The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/1044-4068.htm

IJCMA
30,1 The dual effects of task
conflict on team creativity
Focusing on the role of team-focused
132 transformational leadership
Eun Kyung Lee
Received 7 February 2018
Revised 9 June 2018 School of Business, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Australia
4 September 2018
9 September 2018
Accepted 10 September 2018
Ariel C. Avgar
ILR School, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA
Won-Woo Park
College of Business Administration, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea, and
Daejeong Choi
Faculty of Business and Economics, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia

International Journal of Conflict
Management
Vol. 30 No. 1, 2019
pp. 132-154
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1044-4068
DOI 10.1108/IJCMA-02-2018-0025
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore the dual effects of task conflict on team creativity and the
role of team-focused transformational leadership (TFL) as a key contingency in the task conflict–team
creativity relationship.
Design/methodology/approach – Data were collected from 325 teams across ten large companies in
South Korea. The study tested the hypothesized moderated mediation model using an SPSS macro
(PROCESS, Hayes, 2008).
Findings – Results showed that task conflict is directly and positively related to team creativity and is
negatively and indirectly related to team creativity via relationship conflict. Furthermore, the study found
that team-focused TFL moderates all paths through which task conflict affects team creativity. Specifically,
team-focused TFL enhances the positive direct effect of task conflict and alleviates the negative indirect
effects of task conflict on team creativity.
Research limitations/implications – Although this study could not test the causal chains of the
proposed relationships owing to a cross-sectional nature of data, the present research provides theoretical
implications for the conflict, leadership and team creativity literatures. The study highlights the role of
transformational leadership in the process through which team conflict is managed so as to increase team
creativity.
Practical implications – To capitalize on the creativity-related benefits associated with task conflict,
managers will need to pay attention to the role they can play and their leadership that emphasizes collective
goals and identity. Managers and team leaders are also expected to intervene in conflict situations to minimize
the harmful effect of task conflict that may take place owing to the association between task conflict and
relationship conflict.
Social implications – The findings will have implications for any social contexts where people work
together toward common goals. In such contexts, the study emphasizes the role of leadership in teams to use
the creative potential associated with different opinions and values regarding what and how work to be
completed.
This study was supported partially by the Institute of Management Research at Seoul National
University and by Maeng Junsung, CEO of Neoinside Corporation.
Originality/value – The study’s examination of the dual paths through which task conflict affects team Task conflict
creativity brings insights into why the impact of task conflict on team creativity has been inconsistent or
unclear in past research. This paper also articulates a leader’s role in teams in relation to managing team on team
conflict to increase team creativity. creativity
Keywords Transformational leadership, Team creativity, Relationship conflict, Task conflict
Paper type Research paper
133
Many organizations are increasingly striving to innovate for a sustained competitive
advantage. In so doing, teams are commonly used because they are well suited for creating
and producing new and innovative collective knowledge (Wuchty et al., 2007). However,
teams are not always effective for complex and creative tasks because they often experience
coordination and motivation challenges that limit their capacity to facilitate superior
creative performance (Diehl and Stroebe, 1991; Leeuwen and van Knippenberg, 2002;
Mueller, 2012). Team conflict is an example of a relational factor that contributes to the
creative potential within teams and, at the same time, challenges team processes for
creativity.
Task conflict, representing “conflicts about the distribution of resources, procedures and
policies and judgments and interpretation of facts” (De Dreu and Weingart, 2003a, p. 741),
has been frequently examined to have a significant impact on team creativity (Yong et al.,
2014). This form of conflict facilitates the surfacing of different ideas and/or viewpoints and
enhances dialogue and debate among team members, thereby leading to increased team
creativity (De Dreu, 2006). Nevertheless, this proposed positive relationship between task
conflict and team creativity has received mixed empirical support (De Dreu and Weingart,
2003a; Hülsheger et al., 2009). Accordingly, scholars have taken a contingency approach to
understand under which circumstances task conflict enhances or undermines a variety of
team outcomes including creativity (De Dreu and Weingart, 2003b; O’Neill et al., 2013; Shaw
et al., 2011).
Taking this contingency approach, as shown in Figure 1, we propose dual paths through
which task conflict influences team creativity directly and indirectly. Specifically, we predict
that task conflict has a positive and direct effect on team creativity, while it is also
negatively related to team creativity owing to its indirect effect via relationship conflict.
More importantly, we argue that the extent to which team conflicts affect team creativity is
contingent on a leader’s team-focused transformational leadership (TFL).
Team-focused TFL entails a leader’s ability to have followers believe in an articulated
vision and prioritize collective interests (Dong et al., 2017). Our theorizing for the moderating
role of team-focused TFL draws on how team-focused TFL would help members internalize
collective objectives and work more collaboratively for the team, partly attributed to their
enhanced collective identity (Tse and Chiu, 2014). Building on this foundation, we develop

Team-focused
Transformational
Leadership

Team
Task Conflict
Creativity
Figure 1.
Hypothesized
Relationship theoretical model
Conflict
IJCMA and test our theoretical predictions for why and how team-focused TFL can function as a
30,1 critical contingency that enhances the benefits and neutralizes the drawbacks associated
with relationship conflict in explaining team creativity.
This study makes three contributions to theory and research on conflict and team
creativity. First, we extend existing research on conflict and creativity by examining both
direct and indirect effects of task conflict on team creativity. We argue that task conflict can
134 promote team creativity, but at the same time, it can negatively affect team creativity owing
to its association with relationship conflict in teams. We test our model involving two
contrasting effects of task conflict on team creativity and provide empirical evidence
suggesting that the effect of task conflict on team creativity in fact results from a dynamic
combination of the positive and negative team mechanisms. We shed light on why the
impact of task conflict on team creativity has been inconsistent or unclear and contribute to
reconciling the inconsistencies in past research.
Second, we highlight the roles of team-focused TFL in the process through which team
conflict is managed to increase team creativity. Leadership has been proposed as a key
aspect of the context that affects team creativity (Mumford et al., 2002). This is, in large part,
owing to the fact that team leaders are critical to conflict resolution in ways that benefit
team members and influence their choices about how to handle conflicts (Tanveer et al.,
2018; Zhang et al., 2011). However, TFL and team conflict have not been integrated to
explain creativity. The integration of these two constructs using the contingency
perspective is, therefore, a valuable extension of previous research. We answer the call for a
continuing investigation of potential moderators and intervening processes that may affect
the effects of task conflict on teams (Loughry and Amason, 2014).
Third, we use survey data from a large sample of work teams in Korean companies,
allowing a more generalizable conclusion regarding the effects of task conflict on team
creativity across various types of functional tasks. More importantly, we think that
examining the effect of task conflict in a cultural context in which expressing an opposing
opinion is not necessarily encouraged and a unified collective voice and harmony is often
considered desirable (Fu et al., 2007; McMillan et al., 2012) will be a conservative test of the
positive effect of task conflict on team outcomes. Relatedly, given the hierarchical culture of
Korea, the role of team-focused TFL as a key contingency in the task conflict–creativity
relationship is well aligned with the setting because a leader’s role is likely to be more
pronounced in general and specifically with regard to managing conflicts in teams in
Eastern cultures. Findings from our study will provide cultural implications to conflict
research.

