Relationship Conflict, Conflict Management, and Performance of Information Technology Teams

REFERENCES

• Alper S, Tjosvold D, Law KS. 2000. Conflict management, efficacy, and performance in organizational teams. Pers Psychol. 53:625–642.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson RE, Gerbing DW. 1988. Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol Bull. 103411–423.
   Google Scholar
• Ashforth, BE, Mael F. 1989. Social identity theory and the organization. Acad Manage Rev. 14:20–39.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barki H, Hartwick J. 2001. Interpersonal conflict and its management in information system development. MIS Q. 25:195–228.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bagozzi RP. 1980. Causal Modeling in Marketing. New York, NY: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Bagozzi RP. 1991. Further thoughts on the validity of measures of elation, gladness, and joy. J Pers Social Psychol. 61:98–104.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Behfar KJ, Peterson RS, Mannix EA, Trochim WMK. 2008. The critical role of conflict resolution in teams: A close look at the links between conflict type, conflict management strategies, and team outcomes. J Appl Psychol. 91:170–188.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bennet DA. 2001. How can I deal with missing data in my study? Aust N Z J Publ Health. 25:464–469.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bodtker AM, Jameson JK. 2001. Emotion in conflict formation and its transformation: Application to organizational conflict management. Int J Conflict Manage. 12:259–275.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Choi JN, Sy T. 2010. Group-level organizational citizenship behavior: Effects of demographic faultlines and conflict in small work groups. J Organiz Behav. 31:1032–1054.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cronbach LJ. 1951. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16:297–334.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cropanzano R, Aguinis H, Schminke M, Denham DL. 1999. Disputant reactions to managerial conflict resolution tactics – A comparison among Argentina, the Dominican Republic, Mexico, and the United States. Group Organiz Manage. 24:124–154.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Dreu CKW. 2006. When too little or too much hurts: Evidence for a curvilinear relationship between task conflict and innovation in teams. J Manage. 32:83–107.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Dreu CKW, Van Vianen AEM. 2001. Managing relationship conflict and the effectiveness of organizational teams. J Organiz Behav. 22:309–328.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Dreu CKW, Weingart LR. 2003. Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. J Appl Psychol. 88:741–749.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Wit FRC, Greer LL, Jehn KA. 2012. The paradox of intragroup conflict: A meta-analysis. J Appl Psychol. 97:360–390.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drach-Zahavy A. 2004. Exploring team support: The role of team’s design, values, and leader’s support. Group Dynamics - Theory Research and Practice. 8:235–252.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Entin EE, Serfaty D. 1999. Adaptive team coordination. Human Factors. 41:312–325.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Folger J, Poole M, Stutman R. 2001. Working through conflict: Strategies for relationships, groups and Organizations, 5th edition. New York, NY: Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Fornell C, Larcker DF. 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobserved variables and measurement error. J Marketing Res. 18:39–50.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Furst S, Blackburn R, Rosen B. 1999. Virtual team effectiveness: A proposed research agenda. Inf Syst J. 9:249–269.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gammage KL, Carron AV, Estabrooks PA.2001. Team cohesion and individual productivity - The influence of the norm for productivity and the identifiability of individual effort. Small Group Res. 32:3–18.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gefen D, Rigdon EE, Straub D. 2011. An update and extension to SEM guidelines for administrative and social science research. MIS Q. 35: iii–A7.
   Google Scholar
• Gibson CB. 2001. Me and us: Differential relationships among goal-setting training, efficacy and effectiveness at the individual and team level. J Organiz Behav. 22:789–808.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goncalo JA, Polman E, Maslach C. 2010. Can confidence come too soon? Collective efficacy, conflict, and group performance over time. Organiz Behav Human Decision Proces. 113:13–24.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greer LL, Jehn KA, Mannix EA. 2008. Conflict transformation a longitudinal investigation of the relationships between different types of intragroup conflict and the moderating role of conflict resolution. Small Group Research. 39:278–302.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grewal R, Cote JA, Baumgartner H. 2004. Multicollinearity and measurement error in structural equation models: Implications for theory testing. Marketing Sci. 23:519–529.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guimera R, Uzzi B, Spiro J, Amaral LAN. 2005. Team assembly mechanisms determine collaboration network structure and team performance. Sci. 308:697–702.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hair JF, Jr., Anderson RE, Tatham RL, Black WC. 1998. Multivariate Data Analysis. 5th ed., Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Hamann SB. 2001. Cognitive and neural mechanisms of emotional memory. Trends in Cognitive Sci. 5:394–400.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hamm-Kerwin S, Doherty A. 2010. Intragroup conflict in nonprofit sport boards. J Sport Manage. 24:245–271.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hatcher L. 1994. A Step-by-step Approach to Using the SAS System for Factor Analysis and Structural Equation Modeling. Cary, NC:SAS Institute, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Hempel PS, Zhang ZX, Tjosvold D. 2009. Conflict management between and within teams for trusting relationships and performance in China. J Organiz Behav. 30:41–65.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoegl M, Gemuenden HG. 2001. Teamwork quality and the success of innovative projects: A theoretical concept and empirical evidence. Organiz Sci. 12:435–449.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoegl M, Parboteeah KP. 2003. Goal setting and team performance in innovative projects: On the moderating role of teamwork quality. Small Group Res. 34:3–19.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hogg MA. 2001. A social identity theory of leadership. Pers Social Psychol Rev. 5:184–200.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hogg MA, Terry DJ. 2000. Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts. Acad Manage Rev. 25:121–140.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hogg MA, Terry DJ, White KM. 1995. A tale of two theories: A critical comparison of identity theory with social identity theory. Social Psychol Q. 58:255–269.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jehn KA. 1995. A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Sci Q. 40:256–282.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jehn KA, Northcraft GB, Neale MA. 1999. Why differences make a difference: A field study of diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups. Administrative Sci Q. 44:741–763.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kankanhalli A, Tan BCY. 2007. Conflict and performance in global virtual teams. J Manage Inf Syst. 23237–274.
   Google Scholar
• Kirchmeyer C, Cohen A. 1992. Multicultural groups – their performance and reactions with constructive conflict. Group Organiz Manage. 17:153–170.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kline RB 2010. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. 3rd edition, New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lau RS, Cobb AT. 2010. Understanding the connections between relationship conflict and performance: The intervening roles of trust and exchange. J Organiz Behav 31:898–917.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LePine JA, Piccolo RF, Jackson CL, Mathieu JE, Saul JR. 2008. A Meta-Analysis of teamwork processes: Tests of a multidimensional model and relationships with team effectiveness criteria. Pers Psychol. 61:273–307.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Locke EA, Latham GP. 2002. Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation. Am Psychol. 57:705–717.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Montoya-Weiss MM, Massey AP, Song M. 2001. Getting it together: Temporal coordination and conflict management in global virtual teams. Acad Manage J. 44:1251–1262.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mossholder KW, Bennett N, Kemery ER, Wesolowski MA. 1998. Relationships between bases of power and work reactions: The mediational role of procedural justice. J Manage. 24:533–552.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nunnally JC. 1993. Psychometric Theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• O’Leary-Kelly AM, Martocchio JJ, Frink DD. 1994. A review of influence of group goals on group performance. Acad Manage J. 37:1285–1301.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Podsakoff NP, Lee JY. 2003. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol. 88:879–903.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Podsakoff PM, Organ DW. 1986. Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. J Manage. 12:531–544.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Potter RE, Balthazard PA. 2002. Virtual team interaction styles: Assessment and effects. Int J Human-Comput Stud. 56:423–443.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robey D, Smith LA, Vijayasarathy LR. 1993. Information systems development projects. J Manage Inf Syst. 10:123–139.
   Google Scholar
• Sawyer S. 2001. Effects of intra-group conflict on packaged software development team performance. Inf Syst J. 11:155–178.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sobel ME. 1987. Direct and indirect effects in linear structural equation models. Sociological Methods and Res. 16:155–176.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simons TL, Peterson RS. 2000. Task conflict and relationship conflict in top management teams: The pivotal role of intragroup trust. J Appl Psychol. 85:102–111.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Somech A, Desivilya HS, Lidogoster H. 2009. Team conflict management and team effectiveness: The effects of task interdependence and team identification. J Organiz Behav. 30:359–378.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stets JE, Burke PJ. 2000. Identity theory and social identity theory. Social Psychol Q. 63:224–237.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stewart GL, Barrick MR. 2000. Team structure and performance: Assessing the mediating role of intrateam process and the moderating role of task type. Acad Manage J. 43:135–148.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tekleab AG, Quigley NR, Tesluk PE. 2009. A longitudinal study of team conflict, conflict management, cohesion, and team effectiveness. Group and Organiz Manage. 34:170–205.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thaler RH, Sunstein CR. 2008. Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tjosvold D, Hui C, Yu ZY. 2003. Conflict management and task reflexivity for team in-role and extra-role performance in China. Int J Conflict Manage. 14:141–163.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tuckman BW. 1965. Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychol Bull. 63:384–399.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ward AJ, Lankau MJ, Amason AC, Sonnenfeld JA, Agle BR. 2007. Improving the performance of top management teams. MIT Sloan Manage Rev. 48:85–90.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Warkentin M, Beranek PM. 1999. Training to improve virtual team communication. Inf Syst J. 9:271–289.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Widmeyer WN, Ducharme K. 1997. Team building through team goal setting J Appl Sport Psychol. 9:97–113.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar