A Longitudinal Study of Team Conflict, Conflict Management, Cohesion, and Team Effectiveness

Group & Organization Management Volume 34 Number 2 April 2009 170-205 © 2009 SAGE Publications 10.1177/1059601108331218 http://gom.sagepub.com hosted at http://online.sagepub.com

Amanuel G. Tekleab Wayne State University

Narda R. Quigley Villanova University

Paul E. Tesluk University of Maryland

This study examines the relationships among team conflict, conflict management, cohesion, and team effectiveness. Data are collected longitudinally from 53 teams, and the results indicate that conflict management has a direct, positive effect on team cohesion and moderates the relationship between relationship conflict and team cohesion as well as that between task conflict and team cohesion. These results suggest that a high level of conflict management not only has a direct impact on team cohesion but also alters the negative and positive effects of relationship conflict and task conflict, respectively, on team cohesion. We also found team cohesion to be positively related to perceived performance, satisfaction with the team, and team viability. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed. Keywords:   team conflict; team conflict management; team cohesion

T

eam development theories (Gersick, 1988, 1989; Tuckman, 1965) have suggested that team conflict and cohesion have important influences on the ability of team members to interact effectively over time. According to the punctuated equilibrium model (Gersick, 1988, 1989), managing conflict at the midpoint transition in a team’s life span is the primary mechanism by

Authors’ Note: Please address correspondence to Amanuel G. Tekleab, School of Business Administration, Wayne State University, 312 Prentis Building, Detroit, MI 48202; e-mail: [email protected]. 170

Tekleab et al. / Team Conflict, Conflict Management   171

which teams are able to overcome early inertia. By successfully managing conflict at the midpoint transition, teams develop cohesion around their revised task strategies and forge a stronger team identity. Similarly, in Tuckman’s (1965) stage model, conflict often occurs early between team members as they express differences in values and perspectives. Teams must then pass through a “storming” stage in which individual team members seek to clarify roles, gain independence from the team leader, and form coalitions (Tuckman, 1965; Tuckman & Jensen, 1977). Once teams have successfully overcome this conflict, trust develops between team members, leading to higher levels of team cohesion and greater team effectiveness. As Chang, Bordia, and Duck (2003) note, the commonality across these models of group development is that teams often experience conflict—which they must overcome—prior to achieving a more cohesive, mature stage of team development. Both Gersick’s (1988) and Tuckman’s (1965) models note that conflict and cohesion work together to shape a team’s effectiveness. However, most studies of conflict and cohesion (e.g., Amason, 1996; Cohen & Bailey, 1997; Evans & Dion, 1991; Jehn, 1995, 1997; Mason & Griffin, 2003; Wech, Mossholder, Steel, & Bennett, 1998) have studied these variables in isolation and have not attempted to understand how they are related to each other developmentally. Gersick’s (1988) and Tuckman’s (1965) models also imply that conflict management may be an important developmental process for teams. These models discuss the role of conflict management in maintaining cohesion. Similarly, Marks, Mathieu, and Zaccaro’s (2001) episodic model of team processes suggests that processes such as conflict and conflict management may result in emergent states, such as cohesion, that in turn would shape future processes. No empirical research to our knowledge, however, has considered how conflict management may work in tandem with both conflict and cohesion to influence team effectiveness. Therefore, grounded in the team development theories, the first goal of the current study is to fill this gap by examining conflict, conflict management, cohesion, and their interrelationships in the same study. As a result of the tendency of prior research to consider these concepts in isolation, different views have emerged regarding how conflict and cohesion are related (e.g., De Dreu & Weingart, 2003). The first view, related to the information-processing perspective on conflict (Carnevale & Probst, 1998; De Dreu & Weingart, 2003), is that the initial benefits of conflict quickly diminish as it intensifies and lowers group cohesion; therefore, conflict should be minimized (e.g., Copeland & Wida, 1996; De Dreu & Weingart, 2003; Klein & Christiansen, 1969). In support of this view, De

172   Group & Organization Management

Dreu and Weingart’s (2003) meta-analysis of the literature found that both task conflict (cognitive conflict among team members associated with the task at hand) and relationship conflict (socioemotional conflict arising from interpersonal disagreements) had negative associations with team performance and team satisfaction. The second view, espoused by many conflict researchers, is that task conflict is positively related to group outcomes like cohesion, through the exercise of voice in team decision making. An important caveat to this relationship is that the effects of relationship conflict must be minimized, as task conflict may spill over into relationship conflict (e.g., Amason, 1996; Amason, Thompson, Hochwarter, & Harrison, 1995; Edmondson & Smith, 2006; Jehn, 1995, 1997; Jehn & Mannix, 2001). In other words, task conflict has a positive influence on outcome variables, but only when it does not result in relationship conflict, as this view asserts that relationship conflict will be negatively associated with team effectiveness. Despite the results of De Dreu and Weingart’s (2003) meta-analysis, no definitive consensus has emerged from the two camps regarding the role of both types of conflict. And neither perspective has incorporated theories of group development (Gersick, 1988, 1989; Tuckman, 1965) over time— which would require longitudinal data—into their understanding of the relationship between conflict and cohesion. Notably, De Dreu and Weingart’s (2003) meta-analysis was limited in that it focused on independent correlations relating the two types of conflict with cohesion, derived from crosssectional studies. As a result, we know little about how and why team processes (e.g., task and relationship conflict and conflict management) influence later team cohesion, though this longitudinal approach is consistent with prior theory on team development. Understanding the process by which the different types of conflict, and the management of that conflict, influence either team performance or members’ reactions over time may provide researchers a better perspective on the inconsistent relationships and arguments regarding task and relationship conflict and subsequent team effectiveness criteria. At the same time, this understanding will help practitioners design appropriate strategies in mitigating potentially damaging conflict that might lower the level of team cohesion and hence team effectiveness (e.g., Cohen & Bailey, 1997; Mason & Griffin, 2003). Therefore, the second objective of our study is to address this gap by examining, empirically, the interplay between team conflict, team conflict management, and team cohesion using longitudinal data. We also know that teams are increasingly becoming the “building blocks” of modern organizations (e.g., Campion, Medsker, & Higgs, 1993; Guzzo & Shea, 1992; Passos & Caetano, 2005); as such, our lack

Tekleab et al. / Team Conflict, Conflict Management   173

of understanding about how conflict, conflict management, and cohesion are related to work team effectiveness over time (i.e., team satisfaction, viability, and performance; Amason, 1996; Cohen & Bailey, 1997; Evans & Dion, 1991; Jehn, 1995, 1997; Mason & Griffin, 2003; Wech et al., 1998) is a serious limitation of the existing literature. For researchers, a better understanding of the interplay between the two types of conflict and their management in affecting team cohesion would be complete if they know whether these variables ultimately have influence on team effectiveness. Similarly, for practitioners, more information about the relationships between the two types of conflict, conflict management, and cohesion would only be useful if it was clear how these concepts can be leveraged to influence team effectiveness. Therefore, the third objective of the current study is to address the “so what?” question by examining the three team effectiveness criteria—perceived performance, viability, and satisfaction— as outcomes of team cohesion using longitudinal data, as implied in the team development theories. Therefore, in our empirical examination of the relationships between team conflict, conflict management, and cohesion over time, we draw on the punctuated equilibrium model and the stage model of group development to attempt to shed light on the following research questions: (a) Can task conflict early in a team’s life be beneficial to developing later cohesion, as both the punctuated equilibrium model and the stage model suggest? (b) What is the impact of team conflict management (Time 1 [T1]) on the relationship between team conflict (both task and relationship conflict; T1) and later team cohesion (Time 2 [T2])? Lastly, (c) Does team cohesion have a positive impact on subsequent team satisfaction, viability, and performance (Time 3 [T3])? The model we developed to examine these questions is depicted in Figure 1.

Team Task and Relationship Conflict and Team Cohesion Team conflict is broadly defined as “a process in which one party perceives that its interests are being opposed or negatively affected by another party” (Wall & Callister, 1995, p. 517). As demonstrated in prior research, conflict is multidimensional (Amason, 1996; Jehn, 1994, 1995; Pinkley, 1990). Although task conflict refers to “disagreement among group members about the content of the tasks being performed, including differences in viewpoints, ideas, and opinions,” relationship conflict refers to the “interpersonal incompatibility among members, which typically includes tension,

174   Group & Organization Management

Figure 1 Overall Hypothesized Model H5 + H5 Task Conflict, T1

Perceived Team Performance, T3

H1b +

H4a +

H3b– Conflict Management, T1

H2 +

Team Cohesion, T2

H4b + Team Satisfaction, T3

H3a +

Relationship Conflict, T1

+ H4c

– H1a

Team Viability, T3 H5 +

H5–

Note: Dotted lines show partial mediation hypotheses. T1 = Time 1; T2 = Time 2; T3 = Time 3.

