Do We (have to) Agree? A Multilevel Examination of Conflict Asymmetry in Teams

Abstract

Conflict theorists have long assumed that team members have a shared perception about the level of conflict that occurs in their team. However, recent studies have challenged this assumption, arguing that team members may perceive the same environment differently, and therefore, might possess an asymmetry in their perceptions of conflict. Based on this argument, the concepts of group conflict asymmetry and individual conflict asymmetry have been introduced to the conflict literature. This paper develops a research model, identifying antecedents and moderators of both team and individual conflict asymmetry. Hypotheses were tested using 121 self-managed student project teams (903 undergraduate students) from business schools at two universities. The results showed that none of the team characteristics had a significant impact on conflict asymmetry at the team level. At the individual level, agreeableness was found to be negatively related to both task and relationship conflict asymmetry, whereas emotional stability had a negative effect on only relationship conflict asymmetry. Finally, the findings revealed that team psychological safety had a significant moderating effect on the relationship between individual task conflict asymmetry and individual viability, but the direction of the effect was positive. Moreover, there was no cross-level interaction between team psychological safety and team conflict asymmetry. That is, the moderating effect of psychological safety on the relationship between team conflict asymmetry and team outcomes was not significant.