It is the leader who can make the difference! Conflict,
transformational leadership, and group indecision
Riëtte L. Beij
S1876961
Master’s Thesis Human Resource Management
University of Groningen
16-01-2015
Riëtte L. Beij, University of Groningen, Human Resource Management & Organizational Behaviour Department, Faculty of Economics and Business, Student number: S1876961,
2 Abstract
3 Introduction
Teams are found in every organization and within these teams decisions have to be made. Unfortunately, this decision making is not always running easily (Nijstad, 2008). People often have different opinions and do not agree on certain tasks. Conflicts may arise, with the potential result of a delayed decision, or a decision that is not going to be made at all. An example can be found in jury decision making, where juries can be hung. In Canada, the jury must reach an unanimous decision on criminal cases in court. If the jury cannot reach an unanimous decision, a hung jury is declared. A new panel of jurors will be selected for the new trial, and the decision is delayed (Kerr & MacCoun, 1985; http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/just/09.html). Hung juries arise when the members of the jury do not agree with each other, and as such are a direct result of task conflict. “Task conflicts exist when group members debate, disagree, and argue about the content of the task being performed” (Todorova, Bear, & Weingart, 2014, p. 452).
Many studies have examined the relationship between task conflicts and decision making in teams, but these studies came to different conclusions. Some argue that task conflicts will lead to a better quality of decision making, because task conflicts prevent a premature consensus on bad alternatives (Jehn, 1995). Others argue that it is possible that disagreements can lead to group indecision, because groups can get stuck when they do not want to compromise and not making a decision may be the ‘easy way out’ of the conflict (Nijstad, 2008; Nijstad & Kaps, 2008). Both results are well argued and either can occur, and it is therefore interesting to explore when conflict leads to high quality decisions and when it leads to indecision.
4 problem and a decision may not be made. For example, Kerr and MacCoun (1985) found that jury members are less likely to concede when they are publicly committed to their initial opinion, and that this may lead to hung juries when jury members disagree on the verdict. It is also possible that people will not concede because a disagreement is taken too personally, which gives them the feeling of being insulted. For example, if a member truly beliefs in a certain value and someone else claims that the value does not make sense, the member possibly feels insulted by the other. In this case, there is not only a disagreement about a task, the relationship between members is an additional factor. De Wit, Jehn and Scheepers (2013) found that task conflicts will lead to biased information processing and to rigidity in decision-making, especially when they are combined with relationship conflicts. “Relationship conflicts involve disagreements among group members about interpersonal issues, such as personality differences or differences in norms and values” (De Wit, Greer & Jehn, 2012, p. 360) and include affective elements such as feeling friction and tension (Jehn, 1995). They also found that relationship conflicts can lower group performance. What is not studied yet is how this will affect group indecision. When relationship conflicts play part in the negotiations, consensus is hard to find. The reason for this is that people stick more to their own opinion when a relationship conflict is involved. Because of this, the team members are less willing to revise their initial point of view (De Wit et al., 2013), which may lead to indecision.
5 transformational leadership and the effect on relationship conflicts (Menguc & Auh, 2008). This study has shown that this type of leadership will reduce relationship conflicts. What is not researched yet is the possibility that transformational leadership, mediated by relationship conflicts, has a moderating effect on the relation of task conflicts and group indecision. Therefore, it would be interesting to see if transformational leadership, mediated by relationship conflicts, can weaken the positive relationship between task conflict and group indecision. For many organizations that are dealing with delayed decisions because of conflicts, this can be a very interesting, new insight.
To examine this hypothesis a field study was conducted among 68 teams. The members of the teams were asked to fill in a questionnaire about task- and relationship conflicts within the team and about transformational leadership. Group indecision was measured by questions that were only asked to the leader of the group.
Theory
6 such bias, because more opinions led to different perspectives within a team. Also when conflicts are not desirable in a team and therefore the team members do not encourage any conflicts, there is a possibility that critical details become unnoticed because teams do not take enough time to take a closer look at other opinions. This concept is called ‘groupthink’ and will not lead to a better quality of decisions (Janis, 1982). Accordingly, task conflict can be good for decision making and group performance. Indeed, Hoffman and Maier (1961) examined the difference between heterogeneous and homogeneous groups in the quality of solutions. They found results of higher quality by heterogeneous groups than by homogeneous groups. Sometimes the results did not vary in quality but at least the results of homogeneous groups were never superior to the solutions of heterogeneous groups. One reason for this is that if a team exists of group members with different opinions, new insights will be available with the result of better quality of decisions (McGrath, 1984). Another reason for this is that homogeneous groups tend to use shared information (i.e. information accessible for all group members) more than unshared information (i.e. information that is not accessible to all group members), whereas heterogeneous groups do not show this tendency. When critical information is not being shared, a decreasing quality of decisions can be a result as well (Stasser & Titus, 1985). Researchers therefore generally assert that differences within a group increases the quality of decision making, because it prevents conformity on an alternative that is suboptimal and avoids certain biases which may arise during the decision making process (Janis, 1982; Nemeth & Nemeth-Brown, 2003).
7 working environment. It is also possible that team members focus on the conflict, instead of focussing on what is really important for accomplishing their job, which will result in a lot frustration (Dijkstra, Van Dierendronck, & Evers, 2005). Moreover, to come to a decision, some of the team members must concede and accept that a non-preferred alternative is chosen (Nijstad & Kaps, 2008). When team members will not concede, a consequence can be that team members refuse to choose, with the result of a decision that is not going to be made at all. For example, a new customer system may not be implemented in a company, because there is disagreement on whether the system is a good investment or not. It is also possible that no candidate for an available vacancy will be chosen because the team cannot agree on which person suits best. This concept is named ‘group indecision’, which can be defined as instances in which a group decides to not make a definitive decision for the time being.
