The Structure and Function of Team Conflict State Profiles

581662
research-article2015
JOMXXX10.1177/0149206315581662Journal of ManagementO’Neill et al. / Team Conflict State Profiles
Journal of Management
Vol. 44 No. 2, February 2018 811–836
DOI: 10.1177/0149206315581662
© The Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
The Structure and Function of Team Conflict

State Profiles
Thomas A. O’Neill
University of Calgary
Matthew J. W. McLarnon
University of Western Ontario
Genevieve C. Hoffart
University of Calgary
Hayden J. R. Woodley
Natalie J. Allen
University of Western Ontario
Team conflict types include task conflict, relationship conflict, and process conflict. Whereas
differences in views about the task (task conflict) are often argued to be beneficial, incompati-
bilities involving personal issues (relationship conflict) and execution issues (process conflict)
are often argued to be harmful. However, previous empirical research has tended to treat team
conflict types as independent from each other despite their natural coexistence in teams. In two
separate studies and one replication study, we identified latent patterns of team conflict, in the
form of conflict profiles, that were defined by distinct levels of task conflict, relationship conflict,
and process conflict. In Study 1, we investigated whether the conflict profiles had implications
for team conflict management and team potency. In Study 2, we examined the generalizability
of the conflict profiles to teams with longer life cycles, and we investigated the implications of
conflict profiles for team performance. Findings indicated that teams can be reliably assigned
to particular profiles of team conflict and that these profiles replicate well. The results also
Acknowledgments: This article was accepted under the editorship of Patrick M. Wright. The authors would like to
acknowledge the Social Sciences and Humanities Council of Canada (Grants 430-2012-0059 and 410-2010-1230
associated with the first and fifth author, respectively; Scholarship 767-2012-2486 associated with the second
author), the Schulich School of Engineering Chair in Design Engineering and Energy Systems, and the Taylor
Institute for Teaching and Learning for supporting this research.
Supplemental material for this article is available with the manuscript on the JOM website.
Corresponding author: Thomas A. O’Neill, University of Calgary, 2500 University Drive N.W., Calgary, Alberta
T2N 1N4, Canada.
E-mail: toneill@ucalgary.ca
811
812 Journal of Management / February 2018
indicate that the implications of a particular type of conflict depend on the pattern of the team’s
conflict profile as a whole. Drawing from information processing theory, we found that teams
with high task conflict and low relationship and process conflict tend to have more effective
interactions and achieve superior outcomes. This “team-centric” approach appears to provide
promising new avenues for advancing current theories of conflict in organizational work teams.
Keywords: team conflict; conflict profiles; task conflict; team outcomes; latent profile analysis
Jehn’s (1995, 1997) seminal work identified three distinct types of team conflict: task
conflict (TC), relationship conflict (RC), and process conflict (PC). TC involves perceived
differences in opinions and views about the task and is high when members debate incompat-
ible points of view and ideas regarding solutions to the task itself. RC involves perceived
interpersonal incompatibilities involving friction and personality clashes and is high when
members feel anger, animosity, and resentment toward each other. PC involves perceived
incompatibilities in roles, responsibilities, and schedules for task completion and is high
when members disagree on plans for proceeding and executing. TC, RC, and PC have been
referred to as conflict states (e.g., Okhuysen & Richardson, 2007; Shaw, Zhu, Duffy, Scott,
Shih, & Susanto, 2011) and represent the “shared perceptions among members of the team
about the intensity of disagreement” (DeChurch, Mesmer-Magnus, & Doty, 2013: 560).
Considerable attention has been directed toward describing the theoretical benefits of TC for
team performance (e.g., Amason, 1996; Farh, Lee, & Farh, 2010). TC is theorized to benefit the
team by providing diverging perspectives, new information and insights, fewer premature deci-
sions, and innovation (e.g., De Dreu, 2006; Jehn, 1995). Recent meta-analyses, however, indi-
cate that the average relation involving TC and team performance appears to be zero (de Wit,
Greer, & Jehn, 2012; O’Neill, Allen, & Hastings, 2013). Importantly, information processing
theory, often invoked to describe the implications of conflict for team effectiveness (e.g., Shaw
et al., 2011), suggests that TC must be understood in the context of RC and PC. Teams are
assumed to have limited cognitive resources that can be supplied by each team member. When
most resources are directed toward managing RC and PC, the team will have a reduced capac-
ity to benefit from productive exchanges involving TC. Thus, conflict types have interdepen-
dencies that must be considered and modeled to increase our understanding of the implications
for team functioning and, particularly, when TC may be most helpful.
The current research offers a new way to conceptualize, study, and understand team con-
flict by introducing a team-centric paradigm. Specifically, rather than focusing on how TC,
RC, and PC independently or additively affect teamwork, we suggest that teams exhibit
meaningful patterns of all three conflict types. As such, we sought to identify both the struc-
ture and the function (cf. Morgeson & Hofmann, 1999) of distinct conflict state profiles that
comprise varying levels of TC, RC, and PC. The structure of various conflict profiles repre-
sents shared perceptions of qualitatively distinct, multidimensional team states, whereas the
function of conflict profiles involves their implications for team interactions and outcomes.
This is important because several theorists have argued that the impact of conflict variables,
such as TC, depends on levels of other conflict variables, such as RC and PC (e.g., Jehn &
Mannix, 2001). Thus, in advancing a team-centric paradigm and a unique application of
O’Neill et al. / Team Conflict State Profiles 813
latent profile analysis (LPA), we sought to identify the structure of these profiles and their
potential for differential functional implications.
We begin by providing a theoretical backdrop of conflict types and describing how a
team-centric paradigm can augment existing research. In Study 1, we identify and replicate
structures of team conflict state profiles, and we consider their functional implications for
teamwork. In Study 2, we examine whether structures of conflict state profiles could differ in
teams performing a single, larger, and longer-term task, and we extend our examination of
functional implications to a measure of team performance.
Theoretical Backdrop
Separation Perspective
Much of the empirical research on TC, RC, and PC draws on the separation perspective
(Janssen, Van de Vliert, & Veenstra, 1999). The separation perspective treats conflict states
as independent, thereby suggesting that relations between each conflict type and various
outcomes be examined without regard for the two others. This approach was adopted in two
recent meta-analyses in which it was reported that TC is unrelated to team performance and
that RC and PC are both negatively related to team performance (de Wit et al., 2012; O’Neill
et al., 2013). Given that these meta-analyses comprised 116 and 83 studies, respectively, each
with thousands of teams and tens of thousands of individual team members, further research
on the separation perspective seems unlikely to yield significant theoretical gains (see also
DeChurch et al., 2013).
Complexity Perspective
The complexity perspective posits that a team’s pattern of TC, RC, and PC has the stron-
gest implications for team functioning (Janssen et al., 1999). This view has its roots in long-
standing, conventional wisdom that teams can benefit from task-related conflicts if
person-related conflicts can be avoided (Amason & Sapienza, 1997; De Dreu, 1997; Shaw et
al., 2011). Additionally, Jehn and Mannix observed that “teams will be more successful to the
extent that their leaders can promote constructive debate concerning the task at hand . . .
while minimizing the potential for RC and PC” (2001: 248). Thus, the complexity perspec-
tive suggests that distinct conflict states and their implications for team effectiveness are
complex and interdependent (see also Amason, 1996; Behfar, Peterson, Mannix, & Trochim,
2008; De Dreu & Weingart, 2003a; de Wit, Greer, & Jehn, 2013; Jehn & Chatman, 2000;
Pondy, 1967). In fact, the interdependence of conflict types has been a recurring theme in the
literature for over half a century (e.g., Guetzkow & Gyr, 1954; Torrance, 1957). Generally,
considerations focus on the differential impact of TC as it varies across levels of RC and PC.
The usual argument—widely accepted in the popular press (e.g., Lencioni, 2002, 2012)—is
that TC has the potential to be most useful and constructive when both RC and PC are low.
Despite a dearth of empirical research explicitly testing the complexity perspective (but
see de Wit et al., 2013; Janssen et al., 1999; Jehn & Chatman, 2000), it is apparent in a num-
ber of theories of team conflict. Of these, most draw from a general theory of information
processing (e.g., Pelled, 1996). The complexity perspective relies on information processing
theory to suggest that increased cognitive load will occur in the presence of perceived threat,
which draws resources away from the critical analysis and processing of divergent perspec-
tives (Shaw et al., 2011). This produces rigid and inflexible thinking, fragmented mental
categories, and creative inhibition (Carnevale & Probst, 1998; de Wit et al.; Mather, 2009;
Varner & Ellis, 1998). Team members will more likely experience depleted attention, energy,
and effort for the task because of the need to divert cognitive resources so as to manage the
feelings of fear, threat, and distrust associated with increasing levels of RC and PC (Amason
& Mooney, 1999). In turn, teams may not formulate novel and integrative solutions and capi-
talize on the potential benefits of TC, thereby reducing task performance (De Dreu &
Weingart, 2003b; Jehn & Bezrukova, 2010). Therefore, a team-centric approach that exam-
ines team conflict state profiles, which explicitly incorporate the complexity perspective and
the interdependence of the conflict states, might be ideally suited to provide a deeper under-
standing of the role of conflict within teams.
The Variable-Centric Paradigm

