SOCIAL BEHAVIOR AND PERSONALITY, 2015, 43(5), 715-728

Society for Personality Research

http://dx.doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2015.43.5.715

THE DOUBLE-EDGED SWORD OF TASK CONFLICT: ITS

IMPACT ON TEAM PERFORMANCE
HOJIN BANG
Jeju National University
JONG GYU PARK
The Pennsylvania State University
We investigated the relationship between task conflict and team performance, taking into
account the interaction effects of job demand. Participants were 5,579 employees in 153 teams
at a South Korean manufacturing company. We found a statistically significant curvilinear
relationship between task conflict and actual team performance; however, the relationship
between task conflict and perceived team performance was negative and linear. Through
response surface analysis, we also found that task conflict positively predicted actual team
performance when job demand was high, whereas it had a negative effect when job demand
was low. We performed response surface analysis of the results of polynomial regression,
because we had speculated that those relationships could be essentially curvilinear. However,
results showed no interaction effect of task conflict and job demand in predicting perceived
team performance. Thus, task conflict may function as a double-edged sword in terms of team
performance.
Keywords: job demand, task conflict, actual team performance, perceived team performance.

Recently, research on team effectiveness has increasingly been focused on

the nature of intragroup conflict (de Wit, Greer, & Jehn, 2012). Jehn (1995)
classified intragroup conflict into the following two major types: task conflict,
which is a perception of disagreements among group members about the content
of the tasks being performed, (p. 258), and includes differences in viewpoints

Hojin Bang, Department of Business Administration, Jeju National University; Jong Gyu Park,
Department of Learning and Performance Systems, The Pennsylvania State University.
This research was supported by the 2015 Scientific Promotion Program funded by Jeju National
University.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jong Gyu Park, Department of
Learning and Performance Systems, The Pennsylvania State University, 303 Keller Building,
University Park, PA 16802, USA. Email: pvj5055@psu.edu

715

716

TASK CONFLICT AND TEAM PERFORMANCE

and opinions; and relationship conflict, which is a perception of interpersonal

incompatibilities among group members, [and] typically includes tension,
animosity, and annoyance (p. 258). Previous researchers have shown that task
conflict can have a beneficial effect on job performance (Cheng, Wang, & Zhang,
2011; Jehn, 1995; Simons & Peterson, 2000), whereas relationship conflict
has been found to diminish job satisfaction and task performance (Choi & Sy,
2010; Jehn, 1995, 1997; Jehn & Mannix, 2001; Lau & Cobb, 2010). However,
empirical research results vary regarding the outcome of intragroup conflict (de
Wit, Jehn, & Scheepers, 2013; Kim, Choi, & Park, 2012).
In particular, the nature of the relationship between team effectiveness and
outcome of task conflict is not yet clear. In terms of the relationship between
task conflict and group performance, in some empirical studies, the findings
demonstrate a positive relationship (e.g., Bradley, Postlethwaite, Klotz, Hamdani,
& Brown, 2012; Jehn, 1995), whereas in other studies, a negative relationship
has been reported (e.g., Choi & Sy, 2010; Lovelace, Shapiro, & Weingart, 2001).
Specifically, in their meta-analysis, De Dreu and Weingart (2003) reported a
negative correlation between task conflict and team effectiveness, whereas, in a
more recent meta-analysis by de Wit et al. (2012), the influence of task conflict
on team performance was not significantly negative.
This inconsistency may be explained by an analysis of the different research
methods used to measure team performance. For example, Jehn (1997) found
that task conflict may lead to negative attitudes and emotional problems for team
members. Even if task conflict can be beneficial to the work process and objective
task performance as distal outcomes, it can be harmful regarding the level of
satisfaction and commitment of team members as proximal outcomes (de Wit et
al., 2012). Accordingly, if a researcher were to measure team performance based
on subjective evaluations by team leaders or subordinates, the effects of the task
conflict might be negatively affected by team members emotional state. In fact,
by carefully analyzing and comparing results from both objective performance
data and team members perceptions, greater insight into task conflict is likely
to be gained. De Dreu (2006) proposed that, when using actual performance
data, there would be an inverted-U-shaped curvilinear relationship between task
conflict and team performance. However, Jehn (1997) suggested that, when using
the subjective performance measures of team members, the relationship between
task conflict and team performance was likely to be negative and linear.
To explore the disparate findings in research on this topic, we proposed the
following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1: At low or high, compared to moderate, levels of task conflict,
actual team performance will be lower.
Hypothesis 2: Task conflict will be negatively related to perceived team
performance.