Theory and hypotheses

Direct effect of task conflict on team creativity
Team creativity involves team processes that combine diverse perspectives to generate
novel and useful solutions (Amabile, 1996; Sutton and Hargadon, 1996). Given the proximal
conceptual link between task conflict and creativity, some scholars have maintained that
task conflict is positively related to team creativity (Farh et al., 2010). Central to this positive
relationship is the argument that task conflict is likely to promote divergent thinking and
the sharing of a broader range of ideas and thoughts around work-related issues (Paletz and
Schunn, 2010). Supporting this argument, research on minority dissent found that a work
group is more creative in their thinking when experiencing some level of task conflict (Dyne
and Saavedra, 1996). This is because individuals exposed to the disagreeing minority were
stimulated to search for new solutions to a problem that would have otherwise not been
reached and that were more likely to be correct (De Dreu and West, 2001).
 Disagreements about the work being performed can, in certain settings, lead to healthy Task conflict
dialogue and debate. Such healthy debates, or productive controversy, can be linked to an on team
enhanced quality of decisions (De Dreu and De Vries, 1997; Jehn, 1995; Simons et al., 1999)
by making people seek better alternatives or solutions (Schulz-Hardt et al., 2002). The open
creativity
discussion and debate are likely to enhance a team’s overall creativity because diverse
thoughts and ideas are shared and various alternatives are considered through open
discussion and debate. Furthermore, task conflict usually increases group members’
tendency to scrutinize task-related issues and to engage in a deep and deliberate processing 135
of relevant information (Janssen et al., 1999). This tendency is likely to foster learning and
the development of new and potentially highly creative insights, ultimately helping the
group to become more effective and innovative (De Dreu, 2006; van Woerkom and van
Engen, 2009). One of the beneficial effects of dissent on group decision quality operates via
greater discussion intensity (Schulz-Hardt et al., 2002).
Although some research has proposed and validated a curvilinear relationship (an
inverted U-shape) between task conflict and team creativity (De Dreu, 2006; Farh et al., 2010;
Shaw et al., 2011), we propose the positive linear relationship between task conflict and team
creativity. Research has not yet clarified how to determine what the optimal amount of
task conflict is (Loughry and Amason, 2014), and a considerable amount of research
evidence continues to support the positive linear relationship between task conflict and team
creativity (Yong et al., 2014). Therefore, in keeping with previous research, we hypothesize
that task conflict has a positive linear direct effect on team creativity:

H1. Task conflict is positively and directly related to team creativity.

Indirect effect of task conflict on team creativity via relationship conflict

As will be discussed below, we argue that task conflict has a negative indirect effect on
creativity through relationship conflict. As such, we begin by supporting the direct
relationship between task and relationship conflict. Conflict researchers have been
interested in the links among different types of organizational conflicts and, in particular, a
potential transformation of one to another (Martínez-Moreno et al., 2012; van den Berg et al.,
2014). Specifically, strong and positive correlations between task conflict and relationship
conflict have been reported in the conflict literature (Peterson and Behfar, 2003; Parayitam
et al., 2010; Simons and Peterson, 2000; Yang and Mossholder, 2004). There are a number of
conceptual explanations for the strong and positive relationship between two types of
conflict. For example, it is possible to misinterpret task-related disagreements as a personal
attack (Amason, 1996; Amason and Sapienza, 1997) and for task conflict to escalate to
emotion-laden assaults (Jehn, 1997). Task conflict may trigger relationship conflict
especially when one’s conflict behaviors are misconstrued as intentionally harmful and
deem motivated by hidden agendas (Simons and Peterson, 2000). In addition, differences in
ideas and viewpoints over task issues are assumed to be communicated in a rational manner
and resolved through fact-based communication, but disagreements are often not expressed
in a merely factual manner and can involve emotionality and personal feelings even if
initiated as task-based facts (Huang, 2010; Yang and Mossholder, 2004). An individual’s
perception of factual elements of a conflict can be quite personal, and disagreements can
easily transform from debates about facts into personal attacks or emotional defenses,
especially when individuals continue proposing and defending their own views.
Furthermore, cognitive differences can be a basis for the social categorization process,
which entails developing opinions about their own group and negative opinions of other
sub-groups (Tajfel, 1982). As such, differences of opinion in the team can lead to relationship
IJCMA conflict owing to the increased hostility toward other sub-groups and clashes between such
30,1 groups (Parayitam et al., 2010). Taken together and building on previous theoretical and
empirical work on the relationship between task conflict and relationship conflict (Jehn and
Mannix, 2001; Martínez-Moreno et al., 2012; Pelled, 1996; Simons and Peterson, 2000), we
hypothesize that task conflict likely precedes relationship conflict:

H2. Task conflict is positively related to relationship conflict.

136
Having proposed the link between task and relationship conflict, we now turn to the
proposed negative effect of relationship conflict on team creativity. Relationship conflict has
been shown to be detrimental to individuals, groups and organizations given that it tends to
increase tensions, anxiety and uncomfortable feelings and emotions among team members
(Jehn, 1994). Relationship conflict is likely to increase perceptions of negativity for any
potential interactions with team members; a typical response to a negative and distressing
situation is psychological and physical withdrawal (Peterson, 1983). In fact, avoiding
interactions related to conflict issues is a common response in such situations (De Dreu and
van Vianen, 2001). Therefore, high levels of relationship conflict in teams is likely to have a
negative effect on creativity by discouraging team members from engaging with one
another including the sharing of information and knowledge.
Relationship conflict arises from differences based, among other things, on personal
values, norms, political preferences that are often central to one’s personal identity and
acquired over time (De Dreu and van Vianen, 2001). As such, when experiencing
relationship conflict, team members may perceive greater dissimilarity and social distance
to other group members and their collective identity as a group may weaken. This social
identity focused approach suggests that relationship conflict may further undermine team
members’ engagement in collaborative processes. Given that collaborative process ensure
that team members’ ideas are constructively exchanged and integrated, they are critical to
group-level creativity (van Knippenberg et al., 2004). We, therefore, hypothesize a negative
relationship between relationship conflict and team creativity. In addition, having argued
that task conflict can spill over into relationship conflict (H2), we also predict the mediating
role of relationship conflict in the relationship between task conflict and team creativity:

H3. Relationship conflict is negatively related to team creativity.

H4. Task conflict is negatively and indirectly related to team creativity via relationship
conflict.

The moderating role of team-focused transformational leadership

Team creativity is a function not only of the resources brought by individual members but
also of the efficiency of the processes through which these resources are combined (Diehl
and Stroebe, 1987; Mullen et al., 1991). Thus, building upon the contingency perspective
discussed above (de Wit et al., 2012; Jehn and Bendersky, 2003), we suggest that team-
focused TFL can be a critical contingency in which team resources are effectively managed
and coordinated to increase team creativity.
Since van Knippenberg and Sitkin (2013) introduced dual-level model of transformational
leadership to replace the traditional charismatic–transformational leadership approach with
which a number of conceptual and empirical problems were found, the dual-level model of
transformational leadership has been increasingly used in leadership research and received
considerable empirical support for its construct validity (Cai et al., 2017; Dong et al., 2017;
To et al., 2015). According to the dual-level model, TFL operates simultaneously at multiple Task conflict
levels – individual and team levels (Wang and Howell, 2010). Individual-focused TFL is on team
conceptualized as leaders recognizing and paying attention to follower’s needs and desires
(individualized consideration) as well as encouraging individual members for a challenge and
creativity
new ways of thinking (intellectual stimulation; Dong et al., 2017). Team-focused TFL, on the
other hand, tends to focus on the whole group rather than individual members within the
group. Two components of transformational leadership
idealized influence and inspirational
motivation
have been shown to constitute team-focused TFL owing to their emphasis on 137
common beliefs, shared values and collective ideologies (Tse and Chiu, 2014). Leaders high in
team-focused TFL will provide a clear vision for the team, motivate the members with higher
purposes or ideals and use inspirational communication. Given our study’s examination of
team-level creativity, we explore the moderating role that team-focused TFL plays in affecting
the relationships between task conflict and creativity. Specifically, we maintain that team-
focused TFL moderates the paths through which task conflict affects team creativity by
enhancing its positive direct effect on creativity and alleviating its negative indirect effects.
Team-focused transformational leaders are likely to enhance the positive effect of task
conflict by gathering and integrating team members’ efforts and ensuring that they are
directed toward shared goals and values. In other words, teams with a transformational
leader are better able to engage with collective efforts to capitalize on debates and
discussions regarding the advantages and disadvantages of work-related ideas, which is
critical to enhanced creativity (van Knippenberg et al., 2004). By engaging in open
discussions and debates induced by task conflict, team members are likely to exchange and
integrate diverse thoughts and ideas in constructive ways so that they can achieve shared
goals and objectives (Ayoko and Callan, 2010; Dong et al., 2017). Opposing viewpoints are
likely to be valued and integrated for solutions when commitment to collective outcomes is
high (Desivilya et al., 2010; Shin and Zhou, 2007). When team members feel that their inputs
are appreciated and contribute to the achievement of shared objectives, their motivation and
participation will be elevated (Detert and Burris, 2007; Li et al., 2014).
Similarly, De Dreu et al. (2011) suggested teams are more creative when members are
willing to expend efforts on systematic information processing coupled with the social
motivation to value collective interests and success. On the other hand, teams are not able to
fully utilize the creative potential associated with task conflict when team members’ sense of
common goals and motivation for the achievement of collective goals are not activated. For
example, team discussions and debates may simply distract team members’ cognitive
resources in the absence of shared goals and objectives that are typically instilled by team-
focused TFL. We therefore maintain that team-focused TFL will enhance the positive effect
of task conflict on team creativity:

H5. Team-focused transformational leadership (TFL) will moderate the direct

relationship between task conflict and team creativity, such that the positive effect
of task conflict on team creativity is stronger when team-focused transformational
leadership is high.
Next, we predict that team-focused TFL weakens the negative relationship between task
conflict and relationship conflict in teams. Transformational leaders can lead team members
to focus on shared goals and values so that team members are less likely to misinterpret the
disagreement or criticism over ideas as personal attacks. For example, team-focused
transformational leaders emphasize the potential inherent to different opinions and
perspectives and the capacity of these to help improve individual and group performance,
thereby leading team members to approach task conflict in more positive and constructive
IJCMA ways (van Knippenberg and Schippers, 2007; Wang et al., 2016). Moreover, team-focused
30,1 TFL likely influences the manner in which team members communicate task-related ideas
and opinions, for example, by deterring the use of harsh language and the display of
impatient and aggressive attitudes. When different perspectives and ideas are
communicated and shared in a more positive manner, team members will be less prone to
view different opinions as a personal opposition or threats to individual and group goals. In
138 sum, the effectiveness of team-focused TFL in promoting an understanding of shared goals
and the emphasis on collective effort will likely induce a less threatening expression of task
conflict and team members’ greater openness and acceptance of the content communicated.
As such, it will consequently reduce the relational frictions and the probability of task
conflict evolving to relationship conflict (Hüttermann and Boerner, 2011; Hobman and
Bordia, 2006). We, therefore, argue that high levels of team-focused TFL will weaken the
positive relationship between task conflict and relationship conflict.
Team-focused TFL is also expected to play a role in mitigating the negative effect of
relationship conflict on team creativity by highlighting the collective identity in team
members and increasing team cohesion. Transformational leaders can bolster social
integration and the bonds among team members through visioning and inspirational
motivation (Dionne et al., 2004). When team members are exposed to team-focused TFL, their
collective self, rather than personal self, is likely to be activated (Cai et al., 2017), and their
negative feelings and dissatisfaction arising from relationship conflict may become less
salient. Team-focused TFL can, therefore, promote functional team processes in which team
members attach emotional and interpersonal importance to their group. This social
identification process is critical to reducing the negative effects of relationship conflict
because team members place less importance on differences they may have, both at a surface-
and deep-level, and they transcend personal interests in pursuit of collective interests through
depersonalizing self-categorization processes (Harrison et al., 1998; Hogg and Terry, 2000;
Turner, 1987). As a result, when leaders display high levels of team-focused TFL, team
members are likely more motivated to manage their conflicts cooperatively for mutual benefit
rather than approach conflicts in a competitive manner and, thus, promote team coordination
(Zhang et al., 2011). However, if teams lack the leadership that can help activate their
collective identity, members will likely view their interpersonal problems from a self-centered
perspective. Furthermore, teams will be less likely to function as a collective entity in the face
of high levels of relationship conflict in the absence of leadership interventions. We, therefore,
propose that team-focused TFL moderates the relationship between relationship conflict and
team creativity by mitigating the negative effect of relationship conflict on team creativity:

H6a. Team-focused transformational leadership (TFL) moderates the relationship

between task conflict and relationship conflict such that this positive relationship
is weaker when team-focused TFL is high rather than low.

H6b. Team-focused transformational leadership (TFL) moderates the relationship

between relationship conflict and team creativity such that this negative
relationship is weaker when team-focused TFL is high rather than low.

H6c. Team-focused transformational leadership (TFL) moderates the indirect relationship

between task conflict and team creativity via relationship conflict such that the
negative indirect relationship between task conflict and team creativity via
relationship is weaker when team-focused TFL is high rather than low.
Method Task conflict
Research setting and participants on team
We collected data from members of 492 teams across 10 Korean companies of various sizes
in the transportation, construction, heavy manufacturing and energy industries. As this
creativity
research was conducted as part of organizational diagnosis and change initiatives, it
received strong support from top executives of the participating firms, resulting in a high
response rate[1] (71 per cent). The teams performed one of seven different functional areas of
administration, business development, design, operations management, production 139
technology, R&D and sales, which provided an opportunity to examine the factors and
mechanisms of team creativity in a representative context of work teams. Production
technology and sales teams consisted of more than 50 per cent of the sample[2].
Although surveys were prepared by a team of researchers including two authors of the
current study, the HR department at the headquarter office coordinated the process of
creating an online survey on the company’s server and took responsibility for administering
surveys. On the basis of the companies’ employee data, all participants were invited to
complete an online survey, a link to which was sent to their company email addresses. The
survey was introduced to employees as a company-wide data collection process for
assessing organizational effectiveness and formulating a strategic plan for a continuous
company growth. The survey comprised two parts: one about individual characteristics and
the other about team experiences. The participants received an invitation to complete each
part with a two-week time gap. All participants received the same questionnaires, but team
leaders were asked to evaluate their team’s overall performance and creative performance.
The participants were guaranteed confidentiality.
Surveys were completed by 3,176 individuals, representing a 71 per cent response rate.
The team leaders’ ratings for team creativity were missing for some teams, and thus, the
final usable sample size was 325 teams. As our research focus is team-level processes and
outcomes, it was critical to acquire as many responses as possible for each team to gain a
fair understanding of team characteristics. The average team size was 8.86, and the average
response rate per team was 68.6 per cent in the final sample. Among respondents, 88 per
cent were men and 97.2 per cent had at least some education at the college level. The average
age was 32.66 years. The average company tenure was 4.56 years, and average department
tenure was 10.7 months.

