Reflections on Instrumental Research on Workgroup Conflict and Communication

As we noted in the first edition of this chapter, research in the instrumental perspec­tive has advanced and substantiated a large amount of normative and case-based research that posited that a certain style of managing conflict—marked by open communication, confrontation of the issues, recognition that conflict can be useful, participatory decision making, and confidence that the conflict can be resolved in an integrative fashion—promotes positive group outcomes.

The general confirmation of these prescrip­tions, however, raises a troubling issue. The normative position on conflict management has been taught to several generations of employees, starting with Blake and Mouton’s (1964) classic formulation of conflict styles. The research designs of most instrumental studies of workgroups have relied primarily on self-reported attitudes and behaviors. Members of teams are asked to report their conflict behaviors and assess outcomes; man­agers of teams are asked to report outcomes. This raises the possibility that implicit theories about how “effective” groups handle con­flict have influenced participant responses. Participants who perceive their groups as doing well (often based on feedback from the managers who are rating team perfor­mance) may exhibit selective recall such that they remember behaviors consistent with the normative perspectives they have been taught more than behaviors inconsistent with them.

Studies that observe group behavior and relate it to objective or subjective outcomes offer one way to determine whether this is, in fact, occurring. The few studies that have taken this approach (e.g., Kuhn & Poole, 2000) offer encouraging replications of the questionnaire-based studies. There is a need for more research in this area that is based on direct observation and analysis of group interaction.

A second caveat for instrumental research is that almost all studies have been cross­sectional in nature and, as a result, cannot establish causality with respect to associa­tions among variables measuring conflict, out­comes, and mediating and moderating factors. This was particularly true in the last edition, but there have been several longitudinal stud­ies since that time. For example, as previously stated, Greer et al. (2008) found that conflict early in a group’s history leads to more con­flict, although that study was conducted using student groups. Similarly, Poole and Dobosh (2010) studied a jury meeting first to come to a verdict and second to determine the sen­tence. They found that within-group, micro­level conflict processes in the first meeting shaped how the group managed conflict in the second meeting. Lira et al. (2008) found that communication medium moderated the rela­tionship between type of conflict and outcome in a longitudinal study.

The recent growth in network analysis and the studies on workgroup conflict from that perspective highlight a shortcoming of other work in this area in terms of con­sidering the organizational context within which the workgroup is situated. While some of the research reports the industries from which groups were drawn, there is generally little information about the culture of the organization, whether members have joined groups freely or were assigned, and how workgroups fit within the organization’s structure. Significant relationships found in network analyses indicate the importance of examining not just the group itself but also its context within an organization.

Finally, we might note a major gap in cur­rent instrumental research. While instrumen­tal studies clearly indicate productive routes for dealing with task-oriented conflict, they are less definitive on what is to be done with emotion-based or relational conflicts. In view of the inevitability of such conflicts, more knowledge is needed about how best to cope with them. It is also important to realize that the distinction between the three types of con­flict may be at least partially arbitrary. Janssen et al. (1999) call the separation somewhat artificial since task conflict tends to breed rela­tional conflict and process conflict can cause both types. Some answers to these issues are suggested by research in the developmental and political perspectives.

Research Within the Developmental Perspective

In contrast to the instrumental point of view, the developmental perspective sees con­flict not in relation to group performance but in relation to group progress. Two positions on group development see that progress as either movement from one stage of a life cycle to the next or movement between poles of an opposition, a paradox. The following review of the developmental perspective focuses on these two areas.