team work 3

199

other team members have threatened or harmed them. People who are high in motiva- tion to acquire relationship-threatening information (MARTI), make more sinister attributions about their coworkers, are more likely to exclude prospective group mem- bers from joining their group, and plan to reject them if they do become members.9 Examples of the types of statements that people high in MARTI endorse include the following: “I like working in groups and have often worked with other people in a group setting. However, I am always interested to know whether others in the group have said unkind or unfair things about me without me knowing about it” and “I want to know whether co-workers have said harmful things about me to other people in or outside the group.”10

TASK CONFLICT

Task conflict, or cognitive conflict, is largely depersonalized; also known as C-type conflict, it consists of argumentation about the merits of ideas, plans, and projects. Known as “radical candor” or “front-stabbing,” task conflict does not attack the per- son but rather focuses on ideas by asking employees to debate and talk.11 People who strongly identify with their group are more likely to speak up and show dissent when they perceive harm to the group’s welfare.12 For example, while at Google, Sheryl Sand- berg told a fellow Google executive that she sounded unintelligent by saying “um” too much in an important meeting.13 In some situations, task conflict can be effective in stimulating creativity because it encourages people to rethink problems and arrive at outcomes with which everyone can live. For example, when the majority is confronted by the differing opinions of minorities, they are prompted to think about why the minori- ties disagree and in so doing, generate more novel ideas.14 Further, people who engage in task-related communication cooperate more in mixed-motive situations because talking about the task activates thoughts and norms related to fairness and trust.15

PROCESS CONFLICT

Process conflict centers on disagreements that team members have about how to approach a task and specifically, who should do what. Process conflict often involves disagreements among team members as to how to achieve a goal. Process conflict ran high when Pebble, the company that developed the smartwatch, joined forces with Apple to develop an application for iPhone users. The team disagreed about deadlines

9Marr, J. C., Thau, S., Aquino, K., & Barclay, L. J. (2012). Do I want to know? How the motivation to acquire relationship-threatening information in groups contributes to paranoid thought, suspicion behavior, and social rejection. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 117(2), 285–297. 10From “Do I want to know? How the motiva-tion to acquire relationship-threatening information in groups contributes to paranoid thought, suspicion behavior, and social rejection” by Jennifer Carson Marr, Stefan Thau, Karl Aquino , Laurie J. Barclay in Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, © 2012 Elsevier. 11Feintzeig, R. (2015, December 30). ‘Nice’ is a four-letter word at companies practicing radical candor. Wall Street Journal. wsj.com; Shellenbarger, S. (2014, December 14). To fight, or not to fight? Wall Street Journal. wsj.com 12Packer, D. J., & Chasteen, A. L. (2010). Loyal deviance: Testing the normative conflict model of dissent in social groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(1), 5–18. 13Feintzeig (2015, December 30). “‘Nice’ is a four-letter word at companies practicing radical candor.” 14Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. L. (1985). Innovation and socialization in small groups. In S. Moscovici, G. Mugny, & E. van Avermaet (Eds.), Perspectives on minority influence (pp. 143–169). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; Nemeth, C. J. (1995). Dissent as driving cognition, attitudes, and judgments. Social Cognition, 13, 273–291. 15Cohen, T. R., Wildschut, T., & Insko, C. A. (2010). How communication increases interpersonal cooperation in mixed-motive situations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(1), 39–50.

M08_THOM4204_06_SE_C08.indd 199 10/25/16 3:09 PM