Please be on time

https://www.linkedin.com/learning/communicating-th…

https://create.piktochart.com/

I will provide the logins. Read the rubric and followed. I attached some materials too

With the abundance of information and interactions, conflict at the workplace and between teams will simmer and, in some cases, flare up, propelled by misunderstandings, personal complaints, or disagreements. However, getting pushed in as the leader does not help others handle the conflict, nor does attempting to figure out all the solutions yourself. So, the question becomes: what can mangers/leaders do to deal with conflict in the workplace? How can one help enhance the situation and solve conflict? Managing conflict is a job many leaders/managers struggle with or even try to avoid if they can. But it is feasible to translate discord and disagreement into constructive outcomes.

Set the stage- What was at stake?• Describe the conflict- What was the issue• Gain Viewpoint- How did you seek others’ views on the matter?• Seek out Agreement- How did you find a common ground?• Identify Resolution-How did you solve/manage the conflict?• Develop and action strategy- What did you measure did you put in place toforestall future recurrence?Requirements:Your presentation should be done using Pikochart. Cite at least three sources

Due Date: 11:59 pm EST Sunday of Unit 6
Points: 100
Overview:
With the abundance of information and interactions, conflict at the workplace and
between teams will simmer and, in some cases, flare up, propelled by
misunderstandings, personal complaints, or disagreements. However, getting pushed in
as the leader does not help others handle the conflict, nor does attempting to figure out
all the solutions yourself. So, the question becomes: what can mangers/leaders do to
deal with conflict in the workplace? How can one help enhance the situation and solve
conflict? Managing conflict is a job many leaders/managers struggle with or even try to
avoid if they can. But it is feasible to translate discord and disagreement into
constructive outcomes.
Instructions:
We have all solved or been part of conflict resolution in one way or the other. Use the
steps below to solve real or perceived conflict.
DO NOT REGURGITATE THE STEPS BUT USE IT TO SOLVE THE CONFLICT
•
•
•
•
•
•
Set the stage- What was at stake?
Describe the conflict- What was the issue
Gain Viewpoint- How did you seek others’ views on the matter?
Seek out Agreement- How did you find a common ground?
Identify Resolution-How did you solve/manage the conflict?
Develop and action strategy- What did you measure did you put in place to
forestall future recurrence?
Requirements:
Your presentation should be done using Pikochart. Cite at least three sources
Be sure to read the criteria below by which your work will be evaluated before
you write and again after you write.
Evaluation Rubric
CRITERIA
Content
Deficient
Needs
Improvement
Proficient
Exemplary
0-35 points
Lacks detail;
limited scope.
36-47 points
Reflects
common
knowledge but
is incomplete.
47-59 points
Reflects
common
knowledge but
is complete
and detailed.
60 points
Extends thought
beyond
common
knowledge; draws
connections to
other learning.
6-7 points
Visuals are
somewhat
used effectively
to represent the
subfields.
8-9 points
Visuals are
mostly used
effectively to
represent the
subfields.
10 points
Visuals are used
effectively to
represent the
subfields.
0-5 points
Visual – use of Visuals are
pictures and
minimally or not
graphics
used
effectively.
Scholarly
Source and
Citation
Structure and
Flow
Grammar and
Spelling
0 points
Reference
citations are
absent.
4-5 points
Reference citations
are included and
correct.
—
—
0-5 points
6-7 points
8-9 points
10 points
Flow is poor.
Structure is
inappropriate.
Transitions are
minimal or
absent.
Significant
redundancy is
evident.
Flow is
adequate.
Structure may
be too long or
too short.
Transitions are
minimal, and
redundancy is
evident.
Flow is good.
Structure is
mostly
appropriate.
Transitions are
present, and
redundancies
are minimal.
Flow is excellent.
Structure is clear,
and transitions are
smooth and
consistent.
Inappropriate
redundancies are
absent.
0-8 points
Errors impede
professional
presentation;
guidelines not
followed.
9-11 points
Numerous
errors
somewhat
interfere with
professional
presentation.
12-14 points
Few errors that
do not impede
professional
presentation.
15 points
Writing and format
are clear,
professional, and
error-free.
Team Performance Management
Emerald Article: Conflict management and effectiveness in virtual teams
Pilar Pazos
Article information:
To cite this document: Pilar Pazos, (2012),”Conflict management and effectiveness in virtual teams”, Team Performance Management,
Vol. 18 Iss: 7 pp. 401 – 417
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13527591211281138
Downloaded on: 16-01-2013
References: This document contains references to 76 other documents
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
This document has been downloaded 188 times since 2012. *
Users who downloaded this Article also downloaded: *
Pilar Pazos, (2012),”Conflict management and effectiveness in virtual teams”, Team Performance Management, Vol. 18 Iss: 7 pp. 401
– 417
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13527591211281138
Pilar Pazos, (2012),”Conflict management and effectiveness in virtual teams”, Team Performance Management, Vol. 18 Iss: 7 pp. 401
– 417
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13527591211281138
Pilar Pazos, (2012),”Conflict management and effectiveness in virtual teams”, Team Performance Management, Vol. 18 Iss: 7 pp. 401
– 417
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13527591211281138
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by Old Dominion University
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
With over forty years’ experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in
business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as
well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 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/1352-7592.htm
Conflict management and
effectiveness in virtual teams
Conflict
management and
effectiveness
Pilar Pazos
Department of Engineering Management and Systems Engineering,
Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia, USA
401
Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to explore the role of goal-oriented attitudes and behaviors as
antecedents of conflict management and the subsequent impact of conflict management on team
outcomes in virtual teams. Of particular interest is the role of “commitment to team goals” as a
predictor of successful conflict management and the subsequent impact of conflict management on
team outcomes.
Design/methodology/approach – This paper describes the results from a quasi-experimental
study examining the relationships among commitment to team goals, conflict management and team
outcomes in virtual teams. First, it provides an in depth review of relevant empirical findings. Next, it
describes a study examining the relationships between three sets of variables: commitment to team
goals; conflict management; and team outcomes (performance and attitudinal) in the context of virtual
teams. Data were collected from 141 students grouped in 39 teams size 3 to 4 that were part of four
cohorts of an Engineering Management course.
Findings – The results provide some preliminary evidence that conflict management mediated the
relationships between goal commitment and team outcomes. Results suggest that commitment to team
goals is a significant predictor of successful conflict management. Findings also suggest that teams
that are more actively involved in preventing and solving their conflict experience a significant
increase in the relationship between commitment to team goals and team performance, suggesting that
use of effective conflict management can support team effectiveness in the context of virtual teams.
Finally, limitations and suggestions for future research are presented.
Originality/value – This paper sheds some light into the role conflict as a mediator on the
relationship between goal commitment and virtual team effectiveness. It provides preliminary
evidence that conflict management plays a critical role in enhancing virtual team effectiveness.
Keywords Virtual teams, Conflict, Performance management, Team effectiveness,
Conflict management, Communication technologies
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Virtual teams (VT) are becoming prevalent in the current corporate environment.
According to The Wall Street Journal, over half of companies with an employee base of
5,000 or more use virtual teams (De Lisser, 1999). McDonough et al. (2001) also
predicted that in the upcoming years almost two-thirds of new product development
teams will evolve into virtual teams. In line with these trends, a survey by the Gartner
Group found that more than 60 percent of professional employees work in VTs
(Kanawattanachai and Yoo, 2002). This increased interest in harnessing the potential
of VTs needs to be supported by an understanding of the key drivers of VT
performance.
The author truly appreciates the input of anonymous reviewers, which helped to strengthen this
article.
Team Performance Management
Vol. 18 No. 7/8, 2012
pp. 401-417
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1352-7592
DOI 10.1108/13527591211281138
TPM
18,7/8
402
Several definitions of VTs exist, but for the purpose of this paper, the term is
defined as a group of geographically and/or temporally dispersed individuals brought
together via information and telecommunication technologies to work towards a
common goal. A specific aspect of VTs that has been largely ignored is conflict
prevention and conflict management and their subsequent impact on team attitudinal
and performance outcomes. Conflict management has been recognized as a particularly
critical process in the context of VTs due to factors such as increased social distance,
use of information and communication technologies, prevalence of asynchronous
communication, etc. Virtual teams cannot necessarily rely as much on social cues and
mechanisms and have their limited access to rich interaction among members. It has
been noted that virtual teams can specially benefit from temporal coordination
mechanisms and goal coordination and alignment as those processes can help enhance
team functioning and performance (Marks et al., 2001; McGrath, 1991; Montoya-Weiss
et al., 2001). Understanding the role that conflict management plays in the relationship
between commitment to team goals and team outcomes is vital in preventing
relationship conflict while supporting constructive disagreements.
Conflict has long been the focus of research in the area of teams ( Jehn and Mannix,
2001; Onkman et al., 2010) but little is known about the specific factors that support
successful conflict management in VTs and how conflict management processes
impact team outcomes. A thorough literature search revealed no prior empirical
research assessing how conflict management may work in tandem with goal oriented
attitudes and behaviors to influence team effectiveness. This study examines the
relationships between three sets of variables in the context of VTs: commitment to
team goals as an input variable, conflict management as a mediator variable, team
performance and satisfaction as team outcomes. The reported study is grounded on the
IMOI (input-mediator-output-input) model of team performance. The IMOI model was
inspired on previous systemic approaches (e.g. Hackman, 1987; and McGrath, 1991)
and it is aimed at shedding light on the factors affecting the effectiveness of
small-groups (Martins et al., 2004; Mathieu et al., 2008).
Figure 1 conceptual model used in this study including the variables investigated
and their hypothesized relationships. The model was grounded on the IMOI framework
(Cohen and Bailey, 1997; Mathieu et al., 2008). Three types of variables were
investigated: input, mediator and outcomes. These variables illustrate the original
intent of the study, they were grounded in prior theoretical findings and their construct
validity was evaluated using factor analysis (see Methods section).
1.1 Input variables
The input variable evaluated in this study was commitment to team goals. This
variable was defined as the extent to what team members took responsibility for the
team outcomes and were committed to a collective goal. Commitment to team goals
was measured using four items based on the work of Pazos et al. (2011). For a more
detailed description of this measure see section 3.2.
Figure 1.
