The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/1352-7592.

htm

Conict management and effectiveness in virtual teams

Pilar Pazos
Department of Engineering Management and Systems Engineering, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia, USA
Abstract
Purpose This paper aims to explore the role of goal-oriented attitudes and behaviors as antecedents of conict management and the subsequent impact of conict management on team outcomes in virtual teams. Of particular interest is the role of commitment to team goals as a predictor of successful conict management and the subsequent impact of conict management on team outcomes. Design/methodology/approach This paper describes the results from a quasi-experimental study examining the relationships among commitment to team goals, conict management and team outcomes in virtual teams. First, it provides an in depth review of relevant empirical ndings. Next, it describes a study examining the relationships between three sets of variables: commitment to team goals; conict management; and team outcomes (performance and attitudinal) in the context of virtual teams. Data were collected from 141 students grouped in 39 teams size 3 to 4 that were part of four cohorts of an Engineering Management course. Findings The results provide some preliminary evidence that conict management mediated the relationships between goal commitment and team outcomes. Results suggest that commitment to team goals is a signicant predictor of successful conict management. Findings also suggest that teams that are more actively involved in preventing and solving their conict experience a signicant increase in the relationship between commitment to team goals and team performance, suggesting that use of effective conict management can support team effectiveness in the context of virtual teams. Finally, limitations and suggestions for future research are presented. Originality/value This paper sheds some light into the role conict as a mediator on the relationship between goal commitment and virtual team effectiveness. It provides preliminary evidence that conict management plays a critical role in enhancing virtual team effectiveness. Keywords Virtual teams, Conict, Performance management, Team effectiveness, Conict management, Communication technologies Paper type Research paper

Conict management and effectiveness 401

1. Introduction Virtual teams (VT) are becoming prevalent in the current corporate environment. According to The Wall Street Journal, over half of companies with an employee base of 5,000 or more use virtual teams (De Lisser, 1999). McDonough et al. (2001) also predicted that in the upcoming years almost two-thirds of new product development teams will evolve into virtual teams. In line with these trends, a survey by the Gartner Group found that more than 60 percent of professional employees work in VTs (Kanawattanachai and Yoo, 2002). This increased interest in harnessing the potential of VTs needs to be supported by an understanding of the key drivers of VT performance.
The author truly appreciates the input of anonymous reviewers, which helped to strengthen this article.

Team Performance Management Vol. 18 No. 7/8, 2012 pp. 401-417 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1352-7592 DOI 10.1108/13527591211281138

TPM 18,7/8

402

Several denitions of VTs exist, but for the purpose of this paper, the term is dened as a group of geographically and/or temporally dispersed individuals brought together via information and telecommunication technologies to work towards a common goal. A specic aspect of VTs that has been largely ignored is conict prevention and conict management and their subsequent impact on team attitudinal and performance outcomes. Conict management has been recognized as a particularly critical process in the context of VTs due to factors such as increased social distance, use of information and communication technologies, prevalence of asynchronous communication, etc. Virtual teams cannot necessarily rely as much on social cues and mechanisms and have their limited access to rich interaction among members. It has been noted that virtual teams can specially benet from temporal coordination mechanisms and goal coordination and alignment as those processes can help enhance team functioning and performance (Marks et al., 2001; McGrath, 1991; Montoya-Weiss et al., 2001). Understanding the role that conict management plays in the relationship between commitment to team goals and team outcomes is vital in preventing relationship conict while supporting constructive disagreements. Conict has long been the focus of research in the area of teams ( Jehn and Mannix, 2001; Onkman et al., 2010) but little is known about the specic factors that support successful conict management in VTs and how conict management processes impact team outcomes. A thorough literature search revealed no prior empirical research assessing how conict management may work in tandem with goal oriented attitudes and behaviors to inuence team effectiveness. This study examines the relationships between three sets of variables in the context of VTs: commitment to team goals as an input variable, conict management as a mediator variable, team performance and satisfaction as team outcomes. The reported study is grounded on the IMOI (input-mediator-output-input) model of team performance. The IMOI model was inspired on previous systemic approaches (e.g. Hackman, 1987; and McGrath, 1991) and it is aimed at shedding light on the factors affecting the effectiveness of small-groups (Martins et al., 2004; Mathieu et al., 2008). Figure 1 conceptual model used in this study including the variables investigated and their hypothesized relationships. The model was grounded on the IMOI framework (Cohen and Bailey, 1997; Mathieu et al., 2008). Three types of variables were investigated: input, mediator and outcomes. These variables illustrate the original intent of the study, they were grounded in prior theoretical ndings and their construct validity was evaluated using factor analysis (see Methods section). 1.1 Input variables The input variable evaluated in this study was commitment to team goals. This variable was dened as the extent to what team members took responsibility for the team outcomes and were committed to a collective goal. Commitment to team goals was measured using four items based on the work of Pazos et al. (2011). For a more detailed description of this measure see section 3.2.

Figure 1. Proposed research model

1.2 Mediator variables Conict management was evaluated as a mediator between commitment to team goals and team outcomes. Conict management relates to the teams ability to play an active role in preventing conict before it emerges and in resolving existing conict. We will use a team process approach to evaluate conict management that considers the extent to which teams actively manage their conict (e.g. Jehn, 1995; Marks et al., 2001). The approach to measuring conict management used in this paper incorporates two types of conict management processes: preemptive conict management, which involves establishing conditions to prevent or guide team conict before it occurs, and reactive conict management, which involves working through disagreements among team members (Marks et al., 2001). Our approach assesses the extent to which teams engage in preventing conict and whether they are prepared to manage it when it arises (Tekleab et al., 2009). Teams that manage their conicts effectively tend to be more proactive in preventing conict, more open in discussing differing opinions and tend to play a more active role in solving their differences (Jehn, 1995). 1.3 Outcomes Team outcome variables consisted of perceived performance and satisfaction. Perceived level of performance was measured using ve survey items based on a previous construct by Mortensen and Hinds (2001). Satisfaction was measured using a construct based on 5 items based on the work of Van der Vegt et al. (2001). This item was revised based on the results from the factor analysis and reduced to two items. See denition of measures for additional details on the variable. 2. Background In this section we will present an in depth review of prior research describing relationships between the input, mediators, and outcome variables in the model. 2.1 Relationship between input factors (commitment to team goals) and mediator (conict management) Goal setting and goal alignment is a well-documented factor in the team related literature (Mento et al., 1987). In comparing face-to-face groups to VTs, some researchers have found that conict is more likely to occur in virtual contexts partly due an increased difculty in achieving goal alignment and goal commitment (Mortensen and Hinds, 2001). The extent and effects of conict in VTs has been found to depend on several contingency factors. Mortensen and Hinds (2001) found that, within VTs, members perception of having a common group identity reduced the amount of conict. Hertel et al. (2005) suggest the importance of creating a shared context by focusing on early experiences within the team. Those initial experiences tend to focus on key processes such as goal setting and role clarication. Poole et al. (1991) found that the ability of VTs to manage their conict in productive ways also depended on how teams adapted to and used the available communication technology to handle conict. 2.2 Relationship between inputs and outcomes The signicance of commitment to team goals in the performance of an effective team has been largely acknowledged in the team literature (Larson and LaFasto, 1989;

Conict management and effectiveness 403

TPM 18,7/8

404

Kirkman et al., 2002). Team members that feel responsible for the collective result tend to be great contributors to the team (Pazos and Beruvides, 2011). Commitment to goals may be more important in a team than in an individual setting because there is more potential for conict or disagreement on teams goals and responsibilities (Pazos et al., 2007). The goal-performance relationship is strongest when people are committed to their goals. Commitment is most important and relevant when goals are difcult (Klein et al., 1999) because they require more effort and are usually associated with lower chances of success (Erez and Zidon, 1984). Likewise, a clearly dened mission has been recognized as critical to team performance and satisfaction according to both the conceptual (Gladstein, 1984; Hackman, 1987; Larson and Schaumann, 1993; Shea and Guzzo, 1987; Sundstrom et al., 1990) and empirical literatures (Weingart, 1992; Weldon et al., 1991; Pazos and Beruvides, 2011). Prior studies suggest that team goals lead to greater team success when they are challenging, but attainable (Larson and LaFasto, 1989; Likert, 1961). Goals and role clarity affect team performance and satisfaction through four mechanisms. First, clarity of goals and roles serve a directive function; they direct attention and effort toward goal-relevant activities and away from goal-irrelevant activities. This effect occurs both cognitively and behaviorally. For example, Rothkopf and Billington (1979) found that students with specic learning goals paid attention to and learned more effectively. Locke and Bryan (1969) observed that people who were given feedback about multiple aspects of their performance on a driving task improved their performance on the dimensions for which they had goals but not on other dimensions. Second, clarity of goals and roles has an energizing function. This has been shown with tasks that: require physical effort, such as the ergometer (Bandura and Cervone, 1983); entail repeated performance of simple cognitive tasks, such as addition; utilize measurements of subjective effort (Bryan and Locke, 1967); and utilize physiological indicators of effort (Sales, 1970). Third, clarity of goals and roles has also been found to impact persistence. When participants are allowed to control the time they spend on a task, hard goals prolong effort (LaPorte and Nath, 1976). Fourth, clarity of goals and roles affect action indirectly by leading to the use of task-relevant knowledge and strategies to properly prioritize and scheme a plan of action (Wood and Locke, 1990). 2.3 Relationship between mediators (conict management) and outcomes Researchers have long stated that conict is an important emerging state that allows teams to make better decisions because more alternatives are generated and considered prior to a decision being reached (Jehn and Mannix, 2001; Marks et al., 2001). Research has also shown that conict management behavior is an important determinant of team performance (Baron, 1989; Putnam, 1986; Van de Vliert and De Dreu, 1994). In the virtual team context, prior studies have found a higher likelihood of uninhibited behavior by team members when compared to face-to-face interactions (Martins et al., 2004; Pazos et al., 2007). Siegel et al. (1986) and Pazos and Beruvides (2011) found that uninhibited behavior such as swearing, insults, and name-calling was signicantly more likely in computer mediated groups than in face-to-face groups. Similarly, Sproull and Kiesler (1986) noted greater self-absorption (individuals focused more on themselves than on others) and uninhibited behavior in e-mail when compared to face-to-face communication. De Dreu and Weingart (2003) ndings suggest that

