Journal of Managerial Psychology

Types of intragroup conflict and affective reactions

Francisco J . Medina Lourdes Munduate Miguel A. Dorado Ins Martnez J os M. Guerra
Article information:
To cite this document:
Francisco J . Medina Lourdes Munduate Miguel A. Dorado Ins Martnez J os M. Guerra, (2005),"Types of
intragroup conflict and affective reactions", J ournal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 20 Iss 3/4 pp. 219 - 230
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683940510589019
Downloaded on: 11 September 2014, At: 04:02 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 36 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 5669 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Courtney Waite Miller, Michael E. Roloff, (2006),"The perceived characteristics of irresolvable, resolvable
and resolved intimate conflicts: Is there evidence of intractability?", International J ournal of Conflict
Management, Vol. 17 Iss 4 pp. 291-315
Deon Tjosvold, Haifa F. Sun, (2002),"UNDERSTANDING CONFLICT AVOIDANCE: RELATIONSHIP,
MOTIVATIONS, ACTIONS, AND CONSEQUENCES", International J ournal of Conflict Management, Vol. 13
Iss 2 pp. 142-164
Steven H. Appelbaum, Chahrazad Abdallah, Barbara T. Shapiro, (1999),"The self#directed team: A conflict
resolution analysis", Team Performance Management: An International J ournal, Vol. 5 Iss 2 pp. 60-77
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 539735 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

K
i
n
g

A
b
d
u
l
a
z
i
z

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

A
t

0
4
:
0
2

1
1

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

(
P
T
)
Types of intragroup conict and
affective reactions
Francisco J. Medina, Lourdes Munduate and Miguel A. Dorado
Department of Social Psychology, University of Seville, Seville, Spain
Ines Mart nez
Department of Psychology, University Pablo de Olavide, Seville, Spain, and
Jose M. Guerra
Department of Social Psychology, University of Seville, Seville, Spain
Abstract
Purpose Seeks to evaluate the link between task and relationship conict, and their inuence on
some employees affective reactions such as satisfaction, wellbeing, and propensity to leave a job; and
to analyse the mediated and moderated role of relationship conict.
Design/methodology/approach The study involved 169 employees from six service
organizations (hotels) in Andalusia (Spain). A questionnaire was used containing different
measures: task and relationship conict, wellbeing, job satisfaction, and propensity to leave the job.
Findings The two types of conict have different consequences. Data show that relationship conict
is negatively associated with affective reactions, while task conict does not relate directly to affective
reactions in a predictable way; relationship conict has a positive inuence on the desire to leave the
current job, while task conict does not affect it negatively; the interactive effect of relationships and task
conict shows that this interaction contributes substantially to predict the propensity to leave the current
job; and relationship conict mediates in the link between task conict and affective reactions.
Research limitations/implications A high level of task conict may backre by boosting
relationship conict as well, thus having a negative effect on affective reactions. Thus some
conclusions can be drawn with a view to improving conict management in teams. First an attempt
must be made to understand the type of conict that is taking place. Second, managers should
encourage open discussion of task-related issues. Third, special attention should be paid to the level of
each conict because of its interactive effects on some affective outcomes. Thus, in spite of the
generally benecial effects associated with task conict, the intensication of task-related conict may
backre when interacting with dysfunctional affective-dissent.
Originality/value Serves too analyze the mediated and moderated role of relationship conict and
to test the role of types of conict on affective reactions such as wellbeing and propensity to leave the
job.
Keywords Conict, Organizational conict, Job satisfaction, Spain
Paper type Research paper
One of the most outstanding aspects of conict is that it is practically intrinsic to the
life and dynamics of teams. Conict is present in interpersonal relations (Pruitt and
Carnevale, 1993), in intragroup and intergroup relations (Jehn, 1995), in strategic
decision-making (Amason, 1996), and other organizational episodes. As many authors
The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister www.emeraldinsight.com/0268-3946.htm
The authors would like to thank Miguel A Manas for facilitating access to the sample. The
authors are especially grateful for the valuable feedback provided by Carsten De Dreu. This
research was sponsored by the Ministerio de Educacion y Ciencia (DGES), grant number:
SEC-2000-0531.
Types of
intragroup
conict
219
Journal of Managerial Psychology
Vol. 20 No. 3/4, 2005
pp. 219-230
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
0268-3946
DOI 10.1108/02683940510589019
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

K
i
n
g

A
b
d
u
l
a
z
i
z

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

A
t

0
4
:
0
2

1
1

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

(
P
T
)
have pointed out (De Dreu and Van de Vliert, 1997; Pondy, 1967) conict is a
phenomenon that may give rise to both benecial and dysfunctional effects on
individuals, groups and organizations.
Early group theorists have focuses on the negative consequences of conict for
teams. Conict difculties communications between individuals, breaks personal and
professional relationships, and reduces effectiveness, because it produces tension and
distracts team members from performing the task (Hackman and Morris, 1975; Wall
and Callister, 1995). Thus, it is no surprise that todays managers and employees still
overwhelmingly view conict as negative and something to be avoided or resolved as
soon as possible (Stone, 1995). Indeed, growing evidence suggests that conict may be
benecial to team performance. Suppressing conict could reduce creativity,
innovation, performance, quality of decisions, and communication between groups
members (see De Dreu and Van de Vliert, 1997).
Research by Jehn (1994, 1995), Amason (1996) or De Dreu and Weingart (2003)
provides evidence that this double-edged effect is attributable to different dimensions
of conict. Research has shown conict to be multidimensional (e.g. Amason, 1996;
Cosier and Schwenck, 1990; Jehn, 1995; Van de Vliert and De Dreu, 1994). Thus, it is
possible for one dimension of conict to enhance effectiveness whereas another hinders
consensus and commitment between group members. Jehn (1995) distinguished
between two kinds of intragroup conict: task conict and relationship conict. Task
conict is a perception of disagreement among group members or individuals about
the content of their decisions, and involves differences in viewpoints, ideas and
opinions. Examples of task conict are conicts about the distribution of resources,
about procedures or guidelines, and about the interpretation of facts. Relationship
conict is a perception of interpersonal incompatibility, and includes annoyance and
animosity among individuals. Examples of relationship conict are disagreements
about values, personal or family norms, or about personal taste.
The two types of intragroup conict have different personal and organizational
consequences. Several studies have investigated the relationships between these types
of conict and several outcomes such as satisfaction, tension or group commitment.
Relationship conict is negatively associated with employees affective reactions such
as satisfaction (for a review, see De Dreu and Van Viannen, 2001) and climate, and it
reduces team effectiveness (Jehn, 1997). In contrast, task conict appears to be
positively related to the quality of ideas and innovation (West and Anderson, 1996), the
increase of constructive debate (Jehn et al., 1999), the affective acceptance of group
decisions (Amason, 1996), and the prevention of groupthink (Turner and Pratkanis,
1994).
These conclusions about the positive function of task conict and the negative
function of relationship conict are based on research that only examined how one type
of conict affects team performance regardless of the other type (e.g. Amason, 1996;
Jehn, 1994, 1995). Consistent with this perspective, scholars tend to recommend
management teams to stimulate task conict and mitigate relationship conict during
team decision-making. These recommendations are, however, problematic because
both types of conict are related. Almost all studies with the exception of Jehn (1995)
that measured task and relationship conict in groups, have shown positive
correlations between the two types of conict (Amason, 1996; De Dreu, 1997; Friedman
et al., 2000; Janssen et al., 1999; Jehn, 1995; Jehn and Mannix, 2001; Jehn and Chatman,
JMP
20,3/4
220
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

K
i
n
g

A
b
d
u
l
a
z
i
z

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

A
t

0
4
:
0
2

1
1

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

(
P
T
)
2000; Pelled et al., 1999). Thus, it may be extremely difcult for teams to effectively
embrace one type of conict, while simultaneously resisting the other. Amason (1996)
pointed out that cognitive criticism might easily be interpreted as a personal
disapproval or a strategy to enhance ones own position at the expense of someone
elses. Baron (1990) showed that a critical evaluation produced negative affective
reactions regardless of performance. Finally, many studies nding positive effects of
task conict on performance, also found negative effects of task conict on team
member satisfaction (e.g. Jehn, 1995).
In this sense, outcomes regarding task conict are open to doubt. Several studies
have shown that high task conict decreases satisfaction (e.g. Jehn, 1995) and cohesion
(e.g. Jehn and Mannix, 2001), while increasing stress levels (Friedman et al., 2000). De
Dreu and Weingarts meta-analysis demonstrates that task conict might be as
negative as relationship conict. Conict stimulation by discrepancy and constructive
criticism could have a pernicious effect, because it increases the intensity and quantity
of conict that teams must manage (De Dreu and Weingart, 2003).
The incongruence in the role played by task conict may possibly be understood by
evaluating the link between task and relationship conict. There are two lines in the
study of these relations: types of conict could play a moderational role, and types of
conict could play a mediational role. The rst line of research was tested by Janssen
et al. (1999) who analyzed the effect of different combinations of types of conict (low
vs high task and relationship conict) on employees affective reactions such as
satisfaction. Janssen et al.s study did not provide any evidence about the positive or
negative effects of these combinations on employees satisfaction. However, it is
possible that these combinations did not affect satisfaction over the performance of a
specic task, but did inuence other more general and stable affective reactions, such
as job satisfaction, psychological well-being or the propensity to leave the job. As De
Dreu and Weingarts meta-analysis suggests, an increase in conict intensity could be
dysfunctional for teams. For this reason, combinations that involve a high intensity of
conict like high task and relationship conict would have a negative inuence on
subjects affective reactions.
The second line of research was suggested in Friedman et al.s (2000) study which,
using a path analysis, revealed that the link between task conict and affective
variables such as stress at work, are mediated by relationship conict. However,
Friedmans study did not analyze the opposite path task conict as mediator in the
association between relationship conict and effectiveness. Several authors have
suggested that a team member might try to cause difculties or sabotage the work of a
co-worker for personal motives (e.g. Jehn, 1995). In this case, personal discrepancies
(relationship conict) may play a mediational role by generating conicts at work (task
conict) that will ultimately decrease team productivity.
The existing literature provides strong support for the negative impact that
relationship conict plays in affective reactions in the workplace. Nevertheless,
additional evidence is necessary to contrast the role of task conict and the mediating
and moderating role of relationship conict. As Friedman et al. (2000) pointed out, the
connections between task conict and relationship conict represents one of the key
areas for managing conict in organizations. For this reason, this study aims to
evaluate the relationships between task and relationship conict, and their inuence on
affective variables such as satisfaction, well-being, and propensity to leave a job; and
Types of
intragroup
conict
221
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

K
i
n
g

A
b
d
u
l
a
z
i
z

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

A
t

0
4
:
0
2

1
1

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

(
P
T
)
evaluate the mediating and moderating role of relationship conict. We hypothesized
that:
H1. Relationship conict will reduce satisfaction and well-being in organization
members and increase propensity to leave a job.
H2. The combination consisting of a high task conict and a high relationship
conict will decrease satisfaction and well-being, and will increase propensity
to leave a job.
H3. Relationship conict will mediate the link between task conict and
satisfaction, well-being and propensity to leave the job.
Method
Participants
The study involved 169 employees from six hotels in Andalusia (Spain). A total of 46.7
percent were male, 50 percent female, and 3.3 percent of respondents gender was not
specied. Participants had different educational levels: elementary school (37.8
percent), high school (24.2 percent), high school graduates (24.2 percent), and university
graduates (8 percent). Work experience ranged from 3 months to 44 years, and the
average age was 31.45. Employees came from the following departments: 8.61 percent
from administration, 21.53 percent from reception, 28.70 percent from cafeteria and
restaurant, 29.18 percent from cleaning service and 5.26 percent from maintenance
service. In terms of employment status, 43.06 percent had a full-time contract, 38.75
percent had a part-time contract and 16.26 percent had a periodically renewed contract.
Instruments
Task and relationship conict. Jehns (1995) four-item scale was used to assess task
conict. The scale asks respondents to consider the amount of task or work-based
conict he or she experiences with others in the work place (e.g. how often do people
you work with disagree about opinions regarding the work being done). The scale used
a ve-point format. The higher the score, the higher the level of task conict
experienced.
To measure relationship conict we relied on Coxs (Cox, 1998; Friedman et al., 2000)
organizational conict scale. Coxs ve-items scale focuses on the active hostility found
in relationship conict and is based on items such as much plotting takes place behind
the scenes and one party frequently undermines the other. The scale uses a
ve-point response format. The higher the score, the higher the levels of relationship
conict experienced.
Job satisfaction. We measured job satisfaction with the 23-item version of Melia and
Peiros (1989) job satisfaction scale. The respondents were asked to consider how
satised they were with intrinsic job aspects, supervision, participation, environment
and services (e.g. personal relationships with your superior). In this study, we used
an overall job satisfaction index. The higher the score, the more satised the workers.
Affective wellbeing. Affective wellbeing was tapped using the scales developed by
Warr (1990). These scales measure: anxiety-calm, depression-enthusiasm and
contented-discontented. The six items on six-point scales measure the extent to
which people are either anxious or calm, depressed or enthusiastic, contented or
JMP
20,3/4
222
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

K
i
n
g

A
b
d
u
l
a
z
i
z

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

A
t

0
4
:
0
2

1
1

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

(
P
T
)
discontented with their job. Respondents were asked to think of the past few weeks and
indicate how they felt in different ways (e.g. calm, gloomy, cheerful, contented). Higher
scores on these scales represent higher levels of affective well-being (contentment,
enthusiasm, calm).
Propensity to leave a job. The Gonzalez-Roma et al.s (1992) four-item scale was used
to assess propensity to leave a job. The respondents were asked to consider different
aspects of their workplace and reect on whether they would change to another
workplace in the same organization. The scale uses a six-point response format. The
higher the score, the higher the level of propensity to leave a job.
Procedure
A questionnaire containing the aforementioned measures was used. A cover letter
explaining the purpose of the study accompanied the questionnaire. Participants were
told that they would be entitled to a free summary report of the study if they returned
the completed questionnaire. They were told that the questionnaire was not designed
for their superiors or heads of department, but for their subordinates. A researcher was
present as they lled in the questionnaire to clarify any doubts. To ensure
condentiality, participants put the completed questionnaire in a sealed box.
Results
Table I provides the number of items, means, standard deviations and internal
consistency reliability of all the behavioral variables, assessed by Cronbachs alpha.
The reliability coefcients were good to excellent.
The zero order intercorrelations among the variables used in this study are
presented in Table II. As can be seen, relationship conict is negatively related to
satisfaction and well-being; and positively related to propensity to leave a job. Task
Variables Items a Mean SD
Relationship conict 5 0.84 2.36 1.04
Task conict 4 0.81 2.75 0.93
Job satisfaction 23 0.93 4.29 0.99
Wellbeing 18 0.92 3.90 0.82
Propensity to leave a job 3 0.88 2.95 1.64
Notes: a = Cronbachs alpha coefcient; SD = standard deviation; n=169
Table I.
Number of items, means,
standard deviations and
Cronbachs alpha of
behavioral variables
presented in this study
2 3 4 5
1. Task conict 0.35
**
20.30
**
20.27
**
0.19*
2. Relationship conict 20.47
**
20.45
**
0.39
**
3. Satisfaction 0.65
**
20.30
**
4. Wellbeing 20.35
**
5. Propensity to leave a job
Notes:
*
p , 0.05;
**
p , 0.01
Table II.
Correlations between
types of conict and
satisfaction, wellbeing
and the propensity to
leave a job
Types of
intragroup
conict
223
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

K
i
n
g

A
b
d
u
l
a
z
i
z

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

A
t

0
4
:
0
2

1
1

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

(
P
T
)
conict is negatively related to satisfaction and well-being and positively related to
propensity to leave the job.
This result agrees with other studies (e.g. Janssen et al., 1999), which conclude that
these relations may be due to common variance between task conict and relationship
conict. To assess this supposition we analyzed partial correlations. When controlling
for task conict, we did nd negative correlations between relationship conict and
satisfaction, r 20:39, p , 0:01; well-being, r 20:37, p , 0:01 and positive
correlations with the propensity to leave a job, r 20:33, p , 0:01. When controlling
for relationship conict, we found no correlations between task conict and these
variables. Data suggests that relationship conict have a negative inuence on
affective reactions and that task conict does not have inuence on affective reactions.
We used hierarchical multiple regression analysis to test H1 and H2 (Cohen and
Cohen, 1983). First of all, the main effect of task-related conict and relationship
conict was introduced into the equation, after which the interaction terms were
included. To prevent problems of multicollinearity, these analyses were conducted
with centered variables (Aiken and West, 1991).
Table III shows the regression coefcients between task and relationship conict
and the different reactions to conict.
As can be seen in Table III, relationship conict appears to decrease satisfaction
(b 20:40; p , 0:01) and psychological well-being (b 20:39; p , 0:01).
Relationship conict also increases the predisposition to leave a job (b 0:40;
p , 0:01). Introducing the two-way interaction term into the regression equation
contributes substantially to the prediction of the propensity to leave a job (b 20:18;
p , 0:05) As can be seen in Figure 1 the propensity to leave a job increases when high
task conict is combined with high relationship conict; whereas it decreases when
Satisfaction Wellbeing
Propensity to leave
a job
Block R
2
DR
2
b R
2
DR
2
b R
2
DR
2
b
1. Task conict 0.24 0.24
**
20.14 0.21 0.21
**
20.12 0.11 0.16
**
20.05
Relationship conict 20.40
**
20.39
**
0.40
**
2. TCXRC 0.24 0.00 20.0.2 0.22 0.01 20.07 0.19 0.03* 20.18*
General model 0.24 0.22 0.19
Notes:
*
p , 0.05;
**
p , 0.01
Table III.
Regression coefcients
between types of conict
and satisfaction,
wellbeing and propensity
to leave a job
Figure 1.
Types of conict and
propensity to leave a job
JMP
20,3/4
224
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

K
i
n
g

A
b
d
u
l
a
z
i
z

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

A
t

0
4
:
0
2

1
1

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

(
P
T
)
low relationship conict is combined with high task conict. Data suggest support for
H1 and partial support for H2.
H3 predicts that relationship conict would mediate the link between task conict
and affective variables. This hypothesis was tested through regression analyses.
Baron and Kenny (1986) suggest a three-step process for testing mediation using
regression:
(1) Regressing the mediator on the independent variable.
(2) Regressing the dependent variable on the independent variable.
(3) Regressing the dependent variable on both the independent variable and the
mediator.
For mediation to exist, the result of the rst and second steps must be signicant.
Furthermore, if the relationship between the mediator and dependent variable in the
regression equation (step 3) is also signicant, but the relationship between the
independent and dependent variables is not signicant, then the mediator may be said
to account for the relationship between the independent and dependent variables.
This process was used to test relationship conict as a mediator between task
conict and satisfaction and well-being. Two of these analyses satisfy all of the
conditions for mediation. Task conict was signicantly related to relationship
conict, b 0:34; p , 0:01 (step 1) and to some affective variables such as
satisfaction, b 20:34; p , 0:01 and well-being, b 20:26; p , 0:01 (step 2). The
third regression can be seen in Table III. As we can see, when both types of conict are
introduced in the regression, the effect of task conict disappears. This result suggests
that the relationships between task conict and some affective variables are fully
mediated by relationship conict.
To conrm these results with a different methodology and replicate Friedman et al.s
study, comparing the different paths proposed in literature (task conict !
relationship conict ! affective outcomes and relationship conict ! task conict
! affective outcomes), we used LISREL analysis. We test two alternative models: in
the rst model (M1) we consider relationship conict as a mediator variable and in the
second (M2), we consider task conict as a mediator variable (see Table IV).
Table IV shows that M1 models have a higher adjustment in all indicators than M2
models. This nding conrms that the relationships between task conict and some
affective variables such as satisfaction and well-being are mediated by relationship
conict.
Discussion and general conclusions
Our objective in this study was to analyze the relationship between different types of
intragroup conict and employees affective reactions. We investigated the effects of
task and relationship conicts on several criterion variables such as satisfaction,
well-being and propensity to leave the current job. The results indicate that the two
types of conict have different consequences. Data show that:
.
relationship conict is negatively associated with affective reactions, while task
conict does not relate directly to affective reactions in a predictable way;
.
relationship conict has a positive inuence on the desire to leave the current job,
while task conict does not affect it negatively;
Types of
intragroup
conict
225
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

