Conflict and Workgroup Outcomes

Much of the research on effects of work­group conflict on performance reviewed by the first edition of this chapter, as well as since then, takes its cues from Jehn’s (1995) influ­ential report.

While early work focused specifically on task and relationship conflict, process conflict has received more attention in recent studies in addition to task and relational conflict. Process conflict involves disagreement regard­ing how decisions should be made (Jehn & Mannix, 2001). In a longitudinal study, Greer, Jehn, and Mannix (2008) found that early process conflict leads to higher levels of all conflict later for the group but that the effect was limited if the process conflict was resolved early. Process conflict at Time 1 was related to increased levels of all three types of conflict (task, relationship, and process) at Times 2 and 3. Moderation analysis indi­cated that some, but not all, of that effect was moderated by successful resolution, such that resolution decreased some levels of conflict later in the group’s work. These results are important in that they include time in the analysis rather than relying on cross-sectional methods, but this study included zero-history students groups (albeit MBA students rather than undergraduates), so we consider the conclusions tentatively.

Studies subsequent to Jehn (1995) provide more complex evidence about the association of conflict with workgroup outcomes. In con­trast to Jehn, several studies indicate generally negative outcomes associated with all three types of conflict, such as reduced perfor­mance and satisfaction (Stewart & Barrick, 2000; Vodosek, 2007). Van Woerkom and van Engen (2009) studied 84 workgroups in a number of organizations and found that task conflict, while not related to team learn­ing, was negatively related to perceptions of performance. Relational conflict was, how­ever, negatively related to team learning. Task conflict has also been negatively related to innovativeness (Lovelace et al., 2001), although that relationship was moderated by conflict styles and openness so that for teams that dealt with disagreements collaboratively and in which members felt free to express doubts, task disagreement was associated pos­itively with innovativeness. On the other hand, several studies have confirmed Jehn’s (1995) work, finding positive associations between task conflict and performance (Amason, 1996; Pelled, Eisenhardt, & Xin, 1999). Amason (1996) also found that affective (relationship) conflict was negatively related to decision quality. In an attempt to sort out the results on conflict and group performance, De Dreu and Weingart (2003) conducted a meta-analysis of 30 studies through 2001. They found that overall both task and relationship conflict had an average correlation of -.22 with group performance and more substantial negative correlations with member satisfaction.

While De Dreu and Weingart’s (2003) meta­analysis is helpful, it is likely that contextual variables are complicating the relationship between conflict and performance. Along that line, most scholars studying within the instru­mental perspective are examining moderators and mediators that influence the impacts of conflict on performance.

1995), task uncertainty (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003), level of group member interdependence (Janssen, Van de Vliert, & Veenstra, 1999), and attitude toward group (Dooley & Fryxell, 1999). These studies imply that task conflict has a positive effect on outcomes when tasks are nonroutine with low uncertainty, when interdependence is high, and when members have positive dispositions to their groups. Relational conflict is more damaging to per­formance when tasks involve high levels of uncertainty and when group members are highly interdependent.

Norms regarding communication and con­flict management also influence the impacts of conflict on group effectiveness. Jehn (1995, 1997) found that the positive effect of task conflict and the negative effects of relation­ship conflict were stronger in groups with norms favoring openness than in those that did not have such norms. She also reported that groups with norms favoring avoidance of conflict did not exhibit the negative effects of relationship conflict on satisfaction and lik­ing. Other studies found similar results in that openness or collaborativeness generally led to enhanced group performance (Lovelace et al., 2001; Stewart & Barrick, 2000). Amason and Sapienza (1997) found a positive association between openness and degree of cognitive con­flict in top management teams but a negative association between mutuality—the degree to which members feel joint responsibility and share goals—and affective conflict. Also related to norms, groups adopting a coop­erative approach may have higher levels of “conflict efficacy”—a belief that the team could manage conflict effectively—than com­petitive groups, and groups with a cooperative approach received higher ratings of effective­ness from supervisors than those with a com­petitive approach (Alper, Tjosvold, & Law, 2000). Kuhn and Poole (2000) studied 10 quality improvement teams from a government agency and a large corporation. They found that teams that developed norms favoring integrative conflict management made more effective decisions than those that developed norms favoring competition or avoidance of conflict. Other studies have demonstrated the value of group norms encouraging controversy that results in constructive conflict (Alper, Tjosvold, & Law, 1998; Janis, 1982; Tjosvold, 1993; Tjosvold, Wedley, & Field, 1986).

Perhaps the most comprehensive study along these lines, Jehn, Greer, Levine, and Szulanski (2008) compared conflict types with productivity and member retention along with a number of other potential moderators and mediators.

To summarize the studies on conflict and workgroup outcomes, there is clear evidence that conflict affects outcomes. While studies fairly consistently find a negative relationship between relationship or emotional conflict and outcomes, the record for task conflict is mixed, with some studies finding positive effects and some negative effects. The impacts of process conflict have received much less attention. However, results from Greer et al. (2008) and Jehn et al. (2008) indicate that process con­flict may be negatively related to outcomes. There is a good deal of evidence that shows how workgroups deal with conflict affects outcomes, and the studies reviewed here sug­gest that the best approach is to confront the conflict openly and promote open and coop­erative communication concerning issues and options—exactly the advice given by most con­flict management texts (e.g., Folger, Poole, & Stutman, 2011; Wilmot & Wilmot, 2001). This is comforting for those who have used the normatively based concepts in these texts, but as we will see below, it may also be cause for concern.