Kristin Behfar

The dynamic relationship between performance feedback, trust, and conflict in groups: A longitudinal study

Abstract Moderate task conflict has generally been associated with higher group performance, and relationship conflict associated with lower performance. Past studies have most often discussed their findings as though differences in level of intragroup conflict cause differences in group performance—rather than testing the additional possibility that reported group conflict is a reaction to feedback on past group performance. This paper explores the dynamic relationships between intragroup conflict and performance with a longitudinal design. Results from 67 groups suggest that initial performance feedback to groups can have significant consequences for future team interaction. We find evidence to suggest that, (a) negative initial group performance feedback results in later increases in both task and relationship conflict, but that (b) groups with high early intragroup trust are buffered from experiencing the worst of future relationship conflict.

Conflict in Small Groups: The Meaning and Consequences of Process Conflict

Through three studies of interacting small groups, we aimed to better understand the meaning and consequences of process conflict. Study 1 was an exploratory analysis of qualitative data that helped us to identify the unique dimensions of process conflict to more clearly distinguish it from task and relationship conflict. Study 2 used a broader sampling of participants to (a) demonstrate why process conflict has been difficult to discriminate from task conflict in many conflict scales, and (b) develop a two-factor Process Conflict Scale that effectively distinguishes process from task conflict. Study 3 used this new scale to examine the relationship between process conflict and group viability (group performance, satisfaction, and effective group process). The results showed that process conflict negatively affects group performance, member satisfaction, and group coordination.

Managing Challenges in Multicultural Teams

There are two broad approaches in the literature to studying challenges faced in multicultural teams. One approach is to examine the effects of demographic differences among individual team members (e.g., gender, ethnicity, age) on group process. This literature supports the notion that compositional heterogeneity can be both positive and negative in terms of successful group process (Ely & Thomas, 2001). On one hand, heterogeneity increases the chances that a group will bring a wide range of experiences and consider multiple perspectives in solving problems (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992; Jehn et al., 1999). On the other, heterogeneity makes it more difficult for groups to establish effective group process. For example, it is more difficult for heterogeneous groups to communicate and to develop work norms (Bettenhausen & Murnighan, 1985). They are also more prone to conflict (Jehn & Mannix, 2001; Jehn et al., 1999). So, although the theoretical benefits of diversity to pool unique perspectives and resources exist, they are more difficult to attain and sustain in practice.

The Team Negotiation Challenge: Defining and Managing the Internal Challenges of Negotiating Teams

Negotiation teams are widely used to negotiate on behalf of organizations, yet relatively little is known about how they overcome the challenges posed by within team dynamics to create a sound across-the-table team bargaining strategy. This paper presents a two phase analysis of accounts of negotiating team experiences collected from 45 executives. In the first phase we present a qualitative categorization of negotiating team challenges and management strategies. In the second phase we demonstrate that the match between challenges and management strategies and the quality of team process largely depends on how teams manage within team dynamics. Teams are more likely to be able to implement management strategies that match the challenges they face when teams also engage in substantive debates about negotiating team goals; teams are less likely to implement strategies that match team challenges when teams also engage in personality conflicts. Thus, substantive conflict helps rationalize team processes, while personality conflict undermines the development of appropriate team management strategies if not addressed appropriately.

Managing cross-culture conflicts: A close look at the implication of direct versus indirect confrontation

the leader of a multicultural software development team was frustrated. the american and european members of the team were delivering on time, but he was getting nothing from the Japanese members. Multiple meetings with the Japanese members generated seeming commitment but no follow- up. the team leader, an indian, located in

Impact of Team (Dis)satisfaction and Psychological Safety on Performance Evaluation Biases

Research on self-serving bias in teams has focused on bias after teams receive feedback. Many teams, however, work for extended periods of time before receiving feedback. This article proposes that team members exhibit biases prior to receiving feedback, depending on the level of team satisfaction. The results of two studies, one scenario study and one field study, demonstrate that members of unsatisfied teams make more self-serving claims about their contribution toward the team’s task. This bias, however, is eliminated in teams with strong psychological safety norms that make team members’ contributions more salient to one another. A surprising result, in our sample of ongoing teams, was that the most highly satisfied teams also demonstrated an other-centric bias—assigning more credit to other team members than to themselves.