Description
The current study attempted to elucidate the mechanisms whereby constructive-cooperative conflict management (integrating) fosters innovation in work teams. The proposed conceptual model postulated that the positive function of integrating in precipitating innovation is motivated by prosocial team atmosphere as manifested in team identity, the team's capacity to mitigate the adverse impact of relationship conflict and its capability to maximize the potential gains of task conflict.
Innovation and Con?ict Management in
Work Teams: The Effects of Team
Identi?cation and Task and Relationship
Con?ict
Helena Syna Desivilya,
1
Anit Somech,
2
and Helena Lidgoster
2
1 Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Max Stern Academic College of Emek Yezreel,
Emek Yezreel, Israel
2 Faculty of Education, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel
Keywords
team, con?ict management,
innovation, team identity, task
con?ict, relationship con?ict
Correspondence
Helena Syna Desivilya,
Department of Sociology and
Anthropology, Max Stern
Academic College of Emek
Yezreel, Emek Yezreel 19300,
Israel;
e-mail: [email protected].
Abstract
The current study attempted to elucidate the mechanisms
whereby constructive-cooperative con?ict management
(integrating) fosters innovation in work teams. The pro-
posed conceptual model postulated that the positive func-
tion of integrating in precipitating innovation is
motivated by prosocial team atmosphere as manifested in
team identity, the team’s capacity to mitigate the adverse
impact of relationship con?ict and its capability to maxi-
mize the potential gains of task con?ict. Speci?cally, it
was hypothesized: (a) integrating would predict innova-
tion. (b) Team identity would be positively related to
integrating, and that integrating would mediate the posi-
tive relationship between team identity and team innova-
tion. (c) Task con?ict would be positively related to
integrating whereas relationship con?ict would be nega-
tively related to integrating. This research embraced a
team-level perspective and analysis. Seventy-seven intact
work teams from high-technology companies participated
in the study. The ?ndings, by and large, supported the
proposed conceptual model, especially the contention that
teams’ proclivities with respect to con?ict management
play a pivotal role in their capacity to function in an
innovative manner. A team’s integrating pattern meaning-
fully predicted team innovation. The mediating effect of
the integrating strategy on the relationship between team
Negotiation and Con?ict Management Research
Volume 3, Number 1, Pages 28–48
28 ª 2010 International Association for Con?ict Management and Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Current organizations face a highly competitive and dynamic environment, which neces-
sitate ?exibility and fast adaptation to new situations and changing contexts. Hence,
innovation has become a vital asset in order to ensure organizational sustainability
(DeDreu, 2006; Jansenn, Van de Vliert, & West, 2004; West, 2002; West & Hirst, 2003).
In an effort to attain innovation, organizations often resort to collaborative work
arrangements, particularly work teams.
Innovation in a team setting has been de?ned as: ‘‘the intentional introduction and
application within a team, of ideas, processes, products or procedures new to the team,
designed to signi?cantly bene?t the individual, the team, the organization, or wider
society’’ (West & Wallace, 1991, p. 303). The concept of innovation emphasizes the
element of deliberate effort by team members and the application aspect which
distinguishes it from sporadic creativity of talented individuals (Amabile, Conti, Coon,
Lazenby, & Herron, 1996). Innovation generally emerges as an outcome of continuous
interaction processes within a team (West & Hirst, 2003).
Con?ict constitutes one of the central processes associated with the teams’ internal
dynamics (Tjosvold, 2006; West & Hirst, 2003). Hence understanding the mechanisms
underlying innovation requires a thorough examination of this phenomenon. Research
on the effects of con?ict on innovation in work teams addressed by and large the
relationships between the prevalence of con?ict and innovation, however, empirical
investigations addressing the function of con?ict management processes in team inno-
vation, have been scarce (DeDreu, 2006; Nemeth, Personnaz, Personnaz, & Goncalo,
2004). The current study intended to ?ll in this gap. Speci?cally, it attempted to expand
the knowledge base and understanding with respect to the mechanisms whereby con-
structive-cooperative con?ict management patterns foster innovation in work teams.
The conceptual model tested in this research postulated that the positive function of
constructive-cooperative con?ict handling mode in precipitating innovation is motivated
by supportive team atmosphere as manifested in team identity. Furthermore, it posited
that constructive con?ict management, which then facilitates innovation, stems from the
team’s capacity to mitigate the adverse impact of relationship con?ict and its capability
to maximize the potential gains of task con?ict. Figure 1 schematically depicts the
conceptual model tested in the current study.
The following sections explicate in detailed fashion the proposed model.
The Role of Constructive Con?ict Management in
Team Innovation
Con?ict constitutes an inevitable and commonplace element in the dynamics of organi-
zational work teams (Alper, Tjosvold, & Law, 2000; DeDreu, 2006; Desivilya & Eizen,
identity and team innovation was also demonstrated.
Finally, relationship con?ict was negatively associated
with a team’s integrating pattern, while the positive asso-
ciation of task con?ict with the cooperative strategy was
marginally signi?cant.
Desivilya et al. Innovation and Con?ict Management in Work Teams
Volume 3, Number 1, Pages 28–48 29
2005; Desivilya & Yagil, 2005; Tjosvold, 2006). De Dreu and Weingart (2003) de?ne
intragroup con?ict as a process emanating from interpersonal tensions among team
members owing to real or perceived disparities. Members of work groups within organi-
zations experience and manage con?ict with their counterparts on an everyday basis.
Work teams as increasingly popular organizational structures serve to improve qual-
ity, increase ef?ciency and ensure organizational sustainability (Tomlinson, 2005; Van-
gen & Huxham, 2003a). We embrace the fundamental assumption, advanced by con?ict
and organization scholars that effectiveness of work teams, including their capacity for
innovation, stems to a large extent from the quality of their internal relationships (Ama-
bile et al., 2001; Ayoko, Ha¨rtel, & Callan, 2002; Chen, Liu, & Tjosvold, 2005; Moham-
med & Angell, 2004). Team members’ approach and the actual ways they handle
internal con?icts have a considerable impact on the attributes of their internal bonds.
Moreover, modes of handling disagreements in work teams constitute critical determi-
nants of con?ict outcomes (DeDreu, 2006; Hinds & Mortenson, 2005; Jehn & Bender-
sky, 2003). Hence, thorough understanding of orientations, approaches and actual
con?ict management behaviors in work teams deems essential.
In an attempt to elucidate the dynamics of con?ict in work teams, we ?rst delineate
several prevailing conceptual frameworks analyzing con?ict management stressing their
application in research on work teams. Con?ict management refers to behaviors team
members employ to deal with their real and perceived differences, some relating to
emotionally driven con?icts (relationship con?icts) while others addressing the more
substantive elements of their discords (task con?icts).
Figure 1. The Study Model.
Innovation and Con?ict Management in Work Teams Desivilya et al.
30 Volume 3, Number 1, Pages 28–48
Most studies on interpersonal con?ict-management have adopted the Dual Concern
Model originally proposed by Blake and Mouton (1964), later adopted with some modi-
?cations by several scholars (Pruitt & Rubin, 1986; Rahim, 1983; Thomas, 1976). The
basic tenet of this model postulates that the con?ict-management mode employed by
an individual emanates from two underlying motives: concern for self and concern for
the other party. The strength of each of these two motivational orientations according
to con?ict scholars may vary as a function of the particular con?ict situation, with dif-
fering emphases on each of the two concerns yielding ?ve major con?ict-management
patterns: (a) Dominating (high concern for self and low concern for the other),
re?ected in attempts to persuade the other side to accept one’s position; (b) Obliging
(low concern for self and high concern for the other), manifested in behaviors such as
acquiescence with the other; (c) Avoiding (low concern for self and low concern for the
other) that is evading confrontation of the con?ict issues; (d) Integrating (high concern
for self and high concern for the other), re?ected in searching mutually bene?cial
alternatives for solution; (e) Compromising (moderate concern for self and moderate
concern for the other), manifested in behaviors such as seeking and proposing mid-way
solutions.
The current study embraced the Dual Concern Model as the conceptual framework of
con?ict 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 con?ict approach pertains to the potential outcome of con?ict management behavior,
namely whether it is constructive or destructive to the relationship (Deutsch, 1973)
between the parties (group members). Constructive con?ict management processes
re?ect cooperative and pro-social behavior, aimed at preserving relationships. In con-
trast, destructive con?ict management actions denote antisocial, competitive behavior
that is potentially disruptive to the relationship or that reduces the odds of repairing
the bonds. The current study focuses on the constructive con?ict management pro-
cesses, which subsume cooperative ways of handling con?icts, termed in the Dual Con-
cern Model ‘‘integrating’’ or ‘‘problem-solving.’’
Our choice to concentrate on the constructive-cooperative modes of con?ict manage-
ment stems from our intention to explain the mechanisms underlying functional con-
?icts in work teams; namely, discords which despite their dividing and stressful aspects
can contribute to team effectiveness, and especially to innovation. Effective team-work
has been conceptualized as a process which fosters internal interactions by means of
mutually helpful communication, coordination and cooperation designed to facilitate
successful completion of tasks and development of high quality relationships among
team members.
Accordingly, Tjosvold (2006) has argued that con?ict can provide motivation for
engaging intra-team discords, and that competent management of these internal con-
?icts, despite transient disruption, strengthens relationships among team members. This
researcher showed in several studies (e.g., Chen et al., 2005; Tjosvold et al., 2005) that
con?dence in a team’s relationships and faith in its capability to manage con?icts, both
Desivilya et al. Innovation and Con?ict Management in Work Teams
Volume 3, Number 1, Pages 28–48 31
from the managers and members’ perspectives, contributed to team effectiveness,
including innovation.
Thus, the usefulness of con?icts for work teams depends to a large extent on team
members’ motivational orientation, in particular on the strength of their concern about
the team’s internal relations. Team members who aspire to sustain positive internal rela-
tions are motivated to promote mutual understanding, build intra group trust and the
ability to work together at present and in the future. In other words, they exhibit a pro-
social motivation towards their team.
Such an orientation in turn enhances constructive-cooperative actions while dealing
with internal con?icts: exchanging information with respect to needs and interests,
voicing diverse opinions and attempting to gain mutual understanding of these differ-
ences, surfacing problems, viewing them from a variety of angles and perspectives,
searching for solutions which satisfy all team members’ concerns and coordinating
members’ behaviors. Conceivably, the positive effect of the constructive-cooperative
patterns of con?ict management on team innovation stems from prosocial motivation
coupled with effective utilization of cognitive resources (Chen et al., 2005; Cornish,
Zittoun, & Gillespie, 2007; DeDreu, 2006; Gratton, 2005). Effective use of cognitive
resources means that team members are capable of learning, developing insights and
deep understanding. Such a cognitive advantage can be materialized due to team
members’ prosocial motivation, driving them to thoroughly analyze joint problems thus
enhancing the odds of searching together and ?nding novel ideas and solutions which
are mutually bene?cial.
In line with this contention, DeDreu (2006) showed that moderate levels of task
con?ict in work teams which were managed by collaborative problem solving fostered
innovation.
Based on prior theorizing and empirical research we proposed the following hypo-
thesis:
Hypothesis 1: A team’s integrating pattern of con?ict management will be positively
related to the team’s innovation.
The Contribution of Team Identity to Constructive Con?ict
Management
In an attempt to discern the mechanisms underlying the positive effect of constructive-
cooperative con?ict management pattern of integrating on team innovation, we draw
on theories linking the nature of team atmosphere or climate with team effectiveness
(Cunningham & Chelladurai, 2004; Lembke & Wilson,1998; Tyler & Blader, 2003;
West & Hirst, 2003) Team climate constitutes a broad, overarching concept. Our
research model explicates one of the main factors, which determines the nature of
team climate: team-identity. This is a group-level concept derived from the construct of
team-identi?cation.
Applying Henry, Arrow, and Carini’s (1999) three-dimensional model, team-identi?-
cation is construed as a cognitive, emotional and behavioral bond between an individual
Innovation and Con?ict Management in Work Teams Desivilya et al.
32 Volume 3, Number 1, Pages 28–48
and a team. Team-identi?cation constitutes a special type of social identi?cation, re?ect-
ing the degree to which individual team members experience a sense of ‘‘oneness’’ with
a particular organizationally based team (Gundlach, Zivnuska, & Stoner, 2006). Accord-
ing to the social identity theory (Hogg & Terry, 2000; van Knippenberg & van Schie,
2000) the need for self-de?nition and pursuit of a sense of meaning provide the primary
impetus for the process of identi?cation. Strong identi?cation with one’s team contrib-
utes to team members’ capability to attain self-construal and a sense of meaning.
Team-identi?cation is an individual-level construct representing the extent to which an
individual member identi?es with the team. Lembke and Wilson (1998) introduced the
term team-identity, purporting to a group level construct; namely, the collective level of
team-identi?cation emerging across all members of the team. Thus, the group level con-
struct of team-identity is driven by the individual level construct of team-identi?cation
(Gundlach et al., 2006).
A collective sense of team-identity, a sense of ‘‘togetherness’’ and ‘‘oneness,’’
promotes the members’ tendencies to act on behalf of the team; namely, develops an
internal prosocial orientation (e.g., Haslam, 2001; Wegge & Haslam, 2003). Such an
intra-team prosocial climate in turn serves as a framework for organizing and coordi-
nating team members’ behavior (e.g., Cunningham & Chelladurai, 2004; Haslam, 2001;
Hinds & Mortenson, 2005; Wegge & Haslam, 2003). Strong team identity actively moti-
vates team members to share skills, information, knowledge and other resources with
each other, behaviors which are likely to enhance the team’s welfare and joint outcomes
(Riketta & van Dick, 2005; Stevens & Campion, 1994). In other words, team-identity
creates the very motivational conditions which increase the odds for intra-team coopera-
tive interactions (Tyler & Blader, 2003).
Previous research on work teams provided support for the line of reasoning presented
above. It indicated that prosocial orientation engendered by team-identity, fostered
intra-team cooperation in general and also in con?ict situations—encouraging team
members to embrace constructive-cooperative patterns of managing internal discords
(Amabile et al., 2001; Desivilya & Eizen, 2005; Hinds & Mortenson, 2005).
