conflict management in project teams

8/18/2019 Conflict Management in Project Teams

1/20

Table of Contents

Introduction................................................................................................................................2

Defining conflict........................................................................................................................2

Sources of conflict......................................................................................................................3

Conflict in teams........................................................................................................................6

Sources of conflict in project teams.......................................................................................8

Conflict management.................................................................................................................9

Conflict management in teams.................................................................................................11

Conclusion................................................................................................................................13

eferences................................................................................................................................1!

1


2/20

Introduction

"at# and "a$n %19&8' (itnessed t$at e)er* facet of organi#ational life t$at generates order

and direction of effort must o)ercome tendencies to action+ and in t$at fact lies t$e propensit*

to(ards conflict. ,ndeniabl*+ conflict+ (or-+ and organi#ations are so strongl* intert(ined

t$at some $a)e concluded t$at t$ere are no organi#ations de)oid of conflict+ and t$at conflict

cannot eist (it$out people being mutuall* dependent for ac$ie)ing t$eir goals as /feffer

%199&' and /ond* %196&' agree. 0it$ t$is illumination+ it becomes apparent t$at t$e

performance of project managers is reliant on t$e output of t$e project team ($ic$ is a group

of indi)iduals (it$ different needs+ bac-grounds and epertise.

T$e smoot$ operations of a project team becomes more c$allenging (it$ increased project

compleit*+ a di)erse mi of s-ills and cultural di)ersit*. It follo(s t$at distincti)e

consideration must be gi)en to t$e ualit* of t$e interpersonal s-ills and team d*namics

(it$in t$e project team to understand and influence its producti)it* in a project en)ironment.

T$is paper (ill discuss conflict in general+ its main sources and focus on conflict in teams

and $o( t$is can be managed. T$e statement t$at conflict is a c$allenge most project

managers reuire to $andle ($en managing+ leading and controlling project teams is neit$er

true nor false. T$is paper (ill argue t$at conflict is in$erent in project teams and in itself

neit$er good nor bad. It is $o( people respond to it t$at matters for project success.

Defining conflict

De Dreu et al. %1999' understood conflict as a de)elopment t$at arises ($en an indi)idual or

group percei)es differences and opposition bet(een itself and anot$er indi)idual or group

about interests and resources+ beliefs+ )alues+ or practices t$at are of )alue to t$em. It is a

2


3/20

process t$at begins ($en one part* obser)es its interests+ norms and )alues+ or opinions and

)ie(points being opposed+ $urt+ or countered b* anot$er part*. T$is process can end in

obser)ation or escalate in o)ert action so conflict can be simmering (it$in an indi)idual or

entit* or become manifest.

/ond* %196&' t$en distinguis$ed latent from manifest conflict. In t$at )ie(+ latent conflict

pertains percei)ed and felt conflict+ and refers to intraperson or intragroup states. anifest

conflict+ in contrast+ includes constructi)e negotiations as (ell as outbursts of )iolence+ and

t$us refers to interperson or intergroup d*namics. Conflicts can be anal*sed at t$ree le)els4

indi)idual+ group or team and organisational. In all t$ree+ common sources of conflict are

obser)ed. T$is paper (ill+ $o(e)er+ limit itself to group and organisational le)els of anal*sis.

Sources of conflict

T$ree root causes of conflict t$at are ubiuitous across all le)els are %a't$e ageold economic

uestion of resource scarcit*+ %b' a searc$ for maintaining and promoting a positi)e )ie( of

t$e self %selfesteem and selfactualisation'+ and %c' a desire to $old consensuall* s$ared and

sociall* )alidated opinions and beliefs i.e. a sense of belonging. esources (it$in

organi#ations are limited and finite+ and t$e access to5as (ell as t$e a)ailabilit* and

distribution of5scarce resources constitutes one major cause of conflict at all le)els of

anal*sis. It is political. Indi)iduals (it$in a team bargain time offtas-+ personnel demand a

greater s$are of t$e team bonus because t$e* identif* t$eir inputs as surpassing t$ose of some

colleagues.