relationship conict between team members channels cognitive and emotional resources to deal with personal relationships and friction, rather than devoting these resources to working on the teams task and goals. Van de Vliert et al. (1995) hypothesized and found support for the effect of conict management on relational outcomes (e.g. mutual trust and quality of personal relationships), which are conceptually related to team satisfaction. This empirical evidence suggests that teams with higher levels of conict management may be likely to develop greater levels of cohesion and a more satisfactory team experience. So far we have described the state of the art knowledge related to the input, mediator and outcome variables explored in this study. Next, we present the results of a study using a quasi-experimental design approach into exploring the relationship between variables in the suggested model (see Figure 1) using the context of a graduate level engineering management course. 3. Methodology The main goal of the study was to explore the relationships between commitment to team goal and team outcomes (perceived performance and satisfaction) and the mediating role of conict management on that relationship. The following sections describe the context of the study, the main variables being evaluated along with its denitions, and the analysis conducted to explore the relationships among the variables. 3.1 Context of the study This study was conducted at a public university in Virginia. In total, 141 subjects from four sections of a graduate level Engineering Management course participated in the study. All sections were taught by the same instructor using identical syllabus and guidelines. Students were randomly assigned to 39 groups of size 3 to 4. The students were primarily full-time employees at various organizations and were part-time master engineering management students. Each group worked together for a period of 13 weeks to complete a project consisting of an analysis of a large private company. The project was based on the teams independent research on the company, and it included analysis, problem identication and recommendations for improvement. The main deliverable was a group project report and a presentation at the end of the semester along with a group portfolio including: team charter, team project plan and team collaboration web site. Participants gender was 75 per cent male and 25 per cent female and ages ranged from 22 to 55. On average, the students were currently working 39.2 hours per week at their jobs. Participants were blind to the hypotheses of the study. This study focused on identifying the relationships between goal commitment and outcomes in a virtual team setting and the mediating role of conict management on that relationship. Data were collected using an electronic survey consisting of 15 items excluding demographic questions. Two experts in team performance measurement reviewed all items to ensure content validity. The survey was also pilot-tested with two teams to ensure that the wording of the items aligned with the researchers intent. As a result of their feedback some items were revised. Construct validity of the survey was also evaluated using exploratory factor analysis. The surveys were completed within a week of the project nal submission and before grades were assigned to avoid some potential bias. The Institutional Review

Conict management and effectiveness 405

TPM 18,7/8

Board approved the protocol and data collection for this study. Next, we dene the main variables and the instruments used in their assessment. 3.2 Relevant measures Using exploratory factor analysis, we examined the underlying factor structure of the items in the questionnaire. The analysis was conducted using PASW/SPSS version 20. We used the maximum likelihood method and oblique rotation to evaluate the underlying factors along with scree plot to determine the number of factors to include in the model. A 0.35 loading was cut-off point for deciding to include items in a scale. The scree plot and Eigen values support the proposed dimensions (see discussion on results of factor analysis later in this section). Commitment to team goals. This variable was dened as the extent to which team members were committed to a common goal and supported each other in accomplishing that goal. We assessed goal commitment using a four-item measure developed by Pazos et al. (2011). A sample item is Our team was united in trying to reach its goals for performance. The coefcient alpha for goal commitment was 0.91 indicating high reliability. We evaluated Conict Management as a process mediator of the relationship between the input variable and team outcomes. Conict management measured the extent to which the team was able to prevent negative conict and solve emerging conict. We assessed conict management using a four-item measure developed by Tekleab et al. (2009) with a ve-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). A sample item for this scale is Conict is dealt with openly on this team. Exploratory factor analysis resulted on all items loading on a single factor. The reliability coefcient for this scale was a 0.88. Perceived performance. We adapted a performance measure from Ancona and Caldwell (1992), which included team members ratings of their team along ve dimensions: efciency, quality, technical innovation, adherence to requirements, and work excellence. Team members rated each question on a ve-point Likert scale in which 1 poor and 5 excellent. The ve-item scale showed high (a 0.95) reliability. Satisfaction. We used a measure of satisfaction based on the work by Van der Vegt et al. (1998) and Flynn et al. (2001) to assess the overall team satisfaction with processes and outcomes. The initial measure had 4 items but after factor analysis two items were dropped as they loaded poorly in the factor. The nal measure consisted of two questions. The resulting reliability of the measure was a 0.93. Table I indicates the variable category, name, corresponding items in the survey, and anchors.

406

Variable type Variable name Input Mediator Outcome Outcome Commitment to team goals Conict management Perceived performance Satisfaction with team process and outcomes

Items Range of values (anchors) 1-4 5-8 9-13 14-15 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 (strongly disagree-strongly agree) (strongly disagree-strongly agree) (poor-excellent) (strongly disagree-strongly agree)

Table I. Relevant variables

In order to justify aggregation at the group level of dependent and independent variables we used a measure of within group agreement (rWG) developed by James et al. (1984). rWG has been suggested as an indicator of the extent to which group members agree in their evaluations of the variables considered in the study. The aim of this analysis is to provide justication to the aggregation of measures within each team. We used a uniform distribution to represent random responses from team members. For all teams, it was observed that rWG . .80, suggesting strong agreement. Thus, based on the rWG estimates, aggregating the individual data to the team level can be justied. Exploratory Factor analysis was conducted on the independent variables to explore the multidimensionality of the data. Results justied the use of the two constructs (goal commitment and conict management). Due to the limited size of the sample, only exploratory factor analysis was conducted. The extraction method used was maximum likelihood with oblique rotation. Oblique rotation derives factor loadings based on the assumption that the factors are likely to be correlated, which is the case in this study. Table II shows the loadings that resulted from the factor analysis, which support a two-factor structure for the independent variables consistent with the conceptual model in Figure 1. The scree plot in Figure 2 further supports the two-factor structure as indicated by the elbow on the graph seen after the second factor. The red line just before the elbow shows components with eigenvalues greater than 1. The rst factor accounted for 69 percent of the variance, whereas the second accounted for 20 percent. 3.3 Hypotheses Next we present the hypotheses in the alternative form along with the rationale supporting them. Lack of a common goal in the team may cause team members to work towards their own personal agendas instead of collaborating toward a team goal. Prior research determined that goal setting in VTs is positively associated with cohesion, commitment, collaboration, decision quality, and numbers of alternatives generated (Martins et al., 2004; Huang et al., 2002). Researchers suggest that work team members that are not committed to each other or to a common goal are more likely to leave the team or even the organization (Larson and LaFasto, 1989). It has been argued that
Factor 1 Goal commitment 1 Goal commitment 2 Goal commitment 3 Goal commitment 3 Conict management 1 Conict management 2 Conict management 3 Conict management 3 Extraction Method: Maximum Likelihood Rotation Method: Oblique rotation Rotation converged in three iterations 2 0.699 0.984 0.840 0.670 0.820 0.967 0.758 0.601

Conict management and effectiveness 407

Table II. Factor loadings

TPM 18,7/8

408

Figure 2. Scree plot

developing a shared vision or mission is especially critical for VTs due to diminished levels of personal interaction and lack of shared context (Blackburn et al., 2003). In fact, Lurey and Raisinghani (2001) found that clarifying mission and goals is a critical element to support successful VT processes. As a result, we have developed H1. H1. There is a signicant positive direct relationship between commitment to team goals and team outcomes (performance and satisfaction). In VTs, reduced levels of social presence may cause VT members to feel more disconnected to the team and less accountable for results (Massey et al., 2003). In addition, it is not as easy for VT members to receive guidance regarding their tasks from their managers as it is for face-to-face teams (Shin, 2005). VT members have less opportunity to clarify their tasks and roles compared FTF team members. As a result, VT members are more exposed to task, role and responsibility ambiguity and these factors can cause conict in VTs (Shin, 2005) which in turn makes the role of conict prevention and conict resolution very critical in supporting team outcomes and a viable team experience. Researchers have found that the virtual context can result on an increase of uninhibited behavior when compared to face-to-face interactions (Martins et al., 2004; Siegel et al., 1986) along with greater self-absorption (Sproull and Kiesler, 1986) (individuals focused more on themselves than on others) and uninhibited behavior. Teams who are able to address conict directly are expected to develop a more open and constructive team environment (Tekleab et al., 2009; Brett, 1984; Campbell and Dunnette, 1968; De Dreu et al., 2000; Montoya-Weiss et al., 2001; Moore, 1986). Van de Vliert et al. (1995) hypothesized and found support for the effect of conict management on relational outcomes (e.g. mutual trust and quality of personal relationships) which are conceptually related to team satisfaction. This empirical

evidence suggests that teams with higher levels of conict management may be likely to develop greater levels of cohesion and a more satisfactory team experience. As a result, we expect that successful conict management in virtual teams will enhance team outcomes by supporting positive and goal-oriented behaviors and controlling negative ones, leading to the following two hypotheses. H2. The effect of goal commitment on perceived team performance is mediated through conict management. H3. The effect of goal commitment on satisfaction is mediated through conict management. 3.4 Analysis The main unit of analysis in this study was the team; therefore, data were not analyzed at the individual level. Team level variables were calculated as the averages of the individual team members values for all variables. We used a test for direct and mediation effects with bootstrapping (Preacher and Hayes, 2004) using PASW/SPSS version 20 to conduct the analysis. Simulation research shows that bootstrapping is more powerful than the Sobel test and the causal steps approach to testing intervening variable effects (MacKinnon et al., 2004; Williams and MacKinnon, 2008). The analysis tested a simple mediation model with commitment to goals as independent variable and performance and satisfaction as dependents. The mediator variable was conict management. Table III shows data on descriptive statistics and correlations of the variables evaluated in this study. 4. Results The nonparametric method used to test direct and mediated effects is based on bootstrapping (Preacher and Hayes, 2004). The method took 5,000 samples from the obtained data (with replacement after each specic number is selected) and calculated mediational effects for each sample. First, we tested the existence of the direct relationship between independent and dependent variables. Based on the output from the mediation test. We found that there is a signicant and direct relationship between commitment to team goals and performance. We also found a direct positive relationship between commitment to team goals and satisfaction. Results of the direct relationship between independent and dependent variables are shown in Table IV.

