team effectiveness in china: cooperative conflict for relationship building

8/16/2019 Team effectiveness in China: Cooperative conflict for relationship building

1/28

http://hum.sagepub.com

Human Relations

DOI: 10.1177/00187267050534262005; 58; 341Human Relations

Dean Tjosvold, Margaret Poon and Zi-you Yubuilding

Team effectiveness in China: Cooperative conflict for relationship

http://hum.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/58/3/341 The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

The Tavistock Institute

can be found at:Human RelationsAdditional services and information for

http://hum.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://hum.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://hum.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/58/3/341SAGE Journals Online and HighWire Press platforms):

(this article cites 78 articles hosted on theCitations

© 2005 The Tavistock Institute. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution. by georgiana ciobanu on November 22, 2007http://hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://www.tavinstitute.org/index.phphttp://www.tavinstitute.org/index.phphttp://hum.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://hum.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://hum.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://hum.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://hum.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/58/3/341http://hum.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/58/3/341http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/58/3/341http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://hum.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://hum.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.tavinstitute.org/index.php


2/28

Team effectiveness in China: Cooperativeconflict for relationship building

Dean Tjosvold, Margaret Poon and Zi-you Yu

A B S TRA C T Groups are increasingly responsible for accomplishing critical,

complex tasks for organizations, but understanding and developing

effective teamwork have proved difficult. Findings from groups in

Chinese enterprises supported recent theorizing that confidence in

the group’s interpersonal relationships promotes team effectiveness.

Results also suggested, in contrast to traditional theorizing about

Chinese values, that conflict management was an important foun-

dation for this confidence in relationships. Specifically, the structural

equation analysis supported the reasoning that cooperative conflict

builds confidence in relationships that, in turn, results in team effec-

tiveness. Results were interpreted as providing support for the

universalistic aspirations of the theory of cooperation and

competition and that managing conflict cooperatively is a foundation

for team effectiveness in China as well as in the West.

KE YW ORD S Chinese values competitive conflict cooperative conflict

relationships teamwork

Groups are increasingly considered critical for accomplishing important

tasks and solving complex problems for organizations (Barrick et al., 1998;

Stewart & Barrick, 2000; West, 2002). However, understanding anddeveloping effective teamwork have proved challenging (Campion et al.,

1993; Edmondson, 1999; Hare & O’Neill, 2000; Salas et al., 1999).

Recently, relationships have been proposed as an underlying condition for

3 4 1

Human Relations

DOI: 10.1177/0018726705053426

Volume 58(3): 341–367

Copyright © 2005

The Tavistock Institute ®

SAGE Publications

London, Thousand Oaks CA,

New Delhi

www.sagepublications.com


http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/


3/28

effective collaboration (Gersick et al., 2000; Kostova & Roth, 2003; Kramer

& Messick, 1995; Kramer & Tyler, 1996; Lewicki & Wiethoff, 2000; Reis

et al., 2000; Rousseau et al., 1998). This study argues that how teams

manage their conflicts very much affects the nature of their relationships (De

Dreu et al., 2000; Rubin et al., 1994). Specifically, it investigates the extent

that cooperative compared with competitive approaches to managing conflict

develop group members’ confidence in their relationships that results in effec-

tive teamwork.

This study develops direct evidence of the extent to which relationships

contribute to team effectiveness as measured by both group members and

their managers. It empirically links the group and conflict literatures and tests

the extent that the theory of cooperation and competition developed in theWest is useful to analyze conflict among group members in China.

Relationships and team effectiveness

Researchers and practitioners have recently emphasized that teams can be

effective as they coordinate and apply the resources of individual members

to stimulate creative solutions and implementation (Banker et al., 1997;

West, 2002). Reviews of the empirical research suggest that groups canaccomplish tasks more effectively than individuals working alone in a range

of situations (Hill, 1982; Johnson et al., 1981; Kelley & Thibaut, 1968).

However, conditions affect this generalization. For example, the value of

group work is heightened for complex tasks, whereas for simple tasks indi-

viduals can be as or even more productive (Beersman et al., 2003; Johnson

et al., 1981).

In addition to documenting their potential, organizational researchers

have identified conditions and processes that very much interfere withcoordination and group effectiveness (Ilgen, 1999; Sheppard, 1993). For

example, groups may, by developing ‘group-think’ and suppressing creativity,

arrive at compromised, mediocre solutions to problems (Aldag & Fuller,

1993; Ellis et al., 2003; Schwenk, 1984). Groups may also undermine moti-

vation, leaving employees tempted to engage in social loafing and letting

others do the work (Karau & Williams, 1993; Williams & Karau, 1991).

Studies overall then suggest that groups, although not always more produc-

tive, have the potential to be productive when the task and situation are

appropriate for collaborative work; however, whether they perform effec-tively depends very much upon their functioning (Pearce & Ensley, 2004).

What are the conditions that promote group functioning so that teams

serve their users effectively? Theorists have recently joined managers in

Human Relations 58(3)3 4 2




4/28

arguing that the nature of the interpersonal relationships among group

members has dramatic effects on the coordination of resources needed for

team effectiveness (Kramer & Tyler, 1996; Kumar, 1996; Lewicki &

Wiethoff, 2000; Rousseau et al., 1998). Lewicki et al. (1998) proposed that

trust, defined as the expectation of support, promotes effective organiz-

ational work. Edmondson (1999) has found that ‘team safety’ where team

members accept rather than punish or reject well-intentioned action helps

team members learn from their mistakes.

Justice research also suggests the nature of the relationships can very

much affect group effectiveness (Colquitt, 2001; Colquitt et al., 2001; Green-

berg, 1990). Group members have been found to be more committed and

perform more effectively when they experience interactive justice in that theyare treated in a personally enhancing and affirming manner as justice

decisions are made (Bies, 1987; Bies & Moag, 1986; Cohen-Charash, 2001;

Lam et al., 2002; Tyler & Bies, 1990). It seems likely that justice can promote

reciprocity and reduce fears that others are free-riders or in other ways might

exploit interactions (Kerr, 1983; Latane et al., 1979; Liden et al., 2003). With

this assurance, team members can continue to believe that they will be able

to combine their efforts and realize the promise of joint gains.

The value of strong relationships appears to be particularly true in

China, where the data for this study were collected. Guanxi, which can betranslated as strong relational bonds, has been thought critical for doing

business in China, especially because of the difficulties of applying legal

remedies to grievances (Hwang, 1987, 1997–8, 2000). It has also been

argued that Chinese people, as collectivists, generally very much value inter-

personal relationships and avoid aggressive ways of working with others

(Jehn & Weldon, 1992; Kirkbride et al., 1991; Leung, 1997; Triandis, 1990;

Triandis et al., 1990; Tse et al., 1994). However, it cannot be assumed that

strong relational bonds are automatic or even highly prevalent in Asia. Chenet al. (2002), for example, have proposed that collectivists exploit people not

considered part of their in-group more than people from individualist

cultures.

