Assessing the Relationship Between Conflict-Type and Emoti.docx

Assessing the Relationship Between Conflict-Type and
Emotions in Top
Management Teams: An Attributions Perspective Within the
Context of Strategic Decision-Making
Kevin J. Hurt
Columbus State University
This study identifies why conflict reactions vary, focusing on
the role attributions play on the relationship
between conflict and anger within executive teams. Two
attributions were examined: intentionality and
controllability. Intentionality was a significant moderator
between cognitive conflict and anger, whereas
controllability marginally moderated the relationship between
affective conflict and anger. These findings
provide further evidence that attributions about the actions or
comments of an individual can contribute
to subsequent conflict. They also help understand prior mixed
results about conflict effects. Cognitive
conflict had a favorable outcome when it was attributed as
being constructive and dysfunctional when
attributed as destructive.
INTRODUCTION

Conflict is considered a multi-dimensional and highly emotional
construct conveying both
constructive and destructive overtones (Allred, 1999; Amason,
1996; Baron, 1991). Many academicians
and practicing managers encourage conflict within a decision-
making context because of the belief that
conflict will lead to higher quality decisions (Amason, 1996;
Eisenhardt, 1989; Foxworthy, 2011; Jehn &
Mannix, 2001; Pondy, 1992). However, these higher quality
decisions may come at the expense of
member commitment as a direct result of the conflict, which
may also foster acrimonious relationships
among team members (Amason, 1996; Amason & Schweiger,
1994). These paradoxical effects can occur
among teams at any level of the organization; however, it is
extremely important to consider these effects
at an organization’s highest level of decision-making authority,
i.e. the top management team, because the
strategic decisions made by a top management team will have
significant influence on an organization’s
performance and long-term value (Mankins & Steele, 2006;
Simons, Pelled, & Smith, 1999). If the top
management team is incapable of working together, e.g. if
emotions impede team cohesiveness causing
members to get derailed with dysfunctional forms of conflict,
the strategic success of the organization
may be jeopardized (Eisenhardt, Kahwajy, & Bourgeois III,
1997; Hambrick, 1987).
While numerous forms of conflict have been identified by
researchers (e.g. goal, interest, value,
process, affective, cognitive, intrapersonal, intragroup,
intergroup) (Jehn & Mannix, 2001; Rahim, 1986;
Weider-Hatfield & Hatfield, 1995), conflict has essentially been
abridged into two primary types: a)
cognitive (i.e. task-focused), and b) affective (i.e. relationship-

focused) based on its perceived utility to an
organization (Amason, Thompson, Hochwarter, & Harrison,
1995; Jehn, 1997). Cognitive conflict is
considered functional to an organization because it inspires
creativity and innovation, allows multiple
viewpoints to be openly discussed, and prevents negative
behaviors such as groupthink (Amason, 1996;
70 Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics vol.
11(2) 2014
Jehn, 1997; Peterson & Behfar, 2003). However, a threshold
beyond which cognitive conflict ceases to
have functional effects appears to exist, i.e. higher levels of
cognitive conflict may yield negative
consequences (Jehn, 1995). Affective conflict is considered
dysfunctional and detrimental because it is
extremely emotional and personalized, promoting distrust,
dislike, and lack of receptiveness to other’s
ideas (Amason et al., 1995; Jehn, 1995; Jehn & Mannix, 2001;
Mooney, Holahan, & Amason, 2007).
Within teams, dysfunctional conflict is likely to arise when one
member attributes another’s actions or
comments as personal criticism, or simply when interpersonal
compatibilities exist among members
(Amason, 1996; Jehn, 1995).
Top management teams are, by composition, demographically
and technically diverse (e.g. member
functional backgrounds, experience, age, tenure, cognitions)
(Knight et al., 1999; Yukl, 2006). If top
management teams hope to gain from the benefits of this
diversity, e.g. increased innovation and decision

comprehensiveness (Bantel & Jackson, 1989; Simons et al.,
1999), then team members must embrace
conflict by becoming behaviorally engaged in debate over task-
related differences and supporting
conflicting approaches during decision-making processes
(Simons et al., 1999). However, conflict
episodes are complex and require an understanding of emotions
and subsequent individual attributions,
particularly within a strategic decision-making context
(Eisenhardt & Zbaracki, 1992). The key to
effective decision-making is not as simple as instigating
conflict within the team as conflict’s effects can
be inconsistent in that they may simultaneously lead to both
functional and dysfunctional consequences,
dependent upon numerous factors such as conflict-type,
emotions, and issue interpretation (Amason &
Schweiger, 1994; De Dreu & Weingart, 2003; Jehn & Mannix,
2001) (Shook, Payne, & Voges, 2005).
People’s reactions to conflict can vary significantly, from
increased creativity and improved decision
quality, to increased impediments to rational thinking during a
decision-making process and other acts
that are generally hurtful to others (Baron, 1991; Estrada, Isen,
& Young, 1994; Kopelman, Rosette, &
Thompson, 2006; Muchinsky, 2000; Thomas, 1992). These
reactions can be exacerbated if an individual
misattributes cognitive conflict as a form of affective conflict
(Pelled, 1996). The idea that cognitive
conflict should be encouraged while avoiding affective conflict
(Amason & Schweiger, 1994) is certainly
logical; however, that may be harder to achieve in practice
because cognitive conflict may lead to
affective conflict (Mooney et al., 2007). Conflict, by its very
nature, is among the most emotionally
arousing phenomena and it is the felt emotions, e.g. anger, that

make conflict particularly uncomfortable
(Baron, 1991; Bodtker & Jameson, 2001; Thomas, 1992). It is
the anger emotion which researchers
underscore as a primary contributor to the dysfuctional effects
asssociated with conflict (Amason et al.,
1995; Desivilya & Yagil, 2005; Jehn, 1997). However, every
emotion has the potential to be positive,
negative, or both, depending on the context since each emotion
has idiosyncratic meaning, varying
sources of causality and subjective experiences attributed to it,
which lead to varying inclinations to act
(Lazarus, 2003). Thus, it is apparent that there is a need to
understand the role attributions play on the
relationship between conflict-type and emotions. This study
addresses that need by focusing on these
relationships within the context of an actual conflict episode
experienced by top management team
members during their most recent strategic decision-making
processes.
In order to understand the effects of cognitive- and affective-
conflict and the subsequent emotional
effects within a top management team, it is important to
ascertain what the individuals involved in the
conflict believed to be its cause (Keaveney, 2008). Emotions
experienced during episodes of conflict are
often negative though they may at times be positive or neutral
(Jackson, 1992). Thus, a person’s
experienced emotion often depends upon the explanation that
has been attributed to it (Kelley & Michela,
1980). Thus, the primary question addressed in this study asks:
How do individual attributions moderate
the relationship between conflict-type and emotions? In
particular, this study focuses on the emotion of
anger since this emotion occurs most frequently during a
conflict episode (Allred, 1999). Furthermore, it

is within the sphere of discrete emotions where emotional work
experiences can best be understood,
predicted, and have a vital influence on organizational behavior
(Ashkanasy, Hartel, & Daus, 2002;
Forgas, 2002).
Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics vol. 11(2)
2014 71
THEORY AND HYPOTHESES
Emotions Within the Context of Conflict
Kleinginna and Kleinginna (1981, p. 355) define emotions as a
“complex set of interactions among
subjective and objective factors, mediated by neural-hormonal
systems which can (a) give rise to affective
experiences such as feelings of arousal, pleasure/displeasure;
(b) generate cognitive processes such as
emotionally relevant perceptual effects, appraisals, labeling
processes; (c) activate widespread
physiological adjustments to the arousing conditions; and (d)
lead to behavior that is often, but not
always, expressive, goal-directed, and adaptive.” In short,
emotions are intense feelings brought about by
some contextual stimulus and typically directed at someone or
something (Frijda, 1993; Kopelman et al.,
2006).
Three components of emotional experience include: 1)
behavioral/communicative component, which
consists of the way emotional experiences get expressed through

verbal and nonverbal cues, 2)
physiological component, comprised of the way emotion makes
an individual feel, and 3) cognitive
component, which stresses the role of the mind in appraising a
situation in a explicit manner which in turn
makes a person feel a particular emotional state (Bodtker &
Jameson, 2001). Perhaps the most dominant
emotion experienced during a conflict episode is that of anger
(Allred, 1999; Fitness, 2000). A review of
research on the role of anger in conflict reveals mixed findings,
i.e. anger may elicit positive (increased
cooperation), negative (increased competition), or no (neutral)
effects (Friedman et al., 2004; Geddes &
Callister, 2007; van Kleef, van Dijk, Steinel, Harinck, & van
Beest, 2008). However, anger towards
others has generally been associated with negative outcomes
(Allred, 1999; Fitness, 2000; van Kleef et
al., 2008).
Attribution Inferences
Attribution theory addresses the domains of both perception and
motivation and these domains need
not be mutually exclusive (Martinko, 1995). An individual’s
behavior and emotions can be attributionally
dependent and may vary based upon whether self or other is to
blame (Howard, 1993; Martinko,
Gundlach, & Douglas, 2002; Ployhart, Ehrhart, & Hayes, 2005;
Thoits, 1989). Therefore, the
consequences of attributional inferences can affect both an
individual’s emotions and behavior (Weiner,
1985).
Attribution theory is an appropriate theoretical lens by which to
scrutinize cognitive- and affective-

conflict and emotions in teams and is based on the premise of
perceived causation, i.e. people attempt to
understand behavior in terms of its causes, which begets
subsequent emotional reactions of the observer
(Betancourt & Blair, 1992; Kelley & Michela, 1980; Martinko,
1995). Two widely accepted causal
dimensions include: a) intentionality (i.e. the extent to which
another individual intended to engage in a
particular behavior), and b) controllability (i.e. extent to which
the cause of behavior is within an
individual’s control) (Kent & Martinko, 1995b). “Intentionality
is most relevant to attributions for the
actions of others” (Martinko, 1995, p. 10).
Interpreting another individual’s behavior involves the
cognitive assesment of three factors: 1)
distinctiveness, i.e. the degree to which behavior varies or is the
same across situations, 2) consensus, i.e.
the degree to which others would behave as the observed
individual in like circumstances, and 3)
consistency, i.e. the degree to which the individual responds in
the same way over time (Kelley, 1972).
Although causal inferences can be made in response to both
positive and negative events, attributions are
most likely to occur with negative events or when outcomes are
disappointing, unexpected, or important
(Martinko, Harvey, & Douglas, 2007; Weiner, 1985; Wong &
Weiner, 1981). While the outcome of
conflict is typically considered important, individuals are more
likely to consider increased levels of
conflict as a negative event, and it is the negative events that
are most associated with attributional
analysis (Taylor, 1991). Mooney et al., (2007) suggest that
higher levels of cognitive conflict are bad
because individuals attribute this as a form of personal criticism
or political maneuvering, thereby

confusing cognitive conflict as affective conflict.
11(2) 2014
Attribution Consequences: Anger
The anger emotion is closely related to the causal dimensions of
intentionality and controllability
(Betancourt & Blair, 1992; Weiner, 1985; Weiner, Graham, &
Chandler, 1982). When conflicting
behavior between individuals becomes relational and
emotionally charged, it can have negative effects on
the parties involved, particularly for the one who has taken the
conflict as a personal criticism as is a
common occurrence during episodes of affective or high levels
of cognitive conflict (Jehn, 1995;
Parayitam & Dooley, 2009). The characteristics of these forms
of conflict can thus be considered
negative, disappointing, and perhaps even unexpected and
important, causing the recipient of this conflict
type to engage in attributional analysis, particularly if the
person with whom an individual is in conflict
with is considered close (Fincham & Bradbury, 1987). In the
case of both cognitive- and affective-
conflict, behaviors that are different or unusual, in discord
relative to how others would behave in similar
situations, or inconsistent relative to an individual’s own
behavior in similar historical situations should
increase the extent to which an individual will increase their
attempt to assess whether another’s actions
were intentional and within their control (Kelley & Michela,

1980).
Assessing the intention of another person’s behavior is one way
that people make sense of another’s
actions and it is particularly relevant during conflict episodes
(Dasborough & Ashkanasy, 2002;
Martinko, 1995; Thomas, 1992). Actions seen as intentional by
a person are judged differently from
actions that were deemed unintentional, i.e., more outward
blame will be assigned to actions considerd as
negative and intentional (Gibson & Schroeder, 2003; Kelley &
Michela, 1980). Attributing a person’s
negative actions to harmful intention (e.g. purposeful thwarting
of another’s goals or undermining of
another’s viewpoints) heightens an individual’s emotional
sensitivity producing feelings of anger and
resentment towards others (Crossley, 2006; Harvey &
Dasborough, 2006; Kelley & Michela, 1980).
However, if an individual concludes that another’s actions were
unintentional, this would reduce the
likelihood of responding aggressively toward the other
individual (Allred, 1999; Betancourt & Blair,
1992; De Castro, Veerman, Koops, Bosch, & Monshouwer,
2002; Isen, 2001; Matthews & Norris, 2002).
Thus, the following hypotheses are put forth:
H1: The influence of conflict-type on emotions amon top
management team members is
moderated by an individual’s attributional inferences such that:
H1a: Destructive intent positively moderates the relationship
between cognitive
conflict and anger towards others, whereas constructive intent
negatively moderates
the relationship between cognitive conflict and anger towards

others.
H1b: Destructive intent positively moderates the relationship
between affective
conflict and anger towards others, whereas constructive intent
the relationship between affective conflict and anger towards
others.
It is anger that is derived from interpersonal attributions that
many conflict researchers refer to when
they surmise that affective conflict leads to dysfunctional
organizational consequences (Amason, 1996;
Mooney & Sonnenfeld, 2001; Shook et al., 2005). Since the
effects of affective conflict are generally
regarded as negative and often seen as hostile personal criticism
within a top management team (Amason,
1996; Jehn, 1995), and because higher levels of cognitive
conflict can lead to affective conflict (Mooney
et al., 2007), these types of conflict can also trigger an
individual’s tendency to engage in attributional
analysis, i.e. individuals will have an innate desire to establish
responsibility by making attributions of
control (Kelley & Michela, 1980).
Ascription of responsibility assigned to someone else for acts
that were within their control often
equate to ascriptions of blame and this too can lead to intense
anger, particularly when the consequences
of someone else’s actions have hindered or thwarted the goal
attainment of another (Gibson & Schroeder,
2003; Weiner, 1985, 1995). In these circumstances, anger is
directed at the other (offending) person, i.e. it
is an interpersonal response, which can elicit anti-social
responses (Weiner, 2000). Thus, one experiences

greater outwardly directed anger to the extent that one attributes
another’s behavior as being negative,
hostile, and within that person’s control (Allred, 1995). It
follows then, that one would expect less
2014 73
outwardly directed anger if one attributes another’s
comments/actions as being beyond their control, such
as when another is put in a position to have to voice their
opinion at a given moment rather than hold their
comments for a one-to-one discussion (Baron, 1988). This
would be particularly so if one was to
acknowledge that there was some semblance of truth in the
other person’s comments, causing one to
reflect internally (Weiner, 2000). Thus, the following
hypotheses are put forth:
H2: The influence of conflict-type on emotions among top
management team members is
moderated by an individual’s attributional inferences such that:
H2a: Control-Within positively moderates the relationship
between cognitive
conflict, and other-directed anger; whereas Control-Beyond
the relationship between cognitive conflict and anger towards
others.
H2b: Control-Within positively moderates the relationship
between affective conflict,
and other-directed anger; whereas Control-Beyond negatively

moderates the
relationship between affective conflict and anger towards
others.
FIGURE 1
MODERATING EFFECTS OF ATTRIBUTIONS
METHODOLOGY
Participants and Research Design
One hundred fifty strategic decision-making teams of mid- to
large-sized firms operating in the
United States in both public and private sector organizations
were targeted for participation in the study.
Top management team members from eighty four of those firms
were willing to take part in the study.
Howerver, twenty of those firms were eliminated from the study
due to an insufficient number of
responses received. Useable survey questionnaires were
received from 64 teams, comprising a total of
264 individual responses. The rationale for including top
management teams from mid-sized firms is
provided by Amason and Mooney (1999) who state that
accessibility to top management teams is greater
11(2) 2014

for mid-sized firms. Since mid-sized firms comprise a majority
of organizations in the United States
(Hufft, 2008) the probability of obtaining a sample size
sufficient for this study was increased.
Sampling Procedures
This study combined probability (e.g. simple random sampling)
and nonprobability (e.g. snowball)
sampling techniques in order to develop a sample frame.
Prospective target firms were identified through
local economic development association membership
directories, local and state trade associations, local
chamber of commerce organizations, and through referral from
industry executives. Membership
directories that were available online, or made available after
discussing the study with association
directors and chamber presidents, were screened to exclude
family-owned businesses and sole-
proprietorships. Once target firms were identified, participants
were selected using a simple random
number generator in Microsoft Excel.
Survey Procedures
Data collection occurred in phases as outlined by numerous
researchers (Amason & Mooney, 1999;
Olson & Parayitam, 2007; Parayitam & Dooley, 2009). During
the first phase of data collection, phone
calls were placed to the chief executive officer (CEO, or
equivalent title), who received a brief description
of the research. After discussing the study with the CEO, a
request for their participation in the research
was made. Additionally, CEO’s were asked if they could refer

any other executives or organizations
whom they perceived might also be willing to participate in the
study. The process of obtaining sample
subjects by referral is known as snowballing and it is a
particularly useful technique for populations that
are difficult to reach (Black, 2012; Faugier & Sargeant, 2008).
Participating CEO’s were asked to identify and describe the
organization’s most recent key strategic
decision for purpose of the study. The identification of the most
recent strategic decision minimizes bias
in decision selection (Amason & Mooney, 1999). Given the
proprietary and sensitive nature of strategic
decisions, the CEO was informed that decision details were not
needed by the researcher. Rather, the
CEO was asked to assure that each of the team members
answering the survey understood that the
questionnaire was to be completed with the specific strategic
decision, identified by the CEO, as the point
of reference. Critical to the research design was the need for
each member to recall the same decision
scenario and this aspect of the study was stressed to the CEO’s.
During the next phase of data collection, the CEO and the TMT
members he or she identified, were
asked to complete the survey questionnaire. The surveys were
distributed to each participating
organization in a sealed envelope containing the following: a) a
cover letter written by the researcher
explaining the study and its social and practical usefulness,
along with why the respondent’s participation
is important, b) the survey questionnaire, along with
instructions on how to complete it, and c)
instructions to place the completed survey in a prepaid postage
envelope and mail it back to the researcher
upon completion of the questionnaire.

In sum, survey questionnaires which were focused on an actual
and specific strategic decision
identified and described by the CEO, were completed by the
CEO and his or her top management team.
These data collection procedures were consistent with past
studies of conflict within top management
teams, which have yielded response rates ranging from a low of
15% to a high of 73% (Amason &
Mooney, 1999; Olson & Parayitam, 2007; Parayitam & Dooley,
2009; Pelled, Eisenhardt, & Xin, 1999).
Response rates in this study were 43% (overall response rate)
and 68% (within team response rate).
Measures: Validity and Reliability Assessment
Since the validity and reliability of constructs is of critical
importance when conducting research
(Pedhazur & Schmelkin, 1991), the hypotheses were tested
using a survey questionnaire comprised of
measures which have been found to be reliable and valid
instruments of the constructs they represent.
Unless otherwise noted, all constructs were measured using
multiple-item scales. Given the complexity of
most of the constructs in the study, multiple-item scales were
expected to outperform single-item
measures in terms of greater reliability, precision, and scope
(Diamantopoulos, Sarstedt, Fuchs,
2014 75

Wilczynski, & Kaiser, 2012; Singleton & Straits, 2005; Spector,
1992). However, the use of a single-item
measure is considered acceptable when assertions are made that
“what is being measured is so specific
that the construct and the operationalization are virtually
identical” (Sackett & Larson Jr., 1990, p. 468).
Evidence exists that single-item measures perform equally as
well as multi-item scales in terms of
predictive validity when the item being measured is concrete
(Bergkvist & Rossiter, 2007). In this study,
one construct was measured using a single-item scale (see Table
1).
TABLE 1
RELIABILITY ESTIMATES
Multiple-Item Constructs Items
Cronbach
Alpha
Affective Conflict AC1-AC4 0.903
Cognitive Conflict CC1-CC4 0.867
Anger ANG1-ANG4 0.849
Intent INTNT1-INTNT2 0.882
Single -Item Measure
Control Cntrl1 n/a

Each of the scales used in this study is identified below,
including the reliability coefficients from
prior studies using existing multiple-item measurements. In
some cases, the wording of an item was
slightly modified to fit the current context. The responses were
measured on a 5-point Likert scale with
anchors ranging from 1-“Very Small Extent” to 5-“Very Large
Extent.” The attribution items were
measured on a 7-point semantic differential scale ranging from
1 to 7, which is consistent with other
literature measuring these constructs (Henry & Campbell, 1995;
Kent & Martinko, 1995a).
Affective Conflict was measured with four items, originally
developed and validated by Jehn (1995),
to measure the degree of relationship/emotional conflict present
in work units. The four-item scale
yielded a .92 reliability estimate in her study. For purposes of
this study, the items were modified to
reflect the specific conflict context as depicted by the CEO. For
example, one question in Jehn’s study
asked “How much tension is there among members in your work
unit?” (p.268). For the present study,
this question was modified as, “To what extent was there
tension among members when making this
decision?”
Cognitive Conflict was measured with four items, originally
developed and validated by Jehn (1995),
to measure the degree of task-focused conflict existing in work
units. The scale yielded a .87 reliability
estimate in her study. Some of the cognitive conflict items were
modified to reflect the specific conflict
context as depicted by the CEO. For example, one question in
Jehn’s study, which asked “How frequently

are there conflicts about ideas in your work unit?” (p. 268) was
rendered as, “To what extent did conflict
about ideas among team members frequently occur during the
decision-making process?”
Anger was measured using the four-item scale adopted by
O’Neill, Vandenberg, DeJoy, and Wilson
(2009). The four-item scale yielded a reliability coefficient of
.88. Since anger in the present study was
measured as a directional measure, i.e. determination of whether
anger was expressly directed at others
was assessed, the wording of the items was modified
accordingly. For example, one of O’Neill et al’s
items asked subjects to report how often they felt annoyed or
irritated over the past month. This item was
rendered as, “To what extent did you feel irritated with the
other team member(s) because of their
actions/comments?”
11(2) 2014
Attributions were measured with items from the Organizational
Attributional Style Questionnaire
developed by Kent and Martinko (1995a). The organizational
attributional style questionnaire was
developed to measure general attributional styles (Kent &
Martinko, 1995a). and has demonstrated a high
degree of validity and consistency (Henry & Campbell, 1995).
The reliability of the intent and control
dimensions from the organizational attributional style
questionnaire were reported as .80 and .70,
respectively (Kent & Martinko, 1995a). The items from the

organizational attributional style were
modified in order to measure a specific situation. For example,
rather than using a hypothetical situation
to ask “To what extent is this cause under your control?” the
same question was asked in relation to the
specific decision context identified by the CEO. Two items of
the organizational attributional style survey
were used to measure intent. For example, one question asked:
Were the other members’
comments/actions in the interaction aimed at being Constructive
(1)…or Destructive (7). Control was
measured with a single-item measure that asked: Is the cause of
the conflict something that is: Not at all
under other’s control (1)…Completely under other’s control (7).
Control Variables were also included in the study, including:
gender, age, educational level,
organization size, and team size. Following the example of
Parayitam and Dooley (2009), team size was
measured as the number of team members identified by the CEO
as participants in the decision-making
process.
Table 1 presents the list of constructs and their corresponding
Cronbach alpha scores produced in this
study. All of the multiple-item measures in this study had
realiability estimates above Nunnaly’s (1978)
recommended threshold of .70. The correlation of constructs is
presented in Table 2.
TABLE 2
CORRELATION OF CONSTRUCTS

Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Cognitive
Conflict 1.538 0.3047 1
Affective
Conflict 1.537 0.3262 .798** 1
Anger 2.189 0.8671 .450** .545** 1
Intent 0 0.6172 .369** .394** .226** 1
Control 0 2.0463 .155* .135* 0.081 .259** 1
Gender 0.37 0.484 -0.063 -0.024 -0.023 -0.039 0.093 1
Age 2.54 1.035 -0.048 -0.015 .125* -.129* -0.046 -0.107 1
Education 2.45 0.93 -0.112 -0.099 -.186** -0.057 0.028 0.004
0.111 1
Team Size 5.27 1.586 .145* .159** 0.047 0.049 -0.016 0.068 -
.131* 0.064 1
Firm Size 3.39 2.096 0.052 0.076 -0.066 -0.007 0.013 0.016
0.003 .333** .353** 1
Note: † p < .10; * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p <.001
RESULTS
Tests of Hypotheses
Data were collected with a survey questionnaire mailed to
respondents. A hierarchical regression
technique was used to analyze 264 individual responses. Prior
to running the main hypothesis tests, a
standard regression analysis was performed using SPSS

Regression and SPSS Explore for evaluation of
assumptions.
Results of evaluations of assumptions led to transformation of
some variables to reduce skewness and
improve normality, linearity, and homoscedasticity of residuals.
A square root transformation was used on
2014 77
the measures of affective- and cognitive-conflict. A logarithmic
transformation was used on the measure
of intent. These transformations resulted in improved skewness
scores. The remainder of the independent
variables were either normal or had very slight skewness.
Transforming the variables with minimal skew
resulted in a change of the direction of skew, e.g. from positive
to negative or vice-versa. Therefore, these
variables were not transformed.
All variables were analyzed for the presence of outliers. Given
that the scales were bound by one and
five, or one and seven, descriptive statistics were generated to
assess whether any data entry errors were
made. No values exceeded the range, i.e. the maximum or
minimum, of the scales. Finally, since
demographic variables have the ability to influence outcomes
(Pelled, 1996), and because the interest of
this study was on the moderating effect of attributions on the
relationship between conflict-type on anger,
the respondents demographic information was controlled for in
the study.

Moderating Effects of Attributions On the Relationship Between
Conflict-Type and Anger
Hypothesis 1 predicted that an individual’s intent attributions
would moderate the relationship
between conflict-type and anger towards others. Specifically,
H1a predicted that destructive intent would
positively moderate the relationship between cognitive conflict
and anger towards others, whereas
constructive intent would negatively moderate the relationship
between cognitive conflict and anger
towards others. Similarly, H1b predicted that destructive intent
would positively moderate the
relationship between affective conflict and anger towards
others, whereas constructive intent would
negatively moderate the relationship between affective conflict
and anger towards others.
The regression results demonstrated that the relationship
between the independent variable Cognitive
Conflict and the dependent variable Anger-Other was
significantly moderated by attributions of Intent (β
= .310, p = .000) at the .001 level (see Table 3). This model
accounted for 18% (R2 = .180; AdjR2 = .147)
of the variance in Anger-Other. Furthermore, the interaction
term accounted for a significant incremental
increase in the coefficient of determination (∆R2 = .057) at the
.01 level.
The interaction effect of intent, which was calculated using the
method identified by Aiken & West
(1991), is portrayed graphically in Figure 2. As evidenced in the
figure, increasing cognitive conflict
levels led to increased anger towards others when attributions of

destructive intent were made. On the
other hand, increasing cognitive conflict levels led to decreased
anger towards others when attributions of
constructive intent were made. Given the significant findings in
Table 3, and the interactions as portrayed
in Figure 2, hypothesis H1a was supported. The regression
results did not reveal a significant moderation
effect of Intent between Affective Conflict and Anger-Other (β
= -.156, p = .590). Thus, hypothesis H1b
was not supported.
Hypothesis 2 predicted that an individual’s control attributions
would moderate the relationship
between conflict-type and anger towards other individuals.
Specifically, H2a predicted a positive
relationship between cognitive conflict and anger towards
others when individuals attributed the opposing
parties comments/actions as being within their control, whereas
a negative relationship between cognitive
conflict and anger towards others was predicted when
individuals attributed the opposing parties
comments/actions as being beyond their control. The results
did not reveal a significant moderation effect
of Control between Cognitive Conflict and Anger-Other (β = -
.366, p = .453). Thus, hypothesis H2a was
not supported.
Hypothesis H2b predicted a positive relationship between
affective conflict and anger towards others
when individuals attributed the opposing parties
comments/actions as being within their control, whereas
a negative relationship between affective conflict and anger
towards others was predicted when
individuals attributed the opposing parties comments/actions as
being beyond their control. The
regression results demonstrated that the relationship between

the independent variable Affective Conflict
and the dependent variable Anger-Other was marginally
moderated by attributions of Control (β = -.443,
p = .100) at the .10 level. (see Table 4). This model accounted
for 34.8% (R2 = .348; AdjR2 = .327) of the
variance in Anger-Other.
11(2) 2014
TABLE 3
MODERATING EFFECT OF INTENT ON THE
RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN COGNITIVE CONFLICT AND ANGER
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Cognitive Conflict β β β
(Constant) 7.373 7.731 7.749
Gender -.001 .015 .019
Age 0.172** 0.169** 0.173**
Education -0.162* -0.163* -0.172**
Team Size 0.150* .095 .096
Firm Size -.095 -.091 -.065
Intent .091 -.063
Cognitive Conflict 0.174* .091
Intent x Cognitive Conflict 0.310**
F-Model 3.399** 4.034** 5.504**
R2 0.077 0.123 0.180

AdjR2 0.092 0.147
R2 Change 0.046** 0.057**
Note: † p < .10; * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001
FIGURE 2
INTERACTION EFFECTS OF INTENT ATTRIBUTIONS ON
THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN COGNITIVE CONFLICT & ANGER
2014 79
The interaction effects of control, which were calculated using
the methods identified by Aiken &
West (1991), are portrayed graphically in Figure 3. As
evidenced, when another’s actions/comments
were attributed as being within their control, anger levels
increased with greater amounts of affective
conflict, as expected. However, unexpectedly, this same pattern
was observed when another’s
actions/comments were attributed as being beyond their control.
Given the marginally significant findings
presented in Table 4, and given that only half of the interaction
effect was as predicted (see Figure 3),
H2b received partial support.
TABLE 4

MODERATING EFFECT OF CONTROL ON THE
RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN AFFECTIVE CONFLICT AND ANGER
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Affective Conflict β β β
(Constant) 7.901 -0.003 -1.255
Gender -.011 .005 .014
Age 0.158** 0.150** 0.151**
Education -0.199** -0.128* -0.131*
Team Size .093 .014 .013
Organization Size -.033 -.070 -.064
Affective Conflict 0.535** 0.684**
Control .020 0.408
†
Affective Conflict x Control -.443
F-Model 3.492** 18.923** 16.986**
R2 0.063 0.341 0.348
AdjR2 0.323 0.327
R2 Change .278** .10 †
Note: † p < .10; * p < .05; ** p < .01; p < .001

DISCUSSION
The primary objective of this study was to establish the
moderating effect of intent and control
attributions on the relationship between conflict-type and anger.
The attribution of intentionality was
found to be a significant moderator between cognitive conflict
and anger. There was no significant
moderating effect of intentionality on the relationship between
affective conflict and anger. Destructive
intent positively moderated the relationship between cognitive
conflict and anger; whereas constructive
intent negatively moderated this same relationship.
11(2) 2014
FIGURE 3
INTERACTION EFFECTS OF CONTROL ATTRIBUTIONS ON
THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN AFFECTIVE CONFLICT & ANGER-OTHER

The significant findings of intent were as expected since
destructive intent has been found to
influence agressiveness toward the offending party, i.e.
attributions of harmful intent have been linked
with aggressive responses toward the actor (Holm, 1982;
Joseph, Kane, Gaes, & Tedeschi, 1976),
particularly when the actor’s actions were deemed aggressive
and hostile (De Castro et al., 2002; Nickel,
1974). The findings, as they pertain to constructive intent, were
also as expected given that sincerity of an
individual’s actions/comments have been associated with lower
intensity anger levels (Baron, 1988). The
interaction in Figure 2 did reveal one unexpected observation,
i.e., at lower cognitive conflict levels,
anger towards others was higher under constructive intent. The
hypotheses presented here were concerned
with the direction of anger levels after an intent attribution was
made and not necessarily the comparative
amount of anger between constructive and destructive intent.
However, one might have assumed overall
higher levels of anger in a destructive intent context. One
possible explanation for the initial imbalance in
anger levels may be that conflict triggers a preliminary anger
emotion, which is a subjective experience
(Lazarus, 2003), and it is not until an intent attribution has been
made that anger levels begin to rise or
fall. However, once a constructive intent attribution is made
anger levels decrease with increasing
amounts of cognitive conflict. Furthermore, at the highest level
of cognitive conflict, anger is in fact
lower in a constructive intent context as compared to
destructive intent, and this emotional pattern would
coincide with normal expectations.
The attribution of controllability was found to be a marginally
significant moderator between

affective conflict and anger, but no moderating effect was found
between cognitive conflict and anger.
When respondents attributed another’s comments/actions as
being within their control, anger levels were
intensified as affective conflict increased. This finding was as
expected given that controllable causes
have been associated with increased anger levels when
ascription of responsibility for the conflict is
placed on an external party, particularly when these same
causes have thwarted another individual’s goals
(Gibson & Schroeder, 2003; Schmidt & Weiner, 1988; Weiner,
2000).
A surprise finding in this study was associated with the
attribution of controllability that was beyond
control of the individual whose comments/actions were
perceived to have initiated the conflict and thus,
an individual’s attributional inferences. It was expected that
noncontrollable actions/comments, i.e. those
2014 81
that are beyond another’s control, would lead to less anger
towards the other party since noncontrollable
causes often illicit pro-social behaviors or at a minimum, are
not typically associated with ascriptions of
responsibility (Weiner, 2000). In this study, however, both
controllable and noncontrollable attributions
positively moderated the relationship between affective conflict
and anger. One explanation for this
finding may be the type of conflict in which the respondents
were engaged. Affective conflict is highly

emotional and since this type of conflict is often associated with
personal criticism (Jehn, 1997), it may be
that respondents simply marginalized whether the offending
party’s actions/comments were beyond their
control. Once team members engaged in relational conflict, they
were destined to experience increased
anger levels as affective conflict intensified.
Limitations
There are several limitations to this study. First, the study relied
on team members recollection of
historical events, which is susceptible to recollection bias
(Viscusi & Zeckhauser, 2005). To prevent
errors associated with the process of recalling events that
occurred in the past, CEO’s were asked to
identify the most recent strategic decision made by the team and
complete the surveys with that decision
as the frame of reference. In some instances, the CEO’s noted
that the timing of the surveys coincided
with the time that a strategic decision was being, or about to be,
made. Thus, some responses were
completed immediately after a strategic decision was agreed
upon by an organization’s top managers.
Second, survey questionnaires were given to team members by
the CEO. While voluntary participation,
unconditional to an individual’s employment, was stressed to
the CEO and written in the instruction letter
received by the participants, team members may have felt
compelled to answer the survey, which may
have biased their responses. To minimize this possibility,
written instructions to the team members
stressed that no personal or other identifying information (e.g.
job titles, name of organization) would be
collected in the study. Nevertheless, some members voluntarily

provided these specifics. To assure
respondent anonymity, each survey included a self-addressed,
stamped envelope so that respondents
could mail the surveys from a non-work location. Finally, the
attribution of controllability was captured
with a single-item instrument since it was deemed that the
measure and the operationalization of the
construct were indistinguishable. However, a multi-item scale to
capture this construct may have provided
greater reliability and precision.
Theoretical Implications
These findings are important because they provide further
evidence that attributions about the actions
or comments of an individual can contribute to subsequent
conflict since perceived intentionality often
impacts an individuals’ interpretations and subsequent
emotional and behavioral reactions (Dasborough &
Ashkanasy, 2002; Kelley & Michela, 1980). Perhaps more
importantly, these findings may help
understand prior mixed results about the effects of conflict
within an organization. Conflict researchers
have long touted the benefits of cognitive conflict, while
warning against the pitfalls associated with
affective conflict (Amason et al., 1995; Baron, 1990). At the
same time, strategic researchers have
claimed that high levels of cognitive conflict are necessary for
effective decisions, suggesting that low
levels are detrimental to decision outcomes (Eisenhardt et al.,
1997). Yet, there is evidence that cognitive
conflict has a threshold beyond which it ceases to have
functional effects (Jehn, 1997; Mooney et al.,
2007) and now recent evidence suggests that affective conflict
may have unintended positive

consequences (Khanin & Turel, 2009). To complicate matters,
one meta-analysis suggests that both forms
of conflict may be detrimental (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003).
Since it is well established that conflict is
highly emotional (Thomas, 1992) and because emotions are
known to influence behavior in the
workplace (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996), it is important to
understand how attributions affect the conflict-
emotion relationship during a strategic decision-making
scenario. This study focused on an organization’s
upper echelon executives within a strategic decision-making
context and revealed how two attributions,
i.e. intentionality and controllability, impact the relationship
between conflict-type and anger. Neither
cognitive, nor affective, conflict had consistent effects on
anger. Cognitive conflict had a favorable
11(2) 2014
outcome only when it was attributed as being constructive.
When cognitive conflict was attributed to
destructive intent, its effects were dysfunctional.
Controllability had an effect on affective conflict, but not
cognitive conflict. The findings for
controllable causes were as predicted, whereas non-controllable
causes had the opposite effect of what
was expected. These findings provide further support for the
avoidance of affective conflict ascribed by
conflict researchers (Amason & Schweiger, 1994; Jehn, 1997;
Mooney et al., 2007).

Practical Implications & Future Research
Conflict in a strategic decision-making context is a necessary
condition of organizational success and
considered central to team effectiveness because it keeps
members self-critical and innovative (Lewicki,
Weiss, & Lewin, 1992; Pondy, 1992; Shook et al., 2005). Since
the effects of cognitive conflict can be
positive and negative (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003; Jehn, 1997;
Mooney et al., 2007), executives must
understand how to gain the benefits of cognitive conflict
without incurring its dysfunctional effects. Since
conflict is highly emotional (Thomas, 1992) and generally
associated with anger (Allred, 1999), CEO’s
may be able to offset the effects of anger in a strategic decision-
making conflict scenario by encouraging
team members to preface their comments as constructive intent
before randomly making comments that
have the potential of being misattributed to destructive intent.
Although affective conflict may possess a
silver lining (Khanin & Turel, 2009), it appears that this type of
conflict will result in anger. Thus,
heeding Amason’s (1994) advice to avoid this conflict-type may
still be warranted.
This study focused on an organization’s executive team within a
strategic decision context. While top
management teams possess many similarities to teams in
general, they do differ in their composition in
that they are generally more permanent, and comprised of high-
powerful, high-ranking, influential
individuals prone to self-absorbed behavior and interests
(Hambrick, 1995; Hambrick & Mason, 1984).
Researchers may want to consider whether these effects are
consistent in teams comprised of individuals

with less power and status, as well as those teams that are to be
disbanded upon completion of their
objectives.
Finally, researchers may want to consider the effects of another
widely accepted attribution, i.e. the
attribution of stability (variation over time), which is also
related to the anger emotion (Betancourt &
Blair, 1992; Weiner et al., 1982). The attribution of stability
suggests that it is the consistency (i.e.
stability) of a particular action, moreso than its cause, that
influences an individual’s behavior (Weiner,
1985). The stability of an attributed cause may contribute more
to the magnitude of emotions than to the
direction (Weiner et al., 1982). Thus, it is logical to expect
stable attributions of another’s negative
behavior/comments to elicit a greater level of anger.
REFERENCES
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing
and interpreting interactions. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Allred, K. (1999). Anger and retaliation: Toward an
understanding of impassioned conflict in
organizations. In R. J. Bies, R. J. Lewicki & B. H. Sheppard
(Eds.), Research on negotiations in
organizations (Vol. 7, pp. 27-58). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Allred, K. G. (1995). Realizing advantages of organizational
interdependencies: The role of
attributionally mediated emotions. In M. J. Martinko (Ed.),
Attribution theory: An organizational
perspective (pp. 253-271). Delray Beach, FL: St. Lucie Press.

Amason, A. C. (1996). Distinguishing the effects of functional
and dysfunctional conflict on strategic
decision making: Resolving a paradox for top management
teams. Academy of Management
Journal, 39(1), 123-148.
Amason, A. C., & Mooney, A. C. (1999). The effects of past
performance on top management team
conflict in strategic decision making. International Journal of
Conflict Management (1997-2002),
10(4), 340-359.
2014 83
Amason, A. C., & Schweiger, D. (1994). Resolving the paradox
of conflict, strategic decision making,
and organizational performance. International Journal of
Conflict Management, 5(3), 239-253.
Amason, A. C., Thompson, K. R., Hochwarter, W. A., &
Harrison, A. W. (1995). Conflict: An Important
Dimension in Successful Management Teams. Organizational
Dynamics, 24(2), 20-35.
Ashkanasy, N. M., Hartel, C. E. J., & Daus, C. S. (2002).
Diversity and Emotion: The New Frontiers in
Organizational Behavior Research. Journal of Management,
28(3), 307-338.
Bantel, K. A., & Jackson, S. E. (1989). Top management and
innovations in banking: Does the

composition of the top team make a difference? Strategic
Management Journal, 10, 107-124.
Baron, R. A. (1988). Attributions and organizational conflict:
The mediating role of apparent sincerity.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 41(1),
111-127.
Baron, R. A. (1990). Conflict in Organizations. In K. R. Murphy
& F. E. Saal (Eds.), Psychology in
organizations: Integrating science and practice (pp. 197-216).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Baron, R. A. (1991). Positive Effects of Conflict: A Cognitive
Perspective. Employee Responsibilities &
Rights Journal, 4(1), 25-36.
Bergkvist, L., & Rossiter, J. R. (2007). The predictive validity
of multiple-item versus single-item
measures of the same constructs. Journal of Marketing Research
(JMR), 44(2), 175-184.
Betancourt, H., & Blair, I. (1992). A cognition (attribution)-
emotion model of violence in conflict
situations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18(3),
343-350.
Black, K. (2012). Business Statistics For Contemporary
Decision Making (7th ed.). Hoboken: John Wiley
& Sons, Inc.
Bodtker, A. M., & Jameson, J. K. (2001). Emotion in conflict
formation and its transformation:
Application to organizational conflict management.
International Journal of Conflict

Management (1997-2002), 12(3), 259.
Crossley, G. D. (2006, 2006/08//). The role of offender motives
and victim reactions to social
undermining.
Dasborough, M. T., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2002). Emotion and
attribution of intentionality in leader-
member relationships. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(5), 615-
634.
De Castro, B. O., Veerman, J. W., Koops, W., Bosch, J. D., &
Monshouwer, H. J. (2002). Hostile
Attribution of Intent and Aggressive Behavior: A Meta
Analysis. Child Development, 73(3), 916-
934.
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.
Desivilya, H. S., & Yagil, D. (2005). The role of emotions in
conflict management: the case of work
teams. International Journal of Conflict Management, 16(1), 55-
69.
Diamantopoulos, A., Sarstedt, M., Fuchs, C., Wilczynski, P., &
Kaiser, S. (2012). Guidelines for
choosing between multi-item and single-item scales for
construct measurement: a predictive
validity perspective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 40(3), 434-449.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Making fast strategic decisions in

high-velocity environments. Academy of
Management Journal, 32(3), 543-576.
Eisenhardt, K. M., Kahwajy, J. L., & Bourgeois III, L. (1997).
Conflict and Strategic Choice: How top
management teams disagree. California Management Review,
39(2), 42-62.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Zbaracki, M. J. (1992). Strategic decision
making. Strategic Management Journal,
13, 17-37.
Estrada, C., Isen, A., & Young, M. (1994). Positive affect
improves creative problem solving and
influences reported source of practice satisfaction in physicians.
Motivation and Emotion, 18(4),
285-299.
Faugier, J., & Sargeant, M. (2008). Sampling hard to reach
populations. Journal of Advanced Nursing,
26(4), 790-797.
11(2) 2014
Fincham, F., & Bradbury, T. (1987). Cognitive processes and
conflict in close relationships: An
attribution-efficacy model. Journal of personality and social
psychology, 53(6), 1106-1118.
Fitness, J. (2000). Anger in the workplace: An emotion script
approach to anger episodes between
workers and their superiors, co-workers and subordinates.

Journal of Organizational Behavior,
21(2), 147-162.
Forgas, J. (2002). Toward understanding the role of affect in
social thinking and behavior. Psychological
Inquiry, 13(1), 90-102.
Foxworthy, J. (2011). President & CEO, Foxworthy and
Associates. Birmingham, AL.
Friedman, R., Brett, J., Anderson, C., Olekalns, M., Goates, N.,
& Lisco, C. (2004). The positive and
negative effects of anger on dispute resolution: Evidence from
electronically mediated disputes.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(2), 369-376.
Frijda, N. (1993). Moods, emotion episodes, and emotions. In
M. Lewis & J. M. Haviland (Eds.),
Handbook of emotions (pp. 381-403). New York: NY: Guildford
Press.
Geddes, D., & Callister, R. R. (2007). Crossing the line(s): A
dual threshold model of anger in
organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 721-
746.
Gibson, D. E., & Schroeder, S. J. (2003). Who ought to be
blamed? The effect of organizational roles on
blame and credit attributions. International Journal of Conflict
Management, 14(2), 95-117.
Hambrick, D. C. (1987). The Top Management Team: Key to
Strategic Success. California Management
Review, 30(1), 88-108.
Hambrick, D. C. (1995). Fragmentation and the Other Problems

CEOs Have with Their Top Management
Teams. California Management Review, 37(3), 110-127.
Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper Echelons: The
Organization as a Reflection of Its Top
Managers. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 193-206.
Harvey, P., & Dasborough, M. T. (2006). Consequences of
employee attributions in the workplace: The
role of emotional intelligence. Psicothema, 18(Sup), 145-151.
Henry, J. W., & Campbell, C. (1995). A comparison of the
validity, predictiveness, and consistency of a
trait versus situational measure of attributions. In M. J.
Martinko (Ed.), Attribution theory: An
organizational perspective (pp. 35-51). Delray Beach, FL: St.
Lucie Press.
Holm, O. (1982). The effects of intent, reason, and harm on
attribution of aggressiveness. Journal of
Psychology, 110(1), 49.
Howard, N. (1993). The Role of Emotions in Multi-
Organizational Decision-Making. The Journal of the
Operational Research Society, 44(6), 613-623.
Hufft, E. M., Jr. (2008). Comparison of the ownership and
growth of family businesses and small firms.
Paper presented at the Proceedings of the society of business,
industry and economics (SOBIE)
annual meetings, Destin, FL.
Isen, A. M. (2001). An Influence of Positive Affect on Decision
Making in Complex Situations:
Theoretical Issues with Practical Implications. Journal of
Consumer Psychology, 11(2), 75-85.

Jackson, S. (1992). Consequences of group composition for the
interpersonal dynamics of strategic issue
processing. In P. Shrivastava, A. Huff & J. M. Dutton (Eds.),
Advances in strategic management
(Vol. 8, pp. 345-382). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Jehn, K. A. (1995). A Multimethod Examination of the Benefits
and Detriments of Intragroup Conflict.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(2), 256-282.
Jehn, K. A. (1997). A Qualitative Analysis of Conflict Types
and Dimensions in Organizational Groups.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(3), 530-557.
Jehn, K. A., & Mannix, E. A. (2001). The dynamic nature or
conflict: A longitudinal study of intragroup
conflict and group performance. Academy of Management
Journal, 44(2), 238-251.
Joseph, J. M., Kane, T. R., Gaes, G. G., & Tedeschi, J. T.
(1976). Effects of effort on attributed intent and
perceived aggressiveness. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 42, 706.
Keaveney, S. M. (2008). The blame game: An attribution theory
approach to marketer-engineer conflict
in high-technology companies. Industrial Marketing
Management, 37(6), 653-663.
2014 85
Kelley, H. H. (1972). Attribution in social interaction. In E.

Jones, D. Kanouse, R. Nisbett, S. Valins & B.
Weiner (Eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior
(pp. 1-26). Mossistown, NJ:
General Learning Press.
Kelley, H. H., & Michela, J. L. (1980). Attribution theory and
research. Annual Review of Psychology, 31,
457-501.
Kent, R. L., & Martinko, M. J. (1995a). The development and
evaluation of a scale to measure
organizational attributional style. In R. L. Kent & M. J.
Martinko (Eds.), Attribution theory: An
organizational perspective (pp. 53-75). Delray Beach, FL: St.
Lucie Press.
Kent, R. L., & Martinko, M. J. (1995b). The measurement of
attributions in organizational research. In M.
J. Martinko (Ed.), Attribution theory: An organizational
perspective (pp. 17-34). Daytona Beach,
FL: St. Lucie Press.
Khanin, D., & Turel, O. (2009). Antecedents and consequences
of cognitive and affective conflicts
between venture capitalists and CEOs: From inequity
perceptions to behavioral intentions.
Academy of Management Proceedings, 1-6.
Kleinginna, P., & Kleinginna, A. (1981). A categorized list of
emotion definitions, with suggestions for a
consensual definition. Motivation and Emotion, 5(4), 345-379.
Knight, D., Pearce, C., Smith, K., Olian, J., Sims, H., Smith, K.,
et al. (1999). Top management team
diversity, group process, and strategic consensus. Strategic
Management Journal, 20(5), 445-465.

Kopelman, S., Rosette, A. S., & Thompson, L. (2006). The three
faces of Eve: Strategic displays of
positive, negative, and neutral emotions in negotiations.
Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 99(1), 81-101.
Lazarus, R. S. (2003). Does the Positive Psychology Movement
Have Legs? Psychological Inquiry,
14(2), 93-109.
Lewicki, R. J., Weiss, S. E., & Lewin, D. (1992). Models of
conflict, negotiation and third party
intervention: A review and synthesis. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 13(3), 209-252.
Mankins, M. C., & Steele, R. (2006). Stop making plans start
making decisions. Harvard Business
Review, 84(1), 76-84.
Martinko, M. J. (1995). The nature and function of attribution
theory within the organizational sciences.
In M. J. Martinko (Ed.), Attribution theory: An organizational
perspective (pp. 7). Delray Beach,
FL: St. Lucie Press.
Martinko, M. J., Gundlach, M. J., & Douglas, S. C. (2002).
Toward an integrative theory of
counterproductive workplace behavior: A causal reasoning
perspective. International Journal of
Selection and Assessment, 10(1 & 2), 36-50.
Martinko, M. J., Harvey, P., & Douglas, S. C. (2007). The role,
function, and contribution of attribution
theory to leadership: A review. The Leadership Quarterly,
18(6), 561-585.

Matthews, B. A., & Norris, F. H. (2002). When Is Believing
ìSeeingî? Hostile Attribution Bias as a
Function of Self Reported Aggression1. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 32(1), 1-31.
Mooney, A. C., Holahan, P. J., & Amason, A. C. (2007). Don't
Take It Personally: Exploring Cognitive
Conflict as a Mediator of Affective Conflict. Journal of
Management Studies, 44(5), 733-758.
Mooney, A. C., & Sonnenfeld, J. (2001, 2001/08//). Exploring
antecedents to top management team
conflict: The importance of behavioral integration.
Muchinsky, P. M. (2000). Emotions in the workplace: the
neglect of organizational behavior. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 21(7), 801.
Nickel, T. W. (1974). The attribution of intent as a critical
factor in the relation between frustration and
aggression. Journal of Personality, 42, 482-492.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New
York, NY: McGraw-Hill Companies.
O'Neill, O. A., Vandenberg, R. J., DeJoy, D. M., & Wilson, M.
G. (2009). Exploring relationships among
anger, perceived organizational support, and workplace
outcomes. Journaly of Occupational
Health Psychology, 14(3), 318-333.
Olson, B. J., & Parayitam, S. (2007). Strategic decision making:
The effects of cognitive diversity,
conflict, and trust on decision outcomes. Journal of
Management, 33(2), 196.

11(2) 2014
Parayitam, S., & Dooley, R. S. (2009). The interplay between
cognitive- and affective conflict and
cognition- and affect-based trust in influencing decision
outcomes. Journal of Business Research,
62(8), 789-796.
Pedhazur, E. J., & Schmelkin, L. P. (1991). Measurement,
design, and analysis: An integrated approach.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Pelled, L. H. (1996). Demographic diversity, conflict, and work
group outcomes: An intervening process
theory. Organization Science, 7(6), 615-631.
Pelled, L. H., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Xin, K. R. (1999). Exploring
the Black Box: An Analysis of Work
Group Diversity, Conflict, and Performance. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 44(1), 1-28.
Peterson, R. S., & Behfar, K. J. (2003). The dynamic
relationship between performance feedback, trust,
and conflict in groups: A longitudinal study. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 92(1-2), 102-112.
Ployhart, R. E., Ehrhart, K. H., & Hayes, S. C. (2005). Using
Attributions to Understand the Effects of
Explanations on Applicant Reactions: Are Reactions Consistent
With the Covariation Principle?

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35(2), 259-296.
Pondy, L. R. (1992). Reflections on organizational conflict.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(3),
257-261.
Rahim, M. A. (1986). Managing conflict in organizations. New
York: Praeger.
Sackett, P. R., & Larson Jr., J. R. (1990). Research strategies
and tactics in industrial and organizational
psychology. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.),
Handbook of industrail & organizational
psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 419-489). Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.
Schmidt, G., & Weiner, B. (1988). An attribution-affect-action
theory of behavior replications of
judgments of help-giving. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 14(3), 610-621.
Shook, C. L., Payne, G. T., & Voges, K. E. (2005). The "What"
in Top Management Group Conflict: The
Effects of Organizational Issue Interpretation on Conflict
Among Hospital Decision Makers.
Journal of Managerial Issues, 17(2), 162-177.
Simons, T., Pelled, L. H., & Smith, K. A. (1999). Making use of
difference: Diversity, debate, and
decision comprehensiveness in top management teams.
Academy of Management Journal, 42(6),
662-673.
Singleton, R. A. J., & Straits, B. C. (2005). Approaches to
social research (4th ed.). New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.

Spector, P. E. (1992). Summated rating scale construction: An
introduction. Newbury Park: Sage
Publications.
Taylor, S. E. (1991). Asymmetrical effects of positive and
negative events: The mobilization-minimization
hypothesis: National Emergency Training Center.
Thoits, P. (1989). The sociology of emotions. Annual review of
sociology, 15, 317-342.
Thomas, K. (1992). Conflict and negotiation processes in
organizations. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M.
Hough (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial and Organiztional
Psychology (2 ed., Vol. 3, pp. 651-717).
Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
van Kleef, G. A., van Dijk, E., Steinel, W., Harinck, F., & van
Beest, I. (2008). Anger in social conflict:
Cross-situational comparisons and suggestions for the future.
Group Decision & Negotiation,
17(1), 13-30.
Viscusi, W. K., & Zeckhauser, R. J. (2005). Recollection bias
and the combat of terrorism. The Journal of
Legal Studies, 34(1), 27-55.
Weider-Hatfield, D., & Hatfield, J. D. (1995). Relationships
Among Conflict Management Styles, Levels
of Conflict, and Reactions to Work. Journal of Social
Psychology, 135(6), 687-698.
Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement
motivation and emotion. Psychological review,
92(4), 548-573.

Weiner, B. (1995). Judgments of responsibility: A foundation
for a theory of social conduct. New York:
NY: The Guilford Press.
2014 87
Weiner, B. (2000). Intrapersonal and interpersonal theories of
motivation from an attributional
perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 12(1), 1-14.
Weiner, B., Graham, S., & Chandler, C. (1982). Pity, anger, and
guilt: An attributional analysis.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 8(2), 226.
Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events
theory: A theoretical discussion of the
structure, causes, and consequences of affective experiences at
work. Research in Organizational
Behavior, 18, 1-74.
Wong, P. T., & Weiner, B. (1981). When people ask" why"
questions, and the heuristics of attributional
search. Journal of personality and social psychology, 40(4),
650.
Yukl, G. (2006). Leadership in Organizations (6 ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

11(2) 2014

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without
permission.
The effect of team empowerment
on team performance
A cross-cultural perspective on the
mediating roles of knowledge sharing and
intra-group conflict
Xueting Jiang and Hector R. Flores
Isenberg School of Management, University of Massachusetts,
Amherst,
Massachusetts, USA
Ronrapee Leelawong
SCG Chemicals Co. Ltd., Bangkok, Thailand, and
Charles C. Manz
Isenberg School of Management, University of Massachusetts,
Amherst,
Massachusetts, USA
Abstract
Purpose – Based on extant literature on empowerment and team
management, this paper aims to

examine the effect of power distance and collectivism on the
relationship between empowerment and
team performance through the mechanisms of knowledge
sharing and intra-group conflict.
Design/methodology/approach – This paper conceptualizes a
model depicting the relationship
between team empowerment and team performance across
cultures.
Findings – The authors argue that team empowerment can
increase both knowledge sharing and
intra-group conflict in working teams. Knowledge sharing
facilitates team performance, while
intra-group conflict impairs team performance in the long run.
Team empowerment yields different
team performance across cultures due to the respective
moderating effects of power distance and
collectivism.
Originality/value – This paper explicates the moderating roles
of power distance and collectivism on
the relationship between empowerment, knowledge sharing,
intra-group conflict and team
performance. The authors suggest that the effectiveness of team
empowerment is contingent on the
cultural context that the team operates in.
Keywords Knowledge sharing, Collectivism, Power distance,
Team performance,
Intra-group conflict, Team empowerment
Paper type Conceptual paper
Introduction
Empowerment has been of great interest in the field of
organization studies for decades
(Spreitzer et al., 1997). In general, it has been studied from two
aspects: structural and

psychological (Spreitzer, 1996). Structural empowerment
emphasizes the social
structural context of empowerment and looks at how
subordinates are granted
opportunities to share formal authority or control over
organizational resources (Biron
and Bamberger, 2010; Conger and Kanungo, 1988; Spreitzer,
2007). On the other hand,
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is
available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1044-4068.htm
IJCMA
27,1
62
Received 5 July 2014
Revised 23 October 2014
24 November 2014
Accepted 12 December 2014
International Journal of Conflict
Management
Vol. 27 No. 1, 2016
pp. 62-87
© Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1044-4068
DOI 10.1108/IJCMA-07-2014-0048
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJCMA-07-2014-0048
psychological empowerment emphasizes an individual’s
perception and experience of

being empowered (Lee and Koh, 2001) and looks at how
subordinates are intrinsically
motivated to perform their responsibilities to affect their
organization (Chen et al., 2007;
Conger and Kanungo, 1988; Kirkman and Rosen, 1999; Mathieu
et al., 2006). At the
individual level, empowerment refers to an integration of both
the “behavior of a
supervisor” and the “psychological state of a subordinate” (Lee
and Koh, 2001, p. 685).
At the team level, team empowerment represents team members’
perceptions on four
dimensions:
(1) their potency to perform tasks effectively;
(2) their sense of meaningfulness in their work;
(3) their autonomy to make task-related decisions; and
(4) their impact upon task outcomes.
In a highly empowered team, its members receive administrative
autonomy to share
leadership responsibilities, allocate resources, initiate decisions
and regulate work
processes (Kirkman and Rosen, 1999; Manz and Sims, 1987).
The managerial practices of empowered teams were prevalent
when the notion of
empowerment emerged in the organizational literature in the
late 1970s (Appelbaum
et al., 1999; Anderson, 1997; Lawler et al., 2001; Kanter, 1977;
Manz and Sims, 1987;
Singh, 1998; Spreitzer, 2007). A work team is known for the
interdependence and social
interactions among its members to achieve common goals
(Kozlowski and Bell, 2003;
Mathieu et al., 2008). Considerable empirical work has

suggested that empowerment is
positively related to team performance (Harter et al., 2002;
Laschinger et al., 2004; Seibert
et al., 2004; Spreitzer, 1996; Srivastava et al., 2006). It has
been argued that empowerment
can have a positive effect on team performance because a highly
empowered team offers
a platform for members to make collective decisions through
their participation in
negotiated decision-making (Yukl, 2009). The proliferation of
team empowerment
provides team members with more opportunities to share ideas
and knowledge (Locke
et al., 1997). Early studies on team empowerment and team
performance tend to reflect
a positive view of the mediating effect of knowledge-sharing on
the relationship between
empowerment and team performance (Kirkman and Rosen,
1999, 1997; Srivastava et al.,
2006). However, the downsides of empowered teams have not
been sufficiently explored
by extant research. For instance, a highly empowered team
might be more susceptible to
intra-group conflict, which has a detrimental effect on team
performance (Bergman et al.,
2012; Langfred, 2007; Kotlyar and Karakowsky, 2006). Given a
situation that calls for
team empowerment, the effectiveness and success of an
empowered team depend on the
extent that team members can adapt to team structural changes
and maximize the
benefits of power and knowledge sharing and minimize intra-
group conflict (Kirkman
and Shapiro, 1997; Langfred, 2007; Stewart et al., 2011) (Figure
1).

Cross-cultural management scholarship has revealed that
individuals’ behaviors are
embedded in their specific cultural contexts, which may differ
across nations (Bochner
and Hesketh, 1994; Hofstede, 1993, 1980). For instance,
national cultures influence
individual actions by constructing a collection of strategies in
which certain patterns of
actions are supported, while others are rejected (Hofstede,
1980; Triandis, 1989). We
argue that team empowerment is not an exception, although the
effect of cultural
dimensions has not been sufficiently explored (Alves et al.,
2006; Neck and Houghton,
63
Effect of team
empowerment
2006; Pearce and Conger, 2003). In addition, perceptions of
team performance might
vary across cultures and make different teams to focus their
efforts on different
outcomes. For example, cultural differences in a highly
individualist society can lead a
group to focus more on task-related outcomes, whereas its
counterpart in a highly
collectivistic society can focus more on the social aspects of
team performance (Stewart
and Barrick, 2000). Our focus in this paper is to discuss how
team empowerment
influences team performance in different cultural contexts
(Figure 2). Previous

researchers have suggested that national cultures may influence
individuals’ behavior
of conflict management and knowledge sharing (Doucet et al.,
2009; Michailova and
Hutchings, 2006; Tjosvold et al., 1998). This paper examines
the effect of power distance
and collectivism on the relationship between empowerment and
team performance
through the mechanisms of knowledge sharing and intra-group
conflict for teams that in
their composition reflect the specific cultural preferences of the
culture in which they are
embedded (for an exception see Boros et al., 2010). Although
other cultural dimensions
such as uncertainty avoidance and masculinity–femininity may
also affect conflict
management and knowledge sharing (Michailova and Hutchings,
2006; van
Team empowerment
Knowledge Sharing
Intra-group
Conflict
Team Performance
Notes: Extant research does not explore the effect of the
cultural context on
the relationship between team empowerment and knowledge
sharing, and
the relationship between team empowerment and intra-group
conflict is
underexplored
Source: Kirkman and Rosen (1999), Srivastava et al. (2006)

Figure 1.
Traditional model
Team empowerment
Knowledge Sharing
Intra-group
Conflict
Team Performance
Power Distance
Power Distance
Collec�vism
Collec�vism
P2 +
P3 +
P1
P4
Notes: The effects of power distance and collectivism on the
relationship
between team empowerment and knowledge sharing are
explicated; an
argument is made for the relationship between team
empowerment and
intra-group conflict, and the effects of power distance and

collectivism on
the relationship between team empowerment and intra-group
conflict are
proposed
Figure 2.
Proposed model
IJCMA
27,1
64
Oudenhoven et al., 1998), we only include power distance and
collectivism in our
analysis. There are several reasons that motivate us to focus on
these two dimensions
only. First, the dimensions of power distance and individualism-
collectivism, from
Hofstede’s (1980) framework of cultural dimensions, have been
widely used to
understand differences in management practices across cultures
(Chow et al., 2000;
Tjosvold and Sun, 2010). Second, the power distance
dimension, which focuses on
people’s expectation and acceptance of power inequality in a
society, is essential to
structural and psychological empowerment in teams. Third, how
team members
evaluate group and individual benefits and how they work
interdependently is subject
to individuals’ mindsets of social roles and responsibilities in a
team. Team members’
cognitive and behavioral tendencies can be captured by

Hofstede’s (1980, 2001)
individualism-collectivism dimension to understand the
consequent team outcomes.
Last, the dimensions of uncertainty avoidance and masculinity
versus femininity are
still controversial in terms of content and replicability and have
not been convincingly
replicated in both Eastern and Western countries (Minkov and
Hofstede, 2014). The
dimension of long-term versus short-term orientation is strongly
connected to Chinese
Confucius values and national economic growth, which might
be less reliable to predict
individual behaviors in teams (Hofstede and Minkov, 2010).
This research serves as a conceptual cross-cultural analysis of
team empowerment
and team performance. We focused our systematic literature
review on the literatures on
knowledge sharing, conflict management and culture studies at
team levels over the
past 20 years. Most studies included in our analysis are
publications in high-tier
academic journals. We strived to include the most relevant and
most important articles.
When there was a need to choose a citation over another, we
chose seminal pieces
instead of subsequent articles, unless the subsequent articles
added significantly to our
understanding.
Overall, building on extant literature in empowerment and
cross-cultural studies, we
delineate a framework depicting the relationship between team
empowerment and team
performance across cultures. Figure 2 portrays how our focal

constructs are
interconnected. Specifically, team empowerment is positively
related to both knowledge
sharing and intra-group conflict. Knowledge sharing leads to
increased team
performance, while intra-group conflict impairs team
performance. In addition, team
empowerment yields different team performance outcomes
across cultures because of
the respective moderating effects of power distance and
collectivism on the relationship
between team empowerment and knowledge sharing as well as
on the relationship
between team empowerment and intra-group conflict. Power
distance inhibits
knowledge sharing and fosters intra-group conflict. In contrast,
collectivism inhibits
intra-group conflict and facilitates knowledge sharing.
Theoretical foundations and propositions
In the following sections, we review the empowerment,
knowledge sharing and team
performance relationship to show that team empowerment is
positively related to team
performance through the mechanism of knowledge sharing.
Then, we argue for the
moderating roles of power distance and knowledge sharing on
this relationship.
Subsequently, we review the empowerment, intra-group conflict
and team performance
relationship to show that team empowerment is negatively
related to team performance
65
Effect of team

empowerment
through the mechanism of intra-group conflict. Then, we argue
for the moderating roles
of power distance and knowledge sharing on this relationship.
Empowerment, knowledge sharing and team performance
Previous literature suggests that empowering leadership and
empowerment in various
organizational settings can promote team performance (Kirkman
and Rosen, 1999;
Srivastava et al., 2006). Many scholars have addressed the team
empowerment-
performance relationship by looking at the mediating effect of
knowledge sharing
(Manz and Sims, 1995; Rosen et al., 2007; Srivastava et al.,
2006). Knowledge acquisition
(i.e. problem understanding and communication) is an important
predictor of both
financial and non-financial team performance (Politis, 2003).
Increased knowledge
sharing facilitates a more comprehensive consideration of
alternatives and a better
utilization of a team’s existing knowledge (Stasser and Titus,
1985). Wegner (1986)
stated that knowledge sharing fosters the creation of shared
mental models and the
development of transactive memory (i.e. the knowledge of “who
knows what” in a team).
Mesmer-Magnus and DeChurch’s (2009) meta-analysis also
suggested the importance of
information sharing to team performance. Thus, knowledge
sharing among team
members can positively influence team performance.

Srivastava et al. (2006) found that empowering leadership could
enhance team
knowledge sharing through the guidance and coaching of
empowering leaders. The
increased opportunities for idea sharing are inherent in
participative decision-making.
Zárraga and Bonache (2005) found that a high care atmosphere
among team members
engenders both the creation and the transfer of knowledge. They
argued that a “high
care” atmosphere is enhanced when the team is empowered.
Rosen et al. (2007, p. 267)
identified six common barriers to knowledge sharing in virtual
teams and presented six
“best practices” to overcome the knowledge-sharing barriers.
They addressed the
importance of “a psychologically safe team culture” and
advocated that the leaders
should shape the culture of the team so that every team member
can raise their voice and
participate in decision-making when the task is progressing.
In addition, an atmosphere of trust in an empowered team is
known to facilitate
knowledge sharing (Renzl, 2008; Rosen et al., 2007). The full
engagement of team
members can enhance trust within a group, which in turn
enhances knowledge sharing.
Recent research on leadership, team empowerment and
knowledge sharing suggests
that interpersonal-trust in empowered teams is positively related
to knowledge
acquisition (Carmeli et al., 2010; Gagné, 2009; Politis, 2003,
2001; Zhang and Bartol,
2010). Foss et al. (2009) found that feedback in the form of

formal evaluations and
recognition schemes was positively related to the motivation to
share knowledge.
Nurturing efficient feedback contributes to developing trust
among team members.
Abrams et al. (2003) offered a set of ten team-member
behaviors that promote trust
among the team. Many of their proposed behaviors mirror the
consequences of team
empowerment. For instance, the authors proposed that a team
should establish and
ensure a shared vision and goals to promote benevolence and
competence (Abrams et al.,
2003). This proposition is consistent with two of Kirkman and
Rosen’s (1999) key
dimensions of team empowerment, i.e. sharing a sense of the
meaningfulness of their
task and group potency (Kirkman and Rosen, 1999). According
to these conceptual
arguments, we posit that team empowerment can enhance
knowledge sharing because
the mutual feedback is highly encouraging and a high care
atmosphere engenders trust
IJCMA
27,1
66
among team members. The preceding analysis can be
summarized as follows: team
empowerment leads to high team performance through the
beneficial effect of
knowledge sharing.

Team empowerment, power distance and knowledge sharing
Power has been described as the potential ability of a person to
influence others
(Anderson and Brion, 2014). Thus, a major power holder has
more potential influence on
others than a minor power holder. Structurally, empowerment
can be viewed as pushing
power from the top-down throughout the hierarchy to
subordinates in an organization
(Hollander and Offermann, 1990). The structural attempts to
empower team members,
such as equalizing social status or hierarchical positions within
a team, generally aim to
increase team members’ psychological perception of being
empowered. However, these
structural empowering practices may or may not succeed in
psychologically
empowering team members completely in all cultural or
organizational settings (Alves
et al., 2006; Randolph and Sashkin, 2002; Sagie and Aycan,
2003).
Power distance is defined as “the extent to which the less
powerful members of
institutions and organizations within a country expect and
accept that power is
distributed unequally” (Hofstede and Bond, 1984, p. 419). In
different national cultures,
the distribution of power within society can range from
relatively equal (i.e. in a low
power distance culture) to extremely unequal (i.e. in a high
power distance culture)
(Hofstede, 2001, 1980). In a high power distance society, the
less powerful individuals are
more likely to accept autocratic or paternalistic power relations.

They tend to
acknowledge and accept that power is based on social status or
hierarchical positions.
House et al. (2004) found that power distance is negatively
related to participative
leadership. Pearce and Conger’s (2003) review of shared
leadership also argued that
power distance might limit the effective function of shared
leadership across cultures.
It has been noted that team empowerment and individual
psychological
empowerment are highly correlated (Bandura, 1997; Chen et al.,
2007). However, there
may be differences in individual psychological empowerment
among group members
(Wu et al., 2010). These differences in individual psychological
empowerment can be
exaggerated in a high power distance society as a result of
people’s acceptance of
inequality. Although in a high power distance culture, team
members may be
structurally treated as equal, it would be difficult, if not
impossible, for all team
members to perceive an equal level of individual psychological
empowerment. This
diversity of perceived empowerment may occur in a team
composed of members from
different hierarchical levels within the organization, or with
different tenures, or from
different socioeconomic statuses. We argue that these social-
structural differences
might result in implicit power inequalities among team
members. For example, in a high
power distance society like China, people readily accept a large
degree of power

inequality, and can easily turn a relationship between equal
partners in a team into a
junior-senior structural relationship if there are cues to a status
difference in other areas
of life (King and Bond, 1985). This implicit inequity may
generate intra-group cliques
and lead to mistrust and divergence within the group and hinder
knowledge sharing.
There are generally three reasons that prevent team members
from sharing
knowledge in a high power distance society. First, the existence
of power inequality in a
team can undermine the atmosphere of information exchange
among team members
(Follett, 1924). The less powerful team members tend to restrain
their proactive
67
Effect of team
empowerment
arguments with major power holders when the less powerful
individuals are mindful of
their behaviors that might imply threats to the powerful (Eylon
and Au, 1999; Rousseau
and Garcia-Retamero, 2007). Ting-Toomey and Kurogi (1998)
found that the concern
about loss of one’s face is prevalent in high power distance
cultures. Face refers to “the
public self-image that every member wants to claim for
himself” (Brown and Levinson,
1987, p. 61). The concept of face is universally salient and

applicable in both Western
and Asian cultures (Kirkbride et al., 1991). Face is determined
by a person’s
socio-structural status (Oetzel et al., 2003). It is a widely
accepted social norm to respect
powerful individuals in high power distance societies.
Challenging a relatively powerful
individual in public can be interpreted as a violation of social
norms, leading to
embarrassment and shame for that person (Kim and Nam, 1998).
The powerful individual
may retaliate against the challenger for face loss. As the less
powerful individuals can
foresee the potential negative consequences of arguing with
powerful individuals, the less
powerful individuals tend to avoid in-depth knowledge sharing
with the major power
holders to prevent such situations from occurring.
Second, people in a high power distance societies are
accustomed to autocratic
leadership and centralization of authority (Pearce and Conger,
2003). Traditionally, in
high power distance societies, the major power holder is
expected to have a strong voice
in decision-making. Therefore, the less powerful individuals are
de-motivated to
contribute their ideas when they assume that their suggestions
account for little in the
final decision. The less powerful individuals spare what they
see as futile efforts to
communicate with the major power holders and are anxious not
to offend their powerful
counterparts during the interactions.
Third, in high power distance cultures, less powerful team

members do not expect to
obtain complete information (Randolph and Sashkin, 2002). The
major power holders
often surpass the less powerful members in terms of extensive
social networks and
privileged information sources. This expected information
asymmetry between the
powerful and the less powerful discourages information sharing
within the team, as the
less powerful members surmise that the powerful members
already know what is
needed to be known and consequently do not bother to share
information even if they
think it is novel. On the other hand, major power holders can
obtain information from
exclusive sources and tend not to share it with the less powerful
members (Randolph
and Sashkin, 2002). Thus, a high power differential limits
information sharing among
team members in a high power distance society and can cripple
knowledge sharing even
within an empowered team. The preceding discussion can be
summarized in the
following proposition:
P1. The relationship between team empowerment and
knowledge sharing among
team members is moderated by power distance in such a way
that the positive
influence of team empowerment on knowledge sharing is
diminished in high
power distance cultures.
Team empowerment, collectivism and knowledge sharing
Individualism and collectivism are cultural constructs both in
origin and in nature (Hui

and Triandis, 1986). Individualism is the degree to which
people in a country prefer to
act as individuals rather than as members of groups. In
collectivistic cultures, people
define themselves through social roles and hierarchical
structures of their group (Clarke
and Micken, 2002). Their personal goals and behaviors
correspond to the social norms,
IJCMA
27,1
68
duties and obligations of the group (Chen et al., 1997; Miller,
1994). In collectivistic
cultures, individuals derive satisfaction from group
accomplishment (Earley, 1989) and
have less need to ascribe self-identity to personal characteristics
(Clarke and Micken,
2002).
Randolph and Sashkin (2002) suggested that people in highly
collectivistic cultures
are more likely to exchange and share information that focuses
on team efforts rather
than on individual efforts. In other words, team members in
highly collectivistic cultures
tend to focus more on group performance than individual
performance (Gabrenya et al.,
1985). In highly collectivistic cultures, team members are more
willing to share
team-based knowledge and information because they feel
responsible for the group’s

well-being. Also, people are unlikely to address and
acknowledge individual-based
information in highly collectivistic cultures because an
overemphasis on individual
benefits can induce feelings of being separated from the group
(Randolph and Sashkin,
2002). Highlighting individualism in highly collectivistic
cultures is seen as alienation
from the group and a potential threat to the solidarity and
integration of group members.
The fear of being marginalized in collectivistic cultures affects
people’s behaviors in
groups. Group awareness in collectivistic cultures may reduce
team members’ actions
counter to collective goals such as distorting information or
manipulating knowledge
for individual gains. Based on the above discussion, we
propose:
P2. The relationship between team empowerment and
knowledge sharing among
team members is moderated by collectivism in such a way that
the positive
influence of team empowerment on knowledge sharing is
increased in
collectivistic cultures.
Team empowerment and intra-group conflict
Conflict can be broadly defined as a perceived incompatibility
of interests or goals
between or among parties (Jehn, 1995; Korsgaard et al., 2008;
Wall and Callister, 1995).
Two dimensions of conflict are predominantly studied in the
organizational literature:
conflict rooted in the substance of the task and conflict derived
from the emotional,

affective aspects of the group’s interpersonal relations
(Guetzkow and Gyr, 1954). These
conflict dimensions have been studied under different
taxonomies, such as “substantive
and affective conflict” (Guetzkow and Gyr, 1954), “task and
relationship conflict”
(Pinkley, 1990; Pinkley and Northcraft, 1994) and “cognitive
and affective conflict”
(Amason, 1996). According to Jehn’s (1997, 1995) studies on
intra-group conflict, task or
cognitive conflict refers to disagreements among team members
regarding viewpoints,
opinions and ideas, whereas relationship or affective conflict
refers to disagreements
among team members on personal or emotional issues.
Kotlyar and Karakowsky (2006) proposed that in empowered
teams, both cognitive
and affective conflict can rise to high levels if there is
insufficient coaching or lack of
invasive interventions by external leaders’ in-group activities.
Absent from ongoing
support and guidance of an external leader, team members have
to deal with high
uncertainty in their procedural directions and thus tend to
generate more conflict in their
day-to-day interactions. Langfred (2000) found that individual
autonomy can clash with
group autonomy in an empowered team and reduce the
cohesiveness and effectiveness
of the team. His follow-up study (Langfred, 2007) suggests that
empowered teams are
particularly vulnerable to the detrimental effects of conflict
because team members
highly depend on intra-group trust when organizing their work
and interacting with

69
Effect of team
empowerment
each other. As high intra-group trust depends on the majority of
team members being
effectively engaged in leadership of the team (Bergman et al.,
2012), there is a possibility
that individual team members differ in their perception of
empowerment (Chen and
Kanfer, 2006), and some members might fight to control power,
which is detrimental to
intra-group trust (Bergman et al., 2012). Some members may
also choose to restrict
individual autonomy and interdependence as a response to
conflict, thereby
undermining intra-group trust. As intra-group trust declines,
empowered teams are
more vulnerable to the negative effects of conflict (Langfred,
2007).
As decision control is transferred from external sources to
internal interactions in a
highly empowered team (Manz et al., 1987), supervisors and
subordinates are subject to
a challenging adjustment when they have to re-identify and re-
differentiate their roles
and responsibilities within and outside of the group (Appelbaum
et al., 1999; Stewart
et al., 2011). Solansky (2008) noted that the leadership process
and the team process are
closely linked. If more “heads” and “hands” attend to team’s

developmental and
functioning needs, leadership functions can be shared by several
members, allocated to
individual members or rotated by different members in different
times (Yukl, 1999). As
leadership in a empowered team is a shared process involving
mutual influence among
members to perform tasks and take responsibilities (Ensley et
al., 2003; Katzenbach,
1997; Pearce et al., 2014; Yukl, 1989), the absence or the
reduced level of external
leadership may create the need for a new regulatory system that
can control and direct
team members’ behaviors toward task completion. This dynamic
of supplanting
vertical and hierarchical control may lead to an emergence of
“concertive control”
through horizontal and collaborative interactions among
empowered team members
(Barker, 1993). The concertive control system is a collective
agreement formalized and
implemented by team members to discipline their actions to
enhance the quality of
individual and group outputs. Concertive control can be even
stronger and more rigid
than bureaucratic control in constraining and rationalizing team
members. To achieve
concertive control, team members must reach a “negotiated
consensus on how to shape
their behavior according to a set of core values” (Barker, 1993,
p. 411). Therefore,
concertive control emerges from a process that integrates
individual values and creates
a new formal rationality. In a highly empowered team, team
members must take
collective responsibility to synthesize individual idiosyncrasies

rather than depend on
instructions and guidance from an external leader. This process
tends to be a source of
conflict due to emerging interpersonal incompatibilities in goals
setting, job
assignments, expectations and evaluations. Moreover,
insufficient communication and
misinterpretation of personal behaviors may also drive
animosity and tension in highly
empowered teams (Appelbaum et al., 1999). The above
discussion can be summarized as
follows: team empowerment will foster increases in intra-group
conflict.
Knowledge sharing and intra-group conflict
As discussed earlier, studies on intra-group conflict, task or
cognitive conflict refer to
disagreements among team members regarding viewpoints,
opinions and ideas,
whereas relationship or affective conflict refers to
disagreements among team members
on personal or emotional issues (Jehn, 1997, 1995). As work
team members interact and
begin to express their task-related ideas, they become aware of
differences in their
mental models (Johnson-Laird, 1983). Work team members then
engage in a process of
discovery eventually challenging each other’s points of view.
The process of challenging
IJCMA
27,1
70

each other’s points of view involves arguments and
counterarguments through which
more knowledge is increasingly shared (Eisenhardt et al., 1997;
Forbes and Milliken,
1999; Janis, 1972; Mitchell et al., 2011, Nahapiet and Ghoshal,
1998; Smith et al., 2005). As
discussed previously, for decades, scholars have grappled with
the consequences of
conflict inside work teams, and findings are still inconclusive as
to the performance
consequences of intra-group conflict (De Dreu and Weingart,
2003; de Wit et al., 2012).
However, regardless of the performance consequences of intra-
group conflict, one aspect
that comes across in the literature is that heterogeneous teams
experience more conflict
than homogeneous teams (Forbes and Milliken, 1999; Janis,
1972).
In a study of 98 teams, Mitchell et al. (2011) found evidence
that interaction among
group members with dissimilar preferences, diverse
interpretations and different values
was sufficient to trigger behaviors to challenge each other’s
opinions and justify
alternative approaches. Forbes and Milliken (1999) found that
management boards
composed of members with diverse backgrounds engaged in
more debate regarding
goals, decisions, procedures and choices than homogeneous
boards because diverse
board members framed the issues differently and arrived at
different conclusions about
appropriate courses of action. In contrast, Janis (1972) found
that lack of conflict was a

Assessing the Relationship Between Conflict-Type and Emoti.docx

Assessing the Relationship Between Conflict-Type and Emoti.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Assessing the Relationship Between Conflict-Type and Emoti.docx

Similar to Assessing the Relationship Between Conflict-Type and Emoti.docx (20)

More from davezstarr61655

More from davezstarr61655 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Assessing the Relationship Between Conflict-Type and Emoti.docx