THE DYNAMIC NATURE OF CONELICT: A LONGITUDINAL …...® Academy of Management Journal 2001, Vol. 44....

® Academy of Management Journal2001, Vol. 44. No. 2, 238-251.

THE DYNAMIC NATURE OF CONELICT: A LONGITUDINALSTUDY OF INTRAGROUP CONFLICT AND

GROUP PERFORMANCE

KAREN A. JEHNUniversity of Pennsylvania

ELIZABETH A. MANNIX .Cornell University

In a longitudinal study, we found that bigher group performance was associated witba particular pattern of conflict. Teams performing well were cbaracterized by low butincreasing levels of process conflict, low levels of relationsbip conflict, witb a rise nearproject deadlines, and moderate levels of task conflict at tbe midpoint of groupinteraction. The members of teams with this ideal conflict profile had similar pre-'establisbed value systems, higb levels of trust and respect, and open discussion normsaround conflict during the middle stages of their interaction.

In response to growing demands for efficiencyand flexibility, organizations are shifting to team-based structures (cf. Boyett & Conn, 1991). Teamsbring assets—adding knowledge and creativity, in-creasing the understanding and acceptance ofideas, and improving commitment and motivation(for reviews, see McCrath [1984] and Levine andMoreland [1990]). However, as many organizationshave discovered, teams do have liabilities (for re-views, see Maier [1967], Kruglanski and Mackie[1990], and March [1994]). Teams can stifle ideas,result in conformity, and encourage free riding.They can also be hotbeds of conflict, and it is thisaspect of teams and the relationship between con-flict and performance that is the focus of our re-search.

Although our focus is conflict in teams, we be-lieve it is necessary to examine patterns of conflictas they shift and change over time. Time has beenof considerable interest to philosophers, physicists,biologists, and anthropologists, but both psycholo-gists and organizational theorists have been lesslikely to include temporal aspects in their theoryand research (see McGrath and Kelly [1986];for some exceptions, see Cersick [1988], Mannixand Loewenstein [1993], Mannix, Tinsley, andBazerman [1995], O'Connor, Cruenfeld, andMcGrath [1993], and Schweiger, Sandberg, andRechner [1989]). In this study, we developed and

We would like to thank Sandeep Murthy and TonyHasiu for their assistance with data analysis, as well asGreg Northcraft, Deborah Gruenfeld, Jennifer Ghatman,Margaret Neale, and Keith Weigelt for their helpful com-ments.

tested a dynamic model of group conflict that in-cludes the timing of conflict types as critical andspecifies the antecedents that encourage produc-tive conflict patterns.

CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND ANDHYPOTHESES

Conflict is an awareness on the part of the partiesinvolved of discrepancies, incompatible wishes, orirreconcilable desires (Boulding, 1963). Drawing onpast research (Amason & Sapienza, 1997; Cosier &Rose, 1977; Guetzkow & Gyr, 1954; Jehn, 1992,1997; Pelled, 1996; Pinkley, 1990; WaU & Nolan,1986), we propose that conflict in work groups canbe categorized into three types—relationship, task,and process conflict.

Relationship conflict, an awareness of interper-sonal incompatibilities, includes affective compo-nents such as feeling tension and friction. Relation-ship conflict involves personal issues such asdislike among group members and feelings such asannoyance, frustration, and irritation. This defini-tion is consistent with past categorizations of con-flict that distinguish between affective and cogni-tive conflict (Amason, 1996; Pinkley, 1990).

Task conflict is an awareness of differences inviewpoints and opinions pertaining to a group task.Similar to cognitive conflict, it pertains to conflictabout ideas and differences of opinion about thetask (Amason & Sapienza, 1997). Task conflictsmay coincide with animated discussions and per-sonal excitement but, by definition, are void of theintense interpersonal negative emotions that are

238

2001 Jehn and Mannix 239

more commonly associated with relationship con-flict.

Recent studies have identified a third uniquetype of conflict, labeled process conflict (Jehn,1997; Jehn, Northcraft, & Neale, 1999). Jt is definedas an awareness of controversies about aspects ofhow task accomplishment will proceed. More spe-cifically, process conflict pertains to issues of dutyand resource delegation, such as who should dowhat and how much responsibility different peopleshould get. For example, when group members dis-agree about whose responsibility it is to complete aspecific duty, they are experiencing process con-flict.

Cross-sectional studies using one-time measureshave shown that relationship, or affective, conflictis detrimental to individual and group perfor-mance, member satisfaction, and the likelihood agroup will work together in the future (Jehn, 1995;Shah & Jehn, 1993). Research findings indicate thatthe anxiety produced by interpersonal animositymay inhibit cognitive functioning (Staw, Sand-elands, & Dutton, 1981; Roseman, Wiest, & Swartz,1994) and also distract team members from thetask, causing them to work less effectively and pro-duce siiboptimal products (Argyris, 1962; Kelley,1979; Wilson, Butter, Cray, Hickson, & Mallory,1986).

In contrast, moderate levels of task conflict havebeen shown to be beneficial to group performanceon certain types of tasks (Jehn, 1995; Jehn & Shah,1997; Shah & Jehn, 1993). When given a complexcognitive task (the type of task that is the focus ofthis research), teams benefit from differences ofopinion about the work being done and about ideas(Bourgeois, 1985; .Eisenhardt & Schoonhoven,1990; Jehn, 1995; Shah & Jehn, 1993). Task conflictimproves decision quality because the synthesisthat emerges from the conflict is generally superiorto the individual perspectives themselves (Mason& Mitroff, 1981; Schweiger & Sandberg, 1989;Schwenk, 1990).

Of the three conflict types, process conflict hasbeen the least examined. In one study, process con-flict was associated with a lower level of groupmorale as well as with decreased productivity(Jehn, 1992). The logic proposed was that when agroup argues about who does what, members aredissatisfied with the uncertainty caused by the pro-cess conflict and feel a greater desire to leave thegroup. In addition, Jehn (1997) noted that processconflicts interfere with task content quality andoften misdirect focus to irrelevant discussions ofmember ability. In a more recent study, Jehn,Northcraft, and Neale (1999) found that groups who

continually disagreed about task assignments wereunable to effectively perform their work.

The Dynamic Nature of Conflict

Most of the past research reviewed above focusesonly on static levels of conflict, ignoring the differ-ent patterns of conflict that might occur over time.Consider the following static proposition; "Teamsthat experience higher levels of process conflictwill experience lower levels of group perfor-mance. " In fact, it may be more relevant to considerhow much and when, rather than if, process con-flict occurs. For example, early discussions regard-ing task allocation may assist group members inassigning the correct people to the correct task;however, later process conflicts might interferewith smooth, efficient operations and may be usedto mask negative relationship issues. We proposethat fully understanding the links between thetypes of conflict and performance involves an ex-amination of the time period in which the conflictoccurs and the patterns of conflict types that occurover time.

Some early efforts in the study of groups had aninherently temporal dimension, notably the workon group dynamics and the related study of phasesin group problem solving. Many stage models havebeen proposed, the key features of which were re-viewed and integrated by Tuckman (1965), whocalled the stages "forming," "storming," "norm-ing," and "performing." Stage models that havebeen put forth since Tuckman's synthesis are sim-ilar (see Hare, 1976; LaCoursiere, 1980; McCrath,1984).

