Distinguishing the Effects of Functional and Dysfunctional Conflict on Strategic Decision Making: Resolving a Paradox for Top Management Teams.

Amason, Allen C.

doi:10.2307/256633

Cited by 1,833 publications

(743 citation statements)

References 62 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

702

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In fact, at times, task conflict was beneficial for groups performing nonroutine tasks. Similarly, Amason (1996) found that higher levels of cognitive conflict (task based) and lower levels of affective conflict (relationship based) led to increased effectiveness in top management teams. Furthermore, research by Simons and Peterson (2000) found that top management teams low in interpersonal trust tended to attribute conflict to relationship-based issues, whereas top management teams high in interpersonal trust tended to attribute conflict to task-based disagreements.…”

Section: See March 2001 Issue Of Journal Of Organizational Behaviormentioning

confidence: 92%

“…Hackman (1992) viewed groups as contexts for individual behavior, an important perspective because teams in part enact Guzzo and Shea (1992) and Guzzo and Dickson (1996) reviewed team research in organizations. Cohen and Bailey (1997) and Sundstrom, McIntyre, Halfhill, and Richards (2000) provided focused reviews of work team effectiveness based on field research during the periods of -1996 to mid-1999, respectively. Finally, Gully (2000 presented an insightful assessment of team effectiveness research since 1985 that examines key boundary conditions.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Work Groups and Teams in Organizations

Kozlowski

Bell

2012

Handbook of Psychology, Second Edition

537

678

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract[Excerpt] Our objective in this chapter is to provide an integrative perspective on work groups and teams in organizations, one that addresses primary foci of theory and research, highlights applied implications, and identifies key issues in need of research attention and resolution. Given the volume of existing reviews, our review is not intended to be exhaustive. Rather, it uses representative work to characterize key topics, and focuses on recent work that breaks new ground to help move theory and research forward. Although our approach risks trading breadth for depth, we believe that there is much value in taking a more integrative view of the important areas of team research, identifying key research themes, and linking the themes and disparate topics closer together. To the extent that we identify new and necessary areas of theory development and research, the value of this approach will be evident. We would like to acknowledge several colleagues who provided insightful comments on an initial outline or draft of this chapter. Our thanks to Neil Anderson, Murray Barrick, Jan Cannon-Bowers, Paul Goodman, Stan Gully, Cyn D. Fisher, Richard Hackman, John Hollenbeck, Susan Jackson, Michelle Marks, John Mathieu, Susan Mohamed, Greg Stewart, Anne Tsui, Eduardo Salas, Ruth Wageman, Wang Zhong-Ming, and Michael West. Thanks also to Richard Klimoski for his helpful editorial guidance throughout. We would also like to acknowledge the Air Force Office of Scientific Research for support (F49620-98-1-0363 and F49620-01-1-0283, S.W.J. Kozlowski and R.P. DeShon, Principal Investigators) that in part assisted the composition of this chapter. Although many sources provided inputs to this chapter, the views expressed are those of the authors. Work Groups and Teams RESEARCH ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS Research IssuesContext.Task Interdependence. Levels.Time. Research RecommendationsThe Nature of Teams.Composition.Formation, Socialization, and Development.Team Effectiveness, Processes, and Enhancements.Leadership and Motivation.Continuance and Decline. Conclusion Work Groups and Teams 4The last decade and a half has witnessed a remarkable transformation of organizational structures worldwide. Although there are economic, strategic, and technological imperatives driving this transformation, one of its more compelling aspects has been an ongoing shift from work organized around individual jobs to team-based work structures (Lawler, Mohrman, & Ledford, 1995 This ongoing transformation in the basic organization of work has captured the attention of researchers and is reflected by new theories of team functioning, a rapidly growing number of empirical studies, and numerous literature reviews written on the burgeoning research on teams. It is also reflected in a shift in the locus of team research. For most of its history, small group research has been centered in social psychology (McGrath, 1997). Over the last 15 years, however, group and team research has become increasingly centered in the fields of organizational psycho...

show abstract

Section: See March 2001 Issue Of Journal Of Organizational Behaviormentioning

confidence: 92%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Work Groups and Teams in Organizations

Kozlowski

Bell

2012

Handbook of Psychology, Second Edition

537

678

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the literature on innovation, combining or rearranging existing but different pieces of reality is considered as a key element of generating innovative ideas (for a review, see Kanter, 1988). In addition, research in the field of group decision making suggests that cognitive diversity may produce high-quality innovative decisions through "critical and investigative interaction processes in which team members identify, extract, and synthesize their different perspectives" (Amason, 1996: 124; see also Cosier & Schwenk, 1990;Schweiger, Sandberg & Ragan, 1986;Schweiger, Sandberg & Rechner, 1989;Schwenk, 1990). On the other hand, demographic and cognitive group diversity could have detrimental effects.…”

Section: General Findings From the Group Diversity Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Joint Impact of Interdependence and Group Diversity on Innovation

Vegt

Janssen

2003

Journal of Management

437

363

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This questionnaire study among 343 members of 41 work teams in a financial services organization examined the effects of individual team members' perceived task interdependence and perceived goal interdependence on innovative behavior in teams characterized by different levels of group diversity. Multilevel analyses revealed that individual's perceived task and goal interdependence were not related to innovative behavior in homogeneous teams. In heterogeneous teams, however, task interdependence was strongly and positively related to innovative behavior for individuals who perceived high levels of goal interdependence, and unrelated to innovative behavior for those who perceived low levels of goal interdependence.

show abstract

“…Having 31 middle managers participate in decision-making about new products and new markets to serve or initiatives aiming at strengthening the firm's position in the markets already served by the firm, is another . It allows consideration of more views and perspectives (Amason, 1996;Denison, 1984;Dyson and Foster, 1982) in decision-making and has been associated with improved idea generation Schilit, 1987) and quality of decisions (Floyd and Wooldridge, 1997;. In particular, when "solving complex, non-routine problems, groups are more effective when composed of individuals having a variety of skills, knowledges, abilities and perspectives" (Bantel and Jackson, 1989: 109).…”

Section: The Role Of Participative Decision-making For Reducing Downsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Strategic Risk Management

Lam¹

2017

Implementing Enterprise Risk Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Distinguishing the Effects of Functional and Dysfunctional Conflict on Strategic Decision Making: Resolving a Paradox for Top Management Teams.

Cited by 1,833 publications

References 62 publications

Work Groups and Teams in Organizations

Work Groups and Teams in Organizations

Joint Impact of Interdependence and Group Diversity on Innovation

Strategic Risk Management

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About