Intragroup Conflict

International Journal of Conflict Management
ENHANCING EFFECTIVENESS: AN INVESTIGATION OF ADVANTAGES AND

DISADVANTAGES OF VALUE-BASED INTRAGROUP CONFLICT
Karen A. Jehn
Article information:
To cite this document:
Karen A. Jehn, (1994),"ENHANCING EFFECTIVENESS: AN INVESTIGATION OF ADVANTAGES
AND DISADVANTAGES OF VALUE-BASED INTRAGROUP CONFLICT", International Journal of
Conflict Management, Vol. 5 Iss 3 pp. 223 - 238
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/eb022744
Downloaded on: 25 June 2016, At: 20:47 (PT)
Downloaded by University of Leicester At 20:47 25 June 2016 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.

To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 3826 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(1994),"RESOLVING THE PARADOX OF CONFLICT, STRATEGIC DECISION MAKING, AND
ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE", International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 5 Iss 3 pp.
239-253 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/eb022745
(2008),"Nature of virtual teams: a summary of their advantages and disadvantages", Management
Research News, Vol. 31 Iss 2 pp. 99-110 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01409170810846821
(1997),"TO AGREE OR NOT TO AGREE: THE EFFECTS OF VALUE CONGRUENCE, INDIVIDUAL
DEMOGRAPHIC DISSIMILARITY, AND CONFLICT ON WORKGROUP OUTCOMES", International
Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 8 Iss 4 pp. 287-305 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/eb022799
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:471881 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well
as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The International Journal of Conflict Management
1994, Vol. 5, No. 3 (July), pp. 223-238
ENHANCING EFFECTIVENESS: A N
I N V E S T I G A T I O N OF A D V A N T A G E S A N D
D I S A D V A N T A G E S OF V A L U E - B A S E D
INTRAGROUP CONFLICT
Karen A. Jehn
University of Pennsylvania
This study investigates the benefits and detriments of emotional and

task-related conflict in work groups. Group value consensus (GVC), or

the extent to which group members share values, and group value fit
(GVF), or the degree to which the culture of the group matches the ideal
culture envisioned by external parties with control over the group, are
hypothesized to decrease conflict. In examining 88 workgroups per-
forming comparable organizational tasks, it was found that groups with
low levels of value similarity among members and between the group
and governing superiors had higher levels of conflict than groups with
high levels of value sunilarity. As hypothesized, emotional conflict was
negatively associated with group performance and satisfaction, while
task conflict was positively associated with group performance. The
implications of these results for conflict management and group effec-
tiveness are discussed
In the past, organizational conflict theorists have implied that conflict is
detrimental to organizational functioning and research has shown that group con-
flict decreases individual satisfaction and group productivity (Evan, 1965; Glad-
stein, 1984; Schwenk & Cosier, 1993). Alternatively, conflict, under some circum-
stances, may actually be beneficial. Conflict within teams has been shown to
improve decision quality and strategic planning of groups and organizations
(Cosier & Rose, 1977; Eisenhardt & Bourgeois, 1988; Mitroff, Barabba, & Kil-
mann, 1977; Schweiger, Sandberg, & Rechner, 1989). Thus, it is important to
determine whether conflict is always detrimental to organizational functioning, and
if it is not, to identify the situations in which conflict is destructive and those in
which it is productive.
In this study, the values of group members and their governing superiors are
examined as factors which may lead to conflict. Conflict may arise within work
groups or between groups and their superiors due to discrepancies regarding core
values. Conflict is proposed to have either positive or negative effects depending
on the type of conflict (emotional or task) and on the specific outcome considered.
224 ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF INTRAGROUP CONFLICT
In this study, the outcomes of interest are two aspects of group effectiveness vital
to group functioning: group performance and group member satisfaction.
A Model of Intragroup Conflict

Conflict can be defined as an awareness by the parties involved that there are
discrepancies, or incompatible wishes or desires present (Boulding, 1963). Based
on past research (Cosier & Rose, 1977; Guetzkow & Gyr, 1954; Kabanoff, 1991),
two types of conflict are proposed: emotional conflict, or recognized interpersonal
incompatibilities among group members, and task conflict, or disagreements
among group members about the tasks being performed. Emotional conflict con-
tains personal and relationship components characterized by friction, frustration,
and personality clashes within the group (Ross, 1989). Task conflict pertains to
conflict of ideas in the group and disagreement about the content and issues of the
task. Examples of emotional conflict from the present study include:
There was confrontation about things not related to work at all, silly things
like clothes. The people in the team just didn't get along. The group felt a lack
of trust, frustration, and insecurity. There was anger and even tears.
Some group members were so inconsiderate. They played the radio too loud.
There were different personalities too—shy and dominant people. This cre-
ated an imbalance and people became annoyed with each other.
Examples of task conflicts are:
The discussion was about how to correctly calculate relative capacity utiliza-
tion. We couldn't agree. Everyone had his or her own viewpoint and argued
for it.
Some people were sure that the future strategy should be to focus on the
super premium market, while others felt the focus should be the minority
market. There were different interpretations of the key issues. We debated a
long time.
Group Values as Antecedents of Conflict
Groups, as well as organizations, have specific, identifiable cultures (McFeat,
1974; Sackman, 1992). One defining aspect of group culture that guides actions is
the sharing of knowledge and values among group members (Enz, 1988; Sathe,
1983; Schein, 1985). In this study, I propose and examine two dimensions of group
culture, group value consensus (GVC) and group value fit (GVF). GVC is the
extent to which group members have similar work-related values. GVF is the
degree to which the values of group members match the ideal group values envi-
sioned by external parties with control over the group. Values are the beliefs held
by an individual regarding behavioral choices such as choosing business objectives
and actions (Enz, 1988; Rokeach, 1973). Specific examples of group values are
being innovative, being careful, autonomy, adaptability, and informality (O'Reilly,
Chatman, & Caldwell, 1991).
The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 5, No. 3, July 1994

K. A. JEHN 225
When a group has a high level of group value consensus, members will agree
on norms and values regarding work which will promote goal similarity and har-
mony (Nemeth & Staw, 1989). According to Schneider (1983), the similarity of
values among members will influence attraction and therefore decrease interper-
sonal tension. In a strong culture, defined as the intense sharing of values
(O'Reilly, 1989), members develop emotional attachment and understanding which
decreases emotional conflict. When low group value consensus exists, members'
core values and beliefs about their everyday work are challenged, causing friction
and emotional upset (Bar-Tal, 1989; Schein, 1986).
Group value consensus also influences task conflict. Research has shown that
groups with members who have similar values have smoother interaction processes
than groups with dissimilar values (Watson, Kumar, & Michaelsen, 1993). Shared
values increase the likelihood that members will have coordinated action plans
regarding the task which in turn decreases misunderstandings and task-related con-
flict (Denison, 1984). Value diversity is associated with differing points of view
which lead to task conflict (Eisenhardt & Schoonhoven, 1990). It is possible that
group value consensus may provide an atmosphere where task-related conflicts are
more easily expressed. However, research has shown that differing values cause
group members to perceive situations and priorities differently which stimulates
task conflicts (Ravlin & Meglino, 1987). Therefore, the following hypotheses are
proposed:
Hypothesis 1: Group value consensus is negatively associated with emo-
tional conflict.
Hypothesis 2: Group value consensus is negatively associated with task
conflict.
GVF, the degree to which the content of the group's values and the ideals of
the governing superiors are similar, also affects conflict. While members may
agree within the group (high GVC), they may, as a whole, disagrce with their man-
ager (low GVF), which can cause uneasiness and friction within the group. This is
similar to Liedtka's (1989) concept of value congruence, which suggests that low
levels of fit between an individual and the corporation can have negative results.
Similarly, research has shown that incompatible values between merging organi-
zations (Cartwright & Cooper, 1993) and between individuals and organizations
(Chatman, 1988) can produce negative emotions. More specifically, value contra-
dictions between leaders and their followers can be a continuous source of tension
for the group of followers (Gray, Bougon, & Donnellon, 1985). Research has indi-
cated that when groups, or departments, possess different values than upper man-
agement, conflict or non-harmonious situations and perceptions are more likely to
arise (Gregory, 1983; Kemelgor, 1982). When a group and its manager share val-
ues, the group will be more secure in its actions (Enz, 1988), thus decreasing the
likelihood of task-related conflict. If the values of the group do not match the
supervisor's vision for the group, there will be discrepancies in how the work
should be carried out. Members may disagree about whether they should follow the

values of the group or the different goals proposed by the manager. Based on the
above, the following hypotheses are proposed:
Hypothesis 3: Group value fit is negatively associated with emotional con-
flict.
Hypothesis 4: Group value fit is negatively associated with task conflict.
Consequences of Group Conflict: Benefits and Detriments
Research on group conflict, similar to the research on values and diversity,
has demonstrated that conflict can have both negative and positive consequences
on groups and individuals. The two types of conflict (emotional and task) stimu-
lated by value incongruence are examined to determine their varying effects on
behavior and attitudes. Research has demonstrated that affective, personal attacks
decrease group performance (Evan, 1965). When group members are upset with
one another, feel antagonistic toward one another, and are experiencing emotional
conflict, their performance and productivity will suffer (Argyris, 1962). Group
members will focus their efforts on resolving or ignoring the interpersonal con-
flicts, rather than concentrating on task completion (Kelley, 1979).
Hypothesis 5: Emotional conflict is negatively associated with group per-
formance.
On the other hand, disagreement of ideas within a group can be beneficial.
Evidence has shown that conflict within teams can improve decision quality and
strategic planning (Amason & Schweiger, this issue; Cosier & Rose, 1977; Mitroff,
Barabba, & Kilmann, 1977; Schweiger, Sandberg, & Rechner, 1989). Conflict may
also lead to innovation, reevaluation of the status quo, and thus adaptation to one's
situation and increased productivity (Coser, 1970; Nemeth & Staw, 1989). Further,
when members agree with other group members about concepts or actions without
presenting dissenting viewpoints, superior alternatives may be overlooked and
thus, performance may be suboptimal (Janis, 1982; Tjosvold, Dann, & Wong,
1992; Turner, Pratkanis, Probasco, & Leve, 1992). Thus, the following hypothesis
is proposed:
Hypothesis 6: Task conflict is positively associated with group perfor-
mance.
Conflict typically creates uncomfortable feelings and unhappiness. When
people sense personality clashes and friction among group members, they are typi-
cally unsatisfied with their group and fellow group members (Baron, 1990). Task-
related conflict, while potentially beneficial to performance, can still cause anxiety
and uncomfortable feelings among group members (Hoffman, 1978; Roloff, 1987).
Therefore, the following hypotheses are suggested:
Hypothesis 7: Emotional conflict is negatively associated with individual
satisfaction.
Hypothesis 8: Task conflict is negatively associated with individual satis-
faction.

K. A. JEHN 227
Method
Sample
A field study was conducted to examine the relations among group values,
conflict, individual satisfaction, and group performance. The study utilized func-
tioning groups performing comparable organizational tasks. This quasi-experi-
mental study combined the benefits of control in the laboratory (i.e., similarity of
the task, comparable outcome measures) and the generalizability of field studies
(Cook & Campbell, 1979).
The sample consisted of 440 participants who were primarily full-time
employees at various organizations and part-time students at two midwestern busi-
ness schools. On average, the participants had previously worked 25% time for 7.6
years and were currently working 32.3 hours per week. Thirty-nine percent were
employed in manufacturing, 29% in financial institutions, 18% in consulting firms,
4% in advertising, and 10% in other organizations. Their average age was 27.5.
Fifty-seven percent were male, 32% were female, and 11% were foreign. All of the
participants were enrolled in a general business course which included an hour and
a half lecture on group interaction and conflict management, as well as lectures on
human resource management and organizational design and strategy. While the
participants were aware that they were involved in a group project in which their
performance would be measured, they were blind to the hypotheses of the study.
The participants were debriefed at the completion of the study.
Procedure
Eighty-eight groups of five participants were randomly formed. Before group
formation, the participants' values were assessed as part of an introductory exer-
cise. The ideal group values espoused by the groups' superiors were also assessed
at this time. The groups worked together as a consulting team over a period of ten
weeks on a project involving the strategy formation and development of an actual
firm. Team members worked together as a group, on average, 11.4 hours each
week. This time was spent performing tasks typical in organizational groups such
as task distribution, analysis of company reports and financial data, problem identi-
fication, discussion of strategic alternatives, and report preparation. The teams also
met with the organization's employees and executives, took part in organizational
meetings, and made formal presentations. The final product of the group was a
ten-page report identifying a problem area in strategy formulation within the firm,
analyzing the problem, and making specific recommendations. At the completion
of the project, a questionnaire was administered to the members of the groups
regarding conflict and member attitudes, and performance of the final group
reports was rated.

