Different Paths Different Effects: Testing the Relationship Between Team Task Conflct and Team Creativity
Ming-jianZhou 1, Hai-bo Pan2
1,2Department of Urban Planning and Management, Harbin Institute of Technology Shenzhen Graduate School, Shenzhen, China
(, )
Abstract-Based on the self-justification theory, we argued the causal relationship between team task conflict and team creativity in two different paths - team learning behavior and team relationship conflict as two mediators. Furthermore, we proposed that team collectivism would moderate the two paths concurrently: high team collectivism would slightly weaken the path that team learning behavior as the mediator and significantly weaken the path that team relationship conflict as the mediator. In the end, we discussed the contribution of the model to task conflict theory and research, as well as for management practice, and directions for further research.
Keywords-Self-justificationtheory, task conflict, team collectivism, team creativity
- INTRODUCTION
Recently, team work becomes increasingly the norm and team creativity attracts more and more attention from organizations than ever before since it has been proved that team is elementary to organizational success [1] and creativity is crucial for employee performance [2] and organizational competitiveness [3].Meanwhile, task conflict- the conflicts about the distribution of resources, procedures and polices, and judgments and interpretation of facts [4] - seems to be inevitable in the team process in that team members are often from diverse background with different skills, knowledge, experience and so on[5]. Consequently, the associated between task conflict and team is desirable to explore profoundly.
According to Shin and Zhou (2007), team creativity was defined as the production of novel and useful ideas concerning products, services, processes, and procedures by a team of employees working together. Many studies have shown the relationship that task conflict has a positive affect on team creativity under certain conditions [4-9]. For instance, De Dreu (2006) pointed out that task conflict had a curvilinear effect on innovation and the innovation was optimal at moderate levels of task conflict.Farh (2010) gave a similar conclusion in his study, and found that the team phase also moderated the relationship with the strongest effect at an early phase.
However, few empirical studies were done to interpret clearly and thoroughly about how task conflict influences a team’s creative performance. To further understanding of the process, a path model is established on the basis of self-justification theory, in which two variables - relationship conflict, referring to conflict about personal taste, value, interpersonal affairs etc. [4], and team learning behavior – are introduced as mediators.
Moreover, some values should affect task conflict more or less, which means the inconsistent perspectives on the team tasks [10]. Collectivism, one kind of values, has displayed an impact on work behaviors in groups, influencing social, cognitive and affective processes in teams [11]. However, little empirical work has examined collectivism as a potential moderator in the relationship between task conflict and team creativity. Thus, to fill the gap in literature, testing the moderate effect becomes the second task in the study.
II. THEORY AND HYPOTHESES
- Task conflict and team creativity
Prior studies have shown that creativity - the generation of novel and useful ideas [12] - derived from the exhibition of the different ideas, or viewpoints or from integrating the old with new thinking way [13]. A team is more likely to generate creative ideas or solutions if its members frequently discuss divergent perspectives [8]. Task conflict is a vital process to stimulate the member’s divergent opinions; consequently, it is beneficial to team creativity. A great of researches have proven that task conflict has a positive influence on creativity[14-17] or has a curvilinear effect [6-8]. Although most of the precious work have demonstrated the relationship between task conflict and team creativity and tested some moderate variables, few of them explored and tested the affecting path.
Since task conflict is the outcome of disagreement viewpoints, it always evoke individuals’ cognitive dissonance - a ‘state of tension whenever an individual holds two cognitions (ideas, attitudes, beliefs, opinions) that are psychologically inconsistent’[18]. Dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling, and obviously individuals are supposed to reduce it by moderating their behaviors, but more often through self- justification [19].Self-justification is a psychological terms, principally referring to individuals tend to base their attitudes on the experimental task in a positive way in order to justify their precious behavior [20, 21].
Once task conflict appears, the self-justification motivation will stimulate individuals to try their best to keep their actions in accord with their former arguments. The higher the level of task conflict - I defined as the extent to everyone insists on his opinions - is, the greater the motivation or preference of self-justification is. To justify themselves, participators are supposed to take two strategies, either to elaborate their own points or to attack others’ weakness. In any case, they need more information, knowledge or other evidence to support his points or refute others points. This demand definitely encourages the team learning behavior - the process by which team members discuss and solve problems [22]. Obviously, team learning behavior - seek information, address differences of opinion [23] - facilitate team creativity by enhancing the opportunities to acquire domain-relevant skills and creativity-relevant skills, both of which are identified as the building blocks necessary for individual creativity [24].Thus, we propose:
Hypothesis1(a) Task conflict will have an indirect positive effect on team creativity and team learning behavior will partially mediate the relationship between them.
