Team up against group indecision

Team up against group indecision

Research to examine why and when knowledge diversity affects group indecision

Master thesis, Msc Human Resource Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business

January 29, 2017

Lise van Dam Student number: 2166607

Rijnstraat 54-3 1078 RD Amsterdam

Tel.: 06 46189472

E-mail: l.b.van.dam@student.rug.nl

1

Abstract

Much research has assessed decision making effectiveness, but only a few studies have examined the concepts of group indecision, although in many real life situations decisions are delayed or even refused. This study focusses on why and when group indecision occurs in knowledge diverse teams. Indecision is often the result of conflicting opinions, which may involve task conflict and relationship conflict. I propose that knowledge diverse teams may trigger conflict, and that conflict may in turn lead to indecision within teams. Furthermore, I expect a negative moderation effect of group potency on the relationship between conflict and indecision. These propositions were tested in a field study among 43 teams from various organizations. Results show a significant effect of knowledge diversity on task conflict, but all other relationships are not supported. This study indicates that there is still a lot of research to perform what causes indecision to occur.

2

1 Introduction

Effective decision making is of great importance within organizations. For every single aspect within an organization, important decisions have to be made. Organizations often appoint a group to make important decisions rather than giving this task to one individual, because they expect that diverse inputs from different team members leads to more effective decisions. Diversity can mean many different things, but in this context means that each individual has her own knowledge, ideas and perspectives that can be combined and integrated within the group, and together they have the potential to come up with high quality decisions (Brodbeck et. al., 2007). Heterogeneous groups have a potential advantage over homogeneous groups, because they have a greater pool of task-relevant information and expertise. Organizations expect their employees to share their knowledge and incorporate each piece of information to come up with the most effective decision. However, research shows that this is not always the case (Van Knippenberg, De Dreu & Homan, 2004).

Although there is potential that these knowledge diverse teams make better decisions there is also the possibility that teams do not decide at all. Imagine what could happen if a group never comes to making a decision. Many organizations and teams will miss out on opportunities that can increase the value within an organization and this will, as a

consequence, lead to costs of missed opportunities (Tversky & Shafir, 1992). The extra amount of time that is spent when postponing a decision also decreases the effectivity of decision making teams. Organizations should want to avoid these negative consequences of indecision and therefore it is very important to increase our knowledge about indecision within teams, especially since little research has been done on this topic.

The problem with diverse teams is that diversity of knowledge and perspectives may cause conflict, and research suggests that such conflict may lead to indecision (Amason, 1996; De Dreu & Weingart, 2003; Nijstad, 2008). Conflict should be subdivided into two different types. On the one hand, task conflict which refers to disagreements among members about procedures, views, opinions and ideas that are task related. On the other hand, relationship conflict which refers to problems between members of the group that are not related to the task to perform. According to Amason (1996) task conflict is inevitable when making

3

mainly focused on task conflict (De Wit et. al, 2013). Others looked at relationship conflict and found a negative effect on decision making outcomes (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003). According to De Dreu and Weingart (2003) it is important to look at both aspects of conflict because both will occur and can affect decision making outcomes differently.

Most studies about decision-making focus on effective decision-making or decision quality. In these studies, participants often have to select the option with the highest value (Tversky & Shafir, 1992). Key performance measurement lies in creating a decision that is most effective. However, in many situations indecision can occur, where groups do not have to make a choice, but can also refuse to make a decision or delay their choice (Nijstad, 2008). Even highly knowledgeable, decision making groups can have difficulties in decision making because of conflict, which could lead to indecision or postponement of a decision. It is very important to identify when team indecision can occur and to understand how it could be prevented since organizations have come to rely heavily on the effectiveness of teams to improve problem solving capability, quality and productivity (Guzzo and Salas, 1995; Janis, 1972; Janis & Mann, 1977). I argue that team potency moderates the relationship between conflict and indecision. Group potency is defined as ‘the group’s collective belief in its capabilities to perform well’ (Guzzo et al, 1993). Research confirms that group potency moderates the relationship between conflict and various work outcomes (Lira et. al, 2007), and I propose the same effect for indecision. There are many different ways how teams deal with conflict. If team members feel that the group can be effective even though conflict has arisen, it is more likely to develop an environment that is open and tolerant about divergent opinions and interpretations. In turn, this may lead team members to deal more constructively with conflict. Analysing the effect of team potency can help organizations in their

understanding how to prevent teams from indecision. Organizations should develop strategies how to encourage team members to strengthen their belief in the effectiveness and potential of their teams.

This study seeks to improve our understanding about indecision in groups. The aim of this paper is to examine the relation between knowledge diversity and indecision while focussing on group conflict as its mediator and group potency as its moderator, and to understand why and when indecision occurs. It could be an important contribution to how groups are formed when looking at diversity. On top of that, it could increase our

4

Why does knowledge diversity affect team indecision and when does it occur?

To examine this question I will first use theory to clarify the relationships between knowledge diversity, conflict and team indecision, and hereby identify what the role of team potency is. Following this literature review I will form propositions which will then be examined among 43 teams from various organizations.

