Team conflict types include task conflict, relationship conflict, and process conflict. Whereas differences in views about the task (task conflict) are often argued to be beneficial, incompatibilities involving personal issues (relationship conflict) and execution issues (process conflict) are often argued to be harmful. However, previous empirical research has tended to treat team conflict types as independent from each other despite their natural coexistence in teams. In two separate studies and one replication study, we identified latent patterns of team conflict, in the form of conflict profiles, that were defined by distinct levels of task conflict, relationship conflict, and process conflict. In Study 1, we investigated whether the conflict profiles had implications for team conflict management and team potency. In Study 2, we examined the generalizability of the conflict profiles to teams with longer life cycles, and we investigated the implications of conflict profiles for team performance. Findings indicated that teams can be reliably assigned to particular profiles of team conflict and that these profiles replicate well. The results also

No abstract

With the knowledge that team work is not always associated with high(er) performance, we draw from the Multi-Level Theory of Psychological Contracts, Person-Environment Fit Theory, and Optimal Distinctiveness Theory to study shared perceptions of psychological contract (PC) breach in relation to shared perceptions of complementary and supplementary fit to explain why some teams perform better than other teams. We collected three repeated survey measures in a sample of 128 respondents across 46 teams. After having made sure that we met all statistical criteria, we aggregated our focal variables to the team-level and analyzed our data by means of a longitudinal three-wave autoregressive moderated-mediation model in which each relationship was one-time lag apart. We found that shared perceptions of PC breach were directly negatively related to team output and negatively related to perceived team member effectiveness through a decrease in shared perceptions of supplementary fit. However, we also demonstrated a beneficial process in that shared perceptions of PC breach were positively related to shared perceptions of complementary fit, which in turn were positively related to team output. Moreover, best team output appeared in teams that could combine high shared perceptions of complementary fit with modest to high shared perceptions of supplementary fit. Overall, our findings seem to indicate that in terms of team output there may be a bright side to perceptions of PC breach and that perceived person-team fit may play an important role in this process.

Purpose This paper aims to offer an integrative conceptual theory of conflict and reports on the nomological net of team conflict profiles. Specifically, it integrates social self-preservation theory with information-processing theory to better understand the occurrence of team profiles involving task conflict, relationship conflict and process conflict. Design/methodology/approach The study collected data from 178 teams performing and engineering design tasks. The multilevel nomological net that was examined consisted of constructive controversy, psychological safety and team-task performance (team level), as well as perceptions of learning, burnout and peer ratings of performance (individual level). Findings Findings indicated mixed support for the associations between conflict profiles and the hypothesized nomological net. Research limitations/implications Future research should consider teams’ profiles of team conflict types rather than examining task, relationship and process conflict in isolation. Practical implications Teams can be classified into profiles of team conflict types with implications for team functioning and effectiveness. As a result, assessment and team launch should consider team conflict profiles. Originality/value The complexity perspective advanced here will allow research on conflict types to move forward beyond the extensive research examining conflict types in isolation rather than their interplay.