3


4/20

De Dreu 7an "leef %2!' note t$at at t$e group le)el of anal*sis+ conflict ma* be rooted

in po(er differences and leaders$ip st*le ($ile e$n et al. %28' reports $eterogeneit* in

group composition as a li-el* cause. T$e (orld is constantl* c$anging (it$ tec$nolog* and

inno)ation being -e*. : )ariet* of c$anges in t$e (orld of (or- and organi#ations are t$e

conseuence. T$is scenario sets t$e stage for conflict. ;irst+ conflicts are more probable to

surface due to t$e gro(ing pressures to c$ange+ adapt+ and inno)ate (it$ associated surges in

(or-load+ job insecurit*+ role conflict+ misunderstandings+ and related grie)ances as se)eral

aut$ors suc$ as :nderson et al. %2!'< anssen %23'< and /eterson =e$far %23'$a)e

s$o(n. Secondl*+ as a result of globali#ation of economies and immigration at a

progressi)el* larger scale+ organi#ations content (it$ an eceedingl* assorted (or-force.

T$is is a condition t$at is ripe for conflict.

: t$ird source is t$e gro(ing use of Internet and noncollocated interactions in ($ic$

emplo*ees lin- on )irtual net(or-s increasing demands on communication processes and

easil* e)o-es misunderstanding and irritation as discussed b* ;riedman Currall %23'.

;ourt$+ and lastl*+ t$e inclination to(ards organising (or- in predominantl* semi

autonomous teams produces greater interdependenc* among emplo*ees+ undercuts t$e

traditional po(er relations and $ierarc$ical command> control t*pical of traditional

organi#ations+ and necessitates sop$isticated le)els of selfmanagement and selfregulation.

/feffer %199&' recognises t$at negotiation and conflict management s-ills become

indispensable in suc$ contets.

0$ile conflicts are in$erent in an* administrati)e structure t$eir manifestation rests upon

eit$er %or bot$' of t(o reasons. ?ne is born of indi)idual response to incenti)es. In t$e pursuit

!


5/20

of t$eir immediate and s$ortrange selfinterests+ indi)iduals or groups calculatingl* or

inad)ertentl* $urt collecti)e interests including t$ose of interdependent ot$ers. ?strom

%1998' discerns t$at suc$ selfcentred c$oices are unli-el* to be condoned since a

considerable section of t$e population is (illing to punis$ noncooperators e)en at a cost to

t$emsel)es. In support+ it is obser)ed t$at interdependence+ an essential c$aracteristic of a

team+ is mied moti)e in nature as obser)ed Sc$elling %196'. T$is implies t$at t(o different

moti)ations are present in an* team4 t$e @proselfA moti)ation to ac$ie)e a $ig$ utilit* or

outcome for oneself+ and t$e @prosocialA moti)ation to ac$ie)e a $ig$ utilit* or outcome for

t$e team as a ($ole.

T$e predicament of c$oosing bet(een t$e prosocial and t$e proself moti)es is settled b*

personal dispositions of team members and contetual demands ($ic$ lead team members to

put more (eig$t on eit$er of t$e t(o moti)es at an* moment as intimated b* De Dreu et al.

%2'. :dditionall*+ o)er time+ team members pacif* some of t$e tension bet(een t$e t(o

moti)es b* signif*ing Benlig$tened selfinterest+ ($ic$ is t$e compre$ension t$at oneAs o(n

interests are best ser)ed in t$e long run b* considering t$e interests of ot$ers. =eersma et al.

%23' demonstrates t$e conseuences of super)isor communication s-ills and t$e re(ard

structure under ($ic$ teams function. 0$ile team re(ards+ in ($ic$ t$e pri#es t$at one team

member recei)es are positi)el* associated (it$ $is or $er group membersA re(ards+ induce a

prosocial dri)e+ indi)idualbased incenti)e structures+ in ($ic$ recompense is contingent on

$o( (ell a team member does indi)iduall*+ tend to induce a @proselfA moti)e.

Secondl*+ (it$in nested social dilemmas+ conflicts o)er resources emerge because of

premature suspicion+ misunderstanding+ incomplete information+ or lac- of insig$t. T$is


6/20

means t$at resourcebased conflict ma* be t$e result of %o(n and ot$ersA' misinterpretation of

%ot$erAs and o(n' intentions and actions. T$is is could be t$e securit* dilemma or greed

element as discussed b* "asfir in otberg %2!'. T$e securit* dilemma (as discussed at

lengt$ b* /osen in =ro(n %1993'.

