A Multilevel View of Intragroup Conflict

A Multilevel View of Intragroup Conflict
M. Audrey Korsgaard*
Sophia Soyoung Jeong
Douglas M. Mahony
Moore School of Business, University of South Carolina, 1705 College St., Columbia, SC 29208
Adrian H. Pitariu
Schulich School of Business, York University, 4700 Keele St., Toronto, Ontario, Canada
In the years since the last major review of conflict, the primary thrust in the research on conflict
in organizations has shifted the emphasis away from dyadic conflict and toward the study of
intragroup conflict. Influenced by Jehns work, this body of research has largely focused on dis-
tinguishing between conflict types; most notably task versus relationship conflict. However, this
research has focused on within-level relationships, thus neglecting the multilevel nature of intra-
group conflict and its emergence processes. After reviewing the antecedents of conflict across
levels, the authors examine the constructs and processes common to the intraindividual, dyadic,
and group levels as well as those that are unique to each level and the cross-level influences of
those constructs. The authors conclude by proposing a multilevel model of group conflict that
integrates the individual, dyadic, and intragroup levels of analysis.
Keywords: conflict; intragroup; teams; multilevel
It has been more than a decade since the last major review of conflict in organizations has
appeared in Journal of Management. That review, conducted by Wall and Callister (1995),
focused largely on interpersonal or dyadic conflict. Since that time, our understanding of the
conflict process and of conflict management has grown considerably (DeDreu & Gelfand,
2007). One particular form of conflict, intragroup conflict, has come to the forefront
*Corresponding author: Tel.: 803-777-5967; fax: 803-777-6876
E-mail address: korsgaard@moore.sc.edu

Journal of Management, Vol. 34 No. 6, December 2008 1222-1252
DOI: 10.1177/0149206308325124
2008 Southern Management Association. All rights reserved.
1222
Korsgaard et al. / Intragroup Conflict 1223
(DeDreu & Weingart, 2003; Jehn & Bendersky, 2003). The intense attention to intragroup
conflict is understandable given the increased reliance on work groups or teams in organi-
zations. Work teams, defined as two or more individuals who interact in a complex, dynamic,
and interactive fashion toward a common goal (Ilgen, Hollenbeck, Johnson, & Jundt, 2005),
are increasingly employed across all levels of organizations, including production teams,
project teams, decision-making groups, performance teams, and top management teams.
Research on intragroup conflict has demonstrated the powerful and often detrimental
effects of conflict for group effectiveness (DeDreu & Weingart, 2003; Hambrick, 2007).
As well, numerous studies have investigated the antecedents of intragroup conflict. These
include mainly group attributes, such as diversity and group size (Pelled, Eisenhardt, &
Xin, 1999), task characteristics, such as uncertainty (Mooney, Holahan, & Amason,
2007), and group processes, such as information sharing (Moye & Langfred, 2004).
Although this research provides insight into how intragroup conflict emerges, the picture
of intragroup conflict remains incomplete as there has been little systematic considera-
tion of the linkages among individuals, dyads, and groups. Indeed, there is no theoretical
framework for understanding how group-level conflict processes influence dyadic and
individual dynamics and how individual and dyadic processes shape intragroup conflict
processes. Our intention is to advance a framework that addresses intragroup conflict as
a multilevel phenomenon.
Our approach differs from previous conceptualizations of conflict in organizations by
specifically addressing the mutual influence of constructs across levels. Following recent
developments in multilevel theory (Chen, Bliese, & Mathieu, 2005; Chen & Kanfer, 2006),
we examine constructs and processes that are common to the intraindividual, dyadic, and
group levels as well as those that are unique to each level and the cross-level influences of
these constructs. In doing so, we hope to stimulate the investigation of cross-level relation-
ships that provide insight into a broader array of potential approaches to the management of
interpersonal and intragroup conflict in organizations.
Given that our main purpose is to develop a multilevel model of the emergence of intra-
group conflict, we mainly focus on the antecedents of conflict. A central task in developing
such a model is to identify linkages between processes at the individual and dyadic levels
that lead to group conflict; that is, to explain how group conflict emerges from lower-level
phenomena. For this reason, we do not provide a comprehensive review of the consequences
of intragroup conflict as they have been well documented elsewhere (DeDreu & Weingart,
2003; Jehn & Bendersky, 2003). Nor do we address the extensive literature on conflict man-
agement and negotiation (e.g., Bazerman & Curhan, 2000). Furthermore, although intra-
group conflict exists within higher levels (e.g., intergroup, organizational), we are limiting
our focus to the intragroup level of analysis but discuss the implications for intergroup and
organizational conflict for future research.
The review begins with the definition of conflict and an overview of the theoretical frame-
works that form the foundation of research on dyadic and intragroup conflict. We then turn
to a review of research on the antecedents of conflict across levels. We then provide an analy-
sis and integration of prior theory and empirical research to develop a multilevel model of
intragroup conflict.
1224 Journal of Management / December 2008
Definitional and Theoretical Underpinnings
General Definition of Conflict
Although there is some convergence in definitions of conflict, there still exists a consid-
erable degree of inconsistency both within and across levels (Barki & Hartwick, 2004;
Tjosvold, 2007). In part, this inconsistency reflects an attempt to focus narrowly on particu-
lar forms, states, or bases of conflict. To understand conflict as a multilevel phenomenon, it
is necessary to view conflict as a general process manifested at multiple levels and forms.
Drawing on contemporary definitions of conflict (e.g., Barki & Hartwick, 2004; DeDreu &
Gelfand, 2007; Wall & Callister, 1995), we define conflict broadly as the experience between
or among parties that their goals or interests are incompatible or in opposition. Although
this definition represents a synthesis of prior definitions, three important aspects are worth
noting in that they reflect or allow for a multilevel view of conflict.
First, this definition focuses on the experience of incompatibility, a term we use to
broadly refer to the cognitive, behavioral, and affective components of conflict (Barki &
Hartwick, 2004). Thus, this definition encompasses beliefs and perceptions relevant to con-
flict (e.g., the awareness of incompatible goals; Wall & Callister, 1995), behavioral implica-
tions of conflict (e.g., antagonistic interactions between parties; Fink, 1968), and affective
reactions to conflict (e.g., the experience of anger, hostility, or frustration; Pelled et al., 1999;
Pinkley, 1990). This multifaceted view of conflict is consistent with various definitions of
conflict as a process (e.g., Hocker & Wilmot, 1991; Pondy, 1967).
Second, this definition of conflict emphasizes incompatible goals or interests as the basis
of conflict. We use the terms goals and interests to refer broadly to differences in desired out-
comes, behaviors, values, and beliefs (DeDreu & Gelfand, 2007). Thus, incompatibility may
occur on the level of specific end states. Deutsch (1962) conceptualized conflict as a nega-
tive independence wherein the outcomes of one party are negatively related to the outcomes
of the other party. Similarly, Pruitt and Rubin (1986) viewed conflict as occurring when one
party views its goals or aspirations as being incompatible with those of the other party.
Conflict may also occur at the behavioral level. Alper, Tjosvold, and Law (2000) defined
conflict as when one party interferes with or obstructs the behavior of another. Alternatively,
some scholars have focused on the issue of incompatibility of values or perspectives that do
not necessarily have immediate or material consequences for either party. For example, def-
initions of social or relationship-based conflict describe it as involving personal incompati-
bilities (Jehn, 1995).
Third, consistent with the multilevel view, we employ the phrase between and among
parties to allow for the existence of conflict among more than two parties and between both
individuals and groups. That is, conflict can occur between individuals, among individuals
within groups, and between groups (DeDreu & Gelfand, 2007). We acknowledge that, at its
core, conflict involves an individual-level phenomenon, in that the experience of conflict
the perception and affective reaction to incompatibilitiesis an intraindividual phenomenon
(Smith-Crowe, Brief, & Umphress, 2007). At the same time, dyadic and intragroup conflicts
are social phenomena that are manifested at higher levels of analysis (i.e., the dyad or the
group as whole; e.g., Fink, 1968; Jehn & Bendersky, 2003). An important implication of this
definition is that understanding intragroup conflict requires an awareness of processes occur-

ring at lower levels of analysis (dyadic and individual) and how processes at these three lev-
els interact. As is discussed below, integrating the individual, dyadic, and intragroup levels
of conflict is one of the central challenges of constructing a truly multilevel view of conflict.
Theoretical Background
Early models of conflict can be distinguished in terms of their emphasis on process ver-
sus structure (Kilmann & Thomas, 1977). Although structural theories of conflict emphasize
the role of interdependence among the parties in shaping conflict (Deutsch, 1949), process
theories of conflict conceptualize conflict as temporal sequences of events or episodes
(Pondy, 1967; Thomas, 1992). In this section, we briefly review the primary theoretical con-
ceptualizations of conflict.
Structural models of conflict. Structural models of conflict posit that conflict arises from
contextual factors such as task characteristics and the social context. These factors center on
the nature of interdependence and incompatibility between parties. For example, Deutschs
(1949) theory of cooperation and conflict focused on interdependence as a source of conflict.
Although cooperation arises when the parties perceive their goals as positively interdepen-
dent, competition and conflict arise when goals are seen as negatively interdependent. Here,
the attainment of ones goals necessarily comes at the expense of anothers ability to attain
his or her goals. In this view, conflict is more likely to emerge as the degree of intercon-
nectedness or interdependence between the parties increases and the level of goal compati-
bility decreases.
Similarly, Emersons (1962) power-dependency theory posits that conflict is a function of
the extent to which the parties each want something from one another that is not easily avail-
able outside that relationship. Power in social relationships is a function of the control or
influence that a party has over anothers attainment of valued goals. Interdependency in
social relationships is determined by both the value a party places on goal outcomes and the
availability of alternative outcomes. In this framework, power is interpersonal (May, 1972)
and defined by the underlying structure of the relationship between the parties (Blau, 1964).
Within these exchange relationships are structural causes of conflict that are either internal
or external to the parties (Kilmann & Thomas, 1977). Internal factors include differences in
individual perceptions, styles of bargaining, and motives (Brett, 1984). External factors
include goal or task compatibility, task clarity and complexity, and organizational or group
norms (Blake & Mouton, 1984; Brett, 1984; Kilmann & Thomas, 1977).
Process models of conflict. Process or stage models view conflict as a dynamic process
or sequence of events (Habib, 1987; Pondy, 1967; Thomas, 1992). These conflict episodes
occur within broader organizational systems and, as such, are influenced by the structural
conditions of the relationship and its broader context. Unlike structural theories of conflict,
these models adopt a more dynamic view emphasizing the intraindividual and interpersonal
processes that link structural sources of conflict to manifestations of conflict. For example,
Pondys (1967) model starts with three latent conditions of conflictscarce resources,
power, and interdependencethat correspond to structural factors described by theorists
such as Deutsch (1949) and Emerson (1962).
According to process models, conflict occurs in an episodic manner that begins with an
encounter or interaction between parties that occurs in the context of the latent conditions of
conflict. This triggers a sense-making process whereby the parties seek to understand the
significance of the event (Neuman & Baron, 1998; Weick, 1995). Felstiner, Abel, and Sarat
(1980) described this as a process as naming, identifying or labeling the experience as an
offense, and blaming, a recognition that the other deviated or violated norms or caused
injury. In other words, this sense-making process is an appraisal of the interaction as unfa-
vorable and in someway attributable to the other party. This cognitive appraisal leads to the
awareness of conflict, which in turn leads to feelings, cognitions, and actions in response to
conflict (Pondy, 1967; Thomas, 1992). Finally, process models also imply recursive rela-
tionships in that a given conflict episode has consequences for future social interactions and
subsequent conflict episodes (Pondy, 1967). Subsequent conceptual work on affect and
aggression also suggests a process of triggering events, sense making, and behavior and
affective reactions (Douglas et al., 2008; Olson-Buchanan & Boswell, 2008; Weiss &
Cropanzano, 1996).
A process view of conflict provides an important extension over structural models
because it highlights the role of perceptual processes and affect in conflict. Parties interpre-
tation and response to conflict episodes are governed by imperfect perceptual processes and
infused with affective reactions (Kumar, 1989). As such, there is no necessary correspon-
dence between objective events and the interpretation or perception of conflict. Thus, a
partys behavioral response to conflict may deviate substantially from what might be deemed
a rational response to structural conflict conditions.
Viewed together, structural and process theories suggest that the emergence of conflict
may be viewed as consisting of three causally linked categories of factors leading to
conflictas depicted in Figure 1. Conflict originates with inputs or latent conditions such
as interdependence, goal compatibility, or role differences that predispose individuals to
conflict. These inputs then evoke behavioral events that trigger a sense-making process. This
involves individuals who are party to, or affected by, the event then engaging in a naming
and blaming process, whereby trying to determine the significance of the behavior. This
inference process leads to the affective, cognitive, and behavioral manifestations of conflict.
These manifestations include negative emotions such as frustration and anger, ruminations
and intentions to rectify or retaliate, and various conflict management responses (Aquino,
Tripp, & Bies, 2006; Bies & Tripp, 1996; Brown & Day, 1981; Habib, 1987).
The aforementioned theories and frameworks focus on conflict between two parties and
as such do not directly inform on how conflict emerges within a group or how that might dif-
fer from dyadic conflict. Moreover, intragroup conflict as a field of inquiry has evolved rel-
atively independent of prior research and theory on individual and dyadic conflict. In the
section that follows, we review current conceptualizations and recent research on intragroup
conflict and discuss how this intragroup conflict converges and departs from a dyadic view
of conflict.
Figure 1
Conflict Episode
Inputs Behavior Sense Making Conflict
Individual differences Conflict provoking Naming Affect

