THE ONGOING CHALLENGE OF CONFLICT IN TEAMS: THE KEY
ROLE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL SAFETY
The role that relationship conflict and psychological safety play in explaining
the relationship between task conflict and team performance
Master HRM University of Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business
Department of Human Resource Management & Organizational behaviour
June 14, 2015
Daniëlle Visscher Student Number: 2012693 Email: d.visscher@student.rug.nl
Supervisor
prof. Dr. G.S. van der Vegt
2 ABSTRACT
Previous research on task conflict has resulted in mixed findings, ranging from beneficial to detrimental effects of task conflict on team performance. Since task conflict is one of the main challenges that teams face to work effectively, it is of great importance to increase the understanding of the processes by which and the conditions under which task conflict hinders team performance. In this study, I propose that relationship conflict may function as a mediator in the relationship between task conflict and team performance and that psychological safety moderates this relationship. In a field study among 51 teams, I collected data from team members and team managers. Results supported that psychological safety weakens the strong positive relationship between task conflict and relationship conflict. Furthermore, marginal support was found for the mediating role of relationship conflict on the relationship between task conflict and team performance. Finally, marginally significant evidence was found for the moderating effect of psychological safety on the mediated relationship. Meaning that under higher levels of psychological safety the indirect effect of task conflict on team performance is less negative. These findings suggest that in order to diminish the negative effects of task conflict, organizations need to develop psychologically safe climates in their teams.
3 INTRODUCTION
In recent decades, organizations have structured their work increasingly around teams to achieve effectiveness, performance and creativity and to adapt more rapidly to unexpected things (e.g., Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006). That is why researchers have become strongly interested in doing research on team processes and team effectiveness (e.g., Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006; Mathieu, Maynard & Rapp & Gilson, 2008). Since teams are not equally effective, it is important to investigate which factors and processes hinder or contribute to the performance of teams.
There are considerable challenges to work effectively in teams. One of these challenges is intra-team conflict (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003), which is defined as “the experience between or among parties that their goals or interests are incompatible or in opposition” (Korsgaard, Jeong, Mahony & Pitariu, 2008: 1224). Intra-team conflict can be concerned with task related (task conflict) and personal related (relationship conflict) issues (De Wit, Greer & Jehn, 2012). A large stream of research on the consequences of intra-team conflict for group outcomes emerged (De Wit et al., 2012). However, until now, this research has resulted in mixed and sometimes even opposite findings.
In general, researchers agree about the negative relationship between relationship conflict on the one hand, and team performance on the other (e.g., De Dreu & Weingart, 2003; De Wit et al., 2012). However, this is not the case for the relationship between task conflict and team performance (De Wit et al., 2012). Researchers have found that task conflict is beneficial for team performance because it may increase the understanding of the tasks and improve the quality of decision-making (e.g., Jehn, 1995). Nevertheless, De Dreu and Weingart (2003) and De Wit et al (2012) did not find an overall positive relationship between task conflict and team performance in their meta-analyses. De Dreu and Weingart (2003) found an overall negative relationship between task conflict and team performance, while De Wit et al (2012) did not find a strong negative relationship at all. De Wit et al (2012) showed that the relationship between task conflict and team performance is neither strongly negative nor strongly positive. Thus, research on intra-team conflict has resulted in mixed findings: in some circumstances, task conflict has a strong negative relationship with team performance, while in other circumstances a less negative or a more positive relationship exists.
4 avoid (De Dreu, 2008), dealing with conflict is one of the main challenges for teams to be effective (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003). Because of that, the purpose of this study is to increase the understanding of the processes by which and the conditions under which task conflict hinders team performance instead of focusing on the positive side of task conflict.
Since it is, up to now, not specifically clear through which processes task conflict hinders team performance (Jehn, Greer, Levine & Szulanski, 2008), more empirical research on the mediating chain between task conflict and team performance is needed (Jehn et al., 2008). Because of that, I will examine how task conflict is negatively related to team performance by examining the mediating role of relationship conflict. Researchers have found that task conflict and relationship conflict are positively related to each other (see De Dreu & Weingart, 2003), which may indicate that these two types of conflict co-occur within teams (Simons & Peterson, 2000). This co-occurrence may happen when team members are not able to separate task conflict from relationship conflict due to a process of misattribution (Mooney, Holahan & Amason, 2007; Simons & Peterson, 2000). Consequently, when task conflict is stimulated, there is a risk of enhancing relationship conflict as well (e.g., Rispens, 2012), which in turn, may negatively affect team performance. In order to find out under which condition task conflict is less negatively related to team performance, I will set out to investigate under which condition task conflict and relationship conflict are less strongly related to each other.
5 This study contributes to the intra-team conflict literature by filling some gaps that exist in this field with regard to task conflict. For instance, it is not yet completely clear through which processes and under which conditions task conflict hinders team performance (De Wit et al., 2012; Jehn et al., 2008). The purpose of this study is to examine the mediating role of relationship conflict on the relationship between task conflict and team performance and in addition, the moderating role of psychological safety on this mediated relationship will be examined. By examining the moderating role of psychological safety on the relationship between task conflict and relationship conflict, this study also contributes to the work of De Wit et al (2012), since they suggested that future research has to identify moderators of this relationship to determine whether teams are able to separate these two types of conflict from each other.
6 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Teams are “collectives who exist to perform organizationally relevant tasks, share one or more common goals, interact socially, exhibit task interdependencies, maintain and manage boundaries, and are embedded in an organizational context that sets boundaries, constrains the team, and influences exchange with other units in the broader entity” (Kozlowski & Bell, 2003: 334). Teams face challenges in achieving their performance and task conflict is one of those challenges (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003). Team performance is an outcome of team tasks that are valued by other members of the organization (Mathieu, Heffner, Goodwin, Salas & Cannon-Bowers, 2000). Since teams usually perform multiple different tasks, performance criteria should be relatively broad, including productivity, efficiency, quality and reaching team goals to indicate overall team effectiveness (Mathieu et al., 2008; Van der Vegt & Bunderson, 2005).
