ÁREA TEMÁTICA: ST11 – Sociologia das Emoções
TÍTULO DA COMUNICAÇÃO:
Intragroup conflict and effectiveness: the moderate role of group emotional intelligence
IDENTIFICAÇÃO DO(S) AUTOR(ES): ANTUNES, Teresa
Mestranda em Psicologia do Trabalho, das Organizações e dos Recursos Humanos, Faculdade de Psicologia e de Ciências da Educação – Universidade de Coimbra, teresa.c.antunes@gmail.com
DIMAS, Isabel
Doutorada em Psicologia do Trabalho e das Organizações,
Escola Superior de Tecnologia e Gestão de Águeda – Universidade de Aveiro, idimas@ua.pt
LOURENÇO, Paulo
Doutorado em Psicologia do Trabalho e das Organizações,,
Faculdade de Psicologia e de Ciências da Educação – Universidade de Coimbra, prenato@fpce.uc.pt
Por favor não altere os parâmetros de formatação do documento, nomeadamente a configuração da página, cabeçalhos, rodapés, tipo e tamanho de letra. Esses parâmetros são necessários para a edição rápida deste texto no
1º A ut or 2 º A ut 3 º A ut
Por favor não utilize esta página 2. Inicie o seu texto na página 3. Please do not type in this page 2. Start typing on page 3.
Palavras-chave: grupo; equipa; conflito intragrupal; eficácia grupal; inteligência emocional Keywords: group; team; intragroup conflict; group effectiveness; emotional intelligence
DATA ENVIO DA COMUNICAÇÃO: 15-05-2012 NÚMERO DE SÉRIE: [ número ID atribuído ]
Por favor não utilize esta página 4. Inicie o seu texto na página 5.
Resumo
Existe um volume significativo de investigações no âmbito do conflito intragrupal e da eficácia grupal (eg., Dimas, 2007; Jehn, 1995, 1997; Jehn & Mannix, 2001). No entanto, os resultados destes estudos são inconsistentes. Com o presente estudo pretendemos, por isso, contribuir para uma melhor compreensão da relação entre o conflito intragrupal (conflito de tarefa e sócio-afectivo) e a eficácia grupal (desempenho e satisfação grupais) através da adopção de uma abordagem contingencial. O objetivo principal é testar o papel da inteligência emocional grupal, enquanto variável moderadora na relação entre as duas variáveis. Para testar esta hipótese, realizámos uma pesquisa não-experimental, utilizando uma amostra de 72 equipas de trabalho com funções diversificadas e de diferentes contextos organizacionais.
Os nossos resultados mostraram que o conflito de tarefa teve um impacto negativo sobre a eficácia grupal, enquanto que algumas dimensões da inteligência emocional grupal tiveram um impacto positivo. Os resultados mostraram, ainda, um impacto negativo inesperado relativamente à regulação do grupo sobre os membros no desempenho grupal, sendo que esta mesma dimensão da inteligência emocional grupal moderou a relação entre o conflito de tarefa e o desempenho grupal. Em equipas com níveis elevados nesta dimensão, o efeito do conflito de tarefa no desempenho grupal foi positivo. Possíveis explicações para estes resultados e implicações para futuras pesquisas serão discutidas.
Abstract
There is a lot of research done about the impact of intragroup conflict on team effectiveness (e.g., Dimas, 2007; Jehn, 1995, 1997; Jehn & Mannix, 2001). However, the results are inconsistent. With our study we intend to contribute for a better understanding of the relationship between intragroup conflict (task conflict and relationship conflict) and team effectiveness (team performance and team satisfaction) by adopting a contingencial approach. The main purpose is to test the role of group emotional intelligence, as we hypothesized that it works as a moderating variable in the relationship between the two variables. To test this hypothesis, we conducted a non-experimental research using a sample of 72 working teams from different functions and organizational contexts.
Our results showed that task conflict had a negative impact on both team’s outcomes, while some dimensions of group emotional intelligence had a positive impact on team outcomes. The results also showed an unexpected negative impact of group regulation of members in team performance. Moreover, we found that this dimension of group emotional intelligence moderated the relationship between task conflict and team performance, such as that in teams with high levels in this dimension the effect of task conflict on team performance was positive. Possible explanations of our findings and implications for future research are discussed.
Please do not type in this page 4. Start typing on page 5.
1. Introduction
Today more than ever organizations use working teams as a way of structuring their activities, which enhances the probability of conflicts emerging (Dimas, 2007). Thus, one of the challenges in organizations is dealing with team conflict. This explains why there are so many researches trying to understand the relationship between conflict and group effectiveness, namely with respect to intragroup conflict and team outcomes such as performance and satisfaction (Yang & Mossholder, 2004).
Conflict is a process that begins when a person or a group finds differences/oppositions between him and another (differences of believes, values or interests) [De Dreu & Beersma, 2005]. In organizations we can be confronted with many types of conflict: intrapersonal, intragroup and intergroup conflicts. In this study we focused on intragroup conflict as it was conceptualized by De Dreu and Weingart (2003) and also Dimas, Lourenço and Miguez (2005) – a discordance of perspectives that causes tension in, at least, one of the parts of the interaction.