Individual states and behavior Blaming Cognition
traits Dyadic exchanges Behavior
Task structure Group interactions
Social context
Current Conceptualizations of Intragroup Conflict
The study of conflict in organizations in recent years has been marked by an increased
emphasis on intragroup conflict. Much of this research has focused on conflict in decision-
making, project, or production teams (DeDreu & Weingart, 2003) wherein the group is
responsible for producing some collective product. Research in this context primarily cen-
ters on a framework that focuses on distinguishing between types of conflict. Despite the
absence of a distinct and unifying theory of conflict at the group level, the rationale for the
antecedents and consequences of intragroup conflict are derived from conflict processes sim-
ilar to the aforementioned theories of conflict (e.g., Pondy, 1966, 1967). That is, research on
intragroup conflict implies a process whereby contextual factors that define degrees of inter-
dependence and heterogeneity of goals and interests shape social interactions among group
members, which lead to manifestations of group conflict (DeDreu & Gelfand, 2007).
Drawing on prior work on the dimensions of conflict (Cosier & Rose, 1977; Guetzkow &
Gyr, 1954; Pinkley, 1990), Jehns (1995) typology of task versus relationship conflict has
been the basis of much of the research on intragroup conflict. Task conflict refers to dis-
agreement over task-relevant ideas, issues, and content. Expressions of task-related dis-
agreement, which are emblematic of thorough information gathering and critical analysis,
are thought to be essential to effective group decision making and thus contribute to the
groups overall performance (Amason, 1996; DeDreu & West, 2001). Relationship conflict
refers to personal incompatibilities, such as differences in personality, values, and non-task-
related preferences.
Barki and Hartwick (2004) proposed a similar but more elaborate 3 2 typology that dis-
tinguishes between the focus of conflict and the properties of conflict. The first dimension
concerns the target of the conflict, which, like Jehns typology, distinguishes between con-
flicts centered on task content versus interpersonal relationships. The second dimension
encompasses the cognitive, behavioral, and affective components of conflict, each of which
can be manifested in task- or interpersonal-based conflicts. Cognitive conflict refers to the
occurrence of disagreements between parties, which can center on task-related issues or
on differences in personal values, views, and the like. Behavioral conflict occurs when one
party interferes with another partys attempts to perform a task or to pursue non-task-related
interests. Affective conflict involves expressions of anger and frustration over task-related
issues or interpersonal issues.
Barki and Hartwicks (2004) two-dimensional typology is consistent with our general def-
inition of conflict described above in that it acknowledges the cognitive, affective, and behav-
ioral components of conflict. However, the distinction between the bases of conflict employed
in this typology and those in Jehns model (task vs. relationship) poses serious problems for
the understanding of intragroup conflict. The first concern is whether the constructs are mean-
ingfully distinct from one another. Measures of task, process, and relationship conflict show
substantial overlap. For example, a recent meta-analysis of task and relationship conflict
(DeDreu & Weingart, 2003) found that the mean correlation between task and relationship
conflict was .54 and ranged as high as .84. Similarly, process conflict tends to be highly cor-
related with both forms of conflict (e.g., Jehn & Mannix, 2001; Kellermanns & Eddleston,
2007). Moreover, distinguishing between conflict types appears to add little predictive or
explanatory power beyond relationship conflict. When the effects of task and relationship
conflict are examined simultaneously, the unique effect of task conflict beyond relationship
conflict is weak or nonexistent (Friedman, Tidd, Currall, & Tsai, 2000; Janssen, Van De
Vliert, & Veenstra, 1999; Medina, Munduate, Dorado, Martinez, & Guerra, 2005; Pearson,
Ensley, & Amason, 2002). In response to the weak finding for task conflict, scholars have
recently proposed a contingency model whereby the effects of each form of conflict depend
on contextual factors such as task characteristics (Jehn & Bendersky, 2003).
However, the literature points to a more fundamental problem in the specification of rela-
tionships among the constructs. Numerous studies suggest that, rather than representing
types of conflict, task and relationship conflict are causally related and represent a process
that unfolds over time. For example, in her qualitative study of intragroup conflict, Jehn
(1997) found that, in a small percentage of cases, task conflict escalated into relationship
conflict. Similarly, Amason and Schweiger (1994) argued that task conflict can be taken per-
sonally, particularly when personal interests are at stake. This argument has been supported
in several studies (Friedman et al., 2000; Pelled et al., 1999; Wang, Jing, & Klossek, 2007).
Amason and Schweiger (1994) also asserted that individuals may view task-based disagree-
ments by other group members as attempts to exploit the situation to ones own advantage.
This implies a sense-making process wherein expressions of dissent may lead individuals to
question the motives underlying other members arguments. Supporting this view, several
studies have found that under conditions of low trust, where team members are apt to ques-
tion each others motives for dissent (Dirks & Ferrin, 2001), task conflict leads to relation-
ship conflict (Parayitam & Dooley, 2007; Peterson & Behfar, 2003; Simons & Peterson,
2000; Tidd, McIntyre, & Friedman, 2004). These assertions and findings suggest that the
typology of task and relationship conflict may be capturing the link between the sense-
making stage of conflict and the affective manifestations of conflict.
We maintain that the effort toward developing a typology of intragroup conflict is some-
what misdirected because it obscures efforts toward understanding how conflict as a group
phenomenon develops. DeDreu and Gelfand (2007) suggested that there are three main
causes of conflict at work, scarce resources, divergent values, and the need for cognitive
consistency, each of which gives rise to a unique form of conflictprocess, relationship,
and task conflict, respectively. Thus, the concepts of process, relationship, and task conflict
confound conflict as a consequence with its causes. Consequently, the focus on a taxonomy
of conflict types limits our understanding of the root causes and unfolding processes that
lead to intragroup conflict. Alternatively, we recommend focusing on resource, social, and
substantive issues as causes or inputs of conflict that is then manifested into cognitive, affec-
tive, and behavioral forms.
Moreover, the study of intragroup conflict lacks a systematic consideration of the multi-
level nature of intragroup conflict. Clearly, intragroup conflict emerges from individual-level
psychological processes (Smith-Crowe et al., 2007). To paraphrase Kozlowski and Bell
(2003), teams do not think and feel, individuals do. The nature of the intragroup conflict as
a higher-level construct has not been articulated, but there are compelling reasons to believe
that intragroup conflict is not simply the sum of interpersonal conflicts within the group
(R. M. Dawes, 1980), an issue we return to later. Along with such bottom-up relationships,
top-down and cross-level relationships among individual, dyadic, and group levels have not
been explicitly or systematically addressed (DeDreu & Gelfand, 2007). To develop a more
comprehensive understanding of conflict process at the group level, it is essential to distin-
guish it from processes that occur at the individual and dyadic levels and to examine their
mutual influence. To that end, in the next section we review the empirical research on
antecedents at each level.
Antecedents of Intragroup Conflict
The review of antecedents is organized around the first three categories of factors
inputs, behavior, and sense makingdescribed in Figure 2. We address these factors within
individual, dyadic, and group levels of analysis, yielding a multilevel model of intragroup
conflict.
Individual-Level Antecedents of the Conflict Process
The aforementioned definition of conflict focuses on conflict between and among parties,
but as noted earlier some causes of conflict originate within the individual. Furthermore, the
experience of conflict is mediated by individual-level psychological processes (Smith-Crowe
et al., 2007). Consistent with this view, the empirical research on conflict often conceptual-
izes and measures conflict processes at the individual level.
Individual difference inputs. Wall and Callister (1995) noted only three studies examin-
ing the effects of traits or personality and concluded that traits had a relatively minor effect
on conflict (p. 519). Since then, following a general surge in research on personality (Hogan
& Holland, 2003), there has been renewed recognition of the role of personality traits in con-
flict. Much of this literature centers on the relationship between individual differences and
antisocial behavior, such as work aggression (Robinson & OLeary-Kelly, 1998), retaliation
(Folger & Skarlicki, 1998), and undermining behavior (Duffy, Ganster, Shaw, Johnston, &
Pagon, 2006), each of which may be viewed as behavioral expressions of conflict. Consistent
Figure 2
A Multilevel Model of Intragroup Conflict
Inputs Behavior Sense making Process Conflict
Task Context Group Collective Group

Team Social Context Interactions Sense making Conflict
Level
Dyadic Task Context Dyadic Dyadic Interpersonal

Level Social Context Interactions Sense making Conflict
Individual
Individual Individual Individual
Differences and Sense making
Level Behavior Conflict
States
with interactionist views of personality (e.g., Tett & Burnett, 2003), much of the empirical
evidence suggests that the effects of personality on conflict depend on contextual factors.
Traits most consistently related to conflict are derived from the five-factor model, specif-
ically, agreeableness, conscientious, and neuroticism. Agreeableness, which refers to the
extent to which individuals are empathetic, likeable, trusting, and cooperative (Digman, 1990),
is negatively associated with conflict-provoking behavior (Venkataramani & Dalal, 2007).
Moreover, because those low in agreeableness are likely to react more strongly to negative
stimuli (Jawahar, 2002), agreeableness should moderate the effect of conflict-provoking sit-
uations as procedural injustice (Skarlicki, Folger, & Tesluk, 1999) and victimization (Jockin,
Arvey, & McGue, 2001). Similarly, individuals who are low in conscientiousnessparticularly
the self-control component of conscientiousnessare apt to have stronger, more counter-
productive reactions to conflict-provoking situations (Douglas & Martinko, 2001; Jockin
et al., 2001). Similarly, self-monitoring, which involves the capacity to control ones behavior
to suit the situation, has been linked to higher levels of conflict and to more extreme reac-
tions to conflict-provoking situations (Baron, 1989; Glomb & Liao, 2003; Neuman & Baron,
1998). Finally, neuroticism and related constructs such as negative affectivity and trait anger
moderate the impact of conflict-provoking events (e.g., victimization, procedural injustice) on
antisocial behavior (Douglas & Martinko, 2001; Glomb & Liao, 2003; Jockin et al., 2001;
Skarlicki et al., 1999).
In addition to components of the five-factor model, Type A personality is associated with
higher levels of experienced conflict (Baron, 1989) and antisocial behavior (Jawahar, 2002;
Neuman & Baron, 1998). As well, hostile attributional bias, the tendency to infer hostile
intent on the part of others, has been identified as a correlate of conflict (Douglas &
Martinko, 2001; Jawahar, 2002; Neuman & Baron, 1998).
Demographics also appear to play a role in the experience and expression of conflict. A
recent meta-analysis (Ng & Feldman, 2008) found that age was associated with less aggres-
sive behavior. Education level was also positively related to individual perceptions of con-
flict (Wang et al., 2007). Prior experience also plays a role. Douglas and Martinko (2001)
found that previous exposure to an aggressive culture (e.g., living in a violent community)
was associated with aggressive workplace behavior, particularly for people who held posi-
tive attitudes toward revenge.
Temporary states, such as attitudes and beliefs, are also related to conflict. Affective com-
mitment and attitudes toward revenge are both related to conflict-provoking behavior (Douglas
& Martinko, 2001; Venkataramani & Dalal, 2007). Also related to conflict are negative emo-
tional states. For example, stress has been linked to reports of task conflict (Wang et al., 2007).
Behavior. As noted below, most research on behavior as an antecedent of conflict has

focused on the dyadic level wherein the behavior of one party affects the other partys expe-
rience and perception of conflict. However, there is some evidence that an individuals
behavior influences his or her own experience or expression of conflict. For example, indi-
viduals who use cooperative conflict management styles perceive less conflict, whereas
those who use a dominant or avoidant style perceive more conflict (Friedman et al., 2000).
Individuals who have committed antisocial acts in the past are more likely to engage in
behavioral conflict (i.e., antisocial behavior; Jockin et al., 2001). Behavior unrelated to the
conflict, namely alcohol abuse, is also related to behavioral expressions of conflict (Jockin
et al., 2001).
Sense making. As discussed previously, sense making is thought to play a significant role
in the manifestation of conflict. Neuman and Baron (1998) noted that unfavorable cognitive
appraisals of ambiguous events are likely to lead to antisocial behavior. In his model of para-
noid cognition, Kramer (1998) argued that when individuals are in a suspicious state of
mind, they are likely to engage in a sense-making process biased toward personalizing events
(i.e., that actions of others are personally directed at them) and ascribing sinister motives to
others. These judgments may then result in a self-fulfilling prophecy, wherein the expecta-
tions of hostility actually elicit such behavior in the other party (Kramer, 2001). Consistent
with this view, Bell and Song (2005) found that individuals who blamed the other party for
a conflict reported more felt conflict (i.e., hostility) toward the other party than did those who
blamed themselves.
So far, we have covered the existing literature on individual-level antecedents of conflict.
The link between inputs and behavior is well documented. This literature suggests that indi-
vidual traits, particularly agreeableness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism, demographic
characteristics, and attitude directly and indirectly affect conflict. The link between behav-
ior and sense making about ones own behavior has received less attention, but research sug-
gests that people engage in cognitive appraisals of their own behavior and attributions about
the motives of others, which leads to the manifestation of conflict. As we discuss in the next
section, this relationship is more frequently examined in the context of dyadic-level
antecedents to conflict.
Dyadic-Level Antecedents of Conflict
Dyadic-level antecedents are factors pertaining to the relationship between parties. They
are nonetheless attributes that characterize the dyad or the context in which the dyad func-
tions. Consistent with the inputsbehaviorsense making model, we discuss two types of
inputs, task context and social context, followed by a discussion of dyadic interactions
(behavior).
Task context inputs. Task context refers to the structural aspects of the relationship
between parties that potentially leads to conflict between them. As noted earlier, theory sug-
gests task interdependence as a precondition for dyadic conflict (Deutsch, 1962; Emerson,
1962). Conflict is likely to be greater under conditions of interdependence when the goals of
each party are incompatible (Komorita & Parks, 1995; Pinkley, Griffith, & Northcraft, 1995).
Goal incompatibility is not purely objective; individuals may perceive incompatibilities
where none exist, and it is this perception that leads to conflict and subsequent uncoopera-
tive behavior (Thompson & Hrebec, 1996). Individuals who frame a task as competitive as
opposed to cooperative or as a fixed-pie problem (Harinck, DeDreu, & van Vianen, 2000;
Ohbuchi & Suzuki, 2003) tend to perceive more conflict and act less cooperatively.
Power-dependency theory posits that power imbalance exacerbates conflict among inter-
dependent parties. For example, parties with less power in a dyadic relationship were more
likely to perceive a threat (Rousseau & Garcia-Retamero, 2007). Similarly, status differences
shape the experiences of, and responses to, conflict in interdependent relationships. For
example, employees were more likely to use avoidance techniques with superiors and forc-
ing techniques with subordinates (Baron, 1989). Similarly, Aquino et al. (2006) found that
individuals were more likely to forgive and reconcile with a wrongdoer of higher versus low
status, although this effect was contingent on procedural justice. Finally, role ambiguity fur-
ther exacerbates conflict. Tidd et al. (2004) found that task conflict between individuals had
a stronger link with relationship conflict when their jobs were higher in role ambiguity.
Social context inputs. This category includes attributes of the social setting that influence
the interactions between individuals and shape the interpretation of those interactions. We
focus on two main factors: diversity and relationship quality.
Research on the impact of diversity on conflict has focused mainly on demographic and
values diversity, and the results generally indicate that diversity is associated with greater
conflict (van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007). Much of this research has examined aggre-
gate diversity within a group, which is summarized in the section that follows, whereas other
studies have examined the dissimilarity between one individual and one or more coworkers
(Jehn, Chadwick, & Thatcher, 1997; Lankau et al., 2007). However, research on the effects
of gender, tenure, age, and national origin dissimilarity have produced mixed results (Pelled,
1996a, 1996b; Pelled, Xin, & Weiss, 2001; Polzer, Crisp, Jarvenpaa, & Kim, 2006; Xin &
Pelled, 2003). These inconsistent results are not surprising given the myriad differences in
the conceptualization and measurement of conflict and diversity. Some studies focused on
dyadic diversity within the group (Xin & Pelled, 2003), whereas others examined dissimi-
larity between one individual and the remaining members of the group (e.g., Jehn et al.,
1997). Furthermore, some studies examined dyadic conflict, whereas others addressed an
individuals perception of group conflict.
The quality of the dyadic relationships is also relevant. Tjosvold and Sun (2002) found
that a prior positive relationship between the parties reduced the tendency to be confronta-
tional in conflicting situations. Shah and Jehn (1993) found that friendship ties were nega-
tively related to conflict. Similarly, the extent to which the two parties have a negative
relationship is predictive of behavioral expressions of conflict (Venkataramani & Dalal,
2007). It is interesting that this same study showed that positive bonds with a common third
party led to less conflict.
Dyadic interactions. Process models of conflict (e.g., Pondy, 1967) suggest that the
degree and quality of exchanges between parties are important determinants of conflict.
Several aspects of the quality of these social interactions have been posited as antecedents of
conflict, including communication, fair treatment, interference, and the overall quality of
relationships.
Arguably, one of the most important factors in dyadic conflict is the style and content of
communication (Olekalns, Putnam, Weingart, & Metcalf, 2008). Research summarized by
Wall and Callister (1995) suggests that although avoidance of communication can lead to
problems, the frequency of communication is generally negatively related to conflict.
Subsequent studies confirmed this relationship, suggesting that face-to-fact interaction may
mitigate conflict (P. L. Dawes & Massey, 2005; Gajendran & Harrison, 2007; Polzer et al.,
2006). In addition, the quality of the communication is linked to perceptions of conflict
(Massey & Dawes, 2007). Two main features of communication quality appear to be espe-
cially relevant: the extent to which the communication is destructive and disrespectful and
the extent to which communication justifies the behavior of one of the parties (Baron, 1984,
1988b, 1990; Berry, Ones, & Sackett, 2007; Colquitt, 2001). The adequacy and sincerity
of explanations are important mitigating factors (Baron, 1988a; Shapiro, 1991). After a
conflict-provoking event, such as an insult (Baron, 1984) or unfair allocation (Baron, 1985),
such communications are thought to reduce the tendency to make unfavorable attributions
about the other partys intentions or character. However, excuses seem to fare better than
explanations in mitigating negative responses (Shaw, Wild, & Colquitt, 2003).
Other indicators of the quality of exchanges between parties, such as expressions of aggres-
sion, have been shown to escalate conflict (Glomb & Liao, 2003; Jockin et al., 2001). The actions
of one party need not be directed at another to induce conflict. For example, Janssen (2003) found
that innovative work behavior was positively correlated with conflict with coworkers.
Sense making. In empirical studies of dyadic conflict, these factors are often assumed to
be mediated by individual-level sense-making processes. Thus, although some form of col-
lective sense making is plausible, the literature is largely silent on the concept of shared
sense making at the dyadic level.
In summary, research on interpersonal conflict has centered largely on inputs and behav-
iors. Regarding inputs, task factors, demography, and relationship quality have received the
most attention. The deleterious effects of task characteristics such as interdependence,
incompatibility, power, and ambiguity are well understood. However, research on the effects
of demographic dissimilarity has not produced consistent findings. Research on behavioral
interactions has focused largely on the benefits of frequent, interpersonally sensitive com-
munication and the harmful effects of aggression.
Group-Level Antecedents of Intragroup conflict
Research on the group-level antecedents to conflict has mainly approached conflict as a