K
i
n
g

A
b
d
u
l
a
z
i
z

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

A
t

0
4
:
0
2

1
1

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

(
P
T
)
S
a
t
i
s
f
a
c
t
i
o
n
W
e
l
l
b
e
i
n
g
M
1
M
2
M
1
M
2
P
a
t
h
C
o
e
f
.
p
a
t
h
P
a
t
h
C
o
e
f
.
p
a
t
h
P
a
t
h
C
o
e
f
.
p
a
t
h
P
a
t
h
C
o
e
f
.
p
a
t
h
T
C
!
R
C
0
.
3
4
*
*
R
C
!
T
C
0
.
3
4
*
*
T
C
!
R
C
0
.
3
4
*
*
R
C
!
T
C
0
.
3
4
*
*
R
C
!
S
A
T
2
0
.
4
6
*
*
T
C
!
S
A
T
2
0
.
2
9
*
*
R
C
!
W
B
2
0
.
4
3
*
*
T
C
!
W
B
2
0
.
2
6
*
*
R
e
s
u
m
e
R
e
s
u
m
e
R
e
s
u
m
e
R
e
s
u
m
e
x
2
4
.
2
0
x
2
2
6
.
6
x
2
2
.
8
4
x
2
2
3
.
9
8
p
0
.
0
4
p
0
.
0
0
p
0
.
0
9
p
0
.
0
0
d
.
f
.
1
d
.
f
.
1
d
.
f
.
1
d
.
f
.
1
R
M
S
E
A
0
.
1
3
8
R
M
S
E
A
0
.
3
9
R
M
S
E
A
0
.
1
0
R
M
S
E
A
0
.
3
7
G
F
I
0
.
9
8
G
F
I
0
.
9
0
G
F
I
0
.
9
9
G
F
I
0
.
9
1
R
M
R
0
.
0
4
R
M
R
0
.
1
4
R
M
R
0
.
0
3
R
M
R
0
.
1
1
N
o
t
e
s
:
T
C

t
a
s
k
c
o
n

i
c
t
;
R
C

r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
p
c
o
n

i
c
t
;
S
A
T

s
a
t
i
s
f
a
c
t
i
o
n
;
W
B

w
e
l
l
b
e
i
n
g
;
x
2

c
h
i
s
q
u
a
r
e
;
G
F
I

g
o
o
d
n
e
s
s
o
f

t
i
n
d
e
x
;
R
M
R

r
o
o
t
m
e
a
n
s
q
u
a
r
e
r
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
s
;
R
M
S
E
A

r
o
o
t
m
e
a
n
s
q
u
a
r
e
e
r
r
o
r
o
f
a
p
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
i
o
n
;
*
p
,
0
.
0
5
;
*
*
p
,
0
.
0
1
Table IV.
LISREL analysis between
types of conict and
affective variables
JMP
20,3/4
226
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

K
i
n
g

A
b
d
u
l
a
z
i
z

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

A
t

0
4
:
0
2

1
1

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

(
P
T
)
.
the interactive effect of relationships and task conict shows that this interaction
contributes substantially to predict the propensity to leave the current job; and
.
relationship conict mediates in the link between task conict and affective
reactions.
As expected, relationship conict decreases employees satisfaction and psychological
well-being. These results are similar to the ones found in previous research (e.g. Jehn,
1995; Jehn and Mannix, 2001; Surra and Longstreeth, 1990). These data allow for
meaningful interpretations for dealing with emotional conict and avoiding
dysfunctional affective reactions from employees in the work place.
An interesting result refers to the interactive effects of relationships and task
conict. It has been found that propensity to leave the current job increases when both
types of conict are present at high levels and decreases when high task conict is
combined with low relationship conict. Given this situation, task conict has
functional effects when there are low levels of relationship conict but it tends to
become dysfunctional as the relationship conict increases. The combination of high
task and relationship conict is dysfunctional because relationship dissents produce
intolerance and antagonistic attributions concerning each others intentions and
behaviors (Baron, 1990; Janssen et al., 1999). This mixture increases the desire to leave
the job. In contrast, employees not affected by relationship conict are able to stimulate
team members and make them discuss, propose new ideas and integrate varying
opinions in order to improve the job. This condition does not negatively affect the
employees desire to leave his/her current job. As Amason (1996) and Korsgaard et al.
(1995) state, when subjects are able to express their opinions, they are more involved
with group decisions and their desire to remain in the work group is enhanced.
The absence of interactive effects between task and relationship conict and some
affective variables such as satisfaction and well-being agree with previous ndings
that suggest no moderating effects between the two types of conict. Neither did
Janssen et al.s (1999) study nd any two-way interaction patterns between task and
relationship conict, conict behavior, decision quality or affective acceptance. Future
studies are needed to conrm these interactive effects in other samples and
organizations.
The present study provides strong evidence for the link between task and
relationship conict. Thus, relationship conict mediates the link between task conict
and affective reactions. Therefore the benets from task conict may sometimes
disappear as the level of relationship conict increase. Some incongruent results that
appear in literature can be claried by this meditational role. A possible explanation is
that task conict may develop a relationship conict in the future. This is in
consonance with Jehn (1997), De Dreu (1997), Friedman et al. (2000) or Simons and
Petersons (2000) studies, which pointed out the transformation of task conict into
relationship conict. These results suggest that enhancing task conict may backre,
as the transformation of task into relationship conict may be counterproductive.
Future longitudinal studies are needed to analyze this transformation and to search for
the means and instruments to break this link and prevent the negative consequences of
relationship conict in teams.
The practical implications of this study are important. As Dechurch and Marks
(2001) found, subjects react negatively to a badly handled conict even if the results are
Types of
intragroup
conict
227
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

K
i
n
g

A
b
d
u
l
a
z
i
z

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

A
t

0
4
:
0
2

1
1

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

(
P
T
)
favorable. As a consequence, a model of the mechanisms that link task and relationship
conict is essential to provide practical guidance on how to manage intragroup
conicts. Our results suggest that it is important to consider the task conicts
intensity in teams, since a high level of task conict may backre by boosting
relationship conict as well, thus having a negative effect on affective reactions. On the
basis of these results, some conclusions can be drawn with a view to improving conict
management in teams. First of all, before planning the intervention, an attempt must be
made to understand the type of conict that is taking place. Secondly, managers should
encourage open discussion of task related issues, in certain limits, in order to improve
the quality of decisions as well as their acceptance by the group members. However,
managers should mitigate or resolve relationship conicts as soon as possible. Thirdly,
special attention should be paid to the level of each conict because of its interactive
effects on some affective outcomes. Thus, in spite of the generally benecial effects
associated with task conict, the intensication of task related conict may backre
when interacting with dysfunctional affective-dissent.
Some limitations in our study should be noted. Firstly, the correlational evidence
between the different variables of the study does not necessarily reect causal links
between them. Future research is needed using independent variables of conict types
to analyze links between conict issues and affective variables. However, the dynamic
and interactive nature of conict complicates the validity of this kind of study.
Secondly, our results have been obtained using self-report measures and as a
consequence the threat of common method variance exists. However, this risk is
reduced by using standardized instruments (Spector, 1987) as the present study does.
In conclusion, this article claries important aspects of the contradictory ndings
concerning the benets of task conict in teams. It is possible that incongruous
evidence could be due to the meditational role of relationship conict and interactions
between conict types. Consideration of conict as a dynamic and multifaceted process
is necessary to guarantee organizational effectiveness.
References
Aiken, L.S. and West, S.G. (1991), Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions,
Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Amason, A.C. (1996), Distinguishing the effect of functional and dysfunctional conict on
strategic decision making: resolving a paradox for top management teams, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 39, pp. 123-48.
Baron, R.A. (1990), Countering the effects of destructive criticism: the relative efcacy of four
interventions, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 75, pp. 235-45.
Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51, pp. 1173-82.
Cohen, J. and Cohen, P. (1983), Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis of the Behavioral
Sciences, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
Cosier, R.A. and Schwenck, C.R. (1990), Agreement and thinking alike: ingredients for poor
decisions, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 4, pp. 69-74.
Cox, K.B. (1998), Antecedents and effects of intergroup conict in the nursing unit,
unpublished doctoral dissertation, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA.
JMP
20,3/4
228
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