This study uses the concept of confidence in relationships as a measure

of the quality of the interpersonal relationships within a team. Previous

research suggests that confidence in relationships leaves team members with

mutual positive expectations that, in turn, contribute to team functioning.

Individual members, expecting that others will reciprocate their own efforts,

feel they can contribute to the team without fears that others will be freeriders and that they will be exploited (Bouty, 2000; Gersick et al., 2000;

Pearce & Ensley, 2004). These positive expectations become self-fulfilling

and create good will as members reciprocate each other’s contributions

Tjosvold et al. Team effectiveness in China 3 4 3




5/28


6/28

that studies overall do not suggest that the type of conflict is very useful for

understanding when conflict is constructive (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003).

This study takes the position that how group members approach and

deal with their relational, task, procedural, and other types of conflict criti-

cally affects the outcomes of conflict. Conflict, whether it is a task or a rela-

tional one, can be harmful or productive. Group members need the abilities

to manage their conflicts if they are going to make them constructive.

Indeed, there is reason to believe that managing relational as well as

task conflicts can be quite constructive (De Dreu & Van de Vliert, 1997;

Rahim & Blum, 1994; Tjosvold, 2002; Walton, 1969). Potentially, these

conflicts stimulate motivation to deal with interpersonal difficulties, provide

a medium through which problems are aired, develop useful solutions todivisive issues, and are opportunities to reaffirm commitment to the relation-

ship.

Group members must also be able to manage task conflicts for these

conflict types also have the potential to be constructive or destructive

(Deutsch, 1973). Voicing minority views and heterogeneity of perspectives

have been found to improve group problem solving (Gruenfeld, 1995; Maier,

1970; Peterson & Nemeth, 1996; Tetlock et al., 1994). Studies have shown

the utility of conflict for strategic decision-making through such means as

devil’s advocacy and challenging assumptions (Amason, 1996; Cosier, 1978;Eisenhardt & Bourgeois, 1988; Eisenhardt et al., 1997; Mason & Mitroff,

1981; Schweiger et al., 1989). The skilled discussion of task conflicts can

stimulate creative, motivated work that accomplishes common tasks as well

as strengthens interpersonal relationships and teamwork (Tjosvold, 1998).

Dealing with conflict is not only realistic but, when constructively done,

promotes relationships among group members as well as task completion.

Approaches to managing conflict

Considerable organizational research has assumed that the behavioral

strategy protagonists take very much affects whether conflicts are construc-

tive or destructive. For example, organizational members have been thought

to have five major options: smooth, avoid, compromise, force, and collabor-

ate (Elsayed-Ekhouly & Buba, 1996; Kilmann & Thomas, 1977; Munduate

et al., 1999; Rahim, 1983; Rahim & Mager, 1995; Thomas, 1976). The

choice they make regarding their strategies is theorized to determine theoutcomes of conflict.

In contrast to this emphasis on action strategies, this study develops

the position that the cooperative and competitive intentions that protagonists





7/28

communicate are critical for determining the course and consequences of

conflicts. People’s beliefs about how their goals are related may or may not

be accurately based in reality. However, from this perspective, what affects

conflict management are the beliefs that protagonists develop about how

their goals are related.

Defining conflict as incompatible activities in which one person’s

actions are interfering or obstructing another’s, Deutsch (1973, 1980)

proposed that how protagonists believe their goals are related to each other

very much affects their interaction and outcomes as they deal with conflict.

They may emphasize cooperative goals. In managing conflict cooperatively,

people communicate that they believe their goals are positively linked so that

as one person moves toward goal attainment, others move toward reachingtheir goals. They understand that others’ goal attainment helps them; they

can be successful together. Wanting each other to perform effectively for such

competence helps each person to be successful, they communicate that they

seek to use the conflict to promote mutual goals and to resolve it for mutual

benefit.

Protagonists may also emphasize competitive goals in conflict. In

competition, people believe their goals are negatively related so that one’s

successful goal attainment makes others less likely to reach their goals. In

managing conflict competitively, people believe that they are better off whenothers act ineffectively; when others are productive, they are less likely to

succeed themselves. They convey that they want to use the conflict to

promote their goals at the expense of the other. They want to ‘win’ and have

the other ‘lose’.

Evidence indicates that to the extent that protagonists take a coopera-

tive approach and the extent that they take a competitive approach very

much affect conflict outcomes (Alper et al., 2000; Barker et al., 1988;

Deutsch, 1973, 1980; Tjosvold, 1998). Experiments have found that acooperative approach to conflict encourages partners to express their views

directly, listen open-mindedly, and accurately take each other’s perspective

(Tjosvold, 1998). As they understand each other and the opposing positions,

they develop integrated, high-quality solutions to problems. These solutions

help protagonists act productively and bolster their confidence that they can

work together in the future. Studies have documented that the open-minded

interaction improves interpersonal attitudes and the beliefs that they can

solve future problems together (Tjosvold, 1998). Therefore, cooperative

conflict is expected to help group members develop the confidence that theyhave strong relationships that, in turn, promote their team effectiveness.

In contrast, a competitive approach results in one-sided, imposed reso-

lutions that fragment relationships. Although they may disagree directly and





8/28

even develop an understanding of each other’s position, studies indicate that

they do not open-mindedly consider the views and fail to incorporate them

into their own thinking (Tjosvold, 1998). Protagonists typically try to impose

their solution on each other and as a consequence often fail to reach mutually

beneficial agreements. Imposed solutions and the failure to reach agreement

frustrate their common action and make protagonists doubt that they are

able to work together. Competitive conflict then is expected to interfere with

group members’ confidence in their relationships and thereby to reduce team

effectiveness.

However, the empirical basis for concluding that cooperative conflict

contributes to confidence in relationships has been largely developed in

North America. The utility of conflict, as well as the theories to analyzeconflict, cannot be assumed to apply to a collectivist society like China

(Hofstede, 1993). Chinese people are considered group-oriented where

relationships are highly valued (Chan, 1963; Triandis, 1990; Triandis et al.,

1990; Tung, 1991). The traditional view is that these collectivist values lead

to seeking harmony and smoothing over conflict to maintain relationships

and protect social face (Leung, 1997; Morris et al., 1998; Ting-Toomey,

1988). Confucian ‘Doctrine of the Mean’ emphasizes that harmony is ‘most

precious’ in relationships among people and with the external world (Chan,

1963). Individuals are to control their emotions and work with others in aharmonious manner.

Chinese people have been found to use approaches that short-circuit

and diffuse open conflicts and avoid face-to-face confrontation (Bond et al.,

1985). Evidence that Chinese compared with western managers endorse and

rely upon conflict avoidance supports the reasoning that conflict avoidance

is functional and appropriate in China (Kirkbride et al., 1991; Tse et al.,

1994).