2 Literature review

Diversity refers to differences between individuals. Team members can contribute to the team in two different ways, through social inputs and through task inputs (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003). Most of the research done on diversity focusses on dimensions such as demography, like ethnicity, age or sex which are factors that are more involved with social inputs (Van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007). Recently, researchers have suggested that knowledge diversity should gain more attention because organizations adopt team compositions that vary in functional or educational background (Van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007). It is more directly task relevant or job related for decision making tasks in teams.

Knowledge diversity is a concept that is defined differently in various studies, but is also referred to in different ways, such as functional, informational or cognitive diversity (Homan et. al, 2007). It can be defined as “differences in knowledge bases and perspectives that members bring to the group” (Jehn et al, 1999). Sauer, Felsing, Franke and Ruttinger (2006) define it more broadly by including all underlying task-related attributes. In addition to knowledge and perspectives, they include; abilities, skills and expertise. Often studies

measure diversity in teams objectively, according to the attributes of each member. By looking at each member’s background, for example education, they are classified in a certain category. However, another way to measure knowledge diversity is to assess how the

members of the group experience and perceive differences in their knowledge and

5

For the purpose of this study, knowledge diversity will be broadly operationalized as the difference between team members in terms of knowledge, skills, values and beliefs. It involves different interpretations and views about task related objectives, educational and work backgrounds, and experiences.

2.2 Conflict

According to Boulding (1963) conflict is “an awareness on the part of the parties involved of discrepancies, incompatible wishes, or irreconcilable desires.” Traditionally a distinction is made between two different types of conflict: relationship conflict and task conflict (Lira et. al, 2006). Task conflict is concerned with disagreements about views, opinions and ideas that are related to the tasks the group has to perform (Simons & Peterson, 2000; Yang &

Mossholder, 2004). Jehn (1995) and Eisenhardt, Kahwajy, and Bourgeois (1997) mention task conflict in groups as a condition where team members disagree about components of the task, including goals, key decision areas, procedures, and the appropriate choice for action. Whereas relationship conflict involves interpersonal clashes between group members that are not related to the task, but in which conflict exists of tension, animosity and annoyance (De Dreu & Van Vianen, 2001; Jehn, 1995).

Task conflict and relationship conflict are separated in most research and both have different effects on team functioning (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003; Hurt & Abebe, 2015; De Wit et. al, 2013). While task conflict may have positive effects on the team functioning, relationship conflict is found to have a negative impact on team functioning. The benefits of task conflict are created because team members have to confront their issues, which may lead to new and better insights (Simons & Peterson, 2000). Thus, when no conflict exists, teams may not develop these insights and this may result in poorer decisions than when conflict is experienced. But De Dreu and Weingart (2003) propose that as soon as conflict increases, the positive effects of task conflict start breaking down.

6

Research should take into account that there are two types of conflict that interact but should be measured separately. In this thesis, conflict is conceptualized and divided into task conflict, which involves disagreements between procedures, views, opinions and ideas that are task related, and relationship conflict, which refers to problems between members of the group not related to the task to perform.

2.3 Knowledge diversity and conflict

How diverse teams can generate knowledge, insights and ideas beyond the capacity of an individual is a subject that researchers devoted much attention to (Jehn, Northcraft & Neale, 1999). By combining the knowledge and skills of individuals, new ideas, knowledge and insights can be created resulting from different viewpoints and perspectives about the task (Levine, Resnick & Higgins, 1993; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). In the current study, knowledge diversity is explored as a predictor for indecision and one likely link between these concepts is conflict.

Studies show that homogenous groups avoid the process loss associated with poor communication patterns and excessive conflict that often occur in diverse groups (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992). The different skills and knowledge of individuals and the different

perspectives and opinions that exist in knowledge diverse teams lead to an increase in task related debates (Jehn, Chadwick, & Thatcher, 1997). Individuals will possibly think differently about the content or the process of the task. For example, individuals with an engineering background are likely to proceed in a different ways than individuals with a background in human resources.Recent research demonstrates that groups in which members have different educational backgrounds and thus have different knowledge and experience, have more difficulty defining how to proceed because of conflict. We can relate this to research by Lowe and Herranen (2008), who conducted research about conflict in diverse teams within a hospital setting. Each team member brought different knowledge, skills and experience to the team to interpret the situation and make decisions about patients. Because their roles and tasks varied in what each person added to the team, disagreements arose about how to proceed with the task by making decisions and also what each individual’s role in the team was. These disagreements and problems that arise in such situations are what Jehn (1995, 1997) refers to as conflict.

7

team (Byrne, 1971). Since the similarity in values, knowledge and skills are the basis for effective work environments a more diverse team could endanger this because more problems and disagreements arise through diversity. Jehn, Chadwick, and Thatcher (1997) found that even knowledge diverse groups that overcome similarity preferences still report finding the experience frustrating and dissatisfying. This is possibly due to unresolved interpersonal conflict. For example, when important issues are seen differently by each member of the group and similarity preferences are overcome, the differences still will be brought into close contradistinction, causing the underlying dissimilarities to be accentuated and likely

relationship conflict will be provoked (Amason, 1996). Thus not only different opinions about the task are formed but also on an interpersonal level about their team members. Whether this conflict is good or bad will be discussed in the following section, more

importantly is that research shows that team diversity is associated with conflict. Based on the theory we expect that knowledge diverse teams will experience more task- and relationship conflict than homogeneous teams.

