the influence of team task conflict and team communication

The Influence of Team Task Conflict and Team Communication on Employee Life Satisfaction:

Beyond the Effects of Work-Family Conflict

Professor Jarrod M. Haar

School of Management, College of Business Massey University (Albany)

Private Bag 102904 North Shore City 0745

[email protected]

and

Professor Ted E.Zorn

Pro-Vice Chancellor’s Office, College of Business

Massey University (Albany)

Private Bag 102904 North Shore City 0745 [email protected]

of 23 ANZAM 2013

The Influence of Team Task Conflict and Team Communication on Employee Life Satisfaction:

Beyond the Effects of Work-Family Conflict

This paper takes a multi-level approach (298 employees from 80 teams) where task conflict and

communication were captured at the team level and work-family conflict at the individual level, and

tests these towards individual life satisfaction. Overall, work-family conflict was positively related to

team task conflict, negatively to life satisfaction, and both work-family and family-work conflict were

negatively related to team communication. Team communication was negatively related to team task

conflict and positively to life satisfaction, and team task conflict was negatively related and team

communication positively related to life satisfaction. Importantly, the influence of team task conflict

towards life satisfaction was fully mediated by team communication. Findings highlight the

importance of team communication towards understanding employee life satisfaction.

1. Introduction

Research has indicated that organizations are increasingly reliant on work teams (LaFollette, Hornsby,

Smith & Novak, 1996). Team work and the associated dynamics are likely to play an important role

for employees and their organization, especially given teams can produce conflict which leads to

stress (Chung-Yan & Moeller, 2010). Roloff (1987) stated that “conflict occurs when members

engage in activities that are incompatible with those of colleagues within their network” (p. 496). This

is similar to work-family conflict, which suggests that work and family roles can provide challenges

and issues for employees (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985) that are highly detrimental (Mesmer-Magnus

& Viswesvaran, 2005). Despite this theoretic alignment, few studies compare the influence of work

and family roles on conflict occurring in teams. Work-family issues are of vital importance in

understanding work-life balance in today’s diverse workplace (Haar, 2013).

Another gap in the literature is the outcome explored in the present study, as team studies

typically focus on job outcomes such as job satisfaction (e.g., Jackson & Schuler, 1985). Chung-Yan

and Moeller (2010) noted that the influence of workplace conflict can extend beyond the workplace to

include mental health outcomes, but team studies have not explored life satisfaction, despite the meta-

analysis support for such an influence from individual work-family conflict (Kossek & Ozeki, 1998).

Indeed, towards life satisfaction, Mesmer-Magnus and Viswesvaran (2005) found conflict originating

of 23ANZAM 2013

in the workplace was the dominant predictor. Finally, Rahim (2002) asserts that communication

within teams might help resolve conflict, and Jones, Watson, Gardner, and Gallois (2004) noted the

need for multi-level analysis of the effects of communication to better understand how it operates.

The present study make three contributions by bringing these related, but presently, untapped

lines of research, together. (1), in addition to exploring work-family conflict on life satisfaction, we

test, using multi-level analysis, individual employee work-family and family-work conflict and find

them both detrimentally linked to team communication (how well a team communicates and shares

ideas), while work-family conflict is positively related to team task conflict (conflict between team

members towards their tasks), indicating individual conflict can erode a team’s ability to

communicate effectively and focus on their tasks. (2), individual work-family conflict and team

communication are found to have direct effects towards team task conflict, with team communication

partially mediating the influence of work-family conflict. Finally, (3), testing a unique outcome (life

satisfaction) on team constructs, we again find support for direct effects from both individual and

team dimensions, with team communications fully mediating the direct effects of team task conflict.

Overall, we find that both individual and team conflict are detrimental to employee outcomes, but

team communication appears to be a key variable in understanding these relationships.

2. Theory and Hypotheses

2.1. Work-Family Conflict

Greenhaus and Beutell (1985) defined work-family conflict as “participation in the work (family) role

is made more difficult by virtue of participation in the family (work) role” (p.77). Haar (2013)

asserted that because employees participate in many roles, they register conflict “due to unavailability

of resources for participation in a role” (p. 2). Unlike typical organizational based constructs, work-

family conflict occurs bi-directionally, with conflict originating in either the workplace or the home

and entering the other domain. These are typically referred to as work-family conflict (WFC) and

family-work conflict (FWC). WFC and FWC relate to a number of different factors, including time-,

strain- and behavior-based conflict sources. For example, spending excessive time at work may leave

little time for family, which creates problems. Conversely, anxiety and fatigue from personal issues at

home may flow into the workplace, having detrimental consequences. The outcomes of work-family

of 23 ANZAM 2013

conflict on employees are well documented. In their meta-analysis, Eby, Casper, Lockwood,

Bordeaux and Brinleya (2005) noted that conflict has been shown to be detrimental to a wide range of

employee outcomes, including non-work outcomes. As noted above, meta-analyses have shown

strong support for links between work-family conflict and life satisfaction (Kossek & Ozeki, 1998;

Mesmer-Magnus & Viswesvaran, 2005). This leads to our initial hypothesis.