Conflict in teams

e$n et al. %28' focused c$iefl* on t(o t*pes of conflict related to group composition+

relations$ip and tas- conflict. Tas- conflicts are incongruities among group membersA ideas

and opinions about t$e tas- being performed+ suc$ as di)ergences regarding an organi#ationAs

current strategic position or determining t$e correct data to include in a report. Tas- conflict

($ic$ is fiated on contentrelated issues+ as s$o(n b* t$is researc$+ can augment

performance ualit*. =eersma et al. %28' s$o( t$at t$e traditional conception is t$at

conflict is bad and al(a*s $as a negati)e influence on projects or organi#ations. T$is

understanding argues t$at performance declines as t$e le)el of conflict increases.

7erma %1996' comments t$at t$e predominant reaction of traditional managers $as been to

subdue conflict b* using an aut$oritarian approac$. Ee goes to contrast t$is (it$ t$e

be$a)ioural or contemporar* )ie(+ also -no(n as t$e $uman relations )ie( ($ic$ contends

t$at conflict is natural and ineluctable in all organi#ations. It postulates t$at conflict ma* $a)e

a positi)e or a negati)e result. T$is approac$ promotes acceptance of conflict and )indicates

its presence. In t$is lig$t+ project managers s$ould focus on $andling conflict effecti)el*

rat$er t$an simpl* suppressing it or eliminating it.

6


7/20

7erma %1996' discusses t$e t$ird )ie(+ t$e interactionist outloo-+ as t$e current t$eoretical

perspecti)e on conflict ($ic$ proposes t$at conflict is reuired to increase performance.

0$ile t$e be$a)ioural approac$ accepts conflict+ t$e interactionist )ie( encourages conflict

on t$e basis t$at a $armonious+ peaceful+ tranuil+ toocooperati)e project organi#ation is

prospecti)el* becomes inert+ apat$etic+ stagnant and nonresponsi)e to meet t$e c$allenges of

transformation and modernisation. T$is attitude $eartens managers to maintain an ongoing

minimum le)el of conflict enoug$ to -eep projects selfcritical+ )iable+ creati)e and

inno)ati)e.

7erma %199&' epresses t$at conflict can occur at four le)els in a project. Intrapersonal

conflict referring to role conflict ($ic$ stems from unfulfilled personal or professional

epectations (it$in t$e indi)idual. T$is le)el of conflict ma* not affect t$e project+ if it does

not s(a* ot$er project participants negati)el*. Interpersonal conflict can occur bet(een

particular team members or bet(een one person and t$e entire group. It is usuall* a result of

dissimilarities in personalit*+ st*le+ communication s-ills+ or competing personal ambitions.

T$irdl*+ intragroup conflict is about conflict bet(een a single person and a group of people.

Fastl*+ intergroup conflict can arise amongst groups of people (it$in t$e project team or

bet(een t$e project team and groups outside t$e project.

0$en project teams are built+ most of t$em go t$roug$ four predicable stages of

de)elopment4 ;orming %floundering'+ Storming %conflict'+ Gorming and /erforming. T$is

paper focuses on t$e second stage. 0$ile during t$e forming stage+ project teams progress to

confronting t$e issues and ot$er team members in order to acuire control and understand

t$eir roles+ objecti)es and relations$ips. Gormall* t$is $appens regardless of ($at is done or

&


8/20

($et$er an* leaders$ip is applied or not. In t$e storming stage+ issues start becoming serious.

Conflicts ma* emerge o)er relati)e primacies+ responsibilities+ tas- be$a)iours+ and t$e role

of t$e project team leader especiall* pertaining to tas- direction and guidance. Clas$es o)er

leaders$ip roles and struggles o)er goals are leading t$emes t$at ma* breed emotional tension

and subseuentl* some team members ma* (it$dra( or become detac$ed. T$e project

manager must resol)e conflict during t$is stage rat$er t$an ignore or uas$ it. Suppressing

conflict ma* create acrimon* and antipat$* t$at (ill persist after team members tr* to initiate

t$e conflict b* articulating t$eir emotions and differences. 0it$dra(al ma* con)e* t$e

message t$at t$e project manager does not care ($ic$ (ill cause team members to mistrust

t$e leader.

Sources of conflict in project teams

In t$eir sur)e*+ T$am$aim and 0ilemon %19&' identified se)en sources of conflict t$at (ere

ran-ed as follo(s4

1. Sc$edules %tas- uncertaint* and information reuirements'

2. /riorities %goal incompatibilit* and differences in time $ori#on'

3. Euman resources %staffing and resource allocation'

!. Tec$nical issues %tec$nical opinions and performance tradeoffs'

. :dministrati)e problems %managerial and administrati)e issues outlining $o( t$e project

(ill be managed4 ma* include role uncertaint*+ aut$orit* and responsibilit* of eac$ project

participant+ and reporting relations$ips'

6. /ersonalit* %interpersonal disagreements'

&. Cost.