Task conflict and team performance
Task conflicts are “disagreements among group members about the content of the tasks being performed, including differences in viewpoints, ideas and opinions” (Jehn, 1995: 258). A range of studies on task conflict has been performed in the past years. However, these studies resulted in mixed findings, ranging from beneficial to detrimental effects of task conflict on group outcomes (De Wit et al., 2012).
In their meta-analyses, De Dreu and Weingart (2003) and De Wit et al (2012) have shown that some early conflict theorists traditionally focused on the negative effects of task conflict (e.g., Pondy, 1967). However, at the end of the twentieth century initial research began to suggest that task conflict not always has to be detrimental for group outcomes. Researchers have assumed that task conflict could be, under certain circumstances, beneficial for team effectiveness. Teams may become more effective if they can reap the benefits of task conflict. Researchers identified several benefits of task conflict, for example, it may increase the understanding of the tasks, improve the quality of decision-making and foster learning and the development of new insights. These benefits are caused by the stimulation of more critical thinking, the tendency to scrutinize task issues, the critical evaluation of others’ ideas, the more deliberate processing of task-relevant information, the decrease in group think and the prevention of reaching consensus too early (e.g., Amason, 1996; De Dreu & West, 2001; Jehn, 1995; Pelled, Eisenhardt, & Xin, 1999).
7 perspective, task conflict may distract team members from performing their tasks because task conflict requires resources that cannot be directly invested into the performance of the tasks (Carnevale & Probst, 1998). Moreover, when task conflict intensifies, cognitive load will increase, which in turn, may disturb the effectiveness of cognitive processes. Creative thinking and problem solving abilities will reduce and narrow, black-and-white thinking will increase. As a result, task conflict may impede team performance (Carnevale & Probst, 1998).
Since the dynamic process of conflict is hard to influence, it is hard to predict whether task conflict develops into something functional or into something that impedes team performance (De Dreu, 2008). As it is not an option to prevent conflict from existence, researchers have argued that there is a need for better understanding the processes by which task conflict is negatively related to team performance (Rispens, Greer & Jehn, 2007). In general, scant research empirically tested possible mechanisms of this relationship (e.g., Jehn & Bendersky, 2003; Jehn et al., 2008). Accordingly, it is still not clear how task conflict affects team performance (Puck & Pregernig, 2012). This study will examine the mediating role of relationship conflict to increase the understanding of the process by which task conflict impedes team performance.
Relationship conflict and task conflict
Relationship conflicts are “interpersonal incompatibilities among group members, which typically includes tension, animosity and annoyance among members within a group” (Jehn, 1995: 258). Researchers found that task conflict and relationship conflict are positively related to each other (e.g., De Dreu & Weingart, 2003; De Wit et al., 2012). Some researchers have suggested that the two types of conflict occur together because they share common antecedents (e.g,. Amason & Sapienza, 1997; Jehn, 1995). In addition, researchers have suggested that task conflicts trigger relationship conflicts (e.g., Gamero, González-Romá, Peiró, 2008; Mooney, et al., 2007; Rispens, 2012; Simons & Peterson, 2000). It is possible that task conflict and relationship conflict are positively related to each other due to the inability of team members to separate task conflicts from relationship conflicts (Jehn & Mannix, 2001; Mooney et al., 2007; Simons & Peterson, 2000).
8 emotional about it when others express different views (Pelled, 1996). As a result, team members may feel that they are being criticized at a personal level. Thus, task conflict can lead to relationship conflict through a process of misattribution in which task conflict is misinterpreted as a personal attack or as the manifestation of a hidden agenda (Amason, 1996; Amason & Sapienza, 1997; De Wit et al., 2013; Rispens, 2012; Simons & Peterson, 2000). Hence, the first hypothesis is:
Hypothesis 1. Task conflict is positively related to relationship conflict. Relationship conflict and team performance
The findings about the relationship between relationship conflict and team performance are more consistent, since researchers have argued that relationship conflict is generally detrimental for team performance (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003; De Wit et al., 2012). Researchers found several negative consequences of relationship conflict, which, in turn, negatively affects team performance. First, team members may devote their time and energy to each other and on discussing the non-related task issues. Consequently, less time and energy is available for completing their tasks and as a result, team productivity may reduce (e.g, Evan, 1965; Pelled, 1996). Furthermore, due to the growing dissatisfaction among team members caused by interpersonal disagreements, the amount of effort put into completing the team tasks adequately may decrease, which, in turn, may impede team performance (Jehn, Chadwick, Thatcher, 1997). Finally, increasing levels of stress, threat and anxiety caused by relationship conflict, limits team members’ cognitive functioning and diminish their information processing and collective problem solving ability. This may reduce for example, the ability to understand the shared information and to solve problems, which causes team performance to suffer (e.g., Carnevale & Probst, 1998; De Dreu, 2006; Evan, 1965; Jehn & Bendersky, 2003; Pelled, 1996). Therefore, the second hypothesis is:
Hypothesis 2. Relationship conflict is negatively related to team performance. The mediating role of relationship conflict
9 relationship conflict are positively related to each other (De Dreu & Weingart., 2003; De Wit et al., 2012), task conflict may turn into relationship conflict over time (Gamero et al., 2008). Furthermore, both types of conflicts are related to team performance. However, relationship conflict is, in contrast to task conflict, more strongly and negatively related to team performance (De Wit et al., 2012). To conclude, I expect that task conflict will be negatively and indirectly related to team performance through relationship conflict. Consequently, the following hypothesis is:
Hypothesis 3. Relationship conflict will mediate the relationship between task conflict and team performance.
Psychological safety as a moderator
When relationship conflict mediates the relationship between task conflict and team performance, it would be important to thoroughly understand the interrelationship between task conflict and relationship conflict and to consider the boundary conditions that influence the relationship between the two types of conflict (Gamero et al., 2008; Medina et al., 2005; Rispens, 2012). When the chance of misinterpreting task conflict as a personal attack is as small as possible, it is more likely that divergent opinions regarding the task are less harmful or more beneficial for teams (Rispens, 2012). Hence, it is important to identify moderating factors that determine whether teams are able to separate task conflict from relationship conflict (De Wit et al., 2012).