8 that group members do at times accept that an initially non-preferred alternative is chosen. However, group members were less likely to accept an alternative that they initially disliked, and this led to indecision when there were adversaries against each of the available alternatives. Finally Nijstad and Oltmanns (2012) found that time pressure increased the likelihood that some members conceded, and therefore reduced group indecision in the context of task conflict.
From the previous we have seen that task conflict can lead to better decisions, but also to indecision. When will what happen? Recent work of De Wit et al. (2012) suggests that task conflicts will lead to biased information processing when relational conflicts are present as well. “Relationship conflicts involve disagreements among group members about interpersonal issues, such as personality differences or differences in norms and values” (De Wit, Greer & Jehn, 2012, p. 360) and include affective elements such as feeling friction and tension (Jehn, 1995). According to Dijkstra et al. (2005), team members who do not agree on personal issues increase tension in the group. The reason for this is that in a conflict, members often feel threatened, because personal issues are strongly related with their self-image. This tension can have different effects. First of all, managing conflicts will be more problematic (De Dreu & Van Knippenberg, 2005). Secondly, the possibility that group performance will become lower will increase. For example, group members probably have less trust in each other, and they feel less committed to the team or the organization. In turn, this can lead to a higher turnover rate (Jehn et al., 2008). Relationship conflict can decrease group performance as well. This kind of conflict increases self-interest and therefore decreases collaborative thinking (De Dreu, 2006). It can also decrease group performance because the time that is wasted to issues regarding relationship conflicts, could have been used to solve task conflicts (Evan, 1965).
9 only value their own knowledge, instead of valuing the knowledge of other group members as well. Relationship conflict is therefore an interesting factor which can moderate the relationship between task conflict and group indecision. Although there is evidence that relationship conflict does influence biased information processing and also lowers group performance, the moderating effect of relationship conflict on the relation between task conflict and group indecision has not been researched yet. Taken together, in the context of task conflict, relationship conflicts makes members less likely to concede. If members are less likely to concede (while they have different preferences) this will lead to more indecision. Therefore, task conflicts are more likely to lead to indecision when there also are relationship conflicts. The first hypothesis will be:
Hyp 1: When relationship conflicts are present during a task conflict, the relationship between task conflict and group indecision will become positive.
10 team members are motivated by setting high goals and expectations. Intellectual stimulation implies that the leader stimulates and supports for group member creativity and innovation. Individualized consideration ensures that the leader pays individual attention to team members, and charisma causes that the team members will strive for shared goals instead of individual goals because the leaders make sure that the mission and goal of the organization is clear to the team members. Menguc and Auh (2008) examined the effect of transformational leadership on relationship conflicts. This study has shown that this type of leadership will reduce relationship conflicts.
To manage conflicts effectively, leaders should possess three important qualities. They should be open, agreeable, and have positive affectivity. It is a transformational leader who has these qualities and is therefore able to execute an integrative management style (Judge & Bono, 2000). Rahim (1992) argued that this management style is positive for everyone, because a leader with this style encourages that all team members dare to be open and appreciate each other’s opinions, so that information will be shared. Menguc and Auh (2008) argued that a leader with this style is beneficial because such a leader is able to combine opposing perspectives into a holistic mind set. This will lead to higher interconnectedness, which results in more communication, cohesiveness, and collaboration, which will reduce relationship conflict (Menon, Bharadwaj & Howell, 1996). The fact that leaders try to implement a collective mission will cause more trust among members and less relationship conflict (Bass & Avolio, 1994). Therefore, the second hypothesis will be:
Hyp 2: The presence of transformational leadership will reduce relationship conflict.
11 on the relation between task conflict and group indecision as well. This is because when a transformational leader is able to let the group members prioritize the goals of the organization, instead of self-interest, relationship conflicts will be reduced. This will have an effect on the relationship between task conflict and group indecision. Therefore the third hypothesis will be:
Hyp 3: Transformational leadership moderates the relation between task conflict and group indecision, and this moderating effect is mediated by relationship conflict.
Method
Participants and design
A field study was conducted among 68 teams. These teams were of different sizes (M = 12.75; SD = 15.13), and consisted of at least two members (Jehn, 1995) and a team leader. Teams were included only if teams had at least some decision making responsibilities. In total 396 people (68 team leaders and 328 team members) were approached, of whom 376 people completed the questionnaire. Therefore the response rate was 95%. The final sample consisted of 308 team members and 68 team leaders.
Transformational leadership
Relationship conflict within a
team
Task conflict within
a team Group indecision
-
12 The team leaders were mostly highly educated: more than 85% of the leaders had a higher professional degree (HBO) or an university degree (WO). Their average age was 40 years (SD = 12.76). Of the 68 leaders, 54.4% was male. Organizational tenure of team leaders averaged 11 years (SD = 10.43), while their tenure as team leader averaged 3.7 years (SD = 4.6).
The team members were somewhat less highly educated than the team leaders. 30% of the members had an intermediate-level professional degree (MBO), and more than 55% had a higher professional (HBO) or university (WO) degree. The average age was 36 years (SD = 11.37). Of the 308 members, 46.8% was male. Average organizational tenure was 9.3 years (SD = 8.1), and average team tenure was 4.2 years (SD = 4.82).
The sample consisted of four different type of teams, active in three different sectors. Of the teams, 13.2% were advice teams, 47.1% were production teams, 8.8% were project teams and 4.4% were action teams. 26.5% of the teams were other teams, which mostly consisted of support teams and boards. Of the teams, 20.6% were active in the secondary sector, 36.8% in the tertiary sector and 42.6% in the quaternary sector.
