On the relationship between intragroup conflict and social capital in teams: A longitudinal investigation in Taiwan

• Published date: 01 January 2017
• Author: Man‐Ling Chang
• Date: 01 January 2017
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/job.2107

On the relationship between intragroup conflict

and social capital in teams: A longitudinal

investigation in Taiwan

MAN-LING CHANG*

Department of Leisure and Recreation Management, Asia University, Taichung, Taiwan

Summary In response to the prevalent deployment of teams in organizations, there is a need to jointly consider conflict

and social capital within the teams to offer novel ways to understand group process. This study proposes that

the association between intragroup conflict and group social capital may be dynamic and reciprocal. Speci-

fically, this study investigates longitudinally how intragroup conflict influences group social capital within

cross-functional teams and recognizes whether the teams with high group social capital can further produce

intragroup conflict. The two-year longitudinal study sampled 527 individuals in 90 teams across two time pe-

riods. This study finds that when teams are formed (Time 1), task conflict relates positively to structural social

capital, and relationship conflict relates negatively to cognitive social capital. There is an inverted U-type

relationship between task conflict at Time 1 and social capital at Time 2. Established teams (Time 2) with

higher levels of social capital experience higher levels of task conflict and lower levels of relationship conflict

than teams with lower levels of social capital. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Keywords: intragroup conflict; group social capital; cross-functional teams; longitudinal analysis; curvilinear

relationship

Introduction

Intragroup conflict is regarded as a core interactional property and essential to the group process (Chun & Choi,

2014; Jehn, Greer, Levine, & Szulanski, 2008). It is defined as the process resulting from an antagonistic interaction

among team members due to real or perceived differences (De Wit, Greer, & Jehn, 2012). Conflict literature often

concludes that the effect of conflict on group outcomes is mixed (Balkundi & Harrison, 2006). De Wit et al. (2012)

also suggest that the effect of intragroup conflict varies with structural aspects of the group context. Accordingly, it

is necessary to further explore the effect of intragroup conflict during the group process.

Whether the team performs well relies on information benefit produced within the team (Homan, Hollenbeck,

Humphrey, Van Knippenberg, Ilgen, & Van Kleef, 2008). The key to the generation of information benefit lies in

social capital (Han, Han, & Brass, 2014). Group social capital is defined as the configuration of members’relation-

ships and the resources flowing through connections among members (Balkundi & Harrison, 2006; Oh, Chung, &

Labianca, 2004). If strong ties and trust are built within the team, information and other intangible assets are

available for individual use (Oh, Labianca, & Chung, 2006; Shah, Dirks, & Chervany, 2006). Thus, social capital

seems to be a critical group outcome in expanding understanding of the effect of intragroup conflict within teams.

A growing body of research addresses the impacts of intragroup conflict on group outcomes, such as performance,

innovativeness, group decision making, trust, and team effectiveness, in ongoing work teams (e.g., De Dreu, 2006;

Jehn et al., 2008; Olson, Parayitam, & Bao, 2007; Parayitam & Dooley, 2009; Peterson & Behfar, 2003). However,

*Correspondence to: Man-Ling Chang, Department of Leisure and Recreation Management, Asia University, Taichung, Taiwan. E-mail:

manllian@ms76.hinet.net

Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 24 October 2013

Revised 28 February 2016, Accepted 04 March 2016

Journal of Organizational Behavior, J. Organiz. Behav. 38,3–27 (2017)

Published online 4 April 2016 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/job.2107

Research Article

few studies have linked intragroup conflict with group social capital. De Clercq, Thongpapanl, and Dimov (2009)

admit the necessity of the joint consideration of conflict and social capital in developing novel ways to understand

group functioning. In addition, social network researchers have given attention to social capital for individuals or

firms but rarely to the group-level unit of analysis (Shah et al., 2006). Han et al. (2014) indicate that little is known

about how to cultivate group social capital.

For understanding the source of group social capital, Adler and Kwon (2002) advance the opportunity–motiva-

tion–ability framework and suggest that the presence of opportunity, motivation, and ability can activate social

capital. Elaborating on how conflict can create or hinder the opportunity of social interaction, the motivation to ex-

change and invest in relationship quality, and the ability to act together to reach a team’s common goal, this study

attempts to confirm the impacts of intragroup conflict on group social capital. By doing so, th e current study is

meant to fill a gap in the literature related to knowledge of intragroup conflict and group social capital. However,

hypotheses in the majority of social network and team research are time insensitive (Balkundi & Harrison, 2006).

Thus, a longitudinal approach is necessary because it allows this study to examine the conflict–social capital asso-

ciation within a team over time.

This study observes cross-functional new product development (NPD) teams. A cross-functional NPD team is

particularly suited to this study because of the characteristics of its members’interactions and because it is easy

to observe its forming stage. First of all, participation in such teams provides an opportunity for members to establish

new relationships with others (Hoegl, Parboteeah, & Munson, 2003). Members need to interact with one another for

exchanging and diffusing knowledge to complete common tasks (Chen, Chang, & Hung, 2008). And such hetero-

geneous teams provide interpersonal contexts in which conflicts occur (Chen, Tjosvold, & Fang, 2005). In addition,

utilization of such teams offers an opportunity to observe their forming stage. In doing so, the influences of prior

frequent interactions among members can be lessened and controlled.

Literature Review

Conflict

Conflict arises in situations in which interdependent actors are aware of discrepancies and incompatibilities (Jehn,

1995; Jehn & Mannix, 2001). Conflict includes two types: task conflict and relationship conflict. Task conflict cen-

ters on disagreements about task knowledge; the distribution of resources, procedures, or guidelines and the inter-

pretation of facts (Jehn, 1995; Medina, Munduate, Dorado, Martínez, & Guerra, 2005). Relationship conflict is

person driven and arises when there are non-task-related incompatibilities, such as interpersonal issues and diverse

personal tastes and preferences (De Clercq, Thongpapanl, & Dimov, 2009; Jehn & Mannix, 2001). These person-

driven incompatibilities may lead to an individual’s animosity, tension, and negative feelings toward one another

(Choi & Cho, 2011; Langfred, 2007; Simons & Peterson, 2000). Although task and relationship conflicts are dis-

tinct, they are highly interrelated (Choi & Cho, 2011; Olson et al., 2007; Pelled, Eisenhardt, & Xin, 1999 ). Yang

and Mossholder (2004) suggest that more negative emotions are drawn into play when task conflict becomes ego

involving and communication entails more interpersonal negotiation. In other words, severe task conflict is relevant

to relationship conflict because a series of disputes may build negative feelings and cause sabotage behaviors

(Simons & Peterson, 2000). Conflict literature also contends that task and relationship conflicts have independent

effects on group outcomes, although they are correlated (Janssen et al., 1999).

Although conflict mostly occurs during an interpersonal interaction within a team, members experiencing conflict

can influence the behaviors of other team members through emotional contagion, which refers to the process of team

members subconsciously adapting the emotions of one another (Emich, 2014). Conflict is widely deemed as a col-

lective phenomenon (Chun & Choi, 2014; Jehn, 1995; Jehn & Chatman, 2000; Peterson & Behfar, 2003; Simons &

4M.-L. CHANG

Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 38, 3–27 (2017)

DOI: 10.1002/job