More recently, Cersick (1988, 1989) demon-strated that groups exhibit a "punctuated equilib-rium" in which temporal phases emerge asbounded eras within each group, without beingcomposed of identical activities across groups andwithout the necessarily progressing in a set linearorder. Other researchers have agreed that past the-ories of innate, concrete phases in groups may notbe adequate (cf. Bell, 1982; Mintzberg, Raisinghani,& Theoret, 1976; Seeger, 1983). These recent devel-opments suggest a movement away from attemptsto characterize group development as an unvaryingsequence of stages or activities. We argue that moreinsight may be gained from an examination ofbroader patterns of group interaction.

Process conflict over time. Theorists and re-searchers have demonstrated that successful taskforces must begin with a clear and engaging direc-tion. Once the purpose of a team has been clearlyspecified by an organization's management, a teamleader, or a supervisor, the means of accomplishing

240 Academy of Management Journal April

that purpose is typically left to the team itself(Hackman, 1987; Wageman, 1996). Thus, duringthe early stages of their interaction, group membersmay be allowed, and even encouraged, to focus onthe procedural or administrative features of thetask.

In groups that are performing well [high-perform-ing groups), process conflict at the beginning stagesof their interaction allows work norms to be agreedupon, accepted, and understood (Tuckman, 1965).Responsibilities and deadlines are decided on(Jehn, 1997; Mintzberg, et al., 1976). In Cersick's(1989) laboratory study, activities of successfulgroups in the early phases of interaction includedprocess discussions, time pacing of tasks, and plan-ning to meet resource requirements. In the field,Gersick (1988) also found that high-performingteams made decisions about milestones, task re-sponsibilities, and deadlines early; this allowedthem to then focus on the content of their tasks.Group members who are allowed voice duringearly stages are likely to understand and be com-mitted to the resulting decisions (Greenberg &Folger, 1983). Given this past research and theoriz-ing, we propose that successful groups will experi-ence moderately high levels of process conflict inthe early stages of group formation.

The final stages of the group task also involveformalizing and presenting a specific plan for im-plementation. Tasks during this completion phaseinclude editing and formatting materials and decid-

• ing on methods of presentation (Gersick, 1988,1989). Group members need to decide who is mostcapable of completing various new tasks, such asorganizing the compiled information and present-ing the group's decision or completed product. Wepropose that high-performing groups will again ex-perience process conflict just prior to their dead-lines as they manage and organize these new du-ties.

Hypothesis 1. High-performing groups willhave higher levels of process conflict at thebeginning and at the end of their group inter-action than low-performing groups; in addi-tion, high-performing groups will have lowerlevels of process conflict during the middlephases of their interaction than low-perform-ing groups.

Relationship conflict over time. It is unlikely thatrelationship conflict is beneficial at any point in thelife of a group. In the early stages of group interaction,high-performing groups often operate under polite-ness norms (low levels of relationship conflict) thatpermit group members to become more familiar withone another Qehn, 1995; Shah & Jehn, 1993). Theo-

rists have argued that such norms may reduce thesocial uncertainty and concern with acceptance thatcan distract from task performance in newly formedgroups (Deutsch, 1949; Nemeth, 1986; Schachter,1959; Schachter & Singer, 1962). In addition, researchhas shown that increased familiarity tends to result inbeneficial information sharing, improved conflict res-olution, and better task performance (Gruenfeld,Mannix, Williams, & Neale, 1996; Jehn & Shah, 1997;Shah & Jehn, 1993).

Thus, low levels of relationship conflict can al-low group members to develop the familiarity nec-essary for positive patterns of future interaction.Groups also develop shared patterns of behavior—including how criticism and disagreement are in-terpreted and handled (Janis, 1982). If storming, inTuckman's (1965) terms, is not overcome, a nega-tive pattern is likely to continue (Bettenhausen &Murnighan, 1985). Gersick (1988) also noted thatgroups with early indications of relationship con-flict had, in general, more difficulties and increas-ing amounts of relationship conflict as deadlinesapproached than did groups with amiable interper-sonal relationships. We propose that high-perform-ing groups will have low levels of relationship con-flict throughout all phases of group interaction.

Hypothesis 2. High-performing groups willhave lower levels of relationship conflictthroughout all phases of group interactionthan low-performing groups.

Task conflict over time. As discussed above, whenconflict is functional, it is often task-focused (Breh-mer, 1976; Cosier & Rose, 1977; Jehn, 1995). Taskconflict enhances performance through a synthesisof diverse perspectives and an increase in under-standing. However, it may also interfere with con-sensus, distract team members from their goal, andhinder implementation (Amason, 1996; Amason &Schweiger, 1994; Hambrick, Cho, & Chen, 1996;Schweiger, Sandberg, & Ragan, 1986; Schweiger et al.,1989). For example, Schweiger, Sandberg, and Rech-ner (1989) foimd that critical evaluation (task con-flict) enhanced decision-making performance. Theyalso found that teams engaged in more critical eval-uation over time; however, although they made betterdecisions, there was lower acceptance of final deci-sions than in consensus-seeking teams (who madeworse decisions).

Amason and Schweiger (1994) identified thisparadox and suggested that teams need to engage intask conflicts to produce high-quality decisions,but then need to somehow reach consensus with-out interfering with the quality of the decision.Given the above empirical findings, however, it isdifficult to see how both goals can be accom-


plished. We propose that the possibly negative ef-fects of task conflict may be related to the time atwhich it occurs. For example, early task conflictmay interfere with the discussion of important pro-cedural issues, or it may pull a team away from itsspecified purpose. Task conflict that occurs too latein the team's interaction may reduce consensus andthreaten implementation. Specifically, we arguethat the midpoint of a group's time together hasseveral features that positively link it to task con-flict in high-performing groups.

The importance of the midpoint might best bedescribed by Gersick's (1988, 1989) simple, yet el-egant, finding that in high-performing groups, itwas not the content of the interaction that matteredas much as the presence of a transition, or "para-digmatic shift," at the midpoint of the group's life.At this midpoint, high performers engage in a con-centrated burst of activity and adopt new perspec-tives. This activity includes discussions of taskgoals and debate around the various opinions ofteam members to determine the specific content ofthe final product or decision. In groups that havemanaged relationship conflict well up to this point,members are likely to be comfortable with eachother and able to engage in task-related conflictwithout its turning into personal attacks. Layingthe- groundwork in the early stages of interactionwill allow groups to make this crucial transition, inwhich they focus solely on the task, rather than onprocedures or relationships. Therefore, we arguethat it is at the midpoint that high-performinggroups will air and confront diverse task perspec-tives and thus experience moderate to high levelsof task conflict.

In addition, strategic decision theorists havenoted that task discussions, disagreements, andidea generation most often occur during the middlephase of group interaction (Astley et al., 1982;Eisenhardt, 1989; Schweiger et al., 1989). Mintz-berg and colleagues (1976) discussed a midtermdevelopment phase that consists almost entirely oftask conflicts regarding the benefits and detrimentsof various solutions to the problem identified.Thus, we propose that task conflict during the mid-dle of a group's interaction encourages needed dis-cussions, but we also propose that a lower level oftask conflict toward the end of the interaction (cou-pled with low relationship conflict and moderateprocess conflict) is necessary for commitment to theteam product and its subsequent implementation.