Since the context in which team members work together may influence the degree to which task conflict is misattributed as relationship conflict (Simons & Peterson, 2000), it might be interesting to investigate the moderating role of psychological safety on the relationship between task conflict and relationship conflict. Edmondson (1999: 354) defined psychological safety as “a shared belief held by team members that the team is safe for interpersonal risk taking and captures a sense of confidence that the team will not embarrass, reject, or punish someone for speaking up”. Although the moderating role of related constructs, such as trust and cohesion, has been investigated already, the moderating role of psychological safety has not been studied yet (Simons & Peterson, 2000).
10 are less valued (Edmondson, 1999). When team members’ ideas are being criticized or when other members express different opinions, members can assume that their competences are being questioned, which may feel as a personal attack (Pelled et al., 1999).
On the other hand, the higher the experienced psychological safety, the more able team members are to separate task conflict from relationship conflict. When psychological safety is high, the misattribution of task conflict as a personal attack will be reduced since team members working in a psychologically safe environment “feel a sense of openness and avoid taking task disagreement personally” (Bradley et al., 2012: 152). In addition, team members can misinterpret task disagreements or criticism as a “political gamesmanship” where one member tries to gain influence at the expense of another. Consequently, the caused incredulity would trigger relationship conflict (Amason, 1996). However, in psychologically safe environments characterized by interpersonal trust and mutual respect, team members are less likely to act in a way that deliberately undermines someone’s effort (Edmondson, 1999) and as a result, such misinterpretation will be less likely to occur. Therefore, the fourth hypothesis is:
Hypothesis 4. Psychological safety moderates the relationship between task conflict and relationship conflict, such that task conflict is less strongly positively related to relationship conflict when psychological safety is higher.
Task conflict, relationship conflict, psychological safety and team performance
Prior research has assumed that psychologically safe climates enable task conflict to improve team outcomes, such as innovation and decision quality (De Dreu, 2008; De Dreu & Weingart, 2003). In a study among undergraduate business students, Bradley et al (2012) found that under conditions of psychological safety task conflict and team performance are positively related to each other. This suggests that psychological safety may facilitate the performance benefits of task conflict in teams (Bradley et al., 2012). However, in their study, they did not include and examine any mechanism through which the interaction effect of task conflict and psychological safety affects team performance. This study will examine whether relationship conflict may function as this explanatory mechanism.
11 Consequently, team members are encouraged to come up with divergent perspectives and discussions regarding team’s processes are richer (Bradley et al., 2012). This may increase the understanding of the tasks and improve the quality of decision making, which, in turn, may lead to more beneficial or less harmful team performance. On the other hand, it is more likely that task conflict turn into relationship conflict under conditions of low psychological safety. As a result, more time is devoted to regulating interpersonal relations and consequently less time is available to spend on accomplishing team tasks, which, in turn, may reduce team performance. Thus, in a context in which task conflict is more likely to trigger relationship conflict, the negative consequences of both types of conflict for team performance would be stronger than in a context in which task conflict is less likely to turn into relationship conflict.
To conclude, I expect that task conflict is negatively related to team performance through the mechanism relationship conflict. Under conditions of low psychological safety, the positive relationship between task conflict and relationship conflict will be strengthened, which, in turn, may be more harmful for team performance. This results in the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 5. The mediated relationship between task conflict and team performance is moderated by psychological safety, such that the mediating effect of relationship conflict will be stronger when psychological safety is lower. The conceptual model below (see Figure 1) visually presents the hypotheses of this research.
12 METHODOLOGY
Data collection and procedure
I tested the hypotheses of this study using data obtained from teams working within the municipality of Assen in the Northern part of the Netherlands. This organization employs around 600 employees. Participation to this survey research was possible for almost every employee, except for the employees that belonged to teams that would cease to exist in a few months. As a result, this study was conducted among 53 teams, including the highest management team and middle-management teams. These teams ranging in size from 3 to 36 employees (𝑥̅ = 10.43, s.d. = 8.01). The teams were very heterogeneous since the teams are responsible for the performance of very different tasks, such as taking care of the trees in the city or performing tasks focused on legal affairs. In a meeting with the highest management team, I explained the benefit of participating in this research project and mutual expectations were expressed. In addition, a presentation for each middle-management team during a team meeting informed team managers about the research project. Afterwards, team managers and an announcement on intranet informed the team members about the research project. Participation was voluntary, but the organization and the team managers encouraged the team members to participate in this research project. In addition, I tracked the response rate and whether necessary I sent reminders to encourage team members and team managers to participate.
I collected data through online questionnaires. The relevant items measured for this study were part of a questionnaire that measured additional items. In February 2015, team members received a questionnaire measuring input and process variables. A total of 542 questionnaires were distributed across 53 teams and a total of 455 fully completed questionnaires and 15 not-fully completed questionnaires were returned, resulting in a total response rate of 87% at the individual level. Two teams were excluded from this study because less than three team members completely filled in the questionnaires, resulting in a response rate of 96% at the team level. 59,5% of the respondents were male and the average team tenure was 5,5 years (s.d. = 4.25). Unfortunately, the organization did not want to provide additional demographic data of the respondents for privacy reasons.
13 team managers filled in more than one questionnaire because they managed multiple teams, ranging from one to four teams per team leader. 54% of the team leaders were male and the average team leader tenure was 2.7 years (s.d. = 2.07). After two weeks, 53 questionnaires were fully completed, resulting in a response rate of 100%.
Measuring instruments
Respondents answered the items of the three variables, task conflict, relationship conflict and psychological safety on a 7-point Likert scale, running from 1, “fully disagree,” to 7 “fully agree.” All items included in the questionnaires were translated to Dutch.
Task conflict was measured with a three-item scale developed by Jehn (1995). An
example item was “Team members have different opinions regarding the work being done.” Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was .86, meaning that the three items were internally consistent.
Relationship conflict was measured with a three-item scale developed by Jehn
(1995). An example item was “There is much friction among members of the team.” Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was .94.
Psychological safety was measured with a six-item scale developed by Edmondson
(1999). An example item was “If members make a mistake on this team, it is often held against team” (reverse scored). Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was .79.