In this area most research usually conceptualize intragroup conflict as either task oriented or relationship oriented (Ayoko, Callan & Hartel, 2008). Task conflict can be seen as the awareness of disagreements about the tasks being performed by the team (Jehn, 1997), whereas relationship conflict results from interpersonal incompatibilities among group members, such as personality differences, and divergences of opinion regarding issues not related to the task (e.g., religion, politics) [Jehn & Bendersky, 2003].
Although in recent literature conflict is often associated with positive outcomes for the group, specially if it is a task-related conflict, several empirical studies have shown negative consequences or an absent relationship between conflict and effectiveness, no matter the type of conflict analyzed: task related or relationship related (Dimas, 2007; Passos & Caetano, 2005; Woerkom & Engen, 2009). Hence, more recent studies see the complex nature of that relationship and have adopted a more contingencial view: the effects of conflict in effectiveness are understood as the result of the intervention of several moderating variables (e.g., De Drew & Weingart, 2003; Dimas, 2007; Jehn & Bendersky, 2003). The present study is in line with this perspective. We pretended to contribute to a better understanding of the effects of conflict on the team outcomes, analyzing the moderating role played by group emotional intelligence.
2. Intragroup Conflict and Effectiveness
The relationship between intragroup conflict and effectiveness is still not clear. Before 1990 conflict was usually seen as counterproductive, but more recent empirical work has begun to consider the potential benefits of task conflict (Jehn & Bendersky, 2003). Despite of the new vision, the meta-analysis conducted by De Dreu and Weingart (2003) on conflict literature with thirty studies published between 1994 and 2001 showed that empirical results are not conclusive. Concerning the direct relationship between task conflict and team effectiveness, the meta-analysis of De Dreu and Weingart (2003) showed that task conflict can be as negative to the team as relationship conflict and that it has a negative impact on team performance and team satisfaction.
As for relationship conflict, most of the studies support the idea that this type of conflict will have a negative effect in team’s outcomes (e.g., De Dreu & Van Vianen, 2001; Jehn, 1995). According to Pelled (1996), relationship conflict is detrimental to the team due to three reasons: 1) because this type of conflict is associated with emotions of anxiety, it will difficult information processing and reduce members’ ability to understand information and listen to other members’ opinions; 2) since hostility characterizes relationship conflict, individuals will be more resistant to the task-related ideas expressed by the others; and 3) relationship conflict will consume a lot of the members’ time and energy, hence, it will be harder for the team to move forward. Taking what has been said into account, we hypothesize that:
Hypothesis 1: Task conflict will have a negative impact on team performance Hypothesis 2: Task conflict will have a negative impact on team satisfaction
Hypothesis 4: Relationship conflict will have a negative impact on team satisfaction
2.1 Contingencial Models of Intragroup Conflict - The Jehn and Benderski’s COM Model
In accordance with De Dreu and Weingart (2003) and also Dimas and Lourenço (2011) resolving the inconsistency shown by the results of different studies requires adopting contingencial frameworks in which "(...) the effects of conflict in work teams are viewed as a result of the interaction between conflict situations and a set of context variables" (Dimas & Lourenço, 2011, p. 8). We must then suppose the possible existence of variables that mediate/moderate the relationship between conflict and effectiveness.
One of the most developed contingencial models of intragroup conflict is the Jehn’s and Benderski Conflict-Outcome Moderated Model (COM Model) [2003]. This model specifies three types of variables – input variables, moderator variables and output variables – and has a contingencial approach to each one. The model also points out that the effect of conflict is different depending on the type of conflict, the moderator variables present in the situation and, even, the outcome of interest.
Thus, the input variables are the different type of conflicts that can appear in the group: task, relationship and process conflict1. As for the outcomes, performance and satisfaction are the main ones but the model also
considers creativity and decision consensus. According to this model the impact of the different types of conflict onto the various aspects of effectiveness will be moderated by different types of variables: amplifiers (increase both the positive effects of task conflict and the negative effects of relationship conflict on group outcomes), suppressors (weaken both the positive effects of task conflict and the negative effects of relationship conflict), ameliorators (lessen the negative effects of conflict and, at the same time, they increase the positive ones), and exacerbators (intensify the negative effects of conflict).
As an illustration of this approach, Jehn and Bendersky (2003) postulate that if one wants to encourage creativity in a team, it is important to encourage task conflict; but, on the other hand, if the aim is that members feel highly satisfied and willing to work together then the levels of conflict should be set at minimum for all types of conflict. Furthermore, this model shows that group norms – “(…) long-established and deeply imbedded ground rules or habits that govern the group” (Goleman, Boyatzis & McKee, 2002, p. 56) – and emotions can act as moderator variables in the process. For that reason we believe that the way the members are aware of their emotions and how they regulate them is going to have an impact in the way that conflict influences the team effectiveness.
3. Group Emotional Intelligence
For Goleman (2001) emotional intelligence “(…) refers to the abilities to recognize and regulate emotions in ourselves and in others” (p. 14). The author says that the main domains of emotional intelligence are: Awareness, Management, Social Awareness and Relationship Management (Goleman, 2001). Self-Awareness and Self-Management are personal competences that allow individuals to appropriately interpret the emotional stimuli and to appropriately choose their behavioral response. As for Social Awareness and Relationship Management they are social competences that involve the ability to recognize and manage emotions in others.
This definition addresses individual emotional intelligence, however emotions may also be seen as a group-level phenomenon (Cherniss, 2001). Druskat and Wolff (2001a, 2001b) say that group emotional intelligence results of the group's ability to develop a set of rules to manage their emotional processes. Those norms affect the degree in which the group becomes aware of emotional information and they regulate the interpretation of and response to emotional situations.
3.1 Druskat and Wolff’s Model of Group Emotional Intelligence
1 Process conflict was identified by Jehn (1997) in a qualitative investigation in six organizational work teams and it concerns the disagreements about assignments of duties or resources, for example, divergences about who is responsible for what. Since this dimension is part of the task system and in literature is not usually distinguished from the task conflict, in our study we will also adopt the bidimensional formulation of intragroup conflict (i.e., task conflict and relationship conflict).
In Druskat and Wolff’s Model (2001b), there are six dimensions of group emotional intelligence divided through three levels of analysis: 1) individual focused – Group Awareness of Members and Group Regulation of Members; 2) group focused – Group Self-Awareness and Group Self-Regulation; and 3) cross-boundary focused – Group Social Awareness and Group Social Skills. Each one of these dimensions includes several group emotional intelligence norms.
According to Druskat and Wolff (2001b), in the individual level of analysis, group members must be aware and regulate the individual emotions of each member, in order to induce desirable behaviors and attitudes in the group. In this sense, Group Awareness of Members includes the norms – perspective taking and interpersonal understanding, whereas Group Regulation of Members includes the norms – confronting members who break norms and caring orientation.
In the group level of analysis, the Group Self-Awareness dimension concerns the members’ awareness of group emotional states, preferences and resources (Druskat & Wolff, 2001b). To achieve this awareness, the group should have two important norms – team self-evaluation and seeking feedback. As for Group Self-Regulation, it is the group’s ability to regulate itself so as to promote group emotional well-being and development (Druskat & Wolff, 2001b). This dimension should work in partnership with the Self-Awareness dimension, because this last reveals the issues that require the group’s attention, while the first guarantees that the group will address these issues effectively. In Group Self-Regulation we find three norms – creating resources for working with emotion, creating an affirmative environment and proactive problem solving. Finally, in the cross-boundary level of analysis we have Group Social Awareness that concerns the group’s ability to be aware and understand the social and political system of which is a part, including the group’s ability to recognize the expectations and needs of other groups in the organization (Druskat & Wolff, 2001b). This dimension includes two norms – organizational awareness and intergroup awareness. As for the Group Social Skills, it is the group’s ability to develop relationships; hence, in this dimension the norm is building external relationships.
According to Druskat and Wolff’s Model (2001a, 2001b), to be emotional intelligent the group has to create the norms mentioned above that allow its members to be aware and regulate emotions in the three different levels described: emotions of its members (individual focused); emotions of the group itself (group focused); and emotions of other groups and individuals outside its boundaries (cross-boundary focused).
4. Group Emotional Intelligence, Conflict and Effectiveness
Druskat and Wolff (2001a) argue that in a team is the group emotional ability that allows the members to respond constructively in emotionally uncomfortable situations (Druskat & Wolff, 2001a). In other words, in a conflict situation the way through which the members express and regulate their emotions is going to help them manage the conflict in a positive manner.
As for the relationship between group emotional intelligence and effectiveness, Druskat and Wolff (2001b) postulate that emotions are linked to the way group members interact and work together and they proposed a model, which suggest that to be most effective teams need to create emotionally intelligent norms that support behaviors for building trust, group identity, and group effectiveness. These behaviors will promote more collaboration, participation and cooperation that will lead the team to better decisions, more creative solutions and higher productivity (Druskat & Wolff, 2001a). Yang and Mossholder (2004) believe that “(…) expressed and experienced emotion influence the nature of outcomes following from task conflict” (p. 591) and that emotional intelligence will enable the members of a team to more effectively process conflict-related emotion. Also, the findings of Aslan, Ozata & Mete (2008) suggest a positive effect of group emotional intelligence on team effectiveness. Taking this into account, we hypothesize that:
Hypothesis 5: The four dimensions2 of group emotional intelligence (group social awareness/skills, group
regulation of members, group self-awareness and group self-regulation) will have a positive impact on team performance
Hypothesis 6: The four dimensions of group emotional intelligence (group social awareness/skills, group regulation of members, group self-awareness and group self-regulation) will have a positive impact on team satisfaction
Finally, we have seen above that the meta-analysis of De Dreu and Weingart (2003) on the relationship between intragroup conflict and team performance has found no evidence for a direct, positive relationship, leading these authors to suggest the existence of moderating variables in the process. In the same line, the contingencial model proposed by Jehn and Bendersky (2003) emphasizes the moderating role of several variables, such as group norms and emotions. Furthermore, since conflict produces “(…) psychological states, including feelings, cognitions and motivations, that in turn produce behaviors intended to intensify, reduce, or solve the tension” (De Dreu, West, Fisher & MacCurtain, 2001, p. 211), we can say that conflicts are strongly linked to the expression of emotions. Taking all into account, we expect that the group’s ability to be aware and regulate its emotions (i.e., group emotional intelligence) will be a moderating variable between intragroup conflict and team outcomes. Thus, we hypothesize that:
Hypothesis 7: Group emotional intelligence moderates the relationship between task conflict and team outcomes; that is in teams with high levels of group emotional intelligence (group social awareness/skills, group regulation of members, group self-awareness and group self-regulation), the negative effects of task conflict on team performance (7a) and on team satisfaction (7b) will be weaker
Hypothesis 8: Group emotional intelligence moderates the relationship between relationship conflict and team outcomes; that is, in teams with high levels of group emotional intelligence (group social awareness/skills, group regulation of members, group self-awareness and group self-regulation), the negative effects of relationship conflict on team performance (8a) and on team satisfaction (8b) will be weaker
5. Method
5.1 Participants and Procedure
We conducted a non-experimental research and the data collection procedures took place in two different organizational contexts: industry and services. First an introducing letter was sent to the companies (in some cases by e-mail) with the objectives of the research, the method of data collection and the contacts of the research team. Then, in those that were interested, the project was presented. After the presentation of the project, the teams to be part of the research were selected with the help of a member of the company with great knowledge of the organizational structure. Finally, the data was collected using different measure instruments. In some cases, when someone of the research team could not be present, these instruments were administered by the responsible of the team, who had the following instructions: 1) deliver an envelop (with the measure instruments) to each member of the team; 2) each member of the team should answer, put them in the envelop, seal it and return it to the responsible of the team.
The final sample of work-teams used in the present study is composed of 330 subjects grouped in 72 working teams. The number of members on the teams varies from two members to 11 members, but most of the teams have between three and five members (72,2%). In our sample the percentage of female participants (62.1%) is higher than the percentage of male participants (36.4%). The range of the participants’ ages goes 2 The Group Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire used in our study was created by Hamme (2003) and translated and validated to the Portuguese population by Correia (2010). This questionnaire is based on the Druskat and Wolff’s Model of Group Emotional Intelligence (Druskat & Wolff, 2001a, 2001b) that has six dimensions. However, the questionnaire in the Portuguese version only measure four dimensions of group emotional intelligence that are the result of the psychometric analysis undertaken by the authors.
from 18 to 83 years and the average age is 38.5 years (SD = 10.2). As for the qualifications, most of the participants have graduate studies (39.7%) followed by the participants that finished highschool (25.2%). Finally, the team tenure varies from one month to 35 years and four months and the average time is 8.09 years (SD = 7.7).
In this study we also used a sample of team leaders that evaluated team performance by answering the Group Performance Assessment Scale – II. This sample consists of 69 leaders and the percentage of female participants (59.4%) is higher than the percentage of male participants (40.6%). The younger leader in the sample has 24 years and the oldest has 63 years, the average age is 42.3 years (SD = 9.82). As for the qualifications, the majority of the leaders completed graduate studies (55.1%). Regarding the team tenure varies from three months to 36 years and the average time is 11.17 years (SD = 8.92).
5.2 Measures
To assess the variables we used four instruments: Intragroup Conflict Assessment Scale (Dimas, 2007); Group Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (Correia, 2010; Hamme, 2003); Group Performance Assessment Scale – II (Dimas, 2007); and Group Satisfaction Scale (Dimas, 2007).
The Intragroup Conflict Assessment Scale (Dimas, 2007) measures the frequency of task and relationship conflicts in teams. The participants are asked to indicate in a 7-point Lickert scale how often tension arises in the team caused by each one of the situations presented (1= never happens; 7= always happens). There are 9 situations in the scale that assess the two dimensions of intragroup conflict – five items measure task conflict and four items the relationship conflict.
The Group Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (Correia, 2010; Hamme, 2003) has been translated and validated for the Portuguese population (see Correia, 2010) from the Group Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire created by Hamme (2003), which was based in the Druskat and Wolff’s Model of Group Emotional Intelligence (Druskat & Wolff, 2001a; Druskat & Wolff, 2001b).
In the Portuguese first version the questionnaire had 28 items and the answer was given through a 7-point Lickert scale. These items covered 5 dimensions: Group Regulation of Members, Group Self-Awareness, Group Self-Regulation, Group Social Awarenes, and Group Social Skills3. But, only 14 of the 28 items and
four of the five dimensions were retained in the validity process after a factorial analysis with varimax rotation. Hence, the 14 items are distributed in four factors/dimensions of group emotional intelligence: Group Regulation of Members, Group Self-Awareness, Group Self-Regulation, and Group Social Awareness/Skills4 (Correia, 2010).
The Group Performance Assessment Scale – II (Dimas, 2007) was created for assessing performance in groups with complex tasks and measures different issues related to team performance. The scale has 10 items that cover various aspects of group performance, namely the quantity and quality of work produced, introduction and implementation of new ideas and solutions to problems and the ability to react in face of the unexpected. Each item is rated in a 10-point Lickert scale (1= poor; 10= excellent) by the leader of the team. Finally, the Group Satisfaction Scale (Dimas, 2007) has the objective of assessing the degree of the member satisfaction with the team to which they belong. The aim was to create items that covered task and socio-affective aspects of the group.
The scale was constructed with 7 items: three items assess satisfaction with aspects of the affective domain, like satisfaction with the existing relations between members of the team, and four items assess satisfaction with the task, namely how to work with the team and the role played by each member. The participants are asked to answer a 7-point Lickert scale (1= very dissatisfied; 7= completely satisfied).
6. Results
3 The Druskat and Wolff’s Model of Group Emotional Intelligence (Druskat & Wolff, 2001a, 2001b) has six dimensions, but the GEIQ created by Hamme (2003) only has five dimensions that are the result of the psychometric analysis undertaken by the author. The dimension excluded was Group Awareness of the Members.
M SD a 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 1. Task Confict 3.00 .69 .90 -- 2. Relationship Confict 3.01 .74 .84 .83** -- 3. Group Social Awareness/Skills 5.40 .57 .78 -.51** -.43** -- 4. Group Regulation of Members 3.26 1.20 .78 .69** .65** -.44** -- 5. Group Self-Awareness 4.44 .62 .71 -.35** -.22 .48** -.18 -- 6. Group Self-Regulation 4.46 1.04 .80 -.43** -.27* .54** -.47** .43** -- 7. Team Satisfaction 5.33 .72 .93 -.76** -.67** .68** -.72** .45** .65** -- 8. Team Performance 7.21 1.27 .95 -.33* -.24 .13 -.35** .33* .24 .25 --
In the present study, the unit of analysis is the group, but since the data were collected individually, the individual responses of the Intragroup Conflict Assessment Scale, Group Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire and Group Satisfaction Scale had to be aggregated to the team level. To justify aggregation we computed the average deviation index (Adm Index) [Burke & Dunlap, 2002]. We used the criterion Adm ≤
1.17 (Burke & Dunlap, 2002) to aggregate, with confidence, individual responses to the team level. The average values for all the scales were below 1.17 and therefore all the 72 teams were retained for further analyses.
Table 1 gives the means, standard deviations and inter-correlations for all variables, as well as the scale reliabilities. The scale reliabilities were analysed by the Cronbach’s Alpha and, as can be seen, all values are above .70 (Nunnally, 1978) showing that all the measures have good levels of internal consistency. Regarding the correlations, as we expected the two types of intragroup conflict were positively correlated and both were negatively correlated with team satisfaction. Also, all of the dimensions of group emotional intelligence had statistically significant correlations with team satisfaction. As we also expected task conflict was negatively correlated to team performance, but contrary to our expectations relationship conflict and two dimensions of group emotional intelligence (group social awareness/skills and group self-regulation) were not correlated to team performance. Since these three variables (relationship conflict, group social awareness/skills and group self-regulation) didn’t correlate with team performance, they won’t be used in the first regression analysis that has team performance as the dependent variable.
Table 1 - Descriptive statistics, correlations and Cronbach’s Alpha-coefficients for the team-level study. Note: * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level; ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.
To test our hypotheses we conducted two hierarchical regression analyses (Frazier, Barron & Tix, 2004). In order to correct the multicollinearity that can arise when testing moderated relationships, the independent variables were centered before the interaction terms were generated, following a procedure proposed by Cohen, Cohen, West and Aiken (2003).
To test our hypotheses 1, 5 and 7a we conducted a first hierarchical regression analysis with team performance as the dependent variable (Table 2). We didn’t test the hypotheses 3 and 8a, because relationship conflict did not correlate with team performance. As for hypothesis 5 and 7a, we didn’t test two of the four group emotional intelligent dimensions (group social awareness/skills and group self-regulation), also because they didn’t correlate with team performance.
In the first step of the hierarchical regression we entered the task conflict dimension of intragroup conflict, in the second step we entered only the two dimensions of group emotional intelligence that correlated with team performance (group regulation of members and group self-awareness) and in the third step we entered the interaction terms. Thus, in the first step we tested the impact of task conflict in team performance (hypothesis 1) and in the second step we tested the impact of group regulation of members and group self-awareness in team performance (hypothesis 5), while the amount of task conflict was controlled. Finally, in the third step we analysed the joint impact of task conflict with each one of the dimensions of group emotional intelligence (hypothesis 7a).
Team Performance Variables B SE R2 DR2 Step 1. .11** Task Conflict -.62** .24 Step 2. .19† .09† Task Conflict -.03 .38
Group Regulation of Members -.32 .21 Group Self-Awareness .56* .28
Step 3. .27† .07†
Task Conflict .26 .39
Group Regulation of Members -.42* .21 Group Self-Awareness .56* .27 Task Conflict X Group Regulation of Members .53* .24 Task Conflict X Group Self-Awareness .39 .45
The analysis of the first step reveals that task conflict explained 11% (p< .01) of team performance variance. Furthermore, the relationship between task conflict and team performance was negative and statistically significant (B= -.62, p< .01), supporting hypothesis 1. In the second step, group regulation of members and group self-awareness added marginally significant variance to team performance (DR2= .09, p< .10). The
dimension group self-awareness had a positive statistically significant effect (B= .56, p< .05) on team performance whereas the effect of group regulation of members was not significant (B= -.32, ns). Thus, hypothesis 5 was partially supported, as one dimension of group emotional intelligence was positively related to team performance.
Table 2 - Hierarchical regression analysis with task conflict, group regulation of members and group self-awareness predicting team performance. Note: † Correlation is significant at the .10 level; * Correlation is
significant at the 0.05 level; ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.
The analysis of the third step (interaction terms) shows that the variance of team performance explained by the addition of the interaction terms was marginally significant (DR2= .07, p< .10). Furthermore, the
interaction between task conflict and group regulation of members had a statistically significant effect (B= . 53, p< .05), hence, the dimension group regulation of members moderated the relationship between task conflict and team performance. We further examined the slopes of the relationships between task conflict and team performance using the tests of significance of simple slopes proposed by Cohen et al. (2003). As shown in Figure 1, the relationship between task conflict and team performance was negative and marginally significant under very low levels of group regulation of members (B= -1,02, SE= .57, p< .10). In contrast, the relationship between task conflict and team performance was positive and marginally significant under very high levels of group regulation of members (B= 1,53, SE= .80, p< .10). Thus, hypothesis 7a was partially supported, as one dimension of group emotional intelligence – group regulation of members moderated the relationship between task conflict and team performance, such as that in teams with high levels in this dimension the effects of task conflict on team performance was positive.
Figure 1 - Moderating effects of group regulation of members on the relationship between task conflict and team performance.
To test our hypotheses 2, 4, 6, 7b and 8b we conducted a second hierarchical regression analysis with team satisfaction as the dependent variable (Table 3). In the first step of the hierarchical regression we entered the two types of intragroup conflict, in the second step we entered the four dimensions of group emotional intelligence and in the third step we entered the interaction terms. Therefore, in the first step we tested the impact of intragroup conflict in team satisfaction (hypotheses 2 and 4) and in the second step we tested the impact of the group emotional intelligence dimensions on team satisfaction (hypothesis 6), while the amount of intragroup conflict was controlled. In the last step we examined the joint impact of intragroup conflict and the group emotional intelligence dimensions (hypotheses 7b and 8b).
In the second hierarchical regression, the analysis of the first step shows that task conflict and relationship conflict explain, jointly, 58% (p< .01). Furthermore, the relationship between intragroup conflict and team satisfaction was negative as predicted and statistically significant for task conflict (B= -.68, p< .01) whereas for relationship conflict was not significant (B= -.13, ns). Thus, hypothesis 2 is supported, but hypothesis 4 is not supported. In the second step, the addition of group emotional intelligence added significant variance to team satisfaction (DR2= .21, p< .01). With respect to the group emotional intelligence dimensions analyzed,
hypothesis 6 was partially supported as two of the four dimensions of group emotional intelligence had a statistically significant positive effect on team satisfaction: group social awareness/skills (B= .29, p< .01) and group self-regulation (B= .18, p< .01). Group regulation of members had a negative statistically significant effect on team satisfaction (B= -.14, p< .01), which was not expected.
Finally, the analysis of the interaction terms in step three shows that group emotional intelligence does not moderate the relationship between intragroup conflict and team satisfaction. Thus, hypotheses 7b and 8b were not supported.
12 de 16 Team Satisfaction Variables B SE R2 DR2 Step 1. .58** Task Conflict -.68** .15 Relationship Conflict -.13 .14 Step 2. .79** .21** Task Conflict -.23† .12 Relationship Conflict -.15 .11 Group Social Awareness/Skills .29** .10 Group Regulation of Members -.14** .05 Group Self-Awareness .09 .08 Group Self-Regulation .18** .05
Step 3. .82 .04
Task Conflict -.15 .12
Relationship Conflict -.26* .11 Group Social Awareness/Skills .30** .10 Group Regulation of Members -.13* .06 Group Self-Awareness .12 .08 Group Self-Regulation .16** .06 Task Conflict X Group Social Awareness/Skills .10 .36 Task Conflict X Group Regulation of Members -.13 .11 Task Conflict X Group Self-Awareness .35 .22 Task Conflict X Group Self-Regulation .00 .13 Relationship Conflict X Group Social Awareness/Skills .06 .33 Relationship Conflict X Group Regulation of Members .13 .11 Relationship Conflict X Group Self-Awareness -.25 .20 Relationship Conflict X Group Self-Regulation .00 .15
Table 3 - Hierarchical regression analysis with intragroup conflict and group emotional intelligence predicting team satisfaction. Note: † Correlation is significant at the .10 level; * Correlation is significant at
the 0.05 level; ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.
7. Discussion
Contrary to our expectations, we didn’t find a significant relationship between relationship conflict and the variables of team’s effectiveness considered. Other studies had the same results for relationship conflict (e.g., Dimas, 2007; Passos & Caetano, 2005). Dimas (2007) suggested that although in this kind of groups (i.e., work teams) there is a socio-affective system, is the task system that is structuring. Thus, conflicts related to the task are, probably, more threatening to team effectiveness.
In fact, the results concerning the relationship between task conflict and team’s outcomes showed, as expected, a negative impact of that type of conflict in team’s effectiveness. This result is in line with the findings of De Dreu and Weingart’s (2003) meta-analysis, which showed that most empirical studies indicate that task conflict hinders team performance and satisfaction. As Dimas (2007) argued, conflict is always a negative experience, as the tension that arises generates discomfort and deception. Moreover, according to what has been said above, in a working team a conflict related to the aspects of the task may disrupt the interplay between members and the group work. However, our findings also suggest that this doesn’t mean that a team with high frequency of conflicts will be an ineffective team. Although task conflict has a direct negative impact on team performance, our results suggest that this impact may be changed when we take into account group regulation of members (dimension of group emotional intelligence). Our results on this moderating effect showed that when task conflict increases, team performance decreases, if the team has low levels in that dimension. However, if the team has high levels on that dimension, when task conflict increases, team performance also increases.
The dimension of group regulation of members involves two group norms: confronting members who break norms and caring orientation. These norms help the team to balance uniformity and individuality and groups who have high levels in this dimension should be able to manage the emotional tension that arises from differences between individual and group needs (Druskat & Wolff, 2001b). In this sense, we believe that a team with high levels in this dimension should also be able to recognize and confront problems when they appear in a way that shows respect for everyone. In other words, the members should be able to manage the tension and divergences that arise from task conflict and reach a compromise that leads the team to a better
performance. Although this is an interesting finding, our results are only marginally significant and, hence, more research is needed in this domain.
We also found some support for the positive impact of group emotional intelligence in team outcomes. In what respects team satisfaction we found two significant positive effects of group social awareness/skills and group self-regulation. As for group social awareness/skills, this suggests that the ability of the group to be aware of the feelings, needs and concerns of other groups and the organization, as well as, the ability to develop relationships with them (Druskat & Wolff, 2001b) may promote a sense of recognition that enhances team satisfaction. Regarding group self-regulation, the group ability to deal with members’ feelings, the adoption of a positive attitude and the search for solutions as problems arise may allow the members to resolve effectively their problems improving team satisfaction.
As for team performance, the dimension group self-awareness had a positive impact on this outcome. This finding suggests that a team that has the ability to be aware of the group emotional states, preferences and resources will have a higher performance.
Druskat and Wolff (2001b) argue that the group self-awareness and group self-regulation dimensions should work in partnership, since the last is going to address the issues revealed by the first. In our study it is interesting to notice that both dimensions had a significant positive effect but on different team outcomes. The findings suggest that the ability to be aware of the team’s strengths and weaknesses will help the team to improve its ways of working and, hence, its performance. As for group self-regulation, the results suggest that the ability to address (i.e., to regulate) the issues revealed by the team’s ability to be aware of its states and needs are more related to group emotional well-being. Thus, the ability to be aware will allow the team to know itself and perform better and the ability to regulate will allow the team to resolve problems and address emotions, which will enhance team satisfaction.
Finally, our results showed an unexpected negative impact of group regulation of members in team satisfaction. This dimension of group emotional intelligence, as has been said above, involves two group norms: confronting members who break norms and caring orientation. Druskat and Wolff (2001b) defend that teams who used the norm confronting members who break norms are more effective, however it may be possible that if members are often confronted by their colleagues this may arise tension between them and decrease satisfaction among members. Also, as we are taking into account the dimension as a hole, it may be possible that if a team has the norm confronting members who break norms, but it rarely uses attitudes that involve the caring orientation, it would have a negative impact on the members and their satisfaction with the team. But as we have seen above, this dimension is important when we think about the relationship between task conflict and team performance.
Nevertheless, we believe that it may be important in future research to study the impact of the norms, instead of the global dimension of group emotional intelligence, as they may shed some light in our findings. As Jehn and Bendersky (2003) pointed out, it is important to study group norms as they determine how the members will perceive conflict and the degree to which conflict will influence members’ attitudes.
There are some limitations to this study, such as the impossibility to establish causality relations and the size of the sample, which makes it harder to generalize the results. We believe that future research in this area is needed. It should further explore the variable group emotional intelligence and, specifically the dimension group regulation of members, since we found a marginally significant moderating effect. As Jehn and Bendersky (2003) argued, conflict may be beneficial for the team, under specific circumstances. Finally, we believe it is important to do more longitudinal research that will study the short- and long-term consequences of intragroup conflict in different team’s outcomes.
Our findings provide insights into the role played by group emotional intelligence in working teams. Our results about some dimensions of group emotional intelligence suggest that one way of improving team effectiveness is by providing training that enhances group emotional intelligence. Future research in this domain could also help managers by giving some clues in what managers should do to improve team effectiveness and in how to create interventions that really work.
8. References
Aslan, S., Ozata, M., & Mete, M. (2008). The investigation of effects of group emotional intelligence on team effectiveness. Humanity & Social Sciences Journal, 3 (2), 104-115.
Ayoko, O. B., Callan, V. J., & Hartel, C. E. J. (2008). The influence of team emotional intelligence climate on conflict and team members’ reactions to conflict. Small Group Research, 39 (2), 121-149.
Burke, M.J., & Dunlap, W. P. (2002). Estimating interrater agreement with the average deviation index: a user’s guide. Organizational Research Methods, 5 (2), 159-172.
Cherniss, C. (2001). Emotional intelligence and organizational effectiveness. In C. Cherniss & D. Goleman (Eds.), The emotionally intelligent workplace: how to select for, measure, and improve emotional
intelligence in individuals, groups, and organizations (pp. 3-12). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for
the behavioral sciences. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Correia, A. C. (2010). Se o coração pensasse, pararia? Desenvolviemento de um instrumento de medida da
inteligência emocional grupalI. Dissertação de Mestrado em Psicologia das Organizações e do Trabalho.
Faculdade de Psicologia e de Ciências da Educação – Universidade de Coimbra, Coimbra. 52 pp.
De Dreu, K. W., & Van Vianen, A. E. M. (2001). Managing relationship conflict and the effectiveness of organizational teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22 (3), 309- 328.
De Dreu, K. W., West, M. A., Fischer, A. H., & MacCurtain, S. (2001). Origins and consequences of emotions in organizational teams. In R. L. Payne & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Emotions at work: theory, research
and applications for management. England: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
De Dreu, K. W., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88 (4), 741-749.
De Dreu, K. W., & Beersma, B. (2005). Conflict in organizations: Beyond effectiveness and performance.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 14 (2), 105-117.
Dimas, I. C. D. (2007). (Re)pensar o conflito intragrupal: Níveis de desenvolvimento e eficácia. Tese de Doutoramento em Psicologia, especialização em Psicologia das Organizações. Faculdade de Psicologia e de Ciências da Educação – Universidade de Coimbra, Coimbra.
Dimas, I. D., & Lourenço, P. R. (2011). Conflitos e e gestão de conflitos em contexto grupal. In A. D. Gomes (Coord.), Psicologia das Organizações, do Trabalho e dos Recursos Humanos: Contributos para a
investigação e intervenção (pp. 201-240). Coimbra: Imprensa da Universidade.
Dimas, I., Lourenço, P. & Miguez, J. (2005). Conflitos e desenvolvimento nos grupos e equipas de trabalho – uma abordagem integrada. Psychologica, 38, 103-119.
Druskat, V., & Wolff, S. (2001a). Building the emotional intelligence of groups. Harvard Business Review,
79 (3), 81-90.
Druskat, V., & Wolff, S. (2001b). Group emotional intelligence and its influence on group effectiveness. In C. Cherniss & D. Goleman (Eds.), The emotionally intelligent workplace: how to select for, measure, and
improve emotional intelligence in individuals, groups, and organizations (pp. 132-155). San Francisco:
Frazier, P. A., Barron, K. E., & Tix, A. P. (2004). Testing moderator and mediator effects in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51 (1), 115-134.
Goleman, D. (2001). Emotional intelligence: Issues in paradigm building. In C. Cherniss & D. Goleman (Eds.), The emotionally intelligent workplace: how to select for, measure, and improve emotional
intelligence in individuals, groups, and organizations (pp. 13-26). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2002). The emotional reality of teams. Journal of Organizational
Excellence, 21 (2), 55-65.
Hamme, C. (2003). Group emotional intelligence: The research and development of an assessment
instrument. Dissertation. Faculty of the Graduated School of Applied and Professional Psychology - The
State University of New Jersey.
Jehn, K. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 40 (2), 256-282.
Jehn, K. (1997). A qualitive analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational groups.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 530-557.
Jehn, K., & Bendersky, C. (2003). Intragroup conflict in organizations: A contingency perspective on the conflict-outcome relationship. Research in Organizational Behaviour, 25, 187-242.
Jehn, K. & Mannix, E. (2001). The dynamic nature of conflict: a longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44 (2), 238-251.
Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Passos, A., & Caetano, A. (2005). Exploring the effetcs of intragroup conflict and past performance feedback on team effectiveness. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20 (3/4), 231-244.
Pelled, L. H. (1996). Demographic diversity, conflict, and work group outcomes: An intervening process theory. Organization Science, 7 (6), 615-631.
Woerkom, M., & Engen, M. L. (2009). Learning from conflicts? The relations between task and relationship conflicts, team learning and team performance. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,
18 (4), 381-404.
Yang, J., & Mossholder, K. W. (2004). Decoupling task and relationship conflict: the role of intragroup emotional processing. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 589-605.