Measurement
Group Value Consensus. This was determined by group scores on the Orga-
nizational Culture Profile (OCP) (O'Reilly, Chatman, & Caldwell, 1991). The OCP
is based on the Q-sort profile comparison process (Block, 1978; Bern & Funder,
1978) and is useful for identifying the central values of individuals and for assess-
ing the similarity among group members' values (Chatman, 1989,1991). The OCP
consists of 54 items sorted by a Q-sort technique into 9 categories ("most impor-
tant" to "most unimportant") reflecting the sorter's individual values. Examples of
the value statements are being careful, being innovative, being detail oriented, and
sharing responsibility. It has been shown that the test-retest reliability of the OCP
is quite high over one year [r (979) = .74; Chatman, 1988]. Convergent validity has
also been demonstrated by a significant positive correlation between person-
organization value fit (measured by the OCP) and normative commitment based on
value similarity [r (233) = .28,p < .05; O'Reilly et al., 1991]. In addition, the OCP
was examined for a social desirability bias, and it was found that individuals do not
sort the deck with the intentions of making themselves look good (Chatman, 1991).
To determine GVC, each group member sorted the deck regarding the values
s/he perceived as important when working in an organizational group. A coeffi-
cient a was then computed to assess the extent of consensus among group mem-
bers regarding their value profile of the 54 items. The coefficient a when using a
Q-sort represents the degree to which group members have similar values
(Nunnally, 1967). The range of GVC was -.14 to .88. Means and standard devia-
tions of the variables in the model are shown in Table 2.
Group Value Fit. This was also measured using the OCP. Each class profes-
sor sorted the deck to reflect the values s/he perceived to be "ideal" for groups
working in an organization. In this situation, the class professor is an external,
governing superior with control over the team. For example, a professor has formal
sanctioning power in administering grades and reprimands. S/he also sets the
guiding values for the team by outlining the rewarded norms and values in class
syllabi, introductory statements, and repeated comments regarding what is
expected of participants and groups. Each professor also provides guidance to the
team and monitors the progress of the organizational project. The superior's profile
was then correlated with the group's value profile to determine the group's GVF
(Chatman, 1988). This correlation represents the degree to which the group has a
value profile similar to the values that their superior believed necessary for an
"ideal" work group. The range of GVF was -.28 to .56.
Intragroup Conflict. This was measured by eight items regarding the pres-
ence of emotional and task conflict (see Table 1) based on Rahim's (1983) intra-
group conflict subscale. The 5-point Likert scale was anchored by 1 = "None" and
5 = "A lot." The Cronbach as for the subscales of emotional conflict and task con-
flict were .83 and .79, respectively, which are consistent with past studies using
this measure (Jehn, 1992; Shah & Jehn, 1993). Group members also wrote
descriptions of actual conflicts that occurred within their group during the project.

K. A. JEHN 229
These descriptions were used to validate the type and level of conflict within the
group. Four raters blind to the results of the questionnaire rated the level of emo-
tional and task conflict within each group. These ratings correlated, on average, .75
with the self-report measures of conflict.
Table 1
Factor Analysis or Conflict Items
Items Factor 1 Factor 2

Emotional Task
1. How much friction is present in your

work group? .88 .30
2. To what extent are personality clashes
present in your work group? .81 .13
3. How much anger is present in your

work group? .76 .29
4. How much emotional conflict is there
in your work group? .66 .19
5. To what extent are there differences
of opinions regarding the task in
your work group? .17 .99
6. How often do people in your work group
disagree about the work being done? .04 .83
7. How frequently are there disagreements
about the task you are working on in
your work group? .10 .76
8. How often do people in your work group
disagree about ideas regarding the task? .31 .49
Eigenvalue 2.6 1.3

% of variance explained 42.0 29.0
Individual Satisfaction With Group Membership. This was measured with

an item cast on a 5-point Likert scale and the Kunin (1955) faces scale which asks
group members to circle the face which indicates how happy they were working in
their group. Face 1 is a very sad face and face 7 is a very happy face. The Cron-
bach a for this scale was .88.
Group Performance. This was measured by ratings of the group's final pro-
ject report. The scale, developed by the eight faculty, ranged from 1 to 26, with 26
being the highest score. Points were awarded for thoroughness of problem identifi-
cation, accurate financial analysis and conclusions, and appropriate recommenda-
tions to the firm. Each project was rated by two independent raters and the average
inter-rater reliability across raters was .94.

Results
Principal components analysis and oblique rotation of the 440 responses was
used to distinguish the conflict types. A two-factor solution was suggested by
eigenvalues above 1.0 and by the scree plot as can be seen in Table 1. The items on
the first factor represent emotional conflict (i.e., friction, anger). The second factor
represents conflict of task issues regarding the project (i.e., disagreements about
ideas, differences of opinions). The two factors accounted for 71% of the variance
in responses.
Intercorrelations among the variables in the model are shown in Table 2. As
expected, higher levels of GVC and GVF were associated with lower levels of
emotional conflict and task conflict. Both task and emotional conflict were nega
tively correlated with satisfaction. In addition, emotional conflict was negatively
associated with performance, while task conflict was positively associated with
performance. The two conflict variables were correlated. Collinearity analyses
were conducted according to Cohen and Cohen (1983) and Hair, Anderson, and
Tatham (1984) indicating that the regression results were not significantly influ
enced by the multicollinearity.
Table 2
Means, Standard Deviations, and Zero-Order Correlations Among Variables
Variables M SD Correlations
1 2 3 4 5
1. Group Value Consensus .34 .12

2. Group Value Fit .28 .16 -.01
3. Emotional Conflict 3.02 .90 -.26*** -.29***
4. Task Conflict 2.39 .80 -.16* -.22** .26**
5. Satisfaction 2.50 1.35 .33*** .32*** -.60*** -.12*
6. Performance 21.03 2.34 .17** .15** -.40*** .38*** .07
*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001 (two-tailed); N = 88

Table 3 presents the regression analyses which examine the relations among
GVC, GVF, emotional conflict, task conflict and individual satisfaction and per
formance. Following Rousseau's (1985) recommendations for cross-level analyses,
the level of analysis for each regression analysis was based on the dependent vari
able. For example, to test the group level hypotheses regarding group performance,
average conflict scores were calculated for each group. An ε2 was calculated for
each conflict variable using a nested ANOVA technique (Kenny & LaVoie, 1985).
If the ε2 is zero, then group members are no more similar than members chosen
from across groups. If the ε2 is one, all group members have exactly the same
score. Georgopoulos (1986) has suggested that an ε2 of above .20 indicates that it
is appropriate to aggregate the variables for group level analyses suggesting that
two people within the same group are more similar than two people who are mem-
K. A. JEHN 231
bers of different groups (Florin et al., 1990). The ε2 was found to be above .50 for
each of the conflict variables. Since the results in this study greatly exceed Geor-
gopoulos' minimum, the scores were aggregated to the group level for the group
level analysis of performance.
Table 3
Regression of Group Values and of Intragroup Conflict on Effectiveness
Independent Dependent Variables

Variables
Emotional Task Performance Satisfaction
Conflict Conflict
(H1,H3) (H2,H4) (H5,H6) (H7,H8)
β β β β
Group Value Consensus -.24*** -.21**

Group Value Fit -.30*** -.26***
Emotional Conflict -.37*** -.62***
Task Conflict .34*** .04
R2 .14 .11 .22 .36
Adjusted R2 .13 .10 .20 .35
F(2,85) 12.30*** 8.93*** 21.23*** 42.12***
Note: F-ratio df = 1,86 for each β

*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001
Hypotheses 1-4 were supported: As group value consensus and group value
fit increase, emotional conflict and task conflict decrease. The greater the similar
ity of members' values and the greater the fit between the group's values and the
governing superior, the less likely there is to be conflict within the group. As pre
dicted in Hypotheses 5 and 7, emotional conflict was negatively related to group
performance and member satisfaction. In addition, task conflict was positively
related to group performance (Hypothesis 6), but was not significantly related to
satisfaction (Hypothesis 8).
The three regression equations suggested by Baron and Kenny (1986) were
performed to test the mediating role of emotional conflict. First, emotional conflict
(mediator) was regressed on the group value variables (independent variables:
group value consensus and group value fit) and found to be significant (β = -.24, p
< .001; β = -.30, p < .001, respectively). Task conflict (mediator) was also
regressed on group value consensus and group value fit and found to be significant
(β = -.21,p) < .001; β = -.26,p < .001, respectively). Second, group value consen
sus and group value fit were significantly related to the dependent variables: per
formance (β = .18, p < .05; β = .33, p < .001, respectively) and satisfaction (β =
.26, p < .001; p = 33, p < .001, respectively). And third, the effect of the group
value variables (group value fit and group value consensus, respectively) became

nonsignificant or had a substantially lower effect when the conflict variables were
included in the regression analyses on performance (β = -.01,p = ns; β = -.03,p =
ns, respectively) and satisfaction (β = .13, p = ns; β = .17, p < .05, respectively).
Thus, the mediating role of conflict on performance and satisfaction was con
firmed.
Discussion
Conflict is ubiquitous in groups and organizations. Past theorizing and
research have provided contradictory results as to whether conflict is a help or hin
drance in work groups. This study provides an explanation for the inconsistencies
of previous research by examining two types of intragroup conflict with differing
effects on performance. Specifically, the findings indicate that emotional conflicts
among group members are associated with decreases in performance, while task-
focused conflicts are associated with increases in performance. When there are
interpersonal altercations and animosity among group members, performance will

suffer. Members will be more concerned with resolving the interpersonal problems
than with effectively completing their tasks. In contrast, disagreements related to
the task can improve decision making and task performance. The increased number
of opinions and critical evaluation enhances effectiveness (Allison, 1971; Tjosvold,
Dann, & Wong, 1992).
It is important that managers and leaders are able to distinguish between the
two types of conflict so that they can resolve emotional conflict and at the same
time promote productive task conflicts. This study illustrates that emotional con
flicts can be identified by affective components such as frustration, friction, ten
sion, and dislike among members. Task conflicts, as described by group members,
are typically devoid of the interpersonal problems characteristic of emotional con
flict. Task conflicts can be identified by managers or group leaders as differing
viewpoints and ideas related to the task. They carry the intensity of emotional con
flicts, but not the interpersonal animosity. While a group may have high levels of
both emotional and task conflict, it can also have high task conflict with no inter
personal repercussions. This seems to be the ideal situation for productive task
groups. Emotional conflicts also occur independent of task-related problems. For
example, members may argue about issues not directly related to work or the
immediate task, such as community events or hobbies. If such emotional conflict
escalates in a group, managers may need to assist with conflict management tech
niques or to restructure the department and change group assignments. To stimu
late task conflicts, managers and team leaders must create an environment in which
members can openly voice opinions, especially dissenting ones, without threaten
ing interpersonal relations (Brett, 1991; Tjosvold, 1991).
Not surprisingly, emotional conflict was associated with a decrease in indi
vidual satisfaction; however, contrary to expectations, task conflict did not have a
negative impact on satisfaction. Task conflict may increase members' curiosity and
perceptions of voice, thus generating positive attitudes (Deutsch, 1969). In addi-

K. A. JEHN 233
tion, if the conflicts are not presented as personal attacks, they can actually inten-
sify the relationships (Coser, 1970) and increase satisfaction (Hoffman, 1978).
These positive attributes of task conflict may have outweighed the negative impact
in this study. The relationship between task conflict and employee attitudes such as
satisfaction may be more complex, and thus warrant future investigation.
There is also a dynamic nature of conflict that needs to be considered. While
the group members were able to distinguish between task and emotional conflict,
that does not preclude the idea that task conflict may turn into emotional conflict if
not adequately managed. According to Deutsch (1969), conflict has a tendency to
escalate and expand, often leaving the initial cause behind and forgotten. If the task
conflict continues without members perceiving some degree of resolution, mem-
bers may begin to take attacks personally. Consider the situation when a group
member has been offering an alternative solution that is continually shot down by
the other group members: although the discussion is entirely task-related, the
member may begin to feel that the rejection is personal. S/he may begin to rely on
threat and deception rather than the enhancement of mutual goodwill, understand-
ing, and affable, intelligent discussion. In addition, an emotional conflict may be
manifested in a task-related issue. For example, if one member has interpersonal
problems with other members, s/he may disagree with any task-related idea put
forth by those members. Theorists (Tuckman, 1965; McGrath, 1984) have devel-
oped models of group formation and development, but they have not specifically
identified the continuing and changing role of conflict in their models. In this
study, emotional conflict in the groups was low early on and then began to increase
around the midpoint of the project. This is consistent with Gersick's (1989) discus-
sion of punctuated equilibrium and a midpoint in groups' lifetimes. At the midpoint
there was an increase in activity and emotional conflict while the groups readjusted
their strategy. The transformation of conflict over time and the latent and manifest
aspects of conflict are areasrichin research opportunities.
As expected, diversity of values among group members increased the conflict
within the group. In addition, the greater the discrepancy between the group's val-
ues and the group's governing superior's values, the greater the amount of emo-
tional and task conflict. Since values influence conflict, which in turn affects per-
formance, managers will benefit by assessing the work values of group members.
This can be accomplished by using an instrument such as the Organizational Cul-
ture Profile (O'Reilly et al., 1991). In this study, the values most frequently found
in groups with high levels of emotional conflict were being aggressive, working
long hours, confronting conflict directly, and being demanding. The values most
characteristic of groups with high levels of task-related conflict were sharing
information freely, having a detail orientation, and having an action orientation.
Not surprisingly, these are values that encourage discussion and constructive criti-
cism. It is also interesting to note that the highest performing groups found it
important to value praise for good performance, sharing information freely, having
high expectations for performance, emphasizing quality, paying attention to detail,
being supportive, and being collaborative. The groups with the most satisfied
members valued tolerance, sharing information freely, and being team-oriented.

They typically did not value being competitive, confronting conflict directly, risk-
taking, or being aggressive.
While managers typically cannot alter the fundamental values of employees,
they often have control over who will work with whom. To produce a high level of
performance, a group should consist of members with varying values, but the pro-
cess by which these differences are manifested will need to be carefully managed
since value differences can also increase emotional conflict. If the diverse values
of members provoke discussions of various options and constructive criticism,
increased effectiveness is likely; however, if the differing values cause interper-
sonal tensions, interference with task completion and effectiveness may occur. In
addition, when the values of group members and those of their superiors are too
similar, a groupthink situation may occur which can decrease the effectiveness of
the group (Allison, 1971; Janis, 1982; Turner & Pratkanis, this issue). The critical
evaluation that occurs when groups challenge their manager or leader can enhance
task performance. According to the results of this study, to reduce detrimental con-
flict (i.e., emotional conflict) and to increase productive, task-related conflict,
group members and their superiors need to recognize and manage not only the type
of values the group shares but the discrepancies in norms and values.
Future research should also examine the relationship between conflict and
group effectiveness more closely, possibly by expanding the model to include
other group characteristics such as task type, member interdependence, and con-
flict management. While task conflict was beneficial to groups performing the
problem-solving, consultation task in this study, it may be a detriment to groups
performing more routine, assembly-line tasks. Task-related conflicts can be bene-
ficial because they increase alternative generation, constructive criticism, and pri-
ority ordering. In fact, the lack of conflict can cause conformity and complacency
(Janis, 1982). However, as stated earlier, task-related conflicts can escalate into
emotional conflicts if not managed successfully. Therefore, group members must
focus on issue-oriented problem solving rather than making things personal issues
and attacking people.
There are a number of limitations to this study. While this study examined
groups working in organizations for a brief time (10 weeks) performing tasks sim-
ilar to long-term groups, extending the research to ongoing organizational work
groups such as executive teams and departmental groups would increase the gener-
alizability of the results and applicability of the model. In addition, there may be a
contaminating factor in the measure of performance. It is possible that the profes-
sors were aware of the level of conflict in the group and rated papers lower if they
knew the group had interpersonal problems or higher if they witnessed vigorous
discussion. More likely is that professors sensed a fit between their values and
certain groups and therefore looked favorably on these groups in the rating process.
While multiple raters were used, it is possible that the professor could identify the
group because of the specific project andfirm.In future studies, projects should be
judged by raters blind to group membership.
K. A. JEHN 235
In sum, this study examined the advantages and disadvantages of value-based

conflict in work groups. Groups possessing low levels of value similarity among
members and between the group and governing superiors have higher levels of
conflict than groups with high levels of value similarity. In addition, emotional
conflicts in work groups negatively influence group performance and member sat-
isfaction. In contrast, task conflicts have a positive impact on group performance.
Both researchers and managers must be aware that various types of conflict differ-
entially influence group outcomes and that the values of both the group and its
leaders affect the type of conflicts present in work groups.
References
Allison, G. (1971). Essence of decision: Explaining the Cuban missile crisis. Boston, MA:
Little, Brown.
Argyris, C. (1962). Interpersonal competence and organizational effectiveness. Homewcod,

IL: Dorsey Press.
Baron, R. (1990). Countering the effects of destructive criticism: The relative efficacy of
four interventions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 235-245.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51,1173-1182.
Bar-Tal, D. (1989). Group beliefs: A conception for analyzing group structure, processes,
and behavior. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Bern, D. J., & Funder, D. C. (1978). Predicting more of the people more of the time:
Assessing the personality of situations. Psychological Review, 85,485-501.
Block, J. (1978). The Q-sort method in personality assessment and psychiatric research.
Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Boulding, K. (1963). Conflict and defense. New York: Harper & Row.
Brett, J. M. (1991). Negotiating group decisions. Negotiation Journal, 3, 291-310.
Brown, L. D. (1983). Managing conflict at organizational interfaces. Reading, MA: Addi-
son-WesIey.
Cartwright, S., & Cooper, G. L. (1993). The role of culture compatibility in successful orga-
nizational marriage. Academy of Management Executive, 7, 57-70.
Chatman, J. A. (1988). Matching people and organizations: Selection and socialization in
public accounting firms. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. School of Business Admin-
istration, University of California, Berkeley.
Chatman, J. A. (1989). Improving interactional organizational research: A model of per-
son-organizationfit.Academy of Management Review, 14, 333-349.
Chatman, J. A. (1991). Matching people and organizations: Selection and socialization in
public accounting firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 459-484.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the
behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design & analysis issues
forfieldsettings. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Coser, L. A. (1970). Continuities in the study of social conflict. New York: Free Press.
Cosier, R., & Rose, G. (1977). Cognitive conflict and goal conflict effects on task perfor-
mance. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 19, 378-391.

Deutsch, M. (1969). Conflicts: Productive and destructive. Journal of Social Issues, 25,
7-41.
Denison, D. R. (1984). Bringing corporate culture to the bottom line. Organizational
Dynamics, 13 (4), 5-22.
Eisenhardt, K., & Bourgeois, L. (1988). Politics of strategic decision making in high-veloc-
ity environments: Toward a midrange theory. Academy of Management Journal, 31,
737-770.
Eisenhardt, K., & Schoonhoven, C. (1990). Organizational growth: Linking founding team,
strategy, environment, and growth among U.S. semiconductor ventures, 1978-1988.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 504-529.
Enz, C. (1988). The role of value congruity in intraorganizational power. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 33, 284-304.
Evan, W. (1965). Conflict and performance in R&D organizations. Industrial Management
Review, 7, 37-46.
Florin, P., Giamartino, G., Kenny, D., & Wandersman, A. (1990). Levels of analysis and
effects: Clarifying group influence and climate by separating individual and group
effects. Journal of Applied Social Psycliology, 20, 881-900.

Gersick, C. (1989). Marking time: Predictable transitions in task groups. Academy of Man-
agement Journal, 32, 274-309.
Georgopoulos, B. S. (1986). Organizational structure, problem solving, and effectiveness.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Gladstein, D. (1984). A model of task group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quar-
terly, 29, 499-517.
Gray, B., Bougon, M. G., & Donnellon, A. (1985). Organizations as constructions and
destructions of meaning. Journal of Management, 11, 83-98.
Gregory, K. (1983). Native-view paradigms: Multiple cultures and culture conflicts in orga-
nizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 331-338.
Guetzkow, H., & Gyr, J. (1954). An analysis of conflict in decision-making groups. Human
Relations, 7, 367-381.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (1984). Multivariate data analysis (2nd ed.).
New York: Macmillan.
Hoffman, L. R. (1978). The group problem-solving process. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Group
processes (pp. 101-114). New York: Academic Press.
Janis, I. L. (1982). Groupthink (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin.
Jehn, K. A. (1992). The impact of intragroup conflict on effectiveness: A multimethod
examination of the benefits and detriments of conflict. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.
Kabanoff, B. (1991). Equity, equality, power, and conflict. Academy of Management
Review, 16, 416-441.
Kelley, H. H. (1979). Personal relationships: Their structure and prophecies. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Kemelgor, B. H. (1982). Job satisfaction as mediated by the value congruity of supervisors
and their subordinates. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 3,147-160.
Kenny, D. A., & LaVoie, L. (1985). Separating individual and group effects. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 48, 339-348.
Kunin, T. (1955). The construction of a new type of attitude measure. Personnel Psychol-
ogy, 8, 65-78.

K. A. JEHN 237
Liedtka, J. (1989). Managerial values and corporate decision-making: An empirical analysis

of value congruence in two organizations. Research in Corporate Social Performance
and Policy, 11, 55-91.
McFeat, T. (1974). Small-group cultures. New York: Pergamon Press.
McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Pren-
tice-Hall.
Mitroff, J., Barabba, N., & Kilmann, R. (1977). The application of behavioral and philo-
sophical technologies to strategic planning: A case study of a large federal agency.
Management Science, 24, 44-58.
Neroeth, C. J., & Staw, B. M. (1989). The tradeoffs of social control in groups and organi-
zations. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 175-210.
Nunnally, J. (1967). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
O'Reilly, C. A. (1989). Corporations, culture, and commitment: Motivation and social con-
trol in organizations. California Management Review, 31, 9-25.
O'Reilly, C. A., Chatman, J. A., & Caldwell, D. F. (1991) People, jobs, and organizational
culture. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 487-516.
Rahim, M. A. (1983). Measurement of organizational conflict. Journal of General Psychol-

ogy, 109, 188-199.
Ravlin, E. C , & Meglino, B. M. (1987). Effects of values on perception an decision making:
A study of alternative work value measures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72,
666-673.
Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: The Free Press.
Roloff, M. E. (1987). Communication and conflict. In C. R. Berger & S. H. Chaffee (Eds.),
Handbook of communication science (pp. 484-534). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Ross, R. (1989). Conflict. In R. Ross & J. Ross (Eds.), Small groups in organizational set-
tings (pp. 139-178). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Rousseau, D. M. (1985). Issues of level in organization research: Multi-level and cross-level
perspectives. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational
behavior (Vol. 7, pp. 1-37). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Sackman, S. A. (1992). Culture and subcultures: An analysis of organizational knowledge.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 3, 140-161.
Sathe, V. (1983). Culture and related corporate realities. Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Schein, E. H. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Schein, E. H. (1986). What you need to know about organizational culture. Training and
Development Journal, 8 (1), 30-33.
Schneider, B. (1983). An interactionist perspective on organizational effectiveness. In L. L.
Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 1-31).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Schweiger, D., Sandberg, W., & Rechner, P. (1989). Experiential effects of dialectical
inquiry, devil's advocacy, and consensus approaches to strategic decision making.
Academy of Management Journal, 32, 745-772.
Schwenk, C , & Cosier, R. (1993). Effects of consensus and devil's advocacy on strategic
decision-making. Journal ofApplied Social Psychology, 23, 126-139.
Shah, P. P., & Jehn, K. A. (1993). Do friends perform better than acquaintances? The inter-
action of friendship, conflict, and task. Group Decision and Negotiation, 2, 149-165.
Tjosvold, D. 1991. Rights and responsibilities of dissent: Cooperative conflict. Employee
Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 4,13-23.