Additional evidence concerning positive links between strong team- identity and
cooperative inclinations emerged from the domain of social dilemmas. The ?ndings
have indicated that a person with a higher sense of group-identity was more likely to
select cooperative alternatives, that is, to cooperate with other group members, in con-
trast to individuals with a lower sense of group-identity (De Cremer, 2001). In a simi-
lar vein, Rusbult (1993) found that individuals who felt highly committed to their
relationships tended to exhibit constructive responses to crisis in interpersonal rela-
tionships.
Based on our conceptual framing and prior research, we postulated that strong team-
identity promotes prosocial team orientation, an atmosphere engendering cooperative
motivation; namely, a desire to seek constructive-cooperative ways such as integrating
to deal with internal disputes. Accordingly we hypothesized:
Hypothesis 2: Team-identity will be positively associated with a team’s integrating
pattern of con?ict management.
Desivilya et al. Innovation and Con?ict Management in Work Teams
Volume 3, Number 1, Pages 28–48 33
The Mediating Function of Constructive Con?ict Management
in the Relationships Between Team-Identity and
Team-Innovation
Beyond the contribution of team-identity to constructive-cooperative con?ict manage-
ment, previous research has suggested that a prosocial atmosphere directly affects
team-innovation. It allows team members to openly discuss their views concerning
group goals, tasks and missions, promotes creativity, learning and innovation (Amabile
et al., 2001; Standifer & Bluedorn, 2006; Swan & Scarbrough, 2005; West & Hirst, 2003).
Indeed, Za´ rraga and Bonache (2005) showed that high- care team-atmosphere, entailing
mutual trust and active empathy enhanced knowledge transfer and knowledge creation.
The research ?ndings, cited in previous sections, imply that team-identity sets the
stage for team-innovation by inducing a prosocial atmosphere, encouraging team mem-
bers to act on behalf of the team. However, we argue that the prosocial orientation
(re?ected in team-identity) can manifest its effects on the outcome of team- innovation
only if it actually mobilizes the team members to employ integrating behaviors to man-
age internal discords. Thus, the constructive-cooperative con?ict management pattern of
integrating constitutes a crucial component in the conceptual causal chain, linking
team-identity with team-innovation. A team’s actual integrating behaviors utilize the
advantages—such as tolerance for divergence, openness to others’ ideas, willingness to
share information, knowledge and skills—provided by prosocial team-orientation, as
expressed in team-identity. These gains then carry over to generation of novel and inno-
vative outcomes. Thus, we hypothesize:
Hypothesis 3: A team’s integrating con?ict-management pattern will mediate the effect
of team-identity on team-innovation.
Relationship and Task Con?icts in Teams and Constructive
Con?ict Management
In addition to an aspect of team-climate as re?ected in team-identity, the nature and
prevalence of intra-team con?icts can shape the patterns whereby these disputes are
managed, which in turn in?uence the team’s capacity for innovation and learning.
Team members’ interactions in work teams involve both social and mission-related
aspects. Hence, con?ict processes may touch upon task and relationship issues. Accord-
ingly, Jehn (1997) distinguished between relationship (or affective) and task (or cogni-
tive) con?ict and developed separate de?nitions of these two concepts.
Relationship con?ict refers to an awareness of interpersonal incompatibilities, re?ect-
ing interpersonal frictions; tensions; clash of personalities; and disagreements about per-
sonal values, taste, and interpersonal styles. This type of con?ict is associated with the
emotional aspects of interpersonal relations in work teams. Task con?ict pertains to an
awareness of differences in opinions and perspectives with respect to the work team’s
tasks, entailing divergent perceptions concerning distribution of resources, work proce-
dures, and policies. In contrast with the emotionally driven relationship con?ict, this
type of intra-team discord is embedded in the substantive elements of teams’ tasks.
Innovation and Con?ict Management in Work Teams Desivilya et al.
34 Volume 3, Number 1, Pages 28–48
Several studies examined the association between these two con?ict types and con?ict
management patterns in work teams. For example, Rentsch and Zelno (2003) studied
intra-team dynamics in work groups, where members perform complex, unstructured
tasks such as strategic decision making. According to their theoretical perspective, team
members’ interpretations of their counterparts’ action-related intentions markedly in?u-
ence con?ict behavior in work teams.
Rentsch and Zelno (2003) argued that greater correspondence among team members’
interpretations of action intentions (especially about positive team orientation) fosters
more effective and ef?cient con?ict management interactions. Such congruent cogni-
tions enhance mutual understanding among team members, encourage convergent and
inclusive communication, and foster successful coordination. Consequently, divergent
views about work procedures and other work-related issues (task con?ict) will most
likely be considered as legitimate disagreements, which need to be addressed in a coop-
erative manner, seeking mutually acceptable solutions.
Conversely, if team members’ perceptions reveal incongruent views of action-related
intentions, such as when some of them erroneously construe task con?ict as relationship
con?ict (e.g., interpret constructive criticism directed at them as personal attacks), they
will be less likely to adopt constructive con?ict management strategy.
Beyond incidental use of contentious tactics, inaccurate and incongruent cognitions
of team members can incite destructive con?ict course. This is especially likely when
team members repeatedly misattribute the others’ behaviors and view them as interfer-
ing with the team’s goals and norms. Such destructive escalatory dynamics discourages
intra-team information exchange and increases the likelihood of power struggles. By
contrast, constructive dynamics of handling intra-team con?icts is more likely to
develop when team members hold congruent perceptions about the positive value of
openness and constructive controversy in promoting the group’s goals. In the latter case,
they tend to treat internal discords as task con?icts rather than emotionally colored per-
sonal incompatibilities. Task con?icts, unlike their relationship counterpart, encourage
cooperative strategic choice designed to foster attainment of work team goals and
strengthen the internal bonds among team members.
DeDreu (2006) and Desivilya and Yagil (2005) research provide some support to
Rentsch and Zelno’s (2003) arguments with regard to the relationships between the type
of con?ict and the ways it is managed. Empirical evidence derived from these studies
indicated that relationship con?ict mitigates the use cooperative strategies such as inte-
grating. Conversely, task con?ict appears to be linked with the constructive-cooperative
intra-team strategic choice of integrating.
We therefore hypothesized:
Hypothesis 4: Task con?ict will be positively associated with the integrating pattern of
a team’s con?ict management whereas relationship con?ict will be negatively associated
with the integrating pattern.
In sum, this study examined the pivotal role of a team’s con?ict management pat-
terns for its capacity to function in an innovative manner. We have posited that the
internal group dynamics frames the outcomes eventually attained by a work team. The
Desivilya et al. Innovation and Con?ict Management in Work Teams
Volume 3, Number 1, Pages 28–48 35
current research focuses on the con?ict management tendencies element of this internal
dynamics. The patterns whereby team members handle internal disputes are nourished
by the nature of the team-atmosphere, as re?ected in team-identity, setting the stage for
prosocial motivational orientation within the team. This orientation precipitates the
choice of constructive-cooperative con?ict management patterns. Task con?ict also
fosters the choice and use of the constructive-cooperative ways of handling internal
disputes, underscoring the cognitive aspects of this strategy, notably effective information
processing. The motivational and cognitive elements in tandem help to realize the
potential of integrating in eliciting team-innovation.
This research embraced a team-level perspective, treating each variable as indicating
the team’s predominant patterns of reality construal and its main behavioral tendencies
(Kuhn & Poole, 2000). In order to assess in a meaningful way elements associated with
a team-identity, the prevalence of actual task and relationship con?icts and con?ict
management patterns, it is essential to involve in research intact teams. Thus, in con-
trast with most studies on con?ict management in teams, which were conducted on ad
hoc groups (notably students), the current investigation employed intact work teams
whose members belong to the same real work group and maintain continuous, long-
term relationships (Desivilya & Eizen, 2005; Desivilya & Yagil, 2005; Farmer & Roth,
1998).
Method
Participants and Procedure
Seventy-seven research and development teams were recruited to participate in the
study, from different high-technology companies, which are specializing in telecommu-
nication, computer software, computer hardware, and semi-conductors. To ensure that
each team provided a setting appropriate for this study, a pre-assessment interview was
held with each team leader, all of whom stated that all team members interacted regu-
larly to achieve shared goals. They also depended on one another for knowledge and
effort by means of several permanent structures such as scheduled staff meetings,
‘‘brown bag’’ lunch meetings, and joint refresher workshops. To be included in the ?nal
sample at least three members had to complete a questionnaire, and the team leader
had to complete a separate questionnaire. Team size ranged from three to six members,
average of 4.4 (SD = .83). The sample consisted of 339 employees and their correspond-
ing 77 leaders. All participants were men (a vast majority were Jewish), with average age
was 33.19 years (SD = 3.46). Average job tenure was 7.89 years (SD = 3.74). All partici-
pants had at least a Bachelor’s degree, 43% in computer sciences and the rest in elec-
tronics; 14% of the participants had a Master’s degree.
Prior to data collection, several steps were taken to address ethical concerns and to
ensure members’ commitment to the study. First, managers received a letter describing
the aim of the research as a study of teamwork in organizations, and assuring that our
concern was not with speci?c employees but with the team. This secured con?dentiality
and presumably fostered the employees’ cooperation. Managers were encouraged to
Innovation and Con?ict Management in Work Teams Desivilya et al.
36 Volume 3, Number 1, Pages 28–48
approach the researchers for any clari?cations and questions. Next, the research assis-
tants visited each of the selected teams, presented the purpose of the study and distrib-
uted the questionnaires to team members. The written instructions accompanying the
scales included a brief explanation that the purpose of the study was understanding
teamwork in organizations. To assure anonymity, employees were asked to place their
completed questionnaire in a sealed envelope. The questionnaires were distributed to
employees as follows: team members’ questionnaires consisted of measures of a team’s
con?ict management patterns, measures of con?ict types (task and relationship con?ict)
and team-identity. These measures were aggregated to the team level of analysis. Lead-
ers’ data included a measure of a team-innovation. Each participant was asked to pro-
vide demographic information.
Measures
Team-Identity
Team-identity represents the collective level of team- identi?cation occurring across all
members of the team, which is driven by aggregating the individual level construct of
team-identi?cation. Team-identity was measured by the twelve 7-point Likert-type
inventory (7 = strongly agree, to 1 = strongly disagree), developed by Henry et al.
(1999) (e.g., ‘‘I think of this team as part of who I am’’). The internal consistency reli-
ability (Cronbach’s alpha) was .92.
Con?ict Types
Task and relationship con?ict were measured by the re?ned version (Pearson, Ensley, &
Amason, 2002) of the Intragroup Con?ict Scale developed by Jehn (1992, 1994). The
instrument comprises two dimensions: relationship (affective) con?ict, measured by
three items (anger, personal friction, and tension), and task (cognitive) con?ict, also
measured by three items (disagreements about ideas, differences of opinion, and the
need to settle disagreements). Respondents rated on a 5-point Likert type scales the fre-
quency of each type of con?ict in their respective work team. The internal consistency
reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) was .75 and .80 for task and relationship con?ict, respec-
tively.
Con?ict Management Patterns
Rahim’s (1983) organizational con?ict inventory form C (ROCI-II), worded for the
team level, was used to assess the typical interaction pattern a team enacts when mem-
bers manage internal discords and disagreements. The ROCI-II was originally designed
to measure ?ve orthogonal dimensions of con?ict-management patterns, but for our
purposes only one subscale—integrating—was applied. The integrating scale (seven
items) assesses the extent to which team members adopt a cooperative pattern in man-
aging intra-team con?icts designed to reach a solution that satis?es the concerns of all
parties (e.g., ‘‘Team members try to bring all our concerns out in the open so that the
issues can be resolved in best possible way’’). Each team member was requested to indi-
cate how the team usually deals with disputes occurring within the team on a ?ve-point
Desivilya et al. Innovation and Con?ict Management in Work Teams
Volume 3, Number 1, Pages 28–48 37
Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree). The internal consistency reli-
ability for the integrating scale was .83.
Team-Innovation
A four-item scale adapted from West and Wallace (1991) was employed to assess team
innovation. The items re?ected the extent to which the team leader viewed the team as
innovative in the following job domains: work objectives, work procedures, working
methods and content areas of the job, such as ‘‘initiation of new work procedures.’’ The
team leader rated each of the four innovation items on a ?ve-point Likert-type scales
(ranging from 1 = very few innovations were made to 5 = a great deal of innovations
were made). The internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) of the innovation
measure was .86.
Control Variables
Team size and task interdependence were included as control variables because previous
research has indicated their effects on team processes and outcomes (Brewer & Kramer,
1986; Keller, 2001; Moye & Langfred, 2004). Team size was the total number of team
members reported by the team leader. Task interdependence is de?ned as the extent to
which an individual team member needs information, materials, and support from other
team members to be able to carry out his or her job (van der Vegt, van de Vlient, &
Oosterhof, 2003); it was measured by means of a three-item scale developed adapted
from van der Vegt et al. (2003) (e.g., ‘‘The team members depend on one another in
terms of information and materials necessary to perform the tasks’’). The team leaders
rated each statement on a ?ve-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, to 5 = strongly
agree). Internal consistency reliability was .92.
Level of Analysis
The unit of analysis in the present study was the team. Hence, team’s innovation, fre-
quency of team meetings, task interdependence and time size were measured at the team
level by means of the team leader’s report. A team’s con?ict management patterns of
integrating and team- identi?cation were an aggregate of individual team members’
responses to the team-level of analysis.
Thus, it was critical to demonstrate high within-team agreement to justify using
the team average as an indicator of a team-level variable (r
wg
: James, Demaree, &
Wolf, 1993). A value of .70 or above is suggested as a ‘‘good’’ amount of within-
group inter-rater agreement (James et al., 1993). In the current study, all scales
exceeded this level. The values were .88, .87, .84, and .85, respectively for team-
identi?cation, task con?ict, relationship con?ict and team’s con?ict management
pattern of integrating. Values are given in Table 1 in the column r
wg
. In addition, in
team-level analyses, the aggregation of individual responses into a team score treats
team members as judges rating their environment. Therefore, inter-member agreement
must be evidenced for a construct to be considered a team-level variable (Bliese &
Halverson, 1996).
Innovation and Con?ict Management in Work Teams Desivilya et al.
38 Volume 3, Number 1, Pages 28–48
The within-group agreement was estimated by two measures: ICC(1) which provides
an estimate of the reliability of an individual respondent’s rating and answers the ques-
tion: To what extent can variability in the measure be predicted by group membership?
ICC(2) estimates the reliability of mean differences across teams (between group vari-
ance) and answers the question: How reliable are the group means within a sample
(Bliese & Halverson, 1996). As indicated by James (1982), ICC(1) generally ranges from
0 to .50 with a median of .12. There are however no de?nite guidelines for determining
acceptable values. Values were as follows: ICC(1) = .12; ICC(2) = .61 for team- identi?cation;
ICC(1) = .14; ICC(2) = .59 for task con?ict; ICC(1) = .12; ICC(2) = .64 for relationship
con?ict; ICC(1) = .14; ICC(2) = .53 for con?ict management pattern of integrating. As
indicated by Bliese (2000), ICC(1) generally ranges from 0 to .50 with a median of .12.
All scales slightly exceeded the median score.
Results
The ?rst set of analyses included Pearson correlations followed by multiple regressions
to test the research hypotheses. In each of the regression analyses, the control
Table 2
Results of Regression of Team Innovation on Team Integrating
Team innovation
Step variables b SE DAdjusted R
2
DF df
Step 1: Control variables .008 1.32 2
Team size .18 (.08)
Task interdependence .05 (.10)
Step 2: Team Integrating 0.7 6.27* 1
Team size .20 (.08)
Task interdependence ).01 (.09)
Integrating .28* (.28)
n = 77; *p < .05; **p < .01.
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics, Reliabilities, and Intercorrelation Matrix for the Study Variables
M (SD) r
wg
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Task interdependence 3.62 (.73) –
2. Team size 4.40 (.87) – ).03
3. Relationship con?ict 1.90 (.29) .84 ).08 ).13
4. Task con?ict 2.83 (.29) .87 .04 .19 ).09
5. Team identity 3.98 (.31) .88 .24* ).08 ).09 .04
6. Integrating 4.10 (.26) .85 .10 ).07 ).35** .18 .64**
7. Innovation 3.76 (.65) – .04 .18 ).10 .03 .23* .27*
n = 77; (SD) – standard deviation; *p < .05; **p < .01.
Desivilya et al. Innovation and Con?ict Management in Work Teams
Volume 3, Number 1, Pages 28–48 39
variables—team size and task interdependence—were entered at the ?rst step. The
mediating processes were then tested, using the multiple regression procedure suggested
by Baron and Kenny (1986). Again, the control variables were entered at the ?rst step.
Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, reliabilities, and intercorrelations
matrix among the study variables.
Table 2 displays the regression of team innovation on the integrating pattern of con-
?ict management.
As can be seen in the table, integrating is positively and signi?cantly related to team-
innovation (b = .278, p < .05), thereby con?rming Hypothesis 1. After controlling for
team size and task interdependence, which account for a negligible percentage of vari-
ance in team innovation, integrating explains nearly 8% of this variance (DF = 6.28;
p < .05).
Table 3 presents the regressions of integrating on team-identity and on relationship
con?ict and task con?ict. The control variables’ (team size and task interdependence)
contribution to the explanation of variance in integrating is negligible, while the three
predictors (team-identity, relationship con?ict and task con?ict) account for 51% of the
variance in the con?ict management pattern of integrating (DF = 25.59; p < .001). In
addition, the results show that team-identity is positively and signi?cantly related to
integrating (b = .62, p < .001), hence supporting Hypothesis 2. Hypothesis 4 was par-
tially con?rmed: as expected, relationship con?ict was negatively associated with inte-
grating (b = -.293, p < .01). However, the positive relationship of task con?ict with
integrating was only marginally signi?cant (b = .15, p = .079).
Finally, we examined Hypothesis 3, postulating a mediating effect of the integrating
pattern of con?ict management on the relationship between team-identity and innova-
tion. Testing of mediation followed Baron and Kenny’s (1986) guidelines: (1) Attemting
to demonstrate that the antecedent is related to the consequence. Thus, team-innovation
was regressed on team-identity. In line with this ?rst condition the antecedent variable,
Table 3
Results of Regressions of Integrating on Team Identity and on Relationship Con?ict and Task Con?ict
Team integrating
Step variables b SE DAdjusted R
2
DF df
Step 1: Control variables ).01 .52 2
Team Size ).07 (.03)
Task Interdependence .09 (.04)
Step 2: Predictors .49 25.60*** 3
Team size ).09 (.03)
Task interdependence ).08 (.03)
Team identity .62* ** (.07)
Relationship con?ict ).29** (.07)
Task con?ict .15^ (.07)
N=77; *p < .1, p < .05; **p < .01, ***p < .001.
Innovation and Con?ict Management in Work Teams Desivilya et al.
40 Volume 3, Number 1, Pages 28–48
team-identity, is signi?cantly related to the outcome variable, team-innovation
(b = .253, p < .05). (2) Showing that the antecedent is related to the mediator, hence,
integrating was regressed on team-identity. As required by the second condition, the
antecedent variable, team-identity is signi?cantly related to the mediator, the integrating
pattern of con?ict management (b = .656, p < .001). (3) Demonstrating that the rela-
tionship between the antecedent and the consequence is eliminated when the mediator is
controlled for. To examine this possibility, we conducted a hierarchical regression analy-
sis, while controlling for the con?ict management pattern of integrating. The control
variables were entered in the ?rst step, followed by integrating in step 2 and ?nally
team-identity was entered at step 3. The results of this regression analysis are displayed
in Table 4. As can be seen in the table, in line with the third condition, the results of a
hierarchical regression have demonstrated that the relationship between the antecedent
variable, team-identity, and the outcome variable, team-innovation was eliminated while
controlling for the effect of the integrating pattern of con?ict management. Hence, each
of the three conditions of mediation according to Baron and Kenny’s (1986) guidelines
was full?lled, thereby con?rming Hypothesis 3: the integrating pattern of a team’s con-
?ict management mediates the relationship between team-identity and team-innovation.
Discussion
Scholars in the organizational arena have underscored the advantage of collaborative
teams in attaining innovative outcomes and in production of complex knowledge (Grat-
ton, 2005; Tomlinson, 2005; Vangen & Huxham, 2003a). This potential merit of a work
group presumably stems form its internal dynamics, especially the team’s capacity to
Table 4
Results of Hierarchical Regression Analyses for Predicting Integrating Pattern of Con?ict Management as a
Mediator of Team Innovation
Team innovation
Step variables b SE DAdjusted R
2
DF df
Step 1: control variables .008 1.32 2
Team size 0.18 (.09)
Task interdependence 0.05 (.10)
Step 2: mediating variable .07 6.27* 1
Team size 0.2 (.08)
Task interdependence 0.02 (.10)
Integrating 0.28* (.28)
Step 3: main effects .07 .64 1
Team size 0.2 (.08)
Task interdependence 0 (.10)
Integrating 0.2 (.36)
Team identity 0.12 (.31)
n = 77; *p < .05; **p < .01, *** p < .001.
Desivilya et al. Innovation and Con?ict Management in Work Teams
Volume 3, Number 1, Pages 28–48 41
coordinate and integrate knowledge and resources possessed by individual team
members (Standifer & Bluedorn, 2006; Swan & Scarbrough, 2005). Constructive con?ict
management constitutes one of the central processes associated with teams’ coordination
capability (Amabile et al., 2001; Tjosvold, 2006; West & Hirst, 2003). Thus, gaining a
grasp on the precursors of innovation necessitates illuminating the phenomenon of a
team’s con?ict management dynamics.
The current study was aimed to shed more light and extend the knowledge base on
innovation in work teams, focusing on the dynamics of con?ict management in intact
high-technology work teams. We have examined the contribution of con?ict handling
patterns to innovation, postulating that the constructive-cooperative pattern of integrat-
ing would foster innovation. The study also sought to discern the antecedents of con?ict
management approaches promoting innovation, explicating the role of a team-climate
characteristic—team-identity—and of task and relationship con?ict. Such a combination
of variables has not been previously tested in tandem in intact work teams. This
research embraced a team-level perspective, treating each variable as indicating the
team’s predominant patterns of reality construal and its main behavioral tendencies
(Kuhn & Poole, 2000).
Our ?ndings corroborate previous research, indicating that the integrating pattern of
a team’s con?ict management meaningfully predicted the outcome of team-innovation
(Chen et al.,2005; Cornish et al., 2007; DeDreu, 2006; Gratton, 2005; Tjosvold, 2006).
The current study lends further support to the contention that teams’ proclivities with
respect to con?ict management play a pivotal role in their capacity to function in an
innovative manner. The internal group dynamics frames the outcomes eventually
attained by a work team (DeDreu, 2006; Hinds & Mortenson, 2005; Jehn & Bendersky,
2003). Furthermore, in accordance with our hypotheses, the patterns whereby team
members handle internal disputes are nourished by the nature of the team motivational
orientation as re?ected in team-identity. In line with previous research (De Cremer,
2001; Desivilya & Eizen, 2005; Rusbult, 1993; Tyler & Blader, 2003), the results showed
a signi?cant and positive relationship between team-identity and the integrating pattern
of a team’s con?ict management.
The ?ndings also support the hypothesized mediating effect of the constructive-
cooperative con?ict management pattern (integrating) embraced by a team on the
relationship between team-identity and team-innovation. Thus, the current study sub-
stantiates the argument that positive team-identity, developed by team members serves
as a framework for organizing and coordinating behavior (Cunningham & Chelladurai,
2004; Haslam, 2001; Hinds & Mortenson, 2005; Wegge & Haslam, 2003). Positve
team-identity actively motivates team members to share skills and resources with each
other (Riketta & van Dick, 2005; Stevens & Campion, 1994), a tendency highly con-
ducive to intra-team cooperative interactions which in turn promote innovative team
outcomes.
Although prior research demonstrated direct links between the team-atmosphere
(intra-team trust and team identi?cation) and effective learning and innovation
(Amabile et al., 2001; Standifer & Bluedorn, 2006; Swan & Scarbrough, 2005; West &
Hirst, 2003; Za´ rraga & Bonache, 2005), our ?ndings lend greater credence to the tenet
Innovation and Con?ict Management in Work Teams Desivilya et al.
42 Volume 3, Number 1, Pages 28–48
that constructive con?ict management processes play a central role in producing such
outcomes (Tjosvold, 2006).
The results of the current study also partially supported our hypothesis postulating
that relationship con?ict would mitigate the use of cooperative strategies whereas task
con?ict would foster the cooperative intra-team strategic choice. Akin to prior ?nd-
ings, relationship con?ict was negatively associated with the integrating pattern of a
team’s con?ict management pattern (Amabile et al., 2001; Rentsch & Zelno, 2003).
The relationship between task con?ict and integrating was only marginally signi?cant,
alluding to the positive link indicated in previous research (Amabile et al., 2001;
DeDreu, 2006; Rentsch & Zelno, 2003). Divergent perceptions about work-related
issues (task con?ict) tend to be viewed as legitimate disagreements, which need to be
handled in a cooperative manner so as to attain mutually acceptable solutions.
Conversely, if team members interpret critical attitudes directed at them or discordant
opinions of their counterparts as personal attacks (relationship con?ict), they will be
less likely to adopt constructive con?ict management strategy. Such unfavorable attri-
butions of team members’ intentions discourage intra-team information exchange and
increase the likelihood of power struggles. Indeed, our ?ndings clearly demonstrated
the obstructing force of relationship con?ict on constructive con?ict management in
work teams.
Further research is needed to ascertain the potential positive contribution of task con-
?ict to collaborative handling of internal discords in work teams. As suggested by Rents-
ch and Zelno (2003), constructive dynamics of handling intra-team con?icts is more
likely to develop when team members hold congruent perceptions about the positive
value of openness and constructive controversy in promoting the group’s goals. In addi-
tion, cooperative tendencies can be related to team members’ preferences of team-work
in contrast with favoring individualized work arrangements. As indicated by Moham-
med and Angell’s (2004) ?ndings, such a team orientation has moderated the destruc-
tive in?uence of relationship con?ict in work teams.
In sum, the current study contributes to the body of knowledge on con?ict manage-
ment dynamics and innovation in work teams in several ways: (a) it underscores the
centrality of a team’s constructive con?ict management pattern in promoting innovation
both directly as well as by transporting the benevolent in?uence of a positive team-iden-
tity; (b) indicating the impediment of relationship con?ict on cooperative con?ict han-
dling in work teams and hinting the positive role of task con?ict on internal
collaboration; (c) supplementing the research base derived from ?eld studies—intact
rather than ad hoc ‘‘experimental’’ work teams, and; (d) evaluating con?ict management
dynamics using a team-level analysis.
Notwithstanding the merits of this study, several limitations should also be noted.
First, the cross-sectional feature of the study does not allow a conclusive interpretation
of our ?ndings’ causal direction. Conceivably, the causal order could be reversed.
Attaining innovative outcomes, as evaluated by the team leaders and fed back to the
team could spur cooperative tendencies, while these in turn promoting a positive team-
climate re?ected in enhanced team-identity. Moreover, reciprocal causality cannot be
ruled out. Future research needs to employ longitudinal designs in more controlled
Desivilya et al. Innovation and Con?ict Management in Work Teams
Volume 3, Number 1, Pages 28–48 43
settings (but studying intact teams) to further validate the causal inferences suggested in
the current study (Moye & Langfred, 2004).
Second, the data were largely self-reported by the team members, hence potentially
subject to bias. This aspect of the study does not differ from previous work (e.g.,
Tjosvold et al., 2003). It is noteworthy that recent research suggests that self-reported
data are not as limited as was previously believed and that people often accurately
perceive their social environment (Alper et al., 2000). In addition, in the current
study, the likelihood of common method variance was low because the criterion vari-
able (team-innovation) was obtained from a different source (team leader) (Podsakoff
& Organ, 1986).
Future research should use other sources and methods for evaluating team outcomes
such as innovation (Lovelace, Shapiro, & Weingart, 2001; Oldham & Cummings, 1996),
as well as con?ict management patterns, team-identity and types of con?icts. Qualitative
research, using direct observations and in-depth interviews could yield additional
insights concerning the intricacies of teams’ internal dynamics, especially discerning the
conceptual links among a team—climate, the types of con?ict, the ways they are man-
aged and their rami?cations on creativity, production of usable knowledge and innova-
tion (Amabile et al., 2001; Ayoko et al., 2002; Standifer & Bluedorn, 2006; Swan &
Scarbrough, 2005).
Third, the extent of generalizability of the present ?ndings should be examined in
other cultural contexts and in more diverse teams (gender-mixed, heterogeneous teams
in terms of ethnic origin). Previous studies have demonstrated that taking into account
the role of other team-related variables such as individualism-collectivism, gender and
other sources of diversity carry signi?cant implications for team-identity processes and
for team outcomes (Ayoko et al., 2002; Gundlach et al., 2006; Mohammed & Angell,
2004).
Finally, the present study provides some practical considerations. Developing effective
ways of managing con?ict may have a marked benevolent effect on teams’ capacity to
function in an innovative fashion. Organizational teams that tend to employ cooperative
approaches to con?ict, as suggested by our ?ndings, presumably would be capable of
generating new knowledge and novel outcomes. Accordingly, training, especially for
teams evincing poor integrating con?ict management skills, deems extremely important
in fostering the use of a cooperative approach (Tjosvold, 2006).
The results indicate that team-identity serves as a key mechanism engendering coop-
erative motivation, conducive to adoption of constructive con?ict management patterns.
One of the major managerial practices to promote team-identity could be to increase
team members’ opportunity to participate in decision-making processes. Active partici-
pation in decision-making enhances involvement, commitment, and a sense of belong-
ing, which lead to a higher level of team-identi?cation (Tyler & Blader, 2003).
The ?ndings have also showed the obstructing in?uence of relationship con?ict on a
team’s tendency for constructive con?ict management. To mitigate such destructive
impact team leaders could encourage team meetings, allowing to voice members’ indi-
vidual concerns and thereby enhancing the congruency in attributions of other mem-
bers’ intentions (Rentsch & Zelno, 2003).
Innovation and Con?ict Management in Work Teams Desivilya et al.
44 Volume 3, Number 1, Pages 28–48
References
Alper, S., Tjosvold, D., & Law, K. S. (2000). Con?ict management, ef?cacy, and performance in
organizational teams. Personnel Psychology, 53, 625–642.
Amabile, T., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work
environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1154–1184.
Amabile, T., Patterson, C., Mueller, J., Wojcik, T., Odomirok, P., Marsh, M., et al. (2001).
Academic-Practitioner Collaboration in Management Research: A Case of Cross-Profession
Collaboration. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 418–431.
Ayoko, O. B., Ha¨rtel, C. E. J., & Callan, V. J. (2002). Resolving the puzzle of productive and
destructive con?ict in culturally heterogeneous work groups: A communication accommoda-
tion theory approach. International Journal of Con?ict Management, 13, 165–187.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
Blake, R. A., & Mouton, J. S. (1964). The managerial grid. Houston: Gulf.
Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within group agreement, non independence, and reliability’. In K. Klein &
S. W. J. Kozlovski (Eds.), Multi-level theory, research and methods in organizations (pp. 349–
381. ). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bliese, P. D., & Halverson, R. R. (1996). Individual and nomothetic models of job stress: An
examination of work hours, cohesion, and well being. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26,
1171–1189.
Brewer, M. B., & Kramer, R. M. (1986). Choice behavior in social dilemmas: Effects of social
identity, group size, and decision framing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50,
543–549.
Chen, G., Liu, C., & Tjosvold, D. (2005). Con?ict Management for Effective Top Management
Teams and Innovation in China. Journal of Management Studies, 42(2), 277–300.
Cornish, F., Zittoun, T., & Gillespie, A. (2007). A Cultural Psychological Re?ection on Collabo-
rative Research. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 8(3), Art. 21.
Cunningham, G., & Chelladurai, P. (2004). Affective reactions to cross-functional teams: The
impact of size, relative performance and common in-group identity. Group Dynamics: Theory,
Research and Practice, 8, 83–97.
De Cremer, D. (2001). Self-control and cooperation: Different concepts, similar decisions?
A question of the right perspective The Journal of Psychology, 135, 133–153.
De Dreu, C., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship con?ict, team performance,
and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 741–750.
DeDreu, C. K. W. (2006). When Too Little or Too Much Hurts: Evidence for a Curvilinear
Relationship between Task Con?ict and Innovation in Teams. Journal of Management, 32(1),
83–107.
Desivilya, H. S., & Eizen, D. (2005). Con?ict management in work teams: The role of social
self-ef?cacy and group identi?cation. The International Journal of Con?ict Management, 16,
185–211.
Desivilya, S. H., & Yagil, D. (2005). Con?ict management in work teams: The Role of Emotions
in Con?ict Management: The case of Work Teams. International Journal of Con?ict Manage-
ment, 16(1), 55–69.
Deutsch, M. (1973). The resolution of con?ict. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Desivilya et al. Innovation and Con?ict Management in Work Teams
Volume 3, Number 1, Pages 28–48 45
Farmer, S. M., & Roth, J. (1998). Con?ict-handling behavior in work groups: Effects of group
structure, decision processes, and time. Small Group Research, 29, 669–713.
Gratton, L. (2005). Managing integration through cooperation. Human Resource Management,
44, 151–158.
Gundlach, M., Zivnuska, S., & Stoner, J. (2006). Understanding the relationship between indi-
vidualism-collectivism and team performance through an integration of social identity theory
and the social relations model. Human Relations, 59, 1603–1632.
Haslam, S. A. (2001). Psychology in organizations: The social identity approach. London: Sage.
Henry, B. H., Arrow, H., & Carini, B. (1999). A tripartite model of group identi?cation: Theory
and measurement. Small Group Research, 30, 558–581.
Hinds, P. J., & Mortenson, M. (2005). Understanding con?ict in geographically distributed
teams: The moderating effects of shared indentity, shared context, and spontaneous commu-
nication. Organization Science, 16(3), 290–307.
Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. (2000). Social identity and self categorization processes in organiza-
tional contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25, 121–140.
James, L. R. (1982). Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 67, 219–229.
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1993). r
wg
: An assessment of within-group interrater
agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 306–309.
Jansenn, O., Van de Vliert, E., & West, M. (2004). The bright and dark sides of individual and
group innovation: a Special Issue introduction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 129–145.
Jehn, K. (1992). The impact of intragroup con?ict on effectiveness: A multidimensional
examination of the bene?ts and detriments of con?ict. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Northwestern University, Chicago, IL.
Jehn, K. (1994). Enhancing effectiveness: An investigation of advantages and disadvantages of
value based intragroup con?ict. International Journal of Con?ict Management, 5, 223–238.
Jehn, K. (1997). Affective and cognitive con?ict in work groups: Increasing performance
through value-based intragroup con?ict. In C. De Dreu & E. Van De Vliert (Eds.), Using con-
?ict in organizations (pp. 87–101). London: Sage.
Jehn, K., & Bendersky, C. (2003). Intragroup con?ict in organizations: A contingency perspec-
tive on the con?ict-outcome relationship. In R. M. Kramer & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Reesrach in
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25. (pp. 187–242. ). New York: Elsevier.
Keller, R. T. (2001). Cross-functional project groups in research and new product development:
diversity, communications, job stress and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 44,
547–555.
Kuhn, T., & Poole, M. (2000). Do con?ict management styles affect group decision making?
Evidence from a longitudinal ?eld study Human Communication Research, 26, 558–590.
Lembke, S., & Wilson, M. G. (1998). Putting the ‘‘team’’ into teamwork: Alternative theoretical
contributions for contemporary management practice. Human Relations, 51, 927–944.
Lovelace, K., Shapiro, D. L., & Weingart, L. R. (2001). Maximizing cross-functional new prod-
uct team’s innovativeness and constraint adherence: A con?ict communications perspective.
The Academy of Management Journal, 44, 779–793.
Mohammed, S., & Angell, L. C. (2004). Surface-and deep-level diversity in workgroups: examin-
ing the moderating effects of team orientation and team process on relationship con?ict.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 1015–1039.
Innovation and Con?ict Management in Work Teams Desivilya et al.
46 Volume 3, Number 1, Pages 28–48
Moye, N., & Langfred, C. W. (2004). Information sharing and group con?ict: Going beyond
decision making to understand the effects of information sharing on group performance. The
International Journal of Con?ict Management, 15, 381–410.
Nemeth, C. J., Personnaz, B ., Personnaz, M ., & Goncalo, J. A. (2004). The Liberating Role of
Con?ict in Group Creativity: A Study in two Countries. European Journal of Social Psychology,
34(4), 365–374.
Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at
work. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 607–634.
Pearson, A. W., Ensley, M. D., & Amason, A. C. (2002). An assessment and re?nement of
Jehn’s intragroup con?ict scale. International Journal of Con?ict Management, 13, 110–126.
Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-report in organizational research: Problems and
prospects. Journal of Management, 12, 531–544.
Pruitt, D. G., & Rubin, J. Z. (1986). Social con?ict: escalation, stalemate. New York: Random House.
Rahim, M. A. (1983). A measure of styles of handling interpersonal con?icts. Academy of
Management Journal, 26, 368–376.
Rentsch, J. R., & Zelno, J. A. (2003). The Role of Cognition in Managing Con?ict to maximize
team effectiveness: The team member schema similarity approach. In M. West, D. Tjosvold,
& K. G. Smith (Eds.), International Handbook of Organizational teamwork and cooperative
working (pp. 131–151). Chichester, West Sussex, England: John Wiley.
Riketta, M., & van Dick, R. (2005). Foci of attachment in organizations: A meta-analytic
comparison of the strength and correlates of workgroup versus organizational identi?cation
and commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67, 490–510.
Rusbult, E. C. (1993). Understanding responses to dissatisfaction in close relationships: The
exit-voice-loyaly-neglect model. In S. Worchel & J. A. Simpson (Eds.), Con?ict between people
and groups: Causes and resolution (pp. 30–59). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.
Standifer, R., & Bluedorn, A. (2006). Alliance management teams and entrainment: Sharing
temporal mental models. Human Relations, 59, 903–927.
Stevens, M. J., & Campion, M. A. (1994). The knowledge, skill and ability requirements for
teamwork: Implications for human resources management. Journal of Management, 20,
503–530.
Swan, J., & Scarbrough, H. (2005). The politics of networked innovation. Human Relations, 58,
913–943.
Thomas, K. W (1976). Con?ict and con?ict management. In M. D. Dunnetee (Ed.), The Hand-
book of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 889–935). Chicago: Rand McNally.
Tjosvold, D. (2006). De?ning con?ict and making choices about its management: Lighting the
dark side of organizational life. International Journal of Con?ict Management, 17(2), 87–96.
Tjosvold, D., Hui, C., Ding, D., & Hu, J. (2003). Con?ict values and team relationships:
Con?ict’s contribution to team effectiveness and citizenship in China. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 24, 69–88.
Tjosvold, D., Poon, M., & Zi-you, Y. (2005). Team effectiveness in China: Cooperative con?ict
for relationship building. Human Relations, 58(3), 341–366.
Tomlinson, F. (2005). Idealistic and Pragmativc Versions of the Discourse of Partnership.
Organization Studies, 26, 1169–1188.
Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2003). The group engagement model: Procedural justice, social
identity, and cooperative behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 349–361.
Desivilya et al. Innovation and Con?ict Management in Work Teams
Volume 3, Number 1, Pages 28–48 47
Vangen, S., & Huxham, C. (2003a). Enacting leadership for collaborative advantage: Dillemas of
ideology and pragmatism in the activities of partnership. British Journal of Management, 14,
61–76.
van der Vegt, G. S., van de Vlient, E., & Oosterhof, A. (2003). Informational dissimilarity and
organizational citizenship behavior: The role of intrateam interdependence and identi?cation.
The Academy of Management, 46, 715–728.
van Knippenberg, D., & van Schie, E. C. M. (2000). Fici and correlates of organizational identi-
?cation. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73, 137–147.
Wegge, J., & Haslam, S. A. (2003). Group goal setting, social identity, and self categorization:
Engaging the collective self to enhance group performance and organizational outcomes. In
S. A. Haslam, D. van Knippenberg, M. J. Platow, & N. Ellemers (Eds.), Social identity at work:
Development theory for organizational practice (pp. 43–60). New York: Psychology Press.
West, M. (2002). Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An integrative model of creativity and
innovation implementation in work groups. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51,
355–424.
West, M., & Hirst, G. (2003). Cooperation and Teamwork for Innovation. In M. West, D.
Tjosvold, & K. G. Smith (Eds.), International handbook of organizational teamwork and coop-
erative working (pp. 297–321. ). Chichester, U.K: John Wiley.
West, M., & Wallace, M. (1991). Innovation in health care teams. British Journal of Social Psy-
chology, 21, 303–315.
Za´ rraga, C., & Bonache, J. (2005). The Impact of Team Atmosphere on Knowledge Outcomes
in Self-Managed Teams. Organization Studies, 26, 661–683.
Helena Syna Desivilya is an associate professor of social and organizational psychology.
She serves as a chair of the Sociology and Anthropology department at the Max Stern
Academic College of Emek Yezreel in Israel. She conducts research on interpersonal and
inter-group relations in organizations (including con?ict management) focusing espe-
cially on the intra group dynamics, processes of team building and development of part-
nerships. She has published her work in organizational and con?ict-related journals and
contributed chapters to various books of organizational behavior, management and con-
?ict. She also engages in program evaluation and action research on public and third
sector organizations.
Helena Lidgoster received her Masters degree in the Department of Education at the
University of Haifa. Parts of the data used in this study also served as a data base for
her Masters thesis.
Anit Somech is the head of Educational Leadership & Policy Department at the Univer-
sity of Haifa, Israel. She received her PhD. degree in the Department of Industrial Engi-
neering and Management, at the Technion, the Israel Institute for Technology, with an
emphasis on Behavioral Sciences and Management (1994). Her research is in the areas
of Teamwork, Management (Participative Management), and Work Motivation (OCB).
Innovation and Con?ict Management in Work Teams Desivilya et al.
