Intra-team Conflict Research Articles

Moderator-Mediator Distinction: An Application on Top Management Team Literature

The purpose of this paper is to distinguish between the properties of moderator and mediator variables. Specifically, we differentiate between two often-confused functions of third variables: 1) the moderator function, which partitions a focal independent variable into subgroups that establish its domains of maximal effectiveness in regard to a given dependent variable, and 2) the mediator function, which represents the generative mechanism through which the focal independent variable is able to influence the dependent variable of interest. Although these third variables are different, it is not at all uncommon in organizational research to use the terms moderator and mediator interchangeably. The function of this article is to clarify the importance of respecting the distinction between the use of them. As an example of the differences between moderation and mediation variables, we suggest an application on top management teams (TMT) literature. More specifically, we offer four different kinds of hypothesis to be tested between two variables: TMT composition and firm performance, taking into account the moderation or mediation function of a third variable: intrateam conflict.

Bridging the Distance Between Us: How Initial Responses to Sales Team Conflict Help Shape Core Selling Team Outcomes

Intra-team conflict within core selling teams can shape team outcomes. Using congruency theory, we propose how conflict responses impact the relational distance between individuals in a core selling team, creating positive/negative team outcomes. Our framework suggests managers may improve team outcomes by monitoring sales team members' responses to conflict, encouraging internal cognitive voice behaviors, and intervening in teams not using internal cognitive voice behaviors when relational or process conflict exists. Our model helps explain the paradox in which an individual who is part of a “winning” team (one achieving its team goals) may still choose to exit the team.

The Relationship between Intrateam Conflict and Cohesion within Hockey Teams

Traditionally, intrateam conflict has been viewed as the antithesis of team cohesion. However, with a multidimensional view of both conflict and cohesion, certain types of conflict may be positively related to some aspects of cohesion. It was predicted that constructive styles of conflict would be positively related to cohesion, whereas destructive conflict would be negatively related to cohesion. Sixty-two male hockey players completed the Group Environment Questionnaire and Canary, Cunningham, and Cody’s conflict style measure. Higher levels of social cohesion were related to greater use of constructive conflict style and lesser use of destructive style. Task and social cohesion were negatively correlated with greater use of destructive style. Two of the four cohesion factors were predicted from regression models based on the conflict style scores. These results support the hypothesis that constructive conflict may be positively related to cohesion, as well as previous research that inferred that negative conflict was negatively related to team unity.

The Benefits of Arguing in a Team

In a complex, dynamic multiagent setting, coherent team actions are often jeopardized by conflicts in agents' beliefs, plans, and actions. Despite the considerable progress in teamwork research, the challenge of intrateam conflict resolution has remained largely unaddressed. This article presents CONSA, a system we are developing to resolve conflicts using argumentation-based negotiations. CONSA focuses on exploiting the benefits of argumentation in a team setting. Thus, CONSA casts conflict resolution as a team problem, so that the recent advances in teamwork can be brought to bear during conflict resolution to improve argumentation flexibility. Furthermore, because teamwork conflicts sometimes involve past teamwork, teamwork models can be exploited to provide agents with reusable argumentation knowledge. Additionally, CONSA also includes argumentation strategies geared toward benefiting the team, rather than the individual, and techniques to reduce argumentation overhead.