Please wait a minute...
Acta Psychologica Sinica    2020, Vol. 52 Issue (3) : 345-356     DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2020.00345
Reports of Empirical Studies |
The impact of conflict on performance: The moderating effects of individual and team agreeableness
WEI Wei1,FANG Yanran2,LI Jiannan3,SHI Junqi4,MO Shenjiang4()
1 Lingnan College, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510275, China
2 Warrington College of Business, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, US
3 International School of Business & Finance, Sun Yat-sen University, Zhuhai 519082, China
4 School of Management, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China
Download: PDF(577 KB)   HTML Review File (1 KB) 
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks     Supporting Info
Guide   
Abstract  

Based on the nature of conflict, conflict within teams can be categorized as relationship conflict and task conflict. It is inevitable for team members to experience these two types of conflict with each other through daily interactions. As such, how dispositions of team members interact with intra-team conflict to minimize its harm and maximize its benefit appears to be an important research question. Prior research has primarily focused on how individual’s traits or team traits would affect the outcomes of conflict. According the Person-Group Fit theory, it’s necessary to study the interaction effect of the traits on both the individual and team level. Distinct from other personality factors in the Five Factor Model, agreeableness involves the motives for maintaining harmony and positive interpersonal relationship, which fundamentally determine the propensity for individuals to deal with others in social interactions. In conflict management scenarios, individuals with high agreeableness are more likely to adopt agreeable conflict management, characterized as integrating one another’s ideas and seeking to satisfy all members’ expectations, thus leading to more effective conflict resolution. Taking a multilevel perspective, this study investigated how individual-level agreeableness interacts with team-level agreeableness heterogeneity to impact the relations between task/relationship conflict and job performance.
Hypotheses were tested using multisource and time-lagged data collected from 64 teams. Data were collected from client service teams of a large state-owned bank located in South China. A total of 75 service teams of the bank (394 subordinates and 75 supervisors) were contacted and invited to participate. All participants were told that the data were used only for research purpose only, and their responses would be kept confidential and anonymous. Participants filled out the questionnaires during morning meetings, and research assistants then collected their responses after they completed the survey. The data were collected at three time points with two-month intervals. At Time 1, subordinates reported their levels of agreeableness as well as demographic information. Their immediate supervisors were also asked to report their demographic information. At Time 2 (two months after Time 1), subordinates were asked to report their perceptions of relationship conflict and task conflict within the team. At Time 3 (four months after Time 1), subordinates’ job performance was rated by their immediate supervisors. To ensure that the responses of participating team members reflect the whole team, we only included teams with at least 70% of members participating in the survey. In total, we collected 339 valid subordinate responses and 64 valid supervisor responses from 64 teams.
Most of the hypotheses were supported by data analysis. Results demonstrated that relationship conflict was negatively related to job performance, but the relationship between task conflict and job performance was not significant. Further, individual agreeableness both buffered the negative effect of relationship conflict and enhanced the positive effect of task conflict on job performance. Specifically, when individual agreeableness was high, the negative relationship between relationship conflict and job performance was non-significant. By contrast, when individual agreeableness was low, such relationship became negative and significant. As far as task conflict is concerned, when individual agreeableness was high, the positive relationship between task conflict and job performance was significant. However, when individual agreeableness was low such relationship was negative and significant. In addition, there were three-way interactions among individual conflict, individual agreeableness, and team agreeableness heterogeneity on job performance, such that the two-way interactions between task/relationship conflict and individual agreeableness were stronger when team agreeableness heterogeneity was low.
This study contributions to the current literature in several ways. First, our study moves beyond the single level perspective of intra-team conflict to examine the individual-team interface in conflict managing using person-group fit theory. Second, the current study highlights the essential role of agreeableness in the process of conflict management by examining the roles that individual agreeableness and team agreeableness heterogeneity play in shaping the relations between conflict and job performance. Third, by studying relationship conflict and task conflict simultaneously, this study reflected the effect of agreeableness in managing different types of conflict. Practically, our research informs the professional managers about managing team conflict in an effective manner. Based on our findings, when assigning new work teams or selecting new members for existing teams, it is beneficial to select similar team members with high agreeableness, especially when the team tasks involve frequent social interactions that are likely to trigger intrateam conflict.

Keywords agreeableness      team agreeableness heterogeneity      task conflict      relationship conflict      job performance     
ZTFLH:  B849:C93  
Corresponding Authors: Shenjiang MO     E-mail: mosj@zju.edu.cn
Issue Date: 18 January 2020
Service
E-mail this article
E-mail Alert
RSS
Articles by authors
Wei WEI
Yanran FANG
Jiannan LI
Junqi SHI
Shenjiang MO
Cite this article:   
Wei WEI,Yanran FANG,Jiannan LI, et al. The impact of conflict on performance: The moderating effects of individual and team agreeableness[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2020, 52(3): 345-356.
URL:  
http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/EN/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2020.00345     OR     http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/EN/Y2020/V52/I3/345
  
变量名 均值 组内SD 组间SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
个体层面
1 性别 0.35 0.48 0.25 -
2 教育水平 15.79 1.61 0.83 0.04 -
3 婚姻状况 1.81 0.53 0.31 -0.08 -0.04 -
4 团队任期 46.50 47.68 26.41 -0.05 -0.14** 0.21** -
5 关系冲突 1.62 0.66 0.54 0.04 -0.05 0.03 0.01 (0.88)
6 任务冲突 1.95 0.68 0.63 0.05 -0.05 -0.10 0.06 0.40** (0.86)
7 个体宜人性 5.82 0.81 0.43 0.07 -0.03 0.06 0.09 -0.05 -0.02 (0.94)
8 工作绩效 5.27 1.36 0.89 -0.05 0.04 0.06 0.07 -0.27** -0.04 0.10 (0.93)
团队层面
9 团队宜人性 5.82 - 0.43 - - - - - - - - - 0.08
10 团队宜人性异质性 0.75 - 0.29 - - - - - - - - - -
  
变量名 工作绩效
模型一 模型二 模型三
估计值 标准误差 p 估计值 标准误差 p 估计值 标准误差 p
截距 5.29** 0.07 0.00 5.29** 0.07 0.00 5.27** 0.07 0.00
控制变量
性别 0.02 0.17 0.92 0.02 0.17 0.93 0.00 0.17 0.99
教育水平 0.07 0.05 0.13 0.08 0.05 0.13 0.07 0.05 0.17
婚姻状况 0.09 0.16 0.57 0.09 0.16 0.58 0.14 0.16 0.38
团队任期 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.36
团队宜人性 0.19 0.18 0.27 0.18 0.18 0.30 0.21 0.18 0.23
自变量
关系冲突 -0.34* 0.15 0.03 -0.34* 0.15 0.03 -0.37* 0.16 0.02
任务冲突 0.19 0.18 0.28 0.20 0.18 0.27 0.22 0.18 0.23
调节变量
个体宜人性 0.09 0.11 0.40 0.08 0.11 0.45 0.09 0.11 0.43
团队宜人性异质性 -0.36 0.27 0.18 -0.41 0.26 0.12 -0.35 0.27 0.20
二重交互项
关系冲突 × 个体宜人性 1.23** 0.29 0.00 1.27** 0.28 0.00 0.77** 0.25 0.00
任务冲突 × 个体宜人性 1.15** 0.27 0.00 1.07** 0.26 0.00 1.18** 0.28 0.00
关系冲突 × 团队宜人性异质性 0.60 0.72 0.41 0.67 0.72 0.35 0.06 0.71 0.94
任务冲突 × 团队宜人性异质性 0.09 0.69 0.90 0.01 0.69 0.99 0.37 0.69 0.60
个体宜人性 × 团队宜人性异质性 0.41 0.39 0.30 0.60 0.32 0.06 0.27 0.40 0.49
三重交互项
关系冲突 × 个体宜人性 × 团队宜人性异质性 -3.52** 1.16 0.00 -4.00** 1.01 0.00
任务冲突 × 个体宜人性 × 团队宜人性异质性 -0.79 0.96 0.41 -2.25** 0.84 0.01
残差 1.55** 0.12 0.00 1.55** 0.12 0.00 1.59** 0.12 0.00
  
  
  
  
  
[1] Afzalur Rahim M . (2002). Toward a theory of managing organizational conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management, 13(3), 206-235.
[2] Amason A. C., Thompson K. R., Hochwater W. A., & Harrison A. W . (1995). Conflict: An important dimension in successful management teams. Organizational Dynamics, 24(2), 20-35.
[3] Antonioni D . (1998). Relationship between the big five personality factors and conflict management styles. International Journal of Conflict Management, 9(4), 336-355.
[4] Ayub N., AlQurashi S. M., Al-Yafi W. A., & Jehn K . (2017). Personality traits and conflict management styles in predicting job performance and conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management, 28(5), 671-694.
[5] Barrick M. R., Stewart G. L., Neubert M. J., & Mount M. K . (1998). Relating member ability and personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(3), 377-391.
[6] Beersma B., & de Dreu C. K. W . (2002). Integrative and distributive negotiation in small groups: Effects of task structure, decision rule, and social motive. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 87(2), 227-252.
[7] Behfar K. J., Peterson R. S., Mannix E. A., & Trochim W. M . (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(1), 170-188.
[8] Bradley B. H., Klotz A. C., Postlethwaite B. E., & Brown K. G . (2013). Ready to rumble: How team personality composition and task conflict interact to improve performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(2), 385-392.
[9] Brislin R. W . (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written material. In H. C. Triandis & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology(pp. 398-444). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
[10] 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(5), 1300-1309.
[11] Choi D., Oh I. S., & Colbert A. E . (2015). Understanding organizational commitment: A meta-analytic examination of the roles of the five-factor model of personality and culture. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(5), 1542-1567.
[12] Cohen P., Cohen P., West S. G., & Aiken L. S . (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
[13] DeChurch L. A., & Marks M. A . (2001). Maximizing the benefits of task conflict: The role of conflict management. International Journal of Conflict Management, 12(1), 4-22.
[14] 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(1), 83-107.
[15] de Dreu C. K. W . (2008). The virtue and vice of workplace conflict: Food for (pessimistic) thought. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(1), 5-18.
[16] 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(3), 309-328.
[17] 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(2), 360-390.
[18] Dijkstra M. T. M., van Dierendonck D., Evers A., & de Dreu C. K. W . (2005). Conflict and well-being at work: The moderating role of personality. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20(2), 87-104.
[19] Edwards J. R . (2001). Ten difference score myths. Organizational Research Methods, 4(3), 265-287.
[20] Ehrhart M. G., & Naumann S. E . (2004). Organizational citizenship behavior in work groups: A group norms approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 960-974.
[21] Enders C. K., & Tofighi D . (2007). Centering predictor variables in cross-sectional multilevel models: A new look at an old issue. Psychological Methods, 12(2), 121-138.
[22] Forsyth D. R . (1983). An introduction to group dynamics. Monterey, CA: Brooks/ Cole.
[23] Gonzalez-Mulé E., DeGeest D. S., McCormick B. W., Seong J. Y., & Brown K. G . (2014). Can we get some cooperation around here? The mediating role of group norms on the relationship between team personality and individual helping behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(5), 988-999.
[24] Graziano W. G., & Eisenberg N . (1997) Agreeableness: A dimension of personality. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of Personality Psychology (pp. 795-824). San Diego: Academic Press.
[25] Graziano W. G., Jensen-Campbell L. A., & Hair E. C . (1996). Perceiving interpersonal conflict and reacting to it: The case for agreeableness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(4), 820-835.
[26] Harrison D. A., & Klein K. J . (2007). What's the difference? Diversity constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1199-1228.
[27] Huang X., Iun J., Liu A., & Gong Y. P . (2010). Does participative leadership enhance work performance by inducing empowerment or trust? The differential effects on managerial and non-managerial subordinates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(1), 122-143.
[28] Humphrey S. E., Hollenbeck J. R., Meyer C. J., & Ilgen D. R . (2007). Trait configurations in self-managed teams: A conceptual examination of the use of seeding for maximizing and minimizing trait variance in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 885-892.
[29] Jansen K., & Kristof-Brown A . (2006). Toward a multidimensional theory of person-environment fit. Journal of Managerial Issues, 18(2), 193-212.
[30] Janssen O., & van Yperen N. W . (2004). Employees' goal orientations, the quality of leader-member exchange, and the outcomes of job performance and job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 47(3), 368-384.
[31] Jehn K. A . (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(2), 256-282.
[32] Jehn K. A . (1997). A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(3), 530-557.
[33] Jehn K. A., de Wit F. R. C., Barreto M., & Rink F . (2015). Task conflict asymmetries: Effects on expectations and performance. International Journal of Conflict Management, 26(2), 172-191.
[34] Jehn K. A., Northcraft G. B., & Neale M. A . (1999). Why differences make a difference: A field study of diversity, conflict and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(4), 741-763.
[35] Jensen-Campbell L. A., Gleason K. A., Adams R., & Malcolm K. T . (2003). Interpersonal conflict, agreeableness, and personality development. Journal of Personality, 71(6), 1059-1086.
[36] Jensen-Campbell L. A., & Graziano W. G . (2001). Agreeableness as a moderator of interpersonal conflict. Journal of Personality, 69(2), 323-362.
[37] Kristof A. L . (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49(1), 1-49.
[38] Kristof-Brown A. L., Zimmerman R. D., & Johnson E. C . (2005). Consequences of individuals’ fit at work: A meta- analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group, and person-supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 281-342.
[39] 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(4), 779-793.
[40] Ma J. P., Cai D., Xu W. T., & Cai Y. H . (2018). The power of seeking common ground while keeping difference: Literature review and future research directions for “person-team fit”. Human Resources Development of China, 35(1), 6-18.
[40] [ 马金鹏, 蔡地, 徐伟涛, 蔡亚华 . (2018). 求同存异的力量: “个人-团队匹配”的研究述评与未来展望. 中国人力资源开发, 35(1), 6-18.]
[41] Moberg P. J . (2001). Linking conflict strategy to the five-factor model: Theoretical and empirical foundations. International Journal of Conflict Management, 12(1), 47-68.
[42] 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(5), 733-758.
[43] Muchinsky P. M., & Monahan C. J . (1987). What is person- environment congruence? Supplementary versus complementary models of fit. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31(3), 268-277.
[44] Muthén L. K., & Muthén B. O . (2012). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén and Muthén.
[45] Olson B. J., Parayitam S., & Bao Y. J . (2007). Strategic decision making: The effects of cognitive diversity, conflict, and trust on decision outcomes. Journal of Management, 33(2), 196-222.
[46] Saucier G . (1994). Mini-markers: A brief version of Goldberg’s unipolar Big-Five markers. Journal of Personality Assessment, 63(3), 506-516.
[47] Schulz-Hardt S., Brodbeck F. C., Mojzisch A., Kerschreiter R., & Frey D . (2006). Group decision making in hidden profile situations: Dissent as a facilitator for decision quality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(6), 1080-1093.
[48] 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(1), 102-111.
[49] Somech A., Desivilya H. S., & Lidogoster H . (2009). Team conflict management and team effectiveness: The effects of task interdependence and team identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(3), 359-378.
[50] Tao A. H., Liu Y. H., & Wang P . (2018). Moderating effects of conflict types on disappointment in interpersonal conflict. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 50(2), 235-242.
[50] [ 陶爱华, 刘雍鹤, 王沛 . (2018). 人际冲突中失望的个人效应及冲突类型的调节作用. 心理学报, 50(2), 235-242.]
[51] 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(2), 170-205.
[52] Tsui A. S., & O'reilly C. A . (1989). Beyond simple demographic effects: The importance of relational demography in superior-subordinate dyads. Academy of Management Journal, 32(2), 402-423.
[53] Walumbwa F. O., & Schaubroeck J . (2009). Leader personality traits and employee voice behavior: Mediating roles of ethical leadership and work group psychological safety. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(5), 1275-1286.
[54] Wiesenfeld B. M., Raghuram S., & Garud R . (2001). Organizational identification among virtual workers: The role of need for affiliation and perceived work-based social support. Journal of Management, 27(2), 213-229.
[55] Wilkowski B. M., & Robinson M. D . (2008). The cognitive basis of trait anger and reactive aggression: An integrative analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12(1), 3-21.
[56] Zhou L., Wang M., Chen G., & Shi J. Q . (2012). Supervisors’ upward exchange relationships and subordinate outcomes: Testing the multilevel mediation role of empowerment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(3), 668-680.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
Copyright © Acta Psychologica Sinica
Support by Beijing Magtech