shared perception or experience among group members. As previously noted, most empiri-
cal studies used Jehns (1995) conceptualization and measurement of task and relationship
conflict. Following the inputbehaviorsense making framework, we review the research on
two types of inputs, task and social context, and on group interactions (behavior).
Task context inputs. The attributes of a teams task shape the nature of team interactions
(Pelled et al., 1999), thus setting the stage for intragroup conflict. Reasoning in uncertain
tasks requires more deliberation and stimulates more debate. Accordingly, Mooney et al.
(2007) showed that goal uncertainty was positively associated with task and relationship
conflict. Similarly, given that routine tasks have low information-processing requirements
and set procedures, it is not surprising that task routineness is negatively related to task and
relationship conflict (Pelled et al., 1999).
The teams autonomy relative to entities outside the group appears to affect the degree of
conflict within the group. For example, Buchholtz, Amason, and Rutherford (2005) found a
negative relationship between top management team autonomy from the board of directors
and affective conflict. In addition, they found a negative relationship between the number of
general board meetings held each yearused as a proxy for board activism (Vafeas, 1999)
and affective conflict among the top management team members.
As with dyadic conflict, intragroup conflict is affected by goal incompatibilities. In
Amason and Sapienzas (1997) study, mutuality in top management teamsdefined as the
extent to which team members believe they share a common collective goalwas associated
with less task and relationship conflict. Furthermore, mutuality diminished the negative rela-
tionship between openness and relationship conflict.
Social context inputs. The social context of the group refers to the structure of the group
and its psychological characteristics. We focus mainly on diversity, group structure, and
norms and climate.
Most empirical research in this area has focused on aggregate differences in demographic,
functional, and values. Overall, the findings suggest that diversity generally increases con-
flict. For example, gender, age, and race diversity are associated with higher levels of intra-
group conflict (Mohammed & Angell, 2004; Pelled et al., 1999; Vodosek, 2007). In addition,
diversity in functional background, knowledge bases, and educational background is posi-
tively associated with task conflict (Jehn, 1997, 1999; Mooney et al., 2007; Olson,
Parayitam, & Bao, 2007; Pelled et al., 1999). Values diversity is also disruptive, leading to
both task and relationship conflict (Jehn et al., 1997; Jehn & Mannix, 2001). Finally, cultural
diversity is positively related to intragroup conflict (Vodosek, 2007).
Culture also has a direct relationship to intragroup conflict. Nibler and Harris (2003)
reported that the nationality of group members had a main effect on conflict among members
of student groups, such that the Chinese students reported higher levels of conflict than the
American students. Culture also influences the interpretation and reaction to conflict. Liu,
Spector, and Shi (2007) investigated EastWest differences in the level and form of conflict.
They found that U.S. citizens, because of a stronger individualistic orientation, interpreted
interdependent situations as conflicts of interest and expressed conflict more openly than
their more collectivist-oriented Chinese counterparts.
The effects of diversity on conflict may be mitigated or exacerbated by other factors. For
example, Jehn and Mannix (2001) found no relationship between values diversity and con-
flict during the initial weeks of a groups life; however, during the middle stages values
diversity was associated with greater task, relationship, and process conflict. Pelled et al.
(1999) found that the effects of race and tenure diversity diminished over the life of the
group. Taken together, these findings are consistent with research on deep-level versus
surface-level diversity (Harrison, Price, Gavin, & Florey, 2002), which states that, over time,
interactions among team members weaken the effect of surface-level (demographic) diver-
sity but strengthen the effect of deep-level (psychological) diversity.
Task characteristics also moderate the effects of diversity. Tasks that make a certain char-
acteristic more salient are likely to exacerbate the effect of diversity on that characteristic.
Using gender-neutral or gender-biased tasks as a means to manipulate gender salience activa-
tion, Pearsall, Ellis, and Evans (2008) showed that activation led to a stronger, negative effect
of gender diversity on relationship conflict. As well, task routineness diminished the effect of
demographic diversity but exacerbated the effect of functional diversity (Pelled et al., 1999).
Other compositional characteristics of the group have been shown to affect conflict,
including size, turnover rates, longevity, geographic distribution, and power distribution.
Several studies have shown team size, frequently used as a control variable, increased both
task and relationship conflict (Amason & Sapienza, 1997; Mooney et al., 2007; Pelled et al.,
1999) and marginally increased emotional conflict (Li & Hambrick, 2005). The length of
time group members work together also affects conflict. For example, turnover among group
members has been found to increase cognitive conflict (Mooney et al., 2007). Group
longevity, however, had a negative effect on emotional conflict (Pelled et al., 1999). Finally,
geographic dispersion is positively related to conflict (Hinds & Mortensen, 2005), particu-
larly if it involves only two locations rather than three or more, as two locations represent a
fault line and are more likely to polarize the subgroups (Polzer et al., 2006).
Other researchers have examined shared group attributes, such as norms, climate, trust,
commitment, and affect. Amason and Sapienza (1997) showed that the norm of open and
frank discussions among top management teams increases cognitive conflict. Similarly, Jehn
and Mannix (2001) showed that group atmosphere, composed of group cohesiveness, respect,
and open conflict discussion, was associated with low levels of task, relationship, and process
conflict, whereas group competitiveness was associated with higher levels of relationship con-
flict. Likewise, Mooney et al. (2007) found that team-oriented culturewhere the organiza-
tional values, beliefs, and norms support teamworkwas negatively related to task conflict.
Collective trust in the group also influences conflict. However, it appears to function mainly
as a mitigating factor in the effect of other antecedents on conflict and on the escalation of
conflict (Olson et al., 2007; Peterson & Behfar, 2003; Tidd et al., 2004). Finally, regarding
collective affect, Barsade (2002) found that emotional contagion led to an increase in the pos-
itive mood in a group, resulting in lower levels of group conflict.
Group interactions. As with dyadic conflict, research on intragroup conflict has examined
the interactions among parties as an antecedent of conflict, focusing mainly on communica-
tive actions. Generally, the level of communication within the group is beneficial. For
example, group members information-sharing behavior has a negative effect on conflict
(Moye & Langfred, 2004). Mohammed and Angell (2004) reported that team process, which
included communication as well as leadership and coordination operating in a group,
affected relationship conflict. Peterson and Behfar (2003) showed that receiving feedback on
poor performance positively influences task conflict. Similarly, team leader solecism, the
extent to which the team leader focuses on errors and mistakes, increased anticitizenship
behavior in teams (Pearce & Giacalone, 2003).
Sense making. Because studies of intragroup conflict examine perceptions at the aggre-
gate level, research on perceptions of group conflict implies a collective sense-making
process. Empirical evidence is limited but suggests ways in which sense making may lead to
collective conflict. For example, Volkema, Farquhar, and Bergman (1996) suggested that
individuals involved in a dyadic conflict often turn to third parties for insight and advice.
These parties then become invested in the conflict and come to share perceptions of conflict.
Indirect evidence also comes from Barsade (2002), who demonstrated that individuals come
to share a collective affect, which in turn affects perceptions of conflict.
In summary, research on intragroup conflict has identified numerous task and social
inputs of the both task and relationship conflict. Task uncertainty, diversity, norms, and cli-
mate are relevant factors. As well, research suggests that communication processes influence
conflict within the group. The issue of collective sense making, in contrast, has received little
empirical attention.
Levels Issues in Research on Antecedents
The above review of antecedents suggests that similar constructs contribute to conflict at
each level of analysis. For example, demographic characteristics, task characteristics, and
social interactions shape conflict at both the dyadic and group levels. It is also apparent from
the review that conflict and its antecedents exist at three distinct levels. These findings col-
lectively suggest that conflict within groups is a multilevel phenomenon. However, in most
cases, intragroup conflict has not been conceptualized or examined in a multilevel context,
leading to significant ambiguities and misspecification of theory and methods.
First, there is often a lack of correspondence between the conceptual level of analysis and
the level of analysis in measurement. For example, although interpersonal conflict is, con-
ceptually, a dyadic phenomenon, in most of the research on interpersonal conflict we
reviewed, conflict was measured as an individual-level dependent variable rather than a
dyadic phenomenon. That is, conflict is measured from the perspective of one individual in
the dyad, disregarding the dyadic nature of interpersonal conflict. In such studies, it is not
clear whether both parties are experiencing conflict. To assess interpersonal conflict as a
dyadic phenomenon, the experience or expression of conflict should be assessed from the
perspective of both parties. Moreover, if interpersonal conflict exists at the dyadic level, then
the extent to which parties share similar perceptions of conflict should be assessed.
Second, in the formulation of hypotheses, levels are often not clearly or accurately artic-
ulated. For example, some studies conceptualize and measure intragroup conflict as a group-
level variable but measure and test the hypothesized relationships at the individual level (e.g.,
Friedman et al., 2000; Jehn et al., 1997; Lankau et al., 2007). In these particular studies,
group conflict was assessed at the individual level because the researchers were examining
antecedents specified at the individual level (e.g., the individuals dissimilarity relative to
other team members, individual conflict management style). However, it is not clear whether
the relationships tested actually reflect individual-level relationships. That is, these relation-
ships could imply the bottom-up effect of individual-level antecedents on group-level con-
flict. However, perceived conflict was analyzed at the individual level of analysis, and the
degree to which perceptions of conflict are shared among the group members was not
assessed.
That said, many studies do have correspondence between the levels at which the con-
structs are conceptualized, measured, and analyzed. However, with rare exceptions (e.g.,
Barsade, 2002), these studies employ a single-level model and thus fail to account for cross-
level effects and simultaneous effects occurring at other levels of analysis. In short, like
many multilevel phenomena in organizational behavior, the construct of intragroup conflict
has evolved with little explicit consideration of the multilevel nature of conflict in teams. As
a result, fundamental questions remain regarding the emergence of intragroup conflict and
the unique relations occurring at each level.
Toward a Multilevel Model of Intragroup Conflict
Multilevel models specify three main types of relationships (Chen & Kanfer, 2006; Hitt,
Beamish, Jackson, & Mathieu, 2007). First, these models depict within-level relationships,
wherein parallel processes occur simultaneously at multiple levels of analysis. In the case of
intragroup conflict, a multilevel model should depict the conflict process within the individ-
ual, dyadic, and group levels of analysis. Second, multilevel models address bottom-up and
top-down relationships. Bottom-up relationships depict how a given phenomenon or con-
struct emerges from analogous lower-level constructs, and top-down relationships explain
how higher-level constructs affect lower-level constructs. In a multilevel model of conflict,
an example of a bottom-up relationship is the emergence of intragroup conflict perceptions

from dyadic and individual-level conflict perceptions. An example of a top-down relation-
ship would be the impact of group-level conflict-provoking behavior on the behavior of the
individual. The third feature of multilevel models is the specification of cross-level effects,
wherein antecedents at higher levels affect consequences at lower levels. In a multilevel
model of conflict, an example of a cross-level effect is the relationship between group com-
position factors and individual behavior.
Chen and Kanfers (2006) multilevel model of motivation in teams is an excellent exem-
plar of multilevel theorizing. Using this general structure, we drew on our review of the
antecedents of conflict and the underlying theoretical framework to specify a multilevel
model of intragroup conflict, which is depicted in Figure 2. Although the content of the
model represents a synthesis of theoretical and empirical research on the antecedents of con-
flict, certain constructs and relationships that we specify have received little to no theoreti-
cal or empirical attention. We include these constructs and relationships because they
logically flow from the consideration of a multilevel model.
As noted earlier, theory and research suggest a general conflict process consisting of four
broad causally related factors. These categories are represented by each column of the model
in Figure 2. As a multilevel model, the process is expected to unfold in parallel forms at each
level. Thus, the model consists of three rows, representing the individual, dyadic, and group
levels.
This model is intended to focus on the multilevel nature of group conflict, highlighting
within-level, bottom-up and top-down, and cross-level effects. In keeping with that empha-
sis and in the interest of parsimony, the model does not represent all possible causal rela-
tionships among these variables. For example, different manifestations of conflict may be
causally related; as noted earlier, research suggests that task conflict can cause relationship
conflict. As well, cognitive indicators of conflict, such as perceived dyadic conflict, can lead
to behavioral indicators of conflict, such as aggression (Hershcovis et al., 2007). The model
also does not make explicit intralevel interactive relationships. For example, group inputs
(task interdependence) moderate the relationship between group interactions (communica-
tion) and task-based intragroup conflict (Moye & Langfred, 2004). Finally, we do not indi-
cate recursive relationships or feedback loops, although theory (e.g., Pondy, 1967) and
research (Zapf & Gross, 2001) suggest they exist. Below, we examine this model and how it
addresses the three features of multilevel theory outlined above.
Conflict Within Levels
As depicted in Figure 2, there are unique input factors at each level, but the processes and
outcomes are parallel. In multilevel theory, parallel constructs are similar in content and
function within levels (Chen et al., 2005; Morgeson & Hofmann, 1999). The core constructs
at each levelinputs, behaviors, sense making, and conflictare conceptually similar such
that they share a common definition. However, parallelism does not necessarily mean that
the constructs at each level emerge from the same sources. In the case of conflict, there are
aspects of the processes occurring at each level that are unique and thus bear commentary.
Individual-level linkages. The horizontal relationships at the individual level represent the
links between inputs, the behavior, the appraisal, and the experience of conflict for the indi-
vidual. They depict a process that occurs within individuals but culminates in individuals
experience of dyadic conflict. Thus, this set of relationships allows for one party or member
of a group to perceive and experience conflict without the other party or group members
sharing or being aware of such an occurrence. The horizontal processes at this level address
the links from individual inputs to their own behavior and, in turn, to their appraisal of their
own behavior. These behaviors may include conflict-provoking behavior, such as uncooper-
ative or antisocial behavior. Such actions would be motivated by traits or states that lead indi-
viduals to focus on their self-interests, interpret situations as threatening or competitive, or
otherwise motivate uncooperative or antisocial behavior. The appraisal that results from
these actions involves an appraisal of ones own behavior and its consequences, which in
turn leads to perceptions of conflict with others.
The link between trait and states to behavior relevant to conflict is well documented (e.g.,
Douglas & Martinko, 2001; Glomb & Liao, 2003), as is the link between sense making and
the experience of conflict (e.g., Neuman & Baron, 1998). However, the link between an indi-
viduals behavior and his or her appraisal has received scant attention in the dyadic conflict
literature. Recently, James and colleagues (2005; also see Bing et al., 2007) work on the jus-
tification of aggressive behavior provided some insight. They argued that individuals engage
in a rationalization process whereby they develop justifications for their own antisocial
behavior. For example, they may justify their behavior through biased reasons such as the
hostile attribution bias. This reasoning process necessarily involves encoding the situation as
threatening and hostile. Thus, in an effort to rationalize their own actions, individuals come
to perceive themselves in a conflict situation. One may speculate that a similar post hoc
rationalization process occurs with prosocial behavior. Recall that Friedman et al. (2000)
found that people who reported using a more cooperative conflict management style reported
lower levels of conflict. It is possible that these individuals justified their own cooperative
behavior by encoding the situation as less conflict ridden.
Dyadic-level linkages. The horizontal relationships at the dyadic level represent the
processes associated with dyadic conflict. Both task and social context influence each partys
behavior within these exchanges. Subsequent sense making involves a collective interpreta-
tion of these exchanges leading to a shared experience of conflict.
The link between inputs and interpersonal behaviors is well documented and grounded in
theory. For example, the impact of task characteristics such as interdependence, goal con-
flict, and cooperative behavior has been established through research on dyadic dilemmas
(Deutsch, 1962) and negotiation (Komorita & Parks, 1995). Similarly, research clearly doc-
uments that dissimilarity and friendship between individuals can lead to greater conflict
(e.g., Jehn et al., 1997).
In contrast, the construct of sense making and relationships involving this construct are
rarely conceptualized and measured at the dyadic level. Indeed, there is little research on
whether and why dyads develop a shared sense of conflict. More common is to conceptual-
ize a cross-level effect wherein the interactions between parties result in one party engaging
in sense making (e.g., Baron, 1984). This approach does not inform on the appraisal of the
offending party. It is quite plausible that the dyad does not share a common view of the
degree of offence or the extent to which the offense is attributable to one party. Indeed,
research suggests that managers actions can be hurtful and offensive but the manager may
have neither intended to offend nor been aware of the harm inflicted (Folger & Skarlicki,
1998). Moreover, the offending party is unlikely to be a passive participant in the shaping of
a collective understanding of the event. There are compelling incentives to managing impres-
sions of culpability, and research indicates that the offending partys explanations can influ-
ence blaming (Ferrin, Kim, Cooper, & Dirks, 2007; Kim, Ferrin, Cooper, & Dirks, 2004).
Examining the impact of dyadic interactions on the emergence of a shared (or disparate)
labeling of the event and attribution for the event is clearly an area for investigation. As well,
whether shared cognitions lead to a coherent pattern of conflict at the dyadic level remains
to be tested.
Group-level linkages. The group level of analysis represents group-level antecedents and
processes that affect intragroup conflict. These horizontal relationships depict the impact of
the groups task context (e.g., routineness, shared goals) and social context (e.g., diversity,
norms) on the interactions and exchanges among group members. These interactions in turn
may be appraised in a manner that leads to a shared subjective experience of conflict among
the group.
The relationships in the first link in the group-level process, between group inputs and
group interactions, are well documented. For example, research shows that inputs such as
negative outcome interdependence (R. M. Dawes & Messick, 2000), competitive goals
(Alper, Tjosvold, & Law, 1998), group identity (R. M. Dawes & Messick, 2000), and group
norms (Robinson & OLeary-Kelly, 1998) influence the degree to which groups interact in
a more or less cooperative manner.
There is also a large volume of data supporting the relationship between inputs and the
experience or perception of intragroup conflict (Jehn & Bendersky, 2003). However, evi-
dence of the intervening links from group interactions to collective sense making and from
sense making to conflict is lacking. Studies that specify, measure, and analyze conflict at the
group level typically provide an empirical rationalization for conflict as a shared perception.
As discussed further below, however, there are some promising insights into bottom-up
effects on sense making and group conflict (Barsade, 2002; Beersma, Conlon, &
Hollenbeck, 2007).
It is important to note that, if intragroup conflict is a multilevel phenomenon, these rela-
tionships reflect the impact of inputs on group behavior that exist over and above dyadic and
individual-level processes. The impact of social dilemmas on collective behavior illustrates
how intragroup conflict is distinct and independent from lower-level conflict. An extension
of dyadic dilemmas, social dilemmas involve incompatibilities between self-interest and a
collective interest (R. M. Dawes, 1980). Because the core conflict is between individual and
collective interests (Beersma et al., 2007), the actions of a given member of the group affect
the collective as a whole. Moreover, the impact of group member behavior is dependent on
the actions of the collective; any one members behavior will be more or less harmful to the
group depending on what other members of the group do. Thus, conflict is manifested in
terms of the collective configuration of group members actions.
Bottom-Up and Top-Down Relationships
The second feature of a multilevel theory is that it addresses both top-down and bottom-
up relationships. In our model, these relationships are depicted by the curved, double-headed
arrows connecting similar constructs across levels.
The bottom-up effects in our multilevel model capture the emergence of collective phe-
nomena, specifically, dyadic or group interactions and collective sense making at the dyadic
and group levels. Such effects involve the interplay between levels wherein a process at
lower levels leads to an aggregate phenomenon at a higher level.
The first set of bottom-up relationships involves the linkages from individual-level behav-
ior to dyadic and group interactions and the linkage from dyadic to group interactions.
Although empirical research is lacking, insight into linkages between individual and dyadic
behavior can be drawn from social exchange theory, which describes the voluntary exchange
of benefits between two parties. If one considers the exchange as the unit of analysis
(Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005), an individuals behavior in isolation is not necessarily con-
flict provoking. Rather, the behavior of one party in relation to the other partys behavior
(i.e., the lack of reciprocation) stimulates conflict. That is, individual-level behaviors com-
bine in unique configurations of exchanges to ultimately affect conflict.
From a social exchange perspective, individual-level behavior is likely to have a stronger and
more immediate impact on dyadic exchanges than group exchanges. Indeed, some dyadic inter-
actions may have little impact on the collective. However, in the context of high group interde-
pendence, exchanges between a dyad will have effects beyond the two parties involved in the
exchange. Over time, however, such interactions may escalate to a collective problem. Thus, even
though the other members are not individually involved in the original dyadic exchange, they are
likely to experience group-level conflict because the actions of the conflicting parties affect them.
Bottom-up relationships between individual-level behavior and group behavior may also reflect
a compositional phenomenon. For example, Robinson and OLeary-Kelly (1998) speculated that
collective antisocial behavior at work may result for attritionattractionselection processes.
Thus, individual behavioral patterns aggregate to a group-level behavioral pattern.
The second set of relationships involves the emergence of collective sense making. As
noted earlier, there is scant empirical evidence of dyadic and group sense-making processes
pertaining to conflict. Bottom-up relations from individual to higher levels constitute one
route by which collective sense making may occur. The sense-making process may involve
individuals not directly involved with the behavioral exchange. When trying to make sense
or interpret a triggering event, an individual will often turn to third-party others (Bergmann
& Volkema, 1989, 1994). That is, conveying ones interpretation of the situation to cowork-
ers and discussing it will bring about a collective appraisal at the dyadic level, which, when
shared among the group members leads to a collective appraisal at the team level. Team
members can thus develop a shared understanding of why and how the events occurred, lead-
ing to a group-level perception of conflict.
Barsades (2002) explanation of emotional contagion provides an excellent example of
the interplay between individual and group-level sense making and the emergence of con-
flict. Emotional contagion refers to the sharing of emotions within a group that starts with
one individuals expression of emotion (individual behavior) which is then perceived by
other members. Emotions are shared in dyadic interactions either through automatic, non-
conscious mimicry or through cognitively processing the expression as social information to
understand ones own emotions. As more members of the group observe this interaction or
as they become involved in interactions, a convergence of mood occurs (i.e., group-level
appraisal), which subsequently affects group-level conflict.
Top-down relationships at the behavioral level involve the influence of group or dyadic
exchanges on individual behavior. For example, research shows that collective antisocial
behavior is positively related to individual-level antisocial behavior (Glomb & Liao, 2003;
Robinson & OLeary-Kelly, 1998). Researchers have speculated that this relationship is the
product of social learning, such that individuals adopt certain behaviors that are observed in
others. This sort of modeling of behavior does not require that the individuals behavior be
motivated by retaliation or directed at a specific offending individual. Indeed, if group-level
behavior is sufficiently prevalent, individuals may adopt and engage in similar behavior
without a conscious thought (Ashforth & Fried, 1988; Morrell, 2008).
Although we know little of work on top-down relationships involving sense making, such
relationships seem plausible from the perspective of social information processing (Salancik
& Pfeffer, 1978). This perspective suggests that cues and information from the social envi-
ronment convey and shape what is a valued and tolerated in a given setting. To the extent that
a group shares a collective viewpoint on a conflict, individual members are likely to perceive
consistent cues about the situation and adopt an interpretation of the situation that is similar
to that of the group (Morrell, 2008).
Cross-Level Relationships
Cross-level effects examine how behavior at lower levels is both compelled and con-
strained by higher-level factors. As well, these effects suggest how cognitions and affective
reactions to interactions are shaped by context. These relationships are represented by the
diagonal arrows extending from the upper levels to the lower levels.
The first set of cross-level effects links higher-level inputs to lower-level behaviors. Thus,
group input factors such as norms and group composition should affect the interactions
between members of the group and the individual behavior of group members. Neuman and
Baron (1998) discussed three distinct ways in which norms may affect conflict-related indi-
vidual behavior. First, individuals may retaliate when broad societal norms are violated by
members of the organization, as is the case in studies demonstrating the relationship between
perceptions of injustice and retaliation (e.g., Skarlicki & Folger, 1997). Second, individuals
who violate group norms are apt to be sanctioned by other group members, and those sanc-
tions may take the form of conflict-inducing behavior (e.g., verbal harassment, physical vio-
lence). Third, norms may lead to conflicts when the norms themselves endorse
conflict-promoting behavior, such as verbal abuse of coworkers (De Lara & Verano-
Tacoronte, 2007; Robinson & OLeary-Kelly, 1998). Such norms need not be counterpro-
ductive. Norms of open conflict discussion, which are likely to influence the willingness of
individual members to express dissent, are associated with higher levels of intragroup task
conflict (Amason & Sapienza, 1997; Jehn & Mannix, 2001).
The second link is between higher-level behavioral interactions and lower-level sense
making. Most studies of dyadic conflict have implicit cross-level relationships between
dyadic interactions and individual sense making, although the relationships investigated are
often at the individual level of analysis. For example, research on disrespectful and destruc-
tive behavior and cognitive appraisal of the behavior has examined the effect of behavior of
one party on the appraisals of the other party (e.g., Baron, 1984). An analogous relationship
between group interactions and individual sense making is also plausible. What is less clear,
however, is the potential influence of group interactions on dyadic sense making. This
relationship would involve dyads coming to a perception of conflict as a result of conflict-
inducing interactions within the group. For example, intragroup interactions may be attrib-
uted to mutual antagonism between dyads, even though the exchanges within the dyad are a
function of broader behavioral patterns within the group.
Although not explicitly depicted in the model, cross-level effects may also involve inter-
actions with lower-level variables. Duffy et al.s (2006) recent study examining the joint
effects of collective and dyadic antisocial behavior supports this argument. They found that,
although negative interactions at the dyadic level led to more behavioral conflict, this rela-
tionship was weaker when there was a high level of group-level antisocial behavior. That is,
when the collective as a whole is engaged in a high level of conflict, dyadic exchanges carry
less weight, perhaps because the target individual does not feel singled out. Another example
is the interaction between individual-level inputs and group-level inputs. Beersma et al.
(2007) proposed a model of how individual differences, such as propensity to trust, interact
with group and task characteristics, such as motivational diversity and decision procedures,
to influence cooperative behavior of group members. A third example is how the link
between behaviors and sense making is moderated by the task context. For example, an
employees attributions of the managers behaviors in a conflict are a function of not only
the managers behavior but also the extent to which that behavior prescribed by organiza-
tional policy.
In short, the multilevel view of conflict depicted in Figure 2 underscores the importance
of examining conflict at each level as opposed to adopting a single-level view. The multilevel
perspective carries implications for understanding the interplay between levels and the rela-
tive importance of various antecedents within levels.
Future Directions in the Study of Intragroup Conflict
Unexplored Relationships
The preceding discussion exposes numerous unresolved and neglected issues in the study
of intragroup conflict. Broadly speaking, a multilevel model suggests linkages that have to
date received little empirical attention. As previously noted, the potential impact of an indi-
viduals behavior on his or her own perception of conflict is not well understood. Also noted
above, questions remain regarding when, and to what extent, both parties come to a shared
recognition of dyadic conflict. Similarly, intragroup conflict implies a collective sense-making
process, but the factors leading to such processes have likewise received little theoretical or
empirical attention. In general, cross-level effects are not clearly specified in existing con-
ceptual models and empirical research on intragroup conflict. For example research on
dyadic conflict (e.g., managersubordinate conflict) implicitly assumes a cross-level phe-
nomenon, although most studies focus on individual-level outcomes.
Methodological Issues
In addition to investigating these relationships in a more clearly articulated cross-level

framework, scholars need to carefully reconsider the methodology employed to test such
relationships. The level and type of measurement as well as the use of time deserve particu-
lar attention.
Measurement of intragroup conflict. The investigation of multilevel phenomenon should

align the three facets of theory, measurement, and analysis (Hitt et al., 2007). Theoretically,
the construct of intragroup conflict clearly resides at the group level. As noted earlier, Jehns
(1995) measure of task and relationship conflict is one of the most widely used measures of
intragroup conflict. To align this measure, which is self-reported and thus at the individual
level of analysis, with the conceptual level of analysis, conflict ratings are typically aggre-
gated to the group level. This method implies a compositional group phenomenon
(Kozlowski & Klein, 2000), which has two underlying assumptions that may be questioned.
The first is that group members somehow have come to possess a shared perception of con-
flict, which is usually validated by reporting indicators of agreement, such as rwg or intra-
class correlation. Second, this approach also assumes that each members perception
contributes equally to the shared notion of conflict. Our earlier discussion of the bottom-up
effects on the emergence of intragroup conflict calls into question the assumption that each
and every member of the group contributes equally to the group-level perception of intra-
group conflict. That is, intragroup conflict can emerge from one individual or between two
parties within a group. Moreover, parties may not even agree on the interpretation of the con-
flict situation. Thus, bottom-up emergence through composition may not adequately repre-
sent intragroup conflict emergence.
Ultimately, the issue of whether intragroup conflict is best represented by composition or
compilation is a theoretical one, requiring a multilevel perspective on conflict (Kozlowski &
Bell, 2003). Measurement should then follow the theory. For example, compilation might
involve differential weighting of perceptions of conflict (Hitt et al., 2007). That is, the core
members who are at the center of conflict episodes that lead to intragroup conflict should
contribute differently to the shared perception of intragroup conflict when compared to
peripheral members who are mostly observers of the episodes. Methods such as asking
group members to identify past conflict episodes and the core parties associated with those
episodes would not only make this approach possible but also provide a significant amount
of insight into the emergence process of intragroup conflict.
In addition to the levels issue, it would be worthwhile exploring alternative operational-
izations of conflict. The construct space of Jehns (1995) measure of relationship conflict is
not clear. As noted earlier, measures of relationship and task conflict show considerable
overlap. Moreover, relationship conflict was originally described as including emotional ten-
sion (Jehn, 1995), and measures of relationship conflict incorporate indicators of emotional-
ity (e.g., How often do people get angry while working in your group?; Jehn & Mannix,
2001, p. 243). However, scholars (Barki & Hartwick, 2004; Jehn & Bendersky, 2003) have
also asserted that relationship conflict is distinct from the emotionality of conflict. We advo-
cate, as suggested by Barki and Hartwick (2004), that the measures provide a clearer sepa-
ration between the source (task vs. personal) and components (cognitive, affective, and
behavior) of conflict. In addition, alternatives to self-reports should also be considered.
Because much of conflict is manifested through communication processes (Olekalns et al.,
2008), one alternative is direct observation of group interactions and communication.
Further attention should be directed at the role of affect in conflict processes. The process
theories of conflict (e.g., Pondy, 1967) suggest an episodic phenomenon similar to Weiss and
Cropanzanos (1996) affective events theory. This theory focuses on the pattern of change in
affect over time as a function of work experiences and the sense making of those experiences
(e.g., blaming and speculation). This perspective highlights the importance of affect in shaping
conflict episodes. As well, this perspective underscores the need to adopt a dynamic view of con-
flict wherein events can lead to substantial variation in affect. This is discussed further below.
Role of time. Theory (e.g., Pondy, 1967) suggests that conflict arises over time through
multiple episodes. This process implies dynamic mediation whereby processes (behavior
and sense making) change over time and result in changes in conflict over time. For example,
Douglas et al. (2008) suggest that repeated exposure to triggering events can lead to
entrenched attitudes that ultimately lead to less deliberative processing of conflict episodes.
Moreover, this mediational process is likely to be recursive (Singer & Willett, 2003), in that
previous episodes of conflict feed back to influence subsequent behavior and sense making.
The dynamic aspect of conflict requires careful specification of causal sequences and
change, especially those pertaining to the multilevel aspects of intragroup conflict. This
should also involve addressing questions related to change over time, such as at which level
of analysis the change is occurring (Chen, 2005). The empirical tests of dynamic relation-
ships require more sophisticated methods and analytic procedures. Future research should
start utilizing designs and analytic tools such as linear growth modeling (Chan, 1998) and
hierarchical linear modeling (Bliese & Ployhart, 2002) that allow researchers to empirically
test time-varying relationships.
Conclusion
Understanding conflict in organizations and ways to manage it remains an area of intense

interest for researchers and practitioners alike. Although much of this attention has focused
on conflict at the interpersonal or dyadic level, it is conflict within groups that has received
the most attention in the last 15 years. Influenced by Jehns typology of intragroup conflict,
the bulk of this research has focused on conflict types, with less emphasis given to the
processes through which group conflict emerges. Furthermore, model development and
research on this issue have largely proceeded within a single-level theory, and research has
not clearly and consistently specified the level of analysis in theory or measurement. We
argue that emphasis on a single level and the ambiguities regarding the specification of level
have limited our understanding of intragroup conflict.
We therefore proposed a multilevel model of group conflict that integrates the individual,
dyadic, and intragroup levels of analysis. Examining group conflict as a multilevel phenom-
enon suggests important relationships both within and across levels that have not previously
been examined. For example, our model highlights the potential for an individuals own
behavior to influence both his or her own reactions to conflict as well as the reactions of
other members of the group. In addition, our model raises questions regarding the emergence
of conflict and highlights the need to better understand the process of collective sense
making. We believe a multilevel approach in both theory building and theory testing is nec-
essary to fully understand intragroup conflict. Conflict must be conceptualized and assessed
at the individual, dyadic, and intragroup constructs simultaneously if we are to advance our
understanding of conflict and conflict management.
References
Alper, S., Tjosvold, D., & Law, K. S. 1998. Interdependence and controversy in group decision making:
Antecedents to effective self-managing teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 74:
33-52.
Alper, S., Tjosvold, D., & Law, K. S. 2000. Conflict management, efficacy, and performance in organizational
teams. Personnel Psychology, 53(3): 625-642.
Amason, A. C. 1996. Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on strategic decision
making: Resolving a paradox for top management teams. Academy of Management Journal, 39(1): 123-148.
Amason, A. C., & Sapienza, H. J. 1997. The effects of top management team size and interaction norms on cogni-
tive and affective conflict. Journal of Management, 23(4): 495-516.
Amason, A., & Schweiger, D. 1994. Resolving the paradox of conflict, strategic decision making, and organiza-
tional performance. International Journal of Conflict Management, 5: 239-253.
Aquino, K., Tripp, T. M., & Bies, R. J. 2006. Getting even or moving on? Power, procedural justice, and types of
offense as predictors of revenge, forgiveness, reconciliation, and avoidance in organizations. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 91: 653-668.
Ashforth, B. E., & Fried, Y. 1988. The mindlessness of organizational behaviors. Human Relations, 41(4): 305-329.
Barki, H., & Hartwick, J. 2004. Conceptualizing the construct of interpersonal conflict. International Journal of
Conflict Management, 15(3): 216-244.
Baron, R. A. 1984. Reducing organizational conflict: An incompatible response approach. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 69(2): 272-279.
Baron, R. A. 1985. Reducing organizational conflict: The role of attributions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70(3):
434-441.
Baron, R. A. 1988a. Attributions and organizational conflict: The mediating role of apparent sincerity.
Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 41(1): 111-128.
Baron, R. A. 1988b. Negative effects of destructive criticism: Impact on conflict, self-efficacy, and task perfor-
mance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(2): 199-207.
Baron, R. 1989. Personality and organizational conflict: Effects of the Type A behavior pattern and self-monitoring.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 44: 281-296.
Baron, R. 1990. Conflict in organizations. In K. Murphy & F. Saal (Eds.), Psychology in organizations: Integrating
science and practice: 197-216. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Barsade, S. G. 2002. The ripple effect: Emotional contagion and its influence on group behavior. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 47(4): 644-675.
Bazerman, M. H., & Curhan, J. R. 2000. Negotiation. Annual Review of Psychology, 51(1): 279-314.
Beersma, B., Conlon, D. E., & Hollenbeck, J. R. 2007. Conflict and group decision making: The role of social moti-
vation. In C. K. W. DeDreu & M. J. Gelfand (Eds.), The psychology of conflict and conflict management in orga-
nization: 115-147. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bell, C., & Song, F. 2005. Emotions in the conflict process: An application of the cognitive appraisal model of emo-
tions to conflict management. International Journal of Conflict Management, 16(1): 30-54.
Bergmann, T. J., & Volkema, R. J. 1989. Understanding and managing interpersonal conflict at work: Its issues,
interactive processes, and consequences. In M. A. Rahim (Ed.), Managing conflict: An interdisciplinary
approach: 7-19. New York: Praeger.
Bergmann, T. J., & Volkema, R. J. 1994. Issues, behavioral responses and consequences in interpersonal conflicts.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15(5): 467-471.
Berry, C. M., Ones, D. S., & Sackett, P. R. 2007. Interpersonal deviance, organizational deviance, and their common
correlates: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(2): 410-424.
Bies, R. J., & Tripp, T. M. 1996. Beyond distrust: Getting even and the need for revenge. In R. M. Kramer &
T. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: 246-260. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bing, M. N., Davison, H. K., Stewart, S. M., Green, P. D., McIntyre, M. D., & James, L. R. 2007. An integrative
typology of personality assessment for aggression: Implications for predicting counterproductive workplace
behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3): 722-744.
Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. 1984. Overcoming group warfare. Harvard Business Review, 62(6): 98-108.
Blau, P. M. 1964. Exchange and power in social life. New York: John Wiley.
Bliese, P. D., & Ployhart, R. E. 2002. Growth modeling using random coefficient models: Model building, testing,
and illustrations. Organizational Research Methods, 5(4): 362.
Brett, J. M. 1984. Managing organizational conflict. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 15(5):
664-678.
Brown, J. R., & Day, R. L. 1981. Measures of manifest conflict in distribution channels. Journal of Marketing
Research, 18(3): 263-274.
Buchholtz, A. K., Amason, A. C., & Rutherford, M. A. 2005. The impact of board monitoring and involvement on
top management team affective conflict. Journal of Managerial Issues, 17(4): 405-422.
Chan, D. 1998. The conceptualization and analysis of change over time: An integrative approach incorporating lon-
gitudinal means and covariance structures analysis (LMACS) and multiple indicator latent growth modeling
(MLGM). Organizational Research Methods, 1: 421-483.
Chen, G. 2005. Newcomer adaptation in teams: Multilevel antecedents and outcomes. Academy of Management
Journal, 48: 101-116.
Chen, G., Bliese, P. D., & Mathieu, J. E. 2005. Conceptual framework and statistical procedures for delineating and
testing multilevel theories of homology. Organizational Research Methods, 8: 375-409.
Chen, G., & Kanfer, R. 2006. Toward a systems theory of motivated behavior in work teams. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 27: 223-267.
Colquitt, J. A. 2001. On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 86(3): 386-400.
Cosier, R. A., & Rose, G. L. 1977. Cognitive conflict and goal conflict effects on task performance. Organizational
Behavior & Human Performance, 19(2): 378-391.
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. 2005. Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of
Management, 31(6): 874-900.
Dawes, P. L., & Massey, G. R. 2005. Antecedents of conflict in marketings cross-functional relationship with sales.
European Journal of Marketing, 39(11-12): 1327-1344.
Dawes, R. M. 1980. Social dilemmas. Annual Review of Psychology, 31: 169-193.
Dawes, R. M., & Messick, D. M. 2000. Social dilemmas. International Journal of Psychology, 35: 111-116.
De Lara, P. Z.-M., & Verano-Tacoronte, D. 2007. Investigating the effects of procedural justice on workplace
deviance. International Journal of Manpower, 28(8): 715-729.
DeDreu, C. K. W., & Gelfand, M. J. 2007. Conflict in the workplace: Sources, functions, and dynamics across mul-
tiple levels of analysis. In C. K. W. DeDreu & M. J. Gelfand (Eds.), The psychology of conflict and conflict man-
agement in organization: 3-54. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
DeDreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. 2003. Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member
satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4): 741-749.
DeDreu, C. K. W., & West, M. A. 2001. Minority dissent and team innovation: The importance of participation in
decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(6): 1191-1201.
Deutsch, M. 1949. A theory of cooperation and competition. Human Relations, 2: 129-152.
Deutsch, M. 1962. Cooperation and trust: Some theoretical notes. In M. R. Jones (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on
motivation: 275-320. Oxford, UK: University of Nebraska Press.
Digman, J. M. 1990. Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology,
41(1): 417-440.
Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. 2001. The role of trust in organizational settings. Organization Science, 12(4): 450-467.
Douglas, S. C., Kiewitz, C., Martinko, M. J., Harvey, P., Younhee, K., & Jae, C. 2008. Cognitions, emotions, and
evaluations: An elaboration likelihood model for workplace aggression. Academy of Management Review, 33:
425-451.
Douglas, S. C., & Martinko, M. J. 2001. Exploring the role of individual differences in the prediction of workplace
aggression. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(4): 547-559.
Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., Shaw, J. D., Johnson, J. L., & Pagon, M. 2006. The social context of undermining
behavior at work. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 101(1): 105-126.
Emerson, R. 1962. Power-dependence relations. American Sociological Review, 27: 31-41.
Felstiner, W. L., Abel, R. L., & Sarat, A. 1980. The emergence and transformation of disputes: Naming, blaming,
claiming. . . . Law & Society Review, 15(3-4): 631-654.
Ferrin, D. L., Kim, P. H., Cooper, C. D., & Dirks, K. T. 2007. Silence speaks volumes: The effectiveness of reti-
cence in comparison to apology and denial for responding to integrity- and competence-based trust violations.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 893-908.
Fink, C. F. 1968. Some conceptual difficulties in the theory of social conflict. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 12(4):
412-460.
Folger, R., & Skarlicki, D. P. 1998. When tough times make tough bosses: Managerial distancing as a function of
layoff blame. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1): 79-87.
Friedman, R. A., Tidd, S. T., Currall, S. C., & Tsai, J. C. 2000. What goes around comes around: the impact of per-
sonal conflict style on work conflict and stress. International Journal of Conflict Management, 11(1): 32-55.
Gajendran, R. S., & Harrison, D. A. 2007. The good, the bad, and the unknown about telecommuting: Meta-analysis
of psychological mediators and individual consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6): 1524-1541.
Glomb, T. M., & Liao, H. 2003. Interpersonal aggression in work groups: Social influence, reciprocal, and indi-
vidual effects. Academy of Management Journal, 46(4): 486-496.
Guetzkow, H., & Gyr, J. 1954. An analysis of conflict in decision making groups. Human Relations, 7: 367-381.
Habib, G. M. 1987. Measures of manifest conflict in international joint ventures. Academy of Management Journal,
30(4): 808-816.
Hambrick, D. C. 2007. The field of managements devotion to theory: too much of a good thing? Academy of
Management Journal, 50(6): 1346-1352.
Harinck, F., DeDreu, C. K., & van Vianen, A. 2000. The impact of conflict issues on fixed-pie perceptions, prob-
lem solving, and integrative outcomes in negotiation. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes,
81: 329-358.
Harrison, D., Price, K., Gavin, J., & Florey, A. 2002. Time, teams, and task performance: Changing effects of sur-
face and deep level diversity on group functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 45: 1029-1045.
Hershcovis, M. S., Turner, N., Barling, J., Arnold, K. A., Dupr, K. E., Inness, M., LeBlanc, M. M., & Sivanathan,
N. 2007. Predicting workplace aggression: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 228-238.
Hinds, P. J., & Mortensen, M. 2005. Understanding conflict in geographically distributed teams: The moderating
effects of shared identity, shared context, and spontaneous communication. Organization Science, 16(3): 290-307.
Hitt, M. A., Beamish, P. W., Jackson, S. E., & Mathieu, J. E. 2007. Building theoretical and empirical bridges across
levels: Multilevel research in management. Academy of Management Journal, 50(6): 1385-1399.
Hocker, J. L., & Wilmot, W. W. 1991. Interpersonal conflict. Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown.
Hogan, J., & Holland, B. 2003. Using theory to evaluate personality and job-performance relations: A socioanalytic
perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(1): 100-112.
Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M., & Jundt, D. 2005. Teams in organizations: From input-process-output
models to IMOI models. Annual Review of Psychology, 56(1): 517-543.
James, L. R., McIntyre, M. D., Glisson, C. A., Green, P. D., Patton, T. W., LeBreton, J. M., Frost, B. C., Russell,
S. M., Sablynski, C. J., Mitchell, T. R., & Williams, L. J. 2005. A conditional reasoning measure for aggression.
Organizational Research Methods, 8: 69-99.
Janssen, O. 2003. Innovative behaviour and job involvement at the price of conflict and less satisfactory relations
with co-workers. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 76(3): 347-364.
Janssen, O., Van De Vliert, E., & Veenstra, C. 1999. How task and person conflict shape the role of positive inter-
dependence in management teams. Journal of Management, 25(2): 117-141.
Jawahar, I. M. 2002. A model of organizational justice and workplace aggression. Journal of Management, 28(6):
811-834.
Jehn, K. A. 1995. A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative
Jehn, K. A. 1997. A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational groups. Administrative
Jehn, K. 1999. Diversity, conflict, and team performance: Summary of a program of research. Performance
Improvement Quarterly, 12(1): 6-19.
Jehn, K. A., & Bendersky, C. 2003. Intragroup conflict in organizations: A contingency perspective on the conflict-
outcome relationship. Research in Organizational Behavior, 25: 187-243.
Jehn, K. A., Chadwick, C., & Thatcher, S. M. B. 1997. To agree or not to agree: The effects of value congruence,
individual demographic dissimilarity, and conflict on workgroup outcomes. International Journal of Conflict
Management, 8(4): 287-305.
Jehn, K. A., & Mannix, E. A. 2001. The dynamic nature of conflict: a longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and
group performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2): 238-251.
Jockin, V., Arvey, R. D., & McGue, M. 2001. Perceived victimization moderates self-reports of workplace aggres-
sion and conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(6): 1262-1269.
Kellermanns, F. W., & Eddleston, K. A. 2007. A family perspective on when conflict benefits family firm perfor-
mance. Journal of Business Research, 60: 1048-1057.
Kilmann, R. H., & Thomas, K. W. 1977. Developing a forced choice measure of conflict handling behavior: The
MODE instrument. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 37: 309-325.
Kim, P. H., Ferrin, D. L., Cooper, C. D., & Dirks, K. T. 2004. Removing the shadow of suspicion: The effects of
apology versus denial for repairing competence- versus integrity-based trust violations. Journal of Applied
Komorita, S., & Parks, C. 1995. Interpersonal relations: Mixed-motive interaction. Annual Review of Psychology,
46: 83-108.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Bell, B. S. 2003. Work groups and teams in organizations. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, &
R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology, Vol. 12: 333-375.
London: Wiley.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. 2000. A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual,
temporal, and emergent processes. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and
methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions: 3-90. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kramer, R. M. 1998. Paranoid cognition in social systems: Thinking and acting in the shadow of doubt. Personality
and Social Psychology Review, 2(4): 251-275.
Kramer, R. M. 2001. Organizational paranoia: Origins and dynamics. Research in Organizational Behavior, 23: 1-42.
Kumar, R. 1989. Affect, cognition and decision making in negotiation: A conceptual integration. In M. A. Rahim
(Ed.), Managing conflict: An integrative approach: 185-194. New York: Praeger.
Lankau, M. J., Ward, A., Amason, A., Ng, T., Sonnenfeld, J. A., & Agle, B. A. 2007. Examining the impact of orga-
nizational value dissimilarity in top management teams. Journal of Managerial Issues, 19(1): 11-34.
Li, J., & Hambrick, D. C. 2005. Factional groups: A new vantage on demographic faultlines, conflict, and disinte-
gration in work teams. Academy of Management Journal, 48(5): 794-813.
Liu, C., Spector, P. E., & Shi, L. 2007. Cross-national job stress: A quantitative and qualitative study. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 28(2): 209-239.
Massey, G. R., & Dawes, P. L. 2007. The antecedents and consequence of functional and dysfunctional conflict
between Marketing Managers and Sales Managers. Industrial Marketing Management, 36(8): 1118-1129.
May, R. 1972. Power and innocence: A search for the sources of violence. New York: Dell.
Medina, F. J., Munduate, L., Dorado, M. A., Martinez, I., & Guerra, J. M. 2005. Types of intragroup conflict and
affective reactions. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20: 219-230.
Mohammed, S., & Angell, L. C. 2004. Surface- and deep-level diversity in workgroups: Examining the moderating
effects of team orientation and team process on relationship conflict. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(8):
1015-1039.
Mooney, A. C., Holahan, P. J., & Amason, A. C. 2007. Dont take it personally: Exploring cognitive conflict as a
mediator of affective conflict. Journal of Management Studies, 44(5): 733-758.
Morgeson, F. P., & Hofmann, D. A. 1999. The Structure and Function of Collective Constructs: Implications for
Multilevel Research and Theory Development. Academy of Management Review, 24(2): 249-265.
Morrell, D. L. 2008. Deviant workplace behavior scripts. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of South
Carolina, Columbia.
Moye, N. A., & Langfred, C. W. 2004. Information sharing and group conflict: Going beyond decision making to
understand the effects of information sharing on group performance. International Journal of Conflict
Management, 15(4): 381-410.
Neuman, J. H., & Baron, R. A. 1998. Workplace violence and workplace aggression: Evidence concerning specific
forms, potential causes, and preferred targets. Journal of Management, 24(3): 391-419.
Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. 2008. The Relationship of Age to Ten Dimensions of Job Performance. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 93(2): 392-423.
Nibler, R., & Harris, K. L. 2003. The effects of culture and cohesiveness on intragroup conflict and effectiveness.
Journal of Social Psychology, 143(5): 613-631.
Ohbuchi, K.-I., & Suzuki, M. 2003. Three dimensions of conflict issues and their effects on resolution strategies in
organizational settings. International Journal of Conflict Management, 14(1): 61-73.
Olekalns, M., Putnam, L. L., Weingart, L. R., & Metcalf, L. 2008. Communication processes and conflict manage-
ment. In C. K. W. DeDreu & M. J. Gelfand (Eds.), The psychology of conflict and conflict management in orga-
nization: 80-114. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Olson, B., Parayitam, S., & Bao, Y. 2007. "Strategic Decision Making: The Effects of Cognitive Diversity, Conflict
and Trust on Decision Outcomes." Journal of Management, 33(2): 196-222.
Olson-Buchanan, J. B., & Boswell, W. R. 2008. An integrative model of experiencing and responding to mistreat-
ment at work. Academy of Management Review, 33: 76-96.
Parayitam, S., & Dooley, R. S. 2007. The relationship between conflict and decision outcomes: Moderating effects
of cognitive- and affect-based trust in strategic decision-making teams. International Journal of Conflict
Management, 18(1): 42-73.
Pearce, C. L., & Giacalone, R. A. 2003. Teams behaving badly: Factors associated with anti-citizenship behavior in
teams. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33(1): 58-75.
Pearsall, M. J., Ellis, A. P. J., & Evans, J. M. 2008. Unlocking the effects of gender faultlines on team creativity: Is
activation the key? Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1): 225-234.
Pearson, A. W., Ensley, M. D., & Amason, A. C. 2002. An assessment and refinement of Jehns Intragroup Conflict
Scale. International Journal of Conflict Management, 13(2): 110-126.
Pelled, L. H., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Xin, K. R. 1999. Exploring the black box: An analysis of work group diversity,
conflict, and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1): 1-28.
Pelled, L. H., Xin, K. R., & Weiss, A. M. 2001. No es como mi: Relational demography and conflict in a Mexican
production facility. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 74(1): 63-84.
Peterson, R. S., & Behfar, K. J. 2003. The dynamic relationship between performance feedback, trust, and conflict
in groups: A longitudinal study. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 92(1-2): 102-112.
Pinkley, R. 1990. Dimensions of the conflict frame: Disputant interpretations of conflict. Journal of Applied
Pinkley, R., Griffith, T., & Northcraft, G. 1995. Fixed pie a la mode: Information availability, information pro-
cessing, and the negotiation of suboptimal agreements. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 62: 101-112.
Polzer, J. T., Crisp, C. B., Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Kim, J. W. 2006. Extending the faultline model to geographically dis-
persed teams: How colocated subgroups can impair group functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4):
679-692.
Pondy, L. R. 1966. A systems theory of organizational conflict. Academy of Management Journal, 9(3): 246-256.
Pondy, L. R. 1967. Organizational conflict: Concepts and models. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12(2): 296-320.
Pruitt, D. G., & Rubin, J. Z. 1986. Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate, and settlement. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Robinson, S. L., & OLeary-Kelly, A. M. 1998. Monkey see monkey do: The influence of work groups on the anti-
social behavior of employees. Academy of Management Journal, 4: 658-672.
Rousseau, D. L., & Garcia-Retamero, R. 2007. Identity, power, and threat perception. Journal of Conflict
Resolution, 51(5): 744-771.
Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. A. 1978. Social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 23(2): 224-253.
Shah, P. P., & Jehn, K. A. 1993. Do friends perform better than acquaintances? The interaction of friendship, con-
flict, and task. Group Decision and Negotiation, 2(2): 149-165.
Shapiro, D. L. 1991. The effects of explanations on negative reactions to deceit. Administrative Science Quarterly,
36(4): 614-630.
Shaw, J. C., Wild, E., & Colquitt, J. A. 2003. To justify or excuse? A meta-analytic review of the effects of expla-
nations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3): 444-458.
Simons, T. L., & Peterson, R. S. 2000. Task conflict and relationship conflict in top management teams: The piv-
otal role of intragroup trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(1): 102-111.
Singer, J. D., & Willett, J. B. 2003. Applied longitudinal data analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.
Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. 1997. Retaliation in the Workplace: The Roles of Distributive, Procedural, and
Interactional Justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(3): 434-443.
Skarlicki, D. P., Folger, R., & Tesluk, P. 1999. Personality as a moderator in the relationship between fairness and
retaliation. Academy of Management Journal, 42(1): 100-108.
Smith-Crowe, K., Brief, A. P., & Umphress, E. E. 2007. On the outside looking in: Window shopping for insights
into diversity-driven conflict. In C. K. W. DeDreu & M. J. Gelfand (Eds.), The psychology of conflict and con-
flict management in organization: 415-423. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Tett, R. P., & Burnett, D. D. 2003. A personality trait-based interactionist model of job performance. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 88(3): 500-517.
Thomas, K. W. 1992. Conflict and conflict management: Reflections and update. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 13(3): 265-274.
Thompson, L., & Hrebec, D. 1996. Lose-lose agreements in interdependent decision making. Psychological
Bulletin, 120(3): 396-409.
Tidd, S. T., McIntyre, H. H., & Friedman, R. A. 2004. The importance of role ambiguity and trust in conflict per-
ception: Unpacking the task conflict to relationship conflict linkage. International Journal of Conflict
Management, 15(4): 364-380.
Tjosvold, D. 2007. Conflicts in the study of conflict in organizations. In C. K. W. DeDreu & M. J. Gelfand (Eds.),
The psychology of conflict and conflict management in organization: 445-453. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Tjosvold, D., & Sun, H. F. 2002. Understanding conflict avoidance: Relationship, motivations, actions, and conse-
quences. International Journal of Conflict Management, 13(2): 142-164.
Vafeas, N. 1999. The nature of board nominating committees and their role in corporate governance. Journal of
Business Finance and Accounting, 26: 199-225.
van Knippenberg, D., & Schippers, M. C. 2007. Work group diversity. Annual Review of Psychology, 58: 515-541.
Venkataramani, V., & Dalal, R. S. 2007. Who helps and harms whom? Relational antecedents of interpersonal help-
ing and harming in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4): 952-966.
Vodosek, M. 2007. Intragroup conflict as a mediator between cultural diversity and work group outcomes.
International Journal of Conflict Management, 18(4): 345-375.
Volkema, R. J., Farquhar, K., & Bergman, T. J. 1996. Third-party sensemaking in interpersonal conflicts at work:
A theoretical framework. Human Relations, 49(11): 1437-1454.
Wall, J. A., Jr., & Callister, R. R. 1995. Conflict and its Management. Journal of Management, 21(3): 515-558.
Wang, G., Jing, R., & Klossek, A. 2007. Antecedents and management of conflict: Resolution styles of Chinese top
managers in multiple rounds of cognitive and affective conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management,
18(1): 74-97.
Weick, K. E. 1995. What theory is not, theorizing is. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3): 385-390.
Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. 1996. Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure, causes and
consequences of affective experiences at work. Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management, 18:
1-74.
Xin, K. R., & Pelled, L. H. 2003. Supervisor-subordinate conflict and perceptions of leadership behavior: A field
study. Leadership Quarterly, 14(1): 25-40.
Zapf, D., & Gross, C. 2001. Conflict escalation and coping with workplace bullying: A replication and extension.
European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 10(4): 497-522.
Biographical Notes
M. Audrey Korsgaard received a PhD from New York University and is professor of management and organiza-
tional behavior at the University of South Carolina. Her research addresses the topics of trust, prosocial orientation,
and organizational justice and their relationship to interpersonal and intragroup cooperation. She has studied these
issues in a variety of work settings, including supervisor-subordinate relationships, investor-entrepreneur relations,
work teams, and joint ventures.
Sophia Soyoung Jeong is a management doctoral student in the Moore School of Business at the University of
South Carolina. Her current research interests include ethical judgment and decision making, prosocial behavior,
trust, and cross-cultural organizational behavior.
Douglas M. Mahony is an assistant professor of management at the Moore School of Business, University of South
Carolina. He received a PhD in industrial relations and human resource management from Rutgers University. His
research interests include alternative dispute resolution systems and the effects of participatory work practices on
unions, organizations, and employees.
Adrian H. Pitariu is a lecturer in the Schulich School of Business at York University in Toronto, Canada. He
received his PhD in management from the Moore School of Business, University of South Carolina. His research
interests include intrateam trust and conflict as well as team processes and performance over time.

A Multilevel View of Intragroup Conflict

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

A Multilevel View of Intragroup Conflict

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

A Multilevel View of Intragroup Conflict

Keywords: conflict; intragroup; teams; multilevel

*Corresponding author: Tel.: 803-777-5967; fax: 803-777-6876

E-mail address: korsgaard@moore.sc.edu

Definitional and Theoretical Underpinnings

General Definition of Conflict

definition is that understanding intragroup conflict requires an awareness of processes occur-

Inputs Behavior Sense Making Conflict

Individual differences Conflict provoking Naming Affect

Current Conceptualizations of Intragroup Conflict

Antecedents of Intragroup Conflict

Individual-Level Antecedents of the Conflict Process

Inputs Behavior Sense making Process Conflict

Task Context Group Collective Group

Dyadic Task Context Dyadic Dyadic Interpersonal

Behavior. As noted below, most research on behavior as an antecedent of conflict has

Dyadic-Level Antecedents of Conflict

Group-Level Antecedents of Intragroup conflict

Research on the group-level antecedents to conflict has mainly approached conflict as a

Levels Issues in Research on Antecedents

Toward a Multilevel Model of Intragroup Conflict

an example of a bottom-up relationship is the emergence of intragroup conflict perceptions

Conflict Within Levels

Bottom-Up and Top-Down Relationships

Future Directions in the Study of Intragroup Conflict

In addition to investigating these relationships in a more clearly articulated cross-level

Measurement of intragroup conflict. The investigation of multilevel phenomenon should

Understanding conflict in organizations and ways to manage it remains an area of intense

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen