Effects of group-discussion integrative complexity on intergroup relations in a social dilemma

Abstract

Organizations increasingly rely on team-based work systems—yet intergroup behavior is predisposed toward competition, which can render conflict management in organizations especially difficult. Based on the integrative complexity model of group decision-making and the literature on intergroup social dilemmas, we argue that a lack of quality group discussion (i.e., low integrative complexity) can heighten group members’ sense of greed toward and fear of other groups—and, by doing so, increase the likelihood that a group will decide to compete. Accordingly, we propose and evaluate two interventions that target group-discussion dynamics to promote the integrative complexity of group discussion and intergroup cooperation: structured group discussion and discussion led by a group member who favors cooperation. Two hundred eighty-five participants were assigned to groups of three and played an iterated prisoner’s dilemma game. Results demonstrate that participating in a structured group discussion increased the integrative complexity of group discussion, during which different perspectives were fully deliberated before making a final decision. This, in turn, decreased the sense of greed and fear, and reduced the likelihood that a group would decide to compete against other groups. In contrast, a cooperative discussion leader was only helpful in reducing group decisions to compete in the first round: Because it did not increase the integrative complexity of group discussion, this method failed to motivate cooperation over time. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.