Examining The "Pros" and "Cons" of Team Conflict - A Team-Level Meta-Analysis of Task, Relationship, and Process Conflict

Human Performance, 26:236–260, 2013
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 0895-9285 print/1532-7043 online
DOI: 10.1080/08959285.2013.795573
Examining the “Pros” and “Cons” of Team Conflict:

A Team-Level Meta-Analysis of Task,
Relationship, and Process Conflict
Thomas A. O’Neill
University of Calgary
Natalie J. Allen
University of Western Ontario
Stephanie E. Hastings
Alberta Health Services
Jehn (e.g., 1997) offered three distinct types of team conflict, namely, task conflict, relationship con-
flict, and process conflict. Despite existing meta-analyses, there remain important and ongoing issues
that warrant further meta-analytic investigation. Our contribution is threefold. First, we report novel
meta-analytic findings involving moderators of the conflict–team performance relationship. Second,
we report on meta-analytic correlations involving all three conflict types and team innovation. Third,
we report on the relations involving task conflict and relationship conflict with previously unexam-
ined, but critical, teamwork variables: team potency, cooperative behaviors, competitive behaviors,
and avoidance behaviors. Input for the current meta-analysis included 89 independent samples,
6,122 teams, and approximately 28,000 team members.
INTRODUCTION
In the past 15 years there has been a surge of research examining conflict in organizational work
teams. This might be attributed to seminal efforts to amalgamate disparate theories of conflict
under a common theoretical model (e.g., Amason & Schweiger, 1994; Jehn, 1995). One funda-
mental, and intriguing, proposal of this work was that not all conflict is harmful. Specifically, it
was argued that although relationship conflict—involving interpersonal tensions, frictions, and
resentment—can harm team performance, task conflict—involving different ideas, perspectives,
and viewpoints regarding the work itself—has the potential to improve team performance and
team innovation. Jehn (1997) also discussed a third type of conflict involving incompatibilities
in views about how the work should be accomplished (e.g., distribution of workload, order of
Correspondence should be sent to Thomas A. O’Neill, Department of Psychology, University of Calgary, 2500
University Drive, N.W., Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2N 1N4. E-mail: [email protected]
META-ANALYSIS OF TEAM CONFLICT 237
tasks to be completed). This has come to be known as process conflict, and it has been theo-
rized that such conflicts would generally be harmful for team performance because they create
inefficiencies (e.g., Jehn, 1997; Shah & Jehn, 1993).
Early predictions about the differential effects of conflict types on team performance and
preliminary findings supporting that view (e.g., Amason, 1996; Jehn, 1994, 1995) inspired a
tremendous amount of research that was designed to examine the possible benefits of task conflict
(e.g., Amason & Sapienza, 1997; DeChurch & Marks, 2001; Peterson & Behfar, 2003; Simons
& Peterson, 2000). Several years ago, De Dreu and Weingart (2003b) meta-analyzed the relevant
studies and reported evidence suggesting that, contrary to earlier theorizing, the relation between
task conflict and team performance was negative (ρ = −.23) and similar in magnitude to the cor-
responding relation involving relationship conflict (ρ = −.22). This finding dealt a powerful blow
to so-called “productive” conflict—the idea that conflict, as long as it is directed toward the task
and not toward the person, can be functional (Amason & Schweiger, 1994; De Dreu, 1997; Jehn,
1994, 1997; Pelled, 1996). More recently, de Wit, Greer, and Jehn (2012) published an updated
meta-analysis, in which they found that team performance was negatively related to relationship
conflict (ρ = −.16) and process conflict (ρ = −.15), whereas the relation was essentially zero
for task conflict (ρ = −.01). In addition, de Wit et al. investigated moderators to test contingency
models of conflict types (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003a; Jehn & Bendersky, 2003), and found that
task conflict was positively related to performance when used in top management teams or when
the criterion was decision-making performance. Somewhat surprisingly, however, the main anal-
yses indicated that decision-making teams (which may or may not have had decision-making
quality as a criterion) did not benefit any more from task conflict than did other types of teams,
thereby suggesting that the type of task performed has no bearing on the relations between conflict
and performance.
Although the de Wit et al. (2012) meta-analysis sheds light on conflict–performance relations,
there remain two important unanswered questions regarding Jehn’s (1994, 1997) tripartite model
of conflict types (i.e., task, relationship, and process conflict). We attempted to address these
questions by reporting new meta-analytic findings that, in our view, further advance the theory
and practical implications of team conflict. These questions become apparent when considering
Table 1, which compares three relevant previous meta-analyses and the current meta-analysis with
respect to the number of articles, number of teams, number of individuals sampled, percentage
of articles that were unique to the particular meta-analysis, number of new articles added to De
Dreu and Weingart’s (2003b) meta-analysis, number of articles published after 2003, the level of
analysis, conflict variables considered, variables correlated with conflict types, and the moderator
methodology employed.
First, inspection of Table 1 reveals that there are some key variables for which relations involv-
ing conflict types were not investigated meta-analytically in prior research. These include team
innovation, team potency, and conflict management behaviors (i.e., cooperative behavior, com-
petitive behavior, avoidance behavior). Team innovation is theorized to be an outcome of team
conflict because of conflict’s potential to impact idea generation and implementation (Anderson,
De Dreu, & Nijstad, 2004), but there is a need for further meta-analytic attention. Although
Hülsheger, Anderson, and Salgado (2009) investigated relations involving relationship conflict,
task conflict, and team innovation, they did not consider process conflict and they incorporated
fewer studies than did the current meta-analysis. Specifically, in comparison to Hülsheger et al.,
the present meta-analysis includes 33% more studies reporting task conflict–team innovation
TABLE 1
Comparison of Meta-Analyses Involving Team Conflict Types and Teamwork Variables
De Dreu & Weingart, Hülsheger, Anderson,
238
2003b & Salgado, 2009 de Wit, Greer, & Jehn, 2012 Current Meta-Analysis
Number of articles 28 11a 116 83