Conict management and effectiveness 409

Variable name 1 2 3 4 Commitment to team goals Conict management Performance Satisfaction

Mean 4.2295 3.8925 3.6954 4.1487

Std dev 0.51246 0.54743 0.57503 0.56022

1 0.577 * * 0.616 * * 0.440 * *

0.717 * * 0.303

0.524 * *

Note: * *Correlation is signicant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed)

Table III. Descriptive statistics of relevant variables

TPM 18,7/8

410

H2 concerned the mediating effects of conict management on the relationships between goal commitment and perceived performance. H3 tested the mediating effect of conict management on the relationship between goal commitment and satisfaction. Table V shows the results of the mediation effect on the two outcome variables. The mediation analysis was based on 5,000 bootstrap samples. The bias corrected and accelerated 95 percent condence intervals were then examined. If the condence intervals do not contain zero, the point estimate is signicant at the level indicated. Bias-corrected 95 percent condence intervals corresponding to the mediating effect of conict management on performance is signicant since the interval shown in Table V does not include zero. On the other hand, the mediating effect of conict management on team satisfaction is not signicant, since the corresponding interval on Table V does include zero. The analysis suggests that goal commitment is a signicant predictor of team performance and satisfaction in a virtual team setting. The results also show that conict management mediates the relationship between goal commitment and performance. That is, the impact of goal commitment on team performance is partially explained by the teams approach to conict management. Interestingly, conict management did not mediate the relationship with attitudinal outcomes measured in terms of satisfaction. These results will be further discussed in the following section (see Table VI).

Table IV. Direct effect of commitment to team goals on performance and satisfaction

Variable Performance Satisfaction

Coeff 0.3402 0.4348

SE 0.1492 0.1999

t 2.2804 2.1753

p 0.0286 0.0363

R2 0.58 0.19

Table V. Bootstrapped point estimates for the indirect effects of conict management on the outcome variables

Outcome variable Performance Satisfaction

Product of ab coefcients Point estimate SE 0.3700 0.0891 0.1554 0.1794

BCa 95 percent CI Lower Upper 0.1119 2 0.1758 0.7203 0.5335

Note: BCa CI bias corrected and accelerated condence intervals

Hypothesis H1. There is a signicant positive relationship between goal commitment and the outcome variables (performance and satisfaction) H2. The direct effect of goal commitment on perceived team performance is partially mediated through conict management H3. The direct effect of goal commitment on team satisfaction is mediated through conict management

Supported Yes Yes No

Table VI. Results of the hypotheses test

5. Discussion and limitations The purpose of this study was to increase our understanding of antecedents and outcomes of conict in VTs. In particular, this study explored role of conict management on the relationship between goal commitment and outcomes (perceived performance and satisfaction). The rst research question evaluated if commitment to the team goals is a predictor of successful virtual team outcomes. The second question aimed at evaluating if successful conict management and increased cohesion can strengthen the relationship between goal commitment and team outcomes. Our ndings suggest that commitment to team goals is a signicant predictor of team outcomes. In addition, teams that are more actively involved in conict resolution result on higher perceived performance and satisfaction with the team process and outcomes. That is, conict management has an additive effect to the relationship between goal commitment and team performance. However, that additive effect is not present in attitudinal outcomes measured in terms of team satisfaction with the outcomes and with the process. The failure to reject H3 warrants further examination. One possible explanation of this result might stem from the teams make up and from the fact that individuals in the teams had diverse nationalities including American, Chinese, Turkish, etc. Some teams were all made up of American students, whereas others had one or two non-American. People from different cultures have been found to differ in the ways in which they experience, handle and solve conict within their teams (Elron, 1997). As a result, they may not be equally comfortable or satised with their teams conict management approach. For instance, some groups might have a preference for addressing conict in a direct fashion whereas others prefer to do it in an implicit way. Other teams may have a preference for directly handling relationship conict by attempting to transform it into task-related conict. In a classic study of string quartets, Murnighan and Conlon (1991) found that the most successful quartets dealt with task conict implicitly rather than through a more direct fashion, thereby keeping conict task-based. Different national cultures have been known by having different preferences as to how to handle conict (Hofstede, 1980). These cultural differences could have impacted the perceived satisfaction of team members. Data suggests a statistically signicant positive relationship between commitment to team goals and conict management. That is, teams that focus their initial efforts on establishing clear goals for the team and whose members are committed to those goals were more likely to prevent and manage conict more effectively. This results support prior ndings in other contexts suggesting that commitment to team goals and shared responsibility for the team outcomes serve a directive function; they help the team direct attention and effort toward goal-relevant activities and away from goal-irrelevant activities (Tekleab et al., 2009). Goal commitment and goal clarity is especially critical for VTs due to their reduced social presence (Pazos and Beruvides, 2011). Our ndings support the idea that formalizing work processes and responsibilities during the goal setting process, increasing transparency and accountability are a critical elements to support constructive conict and increase cohesiveness in VTs. To prevent negative conict, members need to establish the teams own operating principles, roles, responsibilities, goals and metrics (Massey et al., 2003; Wilson, 2003). Many tools are available to virtual work teams that can be used to support goal setting

