CENTRALIZATION: THE MODERATING ROLE OF LEADERSHIP
CENTRALIZATION ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TASK
CONFLICT AND TEAM PERFORMANCE.
Master Thesis, MSc in HRM
University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
June 5, 2016 Alexandre Mavrocordatos Student number: S2757974 Esdoornlaan 432 9741MC Groningen Tel.: +31 (0)628340427 Email: a.mavrocordatos@student.rug.nl Supervisor/University J. Oedzes, MSc
CENTRALIZATION: THE MODERATING ROLE OF CENTRALIZATION
ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TASK CONFLICT AND TEAM
PERFORMANCE.
Abstract
Organizations have been giving more and more importance to teams and their work towards achieving its goals. Teams are characterized by different levels of task conflict, which may affect their performance. Past research has been inconsistent regarding the effect of task conflict on teams’ performance. This research aims at resolving the conflicting findings of previous
researches on the relationship between task conflict and team performance as well as look at the effect of team hierarchy centralization (i.e. team hierarchy centralization’s possible benefits on team performance is situations of task conflict by re-establishing commonality within the team). Data from 45 work teams did not support the idea that team hierarchy centralization has a
positive impact on the relationship between task conflict and team performance. The findings imply that centralization might not necessarily have a moderating effect on the relationship between task conflict and team performance. Possible avenues for future research include considering additional moderating factors and the possibility to look into the effect of another moderating factor.
Introduction
Organizations are increasingly reliant on work teams (O’Neil & Allen, 2014). Past
research has shown that teams often experience conflict, and that conflicts subsequently affect the performance of the team (Jones, 2006;Zepeda, 2006; Baillien & De Witte, 2009). The effect conflict on team performance has been noted to be either negative or positive in past research (de Dreu & Weingart, 2003; Jehn, 1995). This hints towards the idea that certain factors may play a role in shifting the conflict towards having a negative or positive effect on team performance. In situations of conflicts within teams, it can be suggested that team dynamics are altered both with regards to formal and informal relationships amongst team members, as well as between team leaders and team members. As such, although task conflict can be seen as beneficial, it is important for the conflict to be resolved and decisions to be made. This research therefore introduces the idea of an influential team member impacting the relationship between task conflict and team performance by including centralization as a moderating variable.
Jehn’s (1995) research focused on the effects task and relationship conflict may have on team performance. The research identified task conflicts as having no effect on the performance of teams generally speaking or as having a positive one in certain situations. However, de Dreu & Weingart (2003:746) identified that, unlike what Jehn (1995) suggests, task conflict is
2 | P a g e
reduce the team’s ability to coordinate and agree on how to proceed. As such, task conflicts disturb the performance of the team. It is clear that research on the relationship between task conflict and team performance diverge in outcomes and conclusion, indicating that the topic has complexity to it. Nonetheless, the existence of conflicting research outcomes with regards to task conflict indicate that further research may need to be made on the topic. This paper will delve into a factor which may affect the relationship between task conflict and team performance.
Interestingly, past research has displayed that, in order to benefit from disagreements, it is critical that the team or specific team members find common ground; due to the impact
commonality has on team interactions and cooperation (Driskell, Salas & Hughes, 2010). Consensus implies that a team agrees on a decision, idea or perspective. A factor that could be beneficial in reaching consensus is having one individual in the team influencing others, creating a common vision and helping the resolution of the conflict. As such, when an individual is able to influence his or her team members, a sense of common purpose can be re-established by
following his/her perspectives, ideas and possibly decisions. Being able to have an agreement on how to move forward will allow the team to minimize negative effects of task conflict on
performance. For this reason this paper will investigate the role of centralization (i.e. the extent to which a team member emerges as a leader) as a moderator in the relationship between task conflict and team performance.
