A quantitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational groups

Administrative Science Quarterly,  Sept, 1997  by Karen A. Jehn

• E-mail
• Print
• Link

In much of the previous literature conflict is generally deemed detrimental to performance and satisfaction (March and Simon, 1958; Pondy, 1967; Blake and Mouton, 1984). Thus, it is no surprise that today's managers and employees still overwhelmingly view conflict as negative and something to be avoided or immediately resolved (Losey, 1994; Stone, 1995). Recent studies, however, have examined the benefits of organizational conflict and methods for stimulating productive conflict (Tjosvold, 1991; Amason and Schweiger, 1994; Jehn, 1994, 1995; Van de Vliert and De Dreu, 1994; Pelled, 1996). For example, task-related management team conflict can improve organizational performance and growth through enhanced understanding of various viewpoints and creative options (Bourgeois, 1985; Eisenhardt and Schoonhoven, 1990).

Because a common goal is fundamental to task completion in groups, much past research on conflict and its resolution has concentrated on situations in which members have apparent opposing goals (Cosier and Rose, 1977; Kabanoff, 1985; Thompson, Mannix, and Bazerman, 1988; Eisenhardt and Schoonhoven, 1990). In a review of small group research, Levine and Moreland (1990) addressed research on social dilemmas, bargaining, and coalition formation, all of which assume a basic conflict of goals within the group. But in many organizational groups, group members largely agree about individual and group goals (McGrath, 1984; Kabanoff, 1985) yet they still find themselves in conflict. Kabanoff (1985: 114) suggested that people may have difficulty working together effectively, even when they generally agree on goals and "believe they should be working together," and that conflict "develops primarily from people's normal attempts to cooperate or coordinate their efforts." Even when group members work on the same project, have mutual interests in completing it, and similar ideas of how to complete the project, they still may experience conflict. Conflict theory and research has primarily focused on disagreements about ends, but conflict can just as easily occur about means, even when ends are shared, as they are in most organizational groups (McGrath, 1984). The means versus ends distinction provides a framework for examining various types of conflict that can occur in organizational groups (Simon, 1976; Tyler, Degoey, and Smith, 1996).

While most studies use survey methods (e.g., Dewar and Werbel, 1979; Jehn, 1995; Amason, 1996), I use observational and unobtrusive methods here to capture the sensitive dynamics of typical conflict. Although many classic qualitative studies of organizational behavior can be viewed as qualitative studies of conflict (e.g., Mintzberg, 1973; Pettigrew, 1973; Dalton et al., 1980), the research reported here uses the qualitative data to focus more directly on conflict and to construct a model of everyday organizational conflict. Using these methods, I develop a typology of conflict and a framework for studying its negative and positive aspects by demonstrating the connections between perceptions and actual behavioral displays of conflict and the performance of management teams and production groups.

A Synthesis of Current Models of Conflict

Types of conflict. Two types of conflict are predominantly studied in organizations. Guetzkow and Gyr (1954) proposed that both "affective" and "substantive" conflicts exist. Affective conflict refers to conflict in interpersonal relations, while substantive conflict is conflict involving the group's task. Priem and Price (1991) distinguished between cognitive, task-related conflicts and social-emotional conflicts, characterized by interpersonal disagreements not directly related to the task. Coser (1956) hypothesized goal-oriented conflict, in which individuals pursue specific gains, and emotional conflict, which is projected frustration with interpersonal interactions. Similarly, Pinkley's (1990) multidimensional scaling study uncovered a task-versus-relationship dimension of conflict. Jehn (1992), in a multidimensional scaling study of group conflict, found that members distinguish between task-focused and relationship-focused conflicts and that these two types of conflict differentially affect work group outcomes. There is an apparent distinction between task and relationship in these typologies similar to other organizational theories that distinguish between task and interpersonal dimensions of organizational life, such as leadership theories (e.g., task and relationship motivated leaders; Fiedler, 1978) and group functions (e.g., task accomplishment and relationship maintenance; Bales, 1958; Ancona and Caldwell, 1988). This division between task and relationship leads to different predictions about the effect of conflict on group outcomes.

Empirical research shows a negative association between relationship conflict, productivity, and satisfaction in groups (Evan, 1965; Gladstein, 1984; Wall and Nolan, 1986). Summarily stated, relationship conflicts interfere with task-related effort because members focus on reducing threats, increasing power, and attempting to build cohesion rather than working on the task. According to Deutsch (1969), relationship conflicts decrease goodwill and mutual understanding, which hinders the completion of organizational tasks. Time is often spent on interpersonal aspects of the group rather than on technical and decision-making tasks (Evan, 1965). The conflict causes members to be negative, irritable, suspicious, and resentful. Chronic relationship conflicts can have serious detrimental effects on group functioning (Coser, 1956). To date, there has been no evidence of positive effects of relationship conflict on either performance or satisfaction.