Tjosvold, D., Dann, V., & Wong, C. (1992). Managing conflict between departments to
serve customers. Human Relations, 45,1035-1054.
Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequences in small groups. Psychological Bulletin,
63, 384-399.
Turner, M. E., Pratkanis, A. R., Probasco, P., & Leve, C. (1992). Threat, cohesion, and
group effectiveness: Testing a social identity maintenance perspective on groupthink.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 781-796.
Watson, W. E., Kumar, K., & Michaelsen, L. K. (1993). Cultural diversity's impact on inter-
action process and performance: Comparing homogeneous and diverse task groups.
Academy of Management Journal, 36, 590-602.
Biographical Note
Karen A. Jehn
Wharton School
University of Pennsylvania
2000 Steinberg Hall-Dietrich Hall
Philadelphia, PA 19104-6370
Phone/Fax: 215-898-7722/0401
E-mail: Kjehn@wharton.upenn.edu
Dr. Jehn is an Assistant Professor of Management at the Wharton School of the
University of Pennsylvania. Her current research is in the areas of intragroup and
intergroup conflict, strategic decision-making, deception in organizations, and
cross-industry and cross-national comparisons of values, goals, and conflict styles.
Received: November 3,1993

Accepted after two revisions: June 15,1994

This article has been cited by:
1. Yuntao Bai, Li Lin, Peter Ping Li. 2016. How to enable employee creativity in a team context:
A cross-level mediating process of transformational leadership. Journal of Business Research 69:9,
3240-3250. [CrossRef]
2. Ekaterina S. Bjornali, Mirjam Knockaert, Truls Erikson. 2016. The Impact of Top Management
Team Characteristics and Board Service Involvement on Team Effectiveness in High-Tech Start-
Ups. Long Range Planning 49:4, 447-463. [CrossRef]
3. Vicente González-Romá, Ana Hernández. 2016. Uncovering the dark side of innovation: the influence
of the number of innovations on work teams’ satisfaction and performance. European Journal of Work
and Organizational Psychology 25:4, 570-582. [CrossRef]
4. Saskia Crucke, Mirjam Knockaert. 2016. When Stakeholder Representation Leads to Faultlines.
A Study of Board Service Performance in Social Enterprises. Journal of Management Studies 53:5,
768-793. [CrossRef]
5. Malte F. Jung. 2016. Coupling Interactions and Performance: Predicting Team Performance from
Thin Slices of Conflict. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 23:3, 1-32. [CrossRef]
6. MedinaMichele N. Michele N. Medina Department of Management, University of North Texas,
Denton, Texas, USA . 2016. Conflict, individual satisfaction with team, and training motivation.
Team Performance Management: An International Journal 22:3/4, 223-239. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
7. Simone Kauffeld, Lisa Handke, Julia Straube. 2016. Verteilt und doch verbunden: Virtuelle
Teamarbeit. Gruppe. Interaktion. Organisation. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Organisationspsychologie
(GIO) 47:1, 43-51. [CrossRef]
8. Dorothy Ai-wan Yen, Ibrahim Abosag. 2016. Localization in China: How guanxi moderates Sino–
US business relationships. Journal of Business Research . [CrossRef]
9. Tracy R. Harmon-Kizer. 2016. Identity Distancing and Targeted Advertisements: The Black Sheep
Effect. Journal of Promotion Management 22:3, 321-348. [CrossRef]
10. Jungst Martijn Martijn Jungst Martijn Jungst, since January 2012, is PhD candidate at the
Department of Organization and Strategy, Maastricht University School of Business and Economics.
He received his master’s degree in Management, Change and Consultancy and holds a degree
in Information Management. His main research interests include group dynamics, social network
and cross cultural diversity. Next to his research, Mr Jungst is also dedicated to his teaching.
His teaching topics include Comparative Management, Leadership, Organizational change and
consultancy and Management of Organizations. Blumberg Boris Boris Blumberg Boris Blumberg is
Assistant Professor and Academic Director of MBA programs in the Department of Organization and
Strategy at Maastricht University, The Netherlands. His research focus mainly on entrepreneurship,
networks and methodology. Boris has published in refereed international journals such as Small
Business Economics, Organization Studies and Entrepreneurship & Regional Development. He
has served on the editorial boards of International Sociology (2004-2009), Journal of Small
Business Management (2010 – present) and Organizational Research Methods (2013 – present).
Department of Organization and Strategy, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands .
2016. Work relationships: counteracting the negative effects of conflict. International Journal of
Conflict Management 27:2, 225-248. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
11. Kristin L. Cullen-Lester, Hannes Leroy, Alexandra Gerbasi, Lisa Nishii. 2016. Energy's role in the
extraversion (dis)advantage: How energy ties and task conflict help clarify the relationship between
extraversion and proactive performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior n/a-n/a. [CrossRef]
12. David N. Prata, Patrick Letouze, Stefano Cerri, Evandro Costa. 2016. A Game Approach to Assessing
Learning Outcomes. International Journal of Information and Education Technology 6:2, 137-142.
[CrossRef]
13. Kang Yang Trevor Yu. 2016. Inter-Relationships among Different Types of Person-Environment Fit
and Job Satisfaction. Applied Psychology 65:1, 38-65. [CrossRef]
14. Ana Célia Araújo-Simões, Sônia Maria Guedes-Gondim. 2016. Performance and affects in group
problem-solving. Revista de Psicología del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones 32:1, 47-54. [CrossRef]
15. Kenneth Kyunghyun Huh, Martin KuncSupporting Strategy: Behavioral Influences on Resource
Conceptualization Processes 337-356. [CrossRef]
16. Talia Berman-Kishony, Shifra Shvarts. 2015. Universal versus tailored solutions for alleviating
disruptive behavior in hospitals. Israel Journal of Health Policy Research 4:1. . [CrossRef]
17. Mohammad Saud Khan, Robert J. Breitenecker, Veronika Gustafsson, Erich J. Schwarz. 2015.
Innovative Entrepreneurial Teams: The Give and Take of Trust and Conflict. Creativity and
Innovation Management 24:4, 558-573. [CrossRef]
18. Ulrich Kaiser, Bettina Müller. 2015. Skill heterogeneity in startups and its development over time.
Small Business Economics 45:4, 787-804. [CrossRef]

19. Stephen M. Fiore Dorothy R. Carter Raquel Asencio Conflict, Trust, and Cohesion: Examining
Affective and Attitudinal Factors in Science Teams 271-301. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
20. Erich B. Bergiel Department of Management, Richards College of Business, University of West
Georgia, Carrollton, Georgia, USA Thomas W. Gainey Department of Management, Richards
College of Business, University of West Georgia, Carrollton, Georgia, USA Blaise J. Bergiel
Department of Marketing, Richards College of Business, University of West Georgia, Carrollton,
Georgia, USA . 2015. Understanding the relationship between mental models, conflict and conflict
asymmetry. Team Performance Management: An International Journal 21:7/8, 320-338. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
21. Yang Woon Chung Department of Management, Dongguk University, Seoul, Korea . 2015. The
mediating effects of organizational conflict on the relationships between workplace ostracism
with in-role behavior and organizational citizenship behavior. International Journal of Conflict
Management 26:4, 366-385. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
22. Keanon Alderson California Baptist University, Riverside, CA, USA . 2015. Conflict management
and resolution in family-owned businesses. Journal of Family Business Management 5:2, 140-156.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
23. Tom L. Roberts, Paul H. Cheney, Paul D. SweeneyProject Characteristics and Group
Communication: An Investigation 336-350. [CrossRef]
24. Alfredo De Massis, Josip Kotlar, Giovanna Campopiano, Lucio Cassia. 2015. The Impact of Family
Involvement on SMEs’ Performance: Theory and Evidence. Journal of Small Business Management
53:4, 924-948. [CrossRef]
25. Isabel Dórdio Dimas, Paulo Renato Lourenço. 2015. Intragroup Conflict and Conflict Management
Approaches as Determinants of Team Performance and Satisfaction: Two Field Studies. Negotiation
and Conflict Management Research 8:3, 174-193. [CrossRef]
26. Jane K. Lê, Paula A. Jarzabkowski. 2015. The Role of Task and Process Conflict in Strategizing.
British Journal of Management 26:3, 439-462. [CrossRef]
27. Alicia Arenas, José-María León-Pérez, Lourdes Munduate, Francisco J. Medina. 2015. Workplace
bullying and interpersonal conflicts: the moderation effect of supervisor’s power / Acoso laboral
y conflictos interpersonales: el papel moderador de las bases de poder del supervisor. Revista de
Psicología Social 30:2, 295-322. [CrossRef]
28. Mirjam Knockaert, Ekaterina S. Bjornali, Truls Erikson. 2015. Joining forces: Top management
team and board chair characteristics as antecedents of board service involvement. Journal of Business
Venturing 30:3, 420-435. [CrossRef]
29. Karen A. Jehn Melbourne Business School, Melbourne, Australia Frank R. C. De Wit Melbourne
Business School, Melbourne, Australia Manuela Barreto University of Exeter, Exeter, UK Floor
Rink University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands . 2015. Task conflict asymmetries:
effects on expectations and performance. International Journal of Conflict Management 26:2, 172-191.
30. Ana Isabel Sanz-Vergel, Alfredo Rodríguez-Muñoz, Karina Nielsen. 2015. The thin line between
work and home: The spillover and crossover of daily conflicts. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology 88:1, 1-18. [CrossRef]
31. Jacob Guinot Department of Business Administration and Marketing, Universitat Jaume I, Castellón,
Spain Ricardo Chiva Department of Business Administration and Marketing, Universitat Jaume I,
Castellón, Spain Fermín Mallén Department of Business Administration and Marketing, Universitat
Jaume I, Castellón, Spain . 2015. The effects of altruism and relationship conflict on organizational
learning. International Journal of Conflict Management 26:1, 85-112. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
32. Stewart Clegg, Elisabeth Naima Mikkelsen, Graham SewellConflict: Organizational 639-643.
[CrossRef]
33. Jonas Puck, Ursula Pregernig. 2014. The effect of task conflict and cooperation on performance of
teams: Are the results similar for different task types?. European Management Journal 32:6, 870-878.
[CrossRef]
34. WILLIAM R. MEEK, DIANE M. SULLIVAN, JOHN MUELLER. 2014. GENDER
DIFFERENCES IN ENTREPRENEURIAL RELATIONSHIPS WITHIN THE FRANCHISE
CONTEXT. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship 19:04, 1450026. [CrossRef]
35. Richard A Posthuma Karen A. Jehn Melbourne Business School, University of Melbourne,
Melbourne, Australia Pirathat Techakesari School of Psychology, University of Queensland,
Brisbane, Australia . 2014. High reliability teams: new directions for disaster management and
conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management 25:4, 407-430. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
36. Yuanqiong He School of Management, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan,
China Xiu-Hao Ding School of Management, Huazhong University of Science and Technology,
Wuhan, China Kunpeng Yang School of Management, Huazhong University of Science and
Technology, Wuhan, China . 2014. Unpacking the relationships between conflicts and team
innovation. Management Decision 52:8, 1533-1548. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
37. Ariel Avgar School of Labor and Employment Relations, University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign, Champaign, Illinois, USA Eun Kyung Lee School of Labor and Employment Relations,
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, Illinois, USA WonJoon Chung School
of Labor and Employment Relations, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign,
Illinois, USA . 2014. Conflict in context. International Journal of Conflict Management 25:3, 276-303.
38. Jonathan Pinto. 2014. Expanding the Content Domain of Workplace Aggression: A Three-level
Aggressor-target Taxonomy. International Journal of Management Reviews 16:3, 290-313. [CrossRef]
39. Abdullah Promise Opute Management Consultant, Marketing Researcher and Management
Consultant, Germany . 2014. Cross-functional bridge in dyadic relationship. Team Performance
Management: An International Journal 20:3/4, 121-147. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
40. Alexander Spickermann, Martin Zimmermann, Heiko A. von der Gracht. 2014. Surface- and deep-
level diversity in panel selection — Exploring diversity effects on response behaviour in foresight.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change 85, 105-120. [CrossRef]
41. Mingjian Zhou Department of Management, Shenzhen Graduate School, Harbin Institute of
Technology, Shenzhen, China Shuisheng Shi Department of Management, Hong Kong Baptist
University, Kowloon Tong, Hong Kong . 2014. Blaming leaders for team relationship conflict?
The roles of leader-member exchange differentiation and ethical leadership. Nankai Business Review
International 5:2, 134-146. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
42. Stephanie T. Solansky, Barjinder Singh, Shengsheng Huang. 2014. Individual Perceptions of Task
Conflict and Relationship Conflict. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research 7:2, 83-98.
[CrossRef]
43. Professor Richard A. Posthuma College of Business Administration, University of Texas at El Paso,
El Paso, Texas, USA Walter van den Berg Department of Organisation Studies, Tilburg University,
Tilburg, The Netherlands Petru L. Curseu Department of Organisation Studies, Tilburg University,
Tilburg, The Netherlands Marius T.H. Meeus Department of Organisation Studies, Tilburg
University, Tilburg, The Netherlands . 2014. Emotion regulation and conflict transformation in
multi-team systems. International Journal of Conflict Management 25:2, 171-188. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
44. Mark L. Hoelscher Department of MQM, College of Business, Illinois State University, Normal,
Illinois, USA . 2014. Does family capital outweigh the negative effects of conflict on firm
performance?. Journal of Family Business Management 4:1, 46-61. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
45. J. A. Grissom. 2014. Is Discord Detrimental? Using Institutional Variation to Identify the Impact of
Public Governing Board Conflict on Outcomes. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory
24:2, 289-315. [CrossRef]
46. Itzhak Gnizy Department of Marketing, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel Aviv Shoham Graduate
School of Management, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel . 2014. Uncovering the influence of the
international marketing function in international firms. International Marketing Review 31:1, 51-78.
47. Aya Murayama, Asako Miura. 2014. Intragroup conflict and subjective performance within group
discussion — A multiphasic examination using a hierarchical linear model —. THE
JAPANESE JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 53:2, 81-92. [CrossRef]
48. Frank R.C. de Wit, Karen A. Jehn, Daan Scheepers. 2013. Task conflict, information processing, and
decision-making: The damaging effect of relationship conflict. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes 122:2, 177-189. [CrossRef]
49. Valentina Bruk-Lee, Ashley E. Nixon, Paul E. Spector. 2013. An expanded typology of conflict at
work: Task, relationship and non-task organizational conflict as social stressors. Work & Stress 27:4,
339-350. [CrossRef]
50. Onne Janssen, Ellen Giebels. 2013. When and why creativity‐related conflict with coworkers can
hamper creative employees' individual job performance. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology 22:5, 574-587. [CrossRef]
51. Wu Tiejun, Wang Wenjun, Bi Xin, Liu Dianzhi. 2013. Mediating Effect of Team Trust Between
Team Conflict and Team Effectiveness in Self-management Teams. Journal of Applied Sciences 13:9,
1504-1508. [CrossRef]
52. Thomas A. O'Neill, Natalie J. Allen, Stephanie E. Hastings. 2013. Examining the “Pros” and “Cons”
of Team Con flict: A Team-Level Meta-Analysis of Task, Relationship, and Process Conflict.
Human Performance 26:3, 236-260. [CrossRef]
53. Malte Brettel, René Mauer, Daniel Appelhoff. 2013. The entrepreneur's perception in the
entrepreneur–VCF relationship: the impact of conflict types on investor value. Venture Capital 15:3,
173-197. [CrossRef]
54. Jane Yan Jiang, Xiao Zhang, Dean Tjosvold. 2013. Emotion regulation as a boundary condition
of the relationship between team conflict and performance: A multi-level examination. Journal of
Organizational Behavior 34:5, 714-734. [CrossRef]
55. Jun Hee Yun, Ho-Chul Shin. 2013. The Effects of Perception Levels of Diversity on Team
Performance: Moderating Effects of Conflict. Journal of the Korean society for quality management
41:2, 289-300. [CrossRef]
56. Michael Mäs, Andreas Flache, Károly Takács, Karen A. Jehn. 2013. In the Short Term We Divide,
in the Long Term We Unite: Demographic Crisscrossing and the Effects of Faultlines on Subgroup
Polarization. Organization Science 24:3, 716-736. [CrossRef]
57. Ching Tsung JenDepartment of Logistics Management, Management College, National Defense
University, Taiwan, Republic of China. 2013. The influence of conflict centrality and task
interdependency on individual performance and job satisfaction. International Journal of Conflict