Conict management and effectiveness 411

TPM 18,7/8

412

and role clarity during the early planning stages and over a project lifecycle. For instance, team contracts or charters can be extremely valuable in supporting team goal setting, and clarifying norms and expectations (Marks et al., 2001). Those charters should be agreed on by all team members, visible, accessible, and ever present during the life of the project to increase goal clarity and commitment. Virtual teams should focus on creating a unied sense of purpose and identify available tools and technologies that can support them to accomplish that in the virtual environment. In addition, Massey et al. (2003) suggest an emphasis in temporal coordination mechanisms such as scheduling deadlines and coordinating the pace of effort to increase accountability. Therefore, early planning stages are critical in successfully managing team conict and ensuring VTs effectiveness (Shin, 2005). Data also suggests a signicant positive relationship between goal commitment and satisfaction; however, there was no mediating role of conict management on this relationship. We also found a statistically signicant relationship between goal commitment and team performance. This relationship gained strength in teams that had higher levels of conict management, suggesting that good conict management can help sustain higher levels of perceived performance. After investigating one key antecedent of conict (commitment to goals), we propose that to develop high-performing teams, managers must encourage strategies that promote goal clarity and accountability while supporting conict prevention and positive conict management. Groups with open discussion norms, high levels of respect among members, and supportive team environment have been linked to enhanced performance (Jehn and Mannix, 2001). In addition, the conict training should be prioritized given that our results suggest that conict management supports performance. The results of this study should be interpreted in light of the following limitations. First, results generalizability might be somewhat limited by the use of student teams. Nevertheless, in many respects the characteristics of the project assigned to participants (i.e. high level of member responsibility and accountability, required task involvement, and interdependence) are comparable to some project-based teams in organizational settings that are created to address a specic issue and are temporary in nature. Prior studies have shown that results from student samples and work teams have been comparable (Van Vianen and De Dreu, 2001). We acknowledge some characteristics of the teams in this study that may not fully align with organizational teams such as being isolated of an organizational context but that is a tradeoff from having more control over other variables such as tasks, timelines, team formation, etc. A second limitation is the small sample size that could be attributable for the lack of signicant relationships between some of the variables. One last limitation relates to some of the outcome measures used. Although we acknowledge the limitations of measures based on self-report, prior studies have suggested that perception of team performance and team satisfaction are important measures of team effectiveness and good indicators of team viability (Campion et al., 1993; Hyatt and Ruddy, 1997; Sundstrom et al., 1990). Future research could incorporate more objective measures of team performance. An extension of this study will look into incorporating an objective value of performance based on expert rating of actual team performance. Mediation analysis can provide important information regarding the impact of certain team processes on team outcomes. It can also shed light on how team processes

can mediate the relationship between team input variables and outcomes. In this study, mediation helped us gain understanding of the impact of goal commitment on team outcomes in virtual teams and the role of conict management in potentiating this relationship. The results have theoretical implications because they help us understand the role of conict management on team effectiveness. Results also have practical implications because the ndings suggest that successful conict management strategies can support team performance. Conict management is a process that can be acted on through training and coaching. Training approaches focused on conict management strategies that help teams in preventing and dealing with conict have the potential to enhance to team performance. Even though team members worked remotely from their own sites, the researcher was able to track the team activities and progress on the team web site. This observation supported the evidence that team members collaborated to accomplish the nal outcome rather than dividing up the report in parts and piecing them together at the end. Teams were required to jointly identify the organizational problem and come up with an improvement plan and all teams followed that guideline. In summary, this study explored the mediating effect of conict management on the relationship between goal commitment and team outcomes. We provide some preliminary evidence that conict management mediated these relationships by potentiating team performance. Conict management is a critical process in virtual teams that has the potential to enhance team outcomes. Future research should look into identifying specic conict management techniques and their impact on team outcomes.
References Ancona, D.G. and Caldwell, D.F. (1992), Demography and design: predictors of new product team performance, Organization Science, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 321-41. Bandura, A. and Cervone, D. (1983), Self-evaluative and self-efcacy mechanisms governing the motivational effects of goal systems, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 45 No. 5, pp. 1017-28. Baron, R.A. (1989), Personality and organizational conict: effects of the type a behavior pattern and self-monitoring, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 281-97. rst, S.A. and Rosen, B. (2003), Building a winning virtual team, in Gibson, Blackburn, R.S., Fu C.B. and Cohen, S.G. (Eds), Virtual Teams that Work: Creating the Conditions for Virtual Team Effectiveness, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 95-120. Brett, M. (1984), Managing organizational conict: professional psychology, Research and Practice, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 644-78. Bryan, J. and Locke, E. (1967), Goal setting as a means of increasing motivation, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 3, pp. 274-7. Campbell, H.P. and Dunnette, M.D. (1968), Effectiveness of the T-group experience in managerial training and development, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 70 No. 2, pp. 73-104. Campion, M.A., Medsker, G.J. and Higgs, A.C. (1993), Relations between workgroup characteristics and effectiveness: implications for designing effective work groups, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 46 No. 4, pp. 823-50. Cohen, S.G. and Bailey, D.E. (1997), What makes teams work: group effectiveness research from the shop oor to the executive suite, Journal of Management, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 239-90.

Conict management and effectiveness 413

TPM 18,7/8

414

De Dreu, C.K.W. and Weingart, L.R. (2003), Task versus relationship conict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: a meta-analysis, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 4, pp. 741-9. De Dreu, C.K.W., Weingart, L.R. and Kwon, S. (2000), Inuence of social motives in integrative negotiation: a meta-analytic review and test of two theories, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 78 No. 5, pp. 889-905. De Lisser, E. (1999), Update on small business: rms with virtual environments appeal to workers, Wall Street Journal, October 5, p. B2. Elron, E. (1997), Top management teams within multinational corporations: effects of cultural heterogeneity, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 393-412. Erez, M. and Zidon, I. (1984), Effects of goal acceptance on the relationship of goal setting and task performance, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 69 No. 1, pp. 69-78. Flynn, F.J., Chatman, J.A. and Spataro, S.E. (2001), Getting to know you: the inuence of personality on impressions and performance of demographically different people in organizations, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 414-42. Gladstein, D.I. (1984), Groups in context: a model of task group effectiveness, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 499-517. Hackman, J.R. (1987), The design of work teams, Handbook of Organizational Behavior, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp. 315-42. Hertel, G., Geister, S. and Konradt, U. (2005), Managing virtual teams: a review of current empirical research, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 69-95. Hofstede, G.J. (1980), Cultures Consequences, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA. Huang, W.W., Wei, K.K., Watson, R.T. and Tan, B.C.Y. (2002), Supporting virtual team-building with a GSS: an empirical investigation, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 359-67. Hyatt, D.E. and Ruddy, T.M. (1997), An examination of the relationship between work group characteristics and performance: once more into the breech, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 553-85. James, L.R., Demaree, R.G. and Wolf, G. (1984), Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 69 No. 1, pp. 85-98. Jehn, K.A. (1995), A multi-method examination of the benets and detriments of intragroup conict, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 256-82. Jehn, K.A. and Mannix, E.A. (2001), The dynamic nature of conict: a longitudinal study of intragroup conict and group performance, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 238-51. Kanawattanachai, P. and Yoo, Y. (2002), Dynamic nature of trust in virtual teams, Journal of Strategic Information Systems, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 187-213. Kirkman, B.L., Rosen, B., Gibson, C.B., Tesluk, P.E. and McPherson, S.O. (2002), Five challenges to virtual team success: lessons from Sabre, Inc., Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 67-79. Klein, H., Wesson, M., Hollenbeck, J. and Alge, B. (1999), Goal commitment and the goal-setting process: conceptual clarication and empirical synthesis, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 84 No. 6, pp. 885-96. LaPorte, R. and Nath, R. (1976), Role of performance goals in prose learning, Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 68 No. 3, pp. 260-4.

Larson, C.E. and LaFasto, F.M.J. (1989), Teamwork: What Must Go Right/What Can Go Wrong, Sage, Newbury Park, CA. Larson, J.R. and Schaumann, L.J. (1993), Group goals, group coordination, and group member motivation, Human Performance, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 49-69. Likert, R. (1961), New Patterns of Management, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Locke, E.A. and Bryan, J. (1969), The directing function of goals in task performance, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 35-42. Lurey, J.S. and Raisinghani, M.S. (2001), An empirical study of best practices in virtual teams, Information & Management, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 523-44. McDonough, E., Kahn, K. and Barczak, G. (2001), An investigation of the use of global, virtual, and colocated new product development teams, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 110-20. McGrath, J. (1991), Time, interaction, and performance (TIP): a theory of groups, Small Group Research, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 147-74. MacKinnon, D.P., Lockwood, C.M. and Williams, J. (2004), Condence limits for the indirect effect: distribution of the product and resampling methods, Multivariate Behavioral Research, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 99-128. Marks, M.A., Mathieu, J.E. and Zaccaro, S.J. (2001), A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 356-76. Martins, L.L., Gilson, L.L. and Maynard, M.T. (2004), Virtual teams: what do we know and where do we go from here, Journal of Management, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 805-36. Massey, A.P., Montoya-Weiss, M.M. and Hung, Y.-T. (2003), Because time matters: temporal coordination in global virtual project teams, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 129-55. Mathieu, J., Maynard, M.T., Rapp, T. and Gilson, L. (2008), Team effectiveness 1997-2007: a review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future, Journal of Management, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 410-76. Mento, A.J., Steel, R.P. and Karren, R.J. (1987), A meta-analytic study of the effects of goal setting on task performance: 1966-1984, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 50-77. Montoya-Weiss, M., Massey, A.P. and Song, M. (2001), Getting it together: temporal coordination and conict management in global virtual teams, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 6, pp. 1251-62. Moore, C.W. (1986), The Mediation Process: Practical Strategies for Resolving Conict, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Mortensen, M. and Hinds, P.J. (2001), Conict and shared identity in geographically distributed teams, International Journal of Conict Management, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 212-38. Murnighan, J.K. and Conlon, D.E. (1991), The dynamics of intense work groups: a study of British string quartets, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 165-86. Onkman, W., Ustun, A., Pazos, P. and Canto, A. (2010), Impact of task conict on virtual team performance and cohesiveness, paper presented at the IERC Conference, Cancun. Pazos, P. and Beruvides, M. (2011), Incorporating training and feedback into the study of patterns in group decision making: the impact of communication medium, Team Performance Management, Vol. 17 Nos 1/2, pp. 83-101.

Conict management and effectiveness 415

TPM 18,7/8

416

Pazos, P., Ustun, A. and DelAguila, R. (2011), The role of conict management on virtual team performance and satisfaction, Proceedings of the 2011 Industrial Engineering Research Conference, Reno, NV. Pazos, P., Beruvides, M., Jian, J., Canto, A., Sandoval, A. and Taraban, R. (2007), Structuring group decision making in a web-based environment by using the nominal group technique, Computers and Industrial Engineering, Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 277-95. Poole, M.S., Holmes, M. and DeSanctis, G. (1991), Conict management in a computer-supported meeting environment, Management Science, Vol. 37 No. 8, pp. 926-53. Preacher, K.J. and Hayes, A.F. (2004), SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models, Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 717-31. Putnam, L.L. (1986), Contradictions and paradoxes in organizations, in Thayer, L. (Ed.), Organization Communication: Emerging Perspectives, Vol.1, Ablex, Norwood, NJ, pp. 151-67. Rothkopf, E. and Billington, M. (1979), Goal-guided learning from text: inferring a descriptive processing model from inspection times and eye movements, Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 71 No. 3, pp. 310-27. Sales, M. (1970), Some effects of role overload and role underload, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 592-608. Shea, G.P. and Guzzo, R.A. (1987), Group effectiveness: what really matters?, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 25-31. Shin, Y. (2005), Conict resolution in virtual teams, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 331-45. Siegel, J., Dubrovsky, V.J., Kiesler, S. and McGuire, T.W. (1986), Group processes in computer-mediated communication, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 157-87. Sproull, L. and Kiesler, S. (1986), Reducing social context cues: electronic mail in organizational communication, Management Science, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 1492-512. Sundstrom, E., DeMeuse, K.P. and Futrell, D. (1990), Work teams: applications and effectiveness, American Psychologist, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 120-33. Tekleab, A.G., Quigley, N.R. and Tesluk, P.E. (2009), A longitudinal study of team conict, conict management, cohesion, and team effectiveness, Group and Organization Management, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 170-205. Van der Vegt, G., Emans, B. and Van de Vliert, E. (1998), Motivating effects of task and outcome interdependence in work teams, Group and Organization Management, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 124-43. Van der Vegt, G.S., Emans, B.J.M. and Van de Vliert, E. (2001), Patterns of interdependence in work teams: a two-level investigation of the relations with job and team satisfaction, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 51-69. Van de Vliert, E. and De Dreu, C.K.W. (1994), Optimizing performance by stimulating conict, International Journal of Conict Management, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 211-22. Van de Vliert, E., Euwema, M.C. and Huismans, S.E. (1995), Managing conict with a subordinate or a superior: effectiveness of conglomerated behavior, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 80 No. 2, pp. 271-81. Van Vianen, A.E.M. and De Dreu, C.K.W. (2001), Personality in teams: its relations to social cohesion, task cohesion, and team performance, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 97-120.

Weingart, L.R. (1992), Impact of group goals, task component complexity, effort, and planning on group performance, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 77 No. 5, pp. 682-93. Weldon, E., Jehn, K. and Pradhan, P. (1991), Processes that mediate the relationship between a group goal and improved group performance, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 61 No. 4, pp. 555-69. Williams, J. and MacKinnon, D.P. (2008), Resampling and distribution of the product methods for testing indirect effects in complex models, Structural Equation Modeling, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 23-51. Wilson, S. (2003), Forming virtual teams, ASQs Annual Quality Congress Proceedings, Vol. 57, pp. 489-99. Wood, R. and Locke, E. (1990), Goal setting and strategy effects on complex tasks, in Staw, B. and Cummings, L. (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 12, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 73-109. Further reading Baron, R. and Kenny, D. (1986), The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1173-82. De Dreu, C.K.W. and Van Vianen, A.E.M. (2001), Managing relationship conict and the effectiveness of teams, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 309-28. Judd, C.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1981), Process analysis: estimating mediation in treatment evaluations, Evaluation Review, Vol. 5 No. 5, pp. 602-19. Kenny, D.A., Kashy, D.A. and Bolger, N. (1998), Data analysis in social psychology, in Gilbert, D., Fiskeand, S. and Lindzey, G. (Eds), The Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. 1, 4th ed., McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA, pp. 233-65. Shrout, P.E. and Bolger, N. (2002), Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: new procedures and recommendations, Psychological Methods, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 422-45. Sobel, M.E. (1982), Asymptotic condence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models, in Leinhardt, S. (Ed.), Sociological Methodology, American Sociological Association, Washington, DC, pp. 290-312. About the author Pilar Pazos is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Engineering Management and Systems Engineering at Old Dominion University. Before joining Old Dominion she has worked in the areas of quality control, team learning and consulting. She was a Research Associate at Northwestern University with a joint position for the VaNTH Engineering Research Center and the Searle Center for Teaching Excellence. Her research interests include: knowledge management, organizational learning, collaborative learning, group decision making and performance, virtual teams and team dynamics. She holds a BSc in Industrial Engineering from the University of Vigo, Spain, MS in Systems and Engineering Management from Texas Tech University and a PhD from Texas Tech University (2005) in Industrial Engineering with a focus on Engineering Management and a minor in Applied Statistics from the Rawls College of Business. Pilar Pazos can be contacted at: mpazosla@odu.edu

Conict management and effectiveness 417

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints