A Network Conceptualization of Team Conflict

REFERENCES

• Alter, S. 2014. Theory of workarounds. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 34: 1041–1066. Google Scholar
• Amason, A. C. 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.Link , Google Scholar
• Aronson, E., & Cope, V. 1968. My enemy’s enemy is my friend. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8: 8–12. Google Scholar
• Arrow, H., McGrath, J. E., & Berdahl, J. L. 2000. Small groups as complex systems: Formation, coordination, development, and adaptation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Google Scholar
• Avgar, A. C., & Neuman, E. J. 2015. Seeing conflict: A study of conflict accuracy in work teams. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 8: 65–84. Google Scholar
• Ayoko, O. B. 2016. Workplace conflict and willingness to cooperate: The importance of apology and forgiveness. International Journal of Conflict Management, 27: 172–198. Google Scholar
• Baldwin, T. T., Bedell, M. D., & Johnson, J. L. 1997. The social fabric of a team-based M.B.A. program: Network effects on student satisfaction and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 40: 1369–1397.Link , Google Scholar
• Balkundi, P., Barsness, Z., & Michael, J. H. 2009. Unlocking the influence of leadership network structures on team conflict and viability. Small Group Research, 40: 301–322. Google Scholar
• Banning, K. C. 2003. The effect of the case method on tolerance for ambiguity. Journal of Management Education, 27: 556–567. Google Scholar
• Behfar, K. J., Peterson, R. S., Mannix, E. A., & Trochim, W. M. 2008. The critical role of conflict resolution in teams: A close look at the links between conflict type, conflict management strategies, and team outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93: 170–188. Google Scholar
• Borgatti, S. P., & Foster, P. C. 2003. The network paradigm in organizational research: A review and typology. Journal of Management, 29: 991–1013. Google Scholar
• Boulding, K. 1963. Conflict and defense. New York: Harper & Row. Google Scholar
• Bradley, B. H., Anderson, H. J., Baur, J. E., & Klotz, A. C. 2015. When conflict helps: Integrating evidence for beneficial conflict in groups and teams under three perspectives. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 19: 243–272. Google Scholar
• Brands, R. A. 2013. Cognitive social structures in social network research: A review. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(Supplement 1): S82–S103. Google Scholar
• Brass, D. J. 1984. Being in the right place: A structural analysis of individual influence in an organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29: 518–539. Google Scholar
• Brass, D. J. 2011. A social network perspective on industrial/organizational psychology. In S. W. J. Kozlowski (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of organizational psychology: 107–117. New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
• Brass, D. J., Galaskiewicz, J., Greve, H. R., & Tsai, W. 2004. Taking stock of networks and organizations: A multilevel perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 47: 795–817.Link , Google Scholar
• Brett, J. M., Shapiro, D. L., & Lytle, A. L. 1998. Breaking the bonds of reciprocity in negotiations. Academy of Management Journal, 41: 410–424.Link , Google Scholar
• Brodbeck, F. C., Kerschreiter, R., Mojzisch, A., Frey, D., & Schulz‐Hardt, S. 2002. The dissemination of critical, unshared information in decision‐making groups: The effects of pre‐discussion dissent. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32: 35–56. Google Scholar
• Burt, R. S. 1992. Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Google Scholar
• Burt, R. S. 2010. Neighbor networks: Competitive advantage local and personal. New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
• Carton, A. M., & Cummings, J. N. 2013. The impact of subgroup type and subgroup configurational properties on work team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98: 732–758. Google Scholar
• Casciaro, T., Barsade, S. G., Edmondson, A. C., Gibson, C. B., Krackhardt, D., & Labianca, G. 2015. The integration of psychological and network perspectives in organizational scholarship. Organization Science, 26: 1162–1176. Google Scholar
• Casciaro, T., & Lobo, M. S. 2008. When competence is irrelevant: The role of interpersonal affect in task-related ties. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53: 655–684. Google Scholar
• Chen, G., Mathieu, J. E., & Bliese, P. D. 2004. A framework for conducting multilevel construct validation. In F. J. DansereauF. Yammarino (Eds.), Research in multi-level issues: The many faces of multi-level issues, vol. 3: 273–303. Oxford: Elsevier Science. Google Scholar
