INTRAGROUP CONFLICT

  1. What is intragroup conflict?
  2. Intragroup conflict data collection and analysis (Examples)
  3. Research on intragroup conflict from the field of translation studies
  4. Research on intragroup conflict from other fields
    1. Articles about intragroup conflict scale
    2. Articles about intragroup conflict–relationship conflict
    3. Articles about intragroup conflict–task conflict
    4. Articles about intragroup conflict–process conflict

———————————————————————————————————-

1. WHAT IS INTRAGROUP CONFLICT? 

“Intragroup conflict was initially categorized by theorists into two and then
later into three types—task, relationship, and finally process conflict (Amason
& Sapienza, 1997; Cosier & Rose, 1977; Guetzkow & Gyr, 1954; Jehn, 1995,
1997; Pelled, 1996; Pinkley, 1990; Wall & Nolan, 1986)” (Behfar, Mannix, Peterson, & Trochim, 2011, p. 128)

Relationship conflict:

  • “Interpersonal incompatibilities among group members [relating to] personality differences as well as differences of opinion and preferences regarding nontask issues (e.g. religion, politics, fashion)” (Jehn & Bendersky, 2003, p. 200).
  • “Relationship conflict is interpersonal animosity, tension,
    or annoyance among members (Amason & Sapienza, 1997; Guetzkow
    & Gyr, 1954; Jehn, 1995, 1997; Priem & Price, 1991; Wall & Nolan, 1986)” (Behfar, Mannix, Peterson, & Trochim, 2011, p. 128).

Task conflict: 

  • “Disagreements among group members about the content of the tasks being performed, including differences in viewpoints, ideas, and opinions” (Jehn & Bendersky, 2003, p. 200).
  • “Awareness of differences in viewpoints and opinions about the
    group’s task (Amason & Sapienza, 1997; Guetzkow
    & Gyr, 1954; Jehn, 1995, 1997; Priem & Price, 1991; Wall & Nolan, 1986)” (Behfar, Mannix, Peterson, & Trochim, 2011, p. 128).

Process conflict:

  • “Disagreements about assignments of duties and resources” (Jehn, 1997, p. 540)
  • “Disagreements about the composite of a team and who should do what, debates about resources, and fights about how to schedule tasks efficiently” (Jehn & Bendersky, 2003, p. 201).
  • “Represents how well groups are managing two important types of coordination activities: decisions about how to manage the logistical accomplishment of the task (task strategy) and decisions about how to coordinate people in accomplishing the task (Benne & Sheats, 1948; Hackman & Morris, 1975; Homans, 1950; Kabanoff, 1991; Marks, Mathieu, & Zaccaro, 2001; McGrath, 1964)”  (Behfar, Mannix, Peterson, & Trochim, 2011, p. 128).

Process conflict further categorization:

    • Logistical coordination conflict: “Issues of temporal and resource alignment, such as disagreement about time and resource allocation” (Jehn, 2014, p. 12), and
    • Contribution conflict: “Behaviors of group members that are perceived as not fair such as loafing, arriving late to meetings and generally not contributing equally” (Jehn, 2014, p. 12).

Useful References

  • Amason, A., & Sapienza, H. (1997). The effects of top management team size and
    interaction norms on cognitive and affective conflict. Journal of Management, 23,
    496-516. doi:10.1016/S0149-2063(97)90045-3
  • Behfar, K., Mannix, E., Peterson, R., & Trochim, W. (2011). Conflict in small groups: The meaning and consequences of process conflict. Small Group Research, 42(2), 127-176.
  • Benne, K., & Sheats, P. (1948). Functional roles of group members. Journal of Social
    Issues, 4(2), 41-49. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1948.tb01783.x
  • Cosier, R., & Rose, G. (1977). Cognitive conflict and goal conflict effects on task
    performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 19, 378-391.
    doi:10.1016/0030-5073(7)90071-X
  • Guetzkow, H., & Gyr, J. (1954). An analysis of conflict in decision-making groups.
    Human Relations, 7, 367-381. doi:10.1177/001872675400700307
  • Hackman, J., & Morris, C. (1975). Group tasks, group interaction process, and group
    performance effectiveness: A review and proposed integration. In L. Berkowitz
    (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 8, pp. 45-99). New York,
    NY: Academic Press.
  • Homans, G. (1950). The human group. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace.
  • Jehn, K. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 256-282. doi:0001-8392/
    95/4002-0256
  • Jehn, K. A. (2014). Types of conflict: The history and future of conflict definitions and typologies. In O. B. Ayoko, N. M. Ashkanasy, & K. A. Jehn (Eds.), Handbook of conflict management research (pp. 3-18).  Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
  • Jehn, K. A., & Bendersky, C. (2003). Intragroup conflict in organizations: A contingency perspective on the conflict-outcome relationship. Research in Organizational Behavior, 25, 187–243. doi:10.1016/S0191-3085(03)25005-X
  • Jehn, K. (1997). A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 530-557. doi:0001-8392/97/4203-0530
  • Kabanoff, B. (1991). Equity, equality, power, and conflict. Academy of Management Review, 16, 416-441. doi:10.2307/258869
  • Marks, M., Mathieu, J., & Zaccaro, S. (2001). A temporally based framework and
    taxonomy of team process. Academy of Management Review, 26, 356-376.
    doi:10.2307/259182
  • McGrath, J. (1964). Social psychology: A brief introduction. New York, NY: Holt,
    Rinehart, and Winston.
  • Pelled, L. (1996). Demographic diversity, conflict, and work group outcomes: An
    intervening process theory. Organization Science, 7, 615-631. doi:1047-7039/
    96/0706/0615
  • Pinkley, R. (1990). Dimensions of conflict frame: Disputant interpretations of conflict.
    Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 117-126. doi:0021-90IO/90
  • Priem, R., & Price, K. (1991). Process and outcome expectations for the dialectical
    inquiry, devil’s advocacy, and consensus techniques of strategic decision making.
    Group and Management Studies, 16, 206-225. doi:10.1177/105960119101600207
  • Wall, V., & Nolan, L. (1986). Perceptions of inequity, satisfaction, and conflict in taskoriented groups. Human Relations, 39, 1033-1052. doi:10.1177/001872678
    603901106

———————————————————————————————————-

2. INTRAGROUP CONFLICT: DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS (Examples)

1. Behfar, Mannix, Peterson, and Trochim (2011, p. 131) used the following approach with 225 MBA students (89.3% response rate):

Data Collection Method: One open-ended question

To capture team conflict experiences, participants were asked the following
open-ended question: “What types of disagreements or conflicts arose in
your core team this term?” This question was purposely broad to elicit comments
about any type of conflict.

Data Analysis Method: Inductive participant-based text analysis technique called concept mapping (ref: Jackson & Trochim, 2002; Trochim, 1989)

The purpose of analyzing the qualitative responses was to determine whether
(a) task, relationship, and process conflict are distinct, as experienced by
individuals in actual teams (rather than imposed by the questions that
researchers ask) and (b) participants’ conflict experiences are consistent with
current theorizing about conflict types. To maximize the potential for theory
building, participants’ responses were first analyzed using an inductive
participant-based text analysis technique called concept mapping (Jackson &
Trochim, 2002; Trochim, 1989). Then, the responses were examined again,
and rated, by experts on intragroup conflict.

Useful References

  • Behfar, K., Mannix, E., Peterson, R., & Trochim, W. (2011). Conflict in small groups: The meaning and consequences of process conflict. Small Group Research, 42(2), 127-176.
  • Jackson, K., & Trochim, W. (2002). Concept mapping as an alternative approach for
    the analysis of open-ended survey questions. Organizational Research Methods,
    5, 307-336. doi:10.1177/109442802237114
  • Trochim, W. (1989). An introduction to concept mapping for planning and evaluation.
    Evaluation and Program Planning, 12, 1-16. doi:10.1016/0149-7189(89)90016-5

———————————————————————————————————-

3. RESEARCH ON INTRAGROUP CONFLICT FROM THE FIELD OF TRANSLATION

 

 

———————————————————————————————————-

4.A. ARTICLES ABOUT INTRAGROUP CONFLICT SCALE

  • Cox, K. (2014). The new intragroup conflict scale: Testing and psychometric properties. Journal of Nursing Measurement, 22(1), 59-76. doi:10.1891/1061-3749.22.1.59
  • Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., Grohmann, A., & Kauffeld, S. (2011). Task and relationship conflict at work: Construct validation of a German version of Jehn’s Intragroup Conflict Scale. European Journal Of Psychological Assessment, 27(3), 171-178. doi:10.1027/1015-5759/a000064
  • Pearson, A. W., Ensley, M. D., & Amason, A. C. (2002). An assessment and refinement of Jehn’s intragroup conflict scale. International Journal Of Conflict Management, 13(2), 110.

———————————————————————————————————-

4.B. ARTICLES ABOUT INTRAGROUP CONFLICT–RELATIONSHIP CONFLICT

———————————————————————————————————-

4.C. ARTICLES ABOUT INTRAGROUP CONFLICT–TASK CONFLICT

———————————————————————————————————-

4.D. ARTICLES ABOUT INTRAGROUP CONFLICT–PROCESS CONFLICT

  • Behfar, K., Mannix, E., Peterson, R., & Trochim, W. (2011). Conflict in small groups: The meaning and consequences of process conflict. Small Group Research, 42(2), 127-176.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s