Hypothesis 1: Work-family conflict will be negatively related to life satisfaction.

2.2 Teamwork

While employee studies typically focus on the individual, this does not reflect typical workplace

contexts. As work teams become more popular (Lester, Meglino & Korsgaard, 2002), an increasing

number of researchers have turned their attention to teams (e.g. De Dreu & Weingart, 2003). Keyton

(1993) defined a work team as a group within an organization, which is established and maintained in

order to complete a common task, and where members are collectively responsible for the task. When

employees work towards a common task they become interdependent on each other (Bertcher, 1994)

and thus how team members relate to one another can impact upon the team. Hunter, Perry, Carlson,

and Smith (2010) found team resources based on “critical social resources at work that help

individuals to grow and develop” (p. 305) were positively related to work-family enrichment and

project satisfaction. As such, team members can provide positive enhancing influences in the

workplace. Despite this, not all the interactions with team members are positive.

2.3. Team Conflict

Olaniran (2010) noted that when people work in teams that conflict is inevitable. Conflict has been

defined as perceived incompatibilities (Boulding, 1963), or the belief that the parties involved are

incompatible, based on either the views they hold or their personalities (Jehn, 1995). In the context of

work teams, Martínez -Moreno, González-Navarro, Zornoza and Ripoll (2009) defined conflict as a

“process emerging from team members’ tension for real or perceived differences” (p. 252). Conflict is

a result of the substance of the task or the group’s interpersonal relations (Jehn, 1995). Irrespective of

its genesis, conflict is a form of distress (Spell, Bezrukova, Haar & Spell, 2011), and when a team is

experiencing conflict, the ability of members to work as a team is inhibited (Jehn, 1995).

of 23ANZAM 2013

The present study focuses on task conflict, which Weingart, Todorova, and Cronin (2010)

noted is central in an employees’ core work activity, and relates to workplace problem solving and

decision making. Hinds and Bailey (2003) defined task conflict as “disagreements focused on work

content” (p. 616), and is likely to result when team members have different understandings of their

particular tasks (Jehn et al. 1997). Spell et al. (2011) provided the example of “group

members’disagreements over different opinions or viewpoints related to work” (p. 311). Hinds and

Bailey (2003) stated “task conflict may emerge because some team members are operating with

incomplete information” (p. 629), and they noted that while some studies find a positive relationship

between task conflict and performance, these are not consistent. Indeed, Jehn et al. (1997) found

teams task conflict was negatively related to performance. Our approach towards team task conflict is

warranted given Polzer, Crisp, Jarvenpaa, and Kim (2006) highlighted the importance of

understanding the innate processes of group functioning.

Although research has indicated that conflict can have beneficial effects, such as encouraging

greater cognitive understanding (Simons & Peterson, 2000), there is evidence that too much conflict

produces negative outcomes (Gersick, 1989). For example, Jehn (1995) found that group members

generally felt that task conflict was detrimental and contributed to low performance and

dissatisfaction. In their meta-analysis, De Dreu and Weingart (2003) stated that team conflict is

inexorably detrimental and produces “tension, antagonism, and distracts team members from

performing the task” (p. 741). Despite the similarities with task conflict and work-family conflict, the

links between these constructs is neglected. We argue that while work-family conflict originates from

different domains (work and family) and from different sources (time, strain and behavior), it is still

likely to influence task conflict amongst team members. Spell et al. (2011) suggests that task conflict

is central to employe core work function and the present study suggests that conflict originating in the

workplace and interfering with home life, are likely to create additional disagreements between team

members, creating higher task conflict amongst team members. Consequently, employees dealing

with work or family issues are more likely to create additional tensions within their work teams

resulting in greater team task conflict. This leads to the following hypothesis.

Hypothesis 2: Work-family conflict will be positively related to team task conflict.

of 23 ANZAM 2013

2.3.1. Team Task Conflict and Outcomes

Jehn (1995) suggests that conflict within teams’ means members will become less receptive to the

ideas of other team members and may respond by becoming defensive, hampering the completion of

tasks and attention towards decision-making (Ayoko, 2007). Ultimately, team conflict can influence

performance. Ayoko (2007) suggests that when team members experience conflict they often choose

to compete with each other, leading to less team efficacy, but also higher feelings of distrust and

negative emotions. Overall, high levels of conflict are detrimental to team members, both personally

and in terms of their productivity at work (Jehn, 1995). Brett, Shapiro, and Lytle (1998) noted that

employee issues may be a stressor that leads to ever-increasing spirals of task conflict, and Spell et al.

