International Journal of Conflict Management: Article Information

International Journal of Conflict Management
The influence of conflict centrality and task interdependency on individual performance and job
satisfaction
Ching Tsung Jen,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Ching Tsung Jen, (2013) "The influence of conflict centrality and task interdependency on individual performance
and job satisfaction", International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 24 Issue: 2, pp.126-147, https://
doi.org/10.1108/10444061311316762
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/10444061311316762
Downloaded on: 13 November 2017, At: 23:16 (PT)
Downloaded by Universiti Teknologi MARA At 23:16 13 November 2017 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 67 other documents.

To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2160 times since 2013*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2014),"Personality traits and simultaneous reciprocal influences between job performance and job satisfaction", Chinese
Management Studies, Vol. 8 Iss 1 pp. 6-26 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/CMS-09-2011-0079">https://doi.org/10.1108/
CMS-09-2011-0079</a>
(2012),"Improving employees' job satisfaction and innovation performance using conflict management", International
Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 23 Iss 2 pp. 151-172 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/10444061211218276">https://
doi.org/10.1108/10444061211218276</a>
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by All users group
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1044-4068.htm
IJCMA
24,2 The influence of conflict
centrality and task
interdependency on individual
126
performance and job satisfaction
Ching Tsung Jen
Department of Logistics Management, Management College,
National Defense University, Taiwan, Republic of China
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this study is to analyze the connections between centrality within conflict
networks, individual performance, and job satisfaction from the perspective of social networks. The
intervening effects of task interdependency on these connections are also examined.
Design/methodology/approach Using the social network survey approach, the empirical data
from 310 engineers of a large R&D Institute affiliated with the Ministry of National Defense in Taiwan
were collected.
Findings The results show that centrality within relationship conflict networks was negatively
related to individual performance and job satisfaction. However, centrality within task conflict
networks was positively related to individual performance and job satisfaction Task interdependency
mitigates the negative influence of relationship conflicts on individual performance and job
satisfaction, and the positive influence of task conflict on job satisfaction.
Research limitations/implications As the evidence in this study came from the employees of
one organization, future studies should corroborate findings by surveying more organizations.
Practical implications The findings have important implications for individual social networks.
Within the conflict network, people who occupy the central position of relationship conflict have a
negative impact on performance and job satisfaction.
Originality/value This study contributes to the literature on social networks and conflicts theory
by demonstrating the concept of centrality within conflict networks. In addition, it also demonstrates
that the centrality of conflict network is an important factor in influencing individual performance and
job satisfaction.
Keywords Conflict network, Task interdependency, Performance, Job satisfaction, Social networks,
Taiwan
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
In response to growing demands for efficiency and flexibility, organizations are
shifting to team-based structures. Teams positively impact their organizations by
doing such things as sharing knowledge and creativity, increasing the understanding
International Journal of Conflict and acceptance of ideas, and improving commitment and motivation (Levine and
Management Moreland, 1990; McGrath, 1984). However, as many organizations have discovered,
Vol. 24 No. 2, 2013
pp. 126-147 teams can also negatively affect the organizations that adopt them (Maier, 1967;
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1044-4068
Kruglanski and Mackio, 1990; March, 1994). Teams can stifle ideas, create conformity,
DOI 10.1108/10444061311316762 encourage free riding, and even be hotbeds of conflict.
Conflict is inevitable in both teams and organizations, due to the complexity and Conflict
interdependency of organizational design. However, while previous studies have centrality
demonstrated that conflict has a significant impact on performance (Amason and
Schweiger, 1994; Jehn and Chatman, 2000; Rispens et al., 2007), empirical research
disagrees on whether this impact is positive or negative (Jehn, 1995; Pelled et al., 1999). In
early studies, researchers found that conflict is detrimental to organizational function
(Brown, 1983; Pondy, 1967), while more recent researches have theorized that conflict is 127
beneficial in some circumstances (Jehn, 1995; Jehn and Mannix, 2001; Pelled et al., 1999).
Furthermore, theorists have found that different types of conflict lead to different results.
For example, researchers have found that relationship-type conflict may negatively impact
performance (Amason, 1996; Jehn, 1995), while task-type conflict positively impacts
performance (Amason and Schweiger, 1994; Jehn and Chatman, 2000; Rispens et al., 2007).
Although these studies as well as others (Jehn, 1992, 1994, 1995; Pelled et al., 1999) have
contributed significantly to the understanding of the relationship between conflict and
performance, none have examined conflict from the perspective of social networks.
Social networks are complex and diverse social relationships, and are embedded in
each member who participates in them. A growing body of management theory and
research takes the embeddedness (Granovetter, 1985) of individuals in social networks
as its central premise (Sparrowe et al., 2001). Specifically, this research draws on the
structural properties of social networks for explaining various outcomes. For example,
the cross-functional design of teams within organizations may increase interpersonal
interactions in the case of advice networks (Sparrowe et al., 2001) or collaboration
networks (Ahuja, 2000). Previous research on social networks focused much more on
positive relations among constituents (e.g. friendship networks and advice networks),
rather than on negative relationships (one exception being hindrance networks,
proposed by Sparrowe et al., 2001). Labianca et al. (1998) argued that negative relations
in social networks are more important than positive relations in understanding attitudes
and behavior, because negative relations are more salient. However, whether negative
relations (e.g. conflict network) among constituents have a positive or negative impact
on the individual in a social network remains a critical but neglected issue.
One potentially important factor to consider when examining social networks and
conflict within teams and other organizations is job satisfaction (Ghazzawi, 2008;
Ghazzawi and Smith, 2009) and task interdependency. Jehn (1995) argued that the effects
of both relationship and task conflicts on individual performance may depend on task
interdependency. Although previous studies have demonstrated a relationship between
conflict and job satisfaction, as well as the moderator effect of task interdependency,
relatively few researchers have directly explored the topic from the angle of social
networks. If conflict is the outcome of personal interactions within a team, researchers
should fill in the gaps within conflict theory from the lens of social networks ( Jehn, 1995).
This paper makes two contributions to the research community. First, by bridging the
gap between the social network and conflict management, it analyzes the relationships
between conflict network centrality, individual performance,and job satisfaction from the
level of the ego network. Secondly, based on the cross-functional approach to team-based
design in organizational structures, this paper incorporates the variable of task
interdependency, with the aim of gaining a better understanding of the conditions in
which conflict may actually benefit individual performance and job satisfaction.
IJCMA Theoretical background and hypotheses
24,2 Conflict has been broadly defined as perceived incompatibilities or perceptions by
the parties involved, who hold discrepant views or have interpersonal incompatibilities
(Boulding, 1963). A vast amount of research has been conducted on conflict, and has
led to research on community-wide distinctions among the different types of conflict
within groups. Guetzkow and Gyr (1954, p. 369) distinguished between conflict based
128 on the substance of tasks that a group performs and conflict based on the groups
interpersonal relations. Similarly, Pelled et al. (1999), Priem and Pice (1991), Pinkley
(1990) and Jehn (1995) observed two types of conflict:
(1) cognitive task-related conflict; and
(2) relationships i.e. social-emotional conflict arising from interpersonal
disagreements not directly related to the task.
Unlike Jehns (1995) concept of the conflict which is defined as the perceived
incompatibilities or perceptions by the parties, I introduce the concept of a conflict
network. For Jehns idea, the conflict is the personal cognition of group conflict and it
may not truly reflect the whole picture of the intra-group conflicts. On the other hand, I
define conflict networks as the extent to which individuals perceived
incompatibilities by other members or with one another. In other word, the concept
of conflict network is the whole picture of interpersonal conflicts within the group.
From this picture, each member has his or her position within the conflict network.
Building on these distinctions, I examine both relationship conflict and task conflict
networks, and propose that the individuals positions of the conflict networks impact
the individual performance and job satisfaction.
Relationship conflict network

From the perspective of social network theory, conflicts are embedded in the
individuals involved. Drawing on Bouldings definition of conflict, I define conflict
networks as the extent to which individuals in a group (network) perceive
incompatibilities with one another. In other words, a conflict network is the whole
picture of interpersonal conflicts within the group. Based on his or her number of
conflicts, each member has his or her own position within the conflict network. Figure 1
offers an example. Within the six-member team in Figure 1, node PAM has more
interpersonal conflicts than others, as indicated by the lines connecting her with other
Figure 1.
A sample conflict network
within a team
nodes. In contrast, nodes HARRY, HOLLY, and CAROL have fewer interpersonal Conflict
conflicts. Viewed in social network terms, PAM represents the central position within centrality
the conflict network of the group, while CAROL and others are in the peripheral. In this
paper, I am interested in the effect of an individuals position within conflict networks
on their job performance and job satisfaction.
One of the distinctive characteristics of social network theory is how it draws on the
structural properties of social networks to explain outcomes. One of these key 129
properties is centrality, which is the individuals position within the social network or
the extent to which a given individual is connected to others in a social connection.
Centrality is the structural property most often correlated with instrumental outcomes,
such as power (Brass, 1984), innovation (Ibarra, 1993), and individual performance
(Sparrowe et al., 2001). Similarly, an individuals centrality within a negative conflict
network may be correlated with behavior and performance. Since obtaining valid data
about negative relationships is inherently difficult in field studies, social network
researchers have focused primarily on positive networks, e.g. advice and friendship
networks, rather than negative relationship networks (with the aforementioned
exception of Sparrowe et al., 2001). I argue that it is equally important to understand
both the negative and positive sides of social networks.
When collecting data on conflict within social networks, the Likert scale and other
network-based data collecting approaches have various strengths and weaknesses.
Data from Likert-based surveys reflect personal perception in terms of team conflict,
whereas network-based data portrays conflict within a group via graphs. For example,
using the Likert approach, PAM in Figure 1 would be asked How much emotional
conflict is there among members in the work unit? ( Jehn, 1995). Her answer likely
would reflect conflict among other members rather than her own central position in
the conflict network. In contrast, CAROL might feel that there is a lot of emotional
conflict among team members, given her lack of centrality in the conflict within the
team. Therefore, in order to capture a better picture of the conflict network within
groups, I propose that network surveys be administered and data from every team
member be collected in order to form a more accurate picture of conflict among team
members.
Interpersonal incompatibilities among team members, which typically include
tension, animosity, and annoyance, create relationship conflict networks that may
consume much of the time and energy of the team members involved and decrease
overall productivity. Studies suggest that when team members have interpersonal
problems and are angry with one another, feel friction with each other, or experience
personality clashes, they tend to work less effectively and less productively (Argyris,
1962; Jehn, 1994, 1995, Pelled et al., 1999). Likewise, Kelley (1979) explained that people
who are angry or antagonistic simply lose perspective about tasks being performed.
Rispens et al. (2007) found that relationship conflicts may reduce team trust and, in
turn, the probability of team members providing information to each other necessary
for solving problems. Other studies also have suggested that the anxiety associated
with relationship conflict also tends to inhibit cognitive functioning in processing
complex information and thus inhibits individual performance (Staw et al., 1981;
Roseman et al., 1994). Similarly, Pelled (1996) discovered that the hostility resulting
from relationship conflict may cause individual team members to become resistant to
task-related ideas expressed by other members. Thus, teams experiencing relationship
IJCMA conflicts may spend a lot of their time and energy dealing with problems unrelated to
24,2 the tasks at hand. Based on this argument, I propose that the centrality of individuals
within a relationship conflict network, and the extent to which team members perceive
incompatibilities with a particular person on the team, may influence their job
performance. When individuals are perceived as incompatible with their fellow team
members, they are likely to feel threatened and anxious. This anxiety will inhibit their
130 ability to process complex information (Staw et al., 1981; Roseman et al., 1994) and thus
negatively affect their performance (Jehn, 1992, 1995). Thus, I propose the following
hypothesis:
H1. Within the relationship conflict network, individual centrality is negatively
correlated to their job performance.
Relationship conflicts affect not only job performance but also subjective well-being.
For example, employees may experience frustration, strain, and uneasiness when they
dislike or are disliked by others in their group (Walton and Dutton, 1969). Because
interpersonal problems heighten negative reactions such as anxiety and fear, team
members experiencing interpersonal tension should be less satisfied with the jobs they
are doing (Gladstein, 1984; Wall and Nolan, 1986). A study conducted by Baldwin et al.
(1997) found that the centrality of individual MBA team members within adversarial
networks negatively correlated to their job satisfaction. Jehn (1995) discovered that
negative reactions to relationship conflicts incite discomfort. These findings suggest
that the more central individuals are within relationship conflict networks, the greater
the probability of low satisfaction with their job. Accordingly, the above arguments
suggest the following hypothesis:
H2. Within the relationship conflict network, individual centrality is negatively
correlated to their job satisfaction.
Task conflict network