Hypothesis 3. High-performing groups willhave higher levels of task conflict in the middleof their interactions than in the beginning andend of the interactions.

Antecedents of Conflict at Each Stage

We have proposed that certain patterns of con-flict are more likely to lead to success in teamperformance and productivity. This question, how-ever, remains: Once the connections between con-flict and performance are understood, is it possibleto predict which groups will be more likely toexhibit these beneficial patterns of conflict? Oneanswer may lie in the configuration of values andthe atmosphere that results among group members.

Groups, like organizations, have specific, identi-fiable cultures (Jehn, 1994; McFeat, 1974; Sackman,1992). One defining aspect of group culture is sim-ilarity among the work values of the members whoenter a group (Enz, 1988; Schein, 1985). We exam-ined the values members brought with them togroups. We defined group value consensus as theextent to which the potential members have similarvalues regarding work, examples of which includevaluing (and demonstrating) innovativeness, care-fulness, autonomy, adaptability, and informality(O'Reilly, Ghatman, & Galdwell, 1991). When groupmembers have similar work values, they tend toagree on norms regarding work, and this agreementin turn promotes harmony (Nemeth & Staw, 1989)and decreases interpersonal tension (Schneider,1983). In contrast, when members' core values andbeliefs about their everyday work differ, frictionand emotional upset may occur (Bar-Tal, 1989;Schein, 1986).

Thus, high value consensus would seem to bebeneficial to work groups, in that it is likely toreduce relationship conflict and increase groupperformance. Group value consensus should alsoreduce process conflict, as a similarity of work val-ues implies that group members will be more likelyto agree on how to interact and how to deal withadministrative details. The same is not necessarilytrue, however, for task conflict.

Value consensus does not necessarily imply ho-mogeneity of task perspectives. In fact, it is possiblethat high value consensus will provide an atmo-sphere in which task-related conflicts are more eas-ily expressed. For example, in a longitudinal studyof continuing work groups, those with stable mem-bership experienced task conflict more frequentlythan groups whose membership was characterizedby instability and change (Arrow & McGrath, 1993).Shah and Jehn (1993) found that groups composedof friends exhibited greater task conflict whileworking on a decision task than groups of strangers.Because the task in Shah and Jehn's study requiredcritical inquiry and analysis of assumptions, theirhigher levels of conflict gave the groups of friends aperformance advantage. They were also better able


to resolve unnecessary relationship conflicts thanwere the groups of strangers. Gruenfeld and col-leagues (1996) showed that groups of friends werebetter able to share diverse task-related informationneeded to solve a complex problem than weregroups of strangers. This research demonstratesthat sometimes colleagues with positive relation-ships are better at managing conflict than aregroups of strangers (Valley, Neale, & Mannix,1995).

As classic social psychological theory has indi-cated, individuals are attracted to and form friend-ships with others who are similar to themselves(Heider, 1958; Newcomb, 1956). Research has alsoshown that members who have similar preestab-lished work values (such as valuing a detail orien-tation or valuing working long hours) are moresatisfied in their groups (Jehn, 1994). In thesegroups, members are more likely to trust and re-spect one another and feel that they are workingtoward a cooperative rather than a competitive goal(Amason & Sapienza, 1997; Jehn & Shah, 1997).

Hypothesis 4a. Group value consensus willlead to beneficial patterns of conflict (as de-scribed in previous hypotheses).

Hypothesis 4b. The effects of group value con-sensus on patterns of conflict will be mediatedby a positive group atmosphere (high levels oftrust, respect, open conflict norms, cohesive-ness, and liking and low levels of competition).

METHODS

Sample and Procedures

The study utilized 51 three-person functioninggroups performing comparable organizational tasksover a semester. The sample consisted of 153 stu-dents at three U.S. business schools all taking thesame general management course; they were pri-marily full-time employees at various organizationsand were part-time master of business administra-tion (M.B.A.) students at the three schools. Thethree business schools had comparable entrancerequirements, and the individual performance dis-tribution in the course across the schools was sim-ilar, with f-tests indicating no significant differ-ences between subsamples. One of the businessschools had 10-week semesters, one had 12-weeksemesters, and the other had 14-week semesters.The same instructor taught all participating stu-dents at all three schools. We standardized the timeframes and developed three time blocks—early,middle, and late—for examining patterns over timein groups. We divided the number of weeks in the

semester by three if possible or added the leftoverweek to the first block (and to the second, in thecase of the 14-week semester; that is, block 1 con-sisted of weeks 1-5; block 2, of weeks 6-10; andblock 3, of weeks 11-14). According to Gersick(1988) and other researchers who have examinedtime in groups, it is the developmental period inrelation to a specific deadline that matters ratherthan the actual number of weeks a group meets.Because this procedure had the potential to createmore variance within a block, we believe it pro-vided a conservative test of the dynamic model ofconflict patterns.

On the average, the students were currentlyworking 40.1 hours per week at their jobs. Forty-five percent were employed in financial institu-tions, 27 percent in manufacturing, 14 percent inconsulting firms, and 14 percent in other organiza-tions. The average age was 29.4 years. Sixty-fourpercent were male, and 18 percent were not origi-nally from the United States. Although the partici-pants were aware that they were involved in aproject in which their performance would be mea-sured, they were blind to the hypotheses of thestudy.

Prior to group formation, the participants' workvalues were assessed with the Organizational Cul-ture Profile (OCP; O'Reilly et al., 1991), as part of anintroductory exercise. The following week, groupswith three members were randomly formed. Thegroups worked as consulting teams for the entiresemester on projects involving strategy formationand implementation in actual firms. For example,one team helped a locally run coffee shop establishand implement a marketing strategy to competewith the national chains in a city. Another teamworked with a Fortune 500 company to analyze itsmanagerial information system.

This project comprised over 50 percent of thestudents' grades for this one-semester course.Teams spent an average of 10.8 hours per weektogether on the project, and individuals spent anaverage 20.6 hours total per week on it. The taskincluded problem identification, information col-lection and analysis, and making recommendationsand implementation suggestions. It also includedattending organizational meetings and conductinginterviews with employees and managers. The par-ticipants reported weekly on their group meetingsby completing individual questionnaires and groupworksheets.

Measures

Group value consensus. Group value consensuswas measured in all subsamples at the beginning of


the first time block (the beginning of the first classsession) with the OGP, an instrument that can beused to identify the central values of individualsand to assess how intensely held the values are andthe degree of consensus that exists among groupmembers (Ghatman, 1989, 1991; Ghatman & Jehn,1994; Jehn, 1994; O'Reilly et al., 1991). The OGPconsists of 54 items sorted by a Q-sort techniqueinto nine categories ranging from "very important"to "very unimportant." Examples of culture itemsare "being careful," "being innovative," and "shar-ing responsibility." Following Jehn (1994), we com-puted a group coefficient alpha to assess the con-sensus among group members on the 54 items. Weused the Spearman-Brown prophecy formula, fol-lowing past use of the OGP (Jehn, 1994; O'Reilly etal., 1991) and psychometric consensus assessment(Nunnally, 1967: 211). The group coefficient al-phas, which represented the degree to which groupmembers had similar values, ranged from .21 to .92.

