LIT REVIEW

Conflict management and performance of information

technology development teams Dmitriy Nesterkin

D# Media, Baltimore, Maryland, USA, and

Tobin Porterfield Department of eBusiness and Technology Mgmt,

Towson University, College of Business and Economics, Towson, Maryland, USA

Abstract Purpose – This research aims to investigate how team support and cohesion channel the effects of relationship conflict and its management on team productivity. Design/methodology/approach – Questionnaire data were sampled from students working in groups to design software systems for companies. Structural equation methodology was used to estimate the proposed model. Findings – The results indicate that the mediators (team support and cohesion) positively affect each other and team performance. The results support that the effects of conflict and conflict management on team performance are mediated by team support first and then indirectly through team cohesion. Research limitations/implications – This paper empirically establishes the mechanisms through which conflict and its management affect team performance. The following limitations should be considered when generalizing the results of the study: team-level phenomena were assessed using perceived measures of individual team members and an academic setting was used for data collection. Practical implications – The findings indicate that team support plays an important role in protecting the team from the negative effects of conflict and that team support contributes to the development of team cohesion. Originality/value – This work is one of the first to evaluate the mechanisms of team support and cohesion through which team conflict and its management affect team performance.

Keywords Relationship conflict, Team performance, Team management, Conflict management, Team cohesion

Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction The extensive use of teams in the workplace has stimulated great interest from researchers and practitioners (Hempel et al., 2009; Kirchmeyer and Cohen, 1992; Tekleab et al., 2009; Tjosvold et al., 2003). The interactions of individuals within teams have brought relational conflict and task conflict to the forefront as the focus of several studies (De Dreu and Weingart, 2003; Huang, 2010; Simons and Peterson, 2000). Relationship conflict results from differences in individuals and how they interact with other team members (Choi and Sy, 2010; Jehn et al., 1999). Task conflict emerges from disagreements on how the team completes its work (Ward et al., 2007; De Dreu and Weingart, 2003). While the literature consistently identifies relational conflict as being

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/1352-7592.htm

TPM 22,5/6

242

Received 2 May 2016 Revised 8 June 2016 Accepted 8 June 2016

Team Performance Management Vol. 22 No. 5/6, 2016 pp. 242-256 © Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1352-7592 DOI 10.1108/TPM-05-2016-0018

detrimental to team performance (Behfar et al., 2008; Somech et al., 2009; Tekleab et al., 2009; Tjosvold et al., 2003), task conflict varies in how it affects performance depending on contextual factors.

The management of conflict, generally defined as the extent to which team members engage in actions aimed at diffusing team strife, is distinct from the conflict itself. Effective conflict management has been shown to enhance team performance (Behfar et al., 2008; Somech et al., 2009; Tekleab et al., 2009; Tjosvold et al., 2003).

While extant research has addressed how relationship conflict and conflict management affect team performance, minimal research addresses the mechanisms through which they operate. Even the more established individual-level conflict literature has only recently begun examining how relationship conflict affects performance (Lau and Cobb, 2010). This study focuses on the relationship conflict and seeks to evaluate two of those mechanisms applied in the less-studied context of IT development teams (Lee et al., 2014). This study addresses the research gap by theoretically establishing and empirically testing the mediating role that team support and team cohesion play in mediating the effect of relationship conflict and conflict management on IT team performance.

2. Background and research model Teams are formed to achieve a level of performance that is often impossible for individuals. Team productivity is thus a coordinated and cumulative combination of team members’ actions toward a common goal. Successful teamwork requires that team members develop and hold a common identity and function as a unit (Van Der Vegt and Bunderson, 2005). Establishing a social identity with a team means recognizing oneself as an inseparable part of the collective and deriving certain emotions of value and importance because of that membership (Tajfel, 1972). By seeing self as part of a group, the individual starts to see themselves containing the prominent attributes of a focal team (Hogg and Terry, 2000). One’s motivations and goals then become closely intertwined with the motivations and goals of the group and team’s achievements and missteps are seen as personal successes and failures (Ashforth and Mael, 1989). Because doing well by a team is seen as doing well by oneself, teams with an established identity are more likely to build efficient productivity-supporting intra-team processes such as task coordination, communication and information exchange (Stewart and Barrick, 2000). Members of such teams are also likely to possess a generally positive attitude toward their peers. Thus, the main premise of this study is that the attainment and sustainment of team productivity depends on both facilitating and attitudinal factors. In this work, the factors are represented by the constructs of team support and team cohesion.

The focus on these concepts is deliberate. Team support represents the availability of general helping behaviors of team members toward one another. The construct is conceptualized as a synergistic interaction process (Drach-Zahavy, 2004), without which group productivity is likely to be reduced or undermined completely. Team cohesion is a complementary affect-based construct that represents team members’ feelings of belongingness or attraction to the group and indicates team members’ attitudes toward the team and toward one another (Bollen and Hoyle, 1990). Essentially, one may view a group as embodying multidirectional assembly line-like processes which require both the supportive behaviors (as the exchange of resources and

243

Information technology

development teams

information) and cohesion (to “grease” the assembly line wheels) to attain the best performance (LePine et al., 2008). The optimal manifestations of team support and cohesion, and, subsequently, team performance are posited here as reflective of the extent to which team members see and characterize themselves as deeply congruent with their group.

2.1 Team relationship conflict, identity and performance The main claim of this research is that relationship conflict – defined as strife such as differences over values, norms and attitudes (Lau and Cobb, 2010, p. 900) – reduces or eliminates identification an individual has or could have with his or her group. The undermining of the individuals’ sense of oneness with a team is likely to diminish the intra-team-enabling supportive processes (i.e. team support) and is also likely to diminish a generally benevolent attitude that team-identified members feel toward each other (i.e. team cohesion). The reduction in team support and cohesion destabilizes team performance.

According to social identity theory, groups emerge and exist because of individuals’ cornerstone needs of self-esteem enhancement and uncertainty avoidance (Hogg, 2001). One feels high self-esteem when a team to which an individual belongs acquires and keeps a positive differentiation when compared with other teams. That is, being part of a seemingly successful team makes an individual feel good. So long as that group’s differentiation is maintained and is supportive of one’s esteem, an individual is likely to remain a part of the collective. On the other hand, when a group’s positive differentiation is reduced, a group member may physically and/or psychologically dissolve his or her membership in that group (Hogg and Terry, 2000).

Identity with a group is also driven by a need to reduce one’s uncertainty about one’s self-concept and belonging in chaotic social surroundings (Hogg and Terry, 2000). Social structures reduce awareness of uncertainty by allowing individuals to access a common pool of information and understanding shared by the social structure. This shared mental model is called a prototype (Hogg et al., 1995). The prototype holds all chief attributes (e.g. feelings, beliefs and actions) that characterize a group and differentiate it from other collectives. Subjective uncertainty is thus diminished because perceptions, feelings and behaviors are based upon knowledge and understanding that is consensually supported by the entire group. Put differently, by being a part of a social structure, a person reduces the mental and affective burdens of adaptation to an uncertain environment by using already-prescribed and cumulatively validated attitudes and actions (Hogg and Terry, 2000).

When relationship conflict occurs, it is likely to reduce team identity, thereby disrupting supportive processes and generally favorable attitudes (supported by that identification) via a reduction of team members’ self-esteem and amplification of the environmental uncertainty that group members may sense. A key characteristic of relationship conflict is negative feelings manifested as insults, avoidance of commitment and negative evaluation of the actions of others (Bodtker and Jameson, 2001; Simons and Peterson, 2000). Relationship conflict, by raising tensions and negative differences, thus impairs the perception of the team’s positive differentiation, and thus vitiates the esteem one feels from being a team member. As a group member’s self-esteem falters, the individual is likely to withdraw from the team, thereby disengaging from supportive intra-team processes and short-circuiting the feelings of belongingness and being in cohesion with the team.

TPM 22,5/6

244

Additionally, when relationship conflict enhances negative differences within a team, the conflict is likely to compromise the shared collective knowledge and understanding, thus amplifying uncertainty that each member may sense. Persons are generally risk- and loss-averse (Thaler and Sunstein, 2008). Social structures with higher levels of perceived chaos are likely to be avoided. Therefore, relationship conflict, by increasing the subjective tumult that team members perceive in their environment, may cause team members to withdraw from their group and from productivity-central processes of team support and to withdraw their feelings of being cohesive with their peers:

H1. Team relationship conflict is negatively related to team support.

H2. Team relationship conflict is negatively related to team cohesion.

Relationship conflict disrupts productivity by undermining a group’s assembly line by short-circuiting supporting processes and causing team members to lose feelings of belonging with their peers. Successful team support and cohesion are thus prerequisite to the timely and distributed amalgamation of each of the group member’s contributions to the final product. The question is whether conflict can influence productivity directly beyond its effects on support and cohesion. Relationship conflict is seen here as distal, and is important to the study of group performance insofar as it is an undermining influence – a disruptor – that can impact team performance by producing stress, negativity and lack of unity (De Dreu and Weingart, 2003). This deflates the team’s identity and promotes alienation among group peers, thereby slowing down the production processes by which individual contributions are combined. From a different perspective, as relationship conflict burns time and energy, the time and energy available for supportive and cohesive actions decrease. Complete withdrawal of support and complete lack of cohesion would lead to zero individual productivity, thereby precluding any gains in team performance (LePine et al., 2008). This suggests that any level of relationship conflict on performance would have to be first fully carried by team support and cohesion. Therefore, the effect of relationship conflict on team productivity is likely to be fully mediated through team support and cohesion:

H3. The effect of team relationship conflict on team performance is fully channeled through team support and cohesion.

2.2 Team conflict management, identity and performance Conflict management is a principal driver of team performance (Alper et al., 2000; Jehn and Bendersky, 2003; Montoya-Weiss et al., 2001). The existing literature has clearly established that the processes of conflict management buffer the detrimental effect of all types of conflict by supporting work effectiveness, resource usage efficiency and procedural justice (Behfar et al., 2008). Conflict management research primarily studies behavioral interventions such as compromising, avoiding, accommodating, competing, problem-solving and cooperating actions and their impact in defusing conflict (Behfar et al., 2008; Cropanzano et al., 1999; Folger et al., 2001). This work does not strive to differentiate between various conflict management behavioral patterns and their impacts. Instead, conflict management is defined generally as the extent to which group peers act to reduce tensions.

The goal of this study is to understand how broad conflict management actions influence team performance. Drawing on social identity theory (Ashforth and Mael,

245

Information technology

development teams

1989), conflict management practices are likely to fix conflict-undermined identity by pulling group members into interactions that block conflict and once again restore the positive differentiation of the team, thereby inflating the esteem that individuals obtain through group membership (Stets and Burke, 2000). This enhances the perception of oneness with the team and the division between group peers is likely to disappear. When a person resumes seeing others in the same light as himself or herself, the number of actions done on behalf of others (i.e. group) is likely to rise. Subsequently, the conflict-damaged team support and cohesion are likely to become restored. Conflict management may also repair the team prototype. In the process of actively addressing a conflict, a team is likely to amplify the sameness within and attenuate any conflict-arisen distinctions. This is likely to strengthen the shared mental models that the group individuals can then use to conduct themselves with more certainty in a chaotic social context. By repairing the team’s prototype, conflict management is likely to increase the importance of team membership that brings with it a collection of heuristics that reduce mental and affective work, thereby reducing perceived environmental complexity. In an environment with lower perceived chaos, the team productivity increases through the freeing of time and energy to be supportive and well-meaning toward other team members:

H4. Team conflict management is positively related to team support.

H5. Team conflict management is positively related to team cohesion.

How would the effect of conflict management on productivity be channeled? Would it be direct, beyond its effects through team support and cohesion? Or, would the effect of conflict management be fully transferred through the mediators? Conflict management comes into play in repairing relational team dynamics when conflict occurs. Conflict management, similar to relationship conflict, is thus a remote influence and is connected to team productivity in restoring team interactions and positive attitudes by repairing team identification. Therefore, the effect of conflict management on team performance is expected to be fully directed through team support and cohesion:

H6. The effect of team conflict management on team performance is fully channeled through team support and cohesion.

2.3 Team support, cohesion and performance The direct positive effects of team support and cohesion on performance are well documented (Beal et al., 2003; Tekleab et al., 2009; Drach-Zahavy and Somech, 2002). However, little is known about the influences that support and cohesion may exert on each other. The connection between team support and cohesion can be enlightened via Tuckman’s (1965) developmental model. That is, team cohesion, as a structural attribute, begins to emerge in the latter stages of group development and is preceded by team members’ commitment to working together (Guzzo, 1995; Yukelson et al., 1984). Therefore, the expectation here is for team support – a collaborative process that is likely to emerge first – to directly and positively influence team cohesion. On the other hand, team cohesion, once established or beginning to be established, as a unifying force, is likely to positively influence the propensity of team members to behave in the interests of one another. Therefore, both team support and cohesion are expected to positively influence each other. However, because support is viewed as a more salient factor, its effect on cohesion is expected to be stronger than the effect of cohesion on team support.

TPM 22,5/6

246

Because support and cohesion are expected to directly affect each other and team performance, the effect of support on performance is also expected to be partially mediated through team cohesion. The resulting effect of cohesion on performance is also expected to be partially mediated through team support:

H7. Team support is positively related to team cohesion.

H8. Team cohesion is positively related to team support.

H9. Team support will have a stronger impact on team cohesion than team cohesion will have on team support.

H10. The effect of team support on team performance is partially mediated through team cohesion.

H11. The effect of team cohesion on team performance is partially mediated through team support.

2.4 Complete model The previous theoretical development implies a multi-stage mediation from the antecedents to the dependent variable. The effect of relationship conflict on performance, channeled through team support and cohesion, is expected to be partially mediated with the effect team support has on cohesion and through the effect cohesion has on team support. Likewise, the effect of conflict management on performance, channeled through team support and cohesion, is also expected to be partially mediated through the effect team support has on cohesion and the effect cohesion has on team support:

H12. The effect of team relationship conflict on team performance, through team support, is partially mediated through the effect of team support on team cohesion.

H13. The effect of team relationship conflict on team performance, through team cohesion, is partially mediated through the effect of team cohesion on team support.

H14. The effect of team conflict management on team performance, through team support, is partially mediated through the effect of team support on team cohesion.

H15. The effect of team conflict management on team performance, through team cohesion, is partially mediated through the effect of team cohesion on team support.

3. Methodology 3.1 Sample and survey procedures Study participants were undergraduate students from all business academic majors enrolled in the core technology course at a major university in the northeast USA. The average team size was four and teams remained intact throughout the 15-week semester. The teams collaborated on computer system design projects for industry clients which allowed them to use similar procedures and face challenges similar to teams in a professional environment. The use of an academic setting is consistent with similar team research where the environment can be controlled (Piccoli et al., 2004).

247

Information technology

development teams

Questionnaires were administered at the end of the course as part of the team project assessment and were collected from 100 per cent of the students (n � 352). Further, 23 observations were removed because of missing values and 5 were removed because of multivariate outliers resulting in a final sample size of 324.

3.2 Measures Relationship conflict was operationalized using four items adapted from Jehn (1995). Conflict management was operationalized using three items developed for this study based on the extent to which team members engaged in activities aimed at diffusing team strife. Team support was operationalized as the extent to which team members helped, supported and encouraged each other and was assessed using three items adapted from Drach-Zahavy and Somech (2002). Team cohesion was operationalized as the extent to which the focal team completed tasks better than prior teams and was assessed using three items developed for this study. Performance was operationalized as the extent to which a team was effective and was assessed using three items adapted from Jehn et al. (1999). Responses used seven-point Likert scales anchored by strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (7). The face validity and the content validity of the conflict management and cohesion items were assessed by several subject-matter experts to ensure items completeness, accuracy and clarity.

4. Results 4.1 Measurement model Using PROC CALIS of SAS, confirmatory factor analysis was performed to assess the five-factor measurement model (Table I). The model fit the data well: �2(68) � 136.84, �2/df � 2.01, Tucker–Lewis fit index (TLI; also called the non-normed fit index, or NNFI) � 0.9806, comparative fit index (CFI) � 0.9855, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) � 0.0585, probability of close fit (PCLOSE) � 0.1562 and goodness-of-fit index (GFI) � 0.9398.

Cronbach’s coefficient alpha (Cronbach, 1951), composite reliability and average variance extracted (AVE) indices (Fornell and Larcker, 1981) were computed for all constructs. All coefficient alpha measures were above the recommended threshold of 0.8 (Nunnally, 1993). Composite reliability measures were above the recommended threshold of 0.7 (Hair et al., 1998). Additionally, all AVE measures were above the recommended threshold of 0.5 (Bagozzi, 1991) (Table II). Convergent validity was demonstrated with all standardized item loadings being greater than 0.7 and the squared multiple correlation between each item and its respective latent variable exceeding 0.5.

Chi-square difference and AVE tests were used to establish discriminant validity (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988; Hatcher, 1994). The chi-square difference tests fully support discriminant validity of all constructs, discriminant validity is demonstrated if the chi-square value is significantly lower for the model where the factors are unconstrained. The more stringent AVE approach affirmed discriminate validity for all constructs except team support and team performance (Table II). Specifically, the squared correlation between team support and team performance of 0.757 exceeded the AVE of 0.71 for team support. However, this squared correlation was less than the AVE of 0.78 for team performance and given the stringency of the AVE test the discriminant validity for team support and team performance was deemed marginally satisfied.

TPM 22,5/6

248

To determine whether a common method variance is a significant influence, all indicators, in the context of confirmatory factor analysis, were loaded on a single factor (Podsakoff et al., 2003; Podsakoff and Organ, 1986; for example, see Mossholder et al., 1998). The model did not fit the data well: �2(77) � 3,448.4816, �2/df � 44.7855,

Table I. Confirmatory factor

analysis results

Item Loadings

Relationship conflict There was a lot of tension in our team 0.94 The majority of team members seemed upset working in our team 0.98 There was a great deal of emotional conflict in our team 0.98

Conflict management When we had disagreements, we tried to resolve them 0.85 My team managed conflicts effectively 0.94 Most of our team conflicts were successfully resolved 0.88

Team support Members in my team often supported each other in tasks 0.95 Members of my team often encouraged each other in the face of difficulties 0.97 Members in my team helped keep each other motivated 0.90