8


9/20

egardless+ t$e principal sources and intensities of conflict )ar* o)er t$e life c*cle of t$e

project. :s esprit de corps de)elops and t$e project team gains co$esion+ it tends to adopt a

B(e outloo- and ma* consider ot$er staff as Bt$e*. Some of t$is attitude is useful for

effecti)e team building but it ma* lead to conflict. Eellreigel et al. %1992' obser)ed t$at t$is

is mostl* pre)alent ($en t$e project team starts to blame Bt$em for e)er* project problem+

creating a )icious c*cle of conflict.

=arric- et al. %1998' conducted a stud* among 1 (or- teams and found t$at teams (it$ a

particularl* displeasing member and teams (it$ a lo( a)erage team score on amicabilit*

eperienced more conflict+ (ere less co$esi)e+ and performed less effecti)el* according to

t$eir super)isors t$an teams t$at did not $a)e suc$ a disagreeable person in t$e team or $ad a

$ig$er a)erage agreeableness score. In sum+ Sc$ul#Eardt et al. %28' establis$ s$o(ed t$at+

in cases ($ere t$e best c$oice is not apparent at t$e conception+ group decision ualit*

benefits from dissent. T$e* discuss comparable effects of dissent on t$e ualit* of group

problem sol)ing from ot$er literature. In addition+ t$e* cite researc$ )alidating dissent to be

)aluable to t$e accurac* of group judgments. Got unepectedl*+ t$e benefit obtained from

dissent is larger if at least one of t$e members (it$ dissenting opinions fa)ours t$e best

solution at t$e beginning of t$e discussion. Ge)ert$eless+ one stud* in t$eir paper s$o(ed t$at

dissent facilitates decision ualit* if none of t$e dissenting indi)idual preferences is correct.

In t$eir (ords+ @under conditions of dissent+ t$ree blinds toget$er mig$t be able to see.A

9


10/20

Conflict management

Conflict management is ($at parties5indi)iduals+ groups+ or organi#ations5($o eperience

conflict intend to do as (ell as ($at t$e* actuall* do+ (rote 7an de 7liert %199&'. :

conseuence of t$is notion is t$at (or- teams and (or- units tend to de)elop a conflict

culture. De Dreu and Helfand %28' discuss se)eral studies t$at found t$at teams (it$ )alue

and relations$ip conflicts performed better to t$e le)el t$at t$e members of t$ese teams

a)oided t$ese conflicts and did not attempt to manage t$em. In sociocogniti)e conflicts+

($ere trut$finding and learning occurs+ asserti)eness and persuasi)e reinforcement of oneAs

position ma* be a muc$ more acceptable and effecti)e strateg* t$an it is in resourcebased

conflicts of interest or in identit*based )alue conflicts. Certainl*+ groupdecisionma-ing

researc$+ suc$ as Sc$ul#Eardt et al. %28'+ $as consistentl* e$ibited t$at adding tas-

related dissent and de)ilAs ad)ocates to t$e team impro)es creati)it*+ inno)ation+ and decision

ualit*.

Ideological and )aluebased conflicts reuire different t*pes of management strategies and

solutions. :ut$ors $a)e agreed t$at people endea)our to up$old t$e self t$roug$ promotion+

en$ancement+ and protection of t$e self)ie(. Sedi-ides Strube %199&' and Steele %1988'

see t$is rooted in t$e $umansA general struggle for a positi)e self)ie(. /eople are stirred to

persuade t$emsel)es and rele)ant ot$ers t$at t$e* are (ort$*+ attracti)e+ capable+ and moral

indi)iduals+ and to accomplis$ t$is+ a )ariet* of cerebral and be$a)ioural tactics and

strategies are emplo*ed as realised b* Tesser et al. %1996'. =orne of t$e indi)idualAs *earning

to progress+ ad)ance+ and sustain a positi)e sense of t$emsel)es+ in conflict situations+ t$e*

tend to de)elop an o)erstated )ie( of t$eir o(n cooperati)eness and t$eir counterpartAs

$ostilit*. T$is selfabsorbed bias increases t$e possibilit* of stalemates in labour>

management disputes in =abcoc- et al. %199'. ;urt$ermore+ oAa# et al. %22' report t$at it

1


11/20

raises deleterious perceptions and e)aluations of counterparts and t$eir conflict resolution

be$a)iour in intergroup conflicts leading to a securit* dilemma of sort. :dditionall*+ De Dreu

et al. %199' ad)ise t$at t$is misinterpretation lessens t$e ualit* of settlements in

interpersonal negotiations.

T$e ualit* of outputs from dispute resolution is a -e* determinant on subseuent interaction

processes and performancerelated issues. In one instance+ t$e part* ($o gains t$e upper

$and in t$e conflict percei)es its po(erbase as reinforced and accordingl* can operate more

effecti)el* in future endea)ours. Integrati)e+ (in>(in solutions fas$ion order and stabilit*+

nurture social accord+ increase t$e spirit of selfefficac* ($ile decreasing t$e probabilit* of

future conflict+ and encouraging economic prosperit*. =otc$ed agreements+ or impasses+

lea)e parties dissatisfied+ create frustration and anno*ance fuelling ne( conflict and

bitterness.

Conflict ma* affect interpersonal+ or grouple)el effecti)eness t$roug$ learning to cooperate+

e)ol)ing relations$ips+ or reac$ing $ig$ualit* group decisions. Sc$ul#Eardt et al. %28'

discuss literature s$o(ing t$at group performance ma* be undermined because conflict

$arms efficient coordination or undercuts t$e trust needed to communicate effecti)el* and to

s$are tas-rele)ant information. Conflict mig$t increase group performance+ ne)ert$eless+

because it leads people to reconsider t$eir (or-ing assumptions and to attac- decision

problems from multiple perspecti)es. It $as been presented t$at relations$ip conflict $as

ad)erse effects and is liable for repercussions suc$ as increased turno)er+ $ig$ rates of

absenteeism+ diminis$ed satisfaction+ lo( le)els of percei)ed performance+ pitiable objecti)e

performance+ lac- of creati)it*+ and lo( commitment.

11


12/20

Conflict management in teams

T$omas and Sc$midt %19&6' as uoted in Holdman et al. %28' found t$at managers de)oted

up to a fift$ of t$eir time resol)ing conflicts. Conseuentl*+ if organi#ations intend to utili#e

dissension in order to en$ance creati)it* and performance+ t$e most direct (a* to do so is to

compose teams t$at are di)erse (it$ regard to group membersA initial opinions. Conflicts are

ine)itable in a project en)ironment. T$e success of project managers in team building and

managing a project often depends a great deal on t$eir abilit* to resol)e conflict. 0$en

project team members interact during t$e course of completing t$eir tas-s and

responsibilities+ t$ere is al(a*s a potential for conflict. In fact+ it is )irtuall* impossible for

people (it$ di)erse bac-grounds+ s-ills+ and norms to (or- toget$er as a team to meet project

objecti)es (it$out conflict. cS$ane %199' counsels t$at in $andling conflict in a team

en)ironment+ it is of assistance to t$e project manager to remember a fe( lessons discussed

belo(.

/roject teams are epected to be d*namic+ )ibrant and $ig$ performing from t$e )ariet* in

terms of bac-grounds+ epertise and interests among team members. Conflict is natural and

s$ould be managed to impro)e creati)it*. Transparenc* in discussions in a team can $one t$e

di)ergent opinions+ present additional options+ and pro)ide necessar* c$ec-s and balances.

/eople s$ould not be ta-en to be one (it$ t$eir issues. Despite an* ab$orrence on a personal

le)el+ eac$ team member s$ould focus on t$e merits and demerits of t$e subject matter rat$er

t$an on personalities.

In a real team en)ironment+ project team members do not blame ot$ers

for a problem or a failure but focus primaril* on finding solutions.

12


13/20

7erma %1996' points out t$at t$e application of conflict resolution tec$niues can lead to

eit$er of t(o outcomes. : functional outcome is one t$at satisfies t$e parties in)ol)ed in t$e

conflict and increases o)erall project performance ($ile a d*sfunctional outcome creates

dissatisfaction. Tjos)old %1991' opines t$at t$e first step in managing conflict is an abilit* to

understand and correctl* diagnose it. Conflict management t$en consists of an anal*tical

process< a selection of interpersonal st*le+ communication and negotiating sc$emes< and t$e

de)elopment of trust and respect.