Number of teams sampled Unclearb 372a 8,880 6,122
Number of individuals Unclear Unclear Unclear ∼28,000
sampled
Percentage of unique articles Compared to de Wit Compared to De Dreu and Weingart Compared to De Dreu & Weingart
includedc et al. (32%)d (83%) (82%)
Compared to current Uncleare Compared to current meta-analysis Compared to de Wit et al. (46%)
meta-analysis (59%)
(46%)d
Number of new articles added — Uncleare 90 68
to De Dreu & Weingart,
2003
Number of articles added post — Uncleare 77 55
2003
Level of analysis Mixture of individual Team Team Team
and team
Conflict variables considered Task conflict Task conflict Task conflict Relationship conflict Task conflict Relationship conflict
Relationship conflict Relationship Process conflict Process conflict
conflict
Team variables correlated with Team performance Team innovation Team performance Team performance
conflict types Team satisfaction Team satisfaction Team innovation
Team trust Team potency
Team cohesion Team cooperative behavior
Team commitment Team competitive behavior
Team identification Team avoidance behavior
Organizational citizenship behavior
Counterproductive workplace
behavior
Positive affect
Moderator methodology Subgroup analysis Subgroup analysis WLS except for top-management vs. Subgroup analysis
non-top-management teams and
post-hoc analysis of task type
Note. a This can be viewed as an upper-bound estimate because some studies may have included both relationship and task conflict. b A mixture of team and individual-level
studies made this unclear. c This analysis did not include Hülsheger et al. because they did not identify the specific studies included in their estimation of conflict-innovation
relations. d Unique articles in De Dreu and Weingart was due to their inclusion of individual-level research and certain unpublished data sets (e.g., Winters, 1997). e Values in these
cells are unclear as the authors did not identify which studies were in task and relationship conflict analyses.
relations, and 4 times as many studies reporting relationship conflict–team innovation relations.
Turning to team potency, it is surprising that it has not been related to team conflict in previous
meta-analytic research. A construct-level estimate of this relation is critically important given
that team potency is one of the most robust predictors of team performance and is linked to
deeply entrenched theories of motivation (Bandura, 1997; Gully, Incalcaterra, Joshi, & Beaubien,
2002). Finally, cooperative, competitive, and avoidance team behaviors are intimately tied to
long-standing theories of conflict management (e.g., Deutsch, 1949, 2006; Tjosvold, 1998), but
their relations to team conflict types have not been meta-analyzed.
A second critical issue, revealed by Table 1, involves moderator analyses. In our view, one of
the most theoretically interesting, and practically important, moderator analyses in this line of
research involves the comparison of conflict-criterion relations observed in teams with different
types of tasks. Of interest, in their more recent—and larger scale—investigation, de Wit et al.’s
(2012) main analyses suggested that relationship and process conflict are negatively related to
team performance, that task conflict is unrelated to team performance, and that the team task has
no bearing on these findings. The latter result is particularly intriguing—and warrants a closer
look—as it is in stark contrast to extant theory (e.g., Jehn, 1994, 1995; Tjosvold, 1998, 2008a).
Indeed, in decision-making teams task conflict is theorized to be beneficial, whereas in most other
types of teams it may be distracting (e.g., production teams). We speculate that the lack of moder-
ation for team task type may be an artifact of de Wit et al.’s application of weighted least squares
(WLS) meta-analytic multiple regression. That procedure is designed for continuous moderators
(cf. Hunter & Schmidt, 2004; Steel & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2002), and we argue that the current
moderators form discrete categories and could be analyzed as such using Hunter and Schmidt’s
categorical approach (cf. Aguinis, Gottfredson, & Wright, 2011). Indeed, in post hoc analyses,
for which data were not reported, de Wit et al. noted that “when testing the moderating effect
of group task type in isolation (using subgroup analyses), we found a small positive correlation
among studies on decision-making tasks” (p. 372). Thus, it is important to reexamine, in greater
detail, the potential moderation of task type using subgroup analyses. Further, we included more
levels in the moderator variables (e.g., performance measurement method, team setting), thus
contributing to the novelty of the current findings and further theoretical development.
AREAS OF INQUIRY
Relations Involving Team Conflict and Team Innovation, Potency, and Conflict
Management
Team Innovation
Team innovation involves developing a creative or novel solution that is also practical and
feasible in application (West & Anderson, 1996). In addition to its obvious importance, including
team innovation as a criterion in the current meta-analysis answers a call from De Dreu (2008)
for simultaneous examination of conflict’s effects on multiple team criteria. Theoretically, teams
that engage in task conflict will confront issues, explore alternatives, bring new information to
light, and learn more (De Dreu & West, 2001; Nemeth, Personnaz, Personnaz, & Goncalo, 2004;
240 O’NEILL, ALLEN, HASTINGS
Tjosvold, 2008a, 2008b). Such processes are expected to spur innovation in teams (Farh, Lee, &
Farh, 2010; Lovelace, Shapiro, & Weingart, 2001; Tjosvold, 1998); thus, it seems reasonable to
anticipate a positive effect of task conflict on team innovation. Hülsheger et al.’s (2009) meta-
analysis found a null relation between task conflict and team innovation (ρ = −.03); however,
as we added more studies (k = 9 vs. k = 12) an update of Hülsheger et al.’s estimate seems
warranted.
Both relationship and process conflict are likely to be harmful for team innovation.
Relationship conflict creates anxiety, fear, and remorse, and such sentiments are likely to inter-
fere with the efficient information processing that is needed for creative thinking (Carnevale &
Probst, 1998). Hülsheger et al. (2009) reported a corresponding ρ of .03, but that was based
on one fourth of the number of studies included in the current meta-analysis. Process conflicts
involve incompatibilities regarding how to carry out the work, such as logistical issues and the
distribution of task responsibilities (Jehn & Mannix, 2001). Process conflicts are likely to be man-
ifested as a result of perceptions of procedural injustices (Jehn, 1997), and they are not expected
to contribute positively to team innovation. This proposition needs to be investigated, however,
as earlier meta-analyses did not consider the process conflict–team innovation relation.
Team Potency
Although potency is one of the strongest and most robust predictors of team performance
(Gully et al., 2002; LePine, Piccolo, Jackson, Mathieu, & Saul, 2008) even when controlling
for team-level cognitive ability (Hecht, Allen, Klammer, & Kelly, 2002), this relation has not
been meta-analyzed before. The theory is that teams with greater beliefs in their capabilities to
perform will strive for higher levels of performance, persist longer, and seek information about the
effectiveness of team strategies (e.g., Guzzo, Yost, Campbell, & Shea, 1993). We anticipate that
all forms of conflict will be negatively related to the team’s confidence in its ability to perform
well. Experiencing conflicts about relationships and processes is likely symptomatic of dislike
for members and incompatible viewpoints regarding logistical issues, respectively, which would
not tend to characterize teams with strong beliefs in their abilities to perform. In addition, task
conflict should be negatively related to team potency. Whereas teams may occasionally feel more
confident after an exchange involving task conflict, prolonged task conflict may lead the team to
question itself and its capability to perform effectively as a unit.
Conflict Management
Cooperative, competitive, and avoidance team behaviors are outgrowths of the social inter-
dependence theory of conflict management (Deutsch, 1949; Johnson & Johnson, 1989). Social
interdependence theory suggests that interdependence naturally leads to some level of con-
flict, but it is individuals’ reactions to that conflict, in the form of cooperation, competition,
or avoidance, that is important for team effectiveness (Deutsch, 2006; Johnson, 2003). Teams
that treat perceived incompatibilities with cooperation appear, in general, to be more successful
than teams who are competitive or avoiding (see Tjosvold, 2008a). Cooperation has been asso-
ciated with more effective communication, friendliness and helpfulness, coordination of effort,
and collaboration (see Deutsch, 2006), whereas competition tends to be associated with exploita-
tion, withholding information, win–lose interactions, and closed-mindedness (e.g., Chen, Liu, &
Tjosvold, 2005). In a team setting, conflict avoidance is theorized to limit the pool of resources
individual team members can tap, thereby reducing the team’s overall potential (Tjosvold, Law, &
Sun, 2006). It could also aggravate differences, because without interaction members are unlikely
to come to understand the reasons for others’ positions (Tjosvold, 2008a, 2008b).
We expect that task conflict, relationship conflict, and process conflict will be negatively
related to cooperative behavior in teams. High levels of cooperation suggest that members expe-
rience limited conflict or that conflicts tend to be smoothed over quickly. Task, relationship, and
process conflict are also likely to be positively related to both competitive behavior and avoidance
behavior. Conflicts, being perceived incompatibilities, naturally lend themselves to competitive
interactions as members may often see their agendas, personalities, or work preferences as mis-
matched, such that not everyone’s preferences can be met. Avoidance behavior may be promoted
with all types of conflict as perceived irreconcilable differences lead individuals to avoid team
members who are seen as the source of the conflict. It is important to note that gaining meta-
analytic knowledge of the associations between conflict types and these conflict management
styles would inform theory regarding teams’ typical approaches for dealing with different forms
of conflict (e.g., see Ayoko, Callan, & Härtel, 2008; Lovelace et al., 2001).
Potential Moderators of Relations Between Team Conflict Types and Team Performance
As noted earlier, meta-analyses have examined the relation between conflict and team perfor-
mance. The most recent and comprehensive meta-analysis (de Wit et al., 2012) reported relations
with team performance of −.01 (task conflict), −.15 (relationship conflict), and −.16 (process
conflict). Given that a substantial proportion of our sample involved unique primary studies not
analyzed by de Wit et al. (see Table 1), however, we felt that a new analysis of these relations
could be useful.
Current thinking regarding the relation between team conflict and team performance is domi-
nated by contingency theory (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003a; Jehn & Bendersky, 2003), and much
has been learned from this work. There are, however, three theoretically plausible contingencies
of conflict–team performance relations requiring further attention: the team’s task, the type of
performance measurement method, and the teamwork setting. Arguably, it might be most harm-
ful to overlook the first of these, but failure to detect any one of the three moderators would be
problematic. It could interfere with how precisely we understand the role of conflict in teams, and
it could result in suboptimal, and possibly misleading, recommendations for practice.
The role of team tasks. Theory and empirical findings suggest that both relationship and
process conflict will tend to be negatively related to team performance (e.g., Amason, 1996; de
Wit et al., 2012; Jehn, 1997; Pelled, 1996; Shah & Jehn, 1993). We see little reason to expect
differential findings across team tasks for either of these types of conflict. Both will likely hinder
team performance regardless of the team’s task.
Regarding task conflict, however, there are compelling theoretical reasons to believe that team
task type matters. Previous theorizing by Jehn (1995) suggested that task conflict is likely to
facilitate team performance when the task is nonroutine. Nonroutine tasks are novel, unfamiliar,
involve uncertainty and problem solving, and often have no clear solution (Hall, 1972). For these
tasks, it is reasonable to expect that members’ unique—and potentially conflicting—viewpoints,

perspectives, and ideas need to be shared and dealt with in order to produce optimal performance.
In contrast, task conflict in routine, predictable work serves less purpose and, indeed, may be
inefficient and counterproductive (Jehn & Mannix, 2001).
In contrast to Jehn’s (1995) theorizing, de Wit et al.’s (2012) main analyses found no support
for moderation by task type. This suggests, perhaps, a need for more nuanced theorizing about
team tasks. In our view, if any type of team is likely to benefit from task conflict, it is decision-
making teams (Pelled, 1996). There is an overwhelming body of research and theory suggesting
that teams make the most effective decisions when members bring to light their unique view-
points and perspectives that others may not have had the opportunity, knowledge, or foresight to
consider (e.g., Amason & Sapienza, 1997; Amason & Schweiger, 1994; Schweiger & Sandberg,
1989; Schweiger, Sandberg, & Ragan, 1986). Research clearly suggests that debate spurred by
devil’s advocacy and dialectical inquiry (Schwenk, 1989), constructive controversy (Tjosvold,
1982, 1985, 2008b), cooperative conflict management (Deutsch, 1949, 2006), minority dissent
(De Dreu & West, 2001; Nemeth, 1986), and weak hidden profiles (Stasser & Titus, 2003) is
associated with superior decision-making performance.
Perhaps the apparent contradiction between this extensive body of related research and recent
meta-analytic findings involving task conflict and team performance (de Wit et al., 2012) is
related to de Wit et al.’s application of WLS regression as a moderator technique. WLS allows the
researcher to use a potential moderator as a “predictor” of validity coefficients (i.e., correlations)
using an approach based on least squares regression (Viswesvaran & Sanchez, 1998). It deviates
from standard multiple regression in that study effect sizes are weighted by the inverse of the
sampling-error variance instead of the sample size (Hedges & Olkin, 1985).
Although WLS regression is a solid meta-analytic moderator technique, it was developed for
continuous variables—not categorical variables (cf. Steel & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2002). What
this means is that the task type moderator variables considered by de Wit et al. (2012) in their
main analyses were entered into WLS equations meant for continuous moderators only. A reading
of their article suggests WLS was implemented by coding every study with respect to whether
it was (e.g., “1”), or was not (e.g., “0”), a certain type of task (e.g., decision making). Thus, for
each team type there would be a unique column of zeros and ones. These columns, one for each
team type plus columns for all the other moderators examined, would be entered as variables
that “predict” the correlation between a type of conflict and team performance (accounting for
sampling-error variance as per Hedges & Olkin’s, 1985 description of WLS).
We wish to make two relevant observations regarding de Wit et al.’s (2012) potential use of
WLS. First, the binary coding of categorical variables created by the authors essentially answers
the following question (e.g., in the case of decision-making teams): Are validity coefficients
involving conflict types different depending on whether the team is coded as decision making
(“1”) versus not decision making (“0”)? Note that this compares the magnitudes of conflict–
performance relations in decision-making teams versus all other teams. It does not compare
conflict–performance relations in decision-making teams versus, say, production teams. Second,
by virtue of using a multiple regression approach, obtaining a significant moderator effect requires
that the coding vector (i.e., column) explains variance in validity coefficients (i.e., conflict per-
formance relations) beyond all other coded vectors entered into the prediction equation. In the
case of the task type analysis in de Wit et al., that number of coded vectors, or variables entered,
was 20.1 This is analogous to examining a beta coefficient in an analysis with 19 other predictor
variables. Not surprisingly, in such moderator analyses the power tends to be lower than in the
traditional subgroup method posited by Hunter and Schmidt (2004; see Viswesvaran & Sanchez,
1998). Thus, it is possible that de Wit et al.’s choice of meta-analytic moderator methodology
led them to overlook team task type as an important moderator variable. Of interest, post hoc
subgroup analyses conducted by de Wit et al. apparently suggested a slight positive relation
involving task conflict and team performance for decision-making tasks, but the details regarding
those results were not provided.
The approach we adopted here was the Hunter and Schmidt (2004) method, developed specifi-
cally for categorical moderators, in which subsets of meta-analyses are reported for each grouping
variable (e.g., decision-making teams, project teams; see De Dreu & Weingart, 2003b). This
method is preferred for moderators involving discrete categories, such as those considered here.
Notice, too, that this approach answers a different—and arguably more relevant—question than
did the WLS analysis employed by de Wit et al. (2012). The subgroup approach, for example,
identifies the meta-analytic effect size at each level of the categorical moderator and provides an
answer to this question: What is the effect size at each level of a given categorical moderator?
This would seem to be an important theoretical issue although data were not provided by de Wit
et al. for team type (i.e., project teams, production teams).
In light of the strong theory supporting a positive relation between task conflict and team
performance in decision-making teams, we believe another look at the team-type moderator is
warranted. Whereas a positive relation is expected in decision-making teams, performance of
other team types may be harmed by task conflict. Earlier theory on project teams suggested that,
because such teams typically perform relatively nonroutine tasks, one would predict a positive
relation between task conflict and performance (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003b). However, based
on the nature of project teams—teams with the mission to deliver on a defined and specialized
service or product, typically under time pressure due to clearly articulated deadlines (Cohen &
Bailey, 1997)—we argue that these teams will tend to perform poorly in the presence of task con-
flict. Although in very small and well-timed “doses,” task conflict might be advantageous, any
excess or ongoing task conflict could lead to inefficiencies and delays. This could be disastrous
for project team performance, which is largely dependent on delivering projects on schedule and
budget (Chiocchio & Essiembre, 2009). For somewhat similar reasons, we also see task con-
flict as unhelpful for production teams. Production teams are typically measured on their output
and task conflicts should largely interfere with task execution. Use of Hunter and Schmidt’s
(2004) subgrouping method for examining moderator variables could provide novel insight into
these possibilities.
Performance Measurement Method
Further expanding on earlier meta-analyses, we investigated the effects of self-ratings of