However, recent theorizing suggests that the direct, open discussion of conflict may also be useful in collectivist cultures (Ohbuchi et al., 2001).

Leung (1996, 1997; Leung et al., 2002) has argued that, although Chinese

people may use harmony-seeking behavior as a way to avoid potential

problems, harmony also represents a genuine concern for feelings of

intimacy, trust, compatibility, and mutually beneficial behaviors. With this

motive, Chinese people discuss their conflicts openly to strengthen their

relationships. Despite that conflict may not be generally much valued in

China, Chinese people can discuss conflict productively. This study asserts

that conflict, when managed cooperatively, can promote relationships amongteam members in China.

Based on this reasoning, it is hypothesized that:





9/28

Hypothesis 2: Group cooperative conflict management is positively

associated with group members’ confidence in their relationships.

Hypothesis 3: Group competitive conflict management is negativelyassociated with group members’ confidence in their relationships.

This study investigates how a cooperative approach to conflict by Chinese

team members can develop confidence in their relationships and result in

effective teamwork. The study tests a model linking conflict management

with relationships and team effectiveness in China. Specifically, cooperative

conflict is expected to induce team members’ confidence in their relation-

ships; competitive conflict management is expected to induce a lack of confi-dence. Confidence in relationships is expected to result in team effectiveness.

Rather than the traditional cross-cultural research of comparing

samples from different cultures regarding the strength and impact of values

(Leung, 1997), we use the theory of cooperation and competition with

universalistic aspirations to explore Chinese conflict management and group

development. Results could suggest that cooperative and competitive conflict

is a useful framework for both western and Chinese people in such settings

as international joint ventures (Cox et al., 1991).

Method

Participants

An approximately representative sample of firms was recruited in Shanghai,

China. Fifty-nine firms were State-Owned Enterprises, 29 joint ventures, and

29 private enterprises. Thirty-nine were in industry, 10 in wholesale and

retail, 24 in banking and insurance, 8 social services, 6 in real estate, 4 intransportation, 6 in research, 5 in media, 3 in health, 1 in construction, and

1 in institutions. This pattern is similar to the industry structure in Shanghai.

Top and middle management of the organizations supported participation in

the study. To prevent and eliminate potential concern for being involved in

evaluating others, participants were assured that their responses would be

held totally in confidence and used only for research purposes.

For the team to be included in the final sample, two employees who

were team members had to complete a survey and then the direct supervis-

ing manager of the team had to complete a second survey. This manager (whodid not complete a member questionnaire), it was thought, was the superior

who was most knowledgeable about the team and in the best position to rate

team effectiveness.





10/28

One hundred and seventy sets of questionnaires were distributed and

149 sets collected. However, 42 sets were not complete in that there were

not at least two employees and one manager survey or that items on the

surveys did not have responses. So, the final sample was 107 teams with two

employees providing data about their team and the manager rating the team’s

effectiveness. These teams were responsible for various tasks in these indus-

tries. Most of the teams (80) were involved in the major function of the

company (e.g. production for manufacturing firms), 10 had administrative,

10 accounting, and 7 supervising tasks. The average age of the team members

was 33 years and 70 percent of the team members were males. All partici-

pants were Chinese and nearly all respondents had been in their teams for

over 6 months.

Approaches to conflict

A cooperative approach to conflict communicates the intention to seek a

mutually beneficial solution; a competitive approach indicates that

protagonists are trying to win (Deutsch, 1973). Scales for cooperative and

competitive conflict management were developed from a previous question-

naire study conducted in North America (Alper et al., 2000) (the items for

all scales are given in the Appendix). For the section in the questionnairedesigned to measure conflict approaches, respondents were asked to use the

items to indicate how team members negotiate their differences. The

cooperative conflict scale measured the emphasis on resolving issues for

mutual benefit as they negotiated their differences. A sample item from the

five items cooperative conflict scale is ‘Team members treat conflict as a

mutual problem to solve’. Participants were asked to rate on a 7-point scale

(1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree) their degree of agreement to the

five statements. Coefficient alpha for the cooperative conflict scale was .85.The competitive conflict scale had four items with similar anchors to measure

the emphasis on trying to win the conflict as team members negotiated their

differences. A sample item is ‘Team members treat conflict as a win–lose

contest’. Coefficient alpha was .83.

Scales that are reliable should have items that are associated with each

other and less associated with items in other categories. Correlations among

the items for each scale were significantly higher than correlations for items

across scales; mean correlations were .54 for items in the cooperative

approach and .55 for items in the competitive approach, whereas the corre-lations among items from the two scales were generally low. The item corre-

lations are given in Table 1. Results of the confirmatory factor analysis

suggest the utility of the two-factor solution (Table 2).





11/28

Confidence in relationships

Confident group members believe that they can interact effectively (Kramer

& Tyler, 1996; Kumar, 1996; Lewicki & Wiethoff, 2000; Rousseau et al.,

1998). Members responded to a three-item scale to measure their group’sconfidence in their relationships. Respondents were asked to answer on a 7-

point scale (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree) about their degree of

agreement with the three statements. A sample item from the scale is ‘How


Table 1 Correlations among conflict approaches items

Co1 Co2 Co3 Co4 Co5 Cm1 Cm2 Cm3

Co1

Co2 .72**

Co3 .57** .68**

Co4 .42** .47** .43**

Co5 .48** .60** .42** .60**

Cm1 .13 .13 .13 –.02 –.01

Cm2 –.04 –.02 –.01 –.06 –.15 .64**

Cm3 –.17 –.04 –.15 –.09 –.09 .37** .63**

Cm4 –.06 .01 –.05 –.09 –.05 .38* .58** .73**

Table 2 Two-factor solution to conflict approaches

Factor

1 2

Co1 .78 .22

Co2 .83 .31

Co3 .75 .23

Co4 .70 .13

Co5 .76 .14

Cm1 –.06 .73

Cm2 –.29 .83

Cm3 –.37 .76

Cm4 –.28 .78

Extraction method: principal component analysis.




12/28

confident are team members that they can interact with each other success-

fully?’ Coefficient alpha of the scale was .87.

In addition, the correlations among the items also suggest the reliability

of the scale. Cr1 and Cr2 were correlated .65, Cr1 and Cr3 were correlated

.81, and Cr2 and Cr3 were correlated .63 with an average correlation of .70.

In the confirmatory one-factor analysis, Cr1 had a loading of .92, Cr2 had

a loading of .84, and Cr3 had a loading of .92, also suggesting a coherent

scale.

