Search results

This paper aims to add to the current knowledge about conflict management by examining the relationships between conflict type, conflict expression intensity and the use of the conflict management approach.

The authors test theory-based hypotheses using a field study of new product development teams in an interdisciplinary Masters program (Study 1) and an experimental vignette study (Study 2).

Results show that people are more likely to respond to task conflict and conflicts expressed with less intensity using collectivistic conflict management approaches (i.e. problem-solving, compromising and yielding), and to relationship conflicts and conflicts expressed with higher intensity through forcing, an individualistic conflict management approach. Information acquisition and negative emotions experienced by team members mediate these relationships.

Knowing how the characteristics of the conflict (type and expression intensity) affect conflict management, managers can counteract the tendency to use dysfunctional, forcing conflict management approaches in response to high intensity conflicts, as well as to relationship conflicts and support the tendency to use collectivistic conflict management approaches in response to low intensity conflict, as well as task conflicts.

The authors examine an alternative to the prevailing view that conflict management serves as a moderator of the relationship between conflict and team outcomes. The research shows that conflict type and intensity of conflict expression influence the conflict management approach as a result of the information and emotion they evoke. The authors open avenues for future research on the complex and intriguing relationships between conflict characteristics and the conflict management approach.

The purpose of this study is to examine whether and how abusive supervision climate impacts team conflict from a mindfulness perspective. Prior research has identified serious dysfunctional effects of abusive supervision climate in teams. Team conflict, which is often a signal for dysfunctional relationships in teams, has however received limited attention. To contribute to this line of research, this study develops and tests a theoretical model on the role of team mindfulness in understanding the link between abusive supervision climate and task, process, and relationship conflict.

To test the theoretical model, this study collected and analyzed two-wave time-lagged data from 499 employees in 92 teams.

The results showed that abusive supervision climate aggravated task conflict and process conflict via diminishing levels of team mindfulness. Abusive supervision climate also exacerbated relationship conflict, but the effects did not occur via a decrease in team mindfulness.

While it may not always be possible to prevent the development of an abusive supervision climate in workplaces, other interventions may prevent conflict in teams with abusive leaders. As indicated by the findings, task conflict and process conflict may be reduced if teams are high on mindfulness. Interventions that stimulate team mindfulness might thus improve collaboration in teams with abusive leaders.

This research offers novel insights regarding how abusive leaders might instigate conflict within teams. Specifically, through the unique perspective of mindfulness, the authors are able to offer new insights into how abusive supervision climate affects task, process and relationship conflict. This study offers a novel, yet important, lens to examine how conflict occurs in teams.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the role of enriched group work design and objective and perceived expertise diversity in interdisciplinary research groups with a focus on two critical group processes: task conflict and idea sharing.

Survey data were collected from 148 researchers and their advisors in 29 research labs at two doctorate-granting universities. The study tested the hypothesized model using hierarchical ordinary least squares regression and hierarchical linear modeling.

Results showed that objective and perceived (salient) expertise diversity jointly influenced task conflict. In addition, whether task conflict had a positive or negative impact on idea sharing depended on group work design enrichment and expertise diversity salience. Idea sharing improved group outcomes over and above the effects of task conflict.

Although this study could not test the causal relationships owing to a cross-sectional nature of data, it provides theoretical implications for the group work design, diversity and conflict literature.

Group work design represents an important tool for stimulating idea sharing in research groups. The findings suggest that managers should consider and manage the level of expertise diversity salience and the level of task conflict to increase the effectiveness of group work design.

The study provides insights on when task conflict may help creative groups. Work design and diversity salience represent important contextual features. The paper also examines both the objective and perceived diversity and disentangles task conflict and idea sharing.