Team cohesion My team worked together better than most teams on which I have worked 0.96 My teammates and I helped each other better than most other teams on which I have worked 0.95

Team performance I think my team did great on the project 0.98 I think my team was very effective 0.93 My team got things done quickly 0.84

Notes: �2(68) � 136.84; �2/df � 2.01; NNFI � 0.9806; CFI � 0.9855; RMSEA � 0.0585; PCLOSE � 0.1562; GFI � 0.9398

Table II. Descriptive statistics, reliability indices and

correlations

Construct M SD � CR 1 2 3 4 5

1. Relationship conflict 1.63 1.00 0.98 0.97 (0.93) –0.05 –0.23*** –0.19*** –0.21*** 2. Conflict management 5.27 1.27 0.92 0.86 –0.04 (0.67) 0.62*** 0.40*** 0.54*** 3. Team support 5.64 1.08 0.91 0.88 –0.24*** 0.68*** (0.71) 0.74*** 0.77*** 4. Team cohesion 5.28 1.36 0.95 0.92 –0.20*** 0.44*** 0.83*** (0.85)*** 0.69*** 5. Team performance 5.89 1.14 0.94 0.92 –0.24*** 0.58*** 0.87*** 0.75*** (0.78)

Notes: Average variance extracted (AVE) values are in parentheses on the diagonal; correlation coefficients below the diagonal were computed using factors scores; correlation coefficients above the diagonal were computed using raw data; M�mean; SD�standard deviation; ��Cronbach’s coefficient alpha; CR�composite reliability; *** p � 0.001 (two-tailed)

249

Information technology

development teams

NNFI � 0.162, CFI � 0.291, RMSEA � 0.3846, PCLOSE � 0.0000 and GFI � 0.2475, suggesting a negligible effect of a common method variance.

4.2 Hypothesized structural model The hypothesized model was tested using the PROC CALIS structural equation modeling module of SAS. The estimated model explained 71.24 per cent of the variance in performance, 68.43 per cent of the variance in team support and 59.88 per cent of the variance in team cohesion. The model fit the data well: �2(67) � 136.84, �2/df � 2.04, NNFI � 0.9801, CFI � 0.9853, RMSEA � 0.0593, PCLOSE � 0.1348 and GFI � 0.9398. According to Bagozzi (1980), standardized path coefficients are stable in comparing relative contributions of factors to explained variance and are therefore reported in Figure 1.

4.3 Direct effects Supporting H1, relationship conflict was negatively related to team support (� � �0.154, p � 0.001). Supporting H4, conflict management was positively related to team support (� � 0.509, p � 0.001). Team support (� � 0.613, p � 0.001) was positively related to team cohesion and team cohesion was positively related to team support (� � 0.24, p � 0.001), supporting H7 and H8. H9 was also supported, with the results showing a stronger influence of support on team cohesion than vice versa. H2 and H5 were not supported with relationship conflict and conflict management having no direct effect on team cohesion (� � �0.049, p � 0.225 and � � 0.019, p � 0.613, respectively).

4.4 Indirect effects Indirect standardized path coefficients were computed by multiplying the respective standardized direct path coefficients, and significance testing was performed using the Sobel (1987) test. H3 proposes that the effect of relationship conflict on performance is fully mediated through team support and team cohesion.

A non-significant direct effect between relationship conflict and team cohesion (see H2) precludes support for full mediation through team support and team cohesion.

0.067

– 0.047

R2 =0.7124

R2 =0.5988

R2 =0.6843

0.316***

0.172*

0.648***

0.613***

0.019

0.509***

– 0.049

– 0.154***

Team Relationship Conflict

Team Conflict Management

Team Support

Team Cohesion

Team Performance

Notes: * p < 0.05; *** p < 0.001; dashed paths are non-significant; fit indices = χ2(67) = 136.84; χ2/df = 2.04; NNFI = 0.9801; CFI = 0.9853; RMSEA = 0.0593; PCLOSE = 0.1348; GFI = 0.9398

Figure 1. Theoretical model with standardized path coefficients

TPM 22,5/6

250

Instead, given a non-significant direct path between relationship conflict and performance (� � �0.047, p � 0.202), the only fully mediated effect of relationship conflict on performance was through team support (� � �0.10, p � 0.001), partially supporting H3. H6 proposes that the effect of conflict management on performance is fully mediated through team support and team cohesion. A non-significant direct effect between conflict management and team cohesion (see H5) precludes support for full mediation through team support and team cohesion. Instead, given a non-significant direct path between conflict management and performance (� � 0.067, p � 0.209), the only fully mediated effect of conflict management on performance was through team support (� � 0.33, p � 0.001), partially supporting H6.