Measures
The survey distributed to the employees was first compiled in English (because it included
existing measures originally developed in English). The survey items were then translated
into Korean, and then back translated back into English by bilingual PhD students and
researchers following the procedure recommended by Brislin’s (1980). The back-translation
was reviewed and supervised by a head researcher who had a relationship with
participating organizations and was in charge of data collection process. The HR managers
at the headquarter office also checked item wording for appropriateness to the company
setting. All responses were made on a seven-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree)
to 7 (strongly agree).
Team creativity. We asked team leaders to assess their team’s creativity by using four
items adapted from Zhou and George (2001). We chose four items measuring the creativity
of ideas and solutions for improving performance, and adapted them to a team context.
Team leaders were asked to indicate the extent to which the team output was “creative” and
“original and practical”. Example items include: “My team suggests new ways to achieve
goals or objectives” and “My team comes up with new and practical ideas to improve
IJCMA performance”. We averaged responses to the four items to create a measure of team
30,1 creativity. Cronbach’s alpha for the team creativity measure is 0.95.
Task conflict. We adapted three items from Jehn and Mannix (2001) and asked team
members to assess the perceived level of disagreement over task-related issues within a
team by transforming the original questions into statements. An example item is “There are
conflicts about ideas in my team/work unit”. Cronbach’s alpha is 0.90.
140 Relationship conflict. We adapted Jehn and Mannix’s (2001) three items and asked team
members to assess the perceived level of relationship conflict within a team by transforming
the original questions into statements. A sample item is as follows: “There is friction among
members in my team/work unit”. Cronbach’s alpha is 0.89.
Team-focused transformational leadership. We asked team members to assess their team
leader’s team-focused transformational leadership using Pearce and Sims’s (2002) nine
items. Consistent with the conceptualization of team-focused transformational leadership
(Dong et al., 2017), our measure captures providing a vision, expressing idealism and using
inspirational communication of team-focused transformational leadership. Sample items
include “My team leader provides a clear vision of where our team is going” and “My team
leader is driven by higher purposes or ideals”. Cronbach’s alpha is 0.97.
Control variables. Following Becker’s (2005) and Becker et al.’s (2016) recommendations[3],
the relationships between potential control variables (i.e. socio–demographic variables) and
our dependent variable (i.e. team creativity) were examined at the empirical level. None of our
potential control variables were correlated with our dependent variable except team size,
average department tenure and team function dummies. Therefore, we included team size,
average age, average department tenure, average gender[4] and dummy variables[5] for
functional areas of teams as controls in our subsequent analyses.

Aggregation for team-level analysis

All variables needed to be aggregated to the team level before analysis as the team is the
unit of analysis in this study. Aggregation requires that the perceptions of team members
within a team are reasonably homogeneous. We used ICC (1) and (2) values to reflect
between-group variance. ICC (1) represents the proportional variance accounted by group
membership and ICC (2) reflects the reliability of group mean value (Bliese, 2000). We
performed a series of one-way ANOVA to calculate ICCs. ICC (1) values of task conflict,
relationship conflict and team-focused TFL were 0.06, 0.00 and 0.04, respectively, and ICC (2)
values of the three shared constructs were 0.38, 0.01 and 0.27, respectively. The F values
were statistically significant for task conflict (F [324, 1660] = 1.61, p < 0.01) and team-
focused TFL (F [324, 1660] = 1.37, p < 0.01), but not for relationship conflict (F [324, 1660] =
1.01, p > 0.10). Another check for aggregation to the team level yielded acceptable values
(within-group agreement or rwg(j); median rwg(3) for task conflict = 0.91; median rwg(3) for
relationship conflict = 0.87; median rwg(9) for team-focused TFL = 0.94), indicating strong
agreement within teams. Although ICC values of all three variables were unusually small,
the low ICC scores for conflict are not uncommon (Ayoko and Chua, 2014; Greer, Jehn and
Mannix, 2008), and our aggregation was primarily theory-driven. Also, George (1990)
argued that one must demonstrate agreement within a group rather than differences across
groups to justify aggregation. Given that the estimate of within-group interrater reliability
provided satisfactory results and that we used the validated measures in the previous
studies (i.e. Jehn’s conflict measures), task conflict, relationship conflict and team-focused
TFL were aggregated to the team level.
Confirmatory factor analysis Task conflict
We performed a series of confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) at the team level to ensure that on team
task conflict, relationship conflict and team-focused transformational leadership could be
loaded as distinct factors. The CFA results indicate that a three-factor model fits best with
creativity
the data ( x 2 = 1049.94, df = 82; comparative fit index [CFI] = 0.98; Tucker–Lewis index
[TLI] = 0.97; standardized root mean square residual [SRMR] = 0.07; root-mean-square error
of approximation [RMSEA] = 0.06). We also compared this model to two alternative models:
one with all variables loaded in one factor and the other with variables loaded in two factors 141
(i.e. two types of team conflict as one factor and team-focused TFL as another factor). We
found that the three-factor model provided a significantly better fit than two alternative
models (e.g. RMSEA = 0.20 and 0.12, respectively, for one- and two-factor models). The CFA
results confirm the discriminant validity of three constructs used in this study.

Results
Descriptive statistics and correlations for all key variables used in this study are reported in
Table I.

Hypothesis testing
We tested the model using a method described by Preacher et al. (2007). We used an SPSS
macro (Hayes, 2018; Preacher et al., 2007) to estimate both mediation and moderated
mediation models. Results from the mediation model indicated that task conflict was
positively and directly related to team creativity (B = 0.11, p < 0.05), supporting H1. In
addition, task conflict was positively related to relationship conflict (B = 0.52, p < 0.01), and,
in turn, relationship conflict was negatively related to team creativity (B =
0.17, p < 0.01),
lending support for H2 and H3. Results also showed that the indirect effect of task conflict
on team creativity (B =
0.09) was significant[6]. Thus, in support of H4, relationship
conflict in teams mediated the relationship between task conflict in teams and team
creativity.
Tables 2 and 3 show results from the moderated mediation model. In regard to H5, the
results suggest that team-focused TFL moderates the relationship between task conflict and
team creativity (B =
0.14, p < 0.01; see Table II) although the moderation effect seems to
exist in the opposite direction as will be discussed below. As shown in Table III, high levels
of task conflict in teams were directly associated with increased team creativity for teams
with low team-focused TFL (B = 0.30, p < 0.01). However, task conflict was not associated
with team creativity for teams with high team-focused TFL (B = 0.01, p = 0.82). The plot is
presented in Figure 2. The hypothesized effect of team-focused TFL as an enhancer of the
relationship between task conflict and team creativity is not supported (H5).
Next, with regard to H6a-H6c, the results indicate that team-focused TFL moderates the
relationship between task conflict and relationship conflict (H6a) and the relationship
between relationship conflict and team creativity (H6b). The results showed that the
interactive effect of task conflict and team-focused TFL was significant on relationship
conflict (B =
0.12, p < 0.01; see Table II). As shown in Table III, the path from task conflict
to relationship conflict was weaker when team-focused TFL is high (B = 0.42, p < 0.01) than
low (B = 0.65, p < 0.01), thereby supporting H6a. The results also showed that the
interactive effect of relationship conflict and team-focused TFL on team creativity was
significant (B = 0.10, p < 0.05; see Table II), thereby supporting H6b. However, the path
from relationship conflict to team creativity was significant only when team-focused TFL is
low (B =
0.28, p < 0.01). We calculated the conditional indirect effect of task conflict on
team creativity to test H6c. This indirect effect was significant when team-focused TFL is
 30,1

142

Table I.
IJCMA

all variablesa
Means, standard

correlations among
deviations and inter-
Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Controls
Average age 32.66 4.16
Average gender 0.88 0.22 0.29** –
Team size 8.82 7.29
0.11* 0.10 –
Average department tenure 10.68 18.29 0.26** 0.00 0.12* –
Independent variables
Task conflict 4.09 0.58 0.11 0.14** 0.06
0.07 (0.90)
Relationship conflict 3.41 0.72 0.03 0.11 0.13* 0.00 0.54** (0.89)
Moderator
Team-focused transformational leadership 4.81 0.84 0.08 0.07
0.13* 0.06
0.08
0.22** (0.97)
Dependent variables
Team creativity 5.22 0.81
0.03
0.00 0.05 0.06 0.01
0.14* 0.19** (0.95)
a
Notes: Listwise N = 325 teams; *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01 (two-tailed)
Model B SE t R2
Task conflict
on team
Mediator variable model: relationship conflict 0.37 creativity
Constant
0.39 0.41
0.94
Team size 0.00 0.00 0.74
Average department tenure 0.00 0.00 0.74
Average age
0.00 0.01
0.24
Average gender 0.12 0.23 0.50 143
Team function dummies
Administration 0.32 0.13 2.38*
Business development 0.06 0.59 0.10
Design 0.33 0.19 1.72
Production technology 0.59 0.29 2.20*
Operations management 0.32 0.13 2.36*
R&D 0.17 0.19 0.89
Task conflict 0.54 0.05 11.16**
Team-focused transformational leadership (TFL)
0.15 0.05
3.18**
Task conflict  TFL
0.12 0.04
2.89**
Dependent variable model: team creativity 0.12
Constant 5.43 0.40 13.7**
Team size 0.01 0.01 1.70
Average department tenure 0.00 0.00 0.92
Average age
0.01 0.01
0.82
Average gender
0.02 0.22
0.09
Team function dummies
Administration 0.00 0.13 0.01
Business development 0.85 0.56 1.51
Design
0.11 0.18
0.61
Production technology
0.04 0.28
0.14
Operations management 0.10 0.13 0.75
R&D
0.34 0.18
1.90
Task conflict 0.16 0.05 2.83**
Team-focused transformational leadership (TFL) 0.12 0.05 2.63**
Task conflict  TFL
0.14 0.04
3.15**
Relationship conflict
0.19 0.05
3.39**
Relationship conflict  TFL 0.10 0.04 2.13*
Table II.
Notes: TFL = transformational leadership; N = 325 teams; unstandardized regression coefficients are Regression results
reported; *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01 (two-tailed) for overall model

