No abstract

W e introduce status conflicts-defined as disputes over people's relative status (i.e., respect) positions in their group's social hierarchy-as a key group process that affects task group performance. Using mixed research methods, we qualitatively identify the characteristics of status conflicts, validate a four-item survey scale that distinctly measures status conflict, and investigate the relationship between status conflict and group performance. We determine that status conflict exerts a significant negative main effect, moderates the effects of task conflict on group performance, and hurts performance by undermining information sharing more than other types of conflict do.

Although hierarchies are thought to be beneficial for groups, empirical evidence is mixed. We argue and find in 7 studies spanning methodologies and samples that different bases of hierarchical differentiation have distinct effects on lower ranking group members' disruptive competitive behavior because status hierarchies are seen as more mutable than are power hierarchies. Greater mutability means that more opportunity exists for upward mobility, which motivates individuals to compete in hopes of advancing their placement in the hierarchy. This research provides further evidence that different bases of hierarchy can have different effects on individuals and the groups of which they are a part and explicates a mechanism for those effects.

Conflicts in the workplace have been characterized by their type (task, process, relationship), but little attention has been paid to how conflicts are expressed. We present a conceptual framework of conflict expression and argue that understanding how conflicts are expressed can help us gain new insights about the effects of conflict. We propose that conflict expressions vary in their directness and oppositional intensity, and these differences directly influence how people experience and react to conflict, resulting in dynamic escalatory or de-escalatory conflict spirals.We argue that directness of conflict expression is a function of the ambiguity of expression and who is involved (antagonists vs. involving other people). Oppositional intensity of conflict expression is indicated by the communicated entrenchment in positions and subversiveness of actions. We argue that while oppositional intensity and directness are universal dimensions characterizing conflict expression, the cultural context and characteristics of the disputants will influence how conflict is expressed and perceived. We consider the implications of our conceptual framework for related literatures examining conflict.

No abstract