Intragroup conflict. The type of conflict in thegroup was measured with the Intragroup GonflictScale (Jehn, 1995) and with process conflict itemsfrom Shah and Jehn (1993) at the beginning, mid-dle, and end of each time block, and an averagescore was taken. We adapted items to reference theappropriate focal unit, the work group. The confir-matory factor analysis with oblique rotationpresent in Table 1 resulted in three factors consis-tent with past use of this scale (Shah & Jehn, 1993).Factor 1 describes task conflict (for instance, "Howmuch conflict of ideas is there in your workgroup?" and "How frequently do you have dis-agreements within your work group about the taskof the project you are working on?"). Factor 2 con-tains items related to relationship conflict (for in-stance, "How much relationship tension is there in

your work group?" and "How often do people getangry while working in your work group?"). Factor3 reflects process conflict (for instance, "How oftenare there disagreements about who should do whatin your work group?"). The Gronbach alphas forrelationship, task, and process conflict were .94,.94, and .93, respectively.

Group atmosphere. Scales adapted for this studymeasuring trust, respect, cohesiveness (Ghatman,1991), open conflict discussion norms (Jehn, 1995),and liking for fellow group members (Jehn, 1995)consisted of self-report items rated on seven-pointLikert scales ranging from 1, "not at all," to 7, "alot." Measures were taken at the beginning, middle,and end of each time block (at the same time as theconflict measures), and an average score was calcu-lated. The Gronbach alphas for these scales were.82, .73, .94 and .92, respectively. The results of aconfirmatory factor analysis of the items are shownin Table 2. In addition, the participants reported onthe level of competition within their groups with aone-item measure, "How much competition wasthere in your workgroup?"

Outcomes. Performance was measured by ratingsof the teams' final project reports. The scale rangedfrom 1 to 30. Two independent raters scored thefinal reports. Each report included a description ofthe company or department advised, the problemthe consulting team would investigate and how itwas identified, the methods of analysis used, re-sults and interpretation of the data collected, andthe final recommendations made to the companyon problem resolution and strategy. Reports werelimited to 15 double-spaced pages plus appendixes(often including the presentation slides shown tothe firm) and tables. Points were awarded by thetwo independent raters for the thoroughness of

TABLE 1Results of Gonfirmatory Factor Analysis of Gonflict Items

ItemTask

ConflictRelationship

ConflictProcessConflict

How much relationship tension is there in your work group?How often do people get angry while working in your group?

1.2.3. How much emotional conflict is there in your work group?

4. How much conflict of ideas is there in your work group?5. How frequently do you have disagreements within your work group about

the task of the project you are working on?6. How often do people in your work group have conflicting opinions about

the project you are working on?

7. How often are there disagreements about who should do what in yourwork group?

8. How much conflict is there in your group about task responsibilities?9. How often do you disagree about resource allocation in your work group?

Variance explained by each factor."

.01-.02-.08

.91

.85

.90

.91

.61

.14- .11

-.21.08.39

-.16.19

.90

.06

-.06.23

6.79

.18

- .06

-.03-.15

6.86

-.17

.97

.83

.60

6.35

' With other factors controlled.


TABLE 2Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Atmosphere Items

Item Trust Respect LikingOpen

Discussion Cohesiveness

1. How much do you trust your fellow group members?2. How comfortable do you feel delegating to your group

members?3. Were your group members truthful and honest?4. How much do you respect your fellow group members?5. How much do your respect the ideas of the people in

your group?6. How much do you like your group members?7. To what degree would you consider these people your

friends?8. How much open discussion of issues was there in your

group?9. To what degree was communication in your group open?

10. To what degree was conflict dealt with openly in yourwork group?

11. To what extent is your group cohesive?12. How much do you feel like your team has group spirit?13. To what degree would you talk up this group to your

friends as a great group to work in?

Variance explained by each factor."

8773

602629

4139

13

0210

080511

.15

.41

.19

.95

.86

.15

.26

.08

.01

.03

.01

.23

.11

-.12.28

.09

.08

.09

.89

.87

.10

-.06.01

.05

.39

.04

.15

.27

.07

.13

.25

.12

.08

.98

.92

.73

.04

.06

.40

.31

.04

.31

.25

.04

.26

.21

.10

.07-.00

.94

.78

.69

6.79 6.86 6.35 3.01 2.11

With other factors controlled.

problem identification (0-10 points possible), theaccuracy of problem analysis and conclusions(0-10 points possible), and the appropriateness ofthe recommendations made to the firm and of theactual firm presentation (0-10 points possible).Students were aware of the point breakdown priorto completing the task. The two expert raters (whowere blind to the hypotheses of the study) had aninterrater reliability of .93.

Analyses

To examine the dynamic nature of conflict, webegan by graphing the means of the three types ofconflict over time, aggregated over groups. We thendichotomized the groups into high and low per-formers to examine whether there were differencesin conflict patterns across the two groups. Thegroup performance distribution was bimodal,which made discriminating between the high andlow performers obvious—that is, there were 21groups with performance scores between 1 and 12,4 with scores between 12 and 14, 3 with scoresbetween 15 and 18, and 23 with scores over 18).High performers were considered to be those withscores of 15 and above [n = 26). High and lowperformers did not differ on times met {t = 1.71,n.s.) or hours worked [t = 2.01, n.s.). In otherwords, the time spent working as a group was sim-ilar for the high and low performers.

Utilizing a procedure for cross-level analysis(Rousseau, 1985), we averaged individual re-sponses on each of the independent variables foreach work group to create a group-level measure forthe analysis of our group-level dependent variable,group performance. The average intragroup interra-ter agreement for each variable aggregated was be-tween .79 and .92. In addition, we calculated theeta-square statistic, which indicates whether anytwo people in the same group are more similar thantwo people who are members of different groups(Florin, Giamartino, Kenny, & Wandersman, 1990).Our results, averaging .59, exceeded Georgopou-los's (1986) minimum criterion of .20, indicatingthat it was appropriate to aggregate the variables toa group level for the analysis of work group perfor-mance.

To test Hypotheses 1-3, regarding the temporaleffects of conflict types on group performance, wefirst conducted a repeated-measures multivariateanalysis of variance (MANOVA) on conflict typeand time block. Results were significant for theinteraction of conflict type and time block (F =9.18, p < .01). We then tested each hypothesisseparately by conducting analyses of variance(ANOVAs) on conflict, comparing the high and lowperformers. We discuss specific Mests and resultsbelow.

To test Hypotheses 4a and 4b, stating that groupvalue consensus influences a group's temporal con-


flict profile and that the effect is mediated hy groupatmosphere, we conducted two hierarchical regres-sion analyses predicting each type of conflict ineach time hlock. The first analysis puts group valueconsensus in step 1 of the hierarchical regression.This analysis examines the direct effect of groupvalue consensus on the patterns of conflict. Thesecond analysis puts the group atmosphere vari-ahles in step 1 and group value consensus in step 2.If the significant effects of group value consensuson conflict hecame nonsignificant, we could con-clude that the effect of group value consensus onthe patterns of conflict was mediated hy group at-mosphere.

RESULTS

The Impact of Conflict on Performance

Tahle 3 provides correlations hetween the vari-ables in the model for all groups and periods com-hined, as would he done in a cross-sectional study,as well as means and standard deviations for eachvariable in each time hlock. The correlation tableindicates that increases in all types of conflict areassociated (some more weakly than others; signifi-cant correlations range from -.11 to -.27) withlower levels of group performance. Our hypothe-sized model implies that a static view does notaccurately represent conflict in groups; therefore,we report tests of our dynamic hypotheses lookingat conflict over time in the sections below.

Process conflict. Hypothesis 1 predicts that high-performing groups will experience process conflictdifferently than low-performing groups. Results in-dicate that the pattern of process conflict is signif-icantly different in high- and low-performinggroups [F - 8.71, p < .001). Specifically, we hy-pothesized that high-performing groups wouldhave higher levels of process conflict at the begin-ning and at the end of the group interaction thanlow-performing groups and that high-performinggroups would have low levels of process conflictduring the middle phases of interaction comparedto low-performing groups.

In partial support of Hypothesis 1, process con-flict in the high-performing groups was signifi-cantly higher during the late time block [x - 2.17,s.d. = 1.41] than during the middle time block {x =1.54, s.d. = 0.65; t = 2.84, p < .001; see Table 4).However, contradictory to our hypothesis, processconflict was lower in the early block [x = 1.14, s.d.= 0.39) when compared with the middle block forhigh performers [t = 4.59, p < .001). The resultsshow that process conflict for high-performinggroups increases significantly from the early to themiddle to the late time block, rather than resultingin the U-shaped function we hypothesized.

For the low performers, process conflict was sig-nificantly higher at the beginning (x = 1.78, s.d. =0.67; t = 2.35, p < .001) and at the end of theinteraction (x = 3.07, s.d. = 1.30; t = 8.01, p < .001)

TABLE 3Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations for All Time Periods"

Variable

1. Group value consensus2. Trust3. Respect4. Liking5. Open conflict norms6. Cohesiveness7. Relationship conflict8. Task conflict9. Process^ conflict

10. Competition11. Group performance

Time block 1Means.d.



1

.52

.56

.42

.23

.43-.19-.28-.17-.09

.44

0.680.23

2

.73

.66

.29

.48-.17-.22-.19-.12

.32

5.781.31

5.921.29

5.921.18

3

.59

.25

.52-.19-.21-.21-.14

.40

6.100.90

6.110.88

6.100.92

4

.27

.49-.04-.12-.07-.03

.32

5.041.56

4.991.21

5.210.91

5

.20

.01

.05-.00-.07

.26

4.871.99

4.711.41

5.391.70

6

-.19-.24-.19-.18

.37

5.461.39

5.531.59

5.631.26

7

.55

.63

.27-.10

1.310.57

1.610.93

2.622.03

8

.48

.24-.16

1.890.92

2.161.16

3.001.68

9

.33-.12

1.411.02

1.440.81

2.581.98

10

-.08

1.370.84

1.380.95

1.510.95

19.514.46

°/7 = 151; all correlations above .10 are significant at p < .05.


TABLE 4Conflict Types and Levels for High- and Low-

Performing Groups over Time

Conflict Type

ProcessRelationshipTask

Early

High

1.141.391.70

Low

1.781.392.21

Middle

High

1.541.632.33

Low

1.361.722.10

Late

High

3.072.571.63

Low

3.073.063.39

compared to the middle (x = 1.36, s.d. = 0.89),resulting in a U-shaped function.

Relationship conflict. Hypothesis 2 predicts thathigh-performing groups will experience low levelsof relationship conflict throughout their interac-tion, compared to low-performing groups. Wefound a significant difference in patterns of rela-tionship conflict between the high and low per-formers [F = 5.97, p < .01). Consistent with ourhypothesis, high performers have low, monotoniclevels of relationship conflict in the early and mid-dle time blocks (t = 1.12, n.s.). However, contraryto our prediction, relationship conflict rises signif-icantly in the late block for high performers (x =2.57, s.d. = 0.98; t = 3.23, p < .001). By contrast, inthe low-performing groups, relationship conflictstarts out low, rising until the final week, whenit increases dramatically (t = 6.08, p < .001; seeTable 4).

Task conflict. Hypothesis 3 predicts that highperformers will experience moderately high levelsof task conflict at the middle of the group interac-tion, relative to the beginning and end. We foundsignificant differences in patterns of task conflictbetween the high and low performers [F = 6.49, p <.01). In high-performing groups, task conflict startsout moderately, rises during the middle weeks, andtapers off during the final push to completion. Insupport of Hypothesis 3, f-tests indicate that forhigh performers, task conflict was significantlyhigher during the middle of the interaction (x =2.33, s.d. = 0.56) than during the early time block(x = 1.70, s.d. = 1.27; t = 2.04, p < .05) and the latetime block [x = 1.63, s.d. = 0.41; t = 1.89, p <.001). T-tests also indicate that higher performersexperienced significantly higher levels of task con-flict during the middle block [t = 2.68, p < .006)than low performers. For the low performers, taskconflict was similar during the early and middleblocks [t = 1.13, n.s.) and rose to a significantlyhigher level at the end of the interaction (x = 3.39,s.d. = 2.15; t = 3.20, p < .001),

Antecedents of Conflict

Hypothesis 4a predicts that group value consensusamong members will lead to beneficial patterns ofconflict. Work values were measured prior to groupformation, and groups were formed randomly. Thus,group value consensus indicates a serendipitous sim-ilarity among group members regarding work values.As shown in Table 3, group value consensus resultedin significantly higher levels of trust (r = .52, p <.001), respect [r = .56, p < .0001), open conflict dis-cussion norms (r = .23, p < .001), cohesiveness (r =.43, p < .0001), liking (r = .42, p < .0001), and(marginally) less competition (r = -.09, p < .06).

In partial support of Hypothesis 4a, preformationmeasures of group value consensus predicted tasks,process, and relationship conflict at the middle andlate phases of group interaction; there were no sig-nificant relations between group value consensusand conflict in the early phase. Table 5 gives theresults of regression analyses.

Hypothesis 4b predicts that the effects of groupvalue consensus will be mediated by group atmo-sphere. In the early time block, group value con-sensus was not related to conflict; therefore, thishypothesis is not supported for this time period.In the middle time block, group value consensusbecame nonsignificant when the group atmo-sphere variables were included in the regressionanalysis for process conflict (/3 = .05), relation-ship conflict (jS = .03), and task conflict (/3 = .03),meaning that group value consensus accounts forthe variation in these outcome variables throughthe group atmosphere variables. Thus, group at-mosphere mediates the relationship betweengroup value consensus and intergroup conflictthat occurs during the middle time block. In thelate time block, group value consensus becamenonsignificant w^hen the group atmosphere vari-ables were included in the regression analysis forprocess conflict (/3 = .04), relationship conflict(j8 = - .01), and task conflict (j3 = .02). Thus,group atmosphere mediates the relationship be-tween group value consensus and intragroupconflict during the late time block. ,

Looking at the individual variables that com-prised group atmosphere, we found that high lev-els of competitiveness created a detrimental pat-tern of conflict by significantly increasing allthree types of conflict in the early and late timeperiods. During the middle time period, low lev-els of group cohesiveness and respect signifi-cantly increased process and relationship con-flict, also reflecting a detrimental pattern ofconflict. By contrast, during the middle time pe-riod, a beneficial pattern of conflict was created


TABLE 5Results of Hierarchical Regression Analyses for

Group Processes and Conflict*

Variable

Process conflict

Step 1: Group value consensusR'F

Step 2: Group valueconsensus, groupatmosphere controlled

Afl̂AFR^Adjusted R'F

Relationship conflict

Step 1: Group value consensusR^F


Afl̂AFR^Adjusted R̂F

Task conflict

Step 1: Group value consensus

Early.

-.13.02

1.16

.07

.225.62***

.24

.192.01*

-.10.00

0.86

.06

.296.49***

.30

.193.84***

-.14

Middle

- .44 '.19

34.42*

.05

.204.61*

.39

.349.64'

r * *

r A *

t * *

r * ilr

-.25***.29

61.64'

.03

.030.79

.40

.318.56'

( * *

t * *

-.59***

Late

-.17**.03

3.87***

.04

.142.69***

.18

.123.72***

-.18*.04

4.66*

-.01

.102.00***

.22

.174.96**

-.35***


AF

Adjusted R^F

.010.74

.01

.37 .1284.00*** 6.73***

.03 .02

.41 .07 .0918.22*** 0.99*** 1.64**

.41 .36 .13

.37 .31 .126.26*** 8.71*** 2.75*

" n = 51. Standardized regression coefficients are shown.* p < .05

**p < .01*** p < .001

as open conflict discussion norms significantlyincreased task conflict.

DISCUSSION

Our main goal in this study was to identify pat-terns of group conflict over time, their antecedents,and the links of specific patterns to group perform-ance. Our predictions received mixed support. Ourfindings reinforce the view that conflict must be

examined as a dynamic process, rather than as astatic event, echoing early conflict theorists (Coser,1970; Deutsch, 1969). The interaction pattern ob-served in our high-performing groups is consistentwith the theory that the midpoint is a crucial timefor groups to engage in concentrated debate anddiscussion of their tasks (Gersick, 1988,1989). Thismidpoint activity allows groups to adopt new per-spectives, leveraging the synergy provided by mod-erately high levels of task conflict. To perform well,groups must then follow through with consensusand with implementation of task goals, which maybe represented in our findings by a decrease in taskconflict after the midpoint. These observationshelp verify some of the propositions of strategicdecision theorists who have suggested that al-though task debates are necessary for high-qualityideas, consensus (or at least, less task conflict) as-sists implementation (Amason & Schweiger, 1994;Schweiger etal., 1989).

Low-performing groups, by contrast, actually ex-perienced a dip in task conflict during the middletime block. In addition, they experienced low lev-els of task conflict early on, followed by a highdegree of task conflict right before the project dead-line, when conflict is likely to be more destructivethan helpful (Jehn, 1997). The same low-perform-ing groups also exhibited this escalating pattern forrelationship conflict. This dual rise may reflect thenegative cycle that can develop between task andrelationship conflict. In these groups, task conflictmay have been misperceived as personal criticismand interpreted as relationship conflict (Amason,1996; Brehmer, 1976; Deutsch, 1969). If these per-ceptions persist over time, the result may be asteady rise in both task and relationship conflictand a performance loss rather than gain.

Generally, all types of conflict were lower inhigh-performing groups than in low-performinggroups, with the exception of task conflict duringthe middle time periods. Although high-perform-ing groups did have lower overall levels of processconflict, they also experienced a mild rise in suchconflict over time. This rise toward the end proba-bly represents debate over responsibility and dead-lines on the presentation and completion ofprojects. In addition, high performers also reporteda rise in relationship conflict during the finalphases of projects. This pattern is consistent withresearch on task interdependence that indicatesthat all interactions, including relationship con-flict, intensify when members feel interdependent(Jehn, 1995; Wageman, 1996), as may occur underthe pressure of a deadline.

One major strength of this study is its examina-tion of conflict during different phases of a group's


life. If we had used a one-time measure of conflict,the results and their interpretation would havebeen very different. Consider that in the final weeksof the project, the high-performing groups experi-enced mild upturns for process conflict and rela-tionship conflict and slight downturns for task con-flict. By contrast, in the low-performing groups, allthree types of conflict spiked upward dramaticallyduring the final weeks of the projects. This patternmay reflect a crisis in groups that were not perform-ing well at the deadline. It is interesting to observethat if this study had measured conflict statically,as has most previous research, it would have beenin the form of a postproject questionnaire. If sub-jects answered the questionnaire like they did dur-ing the last week of the project, the interpretationmay have been that low-performing groups hadvery high levels of all types of conflict throughoutthe group process, and high-performing groups hadmoderate amounts of conflict, with little differencebetween the levels of task, relationship, and pro-cess types. Our temporal findings suggest a dy-namic process, and we encourage more research onconflict over time.

Implications for Research and for Practice

A rich area for research, and one that we at-tempted to examine in this study, is the complexrelationship between group atmosphere, group pro-cesses such as conflict, and group performance.Some organizational theories suggest links betweendiversity, member attitudes, and conflict (e.g.,Pelled, 1996), but this study provides an empiricalexamination of some previously theoretical dilem-mas, such as whether diversity within a group isproductive or destructive. We concentrated in thisstudy on one type of within-group similarity—group value consensus. Group value consensuspresents an interesting paradox. The homogeneityit implies seems to be beneficial to work groups, inthat it is likely to reduce relationship and processconflict; however, it may be detrimental by causinga decrease in task conflict or an increase in"groupthink" (Janis, 1971). Our results showed thatduring the middle and later weeks of the groupprojects, group value consensus was negatively as-sociated with all three types of conflict. This find-ing is contrary to our prediction and presents adilemma; how can groups that will have moder-ately high levels of task conflict and low levels ofrelationship conflict be composed?

One answer may be seen in the results for theother group atmosphere variables that were foundto mediate the relationship between group valueconsensus and conflict. We found that during the

middle time blocks, both relationship and processconflict were predicted by low levels of respect andcohesiveness. By contrast, task conflict was posi-tively associated with open discussion norms.Thus, in groups with high value consensus, it maybe possible to enhance task conflict through normsfavoring the open discussion of conflict. This ideais consistent with past theorizing on positive con-flict norms by Tjsovold (1991) and others (Brett,1984; Jehn, 1995, 1997). In addition, developingrespect and cohesiveness among the group mem-bers may aid in the reduction of relationship andprocess conflict. This suggests that it may only bepossible to harness the benefits of task conflict (andeven process conflict) if members are not takingthese conflicts personally and do not engage inrelationship conflict.

After investigating the antecedents of productiveand destructive conflict, we propose that to de-velop high-performing groups, managers must en-courage open discussion norms, high levels of re-spect among members, and a cohesive andsupportive team environment. In addition, the con-flict training that managers or leaders conductshould be done in the early stages of group forma-tion, given that our results suggest that group pro-cesses in the early developmental stages influenceperformance throughout the entire group life. Man-agers are key in setting open communication normsand a cohesive and friendly environment that en-hances both members' attitudes and a group's over-all performance. Our findings suggest that teamswill be more successful to the extent that theirleaders can promote constructive debate concern-ing the task at hand, especially at the midpoint ofthe interaction, while minimizing the potential forrelationship and process conflict.

Limitations

There are a number of limitations of the study.First, since participants completed just one prob-lem-solving, cognitive task, we do not know if theseresults transfer to other types of tasks, such as rou-tine manufacturing tasks, or to groups that havelonger lives and multiple projects. Thus, generaliz-ability is limited. Another critical concept whenexamining teams over time is the effect of the feed-back that the teams receive from a supervisor, man-ager, or one another. We were able to control forthis in that all teams had the same "supervisor"(that is, the instructor), but the teams may havereceived different messages from the clients theywere working with that were not captured in thisdesign. In addition, although our study was longi-tudinal, the feedback loops that can occur among


members about performance and conflict limitwhat we can infer about causality. However, giventhat this is one of the first studies of group conflictover multiple periods, we believe there is value inproposing causal effects over time. Ideally, futureresearch will measure the effects of feedback, aswell as more directly controlling for the skill levelof members, for task type, and for member interac-tion. We hope (and assert) that the richness of thereal projects the teams were involved in adds to theworth of the study and its generalizability, redress-ing some of its limitations.

REFERENCES

Amason, A. 1996. Distinguishing effects of functionaland dysfunctional conflict on strategic decisionmaking: Resolving a paradox for top managementteams. Academy of Management Journal, 39: 123-148.

Amason, A., & Sapienza, H. 1997. The effects of topmanagement team size and interaction norms oncognitive and affective conflict. Journal of Manage-ment, 23: 496-516.

Amason, A., & Schweiger, D. M. 1994. Resolving theparadox of conflict, strategic decision making, andorganizational performance. International Journalof Conflict Management, 5: 239-253.

Argyris, C. 1962. Interpersonal competence and organ-izational effectiveness. Homewood, IL: DorseyPress.

Arrow, H., & McGrath, J. E. 1993. Membership matters:How member change and continuity affect smallgroup structure, process and performance. SmallGroup Research, 24: 334-361.

Bar-Tal, D. 1989. Group beliefs: A conception for ana-lyzing group structure, processes, and behavior.New York: Springer-Verlag.

Bell, M. A. 1982. Phases in group problem-solving. SmallGroup Behavior, 13: 475-495.

Bettenhausen, K., & Murnighan, J. K. 1985. The emer-gence of norms in competitive decision-makinggroups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30: 350-372.

Boulding, K. 1963. Conflict and defense. New York:Harper & Row.

Bourgeois, L. J. 1985. Strategic goals, environmental un-certainty, and economic performance in volatile en-vironments. Academy of Management Journal, 28:548-573.

Boyett, J. H., & Conn, H. P. 1991. Workplace 2000: Therevolution reshaping American business. NewYork: Dutton.

Brehmer, B. 1976. Social judgment theory and the anal-ysis of interpersonal conflict. Psychological Bulle-tin, 83: 985-1003.

Brett, J. 1984. Managing organizational conflict. Profes-sional Psychology: Research and Practice, 15:644-678.

Chatman, J. 1989. Improving interactional organizationalresearch. A model of person-organization fit. Acad-emy of Management Review, 14: 333-349.

Chatman, J. 1991. Matching people and organizations:Selection and socialization in public accountingfirms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36: 459-484.

Chatman, J., & Jehn, K. 1994. Assessing the relationshipbetween industry characteristics and organizationalculture: How different can you be? Academy ofManagement Journal, 37: 522-553.

Coser, L. 1970. Continuities in the study of social con-flict New York: Free Press.

Cosier, R., & Rose, C. 1977. Cognitive conflict and goalconflict effects on task performance. OrganizationalBehavior and Human Performance, 19: 378-391.

Deutsch, M. 1949. An experimental study of the effects ofcooperation and competition upon group process.Human Relations, 2: 129-152.

Deutsch, M. 1969. Conflicts: Productive and destructive.Journal of Social Issues, 25: 7-41.

Eisenhardt, K. 1989. Building theory from case studyresearch. Academy of Management Review, 14:532-550.

Eisenhardt, K., & Schoonhoven, C. 1990. Organizationalgrowth: Linking founding team, strategy, environ-ment, and growth among U.S. semiconductor ven-tures, 1978-1988. Administrative Science Quar-terly, 35: 504-529.

Enz, C. 1988. The role of value congruity on intraorgani-zational power. Administrative Science Quarterly,33: 284-304.

Elorin, P., Ciamartino, C. A., Kenny, D. A., & Wanders-man, A. 1990. Levels of analysis and effects: Clarify-ing group influence and climate by separating indi-vidual and group effects. Journal of Applied SocialPsychology, 20: 881-900.

Georgopoulos, B. S. 1986. Organizational structure,problem solving, and effectiveness. San Erancisco:Jossey-Bass.

Gersick, C. 1988. Time and transition in work teams:Toward a new model of group development. Acad-emy of Management Journal, 31: 9-41.

Gersick, C. 1989. Marking time: Predictable transitions intask groups. Academy of Management Journal, 32:274-309.

Greenberg, J., & Folger, R. 1983. Procedural justice, par-ticipation, and the fair process effect in groups andorganizations. In P. B. Paulus (Ed.], Basic groupprocesses: 235-256. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Gruenfeld, D., Mannix, E. A., Williams, K. Y., & Neale,M. A. 1996. Group composition and decision mak-


ing: How member familiarity and information distri-bution affect process and performance. Organiza-tional Behavior and Human Decision Processes,67: 1-15.

Guetzkow, H., & Gyr, J. 1954. An analysis of conflict indecision making groups. Human Relations, 7: 367-381.

Hackman, R. 1987. The design of work teams. In J. Lorsch(Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior: 315-342. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Hambrick, D., Cho, T., & Chen, M. 1996. The influence oftop management team heterogeneity on firms' com-petitive movers. Administrative Science Quarterly,41: 659-684.

Hare, A. P. 1976. Handbook of small group research.New York: Free Press.

Heider, F. 1958. The psychology of interpersonal rela-tionships. New York: Wiley.

Janis, I. L. 1971. Stress and frustration. New York: Har-court Brace Jovanavich.

Janis, I. L. 1982. Victims of groupthink (2nd ed.). Boston:Houghton-Mifflin.

Jehn, K. 1992. The impact of intragroup conflict oneffectiveness: A multimethod examination of thebenefits and detriments of conflict. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation. Northwestern University Grad-uate School of Management, Evanston, IL.

Jehn, K. 1994. Enhancing effectiveness: An investigationof advantages and disadvantages of value-based in-tragroup conflict. International Journal of ConflictManagement, 5: 223-238.

Jehn, K. 1995. A multimethod examination of the bene-fits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Adminis-trative Science Quarterly, 40: 256-282.

Jehn, K. 1997. A qualitative analysis of conflict types anddimensions in organizational groups. Administra-tive Science Quarterly, 42: 530-557.

Jehn, K., Northcraft, G., & Neaie, M. 1999. Why differ-ences make a difference: A field study of diversity,conflict, and performance in workgroups. Adminis-trative Science Quarterly, 44: 741-763.

Jehn, K., & Shah, P. 1997. Interpersonal relationships andtask performance: An examination of mediating pro-cesses in friendship and acquaintance groups. Jour-nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72: 775-790.

Kelley, H. H. 1979. Personal relationships. Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.

Kruglanski, A. W., & Mackie, D. M. 1990. Majority andminority influence: A judgmental process analysis.European Review of Social Psychology, 1: 229-261.