Proposed research model
1.2 Mediator variables
Conflict
Conflict management was evaluated as a mediator between commitment to team goals management and
and team outcomes. Conflict management relates to the team’s ability to play an active
effectiveness
role in preventing conflict before it emerges and in resolving existing conflict. We will
use a team process approach to evaluate conflict management that considers the extent
to which teams actively manage their conflict (e.g. Jehn, 1995; Marks et al., 2001). The
approach to measuring conflict management used in this paper incorporates two types
403
of conflict management processes: preemptive conflict management, which involves
establishing conditions to prevent or guide team conflict before it occurs, and reactive
conflict management, which involves working through disagreements among team
members (Marks et al., 2001). Our approach assesses the extent to which teams engage
in preventing conflict and whether they are prepared to manage it when it arises
(Tekleab et al., 2009). Teams that manage their conflicts effectively tend to be more
proactive in preventing conflict, more open in discussing differing opinions and tend to
play a more active role in solving their differences (Jehn, 1995).
1.3 Outcomes
Team outcome variables consisted of perceived performance and satisfaction.
Perceived level of performance was measured using five survey items based on a
previous construct by Mortensen and Hinds (2001). Satisfaction was measured using a
construct based on 5 items based on the work of Van der Vegt et al. (2001). This item
was revised based on the results from the factor analysis and reduced to two items. See
definition of measures for additional details on the variable.
2. Background
In this section we will present an in depth review of prior research describing
relationships between the input, mediators, and outcome variables in the model.
2.1 Relationship between input factors (commitment to team goals) and mediator
(conflict management)
Goal setting and goal alignment is a well-documented factor in the team related
literature (Mento et al., 1987). In comparing face-to-face groups to VTs, some
researchers have found that conflict is more likely to occur in virtual contexts partly
due an increased difficulty in achieving goal alignment and goal commitment
(Mortensen and Hinds, 2001). The extent and effects of conflict in VTs has been found
to depend on several contingency factors. Mortensen and Hinds (2001) found that,
within VTs, members’ perception of having a common group identity reduced the
amount of conflict. Hertel et al. (2005) suggest the importance of creating a shared
context by focusing on early experiences within the team. Those initial experiences
tend to focus on key processes such as goal setting and role clarification. Poole et al.
(1991) found that the ability of VTs to manage their conflict in productive ways also
depended on how teams adapted to and used the available communication technology
to handle conflict.
2.2 Relationship between inputs and outcomes
The significance of commitment to team goals in the performance of an effective team
has been largely acknowledged in the team literature (Larson and LaFasto, 1989;
TPM
18,7/8
404
Kirkman et al., 2002). Team members that feel responsible for the collective result tend
to be great contributors to the team (Pazos and Beruvides, 2011). Commitment to goals
may be more important in a team than in an individual setting because there is more
potential for conflict or disagreement on team’s goals and responsibilities (Pazos et al.,
2007). The goal-performance relationship is strongest when people are committed to
their goals. Commitment is most important and relevant when goals are difficult (Klein
et al., 1999) because they require more effort and are usually associated with lower
chances of success (Erez and Zidon, 1984). Likewise, a clearly defined mission has been
recognized as critical to team performance and satisfaction according to both the
conceptual (Gladstein, 1984; Hackman, 1987; Larson and Schaumann, 1993; Shea and
Guzzo, 1987; Sundstrom et al., 1990) and empirical literatures (Weingart, 1992; Weldon
et al., 1991; Pazos and Beruvides, 2011). Prior studies suggest that team goals lead to
greater team success when they are challenging, but attainable (Larson and LaFasto,
1989; Likert, 1961).
Goals and role clarity affect team performance and satisfaction through four
mechanisms. First, clarity of goals and roles serve a directive function; they direct
attention and effort toward goal-relevant activities and away from goal-irrelevant
activities. This effect occurs both cognitively and behaviorally. For example, Rothkopf
and Billington (1979) found that students with specific learning goals paid attention to
and learned more effectively. Locke and Bryan (1969) observed that people who were
given feedback about multiple aspects of their performance on a driving task improved
their performance on the dimensions for which they had goals but not on other
dimensions. Second, clarity of goals and roles has an energizing function. This has
been shown with tasks that: require physical effort, such as the ergometer (Bandura
and Cervone, 1983); entail repeated performance of simple cognitive tasks, such as
addition; utilize measurements of subjective effort (Bryan and Locke, 1967); and utilize
physiological indicators of effort (Sales, 1970). Third, clarity of goals and roles has also
been found to impact persistence. When participants are allowed to control the time
they spend on a task, hard goals prolong effort (LaPorte and Nath, 1976). Fourth,
clarity of goals and roles affect action indirectly by leading to the use of task-relevant
knowledge and strategies to properly prioritize and scheme a plan of action (Wood and
Locke, 1990).
2.3 Relationship between mediators (conflict management) and outcomes
Researchers have long stated that conflict is an important emerging state that allows
teams to make better decisions because more alternatives are generated and considered
prior to a decision being reached (Jehn and Mannix, 2001; Marks et al., 2001). Research
has also shown that conflict management behavior is an important determinant of
team performance (Baron, 1989; Putnam, 1986; Van de Vliert and De Dreu, 1994). In the
virtual team context, prior studies have found a higher likelihood of uninhibited
behavior by team members when compared to face-to-face interactions (Martins et al.,
2004; Pazos et al., 2007). Siegel et al. (1986) and Pazos and Beruvides (2011) found that
uninhibited behavior such as swearing, insults, and name-calling was significantly
more likely in computer mediated groups than in face-to-face groups. Similarly, Sproull
and Kiesler (1986) noted greater self-absorption (individuals focused more on
themselves than on others) and uninhibited behavior in e-mail when compared to
face-to-face communication. De Dreu and Weingart (2003) findings suggest that
relationship conflict between team members channels cognitive and emotional
Conflict
resources to deal with personal relationships and friction, rather than devoting these management and
resources to working on the team’s task and goals.
effectiveness
Van de Vliert et al. (1995) hypothesized and found support for the effect of conflict
management on relational outcomes (e.g. mutual trust and quality of personal
relationships), which are conceptually related to team satisfaction. This empirical
evidence suggests that teams with higher levels of conflict management may be likely
405
to develop greater levels of cohesion and a more satisfactory team experience.
So far we have described the state of the art knowledge related to the input,
mediator and outcome variables explored in this study. Next, we present the results of
a study using a quasi-experimental design approach into exploring the relationship
between variables in the suggested model (see Figure 1) using the context of a graduate
level engineering management course.
3. Methodology
The main goal of the study was to explore the relationships between commitment to
team goal and team outcomes (perceived performance and satisfaction) and the
mediating role of conflict management on that relationship. The following sections
describe the context of the study, the main variables being evaluated along with its
definitions, and the analysis conducted to explore the relationships among the
variables.
3.1 Context of the study
This study was conducted at a public university in Virginia. In total, 141 subjects from
four sections of a graduate level Engineering Management course participated in the
study. All sections were taught by the same instructor using identical syllabus and
guidelines. Students were randomly assigned to 39 groups of size 3 to 4. The students
were primarily full-time employees at various organizations and were part-time master
engineering management students. Each group worked together for a period of 13 weeks
to complete a project consisting of an analysis of a large private company. The project
was based on the team’s independent research on the company, and it included analysis,
problem identification and recommendations for improvement. The main deliverable
was a group project report and a presentation at the end of the semester along with a
group portfolio including: team charter, team project plan and team collaboration web
site. Participants’ gender was 75 per cent male and 25 per cent female and ages ranged
from 22 to 55. On average, the students were currently working 39.2 hours per week at
their jobs. Participants were blind to the hypotheses of the study.
This study focused on identifying the relationships between goal commitment and
outcomes in a virtual team setting and the mediating role of conflict management on
that relationship. Data were collected using an electronic survey consisting of 15 items
excluding demographic questions. Two experts in team performance measurement
reviewed all items to ensure content validity. The survey was also pilot-tested with two
teams to ensure that the wording of the items aligned with the researchers intent. As a
result of their feedback some items were revised. Construct validity of the survey was
also evaluated using exploratory factor analysis.
The surveys were completed within a week of the project final submission and
before grades were assigned to avoid some potential bias. The Institutional Review
TPM
18,7/8
406
Table I.
Relevant variables
Board approved the protocol and data collection for this study. Next, we define the
main variables and the instruments used in their assessment.
3.2 Relevant measures
Using exploratory factor analysis, we examined the underlying factor structure of the
items in the questionnaire. The analysis was conducted using PASW/SPSS version 20.
We used the maximum likelihood method and oblique rotation to evaluate the
underlying factors along with scree plot to determine the number of factors to include
in the model. A 0.35 loading was cut-off point for deciding to include items in a scale.
The scree plot and Eigen values support the proposed dimensions (see discussion on
results of factor analysis later in this section).
Commitment to team goals. This variable was defined as the extent to which team
members were committed to a common goal and supported each other in
accomplishing that goal. We assessed goal commitment using a four-item measure
developed by Pazos et al. (2011). A sample item is “Our team was united in trying to
reach its goals for performance”. The coefficient alpha for goal commitment was 0.91
indicating high reliability.
We evaluated Conflict Management as a process mediator of the relationship
between the input variable and team outcomes. Conflict management measured the
extent to which the team was able to prevent negative conflict and solve emerging
conflict. We assessed conflict management using a four-item measure developed by
Tekleab et al. (2009) with a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). A sample item for this scale is “Conflict is dealt with
openly on this team.” Exploratory factor analysis resulted on all items loading on a
single factor. The reliability coefficient for this scale was a ¼ 0.88.
Perceived performance. We adapted a performance measure from Ancona and
Caldwell (1992), which included team member’s ratings of their team along five
dimensions: efficiency, quality, technical innovation, adherence to requirements, and
work excellence. Team members rated each question on a five-point Likert scale in
which 1 ¼ poor and 5 ¼ excellent. The five-item scale showed high (a ¼ 0.95)
reliability.
Satisfaction. We used a measure of satisfaction based on the work by Van der Vegt
et al. (1998) and Flynn et al. (2001) to assess the overall team satisfaction with processes
and outcomes. The initial measure had 4 items but after factor analysis two items were
dropped as they loaded poorly in the factor. The final measure consisted of two
questions. The resulting reliability of the measure was a ¼ 0.93. Table I indicates the
variable category, name, corresponding items in the survey, and anchors.
Variable type Variable name
Items Range of values (anchors)
Input
Mediator
Outcome
Outcome
1-4
5-8
9-13
14-15
Commitment to team goals
Conflict management
Perceived performance
Satisfaction with team process and
outcomes
1-5 (strongly disagree-strongly agree)
1-5 (strongly disagree-strongly agree)
1-5 (poor-excellent)
1-5 (strongly disagree-strongly agree)
In order to justify aggregation at the group level of dependent and independent
Conflict
variables we used a measure of within group agreement (rWG) developed by James et al. management and
(1984). rWG has been suggested as an indicator of the extent to which group members
effectiveness
agree in their evaluations of the variables considered in the study. The aim of this
analysis is to provide justification to the aggregation of measures within each team.
We used a uniform distribution to represent random responses from team members.
For all teams, it was observed that rWG . .80, suggesting strong agreement. Thus,
407
based on the rWG estimates, aggregating the individual data to the team level can be
justified.
Exploratory Factor analysis was conducted on the independent variables to explore
the multidimensionality of the data. Results justified the use of the two constructs (goal
commitment and conflict management). Due to the limited size of the sample, only
exploratory factor analysis was conducted. The extraction method used was maximum
likelihood with oblique rotation. Oblique rotation derives factor loadings based on the
assumption that the factors are likely to be correlated, which is the case in this study.
Table II shows the loadings that resulted from the factor analysis, which support a
two-factor structure for the independent variables consistent with the conceptual
model in Figure 1.
The scree plot in Figure 2 further supports the two-factor structure as indicated by
the elbow on the graph seen after the second factor. The red line just before the elbow
shows components with eigenvalues greater than 1. The first factor accounted for
69 percent of the variance, whereas the second accounted for 20 percent.
3.3 Hypotheses
Next we present the hypotheses in the alternative form along with the rationale
supporting them.
Lack of a common goal in the team may cause team members to work towards their
own personal agendas instead of collaborating toward a team goal. Prior research
determined that goal setting in VTs is positively associated with cohesion,
commitment, collaboration, decision quality, and numbers of alternatives generated
(Martins et al., 2004; Huang et al., 2002). Researchers suggest that work team members
that are not committed to each other or to a common goal are more likely to leave the
team or even the organization (Larson and LaFasto, 1989). It has been argued that
Factor
1
Goal commitment 1
Goal commitment 2
Goal commitment 3
Goal commitment 3
Conflict management 1
Conflict management 2
Conflict management 3
Conflict management 3
Extraction Method: Maximum Likelihood
Rotation Method: Oblique rotation
Rotation converged in three iterations
2
0.699
0.984
0.840
0.670
0.820
0.967
0.758
0.601
Table II.
Factor loadings
TPM
18,7/8
408
Figure 2.
Scree plot
developing a shared vision or mission is especially critical for VTs due to diminished
levels of personal interaction and lack of shared context (Blackburn et al., 2003). In fact,
Lurey and Raisinghani (2001) found that clarifying mission and goals is a critical
element to support successful VT processes. As a result, we have developed H1.
H1. There is a significant positive direct relationship between commitment to
team goals and team outcomes (performance and satisfaction).
In VTs, reduced levels of social presence may cause VT members to feel more
disconnected to the team and less accountable for results (Massey et al., 2003). In
addition, it is not as easy for VT members to receive guidance regarding their tasks
from their managers as it is for face-to-face teams (Shin, 2005). VT members have less
opportunity to clarify their tasks and roles compared FTF team members. As a result,
VT members are more exposed to task, role and responsibility ambiguity and these
factors can cause conflict in VTs (Shin, 2005) which in turn makes the role of conflict
prevention and conflict resolution very critical in supporting team outcomes and a
viable team experience. Researchers have found that the virtual context can result on
an increase of uninhibited behavior when compared to face-to-face interactions
(Martins et al., 2004; Siegel et al., 1986) along with greater self-absorption (Sproull and
Kiesler, 1986) (individuals focused more on themselves than on others) and uninhibited
behavior. Teams who are able to address conflict directly are expected to develop a
more open and constructive team environment (Tekleab et al., 2009; Brett, 1984;
Campbell and Dunnette, 1968; De Dreu et al., 2000; Montoya-Weiss et al., 2001; Moore,
1986). Van de Vliert et al. (1995) hypothesized and found support for the effect of
conflict management on relational outcomes (e.g. mutual trust and quality of personal
relationships) which are conceptually related to team satisfaction. This empirical
evidence suggests that teams with higher levels of conflict management may be likely
Conflict
to develop greater levels of cohesion and a more satisfactory team experience.
management and
As a result, we expect that successful conflict management in virtual teams will
effectiveness
enhance team outcomes by supporting positive and goal-oriented behaviors and
controlling negative ones, leading to the following two hypotheses.
H2. The effect of goal commitment on perceived team performance is mediated
through conflict management.
409
H3. The effect of goal commitment on satisfaction is mediated through conflict
management.
3.4 Analysis
The main unit of analysis in this study was the team; therefore, data were not analyzed
at the individual level. Team level variables were calculated as the averages of the
individual team members’ values for all variables. We used a test for direct and
mediation effects with bootstrapping (Preacher and Hayes, 2004) using PASW/SPSS
version 20 to conduct the analysis. Simulation research shows that bootstrapping is
more powerful than the Sobel test and the causal steps approach to testing intervening
variable effects (MacKinnon et al., 2004; Williams and MacKinnon, 2008). The analysis
tested a simple mediation model with commitment to goals as independent variable
and performance and satisfaction as dependents. The mediator variable was conflict
management.
Table III shows data on descriptive statistics and correlations of the variables
evaluated in this study.
4. Results
The nonparametric method used to test direct and mediated effects is based on
bootstrapping (Preacher and Hayes, 2004). The method took 5,000 samples from the
obtained data (with replacement after each specific number is selected) and calculated
mediational effects for each sample.
First, we tested the existence of the direct relationship between independent and
dependent variables. Based on the output from the mediation test. We found that there
is a significant and direct relationship between commitment to team goals and
performance. We also found a direct positive relationship between commitment to team
goals and satisfaction. Results of the direct relationship between independent and
dependent variables are shown in Table IV.
1
2
3
4
Variable name
Mean
Std dev
1
2
3
Commitment to team goals
Conflict management
Performance
Satisfaction
4.2295
3.8925
3.6954
4.1487
0.51246
0.54743
0.57503
0.56022
0.577 * *
0.616 * *
0.440 * *
0.717 * *
0.303
0.524 * *
Note: * *Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed)
Table III.
Descriptive statistics of
relevant variables
TPM
18,7/8
410
Table IV.
Direct effect of
commitment to team
goals on performance and
satisfaction
Table V.
Bootstrapped point
estimates for the indirect
effects of conflict
management on the
outcome variables
Table VI.
Results of the hypotheses
test
H2 concerned the mediating effects of conflict management on the relationships
between goal commitment and perceived performance. H3 tested the mediating effect
of conflict management on the relationship between goal commitment and satisfaction.
Table V shows the results of the mediation effect on the two outcome variables. The
mediation analysis was based on 5,000 bootstrap samples. The bias corrected and
accelerated 95 percent confidence intervals were then examined. If the confidence
intervals do not contain zero, the point estimate is significant at the level indicated.
Bias-corrected 95 percent confidence intervals corresponding to the mediating effect of
conflict management on performance is significant since the interval shown in Table V
does not include zero. On the other hand, the mediating effect of conflict management
on team satisfaction is not significant, since the corresponding interval on Table V
does include zero.
The analysis suggests that goal commitment is a significant predictor of team
performance and satisfaction in a virtual team setting. The results also show that
conflict management mediates the relationship between goal commitment and
performance. That is, the impact of goal commitment on team performance is partially
explained by the teams approach to conflict management. Interestingly, conflict
management did not mediate the relationship with attitudinal outcomes measured in
terms of satisfaction. These results will be further discussed in the following section
(see Table VI).
Variable
Coeff
SE
t
p
R2
Performance
Satisfaction
0.3402
0.4348
0.1492
0.1999
2.2804
2.1753
0.0286
0.0363
0.58
0.19
Outcome variable
Performance
Satisfaction
Product of ab coefficients
Point estimate
SE
0.3700
0.0891
0.1554
0.1794
BCa 95 percent CI
Lower
Upper
0.1119
2 0.1758
0.7203
0.5335
Note: BCa CI ¼ bias corrected and accelerated confidence intervals
Hypothesis
Supported
H1. There is a significant positive relationship between goal commitment and
the outcome variables (performance and satisfaction)
Yes
H2. The direct effect of goal commitment on perceived team performance is
partially mediated through conflict management
Yes
H3. The direct effect of goal commitment on team satisfaction is mediated
through conflict management
No
5. Discussion and limitations
Conflict
The purpose of this study was to increase our understanding of antecedents and management and
outcomes of conflict in VTs. In particular, this study explored role of conflict
effectiveness
management on the relationship between goal commitment and outcomes (perceived
performance and satisfaction). The first research question evaluated if commitment to
the team goals is a predictor of successful virtual team outcomes. The second question
aimed at evaluating if successful conflict management and increased cohesion can
411
strengthen the relationship between goal commitment and team outcomes.
Our findings suggest that commitment to team goals is a significant predictor of
team outcomes. In addition, teams that are more actively involved in conflict resolution
result on higher perceived performance and satisfaction with the team process and
outcomes. That is, conflict management has an additive effect to the relationship
between goal commitment and team performance. However, that additive effect is not
present in attitudinal outcomes measured in terms of team satisfaction with the
outcomes and with the process.
The failure to reject H3 warrants further examination. One possible explanation of
this result might stem from the teams’ make up and from the fact that individuals in
the teams had diverse nationalities including American, Chinese, Turkish, etc. Some
teams were all made up of American students, whereas others had one or two
non-American. People from different cultures have been found to differ in the ways in
which they experience, handle and solve conflict within their teams (Elron, 1997). As a
result, they may not be equally comfortable or satisfied with their team’s conflict
management approach. For instance, some groups might have a preference for
addressing conflict in a direct fashion whereas others prefer to do it in an implicit way.