Disagreements among team members over the content of the tasks being performed,
including differences in viewpoints, ideas, and opinions, lead to task conflict networks.
Numerous studies have concluded that task conflict positively affects group and
individual performance (Amason and Schweiger, 1994). Jehn (1995) argued that groups
performing tasks benefit from the diversity of ideas of team members. Putnam (1994)
showed that task conflict helped people identify and better understand the issues
involved. Likewise, Baron (1991) provided evidence that task conflict within teams
encouraged people to develop new ideas and approaches.
Task conflict may also help team members to learn and better assess problems. For
example, Fiol (1994) showed that teams learn and assess situations more accurately
when team members have different interpretations of task content issues. Similarly,
Schwenk and Valacich (1994) showed that evaluating and critiquing the status quo
yielded higher-quality decisions, because members confronted problems rather than
avoiding or smoothing over issues.
Based on these findings, I argue that individuals with more task conflicts within a
team benefit from different viewpoints and have a better understanding of situations.
For instance, when individuals like PAM in Figure 1 occupy the central position within
a task conflict network, they must initiate open discussions with other teammates and
allow any opposing views to be brought forth, thereby potentially enhancing their
understanding of the task at hand. The greater the understanding of the task, the Conflict
higher the quality of the decisions made, thereby improving overall job performance. In centrality
addition, in order to persuade team members to share opposing viewpoints, the central
individuals in task conflict networks must provide new evidence and occasionally new
ideas, which in turn helps them perform their jobs better. Accordingly, the above
arguments suggest the following hypothesis:
H3. Within the task conflict network, individual centrality is positively correlated 131
to their job performance.
Most people enjoy working in environments free of conflict among team members,
since conflict may lead to group discomfort. Although studies have found that task
conflicts may negatively affect job satisfaction (Amason and Schweiger, 1994; Baron,
1990; Jehn, 1995; Ross, 1989), these studies have potentially neglected the positive
impact of task conflict on job satisfaction. For example, norms of openness, such as
open discussion and open confrontation within a team, can be a positive factor for
people who work in knowledge-intensive firms. When people enjoy sharing different
ideas with others, they might feel dissatisfaction when they are not encouraged to
express their ideas with their teams. In addition, group norms toward avoiding conflict
may make team member uncomfortable when they would like to propose new ideas.
Group pressure for unanimity can squelch creativity, one of the key factors for job
satisfaction. In short, people who work in open-minded teams may feel more
comfortable about expressing their ideas and more satisfied with their job than people
who work in teams with norms geared toward avoiding conflict.
When people have much more opportunities to express their ideas, they may be
more likely to have task conflict with other team members. Task conflict allows
individual to test their ideas by exposing them to criticism. Exploration of opposing
positions can help individual gather new data, delve into issues more deeply, and
develop a more complete understanding of problems and alternative solutions. All of
the above statements imply that people with more task conflict can be more likely to
have high job satisfaction. Several studies have concluded that task conflict positively
influences team and individual performance (Pelled, 1996), which may positively
impact job satisfaction. People having more task conflicts with other team members
represent the more central position within the task conflict network. Accordingly, I
propose the following hypothesis:
H4. Within the task conflict network, individual centrality is positively correlated
to their job satisfaction.
Task interdependency
The effects of both task and relationship conflict on performance and job satisfaction
may depend on task interdependency ( Jehn, 1995). Task interdependency involves
team members interacting while performing their individual jobs (Wayne et al., 1997).
Rispens et al. (2007) argue that in teams with high task interdependency, members
consider themselves to be playing active roles and are dependent on one another in
accomplishing the task at hand. Although increased interaction and dependency
among members may lead to some conflicts among members ( Jehn, 1995), task
interdependency increases communication that benefits all team members (Olekalns
et al., 2008). Research summarized by Wall and Callister (1995) suggests that the
IJCMA frequency of communication is generally negatively correlated to conflict. Similarly,
24,2 Labianca et al. (1998) argue that increased frequency of interaction reduces inter-group
conflict. Subsequent studies have confirmed this relationship, suggesting that
face-to-face interaction may mitigate the negative effects of interpersonal conflict
(Dawes and Massey, 2005; Gajendran and Harrison, 2007; Polzer et al., 2006). Likewise,
Krackhardt and Stern (1988) and Nelson (1989) used social network analysis to show
132 the positive effects of strong interpersonal relationships across teams. Thus, task
interdependency increases the amount and intensity of interactions among members,
allowing more opportunities for face-to-face communication to occur and reducing
interpersonal problems.
Accordingly, highly interdependent tasks alleviate some of the negative influence of
relationship conflicts on individual performance and job satisfaction. I propose that
communication helps members to understand each others feelings and viewpoints.

This greater understanding helps teams to avoid wasting their energy and time on non
job-related issues, thereby increasing their productivity. The above arguments lead to
the following hypotheses:
H5. The relationship between individual centrality of the relationship conflict
network and performance is moderated by task interdependency, such that
high task interdependency reduces the negative impact of the centrality of
relationship conflict network on individual performance.
H6. The relationship between individual centrality of the relationship conflict
network and job satisfaction is moderated by task interdependency, such that
high task interdependency reduces the negative impact of the centrality of
relationship conflict network on job satisfaction.
Task interdependency also moderates the effect of task conflict on performance and job
satisfaction. Task interdependency is the extent to which team members are
inter-connected, or linked to one another while performing tasks (Pearce and
Gregersen, 1991). As task interdependency increases, communication across the team
becomes more efficient (Athanassiou and Nigh, 1999). Although highly interdependent
tasks may lead to more task conflict among team members ( Jehn, 1995), the benefits
gained in efficiency from communication may outweigh the costs of task conflict.
In task-independent teams, some members may become isolated or segregated,
restricting communication among group members. Under this condition, the central
people within a task conflict network may benefit from their greater connections
among team members. These greater connections lead to the greater control of
information. Therefore, they may perform better than others, because they typically
receive and control most of the information within the team (Hansen, 2002; Rowley,
1997). However, if team members become more interdependent while performing their
tasks, overall communication may become very smooth and efficient (Provan and
Milward, 1995). Efficient and smooth communication among team members reduces
the probability of information control among central team members. Furthermore, it
displaces any heightened sense of job satisfaction and performance that central team
members may gain through task conflicts. Accordingly, the above arguments suggest
the following hypotheses:
H7. The relationship between individual centrality of the task conflict network Conflict
and performance is moderated by task interdependency, such that high task centrality
interdependency reduces the positive impact of the centrality of task conflict
network on individual performance.
H8. The relationship between individual centrality of the task conflict network
and job satisfaction is moderated by task interdependency, such that high
task interdependency reduces the positive impact of the centrality of task 133
conflict network on job satisfaction.
Research methodology
A total of 352 white collar engineers from two different departments of a large R&D
institution affiliated with the Ministry of National Defense in Taiwan were recruited
for this study. The institution has a team-based structure typical of R&D institutions.
The unit of analysis of the current study is for individual. However, due to the network
analysis, I use the list of the team members name for collecting the network variables.
Teams with fewer than 80 percent of their members participating were excluded from
this study, because network analysis requires a high response rate (Wasserman and
Faust, 1994). Of the remaining 310 respondents, 85.9 percent were male, and 80.1
percent were in the 21-40 years old age range and the average person had worked there
for 7.58 years (SD 3:60).
Measures
Conflict networks. The network surveys listed the names of members in a respondents
work team. Using survey questions adapted from the works of Jehn (1995) and Pearson
et al. (2002), I assessed conflict networks by asking the respondents three questions for
each type of conflict. Pearson et al. (2002) reassessed the original intra-group conflict
scales of Jehn (1992, 1994) on relationship and task conflict, and found that the six-item
version of the original nine-item scale best captured relationship and task conflict.
Relating to relationship conflict networks, I asked the respondents three questions:
(1) With whom do you feel angry from time to time in your team?;
(2) With whom do you feel tension from time to time in your team?; and
(3) With whom do you feel friction from time to time in your team?.
In addition, relating to task conflict networks, the questions I asked were:

.
With whom do you always have different opinions about the tasks you have to
perform?;
.
With whom do you always disagree over ideas?; and
.
With whom do you always have differences about the decisions you have to
make?.
Since each network survey question has its own matrix, I formed a matrix wherein
each column and row represents team members, while the cells of the matrices
represent the extent to which there is conflict among team members. Binomial data
were used to represent conflict relations: 1 means an expressed conflict exists
between the two members, and 0 means no expressed conflict exists. I then coded the
IJCMA data in the form of an asymmetric matrix, implying that perception of conflict may
24,2 have been only unidirectional, not multidirectional. Using the data from the six
matrices, I conducted a factor analysis to derive two factors that explain 93 percent of
the variance in the network measures with eigenvalues greater than 1 for each conflict
scale. Based on the convergent and discriminate validity of the network measures, I
summed the three matrices to form the networks for relationship and task conflict, and
134 then calculated centrality within these networks using Ucinet software (Borgatti et al.,
2002).
Centrality of conflict networks. Following Hanneman and Mark (2005), I define the
centrality of conflict networks as the position of each person within each conflict
networks, and compute normalized (standardized) in-degree centrality scores for each
individual to allow for comparison across groups of different size. In-degree centrality
is a form of degree centrality that only counts those relations that contain a focal
individual reported by other team members. In-degree centrality thus does not suffer
from the limitations of self-reports, as is the case with out-degree centrality (Sparrowe
et al., 2001).
Task interdependency. I define task interdependency as the extent to which team
members are inter-connected, or linked to one another while performing their job. With
a Cronbachs a of 0.91, three item scales adapted from Pearce and Gregersen (1991)
were used to measure task interdependence. These item scales include I work closely
with my team members, I must regularly coordinate my efforts with my team
members, and The way I perform my job has a significant impact on my team
members. Responses ranged from 1 to 5, where 1 not at all, 3 to some extent, and
5 to a very great extent.
Individual performance. I collected data for individual performance in two ways.
First, I obtained the departmental records on each individuals annual performance.
These records were assessed by each team leader, and contain individual performance
levels ranging from 1 to 7. Of the respondents, the average departmental record level
was 4.78 (SD 0:45). Second, I asked respondents for their self-perception of their
performance on their team. These three items included Compared with other
members, I did a good job on my team, Compared with other members, I performed
the best, and Compared with other members, I always performed my job very well.
Their responses ranged from 1 to 7, where 1 strongly disagree, 4 average, and
7 strongly agree. I conducted a factor analysis with a Cronbachs a of 0.84 using the
scores from these four statements, resulting in one factor explaining 78 percent of the
variance.
Job satisfaction. I define job satisfaction as the extent to which individuals feel
comfortable working within the team. I collected data by asking two seven-point Likert
questions, where respondents either checked I feel comfortable to work with my team
members or I enjoy working with my team members. The responses ranged from 1
to 7, where 1 strongly disagree, 4 average, and 7 strongly agree. I conducted a
factor analysis with a Cronbachs a of 0.89 using the scores from these two items,
resulting in one factor explaining 82 percent of the variance.
Control variables. To test the hypotheses, I added five control variables in the
regression models. Age, education, job position, length of team membership, and
length of employment at the institution were all added to the models, in order to reduce
the influence of demographic background. Age was measured by a five-interval scale
ranging from 20 to 60 and above. Education was coded as 1 signifying Bachelors Conflict
degree, 2 signifying Masters degree, and 3 signifying PhD. Since team-based centrality
organizational structures typically do not have many hierarchical job titles, I used
salary as a proxy variable for job position. Finally, the length of team membership and
service at the institution were defined as the number of years they had been working
on their team and at their institution.
135
Analysis
I tested the hypotheses using hierarchical multiple regression analysis to determine
how the conflict centrality of individuals correlates to their performance and job
satisfaction. In addition, in order to test the moderator effect of task interdependency
and minimize multicollinearity, I followed Aiken and West (1991), and mean-centered
the interactions and their component variables prior to the regression analysis. In the
first step of each regression equation, the five controlled variables were entered into the
model. In the second step of each regression equation, I included the main effects for
the centrality of relationship conflict network and the centrality of task conflict
network. In the third step of each equation, I included the interactions between conflict
centralities and task interdependency.
Results
Table I reports the Pearson correlations among all variables. The coefficients between
the centrality of relationship conflict network and performance, and the centrality of
relationship conflict network and job satisfaction are both negative and significant
(p , 0:01), whereas the coefficients for the centrality of task conflict network are
positive and significant (p , 0:01). Among the control variables, age and education
have significantly negative correlations with the centrality of task conflict network. In
addition, both length of team membership and service at the institution have positive
correlations with performance. Finally, the significantly positive correlation (r 0:36)
between the task variables implies that the more interdependent the task at hand, the
higher the likelihood that task conflict will arise.
Table II summarizes the regression results for performance and job satisfaction. M1
and M4 in Table II are the regression results for the control variables, accounting for a
minor percentage of the variance in performance (R 2 7:2 percent, p , 0:01) and job
satisfaction (R 2 1:8 percent, p . 0:05). The variables of both length of team
membership and service at the institution had a significant positive impact on
performance. However, age had a significantly negative impact on performance.
According to H1 and H2, the centrality of relationship conflict network should
correlate negatively with individual performance and job satisfaction. Consistent with
this prediction, the results of M2 and M5 in Table II reveal that the centrality of
relationship conflict network (RCc) is significantly and negatively correlated to
performance (b 20:182, p , 0:001) and job satisfaction (b 20:248, p , 0:001).
Furthermore, M2 and M5 of Table II also reveal that the centrality of task conflict
network (TCc) is significantly and positively correlated with performance (b 0:218,
p , 0:001) and job satisfaction (b 0:152, p , 0:05). This suggests that the results
also support H3 and H4.
In terms of the intervening variable of task interdependency (TId), H5 states that
the relationship between the centrality of a relationship conflict network and individual
24,2
136
Table I.
IJCMA
deviations, and
Means, standard
correlations of variablesa
Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Age 2.7 0.93

2. Education 2.14 0.47 0.20 * * *
3. Salary 2.30 0.81 0.46 * * * 2 0.17 * *
4. Team tenure 4.7 2.67 0.51 * * * 0.27 * * * 0.22 * * *
5. Firm tenure 7.58 3.60 0.53 * * * 0.14 * * 0.33 * * * 0.50 * * *
6. RCc 0.83 0.16 20.06 0.02 0.05 2 0.16 0.01
7. TCc 0.44 0.25 20.13 * 2 0.18 * * 2 0.02 2 0.04 2 0.06 2 0.37 * *
8. Performance 3.14 1.18 20.02 2 0.04 2 0.03 0.16 * * 0.15 * * 2 0.24 * * 0.30 * * *
9. Job satisfaction 3.64 1.51 0.01 2 0.03 2 0.03 0.01 0.08 2 0.30 * * 0.25 * * 0.59 * * *
10. TId 3.12 1.45 20.09 2 0.03 2 0.07 2 0.05 0.05 2 0.12 * 0.36 * * * 0.52 * * * 0.63 * * *
Notes: RCc, the centrality of relationship conflict network; TCc, the centrality of task conflict network; TId, task interdependency; an 310, *p , 0:05,
* *p , 0:01, * * *p , 0:001
Performance Job satisfaction

Variables M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8
Age 2 0.199 * 2 0.205 * * * 2 0.157 * 2 0.128 2 0.056 2 0.080 2 0.013 0.023

(0.085) (0.082) (0.085) (0.084) (0.138) (0.133) (0.105) (0.100)
Education 2 0.092 2 0.038 2 0.073 2 0.068 2 0.043 0.007 2 0.037 2 0.015
(0.133) (0.127) (0.133) (0.131) (0.210) (0.202) (0.159) (0.153)
Salary 2 0.054 2 0.033 2 0.011 2 0.031 2 0.043 2 0.007 2 0.007 2 0.025
(0.086) (0.082) (0.085) (0.084) (0.137) (0.131) (0.103) (0.099)
Team tenure 0.179 * 0.153 * 0.199 * * * 0.220 * * * 2 0.031 2 0.053 0.003 0.018
(0.013) (0.012) (0.012) (0.012) (0.020) (0.019) (0.015) (0.014)
Firm tenure 0.208 * * 0.221 * * * 0.141 * 0.107 0.164 * 0.177 * 0.077 0.042
(0.010) (0.009) (0.009) (0.009) (0.015) (0.014) (0.011) (0.011)
RCc 2 0.182 * * * 2 0.185 * * * 2 0.198 * * * 2 0.248 * * * 2 0.243 * * * 2 0.238 * * *
(0.004) (0.004) (0.004) (0.006) (0.005) (0.005)
TCc 0.218 * * * 0.047 0.048 0.152 * 2 0.083 2 0.034
(0.002) (0.003) (0.003) (0.004) (0.003) (0.003)
TId 0.477 * * * 0.460 * * * 0.631 * * * 0.569 * * *
(0.043) (0.044) (0.051) (0.051)
RCc TId 0.197 * * * 0.161 * *
(0.067) (0.077)
TCc TId 0.018 2 0.130 * *
(0.064) (0.072)
R2 0.072 0.180 0.376 0.410 0.018 0.128 0.463 0.516

Adjusted R 2 0.056 0.159 0.358 0.388 0.001 0.105 0.447 0.498
F value 4.36 * * * 8.694 * * * 20.408 * * * 18.708 * * * 1.005 5.688 * * * 29.186 * * * 28.655 * * *
Notes: n 310; standard errors shown in parentheses; *p , 0:05; * *p , 0:01; * * *p , 0:001
and job satisfaction

analysis for performance
Conflict
centrality
Results of regression
137
Table II.
IJCMA performance is moderated by task interdependency, such that high task
24,2 interdependency reduces the negative impact of the centrality of relationship conflict
network on individual performance. As shown in M4 in Table II, the coefficient of the
interaction term between task interdependency and the centrality of relationship
conflict network is positive and statistically significant for performance (b 0:197,
p , 0:001), suggesting that the centrality of relationship conflict network is less
138 negatively associated with individual performance when task interdependency is high.
These results support H5.
H6 states that the relationship between the centrality of a relationship conflict
network and job satisfaction is moderated by task interdependency, such that high
task interdependency reduces the negative impact of the centrality of relationship
conflict network on job satisfaction. As shown in M8 in Table II, the coefficient of the
interaction term between task interdependency and the centrality of relationship

conflict network is positive and statistically significant for job satisfaction (b 0:161,
p , 0:01), suggesting that the centrality of relationship conflict network is less
negatively associated with individual job satisfaction when task interdependency is
high. These results support H6.
Similar to H5 and H6, H7 states that the relationship between the centrality of a
task conflict network and individual performance is moderated by task
interdependency, such that high task interdependency reduces the positive impact of
the centrality of task conflict network on individual performance. As shown in M4 in
Table II, the coefficient of the interaction term between the centrality of task conflict
network (TCc) and task interdependency (TId) is not statistically significant for
performance (b 0:018, p . 0:05), suggesting that the influence of the centrality of
task conflict network on individual performance is not moderated by task
interdependency. Hence, the result does not support H7.
Finally, H8 states that the relationship between the centrality of a task conflict
network and individual job satisfaction is moderated by task interdependency, such
that high task interdependency reduces the positive influence of the centrality of task
conflict network on individual job satisfaction. As shown in M8 in Table II, the
coefficient of the interaction term between the centrality of task conflict network (TCc)
and task interdependency (TId) is negative and statistically significant for job
satisfaction (b 20:130, p , 0:01), suggesting that the centrality of task conflict
network is negatively associated with individual job satisfaction when task
interdependency is high. This supports H8.
To further see the pattern of the interaction effects, I plotted the trend that shows
the relationship between conflict centrality, and individual performance and job
satisfaction at both high and low levels of task interdependency. Following Aiken
and West (1991), I define high- and low-level task interdependency based on one
standard deviation above and below the mean of the task interdependency variable,
respectively. Figures 2-5 present the moderator effect, showing that the relationships
of conflict centrality and performance as well as job satisfaction vary depending
upon the level of task interdependency. According to the two slopes of the lines in
Figures 2 and 3, high task interdependency reduces the impact of the centrality of
relationship conflict network on individual performance and job satisfaction. In
Figure 4, however, we do not see the moderating effect of task interdependency on
the relationship of the centrality of task conflict network and performance. In
Conflict
centrality
139
Figure 2.
The moderating effect of
task interdependency on
the RCc-perform
relationship
Figure 3.
the RCc-job satisfaction
relationship
contrast, in Figure 5 the slope of the high task interdependency line is significantly
different from that of the low task interdependency line. The slope of the low task
interdependency line shows the positive relationship between the centrality of task
conflict network and job satisfaction, while the high task interdependency line
presents the negative relationship between the centrality of task conflict network
and job satisfaction. This suggests that the centrality of task conflict network is
positively associated with individual job satisfaction when task interdependency is
low.
IJCMA
24,2
140
Figure 4.
the TCc-performance
relationship
Figure 5.
the TCc-job satisfaction
relationship
Discussion
Past research on conflict has focused on the types of conflict and the styles of conflict
resolution, neglecting the social networking perspective of interpersonal conflict and its
impact on individual outcomes. In an effort to understand the social network view of
conflict, this study hypothesizes and examines two types of conflict network centrality,
or positions that individuals occupy within the conflict networks in teams. Arguing that
centrality for both types of conflict networks influence performance and job satisfaction,
I proposed that centrality within relationship conflict networks negatively influences
individual performance and job satisfaction, whereas centrality within the task conflict Conflict
networks positively influences individual performance and job satisfaction. Overall, centrality
these hypotheses are supported by the results of the empirical tests.
For relationship conflict networks, the results indicate that centrality within a
relationship conflict network negatively correlates to performance and job satisfaction.
Within team-structured organizations, individuals who occupy central positions within
a relationship conflict network get involved in many more relationship conflicts than 141
others. As several studies have found, and this study helps confirm, relationship
conflicts negatively influence performance (Jehn, 1995; Pelled et al., 1999; Pelled, 1996)
and job satisfaction (Jehn, 1995). Relationship conflicts may lead to efforts to solve
interpersonal problems that are unrelated to the task at hand, lowering productivity.
Those who suffer from threats and anxiety emotions that characterize affective
conflict have difficulty processing new or complex information (Staw et al., 1981).
The hostility that characterizes relationship conflict may make individuals within the
conflict network more resistant to any task-related ideas expressed by other members
(Pelled et al., 1999). Relationship conflicts cause distress and animosity among team
members, encouraging withdrawal that is detrimental to job satisfaction. Centrality
within relationship conflicts, as this study has shown, negatively correlates with
performance and job satisfaction.
For task conflict networks, unlike previous studies (Baron, 1990; Jehn, 1995), this
study finds that centrality within task conflict networks positively influences both
performance and job satisfaction. Jehns study found that people involved in task
conflicts typically are less satisfied with their job than others. However, I argue that
working environment and the type of tasks being performed should be considered
when determining whether task conflicts negatively correlate with job performance
and satisfaction. The result shows that people in knowledge-intensive working
environments are more satisfied with their jobs when they experience more task
conflict. Similarly, Jehn and Chatman (2000) also found that team members appreciate
task conflict. Cross et al. (2001) have found that people usually acquire and create
knowledge by way of social contact. Task conflict is an inevitable part of the
acquisition of knowledge, which requires interpersonal social contact. Those who
occupy central positions in task conflict networks may benefit from the experience.
Since they have more social relations with their team members than others, they likely
have more resources at their disposal and have some control over the flow of
information from other members. With more resources and likely more information,
central members within a task conflict network are more likely to perform better than
others. Similarly, people who enjoy task conflict are more likely to remain on their
teams and be more satisfied with their job.
Besides network variables of the main effects on individual performance and job
satisfaction, I also argue that task interdependency serves as an intervening variable
and alters the influence of centrality within conflict networks on performance and job
satisfaction. Task interdependency mitigates the negative influence of centrality
within relationship conflict networks and elevates the positive influence of centrality
within task conflict networks on performance and job satisfaction. The results show
that task interdependency moderates the connection between centrality within
relationship conflict networks and performance and job satisfaction. When tasks are
designed to be very interdependent, the centrality of a relationship conflicts network
IJCMA tends not to influence performance and job satisfaction significantly. The more
24,2 interdependent the tasks are, the higher the pressure for team members to
communicate with each other, forcing them to work through any misunderstandings or
hostilities. In other words, interdependent task design encourages communications and
mitigates the influence of the centrality of relationship conflict network, which in turn
results in better performance and higher job satisfaction.
142 This study also focuses special attention on the moderating effect of interdependent
task design on the relationship between the centrality of task conflict network and job
satisfaction. Unlike Jehns (1995) study, which did not find a moderator effect of task
interdependency, this study shows that only highly interdependent tasks can lead to
negative associations between task conflict and job satisfaction. On the other hand, for
tasks with low interdependency, the centrality of task conflict network positively
influences job satisfaction. This is inconsistent with Jehns (1995) findings. However,
for the dependent variable of performance, task interdependency does not moderate the
relationship between the centrality of task conflict network and performance.
As a result of these findings, this research offers different recommendations from
past studies. For instance, my research framework views conflicts as an outcome of
social interaction and implies that employers should not reduce intra-group conflict.
This is particularly significant given that the centrality of task conflict network
positively influences job performance and satisfaction. In a knowledge-intensive era,
task conflict within a team may improve innovation and satisfaction. Thus, managers
or team leaders should encourage team members to express different ideas even
though such may cause the intra group conflicts. As found in Jehns study, conflict
norms can encourage openness and acceptance of disagreement, which can augment
the positive effects (or decrease the negative effects) of conflict.
The results of the current study also have several implications for both individuals
and groups. For individuals, the current study recommends team members should not
hesitate to have task conflicts with other members. The more central the individuals
position with a task conflict network, the more he or she benefits from the additional
resources and information gained through social contact. On the contrary, the
centrality of relationship conflict network negatively influences individual
performance and job satisfaction. Individuals should understand the positive and
negative effects of different conflict types, and make sure they know how to
distinguish between them. For groups, the current study finds that task
interdependence has a positive moderating effect on the connections between the
centrality of relationship conflict network and performance or job satisfaction. Task
interdependency increases the amount and intensity of interaction among members,
thus allowing more opportunities for communication, which may reduce the possibility
of relationship conflict and its impact on individual or group performance. With the
recent popularity of team-based projects, organization managers may want to consider
increasing the interdependence of tasks and encouraging intra-group conflict.
Limitations
While the findings and analysis strongly support the majority of this studys
hypotheses, there are still several potential limitations that must be discussed. First,
there is potential concern with the validity of the performance measures. Although
common method variance is not an issue, because the social network and performance
ratings data have different sources, the self-reporting nature of the individual Conflict
performance rankings may result in biased evaluations. Similarly, a leniency bias may centrality
exist within the team leaders ratings on individual performance. Furthermore,
informal network structure may correlate to the team leaders assessments of
individual performance, rather than to actual performance.
Second, this study proposes that conflict network structure precedes individual
performance and job satisfaction. However, it is possible that the connection between 143
conflict network centrality and individual performance is reciprocal, or that the
correlation is reversed. For example, it is possible that team members who seek to
perform better may cause more task conflicts than other members.
Third, this study argues that task interdependency serves as the intervening
variable between centrality within conflict networks and individual performance and
job satisfaction. Task interdependency, however, may play different roles in conflict
theory. For example, in this study, task interdependency proved to be a moderating
variable between relationship conflict networks and individual performance and job
satisfaction. However, task interdependency does not moderate the connection between
task conflicts and individual performance. Testing the main effect of task
interdependency on task conflicts is an interesting area for further research.
Conclusion
Overall, this study contributes to several streams of research. First, it adds to the
literature on social networks and conflict by demonstrating the concept of centrality
within conflict networks. Secondly, it creates a relationship model between centrality
within conflict networks and individual performance and job satisfaction. Thirdly, this
study diverges from the findings of previous research regarding the influence of task
conflicts on individual performance and job satisfaction. Task interdependency
moderates the connection between centrality within relationship conflict networks and
individual performance and job satisfaction. Task interdependency also moderates the
relationships between the centrality of task conflict network and job satisfaction.
These results offer a different perspective from previous research ( Jehn, 1995). The
current findings may also have improved validity, since the assessment of conflict
centrality precludes the existence of common source bias (Jehn and Chatman, 2000).
Together, these results suggest that conflict management studies should more
frequently consider social network analysis as a valid approach.
References
Ahuja, G. (2000), Collaboration network, structural holes, and innovation: a longitudinal study,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 45, pp. 425-55.
Aiken, L.S. and West, S.G. (1991), Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interaction, Sage
Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Amason, A.C. (1996), Distinguishing effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on strategic
decision making: resolving a paradox for top management teams, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 39, pp. 123-48.
Amason, A.C. and Schweiger, D.M. (1994), Resolving the paradox of conflict, strategic decision
making and organizational performance, International Journal of Conflict Management,
Vol. 5, pp. 239-53.
IJCMA Argyris, C. (1962), Interpersonal Competence and Organizational Effectiveness, Dorsey,
Homewood, IL.
24,2
Athanassiou, N. and Nigh, D. (1999), The impact of US company internationalization on top
management team advice network: a tacit knowledge perspective, Strategic Management
Journal, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 83-92.
Baldwin, T.T., Bedell, M.D. and Johnson, J.L. (1997), The social fabric of a team-based MBA
144 program: network effects on student satisfaction and performance, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 40, pp. 1369-97.
Baron, R.A. (1990), Countering the effects of destructive criticism: the relative efficacy of four
interventions, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 75, pp. 235-45.
Baron, R.A. (1991), Positive effective of conflict: a cognitive perspective, Employee
Responsibilities and Right Journal, Vol. 2, pp. 25-36.
Borgatti, S.P., Everett, M.G. and Freeman, L.G. (2002), Ucinet for Windows: Software for Social
Network Analysis, Analytic Technology, Harvard, MA.
Boulding, K. (1963), Conflict and Defense, Harper & Row, New York, NY.
Brass, D.J. (1984), Being in the right place: a structural analysis of individual influence in an
organization, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 29, pp. 518-39.
Brown, L.D. (1983), Managing Conflict at Organizational Interfaces, Addison-Wesley, Reading,
MA.
Cross, R., Parker, A., Prusak, L. and Borgatti, S. (2001), Knowing what we know: supporting
knowledge creation and sharing in social networks, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 30
No. 2, pp. 100-20.
Dawes, P.L. and Massey, G.R. (2005), Antecedents of conflict in marketings cross-functional
relationship with sales, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 39 Nos 11/12, pp. 1327-44.
Fiol, C.M. (1994), Consensus, diversity and learning in organizations, Organization Science,
Vol. 5, pp. 403-20.
Gajendran, R.S. and Harrison, D.A. (2007), The good, the bad, and the unknown about
telecommuting: meta-analysis of psychological mediators and individual consequences,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 6, pp. 1524-41.
Ghazzawi, I. (2008), Job satisfaction antecedents and consequences: a new conceptual
framework and agenda, The Business Review, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 1-10.
Ghazzawi, I. and Smith, Y.S. (2009), Crafting the whole employee: job satisfaction, job
commitment, and faith: a new conceptual framework and research agenda, The Business
Review, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 300-9.
Gladstein, D.L. (1984), A model of task group effectiveness, Administrative Science Quarterly,
Vol. 29, pp. 499-517.
Granovetter, M.S. (1985), Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness,
American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 91, pp. 481-510.
Guetzkow, H. and Gyr, J. (1954), An analysis of conflict in decision-making groups, Human
Relations, Vol. 7, pp. 367-81.
Hanneman, R.A. and Mark, R. (2005), Introduction to Social Network Methods, University of
California, Riverside, Riverside, CA, available at: http://faculty.ucr.edu/,hanneman/
Hansen, M.T. (2002), Knowledge networks: explaining effective knowledge sharing in multiunit
companies, Organization Science, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 232-48.
Ibarra, H. (1993), Network centrality, power, and innovation involvement: determinants of Conflict
technical and administrative roles, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 36 No. 3,
pp. 471-501. centrality
Jehn, K.A. (1992), The impact of intra-group conflict on effectiveness: a multi-method
examination of the benefits and detriments of conflict, unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.
Jehn, K.A. (1994), Enhancing effectiveness: an investigation of advantages and disadvantages of 145
value based intragroup conflict, International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 5,
pp. 223-38.
Jehn, K.A. (1995), A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup
conflict, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 42, pp. 530-58.
Jehn, K.A. and Chatman, J.A. (2000), The influence of proportional and perceptual conflict
composition on team performance, International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 11

