Conflict Management, Efficacy, and Performance

in Organizational Teams

Steve Alper

Covenant Behavioral Health, Milwaukee, WI

(414)327-9750, (414)327-7436 (FAX)

salper@uwm.edu (work)

Dean Tjosvold

Department of Management, Lingnan University,

Tuen Mun, Hong Kong

and

Kenneth S. Law

Hong Kong University of Science and Technology

February, 2000

The authors thank Geoff Maruyama, David W. Johnson, and other members of

Steve Alper掇 dissertation committee for their support. They appreciate the financial

support of the Research Grants Council of Hong Kong, RGC grant project No:

LC890/96H to the second author thank Eleanor MacDonald and Michelle Berner伭or

their valuable contributions.

Abstract

The study empirically links conflict management literature with research on

efficacy and organizational teams. Sixty-one self-managing teams with 489 employees

were recruited from the production department of a leading electronic manufacturer.

Structural equation analysis supports the model that a cooperative instead of competitive

approach to conflict leads to conflict efficacy that in turn results in effective performance

as measured by managers. Findings suggest how organizational teams can be prepared to

make use of their autonomy to deal with problems and conflicts so that they are

productive.

Conflict Management, Efficacy, and Performance in Organizational Teams

Teams are popular means used worldwide to improve quality, reduce costs, and

develop new products to help organizations cope with the highly competitive

marketplace and restrictive government funding (Jassawalla & Sashittal, 1999; Pfeffer &

Veiga, 1999; Salem & Banner, 1992). However, these teams, as they confront many

issues and divisions, must be able to manage conflict to be successful (Ilgen, 1999; Neck

& Manz, 1994; Sims, 1995). Teams that are confident they can deal with their conflicts

are likely to work productively; teams that doubt their conflict management abilities may

become demoralized and ineffectual. This study empirically relates conflict management

research with the efficacy and teamwork literatures. It suggests that the concept of

efficacy is useful for understanding the impact of different approaches to conflict on the

effectiveness of organizational teams. The major hypothesis is that groups that rely on

cooperative approaches to managing conflict develop efficacy that they can deal with

their conflicts; this efficacy in turn results in effective team performance.

Conflict in organizational teams

Although organizational research on groups and conflict have proceeded

somewhat independently (Hackman, 1990; Rubin, Pruitt, & Kim, 1994; Thomas, 1992;

van de Vliert & Kabanoff, 1990; Weldon, Jehn, & Pradhan, 1991), recent studies

emphasize the critical role of conflict in groups (Amason, 1996; Bettenhausen, 1991;

Bettenhausen & Murnighan, 1991; Jehn, 1997, 1995: Nemeth & Owens, 1996). Groups

must contend, among other issues, with conflicts over effective and fair distribution of

work and rewards, social loafing, and the best ways to accomplish their goals (Wageman,

1995). Groups provide an interpersonal context in which conflicts occur and attempts to

manage them are made.

In traditional hierarchical organizations, employees are expected to inform their

managers and supervisors of problems and conflicts and abide by their decisions. In

organizations that use teams, especially self-managing and other forms of empowered

teams, employees are supposed to resolve problems and conflicts themselves (Cohen &

Ledford, 1994; Kirkman & Rosen, 1999; Spreitzer, 1995, 1996; Spreitzer, Kizilos, &

Nason, 1997). Self-managing team theorists have proposed that employees, as they are

closer to the source of errors and variances in production, are better situated to correct

them (Pasmore, Francis, Haldeman, & Shani, 1982). They are trained in quality

management and given the power to halt or speed up production. Their participation in

resolving these issues is expected to increase "ownership" of problems and more

commitment to implement their solutions that in turn results in improved productivity,

product quality, and work life (Herbst, 1974; Pasmore et al, 1982; Weisbord, 1987).

Self-managing proponents and sociotechnical theorists have argued for the

minimum critical specification principle: employees will work more effectively when

they are in control of their own internal functioning and work coordination without

external supervision (Herbst, 1974; Trist, 1977). Variances, problems, and frustrations do

not disappear in self-managing but are dealt with directly by employees in their teams.

Although developing conflict management capabilities would then appear to be

useful for all organizational teams, they may be particularly critical for employees in

empowered and self-managing work teams. They must resolve issues around their

personalities, work roles and habits, production procedures, the quality of work,

scheduling, and the best ways to complete the work. They also have conflicts with area

managers and with other teams in the organizations. Effective conflict resolution is

needed for employees to manage their internal functioning successfully and to make

decisions to which they are committed (Tjosvold, 1987).

Conflict management ideas may contribute to theorizing on organizational teams

and suggest the conditions under which these teams are productive. Studies have not

provided much support for team-building interventions focused generally on

relationships (Salas, Rozell, Driskell, & Mullen, 1999). Previous studies have suggested

poorly managed conflict increases the stress and strain for managers and supervisors

involved in the change to self-managing (Wall, Kemp, Jackson, & Clegg, 1986; Walton,

1982). There is, however, little direct empirical support for the value of conflict

management for empowered organizational teams.

This study explores the dynamics by which managing conflict can contribute to

the effective performance of teams. In particular, it examines how conflict efficacy might

mediate between conflict approach and team performance.

Conflict management, efficacy and team effectiveness

Efficacy is defined as the confidence that one can use one's capabilities to execute

a course of action that will result in performance (Lee & Bobko, 1994). Research has

shown that individuals who believe they can perform needed actions exert effort and are

productive; those with little efficacy are unproductive and fail to take the initiative to

contribute to the organization (Bandura, 1993; Wood, Bandura, & Bailey, 1990).

Bandura (1982) argued that efficacy can also occur at the group level and suggested

developing task specific measures. Group efficacy may have important effects on team

performance (Gibson, 1999).We argue that conflict management is a central task for

members of teams, especially empowered, self-managing teams. Teams may come to

much different conclusions about their efficacy in handling conflict situations. As a

result, we follow Bandura掇 argument and define conflict efficacy as the team掇 beliefs

that it can deal with issues to manage the team掇 conflicts productively.

Because conflict is so central to organizational groups, conflict efficacy may

contribute significantly to the team掇 overall performance. With low levels of conflict

efficacy, teams become demoralized because they doubt that they will combine their

ideas and pool their resources to solve problems. They are then unable to perform

effectively (Guzzo, Yost, Campbell, & Shea, 1993).

This study uses Deutsch's (1990, 1980, 1973) theory of cooperation and

competition to identify major approaches to managing conflict. He defined conflict as

incompatible activities, where one person is interfering, obstructing, or in other ways

making the behavior of another less effective. He argued that whether conflict is handled

cooperatively or competitively affects the dynamics and outcomes of conflict.

Protagonists can emphasize their cooperative goals; as one moves toward goal

attainment, others also move toward goal achievement. They tend to view a conflict as a

mutual problem that needs common consideration and solution. Within this context,

protagonists are confident that others will reciprocate and work for mutually beneficial

solutions. They understand that they can pursue their interests as they pursue the interests

of others. These expectations lead to full exchange of diverse ideas and perspectives that

are combined into effective, mutually advantageous solutions. Experiences of confirming

these positive expectations and engaging in flexible, mutually beneficial conflict

management processes strengthen the efficacy among group members that they can

handle their conflicts effectively.

Protagonists can also emphasize their competitive interests; as one succeeds the

other moves away from goal attainment. They tend to view the conflict as a win-lose

struggle; if the other wins, they lose. This social context induces the expectations that

others will fail to reciprocate and indeed will obstruct one掇 own efforts as they pursue

their incompatible interests. These doubts lead to biased communication and inflexibility

and results in deadlock or an imposition of a solution by the more powerful protagonist.

Confirming these suspicions and experiences in competitive conflict management induce

skepticism that the team can deal effectively with conflict.

Social psychological research has documented that whether protagonists

emphasize cooperative or competitive goals very much alters the dynamics and outcomes

of conflict (Deutsch, 1990, 1980, Tjosvold, 1998; Tjosvold, Leung, & Johnson, in press).

A great deal of research has developed our understanding of the impact of cooperative

and competitive goal interdependence on relationships more generally (Johnson &

Johnson, 1993; Johnson, Maruyama, Johnson, Nelson & Skon, 1981). Recent studies

have extended the cooperative-competitive conflict approach to organizational settings

(Barker, Tjosvold, & Andrews, 1988; Tjosvold, 1999; Tjosvold, Dann, & Wong, 1992;

Tjosvold, Morishima, & Belsheim, 1999).

This study tests the applicability of Deutsch掇 conflict framework to the

important issue of organizational teams. Specifically, cooperative conflict is expected to

induce high levels of conflict efficacy; competitive conflict management induces low

levels of conflict efficacy. Teams with conflict efficacy believe that they can work

together effectively resulting in team productivity. These proposed relations are

summarized in the following three hypotheses:

H1a. Teams that rely on a cooperative approach to conflict develop feelings of

efficacy that they can deal with their conflicts.

H1b. Teams that rely on a competitive approach to conflict develop low efficacy that

they can deal with their conflicts.

H2 Teams that develop perceptions of high conflict efficacy will be more effective

than those with low perceived conflict efficacy.

The above discussions and hypotheses together suggest that conflict approaches

affect conflict efficacy which in turn impacts team effectiveness. Figure 1 pictures the

theorized relationships.

--------------------------------------

Insert Figure 1 about here

--------------------------------------

Method

Measures

A leading manufacturer of portable and stationary electric generators sets and

related switchgear and controls, small gasoline engines, and alternating current

generators agreed to participate in the study. Self-directing teams, which had developed

five years before data were collected, were recruited from its production department.

Nearly all respondents had been in their teams for over six months. The company is in

the Midwest and top and middle management supported the study. Only employees who

volunteered completed the survey. Eleven employees did not agree. The survey was

completed during work time and took about 20 minutes. The initial sample consisted of

67 teams with 538 employees.

Conflict Approaches

Scales for cooperative and competitive approaches to conflict were developed

from a series of experimental studies (Tjosvold, 1985) and from a questionnaire study on

project managers (Barker, et al, 1986). The five cooperative approach (COOP) items

measured the emphasis on mutual goals, understanding everyone's views, orientation

toward joint benefit, and incorporating several positions to find a solution good for all. A

sample item for the cooperative approach scale is 浠e seek a solution that will be good

for the whole team”. Subjects were asked to rate on a 7-point scale (1=strongly agree,

7=strongly disagree) their degree of agreement to the five statements. The competitive

approach scale (COMP) had five items with similar anchors to measure the assumption

that the conflict was a win-lose situation, and the use of pressure and intimidation to get

others to conform to one's view. A sample item is 洍ndividual team members treat

conflict as a win-lose contest”.

Conflict Efficacy

The conflict efficacy (CE) scale was a new 6-item scale developed for this study

which measured the beliefs team members have that their team could successfully

manage different conflict situations. In discussions with employees at the factory, they

indicated the most common and difficult conflict situations; the most frequently

mentioned conflict situations were included in this scale. In addition, items concerning

work quality and work productivity were included because they are considered important

reasons why work teams are implemented. Subjects were asked about their degree of

agreement with the six statements on a 7-point scale (1=strongly agree, 7=strongly

disagree). The six items are listed in the Appendix.

Team Effectiveness Measures

As with other work team research (Cohen & Ledford, 1994; Goodman, Devadas,

& Griffith-Hughson, 1988), obtaining objective work outcome measures proved

impossible despite the willingness of the organization to provide them. The company did

not collect team level productivity data. Quality data were unreliable because some

quality inspectors did not report defects; some teams performed much more complex

functions and comparison of reported defects could be easily misinterpreted. On-time-

delivery measures were abandoned because often they were due to factors external to the

team. Therefore, we used manager ratings of team performance as the effectiveness

measure. Proposing that there is no strictly objective measure of performance in

organizations, Pritchard (1992) argued that ratings can measure the extent users of the

team outputs find them productive. In addition, these managers should be knowledgeable

about the group掇 performance (Hackman, (1987).

Supervisors and team leaders completed an 18 item team effectiveness scale

(RATE) developed for this study. The items involve productivity, quality, and cost

savings because these are central reasons why self-directed work teams are initiated

(Appendix). The managers completed this scale four weeks after the employees’

questionnaire was administered. For most of the teams, either the supervisor of the team

or the team leader rated the performance of the whole team. There were, however, some

teams where two to four supervisors rated team performance. When there were more than

one rater, the average across all raters was used as the manager rating of team

performance.

Analysis

Team members provided ratings of the whole team on the conflict approaches

used by their team members as well as their perception of conflict efficacy of the team.

Team managers provided a single rating for the effectiveness of the whole team. Since

the hypotheses are developed at the team level, individual ratings on cooperative (COOP)

and competitive (COMP) conflict approach and conflict efficacy (CE) were aggregated

to the team level.

Data aggregation

Aggregating individual rating to the team level is logically justified because all

three variables (COOP, COMP and CE) are directed to the characteristics of the work

team. We still tested whether the ratings of group members are reasonably homogeneous

before the data were aggregated to the group level, using the James, Demaree, and Wolf

掇 (1984) procedure to estimate the inter-ratter reliability of members within each team

for the variables of COOP, COMP and CE. James et al.掇 rWG(J) index was used as an

estimate of inter-rater reliability because each of the four variables were measured by

multiple items. Two indicators showed that the ratings among members in each group

were quite homogeneous. First, the median rWG(J) for the four variables across the 67

teams were .87, .79 and .93 respectively. Second, George and Bettenhausen掇 (1990)

argued that rWG(J) which was greater than or equal to .70 could be considered as indicators

of good agreement within group. Of the 67 teams, the percentages of teams with rWG(J)

greater than or equal to .70 across the three variables were 84%, 73% and 93%

respectively. We therefore concluded that the within-team ratings were homogeneous

enough to be aggregated to the team level. Individual team members’ ratings were

aggregated to the team level and the data merged with supervisory ratings of team

performance (RATE). The final sample size of the merged data file was 61 teams with

489 team members. Correlations among the three predictor variables and the outcome

variable at the team level are shown in Table 1.

-------------------------------

Insert Table 1 about here

-------------------------------

Conflict efficacy as a full or partial mediator

Because we do not have specific hypothesis on whether conflict efficacy is a full

or partial mediator, we tested the base-line path model (M1) shown in Figure 1 against

two alternative partial mediating models (M2 and M3). In addition to the base-line model

(M1), M2 has two additional direct paths from COOP and COMP to team managers’

rating of team performance. These two paths are added because we do not have concrete

theoretical support that conflict efficacy will fully mediate the conflict approach-team

performance relationship. It is possible, for example, that COOP may have some direct

effects on team performance on top of its mediating effect through conflict efficacy.

The second alternative model (M3) tested whether the relational order between

conflict efficacy (CE) and conflict approach (COOP and COMP) should be reversed. The

theory of cooperation and competition suggested the hypothesis that cooperative conflict

approach leads to a sense of conflict efficacy which in turn affects team performance and

a competitive conflict approach decreases the team掇 conflict efficacy that leads to poor

team performance. However, given the seemingly high correlation between conflict

efficacy and conflict approach and that they are measured from the same source (i.e.

team members), we also tested the alternative model that conflict efficacy is antecedent

to conflict approach which, in turn, leads to team performance. This alternative model is

labeled M3.

The series of path analyses were conducted using LISREL 8.12a (Jeskog &

Sbom, 1993). We used three indicators to judge if the observed data fit into our

hypothesized models: An overall chi-square measure and its associated degrees of

freedom, the comparative fit index (CFI) and the Tucker-Lewis index (TLI, Tucker and

Lewis, 1973). Bentler and Bonnett (1980) suggest that the CFI should be above .90 for

sufficient fit. The TLI compares the relative improvement in fit for the proposed model

over a strict null model of complete independence among the various items. In contrast to

the CFI, the TLI appears to be relatively robust across model characteristics (Wheaton,

1987) and by small or large sample sizes (Marsh, Balla & McDonald, 1988). Results of

the nested model analyses are shown in Table 2.

-------------------------------

Insert Table 2 about here

-------------------------------

Results

Table 1 indicates the mean, standard deviation, reliabilities, and correlations

among the constructs in this study. The correlations indicated that the cooperative

approach to conflict was positively related to conflict efficacy (r=.78 , p<.01). In

contrast, the competitive approach to conflict was negatively related to conflict efficacy

(r=-.61, p<.01). The competitive approach to conflict was negatively related to

managers’ rating of team effectiveness (r=-.27, p<.01).

Table 2 shows the results of the path analysis. As model M2 has a path joining

each and every variable, it is fully saturated with zero degrees of freedom and model

Chi-square. Model M1 is, however, nested within M2 with the two paths from COOP and

COMP to RATE (team managers’ ratings of team performance) dropped. We can,

therefore, compare the model Chi-square between M1 and M2. Table 2 shows that M1

has a model Chi-square of 1.47 and two degrees of freedom. The change in model Chi-

square between M1 and M2 is not statistically different. As a result, we conclude that the

two direct paths from COOP and COMP to RATE are unnecessary. Conflict efficacy

will fully mediate the conflict approach-team performance relationship.

Table 2 also shows the results of reversing the ordering of the variables in the

model. Specifically, when CE is modeled as the antecedent of COOP and COMP which

in turn affect RATE (M3), the model Chi-square is 2.35 with 2 degrees of freedom. As

predicted CE has positive effects on COOP and negative effects on COMP. However,

both the two paths from COOP and COMP to RATE are insignificant. In contrast, when

CE is modeled as the mediator between conflict approach and team performance, all the

paths are significant as predicted. Although the two models are not nested within each

other, M1 has a relatively lower model Chi-square than M3. Both the CFI and TLI show

almost perfect model fit. Based on these observations, we conclude that more evidence

supports our original model that conflict efficacy fully mediates the conflict approach

and team performance relationship.

The path coefficient estimates of the final mediating model (M1) are shown in

Figure 2. Consistent with the theorizing, results of the structural equation analysis

suggest that a cooperative approach results in effective outcomes. Cooperative approach

had a highly significant effect on conflict efficacy (b=.72, p<.01); competitive approach

had a significant negative impact on conflict efficacy (b=-.26, p<.01). The results provide

good support for hypothesis 1.

--------------------------------------

Insert Figure 2 about here

--------------------------------------

Conflict efficacy was in turn found to have a significant effect on team managers’

rating of team effectiveness (b=.29, p<.05). Hypothesis 2 is also strongly supported.

Results overall provide good support for the hypotheses and the cooperative and

competitive theory of conflict management. Teams that handle conflicts cooperatively

tended to generate strong conflict efficacy. Teams with high conflict efficacy also have

superior performance.

Discussion

This study empirically links conflict management and efficacy research with the

literature on organizational teams. Empowered organizational teams can be effective but

they have a great many issues and conflicts to manage (Barker, 1993; Cohen & Ledford,

1994). The results of this study, including the path analyses, suggest that how team

members manage their conflicts can affect not only their sense of efficacy in dealing with

conflicts but their overall team performance. Specifically, managing conflict for mutual

benefit was found to predict to the extent team members believed they could handle

various conflicts and to their supervisor掇 conclusions about their team掇 effectiveness.

Results of the correlational analyses support the reasoning that competitive

conflict has a largely negative impact on conflict efficacy. Teams that relied on

competitive conflict were found to exhibit low levels of conflict efficacy and reduced

group performance. It should be noted, however, that in the path analysis, competitive

conflict did not significantly lead to low conflict efficacy.

Findings provide further support for the utility of the Deutsch perspective on

conflict management for understanding important organizational issues. Deutsch's theory

of cooperative and competitive conflict has been developed mostly by social

psychologists, often in laboratory studies. Some recent studies have used interviews to

test the generalizability of the Deutsch theory to organizations (Tjosvold, 1999; Tjosvold,

et al, 1999). This study supplements these studies by using questionnaires with a large

sample and the team as the unit of analysis to suggest how and by what approach

managing conflict can contribute to effective organizational teams. The study makes

methodological contributions to previous research in that it allowed independent

measures of conflict approaches and effectiveness. Team members rated their conflict

management approaches and managers rated team productivity.

Results further support current evidence and theorizing on the benefits of conflict

for groups and organizations (De Dreu & van de Vliert, 1997). Recent studies have found

that task types of conflicts compared to relationship ones are more useful for groups

(Jehn, 1997, 1995). It may be that task conflicts are more easily discussed cooperatively

whereas relationship ones become competitive. Future research is needed to clarify this

speculation.

This study contributes to efficacy research by examining a particular kind of

collective efficacy (Bandura, 1982, 1993; Gibson, 1999; Parker, 1993; Wood, et al,

1990). Efficacy research has focused on the consequences of self and collective efficacy

on performance and other outcomes (Geringer & Frayne, 1993; Wood, et al, 1990). Less

research has identified the conditions under which people feel efficacious (Major,

Cozzarelli, Sciacchitano, Cooper, Testa, & Mueller, 1990). The study掇 analyses

supports the argument that cooperative conflict experiences are important antecedents to

conflict efficacy and as well as for team effectiveness. In a team setting, knowing that

group members tend to manage conflict cooperatively can strengthen conflict efficacy

and team productivity.

Limitations

The results of this study are, of course, limited by the sample and operations.

Cooperative conflict management may be particularly useful for self-managing teams,

but other kinds of organization teams must also manage conflict. The data are self-

reported and subject to biases, and may not accurately describe the situation and

dynamics, although recent research suggests that self-reported data are not as limited as

commonly expected, that people often accurately perceive their social environment, and

that, therefore, self-reported data are useful for understanding people掇 psychological

experience (Balzer & Sulsky, 1992; Crampton & Wagner, 1994; Funder, Kolar, &

Blackman, 1995; Murphy, Jako, & Anhalt, 1992; Spector, 1994). These data are also

correlational and do not provide direct evidence of causal links between conflict

approaches, conflict efficacy, and effectiveness. In addition, team members supplied

most of the measures. However, studies suggest that common method variance may not

be as much of an artifact as often assumed (Avolio, Yammarino, & Bass, 1991; Spector,

1987). The limitations of this study should be considered in the context of previous

research, which provide experimental support with behavioral measures for the major

findings of this study.

Practical Implications

If successfully replicated, this study has potentially significant implications for

teams in organizations. This study helps to specify the group processes critical for team

effectiveness (Campion, Medsker, & Higgs, 1993; Manz & Sims, 1987; Salas, Rozell,

Driskell, & Mullen, 1999). Developing effective ways of managing conflict, and, in

particular, cooperative approaches, results suggest, could be useful for helping teams feel

they can deal with conflict so that they are able to take advantage of their autonomy and

opportunities to contribute successfully to the organization.

Previous research provides guidance for fostering cooperative conflict

approaches. To the extent that teams are committed to cooperative goals as well as

discuss their views open-mindedly they are more able to deal with their conflicts

constructively (Tjosvold & Tjosvold, 1995, 1994). They recognize that they want to

resolve the conflict for mutual benefit. They realize that their goal is to help each other

get what each other really needs and values, and not to try to win or to outdo each other.

Organizational teams cannot be expected automatically to feel empowered and

confident (Kirkman & Rosen, 1999; Spreitzer, Kizilos, & Nason, 1997). Indeed, without

the ability to discuss their problems and manage their conflicts they may well feel

demoralized. Organizational teams are alternative ways of dealing with critical issues;

they do not by themselves improve quality, reduce costs, and develop new products.

Empowering is not simply giving teams the autonomy to be self-directing. These teams

also need the abilities to manage conflict. Organizational teams that rely on cooperative

approaches to conflict would appear to be good candidates for making use of their

autonomy to work effectively for themselves and the organization.

Appendix

Conflict Efficacy

I believe that our team will manage the following conflicts in an effective manner:

1. among team members concerning personality differences.

2. among team members concerning work habits.

3. among team members concerning safety issues

4. among team members concerning work roles.

5. among team members concerning scheduling.

6. among team members concerning the best way to get a project done.

Manager Rating of Team Effective Performance

1. Team members actively engage in reviewing their work so that they can improve it.

2. Team members come up with ideas on how to reduce costs.

3. Team members work effectively.

4. Team members have to redo their work because of sloppy workmanship.

5. Team members have successfully implemented ideas to reduce costs.

6. Team members put considerable effort into their jobs.

7. Team members are concerned about the quality of their work.

8. Team members are wasteful in how they use their work materials.

9. Team members meet or exceed their productivity requirements.

10. Team members are committed to producing quality work.

11. Team members take good care of their tools and machinery.

12. Team members do their part to ensure that their products will be delivered on time.

13. Team members comes up with ideas on how to produce higher-quality work.

14. Team members take preventive action so that machinery and tools will not be

damaged.

15. Team members search for ways to be more productive.

16. Team members have successfully implemented ideas to come up with higher quality

work.

17. Team members do not abuse their sick leave policy.

18. Team members have successfully implemented plans to be more productive.

References

Amason, A. C. (1996). Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict

on strategic decision making: Resolving a paradox for top management teams.

Academy of Management Journal, 39, 123-148.

Avolio, B. J., Yammarino, F. J. & Bass, B. M. (1991). Identifying common method

variance with data collected from a single source. Journal of Management, 17,

571-587.

Balzer, W. K. & Sulsky, L. M. (1992). Halo and performance appraisal research: A

critical examination. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 975-985.

Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist,

37, 122-147.

Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning.

Educational Psychologist, 28, 117-148.

Barker, J, Tjosvold, D., & Andrews, I. R. (1988). Conflict approaches of effective and

ineffective managers: A field study in a matrix organization. Journal of

Management Studies, 25, 167-178.

Barker, J. R.(1993). Tightening the iron cage: Concertive control in self-managing teams.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 408-437.

Bentler, P.M., & Bonnett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the

analysis of covariance structure. Psychological Bulletin, 88: 588-606.

Bettenhausen, K. L. & Murnighan, J. K. (1991). The development of an intragroup norm

and the effects of interpersonal and structural challenges. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 36, 20-35.

Bettenhausen, K. L.(1991). Five years of groups research: What we have learned and

what needs to be addressed. Journal of Management, 17, 345-381.

Champion, M. A., Medsker, G. J. Higgs, A. C. (1993). Relations between work group

characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work

groups. Personnel-Psychology, 46, 823-850.

Cohen, S. G. & Ledford, G. E., Jr. (1994). The effectiveness of self-managing teams: A

quasi-experiment. Human Relations, 47, 13-43.

De Dreu, C. and van de Vliert, E. (Eds.) (1997). Using Conflict in Organizations.

Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

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

Deutsch, M. (1980). Fifty years of conflict. In L. Festinger (ed.)., Retrospections on

social psychology. (pp. 46-77) New York: Oxford University Press.

Deutsch, M. (1990). Sixty years of conflict. The International Journal of Conflict

Management, 1, 237-263.

Funder, D. C., Kolar, D. C., & Blackman, M. C. (1995). Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 69, 656-672.

George, J. M., & Bettenhausen, K. (1990). Understanding prosaic behavior, sales

performance, and turnover: A group-level analysis in a service context. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 75, 698-709.

Geringer, J. M. & Frayne, C. A. (1993). Self-efficacy, outcome expectancy and

performance of international joint venture general managers. Canadian Journal of

Administrative Sciences, 10, 322-333.

Gibson, C. B. (1999). Do they do what they believe they can? Group efficacy and group

effectiveness across tasks and cultures. Academy of Management Journal, 42,

138-152.

Goodman, P. S., Devadas, R. & Griffith-Hughson, T. L. (1988). Groups and

productivity: Analyzing the effectiveness of self-managing teams. In J. P.

Campbell & R. J. Campbell (Eds.), Productivity in organizations: New

Perspectives from industrial and organizational psychology. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass, 295-327.

Guzzo, R. A., Yost, P. R., Campbell, R. J. & Shea, G. P. (1993). Potency in groups:

Articulating a construct. British Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 87-106.

Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In J. Lorsch (ed.), Handbook of

Organizational Behavior. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, pp. 315-342.

Hackman, J. R. (1990). Groups that work (and those that don't). San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass.

Ilgen, D. R. (1999). Teams embedded in organizations. American Psychologist, 54, 129-

139.

James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater

reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69,

85-98.

Jassawalla, A. R. & Sashittal, H. C. (1999). Building collaborative cross-functional new

product teams. Academy of Management Executive, 13, 50-63.

Jehn, K. A. (1997). A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in

organizational groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 530-557.

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

intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 256-282.

Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and

research. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.

Johnson, D. W., G. Maruyama, R. T. Johnson, D. Nelson, & S. Skon. (1981). Effects of

cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures on achievement: A

meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 89, 47-62.

Jeskog, K. G. & Sbom, D. (1993). LISREL : Structural equation modeling with

SIMPLUS command language. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum and Scientific Software

International.

Kirkman, B. L. & Rosen, B. (1999). Beyond self-management: Antecedents and

consequences of team empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 58-

74.

Lee, C. & Bobko, P. (1994). Self-efficacy beliefs: Comparison of five measures. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 79, 364-369.

Major, B., Cozzarelli, C., Sciacchitano, A. M., Cooper, M. L., Testa, M. & Mueller, P.

M. (1990). Perceived social support, self-efficacy, and adjustment to abortion.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 452-463.

Manz, C. C. & Sims, H. P., Jr. (1987). Leading workers to lead themselves: The external

leadership of self-managing work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32,

106-129.

Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R., & McDonald, R. P. 1988. Goodness-of-fit indexes in

confirmatory factor analysis: The effect of sample size. Psychological Bulletin,

103: 391-410.

Murphy, K. R., Jako, R. A. & Anhalt, R. L. (1992). Nature and consequences of halo

error: A critical analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 218-229.

Neck, C. P. & Manz, C. C. (1994). From groupthink to teamthink: Toward the creation

of constructive thought patterns in self-managing work teams. Human Relations,

47, 929-952.

Nemeth, C. & Owens, P. (1996). Making groups more effective: The value of minority

dissent. In. M. A. West (Ed.), Handbook of Work Group Psychology, pp. 125-

141. Wiley: Chichester.

Parker, L. E. (1993). When to fix it and when to leave: Relationships among perceived

control, self-efficacy, dissent, and exit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 949-

959.

Pasmore, W., Francis, C. Haldeman, J. & Shani, A. (1982). Sociotechnical systems: A

North American reflection on empirical studies of the Seventies. Human

Relations, 35, 1179-1204.

Pfeffer, J. & Veiga, J. F. (1999). Putting people first for organizational success. The

Academy of Management Executive, 13, 37-48.

Pritchard, D. (1992). Organizational productivity. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough

(eds.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 3. Palo Alto:

Consulting Psychologists Press, pp. 443-471.

Rubin, J. Z., Pruitt, D. G., & Kim, S. H. (1994). Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate,

and settlement. (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Salas, E., Rozell, D., Driskell, J. E., & Mullen, B. (1999). The effect of team building on

performance: An integration. Small Group Research, 30, 309-329.

Salem, M. A. & Banner, D. K. (1992). Self-managing work teams: An international

perspective. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 13, 3-8.

Sims, H. P. Jr. (1995). Challenges to implementing self-managing teams - Part 2. Journal

for Quality & Participation, 18, 24-31.

Spector, P. E. (1987). Method variance as an artifact in self-reported affect and

perceptions at work: Myth or significant problem. Journal of Applied Psychology,

72, 438-443.

Spector, P. E. (1994). Using self-report questionnaires in OB research: A comment on

the use of a controversial method. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 385-

392.

Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions,

measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1442-1465.

Spreitzer, G. M. (1996). Social structure characteristics of psychological empowerment.

Academy of Management Journal, 39, 483-504.

Spreitzer, G. M., Kizilos, M. A. & Nason, S. W. (1997). A dimensional analysis of the

relationship between psychological empowerment and effectiveness, satisfaction,

and strain. Journal of Management, 23, 679-704.

Thomas, K. W. (1992). Conflict and negotiation processes in organizations. In M. D.

Dunnette & L. M. Hough (eds.). Handbook of Industrial and Organizational

Psychology, 3, (Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press.) 651-717.

Tjosvold, D. (1982). Effects of the approach to controversy on superiors' incorporation of

subordinates' information in decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology,

67,189-193.

Tjosvold, D. (1985). Implications of controversy research for management. Journal of

Management, 11, 21-37.

Tjosvold, D. (1987). Participation: A close look at its dynamics. Journal of Management,

13, 739-750.

Tjosvold, D. (1987). Participation: A close look at its dynamics. Journal of Management,

13, 739-750.

Tjosvold, D. (1990). Making a technological innovation work: Collaboration to solve

problems. Human Relations. 43, 1117-1131.

Tjosvold, D. (1998). The cooperative and competitive goal approach to conflict:

Accomplishments and challenges. Applied Psychology: An International Review,.

Tjosvold, D. (1999). Bridging East and West to develop new products and trust:

Interdependence and interaction between a Hong Kong parent and North

American subsidiary. International Journal of Innovation Management, 3, 233-

252.

Tjosvold, D. Dann, V. & Wong, C. L. (1992). Managing conflict between departments to

serve customers. Human Relations, 45, 1035-1054.

Tjosvold, D. Leung, K. & Johnson, D. W. (in press). Cooperative and competitive

conflict in China. In M. Deutsch and P. T. Coleman (Eds.) Handbook of Conflict

Resolution: Theory and Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Tjosvold, D. Morishima, M. & J Belsheim, J. A. (1999). Complaint handling on the shop

floor: Cooperative relationships and open-minded strategies. International Journal

of Conflict Management, 10, 45-68, 1999.

Tjosvold, D. & Tjosvold, M. M. (1994). Cooperation, competition, and constructive

controversy: Knowledge to empower self-managing teams. In M. M. Beyerlein

and D. A Johnson (eds.), Advances in interdisciplinary studies of work teams.

Vol. 1. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. 119-144.

Tjosvold, D. & Tjosvold, M. M. (1995). Cross functional teamwork: The challenge of

involving professionals. In M. M. Beyerlein, D. A Johnson, and S. T. Beyerlein,

(eds.), Advances in interdisciplinary studies of work teams. Vol. 2. Greenwich,

CT: JAI Press, 1-34.

Trist, E. (1977). Collaboration in work settings: A personal perspective. Journal of

Applied Behavioral Sciences, 13, 268-278.

Tucker, L. R., & Lewis, C. (1973). The reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood

factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38: 1-10.

Tucker, L. R., & Lewis, C. 1973. The reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood

factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38: 1-10.

Van de Vliert, E. & Kabanoff, B. (1990). Toward theory-based measures of conflict

management. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 199-209.

Wageman, R. (1995). Interdependence and group effectiveness. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 40, 145-180.

Wall, T. D., Kemp, N. J., Jackson, P. R., & Clegg, C. W. (1986). Outcomes of

autonomous workgroups: A long-term field experiment. Academy of

Management Journal, 29, 280-304.

Walton, R. E. (1982). The Topeka work system: Optimistic visions, pessimistic

hypotheses, and reality. In R. Zager & M. P. Rosnow (Eds.), The innovative

organization: Productivity programs in action. Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press.

Weldon, E., Jehn, K. A., & Pradhan, P. (1991). Processes that mediate the relationship

between a group goal and improved group performance. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 61, 555-569.

Wheaton, B. 1987. Assessment of fit in overidentified models with latent variables.

Sociological Methods and Research, 16: 118-154.

Wood, R., Bandura, A. & Bailey, T. (1990). Mechanisms governing organizational

performance in complex decision-making environments. Organizational Behavior

and Human Decision Processes, 46, 181-201.

Table 1. Correlations Among the Variables

Variable Mean SD COOP COMP CE RATE

1. Cooperative 2.95 .58 (.92)

2. Competitive 4.20 .56 -.55** (.88)

3. Conflict Efficacy 3.06 .63 .78** -.61** (.92)

5. Manager Rating of Performance 2.83 .73 .22 -.27* .25* (.94)

Note:(1) *p<..05; **p<.01(2) Values in bracket are reliability (coefficient alpha) estimates.(3) N = 61.

Table 2. Results of the Nested Model Analyses of the measurement models 12

Model M1 Model M3

Path Path coefficient

Path Path coefficient

COOP -> CE .72** CE -> COOP .72**COMP -> CE -.26** CE -> COMP -.52**CE -> RATE .29* COOP -> RATE .12

COMP -> RATE -.28Model 2 1.47 Model 2 2.35d.f. 2 d.f. 2CFI 1.00 CFI 1.00TLI 1.02 TLI 1.00

**p<.01; *p<.05

Figure 1. The Proposed Model of Conflict Dynamics and Outcomes

C o nfl ic t re so lutio n Inte rac tio ns O utc o m e s

C o o pe rative

C o m pe tit ive

C o nfl ic tEff ic ac y

Supe rviso ryEffe c tive ne s sratings

Figure 2. Path Estimates of the Final Model of Conflict Dynamics and Outcomes

Conflict resolution Interactions Outcomes

Cooperative

Competitive

Conflict Efficacy

Supervisory Effectiveness

ratings

.72**

-.26**

.29*

Note: **p<.01; *p<.05; ns p>.10