Other teams may have a preference for directly handling relationship conflict by
attempting to transform it into task-related conflict. In a classic study of string
quartets, Murnighan and Conlon (1991) found that the most successful quartets dealt
with task conflict implicitly rather than through a more direct fashion, thereby keeping
conflict task-based. Different national cultures have been known by having different
preferences as to how to handle conflict (Hofstede, 1980). These cultural differences
could have impacted the perceived satisfaction of team members.
Data suggests a statistically significant positive relationship between commitment
to team goals and conflict management. That is, teams that focus their initial efforts on
establishing clear goals for the team and whose members are committed to those goals
were more likely to prevent and manage conflict more effectively. This results support
prior findings in other contexts suggesting that commitment to team goals and shared
responsibility for the team outcomes serve a directive function; they help the team
direct attention and effort toward goal-relevant activities and away from
goal-irrelevant activities (Tekleab et al., 2009). Goal commitment and goal clarity is
especially critical for VTs due to their reduced social presence (Pazos and Beruvides,
2011). Our findings support the idea that formalizing work processes and
responsibilities during the goal setting process, increasing transparency and
accountability are a critical elements to support constructive conflict and increase
cohesiveness in VTs.
To prevent negative conflict, members need to establish the team’s own operating
principles, roles, responsibilities, goals and metrics (Massey et al., 2003; Wilson, 2003).
Many tools are available to virtual work teams that can be used to support goal setting
TPM
18,7/8
412
and role clarity during the early planning stages and over a project lifecycle. For
instance, team contracts or charters can be extremely valuable in supporting team goal
setting, and clarifying norms and expectations (Marks et al., 2001). Those charters
should be agreed on by all team members, visible, accessible, and ever present during
the life of the project to increase goal clarity and commitment. Virtual teams should
focus on creating a unified sense of purpose and identify available tools and
technologies that can support them to accomplish that in the virtual environment. In
addition, Massey et al. (2003) suggest an emphasis in temporal coordination
mechanisms such as scheduling deadlines and coordinating the pace of effort to
increase accountability. Therefore, early planning stages are critical in successfully
managing team conflict and ensuring VT’s effectiveness (Shin, 2005).
Data also suggests a significant positive relationship between goal commitment and
satisfaction; however, there was no mediating role of conflict management on this
relationship. We also found a statistically significant relationship between goal
commitment and team performance. This relationship gained strength in teams that
had higher levels of conflict management, suggesting that good conflict management
can help sustain higher levels of perceived performance. After investigating one key
antecedent of conflict (commitment to goals), we propose that to develop
high-performing teams, managers must encourage strategies that promote goal
clarity and accountability while supporting conflict prevention and positive conflict
management. Groups with open discussion norms, high levels of respect among
members, and supportive team environment have been linked to enhanced
performance (Jehn and Mannix, 2001). In addition, the conflict training should be
prioritized given that our results suggest that conflict management supports
performance.
The results of this study should be interpreted in light of the following limitations.
First, results generalizability might be somewhat limited by the use of student teams.
Nevertheless, in many respects the characteristics of the project assigned to
participants (i.e. high level of member responsibility and accountability, required task
involvement, and interdependence) are comparable to some project-based teams in
organizational settings that are created to address a specific issue and are temporary in
nature. Prior studies have shown that results from student samples and work teams
have been comparable (Van Vianen and De Dreu, 2001). We acknowledge some
characteristics of the teams in this study that may not fully align with organizational
teams such as being isolated of an organizational context but that is a tradeoff from
having more control over other variables such as tasks, timelines, team formation, etc.
A second limitation is the small sample size that could be attributable for the lack of
significant relationships between some of the variables. One last limitation relates to
some of the outcome measures used. Although we acknowledge the limitations of
measures based on self-report, prior studies have suggested that perception of team
performance and team satisfaction are important measures of team effectiveness and
good indicators of team viability (Campion et al., 1993; Hyatt and Ruddy, 1997;
Sundstrom et al., 1990). Future research could incorporate more objective measures of
team performance. An extension of this study will look into incorporating an objective
value of performance based on expert rating of actual team performance.
Mediation analysis can provide important information regarding the impact of
certain team processes on team outcomes. It can also shed light on how team processes
can mediate the relationship between team input variables and outcomes. In this study,
Conflict
mediation helped us gain understanding of the impact of goal commitment on team management and
outcomes in virtual teams and the role of conflict management in potentiating this
effectiveness
relationship. The results have theoretical implications because they help us understand
the role of conflict management on team effectiveness. Results also have practical
implications because the findings suggest that successful conflict management
strategies can support team performance. Conflict management is a process that can be
413
acted on through training and coaching. Training approaches focused on conflict
management strategies that help teams in preventing and dealing with conflict have
the potential to enhance to team performance.
Even though team members worked remotely from their own sites, the researcher
was able to track the team activities and progress on the team web site. This
observation supported the evidence that team members collaborated to accomplish the
final outcome rather than dividing up the report in parts and piecing them together at
the end. Teams were required to jointly identify the organizational problem and come
up with an improvement plan and all teams followed that guideline.
In summary, this study explored the mediating effect of conflict management on the
relationship between goal commitment and team outcomes. We provide some
preliminary evidence that conflict management mediated these relationships by
potentiating team performance. Conflict management is a critical process in virtual
teams that has the potential to enhance team outcomes. Future research should look
into identifying specific conflict management techniques and their impact on team
outcomes.
References
Ancona, D.G. and Caldwell, D.F. (1992), “Demography and design: predictors of new product
team performance”, Organization Science, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 321-41.
Bandura, A. and Cervone, D. (1983), “Self-evaluative and self-efficacy mechanisms governing the
motivational effects of goal systems”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 45
No. 5, pp. 1017-28.
Baron, R.A. (1989), “Personality and organizational conflict: effects of the type a behavior pattern
and self-monitoring”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 44
No. 2, pp. 281-97.
Blackburn, R.S., Fürst, S.A. and Rosen, B. (2003), “Building a winning virtual team”, in Gibson,
C.B. and Cohen, S.G. (Eds), Virtual Teams that Work: Creating the Conditions for Virtual
Team Effectiveness, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 95-120.
Brett, M. (1984), “Managing organizational conflict: professional psychology”, Research and
Practice, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 644-78.
Bryan, J. and Locke, E. (1967), “Goal setting as a means of increasing motivation”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 3, pp. 274-7.
Campbell, H.P. and Dunnette, M.D. (1968), “Effectiveness of the T-group experience in
managerial training and development”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 70 No. 2, pp. 73-104.
Campion, M.A., Medsker, G.J. and Higgs, A.C. (1993), “Relations between workgroup
characteristics and effectiveness: implications for designing effective work groups”,
Personnel Psychology, Vol. 46 No. 4, pp. 823-50.
Cohen, S.G. and Bailey, D.E. (1997), “What makes teams work: group effectiveness research from
the shop floor to the executive suite”, Journal of Management, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 239-90.
TPM
18,7/8
414
De Dreu, C.K.W. and Weingart, L.R. (2003), “Task versus relationship conflict, team performance,
and team member satisfaction: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88
No. 4, pp. 741-9.
De Dreu, C.K.W., Weingart, L.R. and Kwon, S. (2000), “Influence of social motives in integrative
negotiation: a meta-analytic review and test of two theories”, Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, Vol. 78 No. 5, pp. 889-905.
De Lisser, E. (1999), “Update on small business: firms with virtual environments appeal to
workers”, Wall Street Journal, October 5, p. B2.
Elron, E. (1997), “Top management teams within multinational corporations: effects of cultural
heterogeneity”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 393-412.
Erez, M. and Zidon, I. (1984), “Effects of goal acceptance on the relationship of goal setting and
task performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 69 No. 1, pp. 69-78.
Flynn, F.J., Chatman, J.A. and Spataro, S.E. (2001), “Getting to know you: the influence of
personality on impressions and performance of demographically different people in
organizations”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 414-42.
Gladstein, D.I. (1984), “Groups in context: a model of task group effectiveness”, Administrative
Science Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 499-517.
Hackman, J.R. (1987), “The design of work teams”, Handbook of Organizational Behavior,
Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp. 315-42.
Hertel, G., Geister, S. and Konradt, U. (2005), “Managing virtual teams: a review of current
empirical research”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 69-95.
Hofstede, G.J. (1980), Culture’s Consequences, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
Huang, W.W., Wei, K.K., Watson, R.T. and Tan, B.C.Y. (2002), “Supporting virtual team-building
with a GSS: an empirical investigation”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 34 No. 4,
pp. 359-67.
Hyatt, D.E. and Ruddy, T.M. (1997), “An examination of the relationship between work group
characteristics and performance: once more into the breech”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 50
No. 3, pp. 553-85.
James, L.R., Demaree, R.G. and Wolf, G. (1984), “Estimating within-group interrater reliability
with and without response bias”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 69 No. 1, pp. 85-98.
Jehn, K.A. (1995), “A multi-method examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup
conflict”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 256-82.
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.
Kanawattanachai, P. and Yoo, Y. (2002), “Dynamic nature of trust in virtual teams”, Journal of
Strategic Information Systems, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 187-213.
Kirkman, B.L., Rosen, B., Gibson, C.B., Tesluk, P.E. and McPherson, S.O. (2002), “Five challenges
to virtual team success: lessons from Sabre, Inc.”, Academy of Management Executive,
Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 67-79.
Klein, H., Wesson, M., Hollenbeck, J. and Alge, B. (1999), “Goal commitment and the goal-setting
process: conceptual clarification and empirical synthesis”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 84 No. 6, pp. 885-96.
LaPorte, R. and Nath, R. (1976), “Role of performance goals in prose learning”, Journal of
Educational Psychology, Vol. 68 No. 3, pp. 260-4.
Conflict
management and
Larson, J.R. and Schaumann, L.J. (1993), “Group goals, group coordination, and group member
effectiveness
motivation”, Human Performance, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 49-69.
Larson, C.E. and LaFasto, F.M.J. (1989), Teamwork: What Must Go Right/What Can Go Wrong,
Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Likert, R. (1961), New Patterns of Management, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Locke, E.A. and Bryan, J. (1969), “The directing function of goals in task performance”,
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 35-42.
Lurey, J.S. and Raisinghani, M.S. (2001), “An empirical study of best practices in virtual teams”,
Information & Management, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 523-44.
McDonough, E., Kahn, K. and Barczak, G. (2001), “An investigation of the use of global, virtual,
and colocated new product development teams”, Journal of Product Innovation
Management, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 110-20.
