Journal

ARTICLE
10.1177/0149206305277795
De Dreuof/ Task
Management
Conflict /and
February
T eam 2006
Innovation

When Too Little or Too Much Hurts:

Evidence for a Curvilinear Relationship
Between Task Conflict and Innovation in Teams†
Carsten K. W. De Dreu*
Department of Psychology, University of Amsterdam,
Roetersstraat 15, 1018 WB Amsterdam, the Netherlands

Past work leaves open whether conflict helps or hinders team innovation. Reconciling this incon-
sistency, Study 1 showed that work teams were more innovative when the level of task conflict was
moderate instead of low or high. Study 2 showed that this curvilinear effect exists for task conflict,
but not for relationship conflict, and that the effects of task conflict are mediated by collaborative
problem solving. Study 2 also showed that although moderate levels of task conflict may promote
team innovation, it simultaneously reduces short-term goal attainment in teams. Implications for
conflict (management) theory and work on innovation are discussed.

Keywords: groups; teams; conflict; innovation; cooperation

Contemporary organizations need to be innovative to maintain a competitive edge, to

attract new customers, or to cope with ever-increasing demands on environment-friendly busi-
ness processes (West, 2002). The desire to be innovative has spurred an interest among practi-
tioners and scientists to understand the processes whereby organizations, or teams within

†Preparation of this article has been sponsored by a grant from the Dutch National Science Foundation (NWO
410.21.010). The assistance of Pepé Keijzer, Jessica Raven, Bart de Vries, Nieske Winters, and Wieby Altink in col-
lecting data and accessing organizations is gratefully acknowledged. I thank Bernard Nijstad, Laurie Weingart, and
three anonymous reviewers for their comments on a previous version of this article. This article was accepted under the
editorship of Daniel Feldman.
*Corresponding author. Tel.: +31-20-525-6865; fax: +31-20-639-0531.
E-mail address: c.k.w.dedreu@uva.nl
Journal of Management, Vol. 32 No. 1, February 2006 83-107
DOI: 10.1177/0149206305277795
© 2006 Southern Management Association. All rights reserved.
83
84 Journal of Management / February 2006

organizations, become innovative. Innovation is “the intentional introduction and application

within a role, group or organization of ideas, processes, products or procedures, new to the rel-
evant unit of adoption, designed to significantly benefit the individual, the group, the organi-
zation or wider society” (West & Farr, 1990: 9). Innovation thus is different from creativity
because of the application component (Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby, & Herron, 1996;
Kanter, 1988; Scott, 1995; Shalley, Zhou, & Oldham, 2004; Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin,
1993) and because innovation only has to be new to the relevant unit of adoption, an aspect that
has been termed relative as opposed to absolute novelty in the innovation literature (Anderson,
De Dreu, & Nijstad, 2004). An innovation in one team or organization may thus be common
practice in other teams or organizations.
The current article aims to contribute to our understanding of innovation in work teams.
The focus is on one critical process within work teams—conflict. The key question addressed
is whether, when, and why conflict can contribute to innovation in work teams. Some scholars
have argued that conflict makes teams more innovative. When in conflict, team members con-
front each other, openly debate issues, voice dissenting views, and are forced to be creative to
find collectively satisfying solutions (e.g., De Dreu & West, 2001; Nemeth & Staw, 1989).
Interestingly, others have argued that conflict hurts innovation. When in conflict, team mem-
bers are distracted and focus on each other instead of on their task, and conflict-related stress
and emotions prohibit straight and analytic thinking (Brown, 1983; Wall & Callister, 1995).
Unfortunately, the empirical evidence for either position is scarce and inconsistent, and the
theory underlying each position can be criticized. In this article, I review the theoretical and
empirical arguments for and against each position to integrate both positions in one over-
arching theoretical framework. I test specific hypotheses in two independent studies involving
teams in organizations. The main contributions sought are to solve an apparent theoretical
contradiction and to provide first-time empirical evidence for newly derived hypotheses.

Conflict and Innovation in Teams

Because team members contribute to the team through both social and task inputs (e.g.,
Forsyth, 1983), conflict in teams is concerned with relationship issues and with task issues
(e.g., Amason, 1996; Guetzkow & Gyr, 1954; Jehn, 1995). Examples of relationship conflict
are conflicts about personal taste, political preferences, values, or interpersonal style. Exam-
ples of task conflict are conflicts about the distribution of resources, about procedures and pol-
icies, and about judgments and interpretation of facts. Amason (1996; Amason & Schweiger,
1997) and Jehn (1995, 1997) noted that relationship conflict generally decreases satisfaction
and interferes with task performance. Task conflict, in contrast, increases group members’ten-
dency to scrutinize task issues and to engage in deep and deliberate processing of task-relevant
information. This fosters learning and the development of new and sometimes highly creative
insights leading the group to become more effective.
This pioneering work has led many to argue that task conflict can have positive effects on
team effectiveness (e.g., Amason & Schweiger, 1997; De Dreu & Van de Vliert, 1997; Simons
& Peterson, 2000). However, a meta-analysis of published and unpublished work showed a
moderately negative correlation between task conflict and overall team effectiveness (De Dreu
 De Dreu / Task Conflict and Team Innovation 85

& Weingart, 2003a). The meta-analytic finding may suggest that the theory is in need of revi-
sion. Jehn and Bendersky (2003) and De Dreu and Weingart (2003b) proposed contingency
frameworks that include a host of variables that are supposed to reduce or even reverse the neg-
ative relationship between task conflict and overall team effectiveness. Relevant moderators
include the team climate, the task types the teams have to perform, norms with regard to con-
flict, and within-team trust (e.g., Amason & Sapienza, 1997; De Church & Marks, 2001;
Simons & Peterson, 2000).
In addition to considering moderators of the task conflict–team performance relationship,
one should consider the possibility that task conflict may stimulate performance on some sub-
components while hindering performance on other subcomponents of overall team performance
(see also Jex, 1998). Some initial evidence for this idea comes from a study by Van Dyne, Jehn,
and Cummings (2002). These authors examined home strain in relation to employee sales per-
formance as well as their creativity at work. Results showed, among other things, that strain
was positively related to sales performance, but negatively to creativity.
Assessments of team performance often reflect some sort of aggregation of information
about goal attainment, efficient work processes, effective interpersonal coordination, (per-
ceived) customer satisfaction, and team member satisfaction (Hackman, 1983; see also
Campbell, 1976; Pritchard, 1992). Close scrutiny of the studies included in the meta-analysis
by De Dreu and Weingart (2003a) shows that most relied on some overall team effectiveness
or goal achievement measure. However, the reasoning underlying the prediction that task con-
flict helps team performance focuses primarily on learning, the development of insight and
understanding, and the ability to solve complex problems. Learning and complex problem
solving require effort, time, and energy. It thus follows that, at least in the short run, task con-
flict hinders efficiency of work processes and goal attainment. At the same time, task conflict
may be beneficial for those subcomponents of overall team performance that are most directly
affected by team member ability to learn, to develop and implement new insights, and to solve
complex problems (i.e., innovation).
Because innovation often is the outcome of a creative process (Amabile et al., 1996;
Drazin, Glynn, & Kazanijan, 1999; West, 2002), research on the effects of conflict on creative
thought is particularly informative. Work on the effects of opinion minorities suggests that
some level of conflict stimulates independent and creative thought. (Note that opinion minori-
ties should be distinguished from social category minorities that differ from the majority fac-
tion in terms of some social, ethnic, or cultural dimension; opinion minorities may emerge in
groups that are homogeneous in terms of social categories.) Laboratory experiments showed
that exposure to minority dissent increases individual courage to resist group pressures to con-
formity (Nemeth & Chiles, 1988) and produces higher levels of cognitive complexity in mem-
bers of the majority (Gruenfeld, Thomas-Hunt, & Kim, 1998). Van Dyne and Saaverda (1996)
further showed that majority members in a work group become more creative in their thinking
when they are confronted with minority dissent, and De Dreu and West (2001) found that work
teams with high levels of participative decision making were, on average, more innovative
when they experienced greater exposure to task-related minority dissent. Both in the labora-
tory and the field, it thus appears that conflict promotes individual creativity and work team
innovation.
86 Journal of Management / February 2006