No. 1, pp. 56-73.
Jehn, K.A. and Mannix, E.A. (2001), The dynamic nature of conflict: a longitudinal study of
intragroup conflict and group performance, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44
No. 2, pp. 238-51.
Kelley, H.H. (1979), Personal Relationship: Their Structure and Prophecies, Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
Krackhardt, D. and Stern, R.N. (1988), Informal networks and organizational crisis:
an experimental simulation, Social Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 51, pp. 123-40.
Kruglanski, A.W. and Mackio, D.M. (1990), Majority and minority influence: a judgmental
process analysis, European Review of Social Psychology, Vol. 1, pp. 229-61.
Labianca, G., Brass, D.J. and Gray, B. (1998), Social networks and perceptions of intragroup
conflict: the role of negative relationships and third parties, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 41, pp. 55-67.
Levine, J.M. and Moreland, R. (1990), Progress in small group research, in Rosenzweig, M.R.
and Porter, L.W. (Eds), Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 41, Annual Reviews, Palo Alto,
CA, pp. 585-643.
McGrath, J.E. (1984), Groups: Interaction and Performance, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Maier, N.R.F. (1967), Assets and liabilities in group problem-solving: the need for an integrative
function, Psychology Review, Vol. 74, pp. 239-49.
March, J. (1994), A Primer on Decision Making, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Nelson, R.E. (1989), The strength of strong ties: social networks and intergroup conflict in
organizations, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 32, pp. 377-401.
Olekalns, M., Putnam, L.L., Weingart, L.R. and Metcalf, L. (2008), Communication processes and
conflict management, in DeDreu, C.K.W. and Gelfand, M.J. (Eds), The Psychology of
Conflict and Conflict Management in Organization, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Mahwah, NJ, pp. 84-114.
Pearce, J.L. and Gregersen, H.B. (1991), Task interdependence and extrarole behavior: a test of
the mediating effects of felt responsibility, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 76 No. 6,
pp. 838-44.
Pearson, A.W., Ensley, M.D. and Amason, A.C. (2002), An assessment and refinement of Jehns
intragroup conflict scale, International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 13 No. 2,
pp. 110-26.
Pelled, L.H. (1996), Demographic diversity, conflict, and work group outcomes: an intervening
process theory, Organization Science, Vol. 7 No. 6, pp. 615-31.
IJCMA Pelled, L.H., Eisenhardt, K.M. and Xin, K.R. (1999), Exploring the black box: an analysis of work
group diversity, conflict, and performance, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 44
24,2 No. 1, pp. 1-28.
Pinkley, R.L. (1990), Dimensions of conflict frame: disputant interpretation of conflict, Journal
of Applied Psychology, Vol. 75, pp. 117-26.
Polzer, J.T., Crisp, C.B., Jarvenpaa, S.L. and Kim, J.W. (2006), Extending the faultline model to
146 geographically dispersed teams: how collocated subgroups can impair group functioning,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 679-92.
Pondy, L.R. (1967), Organizational conflict: concepts and models, Administrative Science
Quarterly, Vol. 12, pp. 296-320.
Priem, R. and Price, K. (1991), Process and outcome expectations for the dialectical inquiry,
devils advocacy, and consensus techniques of strategic decision making, Group and
Organization Studies, Vol. 16, pp. 206-25.

Provan, K.G. and Milward, H.B. (1995), A preliminary theory of interorganizational network
effectiveness: a comparative study of four community mental health systems,
Putnam, L.L. (1994), Productive conflict: negotiation as implicit coordination, International
Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 5, pp. 285-99.
Rispens, S., Greer, L.L. and Jehn, K.A. (2007), A study on the alleviating roles of trust and
connectedness in intragroup conflicts, International Journal of Conflict Management,
Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 325-44.
Roseman, I.J., Wiest, C. and Swartz, T.S. (1994), Phenomenology, behavior, and goals
differentiate discrete emotions, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 67,
pp. 206-21.
Ross, R.S. (1989), Conflict, in Ross, R. and Ross, J. (Eds), Small Groups in Organizational
Settings, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp. 139-78.
Rowley, T.J. (1997), Moving beyond dyadicties: a network theory of stakeholder influences,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 887-910.
Schwenk, C. and Valacich, J.S. (1994), Effects of devils advocacy and dialectical inquiry on
individuals versus groups, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
Vol. 59, pp. 210-22.
Sparrowe, R.T., Linden, R.C., Wayne, S.J. and Kraimer, M.L. (2001), Social networks and the
performance of individuals and groups, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 2,
pp. 316-25.
Staw, B.M., Sanderlands, L.E. and Dutton, J.E. (1981), Threat-rigidity effects in organizational
behavior: a multilevel analysis, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 26, pp. 501-24.
Wall, J.A. Jr and Callister, R.R. (1995), Conflict and its management, Journal of Management,
Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 515-58.
Wall, V. and Nolan, N. (1986), Perceptions of inequity, satisfaction, and conflict in task-oriented
groups, Human Relations, Vol. 39, pp. 1033-52.
Walton, R.E. and Dutton, J.M. (1969), The management of interdepartment conflict: a model and
review, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 14, pp. 73-84.
Wasserman, S. and Faust, K. (1994), Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Wayne, S.J., Bradway, L.K. and Liden, R.C. (1997), Task interdependence as a moderator of the
relation between group control and performance, Human Relations, Vol. 50, pp. 169-81.
Further reading Conflict
Edmondson, A. (1999), Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams, centrality
Evan, W. (1965), Conflict and performance in R&D organizations, Industrial Management
Review, Vol. 7, pp. 37-46.
Freeman, L. (1979), Centrality in social networks: conceptual clarification, Social Network,
Vol. 1, pp. 215-29. 147
Herzberg, F. (1968), One more time: how do you motivate employees?, Harvard Business
Review, pp. 53-62.
Korsgaard, M.A., Jeong, S.S., Mahony, D.M. and Pitariu, A.H. (2008), A multilevel view of
intragroup conflict, Journal of Management, Vol. 34 No. 6, pp. 1222-52.
Appendix. Questionnaire
.
With whom do you feel angry from time to time while in the team?
.
With whom do you feel tension from time to time while you are in the team?
.
With whom do you feel frictional from time to time while you are in the team?
. With whom do you always have different opinions about the tasks performed?
.
With whom do you always have disagreements over the ideas?
.
With whom do you always have differences about the content of decisions?
.
I work closely with my team members.
.
I must regularly coordinate my efforts with my team members.
.
The way I perform my job has a significant impact on my team members.
.
Compared with other members, I do a good job in my team.
.
Compared with other members, I am the best in performing the job,
.
Compared with other members, I always perform my job very well.
.
I feel comfortable to work with my team members.
.
I enjoy working with my team members.
Corresponding author
Ching Tsung Jen can be contacted at: malanyjen@yahoo.com.tw
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
This article has been cited by:
1. Maximiliano E. Korstanje. The Application of Monetary Awards in Tourist Organizations: 203-218.

[Crossref]

International Journal of Conflict Management: Article Information

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

International Journal of Conflict Management: Article Information

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

International Journal of Conflict Management

References: this document contains references to 67 other documents.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Relationship conflict network

Task conflict network

communication helps members to understand each others feelings and viewpoints.

In addition, relating to task conflict networks, the questions I asked were:

1. Age 2.7 0.93

Performance Job satisfaction

Age 2 0.199 * 2 0.205 * * * 2 0.157 * 2 0.128 2 0.056 2 0.080 2 0.013 0.023

R2 0.072 0.180 0.376 0.410 0.018 0.128 0.463 0.516

and job satisfaction

interaction term between task interdependency and the centrality of relationship

composition on team performance, International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 11

Organization Studies, Vol. 16, pp. 206-25.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

1. Maximiliano E. Korstanje. The Application of Monetary Awards in Tourist Organizations: 203-218.

Вам также может понравиться