Different Paths Different Effects: Testing the Relationship Between Team Task
Conflct and Team Creativity
Ming-jian Zhou 1, Hai-bo Pan2
1,2
Department of Urban Planning and Management, Harbin Institute of Technology Shenzhen Graduate School, Shenzhen,
China
(mngzmj@gmail.com, haibo24@gmail.com )
Abstract - Based on the self-justification theory, we
argued the causal relationship between team task conflict
and team creativity in two different paths - team learning
behavior and team relationship conflict as two mediators.
Furthermore, we proposed that team collectivism would
moderate the two paths concurrently: high team collectivism
would slightly weaken the path that team learning behavior
as the mediator and significantly weaken the path that team
relationship conflict as the mediator. In the end, we
discussed the contribution of the model to task conflict
theory and research, as well as for management practice,
and directions for further research.
Keywords - Self-justification theory, task conflict, team
collectivism, team creativity
I.
INTRODUCTION
Recently, team work becomes increasingly the norm
and team creativity attracts more and more attention from
organizations than ever before since it has been proved
that team is elementary to organizational success [1] and
creativity is crucial for employee performance [2] and
organizational competitiveness [3].Meanwhile, task
conflict- the conflicts about the distribution of resources,
procedures and polices, and judgments and interpretation
of facts [4] - seems to be inevitable in the team process in
that team members are often from diverse background
with different skills, knowledge, experience and so on[5].
Consequently, the associated between task conflict and
team is desirable to explore profoundly.
According to Shin and Zhou (2007), team creativity
was defined as the production of novel and useful ideas
concerning products, services, processes, and procedures
by a team of employees working together. Many studies
have shown the relationship that task conflict has a
positive affect on team creativity under certain conditions
[4-9]
. For instance, De Dreu (2006) pointed out that task
conflict had a curvilinear effect on innovation and the
innovation was optimal at moderate levels of task conflict.
Farh (2010) gave a similar conclusion in his study, and
found that the team phase also moderated the relationship
with the strongest effect at an early phase.
However, few empirical studies were done to
interpret clearly and thoroughly about how task conflict
influences a team’s creative performance. To further
understanding of the process, a path model is established
on the basis of self-justification theory, in which two
variables - relationship conflict, referring to conflict about
personal taste, value, interpersonal affairs etc. [4], and
team learning behavior – are introduced as mediators.
Moreover, some values should affect task conflict
more or less, which means the inconsistent perspectives
on the team tasks [10]. Collectivism, one kind of values,
has displayed an impact on work behaviors in groups,
influencing social, cognitive and affective processes in
teams [11]. However, little empirical work has examined
collectivism as a potential moderator in the relationship
between task conflict and team creativity. Thus, to fill the
gap in literature, testing the moderate effect becomes the
second task in the study.
II. THEORY AND HYPOTHESES
A. Task conflict and team creativity
Prior studies have shown that creativity - the
generation of novel and useful ideas [12] - derived from the
exhibition of the different ideas, or viewpoints or from
integrating the old with new thinking way [13]. A team is
more likely to generate creative ideas or solutions if its
members frequently discuss divergent perspectives [8].
Task conflict is a vital process to stimulate the member’s
divergent opinions; consequently, it is beneficial to team
creativity. A great of researches have proven that task
conflict has a positive influence on creativity[14-17] or has a
curvilinear effect [6-8]. Although most of the precious work
have demonstrated the relationship between task conflict
and team creativity and tested some moderate variables,
few of them explored and tested the affecting path.
Since task conflict is the outcome of disagreement
viewpoints, it always evoke individuals’ cognitive
dissonance - a ‘state of tension whenever an individual
holds two cognitions (ideas, attitudes, beliefs, opinions)
that are psychologically inconsistent’[18]. Dissonance is an
uncomfortable feeling, and obviously individuals are
supposed to reduce it by moderating their behaviors, but
more often through self- justification [19].Self-justification
is a psychological terms, principally referring to
individuals tend to base their attitudes on the
experimental task in a positive way in order to justify
their precious behavior [20, 21].
Once task conflict appears, the self-justification
motivation will stimulate individuals to try their best to
keep their actions in accord with their former arguments.
The higher the level of task conflict - I defined as the
extent to everyone insists on his opinions - is, the greater
the motivation or preference of self-justification is. To
justify themselves, participators are supposed to take two
strategies, either to elaborate their own points or to attack
others’ weakness. In any case, they need more
information, knowledge or other evidence to support his
points or refute others points. This demand definitely
encourages the team learning behavior - the process by
which team members discuss and solve problems [22].
Obviously, team learning behavior - seek information,
address differences of opinion [23] - facilitate team
creativity by enhancing the opportunities to acquire
domain-relevant skills and creativity-relevant skills, both
of which are identified as the building blocks necessary
for individual creativity [24].Thus, we propose:
Hypothesis1 (a) Task conflict will have an indirect
positive effect on team creativity and team learning
behavior will partially mediate the relationship between
them.
On the other hand, individuals are hardly to accept
others’ views and are inclined to persuade others to
embrace their own points on the basis of self-justification.
In the process to justify themselves, they may emotionally
use harsh language [25], intimidation tactics, or ad
homonym arguments [15]. In this case, opponents may feel
frustrated, disgrace, and even brutalized, and then tend to
attribute these actions to personal attack [26] or hidden
agendas [27], eventually resulting in relationship conflict.
Once relationship conflict emerges, team members’
attention will increasingly move to how to return the
‘attack’ actions or languages from how to solve the initial
issues. This change can raise individuals’ stress and
anxiety level, both of which are supposed to restrain the
cognitive ability and thus weaken the creativity [26].Thus,
we propose:
Hypothesis1 (b) Task conflict will have an indirect
positive effect on team creativity and team relationship
conflict will partially mediate the relationship between
them.
B. The moderate effect of team collectivism
Collectivism, one value which mostly emphasizing
the interdependence, was originally conceived at the
culture level as well as individualism [28]. Then the
constructs was studied at lower level, such as team level
[11, 29-31]
, individual level [32, 33]. But further study about
collectivism at team level or individual level has been
largely unexplored [32, 34] for a long time, due to the
shortcomings associated with exiting collectivism
measures. Recognizing the problems, Jackson et
al.(2006) developed a new measure of psychological
collectivism - the individual level of collectivism- on the
basis of integrating conceptual review of existing scales.
Without a specific and generally accepted definition
about the team collectivism, here we defined the variable
as the average level of the team members’ psychological
collectivism-the individual vision of collectivism that
consists of five facets: Reliance, Preference, Concern,
Norm Acceptance, and Goal Priority [34]. Reliance
emphasizes that one person’s responsibility is the
responsibility of the entire group and that they have a
collective sense of responsibility that leads them to feel
comfortable relying on and trusting in the role. Preference
highlights the relationships with in-group members and
the preference to exist within the bounds of a group.
Concern stressed on an interest in gaining knowledge
about other team members and a desire to develop an
understanding of their needs. Norm Acceptance focuses
on complying with the norms and rules of the in-group in
order to foster harmony with the team. Goal Priority
means that team goals take precedence over individual
goals even when it causes them to make sacrifice [33, 34].
On one hand, high Reliance is more likely to weaken
the feeling that individuals are personally responsible for
the negative results, which will lead to lower
self-justification [35]. It will reduce individuals’ motivation
to insist on and persuade others to accept his perspectives,
which means the mediate effect of team learning behavior
and relationship conflict will be undermined
simultaneously. On the other hand, high Goal Priority is
supposed to stimulate team members to maintain effort
and persist toward team goals, considering that goals
increase effort toward the goal-related task [36]. When task
conflict emerges, the members will try their best to find
the best solution. This motivation will promote the
learning behavior. Thus, we propose:
Hypothesis2 (a), team collectivism will slightly
weaken the mediate effect of team learning behavior
The common characteristic of Preference, Concern,
Norm Acceptance is to emphasize that individuals want to
establish a harmony environment. Preference and Norm
Acceptance actually decrease the frequencies and intents
that they use harsh language during the process they
persuade others, which is useful to hold back the increase
of the relationship conflict. Concern is available to lessen
the misunderstood about others intense, which is useful to
reduce the level of relationship conflict or even eliminate
it thoroughly. And all of them are considered to
significantly undermine the mediate effect of relationship
conflict. Thus, we propose:
Hypothesis2 (b), team collectivism will significantly
weaken the mediate effect of relationship conflict
Based on the deductions above, we establish the path
model shown in Fig. 1
H1(a)
REFERENCES
Team Learning Behavior
H2(a)
Task Conflict
Team collectivism
Team creativity
H2(b)
Relationship Conflict
H1(b)
Fig.1 Path Model
III. DISCUSSION
A. Contributions of the Study
Firstly, the study will empirically explore the
mechanism of how task conflict influences the team
creativity for the first time. Prior studies focus on
demonstrating the relationship between conflict (task
conflict, relationship conflict) and creativity. Little
empirical work was done to interpret the process. Thus,
our research has filled the gap.
Secondly, the present study creatively employs two
paths to elaborate the process from task conflict and team
creativity. Precious explanations on the causal
relationship between the two variables almost underline
only one path. Thus, our research has some theoretical
innovation.
Finally, the study will investigate the moderate effect
of team collectivism- one kind of values. Few researches
tested the role of collectivism, perhaps due to various
psychometric shortcomings associated with collectivism
measures. Although Jackson et al (2006) have developed
a new scale, this field still remains unexplored. Thus, our
research has filled the gap.
B. Managerial Implications
The present study put forward a new idea: task
conflict can benefit the team creativity by team learning
behavior and deter the creativity by relationship conflict
simultaneously; team collectivism is supposed to slightly
weaken the positive effect and to significantly weaken the
negative effects. This implies that managers can reap
more team creativity by encouraging task conflict and
cultivating the team value- team collectivism
concurrently.
C. Directions for future research
Further studies can investigate whether there is
another influence path, which is valuable in theory
innovation. Also, further studier can examine more factors
that can simultaneously moderate the two paths in the
model - such as task phase, team style etc., which is
valuable in management practice.
[1] Martin A, Bal V. The State Of Teams[R]. Greensboro,NC:
Center for Creative Leadership, 2006.
[2] Gong Y, Huang J C, Farh J L. Employee learning
orientation, transformational leadership, and employee
creativity: The mediating role of employee creative
self-efficacy[J]. Academy of Management Journal,
2009,52(4):765-778.
[3] Oldham G R, Cummings A. Employee creativity: Personal
and contextual factors at work[J]. Academy of
Management Journal, 1996,39:607-634.
[4] De Dreu C K W, Weingart L R. Task versus relationship
conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction:
A meta-analysis[J]. Journal of Applied Psychology,
2003,88(4):741-749.
[5] Chen M H. Understanding the benefits and detriments of
conflict on team creativity process[J]. Creativity and
Innovation Management, 2006,15(1):105-116.
[6] Curseu P L. Team creativity in web site design: An
empirical test of a systemic model[J]. Creativity Research
Journal, 2010,22(1):98-107.
[7] De Dreu C K W. When too little or too much hurts:
evidence for a curvilinear relationship between task
conflict and innovation in teams[J]. Journal of
Management, 2006,32(1):83-107.
[8] Farh J L, Lee C, Farh C I C. Task conflict and team
creativity: A question of how much and when[J]. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 2010,95(6):1173-1180.
[9] Hu Lsheger U R, Anderson N, Salgado J F. Team-level
predictors of innovation at work: A comprehensive
meta-analysis spanning three decades of research[J].
Journal of Applied Psychology, 2004,94:1128-1145.
[10] Hui C H, Triandis H C, Yee C. Cultural difference in
reward allocation: Is collectivism the explanation?[J].
British Jounal of Social Psychology, 1991,30:145-157.
[11] Gibson C B, Saxton T. Thinking outside the black box:
Outcomes of team decisions with third-party
intervention[J]. Small Group Research, 2005,38:208-236.
[12] Amabile T M. A model of creativity and innovations in
organizations[J]. Research in Organizational Behavior,
1988,10:123-167.
[13] Mumford M D, Gustafson S. Creativity syndrome:
Integration, application, and innovation[J]. Psychological
Bulletin, 1988,103:27-43.
[14] Jehn K A. A multimenthod examination of the benefits
and detriments of intragroup conflict[J]. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 1995,40:256-282.
[15] Simons T L, Peterson R S. Task conflict and relationship
conflict in top management teams: The pivotal role of
intragroup trust[J]. Journal of Applied Psychology,
2000,85(1):102-111.
[16] Van de Vliert E, Carsten K W D D. Optimizing
performance by stimulating conflict[J]. International
Journal of Conflict Management, 1994,5:211-222.
[17] De Dreu C K W, West M A. Minority dissent and team
innovation: The importance of participation in decision
making[J].
Journal
of
Applied
Psychology,
2001,86:1191-1201.
[18] Aronson E. The social animal[M]. New York: Freeman,
1995.
[19] Jonathan L. Managers and Moral Dissonance: self
justification as a big threat to ethical management?[J]. J
Bus Ethics, 2011,105:17-25.
[20] Weick K E. Reduction of cognitive dissonance through
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34]
[35]
[36]
task enhancement and effort expenditure[J]. Journal of
Abnormal & Social Psychology, 1964,68:533-539.
Pallak M S, Sogin S R, Van Zante A. Bad decisions:
Effects of volition, locus of causality, and negative
consequences on attitude change[J]. Journal of Personality
& Social Psychology, 1972,20:217-227.
Hirst G, Knippenberg D V, Zhou J. A cross-level
perspective on employee creativity: Goal orientation, team
learning behavior, and individual creativity[J]. Academy
of Management Journal, 2009,52(2):280-293.
Edmondson A. Psychological safety and learning behavior
in work teams[J]. Administrative Science Quarterly,
1999,44:350-383.
Amabile T M. Creativity in context[M]. Boulder: CO:
Westview, 1996.
Pelled L. Demographic diversity, conflict, and work group
outcomes: An intervening process theory[J]. Organization
Science, 1996,7:615-631.
Jehn K A. A qualitative analysis of conflict types and
dimensions in organizational groups[J]. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 1997,42:530-557.
Amason A C. Distinguishing the effects of functional and
dysfunctional conflict on strategic decision making:
Resolving a paradox for top management teams[J].
Academy Management of Journal, 1996,39:123-148.
Hofstede G. Culture’s consequences[M]. Beverly Hills:
CA: Sage, 1980.
Colquitt J A, Noe R A, Jackson C L. Justice in teams:
Antecedents and consequences of procedural justice
climate[J]. Personnel Psychology, 2002,55:83-109.
Goncalo J A, Staw B M. Individualism–collectivism and
group creativity[J]. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 2006,100(1):96-109.
Kirkman B L, Shapiro D L. The impact of team members’
cultural values on productivity, cooperation, and
empowerment in self-managing work teams[J]. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 2001,32:597-617.
Earley P C, Gibson C B. Taking stock in our progress on
individualism– collectivism: 100 years of solidarity and
community[J]. Journal of Management, 1998,24:265-304.
Dierdorff E C, Bell S T, Belohlav J A. The power of
“we”: Effects of psychological collectivism on team
performance over time[J]. Journal of Applied Psychology,
2011,96(2):247-262.
Jackson C L, Colquitt J A, Johnson M, et al. Psychological
collectivism: A measure validation and linkage to group
member performance[J]. Journal of Applied Psychology,
2006,91:884-899.
Cooper J. Personal responsibility and dissonance: The role
of foreseen consequences: An integration and extension of
the “ forced compliance ” literature[J]. Journal of
Personality & Social Psychology, 1971,18:354-364.
Locke E A, Latham G. Building a practically useful theory
of goal setting and task motivation[J]. American
Psychologist, 2002,57:705-717.