SD above the comparison group. Similarly, in the scenario involving mainframe computers, the ES is 1.5 ([15−12]/2), which indicates that the trained group performed 1.5 SDs above the comparison group. Because the ES metrics are comparable, we can conclude, all else being equal, that the training is more effective for selling mainframe computers than automobiles. The mean differences alone (70 versus 3) would not allow us to make that statement. Finally, we can calculate a pooled SD (the weighted average of the two SDs) and use it in Equation 4 when the sepa- rate SDs are different.
Another ES metric is r.Because r varies between
−1 and+1, values ofrcan be compared without trans- forming them to another common metric. Most statis- tics can be converted into ESs using formulas found in the works given in the Further Reading section. These references also provide guidelines for combining ESs from many studies into a meta-analysis and determin- ing whether an ES is small, medium, or large.
We have only touched on confidence intervals, hypothesis testing, and effect sizes. Readers should consult the references given in Further Reading for additional guidance, especially in light of the current emphasis on confidence intervals and effect sizes and the controversy over null hypothesis testing.
—Nambury S. Raju, John C. Scott, and Jack E. Edwards
FURTHER READING
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003).
Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Harlow, L. L., Mulaik, S. A., & Steiger, J. H. (1997). What if there were no significant tests? Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Howell, D. C. (2002). Statistical methods for psychology (5th ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Duxbury.
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta- analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kirk, R. E. (1995). Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA:
Brooks/Cole.
Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social sciences(Rev. ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Wilkinson, L. (1999). Statistical methods in psychology jour- nals: Guidelines and explanations. American Psychologist, 54,594−604.
Conflict can be further categorized according to two widely accepted sources: task and relationship conflict. Task conflict refers to conflict over policies, distribution of resources, or ways of completing a task. Relationship conflictrefers to conflict emerging from personality clashes or emotionally charged inter- actions with others. Researchers such as Karen A.
Jehn, Robin L. Pinkley, and Alan C. Amason support this distinction between sources of conflict. Hence, conflict can be conceptualized as comprising three definitional components (interference, disagreement, and negative emotion) and as being one of two types (task or relationship).
METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES IN CONFLICT MEASUREMENT
Because of discrepancies in construct definition, mea- sures of conflict are often created for the purpose of a specific study. Often, these measures lack sound psy- chometric properties. In fact, even widely used con- flict measures that have reliability and validity support suffer from an incomplete conceptualization of the construct. For example, Jehn’s intragroup conflict measure differentiates between task and relationship conflict but measures mostly the disagreement com- ponent of conflict. M. Afzalur Rahim’s measure (ROCI-I), though it assesses the amount of intragroup, intrapersonal, or intergroup conflict, does not differ- entiate between sources of conflict. To advance our understanding of the impact of conflict on organiza- tional functioning, a comprehensive measure of con- flict is needed.
PERSONALITY AND THE EXPERIENCE OF CONFLICT
There is some evidence that individuals who are high in specific dispositional traits are likely to experience—
or at least perceive—more conflict at work. For exam- ple, individuals who are high in trait anger, which is a tendency to perceive situations as inciting feelings of anger, report experiencing more conflict at work.
Similarly, longitudinal research shows that high type A individuals report more conflict. Trait anxiety and negative affectivity have also received some attention in relation to the experience of conflict. Again, results indicate that individuals high in these two traits report experiencing more conflict. Locus of control, or the
general belief that one’s actions or external forces control outcomes, is also associated with the experi- ence of conflict. These studies, however, are less con- clusive: There is some support for the notion that externals report more conflict, but findings also suggest that internals are more reactive to conflict.
CONFLICT AND ITS OUTCOMES
Studies that do not differentiate between the two sources of conflict (task and relationship) consistently report negative outcomes associated with the experi- ence of interpersonal conflict in the workplace. The same is not true of studies that distinguish between sources of conflict. The latter research supports the notion that positive outcomes are associated with moderate amounts of task conflict. For the purpose of organization, the negative personal and organizational outcomes of conflict at work will be presented first, followed by the positive consequences of conflict.
Conflict and Personal Well-being
Negative consequences to personal well-being have been reported as a result, at least in part, of con- flict at work. One consequence that has received considerable support is depression. A consistent posi- tive correlation exists between the frequency of con- flicts experienced at work and depressive symptoms.
Negative affective reactions, including anger, annoy- ance, and frustration, have also been repeatedly asso- ciated with conflict. These findings may have serious implications given the role that negative emotions play in human immune function and the production of cortisol.
Somatic complaints, or self-reported physical symptoms, have also been associated with interper- sonal conflict at work. In these studies, employees who reported more conflict also reported experiencing more somatic symptoms. Furthermore, burnout and life dissatisfaction have been shown to positively cor- relate with the experience of organizational conflict.
Conflict and Organizational Outcomes The literature on conflict emergence suggests that conflict can have detrimental consequences on organizational effectiveness. For example, it has been Conflict at Work———95
shown that employees who perceive more conflict are less satisfied with their jobs. These findings were consistent for both relationship and task conflict when satisfaction with the group was the criterion of interest.
Conflict can also affect organizational functioning through turnover and counterproductivity. In fact, turnover intentions are reported to be higher for employees who experience more conflict. Given that turnover intentions are a good indicator of actual turnover, conflict can be said to have bottom-line cost implications for organizations. Counterproductive behaviors, or behaviors aimed at hurting the organiza- tion or the individuals who are a part of it, are the focus of much research in the occupational stress literature. Interestingly, self-report and cross-source data support a positive correlation between the fre- quency of conflict at work and counterproductive work behaviors. It is estimated that the cost of coun- terproductive behaviors, including theft, lost produc- tivity, and aggression, may be as much as $200 billion per year.
Performance can also suffer because of conflict in organizations. These findings are particularly true for the occurrence of relationship conflict, and they are more complex when the conflict is task related. As a result, recent literature has classified relationship con- flict as detrimental to group performance, whereas task conflict is considered beneficial to organizational functioning.
Conflict and Its Benefits
Although recent meta-analytic work has ques- tioned whether task conflict results in positive out- comes, several studies suggest that it does. This is particularly true for groups with nonroutine tasks in which a moderate amount of task conflict has been shown to improve performance. Decision quality has also received attention in the conflict literature and may be treated as an indicator of group performance.
Task conflict relates to better decisions and decision quality. Furthermore, task conflict is associated with the conception of ideas, effective use of resources, and task completion. Nevertheless, maximizing the posi- tive outcomes of conflict is not as simple as increas- ing task conflict while eliminating relationship conflict because the two are positively correlated.
Instead, organizations must develop effective conflict management systems to benefit from task conflict.
CONFLICT AND STRESS
In recent years, occupational stress researchers have turned their attention to less widely studied stressors, such as interpersonal conflict at work. From this body of research, it is possible to conclude that inter- personal conflicts are a leading source of stress for employees across age-groups, cultures, and industries.
Furthermore, studies have shown that employees per- ceive conflict at work to be more vexing than tradi- tionally studied stressors, such as role conflict and ambiguity. Consequently, Paul E. Spector and his colleagues proposed a model of interpersonal conflict (based on an occupational stress perspective) in which conflict is treated as a stressor that may result in a variety of behavioral, physiological, and psychologi- cal strains.
CONCLUSION
Given the impact that conflict at work can have on organizational effectiveness and personal well-being, it is not surprising that it remains an important con- struct in organizational research. Recent work has proposed a comprehensive framework for understand- ing the definitional components of conflict. This model reinforces the traditionally accepted differenti- ation between task and relationship conflict while also proposing affective, behavioral, and cognitive elements. Although this construct has been the center of empirical attention for decades, there are still many promising directions for future research.
—Valentina Bruk-Lee
See alsoConflict Management
FURTHER READING
Amason, A. C. (1996). Distinguishing the effects of func- tional and dysfunctional conflict on strategic decision- making: Resolving a paradox for top management teams. Academy of Management Journal, 39,123−148.
Barki, H., & Hartwick, J. (2004). Conceptualizing the con- struct of interpersonal conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management, 15(3), 216−244.
Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the ben- efits and detriments of intragroup conflict.Administrative Science Quarterly, 40,256−282.
Pinkley, R. L. (1990). Dimensions of conflict frame: Dis- putant interpretations of conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75,117−126.
96———Conflict at Work
Spector, P. E., & Bruk-Lee, V. (Forthcoming). Conflict, health and well-being. In C. K. W. De Dreu & M. J.
Gelfand (Eds.),The psychology of conflict and conflict management in organizations. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Wall, J. A., Jr., & Callister, R. R. (1995). Conflict and its management. Journal of Management, 21,515−558.