(2011) stated that “ultimately, conflict is a form of distress; it is a behavioral analogue of stress and a

reaction of group members” (p. 312) to various workplace issues. In their meta-analysis of 45 studies

with 13,000 employees, Jackson and Schuler (1985) found that conflict was significantly related to

job satisfaction and other types of work-related satisfaction (e.g., supervision, pay, advancement), as

well as commitment, involvement and turnover. Overall, they concluded that conflict has a substantial

and significant influence on affective reactions. That Jackson and Schuler (1985) found job

satisfaction to be the most commonly studied outcome further highlights how the literature fails to

account for its influence beyond the workplace, despite calls for greater exploration (Chung-Yan &

Moeller, 2010). Similarly, in their meta-analysis of team task conflict, De Dreu and Weingart (2003)

found team task conflict negatively related to team member satisfaction. However, the destructive

effects of conflict in the workplace are not experienced only in situ, but can spillover into team

members’ personal and family lives as previous research has highlighted the time and energy that the

resolution and handling of conflict demands (Baron, 1991; Jehn, 1995).

The present study seeks to explore this gap in the literature by testing the effects of team task

conflict on the life satisfaction of individual team members. While there is strong meta-analytical

evidence for the influence of conflict on job satisfaction (Jackson & Schuler, 1985), the links between

task conflict and life satisfaction are likely to be similar due to the similarities between job and life

satisfaction (Iverson & Maguire, 2000). Judge and Colquitt (2004) noted that conflict is a commonly

examined variable in the stressor domain. As such, employees who feel their team is experiencing

of 23ANZAM 2013

disagreements on work content due to different understandings of their particular tasks are likely to

create pressure that ultimately creates a stressor than impacts satisfaction with life. This is because

such pressures spillover beyond the workplace (Kossek & Ozeki, 1998) and thus can have a

detrimental influence on life satisfaction. Meta-analysis from the conflict literature shows that such

role spillover can be detrimental to life satisfaction (Kossek & Ozeki, 1998), and indeed Mesmer-

Magnus and Viswesvaran (2005) meta-analysis findings suggest work-family conflict is the dominant

predictor of life satisfaction, accounting for greater variance than family-work conflict, leading to:

Hypothesis 3: Team task conflict will be negatively related to life satisfaction.

2.4. Team Communication

In addition to a detrimental team task conflict, we also explore a potentially positive team factor via

communication. Goris (2007) noted that organizations are social systems, and, as such, operate

through processes of communication. Indeed, Frone and Major (1988) asserted that communication is

perhaps the fundamental process of most organizations. Research suggests that communication is

linked to organizational success (Quirke, 1992) as well as employee satisfaction (Goris, 2007). There

is also a general consensus that communication plays a significant role in employees’ job performance

and job satisfaction (Pettit et al., 1997; Goris, 2007) and efficient communication can enable group

members to keep relationships going, providing solutions to conflict arising out of incompatibilities

(Arslan, Hamarta & Uslu, 2010). Overall, communication can aid group performance (Campion,

Medsker, & Higgs, 1993) and good group relations (Lester et al., 2002).

2.4.1. Team Communication and Outcomes

Various communication factors have been found to positively relate with both organizational

commitment and job satisfaction (Chen, Silverthorne & Hung, 2006; Goris, 2007). Orpen (1997)

found that the quality of communication influenced both work motivation and job satisfaction, while

Chen et al. (2006) found communication was positively linked to job performance. The benefits

towards performance have also held when tested at the team-level (Stewart & Barrick, 2000). Scott,

Connaughton, Diaz-Saenz, Maguire, Ramirez, Richardson, et al. (1999) found that communication

factors were significantly related to turnover intentions, stating “communication variables are

of 23 ANZAM 2013

important contributors to one’s intent to leave” (p. 423). Finally, Leiter (1988) found communication

was negatively related to job burnout, highlighting an influence on non-work outcomes.

Multiple studies have also demonstrated the effectiveness of communications in increasing

team cooperation and reducing conflict (Langbein & Jorstad, 2004). For example, Stewart and Barrick

(2000) found team communication was significantly and positively related to performance,

accounting for 13 percent of variance. In summation, there is strong evidence indicating that

communication within organizations and teams can have a favourable impact on job satisfaction

(Goris, 2007), and as noted earlier, a number of scholars have found that job satisfaction is

significantly related to life satisfaction (Rode, 2004). This ‘spillover effect’ from work to home life

has been attributed to the fact that work is a central activity in a number of employees’ lives (Rode,

2004). As such, extending the literature to determine the influence that communication has on life

satisfaction has some indirect support. The present study hypothesizes that team communication will

directly influence two outcomes: (1) team task conflict and (2) individual employee life satisfaction.