Hypothesis 1a: Knowledge diversity will be positively related to task conflict in decision-making teams.

Hypothesis 1b: Knowledge diversity will be positively related to relationship conflict in decision-making teams.

2.4 Indecision

Much research has focussed on effective decision making, but one topic within this field has received limited attention. This is the fact that sometimes group decisions do not get made. In studies that measure group decision-making, the choice between available alternatives is presented and therefore a choice has to be made. But in real life situations it often happens that a decision is not made. Charan (2001) defines indecision as “the inability to make decisions”. Team indecision refers to the inability of teams to make a decision, even though they are aware a decision is needed. There are several ways in which indecision can occur.

8

Another type of indecision is choice delay (Tversky & Shafir, 1992). When all available options have their advantages and disadvantages, more information is needed to decide which one is best, which may lead to groups to delay choice. Groups should be aware that at one point the costs of delaying the decision and taking more time to make a decision can become greater than the potential benefits of delaying the decision.

Some researchers have studied indecision within a group context (Nijstad, 2008; Nijstad & Kaps, 2008; Charan, 2001; White et al, 2011). Kerr and MacCoun (1985) studied jury decision making in an experimental simulation of the U.S Supreme Court. Juries can be ‘hung’ when they fail to reach a collective decision on a verdict. It was found that public polling to come to a unanimous verdict would increase the commitment of each jury member to their original verdict and make it less likely to change their vote. Nijstad (2008) took hung juries into consideration and studied the effects of initial opinions and preferences of group members about the different alternatives on decision refusal within a team setting. His research suggests that when group members’ first response about the options is negative, the group often refuses all options. Even when positive information became available during discussion, initial negative opinions continue to persist, and might still lead to decision refusal. Nijstad and Kaps (2008) elaborated on these preferences and they performed a laboratory experiment to examine preference diversity in groups. They found that when preference is based on aversions, diversity could lead to groups refusing to choose a decision because information sharing is biased. Even when options are adequate on the whole, decision refusal can be the outcome because it is easier not to decide than deal with a lower outcome satisfaction. Charan (2001) argues that when decisions are made, often individuals are not committed to the decision they initially agreed upon. Such resistance causes that the process of making the decision becomes dysfunctional. In such a situation, studies should adopt a “no choice” possibility when teams are not ready to decide upon important matters.

9

Therefore teams might be even more indecisive than individuals. Indecision in this thesis will be referred to as the delay of choice or refusal of decision-making.

2.5 Conflict and indecision

Task conflict occurs when members of the team disagree about the task. To make a decision together, members of the group have to come to some sort of an understanding. When that does not succeed, indecision may occur. As for relationship conflict, an even worse outcome could be created when members of the group disagree on a more interpersonal level. When this conflict gets out of hand, members of the group will not even be prepared to speak to one another, let alone come to a decision.

Contradictory literature exists on the effect of task conflict on decision outcomes, some researchers argue a positive effect which mostly relates to task conflict (De Wit et al, 2013; De Dreu & Weingart, 2003; Hurt and Abebe, 2015). Task conflict may lead to better outcomes, but only when members are willing to give in or compromise, because then agreements may be realised better. But even though potential benefits could be created through task conflict, it could be that these possibilities are not realized which can result in indecision.This is consistent with previous research where teams must reach collective decisions by incorporating the preference of each individual in the group. Social Decision Scheme theory (SDS) observes responses and preferences of each member of the group to see how these preferences are combined to make a group decision (Davis, 1973). According to SDS theory, decisions often reflect majority influence. Thus, when a majority exists, it is quite likely that their choice will reflect the decision of the group. However, if no majority is present in case of conflict, this may create difficulties during decision making resulting in indecision. Nijstad and Kaps (2008) found that initial preferences and dislikes of alternatives may also cause groups to defer choice because team members tend to stick to their initial point of view about alternatives. When group members stick to their initial choice, groups may delay choice because of disagreement.

Studies found a negative relation between relationship conflict and effective decision-making (De Wit et al, 2013; De Dreu & Weingart, 2003; Hurt & Abebe, 2015). Dunne and Llamas (1998) argue that indecision occurs because individuals can’t overcome overvalued ideas, move past worry time, and solve problems within a sufficient time frame. When all members of a team overvalue their own ideas that differ from others in the group, relationship conflict occurs when these opinions are valued on a more personal level. When these

10

hand and agreement could possibly be very time consuming or not even occur. This is also consistent with the studies about preference diversity (Nijstad, 2008; Nijstad & Kaps, 2008). Proposed is that when team members have negative initial opinions about alternatives, members are less likely to give in to a decision that they assume to be very bad. It is very important to give in and compromise to make decisions, but that is not likely to happen when relationship conflict is high. Based on the research provided, I propose that higher levels of conflict lead to indecision.