McGrath, J. (1991), “Time, interaction, and performance (TIP): a theory of groups”, Small Group
Research, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 147-74.
MacKinnon, D.P., Lockwood, C.M. and Williams, J. (2004), “Confidence limits for the indirect
effect: distribution of the product and resampling methods”, Multivariate Behavioral
Research, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 99-128.
Marks, M.A., Mathieu, J.E. and Zaccaro, S.J. (2001), “A temporally based framework and
taxonomy of team processes”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 356-76.
Martins, L.L., Gilson, L.L. and Maynard, M.T. (2004), “Virtual teams: what do we know and
where do we go from here”, Journal of Management, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 805-36.
Massey, A.P., Montoya-Weiss, M.M. and Hung, Y.-T. (2003), “Because time matters: temporal
coordination in global virtual project teams”, Journal of Management Information
Systems, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 129-55.
Mathieu, J., Maynard, M.T., Rapp, T. and Gilson, L. (2008), “Team effectiveness 1997-2007:
a review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future”, Journal of Management,
Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 410-76.
Mento, A.J., Steel, R.P. and Karren, R.J. (1987), “A meta-analytic study of the effects of goal
setting on task performance: 1966-1984”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 50-77.
Montoya-Weiss, M., Massey, A.P. and Song, M. (2001), “Getting it together: temporal
coordination and conflict management in global virtual teams”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 44 No. 6, pp. 1251-62.
Moore, C.W. (1986), The Mediation Process: Practical Strategies for Resolving Conflict,
Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Mortensen, M. and Hinds, P.J. (2001), “Conflict and shared identity in geographically distributed
teams”, International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 212-38.
Murnighan, J.K. and Conlon, D.E. (1991), “The dynamics of intense work groups: a study of
British string quartets”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 165-86.
Onkman, W., Ustun, A., Pazos, P. and Canto, A. (2010), “Impact of task conflict on virtual team
performance and cohesiveness”, paper presented at the IERC Conference, Cancun.
Pazos, P. and Beruvides, M. (2011), “Incorporating training and feedback into the study of
patterns in group decision making: the impact of communication medium”, Team
Performance Management, Vol. 17 Nos 1/2, pp. 83-101.
415
TPM
18,7/8
416
Pazos, P., Ustun, A. and DelAguila, R. (2011), “The role of conflict management on virtual team
performance and satisfaction”, Proceedings of the 2011 Industrial Engineering Research
Conference, Reno, NV.
Pazos, P., Beruvides, M., Jian, J., Canto, A., Sandoval, A. and Taraban, R. (2007), “Structuring
group decision making in a web-based environment by using the nominal group
technique”, Computers and Industrial Engineering, Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 277-95.
Poole, M.S., Holmes, M. and DeSanctis, G. (1991), “Conflict management in a computer-supported
meeting environment”, Management Science, Vol. 37 No. 8, pp. 926-53.
Preacher, K.J. and Hayes, A.F. (2004), “SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects
in simple mediation models”, Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers,
Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 717-31.
Putnam, L.L. (1986), “Contradictions and paradoxes in organizations”, in Thayer, L. (Ed.),
Organization Communication: Emerging Perspectives, Vol.1, Ablex, Norwood, NJ,
pp. 151-67.
Rothkopf, E. and Billington, M. (1979), “Goal-guided learning from text: inferring a descriptive
processing model from inspection times and eye movements”, Journal of Educational
Psychology, Vol. 71 No. 3, pp. 310-27.
Sales, M. (1970), “Some effects of role overload and role underload”, Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 592-608.
Shea, G.P. and Guzzo, R.A. (1987), “Group effectiveness: what really matters?”, Sloan
Management Review, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 25-31.
Shin, Y. (2005), “Conflict resolution in virtual teams”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 34 No. 4,
pp. 331-45.
Siegel, J., Dubrovsky, V.J., Kiesler, S. and McGuire, T.W. (1986), “Group processes in
computer-mediated communication”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 157-87.
Sproull, L. and Kiesler, S. (1986), “Reducing social context cues: electronic mail in organizational
communication”, Management Science, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 1492-512.
Sundstrom, E., DeMeuse, K.P. and Futrell, D. (1990), “Work teams: applications and
effectiveness”, American Psychologist, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 120-33.
Tekleab, A.G., Quigley, N.R. and Tesluk, P.E. (2009), “A longitudinal study of team conflict,
conflict management, cohesion, and team effectiveness”, Group and Organization
Management, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 170-205.
Van der Vegt, G., Emans, B. and Van de Vliert, E. (1998), “Motivating effects of task and outcome
interdependence in work teams”, Group and Organization Management, Vol. 23 No. 2,
pp. 124-43.
Van der Vegt, G.S., Emans, B.J.M. and Van de Vliert, E. (2001), “Patterns of interdependence in
work teams: a two-level investigation of the relations with job and team satisfaction”,
Personnel Psychology, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 51-69.
Van de Vliert, E. and De Dreu, C.K.W. (1994), “Optimizing performance by stimulating conflict”,
International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 211-22.
Van de Vliert, E., Euwema, M.C. and Huismans, S.E. (1995), “Managing conflict with
a subordinate or a superior: effectiveness of conglomerated behavior”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 80 No. 2, pp. 271-81.
Van Vianen, A.E.M. and De Dreu, C.K.W. (2001), “Personality in teams: its relations to social
cohesion, task cohesion, and team performance”, European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 97-120.
Weingart, L.R. (1992), “Impact of group goals, task component complexity, effort, and planning
Conflict
on group performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 77 No. 5, pp. 682-93.
management and
Weldon, E., Jehn, K. and Pradhan, P. (1991), “Processes that mediate the relationship between a
effectiveness
group goal and improved group performance”, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol. 61 No. 4, pp. 555-69.
Williams, J. and MacKinnon, D.P. (2008), “Resampling and distribution of the product methods
for testing indirect effects in complex models”, Structural Equation Modeling, Vol. 15 No. 1,
417
pp. 23-51.
Wilson, S. (2003), “Forming virtual teams”, ASQ’s Annual Quality Congress Proceedings, Vol. 57,
pp. 489-99.
Wood, R. and Locke, E. (1990), “Goal setting and strategy effects on complex tasks”, in Staw, B.
and Cummings, L. (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 12, JAI Press,
Greenwich, CT, pp. 73-109.
Further reading
Baron, R. and Kenny, D. (1986), “The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1173-82.
De Dreu, C.K.W. and Van Vianen, A.E.M. (2001), “Managing relationship conflict and the
effectiveness of teams”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 309-28.
Judd, C.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1981), “Process analysis: estimating mediation in treatment
evaluations”, Evaluation Review, Vol. 5 No. 5, pp. 602-19.
Kenny, D.A., Kashy, D.A. and Bolger, N. (1998), “Data analysis in social psychology”, in Gilbert, D.,
Fiskeand, S. and Lindzey, G. (Eds), The Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. 1, 4th ed.,
McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA, pp. 233-65.
Shrout, P.E. and Bolger, N. (2002), “Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: new
procedures and recommendations”, Psychological Methods, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 422-45.
Sobel, M.E. (1982), “Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation
models”, in Leinhardt, S. (Ed.), Sociological Methodology, American Sociological
Association, Washington, DC, pp. 290-312.
About the author
Pilar Pazos is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Engineering Management and
Systems Engineering at Old Dominion University. Before joining Old Dominion she has worked
in the areas of quality control, team learning and consulting. She was a Research Associate at
Northwestern University with a joint position for the VaNTH Engineering Research Center and
the Searle Center for Teaching Excellence. Her research interests include: knowledge
management, organizational learning, collaborative learning, group decision making and
performance, virtual teams and team dynamics. She holds a BSc in Industrial Engineering from
the University of Vigo, Spain, MS in Systems and Engineering Management from Texas Tech
University and a PhD from Texas Tech University (2005) in Industrial Engineering with a focus
on Engineering Management and a minor in Applied Statistics from the Rawls College of
Business. Pilar Pazos can be contacted at: mpazosla@odu.edu
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
Article
Conflict Management, Team Coordination,
and Performance Within Multicultural
Temporary Projects: Evidence From the
Construction Industry
Project Management Journal
Vol. 50(1) 101–114
ª 2019 Project Management Institute, Inc.
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/8756972818818257
journals.sagepub.com/home/pmx
Amin Akhavan Tabassi1, Aldrin Abdullah1, and David James Bryde2
Abstract
The purpose of our study is to enhance the understanding of relationships between conflict management style, team coordination,
and performance in multicultural project team contexts. We investigate how conflict management can contribute to team
effectiveness through the mediation of the level of team coordination by collecting data from 126 team leaders and supervisors
and 378 members nested in different multicultural projects in the construction industry. Our results show that, contrary to the
findings from prior research in other team contexts, an avoiding style of conflict management can have a positive impact on the
performance of multicultural project teams.
Keywords
conflict management style, construction projects, team coordination, Malaysia, team performance, temporary project
organizations
Introduction
Conflict is a process whereby one side perceives that selfinterests are adversely influenced by another party’s actions
(Wall & Callister, 1995). This implies that conflict is a process
incorporating two or more people or groups within which one
party has to perceive the other party’s actions as in opposition to
its own. Researchers have asserted that conflict is a common trait
in every teamwork activity and inherent within daily interactions
(Jehn & Mannix, 2001; Jia, Yang, Wang, Hong, & You, 2011;
Müller, Turner, Andersen, Shao, & Kvalnes, 2016; Tjosvold,
2008). Prior works highlighted that the way a team deals with
conflict significantly impacts its performance (De Dreu & Gelfand, 2008; Liu & Cross, 2016; Prieto-Remón, Cobo-Benita,
Ortiz-Marcos, & Uruburu, 2015; Tjosvold, 2008; Yousefi, Hipel,
& Hegazy, 2010). However, conflict is seen not only to have
harmful consequences but also to be remarkably constructive in
some team-based work environments (De Dreu, 2007; De Dreu
& Gelfand, 2008; Jehn & Mannix, 2001; Li & Li, 2009; Tjosvold, 2008). Team members’ perception of the way in which
their desired goals may be affected by actions significantly influences both the nature of interactions and the final results of
conflict management (Deutsch, 1990). Preceding studies also
outlined that conflict is more likely to arise and escalate when
cultural differences are present among the parties (Fisher, 1990).
Consequently, different cultures may possibly use different
methods in dealing with conflict in the course of managing
multicultural teams. It has also been noted that how a team
manages conflict greatly affects team performance (De Dreu,
2007; De Dreu & Gelfand, 2008; Jehn & Mannix, 2001; Tjosvold, 2008). Consequently, different approaches to managing
conflict in group environments may affect the way teams are
coordinating. Furthermore, earlier research in predominantly
Western contexts suggests that in temporary organizations, the
coordination of a team influences team efficiency along with
overall project performance (Mitropoulos & Cupido, 2009;
O’Leary-Kelly, Martocchio, & Frink, 1994; Stott & Walker,
1995). However, these relationships have not been widely tested
in other cultural contexts, such as East Asia.
In temporary organizations, coordination is a core competency of the team leader (Project Management Institute, 2017).
Coordination issues have been emphasized by researchers in a
1
School of Housing, Building & Planning, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang,
Malaysia
2
Liverpool Business School, Liverpool Johns Moores University, Liverpool,
England
Corresponding Author:
Amin Akhavan Tabassi, School of Housing, Building & Planning, Universiti Sains
Malaysia, Penang 11800, Malaysia.
Email: akhavan.ta@gmail.com
102
wide range of contexts, including organizational design, technology adoption and innovation, and group competition, to
name just a few (De Dreu, 2007; Müller et al., 2016; Yousefi
et al., 2010; Zhang, Cao, & Tjosvold, 2011). Team coordination in many temporary organizations, such as those in the
construction industry, takes place in the context of highly complex and dynamic environments (Loosemore, Dainty, & Lingard, 2003). Therefore, it presents a challenging context for
achieving effective teamwork (Tabassi & Bakar, 2009;
Tabassi, Ramli, & Bakar, 2012).
To contribute to our understanding of one particular challenging context, the objective of this study is to investigate the
relationships between conflict management approaches, team
coordination, and the performance of multicultural project
teams. Our understanding of the mechanisms by which team
leaders exert influence at the team level, through such actions
as conflict management and coordination, is still limited (Sun,
Xu, & Shang, 2014); hence, by investigating the practices and
performance of project teams in this context, our study has
significant theoretical contributions.
The empirical context for this study was the Malaysian construction industry. This industry was chosen because the temporary organizations undertaking projects in this sector are
typically multicultural, being made up of three main ethnic
groups, with each having their own cultural norms and values:
Malays, Chinese, and Indians. This reflects the composition of
the general population in the country (i.e., in 2010, Malays
made up 60.3%, Chinese 24.6%, and Indians 7.1% of the total
population) (Department of Statistics Malaysia, 2018). Generally, the limited prior research has investigated East Asians’
approaches to managing conflict, specifically looking at temporary multicultural (TMC) teams. Furthermore, in project
management, as with other management disciplines, peoplerelated issues have been getting more attention in East Asian
countries, such as Malaysia, as firms are recognizing the
impact of the management of human resources on organizational performance (Chen, Uen, & Chen, 2016).
We sought to answer the following broad question: How do
Malaysians approach the management of conflict in TMC
teams, and do these approaches lead to different outcomes, in
terms of team coordination and performance? We sought to
answer this question through a hierarchical regression analysis
of data from 126 teams in TMC organizations undertaking
construction projects in Malaysia.
Conflict-Handling Styles
The rapid growth of complex projects in the construction industry across the world has resulted in varied interorganizational
conflicts (Hu, Chen, Gu, Huang, & Liu, 2017; Wu, Zhao, &
Zuo, 2017). The influences of conflicts among team members
on project performance in the industry could be destructive or
constructive, relying on plenty of variables, such as conflict
management style of leaders, nature of conflict, the perceptions
of team members in working with conflict, and so on (Wu et al.,
Project Management Journal 50(1)
2017). However, there are different conflict-handling styles
that individuals may employ when interacting with others in
interpersonal or business engagements (Chiocchio, Forgues,
Paradis, & Iordanova, 2011; Kleinman, Palmon, & Lee,
2003; Wu et al., 2017). Effective styles lead to conflict resolution, enhance work steadiness (Wu et al., 2017), promote feelings of self-efficacy among team members, minimize the
likelihood of negative conflicts in future work, and also result
in a company’s long-term financial growth (Cheung & Chuah,
1999; Rubin, Pruitt, & Kim, 1994).
Pressure to come to an agreement (Baron, 1988), power
differences (Zartman & Touval, 1985), complexity of the organization’s task (Chiocchio et al., 2011), interdependence of the
units (Lawrence & Lorsch, 1986), and culture and leadership
styles (Chiocchio et al., 2011; Kozan, 1989) all influence the
way conflict ought to be managed. The literature indicates that
the success or otherwise of dealing with conflict has a direct
impact on the project performance of temporary organizations
(Lundin & Soderholm, 1995; Müller et al., 2016). In such
organizations, the negative consequences of a failure to deal
with conflict have two root causes: first, failure to deal with
technical conflicts that arise from different role perspectives
(Chen, Zhang, & Zhang, 2014), and second, distrust among
team members or different personal behaviors (Tjosvold,
2008). As stated above, conflict per se is not necessarily negative. Therefore, conflict should be effectively managed in
order to realize the optimum level (Leung, Yu, & Liang, 2014).
A number of theoretical styles of dealing with interpersonal
conflict have been proposed (Kleinman et al., 2003; Rahim &
Magner, 1995; Rubin et al., 1994). These theorists build on the
pioneering work of Blake and Mouton (1964), who classed conflict-managing strategies into five styles: forcing, withdrawing,
smoothing, compromising, and confrontation. The authors further
grouped these five strategies under two broad dimensions, which
are associated with the behavior of the team leader, namely: (1)
concern for people, and (2) concern for task. In 1976, Blake and
Mouton’s styles for handling conflicts in team environments were
reviewed and refined by Thomas (1976, cited in Rahim &
Magner, 1995). Thomas also grouped the methods of coping with
conflict into five styles, and he also identified two main dimensions: (1) cooperativeness, within which individual’s concerns
are higher for peers; and (2) assertiveness, when self-concerns
are more significant. Along with these two dimensions, five different conflict resolution styles were presented, based on the
degree to which an individual practices cooperativeness or assertiveness: cooperative, competitive, accommodating, avoiding,
and compromising (Rahim & Magner, 1995).
Cooperative Approach to Conflict Management and
Team Coordination
Interdependence in conflict management, which was proposed by Deutsch (1990), outlines a scenario in which individuals value peers’ abilities and options, which primarily
leads to cooperative goal achievement and open communication
Tabassi et al.
in dealing with conflict (Tjosvold et al., 2001). In the event
that people feel they need others’ abilities, opinions, and
resources, they are more likely to be encouraged to cope with
conflict cooperatively. Accordingly, they may also reach a
point where to have a long-term relationship and to be able
to continue to work together in an effective fashion, it would
be necessary to resolve conflict cooperatively for mutual gain.
Project managers with cooperative conflict management style
are more open in coping with conflict and even rated as more
successful leaders. Moreover, it can be concluded that mutual
dependence aids cooperative conflict management, which
could result in better project coordination. In collectivist societies, such as China, where empirical study has been undertaken, it has also been found that managing conflict
cooperatively can lead to higher perceptions of fair treatment
among individuals, which in turn leads to better team performance (Chen & Tjosvold, 2002).
In terms of achieving win-win situations, a cooperative style
encourages open-minded interactions, in order to realize
opposing concepts, assimilate opposing views, develop acceptable alternatives, and strengthen individuals’ relationships.
This results in mutual solutions that are favorable to both parties (Walton & McKersie, 1965). Team members can adopt a
cooperative conflict resolution strategy by concentrating on
their shared aims. They will demonstrate that they seek mutual
profit from an activity, are seeking to solicit everyone’s point
of view, and are available to integrate different suggestions in
order to set up a mutually practical solution (Deutsch, 1990;
Tjosvold, 1985). A cooperative style is characterized by open
communication, responsiveness to others, shared understanding, and the development of mutually favorable alternatives
(Ayoko, 2016; Sanders & Schyns, 2006).
A cooperative conflict management style is seen to promote high team performance and desirable individual behavior (Tjosvold, Poon, & Yu, 2005). In addition, teams that are
able to deal with conflict cooperatively are also able to
improve their own performance (Tjosvold, Hui, & Yu,
2003). Specifically, expressions of individual satisfaction of
being part of the team, team efficacy, boosts to innovation and
creativity, and better goal achievement are all claimed as
outcomes of cooperative approaches to the management of
conflict (Tjosvold, 2008).
It is hypothesized that there will be a positive relationship
between this style of conflict management and team coordination. Hence, the first hypothesis to test is:
H1: The cooperative conflict management approach within
the TMC organization undertaking projects is positively
related to effective team coordination.
Competitive Approach to Conflict Management and
Team Coordination
Competitive conflict increases independence among team
members. A competitive style (high concern for self and low
concern for others) has been linked with a win-lose scenario.
103
This is a confrontational approach that leads to one side capitulating to the other. Yang, Cheng, and Chuang (2013) listed
some of the commonly used tactics in this style, which include:
direct communication with regard to the issues, persistent disagreement with other parties’ opinion and remaining rooted to
one’s own position, and attempts to seize control of communication channels.
Managers or team leaders who implement this strategy typically impose their thoughts or opinions onto their subordinates,
and the conflict often ends with undesirable results. Such leaders emphasize their competitive pursuits, which may result in
others moving away from attainment of the project goal. They
are inclined to look at conflict as a win-lose challenge: If the
other wins, they lose. This discourages effective communication and leads to the imposition of an opinion by the most
powerful party on the conflict. Individuals with more focus
on independence and with less emphasis on interdependence
may gravitate toward the competitive style in coping with conflict, which increases the probability of a perceived maximum
personal gain, as opposed to the gain in win-win situations (De
Dreu & Gelfand, 2008; Prieto-Remón et al., 2015; Tjosvold,
2008). To explore the impact of the competitive style of conflict on the workings of the team, in the context of the effectiveness of coordination activities, we hypothesized that a
negative relationship exists between this style of conflict management and team coordination:
H2: The competitive conflict management approach within
the TMC organization undertaking projects is negatively
related to effective team coordination.