H10 posits that the effect of team support on performance is partially mediated through team cohesion. A significant direct effect of team support on performance (see H7) and a significant indirect path between team support and performance, through team cohesion (� � 0.105, p � 0.05), lend support to H10. H11 proposes that the effect of team cohesion on performance is partially mediated through team support. A significant direct effect of team cohesion on performance (see H8) and a significant indirect path between team cohesion and performance, through team support (� � 0.205, p � 0.001), demonstrate support for H11.

H12 through H15 posit the effects of relationship conflict and conflict management on performance are partially mediated through the effect of team support on team cohesion and through the effect of team cohesion on team support. Support for H12 is identified by the significant indirect path between relationship conflict and performance, through the effect of team support on team cohesion (� � �0.016, p � 0.05). A significant indirect path between conflict management and performance, through the effect of team support on team cohesion (� � 0.054, p � 0.05), provides support for H14. Neither relationship conflict nor conflict management had significant direct effects on team cohesion (see H2 and H5), precluding support for H13 and H15 (Table III).

5. Discussion 5.1 Contributions to theory This study is one of the first that examines how relationship conflict and its management affect performance (Tekleab et al., 2009). The study confirmed (as already established in the literature) a direct positive effect of team support and team cohesion on performance. The effects of relationship conflict and conflict management on team support, previously unexplored in the literature, were also examined. As expected, relationship conflict undermined team support and conflict management enhanced team support. The relationship between the two mediators, team support and team cohesion, was unexplored in the literature. This study purports and empirically establishes the positive and stronger effect of team support on team cohesion and the positive but weaker effect of team cohesion on team support. The results are intuitive, in that intra-team supportive behaviors are prerequisite to the establishment of team cohesion. Yet, team cohesion, once emerged or emerging, as a force of unity, positively influences the propensity of team members to help one another.

The unexpected findings in the study are the non-significant effects of relationship conflict and conflict management on team cohesion. These results are surprising given the existing literature that established a direct negative relationship between relationship conflict and team cohesion and a direct positive

251

Information technology

development teams

relationship between conflict management and team cohesion (Tekleab et al., 2009). This “anomaly” is likely because of contextual factors and, surprisingly, it appears to support the theorizing presented in the previous sections. Specifically, the position of this study is that team work is a necessary condition for the emergence of team cohesion. When team members are committed to working with each other it creates a foundation for the formation of unity. Team cohesion, however, as a structural property of a team, takes time to develop.

This study focused on teams that worked together for about three months. Hence, there is a strong effect of relationship conflict and conflict management on team support and no effect on team cohesion. Additionally, the effect of team support on team cohesion is much stronger than the effect of team cohesion on team support. This suggests that early in a team’s development, team support processes are the drivers of team cohesion formation. Hence, when conflict occurs, it undermines team cohesion by slowing or shutting down the very mechanisms necessary to bring cohesion to “maturity”. The expectation, then, is for the links between relationship conflict and team

Table III. Research hypotheses

Hypothesis Description Supported

1 Team relationship conflict is negatively related to team support Yes 2 Team relationship conflict is negatively related to team

cohesion No

3 The effect of team relationship conflict on team performance is fully mediated through team support and team cohesion

No

4 Team conflict management is positively related to team support

Yes

5 Team conflict management is positively related to team cohesion

No

6 The effect of team conflict management on team performance is fully mediated through team support and team cohesion

No

7 Team support is positively related to team cohesion Yes 8 Team cohesion is positively related to team support Yes 9 Team support will have a stronger impact on team cohesion

than team cohesion will have on team support Yes

10 The effect of team support on team performance is partially mediated through team cohesion

Yes

11 The effect of team cohesion on team performance is partially mediated through team support

Yes

12 The effect of team relationship conflict on team performance, through team support, is partially mediated through the effect of team support on team cohesion

Yes

13 The effect of team relationship conflict on team performance, through team cohesion, is partially mediated through the effect of team cohesion on team support

No

14 The effect of team conflict management on team performance, through team support, is partially mediated through the effect of team support on team cohesion

Yes

15 The effect of team conflict management on team performance, through team cohesion, is partially mediated through the effect of team cohesion on team support

No

TPM 22,5/6

252

cohesion and conflict management and team cohesion to become more salient in more established teams. Of course, it is possible, even in mature teams, for the effects of relationship conflict and conflict management on team cohesion to still be fully mediated through team support and other processes. That is, team cohesion as a positive team-level attribute emerges from and is likely to be sustained by the ongoing functioning of synergistic intra-team processes such as team support. As such, even in mature teams, when the synergistic processes are shut down, the cohesion may also diminish.

