A Multi methodExannination of theBenefits and Detrimentsof Intragroup Conflict

Karen A. JehnUniversity of Pennsylvania

© 1995 by Cornell University,0001 -8392/95/4002-0256/$! .00,

I would like to thank Jennifer A,Chatman. Margaret Neale. ElizabethWeldon, Dawn lacobucci. and OswaldWerner for comments on earlier drafts, Iwould also like to thank Linda Pike forher tremendous help, as well as Robert I.Sutton and three anonymous reviewers.

This study examines the structure of 105 work groupsand management teams to address the question ofwhether conflict can be beneficial. Multiple methodswere used to examine the effects of conflict on bothindividual- and group-level variables to provide a morerefined model of intragroup conflict. Results show thatwhether conflict was beneficial depended on the type ofconflict and the structure of the group in terms of tasktype, task interdependence, and group norms.Relationship and task conflicts were negativelyassociated with individuals' satisfaction, liking of othergroup members, and intent to remain in the group. Ingroups performing very routine tasks, disagreementsabout the task were detrimental to group functioning. Incontrast, in groups performing nonroutine tasks,disagreements about the tasks did not have adetrimental effect, and in some cases, suchdisagreements were actually beneficial. Contrary toexpectations, norms encouraging open discussion ofconflict were not always advantageous. The resultssuggest that while such norms were associated with anincrease in the number and intensity of relationshipconflicts, they did not increase members' ability to dealwith the conflicts constructively. The model developedhere contributes to an integrated perspective onorganizational conflict.'

While conflict is inevitable in groups and organizations due tothe complexity and interdependence of organizational life,theorists have differed about whether it is harmful orbeneficial to organizations. Early organizational conflicttheorists suggested that conflict is detrimental toorganizational functioning (Pondy, 1967; Brown, 1983) andfocused much of their attention on the causes and resolutionof conflict (Schmidt and Kochan, 1972; Brett, 1984). Morerecently, researchers have theorized that conflict is beneficialunder some circumstances (Tjosvold, 1991; Van de Vliertand De Dreu, 1994).

Empirical research on the effects of conflict in groups andteams has reflected the contradictions found in thetheoretical literature. Findings have shown that conflict isassociated with reduced productivity and satisfaction ingroups (Gladstein, 1984; Wall and Nolan, 1986) and that theabsence of disagreement within top management teams anddecision-making groups is related to increased performanceat the group and organizational levels (Bourgeois, 1980;Schwenk and Cosier, 1993). In contrast, other evidence hasdemonstrated that conflict within teams improves decisionquality and strategic planning, financial performance, andorganizational growth (Bourgeois, 1985; Schweiger,Sandberg, and Rechner, 1989; Eisenhardt and Schoonhoven,1990). Research on communication, group interactionprocesses, and diversity in groups and organizations has alsoindicated that conflict can be beneficial as well asdetrimental (Wagner, Pfeffer, and O'Reilly, 1984; Roloff,1987; Eisenhardt and Schoonhoven, 1990), but no integratedtheory of the benefits and detriments of conflict currentlyexists. To understand and manage the effects of conflict inorganizations and groups, this apparent contradiction in past

256/Administrative Science Quarterly, 40 (1995): 256-282

Intragroup Conflict

research must be resolved, and a comprehensive theory ofconflict must be developed. It is important to identify thesituations in which conflict is destructive and those in whichit is helpful and the factors that contribute to these positiveor negative effects on task groups.

This paper presents and tests a model of intragroup conflictin which the relationship between intragroup conflict andgroup outcomes depends on the fit between the type andlevel of conflict and the nature of the task, theinterdependence of the group, and group norms aboutconflict. The model focuses on conflict within organizationalgroups, defined as groups that (1) have more than twomembers, (2) are intact social systems with boundaries, sothat members recognize themselves as a group and arerecognized by others as a group, (3) have one or more tasksthat are measurable, and (4) operate within an organization(Hackman, 1987), I use a multimethod approach,incorporating both survey and qualitative methods, to testthe model and examine the impact of intragroup conflict onindividual and group outcomes. These methods permit me toinvestigate more thoroughly the sometimes elusive andsensitive aspects of group and organizational conflict,

Hackman (1987), in setting out the criteria of groupeffectiveness, made a distinction between performance andaffective reactions to conflict that is useful in analyzing groupoutcomes. One of Hackman's (1987: 323) criteria is that"the productive output of the work group meets or exceedsthe performance standards of the people who receive and/orreview the output," The group is not considered effective ifthose receiving its products do not consider themacceptable. In this study, group performance refers to thedegree to which the product or service of the group meetsthe standards of the organization as rated by the group'ssuperior and by the group's productivity records. Anindividual group member's performance is the degree towhich the member meets the standards of the group andorganization as rated by the group's superior, companyperformance evaluations, and individual productivity records,Hackman's (1987: 323) second and third criteria of groupeffectiveness were that "the social processes used incarrying out the work should maintain or enhance thecapability of members to work together on subsequent teamtasks" and that "the group experience should, on balance,satisfy rather than frustrate the personal needs of groupmembers," In this study, affective reaction to the grouprefers to members' satisfaction with the group experienceand the degree to which each member would like tocontinue working in his or her group. It is necessary to makethe distinction between performance and affective reactionsbecause the effects of conflict vary depending on thesituation (i,e,, type of conflict, task type) and the specificoutcome examined,

INTRAGROUP CONFLICT

Conflict has been broadly defined as perceivedincompatibilities (Boulding, 1963) or perceptions by theparties involved that they hold discrepant views or haveinterpersonal incompatibilities, Guetzkow and Gyr (1954:

257/ASQ, June 1995

369) distinguished between conflict based on the substanceof the task that the group is performing and conflict basedon the group's interpersonal relations, as did Priem and Price(1991), who characterized the two types of conflict ascognitive, task-related conflicts and social-emotional conflictsarising from interpersonal disagreements not directly relatedto the task. Wall and Nolan (1986) differentiated betweenrelationship-focused people conflicts and conflicts about thesubstantive content of the task. More recently, Pinkley(1990), in a multidimensional scaling analysis of disputants'interpretations of conflict, discovered that peopledifferentiate between task and relationship conflict. Buildingon these distinctions, I examine two types of conflict in thisstudy: relationship conflict and task conflict. Relationshipconflict exists when there are interpersonal incompatibilitiesamong group members, which typically includes tension,animosity, and annoyance among members within a group.Task conflict exists when there are disagreements amonggroup members about the content of the tasks beingperformed, including differences in viewpoints, ideas, andopinions.

Relationship Conflict in Organizational Groups

An investigation into individuals' affective reactions and theirindividual performance reveals relationship conflict as asignificant influence on group processes and outcomes.Surra and Longstreth (1990) demonstrated that people whofelt tension and conflict with the person they were datingwere less satisfied in the relationship than those who didn't.Similarly, coworkers experiencing interpersonal tensionshould be less satisfied with the group in which they areworking, because interpersonal problems enhance negativereactions such as anxiety and fear, decreasing theirsatisfaction with the group experience. Employees may alsoexperience frustration, strain, and uneasiness when theydislike or are disliked by others in their group (Walton andDutton, 1969), with a typical response being psychological orphysical withdrawal from the disturbing situation (Peterson,1983; Ross, 1989), Clearly, the negative reactions associatedwith relationship conflict arouse uncomfortable feelings anddejection among members, which inhibits their ability toenjoy each other and their work in the group. This suggeststhe following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1 (HI): The more relationship conflict group membersperceive, the lower their satisfaction, their liking of other groupmembers, and their intent to remain in the group.

Past theory suggests that when group members haveinterpersonal problems and are angry with one another, feelfriction with each other, or experience personality clashes,they work less effectively and produce suboptimal products(Argyris, 1962). Kelley (1979) explained that a person who isangry or antagonistic simply loses perspective about the taskbeing performed. Other studies have suggested that thethreat and anxiety associated with relationship conflict alsotend to inhibit people's cognitive functioning in processingcomplex information (Staw, Sandelands, and Dutton, 1981;Roseman, Wiest, and Swartz, 1994) and thus inhibitindividual performance.

258/ASQ, June 1995

Intragroup Conflict

The results of Evan's (1965) study on research anddevelopnnent teams indicated that interpersonal attacksseriously limit group-level performance and productivity, aswell as individual performance. Results of this study showedthat when relationship conflict was present, much of thegroup members' efforts were focused on resolving thepersonal conflicts or attempting to ignore the conflicts,severely limiting group productivity. In another study. Baron(1991) found that effective communication and cooperationamong group members was affected when interpersonalconflicts included components of anger and frustration.Pelled (1995) discussed three ways in which relationshipconflict affects group performance. First, the limitedcognitive processing resulting from relationship conflictreduces the ability of group members to assess newinformation provided by other members. Second, theinterpersonal conflict makes members less receptive to theideas of other group members, some of whom they may notlike or who may not like them. Third, the time and energythat should be devoted to working on the task is used todiscuss, resolve, or ignore the conflicts. This past theorizingand evidence on how relationship conflict influencesindividual and overall group performance leads to thefollowing two hypotheses:

Hypothesis 2a (H2a): Perceived relationship conflict in groups willbe negatively associated with individual perfornnance.

Hypothesis 2b (H2b): Perceived relationship conflict in groups willbe negatively associated with group perfornnance.

Task Conflict in Organizational Groups

Task-related conflicts may also cause tension, antagonism,and unhappiness among group members and anunwillingness to work together in the future. Ross (1989)suggested that a person's normal reaction to any form ofdisagreement and questioning is frustration anddissatisfaction, however advantageous the outcome of theconfrontation. In support of this. Baron (1990), in his study ofperformance evaluations, showed that critical evaluationscaused negative affective reactions regardless of theoutcome. On the positive side, Schweiger, Sandberg, andRagan (1986) provided evidence that people in groups withhigh levels of consensus about task issues expressed moresatisfaction and desire to stay in the group than members ingroups with higher levels of dissension. These studiessuggest that conflicts that arise over task issues can befrustrating and lead to dissatisfaction with the interaction(Amason and Schweiger, 1994). The above leads to thefollowing hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3 (H3): The more task conflict group membersperceive, the lower their satisfaction, liking of other groupmembers, and intent to remain in the group.

Brehmer (1976), as well as others (Van de Ven and Ferry,1980; Gladstein, 1984), suggested that the type of task agroup performs influences the relationship between conflictand performance. Not surprisingly, whether task conflict isbeneficial may well depend on the type of task the groupperforms. Routine tasks have a low level of task variability,which is defined as the amount of variety in methods and

259/ASQ, June 1995

repetitiveness of task processes (Hall, 1972). They aregenerally familiar and are done the same way each time,with predictable results (Thompson, 1967). In contrast,nonroutine tasks require problem solving, have few setprocedures, and have a high degree of uncertainty (Van deVen, Delbecq, and Koenig, 1976). According to Ashby's(1956) theory of requisite variety and the information-processing approach (Galbraith, 1973; Tushman and Nadler,1978), the amount of disagreement and variety in a groupneeds to match the level of variety in the task for the groupto be effective. If the level of task variety and amount ofinformation required to complete the task exceeds the levelof variety and number of differing viewpoints among groupmembers, the costs associated with searching forinformation and evaluating solutions may becomeunreasonable. Inadequate knowledge or assessment canlead to poor decisions and inferior products.

Groups performing nonroutine tasks benefit from the diverseideas of group members. When members feel pressured toagree with other group members about concepts or actionsinstead of presenting dissenting viewpoints, the group mayoverlook superior alternatives. Task conflict facilitates criticalevaluation, which decreases the groupthink phenomenon byincreasing thoughtful consideration of criticism andalternative solutions (Janis, 1982). Group pressure towardagreement can also squelch the creativity needed tocomplete nonroutine tasks effectively, because memberswill focus on building consensus rather than entertaininginnovative ideas. Amason and Schweiger (1994) specifiedthe positive aspect of task conflict as allowing members toidentify and discuss diverse perspectives, thus increasingtheir understanding of the task. For nonroutine tasks, thiswould allow a more thorough evaluation of the criterianeeded for individuals and groups to make high-qualitydecisions and create superior products.

Recent research has investigated some of these claimsabout task conflict and individual cognitive processing.Putnam (1994) showed that task conflicts helped peopleidentify and better understand the issues involved, andBaron (1991) provided evidence that task conflicts withingroups encouraged people to develop new ideas andapproaches. Other research has looked at the influence oftask conflict on overall group performance. In a longitudinalstudy, Fiol (1994) showed that when group members haddifferent interpretations of task content issues, the group'slearning and accurate assessment of the situation increased.Schwenk and Valacich (1994) showed that evaluating andcritiquing the status quo yielded higher quality decisions inwork groups because members confronted problems ratherthan avoiding or smoothing over the issues. In a study oftelecommunication companies, Tjosvold, Dann, and Wong(1992) found that open discussions of opposing views inmarketing groups were associated with completing tasks,using resources more effectively, and better overall serviceto customers. From this perspective, to increase individualand group performance in groups performing primarilynonroutine tasks, differing viewpoints should be encouragedand alternative consequences should be considered. Based

260/ASQ, June 1995

Intragroup Conflict

on the negative effects that a lack of task conflict has (i,e,,conformity and complacency) and on the benefits of taskconflict (i,e,, the increased number of ideas and opinions),task conflict should be positively related to individual andgroup performance in nonroutine tasks.

It is likely, however, that there is an optimal level of taskconflict beyond or below which individual and groupperformance diminishes (Boulding, 1963; Pondy, 1967),Brown (1983) stated that even though task conflict haspositive effects, too much conflict can produce low-qualityoutcomes when group members are performing nonroutinetasks. The protracted conflict is costly in time and effortbecause it hinders members' capacities to gather, integrate,and adequately assess valuable information, Gersick (1989)found that groups with extreme amounts of continuingdiscussion and lack of consensus were unable to move intothe next stage of productive work. The members wereoverly committed to generating alternatives whencompleting the task required choosing a solution andimplementing it. In contrast. Van de Vliert and De Dreu(1994) suggested that too little task conflict can lead toinactivity because a sense of urgency is lacking. In addition,complacency can lead the group and its members to identifyand evaluate the task problems insufficiently. This suggeststhe following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 4a (H4a): In groups with nonroutine tasks, there willbe a curvilinear effect of task conflict on individual performance,such that low levels of conflict will be related to low levels ofperformance, high levels will be related to high levels ofperformance, and very high levels of conflict will be related tomoderate levels of performance.Hypothesis 4b (H4b): In groups with nonroutine tasks, there willbe a curvilinear effect of task conflict on group performance, suchthat low levels of conflict will be related to low levels ofperformance, high levels will be related to high levels ofperformance, and very high levels of conflict will be related tomoderate levels of performance.

The effect of conflict differs in groups with routine, ratherthan nonroutine tasks. Researchers argue that conflict aboutthe task will be a hindrance in groups performing routinetasks because it interferes with efficient processing(Barnard, 1938; Guzzo, 1986), When groups consistentlyperform the same activities in the same way day after day,conflicts that arise about the task may be interruptive,counterproductive, and time consuming for the group and itsmembers. If the task is simple, discussions of task strategyare not necessary, since members can usually rely onstandard operating procedures (Gladstein, 1984), Hackman,Brousseau, and Weiss (1976) demonstrated that when agroup was adequately performing a fairly routine task,substantial debate of task strategy and goals decreasedproductivity. Other research has shown that some amount ofconflict, however, can increase reevaluation of current ideasand standards (Hedberg, Nystrom, and Starbuck, 1976;Tjosvold, 1991), thus causing changes that upgrade thequality of the product and enhance individual and groupperformance. Overall, an absence of conflict will bedetrimental to performance in groups performing routinetasks, a small amount of conflict will be beneficial, but

261/ASQ, June 1995

increasingly higher levels of conflict will be increasinglydetrimental:

Hypothesis 5a (H5a): In groups with routine tasks, there will be acurvilinear effect of task conflict on individual performance, suchthat low levels of conflict will be related to moderate levels ofperformance, moderate levels will be related to high levels ofperformance, and high levels of conflict will be related to low levelsof performance.

Hypothesis 5b (H5b): In groups with routine tasks, there will be acurvilinear effect of task conflict on group performance, such thatlow levels of conflict will be related to moderate levels ofperformance, moderate levels will be related to high levels ofperformance, and high levels of conflict will be related to low levelsof performance.

Task Interdependence and Group Conflict Norms

The effects of both task and relationship conflict onperformance and affect may depend on two othermoderators: task interdependence and group norms. Taskinterdependence exists to the extent that group membersrely on one another to perform and complete their individualjobs (Van de Ven, Delbecq, and Koenig, 1976). Increasedinteraction and dependence among members causes conflictto have an intensified effect on individual and groupoutcomes (Schmidt and Kochan, 1972; Gladstein, 1984), Thetask interdependence increases the amount and intensity ofinteraction among members, thus allowing more opportunityfor conflict to occur and affect the group and its members.For example, relationship conflict will have a greater negativeeffect on group and individual outcomes in highlyinterdependent groups than in other groups. When groupmembers do not depend on one another to complete theirwork and are not required to work closely with one another,interpersonal problems will not be as detrimental as they arein groups that are highly interdependent.

Task conflict will also have a greater positive effect on groupand individual outcomes in highly interdependent groupsthan in other groups. When group members work closelywith one another on a nonroutine task, for example,constructive criticism and critical evaluation will have agreater effect on performance and attitudes than in groupsin which members rarely interact to complete their tasks.The above arguments suggest the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 6a (H6a): The greater the level of interdependencewithin a task group, the greater the effect of conflict on individuals'satisfaction, liking of other group members, and intent to stay.

Hypothesis 6b (H6b): The greater the level of interdependencewithin a task group, the greater the effect of conflict on individualperformance.

Hypothesis 6c (H6c): The greater the level of interdependencewithin a task group, the greater the effect of conflict on groupperformance.

