The International Journal of Conflict Management

2002, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 110-126

AN ASSESSMENT AND REFINEMENT OF JEHN'S

INTRAGROUP CONFLICT SCALE

Allison W. Pearson
Mississippi State University
Michael D. Ensley
University of North Carolina, Charlotte
Allen C. A mason
University of Georgia

Jehn (1992, 1994) developed the Intragroup Conflict Scale (ICS) to

measure two theoretically distinct dimensions of conflict: relationship
and task conflict. In the years since, the ICS has been widely adopted by
researchers as a measurement tool for group conflict. However, limited
evidence of the scale's psychometric properties has been published.
Following guidelines provided by Schwab (1980) and Hinkin (1995),
we assess the construct validity of the scale, using both individual level
and group level techniques, and test proposed nomological relationships,
using six diverse samples. We conclude that a 6-item version of the
original 9-item scale best captures relationship and task conflict.
McGrath (1984) proposed that a key feature of any group lies in the interac­
tions of its members, called the group process. One such interactive process is con­
flict. Conflict is generally viewed as an intervening variable between situational
and individual antecedents and group outcomes, such as productivity (Gladstein,
1984). Given its importance, researchers have focused considerable effort on con­
flict (e.g., Brehmer, 1976). One consequence of this work is that scholars now view
conflict as having two related yet distinct dimensions, one relating to task dis­
agreement, another relating to interpersonal disagreement (Pinkley, 1990; Priem &
Price, 1991; Wall & Nolan, 1986). Relationship, or interpersonal, conflict is
thought to hinder effective group functioning while task, or substantive, conflict is
thought to promote effective group functioning (Amason, 1996; Jehn, 1994, 1995,
1997, 1999).
Guetzkow and Gyr (1954) defined substantive, task conflict as "intellectual
opposition among participants, deriving from the content of the agenda" (p. 380).
They defined affective, relationship conflict as "tension generated by emotional
 A. W. PEARSON, M. D. ENSLEY, AND A. C. AMASON 111

clashes aroused during the interpersonal struggle involved in solving the group's
agenda problem" (p. 380). Jehn (1992, 1994) refined these definitions, using the
labels emotional conflict and task conflict. According to Jehn (1992) "emotional
conflict includes personal and affective components such as friction, tension and
dislike among members within the group" (pp. 10-11). Task conflict involves
"differences in viewpoints and opinions pertaining to the task" (p. 11).
Jehn, (1992, 1994) created the Intragroup Conflict Scale (ICS) to measure
these two dimensions. In the years that have followed, the ICS has been integrated
into a variety of research streams including top management teams (Amason, 1996;
Amason & Sapienza, 1997; Simons & Peterson, 2000), organizational demography
(Pelled, 1996; Pelled, Eisenhardt, & Xin, 1999), work group diversity (Jehn,
Northcraft, & Neale, 1999), strategic decision making (Amason & Mooney, 1999;
Janssen, Van De Vliert, & Veenstra, 1999), and new venture teams (Ensley, Pear­
son, & Amason, 2000). However, little evidence of the scale's psychometric prop­
erties has been published. Moreover, researchers have used the scale inconsistently,
adding and deleting items in a seemingly arbitrary fashion. With the wide-spread
adoption of the ICS as a measure of conflict, researchers must have confidence that
the scale measures reliably what it purports to measure, otherwise generalizations
regarding the theory may be flawed.
The purpose of this study then is (1) to examine the construct validity of the
ICS using a consistent set of items across multiple samples using rigorous testing
techniques, and (2) to examine the predictive validity of the ICS with hypothesized
outcome measures. Schwab (1980) defined construct validity as "the correspon­
dence between a construct and the operational procedure to measure or manipulate
the construct" (pp. 5-6). Without adequate examination of the ICS, we can not be
confident it accurately measures the two dimensions of conflict. In turn, without
adequate construct validity, we can not confidently explore the nomological net­
work of relationships that link task and relationship conflict to decision making
outcomes (Cronbach & Meehl, 1955).

"Best Practices" in Scale Development

Hinkin (1995) conducted an extensive review of scale development proce­
dures and recommended "best practices" for scale development. Building on work
by Schwab (1980), Hinkin (1995) prescribes a set of preferred scale-development
procedures across each of three different stages.
In Stage 1, content validity is the primary concern. This stage involves speci­
fying a theoretically grounded definition of the construct. That definition then
drives the development of individual items. Hinkin (1995) argues that "a necessary
prerequisite for new measures would be establishing a clear link between items and
their theoretical domain" (p. 971). Stage 2 of the process involves combining the
items to create scales, followed by "an assessment of the psychometric properties
of the scale" (p. 971). Hinkin elaborates that factor analysis should be used "to
examine the stability of the factor structure and provide information that will
facilitate the refinement of a new measure" (p. 971). Confirmatory factor analysis
(CFA) is recommended in addition to exploratory factor analysis (EFA) because of

The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 13, No. 2, 2002

112 INTRAGROUP CONFLICT

its ability to test whether the items load on the respective constructs in a
theoretically consistent fashion. Reliability assessment is also recommended during
Stage 2. Finally, Hinkin suggests that a thorough assessment of scale reliability can
be gained by examining multiple samples. Stage 3 includes assessing the scale
within the nomological network of hypothesized relationships. This final stage is
designed to assess whether or not the measured construct behaves, in relation to
other constructs, in a manner consistent with theory.
We follow these prescriptions in our assessment of the ICS. Applying the
recommended, best practices, 3-stage approach to the ICS (Jehn, 1995), we find
that additional work is needed in stages 2 and 3, before we can be confident using
the ICS to draw substantive conclusions.
Application of "Best Practices" to Development of ICS
Stage I involves ensuring content validity in the item generation process.
Jehn (1992) created items for the ICS after extensive review of the literature on the
relationship and task dimensions of conflict. Moreover, she specifically defined
both types of conflict, prior to item development. She then used descriptions of
actual conflicts to assess the proposed dimensions. In so doing, Jehn (1992) clearly
established a link between the scale items and the theoretically derived dimensions
of conflict.
However, while being grounded in theory, there are inconsistencies regarding
the items that constitute the two factors. For example, in 1992, Jehn reported that
relationship conflict was measured with two items: "how much emotional tension
is there in your work group?" and "how much friction is there in your work
group?" She also identified two items as measures of task conflict: "to what extent
are there differences of opinions in your work group?" and " how often do people
in your work group disagree about opinions regarding the work being done?"
When Jehn (1995) later published the ICS, she reported eight items, four items
each for relationship and task conflict. In 1999, Jehn reported using 4 items to
measure relationship conflict and 5 items for task conflict. Further complicating the
issue, Jensen et al. (1999) used an 11-item version of the ICS, while Simons and
Peterson (2000) used an 8-item version. Varying the number of items is
problematic as standardized measures are essential to the interpretation and
comparability of the findings (Price & Mueller, 1986).
Additional concerns arise in Stage 2 of the process. Whereas Jehn (1992,
1995) used exploratory factor analysis in the development of the scale, Hinkin rec­
ommends a confirmatory approach (1995, p. 977). Amason (1996) employed a
confirmatory analysis. However, Amason has consistently used a 7-item version of
the scale (Amason, 1996; Amason & Sapienza, 1997; Amason & Mooney, 1999).,
To address these inconsistencies, we propose that a confirmatory analysis of
the 9-item ICS be conducted across multiple samples. Only after Stage I and Stage
2 of the process have been completed should we begin assessing conflict in
relationship to other constructs. Thus, we conduct a CFA of the 9-item ICS across
multiple samples. Once we have identified a stable set of indicators, we will assess
the within-group agreement on those indicators. We then test the supposition that
task conflict promotes group performance while relationship conflict hinders group

The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 13, No. 2, 2002

 A. W. PEARSON, M. D. ENSLEY, AND A. C. AMASON 113

performance (Amason & Schweiger, 1994; Amason, 1996; Jansen et al., 1999;
Pelled et al., 1999; Simons & Peterson, 2000).

Method
Sample 1
This sample was derived from surveys sent to the top management teams of
192 mid-sized food processing firms. Since strategic decision making is a team
process, responses were requested from every member of each team. Multiple
responses were received from 48 teams, a usable response rate of 25 percent. On
average, 3.25 managers from each team responded, a total sample of 156 individual
managers.
Because each strategic decision is unique, many things, including the level of
conflict, can change from one decision to the next (Hickson, Butler, Cray, Mallory,
& Wilson, 1986; Jackson, 1992). Thus, the 192 CEOs were contacted by phone and
asked to provide a description of a recent strategic decision. Each CEO was then
asked to identify the TMT members who participated in that decision. Surveys
referencing this specific decision were distributed to the managers identified by the
CEO. The survey asked each manager to reflect upon the decision in question and
report his or her recollections of the conflict experienced during that decision
process. The ICS (Jehn, 1995) was used to measure the conflict. The scale items
are listed in Table 1 and the responses were recorded on 5-point Likert scales
ranging from 1 = "none" to 5 = "a great deal."

Table 1
Intragroup Conflict Scale Items

Relationsliip Conflict
1. How much emotional conflict was there among the members of your group?
2. How much anger was there among the members of the group?
3. How much personal friction was there in the group during decisions?
4. How much were personality clashes between members of the group evident?
5. How much tension was there in the group during decisions?
Task Conflict
1. How much disagreement was there among the members of your group over
there opinions?
2. How many disagreements over different ideas were there?
3. How many differences about the content of decisions did the group have to
work through?
4. How many differences of opinion were there within the group?

Note: Items in bold italics represent the 6 items in the best fitting model of the scale.

Analysis. Structural equation modeling (SEM) using LISREL8 was used to

analyze the items. The input matrix for the analysis included the correlations and

The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 13, No. 2, 2002

114 INTRAGROUP CONFLICT

standard deviations of the items, and we analyzed the covariances. The maximum
likelihood fitting function was used to estimate the two-factor model. The null
hypothesis is E = E (1) where E is the population covariance matrix and E (1) is the
population covariance matrix predicted by the model.
Results. We report our results in Table 2. When E = E (1) the chi-square sta­
tistic should not be significant. A low chi-square indicates that the actual and pre­
dicted input matrices are very much alike. A large chi-square indicates that the
observed and estimated matrices are quite different. The chi-square statistic was
119 with 26 degrees of freedom (p < .001).
The goodness-of-fit index (GFI), which ranges from 0, indicating poor fit, to
1, indicating perfect fit was .85. The root mean square residual (RMSR) is a non-
normed indicator of the average of the residual covariance between the observed
and the estimated input matrices (Hare, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1992). RMSR
should be near zero for well-fitting models. The RMSR was .08.
The normed fit index (NFI) measures the fit of the proposed model relative to
some baseline or null model (Bentler & Bonett, 1980). The NFI represents the
point at which the proposed model falls on a scale ranging from 0, indicating the
null model, to 1, indicating a perfect fit. The NFI for the nine-item model is .85.
The adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI) is an extension of the GFI,
adjusted for degrees of freedom (Hare et al., 1992) and provides an assessment of
parsimony. If model fit (a low chi-square) has been achieved by over fitting the
data with too many coefficients, the AGFI should result in a low value. Values of
the AGFI range from 0, indicating a poor fit, to 1, indicating a perfect, yet parsi­
monious model. The AGFI for the model was .75
Overall, these measures suggest that this particular model may not be the best
possible. Indeed, even though all items yielded significant path loadings on their
respective constructs, the chi-square was large. Moreover, a GFI closer to 1 and a
RMSR closer to 0 would be desirable, and the moderate value of the AGFI indi­
cates that the model may not be as parsimonious as possible.
Model Respocification. Bollen (1989) and Loehlin (1992) suggest respecifi-
cation of a model when the goodness-of-fit measures indicate the original model
may not be the most appropriate. Loehlin (1992) provides two guidelines for such
respecifications. Loehlin first suggests that some items may fail to represent the
construct they are supposed to measure. These items may account for a small por­
tion of the variance in their respective construct, and so should be deleted. Second,
some items may reflect multiple constructs. If an item reflects two constructs, but
has been forced to indicate one, the model will be mis-specified.
Based on these guidelines, the wording of each item was examined and com­
pared to the construct definitions. Jehn (1992) defined relationship conflict as, "an
awareness by the parties involved that there are interpersonal incompatibilities" (p.
10). Relationship conflict is based on negative affect and involves things like
friction, tension, and dislike among members within the group. Jehn also stated,
"people tend to dislike others who do not agree with them and who do not share
similar beliefs and values" (p. 10).
Based on this definition of the relationship conflict construct, each of the
items was examined. The key terms or phrases in each item include emotional con-

The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 13, No. 2, 2002

 Table 2
CFA Results of Intragroup Conflict Scale

Measures of Measures of
Measures of Absolute Fit Incremental Fit Parsimonious Fit
Model df X2 X2/df GFI RMSR NFI AGFI

A. W. PEARSON, M. D. ENSLEY, AND A. C. AMASON

The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 13, No. 2, 2002

Sample 1 ( n = 156)
9-item 26 119.30 (p<.001) 4.58 .85 .08 .85 .75
8-item 19 59.55 (p <.001) 3.13 .91 .05 .90 .83
7-item 13 38.01 (p <.001) 2.92 .93 .05 .92 .86
6-item 8 19.50(p <.02) 2.43 .96 .04 .95 .89
Sample 2 (n = 322)
9-item 26 73.96 (p <.001) 2.84 .95 .03 .96 .91
8-item 19 41.96 (p <.002) 2.20 .97 .03 .97 .94
7-item 13 32.19 (p <.003) 2.47 .97 .03 .97 .94
6-item 8 16.61(p <.04) 2.07 .98 .01 .98 .95
Sample 3 (n = 316)
9-item 26 86.53 (p <.001) 3.32 .88 .04 .87 .79
8-item 19 56.27 (p <.001) 2.96 .89 .04 .90 .82
6-item 8 17.68 (p <.03) 2.21 .94 .03 .92 .90
Sample 4 (n = 256)
9-item 26 72.34 (p <.001) 2.78 .84 .09 .82 .74
8-item 19 52.74 (p <.001) 2.77 .87 .06 .86 .79
6-item 8 13.46 (p <.05) 1.68 .93 .04 .92 .89
Sample 5 (n = 102)
6-item 8 17.25 (p < .03) 2.15 .96 .02 .95 .91
Sample 6 (n = 148)
6-item 8 7.75 (p = .45) .96 .98 .02 .98 .98

115
116 INTRAGROUP CONFLICT

flict, anger, personal friction, personality clashes, and tension. Each of those terms
is mentioned in Jehn's (1992) definition. Thus, the relationship conflict items
appear to reflect the definition of the relationship conflict construct.
Jehn (1992) defined task conflict as "awareness by the parties involved that
there are disagreements about the actual tasks being performed" (p. 11). Jehn
continues, "task conflicts are differences in viewpoints and opinions pertaining to
the task" (p. 11). Examining the task conflict items, each makes reference to
disagreement or differences over opinions, ideas, or the actual decision. Thus, each
appears to reflect the definition. However, upon close inspection, it appears that the
first task conflict item may represent the relationship conflict construct as well.
This item poses the question "How much disagreement was there among
members of your group over their opinions concerning this decision?" Disagree­
ment among members over their opinions could reflect both personal and cognitive
motivations. Schneider (1987) suggested that the attributes of people, rather than
the nature of the environment or task are the fundamental determinants of behavior.
Other researchers (e.g., Byrne, 1971; Heider, 1958; Newcomb, 1961) also suggest
that the similarity of individuals' personal attributes may be important determinants
of their ability to interact effectively. If disagreement over opinion could reflect
both personal and affective issues, then this item could relate to both task and rela­
tionship conflict. Indeed, the modification indices showed that the first task conflict
item did cross load on the relationship factor. Therefore, we dropped the item and
re-analyzed the reduced 8-item scale.
As shown in Table 2, deleting this item improved overall model fit. The chi-
square fell to 59.55. The GFI increased to .91 and the RMSR fell to .05. The NFI
improved to .90 and the AGFI rose to .83, indicating improved parsimony.
Since the 8-item version is considered a nested model of the nine-item ver­
sion, a chi-square difference test can be performed to determine if the 8-item ver­
sion significantly decreased the X2 (Bollen, 1989). The chi-square difference test
yielded a significant X2 of 59.75 with 7 df, also providing evidence that the 8-item
version of the ICS provides a better fit to the data.
While the 8-item ICS provided better fit than the 9-item version, the AGFI
value of .83 suggested the scale was still not ideally parsimonious. Indeed, further
analyses revealed a potential problem with items 1 and 4 (see Table 1) of the rela­
tionship conflict construct. In the CFA, both items produced highly correlated error
terms with several of the other items. To remedy this problem, we first deleted item
4 of the relationship conflict construct and tested the resulting seven-item ICS.
Next, we deleted item 1 of the relationship conflict construct and tested the result­
ing 6-item ICS. The results of both models are reported in Table 2.
The 6-item ICS (X2 = 19.50, p < .02) clearly provided the best fitting model.
The nested model test between the 7-item and 6-item models yielded a chi-square
difference of 18.51 with 5 degrees of freedom. The Cronbach's as were .79 and .85
for the task and relationship constructs. As such, we concluded that the 6-item
model was the best fitting.

The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 13, No. 2, 2002

 A. W. PEARSON, M. D. ENSLEY, AND A. C. AMASON 117

We wanted to validate these findings with additional samples. As Loehlin

(1992) states, "cross-validation is essential when exploratory modification of a
structural model is undertaken" (p. 192). Thus, we wanted to make sure the six
items retained in the analysis produced the same clear and distinct dimensions in
additional samples before drawing conclusions.
Sample 2
This sample included the TMTs of 88 new ventures, all of which were mem­
bers of the 1995 inc. 500. The names and contact information for the TMT mem­
bers were obtained from the Dun & Bradstreet Market Identifiers database. All of
the firms in the inc. 500 are privately held and are not required to report informa­
tion on themselves in any standardized way. Thus, we chose to define the members
of the top management team as those individuals who met at least two of three
conditions. They either were founders (Kamm, Shuman, Seeger, & Nurick, 1990),
currently held an equity stake of at least 10% (Kamm et al., 1990; Carland, Hoy,
Boulton, & Carland, 1984), or were identified in some way as being actively
involved in strategic decision making (Cachon, 1990; Stewart, Watson, Carland, &
Carland, 1999). In addition, Roure and Madique (1986) argued that new venture
TMTs consist most typically of the CEO, President, or head of critical line or staff
functions. Thus, in using the Dun & Bradstreet Market Identifiers Database, only
executives identified as either the CEO, President, or Vice-President of critical
functions were utilized.
To check this procedure, the CEO or President of each company was called
and asked to identify those involved in strategic decision making. All of the team
members identified by our criteria were identified by the CEOs/Presidents as
members of the firm's core strategic decision making group.
Firms that had been merged, acquired, gone out of business or for which the
TMT could not be identified were excluded. Each officer received a personalized
letter and questionnaire, containing the 9-item ICS. A total of 1203 questionnaires
were mailed and 322 responses were returned. Multiple responses were received
from 88 teams.
Analysis. As with Sample 1, we used CFA to test the original 9-item model.
Again, we utilized the maximum likelihood fitting function and analyzed
covariances. We also used the Rwg(J) as a test of inter-rater agreement (James,
Demoree, & Wolf, 1993; Naumann & Bennett, 2000). Naumann and Bennett
(2000) argued that Rwg(J) was the most appropriate measure of inter-group
agreement when the scale is oriented toward group phenomenon.
Results. The results for Sample 2 are reported in Table 2. The 9-item version
of the ICS again yielded a significant chi-square of 73.96, p < .001. As in Sample
1, the first item of the task conflict scale, cross-loaded on the relationship conflict
construct. Therefore, we deleted the item and re-analyzed the 8-item scale. The 8-
item measure yielded a chi-square of 41.96, p < .001, but again, items 1 and 4 of
the relationship conflict construct had correlated errors. We followed the same
approach as used in Sample 1, first deleting item 4 and testing the 7-item model,
then deleting item 1 and testing the 6-item model. The 6-item model yielded a X2

The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 13, No. 2, 2002

118 INTRAGROUP CONFLICT

of 16.61, p < .04. All other fit indices suggested a strong fit. The resulting Cron-
bach's a s were .89 and .87 for the task and relationship conflict constructs.
The multilevel test demonstrated that the scale had strong psychometric prop­
erties as well. Indeed, we found that inter-rater agreement existed for all of the
models at nearly the same level. The Rwg(J)s ranged from .77 to .83. James et al.
(1993) set .70 as a criteria of successful agreement between team members. This
appears to show that the scale has general inter-rater agreement.
To further check the results of the CFAs and the multi-level analysis we
developed a third sample of top management teams. The results of this sample
follow.
Sample 3
This sample included the TMTs of 70 new ventures, all of which were mem­
bers of the 1996 Inc. 500. The names of the TMT members and contact informa­
tion were obtained from the Dun & Bradstreet Market Identifiers data base. We
used the same method to determine TMT membership as in Sample 2. In using the
Dun & Bradstreet Market Identifiers Database to identify the Inc. 500 executives,
only those executives listed as either the CEO, President, or Vice-President of a
critical function, such as marketing, were utilized in the sample.
To cross check our operationalization of the TMT, the CEO or President of
each firm was called and asked to identify those executives involved in making of
strategic decisions. All of the team members identified by our criteria were identi­
fied by the CEOs/Presidents as members of the firm's core strategic decision
making group.
Firms that had been merged, acquired, gone out of business or for which the
top management team could not be identified were excluded. As such, 1156 sur­
veys were sent to the managers of 392 firms. A total of 316 surveys were returned,
an initial response rate of 27.3%. We obtained multiple responses from 70 teams,
an average of 2.74 responses per team.
Results. The results for Sample 3 are reported in Table 2. The nine-item ver­
sion of the ICS again yielded a significant chi-square of 86.53, p < .001. As in
Samples 1 and 2, the first item of the task conflict scale, cross-loaded on relation­
ship conflict. Thus, we deleted the item and re-analyzed the 8-item scale. The 8-
item measure reduced the chi-square to 56.27, p < .001. As before, items 1 and 4 of
the relationship conflict construct produced correlated error terms. We followed the
same approach as used in Sample 1, first deleting item 4 and testing the 7-item
model, then deleting item 1 and testing the 6-item model. The 6-item model
yielded a chi-square of 17.68, p < .03. All other fit indices suggested a strong fit.
The resulting Cronbach's alphas were .88 and .85 for the task and relationship con­
flict constructs.
We conducted Rwg(J)s on all models. Again, the multilevel tests demonstrated
that the scale was able to discern differences between groups. We found that inter-
rater agreement existed for all of the models at nearly the same levels. The Rwg(J)s
for the models ranged from .73 to .86.
As a final check of the results, we again analyzed the ICS on a fourth sample
of top management teams. The results of this sample follow.

The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 13, No. 2, 2002

 A. W. PEARSON, M. D. ENSLEY, AND A. C. AMASON 119

Sample 4
The fourth sample was drawn from the December 1998 Inc. 500 list. We used
the same procedure as before to determine TMT membership. Of the 1128 ques-
tionnaires mailed, a total of 256 responses were returned, a response rate of 22.7%.
Multiple responses were received from 66 teams, an average of 3.9 per team.
Results. The results for Sample 4 are reported in Table 2. The 9-item version
of the ICS again yielded a significant chi-square of 72.34, p < .001. As in Samples
1, 2, and 3, the first item of the task conflict scale cross-loaded on the relationship
conflict construct. Therefore, we deleted the item and re-analyzed the 8-item ver-
sion of the scale. The 8-item measure reduced the chi-square to 52.74, p < .001,
but again, items 1 and 4 of the relationship conflict construct produced correlated
error terms. We followed the same approach as used before, first deleting item 4
and testing a 7-item model, then deleting item 1 and testing a 6-item model. The
6-item model yielded a chi-square of 13.46, p < .05. All other fit indices suggested
a strong fit. The resulting Cronbach as were .91 and .87 for the task and
relationship conflict constructs.
The multilevel tests demonstrated that the scale was able to discern differ-
ences between groups. We conducted Rwg(J)s and found that inter-rater agreement
existed for all of the models at comparable levels, as the Rwg(J)s ranged from .78 to
.89
With four different samples producing consistent results supporting a six-item
version of the ICS, we wanted to test the predictive validity of the new scale. Spe-
cifically, we wanted to examine the supposition that task conflict increases group
performance while relationship conflict decreases it. To do so, we chose two new
and different samples.
Sample 5
The first sample included 102 students at a major southeastern university.
These students were enrolled in either an undergraduate (n = 70) or MBA (n = 32)
policy course in which they had worked in groups throughout the term on a project
constituting a major portion of their grade. Because the groups were preassigned at
the beginning of the term, they were uniformly diverse in terms of functional spe-
cialty, gender, and race. We measured the level and type of conflict experienced by
the groups, each individual's commitment to his or her group project, and each
individual's affective acceptance of the project and of the team itself. Conflict was
measured with the six items of the modified ICS. Commitment was measured with
five items used by Wooldridge and Floyd (1990). Affective acceptance was meas-
ured with two items used by Schweiger, Sandberg, and Ragan (1986) and
Schweiger, Sandberg, and Rechner (1989).
Analysis and Results. CFA using LISREL 8 was again used to examine the
construct validity the 6-item version of the ICS. The results are reported in Table
2. The 6-item model yielded a chi-square of 17.25, p < .03. All fit indices sug-
gested adequate fit. The Cronbach as were .73 and .86 for the task and relationship
constructs.

The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 13, No. 2, 2002

120 INTRAGROUP CONFLICT

Nomological Assessment In this study we examined the relationships

between conflict and various outcomes of the decision making process. In doing
so, we based our expectations on Amason and Schweiger (1994) and others who
proposed that high levels of task conflict should lead to high quality decisions,
greater commitment to those decisions, and greater affective acceptance among the
team members. High levels of relationship conflict, on the other hand, should lead
to lower quality decisions, lower commitment to those decisions, and lower affec­
tive acceptance among the team members.
To test these relationships, we created team level variables by averaging the
individual team members' responses for task and relationship conflict, commit­
ment, and affective acceptance. In all, there were 29 teams, with an average of 3.5
members. The project grade was the measure of quality. We then regressed quality,
commitment, and affective acceptance on task and relationship conflict, while
controlling for team size. The results are presented in Table 3. For each dependent
variable, a model with the control variable was followed by a second model
including the conflict variables. The incremental change in R2 is the proportion of
the variance in the dependent variable explained by task and relationship conflict.

Table 3
Regression Analysis of Task and Relationship Conflict

Dependent Team Task Relationship

Variable Size Conflict Conflict R2 ∆K2

Quality
Model 1 .36 .19 .02
Model 2 .34* .35+ -.35+ .27* .08*
Commitment
Model 1 .13 .08 .13
Model 2 .13 .18 - 38*** .29* .21*
Affective Acceptance
Model 1 .14 .04 .28
Model 2 .16+ -.12 -.83*** .57*** .52***

Note: Sample 5, N = 29 teams.

+ p <.10. *p <.05. **p < .01. ***p <.001.

Task conflict was positively and significantly related to quality. At the same
time, relationship conflict was negatively and significantly related to quality.
Together, task and relationship conflict were able to account for 8.09% of the
variation in project quality. While the relationship between task conflict and com­
mitment was positive, it was not significant. The relationship between relationship
conflict and commitment, however, was significant and negative. Overall, both
types of conflict were able to explain 20.2% of the variation in the level of com­
mitment team members had for their projects. Finally, relationship conflict was
significantly related to affective acceptance. The two dimensions of conflict

The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 13, No. 2, 2002

 A. W. PEARSON, M. D. ENSLEY, AND A. C. AMASON 121

accounted for 52.18% of the variation in the level of affective acceptance team
members felt for their project teams.
To summarize, when it was significant, the effect of task conflict was posi­
tive. The effect of relationship conflict was always negative. Thus, there is reason
to conclude that task conflict enhances decision making effectiveness while rela­
tionship conflict reduces decision making effectiveness, as measured by the 6-item
ICS.
Sample 6
The final sample consisted of 148 top managers from 48 publicly traded firms
in the software products and prepared food services industries. Software products
is a growth industry with high volatility and uncertainty. Food services, on the
other hand, is a capital intensive industry, with much less volatility and uncertainty.
These differences should lead to different cultures and decision making norms and
so provide a robust test of our theory.
A total of 389 firms were identified with Compact Disclosure. As with Sam­
ple 1, we then called the CEO of each to request participation. We explained that
we wanted to survey the members of the top management team who, while
answering the questions, would need to focus on a recent strategic decision. Thus,
the CEO would need to identify that decision to them. As before, we sought to
minimize bias in the selection of the decision by asking the CEO to focus on the
most recent strategic decision his or her firm had made and could now reflect upon
(Amason, 1996).
As with Sample 1, our analysis was at the group level; thus we needed multi­
ple responses from each team. We received usable responses from 148 managers at
48 firms, a response rate of 12.3% and an average of 3.07 responses per team. Task
and relationship conflict were measured with the same 6 items as used in the previ­
ous samples. The output measures were the same as in Sample 5, decision quality,
commitment, and affective acceptance. Decision quality was measured with 3
items from Amason (1996). Commitment was measured with the same 5 items
from Wooldridge and Floyd (1990) used in Sample 5 just as affective acceptance
was measured with the same 2 items from Schweiger et al. (1986, 1989) also used
in Sample 5. Again, we created team level variables by averaging the individual
level responses.
Given the nature of this sample, we were also able to control for a host of
potentially confounding influences. Specifically, we controlled for industry using a
dummy variable, 0 for food service, 1 for software. We controlled for firm size,
which was measured as the log of total sales for the year in which the survey was
administered. We controlled for team size, which was the number of managers the
CEO stated were actively involved in strategic decision making. Finally, we con­
trolled for firm performance, which was measured as the change in net income
from the year previous to the current year, as a proportion of the previous year. The
logic was that increases or decreases in performance that were concurrent with the
decision in question might bias the recollections and assessments of the decision
itself.

The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 13, No. 2, 2002

122 INTRAGROUP CONFLICT

Analysis and Results. We used LISREL8 to re-examine our six-item version

of the ICS. The results are reported in Table 2. The chi-square for the model was
7.75, p = .45. All fit indices again supported our six-item model. The Cronbach αs
were .72 and .86 for the task and relationship constructs.
Nomological Assessment. As before, we proposed that higher levels of task
conflict should lead to higher quality decisions, greater commitment to those deci­
sions, and greater affective acceptance among team members. Higher levels of
relationship conflict, on the other hand, should lead to lower quality decisions, less
commitment to those decisions, and less affective acceptance among team mem­
bers.
To test the relationships, we regressed each of the output measures on the
control variables first and then on a model including both the control variables and
the conflict variables. The results are shown in Table 4. The model for decision
quality was not significant. Indeed, together the two conflict items were able to
explain only 3.8% of the total variation in decision quality. The model for com­
mitment was significant. Consistent with our expectations, task conflict was posi­
tively related to commitment, while relationship conflict was negatively related to
commitment. Together, the two dimensions of conflict were able to explain 9.27%
of the total variation in commitment. The model for affective acceptance was also
significant. As expected, task conflict was positively related and relationship con­
flict was negatively related to affective acceptance. Together, the two conflict vari­
ables were able to explain 28.5% of the total variation in affective acceptance.

Table 4
Regression Analysis of Task and Relationship Conflict

Dependent Firm TMT Task Relationship

Variable Industry Size Size Perform. Conflict Conflict R2 ∆R2

Quality
Model 1 .00 -.11 .02 .00 .07
Model 2 .03 -.11 .02 .00 .04 -.12 .11 .04
Commitment
Model 1 .02 -.17 -.01 .01 .17
Model 2 .08 -.19 -.02 -.01 .30* -.18* .26* .09*
Affective
Acceptance
Model 1 .27 -.03 -.04 -.00 .08 .48
Model 2 .40 -.06 -.04 -.00 .28* -.45*** .36** .29**

Note: Sample 6, N = 48 top management teams

+p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

These results confirm the pattern observed earlier. When significant, the
effects of relationship conflict are negative and, when significant, the effects of

The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 13, No. 2, 2002

 A. W. PEARSON, M. D. ENSLEY, AND A. C. AMASON 123

task conflict are positive. This again confirms the predictive capacity of the 6-item
ICS.

Discussion
Conflict is an important group process variable, often serving as a mediator
between antecedents of group behavior and group outcomes (Gladstein, 1984).
Jehn (1992, 1994, 1995, 1997) provided researchers with clear definitions of the
two dimensions of task and relationship conflict. In addition, she developed the
ICS to measure these dimensions. However, a thorough validation of the ICS has
been lacking.
We applied the "best practices" in scale development outlined by Hinkin
(1995) to thoroughly assess the construct and predictive validity of the ICS. We
examined the construct validity of the 9-item ICS using confirmatory factor analy­
sis. Our analyses yielded a 6-item version of the ICS. Additionally, we tested this
6-item model in multiple samples to offer additional validity and support. Follow­
ing Naumann and Bennett (2000), we also examined the level of within-group
agreement on the ICS. Further, we tested the 6-item model in a series of theoreti­
cally derived hypotheses to ascertain the predictive validity of the 6-item model.
Again, using multiple samples, the 6-item model did, in fact, predict the hypothe­
sized outcomes.
While there are strengths of our study, there are certainly weaknesses as well.
First, 5 of our 6 samples are top management teams. Other groups, such as work
teams, may yield different results. These other types of groups should certainly be
considered in future validation of the ICS in order to explore the generalizability of
the scale. Second, we used survey data to capture conflict as well as our outcomes
measures; therefore, common method variance could have affected our tests.
Future research may solve this problem by using a variety of data collection tech­
niques for the dependent and independent variables. Finally, we did not compare
the performance of the ICS to other measures of conflict. Future research may
address this limitation by collecting multiple measures of conflict and making
comparisons.
Schwab (1980) suggested that as organizational scientists, we "view construct
validation as a continuing process rather than a one-time or limited term project"
(p. 22). Because conflict is such an important process variable in groups research,
we encourage other researchers to provide validation information regarding their
use of the ICS. As Price and Mueller (1996) conclude, standardized and valid
measures are essential for researchers to compare findings and test substantive
relationships.

References
Amason, A. C. (1996). Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on
strategic decision making: Resolving a paradox for top management teams. Academy of
Management Journal, 39, 123-148.

The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 13, No. 2, 2002

124 INTRAGROUP CONFLICT

Amason, A. C., & Mooney, A. C. (1999). The effects of past performance on top manage-
ment team conflict in strategic decision making. International Journal of Conflict Man-
agement, 10, 340-359.
Amason, A. C., & Sapienza, H. J. (1997). The effects of top management team size and
interaction norms on cognitive and affective conflict. Journal of Management, 23, 495-
516.
Amason, A. C., & Schweiger, D. M. (1994). Resolving the paradox of conflict, strategic
decision making and organizational performance. International Journal of Conflict Man-
agement, 5, 239-253.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis
of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588-606.
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.
Brehmer, B. (1976). Social judgement theory and the analysis of interpersonal conflict. Psy-
chological Bulletin, 83, 985-1003.
Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press.
Cachon, J. C. (1990). A longitudinal investigation of entrepreneurial teams, part one: Who is
involved and what makes them succeed. In N. C. Churchill, W. D. Bygrave, J. A. Hor-
naday, D. F. .Muzyka, K. H. Vesper, & W. E. Wetzel, (Eds.), Frontiers of entrepreneur-
ship research (pp. 100-102). Wellesley, MA: Center for Entrepreneurial Studies, Babson
College.
Carland, J. W., Hoy, F., Boulton, W. R., & Carland, J. A. (1984). Differentiating entrepre-
neurs from small business owners: A conceptualization. Academy of Management
Review, 9, 354-359.
Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. C. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 52, 281-302.
Elron, E. (1997). Top management teams within multinational corporations: Effects of cul-
tural heterogeneity. Leadership Quarterly, 8, 393-413.
Ensley, M. D., Pearson, A. W., & Amason, A. C. (2000). Understanding the Dynamics of
the new venture top management team: Conflict, cohesion, and new venture perform-
ance. Journal of Business Venturing, 17, 365-386.
Ensley, M. D.. & Amason, A. C. (1999) Entrepreneurial team heterogeneity and the moder-
ating effects of environmental volatility and team tenure on new venture performance. In
W. D. Bygrave, S. Manigart, C. M. Mason, G. D. Meyer, H. A. Sapienza, & K. G.
Shaver (Eds.), Frontiers of entrepreneurship research (pp. 111-118). Babson Park, MA:
Babson College.
Gladstein, D. L. (1984). A model of task group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quar-
terly, 29, 499-517.
Guetzkow, H., & Gyr, J. (1954). An analysis of conflict in decision-making groups. Human
Relations, 7, 367-381.
Hare, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1992). Multivariate data analy-
sis. New York: Sage.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonalrelations.NewYork: Wiley.
Hickson, D. J., Butler, R. J., Cray, D., Mallory, G. R., & Wilson, D. C. (1986). Top deci-
sions: Strategic decision-making in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hinkin, T. R. (1995). A review of the scale development practices in the study of organiza-
tions. Journal of Management, 21, 967-988.
Jackson, S. E. (1992). Consequences of group composition for the interpersonal dynamics of
strategic issue processing. In P. Shrivastava, A. Huff, & J. Dutton (Eds.), Advances in
strategic management (pp. 345-382). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
James, L. R., Demarce, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1993). rwg: An assessment of within group
interrater agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 306-309.

The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 13, No. 2, 2002

 A. W. PEARSON, M. D. ENSLEY, AND A. C. AMASON 125

Janssen, O., Van De Vliert, E., & Veenstra, C. (1999). How task and person conflict shape
the role of positive interdependence in management teams. Journal of Management, 25,
117-142.
Jehn, K. A. (1992). The impact of intragroup conflict on effectiveness: A multimethod
examination of the benefits and detriments of conflict. Unpublished doctoral disserta­
tion, Northwestern University.
Jehn, K. A. (1994). Enhancing effectiveness: An investigation of advantages and disadvan­
tages of value based intragroup conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management,
5, 223-238.
Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup
conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 256-282.
Jehn, K. A. (1997). A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational
groups. Administrative Science Quartedy, 42, 530-557.
Jehn, K. A. (1999). Why differences make a difference: A field study of diversity, conflict,
and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44 (4), 741-764.
Jehn, K. A., Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. (1999). Why differences make a difference:
A field study of diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups. Administrative Sci-
ence Quarterly, 44, 741-764.
Kamm, J. B., Shuman, J. C , Seeger, J. A., & Nurick, A. J. (1990). Entrepreneurial teams in
new venture creation: A research agenda. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 14 (4),
7-17.
Loehlin, J. C. (1992). Latent variable models. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Naumann, S. E., & Bennett, N. (2000). A case for procedural justice climate: Development
and test of a multilevel model. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 881-880.
Newcomb, T. M. (1961). The acquaintance process. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and
Winston.
Pelled, L. H. (1996). Demographic diversity, conflict, and work group outcomes: An inter­
vening process theory. Organization Science, 17, 615-631.
Pelled, L. H., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Xin, K. R. (1999). Exploring the black box: An analysis
of work group diversity, conflict and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly,
44, 1-29.
Pinkley, R. (1990). Dimensions of conflict frame: Disputant interpretations of conflict. Jour-
nal of Applied Psychology, 75, 117-126.
Price, J. L., & Mueller, C. W. (1986). Handbook of organizational measurement. Marsh-
field, MA: Pittman.
Priem, R., & Price, K. (1991). Process and outcome expectations for the dialectical inquiry,
devil's advocacy, and consensus techniques of strategic decision making. Group and
Organization Studies, 16, 206-225.
Roure, J. B., & Maidique, M. A. (1986). Linking prefunding factors and high-technology
venture success: An exploratory study. Journal of Business Venturing, 1, 295-306.
Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 63, 650-653.
Schwab, D. P. (1980). Construct validation in organization behavior. In B. M. Staw & L. L.
Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 3-43). Greenwich,
CT: JAI Press.
Schweiger, D. M., Sandberg, W. R., & Ragan, J. W. (1986). Group approaches for improv­
ing strategic decision making: A comparative analysis of dialectical inquiry, devil's
advocacy and consensus approaches to strategic decision making. Academy of
Management Journal, 32, 745-772.

The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 13, No. 2, 2002

126 INTRAGROUP CONFLICT

Schweiger, D. M., Sandberg, W. R., & Rechner, P. L. (1989). Experiential effects of dialec­
tical inquiry, devil's advocacy, and consensus approaches to strategic decision making.
Academy of Management Journal, 32, 745-772.
Simons, T., & Peterson, R. (1999). Task conflict and relationship conflict in top manage­
ment teams: The pivotal role of intragroup trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85,
102-111.
Stewart, W. H., Jr., Watson, W. E., Carland, J. C , & Carland, J. W., Jr. (1999). A proclivity
for entrepreneurship: A comparison of entrepreneurs, small business owners, and corpo­
rate managers. Journal of Business Venturing 14 (2), 189-214.
Wall, V., & Nolan, L. N. (1986). Perceptions of inequity, satisfaction, and conflict in task
oriented groups. Human Relations, 39, 1033-1052.
Wooldridge, B., & Floyd, S. W. (1990). The strategy process, middle management involve­
ment and organizational performance. Strategic Management Journal, 11, 231-241.

Biographical Note
Allison W. Pearson
College of Business and Industry
Mississippi State University
P.O. Box 9681
Mississippi State, MS 39762
Phone/Fax: 662-325-7015//8651
Email: apearson@cobilan.msstate.edu
Dr. Pearson is an Associate Professor of Management in the College of Business and
Industry at Mississippi State University. She received her Ph.D. from Auburn University.
Her research is primarily focused on group behavior in the workplace, individual
dispositions, and research methods.
Michael D. Ensley holds a DBA from Mississippi State University and is an Assistant
Professor of Entrepreneurship at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, where he is
the Director of the Entrepreneurship Program. His research interests include new venture top
management teams and new venture strategy. (mdensley@email.uncc.edu)
Allen C Amason is an Associate Professor of Strategic Management in the Terry College of
Business, at the University of Georgia. He earned his Ph.D. from the University of South
Carolina. Dr. Amason's research focuses on top management teams and strategic decision
making processes. (aamason@terry.uga.edu)
Received: May 10, 2002
Accepted by Afzal Rahim after two revisions: October 25, 2002
♥

The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 13, No. 2, 2002