Exploring the association between relationship conflict and group performance.

Abstract

This laboratory study implemented the hidden profile paradigm in an attempt to assess whether group cohesion (both task and social) mediated the negative effects of relationship conflict on group performance. In the main, it was found that the negative effect of relationship conflict was mediated by task cohesion, but not by social cohesion. Instead, it was shown that social cohesion was better represented as a critical group-level outcome. That is to say, relationship conflict had indirect negative effects on both task-based aspects of group performance (i.e., decision accuracy), as well as social-based aspects of group performance (i.e., social cohesion). A discussion is offered in which the implications of these findings are considered.

The Effects of LMX Differentiation on Team Performance: Investigating the Mediating Properties of Cohesion

“…Of the aforementioned variables, group cohesion is of particular interest given its explanatory power. That is to say, group cohesion is often treated as a mediator of important group-level outcomes (Manata, 2016; Marks, Mathieu, & Zaccaro, 2001; Tekleab, Quigley, & Tesluk, 2009). Group cohesion is defined commonly as a critical group-level property that facilitates the general unification of the group and its members (Festinger, 1950; Lewin, Lippitt, & White, 1939).…”

“…Group cohesion is defined commonly as a critical group-level property that facilitates the general unification of the group and its members (Festinger, 1950; Lewin, Lippitt, & White, 1939). Moreover, group cohesion can be further explicated by differentiating between its task and social aspects (Carron, Widmeyer, & Brawley, 1985; Dion, 2000; Manata, 2016; Tekleab et al, 2009). Specifically, task cohesion can be defined as a general attraction to and unison in completing the group’s task, whereas social cohesion can be defined as a general attraction to the group and its members (Castaño et al, 2013; Manata, 2016).…”

“…Moreover, group cohesion can be further explicated by differentiating between its task and social aspects (Carron, Widmeyer, & Brawley, 1985; Dion, 2000; Manata, 2016; Tekleab et al, 2009). Specifically, task cohesion can be defined as a general attraction to and unison in completing the group’s task, whereas social cohesion can be defined as a general attraction to the group and its members (Castaño et al, 2013; Manata, 2016). Notably, numerous meta-analyses have shown that both task and social aspects of cohesion facilitate team performance (for a quantitative review of this literature, see Beal et al, 2003; Carron et al, 2002; Castaño et al, 2013; Chiocchio & Essiembre, 2009; Evans & Dion, 1991; Gully et al, 1995; Mullen & Cooper, 1994).…”

“…Although the documentation of these effects has been valuable, the specific mechanisms by which LMX differentiation affects team-level outcomes remain virtually untested. This article proposes that both the task and the social cohesion of a group are critical to explaining the indirect effects of LMX differentiation on team performance and other group dynamics (e.g., Manata, 2016). I begin by providing a brief review of the LMX literature and then explicate and investigate the validity of two competing mediation models that are proposed to account for the effects of LMX differentiation on group-level outcomes.…”

Prediction of Group Performance: The Interplay of Individual Performance, Interpersonal Attraction, and Interpersonal Behavior

“…A main reason for why groups fail to achieve their aims is relationship conflict (Janss, Rispens, Segers, & Jehn, 2012;Manata, 2016). Three meta-analyses have demonstrated that relationship conflict between group members has a negative impact on group performance (DeDreu & Weingart, 2003;DeWit, Greer, & Jehn, 2012;O'Neill, Allen, & Hastings, 2013).…”