Avoiding Approach to Conflict Management and Team
Coordination
The avoiding approach seeks to smooth over conflicts quickly,
by minimizing dialogue on the issues. The avoiding conflict
management style typically is predicated on the fact that pitfalls and issues should not be brought into the open and discussed between the parties. It is characterized as having low
concern for the self and for others and seeks actions that will
serve to limit dealing with the conflict clearly, either by disregarding it or switching discussions to a new subject. This
style of conflict management has been compared to disengagement, buck-passing, and sidestepping scenarios (Rahim, 2002).
Those who adopt this style of conflict management do not show
strong emotions of anger and irritation. They are inclined to act
as if they are indifferent both to their own personal concerns
and to the concerns of other team members.
An avoiding style of conflict management has been
observed in East Asian contexts. The East Asian collectivist
cultures tend to be thought to focus on interdependence and a
tacit acknowledgment that individuals greatly depend upon
each other (Tjosvold, 2008; Tjosvold et al., 2001). Accordingly, some people may adopt this style of conflict resolution
only because they intend to maintain their relationships, which
might, however, result in dysfunctional project team operation.
104
To explore the likelihood of such an outcome arising from
practicing the avoidance style of conflict management, we generate our third hypothesis:
H3: The avoiding conflict management approach within the
TMC organization undertaking projects is negatively related
to effective team coordination.
Accommodating Approach to Conflict Management and
Team Coordination
An accommodating style (low concern for self and high concern for others) is characterized by an imperfect assessment of
alternate options, as well as one-sided functions of giving in to
others, which usually results in lower quality decision making
(Kuhn & Poole, 2000). An accommodating individual disregards her own concerns in order to take care of others’. This
style of conflict management usually happens when conflicts
are going to be managed with superiors, in particular, whenever
the managers or superiors are seen as being quite dominating.
In addition to the above, an accommodating approach has been
observed in situations where personal interests clash with those
of the project, organization, or even when a minority point of
view conflicts with that of the majority. It is associated with
amenable behavior that consists of putting aside one’s own
desires in order to be able to satisfy the other party, agreeing
with the other party’s decisions, and giving way to the arguments or statements of others by denying or declining to
express one’s own ideas (Liu, Fu, & Liu, 2009). Such behaviors
may well negatively impact the functioning of the team; hence,
our fourth hypothesis is:
H4: The accommodating conflict resolution approach
within the TMC organization undertaking projects is negatively related to effective team coordination.
Compromising Approach to Conflict Management and
Team Coordination
The compromising conflict management style is placed in the
middle of the continuum of the two dimensions: concern for
self, and concern for others. Compromising strategies exhibit
moderate attention to seek mutual agreements, but have less
interest in putting forth a collaborative effort to achieve them.
This style has been characterized as a half-hearted problemsolving alternative (Pruitt, Kim, & Rubin, 2004). Both sides
could possibly achieve certain benefits, as well as some losses,
through the give-and-take in which each party may give up
some necessary desires or targets—with a less-than-optimal
result being agreed upon (Rahim & Magner, 1995). People
typically adopt this style in the event that a willingness to
unravel the root causes of conflict is not completely sustained.
A compromising approach entails different tactics, such as:
bowing to the concept of justice, advising on trade-offs,
increasing gains and reducing losses, meeting the parties midway, splitting the costs of variations, and looking for rapid and
Project Management Journal 50(1)
short-term resolution to the conflict at hand (Liu et al., 2009). It
has also been outlined as unique in the sense that it focuses on
meeting the individual’s self-needs along with the needs of
others (Gross & Guerrero, 2000). Compromising is typically
perceived as an essential complement to other strategies in
solving conflicts in not only Western organizational contexts
and companies, but also in some East Asian environments (e.g.,
styles adopted by Chinese managers [Liu et al., 2009]). Prior
research suggests that a compromising style has positive consequences on the innovation success of companies (Gobeli,
Koenig, & Bechinger, 1998), is positively related to team performance (Coetzer & Trimble, 2010), and is negatively related
to harmful aspects of conflicts (Vollmer, 2015). Hence, our
fifth hypothesis is as follows:
H5: The compromising conflict management approach
within the TMC organization undertaking projects team is
positively related to effective team coordination.
Conceptual Framework Development
The term performance in a group work environment has been
widely put in place to reflect the activities’ ultimate outcomes
as well as to figure out whether or not an individual and/or a
team is remaining productive (Tabassi, Roufechaei, Bakar, &
NorAini, 2017). In the construction industry, different project
teams mostly form the focal point of project delivery. For that
reason, the dynamic transforming characteristics of construction activities demand construction organizations to gain or
even develop several teams whenever a new project or a new
phase of a project is carried out (Raiden & Dainty, 2006).
Therefore, any techniques and procedures that are appointed
by the organization as a means to further improve teamwork
coordination could possibly convey favorable results to the
overall team or project performance (Tabassi, Ramli, Roufechaei, & Tabassi, 2014; Tabassi et al., 2017).
Thus far, research on conflict management has shown more
focus on the relationships between conflict-handling style of
the leader and team performance (De Dreu & Gelfand, 2008;
Prieto-Remón et al., 2015; Rahim, 2002; Tjosvold, 2008; Tjosvold et al., 2001). Alternatively, the relationship between team
coordination and team performance has been the focus of a
number of prior studies in the management literature (Banks,
Pollack, & Seers, 2016; Rico, Sánchez-Manzanares, Gil, &
Gibson, 2008; Tuncdogan, Boon, Mom, Bosch, & Volberda,
2017; Yukl, 2006; Zhang et al., 2011 ). Coordination processes
involve the activities orchestrating the relationship and scheduling interdependent tasks in the team environment (e.g.,
managing work, setting up the tasks of each member, and
detailing guidelines and regular procedures) (Yukl, 2006;
Zalesny, Salas, & Prince, 1995). In the same way, coordination
activities are observed as necessary conduct for teams to be
able to exchange information and straighten the course of team
member actions (Marks, Mathieu, & Zaccaro, 2001; Tuncdogan et al., 2017). Even though we are aware of the critical
relationship between conflict management and team
Tabassi et al.
105
Team
Coordination
Conflict
Management
Approaches
Rated by Team Members
Team
Performance
Rated by Team Leaders
Rated by Team Supervisors
Figure 1. Hypothesized model.
performance, limited studies have examined the conflict management style of leaders, coordination, and performance
together, particularly in multicultural team environments in the
construction industry. We contribute to enriching such an understanding by investigating the mediating role of coordination
mechanisms. The overall conceptual framework for the research
reported in this article is depicted in Figure 1. The hypotheses
focus on three specific relationships: the link between conflict
management approaches and team coordination; the link
between team coordination and team performance; and the link
between conflict management approaches and team performance, mediated by team coordination.
The relationships between conflict management approaches
and team performance, and between conflict management
approaches and team performance, mediated by team coordination, are explored through the following two hypotheses:
H6: Team coordination is positively related to team performance within the TMC organization.
H7: Team coordination mediates between conflict management approaches and team performance within the TMC
organization.
Measuring Instruments and Data Collection
Team performance was measured using an adaption of Tabassi
et al.’s (2017) survey instrument. Tabassi et al.’s instrument
was based on the work of Hirst (1999) and an additional item,
team cohesiveness, which is also pointed out in A Guide to the
Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide) –
Sixth Edition (Project Management Institute, 2017).
The study adapted a scale for measuring the team coordination that was initially formulated by Hackman (1983, as cited in
Zhang et al., 2011) and is widely applied in organizational
research (De Dreu, 2007; Zhang et al., 2011).
The conflict management styles were measured using a
previously validated instrument devised by Northouse
(2011) and available at www.sagepub.com/northouseintro2e.
The team members were asked to rate the conflict
management style of the leaders on a 5-point Likert scale
(1 ¼ “Never” to 5 ¼ “Always”).
Since the team formed the unit of assessment in this study,
and the data on conflict management were acquired at the
individual team members’ level, the data needed to be aggregated. Yet, any such aggregation needs to be validated by theoretical as well as empirical justifications (Rousseau, 1985).
Whether conflict resolution and management activities, as perceived by team members, may be aggregated and used to value
the styles of handling conflict is a controversial issue (Yammarino & Dansereau, 2008). Interaction among team members
allows for sharing and processing of information regarding the
team leader, which probably results in individuals’ homogeneous concepts of approaches for managing conflicts within the
team (Zhang et al., 2011). To achieve the desired aggregation,
James, Demaree, and Wolf (1984) recommend the use of the
multi-item, which is measured as follows:


S2
J  1  2k
s
 EU

ðEquation 1Þ
rWGðJ Þ ¼
S2
1 þ ðJ  1Þ  1  2k
sEU
The rWGðJ Þ index applies the Spearman-Brown prophecy
method to incorporate the number of items in the calculation
of within-group agreement. Hence, J is the number of items in a
measure and Sk2 is the average variance of the J items in a
group of k-raters.
The study evaluates the theorized model (Figure 1) by utilizing a multilevel design (Ju, Qin, & Xu, 2016) with individuals (level 1) nested in projects (level 2). Data were collected
from three different level 1 sources: Team members rated the
five approaches to conflict management that could be exhibited
by team leaders, including cooperative, competitive, accommodating, avoiding, and compromising; the team leaders evaluated the level of team coordination; and last, the supervisor of
each team rated the team performance. As outlined by Zhang
et al. (2011), this method of data collection will reduce the risk
of common method variance (CMV) as a possible alternative
for justification of the results.
106
With regard to data collection, three distinct types of survey
questionnaires were dispersed between the respondents. The
measurement of items was done primarily using the Likert
scale of five ordinal measures, from one (1) to five (5), based
on the degree of importance/agreement. An invitation notice
was delivered to 800 large-sized construction firms in Malaysia. At the end of a six-month period, 126 teams had agreed to
participate in the research. Seven research officers were then
directed to the respondent companies in several locations in
Malaysia. In order to reduce likely bias, the three members
from each team were randomly selected to assess the conflict
management style of their team leader.
Sample
The respondents incorporated 378 members of 126 construction project teams in Malaysia and their equivalent 126 team
leaders, along with supervisors from the upper-level administrative headquarters for each organization. The minimum sample size was verified and a reactive Monte Carlo analysis was
carried out (Chin, 1998). Consequently, the sample size of 126
surpassed the suggested minimum of 54 that is considered
sufficient for model testing (Green, 1991).