Hypothesis 2a: Task conflict is positively related to team indecision

Hypothesis 2b: Relationship conflict is positively related to team indecision

2.6 Moderating effect of group potency

Sayles (1958) argues that when all members in the team believe that they can affect changes and take control in their own hands, team functioning will improve and the group’s collective belief in its capability to perform well will increase. This belief is the concept of group potency (Guzzo et al, 1993) and follows from the theory of social cognition. This theory indicates that group potency is a reflection of the concept of self-efficacy, but on a team level. Both are motivational constructs that reflect the belief in one’s own capabilities. For self-efficacy, these are individual capabilities of each member, and for group potency these are group capabilities of the team as a whole (Gully et al, 2002; Lee et al, 2002). Furthermore, it is important to understand that this belief is shared by each individual member of the group, whereas self-efficacy is the belief one has about his own capabilities. Shared beliefs about the capabilities do not only focus on task-specific activities, but influence the group beyond the border of specific task and contexts (De Jong et al, 2005). Potency can therefore influence not only the task but also relationships between members. Potency is derived from the concept of trust (Ilgen et al, 2005). This could indicate that specific levels of trust form the basis for group potency. A group needs to have faith in their group members to create the belief that they are capable of performing the task they have to perform. I argue that not all teams act similarly in response to the influences of task conflict and that teams with high team potency will be less likely to be subject to indecision than teams with lower levels of potency.

11

2003; Simons and Peterson, 2000). Whether it is on the task to perform or on a more personal level, conflict occurs when team members disagree. A difficult situation arises, because teams can’t seem to find common ground. One way to get out of this situation is to defer the

decision. However, High group potency could enhance the team members’ belief that the team can work it out and will not give up trying to come to a decision. A conflict situation creates an environment in which members find it hard to work together, it requires effort to talk to one another. To keep cooperating and talking, team members should believe that despite their individual differences, the team could accomplish their goals eventually. Potency may be the base for resolving conflict because despite their differences, team members

continue to communicate while this may not happen when potency is low, resulting in indecision.

Studies indicate that potency can affect group processes, such as for example how conflict is managed or if collaborative communication is used (Lira et al, 2007). One

important factor that is researched is trust, which group potency is part of. Evidence suggests that teams may only benefit from task conflict when levels of trust are high between team members (De Dreu and Weingart, 2003). These studies are also consistent with the finding that groups with norms that encourages openness may benefit from task conflict. Potentially, task conflict may be partially resolved, which could cause that groups will not suffer from the negative effect of conflict.

According to Olson et al. (2007) group potency can have an important role in understanding the relationship between relationship conflict and indecision in teams. It is mentioned that this moderator could potentially decrease the negative effects that relationship conflict has on decision-making by increasing the awareness of group members about how they could manage the interpersonal differences between individuals. It affects the

environment in which the decision is made from a conflict situation to a more open and tolerant situation where different opinions, interpretations and viewpoints could be discussed and the team may come to an agreement. Lira et al (2007) suggest that this happens because high potency levels provide necessary strategies for team members to manage their

differences in the right way and potentially buffer the negative effects of relationship conflicts. Also, it was found that relationship conflict was negatively related to team

12

The mission of a decision-making team is to make a decision, and supposedly one that is also effective. The purpose of these teams is to make the decision and they want to avoid delays and certainly refusal of a decision. Therefore it is possible that indecision is part of an

ineffective team. The relation that was found (Lira et al, 2007) could also be representative for indecision within teams. According to the above we suggest a negative moderating effect of group potency on the relation between conflict and indecision.

Hypothesis 3a: Group potency will moderate the relation between task conflict and team indecision in a negative way.

Hypothesis 3b: Group potency will moderate the relation between relationship conflict and team indecision in a negative way.

2.7 Conceptual Model

Figure 1

3 Methods

13

there was a perfect balance between male (50%) and female (50%) participants. The age of managers varied from 22 years to 59 years old, with a mean of 43 years (SD=12.16). Managers were on average 3.5 years (SD=3.92) active as manager of their current team.

We asked the team managers to distribute the link of the survey among team members of their team. Therefore our response rate could be very low. Though that was impossible to measure because we did not know the actual number of team members for each team in contrast to how many of them responded. 174 team members did respond, all of whom were Dutch. The distribution between males and females was 35% versus 65%. The mean team member age was 38 years (SD= 13.04). Team members worked an average of 3.9 years in their current team (SD=4.26).

To ensure anonymity, the survey included the number of the participating team rather than the name of the participant and was therefore anonymous. All participants filled out an online survey, which took approximately 15 minutes for team members and 10 minutes for team managers. The survey for team members consisted of statements regarding the concepts of knowledge diversity, conflict, group potency and some general questions about, for

example, their age and education. The survey for team managers included the measurement for team indecision and also included general questions as their age and time spend as

manager of their current team. For both questionnaires participants indicated to which degree they agreed with the statements in the survey. The survey used a 1-to-5 disagree-agree rating scale. Likert scales are common ratings format for surveys.

3.2 Procedure

The participants completed online surveys that differentiated between team members and team managers. Existing measurement scales were used. Participants indicated to what extent they agreed with the statements in the survey. Later we aggregated team member scores and also added team managers’ data to create one dataset.

