Corinne Bendersky

INTRAGROUP CONFLICT IN ORGANIZATIONS: A CONTINGENCY PERSPECTIVE ON THE CONFLICT-OUTCOME RELATIONSHIP

Abstract In this paper, we review recent empirical work on interpersonal conflict in organizations and, by incorporating past theory and multiple disciplinary views, develop a comprehensive model of the effects of intragroup conflict in organizations from a contingency perspective. We consider: (1) the type of conflicts that exist; (2) the organizational outcome that is predicted or desired; (3) the temporal aspect of group life and conflict; and (4) the circumstances under which conflict occurs and the processes used to manage it that moderate the conflict-outcome relationship. We highlight the final aspect, the moderating factors, by presenting a conflict-outcome moderated (COM) model that delineates types of moderators which influence the conflict-outcome relationship: amplifiers (those variables that amplify the conflict-outcome relationship, strengthening both the positive and negative effects), suppressors (those variables that weaken both the positive and negative effects on outcomes), ameliorators (those variables that decrease negative effects and increase positive effects), and exacerbators (those variables that increase negative effects of conflict and decrease positive effects). We ultimately present a model of constructive intragroup conflict in organizations delineating the contingencies upon which group success, as it relates to conflict, is dependent.

Status Conflict in Groups

We introduce status conflicts—defined as disputes over peoples relative status (i.e., respect) positions in their groups social hierarchy—as a key group process that affects task group performance. Using mixed research methods, we qualitatively identify the characteristics of status conflicts, validate a four-item survey scale that distinctly measures status conflict, and investigate the relationship between status conflict and group performance. We determine that status conflict exerts a significant negative main effect, moderates the effects of task conflict on group performance, and hurts performance by undermining information sharing more than other types of conflict do.

The Cost of Status Enhancement: Performance Effects of Individuals' Status Mobility in Task Groups

Although we know that considerable benefits accrue to individuals with high social status, we do not know the performance effects of gaining or losing status in ones group over time. In two longitudinal studies, we measure the status positions of middle managers currently enrolled in a part-time MBA program at the beginning and end of their study groups life. In both samples, we compare the individual performance (course grades) of the students who gained or lost status to those who maintained high and low stable status positions in their groups. We find that higher status at the end of the groups life is associated with higher performance. We also find, however, that the performance of individuals who gain or lose status over time does not correspond to their final status positions. Instead, those who gain status—including those who eventually attain high status—perform worse than those who maintain high-status positions for the whole quarter. They perform no better than those in stable low-status positions throughout. Those who lose status over time actually perform as well as those who maintain high status. We interpret these results to suggest that people might trade off resources they could apply to individual performance for opportunities to enhance their status. After replicating this effect in our second sample, we identify overinvestment in increasing assertive communication and generosity as behavioral mechanisms through which individuals successfully gain status to the detriment of their own performance.

Perspective---Open to Negotiation: Phenomenological Assumptions and Knowledge Dissemination

Phenomenological assumptions---assumptions about the fundamental qualities of the phenomenon being studied and how it relates to the environment in which it occurs---affect the dissemination of knowledge from subfields to the broader field of study. Micro-process research in organizational studies rests on implicit phenomenological assumptions that vary in the extent to which micro-processes are viewed as parts of larger systems. We suggest that phenomenological assumptions linking micro-processes to organizational contexts highlight the relevance of micro-process research findings to broader organizational questions and therefore increase the likelihood that the findings will disseminate to the larger field of organizational research. We test this assertion by analyzing studies of negotiation published in top peer-reviewed management, psychology, sociology, and industrial relations journals from 1990 to 2005. Our findings reveal a continuum of open systems to closed systems phenomenological assumptions in negotiation research. Analysis of the citation rates of the articles in our data set by non-negotiation organizational research indicates that more open systems assumptions increase the likelihood that a negotiation article will be cited in organizational studies, after controlling for other, previously identified effects on citation rates. Our findings suggest that subfields can increase the impact they have on the broader intellectual discourse by situating their phenomena in rich contexts that illuminate the connections between their findings and questions of interest to the broader field.

Open to Negotiation: Phenomenological Assumptions and Knowledge Dissemination

Phenomenological assumptions — assumptions about the fundamental qualities of the phenomenon being studied and how it relates to the environment in which it occurs — affect the dissemination of knowledge from subfields to the broader field of study. Micro-process research in organizational studies rests on implicit phenomenological assumptions that vary in the extent to which micro-processes are viewed as parts of larger systems. We suggest that phenomenological assumptions linking micro-processes to organizational contexts highlight the relevance of micro-process research findings to broader organizational questions, and therefore increase the likelihood that the findings will disseminate to the larger field of organizational research. We test this assertion by analyzing studies of negotiation published in top peer-reviewed management, psychology, sociology, and industrial relations journals from 1990 to 2005. Our findings reveal a continuum of open systems to closed systems phenomenological assumptions in negotiation research. Analysis of the citation rates of the articles in our data set by non-negotiation organizational research indicates that more open systems assumptions increase the likelihood that a negotiation article will be cited in organizational studies, after controlling for other, previously identified effects on citation rates. Our findings suggest that subfields can increase the impact they have on the broader intellectual discourse by situating their phenomena in rich contexts that illuminate the connections between their findings and questions of interest to the broader field.

The pursuit of information sharing: : Expressing task conflicts as debates vs. Disagreements increases perceived receptivity to dissenting opinions in groups

Group members often over-weigh shared information and under-value unique information during discussions to the detriment of decision quality. Fortunately, perceiving other group members as receptive to dissenting opinions may enhance information sharing. We distinguish between two ways of expressing opinion-differences about tasks—debates and disagreements—that we predict are perceived by others as conveying varying degrees of receptivity to dissenting opinions. In four studies with mixed methods and a causal chain design, we manipulate and measure group members’ (the “senders”) expressions of debates and disagreements, others’ (the “receivers”) perceptions of the senders’ receptivity to dissenting opinions, and receivers’ information sharing intentions and behavior. We demonstrate that task conflicts that are expressed as debates rather than as disagreements are associated with greater information sharing because receivers perceive senders to be more receptive to dissenting opinions. We, thus, offer a novel approach to increasing information utilization during group decision making and help resolve the paradoxical effects of opinion differences on group performance.

The Positive Effects of Status Conflicts in Teams Where Members Perceive Status Hierarchies Differently

Status conflicts, conflicts about members’ relative positions in a team’s status hierarchy, generally harm group performance. We integrate research on status conflicts and social information processing and find in two longitudinal survey studies that the disruptive effects of status conflicts depend on the extent to which members agree about the group’s status hierarchy. Specifically, status conflicts in teams with high-status agreement disrupt team performance by producing lower status agreement after the conflict. Status conflicts that occur in teams with low-status agreement, however, benefit performance by helping members clarify the hierarchy, leading to higher subsequent status agreement. In a third study, we examine how status conflict and status agreement interactively impact teams’ use of task-relevant cues to assign status. By contextualizing status conflicts in terms of the teams’ status agreement, we identify conditions in which the dysfunctional effects of status conflicts counterintuitively enhance team performance.

Status Deconstruction Theory: Status Conflict's Destabilization of Group Status Hierarchies

Despite strong evidence that task group status hierarchy instability is dysfunctional, little research has considered the processes that lead to hierarchy instability. In this paper, we examine the destabilizing effects of dissent about the hierarchy that is expressed as status conflict in the contexts of groups with varying levels of consensus about the status hierarchy. We find that group hierarchies are least stable when there is both a high level of status conflict and low consensus about the status hierarchy. We interpret this to mean that when status conflicts are expressed in groups with high levels of consensus, other group members are motivated to defend the hierarchy to restore normative order to the group. When status conflicts occur in groups with low underlying consensus, however, the conflicts surface latent dissensus and encourage revision of the status hierarchy. We discuss the implications of our findings for theory and practice.