This study had a cross-sectional multi-source design in which task conflict, relationship conflict, and transformational leadership were measured among team members, and in which group indecision was measured by questions that were only asked to the leader of the team.
Procedure
13 members received questions about task conflict, relationship conflict and transformational leadership. To prevent common source bias, the team leaders were asked to answer questions about group indecision. First, the participants were asked to fill in questions about task conflict, relationship conflict, transformational leadership, and for the leaders group indecision. Thereafter the participants received questions about demographics, such as age, gender, education level, number of years participating in the team, number of years working in the organization, and for the leaders the number of team members, number of years leader of the team and the sector the team is working in. Because the study was conducted at Dutch companies, the questionnaire has been translated to Dutch in consultation with prof. dr. B.A. Nijstad.
Measures - Team member questionnaire
Task conflict
Task conflict was measured by a questionnaire of Jehn (1995) on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = none, 5 = a lot) by four items: ‘How often do people in your work unit disagree about opinions regarding the work being done?’, ‘How frequently are there conflicts about ideas in your work unit?’, ‘How much conflict about the work you do is there in your work unit?’, ‘To what extent are there differences of opinion in your work unit?’ (Cronbach’s alpha = .79).
Relationship conflict
Relationship conflict was measured by a questionnaire of Jehn (1995) on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = none, 5 = a lot) by four items: ‘How much friction is there among members in your work unit?’, ‘How much are personality conflicts evident in your work unit?’, ‘How much tension is
14 Transformational leadership
The leadership style was measured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire of Bass and Avolio (1989) on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = to a small extent, 5 = to a very large extent) by 18 items: ‘I have complete confidence in him/her’, ‘In my mind, he/she is a symbol of success and accomplishment’, ‘Engages in word and deeds which enhances his/her image of competence’, ‘Serves as a role model for me’, ‘Instills pride in being associated with him/her’, ‘Displays extraordinary talent and competence in whatever he/she decides’, ‘I am ready to trust him/her to overcome any obstacle’, ‘Listens to my concerns’, ‘Makes me aware of strongly held values, ideals and aspirations which are share in common’, ‘Mobilizes a collective sense of mission’, ‘Projects a powerful, dynamic and magnetic presence’, ‘Shows how to look at problems from new angles’, ‘Makes me back up my opinions with good reasoning’, ‘Articulates a vision of future opportunities’, ‘Provide advice when it is needed’, ‘Introduces new projects and new challenges’, ‘Treats me as an individual rather than just a member of the group’, ‘Talks optimistically about the future’. (Cronbach’s alpha = .96).
Control variable: Task interdependence
15 Measures – Team leader questionnaire
Dependent variable: Group indecision
Group indecision was measured by a newly developed questionnaire on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree) by four items: ‘In this team choices are often delayed’, ‘This team has difficulties making decisions’, ‘Making decisions is avoided as much as possible within this team’, ‘It takes long before a decision is made in this team’. (Cronbach’s alpha = .78).
Control variable: Team size
Team size was measured by one question: ‘Of how many team members consist your team?’
Control variable: Decision making autonomy
Decision making autonomy was measured on a 4-point scale (1 = never, 2 = sometimes, 3 = often, 4 = always) by seven items: ‘Can your team decide its own working times?’, ‘Can your team decide its own working pace?’, ‘Is your team working according to a standard protocol?’ (reversed coded), ‘Can your team decide themselves how the work should be performed?’, ‘Is your team free to pass its own judgement?’, ‘Can your team participate in decisions about issues concerning their own activities?’, ‘Does your team have to report on the activities of the team?’ (reversed scored). (Cronbach’s alpha = .68).
Control variable: Leader tenure
16 Data analysis
The dependent variable was measured at team level, whereas the independent variables were measured at individual level. To analyse the data properly, it was necessary to aggregate the independent variables to the team level. Therefore we computed ICC values, to see if there is sufficient agreement between the team members to aggregate the data to team level. Table 1 shows the ICC scores of the variables measured at individual level. All these ICC values were significant, p < .001, which justifies aggregation to the team level.
Table 1, ICC
After computing the ICC values of the independent variables, the data was aggregated to the team level and coupled with the data of the dependent variable. Some descriptive statistics and correlations between the variables of interest were performed. To test the hypotheses, a multiple regression analysis was conducted, after standardizing the independent variables.
17 Results
Descriptive statistics
18 Table 2, Descriptive statistics and inter-correlations among study variables
Note: *** p < .001; ** p < .01; * p < .05; + p < .10 Correlations Variables M SD ICC 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 1. Task conflict 2.55 0.51 .286*** α = 0.79 2. Relationship conflict 1.99 0.52 .260*** .669*** α = 0.90 3. Transformational leadership 4.10 0.64 .411*** -.226+ -.395** α = 0.96 4. Group indecision 2.70 1.07 - .160 .177 -.051 α = 0.78 5. Team size 12.75 15.13 - .006 .011 .138 .096 -
6. Decision making autonomy 2.85 0.43 - .224+ .114 .207+ -.062 -.308* α = 0.68
7. Task interdependence 3.30 0.48 .176*** .097 -.063 .128 .051 .165 .080 α = 0.74
19 Hypotheses testing
The hypotheses were that when relationship conflicts are present during a task conflict, the relationship between task conflict and group indecision would become positive (H1). The presence of transformational leadership can reduce relationship conflict (H2), and therefore it is possible that transformational leadership moderates the relationship between task conflict and group indecision, whereby this moderating effect is mediated by relationship conflict (H3).
20 Table 3, Multiple regression analysis for hypotheses 1 and 3
Note: *** p < .001; ** p < .01; * p < .05
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4
Variables B SE B SE B SE B SE
Team size .005 .009 .004 .010 .001 .009 .001 .009
Decision making autonomy -.135 .336 -.226 .348 -.363 .335 -.361 .338
Task interdependence .074 .289 .096 .296 .274 .288 .272 .291
Leader tenure -.001 .002 -.001 .003 -.002 .003 -.002 .003
Task conflict .071 .194 .090 .184 .091 .186
Relationship conflict .151 .199 .076 .191 .079 .194
Transformational leadership -.010 .151 -.063 .145 -.064 .146
Transformational leadership x Task conflict
-.393** .144 -.407* .183
Task conflict x Relationship conflict -.014 .111
21 Table 3 shows that relationship conflict did not play a significant moderating role in the relationship between task conflict and group indecision. There was no effect (B = -.014, p > .05). The first hypothesis was therefore rejected.
The correlation table (Table 2) has shown that transformational leadership had a significant relation with relationship conflict (r = -.395, p < 0.001), which is consistent with Hypothesis 2. This hypothesis was additionally examined in a regression hypothesis (Table 4), in which the effect of transformational leadership was assessed while controlling for the control variables.
Table 4, Multiple regression analysis for hypothesis 2
Note: *** p < .001; ** p < .01; * p < .05
Table 4 still illustrates that transformational leadership had a significant relation with relationship conflict (B = -.205, p < .01). Therefore, Hypothesis 2 was accepted.
Table 3 also shows that transformational leadership moderated the relationship between task conflict and group indecision (B = -.393, p < .01), even when the interaction between task
22 conflict and relationship conflict was added to the model (B =-.407, p < .05). This effect is presented in figure 1.
Figure 1, Interaction between task conflict and transformational leadership
The figure shows that when there is low transformational leadership, higher task conflict was associated with more group indecision. However, with high transformational leadership, task conflict was associated with less group indecision. This is partly consistent with Hypothesis 3. Although relationship conflict did not have a moderating role in the relationship between task conflict and indecision, transformational leadership did moderate this relationship in the expected way.
Discussion
The goal of this study was to find out whether transformational leadership has a moderating effect on the relationship between task conflict and group indecision, mediated by relationship conflict. In particular three hypotheses were tested. The first hypothesis was: When relationship conflicts are present during a task conflict, the relationship between task conflict and group indecision will become positive. The second hypothesis was: The presence of transformational
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Low Task conflict High Task conflict
23 leadership will reduce relationship conflict. The third hypothesis was: Transformational leadership moderates the relation between task conflict and group indecision, and this moderating effect is mediated by relationship conflict. These hypotheses have been tested by an online questionnaire, conducted among team leaders and team members from diverse teams at several companies in the Netherlands. The study had a cross-sectional multi-source design in which task conflict, relationship conflict, and transformational leadership were measured among team members, and in which group indecision was measured by questions that were only asked to the leader of the team.
The predictions were tested by a multiple regression analysis. This analysis revealed that relationship conflict had no significant moderating effect on the relationship between task conflict and group indecision, which means that Hypothesis 1 can be rejected. Transformational leadership did have a significant effect on relationship conflict, which is consistent with Hypothesis 2. It also became clear that transformational leadership did have a significant moderating effect on the relationship between task conflict and group indecision, although this effect was not mediated by relationship conflict. Therefore, Hypothesis 3 is partly confirmed.
24 was strong. This means that it becomes problematic to test this interaction. Another reason that no significant relation was found, could be the fact that in the sample used in this study, almost no relationship conflict was present. Also task conflict was not present to a large extent. Accordingly, it is difficult to attain a significant effect due to restrictions of range.
Transformational leadership indeed had a relation with relationship conflict. This is consistent with previous research of Menguc and Auh (2008). Transformational leaders highlight the importance of respect for various opinions. This kind of leader is able to combine conflicting views into one shared mindset, in which acceptance, shared information and openness are keys (Rahim, 1992). This ideology will lead to more communication, cohesiveness, collaborations and interconnectedness, with a decrease of relationship conflict as a consequence (Menon et al., 1996).
25 Implications
Literature about conflicts shows that task conflict in a team can be positive and negative. It can lead to higher group performance, because it avoids that a decision is quickly made without giving it enough thought (Jehn, 1995). It can also lead to group indecision, because the members refuse to concede (Nijstad, 2008; Nijstad & Kaps, 2008). This study has confirmed this. Task conflict can lead to group indecision, but there are variables who can reduce this effect. In this study this is shown with transformational leadership. Transformational leadership prevents that task conflict is converted to group indecision. Other effects of task conflict may also be moderated by transformational leadership. For example, task conflict allows the members of the team to openly discuss their opinions and ideas, which can increase group creativity (Amason & Schweiger, 1994). It is possible that transformational leadership can strengthen this effect, because a transformational leader encourages that all members dare to be open (Rahim, 1992). This is an interesting insight for the theories of conflict because it seems that the effects of task conflict are related to other variables that are present at that moment.
26 For practice, the results are very useful. Working in teams is very common these days; in every organization you will find teams, teams in which many decision have to be made. These teams exist of individuals, all with their own opinions. Therefore, it is very likely that conflicts between these individuals arise, with the consequence of a decision that is delayed or not going to be made (Nijstad, 2008). The evidence that transformational leadership can be an instrument to guide these decisions into the right direction, gives managers a grip on situations in which indecision is caused by conflicts. Not only is a transformational leader able to decrease relationship conflicts, it decreases group indecision as well when caused by task conflicts. For the future, managers in organizations will know what kind of leader they should deploy for a team that has difficulties with decision making due to task conflicts, or for a team that has relationship conflicts. As a result it is possible that the teams in the organization become more efficient and effective. This will be positive for the organization.
