Several earlier studies reported the relationship between intragroup conflict and individual and organizational outcomes. Julian and Perry (1967), in their experimental study, found that both quality and quantity of team performance were considerably higher in competitive than cooperative conditions. Hoffman and Maier (1961) found that experimental groups with heterogeneous members and consequent conflicts of interest and opinion produced better solutions to standardized sets of solutions. Torrance (1954) reported that aircraft crews who perceived a greater amount of conflict were more effective than crews who reported less conflict. Pelz and Andrews (1976) found that scientists who were exposed to discussion with differently oriented colleagues tended to be more productive. Blau’s (1963) study of two government agencies suggested a neg- ative relationship between competitive behavior and performance in situations of cooperative group norms.
It is generally agreed by organization theorists that cooperation or lack of conflict generally induces positive relations among group members, but the groups may not be able to attain a higher level of performance. Some of these
146 Managing Conflict in Organizations
problems are discussed under “cohesiveness and groupthink,” later in this chap- ter.
Rahim’s (1983e) study with a collegiate sample indicated a low to moderate degree of inverse relationship between intragroup conflict and three dimensions of perceptual measures of organizational effectiveness, such as productivity, adaptability, and flexibility. The correlation between intragroup conflict and or- ganizational climate, as measured by Likert’s (1967) Profile of Organizational Characteristics, was negative. This possibly indicates that a higher system of management deals with conflict more constructively than a lower system. The study also indicated a moderate negative correlation between intragroup conflict and job satisfaction. Dewar and Werbel (1979) found a weak negative correla- tion between overall conflict and job satisfaction.
More recent studies have tried to investigate the relationship between intra- group conflict and individual and group outcomes. A study by Baker, Tjosvold, and Andrews (1988) reported that project managers who used both cooperative and confirming (conveying that the other party is accepted as effective and avoiding insults and blaming) approaches to conflict “received high marks from project team members on a conflict constructiveness measure and on a manage- ment effectiveness measure. Quite clearly the combination of these two ap- proaches was highly productive within the engineering group studied” (p. 1275). Unfortunately, this study did not deal with the difficult issue of the relationships of the amount and/or the styles of handling intragroup conflict to group pro- ductivity or task performance. Wall and Nolan’s (1986) experimental study with task-oriented groups reported the following:
1. Inequity was negatively associated with satisfaction with group and positively asso- ciated with conflict. Greater inequity was associated with affective conflict than sub- stantive (task) conflict.
2. Lower inequity was associated with integrative, rather than distributive or avoidance, styles of conflict management. The least amount of inequity was associated with substantive conflict managed with integrative styles.
3. Satisfaction was more positively associated with integrative styles than either distrib- utive or avoidance styles of conflict management. The greatest amount of satisfaction with the group was associated with substantive conflicts that are managed with an integrative style. Substantive conflict was positively associated with the use of an integrative style, and affective conflict was positively associated with the avoidance style of conflict management.
4. There was no relationship between the number of conflict episodes and the quality of outcome, that is, the group’s final product (which was operationally defined as the grade the individuals received for their final project).
Unlike the study by Baker et al. (1988), Wall and Nolan (1986) attempted to investigate the relationships of conflict and conflict styles to the group’s final product. Wall and Nolan indicated that their “results were contrary to the general
position one finds in the literature” (p. 1048). This study does not either confirm or disconfirm the relationship between intragroup conflict and individual or group performance.
Robey, Farrow, and Franz (1989) reported a field study at five periods over 22 months that tested a model of group participation, influence (of individual members who affect decisions related to the final design of information system), conflict (manifest disagreement among group members), and conflict manage- ment (extent to which disagreements are replaced by agreement and consensus) in information system development projects. Results indicated that participation positively affected influence, that influence positively affected conflict and con- flict management, and that conflict negatively influenced conflict management. This study did not attempt to measure the final output of the project groups.
A field study by Schnake and Cochran (1985) investigated the effects of two goal-setting dimensions (goal clarity and goal difficulty) on intra- and inter- departmental conflicts and the effects of these conflicts on internal work moti- vation and intrinsic job satisfaction. Results indicate that lower levels of goal difficulty and goal clarity are associated with higher levels of intra- and inter- departmental conflict and that higher levels of conflict are associated with lower levels of internal work motivation and intrinsic job satisfaction. The results of the study should be viewed with care because of the problems of common method variance.
A field study by Rahim (1990) with manufacturing employees reported pos- itive relationship between conflict (sum of intrapersonal, intragroup, and inter- group conflict) and job burnout (sum of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and personal accomplishment). But the relationship between conflict and sur- pervisory rating of job performance (sum of performance, conformance, de- pendability, and personal adjustment) was nonsignificant. Another field study that investigated the relationship between intragroup conflict and job perform- ance was by Rutland (1983). This study with mountain-climbing groups found support for the hypothesis that conflict is positively associated with job per- formance.
Recent studies show that affective conflict negatively influences group per- formance, group loyalty, work-group commitment, job satisfaction, and intent to stay in the present organization (Amason, 1996; Jehn, 1994; Jehn, Northcraft, & Neale, 1999). Pelled, Eisenhardt, and Xin’s (1999) study found no relation- ship between affective conflict and performance.
As discussed in Chapter 5, a study by Jehn (1995) indicates that a moderate level of substantive conflict is functional, as it stimulates discussion and debate, which help groups to attain a higher level of performance. This conflict can improve group performance through better understanding of various viewpoints and alternative solutions (Bourgeois, 1985; Eisenhardt & Schoonhoven, 1990; Jehn, 1997a, 1997b; Jehn et al., 1999). “Groups with an absence of task conflict may miss new ways to enhance their performance, while very high levels of task conflict may interfere with task completion” (Jehn, 1997a, p. 532). It should
148 Managing Conflict in Organizations
be noted that the beneficial effects of substantive conflict on performance were found only in groups performing nonroutine tasks, not groups performing stan- dardized or routine tasks.
Groups that experience substantive conflict are able to make better decisions than those that do not. This relationship has also been found to be true at the individual level (Amason, 1996; Cosier & Rose, 1977; Fiol, 1994; Putnam, 1994; Schweiger, Sandberg, & Ragan, 1986).
Although substantive conflict enhances group performance, like affective con- flict, it can diminish group loyalty, work-group commitment, intent to stay in the present organization, and satisfaction (Jehn, 1997a; Jehn et al., 1999). As a result, interventions for conflict management should be able to develop cultural norms to support disagreement among group members in connection with tasks and other related management issues without generating affective conflict.
It appears that most of the studies on organizational conflict have neglected to investigate the relationship between conflict and job performance. Future stud- ies need to indicate how different types of intragroup conflict (e.g., substantive conflict and affective conflict) and the styles of handling such conflict affect individual and group performance.