The Effect Of Conflict to Social Loafing in Group Work of Organization -

Research in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

Vu Ba Thanh
Food Farm Company Limited., Vietnam

Ngo Van Toan

University of Finance – Marketing, Vietnam

Abstract
This study explores the impact of conflicts on social loafing in the organization's group work. Through
quantitative analysis of the survey data for 457 civil servants working in Ho Chi Minh city to evaluate the scale
and research model. Research results show that the three components of conflict: task conflict, relationship
conflicts, and process conflict have the same effect on the social loafing of the individual in the group. The
results also show that conflicting relationships will have the greatest impact on social loafing. Therefore, each
organization should take measures to reduce social loafing in order to reduce the uncertainty of members in
the process of group work.
Keywords: Social loafing, Conflict, Group work, Ho Chi Minh City.

1. Introduction

In the life of the human working group is indispensable. According to Karau & Williams (1993), we join
teams to perform many important tasks that require collective effort to work together to address the ultimate
goal of organization set. Group activity is not limited to any field and in any area requires team existence and
teamwork is essential. As Poole et al. (2004) stated that "people live in groups, work in groups, and play in
groups." However, when working in groups, the conflict between members is unavoidable. According to
Tuckman (1965), a conflict is a place that will explain the discovery of social loafing among individuals in that
community. Although teamwork is highly recommended, social loafing in the group should not be ignored,
social loafing will reduce the effectiveness of the group (Latane et al., 1979). Thus, the conflict in the collective
will take place and then what will the members of the rest of the way? Understanding the importance of
collective conflict and social loafing among individuals in the organization, the authors explore the impact of
conflicts on social loafing in this study.

2. Theoretical background and research model

Conflict

Group work in the organization is a "tool" for us to feel the disturbance in the group. Conflict arises when
team members are not aware of a common goal and the interventions of each member to achieve that goal are
different (Singh et al., 2017). Conflict is likely to make the group members' cohesion less likely, and group
cohesion will also decrease if the conflicts between members are large (Jehn, 1995).

787
 Conflicts identified by researchers consisted of three components: task conflicts, relationship conflicts and
process conflicts (Jehn, 1997; Jehn & Mannix, 2001). Task conflicts are defined as disagreements and arguments
among team members about the content of the work and the goals to be achieved, or arguments about the
merits of a problem in the team (Behfar et al., 2011; De Dreu & Weingart, 2003; Jenn, 1995, 1997; Priem & Price,
1991). When a conflict of interest is moderate, it helps the team members to better understand the goals and
will help them get more ideas. As a result, the group will be more efficient and the productivity of the group
will be increased (Amason, 1996; Jehn, 1995; Schweiger, Sandberg & Rechner, 1989; Cozier & Rose, 1977). In
addition, if high-level task conflicts in the group result in more individual conservatism with their proposals,
the effectiveness of the group will deteriorate and the quality of the termination Relationships among members
are also reduced (DeChurch, Hamilton, & Haas, 2007; Tidd, McIntyre & Friedman, 2004; Simons & Peterson,
2000). Conflict is a social conflict or emotional conflict that arises from differences in the value and personality
of each individual. In addition, conflict in relationships is often influenced by hostility, tension and discomfort
among team members (Behfar et al., 2011; De Dreu & Weingart, 2003; Pearson, Ensley & Amason, Jenn, 1995,
1997; Priem & Price, 1991). Relationships have a negative impact on group productivity and job satisfaction
(Wall & Nolan, 1986). Process conflict is the disagreement about how best to mix resources from group work,
including time issues and workload distribution (Janicik & Bartel, 2003). Process conflicts can reduce the
efficiency of the team as well as the ability to coordinate tasks in the most efficient way (Deutsch, 1973; Jehn
& Chatman, 2000). In addition, process conflicts can negatively affect the satisfaction of members when
working together by causing feelings of disrespect and unfairness in the group (Lind & Tyler, 1988). These
three types of conflicts not only affect the performance and satisfaction of the group, but also these three types
of conflicts are interrelated throughout the working group. Jehn's (1997) study has proven that conflicts of
interest can be transformed into conflicting relationships when criticisms regarding task performance are
considered negative or unresolved tasks. Successful. Research by Behfar et al. (2008) also suggests that process
conflicts will reach a higher level than all other types of conflict in group interaction.

Social Loafing

The origin of social loafing began with researcher Ringelmann (1913, led by Latané et al., 1979; Simms,
2014), who experimented with participants in pulling a rope when the participants pull the rope, they work
less and their pull is lower when they do it alone. As the size increases, the performance in the group is lower
than that of an individual performing the same job. From the above observations, Ringelmann pointed out
that when working in groups, the individual's effort would decrease. So, these effects are called the
"Ringelmann effect" (Latané et al., 1979). After discovering the "Ringelmann Effect," many researchers have
come up with statements for this effect. Steiner (1972), led by Singh (2017), proposed two explanations to
explain the Ringelmann effect: One is individuals without motivation to pull the rope or by those who lack
motivation. Reduce effort, especially when group size increases. The second explanation is that the team may
not work together so that the efforts of the members are not optimal. Ingham, Levinger, Graves, and Peckham
(1974) repeated the rope spinning experiment. In this experiment, researchers asked participants to blind their
eyes to pull the rope and make the test takers believe they were pulling the rope along with others, while in
fact, They have to do it alone. And the results have shown that the individual's performance is still lower than
when they know they will perform alone. Williams & et al (1981) expanded the experiment and came to the
conclusion that if the efforts of the individuals in the organization were measured, those who caused conflict
or cause indifference would decrease and Their research focuses on the study of how to measure the output
of individuals in the organization. With Ingham et al. (1974) and Latane et al. (1979), there are many other
authors who have followed Karau et al. (1993); George (1992); Etemadi et al. (2015) argue that collective
resilience is a phenomenon where the individual's efforts to achieve a goal when they work in a team are lower
when the individual works independently.

788
 The relationship between conflict and social loafing

Social loafing is directly provoked by the conflict between individuals because the perception of unfair
work and the distribution of unfair rewards is where social loafing begins. Negative influences caused by
conflict among team members can be lengthened, leaving members to remain indifferent to the work that
needs to be done within the group (Öhman, Flykt, & Esteves, 2001)
In addition, social loafing also comes directly or indirectly from conflicting relationships. Direct
engagement of individuals within the group can be initiated by arguing to withdraw from this conflict and
may at least reduce one's contribution to the group (i.e. two basic factors determining collective ignorance).
Although withdrawing from the conflict of relationships and reducing efforts in the group does not mean that
support for collective redundancy occurs, the issue is also considered to have negative effects on productivity
and group spirit (Deutsch, 1973). Baxter (1982) likewise argues that avoiding conflicting relationships is a
common means of dealing with conflict within the group. Team members are quite alert and sensitive to those
who tend to avoid and work to reduce conflict within the group because they do not want to be unfairly judged
by potential lazy people. conflicting relationship. At the same time, relationship conflict can also affect
collective neutrality through reconciliation (Jehn, 1997). Based on the above analysis of the relationship
between collective indifference, conflict of relations, it can be seen that both conflict and conflict can directly
cause collective indifference in the group.
The relationship between task conflicts and process with collective ignorance may depend on the level of
negative emotions in the group. Research has shown that groups discuss and discuss issues of goals or tasks
when confronted with each other at a moderate level of work (Jehn, 1995). These conflicting interactions show
the motivation of team members to reorganize the group's resource structure by assigning the right job to the
right person. They can also minimize collective negligence because group members believe that their
involvement in resolving tasks or conflicting processes is meaningful and important to achieving personal
goals. as well as the group (Karau and Williams, 1993)
From the above discussion, the authors propose the following research model

Task conflict (TC)

Relationship conflict (RC) Social loafing (SL)

Process conflict (PC)

Model: The model aims to examine the factors that affect organizational equality
SL    1 * TC   2 * RC   3 * PC

3. Research methodology

Research using qualitative-quantitative research method. The qualitative method is used to find the scale
that matches the model and then uses a quantitative method to verify that the model is appropriate. The data
was collected from staff working at organizations in Ho Chi Minh City through convenient sampling.

789