Genevieve Hoffart

The Structure and Function of Team Conflict State Profiles

Team conflict types include task conflict, relationship conflict, and process conflict. Whereas differences in views about the task (task conflict) are often argued to be beneficial, incompatibilities involving personal issues (relationship conflict) and execution issues (process conflict) are often argued to be harmful. However, previous empirical research has tended to treat team conflict types as independent from each other despite their natural coexistence in teams. In two separate studies and one replication study, we identified latent patterns of team conflict, in the form of conflict profiles, that were defined by distinct levels of task conflict, relationship conflict, and process conflict. In Study 1, we investigated whether the conflict profiles had implications for team conflict management and team potency. In Study 2, we examined the generalizability of the conflict profiles to teams with longer life cycles, and we investigated the implications of conflict profiles for team performance. Findings indicated that teams can be reliably assigned to particular profiles of team conflict and that these profiles replicate well. The results also indicate that the implications of a particular type of conflict depend on the pattern of the team’s conflict profile as a whole. Drawing from information processing theory, we found that teams with high task conflict and low relationship and process conflict tend to have more effective interactions and achieve superior outcomes. This “team-centric” approach appears to provide promising new avenues for advancing current theories of conflict in organizational work teams.

The multilevel nomological net of team conflict profiles

Purpose This paper aims to offer an integrative conceptual theory of conflict and reports on the nomological net of team conflict profiles. Specifically, it integrates social self-preservation theory with information-processing theory to better understand the occurrence of team profiles involving task conflict, relationship conflict and process conflict. Design/methodology/approach The study collected data from 178 teams performing and engineering design tasks. The multilevel nomological net that was examined consisted of constructive controversy, psychological safety and team-task performance (team level), as well as perceptions of learning, burnout and peer ratings of performance (individual level). Findings Findings indicated mixed support for the associations between conflict profiles and the hypothesized nomological net. Research limitations/implications Future research should consider teams’ profiles of team conflict types rather than examining task, relationship and process conflict in isolation. Practical implications Teams can be classified into profiles of team conflict types with implications for team functioning and effectiveness. As a result, assessment and team launch should consider team conflict profiles. Originality/value The complexity perspective advanced here will allow research on conflict types to move forward beyond the extensive research examining conflict types in isolation rather than their interplay.

Team dynamics feedback for post-secondary student learning teams

Abstract In the current research, we introduce the team CARE model for supporting team development during post-secondary education. Team CARE is part of a larger suite of assessments at itpmetrics.com. Team CARE is a free, online, survey-based assessment that allows team members to rate their team’s health and functioning in four key categories (communicate, adapt, relate and educate), as well as provide written feedback about the team’s functioning to add nuance and supplemental context to the numeric scores. Team members completing the assessment receive a report documenting their team’s scores on the variables measured. We report on data from student learning teams suggesting that the variables in the team CARE model are reliable, and that they are correlated with team performance outcomes. Students’ perceptions of the tool were also examined, and the findings suggest that team CARE is perceived to be valuable, useful and easy to use. Recommendations for practice are detailed, including sample assessment schedules for teams with differing life spans. Implications for future research and implementation are discussed.

ASSESSING AND DEVELOPING THE INDIVIDUAL AND TEAM WORK ATTRIBUTE

Working effectively in teams is an essential skill that must be developed over the course of an engineering degree program. However, soft skills such as effective team behaviours can be difficult to assess and develop in students. Accordingly, the paper outlines our efforts to operationalize the Individual and Team Work attribute with the intention of outlining best practices in assessing, tracking, and enhancing the graduate attribute for both student development and accreditation purposes. A survey comprised of 40 Likert-scale items and 3 open-ended response questions was administered to all undergraduate students at a large North American university. The survey resulted in key findings, including that students rated their team work competencies significantly lower than they rated the perceived importance of those competencies for success in the workplace. Additionally, females reported significantly lower satisfaction and support in their team experiences than male students. These findings and others resulted in 12 evidence-based recommendations to strategically support the Individual and Team Work attribute.

ONE BIG HAPPY ENGINEERING FAMILY? THE INFLUENCE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTRACTS ON TEAM OUTCOMES AND THE MEDIATING ROLE OF PERSON-TEAM FIT

Teamwork is frequently used to tackle complex and demanding tasks in organizational and educational settings. While teamwork may offer substantial benefits, the challenges of working effectively in teams are considerable. This study examines the roles of psychological contract breach and person-team fit in relation to teams’ effectiveness. Twelve teams of electrical and computer engineering students were surveyed at three time points to assess their perceptions of personteam fit and psychological contract breach. Results of a longitudinal mediation model supported our hypotheses that team level psychological contract breach would result in decreased supplementary fit and increased complementary fit. Regarding team outcomes, we found that perceptions of supplementary fit increased team member peer feedback ratings, while perceptions of complementary fit increased team potency. Follow-up analyses revealed that psychological safety was positively related to psychological contract breach. Implications for practice are discussed.

One Big Happy Family? Unraveling the Relationship between Shared Perceptions of Team Psychological Contracts, Person-Team Fit and Team Performance

With the knowledge that team work is not always associated with high(er) performance, we draw from the Multi-Level Theory of Psychological Contracts, Person-Environment Fit Theory, and Optimal Distinctiveness Theory to study shared perceptions of psychological contract (PC) breach in relation to shared perceptions of complementary and supplementary fit to explain why some teams perform better than other teams. We collected three repeated survey measures in a sample of 128 respondents across 46 teams. After having made sure that we met all statistical criteria, we aggregated our focal variables to the team-level and analyzed our data by means of a longitudinal three-wave autoregressive moderated-mediation model in which each relationship was one-time lag apart. We found that shared perceptions of PC breach were directly negatively related to team output and negatively related to perceived team member effectiveness through a decrease in shared perceptions of supplementary fit. However, we also demonstrated a beneficial process in that shared perceptions of PC breach were positively related to shared perceptions of complementary fit, which in turn were positively related to team output. Moreover, best team output appeared in teams that could combine high shared perceptions of complementary fit with modest to high shared perceptions of supplementary fit. Overall, our findings seem to indicate that in terms of team output there may be a bright side to perceptions of PC breach and that perceived person-team fit may play an important role in this process.