Team performance was measured with a six-item scale developed by Van der Vegt
and Bunderson (2005). Team managers were asked to rate their team’s performance compared to other teams on a 7-point Likert scale, running from 1, “far below average,” to 7 “far above average.” The included items were “reaching team goals; reaching deadlines; work speed; quality of work; productivity and efficiency.” Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was .91.
Control variables. Control variables are included in this study to rule out alternative
14 how long they are working in their current team. For each team an average tenure in months was calculated.
Although, this study did not control for team size and team tenure, this study controlled for two other variables, namely task interdependence and task complexity. Task interdependence may affect the level of conflict within teams because there are more opportunities for conflicts to occur due to an increased amount and intensity of interactions among team members (Jehn, 1995; Jehn & Bendersky, 2003). Furthermore, researchers have suggested that task interdependence is one of the most important structural variables that influence team performance (Saavedra, Earley & Van Dyne, 1993). Finally, since this study conducted research among very heterogeneous teams, task interdependence is included as a control variable (De Dreu, 2006). Task interdependence was measured with a three item scale (α = .83) of Van der Vegt, van der Vliert and Oosterhof (2003) which was combined and complemented with the task interdependence scale of Campion, Medsker & Higgs (1993). An example items was “The members of my team are strongly dependent on each other to successfully perform their tasks.”
In addition, this study took also the level of task complexity into account. Prior research on the role of task complexity on intra-team conflict has resulted in mixed findings. Some researchers found a positive effect of task conflict on team performance for complex, non-routine tasks (e.g., Jehn, 1995), whereas others found a more positive effect of simple, routine tasks (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003), or no difference in effect at all (De Wit et al., 2012). Despite these different findings, this study controlled for task complexity because, as mentioned before, teams that participated in the study are very heterogeneous with respect to the tasks they perform. Moreover, task type is a major situational factor that can influence team processes and performance (Jehn, 1995). Task complexity was measured with an eight-item scale (α = .86) of Withey, Daft and Cooper (1983). An example eight-item was “The tasks our team have to perform are the same from day-to-day.”
Data analysis
15 & Wolf, 1993) to measure the absolute consensus between multiple judgers on one target (LeBreton, Burgess, Kaiser, Atchley & James, 2003). Values of .70 have been used as cut point to distinguish between high and low values of inter-rater agreement (LeBreton & Senter, 2008; LeBreton et al., 2003). In addition, I conducted a One way ANOVA to examine if the within group variance of the variables was significant lower than the between group variance. Furthermore, the inter-rater reliability, calculated by intra class coefficient ICC[1] and ICC[2], was measured to examine the relative consistency in ratings provided by multiple judges (LeBreton et al., 2003). ICC[1] measures the proportion of the variance that can be explained by team membership (Hox, 2002) and multiple raters’ mean rating provides a reliable evaluation of the object when the ICC[2] is at least .60.
16 RESULTS
Preliminary analysis
Factor analysis. The performed factor analyses with varimax rotation showed that
the items of almost every construct loaded high enough (>.40) on their intended factor, except for the construct of task complexity that broke into two dimensions. The first dimension of task complexity focused on the level of exceptions in the tasks to perform: a setting with many exceptions is characterized as less predictable and more complex. The second dimension focused on the analysability of the tasks, which is the extent to which team members can follow a specific procedure (Withey et al., 1983). Since, these two dimensions are complementary to each other and the concept is theoretically richer when both dimensions are used (Withey et al., 1983), the two dimensions are combined. Furthermore, the performed factor analysis of the constructs task conflict and relationship conflict resulted in the two underlying hypothesized factors. Finally, the performed factor analysis including all relevant constructs of this study showed that the majority of the items of the variables loaded more than .40 on their intended factor while they loaded less than .40 on the other factors. Only a few items had cross loadings, ranging from .40 to .44, however, these cross loadings were quite low and the items loaded higher on their intended factor.
Reliability analysis. The results showed that the Cronbach’s alpha ranged between
.79 and .94, indicating a high internal consistency.
Interrater reliability and Interrater agreement. Several analyses were conducted to
17 Descriptive statistics and correlations
Table 1 provides the mean and standard deviation of the four control variables team size, team tenure, task interdependence and task complexity, the independent variable task conflict, the mediating variable relationship conflict, the moderating variable psychological safety and the dependent variable team performance. In addition, Table 1 displays the Pearson zero-order correlations between all variables.
TABLE 1
Descriptive statistics and correlations between variables
M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1) Team tenure 66.25a 51.05a 2) Team size 10.43b 8.01b .37** 3) Task interdependence 4.26 .91 .39** .30* 4) Task complexity 3.63 .86 .54** .14 .42** 5) Task conflict 3.69 .83 -.07 .25† .41** .16 6) Relationship conflict 3.03 1.34 .06 .12 .21 .37** .71** 7) Psychological safety 5.39 .73 -.20 -.38** -.11 -.34* -.54** -.76** 8) Team performance 5.11 .87 -.03 .05 -.34* -.35* -.41** -.47** .32* N = 51; † p <.10 (2-tailed); * p <.05 (2-tailed); ** p <.01 (2-tailed)
a
= Based on number of months;
b
= Based on number of people working in the team
As can be derived from Table 1, the variables task conflict and relationship conflict are negatively related to team performance. Furthermore, task conflict is positively related to relationship conflict. Since the correlation between task conflict and relationship conflict is substantial (greater than .50), I examined the variance inflation factor (VIF) of each predictor. The VIF values were less than 3, indicating that multicollinearity was not a serious problem (Guo, Chumlea & Cockram, 1996; Pelled et al., 1999).
The control variables task interdependence and task complexity are negatively related to team performance and task complexity is positively related to relationship conflict. Finally, the control variables team tenure and team size are not significantly related to the mediating variable or the dependent variable team performance, therefore these two control variables were excluded in the following analyses.
Hypothesis testing
18 to team performance. A performed Ordinary Least Squares regression identified how much variance in the dependent variable was explained by each independent variable separately. This analyses showed that relationship conflict explains a greater part of the variance (R2 = .22) in team performance than task conflict does (R2 = .17).