58. Anneliese Willems, Buce Waxman, Andrew K. Bacon, Julian Smith, Jennifer Peller, Simon Kitto.
2013. Interprofessional non-technical skills for surgeons in disaster response: A qualitative study of
the Australian perspective. Journal of Interprofessional Care 27:2, 177-183. [CrossRef]
59. David J. Woehr, Luis M. Arciniega, Taylor L. Poling. 2013. Exploring the Effects of Value Diversity
on Team Effectiveness. Journal of Business and Psychology 28:1, 107-121. [CrossRef]
60. Jan Selmer, Charlotte Jonasson, Jakob Lauring. 2013. Group conflict and faculty engagement: is
there a moderating effect of group trust?. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 35:1,
95-109. [CrossRef]
61. Lavinia Nosé,, Christian Korunka,, Hermann Frank,, Daniela Suchy,. 2013. Familienklima und
Konflikte in Familienunternehmen: Eine empirische Analyse ihrer Erfolgswirkungen. ZfKE –
Zeitschrift für KMU und Entrepreneurship 61:1-2, 55-81. [CrossRef]
62. Peihua Dai. 2013. The Conceptual Model of Influencing Factors and Influencing Mechanism
on Team Decision-Making Quality Mediated by Information Sharing. iBusiness 05:04, 119-125.
[CrossRef]
63. Ting-Peng Liang, Jason Chia-Hsien Wu, James J. Jiang, Gary Klein. 2012. The impact of value
diversity on information system development projects. International Journal of Project Management
30:6, 731-739. [CrossRef]
64. Kyle J. Emich. 2012. Transpersonal Efficacy: How Efficacy Perceptions of Single Others Influence
Task Performance. Human Performance 25:3, 235-254. [CrossRef]
65. Petru L. Curşeu, Steffie E. A. Janssen, Jörg Raab. 2012. Connecting the dots: social network
structure, conflict, and group cognitive complexity. Higher Education 63:5, 621-629. [CrossRef]
66. Jean PoitrasHEC Montréal, Montréal, Canada. 2012. Meta‐analysis of the impact of the research
setting on conflict studies. International Journal of Conflict Management 23:2, 116-132. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
67. Roland E. Kidwell, Franz W. Kellermanns, Kimberly A. Eddleston. 2012. Harmony, Justice,
Confusion, and Conflict in Family Firms: Implications for Ethical Climate and the “Fredo Effect”.
Journal of Business Ethics 106:4, 503-517. [CrossRef]
68. Shahla GhobadiSchool of Information Systems, Technology and Management, University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia John D'AmbraSchool of Information Systems, Technology and
Management, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. 2012. Knowledge sharing in cross‐
functional teams: a coopetitive model. Journal of Knowledge Management 16:2, 285-301. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
69. Jacqueline Z. Bergman, Joan R. Rentsch, Erika E. Small, Shaun W. Davenport, Shawn M. Bergman.
2012. The Shared Leadership Process in Decision-Making Teams. The Journal of Social Psychology
152:1, 17-42. [CrossRef]
70. Miriam Benítez, José M. León-Pérez, Jimena Y. Ramírez-Marín, Francisco J. Medina, Lourdes
Munduate. 2012. Validación del Cuestionario de Conflicto Interpersonal en el Trabajo (CIT) en
empleados españoles. Estudios de Psicología 33:3, 263-275. [CrossRef]
71. Anne Whitworth, Shona Haining, Helen Stringer. 2012. Enhancing research capacity across
healthcare and higher education sectors: development and evaluation of an integrated model. BMC
Health Services Research 12:1, 287. [CrossRef]
72. Ian ChastonValues Gaps 173-193. [CrossRef]
73. Jack Ruhe, Ron NahserPedagogical Models and Practice 173-200. [CrossRef]
74. Petru L. Curşeu. 2011. Intra-Group Conflict and Teamwork Quality: The Moderating Role of
Leadership Styles. Administrative Sciences 1:1, 3-13. [CrossRef]

75. Kyoosang Choi, Bongsoon Cho. 2011. Competing hypotheses analyses of the associations between
group task conflict and group relationship conflict. Journal of Organizational Behavior 32:8,
1106-1126. [CrossRef]
76. Danielle CooperDepartment of Management, University of North Texas, Denton, Texas, USA
Warren WatsonDepartment of Management, University of North Texas, Denton, Texas, USA.
2011. Conflict and performance in US and Mexican learning teams. Cross Cultural Management: An
International Journal 18:4, 426-442. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
77. Lu‐Ming TsengFeng Chia University, Seatwen, Taiwan. 2011. Intra‐role conflict and the selling
decision. International Journal of Conflict Management 22:4, 373-393. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
78. Anne Spychala, Sabine Sonnentag. 2011. The dark and the bright sides of proactive work behaviour
and situational constraints: Longitudinal relationships with task conflicts. European Journal of Work
and Organizational Psychology 20:5, 654-680. [CrossRef]
79. Andreas Schotter, Paul W. Beamish. 2011. Performance effects of MNC headquarters–subsidiary
conflict and the role of boundary spanners: The case of headquarter initiative rejection. Journal of
International Management 17:3, 243-259. [CrossRef]
80. JUN YAN. 2011. AN EMPIRICAL EXAMINATION OF THE INTERACTIVE EFFECTS
OF GOAL ORIENTATION, PARTICIPATIVE LEADERSHIP AND TASK CONFLICT ON
INNOVATION IN SMALL BUSINESS. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship 16:03, 393-408.
[CrossRef]
81. Yue Hou-ming, Wu BoEffects of paternalistic leadership behavior on team cohesiveness: The
mediating role of conflict resolution approaches 754-765. [CrossRef]
82. Anita M. M. Liu, Xiaofeng Zhai. 2011. Influences of Personality on the Adoption of Conflict-
Handling Styles and Conflict Outcomes for Facility Managers. Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute
Resolution in Engineering and Construction 3:3, 101-108. [CrossRef]
83. Igor Kotlyar, Leonard Karakowsky, Peggy Ng. 2011. Leader behaviors, conflict and member
commitment to team-generated decisions. The Leadership Quarterly 22:4, 666-679. [CrossRef]
84. Said ElbannaFaculty of Business & Economics, UAE University, Al Ain, United Arab Emirates
Abbas J. AliEberly College of business and Information Technology, Indiana University of
Pennsylvania, Indiana, Pennsylvania, USA Mumin DayanFaculty of Business & Economics, UAE
University, Al Ain, United Arab Emirates. 2011. Conflict in strategic decision making: do the setting
and environment matter?. International Journal of Conflict Management 22:3, 278-299. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
85. JAKOB LAURING, JAN SELMER. 2011. Multicultural Organizations: Does a Positive Diversity
Climate Promote Performance?. European Management Review 8:2, 81-93. [CrossRef]
86. Jan Stentoft Arlbjørn Carl Marcus Wallenburg Lehrstuhl für BWL, insbes. Logistik und
Dienstleistungsmanagement, WHU – Otto Beisheim School of Management, The Kuehne-
Foundation Chair of Logistics and Services Management, Vallendar, Germany Jan Simon Raue
Kuehne-Foundation Chair of International Logistics Networks, Technische Universität Berlin,
Berlin, Germany . 2011. Conflict and its governance in horizontal cooperations of logistics service
providers. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 41:4, 385-400.
87. Piet Van den Bossche, Wim Gijselaers, Mien Segers, Geert Woltjer, Paul Kirschner. 2011. Team
learning: building shared mental models. Instructional Science 39:3, 283-301. [CrossRef]
88. Richard A. PosthumaLin LuShanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China Fan ZhouZhejiang
University, Zhejiang, China Kwok LeungCity University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong. 2011. Effects
of task and relationship conflicts on individual work behaviors. International Journal of Conflict
89. Richard A. PosthumaDaan BisselingUniversiteit van Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Filipe SobralBrazilian School of Public and Business Administration, Getulio Vargas Foundation, Rio
de Janeiro, Brazil. 2011. A cross‐cultural comparison of intragroup conflict in The Netherlands and
Brazil. International Journal of Conflict Management 22:2, 151-169. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
90. Maria T. M. Dijkstra, Bianca Beersma, Arne Evers. 2011. Reducing conflict-related employee strain:
The benefits of an internal locus of control and a problem-solving conflict management strategy.
Work & Stress 25:2, 167-184. [CrossRef]
91. Yun Yang. 2011. Effects of Cognitive and Affective Conflict Between Hotel's Top Managers on Firm
Performance in China. Journal of China Tourism Research 7:1, 42-61. [CrossRef]
92. Yu‐Hsiu Hung, Tonya Smith‐Jackson, Woodrow Winchester. 2011. Use of attitude congruence to
identify safety interventions for small residential builders. Construction Management and Economics
29:2, 113-130. [CrossRef]
93. Frank R.C. de Wit, Karen A. Jehn, Daan Scheepers Chapter 9 Negotiating within Groups: A
Psychophysiological Approach 207-238. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
94. Jacqueline Z. Bergman, Erika E. Small, Shawn M. Bergman, Joan R. Rentsch. 2010. Asymmetry in
Perceptions of Trustworthiness: It’s not You; It’s Me. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research
3:4, 379-399. [CrossRef]
95. Loraleigh Keashly, Branda NowellConflict, Conflict Resolution,and Bullying 421-445. [CrossRef]
96. Krista JaaksonUniversity of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia. 2010. Management by values: are some values
better than others?. Journal of Management Development 29:9, 795-806. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
97. Wu Tiejun, Liu Dianzhi, Bi XinTeam learning orientation and conflicts influence team performance
in different task difficulties 183-186. [CrossRef]
98. Justin W. Webb, David J. Ketchen, R. Duane Ireland. 2010. Strategic entrepreneurship within
family-controlled firms: Opportunities and challenges. Journal of Family Business Strategy 1:2, 67-77.
[CrossRef]
99. Oluremi B. Ayoko, Victor J. Callan. 2010. Teams’ reactions to conflict and teams’ task and social
outcomes: The moderating role of transformational and emotional leadership. European Management
Journal 28:3, 220-235. [CrossRef]
100. TSUN-JUI HSIEH, HSIEN-JUI CHUNG, HSUAN LO. 2010. THE IMPACT OF TOP
MANAGEMENT TEAM CONFLICT ON NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT: A CROSS-
CULTURAL PERSPECTIVE. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management
07:02, 193-208. [CrossRef]
101. Petru Lucian Curşeu, René Schalk, Sandra Schruijer. 2010. The Use of Cognitive Mapping in
Eliciting and Evaluating Group Cognitions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 40:5, 1258-1291.
[CrossRef]
102. Ken-ichi Ohbuchi, Emi Atsumi. 2010. Avoidance Brings Japanese Employees What They Care
About in Conflict Management: Its Functionality and “Good Member” Image. Negotiation and
Conflict Management Research 3:2, 117-129. [CrossRef]
103. Marianne van Woerkom, Karin Sanders. 2010. The Romance of Learning from Disagreement.
The Effect of Cohesiveness and Disagreement on Knowledge Sharing Behavior and Individual
Performance Within Teams. Journal of Business and Psychology 25:1, 139-149. [CrossRef]
104. Guohong (Helen) HanDepartment of Management, Williamson College of Business
Administration, Youngstown State University, Youngstown, Ohio, USA P.D. HarmsDepartment
of Management, University of Nebraska at Lincoln, Lincoln, Nebraska, USA. 2010. Team
identification, trust and conflict: a mediation model. International Journal of Conflict Management
21:1, 20-43. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
105. Helena Syna Desivilya, Anit Somech, Helena Lidgoster. 2010. Innovation and Conflict Management
in Work Teams: The Effects of Team Identification and Task and Relationship Conflict. Negotiation
and Conflict Management Research 3:1, 28-48. [CrossRef]
106. Michael Boyer O'Leary, Mark Mortensen. 2010. Go (Con)figure: Subgroups, Imbalance, and Isolates
in Geographically Dispersed Teams. Organization Science 21:1, 115-131. [CrossRef]
107. Souren Paul, Sumati RayManifested Intra-Group Conflict in Collaborative Technology Supported
Multi-Cultural Virtual Teams: Findings from a Laboratory Experiment 1-11. [CrossRef]
108. Julia V. Gallenkamp, Jakob J. Assmann, Marcus A. Drescher, Arnold Picot, Isabell M.
WelpeConflict, Culture, and Performance in Virtual Teams: Results from a Cross-Cultural Study
1-10. [CrossRef]
109. Jong-Sung Park, Jung-Hoon Lee, Jung-In Yang, Bong-Gyu LeeEffectiveness of Strategic Decision-
Making on IT Investment: Antecedents and Its Impacts on IT Investment Performance 1-13.
[CrossRef]
110. Marianne van Woerkom, Marloes L. van Engen. 2009. Learning from conflicts? The relations
between task and relationship conflicts, team learning and team performance. European Journal of
Work and Organizational Psychology 18:4, 381-404. [CrossRef]
111. David P. Tegarden, Linda F. Tegarden, Steven D. Sheetz. 2009. Cognitive Factions in a Top
Management Team: Surfacing and Analyzing Cognitive Diversity using Causal Maps. Group Decision
and Negotiation 18:6, 537-566. [CrossRef]
112. Nan Ding, Xuejun TangTop management team cohesion, conflict and organizational performance
1785-1789. [CrossRef]
113. Olivier DoucetService d'enseignement de la GRH, HEC Montréal, Montréal, Canada
Jean PoitrasService d'enseignement de la GRH, HEC Montréal, Montréal, Canada Denis
ChênevertService d'enseignement de la GRH, HEC Montréal, Montréal, Canada. 2009. The impacts
of leadership on workplace conflicts. International Journal of Conflict Management 20:4, 340-354.
114. Daniel Druckman. 2009. Intuition or Counterintuition? The Science behind the Art of Negotiation.
Negotiation Journal 25:4, 431-448. [CrossRef]
115. Udo Konradt, Panja Andreßen, Thomas Ellwart. 2009. Self-leadership in organizational teams:
A multilevel analysis of moderators and mediators. European Journal of Work and Organizational
116. C. Aubé, V. Rousseau, C. Mama, E. M. Morin. 2009. Counterproductive Behaviors and Psychological
Well-being: The Moderating Effect of Task Interdependence. Journal of Business and Psychology 24:3,
351-361. [CrossRef]
117. Said ElbannaCollege of Business and Economics, United Arab Emirates University, Al Ain, United
Arab Emirates. 2009. The impact of affective conflict on firm performance. Management Research
News 32:9, 789-803. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
118. Eden B. King, Michelle R. Hebl, Daniel J. Beal. 2009. Conflict and Cooperation in Diverse
Workgroups. Journal of Social Issues 65:2, 261-285. [CrossRef]
119. Petru L. CurşeuDepartment of Organisation Studies, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands
Patrick KenisDepartment of Organisation Studies, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands
Jörg RaabDepartment of Organisation Studies, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands. 2009.
Reciprocated relational preferences and intra‐team conflict. Team Performance Management: An
International Journal 15:1/2, 18-34. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
120. Kjell B. HjertøFaculty of Business Administration, Social Sciences and Computer Science, Hedmark
University College, Rena, Norway Bård KuvaasDepartment of Leadership and Organization
Management, Norwegian School of Management, Oslo, Norway. 2009. Development and empirical
exploration of an extended model of intra‐group conflict. International Journal of Conflict
121. Katerina Bezrukova, Jayaram Uparna Group splits and culture shifts: a new map of the creativity
terrain 163-193. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
122. The Opening "Black Box" between Conflict and Knowledge Sharing: A Psychological Engagement
Theory Perspective 1-10. [CrossRef]
123. Simon J. Pervan, Liliana L. Bove, Lester W. Johnson. 2009. Reciprocity as a key stabilizing norm
of interpersonal marketing relationships: Scale development and validation. Industrial Marketing
Management 38:1, 60-70. [CrossRef]
124. Said ElbannaDo Egyptian Managers Differentiate between Task and Personal Conflicts? 593-597.
[CrossRef]
125. Karen A. Jehn, Lindred Greer, Sheen Levine, Gabriel Szulanski. 2008. The Effects of Conflict
Types, Dimensions, and Emergent States on Group Outcomes. Group Decision and Negotiation 17:6,
465-495. [CrossRef]
126. Oluremi B. AyokoUQ Business School, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia Andre
A. PekertiUQ Business School, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. 2008. The
mediating and moderating effects of conflict and communication openness on workplace trust.
International Journal of Conflict Management 19:4, 297-318. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
127. Francisco J. Medina, Lourdes Munduate, José M. Guerra. 2008. Power and conflict in cooperative
and competitive contexts. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 17:3, 349-362.
[CrossRef]
128. Susan M. Keaveney. 2008. The blame game: An attribution theory approach to marketer–engineer
conflict in high-technology companies. Industrial Marketing Management 37:6, 653-663. [CrossRef]
129. Prithviraj Chattopadhyay, Elizabeth George, Arthur D. Shulman. 2008. The Asymmetrical Influence
of Sex Dissimilarity in Distributive vs. Colocated Work Groups. Organization Science 19:4, 581-593.
[CrossRef]
130. Tsun-Jui Hsieh, Hsien-Jui ChungThe impact of top management team conflict on new product
development: The case of Taiwan and the United States 1206-1213. [CrossRef]
131. JEFFERY A. LePINE, RONALD F. PICCOLO, CHRISTINE L. JACKSON, JOHN E.
MATHIEU, JESSICA R. SAUL. 2008. A META-ANALYSIS OF TEAMWORK PROCESSES:
TESTS OF A MULTIDIMENSIONAL MODEL AND RELATIONSHIPS WITH TEAM
EFFECTIVENESS CRITERIA. Personnel Psychology 61:2, 273-307. [CrossRef]
132. Mark E. Parry, Michael Song, Robert E. Spekman. 2008. Task Conflict, Integrative Potential, and
Conflict Management Strategies in Joint Ventures. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management
55:2, 201-218. [CrossRef]
133. Carsten K. W. De Dreu, Laurie R. WeingartA Contingency Theory of Task Conflict and
Performance in Groups and Organizational Teams 151-166. [CrossRef]