performance versus other measurement methods such as objective performance. Our concern
was that correlations based on self-rated performance could be inflated due to common-method
measurement. Performance measures taken from other sources (e.g., supervisor ratings) could
1 Interested readers may contact the corresponding author of the current article for a list of the 20 vectors (see de Wit
et al.’s Table 1) that appeared to be entered simultaneously.

generally be less strongly related to all types of conflict, although a meta-analytic integration is
needed to test this possibility. Whereas earlier work used WLS to assess the effect of self-rated
versus non-self-rated performance measures (de Wit et al., 2012), we examined a broader set
of performance measurement categories: self-ratings, supervisor ratings, expert ratings of output,
and objective measures. Our use of Hunter and Schmidt’s (2004) subgroup method for categorical
moderator analysis will yield separate effect sizes for each of these four categorical performance
measurement methods.
Teamwork Setting
As a third moderator, we considered whether the research was conducted in organizations,

course-based student teams, or in the laboratory. De Wit et al.’s (2012) WLS coding resulted
in a consideration of field versus nonfield teams, but we see course-based student teams as a
potentially important intermediary. Our theory is that conflict will be increasingly harmful as a
team’s time together increases. Conflict experienced in a laboratory, wherein future relationships
are of limited consequence, may not have as strong an effect as it does in longer term teams with
higher stakes and involvement, such as course-based teams and, even more so, organizational
teams. In these longer term teams, the implications of the conflict are more profound and the
increased duration makes the occurrence of conflict spirals more likely (see Peterson & Behfar,
2003).
METHOD
Literature Search
Our four-pronged literature search was finalized in April 2011. First, we used the keywords
task conflict, relationship conflict, process conflict, cognitive conflict, and affective conflict as
search terms within the PsycINFO database. Second, we conducted an electronic search using
the word conflict within the Academy of Management (1996–2010), the Society for Industrial
and Organizational Psychology (SIOP; 1998–2011), and the International Network for Groups
Research (INGRoup; 2006–2010) conference programs. Third, we searched the Reference sec-
tions of the articles obtained in the aforementioned search for additional potentially relevant
articles. Fourth, we contacted prominent researchers and requested unpublished data.
Criteria for Inclusion
To be included in the meta-analysis, at least one team-level correlation involving task conflict,
relationship conflict, or process conflict, and any of the following had to be reported: team perfor-
mance, innovation, potency, cooperative behavior, competitive behavior, or avoidance behavior.
Team performance was measured using four distinct methods: self-ratings, supervisor ratings,
expert ratings of output, and objective metrics. Examples of expert ratings of output included
project grades provided by course instructors and observer ratings of production output quality.
Objective measures included return on investment and course-based business simulation scores.
Our search identified 83 sources containing 89 independent samples and 6,122 teams that met
criteria for inclusion.
Coding
Studies were coded for the information needed to compute effect sizes: zero-order correlations,
reliabilities, and sample sizes. Studies were also coded into one of three or four categories repre-
senting the teamwork setting and performance measurement method, respectively. Finally, team
task types were coded as decision making, project, production, or mixed (see McGrath, 1984).
A few studies, such as tactical and negotiation teams, did not fit well into these categories; accord-
ingly, these studies were coded into their own categories although they occurred too infrequently
to be included in the moderator analysis. If a study reported more than one effect size (e.g., lon-
gitudinal studies), we avoided violations of independence by computing the average correlation
across measurement occasions.
The first and third author independently coded 20% of the studies in order to establish
interrater agreement. Interrater agreement between authors for this 20% of the studies was .90.
Having established interrater agreement, the first author coded the remaining 80% of the studies,
and the third author examined all of those entries to verify that no mistakes were made. Of these,
96% of entries were in agreement. Each discrepancy was addressed by returning to the relevant
article and reaching consensus regarding the appropriate entry.
Meta-Analytic Procedure
We employed meta-analytic procedures described by Hunter and Schmidt (2004). We used the
artifact-distribution method to correct for unreliability in the variables because not enough studies
reported a measure of reliability to employ corrections of individual-study correlations. To correct
for sampling error and unreliability (i.e., internal consistency), we used the formulas provided on
pages 141 to 142 of Hunter and Schmidt. We estimated the standard deviation of the corrected
correlations using formulas from Hunter and Schmidt (p. 152). Finally, following others (e.g.,
LePine et al., 2008), we reported the 80% credibility value (CV; using Hunter & Schmidt, 2004,
p. 205) and the 90% confidence interval (CI; using Whitener, 1990, p. 316 or p. 317, as appro-
priate). The 80% CV estimates the range that encapsulates 80% of effect sizes. Wide intervals
suggest moderators. The 90% CI provides information about the accuracy of the uncorrected
mean correlation. For example, correlations with confidence intervals that do not overlap with
zero may be considered reliably different from zero. Finally, we report the percentage of variance
in correlations explained by artifacts. It is typically assumed in the literature that if this value
exceeds 75%, moderators are unlikely (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004).
When a search for moderators was justified, we employed Hunter and Schmidt’s (2004) cat-
egorical approach. This involved conducting separate meta-analyses in a priori subgroups that
were of potential theoretical interest. Moreover, it seemed to be the optimal strategy given that
all of our moderators were clearly discrete categorical variables, and WLS regression, employed
by de Wit et al. (2012), is intended for continuous moderators (Aguinis et al., 2011; Hedges &
Olkin, 1985; Steel & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2002).
RESULTS
Relations Involving Team Conflict Types and Previously Unexamined Criterion Variables
Team Innovation
Table 2 contains meta-analytic findings for conflict types and team innovation. Whereas we
expected negative relationships, relations were essentially zero for task conflict (ρ = .01), rela-
tionship conflict (ρ = −.03), and process conflict (ρ = −.02). Moderators seemed possible for
task conflict, as the CVs were wide and variance accounted for by artifacts did not approach the
75% criterion. (Process conflict fell slightly short of the 75% criterion, but there were too few
studies for further analysis.) Sufficient studies were available for two moderator analyses involv-
ing task conflict and team innovation. First, although not significantly different from zero, the
association between task conflict and production team innovation was ρ = .13, 90% CI [–.07,
.28], whereas the association between task conflict and project team innovation was ρ = .02,
90% CI [–.14, .17]. Second, the relation between task conflict and team innovation in nonorgani-
zational samples (i.e., combined laboratory and course-based student teams) was ρ = −.08, 90%
CI [–.21, .08], and in organizational samples it was ρ = .06, 90% CI [–.07, .18], although these
were not significantly different from zero.
TABLE 2
Meta-Analytic Results: Team-Level Relations Involving Conflict Types and Team Innovation,
Potency, and Conflict Management Variables
Relation k N rm SDr ρ SDρ CV10 CV90 % var CI05 CI95
Team innovation
Task conflict 12 606 .01 .21 .01 .23 −.29 .31 45 −.09 .11
Relationship conflict 8 457 −.03 .14 −.03 .06 −.11 .05 90 −.10 .05
Process conflict 4 180 −.02 .18 −.02 .13 −.19 .15 74 −.16 .13
Team potency
Task conflict 9 538 −.26 .22 −.31 .26 −.65 .03 33 −.38 −.14
Relationship conflict 7 500 −.27 .30 −.32 .38 −.82 .17 15 −.46 −.09
Cooperative team behavior
Task conflict 21 1506 −.19 .30 −.23 .44 −.80 .33 15 −.29 −.08
Relationship conflict 19 1409 −.19 .45 −.23 .64 −1.00 .60 7 −.36 −.02
Competitive team behavior
Task conflict 5 553 .27 .25 .32 .34 −.11 .76 14 .09 .45
Relationship conflict 5 537 .32 .30 .38 .40 −.14 .90 9 .10 .55
Avoidance team behavior
Task conflict 5 473 .01 .10 .01 0 .01 .01 100 −.06 .09
Relationship conflict 5 404 .20 .12 .24 .06 .16 .32 86 .12 .28
Note. k = number of studies; N = number of teams; rm = sample-weighted mean correlation; SDr = sample-
weighted standard deviation of observed correlations; ρ = sample-weighted mean correlation corrected for sampling error
and reliability in both variables; SDρ = standard deviation of corrected correlation distribution; CV10 = lower-bound
80% credibility interval; CV90 = upper-bound 80% credibility interval; % var = percentage of variance in correlations
attributable to artifacts; CI05 = lower-bound 90% confidence interval; CI95 = upper-bound 90% confidence interval.
Team Potency and Cooperative, Competitive, and Avoidance Team Behavior
For these variables, there were insufficient studies to report on relations involving process
conflict. Table 2 contains the findings for task and relationship conflict. Regarding team potency,
relations involving task conflict and relationship conflict were negative, of similar magnitude, and
significantly different from zero (ρ = −.31 and ρ = −.32, respectively). Similar and significant
results were found for cooperative team behavior, as it related to task conflict and to relation-
ship conflict at ρ = −.23. In addition, significant findings were observed for competitive team
behavior, which related to task and relationship conflict in the positive direction (ρ = .32 and ρ =
.38, respectively). Finally, task conflict was unrelated to avoidance behavior (ρ = .01), whereas
relationship conflict was a significant and positive correlate (ρ = .24).
Relations Between Conflict Types and Team Performance, and Moderator Analyses
Tables 3, 4, and 5 present meta-analytic findings involving relations between team performance
and task conflict (overall ρ = −.06), relationship conflict (overall ρ = −.14), and process conflict
(overall ρ = −.27), respectively. CIs did not include zero, suggesting that each of these relations
was significant. Further, nonoverlap of CIs involving task and process conflict suggests that pro-
cess conflict was significantly more strongly related to team performance. CIs for relationship
conflict overlapped slightly with both task and process conflict, suggesting the magnitudes of
TABLE 3
Meta-Analytic Results: Team-Level Relations Involving Task Conflict and Team Performance
Overall 59 3,914 −.05 .22 −.06 .27 −.41 .28 31 −.10 −.01
Team type
Decision making 12 643 .13 .30 .16 .39 −.34 .66 21 .01 .27
Production 5 378 −.11 .17 −.14 .17 −.36 .09 48 −.23 −.01
Project 28 1,902 −.08 .18 −.09 .20 −.35 .16 45 −.13 −.02
Mixed 10 747 −.12 .19 −.15 .21 −.42 .13 46 −.22 −.02
Performance measurement method
Team self-report 15 1,060 −.12 .29 −.15 .39 −.65 .36 17 −.24 .00
Supervisor ratings of behavior 17 1,255 −.08 .22 −.09 .28 −.45 .26 27 −.17 −.01
Expert rating of team output 21 1,521 −.03 .16 −.03 .13 −.20 .14 53 −.09 .02
Objective 16 907 −.05 .16 −.06 .10 −.20 .07 71 −.12 .01
Teamwork setting
Laboratory 13 742 −.06 .11 −.07 0 −.06 −.06 100 −.12 −.01
Course-based student teams 20 1,571 −.04 .18 −.04 .17 −.26 .18 41 −.10 .03
Organizational 25 1,567 −.07 .29 −.08 .39 −.58 .42 10 −.16 −.03
TABLE 4
Meta-Analytic Results: Team-Level Relations Involving Relationship Conflict and Team Performance
Overall 54 3,578 −.12 .18 −.14 .18 −.38 .10 46 −.16 −.08
Team type
Decision making 13 841 −.04 .20 −.04 .24 −.32 .23 39 −.13 .05
Production 5 378 −.16 .20 −.19 .22 −.48 .09 33 −.31 −.02
Project 21 1,349 −.16 .17 −.19 .16 −.39 .02 53 −.20 −.12
Mixed 11 774 −.14 .17 −.16 .17 −.37 .06 49 −.22 −.10
Team self-report 17 1,113 −.23 .20 −.27 .22 −.55 .00 37 −.31 −.15
Supervisor ratings of behavior 15 1,170 −.12 .18 −.14 .19 −.38 .11 40 −.19 −.04
Expert ratings of team output 19 1,338 −.08 .15 −.09 .10 −.21 .04 67 −.14 −.03
Objective 18 1,319 −.07 .15 −.08 .10 −.21 .05 64 −.13 −.02
Teamwork setting
Laboratory 9 566 −.07 .12 −.07 0 −.07 −.07 100 −.14 0
Course-based student teams 18 1,298 −.11 .17 −.11 .14 −.29 .06 50 −.17 −.04
Organizational 26 1,680 −.14 .21 −.17 .23 −.46 .12 36 −.21 −.08
TABLE 5
Meta-Analytic Results: Team-Level Relations Involving Process Conflict and Team Performance
Overall 11 592 −.22 .17 −.27 .14 −.45 −.08 65 −.30 −.14
Team type
Project 6 356 −.23 .11 −.27 0 −.27 −.27 100 −.30 −.15