animosity, and annoyance among members within a group” (Jehn, 1995, p. 258). Cohesion has been defined very broadly as the total set of forces keeping group members together (cf. Andrews, Kacmar, Blakely, & Bucklew, 2008; Dion, 2000; Lewin, Lippitt, & White, 1939). In keeping with Carron, Brawley, and Widmeyer (1998), however, we define cohesion more specifically as the tendency for a group to stick together and remain united in the pursuit of its instrumental objectives. Although the conflict and cohesion are clearly conceptually related and are part of the same nomological network (cf. Cronbach & Meehl, 1955), one major distinction is that conflict is a team process whereas cohesion is a team emergent state (Marks et al., 2001). The former is defined by Marks et al. (2001, p. 357) as “members’ interdependent acts that convert inputs to outcomes through cognitive, verbal, and behavioral activities directed toward organizing taskwork to achieve collective goals,” whereas the latter is defined as “constructs that characterize properties of the team that are typically dynamic in nature and vary as a function of team context, inputs, processes, and outcomes.” With respect to the relationship between conflict (T1) and team cohesion (T2), existing theory suggests that overcoming conflict is an important step in the long-term development of team cohesion. As noted, both the punctuated equilibrium model (Gersick, 1988) and the stage model (Tuckman, 1965; Tuckman & Jensen, 1977; Wheelan, 1994) suggest that the degree to

Tekleab et al. / Team Conflict, Conflict Management   175

which a team is experiencing conflict during the earlier stages of its existence and the way in which that conflict is overcome may shape a team’s level of cohesiveness. In the stage model, after teams are formed, they pass through a stage of counterdependency and fight (“storming”) wherein team members seek to clarify their roles and assert their independence from the team leader. In the process, they form coalitions with other members who have similar values and ideas; these coalitions, in turn, may disagree about the direction of the group. In the next stage of development (“norming”), resolutions of these conflicts result in higher levels of cohesion, team member satisfaction, and internal team trust. From there, teams are able to proceed to the “performing” stage, where they are able to function as effective, problem-solving entities. Similarly, in the punctuated equilibrium model, after an initial period of inertia, teams undergo a “midpoint transition,” during which they experience conflict. This is because team members become aware of impending deadlines and reconsider the best way to approach their work to accomplish the team’s tasks. At the conclusion of the midpoint transition, teams have resolved these conflicts and are prepared to enact their plans in a cohesive manner to achieve their goals. Both theories suggest that the team’s ability to manage and/or overcome early conflict may be an important antecedent of later cohesion around team goals. Despite their respective attention to the connection between conflict and cohesion, neither of these theories distinguishes between task and relationship conflict. We suggest that task and relationship conflict may have differential influences on team cohesion. Sorting out these differential effects is complex, as task and relationship conflict are often related (e.g., sometimes task conflict can spill over into relationship conflict, and vice versa; Jehn, 1997). In addition, the impact of each construct on cohesion has often been considered outside the context of the other. Many times, only bivariate relationships between a single type of conflict and cohesion are considered (Jehn, 1995; Jehn & Mannix, 2001; Jehn & Shah, 1997). As a result, De Dreu and Weingart’s (2003) meta-analysis found a direct, negative bivariate relationship between the two constructs of conflicts and cohesion. With respect to the relationship between relationship conflict and team cohesion, most scholars agree that relationship conflict negatively influence team effectiveness. Members of teams who become mired in relationship conflict typically exhibit declines in satisfaction, liking of other team members, and intentions to stay (e.g., Amason, 1996; Ensley, Pearson, & Amason, 2002; Jehn, 1995, 1997; Jehn & Mannix, 2001; Peterson & Behfar, 2003) because “it produces tension, antagonism, and distracts team members from performing the task” (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003, p. 741).

176   Group & Organization Management

As De Dreu and Weingart (2003) further explain, having relationship conflict between team members uses attentional and emotional resources for managing and reducing interpersonal friction, rather than devoting these resources to working on the team’s task and developing attachments to members of the group. At the same time, relationship conflict initiates defensive behaviors that restrict open discussion of ideas. Therefore, when controlling for task conflict, it is likely that relationship conflict early in a team’s life will have a negative influence on later team cohesion. Therefore, we hypothesize the following: Hypothesis 1a: After controlling for team task conflict (T1), team relationship conflict (T1) will be negatively related to team cohesion (T2).

Although most studies suggest that task conflict and cohesion are negatively related (e.g., De Dreu & Weingart, 2003), other evidence suggests that there may be a positive relationship between task conflict and cohesion when relationship conflict is controlled (e.g., Amason, 1996; Folger, 1977). For example, literature on voice in groups has found that with higher levels of task conflict, team members have an increased opportunity to voice their own perspective on issues that are being decided by the group (Amason, 1996; Folger, 1977; Peterson & Behfar, 2003). Evidence suggests that team members who use voice opportunities are more willing to accept group decisions (Greenberg & Folger, 1983; Lind & Tyler, 1988; Peterson & Behfar, 2003), which is conceptually related to group cohesion (Dion, 2000). When individuals have a chance to voice their own perspectives on issues that require a group decision, greater individual-level affective acceptance of group decisions results (cf. Greenberg & Folger, 1983; Lind & Tyler, 1988). As acceptance of decisions increases, teams are better able to build and maintain unity—thus, a stronger sense of team-level cohesion will emerge from the shared perceptions of team members. Similarly, Priem, Harrison, and Muir (1995) found that task conflict improved both member acceptance of group decisions and overall group satisfaction. In addition, other studies have found a positive relationship between cohesion and task conflict when controlling for relationship conflict (e.g., Ensley et al., 2002; Sullivan & Feltz, 2001). Therefore, given the likelihood of co-occurrence of task and relationship conflict and the temporal perspective provided by Tuckman’s (1965) and Gersick’s (1988, 1989) models, we hypothesize the following: Hypothesis 1b: After controlling for team relationship conflict (T1), team task conflict (T1) will be positively related to team cohesion (T2).

Tekleab et al. / Team Conflict, Conflict Management   177

Conflict Management and Team Cohesion We posit that team conflict management is an important team process to examine in conjunction with task and relationship conflict. The idea that teams manage their conflicts effectively implies that they openly discuss and, at least actively, attempt to solve their differences (Jehn, 1995). Past literature has examined conflict management using either a team process approach that considers the extent to which teams actively manage their conflict (e.g., Ilgen, 1999; Jehn, 1995; Lovelace, Shapiro, & Weingart, 2001; Marks et al., 2001; Murnighan & Conlon, 1991; Von Glinow, Shapiro, & Brett, 2004) or a stylistic approach as an outgrowth of Blake and Mouton’s (1964) managerial grid model and Deutsch’s (1973, 1980, 1990) theory of conflict (e.g., Alper, Tjosvold, & Law, 2000; DeChurch & Marks, 2001; Kilmann & Thomas, 1978; Rahim, 1983; Van de Vliert & Euwema, 1994; Zornoza, Ripoll, & Peiro, 2002). The latter approach focuses on different individual styles associated with team member conflict management behavior (e.g., accommodating, avoiding, compromising, collaborating, and competing; DeChurch & Marks, 2001). We use the former approach and focus here only on the process of conflict management: whether teams actually engage in open discussion of conflict and are prepared to manage it when it arises. Teams who are able to address conflict directly should be better able to develop an open, healthy, and constructive atmosphere over the long run (Brett, 1984; Campbell & Dunnette, 1968; De Dreu, Weingart, & Kwon, 2000; Montoya-Weiss, Massey, & Song, 2001; Moore, 1986; Shapiro & Kulik, 2004; Van de Ven & Ferry, 1980). Although classic literature on sensitivity training and T-groups, in which participants were encouraged to openly address conflict and discuss feelings, yielded mixed results, this work provided a foundation for the conflict management literature (cf. Stock, 1964). Tuckman’s (1965) stage model drew on this body of work and specified that in moving from the conflict-ridden storming stage to the norming stage, teams must address and resolve the salient issues that may be causing conflict among group members. Open communication allows teams to successfully resolve their disagreements and develop team cohesion. Gersick’s (1988, 1989) theory of punctuated equilibrium focused on the influence conflict management might have on task completion. Her model suggested that a team’s awareness of the passage of time generates a renewed energy to overcome conflict by resolving task-related disagreements; teams then focus on implementation of agreed-on approaches in a cohesive fashion following the midpoint transition.

178   Group & Organization Management

More recently, conflict management research findings have shown that the effective handling of conflicts that arise during team interactions may produce direct benefits. Van de Vliert, Euwema, and Huismans (1995) hypothesized and found support for the effect of conflict management on relational outcomes (e.g., mutual trust and quality of personal relationships), which are conceptually related to team cohesion (Dion, 2000). This empirical evidence suggests that teams with higher levels of conflict management may be likely to develop greater levels of cohesion than those with lower levels of conflict management. Therefore, we hypothesize that conflict management (T1) will have a direct, positive impact on team cohesion (T2). Hypothesis 2: Team conflict management (T1) will be positively related to team cohesion (T2).

The Moderating Role of Conflict Management Although conflict management may directly benefit team cohesion, this advantage may disappear depending on the type of conflict being managed. We contend that the influence of conflict management on the relationship between team conflict and cohesion differs depending on whether the conflict is task or relationship-based. With respect to the association between relationship conflict and cohesion, teams with low levels of conflict management have no real means to actively address sources of interpersonal friction and frustration that erode team cohesiveness. Therefore, we expect that for teams who engage in less conflict management, the negative association between relationship conflict and cohesion will be stronger. Although some research has suggested that open norms involving relationship conflict may not be beneficial to teams (e.g., Jehn, 1997; Von Glinow et al., 2004), as noted above, other work has suggested that teams who are able to address conflict directly should be better able to develop a long-term, open, healthy, and constructive atmosphere (e.g., Brett, 1984; Cameron, 2000; Campbell & Dunnette, 1968; Montoya-Weiss et al., 2001; Moore, 1986; Van de Ven & Ferry, 1980). Teams need to be able to openly address relationship conflict that arises as early as possible in the development process; otherwise, interpersonal conflicts might escalate and hinder task completion over time. Edmondson and Smith (2006, p. 19) explain that resolving relationship conflict, particularly when it involves important issues facing the team, “served the decision-making process—helping to deepen the team’s understanding of each other and of the issues, and helping the team make progress.” It is likely, then, that teams who exhibit

Tekleab et al. / Team Conflict, Conflict Management   179

higher levels of conflict management will be able to circumvent the negative influence of relationship conflict on team cohesion. Therefore, we hypothesize: Hypothesis 3a: Team conflict management (T1) will moderate the relationship between relationship conflict (T1) and team cohesion (T2), such that the negative relationship between relationship conflict and cohesion will be stronger under low levels of conflict management than it will be under high levels of conflict management.