134. Joan R. Rentsch, Jacqueline A. ZelnoThe Role of Cognition in Managing Conflict to Maximize
Team Effectiveness: A Team Member Schema Similarity Approach 131-150. [CrossRef]
135. María Isabel Delgado PiñaDepartment of Business Administration, Complutense University of
Madrid, Madrid, Spain Ana María Romero MartínezDepartment of Business Administration,
Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain Luis Gómez MartínezDepartment of Business
Administration, Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain. 2008. Teams in organizations:
a review on team effectiveness. Team Performance Management: An International Journal 14:1/2,
7-21. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
136. Nuria Gamero, Vicente González-Romá, José M. Peiró. 2008. The influence of intra-team conflict
on work teams' affective climate: A longitudinal study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
137. Jean PoitrasHEC Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada Aurélia Le TareauHEC Montréal, Montréal,
Québec, Canada. 2008. Dispute resolution patterns and organizational dispute states. International
Journal of Conflict Management 19:1, 72-87. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
138. Danica T. Hooper, Robin Martin. 2008. Beyond personal Leader–Member Exchange (LMX)
quality: The effects of perceived LMX variability on employee reactions. The Leadership Quarterly
19:1, 20-30. [CrossRef]
139. Carsten K.W. De Dreu. 2008. The virtue and vice of workplace conflict: food for (pessimistic)
thought. Journal of Organizational Behavior 29:1, 5-18. [CrossRef]
140. Kimberly FurumoThe Impact of Conflict and Conflict Management Style on Deadbeats and
Deserters in Virtual Teams 445-445. [CrossRef]
141. Daniel Druckman, Mara Olekalns. 2008. Emotions in negotiation. Group Decision and Negotiation
17:1, 1-11. [CrossRef]
142. Bei Hu, Jiajun GuAn empirical study on the influencing factors of effectiveness of strategic decision-
making and its relation with performance improvement: Evidence from China 487-491. [CrossRef]
143. Markus VodosekDavid Eccles School of Business, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.
2007. Intragroup conflict as a mediator between cultural diversity and work group outcomes.
International Journal of Conflict Management 18:4, 345-375. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
144. Eva M. Lira, Pilar Ripoll, José M. Peiró, Pilar González. 2007. The roles of group potency and
information and communication technologies in the relationship between task conflict and team
effectiveness: A longitudinal study. Computers in Human Behavior 23:6, 2888-2903. [CrossRef]
145. Michael D. Ensley, Allison W. Pearson, Shruti R Sardeshmukh. 2007. The negative consequences
of pay dispersion in family and non-family top management teams: an exploratory analysis of new
venture, high-growth firms. Journal of Business Research 60:10, 1039-1047. [CrossRef]
146. Franz W. Kellermanns, Kimberly A. Eddleston. 2007. A family perspective on when conflict benefits
family firm performance. Journal of Business Research 60:10, 1048-1057. [CrossRef]
147. Satyanarayana ParayitamDepartment of Management, College of Business Administration, McNeese
State University, Lake Charles, Louisiana, USA Robert S. DooleyDepartment of Management,
Spears School of Business, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma, USA. 2007. The
relationship between conflict and decision outcomes. International Journal of Conflict Management
18:1, 42-73. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
148. Ann C. Mooney, Patricia J. Holahan, Allen C. Amason. 2007. Don't Take It Personally: Exploring
Cognitive Conflict as a Mediator of Affective Conflict. Journal of Management Studies 44:5, 733-758.
[CrossRef]
149. Ting‐Peng LiangDepartment of Information Management, National Sun Yat‐sen University,
Kaohsiung, Taiwan, Republic of China Chih‐Chung LiuDepartment of Information Management,
National Sun Yat‐sen University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan, Republic of China Tse‐Min LinCompal
Communications, Inc., Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China Binshan LinCollege of Business
Administration, Louisiana State University in Shreveport, Shreveport, Louisiana, USA. 2007. Effect
of team diversity on software project performance. Industrial Management & Data Systems 107:5,
150. Gregory M. Rose, Aviv Shoham, Stern Neill, Ayalla Ruvio. 2007. Manufacturer perceptions of the
consequences of task and emotional conflict within domestic channels of distribution. Journal of
Business Research 60:4, 296-304. [CrossRef]
151. Richard E. Plank, David A. Reid, Stephen Newell. 2007. The Impacts of Affective and Cognitive
Social Conflict in Business-to-Business Buyer-Seller Relationships: A Comparison of New
versus Ongoing Buyer-Seller Relationships. Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing 14:2, 41-74.
[CrossRef]
152. Bradley J. Olson, Yongjian Bao, Satyanarayana Parayitam. 2007. Strategic decision making within
Chinese firms: The effects of cognitive diversity and trust on decision outcomes. Journal of World
Business 42:1, 35-46. [CrossRef]
153. Patricia Garcia-Prieto, Diane M. Mackie, Veronique Tran, Eliot R. Smith Chapter 7 Intergroup
Emotions in Workgroups: Some Emotional Antecedents and Consequences of Belonging 145-184.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
154. M. Ena Inesi, Margaret A. Neale Chapter 3 Power, Affect, and Value Creation in Groups 45-64.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
155. Richard E. Plank, Stephen J. Newell. 2007. The effect of social conflict on relationship loyalty in
business markets. Industrial Marketing Management 36:1, 59-67. [CrossRef]
156. Michael Ensley. 2006. Family Businesses Can Out-Compete: As Long as They Are Willing to
Question the Chosen Path. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 30:6, 747-754. [CrossRef]
157. Oluremi B. AyokoUQ Business School, University of Queensland, Queensland, Australia Charmine
E.J. HärtelFaculty of Business and Law, Centre for Business Research, Deakin University, Malvern,
Victoria, Australia. 2006. Cultural diversity and leadership. Cross Cultural Management: An
International Journal 13:4, 345-360. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
158. David A. Rogers, Lorelei Lingard. 2006. Surgeons Managing Conflict: A Framework for
Understanding the Challenge. Journal of the American College of Surgeons 203:4, 568-574. [CrossRef]
159. Susan G. MichieSchool of Business, University of Evansville, Evansville, Indiana, USA Robert S.
DooleyDepartment of Management, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma, USA Gerald
E. FryxellChina Europe International Business School, Pudong, Shanghai, China. 2006. Unified
diversity in top‐level teams. International Journal of Organizational Analysis 14:2, 130-149. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
160. Steve Harvey, Caroline Blouin, Dale Stout. 2006. Proactive personality as a moderator of outcomes for
young workers experiencing conflict at work. Personality and Individual Differences 40:5, 1063-1074.
[CrossRef]
161. Vassilis M. PapadakisAthens University of Economics and Business, Athens, Greece. 2006. Do CEOs
shape the process of making strategic decisions? Evidence from Greece. Management Decision 44:3,
162. Joan Almost. 2006. Conflict within nursing work environments: concept analysis. Journal of Advanced
Nursing 53:4, 444-453. [CrossRef]
163. K. Furumo, J.M. PearsonAn Empirical Investigation of How Trust, Cohesion, and Performance Vary
in Virtual and Face-to-Face Teams 26c-26c. [CrossRef]
164. Thomas W. Porter, Daniel C. Smith. 2005. Tactical implementation and Murphy's law: factors
affecting the severity of problems. Journal of Business Research 58:12, 1702-1711. [CrossRef]
165. Chee Wee Tan, Shan Ling Pan, Eric Tze Kuan Lim, Calvin Meng Lai Chan. 2005. Managing
knowledge conflicts in an interorganizational project: A case study of the Infocomm Development
Authority of Singapore. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 56:11,
1187-1199. [CrossRef]
166. Michael D. Ensley, Keith M. Hmieleski. 2005. A comparative study of new venture top management
team composition, dynamics and performance between university-based and independent start-ups.
Research Policy 34:7, 1091-1105. [CrossRef]
167. Amy McMillan‐CapehartDepartment of Management, East Carolina University, Greenville, North
Carolina, USA. 2005. A configurational framework for diversity: socialization and culture. Personnel
Review 34:4, 488-503. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
168. Niki Panteli, Siva Sockalingam. 2005. Trust and conflict within virtual inter-organizational alliances:
a framework for facilitating knowledge sharing. Decision Support Systems 39:4, 599-617. [CrossRef]
169. José M Guerra, Inés Martínez, Lourdes Munduate, Francisco J Medina. 2005. A contingency
perspective on the study of the consequences of conflict types: The role of organizational culture.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 14:2, 157-176. [CrossRef]
170. Pamela J. Hinds, Mark Mortensen. 2005. Understanding Conflict in Geographically Distributed
Teams: The Moderating Effects of Shared Identity, Shared Context, and Spontaneous
Communication. Organization Science 16:3, 290-307. [CrossRef]
171. Michael D. Ensley, Allison W. Pearson. 2005. An Exploratory Comparison of the Behavioral
Dynamics of Top Management Teams in Family and Nonfamily New Ventures: Cohesion, Conflict,
Potency, and Consensus. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 29:3, 267-284. [CrossRef]
172. Francisco Gil, Carlos‐María Alcover and Josée‐María PeiróAna Margarida PassosInstituto Superior
de Ciências do Trabalho e da Empresa, Lisboa, Portugal António CaetanoInstituto Superior de
Ciências do Trabalho e da Empresa, Lisboa, Portugal. 2005. Exploring the effects of intragroup
conflict and past performance feedback on team effectiveness. Journal of Managerial Psychology
20:3/4, 231-244. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
173. Francisco Gil, Carlos‐María Alcover and José‐María PeiróFrancisco J. MedinaDepartment of Social
Psychology, University of Seville, Seville, Spain Lourdes MunduateDepartment of Social Psychology,
University of Seville, Seville, Spain Miguel A. DoradoDepartment of Social Psychology, University of
Seville, Seville, Spain Inés MartínezDepartment of Psychology, University Pablo de Olavide, Seville,
Spain José M. GuerraDepartment of Social Psychology, University of Seville, Seville, Spain. 2005.
Types of intragroup conflict and affective reactions. Journal of Managerial Psychology 20:3/4, 219-230.
174. Richard A. PosthumaUniversity of Texas at El Paso College of Business Administration, University
of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, TX 79912. (rposthuma@utep.edu). 2005. THE NEED FOR
MORE INFLUENTIAL INTERNATIONAL CONFLICT MANAGEMENT RESEARCH.
International Journal of Conflict Management 16:3, 212-217. [Abstract] [PDF]
175. Helena Syna DesivilyaEmek Yezreel College Dafna EizenUniversity of Haifa. 2005. CONFLICT
MANAGEMENT IN WORK TEAMS: THE ROLE OF SOCIAL SELF‐EFFICACY AND
GROUP IDENTIFICATION. International Journal of Conflict Management 16:2, 183-208.
[Abstract] [PDF]
176. Daniel R. Ilgen, John R. Hollenbeck, Michael Johnson, Dustin Jundt. 2005. Teams in
Organizations: From Input-Process-Output Models to IMOI Models. Annual Review of Psychology

56:1, 517-543. [CrossRef]
177. Helena Syna DesivilyaEmek Yezreel College, Israel Emek Yezreel College, Emek Yezreel 19300,
Israel, Phone/Fax: 972–4–6423041/6423422. (desiv@yvc.ac.il) Dana YagilUniversity of Haifa, Israel.
2005. THE ROLE OF EMOTIONS IN CONFLICT MANAGEMENT: THE CASE OF WORK
TEAMS. International Journal of Conflict Management 16:1, 55-69. [Abstract] [PDF]
178. Gregory M Rose, Aviv Shoham. 2004. Interorganizational task and emotional conflict with
international channels of distribution. Journal of Business Research 57:9, 942-950. [CrossRef]
179. David A. ReidEdward H. Schmidt Professor of Sales and Business Marketing at the College
of Business Administration, The University of Toledo, Toledo, Ohio, USA Ellen Bolman
PullinsAssociate Professor in the Schmidt School of Professional Sales, at the College of Business
Administration, The University of Toledo, Toledo, Ohio, USA Richard E. PlankProfessor of
Marketing in the Haworth College of Business, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan,
USA Richard E. BuehrerProfessor in the Schmidt School of Professional Sales, College of Business
Administration, The University of Toledo, Toledo, Ohio, USA. 2004. Measuring buyers’ perceptions
of conflict in business‐to‐business sales interactions. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 19:4,
180. Shelley D. DionneSchool of Management and Center for Leadership Studies, Binghamton
University, Binghamton, New York, USA Francis J. YammarinoSchool of Management and
Center for Leadership Studies, Binghamton University, Binghamton, New York, USA Leanne E.
AtwaterSchool of Management, Arizona State University – West, Phoenix, Arizona, USA William
D. SpanglerSchool of Management and Center for Leadership Studies, Binghamton University,
Binghamton, New York, USA. 2004. Transformational leadership and team performance. Journal of
Organizational Change Management 17:2, 177-193. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
181. Simon T. TiddVanderbilt University Heather H. McIntyreVanderbilt University Raymond A.
FriedmanVanderbilt University. 2004. THE IMPORTANCE OF ROLE AMBIGUITY AND
TRUST IN CONFLICT PERCEPTION: UNPACKING THE TASK CONFLICT TO
RELATIONSHIP CONFLICT LINKAGE. International Journal of Conflict Management 15:4,
364-380. [Abstract] [PDF]
182. Henri BarkiHEC Montréal Jon HartwickMcGill University. 2004. CONCEPTUALIZING
THE CONSTRUCT OF INTERPERSONAL CONFLICT. International Journal of Conflict
Management 15:3, 216-244. [Abstract] [PDF]
183. Franz W. Kellermanns, Kimberly A. Eddleston. 2004. Feuding Families: When Conflict Does a
Family Firm Good. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 28:3, 209-228. [CrossRef]
184. Keith D. Brouthers, George Nakos. 2004. SME Entry Mode Choice and Performance: A Transaction
Cost Perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 28:3, 229-247. [CrossRef]
185. Robert H. Chenhall. 2004. The Role of Cognitive and Affective Conflict in Early Implementation
of Activity‐Based Cost Management. Behavioral Research in Accounting 16:1, 19-44. [CrossRef]
186. Jeffrey Sanchez-Burks. 2004. PROTESTANT RELATIONAL IDEOLOGY: THE COGNITIVE
UNDERPINNINGS AND ORGANIZATIONAL IMPLICATIONS OF AN AMERICAN
ANOMALY. Research in Organizational Behavior 26, 265-305. [CrossRef]
187. Francisco-J. Medina, Lourdes Munduate, Inés Martínez, Miguel-A. Dorado, Miguel-A. Mañas.
2004. Efectos positivos de la activación del conflicto de tarea sobre el clima de los equipos de trabajo.
Revista de Psicología Social 19:1, 3-15. [CrossRef]
188. Roger Nibler, Karen L. Harris. 2003. The Effects of Culture and Cohesiveness on Intragroup
Conflict and Effectiveness. The Journal of Social Psychology 143:5, 613-631. [CrossRef]
189. Oluremi B. AyokoUniversity of Queensland Oluremi B. Ayoko, University of Queens Business
School, University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD 4072. E‐mail: rayoko@business.uq.edu.au Victor
J. CallanUniversity of Queensland Charmine E.J. HärtelMonash University. 2003. WORKPLACE
CONFLICT, BULLYING, AND COUNTERPRODUCTIVE BEHAVIORS. The International
Journal of Organizational Analysis 11:4, 283-301. [Abstract] [PDF]
190. Katherine R Xin, Lisa Hope Pelled. 2003. Supervisor–subordinate conflict and perceptions of
leadership behavior: a field study. The Leadership Quarterly 14:1, 25-40. [CrossRef]
191. Daniel Druckman2003 IACM Lifetime Achievement Award Winner. 2003. PUZZLES
IN SEARCH OF RESEARCHERS: PROCESSES, IDENTITIES, AND SITUATIONS.
192. Carsten K. W. De Dreu, Laurie R. Weingart. 2003. Task versus relationship conflict, team
performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology 88:4,
741-749. [CrossRef]
193. Daniel J. Beal, Robin R. Cohen, Michael J. Burke, Christy L. McLendon. 2003. Cohesion and
Performance in Groups: A Meta-Analytic Clarification of Construct Relations. Journal of Applied
194. Karen A Jehn, Corinne Bendersky. 2003. INTRAGROUP CONFLICT IN ORGANIZATIONS:
A CONTINGENCY PERSPECTIVE ON THE CONFLICT-OUTCOME RELATIONSHIP.
Research in Organizational Behavior 25, 187-242. [CrossRef]
195. Michael D Ensley, Allison W Pearson, Allen C Amason. 2002. Understanding the dynamics of new
venture top management teams: cohesion, conflict, and new venture performance. Journal of Business
Venturing 17:4, 365-386. [CrossRef]
196. T.L. Roberts, P.H. Cheney, P.D. Sweeney. 2002. Project characteristics and group communication:
an investigation. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication 45:2, 84-98. [CrossRef]
197. M. Afzalur RahimCenter for Advanced Studies in Management. 2002. TOWARD A THEORY OF
MANAGING ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT. International Journal of Conflict Management
13:3, 206-235. [Abstract] [PDF]
198. Allison W. PearsonMississippi State University Michael D. EnsleyUniversity of North Carolina,
Charlotte Allen C. AmasonUniversity of Georgia. 2002. AN ASSESSMENT AND REFINEMENT
OF JEHN'S INTRAGROUP CONFLICT SCALE. International Journal of Conflict Management
13:2, 110-126. [Abstract] [PDF]
199. Oluremi B. AyokoUniversity of Queensland, Australia Charmine E.J. HärtelMonash University,
Australia Victor J. CallanUniversity of Queensland, Australia. 2002. RESOLVING THE
PUZZLE OF PRODUCTIVE AND DESTRUCTIVE CONFLICT IN CULTURALLY
HETEROGENEOUS WORKGROUPS: A COMMUNICATION ACCOMMODATION
THEORY APPROACH. International Journal of Conflict Management 13:2, 165-195. [Abstract]
[PDF]
200. Stig Berge Matthiesen, Ståle Einarsen. 2001. MMPI-2 configurations among victims of bullying at
work. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 10:4, 467-484. [CrossRef]
201. Donald C. Hambrick, Jiatao Li, Katherine Xin, Anne S. Tsui. 2001. Compositional gaps and
downward spirals in international joint venture management groups. Strategic Management Journal
22:11, 1033-1053. [CrossRef]
202. Michael F. DiPaolaSchool of Education, The College of William and Mary, Williamsburg,
USA Wayne K. HoyCollege of Education, The Ohio State University, Colombus, USA.
2001. Formalization, conflict, and change: constructive and destructive consequences in schools.
International Journal of Educational Management 15:5, 238-244. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
203. Carsten K.W. De Dreu, Annelies E.M. Van Vianen. 2001. Managing relationship conflict and the
effectiveness of organizational teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior 22:3, 309-328. [CrossRef]
204. Mark MortensenStanford University Pamela J. HindsStanford University. 2001. CONFLICT
AND SHARED IDENTITY IN GEOGRAPHICALLY DISTRIBUTED TEAMS. International
Journal of Conflict Management 12:3, 212-238. [Abstract] [PDF]
205. Michael D. Ensley, Craig L. Pearce. 2001. Shared cognition in top management teams: implications
for new venture performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior 22:2, 145-160. [CrossRef]
206. Mary J. Waller, Karen A. Jehn Multiple system interfaces and task-based conflict: Technological and
human factors in control crew performance 115-131. [Abstract] [Enhanced Abstract] [PDF] [PDF]
207. Karen A. JehnUniversity of Pennsylvania Jennifer A. ChatmanUniversity of California,
Berkeley. 2000. THE INFLUENCE OF PROPORTIONAL AND PERCEPTUAL CONFLICT
COMPOSITION ON TEAM PERFORMANCE. International Journal of Conflict Management
11:1, 56-73. [Abstract] [PDF]
208. Deborah B. Gardner, Ann Cary. 1999. Collaboration, Conflict, and Power: Lessons for Case
Managers. Family & Community Health 22:3, 64-77. [CrossRef]
209. Allen C. AmasonUniversity of Georgia Ann C. MooneySt. Joseph University. 1999. THE
EFFECTS OF PAST PERFORMANCE ON TOP MANAGEMENT TEAM CONFLICT IN
STRATEGIC DECISION MAKING. International Journal of Conflict Management 10:4, 340-359.
[Abstract] [PDF]
210. Margaret A. Neale, Gregory B. Northcraft, Karen A. Jehn. 1999. Exploring Pandora's Box; The
Impact of Diversity and Conflict on Work Group Performance. Performance Improvement Quarterly
12:1, 113-126. [CrossRef]
211. Karen A. Jehn. 1999. Diversity, Conflict, and Team Performances Summary of Program of Research.
Performance Improvement Quarterly 12:1, 6-19. [CrossRef]
212. Sheila Goins, Elizabeth A. Mannix. 1999. Self-selection and Its Impact on Team Diversity and
Performance. Performance Improvement Quarterly 12:1, 127-147. [CrossRef]
213. CHARLOTTE RAYNER, HELGE HOEL. 1997. A Summary Review of Literature Relating to
Workplace Bullying. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology 7:3, 181-191. [CrossRef]
214. Karen A. JehnUniversity of Pennsylvania Clint ChadwickUniversity of Pennsylvania Sherry M.B.
ThatcherUniversity of Pennsylvania. 1997. TO AGREE OR NOT TO AGREE: THE EFFECTS
OF VALUE CONGRUENCE, INDIVIDUAL DEMOGRAPHIC DISSIMILARITY, AND
CONFLICT ON WORKGROUP OUTCOMES. International Journal of Conflict Management 8:4,
287-305. [Abstract] [PDF]
215. Chris Provis. 1996. Unitarism, Pluralism, Interests and Values. British Journal of Industrial Relations
34:4, 473-495. [CrossRef]
216. Thomas W. PorterIndiana University Bryan S. LillyIndiana University. 1996. THE
EFFECTS OF CONFLICT, TRUST, AND TASK COMMITMENT ON PROJECT TEAM
PERFORMANCE. International Journal of Conflict Management 7:4, 361-376. [Abstract] [PDF]
217. Bruno DyckUniversity of Manitoba, Canada Nealia S. BruningUniversity of Manitoba, Canada
Leo DriedgerUniversity of Manitoba, Canada. 1996. POTENTIAL CONFLICT, CONFLICT
STIMULUS, AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE: AN EMPIRICAL TEST.

218. Lisa Hope PelledUniversity of Southern California. 1996. RELATIONAL DEMOGRAPHY
AND PERCEPTIONS OF GROUP CONFLICT AND PERFORMANCE: A FIELD
INVESTIGATION. International Journal of Conflict Management 7:3, 230-246. [Abstract] [PDF]
219. Steven M. SommerUniversity of Nebraska. 1995. SOCIAL COMPETITION: IDENTIFYING
NEW PERSPECTIVES AND STRATEGIES FOR TASK MOTIVATION. International Journal
of Conflict Management 6:3, 239-256. [Abstract] [PDF]
220. Evert van de VliertUniversity of Groningen, the Netherlands. 1995. HELPLESS HELPERS: AN
INTERGROUP CONFLICT INTERVENTION. International Journal of Conflict Management
6:1, 91-100. [Abstract] [PDF]
221. P. BrownTechnology and trust in teams 15-20. [CrossRef]
222. Saleem GulAlternative Dispute Resolution: 126-143. [CrossRef]
223. Saleem Gul, Michael KlausnerOrganisational Conflict and Its Management 34-55. [CrossRef]

Intragroup Conflict

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Intragroup Conflict

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

International Journal of Conflict Management

ENHANCING EFFECTIVENESS: AN INVESTIGATION OF ADVANTAGES AND

References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.

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

This study investigates the benefits and detriments of emotional and

task-related conflict in work groups. Group value consensus (GVC), or

A Model of Intragroup Conflict

The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 5, No. 3, July 1994

The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 5, No. 3, July 1994

The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 5, No. 3, July 1994

The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 5, No. 3, July 1994

The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 5, No. 3, July 1994

Items Factor 1 Factor 2

1. How much friction is present in your

3. How much anger is present in your

Eigenvalue 2.6 1.3

Individual Satisfaction With Group Membership. This was measured with

The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 5, No. 3, July 1994

1. Group Value Consensus .34 .12

*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001 (two-tailed); N = 88

Independent Dependent Variables

Group Value Consensus -.24*** -.21**

Note: F-ratio df = 1,86 for each β

The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 5, No. 3, July 1994

interpersonal altercations and animosity among group members, performance will

The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 5, No. 3, July 1994

members valued tolerance, sharing information freely, and being team-oriented.

In sum, this study examined the advantages and disadvantages of value-based

Argyris, C. (1962). Interpersonal competence and organizational effectiveness. Homewcod,

The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 5, No. 3, July 1994

effects. Journal of Applied Social Psycliology, 20, 881-900.

The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 5, No. 3, July 1994

Liedtka, J. (1989). Managerial values and corporate decision-making: An empirical analysis

Rahim, M. A. (1983). Measurement of organizational conflict. Journal of General Psychol-

The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 5, No. 3, July 1994

Received: November 3,1993

The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 5, No. 3, July 1994

Small Business Economics 45:4, 787-804. [CrossRef]

Management 24:2, 126-147. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Leadership Styles. Administrative Sciences 1:1, 3-13. [CrossRef]

Performance in Groups and Organizational Teams 151-166. [CrossRef]

Organizations: From Input-Process-Output Models to IMOI Models. Annual Review of Psychology

International Journal of Conflict Management 7:4, 295-313. [Abstract] [PDF]

Você também pode gostar

p < .05; p < .01; p < .001 (two-tailed); N = 88

Group Value Consensus -.24* -.21