LaCoursiere, R. B. 1980. The life cycle of groups: Groupdevelopmental stage theory. New York: HumanSciences Press.

Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. 1990. Progress in smallgroup research. In M. R. Rosenzweig & L. W. Porter(Eds.), Annual review of psychology, vol. 41: 585-634. Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.

Maier, N. R. F. 1967. Assets and liabilities in groupproblem-solving: The need for an integrative func-tion. Psychological Review, 74: 239-249.

Mannix, E. A., & Loewenstein, G. 1993. Managerial timehorizons and inter-firm mobility: An experimentalinvestigation. Organizational Behavior and Hu-man Decision Processes, 56: 266-284.

Mannix, E. A., Tinsley, C, & Bazerman, M. H. 1995.Negotiating over time: Impediments to integrativesolutions. Organizational Behavior and HumanDecision Processes, 62: 241-251.

March, J. 1994. A primer on decision making. New York:Free Press.

Mason, R. O., & Mitroff, 1.1. 1981. Challenging strategicplanning assumptions. New York: Wiley.

McFeat, T. 1974. Small-group cultures. New York: Per-gamon Press.

McGrath, J. E. 1984. Groups: Interaction and perfor-mance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

McGrath, J. E., & Kelly, J. 1986. Time and human inter-action: Toward a social psychology of time. NewYork: Guilford Press.

Mintzherg, H., Raisinghani, D., & Th^oret, A. 1976. Thestructure of "unstructured" decision processes.Administrative Science Quarterly, 21: 246-275.

Nemeth, C. J. 1986. Differential contributions of majorityand minority influence. Psychological Review, 93:23-32;

Nemeth, C. J., & Staw, B. 1989. The tradeoffs of socialcontrol in groups and organizations. In L. Berkowitz(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology,vol. 22: 175-210. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Newcomb, T. 1956. The prediction of interpersonal at-traction. American Psychologist, 11: 575-586.

Nunnally, J. 1967. Psychometric theory. New York:NcGraw-Hill.

O'Connor, K., Gruenfeld, D., & McGrath, J. 1993. Theexperience and effects of conflict in continuingworkgroups. Small Group Research, 24: 362-382.

O'Reilly, C, Chatman, J., & Caldwell, D. 1991. People,jobs, and organizational culture. Academy of Man-agement Journal, 34: 487-516.

Pelled, L. 1996. Demographic diversity, conflict, andwork group outcomes: An intervening process the-ory. Organization Science, 6: 615-631.

Pinkley, R. 1990. Dimensions of the conflict frame: Dis-putant interpretations of conflict. Journal of Ap-plied Psychology, 75: 117-128.

Roseman, I., Wiest, G, & Swartz, T. 1994. Phenomenol-ogy, behaviors and goals differentiate emotions.


Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67:206-221.

Rousseau, D. M. 1985. Issues of level in organizationalresearch: Multi-level and cross-level perspectives. InL. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research inorganizational behavior, vol. 7: 1-37. Greenwich,CT: JAI Press.

Sackman, S. A. 1992. Ctilture and subcultures: An anal-ysis of organizational knowledge. AdministrativeScience Quarterly, 3: 140-161.

Schachter, S. 1959. The psychology of affiliation. Stan-ford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Schachter, S., & Singer, J. 1962. Cognitive, social andphysiological determinants of emotional state. Psy-chological Review, 69: 379-399.

Schein, E. H. 1985. Organizational culture and leader-ship. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schein, E. H. 1986. What you need to know about organ-izational culture. Training and DevelopmentJournal, 8(1): 30-33.

Schneider, B. 1983. An interactionist perspective on or-ganizational effectiveness. In L. L. Cummings & B.Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior,vol. 5: 1-31. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Schweiger, D., & Sandberg, W. 1989. The utilization ofindividual capabilities in group approaches to stra-tegic decision making. Strategic Management Jour-nal, 10: 31-43.

Schweiger, D., Sandberg, W., & Ragan, J. 1986. Groupapproaches for improving strategic decision making:A comparative analysis of dialectical inquiry, devil'sadvocacy, and consensus approaches to strategic de-cision making. Academy of Management Journal,29: 51-71.

Schweiger, D., Sandberg, W., & Rechner, P. 1989. Expe-riential effects of dialectical inquiry, devil's advo-cacy, and consensus approaches to strategic decisionmaking. Academy of Management Journal, 32:745-772.

Schwenk, C. 1990. Conflict in organizational decisionmaking: An exploratory study of its effects in for-profit and not-for-profit organizations. ManagementScience, 36: 436-448.

Seeger, J. A. 1983. No innate phases in group problemsolving. Academy of Management Review, 8: 683-689.

Shah, P., & Jehn, K. 1993. Do friends perform better thanacquaintances? The interaction of friendship, con-

flict and task. Group Decision and Negotiation, 2:149-166.

Staw, B., Sandelands, L., & Dutton, J. 1981. Threat-rigid-ity effects in organizational behavior: A multilevelanalysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26:501-524.

Tjosvold, D. 1991. Rights and responsibilities of dissent:Cooperative conflict. Employee Responsibilitiesand Rights Journal, 4: 13-23.

Tuckman, B. W. 1965. Developmental sequences in smallgroups. Psychological Bulletin, 63: 384-399.

Valley, K., Neale, M., & Mannix, E. A. 1995. Friends,lovers, colleagues, strangers: The effects of relation-ship on the process and outcome of negotiation. In R.Bies, R. Lewicki, & B. Sheppard (Eds.), Research onnegotiation in organizations: 65—94. Greenwich,CT: JAI Press.

Wageman, R. 1996. The effects of team design and leaderbehavior on self-managing teams: A field study.Working paper, Columbia University, New York.

Wall, V., & Nolan, L. 1986. Perceptions of inequality,satisfaction, and conflict in task oriented groups.Human Relations, 39: 1033-1052.

Wilson, D. C, Butler, R. J., Cray, D., Hickson, D. J., &Mallory, G. R. 1986. Breaking the bounds of organi-zation in strategic decision making. Human Rela-tions, 39: 309-332.

Karen A. Jehn (Ph.D., Northwestern University) is a pro-fessor at the University of Pennsylvania. She conductsresearch on intragroup and intergroup conflict in organi-zations. Her newest work investigates lies and deceit inorganizations. She is the associate director of the So-lomon Asch Center for the Study of Ethnopolitical Con-flict and has published in journals including Adminis-trative Science Quarterly, the Academy of ManagementJournal, and the Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology.

Elizabeth A. Mannix's primary research and teachingactivities include negotiation, coalitions and alliances,team dynamics, and leadership and power in organiza-tions. She recently received two grants from the Centerfor International Business Education for her work onnegotiation in Japan and China. Before coming to CornellUniversity's Johnson School of Management at CornellUniversity as an associate professor, she was a facultymember at Columbia Business School and at the Univer-sity of Chicago (GSB), where she received her Ph.D.Professor Mannix is the coeditor of the book series.Research on Managing Groups and Teams.

THE DYNAMIC NATURE OF CONELICT: A LONGITUDINAL …...® Academy of Management Journal 2001, Vol. 44....

Documents

Transcript of THE DYNAMIC NATURE OF CONELICT: A LONGITUDINAL …...® Academy of Management Journal 2001, Vol. 44....