Limitations inherent in the variable-centric paradigm (cf. Weiss & Rupp, 2011) have made
it difficult to uncover empirical support for the complexity perspective of team conflict.
Variable-centric paradigms involve assigning properties to the units of analysis, such as indi-
viduals or teams, and examining associations between those properties (cf. Kam, Morin,
Meyer, & Topolnytsky, 2016). Although commonplace, the variable-centric approach (e.g.,
de Wit et al., 2012; O’Neill et al., 2013) is less able to treat, dissect, and understand teams as
complex systems that simultaneously experience multiple forms of conflict. In so doing, it
downplays the impact, and our understanding, of a team’s overall conflict atmosphere (Jehn
& Chatman, 2000). Under the variable-centric approach, we can only make inferences about
variable interrelations. This limits understanding of how the combined occurrence of multi-
ple forms of conflict simultaneously relates to team functioning.
The Team-Centric Paradigm

We assert that team conflict profiles represent the team members’ shared perception of the
team’s multidimensional conflict state. We draw from the profile and person-centric approach,
which considers that people tend to have particular patterns across several variables and that
these patterns may be important for understanding outcomes. Although the person-centric
approach has emerged in other areas of research, such as commitment (Meyer, Stanley, &
Vandenberg, 2013), impression management (Bolino & Turpley, 2003; Chiaburu, Stoverink,
Li, & Zhang, 2015), career interests (McLarnon, Carswell, & Schneider, 2015), and aca-
demic self-concept (Marsh, Lüdtke, Trautwein, & Morin, 2009), it has not yet been investi-
gated in the study of teams. We propose an extension of the person-centric approach by
considering shared perceptions of conflict states at the team level, thereby offering a team-
centric approach to the treatment and study of conflict in teams.
There are several features of a team-centric approach that contribute to the past literature.
First, whereas a few studies have found support for interactions involving conflict types (de
Wit et al., 2013; Janssen et al., 1999; Shaw et al., 2011), there has yet to be a study in which
teams were classified into representative latent structures of team conflict states based on
patterns of TC, RC, and PC. Identifying a small number of team conflict state profiles, into
which teams can be accurately classified, would shed light on the distinct ways in which the
three conflict states simultaneously occur in a team.
Second, three-way interactions involving TC, RC, and PC have not been identified despite
potential meaningful and consequential patterns of conflict. Failing to detect three-way interac-
tions might be related to the low power of moderated multiple regression (Aguinis &
Gottfredson, 2010) compounded by the difficulty of obtaining large sample sizes in team-level
research. Team-centric analyses present an advantage in this regard because they represent an
interactionistic perspective (Bergman & Magnusson, 1997: 291) on the team. In this way, team-
centric approaches can implicitly model complex interactions between the three conflict states
to provide understanding as to how conflict states are represented in teams (for analogous argu-
ments in person-centric research, see Morin, Morizot, Boudrias, & Madore, 2011).
Third, although interactions can be investigated as combinations of predictor variables in
multivariate analyses, interactions are relatively inflexible in model building. Specifically,
they require positioning in theoretical models as predictors and moderators. However, team
conflict profiles can be employed as independent, moderator, mediator, or outcome variables
according to the researcher’s theory, thereby offering a more flexible avenue for studying
team conflict.
Time and Team Conflict State Profiles

Temporal issues involving the development of conflict states over a team’s life cycle are
consequential for both theory and research design (cf. Kozlowski, 2012; Roe, Gockel, &
Meyer, 2012). Recall that the primary purpose of the current research is to identify stable
team conflict profile structures that have functional implications for team outcomes in order
to establish their relevance. Accordingly, we adopt the current literature’s treatment of con-
flict types as states (e.g., DeChurch et al., 2013), which are defined as “properties of the team
that are typically dynamic in nature and vary as a function of team context, inputs, processes,
and outcomes” (Marks, Mathieu, & Zaccaro, 2001: 357). Although conflict is subject to
dynamics, theorists also view conflict states as “relatively enduring properties of the team
rooted in individuals’ thoughts and feelings” (DeChurch et al.: 560). Thus, conflict states
should be relatively stable but subject to fluidity.
The patterns of conflict state profiles may also be temporally dependent. Among teams
that are in the early stages of their life cycle, profiles involving high levels of TC may be
uncommon. At this stage, members may focus on building relationships and establishing rap-
port rather than intensively debating decisions and having high TC. In addition, profiles
involving high PC could be expected, as it would be at this early stage that members may be
seeking to debate norms, standards, and operating principles for their future work together
(Jehn & Mannix, 2001). However, in the current study, our focus is on the profiles that are
likely to occur near the end of the team’s work together as these profiles are more proximal
to the team’s outcomes.
DeChurch et al. (2013) argued that conflict management (CM) processes precede and
affect the development and stabilization of conflict states. Specifically, the manner in which
team members approach or avoid conflicts early on was theorized to influence levels of sub-
sequent conflict states. In turn, these relatively stable conflict states function as the context,
norms, and shared expectations regarding which CM styles should be used and how effective
they will be in a given team. Furthermore, Gersick’s (1988) findings indicated that teams
tend not to work intensively until the midpoint of their time together, at which point members
appear to recognize the need for action and increase their task focus. At this point or later, we
would expect that profiles may shift and ultimately stabilize into a multidimensional state
that is most predictive of later team interactions and final team outcomes. It is during this
time that most members will be vested and decisions may be passionately debated, raising
the potential need for effective use of TC while also creating the potential for both the occur-
rence and the well-documented negative effects of RC and PC. This theorizing suggests that
assessing team conflict state profiles as predictors of interaction and performance should be
done after a period of time following the midpoint. Note that a study examining the develop-
ment of conflict state profiles would be specifically focused on examining change over time
and whether certain profiles occur at various time points. In contrast, our purpose is to iden-
tify structures at a time when they are relatively stable and most likely to have strong func-
tional implications on outcomes. Accordingly, the studies reported here assess team conflict
as the teams approach the project deadline, and our theorizing regarding conflict state struc-
tures and functions reflects this.
Study 1
The Structure of Team Conflict States
In considering combinations of high and low levels of TC, RC, and PC, there are eight
potential team conflict state structures. For reasons that involve both empirical constraints
and theory, however, not all eight conflict structures seem likely. As shown in meta-analytic
work, RC and PC correlate at high magnitudes (e.g., ρ = .73; de Wit et al., 2012). Accordingly,
it is unlikely that they would diverge greatly from each other across profiles despite support
for discriminant validity (Behfar, Mannix, Peterson, & Trochim, 2011; Jehn, Northcraft, &
Neale, 1999) and differential prediction (e.g., O’Neill et al., 2013). From a theoretical per-
spective, including both RC and PC allows for a more nuanced interpretation of the conflict
profiles because we can confirm the pattern of RC and PC rather than indirectly inferring one
from the other. Indeed, both RC and PC are tied to the unifying tripartite theory of conflict
(Jehn, 1997). Thus, omitting either RC or PC would represent a theoretical deficiency and, as
such, would put unnecessary limits on our understanding of conflict structures and why they
may be related to team outcomes.
It is important to note that the measure of TC used in this study is less strongly related to
the other two forms of conflict. Specifically, Behfar et al. (2011) developed a measure of TC
that emphasizes conflict and disagreement less than recognizing and using divergent view-
points about the task. Emphasis on the latter seems more consistent with typical interpreta-
tions of TC, such as “differences of opinion about the work being done and about ideas” and
“differences in viewpoints, ideas, and opinions” (Jehn & Mannix, 2001: 239, 258). Although
the term “conflict” was embedded in Jehn’s (1995) items, it may explain why that measure
of TC correlates so highly with RC and PC (ρ = .54 and .72, respectively; de Wit et al., 2012).
This can be contrasted with the items of Behfar et al., which capture discussions about “pros
and cons of ideas” and “debate about different opinions or ideas” (148). Indeed, TC corre-
lated on average with RC and PC at –.08 and .00, respectively, across three studies reported
by Behfar et al. Thus, TC levels across profiles should not be influenced by correlations with
RC and PC. This is important because, theoretically, TC levels should not be dependent on
RC and PC. Below, we consider potential combinations based on our review of the existing
literature.
High TC, low RC, and low PC (i.e., “TC dominant”). This conflict state profile aligns
with prior theorizing regarding the effective use of TC. TC is expected to produce deeper
understanding (Tjosvold, 1998), an examination of assumptions, divergent rather than con-
vergent thinking (Farh et al., 2010), learning (Tjosvold, 2008a), and superior decisions
(Amason & Sapienza, 1997), but only when RC and PC are held to a minimum (Jehn &
Chatman, 2000; Jehn & Mannix, 2001).
In order to understand how teams may realize the benefits of TC, we draw on information
processing and related theories to suggest that it is critical to minimize RC and PC.
Specifically, teams have limited cognitive processing resources to draw on, and allocating
available resources across TCs, RCs, and PCs will be less effective than focusing energy
squarely on addressing task issues (de Wit et al., 2013; Jehn, Greer, Levine, & Szulanski,
2008; Shaw et al., 2011). In other words, in order for the team members’ full cognitive efforts
to be directed toward sharing and using information to identify the best possible solution, RC
and PC must be low (Jehn & Chatman, 2000). This is also in line with Jehn’s (1995) argu-
ments that openness norms are needed to promote a collective focus on problem solving
(Lovelace, Shapiro, & Weingart, 2001). Thus, we expected a “TC-dominant” profile in which
TC is high and RC and PC are low.
Low TC, high RC, and high PC (i.e., “dysfunctional”). In contrast to the teams described
above, some teams may be characterized by relatively low TC, high RC, and high PC. Regard-
ing the interplay of PC and RC, Greer, Jehn, and Mannix (2008) provided evidence that early
unresolved PC contributed to later RC. According to Jehn et al. (2008), it is likely that per-
ceptions of injustice and distrust in other members’ intentions or capabilities engender PC. In
turn, high RC would likely entrench members more deeply in their process-related disputes,
creating a vicious self-sustaining cycle. As such, a combination of high RC and low PC, or
vice versa, is unlikely to occur within a team. Thus, we surmised that a profile involving
relatively low TC, high RC, and high PC—labeled “dysfunctional”—would be identified.
Hybrid conflict state profiles. Worth considering is the possibility that one or more hybrid
team conflict state profiles exist that are blends of those described above. Specifically, we
expect that increases in RC and PC will occur simultaneously, given their high correlation
observed in meta-analyses (e.g., de Wit et al., 2012), but that with these increases there will
be corresponding reductions in TC. This is because teams with moderate RC and PC should
experience some of the information processing challenges that inhibit effective TC, thereby
leading each conflict type to reach relatively moderate levels. In sum, we expect one or more
team conflict profiles to represent hybrids that contain less extreme levels of TC, RC, and PC
than those in the TC-dominant and dysfunctional profiles.
Low TC, low RC, and low PC (i.e., “low-range conflict”). One potential team conflict
state profile that is quite different from those considered above involves relatively low lev-
els of all three conflict variables. Cohesive teams with members in harmonious friendships
could be represented in this profile given the low levels of RC and PC. Furthermore, the
low TC would signal a lack of highly debated issues and decision making in the recent
past. The concept of team rhythms (e.g., Marks et al., 2001) suggests that teams experience
periods of intensive activity interspersed with quieter periods during which members may
still be jointly responsible for team outcomes but engage in little intensive decision mak-
ing. Similarly, consider stage models of team innovation, which suggest that idea generation
and planning tends to occur first and then the focus turns to execution and implementation
(West, 2002). Of course, some teams will alternate between these stages more than others,
but low-range conflict teams, by definition, are in a period of little intensive decision making
involving different viewpoints, and members are lacking interpersonal frictions and process
disagreement. This would be likely in teams focused purely on execution of work rather than
revisiting previous decisions or exploring different perspectives at the time of measurement.
We do not include disbanded teams in this conceptualization, however, as teams that have
completed their work do not have interdependent outcomes and are therefore not teams. We
suspect that a profile with low levels of all conflict states—a profile we labeled “low-range
conflict”—would be most likely in an intact team that is executing preplanned work with
limited decision-making emphasis. In sum, the low-range conflict profile will occur in a team
that is (a) free of personality clashes (i.e., RC) and procedural incompatibilities (PC) and (b)
currently in a low state of decision-making activity.
Unlikely conflict profiles. Other conflict state profile possibilities include relatively high
levels of all conflict types and variations involving opposite levels of RC and PC (cf. Jehn &
Chatman, 2000; Jehn & Mannix, 2001). However, we do not anticipate these profiles to char-
acterize teams. Teams with high RC and high PC, for instance, would be unable to also deploy
their information processing resources toward the use of effective TC (de Wit et al., 2012; Jehn
& Mannix). Instead, a spiral of RC and PC would likely prohibit information sharing around
task issues (Greer et al., 2008; Jehn et al., 2008; Peterson & Behfar, 2003). The remaining four
conflict states all include diverging levels of RC and PC. As mentioned earlier, RC and PC
likely coexist through their reciprocal causation and mutual reinforcement. Thus, it does not
seem that a conflict profile with relatively high levels of all conflict types would occur, nor do
we expect any of the four conflict states involving diverging levels of RC and PC.
Functional Implications of Conflict Profiles

CM processes. CM processes describe how conflict is treated and handled in the team
(DeChurch & Marks, 2001). Early work on CM drew from social interdependence theory
(Deutsch, 1949; see reviews by Johnson, 2003; Johnson & Johnson, 1989; Tjosvold, 1998),
which posits that interdependence gives rise to conflict, and reactions to that conflict depend
on perceptions of cooperation. Specifically, cooperative CM occurs when individual team
members see their own goals as being positively related to the goals of other team members
(i.e., a positive interdependency). Cooperative CM is beneficial, as conflict tends to be met
with open-mindedness, information seeking, a desire for deeper understanding, and integra-
tion (see Tjosvold).
Conflict state profiles are closely connected to, and intertwined with, CM processes. The
information processing literature suggests that the manner in which information is processed
is expected to narrow the range of options considered when attempting to resolve perceived
incompatibilities or make a difficult decision (cf. Simon, 1978). Importantly, information
processing will influence the structure of a team’s conflict state profile, which may create
limits on the range of approaches the team utilizes in response to differing viewpoints. Teams
with a TC-dominant conflict state profile would likely use a great deal of cooperative CM.
As TC dominates both RC and PC in these teams, conflict processes would resemble devil’s
advocacy, minority dissent, constructive controversy (De Dreu & West, 2001; Schwenk,
1989; Tjosvold, 2008b), and “healthy debate-driven conflict” (Behfar et al., 2008: 184).
In a dysfunctional conflict state profile, however, elevated RC might cause team members
to be suspicious and threatened by each other. Distrust in others’ capabilities would likely
also be present in light of elevated PC (Jehn et al., 2008). Thus, teams with a dysfunctional
profile are unlikely to treat differences of opinion as an opportunity to cooperatively move
toward a superior decision. Instead, they may view conflicts as a win-lose contest and focus
cognitive processing resources on undermining each other. Finally, teams with a hybrid pro-
file would likely fall between the TC-dominant and dysfunctional profiles on cooperative
CM as they represent distinct, yet blended, variations of these profiles.
Additionally, teams with a low-range conflict profile might be expected to report high levels
of cooperative CM. As noted above, the low-range conflict profile could be common in teams
that share strong bonds through friendships and cohesion and in teams that are not in a period
of intensive decision making involving divergent viewpoints. We would expect that these teams
would be cooperative; members should feel their goals are mutually reinforcing because of low
levels of anger, frustration, and fear (RC) and few disagreements about roles, responsibilities,
and schedules (PC). Furthermore, members do not need to be concerned that task-related
debates could become harmful because they are currently not working through TCs. As such,
teams with the low-range conflict profile should have high cooperative CM.
Team potency. Team potency involves the team’s collective belief about its ability to per-
form (Guzzo, Yost, Campbell, & Shea, 1993) and is one of the most robust predictors of team
performance (LePine, Piccolo, Jackson, Mathieu, & Saul, 2008). The construct has a founda-
tion in general efficacy theory, which focuses on the critical role of confidence for driving
sustained, persistent, and intense effort in individuals (Chen, Gully, & Eden, 2001) and teams
(Chen, Bliese, & Mathieu, 2005). The TC-dominant profile is likely to enable strong team
potency, as teams with this profile are expected to be high on information sharing, learning,
idea integration, and creativity (de Wit et al., 2013; Farh et al., 2010; Jehn & Mannix, 2001;
Shaw et al., 2011). Teams repeatedly experiencing such interactions would likely experience
early and consistent successes, thereby developing and reinforcing their collective potency
beliefs. In contrast, the presence of high RC and PC in the dysfunctional profile would be harm-
ful given their consistent negative effects (de Wit et al., 2012; O’Neill et al., 2013). Specifically,
RC and PC would engender guardedness, fear, feelings of injustice, and distrust, all of which
would interfere with the team’s ability to process task-related information, make progress, and
build a strong set of team performance beliefs. Accordingly, the dysfunctional profile should
produce the lowest levels of team potency. Because of their moderate levels of RC and PC,
team potency within potential hybrid profiles should be at intermediate levels.
We anticipate that the low-range conflict profile would be related to moderate levels of
potency. Given the positive general atmosphere of low-range conflict teams, potency is unlikely
to be low as members would have positive affect toward their team and believe that it can be
somewhat effective. Teams with other conflict profiles, however, may be using the available
remaining time to further improve the quality of their projects and entertain last-minute debates
that may identify small areas of improvement (particularly in TC-dominant teams). This could
lead to small but noticeable increases in potency relative to low-range conflict profile teams. In
sum, the low-range conflict profile may be associated with a moderate level of team potency.
Method
Participants and Procedure
Participants were 577 students in a large Canadian university. All were 1st-year engineer-
ing majors, 70% were male, and the mean age was 19.17 years (SD = 0.46). The students
were organized into 195 engineering design teams consisting of three, four, or five members
(mean number of respondents per team = 2.96, SD = 1.17). Teams were required to complete
four engineering design projects over the course of a 13-week semester. The course was
heavily team based, as 80% of the course grade was reserved for the team assignments. These
projects, and their emphasis in terms of weighting for course grades, included the construc-
tion of a sailboat (10%), a racecar (20%), a biomimetic design (20%), and a video game
(30%). The students sketched and constructed physical prototypes, documented their designs
and described them in presentations, and conducted laboratory tests. Surveys measuring con-
flict states, conflict processes, and potency were administered 2 weeks prior to the last day of
classes (11 weeks into the teams’ life cycle).
Measures
We drew conflict measures from recent scale development work by Behfar et al. (2011).
Those authors revised past TC items (e.g., Jehn, 1995) on the basis of extensive research
involving a cluster analysis of interview statements and subsequent empirical validation in
multiple samples. Four TC items were written by Behfar et al. to represent TC as “discuss-
ing and debating opinions about the content of the work” (150) rather than using the terms
“conflict” and “incompatibilities,” which tend to be interpreted negatively by team mem-
bers. We adapted the scale from Behfar et al. such that each of the four items referred to
specific stages of the team engineering design process: identifying the problem definition,
considering design concepts, deciding on prototype specifics, and preparing team presen-
tations. Each stage was inserted following the stem to produce a total of four items: “To
what extent are different opinions, viewpoints, and perspectives discussed while settling
on your team’s (1) problem definition; (2) design concept; (3) prototype; and (4) presenta-
tion?” Internal consistency reliability, intraclass correlations ICC(1) and ICC(2), and
within-team agreement, or median rwg(j), were acceptable—α = .76, ICC(1) = .10, ICC(2)
= .25, median rwg(j) = .92. The four items used to measure RC were those appearing in both
Behfar et al. and Jehn (1995). A sample item—“How much friction is there among mem-
bers of your team?”—had an internal consistency reliability of .88, ICC(1) of .47, ICC(2)
of .73, and median rwg(j) of .92. PC items were taken from the Behfar et al. logistical con-
flict scale, which corresponds to Jehn’s (1997) definition of PC and includes three items,
such as “How often do members of your team disagree about who should do what?”; the
internal consistency reliability was .79; ICC(1) and ICC(2) were .26 and .52, respectively;
and median rwg(j) was .88. We used a 5-point scale with options ranging from a very small
amount to a lot for all of the TC, RC, and PC items.
Cooperative CM was measured with five items (see Alper, Tjosvold, & Law, 2000). An
example item is “Team members seek a solution that will be good for all of us.” Reliability,
ICCs, and within-team agreement were acceptable—α = .86, ICC(1) = .25, ICC(2) = .63,
median rwg(j) = .97. Team potency was measured using four items from Guzzo et al. (1993).
An example item is “My team believes it can be very productive,” with an internal consis-
tency reliability of .87, an ICC(1) of .33, an ICC(2) of .57, and a median rwg(j) of .87.
Responses were provided on a 7-point response scale ranging from strongly disagree to
strongly agree for all of the cooperative CM and potency items.
Aggregation and missing team member data. In order to identify team conflict profiles,
we aggregated individual-level TC, RC, and PC scale scores to the team level using the
within-team mean (cf. Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). In addition, cooperative CM and team
potency were similarly aggregated. Each ICC reported above was significant, indicating that
within-team agreement and between-team heterogeneity on the shared-unit constructs was at
beyond chance levels. Moreover, the absolute values of the ICCs exceeded those interpreted
in past conflict research to be supportive of aggregation (e.g., Jehn et al., 2008) and were
within the acceptable range described by DeShon, Kozlowski, Schmidt, Milner, and Wiech-
mann (2004: 1042). This provides evidence that the conflict, CM, and potency constructs
were shared among team members and that our subsequent conflict state profiles represent
shared perceptions of the team’s conflict atmosphere.
In small groups research, in which survey response data are aggregated to the team level,
some researchers remove those teams failing to meet a certain proportion of responding team
members from subsequent analysis (for a review, see Allen, Stanley, Williams, & Ross,
2007). In addition to simulation research discussed below advising against data deletion,
there was a strong theoretical reason to retain all data. Specifically, a team with few members
responding would likely have had poor attendance at mandatory laboratory meetings in
which teams were able to receive guidance on their work and progress through teamwork
activities. Notably, it was during one of these laboratory sessions that data were collected.
Accordingly, if a team were missing members, it could be related to avoidance behavior,
motivated by poor team functioning that would likely involve high RC and PC. As a result,
deleting teams with, for example, only one or two members in attendance would likely sys-
tematically delete teams with unfavorable conflict profiles (e.g., dysfunctional), thereby
reducing our ability to detect those profiles and compromising the construct validity of the
resulting conflict profile structures. As such, the construct validity of the conflict profile
structures, in our view, depended on the inclusion of teams with few responding members
and, therefore, all data were retained.1
In addition to the reasons above, computer simulation research (Maloney, Johnson, &
Zellmer-Bruhn, 2010; Stanley, Allen, Williams, & Ross, 2011) and field research (Hirschfeld,
Cole, Bernerth, & Rizzuto, 2013) that has examined the implications of removing teams from
the analysis on the basis of within-group response rates clearly advises against such practices.
In particular, deleting groups can result in a loss of statistical power, a failure to detect signifi-
cant relations (Type II errors), and a distortion of effect sizes. Thus, it seems that there are
strong theoretical and statistical reasons to retain all data in the estimation of conflict profiles.
Analytic procedure. We conducted LPA using a robust maximum likelihood estimator,