48 Volume 3, Number 1, Pages 28–48
doc_725111317.pdf
The current study attempted to elucidate the mechanisms whereby constructive-cooperative conflict management (integrating) fosters innovation in work teams. The proposed conceptual model postulated that the positive function of integrating in precipitating innovation is motivated by prosocial team atmosphere as manifested in team identity, the team's capacity to mitigate the adverse impact of relationship conflict and its capability to maximize the potential gains of task conflict.
Innovation and Con?ict Management in
Work Teams: The Effects of Team
Identi?cation and Task and Relationship
Con?ict
Helena Syna Desivilya,
1
Anit Somech,
2
and Helena Lidgoster
2
1 Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Max Stern Academic College of Emek Yezreel,
Emek Yezreel, Israel
2 Faculty of Education, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel
Keywords
team, con?ict management,
innovation, team identity, task
con?ict, relationship con?ict
Correspondence
Helena Syna Desivilya,
Department of Sociology and
Anthropology, Max Stern
Academic College of Emek
Yezreel, Emek Yezreel 19300,
Israel;
e-mail: [email protected].
Abstract
The current study attempted to elucidate the mechanisms
whereby constructive-cooperative con?ict management
(integrating) fosters innovation in work teams. The pro-
posed conceptual model postulated that the positive func-
tion of integrating in precipitating innovation is
motivated by prosocial team atmosphere as manifested in
team identity, the team’s capacity to mitigate the adverse
impact of relationship con?ict and its capability to maxi-
mize the potential gains of task con?ict. Speci?cally, it
was hypothesized: (a) integrating would predict innova-
tion. (b) Team identity would be positively related to
integrating, and that integrating would mediate the posi-
tive relationship between team identity and team innova-
tion. (c) Task con?ict would be positively related to
integrating whereas relationship con?ict would be nega-
tively related to integrating. This research embraced a
team-level perspective and analysis. Seventy-seven intact
work teams from high-technology companies participated
in the study. The ?ndings, by and large, supported the
proposed conceptual model, especially the contention that
teams’ proclivities with respect to con?ict management
play a pivotal role in their capacity to function in an
innovative manner. A team’s integrating pattern meaning-
fully predicted team innovation. The mediating effect of
the integrating strategy on the relationship between team
Negotiation and Con?ict Management Research
Volume 3, Number 1, Pages 28–48
28 ª 2010 International Association for Con?ict Management and Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Current organizations face a highly competitive and dynamic environment, which neces-
sitate ?exibility and fast adaptation to new situations and changing contexts. Hence,
innovation has become a vital asset in order to ensure organizational sustainability
(DeDreu, 2006; Jansenn, Van de Vliert, & West, 2004; West, 2002; West & Hirst, 2003).
In an effort to attain innovation, organizations often resort to collaborative work
arrangements, particularly work teams.
Innovation in a team setting has been de?ned as: ‘‘the intentional introduction and
application within a team, of ideas, processes, products or procedures new to the team,
designed to signi?cantly bene?t the individual, the team, the organization, or wider
society’’ (West & Wallace, 1991, p. 303). The concept of innovation emphasizes the
element of deliberate effort by team members and the application aspect which
distinguishes it from sporadic creativity of talented individuals (Amabile, Conti, Coon,
Lazenby, & Herron, 1996). Innovation generally emerges as an outcome of continuous
interaction processes within a team (West & Hirst, 2003).
Con?ict constitutes one of the central processes associated with the teams’ internal
dynamics (Tjosvold, 2006; West & Hirst, 2003). Hence understanding the mechanisms
underlying innovation requires a thorough examination of this phenomenon. Research
on the effects of con?ict on innovation in work teams addressed by and large the
relationships between the prevalence of con?ict and innovation, however, empirical
investigations addressing the function of con?ict management processes in team inno-
vation, have been scarce (DeDreu, 2006; Nemeth, Personnaz, Personnaz, & Goncalo,
2004). The current study intended to ?ll in this gap. Speci?cally, it attempted to expand
the knowledge base and understanding with respect to the mechanisms whereby con-
structive-cooperative con?ict management patterns foster innovation in work teams.
The conceptual model tested in this research postulated that the positive function of
constructive-cooperative con?ict handling mode in precipitating innovation is motivated
by supportive team atmosphere as manifested in team identity. Furthermore, it posited
that constructive con?ict management, which then facilitates innovation, stems from the
team’s capacity to mitigate the adverse impact of relationship con?ict and its capability
to maximize the potential gains of task con?ict. Figure 1 schematically depicts the
conceptual model tested in the current study.
The following sections explicate in detailed fashion the proposed model.
The Role of Constructive Con?ict Management in
Team Innovation
Con?ict constitutes an inevitable and commonplace element in the dynamics of organi-
zational work teams (Alper, Tjosvold, & Law, 2000; DeDreu, 2006; Desivilya & Eizen,
identity and team innovation was also demonstrated.
Finally, relationship con?ict was negatively associated
with a team’s integrating pattern, while the positive asso-
ciation of task con?ict with the cooperative strategy was
marginally signi?cant.
Desivilya et al. Innovation and Con?ict Management in Work Teams
Volume 3, Number 1, Pages 28–48 29
2005; Desivilya & Yagil, 2005; Tjosvold, 2006). De Dreu and Weingart (2003) de?ne
intragroup con?ict as a process emanating from interpersonal tensions among team
members owing to real or perceived disparities. Members of work groups within organi-
zations experience and manage con?ict with their counterparts on an everyday basis.
Work teams as increasingly popular organizational structures serve to improve qual-
ity, increase ef?ciency and ensure organizational sustainability (Tomlinson, 2005; Van-
gen & Huxham, 2003a). We embrace the fundamental assumption, advanced by con?ict
and organization scholars that effectiveness of work teams, including their capacity for
innovation, stems to a large extent from the quality of their internal relationships (Ama-
bile et al., 2001; Ayoko, Ha¨rtel, & Callan, 2002; Chen, Liu, & Tjosvold, 2005; Moham-
med & Angell, 2004). Team members’ approach and the actual ways they handle
internal con?icts have a considerable impact on the attributes of their internal bonds.
Moreover, modes of handling disagreements in work teams constitute critical determi-
nants of con?ict outcomes (DeDreu, 2006; Hinds & Mortenson, 2005; Jehn & Bender-
sky, 2003). Hence, thorough understanding of orientations, approaches and actual
con?ict management behaviors in work teams deems essential.
In an attempt to elucidate the dynamics of con?ict in work teams, we ?rst delineate
several prevailing conceptual frameworks analyzing con?ict management stressing their
application in research on work teams. Con?ict management refers to behaviors team
members employ to deal with their real and perceived differences, some relating to
emotionally driven con?icts (relationship con?icts) while others addressing the more
substantive elements of their discords (task con?icts).
Figure 1. The Study Model.
Innovation and Con?ict Management in Work Teams Desivilya et al.
30 Volume 3, Number 1, Pages 28–48
Most studies on interpersonal con?ict-management have adopted the Dual Concern
Model originally proposed by Blake and Mouton (1964), later adopted with some modi-
?cations by several scholars (Pruitt & Rubin, 1986; Rahim, 1983; Thomas, 1976). The
basic tenet of this model postulates that the con?ict-management mode employed by
an individual emanates from two underlying motives: concern for self and concern for
the other party. The strength of each of these two motivational orientations according
to con?ict scholars may vary as a function of the particular con?ict situation, with dif-
fering emphases on each of the two concerns yielding ?ve major con?ict-management
patterns: (a) Dominating (high concern for self and low concern for the other),
re?ected in attempts to persuade the other side to accept one’s position; (b) Obliging
(low concern for self and high concern for the other), manifested in behaviors such as
acquiescence with the other; (c) Avoiding (low concern for self and low concern for the
other) that is evading confrontation of the con?ict issues; (d) Integrating (high concern
for self and high concern for the other), re?ected in searching mutually bene?cial
alternatives for solution; (e) Compromising (moderate concern for self and moderate
concern for the other), manifested in behaviors such as seeking and proposing mid-way
solutions.
The current study embraced the Dual Concern Model as the conceptual framework of
con?ict 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 con?ict approach pertains to the potential outcome of con?ict management behavior,
namely whether it is constructive or destructive to the relationship (Deutsch, 1973)
between the parties (group members). Constructive con?ict management processes
re?ect cooperative and pro-social behavior, aimed at preserving relationships. In con-
trast, destructive con?ict management actions denote antisocial, competitive behavior
that is potentially disruptive to the relationship or that reduces the odds of repairing
the bonds. The current study focuses on the constructive con?ict management pro-
cesses, which subsume cooperative ways of handling con?icts, termed in the Dual Con-
cern Model ‘‘integrating’’ or ‘‘problem-solving.’’
Our choice to concentrate on the constructive-cooperative modes of con?ict manage-
ment stems from our intention to explain the mechanisms underlying functional con-
?icts in work teams; namely, discords which despite their dividing and stressful aspects
can contribute to team effectiveness, and especially to innovation. Effective team-work
has been conceptualized as a process which fosters internal interactions by means of
mutually helpful communication, coordination and cooperation designed to facilitate
successful completion of tasks and development of high quality relationships among
team members.
Accordingly, Tjosvold (2006) has argued that con?ict can provide motivation for
engaging intra-team discords, and that competent management of these internal con-
?icts, despite transient disruption, strengthens relationships among team members. This
researcher showed in several studies (e.g., Chen et al., 2005; Tjosvold et al., 2005) that
con?dence in a team’s relationships and faith in its capability to manage con?icts, both
Desivilya et al. Innovation and Con?ict Management in Work Teams
Volume 3, Number 1, Pages 28–48 31
from the managers and members’ perspectives, contributed to team effectiveness,
including innovation.
Thus, the usefulness of con?icts for work teams depends to a large extent on team
members’ motivational orientation, in particular on the strength of their concern about
the team’s internal relations. Team members who aspire to sustain positive internal rela-
tions are motivated to promote mutual understanding, build intra group trust and the
ability to work together at present and in the future. In other words, they exhibit a pro-
social motivation towards their team.
Such an orientation in turn enhances constructive-cooperative actions while dealing
with internal con?icts: exchanging information with respect to needs and interests,
voicing diverse opinions and attempting to gain mutual understanding of these differ-
ences, surfacing problems, viewing them from a variety of angles and perspectives,
searching for solutions which satisfy all team members’ concerns and coordinating
members’ behaviors. Conceivably, the positive effect of the constructive-cooperative
patterns of con?ict management on team innovation stems from prosocial motivation
coupled with effective utilization of cognitive resources (Chen et al., 2005; Cornish,
Zittoun, & Gillespie, 2007; DeDreu, 2006; Gratton, 2005). Effective use of cognitive
resources means that team members are capable of learning, developing insights and
deep understanding. Such a cognitive advantage can be materialized due to team
members’ prosocial motivation, driving them to thoroughly analyze joint problems thus
enhancing the odds of searching together and ?nding novel ideas and solutions which
are mutually bene?cial.
In line with this contention, DeDreu (2006) showed that moderate levels of task
con?ict in work teams which were managed by collaborative problem solving fostered
innovation.
Based on prior theorizing and empirical research we proposed the following hypo-
thesis:
Hypothesis 1: A team’s integrating pattern of con?ict management will be positively
related to the team’s innovation.
The Contribution of Team Identity to Constructive Con?ict
Management
In an attempt to discern the mechanisms underlying the positive effect of constructive-
cooperative con?ict management pattern of integrating on team innovation, we draw
on theories linking the nature of team atmosphere or climate with team effectiveness
(Cunningham & Chelladurai, 2004; Lembke & Wilson,1998; Tyler & Blader, 2003;
West & Hirst, 2003) Team climate constitutes a broad, overarching concept. Our
research model explicates one of the main factors, which determines the nature of
team climate: team-identity. This is a group-level concept derived from the construct of
team-identi?cation.
Applying Henry, Arrow, and Carini’s (1999) three-dimensional model, team-identi?-
cation is construed as a cognitive, emotional and behavioral bond between an individual
Innovation and Con?ict Management in Work Teams Desivilya et al.
32 Volume 3, Number 1, Pages 28–48
and a team. Team-identi?cation constitutes a special type of social identi?cation, re?ect-
ing the degree to which individual team members experience a sense of ‘‘oneness’’ with
a particular organizationally based team (Gundlach, Zivnuska, & Stoner, 2006). Accord-
ing to the social identity theory (Hogg & Terry, 2000; van Knippenberg & van Schie,
2000) the need for self-de?nition and pursuit of a sense of meaning provide the primary
impetus for the process of identi?cation. Strong identi?cation with one’s team contrib-
utes to team members’ capability to attain self-construal and a sense of meaning.
Team-identi?cation is an individual-level construct representing the extent to which an
individual member identi?es with the team. Lembke and Wilson (1998) introduced the
term team-identity, purporting to a group level construct; namely, the collective level of
team-identi?cation emerging across all members of the team. Thus, the group level con-
struct of team-identity is driven by the individual level construct of team-identi?cation
(Gundlach et al., 2006).
A collective sense of team-identity, a sense of ‘‘togetherness’’ and ‘‘oneness,’’
promotes the members’ tendencies to act on behalf of the team; namely, develops an
internal prosocial orientation (e.g., Haslam, 2001; Wegge & Haslam, 2003). Such an
intra-team prosocial climate in turn serves as a framework for organizing and coordi-
nating team members’ behavior (e.g., Cunningham & Chelladurai, 2004; Haslam, 2001;
Hinds & Mortenson, 2005; Wegge & Haslam, 2003). Strong team identity actively moti-
vates team members to share skills, information, knowledge and other resources with
each other, behaviors which are likely to enhance the team’s welfare and joint outcomes
(Riketta & van Dick, 2005; Stevens & Campion, 1994). In other words, team-identity
creates the very motivational conditions which increase the odds for intra-team coopera-
tive interactions (Tyler & Blader, 2003).
Previous research on work teams provided support for the line of reasoning presented
above. It indicated that prosocial orientation engendered by team-identity, fostered
intra-team cooperation in general and also in con?ict situations—encouraging team
members to embrace constructive-cooperative patterns of managing internal discords
(Amabile et al., 2001; Desivilya & Eizen, 2005; Hinds & Mortenson, 2005).
Additional evidence concerning positive links between strong team- identity and
cooperative inclinations emerged from the domain of social dilemmas. The ?ndings
have indicated that a person with a higher sense of group-identity was more likely to
select cooperative alternatives, that is, to cooperate with other group members, in con-
trast to individuals with a lower sense of group-identity (De Cremer, 2001). In a simi-
lar vein, Rusbult (1993) found that individuals who felt highly committed to their
relationships tended to exhibit constructive responses to crisis in interpersonal rela-
tionships.
Based on our conceptual framing and prior research, we postulated that strong team-
identity promotes prosocial team orientation, an atmosphere engendering cooperative
motivation; namely, a desire to seek constructive-cooperative ways such as integrating
to deal with internal disputes. Accordingly we hypothesized:
Hypothesis 2: Team-identity will be positively associated with a team’s integrating
pattern of con?ict management.
Desivilya et al. Innovation and Con?ict Management in Work Teams
Volume 3, Number 1, Pages 28–48 33
The Mediating Function of Constructive Con?ict Management
in the Relationships Between Team-Identity and
Team-Innovation
Beyond the contribution of team-identity to constructive-cooperative con?ict manage-
ment, previous research has suggested that a prosocial atmosphere directly affects
team-innovation. It allows team members to openly discuss their views concerning
group goals, tasks and missions, promotes creativity, learning and innovation (Amabile
et al., 2001; Standifer & Bluedorn, 2006; Swan & Scarbrough, 2005; West & Hirst, 2003).
Indeed, Za´ rraga and Bonache (2005) showed that high- care team-atmosphere, entailing
mutual trust and active empathy enhanced knowledge transfer and knowledge creation.
The research ?ndings, cited in previous sections, imply that team-identity sets the
stage for team-innovation by inducing a prosocial atmosphere, encouraging team mem-
bers to act on behalf of the team. However, we argue that the prosocial orientation
(re?ected in team-identity) can manifest its effects on the outcome of team- innovation
only if it actually mobilizes the team members to employ integrating behaviors to man-
age internal discords. Thus, the constructive-cooperative con?ict management pattern of
integrating constitutes a crucial component in the conceptual causal chain, linking
team-identity with team-innovation. A team’s actual integrating behaviors utilize the
advantages—such as tolerance for divergence, openness to others’ ideas, willingness to
share information, knowledge and skills—provided by prosocial team-orientation, as
expressed in team-identity. These gains then carry over to generation of novel and inno-
vative outcomes. Thus, we hypothesize:
Hypothesis 3: A team’s integrating con?ict-management pattern will mediate the effect
of team-identity on team-innovation.
Relationship and Task Con?icts in Teams and Constructive
Con?ict Management
In addition to an aspect of team-climate as re?ected in team-identity, the nature and
prevalence of intra-team con?icts can shape the patterns whereby these disputes are
managed, which in turn in?uence the team’s capacity for innovation and learning.
Team members’ interactions in work teams involve both social and mission-related
aspects. Hence, con?ict processes may touch upon task and relationship issues. Accord-
ingly, Jehn (1997) distinguished between relationship (or affective) and task (or cogni-
tive) con?ict and developed separate de?nitions of these two concepts.
Relationship con?ict refers to an awareness of interpersonal incompatibilities, re?ect-
ing interpersonal frictions; tensions; clash of personalities; and disagreements about per-
sonal values, taste, and interpersonal styles. This type of con?ict is associated with the
emotional aspects of interpersonal relations in work teams. Task con?ict pertains to an
awareness of differences in opinions and perspectives with respect to the work team’s
tasks, entailing divergent perceptions concerning distribution of resources, work proce-
dures, and policies. In contrast with the emotionally driven relationship con?ict, this
type of intra-team discord is embedded in the substantive elements of teams’ tasks.
Innovation and Con?ict Management in Work Teams Desivilya et al.
34 Volume 3, Number 1, Pages 28–48
Several studies examined the association between these two con?ict types and con?ict
management patterns in work teams. For example, Rentsch and Zelno (2003) studied
intra-team dynamics in work groups, where members perform complex, unstructured
tasks such as strategic decision making. According to their theoretical perspective, team
members’ interpretations of their counterparts’ action-related intentions markedly in?u-
ence con?ict behavior in work teams.
Rentsch and Zelno (2003) argued that greater correspondence among team members’
interpretations of action intentions (especially about positive team orientation) fosters
more effective and ef?cient con?ict management interactions. Such congruent cogni-
tions enhance mutual understanding among team members, encourage convergent and
inclusive communication, and foster successful coordination. Consequently, divergent
views about work procedures and other work-related issues (task con?ict) will most
likely be considered as legitimate disagreements, which need to be addressed in a coop-
erative manner, seeking mutually acceptable solutions.
Conversely, if team members’ perceptions reveal incongruent views of action-related
intentions, such as when some of them erroneously construe task con?ict as relationship
con?ict (e.g., interpret constructive criticism directed at them as personal attacks), they
will be less likely to adopt constructive con?ict management strategy.
Beyond incidental use of contentious tactics, inaccurate and incongruent cognitions
of team members can incite destructive con?ict course. This is especially likely when
team members repeatedly misattribute the others’ behaviors and view them as interfer-
ing with the team’s goals and norms. Such destructive escalatory dynamics discourages
intra-team information exchange and increases the likelihood of power struggles. By
contrast, constructive dynamics of handling intra-team con?icts is more likely to
develop when team members hold congruent perceptions about the positive value of
openness and constructive controversy in promoting the group’s goals. In the latter case,
they tend to treat internal discords as task con?icts rather than emotionally colored per-
sonal incompatibilities. Task con?icts, unlike their relationship counterpart, encourage
cooperative strategic choice designed to foster attainment of work team goals and
strengthen the internal bonds among team members.
DeDreu (2006) and Desivilya and Yagil (2005) research provide some support to
Rentsch and Zelno’s (2003) arguments with regard to the relationships between the type
of con?ict and the ways it is managed. Empirical evidence derived from these studies
indicated that relationship con?ict mitigates the use cooperative strategies such as inte-
grating. Conversely, task con?ict appears to be linked with the constructive-cooperative
intra-team strategic choice of integrating.
We therefore hypothesized:
Hypothesis 4: Task con?ict will be positively associated with the integrating pattern of
a team’s con?ict management whereas relationship con?ict will be negatively associated
with the integrating pattern.
In sum, this study examined the pivotal role of a team’s con?ict management pat-
terns for its capacity to function in an innovative manner. We have posited that the
internal group dynamics frames the outcomes eventually attained by a work team. The
Desivilya et al. Innovation and Con?ict Management in Work Teams
Volume 3, Number 1, Pages 28–48 35
current research focuses on the con?ict management tendencies element of this internal
dynamics. The patterns whereby team members handle internal disputes are nourished
by the nature of the team-atmosphere, as re?ected in team-identity, setting the stage for
prosocial motivational orientation within the team. This orientation precipitates the
choice of constructive-cooperative con?ict management patterns. Task con?ict also
fosters the choice and use of the constructive-cooperative ways of handling internal
disputes, underscoring the cognitive aspects of this strategy, notably effective information
processing. The motivational and cognitive elements in tandem help to realize the
potential of integrating in eliciting team-innovation.
This research embraced a team-level perspective, treating each variable as indicating
the team’s predominant patterns of reality construal and its main behavioral tendencies
(Kuhn & Poole, 2000). In order to assess in a meaningful way elements associated with
a team-identity, the prevalence of actual task and relationship con?icts and con?ict
management patterns, it is essential to involve in research intact teams. Thus, in con-
trast with most studies on con?ict management in teams, which were conducted on ad
hoc groups (notably students), the current investigation employed intact work teams
whose members belong to the same real work group and maintain continuous, long-
term relationships (Desivilya & Eizen, 2005; Desivilya & Yagil, 2005; Farmer & Roth,
1998).
Method
Participants and Procedure
Seventy-seven research and development teams were recruited to participate in the
study, from different high-technology companies, which are specializing in telecommu-
nication, computer software, computer hardware, and semi-conductors. To ensure that
each team provided a setting appropriate for this study, a pre-assessment interview was
held with each team leader, all of whom stated that all team members interacted regu-
larly to achieve shared goals. They also depended on one another for knowledge and
effort by means of several permanent structures such as scheduled staff meetings,
‘‘brown bag’’ lunch meetings, and joint refresher workshops. To be included in the ?nal
sample at least three members had to complete a questionnaire, and the team leader
had to complete a separate questionnaire. Team size ranged from three to six members,
average of 4.4 (SD = .83). The sample consisted of 339 employees and their correspond-
ing 77 leaders. All participants were men (a vast majority were Jewish), with average age
was 33.19 years (SD = 3.46). Average job tenure was 7.89 years (SD = 3.74). All partici-
pants had at least a Bachelor’s degree, 43% in computer sciences and the rest in elec-
tronics; 14% of the participants had a Master’s degree.
Prior to data collection, several steps were taken to address ethical concerns and to
ensure members’ commitment to the study. First, managers received a letter describing
the aim of the research as a study of teamwork in organizations, and assuring that our
concern was not with speci?c employees but with the team. This secured con?dentiality
and presumably fostered the employees’ cooperation. Managers were encouraged to
Innovation and Con?ict Management in Work Teams Desivilya et al.
36 Volume 3, Number 1, Pages 28–48
approach the researchers for any clari?cations and questions. Next, the research assis-
tants visited each of the selected teams, presented the purpose of the study and distrib-
uted the questionnaires to team members. The written instructions accompanying the
scales included a brief explanation that the purpose of the study was understanding
teamwork in organizations. To assure anonymity, employees were asked to place their
completed questionnaire in a sealed envelope. The questionnaires were distributed to
employees as follows: team members’ questionnaires consisted of measures of a team’s
con?ict management patterns, measures of con?ict types (task and relationship con?ict)
and team-identity. These measures were aggregated to the team level of analysis. Lead-
ers’ data included a measure of a team-innovation. Each participant was asked to pro-
vide demographic information.
Measures
Team-Identity
Team-identity represents the collective level of team- identi?cation occurring across all
members of the team, which is driven by aggregating the individual level construct of
team-identi?cation. Team-identity was measured by the twelve 7-point Likert-type
inventory (7 = strongly agree, to 1 = strongly disagree), developed by Henry et al.
(1999) (e.g., ‘‘I think of this team as part of who I am’’). The internal consistency reli-
ability (Cronbach’s alpha) was .92.
Con?ict Types
Task and relationship con?ict were measured by the re?ned version (Pearson, Ensley, &
Amason, 2002) of the Intragroup Con?ict Scale developed by Jehn (1992, 1994). The
instrument comprises two dimensions: relationship (affective) con?ict, measured by
three items (anger, personal friction, and tension), and task (cognitive) con?ict, also
measured by three items (disagreements about ideas, differences of opinion, and the
need to settle disagreements). Respondents rated on a 5-point Likert type scales the fre-
quency of each type of con?ict in their respective work team. The internal consistency
reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) was .75 and .80 for task and relationship con?ict, respec-
tively.
Con?ict Management Patterns
Rahim’s (1983) organizational con?ict inventory form C (ROCI-II), worded for the
team level, was used to assess the typical interaction pattern a team enacts when mem-
bers manage internal discords and disagreements. The ROCI-II was originally designed
to measure ?ve orthogonal dimensions of con?ict-management patterns, but for our
purposes only one subscale—integrating—was applied. The integrating scale (seven
items) assesses the extent to which team members adopt a cooperative pattern in man-
aging intra-team con?icts designed to reach a solution that satis?es the concerns of all
parties (e.g., ‘‘Team members try to bring all our concerns out in the open so that the
issues can be resolved in best possible way’’). Each team member was requested to indi-
cate how the team usually deals with disputes occurring within the team on a ?ve-point
Desivilya et al. Innovation and Con?ict Management in Work Teams
Volume 3, Number 1, Pages 28–48 37
Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree). The internal consistency reli-
ability for the integrating scale was .83.
Team-Innovation
A four-item scale adapted from West and Wallace (1991) was employed to assess team
innovation. The items re?ected the extent to which the team leader viewed the team as
innovative in the following job domains: work objectives, work procedures, working
methods and content areas of the job, such as ‘‘initiation of new work procedures.’’ The
team leader rated each of the four innovation items on a ?ve-point Likert-type scales
(ranging from 1 = very few innovations were made to 5 = a great deal of innovations
were made). The internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) of the innovation
measure was .86.
Control Variables
Team size and task interdependence were included as control variables because previous
research has indicated their effects on team processes and outcomes (Brewer & Kramer,
1986; Keller, 2001; Moye & Langfred, 2004). Team size was the total number of team
members reported by the team leader. Task interdependence is de?ned as the extent to
which an individual team member needs information, materials, and support from other
team members to be able to carry out his or her job (van der Vegt, van de Vlient, &
Oosterhof, 2003); it was measured by means of a three-item scale developed adapted
from van der Vegt et al. (2003) (e.g., ‘‘The team members depend on one another in
terms of information and materials necessary to perform the tasks’’). The team leaders
rated each statement on a ?ve-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, to 5 = strongly
agree). Internal consistency reliability was .92.
Level of Analysis
The unit of analysis in the present study was the team. Hence, team’s innovation, fre-
quency of team meetings, task interdependence and time size were measured at the team
level by means of the team leader’s report. A team’s con?ict management patterns of
integrating and team- identi?cation were an aggregate of individual team members’
responses to the team-level of analysis.
Thus, it was critical to demonstrate high within-team agreement to justify using
the team average as an indicator of a team-level variable (r
wg
: James, Demaree, &
Wolf, 1993). A value of .70 or above is suggested as a ‘‘good’’ amount of within-
group inter-rater agreement (James et al., 1993). In the current study, all scales
exceeded this level. The values were .88, .87, .84, and .85, respectively for team-
identi?cation, task con?ict, relationship con?ict and team’s con?ict management
pattern of integrating. Values are given in Table 1 in the column r
wg
. In addition, in
team-level analyses, the aggregation of individual responses into a team score treats
team members as judges rating their environment. Therefore, inter-member agreement
must be evidenced for a construct to be considered a team-level variable (Bliese &
Halverson, 1996).
Innovation and Con?ict Management in Work Teams Desivilya et al.
38 Volume 3, Number 1, Pages 28–48
The within-group agreement was estimated by two measures: ICC(1) which provides
an estimate of the reliability of an individual respondent’s rating and answers the ques-
tion: To what extent can variability in the measure be predicted by group membership?
ICC(2) estimates the reliability of mean differences across teams (between group vari-
ance) and answers the question: How reliable are the group means within a sample
(Bliese & Halverson, 1996). As indicated by James (1982), ICC(1) generally ranges from
0 to .50 with a median of .12. There are however no de?nite guidelines for determining
acceptable values. Values were as follows: ICC(1) = .12; ICC(2) = .61 for team- identi?cation;
ICC(1) = .14; ICC(2) = .59 for task con?ict; ICC(1) = .12; ICC(2) = .64 for relationship
con?ict; ICC(1) = .14; ICC(2) = .53 for con?ict management pattern of integrating. As
indicated by Bliese (2000), ICC(1) generally ranges from 0 to .50 with a median of .12.
All scales slightly exceeded the median score.
Results
The ?rst set of analyses included Pearson correlations followed by multiple regressions
to test the research hypotheses. In each of the regression analyses, the control
Table 2
Results of Regression of Team Innovation on Team Integrating
Team innovation
Step variables b SE DAdjusted R
2
DF df
Step 1: Control variables .008 1.32 2
Team size .18 (.08)
Task interdependence .05 (.10)
Step 2: Team Integrating 0.7 6.27* 1
Team size .20 (.08)
Task interdependence ).01 (.09)
Integrating .28* (.28)
n = 77; *p < .05; **p < .01.
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics, Reliabilities, and Intercorrelation Matrix for the Study Variables
M (SD) r
wg
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Task interdependence 3.62 (.73) –
2. Team size 4.40 (.87) – ).03
3. Relationship con?ict 1.90 (.29) .84 ).08 ).13
4. Task con?ict 2.83 (.29) .87 .04 .19 ).09
5. Team identity 3.98 (.31) .88 .24* ).08 ).09 .04
6. Integrating 4.10 (.26) .85 .10 ).07 ).35** .18 .64**
7. Innovation 3.76 (.65) – .04 .18 ).10 .03 .23* .27*
n = 77; (SD) – standard deviation; *p < .05; **p < .01.
Desivilya et al. Innovation and Con?ict Management in Work Teams
Volume 3, Number 1, Pages 28–48 39
variables—team size and task interdependence—were entered at the ?rst step. The
mediating processes were then tested, using the multiple regression procedure suggested
by Baron and Kenny (1986). Again, the control variables were entered at the ?rst step.
Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, reliabilities, and intercorrelations
matrix among the study variables.
Table 2 displays the regression of team innovation on the integrating pattern of con-
?ict management.
As can be seen in the table, integrating is positively and signi?cantly related to team-
innovation (b = .278, p < .05), thereby con?rming Hypothesis 1. After controlling for
team size and task interdependence, which account for a negligible percentage of vari-
ance in team innovation, integrating explains nearly 8% of this variance (DF = 6.28;
p < .05).
Table 3 presents the regressions of integrating on team-identity and on relationship
con?ict and task con?ict. The control variables’ (team size and task interdependence)
contribution to the explanation of variance in integrating is negligible, while the three
predictors (team-identity, relationship con?ict and task con?ict) account for 51% of the
variance in the con?ict management pattern of integrating (DF = 25.59; p < .001). In
addition, the results show that team-identity is positively and signi?cantly related to
integrating (b = .62, p < .001), hence supporting Hypothesis 2. Hypothesis 4 was par-
tially con?rmed: as expected, relationship con?ict was negatively associated with inte-
grating (b = -.293, p < .01). However, the positive relationship of task con?ict with
integrating was only marginally signi?cant (b = .15, p = .079).
Finally, we examined Hypothesis 3, postulating a mediating effect of the integrating
pattern of con?ict management on the relationship between team-identity and innova-
tion. Testing of mediation followed Baron and Kenny’s (1986) guidelines: (1) Attemting
to demonstrate that the antecedent is related to the consequence. Thus, team-innovation
was regressed on team-identity. In line with this ?rst condition the antecedent variable,
Table 3
Results of Regressions of Integrating on Team Identity and on Relationship Con?ict and Task Con?ict
Team integrating
Step variables b SE DAdjusted R
2
DF df
Step 1: Control variables ).01 .52 2
Team Size ).07 (.03)
Task Interdependence .09 (.04)
Step 2: Predictors .49 25.60*** 3
Team size ).09 (.03)
Task interdependence ).08 (.03)
Team identity .62* ** (.07)
Relationship con?ict ).29** (.07)
Task con?ict .15^ (.07)
N=77; *p < .1, p < .05; **p < .01, ***p < .001.
Innovation and Con?ict Management in Work Teams Desivilya et al.
40 Volume 3, Number 1, Pages 28–48
team-identity, is signi?cantly related to the outcome variable, team-innovation
(b = .253, p < .05). (2) Showing that the antecedent is related to the mediator, hence,
integrating was regressed on team-identity. As required by the second condition, the
antecedent variable, team-identity is signi?cantly related to the mediator, the integrating
pattern of con?ict management (b = .656, p < .001). (3) Demonstrating that the rela-
tionship between the antecedent and the consequence is eliminated when the mediator is
controlled for. To examine this possibility, we conducted a hierarchical regression analy-
sis, while controlling for the con?ict management pattern of integrating. The control
variables were entered in the ?rst step, followed by integrating in step 2 and ?nally
team-identity was entered at step 3. The results of this regression analysis are displayed
in Table 4. As can be seen in the table, in line with the third condition, the results of a
hierarchical regression have demonstrated that the relationship between the antecedent
variable, team-identity, and the outcome variable, team-innovation was eliminated while
controlling for the effect of the integrating pattern of con?ict management. Hence, each
of the three conditions of mediation according to Baron and Kenny’s (1986) guidelines
was full?lled, thereby con?rming Hypothesis 3: the integrating pattern of a team’s con-
?ict management mediates the relationship between team-identity and team-innovation.
Discussion
Scholars in the organizational arena have underscored the advantage of collaborative
teams in attaining innovative outcomes and in production of complex knowledge (Grat-
ton, 2005; Tomlinson, 2005; Vangen & Huxham, 2003a). This potential merit of a work
group presumably stems form its internal dynamics, especially the team’s capacity to
Table 4
Results of Hierarchical Regression Analyses for Predicting Integrating Pattern of Con?ict Management as a
Mediator of Team Innovation
Team innovation
Step variables b SE DAdjusted R
2
DF df
Step 1: control variables .008 1.32 2
Team size 0.18 (.09)
Task interdependence 0.05 (.10)
Step 2: mediating variable .07 6.27* 1
Team size 0.2 (.08)
Task interdependence 0.02 (.10)
Integrating 0.28* (.28)
Step 3: main effects .07 .64 1
Team size 0.2 (.08)
Task interdependence 0 (.10)
Integrating 0.2 (.36)
Team identity 0.12 (.31)
n = 77; *p < .05; **p < .01, *** p < .001.
Desivilya et al. Innovation and Con?ict Management in Work Teams
Volume 3, Number 1, Pages 28–48 41
coordinate and integrate knowledge and resources possessed by individual team
members (Standifer & Bluedorn, 2006; Swan & Scarbrough, 2005). Constructive con?ict
management constitutes one of the central processes associated with teams’ coordination
capability (Amabile et al., 2001; Tjosvold, 2006; West & Hirst, 2003). Thus, gaining a
grasp on the precursors of innovation necessitates illuminating the phenomenon of a
team’s con?ict management dynamics.
The current study was aimed to shed more light and extend the knowledge base on
innovation in work teams, focusing on the dynamics of con?ict management in intact
high-technology work teams. We have examined the contribution of con?ict handling
patterns to innovation, postulating that the constructive-cooperative pattern of integrat-
ing would foster innovation. The study also sought to discern the antecedents of con?ict
management approaches promoting innovation, explicating the role of a team-climate
characteristic—team-identity—and of task and relationship con?ict. Such a combination
of variables has not been previously tested in tandem in intact work teams. This
research embraced a team-level perspective, treating each variable as indicating the
team’s predominant patterns of reality construal and its main behavioral tendencies
(Kuhn & Poole, 2000).
Our ?ndings corroborate previous research, indicating that the integrating pattern of
a team’s con?ict management meaningfully predicted the outcome of team-innovation
(Chen et al.,2005; Cornish et al., 2007; DeDreu, 2006; Gratton, 2005; Tjosvold, 2006).
The current study lends further support to the contention that teams’ proclivities with
respect to con?ict management play a pivotal role in their capacity to function in an
innovative manner. The internal group dynamics frames the outcomes eventually
attained by a work team (DeDreu, 2006; Hinds & Mortenson, 2005; Jehn & Bendersky,
2003). Furthermore, in accordance with our hypotheses, the patterns whereby team
members handle internal disputes are nourished by the nature of the team motivational
orientation as re?ected in team-identity. In line with previous research (De Cremer,
2001; Desivilya & Eizen, 2005; Rusbult, 1993; Tyler & Blader, 2003), the results showed
a signi?cant and positive relationship between team-identity and the integrating pattern
of a team’s con?ict management.
The ?ndings also support the hypothesized mediating effect of the constructive-
cooperative con?ict management pattern (integrating) embraced by a team on the
relationship between team-identity and team-innovation. Thus, the current study sub-
stantiates the argument that positive team-identity, developed by team members serves
as a framework for organizing and coordinating behavior (Cunningham & Chelladurai,
2004; Haslam, 2001; Hinds & Mortenson, 2005; Wegge & Haslam, 2003). Positve
team-identity actively motivates team members to share skills and resources with each
other (Riketta & van Dick, 2005; Stevens & Campion, 1994), a tendency highly con-
ducive to intra-team cooperative interactions which in turn promote innovative team
outcomes.
Although prior research demonstrated direct links between the team-atmosphere
(intra-team trust and team identi?cation) and effective learning and innovation
(Amabile et al., 2001; Standifer & Bluedorn, 2006; Swan & Scarbrough, 2005; West &
Hirst, 2003; Za´ rraga & Bonache, 2005), our ?ndings lend greater credence to the tenet
Innovation and Con?ict Management in Work Teams Desivilya et al.
42 Volume 3, Number 1, Pages 28–48
that constructive con?ict management processes play a central role in producing such
outcomes (Tjosvold, 2006).
The results of the current study also partially supported our hypothesis postulating
that relationship con?ict would mitigate the use of cooperative strategies whereas task
con?ict would foster the cooperative intra-team strategic choice. Akin to prior ?nd-
ings, relationship con?ict was negatively associated with the integrating pattern of a
team’s con?ict management pattern (Amabile et al., 2001; Rentsch & Zelno, 2003).
The relationship between task con?ict and integrating was only marginally signi?cant,
alluding to the positive link indicated in previous research (Amabile et al., 2001;
DeDreu, 2006; Rentsch & Zelno, 2003). Divergent perceptions about work-related
issues (task con?ict) tend to be viewed as legitimate disagreements, which need to be
handled in a cooperative manner so as to attain mutually acceptable solutions.
Conversely, if team members interpret critical attitudes directed at them or discordant
opinions of their counterparts as personal attacks (relationship con?ict), they will be
less likely to adopt constructive con?ict management strategy. Such unfavorable attri-
butions of team members’ intentions discourage intra-team information exchange and
increase the likelihood of power struggles. Indeed, our ?ndings clearly demonstrated
the obstructing force of relationship con?ict on constructive con?ict management in
work teams.
Further research is needed to ascertain the potential positive contribution of task con-
?ict to collaborative handling of internal discords in work teams. As suggested by Rents-
ch and Zelno (2003), constructive dynamics of handling intra-team con?icts is more
likely to develop when team members hold congruent perceptions about the positive
value of openness and constructive controversy in promoting the group’s goals. In addi-
tion, cooperative tendencies can be related to team members’ preferences of team-work
in contrast with favoring individualized work arrangements. As indicated by Moham-
med and Angell’s (2004) ?ndings, such a team orientation has moderated the destruc-
tive in?uence of relationship con?ict in work teams.
In sum, the current study contributes to the body of knowledge on con?ict manage-
ment dynamics and innovation in work teams in several ways: (a) it underscores the
centrality of a team’s constructive con?ict management pattern in promoting innovation
both directly as well as by transporting the benevolent in?uence of a positive team-iden-
tity; (b) indicating the impediment of relationship con?ict on cooperative con?ict han-
dling in work teams and hinting the positive role of task con?ict on internal
collaboration; (c) supplementing the research base derived from ?eld studies—intact
rather than ad hoc ‘‘experimental’’ work teams, and; (d) evaluating con?ict management
dynamics using a team-level analysis.
Notwithstanding the merits of this study, several limitations should also be noted.
First, the cross-sectional feature of the study does not allow a conclusive interpretation
of our ?ndings’ causal direction. Conceivably, the causal order could be reversed.
Attaining innovative outcomes, as evaluated by the team leaders and fed back to the
team could spur cooperative tendencies, while these in turn promoting a positive team-
climate re?ected in enhanced team-identity. Moreover, reciprocal causality cannot be
ruled out. Future research needs to employ longitudinal designs in more controlled
Desivilya et al. Innovation and Con?ict Management in Work Teams
Volume 3, Number 1, Pages 28–48 43
settings (but studying intact teams) to further validate the causal inferences suggested in
the current study (Moye & Langfred, 2004).
Second, the data were largely self-reported by the team members, hence potentially
subject to bias. This aspect of the study does not differ from previous work (e.g.,
Tjosvold et al., 2003). It is noteworthy that recent research suggests that self-reported
data are not as limited as was previously believed and that people often accurately
perceive their social environment (Alper et al., 2000). In addition, in the current
study, the likelihood of common method variance was low because the criterion vari-
able (team-innovation) was obtained from a different source (team leader) (Podsakoff
& Organ, 1986).
Future research should use other sources and methods for evaluating team outcomes
such as innovation (Lovelace, Shapiro, & Weingart, 2001; Oldham & Cummings, 1996),
as well as con?ict management patterns, team-identity and types of con?icts. Qualitative
research, using direct observations and in-depth interviews could yield additional
insights concerning the intricacies of teams’ internal dynamics, especially discerning the
conceptual links among a team—climate, the types of con?ict, the ways they are man-
aged and their rami?cations on creativity, production of usable knowledge and innova-
tion (Amabile et al., 2001; Ayoko et al., 2002; Standifer & Bluedorn, 2006; Swan &
Scarbrough, 2005).
Third, the extent of generalizability of the present ?ndings should be examined in
other cultural contexts and in more diverse teams (gender-mixed, heterogeneous teams
in terms of ethnic origin). Previous studies have demonstrated that taking into account
the role of other team-related variables such as individualism-collectivism, gender and
other sources of diversity carry signi?cant implications for team-identity processes and
for team outcomes (Ayoko et al., 2002; Gundlach et al., 2006; Mohammed & Angell,
2004).
Finally, the present study provides some practical considerations. Developing effective
ways of managing con?ict may have a marked benevolent effect on teams’ capacity to
function in an innovative fashion. Organizational teams that tend to employ cooperative
approaches to con?ict, as suggested by our ?ndings, presumably would be capable of
generating new knowledge and novel outcomes. Accordingly, training, especially for
teams evincing poor integrating con?ict management skills, deems extremely important
in fostering the use of a cooperative approach (Tjosvold, 2006).
The results indicate that team-identity serves as a key mechanism engendering coop-
erative motivation, conducive to adoption of constructive con?ict management patterns.
One of the major managerial practices to promote team-identity could be to increase
team members’ opportunity to participate in decision-making processes. Active partici-
pation in decision-making enhances involvement, commitment, and a sense of belong-
ing, which lead to a higher level of team-identi?cation (Tyler & Blader, 2003).
The ?ndings have also showed the obstructing in?uence of relationship con?ict on a
team’s tendency for constructive con?ict management. To mitigate such destructive
impact team leaders could encourage team meetings, allowing to voice members’ indi-
vidual concerns and thereby enhancing the congruency in attributions of other mem-
bers’ intentions (Rentsch & Zelno, 2003).
Innovation and Con?ict Management in Work Teams Desivilya et al.
44 Volume 3, Number 1, Pages 28–48
References
Alper, S., Tjosvold, D., & Law, K. S. (2000). Con?ict management, ef?cacy, and performance in
organizational teams. Personnel Psychology, 53, 625–642.
Amabile, T., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work
environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1154–1184.
Amabile, T., Patterson, C., Mueller, J., Wojcik, T., Odomirok, P., Marsh, M., et al. (2001).
Academic-Practitioner Collaboration in Management Research: A Case of Cross-Profession
Collaboration. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 418–431.
Ayoko, O. B., Ha¨rtel, C. E. J., & Callan, V. J. (2002). Resolving the puzzle of productive and
destructive con?ict in culturally heterogeneous work groups: A communication accommoda-
tion theory approach. International Journal of Con?ict Management, 13, 165–187.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
Blake, R. A., & Mouton, J. S. (1964). The managerial grid. Houston: Gulf.
Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within group agreement, non independence, and reliability’. In K. Klein &
S. W. J. Kozlovski (Eds.), Multi-level theory, research and methods in organizations (pp. 349–
381. ). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bliese, P. D., & Halverson, R. R. (1996). Individual and nomothetic models of job stress: An
examination of work hours, cohesion, and well being. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26,
1171–1189.
Brewer, M. B., & Kramer, R. M. (1986). Choice behavior in social dilemmas: Effects of social
identity, group size, and decision framing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50,
543–549.
Chen, G., Liu, C., & Tjosvold, D. (2005). Con?ict Management for Effective Top Management
Teams and Innovation in China. Journal of Management Studies, 42(2), 277–300.
Cornish, F., Zittoun, T., & Gillespie, A. (2007). A Cultural Psychological Re?ection on Collabo-
rative Research. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 8(3), Art. 21.
Cunningham, G., & Chelladurai, P. (2004). Affective reactions to cross-functional teams: The
impact of size, relative performance and common in-group identity. Group Dynamics: Theory,
Research and Practice, 8, 83–97.
De Cremer, D. (2001). Self-control and cooperation: Different concepts, similar decisions?
A question of the right perspective The Journal of Psychology, 135, 133–153.
De Dreu, C., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship con?ict, team performance,
and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 741–750.
DeDreu, C. K. W. (2006). When Too Little or Too Much Hurts: Evidence for a Curvilinear
Relationship between Task Con?ict and Innovation in Teams. Journal of Management, 32(1),
83–107.
Desivilya, H. S., & Eizen, D. (2005). Con?ict management in work teams: The role of social
self-ef?cacy and group identi?cation. The International Journal of Con?ict Management, 16,
185–211.
Desivilya, S. H., & Yagil, D. (2005). Con?ict management in work teams: The Role of Emotions
in Con?ict Management: The case of Work Teams. International Journal of Con?ict Manage-
ment, 16(1), 55–69.
Deutsch, M. (1973). The resolution of con?ict. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Desivilya et al. Innovation and Con?ict Management in Work Teams
Volume 3, Number 1, Pages 28–48 45
Farmer, S. M., & Roth, J. (1998). Con?ict-handling behavior in work groups: Effects of group
structure, decision processes, and time. Small Group Research, 29, 669–713.
Gratton, L. (2005). Managing integration through cooperation. Human Resource Management,
44, 151–158.
Gundlach, M., Zivnuska, S., & Stoner, J. (2006). Understanding the relationship between indi-
vidualism-collectivism and team performance through an integration of social identity theory
and the social relations model. Human Relations, 59, 1603–1632.
Haslam, S. A. (2001). Psychology in organizations: The social identity approach. London: Sage.
Henry, B. H., Arrow, H., & Carini, B. (1999). A tripartite model of group identi?cation: Theory
and measurement. Small Group Research, 30, 558–581.
Hinds, P. J., & Mortenson, M. (2005). Understanding con?ict in geographically distributed
teams: The moderating effects of shared indentity, shared context, and spontaneous commu-
nication. Organization Science, 16(3), 290–307.
Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. (2000). Social identity and self categorization processes in organiza-
tional contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25, 121–140.
James, L. R. (1982). Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 67, 219–229.
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1993). r
wg
: An assessment of within-group interrater
agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 306–309.
Jansenn, O., Van de Vliert, E., & West, M. (2004). The bright and dark sides of individual and
group innovation: a Special Issue introduction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 129–145.
Jehn, K. (1992). The impact of intragroup con?ict on effectiveness: A multidimensional
examination of the bene?ts and detriments of con?ict. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Northwestern University, Chicago, IL.
Jehn, K. (1994). Enhancing effectiveness: An investigation of advantages and disadvantages of
value based intragroup con?ict. International Journal of Con?ict Management, 5, 223–238.
Jehn, K. (1997). Affective and cognitive con?ict in work groups: Increasing performance
through value-based intragroup con?ict. In C. De Dreu & E. Van De Vliert (Eds.), Using con-
?ict in organizations (pp. 87–101). London: Sage.
Jehn, K., & Bendersky, C. (2003). Intragroup con?ict in organizations: A contingency perspec-
tive on the con?ict-outcome relationship. In R. M. Kramer & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Reesrach in
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25. (pp. 187–242. ). New York: Elsevier.
Keller, R. T. (2001). Cross-functional project groups in research and new product development:
diversity, communications, job stress and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 44,
547–555.
Kuhn, T., & Poole, M. (2000). Do con?ict management styles affect group decision making?
Evidence from a longitudinal ?eld study Human Communication Research, 26, 558–590.
Lembke, S., & Wilson, M. G. (1998). Putting the ‘‘team’’ into teamwork: Alternative theoretical
contributions for contemporary management practice. Human Relations, 51, 927–944.
Lovelace, K., Shapiro, D. L., & Weingart, L. R. (2001). Maximizing cross-functional new prod-
uct team’s innovativeness and constraint adherence: A con?ict communications perspective.
The Academy of Management Journal, 44, 779–793.
Mohammed, S., & Angell, L. C. (2004). Surface-and deep-level diversity in workgroups: examin-
ing the moderating effects of team orientation and team process on relationship con?ict.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 1015–1039.
Innovation and Con?ict Management in Work Teams Desivilya et al.
46 Volume 3, Number 1, Pages 28–48
Moye, N., & Langfred, C. W. (2004). Information sharing and group con?ict: Going beyond
decision making to understand the effects of information sharing on group performance. The
International Journal of Con?ict Management, 15, 381–410.
Nemeth, C. J., Personnaz, B ., Personnaz, M ., & Goncalo, J. A. (2004). The Liberating Role of
Con?ict in Group Creativity: A Study in two Countries. European Journal of Social Psychology,
34(4), 365–374.
Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at
work. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 607–634.
Pearson, A. W., Ensley, M. D., & Amason, A. C. (2002). An assessment and re?nement of
Jehn’s intragroup con?ict scale. International Journal of Con?ict Management, 13, 110–126.
Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-report in organizational research: Problems and
prospects. Journal of Management, 12, 531–544.
Pruitt, D. G., & Rubin, J. Z. (1986). Social con?ict: escalation, stalemate. New York: Random House.
Rahim, M. A. (1983). A measure of styles of handling interpersonal con?icts. Academy of
Management Journal, 26, 368–376.
Rentsch, J. R., & Zelno, J. A. (2003). The Role of Cognition in Managing Con?ict to maximize
team effectiveness: The team member schema similarity approach. In M. West, D. Tjosvold,
& K. G. Smith (Eds.), International Handbook of Organizational teamwork and cooperative
working (pp. 131–151). Chichester, West Sussex, England: John Wiley.
Riketta, M., & van Dick, R. (2005). Foci of attachment in organizations: A meta-analytic
comparison of the strength and correlates of workgroup versus organizational identi?cation
and commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67, 490–510.
Rusbult, E. C. (1993). Understanding responses to dissatisfaction in close relationships: The
exit-voice-loyaly-neglect model. In S. Worchel & J. A. Simpson (Eds.), Con?ict between people
and groups: Causes and resolution (pp. 30–59). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.
Standifer, R., & Bluedorn, A. (2006). Alliance management teams and entrainment: Sharing
temporal mental models. Human Relations, 59, 903–927.
Stevens, M. J., & Campion, M. A. (1994). The knowledge, skill and ability requirements for
teamwork: Implications for human resources management. Journal of Management, 20,
503–530.
Swan, J., & Scarbrough, H. (2005). The politics of networked innovation. Human Relations, 58,
913–943.
Thomas, K. W (1976). Con?ict and con?ict management. In M. D. Dunnetee (Ed.), The Hand-
book of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 889–935). Chicago: Rand McNally.
Tjosvold, D. (2006). De?ning con?ict and making choices about its management: Lighting the
dark side of organizational life. International Journal of Con?ict Management, 17(2), 87–96.
Tjosvold, D., Hui, C., Ding, D., & Hu, J. (2003). Con?ict values and team relationships:
Con?ict’s contribution to team effectiveness and citizenship in China. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 24, 69–88.
Tjosvold, D., Poon, M., & Zi-you, Y. (2005). Team effectiveness in China: Cooperative con?ict
for relationship building. Human Relations, 58(3), 341–366.
Tomlinson, F. (2005). Idealistic and Pragmativc Versions of the Discourse of Partnership.
Organization Studies, 26, 1169–1188.
Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2003). The group engagement model: Procedural justice, social
identity, and cooperative behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 349–361.
Desivilya et al. Innovation and Con?ict Management in Work Teams
Volume 3, Number 1, Pages 28–48 47
Vangen, S., & Huxham, C. (2003a). Enacting leadership for collaborative advantage: Dillemas of
ideology and pragmatism in the activities of partnership. British Journal of Management, 14,
61–76.
van der Vegt, G. S., van de Vlient, E., & Oosterhof, A. (2003). Informational dissimilarity and
organizational citizenship behavior: The role of intrateam interdependence and identi?cation.
The Academy of Management, 46, 715–728.
van Knippenberg, D., & van Schie, E. C. M. (2000). Fici and correlates of organizational identi-
?cation. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73, 137–147.
Wegge, J., & Haslam, S. A. (2003). Group goal setting, social identity, and self categorization:
Engaging the collective self to enhance group performance and organizational outcomes. In
S. A. Haslam, D. van Knippenberg, M. J. Platow, & N. Ellemers (Eds.), Social identity at work:
Development theory for organizational practice (pp. 43–60). New York: Psychology Press.
West, M. (2002). Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An integrative model of creativity and
innovation implementation in work groups. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51,
355–424.
West, M., & Hirst, G. (2003). Cooperation and Teamwork for Innovation. In M. West, D.
Tjosvold, & K. G. Smith (Eds.), International handbook of organizational teamwork and coop-
erative working (pp. 297–321. ). Chichester, U.K: John Wiley.
West, M., & Wallace, M. (1991). Innovation in health care teams. British Journal of Social Psy-
chology, 21, 303–315.
Za´ rraga, C., & Bonache, J. (2005). The Impact of Team Atmosphere on Knowledge Outcomes
in Self-Managed Teams. Organization Studies, 26, 661–683.
Helena Syna Desivilya is an associate professor of social and organizational psychology.
She serves as a chair of the Sociology and Anthropology department at the Max Stern
Academic College of Emek Yezreel in Israel. She conducts research on interpersonal and
inter-group relations in organizations (including con?ict management) focusing espe-
cially on the intra group dynamics, processes of team building and development of part-
nerships. She has published her work in organizational and con?ict-related journals and
contributed chapters to various books of organizational behavior, management and con-
?ict. She also engages in program evaluation and action research on public and third
sector organizations.
Helena Lidgoster received her Masters degree in the Department of Education at the
University of Haifa. Parts of the data used in this study also served as a data base for
her Masters thesis.
Anit Somech is the head of Educational Leadership & Policy Department at the Univer-
sity of Haifa, Israel. She received her PhD. degree in the Department of Industrial Engi-
neering and Management, at the Technion, the Israel Institute for Technology, with an
emphasis on Behavioral Sciences and Management (1994). Her research is in the areas
of Teamwork, Management (Participative Management), and Work Motivation (OCB).
Innovation and Con?ict Management in Work Teams Desivilya et al.
48 Volume 3, Number 1, Pages 28–48
doc_725111317.pdf