Team effectiveness as productivity and commitment

Team effectiveness is the extent to which the team is able to serve its userseffectively. As with other work team research (Cohen & Ledford, 1994;

Goodman et al., 1988), obtaining objective work outcome measures proved

impossible. Companies did not collect team-level productivity data. In

addition, Pritchard (1992) has argued that there is no strictly objective

measure of performance in organizations. Effectiveness is not, for example,

simply that the team completes a task but that it completes the task that

organization values within the resources considered reasonable. A team that

efficiently reduces waste scrap is not effective if the organization wants it to

develop a high-quality product. Pritchard has further proposed that the mostrelevant criteria of team effectiveness are the evaluations of those who are

to use the team outputs.

This study measures team effectiveness by the evaluations of the

team’s manager and the evaluations of the team members themselves.

Managers are not only important users of their team’s outputs, they should

also be knowledgeable about them (Hackman, 1987). We propose that

managers would be highly concerned and knowledgeable about team

productivity. They responded to a four-item scale developed from Van DerVegt et al. (1998). A sample item of the team productivity measure is ‘Team

members meet or exceed their productivity requirements’. The coefficient

alpha was .85.

Individual members are also users of the group in that the group

very much affects their attitudes and commitment. Although team

members are probably not in as good a position to rate the value of their

group’s outputs as accurately as their manager, they should be very knowl-

edgeable about the group’s impact on their commitment. Therefore, group

members rated their team’s effectiveness by completing a measure of teamcommitment. A sample item of the four-item scale is ‘The way the team

manages its work inspires the team to better job performance’. The

coefficient alpha was .84.





13/28

Translation procedures

Two members of the research team who are native Chinese translated the

questionnaires originally written in English into Chinese. To ensure concep-tual consistency, the questionnaires were back-translated into English to

check for possible deviation (Brislin, 1970). The questionnaires were pre-

tested to make sure that respondents clearly understood every phrase,

concept, and question.

Analysis

Data aggregation

We aggregated team members’ ratings of cooperative and competitive

conflict management and confidence in relationships to the team level in the

analyses. The fundamental reason was that the hypotheses identified the unit

of analysis as the group. The operations were carefully constructed so that

individual group members reported on the team’s three scales. Managers also

reported on their group’s team effectiveness.

However, the aggregation required that the perceptions of team

members within a team were reasonably homogeneous. We used James et al.’s(1984) procedure to estimate the inter-rater reliability of members within each

team for each of the two individual-level variables. James et al.’s index was

used as an estimate of inter-ratter reliability because each of the two variables

was measured by multiple items. Two analyses indicated that the ratings

among members in each group were quite homogeneous. First, the median 2

values for the five variables across the 107 teams were .96, .97, .91, .95, and

.95 respectively. The second analysis was based on George and Bettenhausen’s

(1990) idea that 2

values greater than or equal to .70 could be considered asindicators of good agreement within group. Of the 107 teams, the percent-

ages of teams with 2 values greater than or equal to .70 across the six vari-

ables were .93, .95, .84, .91, and .91 respectively. We therefore concluded that

the within-team ratings were homogeneous enough to be aggregated to the

team level. Individual team members’ ratings were therefore aggregated to the

team level and the data merged with managerial ratings of team effectiveness.

The final sample size of the merged data file was 107 teams.

Hypotheses testing

Correlational analyses were used as an initial test of the hypotheses. Struc-

tural equation analyses were used to test the proposed model that confidence





14/28

in the relationship mediates the link between the conflict management

approach and team effectiveness as measured by commitment and produc-

tivity.

To more vigorously test the theory, structural equation analysis with

the EQS for Macintosh program was used to examine the underlying causal

structure between conflict management, relationships, and team effectiveness

(Bentler & Wu, 1995). This analysis involved only the structural model, not

the measurement model.

A nested model test commonly adopted in causal model analysis was

used to evaluate the argument that confidence in interpersonal relationships

mediates the link between the cooperative and competitive conflict and team

effectiveness. This Mediating Effects model was compared with the DirectEffects model that posited that conflict management impacts outcomes

directly. In addition, an Alternative Model was developed based on the

argument that confidence in relationship affects conflict management

approach that in turn affects outcomes.

Results

Zero-order correlations provide an initial examination of the hypotheseslinking cooperative approach, competitive approach, confidence in relation-

ships and team effectiveness as measured by performance as rated by

managers and by commitment as rated by team members (Table 3). In

support of Hypothesis 1, groups that reported confidence in relationships

were rated by group members (r = .72, p < .01) and by managers (r = .51,

p < .01) as effective. Consistent with Hypotheses 2 and 3, groups that

reported that they relied on cooperative conflict management were confident

in their relationships (r = .56, p < .01), whereas groups that relied oncompetitive conflict management lacked confidence in their relationships

(r = –.40, p < .01).

Cooperative conflict management was positively and significantly

related to team effectiveness as measured by commitment by group members

(r = .53, p < .01) and as productive as rated by manager (r < .38, p < .01).

Competitive conflict management was negatively and significantly related to

team commitment by group (r = –.34, p < .01). However, competitive conflict

management was negatively but not significantly related to team productivity

by manager (r = –.07, NS).Structural equation analyses were used to examine possible causal

relationships (Table 4). The Mediating Effects and Direct Effects models were

compared and the Full Effects model (with both the mediating effects and





15/28

the direct effects of conflict approaches) was also computed. The 2 of the

Mediating Effects model was 11.96 (d.f. = 4, p < .01). The 2 of the Direct

Effects model was 100.75 (d.f. = 4, p < .01). The difference between the

Mediating Effects model and the Direct Effects model was significant

(∆2 = 88.79, p < .01), indicating that omission of the mediating effects of

confidence in relationships significantly deteriorated the Mediating Effects

model. In addition, the difference between the Mediating Effects and the FullEffects model was significant (∆2 = 11.96, p < .01), suggesting that the Full

Effects model provides a better fit than the Mediating Effects model. These

results suggest that confidence in relationships does not fully mediate conflict

management with team effectiveness.

The path coefficients of the theorized model help to explore the

findings more specifically (Table 4). Cooperative conflict management had a

significant impact on confidence in relationships ( = .54, p < .01). Competi-

tive conflict management had a significant negative effect on confidence in

relationships ( = –.31, p < .01). Confidence in relationships had a signifi-cant effect on team productivity as rated by managers ( = .51, p < .01) and

on team commitment as rated by group members ( = .72, p < .01). In the

Full Effects model, cooperative conflict had a positive effect on team


Table 3 Correlations among variables at the team levela,b

Variables Mean SD Cooperative Competitive Confidence Effectiveness Effectiveness

in relationships (by group) (by manager)

Cooperative 5.32 .82 (.85)

Competitive 4.16 .96 –.07 (.83)

Confidence 4.94 .95 .56** –.40** (.87)

in relationships

Team 4.90 .84 .53** –.34** .72** (.84)

effectiveness

(by group)

Team 5.18 .98 .38** –.07 .51** .47** (.85)

effectiveness

(by manager)

a N = 107.b Values in brackets are reliability (coefficient alpha) estimates.

