The paradox of intragroup conflict

During group decision making, people often experience disagreements in which they need to choose between their own viewpoint and the viewpoint of another group member, for example, when cabinet members disagree about the best decision to tackle a crisis. These intragroup conflicts often pose a paradox for groups. On the one hand, conflicts use up precious time, evoke frustration, and reduce group members’ motivation to work for the group. Yet, on the other hand, conflicts challenge group members’ to more critically evaluate their initial viewpoints which, in the end, may result in more well-informed decisions. In this dissertation I address this “paradox of intragroup conflict” by means of a meta-analysis of past intragroup conflict research and six experiments examining when conflicts are most likely to help or hinder group decision-making. The findings show that although two types of conflict (i.e., rela tionship and process conflict) have a strong tendency to hurt group outcomes, a third type of conflict (i.e., task conflict) has the potential to help group outcomes. Yet, whether a group can indeed benefit from a task conflict strongly depends on contextual factors (e.g., the presence vs. absence of a relationship conflict) and individual-level factors (e.g., cardiovascular reactions to conflict).LEI Universiteit LeidenSocial decision makin

A matter of focus: power-holders feel more responsible after adopting a cognitive other-focus, rather than a self-focus

Social decision makin

The paradox of intragroup conflict: a meta-analysis

Since the meta-analysis by De Dreu and Weingart (2003a) on the effects of intragroup conflict on group outcomes, more than 70 new empirical studies of conflict have been conducted, often investigating more complex, moderated relationships between conflict and group outcomes, as well as new types of intragroup conflict, such as process conflict. To explore the trends in this new body of literature, we conducted a meta-analysis of 116 empirical studies of intragroup conflict (n = 8870 groups) and its relationship with group outcomes. To address the heterogeneity across the studies included in the meta-analysis, we also investigated a number of moderating variables. Stable negative relationships were found between relationship and process conflict and group outcomes. The relationships between task conflict and group outcomes were less straight forward. Analyses of main effects as well as moderator analyses show that the effects of task conflict on group outcomes depend on the cultural context, the way outcomes are measured, and the association between task and relationship conflict

Whether power holders construe their power as responsibility or opportunity influences their tendency to take advice from others

Empirical evidence suggests that power elicits a generic tendency to disregard advice. We examined different responses power holders may show in their tendency to take advice depending on the construal of power. We report a field study and an experiment among managers and other powerful professionals (Studies 1 and 2) and an experiment in which participants were assigned to a powerful role (Study 3). Across studies, we found a higher tendency to take advice among those who construed their power as a responsibility rather than as an opportunity. This effect of the construal of power on advice taking was mediated by a heightened perceived value of advice, not by decreased confidence in own judgments or sense of power. Accordingly, the increase in advice taking when power was construed as a responsibility was observed regardless of whether the advice came from subordinates (Study 1), expert advisors (Study 2), or a less powerful teammate (Study 3). This highlights the relevance of considering how power holders construe their power in order to understand their tendency to take advice from others. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Social decision makin

Whether power holders construe their power as responsibility or opportunity influences their tendency to take advice from others

Empirical evidence suggests that power elicits a generic tendency to disregard advice. We examined different responses power holders may show in their tendency to take advice depending on the construal of power. We report a field study and an experiment among managers and other powerful professionals (Studies 1 and 2) and an experiment in which participants were assigned to a powerful role (Study 3). Across studies, we found a higher tendency to take advice among those who construed their power as a responsibility rather than as an opportunity. This effect of the construal of power on advice taking was mediated by a heightened perceived value of advice, not by decreased confidence in own judgments or sense of power. Accordingly, the increase in advice taking when power was construed as a responsibility was observed regardless of whether the advice came from subordinates (Study 1), expert advisors (Study 2), or a less powerful teammate (Study 3). This highlights the relevance of considering how power holders construe their power in order to understand their tendency to take advice from others

Call for action: Designing for harmony in creative teams

Competitive markets force diverse organizations to intensively manage innovation. Many of them set up multifunctional teams responsible for generating novel and original ideas. Such teams often face higher risk of conflicts and tensions, being an inherent part of creative processes. Impact of this phenomena on creative performance of teams, even though extensively addressed in research, remains unclarified. We approach this issue while providing a novel interpretation framework inspired by the concept of harmony in jazz improvisation. We apply it to observations made with project teams in an organizational setting, and use it to inform design of a supporting collaborative solution. We postulate the need for further work on team harmony and creativity