This article explores the linkages between strategies for managing different types of conflict and group performance and satisfaction. Results from a qualitative study of 57 autonomous teams suggest that groups that improve or maintain top performance over time share 3 conflict resolution tendencies: (a) focusing on the content of interpersonal interactions rather than delivery style, (b) explicitly discussing reasons behind any decisions reached in accepting and distributing work assignments, and (c) assigning work to members who have the relevant task expertise rather than assigning by other common means such as volunteering, default, or convenience. The authors' results also suggest that teams that are successful over time are likely to be both proactive in anticipating the need for conflict resolution and pluralistic in developing conflict resolution strategies that apply to all group members.

No abstract

Through three studies of interacting small groups, we aimed to better understand the meaning and consequences of process conflict. Study 1 was an exploratory analysis of qualitative data that helped us to identify the unique dimensions of process conflict to more clearly distinguish it from task and relationship conflict. Study 2 used a broader sampling of participants to (a) demonstrate why process conflict has been difficult to discriminate from task conflict in many conflict scales, and (b) develop a two-factor Process Conflict Scale that effectively distinguishes process from task conflict. Study 3 used this new scale to examine the relationship between process conflict and group viability (group performance, satisfaction, and effective group process). The results showed that process conflict negatively affects group performance, member satisfaction, and group coordination. . Given the myriad effects of process conflict, seemingly positive and negative, short term and long term, more research is clearly needed to clarify its causes and consequences.We present three studies to achieve this goal. Study 1 utilized an inductive and qualitative methodology (concept mapping) to compare participants' views of conflict with the traditional three-pronged typology. Based on the findings from Study 1, Studies 2, and 3 aimed to test the discriminant and predictive ability (respectively) of a new measure of intragroup process conflict.The goal of Study 1 was to better understand the reasons why the distinctions among task, relationship, and process conflict are so often blurred. Why hasn't process conflict been distinguished more reliably from task conflict and relationship conflict by researchers? Jehn's original qualitative study, which identified process conflict as a distinct form of conflict, used participants' tree diagrams (1997) to demonstrate that conflict involving responsibilities, disruptions to team work, and scheduling issues were considered by participants to be distinct from both task and relationship conflict. This separation is both intuitive and important, given the demands for groups to manage their processes. In conjunction with Jehn's original work, more recent research has suggested another reason to better understand process conflict: unresolved process conflict can transform into more harmful conflict. Taken together, inconsistencies in the literature around process conflict point to a better need to understand the mechanisms through which process conflict affects teams. Procedure and MeasuresThe research sample of team members consisted of the entire 1st year class of 252 MBA students at an U.S. east coast business school. Students were randomly assigned to 67 teams, each containing 4 or 5 members. Team members worked together intensely throughout the autumn term in all of their core courses, including management and organizations, statistics, and accounting. The average age of the students in the class was 29 years; about 27% of them were female; 5% were underrepresented minority students; and

Conflicts in the workplace have been characterized by their type (task, process, relationship), but little attention has been paid to how conflicts are expressed. We present a conceptual framework of conflict expression and argue that understanding how conflicts are expressed can help us gain new insights about the effects of conflict. We propose that conflict expressions vary in their directness and oppositional intensity, and these differences directly influence how people experience and react to conflict, resulting in dynamic escalatory or de-escalatory conflict spirals.We argue that directness of conflict expression is a function of the ambiguity of expression and who is involved (antagonists vs. involving other people). Oppositional intensity of conflict expression is indicated by the communicated entrenchment in positions and subversiveness of actions. We argue that while oppositional intensity and directness are universal dimensions characterizing conflict expression, the cultural context and characteristics of the disputants will influence how conflict is expressed and perceived. We consider the implications of our conceptual framework for related literatures examining conflict.

No abstract