The first hypothesis predicts that task conflict is positively related to relationship conflict. After taking the control variables task interdependence and task complexity into account, the results of the mediation analysis (see Table 2a) showed a significant positive relationship between task conflict and relationship conflict (β = .76, p = .00)1. Therefore, hypothesis 1 is supported.
The second hypothesis states that relationship conflict is negatively to team performance. The results showed no evidence for a negative relationship between relationship conflict and team performance while controlling for task conflict, task interdependence and task complexity (see Table 2b) (β = -.28, p = .12)1. Thus, there is no support for hypothesis 2. The third hypothesis states that relationship conflict mediates the relationship between task conflict and team performance. Because relationship conflict and team performance were not significantly related to each other, a mediation could not emerge. This was supported by the bootstrapping procedure on a 95% confidence interval (CI). The results indicated that task conflict and team performance were not significantly indirectly related through relationship conflict because the CI contains zero (indirect effect = -.21; standard error = .13; 95% CI = -.45 to .02, see Table 2a). However, based on a 90% CI the null hypothesis of no indirect effect through relationship conflict can be rejected because 0 lies outside the CI (-.42 to -.01, see Table 2a). In conclusion, when controlling for task interdependence and task complexity hypothesis 3 is rejected at p <.05, whereas the bootstrapping procedure on 90% showed marginal support for hypothesis 31.
1 When task interdependence and task complexity are not taken into account, the results
19 The fourth hypothesis states that psychological safety moderates the relationship between task conflict and relationship conflict, such that task conflict is less strongly positively related to relationship conflict when psychological safety is high. After taking the control variables into account, the results showed that task conflict and psychological safety significantly interact in their effects on relationship conflict (β = -.19, p =.01, see Table 2b). The interaction effect is shown in Figure 2. Therefore, hypothesis 4 is supported2.
FIGURE 2
Interaction effect task conflict x psychological safety
The plot in Figure 2 shows that the overall relationship between task conflict and relationship conflict is positive. Moreover, teams who experience a higher level of psychological safety score lower on the level of experienced relationship conflict than teams who experience a lower level of psychological safety. This does not differ on the level of experienced task conflict. Finally, the level of experienced relationship conflict among teams who experienced high task conflict is much higher in teams that experience a lower level of psychological safety than in teams that experience a higher level of psychological safety. In conclusion, the relationship between task conflict and relationship conflict is stronger on low levels of psychological safety (M - 1 SD; effect = .72; standard error; .13, t = 5.74; p = .00) instead of high levels of psychological safety (M + 1 SD; effect = .35; standard error; .11; t = 3.16; p = .00). Therefore, hypothesis 4 is supported.
2
When the control variables task interdependence and task complexity were not taken into account the results showed that task conflict and psychological safety also significantly interact in their effects on relationship conflict (β = -.20, p = .01).
-1,25 -1 -0,75 -0,5 -0,25 0 0,25 0,5 0,75 1 1,25
Low Task conflict High Task conflict
20 Hypothesis five states that the mediated relationship between task conflict and team performance is moderated by psychological safety, such that the mediating effect of relationship conflict will be stronger when psychological safety is lower. To test this hypothesis a moderated mediation analysis was conducted. When task conflict and the control variables were taken into account, relationship conflict was not significantly related to team performance (β = -.28, p = .12). The results of the bootstrapping procedure on 95% CI supported this finding because the conditional indirect effect is not significantly different from zero at p < .05 since the CI of low, medium and high levels of psychological safety does contain zero (See Table 2b). However, the bootstrapping procedure on 90% CI suggested that task conflict and team performance are indirectly related through relationship conflict at low, medium and high levels of psychological safety, because the CI’s does not contain zero (M - 1SD; indirect effect = -.20, standard error = .12, CI = -.42 to -.02; M; indirect effect = -.15, standard error = .09, CI = -.32 to -.02; M + 1SD; indirect effect = -.10, standard error = .07, CI = -.24 to -.01). The indirect effect of task conflict on team performance is less negative on higher levels of psychological safety while the effect is more negative on lower levels of psychological safety. In conclusion, hypothesis 5 is rejected at p < .05, whereas the performed bootstrapping procedure on 90% CI showed marginal support for hypothesis 53.
3 When only controlling for task conflict, the results showed that relationship conflict and
team performance are marginally significantly related to each other (β = -.31, p = .05). The results of the bootstrapping procedure on 95% CI and 90% showed that the conditional indirect effect is marginally significantly different from zero since the CI of low, medium and high levels of psychological safety does not contain zero (see the table below). Therefore, when the control variables are not taken into account, hypothesis 5 is marginally supported.
Conditional indirect relationship between task conflict and team performance through relationship conflict at high, middle and low values of psychological safety*
21 TABLE 2A
Results of Mediation analysis
Relationship conflict Predictor β SE t p Constant .00 .09 .00 1.00 Task conflict .76 .10 7.69 .00 Task interdependence -.25 .11 -2.30 .03 Task complexity .35 .10 3.56 .00 R2 .62 TABLE 2B
Results of Moderated-Mediation analysis
Relationship conflict Predictor β SE t p Constant -.10 .08 -1.26 .22 Task interdependence -.11 .09 -1.23 .22 Task complexity .17 .09 2.01 .05 Task conflict .53 .10 5.56 .00 Psychologische veiligheid -.45 .09 -4.86 .00
Task conflict x Psychologische veiligheid -.19 .07 -2.76 .01
R2 .77
R2 changed due to interaction .04
Team performance Predictor β SE t p Constant 5.11 .11 48.11 .00 Task interdependence -.16 .14 -1.15 .26 Task complexity -.12 .13 -.91 .37 Task conflict -.08 .18 -.46 .65 Relatie conflict -.28 .17 -1.58 .12 R2 .30
Indirect relationship between task conflict and team performance through relationship conflict*
Indirect effect Standard error 90% confidence interval 95% confidence interval -.21 .13 -.42 to -.01 -.45 to .02
*Based on 1000 bootstrap samples
Conditional indirect relationship between task conflict and team performance through relationship conflict at high, middle and low values of psychological safety*
22 Supplementary analysis
The results of the performed mediation analysis showed marginal evidence for a mediating effect of relationship conflict on the relationship between task conflict and team performance. Additionally, I performed a stepwise Ordinary Least Squares regression to explore the potential existence of a mediator on another way. The stepwise Ordinary Least Squares regression showed the changes in regression coefficients when adding more variables. The degree to which the effect (the change in regression coefficients) of the independent variable on the dependent variables is reduced when adding the mediator, is an indicator of the potential existence of a mediator (Holmbeck, 1997). The results showed that the regression coefficient of task conflict on team performance significantly decreased when adding relationship conflict. The regression coefficient and p-value dropped from β = -. 29, p = .02 to β = -.08, p = .65, see Table 3. Thus, when including relationship conflict as a mediator, the relationship between task conflict and team performance changed from a significant relationship to a non-significant one. In conclusion, this supplementary analysis showed support for the existence of a mediating effect of relationship conflict on the relationship between task conflict and team performance.