Team self-report 5 238 −.44 .09 −.53 0 −.53 −.53 100 −.51 −.37
Supervisor ratings of behavior & expert 4 234 −.06 .05 −.07 0 −.07 −.07 100 −.17 .05
ratings of team output
Objective 4 187 −.14 .11 −.16 0 −.16 −.16 100 −.26 −.03
Teamwork setting
Course-based student teams 3 179 −.15 .19 −.17 .17 −.39 .05 46 −.33 .02
Organizational 5 251 −.30 .16 −.37 .12 −.52 −.21 72 −.42 −.19
relations may not differ reliably. Also, moderators were likely operating across all three conflict
types as CVs were wide and artifact variance did not exceed 75%.
The first moderator considered was task type. Earlier, we argued that performance in decision-
making teams stands to benefit from task conflict, whereas project teams and production teams
could be hindered by task conflict. The results shown in Table 3 are supportive of this argument.
Among decision-making teams, the task conflict-team performance relation (ρ = .16) was pos-
itive, whereas it was negative among project teams and production teams (ρ = −.09 and ρ =
−.14, respectively). None of the CIs for these coefficients included zero, suggesting they were all
significant. Also in line with expectations, task type did not appear to be a powerful moderator of
relations involving relationship conflict and team performance, although there was a trend sug-
gesting a smaller negative relation for decision-making teams than for other team types (but CIs
overlapped; see Table 4). There were too few studies to conduct a task type moderator analysis
for process conflict.
The second moderator was performance measurement method. We expressed concern that
common-method measurement could inflate correlations between self-ratings of both conflict
and performance. There was general support for this suggestion across all three conflict types.
The largest effect was found for process conflict, where the self-ratings corrected relation was
−.53 and significant (see Table 5), and the corresponding value for an “other ratings” category
was −.07. This “other ratings” category was a combination of supervisor ratings and expert rat-
ings of objective output as there were too few studies to examine these separately. For task and
relationship conflict, relations involving only self-ratings were in the proximity of two to five
times the size of non-self-rated measurement methods (see Table 3 and Table 4).
The third moderator was teamwork setting. We surmised that the strongest negative rela-
tions involving conflict and team performance might be for organizational teams, followed by
course-based student teams, and finally laboratory teams. Our rationale was that conflict may be
more detrimental with longer passages of time and team tenure, and when stakes are highest. The
suggested pattern of relations was supported for relationship and process conflict (see Table 4 and
Table 5), whereas for task conflict there appeared to be essentially no moderation by teamwork
setting (see Table 3).
DISCUSSION
Since the publication of De Dreu and Weingart’s (2003b) highly influential meta-analysis
of conflict-performance relations within teams, the number of relevant empirical studies has
increased dramatically, and thus de Wit et al.’s (2012) meta-analysis provided a needed update.
The present meta-analysis extends, and makes several novel, and nuanced, contributions to this
earlier work and work by others (e.g., Hülsheger et al., 2009). Specifically, we updated and added
to Hülsheger et al.’s meta-analysis by adding more studies to their investigation of the relations
between both task and relationship conflict and team innovation, and we also examined process
conflict–team innovation relations. Furthermore, we uncovered new findings regarding relations
involving task conflict, relationship conflict, and four previously unexamined, but important,
teamwork variables: team potency, cooperative team behavior, competitive team behavior, and
avoidance team behavior. Finally, we report noteworthy findings that, in our view, add clarity to
the roles played by moderators of team conflict–team performance relations.
Perhaps the most theoretically and practically important finding of the current meta-analysis
was that task conflict exhibited a positive relation with team performance in decision-making
teams. This finding is in direct contrast to De Dreu and Weingart’s (2003b) earlier meta-analysis
involving decision-making teams which suggested, perhaps prematurely, that there was a mod-
erate to strong negative relation between task conflict and team performance in decision-making
teams. The present meta-analysis seems to paint a different picture from earlier meta-analyses by
presenting evidence that decision-making teams may well benefit from task conflict. Of interest,
whereas de Wit et al.’s (2012) meta-analysis found benefits of task conflict in top-management
teams (using subgroup analysis), and on criterion measures coded as decision-making quality
or financial performance2 (using WLS), their WLS moderator methodology did not uncover
a positive relation for task conflict in decision-making teams. This led them to conclude that
“task type was not found to moderate the association between task conflict and group out-
comes” (p. 373). Thus, the conclusion seems at odds with our data and theirs, and in our
view, with compelling theory suggesting that task conflict can be helpful for decision-making
teams.
Note that our findings regarding the task type moderator, based on Hunter and Schmidt’s
(2004) subgroup method for categorical variables, are consistent with related theoretical and
empirical research that strongly supports task type as a contingency. Many scholars have
proposed that high-performing decision-making teams likely require exploration of diverse,
potentially conflicting, ideas and viewpoints in order to generate new insights and identify the
optimal course of action (Pelled, 1996; Schweiger et al., 1989). This is supportive of infor-
mation resources theory, which suggests that team members’ knowledge, among other factors,
contributes to the team’s pool of resources that can be drawn upon to support team func-
tioning (see Lepak & Snell, 1999). It is also consistent with a wealth of applicable research,
such as devil’s advocacy, dialectical inquiry, constructive controversy, and minority dissent,
all of which has found that opposing viewpoints support decision making. In other words,
if task conflict was found to not be helpful for decision-making team performance, it would
be an exception to extensive research supporting the need for exploration of unique and dif-
ferent ideas in order to achieve strong performance (see reviews by Deutsch, 2006; Johnson
& Johnson, 1989; Nemeth & Owens, 1996; Schulz-Hardt, Brodbeck, Mojzisch, Kerschreiter,
& Frey, 2006; Schwenk, 1989; Stasser & Titus, 2003; Tjosvold, 2008a, 2008b). Thus, we
uncovered the theoretically meaningful finding that decision-making teams appear to benefit
from task conflict. This moves conflict theory in a direction more consistent with related theo-
ries (e.g., minority dissent), and it provides solid recommendations for practice. For example,
in decision-making teams, because there seems to be a need to explore task conflicts, such
teams need selection, placement, training, leadership, and a culture that enables team mem-
bers to leverage task conflicts appropriately, as opposed to minimizing and avoiding them
completely.
2 Specifically, de Wit et al. coded the performance indicator variable into four categories: decision quality, innova-
tiveness, effectiveness, and financial performance. As there could have been a less-than-perfect correspondence between
the team type and the performance indicator (e.g., decision-making teams may sometimes be assessed with measures of
effectiveness rather than decision quality), it is possible that moderator findings for team type and performance indicator
could diverge.
Relations Involving Team Conflict Types and Previously Unexamined Criterion Variables
Team Conflict and Team Innovation
It is interesting to note that correlations involving all three conflict variables and innovation
were essentially zero. This calls into question extant theory that task conflicts should stimulate
learning, information exchange, exposure to different perspectives, and consideration of multiple
alternatives, thereby leading to high innovation (De Dreu, 1997; Jehn, 1995; Jehn & Bendersky;
Nemeth et al., 2004). Further, it is incongruent with the finding that task conflict appears to sup-
port superior decision making. Perhaps the occurrence of task conflict is more helpful during
planning and strategizing phases of the work, when decision making is likely predominant, rather
than during task execution phases. Indeed, unbridled task conflict during task execution has been
found to interfere with effective integration of work activities and team creativity, whereas a
moderate level of task conflict appears helpful during initial phases (Farh et al., 2010). But even
relationship conflict and process conflict were unrelated to innovation in the current study. This
suggests that perhaps there were issues involving the construct validity of the innovation mea-
sures, as the measurement of innovation can be challenging (see Amabile, 1983). Alternatively,
perhaps conflict relates only to certain dimensions of innovation (e.g., creativity vs. implemen-
tation; Anderson et al., 2004). Clearly, further research is sorely needed to further understand
whether conflict relates to innovation or to certain dimensions of it, and whether moderators are
involved.
Team Conflict and Team Potency
Team potency, being one of the most consistent predictors of team performance and compris-
ing the motivational component of team states (Guzzo et al., 1993), would seem to be an important
variable to include in a meta-analysis of team conflict. We expected that task and relationship con-
flicts, when occurring more than in brief moments, would tend to undermine team potency, and
our findings were supportive of this. Accordingly, it seems that team members who experience
task or relationship conflicts on a regular basis will tend not to feel confident in their team’s ability
to perform. The causal direction could flow from conflicts to perceptions of potency, as frequent
incompatibilities could reduce feelings of confidence. Conversely, perceptions of team potency
may be affected by performance-related cues in the environment, and when these cues suggest
low performance, both task and relationship conflicts may be ignited and contribute to a down-
ward spiral (Peterson & Behfar, 2003). Although the direction of causality cannot be established
in the current meta-analysis, it is somewhat problematic that both types of conflict relate nega-
tively to team potency, the latter of which is a strong determinant of team effectiveness. Future
research, employing causal designs, would be beneficial to shed light on the direction of these
relations, as such knowledge may lead to refined theory regarding conflict and potency.
Team Conflict and Cooperative, Competitive, and Avoidance Team Behaviors
These three team behaviors are associated with social interdependence theory (Deutsch, 1949;
Johnson, 2003; Johnson & Johnson, 1989). Social interdependence theory posits that individuals
in conflict will avoid it, react cooperatively, or react competitively, depending on perceptions
of the other party’s intentions. Cooperation and competition have been positively and nega-
tively related to team performance and innovation in numerous studies (e.g., Alper, Tjosvold,
& Law, 2000; Lovelace et al., 2001). The current meta-analysis reports effect sizes involving task
conflict and relationship conflict and their relations with cooperative behaviors and competitive
behaviors, and, consistent with our predictions, the data suggest that both types of conflict are
negatively associated with cooperative team behaviors and positively associated with competitive
team behaviors. Thus, investigating how team members can leverage any benefit of task conflict
without appearing competitive is a pressing research need. Indeed, Behfar, Peterson, Mannix, and
Trochim (2008) found that high-performing teams treated task conflicts positively, whereas low-
performing teams treated task conflicts negatively, but it is unclear why or how teams developed
effective and ineffective conflict management styles.
The finding that relationship conflict was positively related to avoidance behaviors whereas
task conflict was unrelated to these behaviors was unexpected and has interesting implications.
It suggests that task conflict does not drive members to avoid one another, and this is encour-
aging for those wishing to take advantage of any potential benefit of task conflict. On the other
hand, relationship conflict does appear to create avoidance tendencies, but this might be adap-
tive. Relationship conflicts give rise to interpersonal difficulties that likely make it difficult for
the team to function well together. Perhaps one way to mitigate the negative outcomes of rela-
tionship conflict is to avoid other teammates instead of focusing too much energy on trying to
ameliorate interpersonal incompatibilities. Consistent with this, De Dreu and Van Vianen (2001)
reported that teams in relationship conflict had the highest performance when they used avoiding,
rather than collaborating or contending, strategies. Further research on the interplay of conflict
types and conflict management strategies is needed.
Team Conflict-Team Performance Relations
The current meta-analysis incorporates overall conflict–performance relations based on a sub-

