Relationship, task and process conflicts on team performance

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine which communication contexts – virtual or traditional interactions – is more disruptive or beneficial to the effects of intragroup conflicts on team performance.Design/methodology/approach – A laboratory experiment was conducted comparing 22 face‐to‐face (FTF) teams, 22 videoconference (VC) teams and 22 computer‐mediated communication (CMC) teams over a month.Findings – Results showed that VC teams are the highest performing teams and CMC teams the lowest. However, when task conflict increases VC team performance diminishes at the first stage of the teamwork. FTF team performance is also improved by task conflict, but also by process conflict. After a period where team members develop teamwork experience, relationship conflict and process conflict damage more seriously team performance in CMC teams than in FTF teams. In conclusion, traditional teams and virtual teams behave in different ways, but also there are differences between VC and CMC teams.Research...

[1]  B. Baltes,et al.  Computer-Mediated Communication and Group Decision Making: A Meta-Analysis , 2002 .

[2]  Dustin K. Jundt,et al.  Teams in organizations: from input-process-output models to IMOI models. , 2005, Annual review of psychology.

[3]  Richard A. Guzzo,et al.  Teams in organizations: recent research on performance and effectiveness. , 1996, Annual review of psychology.

[4]  C. D. De Dreu,et al.  Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: a meta-analysis. , 2003, The Journal of applied psychology.

[5]  Leslie A. DeChurch,et al.  MAXIMIZING THE BENEFITS OF TASK CONFLICT: THE ROLE OF CONFLICT MANAGEMENT , 2001 .

[6]  Susan R. Fussell,et al.  Coordination of knowledge in communication: effects of speakers' assumptions about what others know. , 1992, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[7]  Pilar Ripoll,et al.  The roles of group potency and information and communication technologies in the relationship between task conflict and team effectiveness: A longitudinal study , 2007, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[8]  Laurie R. Weingart,et al.  A contingency theory of task conflict and performance in grousp and organizational teams , 2003 .

[9]  K. Jehn.  A Multimethod Examination of the Benefits and Detriments of Intragroup Conflict , 1995 .

[10]  Gerardine DeSanctis,et al.  Capturing the Complexity in Advanced Technology Use: Adaptive Structuration Theory , 1994 .

[11]  J. Walther.  Relational Aspects of Computer-Mediated Communication: Experimental Observations over Time , 1995 .

[12]  S. Kozlowski,et al.  A Typology of Virtual Teams , 2002 .

[13]  Terri L. Griffith,et al.  Conflict and virtual teams , 2003 .

[14]  Clint Chadwick,et al.  TO AGREE OR NOT TO AGREE: THE EFFECTS OF VALUE CONGRUENCE, INDIVIDUAL DEMOGRAPHIC DISSIMILARITY, AND CONFLICT ON WORKGROUP OUTCOMES , 1997 .

[15]  E. Mannix,et al.  The Dynamic Nature of Conflict: A Longitudinal Study of Intragroup Conflict and Group Performance. , 2001 .

[16]  Jennifer A. Chatman,et al.  THE INFLUENCE OF PROPORTIONAL AND PERCEPTUAL CONFLICT COMPOSITION ON TEAM PERFORMANCE , 2000 .

[17]  Charles R. Schwenk.  Conflict in organizational decision making: an exploratory study of its effects in for-profit and not-for-profit organizations , 1990 .

[18]  J. McGrath,et al.  Group Task Performance and Communication Technology , 1993 .

[19]  B. Tuckman.  DEVELOPMENTAL SEQUENCE IN SMALL GROUPS. , 1965, Psychological bulletin.

[20]  Steve Whittaker,et al.  Things to Talk About When Talking About Things , 2003, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[21]  R. Peterson,et al.  Task Conflict snd Relationship Conflict in Top Management Teams:The Pivotal Role of Intragroup Trust. , 1998 .

[22]  Lucy Gilson,et al.  Virtual Teams: What Do We Know and Where Do We Go From Here? , 2004 .

[23]  C. Cramton.  Finding common ground in dispersed collaboration. , 2002 .

[24]  Laura A. Hambley,et al.  Virtual team leadership: The effects of leadership style and communication medium on team interaction styles and outcomes , 2007 .

[25]  Michael Workman,et al.  The proximal-virtual team continuum: A study of performance , 2007, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[26]  L. James,et al.  Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. , 1984 .

[27]  C. Dreu,et al.  OPTIMIZING PERFORMANCE BY CONFLICT STIMULATION , 1994 .

[28]  R. Daft,et al.  A Proposed Integration among Organizational Information Requirements, Media Richness and Structural Design. , 1984 .

[29]  Pamela J. Hinds,et al.  Out of Sight, Out of Sync: Understanding Conflict in Distributed Teams , 2003, Organ. Sci..

[30]  John Short,et al.  The social psychology of telecommunications , 1976 .

[31]  Susan G. Straus,et al.  All in due time: The development of trust in computer-mediated and face-to-face teams , 2006 .

[32]  A.R. Wellens,et al.  Effects of telecommunication media upon information sharing and team performance: some theoretical and empirical observations , 1989, IEEE Aerospace and Electronic Systems Magazine.

[33]  Jan Maarten Schraagen,et al.  On the passage of time: Temporal differences in video-mediated and face-to-face interaction , 2005, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[34]  P. Bliese.  Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. , 2000 .

[35]  Richard L. Daft,et al.  Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design , 1986 .

[36]  Gary Baker,et al.  The Effects of Synchronous Collaborative Technologies on Decision Making: A Study of Virtual Teams , 2002, Inf. Resour. Manag. J..

[37]  Nicole B. Ellison,et al.  Social Impacts , 1999 .

[38]  K. Jehn.  A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in , 1997 .

[39]  Abigail Sellen,et al.  Remote Conversations: The Effects of Mediating Talk With Technology , 1995, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[40]  Pamela J. Hinds,et al.  CONFLICT AND SHARED IDENTITY IN GEOGRAPHICALLY DISTRIBUTED TEAMS , 2001 .