Conflict management tec$niues range from stimulating an appropriate le)el of conflict<

altering structural configurations< emplo*ing )arious interpersonal st*les to c$oosing an

appropriate conflict resolution approac$. :llison %19&1' notes e)idence t$at+ in some

situations+ an increase in conflict actuall* impro)es performance. 0omac- %1988' realises no

one st*le of conflict management can be prescribed since indi)iduals tr* to manage

interpersonal conflict in a )ariet* of (a*s. =la-e and outon %196!' presented fi)e general

tec$niues for resol)ing conflict4 0it$dra(ing+ Smoot$ing+ ;orcing+ Compromising and

/roblem sol)ing also referred to as negotiating. T$ese are similar to t$e T$omas"ilmann

model in T$omas and "ilmann %19&!'.

T$e project manager must anal*se t$e situation and select t$e appropriate mode for managing

conflict (it$in t$eir project organi#ations in order to create a climate conduci)e to ac$ie)ing

a constructi)e outcome. T$e project managers sur)e*ed b* T$am$ain and 0ilemon %19&'

felt t$at personalit* conflicts (ere often disguised as conflicts o)er ot$er issues+ suc$ as

tec$nical issues and manpo(er. T$ese disguises (ill persist if project managers onl* deal

(it$ facts. T$e* s$ould deal (it$ feelings as (ell.

13


14/20

Conclusion

Ine)itabl*+ conflicts arise regarding di)ergent ideas+ interests+ or )alues $eld b* indi)idual

team members. 7erma %199&' (rites t$at ($et$er a conflict is constructi)e or destructi)e in a

project en)ironment depends upon $o( t$e project manager and members of t$e project team

interpret t$e conflict and deal (it$ it. Conflicts in t$emsel)es are )alueneutral. T$oug$ t$e

contemporar* )ie( assumes t$at conflict is ine)itable bet(een $umans and s$ould be

managed+ t$e interactionist goes furt$er to suggest t$at conflict is a necessar* part of (or-

and t$erefore s$ould be stimulated to foster creati)it* and inno)ation. T$e traditional )ie(

t$at conflict is an un(anted conseuence onl* persists because institutions t$at $a)e a strong

influence on our societ* concur (it$ t$is )ie(. T$is is e)ol)ing+ $opefull*.

T$e prime purpose of e)er* project manager s$ould be to manage conflict constructi)el* to

en$ance project team performance and accomplis$ project objecti)es efficaciousl*. T$is can

be ac$ie)ed b* understanding t$e conditions leading to conflict+ t$e probable results of

conflict+ and t$e )arious met$ods of dealing (it$ conflict in an organi#ational or in a project

en)ironment. 7erma %1996' finds t$at t$e best solution for managing project conflicts is t$e

confronting or negotiation+ mode. Since project management in)ol)es sol)ing problems as

t$e project progresses t$roug$ its life c*cle+ t$is t*pe of conflict management is )er*

practical. Jac$ conflict situation is+ nonet$eless+ uniue. T$erefore+ it is difficult to prescribe

t$e best conflict resolution approac$ due to t$e man* )ariables and t$e d*namic nature of

conflict. J)en t$oug$ conflict is ubiuitous in project management+ it $as to be )ie(ed as a

pat$(a* to success rat$er t$an a c$allenge to s$un. T$is paper argues t$at conflict is not a

c$allenge for project managers but an opportunit*.

1!


15/20

References

:llison+ H. T. %19&1'. Jssence of Decision+ =oston+ :4 Fittle+ =ro(n< and Ir)ing F. anis+

19&3+ 7ictims of Hroupt$in-+ =oston+ :+ Eoug$ton ifflin Co.

:nderson+ G. .+ De Dreu+ C. ". 0.+ Gijstad+ =. :. %2!'. T$e routini#ation of inno)ation

researc$4 : constructi)el* critical re)ie( of t$e stateoft$e science. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 25+ 1!&>1&!.

=abcoc-+ F.+ Foe(enstein+ H.+ Issac$aroff+ S.+ Camerer+ C. %199'. =iased judgments of

fairness in bargaining. American Economic Review, 5+ 133&>13!3.

=arric-+ . .+ Ste(art+ H. F.+ Geubert+ . .+ ount+ . ". %1998'. elating member

abilit* and personalit* to (or-team processes and team effecti)eness. ournal of

:pplied /s*c$olog*+ 83+ 3&&>391.