On the other hand, individuals are hardly to accept others’ views and are inclined to persuade others to embrace their own points on the basis of self-justification. In the process to justify themselves, they may emotionally use harsh language [25], intimidation tactics, or ad homonym arguments [15]. In this case, opponents may feel frustrated, disgrace, and even brutalized, and then tend to attribute these actions to personal attack [26] or hidden agendas [27], eventually resulting in relationship conflict. Once relationship conflict emerges, team members’ attention will increasingly move to how to return the ‘attack’ actions or languages from how to solve the initial issues. This change can raise individuals’ stress and anxiety level, both of which are supposed to restrain the cognitive ability and thus weaken the creativity [26].Thus, we propose:
Hypothesis1 (b) Task conflict will have an indirect positive effect on team creativity and team relationship conflict will partially mediate the relationship between them.
- The moderate effect of team collectivism
Collectivism, one value which mostlyemphasizing theinterdependence, was originally conceived at the culture level as well as individualism[28]. Then the constructs was studied at lower level, such as team level[11, 29-31], individual level[32, 33]. But further study about collectivism at team level or individual level has been largely unexplored [32, 34] for a long time, due to the shortcomings associated with exiting collectivism measures. Recognizing the problems, Jackson et al.(2006) developed a new measure of psychological collectivism - the individual level of collectivism- on the basis of integrating conceptual review of existing scales.
Without a specific and generally accepted definition about the team collectivism, here we defined the variable as the average level of the team members’ psychological collectivism-the individual vision of collectivism that consists of five facets: Reliance, Preference, Concern, Norm Acceptance, and Goal Priority [34]. Reliance emphasizes that one person’s responsibility is the responsibility of the entire group and that they have a collective sense of responsibility that leads them to feel comfortable relying on and trusting in the role. Preference highlights the relationships with in-group members and the preference to exist within the bounds of a group. Concern stressed on an interest in gaining knowledge about other team members and a desire to develop an understanding of their needs. Norm Acceptance focuses on complying with the norms and rules of the in-group in order to foster harmony with the team. Goal Priority means that team goals take precedence over individual goals even when it causes them to make sacrifice [33, 34].
On one hand, high Reliance is more likely to weaken the feeling that individuals are personally responsible for the negative results, which will lead to lower self-justification [35]. It will reduce individuals’ motivation to insist on and persuade others to accept his perspectives, which means the mediate effect of team learning behavior and relationship conflict will be undermined simultaneously. On the other hand, high Goal Priority is supposed to stimulate team members to maintain effort and persist toward team goals, considering that goals increase effort toward the goal-related task [36]. When task conflict emerges, the members will try their best to find the best solution. This motivation will promote the learning behavior. Thus, we propose:
Hypothesis2 (a), team collectivism will slightly weaken the mediate effect of team learning behavior
The common characteristic of Preference, Concern, Norm Acceptance is to emphasize that individuals want to establish a harmony environment. Preference and Norm Acceptance actually decrease the frequencies and intents that they use harsh language during the process they persuade others, which is useful to hold back the increase of the relationship conflict. Concern is available to lessen the misunderstood about others intense, which is useful to reduce the level of relationship conflict or even eliminate it thoroughly. And all of them are considered to significantly undermine the mediate effect of relationship conflict. Thus, we propose:
Hypothesis2 (b), team collectivism will significantly weaken the mediate effect of relationship conflict
Based on the deductions above, we establish the path model shown in Fig. 1
Fig.1 Path Model
III. DISCUSSION
- Contributions of the Study
Firstly, the study will empirically explore the mechanism of how task conflict influences the team creativity for the first time. Prior studies focus on demonstrating the relationship between conflict (task conflict, relationship conflict) and creativity. Little empirical work was done to interpret the process. Thus, our research has filled the gap.
Secondly, the present study creatively employs two paths to elaborate the process from task conflict and team creativity. Precious explanations on the causal relationship between the two variables almost underline only one path. Thus, our research has some theoretical innovation.
Finally, the study will investigate the moderate effect of team collectivism- one kind of values. Few researches tested the role of collectivism, perhaps due to various psychometric shortcomings associated with collectivism measures. Although Jackson et al (2006) have developed a new scale, this field still remains unexplored. Thus, our research has filled the gap.
- Managerial Implications
The present study put forward a new idea: task conflict can benefit the team creativity by team learning behavior and deter the creativity by relationship conflict simultaneously; team collectivism is supposed to slightly weaken the positive effect and to significantly weaken the negative effects. This implies that managers can reap more team creativity by encouraging task conflict and cultivating the team value- team collectivism concurrently.
- Directions for future research
Further studies can investigate whether there is another influence path, which is valuable in theory innovation. Also, further studier can examine more factors that can simultaneously moderate the two paths in the model - such as task phase, team style etc., which is valuable in management practice.
REFERENCES
[1]Martin A, Bal V. The State Of Teams[R]. Greensboro,NC: Center for Creative Leadership, 2006.