Limitations and future directions
The data of this study is multi sourced, which means that there is no common source bias and therefore this is not problematic in this study. However, the study used a cross-sectional design, which means that the data is collected at one moment in time. A disadvantage of this design is that we cannot establish causality between the variables. The data used for this study would have been more reliable if a longitudinal or experimental design was applied. Unfortunately, such designs demand more time.
27 accomplished by looking through the minutes of meetings or measuring the variable among more people.
As mentioned, the sample in this study contains not much task and relationship conflict. The reason for this is probably that the teams who wanted to participate in the study were mostly stable teams with few conflicts. The teams that were not stable at the moment they were asked to participate, preferred not to join this study. Also, the questionnaire was not fully anonymous. Therefore, it is possible that some team members might have been afraid to be fully honest, in fear that the results were reported back to the team leader. Some team leaders are acquaintances of the researchers, which could have made team members even more cautious. In the future, it would be interesting to apply an experimental design, in a study in which conflict and group indecision are researched. In such a design variables can be manipulated which could ensure a higher reliability.
The teams that comprised the sample are highly heterogeneous. There were production teams, boards, supportive teams, action teams, advice teams and project teams. Because of the spread in team types, it is possible that the teams are not comparable. In the future it would be interesting to study a more homogeneous sample, by selecting one type of team, to see if the results turn out differently.
An important finding is that in many teams task conflict and relationship conflict are related to each other. This means that when a team experiences task conflict, most of the time relationship conflict is present as well, and vice versa. To find a significant effect on group indecision, it is important that teams that vary on task and relationship conflict are included in the sample.
28 example, Judge, Piccolo, and Ilies (2004) showed that consideration leadership was connected to leader satisfaction, job satisfaction, motivation and leader effectiveness, whereas initiating leadership was more connected to leader job performance and group-organization performance. These are all factors that could be important in the decision making process. It would be an addition to know if other leadership styles have an influence on group indecision as well.
Finally, the study has shown that transformational leadership had a moderating effect on the relation between task conflict and group indecision. It would be interesting to examine why transformational leadership has this effect. It is possible that this is caused by the organizational-interest that the leaders emphasize, instead of the self-interest (Menguc & Auh, 2008). It is also a possibility that intrinsic motivation is part of this moderating effect.
Conclusion
29 References
Amason, A.C., & Schweiger, D.M. (1994). Resolving the paradox of conflict, strategic decision making, and organizational performance. International Journal of Conflict Management, 5, 239-253.
Bass, B.M., & Avolio, B.J. (1989). Manual for the multifactor leadership questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Bass, B.M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cerasoli, C.P., Nicklin, J.M., & Ford, M.T. (2014). Intrinsic motivation and extrinsic incentives jointly predict performance: A 40-year meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140(4), 980-1008.
Charbonneau, D., Barling, J., & Kelloway, E.K. (2006). Transformational leadership and sports performance: The mediating role of intrinsic motivation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31(7), 1521-1534.
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., & Van Knippenberg, D. (2005). The possessive self as a barrier to conflict resolution: Effects of mere ownership, process accountability, and self-concept clarity on competitive cognitions and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 89, 345–357.
30 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 Processes, 122, 177-189.
Dijkstra, M.T.M., Van Dierendonck, D., & Evers, A. (2005). Responding to conflict at work and individual well-being: The mediating role of flight behaviour and feelings of helplessness. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 14, 119 –
135.
Evan, W. (1965). Conflict and performance in R&D organizations. Industrial Management Review, 7, 37–46.
Hoffman, L.R., & Maier, N.R.F.. (1961). Quality and acceptance of problem
solutions by members of homogeneous and heterogeneous groups. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62(2), 401-407.
Janis, I.L. (1982). Victims of Groupthink. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Jehn, K.A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 256 –282.
Jehn, K.A., & Bendersky, C. (2003). Intragroup conflict in organizations: A contingency perspective on the conflict-performance relationship. Research in Organizational Behaviour, 25, 187-242.
Jehn, K.A., Greer, L.L., Levine, S., & Szulanski, G. (2008). The effects of conflict types, dimensions, and emergent states on group outcomes. Group Decision and Negotiation, 17, 465–495.
31 Judge, T.A., & Piccolo, R.F., & Ilies, R. (2004). The forgotten ones? The validity of
consideration and initiating structure in leadership research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(1), 36-51.
Kelman, H.C. (1958). Compliance, identification, and internalization: Three processes of opinion change. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2, 51−60.
Kerr, N.L., & MacCoun, R.J. (1985). The effects of jury size and polling method on the process and product of jury deliberation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 349–363.
McGrath, J.E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Menguc, B., & Auh, S. (2008). Conflict, leadership, and market orientation. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 25, 34-45.
Menon, A., Bharadwaj, S.G., & Howell, R. (1996). The quality and effectiveness of marketing strategy: Effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict in
intraorganizational relationships. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 24(4),
299−313.
Nemeth, C.J., & Nemeth-Brown, B. (2003). Better than individuals? The potential benefits of dissent and diversity for group creativity: Innovation through collaboration. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nijstad, B.A. (2008). Choosing none of the above: Persistence of negativity after group discussion and group decision refusal. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 11,
525–538.
Nijstad, B.A., Berger-Selman, F., & De Dreu, C.K.W. (2014). Innovation in top management teams: Minority dissent, transformational leadership, and radical innovations.
32 Nijstad, B.A., & Kaps, S. (2008). Taking the easy way out: Preference diversity, decision strategies and decision refusal in groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 860–870.