as implemented in Mplus 7. Following the recommendations of Pastor, Barron, Miller, and
Table 1
Correlations, Means, and Standard Deviations for Study 1 Variables
1 2 3 4 M SD
1. Task conflict 3.69 0.48

2. Relationship conflict –.31 1.92 0.80
3. Process conflict –.19 .65 2.05 0.67
4. Cooperative conflict management .59 –.58 –.48 5.49 0.67
5. Team potency .48 –.39 –.38 .57 5.34 0.86
Note: Team-level n = 195. All correlations are significant (at p < .05).
Davis (2007), we identified the optimal solution by specifying a single-profile model and
then adding profiles in subsequent models. Profile solutions with the following criteria were
favored (Nylund, Asparouhov, & Muthén, 2007): the lowest sample size adjusted Bayesian
information criterion (aBIC) values, a significant (i.e., p < .05) bootstrap likelihood ratio
test (BLRT; compares the fit of the k-profile model to a model with k-1 profiles), and class
solutions that clearly classify teams into a single profile, that is, high posterior probabilities
(Morin et al., 2011) and high (> .70) entropy. Upon identification of the conflict state pro-
files, we tested the equality of the cooperative CM and potency means using the pseudo-Wald
chi-square test, which takes into account classification uncertainty.
Results
We conducted confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) in order to examine the discriminant
validity of the five study variables: TC, RC, PC, cooperative CM, and team potency. As indi-
cated in the online supplemental materials, the hypothesized five-factor model offered the
best fit with a comparative fit index (CFI) of .93, root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA) of .07, and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) of .06. This suggests
adequate model-data fit for the five-factor CFA (Williams, Vandenberg, & Edwards, 2009),
and the delta chi-square value indicated a significant improvement in fit over alternative fac-
tor models. This supports the discriminant validity of the measures.
Table 1 contains team-level descriptive statistics and correlations for this study’s vari-
ables, and the model fit indices from the LPAs are in the online supplemental materials.
Although the aBIC value was lowest and the entropy value was highest for the five-class
solution, the p value of the BLRT was not significant for the five-class solution. In other
words, when comparing the model-data fit of the solutions, a four-profile solution provided
significantly better fit than did a three-profile solution, whereas the same was not true when
comparing the five-profile solution to the four-profile solution. Furthermore, an undesirable
feature of the five-profile solution was that two profiles each contained less than 5% of the
teams in the sample. In the four-profile solution, the posterior probabilities of profile mem-
bership ranged from 87.2% to 93.5%, indicating that the four types of teams were highly
distinguishable and that teams could be readily classified. The classification quality was also
supported by the entropy value of .79.
Figure 1 contains the pattern of TC, RC, and PC means for each of the four profiles.
Profile 1 was characterized by high TC, and low RC and PC scores, and confirmed the
Figure 1
Conflict Profiles Representing the Four Classes Extracted by the Latent Profile
Analysis in Study 1
5
4
Conflict Level
Task Conflict
3 Rela onship Conflict
Process Conflict
2
1
Task Conflict Rela onship Midrange Dysfunc onal
Dominant Conflict/Process Conflict Conflict Conflict
Minor
Figure 2
Analysis in the Replication of Study 1
5
4
Conflict Level
Task Conflict
3
Rela onship Conflict
2 Process Conflict
1
Task Conflict Rela onship Midrange Dysfunc onal
Dominant Conflict/Process Conflict Conflict Conflict
Minor
TC-dominant structure. Profiles 2 and 3 exhibited slightly higher levels of RC and PC than
TC dominant and, thus, represented two distinct hybrid profiles. The hybrid nature of Profile
2 was such that it contained similar TC levels as did TC dominant but higher RC and PC,
which led us to label this profile “RC/PC minor.” The hybrid nature of Profile 3 was such that
it contained lower levels of TC and higher levels of RC and PC than did the RC/PC-minor
profile. Given that the conflict levels were all in the intermediate range, we labeled it “mid-
range conflict.” Profile 4 resembled the dysfunctional profile as it contained the lowest levels
of TC and highest levels RC and PC.
We replicated the above conflict profile structure with data collected from the same course
in the subsequent calendar year using similar methodology and sample size. The online sup-
plemental materials contain further methodological details and correlations, CFAs, and
LPAs. Importantly, the four-profile solution provided the most defensible fit to the data, and
the patterns of the profiles were nearly identical to those observed in Study 1 (see Figure 2).
As such, the conflict profile structure was replicated and appears robust.
Table 2
Wald Test of Equality of Outcome Means Across Profiles for Study 1
RC/PC Midrange Dysfunctional

TC dominant minor conflict conflict Overall χ2(3)
Cooperative conflict 5.90a 5.53b 5.10c 3.91d 465.39*

management
Potency 5.79a 5.32b 4.99b 3.67c 148.23*
Note: Team-level n = 195. Unshared subscripts indicate that means are significantly different by row. TC = task
conflict; RC/PC = relationship conflict/process conflict.
*p < .05.
Table 2 contains the results of the pseudo-Wald chi-square tests, which contrasted the
means of cooperative CM and team potency across the four conflict profiles. The findings
indicate that cooperative CM and team potency levels were most favorable for teams clas-
sified as TC dominant, followed by RC/PC minor, midrange conflict, and finally lowest for
teams in the dysfunctional profile. Though comparisons between RC/PC minor and mid-
range conflict on team potency were not significant, all other profiles had significant
differences.
Discussion
The current study provides initial construct validity evidence for the existence of dis-
tinct team conflict state profiles. Results of the LPA supported a four-profile structure
representing latent patterns of team conflict, which was replicated with an additional data
set. It is critical to note that these profile structures represent the accurate and reliable clas-
sification of teams into qualitatively distinct profiles based on their multidimensional con-
flict state levels. The team-centric perspective we advanced allowed for the identification
of a specific number and structure of team conflict state profiles that reflect a shared con-
flict atmosphere within each set of teams assigned to a particular profile. This, in our view,
more strongly ties information processing theory to the coexistence of conflict types and
helps to highlight how teams may deploy their cognitive resources to manage multiple
forms of conflict simultaneously.
The current results suggest that it is possible for teams to engage in high TC and maintain
low RC and PC. Indeed, the TC-dominant profile appears to represent the prototypical and,
arguably, ideal pattern of so-called productive (e.g., De Dreu, 1997) or constructive (e.g.,
Greenberg, 2011) team conflict that has been quite elusive to pin down empirically.
Additionally, three other conflict profiles were identified by the LPAs. In order of favor-
ability of cooperative CM and team potency levels, they were RC/PC minor, midrange
conflict, and dysfunctional. These profiles were generally distinguished by decreasing TC
and increasing RC and PC, although the exact number of hybrid profiles were not predicted
a priori and were empirically determined. The pattern of findings, however, suggests that
reductions in a team’s ability to express divergent viewpoints co-occur with increases in
interpersonal frictions and task execution disagreements. This differentiated the RC/
PC-minor, midrange conflict, and dysfunctional conflict structures and in comparison to the
TC-dominant profile, was related to suboptimal team functioning. With RC and PC present,
team members may be relatively less likely to engage in TCs because of personality clashes
and incompatible views on how to carry out the task. This is an often-argued position in the
conflict literature, but the past focus on variable-centric analyses has made it difficult to
establish the needed empirical support.
Although the exact number of hybrid profiles was not predicted a priori, they were repli-
cated in an independent sample. This provides evidence that in the current research context,
those profiles were not identified by chance. Instead, the teams in those samples could be
accurately classified into four remarkably similar patterns of conflict types (i.e., conflict
structures). Nevertheless, further empirical research examining antecedents, consequences,
and other contexts would be useful for building the nomological net and generalizability of
the observed structures.
An unexpected finding was that the low-range conflict profile was not recovered. This
may have been due to the team context as it was highly engaging and demanding through-
out the entire 13-week semester. Indeed, we expected that low-range conflict would char-
acterize teams that were in a quiet period with respect to decision-making activity and TC.
Unfortunately, in the current samples, the largest and most significant team task was
assigned just 5 weeks before the end of the semester and the project deadline, with weekly
milestones that could have created the need for ongoing information synthesis and decision
making. As such, a low-range conflict profile comprising very little conflict of any kind
may have been quite unlikely as a result of the contextual demands. We examine this issue
further in Study 2, which uses a longer team life cycle and allows for greater team
autonomy.
Study 2
As mentioned above, in Study 1, the projects were completed on tight schedules that may
have interfered with the recovery of the hypothesized low-range conflict profile. Consistent
with two-stage team process models (e.g., West, 2002), this profile was expected in teams
that are in a stage of execution and implementation during which members avoid analysis
of viewpoints and intensive decision making. Similarly, research on pacing styles suggests
that some teams comprise a majority of members who prefer to complete most work early
in the life cycle (Gevers, Rutte, & van Eerde, 2006), which may reduce uncertainty as the
project nears completion. In longer-term teams with a single project focus that provides
greater flexibility in deciding on when to do the most intensive decision making and plan-
ning, team pacing styles could be more heterogeneous. If there were some teams with a
pacing style that led them to make most decisions and progress relatively early in the work
cycle, there may be less intensive team discussions and decision making closer to the proj-
ect deadline. This would fit with low task-related conflict, and if this occurs in teams that
also have little interpersonal friction (RC) and process-related incompatibilities (PC), a low-
range conflict profile should be detected. We considered this possibility using student engi-
neering design teams engaged in a large-scale, 6.5-month design project. This allowed us to
minimize substantial differences in team type from Study 1, while adjusting the time frame
and context in which fewer externally regulated team demands and expectations regarding
regular progress were imposed.
Hypothesis 1: LPA will identify the following conflict profiles: TC dominant, hybrid(s), dysfunc-
tional, and low-range conflict.
As in Study 1, team conflict profiles are expected to be associated with cooperative CM

processes. TC-dominant and low-range conflict profiles were expected to have the highest
cooperative CM, followed by hybrid profile(s) and, finally, the dysfunctional profile.
Hypothesis 2: Cooperative CM will be highest in teams classified in the TC-dominant and low-
range conflict profiles, followed by teams classified in the hybrid profile(s) and, finally, lowest
in teams classified in the dysfunctional conflict profile.
Team task performance is the extent to which the team’s deliverables meet the standards
and expectations of stakeholders (Hackman, 1987). Past research suggests that nonroutine
and complex tasks benefit from multiple points of view and, therefore, a moderate level of
team TC (De Dreu, 2006; Jehn, 1995). This is because the task may be large, multifaceted,
and technical, thereby making it nonroutine and calling for heterogeneity of viewpoints to
complete the work effectively. Our prediction, based on past theorizing involving informa-
tion processing theory, and the findings from Study 1, is that TC will be helpful only when
RC and PC are low (i.e., the TC-dominant profiles; Amason, 1996; de Wit et al., 2013; Jehn
& Mannix, 2001; Peterson & Behfar, 2003; Shaw et al., 2011; Yang & Mossholder, 2004).
With increases in RC and PC, there is likely to be resistance and opposition to others’ task-
related perspectives, thereby limiting the exploration of alternatives and integrative
approaches (de Wit et al.). In teams reporting a low-range conflict profile, we would expect
team performance to be lower than in teams reporting the TC-dominant profile (similar to our
prediction in Study 1 for team potency). This is because teams in the latter profile seek to
consider different task-related opinions until the end of the project, whereas teams in the
former profile appear to report few task-related debates and analysis of viewpoints late in the
project (i.e., relatively low TC). Finally, teams reporting the dysfunctional conflict profile
should be the weakest performing teams given their relatively high levels of RC and PC and
low TC. Therefore, we investigated the following:
Hypothesis 3: Team task performance will be highest in teams classified in the TC-dominant profile,
followed by teams classified as low-range conflict, hybrid(s), and, finally, lowest in teams clas-
sified in the dysfunctional conflict profile.
Method
Participants and Procedure
Participants were 311 students in a different Canadian university than those in Study 1. All
were 1st-year engineering majors, 80% were male, and the mean age was 18.62 years (SD =
2.33). The students were organized into 92 engineering design teams of three, four, or five
members each (mean number of respondents per team = 3.38, SD = 0.64). These teams com-
pleted a small practice design project in the first 6 weeks of their life cycle followed by a
major design project over the next 5 months. The focus of the major design project was to
develop, test, and report on a physical prototype that reduced physical barriers for individuals
with disabilities and to provide a comprehensive report on the device. Approximately 45%
Table 3
Correlations, Means, and Standard Deviations for Study 2 Variables
1 2 3 4 M SD
1. Task conflict 3.01 0.55

2. Relationship conflict –.16 1.69 0.69
3. Process conflict –.12 .77* 1.68 0.49
4. Cooperative conflict management .23* –.82* –.64* 5.30 0.89
5. Team performance .24* –.25* –.16 .28* 0.00 0.96
Note: Team-level n = 92.

*p < .05.
of the grades from this course were reserved for team-level assignments, and the major
design project accounted for 27.5% of course grades. As in Study 1, survey measures were
administered 2 weeks before the last day of classes, which occurred at approximately the
6-month point of the teams’ life cycle.
Measures
We employed the same conflict measures as Study 1. Reliability and aggregation statistics
were acceptable—TC: α = .75, ICC(1) = .09, ICC(2) = .41, rwg(j) = .81; RC: α = .91,
ICC(1) = .25, ICC(2) = .82, rwg(j) = .94; PC: α = .77, ICC(1) = .11, ICC(2) = .59, rwg(j) = .94;
cooperative CM: α = .83, ICC(1) = .13, ICC(2) = .60, rwg(j) = .97. Aggregation and missing
team member data were handled in accordance with procedures in Study 1.
Teams were required to submit reports of approximately 100 pages containing back-
ground research, documentation of the theoretical and observed capabilities of the design
concept, computer-aided design sketches, mathematical modeling, and implications for
design practice. The assessment of team task performance consisted of ratings provided by
experienced course instructors on the quality of the reports, which were averaged across
dimensions to result in a team-level overall performance score. Course instructors were
blind to the study hypotheses. Because raters did not rate the same teams, we controlled for
the possibility of raters using different performance distributions by z standardizing within
raters.
Results
We conducted CFAs to investigate the discriminant validity of the TC, RC, PC, and coop-
erative CM measures (see online supplemental materials). The hypothesized model, which
specified items loading on their respective factors, provided superior model-data fit over
alternative models, and strong fit judged by CFI (.97), RMSEA (.05), and SRMR (.04; cf.
Williams et al., 2009). As such, the validity of Study 2’s measures was supported.
Table 3 contains team-level descriptive statistics and correlations for the Study 2 vari-
ables. Team performance was standardized within rater, resulting in the tabulated mean and
standard deviation. The online supplemental materials contain the LPA model-fit indices,
which suggested a four-profile solution. Specifically, the BLRT indicated that a five-profile
Figure 3
Analysis in Study 2
5
4
Conflict Level
Task Conflict
3 Relaonship Conflict
Process Conflict
2
1
Task Conflict Low-Range Midrange Dysfunconal
Dominant Conflict Conflict Conflict
solution did not provide a significant improvement in fit beyond a four-profile solution that,
in turn, had a significantly stronger fit than the three-profile solution. The entropy value was
also favorable for the four-profile solution (.86), and the posterior probabilities of profile
membership ranged from 90.1% to 94.7%, thereby supporting the distinctiveness of the
teams across the four conflict profiles.
Figure 3 contains the structure of the team conflict profiles. The TC-dominant, midrange
conflict, and dysfunctional conflict profiles generalized from Study 1.2 In addition, we found
evidence of the hypothesized low-range conflict profile. Inspection of the profiles indicates
that the low-range conflict profile is qualitatively different from the RC/PC-minor profile
observed in Study 1. First, TC is lower in low-range conflict than in any other conflict profile,
whereas the RC/PC-minor profile exhibited a high level of TC. Second, RC and PC are lower
in the low-range conflict profile than in TC dominant, whereas the RC/PC-minor profile con-
tained higher RC and PC than did the TC-dominant profile in Study 1. Thus, we found support
for the prediction advanced in Hypothesis 1 that TC-dominant, low-range conflict, hybrid
conflict (midrange conflict), and dysfunctional conflict profiles would be identified.
Hypothesis 2 suggested that cooperative CM would be highest for teams reporting the
TC-dominant and the low-range conflict profiles, followed by the hybrid, and, finally, dys-
functional conflict profiles. Table 4 provides support for this hypothesis. Teams reporting the
TC-dominant and low-range conflict profiles were not statistically different on cooperative
CM, but they both reported significantly higher levels than did teams with the midrange
conflict and dysfunctional conflict profiles, the former of which was significantly greater
than the latter.
Hypothesis 3 considered the teams’ task performance with respect to their conflict state
profiles. As expected, teams with TC-dominant profiles performed significantly better than
did teams with a hybrid (i.e., midrange conflict) or dysfunctional conflict profile. Teams
exhibiting the low-range conflict profile were not significantly different from any of the other
conflict profiles, although in absolute terms, they were ranked second, behind TC dominant.
There was no significant difference between teams with the midrange conflict and dysfunc-
tional conflict profiles. Thus, although the hypothesized differences were not all supported,
TC-dominant teams did significantly outperform teams with midrange and dysfunctional
conflict profiles.
Table 4
Wald Test of Equality of Outcome Means Across Profiles for Study 2
TC Low-range Midrange Dysfunctional

dominant conflict conflict conflict Overall χ2(3)
Cooperative conflict 5.92a 6.18a 5.32b 4.19c 89.03*

management
Team performance 0.37a 0.29a,b –0.12b –0.33b 8.09*
Note: Team-level n = 92. Unshared subscripts indicate that means are significantly different by row. TC = task
conflict.
*p < .05.
Discussion
As expected, the low-range conflict profile was identified in the current study. Furthermore,
the TC-dominant, hybrid (i.e., midrange conflict), and dysfunctional conflict profiles were
identified. We view this as providing general support for our expectations regarding conflict
profile structures, although the RC/PC-minor hybrid structure did not replicate in Study 2.
Indeed, the exact nature and number of hybrid structures have been driven by analyses rather
than theory and should therefore be interpreted cautiously until further studies are conducted.
However, this study provides support for our predictions that TC-dominant, dysfunctional,
and low-range conflict profiles would characterize teams. Detection of the low-range conflict
profile in Study 2 is consistent with our expectation that a longer-term time frame, with more
discretion regarding the timing and structuring of their work, is needed for teams to attain
this profile. Accordingly, some teams may have adopted a pacing style wherein different
ideas and viewpoints were considered early, decisions were made, and then execution became
the predominant focus. This is not to say that these teams had submitted their work and dis-
banded by the time of measurement, as evidenced in Note 1, indicating equal probabilities of
attendance regardless of the team’s conflict profile. Indeed, teams were still required to pres-
ent their work during laboratory sessions and at a science exhibition, as well as complete
their reports. On these deliverables, it is very likely that preplanned activities were being
implemented. However, the teams may not have engaged in decisions with major implica-
tions for their projects. Accordingly, their lack of TC, at the time of measurement, may not
have allowed them to debate last-minute issues needed to achieve a superior level of
performance.
The most important functional finding in this study is that teams in the TC-dominant
profile reached higher levels of cooperative CM and team performance than did teams with
either midrange conflict or dysfunctional conflict profiles (as found in Study 1). This adds
further support to theory arguing that TC contributes to strong performance in complex
tasks—as long as it occurs in an environment free of interpersonal frictions and process
disagreements (Amason & Sapienza, 1997; DeChurch & Marks, 2001; Jehn & Mannix,
2001). The use of team performance, as assessed by external stakeholders, offers a more
rigorous empirical test of conflict profile functions by using a different measurement
source. In this respect, the teams with a low-range conflict profile did not perform better
than did teams with either midrange conflict or dysfunctional profiles, although they were
also not significantly lower performing than teams with the TC-dominant profile. Thus,
low-range conflict would seem to be an effective profile, likely because of high coopera-
tive CM and possibly other factors, such as cohesion and smooth workflow. Ultimately,
however, performance levels were not high enough to significantly differentiate low-range
conflict from teams with midrange conflict and dysfunctional profiles. This demonstrates
the high value of a TC-dominant profile, even as the task approaches the deadline. In sum,
it seems quite clear that the optimal team conflict profile is TC dominant and that the low-
range conflict is effective but not ideal.
General Discussion
In this research, we report on the use of a team-centric approach for the identification of
the structure and function of conflict profiles in two studies. We believe it offers important
contributions to past literature, which has largely approached the study of team conflict using
variable-centric paradigms under the separation perspective. In the current approach, which
integrates the complexity perspective (Janssen et al., 1999), the structure of team conflict
refers to the teams’ multidimensional conflict state manifested as particular combinations of
TC, RC, and PC levels. Importantly, relatively few latent profiles of conflict were found—
four in each study—suggesting teams do not vary widely in their conflict state profiles but,
rather, that there is a small number of typical patterns that characterize teams. This adds
parsimony to the complexity perspective, and it provides an avenue to investigate their func-
tional implications by analyzing team processes (e.g., cooperative CM, team potency) and
outcomes (e.g., team performance) across teams with different profiles.
The approach advanced in the current study revealed that TC is not strictly beneficial
(Amason & Sapienza, 1997) or harmful (see De Dreu, 2008). Rather, two teams with rela-
tively low, moderate, or high TC could function and perform quite differently depending on
their particular conflict profile. Specifically, levels of RC and PC play a critical role (Jehn &
Mannix, 2001; Yang & Mossholder, 2004), such that their increases interfere with productive
use of TC (de Wit et al., 2013). This provides support for the propositions drawn from infor-
mation processing theory, in which the optimal allocation of resources and cognitive capaci-
ties involves deploying them for task-related exploration of competing views, rather than
mitigating interpersonal- or process-based issues. Increases in RC and PC limit the resources
available for effectively sharing, understanding, and using task-related differences of opinion
to support an integrative approach and high-quality decisions (Amason, 1996). Openness
norms and a collaborative approach to CM are needed for effective use of TC (Jehn, 1995;
Lovelace et al., 2001), which would be most likely in the TC-dominant profile and least
likely in the dysfunctional profile. Indeed, the dysfunctional profile represents a highly aver-
sive team environment, as members are unable to examine task-related incompatibilities
because of extensive interpersonal frictions and process-related impasses. This represents an
inefficient use of information processing resources and likely a biased interpretation of oth-
ers’ behavior. It may also engender selective attention toward evidence that confirms mem-
bers’ own views rather than analyzing divergent, but important, alternative perspectives (cf.
De Dreu, Nijstad, & van Knippenberg, 2008). Below, we address additional theoretical and
practical contributions.
Contributions to Existing Literature

First, the current research findings suggest that there are a small number of conflict state
profiles into which teams can be reliably and accurately classified. This is an important
theoretical contribution because it suggests deeper and more efficient theoretical gains can
be developed by focusing on a few characteristic patterns of team conflict, rather than dis-
cussing patterns that may be rare (e.g., high RC, low TC and PC). Although we encourage
generalization to other contexts, future research should also focus on building theory around
the latent conflict state profiles that have been recovered here to examine antecedents, cor-
relates, consequences, and the role of profiles in more complex theoretical models (e.g.,
mediation).
Second, using meta-analytic regression, DeChurch et al. (2013) reported that the opti-
mized prediction equation involving conflict states accounted for only 3% of the variance in
team performance. As a result, the authors concluded that conflict states were not as impor-
tant as CM processes, which were more predictive. Conversely, by classifying teams into
distinct conflict profiles, we found differences in performance beliefs (team potency) and
team performance scores (as judged by external stakeholders). For example, regarding team
performance scores, TC-dominant teams scored 0.70 SD above dysfunctional conflict teams.
By most standards, this would be viewed as a large effect; therefore, we suggest that conflict
state structures have highly relevant functional implications for teamwork.
Third, our findings add insight to meta-analytic evidence on the separation perspective.
Existing meta-analyses indicate that TC is unrelated to team performance, whereas RC and
PC exhibit negative relations (DeChurch et al., 2013; de Wit et al., 2012; O’Neill et al.,
2013). Meta-analytic tests of interactions have suggested that TC is positively related to team
performance when RC is low, TC is negatively related to performance when RC is high (De
Dreu & Weingart, 2003b; de Wit et al.), and PC is not involved in moderation (de Wit et al.).
These results are ambiguous, however, as there is a mismatch in levels of analysis; that is,
interactions were examined at the level of the study but inferences were drawn at the level of
the team. However, when latent conflict state profiles are identified and teams are classified
according to their levels of TC, RC, and PC, it seems that TC can be beneficial when RC and
PC are low. Furthermore, when RC and PC increase, teams become increasingly dysfunc-
tional. This raises the possibility that the small relations involving TC and team performance
in the primary studies meta-analyzed by DeChurch et al., de Wit et al., and O’Neill et al. are
an average of negative relations for teams with high RC and PC and positive relations for
teams low on RC and PC, thereby masking the importance of combinations of conflict states.
Thus, this research complements and extends previous findings by treating teams as complex
systems that simultaneously experience levels of TC, RC, and PC.
On the Issue of Time and the Structural Stability of Team Conflict State
Profiles
A key future research direction relates to the potential for change and transition of team
conflict profiles over time. DeChurch et al. (2013) noted that conflict states are relatively
static in the short term, but it could be interesting to examine whether a team could experi-
ence multiple conflict profiles over the course of its life cycle. Moreover, examining the
functional implications of transition patterns over time, particularly as they relate to events
experienced during a team’s life cycle, would be an important next step in future research.
This could be investigated using latent transition analysis (LTA), which is the longitudinal
extension of LPA (Collins & Lanza, 2010). LTA combines LPA and autoregressive modeling
to identify unique profiles at each measurement time point and to describe the transitions that
occur between profiles over time (Wang & Chan, 2011). This allows for the examination of
teams’ probabilities of transitioning from one conflict state profile to another over time
(Wang & Hanges, 2011). It is also possible to examine the influence of other variables, such
as team processes, emergent states, and team performance, as they relate to the transition
probabilities (Wang & Chan). For example, teams that begin their life cycle with a hybrid
conflict state profile may be more likely to transition to TC dominant through the use of
effective CM, whereas other teams may transition to a dysfunctional conflict profile because
of poor CM. Team composition, team leadership, and team virtuality are other inputs that
may be useful to consider in future research.
A team development paradigm could also be adopted in future research to examine
whether certain profiles occur at distinct periods of the teams’ life cycle. For example, a
TC-dominant conflict profile may be unlikely early in the life cycle when the team has not
yet been faced with imminent and consequential decisions. In addition, a dysfunctional con-
flict profile may be unlikely early on given that intense frustration and resentment, as well as
procedural disagreements, would seem uncommon prior to members being heavily engaged
with a project. Thus, research examining the recovery of different profiles across the teams’
life cycle could be fruitful.
Limitations
First, finding two distinct forms of the hybrid conflict profile—RC/PC minor and mid-
range conflict—sheds light on the number and nature of potential conflict profiles. However,
given that we did not advance an a priori argument regarding the exact number of hybrid
profiles, these findings should be interpreted cautiously and be examined in replication stud-
ies before drawing stronger inferences regarding their existence and functional implications.
Second, the low-range conflict profile was recovered only in Study 2. We suggested that it
may have occurred as a result of relatively low TC around remaining team decisions at the
time of measurement, but we were unable to directly test this. Future research should exam-
ine the nature of decision making, progress toward team task completion, and forms of inter-
dependence (e.g., outcome, task) and workflow (e.g., pooled, sequential, reciprocal) of teams
in different profiles at the time of measurement. Third, the use of engineering student design
teams may be viewed as a limitation. We felt that the exploratory nature of this research
would benefit from strong internal validity in the form of replication and generalization to
similar team types with different life spans, but it would be valuable to consider other team
types and contexts.
Practical Contributions
In our view, a key contribution for practice is the intuitive and readily applicable frame-
work offered by the team-centric approach. The conflict profiles are meaningful, easy-to-
understand concepts and are consistent with the view that TC is healthy as long as RC and
PC can be controlled. Identifying a finite, manageable number of conflict profiles to which
teams may belong and a general pattern of implications for team outcomes that is consistent,
strong, and in the expected direction further increases the accessibility of the results. In addi-
tion, given proper assessment instruments and analytical applications, there is potential for
managers and consultants to diagnose teams as belonging to a particular conflict profile as a
starting point for prioritizing and determining an intervention strategy. Feedback regarding a
team’s conflict profile could be used as another tool for supporting development planning,
team process improvement, and the formation of team charters. Thus, the conflict profiles
approach may offer managers a readily available set of concepts that they may use as a
springboard to set goals and strive toward improvement.
Notes
1. Supplemental analyses supported the argument that profile membership was associated with the number of
responding team members, such that more desirable profiles were more likely to capture teams with higher response
rates. Multinomial logistic regressions using response rates as the predictor of profile membership were conducted
using the R3STEP procedure in Mplus. Results were significant in Study 1 and in the replication study but not in
Study 2 and indicated that low response rates were most likely in teams with the dysfunctional profile, whereas high
response rates were most likely in teams with the TC-dominant profile. In addition, we conducted extensive sensitiv-
ity analyses in which we examined the pattern of results for the number and structure of conflict profiles identified,
as well as the implications for the functional (outcome) analyses of dropping teams with fewer than three team mem-
bers responding. This resulted in rerunning all analyses after dropping 27%, 15%, and 20% of the teams from Study
1, Study 2, and the replication study, respectively. Results indicated few differences in findings and no material
differences in the study conclusions. Further details regarding these analyses can be obtained from the first author.
2. Conflict magnitudes were generally lower in Study 2 than in the previous study. For this reason, the mid-
range conflict profile in the current study may appear similar to the RC/PC-minor profile in Study 1. However,
consideration of CM processes and team task performance in outcome analyses suggested that the midrange conflict
profile behaved most similarly to what would be expected in light of findings from Study 1, thereby suggesting the
midrange conflict label.
References
Aguinis, H., & Gottfredson, R. K. 2010. Best-practice recommendations for estimating interaction effects using
moderated multiple regression. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31: 776-786.
Allen, N. J., Stanley, D. J., Williams, H. M., & Ross, S. J. 2007. Assessing the impact of nonresponse on work group
diversity effects. Organizational Research Methods, 10: 262-286.
Alper, S., Tjosvold, D., & Law, K. S. 2000. Conflict management, efficacy, and performance in organizational
teams. Personnel Psychology, 53: 625-642.
Amason, A. C. 1996. Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on strategic decision mak-
ing: Resolving a paradox for top management teams. Academy of Management Journal, 39: 123-148.
Amason, A. C., & Mooney, A. C. 1999. The effects of past performance on top management team conflict in strate-
gic decision making. International Journal of Conflict Management, 10: 340-359.
Amason, A., & Sapienza, H. 1997. The effects of top management team size and interaction norms on cognitive and
affective conflict. Journal of Management, 23: 495-516.
Behfar, K. J., Mannix, E. A., Peterson, R. S., & Trochim, W. M. 2011. Conflict in small groups: The meaning and
consequences of process conflict. Small Group Research, 42: 127-176.
Behfar, K. J., Peterson, R. S., Mannix, E. A., & Trochim, M. K. 2008. The critical role of conflict resolution in
teams: A close look at the links between conflict type, conflict management strategies, and team outcomes.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 93: 170-188.
Bergman, L. R., & Magnusson, D. 1997. A person-oriented approach in research on developmental psychopathol-
ogy. Development and Psychopathology, 9: 291-319.
Bolino, M. C., & Turpley, W. H. 2003. More than one way to make an impression: Exploring profiles of impression
management. Journal of Management, 29: 141-160.
Carnevale, P. J., & Probst, T. M. 1998. Social values and social conflict in creative problem solving and categoriza-
tion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74: 1300-1309.
Chen, G., Bliese, P. D., & Mathieu, J. E. 2005. Conceptual framework and statistical procedures for delineating and
testing multilevel theories of homology. Organizational Research Methods, 8: 375-409.
Chen, G., Gully, S. M., & Eden, D. 2001. Validation of a new general self-efficacy scale. Organizational Research
Methods, 4: 62-83.
Chiaburu, D. S., Stoverink, A. C., Li, N., & Zhang, X-A. 2015. Extraverts engage in more interpersonal citizenship
when motivated to impression manage: Getting along to get ahead? Journal of Management, 41: 2004-2031.
Collins, L. M., & Lanza, S. T. 2010. Latent class and latent transition analysis: With applications in the social,
behavioral, and health sciences. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
DeChurch, L. A., & Marks, M. A. 2001. Maximizing the benefits of task conflict: The role of conflict management.
International Journal of Conflict Management, 12: 4-22.
DeChurch, L. A., Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., & Doty, D. 2013. Moving beyond relationship and task conflict: Toward
a process-state perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98: 559-578.
De Dreu, C. K. W. 1997. Productive conflict: The importance of conflict management and conflict issue. In C. K. W.
De Dreu & E. V. D. Vliert (Eds.), Using conflict in organizations: 9-22. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
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, 32: 83-107.
De Dreu, C. K. W. 2008. The virtue and vice of workplace conflict: Food for (pessimistic) thought. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 29: 5-18.
De Dreu, C. K. W., Nijstad, B. A., & van Knippenberg, D. 2008. Motivated information processing in group deci-
sion making. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12: 22-49.
De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. 2003a. A contingency theory of task conflict and performance in groups and
organizational teams. In M. A. West, D. Tjosvold, & K. G. Smith (Eds.), International handbook of organiza-
tional teamwork and cooperative working: 151-166. Toronto: John Wiley & Sons.
De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. 2003b. Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team mem-
ber satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 741-749.
De Dreu, C. K. W., & West, M. A. 2001. Minority dissent and team innovation: The importance of participation in
decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 1191-1201.
DeShon, R. P., Kozlowski, S. W., Schmidt, A. M., Milner, K. R., & Wiechmann, D. 2004. A multiple-goal, mul-
tilevel model of feedback effects on the regulation of individual and team performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 89: 1035-1056.
Deutsch, M. 1949. A theory of cooperation and competition. Human Relations, 2: 129-152.
de Wit, F. R. C., Greer, L. L., & Jehn, K. A. 2012. The paradox of intragroup conflict: A meta-analysis. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 97: 360-390.
de Wit, F. R. C., Greer, L. L., & Jehn, K. A. 2013. Task conflict, information processing, and decision-making: The
damaging effect of relationship conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 122: 177-189.
Farh, J., Lee, C., & Farh, C. I. C. 2010. Task conflict and team creativity: A question of how much and when.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 95: 1173-1180.
Gersick, C. J. 1988. Time and transition in work teams: Toward a new model of group development. Academy of
Management Journal, 31: 9-41.
Gevers, J. M. P., Rutte, C. G., & van Eerde, W. 2006. Meeting deadlines in work groups: Implicit and explicit
mechanisms. Applied Psychology, 55: 52-72.
Greenberg, J. 2011. Behavior in organizations (10th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Greer, L. L., Jehn, K. A., & Mannix, E. A. 2008. Conflict transformation: A longitudinal investigation of the rela-
tionships between different types of intragroup conflict and the moderating role of conflict resolution. Small
Group Research, 39: 278-302.
Guetzkow, H., & Gyr, J. 1954. An analysis of conflict in decision-making groups. Human Relations, 7: 367-381.
Guzzo, R. A., Yost, P. R., Campbell, R. J., & Shea, G. P. 1993. Potency in groups: Articulating a construct. British
Journal of Social Psychology, 32: 87-106.
Hackman, J. R. 1987. The design of work teams. In J. W. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior: 315-
342. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hirschfeld, R. R., Cole, M. S., Bernerth, J. B., & Rizzuto, T. E. 2013. Voluntary survey completion among team
members: Implications of noncompliance and missing data for multilevel research. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 98: 454-468.
Janssen, O., Van de Vliert, E., & Veenstra, C. 1999. How task and person conflict shape the role of positive interde-
pendence in management teams. Journal of Management, 25: 117-142.
Jehn, K. A. 1995. A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 40: 256-283.
Jehn, K. A. 1997. A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational groups. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 42: 530-557.
Jehn, K. A., & Bezrukova, K. 2010. The faultline activation process and the effects of activated faultlines on coali-
tion formation, conflict, and group outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 112:
24-42.
Jehn, K. A., & Chatman, J. A. 2000. The influence of proportional and perceptual conflict composition on team
performance. International Journal of Conflict Management, 11: 56-73.
Jehn, K. A., Greer, L., Levine, S., & Szulanski, G. 2008. The effects of conflict types, dimensions, and emergent
states on group outcomes. Group Decision and Negotiation, 17: 465-495.
Jehn, K. A., & Mannix, E. A. 2001. The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and
group performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44: 238-251.
Jehn, K. A., Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. 1999. Why differences make a difference: A field study of diversity,
conflict and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44: 741-763.
Johnson, D. W. 2003. Social interdependence: Interrelationships among theory, research, and practice. American
Psychologist, 58: 934-945.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. 1989. Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina, MN: Interaction
Book.
Kam, C., Morin, A. J. S., Meyer, J. P., & Topolnytsky, L. 2016. Are commitment profiles stable and predictable? A
latent transition analysis. Journal of Management, 42: 1462-1490.
Kozlowski, S. W. J. 2012. Groups and teams in organizations: Studying the multilevel dynamics of emergence.
In A. B. Hollingshead & M. S. Poole (Eds.), Research methods for studying groups and teams: A guide to
approaches, tools and technologies: 260-283. New York: Routledge.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. 2000. A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations:
Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel,
theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions: 3-90. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lencioni, P. 2002. The five dysfunctions of a team. New York: John Wiley.
Lencioni, P. 2012. The advantage. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
LePine, J. A., Piccolo, R. F., Jackson, C. L., Mathieu, J. E., & Saul, J. R. 2008. A meta-analysis of teamwork
processes: Tests of a multidimensional model and relationships with team effectiveness criteria. Personnel
Psychology, 61: 273-307.
Lovelace, K., Shapiro, D. L., & Weingart, L. R. 2001. Maximizing cross-functional new product teams’ innovative-
ness and constraint adherence: A conflict communications perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 4:
779-793.
Maloney, M. M., Johnson, S. G., & Zellmer-Bruhn, M. E. 2010. Assessing group-level constructs under missing
data conditions. Small Group Research, 41: 281-307.
Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. 2001. A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team pro-
cesses. Academy of Management Journal, 26: 356-376.
Marsh, H. W., Lüdtke, O., Trautwein, U., & Morin, A. J. 2009. Classical latent profile analysis of academic self-con-
cept dimensions: Synergy of person- and variable-centered approaches to theoretical models of self-concept.
Structural Equation Modeling, 16: 191-225.
Mather, M. 2009. When emotion intensifies memory interference. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 51:
101-120.
McLarnon, M. J. W., Carswell, J. J., & Schneider, T. J. 2015. A case of mistaken identity? Latent profiles in voca-
tional interests. Journal of Career Assessment, 23: 166-185.
Meyer, J. P., Stanley, L. J., & Vandenberg, R. J. 2013. A person-centered approach to the study of commitment.
Human Resource Management Review, 23: 190-202.
Morgeson, F. P., & Hofmann, D. A. 1999. The structure and function of collective constructs: Implications for mul-
tilevel research and theory development. Academy of Management Review, 24: 249-265.
Morin, A. J., Morizot, J., Boudrias, J. S., & Madore, I. 2011. A multifoci person-centered perspective on workplace
affective commitment: A latent profile/factor mixture analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 14: 58-90.
Nylund, K. L., Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. O. 2007. Deciding on the number of classes in latent class analysis
and growth mixture modeling: A Monte Carlo simulation study. Structural Equation Modeling, 14: 535-569.
Okhuysen, G., & Richardson, H. A. 2007. Group conflict as an emergent state: Temporal issues. In K. J. Behfar &
L. L. Thompson (Eds.), Conflict in organizational groups: New directions in theory and practice: 145-180.
Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
O’Neill, T. A., Allen, N. J., & 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, 26: 236-260.
Pastor, D. A., Barron, K. E., Miller, B. J., & Davis, S. L. 2007. A latent profile analysis of college students’ achieve-
ment goal orientation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32: 8-47.
Pelled, L. 1996. Demographic diversity, conflict, and work group outcomes: An intervening process theory.
Organization Science, 7: 615-631.
Peterson, R. S., & Behfar, K. J. 2003. The dynamic relationship between performance feedback, trust, and conflict in
groups: A longitudinal study. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 92: 102-112.
Pondy, L. R. 1967. Organizational conflict: Concepts and models. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12: 296-320.
Roe, R. A., Gockel, C., & Meyer, B. 2012. Time and change in teams: Where we are and where we are moving.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 21: 629-656.
Schwenk, C. R. 1989. A meta-analysis on the comparative effectiveness of devil’s advocacy and dialectical inquiry.
Strategic Management Journal, 10: 303-306.
Shaw, J. D., Zhu, J., Duffy, M., Scott, K. L., Shih, H., & Susanto, E. 2011. A contingency model of conflict and team
effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96: 391-400.
Simon, H. A. 1978. Information-processing theory of human problem solving. In W. K. Estes (Ed.), Handbook of
learning and cognitive processes (vol. 1): 271-295. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Stanley, D. J., Allen, N. J., Williams, H. M., & Ross, S. J. 2011. Examining workgroup diversity effects: Does play-
ing by the (group-retention) rules help or hinder? Behavior Research Methods, 43: 508-521.
Tjosvold, D. 1998. Co-operative and competitive goal approaches to conflict: Accomplishments and challenges.
Applied Psychology, 41: 285-342.
Tjosvold, D. 2008a. The conflict-positive organization: It depends on us. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29:
19-28.
Tjosvold, D. 2008b. Constructive controversy for management education: Developing committed, open-minded
researchers. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 7: 73-85.
Torrance, E. P. 1957. Group decision making and disagreement. Social Forces, 35: 314-318.
Varner, L. J., & Ellis, H. C. 1998. Cognitive activity and physiological arousal: Processes that mediate mood-
congruent memory. Memory & Cognition, 26: 939-950.
Wang, M., & Chan, D. 2011. Mixture latent Markov modeling: Identifying and predicting unobserved heterogeneity
in longitudinal qualitative status change. Organizational Research Methods, 14: 411-431.
Wang, M., & Hanges, P. J. 2011. Latent class procedures: Applications to organizational research. Organizational
Research Methods, 14: 24-31.
Weiss, H. M., & Rupp, D. E. 2011. Experiencing work: An essay on a person-centric work psychology. Industrial
and Organizational Psychology, 4: 83-97.
West, M. A. 2002. Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An integrative model of creativity and innovation imple-
mentation in work groups. Applied Psychology, 51: 355-387.
Williams, L. J., Vandenberg, R. J., & Edwards, J. R. 2009. Structural equation modeling in management research:
A guide for improved analysis. Academy of Management Annals, 3: 543-558.
Yang, J., & Mossholder, K. W. 2004. Decoupling task and relationship conflict: The role of intragroup emotional
processing. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25: 589-605.

The Structure and Function of Team Conflict State Profiles

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Structure and Function of Team Conflict State Profiles

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

581662

The Structure and Function of Team Conflict

The Variable-Centric Paradigm

The Team-Centric Paradigm

Time and Team Conflict State Profiles

Functional Implications of Conflict Profiles

Analytic procedure. We conducted LPA using a robust maximum likelihood estimator,

1. Task conflict 3.69 0.48

RC/PC Midrange Dysfunctional

Cooperative conflict 5.90a 5.53b 5.10c 3.91d 465.39*

As in Study 1, team conflict profiles are expected to be associated with cooperative CM

1. Task conflict 3.01 0.55

Note: Team-level n = 92.

TC Low-range Midrange Dysfunctional

Cooperative conflict 5.92a 6.18a 5.32b 4.19c 89.03*

Contributions to Existing Literature

You might also like