=eersma+ =.+ Conlon+ D. J.+ and Eollenbec-+ . . %28'. In De Dreu+ C. ". 0. and Helfand+

. %Jds'. T$e /s*c$olog* of Conflict and Conflict anagement in

?rgani#ations+ Ta*lor ;rancis Hroup+ FFC

=eersma+ =.+ Eollenbec-+ . .+ Eump$re*+ S. J.+ oon+ E.+ Conlon+ D. J.+ Ilgen+ D. .

%23'. Cooperation+ competition+ and team performance4 To(ards a contingenc*

approac$. :cadem* of anagement ournal+ !6+ &2>9.

1


16/20

=la-e+ . .+ and outon+ . S. %196!'. !he "anagerial #rid . Eouston4 Hulf /ublis$ing.

De Dreu+ C. ". 0. and Helfand+ . . %28'. In De Dreu+ C. ". 0. and Helfand+ . %Jds'.

T$e /s*c$olog* of Conflict and Conflict anagement in ?rgani#ations+ Ta*lor

;rancis Hroup+ FFC

De Dreu+ C. ". 0.+ 7an "leef+ H. :. %2!'. /o(er+ social categori#ation+ and social

moti)ation in negotiation4 Implications for managers and organi#ational leaders. In D.

7an "nippenberg . :. Eogg %Jds.'+ $eadership and power %pp. 13>168'.

Fondon4 Sage.

De Dreu+ C. ". 0.+ Earinc-+ ;.+ 7an 7ianen+ :. J. . %1999'. Conflict and performance in

groups and organi#ations. In C. F. Cooper I. obertson %Jds.'+ %nternational

Review of %ndustrial and Organizational &s'cholog' %7ol. 1!+ pp. 369>!1!'.

C$ic$ester+ ,"4 0ile*.

De Dreu+ C. ". 0.+ Gauta+ :.+ 7an de 7liert+ J. %199'. Selfser)ing e)aluation of conflict

be$a)ior and escalation of t$e dispute. Journal of Applied (ocial &s'cholog', 25+

2!9>266.

De Dreu+ C. ". 0.+ 0eingart+ F. .+ "(on+ S. %2'. Influence of social moti)es on

integrati)e negotiation4 : metaanal*tical re)ie( and test of t(o t$eories. Journal of

&ersonalit' and (ocial &s'cholog', )+ 889>9.

;riedman+ . :.+ Currall+ S. C. %23'. Conflict escalation4 Dispute eacerbating elements

of email communication. *uman Relations, 5+ + 132>1!2&.

Holdman+ =..+ Cropan#ano+ .+ et al. %28'. T$e role of t$ird partiesKmediation in

managing conflict in organi#ations. In C.".0. de Dreu .. Helfand %eds.'. T$e

16


17/20

ps*c$olog* of conflict management in organi#ations. Ge( Lor-+ GL4 Ta*lor and

;rancis Hroup. 291319.

Eellreigel+ D.+ Slocum+ r.+ .0.+ and 0oodman+ .0. %1992'. Organizational Behavior, (ith

Edition+ St. /aul+ G4 0est /ublis$ing Compan*+ pp. 318>332.

anssen+ ?. %23'. Inno)ati)e be$a)iour and job in)ol)ement at t$e price of conflict and less

satisfactor* relations (it$ co(or-ers. Journal of Occupation and Organizational

&s'cholog', )+ + 3!&>36!.

e$n+ ". :.+ =e#ru-o)a+ ".+ and T$atc$er+ S. %28'. In De Dreu+ C. ". 0. and Helfand+ .

%Jds'. T$e /s*c$olog* of Conflict and Conflict anagement in ?rgani#ations+ Ta*lor

;rancis Hroup+ FFC

"asfir+ G. %2!'. Domestic :narc$*+ Securit* Dilemmas+ and 7iolent /redation4 Causes of

;ailure. In otberg+ . I. %Jd.'. -hen states fail causes and conse/uences. /rinceton

,ni)ersit* /ress.

"at#+ D.+ "a$n+ D. %19&8'. !he social ps'cholog' of organizing. Ge( Lor-4 cHra( Eill.

cS$ane+ S. F. %199'. 0anadian Organizational Behavior, (econd Edition. C$icago+ IF4

ic$ard D. Ir(in+ Inc.+ pp. 3>318.

oAa#+ I.+ 0ard+ :.+ "at#+ .+ oss+ F. %22'. eacti)e de)aluation of an BIsraeli )s.