3.3 Measurements

Team member ratings

14

Intragroup conflict was measured according to the Intragroup Conflict Scale (Jehn, 1995). Jehn (1995) created a measurement that differentiates two types of conflict. The first describes relationship conflict which included four items (α = .83). For instance, ‘How much friction is there among members in your work unit?’ and ‘How much tension is there among members in your work unit?’. The second factor contained four items (α = .90) related to task conflict, which included a question like: “How frequently are there conflicts about ideas in your work unit?”. All items were translated to Dutch in agreement.

Team potency was measured using the eight items (α = .85) from Guzzo et al. (1993). Participants had to decide whether they agreed or disagreed with the statements. Examples of items that were included are: ‘No task is too tough for my team’ and ‘This team has

confidence in itself’. These questions were also translated into Dutch.

Team manager ratings

Team indecision was measured according to a questionnaire previously used by Nijstad (2015) including four items (α = 0.80). Examples of the items participants had to rate their agreement on were, ‘In this team choices are often delayed’, ‘This team has a hard time making decisions’, ‘This team tries to avoid making decisions if possible’.

Control variables were included in the studies and also measured according existing measurements within the team member survey.

Trust was measured using the five items (α = .82) from Cool and Wall (1980). The following statements are two examples that were included. ‘I can confidently use input from other team members as the basis for my decisions’ and ‘When I undertake any task, I know that I can count on other team members for support.’

Interdependence was measured using the task and outcome interdependence scale from Van der Vegt (1998). The scale consisted of seven items (α = .72). The respondents had to answer to what extend they agreed, for each item. Such items were for instance, ‘I depend on my colleagues for the completion of my work’ and ‘Group members are informed about the goals they should attain as a group’.

Cohesion was measured using a scale developed by Sargent and Sue-Chan (2001). Four items (α = .77) were included. For example, ‘I feel a sense of belongingness to my group’ and ‘I get along with members of my group’. These items were translated into Dutch.

15

team. Including among other ‘My manager frequently compares my performance with that of my co-workers’ and ‘Everybody is concerned with being the top performer’.

3.4 Data analysis

Before we could interpret the scores, individual responses had to be aggregated to team level. We used correlation test to find what variables affect our main concepts and therefore could be used as control variables. To test the hypotheses, a moderated mediation analysis was conducted using Hayes (2016) process macro. This was done after standardizing all variables except for the dependent variable; indecision.

4 Results

Means, standard deviations and correlations are shown in Table 1. The analysis of descriptive statistics suggests various relationships between certain variables. For instance we see that task conflict and relationship conflict were highly correlated (r = .61). Table 1 also shows a significant negative correlation between task conflict and team potency (r = -.34) whereas the correlation between relationship conflict and team potency was insignificant. Interesting to see is that none of the variables directly correlated with team indecision, except for

interdependency (r =.30), one of the control variables. Table 1 shows a positive correlation between interdependence and indecision, suggesting more interdependence in teams could predict more indecision within those teams. In the analysis was found that trust correlated with four of our main concepts in the model and could therefore be of importance as a control variable in the model.

Table 1

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations

16

Based on the correlations, four control variables were included. Interdependency is a structural construct that is determined externally. It describes the extent to which the task requires the team to work together. Therefore it is a good control variable, and more importantly, it correlated with indecision and is therefore included. Trust and cohesion are constructs that arise within the team and determine the teams’ climate. Trust correlates with many of our main constructs and is therefore important to include as a control variable. For cohesion this is not the case, but the construct is highly related to potency (r = .43) and therefore we think it is also relevant to include. When including trust and cohesion we can make sure the effect of potency is measured and not the associated feelings of trust and membership of the team. The fourth variable to include is competition, this is also a factor that contributes to the teams’ climate and relates highly with both conflict types. Trust,

cohesion and competition all add to the climate of a team that is determined internally. We try to diminish the effect of these social emotional factors to purely measure the main effects1.

To test our model we performed two moderated mediation analyses using Hayes (2016) Process Macro. One analysis computed the results for our model using task conflict and the other analysis computed results with relationship conflict as the mediator. All six hypothesis can be checked with this analysis where indecision is the outcome variable. All other variables were standardized.

Hypothesis 1a predicted a positive relation between knowledge diversity and task conflict. When looking at Table 1 we see a significant positive correlation between the two concepts. This is supported by Table 2, where we find that knowledge diversity significantly predicts task conflict (β = .28, p <.05). These finding suggest that more knowledge diversity increases task conflict and therefore hypothesis 1a is supported.

Hypothesis 1b was tested for the positive effect of knowledge diversity on relationship conflict. Table 3 shows nonsignificant results (p >.10). Therefor we reject hypothesis 1b, thus we cannot conclude that knowledge diversity affects relationship conflict.

To test hypothesis 2a and b, both types of conflict were included as the predictor of indecision. Both hypotheses predicted a positive relationship between the concepts.

According to the analysis performed shown in Table 2, hypothesis 2a can be rejected because there is no significant effect (p >.10). Also for hypothesis 2b, no evidence of a relationship (p >.10) can be found for the positive effect of relationship conflict on indecision and therefor hypothesis 2b is rejected (Table 3).