stantial number of teams (task conflict = 3,914, relationship conflict = 3,578, process conflict
= 592). Particularly for task and relationship conflict, therefore, the overall associations involv-
ing team performance are likely to be stable, and our findings are quite comparable to de Wit
et al.’s (2012) results in this regard. Process conflict had the strongest negative relation with per-
formance, and although the timing of process conflict may be key (Goncalo, Polman, & Maslach,
2010; Jehn & Mannix, 2001), the preponderance of data suggests that process conflict appears to
be largely detrimental to team performance (see also de Wit et al., 2012). This is not inconsistent
with Jehn’s (1997) findings that process conflict was often associated with feelings of injustice
regarding the allocation of resources and responsibilities among members.
There is a discrepancy between theory and evidence involving direct conflict–performance
linkages. Whereas conflict appears to generally have small direct relations to team performance
(see also de Wit et al., 2012), theory would suggest the plausibility of stronger relations (Jehn,
1995; Pelled, 1996). This incongruity underscores the need for investigations of contingency
theories that identify potential moderator variables (e.g., De Dreu & Weingart, 2003a; Greer,
Jehn, & Mannix, 2008; Jehn & Bendersky, 2003).
In the current meta-analysis, we identified three contingencies of theoretical import. First, as

discussed extensively previously, task type moderated the relation between task conflict and team
performance. Second, the moderator of performance measurement method revealed novel find-
ings. We went beyond de Wit et al.’s (2012) moderator analysis by considering four levels of
performance measurement methods (self-ratings, supervisor ratings, expert ratings of team out-
put, and objective measures). Self-rated performance was associated with conflict–performance
relations that were larger than for any other performance measurement method. When conflict
and performance are both self-rated, it is difficult to determine the extent to which common
method variance is involved. Considering that relations involving performance measured by any
source other than self-ratings were much lower, it would appear that conflict is not as detrimental
as correlations based on only self-ratings data would suggest. Of interest, for task and relation-
ship conflict, supervisor ratings were associated with the second strongest conflict–performance
linkages, and we speculate that supervisors may observe team conflicts and interpret them as
indicative of poor performance. On the other hand, in the case of expert ratings of team output
and objective measures, observations of team process are less likely to influence performance
measurement and conflict tended to exhibit very low relations with team effectiveness. Thus, this
analysis indicates that self-reported measures of performance are suspect and may be associated
with overestimates of conflict–performance relations. Future research that further examines the
magnitude of relations involving conflict and more objective measures of team outcomes would
likely prove valuable.
Regarding the moderator of teamwork setting, our suggestions regarding relationship and
process conflict were supported. These types of conflict tended to be most detrimental in orga-
nizational teams, followed by course-based student teams, and least detrimental in laboratory
teams. We interpret this finding as suggesting that the negative effects of conflict become increas-
ingly harmful as they recur over time. Team members may be able to work around conflicts in the
short term, but with repeated occurrences these conflicts likely become increasingly personal and
impose harm that members have difficulties overcoming (see Tekleab, Quigley, & Tesluk, 2009).
Moreover, teams may find themselves in conflict spirals, where poor performance fuels conflict,
which in turn ignites further conflicts (Peterson & Behfar, 2003). Relations involving task conflict
and team performance, on the other hand, were similar across teamwork settings. More research
is needed to investigate why relations between team performance and both relationship conflict
and process conflict differ across teamwork settings, but that conflict directed toward the task
seems to play out similarly across teamwork settings.
Implications for Practice
At this juncture, the evidence from the current meta-analysis suggests that process and relation-
ship conflicts should be minimized (see also de Wit et al., 2012). Task conflict appears to have
small-to-negligible relations with team performance, with the important exception that task con-
flict appears to have beneficial effects on the performance of decision-making teams. In such
teams, task conflict may be encouraged to the extent that teams are given support, possibly in the
form of training, norm development, and conflict management. Of interest, relations involving
conflict and self-reported performance were much larger than were relations with more objective
criteria (i.e., expert ratings of team output, objective measures). This suggests that team members
perceiving conflict also tend to perceive low performance, possibly because a state of conflict is
uncomfortable and undesirable for many individuals (Jehn, 1995). But when it comes to actual
objective team deliverables, conflict appears to be much less harmful. Thus, conflict may be
more of a concern when members’ satisfaction is the focus compared to objective performance
indicators. Finally, that relationship and process conflict tended to be most problematic in field
teams suggests that recurring conflict may undermine performance more than it does in temporary
teams where conflict is confined to shorter durations. In short-lived teams, therefore, organiza-
tional interventions, such as conflict management training, may not be as important as they are to
longer term teams.
Limitations
One issue that became clear to us when coding the articles was the potential impact of the timing
of the measurement of conflict. Unfortunately, there were not enough studies measuring conflict
early in the team lifecycles for a moderator analysis, but research has suggested that conflict
occurring at different points in the team’s life cycle could have differential implications for team
effectiveness (e.g., Goncalo et al., 2010; Jehn & Mannix, 2001). In addition, when comparing
the studies in the current meta-analysis to those in de Wit et al.’s (2012) meta-analysis, it is
evident that there are some unique source articles (see Table 1 for a comparison). Similarly,
we uncovered articles not included in de Wit et al.’s meta-analysis, possibly because we searched
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology and INGRoup conference proceedings. This
is understandable, as the numerous studies, published and unpublished, on team conflict make a
complete database unlikely. Our sense is that neither meta-analysis is likely to contain effect
sizes that would systematically bias estimates of population-level relations; moreover, our results
involving conflict and performance were not inconsistent with those reported in de Wit et al. One
important discrepancy, however, was that we uncovered meaningful moderation for task type.
Taken together, analyses in the current meta-analysis provided insights not gleaned from any
primary study itself or from previous meta-analyses. In sum, the weight of the evidence con-
tinues to suggest that conflict is generally to be considered a “con” notwithstanding the novel
finding here suggesting that task conflict may be a “pro” in the case of decision-making teams.
Nevertheless, we see a serious need for further research on conflict in teams.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The preparation of this chapter was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research
Council of Canada grant 430-2012-0059 and 410-2007-0742 to the first and second authors,
respectively.
REFERENCES
References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the meta-analysis.

Aguinis, H., Gottfredson, R. K., & Wright, T. A. (2011). Best-practice recommendations for estimating interaction effects
using meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32, 1033–1043. doi:10.1002/job.719
Alper, S., Tjosvold, D., & Law, K. S. (1998). Interdependence and controversy in group decision making: Antecedents to
effective self-managing teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 74, 33–52.
Alper, S., Tjosvold, D., & Law, K. S. (2000). Conflict management, efficacy, and performance in organizational teams.
Personnel Psychology, 53, 625–642. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2000.tb00216.x
Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
∗ Amason, A. C. (1996). Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on strategic decision making:
Resolving a paradox for top management teams. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 123–148. doi:10.2307/256633
∗ Amason, A. C., & Mooney, A. C. (1999). The effects of past performance on top management team conflict in strategic
decision making. International Journal of Conflict Management, 10, 340–359. doi:10.1108/eb022829

∗ Amason, A. C., & Sapienza, H. J. (1997). The effects of top management team size and interaction norms on cognitive
and affective conflict. Journal of Management, 23, 495–516. doi:10.1177/014920639702300401

Amason, A., & Schweiger, D. M. (1994). Resolving the paradox of conflict, strategic decision making, and organizational
performance. International Journal of Conflict Management, 5, 239–253. doi:10.1108/eb022745
Anderson, N., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Nijstad, B. A. (2004). The routinization of innovation research: A constructively
critical review of the state-of-the-science. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 147–173. doi: 10.1002/job.236
∗ Ayoko, O. B., Callan, V. J., & Härtel, C. E. J. (2008). The influence of team emotional intelligence climate on conflict
and team members’ reactions to conflict. Small Group Research, 39, 121–149. doi:10.1177/1046496407304921
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of self control. New York, NY: Freeman.
Behfar, K. J., Peterson, R. S., Mannix, E. A., & Trochim, M. K. (2008). The critical role of conflict resolution in teams:
A close look at the links between conflict type, conflict management strategies, and team outcomes. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 93, 170–188. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.170
∗ Barsade, S. G., Ward, A. J., Turner, J. D. F., & Sonnenfeld, J. A. (2000). To your heart’s content: A model of affective
diversity in top management teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 802–836. doi:10.2307/2667020
∗ Bayazit, M., & Mannix, E. A. (2003). Should I stay or should I go? predicting team members’ intent to remain in the
team. Small Group Research, 34, 290–321. doi:10.1177/1046496403034003002

∗ Bezrukova, K., Thatcher, S. M. B., & Jehn, K. (2007). Group heterogeneity and faultlines: Comparing alignment and
dispersion theories of group composition. In K. J. Behfar and L. L. Thompson (Eds.), Conflict in organizational groups:
New directions in theory and practice (pp. 57–92). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
Brauckmann, C. M. B. (2007). Some kind of monster: A multilevel analysis of the moderating effect of commitment, on
the relationship between conflict and individual outcomes (Unpublished master’s thesis). Leiden University, Leiden,
the Netherlands.
∗ Buckholtz, A. K., Amason, A. C., & Rutherford, M. A. (2005). The impact of board monitoring and involvement on top
management team affective conflict. Journal of Managerial Issues, 17, 405–422.

∗ Campana, K. L. (2010). Leader incivility and its effect on group processes and performance (Doctoral dissertation).
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Carnevale, P. J., & Probst, T. M. (1998). Social values and social conflict in creative problem solving and categorization.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1300–1309.
Chen, G., Liu, C., & Tjosvold, D. (2005). Conflict management for effective top management teams and innovation in
China. Journal of Management Studies, 42, 277–300.
Chiocchio, F., & Essiembre, H. (2009). Cohesion and performance: A meta-analytic review of disparities between project
teams, production teams, and service teams. Small Group Research, 40, 382–420. doi:10.1177/1046496409335103
∗ Choi, J. N., & Sy, T. (2010). Group-level organizational citizenship behavior: Effects of demographic faultlines and
conflict in small work groups. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 1032–1054. doi:10.1002/job.661
∗ Collewaert, V. (2008, August). Conflict between angel investors and entrepreneurs: Perception, reality, and impact on
innovation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Anaheim, California.
∗ Collewaert, V. (in press). Angel investors’ and entrepreneurs’ intentions to exit their ventures: A conflict perspective.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice.

Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the
executive suite. Journal of Management, 23, 239–290. doi:10.1177/014920639702300303
∗ Crough, D., Robinson-Morral, E., Arreola, N., Wigert, B., Hullsiek, B., & Reiter-Palmon, R. (2011, April). The role of
team potency and task conflict in team creativity. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial
and Organizational Psychology, Chicago, Illinois.
∗ Curşeu, P. L., Kenis, P., & Raab, J. (2009). Reciprocated relational preferences and intra-team conflict. Team
Performance Management, 15, 18–34. doi:10.1108/13527590910937694

∗ Curşeu, P. L., & Schruijer, S. G. L. (2010). Does conflict shatter trust or does trust obliterate conflict? Revisiting the
relationships between team diversity, conflict, and trust. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 14, 66–79.
doi:10.1037/a0017104
∗ DeChurch, L. A., & Marks, M. A. (2001). Maximizing the benefits of task conflict: The role of conflict management.
International Journal of Conflict Management, 12, 4–22. doi:10.1108/eb022847

De Dreu, C. K. W. (1997). Productive conflict: The importance of conflict management and conflict issue. In C. De Dreu
& E. Van De Vliert (Eds.), Using conflict in organizations (pp. 9–22). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
∗ De Dreu, C. K. W. (2006). When too little or too much hurts: Evidence for a curvilinear relationship between task
conflict and innovation in teams. Journal of Management, 32, 83–107. doi:10.1177/0149206305277795

De Dreu, C. K. W. (2008). The virtue and vice of workplace conflict: Food for (pessimistic) thought. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 29, 5–18. doi: 10.1002/job.474
∗ De Dreu, C. K. W., & Van Vianen, A. E. M. (2001). Managing relationship conflict and the effectiveness of organizational
teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 309–328. doi:10.1002/job.71

De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. (2003a). A contingency theory of task conflict and performance in groups and
organizational teams. In M. A. West, D. Tjosvold, & K. G. Smith (Eds.), International handbook of organizational
teamwork and cooperative working (pp. 151–166). London, England: Wiley & Sons.
De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. (2003b). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member
satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 741–749. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.741
∗ De Dreu, C. K. W., & West, M. A. (2001). Minority dissent and team innovation: The importance of participation in
decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1191–1201. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.6.1191

Deutsch, M. (1949). A theory of cooperation and competition. Human Relations, 2, 129–152.
doi:10.1177/001872674900200204
Deutsch, M. (2006). Cooperation and competition. In M. Deutsch, P. T. Coleman, & E. C. Marcus (Eds.), The handbook
of conflict resolution: Theory and practice (2nd ed., pp. 23–42). San Francisco, CA: Wiley & Sons.
de Wit, F. R. C., Greer, L. L., & Jehn, K. A. (2012). The paradox of intragroup conflict: A meta-analysis. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 97, 360–390.
∗ Farh, L. (2010, August). Effects of team-level voice on team innovation: The moderating role of relationship conflict.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Montreal, Québec, Canada.
∗ Farh, J., Lee, C., & Farh, C. I. C. (2010). Task conflict and team creativity: A question of how much and when. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 95, 1173–1180. doi:10.1037/a0020015

∗ Gamero, N., González-Romá, V., & Peiró, J. M. (2008). The influence of intra-team conflict on work teams’ affective cli-
mate: A longitudinal study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 81, 47–69. doi:10.1348/096317
907X180441
∗ Goh, K. (2005). The role of cognition and emotion regulation in conflict: A study of the impact on organizational and
virtual teams (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.
∗ Goncalo, J. A., Polman, E., & Maslach, C. (2010). Can confidence come too soon? collective efficacy, conflict and group
performance over time. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 113, 13–24. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.
2010.05.001
∗ Greer, L. L., Jehn, K. A., & Mannix, E. A. (2008). Conflict transformation: A longitudinal investigation of the rela-
tionships between different types of intragroup conflict and the moderating role of conflict resolution. Small Group
Research, 39, 278–302. doi:10.1177/1046496408317793
Gully, S. M., Incalcaterra, K. A., Joshi, A., & Beaubien, J. M. (2002). A meta-analysis of team-efficacy, potency,
and performance: Interdependence and level of analysis as moderators of observed relationships. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 87, 819–832. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.5.819
Guzzo, R., Yost, P., Campbell, T., & Shea, G. (1993). Potency in groups: Articulating a construct. British Journal of
Social Psychology, 32, 87–106.
Hall, R. H. (1972). Organizations, structure, and process. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hecht, T. D., Allen, N. J., Klammer, J. D., & Kelly, E. C. (2002). Group beliefs, ability, and performance: The potency
of group potency. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6, 143–152. doi:10.1037/1089-2699.6.2.143
Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
∗ Henley, A. B., & Price, K. H. (2004, August). The interdependency of task and relationship conflict over time. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, New Orleans, LA.
∗ Heuser, A. E. (2010). An examination of the use of synchronous computer-mediated communication technology in work
teams (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.

∗ Hinds, P. J., & Mortensen, M. (2005). Understanding conflict in geographically distributed teams: The moderat-
ing effects of shared identity, shared context, and spontaneous communication. Organization Science, 16, 290–307.
doi:10.1287/orsc.1050.0122
∗ Hobman, E. V., Bordia, P., Irmer, B., & Chang, A. (2002). The expression of conflict in computer-mediated and face-to-
face groups. Small Group Research, 33, 439–465. doi:10.1177/104649640203300403

∗ Holahan, P. J., Mooney, A. C., & Paul, L. F. (2010, August). Moderating effects of geographic dispersion and team tenure
on the task-affective conflict relationship. In A. Rahim (Ed.), Current topics in management (Vol. 15). Piscataway, NJ:
Transaction.
∗ Homan, A. C., van Knippenberg, D., Van Kleef, G. A., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2007). Bridging faultlines by valu-
ing diversity: Diversity beliefs, information elaboration, and performance in diverse work groups. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 92, 1189–1199. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1189
∗ Huang, J. (2010). Unbundling task conflict and relationship conflict: The moderating role of team goal orientation and
conflict management. International Journal of Conflict Management, 21, 334–355. doi:10.1108/10444061011063207

∗ Hülsheger, U. R., Anderson, N., & Salgado, J. F. (2009). Team-level predictors of innovation at work: A com-
prehensive meta-analysis spanning three decades of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1128–1145.
doi:10.1037/a0015978
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings (2nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
∗ Jehn, K. A. (1994). Enhancing effectiveness: An investigation of advantages and disadvantages of value-based intragroup
conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management, 5, 223–238. doi:10.1108/eb022744

∗ Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 40, 256–282. doi:10.2307/2393638

Jehn, K. A. (1997). A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational groups. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 42, 530–557.
Jehn, K. A., & Bendersky, C. (2003). Intragroup conflict in organizations: A contingency perspective on the conflict–
outcome relationship. In R. M. Kramer, & B. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 25, pp. 187–242).
Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
∗ Jehn, K. A., Greer, L., Levine, S., & Szulanski, G. (2008). The effects of conflict types, dimensions, and emergent states
on group outcomes. Group Decision and Negotiation, 17, 465–495. doi:10.1007/s10726-008-9107-0

Jehn, K. A., & Mannix, E. A. (2001). The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and
group performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 238–251. doi:10.2307/3069453
Johnson, D. W. (2003). Social interdependence: Interrelationships among theory, research, and practice. American
Psychologist, 58, 934–945.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina, MN: Interaction
Book.
∗ Jules, C. (2007). Diversity of member composition and team learning in organizations (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH.

∗ Kurtzberg, T. R. (2000). Creative styles and teamwork: Effects of coordination and conflict on group outcomes
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.

∗ Langfred, C. W. (2007). The downside of self-management: A longitudinal study of the effects of conflict on trust,
autonomy, and task interdependence in self-managing teams. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 885–900.
Lepak, D. P., & Snell, S. A. (1999). The human resource architecture: Toward a theory of human capital allocation and
development. Academy of Management Review, 24, 31–48.
LePine, J. A., Piccolo, R. F., Jackson, C. L., Mathieu, J. E., & Saul, J. R. (2008). A meta-analysis of teamwork pro-
cesses: Tests of a multidimensional model and relationships with team effectiveness criteria. Personnel Psychology,
61, 273–307. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2008.00114.x
∗ Li, J., & Hambrick, D. C. (2005). Factional groups: A new vantage on demographic faultlines, conflict, and disintegration
in work teams. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 794–813.

∗ Lira, E. M., Ripoll, P., Peiró, J. M., & González, P. (2007). The roles of group potency and information and communi-
cation technologies in the relationship between task conflict and team effectiveness: A longitudinal study. Computers
in Human Behavior, 23, 2888–2903. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2006.06.004
∗ Liu, J., Fu, P., & Liu, S. (2009). Conflicts in top management teams and team/firm outcomes: The moderating
effects of conflict-handling approaches. International Journal of Conflict Management, 20, 228–250. doi:10.1108/
10444060910974867
∗ Lovelace, K., Shapiro, D. L., & Weingart, L. R. (2001). Maximizing cross-functional new product teams’ innovativeness
and constraint adherence: A conflict communications perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 779–793.
doi:10.2307/3069415
∗ Mahoney, D. M., Korsgaard, M. A., & Pitariu, A. H. (2004, August). Shared identity as an antecedent of trust: Managing
conflict in groups. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, New Orleans, LA.
∗ Martínez-Moreno, E., González-Navarro, P., Zornoza, A., & Ripoll, P. (2009). Relationship, task and process conflicts
and team performance: The moderating role of communication media. International Journal of Conflict Management,
20, 251–268. doi:10.1108/10444060910974876
∗ May, K. E. (1995). Understanding the differential effects of demographic- and ability-based diversity on the processes
and performance of decision-making teams (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of California at Berkeley,
CA.
McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
∗ Mohammed, S., & Angell, L. C. (2004). Surface- and deep-level diversity in workgroups: Examining the moderat-
ing effects of team orientation and team process on relationship conflict. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25,
1015–1039. doi:10.1002/job.293
∗ Mohammed, S., Rizzuto, T., Hiller, N. J., Newman, D. A., & Chen, T. (2008). Individual differences and group nego-
tiation: The role of polychronicity, dominance, and decision rule. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 1,
282–307. doi:10.1111/j.1750-4716.2008.00017.x
∗ Mooney, A. C., Holahan, P. J., & Amason, A. C. (2007). Don’t take it personally: Exploring cognitive conflict as a
mediator of affective conflict. Journal of Management Studies, 44, 733–758. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00674.x

∗ Mortensen, M., & Hinds, P. (2001). Conflict and shared identity in geographically distributed teams. International
Journal of Conflict Management, 12, 212–238. doi:10.1108/eb022856

∗ Moye, N. A., & Langfred, C. W. (2004). Information sharing and group conflict: Going beyond decision making to
understand the effects of information sharing on group performance. International Journal of Conflict Management,
15, 381–410. doi:10.1108/eb022919
Nemeth, C. (1986). Differential contributions of majority and minority influence processes. Psychological Review, 93,
10–20. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.93.1.23
Nemeth, C., & Owens, P. (1996). Making work groups more effective: The value of minority dissent. In M. A. West (Ed.),
Handbook of work group psychology (pp. 125–142). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Nemeth, C. J., Personnaz, B., Personnaz, M., & Goncalo, J. A. (2004). The liberating role of conflict in group creativity:
A study in two countries. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34, 365–374. doi:10.1002/ejsp.210
∗ Ng, K. Y., & Van Dyne, L. (2005). Antecedents and performance consequences of helping behavior in work groups: A
multilevel analysis. Group & Organization Management, 30, 514–540. doi:10.1177/1059601104269107

∗ Nicholls, C. E. (2001). The role of personality in organizational groups: A theoretical integration and empirical study
in two task contexts (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Western Ontario, Ontario, Canada.
∗ Olson, B. J., Parayitam, S., & Bao, Y. (2007). Strategic decision making: The effects of cognitive diversity, conflict, and
trust on decision outcomes. Journal of Management, 33, 196–222. doi:10.1177/0149206306298657

∗ O’Neill, T. A. (2011). An integrative model of conflict and conflict management in organizational work teams
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Western Ontario, Ontario, Canada.

∗ O’Neill, T. A., Allen, N. J., & Klammer, J. D. (2010, August). The elusive search for the potentially positive effects of
task conflict. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
∗ Parayitam, S., & Dooley, R. S. (2009). The interplay between cognitive- and affective conflict and cognition- and
affect-based trust in influencing decision outcomes. Journal of Business Research, 62, 789–796. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.
2008.02.006
∗ Passos, A. M., & Caetano, A. (2005). Exploring the effects of intragroup conflict and past performance feedback on
team effectiveness. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20, 231–244. doi:10.1108/02683940510589028

∗ Patrick, R. R. (1997). Teams and conflict management style: The moderating effect of conflict management style on
the relationship between the type of conflict and team effectiveness in continuous work teams (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). University of Nebraska, Lincoln.
∗ Pelled, L. (1996). Demographic diversity, conflict, and work group outcomes: An intervening process theory.
Organizational Science, 6, 615–631.

∗ Pelled, L. H., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Xin, K. R. (1999). Exploring the black box: An analysis of work group diversity,
conflict, and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 1–28. doi:10.2307/2667029

∗ Peterson, R. S., & Behfar, K. J. (2003). The dynamic relationship between performance feedback, trust, and con-
flict in groups: A longitudinal study. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 92, 102–112.
doi:10.1016/S0749-5978(03)00090-6
∗ Poling, T. L., Woehr, D. J., Arciniega, L. M., & Gorman, C. A. (2006, April). The impact of personality and value
diversity on team performance. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, Dallas, TX.
∗ Polzer, J. T., Milton, L. P., & Swann, W. B., Jr. (2002). Capitalizing on diversity: Interpersonal congruence in small work
groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 296–324. doi:10.2307/3094807

∗ Porter, T. W., & Lily, B. S. (1996). The effects of conflict, trust, and task commitment on project team performance. The
International Journal of Conflict Management, 7, 361–376. doi:10.1108/eb022787

∗ Puck, J. F., Neyer, A., & Dennerlein, T. (2010). Diversity and conflict in teams: A contingency perspective. European
Journal of International Management, 4, 417–439.