Direct effect Indirect effect Total effects

Level PMX PYM (PYX) (PYM PMX) (PYX þ [PYM PMX])
Table III.
TFLLow 0.65**
0.28** 0.30**
0.18** 0.12** Direct, indirect and
TFLHigh 0.42**
0.09 0.01
0.04
0.03 total effects at low
Notes: TFL = transformational leadership; N = 325 teams; team-focused TFL was
0.96 (i.e. 1 SD and high levels of
below the mean) and 1.01 (i.e. 1 SD above the mean) for low and high levels of TFL, respectively; **p < 0.01 team-focused TFL
(two-tailed) for task conflict
IJCMA
30,1

144

Figure 2.
Conditional direct
effects of task conflict
on team creativity

low (B =
0.18; p < 0.01), but it was not significant when team-focused TFL is high (B =

0.04; p = 0.23). We also plotted these three interaction patterns graphically in Figures 3-5.
The hypothesized effect of team-focused TFL for the relationship between task conflict and
relationship conflict is supported. In addition, the hypothesized effect of team-focused TFL

Figure 3.
Two-way interaction
graph of task conflict
and team-focused
transformational
leadership (TFL) on
relationship conflict

Figure 4.
Two-way interaction
graph of relationship
conflict and team-
focused
transformational
leadership (TFL) on
team creativity
as a neutralizer of the relationship between relationship conflict and team creativity is also Task conflict
supported. Taken together, the results provide evidence for the moderating role of team- on team
focused TFL in the task conflict
team creativity relationships. We further discuss these
findings and provide alternative explanations where necessary in the following section.
creativity

Discussion
In this study, we set out to advance our current knowledge regarding conflict and creativity
in teams. We did so by examining the direct and indirect effects of task conflict on team
145
creativity in conjunction with the role of team-focused TFL. Our findings have a number of
empirical and theoretical implications.
First, we demonstrate that task conflict is directly and positively related to team
creativity. This finding suggests that task conflict may induce positive team processes
that, in turn, enhance team creativity. It is consistent with early conflict researchers
that advocated for the beneficial effect of task conflict (Jehn and Mannix, 2001).
However, we also demonstrate that task conflict is negatively related to team creativity
via increased relationship conflict. Specifically, as extensively substantiated in
previous research, task conflict is found to be positively associated with relationship
conflict. In turn, we show that tensions and frustrations rooted in incompatible personal
norms and values can undermine team creativity, which might be explained by the
associated weakening of team collaboration that is critical to generating, evaluating
and selecting the most novel and creative ideas in teams. This finding along with the
evidence regarding the positive association of task conflict and team creativity is
valuable as it informs the long-standing debate in the conflict literature
whether task
conflict is functional or dysfunctional for teams
by providing an explanation for the
inconsistent and mixed findings in past research (de Wit et al., 2012; Hülsheger et al.,
2009; Langfred and Moye, 2014; Loughry and Amason, 2014; Lovelace et al., 2001). For
instance, the inconsistent or non-significant beneficial effect of task conflict in the
previous research may be the product of the different direct and indirect effects. As
such, our support for the dual paths through which task conflict affects team creativity
suggests the need to shift the focus from whether task conflict is positive or negative for
a host of outcomes to the question of under which conditions will the positive or
negative effects dominate.
Second, the results from this study emphasize the role of a leader’s team-focused TFL in
moderating the relationships between conflicts and team creativity as well as the
relationship between task conflict and relationship conflict. As predicted, a leader’s team-

Figure 5.
Conditional indirect
effects of task conflict
on team creativity via
relationship conflict
IJCMA focused TFL plays a key role moderating both paths that constitute the indirect effect of
30,1 task conflict on team creativity via relationship conflict. Team-focused TFL, we argue, is
likely to prevent misunderstandings or misinterpretations that may cause task conflict to
escalate to emotion-laden relationship conflict and to reduce the extent to which teams suffer
from the negative influence of relationship conflict on creativity. As the results suggest,
teams with a leader exhibiting high levels of team-focused TFL appear to be able to
146 minimize the potential harm from the development of relational tensions and distress which
can sabotage the climate necessary for increased creativity. Our findings are consistent with
research that has examined the role of leadership as a moderator that can enhance,
neutralize or substitute for team conflict (Ayoko and Callan, 2010; Hu et al., 2017), and we
provide evidence that suggests that team-focused TFL can affect the ways in which
individuals interpret and react to conflict and help teams manage conflicts so as to enhance
potential benefits.
Nevertheless, team-focused TFL was shown to operate in a manner that is different
from the one we hypothesized for the relationship between task conflict and team
creativity. We argued that teams with high levels of team-focused TFL would be better
able to capitalize on the presence of higher levels of task conflict in terms of their
creativity. In contrast to this proposed relationship, our results indicate that high levels
of team-focused TFL did not increase creativity as levels of task conflict increased. In
teams with high levels of team-focused TFL, the effect of task conflict on team creativity
was not significant. To be clear, high levels of team-focused TFL did not weaken the
relationship between task conflict and creativity, but they did not have the proposed
amplifying effect either.
There are a few possible explanations for this finding. First, our findings with regard to
the increase in creativity for teams with low levels of team-focused TFL and high levels of
task conflict suggest a possible substitution effect. In other words, it is the teams with low
levels of leadership that see a boost in team creativity, suggesting that the process of
engaging in task conflict provides teams with similar returns to those facilitated by team-
focused TFL. The pattern of interactions found in this study suggests that high levels of
team-focused TFL substitute for
rather than complement
task conflict in facilitating
creativity. We also believe that there may be a cultural explanation for the substitution
effect of leadership. Podsakoff et al. (1996) suggests that the effect of a transformational
leadership behavior may be stronger than previously suggested because leaders can
influence subordinates not only directly through their behavior, but also by shaping the
context in which the subordinates work. We think that the role of a team leader in achieving
a high level of collective creativity which draws on collaboration and contribution of many
individuals may have been pronounced in a hierarchical cultural context in which a strong
leadership is endorsed and expected (Javidan et al., 2006).

Practical implications
Our findings also have important implications for practitioners. First, our findings support
the argument that conflict can have clear creativity-related benefits. Managers should,
therefore, be attuned to this potential. Task conflict represents an informational resource that
draws on the different ideas, perspectives and knowledge that team members bring to the
group. As such, it can enhance team creativity by facilitating a deep and deliberate
processing of task-relevant information. However, task conflict can spillover into relationship
conflict which, in turn, causes emotional distress among team members and weakens team
collaboration. Leaders and managers should, therefore, pay particular attention to preventing
the transformation of task conflict into emotionally loaded relationship-centered arguments.
In doing so, they will increase the likelihood of maximizing the beneficial effects of task Task conflict
conflict. on team
Managers interested in capitalizing on the creativity-related benefits associated with task
conflict should also pay attention to the role they can play through leadership behaviors that
creativity
emphasizes collective goals and identity. Findings from this research suggest that a leader’s
team-focused TFL may be a substitute to task conflict when it comes to creativity. Teams
with a leader exhibiting high levels of team-focused TFL do not seem to bring an additional
return on task conflict. Therefore, managers need to understand clearly how their leadership 147
interacts with other team processes so as to leverage this dynamic to compensate for various
team process shortcomings. Thus, for example, in teams with more constrained leadership
or an absence of leadership, managers may want to seek ways to facilitate and take
advantage of a healthy level of task conflict.
Managers and team leaders should also actively manage the level of relationship conflict
in teams given the detrimental effect of relationship conflict on team creativity documented
in our study. Transformational leadership behaviors that include “fostering the acceptance
of group goals” and “being an example by prioritizing collective interests” appear to be
effective in minimizing the negative emotional effects of relationship conflict on a team’s
climate and subsequent team’s creative performance.

Limitations and future research

As with all studies, our paper is not without its limitations. While there are several
advantages associated with the study’s sample, there are some limitations that need to be
acknowledged. First, the sample was biased in terms of gender and education as almost 90
per cent of the respondents were male and had at least some college education. Given the
existing evidence regarding the effect of a team’s gender composition on various team
processes and outcomes (LePine et al., 2002), such homogeneity may limit the generalizability
of the relationships reported in this study. Second, the sample represents several industry
sectors but a majority of the industries fall under one broad category
heavy
manufacturing. Here too, industry-related characteristics may constrain the generalizability
of our findings. Third, we tested our theoretical predictions using the sample with various
functional areas represented; however, our findings do not provide implications for how the
focal relationships examined in the current study may hold for different task types[7]. For
example, the positive relationship between task conflict and team creativity may be more
pronounced in creative tasks rather than non-creative tasks as suggested in research (de Wit
et al., 2012). Future research could examine whether the task conflict-team outcome
relationship is contingent on task types. Additionally, it would be also interesting to examine
whether the role of leadership, specifically transformational leadership, in moderating the
effects of team conflicts is more or less critical for some types of tasks than others.
A second limitation relates to the data. The data are cross-sectional, which raises some
concerns regarding causality between variables. In the future, researchers should consider a
longitudinal research design to examine the relationship between conflict and team
creativity. The longitudinal design would also allow the examination of the varying effect of
conflict on team creativity over the span of a team’s life cycle (Farh et al., 2010). A third
possible limitation of this study relates to our measures. Scholar have been paying increased
attention to how conflict is measured in this stream of research, and the limitations of
perceptual measures been recognized. Future research should complement perceptual
measures with objective ones. The manner in which conflict is expressed (e.g. directness and
oppositional intensity; Weingart et al., 2015) also deserves consideration as it has
implications for perceptions and measurement of conflict and it may influence the ways in
IJCMA which people experience and react to conflict. Furthermore, the possibility that team
30,1 members may have varying experience and perceptions of conflict should be accounted for
as well. In the present study, we focused on the aggregated level of conflict within the team;
however, relationship conflict showed low ICC values. Future research should focus on team
members’ asymmetric perceptions of conflict within a team and examine their effect on
various outcomes of individuals and teams.
148 Lastly, we focused on team-focused TFL and examined its moderating effect on the
relationship between conflicts and team creativity. As individual-focused TFL draws on
very different leadership dimensions such as individualized consideration and intellectual
stimulation, we speculate that it may moderate the relationship between conflicts and team
creativity in a different manner than does team-focused TFL. Future research should further
examine how a leader’s individual-focused TFL may interact with conflicts in enhancing or
hindering team creativity and innovation. In addition, findings from this study have some
cultural implications, in particular with regard to the role of leadership, but the effect of
cultural context was not directly tested in the current study. It might be a meaningful
avenue for research to examine the roles of cultural values and norms in shaping the
conflict–outcome relationship to add cultural nuance to conflict research or to establish
generalization across different cultural contexts.
Having acknowledged these limitations, it is important to note that scholars have
increasingly recognized the importance of boundary conditions in understanding the effects
of conflict on individuals and teams. Given the lack of evidence regarding the role of
leadership in shaping the processes by which conflicts affect team creativity, there is a
particular need for this type of research in this domain. We believe that the line of inquiry set
forth in this study provides insights as to how task conflict can both enhance and hinder a
team’s creative potential via distinct direct and indirect effects. This effort also contributes
to expanding our understanding of a leader’s role in teams in relation to key team processes
including conflict and creativity.

Notes
1. The response rate across industries did not vary much, with a standard deviation of 5.73.
2. In our sample, teams distributed across seven functional tasks as the following: 78 teams in
administration (24 per cent), 2 teams in business development (0.6 per cent), 34 teams in design
(10.5 per cent), 88 teams in production technology (27 per cent), 9 teams in operations
management (2.8 per cent), 28 teams in R&D (8.6 per cent), and 86 teams in sales (26.5 per cent).
3. Becker (2005) suggested that unnecessary control variables not only decrease statistical power
but also may generate biased estimates.
4. To further examine the effect of gender diversity in our data, we calculated the correlations
between team creativity and three indexes of gender diversity: average gender, gender standard
deviation and gender heterogeneity index4 (HI) following the work of Metzner (2003), but none of
the gender indexes was significantly correlated with team creativity.
5. We created six team function dummies and used sales as a base group because it was highly
represented in the sample along with production technology. Also, sales is a function that is often
believed to demand the least creativity, so using sales as the base group allowed comparisons
with other functional groups. Nevertheless, using a different functional group (e.g.
administration) as a comparison group did not change the results.
6. Significance tests for the indirect effects were based on bias-corrected confidence intervals
derived from 5,000 bootstrapped samples (Preacher and Hayes, 2004; Shrout and Bolger, 2002).
 7. In the present study, we could not examine the effect of different task types because we did not Task conflict
have sufficient information to define the nature of team tasks and classify the tasks into creative on team
vs non-creative tasks. Also, there existed significant variance in how creative or non-creative the creativity
tasks were within the same functional groups (e.g. sales). However, as one reviewer and editor
pointed out, the relationships demonstrated in the current study may vary depending on how
much potential of creativity is allowed by different task types. When we created a dummy
variable for creative and non-creative tasks based on a general understanding of functional areas
and used it in our analyses instead of team function dummies, the overall moderated mediation 149
model remained consistent although the direct relationship between task conflict and team
creativity was supported only at a marginal level (p < 0.10). The results of the analysis with the
dummy code for creative vs. non-creative tasks could be made available upon request to the
corresponding author.

References
Amabile, T.M. (1996), Creativity in Context: Update to the Social Psychology of Creativity, Westview
Press, Boulder, CO.
Amason, A.C. (1996), “Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on strategic
decision making: resolving a paradox for top management teams”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 123-148.
Amason, A.C. and Sapienza, H.J. (1997), “The effects of top management team size and interaction
norms on cognitive and affective conflict”, Journal of Management, Vol. 23 No. 4,
pp. 495-516.
Ayoko, O.B. and Callan, V.J. (2010), “Teams’ reactions to conflict and teams’ task and social outcomes:
the moderating role of transformational and emotional leadership”, European Management
Journal, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 220-235.
Ayoko, O.B. and Chua, E.L. (2014), “The importance of transformational leadership behaviors in team
mental model similarity, team efficacy, and intra-team conflict”, Group and Organization
Management, Vol. 39 No. 5, pp. 504-531.
Becker, T.E. (2005), “Potential problems in the statistical control of variables in organizational-
research: a qualitative analysis with recommendations”, Organizational Research Methods,
Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 274-289.
Becker, T.E., Atinc, G., Breaugh, J.A., Carlson, K.D., Edwards, J.R. and Spector, P.E. (2016), “Statistical
control in correlational studies: 10 essential recommendations for organizational researchers”,
Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 157-167.
Bliese, P.D. (2000), “Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: implications for data
aggregation and analysis”, in Klein, K. and Kozlowski, S.W.J. (Eds), Multilevel Theory, Research,
and Methods in Organizations: Foundations, Extensions, and New Directions, Jossey-Bass, San
Francisco, CA, pp. 349-381.
Brislin, R.W. (1980), “Translation and content analysis of oral and written material”, Handbook of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 349-444.
Cai, Y., Jia, L. and Li, J. (2017), “Dual-level transformational leadership and team information
elaboration: the mediating role of relationship conflict and moderating role of Middle way
thinking”, Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 399-421.
De Dreu, C.K.W. (2006), “When too little or too much hurts: evidence for a curvilinear relationship
between task conflict and innovation in teams”, Journal of Management, Vol. 32 No. 1,
pp. 83-107.
De Dreu, C.K.W. and De Vries, N.K. (1997), “Minority dissent in organizations”, in De Dreu, C.K.W. and
Van de Vliert, E. (Eds), Using Conflict in Organizations, Sage, London, pp. 72-86.
IJCMA De Dreu, C.K.W. and Van Vianen, A.E.M. (2001), “Managing relationship conflict and the effectiveness
of organizational teams”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 309-328.
30,1
De Dreu, C.K.W. and Weingart, L.R. (2003a), “Task versus relationship conflict, team performance,
and team member satisfaction: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 4,
pp. 741-749.
De Dreu, C.K.W. and Weingart, L.R. (2003b), “A contingency theory of task conflict and performance in
150 groups and organizational teams”, in West, D., Tjosvold, M.D. and Smith, K.G. (Eds),
International Handbook of Organizational Teamwork and Cooperative Working, Wiley,
Chichester, pp. 151-166.
De Dreu, C.K.W. and West, M.A. (2001), “Minority dissent and team innovation: the importance of
participation in decision making”, The Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 6,
pp. 1191-1201.
De Dreu, C.K.W., Nijstad, B.A., Bechtoldt, M.N. and Baas, M. (2011), “Group creativity and innovation: a
motivated information processing perspective”, Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the
Arts, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 81-89.
Desivilya, H.S., Somech, A. and Lidgoster, H. (2010), “Innovation and conflict management in work
teams: the effects of team identification and task and relationship conflict”, Negotiation and
Conflict Management Research, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 28-48.
Detert, J.R. and Burris, E.R. (2007), “Leadership behavior and employee voice: is the door really open?”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp. 869-884.
de Wit, F.R.C., Greer, L.L. and Jehn, K.A. (2012), “The paradox of intragroup conflict: a meta-analysis”,
The Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 97 No. 2, pp. 360-390.
Dionne, S.D., Yammarino, F.J., Atwater, L.E. and Spangler, W.D. (2004), “Transformational
leadership and team performance”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 17
No. 2, pp. 177-193.
Diehl, M. and Stroebe, W. (1987), “Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: toward the solution of a
riddle”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 497-509.
Diehl, M. and Stroebe, W. (1991), “Productivity loss in idea-generating groups: tracking down the
blocking effect”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 61 No. 3, pp. 392-403.
Dong, Y., Bartol, K.M., Zhang, Z.-X. and Li, C. (2017), “Enhancing employee creativity via individual
skill development and team knowledge sharing: influences of dual-focused transformational
leadership”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 439-458.
Dyne, L. and Saavedra, R. (1996), “A naturalistic minority influence experiment: effects on divergent
thinking, conflict and originality in work groups”, British Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 35
No. 1, pp. 151-167.
Farh, J.L., Lee, C. and Farh, C.I.C. (2010), “Task conflict and team creativity: a question of how much
and when”, The Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 95 No. 6, pp. 1173-1180.
Fu, J.H.Y., Morris, M.W., Lee, S.L., Chao, M., Chiu, C.Y. and Hong, Y.Y. (2007), “Epistemic motives and
cultural conformity: need for closure, culture, and context as determinants of conflict
judgments”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 2, pp. 191-207.
George, J.M. (1990), “Personality, affect, and behavior in groups”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 75
No. 2, pp. 107-116.
Greer, L.L., Jehn, K.A. and Mannix, E.A. (2008), “Conflict transformation: a longitudinal investigation of
the relationships between different types of intragroup conflict and the moderating role of
conflict resolution”, Small Group Research, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 278-302.
Harrison, D.A., Price, K.H. and Bell, M.P. (1998), “Beyond relational demography: time and the effects of
surface- and deep-level diversity on work group cohesion”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 96-107.
Hayes, A.F. (2018), Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Task conflict
Regression-Based Approach, 2nd ed., Guilford, New York, NY.
on team
Hobman, E.V. and Bordia, P. (2006), “The role of team identification in the dissimilarity-conflict
relationship”, Group Processes ALLD Intergroup Relations, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 483-507.
creativity
Hogg, M.A. and Terry, D.I. (2000), “Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational
contexts”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 121-140.
Hu, N., Chen, Z., Gu, J., Huang, S. and Liu, H. (2017), “Conflict and creativity in inter-organizational 151
teams: the moderating role”, International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 28 No. 1,
pp. 74-102.
Huang, J.C. (2010), “Unbundling task conflict and relationship conflict: the moderating role of team
goal orientation and conflict”, International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 21 No. 3,
pp. 334-355.
Hülsheger, U.R., Anderson, N. and Salgado, J.F. (2009), “Team-level predictors of innovation at work: a
comprehensive meta-analysis spanning three decades of research”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 94 No. 5, pp. 1128-1145.
Hüttermann, H. and Boerner, S. (2011), “Fostering innovation in functionally diverse teams: the two
faces of transformational leadership”, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,
Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 833-854.
Janssen, O., Van De Vliert, E. and Veenstra, C. (1999), “How task and person conflict shape the role
of positive interdependence in management teams”, Journal of Management, Vol. 25 No. 2,
pp. 117-141.
Javidan, M., Dorfman, P.W., de Luque, M.S. and House, R.J. (2006), “In the eye of the beholder: cross-
cultural lessons in leadership from project GLOBE”, Academy of Management Perspectives,
Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 67-90.
Jehn, K.A. (1994), “Enhancing effectiveness: an investigation of advantages and disadvantages of
value-based intragroup conflict”, International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 5 No. 3,
pp. 223-238.
Jehn, K.A. (1995), “A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict”,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 256-282.
Jehn, K.A. (1997), “A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational groups”,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 530-557.
Jehn, K.A. and Bendersky, C. (2003), “Intragroup conflict in organizations: a contingency perspective on
the conflict-outcome relationship”, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25, pp. 187-242.
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. 238-251.
Langfred, C.W. and Moye, N. (2014), “Does conflict help or hinder creativity in teams? An examination
of conflict’s effects on creative processes and creative outcomes”, International Journal of
Business and Management, Vol. 9 No. 6, pp. 30-42.
Leeuwen, E. and van Knippenberg, D. (2002), “How a group goal may reduce social matching in group
performance: shifts in standards for setermining a fair contribution of effort”, Journal of Social
Psychology, Vol. 142 No. 1, pp. 73-86.
LePine, J.A., Hollenbeck, J.R., Ilgen, D.R., Colquitt, J.A. and Ellis, A. (2002), “Gender composition,
situational strength, and team decision-making accuracy: a criterion decomposition approach”,
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 88 No. 1, pp. 445-475.
Li, G., Shang, Y., Liu, H. and Xi, Y. (2014), “Differentiated transformational leadership and knowledge
sharing: a cross-level investigation”, European Management Journal, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 554-563.
Loughry, M.L. and Amason, A.C. (2014), “Why won’t task conflict cooperate? Deciphering stubborn
results”, International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 333-358.
IJCMA Lovelace, K., Shapiro, D.L. and Weingart, L.R. (2001), “Maximizing cross-functional new product teams’
innovativeness and constraint adherence: a conflict communications perspective”, Academy of
30,1 Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 779-793.
McMillan, A., Chen, H., Richard, O.C. and Bhuian, S.N. (2012), “A mediation model of task conflict in
vertical dyads: linking organizational culture, subordinate values, and subordinate outcomes”,
International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 307-332.
Martínez-Moreno, E., Zornoza, A., González-Navarro, P. and Thompson, L.F. (2012), “Investigating face-
152 to-face and virtual teamwork over time: when does early task conflict trigger relationship
conflict?”, Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 159-171.
Metzner, C. (2003), “Eine analyse des konzepts der homogenita..ts- und heterogenita..tsbalancierung in
der zusammensetzung von arbeitsgruppen. [An analysis of the homogeneity and heterogeneity
balance concept in the composition of work groups]”, unpublished manuscript, University of
Regensburg, Regensburg.
Mueller, J.S. (2012), “Why individuals in larger teams perform worse”, Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, Vol. 117 No. 1, pp. 111-124.
Mullen, B., Johnson, C. and Salas, E. (1991), “Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: a meta-analytic
integration’”, Basic and Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 3-23.
Mumford, M.D., Scott, G.M., Gaddis, B. and Strange, J.M. (2002), “Leading creative people: orchestrating
expertise and relationships”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 705-750.
O’Neill, T.A., Allen, N.J. and Hastings, S.E. (2013), “Examining the ‘pros’ and ‘cons’ of team conflict: a
team-level Meta-analysis of task, relationship, and process conflict”, Human Performance,
Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 236-260.
Paletz, S.B. and Schunn, C.D. (2010), “A social-cognitive framework of multidisciplinary team
innovation”, Topics in Cognitive Science, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 73-95.
Parayitam, S., Olson, B.J. and Bao, Y. (2010), “Task conflict, relationship conflict and agreement-seeking
behavior in Chinese top management teams”, International Journal of Conflict Management,
Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 94-116.
Pearce, C.L. and Sims, H.P. Jr (2002), “Vertical versus shared leadership as predictors of the
effectiveness of change management teams: an examination of aversive, directive, transactional,
transformational, and empowering leader behaviors”, Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and
Practice, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 172-197.
Pelled, L.H. (1996), “Demographic diversity, conflict, and work group outcomes: an intervening process
theory”, Organization Science, Vol. 7 No. 6, pp. 615-631.
Peterson, D.R. (1983), “Conflict”, in Kelley, H.H. (Ed.), Close Relationships, Freeman, New York, NY,
pp. 360-396.
Peterson, R.S. and Behfar, K.J. (2003), “The dynamic relationship between performance feedback, trust,
and conflict in groups: a longitudinal study”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, Vol. 92 Nos 1/2, pp. 102-112.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B. and Bommer, W.H. (1996), “Transformational leader behaviors and
substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment, trust, and
organizational citizenship behaviors”, Journal of Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 259-298.
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. 717-731.
Preacher, K.J., Rucker, D.D. and Hayes, A.F. (2007), “Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses:
theory, methods, and prescriptions”, Multivariate Behavioral Research, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 185-227.
Schulz-Hardt, S., Jochims, M. and Frey, D. (2002), “Productive conflict in group decision making:
genuine and contrived dissent as strategies to counteract biased information seeking”,
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 88 No. 2, pp. 563-586.
Shaw, J.D., Zhu, J., Duffy, M.K., Scott, K.L., Shih, H.A. and Susanto, E. (2011), “A contingency model of Task conflict
conflict and team effectiveness”, The Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 96 No. 2, pp. 391-400.
on team
Shin, S.J. and Zhou, J. (2007), “When is educational specialization heterogeneity related to creativity in
research and development teams? Transformational leadership as a moderator”, Journal of
creativity
Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 6, pp. 1709-1721.
Shrout, P.E. and Bolger, N. (2002), “Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: new
procedures and recommendations”, Psychological Methods, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 422-445.
Simons, T., Pelled, L.H. and Smith, K.A. (1999), “Making use of difference: diversity, debate, and
153
decision comprehensiveness in top management teams”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 42 No. 6, pp. 662-673.
Simons, T.L. and Peterson, R.S. (2000), “Task conflict and relationship conflict in top management
teams: the pivotal role of intragroup trust”, The Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 85 No. 1,
pp. 102-111.
Sutton, R.I. and Hargadon, A. (1996), “Brainstorming groups in context: effectiveness in a product
design firm”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 685-718.
Tajfel, H. (1982), Social Identity and Intergroup Relations, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Tanveer, Y., Jiayin, Q., Akram, U. and Tariq, A. (2018), “Antecedents of frontline manager handling
relationship conflicts”, International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 2-23.
Tse, H.H.M. and Chiu, W.C. (2014), “Transformational leadership and job performance: a social identity
perspective”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 67 No. 1, pp. 2827-2835.
To, M.L., Herman, H.M. and Ashkanasy, N.M. (2015), “A multilevel model of transformational
leadership, affect, and creative process behavior in work teams”, The Leadership Quarterly,
Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 543-556.
Turner, J. (1987), Rediscovering the Social Group: A Social Categorization Theory, Blackwell, Oxford.
van den Berg, W., Curseu, P.L. and Meeus, M.T.H. (2014), “Emotion regulation and conflict
transformation in multi-team systems”, International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 25
No. 2, pp. 171-188.
van Knippenberg, D. and Schippers, M.C. (2007), “Work group diversity”, Annual Review of Psychology,
Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 515-541.
van Knippenberg, D. and Sitkin, S.B. (2013), “A critical assessment of charismatic—transformational
leadership research: back to the drawing board?”, The Academy of Management Annals, Vol. 7
No. 1, pp. 1-60.
van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C.K.W. and Homan, A.C. (2004), “Work group diversity and group
performance: an integrative model and research agenda”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 89
No. 6, pp. 1008-1022.
van Woerkom, M. and van Engen, M.L. (2009), “Learning from conflicts? The relations between task
and relationship conflicts, team learning and team performance”, European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 381-404.
Wang, X.-H.F. and Howell, J.M. (2010), “Exploring the dual-level effects of transformational leadership
on followers”, The Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 95 No. 6, pp. 1134-1144.
Wang, X.H.F., Kim, T.Y. and Lee, D.R. (2016), “Cognitive diversity and team creativity: effects of team
intrinsic motivation and transformational leadership”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69
No. 9, pp. 3231-3239.
Weingart, L.R., Behfar, K.J., Bendersky, C., Todorova, G. and Jehn, K. (2015), “The directness and
oppositional intensity of conflict expression”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 2,
pp. 235-262.
Wuchty, S., Jones, B.F. and Uzzi, B. (2007), “The increasing dominance of teams in production of
knowledge”, Science (New York, N.Y.), Vol. 316 No. 5827, pp. 1036-1039.
IJCMA Yang, J. and Mossholder, K.W. (2004), “Decoupling task and relationship conflict: the role of intragroup
emotional processing”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 589-605.
30,1
Yong, K., Sauer, S.J. and Mannix, E.A. (2014), “Conflict and creativity in interdisciplinary teams”, Small
Group Research, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 266-289.
Zhang, X., Cao, Q. and Tjosvold, D. (2011), “Linking transformational leadership and team
performance: a conflict management approach”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 48 No. 7,
pp. 1586-1611.
154
Zhou, J. and George, J.M. (2001), “When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: encouraging the
expression of voice”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 682-696.

Further reading
Puck, J. and Pregernig, U. (2014), “The effect of task conflict and cooperation on performance of teams:
are the results similar for different task types?”, European Management Journal, Vol. 32 No. 6,
pp. 870-878.
Shamir, B., House, R.J. and Arthur, M.B. (1993), “The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: a
self-confcept based theory”, Organization Science, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 577-594.
Sullivan, J. (1988), “Three roles of language in motivation theory”, Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 104-115.

Corresponding author
Eun Kyung Lee can be contacted at: eklee1718@gmail.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com