**p < .01.




16/28

Table 4 Results of the nested model analyses of the measurement modelsa

Mediating Effects Model Direct Effects Model F

Path from Path to Path coefficient Path from Path to Path coefficient Pa

Cooperative Confidence .54** Cooperative Effectiveness .51** C

(by group)

Competitive Confidence –.31** Competitive Effectiveness –.30** C

(by group)

Confidence Effectiveness .72** Cooperative Effectiveness .37** C

(by group) (by manager)

Confidence Effectiveness .51** Competitive Effectiveness –.04 C

(by manager) (by manager)

C

C

C

C

Model 2 11.96 Model 2 100.75 M

d.f. 4 d.f. 4 d

BBNFI .93 BBNFI .44 B

CFI .95 CFI .43 C

a N = 107.

**p < .01.

© 2 0 0 5 T h eT avi s t o ck I n s t i t u t e.A l l r i gh t sr e s er v e d .N o t f or c omm er ci al u s e or un a u t h or i z e d d i s t r i

b u t i on.

b y g e or gi an a c i o b an u onN ov em b er 2 2 ,2 0 0 7

h t t p: / / h um. s a g e p u b . c om

D ownl o a d e d f r om

http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/


17/28

commitment ( = .21, p < .01). Findings on path coefficients generally

provide good support for the study’s hypotheses.

The results of the Alternative model in which confidence in relation-

ship affects conflict approaches that leads to outcomes suggested that this

model did not fit the data very well. Its 2 value was 76.49 (d.f. = 4, p < .01)

with a BBNFI of .58 and CFI of .58.

Discussion

Results support recent theorizing on the role of the nature of relationships in

understanding the conditions and dynamics when teams function effectivelyso that they are able to accomplish vital tasks for organizations (Kramer &

Tyler, 1996; Kumar, 1996; Lewicki & Wiethoff, 2000; Rousseau et al., 1998).

Specifically, confidence in relationships among members was found to

contribute to team effectiveness from the perspective of their managers as well

as from the team members. Perhaps more surprisingly, especially considering

that the data were collected in China, results suggest that managing conflict

cooperatively is a practical way to strengthen team relationships. Teams that

relied on managing conflict cooperatively and avoided competitive conflict

were found to have confidence in their relationships and this confidence inturn predicted team productivity and commitment.

Chinese people have long argued that relationships are key to leader-

ship, teamwork, and indeed to organizational work and business. Personal

relationships, quanxi, promote mutual exchange and are needed to supple-

ment rules and roles that are often limited and ineffective (Hui & Graen,

1997). Western theorists have recently agreed that the nature of relationships

critically affect work, especially in the today’s open, networked organizations

and economies (Kramer & Tyler, 1996; Miles et al., 1997). This studyprovides an empirical documentation of the contribution of confidence in

relationships for team effectiveness.

Results are also consistent with the recent emphasis on the construc-

tiveness of conflict and its utility for groups and organizations. Conflicts may

provide the motivation and means to deal with divisive issues; the skilled

management of conflict, though causing temporary interruptions, strength-

ens relationships. Despite China’s collectivist society with strong harmony

values, teams were able to manage their conflicts cooperatively and to good

effect. Cooperative conflict management appears to be a practical way tostrengthen the relationships within a group.

The nested structural equation analysis provided good support for the

proposed model in which confidence in relationship mediates between





18/28

conflict management and team effectiveness. However, the Full Effects model

with effects from cooperative and competitive conflict management as well

as from confidence in relationship to team effectiveness was found more

explanatory. Confidence in relationships does not appear fully to mediate

conflict management with team effectiveness. In the Full Effects model,

cooperative conflict had a positive effect on team commitment as measured

by group members. These results are consistent with the idea that coopera-

tive conflict can be useful for resolving divisive issues and making high-

quality decisions that, in addition to strengthening relationships, directly

promote team effectiveness, at least as seen by the members themselves.

Results also suggest that interpersonal relationships have a subtler role

for competitive conflict than the mediating role that was anticipated. Asexpected, the correlational and structural equation analyses indicated that

competitive conflict negatively predicted to confidence in relationships and

to team commitment as measured by the group. However, competitive

conflict was not significantly negatively related to team productivity as rated

by the manager. Results tentatively suggest that, although competitive

conflict reduces confidence in relationships, it may not disrupt team produc-

tivity. It may even be that competitive conflict can solve some productivity

issues, despite undermining confidence in relationships. Research is needed

to explore this speculation.Studies have found, though not consistently, positive relationships

between task conflicts, especially when norms support discussion, but

negative correlations between relational conflict and group productivity

(Amason, 1996; De Dreu & Weingart, 2003; Jehn, 1995, 1997). These

findings have been interpreted as suggesting that groups can profitably

discuss task conflicts to solve technical problems but discussing relational

conflicts threaten to undermine group relationships further, thereby frustrat-

ing productivity. This study found though that discussing conflict need notundermine relationships and can, when done cooperatively, strengthen

relationships. Results of this study support De Dreu and Weingart’s (2003)

argument that the cooperative and competitive approach to conflict manage-

ment may be more useful for identifying the conditions under which conflict

is constructive than the type of conflict.

In addition to exploring the links among conflict management,

relationships, and effectiveness at the group level, the study developed an

appropriate method in that it allowed independent measures of conflict

approaches, relationship, and effectiveness. Managers rated the group’s effec-tiveness in terms of productivity. In addition, team members rated the extent

to which they take cooperative and competitive approaches to conflict and

their confidence in their relationship as well as their team effectiveness in





19/28

terms of commitment. This study used questionnaires with a sample drawn

from a number of organizations to complement previous experimental

previous research on cooperative and competitive conflict.

The theory of cooperation and competition, despite its origins in the

West, proved useful for understanding conflict in China (Deutsch, 1973).

Indeed, the means (Table 3) suggest that teams used both cooperative and

competitive approaches in dealing with issues. The research approach of

identifying conditions that impact organizational dynamics and outcomes in

China with a theory with universalistic aspirations may be a viable addition

to the traditional alternatives of comparing samples from different cultures

and exploring a cultural variable with an indigenous theory (Leung, 1997).

The research approach used in this study can both probe general theoriesand improve understanding of organizational dynamics in non-western

cultures.

Limitations

The sample and operations limit the results of this study. The data are self-

reported and subject to biases, and may not accurately describe the relation-

ships, although recent research suggests that self-reported data are not aslimited as commonly expected (Spector, 1992). These data are also correla-

tional and do not provide direct evidence of causal links between conflict

approaches, relationships, and outcomes. However, team members

completed measures of conflict approaches and confidence in relationships,

whereas their managers completed the measure of team effectiveness as

performance. Developing different sources for the independent and depen-

dent measures should reduce the possibilities of same source method as an

alternative explanation of the results (Podsakoff et al., 2003).

Spector and Brannick (1995) have argued that the most effective wayto overcome recall and other methodological weaknesses is to test ideas with

different methods. It would be desirable to provide direct experimental verifi-

cation of the role of conflict approaches on team effectiveness in East Asian

organizational settings.

Practical implications

In addition to developing theoretical understanding, support for the hypoth-eses may have important practical implications for structuring teams,

especially in China and other collectivist cultures. Developing a cooperative

approach to conflict for teams may strengthen their relationships and





20/28

effectiveness. Training sessions could orient the team towards cooperative

conflict and its skills of self-expression, perspective taking, and creative

problem solving (Tjosvold, 1993). Employee compensation could be based

in part on group outcomes to encourage team members to believe that their

goals are cooperative and that they want to resolve their conflicts for mutual

benefit (Hanlon et al., 1994). Team members work to resolve the conflict so

that all benefit, not just themselves, and combine the best ideas to implement

a solution that promotes mutual goals.

Deutsch’s cooperative and competitive approach was able to identify

conditions that affect the extent that conflicts promote confidence in relation-

ships and team effectiveness in China. As in the West, teams that rely on

resolving issues for mutual benefit can work productively for themselves andfor the organization, whereas teams that emphasize competitive, win–lose

ways have fragmented relationships. Theories developed in one culture

cannot be assumed to apply to another (Hofstede, 1993). However, the

cooperative and competitive approach may be useful both in the West and

East. If so, it could provide the basis for teams in such settings as Sino-

western joint ventures to deal with the many relational and task conflicts that

threaten to divide them (Jassawalla & Sashittal, 1999).

References

Adler, P.S. & Kwon, S.W. Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Academy of Manage-ment Review, 2002, 27, 17–40.

Aldag, R.J. & Fuller, S.R. Beyond fiasco: A reappraisal of the groupthink phenomenon

and a new model of group decision processes. Psychological Bulletin, 1993, 113,533–52.

Alper, S., Tjosvold, D. & Law, K.S. Conflict management, efficacy, and performance in self-

managing work teams. Personnel Psychology, 2000, 53, 625–38.

Amason, A.C. Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict onstrategic decision making: Resolving a paradox for top management teams. Academyof Management Journal , 1996, 39, 123–48.

Amason, A.C. & Mooney, A.C. The information dilemma in negotiations: Effects of experi-ence, incentives, and integrative potential. International Journal of Conflict Manage-ment , 1999, 10, 340–59.

Banker, R.D., Field, J.M., Schroeder, R.G. & Sinhan, K.K. Impact of work teams on manu-facturing performance: A longitudinal study. Academy of Management Journal , 1997,

39, 867–90.Barker, J., Tjosvold, D. & Andrews, I.R. Conflict approaches of effective and ineffective

managers: A field study in a matrix organization. Journal of Management Studies, 1988,

25, 167–78.Barrick, M.R., Stewart, G.L., Neubert, M.J. & Mount, M.K. Relating member ability and

personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychol-ogy, 1998, 83, 377–91.

Beersman, B., Hollenbeck, J.R., Humphrey, S., Moon, H. & Ilgen, D.R. Cooperation,





21/28

competition, and team performance: Toward a contingency approach. Academy of Management Journal , 2003, 46, 572–90.

Bentler, P.M. & Wu, E.J.C. EQS for Macintosh user’s guide. Encino, CA: MultivariateSoftware, 1995.

Bettenhausen, K.L. Five years of group research: What we have learned and what needs tobe addressed. Journal of Management , 1991, 17, 345–81.

Bettenhausen, K.L. & Murnighan, J.K. The emergence of norms in competitive decision-

making groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1985, 30, 350–72.Bies, R.J. The predicament of injustice: The management of moral outrage. In L.L.

Cummings & B.M. Staw (Eds), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 9). Green-wich, CT: JAI Press, 1987, pp. 289–319.

Bies, R.J. & Moag, J.S. Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In R.J.Lewicki, B.H. Sheppard & M.H. Bazerman (Eds), Research on negotiations in organiz-ations (Vol. 1). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1986, pp. 43–55.

Bommer, W.H., Miles, E.W. & Grover, S.L. Does one good turn deserve another? Coworker

influences on employee citizenship. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2003, 24,181–96.

Bond, M.H., Wan, K.C., Lueng, K. & Giacalone, R.A. How are responses to verbal insultsrelated to cultural collectivism and power distance. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychol-ogy, 1985, 16, 111–27.

Bouty, I. Interpersonal and interaction influences on informal resource exchanges betweenR&D researchers across organizational boundaries. Academy of Management Journal ,2000, 43, 50–65.

Brislin, R.W. Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1970, 1, 185–216.

Campion, M.A., Medsker, G.J. & Higgs, A.C. Relations between work group character-

istics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups. Personnel Psychology, 1993, 46, 823–50.

Chan, W.T. A source book in Chinese philosophy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UniversityPress, 1963.

Chen, C.C., Peng, M.W. & Saparito, P.A. Individualism, collectivism, and opportunism: A

cultural perspective on transaction cost economics. Journal of Management , 2002, 28,567–83.

Cohen, S.G. & Ledford, G.E.J. The effectiveness of self-managing teams: A quasi-

experiment. Human Relations, 1994, 47, 13–43.Cohen-Charash, Y. The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis. Organizational

Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2001, 86, 278–321.

Colquitt, J.A. On the dimensionality of organizational justice. Journal of Applied Psychol-ogy, 2001, 86, 386–400.

Colquitt, J.A., Colon, D.E., Wesson, M.J., Porter, C.L.O.H. & Ng, K.Y. Justice at the

millennium: A meta-analysis review of 25 years of organizational justice research.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 2001, 86, 425–45.Cosier, R.A. The effects of three potential aids for making strategic decisions on prediction

accuracy. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1978, 22, 295–306.Cox, T.H., Lobel, S.A. & McLeod, P.L. Effects of ethnic group cultural differences on

cooperative and competitive behavior on a group task. Academy of Management Journal , 1991, 34, 827–47.

De Dreu, C.K.W. & Van de Vliert, E. (Eds). Using Conflict in Organizations. London: Sage,

1997.De Dreu, C.K.W., Van Vianen, A.E.M., Harinck, F. & McCusker, C. Socio-emotional

and task-related conflict in groups: Implications for contextual and task performance.Paper presented at the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology Conference,

1998.





22/28

De Dreu, C.K.W. & Weingart, L.R. Task versus relationship conflict, team performance,

and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2003,88, 741–9.

De Dreu, C.K.W., Weingart, L.R. & Kwon, S. Influence of social motives in integrative

negotiations: A meta-analytic review and test of two theories. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 2000, 78, 889–905.

Deutsch, M. The resolution of conflict . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1973.Deutsch, M. Fifty years of conflict. In L. Festinger (Ed.) Retrospections on social psychol-

ogy. New York: Oxford University Press, 1980, pp. 46–77.Dirks, K.T. The effects of interpersonal trust on work group performance. Jounal of

Applied Psychology, 1999, 84, 445–55.Dooley, R.S. & Fryxell, G.E. Attaining decision quality and commitment from dissent: The

moderating effects of loyalty and competence in strategic decision-making teams.

Academy of Management Journal , 1999, 42, 389–402.Druskat, V.U. & Wolff, S.B. The link between emotions and team effectiveness: How teams

engage members and build effective task processes. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Best Papers Proceedings, 1999.

Duffy, M.K., Ganster, D.C. & Pagon, M. Social undermining in the workplace. Academyof Management Journal , 2002, 45, 331–51.

Edmondson, A.C. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administra-tive Science Quarterly, 1999, 44, 350–83.

Eisenhardt, E.M., Kahwajy, J.L. & Bourgeois, L.J.I. Conflict and strategic choice. Cali-fornia Management Review, 1997, 39, 42–69.

Eisenhardt, K.M. & Bourgeois, L.J.I. Politics of strategic decision making in high-velocityenvironments: Toward a midrange theory. Academy of Management Journal , 1988, 31,737–70.

Ellis, A.P.J., Hollenbeck, J.R., Ilgen, D.R., Porter, C.O.L.H., West, B.J. & Moon, H. Teamlearning: Collectively connecting the dots. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2003, 88,821–35.

Elsayed-Ekhouly, S.M. & Buba, R. Organizational conflict: A comparative analysis of conflict styles across cultures. International Journal of Conflict Management , 1996,

7 (1) , 71–81.George, J.M. & Bettenhausen, K. Understanding prosaic behavior, sales performance and

turnover: A group-level analysis in a service context. Journal of Applied Psychology,1990, 75, 698–709.

Gersick, C.J.G., Bartunek, J.M. & Dutton, J.E. Learning from academia: The importance of relationships in professional life. Academy of Management Journal , 2000, 43, 1026–45.

Goodman, P.S., Devadas, R. & Griffith-Hughson, T.L. Groups and productivity: Analyz-ing the effectiveness of self-managing teams. In J.P. Campbell & R.J. Campbell (Eds),

Productivity in organizations: New perspectives from industrial and organizational psychology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1988, pp. 295–327.

Greenberg, J. Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Manage-ment , 1990, 16, 399–432.

Gruenfeld, D.H. Status, ideology, and integrative complexity on the U.S. Supreme Court:

Rethinking the politics of political decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1995, 68, 5–20.

Hackman, J.R. The design of work teams. In J. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1987, pp. 315–42.

Hackman, J.R. Groups that work (and those that don’t). San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 1990.Hanlon, S.C., Meyer, D.C. & Taylor, R.R. Consequences of gainsharing: A field experi-

ment revisited. Group and Organizational Management , 1994, 19, 87–111.Hare, L. & O’Neill, K. Effectiveness and efficiency in small academic peer groups. Small

Group Research, 2000, 31(1) , 24–54.





23/28

Hill, G.W. Group versus individual performance: Are N + 1 heads better than one? Psycho-logical Bulletin, 1982, 91, 517–39.

Hofstede, G. Cultural constraints in management theories. Academy of Management Executive, 1993, 7, 81–94.

Hui, C. & Graen, G. Guanxi and professional leadership in contemporary Sino-Americanjoint ventures in Mainland China. Leadership Quarterly, 1997, 8, 451–65.

Hwang, K.K. Face and favor: Chinese power game. American Journal of Sociology, 1987,

92, 944–74.Hwang, K.K. Guanxi and Mientze: Conflict resolution in Chinese society. Intercultural

Communication Studies, 1997–8, 7 (1) , 17–42.Hwang, K.K. Chinese relationalism: Theoretical construction and methodological consider-

ations. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 2000, 30, 155–78.Ilgen, D.R. Teams embedded in organizations. American Psychologist , 1999, 54, 129–39.

James, L., Demaree, R. & Wolf, G. Estimating within-group interater reliability with and

without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1984, 78, 306–9.

Jassawalla, A.R. & Sashittal, H.C. Building collaborative cross-functional new productteams. Academy of Management Executive, 1999, 13, 50–63.

Jehn, K.A. A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroupconflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1995, 40, 256–82.

Jehn, K.A. A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational groups.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 1997, 42, 530–57. Jehn, K. & Weldon, E. A comparative study of managerial attitudes toward conflict in the

United States and the People’s Republic of China: Issues of theory and measurement.

Paper presented at the Academy of Management, Las Vegas, NV, 1992. Johnson, D.W., Maruyama, G., Johnson, R.T., Nelson, D. & Skon, S. Effects of coopera-

tive, competitive, and individualistic goal structures on achievement: A meta-analysis.

Psychological Bulletin, 1981, 89, 47–62.Karau, S.J. & Williams, K.D. Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical inte-

gration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1993, 65, 681–706.Kelley, H.H. & Thibaut, J.W. Group problem solving. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds),

Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 3). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1968,pp. 1–105.

Kerr, B. Raising the career aspirations of gifted girls. Vocational Guidance Quarterly, 1983,32, 37–43.

Kilmann, R. & Thomas, K. Developing a forced-choice measure of conflict-handling

behavior: The ‘MODE’ instrument. Education and Psychological Measurement , 1977,37, 309–25.

Kirkbride, P.S., Tang, S.F.Y. & Westwood, R.I. Chinese conflict preferences and negotiatingbehaviour: Cultural and psychological influences. Organization Studies, 1991, 12, 365–86.

Kostova, T. & Roth, K. Social capital in multinational corporations and a micro–macro

model of its formation. Academy of Management Review, 2003, 29, 297–317.Kramer, R.M. & Messick, D.M. Negotiation as a social process. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage,

1995.

Kramer, R.M. & Tyler, T.R. Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1996.

Kumar, N. The power of trust in manufacturer-retailer relationships. Harvard BusinessReview, 1996, November–December, 92–106.

Lam, S.S.K., Schaubroeck, J. & Aryee, S. Relationship between organizational justice and

employee work outcomes: A cross-national study. Journal of Organizational Behavior,2002, 23, 1–18.

Latane, B., Williams, K. & Harkins, S. Many hands make light the work: The causes andconsequences of social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1979, 37,822–32.





24/28


25/28

Rousseau, D.M., Sitkin, S.B., Burt, R.S. & Camerer, C. Not so different after all: A cross-

discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 1998, 23, 393–404.Rubin, J.Z., Pruitt, D.G. & Kim, S.H. Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate, and settlement ,

2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994.

Salas, E., Rozell, D., Driskell, J.D. & Mullen, B. The effect of team building on perform-ance: An integration. Small Group Research, 1999, 30, 309–29.

Schweiger, D.M., Sandberg, W.R. & Rechner, P.L. Experiential effects of dialectical inquiry,

devil’s advocacy, and consensus approaches to strategic decision making. Academy of Management Journal , 1989, 32, 745–72.

Schwenk, C.R. Cognitive simplification processes in strategic decision-making. StrategicManagement Journal , 1984, 5, 111–28.

Sheppard, J.A. Productivity loss in performance groups: A motivation analysis. Psycho-logical Bulletin, 1993, 113, 67–81.

Simons, P.L., Pelled, L.H. & Smith, K.A. Making use of difference: Diversity, debate and

decision comprehensiveness in top management teams. Academy of Management

Journal , 1999, 42, 662–73.Simons, T.L. & Peterson, R.S. Task conflict and relationship conflict in top management

teams: The pivotal role of intragroup trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2000, 85,102–11.

Spector, P.E. A consideration of the validity and meaning of self-report measures of job

conditions. In C.L. Cooper & I.T. Robertson (Eds), International review of industrial and organizational psychology. Chichester: Wiley, 1992, pp. 123–51.

Spector, P.E. & Brannick, M.T. The nature and effects of method variance in organizational

research. In C.L. Cooper & I.T. Robertson (Eds), International review of industrial and organizational psychology. Chichester: Wiley, 1995, pp. 249–74.

Stewart, G.L. & Barrick, M.R. Team structure and performance: Assessing the mediating

role of intrateam process and the moderating role of task type. Academy of Manage-ment Journal , 2000, 43, 135–48.

Tetlock, P.E., Armor, D. & Peterson, R.S. The slavery debate in ante-bellum America:

Cognitive style, value conflicts, and the limits of compromise. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 1994, 66, 115–26.

Thomas, K.W. Conflict and conflict management. In M.D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychology Press,1976, pp. 889–935.

Ting-Toomey, S. A face negotiation theory. In Y.Y. Kim & W.B. Gudykunst (Eds), Theoryand intercultural communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1988, pp. 47–92.

Tjosvold, D. Prevalence of cooperation and competition: Evidence from diverse organiz-

ations. Psychological Reports, 1993, 72(1) , 210.Tjosvold, D. The cooperative and competitive goal approach to conflict: Accomplishments

and challenges. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 1998, 47, 285–342.Tjosvold, D. Managing anger for teamwork in Hong Kong: Goal interdependence and

open-mindedness. Asian Journal Social Psychology, 2002, 5, 107–23.Triandis, H.C. Cross cultural studies of individualism and collectivism. In J.J. Berman (Ed.),

Nebraska symposium on motivation 1989 (Vol. 37). Lincoln: University of NebraskaPress, 1990, pp. 41–133.

Triandis, H.C., McCusker, C. & Hui, C.H. Multimethod probes of individualism and

collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1990, 59, 1006–20.Tse, D.K., Francis, J. & Wallis, J. Cultural differences in conducting intra- and inter-cultural

negotiations: A Sino-Canadian comparison. Journal of International Business Studies,1994, 24, 537–55.

Tung, R. Handshakes across the sea: Cross-cultural negotiating for business success.

Organizational Dynamics, 1991, 14, 30–40.Tyler, T.R. & Bies, R.J. Beyond formal procedures: The interpersonal context of procedural





26/28

justice. In J.S. Carroll (Ed.), Applied social psychology in business settings. Hillsdale,NJ: Erlbaum, 1990, pp. 77–98.

Van de Vliert, E. & Kabanoff, B. Toward theory-based measures of conflict management.

Academy of Management Journal , 1990, 33, 199–209.

Van Der Vegt, G., Emans, B. & Van de Vliert, E. Motivation effects of task and outcomeinterdependence in work teams. Group & Organization Management , 1998, 23(2) ,124–43.

Wageman, R. Interdependence and group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly,1995, 40, 145–80.

Walton, R. Managing conflict. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1969.West, M.A. Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An integrative model of creativity and

innovation implementation in work groups. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 2002, 51, 355–424.

Williams, K.D. & Karau, S.J. Social loafing and social compensation: The effects of expec-

tations of co-worker performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1991,

61, 570–81.Yamagishi, T., Kikuchi, M. & Kosugi, M. Trust, gullibility and social intelligence. Asian

Journal of Social Psychology, 1999, 2, 145–61.Yamagishi, T. & Yamagishi, M. Trust and commitment in the United States and Japan.

Motivation and Emotion, 1994, 18, 129–66.

Appendix

Measures

Cooperative approach to conflict

1. Team members encourage a ‘we are in it together’ attitude as they nego-

tiate their differences.

2. Team members seek a solution that will be good for all of us.

3. Team members treat conflict as a mutual problem to solve.

4. We work so that to the extent possible we all get what we really want.

5. Team members combine the best of positions to make an effectivedecision.

Competitive approach to conflict

1. Team members demand that others agree to their position.

2. Team members want others to make concessions but do not want to

make concessions themselves.

3. Team members treat conflict as a win–lose contest.4. Team members state their position strongly to get their way.





27/28

Members’ rating of confidence in relationships

How strong are the relationships among team members?

How confident are team members that they can interact with eachother successfully?

How much do team members trust each other?

Members’ rating of team commitment

Generally speaking, team members are very satisfied with their work.

Team members feel highly committed to the goals of their work.

The way the team manages its work inspires the team to better job

performance.Generally speaking, team members are very satisfied with their work.

Manager’s rating of team productivity

Team members work effectively.

Team members meet or exceed their productivity requirements.

Team members produce quality work.

Team members do their part to ensure that their products will be deliv-ered on time.





28/28


Dean Tjosvold (BA – Princeton, PhD – University of Minnesota) is

Chair Professor, Management Department, Lingnan University, Hong

Kong. Before that he taught at Pennsylvania State University and SimonFraser University and has been a visiting professor at the University of

Groningen and National University of Singapore. He has published on

cooperation and competition, conflict management, decision-making,

power, and other management issues. He’s on several editorial boards

and is the Asian editor for the Journal of World Business. He is a partner

in his family healthcare business based in Minnesota.

[E-mail: [email protected]]

Margaret Poon (MA – University of Lancaster, PhD – University of

Bradford) is Associate Professor in the Department of Acccountancy,

City University of Hong Kong. Her interests include behavioral account-

ing, financial management, and international accounting.


Zi-you Yu (MSc, PhD – Purdue) is Associate Professor, Department of

Finance and Risk Management, Lingnan University, Hong Kong. She has

also taught at Shanghai University of Finance and Economics. She haspublished on risk management, insurance market regulation and develop-

ment, venture capital analysis, and Chinese financial market development.


team effectiveness in china: cooperative conflict for relationship building

Documents