[2]Gong Y, Huang J C, Farh J L. Employee learning orientation, transformational leadership, and employee creativity: The mediating role of employee creative self-efficacy[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2009,52(4):765-778.
[3]Oldham G R, Cummings A. Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 1996,39:607-634.
[4]De Dreu C K W, Weingart L R. Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis[J]. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2003,88(4):741-749.
[5]Chen M H. Understanding the benefits and detriments of conflict on team creativity process[J]. Creativity and Innovation Management, 2006,15(1):105-116.
[6]Curseu P L. Team creativity in web site design: An empirical test of a systemic model[J]. Creativity Research Journal, 2010,22(1):98-107.
[7]De Dreu C K W. When too little or too much hurts: evidence for a curvilinear relationship between task conflict and innovation in teams[J]. Journal of Management, 2006,32(1):83-107.
[8]Farh J L, Lee C, Farh C I C. Task conflict and team creativity: A question of how much and when[J]. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2010,95(6):1173-1180.
[9]Hu Lsheger U R, Anderson N, Salgado J F. Team-level predictors of innovation at work: A comprehensive meta-analysis spanning three decades of research[J]. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2004,94:1128-1145.
[10]Hui C H, Triandis H C, Yee C. Cultural difference in reward allocation: Is collectivism the explanation?[J]. British Jounal of Social Psychology, 1991,30:145-157.
[11]Gibson C B, Saxton T. Thinking outside the black box: Outcomes of team decisions with third-party intervention[J]. Small Group Research, 2005,38:208-236.
[12]Amabile T M. A model of creativity and innovations in organizations[J]. Research in Organizational Behavior, 1988,10:123-167.
[13]Mumford M D, Gustafson S. Creativity syndrome: Integration, application, and innovation[J]. Psychological Bulletin, 1988,103:27-43.
[14]Jehn K A. A multimenthod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict[J]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1995,40:256-282.
[15]Simons T L, Peterson R S. Task conflict and relationship conflict in top management teams: The pivotal role of intragroup trust[J]. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2000,85(1):102-111.
[16]Van de Vliert E, Carsten K W D D. Optimizing performance by stimulating conflict[J]. International Journal of Conflict Management, 1994,5:211-222.
[17]De Dreu C K W, West M A. Minority dissent and team innovation: The importance of participation in decision making[J]. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2001,86:1191-1201.
[18]Aronson E. The social animal[M]. New York: Freeman, 1995.
[19]Jonathan L. Managers and Moral Dissonance: self justification as a big threat to ethical management?[J]. J Bus Ethics, 2011,105:17-25.
[20]Weick K E. Reduction of cognitive dissonance through task enhancement and effort expenditure[J]. Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology, 1964,68:533-539.
[21]Pallak M S, Sogin S R, Van Zante A. Bad decisions: Effects of volition, locus of causality, and negative consequences on attitude change[J]. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 1972,20:217-227.
[22]Hirst G, Knippenberg D V, Zhou J. A cross-level perspective on employee creativity: Goal orientation, team learning behavior, and individual creativity[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2009,52(2):280-293.
[23]Edmondson A. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams[J]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1999,44:350-383.
[24]Amabile T M. Creativity in context[M]. Boulder: CO: Westview, 1996.
[25]Pelled L. Demographic diversity, conflict, and work group outcomes: An intervening process theory[J]. Organization Science, 1996,7:615-631.
[26]Jehn K A. A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational groups[J]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1997,42:530-557.
[27]Amason A C. Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on strategic decision making: Resolving a paradox for top management teams[J]. Academy Management of Journal, 1996,39:123-148.
[28]Hofstede G. Culture’s consequences[M]. Beverly Hills: CA: Sage, 1980.
[29]Colquitt J A, Noe R A, Jackson C L. Justice in teams: Antecedents and consequences of procedural justice climate[J]. Personnel Psychology, 2002,55:83-109.
[30]Goncalo J A, Staw B M. Individualism–collectivism and group creativity[J]. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2006,100(1):96-109.
[31]Kirkman B L, Shapiro D L. The impact of team members’cultural values on productivity, cooperation, and empowerment in self-managing work teams[J]. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 2001,32:597-617.
[32]Earley P C, Gibson C B. Taking stock in our progress on individualism–collectivism: 100 years of solidarity and community[J]. Journal of Management, 1998,24:265-304.
[33]Dierdorff E C, Bell S T, Belohlav J A. The power of “we”: Effects of psychological collectivism on team performance over time[J]. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2011,96(2):247-262.
[34]Jackson C L, Colquitt J A, Johnson M, et al. Psychological collectivism: A measure validation and linkage to group member performance[J]. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2006,91:884-899.
[35]Cooper J. Personal responsibility and dissonance: The role of foreseen consequences: An integration and extension of the “forced compliance”literature[J]. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 1971,18:354-364.
[36]Locke E A, Latham G. Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation[J]. American Psychologist, 2002,57:705-717.