The above should not be taken as evidence that more conflict always and inevitably pro-
duces more creative thought. On the basis of Yerkes and Dodson’s (1908; Broadbent, 1972)
classic work on tension and task achievement, Walton (1969) argued that an individual’s
capacity for complex thinking is altered in a curvilinear fashion as conflict intensity increases.
Equating tension with conflict, he reasoned that low conflict intensity leads to inactivity and
avoidance, neglect of information, and low joint performance. High conflict intensity reduces
the capacity to perceive, process, and evaluate information. At moderate conflict intensity,
however, parties will seek and integrate information, consider more alternatives, and experi-
ence a strong impulse to improve the situation (see also Jehn, 1995; Van de Vliert & De Dreu,
1994).
Walton’s arguments have neither been tested in organizational teams, nor have they been
applied to group creative problem solving or to team innovation. Perhaps the study that comes
the closest is a recent study by Leenders, Van Engelen, and Kratzer (2003). These authors rea-
soned that low levels of information exchange prohibit the creation and dissemination of
ideas, whereas high levels of information exchange produce the distraction and information
overload that prevent the development and implementation of creative insights. Moderate lev-
els of information exchange would thus be better for creativity and innovation than either low
or high levels. In their study of virtual new product development teams, they found support for
the hypothesis that e-mail information exchange has an inverted U-shape relationship with
team member reports of creativity.
The above lines of inquiry together suggest that the relationship between conflict on one
hand and creative thought and innovation on the other is neither positive nor negative. Instead,
it seems that creative thinking and innovation benefit from moderate levels of task conflict, but
not from either low or high levels of task conflict. Moderate compared to low levels of conflict
trigger the stress that is required for team members to consider and scrutinize the problem at
hand and to generate new ideas and insights (Carnevale & Probst, 1998). Moderate levels of
task conflict also boost team members’motivation to work together to solve their mutual prob-
lems and to benefit from new ideas and insights. Increasingly high compared to moderate lev-
els of task conflict, however, produce the stress, interpersonal tension, and distrust that pro-
hibit people from focusing on the problem and from open-mindedly generating ideas. It also
reduces team members’ motivation to work together in selecting and implementing adequate
problem solutions (Anderson et al., 2004; Shalley et al., 2004). In other words, the following
hypotheses can be made:

Hypothesis 1: At low or high levels of task conflict, team innovation is lower than at moderate levels
of task conflict.
Hypothesis2: At low or high levels of task conflict, information exchange is worse than at moderate
levels of task conflict.
Hypothesis 3: Information exchange mediates the curvilinear effects of task conflict on team
innovation.

These hypotheses were tested in Study 1 with a homogeneous sample of work teams in the
parcel service industry. A similar set of hypotheses was tested in Study 2 with a heterogeneous
sample of management teams and (cross-functional) project teams in a variety of organiza-
 De Dreu / Task Conflict and Team Innovation 87

tions. To examine the idea that task conflict may promote some aspect of team effectiveness
(i.e., innovativeness) but hinder other aspects, Study 2 also assessed short-term goal attain-
ment in addition to team innovation. I return to this when introducing Study 2 in more detail.

Study 1

Method

Research site and participants. The study was conducted in collaboration with an inter-
national postal service operating in the Netherlands. Approximately 1 year prior to data col-
lection, the organization introduced self-managed teams responsible for the distribution of
parcels within a particular region in the Netherlands. Teams were responsible for the distribu-
tion and delivery of parcels, personnel administration, budgeting, maintenance of materials
including their trucks, and handling of complaints. Each team had five or six members, and
most teams had been together since their formation 11 months before the data collection took
place. Also, with a few exceptions, teams contained male members only. Thus, the sample was
highly homogeneous in terms of sex, team size, and team tenure.
Each team had a supervisor who coached at a distance. The supervisor was not part of the
team. He or she met with the team members on a weekly basis to discuss the work, to assist in
solving problems, and to develop the team. Supervisors were allocated to the teams to manage
and facilitate the development of teamwork in the first 12 months of the teams’ tenure, after
which they would withdraw and leave the team to be entirely self-managed. At each weekly
meeting, supervisors and team members together went through an extensive list of discussion
items. Supervisors thus had a good feel for the problems and opportunities their teams faced,
and they were well aware of the innovations implemented by the team (see also “Supervisor
Measure of Innovation”).
In principle, all teams within the postal office were supposed to participate in the study.
However, of the 25 teams available, 4 were not included because of their very different struc-
ture and task assignments. The remaining 21 teams participated, with a total of 109 respon-
dents. All but 5 participants were male, and the average age was 42.1 years. Most respondents
had, in addition to a high school education, a 2- or 3-year vocational (mostly technical) train-
ing. Average tenure with the organization was 16.3 years (SD = 3.85). Neither the mean nor the
standard deviation for organizational tenure differed across teams, Fs < 1.

Team measures. Individual team members were given a questionnaire by their supervisor.
They were asked to return a completed version in a sealed envelope. Team members had also
filled out questionnaires about 9 months earlier (see De Dreu & West, 2001). An accompany-
ing letter from the researchers explained that the goal of the current measurements was to
examine team processes at this later stage of team development. This letter also emphasized
individual anonymity, asked respondents to complete the questionnaire in their own time,
independently, and without consulting their peers. Respondents had to return the question-
naire within 2 weeks, using a prestamped return envelope. For each team, at least an 81%
response rate was achieved.
88 Journal of Management / February 2006

Task conflict was assessed using the four-item scale developed by Jehn (1995). Sample
items for task conflict are the following: “To what extent are there differences of opinions
regarding the task in your work group?” and “How frequently do people in your work group
disagree about the work being done?” Answers could be given on 5-point scales (1 = not at all,
to 5 = very often; Cronbach’s a was .76).
To get insight into the mediating process (Hypotheses 2 and 3), I included a three-item
measure of information exchange. Participants were asked to rate the following on 5-point
scales: (a) In my team, we misunderstand each other (reverse coded); (b) in my team, we take
the time to exchange information; and (c) information exchange in this team is smooth and
informative (all 1 = rarely to 5 = most of the time; Cronbach’s a was .82).
The teams examined in this study were homogeneous in terms of composition, and all per-
formed the same set of tasks. Still, workload varied depending on the particular region the
team was responsible for. In addition, informal discussions with team supervisors prior to data
collection suggested that some teams experienced resource scarcity (e.g., too few trucks, little
working space, low budgets), whereas other teams did not. Because workload and resource
scarcity have been shown to predict conflict (Brown, 1983), they may operate as suppressor
variables (Lord & Novick, 1968; Stevens, 1992). I decided to control for these two variables.
Workload was measured with three items derived from Anderson and West (1998), an exam-
ple being “Because there is so much work to do, we have great difficulty finishing our tasks.”
Resource scarcity was measured with three items derived from Campion, Medsker, and Higgs
(1993), a sample item being “To perform our tasks, we have enough equipment, budget, mate-
rials, and so on.” Answers could be given on 5-point scales (1 = not at all to 5 = very much).
Both scales were reliable (Cronbach’s a = .82 and .78, respectively).

Supervisor measure of innovation. Innovation was assessed through interviews with the
team supervisors. Although team supervisors only supervised one team, they met on a monthly
basis with other team supervisors to exchange experiences and to learn from each other (these
meetings were, in fact, the medium for the diffusion of innovation that we observed in a few
instances). Team supervisors thus were well informed about their own team, and they had
information about other teams in this organization.
The interviews were conducted on site by two trained research assistants 2 to 3 weeks after
the questionnaires had been returned (see also De Dreu & West, 2001). Research assistants
were unaware of the goals and hypotheses of the study. They explained that the purpose of the
interview was to obtain additional insight into the functioning of the team. They asked (and
always obtained) permission to audiotape the interview and provided the supervisor with a
written definition of innovation (i.e., “a novel procedure, method, product, or service that the
team implemented to improve their work”). Subsequently, supervisors were asked to describe
as many innovations as possible that their team had generated since its inception 11 months
earlier. Interviewers stimulated supervisors to think of innovations by giving them some
examples and then asked them to describe team innovations in some detail. These descriptions
allowed interviewers to double-check whether a particular innovation indeed matched the
definition.
Although team supervisors were allowed to describe as many innovations as possible, their
answers ranged between one and six innovations. Examples include new protocols for han-
 De Dreu / Task Conflict and Team Innovation 89

dling complaints, a self-made box for address cards that fitted on the truck’s dashboard, a
spreadsheet to keep track of holidays and sick leaves, and new procedures for sorting parcels.
Some innovations (e.g., the self-made box) were mentioned multiple times as they were
invented in one team and subsequently adopted by other teams in other regions. Other innova-
tions (e.g., procedures for sorting parcels) were specific to a particular team and had no rele-
vance to other teams in other regions. The dependent variable innovation was constructed by
counting the number of innovations mentioned by a team supervisor.