TASK CONFLICT AND TEAM PERFORMANCE

717

The reported inconsistency in results on the relationship between task conflict

and team performance may also be explained by exploring and investigating
the contextual variables between task conflict and group effectiveness. Previous
researchers have attempted to identify specific boundary conditions for the
correlation between conflict within a group and team effectiveness. For example,
De Dreu and Weingart (2003) suggested that task uncertainty is a moderating
variable in the relationship between task conflict and team performance; that
is to say, as the uncertainty of a team task increases, task conflict becomes
more beneficial to team performance. Simons (1994) showed that task conflict
is important in situations requiring fast decision making, and Simons and
Peterson (2000) also posited that task conflict would affect team performance
more positively in cases where tasks have less certainty and are less routine.
Task characteristics of this type, such as task uncertainty, time pressure, and
unexpected tasks, can be summarized as the concept of job demand (Karasek,
1979). According to Karaseks (1979) original model, job demand involves time
pressure, level of effort, and how much of a workload is necessary, thus referring
to both the amount of work required and the urgency of the task.
In this context, we predicted that task conflict would have a more positive
influence on team performance when job demand was greater. We, therefore,
proposed the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 3a: There will be an interaction effect of job demand with task
conflict on actual team performance, such that task conflict will have a stronger
positive relationship with actual team performance in situations with greater job
demand than in those with less job demand.
Hypothesis 3b: There will be an interaction effect of job demand with task
conflict on perceived team performance, such that task conflict will have a
stronger positive relationship with perceived team performance in situations with
greater job demand than in those with less job demand.
Method
Regression Equations

Because Hypotheses 1 and 2 represent a nonlinear function, we added the

squared term of an independent variabletask conflictinto the following
regression equations:
Z a, p = b0 + b1X + b2X2 + e
(H1, H2)
Z: team performance (actual, perceived)
X: task conflict
Accordingly, our testing of Hypotheses 3a and 3b was set up as a saturated
polynomial regression equation, as shown below, because we expected that the
results might show both an interaction effect with job demand and a curvilinear

718

TASK CONFLICT AND TEAM PERFORMANCE

relationship between task conflict and team performance:

Z 1, p = b0 + b1X + b2W + b3X2 + b4XW + b5W2 + e (H3a, H3b)
Z: team performance (actual, perceived)
X: task conflict
W: job demand
As Edwards and Parry (1993) recommended a response surface methodology
to interpret coefficients from polynomial regression equations, we used this
procedure to test and interpret Hypotheses 3a and 3b.
Participants

To test the hypotheses in a real-world organizational setting, we distributed

a survey to all employees of a large Korean semiconductor company. Team
members, excluding official team leaders, completed the measures of task
conflict, job demand, and perceived team performance. From all the work
teams to which we distributed our survey (N = 171), 5,579 complete and valid
forms were returned by 153 of the work teams, for a response rate of 89.5% of
teams and 62.7% of the employees. Of the teams, 40 were from management
and support departments (26.1%), 65 engineering (42.5%), 35 research and
development (22.9%), and 13 operations (8.5%). The average team size was
33.95 employees (SD = 40.17), and the average tenure of team members was
2.78 years (SD = 0.48). Two months later, we obtained from the human resources
section actual team performance data in the form of the year-end performance
results of those teams.
Measures
Task conflict. We used the following three items, adapted from prior task

conflict research (Jehn & Mannix, 2001): How much conflict of ideas is there
in your team?, How frequently do you have disagreements within your team
about the task of the project you are working on?, and How often do people
in your team have conflicting opinions about the project you are working on?
Respondents rated items on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The Cronbachs coefficient alpha was .83.
Job demand. Job demand was measured with four items used and validated by
Van Yperen and Hagedoorn (2003). In order to reduce the burden of response, we
extracted the following four representative questions from among the original 11
items: Do you have to work fast?, Do you have too much work to do?, Do
you have to work extra hard to finish a task?, and Do you work under time
pressure? Responses were rated on the same 7-point Likert scale that was used
for task conflict. The Cronbachs coefficient alpha for this scale was .76. All the
responses for each independent variable were converted into z distributions to
minimize bias caused by multicollinearity.

TASK CONFLICT AND TEAM PERFORMANCE

719

Team performance. The following two different types of team performance

were examined in this study: perceived and actual team performance. Perceived
team performance was measured using four items developed and validated by
Jehn, Northcraft, and Neale (1999). Sample items include How well do you
think your work unit performs? and How effective is your work unit? The
same 7-point Likert scale used to rate task conflict and job demand was used for
perceived team performance ( = .90).
Actual team performance was assessed using data from departmental records
provided by the firm. Supervisors of the teams evaluated team performance
in this organization annually, with four to five key performance indicators
developed and confirmed during a goal-setting process at the beginning of each
year. The company used a 5-grade rating scale (S/A/B/C/D) of team performance
and applied it to annual team-incentive decisions and to team leaders individual
performance ratings. We recoded the companys scale into the following 5-point
scale: S = 2, A = 1, B = 0, C = 1, and D = 2.

Results
Level of Analysis

Although all variables in this study were defined as being at the group
level, some were measured by individual responses. Therefore, to examine the
appropriate level of analysis (i.e., to aggregate or not), we calculated intraclass
correlations (ICC, p < .01) for task conflict, job demand, and perceived team
performance using confidence intervals on the population value of the ICCs,
respectively (McGraw & Wong, 1996). This statistic is an estimate of the
proportion of variance in a variable between groups over the sum of betweenand within-group variance. The values of ICC(1) and ICC(2) were .07 and .72
for task conflict, .05 and .67 for job demand, and .11 and .81 for perceived team
performance. The values of both ICC(1) and ICC(2) were within the range of
ICC values found in previous studies (Bliese, 2000; Castro, 2002), as follows:
ICC(1) for task conflict (lower limit = .05, upper limit = .09), job demand (lower
limit = .04 , upper limit = .07), perceived task performance (lower limit = .11,
upper limit = .14); ICC(2) for task conflict (lower limit = .65, upper limit = .78),
job demand (lower limit = .59, upper limit = .74), perceived task performance
(lower limit = .81, upper limit = .85). Given the results for the values of ICC(1)
and ICC(2), we implemented the aggregation of individual scores at the group
level.
In addition, we assessed the mean level of within-group agreement, that is,
rwg(j), for task conflict (.68), job demand (.74), and perceived team performance
(.70). Although the coefficient for task conflict (.68) was slightly under the
recommended level (Bliese, 2000), the .70 cutoff criterion of interrater agreement

720

TASK CONFLICT AND TEAM PERFORMANCE

indices is controversial (Lance, Butts, & Michels, 2006) and values between .60
and .69 are taken to indicate a reasonable result (Brown, & Hauenstein, 2005).
Thus, we inferred that we could aggregate individual scores to the group level,
considering the results of ICC(1) and ICC(2), and rwg(j).
Preliminary Analysis

The descriptive statistics and zero-order correlation coefficients for the study
variables are illustrated in Table 1. Task conflict had a significant and negative
correlation with both actual team performance and perceived team performance,
and was positively correlated with job demand. Job demand was also negatively
correlated with perceived team performance. Further research is needed to
understand the correlation with job demand because, for example, it needs to be
determined if group members perceive high levels of task conflict as increased
job demand, or if there is a third variable mediating the relationship between
these variables. As can be seen in Table 1, more research is also needed to test
the negative correlation between job demand and perceived team performance.
In particular, considering the nonsignificant correlation with actual team
performance, perceived team performance should be explored in more detail.
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for Group-level Study Variables
Variables
1. Team size
2. Team tenure
3. Task conflicta
4. Job demanda
5. Actual team performance
6. Perceived team performance

SD

33.95
2.78
0.00
0.00
0.12
4.99

40.17
0.48
1.00
1.00
0.64
0.41

1
-.075
.029
-.110
-.188*
-.213**

-.124
-.122
.142
.066

.358**
-.387*
.126
-.512** -.216**

.226**

Note. N = 153 (teams); a The original scores for task conflict and job demand are transformed to z
distributions; * p < .05, ** p < .01.

Results of Tests of Hypotheses 1 and 2

We tested Hypotheses 1 and 2 by performing regression analysis; the

coefficients for the study model are presented in Table 2.
The beta coefficients for task conflict were negatively significant for Hypotheses
1 and 2 (p < .01). Furthermore, the beta coefficients for the squared term of task
conflicts were negatively significantly related to actual team performance (p <
.05) and nonsignificantly related to perceived team performance, as predicted in
Hypotheses 1 and 2. In conclusion, the relationship between task conflict and
actual team performance formed a convex shape, as shown in Figure 1. Further,
task conflict had a negative linear relationship with perceived team performance,
as shown in Figure 2. Therefore, Hypotheses 1 and 2 were supported.

721

TASK CONFLICT AND TEAM PERFORMANCE

Table 2. Regression Analysis Results (Hypotheses 1 and 2)
Independent variables

Control variables

Hypothesis 1
(Actual team
performance)
Unstandardized
t
-.003**
.116
-.232**
-.070*
R2 = .239**

Team size
Team tenure
Task conflict
Task conflict (squared)

Hypothesis
Model significance

Hypothesis 2
(Perceived team
performance)
Unstandardized
t
-.002*
-.014
-.212**
.027
R2 = .314**

-2.919
1.194
-5.088
-2.457

-2.416
-.234
-7.562
1.560

Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01 (two-tailed).

0.4

Actual team performance

0.2
0.0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-.1.0
-1.2
-1.4
-1.6
-4

-3

-2

-1

Task conflict
Figure 1. Relationship between task conflict and actual team performance (Hypothesis 1).

Perceived team performance

1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-4

-3

-2

-1

Task conflict
Figure 2. Relationship between task conflict and perceived team performance (Hypothesis 2).

722

TASK CONFLICT AND TEAM PERFORMANCE

Results of Tests of Hypotheses 3a and 3b

Task
c

Jo
bd
em
an
d

rformance
Actual team pe

We tested Hypotheses 3a and 3b with a response surface analysis, a

methodology suggested by Edwards and Parry (1993) for investigating three
quadratic equations that places the focus on the stationary point, slopes, and
curvature of response surfaces. In this study, because we mainly dealt with the
moderating effect of job demand, rather than the optimal combination of job
demand and task conflict, we tested the significance of the curvature derived
from the results of polynomial regression analysis. We had assumed that greater
task conflict would lead to a more positive outcome when job demand was high,
and vice versa. This relationship implies a similar but inverse shape of response
surfaces of demandability fit that were described by Edwards (1996). Therefore,
we tested the significance of the curvature of the surface along the Y = -X line,
as shown in Table 3.
In terms of testing Hypothesis 3a, the results indicate that the curvature along
the Y = -X line was negatively significant (-.214, t = -3.384), but nonsignificant
for Hypothesis 3b (.063, t =1.431). The negatively significant coefficients of the
testing of Hypothesis 3a imply that the surface of the three quadratic equations
were saddle-shaped along the Y = -X line (see Figure 3). The surface for the
three quadratic equations shows that task conflict had a positive effect when job
demand was high, and a negative effect when job demand was low.

onflic

Figure 3. 3D graph of the surface for the three quadratic equations (Hypothesis 3a).

-.241**

-.217**

5.086

b1

-.193

b0

Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01 (two-tailed).

Actual team
performance (H3a)
Perceived team
performance (H3b)

Task conflict
Job demand

-.006

.114

b2

.028

-.059*

b3

-.039

.169**

b4

Unstandardized coefficients

-.003

.014

b5

Table 3. Polynomial Regression Results and Response Surface Analysis

.323**

.362**

R2

-.223**
(t = -4.071)

-.127**
(t = -2.319)

Slope
b1 + b2

-.014
(t = -.313)

.123*
(t = 1.961)

Curvature
b3 + b4 + b5

Y=X

-.211**
(t = -3.852)

-.355**
(t = -4.243)

Slope
b 1 b2

.064
(t = 1.431)

-.214**
(t = -3.384)

Curvature
b3 b4 + b5

Y=-X

TASK CONFLICT AND TEAM PERFORMANCE

723

724

Perceived team

performance

TASK CONFLICT AND TEAM PERFORMANCE

Tas
k

con

and

em

flic

d
Job

Figure 4. 3D graph of the surface for the three quadratic equations (Hypothesis 3b).

Otherwise, the surface for the three quadratic equations to test Hypothesis 3b
shows an overall negative effect of task conflict on perceived team performance,
which indicates a nonsignificant interaction effect with job demand (see Figure
4).
In conclusion, based on the statistical analysis, our hypothesis regarding the
relationship of the interaction effect of task conflict and job demand on actual
team performance (Hypothesis 3a) was supported, but the hypothesis regarding
the interaction effect in relation to perceived team performance (Hypothesis
3b) was not supported. These results are consistent with a negative curvilinear
relationship between task conflict and actual team performance (Hypothesis
1) and a negative linear relationship between task conflict and perceived team
performance (Hypothesis 2).
Discussion
In the present study, we examined the influence of task conflict on team
performance and our testing yielded results that are different from those reported
in previous research. In particular, the major implication of our findings, that
there was an interaction effect of task conflict and job demand on actual team
performance, had not been researched previously. Although Hypothesis 3b was
not supported, the overall results show a consistent curvilinear relationship

TASK CONFLICT AND TEAM PERFORMANCE

725

between task conflict and actual team performance and a negative relationship
with perceived team performance. Considering that task conflict was negatively
correlated only with perceived team performance, the implication is that team
members will have a negative perception about team performance, regardless of
the actual team performance, because of the negative emotions they experience
when there is conflict within the team.
There are several theoretical implications of this study. First, we have provided
an empirical examination of the relationships among task conflict, actual team
performance, and perceived team performance. Findings in previous studies on
these relationships have been contradictory. Our findings are consistent with the
results of previous empirical studies, in which the authors observed an invertedU-shaped relationship between task conflict and team performance (De Dreu,
2006; Jehn, 1995). However, the current study is the first in which tests have been
carried out separately on the impact of task conflict on actual team performance
and on perceived team performance. Because our results showed that task
conflict and perceived team performance had a negative linear relationship,
future researchers on task conflict within the work team could further examine
whether or not task conflict functions as a double-edged sword in terms of the
emotional state of team members.
Second, through taking a situational approach to task conflict, in this study,
we found that task conflict had an interaction effect with job demand on team
performance. Several previous researchers have identified the factors influencing
task conflictteam effectiveness relationships (e.g., de Wit et al., 2012; Lau &
Cobb, 2010; Shaw, Zhu, Duffy, Scott, Shih, & Susanto, 2011). In addition to job
demand, in future studies, researchers should further investigate which boundary
conditions need to be considered for task conflict to have a positive effect.
Third, for the first time, we applied the methodology of polynomial regression
analysis and response surface analysis to determine the curvilinear effect of task
conflict and complex interactive effects.
Our results suggest several practical implications. First, from the perspective
of actual team performance, a moderate level of task conflict is more productive
than a very low level of task conflict. However, to address potential differences
between actual team performance and perceived team performance, the team
leader should set up an effective conflict management strategy that minimizes
interpersonal incompatibilities arising from task conflict. As de Wit et al.
(2012) suggest, specific moderating characteristics of task conflict, such as the
co-occurrence of a task and relationship conflict, should be controlled. Second,
the team leader needs to establish conflict management strategies that fit the
situation. If the job demand within a team is low, then a high level of task
conflict could result in a negative outcome. In this case, task conflict should
be minimized. In the opposite case, if the level of job demand within a team is

726

TASK CONFLICT AND TEAM PERFORMANCE

high, then the team leader could induce improvement in actual team performance
by creating a moderate level of task conflict. In short, the team leader should
consider the nature of the task within a team when establishing a conflict
management strategy.
A limitation in our study is that we did not examine the interaction of two
kinds of intragroup conflict: task conflict and relationship conflict. Rather, our
focus was on the effect of task conflict on team performance. Task conflict
and relationship conflict affect each other (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003; Yang
& Mossholder, 2004) and both also affect team effectiveness in areas such as
teamwork and team performance. Thus, a comprehensive study is needed in
which both task conflict and relationship conflict are considered, to examine
how intragroup conflicts develop and relate to team performance. A second
limitation is that there was not enough investigation of the interaction effects
of task conflict with diverse group variables. Empirical studies are needed, in
which research is conducted to explore the relationship between task conflict
and various group variables, such as team coherence and leadership style. A
third limitation is that, although we surveyed only one company and used a large
quantity of data in our study, we were not able to extract implications in regard
to the type of job or department (e.g., information technology, manufacturing,
research and development). Conflict within a work team may be linked to job
and task characteristics, so future researchers should consider job characteristics,
such as task dependencies within a team and the degree of work repetitiveness,
as control variables.
References
Bliese, P. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data
aggregation and analyses. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research,
and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 349-381). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bradley, B. H., Postlethwaite, B. E., Klotz, A. C., Hamdani, M. R., & Brown, K. G. (2012). Reaping
the benefits of task conflict in teams: The critical role of team psychological safety climate.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 151-158. http://doi.org/fwchcs
Brown, R. D., & Hauenstein, N. M. A. (2005). Interrater agreement reconsidered: An alternative to
the rwg indices. Organizational Research Methods, 8, 165-184. http://doi.org/cm479f
Castro, S. L. (2002). Data analytic methods for the analysis of multilevel questions: A comparison
of intraclass correlation coefficients, rwg(j), hierarchical linear modeling, within- and betweenanalysis, and random group resampling. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 69-93. http://doi.org/
cqggbk
Cheng, L., Wang, Z.-M., & Zhang, W. (2011). The effects of conflict on team decision-making. Social
Behavior and Personality: An international journal, 39, 189-198. http://doi.org/b4cw2n
Choi, J. N., & Sy, T. (2010). Group-level organizational citizenship behavior: Effects of demographic
faultlines and conflict in small work groups. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 1032-1054.
http://doi.org/cfgwcz

TASK CONFLICT AND TEAM PERFORMANCE

727

De Dreu, C. K. W. (2006). When too little or too much hurts: Evidence for a curvilinear relationship
between task conflict and innovation in teams. Journal of Management, 32, 83-107. http://doi.
org/c9g
De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance,
and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 741-749.
http://doi.org/cnk
de Wit, F. R. C., Greer, L. L., & Jehn, K. A. (2012). The paradox of intragroup conflict: A
meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 360-390. http://doi.org/ccdw8t
de Wit, F. R. C., Jehn, K. A., & Scheepers, D. (2013). Task conflict, information processing, and
decision-making: The damaging effect of relationship conflict. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 122, 177-189. http://doi.org/zxq
Edwards, J. R. (1996). An examination of competing versions of the person-environment fit approach
to stress. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 292-339. http://doi.org/b7vxj3
Edwards, J. R., & Parry, M. E. (1993). On the use of polynomial regression equations as an alternative
to difference scores in organizational research. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 1577-1613.
http://doi.org/c4vft5
Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 256-282. http://doi.org/cnp
Jehn, K. A. (1997). A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational groups,
Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 530-557. http://doi.org/bs3hw2
Jehn, K. A., & Mannix, E. A. (2001). The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study of
intragroup conflict and group performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 238-251.
http://doi.org/btwdpr
Jehn, K. A., Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. (1999). Why differences make a difference: A field
study of diversity, conflict and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44,
741-763. http://doi.org/c4qsx5
Karasek, R. A., Jr. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job
redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 285-308.
Kim, M. J., Choi, J. N., & Park, O. S. (2012). Intuitiveness and creativity in groups: Cross-level
interactions between group conflict and individual cognitive styles. Social Behavior and
Personality: An international journal, 40, 1419-1434. http://doi.org/zxs
Lance, C. E., Butts, M. M., & Michels, L. C. (2006). The sources of four commonly reported cutoff
criteria: What did they really say? Organizational Research Methods, 9, 202-220. http://doi.org/
fgwxmf
Lau, R. S., & Cobb, A. T. (2010). Understanding the connections between relationship conflict and
performance: The intervening roles of trust and exchange. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
31, 898-917. http://doi.org/d87c99
Lovelace, K., Shapiro, D. L., & Weingart, L. R. (2001). Maximizing cross-functional new product
teams innovativeness and constraint adherence: A conflict communications perspective.
Academy of Management Journal, 44, 779-793. http://doi.org/ftv9v6
McGraw, K. O., & Wong, S. P. (1996). Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation
coefficients. Psychological Methods, 1, 30-46. http://doi.org/br5ffs
Shaw, J. D., Zhu, J., Duffy, M. K., Scott, K. L., Shih, H.-A., & Susanto, E. (2011). A contingency
model of conflict and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 391-400. http://
doi.org/bttbqq
Simons, T. L. (1994). Clash of the titans: The performance impact of top management team debate. A
test of multiple contingency models. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities
and Social Sciences, 55, 4729.

728

TASK CONFLICT AND TEAM PERFORMANCE

Simons, T. L., & Peterson, R. S. (2000). Task conflict and relationship conflict in top management
teams: The pivotal role of intragroup trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 102-111. http://
doi.org/c24xq3
Van Yperen, N. W., & Hagedoorn, M. (2003). Do high job demands increase intrinsic motivation or
fatigue or both? The role of job control and job social support. Academy of Management Journal,
46, 339-348. http://doi.org/bjgf72
Yang, J., & Mossholder, K. W. (2004). Decoupling task and relationship conflict: The role of
intragroup emotional processing. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 589-605. http://doi.
org/d7kgqd

Copyright of Social Behavior & Personality: an international journal is the property of

Society for Personality Research and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple
sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.