B/alestinian peace proposal. Journal of 0onflict Resolution, 1+ + 1>!6.

?strom+ J. %1998'. : be$a)ioral approac$ to t$e rational c$oice t$eor* of collecti)e action.

!he American &olitical (cience Review, 2+ 1>22.

/eterson+ . =.+ =e$far+ ". . %23'. T$e d*namic relations$ip bet(een performance

feedbac-+ trust and conflict in groups4 : longitudinal stud*. Organizational Behavior

and *uman 3ecision &rocesses, 2+ 12>112.

1&


18/20

/feffer+ . %199&'. 4ew directions in organizational ehavior . ?ford+ ,"4 ?ford ,ni)ersit*

/ress.

/ond*+ F. . %196&'. ?rgani#ational conflict4 Concepts and models. Administrative (cience

6uarterl', 72+ 296>32.

/osen+ =. . %1993'. B!he (ecurit' 3ilemma and Ethnic 0onflict + in =ro(n+ %ed.'+ Jt$nic

Conflict and International Securit*+ 13>12!. /rinceton.

Sc$elling+ T. C. %196'. !he strateg' of conflict. Cambridge+ :4 Ear)ard ,ni)ersit* /ress.

Sc$ul#Eardt+ S.+ oj#isc$+ :.+ and 7ogelgesang+ ;. %28'. In De Dreu+ C. ". 0. and

Helfand+ . %Jds'. T$e /s*c$olog* of Conflict and Conflict anagement in

?rgani#ations+ Ta*lor ;rancis Hroup+ FFC

Sedi-ides+ C.+ Strube+ . . %199&'. Self e)aluation4 To t$ine o(n self be good+ to t$ine

o(n self be sure+ to t$ine o(n self be true+ and to t$ine o(n self be better. In . /.

Manna+ %Jd.'+ Advances in eperimental social ps'cholog' %7ol. 29+ pp. 29>269'. San

Diego+ C:4 :cademic /ress.

Steele+ C. . %1988'. T$e ps*c$olog* of selfaffirmation4 Sustaining t$e integrit* of t$e self.

In F. =er-o(it# %Jd.'+ Advances in eperimental social ps'cholog' %7ol. 21+ pp. 261>

32'. San Diego+ C:4 :cademic /ress

Tesser+ :.+ artin+ F. F.+ Cornell+ D. /. %1996'. ?n t$e substitutabilit* of selfprotecti)e

mec$anisms. In /. . Holl(it#er . :. =arg$ %Jds.'+ T$e ps*c$olog* of action4

Fin-ing cognition and moti)ation to be$a)ior %pp. !8>68'. Ge( Lor-4 Huilford /ress.

T$am$aim+ E. .+ 0ilemon+ D. F. %19&'. Conflict management in project life

c*cles. (loan "anagement Review+ 7+ %3'+ 31.

18


19/20

T$omas+ ". %19&6'. 0onflict and 0onflict "anagement. In Eandboo- of Industrial and

?rgani#ational /s*c$olog*+ ed. ar)in D. Dunnette+ p. 9+ C$icago+ IF4 and

cGall*.

T$omas+ ". 0.+ and "ilmann+ . E. %19&!'. T$e T$omas"ilmann Conflict ode Instrument

ountain 7ie(+ C:4 C//+ Inc.

Tjos)old+ D. %1991'. T$e Conflict/ositi)e ?rgani#ation4 Stimulate Di)ersit* and Create

,nit*. eading+ :4 :ddison0esle*.

7an de 7liert+ J. %199&'. 0omple interpersonal conflict ehavior !heoretical frontiers.

Eo)e+ ,"4 /s*c$olog* /ress.

7erma+ 7. ". %199&'. "anaging the &ro8ect !eam. T$e Euman :spects of /roject

anagement+ 7olume T$ree. /roject anagement Institute

7erma+ 7. ". 1996 Euman esource S-ills for t$e /roject anager. T$e Euman :spects of

/roject anagement. 7olume T(o

0omac-+ D.;. %1988'. :ssessing t$e T$omas"ilman Conflict ode Sur)e*+ anagement

Communication Nuarterl* 14 pp. 3213!9

19


20/20

2

conflict management in project teams

Documents