Group norms about conflict will also have an effect on therelationship between intragroup conflict and group andindividual outcomes. Group norms, as defined byBettenhausen and Murnighan (1985), are standards thatregulate behavior among group members. The norms of thegroup control how group members perceive conflict and can

262/ASQ, June 1995

Intragroup Conflict

affect the degree to which conflict influences perfornnanceand mennbers' attitudes. Openness norms (i.e., openconfrontation, open discussion), which Tjosvold (1991)discussed, encourage people to express their doubts,opinions, and uncertainties. Sinnilarly, Brett (1991), whodescribed effective discussion nornns, stated that a veryimportant norm for a group to develop is tolerance ofdiffering viewpoints. Conflict norms can encourage anopenness and acceptance of disagreement (i.e., conflict isencouraged within this group; disagreements are acceptedwithin this group), which can augment the positive effects ofconflict or decrease its negative effects. Based on this pasttheorizing, performance in groups performing tasks thatrequire problem solving and decision making should beenhanced when there are disagreements of opinions andideas; these benefits should increase when normsencourage open communication of ideas. In contrast, groupsmay have norms about conflict that foster avoiding conflictand the perception that conflict is harmful (i.e., conflictshould be avoided at all costs). Such norms will increase thenegative influence of conflict and decrease its positiveeffects. Members may respond with defensiveness andanimosity to even constructive criticism and disagreements,which will interfere with productivity and satisfaction in thegroup. This leads to the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 7a (H7a): The more accepting of conflict the norms arewithin a group, the smaller the negative effect of conflict and thegreater the positive effect of conflict on individuals' satisfaction,liking of other group members, and intent to remain in the group.Hypothesis 7b (H7b): The more accepting of conflict the normsare within a group, the smaller the negative effect of conflict andthe greater the positive effect of conflict on individuals'performance.Hypothesis 7c (H7c): The more accepting of conflict the norms arewithin a group, the smaller the negative effect of conflict and thegreater the positive effect of conflict on group performance.

Together, the hypotheses constitute a model that explainsthe influence of relationship and task conflict on variousgroup and individual outcomes. According to the model, thetype of task the group performs, norms about conflict withinthe group, and the level of interdependence moderate theeffects of conflict on group functioning. I tested thehypotheses in a field study that incorporated multiple scalesand comparison groups, as well as multiple methods.

METHODS

Sample

I surveyed all 633 employees in the internationalheadquarters of a large freight transportation firm. Theresponse rate of the survey was 93 percent (589employees): 26 management teams and 79 work groups. Ifaxed surveys to three groups of on-the-road salesrepresentatives, who did not respond. The average responserate within groups responding was 98 percent. The averageeducation level of the employees was 14.12 years (s.d. =2.51); their average age was 38.5 years (s.d. = 9.90); theiraverage tenure with the company was 7.6 years (s.d. =5.58); and 68 percent of them were female. In this firm,

263/ASQ, June 1995

employees were divided into work units, or teams, tocomplete tasks (3 to 12 members; x = 5.85, s.d. = 2.80). Idefined a work unit as a group in which all personnel reportdirectly to the same supervisor and determined work-unitmemberships from departmental reports and organizationalcharts, which I verified in interviews with supervisors andemployees. Three aspects made this an appropriate sample.First, the organization had well-delineated work groups inwhich members identified with their group or team. Second,there was a wide range of variability on both theindependent and dependent variables: The organization hadgroups that performed very routine tasks and groups thatperformed very nonroutine tasks; it also had veryinterdependent groups and groups in which members werevery independent in their work. Third, outcome measureswere comparable across groups, because outcome recordssuch as production reports and error counts werestandardized within the organization by department.

Procedure

All employees received a six-page survey that I distributed inperson with the help of three employees. The surveyconsisted of 85 self-report, Likert-style questions, randomlyordered. At the same time, I collected archival data such asperformance appraisals and departmental output reports.Sixty-eight supervisors, managers, and vice presidentsreceived a packet of materials to evaluate their work unit(s)or management team (100 percent response rate).Information collected in this packet included organizationalcharts, group and individual performance ratings, anddepartmental output reports.

Measures

Intragroup conflict. I developed an intragroup conflict scaleto measure the amount and type of conflict in the workunits. Eight items measured the presence of conflict (seeTable 1, below, for items) on a 5-point Likert scale, anchoredby 1 = "None" and 5 = "A lot." The coefficient alphas forthe scales of relationship conflict and task conflict were .92and .87.

Moderator variables. Type of tas/c was measured using anadaptation and combination of Perrow's (1970) index ofroutinization. Van de Ven, Delbecq, and Koenig's (1976)dimension of task variety, and the skill-variety dimension ofthe Job Diagnostic Survey (Hackman and Otdham, 1975).The twenty items were coded so that high values reflectedroutineness. The scale had a coefficient alpha of .88.Appendix A shows the scale items and alpha reliabilitycoefficients of the survey measures. I also used archival datasuch as job descriptions and departmental workflow chartsand observed the tasks to confirm the degree of taskroutineness in each group. I used an adaptation of Van deVen, Delbecq, and Koenig's (1976) workflowinterdependence scale to measure the level ofinterdependence in each unit. This scale provides diagramsdepicting the workflow within a unit, and group membersindicate the degree to which the level of interdependence intheir work unit is similar to the diagram. Van de Ven,Delbecq, and Koenig (1976) tested the validity of the scale

264/ASQ, June 1995

Intragroup Conflict

using an altemative measure of interdependence (Mohr,1971) and found a correlation between the two measures of.72, demonstrating convergent validity. Seven questionsabout how conflict was handled within the group measuredgroup conflict norms. The items were based on Cosier andDalton's (1990) openness scale of the Decision Conflict andCooperation Questionnaire and were adapted to measureopenness of conflicts at the group level. This scale had acoefficient alpha of .74.

Performance, Individual performance was measured byperformance appraisal ratings, departmental records(computerized production records and error reports), andsupervisors' ratings of individuals. The company conductedits semiannual performance appraisals during the month Iconducted the study. The employee's immediate supervisorevaluated him or her on a scale from 0 = "Unsatisfactory"to 4 = "Extremely Satisfactory." The appraisals took intoaccount the employee's individual performance, productivity,efficiency (speed and accuracy), and error rate (if applicable).In a separate survey that I administered at the same time asthe employee survey, I also asked supervisors to rate eachemployee's individual work in the work unit on a 7-pointLikert scale with anchors of 1 = "Not at All Effective" to 7= "Very Effective."

Departmental records contained individual performancelevels, standardized by the firm's quality development andcontrol program. These standards incorporated productivityand error rate. For example, employees in thecommunication department sorted and delivered mail, sentfaxes and telexes, and monitored the switchboard.Productivity in the task of sorting mail was measured by theweight in ounces of the mail processed, while the error ratewas calculated by the amount of mail sorted incorrectly. Thestandardized level of productivity of a coding task performedby employees in another unit was measured by the numberof codes entered correctly, minus five times the number ofcodes entered incorrectly, to reflect the severity of an error.This was automatically calculated by the employee'scomputer. The company's standards of performance wereset by organizational quality development analysts, whoobserved each employee performing the tasks involved ineach job and set standards based on the mean of allemployees performing the task, increased by the amount bywhich the best performer outperformed the next-bestperformer. This, according to the quality developmentdirector, "pushes the employees to continually improve."The company attempts to update the standards yearly and ifthe standard seems unreasonably low compared with pastanalyses, analysts conduct a more thorough evaluation ofthe employees and changes in techniques and procedures.Weekly reports were printed for each work unit showing thedeviation above or below the standard for each employee onhis or her various tasks.

Group performance was assessed from departmentalrecords provided and standardized by the firm and bysupervisors' ratings of the groups. The quality developmentanalysts set work-unit standards for each work unit using aprocedure similar to the one described above for individual

265/ASQ, June 1995

performance standards. Because few units perfornned theexact tasks as other units, the work unit standards werebased on adjusted nneans of past performance when therewere no direct comparison groups. The weekly work-unitreports included the deviation above or below the standardfor each group task. Production records were not availablefor top management teams, so I measured theirperformance by aggregating performance appraisals andused the ratings given them by their supervisors, typically avice president, on the questionnaire I administered to thesupervisors. Supervisors, managers, and vice presidentsrated their work units on a Likert scale of 1 = "Not at AllEffective" to 7 = "Very Effective," Following the procedurerecommended by Rousseau (1985) for cross-level analysis, Iaveraged individual responses on each of the independent,moderator, and control variables for each work unit for theanalysis of the group-level dependent variables (Rousseau,1985), Questions focused on the work unit, which Idetermined from a report listing who reports to whom andverified with the unit members. The average intragroupinterrater correlations for each variable was between ,75 and,87, In addition, I calculated the eta squared, which indicateswhether any two people within the same group are moresimilar than two people who are members of differentgroups. These results exceeded Georgopoulos' (1986: 40)minimum criteria of ,20, indicating that it is appropriate toaggregate the variables into group-level variables for theanalysis of group performance.

Individuals' reactions. Individual satisfaction with the groupwas measured by a 5-point Likert question and the Kunin(1955) faces scale. Members responded to the Kunin facesscale by circling the face that indicated how happy theywere working in their group. These two items werecombined for an individual satisfaction measure that had acoefficient alpha of ,79, Four items measured attitudestoward other unit members (i,e,, liking), with a coefficientalpha of ,73, Intent to remain in the group was measuredusing a three-item version of Kraut's (1975) measure oftenure intentions. This version included members' intentionsto remain in their work unit and had a coefficient alpha of,83,

Control variables. Past research shows that group size,tenure with the firm, group composition and demographics(Nieva, Fleishman, and Rieck, 1978; Gladstein, 1984), groupgoals (Locke et al,, 1981; Weldon, Jehn, and Pradhan, 1991),and degree of conflict resolution (Brett, 1991) influenceperformance and individuals' reactions. These variables werecontrolled in this study, I measured group size, tenure withthe firm, and individual demographics by asking members toreport the number by filling in a blank or checking theappropriate category (i,e,, 12-16 years of education, 16-1-years of education). The three-item measure of goalsimilarity had a coefficient alpha of ,83, The three-itemmeasure of conflict resolution had a coefficient alpha of ,84,

Additional Data

Because conflict is often a sensitive issue in groups, Icollected qualitative data from interviews and through

266/ASQ, June 1995

Intragroup Conflict

observing groups to verify the accuracy of the quantitativedata and see if there were hidden issues about conflict thatmight emerge in interviews or be played out in members'behaviors. I conducted 165 semistructured interviews with55 group members, which I tape recorded. Theinterview-guide questions are provided in Appendix B. Iconducted three interviews, ranging from 15 minutes to twohours, with each group member (x = 68 minutes). Inaddition, I also observed six workgroups over a three-monthperiod, each for a minimum of three to four hours each dayof observation (one to two days per week for four to sixweeks). I observed the groups on a rotating basis so that Isaw each group at various times throughout the workday. Itook extensive notes, writing down all behaviors Iwitnessed, the order of events, and discussion among groupmembers.

