Search results

Research into the antecedents of TMT conflict has become increasingly popular in light of the effects that conflict can have on strategic decision making and organizational performance. Of course, such performance becomes a part of the contextual backdrop against which future decisions are made. Thus, organizational performance is itself an important antecedent of TMT conflict. Using data drawn from the TMTs of 44 mid‐sized public firms, we demonstrate that cognitive and affective conflict relate differently to past performance. The implications of this research for efforts to effectively manage conflict during strategic decision making are discussed.

Jehn (1992, 1994) developed the Intragroup Conflict Scale (ICS) to measure two theoretically distinct dimensions of conflict: relationship and task conflict. In the years since, the ICS has been widely adopted by researchers as a measurement tool for group conflict. However, limited evidence of the scale's psychometric properties has been published. Following guidelines provided by Schwab (1980) and Hinkin (1995), we assess the construct validity of the scale, using both individual level and group level techniques, and test proposed nomological relationships, using six diverse samples. We conclude that a 6‐item version of the original 9‐item scale best captures relationship and task conflict.

Despite its strategic importance, researchers have given little attention to when CEOs are willing to delegate decisions to top management team members. Prior studies and conventional wisdom suggest that CEOs will be more willing to delegate in times of good performance. Drawing from prospect theory, we suggest an alternative view: that CEOs will be risk‐averse and, therefore, less willing to delegate when their firms have performed well. Our findings provide support for both perspectives.

Strategic decision making influences organizational performance. However, close examination of this relationship reveals a subtle paradox. It appears that the products of strategic decision making, all of which are necessary for enhanced organizational performance, do not peacefully coexist. Conflict seems to be the crux of this conundrum. As such, a better understanding of conflict's effects on strategic decision making is needed This paper integrates a multidimensional conceptualization of conflict Into a model of strategic decision making and organizational performance and develops propositions to guide empirical study of the effects of conflict on strategic decision making.

The purpose of this paper is to suggest why the theoretically positive relationship between task conflict and team performance has received mixed empirical support.

We review the literature on task conflict and offer explanations for findings that contradict the expected positive relationship between task conflict and team performance.

High levels of correlation among task, relationship and process conflict, and measurement and data analysis issues make it difficult to isolate the effects of each type of conflict. Group-level moderators, including values congruence, goal alignment, norms for debate and the group’s performance history and conflict history affect the relationship between task conflict and performance. The complex relationship between conflict and trust may cause task conflict to have mixed effects on performance. Individual differences and conflict management approaches also affect the relationship between task conflict and performance. Temporal issues and stages of group development are other relevant influences.

To better achieve the theorized performance benefits of task conflict, a context characterized by trust is needed. Then norms fostering task conflict can be cultivated and employees can be trained in conflict management. Individual differences that affect team members’ ability to confidently accept task conflict can be considered in selection.

Suggestions are presented for future research that may explain discrepant findings in the past empirical literature. In particular, it may be difficult for some team members to perceive task conflict in well-functioning teams. Measures of task conflict that avoid the use of words with a negative connotation should be tested.

This research was funded in part by the Center for International Business Research, University of South Carolina.

This study examines the relationship between gender and religious affiliation to the preferred conflicts styles of 384 student participants living in and attending university in South Africa, Israel, Bosnia‐Herzegovina and Northern Ireland. Participants report living in stressful social contexts that are often characterized by reports of terrorism perpetrated by paramilitaries, the state, violence that is brought on by long standing ethnic hatreds and years of division between major groups contending for control of political and social institutions, civilian uprisings, and in some cases low scale civil war. The results indicate that the independent variables—gender and religion—provide statistically significant observable differences in how people report they engage in conflict as seen in their choice of conflict styles. In particular, the findings on gender differences provide a surprising result that is partially attributed to the contextual factors of warfare and one's active participation in it. The results on religious affiliation provide a number of intriguing patterns among various religions including a desire to accommodate or collaborate with others and a strong dislike of avoidance. There are other more specific patterns that can be partially attributed to contextual factors as well. With so many contexts being present in the study a number of intriguing explanations and working hypotheses are brought forth to help explain why these patterns on gender and religious affiliation exist.

Maintaining relationships may be difficult in conflict because strong influence attempts can communicate disrespect, especially among Chinese people. The theory of cooperation and competition was used to investigate the effects of persuasion and control influence attempts and social context in conflict. Results from an experimental study support the reasoning that persuasion communicates respect and develops a cooperative relationship. In contrast, coercion communicates disrespect, develops competitive relationships, and results in rejection of the opposing view and negotiator. Consistent with North American research, cooperative compared to competitive context was found to lead to more openness toward the opposing position and negotiator. These results were interpreted as suggesting that persuasion, communication of respect, and a cooperative context facilitate productive conflict management between Chinese people.

This paper explores the possibilities of intercultural dialogue as a means of peace building on the people‐to‐people level. With its focus on the Israeli‐Palestinian conflict the work assesses a number of efforts, which have utilized cultural dialogue rooted in religion to facilitate dialogue, relationship building, and perception change during the period subsequent to the signing of the Oslo Accord in 1993 and prior to the outbreak of Israeli‐Palestinian violence in September 2000. Utilizing an interdisciplinary theoretical framework and questionnaire‐based quantitative data collected from Israeli and Palestinian students, the work suggests that the religiously based dialogue has the potential to move mutual perceptions to more favorable positions based on the similarities between Islam and Judaism. Such dialogue can also clarify to both sides the identification which each side has with the same land. We believe that our exploratory data might encourage the further use and study of religious cultural elements to facilitate peace building in both the Israeli‐Palestinian context and in other acute interethnic conflict venues.

Two distinct literatures have investigated the impact of negotiator frames. Both literatures demonstrate that negotiator frames significantly influence both bargaining behavior and negotiated outcomes. These two literatures, however, offer completely different conceptualizations of what negotiator frames actually are. In this article we classify these two conceptualizations as reference frames, the referent‐dependent perception of outcomes, and conflict frames, a multi‐dimensional orientation toward conflict. We report results from an experiment that links these two types of frames. We find that loss‐framed negotiators adopt conflict frames that are more win‐oriented and task‐oriented than the conflict frames gain‐framed negotiators adopt. Our results offer insight into the frame adoption process and have implications for dispute resolution and negotiation practice.