disagreements about the task as personal attacks and come to dislike peoplewho present task-related criticism (Jehn, 1997a). In addition, relationship conflict canlead to retaliatory behaviors that might be labeled as task conflicts (Jehn, 1997a),contaminating what should be independent constructs.

Relationship conflict and process conflict are also so highly correlated (p � 0.73) thatisolating the effects of each is difficult. Conflict over the allocation of responsibilities andresources can create feelings of injustice and disrespect that can damage relationships(Jehn, 1997a).

The de Wit et al. (2012) meta-analysis shows that task conflict can have detrimentalconsequences for people and organizations apart from its performance effects. Taskconflict was negatively associated with trust (p � �0.45), satisfaction (p � �0.24),commitment (p � �0.31), identification (p � �0.30) and organizational citizenshipbehavior (p � �0.23), and positively associated with counterproductive work behavior(p � 0.53). Conflict in general can have mental health consequences, such as stress andburnout, and lead to accidents, absenteeism and turnover (De Dreu et al., 2004; Spectorand Jex, 1998).

IJCMA25,4

336

Dow

nloa

ded

by G

eorg

ia S

outh

ern

Uni

vers

ity A

t 11:

58 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

O’Neill et al. (2013). The recent meta-analysis by O’Neill et al. (2013) included 83articles and, in addition to examining moderators of the relationship between types ofconflict and team performance, also examined the relationship between different typesof conflict and team innovation, team potency and cooperative, competitive andavoidance behaviors. None of the three types of conflict was significantly related toinnovation. The relationship between task conflict and team performance wassignificant and negative overall (p � �0.06), but for decision-making teams (p � 0.16)the relationship was significant and positive, as would be expected by theory (Amason,1996, 1998; Amason and Schweiger, 1994). This relationship was based on only 12studies, highlighting the need for more primary studies to better understand moderatorsthat affect the relationship between task conflict and team performance. O’Neill et al.argued that a likely reason why their findings differed from those of de Wit et al. (2012)was that O’Neill et al. used a meta-analytic procedure intended for categorical variables.

O’Neill et al. (2013) found that task conflict had relatively small but significantnegative relationships with team performance in organizational teams (p � �0.08) andlaboratory teams (p � �0.07), and a smaller and not significant relationship forcourse-based student teams (p � �0.04, ns). The relationship between task conflict andteam performance was negative for all methods of assessing performance, but therelationship was only significant for supervisor ratings (p � �0.09), even though thecorrelation was larger for team self-reports, which had only 15 studies and a biggerstandard deviation (p � �0.15, ns). The correlations were smaller and not significant forexpert ratings of output (p � �0.03, ns) and objective measures of performance (p ��0.06, ns). We believe that the stronger negative relationships between task conflict andperformance when performance is measured by team self-reports or supervisor ratingsis likely due to halo error in ratings caused by raters’ perceptions that any type ofconflict is incompatible with good performance. This is supported by O’Neill et al.’sfindings that both task conflict (p � �0.31) and relationship conflict (p � �0.32) werenegatively related to potency. Potency refers to members’ perceptions of the team’scapabilities and is strongly associated with team performance (Gully et al., 2002). Anytype of conflict seems to diminish team-members’ confidence that they can successfullyaccomplish the team’s tasks.

The O’Neill et al. (2013) meta-analysis found that relationship conflict was negativelyassociated with team performance overall, as expected (p � �0.14). Fordecision-making teams, however, relationship conflict was not significantly associatedwith team performance (p � �0.04, ns). Perhaps decision-making teams realize thatthey are together to share diverse perspectives and, therefore, don’t let personalrelationships interfere with efforts to arrive at a good decision. It is also possible thatdecision-making teams spend less time together than project teams or other work teams,which makes it easier for them to ignore relationship problems and focus on the decision.The O’Neill et al. meta-analysis found that relationship conflict was not significantlyassociated with performance in laboratory teams, (p � �0.07, ns), which are usuallytogether for a short time and do not have any relationship history or ongoingrelationships. This may make any relationship conflict that emerges less likely tointerfere with performance. Longer-term relationships are likely to be much moreimportant. As expected, relationship conflict was negatively associated withperformance for production, project and mixed teams, as well as for organizational (p ��0.17) and course-based student teams (p � �0.11).

337

Why won’t taskconflict

cooperate?

Dow

nloa

ded

by G

eorg

ia S

outh

ern

Uni

vers

ity A

t 11:

58 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

Relationship conflict was negatively associated with team performance for allmethods of measuring performance, although the correlation was notably stronger forteam self-reports of performance (p � �0.27) than for supervisor ratings (p � �0.14),expert ratings (p � �0.09) or objective measures (p � �0.08) of performance. Thissuggests that team members perceive that relationship conflict makes them lesseffective, creating measurement bias as discussed above.

There were only 11 studies of the relationship between process conflict and teamperformance, and, as expected, the relationship was significant and negative (p ��0.27), and even stronger than that between relationship conflict and team performance(p � �0.14). There were not data to consider the effect in decision-making teams. Therelationship between process conflict and team performance was more stronglynegative in organizational teams (p � �0.37) than course-based teams (p � �0.17 ns),yet these were based on just five and three studies, respectively. This again suggeststhat the amount of time teams work together and the meaningfulness of the team to themembers’ lives may be important to understanding how conflict affects teamperformance over the duration of the team’s life.

O’Neill, et al. found that both task and relationship conflict were significantlynegatively related to cooperative team behavior (both p � �0.23) and positivelyassociated with competitive team behavior (task p � 0.32, relationship p � 0.38).Relationship conflict (p � 0.24) was significantly associated with avoidance behavior,but task conflict was not (p � 0.01, ns). These behavioral responses to conflict are thefocus of the DeChurch et al. (2013) meta-analysis.

DeChurch et al. (2013). The DeChurch et al. (2013) meta-analysis proposes that thereis a critical difference between conflict states, which are perceptions of differencesamong group members, and conflict processes, which are the behaviors and interactionprocesses group members use to manage their differences preemptively or reactively. Intheir model, task, relationship and process conflicts are conflict states. The conflictprocesses studied were collaborating, avoiding or competing and “openness” (opendiscussions aimed at resolving the conflict). They describe conflict as a cycle withreciprocal influences among conflict states, conflict processes and team outcomes(including performance) and affective outcomes (satisfaction and team viability). Themeta-analysis of 45 studies showed that conflict states and processes explained uniquevariance in team performance and affective outcomes. Supporting theory on taskconflict, task conflict was positively and significantly related to both team performanceand team affective outcomes, controlling for relationship conflict.

Conflict states accounted for just 3.4 per cent of the variance in team performance, yet30 per cent of the variance in affective outcomes. Adding collaborating, avoiding andcompeting explained an additional 12.7 per cent of the variance in team performance and13.4 per cent of the variance in affective outcomes. Finally, adding openness to the modelexplained another 8 per cent of the variance in team performance and 4 per cent of thevariance in affective outcomes. This shows that task and relationship conflict may havetheir greatest impact on performance indirectly, by influencing team members’ choicesof how to deal with differences. Collaborating is positively associated with performanceand affective outcomes. Avoiding is negatively associated with performance and notsignificantly related to affective outcomes. Competing is negatively associated withteam performance, but, oddly, positively associated with team affective outcomes.

IJCMA25,4

338

Dow

nloa

ded

by G

eorg

ia S

outh

ern

Uni

vers

ity A

t 11:

58 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

Openness is positively correlated with both team performance and team affectiveoutcomes.

DeChurch et al. (2013) then re-analyzed the data to create models that put teamprocesses (collaborating, avoiding and competing) into the model first. They then foundthat task conflict was positively related to both team performance and team affectiveoutcomes, and relationship conflict was negatively associated with both, as predicted byconflict theory, but these states explain very little variance in team performance (�R2 �0.015), although they explain an additional 18.7 per cent of the variance in team affectiveoutcomes. DeChurch et al. (2013) argue that research has paid too much attention to thecontent of what people disagree about (task, relationship or process) and not enoughattention to the behaviors used to resolve those differences. They call for future researchon how conflict processes and conflict states co-evolve and on their interactive effects.

DeChurch et al.’s (2013) results are exciting because they show that team members’behaviors are more important for performance than their perceptions of disagreement.Managers cannot easily change employees’ feelings toward one another or theirperceptions of conflict over tasks, relationships or processes; however, managers canprovide training and incentives to influence peoples’ behavior.