Nijstad, B.A., & Oltmanns, J. (2012). Motivated information processing and group decision refusal. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 15(5), 637-651.
Pelled, L.H., Eisenhardt, K.M., & Xin, K.R. (1999). Exploring the black box: Analysis of work group diversity, conflict, and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44,
1–28.
Schulz-Hardt, S., Frey, D., Lüthgens, C., & Moscovici, S. (2000). Biased information search in group decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 655–669. Stasser, G., & Titus, W. (1985). Pooling of unshared information in group decision making: Biased information sampling during discussion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1467–1478.
Tjosvold, D. (1986). Constructive controversy: A key strategy for groups. Personnel, 63,
39-44.
Todorova, G., Bear, J.B., & Weingart, L.R. (2014). Can conflict be energizing? A study of task conflict, positive emotions, and job satisfaction. The Journal of Applied
Psychology, 99(3), 451-467.
Van der Vegt, G. S., Emans, B.J., & Van de Vliert, E. (1998). Motivating effects of task and outcome interdependence in work team. Group and Organization Management, 23,
33 Appendix
Team member questionnaire: Beste deelnemer,
Hartelijk dank voor uw medewerking aan het onderzoek van de Rijksuniversiteit Groningen over het nemen van beslissingen in teams. Allereerst zullen er vragen gesteld worden over de samenwerking met uw collega's, de sfeer in uw team en de focus binnen uw team. Daarna zullen er een aantal vragen gesteld worden over uw teamleider en over conflicten binnen uw team. Ten slotte zullen er een aantal algemene vragen gesteld worden. Het onderzoek duurt ongeveer 10 minuten.
We willen hierbij benadrukken dat er geheel vertrouwelijk om zal worden gegaan met de gegevens en dat er geen (bedrijfs)namen in het onderzoek genoemd zullen worden. Na
verwerking van de gegevens zal alle informatie die is terug te leiden naar specifieke personen en organisaties uit onze bestanden worden verwijderd.
Nogmaals dank voor het invullen van deze vragenlijst.
De volgende vragen gaan over de samenwerking met uw collega’s binnen uw team. Geef op een schaal van 1 t/m 5 aan in hoeverre dit zeker niet of zeker wel het geval is. > Schaal: Zeker niet 2 3 4 Zeker wel
1. Voor het uitvoeren van mijn werk heb ik vaak informatie en/of adviezen van mijn col-lega’s nodig
2. Ik ben erg afhankelijk van mijn collega's bij het uitvoeren van mijn werk.
3. Ik heb een eenpersoonsfunctie; ik hoef weinig met anderen te overleggen of samen te wer-ken.
4. Ik moet nauw samenwerken met mijn collega's om mijn werk goed te kunnen doen. 5. Voor het uitvoeren van hun werk hebben mijn collega's vaak informatie en/of adviezen
van mij nodig.
6. Het team krijgt te horen welke doelen ze als groep moet halen.
7. Teamleden worden beoordeeld op grond van hoe ze als team gepresteerd hebben
De volgende vragen gaan over interactie met uw teamleden. Geef op een schaal van 1 t/m 5 aan in hoeverre u het helemaal oneens of helemaal eens bent met de stelling. > Schaal: Helemaal mee oneens 2 3 4 Helemaal mee eens
1. We hebben contact met elkaar als team 2. We hebben regelmatig contact met elkaar
3. De teamleden spreken regelmatig af om zowel informeel als formeel te praten 4. Er is vaak interactie tussen de teamleden
De volgende vragen gaan over de sfeer in uw team. Geef op een schaal van 1 t/m 5 aan in hoeverre dit in geringe mate of in zeer grote mate. > Schaal: In geringe mate 2 3 4 In zeer grote mate
1. In het algemeen delen we informatie in het team in plaats van dat we het voor onszelf houden
34 3. Iedereen heeft invloed op elkaar
4. De teamleden houden elkaar op de hoogte over werkgerelateerde zaken in het team 5. De teamleden voelen zich begrepen en geaccepteerd door elkaar
6. Er wordt naar ieder zijn standpunt geluisterd, zelfs als iemand in de minderheid is 7. Er wordt veel moeite gedaan om informatie te delen binnen het team
8. Teamleden houden rekening met elkaar
De volgende vragen gaan over de focus binnen uw team. Geef op een schaal van 1 t/m 5 aan in hoeverre u de stelling niet waar of helemaal waar vindt. > Schaal: Niet waar 2 3 4 Helemaal waar
1. Binnen ons team stellen we ons vaak voor hoe we onze wensen en ambities kunnen bereiken
2. Binnen ons teams richten we ons doorgaans op het succes dat we hopen te bereiken in de toekomst
3. Binnen ons team zien we onszelf als personen die vooral nastreven ons "ideale zelf" te bereiken - om onze verwachtingen, ambities en wensen te bereiken
4. In het algemeen richt ons team zich op het bereiken van positieve uitkomsten in ons leven
5. In het algemeen zijn we binnen ons team meer gericht op het behalen van succes dan op het voorkomen van mislukkingen
De volgende vragen gaan wederom over de focus binnen uw team. Geef op een schaal van 1 t/m 5 aan in hoeverre u de stelling niet waar of helemaal waar vindt. > Schaal: Niet waar 2 3 4 Helemaal waar
6. In het algemeen zijn we binnen ons team gericht op het voorkomen van negatieve ge-beurtenissen in ons leven
7. Ons team is bang dat we te kort schieten in onze verantwoordelijkheden en verplich-tingen
8. Binnen ons team maken we ons vaak zorgen dat het niet lukt om onze doelen te berei-ken
9. Binnen ons team zijn we meer gericht op het voorkomen van verliezen dan op het be-reiken van winsten
10. Binnen ons team zien we ons zelf als personen die voornamelijk nastreven om de per-sonen te zijn die we behoren te zijn - om aan onze verplichtingen en verantwoordelijk-heden te voldoen
Onderstaande vragen gaan over uw teamleider. Geef op een schaal van 1 t/m 5 aan in hoe-verre u het in geringe mate of in zeer grote mate eens bent met de stelling. > Schaal: In ger-inge mate 2 3 4 In zeer grote mate
1. Ik heb volledig vertrouwen in mijn teamleider
2. Voor mij is mijn teamleider een symbool van succes en bekwaamheid
3. In woord en daad toont mijn teamleider zich een toonbeeld van bekwaamheid 4. Mijn teamleider fungeert voor mij als voorbeeld
5. Mijn teamleider maakt dat ik trots ben met hem/haar samen te werken
6. Mijn teamleider toont een buitengewone bekwaamheid in alles wat hij/zij onderneemt 7. Ik vertrouw erop dat mijn teamleider elke hindernis kan nemen
35 9. Mijn teamleider maakt mij bewust van gemeenschappelijke waarden, aspiraties en
ide-alen
Onderstaande vragen gaan wederom over uw teamleider. Geef op een schaal van 1 t/m 5 aan in hoeverre u het in geringe mate of in zeer grote mate eens bent met de stelling. > Schaal: In geringe mate 2 3 4 In zeer grote mate
1. Mijn teamleider creëert een gemeenschappelijk gevoel dat we aan een belangrijke op-dracht/missie werken
2. Mijn teamleider heeft een sterke en dynamische persoonlijkheid en krachtige uitstra-ling
3. Mijn teamleider laat mij zien hoe je problemen vanuit nieuwe gezichtshoeken kunt be-kijken
4. Mijn teamleider stimuleert me mijn mening met goede argumenten te onderbouwen 5. Mijn teamleider draagt een duidelijke visie op mogelijkheden in de toekomst uit 6. Mijn teamleider geeft advies wanneer dit nodig is
7. Mijn teamleider introduceert nieuwe projecten en uitdagingen
8. Mijn teamleider behandelt me als individu in plaats van als zomaar een lid van het team
9. Mijn teamleider spreekt optimistisch over de toekomst
De volgende vragen gaan over uw teamleider. Geef op een schaal van 1 t/m 5 aan in hoeverre dit altijd of nooit voorkomt. > Schaal: Altijd, vaak, af en toe, zelden, nooit
1. Mijn teamleider doet weinig om groepsdeelname aangenaam te maken 2. Mijn teamleider behandelt alle groepsleden als zijn gelijken
3. Mijn teamleider is bereid om veranderingen door te voeren 4. Mijn teamleider is vriendelijk en toegankelijk
5. Mijn teamleider gebruikt de suggesties van de groep
6. Mijn teamleider draagt zorg voor het persoonlijk welzijn van groepsleden
De volgende vragen gaan eveneens over uw teamleider. Geef op een schaal van 1 t/m 5 aan in hoeverre dit altijd of nooit voorkomt. > Schaal: Altijd, vaak, af en toe, zelden nooit
7. Mijn teamleider hanteert duidelijke prestatienormen
8. Mijn teamleider moedigt het gebruik van uniforme procedures aan
9. Mijn teamleider wil dat groepsleden de geldende regels en reglementen volgen 10. Mijn teamleider laat groepsleden weten wat van hen verwacht wordt
11. Mijn teamleider bepaalt wat er gedaan gaat worden en hoe het gedaan gaat worden De volgende vragen gaan over conflicten binnen uw team. Geef op een schaal van 1 t/m 5 aan in hoeverre dit helemaal niet of heel vaak voorkomt in uw team. > Schaal: Helemaal niet 2 3 4 Heel vaak
1. Hoe vaak verschillen leden binnen uw team van mening over het werk dat gedaan moet worden?
2. Hoe vaak zijn er conflicten over ideeën binnen uw team?
36 De volgende vragen gaan eveneens over conflicten binnen uw team. Geef op een schaal van 1 t/m 5 aan in hoeverre dit helemaal niet of heel vaak voorkomt in uw team.> Schaal: Helemaal niet 2 3 4 Heel veel
1. Hoeveel frictie bestaat er tussen de leden van uw team?
2. In hoeverre bestaan er persoonlijkheidsconflicten binnen uw team? 3. Hoeveel spanning bestaat er tussen de leden van uw team?
4. Hoeveel emotionele conflicten bestaan er tussen de leden van uw team? Ten slotte volgen er nu een aantal algemene vragen.
Wat is uw leeftijd? Wat is uw geslacht?
Man
Vrouw
Wat is uw hoogst genoten opleiding?
VMBO (MAVO)
HAVO/VWO
MBO
HBO
WO
Hoeveel maanden bent u werkzaam bij uw huidige werkgever? Hoeveel maanden bent u lid van uw huidige team?
Ruimte voor opmerkingen, tips en/of commentaar
Hartelijk dank voor het invullen van de vragenlijst.
37 Team leader questionnaire:
Beste teamleider,
Hartelijk dank voor uw medewerking aan het onderzoek van de Rijksuniversiteit Groningen over het maken van beslissingen in teams. Allereerst zullen er een paar algemene vragen over uw team worden gesteld. Hierna worden er vragen gesteld over de beslissingsbevoegdheid van uw teamleden, het nemen van beslissingen in uw team, de prestaties van uw team en de innovatie binnen uw team. Tenslotte zullen er een paar algemene vragen gesteld worden. Het onderzoek duurt ongeveer 10 minuten.