K
i
n
g

A
b
d
u
l
a
z
i
z

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

A
t

0
4
:
0
2

1
1

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

(
P
T
)
DeChurch, L.A. and Marks, M.A. (2001), Maximizing the benets of task conict: the role of
conict management, International Journal of Conict Management, Vol. 12, pp. 4-22.
De Dreu, C.K.W. (1997), Productive conict: the importance of conict management and conict
issue, in De Dreu, C K.W. and Van de Vliert, E. (Eds), Using Conict in Organizations,
Sage, London, pp. 9-22.
De Dreu, C.K.W. and Van de Vliert, E. (Eds) (1997), Using Conict in Organizations, Sage,
London.
De Dreu, C.K.W. and Van Vianen, A.E.M. (2001), Managing relationship conict and the
effectiveness of organizational teams, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 22,
pp. 309-28.
De Dreu, C.K.W. and Weingart, L.R. (2003), Task versus relationship conict: a meta-analysis,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88, pp. 741-9.
Friedman, R.A., Tidd, S.T., Currall, S.C. and Tsai, J.C. (2000), What goes around comes around:
the impact of personal conict styles on work conict and stress, International Journal of
Conict Management, Vol. 11, pp. 32-55.
Gonzalez-Roma, V., Mer , S., Luna, R. and Lloret, S. (1992), Propiedades psicometricas de un
cuestionario para medir la propension al abandono del puesto de trabajo y de la
organizacion, (Psychometrical proprieties of the questionnaire to measure propensity to
leave a job), Revista de Psicolog a Social Aplicada, Vol. 2, pp. 25-42.
Hackman, J.R. and Morris, C.G. (1975), Group task, group interaction process, and group
performance effectiveness: a review and proposed integration, in Berkowitz, L. (Ed.),
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 8, Academic Press, San Diego, CA,
pp. 45-99.
Janssen, O., Van de Vliert, E. and Veenstra, Ch. (1999), How task and person conict shape the
role of positive interdependence in management teams, Journal of Management, Vol. 25,
pp. 117-41.
Jehn, K.A. (1994), Enhancing effectiveness: an investigation of advantages and disadvantages of
value-based intragroup conict, International Journal of Conict Management, Vol. 5,
pp. 223-38.
Jehn, K.A. (1995), A multimethod examination of the benets and detriments of intragroup
conict, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 40, pp. 256-82.
Jehn, K.A. (1997), A qualitative analysis of conict types and dimensions in organizational
groups, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 42, pp. 530-57.
Jehn, K.A. and Chatman, J.A. (2000), The inuence of proportional and perceptual conict
composition on team performance, International Journal of Conict Management, Vol. 11,
pp. 56-73.
Jehn, K.A. and Mannix, E. (2001), The dynamic nature of conict: a longitudinal study of
intragroup conict and group performance, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44,
pp. 238-51.
Jehn, K., Northcraft, G. and Neale, M.A. (1999), Why difference makes a difference: a eld study
of diversity, conict and performance in work group, Administrative Science Quarterly,
Vol. 44, pp. 741-63.
Korsgaard, M.A., Schweiger, D.M. and Sapienza, H.J. (1995), Building commitment, attachment,
and trust in strategic decision-making teams: the role of procedural justice, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 38, pp. 60-84.
Melia, J.L. and Peiro, J.M. (1989), La medida de la satisfaccion laboral en contextos
organizacionales: el cuestionario de satisfaccion S20/23, (The assessment of job
Types of
intragroup
conict
229
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

K
i
n
g

A
b
d
u
l
a
z
i
z

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

A
t

0
4
:
0
2

1
1

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

(
P
T
)
satisfaction in organizational environments: the S20/23 questionnaire), Psicologema,
Vol. 3, pp. 55-74.
Pelled, L.H., Eisenhardt, K.M. and Xin, K.R. (1999), Exploring the black box: an analysis of work
group diversity, conict and performance, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 44,
pp. 1-28.
Pondy, L. (1967), Organizational conict: concepts and models, Administrative Science
Quarterly, Vol. 17, pp. 296-320.
Pruitt, D.G. and Carnevale, P.J. (1993), Negotiation in Social Conict, Open University Press,
Milton Keynes.
Simons, T.L. and Peterson, R.S. (2000), Task conict and relationship conict in top
management teams: the pivotal role of intragroup trust, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 85, pp. 102-11.
Spector, P.E. (1987), Method variance as an artifact in self-reported affect and perceptions at
work: myth or signicant problems?, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 72, pp. 438-43.
Stone, R.A. (1995), Workplace homicide: a time for action, Business Horizon, Vol. 34, pp. 17-20.
Surra, C. and Longstreeth, M. (1990), Similarity of outcomes, interdependence and conict in
dating relationships, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 59, pp. 501-16.
Turner, M.E. and Pratkanis, A. (1994), Social identity maintenance prescriptions for preventing
groupthink: reducing identity protection and enhancing intellectual conict, International
Journal of Conict Management, Vol. 5, pp. 254-70.
Van de Vliert, E. and De Dreu, C. (1994), Optimizing performance by conict stimulation,
The International Journal of Conict Management, Vol. 5, pp. 211-22.
Wall, J.A. and Callister, R.R. (1995), Conict and its management, Journal of Management,
Vol. 21, pp. 515-58.
Warr, P. (1990), The measurement of wellbeing and other aspects of mental health, Journal of
Occupational Psychology, Vol. 63, pp. 193-210.
West, M.A. and Anderson, N.R. (1996), Innovation in top management teams, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 81, pp. 680-93.
JMP
20,3/4
230
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

K
i
n
g

A
b
d
u
l
a
z
i
z

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

A
t

0
4
:
0
2

1
1

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

(
P
T
)
This article has been cited by:
1. Abdullah Promise Opute. 2014. Cross-functional bridge in dyadic relationship. Team Performance
Management: An International Journal 20:3/4, 121-147. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
2. Stephanie T. Solansky, Barjinder Singh, Shengsheng Huang. 2014. Individual Perceptions of Task
Conflict and Relationship Conflict. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research 7, 83-98. [CrossRef]
3. Professor Richard A. Posthuma, Jennifer A. Griffith, Shane Connelly, Chase E. Thiel. 2014. Emotion
regulation and intragroup conflict: when more distracted minds prevail. International Journal of Conflict
Management 25:2, 148-170. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
4. Jonas Puck, Ursula Pregernig. 2014. The effect of task conflict and cooperation on performance of teams:
Are the results similar for different task types?. European Management Journal . [CrossRef]
5. Lieh-Ching Chang, Maja Zelihic. 2014. Critical factors associated with relationship conflicts and group
atmosphere among Taiwanese adolescents. Quality & Quantity . [CrossRef]
6. Dennis B. Arnett, C. Michael Wittmann. 2014. Improving marketing success: The role of tacit knowledge
exchange between sales and marketing. Journal of Business Research 67, 324-331. [CrossRef]
7. Sepani Senaratne, Nilupa Udawatta. 2013. Managing intragroup conflicts in construction project teams:
case studies in Sri Lanka. Architectural Engineering and Design Management 9, 158-175. [CrossRef]
8. zlem Edizel. 2013. Mega-events as a place marketing strategy in entrepreneurial cities: zmir's EXPO
2015 candidacy as a roadmap for hosting EXPO 2020. Town Planning Review 84, 633-657. [CrossRef]
9. Jack K. Ito, Cleste M. Brotheridge. 2012. Workfamily and interpersonal conflict as levers in the resource/
demandoutcome relationship. Career Development International 17:5, 392-413. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
10. Veroniek Collewaert. 2012. Angel Investors' and Entrepreneurs' Intentions to Exit Their Ventures: A
Conflict Perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 36:10.1111/etap.2012.36.issue-4, 753-779.
[CrossRef]
11. Amy McMillan, Hao Chen, Orlando C. Richard, Shahid N. Bhuian. 2012. A mediation model of task
conflict in vertical dyads. International Journal of Conflict Management 23:3, 307-332. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
12. Ya Li, Zhichang Zhu, Catherine M. Gerard. 2012. Learning from Conflict Resolution: An Opportunity
to Systems Thinking. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 29:10.1002/sres.v29.2, 209-220. [CrossRef]
13. Anne Spychala, Sabine Sonnentag. 2011. The dark and the bright sides of proactive work behaviour
and situational constraints: Longitudinal relationships with task conflicts. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology 20, 654-680. [CrossRef]
14. Fuli Li, Fan Zhou, Kwok Leung. 2011. Expecting the Worst: Moderating Effects of Social Cynicism on
the Relationships Between Relationship Conflict and Negative Affective Reactions. Journal of Business
and Psychology 26, 339-345. [CrossRef]
15. Igor Kotlyar, Leonard Karakowsky, Peggy Ng. 2011. Leader behaviors, conflict and member commitment
to team-generated decisions. The Leadership Quarterly 22, 666-679. [CrossRef]
16. Faheem Ahmed, Luiz Fernando Capretz. 2010. An organizational maturity model of software product
line engineering. Software Quality Journal 18, 195-225. [CrossRef]
17. Marc H Anderson. 2009. The role of group personality composition in the emergence of task and
relationship conflict within groups. Journal of Management & Organization 15, 82-96. [CrossRef]
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

K
i
n
g

A
b
d
u
l
a
z
i
z

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

A
t

0
4
:
0
2

1
1

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

(
P
T
)
18. Petru L. Cureu, Ren Schalk, Inge Wessel. 2008. How do virtual teams process information? A literature
review and implications for management. Journal of Managerial Psychology 23:6, 628-652. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
19. Nuria Gamero, Vicente Gonzlez-Rom, Jos M. Peir. 2008. The influence of intra-team conflict on
work teams' affective climate: A longitudinal study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology
81, 47-69. [CrossRef]
20. Xiaojing Liu, Richard J. Magjuka, Seung-hee Lee. 2008. An examination of the relationship among
structure, trust, and conflict management styles in virtual teams. Performance Improvement Quarterly
21:10.1002/piq.v21:1, 77-93. [CrossRef]
21. Wayne A. Hochwarter, James A. Meurs, Pamela L. Perrew, M. Todd Royle, Timothy A. Matherly.
2007. The interactive effect of attention control and the perceptions of others' entitlement behavior on
job and health outcomes. Journal of Managerial Psychology 22:5, 506-528. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
22. Faheem Ahmed, Luiz Fernando Capretz, Shahbaz Ali Sheikh. 2007. Institutionalization of software
product line: An empirical investigation of key organizational factors. Journal of Systems and Software 80,
836-849. [CrossRef]
23. Andrew Hede. 2007. The shadow group. Journal of Managerial Psychology 22:1, 25-39. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
24. Alan Goldman, Paul Harvey, Mark J. Martinko, Scott C. Douglas. 2006. Causal reasoning in dysfunctional
leadermember interactions. Journal of Managerial Psychology 21:8, 747-762. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
25. Francisco Gil, CarlosMara Alcover, JosMara Peir, Francisco Gil, CarlosMara Alcover, JosMara
Peir. 2005. Work team effectiveness in organizational contexts. Journal of Managerial Psychology 20:3/4,
193-218. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

K
i
n
g

A
b
d
u
l
a
z
i
z

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

A
t

0
4
:
0
2

1
1

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

(
P
T
)