I transcribed the interviews from the recorded tapes and thenotes taken during observation into a text analysis program,ArchiText (Steffin and Jennings, 1988). The program indexedthe terms in each interview both alphabetically and byfrequency of occurrence. I conducted content analysis toanalyze systematically the topics and themes discussed inthe interviews (Schneider, Wheeler, and Cox, 1992). Tocategorize the interview texts, I created keyword listscontaining words (often synonyms) that referred to eachvariable of interest, using the thesaurus snowball techniquedeveloped by Jehn and Werner (1992), In this process,terms from basic theories are used as starting points to builda keyword list. For example, terms from Heider's (1958)theory of interpersonal relationships, as well as Guetzkowand Gyr's (1954) examples of substantive (task) and affective(relationship) conflict were starting points for the two conflictkeyword lists. Next, I used thesauruses to developcomprehensive lists of terms related to the theory terms. Ireferenced each theory term and noted synonyms and thenreferenced and noted synonyms until the synonyms werethe terms already in the keyword list. The number of timesan informant or a group mentions a keyword can beidentified by the frequency counts, but the meaningsurrounding the term (e.g,, a high level of relationshipconflict or a low level of relationship conflict) cannot.Therefore, three raters, blind to the purpose of the study,and I read all interview texts and observation notes. Each ofus coded the context of each keyword as to whether itprovided information about the variables in the model (i.e.,task conflict, conflict norms) and assigned a context ratingon a 7-point Likert scale (1 = "very low level" to 7 = "veryhigh level") for each variable. The trichotomized levels forthe variables are shown in Table 2 below. The averageinterrater reliability was .93.

Quantitative Analysis

I conducted regressions to test the proposed hypothesesabout conflict and performance and individual reactions. Foreach regression, the control variables were entered in step1, the main effect variables in step 2, and the interactionvariables in step 3 (Cohen and Cohen, 1983). Regressionswere also performed to examine the changes in fl^ betweenthe linear and quadratic regression equations to examine

267/ASQ, June 1995

curvilinear effects. I examined the polynonnial equations tofind the inflection points and shape of the curves (Neter,Wassernnan, and kutner, 1985).

RESULTS

Intragroup Conflict

The 589 responses to the conflict questions were factoranalyzed using principal connponent analysis and weresubjected to oblique rotation because of the presunnedinterrelatedness of the conflict constructs. Table 1 providesthe results of the factor analysis of the intragroup conflictitenns. The eigenvalues above 1.0 and the scree plotsuggested a two-factor solution, in support of the theoreticaldistinction of two types of conflict. Items with loadingsabove .40 on the first factor reflected the amount ofrelationship conflict present in the group. The second factorcontained items reflecting the level of task conflict in thegroup. The two factors accounted for 79 percent of thevariance in the responses.

Table 1

Factor Analysis of Intragroup Conflict Kerns

.717

.694

.664

.642

.018

.062

.243

.287

-.106-.066-.170-.266

.878

.836

.539-.430

F1 F2Relationship Task

Item conflict conflict

1. How much friction is there among members in your work unit?2. How much are personality conflicts evident in your work unit?3. How much tension is there among members in your work unit?4. How much emotional conflict is there among members in your work unit?5. How often do people in your work unit disagree about opinions regarding

the work being done?6. How frequently are there conflicts about ideas in your work unit?7. How much conflict about the work you do is there in your work unit?8. To what extent are there differences of opinion in your work unit?

The qualitative data also demonstrate that two types ofconflict (relationship and task) existed within the groups andat varying levels, as shown in Table 2, which summarizesthe group-level data. One member of the InternationalMoves group, in talking about her conflicts about the task(decisions about projects), stressed that such conflicts causeno personal animosities in the group:

We, I think, are not afraid to express ourselves [and our] differentopinion(s) on the subject. We sit down in a discussion and talkabout it—the group is Jon, Jeff, Mary, and myself—, okay, and wecan openly express ourselves and fight about any type of situationin our group or cutting across the groups. And there's really no fearof any type of retribution whether it's directly, or you know, theperson getting excited and holding a grudge behind your back orsomebody trying to make it uncomfortable for you in the future.

Another member of this team was even more explicit aboutthe low level of relationship conflict in the group: "See,what's good about here, at least from my point of view, isthat there's not a lot of petty b.s. That I'm not gonna run inthere and go 'I don't like the way this guy dresses,' 'He'stwo minutes late for work,' blah, blah, blah." Members ofthis team did not concern themselves with personal criticism

268/ASQ, June 1995

Intragroup Conflict

and gossip about other members, yet they did realize thatthese types of conflicts existed separate from task-relateddisagreements.

My field notes and the informants' descriptions of conflictoccurrences also provide examples of behavior connectedwith each type of conflict. The following excerpt from myfield notes of the group responsible for communicationprocesses in the international division describes arelationship conflict:

Table 2

Group Descriptions*

Group Task type

Management—InternationalMoves

Marketing—Special Moves

CommunicationDomestic CodersManagement—

GovernmentContracts

Foreign Coders

• NR = nonroutine, R

NR

NRRR

NRR

= routine.

Conflict

Relationship

Low

LowHighMedium

LowHigh

All groups had

Task

High

LowLowLow

HighMedium

high levels

Open Conflict Norms

Task

Yes

YesYesNo

YesNo

Relationship

No

NoNoYes

NoYes

of interdependence (F =

Performance

High

MediumLowLow

HighMedium

3,23, n,s,).

Satisfaction

Medium

HighMediumMedium

HighLow

It was during lunch time when the phones were ringing and no onewas there, Pat was on lunch break and went over to the phone.She looked around, put her hands on her hips, and pouted a bit.Then she picked up the phone. She was very polite to the personon the phone and then slammed the receiver down (the customerdoes not hear this).

After lunch, Pat confronted the group member who wasresponsible for the switchboard while Pat was supposed tobe on break, A heated disagreement followed, because Patassumed, correctly, that the other group member was takingextra time on her break to smoke, two things (taking extratime and smoking) that Pat greatly disapproved of. Infollow-up interviews, both members stated that the fight hadnothing to do with work but with different views aboutpersonal habits and preferences. This turned out to be anongoing area of contention in this group, which othermembers mentioned as causing strain on the personalrelationships.

While the emotion wasn't generated by relationship conflict,task conflicts warranted overt displays as well, as a memberof the International Moves explained: "If it's [businessdisagreement] an important concept there will be a lot ofyelling; there's even been times when people bang their fiston the table or slam the door. It's usually when people aretrying to make a point about their idea or opinion. We've alldone it. We are a very vocal group when it comes to ourideas about intemational strategy,"

The Effects of Conflict in Organizational GroupsTable 3 provides means, standard deviations, eta-squaredterms for the group-level variables, and correlations between

269/ASQ, June 1995

Table 3

Means, Standard Deviations, and

Variable

1, Performance appraisal2, Supervisor report3, Production report4, Satisfaction with group5, Liking6, Intent to remain7. Group size8. Tenure9, Age

10, Gender11, Education12, Goal similarity13. Degree of resolution14, Relationship conflict15. Task conflict16. Task type17. Interdependence18. Conflict norms

Mean (individual) Is,d.Mean (group)s,d.

intercorreiations*

1

_.33.34.07,06,14

-,16-,00.00

-,02,10.04,10

-.04,03

-.21.04.04

2.48.66_-

2

_-.21.13.20.16

- .31.00

- .03- .09

.08

.08

.19- .13

.09- .28- .00

.19

3.89.68

3.88.74

3

_,24—

-.05.01.12

- .22.10.07

- .08.02

- .04- .01- .02

.05- .09

.06- .05

5.161.305.171.50

• Correlations below the diagonal are individual-level variables (N = 541;< .05); those above the diagonal <3re group-level variables {N = 93; all.05). The diagonal contains the eta-squared terms in bold type for the c

4

_,34

- ,06—.68.57

- .00,05,15

- .02- ,03

.43

.58- ,54- .31- ,23

,10,33

4,441.204.36

,92

5

.16- .07

,03-.28.10.12.19

- .01- .10

,19.22

- .22- .18- .25- .01

.08

3.70.85

3.66.61

6

_.40.05.65.12_.16,08.23.05

- .18.21,27

- .23- .14- .07

,04,10

3.371.453.36

.93

7

_,11

- .29,04.11

- .03_

- .04- .13

.05- .07

.05

.02

.01- .03

.12

.01

.09

7.364.776,383.24

all correlations above .05 are significant at pcorrelations above .jroup-level variables.

14 are significant at p <

the variables in the model. In general, relationship and taskconflict were negatively correlated with individuals' positivereactions. The relationships between conflict andperformance are more complex and are examined in theregression analyses. The measures of satisfaction, liking, andintent to remain are highly correlated because they reflectthe positive attitudes that members have about their groupand their fellow group members. The performance measuresare also correlated, indicating that the performanceappraisals, the supervisors' reports, and the departmentalrecords measure similar aspects of performance. Asexpected, the conflict variables were somewhat correlated(r = - ,17, p < ,05),

Table 4 presents the hierarchical regression analyses of thesurvey data. The overall model of intragroup conflict wassupported, as indicated by the significance of the regressionequations. The variables in the model explain up to 36percent of the variance in performance and up to 48 percentof the variance in individuals' reactions. The hierarchicalregressions indicate overwhelmingly that the addition of themain effects and the interactions explain a significantamount of variance in performance and individuals' positivereactions, providing support for the model of intragroupconflict. These findings hold after controlling for otherpotential explanatory variables (i,e,, level of education, groupsize, tenure with the firm), making this a conservative test ofthe model.

Relationship conflict. Hierarchical regression resultsreported in Table 4 support HI , that the more relationshipconflict members perceive, the lower their satisfaction,liking, and intent to stay. There is no support for H2a and

270/ASQ, June 1995

Table 3

8

,06,12,18

- .01.25

- .08,23.14

- .07- ,02

,48,62

- .40- .18- .29

.37,37

91.3778.9093,7548.80

(continued)

9

,11- .10

.25,09.30.03.50,19

- .07- ,00

,53,56

- .42- .19- .13

.39,39

3.181.103,23

,67

10

,09.05

- .06- .20- .14

.08- .21- .06

,18- .03

,43,41

- .41- .22- .02- .02

.23

1.69.46

1.68,54

11

.02,26

- ,04- .09- ,05- .13

,00- .06- .34

,25.32.34

- .24- .14- ,02- ,00

.22

2.75.63

2.80.45

Intragroup

12

,46- .12

.57- .03

.39

.08

.24,26

- .06- .08

,30,22

- ,18,08.04.03.16

3.541.023.56

,70

Conflict

13

.55

.09

.78

.06,44

- ,03,22,20

- .10.07,65.49

- ,05.02.05

- .00.14

3.46,92

3,47.63

14

- .14- .08- ,57- ,08- .48

,09- .26- .09

.12- .17- .44- .57

,47- ,17-,22

1116

2,251.182.23

.81

15

,15- .03- .35

,02- .31

.11- .12- ,21- .14

.06- .41- .43- ,22

,34- ,18

,09.10

2.661.052.61

.71

16

- .06- .26- .31- .08- .43

.08- .39- ,24

.40- .45- ,19- .37

.23

.12,49.05

- .03

3.00,59

2.96.45

17

- .04.27.09,03.07.11.10,15

- .00.12

- ,02,11

- .06.02

- ,23,32.02

2.22.74

2.23,48

18

.16

.25

.53

.18

.27- .06

.27

.09- .07

.10,49,73

- .59- .22- .21

.12,30

3,091,283,10

.79

H2b, that relationship conflict will be negatively associatedwith individual or group performance. While the quantitativedata show no effect of relationship conflict on performance,it did affect members' perceptions of their groups. Theinterviews and observation revealed that members werepsychologically distressed when there were frequentarguments about interpersonal issues among members. Thelanguage was harsh (i,e,, bitch, asshole, jerk) and behavioralresponses were strong (i,e,, slamming doors, pouting,crying, or "tearing up"), A member of the Communicationgroup told me: "Personality conflicts between creativepeople. So, and at that time, Trina sat over here, and that'swhen we first had problems was because her radio was tooloud and she was a bitch," These interpersonal problemsmanifested themselves in intense dislike and frustration, asin this comment: "Trina and I don't get along, we never willget along. We dislike each other and that's all there is to it,"A member of the Foreign Coders group expressedexasperation with such conflicts: "Personality conflicts.Personality conflicts, I can't handle it," The members ofthese groups consistently reported low levels of satisfaction,intent to remain, and liking on their surveys.

Task conflict. Hypothesis 3, on task conflict and individuals'reactions, was partially supported by the regressionanalyses. Task conflict was negatively related to satisfactionand intent to remain (beta = - ,13 and - ,16, respectively,p < ,01), A group member from the International Moves unitexplained that "even though it [task conflict] seems to helpmake a decision, it still is uncomfortable, I don't know if Ilike working in a group where there is so much arguing,"

The hypothesized interactions of task conflict and task type(H4a, 4b, 5a, and 5b) were supported for individual andgroup performance as rated by supervisors (beta = - ,25

271/ASQ, June 1995

and - .54, and p < ,01 and ,05, respectively) and individualproduction reports (beta = - .29, p < .05). To betterunderstand the interaction, I dichotomized task type intoroutine task groups and nonroutine task groups andperfornned regressions without the task variable. In resultsnot shown here, task conflict, as predicted, was consistentlynegatively related to perfornnance in routine-task groups buthad a positive effect in nonroutine-task groups (individualproductivity and group productivity had betas of ,29 and .33,respectively, p < ,01),

Mennbers of effective nonroutine-task groups, like theInternational Moves group, displayed high levels of conflictover task issues. In groups perfornning routine tasks,nnembers generally felt that the task-related conflicts weredetrimental and contributed to the low performance anddissatisfaction of members, as did one member of theDomestic Coders group: "We do discuss different codesand the details of some things, but it just seems to interferewith getting things done and we all just do it the way wehad been doing it anyway. It's kind of counterproductive."This employee went on to clarify this scenario: "We seemto fight about these things and they typically can't bechanged because that's the way the job has to be done. Sothe arguments just seem to get in the way of the work."

To test the hypothesized curvilinear relationship betweentask conflict and performance, I performed hierarchicalregressions. In results not shown here, the change in R^from step 1 (linear model) to step 2 (curvilinear model;quadratics added) was significant for performance appraisals(F change = 2.71, p < .05) and marginally significant forgroup performance (F change = 2.31, p < ,10), All of thecurvilinear equations examining individual and groupperformance explained more variance than the linearequations. When predicting individual performance in groupsin which members perform nonroutine tasks, the inflectionpoint of task conflict is at point (x,y) = 5,25, 3,63, with the/-intercept at 2,07 and the curve opening upward. Thus taskconflict is positively related to individual performance up to acertain point (at x = 5,25, representing a high amount oftask conflict), beyond which individual performance declines,which supports hypothesis 4a, Similar curves are found fornonroutine-task groups when group performance (groupsupervisors' reports and group production reports) isexamined, providing support for H4b.

When predicting individual performance in groups performingroutine tasks, the inflection point of task conflict is at point(x,/) = 2.16, 5.04, with the /-intercept at 4.68 and the curveopening downward. Thus task conflict is positively related toperformance up to a certain point (atx = 2.16, representinga low amount of task conflict), beyond which individualperformance declines, supporting hypothesis 5a. A similarrelationship is found for routine-task groups when groupsupervisors' reports are examined, providing support forH5b. An excerpt from a member of the Domestic Codersgroup, a group performing routine tasks, illustrates aninstance in which a small amount of task conflict wasbeneficial, as hypothesized and supported by the surveyresults: "We have meetings on a iot of the stuff. As far as

272/ASQ, June 1995

Intragroup Conflict

Table 4

Hierarchical

Step 1:Controlvariables

Group sizeTenureAgeGenderEducationGoal

similarityDegree of

resolutionR̂F

Step 2: Maineffects

Conflictnorms (N)

Interdepen-dence (1)

Task type(TT)

Relationshipconflict(RC)

Task conflict(TO

TC^Change in R'FchangeR̂

Step 3:Interac-tions

TC X TTRC X 1TC X 1RC X NTC X NChange in R̂FchangeR̂Adjusted R̂F

* p < .05; **p• Standardized

Regression

Satisfactionwith group(N = 549)

.02- .04

.09*

.03- .04

.18***

.49***

.37543.27***

- .06

.07*

- .13**

- .22***

— .16***

- .29**.097

15.34***.472

- .36**.24*

- .13- .15*

.17

.0151.75**.487.465

22.21***

< .01; ***p <

Analyses*

Liking(N = 565)

- . 04*.00

- .04- .03- .04

.34***

.39***

.40248.92***

.04

.07*

- .04

— .13***

- .02

- .05.030

4.37***.432

- .15.47***

- .23*- .34**- .17*

.0688.48**

.500

.47823.62***

.001.betas are reported.

Intentto remain(N= 518)

- .05- .01

.11**- .03- .08

.10*

.27***

.14011.87***

- .06

.06

- .16**

- .29***

- .13*

.05

.11813.44***

.258

- .53***.19

- .15- .05- .10

.0161.38**.274.244

8.96***

Performanceappraisal(/V=471)

- .15***.01.00.03.09*

- .00

.09

.0422.92**

- .04

.01

- .19**

.01

- .06

.12*

.0342.83**

.076

.11

.32

.18- .03

.14

.0161.02.092.051

2.20***

Individual

Supervisorreport

(/V = 445)

- .30***.04

-.07- .05

.03-.01

.18***

.1348.82***

.10*

- .04

- . 2 1 * * *

- .01

.20*

- .17.048

3.89***.181

- .25**.45**.37*.01.11.031

1.93*.212.171

5.00***

Productionreport

(/V = 361)

- .22***.10.02

- .05.00

- .06

- .01

.0633.35***

- .05

.06

- .05

.02

.13*

- .09.012.70.078

- .29*- .22

.40*

.01

.20*

.009

.42

.088

.0271.45*

Group

Supervisorreport

(/V = 88)

.01

.14- .20- .05- .03- .10

.16

.048

.59

.16

- .04

- .04

- .23

- .33*

.33*

.1382.12*

.186

- .54*.46.22

- .33.05.099

1.61*.285.090

1.45

Productionreport

(/V = 76)

- .24*.24*

- .15.19.25*

- .22

.20

.2342.79**

.43**

.22

- .24*

.28

- .20

- . 4 1 * *.156

2.47*.390

- .10-.07

.36

.23

.54*

.1412.60*

.531

.3603.09***

how to code tonnage of the drivers and profit. We havesome discussions and some disagreements. It helps to getthings straightened out." This was the same informant whohad told me earlier that task conflict was counterproductive.When I asked him to clarify this, he explained that smallconflicts seem to be helpful, but when the level of conflictincreased in his or other similar teams, it caused disruptionsin process and time delays that interfered with performance.Observation also indicated that a small amount of conflictassisted in attaining a more efficient level of functioningwhen it led to readjusting standard operating procedures. Forexample, some conflict occurred in the Communicationsgroup about the efficiency of making hard copies of telexeswhen they are automatically saved by the system.

273/ASQ, June 1995

Interdependence. There was partial support for hypotheses6a, 6b, and 6c, on the level of interdependence in a taskgroup and the association between conflict and individuals'reactions and individual and group performance, respectively.The results were mixed, however, depending on the type ofconflict. The effect of relationship conflict on outcomes(individual performance rated by supervisors, satisfaction,liking; beta = ,45, ,24, ,47; p < ,01, ,05, ,001, respectively)was generally greater in highly interdependent groups, andthe effect of task conflict was greater in groups with lowlevels of interdependence (individual performance rated bysupervisors and production reports, and liking; beta = ,37,,40, - ,23, respectively, p < ,05),

The interviews illuminate how relationship conflicts wereintensified by a high level of interdependence amongmembers. The increased interaction, the interdependentnature of the job, and the physical setup of the unit, whichpromoted close interaction but caused infringements onpeople's personal space, all were given as factors thatincrease relationship conflict, A member of theCommunication group explained it this way: "We're sointerdependent on each other to be there. You know, if bothswitchboard operators were missing then we would not beable to do our job because we'd have to do the telephonejob. If we were both missing then one person would have to, , , you know, it's just so intertwined so that when someoneisn't there and is out visiting, that's kind of frowned on,"

Conflict norms. Hypothesis 7a, on the effect of conflictnorms on individuals' reactions, was partially supported fortask conflict. When predicting liking among members, normspromoting openness increased the negative effect of taskconflict (beta = - ,17, p < ,05), Hypotheses 7b and 7c, onthe effect of conflict norms on individual and groupperformance, respectively, were supported for task conflict.When predicting individual and group performance, normspromoting openness enhanced the beneficial effects of taskconflict (beta = ,20 and ,54, respectively, p < ,05), Theinterviews and observation provide illustrations of the impactof norms for openness on the benefits of task conflict. Inhigh-performing nonroutine-task groups, members statedthat "we ,, , are not afraid to express ourselves" and "wecan openly express ourselves," In addition, as a member ofthe International Moves group told me: "If a decision isbeing made, if someone is contemplating implementing adecision or a new process, I think I'm being open-mindedabout it. There's really no fear of any type of retribution,"And another member of the same group said, "You know,just being comfortable with a person and joking around withthe person and knowing you can talk about any subject, Ithink that means a lot and helps us get the job done," Myobservation indicated that the norms allowed an open,healthy, constructive atmosphere about task conflict in thesehigh-performing groups. This atmosphere permittedmembers to investigate various alternatives and thereforeperform well on their nonroutine tasks.

There was a significant interaction between relationshipconflict and group conflict norms in the opposite direction ofthat proposed: Groups with relationship conflict and

274/ASQ, June 1995

Intragroup Conflict

conflict-avoidance norms had higher satisfaction and likinglevels than groups with relationship conflict and opennessnorms (beta = - ,15 and - ,54 ; p < ,05 and ,01,respectively). The qualitative data suggested that norms ofopenness about conflict did not provide an atmosphere ofacceptance and forgiveness among members; rather, theconflict escalated and became more vicious. The ForeignCoding group had strong norms of openness aboutrelationship conflict and a high number of very intenserelationship conflicts. The members of this group were verydissatisfied and were actively looking for escapes from thegroup (i,e,, longer breaks, internal and external job searches,temporary transfers to other units),

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The study reported here makes a contribution to existingresearch on intraorganizational conflict, group processes, andgroup outcomes by specifying when conflict is and is notbeneficial. The results indicate that the type of task groupmembers perform affects whether conflict helps, hinders, orhas no significant impact on individual and groupperformance. In groups performing routine tasks,disagreements about the content of the task were generallydetrimental to group functioning. The task-related conflictsinterfered with the routine, standardized processes anddistracted employees from their "real" work (i,e,, meetingquotas and quality requirements). In addition, anysuggestions prompted by conflicts over task issues ingroups with routine tasks were usually in vain, sincemembers continued to "do it the way [they] had been doingit anyway," In contrast, in groups performing nonroutinetasks, disagreements about the task did not have adetrimental effect and, in some cases, were actuallybeneficial. The interviews and observations illustrated thateffective nonroutine-task groups often had high levels oftask conflict and norms promoting open discussion of taskissues. The open discussions and conflicts about taskcontent promoted critical evaluation of problems anddecision options, a process crucial to the performance ofnonroutine tasks. Thoughtless agreement and complacency,which can have disastrous effects (Janis, 1982), were alsodecreased by the task-related conflicts.

The results also show that the effects of task conflict arenot strictly linear in task groups. Curvilinear analysesindicated that there was an optimal level of task conflict innonroutine-task groups. My observation of the groups andinterviews with the members indicated that an absence ofconflict was associated with complacency about problemsand decisions. As task-related arguments increased,members found that they were better able to criticallyassess information related to their job. High levels ofconflict, however, interfered with group performance.Members became overwhelmed with the amount ofconflicting information and continuously became side-trackedand lost sight of the main or original goal of the discussion.Additionally, while high levels of task conflict weredetrimental to productive work processes in groupsperforming routine tasks, because of confusion overresponsibilities and time management problems, low levels

275/ASQ, June 1995

were often necessary for effectively delegating tasks andallocating resources.

Relationship conflict was detrinnental regardless of the typeof task the group was perfornning. Personal problems thatwere considered petty were seen as detrimental tosatisfaction and to the group's long-term survival. Therelationship conflicts caused distress and animosity amongmembers, encouraging withdrawal. Task-related conflictsalso sometimes decreased members' satisfaction andincreased their intent to leave the group, even though innonroutine-task groups with openness norms about taskconflict, members not only performed well but were quitesatisfied despite the high ievel of conflict. Interestingly, eventhough task-related discussions and arguments may assistnonroutine groups in performing well, members may be verydissatisfied with the process and want to leave. Onepossible explanation is that certain group members mayhave their own preferences for being open about or avoidingconflict, and even productive task conflict may make themuncomfortable. These paradoxical effects of task conflictmay be one explanation for some of the discrepancies inpast studies investigating the link between satisfaction andperformance (e.g., Staw and Barsade, 1993).

The results of the survey did not support the hypothesis thatrelationship conflict would be negatively related to group andindividual performance, which is consistent with past studiesof the effect of interpersonal relations on performance (e.g.,Mullen and Cooper, 1994). The interviews and observationsillustrate that while relationship troubles cause greatdissatisfaction, the conflicts may not influence work as muchas expected, because the members involved in the conflictschoose to avoid working with those with whom theyexperience conflict. Some group members attempted toredesign their work area or job in the group so that they nolonger would have to interact with the others involved in theconflict, sometimes by moving to another desk or gettingneeded information from another source.

The survey results on the impact of task interdependenceand group conflict norms on the relationship betweenconflict and various group outcomes were quite complex.Interdependence did not consistently influence therelationship between conflict and performance andindividuals' reactions. Interdependence increased thenegative impact of relationship conflict, as expected, butdecreased the negative impact of task conflict on individuals'reactions. Members of nonroutine task groups stated thatthey realized they must work together and havedisagreements and discussions about task-content issues tocomplete the group task. This may have therefore lessenedthe tendency of these members to feel dissatisfied aboutthese necessary task-focused arguments. As hypothesized,the task conflicts did have a greater impact on performancein interdependent groups. This is consistent with thecontingency approach, proposed by Van de Ven (1976),which asserts that not only will conflict be more likely ininterdependent units but that it will be necessary to processthe high levels of information and uncertainty present inthese units. In addition. Van de Ven and Ferry (1980) stated

276/ASQ, June 1995

Intragroup Conflict

that the task conflicts in interdependent units would helpprovide a clear understanding of goals, expectations, andbehaviors, increasing performance and also lessening thenegative impact of the arguments on individuals' reactions.In contrast, members in groups performing routine tasksreported that the interdependence of members magnifiedthe negative impact of task conflicts because the disruptionsin the process of standardized functions "interfered with theinteraction needed to complete the task effectively," In lessdependent groups, members tended to focus on their owntasks, despite the conflicts, and not interfere with the workof others,

I hypothesized that conflict norms promoting opennesswould increase the beneficial aspects of conflict and thatconflict-avoidance norms would increase the detrimentaleffects. In actuality, while openness norms did increase thebeneficial aspects of task-related conflict on performance,they also increased the negative impact of relationshipconflict rather than diminishing its negative effects. Groupswith conflict-avoidance norms about relationship conflictshad more satisfied members than groups with opennessnorms. This finding contradicts much of the past groupresearch on T-groups and process consultation (Campbelland Dunnette, 1968) and conflict resolution (Van de Ven andFerry, 1980; Brett, 1984) that suggests that open, honestcommunication and confrontation promotes effective groupinteraction. It is consistent, however, with more recentresearch by Murnighan and Conlon (1991), who found thatsuccessful string quartets did not openly discuss heatedinterpersonal conflicts, recognizing that these conflicts couldbe counterproductive. The successful quartets resolved theirconflicts by compromises (i,e,, taking turns), staying focusedon the task, and leaving interpersonal or external conflicts(i,e,, personality problems, trouble at home) aside. Similar tothe successful groups in the present study, the norms aboutrelationship conflict in Murnighan and Conlon's successfulgroups were to avoid it; members were discouraged fromventing interpersonal problems.

The cross-sectional survey design used in this study limitstesting a dynamic model of conflict, raising a number ofinteresting questions for future research, A dynamic modelof conflict would take into account the possibility that onetype of conflict may change into another type. Task conflictthat is not resolved may be transformed into relationshipconflict; alternatively, a relationship conflict may bemanifested in a task conflict episode. The cross-sectionaldesign also limits my ability to untangle causal relationshipsin the model. Not only does conflict influence performanceand individuals' reactions, but past performance and affectmay influence the level and type of conflict in the group.When members perform well, like the other members of thegroup, and intend to work together again, they will mostlikely have fewer relationship conflicts. By contrast, ifmembers realize that their arguments about the task assistthem in reaching an excellent decision, they may promotecritical debate and task conflicts in future interactions, Alongitudinal design could be used to examine the factors thataffect the onset and duration of conflict, the changes in

277/ASQ, June 1995

conflict over time, the factors that transform conflict fromone type to another, and the inconsistencies between latentand manifest conflict.

Past theorizing has suggested that conflict may havebeneficial functions in organizations. While past empiricalresearch has been contradictory, the data from this studyillustrate the various beneficial and detrimental roles ofconflict in different types of organizational groups, rangingfrom production groups to executive decision-making teams.This study also shows that conflict is a complexphenomenon that, in an organizational context, can beinterpersonal or task-focused, destructive or productive, andcan be managed, ignored, or barely tolerated. The modeldeveloped here is a first step in creating an integratedperspective that helps us see beyond the sources andmanagement of conflict and explore the true power of thisforce in organizations.

REFERENCES

Amason, Allen C, and David M,Schweiger1994 "Resolving the paradox of

conflict, strategic decisionmaking, and organizationalperfornnance," InternationalJournal of ConflictManagement, 5: 239-253,

Argyrls, Chris1962 Interpersonal Competence

and OrganizationalEffectiveness, Homewood, IL:Dorsey,

Ashby, W, Ross1956 An Introduction to

Cybernetics, London:Methuen,

Barnard, Chester I,1938 The Functions of the

Executive, Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press,

Baron, Robert A,1990 "Countering the effects of

destructive criticism: Therelative efficacy of fourinterventions," Journal ofApplied Psychology, 75:235-245,

1991 "Positive effects of conflict: Acognitive perspective,"Employee Responsibilities andRights Journal, 4: 25-36,

Bettenhausen, Kenneth, and J,Keith Murnighan1985 "The emergence of norms in

competitive decision-makinggroups," AdministrativeScience Quarterly, 30:350-372,

Boulding, Kenneth1963 Conflict and Defense, New

York: Harper & Row,

Bourgeois, L, J,1980 "Performance and

consensus," StrategicManagement Journal, 1:227-248,

1985 "Strategic goals,environmental uncertainty,and economic performance involatile environments,"Academy of ManagementJoumal, 28: 548-573,

Brehmer, Berndt1976 "Social judgment theory and

the analysis of interpersonalconflict," PsychologicalBulletin, 83: 985-1003,

Brett, Jeanne M,1984 "Managing organizational

conflict," ProfessionalPsychology: Research andPractice, 15: 644-678,

1991 "Negotiating groupdecisions," NegotiationJournal, 7: 291-310,

Brown, L, David1983 Managing Conflict at

Organizational Interfaces,Reading, MA:Addison-Wesley,

Campbell, H, P., and Marvin D,Dunnette1968 "Effectiveness of the T-group

experience in managerialtraining and development,"Psychological Bulletin,70: 73-104,

Cohen, Jacob, and Patricia Cohen1983 Applied Multiple

Regression/CorrelationAnalysis for the BehavioralSciences, Hillsdale, NJ:Eribaum,

Cosier, Richard, and Dan Dalton1990 "Positive effects of conflict: A

field assessment,"International Joumal ofConflict Management, 1:81-92,

Eisenhardt, Kathleen, and ClaudiaSchoonhoven1990 "Organizational growth:

Linking founding team,strategy, environment, andgrowth among U,S,semiconductor ventures,1978-1988," AdministrativeScience Ouarterly, 35:504-529,

Evan, William1965 "Conflict and performance in

R&D organizations," IndustrialManagement Review, 7:37-46,

Fiol, C, Marlene1994 "Consensus, diversity, and

learning in organizations,"Organization Science, 5:403^20,

Galbraith, Jay R,1973 Designing Complex

Organizations, Reading, MA:Addison-Wesley,

Georgopoulos, Basil Spyros1986 Organizational Structure,

Problem Solving, andEffectiveness, San Francisco:Jossey-Bass,

Gersick, Connie J. G,1989 "Marking time: Predictable

transitions in task groups,"Academy of ManagementJournal, 32: 274-309,

Gladstein, Deborah L.1984 "A model of task group

effectiveness," AdministrativeScience Ouarterly, 29:499-517,

278/ASQ, June 1995

Intragroup Conflict

Guetzkow, Harold, and John Gyr1954 "An analysis of conflict in

decision-making groups,"Human Relations. 7: 367-381,

Guzzo, Richard A.1986 "Group decision making and

group effectiveness inorganizations," In Paul S,Goodman (ed,). DesigningEffective Work Groups:34-71, San Francisco:Jossey-Bass,

Hackman, J. Richard1987 "The design of v /̂ork teams,"

In J, W, Lorsch (ed,).Handbook of OrganizationalBehavior: 315-342,Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall,

Hackman, J. Richard, Kenneth R.Brousseau, and Jon A. Weiss1976 "The interaction of task

design and group performancestrategies in determininggroup effectiveness,"Organizational Behavior andHuman Performance, 16:350-365,

Hackman, J. Richard, and Greg R.Oldham1975 "Development of the Job

Diagnostic Survey," Journal ofApplied Psychology. 60:159-170,

Hall, Richard H,1972 Organizations. Structure, and

Process, Englewood Cliffs.NJ: Prentice-Hall,

Hedberg, Bo, Paul Nystrom, andWilliam Starbuck1976 "Camping on seesaws:

Prescriptions for aself-designing organization,"Administrative ScienceOuarterly. 21: 41-65,

Heider, Fritz1958 The Psychology of

Interpersonal Relations, NewYork: Wiley,

Janis, Irving L1982 Groupthink, Boston:

Houghton-Mifflin,

Jehn, Karen A., and OswaldWerner1992 "Theory, a thesaurus, and

word frequency," CulturalAnthropology Method, 5:8-10,

Kelley, Harold H.1979 Personal Relationships: Their

Structure and Prophecies,Hillsdaie. NJ: Eribaum,

Kraut, Allen1975 "Predicting turnover of

employees from measured jobattitudes," OrganizationalBehavior and HumanPerformance, 13: 233-243,

Kunin, Theodore1955 "The construction of a new

type of attitude measure,"Personnel Psychology. 8:65-78,

Locke, Erwin A., Karyll N. Shaw,Lise M. Saari, and G. P. Latham1981 "Goal setting and task

performance: 1969-1980,"Psychological Bulletin, 90:125-152,

Mohr, Lawrence B.1971 "Organizational technology

and organizational structure,"Administrative ScienceOuarterly. 16: 444-459,

Mullen, Brian, and CarolynCooper1994 "The relation between group

cohesiveness andperformance: An integration,"Psychological Bulletin. 115:210-227,

Murnighan, J, Keith, and DonaldE. Conlon1991 "The dynamics of intense

work groups: A study ofBritish string quartets,"Administrative ScienceOuarterly, 36: 165-186,

Neter, John, William Wasserman,and M. Kutner1985 Applied Linear Statistical

Models: Regression. Analysisof Variance, and ExperimentalDesigns, Homewood, IL:Irwin,

Nieva, Veronica F., E. A.Fleishman, and Angela Rieck1978 "Team dimensions: Their

identity, their measurement,and their relationships," FinalTechnical Report for ContractNo, DAHC19-78-C-0001,Washington, DC: AdvancedResearch ResourcesOrganizations,

Pelled, Lisa Hope1995 "Demographic diversity,

conflict, and work groupoutcomes: An interveningprocess theory," OrganizationScience, vol, 6 (in press),

Perrow, Charles1970 Organizational Analysis: A

Sociological View, Belmont.CA: Brooks/Cole,

Peterson, Donald R.1983 "Conflict," In Harold H, Kelley

et al, (eds,). CloseRelationships: 360-396, NewYork: W,H, Freeman,

Pinkley, Robin L.1990 "Dimensions of conflict

frame: Disputantinterpretations of conflict,"Journal of Applied Psychology.75: 117-126,

Pondy, Louis R.1967 "Organizational conflict:

Concepts and models,"Administrative ScienceOuarterly, 12: 296-320,

Priem, Richard, and Kenneth Price1991 "Process and outcome

expectations for the dialecticalinquiry, devil's advocacy, andconsensus techniques ofstrategic decision making,"Group and OrganizationStudies, 16: 206-225,

Putnam, Linda L.1994 "Productive conflict:

Negotiation as implicitcoordination," InternationalJournal of ConflictManagement, 5: 285-299,

Roloff, Michael E.1987 "Communication and

conflict," In C, R, Berger andS, H, Chaffee (eds,).Handbook of CommunicationScience: 484-534, NewburyPark. CA: Sage,

Roseman, Ira J., Cynthia Wiest,and Tamara S. Swartz1994 "Phenomenology, behaviors,

and goals differentiatediscrete emotions," Joumal ofPersonality and SocialPsychology. 67: 206-221,

Ross, Raymond S.1989 "Conflict," In R, Ross and J,

Ross (eds,), Small Groups inOrganizational Settings:139-178, Englewood Cliffs.NJ: Prentice-Hall,

Rousseau, Denise1985 "Issues of level in

organizational research," InLarry L, Cummings and BarryM, Staw (eds,). Research inOrganizational Behavior. 7:1-37, Greenwich, CT: JAIPress,

Schmidt, Stuart M., and ThomasA. Kochan1972 "Conflict: Toward conceptual

clarity," AdministrativeScience Ouarterly. 17:359-370,

Schneider, Benjamin, Jill K,Wheeler, and Jonathon F. Cox1992 "A passion for service: Using

content analysis to explicateservice climate themes,"Joumal of Applied Psychology.77: 705-716,

279/ASQ, June 1995

Schweiger, David, WilliamSandberg, and James W. Ragan1986 "Group approaches for

improving strategic decisions:A comparative analysis ofdialectical inquiry, devil'sadvocacy, and consensus."Acadenny of ManagementJournal, 29: 51-71.

Schweiger, David, WilliamSandberg, and Paula Rechner1989 "Experiential effects of

dialectical inquiry, devil'sadvocacy, and consensusapproaches to strategicdecision making." Academy ofManagement Journal, 32:745-772.

Schwenk, Charles, and RichardCosier1993 "Effects of consensus and

devil's advocacy on strategicdecision-making." Journal ofApplied Social Psychology, 23:126-139.

Schwenk, Charles, and Joseph S.Valacich1994 "Effects of devil's advocacy

and dialectical inquiry onindividuals versus groups."Organizational Behavior andHuman Decision Processes,59: 210-222.

Staw, Barry M., and Sigal Barsade1993 "Affect and managerial

performance: A test of thesadder-but-wiser vs.happier-and-smarterhypotheses." AdministrativeScience Quarterly, 38:304-331.

Staw, Barry M., Lance E.Sanderlands, and Jane E. Dutton1981 "Threat-rigidity effects in

organizational behavior: Amultilevel analysis."Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 26: 501-524.

Steffin, S. A., and M. Jennings1988 ArchiText. Calabasas, CA:

Brainpower, Inc.

Surra, Catherine, and MollyLongstreth1990 "Similarity of outcomes,

interdependence, and conflictIn dating relationships."Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 59:501-516.

Thompson, James D.1967 Organizations in Action.

Chicago: McGraw-Hill.

Tjosvold, Dean1991 "Rights and responsibilities of

dissent: Cooperative conflict."Employee Responsibilities andRights Journal, 4: 13-23.

Tjosvold, Dean, Valerie Dann, andChoy Wong1992 "Managing conflict between

departments to servecustomers." HumanRelations, 45: 1035-1054.

Tushman, Michael L, and DavidA. Nadler1978 "Information processing as an

integrating concept inorganizational design." InD. A. Nadler and M. LTushman (eds.). ManagerialBehavior, 4th ed.: 157-190.New York: ColumbiaUniversity Press.

Van de Ven, Andrew H.1976 "A framework for organization

assessment." Academy ofManagement Review, 1:64-78.

Van de Ven, Andrew H., AndreDelbecq, and R. Koenig1976 "Determinants of coordination

modes within organizations."American Sociological Review,41: 322-338.

Van de Ven, Andrew H., andDiane Ferry1980 Measuring and Assessing

Qrganizations. New York:Wiley.

Van de Vliert, Evert, and CarstenK. W. De Dreu1994 "Optimizing performance by

conflict stimulation."International Journal ofConflict Management, 5:211-222

Wagner, Gary W., Jeffrey Pfeffer,and Charles O'Reilly1984 "Qrganizational demography

and turnover intop-management groups."Administrative ScienceOuarterly, 29: 74-92.

Wall, Victor, and Linda Nolan1986 "Perceptions of inequity,

satisfaction, and conflict intask-oriented groups." HumanRelations, 39: 1033-1052.

Walton, Richard E., and John M.Dutton1969 "The management of

interdepartment conflict: Amodel and review."Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 14: 73-84.

Weldon, Elizabeth, Karen A. Jehn,and Priti Pradhan1991 "Processes that mediate the

relationship between a groupgoal and improved groupperformance." Journal ofPersonality and SocialPsychology, 61: 555-569.

APPENDIX A: Survey Scales

Task Type (alpha = .88)

1. The type of work done in my work unit is fairly consistent, so thatpeople do the same job in the same way most of the time.*

2. I encounter a lot of variety in my normal working day.*3. The methods I follow in my work are about the same for dealing with

all types of work, regardless of the activity.4. To what extent is there a specific "right way" to do things in your job?5. To what extent are there specific standards which you must meet in

doing your work?6. How much variety is there in your job?*7. How often is your job boring?8. How often can you predict how long a task will take?9. How much does your job include problem-solving?*

280/ASQ, June 1995

Intragroup Conflict

10, How much routine Is there in your job?11, To what degree are there set patterns in your work day?12, How often is your work simple?13, To what extent is your job challenging?*14, In general, how much actual "thinking" time do you usually spend

trying to solve such specific problems?*15, To what degree does your work include actually performing tasks

(rather than planning)?16, To what degree are there set patterns in your work week?17, To what degree does your job include being creative?*18, To what extent is your job tiresome?19, How often does your work give you a sense of accomplishment?*20, To what extent do you feel like you are doing the same thing over and

over again?

Conflict Norms (alpha = ,74)

1, Conflict is dealt with openly in my work unit,2, People in my work unit try to avoid conflict at all costs*3, If conflict arises in my work unit, the people involved initiate steps to

resolve the conflict immediately,*4, Conflict is detrimental to getting the work done in my work unit,*5, Emotional displays (i,e,, crying, yelling) are accepted in my work unit,6, Disagreements are encouraged in my work unit,7, Differences of opinions about job responsibilities are avoided in my

work unit,*

Satisfaction with the Group (alpha = ,79)

1, How satisfied are you working in this work unit?2, Circle the face that indicates the way you feel about working in this

work unit in general (Kunin, 1955),

Liking (alpha = ,73)

1, I generally like the other members of my work unit,2, The other people in my work unit are my friends,3, There is little group spirit in our work unit,*4, My fellow work unit members are satisfied with being a member of this

work unit.

Intent to Remain (alpha = .83)

1, How long do you expect to stay in this work unit?2, If you have your own way, will you be working in this same work unit

three years from now? [0 = no, 1 = yes]3, To what extent have you thought seriously about changing work units

since beginning to work in your current work unit?*

Goal Similarity (alpha = ,83)

1, As a work unit, we have similar goals,2, The main goals of my work unit are the same for all members in my

work unit,3, We (my work unit) all agree on what is important to our group.

Conflict Resolution (alpha = .84)

1, Disagreements about the specific work being done are usually resolvedin my work unit,

2, Emotional conflicts are usually resolved in my work unit,3, Disagreements about who should do what are usually resolved in my

work unit,* Reverse-scored,

APPENDIX B: Questions for Semistructured Interviews

The following questions were used as a guide during the interviews tocollect information and generate discussion.

Initial Interview Questions

1, How long have you been with this firm?2, What did you do previously?3, How long have you been in this work unit?4, What is it called?5, Where else have you worked in this firm?6, What type of wori< do you do?7, Describe a typical day for you at work (include breaks, lunch),

281/ASQ, June 1995

8. Does everyone in your work unit do the same thing?9. How is what you do different?

10. What kinds of things do you work on together?11. Do you work well together?

Main Interview Questions

1. Did anything change in the department in the last couple of weeks? Didanything new happen?

2. Did any problems arise? Did they go smoothly?

Semi-focused Questions

1. List the parts of the work unit (people, equipment, roles).2. What is required to work in your work unit (skills, materials)?3. Why do you work here? Why do people work in your work unit?4. What is needed to do a good job?5. What's important about your job? Why are you important to this

division?6. What activities are rewarded in your work unit?7. What activities are frowned upon?8. Why do people like to work at this firm? in this division? in your work

unit? Why do you?9. Why do people dislike working at this firm? in this division? in your

work unit? Why do you?10. What type of disagreements/tension/problems occur in your group?

Describe the conflicts.11. How are they handled?

Supervisor Interview Questions

1. How long have you supervised this work unit?2. What type of work do the people do?3. Describe a typical day at work (include breaks, lunch), as you see it, for

your employees.4. Does everyone in your work unit do the same thing?5. How does what they do differ?6. What kinds of things do they work on together?7. Do they work well together?8. Do they work better alone?

282/ASQ, June 1995