17 *p < .10 **p < .05 *p < .10 **p < .05 Table 2

Moderated Mediation Analysis with Task Conflict as Mediator Predictor and controls Mediator Model

(Task conflict) Dependent Variable Model (Team Indecision) Control Variables Trust Interdependence Cohesion Competition Main effects Knowledge diversity Task conflict Team potency Interactions

Task conflict x Team potency -.13 (-.83) .13 (1.01) .08 (.57) .53 (4.18)** .28 (2.04)** -.08 (-.61) .20 (1.86)* -.04 (-.28) -.00 (1.86) .09 (.86) .07 (.63) .01 (.14) .05 (.40)

Conditional indirect effect Potency Low Average High B SE -.0080 .0529 .0043 .0426 .0165 .0513 LL UL -.1149 .1171 -.0614 .1265 -.0657 .1244 Table 3

Moderated Mediation Analysis with Relationship Conflict as Mediator Predictor and controls Mediator Model

(Relationship conflict)

Dependent Variable Model (Team Indecision) Control Variables Trust Interdependence Cohesion Competition Main effects Knowledge diversity Relationship conflict Team potency Interactions Relationship conflict x Team potency -.44 (-2.58)** -.10 (-.73) .09 (.62) .40 (2.89)** -.01 (-.07) -.12 (-.83) .17 (1.52) -.02 (-.15) .01 (.10) .06 (.53) - .07 (-.53) - .03 (.28) .10 (.92)

18

To test the interaction effect of team potency and conflict on indecision (hypothesis 3a and b), the moderated mediation analysis was performed. The moderating effect occurs in this model between de mediator and the dependent variable. Based on Table 2 there is no

significant effect (p >.10) and therefore we should reject hypothesis 3a that predicts the interaction of task conflict and potency on indecision. This analysis was also performed with the interaction effect of relationship conflict and team potency. As well as hypothesis 3a, hypothesis 3b should be rejected because no significant (p >.10) effect was found. Neither a direct nor interaction effect was found using both moderated mediation analyses which confirms the absence of concepts that correlate with team indecision (Table 1).

5 Discussion

The purpose of this study was to analyse the relationship between knowledge diversity and team indecision and the effects of conflict and potency within this relationship. Expectations were to find that knowledge diversity in teams increase both task and relationship conflict which in turn would increase team indecision. Moreover I expected that potency moderates the relation between conflict and indecision negatively. To examine these effects, 43 teams were included in a field study.

Summary of findings

Evidence was found for the relationship between knowledge diversity and task conflict. It can be assumed that the more knowledge diverse teams are, the more likely they are to experience task conflict. However no evidence was found that knowledge diversity also relates to

relationship conflict. In addition, no evidence was found to support the relationships between conflict, potency and indecision. What was interesting was the finding that interdependence was found to be associated with indecision. Even though interdependency was not one of the main constructs, it is a relation that should be elaborated.

19

sample experienced almost no relationship conflict. This could be the reason that no effect is found. Another explanation is that task conflict might occur more often than relationship conflict. Research suggests that task conflict is often the base for relationship conflict to occur (De Wit et al, 2013). Members may also be less resistant to admit that task conflict exists in their team rather than relationship conflict. Within the relatively small sample of this study, chance exists, that relationship conflict is not experienced as much within our population.

The prediction that conflict is positively related to indecision was not supported by the data. It should be taken into consideration that the sample consisted of 43 teams that widely varied in organizations and tasks. As for the relatively small number of teams, a larger sample could strengthen the now weak relation between conflict and task indecision. Table 1 shows the positive effect that was expected, but the correlation and regression effects are very weak and not significant. As for the tasks, the study did not include in the survey whether the teams had the opportunity to defer or delay choice. For example it could be possible that when teams cannot decide, their manager is responsible for making a final decision or the organization compels the team to decide. Directive leadership may cause teams to make a decision even though they do not want to or feel ready to decide. A directive leader encourages teams to rise to challenging goals and monitors and mentors teams to achieve high performance (Somech, 2005). Thus, when a challenge like conflict occurs, a directive leader can encourage the team to move past it and decide. Factors like this may break down the effect conflict has on

indecision. Possibly only in some circumstances will conflict lead to indecision, which obviously did not occur in this population. Another possibility of a factor that may cause why no effect was found is that when team members disagree, one member feels more empowered and forces his opinion upon the group. The opposite is also possible; some members may give in more easily. Then a majority is much more easily created and a decision can be made (Davis, 1973). This focusses more on personal factors that enhance groups to decide.

The interaction effect of conflict and potency on indecision is also not supported. The descriptive statistics in Table 1 show a strong negative relationship between both types of conflict and potency. This could indicate that potency is a predictor of conflict. The higher group potency is, the less conflict will exist.

20

should be used to determine this relation. Team potency could be a construct that is not stable over time. When teams are composed it will probably take some time before a shared belief about the teams’ capabilities is formed. Then, potency may be influenced by conflict that occurs. In this situation, the effect of potency would be insignificant due to conflict as its predictor. Potentially, a moderator should be used that is not involved with conflict, and is a more external construct. For example, the influence of different sorts of leadership or decision authority, as mentioned before.