TABLE 3
Results of stepwise regression analysis
Team performance
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3
Predictor β SE P β SE P β SE P Task interdependence -.21 .13 .11 -.09 .13 .50 -.16 .14 .26 Task complexity -.21 .13 .10 -.22 .12 .08 -.12 .13 .37 Task conflict -.29 .12 .02 -.08 .18 .65 Relationship conflict -.28 .17 .12 R2 .17 .26 .30 Adjusted R2 .13 .21 .24 Changed R2 .17* .09* .04
23 DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between task conflict and team performance and to find out whether relationship conflict would mediate and psychological safety would moderate this relationship. Five hypotheses have been tested using data obtained from 51 teams working within the municipality of Assen in the Northern part of the Netherlands. The moderated mediation process model of Preacher et al (2007) was used to test the hypotheses. Moderated mediation occurs when “the strength of an indirect effect depends on the level of some variable” (Preacher et al., 2007: 193). This model was used to examine the indirect relationship between task conflict and team performance, through relationship conflict and whether the strength of this indirect effect depends on the level of psychological safety.
Findings
First, the results showed a significant and positive relationship between task conflict and relationship conflict. Teams that score high on task conflict experience more relationship conflict. This is in line with what I assumed based on findings of other researchers (e.g., Gamero et al., 2008; Mooney et al., 2007; Rispens, 2012). Furthermore, I assumed that relationship conflict would be negatively related to team performance. When controlling for task conflict, task interdependence and task complexity, there was a negative relationship between the two variables, which was in line with what I expected based on findings of other researchers (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003; De Wit et al., 2012). However, the results showed that this finding was not significant. There may certainly be potential explanations for this non-significant result since relationship conflict and team performance are correlated significantly and negatively with each other (see Table 1).
24 responsible for the non-significant results. When controlling for task conflict, the component of task conflict that is inherent to relationship conflict is suppressed. The remaining part can be attributed to relationship conflict; therefore, a smaller part is able to explain team performance. A final explanation might be that team members could avoid each other in the presence of relationship conflict. In turn, relationship conflict may become less prominent and the irritations and annoyance related to interpersonal issues may go away when time passes. Consequently, relationship conflict may less impede team functioning (De Dreu & Vianen, 2001; Jehn, 1995). Given these explanations, this study provides marginally support for a negative relationship between relationship conflict and team performance.
In addition, I assumed that relationship conflict would mediate the relationship between task conflict and team performance. Nevertheless, the results provide no evidence for a significant relationship between relationship conflict and team performance, and in turn, there was no strong support of an indirect effect of task conflict on team performance, through relationship conflict. However, based on 90% confidence interval, there was marginal support for the mediating role of relationship conflict. In addition, the results of the performed Ordinary Least Squares regression showed that the regression coefficient of task conflict on team performance significantly decreased when adding relationship conflict. Moreover, the relationship between task conflict and team performance changed from a significant relationship to a non-significant one when adding relationship conflict to the regression. This may indicate a potential existence of a mediating effect (Holmbeck, 1997). To conclude, although the results provide no strong evidence for the mediating effect of relationship conflict, there exist indicators for a potential mediating effect.
Furthermore, I hypothesized that psychological safety moderates the relationship between task conflict and relationship conflict, such that this relationship is weakened when psychological safety is high. The results supported this hypothesis. Meaning that in a psychologically safe climate, task conflict is less positively related to relationship conflict. This could indicate that psychological safety reduces the chance of misinterpreting task conflict as a personal attack. Consequently, teams working in a psychologically safe climate may be more able to separate task conflict from relationship conflict and feel more confident to express their ideas and opinions (Bradley et al., 2012).
25 showed no conditional indirect effect on 95% CI, whereas based on 90% CI, the hypothesis is marginally supported. In addition, when excluding the control variables, the bootstrapping procedure showed support for the hypothesis. In conclusion, this study found marginal evidence that the indirect effect of task conflict on team performance, through relationship conflict, is less negative on higher levels of psychological safety, whereas it is more negative on lower levels of psychological safety.
Theoretical implications
The literature showed that there are mixed findings of the influence of task conflict on team performance. On the one hand, task conflict can be detrimental for team performance; on the other hand, under limited circumstances task conflict can be beneficial for team performance (De Wit et al., 2012). This study examined how and through which mechanism task conflict hinders team performance and under which circumstances this negative effect may be weaker. This resulted in several theoretical implications.
First, this study found that relationship conflict is a possible mediator that explains the negative effect of task conflict on team performance. In previous research about intra-team conflict, task conflict and relationship conflict were mainly treated as two independent constructs. However, recent research has shown that the two types of conflict are strongly related (Gamero et al., 2008). This study meets the demand of investigating the two types of conflicts together and in addition, this study investigated and found marginal support for the mediating role of relationship conflict.
Second, the results of this study showed that psychological safety plays a key role in the relationship between task conflict and relationship conflict. In psychologically safe climates, task conflicts are less rapidly misattributed as relationship conflicts and therefore it seems that teams are more able to separate task conflicts from relationship conflicts. Since the moderating role of psychological safety on the two type of conflict has not been empirically tested before, this study is complementary to other studies (e.g. De Wit et al., 2012). Furthermore, this study examined through which mechanism the interaction effect of task conflict and psychological safety affects team performance. For that reason, this study is complementary to the work of Bradley et al (2012) since they did not include the measurement of mechanisms of the task conflict-team performance relationship in their study.
