Conflict Is Good

In general, conflict refers to perceived incompatibilities or divergence in perceptions, expectations and opinions by several parties involved; in particular, intra-group conflict describes a situation in which group members hold discrepant views (have different opinions, attitudes, knowledge) or have interpersonal incompatibilities with each other.

Several sources and types of disagreements and tensions were reported in the literature, starting with the scarcity of resources, affective states (stress and tensions) or cognitive states (difference in perceptions, opinions and attitudes). These qualitative differences in the nature of conflict were identified rather long ago, yet it was in the 1990s when the literature on conflict frames of reference and intra-group conflict made a clear distinction between task (or cognitive) and relational (or emotional) conflict.

Task conflict refers to the disagreements among the group members about the content of the task due to different viewpoints, opinions and ideas, while relationship conflict refers to interpersonal incompatibilities and frictions among the group members resulting in tension, annoyance and animosity. Some empirical studies supported the independence of these two types of conflict, while others doubted their conceptual independence. However, this distinction is crucial since the two types of conflict seem to have opposite effects on group performance, especially in tasks involving information processing. Task conflict is expected to be beneficial for group performance, increasing the quality of decision as well as the acceptance of decisions and satisfaction with the group outcome, while relationship conflict has a negative impact on group performance, group satisfaction and commitment with the group, due to the fact that it increases stress and anxiety and therefore it limits the information processing abilities of the group members. Although intuitively appealing, these differential effects were not supported by the meta-analysis exploring the impact of task and relationship conflict on group performance and group members' satisfaction and showed that both types of conflict have detrimental effects for group outcomes.

Teamwork quality is certainly a critical factor for group outcomes and it is likely to be interrelated with intra-group conflict as well. In general both task and relationship conflicts are likely to be associated with negative emotionality in groups. Negative emotionality is detrimental for the quality of interpersonal interaction within teams (e.g., low quality of communication, negative group atmosphere) and will detract the team members from focusing on the task (e.g., lack of appropriate planning, coordination problems). Therefore, high levels of disagreements concerning the way in which the group members should proceed in order to achieve their common task, as well as high levels of personal frictions are very likely to be detrimental for teamwork quality. Based on this argument the first hypothesis of this study is:

Hypothesis 1: Task and relationship conflict have a negative impact on teamwork quality.

As previously noted, leadership styles received a considerable attention in the literature on groups. The distinction between transformational and transactional leadership styles was especially attractive and most research to date argues that a transformational leadership style is more beneficial for the global effectiveness (including satisfaction) of the group as compared to the transactional leadership style. The present study uses the task/relations orientation distinction because in line with Forsyth, this is more closely related to the group dynamics, group processes and certainly with the types of conflict discussed before. A relations oriented leader addresses "the feelings, attitudes and satisfaction of the members of the group and so correspond to the interpersonal, socio-emotional side of the group", while a task oriented leader defines problems for the group members, assigns tasks and makes sure that the tasks are performed in a timely and effective manner and coordinates the actions of the group members toward the common goal. Because the quality of communication is essential for both coordination and planning processes, it is expected that relations oriented leadership (which fosters intra-group communication) to be beneficial for teamwork quality, to a greater extent than task oriented leadership. It is also expected that relations oriented leaders to be more effective in dealing with relationship conflict within groups. In conclusion, based on the previous arguments, leadership orientation impacts both on group processes (directly) as well as on the relationship between intra-group conflict and group processes.

Hypothesis 2: Relations oriented leadership has a stronger positive impact on teamwork quality than task oriented leadership.

Hypothesis 3: Leadership styles moderate the negative relationship between intra-group conflict and teamwork quality. For groups with relations oriented leaders the negative relation between task and relationship conflict, on the one hand, and teamwork quality, on the other, will be attenuated.