An interesting finding resulting from our analysis includes the effect of

interdependency on indecision. The concept entails that the more dependent members are on each other, the better they can work to a decision. When interdependence is low, members are not equally interested in the decision to make and these members will give in more easily. However, if interdependency is high, the decision affects every member more equally and makes all members very interested in making it a good decision. This could explain why this relationship was found.

Implications

21

Furthermore, differences in outcomes between other research and this study could be due to the presence of another variable that both studies have not taken into account yet. It should be assessed what other factors are contributing to the relationship between conflict and

indecision.

Another interesting finding is the association of interdependence with indecision. The analysis showed a positive relation between the two. This result contradicts research findings that suggest higher levels of interdependency lead to better group functioning (Wageman, 1995). Since indecision could be more or less a malfunctioning of the group because they fail to decide, this study argues the opposite. Though, research suggests that only stronger effort norms and greater work motivation were associated with lower levels of interdependency (Wageman, 1995). Interdependence may force more collective decisions because each

member is more concerned with the decision made and shows more commitment to making a decision with the group.

Problems within research still arise using the construct conflict. Though task conflict and relationship conflict are highly related, the effects and associations can differentiate broadly, as seen in this study. Jehn and Bendersky (2003) propose a different way of distinguishing conflict into two types. Conflict that is emotional and conflict that is

intellectual. Whereas emotional conflict triggers negative team outcomes, intellectual conflict can enhance team functioning. These concepts differ from task and relationship conflict because they draw a different line. For example, task conflict is not per se only associated with intellectual conflict, which is involved with facts about the task. Task conflict can also evoke emotions, which are, for example, feelings of jealousy or anger because members disagree on an interpersonal level. Measuring these constructs instead of task conflict and relationship conflict could create different results.

22

competition was found. Therefore managers should control a competitive climate and monitor competition between members of the same team.

Limitations

As mentioned before, the variation level is very high in our population. The teams are very different in sort and size of team, sector in which the company operates and size of the company. Variation in this sample leads to variation in factors that were not included in this study like decision authority and leadership. Less variation can be created by including a more homogeneous set of teams. Another limitation is our relatively small sample size. Some effects might have failed to reach significant levels because the lack of statistical power. Even though the effects did not show, this does not mean that they do not exist. It is also hard to make statement about causality. This study can’t exclude that the effects in our model are one way, whether one construct only leads to the other in the cross sectional survey performed. There is the possibility that our constructs are also explained by the construct that they predict. Indecision or potency could possibly have an effect on conflict. In order to ensure causality, an experimental study can be done. As well, it is possible to do a longitudinal study to look at the effects of different variables over time. Also, the measurement of knowledge diversity did not have a very high internal consistency. If another instrument was used, more reliable outcomes would be produced as well. This study did not control for other kinds of diversity aspects. Therefore, the possibility cannot be excluded that task conflict occurs as a result of other types of diversity.

Future directions

23

Project teams can be more relevant for the study on indecision, rather than teams from highly hierarchical organizations. Another variable like time pressure is one likely predictor for decision making practices because conflict may be increased and teams may therefore experience indecision. Thus time pressure could change conflict levels or even indecision itself.

As mentioned before another distinction is made about conflict. Further research should study the effect of emotional and intellectual conflict on outcomes as indecision. It is mentioned before that in this study the positive relation between interdependency and indecision was found to be significant. More research should be done to assess when this effect occurs and why it is found. This can be very interesting to increase our understanding about the concept of indecision.

24

6 References

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(1), 123-148.

Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. (1992). Cross-functional teams: Blessing or curse for new product development. Transforming Organizations, 154, 166.

Boulding, K. (1963). The organization as a party to conflict. Conflict and Defense, , 145-165.

Brodbeck, F. C., Kerschreiter, R., Mojzisch, A., & Schulz-Hardt, S. (2007). Group decision making under conditions of distributed knowledge: The information asymmetries model. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 459-479.

Byrne, D. E. (1971). The attraction paradigm (Vol. 11). Academic Pr.

Corbin, R. M. (1980). Decisions that might not get made. Cognitive Processes in Choice and Decision Behavior, , 47-67.

Charan, R. (2001). Conquering a culture of indecision. Harvard Business Review, 79(4), 74-82. Davis, J. H. (1973). Group decision and social interaction: A theory of social decision schemes.

Psychological Review, 80, 97–125.

De Dreu, C. K., & Van Vianen, A. E. (2001). Managing relationship conflict and the effectiveness of organizational teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(3), 309-328.

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(4), 741.

De Jong, A., De Ruyter, K., & Wetzels, M. (2005). Antecedents and consequences of group potency: A study of self-managing service teams. Management Science, 51(11), 1610-1625.

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(2), 177-189.

Dunne, P., & Llamas, M. (1998). Obsessional indecision: Its psychological conceptualisation, assessment, and treatment. Behaviour Change, 15(03), 165-177.

Eisenhardt, K. M., Kahwajy, J. L., & Bourgeois, L. (1997). Conflict and strategic choice: How top management teams disagree. California Management Review, 39(2), 42-62.