26 task conflict and relationship conflict are less strongly related (e.g., De Dreu & Weingart, 2003; De Wit et al, 2012). This study supported this idea since the results indicate that the indirect relationship between task conflict and team performance through relationship conflict is less negative when the climate of teams are characterised by high levels of psychological safety.
Strengths, limitations and future research
This study has several strengths. This study was conducted among real life organizational teams that are working together for long times, therefore findings of the field study reflect practices in actual work teams in organizations. This is complementary to the study of Bradley et al (2012) who investigated the moderating role of psychological safety among undergraduate students. Task conflict may be less likely to escalate among team members in a student project team, because their collaboration is temporary and they focus on the accomplishment of an immediate common goal (De Wit et al., 2012). Furthermore, this study was conducted in an organization in which the teams had very diverse functions, which can make the results more generalizable to other work teams. Another great strength was the high response rate of 87% distributed over 53 teams. Finally, this research had a multi-source design in which team members answered questions about the level of task conflict, relationship conflict and psychological safety they experienced in their team. Team leaders indicated the performance of their team(s) by rating different measures of team performance. As mentioned before, the teams in this study performed very diverse functions and therefore the blended performance measures used in this study were good indicators of overall team effectiveness compared to measures that assess only one aspect of performance (Mathieu et al., 2008). Furthermore, team leaders are able to take the influence of external factors into account when rating the performance of their teams. Especially in this organization, this way of indicating performance could be important since several teams working in the organization are very dependent on the changes in legislation and the goals of several teams in the public sector are abstract and difficult to express in concrete indicators.
This study has also several limitations, which results in suggestions for further research. First, the strength of using subjective team performance ratings may also be a weakness. Since it is not tested if the subjective performance data were consistent with objective performance data, it is possible that the team leaders’ ratings were biased. Therefore, future research should also measure objective performance data.
27 conclusions about the causal relationship in this investigated model. Therefore, this study cannot actually conclude that task conflict triggers relationship conflict and that relationship conflict negatively influences team performance. A longitudinal research design is necessary to examine the current model and thereby especially the mediating role of relationship conflict. Greer, Jehn & Mannix (2008) also argued that through a longitudinal research design researchers are able to study the evolution of task conflict into relationship conflict. When the constructs are measured at different and multiple points in time researchers would be able to assess the impact of task conflict on team performance through relationship conflict given a pre-existing level of psychological safety (Bradley et al., 2012). This would create the opportunity to monitor whether a pre-existing level of psychological safety indeed weakens the positive relationship between task conflict and relationship conflict and in turn, weakens the negative relationship of task conflict on team performance. In addition, task conflict and relationship conflict are very strongly correlated in this study. Measuring these two types of conflict at different times may probably weaken this correlation and in turn, may diminish the suppressor effect.
Third, although the sample of 51 teams is a fair sample size, more teams need to be included in future research to increase the statistical power and to gain more empirical evidence to test the relationships that were found it this study. Furthermore, since the results of the analyses run with and without control variables differ and since this study has shown that the control variables task interdependence and task complexity probably played a large role in explaining the variance in team performance, future research of the role of these control variables in the intra-team literature is needed (Becker, 2005). The teams in this study were very heterogeneous and performed different tasks, which may result in statistical noise. For example, future research can examine the investigated model in less diverse teams to find out if the results differ.
Finally, future research should continue identifying moderators that weaken the relationship between task conflict and relationship conflict as this study indicated that a weakened relationship between the two types of conflict resulted in less hindrance of reaching team performance.
Practical implications
28 to each other. When teams encourage task conflict to stimulate critical thinking or to improve decision quality, they should be aware that they inadvertently stimulate relationship conflict as well. Since relationship conflict is definitely harmful for team performance, managers should create conditions that mitigate the evolution of task conflict in relationship conflict, which may indirectly result in less negative or more positive influence of task conflict on team performance. This study shows that in teams that experience high psychological safety, task conflict is less likely to be misinterpreted as a personal attack and team members feel a sense of openness and feel more confident to express their different viewpoints (Bradley et al., 2012). Therefore, organizational leaders should foster the development of a psychological safe climate in their organizational teams. Developing a psychologically safe climate costs time, so there are more benefits to achieve when psychologically safe climates are developed in the early life stage of teams (Bradley et al., 2012; Edmondson, 1999). This development can be encouraged in two ways.
On the one hand, organizations could focus on the team members. They can offer training opportunities in which team members are supported and coached to approach, express and manage different viewpoints in an open and respectful manner (De Wit et al., 2013). Furthermore, team members should be helped to recognize when others’ viewpoints are intended as a functional input instead of a personal attack.
29 played by each member and on the rules and procedures governing coordination (Bunderson & Boumgarden, 2010; Edmondson, 1999).
CONCLUSION
30 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: 123-148.
Amason, A.C., & Sapienza, H.J. 1997. The effects of top management team size and interaction norms on cognitive and affective conflict. Journal of Management, 23(4): 495-516.
Becker, T.E. 2005. Potential problems in the statistical control of variables in organizational research: A qualitative analysis with recommendations. Organizational Research
Methods, 8(3): 274-289.
Bradley, B.H., Postlethwaite, B.E., Klotz, A.C., Hamdani, M.R., & Brown, K.G. 2012. Reaping the benefits of task conflict in teams: The critical role of team psychological safety climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97: 151-158.
Bunderson, J.S., & Boumgarden, P. 2010. Structure and learning in self-managed teams: Why “bureaucratic” teams can be better learners. Organization Science, 21(3): 609-624. Campion, M.A., Medsker, G.J., & Higgs, A.C. 1993. Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness – implication for designing effective work groups. Personnel Psychology, 46(4): 823-850.
Carnevale, P.J., & Probst, T.M. 1998. Social values and social conflict in creative problem solving and categorization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5): 1300-1309.