In contrast, higher levels of conflict management may weaken the positive relationship between task conflict and team cohesion. Task conflict has only been found to be beneficial for teams when it does not give rise to relationship conflict (e.g., Jehn, 1997). In a classic study of British string quartets, Murnighan and Conlon (1991) found that the most successful quartets dealt with task conflict implicitly rather than through a more direct fashion, thereby keeping conflict task-based. Instead of using a conflict management process to resolve task conflicts right away, which could have led to negative emotional reactions (e.g., Von Glinow et al., 2004) and “unending logical conflicts and group paralysis” for teams (Murnighan & Conlon, 1991, p. 168), these quartets used several alternative strategies to ensure that task conflict remained rational and productive. The first strategy was to take what Pruitt (1981) called a “time-out” or what Ury, Brett, and Goldberg (1988) called a “cooling-off period.” If the conflict turned out to be irrelevant and disruptive, team members would then drop the issue after having had time to think about it. If the conflict resurfaced, instead of team members openly discussing the conflict and trying to reach resolution through compromise, they would work out the conflict in the process of playing their music together. These quartets tended to “play . . . much more than they talked during rehearsals and realized that this was functional: ‘When you play, what is right and what is wrong emerges’” (Murnighan & Conlon, 1991, p. 177). Murnighan and Conlon’s (1991) findings suggest that the active management of task conflict through explicit conflict management processes may have a disruptive influence on the team’s conflict norms by unnecessarily emphasizing the conflict in question. That conflict, in turn, may escalate into relationship conflict, which would then have a negative influence on cohesion and other group outcomes. It is likely, then, that high levels of conflict management, when coupled with task conflict, will result in a weakening of the positive relationship between task conflict and team cohesion. In other words, we hypothesize:

180   Group & Organization Management

Hypothesis 3b: Team conflict management (T1) will moderate the relationship between team task conflict (T1) and team cohesion (T2), such that the positive relationship between task conflict and cohesion will be stronger under low levels of conflict management than it will be under high levels of conflict management.

Team Cohesion and Team Member Satisfaction, Viability, and Perceived Team Performance Hackman and his associates (e.g., Hackman, 1987; Hackman & Morris, 1975; Hackman & Oldham, 1980; Hackman & Walton, 1986) have noted that the extent to which being in the group contributes to members’ satisfaction with the team and the degree to which group members wish to work together as a team in the future (viability) are two critical aspects of group effectiveness. Other researchers have also pointed to these two variables as critical measures of team effectiveness (e.g., Campion et al., 1993; Hyatt & Ruddy, 1997; Sundstrom, De Meuse, & Futrell, 1990). There are several theoretical reasons to associate higher levels of group cohesion with these affective measures of group effectiveness. Returning to the models of punctuated equilibrium and stages of team development, both theories suggest that team cohesion may be related to subsequent team member attitudinal outcomes such as satisfaction and viability. More specifically, both models imply that when teams attain high levels of cohesiveness, team members experience greater satisfaction and the team achieves a higher level of sustainable viability. The underlying rationale for these associations in each case is different. In the case of the stage model, this stream of research drew heavily from work on T-groups (e.g., Bion, 1961) that sought to ensure high psychological comfort levels among group members. The underlying assumption is that to maximize team productivity, team members need to achieve a level of trust by reducing individual fears of rejection by the group. One way to do this is to clarify goals and norms, thereby increasing group cohesion around these issues (Chang et al., 2003). Because the basic desire for interpersonal attachment is a fundamental human motivation (e.g., Baumeister & Leary, 1995), a highly cohesive team provides both a more satisfactory and more sustainable environment for team members. Therefore, high levels of group cohesion should lead to greater team member satisfaction and perceptions of team viability. Rather than emphasizing the presumed psychological benefits of tightly knit groups, Gersick’s (1988, 1989) model suggests that teams experience a task benefit when they become more cohesive during and after the critical

Tekleab et al. / Team Conflict, Conflict Management   181

midpoint transition. The theory suggests that teams are better able to implement plans more efficiently when team members are more unified in their approach to goal attainment (i.e., more cohesive). Once plans have been implemented and teams are making progress on the task, individuals will experience satisfaction in the team’s performance. Individuals may also judge their perceptions of the team’s viability based on whether the team is able to complete work efficiently; the extent to which teams are cohesive will influence their work accomplishment, which in turn influences whether team members view the team as viable. Although the mechanisms underlying relationships between cohesion, satisfaction, and viability are different in the case of the punctuated equilibrium model, the predictions parallel Tuckman’s stage model and have been supported in empirical research linking team cohesion with team-level affective outcomes (e.g., Carless & DePaola, 2000; Carron et al., 1998; Carron & Brawley, 2000; Cohen & Bailey, 1997; Copeland & Wida, 1996; Griffin, 1997; Griffith, 1988). Studies have also linked team cohesion to objective measures of team performance (e.g., Beal, Cohen, Burke, & McLendon, 2003; Evans & Dion, 1991; Gully & Devine, 1995; Mullen & Copper, 1994; Prapavessis & Carron, 1997; Wech et al., 1998), though in most cases the relationship reported was weaker than expected. Indeed, researchers have suggested that there may be important moderators of the relationship between cohesion and objective performance (e.g., norms regarding task focus—Seashore, 1954). In addition, Janis’s (1972) work on groupthink suggests that high levels of team cohesion may compromise the quality of team decision making and problem solving because members of highly cohesive teams may under certain circumstances suspend their ability to think and express critical ideas. Despite the lack of theoretical and empirical support for the connection between team cohesion and objective performance, teams who are more cohesive are likely to believe that they are performing better. Recent research has demonstrated a strong relationship between team cohesion and a team’s perception of its own performance (Chang & Bordia, 2001; Jung & Sosik, 2002), although the cross-sectional design of both studies makes it impossible to tease out the true nature of the relationship between the variables. Extending these arguments, we hypothesize the following: Hypothesis 4: Team cohesion (T2) will be positively related to (a) perceived team performance (T3), (b) satisfaction with the team (T3), and (c) team viability (T3).

The structure of our model implies that team cohesion may play a mediating role between the two types of conflict, conflict management, their

182   Group & Organization Management

interactions, and team effectiveness. Indeed, there is theoretical reason to believe that conflict and conflict management do not simply lead directly to team effectiveness. Rather, once teams manage their conflict effectively, they enter Tuckman’s (1965) norming and performing stages of development; teams need the intermediate stage of norming to develop cohesion and work together effectively. Similarly, a minimum level of cohesion must be reached during and immediately following Gersick’s (1988) midpoint transition for teams to be able to focus on the task and make progress toward goals in the second half of their life span. There may be other pathways through which task and relationship conflict and conflict management influence team effectiveness, however. One pathway is structural in nature; Langfred (2007) found that conflict in selfmanaging work teams may influence team members’ autonomy and interdependence, which would subsequently influence team outcomes. Several other possible pathways are perceptual in nature. For example, Schweiger, Sandberg, and Ragan (1986) found that team conflict reduced the extent to which team members believed or perceived their team was capable of making successful decisions and, therefore, potentially influencing team satisfaction and viability. In addition, the social information–processing perspective from the job satisfaction literature suggests that the existence of conflict may directly influence satisfaction (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1977), because team members who are exposed to high levels of relationship conflict may conclude that “there is a lot wrong with the department, the people in it, and their own jobs” (De Dreu & Beersma, 2005, p. 111). Lastly, high levels of conflict and conflict management may create stress and harm psychological well-being (e.g., Spector, Chen, & O’Connell, 2000; Spector & Jex, 1998), and subsequently influence perceived team performance, satisfaction, and viability. Therefore, we hypothesize: Hypothesis 5: The direct and interactive effects of task conflict (T1), relationship conflict (T1), and conflict management (T1) on perceived team performance (T3), member satisfaction (T3), and viability (T3) are partially mediated through cohesion (T2).

Method Sample and Procedure To test these hypotheses, we collected data from 53 student teams (260 total students) enrolled in an upper-level undergraduate course at a large mid-Atlantic university. The course contents did not cover issues related to

Tekleab et al. / Team Conflict, Conflict Management   183

any of the study variables. Each team had between three and six members, although the majority of the teams (88.7%) had five members. 91.6% of the respondents were between 20 and 23 years old, and 49.8% were men. The average GPA of the teams was 3.29 (SD = 0.38). We assigned participants to teams so as to ensure an approximately equal mix of majors on each team. We ran several analyses of variance tests (ANOVAs) to test whether there was any variability between groups on age, gender, and GPA. However, there was no evidence of differences between groups on any of these demographic characteristics (p > .05 for all ANOVAs performed). To fulfill course requirements, students were required to conduct research on a topic related to the course. Each team was expected to select its topic, research the topic, write a report, and make a presentation to the class at the end of the semester. We collected data from the teams at three different time periods during the semester. More specifically, we assessed: (a) team task and relationship conflict and conflict management at T1 (after teams had worked together for approximately 2 months); (b) overall team cohesion at T2 (after they had worked together for an additional 3 weeks); and (c) team member satisfaction, viability, and perceived performance at T3 (after they had worked together for another 3 weeks and submitted their final project at the end of the semester, but before they received grades on the project). We asked each team to have a group discussion and arrive at a consensus regarding their answers to questions assessing their levels of conflict, conflict management, cohesion, and perceived performance (each group wrote down only one response per question); we also gathered data on the level of satisfaction with the team and team viability from each individual member of the group. Note that we collected team viability from each team because the participants had one more semester in the program, and they had an opportunity to work in teams in the following semester. Thus, the predictors (task and relationship conflict and conflict management), the mediator (cohesion), and one outcome (perceived performance) were assessed using a group discussion or consensus approach (Kirkman, Tesluk, & Rosen, 2001), whereas the other two outcome variables (satisfaction and viability) were assessed at the individual level.

Measures Because of the sample size, we ran separate factor analyses for conflict (both relationship and task), conflict management, cohesion, team viability, and satisfaction with the team. We used the conventional .30 loading as a cut-off in deciding to include items in a scale. A complete list of the items used to assess the study scales are presented in the Appendix.

184   Group & Organization Management

Predictors. We assessed task conflict (three items) and relationship conflict (four items) using measures taken from Jehn (1995) with a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (never) to 7 (always). Each group was asked to report the level of conflict that existed at T1. A factor analysis with oblique rotation and principal alpha factoring of the seven items supported the two factors. A sample task conflict scale item is “How frequently were there conflicts about ideas on your team?” A sample item from the relationship conflict scale is “How frequently was there emotional conflict among members on your team?” The coefficient alpha for task conflict was .89, and for relationship conflict it was .94. We assessed conflict management using two items adapted from Cosier and Dalton (1990) and two other items developed for this study with a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) at T1. We performed an exploratory factor analysis on the four items; all four items loaded on a single factor. A sample item for this scale is “Conflict is dealt with openly on this team.” The reliability coefficient for this scale was .79. Mediating variable. We used three items from Widmeyer, Brawley, and Carron (1985) to assess team task cohesion and another three items from Seashore (1954) to assess team social cohesion using a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) at T2. Because an exploratory principal components analysis (no rotation) yielded only one factor, similar to that found in Griffin (1997), we combined both of them as a single scale—team cohesion. A sample item reads, “Our team is united in trying to reach its goals for performance.” The reliability coefficient for this scale was .93. Dependent variables. We used a five-item scale adapted from Van der Vegt, Emans, and Van de Vliert (2001) and Chatman and Flynn (2001) to assess individual-level satisfaction with the team. A 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = very dissatisfied, 7 = very satisfied) was used to rate the level of each team member’s satisfaction at T3. A principal components analysis (no rotation) of the five items resulted in only one scale. A sample item from this scale is “I am satisfied with my team members.” The reliability coefficient for this scale was .96. A one-way ANOVA based on team membership was significant (F = 3.08, p < .001); the intraclass correlation coefficients were ICC(1) = .24 and ICC(2) = .62. The large ICC(1) value indicates that a large portion of the variability across respondents was a function of team membership. The ICC (2) value approaching .70 suggests that group means are reliable (Bliese, 1998, 2000). The mean and median rwgs for this scale were .87 and .96, respectively. According to Bliese

Tekleab et al. / Team Conflict, Conflict Management   185

(2000), Klein et al. (2000), and LeBreton and Senter (2008), acceptable levels of agreement are indicated by rwg values at or near .70. These coefficients suggest adequate within-group agreement among team members; thus, we aggregated individual responses to the team level. Team viability was assessed using four items adapted from DeStephen and Hirokawa (1988) with a 7-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) at T3. A principal components analysis (no rotation) of the four items resulted in only one scale. A sample item is “This team should not have continued to function as a team” (reverse coded). The reliability coefficient for this scale was .89. A one-way ANOVA based on team membership was significant (F = 2.46, p < .001); the intraclass correlation coefficients were ICC(1) = .18 and ICC(2) = .52. The mean and median rwgs for this scale were .65 and .85, respectively. These coefficients suggest some within-group agreement among team members; thus, we aggregated this construct to the team level. Perceived team performance was measured by asking the group members to respond to a single item. Team members were asked to indicate, through group consensus, a score (out of 100) their group project deserved to earn at T3.

Analyses We used hierarchical regression to test all hypotheses. To test Hypotheses 1–3, we entered the two types of conflict in Step 1 followed by conflict management in Step 2. Then, we entered the interaction terms of the two conflicts and conflict management in Step 3. To test Hypotheses 4a to 4c, we entered the two types of conflict, conflict management in Step 1, conflict management in Step 2, and finally cohesion in Step 3. Because we collected team viability and satisfaction with the team at the individual level, we took the mean scores of these variables for each team to aggregate these constructs to the team level given the acceptable ICC(1), ICC(2), mean and median rwg values (see above).1 We followed Baron and Kenny’s (1986) procedure to examine the mediating role of cohesion (Hypothesis 5). Specifically, evidence of mediation is demonstrated if four conditions are fulfilled: (1) the predictor (e.g., relationship conflict) should be correlated with the dependent variable (e.g., team viability), (2) the predictor should be correlated with the mediator (i.e., team cohesion), (3) the mediator should be correlated with the dependent variable, and (4) the relationship between the predictor and the dependent variable should be zero (or reduce significantly in the case of partial mediation) when controlling for the

186   Group & Organization Management

Table 1 Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations No.

Variables

1 Relationship    conflict (T1) 2 Task conflict (T1) 3 Conflict    management (T1) 4 Team cohesion (T2) 5 Perceived team    performance (T3) 6 Team    satisfaction (T3) 7 Team viability (T3)

M

SD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1.72 1.09 (.94) 2.45 1.28 .52*** (.89) 5.58 1.01 –.38** –.32* (.79) 6.10 0.92 –.35** 95.13 4.64 –.05

–.31* –.07

.55*** (.93) .15 .38** (–)

6.02 0.85 –.29*

–.25

.34*

.63*** .57*** (.96)

5.97 0.96 –.42**

–.38**

.23

.61*** .38**

.75*** (.89)

Note: N = 53 teams. T1 = Time 1; T2 = Time 2; T3 = Time 3. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

mediator. To test for the last step, we used Sobel’s (1982) procedure to examine the significance of the indirect effect (which is equal to the reduction in the correlation).

Results The means, standard deviations, and correlations among the variables are presented in Table 1. Note that we aggregated the dependent variables (satisfaction with the team and team viability) in running correlations with the predictors (task and relationship conflict, conflict management, and cohesion) and perceived performance; therefore, all correlations are at the team level.

Tests of Hypotheses Hypotheses 1a postulated a negative relationship between relationship conflict (T1) and team cohesion (T2); Hypothesis 1b postulated a positive relationship between task conflict (T1) and team cohesion (T2). These hypotheses were not supported, as neither of the two conflict dimensions was related to team cohesion when controlling for the other type of conflict (see Table 2, Model 1; see also Figure 2). Hypothesis 2 postulated a positive relationship between conflict management (T1) and team cohesion (T2). As shown in Table 2, Model 2 (see also Figure 2), this hypothesis was supported

Tekleab et al. / Team Conflict, Conflict Management   187

Table 2 Models Predicting Team Cohesion (Time 2)a Variables

Step 1 (β)

Step 2 (β)

Step 1 Relationship conflict –0.27† –0.13 Task conflict –0.17 –0.09 Step 2 Conflict management 0.47*** Step 3 Relationship Conflict × Conflict    Management Task Conflict × Conflict    Management R2 0.15 0.33 ∆R2 0.19 F 4.23* 8.05*** ∆F 13.57***

Step 3 (β) –0.20 0.02 0.50*** 0.38* –0.47** 0.37 0.10 7.22*** 4.33*

a. There was no evidence of multicollinearity because none of the variance inflation factors was greater than 10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001. †p < .10.

because conflict management was positively and significantly related to team cohesion (β = .47, p < .001). Hypotheses 3a and 3b concerned the moderating effects of conflict management (T1) on the relationships between relationship and task conflict (T1) and team cohesion (T2). Results in Table 2, Model 3 (see also Figure 2), show that conflict management moderated the relationship between relationship conflict (T1) and team cohesion (T2; β = .38, p < .05). We further examined the slopes of the relationships between relationship conflict and cohesion using Cohen, Cohen, West, and Aiken’s (2003) approach of post hoc tests of slopes in interactions. As shown in Figure 3a, the relationship between relationship conflict (T1) and subsequent cohesion (T2) was negative and stronger under low levels of conflict management (T1; β = –.53, SE = .14, p < .001); in contrast, this relationship was not significant (although seemingly positive) under high levels of conflict management (T1; β = .19, SE = .18, p > .05). These results are consistent with, and provide support for, Hypothesis 3a in that we expected a weaker relationship when teams engaged in a high level of conflict management. We also found support for Hypothesis 3b; conflict management moderated the relationship between task conflict and team cohesion (Table 2, Model 3, β = –.47,

188   Group & Organization Management

Figure 2 Results From Regression Analyses

ns,–.36*, –.50** Task Conflict, T1

ns

Perceived Team Performance, T3 .45**

–.47** Conflict Management, T1

.47***

Team Cohesion, T2

.50*** Team Satisfaction, T3

.38* .45*** Relationship Conflict, T1

Team Viability, T3

ns ns, ns, .52***

Note: Dotted lines show partial mediation effects. For conflict management as a moderator of the indirect effects of conflicts on outcomes, results are presented for perceived team performance, team satisfaction, and team viability, respectively. T1 = Time 1; T2 = Time 2; T3 = Time 3; ns = nonsignificant.

p < .01). We further examined the slopes of the relationships under high and low levels of conflict management using Cohen et al.’s (2003) approach. As shown in Figure 3b, the relationship between task conflict (T1) and team cohesion (T2) was positive and stronger under low levels of conflict management (T1; β = .31, SE = .14, p < .05); in contrast, it was not significant (although seemingly negative) at high levels of conflict management (T1; β = –.28, SE = .16, p > .05). These results are largely consistent with and support Hypothesis 3b in that we expected a stronger relationship when teams engaged in a low level of conflict management. Hypothesis 4a predicted that team cohesion (T2) would be positively related to perceived team performance (T3). After controlling for the two conflict variables and conflict management, there was a positive and significant relationship between team cohesion (T2) and perceived performance (T3; β = .45, p < .01). Thus, this hypothesis was supported. Hypotheses 4b and 4c predicted positive relationships between team cohesion (T2) and team member satisfaction (T3) and viability (T3), respectively. Table 3 (see also Figure 2) shows that team cohesion (T2) was positively and significantly related to team satisfaction (T3; β = .50, p < .001). Thus, this result

Tekleab et al. / Team Conflict, Conflict Management   189

Figure 3 Moderating Effects of Conflict Management on Conflict–Cohesion Relationships 7.000

5.000 4.000 3.000 2.000

High conflict management Low conflict management

6.000

Cohesion

Cohesion

7.000

High conflict management Low conflict management

6.000

5.000 4.000 3.000 2.000

1.000

1.000

Low

Average Relationship conflict

High

Low

Average

High

Task conflict

Note: (a) Relationship conflict (T1) and conflict management (T1); (b) Task conflict (T1) and conflict management (T1). T1 = Time 1; T2 = Time 2; T3 = Time 3.

provides support for Hypothesis 4b. Similarly, team cohesion (T2) was positively and significantly related to team viability (T3; β = .45, p < .001), providing support for Hypothesis 4c.2 Hypothesis 5 predicted that the direct and interactive effects of the two types of conflict and conflict management (T1) on team effectiveness (T3) would be partially mediated by team cohesion (T2).3 Regarding the individual (direct) effects of the predictors on the team effectiveness criteria, Table 3 shows that nether task conflict nor relationship conflict was related to cohesion, failing to satisfy Step 2 of the mediation procedure for these variables. Although conflict management was directly related to cohesion (fulfilling Step 2 of the procedure), it was not related to any of the three criteria, failing to satisfy Step 1 of the procedure. Given these results, cohesion was not a mediator of the relationship between the direct effects of the predictors on the three team effectiveness criteria.4 We also examined if team cohesion mediates the relationships between the interaction of task conflict and conflict management and team effectiveness criteria, as well as that of between the interaction of relationship conflict and conflict management on these criteria. Both the interaction of task conflict and conflict management and the interaction of relationship conflict and conflict management were related to team viability (β = –.72, p < .001; β = .68, p < .001, respectively) and satisfaction with the team (β = –.60,

190 Step 3 (β)

Step 4 (β)

Satisfaction With the Team

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 1 Step 2 (β) (β) (β) (β) (β) (β)

Perceived Performance Step 1 Step 2 (β) (β)

Step 3 (β)

Team Viability

a. There was no evidence of multicollinearity because none of the variance inflation factors was greater than 10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Step 1 Relationship conflict –0.13 0.18 0.14 0.23 –0.22 –0.14 –0.24 –0.13 –0.31* –0.30 –0.41**    (Time 1) Task conflict (Time 1) –0.14 –0.11 –0.05 –0.06 –0.13 –0.09 0.06 0.05 –0.21 –0.21 –0.01 Step 2 Conflict management 0.18 0.20 –0.03 0.25 0.29 0.04 0.05 0.09    (Time 2) Step 3 Relationship Conflict × 0.19 –0.02 0.52** 0.33 0.68***    Conflict Management Task Conflict × Conflict –0.25 –0.04 –0.60*** –0.36* –0.72***    Management Step 4 Cohesion 0.45** 0.50*** R 2 0.02 0.05 0.08 0.19 0.10 0.15 0.32 0.46 0.21 0.22 0.48 ∆R2 0.03 0.03 0.11 0.05 0.17 0.14 0.01 0.26 F 0.43 0.75 0.74 1.75 2.60 0.83* 4.42** 6.60*** 6.79** 4.50** 11.73*** ∆F 1.38 0.73 6.39** 3.07 5.95** 12.22*** 0.15 8.57***

Variables



Table 3 Models Predicting Perceived Performance (Time 3), Team Viability (Time 3), and Satisfaction With the Team (Time 3)a

0.45*** 0.59 0.11 11.13*** 13.00***

–0.50**

0.52***

–0.14

–0.02

–0.32*

Step 4 (β)

190   Group & Organization Management

Tekleab et al. / Team Conflict, Conflict Management   191

p < .001; β = .52, p < .001, respectively), supporting Step 1 of the procedure. These interaction terms were not related to perceived team performance (p > .05), failing to support Step 1. The directions of the slopes at high and low levels of conflict management were similar to those reported for cohesion. We have already demonstrated above (see Hypotheses 3a and 3b) that both interaction terms were related to team cohesion, satisfying Step 2, and that team cohesion was related to all team effectiveness criteria (see Hypotheses 4a to 4c), satisfying Step 3. We conducted Sobel’s (1982) test for team viability and satisfaction with the team as dependent variables, because all three criteria were fulfilled for these variables. The results show that the indirect effects of the interaction terms on team viability were significant (p < .05), whereas the indirect effects of the interaction terms on satisfaction with the team were marginally significant (p < .10). Overall, these results show that cohesion partially mediates the relationship between the interaction terms and two criteria (team viability and satisfaction with the team), providing a partial support for Hypothesis 5.5

Discussion This study focused on the two primary theories of team development (Gersick, 1989; Tuckman, 1965) to explore the roles of task and relationship conflict and conflict management on team cohesion and subsequent team effectiveness. Although prior research has examined these relationships with cross-sectional data, we examined how types of conflict and conflict management influenced team cohesion using data collected over time as teams transitioned from early to mid stages of development. Furthermore, we examined the consequences of team cohesion on three team effectiveness criteria. Thus, the main objective of this study was to address three research questions using data that closely reflected theories of team development. The first research question dealt with whether task conflict early in a team’s life is beneficial to developing later cohesion. Although there are theoretical reasons why task conflict (T1) would be positively related to cohesion (T2; see Ensley et al., 2002; Gersick, 1988; Jehn & Mannix, 2001; Jehn & Shah, 1997; Sullivan & Feltz, 2001; Tuckman, 1965), we did not find support for this hypothesis in this study. One possibility for the null result (after controlling for relationship conflict) could be that task conflict may have a negative influence on team cohesion to the extent that it bleeds into relationship conflict. When relationship conflict is controlled, this effect disappears. Indeed, Li and Hambrick (2005) recently predicted a positive relationship between task as well as relationship conflict and

192   Group & Organization Management

behavioral disintegration, the obverse of behavioral integration, which is defined as “the degree to which mutual and collective interaction exists within the group” (Hambrick, 1994, p. 188). When they regressed behavioral disintegration on both types of conflict, task conflict was not significantly related to behavior disintegration, whereas relationship (or emotional) conflict was found to be positively related. We did not specifically test whether task conflict would lead to relationship conflict in the current study because they were collected at the same time. Moreover, it could also be argued that relationship conflict may intensify task conflict (i.e., when people’s personalities clash, they may also be more likely to clash when choosing work strategies and goals).6 Therefore, we suggest that future studies examine the role of task conflict and what factors may cause it to degenerate into relationship conflict or vice versa. For example, it is possible that team leaders (Lovelace et al., 2001) or intragroup trust (Simons & Peterson, 2000) may minimize the spillover of task conflict to relationship conflict. Another possible reason for the null result could be that the relationship between task conflict and cohesion may be curvilinear, such that low levels of task conflict lead to moderate levels of cohesion, moderate levels of task conflict lead to low levels of cohesion, and high levels of task conflict lead to high levels of cohesion. That is, teams who have low levels of task conflict are less likely to argue about ideas among themselves, leading to moderate levels of team cohesion. As the level of task conflict increases, relationship conflict may increase as well, which would negatively affect cohesion. However, at a high level of task conflict, teams may start to see the benefits of such conflict and appreciate the diverse opinions among themselves, which may in turn raise the level of team cohesion. Indeed, a post hoc test for a curvilinear relationship showed a positive relationship between the squared term of task conflict and cohesion, which resembles the expected direction of the curve (U-shaped). If this result is replicated in other studies, it may provide evidence of the more complex nature of the relationship between task conflict and other team outcomes, including cohesion and team effectiveness criteria. Finally, a third possible reason could be that the way task conflict is managed might influence the direction and strength of the relationship between task conflict and cohesion (see below). We did not find strong support for the predicted negative relationship between relationship conflict (T1) and cohesion (T2). Relationship conflict was marginally (p < .10) and negatively related to team cohesion. Given that the direction of the relationship from the regression analysis was as expected and that the bivariate correlation was highly significant (p < .01), as argued for task conflict above, the fact that we entered both conflict scales in the equation at the same step could explain the nonsignificant relationship

Tekleab et al. / Team Conflict, Conflict Management   193

at the conventional probability level (p < .05) between relationship conflict and team cohesion. It is also possible that the small sample size (53 teams) may be another reason for the lack of a significant relationship at the .05 level. Again, as discussed below, a third possibility is that how teams manage conflict may be playing an important role in the relationships between task and relationship conflict and cohesion, which we discuss next. The second research question addressed the role of conflict management on the conflict–cohesion relationship. We found support for the hypothesized relationship between conflict management and cohesion. And the relationships between team task and interpersonal conflict, team conflict management, and team cohesion were complex as expected. We found that conflict management moderated the impact of both task and relationship conflicts on team cohesion in opposite directions. With respect to the interaction between relationship conflict and conflict management, high conflict management appeared to effectively neutralize any negative influence that relationship conflict had on cohesion. Our findings suggest that when teams experience high levels of relationship conflict, their future levels of cohesiveness depends on the team’s ability to be more direct and open in acknowledging the interpersonal disagreements and to try to actively address them. These results are consistent with Edmondson and Smith’s (2006) findings. They reported that teams who discussed relationship conflicts were effective in focusing their effort on the decision-making process, which helped the team to better understand each other and the issues. At the same time, however, we echo their cautionary note: “management teams should discuss relationship conflicts directly, but only if they can do so in ways that allow for cooling them down as opposed to heating them up” (Edmondson & Smith, 2006, p. 25). With respect to the interaction between task conflict and conflict management, consistent with Murnighan and Conlon’s (1991) findings, we found the relationship between task conflict and cohesion to be positive under low levels of conflict management, whereas it was nonsignificant under high levels of conflict management. This suggests that openly discussing disagreements when teams experienced high task conflict might have neutralized the potential positive effect of task conflict on cohesion. On the other hand, when task conflict was handled in a more implicit manner (Murnighan & Conlon, 1991), that is, when teams exhibited low levels of conflict management, task conflict had a positive effect on cohesion. Future research should continue to examine the relationships between conflict management and the two types of team conflict, especially as prior research suggests that task and relationship conflict are often critically intertwined (e.g., Ensley et al., 2002). Future research might also consider

194   Group & Organization Management

the issue of process conflict (Jehn, 1997) to see whether it has an influence on cohesion and whether team conflict management has any moderating impact. In a related way, Marks et al. (2001) theorized that two types of conflict management may exist—preemptive and reactive. It will be interesting and informative if future research develops scales for each dimension and then examines their role in predicting cohesion, as well as moderating the conflict–cohesion relationships. The third research question focused on the effect of team cohesion on subsequent perceived team performance and teams’ attitudinal reactions. We found strong support for the direct and positive influence that team cohesion (T2) has on perceived team performance (T3). This is consistent with the arguments and findings of prior studies (e.g., Chang & Bordia, 2001; Jung & Sosik, 2002), though these studies were limited in their conclusions because they were based on cross-sectional data. Thus, the current study goes further by demonstrating the direction of causality from cohesion to perceived team performance using longitudinal data. In addition, we demonstrated that team cohesion (T2) had a direct and positive effect on team satisfaction (T3) and team viability (T3). Specifically, members of teams who enjoyed high levels of cohesion were more satisfied and were more interested in staying with the team than those whose team cohesion was at a lower level. Therefore, these results speak directly to Gersick’s (1988) and Tuckman’s (1965) proposals about the effects of a current state (i.e., team cohesion) on future attitudinal reactions (e.g., team viability and team satisfaction), and provide further support for Baumeister and Leary’s (1995) theory that individuals feel a fundamental need to belong. Finally, we found that team cohesion served as a partial mediator of the relationship between the interaction terms and team effectiveness criteria. As expected in the mediation hypothesis, the direction of the slopes of relationships between task conflict, as well as relationship conflict and team viability at high and low levels of conflict management, were similar to those we reported for the relationship between the predictors and team cohesion (see Figures 3a and 3b). Similar slopes were also found for satisfaction with the team as a dependent variable. These moderated relationships were partially mediated by team cohesion. This pattern means that a high level of conflict management minimizes the negative consequences of relationship conflict and hence increases team cohesion, which in turn raises perceived team performance, satisfaction with the team, and team viability. Similarly, a low level of conflict management, when task conflict is involved, enhances team cohesion, which in turn positively influences team effectiveness criteria. Overall, these results provide evidence that support the theoretical and empirical findings of Tuckman’s (1965) stages of development

Tekleab et al. / Team Conflict, Conflict Management   195

model and Gersick’s (1988) punctuated equilibrium model. These findings, along with the null results for Hypotheses 1a and 1b, which predicted direct relationships between task and relationship conflict (T1) on subsequent cohesion (T2), suggest that the relationship between the two forms of conflict on team outcomes through cohesion is best understood by considering conflict management as a moderator.

Limitations and Future Directions The results of this study should be interpreted in light of the following limitations. First, the data for this study were collected from student teams, which may not generalize to teams in organizations. For instance, our failure to find evidence of task conflict being associated with cohesion might be explained by the nature of the student teams in this sample. At the same time, however, in many other respects the attributes of the assignments given to these students (i.e., high level of member responsibility, required task involvement, and interdependence) are comparable to those of ad hoc committees in organizations that are created to address a specific issue and are dissolved once the issue is resolved. In addition, results from student samples and work teams have been comparable (see Van Vianen & De Dreu, 2001). Furthermore, the criteria used to differentiate between experimental (or “unreal” teams) and real teams by Mullen and Copper (1994) provide support for the similarity between the student teams used in this study and other real teams. Despite these points, we do note that one of the limitations of this study is that groups in our sample operated devoid of any organizational context. Also, because teams did the majority of their project work outside the classroom, we were not able to observe them to make sure that they were not simply dividing up the tasks, working independently on them, and piecing the report together. It is important to note, however, that there were several deliverables due from the teams during the course of the semester (e.g., a project topic, a project outline, a rough draft of the final paper, the actual final paper, and the final presentation), which suggests that at the very least, team members were interacting to piece these assignments together during the course of the semester. Future work on this topic should include process checks (if the sample includes student teams) to ensure teams are indeed working closely together. A second limitation is the lack of an objective performance measure in our team effectiveness criteria. However, in keeping with prior literature, we believe that team satisfaction, viability, and perceptions of team performance are important measures of team effectiveness (e.g., Campion et al., 1993; Hyatt & Ruddy, 1997; Sundstrom et al., 1990). Despite this, future research might consider an external, behavior-based, and/or objective performance measure as an outcome variable (i.e., as recommended by

196   Group & Organization Management

Beal et al., 2003). A related issue is that the variance of the performance measure seemed small, given the scale was out of 100. Teams may have given themselves exceptionally high ratings, thus restricting the range of the perceived performance variable. A third limitation is that we collected all study variables from the same source, potentially resulting in a common-method bias. However, as suggested in Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, and Podsakoff (2003), we took precautions by collecting data at separate time periods. We also used different data collection procedures for the mediator (cohesion, collected through team consensus) and two dependent variables (satisfaction with the team and team viability, collected at the individual level and aggregated). Therefore, the results found in this study are less likely to be due to common-method bias. Finally, although prior theoretical and empirical evidence (Bar-Tal, 1990; Gibson, Randel, & Earley, 2000; Kirkman et al., 2001) suggests that the consensus approach is the most appropriate method of collecting team-level constructs, using the consensus approach to measure most of the study constructs might be considered a weakness of our study because one could argue that teams with high levels of conflict may find it difficult to arrive at a consensus on the team-level constructs. Therefore, it might be interesting to further examine the use of the consensus approach and whether it is appropriate for all types of team-level constructs. Finally, we collected the two types of conflict (the predictors) and conflict management process (moderator) at the same time. This procedure might have a confounding effect on the results. However, assessing the extent to which the two types of conflict were managed, and when they indeed occurred, seems an appropriate test of the role of the moderating effect of conflict management. Future research may use a lab experiment to reexamine the relationships found in the current study.

Implications and Conclusions Despite these limitations, this study has theoretical and practical implications. Theoretically, we addressed the effects of current levels of both task and relationship conflicts on a subsequent emergent team state (team cohesion). In particular, we extend prior research on team conflict and cohesion (frequently tested with cross-sectional data) by examining their relationships using longitudinal data. In this study, we therefore provide initial evidence on the order of events and the long-term effects of interactions between team conflict and conflict management on subsequent team cohesion. In doing so, we explicitly developed and tested hypotheses based on Tuckman’s (1965) stage model and Gersick’s (1988, 1989) model of punctuated equilibrium.

Tekleab et al. / Team Conflict, Conflict Management   197

Like Chang et al. (2003), we found support for many of the complementary ideas contained in both theories; moreover, we were able to extend the theories by explicitly delineating which type of conflict needs to be directly and effectively managed to increase cohesion over time. Second, this study addresses the call for research that examines the moderating effect of conflict management, not only on the relationship between task conflict and a team emergent state (i.e., team cohesion) but also on the relationship between relationship conflict and the same team emergent state (i.e., team cohesion; DeChurch & Marks, 2001). Thus, this study showed that conflict management moderated these relationships, although in different ways. We found that high levels of conflict management mitigated the negative effects of relationship conflict on team cohesion; at the same time, however, high levels of conflict management seemed to decrease any positive influence task conflict might have had on team cohesion. These findings suggest that the role of conflict management processes on different types of conflict is complex; future conflict management theory should be developed to incorporate differential effects of conflict management. The study also has important practical implications. In the 21st century, where organizations primarily focus on groups as sources of competitive advantage, conflicts do arise frequently among team members. Thus, our findings provide insights into the connection that conflict may have with important outcome variables (cohesion and, subsequently, team effectiveness). In particular, effective conflict management may mitigate the negative effect of relationship conflict on team cohesion. However, the use of effective conflict management, at least in this study, may have had a detrimental effect on team cohesion in cases where there were task-related conflicts. Hence, teams who have relationship conflict should be given guidance on using conflict management processes. Teams with low relationship conflict and more task conflict should not try to overly manage their disagreements over the task and rather let them work themselves out through expression (Murnighan & Conlon, 1991). If replicated, the results of this study may stimulate further studies that would help us to understand why effective conflict management may have such a detrimental influence on the relationship between task conflict and cohesion. Overall, the results of this study provided support for the theoretical proposals of Gersick (1988), Tuckman (1965), and Tuckman and Jensen (1977). In addition, this study addressed the call for more research on the moderating role of conflict management on the relationship between relationship conflict and team processes (DeChurch & Marks, 2001).

198   Group & Organization Management

Appendix Measures Used in the Study 1. Relationship conflict: How frequently . . . . . . was there friction among members on your team? . . . were personality conflicts evident on your team? . . . was there tension among members on your team? . . . was there emotional conflict among members on your team? 2. Task conflict: How frequently . . . . . . did people on your team disagree regarding the work being done? . . . were there conflicts about ideas on your team? . . . were there differences of opinion on your team? 3. Conflict management: To what extent do you agree with the following statements? Conflict is dealt with openly on this team. If conflict arises on this team, the people involved in the conflict initiate steps to resolve the conflict immediately. This team knows what to do when conflicts between team members arise. This team is able to avoid the negative aspects of conflict before they occur. 4. Cohesion: To what extent do you agree with the following statements? Our team is united in trying to reach its goals for performance. We all take responsibility for any loss or poor performance by our team. Our team members communicate freely about each of our personal responsibilities in getting this project done. The members of this team help each other when working on our project. The members of this team get along well together. The members of this team stick together. 5. Perceived performance: Please indicate a score (out of 100) your group project deserves to earn ________. 6. Satisfaction with the team: Please indicate how satisfied you were regarding the following statements? I am satisfied with my present team members. I am pleased with the way my team members and I worked together. I am very satisfied with working in this team. I am satisfied with the team processes we used in the last two weeks before turning in the final paper. I am satisfied with this team’s processes in the last two weeks before turning in the final paper. (continued)

Tekleab et al. / Team Conflict, Conflict Management   199

Appendix (continued) 7. Team viability: To what extent do you agree with the following statements? This team should not have continued to function as a team. This team was not capable of working together as a unit. This team probably should never work together in the future. If I had the chance, I would have switched teams. I would be happy to work with the team members on other projects in the future.

Notes 1. Group size has been found to be related to team-level dependent variables. However, we did not include group size in our study because the majority (88.7%) of teams had five members. Only one team had three members, another team had six members, and four teams had four members. A simple correlation between group size and study variables was not significant. Thus, we omitted group size from further analysis in the study. 2. We also ran cross-level analyses using HLM, where we used individual-level data for satisfaction with the team and team viability (Level-1) as dependent variables, and entered group-level data on conflicts, conflict management, and cohesion as Level-2 predictors, and the results were comparable to those reported here. 3. We thank an anonymous reviewer for his or her suggestion. 4. There are some researchers who argue that it is appropriate to examine a mediation effect of a variable if Steps 2 and 3 are satisfied. In line with this work, cohesion does mediate the relationship between conflict management and team effectiveness criteria in the current study. 5. If we follow the opinions of some researchers, team cohesion would mediate the relationship between the interaction terms and all team effectiveness criteria because both interaction terms are related to team cohesion, which in turn is related to the three criteria. 6. We thank an anonymous reviewer for his or her comment.

References Alper, S., Tjosvold, A., & Law, K. S. (2000). Conflict management, efficacy, and performance in organizational teams. Personnel Psychology, 53, 625-642. Amason, A. (1996). Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on strategic decision making: Resolving a paradox for top management teams. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 123-148. Amason, A., Thompson, K., Hochwarter, W., & Harrison, A. (1995). Conflict: An important dimension in successful management teams. Organization Dynamics, 24, 20-35. Andrews, M. C., Kacmar, K. Michele, Blakely, G. L., & Bucklew, N. S. (2008). Group cohesion as an enhancement to the justice affective commitment relationship. Group & Organization Management, 33, 736-755.

200   Group & Organization Management 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. Bar-Tal, D. (1990). Group beliefs. New York: Springer-Verlag. Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497-529. Beal, D. J., Cohen, R. R., Burke, M. J., & McLendon, C. L. (2003). Cohesion and performance in groups: A meta-analytic clarification of construct relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 989-1004. Bion, W.R. (1961). Experience in Groups. New York: Basic Books. Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1964). The managerial grid: Key orientations for achieving production through people. Houston, TX: Gulf. Bliese, P. D. (1998). Group size, ICC values and group-level correlations: A simulation. Organizational Research Methods, 1, 355-373. Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. J. Klein, S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations (pp. 349-381). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Brett, M. (1984). Managing organizational conflict. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 15, 644-678. Cameron, D. (2000). Good to talk? Living and working in a communication culture. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Campbell, H. P., & Dunnette, M. D. (1968). Effectiveness of the T-group experience in managerial training and development. Psychological Bulletin, 70, 73-104. Campion M. A., Medsker G. J., & Higgs C. A. (1993). Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups. Personnel Psychology, 46, 823-850. Carless, S. A., & DePaola, C. (2000). The measurement of cohesion in work teams. Small Group Research, 31, 71-88. Carnevale, P. J., & Probst, T. M. (1998). Social values and social conflict in creative problem solving and categorization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1300-1309. Carron, A. V., & Brawley, L. R. (2000). Cohesion: Conceptual and measurement issues. Small Group Research, 31, 89-106. Carron, A. V., Brawley, L. R., & Widmeyer, W. N. (1998). The measurement of cohesiveness in sport groups. In J. L. Duda (Ed.), Advances in sport and exercise psychology measurement (pp. 213-226). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology. Chang, A., & Bordia, P. (2001). A multidimensional approach to the group cohesion-group performance relationship. Small Group Research, 32, 379-405. Chang, A., Bordia, P., & Duck, J. (2003). Punctuated equilibrium and linear progression: Toward a new understanding of group development. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 106-117. Chatman, J. A., & Flynn, F. J. (2001). The influence of demographic heterogeneity on the emergence and consequences of cooperative norms in work teams. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 956-974. Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23, 239-290. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/ correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Tekleab et al. / Team Conflict, Conflict Management   201 Copeland, B. W., & Wida, K. (1996). Resolving team conflict: Coaching strategies to prevent negative behavior. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, 67(4), 52-54. Cosier, R. A., & Dalton, D. (1990). Positive effects of conflict: A field assessment. International Journal of Conflict Management, 1, 81-92. Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281-302. DeChurch, L. A., & Marks, M. A. (2001). Maximizing the benefits of task conflict: The role of conflict management. International Journal of Conflict Management, 12, 4-22. De Dreu, C. K. W., & Beersma, B. (2005). Conflict in organizations: Beyond effectiveness and performance. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 14, 105-117. De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 741-749. De Dreu, C. K. W., Weingart, L. R., & Kwon, S. (2000). Influence of social motives on integrative negotiations: A meta-analytic review and test of two theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 889-905. DeStephen, R. S., & Hirokawa, R. Y. (1988). Small group consensus: Stability of group support of the decision, task process, and group relationships. Small Group Behavior, 17, 227-239. Deutsch, M. (1973). The resolution of conflict. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Deutsch, M. (1980). Fifty years of conflict. In L. Festinger (Ed.), Four decades of social psychology (pp. 46-77). New York: Oxford University Press. Deutsch, M. (1990). Sixty years of conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management, 1, 237-263. Dion, K. R. (2000). Group cohesion: From “field of forces” to multidimensional construct. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 4, 7-26. Edmondson, A. C., & Smith, D. M. (2006). Too hot to handle? How to manage relationship conflict. California Management Review, 49, 6-31. Ensley, M. D., Pearson, A. W., & Amason, A. C. (2002). Understanding the dynamics of new venture top management teams: Cohesion, conflict, and new venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 17, 365-386. Evans, C. R., & Dion, K. L. (1991). Group cohesion and performance: A meta-analysis. Small Group Research, 22, 175-186. Folger, R. (1977). Distributive and procedural justice: Combined impact of “voice” and improvement of experienced inequality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 108-119. Gersick, C. J. G. (1988). Time and transition in work teams: Toward a new model of group development. Academy of Management Journal, 3, 9-41. Gersick, C. J. G. (1989). Marking time: Predictable transitions in task groups. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 274-309. Gibson, C. B., Randel, A. E., & Earley, A. E. (2000). Understanding group efficacy: An empirical test of multiple assessment models. Group & Organization Management, 25, 67-97. Greenberg, J., & Folger, R. (1983). Procedural justice, participation, and the fair process effect in groups and organizations. In P. B. Paulus (Ed.), Basic group processes (pp. 235-256). New York: Springer-Verlag. Griffin, M. A. (1997). Interaction between individuals and situations: Using HLM procedures to estimate reciprocal relationships. Journal of Management, 23, 759-773. Griffith, J. (1988). Measurement of group cohesion in U.S. Army units. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 9, 149-171.

202   Group & Organization Management Gully, S. M., & Devine, D. J. (1995). A meta-analysis of cohesion and performance. Small Group Research, 26, 497-520. Guzzo, R. A. & Shea, G. P. (1992). Group performance and intergroup relations in organization. In Dunnette, M. D. and Hough, L. M. (Eds), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 26-313). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychology Press. Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of effective work teams. In J. W. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 315-342). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Hackman, J. R., & Morris, C. G. (1975). Group tasks, group interaction process, and group performance effectiveness: A review and proposed integration. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 8, pp. 47-99). New York: Academic Press. Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Hackman, J. R., & Walton, R. E. (1986). Leading groups in organizations. In P. Goodman (Ed.), Designing effective work groups (pp. 72-119). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Hambrick, D. C. (1994). Top management groups: A conceptual integration and reconsideration of the “team” label. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 16, pp. 171-213). Greenwich, CT: JAI. Hyatt, D. E., & Ruddy, T. H. (1997). An examination of the relationship between work team characteristics and effectiveness: A replication and extension. Personnel Psychology, 50, 553-585. Ilgen, D. R. (1999). Teams embedded in organizations. American Psychologist, 54, 129-139. Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink; a psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascoes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Jehn, K. A. (1994). Enhancing effectiveness: An investigation of advantages and disadvantages of value-based intragroup conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management, 5, 223-238. Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and determinants of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 256-282. Jehn, K. A. (1997). A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 530-557. Jehn, K. A., & Mannix, E. A. (2001). The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 238-251. Jehn, K. A., & Shah, P. P. (1997). Interpersonal relationships and task performance: An examination of mediating processes in friendship and acquaintance groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 775-790. Jung, D. I., & Sosik, J. J. (2002). Transformational leadership in work groups: The role of empowerment, cohesiveness, and collective-efficacy on perceived group performance. Small Group Research, 33, 313-336. Kilmann, R. H., & Thomas, K. W. (1978). Four perspectives on conflict management: An attributional framework for organizing descriptive and normative theory. Academy of Management Review, 3, 59-68. Kirkman, B. L., Tesluk, P. E., & Rosen, B. (2001). Assessing the incremental validity of team consensus ratings over aggregation of individual-level data in predicting team effectiveness. Personnel Psychology, 54, 645-667. Klein, K. J., Bliese, P. D., Kozlowski, S. W. J., Dansereau, F., Gavin, M. B., Griffin, M. A., et al. (2000). Multilevel analytic techniques. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations (pp. 512-556). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Klein, M., & Christiansen, G. (1969). Group composition, group structure, and group effectiveness of basketball teams. In J. W. Loy & G. S. Kenyon (Eds.), Sport, culture, and society: A reader on the sociology of sport (pp. 397-408). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Collier-Macmillan.

Tekleab et al. / Team Conflict, Conflict Management   203 LeBreton, J. M., & Senter, J. L. (2008). Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11, 815-852. Langfred, C. W. (2007). The downside of self-management: A longitudinal study of the effects of conflict on trust, autonomy, and task interdependence in self-managing teams. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 885-900. Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., & White, R. K. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created “social climates.” Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 271-299. Li, J., & Hambrick, D. C. (2005). Factional groups: A new vantage on demographic faultlines, conflict, and disintegration in work teams. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 794-813. Lind, A., & Tyler, T. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum. Lovelace, K., Shapiro, D. L., & Weingart, L. R. (2001). Maximizing cross-functional new product teams’ innovativeness and constraint adherence: A conflict communications perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 779-793. Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26, 356-376. Mason, C. M., & Griffin, M. A. (2003). Identifying group task satisfaction at work. Small Group Research, 34, 413-442. Montoya-Weiss, M. M., Massey, A. P., & Song, M. (2001). Getting it together: Temporal coordination and conflict management in global virtual teams. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 1251-1262. Moore, C. W. (1986). The mediation process: Practical strategies for resolving conflict. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Mullen, B., & Copper, C. (1994). The relationship between group cohesiveness and performance: An integration. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 210-227. Murnighan, J. K., & Conlon, D. E. (1991). The dynamics of intense work groups: A study of British string quartets. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 165-186. Passos, A. M., & Caetano, A. (2005). Exploring the effects of intragroup conflict and past performance feedback on team effectiveness. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20, 231-244. Peterson, R. S., & Behfar, K. J. (2003). The dynamic relationship between performance feedback, trust, and conflict in groups: A longitudinal study. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 92, 102-112. Pinkley, R. L. (1990). Dimensions of conflict frame: Disputant interpretations of conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 117-126. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903. Prapavessis, H., & Carron, A. V. (1997). Cohesion and work group output. Small Group Research, 28, 294-301. Priem, R. L., Harrison, D. A., & Muir, N. K. (1995). Structured conflict and consensus outcomes in group decision making. Journal of Management, 21, 691-710. Pruitt, D. G. (1981). Negotiation behavior. New York: Academic Press. Rahim, M. A. (1983). A measure of styles of handling interpersonal conflict. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 368-376. Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1977). An examination of need satisfaction models of job satisfaction. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, 427-456. Seashore, S. E. (1954). Group cohesiveness in the Industrial Work Group. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

204   Group & Organization Management Schweiger, D., Sandberg, W., & Ragan, J. (1986). Group approaches to improving strategic decision-making. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 51-71. Shapiro, D. L., & Kulik, C. (2004). Disputing with faceless opponents: New challenges for conflict management research. In M. J. Gelfand & J. M. Brett (Eds.), The handbook of negotiation and culture: Theoretical advances and cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 177-192). Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press. Simons, T. L., & Peterson, R. S. (2000). Task conflict and relationship conflict in top management teams: The pivotal role of intragroup trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 102-111. Sobel, M. E. 1982. Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. In S. Leinhart (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 290-312). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Spector, P. E., Chen, P. Y., & O’Connell, B. J. (2000). A longitudinal study of relations between job stressors and job strains while controlling for prior negative affectivity and strains. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 211-218. Spector, P. E., & Jex, S. M. (1998). Development of four self-report measures of job stressors and strain: Interpersonal conflict at work scale, organizational constraints scale, quantitative workload inventory, and physical systems inventory. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 3, 356-367. Stock, D. (1964). A survey of research on T-groups. In L. Bradford, K. Benne, & J. Gibb (Eds.), T-group theory and laboratory method: Innovation in re-education (pp. 395-441). New York: John Wiley. Sullivan, P. J., & Feltz, D. L. (2001). The relationship between intrateam conflict and cohesion within hockey teams. Small Group Research, 32, 342-355. Sundstrom, E., De Meuse, K. P., & Futrell, D. (1990). Work teams: Applications and effectiveness. American Psychologist, 45, 120-133. Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63, 384-399. Tuckman, B. W., & Jensen, M. A. (1977). Stages of small-group development revisited. Group & Organization Studies, 2, 419-427. Ury, W. L., Brett, J. M., & Goldberg, S. B. (1988). Getting disputes resolved. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Van de Ven, A. H., & Ferry, D. L. (1980). Measuring and assessing organizations. New York: John Wiley. Van de Vliert, E., & Euwema, M. C. (1994). Agreeableness and activeness as components of conflict behaviors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 674-687. Van de Vliert, E., Euwema, M. C, & Huismans, S. E. (1995). Managing conflict with a subordinate or a superior: Effectiveness of conglomerated behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 271-281. Van der Vegt, G. S., Emans, B. J. M., & Van de Vliert, E. (2001). Patterns of interdependence in work teams: A two-level investigation of the relations with job and team satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 54, 51-69. Van Vianen, A. E. M., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2001). Personality in teams: Its relationship to social cohesion, task cohesion, and team performance. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10, 97-120. Von Glinow, M. A., Shapiro, D. L., & Brett, J. M. (2004). Can we talk, and should we? Managing emotional conflict in multicultural teams. Academy of Management Review, 29, 578-592. Wall, J. A., & Callister, R. R. (1995). Conflict and its management. Journal of Management, 21, 515-558.

Tekleab et al. / Team Conflict, Conflict Management   205 Wech, B. A., Mossholder, K. W., Steel, R. P., & Bennett, N. (1998). Does work group cohesiveness affect individuals’ performance and organizational commitment? A cross-level examination. Small Group Research, 29, 472-494. Wheelan, S. A. (1994). Group processes: A developmental perspective. Sydney: Allyn & Bacon. Widmeyer, W. N., Brawley, L. R., & Carron, A. V. (1985). The measurement of cohesion in sport teams: The Group Environment Questionnaire. London, Ontario, Canada: Sports Dynamics. Zornoza, A., Ripoll, P., & Peiro, J. M. (2002). Conflict management in groups that work in two different communication contexts: Face-to-face and computer-mediated communication. Small Group Research, 33, 481-508.

Amanuel G. Tekleab is an assistant professor of organizational behavior at Wayne State University’s School of Business Administration. His research interests are focused on employment relationship, team processes, and training and development. Narda R. Quigley is an assistant professor of management at the Villanova University’s School of Business. Her research interests are focused on team composition and processes, emergent and cross-cultural leadership, and motivation. Paul E. Tesluk is an associate professor of management and organization and associate director of the Center for Human Capital, Innovation & Technology at the Robert H. Smith School of Business, University of Maryland, College Park. His research interests are focused on knowledge management in teams, organizational innovation, and work experience and leadership development.