Why Won’t Task Conflict Cooperate? Deciphering Stubborn Results

Abstract

Theory suggests that task conflict should be functional for team performance on non-routine tasks unless it becomes excessive, yet empirical support has been mixed. Why are the functional effects of task conflict so inconsistent? Why do they appear in some instances but not in others? In essence, why does task conflict work well for some teams but not work well for others? We review the empirical literature on task conflict, including four meta-analyses, and offer explanations for the observed results. High correlations between task, relationship, and process conflict make it difficult to isolate the effects of task conflict. There are a number of measurement and data analysis issues that warrant attention, including the possibility of halo error in ratings that may be exacerbated by the language in the measures. Furthermore, theory predicts a curvilinear relationship between task conflict and team performance, but most empirical studies have not tested for one, nor have they looked for reciprocal or interaction effects. A number of relevant temporal issues could also affect the results. We discuss boundary conditions and potential moderators that are in need of more research. At the group level, these include values congruence, goal alignment, norms for debate, the group’s performance history and conflict history, and the complex relationship between conflict and trust. A number of individual difference variables that may affect the relationship between task conflict and performance are also discussed. Finally, research suggests that conflict management approaches are of critical importance in determining how task conflict will influence performance.