team work 3

� $IBQUFS��� t� .BOBHJOH�5FBN�$POGMJDU 205

CONFLICT STATES VS. CONFLICT PROCESSES

Conflict states are distinguishable from conflict processes.47 Conflict states are shared perceptions among members of the team about the intensity of disagreement about either tasks (i.e., goals, ideas, and performance strategies) or relationships (i.e. personality clashes, interpersonal styles). Conversely, conflict processes are members’ interactions aimed at working through task and interpersonal disagreements. Most notably, states and processes affect team outcomes, but the processes teams use to manage their differences explain more variance in outcomes. In terms of key processes, collectivistic conflict pro- cess (i.e., concern for the team as a whole) is positively related to better performance and more positive affective outcomes. Conversely, individualistic processes (i.e., concern for individuals) are negatively related to both performance and affective team outcomes.48

CONFLICT CONTAGION

Conflict contagion refers to how interpersonal, dyadic conflict can spread to others. Conflict contagion can lead to conflict escalation.49

DISTRIBUTIVE VS. PROCEDURAL CONFLICT

Sometimes, people engage in conflict about the distribution of scarce resources, such as salaries and support staff. In other instances, people are involved in conflict con- cerning procedures. People often become so preoccupied with concerns about dis- tributive and procedural fairness that they monitor others and gather and process information in their organization. For example, employees who regard their organi- zation to be market-focused tend to gather information about distributive fairness; conversely, employees who regard their organization to be bureaucratic tend to gather information about procedural justice.50 Prospective group members use procedural allocation criteria as one basis for choosing groups and show a strong preference for equality-based groups.51

EQUITY, EQUALITY AND NEED

There are at least three different ways of allocating scarce resources. The equity method (or contribution-based distribution) prescribes that benefits (and costs) should be pro- portional to team members’ contributions.52 The equality method (or blind justice)

47DeChurch, L. A., Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., & Doty, D. (2013). Moving beyond relationship and task conflict: Toward a process-state perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(4), 559. 48Ibid. 49Jehn, K., Rispens, S., Jonsen, K., & Greer, L. (2013). Conflict contagion: A temporal perspective on the development of conflict within teams. International Journal of Conflict Management, 24(4), 352–373. 50Long, C. P., Bendersky, C., & Morrill, C. (2011). Fairness monitoring: Linking managerial controls and fairness judgments in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 54(5), 1045–1068. 51Poepsel, D. L., & Schroeder, D. A. (2013). Joining groups: How resources are to be divided matters. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 17(3), 180. 52Adams, S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267–299). New York: Academic Press.

M08_THOM4204_06_SE_C08.indd 205 10/25/16 3:09 PM