Conflict Management in Work Teams: The Role of Social Self‐efficacy and Group Identification

Abstract

The current study focused on intra‐group conflict by attempting to elucidate individual and situational factors underlying choices along two dimensions of conflict management patterns: engagement versus avoidance and constructive versus destructive. In the study, the role of two types of self‐efficacy (global and social) among group members was investigated, as was the sense of group identification in team dispute resolution preferences modes. Sixty‐seven members of volunteer community service communes in the Israeli Scouting youth movement, 48 females and 19 males, representing 13 intact teams, participated in the study. Self‐report structured questionnaires (previously used and adapted for this study) served as research instruments. Both global self‐efficacy and group identification independently predicted the conflict engagement‐destructive pattern of domination. Social self‐efficacy served as the sole predictor of the preference to manage intra‐team conflict by means of integrating—the engagement‐constructive mode. In contrast, the choice of compromising was also fostered by the joint contribution of social self‐efficacy and group‐identification, beyond the direct effect of social self‐efficacy. The study corroborates the assumption that conflict management patterns within an intact team are related to dispositional variables on the individual level, i.e., global and social self‐efficacy, and to the team‐related variable of group identification.

Innovation and Conflict Management in Work Teams: The Effects of Team Identification and Task and Relationship Conflict

“…Conflict constitutes an inevitable and commonplace element in the dynamics of organizational work teams (Alper, Tjosvold, & Law, 2000;DeDreu, 2006;Desivilya & Eizen, identity and team innovation was also demonstrated. Finally, relationship conflict was negatively associated with a team's integrating pattern, while the positive association of task conflict with the cooperative strategy was marginally significant.…”

“…The current study embraced the Dual Concern Model as the conceptual framework of conflict management patterns, while incorporating the distinction between constructive and destructive dispute handling (Ayoko et al., 2002; Desivilya & Eizen, 2005; Rusbult, 1993; Tjosvold, Poon, & Zi‐you, 2005). The constructiveness‐destructiveness dimension of conflict approach pertains to the potential outcome of conflict management behavior, namely whether it is constructive or destructive to the relationship (Deutsch, 1973) between the parties (group members).…”

Team Cohesion and Individual Well-Being: A Conceptual Analysis and Relational Framework

“…Additional attributes may differentially predict social cohesionÀSWB and task cohesionÀPWB. For example, self-and collective-efficacy may play a particularly important role in cultivating social cohesion and SWB, and in minimizing occupational health decrements (Lee & Robbins, 1998;Lyubomirsky, Tkach, & DiMatteo, 2006;Syna Desivilya & Eizen, 2005), while goal orientation and goal-setting behavior may contribute more strongly to task cohesion, PWB, and performance (Brawley, Carron, & Widmeyer, 1993).…”

Effects of self‐efficacy on objective and subjective outcomes in transactions and disputes

“…Different variables such as age, education, and gender were taken into account to control for possible effects on our main variables. In addition, Desivilya and Eizen (2005) examined the relationship between individuals' dispositional variables, including global and social self-efficacy, and the conflict management styles preferred to deal with intragroup disputes. Their findings, from a sample of 13 teams of youth members from volunteer community service communes in Israel, suggested a significant positive association between global self-efficacy and dominating and obliging patterns, whereas social self-efficacy predicted integrating as well as compromising patterns.…”