The size of the teams ranged from three to above 20 members, having an average of six to 10 (Standard Deviation ¼
1.47). For all of the team members (excluding team leaders),
48.9% were female and 50% were male (1.1% did not clarify
their gender). The percentages of different ethnic groups
among the team members were: Malay 25.1, Chinese 58,
Indian 16, and others 0.9. The degree of experience in the
construction industry pertaining to the team members
revealed that 55% had one to five years of experience and
33.6% had six to 10. In terms of education, 71.7% had a
bachelor’s degree or higher, 22.4% had acquired a diploma
from junior colleges, and 5.9% graduated from technical secondary schools or others. Furthermore, 61.9% of the team
leaders were male and 66.7% had six years or more experience in the industry. The percentages of different ethnicities
for team leaders were: Malay 28.6, Chinese 43.7, Indian 27,
and others 0.8. With regard to their educational levels, 77.8%
had a bachelor’s degree or higher, and the rest had graduated
from junior colleges.
Data Analysis and Results
To analyze the data and evaluate the hierarchical hypothesized
model, Smart PLS path modeling (PLS-PM) was used, with a
path-weighting scheme for inside approximation (Chin, 2010;
Tenenhaus, Vinzi, Chatelin, & Lauro, 2005; Wetzels, Schroder,
& Oppen, 2009). Subsequently, nonparametric bootstrapping
was employed with 500 replications in order to be able to attain
the standard estimate errors (Chin, 2010). To assess the higher
order latent variables, the method of repeated indicators was
also applied, as outlined by Wold (1985), Lohmöller (1989),
and Efron and Tibshiran (1993).
Project Management Journal 50(1)
Conflict Management Assessment
The degree of explained variance in the hierarchical model
was reflected in its components: cooperative (62.6%), competitive (1.1%), accommodating (2.5%), avoiding (23.6%),
and compromising (4%). However, only the path coefficient
from the cooperative approach to team coordination was statistically significant (at p < 0.01). In addition, the avoiding approach to conflict management showed a p value less than 0.1, which is partially significant to team coordination. The composite reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE) of all constructs were above 0.7 and 0.5, respectively, which exceed the recommended cutoff values (Hair, Hult, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2014). The rWGðJ Þ index scores for each conflict management style were as follows: cooperative (0.908), competitive (0.899), accommodating (0.91), avoiding (0.913), and compromising (0.908). Despite the fact that generally there is some disagreement related to the cutoff value rWG (Lance et al., 2006), these values are higher than the commonly agreed-upon 0.70 value. Furthermore, the percentage of rWG > 0.70 for the aggregated
parameters was calculated to be 86%. Additional analysis was
carried out and there was no team with an rWG lower than 0.50
across any given construct.
The Measurement Model
To assess the components of the measurement scales, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed, based on the
procedure of Chin (2010), to assess the reliability, convergent
validity, and discriminant validity of the scales (see Tables 1
and 2). Table 1 shows the results of CMV.
The AVE for all constructs was more than 0.5 and the CR of
the constructs was above 0.7. These values are above the minimum recommended levels, so as a result CMV was not been
deemed to be an issue in this study (Fornell & Larcker, 1981;
Gefen, Straub, & Boudreau, 2000). Also, as revealed by Table
1, most of the item loadings were close to or larger than 0.7 and
significant at 0.01. The items for the cooperative style of conflict management exhibited the lowest CR of 0.7891; even so,
all values were higher than the recommended standard values.
The results confirmed convergent validity, as all indicators
loaded significantly higher onto their particular hypothesized
component as compared to other factors (own construct loadings were greater than cross loadings; see Chin, 2010). The
Fornell-Larcker criterion approach was used to assess discriminant validity. The square root of the AVEs were calculated
and compared with the latent variable correlations. The results,
which are presented in Table 2, demonstrate discriminant
validity, as the square root of each construct’s AVE was higher
than its largest correlation, compared with any other construct
in the model (Chin, 2010; Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Furthermore, there was no correlation higher than 0.9 among the constructs observed (Chin, 2010), except for the compromising
style of conflict management construct, which was exactly
Tabassi et al.
107
Table 1. Common Method Variance
Construct
Item
Loading
AVE
CR
Accommodating
Avoiding
Competitive
Compromising
Cooperative
Accom1
Accom2
Accom3
Accom4
Avoid1
Avoid2
Avoid3
Avoid4
Comp1
Comp2
Comp3
Comp4
Compro1
Compro3
Compro4
Coop1
Coop2
Coop3
Coop4
PER1
PER2
PER3
PER4
PER5
PER6
PER7
PER8
TeamCo1
TeamCo2
TeamCo3
TeamCo4
0.5639
0.6625
0.9121
0.8186
0.7223
0.7824
0.6986
0.7089
0.8344
0.7104
0.7464
0.686
0.8217
0.8297
0.8978
0.7698
0.6545
0.6982
0.6553
0.6771
0.7675
0.6978
0.6805
0.7638
0.6953
0.7222
0.7931
0.798
0.6769
0.603
0.7205
0.5647
0.8339
0.5311
0.8189
0.5571
0.8334
Team Performance
Team Coordination
coordination, being significant at the 0.1 level. So, H3 has
been rejected and there is support for the alternative hypothesis to H3, which can be refined as: The avoiding conflict
management approach within the TMC organization undertaking projects is positively related to effective team coordination. However, the accommodating conflict management
style showed a negative relationship with team coordination,
but it was not statistically significant. So, H4 was not
supported.
Mediating Effects
0.8105
0.9028
0.5045
0.7891
0.5269
0.8988
In Figure 2, the mediating effect of team coordination on the
relationship between the conflict management styles and
team performance was analyzed, and H7: team coordination
mediates between conflict management approaches and
team performance within the TMC organization was tested.
Three criteria for mediation analysis were established as
follows:


0.5044
0.7947
Note: CR ¼ composite reliability; AVE ¼ average variance extracted.
0.9. As a result, the proposed model was deemed to be satisfactory, with proof of sufficient reliability, convergent validity,
and discriminant validity, and was accepted for evaluating the
hypotheses and validating the research model.
Assessment of the Structural Model
In Table 3, the results give a standardized beta of 0.24 from the
avoiding style of conflict management to team coordination,
0.63 from cooperative style to team coordination, 0.11 from
cooperative style to team performance, and 0.35 from team
coordination to team performance.
Thus, there was support for H6: team coordination is positively related to team performance within the TMC organization and for the alternative to H1: the cooperative conflict
management approach within the TMC organization undertaking projects is positively related to effective team coordination.
The other two conflict management approaches, which showed
some positive relationship with team coordination, competitive
and compromising, were not statistically significant. Hence,
H2 and H5 are not supported. The results showed that the
avoiding conflict management style positively related to team

Two independent variables (avoiding and cooperative
styles of conflict management) had a significant effect
on the mediator (team coordination);
The mediator (team coordination) had a significant
influence on the dependent variable (team performance); and
Two independent variables (avoiding and cooperative
styles of handling conflict) had a significant influence
on the dependent variable in the absence of the influence
of the mediator.
To set up the mediating influence, the indirect impact of a  b
(see Figure 2) must be significant.
The z-statistics test (Sobel, 1982) was employed, which was
significant at p < 0.05. If the z values surpass 1.96 (p < 0.05), then H2 can be accepted—that is, there is an indirect effect from the conflict management style (in this particular case, avoiding and cooperative styles of handling conflict), through team coordination, on team performance. The z values are calculated as follows: ab z ¼ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi b2  sa2 þ a 2  sb2 þ sa2  sb2 ðEquation 2Þ 0:626  0:35 za ¼ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 2 2 ð0:35  0:0573Þ þ ð0:626 2  0:0785Þ2 þ ð0:0573 2  0:0785Þ2 ¼ 4:113 0:236  0:35 zb ¼ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 2 2 ð0:35  0:0687Þ þ ð0:236 2  0:0785Þ2 þ ð0:0687 2  0:0785Þ2 ¼ 2:68 As displayed in Figure 2, there was a significant effect from the cooperative conflict management style on team coordination (0.626, p < 0.01), as well as from team coordination on team performance (0.35, p < 0.01). The z value was greater 108 Project Management Journal 50(1) Table 2. Correlations Among Constructs Accommodate Avoid Competitive Compromise Cooperative Team Performance Team Coordination Accommodating Avoiding Competitive Compromising Cooperative Team Performance 0.7523* 0.5297 0.4426 0.526 0.192 0.1306 0.7288* 0.5145 0.4361 0.1147 0.297 0.7473* 0.4858 0.1467 0.2896 0.9003* 0.0536 0.2297 0.7173* 0.2524 0.7258* 0.2352 0.3075 0.265 0.2027 0.6499 0.3492 Team Coordination 0.7102* Note: *Square root of the AVE on the diagonal. Table 3. Total Effects Accommodate -> Team Performance
Accommodate -> Team Coordination
Avoid -> Team Performance
Avoid -> Team Coordination
Competitive Conflict -> Team Performance
Competitive Conflict -> Team Coordination
Compromise -> Team Performance
Compromise -> Team Coordination
Cooperative Conflict -> Team Performance
Cooperative Conflict -> Team Coordination
Team Coordination -> Team Performance
Beta Value
t-Value
p-Value
Standard Error
–0.0088
–0.0251
0.302
0.236
0.0036
0.0104
0.0138
0.0396
0.107
0.6262
0.3492
0.2583
0.2809
2.3387
3.4346
0.1091
0.1201
0.3772
0.4207
4.1009
10.8735
4.4469
0.796
0.779
0.019
0.0006
0.913
0.904
0.706
0.674
*******
*******
*******
0.0339
0.0894
0.0352
0.0687
0.0334
0.0869
0.0367
0.0942
0.053
0.0573
0.0785
than 1.96 (p < 0.05); consequently, the result confirms the mediating role of team coordination, indicating that it has an indirect effect on team performance—hence, H7 is supported. There was also a significant effect from the avoiding conflict management style on team coordination (0.236, p < 0.01) as well as from team coordination on team performance (0.35, p < 0.01, see Figure 2). The z value also exceeds 1.96 (p < 0.05). To approximate the size of the indirect effect in the model, the variance accounted for (VAF) value was calculated, whic...