We suggest that employees who experience a team environment where ideas are shared and members

are understood are less likely to experience work content disagreements with team members having

better understandings of their particular tasks, and thus having less team task conflict. This has some

empirical support (e.g., Langbein & Jorstad, 2004). Furthermore, building on the findings of Leiter

(1988), we argue that better team communication may also spillover beyond the workplace, leaving

employees more satisfied with life. This leads to the following hypotheses.

Hypothesis 4: Team communication will be negatively related to team task conflict.

Hypothesis 5: Team communication will be positively related to life satisfaction.

In addition to the direct effects of team communication on team task conflict and individual

life satisfaction, we also draw back into the literature discussed above to suggest that individual team

members with issues at work (WFC) and at home (FWC) might also influence their ability to

communicate with their team members. So, team members with workplace problems intruding into

the home may feel withdrawn and resentful of their teams, thus leading to reduced efficiency in their

communications. Similarly, home issues entering the workplace may leave team members distracted

and less likely to engage in effective communication. This leads to our last hypothesized direct effect.

of 23ANZAM 2013

Hypothesis 6: Work-family conflict will be negatively related to team communication.

Figure 1 shows the overall hypothesized model: << Insert Figure 1 about here >>

3. Method

3.1. Sample and Procedure

A total of 200 New Zealand organizations were approached for the present study and managers were

invited to participate, which required access a random team in their organization. A total of 80 teams

with useable data were ultimately received (a 53.3% response rate). Overall, team compositions

ranged from three to five employees, with the majority having three team members (80.5%), and a

total of 298 employees completed surveys. On average, the gender composition of respondents was

evenly spread (53% male), with the slight majority being single (53%) and non-parents (54%). By

education, 49.4% held a bachelor’s degree qualification or higher, and worked 36.3 hours per week

(SD=11.8). Average tenure in respondents teams were 3.6 years (SD=6.2), and respondents came

from a wide range of ethnicities: 38% white, 17% Asian, 15.5% Indian, 11.5% Maori, 7% Pacifika

peoples, and 11% other.

3.2 Measures

All measures were coded 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree. Life Satisfaction was measured

using the 5-item scale by Diener, Emmons, Larsen, and Griffin (1985), e.g., “In most ways my life is

close to ideal” (α= .86). Work-family conflict was measured using six items by Carlson, Kacmar and

Williams (2000): WFC e.g., “I am often so emotionally drained when I get home from work that it

prevents me from contributing to my family” (α= .87), and FWC e.g., “Tension and anxiety from my

family life often weakens my ability to do my job” (α= .88). Team Task Conflict was measured using

four items adapted from Jehn (1995), e.g., “Members in my team fight about task matters” (α= .88).

The construct items were situated in relation to the team, thus we used the average score of team

members to generate a team-level construct. This implies a direct consensus aggregation model

(Chan, 1998) and as such, we calculated inter-rated agreement to determine if aggregating team

members’ ratings of their teams’ role conflict was appropriate. This was supported, with a mean rWG

of .87, which indicates good inter-rater agreement (LeBreton & Senter, 2008). Team Communication

was measured using four items taken from Lester, Meglino, and Korsgaard (2002), e.g., “My team

of 23 ANZAM 2013

members are willing to share information with other team members about our work” (α= .88) and had

a mean rWG of .92, indicating good inter-rater agreement.

Control variables. A variety of control variables were including in the analyses that are typically

included in the conflict field (e.g., Carlson, Ferguson, Kacmar, Grzywacz, & Whitten, 2011) including

gender (1=female, 0=male), marital status (1=married/de facto, 0=single), parental status (1=parent,

0= non-parent), education (1=university degree or higher, 0=no university education), hours worked

(per week), and team tenure (in years).

3.3 Measurement Model

The current study variables were confirmed with structural equation modeling (SEM) using AMOS v.

20. Three goodness-of-fit indexes recommended by Williams, Vandenberg and Edwards (2009) were

used to assess the measurement models with a superior model is reflected in scores of CFI ≥0.95,

RMSEA ≤ 0.08 and SRMR ≤ 0.10. The hypothesized measurement model and two alternative models

are shown in Table 1, showing good fit.

<<Insert Table 1 about here>>

3.4 Analyses

Multi-level analysis was conducted using the MLwiN program (Rashbash, Browne, Healy, Cameron,

& Charlton, 2000), because data had individuals nested in teams. Various models were run and all

models included control variables which were centered to the grand mean. WFC and FWC are at the

individual level (Level 1), and the team-level constructs of team task conflict and team

communication, where individual employee responses were nested within their teams (Level 2).

4. Results

Table 2 presents the means, standard deviations, and correlations among the study variables:

<<Insert Table 2 about here>>

Table 2 shows that at the individual level all variables were significantly related as expected.

Furthermore, analysis shows that a significant amount of the variance could be attributed to group-

level differences towards team communication (27%), team task conflict (43%) and individual life

satisfaction (29%). These significant amounts of variance justifying the multi-level approach.

of 23ANZAM 2013

Tables 3 and 4 shows the results of the multilevel analyses for each hypothesized step of the

relationships between outcomes of team communication and team task conflict (Table 3) and life

satisfaction (Table 4). The analyses for the other direct effects are not shown but are detailed below.

<<Insert Tables 3 and 4 about here>>

Hypothesis 1 was partially support, with WFC being significantly related to life satisfaction

(β = -.258, p < .001) although FWC was not (see Table 4). Hypothesis 2 was partially supported, with

WFC being significantly related to team task conflict (β = .154, p < .05), although FWC was not (see

Table 3). Hypothesis 3 is supported (analysis not shown), with team task conflict being significantly

and negatively related to individual life satisfaction (β = -.200, p < .01). Hypothesis 4 suggested team

communication would be negatively related to team task conflict (see Table 3), and this was

supported (β = -.426, p < .001), as was hypothesis 5, with team communication being significantly

related to life satisfaction (β = .305, p < .01). Hypothesis 6 related to work-family conflict being

negative related to team communication and this was supported from both dimensions: WFC (β = -

.108, p < .05) and FWC (β = -.149, p < .05).

Addressing these findings towards Figure 1 (our hypothesized model), we find that only WFC

is a significant predictor of life satisfaction and team task conflict, although both WFC and FWC are

significantly related to team communication. Furthermore, as expected, both team task conflict and

team communication were both significantly related to life satisfaction, in the expected directions

(negatively and positively respectively). Overall, this shows that while only WFC is directly related to

all constructs, it also has an additional effect working through its influences on team task conflict and

team communication, which both related to our outcome. Similarly, FWC indirectly influences life

satisfaction via team communication, further encouraging the use of non-work constructs in team

models.

5. Discussion

The present study made unique contributions through bringing together theories relating to individuals

(work-family conflict) and teams (task conflict and team communication) towards a seldom tested

outcome in teams’ research (life satisfaction), using multi-level analysis. In addition, testing the direct

influence work-family conflict had on team constructs and then how they in turn influenced life

of 23 ANZAM 2013

satisfaction, created new understanding of how these relationships form and influence each other. Our

findings support the meta-analytical findings where work-family conflict was negatively related to life

satisfaction (e.g., Kossek & Ozeki, 1998), and in particular the analysis of Mesmer-Magnus and

Viswesvaran (2005), which found WFC to be the dominant predictor. In the present study, both

directions of conflict (WFC and FWC) were significantly correlated with life satisfaction, although

the analysis showed that WFC was the dominant predictor.

The present study also tested some unique effects, including the relationship between

individual work-family conflict and team-based outcomes. We argued that employees dealing with

conflicts between their work and family roles would create greater conflict at the team level and this

was supported, with WFC again predicting team task conflict. Our finding supports Shockley and

Singla (2011) who found support for the source attribution perspective, where domain based conflict

is likely to more strongly influence outcomes in the same domain. Thus, individual work conflict that

interferes with home life is more likely to be destructive to work outcomes like the way a team

discusses ideas and task matters. We also found support for both WFC and FWC influencing team

communication, indicating that interference between work and family roles does erode a team’s

ability to communicate effectively. Perhaps employees are distracted by home issues (FWC) or react

negatively to work issues (WFC), and this makes them less engaged and interested in discussing

issues and events with team members. Interestingly, this is somewhat counter to the source attribution

perspective (Shockley & Singla, 2011) and may suggest that team communication – while a

workplace construct – is universally able to be influenced by conflict from both work and family

domains. Further replication is needed to better understand these effects.

In addition, by responding to calls for non-workplace outcomes to be tested (Chung-Yan &

Moeller, 2010) including at the multi-level (Jones et al., 2004), we found support for team-based

factors influencing individual-level life satisfaction. Teams that reported higher levels of task conflict

was found to be negatively linked to life satisfaction, while conversely, teams that reported greater

communication were positively related. We argued that given employee life satisfaction is strongly

predicated on job satisfaction (Iverson & Maguire, 2000), that teams-based factors could spillover

beyond the workplace and influence an employee’s overall satisfaction with life. While we found

of 23ANZAM 2013

team task conflict was negatively related and team communication was positively related, in the

overall model where both these variables were included, we found team communication was the

dominant predictor amongst the two team-based factors, with communication mediating the influence

of task conflict. This shows that while team task conflict and communication are important, team

communication may have an additional benefit in being able to mitigate the effects of task conflict, at

least towards life satisfaction. This further encourages the examination of team-based constructs like

communication towards non-work outcomes. Finally, our analysis also showed that team

communication was directly and negatively related to team task conflict, which supported the

literature (e.g., Langbein & Jorstad, 2004). As such, teams that are better able to communicate and

share issues are less likely to be distracted and conflicted towards their work tasks.

Limitations

Like all self-reported cross-sectional designed employee studies, the present study has some

limitations. However, while self-reported, the team constructs do provide greater confidence because

these constructs supported a consensus aggregation model (Chan, 1998), and as such, these constructs

reflect the combined team members, rather than individual responses. Kenny (2008) notes that the use

of SEM also alleviates issues around common method variance (CMV). Finally, given the large

number of teams (80), the multi-level analysis, and the broad range of organizational sectors and firm

sizes the data was drawn from, that the findings are likely not be due to issues of CMV.

Conclusion

The present study sought to make a number of contributions, specifically extending the work-family

conflict literature and its influence to life satisfaction by including team constructs associated with

task conflict and communication. By bringing these related, but typically untapped lines of research,

together, this study helps us better understand the influence that team factors can have on life

satisfaction, and the influence conflict from work and family roles have. Overall, a number of direct

effects were found that show the complexity and interrelationship between these variables and team

communication was highlighted as being especially important, in the way it influenced all other

variables including mediating influence on the individual and team conflict factors.

of 23 ANZAM 2013

REFERENCES

Arslan, C., Harmarta, E., & Uslu, M. (2010). The relationship between conflict communication,

selfesteem and life satisfaction in university students. Educational Research and Reviews,

5(1), 31-34.

Ayoko, O. B. (2007). Communication openness, conflict events and reactions to conflict in

culturally diverse workgroups. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal,

14(2), 105-124.

Baron, R. A. (1991). Positive effects of conflict: A cognitive perspective. Employee

Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 4, 25-36.

Bertcher, H. J. (1994). Group participation: Techniques for leaders and members (2nd ed.).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Boulding, K. (1963). Conflict and defense. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Brett, J., Shapiro, D., & Lytle, A. (1998). Breaking the bonds of reciprocity in negotiations.

Academy of Management Journal, 41(4), 410-424.

Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J., & Higgs, A. G. (1993). Relations between work group

characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups.

Personnel Psychology, 46, 823-850.

Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, K. M., & Williams, L. J. (2000). Construction and initial validation of a

multidimensional measure of work–family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56, 249–

276.

Carlson, D. S., Ferguson, M., Kacmar, K. M., Grzywacz, J. G., & Whitten, D. (2011). Pay it

forward: The positive crossover effects of supervisor work-family enrichment. Journal of

Management, 37(3), 770-789.

Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels

of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 234-246.

Chen, J., Silverthorne, C., & Hung, J. (2006). Organization communication, job stress,

organizational commitment, and job performance of accounting professionals in Taiwan and

America. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 27(4), 242- 429.

of 23ANZAM 2013

Chung-Yan, G. A. & Moeller, C. (2010). The psychosocial costs of conflict management styles.

International Journal of Conflict Management, 21(4), 382-399.

De Dreu, 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.

Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction with life scale.

Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71-75.

Eby, L., Casper, W., Lockwood, A., Bordeaux, C., & Brinleya, A. (2005). Work and family

research in IO/OB: Content analysis and review of the literature (1980–2002). Journal of

Vocational Behavior, 66(1), 124–197.

Frone, M., & Major, B. (1988). Communication quality and job satisfaction among managerial nurses.

Group & Organization Studies, 13(3), 332-347.

Gersick, C. J. G. (1989). Marking time: Predictable transitions in task groups. Academy of

Management Journal, 32, 274-309.

Goris, J. R., Pettit, J. D., Vaught, B. C. (2002). Organizational communication: Is it a moderator

of the relationship between job congruence and job performance/satisfaction?

International Journal of Management, 19(4), 664-672.

Goris, J. R. (2007). Effects of satisfaction with communication on the relationship between

individual-job congruence and job performance/satisfaction. Journal of Management

Development, 26(8), 737-752.

Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles.

Academy of Management Review, 10(1), 76-88.

Guertzkow, H. & Gry, J. (1954). An analysis of conflict in decision-making groups. Human

Relations, 7, 367-381.

Haar, J. M. (2013). Testing a new measure of work–life balance: a study of parent and non-

parent employees from New Zealand. The International Journal of Human Resource

Management, (ahead-of-print), 1-20.

of 23 ANZAM 2013

Hunter, E. M., Perry, S. J., Carlson, D. S., & Smith, S. A. (2010). Linking team resources to

work–family enrichment and satisfaction. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 77(2),

304–312

Iverson, R. & Maguire, C. (2000). The relationship between job and life satisfaction: Evidence

from a remote mining community. Human Relations, 53 (6), 807-839.

Jackson, S. E., & Schuler, R. S. (1985). A meta-analysis and conceptual critique of research on

role ambiguity and role conflict in work settings. Organizational Behavior and Human

Decision Processes, 36, 16-78.

Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup

conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(2), 256-282.

Jones, E., Watson, B., Gardner, J., & Gallois, C. (2004). Organizational communication: Challenges

for the new century. Journal of Communication, 54, 722–750.

Judge, T. A., & Colquitt, J. A. (2004). Organizational justice and stress: The mediating role of work-

family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 394-404.

Kenny, D. A. (2008). Reflections on mediation. Business Research Methods, 11(2), 353-358.

Keyton, J. (1993). Group termination. Small Group Research, 24, 84–100.

Kossek, E. E., & Ozeki, C. (1998). Work–family conflict, policies, and the job–life satisfaction

relationship: A review and directions for organizational behavior-human resources research.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 139–149.

LaFollette, W., Hornsby, J. S., Smith, B. N., & Novak, W. I. (1996). The use of work teams in

organizations: An analysis of type and implementation. Mid-American Journal of

Business, 11(1), 55-62.

Langbein, L. & Jorstad, C. (2004). Productivity in the workplace: Cops, culture, communication,

cooperation, and collusion. Political Research Quarterly, 57(1), 65- 79.

LeBreton, J. M., & Senter, J. L. (2008). Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and

interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11(4), 815-852.

Leiter, M. P. (1988). Burnout as a function of communication patterns: A study of a

multidisciplinary mental health team. Group & Organization Studies, 13(1), 111- 129.

of 23ANZAM 2013

Lester, S. W., Meglino, B. M., & Korsgaard, M. A. (2002). The antecedents and consequences of

group potency: A longitudinal investigation of newly formed work groups. Academy of

Management Journal, 45, 352-368.

Martínez-Moreno, E., González-Navarro, P., Zornoza, A. & Ripoll, P. (2009). Relationship, task

and process conflicts on team performance: The moderating role of communication

media. International Journal of Conflict Management, 20(3), 251-268.

Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., & Viswesvaran, C. (2005). Convergence between measures of work- to-

family and family-to-work conflict: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Vocational

Behavior, 67(2), 215-232.

Olaniran, B. A. (2010). Group communication and conflict management in an electronic medium.

International Journal of Conflict Management, 21(1), 44-69.

Orpen, C. (1997). The interactive effects of communication quality and job involvement. The

Journal of Psychology, 131(5), 519.

Pettit, J. D., Goris, J. R. & Vaught, B. C. (1997). An examination of organizational

communication as a moderator of the relationship between job performance and job

satisfaction. Journal of Business Communication, 34(1), 81-98.

Polzer, J. T., Crisp, C. B., Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Kim, J. W. (2006). Extending the faultline model to

geographically dispersed teams: How collocated subgroups can impair group functioning.

Academy of Management Journal, 49, 679-692.

Quirke, B. (1992). Communicating quality. In M. Hand & B. Plowman (Eds.), Quality

Management Handbook (pp. 253-263). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Rahim, A. (2002). Toward a theory of managing organizational conflict. International Journal of

Conflict Management, 13(3), 206-35.

Rode, J. C. (2004). Job satisfaction and life satisfaction revisited: A longitudinal test of an

integrated model. Human Relations, 57(9), 1205-1230.

Roloff, M. E. (1987). Communication and conflict. In C. R. Berger & S. H. Chaffee (Eds.),

Handbook of communication science (pp. 484-534). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

of 23 ANZAM 2013

Scott, C. R., Connaughton, S. L., Diaz-Saenz, H. R., Maguire, K., Ramirez, R., Richardson, B.,

Shaw, S. P., & Morgan, D. (1999). The impacts of communication and multiple identifications on

intent to leave: A multimethodological exploration. Management Communication Quarterly,

12(3), 400-435.

Shockley, K. M., & Singla, N. (2011). Reconsidering work-family interactions and satisfaction:

A meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 37, 861–886.

Simons, T. & Peterson, R. (2000). Task conflict and relationship conflict in top management

teams: The pivotal role of intragroup trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 102– 111.

Stewart, G. L. & Barrick, M. R. (2000). Team structure and performance: assessing the mediating

role of intrateam process and the moderating role of task type. Academy of

Management Journal, 43(2). 135–148.

Weingart, L. R., Todorova, G., & Cronin, M. A. (2010). Task conflict, problem-solving, and

yielding: Effects on cognition and performance in functionally diverse innovation teams.

Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 3, 312-337.

Williams, L. J., Vandenberg, R. J., & Edwards, J. R. (2009). 12 Structural equation modelling in

management research: A guide for improved analysis. The Academy of Management

Annals, 3(1), 543-604.

of 23ANZAM 2013

Table 1. Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Study Measures

Model Fit Indices Model Differences

Model χχχχ2 df CFI RMSEA SRMR χχχχ

2 ∆∆∆∆df p Details

Model 1 230.755 142 .974 .046 .047

Model 2 522.946 146 .891 .093 .064 292.191 4 .001 Model 2 to 1

Model 3

782.944 146 .815 .121 .122 552.189 4 .001 Model 3 to 1

Model 1= Hypothesized 5-factor model: WFC, FWC, team task conflict, team communication, and life satisfaction.

Model 2= Alternative 4-factor model: WFC and FWC combined, team task conflict, team communication, and life satisfaction.

Model 3= Alternative 4-factor model: WFC, FWC, team task conflict and team communication combined, and life satisfaction.

of 23 ANZAM 2013

Table 2. Correlations and Means of Study Variables

Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Level 1:

1. Age 34.8 17.6 --

2. Hours Worked 36.3 11.8 .18** --

3. WFC 2.4 .93 .06 -.04 --

4. FWC 2.0 .80 -.09 -.09 .52** --

5. Life Satisfaction 3.2 .79 .21** .02 -.17** -.13* --

Level 2

1. Team Tenure 3.6 6.2 --

2. Team Task Conflict 2.2 .95 .19** --

3. Team Communication 4.0 .63 -.08 -.40**

Teams N=80, Employees N=298. *p< .05, **p< .01.

of 23ANZAM 2013

Table 3. Multilevel Results of the Relationships to Team Communications and Team Task Conflict

Outcomes

Team Communication Team Role Conflict

Model 1:

Controls

Model 2:

Predictors

Model 1:

Controls

Model 2:

Predictors

Model 3:

Mediator

Β SE Β SE Β SE Β SE Β SE

Intercept 3.925‡ .084 3.890‡ .081 1.998‡ .134 2.015‡ .132 2.013‡ .128

Age -.007 .005 -.009* .005 -.004 .008 -.00 .008 -.007 .007

Gender .008 .091 .026 .087 .203 .131 .204 .129 .203* .121

Marital Status .068 .120 .038 .115 .090 .165 .098 .164 .112 .154

Parental Status .072 .134 .158 .132 -.017 .188 -.050 .192 -.057 .180

Education -.007 .088 -.005 .084 -.133 .123 -.119 .122 -.131 .114

Work hours .001 .005 -.000 .005 -.010 .007 -.010 .007 -.008 .007

Team Tenure -.011 .008 -.006 .008 .015 .011 .011 .011 .003 .010

WFC -.108* .055 .154* .080 .130* .076

FWC -.149* .068 .057 .097 -.022 .094

Team Communication -.426‡ .103

Variance level 2 (team) .042 .028 .041 .026 .351‡ .096 .334‡ .091 .380‡ .094

Variance level 1 (employee) .313‡ .038 .282‡ .034 .508‡ .063 .491‡ .061 .410‡ .051

-2 Log Likelihood 352.457 333.240 498.093 490.792 469.472

Note. N = 80 teams, 298 employees. B = unstandardized estimate, SE = standard error.

*p < .05, **p < .01, ‡p < .001

of 23 ANZAM 2013

Table 4. Multilevel Results of the Relationships to Life Satisfaction

Life Satisfaction

Model 1:

Controls

Model 2:

Predictors

Model 3:

Mediators

Β SE Β SE Β SE

Intercept 3.056‡ .114 3.052‡ .113 3.030‡ .111

Age .003 .007 .004 .007 .004 .007

Gender -.104 .117 -.120 .112 -.104 .109

Marital Status .434** .150 .465‡ .144 .508‡ .139

Parental Status -.105 .169 -.146 .168 -.145 .162

Education -.207* .111 -.222* .107 -.218* .103

Work hours .006 .006 .009 .006 .007 .006

Team Tenure .001 .010 .003 .010 .008 .009

WFC -.258‡ .070 -.226‡ .068

FWC .063 .085 .096 .083

Team Communication .305** .101

Team Task Conflict -.073 .078

Variance level 2 (team) .189‡ .063 .221‡ .064 .224‡ .063

Variance level 1 (employee) .438‡ .054 .384‡ .048 .351‡ .043

-2 Log Likelihood 450.185 435.303 421.590

Note. N = 80 teams, 298 employees. B = unstandardized estimate, SE = standard error.

*p < .05, **p < .01, ‡p < .001

of 23ANZAM 2013

Figure 1. Study Model: Mediation and Moderation (Both Individual and Team Level)

WFC

FWC

Team Task Conflict

(Team Level)

Team Communication

(Team Level)

Life

Satisfaction

of 23 ANZAM 2013

the influence of team task conflict and team communication

Documents