De Dreu, C.K.W. 2006. When too little or too much hurts: Evidence for a curvilinear relationship between task conflict and innovation in teams. Journal of Management, 32: 83-107.
De Dreu, C.K.W. 2008. The virtue and vice of workplace conflict: Food for (pessimistic) thought. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29: 5-18.
31 De Dreu, C.K.W., & Weingart, L.R. 2003. Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 88(4): 741-749.
De Dreu, C.K.W., & West, M.A. 2001. Minority dissent and team innovation: The importance of participation in decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(6): 1191-1201.
De Wit, F.R.C., Greer, L.L., & Jehn, K.A. 2012. The paradox of intragroup conflict: A meta- analysis. Journal of Applied psychology, 97(2): 360-390.
De Wit, F.R.C., Jehn, K.A., & Scheepers, D. 2013. Task conflict, information processing, and decision-making: The damaging effect of relationship conflict. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Process, 122(2): 177-189.
Edmondson, A.C. 1999. Psychological safety and learning behaviour in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2): 350-383.
Evan, W. 1965. Conflict and performance in R&D organizations. Industrial Management
Review, 7: 37-46.
Friedman, R.A., Tidd, S.T., Currall, S.C., & Tsai, J.C. 2000. What goes around comes around: The impact of personal conflict style on work conflict and stress. The International
Journal of Conflict Management, 11: 32-55.
Frone, M.R. 1999. Work stress and alcohol use. Alcohol Research & Health, 23(4): 284-291. Gamero, N., González-Romá, V., & Peiró, J.M. 2008. The influence of intra-team conflict on work teams’ affective climate: A longitudinal study. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 81: 47-69.
Greer, L.L., Jehn, K.A., Mannix, E.A. 2008. Conflict transformation – A longitudinal investigation of the relationships between different types of intragroup conflict and the moderating role of conflict resolution. Small Group Research, 39(3): 278-302.
32 Hirak, R., Peng, A.C., Carmeli, A., Schaubroeck, J.M. 2011. Linking leader inclusiveness to work unit performance: The importance of psychological safety and learning from failures. The Leadership Quarterly, 23: 107-117.
Holmbeck, G.N. 1997. Toward terminological, conceptual, and statistical clarity in the study of mediators and moderators: Examples from the child-clinical and pediatric psychology literatures. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65(4): 599- 610.
Hox, J. 2002. Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
James, L.R., Demaree, R.G., & Wolf, G. 1993. Rwg: An assessment of within-group interrater agreement. Journal of Applied psychology, 78(2): 306-309.
Jehn, K.A. 1995. A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(2):256-282.
Jehn, K.A. 1997. A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions of organizational groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(3): 530-557.
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.B. 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., Greer, L., Levine, S., & Szulanski, G. 2008. The effects of conflict types, dimensions, and emergent states on group outcomes. Group Decision and
Negotiation, 17(6):465-495.
Jehn, K.A., & Mannix, E.A. 2001. The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2): 238-251.
33 Kozlowski, S.W.J., & Bell, B.S. 2003. Work groups and teams in organizations. In W.C. Borman, D.R. Ilgen & R.J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and
organizational psychology, vol. 12: 333-375. London: Wiley.
Kozlowski, S.W.J., & Ilgen, D.R. 2006. Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7(3): 77-124.
LeBreton, J.M., Burgess, J.R.D., Kaiser, R.B., Atchley, E.K., & James, L.R. 2003. The restriction of variance hypothesis and interrater reliability and agreement: Are ratings from multiple sources really dissimilar? Organizational Research Methods, 6: 80- 128.
LeBreton, J.M., & Senter, J.L. 2008 Answers on 20 questions about interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11(4): 815-852.
Mathieu, J., Heffner, T.S., Goodwin, G.F., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J.A. 2000. The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. Journal of
applied psychology, 85(2): 273-283.
Mathieu, J., Maynard, M.T., Rapp, T., & Gilson, L. 2008. Team effectiveness 1997-2007: A review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. Journal of
Management, 34(3): 410-476.
Medina, F.J., Munduate, L, Dorado, M.A., Martínez, I., & Guerra, J.M. 2005. Types of intragroup conflict and affective reactions. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20(3/4): 219-230.
Mooney, A.C., Holahan, P.J., Amason, A.C. 2007. Don’t take it personally: Exploring cognitive conflict as a mediator of affective conflict. Journal of Management Studies, 44(5): 733-758.
Nembhard, I.M., & Edmondson, A.C. 2006. Making it safe: The effects of leader inclusiveness and professional status on psychological safety and improvement efforts in health care teams. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 27(7): 941-966.
34 Pelled, L.H., Eisenhardt, K.M., & Xin, K.R. 1999. Exploring the black box: An analysis of work group diversity, conflict, and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44: 1-28.
Pondy, L.R. 1967. Organizational conflict: Concepts and models. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 12(2): 296-320.
Preacher, K.J., Rucker, D.D., & Hayes, A.F. 2007. Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42(1): 185-227.
Puck, J., & Pregernig, U. 2014. The effect of task conflict and cooperation on performance of teams: Are the results similar for different task types? European Management
Journal, 32(6): 870-878.
Rispens, S. 2012. The influence of conflict issue importance on the co-occurrence of task and relationship conflict in teams. Applied Psychology: an international review, 61(3): 349-367.
Rispens, S., Greer, L.L., & Jehn, K.A. 2007. It could be worse – A study on the alleviating roles of trust and connectedness in intragroup conflicts. International Journal of
Conflict Management, 18(3/4): 325-344.
Saavedra, R., Earley, P.C., & Van Dyne, L. 1993. Complex interdependence in task- performing groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78: 61-72.
Schmitt, N.W., & Klimoski, R.J. 1991. Research methods in human resources management.
Cincinnati, OH: South-Western.
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: 102-111.
Van der Vegt, G. S., & Bunderson, J. S. 2005. Learning and performance in multidisciplinary teams: The importance of collective team identification. Academy of Management
35 Van der Vegt, G.S., Van der Vliert, E., & Oosterhof, A. 2003. Informational dissimilarity and organizational citizenship behavior: The role of intrateam interdependence and team identification. Academy of Management Journal, 46(6): 715-727.