∗ Purvanova, R. K. (2009). Linking personality judgment accuracy and the sense of feeling known to team effectiveness in
face-to-face and virtual project teams: A longitudinal investigation (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of
Minnesota, Minneapolis.
∗ Quigley, N. R., Tekleab, A. G., & Tesluk, P. E. (2007). Comparing consensus- and aggregation-based methods of measur-
ing team-level variables: The role of relationship conflict and conflict management processes. Organizational Research
Methods, 10, 589–608. doi:10.1177/1094428106286853
∗ Rau, D. (2005). The influence of relationship conflict and trust on the transactive memory: Performance relation in top
management teams. Small Group Research, 36, 746–771. doi:10.1177/1046496405281776

∗ Raver, J. L., & Chadwick, I. C. (2009, June). Team goal orientation and conflict: Decoupling task and relational con-
flicts with goal orientation theory. Paper presented at the International Association for Conflict Management Annual
Conference, Kyoto, Japan.
∗ Rispens, S., Greer, L. L., & Jehn, K. A. (2007). It could be worse: A study on the alleviating roles of trust and
connectedness in intragroup conflicts. International Journal of Conflict Management, 18, 325–344. doi:10.1108/
10444060710833450
Schulz-Hardt, S., Brodbeck, F. C., Mojzisch, A., Kerschreiter, R., & Frey, D. (2006). Group decision making in hid-
den profile situations: Dissent as a facilitator for decision quality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91,
1080–1093. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.91.6.1080
Schweiger, D. M., & Sandberg, W. R. (1989). The utilization of individual capabilities in group approaches to strategic
decision-making. Strategic Management Journal, 10, 31–43. doi:10.1002/smj.4250100104
Schweiger, D. M., Sandberg, W. R., & Ragan, J. W. (1986). Group approaches for improving strategic decision making:
A comparative analysis of dialectical inquiry, devil’s advocacy, and consensus. Academy of Management Journal, 29,
51–71.
Schwenk, C. R. (1989). A meta-analysis on the comparative effectiveness of devil’s advocacy and dialectical inquiry.
Strategic Management Journal, 10, 303–306. doi:10.1002/smj.4250100309
∗ Sessa, V. I. (1993). Conflict within small decision-making and problem-solving teams: A process model (Unpublished
doctoral dissertation). New York University, New York, New York.

∗ Shah, P. P., & Jehn, K. A. (1993). Do friends perform better than acquaintances? the interaction of friendship, conflict,
and task. Group Decision and Negotiation, 2, 149–165. doi:10.1007/BF01884769

∗ Shaw, J. D., Zhu, J., Duffy, M. K., Scott, K. L., Shih, H., & Susanto, E. (2011). A contingency model of conflict and
team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 391–400. doi:10.1037/a0021340

∗ Shook, C. L., Payne, G. T., & Voges, K. E. (2005). The “what” in top management group conflict: The effects of organi-
zational issue interpretation on conflict among hospital decision makers. Journal of Managerial Issues, 17, 162–177.
∗ Simons, T. L., & Peterson, R. S. (2000). Task conflict and relationship conflict in top management teams: The pivotal
role of intragroup trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 102–111. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.85.1.102

Stasser, G., & Titus, W. (2003). Hidden profiles: A brief history. Psychological Inquiry, 14, 304–313. doi:10.1207/
S15327965PLI1403&4_21
Steel, P. D., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. (2002). Comparing meta-analytic moderator estimation techniques under
realistic conditions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 96–111. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.96
∗ Tasa, K., Sears, G. J., & Schat, A. C. H. (2011). Personality and teamwork behavior in context: The cross-level
moderating role of collective efficacy. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32, 65–85. doi:10.1002/job.680
∗ Tekleab, A. G., Quigley, N. R., & Tesluk, P. E. (2009). A longitudinal study of team conflict, conflict management,
cohesion, and team effectiveness. Group & Organization Management, 34, 170–205. doi:10.1177/1059601108331218
Tjosvold, D. (1982). Effects of approach to controversy on superiors’ incorporation of subordinates’ information in

decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 189–193. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.67.2.189
Tjosvold, D. (1985). Implications of controversy research for management. Journal of Management, 11, 21–37.
Tjosvold, D. (1998). Co-operative and competitive goal approaches to conflict: Accomplishments and challenges. Applied
Psychology: An International Review, 41, 285–342.
Tjosvold, D. (2008a). The conflict-positive organization: It depends on us. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 19–28.
Tjosvold, D. (2008b). Constructive controversy for management education: Developing committed, open-minded
researchers. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 7, 73–85.
∗ Tjosvold, D., Law, K. S., & Sun, H. (2006). Effectiveness of Chinese teams: The role of conflict types and conflict
management approaches. Management and Organization Review, 2, 231–252. doi:10.1111/j.1740-8784.2006.00040.x

∗ Trimmer, K. J. (2001). Cross functional teams, conflict and information systems development (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). University of South Florida, Tampa.

∗ van Woerkom, M., & van Engen, M. L. (2009). Learning from conflicts? The relations between task and relationship con-
flicts, team learning and team performance. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 18, 381–404.
doi:10.1080/13594320802569514
∗ Varela, O. E. (2003). Personality, conflict, and effectiveness in project groups (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Tulane
University, New Orleans, LA.

∗ Vigil-King, D. C. (2000). Team conflict, integrative conflict-management strategies, and team effectiveness: A field study
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Tennessee, Knoxville.

Viswesvaran, C., & Sanchez, J. I. (1998). Moderator search in meta-analysis: A review and cautionary note on existing
approaches. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 58, 77–87.
∗ Vodosek, M. (2007). Intragroup conflict as a mediator between cultural diversity and work group outcomes. International
Journal of Conflict Management, 18, 345–375. doi:10.1108/10444060710833469

∗ Weingart, L. R., Todorova, G., & Cronin, M. A. (2010). Task conflict, problem-solving, and yielding: Effects on cog-
nition and performance in functionally diverse innovation teams. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 3,
312–337. doi:10.1111/j.1750-4716.2010.00063.x
West, M. A., & Anderson, N. R. (1996). Innovation in top management teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81,
680–693.
Whitener, E. M. (1990). Confusion of confidence intervals and credibility intervals in meta-analysis. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 75, 315–321. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.75.3.315
Winters, N. (1997). Conflict, informatiedeling en doelstellingen in teams [Conflict, information sharing, and goal-setting
in teams]. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Copyright of Human Performance is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may
not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.

Examining The "Pros" and "Cons" of Team Conflict - A Team-Level Meta-Analysis of Task, Relationship, and Process Conflict

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Examining The "Pros" and "Cons" of Team Conflict - A Team-Level Meta-Analysis of Task, Relationship, and Process Conflict

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Human Performance, 26:236–260, 2013

Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

Examining the “Pros” and “Cons” of Team Conflict:

De Dreu & Weingart, Hülsheger, Anderson,

Number of articles 28 11a 116 83

tasks, it is reasonable to expect that members’ unique—and potentially conflicting—viewpoints,

Performance Measurement Method

Further expanding on earlier meta-analyses, we investigated the effects of self-ratings of

et al.’s Table 1) that appeared to be entered simultaneously.

As a third moderator, we considered whether the research was conducted in organizations,

Criteria for Inclusion

Relation k N rm SDr ρ SDρ CV10 CV90 % var CI05 CI95

Team Potency and Cooperative, Competitive, and Avoidance Team Behavior

Relation k N rm SDr ρ SDρ CV10 CV90 % var CI05 CI95

Relation k N rm SDr ρ SDρ CV10 CV90 % var CI05 CI95

Relation k N rm SDr ρ SDρ CV10 CV90 % var CI05 CI95

Performance measurement method

Team Conflict and Team Innovation

Team Conflict and Team Potency

Team Conflict and Cooperative, Competitive, and Avoidance Team Behaviors

Team Conflict-Team Performance Relations

The current meta-analysis incorporates overall conflict–performance relations based on a sub-

In the current meta-analysis, we identified three contingencies of theoretical import. First, as

Implications for Practice

References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the meta-analysis.

decision making. International Journal of Conflict Management, 10, 340–359. doi:10.1108/eb022829

and affective conflict. Journal of Management, 23, 495–516. doi:10.1177/014920639702300401

team. Small Group Research, 34, 290–321. doi:10.1177/1046496403034003002

management team affective conflict. Journal of Managerial Issues, 17, 405–422.

University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice.

Performance Management, 15, 18–34. doi:10.1108/13527590910937694

International Journal of Conflict Management, 12, 4–22. doi:10.1108/eb022847

conflict and innovation in teams. Journal of Management, 32, 83–107. doi:10.1177/0149206305277795

teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 309–328. doi:10.1002/job.71

decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1191–1201. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.6.1191

of Applied Psychology, 95, 1173–1180. doi:10.1037/a0020015

teams (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.

face groups. Small Group Research, 33, 439–465. doi:10.1177/104649640203300403

conflict management. International Journal of Conflict Management, 21, 334–355. doi:10.1108/10444061011063207

conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management, 5, 223–238. doi:10.1108/eb022744

Science Quarterly, 40, 256–282. doi:10.2307/2393638

on group outcomes. Group Decision and Negotiation, 17, 465–495. doi:10.1007/s10726-008-9107-0

dissertation). Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH.

(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.

in work teams. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 794–813.

mediator of affective conflict. Journal of Management Studies, 44, 733–758. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00674.x

Journal of Conflict Management, 12, 212–238. doi:10.1108/eb022856

multilevel analysis. Group & Organization Management, 30, 514–540. doi:10.1177/1059601104269107

trust on decision outcomes. Journal of Management, 33, 196–222. doi:10.1177/0149206306298657

(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Western Ontario, Ontario, Canada.

team effectiveness. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20, 231–244. doi:10.1108/02683940510589028

Organizational Science, 6, 615–631.

conflict, and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 1–28. doi:10.2307/2667029

groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 296–324. doi:10.2307/3094807

International Journal of Conflict Management, 7, 361–376. doi:10.1108/eb022787

Journal of International Management, 4, 417–439.

management teams. Small Group Research, 36, 746–771. doi:10.1177/1046496405281776

doctoral dissertation). New York University, New York, New York.

and task. Group Decision and Negotiation, 2, 149–165. doi:10.1007/BF01884769

team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 391–400. doi:10.1037/a0021340

role of intragroup trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 102–111. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.85.1.102

Tjosvold, D. (1982). Effects of approach to controversy on superiors’ incorporation of subordinates’ information in