Possible explanations and suggestions for future researchYears ago, Sheppard (1992) titled the introduction to a special issue on conflict, in part,“Conflict Research as Schizophrenia”. Although years have passed and much moreresearch has been done, conflict remains a complex issue in need of betterunderstanding.

Below, we suggest explanations for the inconsistent findings that have made thetheorized positive relationship between task conflict and team performance so hard tosubstantiate. First, we discuss methodological challenges. Then, we consider boundaryconditions and contextual moderators that may affect the relationship between taskconflict and performance. We then discuss individual differences that may make peoplemore or less able to engage in task conflict without it becoming stressful and creatingrelationship or other problems. As we discuss each, we suggest areas for new researchand discuss implications of our ideas for research and practice.

Methodological issuesMeasuresThe word conflict has a negative connotation. In common usage, conflict is perceived asbad and as something that calls for either avoidance or an active struggle or fight (DeDreu and Weingart, 2003b). Wars and battles are called conflicts. Therefore, it might bedifficult for ordinary people who are accustomed to thinking of conflict as a bad thing toreport that they are experiencing task conflict in their teams. Research has shown atendency to downplay conflict (Kerwin et al., 2011). Some team members mightrecognize that task conflict exists in their team, but be reluctant to report it because theythink conflict is a sign of failure. Others may not even be able to perceive that there istask conflict in their team if the relationships among team members are good and theteam is successful and functioning well. Team members might debate and challengeideas, but if they do so in a positive context of mutual respect and liking, they might notthink that these behaviors constitute conflict.

339

Why won’t taskconflict

cooperate?

Dow

nloa

ded

by G

eorg

ia S

outh

ern

Uni

vers

ity A

t 11:

58 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

The most commonly used measure of conflict was developed by Jehn (1995). Thethree items for the task conflict scale are (the italics are ours):

(1) “How much conflict of ideas is there in your work group?”(2) “How frequently do you have disagreements within your work group about the

task of the project you are working on?”(3) “How often do people in your work group have conflicting opinions about the

project you are working on?” (Jehn and Mannix, 2001, p. 243).

The language in these items refers to conflicts and disagreements. It is possible thatmany lay people who are part of groups that have good relationships don’t perceive thatthese items describe the processes in their team. However, teams with poorerrelationships might more easily perceive that they have disagreement or conflicts aboutthe task. This explanation would be consistent with the high correlations between task,relationship and process conflict found in the meta-analyses.

Jehn (1997a, p. 548) noted that workers in her study associated task conflict with“give and take” and “voicing various views”. Measures that used language like that or“How often do team members suggest different ideas than teammates have offered?”might be perceived as less incongruous with high-quality relationships andhigh-functioning teams. It should be noted that de Wit et al. (2012) tested themeasurement scale used (Jehn vs not Jehn) as a moderator in their meta-analysis andfound it was not significant. However, the conflicting empirical results in the literaturecould result if people completing instruments for conflict studies do not perceive thattheir team is experiencing task conflict in contexts where team members have goodworking relationships and there is low relationship and process conflict in the team. Topmanagers have often been trained and socialized to expect task conflict and tounderstand its benefits, and these are the populations where more positive associationswith performance have been observed. Non-top managers may have more troublereconciling the conflict language used in study questionnaires with positive perceptionsof their teams’ functioning and relationships.

Other research supports the idea that measurement error is an important factor inconflict research. Past research has found that members of groups sometimes disagreein their perceptions of conflict levels in the group and that these asymmetric conflictperceptions are associated with negative outcomes (Jehn et al., 2010). de Wit et al. (2012)called for more research on this topic. The referent for the questions in measures of teamconflict is the group. If there is a “true score” level of conflict in a group, asymmetricperceptions would be a form of measurement error, albeit one with interestingimplications for performance and other organizationally relevant outcomes. We suggestthat task conflict exists in some teams that get along and perform well, but the membersdon’t perceive it and report it, which reduces the expected positive relationship betweentask conflict and group performance.

HaloThe results of the O’Neill et al.’s (2013) study highlight the importance of how people feelabout task conflict for understanding how it impacts performance and otherorganizationally relevant dependent variables. The negative correlation between taskconflict and performance was larger when self-reports of team performance were used(p � �0.15) than when other performance measures were used; though the confidence

IJCMA25,4

340

Dow

nloa

ded

by G

eorg

ia S

outh

ern

Uni

vers

ity A

t 11:

58 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

interval ranged from �0.24 to 0.00. In addition, the strong negative relationship betweentask conflict and team potency (p � �0.31) seems to indicate that people perceive thatconflict impedes team performance. These perceptions may result in halo error, biasingmeasures in conflict studies. O’Neill et al. call for more research with objectiveperformance measures to reduce common-method variance.

Stress and strong emotions might exacerbate halo error and make it difficult for teammembers to perceive that task conflict could be good for team performance, furtherbiasing ratings on variables in conflict studies. Task conflict can be uncomfortable andstressful for individuals and reduce satisfaction (Amason and Schweiger, 1997). It mightbe hard for people to appreciate the organizational benefits of task conflict while they arefeeling the stress and anxiety that it produces for them personally. Conflict is oftenassociated with strong negative emotions such as anger, jealousy, frustration andhatred (Jehn, 1997a). Although conflict is an emotion-laden construct, there is nosubstantial research on how emotions affect the measurement of task conflict, the waysin which task conflict manifests as behaviors and the relationship between task conflictand performance (Nair, 2008; Desivilya and Yagil, 2005).

Curvilinear relationshipsConflict theory predicts that the relationship between task conflict and teamperformance is curvilinear. For example, Jehn (1995, p. 261) found support for hercontention that “there is an optimal level of task conflict beyond or below whichindividual and group performance diminishes”. She explains that too little conflictcreates complacency and ignores problems (Jehn, 1995). Likewise, De Dreu andWeingart (2003a, p. 742) state that “A little conflict stimulates information processing,but as conflict intensifies, the cognitive system shuts down, information processing isimpeded, and team performance is likely to suffer”.

Some studies have tested for and found curvilinear relationships (De Dreu, 2006;Miao et al., 2010; Shaw et al., 2011; Tekleab et al., 2009). However, research has not beenconsistent in doing so and has not yet clarified how to determine what the optimalamount of task conflict is.

Interaction and reciprocal effectsBased on the results of De Dreu and Weingart’s (2003a) and de Wit et al.’s (2012)meta-analyses, the relationship between task conflict and performance is more negativewhen the correlation between task conflict and relationship conflict is high. Thenegative effects of relationship conflict, which distracts people from the task and drainstheir energy, are so detrimental that they overwhelm the positive effects of task conflict(Amason and Sapienza, 1997). Research has shown that relationship conflict isassociated with stress, low satisfaction, absenteeism, turnover, low commitment, lowcreativity and reduced individual performance (De Dreu and Weingart, 2003a; Jehnet al., 1997; Pelled, 1996). This suggests that it can be safer to minimize task conflictwhen relationship conflict is known to exist or in contexts that make maintaininggood relationships difficult. For example, the association between task conflict andrelationship conflict is stronger in geographically dispersed teams than inco-located teams (Holahan et al., 2011).

Task, relationship and process conflicts may also have reciprocal influences on oneanother and with emergent states such as cohesion that affect future conflict cycles

341

Why won’t taskconflict

cooperate?

Dow

nloa

ded

by G

eorg

ia S

outh

ern

Uni

vers

ity A

t 11:

58 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

(DeChurch et al., 2013; Tekleab et al., 2009). Therefore, situations that might increaseteam members’ stress, or reduce team-members’ confidence in or trust of other teammembers, would make it more likely that task conflict could bring on relationshipconflict. There is a potential for different types of conflict to degenerate into a downwardspiral, particularly over time (Mooney et al., 2007).

Temporal issuesMost empirical studies measure conflict as episodic, focusing on a particular task ordecision. Yet relationships are usually of longer term. This suggests the need for morelongitudinal studies (Jehn, 1997a, Tekleab et al., 2009). A history of positiverelationships might insulate people and teams from the negative effects of episodic taskconflicts. Furthermore, in long-term teams, task conflict might temporarily stir negativeemotions, but over time build the team’s sense that members can disagree and still likeand respect one another.

When different types of conflicts emerge, how long they last may help to clarify whentask conflict will be better for performance. Farh et al. (2010) examined the relationshipbetween task conflict and creativity in project teams in China. They found the expectedcurvilinear relationship where task conflict was beneficial to a point, beyond which itwas harmful; yet the effect was significant only early in the team’s life cycle. Goncaloet al. (2010) found that teams with too much confidence when teams began their workwere less likely to debate processes, which is beneficial in small amounts at thebeginning of a team’s work. They concluded that too much confidence too early in theteam’s life cycle can undermine performance by thwarting conflict. At the other end ofthe spectrum, Gersick (1989) found that teams sometimes get stuck on debatingalternatives when they need to move on to choosing and implementing a solution.

Not only does the timing of the conflict matter, but the type of conflict that occurs atdifferent points in the team’s interaction is important. Greer et al. (2008) found thatprocess conflict was particularly damaging when it occurs early in a team’s timetogether because it led to increased levels of all types of conflict at later periods. Thisstudy examined team interactions at three periods and reported that prior research hadnever examined the different types of conflict at more than two periods. Given that theliterature has long recognized the potential for conflict to escalate and for one form ofconflict to spiral into another, research that tracks the type and amount of conflict atlogical points in the team’s life cycle seems particularly necessary. As Greer et al. show,it is also important to examine not only the type of conflict that occurs at different pointsin time but also whether the conflict is resolved at that time or remains unresolved intofuture periods.

Conflict duration has not been examined much. Yet, there would be a period duringwhich task conflict leads to new ideas, everyone’s voice being heard and understandingdifferent values and points of view (Gersick, 1988). After that, continued task conflictwould indicate an inability to achieve consensus, build commitment to a decision andbegin work.

Conflict duration could be examined as the fraction of team time during which therewas conflict. Based on conflict theory, a curvilinear relationship would be expected. Apositive relationship would exist between task conflict and performance, up to a point,after which two problems would occur. One is that excessive task conflict would spiralinto relationship conflict. The other is that too much time spent on debate would reduce

IJCMA25,4

342

Dow

nloa

ded

by G

eorg

ia S

outh

ern

Uni

vers

ity A

t 11:

58 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

the time available to accomplish the task. These would cause the relationship betweentask conflict and performance to turn negative. If such a relationship did exist, it wouldbe consistent with de Wit et al.’s (2012) meta-analytic results showing essentially norelationship between task conflict and team performance with a big variance acrossstudies (p � �0.01, SD p � 0.23). It would be important to control for the team’s task, asteams whose primary responsibility was to develop decisions in uncertainenvironments would need to spend a large percentage of their time debatingalternatives, whereas project and work teams would need to move more quickly toaccomplishing the tasks.

Research on temporal issues could yield useful practical implications. For example,teams could be coached to work through task conflict at particular stages in their lifecycle (Tuckman, 1965). Santos and Passos (2013) found that shared team mental modelsat the beginning of a team’s work reduce relationship conflict (no other type of conflictwas measured) and improve performance. Using team charters to stimulate debate andbuild consensus about goals and strategies before task work begins would help teamsbuild shared mental models earlier in the team’s life cycle (Mathieu and Rapp, 2009).

Levels of analysisConflict involves factors operating at the individual, pair, group, organization andnational culture levels. Many of these factors have been explored individually, but littlemultilevel research on conflict has been done (Korsgaard et al., 2008). This research isneeded to understand the boundary conditions operating at different levels of analysisthat may influence when task conflict facilitates performance.

Boundary conditions and contextual moderators in need of furtherexplorationFeelings about the object of conflictJehn (1997a) suggested that emotionality and importance moderate the relationshipbetween task conflict and team performance, meaning that the topic of task-relatedcontention or debate matters for performance. Some task-related subjects pertain tostrongly held values or emotion-laden topics. Therefore, there may be task-related topicsabout which people can’t disagree without stirring strong negative emotions andfostering relationship conflict. Issues that involve strongly held moral values orreligious beliefs, for example, might cause people to believe that there is a right way toapproach the task and that anyone who disagrees is to be mistrusted. Money is also asensitive subject, and task-related decisions that can impact pay or bonuses mightlikewise have a high potential for task conflict to be associated with strong negativeemotions. Some students experience strong emotions about grades and place a highimportance on earning high grades. Class teams that include some students who arevery concerned about earning top grades and others who prioritize minimizing work canresult in task conflict that leads to relationship conflict and problems with teamperformance and satisfaction (Ohland et al., 2012). The empirical literature has generallynot measured emotionality and importance or in other ways accounted for criticaldifferences in the object of the task conflict.

Values congruenceThere is an extensive literature on the general impact of different types of diversity onteam performance, and some of the literature has looked at how diversity tends to

343

Why won’t taskconflict

cooperate?

Dow

nloa

ded

by G

eorg

ia S

outh

ern

Uni

vers

ity A

t 11:

58 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

increase conflict, and how that conflict impacts performance in complex ways (Jehnet al., 1999; Pelled et al., 1999; Thatcher and Patel, 2011). Diversity in teams can stemfrom demographic differences, differences in functional background and experience orother things that create different perspectives. The diversity literature often discussessurface-level diversity, such as gender and race, and deep-level diversity, which refers todifferences in deeply held values (Tekleab and Quigley, 2013). Deeply held conflictingvalues may be a troublesome source of conflict because these values are unlikely tochange, so they make it improbable or impossible that conflicts about team goals andstrategies could be resolved. The potential to resolve the conflict is necessary for taskconflict to positively impact team performance (Jehn, 1997a, 1997b).

The importance of values congruence is illustrated in a study of management teamsin China that found demographic diversity increased relationship conflict andnegatively impacted decision effectiveness (Amason et al., 2010). Task conflict made thenegative relationship stronger. However, values congruence weakened the link betweendemographic diversity and relationship conflict; when values congruence was high,task conflict was positively associated with decision effectiveness. Interestingly,research on international acquisitions found that, while differences in organizationalculture increased social conflict, differences in national culture decreased social conflict(Vaara et al., 2012). One explanation could be that people expect and respect differencesin perspectives when national cultures differ. However, they have a harder timeaccepting that differences in values and opinions based on organizational cultures orindividual differences are legitimate. It is also known that conflict is perceiveddifferently in different cultures (Elbanna et al., 2011; Kazan, 1997; Tinsley and Brett,2001).

For diverse team members’ perspectives to improve performance on complex tasks,the team needs to explicitly focus on how the topics of conflict will impact the team’sstrategy and objectives, yet not all teams reflect on the team’s purpose and debate themerits of the arguments when faced with dissent (De Dreu, 2002; Simons et al., 1999).Fortunately, keeping the team’s values in mind and debating the merits of the argumentare cooperative behavioral responses to task conflicts that can be taught andencouraged when supportive organizational norms are in place (Nemeth et al., 2004).

Goal alignment of team membersOne reason why task conflict might not always be positively associated with teamperformance is that task-related debate sometimes stems not only from what is in thebest interests of the organization or team but also from what is in the best interests of theindividual team members or units they manage. It is usually the case that differentalternatives have different sets of benefits and drawbacks. The consequences of variousdecision alternatives are often different for different organizational units. Thus, whenfaced with a particular task conflict, some members of the team (or the units theyrepresent) may stand to gain far more or lose far more than others, depending on whichalternative is chosen. In these circumstances, where the personal impacts of decisionsare strongly felt and vary from team member to team member, task conflicts might beparticularly likely to both deteriorate into relationship conflict and to stand in the way ofperformance and other relevant team outcomes.

Incompatible goals can also lead to political behavior, which can result in lower teamperformance. Clercq et al. (2009) surveyed Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) and

IJCMA25,4

344

Dow

nloa

ded

by G

eorg

ia S

outh

ern

Uni

vers

ity A

t 11:

58 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

marketing executives of Australian companies to see how intervening variables affectedthe relationship between an innovation strategy and firm performance. Task conflictwas the only type of conflict measured. Cross-functional task conflict was correlated 0.6with cross-functional political activity, and task conflict was negatively associated withfirm performance. However, when the effects of political activity were teased out,cross-functional team conflict was positively associated, and political activity wasnegatively associated, with performance. Clercq et al. argue that cross-functional taskconflict enhances the benefit of strategic innovations because different functions havedifferent ideas about how to best exploit the innovation. However, political activity, suchas competing for resources, interferes with these benefits. Interestingly, high politicalactivity with low task conflict was worse than high political activity with high taskconflict.

Political behavior aimed at gaining personal advantage or protecting the interests ofone’s unit or friends might be more damaging at lower levels of the organization than intop-management teams. de Wit et al. (2012) suggest that high-level executives may bemore politically savvy and better able to handle conflict than lower-level workers.

An implication of the need for team members working through task conflict to havegoal alignment is that organizations must pay close attention to their reward structures(Wageman and Baker, 1997). Cooperative and competitive reward structures may createprocess conflict and exacerbate the degree to which task conflict spirals downward intorelationship conflict.

Norms for debateNemeth et al. (2004, p. 367) proposed that norms that encourage people to voice theirauthentically held viewpoints and encourage dissent, debate and criticism create an“atmosphere of freedom” and “liberate” people to generate and share ideas that conflictwith those of other group members. Perhaps this partially explains whytop-management teams seem to have better results with task conflict than other types ofteams. Creating and implementing good strategy requires considering different pointsof view, generating a variety of alternatives and weighing the pros and cons of each.This type of thinking is socialized into graduates of business schools in their strategyclasses and reinforced in the publications that top managers read. These things makedebating task-related ideas normatively acceptable. Supporting this reasoning areNemeth et al.’s (2004) findings that, in contrast to what would be expected from thebrainstorming literature, participants in both the USA and France generated more ideaswhen they were instructed to debate and criticize one another than when they weregiven minimal instructions or instructed not to criticize ideas (Nemeth et al., 2004).

When norms highly value harmony and cohesiveness, criticism can be perceived asimpolite (Nemeth et al., 2004), so people must self-censor their ideas or risk beingperceived as being too critical. Norms that punish sharing differences of opinion notonly create disincentives for sharing divergent opinions but also make the effortrequired to conceive of alternative solutions a waste of time and energy. Hence, taskconflict would be a process loss with little performance benefit in such a context.

Organizational units vary in their norms for encouraging or discouraging openconflict about tasks or relationships (Tinsley and Brett, 2001; Tjosvold, 1991). Norms toopenly discuss relationship conflict appear to often harm performance because anindividual’s personal dislike of someone is unlikely to change; therefore, relationship

345

Why won’t taskconflict

cooperate?

Dow

nloa

ded

by G

eorg

ia S

outh

ern

Uni

vers

ity A

t 11:

58 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

conflict is less likely than task conflict to be solvable (Jehn, 1997a). Relationship conflictis also more emotional and stressful for individuals than task conflict and appears tobenefit from being avoided and given time to cool off (De Dreu and Van Vianen, 2001;Tekleab et al., 2009). If relationship conflicts are dealt with directly, the conversationmust be handled very carefully (Edmondson and Smith, 2006). In contrast, norms thatencourage team members to use their voice to express dissent and norms that valuetask-related conflict and constructive criticism of ideas appear to benefit performance(Postmes et al., 2001).

Unfortunately, task conflict can sometimes harm relationships, so cultivating aculture that encourages debate requires caution. Task conflict can be stressful, increaserelationship conflict, reduce liking among team members, lower satisfaction and makepeople want to leave the work group or organization (Jehn, 1995).

DeChurch et al.’s (2013) meta-analysis found that, controlling for task andrelationship conflict as well as collaborating, avoiding and competing openness(open-minded discussions of different viewpoints and norms encouraging sharingconflicting opinions and concerns) was positively associated with team performanceand team affective outcomes. These results were based on a small number of studies.More studies that explore norms for open debate as a moderator of the relationshipbetween task conflict and performance are needed. If norms explicitly encourage taskconflict, the performance impact may be positive and the impact on relationship conflictmay be lower because criticism is expected. Giving explicit instructions to debate mayframe criticism as a contribution to the team’s task rather than a personal attack(Nemeth et al., 2004). Teaching people throughout the organization to think morestrategically may also facilitate norms for open debate, as people would be better able toconsider various potential strategic impacts of the alternatives being debated. This hasmanagerial relevance because leaders can impact the cultural norms about debate intheir organizations.

Performance historyA team’s history of success and strong performance strengthen team members’ efficacy,or confidence that the team can succeed, whereas a history of failure can make peopleinsecure and sensitive to criticism, as there is blame to be apportioned. A downwardspiral can occur where poor past performance increases conflict, which, in turn, harmsfuture performance (O’Neill et al., 2013; Peterson and Behfar, 2003).

Amason and Mooney (1999) found that return on assets (ROA) and return on sales(ROS) were negatively related to affective (relationship) conflict in top managementteams. Together ROA, ROS and organizational slack, which did not reach statisticalsignificance, explained 12 per cent of the variance in affective conflict. Although theseresults indicated that past organizational performance is an important predictor ofrelationship conflict in top management teams, the relationship between pastperformance and conflict has not been the subject of much empirical research since. Abetter understanding of the relationship between past performance and conflict isneeded because it has practical implications for managing teams at all levels oforganizations. If poor performance leads to increased conflict, which starts a downwardspiral of conflict and low performance, then one of the best ways a manager can helpteams is by doing things to ensure that teams achieve early successes. Furthermore, ifpoor performance causes task conflict to deteriorate into relationship conflict, then

IJCMA25,4

346

Dow

nloa

ded

by G

eorg

ia S

outh

ern

Uni

vers

ity A

t 11:

58 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

leader behaviors that help the team perform successfully may be an important way tokeep relationships strong and morale high. A history of success may also insulate peoplefrom worrying about downside risks of task ideas and threats to their self-esteem, thusreducing the extent to which task conflict causes stress and anxiety.

Conflict historyTeams can develop “conflict efficacy”, which is a shared belief that the team cansuccessfully manage its conflicts, and is associated with better team performance (Alperet al., 2000). Managing conflict cooperatively builds confidence in the relationships,which makes teams more effective (Tjosvold et al., 2005).

A history of performance success following task conflict may allow teams to havefuture task-related disagreements while remaining confident that they will be able towork through conflicts and achieve the team’s goals. Furthermore, a history of workingthrough task conflict or of achieving good results may insulate team members fromthreats to their ego and keep task conflict from developing into relationship conflict(Amason and Mooney, 1999).

TrustFinally, trust may also be related to both conflict and to the linkage between task andrelationship conflict (Curseu and Schruijer, 2010). Simons and Peterson (2000) showedthat the correlation between task and relationship conflicts was highest when trustamong team members was low, while high levels of trust tended to mitigate thecorrelation between task and relationship conflict. Trust, then, seems to facilitate adecoupling of task and relationship conflict, such that when trust is high, the effects oftask and relationship conflicts become distinct and increasingly dissimilar. Recall thatDe Dreu and Weingart (2003a) found the effects of task conflict on outcomes were mostnegative when the correlation between task and relationship conflict was high. Whenthat correlation was low, the effects of task conflict were much less negative. Individualswho trust one another may be able to disagree but not interpret their disagreement aspersonally threatening.

The mechanics for this moderation are similar to others outlined earlier; trustcontributes to feelings of security and reduces perceptions of threat. The resultingclimate reduces the sensitivity to disagreement, allowing teams to argue and debatetask-related issues, without having those disagreements trigger frustration or anger.Indeed, Edmondson (1999, p. 354) found that psychological safety contributed toconditions where task conflict was functional. Psychological safety in a team ischaracterized by “interpersonal trust and mutual respect in which people arecomfortable being themselves”.

This explanation is reinforced by the findings of de Wit et al. (2012), who report thattask (p � �0.45), relationship (p � �0.53) and process conflict (p � �0.59) are allnegatively related to trust. The one caveat in the consideration of trust is that, while it istypically measured concurrently with conflict, it must be established prior to thedecision episode in which the conflict occurs. A foundation of trust then contributes to aclimate where task conflict may be functional.

347

Why won’t taskconflict

cooperate?

Dow

nloa

ded

by G

eorg

ia S

outh

ern

Uni

vers

ity A

t 11:

58 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

Individual differences that may affect the task conflict-performancerelationshipBecause any form of conflict can potentially threaten people’s egos, individualdifferences are likely to influence how people react to task conflict. Research has shownthat personality affects how people perceive and experience task and relationshipconflict and their conflict management styles (Antonioni, 1998; Bono et al., 2002;Moberg, 2001). More research is needed to identify how individual differences amongteam members affect the relationship between task conflict and team performance. Thisresearch needs to identify the relevant variables and determine how they aggregate tothe team level to influence performance. It may be that average levels on the team, theteam member with the lowest level, or the team member with the highest level ofcertain team-member characteristics are most relevant for team outcomes, or it could bethat there is a certain fraction of team members who must have those characteristics toaffect the team’s performance.

Understanding the effects of individual differences has practical relevance forselection in team contexts that require debate and the generation and evaluation ofdifferent ideas to achieve optimal outcomes. Another practical implication is that whenteams comprise people with traits that make them tend to respond dysfunctionally totask conflict, it may be necessary to minimize task conflict. We next suggest someindividual differences that might be important.

Positive and negative affectsde Wit et al.’s (2012) meta-analysis found that relationship conflict had a strong negativerelationship with positive affect (p � �0.48). Task conflict, on the other hand, had anear-zero relationship with positive affect (p � 0.05) but a very large variance (SD p �0.57).

Positive affect and negative affect can be measured as temporary states or stabletraits. Future research should measure positive and negative affect as traits beforeepisodes of conflict. People high in positive affect tend to be happy, satisfied,enthusiastic, etc. (Watson and Tellegen, 1985). This trait should increase people’s abilityto experience task conflict while remaining happy and to help teammates keep a positiveattitude.

People high in negative affect tend to be unhappy, grouchy, hostile, anxious, scornfuland fearful (Watson and Tellegen, 1985). Negative affect influences responses toperceived inequality (Hochwarter et al., 1995). Negative affect should predispose peopleto react with hostility, fear and distrust when task conflict occurs, and to perceive thatthey or their ideas are being criticized. This, in turn, may cause relationship conflict inthe team and focus the team’s attention on this conflict rather than the task.Furthermore, as team members get to know one another and realize that they are dealingwith a hostile teammate who does not take constructive criticism well, they are likely toavoid openly sharing ideas or feedback about the task that could provoke an unpleasantresponse.

Core self-evaluationsCore self-evaluations refer to people’s self-concepts (Judge and Bono, 2001). As withnegative affect, people with low core self-evaluations will be more threatened by taskconflict, and have a stronger need for others on the team to accept their ideas; challenges

IJCMA25,4

348

Dow

nloa

ded

by G

eorg

ia S

outh

ern

Uni

vers

ity A

t 11:

58 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

to their ideas will trigger their insecurities. Anxiety can be based on fear of beingevaluated by others, even silently (Nemeth et al., 2004). Therefore, simply observingothers disagree about the task might worry team members who have low coreself-evaluations. They might fear that they or their ideas could be criticized next,causing them to dislike task conflict and those who engage in it, even if it does notinvolve them, personally.

Four personality traits comprise people’s core self-evaluations: neuroticism,self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy and locus of control (Judge and Bono, 2001). Peoplewith more confident core self-evaluations will likely be more comfortable with taskconflict and confident in their ability to deal with it. When task conflict occurs in groupscomprising individuals with high core self-evaluations, they should work through theconflict constructively and team performance should improve. However, when membersof the team have low core self-evaluations, insecurity and anxiety may triggerdysfunctional feelings and behaviors and distract team members from their work, sotask conflict will associated with lower team performance.

Neuroticism is a personality trait that makes people tend to be insecure, embarrassed,anxious and emotional (Barrick and Mount, 1991). People who are anxious canexperience evaluation apprehension in groups and worry that they may be silentlycriticized, even if there is no verbal criticism (Nemeth et al., 2004). This may cause peoplewho work with them to avoid constructive criticism or debate about tasks to avoidprovoking them.

Self-esteem is people’s evaluation of their own self-worth. Individuals with lowself-esteem react more strongly to social cues and, in particular, to negative feedbackthan do people higher in self-esteem (Duffy et al., 2000). In interdependent groups thatexperience relationship conflict, people with low self-esteem are absent more frequently(Duffy et al., 2000).

Generalized self-efficacy is people’s self-confidence that they can use their abilities totake actions that will lead to good performance (Judge and Bono, 2001). Individuals haveboth generalized self-efficacy and efficacy related to particular tasks, and teams haveefficacy that they can succeed together (Alper et al., 2000). Team efficacy is very similarto group potency, which strongly affects team performance (Gully et al., 2002). Peoplewith low self-efficacy may be uncomfortable with task conflict, and worry about beingcriticized or unable to perform well personally and also that task conflict will cause theteam to perform poorly.

People who have an internal locus of control perceive that they can influence whathappens to them (Judge and Bono, 2001). In contrast, those with an external locus ofcontrol would tend to feel powerless when task conflict in the group challenges theirpreferences.

Openness to experienceA personality trait that should make people more comfortable with task conflict isopenness to experience. People high in openness to experience are curious and enjoylearning (Barrick and Mount, 1991), which should make them more curious aboutalternative perspectives and different ways to improve task performance.

People high in openness are more adaptable and perform better when faced with achange in the task (LePine et al., 2000). This should make them more comfortable withgenerating and debating alternatives. When members of a team are high on this

349

Why won’t taskconflict

cooperate?

Dow

nloa

ded

by G

eorg

ia S

outh

ern

Uni

vers

ity A

t 11:

58 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

personality trait, there should be a stronger positive association between task conflictand team performance.

Demographic variablesAge, education and experience level may be characteristics of team members that couldindirectly influence how task conflict affects performance. Experience and maturitymay help people to understand the value of task conflict and accept constructivecriticism without taking it personally. In a study of top managers at Chinese companies,Wang et al. (2007) found that older managers experienced less job stress, but age did notdirectly affect task or relationship conflict. The age distribution in a group might berelevant, however, because it could trigger generational relationship conflicts.

Wang et al.’s (2007) study found that higher education levels were associated withgreater levels of task conflict. Task conflict among people highly skilled in areas relatedto the task may be functional because they are debating as experts. People lackingeducation or experience may be unskilled. When people have very low skill levels, theyare less able to distinguish between good and bad performance and may not be able torecognize when others with greater expertise have better task-related knowledge(Ehrlinger et al., 2008). The least skilled are usually over-confident in their abilities(Kruger and Dunning, 1999). They may be frustrated by task conflict if their suggestionsare not used and unable to understand why their ideas are less appropriate.

Conflict management strategiesThe DeChurch et al. (2013) meta-analysis showed that how team members behave whenexperiencing conflict impacts performance far more than the type of conflict. People,even when they are acting with the intent to encourage others to do things that are goodfor the team’s performance, can do so in direct ways that benefit performance, such asusing voice to directly discuss the situation, or in more indirect passive ways such aswithholding information, ideas or effort, or socially ostracizing and gossiping aboutpeople who do not perform as expected (Lin and Huang, 2010; Loughry and Tosi, 2008).

We have discussed a number of individual difference variables that are likely toaffect how people deal with conflict. Some people, because of their personality,experiences and positions, are likely to view task conflict as a normal and positive aspectof taking advantage of team members’ different knowledge, abilities and perspectives.Other people will be more likely to view task conflict as a threat to them individually ora threat to the team. These different views of task conflict are likely to influence teammembers’ behaviors, as they deal with the conflict. Because individual-level behaviorsinfluence team dynamics pertaining to conflict by the processes of contagion orpolarization, it is important that studies examine the impacts of individual differences inbehavior over time (Pluut and Curseu, 2013).

DeChurch et al. (2013) examined the conflict management behaviors of collaborating,avoiding or competing and the degree to which conflict is dealt with openly. Otherresearch has focused on coping behavior, which is how people deal with the stress ofconflict. This research has found that problem-focused coping behavior is needed to dealwith task conflict and emotion-focused coping behavior is needed to deal withrelationship conflict (Pluut and Curseu, 2013). When teams use coping behavior that fitswith the type of conflict, task conflict is less likely to spiral into relationship conflict andrelationship conflict is less likely to escalate over time (Pluut and Curseu, 2013). The

IJCMA25,4

350

Dow

nloa

ded

by G

eorg

ia S

outh

ern

Uni

vers

ity A

t 11:

58 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

timing of when teams deal with the conflict is also important, as we discussedpreviously, because resolving conflicts at earlier stages of team interaction can preventthem from festering, escalating and leading to other types of conflict as teams continueto interact (Greer et al., 2008).

Developing effective strategies for managing conflict, including task conflict, isimportant for teams. Fortunately, there is extensive guidance in both the scholarly andpractitioner-oriented literatures on conflict management and conflict resolution. Theseinclude techniques to maximize the benefits of generating and debating newalternatives and reduce the likelihood that task conflict will lead to destructive outcomessuch as damaging relationships and increasing stress (Alper et al., 2000; Chen et al.,2005; DeChurch and Marks, 2001; Diamond, 2012; Fisher et al., 2011; Friedman et al.,2000).

Conclusion – where to go now?It is important to remember how we arrived at this point and to remain connected to thebasic issue that gave rise to this current state of affairs. The destructive and largelydysfunctional effects of conflict have never been questioned. Quite the contrary, it wasbecause conflict was seen as universally bad, that ground-breaking work by researcherslike Brehmer (1976), Hammond (1965), Jehn (1995) and Rahim (1983) was so impactful.The multidimensional view of conflict arose from observations of real decision-makingepisodes and from theorizing on the effects of multiple individual perspectivesinteracting to produce group-level decisions. Intragroup conflict was not purelydysfunctional; certain types of conflict, in the right circumstances and under certainconditions, could, in fact, be functional. A generation ago, this was a groundbreakinginsight and one that had broad existential support.

The question now, or at least the question pervading the literature for much of thepast decade is, why are the functional effects of task conflict so inconsistent? Why dothey appear in some instances but not in others? In essence, why does task conflict workwell for some teams but not work well for others? This is very different from questioningthe multidimensional nature of conflict itself, or even from questioning the beneficialeffects of task conflict. If we assume the theory and evidence regarding task conflict arelargely correct, then the questions must revolve around the myriad combinations ofboundary conditions, measurement issues, moderators and context.

What are the key combinations and constructs? We have outlined a number of them.Our reading of the literature suggests that several methodological considerationsshould receive attention. Principal among these is the effect of language itself on theperception and measurement of conflict. Future studies should consider testingmeasures of task conflict using language that is less likely to be perceived negatively,use multiple sources to reduce halo error in rating and test for curvilinear effects.Another major issue is the residual effect of conflict, whether good or bad. We know thatindividuals learn from past experience and then carry that learning into futureinteractions. Longitudinal studies are needed to examine factors such as sensitivity tothe emergence of conflict, the duration of conflict and how conflict affects the climateand context of future decision-making episodes.

Methodological issues aside, there remains a need to understand the effects of manypotential moderators. Some of the most important of these moderators are things likevalues and value congruence, goal congruence, trust, organizational and team-level

351

Why won’t taskconflict

cooperate?

Dow

nloa

ded

by G

eorg

ia S

outh

ern

Uni

vers

ity A

t 11:

58 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

norms of openness and dissent, performance history, tenure and experience andindividual differences. All of these constructs have demonstrated effects on conflict andon the relationship between task and relationship conflict. In addition, research suggeststhat various means of conflict management are of critical importance. Hence, the list ofpotentially important moderators is long and the issue of moderation is complicated bythe fact that these many intervening forces are likely to influence one another.Researchers then should expect some degree of inconsistency across different studies,depending on differences in the setting and sample, as well as differences in the specificset of constructs and measures studied.

The basic challenge for intragroup conflict research, though, remains the same; it isto understand the role of conflict on group decision outcomes. The things we learnshould build upon the foundation of what we know, in the hope that our work actuallyhelps groups make better decisions. Across thousands of organizations there are,perhaps, millions of groups tasked with leveraging their individual differences to makereal decisions. The impact of those decisions in terms of economic, social and personalvalue is enormous. Thus, research that makes those decisions better, even by thesmallest of margins, is important. Therefore, it is essential that that research into thepositive and negative effects of task and relationship conflict remain vital and attractive.

ReferencesAlper, S., Tjosvold, D. and Law, K.S. (2000), “Conflict management, efficacy, and performance in

organizational teams”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 625-642.Amason, A.C. (1996), “Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on

strategic decision making: resolving a paradox for top management teams”, Academy ofManagement Journal, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 123-148.

Amason, A.C. (1998), “Good and bad conflict in strategic decision making”, in Papadakis, V. andBarwise, P. (Eds), Strategic Decisions, Springer, New York, pp. 51-63.

Amason, A.C., Liu, J. and Fu, P. (2010), “TMT demography, conflict, and (effective) decisionmaking: the key role of value congruence”, Academy of Management Proceedings, Vol. 2010No. 1, pp. 1-6.

Amason, A.C. and Mooney, A.C. (1999), “The effects of past performance on top management teamconflict in strategic decision making”, International Journal of Conflict Management,Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 340-359.

Amason, A.C. and Sapienza, H.J. (1997), “The effects of top management team size and interactionnorms on cognitive and affective conflict”, Journal of Management, Vol. 23 No. 4,pp. 495-516.

Amason, A.C. and Schweiger, D.M. (1994), “Resolving the paradox of conflict, strategic decisionmaking, and organizational performance”, International Journal of Conflict Management,Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 239-253.

Amason, A.C. and Schweiger, D.M. (1997), “The effect of conflict on strategic decision makingeffectiveness and organizational performance”, in de Drew, C.K.W. and Van de Vliert, E.(Eds), Using Conflict in Organizations, Sage, London, pp. 101-115.

Antonioni, D. (1998), “Relationship between the big five personality factors and conflictmanagement styles”, International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 9 No. 4,pp. 336-355.

Barrick, M.R. and Mount, M.K. (1991), “The big five personality dimensions and job performance:a meta-analysis”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 1-26.

IJCMA25,4

352

Dow

nloa

ded

by G

eorg

ia S

outh

ern

Uni

vers

ity A

t 11:

58 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

Bono, J.E., Boles, T.L., Judge, T.A. and Lauver, K.J. (2002), “The role of personality in task andrelationship conflict”, Journal of Personality, Vol. 70 No. 3, pp. 311-344.

Brehmer, B. (1976), “Social judgment theory and the analysis of interpersonal conflict”,Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 83 No. 6, pp. 985-1003.

Chen, G., Liu, C. and Tjosvold, D. (2005), “Conflict management for effective top managementteams and innovation in China”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 277-300.

Clercq, D.D., Menguc, B. and Auh, S. (2009), “Unpacking the relationship between an innovationstrategy and firm performance: the role of task conflict and political activity”, Journal ofBusiness Research, Vol. 62 No. 11, pp. 1046-1053.

Colquitt, J.A., Scott, B.A., Rodell, J.B., Long, D.M., Zapata, C.P., Conlon, D.E. and Wesson, M.J.(2013), “Justice at the millennium, a decade later: a meta-analytic test of social exchange andaffect-based perspectives”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 98 No. 2, pp. 199-236.

Curseu, P.L. and Schruijer, S.G. (2010), “Does conflict shatter trust or does trust obliterate conflict?Revisiting the relationships between team diversity, conflict, and trust”, Group Dynamics:Theory, Research, and Practice, Vol. 14 No. 1, p. 66.

De Dreu, C.K.D. (2002), “Team innovation and team effectiveness: the importance of minoritydissent and reflexivity”, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 11No. 3, pp. 285-298.

De Dreu, C.K. (2006), “When too little or too much hurts: evidence for a curvilinear relationshipbetween task conflict and innovation in teams”, Journal of Management, Vol. 32 No. 1,pp. 83-107.

De Dreu, C.K. (2008), “The virtue and vice of workplace conflict: food for (pessimistic) thought”,Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 5-18.

De Dreu, C.K. and Van Vianen, A.E. (2001), “Managing relationship conflict and the effectivenessof organizational teams”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 309-328.

De Dreu, C.K.W. and Weingart, L.R. (2003a), “Task versus relationship conflict, teamperformance, and team member satisfaction: a meta-analysis”, Journal of AppliedPsychology, Vol. 88 No. 4, pp. 741-749.

De Dreu, C.K. and Weingart, L.R. (2003b), “A contingency theory of task conflict and performancein groups and organizational teams”, in West, M.A., Tsjovold, D. and Smith, K.G. (Eds),International Handbook of Organizational Teamwork and Cooperative Working, JohnWiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, pp. 151-166.

De Dreu, C.K. and West, M.A. (2001), “Minority dissent and team innovation: the importance ofparticipation in decision making”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 6,pp. 1191-1201.

De Dreu, C.K., Van Dierendonck, D. and Dijkstra, M.T. (2004), “Conflict at work and individualwell-being”, International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 6-26.

de Wit, F.R., Greer, L.L. and Jehn, K.A. (2012), “The paradox of intragroup conflict: ameta-analysis”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 97 No. 2, pp. 360-390.

DeChurch, L.A. and Marks, M.A. (2001), “Maximizing the benefits of task conflict: the role ofconflict management”, International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 12 No. 1,pp. 4-22.

DeChurch, L.A., Mesmer-Magnus, J.R. and Doty, D. (2013), “Moving beyond relationship and taskconflict: toward a process-state perspective”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 98 No. 4,pp. 559-578.

Desivilya, H.S. and Yagil, D. (2005), “The role of emotions in conflict management: the case of workteams”, International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 55-69.

353

Why won’t taskconflict

cooperate?

Dow

nloa

ded

by G

eorg

ia S

outh

ern

Uni

vers

ity A

t 11:

58 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

Diamond, S. (2012), Getting More: How You Can Negotiate to Achieve Your Goals in the RealWorld, Random House, New York, NY.

Duffy, M.K., Shaw, J.D. and Stark, E.M. (2000), “Performance and satisfaction in conflictedinterdependent groups: when and how does self-esteem make a difference?”, Academy ofManagement Journal, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 772-782.

Edmondson, A. (1999), “Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams”,Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 350-383.

Edmondson, A.C. and Smith, D.M. (2006), “Too hot to handle? How to manage relationshipconflict”, California Management Review, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 6-31.

Ehrlinger, J., Johnson, K., Banner, M., Dunning, D. and Kruger, J. (2008), “Why the unskilled areunaware: further explorations of (absent) self-insight among the incompetent”,Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 105 No. 1, pp. 98-121.

Elbanna, S., Ali, A.J. and Dayan, M. (2011), “Conflict in strategic decision making: do the settingand environment matter?”, International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 22 No. 3,pp. 278-299.

Erez, A., Lepine, J.A. and Elms, H. (2002), “Effects of rotated leadership and peer evaluation on thefunctioning and effectiveness of self-managed teams: a quasi-experiment”, PersonnelPsychology, Vol. 55 No. 4, pp. 929-948.

Farh, J.L., Lee, C. and Farh, C.I. (2010), “Task conflict and team creativity: a question of how muchand when”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 95 No. 6, pp. 1173-1180.

Fisher, R., Ury, W.L. and Patton, B. (2011), Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without GivingIn, Penguin, New York, NY.

Friedman, R.A., Tidd, S.T., Currall, S.C. and Tsai, J.C. (2000), “What goes around comes around:the impact of personal conflict style on work conflict and stress”, International Journal ofConflict Management, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 32-55.

Gersick, C.J.G. (1988), “Time and transition in work teams: toward a new model of groupdevelopment”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 9-41.

Gersick, C.J.G. (1989), “Marking time: predictable transitions in task groups”, Academy ofManagement Journal, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 274-309.

Goncalo, J.A., Polman, E. and Maslach, C. (2010), “Can confidence come too soon? Collectiveefficacy, conflict and group performance over time”, Organizational Behavior and HumanDecision Processes, Vol. 113 No. 1, pp. 13-24.

Greer, L.L., Jehn, K.A. and Mannix, E.A. (2008), “Conflict transformation: a longitudinalinvestigation of the relationships between different types of intragroup conflict and themoderating role of conflict resolution”, Small Group Research, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 278-302.

Guetzkow, H. and Gyr, J. (1954), “An analysis of conflict in decision-making groups”, HumanRelations, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 367-381.

Gully, S.M., Incalcaterra, K.A., Joshi, A. and Beaubien, J.M. (2002), “A meta-analysis ofteam-efficacy, potency, and performance: interdependence and level of analysis asmoderators of observed relationships”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 5,pp. 819-832.

Hammond, K.R. (1965), “New directions in research on conflict resolution”, Journal of Social Issues,Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 44-66.

Hochwarter, W.A., Amason, A.C. and Harrison, A.W. (1995), “Negative affectivity as a moderatorof the inequity-turnover relationship”, Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, Vol. 10No. 4, pp. 757-770.

IJCMA25,4

354

Dow

nloa

ded

by G

eorg

ia S

outh

ern

Uni

vers

ity A

t 11:

58 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

Holahan, P.J., Mooney, A.C. and Paul, L.F. (2011), “Moderating effects of geographic dispersionand team tenure on the task-affective conflict relationship”, in Rahim, M.A. (Ed), CurrentTopics in Leadership, Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, NJ, Vol. 15, pp. 41-62.

Jehn, K.A. (1995), “A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroupconflict”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 256-282.

Jehn, K.A. (1997a), “A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizationalgroups”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 30-557.

Jehn, K.A. (1997b), “Affective and cognitive conflict in work groups: increasing performancethrough value-based intragroup conflict”, in de Dreu, C.K. and Van de Vliert, E. (Eds), UsingConflict in Organizations, SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 87-100.

Jehn, K.A. and Mannix, E.A. (2001), “The dynamic nature of conflict: a longitudinal study ofintragroup conflict and group performance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44No. 2, pp. 238-251.

Jehn, K.A., Chadwick, C. and Thatcher, S.M. (1997), “To agree or not to agree: the effects of valuecongruence, individual demographic dissimilarity, and conflict on workgroup outcomes”,International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 287-305.

Jehn, K.A., Northcraft, G.B. and Neale, M.A. (1999), “Why differences make a difference: a fieldstudy of diversity, conflict and performance in workgroups”, Administrative ScienceQuarterly, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 741-763.

Jehn, K.A., Rispens, S. and Thatcher, S.M. (2010), “The effects of conflict asymmetry on workgroup and individual outcomes”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 53 No. 3,pp. 596-616.

Judge, T.A. and Bono, J.E. (2001), “Relationship of core self-evaluations traits—self-esteem,generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability—with job satisfactionand job performance: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 1,pp. 80-92.

Kazan, M.K. (1997), “Culture and conflict management: a theoretical framework”, InternationalJournal of Conflict Management, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 338-360.

Kerwin, S., Doherty, A. and Harman, A. (2011), ““It’s not conflict, it’s differences of opinion” anin-depth examination of conflict in nonprofit boards”, Small Group Research, Vol. 42 No. 5,pp. 562-594.

Korsgaard, M.A., Jeong, S.S., Mahony, D.M. and Pitariu, A.H. (2008), “A multilevel view ofintragroup conflict”, Journal of Management, Vol. 34 No. 6, pp. 1222-1252.

Kruger, J. and Dunning, D. (1999), “Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizingone’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments”, Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, Vol. 77 No. 6, pp. 1121-1134.

LePine, J.A., Colquitt, J.A. and Erez, A. (2000), “Adaptability to changing task contexts: effects ofgeneral cognitive ability, conscientiousness, and openness to experience”, PersonnelPsychology, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 563-593.

Levine, J.M. and Thompson, L. (1996), “Conflict in groups”, in Higgins, E.T. and Kruglanski, A.W.(Eds), Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles, Guilford Press, New York, NY,pp. 745-776.

Lin, T.C. and Huang, C.C. (2010), “Withholding effort in knowledge contribution: the role of socialexchange and social cognitive on project teams”, Information and Management, Vol. 47No. 3, pp. 188-196.

Loughry, M.L. and Tosi, H.L. (2008), “Performance implications of peer monitoring”, OrganizationScience, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 876-890.

355

Why won’t taskconflict

cooperate?

Dow

nloa

ded

by G

eorg

ia S

outh

ern

Uni

vers

ity A

t 11:

58 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

Mathieu, J.E. and Rapp, T.L. (2009), “Laying the foundation for successful team performancetrajectories: the roles of team charters and team performance strategies”, Journal of AppliedPsychology, Vol. 94 No. 1, pp. 90-103.

Miao, M.C., Tien, C.T., Chang, H.T. and Ko, Y.Y. (2010), “The effect of dysfunctional conflict onlearning performance: the role of cognitive style”, Social Behavior and Personality: AnInternational Journal, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 169-186.

Moberg, P.J. (2001), “Linking conflict strategy to the five-factor model: theoretical and empiricalfoundations”, International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 47-68.

Mooney, A.C., Holahan, P.J. and Amason, A.C. (2007), “Don’t take it personally: exploringcognitive conflict as a mediator of affective conflict”, Journal of Management Studies,Vol. 44 No. 5, pp. 733-758.

Nair, N. (2008), “Towards understanding the role of emotions in conflict: a review and futuredirections”, International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 359-381.

Nemeth, C.J., Personnaz, B., Personnaz, M. and Goncalo, J.A. (2004), “The liberating role of conflictin group creativity: a study in two countries”, European Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 34No. 4, pp. 65-374.

Ohland, M.W., Loughry, M.L., Woehr, D.J., Bullard, L.G., Felder, R.M., Finelli, C.J.,Layton, R.A., Pomeranz, H.R. and Schmucker, D.G. (2012), “The comprehensiveassessment of team member effectiveness: development of a behaviorally anchoredrating scale for self and peer evaluation”, Academy of Management Learning &Education, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 609-630.

O’Neill, T.A., Allen, N.J. and Hastings, S.E. (2013), “Examining the ‘pros’ and ‘cons’ of teamconflict: a team-level meta-analysis of task, relationship, and process conflict”, HumanPerformance, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 236-260.

Pelled, L.H. (1996), “Demographic diversity, conflict, and work group outcomes: an interveningprocess theory”, Organization Science, Vol. 7 No. 6, pp. 615-631.

Pelled, L.H., Eisenhardt, K.M. and Xin, K.R. (1999), “Exploring the black box: an analysis of workgroup diversity, conflict and performance”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 44 No. 1,pp. 1-28.

Peterson, R.S. and Behfar, K.J. (2003), “The dynamic relationship between performance feedback,trust, and conflict in groups: a longitudinal study”, Organizational Behavior and HumanDecision Processes, Vol. 92 Nos 1/2, pp. 102-112.

Pluut, H. and Curseu, P.L. (2013), “Perceptions of intragroup conflict: the effect of coping strategieson conflict transformation and escalation”, Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, Vol. 16No. 4, pp. 412-425.

Postmes, T., Spears, R. and Cihangir, S. (2001), “Quality of decision making and group norms”,Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 80 No. 6, pp. 918-930.

Priem, R.L., Harrison, D.A. and Muir, N.K. (1995), “Structured conflict and consensus outcomes ingroup decision making”, Journal of Management, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 691-710.

Priem, R.L. and Price, K.H. (1991), “Process and outcome expectations for the dialectical inquiry,devil’s advocacy, and consensus techniques of strategic decision making”, Group andOrganization Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 206-225.

Rahim, M.A. (1983), “A measure of styles of handling interpersonal conflict”, Academy ofManagement Journal, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 368-376.

Santos, C.M. and Passos, A.M. (2013), “Team mental models, relationship conflict andeffectiveness over time”, Team Performance Management, Vol. 19 Nos 7/8, pp. 363-385.

IJCMA25,4

356

Dow

nloa

ded

by G

eorg

ia S

outh

ern

Uni

vers

ity A

t 11:

58 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

Schweiger, D.M., Sandberg, W.R. and Ragan, J.W. (1986), “Group approaches for improvingstrategic decision making: a comparative analysis of dialectical inquiry, devil’s advocacy,and consensus”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 51-71.

Shaw, J.D., Zhu, J., Duffy, M.K., Scott, K.L., Shih, H.A. and Susanto, E. (2011), “A contingencymodel of conflict and team effectiveness”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 96 No. 2,pp. 391-400.

Sheppard, B.H. (1992), “Conflict research as schizophrenia: the many faces of organizationalconflict”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 325-334.

Simons, T., Pelled, L.H. and Smith, K.A. (1999), “Making use of difference: diversity, debate, anddecision comprehensiveness in top management teams”, Academy of Management Journal,Vol. 42 No. 6, pp. 662-673.

Simons, T.L. and Peterson, R.S. (2000), “Task conflict and relationship conflict in top managementteams: the pivotal role of intragroup trust”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 85 No. 1,pp. 102-111.

Spector, P.E. and Jex, S.M. (1998), “Development of four self-report measures of job stressors andstrain: interpersonal conflict at work scale, organizational constraints scale, quantitativeworkload inventory, and physical symptoms inventory”, Journal of Occupational HealthPsychology, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 356-367.

Tekleab, A.G. and Quigley, N.R. (2013), “Team deep-level diversity, relationship conflict, and teammembers’ affective reactions: a cross-level investigation”, Journal of Business Research,Vol. 67 No. 3, pp. 394-402.

Tekleab, A.G., Quigley, N.R. and Tesluk, P.E. (2009), “A longitudinal study of team conflict,conflict management, cohesion, and team effectiveness”, Group and OrganizationManagement, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 170-205.

Thatcher, S. and Patel, P.C. (2011), “Demographic faultlines: a meta-analysis of the literature”,Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 96 No. 6, pp. 1119-1139.

Tinsley, C.H. and Brett, J.M. (2001), “Managing workplace conflict in the United States andHong Kong”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 85 No. 2,360-381.

Tjosvold, D. (1991), “Rights and responsibilities of dissent: cooperative conflict”, EmployeeResponsibilities and Rights Journal, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 13-23.

Tjosvold, D., Poon, M. and Yu, Z.Y. (2005), “Team effectiveness in China: cooperative conflict forrelationship building”, Human Relations, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 341-367.

Tuckman, B.W. (1965), “Developmental sequence in small groups”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 63No. 6, pp. 384-399.

Vaara, E., Sarala, R., Stahl, G.K. and Björkman, I. (2012), “The impact of organizational andnational cultural differences on social conflict and knowledge transfer in internationalacquisitions”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 1-27.

Van de Vliert, E. and De Dreu, C.K. (1994), “Optimizing performance by conflict stimulation”,International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 211-222.

Wageman, R. and Baker, G. (1997), “Incentives and cooperation: the joint effects of task andreward interdependence on group performance”, Journal of Organizational Behavior,Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 139-158.

Wang, G., Jing, R. and Klossek, A. (2007), “Antecedents and management of conflict: resolutionstyles of Chinese top managers in multiple rounds of cognitive and affective conflict”,International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 74-97.

357

Why won’t taskconflict

cooperate?

Dow

nloa

ded

by G

eorg

ia S

outh

ern

Uni

vers

ity A

t 11:

58 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

Watson, D. and Tellegen, A. (1985), “Toward a consensual structure of mood”, PsychologicalBulletin, Vol. 98 No. 2, pp. 219-235.

Further readingJehn, K.A., Bezrukova, K. and Thatcher, S. (2008), “Conflict, diversity, and faultlines in

workgroups”, in De Dreu, C.K.W. and Gelfand, M.J. (Eds), The Psychology of Conflict andConflict Management in Organizations, Erlbaum, New York, NY, pp. 179-210.

Rispens, S., Greer, L., Jehn, K.A. and Thatcher, S. (2011), “Not so bad after all: how relationalcloseness buffers the association between relationship conflict and helpful and deviantgroup behaviors”, Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 277-296.

About the authorsMisty L. Loughry is a Professor of Management at Georgia Southern University where she teachesstrategy and organizational behavior. She received her PhD in Management from the Universityof Florida. Her research focuses on two areas. One is control in organizations, especially peercontrol and other social controls. The second is teamwork, including peer evaluations. She is aco-developer of the Comprehensive Assessment of Team Member Effectiveness (CATME) systemfor self- and peer evaluations of team-members’ contributions to teams, and the Team-Makersystem for assigning members to teams based on instructor-specified criteria. She has been aCo-Principal Investigator on two National Science Foundation (NSF) grants totaling $2.6 million.Her research has been published in journals such as Organization Science, Small Group Research,Educational & Psychological Measurement, Information & Management and Business Horizons,as well as Academy of Management Learning & Education, of which she is a member of theeditorial board. Misty L. Loughry is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:[email protected]

Allen C. Amason is the Dean of the College of Business Administration at Georgia SouthernUniversity. He was previously the Chair of the Department of Management at The University ofGeorgia. He received his PhD from University of South Carolina. His research focus is strategicdecision-making and top-management team processes. He is the author of Strategic Management:From Theory to Practice and has published in Academy of Management Journal, Journal ofManagement, Journal of Management Studies and Journal of Business Venturing, among others.He was formerly Associate Editor of the Journal of Management Studies and the InternationalJournal of Conflict Management, and Senior Associate Editor of the Journal of Management. He iscurrently or has served in the past on the editorial boards of the Academy of Management Journal,the Journal of Management Studies, the Journal of Management and Entrepreneurship, Theory &Practice.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

IJCMA25,4

358

Dow

nloa

ded

by G

eorg

ia S

outh

ern

Uni

vers

ity A

t 11:

58 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)