3 | P a g e
high. Research on formal leadership and conflict resolution has shown that adaptive behavior allows formal leaders to take on a contingency approach in situations of conflict where the
objective is to achieve a match with the current environment (Coleman & Kulger, 2014). It is also noted that the leader needs to have the ability to be adaptive in order to maintain the profitable relationship (Coleman & Kulger, 2014). Informal structure being formed through interaction within a team, it is usually beneficial to have an informal leader or highly influential team member as they are likely to have a more complete understanding of the conflict than the formal leader would and thus likely to have better ground for adapting to the situation. This is due to the fact that he/she may understand expectations and concerns of team members better than a leader as well as have a different perspective than the formal leader with regards to the conflict.
Considering this and the fact that influence is based on positive relationship, this research will aim to identify whether the effect of an adaptive formal leader can be observed in an
informal hierarchy. This study will contribute to research on the topic of the task conflict-team performance relationship by identifying a factor that influences team members’ willingness to adapt and enable the re-establishment of commonality. The identified factor would thus
contribute positively to team performance in situations of conflicts. Investigating the impact of centralization on performance, in situations of task conflict, contributes to the literature on team processes and their impact on performance. This research will contribute to the understanding of the effect a highly influential team member has on the performance of his/her team in situations of task conflict. On this basis, the paper will also investigate the effect centralization has on the relationship between task conflict and team performance.
Furthermore, understanding the effects of centralization on the task conflict-team
4 | P a g e
sometimes associated with task conflict. These include helping organization in terms of teams and their work within the organization. To be specific, the research would allow identifying the need to monitor whether work teams within an organization have a highly influential team member with managerial responsibilities. If the influential team member happens to not have such responsibilities, then the current research will also suggest that consideration should be made to provide the individual with informal managerial responsibilities. This research will show that doing so will benefit teams when task conflicts arise as it will allow teams to find resolutions and benefit from them. The results will provide a perspective on what factors can help in
situations of task conflicts which are likely to help teams and/or organizations optimize the amount of positive outcome. That is, whether providing the most influential team member decision making power would help teams reap benefits from task conflicts.
Theoretical Framework
Task conflict and Team PerformanceTask Conflict. Team conflict is defined as team members' perceived or real differences
5 | P a g e
Past research on the consequences of team conflict have focused on task and relationship conflicts and their effect on performance as well as on decision making (Amason & Schweiger, 1994; Amason,1996), coordination (Gebert, Boerner, & Kearney, 2006), team satisfaction (Jehn, 1994). Other research on the topic examined the moderating role of norms on the relationship between conflict and performance (Jehn, 1995) as well as the impact of categories of conflict on performance (Jehn, 1997). These studies conclude that task conflict can be beneficial to
performance. The categorization in conflict provides an insight as to why conflict may lead to different outcomes. Relationship conflict involves irritation, tension amongst team members and discontentment. Task conflicts involve different points of view regarding work, diverging perspectives and different ideas (O’Neill, Allen & Hastings, 2013).
Keeping these into account, it is important to point out that some studies have come to different conclusions with regards to the effect of task conflict on performance. Namely, research by de Dreu & Weingart (2003:746) has highlighted that both task and relationship conflicts negatively impact performance, contradicting other research stating that task conflict can be beneficial. This study also highlighted the fact that other authors have found similar conclusions to its own. De Wit, Geer & Jehn (2012) further confirm the concept of task conflict having a negative effect on team performance by highlighting the fact that team members can perceive the challenge of their perspective as a negative review of their competences and abilities, which can result in stress in the period of task conflict. Such stress will impact their performance and as a result the team’s performance. The research also points to the idea that task conflicts are distractions and make use of resources that can thus not be directly utilized towards task
6 | P a g e
achievement. Additionally, research has found that task conflict is something that needs to be managed in order to re-establish cohesion within the team (Tekleab, Quigley & Tesluk, 2009). This, again, confirms that task conflict negatively impacts team interactions, which in turn impacts how team members work together and thus negatively impact team performance (Chou & Yeh, 2007). Due to the contrast in research, it is apparent that further research on the topic may be necessary.
Team Performance. Mathieu & Rapp (2009) identified effective team performance being
more than simply putting a team together and that it required a number of factors to be
considered, as well as worked on, in order for effectiveness to be achieved. The paper notes that it is necessary for individuals within the team to effectively manage their tasks as well as the way in which they work with one another. It is clear that effectiveness of individuals can be influenced by a number of factors, which in turn will impacts team performance.
7 | P a g e
diversity creates in periods of conflicts are likely to be commonly observed. This further confirms the distracting nature of task conflicts. Arguably, task conflicts are not self-solving conflicts and will take some of the attention of team members away from their formal
responsibility. This would then mean that time and human resources, in the form of team member and leader, would not be utilized for the purpose of completing tasks. As such, task conflict would disturb performance. Accordingly, this research assumes task conflict has a detrimental impact on team performance when looking at their direct relationship.
Hypothesis 1: Task conflict has a negative direct relationship with team performance.
The moderating role of centralization
Team performance is a team related variable that can commonly be observed as an outcome. This entail that it is dependent on a number of factors which may have a direct or indirect impact on it. Amongst other factors, role allocation, coordination, time frame setting for tasks and the handling of interpersonal factors also play a role in the effectiveness of a team’s performance (Mathieu & Rapp, 2009). Task conflicts create frictions within a team which impacts its ability to function at its standard level. As previously mentioned, conflicts negatively impact a team’s ability to process information. This is likely to deter the team’s ability to
coordinate and plan due to the lack of communication of task relevant information, which ultimately negatively impacts the performance of the team.
8 | P a g e
performance. As such, re-establishing collective orientation is of high importance for teams experiencing task conflicts.
Centralization. Centralization refers to the level of influence over the team’s activities
concentrated in a team member (Berdahl &Anderson, 2005). Under low centralization, group members have approximately equal influence and no one is seen as necessarily more or less influential than the others, while, under high centralization, one member is likely to have much higher influence over the team than other team members which can mirror a pyramid-shaped division of influence within the team (Berdahl &Anderson, 2005). Having one team member at the top of the influence pyramid gives the individual a strong ability to impact the behavior and actions of his/her team members. In that sense he/she has the ability to influence the creation and maintenance of a collective perspective on different aspects related to the completion of team responsibilities. This effect is something that can be hypothesized to be deterrent to the negative relationship between task conflict and team performance.
Arguably, in situations of low centralization, group members will experience difficulty in resolving their differences when strong task conflict occurs. Individual team members are likely to perceive their views, idea or perspective as most appropriate. In a situation where no team member stands out because of their level of influence, each will maintain their point of view. Not being able to reach common ground will thus lead to the deterring of team performance. The lack of diversity in influence within the team means that there is not one point of view others are likely to concede to, which would lead to the team experiencing the negative impacts of task conflict on their team’s performance.
9 | P a g e
members. By creating commonality the individual allows for the organization of perspectives, thoughts and points of view to be re-established as the norm within the team. Doing this
influences the performance of the team through coordination and re-established communication (Gebert et al., 2006). In other words high centralization has a clear potential benefit for
conflicting teams. It is crucial to note that the benefits of centralization would not be the
improvement of team performance. The benefits would be the minimizing or nullification of the negative effect of task conflict on performance, by giving a common direction to the team. Based on this line of argumentation, this paper can hypothesize a positive effect of centralization on task conflict and team performance.
Hypothesis 2: Centralization has a positive effect on the relationship between task conflict and
performance, such that it resolves the negative consequence of task conflict.
Conceptual model
Methodology
Sample and ProcedureIn order to tests the hypotheses, surveys were conducted in collaboration with four other MSc students in Human Resources Management from the University of Groningen. The surveys were sent out to 56 work teams, consisting of a total of 314 team members, from diverse
Task Conflict
Team Performance
Centralization
CCencenrCentr
alization
+
10 | P a g e
organizations. The participating teams consisted of between 4 to 12 team members, including the team leaders. Out of the 56 teams participating 45 completed a sufficient amount of the survey for analysis, making the response rate to be 80.36%. The sample was composed of 41.29% male and 58.71% female team members. Amongst the team leaders 62.22% were male while 37.78% were female. The average age of team members was of 36.32 (standard deviation =12.56) and of 44.42 for the leaders (standard deviation = 11.11). The sample respondents ranged in educational level from secondary education to PhD and ranged in educational vocation from legal to technical and natural sciences studies amongst others. Participating teams worked in various industries including: education (15.6%), health care (13.3%), business services (11.1%), Government (6.7%), construction (6.7%), ICT (4.4%), finance (2.2%) as well as agriculture, hunting and fishing (2.2%) among others.
Firstly, team leaders were contacted and asked to participate in a study on work teams in organizations. When leaders agreed to participate, they provided name and contact details of team members. Once details were collected team members were informed and asked for consent to participate in the study. The teams were contacted via email and went through a survey set up on Qualtrics. Surveys were divided into two categories, namely a leader’s survey and a team
member survey. In order to protect participants’ confidentiality, names of participants were replaced by numbers and participation was voluntary. The necessary time to fill in the
questionnaire was estimated to be between 10-15 minutes. Data obtained from the survey was then analyzed and tested on SPSS.
Measure
Task Conflict. In order to measure task conflicts, a scale identified by Jehn (1995) was
11 | P a g e
we are working on’, ‘People in our team often have conflicting opinions about the task we are working on’, ‘How much conflict about the work you do is there in your work unit?’ and ‘There is much conflict on ideas in our team’. These items were measured on a 7 point Likert scale with values ranging from ‘none’ (=1) and ‘a lot’ (=7). Cronbach’s alpha was 0.86, aggregation
statistics supported aggregating to the team level: ICC1 = 0.25; ICC2 = 0.53; mean rwg= 0.75 (James, Demaree, & Wolf, 1984). This scale was placed in the team member surveys. The average score will be taken per team in order to obtain an overall measure of the variable.
Team Performance. Team performance was measured using the six item scale
determined by van der Vegt & Bunderson (2005). The items were rated on a 7 point Likert scale. The items included in the scale are: ‘efficiency’, ‘quality’, ‘overall achievement’, ‘productivity’ and ‘mission fulfillment’. The response options were ranging from ‘far below average’(=1) to ‘far above average’ (=7). Based on a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.878 this scale was determined as being reliable. As suggested by van der Vegt & Bunderson (2005) these items were placed in the supervisor’s survey which, in this research, is the leader’s questionnaire. The scores of the items in the scale was aggregate per leader in order to obtain a single score for the team performance per team.
Centralization. Based on past research, influence was assumed, in this study, as forming a
hierarchy within teams (Ridgeway & Cornell, 2006; Anderson & Kilduff, 2009). Based on this concept, the current research borrowed from Freeman’s (1978) scale in order to measure
12 | P a g e
member and each team member was measured, summed and divided by the number of team members. This enabled the establishment of the average distance in influence between the most influential team member and his/her fellow team members. This scale was measured on the team member questionnaire.
Control Variable. According to Horwitz (2005), teams whose members have a similar or
the same tenure may be averse to changes and seek to maintain the status quo. By looking to maintain the level of performance, the team will not improve its performance and thus affect their team’s performance rating. As such it can be said that team tenure similarities negatively impact team performance. Furthermore, members with higher team tenure than others in the team may be seen as more legitimate and thus more likely to influence others (de Vries et al, 2014). This, again, would be affecting performance. Team tenure average and team tenure diversity were therefore considered as control variables. These were measured through an open ended scale asking tenure of individual participants. Outcomes were aggregated to find the average team tenure for each team and the standard deviation per team was calculated to measure team tenure diversity.
Furthermore, past research identified that diversity in educational level within teams had negative effects on team decision making consensus (Horwitz,2005:230). On top of this, Jehn & Bezrukova (2004) found that educational level diversity was negatively related to both individual and team performance. Taking these studies into account, it was clear that diversity in
13 | P a g e
options ranging from secondary education to doctorate level education. In order to measure diversity the standard deviation of the variable was taken per team.
Data analysis
Model. The data obtained from the surveys were analyzed using IBM SPSS. In order to
analyze and assess the hypothesized relationships between variables, a regression analysis was performed using the ‘Process’ add-on (by Andrew F. Hayes) on SPSS. ‘Process’ allowed to establish the potential individual effects of the task conflict and centralization on team
performance. It also permitted to establish the possible effect of the two variables’ interaction on team performance and the conditional effect of centralization on team performance.
Results
Descriptive statistics14 | P a g e
tenure and team tenure diversity1. As no significant relationships could be established in this research the hypothesized control variables were not considered for the hypothesis testing of the current research.
TABLE 1
Means, Standard Deviations and Correlations
Variables Mean S.D. 1 2 3 4 5
1. Team educational level diversity 0.42 0.45
2. Average Team Tenure 49.51 47.33 0.24
3. Team Tenure Diversity 34.02 38.50 0.26 0.91**
4. Task Conflict 3.38 0.96 0.05 -0.01 0.09
5. Centralization 0.39 0.28 -0.15 -0.05 -0.03 -0.24
6. Team performance 5.60 0.75 0.30 0.23 0.30 -0.11 0.14
Note. N = 45 *p < .05, **p < .01 (two tailed significance)
Hypothesis testing
Hypothesis 1 conjectured that task conflict would have a negative relationship team performance. As Table 2 reveals, a low negative coefficient for the effect of task conflict on the dependant variable, team performance, could be noted (r = -0.06, p > 0.05). However, the p-value associated with the effect exceeding p = 0.05, the hypothesized relationship between task conflict and team performance could not be statistically confirmed. As such, hypothesis 1 could not be confirmed.
1
15 | P a g e
TABLE 2 Hypothesis Testing
Note. N = 45. *p < .05, **p < .01, p ***< .001
Hypothesis 2 posited centralization had a positive effect on the relationship between task conflict and team performance. Table 2 shows that the interaction effect of task conflict and centralization on team performance has a positive coefficient though not significant (B = 0.09, p > 0.05). The table also shows that as the level of centralization increased, the coefficient of the impact task conflict had on team performance became increasingly positive (-SD r = -0.15, M r = -0.06 and +1SD r = 0.03). The conditional effects, however, were not significant at p < 0.05 at any level of centralization. For this reason, the hypothesized effect could not be statistically proven based on this analysis. Furthermore, on the basis of the simple linear analysis in Figure 1, it was noticed that high levels of centralization could stabilize and slightly improve team
performance in increasing levels of task conflict. In contrast, at low levels of centralization, team performance decreased in increasing levels of task conflicts. Based on this, though a positive
B SE B t p Constant 5.63 [5.39, 5.86] 0.12 48.03 0.00*** Centralization 0.12 [-0.13, 0.37] 0.12 0.96 0.34 Task Conflict -0.06 [-0.30, 0.18] 0.12 -0.52 0.60 Interaction 0.09 [-0.15, 0.34] 0.12 0.75 0.45 R2= 0.04 , R2Δ= 0.01, F(3,41)=0.58, p= 0.63
16 | P a g e
effect could be noted, in the analysis reported in Table 2, its significance level made it such that the effect could not be statistically proven. The hypothesis, could thus, not be confirmed.
Discussion
This research aimed at identifying the moderating effect of centralization on the
relationship between task conflict and team performance. Due to the lack of significance in both the task conflict-team performance relationship and the effect of centralization on the task conflict-team performance relationship, the relationships cannot establish as existing within the sample. It is important to note that two hypothesized control variables, team educational level diversity and team tenure diversity, had a marginally significant relationship with team performance.
Theoretical reasoning. This research took the perspective that strong centralization would
help reach commonality within teams due to the highly influential team member’s ability to lead 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5
Low Task Conflict High Task Conflict
Team Per for m an ce
Figure 1. The moderation effect of Centralization on the relationship between Task Conflict and Team Performance
17 | P a g e
the team. Results did not confirm the hypothesized moderating effect. This can be explained by a number of things.
Firstly, this study did not consider how the most influential person of the group generally behaved and what his/her motivations were. For example, the most influential individual in the group may not always be the most competent or most ethical person within the group.
Interestingly, a paper by Pearce & Manz (2011) argued that, having high influence within a team, can lead an individual to control what points are discussed and what actions are taken. Therefore, this highly ranked individual can positively influence group outcomes, but at the same time has ability to serve his/her own interest. Similarly, Mehra and colleagues (2006) stress the importance of taking into account the role that unethical behavior plays in a more centrally held leadership role. The research provided some evidence for a positive effect of distributive leadership on team performance rather than a more centrally distributed leadership (Mehra, Smith, Dixon &
Robertson, 2006). Such research shows that there is a flip side to centralization as there is a risk of the influencer using his/her position in an unfavorable way. The current research did not incorporate this into the model, which could be one explanation for the null-findings regarding the moderating effect.
18 | P a g e
influencer/chosen team leader is emotionally intelligent. Emotionally intelligent individuals are capable of understanding and managing their emotions and those of others, and therefore impact how conflicts, such as task related conflicts, affect the team’s subsequent performance. Although this current research is not looking at a formal leader, it is looking into team members that may gain a certain level of informal leadership responsibility namely influencing behavior and action of other team members. Arguably, someone could be perceived as influential but may not have what it takes to lead a team. An influencer that does not have leader’s traits may have difficulties effectively leading his/her team. This may partially explain the lack of significance in the effect observed, regarding the impact of centralization on team performance and the relationship between task conflict and team performance.
Thirdly, another element that this research has overlooked is the influence of lower ranked, influence level wise, team members. For example, if lower ranked team members lack trust or confidence in the team’s abilities, it can be argued that a highly influential team member alone cannot help the team towards having commonality in perspectives and goal orientation. It is the entire group that needs to be on board with the direction being taken in order to maintain team performance. Being in a situation where this is not the case would mean that some of the team’s resources meant for task performance will still be invested in the task conflict.
19 | P a g e
process. In order to move on to the functioning stage, Ilgen et al (2005:521) identify categories of factors that need to be fulfilled. The first is ‘Trusting’, which entails the team member’s belief that they can collectively be effective (potent) and that they can trust team members’ intentions (Ilgen et al, 2005:521-522). The second is ‘Planning’ where information is gathered and a strategy is built accordingly (Ilgen et al, 2005:523-524). The third is structuring, where roles, norms and interaction patterns are developed and maintained (Ilgen et al, 2005:525).
Arguably, task conflicts entails that team members challenge of the way in which tasks are performed. Challenging the accepted team perspective on tasks entail that some do not believe the current approach enables the team to be collectively effective. As such it can be said that a team lacks potency in situation of task conflicts. ‘Safety’, can be argued as also potentially lacking in situations of task conflict. Although a highly influential team member can be identified by his/her team members it does not necessarily mean that trust in the influencer’s intention is in place. Based on this and the current research, it is clear that team members’ perception of the team’s ability to be effective as well as the trust they have in the influencer’s intentions were overlooked.
Limitations. A number of limitations can be identified for this study which may have
contributed to the inconclusiveness of the research outcomes.
20 | P a g e
teams from different organizations are likely to have different key performance indicators. This means that low score on certain items might not be indicative of poor performance for some teams, while it might for others. This could be argued to have limited this research in observing the effect the desired type of influencer has on his/her team’s performance in situation of task conflict. Also, the fact that the centralization and task conflict scales’ data were taken from the same source questionnaire can lead to inaccuracies in measuring the relationship of independent variables with team performance (Andersen, Heinesen & Pedersen, 2016). This limitation is engendered by the common source bias that itself arises from the data collection method used in this current research (Andersen et al., 2016:66).
Secondly, the response rate of the research is lacking as 45 out of 56 participating teams completed the questionnaire sufficiently to be considered for hypothesis testing. This means that the current study lacked statistical power to find relationships. The lack of statistical power of this research could be explained by a number of practical limitations. One is that the data obtained is reliant on the willingness of participating teams and individuals within teams to respond to the questionnaire. The importance of this lays in the fact that a majority of participating team needed to respond in order to obtain data that could be considered as
21 | P a g e
Finally, the quality of the responses and data is highly dependent on the individual respondents’ understanding of the questionnaire items. They may interpret and respond to questionnaire items in a different from one another. Though this is something that cannot be controlled by the researchers it is important to take it into account as it may have some influence over the responses given per team as well as whether individual participants are willing to respond to certain items.
Future research. This research did not allow establishing relationships between task
conflict and team performance as well as the impact centralization on the relationship. However, possibilities for future research exist.
One would be adding variables to the model. Variables that could be considered include the influencer’s tendency to behave unethically and his/her traits emotional intelligence among other leadership traits. Moreover, consideration should be made for the less influential team members in the sense that it is important to take into account their readiness, willingness and ability to follow the influencer. Including these variables would also imply a change in method. It would require additional step to identify the influencer in team and his/her suitability with
regards to ethical behavior and leadership traits as well as additional scales assessing less
influential team members’ trust, readiness and willingness concerning the highly influential team member and the direction he/she wants to take with regards to team tasks.
22 | P a g e
faultlines negatively impact team performance. Research by Molleman (2005) has identified demographic faultlines as being damaging to team functioning. Poor team functioning will impact team performance negatively. As such investigating the role demographic faultlines have on the relationship between task conflict and team performance can be seen as a viable direction for research. It is important to point out that past research lacks in consistency with regards to the effects of faultlines as different studies identify different directions of the effect (Jiang, Jackson, Shaw & Chung, 2012).
Take away. Overall, this research did not allow establishing whether centralization
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.
Amason, A. C., & Schweiger, D. M. 1994. Resolving the paradox of conflict, strategic decision
making, and organizational performance. International Journal Of Conflict Management,
5(3): 239-253
Andersen, L. B., Heinesen, E., & Pedersen, L. H. 2016. Individual Performance: From
Common Source Bias to Institutionalized Assessment. Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory, 26(1): 63-78.
Anderson, C., & Berdahl, J. L. 2002. The Experience of Power: Examining the Effects of
Power on Approach and Inhibition Tendencies. Journal Of Personality And Social
Psychology, 83: 1362-1377.
Anderson C, & Kilduff GJ. 2009. Why do dominant personalities attain influence in
face-to-face groups? The competence-signaling effects of trait dominance. Journal Of Personality
And Social Psychology,96(2): 491-503.
Baillien, E., & De Witte, H. 2009. Why is Organizational Change Related to Workplace
Bullying? Role Conflict and Job Insecurity as Mediators. Economic And Industrial
Berdahl, J. L., & Anderson, C. 2005. Men, Women, and Centralization in Groups Over
Time. Group Dynamics : Theory, Research, And Practice : The Official Journal Of Division
49, Group Psychology And Group Psychotherapy Of The American Psychological Association, 9(1): 45-57.
Casimir, G., & Waldman, D. 2007. A Cross Cultural Comparison of the Importance of
Leadership Traits for Effective Low-level and High-level Leaders. International Journal Of
Cross Cultural Management, 7(1): 47-60.
Chou, H. W., & Yeh, Y. J. 2007. Conflict, conflict management, and performance in ERP
teams. Social Behavior and Personality, 35(8), 1035-1048.
Coleman, P. T., & Kugler, K. G. 2014. Tracking managerial conflict adaptivity: Introducing a
dynamic measure of adaptive conflict management in organizations. Journal Of
Organizational Behavior, 35(7): 945-968
De Dreu, C.K.W. , & Weingart, L.R. 2003. Task Versus Relationship Conflict, Team
Performance, and Team Member Satisfaction: A Meta-Analysis. The Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88(4): 741-749.
Driskell, J.E., Salas, E., & Hughes, S. 2010. Collective orientation and team performance:
development of an individual differences measure. Human Factors, 52(2): 316-328.
Freeman, L. C. 1978. Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1(3): 215-239.
Gebert, D., Boerner, S., & Kearney, E. 2006. Cross-functionality and innovation in new product
Horwitz, S. K. 2005. The Compositional Impact of Team Diversity on Performance:
Theoretical Considerations. Human Resources Development Review, 4(2): 219-245.
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: 517-43
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. 1984. Estimating within-group interrater reliability
with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69: 85–98.
Jehn, K. A. 1994. Enhancing effectiveness: An investigation of advantages and disadvantages
of value-based intragroup conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management, 5(3):
223-238
Jehn, K. A. 1995. A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments 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(3): 530-557
Jehn, K. A., & Bezrukova, K. 2004. A field study of group diversity, workgroup context, and
performance. Journal Of Organizational Behavior, 25(6): 703-729
Jiang Y., Jackson, S.E., Shaw, J.B., & Chung Y. 2012. The Consequences of Educational
Specialty and Nationality Faultlines for Project Teams. Small Group Research, 43(5):
613-644
Jones, A. 2006. Multidisciplinary team working: Collaboration and conflict. International Journal Of Mental Health Nursing, 15(1): 19-28.
van Knippenberg, D., Dawson, J., West, M., & Homan, A. 2011. Diversity faultlines, shared
Mathieu J. E, & Rapp T. L. 2009. Laying the foundation for successful team performance
trajectories: The roles of team charters and performance strategies. The Journal Of
Applied Psychology, 94(1): 90-103
Mehra, A., Smith, B. R., Dixon, A. L., & Robertson, B. 2006. Distributed leadership in teams:
The network of leadership perceptions and team performance. The Leadership
Quarterly, 17(3): 232-245.
Molleman, E. 2005. Diversity in Demographic Characteristics, Abilities and Personality Traits:
Do Faultlines Affect Team Functioning? Group Decision And Negotiation, 14(3): 173-193.
O'Neill T.A., & Allen N.J. 2014. Team task conflict resolution: An examination of its linkages
to team personality composition and team effectiveness outcomes. Group Dynamics, 18(2):
159-173.
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(3): 236-260.
Palmer, B., Walls, M., Burgess, Z., & Stough, C. 2001. Emotional intelligence and effective
leadership. Leadership And Organizational Development Journal, 22(1): 5-10.
Pearce, C. L., & Manz, C. C. 2011. Leadership Centrality and Corporate Social
Ir-Responsibility (CSIR): The Potential Ameliorating Effects of Self and Shared Leadership on CSIR. Journal Of Business Ethics, 102(4): 563-579.
Santos, C.M., & Passos A.M. 2013. Team mental models, relationship conflict and effectiveness
over time. Team Performance Management, 19(7): 363-385
Somech, A., Desivilya, H. S., & Lidogoster, H. (2009). Team conflict management and team
effectiveness: The effects of task interdependence and team identification. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 30(3): 359-378.
Tekleab, A., Quigley, N., & Tesluk, P. 2009. A Longitudinal Study of Team Conflict, Conflict
Management, Cohesion, and Team Effectiveness. Group & Organization
Management, 34(2), 170-205.
van der Vegt, G. S., & Bunderson, J. S.2005. Learning and Performance in Multidisciplinary
Teams: The Importance of Collective Team Identification. The Academy of Management
Journal, 48(3): 532–547.
de Vries, R. E. (2000). When Leaders Have Character: Need for Leadership, Performance, and
the Attribution of Leadership. Journal Of Social Behavior And Personality, 15: 413-430
de Wit F.R., Greer L.L., & Jehn K.A.,. 2012. The paradox of intragroup conflict: a
meta-analysis. The Journal Of Applied Psychology, 97(2): 360-90
Weingart, L. R., Todorova, G., & Cronin, M. A. 2010. Task Conflict, Problem-Solving, and
Yielding: Effects on Cognition and Performance in Functionally Diverse Innovation Teams. Negotiation And Conflict Management Research, 3(4): 312-337.
Zepeda, S. J. 2006. Cognitive dissonance, supervision, and administrative team