• Chun, J. S., & Choi, J. N. 2014. Members’ needs, intragroup conflict, and group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99: 437–450. Google Scholar
• Crawford, E. R., & LePine, J. A. 2013. A configural theory of team processes: Accounting for the structure of taskwork and teamwork. Academy of Management Review, 38: 32–48.Link , Google Scholar
• Cronin, M. A., & Weingart, L. R. 2007. Representational gaps, information processing, and conflict in functionally diverse teams. Academy of Management Review, 32: 761–773.Link , Google Scholar
• Cross, R., Borgatti, S. P., & Parker, A. 2002. Making invisible work visible: Using social network analysis to support strategic collaboration. California Management Review, 44: 25–46. Google Scholar
• DeChurch, L. A., Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., & Doty, D. 2013. Moving beyond relationship and task conflict: Toward a process-state perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98: 559–578. Google Scholar
• De Dreu, C. K. 2006. When too little or too much hurts: Evidence for a curvilinear relationship between task conflict and innovation in teams. Journal of Management, 32: 83–107. Google Scholar
• De Dreu, C. K. 2008. The virtue and vice of workplace conflict: Food for (pessimistic) thought. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29: 5–18. Google Scholar
• De Dreu, C. K., Van Dierendonck, D., & Dijkstra, M. 2004. Conflict at work and individual well-being. International Journal of Conflict Management, 15: 6–26. Google Scholar
• De Dreu, C. K., & Weingart, L. R. 2003. Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 741–749. Google Scholar
• de Jong, J. P., Curşeu, P. L., & Leenders, R. T. A. 2014. When do bad apples not spoil the barrel? Negative relationships in teams, team performance, and buffering mechanisms. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99: 514–522. Google Scholar
• DeLeon, L. 2001. Accountability for individuating behaviors in self-managing teams. Organizational Development Journal, 19(4): 7–19. Google Scholar
• de Wit, F. R., Greer, L. L., & Jehn, K. A. 2012. The paradox of intragroup conflict: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97: 360–390. Google Scholar
• de Wit, F. R., Jehn, K. A., & Scheepers, D. 2013. Task conflict, information processing, and decision-making: The damaging effect of relationship conflict. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 122: 177–189. Google Scholar
• Esser, J. K. 1998. Alive and well after 25 years: A review of groupthink research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 73: 116–141. Google Scholar
• Farh, J. L., Lee, C., & Farh, C. I. 2010. Task conflict and team creativity: A question of how much and when. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95: 1173–1180. Google Scholar
• Felps, W., Mitchell, T. R., & Byington, E. 2006. How, when, and why bad apples spoil the barrel: Negative group members and dysfunctional groups. Research in Organizational Behavior, 27: 175–222. Google Scholar
• Fogarty, T. J., Singh, J., Rhoads, G. K., & Moore, R. K. 2000. Antecedents and consequences of burnout in accounting: Beyond the role stress model. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 12: 31–67. Google Scholar
• Fulmer, I. S., & Ployhart, R. E. 2014. “Our most important asset”: A multidisciplinary/ multilevel review of human capital valuation for research and practice. Journal of Management, 40: 161–192. Google Scholar
• Gladstein, D. L. 1984. Groups in context: A model of task group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29: 499–517. Google Scholar
• Greer, L. L., Caruso, H. M., & Jehn, K. A. 2011. The bigger they are, the harder they fall: Linking team power, team conflict, and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116: 116–128. Google Scholar
• Hackman, J. R., & Morris, C. G. 1975. Group tasks, group interaction process, and group performance effectiveness: A review and proposed integration. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 8: 45–99. Google Scholar
• Hewstone, M., Rubin, M., & Willis, H. 2002. Intergroup bias. Annual Review of Psychology, 53: 575–604. Google Scholar
• Hobfoll, S. E. 1989. Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44: 513–524. Google Scholar
• Hobfoll, S. E. 2001. The influence of culture, community, and the nested‐self in the stress process: Advancing conservation of resources theory. Applied Psychology, 50: 337–421. Google Scholar
• Hollenbeck, J. R., Beersma, B., & Schouten, M. E. 2012. Beyond team types and taxonomies: A dimensional scaling conceptualization for team description. Academy of Management Review, 37: 82–106.Link , Google Scholar
• Humphrey, S. E., Aime, F., Cushenbery, L., Hill, A. D., & Fairchild, J. 2017. Team conflict dynamics: Implications of a dyadic view of conflict for team performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 142: 58–70. Google Scholar
• Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M., & Jundt, D. 2005. Teams in organizations: From input-process-output models to IMOI models. Annual Review of Psychology, 56: 517–543. Google Scholar
• Janis, I. L. 1972. Victims of groupthink. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Google Scholar
• Janis, I. L., & Mann, L. 1977. Decision making: A psychological analysis of conflict, choice, and commitment. New York: Free Press. Google Scholar
• Jehn, K., Rispens, S., Jonsen, K., & Greer, L. 2013. Conflict contagion: A temporal perspective on the development of conflict within teams. International Journal of Conflict Management, 24: 352–373. Google Scholar
• Jehn, K. A. 1995. A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40: 256–282. Google Scholar
• Jehn, K. A. 1997. A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42: 530–557. Google Scholar
• Jehn, K. A., Chadwick, C., & Thatcher, S. M. 1997. To agree or not to agree: The effects of value congruence, individual demographic dissimilarity, and conflict on workgroup outcomes. International Journal of Conflict Management, 8: 287–305. Google Scholar
• Jehn, K. A., & Chatman, J. A. 2000. The influence of proportional and perceptual conflict composition on team performance. International Journal of Conflict Management, 11: 56–73. Google Scholar
• 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.Link , Google Scholar
• Jehn, K. A., Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. 1999. Why differences make a difference: A field study of diversity, conflict and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44: 741–763. Google Scholar
• Jehn, K. A., Rispens, S., & Thatcher, S. M. 2010. The effects of conflict asymmetry on work group and individual outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 53: 596–616.Link , Google Scholar
• Kahn, W. A. 1990. Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33: 692–724.Link , Google Scholar
• Kanouse, D. E., & Hanson, L. R. 1972. Negativity in evaluations. New York: General Learning Press. Google Scholar
• Korsgaard, M. A., Jeong, S., Mahony, D. M., & Pitariu, A. H. 2008. A multilevel view of intragroup conflict. Journal of Management, 34: 1222–1252. Google Scholar
• Kossinets, G., & Watts, D. J. 2006. Empirical analysis of an evolving social network. Science, 311: 88–90. Google Scholar
• Kotter, J. P. 1995. Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review, 73(2): 56–67. Google Scholar
• Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Bell, B. S. 2003. Work groups and teams in organizations. In W. C. BormanD. R. Ilgen (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology, vol. 12: 333–375. New York: Wiley. Google Scholar
• Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Ilgen, D. R. 2006. Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7: 77–124. Google Scholar
• Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. 2000. A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In K. J. KleinS. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions: 3–90. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Google Scholar
• Labianca, G. 2014. Negative ties in organizational networks. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 40: 239–259. Google Scholar
• Labianca, G., & Brass, D. J. 2006. Exploring the social ledger: Negative relationships and negative asymmetry in social networks in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 31: 596–614.Link , Google Scholar
• Labianca, G., Brass, D. J., & Gray, B. 1998. Social networks and perceptions of intergroup conflict: The role of negative relationships and third parties. Academy of Management Journal, 41: 55–67.Link , Google Scholar
• 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.Link , Google Scholar
• Leenders, R., Contractor, N. S., & DeChurch, L. A. 2016. Once upon a time: Understanding team dynamics as relational event networks. Organizational Psychology Review, 6: 92–115. Google Scholar
• Levine, J. M., Resnick, L. B., & Higgins, E. T. 1993. Social foundations of cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 44: 585–612. Google Scholar
• Lewin, K. 1945. The Research Center for Group Dynamics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Sociometry, 8: 126–136. Google Scholar
• 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.Link , Google Scholar
• Luciano, M., Mathieu, J., Park, S., & Tannenbaum, S. 2018. A fitting approach to construct and measurement alignment: The role of big data in advancing dynamic theories. Organizational Research Methods, 21: 592–632. Google Scholar
• Marineau, J. E. 2017. Trust and distrust network accuracy and career advancement in an organization. Group & Organization Management, 42: 487–520. Google Scholar
• Marineau, J. E., Hood, A., & Labianca, G. 2018. Multiplex conflict: Examining the effects of overlapping task and relationship conflict on advice seeking in organizations. Journal of Business and Psychology, 33: 595–610. Google Scholar
• Marineau, J. E., Labianca, G. J., & Kane, G. C. 2016. Direct and indirect negative ties and individual performance. Social Networks, 44: 238–252. Google Scholar
• Marsden, P. V. 1982. Brokerage behavior in restricted exchange networks. Social Structure and Network Analysis, 7: 341–410. Google Scholar
• Mathieu, J., Maynard, M. T., Rapp, T., & Gilson, L. 2008. Team effectiveness 1997–2007: A review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. Journal of Management, 34: 410–476. Google Scholar
• Mathieu, J. E., Hollenbeck, J. R., van Knippenberg, D., & Ilgen, D. R. 2017. A century of work teams in the Journal of Applied Psychology. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102: 452–467. Google Scholar
• Mathieu, J. E., & Luciano, M. M. 2019. Multilevel emergence in work collectives. In S. E. HumphreyJ. M. LeBreton (Eds.), The handbook for multilevel theory, measurement, and analysis: 163–186. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Google Scholar
• Mathieu, J. E., Tannenbaum, S. I., Donsbach, J. S., & Alliger, G. M. 2014. A review and integration of team composition models: Moving toward a dynamic and temporal framework. Journal of Management, 40: 130–160. Google Scholar
• McGrath, J. E. 1997. Small group research, that once and future field: An interpretation of the past with an eye to the future. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 1: 7–27. Google Scholar
• Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. 1977. Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83: 340–363. Google Scholar
• Meyer, R. D., Dalal, R. S., & Bonaccio, S. 2009. A meta‐analytic investigation into the moderating effects of situational strength on the conscientiousness-performance relationship. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30: 1077–1102. Google Scholar
• Meyer, R. D., Dalal, R. S., & Hermida, R. 2010. A review and synthesis of situational strength in the organizational sciences. Journal of Management, 36: 121–140. Google Scholar
• Morgeson, F. P., & Hofmann, D. A. 1999. The structure and function of collective constructs: Implications for multilevel research and theory development. Academy of Management Review, 24: 249–265.Link , Google Scholar
• O’Neill, T. A., Allen, N. J., & Hastings, S. E. 2013. Examining the “pros” and “cons” of team conflict: A team-level meta-analysis of task, relationship, and process conflict. Human Performance, 26: 236–260. Google Scholar
• O’Neill, T. A., & McLarnon, M. J. 2018. Optimizing team conflict dynamics for high performance teamwork. Human Resource Management Review, 28: 378–394. Google Scholar
• O’Neill, T. A., McLarnon, M. J., Hoffart, G. C., Woodley, H. J., & Allen, N. J. 2018. The structure and function of team conflict state profiles. Journal of Management, 44: 811–836. Google Scholar
• Pelled, L. H., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Xin, K. R. 1999. Exploring the black box: An analysis of work group diversity conflict and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44: 1–28. Google Scholar
• Pentland, A. 2007. Automatic mapping and modeling of human networks. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications, 378: 59–67. Google Scholar
• Rahim, M. A. 1983. A measure of styles of handling interpersonal conflict. Academy of Management Journal, 26: 368–376.Link , Google Scholar
• Rozin, P., & Royzman, E. B. 2001. Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5: 296–320. Google Scholar
• Rubin, J. Z., Pruitt, D. G., & Kim, S. 1994. Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate, and settlement. New York: McGraw-Hill. Google Scholar
• Saavedra, R., Earley, P. C., & Van Dyne, L. 1993. Complex interdependence in task-performing groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78: 61–72. Google Scholar
• Schelling, T. C. 1960. The strategy of conflict. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Google Scholar
• Schulz-Hardt, S., Jochims, M., & Frey, D. 2002. Productive conflict in group decision making: Genuine and contrived dissent as strategies to counteract biased information seeking. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 88: 563–586. Google Scholar
• Shaw, J. D., Zhu, J., Duffy, M., Scott, K. L., Shih, H., & Susanto, E. 2011. A contingency model of conflict and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96: 391–400. Google Scholar
• Sinha, R., Janardhanan, N. S., Greer, L. L., Conlon, D. E., & Edwards, J. R. 2016. Skewed task conflicts in teams: What happens when a few members see more conflict than the rest? Journal of Applied Psychology, 101: 1045–1055. Google Scholar
• Smith, K. K. 1989. The movement of conflict in organizations: The joint dynamics of splitting and triangulation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34: 1–20. Google Scholar
• Stewart, G. L., Fulmer, I. S., & Barrick, M. R. 2005. An exploration of member roles as a multilevel linking mechanism for individual traits and team outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 58: 343–365. Google Scholar
• Stuart, H. C. 2017. Structural disruption, relational experimentation, and performance in professional hockey teams: A network perspective on member change. Organization Science, 28: 283–300. Google Scholar
• Tasselli, S., Kilduff, M., & Menges, J. I. 2015. The microfoundations of organizational social networks: A review and an agenda for future research. Journal of Management, 41: 1361–1387. Google Scholar
• Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. 1994. Positive illusions and well-being revisited: Separating fact from fiction. Psychological Bulletin, 116: 21–27. Google Scholar
• Thatcher, S. M., & Patel, P. C. 2012. Group faultlines: A review, integration, and guide to future research. Journal of Management, 38: 969–1009. Google Scholar
• Tjosvold, D. 1997. Conflict within interdependence: Its value for productivity and individuality. In C. K. W. De DreuE. Van de Vilert (Eds.), Using conflict in organizations: 23–37. London: Sage. Google Scholar
• Tjosvold, D. 1998. Cooperative and competitive goal approach to conflict: Accomplishments and challenges. Applied Psychology, 47: 285–313. Google Scholar
• Tjosvold, D. 2008. Constructive controversy for management education: Developing committed, open-minded researchers. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 7: 73–85.Link , Google Scholar
• Tjosvold, D., & Deemer, D. K. 1980. Effects of controversy within a cooperative or competitive context on organizational decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65: 590–595. Google Scholar
• Tjosvold, D., Hui, C., Ding, D. Z., & Hu, J. 2003. Conflict values and team relationships: Conflict’s contribution to team effectiveness and citizenship in China. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24: 69–88. Google Scholar
• Tjosvold, D., Wedley, W. C., & Field, R. H. 1986. Constructive controversy, the Vroom‐Yetton model, and managerial decision‐making. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 7: 125–138. Google Scholar
• Torrance, E. P. 1957. Group decision-making and disagreement. Social Forces, 35: 314–318. Google Scholar
• Tsai, M.-H., & Bendersky, C. 2016. The pursuit of information sharing: Expressing task conflicts as debates vs. disagreements increases perceived receptivity to dissenting opinions in groups. Organization Science, 27: 141–156. Google Scholar
• Venkataramani, V., Labianca, G. J., & Grosser, T. 2013. Positive and negative workplace relationships, social satisfaction, and organizational attachment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98: 1028–1039. Google Scholar
• Wageman, R., Gardner, H., & Mortensen, M. 2012. The changing ecology of teams: New directions for teams research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33: 301–315. Google Scholar
• Wageman, R., & Gordon, F. M. 2005. As the twig is bent: How group values shape emergent task interdependence in groups. Organization Science, 16: 687–700. Google Scholar
• Wall, J. A., & Callister, R. R. 1995. Conflict and its management. Journal of Management, 21: 515–558. Google Scholar
• Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. 1994. Social network analysis: Methods and applications, vol. 8. New York: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
• Weingart, L. R. 1997. How did they do that? The ways and means of studying group processes. Research in Organizational Behavior, 19: 189–239. Google Scholar
• Weingart, L. R., Behfar, K. J., Bendersky, C., Todorova, G., & Jehn, K. A. 2015. The directness and oppositional intensity of conflict expression. Academy of Management Review, 40: 235–262.Link , Google Scholar
• Wildman, J. L., Thayer, A. L., Rosen, M. A., Salas, E., Mathieu, J. E., & Rayne, S. R. 2012. Task types and team-level attributes: Synthesis of team classification literature. Human Resource Development Review, 11: 97–129. Google Scholar
• Yong, K., Sauer, S. J., & Mannix, E. A. 2014. Conflict and creativity in interdisciplinary teams. Small Group Research, 45: 266–289. Google Scholar