Lastly, the primary focus of this study was identifying mechanisms which connect relationship conflict and conflict management to team performance. The results demonstrate strong support for the full mediation model where the total effects of relationship conflict and conflict management on performance were mediated through team support first and then indirectly through team cohesion. These findings are intuitive, in that helping behaviors within a team and the cohesion that they nurture are proximal and necessary conditions for team performance. When conflict or its management is activated their operation is either disruption or repair of the team mechanisms and, consequently, team attributes that drive team performance.

5.2 Limitations Three limitations of this study should be considered before generalizing the results. First, this study uses the perceptions of individual team members to assess team-level phenomena. To ensure that the results were applicable to team-level theory, all team-level constructs’ items were framed with team as the referent.

Second, constructs in structural equation models with only two indicators are often associated with problems in identification and convergence. The models in this study did not exhibit any problems with identification nor convergence.

Third, the sample was gathered in an academic setting. While the demographics of undergraduates may differ from a traditional work setting, the academic context afforded advantages that aid generalizability of the results. Data were collected from several sections of a course taken by all business majors, the sample equally represented males and females, students worked on an industry project rather than an academic case and the 15-week semester provided time for team dynamics to be experienced.

6. Conclusion This study examined the mediating role of two specific team mechanisms, team support and team cohesion. These intra-team mechanisms are shown to mediate the effect of relationship conflict and conflict management on team performance. The results support a full mediation model in which relationship conflict and conflict management are mediated first through team support and then from team support indirectly through team cohesion before affecting performance. Additionally, the mediators, team support and team cohesion, are found to interact with each other, whereby team members who support each other create a more cohesive team and team members who are unified offer more support to one another.

253

Information technology

development teams

References Alper, S., Tjosvold, D. and Law, K.S. (2000), “Conflict management, efficacy, and performance in

organizational teams”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 625-642. Anderson, R.E. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and

recommended two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-423. Ashforth, B.E. and Mael, F. (1989), “Social identity theory and the organization”, Academy of

Management Review, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 20-39. Bagozzi, R.P. (1980), Causal Modeling in Marketing, Wiley, New York, NY. Bagozzi, R.P. (1991), “Further thoughts on the validity of measures of elation, gladness and joy”,

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 61 No. 1, pp. 98-104. Beal, D.J., Cohen, R.R., Burke, M.J. and McLendon, C.L. (2003), “Cohesion and performance in

groups: a meta-analytic clarification of construction relations”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 6, pp. 989-1004.

Behfar, K.J., Peterson, R.S., Mannix, E.A. and Trochim, W.M.K. (2008), “The critical role of conflict resolution in teams: a close look at the links between conflict type, conflict management strategies and team outcomes”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 93 No. 1, pp. 170-188.

Bodtker, A.M. and Jameson, J.K. (2001), “Emotion in conflict formation and its transformation: application to organizational conflict management”, International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 259-275.

Bollen, K.A. and Hoyle, R.H. (1990), “Perceived cohesion: a conceptual and empirical examination”, Social Forces, Vol. 69 No. 2, pp. 479-504.

Choi, J.N. and Sy, T. (2010), “Group-level organizational citizenship behavior: effects of demographic faultlines and conflict in small work groups”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 31 No. 7, pp. 1032-1054.

Cronbach, L.J. (1951), “Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests”, Psychometrika, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 297-334.

Cropanzano, R., Aguinis, H., Schminke, M. and Denham, D.L. (1999), “Disputant reactions to managerial conflict resolution tactics – a comparison among Argentina, the Dominican Republic, Mexico, and the United States”, Group & Organization Management, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 124-154.

De Dreu, C.K.W. and Weingart, L.R. (2003), “Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 4, pp. 741-749.

Drach-Zahavy, A. (2004), “Exploring team support: the role of team’s design, values, and leader’s support”, Group Dynamics – Theory Research and Practice, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 235-252.

Drach-Zahavy, A. and Somech, A. (2002), “Team heterogeneity and its relationship with team support and team effectiveness”, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 44-66.

Folger, J., Poole, M. and Stutman, R. (2001), Working through Conflict: Strategies for Relationships, Groups and Organizations, 5th ed., Longman, New York, NY.

Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobserved variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.

Guzzo, R.A. (1995), “At the intersection of team effectiveness and decision making”, in Guzzo, R.A. and Salas, E. (Eds), Team Effectiveness and Decision Making in Organizations, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 1-8.

TPM 22,5/6

254

Hair, J.F. Jr, Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th ed., Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Hatcher, L. (1994), A Step-by-Step Approach to Using the SAS System for Factor Analysis and Structural Equation Modeling, SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC.

Hempel, P.S., Zhang, Z.X., and Tjosvold, D. (2009), “Conflict management between and within teams for trusting relationships and performance in China”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 41-65.

Hogg, M.A. (2001), “A social identity theory of leadership”, Personality and Social Psychology Review, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 184-200.

Hogg, M.A. and Terry, D.J. (2000), “Social Identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 121-140.

Hogg, M.A., Terry, D.J. and White, K.M. (1995), “A tale of two theories: a critical comparison of identity theory with social identity theory”, Social Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 58 No. 4, pp. 255-269.

Huang, J. (2010), “Unbundling task conflict and relationship conflict – the moderating role of team goal orientation and conflict management”, Information Technology & People, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 334-355.

Jehn, K.A. (1995), “A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 256-282.

Jehn, K.A. and Bendersky, C. (2003), “Intragroup conflict in organizations: a contingency perspective on the conflict-outcome relationship”, Research and Organizational Behavior, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 187-242.

Jehn, K.A., Northcraft, G.B. and Neale, M.A. (1999), “Why differences make a difference: a field study of diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 741-763.

Kirchmeyer, C., and Cohen, A. (1992), “Multicultural groups – their performance and reactions with constructive conflict”, Group & Organization Management, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 153-170.

Lau, R.S. and Cobb, A.T. (2010), “Understanding the connections between relationship conflict and performance: the intervening roles of trust and exchange”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 898-917.

Lee, J., Lee, H. and Park, J. (2014), “Exploring the impact of empowering leadership on knowledge sharing, absorptive capacity and team performance in IT services”, Information Technology & People, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 366-386.

LePine, J.A., Piccolo, R.F., Jackson, C.L., Mathieu, J.E. and Saul, J.R. (2008), “A meta-analysis of teamwork processes: tests of a multidimensional model and relationships with team effectiveness criteria”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 61 No. 2, pp. 273-307.

Montoya-Weiss, M.M., Massey, A.P. and Song, M. (2001), “Getting it together: temporal coordination and conflict management in global virtual teams”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 6, pp. 1251-1262.

Mossholder, K.W., Bennett, N., Kemery, E.R. and Wesolowski, M.A. (1998), “Relationships between bases of power and work reactions: the mediational role of procedural justice”, Journal of Management, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 533-552.

Nunnally, J.C. (1993), Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Piccoli, G., Powell, A. and Ives, B. (2004), “Virtual teams: team control structure, work processes, and team effectiveness”, Information Technology & People, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 359-379.

255

Information technology

development teams

Podsakoff, P.M. and Organ, D.W. (1986), “Self-reports in organizational research: problems and prospects” Journal of Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 531-544.

Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Podsakoff, N.P. and Lee, J.Y. (2003), “Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.

Simons, T.L. and Peterson, R.S. (2000), “Task conflict and relationship conflict in top management teams: the pivotal role of intragroup trust”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 85 No. 1, pp. 102-111.

Sobel, M.E. (1987), “Direct and indirect effects in linear structural equation models”, Sociological Methods & Research, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 155-176.

Somech, A., Desivilya, H.S. and Lidogoster, H. (2009), “Team conflict management and team effectiveness: the effects of task interdependence and team identification”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 359-378.

Stets, J.E. and Burke, P.J. (2000), “Identity theory and social identity theory”, Social Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 63 No. 3, pp. 224-237.

Stewart, G.L. and Barrick, M.R. (2000), “Team structure and performance: assessing the mediating role of intrateam process and the moderating role of task type”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 135-148.

Tajfel, H. (1972), “La catégorisation sociale”, in Moscovici, S. (Ed.), Introduction à la Psychologie Sociale (Vol. 1), Larousse, Paris.

Tekleab, A.G., Quigley, N.R. and Tesluk, P.E. (2009), “A longitudinal study of team conflict, conflict management, cohesion, and team effectiveness”, Group & Organizational Management, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 170-205.

Thaler, R.H. and Sunstein, C.R. (2008), Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.

Tjosvold, D., Hui, C., and Yu, Z.Y. (2003), “Conflict management and task reflexivity for team in-role and extra-role performance in China”, International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 141-163.

Tuckman, B.W. (1965), “Developmental sequence in small groups”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 63 No. 6, pp. 384-399.

Van Der Vegt, G.S. and Bunderson, J.S. (2005), “Learning and performance in multidisciplinary teams: the importance of collective team identification”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 532-547.

Ward, A.J., Lankau, M.J., Amason, A.C., Sonnenfeld, J.A. and Agle, B.R. (2007), “Improving the performance of top management teams”, MIT Sloan Management Review, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 85-90.

Yukelson, D., Weinberg, R. and Jackson, A. (1984), “A multi-dimensional group cohesion instrument for intercollegiate basketball teams”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 103-117.

Corresponding author Tobin Porterfield can be contacted at: [email protected]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website: www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm Or contact us for further details: [email protected]

TPM 22,5/6

256

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.