Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM

Copy

Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.

DeleteCancel

Make your likes visible on Facebook?

Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.

No, thanks

Process

No description
by

Horst Meier

on 23 May 2014

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Process

Team Process:
intragroup conflict

Julia Rohringer, Michael Schaaf, Jasmin Ziegler
23rd May 2014

Summary
Confirmation of the Pure-dissent-effect
Confirmation of the Proponent-dissent-effect
No support for the Magnitude-of-dissent-effect
Confirmation of the postulated model by mediator analysis


Dissent increases the quality of group decision
Dissent stimulates the individual information gain

Intensity of discussion:
Groups in the dissent conditions introduced a higher proportion of information into discussion, repeated mentioned information more often and spent longer in discussion than homogenous groups

Discussion-bias for shared vs. unshared information:
Dissent groups had a lower bias toward shared information than did homogenous groups

Discussion-bias for preference-consistent vs. preference-inconsistent information:
Dissent groups had a lower repetition bias than did homogenous groups
Results - Mediators
Methodology and Design

Problem: Groups often fail to solve hidden profiles (
Stasser & Titus 1985
)

Theoretical Background
Focus of the article: Does dissent facilitate the solution of hidden profile situations?
Idea: Disagreement/Conflict in the decision-making process is beneficial for decision quality

Theoretical Background


Task conflicts often have been suggested to potentially benefit distal group outcomes such as group performance (e.g. Solving hidden profiles)

What is the characterization of a hidden profile paradigm?

Theoretical Background

Schulz-Hardt, Brodbeck, Mojzisch, Kerschreiter & Frey 2006

Part III: Group Decision Making in Hidden Profile Situations: Dissent as a Facilitator for Decision Quality

Results – Quality of decision

Methodology and Design
Why should dissent increase the chance to solve a hidden profile situation?




Theoretical Background

1. Individual examination
Recording of preference via questionnaire

2. Discussion in the 3-person-groups
Assignment to the conditions on the basis of preferences

3. Common decision for one candidate
Recording via questionnaire


Part III - Dissent and Hidden Profile
Part I - Introduction
Part II - state of research and
moderator variables

Part IV - Practice
Wittenbaum et al. (2004);
Jehn, Mannix (2001)

Part I: Introduction

Wittenbaum et al. (2004)

groups are goal-oriented

Group performance varies in quality and quantity and can be evaluated

Internal and external factors influence group performance via the interaction process

Theoretical assumptions

Wittenbaum et al. (2004)

The functional perspective is a normative approach to describe and predict group performance that focuses on the functions of inputs and/or processes.

The aim of theory and research from this perspective is to understand why some groups are successful and others are not.


The functional perspective
Jehn, Mannix (2001)

"An awareness of differences in viewpoints and opinions pertaining to a group task. It pertains to conflict about ideas and differences of opinion about the task."
Task conflict
Wittenbaum et al. (2004)

Social combination approach
: predict or explain how group members combine their individual preferences into a single group response for a given type of task. This approach can be applied only when the set of possible decision alternatives are prespecified and the group must reach a consensus on one of those alternatives.

Group decision making
: successful group decision making and problem solving is most likely to occur when group interaction results in the fulfillment of the essential requirements of the task.

Groupthink
: poor-quality decision because the group is highly cohesive, insulated from ideas outside the group and under a great deal of stress.
Theories – functional perspective
Jehn, Mannix (2001)

Relationship conflict
The dynamic nature of conflict
Jehn, Mannix (2001)

Process conflict

Groups can be hotbeds of conflict, and it is this aspect of teams and the relationship between conflict and group performance that is the focus of the study
patterns of conflict shift over time
The dynamic nature of conflict
Jehn, Mannix (2001)

"An awareness of controversies about aspects of how task accomplishment will proceed, specifically it pertains to issues of duty and resource delegation."
Process conflict
Jehn, Mannix (2001)

"An awareness of interpersonal incompatibilities includes affective components such as feeling tension and friction. It involves personal issues such as dislike among group members and feelings such as annoyance, frustration and irritation."
Relationship conflict
Jehn, Mannix (2001)

Task conflict
The dynamic nature of conflict
Wittenbaum et al. (2004); Jehn, Mannix (2001)

Collective information sharing
: group members need to share their diverse sets of knowledge effectively to create a good-quality decision.

Hidden profile
: Specific type of information distribution in groups

Team conflict management
: workgroups are goal oriented and that the social interaction to reach these goals inherently leads to conflict. How groups deal with conflicts determine if it leads to positive or negative effects.

(Intragroup-)conflict
: "An awareness on the part of the parties involved of discrepancies, incompatible wishes, or irreconcilable desires, which can be categorized into three types: relationship conflict, task conflict and process conflict."
Theories – functional perspective
Proximal group outcomes
Group emergent states
Trust, cohesion
Group viability
Members' intention to remain working in the same group
e.g. satisfaction, commitment, identification

Distal group outcomes
Group performance (
e.g. solving a Hidden Profile
)
Group outcomes
Dissent is a possible chance to have an open and acceptable debate on task conflict level
Inducing the right conflict norms or controlling for the wrong norms might enable a beneficial discussion
Research about the Hidden Profile Paradigm shows such a way
Conflict norms
„When in conflict, team members confront each other, openly debate issues, voice dissenting views, and are forced to be creative to find collectively satisfying solutions“ (
De Dreu, 2006
)
„The norms of the group control how group members perceive conflict and can affect the degree to which conflict influences performance and members' attitudes. (
Jehn, 1995
)
Resolution efficacy
(
Jehn, 1997
)
Best predictor for high performance is the felt capability of solving conflicts among the members
Based on collective efficacy (
Bandura, 1986
)

Escalation view of conflict
(
Pruitt & Rubin, 1986
)
Conflicts seen as more serious evoke stronger reactions which makes a solution more difficult
Conflicts are seen as more serious „when it involves more people, more events, or more influence over future processes and outcomes“ (
Jehn et al., 2008
)
How to solve conflicts beneficially
Process conflict
If seen as chance of improvement, it may facilitate crucial reevaluations of processes
Can be distraction otherwise

Relationship conflict
Does not contain a possible beneficial part itself
Can have reduced negative effects on outcomes
Task conflict
Benefits
can facilitate deeper understanding of the task
can increase creativity (
DeDreu, 2006; 2003
)
can improve proximal outcomes → need to voice each own's perspective → commitment and satisfaction

Intragroup conflict
Co-occurrence of conflict types
Partially supported
Culture
Not supported
(
authors recommend more research
)
Organizational level
supported
Task Type
Not supported (
contrary to DeDreu & Weingart, 2003
)
Results
distal group outcomes (II)
conflict (
relationship
) performance
stronger negative when simultaneous stronger relationship between relationship- and process conflict occurs
conflict (
process
) performance
no moderators found

Results
distal group outcomes (I)
conflict (
task
) <-> performance
not moderated by
co-occurrence
with process conflict
moderated by
co-occurrence
with relationship conflict
moderated by
organizational level

toplevel groups deal better with task conflict, some even benefit
moderated by
methodological
procedures
(field vs. laboratory, measurement of DV)
Results
Intragroup conflict & group outcomes
Taken together, conflicts do harm group outcomes (proximal & distal)


Results
Co-occurrence of conflict types
Culture
Does the cultural context influence dealing with intragroup conflict?
Organizational level
Do work groups with higher organizational status handle intragroup conflict differently?
Task Type
Some tasks may benefit from conflict, some take harm (
c.f. Jehn, 1995
)
Moderators

Meta-Analyses
De Wit, Greer & Jehn, 2012

Part II:
Current State of Research
Moderators of Conflict
10 Minutes Break
Group Work
Build two groups
Identify the type of conflict(s)
Find possible escalations, moderators and approaches to solve or prevent that conflict
Be aware of possible conflicts in your group
Show your result in a short scene you play
Bandura A. (1986). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 4(3), 359–373
 
Carnevale P.J. , Probst T.M. (1998). Social values and social conflict in creative problem solving and categorization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74(5), 1300–1309

Gigone, D., & Hastie, R. (1993). The common knowledge effect: Information sharing and group judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 959–974

De Dreu, C. K. W. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team effectiveness, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 741-749.

De Dreu C. K. W. (2006). When too little or too much hurts: Evidence for a curvilinear relationship between task conflict and innovation in teams. Journal of Management, 32, 83-107.

De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. (2003b). Task versus relationship conflict, team effectiveness, and team member satisfaction: A metaanalysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 741–749.

De Wit, F R. C., Greer, L. L. & Jehn, K. A. (2012). The paradox of intragroup conflict: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97 (2), 360-390.

Hofstede, G. (2001).Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Jehn K.A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly 40: 256–282

Jehn, K. A., Greer, L. L., Levine, S., & Szulanski, G. (2008). The effects of conflict types, dimensions, and emergent states on group outcomes. Group Decision and Negotiation, 17, 465–495

Jehn K. A. (1997). A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational groups. Administrative Science  Quarterly 42, 530–557
 
Jehn, K.A. & Mannix, E. A. (2001). The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44 (2), 238-251.

Marks, M.A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26 (3), 356-376.

McGrath, J. E. (1984).Groups: Interaction and performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Pruitt D., Rubin J. (1986). Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate and settlement. Random House, New York
 
Ross R. (1989). Conflict. In: Ross R, Ross J (eds) Small groups in organizational settings. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 139–178

Schulz-Hardt, S., Brodbeck, F. C., Mojzisch, A., Kerschreiter, R., & Frey, D. (2006). Group decision making in hidden profile situations: Dissent as a facilitator for decision quality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 1080–1093
 
Stasser, G., & Titus, W. (1985). Pooling of unshared information in group decision making: Biased information sampling during discussion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1467–1478

Wittenbaum, G. M., Hollingshead, A. B., Paulus, P. B., Hirokawa, R. Y., Ancona, D. G., Peterson, R. S., ... & Yoon, K. (2004): The functional perspective as a lens for understanding groups. Small Group Research, 35(1), 17-43.
Literature
Advantages and disadvantages
Further Variables
Group outcomes
Moderators
Moderators
Further variables
Intragroup conflict
Advantages and disadvantages
How to solve conflicts beneficially
Do you feel reminded of another phenomenon, in which people's beliefs about what will happen actually determines what happens?
How to solve conflicts beneficially
Take home message
"The norms of the group control how group members perceive conflict and can affect the degree to which conflict influences performance and members' attitudes."
(
Jehn, 1995
)
Summary: Introduction
Functional perspective focuses on the
interaction process
of group processes (IPO-model)
Collective information sharing
and
team conflict management
will be discussed in this presentation
Three types of conflict:
relationship-, task- and process conflict
Relevance of time
: high-performing groups experience
an increasing intensity of process conflict over the group’s lifetime
a static level of relationship conflict until the middle (of group’s lifetime), afterwards rise until end of the group work
an inverted u-function of task conflict from the beginning to the end of a group’s work period
Different definitions (team process, taskwork, emergent states)
IPO-model, IMOI-model
Recurrent Phase Model and Taxomy
Time and coordination are important aspects
Previous session: team process
Marks, Mathieu & Zaccaro, 2001
“Member‘s interdependent acts that convert inputs to outcomes through cognitive , verbal, and behavioral activities directed toward organizing taskwork to achieve collective goals.“
Reminder: Team process
Jehn, Mannix (2001)

Decision case: Airline company looking for a new pilot
participants play the role of a member of the personnel selection committee and have to choose between four candidates (A, B, C, D)
10 attributes per candidate C is the best candidate

BUT
: Hidden profile promote the preference for candidate A,B and D because of the distribution of information before discussion
Methodology and Design
Conflicts are
better
resolved, when debate and discussion is (
Jehn et al., 2008
)
open and acceptable task conflict
NOT open and acceptable relationship conflict and process conflict
Restrictions
Self-verification theory (
Swann et al., 2004
)
Other point of view as a negative assessment of own abilities
Information-processing-perspective (
Carneval & Probst, 1998
)
Conflict as a distraction
"[...] groups who experience task conflict tend to make better decisions because such conflict encourages greater cognitive understanding of the issue being considered." (
De Dreu, 2003; c.f. De Dreu 2006
)
Premature preference negotiation (
Gigone & Hastie 1993
)
Discussion bias: Shared and preference-consistent information is introduced and repeated in group discussions more often than unshared and preference-inconsistent information
but generally stronger for relationship and process conflict than for task conflict
Thank you for your attention and participation!
But: There is no difference within the dissent groups!
Jehn, 1997
Jehn, 1997
Full transcript