We willen hierbij benadrukken dat er geheel vertrouwelijk om zal worden gegaan met de ge-gevens en dat er geen (bedrijfs)namen in het onderzoek genoemd zullen worden. Na verwer-king van de gegevens zal alle informatie die is terug te leiden naar specifieke personen en or-ganisaties uit onze bestanden worden verwijderd.
Nogmaals dank voor het invullen van deze vragenlijst. Hoeveel teamleden bevat uw team?
In welke sector is uw team werkzaam?
Primaire sector (de economische sector die grondstoffen en voedsel levert, bijvoor-beeld landbouw en veeteelt)
Secundaire sector (alle bedrijven en activiteiten die de grondstoffen van de primaire sector verwerken; de industrie)
Tertiaire sector (commerciële dienstverlening, bijvoorbeeld winkels, horeca, advoca-ten en ICT-bedrijven)
Quartaire sector (niet-commerciële dienstverlening, bijvoorbeeld ziekenhuis, brand-weer en onderwijs)
Wat voor soort team is uw team?
Advies team (team met als belangrijkste taak advies geven of informatie verstrekken; bijvoorbeeld een raad van advies, beoordelingscommissie, medezeggenschapsraad) Productie team (team dat verantwoordelijk is voor de productie van goederen of
dien-sten; bijvoorbeeld assemblage team, verkoopteam, onderwijsteam)
Project team (team dat speciaal is samengesteld voor een bepaald project; bijvoorbeeld onderzoeksgroep, task force)
Actie team (team dat gecoördineerd acties moet uitvoeren; bijvoorbeeld sport team, politie team, operatie team)
Anders, namelijk…
Kunt u kort uitleggen voor welke taken u team verantwoordelijk is?
De volgende vragen gaan over de beslissingsbevoegdheid van uw team. Geef op een schaal van 1 t/m 4 aan in hoeverre dit nooit of altijd van toepassing is. > Schaal: 1 Nooit, 2 Soms, 3 Vaak, 4 Altijd
38 3. Werkt uw team volgens een standaard protocol?
4. Kan uw team zelf beslissen hoe het werkt uitgevoerd wordt? 5. Is uw team vrij om eigen oordelen te mogen vellen?
6. Kan uw team (mee) beslissen over zaken aangaande de werkzaamheden van het team? 7. Moet uw team verantwoording afleggen over de werkzaamheden van het team? Onderstaande vragen gaan over het nemen van beslissingen in uw team. Geef op een schaal van 1 t/m 7 aan in hoeverre u het oneens of eens bent met de stelling. > Schaal: Helemaal mee oneens 2 3 4 5 6 Helemaal mee eens
1. In dit team worden beslissingen vaak uitgesteld 2. Dit team heeft moeite met het nemen van beslissingen
3. In dit team wordt het nemen van beslissingen zoveel mogelijk vermeden 4. Het duurt erg lang voordat dit team een beslissing neemt
Onderstaande vragen gaan eveneens over het nemen van beslissingen in uw team. Geef op een schaal van 1 t/m 7 aan in hoeverre u het oneens of eens bent met de stelling. > Schaal: Hele-maal mee oneens 2 3 4 5 6 HeleHele-maal mee eens
5. De beslissingen van dit team zijn goed
6. De beslissingen van dit team zijn gebaseerd op de beschikbare informatie 7. De beslissingen van dit team worden genomen op basis van gegronde aannames 8. Dit team neemt vaak verkeerde beslissingen
9. Ik ben meestal tevreden over de beslissingen die in dit team worden genomen 10. De beslissingen van dit team dragen positief bij aan de prestaties van dit team 11. De beslissingen van dit team helpen de organisatie zijn doelen te behalen 12. Anderen buiten dit team zijn tevreden met de beslissingen die dit team neemt
De volgende vragen gaan over de prestaties van uw team. Geef op een schaal van 1 t/m 5 aan in hoeverre u het oneens of eens bent met de stelling. > Schaal: Helemaal mee oneens 2 3 4 Helemaal mee eens
1. Wij presteren beter dan andere teams
2. Er zijn weinig of geen klachten over de kwaliteit van ons werk 3. Onze prestaties zijn vaak minder goed dan vereist is
4. De resultaten van ons werk zouden beter kunnen zijn dan ze op dit moment zijn 5. Soms presteert ons team heel goed, soms helemaal niet
6. Ons team verdient een heel goede beoordeling 7. Meestal presteren andere teams beter dan wij
8. Onze prestaties zijn meestal beter dan die van andere teams
9. Vergeleken met de gestelde eisen behalen wij gewoonlijk goede resultaten
De volgende vragen gaan over innovatie binnen uw team. Geef op een schaal van 1 t/m 5 aan in hoeverre u het oneens of eens bent met de stelling. > Schaal: Helemaal mee oneens 2 3 4 Helemaal mee eens
1. Teamleden passen vaak nieuwe ideeën toe om de kwaliteit van de producten en diensten te verbeteren
39 3. Teamleden bedenken vaak nieuwe diensten, methodes en procedures
4. Dit is een innovatief team
Ten slotte volgen er nu een aantal algemene vragen. Wat is uw leeftijd?
Wat is uw geslacht? Man
Vrouw
Wat is uw hoogst genoten opleiding? VMBO (MAVO)
HAVO/VWO MBO
HBO WO
Hoeveel maanden bent u werkzaam binnen dit bedrijf? Hoeveel maanden bent u lid van uw huidige team? Hoeveel maanden bent u leider van uw huidige team? Ruimte voor opmerkingen, tips en/of commentaar
Hartelijk dank voor het invullen van de vragenlijst.