Results and Discussion

Treatment of the data and descriptive statistics. Individual missing values were substituted
by the individual’s team average for that particular item provided the number of missing val-
ues per individual did not exceed 10% of his or her answers (which was the case for two indi-
viduals, each from a different team; the data from these individuals were dropped from the
analyses).
Because responses by individual team members within teams were interdependent, re-
sponses were aggregated to the team level. To check whether aggregation was justified, eta-
squared statistics, which indicate whether individuals within the same team are more similar
than individuals who are in different teams, were computed. For workload, resource scarcity,
information exchange, and task conflict, these were .61, .51, .43, and .42, respectively. All thus
exceed Georgopoloulos’s (1986) minimum criterion of .20. To further assess within-group
agreement, intraclass correlations Rwg were computed (James, DeMaree, & Wolf, 1984). Rwg
ranged between .71 and .86 and thus exceed the minimum of .70 in all cases. These statistics
justify aggregation of the data to the group level (Bliese, 2000).
Descriptive statistics are given in Table 1. Scale reliabilities (Cronbach’s alpha) are given
on the diagonal. As can be seen, all measures had good internal consistency. Overall, correla-
tions were low and nonsignificant, with a few exceptions. As could be expected, resource scar-
city was positively correlated with task conflict, and information exchange was negatively
related to task conflict. Important with regard to Hypothesis 3 is that information exchange is
positively related to innovation (see also below).

Innovation as a function of task conflict. Hypothesis 1 was tested using hierarchical regres-
sion analysis. To test for curvilinear effects, I computed the squared term for task conflict (e.g.,
Janssen, 2001; Jehn, 1995). In the first step (Model 1), workload and resource scarcity were
entered as control variables. Task conflict was entered in Step 2 (Model 2), and the squared
term for task conflict was entered in the third step (Model 3). Innovation was the dependent
variable.
Results are summarized under Models 1-3 of Table 2. Models 1 and 2 are provided for the
reader’s convenience. As can be seen, the control variables in Model 1 did not explain a signif-
icant portion of the variance, and adding the linear term for task conflict in Model 2 did not
produce a significant effect either.
Relevant to the hypothesis is Model 3 in which both the linear and the squared term are
included. As can be seen, the B-coefficient for task conflict is positive and significant (t = 2.08,
90 Journal of Management / February 2006

Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations, Scale Reliabilities, and Correlations for all
Study Variables—Study 1 (N = 21)
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5

1. Workload 3.64 0.49 .82

2. Resource scarcity 2.81 0.29 –.10 .78
3. Information exchange 3.60 0.35 –.48* –.29 .82
4. Task conflict 2.64 0.32 .22 .52* –.53* .76
5. Innovation 3.86 1.85 –.02 –.10 .36* .01 NA

Note: Scale reliabilities are on the diagonal. NA = not applicable.

*p < .05

p < .05), and the squared term for task conflict has a negative B-coefficient (t = –2.09, p < .05).
This result supports Hypothesis 1: Whereas an increase in task conflict is associated with an
increase in innovation, innovation decreases at relatively high levels of task conflict. Inspec-
tion of Figure 1, which gives the predicted outcomes on the basis of the regression equation,
indeed confirms that at moderate levels of task conflict, higher levels of innovation are
observed than at either low or extreme levels of task conflict.
A comparison of the regression weights with the zero-order correlations in Table 1 sug-
gests that the control variables act as suppressors of the task conflict–innovation relationship.
However, both here and in Study 2, the effects of the simple and squared term for task conflict
were significant regardless of the presence or absence of the control variables. Thus, although
suppressor effects may be present, these did not affect the main conclusions.

Information exchange as a function of task conflict. Hypothesis 2 was tested using hierar-
chical regression analysis. In the first step (Model 4), workload and resource scarcity were
entered as control variables. Task conflict was entered in Step 2 (Model 5), and the squared
term for task conflict was entered in the third step (Model 6). Information exchange was the
dependent variable.
Results are summarized under Models 4-6 in Table 2. Models 4 and 5 are provided for the
reader’s convenience. As can be seen, the control variables in Model 4 did not explain a signif-
icant portion of the variance. Adding the linear term for task conflict in Model 5 did produce a
marginally significant increase in explained variance, an effect due to a negative regression of
information exchange on task conflict (see Table 2, Model 5).
Relevant to Hypothesis 2 are the results in Model 6. The linear effect for task conflict is pos-
itive and marginally significant (t = 1.89, p < .10), and the squared term for task conflict is neg-
ative and significant (t = –2.13, p < .05). This supports Hypothesis 2: Whereas a change from
low to moderate levels of task conflict is associated with an increase in information exchange,
information exchange decreases at relatively high levels of task conflict.
Hypothesis 3 predicted that information exchange would mediate the (curvilinear) relation-
ship between task conflict and team innovation. Kenny, Kashy, and Bolger (1998; MacKinnon,
Lockwood, Hoffman, West, & Sheets, 2002) laid out some ground rules for establishing medi-
ation. According to these rules, information exchange qualifies as a mediator because (a) it is
 Table 2
Regression of Innovation on Task Conflict—Study 1 (N = 21)
Innovation Information Exchange
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6
B SE B SE B SE B SE B SE B SE

Intercept 0.55 0.49 0.52 0.53 –4.97 2.71 5.55 0.81 0.59 0.77 –2.19 3.99
Step 1 (control variables)
Workload –0.01 0.89 –0.01 0.93 0.43 0.88 –0.32 0.15 –0.27 0.14 –0.20 0.13
Resource scarcity –0.59 1.49 –0.82 1.76 –0.77 1.62 –0.28 0.24 –0.01 0.26 –0.01 0.24
Step 2 (linear effect)
Task conflict 0.42 1.65 4.17* 2.01 –0.48† 0.24 5.61† 2.96
Step 3 (quadratic effect)
Task conflict –0.79* 0.38 –1.17* 0.55
DR2 .01 .11 .13 .13
DF 0.06 4.25* 3.90† 4.25*
R2 .10 .11 .22 .28 .41 .54
F-value 0.08 0.07 1.13 3.49* 4.01† 4.64*

Note: Unstandardized coefficients are reported in Models 1-6.

†p < .10
*p < .05

91
92 Journal of Management / February 2006

Figure 1
Curvilinear Relationship Between Task Conflict and Team Innovation (Study 1)

Innovation and Conflict; Study 1

6

4
innovation

0
low(1) 3 intense(5)
task conflict

related to task conflict in a curvilinear fashion (see Table 2), and (b) it is correlated with team
innovation (see Table 1). To demonstrate mediation, two additional requirements are (c) that
team innovation and task conflict are no longer related when information exchange is con-
trolled for, and (d) that the reduction in variance in innovation explained by task conflict
before and after controlling for information exchange is significant.
To test the third requirement, I repeated the hierarchical regression analysis used to test
Hypothesis 1 with information exchange added as a control variable in the first step. Although
the regression of information exchange on team innovation was not significant (B = 0.16, t =
1.30, p < .21), both the linear and the squared term for task conflict dropped from significant
(see Table 2) to nonsignificant levels (B = 2.96, t < 1.36, ns, and B = –0.54, t < –1.28, ns,
respectively). These results reveal that also the third requirement for mediation holds up. To
test the fourth requirement, I examined whether the reduction in unstandardized regression
from simple to multiple regression was significant, according to a Sobel test (MacKinnon
et al., 2002). The reduction was not significant, Z = 1.10, ns.
 De Dreu / Task Conflict and Team Innovation 93

Taken together, three of the four requirements for establishing mediation were met.
Because the reduction in explained variance was not significant, however, one should be very
careful in accepting Hypothesis 3. I return to this in Study 2.

Study 2

The results of Study 1 support the hypothesis that task conflict is related to information
exchange and innovation in a curvilinear fashion. Most requirements for mediation were satis-
fied, allowing for the cautious conclusion that information exchange mediates the relationship
between task conflict and team innovation. Cautiousness is needed because some require-
ments were not met, or only marginally significant. This may have been due to imprecise spec-
ification of the mediator. Although information exchange is indeed the general construct, what
matters is whether the information exchange is related to the conflict and geared toward solv-
ing the problems noted. Put differently, it may be that collaborative problem solving more than
information exchange in general mediates the effects of task conflict on team innovation. In
Study 2, I therefore assessed collaborative problem solving instead of information exchange.
Study 1 suffers from several other problems. First, the sample in Study 1 was fairly small,
which may cast doubts on the robustness of the results. Second, although sample homogeneity
controls for noise, the generality of the findings may be doubted because the sample was
homogeneous in terms of tasks performed, gender composition, team size (between five and
six members), and team tenure. Third, because Study 1 only assessed task conflict, the reader
may wonder whether similar or different results would emerge when effects of relationship
conflict are controlled for. Meta-analyses have shown that task and relationship conflict tend
to be moderately correlated (r = .52). There is evidence that stronger correlations between the
two types of conflict reflect low levels of within-team trust and undermine the potentially pos-
itive effects of task conflict (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003a; Simons & Peterson, 2000). An alter-
native explanation for the curvilinear effect found in Study 1 thus is that high levels of task
conflict reflect more relationship conflict than moderate levels. In other words, it is the pres-
ence of relationship conflict instead of the elevated levels of task conflict that prohibits team
innovation.
To address these issues, a second study was designed with a more heterogeneous set of
teams performing more complex and uncertain tasks. The teams in Study 2 varied in terms of
their task interdependence—the extent to which team members needed each other to complete
their tasks for them to be able to perform as well (Saavedra, Earley, & Van Dyne, 1993). Task
interdependence has been shown to relate to information exchange, coordination (Saavedra
et al., 1993; Wageman, 1995), and innovation (Janssen, 2001). Task interdependence was
therefore included as a control variable. For reasons mentioned above, relationship conflict
was included as well. Finally, a measure of short-term team effectiveness was included. It was
argued that task conflict may promote some aspects of team performance, such as innovation,
and hurt other aspects of team performance, such as efficient work processes and interpersonal
coordination (cf. Hackman, 1983; Pritchard, 1992). To examine this possibility, I not only
assessed innovation but also goal attainment.
Taken together, the following predictions were tested in Study 2:
94 Journal of Management / February 2006

Hypothesis 4: Controlling for relationship conflict and task interdependence, task conflict will have a
curvilinear relationship with team innovation.
Hypothesis 5: Controlling for relationship conflict and task interdependence, task conflict will have a
curvilinear relationship with collaborative problem solving.
Hypothesis 6: Collaborative problem solving will mediate the relationship between task conflict and
team innovation.
Hypothesis 7: Controlling for relationship conflict and task interdependence, task conflict will be
negatively related to goal attainment.

Method

Participants and procedure. A database of a private company involved in recruitment,

selection, and assessment was used to randomly select past or current clients who were part of
organizational groups that fitted the definition of teams as ongoing, semiautonomous groups
whose members have joint responsibility for accomplishing a set of tasks (Guzzo & Shea,
1992). The randomly selected 32 clients were approached by a research assistant and asked to
introduce the researchers to their team supervisor. All clients agreed, and all but three supervi-
sors who were approached subsequently responded positively. This resulted in 29 teams. This
high response rate may partly be due to the fact that all clients had a long-standing relationship
with the assessment company, to the personalized approach adopted by the researchers, and to
the fact that team-level developmental feedback would be provided upon completion of the
study.
A total of 212 participants responded (87%), for an average response per team of 83%
(range is between 67% and 100%). Fifty-seven percent of the respondents were male. Respon-
dents averaged 37 (SD = 9.01) years of age. Level of education was substantially higher com-
pared with that of the respondents in Study 1, ranging from community college degrees (18%)
to university degrees (82%). Participants worked in management and (cross-functional) pro-
ject teams in local government agencies (8 teams), in consulting (19 teams), or in research and
development (2 teams). Exploratory analyses involving type of organization yielded no effects
for this variable, and it is not discussed any further. All teams were semiautonomous and per-
formed nonroutine, complex tasks that required differential expertise and skills. All teams were
mixed sex. Team members interacted at least once a week in collective planning meetings.
Team members were told that the purpose of the study was to gain understanding of the way
organizational teams function and work together. Teams were promised and given feedback
based on the survey. Individual anonymity was ensured, and it was emphasized that data
would be aggregated before team-level feedback would be provided. Team members were
given the survey during their weekly meeting. They were asked to fill it out in their own time,
independently, and without consulting anyone. Supervisors received their questionnaire 1 to 3
weeks later and were also given 2 weeks to complete it. As a reminder and to motivate team
members to return their materials, a research assistant attended a team meeting approximately
2 weeks after team members received their questionnaire.

Team measures. Task conflict was measured with the same scale as the one used in Study 1.
Relationship conflict was measured with the four-item subscale developed by Jehn (1994).
 De Dreu / Task Conflict and Team Innovation 95

Table 3
Factor Loadings for the Team-Level Variables in Study 2
Factor
Item Relation Conflict Task Interdependence Task Conflict Problem Solving

RelCon1 .85 .02 .22 .21

RelCon2 .81 .03 .33 .29
RelCon3 .80 .12 .17 .20
RelCon4 .69 .15 .27 .48
TaskInt1 .04 .83 .07 .14
TaskInt2 .04 .77 .01 .15
TaskInt3 .07 .69 .05 .07
TaskInt4 .08 .63 .22 .08
TaskCon3 .20 .11 .84 .01
TaskCon2 .23 .08 .73 .07
TaskCon4 .24 .13 .60 .37
TaskCon1 .20 .12 .51 .42
ProbSol1 .17 .07 .11 .77
ProbSol2 .36 .07 .15 .77
ProbSol3 .39 .24 .11 .52
Eigenvalue 3.02 2.29 2.19 2.28
Variance explained 24.5% 15.2% 9.2% 8.1%

Note: Values are factor loadings after Oblimin rotation with Kaiser normalization. The numbers in italics reflect the
loadings on items per factor that were grouped together in one scale.

Sample items for relationship conflict are the following: “How much friction is present in your
work group?” and “To what extent are personality clashes present in your work group?” (see
Jehn, 1994: 229). Cronbach’s alphas for the Task Conflict and the Relationship Conflict
Scales were .78 and .81, respectively. Collaborative problem solving—the mediator in this
study—was measured with three items specifically designed for this study: (a) In this team, we
work together to solve problems; (b) when working together, we learn from each other; and (c)
we exchange relevant information to manage work issues (all 1 = rarely to 5 = all the time).
Ratings were correlated (Cronbach’s a = .67) and averaged into a collaborative problem-
solving index.
Because teams came from a variety of organizations and had a variety of tasks, task interde-
pendence was included as a control variable. Task interdependence was measured with three
items derived from Campion et al. (1993), a sample item being “I cannot accomplish my tasks
without information or materials from other members in my team” (always 1 = strongly dis-
agree to 5 = strongly agree; Cronbach’s a = .78).
To examine the factor structure underlying the four team-level variables just discussed, I
performed a principal components analysis (PCA). To reflect that task and relationship con-
flict often are correlated, factors were allowed to correlate (a PCA with varimax rotation pro-
duced almost identical results). Results are shown in Table 3. The items group together as
intended—in all cases, the absolute factor loading on the intended scale is above .40 and cross
loadings exceed .40 only in two cases. In particular, the RelCon4 (relation conflict) item and
the TaskCon1 (task conflict) item are somewhat problematic in that they also have a rather
high cross loading with problem solving. I decided to keep the items in the Relationship Con-
96 Journal of Management / February 2006

flict Scale and the Task Conflict Scale to allow a good comparison with the Study 1 measure
(and with past work in this area). Analyses with the items excluded from the scale yielded a
pattern of results highly similar to the one reported in the Results section.

Supervisor measures. Team supervisors were in close contact with their teams (82% of the
respondents reported having frequent to very frequent contact with their supervisor) and were
knowledgeable about team innovations. Team innovation was measured using four items
adapted from Anderson and West (1998), to be answered on 5-point scales (1 = strongly dis-
agree to 5 = strongly agree): (a) Team members often implement new ideas to improve the
quality of our products and services; (b) this team gives little consideration to new and alterna-
tive methods and procedures for doing their work (reverse coded); (c) team members often
produce new services, methods, or procedures; and (d) this is an innovative team. Cronbach’s
alpha was .82.
Team goal attainment was assessed using three questions specifically constructed for this
study. First, supervisors were asked to write down (in keywords if preferred) the three most
important goals their team had to achieve in the past 6 months. They were then asked for these
three goals together whether their team (a) achieved these goals (1 = not at all to 5 = com-
pletely), (b) had difficulty reaching these goals (1 = not at all to 5 = a great deal), and (c)
employed efficient processes to reach these goals (1 = not at all to 5 = always). After recoding
the data for the second question, ratings were aggregated into one index of goal attainment
(Cronbach’s a = .89). Inspection of the goals written down by the supervisors revealed that all
had listed at least one goal, that most (65%) had listed two or three goals, and that none of the
goals listed were directly about innovation. Exploratory analyses revealed no effects for the
number of goals supervisors listed, and this variable is further ignored.
Team size was included as an additional control variable. It was measured by asking super-
visors how many members their team had. The number provided always matched or slightly
exceeded the number of respondents per team (i.e., in those cases in which not all team mem-
bers responded to the survey). Team size varied between 4 and 17 members.

Results and Discussion

Treatment of the data and descriptive statistics. Individual missing values were substituted
by the individual’s team average for that particular item provided the number of missing val-
ues per individual did not exceed 10% of their answers (which was the case for four individu-
als, from two different teams; the data from these individuals were dropped from the analy-
ses). As in Study 1, individual responses were aggregated to the team level. Eta-squared
statistics for task interdependence, relationship conflict, and task conflict were .53, .62, and
.49, respectively, and exceed Georgopoloulos’s (1986) minimum criterion of .20. Intraclass
correlations Rwg ranged between .75 and .86 and thus exceed the minimum of .70 in all cases.
These statistics justify aggregation of the data to the group level (Bliese, 2000).
Descriptive statistics are given in Table 4. Scale reliabilities (Cronbach’s a) are given on the
diagonal. As can be seen, all measures had a sufficient to good internal consistency. Correla-
tions were generally low and nonsignificant, with a few exceptions. Consistent with the meta-
 De Dreu / Task Conflict and Team Innovation 97

Table 4
Means, Standard Deviations, Scale Reliabilities, and Intercorrelations for All Study Variables—Study 2 (N = 29)

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Team size 8.63 9.66 NA

2. Task interdependence 3.54 0.39 .19 .78
3. Collaborative problem solving 1.95 0.47 .02 .27† .67
4. Relationship conflict 2.17 0.59 –.13 –.21 –.54* .81
5. Task conflict 2.65 0.55 –.06 –.24 –.42* .66* .78
6. Innovation 4.29 0.83 .29† –.08 .27† .15 .18 .82
7. Goal attainment 3.24 0.90 .19 .18 .33* –.27† –.41* –.12 .89

Note: Scale reliabilities are on the diagonal. NA = not applicable.

†p < .10
*p < .05

analysis by De Dreu and Weingart (2003a), task and relationship conflict were positively cor-
related, and both types of conflict were negatively correlated with goal attainment. Consistent
with Hypothesis 6, collaborative problem solving and innovation were positively related
(marginally significant). Task and relationship conflict were positively but not significantly
related to innovation. Consistent with the idea that different components of overall team per-
formance may be negatively related to each other, innovation and goal attainment were
negatively, albeit nonsignificantly, correlated.

Innovation as a function of task conflict. It was predicted that controlling for relationship
conflict and task interdependence, task conflict would have a curvilinear relationship with
team innovation (Hypothesis 4). To test this hypothesis, hierarchical regression analysis was
used. In the first step (Model 1), task interdependence and team size were entered as control
variables. In the second step (Model 2), relationship conflict and task conflict were entered. In
the third step (Model 3), the squared term for task conflict was entered. Team innovation was
the dependent variable.
Results are summarized under Models 1-3 in Table 5. Models 1 and 2 are provided for the
reader’s convenience. As can be seen, the control variables in Model 1 did not explain a signif-
icant portion of the variance, and adding the linear term for task conflict in Model 2 did not
produce a significant effect either.
Relevant to Hypothesis 4 are the results in Model 3. Whereas relationship conflict was
unrelated to innovation, the linear term for task conflict was positive and significant (t = 2.19,
p < .05). Also consistent with Study 1, the squared term for task conflict was negative and sig-
nificant (t = –2.11, p < .05). This supports Hypothesis 4: Whereas a change from low to moder-
ate levels of task conflict is associated with an increase in innovation, innovation decreases at
relatively high levels of task conflict. Figure 2, which gives the predicted outcomes on the
basis of the regression equation, confirms that indeed there is a curvilinear relationship be-
tween task conflict and innovation.
The above analyses leave open whether it is task conflict, or conflict in general, that
accounts for effects on innovation. If it is conflict in general, then relationship conflict should
also have a curvilinear relationship with team innovation. To examine this, a series of regres-
98
Table 5
Regression of Innovation and Collaborative Problem Solving on Task and Relationship Conflict—Study 2 (N = 29)
Innovation Collaborative Problem Solving
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6
B SE B SE B SE B SE B SE B SE

Intercept 5.15 1.43 4.04 1.87 –1.15 3.01 0.77 0.81 2.21 0.91 –1.23 1.32
Step 1 (control variables)
Team size –0.02 0.01 –0.03 0.01 0.02† 0.01 –0.02 0.01 –0.04 0.01 –0.02 0.01
Task interdependence –0.29 0.41 –0.20 0.43 –0.07 0.40 0.34 0.23 0.21 0.21 0.29 0.18
Step 2 (linear effect)
Relationship conflict 0.14 0.36 0.41 0.36 –0.38* 0.18 –0.20 0.16
Task conflict 0.17 0.39 3.82* 1.76 0.05 0.19 2.40** 0.77
Step 3 (quadratic effect)
Task conflict –0.76* 0.36 –0.51** 0.16
DR2 .04 .13 .24 .22
DF 0.47 4.49* 4.97* 10.51**
R2 .10 .14 .27 .08 .34 .55
F-value 1.46 0.94 1.76 1.01 3.11* 5.57**

Note: Unstandardized coefficients are reported in Models 1-6.

†p < .10
*p < .05
**p < .01
 De Dreu / Task Conflict and Team Innovation 99

Figure 2
Curvilinear Relationship Between Task Conflict and Team Innovation (Study 2)

Innovation and Conflict; Study 2

4
innovation

1
low(1) 3 intense(5)
task conflict

sions was computed in which the squared term for task conflict was replaced by the squared
term for relationship conflict. This did not reveal significant effects for the linear or the
squared term for relationship conflict, B = –.08, and B = .22, both ts < 1, ns, respectively. It thus
appears to be task conflict, not conflict in general or relationship conflict, that relates to work
team innovation.

Collaborative problem solving as a function of task conflict. In Hypothesis 5, it was pre-

dicted that controlling for relationship conflict and task interdependence, task conflict would
have a curvilinear relationship with collaborative problem solving. To test this hypothesis,
hierarchical regression analysis was used. In the first step (Model 4), task interdependence and
team size were entered as control variables. Relationship conflict and task conflict were
entered in Step 2 (Model 5), and the squared term for task conflict was entered in the third step
(Model 6). Collaborative problem solving was the dependent variable.
Results are summarized under Models 4-6 in Table 5. Models 4 and 5 are provided for the
reader’s convenience. As can be seen, the control variables in Model 4 did not explain a signif-
icant portion of the variance. Adding the linear term for task conflict and for relationship con-
100 Journal of Management / February 2006

flict in Model 5 did produce a significant increase in explained variance, an effect due to a neg-
ative regression of collaborative problem solving on relationship conflict (see Table 5).
Relevant to Hypothesis 5 are the results in Model 6. Whereas relationship conflict did not
contribute to innovation, the linear term for task conflict was positive and significant (t = 3.11,
p < .01). The squared term for task conflict was negative and significant (t = –3.19, p < .01).
This supports Hypothesis 5: Whereas an increase from low to moderate levels of task conflict
is associated with an increase in collaborative problem solving, collaborative problem solving
decreases at relatively high levels of task conflict.
Hypothesis 6 predicted that collaborative problem solving would mediate the (curvilinear)
relationship between task conflict and team innovation. Collaborative problem solving quali-
fies as a mediator because (a) it is related to task conflict in a curvilinear fashion (see Table 5),
and (b) it is correlated with team innovation (see Table 4). To test whether team innovation and
task conflict are no longer related when collaborative problem solving is controlled for, I
repeated the hierarchical regression analysis used to test Hypothesis 4 with collaborative prob-
lem solving added as a control variable in the first step. The first step now explained a margin-
ally significant amount of variance in team innovation, F(3, 26) = 3.81, p < .10, a trend entirely
due to the significant regression of collaborative problem solving on team innovation (B = .87,
t = 1.96, p < .05, one-tailed). More important, however, the linear and the squared term for task
conflict were no longer significant (B = 1.72, t < 1, ns, and B = .31, t < –1, ns, respectively).
These results reveal that also the third requirement for mediation holds up.
Using a Sobel test, I finally examined whether the reduction in unstandardized regression
from simple to multiple regression was significant. This was the case, Z = 1.67, p < .05, one-
tailed. Of the different approaches to establish mediation (e.g., MacKinnon et al., 2002), the
Sobel test has been shown to be the most likely to miss real effects but is also very unlikely to
commit a Type I error. It is therefore concluded that Hypothesis 6 is supported: The curvilinear
relationship between task conflict and team innovation is mediated by collaborative problem
solving. Figure 3 summarizes the model in a path diagram.

Goal attainment as a function of task conflict. To test Hypothesis 7 that task conflict would
have a negative and linear relationship with goal attainment, I computed a hierarchical regres-
sion with task interdependence and team size in Step 1 and relationship conflict and task con-
flict in Step 2. Goal attainment was the dependent variable. The control variables together
accounted for a nonsignificant amount of variance, R = .02, F(2, 27) < 1, ns. The linear effects
2

for relationship conflict and task conflict in Step 2 produced a significant increase in explained
variance, DR = .22, F(2, 27) = 3.52, p < .05. Inspection of the B-coefficients showed that both
2

relationship and task conflict negatively predicted team goal attainment (B = –.66, t = –1.67,
p < .10, and B = –4.54, t = –2.39, p < .05, respectively). These results are consistent with those
found in past work (e.g., De Dreu & Weingart, 2003a) and support Hypothesis 7.

Discussion

The results of the two studies consistently show that task conflict is related to innovation in
work teams in a curvilinear fashion: At low and high levels of task conflict, work teams are less
 De Dreu / Task Conflict and Team Innovation 101

Figure 3
Curvilinear Relationship Between Task Conflict and Team Innovation Is
a
Mediated by Collaborative Problem Solving (Study 2)

Collaborative
problem
* †
B = -0.51 solving B = 0.87

Task Conflict Team

(Squared Term) Innovation
*
B = -.076 (-0.31)

Note: N = 29 teams.
a. Numbers are unstandardized regression weights. Numbers in parentheses are unstandardized regression weights
after the mediator (collaborative problem solving) has been controlled for. All parameter estimates are after task inter-
dependence, team size, and relationship conflict have been controlled for.
†p < .10
*p < .05

innovative than at moderate levels. This result is consistent with the general argument that ten-
sion levels in a work team have an inverted U-shaped relationship with team effectiveness
(Jehn, 1995; Van de Vliert & De Dreu, 1994; Walton, 1969; see also Broadbent, 1972; Yerkes
& Dobson, 1908). However, the current study is the first to demonstrate this in the domain of
(task) conflict and work team innovativeness. Furthermore, the current study is the first to
show that task conflict is related in a curvilinear way to information exchange and collabora-
tive problem solving and that these process variables are partially responsible for the relation-
ships between task conflict and team innovation.

Implications for Conflict Theory

Two studies showed that moderate levels of task conflict are meaningfully and positively
related to innovation in work teams. In both studies, team-level innovation and task conflict
were derived from different sources (supervisor versus team members) and through different
methods (interviews versus ratings). These design features exclude common source/common
method variance as viable explanations for the results. Also, although both studies involved
relatively small samples, results were highly consistent across studies, and this should gener-
ate quite some confidence in the robustness of the observed patterns. Finally, the two studies
involved quite different sets of work teams performing a variety of tasks, ranging from rela-
tively routine and straightforward (Study 1) to more complex and uncertain (Study 2). That
102 Journal of Management / February 2006

results appear to generalize across studies suggests that the curvilinear relationship between
task conflict and team innovation is relatively independent of setting, task, and population.
Some evidence was obtained for the hypothesized mediating process. It was argued that
low levels of task conflict would not produce the amount of information exchange and collab-
orative problem solving required for innovation and that too high levels of task conflict would
produce too much information exchange and information overload, also prohibiting innova-
tion. At moderate levels of conflict, however, information exchange and collaborative prob-
lem solving would be at required levels and therefore facilitate team innovation. The general
picture that emerged is indeed that task conflict relates to information exchange and collabora-
tive problem solving in a curvilinear fashion, that information exchange and collaborative
problem solving facilitate team innovation, and that collaborative problem solving mediates
the effects of task conflict on team innovation.
A meta-analysis of the conflict–team effectiveness literature showed that task conflict, like
relationship conflict, is negatively related to overall team effectiveness (De Dreu & Weingart,
2003a). This finding has led some to propose contingency frameworks in which moderator
variables of the task conflict–team effectiveness relationship are proposed (De Dreu &
Weingart, 2003b; Jehn & Benderksy, 2003). The present findings challenge the meta-analytic
conclusion in another way. They suggest that whereas task conflict may have a negative rela-
tionship with overall team performance, components of team functioning and effectiveness
may benefit from (moderate levels of) task conflict. Future work could further develop the
idea that conflict in teams operates as a double-edged sword—it negatively affects some per-
formance parameters (e.g., efficiency, coordination) but positively influences other perfor-
mance parameters (e.g., learning, innovativeness). Whether the net result turns out to be posi-
tive or negative depends on the relative importance of each of these parameters in a specific
team’s performance appraisal.
That task conflict relates to innovation in a different way than to goal attainment is consis-
tent with Van Dyne et al. (2002) who showed that home strain was positively related to sales
performance, but negatively to creativity. The Van Dyne et al. study was about individuals
instead of work teams, and it was concerned with sales and creativity rather than with goal
attainment and innovation. With the present work, however, we move one step closer to Jex’s
(1998) challenge to better understand the inconsistent relationship between strain and job per-
formance. Clearly, by decomposing rather broad concepts such as strain and job performance
into smaller components, we gain a much better understanding of when and how specific
patterns of results come about.
Although task and relationship conflict are often strongly correlated, they do appear to
have differential relationships with key dependent variables. The meta-analysis mentioned
before, for instance, reports stronger negative correlations between relationship conflict and
team member satisfaction than between task conflict and team member satisfaction. The
results of Study 2 corroborate the idea that although task and relationship conflict often have a
similar negative correlation with overall team effectiveness, the two types of conflict are
indeed different things. Specifically, in the present work, task conflict appeared to have the
curvilinear relationship with innovation, but relationship conflict did not.
That task conflict and innovation are related in a curvilinear fashion points to the impor-
tance of managing conflict in work teams. Previous work has focused on managing relation-
 De Dreu / Task Conflict and Team Innovation 103

ship conflict, so as to mitigate its generally negative consequences for team member satisfac-
tion and team effectiveness (De Dreu & Van Vianen, 2001; Jehn, 1997; Murnighan & Conlon,
1991). Past work also considered the conditions under which task conflict transforms into
more detrimental relationship conflict (e.g., DeChurch & Marks, 2001; Simons & Peterson,
2000; Turner & Pratkanis, 1997). The current results point to another challenge for team man-
agers and organizational leaders: to stimulate moderate levels of task conflict in their work
teams. Although ways to stimulate (task) conflict in work teams have been suggested (e.g.,
Van de Vliert & De Dreu, 1994), the obvious danger is that task conflict easily intensifies to a
level that is detrimental rather than beneficial. Perhaps that work team climate, including high
levels of within-group trust (Simons & Peterson, 2000), loyalty (Dooley & Fryxell, 1999),
psychological safety (Edmondson, 1999), and cooperative goal interdependence (Amason &
Sapienza, 1997; Tjosvold, 1997), provides a context within which task conflict can safely be
stimulated. Within such a context, a problem-solving orientation characterized by open-
minded information exchange can be maintained, so that moderate levels of task conflict con-
tinue to result in relatively high levels of creativity and innovation.

Implications for Innovation Research

Although the more straightforward implications of this work are in the domain of group
conflict, the present analysis has several implications for our thinking about, and research into,
innovation. First, the data in Study 2 suggest that innovation is not necessarily a good thing
when it comes to team performance. Although teams may benefit from innovations in the long
run, immediate goal attainment may be reduced because of lowered efficiency of work pro-
cesses. The apparent trade-off between short-term goal attainment and long-term survival is
something that tends to be ignored in innovation research. By incorporating a broader set of
dependent measures that tap into truly different components of overall team performance,
research will be able to paint a more complex but also more realistic picture of the benefits and
detriments of innovation (for more detail, see Anderson et al., 2004).
The present findings are in line with the distress-related innovation model recently ad-
vanced by Anderson and colleagues (2004). The model’s starting point is that organizational
life is full of negative phenomena like threats to job security, job dissatisfaction, small group
conflict, budget deficiencies, and shrinking market share. At the individual level of analysis,
negative mood states and job dissatisfaction can stimulate creativity and innovation (George &
Zhou, 2002; Zhou & George, 2001). At the group level, dissent and task-related conflict lead
teams to be more innovative (e.g., De Dreu & West, 2001; Lovelace, Shapiro, & Weingart,
2001; Van Dyne & Saavedra, 1996; the current study). Finally, at the organizational level of
analysis, budget deficiency and lower “slack” resources stimulate organizations to be more
innovative in marketing and product development (e.g., Kanter, 1983). Also, it has been
argued that organizations innovate to cope with work overload or changing circumstances
beyond their immediate control (West, 2002; Zaltman, Duncan, & Holbeck, 1973).
The framework by Anderson, De Dreu, and Nijstad (2004) explicitly included the notion
that distress-related variables, such as task conflict, act as a trigger for innovation and that
innovation acts as a trigger of distress, such as task conflict. Although the theory discussed and
104 Journal of Management / February 2006

tested in the current article makes strong claims about causality (task conflict produces inno-
vation), the current studies were cross-sectional, and this precludes conclusions about
directionality or causality. It cannot be excluded that high levels of innovation in work teams
give rise to moderate (but not high or low) levels of task conflict. Indeed, Janssen (2003)
recently argued that innovative behavior triggers conflict with (resisting) colleagues. Because
his study was cross-sectional as well, the issue of directionality remains unresolved. Experi-
mental designs are needed in which low, moderate, and high levels of task conflict are induced
and innovation is measured. Alternatively, we may use longitudinal designs in which task con-
flict and innovation are assessed at various points in time and related to innovation in a pro-
spective way.

Strengths and Limitations

A potential limitation is the way innovation was assessed. In Study 1, the number of inno-
vations reported by team supervisors was counted. In Study 2, supervisor ratings of team
innovativeness were used. Although this is not uncommon in studying innovation (see, e.g.,
De Dreu & West, 2001; Janssen, 2001; Leenders et al., 2003; West & Anderson, 1996), one
could argue that the current studies are about supervisor perceptions of innovation (e.g.,
Tierney & Farmer, 2004). And although supervisor perceptions of innovation likely correlate
positively with true innovation, this correlation is imperfect because perceptions are biased
due to a variety of psychological principles and processes (e.g., Nisbett & Ross, 1981). How-
ever, in the present work, the potential for innovations to be only perceptual is partly addressed
by the fact that innovations were measured with the requirement of actual examples that were
then evaluated by the researchers. In addition, the very different contexts across the two stud-
ies presented here and the very different ways of measuring innovation across the two studies
buttress the potential that objective innovation is driving the relationships observed here. Nev-
ertheless, future work in this area needs to address this issue and consider alternative ways of
detecting innovations. In addition, future work may examine the supervisor perceptions of
innovation, as these may have interesting effects in and of themselves (e.g., Tierney & Farmer,
2004).

Concluding Thoughts

A more general implication of the current results is that theories of organizational behavior
may be too often and too strongly focused on linear effects and ignore the possibility that opti-
mal levels of behavioral processes exist. In fact, research in a variety of domains, including
conflict at work (current study; Jehn, 1995; Walton, 1969), job demands (Janssen, 2001), and
work stress (Broadbent, 1972), have uncovered curvilinear relationships between key vari-
ables. Future work in organizational behavior should consider the possibility of curvilinear
relationships more systematically, as relevant associations between key constructs may other-
wise remain unnoticed.
The current research showed that task conflict in teams can be positively related to innova-
tion. This observation holds for teams performing relatively simple tasks (distribution and
 De Dreu / Task Conflict and Team Innovation 105

delivery of parcels) and for teams performing a variety of more complex tasks including prod-
uct design and complex decision making. Most important, however, the current study showed
that only moderate levels of task conflict contribute to innovation in work teams through their
effects on collaborative problem solving. As we all know, too much conflict hurts. But too lit-
tle conflict hurts as well, especially when teams need to innovate.

References
Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. 1996. Assessing the work environment for creativity.
Academy of Management Journal, 39: 1154-1184.
Amason, A. C. 1996. Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on strategic decision making:
Resolving a paradox for top management groups. Academy of Management Journal, 39: 123-148.
Amason, A. C., & Sapienza, H. J. 1997. The effects of top management team size and interaction norms on cognitive
and affective conflict. Journal of Management, 23: 495-516.
Amason, A. C., & Schweiger, D. 1997. The effect of conflict on strategic decision making effectiveness and organiza-
tional performance. In C. K. W. De Dreu & E. Van de Vliert (Eds.), Using conflict in organizations: 101-115.
London: Sage.
Anderson, N., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Nijstad, B. A. 2004. The routinization of innovation research: A constructively
critical review of the state-of-the-science. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25: 147-174.
Anderson, N., & West, M. A. 1998. Measuring climate for work group innovation: Development and validation of the
team climate inventory. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19: 235-258.
Bliese, P. D. 2000. Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data-analysis. In K. J.
Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multi-level theory, research, and methods in organizations: 349-381. San Fran-
cisco: Jossey-Bass.
Broadbent, D. E. 1972. Decision and stress. New York: Academic Press.
Brown, L. R. 1983. Managing conflict at organizational interfaces. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Campbell, J. P. 1976. On the nature of organizational effectiveness. In P. S. Goodman (Ed.), New perspectives on orga-
nizational effectiveness: 13-55. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J., & Higgs, A. C. 1993. Relations between work group characteristics and effective-
ness: Implications for designing effective work groups. Personnel Psychology, 46: 823-850.
Carnevale, P. J., & Probst, T. M. 1998. Social values and social conflict in creative problem solving and categorization.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74: 1300-1309.
DeChurch, L. A., & Marks, M. A. 2001. Maximizing the benefit of task conflict: The role of conflict management.
International Journal of Conflict Management, 12: 4-22.
De Dreu, C. K. W., & Van de Vliert, E. 1997. Using conflict in organizations. London: Sage.
De Dreu, C. K. W., & Van Vianen, A. E. M. 2001. Responses to relationship conflict and team effectiveness. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 22: 309-328.
De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. 2003a. Task versus relationship conflict, team effectiveness, and team member
satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 741-749.
De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. 2003b. Toward a contingency theory of conflict and performance in groups and
organizational teams. In M. A. West, D. Tjosvold, & K. Smith (Eds), International handbook of organizational
teamwork and cooperative working: 151-166. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
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.
Dooley, R. S., & Fryxell, G. E. 1999. Attaining decision quality and commitment from dissent: The moderating effects
of loyalty and competence in strategic decision-making teams. Academy of Management Journal, 42: 389-402.
Drazin, R., Glynn, M. A., & Kazanijan, R. K. 1999. Multilevel theorizing about creativity in organizations: A sense-
making perspective. Academy of Management Review, 24: 286-307.
Edmondson, A. 1999. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly,
44: 350-383.
106 Journal of Management / February 2006

Forsyth, D. 1983. An introduction to group dynamics. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

George, J. M., & Zhou, J. 2002. Understanding when bad moods foster creativity and good ones don’t: The role of con-
text and clarity of feelings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 687-697.
Georgopoloulos, B. S. 1986. Organizational structure, problem-solving, and effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gruenfeld, D. H., Thomas-Hunt, M. C., & Kim, P. H. 1998. Cognitive flexibility, information exchange strategy, and
integrative complexity in groups: Public versus private reactions to majority and minority status. Journal of Exper-
imental Social Psychology, 34: 202-226.
Guetzkow, H., & Gyr, J. 1954. An analysis of conflict in decision making groups. Human Relations, 7: 367-381.
Guzzo, R. A., & Shea, G. P. 1992. Group performance and intergroup relations in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette &
L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology: 269-313. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press.
Hackman, R. 1983. The design of effective work groups. In J. W. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior:
315-342. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
James, L. R., DeMaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. 1984. Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without
response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69: 85-98.
Janssen, O. 2001. Fairness perceptions as a moderator in the curvilinear relationships between job demands, and job
performance and job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 44: 1039-1050.
Janssen, O. 2003. Innovative behaviour and job involvement at the price of conflict and less satisfactory relations with
co-workers. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76: 347-364.
Jehn, K. 1994. Enhancing effectiveness: An investigation of advantages and disadvantages of value-based intragroup
conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management, 5: 223-238.
Jehn, K. 1995. A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Sci-
ence Quarterly, 40: 256-282.
Jehn, K. 1997. Affective and cognitive conflict in work groups: Increasing performance through value-based
intragroup conflict. In C. K. W. De Dreu & E. Van de Vliert (Eds.), Using conflict in organizations: 87-100. Lon-
don: Sage.
Jehn, K., & Bendersky, C. 2003. Intragroup conflict in organizations: A contingency perspective on the conflict-out-
come relationship. In R. M. Kramer & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, vol. 25: 187-242.
New York: Elsevier.
Jex, S. M. 1998. Stress and job performance: Theory, research, and implications for managerial practice. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kanter, R. M. 1983. The change masters. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Kanter, R. M. 1988. When a thousand flowers bloom: Structural, collective, and social conditions for innovation in
organizations. In B. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behaviour, vol. 10: 169-211.
Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Bolger, N. 1998. Data analysis in social psychology. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, &
A. Lindzey (Eds.). The handbook of social psychology, vol. 1: 233-265. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Leenders, R. T., van Engelen, J., & Kratzer, J. 2003. Virtuality, information exchange, and new product team creativ-
ity: A social network perspective. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 20: 69-92.
Lord, R., & Novick, M. 1968. Statistical theories of mental test scoring. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Lovelace, K., Shapiro, D. L., & Weingart, L. R. 2001. Maximizing crossfunctional new product teams’innovativeness
and constraint adherence: A conflict information exchanges perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 44:
779-783.
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. 2002. A comparison of methods to test
mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7: 83-104.
Murnighan, J. K., & Conlon, D. E. 1991. The dynamics of intense work groups: A study of British string quartets.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 36: 165-186.
Nemeth, C., & Chiles, C. 1988. Modelling courage: The role of dissent in fostering independence. European Journal
of Social Psychology, 18: 275-280.
Nemeth, C. J., & Staw, B. M. 1989. The tradeoffs of social control and innovation in groups and organizations. In
L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, vol. 22: 175-210. New York: Academic Press.
Nisbett, R., & Ross, L. 1981. Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of human social judgment. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
 De Dreu / Task Conflict and Team Innovation 107

Pritchard, R. D. 1992. Organizational productivity. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial
and organizational psychology, vol. 3: 443-471. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Saavedra, R., Earley, P. C., & Van Dyne, L. 1993. Complex interdependence in task-performing groups. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 78: 61-72.
Scott, R. K. 1995. Creative employees: A challenge to managers. Journal of Creative Behavior, 29: 64-71.
Shalley, C. E., Zhou, J., & Oldham, G. R. 2004. The effects of personal and contextual characteristics on creativity:
Where should we go from here? Journal of Management, 30: 933-958.
Simons, T., & Peterson, R. 2000. Task conflict and relationship conflict in top management teams: The pivotal role of
intragroup trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85: 102-111.
Stevens, J. 1992. Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (3rd ed.). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. 2004. The Pygmalion process and employee creativity. Journal of Management, 30: 413-
432.
Tjosvold, D. 1997. Conflict within interdependence: Its value for productivity and individuality. In C. De Dreu &
E. Van de Vliert (Eds.), Using conflict in organizations: 23-37. London: Sage.
Turner, M. E., & Pratkanis, A. R. 1997. Mitigating groupthink by stimulating constructive conflict. In C. K. W.
De Dreu & E. Van de Vliert (Eds.), Using conflict in organizations: 53-71. London: Sage.
Van de Vliert, E., & De Dreu, C. K. W. 1994. Optimizing performance by stimulating conflict. International Journal of
Conflict Management, 5: 211-222.
Van Dyne, L., Jehn, K. A., & Cummings, A. 2002. Differential effects of strain on two forms of work performance:
Individual employee sales and creativity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23: 57-74.
Van Dyne, L., & Saaverda, R. 1996. A naturalistic minority influence experiment: Effects on divergent thinking, con-
flict, and originality in work-groups. British Journal of Social Psychology, 35: 151-168.
Wageman, R. 1995. Interdependence and group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40: 145-181.
Wall, J., & Callister, R. 1995. Conflict and its management. Journal of Management, 21: 515-558.
Walton, R. E. 1969. Interpersonal peacemaking: Confrontations and third party consultation. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
West, M. A. 2002. Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An integrative model of creativity and innovation imple-
mentation within groups. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51: 355-386.
West, M. A., & Anderson, N. R. 1996. Innovation in top management teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81: 680-
693.
West, M. A., & Farr, J. L. 1990. Innovation at work. In M. A. West & J. L. Farr (Eds.), Innovation and creativity at
work: 3-13. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. 1993. Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of Man-
agement Review, 18: 293-321.
Yerkes, R. M., & Dodson, J. D. 1908. The relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity of habit formation. Journal of
Comparative Neurological Psychology, 18: 459-482.
Zaltman, G., Duncan, R., & Holbeck, J. 1973. Innovations and organizations. New York: Wiley.
Zhou, J., & George, J. M. 2001. When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: Encouraging the expression of voice.
Academy of Management Journal, 44: 682-696.

Biographical Note

Carsten K. W. De Dreu is a professor and chair of organizational psychology at the University of Amsterdam. His
work is concerned with group processes, social decision making, and social influence. It has been published in such
outlets as the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, the Journal of Experimental Psychology, the Journal of
Applied Psychology, and Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. He served as associate editor of
the Journal of Organizational Behavior.