Elaydi, R. (2006). Construct development and measurement of indecisiveness. Management Decision, 44(10), 1363-1376.

25

Gully, S. M., Incalcaterra, K. A., Joshi, A., & Beaubien, J. M. (2002). A meta-analysis of team-efficacy, potency, and performance: interdependence and level of analysis as moderators of observed relationships. Journal of applied psychology, 87(5), 819.

Guzzo, R. A. (1995). Introduction: At the intersection of team effectiveness and decision making. Team Effectiveness and Decision Making in Organizations, 1-8.

Guzzo, R. A., & Salas, E. (1995). Team effectiveness and decision making in organizations. Pfeiffer, 22. Guzzo, R. A., Yost, P. R., Campbell, R. J., & Shea, G. P. (1993). Potency in groups: Articulating a

construct. British journal of social psychology, 32(1), 87-106. Hayes, A. F. (2016). PROCESS [Macro].

Homan, A. C., Van Knippenberg, D., Van Kleef, G. A., & De Dreu, C. K. (2007). Bridging faultlines by valuing diversity: Diversity beliefs, information elaboration, and performance in diverse work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1189.

Hurt, K. J., & Abebe, M. A. (2015). The effect of conflict type and organizational crisis on perceived strategic decision effectiveness an empirical investigation. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 22(3), 340-354.

Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M. D., & Jundt, D. K. (2005). Teams in organizations: from inputprocess-output models to IMOI models. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 517–543.

Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink: A psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascoes. Janis, I. L., & Mann, L. (1977). Decision making: A psychological analysis of conflict, choice, and

commitment. Free Press.

Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, , 256-282.

Jehn, K. A., & Bendersky, C. (2003). Intragroup conflict in organizations: A contingency perspective on the conflict-outcome relationship. Research in organizational behavior, 25, 187-242.

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(4), 287-305.

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(4), 741-763. Kerr, N. L., & MacCoun, R. J. (1985). The effects of jury size and polling method on the process and

product of jury deliberation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 349–363. Knight, K. (1976). Matrix organization: a review. Journal of Management Studies, 13(2), 111-130. Lee, C., Farh, J. L., & Chen, Z. J. (2011). Promoting group potency in project teams: The importance of

group identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(8), 1147-1162.

26

Lira, E. M., Ripoll, P., Peiró, J. M., & González, P. (2007). The roles of group potency and information and communication technologies in the relationship between task conflict and team effectiveness: A longitudinal study. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(6), 2888-2903.

Lowe, J. I., & Herranen, M. (1978). Conflict in teamwork: Understanding roles and relationships. Social Work in Health Care, 3(3), 323-330.

Martins, L. L., Schilpzand, M. C., Kirkman, B. L., Ivanaj, S., & Ivanaj, V. (2012). A contingency view of the effects of cognitive diversity on team performance: The moderating roles of team psychological safety and relationship conflict. Small Group Research, , 1046496412466921.

Mello, A. L., & Rentsch, J. R. (2015). Cognitive diversity in teams A multidisciplinary review. Small Group Research, , 1046496415602558.

Nijstad, B. A. (2008). Choosing none of the above: Persistence of negativity after group discussion and group decision refusal. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 11(4), 525-538.

Nijstad, B. A. (2015). Task conflict, regulatory focus, and team indecisiveness: The role of leadership. Paper presented at the annual conference of the International Network of Group Researchers (INGroup), Pittsburgh, USA.

Nijstad, B. A., & Kaps, S. C. (2008). Taking the easy way out: Preference diversity, decision strategies, and decision refusal in groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(5), 860.

Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation Oxford university press.

Olson, B. J., Parayitam, S., & Bao, Y. (2007). Strategic decision making: The effects of cognitive diversity, conflict, and trust on decision outcomes. Journal of Management, 33(2), 196-222.

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), 1-28.

Sauer, J., Felsing, T., Franke, H., & Rüttinger, B. (2006). Cognitive diversity and team performance in a complex multiple task environment. Ergonomics, 49(10), 934-954.

Sayles, L. R. (1958). Behavior of industrial work groups: Prediction and control.

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(1), 102.

Somech, A. (2005). Directive versus participative leadership: Two complementary approaches to managing school effectiveness. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41(5), 777-800.

Stasser, G., & Titus, W. (2006). Pooling of unshared information in group decision diaking: Biased information sampling during discussion. Small Groups: Key Readings, , 227.

Tannenbaum, S. I., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (1996). Promoting team effectiveness. Handbook of work group psychology, 503-529.

27

Van der Vegt, G. S., & Janssen, O. (2003). Joint impact of interdependence and group diversity on innovation. Journal of management, 29(5), 729-751.

Van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C. K., & Homan, A. C. (2004). Work group diversity and group

performance: An integrative model and research agenda. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 1008. Van Knippenberg, D., & Schippers, M. C. (2007). Work group diversity. Annu.Rev.Psychol., 58, 515-541. White, C. M., Hafenbrädl, S., Hoffrage, U., Reisen, N., & Woike, J. K. (2011). Are groups more likely to

defer choice than their members?. Judgment and Decision Making, 6(3), 239.