This article was downloaded by: [128.91.90.188] On: 10 May 2017, At: 08:28 Publisher: Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences (INFORMS) INFORMS is located in Maryland, USA Organization Science Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://pubsonline.informs.org Perspective—A New Look at Conflict Management in Work Groups Andrew M. Carton, Basima A. Tewfik To cite this article: Andrew M. Carton, Basima A. Tewfik (2016) Perspective—A New Look at Conflict Management in Work Groups. Organization Science 27(5):1125-1141. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2016.1085 Full terms and conditions of use: http://pubsonline.informs.org/page/terms-and-conditions This article may be used only for the purposes of research, teaching, and/or private study. Commercial use or systematic downloading (by robots or other automatic processes) is prohibited without explicit Publisher approval, unless otherwise noted. For more information, contact [email protected]. The Publisher does not warrant or guarantee the article’s accuracy, completeness, merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, or non-infringement. Descriptions of, or references to, products or publications, or inclusion of an advertisement in this article, neither constitutes nor implies a guarantee, endorsement, or support of claims made of that product, publication, or service. Copyright © 2016, INFORMS Please scroll down for article—it is on subsequent pages INFORMS is the largest professional society in the world for professionals in the fields of operations research, management science, and analytics. For more information on INFORMS, its publications, membership, or meetings visit http://www.informs.org Organization Science Vol. 27, No. 5, September–October 2016, pp. 1125–1141 ISSN 1047-7039 (print) ISSN 1526-5455 (online) http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2016.1085 © 2016 INFORMS A New Look at Conflict Management in Work Groups Andrew M. Carton, Basima A. Tewfik Management Department, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104 {[email protected], btewfi[email protected]} embers of work groups are highly interdependent and often share incompatible values, objectives, and opinions. MAs a result, conflict frequently arises. Given the profound impact of conflict on group effectiveness, scholars have sought to identify strategies that can mitigate its downsides and leverage its upsides. Yet research on conflict management strategies has accumulated inconsistent results. In this Perspectives piece, we argue that these inconsistent findings can be resolved if scholars take a more expansive view of the consequences of conflict management strategies: whereas existing research considers how individual strategies influence a single group conflict type (relational, status, process, or task), we consider the impact of individual strategies on all four conflict types. After building a typology by organizing strategies according to the conflict type that each is best equipped to manage, we argue that the strategies most appropriate for managing one type of conflict may systematically backfire by escalating other conflict types. For example, the adoption of a superordinate identity is likely to resolve relational conflict, yet exacerbate status conflict. In addition to uncovering these instances of “negative spillovers,” we shed light on the rarer phenomena of “positive spillovers,” which occur when conflict management strategies resolve conflict types they were not originally designed to influence. By highlighting how individual conflict management strategies influence multiple conflict types—often in contrasting ways—this Perspectives article reconciles conflicting findings and redirects the literature by providing scholars with new recommendations on how to study conflict management in work groups. Keywords: conflict management; diversity; group conflict; group processes and performance; process conflict; relational conflict; status conflict; task conflict; work teams History: Published online in Articles in Advance October 4, 2016. Introduction indicative of its importance is that conflict management Members of work groups are highly interdependent, represents a core obligation even for those who do not operate within tightly coupled social systems, and fre- specialize in it. To illustrate, Mintzberg (1971) observed quently have incompatible aims. As such, conflict often that 30% of the responsibilities of managers involve arises. Work group members conflict in their relation- resolving conflict. As a consequence of its timeless and ships, their claims to status, their beliefs about how essential role, conflict management constitutes a signif- responsibilities should be allocated, and their approaches icant area of study in research on work groups (Behfar to solving problems (Weingart et al. 2015). Given that et al. 2008, Greer et al. 2008). Downloaded from informs.org by [128.91.90.188] on 10 May 2017, at 08:28 . For personal use only, all rights reserved. conflict has a profound impact on team functioning In spite of—or perhaps partly because of—their preva- (Jehn 1995), there is widespread interest in how it can lence, theories on conflict management rarely overlap. be managed effectively. Indeed, efforts to bind seem- Myriad paradigms exist, yet few linkages between them ingly intractable schisms stretch back to the beginning have been developed (Behfar et al. 2008, Blake and of research on conflict (Walton and Dutton 1969). In Mouton 1981, Greer et al. 2008, Kressel and Dean the modern era, conferences and books have been aimed 1989, Thomas and Kilmann 1974, Tinsley 2001). Con- exclusively at understanding how to manage conflict, and sequently, the status quo is a body of literature that some individuals devote their entire careers to neutral- is heavily populated, yet inadequately integrated. This izing conflict (Kressel and Dean 1989). Perhaps more would not be problematic were it the case that disparate 1125 Carton and Tewfik: A New Look at Conflict Management in Work Groups 1126 Organization Science 27(5), pp. 1125–1141, © 2016 INFORMS theories reinforced each other, or, at a minimum, did Much research on conflict management examines gen- not contradict one another. But this is not the reality— eral orientations (e.g., collaboration versus competition) particularly for research on conflict management strate- rather than specific strategies (e.g., superordinate goals). gies, which are circumscribed behaviors or interventions Accordingly, these theories do not provide a platform enacted to resolve group conflict. Superordinate goals for understanding the consequences of specific strategies have been effective bridging devices in some instances (Pruitt and Rubin 1986, Thomas and Kilmann 1974). As (Sherif 1958) but not in others (Deschamps and Brown noted above, some research has investigated the use of 1983). Increased contact between combative members individual strategies (Richter et al. 2006, Ronay et al. has been helpful in some instances (Gaertner et al. 1994) 2012) and even multiple strategies at the same time but not in others (Hewstone and Brown 1986). Boundary (Behfar et al. 2008), thereby considerably advancing the- spanning has worked well in some cases (Tushman and ory on conflict management. However, this research has Scanlan 1981) but not in others (Fleming and Wagues- examined the effect of each strategy on either a single pack 2007). Indeed, nearly a dozen conflict management type of conflict or a general indicator of conflict that strategies have accumulated equivocal results (Brewer does not differentiate between distinct conflict types. In 2007, Dovidio et al. 2007, Fiol et al. 2009). a departure from the existing literature, the central argu- To help explain these inconsistencies, we reassess the ment of our Perspectives piece is that the effectiveness of way researchers have examined the impact of conflict conflict management can be better understood by consid- management strategies on the four distinct group con- ering how individual strategies can each impact multiple flict types (relational, status, process, and task). Whereas forms of conflict—often in contrasting ways. In the dis- existing research typically considers the effect of indi- cussion we highlight additional ways that our theory redi- rects the literature on conflict management. The upshot of vidual conflict management strategies on a single con- our integrative effort is a framework that provides schol- flict type, we take a more expansive view by considering ars from various backgrounds a more holistic sense of the impact of individual strategies on multiple conflict the consequences of conflict management. types—an important advance given that different conflict types co-occur much more often than they do not (de Wit et al. 2012). After building a typology by organizing three A Typology of Conflict dozen conflict management strategies according to the Management Strategies conflict type they are best equipped to resolve, we intro- Given that the objective of conflict management strategies duce a theoretical framework that helps identify a num- is to set conflict to an optimal level for group effective- ber of occasions when the strategies that most effectively ness, the strategies that serve as the focal point of an manage one type of conflict may systematically backfire analysis of unintended effects should be those that ini- by escalating a different form of conflict. As one exam- tially set their targeted form of conflict to the most optimal