2457Cooperation and ConflictStocktrek ImagesThinkstoc.docx

245
7Cooperation and Conflict
Stocktrek Images/Thinkstock
Learning Outcomes
After reading this chapter, you should be able to:
• Explain the concept of social interdependence and how
cooperative or competitive frameworks arise.
• Analyze the relationship between cooperation and team
effectiveness.
• Describe the connection between social interdependence and
conflict, and the factors that influence one’s
orientation toward cooperative or competitive interaction.
• Distinguish between constructive and destructive dynamics in
competition and conflict.
• List key points for devising strategies to manage cooperation
and conflict.
• Define the role and primary objectives of a group facilitator.
cog81769_07_c07_245-280.indd 245 8/19/16 9:33 AM
© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for
resale or redistribution.

Introduction
Pretest
1. Conflict prevention is a central goal if teams are to
experience high-quality interpersonal
relations and communication.
2. In conflicts of interest, a win–lose outcome is the only
option.
3. Status differences can influence whether we decide to engage
in conflict or cooperation.
4. We are more likely to hold others personally accountable for
their actions but attribute
our own actions to other factors.
5. There is no such thing as cooperative competition.
Answers can be found at the end of the chapter.
Introduction
Anders works as a medical researcher for a large company that
develops new medical
devices for use in hospitals and doctors’ offices. The company
uses cross-functional teams
to see a product through from start to finish. Anders serves as
the leader of his team,
which is composed of a marketing specialist, several doctors,
and an engineer.
Recently, a conflict arose within the team that was related to the
development and mar-
keting of a new diabetes management device. The team was
divided on how best to design

and market the device. Raj, the team’s marketing specialist,
argued that the device should
be sleeker, look more fashionable, and pair with mobile devices
to target the growing
population of younger, tech-savvy patients who have diabetes.
Raj’s position was sup-
ported by a couple of doctors on the team who had seen an
increase in younger patients
in recent years. Yoanna, the team’s engineer, disagreed with
Raj’s design. She argued
that the proposed design would be more expensive, take longer
to develop, and be more
difficult for less tech-savvy individuals to use. She supported a
more basic design, with no
pairing ability and a bulkier body that would be less expensive
to produce. Yoanna’s posi-
tion was supported by the other doctors, who worried about
alienating users with a more
complicated product.
Tensions had begun to develop on either side. Raj accused
Yoanna and her followers of
putting costs before innovation, while Yoanna accused Raj and
his followers of discrimi-
nating against older patients for the sake of flashy bells and
whistles. The conflict had
brought the team to a standstill, and something needed to be
done.
Rather than forcing a solution by choosing a side, Anders
decided to make the entire team
responsible for solving the conflict. He began by facilitating the
team in collaboratively
establishing ground rules for handling the conflict. The team
decided on the following
rules:

1. Take action quickly when a behavior or decision causes
conflict. Do not wait several
days to say that something is bothering you; make the issue
known to the team and
start the resolution process.
2. Remove blame from the conflict. Frame issues in a way that
removes blame and does
not allow for anyone to be personally offended.
3. Accept the final resolution decided by the team.
cog81769_07_c07_245-280.indd 246 8/19/16 9:33 AM
Section 7.1 The Dynamics of Working Together
Once the team decided on and agreed to abide by these ground
rules, Anders facilitated a
critical discussion on the value of the different design options.
Each side shared its con-
cerns while being mindful not to place blame: Raj’s side
worried about not innovating
quickly enough to meet the needs of a growing demographic,
while Yoanna’s side shared
concerns about turning off established users from more
effective products by making
them too difficult to use. By removing the blame from their
arguments, each side was able
to see the valid concern held by the other. Eventually, they
started brainstorming ways to

combine elements of their designs. In the end they came up with
and agreed to support
a design that partially satisfied everyone: a sleeker, fashionable
device that was easy to
operate but did not have a pairing capability.
Anders is proud of his team members for constructively
resolving the conflict. He hopes
that the ground rules they’ve established will empower them to
think, innovate, and col-
laborate more effectively in the future.
No group or team can function without cooperation—but that
doesn’t mean that con-
flict will not occur. As we know from our examination of
diversity and problem solving
in Chapters 4 and 5, conflict is highly likely in a cross-
functional design team like the
one showcased in our opening case study. In fact, conflict can
be a necessary and ben-
eficial element that enables a higher quality solution—as it did
here, by inspiring the
design of a diabetes management device that is effective and
appealing to both younger
and older generations of users. The key to keeping conflict
constructive is to frame it
within cooperative attitudes and behaviors. Building and
maintaining a cooperative
framework not only enables group and team work, it allows
potentially negative factors
such as competition and conflict to be channeled into
constructive, rather than destruc-
tive, dynamics. In this chapter, we define cooperation,
competition, and conflict, examine
the connection between them, and identify strategies to manage
each of these elements

within a group or team setting.
7.1 The Dynamics of Working Together
Cooperation—the process of working together and/or in support
of one another to achieve a
mutually beneficial outcome—is the underlying rationale for
any organization and is the pri-
mary element that keeps it functional and intact (Fieschi, 2003).
Cooperative work enhances
organizational productivity, achievement, and innovation, which
in turn secures the compa-
ny’s value in the eyes of customers and stakeholders and
promotes its continued existence
as a commercial entity (Dunne & Barnes, 2003; Johnson &
Johnson, 1989, 2003). By generat-
ing a rich and rewarding social environment, cooperative work
fosters employee integration
and commitment that encourages employees to work for the
success of the organization as a
whole. Cooperative work can integrate rival groups or
organizations and enable a mutually
beneficial partnership. Today many organizations are learning
that strategic alliances with
potential competitors can strengthen industry and improve their
ability to reach new mar-
kets (West, Tjosvold, & Smith, 2003).
Cooperation is the key to success in groups and teams. By
working cooperatively, individuals
learn to harmonize their own interests and needs with those of
others and of the collective.
cog81769_07_c07_245-280.indd 247 8/19/16 9:33 AM

Group members perceive each person as contributing to a
mutually beneficial whole. They
consequently pool their resources and encourage and support
each other’s efforts. Integrat-
ing diverse ideas and viewpoints further enhances performance.
While some people perceive
cooperative work as undermining individuality, it actually
celebrates it. The integration of
each group member’s KSAs, unique thoughts, ideas, and
perspectives are what allow goup
and team work to outstrip individual efforts (Tjosvold, West, &
Smith, 2003). People also
gain a great deal on a personal level from cooperation. The
supportive environment that is
generated though cooperation satisfies the need for
belongingness and enhances one’s sense
of self-efficacy, self-esteem, and being valued by peers
(Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Korsgaard,
Jeong, Mahony, & Pitariu, 2008). In fact, studies have
consistently shown a strong relation-
ship between cooperation and psychological health and well-
being (Aubé, Rousseau, Mama,
& Morin, 2009; Tjosvold, Yan, Johnson, & Johnson, 2008).
Cooperation is not a given, however. The question of how and
why some individuals and
groups cooperate while others compete has been widely studied.
Muzafer Sherif ’s classic
Robbers Cave experiment (Sherif, Harvey, White, Hood, &
Sherif, 1961) is one of the earliest
and most famous studies on this topic. Conducted in the mid-

1950s at a Boy Scouts camp at
Robbers Cave State Park in Oklahoma, the study sought to
observe group dynamics between
22 “well-adjusted” American boys carefully selected for
similarity in age and background. The
experiment was set to function in three phases: first, in-group
formation; second, friction;
and third, integration. For the first phase, researchers brought
the boys to camp in two groups
that were kept separate from each other. Initially, neither group
knew of the other’s existence.
Each had time to form its own in-group identity. They both
chose names: One group called
itself the Rattlers and the other self-identified as the Eagles.
Gradually, each group was made
aware of the other.
The second phase—friction—tested the effects of in-group
loyalty by setting up a series of
competitions. In a matter of days, in-group loyalties led to the
development of rivalry between
the groups. Once the groups viewed each other as rivals,
intergroup friction emerged that was
notably hostile. For example, the two groups began calling each
other names and refused to
eat together. Conflict between the groups was so strong that the
experimenters ended this
phase of the study early to move on to the third phase—
integration—which tested strategies
for reducing intergroup friction.
Sherif designed various ways to generate cooperation between
the groups, particularly in
how they could come together to work on specific goal-oriented
tasks as one unit. Fostering
cooperation in this way was the most famous conclusion to

emerge from the Robbers Cave
studies. Researchers engineered a series of disasters that
required Rattlers and Eagles alike to
work cooperatively as one large group toward commonly valued
goals. For example, a water
pump broke, and then a truck broke down. The Rattlers and
Eagles had to work together to
retrieve the necessary parts in order to use the truck or repair
the water supply. By the end of
the third phase of the experiment, the groups had sufficiently
overcome the conflict that had
initially developed.
The Robbers Cave experiment was a pivotal study in seeing
firsthand how groups take shape,
how rivalries develop, and how conflict between groups can be
resolved through cooperative
efforts. Unfortunately, it also propagated two significant
fallacies: First, the idea that conflict
and cooperation are positive and negative forces that cannot
coexist; and second, that conflict
primarily happens between groups, while cooperation happens
within groups. Both coop-
eration and conflict can and do coexist within and between
groups, a fact proven by further
cog81769_07_c07_245-280.indd 248 8/19/16 9:33 AM
research into social interdependence (Deutsch, 1973b, 2003;

Johnson & Johnson, 1989, 2005)
and the motivations underlying cooperative or competitive
attitudes and behaviors.
Social Interdependence: Cooperation or Competition
Social interdependence exists between two or more people when
they mutually affect each
other’s goals and outcomes (Johnson & Johnson, 2005). When
people associate with others,
their behaviors and actions can promote each other’s goals or
obstruct them. The motivation
to do one or the other depends on a person’s perception of the
relationship between his or
her own goals and those of others (Deutsch, 1949, 1973b, 2003).
Individuals are inclined
toward cooperative attitudes and behaviors when they think that
everyone’s goals are mutu-
ally beneficial and that one success will promote the other. A
relay race is one of the simplest
and clearest examples of this concept. As each person
successfully navigates a portion of the
course, they hand off their baton to the next runner on their
team, and so on, until the course
is complete. Each individual success enables the next, and the
completion of the course as a
whole represents a collective accomplishment—a win for all of
the team members. By con-
trast, a footrace measuring individual speed pits each runner
against the others, and only one
person can win the game.
Competition occurs when people work against each other (for
example, vying for resources
or an exclusive benefit) and defend their own right to an
individually beneficial outcome.
Competitive attitudes and behaviors arise when individuals

assume that their goals are in
opposition and that their own goal attainment conflicts with the
interests of others. When
only one party can win, the others must lose. Competition can
be direct, as when only one
individual out of several can attain a particular resource or goal.
Or it can be indirect, as when
goal-directed activities obstruct others’ actions—for example,
by monopolizing a shared
resource or engaging in an activity that conflicts with someone
else’s goal-directed activity.
An example of the latter would be when one team member sets
out materials for a special
presentation, and another member puts them away before the
presentation takes place.
Both cooperation and competition—and their associated
attitudes and behaviors—are rooted
in self-interest (Deutsch, 1949, 1973b, 2003). Through
cooperation, individuals achieve their
own goals by helping others achieve theirs. Consequently, they
are motivated to share infor-
mation and resources and help each other act effectively. By
contrast, people with competitive
interests and goals assume that they are better served when
others act ineffectively. People
in competition are therefore motivated to restrict or withhold
information and resources,
obstructing others’ effectiveness in order to increase their own
chances of success. Table 7.1
summarizes the basic differences between the cooperative and
competitive orientations.
Table 7.1: Comparing cooperation and competition
Orientation Goal association General behavior General attitude

Cooperation Positively related Support one another’s activities
and
progress
Win–win
Competition In opposition Obstruct others’ activities and prog-
ress while advancing one’s own
Win–lose
cog81769_07_c07_245-280.indd 249 8/19/16 9:33 AM
What happens if people perceive their own individual goals as
unrelated to those of others?
If they determine that the actions and behaviors of others have
no effect on their own goals?
In that case, they see themselves as socially independent and act
without regard for the needs
of others. They are relatively indifferent to the effectiveness or
ineffectiveness of others in
pursuing their goals. They are not socially interdependent, they
will neither cooperate nor
compete, and they will not function as part of a group or team.
The key takeaways for facilitating cooperation and managing
competition are:

• In perceiving a relationship between goals, both cooperation
and competition bring
people closer together than having no relationship at all.
• Both cooperation and competition are rooted in self-interest
and can therefore be
manipulated by this relationship.
• Cooperation is fostered by the perception of positively related
goals and mutually
beneficial activities.
Next, we examine the connection between cooperation and team
effectiveness.
The Role of Cooperation in Team Effectiveness
Of course, no group or team can function well without
maintaining cooperative attitudes and
behaviors. Beyond this, however, the quality of cooperation
between team members during
performance has a direct impact on team effectiveness because
of its relationship to the pri-
mary components by which team effectiveness is measured:
productivity, process improve-
ment, and viability (Guzzo & Dickson, 1996; Agarwal, 2003;
Korsgaard et al., 2003).
Productivity reflects team efficiency and effectiveness in
converting inputs into outputs,
in terms of both quantity and quality (Caya et al., 2013; Adler
& Clark, 1991). Productivity
inputs encompass all of the things that go into team
performance, including resources, mem-
ber effort, and processing time. Outputs represent the
performance outcome—the product
of the team’s work. Cooperation is what working together is all

about and is at the heart of
any productive group or team effort. The collaborative and
supportive nature of team effort
also makes teams a natural setting for learning and growth,
which are ultimately expressed
as process improvement.
Process improvement reflects the extent to which team members
refine task-related pro-
cesses and develop member KSAs to enhance team performance
and outcomes (Kirkman,
Rosen, Tesluk, & Gibson, 2004). Process improvement can have
far-reaching effects, as
enhanced knowledge, practices, and procedures spread from the
team to other groups within
the organization and contribute to growth and the development
of organizational process
and culture (Hackman & Wagemen, 1995; Rousseau & Aubé,
2010). For example, the use of
online productivity tools such as e-mail and Google Docs for
task and project management is
a common organizational practice that originated in virtual
teams. The development of mem-
ber KSAs also has lasting benefits, as former team members
continue to apply themselves to
other tasks and activities within the organization.
Improvement implies the proactive removal of deficiencies or
defects in group process that
are identified and addressed through a process of learning and
growth. Teams can be power-
ful vehicles for both of these elements. Time-sensitive
performance encourages members to
cog81769_07_c07_245-280.indd 250 8/19/16 9:33 AM

rapidly identify problems, developmental needs, and skill gaps,
while the cooperative frame-
work and teamwork values provide motivation and support for
members who are address-
ing those issues (Katzenbach & Smith, 2001. Member
development involves the personal
enrichment and growth that occur as a natural by-product of
team process improvement. All
aspects of improvement depend on the attitudes and behaviors
that are characteristic of the
cooperative orientation, and on activities such as giving and
receiving constructive feedback,
sharing knowledge, openly discussing errors, engaging in
collaborative problem solving, and
teaching or modeling skills to others.
The quality of process improvement that occurs during
teamwork also effects the team’s
viability. Viability refers to the team’s ability to perform
collaboratively, the extent to which
performance enhances members’ satisfaction with the team, and
members’ willingness to
work together in the future (Caya et al., 2013). Viability
reflects team members’ ability to col-
lectively deal with issues that impair team cohesion (Barrick et
al., 1998). Though viability
can be viewed from many perspectives, it most often
encompasses members’ self-reported
sense of group climate, team efficacy, and the quality of

competition and conflict within the
team (Mathieu, Maynard, Rapp, & Gilson, 2008). Group climate
reflects the standard quality
and tone of interactions within the group. It is generated over
time as the group develops both
task- and relationship-oriented norms. It serves as a significant
indicator of whether major
structural elements (communication, member interrelations, and
leadership and responsi-
bility roles) are functioning so as to facilitate group
performance. Group climate can be cat-
egorized as positive or negative, depending on the degree of
cooperation, trust, efficacy, and
cohesiveness expressed within the group. A positive group
climate is supported by coopera-
tive practices that foster participation, inclusion, and member
development, such as collab-
orative construction of performance goals, modeling effective
communication and listening
skills, balancing individual and collective acknowledgement and
praise, and giving and receiv-
ing constructive feedback. This is one reason why a climate of
cooperation is so desirable.
A climate of cooperation is also a well-known support for team
efficacy (Alper et al., 2000;
Lester et al., 2002). Efficacy levels influence team motivation
and performance across the
board, significantly impacting output and effort on collective
endeavors and the tendency to
either persevere or give up when faced with apparent adversity,
opposition, or failure (Ban-
dura, 1997). As we’ll see in the coming sections, conflict and
competition can be either posi-
tive or negative for group interaction, and it is the degree to
which these elements are embed-

ded within cooperation that largely determines their impact on
group and team performance.
Before we get to that, however, let’s talk about the expectations
people have regarding conflict
and how changing these can help us redefine the role that
conflict plays in group and team
work.
Group Conflict: Redefining Our Expectations
Conflict is a process of argumentation, disruptive behavior, and
discord that occurs due
to perceived incompatibilities with activities, personalities,
interests, or viewpoints (Jehn,
1995; Deutsch, 2003). Conflict is often viewed as the antithesis
of cooperation, yet it is both
inevitable and normal (Brown & Kozlowski, 2000; Weiss &
Hughes, 2005). Groups, teams, and
organizations are characterized by the coexistence of divergent
forces (such as disagreement,
competition, and distrust) that push groups apart and convergent
forces (such as cohesive-
ness, team efficacy, and morale) that pull them back together
(Sheremata, 2000).
cog81769_07_c07_245-280.indd 251 8/19/16 9:33 AM
Working to develop quality interpersonal relations and
communication between team mem-
bers will not “save” a group from conflict—nor should they.

Many of the benefits we find
in collaboration arise from disagreements sparked by
differences in knowledge, viewpoints,
experience, functional competencies, and strategic focus (Weiss
& Hughes, 2005). Conflict—
whether within teams or across organizational boundaries—is
the crucible from which great
innovation, problem solving, and decision making emerge, but
careful management of it is
key. Hold the mix over the flame too long, and all those
benefits could evaporate.
Organizations spend inordinate amounts of financial and human
resources working out strat-
egies and initiatives to improve internal cooperation—these
include restructuring and reen-
gineering business processes and offering cross-unit incentives
and teamwork training. Yet
all of this work has a limited impact if employees are not taught
how to constructively manage
and resolve conflict (Weiss & Hughes, 2005). Anyone interested
in furthering cooperation and
teamwork should be ready and able to manage conflict.
What does managing conflict entail? In a nutshell, it involves
the following:
• Facilitating constructive conflict
• Steering potentially destructive conflict toward constructive
outlets
• Mitigating the negative effects of dysfunctional conflict
• Resolving both positive and negative conflict
Before we take on the task of managing conflict, however, there
are a few things to consider.
Think of the next section as a primer for managing conflict, as

it addresses some foundational
concepts we’ll need to absorb before examining actual
strategies and techniques.
Business Applications: Are We Stamping Out Conflict or
Cooperation?
Have you ever heard the old expression “Don’t throw the baby
out with the bath water”? Tra-
ditional views on conflict may encourage us to do just that.
Organizational policies and norms
that discourage conflict and treat it as a wholly undesirable
phenomenon can foster a fear of
conflict that hampers employees’ ability to communicate
problems, raise issues, and effec-
tively collaborate. In her 2012 TEDtalk, Dare to Disagree, five-
time CEO turned author Marga-
ret Heffernan discusses how avoiding conflict can cripple
progress in teams and organizations.
Watch Heffernan’s TEDtalk online and take note of how the
relationships between team mem-
bers can change how conflict is enacted and perceived.
Critical-Thinking Questions
1. Did the story of the relationship between Dr. Alice Stewart
and statistician George Neil
change your view of conflict? Describe how the conflict was
useful to Stewart’s research.
What does this imply about the relationship between conflict
and cooperation?
2. Have you ever heard of a whistle-blower? If so, what was
your perception of his or her
actions? If you have ever served as or been influenced by a
whistle-blower, describe the

effects that followed your (or the whistle-blower’s) actions and
how these were per-
ceived. If you have never been a whistle-blower, what issues do
you think might compel
you to serve as one?
cog81769_07_c07_245-280.indd 252 8/19/16 9:33 AM
Section 7.2 Foundations for Managing Conflict
7.2 Foundations for Managing Conflict
Managing conflict requires the skillful application of knowledge
and experience (de Janasz et
al., 2002). Before we can achieve this, there are a few
foundational concepts to consider. To
effectively navigate and manage conflict, it is important to
understand the following:
• The relationship between social interdependence and conflict
• The difference between constructive and destructive dynamics
• The conditions that produce high levels of conflict, and how it
is likely to be expressed
The following sections address each of these in turn. We begin
by examining the connections
between social interdependence and conflict.
Social Interdependence and Conflict
Competition and conflict go hand in hand. The vary nature of
competition involves opposing
interest or goals that lead to the incompatibilities that define the

process of conflict. This
relationship has fostered the common misperception that
competition and conflict are the
same thing—and that neither can coexist with cooperation. As
we will see in this section,
both of these statements are untrue. Conflict can occur in either
a cooperative or competitive
context—and in fact, it often exists in a mixture of both.
When people experience conflict in a competitive context, it
reflects a real or perceived incom-
patibility of goals. However, conflict can also arise when goals
are compatible—and positively
related (Tjosvold, 2006). Consider, for example, members of a
marketing team who disagree
on the best way to increase sales, or members of a management
team who are debating the
merits of various candidates for promotion. In each case, the
team members have a common
goal (to increase sales or choose the best candidate for
promotion). However, they can also
have individual interests that may or may not align with those
of their fellow team mem-
bers. Each person on the sales team, for example, has a vested
interest in being perceived as
capable, making good contributions, and being valuable to the
team. The management team
members may also have specific interests tied to one or more of
the candidates for promotion
that can affect their preference and actions during the debate.
The key to effectively managing and resolving conflict is not to
do away with competition or
conflict; rather, it is to steer the balance between cooperation
and competition toward the
cooperative end of the spectrum. As we outlined in the first

section, the conditions surround-
ing our social interdependence dictate our initial tendency to
engage in either cooperative
or competitive attitudes and behaviors. However, there are other
factors that influence the
strength of that response, as well as our continuing allegiance to
orientation. Let’s examine these now.
Initial Orientation
Team members’ initial attitudes and behaviors tend to set the
pattern for ongoing interaction,
particularly as others respond in kind. In effect, this is a
practical example of the old adage
“As you give, so shall you receive”—meaning that taking either
approach to interactions tends to encourage others to do the
same. Consequently, our initial
cog81769_07_c07_245-280.indd 253 8/19/16 9:33 AM
orientation toward cooperation or competition has perhaps the
most significant impact on
ongoing interactions.
The influence of reciprocity—a mutual exchange of similar
nature or value—in directing the
nature of social interdependence was established by social
psychologist Morton Deutsch, whose

research on the topic is considered foundational to the field of
conflict resolution. Deutsch
(1949, 1973b, 2003) noted that when one party engages in the
attitudes and behaviors that
characterize either cooperation or competition, it tends to elicit
a response in kind from oth-
ers. Table 7.2 directly compares the attitudes and behaviors
associated with each orientation.
Table 7.2: Characteristics of cooperation and competition
Cooperation Competition
• Perceiving alignment in individual goals,
interests, attitudes, and viewpoints
• Developing shared scripts for interaction and
goal attainment
• Fostering openness in information and idea
exchange
• Maintaining trusting and friendly attitudes
• Addressing conflicts as issues that require
collaborative problem solving
• Working to enhance mutual power and benefits
• Perceiving opposition in individual goals,
interests, attitudes, and viewpoints
• Ignoring or discounting areas of potential
similarity or compromise and rigidly upholding
a win–lose scenario as the only option
• Withholding information and resources

• Approaching interactions with hostility and
suspicion
• Addressing conflicts as a battle and using
tactics that involve coercion, deception, or
threats
• Striving to enhance power differences by
increasing one’s own power and benefits while
reducing those of others
People are initially motivated toward either a cooperative or
competitive orientation based
on their perception of goal alignment. As noted in Chapter 3,
perception can be selective or
biased. Keep in mind that demonstrating either cooperative or
competitive attitudes and
behaviors at the beginning of an interaction can elicit the same
response from others. The flip
side to this practical insight is that a group can also guide an
initially competitive interaction
into a more cooperative framework by not responding in kind to
behaviors and by modeling cooperation instead.
Task Complexity
Whether participants initially orient toward cooperative or
competitive attitudes and behav-
iors, task complexity can be a prime motivator for cooperation.
Task complexity is typically
measured across specific dimensions:
• Degree of task differentiation: the extent to which an activity
requires different tasks.
Activities that require only one or few tasks are less complex

than activities that
require many.
• Degree of operational specialization: the extent to which
different people are
required to perform activity-related tasks, either due to a need
for division of labor
or diversity in KSAs.
• Degree of task interdependence: the extent to which activities
require joint effort.
• Degree of task uncertainty: the extent to which activities
require process invention
and development.
cog81769_07_c07_245-280.indd 254 8/19/16 9:33 AM
Complex tasks inspire cooperation mainly because they tend to
require it—this is the basic
idea behind using groups and teams to accomplish complex
tasks and goals. Complex tasks
can even inspire cooperation between competitive parties. In
1957, for example, the United
States and the Soviet Union—then locked in the competitive
Cold War and space race—both
participated in an international effort to study and map the
Earth from space (Sagdeev &
Eisenhower, 2008). Despite existing hostilities, both parties put

aside their differences to col-
laborate on a complex task that would prove beneficial to all
involved.
Conflict Type
The type of conflict team members experience can also affect
their willingness to cooperate.
Within the organizational context, conflict can be differentiated
into two basic types: con-
flict based on task elements and conflict based on relationship
elements (Jehn, 1997; Bell &
Kozlowski, 2002; Kolb, 2013). Task conflict encompasses
disagreements regarding concepts
and issues central to group tasks or goals, including procedural
disputes over how the group
should engage in its work (Jehn, 1997; Kolb, 2013).
Disagreement over the way to frame a
problem, for example, or debating the critical merits of two
favored solutions represent task
conflict. Relationship conflict encompasses interpersonal
friction and disputes that involve
members’ personal feelings and the ways in which they relate to
one another (Jehn, 1997;
Bell & Kozlowski, 2002). Interactions that leave one or more
members feeling disrespected
or disregarded can generate relationship conflict, as, for
example, when members who must
interact across a language barrier misjudge each other and fail
to actively listen or participate
during group discussions. People tend to react very differently
to task or relationship conflict,
and this can affect the orientation and strength of their social
interdependence.
Task conflict, which stems from the need to work together to
accomplish a task or goal, does

not challenge the cooperative framework (Deutsch, 2003).
Rather, it represents an effort to
work within it and construct a mutually beneficial work
approach and procedure, or coor-
dination of effort and resources. Consequently, task conflict is
more commonly viewed as
constructive (Kozlowski & Bell, 2001), or performance
enhancing, and is the type of conflict
referred to when discussing the benefits of conflict to group or
team work (such as enhanced
creativity, comprehension, and quality in group problem solving
and decision making).
Relationship conflict, on the other hand, tends to be identified
as destructive because it dam-
ages the cooperative framework and diverts participants’ time,
attention, and processing
abilities away from performance-related issues and tasks (Evan,
1965; Jehn & Mannix, 2001.
Relationship conflict is often perceived as a personal attack,
evoking negative feelings and
psychological withdrawal on both sides (Jehn, 1995; Janssen,
Van de Vliert, & Veenstra, 1999).
As the conflict continues, participants become increasingly
entrenched in individualism—or
separateness from each other—and rigid in their perception of
opposition (Deutsch, 2003). If
they cannot be brought back into a cooperative frame of mind,
the parties in conflict will cre-
ate a subsystem of competition, which can infect the entire
group’s performance and interac-
tions. The negative and antagonistic reactions this fosters can
perpetuate an escalating cycle
of hostility and competition (Baron, 1991; Janssen et al., 1999).
cog81769_07_c07_245-280.indd 255 8/19/16 9:33 AM

Communication
The balance between cooperation and competition is often
determined by the degree of com-
munication and understanding between participants. Consider
team members Deanna and
Chan. Deanna is scheduled to give a presentation at 1:00 p.m.
using some of Chan’s materials
(with his permission, of course), which she has laid out in
advance in the conference room.
However, Deanna neglected to tell Chan about the preparations
she is making for the presenta-
tion. When he happens upon his materials in the conference
room, he assumes she must have
forgotten them there and takes them back to his desk. Of course,
now he has unknowingly
undone all of Deanna’s work. This could have been easily
avoided if Deanna had shared more
information regarding what she was doing with the materials
and cooperatively planned a
time and way to clean them up that Chan knew about.
Communication problems are a common cause of competition
and conflict, particularly in
matters that involve how to collectively carry out group or team
purpose. Goal and task align-
ment are critical to effective performance (Kathuria, Joshi, &
Porth, 2007; Quiros, 2009), yet
many team members are stymied by the simple question of what

they are supposed to do.
Common task knowledge reflects the level of shared
understanding between members
regarding goal and task requirements, the procedures and
actions needed to accomplish
group goals, and member roles and responsibilities for carrying
these out (Cannon-Bowers
et al., 1993; Brandon & Hollingshead, 2004). Failure to
establish a common framework for
group goals and tasks hampers members’ ability to effectively
coordinate, deal with issues
and problems, or correctly interpret communications (Sole &
Edmonson, 2002; Crampton,
2001; Caya et al., 2013). The conflict or competitive activities
this can generate can set off a
cycle of misunderstanding, negative feelings, and conflict
between group members. This can
rapidly transform task conflict into relationship conflict, which
is less constructive and more
difficult to resolve.
Trust
Trust is a powerful enabler of cooperation (Williams, 2001);
however, it cannot be established
until team members have demonstrated a certain level of
integrity. Individuals are more likely
to engage in cooperative behaviors with partners who appear
trustworthy, or have estab-
lished their trustworthiness—either directly in past
collaborations or indirectly via their
reputation for working with or against others (Blankenburg,
Eriksson, & Johanson, 1997).
As Deutsch (2003) noted in studying the characteristics of
cooperation and competition,
people’s perception of fairness, honesty, and reliability in
others tends to generate a recipro-

cal reaction. When one person deals honestly, communicates
openly, and exhibits supportive
attitudes and actions, others respond in kind. The reverse is true
as well—treating others
as untrustworthy and regarding them as a threat in turn fosters
negativity and competition.
This is often an issue when group members come from very
different cultures, and discomfort
with the unfamiliar is expressed (or perceived) as suspicion and
distrust. If areas of similarity
are not found and a sense of unity is not developed (as
suggested in Chapter 4), it can cause
competition between group members who only put on the
appearance of cooperation.
Trust can also affect how people perceive conflict—and its
cause (Dirks & Ferrin, 2001).
Simons and Peterson’s (2000) study of management teams, for
example, discovered that
teams high in cohesion and interpersonal trust had a greater
tendency to view any conflict as
task related, while those low in cohesion and trust tended to
assume that conflicts stemmed
from interpersonal friction and issues. Here again reciprocity
shows its impact, as group
cog81769_07_c07_245-280.indd 256 8/19/16 9:33 AM
members who assume that relationship issues are behind any

conflict frequently fulfill that
expectation through their own negative reactions, and in doing
so transform even potentially
constructive task-related conflict into destructive relationship
conflict (Parayitam & Dooley,
2007; Simons & Peterson, 2000; Tidd, McIntyre, & Friedman,
2004). For example, the initial
hostilities between the two groups in the Robbers Cave
experiment were based on the boys’
interpretation of their competition as a personal rivalry. Had
they viewed their conflict as
solely related to the nature of the tasks at hand, they would have
been able to engage in a
more friendly competition. Instead, their perceived relationship
conflict became real when
they treated each other as enemies, resorted to name-calling,
and adopted other negative
behaviors.
Though initial orientation, task complexity, conflict type, and
quality of communication and
trust can all influence one’s orientation toward social
interdependence, they are only part of
the equation. In the end, team members can choose to aim for
more cooperative or competi-
tive attitudes and behaviors (Evans, 2003). The choice they
make deeply affects the process
and outcome of their teamwork. In particular, orientation affects
the tendency to engage in
either constructive or destructive competition and conflict. In
the next section, we identify
and describe these phenomena and how they are expressed in
groups and teams.
Constructive Versus Destructive Dynamics
Free-market economists often argue that competition brings out

the best in us. Competition
is assumed to make us sharper and more productive, and so it
can. Still, competition—espe-
cially tumultuous competition—can also generate sabotage,
scapegoating, rumormonger-
ing, and conflict within and between groups. What’s the
difference between constructive and
destructive competition, and does constructive competition
really exist? To find an answer,
let’s take a closer look at the dynamics that come into play
when we take on a competitive
mind-set.
Cooperative Framework
Competitive attitudes and behaviors can be more or less
extreme, depending on the degree to
which they are balanced by the presence of a cooperative
framework. On the extreme end of
this continuum, we have hypercompetition, which occurs
entirely outside of any cooperative
framework. On the other end resides developmental
competition, a form of competition that
takes place entirely within a cooperative framework. Let’s talk
about how these very different
competitive models evolved and what they actually mean.
Hypercompetition reflects a mind-set in which self-worth is
bound by a need to compete,
win, and avoid losing at any cost. Karen Horney first defined
this concept in 1937, establish-
ing some of the earliest notable correlations between
individualism and competition. Accord-
ing to Horney (1937), hypercompetitive individuals culturally
acquire a set of extreme indi-
vidualistic values that justify manipulation, exploitation, and
aggressive or derisive behavior,

so long as a win is obtained or a loss is avoided.
Hypercompetitive colleagues would blithely
lie, steal credit, and manipulate others’ opinions and actions to
make themselves look good or
win whatever benefits are in contention.
Despite its negative reputation, competition is not a universally
destructive force. Nor is it nec-
essarily governed solely by a desire to maximize personal
achievement or gain (He, Baruch,
cog81769_07_c07_245-280.indd 257 8/19/16 9:33 AM
Developmental
Competition
Competitive Framework
Hypercompetition
• Avoid loss at all costs
• Self-worth tied to winning
• Outcome of self-contained
individualism
• Competitors are partners in
learning and achievement
• Outcome of ensembled
individualism

& Lin, 2014), an assumption that clearly places this view of
competition at odds with collec-
tive goals and teamwork (Chen, Tjosvold, & Liu, 2006;
Tjosvold, Yu, & Hui, 2004). Hypercom-
petition has been identified as an outcome of self-contained
individualism, a mind-set char-
acterized by distaste for affiliation or identification with groups
and denial of others’ input
or influence on self-perception and concept (Sampson, 1977,
1988; Ryckman, Libby, Van
den Borne, Gold, & Lindner, 1997). Edward E. Sampson (1977,
1988), who coined the term
self-contained individualism, maintained that if such egoism
was at one end of the spectrum,
then a more socially conscious version, ensembled
individualism, resides at the other. Unlike
its darker counterpart, ensembled individualism maintains no
sharp boundaries between
self and others. Instead, individuals engage in a commonly
shared process of discovery and
self-actualization through interpersonal connections,
attachments, and relationships—self-
definition cannot be achieved alone (Sampson, 1988, 1989;
Ryckman et al., 1997).
The two extremes of individualism correlate to the cooperative–
competitive spectrum.
Whereas self-contained individualism leads to the purely
competitive hypercompetition,
ensembled individualism reflects the mitigating influence of a
cooperative framework, which
fosters a prosocial variation known as developmental
competition (Ryckman & Hamel,

1992; Ryckman, Hammer, Kaczor, & Gold, 1996). This
cooperative competition model reflects
attitudes and behaviors in which the primary focus is not on
winning or gaining personal
advantage, but on self-actualization, discovery, and growth.
Rather than perceiving others as
competitive threats, this mind-set welcomes them as partners in
(Ryckman et al., 1997).
Figure 7.1 shows the two extremes of competition.
Figure 7.1: The continuum of competition
As competition moves from a competitive to a cooperative
framework, it shifts from destructive to
constructive.
Developmental
Competition
Competitive Framework
Hypercompetition
• Avoid loss at all costs
• Self-worth tied to winning
• Outcome of self-contained
individualism
• Competitors are partners in
• Outcome of ensembled
individualism

cog81769_07_c07_245-280.indd 258 8/19/16 9:33 AM
Cooperative competition enhances teamwork when members are
socialized to compete with
rather than against others to accomplish collective goals
(Sampson, 1988; Wilson, 1993;
Collier, Ryckman, Thornton, & Gold, 2010). Next, we examine
the competitive tendencies in
groups and teams.
Competitive Tendencies in Groups and Teams
Individual competitive interests are easily set off within a
group. Some company practices,
such as assigning high-profile individual rewards, foster such
competition. Setting individual
rewards for members of a large sales team, for example, can
discourage cooperation—and
be detrimental to productivity in the long term. Team members
may hoard information or
contacts they do not need, even if other team members could put
them to use. Competitive
attitudes and behaviors can place individual interests at odds
with group interests, especially
in the short term.
The tragedy of the commons refers to the tendency of
individuals to deplete group resources
for their own self-interest without considering others’ need for

or use of them (Hardin, 1968).
Ultimately, all group members—including those who initially
benefited—end up worse off.
The tragedy of the commons is often associated with
environmental damage and refers to
the irresponsible exploitation and destruction of natural
resources society is still struggling
to overcome. However, it frequently occurs within economic,
political, social, and business
arenas as well. Within organizations, the tragedy of the
commons can be expressed simply as
one person or group that monopolizes, say, a shared printer,
workspace, or discussion during
a project management meeting. Alternatively, it can also occur
on a larger scale, when one
department wrangles an entire chunk of budget originally slated
to be shared among several
departments.
Competition for scarce resources—or for a specific performance
task, idea, or direction—can
create conflict both within and across groups. Group members
can become divided, overlook
positive aspects of each other’s viewpoints, and fail to
effectively communicate or compre-
hend each other’s priorities—all of which makes resolution and
collaboration difficult (De
Dreu, Koole, & Steinel, 2000). This only serves to increase
competitive tendencies and can
push the group toward hypercompetition. Limitations and
imbalances in resources or other
benefits are also a prime cause of competition between groups
in competing organizations—
two cable providers, for example, may compete for a limited
customer base across a single
territory. Competition can also occur between organizational

factions, such as management
and labor unions.
In each of these cases, conflict can escalate to a
hypercompetitive framework in which both
groups view the exchange as a win–lose battle. As a result, they
may employ dirty tactics such
as coercion, information withholding, slander, and damaging
spin rhetoric. They may unfairly
assign blame, which effectively scapegoats both parties. For
example, the demise of Hostess
Brands, provider of Twinkies, Ding Dongs, and other classic
20th-century treats, is widely
blamed on a union–managers dispute over a new contract that
would have damaged both
existing salaries and retirement benefits for Hostess workers.
This viewpoint was propagated
by both sides. However, there were many other factors that
contributed to the company’s fail-
ure, including sizable profit losses and debts incurred by three
successive mergers, bankrupt-
cies in 2004 and 2011, and unchanging product lines (Olen,
2012).
cog81769_07_c07_245-280.indd 259 8/19/16 9:33 AM
Constructive and Destructive Competition in Teams
As mentioned previously, competition in teams can be both
constructive and destructive.

Team hypercompetition is described as an internally
competitive state in which members
feel a driving need to outperform their teammates with little
regard to collective benefit or
detriment (He et al., 2014). Team hypercompetition is
destructive. It represents a model in
which the pursuit of personal advantages take top priority,
while the needs of others are disre-
garded or blocked. Each side of the conflict attempts to enhance
its own power while reducing
the power of the other. Any increase of power in the opposing
side is viewed as a threat, and
repetitive experiences of disagreement, destructive criticism,
and rejection of ideas reduce
both self-confidence and confidence in the other group
members. The competitive view that
only one side can win can even lead to coercive tactics that
involve both psychological and
material threats. Threatening to ostracize or eject a team
member from the group works as
both a psychological and material threat, as the team member
may suffer equally from the
emotional effects of social rejection and from damages to
performance or reputation.
Conversely, team development competition, also referred to as
cooperative competition,
reflects a competitive process that is aligned with a cooperative
framework. It results in
increased motivation and effort to strive for optimum
performance and quality while creating
and strengthening positive interpersonal relationships (Ryckman
et al., 1996; Tjosvold, John-
son, Johnson, & Sun, 2003). Team development competition is
constructive and experienced
as a positive and enriching interaction. Whereas team

hypercompetition features a me first
mentality that has a decidedly harmful effect on teamwork,
cooperative competition reflects
a perspective on competition that keeps with the concepts of
win–win and prosocial moti-
vation (He et al., 2014). Team development competition fosters
norms that value integrity
and fair contest between members. This helps uphold a common
focus on collective growth
and team-level achievements, as well as deriving personal
satisfaction from mastering and
enjoying collective tasks (Ryckman et al., 1996). Such prosocial
interactions represent oppor-
tunities for learning and self-actualization at both the individual
and team level (Ryckman &
Hamel, 1992; Ryckman et al., 1996, 1997; Collier et al., 2010).
Cooperative competition enhances psychological health and
well-being, as parties on both
sides of the competition practice the principles of good
sportsmanship. These include the
following:
• Perceiving fellowship. The sense of competing with or
alongside instead of against
each other is integral to the cooperative framework that
constructive competition
needs to exist, and it results in morale boosts as competitors
encourage each other
toward higher levels of performance and praise each other’s
accomplishments.
• Playing “fair”. Procedural fairness is a key element in
maintaining mutual account-
ability, a foundational component of team cohesion.

• Being considerate. Using good manners and treating each
other with mutual respect
helps maintain awareness of the cooperative framework and
mitigate personal
attacks during conflict, and it is just plain useful as a
cooperative work practice.
• Playing for fun. Perceiving competition as personally
rewarding no matter who actu-
ally “wins” in the end helps maintain good relations and
constructive dynamics.
Besides the immediate positive effects on performance and
psychological well-being, coop-
erative competition tends to increase team members’ sense of
efficacy, motivation to take
on challenging tasks, interest and satisfaction in their work,
willingness and capacity to
cog81769_07_c07_245-280.indd 260 8/19/16 9:33 AM
collaborate with competitors, and confidence in their ability to
express conflicting viewpoints
and manage conflict toward constructive avenues (Forsyth,
1999; Tjosvold, Johnson, et al.,
2003). Within a group, these sentiments are joined by a
corresponding rise in group sat-
isfaction, attachment, and cohesiveness (Tjosvold, Johnson,
Johnson, & Sun, 2006). Though

this style of cooperative competition seems to be a polar
opposite of team hypercompetition,
these two states are not mutually exclusive. Team development
and hypercompetitiveness
can coexist within a team, as member competitiveness can
encompass both individualistic
and prosocial motivations that are not necessarily at odds.
Likewise, conflict can occur under
either framework, though cooperative competition does tend to
lead to far more constructive
conflict.
Identifying Constructive Conflict
Conflict is considered constructive when it contributes
positively to individual and group per-
formance. Constructive conflict provides a forum for sharing
diverse viewpoints, knowledge,
methods, and solutions; venting frustrations; and calling
attention to problems or concerns
(Amason, 1996; Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006). Facilitating
effective communication during inter-
personal conflict can break down unproductive barriers between
team members, causing
members to reflect on their own viewpoints and the potential
benefits to change (Stevens &
Campion, 1994). Constructive conflict also strengthens problem
solving and idea generation,
which enables criticism and debate to activate these processes
(rather than shut them down).
Constructive controversy is a critical expression of constructive
conflict within organizational
groups and teams. In processes of constructive controversy,
group members use conflict as a
tool to stimulate informative and conceptual processing and
exchange, foster creativity, and

enable critical analysis, problem solving, and evaluation
(Vollmer & Seyr, 2013). Controversy
is by nature a competitive process; however, the cooperative
framework is engaged when
group members acknowledge that the underlying purpose of the
conflict is to further a coop-
erative endeavor and must ultimately end in agreement (Johnson
et al., 2006). Constructive
controversy is viewed as a team learning process and is an
integral component of process
improvement (Kirkman et al., 2004).
Next, we examine the common predictors of conflict—
contextual elements that have a
high likelihood of conflict within groups and teams and the how
that conflict is likely to be
expressed.
Predicting How and When Conflicts Will Arise
Although conflict is a natural and inevitable component of
social interaction, being able to
predict when and how it will arise within the performance of a
specific group or team allows
managers and team members to better prepare for and manage
conflict interactions. Task
attributes and member diversity heavily influence the likelihood
and expression of conflict
within organizational groups and teams and are prime predictors
of how and when conflict
will arise.
cog81769_07_c07_245-280.indd 261 8/19/16 9:33 AM

Task Attributes
Just as individuals have particular traits and qualities that make
up their overall nature and
personality, tasks have specific characteristics or attributes that
define and describe them.
Task attributes fundamentally shape group interactions (Pelled,
Eisenhardt, & Xin, 1999),
and certain characteristics can help set the stage for conflict.
Key task attributes include:
• Task uncertainty. Routine tasks such as accessing and printing
out a marketing
report are structured activities in which we know exactly how to
get from A to B. On
a larger scale, routine tasks form the basis of mechanized
production lines. By fol-
lowing a carefully planned sequence to its end, their machinery
routinely manufac-
tures products like cars, food packaging, and cell phones.
Routine tasks entail very
little uncertainty. Nonroutine tasks such as problem solving,
decision making, and
managing others are unstructured activities that require us to
assess the situation
and develop our own process for accomplishing goals. Even
within the procedural
framework typically offered by organizations, nonroutine tasks
can encompass a
high degree of uncertainty. Tasks with a high degree of
uncertainty can increase
personal stress and fear of failure. They also require
deliberation, which frequently

stimulates debate, both of which make task and relationship
conflict more likely
(Korsgaard et al., 2008; Mooney, Holahan, & Amason, 2007).
• Task interdependence. Increased interdependence corresponds
to increased com-
plexity in coordination—and more chances for
miscommunication and mishap. A
marketing scheme that depends on input and activities
performed by multiple peo-
ple is necessarily more complex in terms of task coordination,
accessing and sharing
resources, reaching agreement on issues or solutions, and
putting together a final
product than is a marketing scheme designed by only one
individual. Likewise, work
group members whose efforts are dictated and coordinated by a
group leader will
have little or no opportunity for conflict within their separate
endeavors—though
they may compete for individual praise. The likelihood of both
task and relationship
conflict goes up as the level of required task interdependence
increases (Komorita &
Parks, 1995; Pinkley, Griffith, & Northcraft, 1995).
• Task and activity type. Some tasks and activity types are more
likely to involve or
inspire conflict than others. Problem solving and decision
making, for example, are
both task types that depend on knowledge and viewpoint
sharing, and they often
require diversity of opinion and constructive controversy.
However, both of these
processes encompass a range of associated activities, and these
can be more or less

prone to conflict. Debating ideas or decision options naturally
involves controversy;
however, performing a marketing test, interviewing customers,
or gathering infor-
mation from reliable sources typically does not. When group
members understand
the nature of a specific task or activity type, they are better able
to predict the emer-
gence of task conflict.
• Task presentation. In the first section, we examined how
perception affects our ten-
dency toward cooperative or competitive behavior. Merely
believing that our inter-
ests and goals are aligned or opposed can orient us toward one
or the other. The
way in which a task is presented or framed can significantly
impact the likelihood of
conflict by establishing or strengthening either a cooperative or
competitive frame-
work for interaction. Framing a situation or task as competitive
tends to decrease
cooperation and increase conflict among group members
(Korsgaard et al., 2008;
cog81769_07_c07_245-280.indd 262 8/19/16 9:33 AM
Harinck, De Dreu, & Van Vianen, 2000; Ohbuchi & Suzuki,
2003). Individual or col-

lective rewards often play a significant role in framing a
situation or task as coopera-
tive or competitive. If reaching a departmental sales goal is
motivated by individual
rewards, for example, then sales team members will be unlikely
to help each other;
conflict may arise as they try to block each other’s progress or
enhance their own.
A collective reward, on the other hand, motivates team members
to work coopera-
tively and engage in supportive behavior and practices. Task
presentation can influ-
ence the likelihood of relationship conflict that stems from
behaviors.
Being aware of which activities and processes are more or less
prone to conflict is critical to
effective coordination and planning.
Diversity
Any kind of diversity increases the likelihood of conflict
(Mohammed & Angell, 2004; Pelled et
al., 1999; Vodosek, 2007). Heightened potential for a specific
type of conflict can depend on the
type of diversity. Task conflict, for example, is associated with
differences in individual KSAs,
cognitive style, and function within an organization (Mooney et
al., 2007; Olson, Parayitam &
Bao, 2007). An accountant and an engineer may take a very
different approach to reducing
overhead costs at a manufacturing company; the former may
recommend a less expensive
materials supplier for an immediate benefit, and the latter may
suggest a machinery redesign
that requires an initial outlay of expense but will cut costs over

the long term. Meanwhile,
cultural differences are associated with both task and
relationship conflict because culturally
diverse group members are likely to have different views about
task and procedural norms,
follow different scripts for behavior and interaction, subscribe
to different cultural norms
and value systems, and work across potentially damaging
language barriers (Jehn & Mannix,
2001; Vodosek, 2007). The combination of these elements
heightens the chances of miscom-
munication and missteps that are personally offensive or
frustrating to group members.
Differences in status—particularly those that create power
imbalances—also shape an indi-
vidual’s experience with and response to conflict. This includes
the decision to engage in
competition and conflict versus cooperation and compromise
(Rousseau & Garcia-Retamero,
2007; Korsgaard et al., 2003). Studies have shown that we work
harder to avoid conflict with
individuals who have higher status or power (Baron, 1989), and
we tend to forgive or recon-
cile with high-status individuals more easily than those of lower
status (Aquino, Tripp, & Bies,
2006). For example, group members may take interruptions in
stride from a manager but be
offended when other group members interrupt their thoughts or
suggestions. Likewise, the
group may be less apt to argue with a natural leader or specific
expert, even if the situation
might warrant some controversy. While less conflict may seem
like a good thing, suppressing
concerns or disagreement because of status differences can lead
to process loss, poor-quality

decisions, and dysfunctional dynamics like groupthink.
Understanding the effects of the dif-
ferent diversity types on conflict is a useful tool—not just for
planning for emergent conflict
but for conscientiously encouraging it in constructive formats
when needed.
Next, we examine practical strategies for managing both
cooperation and conflict.
cog81769_07_c07_245-280.indd 263 8/19/16 9:33 AM
Section 7.3 Management Strategies for Cooperation and
Conflict
7.3 Management Strategies for Cooperation and Conflict
In the previous sections, we defined the dynamic components of
social interdependence,
examined the relationships between them, and assimilated some
foundational concepts
regarding cooperation, competition, and conflict. Now it’s time
to talk about how that knowl-
edge can be applied in the workplace to foster cooperation in
groups and teams.
Fostering Cooperation: Applying Foundational Knowledge
Managing conflict is not just about dealing with the task and
relationship conflicts that arise
within interactions. It’s also very much about fostering
cooperation—and the cooperative atti-
tudes and behaviors that enable constructive conflict and

competition. What have we learned
about cooperation so far?
• Cooperation is fostered by the perception of positively related
goals and mutually
beneficial activities.
• Individualism and differentiation from others fosters
competition and decreases
cooperation.
• Both cooperation and competition are rooted in self-interest
and can therefore be
manipulated by this relationship.
• Competition can be enacted in and guided toward a
cooperative framework.
• Complex tasks can be a prime motivator for cooperation.
• Cooperation requires some trust to exist between group
members.
• The processes and effects that characterize cooperation also
elicit it.
How do these concepts translate into management strategy?
Let’s return for a moment to
Muzafer Sherif ’s Robbers Cave experiment (Sherif et al., 1961)
to see how he put these con-
cepts into practice. When the two groups, the Rattlers and the
Eagles, were engaged in com-
petitive activities, they immediately oriented toward
hypercompetition. They had little to no
cooperative tendencies, and cooperative attitudes and behaviors
were nil. In the third phase,
integration, Sherif deliberately manufactured situations in
which the two groups had posi-
tively related goals and thus engaged in mutually beneficial

activities. He rooted these in self-
interest by including personally relevant goals, such as having a
working water supply for
drinking and washing. This strategy changed the dynamics of
competition between the two
groups, directing them toward a more cooperative framework.
By engaging them in a series
of complex tasks that required them to act cooperatively as one
big group, Sherif effectively
stimulated cooperation.
Similarly, in an organizational setting, cooperation can be
fostered by the following:
• Developing a climate of cooperation, as outlined in Chapter 2.
• Engaging in activities and processes that support identification
and cohesion,
such as identifying points of commonality in interest,
collaboratively setting
agenda and performance goals, and upholding fair and equal
standards for mutual
accountability.
• Tying self-interest to group accomplishment by establishing
collective rewards.
• Identifying and raising member awareness of task complexity.
• Deliberately manufacturing cooperative activities that require
all members’
participation.
cog81769_07_c07_245-280.indd 264 8/19/16 9:33 AM

Conflict
In many cases, these elements can be combined. For example, in
collaboratively setting per-
formance goals, group members can identify and discuss task
complexity and set up fair cri-
teria for measuring progress and tracking accountability. They
can also set collective rewards
and superordinate goals as part of this process. Superordinate
goals can only be achieved
with the contribution of multiple groups or parties. A group
leader might enact this by setting
a goal that requires specific contributions from each member;
for example, a presentation
outlining each phase of a proposal wherein each member must
address and present a specific
topic. The act of achieving these goals can—and ideally must—
foster cooperation between or
among the parties involved (Gaertner et al., 2000). This was the
most famous conclusion to
emerge from the Robbers Cave experiment.
Despite these tactics, fostering cooperation between individuals
with diverse KSAs, view-
points, backgrounds, and styles can be seriously challenging.
They must be equally willing
and ready to cooperate, perceive that their goals are positively
associated, and be able to
develop shared scripts for cooperation and practical ways in
which to support each other’s
success while working toward their own. They must also be able
to effectively deal with the

inevitable conflicts that arise.
In the modern world, managing cooperation is increasingly
challenging as individuals and
groups are asked more frequently to work cooperatively across
functional, cultural, geo-
graphic, and organizational boundaries (Leung et al., 2003).
Cross-functional teams must
effectively coordinate their members’ areas of expertise to
realize the special benefits of this
diversification (Drazin, Kazajian, & Blyler, 2003; Harris &
Beyerlein, 2003). As we will exam-
ine in Chapter 8, many employees rely heavily on technology to
communicate and coordinate
their efforts (Agarwal, 2003). All of these factors increase the
likelihood of conflict and the
need to resolve it. We address this issue next.
Resolving Conflict: Combining Knowledge and Skill
We know that conflict can occur in both cooperative and
competitive settings—and competi-
tion can exist within a cooperative framework as well. This was
proved in 1944, when math-
ematician John von Neumann and economist Oskar Morgenstern
joined forces to give us the
now classic Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Game
theory represents a major con-
tribution to social psychology because it puts the problem of
conflicting interests in math-
ematical terms. In doing so, it also revealed that parties in
conflict have interdependent inter-
ests—that is, their outcomes are mutually affecting. This is
perhaps most obvious in win–lose
situations, referred to in game theory as zero-sum games. In
effecting this outcome, one
party definitively loses while the other gains. The term non-

zero-sum games encompasses
situations in which both participants can win (the win–win
scenario) or both can lose (the
lose–lose scenario). A famous thought experiment called the
prisoner’s dilemma offers an all-
in-one illustration of each of these outcomes. It unfolds like so:
The police have nabbed two burglars in possession of stolen
goods. The pris-
oners are brought to the station and placed in separate interview
rooms. Each
is told: If you confess and implicate your partner, you will be
granted immunity
and go free, but your partner will be sentenced to six years in
prison. However,
if you both confess, you will each receive a three-year sentence.
If neither of you
confess you will each receive a one-year sentence.
cog81769_07_c07_245-280.indd 265 8/19/16 9:33 AM
Conflict
If one partner confesses and the other does not, this represents a
win–lose outcome where
the one who confesses comes out on top. If both partners
confess, it’s a lose–lose outcome,
in which both are sentenced to three years in prison. If neither
partner confesses, they both
serve time, but the sentence is lightened considerably, making

this a win–win outcome. There
are some situations in which individual goals are
complementary and a win–win involves no
loss to either side; for example, if Charleze needs someone to
take her place during a presen-
tation, and Timone wants an opportunity to demonstrate these
skills. However, in situations
that involve competition or conflict, a win–win often reflects a
compromise, as shown in the
prisoner’s dilemma. The question is: How do we effectively
resolve conflict so we can agree
on a compromise?
Conflict resolution is a learned skill set that requires conscious
effort and practice to achieve
(de Janasz et al., 2002). There are many programs, textbooks,
and how-to manuals for train-
ing conflict resolution skills in all of the areas in which people
work together. Though their
details vary, most share a central tenet of seeking to instill the
knowledge, attitudes, and skills
that support cooperative problem solving and discourage
escalation of competitive attitudes
and behavior (Deutsch, 2003). As a result of conflict-resolution
training, individuals should
be able to do the following:
1. Recognize available options in conflicts of interest. Most
people are predisposed to
see conflicts as win–lose situations. Game theory proves,
however, that there are
other alternatives. It may take time and effort, but most parties
in conflict can find
some way to work cooperatively to solve their problems and
construct a win–win
compromise that is of greater mutual benefit than a simple win–

lose outcome. Keep
in mind that when people must continue to work together,
rigidly holding on to a
win–lose expectation can result in a lose–lose in the long run,
as interpersonal rela-
tions are damaged.
2. Understand the role of reciprocity in conflict. When it comes
to cooperation and
competition, reciprocity is key. Group leaders and members
must model the coop-
erative attitudes and behavior they wish to encourage.
Sometimes this means one
party must be the “bigger person” and change the group’s
dynamics by meeting com-
petitive attitudes and behaviors with cooperative ones.
Cooperative practices will
become self-sustaining as they elicit reciprocity within the
group.
3. Face conflict rather than try to avoid it. Conflict can be
unpleasant and even scary.
Avoidance tactics such as suppression, rationalization,
conformity, and postpone-
ment are common—and may even be encouraged if
organizational culture treats
conflict as a negative to be dealt with as quickly and quietly as
possible. However,
conflict cannot actually be avoided without resolution; only
evaded or left to smol-
der. When this occurs the problem persists and may even grow,
increasing interper-
sonal tension and irritation between group members. It is better
to face conflict and
attempt to resolve it than to let it fester and grow.

4. Act from a place of mutual respect. Feeling personally
attacked and vulnerable can
immediately activate relationship conflict and escalate both
conflict behavior and
the competitive perception that a win–lose situation is the only
possible outcome.
Treating each other with mutual respect helps keep conflict in a
constructive zone
and can mitigate the tendency to automatically escalate when
emotions do get
involved.
5. Distinguish between “positions” and “interests”. Recall from
Chapter 6 that positions
and interests are not the same. Although a position may be
opposed, we may still be
cog81769_07_c07_245-280.indd 266 8/19/16 9:33 AM
Conflict
able to find a solution that takes both parties’ underlying
interests into account to
achieve a mutually beneficial outcome.
6. Identify commonalities and compatible interests. People have
areas of similarity
that may not be readily apparent, but discovering these can help
develop mutual
understanding and empathy and can further our desire to

cooperate by seeking out
compatible interests. Rounding out perspective on opponents
and finding compat-
ible interests generates a sense of fellowship, making it easier
to work cooperatively
when dealing with opposed interests.
7. Address conflicts of interest as mutual problems. When both
sides acknowledge own-
ership of a problem—and recognize each others’ ownership—
cooperative problem
solving becomes the obvious interaction choice.
8. Support effective communication with other interpersonal
skills. Perceptiveness,
mindfulness, listening, and intercultural sensitivity are all skills
that can work in
tandem with our communication skills to help people
communicate effectively on
both task and relationship issues. Interpersonal communications
skills involving
feedback, metacommunication, and consciously choosing
constructive over destruc-
tive communication methods also have a significant and positive
impact on conflict
interactions.
9. Guard against detrimental tendencies toward bias. It is human
nature to filter infor-
mation and perceptions through cognitive bias. Many act in
tandem, and some can
be particularly detrimental. For example, the actor–observer
bias, commonly acting
in tandem with the fundamental attribution error, predisposes
people to attribute
their own actions to the environment, the situation, or other

people but explain the
actions of others in terms of their personal characteristics or
dispositions (Hamby &
Grych, 2016). This explains why people tend to take things
personally when others
do them (such as when someone repeatedly interrupts a
discussion), while excusing
the same actions or behaviors in themselves.
10. Recognize and improve our own reactions to conflict.
Constructive response to con-
flict is a learned skill. People are more naturally predisposed to
have negative reac-
tions to conflict, and habitual responses can be hard to break—
even when we realize
they are inappropriate or detrimental to our interactions. For
example, some people
try to avoid conflict; they may deny that anything is wrong,
suppress thoughts and
feelings regarding the situation, or postpone confrontation or
discussion with those
they are in conflict with—all of which ultimately tend to
exacerbate the original
issue. Others may take an overly aggressive or overly
submissive approach to conflict.
Some are prone to contentious, domineering behaviors and
unyielding attitudes,
while others are unduly meek and unassertive, leaving
viewpoints unexpressed, and
expecting others to “read their minds” or extrapolate their
interests from other con-
versations (Deutsch, 2003). Acknowledging the different types
of conflict reactions
and how they affect interactions can help group leaders and
members develop more
constructive attitudes and behaviors.

11. Request—and accept—support when it is needed. Conflict—
and conflict resolution—
can be difficult, but group members should always feel like they
can ask for help.
If a resolution is too long in coming, it can take up valuable
performance time,
escalate what could have been a minor conflict, or seriously
damage interpersonal
relations. This can happen in both task and relationship conflict.
Sometimes
members need a deciding vote or outside opinion on a task
issue, for example, which
is typically provided by a group leader or manager. At other
times, relationship
conflict can get out of hand to the point where participants lose
perspective—and
cog81769_07_c07_245-280.indd 267 8/19/16 9:33 AM
Conflict
with it their ability to effectively manage interactions and
resolve conflict. In such
cases mediation can offer critical assistance. Formal mediation
requires a trained
mediator. Although some managers are trained in mediation,
this more often falls to
a designated group facilitator.

Next, we look at the role of facilitator, the activities and
responsibilities this entails, and how
facilitators can foster cooperation and assist in conflict
management. We’ll also examine a few
specific strategies and methods facilitators use—including
mediation.
Facilitating Process: Getting Outside Help
In a groundbreaking 1946 conference, Lee Bradford and Kurt
Lewin first demonstrated the
concept of using a trained facilitator to make group discussions
and processes more effective.
Bradford and Lewin’s training focused on teaching facilitative
functions and was intended
to show leaders how to foster group performance rather than
simply mandate it (Bradford,
1974; Keltner, 2006). Their agenda included instruction on how
to:
• build, validate, and expand the group’s work agenda;
• maintain the group’s task focus without overt regimentation
and time management;
• help groups begin necessary processes;
• handle disruptive members and members who tend to
monopolize discussions;
• encourage members who are not actively participating; and
• build member confidence in group and team work.
Today facilitators manage group dynamics to make group
processes and performance out-
comes more effective. While a certain degree of knowledge,
training, and detachment from
task processes is recommended, there is no rule for who can be
a facilitator (or temporarily
take on the duties of one). In a comprehensive review of group
facilitation, Keltner (2006)

identifies three basic categories of roles:
• Group member as facilitator
• Leader as facilitator
• The facilitator specialist
Table 7.3 outlines these basic categories.
Table 7.3: Basic facilitator categories
Role category Description Potential drawbacks
Group member as facilitator • Emergent role
• Typically assumed by a
member with a high degree
of mindfulness, sensitivity,
and interpersonal skills
• Potential (either real or
perceived) to exercise
control over discussions and
process
• Can be mitigated by having
a member facilitator remove
him- or herself from the
process
(continued)
cog81769_07_c07_245-280.indd 268 8/19/16 9:33 AM

Conflict
Role category Description Potential drawbacks
Leader as facilitator • Self-designated role
• Very common
• Leadership can be held by a
single individual or shared
by several
• Potential for confusion or
conflict between leader and
facilitator roles
Facilitator specialist • Assigned to a member or a
nonmember
• Deals with task or process
content indirectly
• Functions as a member with
a unique and restricted role
• Members may struggle to
separate themselves from
social and task content
Sources: McGrath, 1962; Keltner, 2006.
As shown in Table 7.3, each role category has potential
drawbacks. Facilitators are meant to
be apart from rather than a part of group processes and

dynamics they manage. Maintaining
this detachment is one of the biggest personal struggles
facilitators face. When group mem-
bers or leaders take on the role of facilitator, this becomes a
critical issue. It can be exceed-
ingly difficult for group members to effectively step in and out
of interaction as they step in
and out of their role as facilitator. Leaders face an additional
issue in that what they say has
more weight than is normally appropriate for facilitation, and
they may be tempted to dictate
rather than facilitate when favored issues or frustrating conflicts
come into play. Specialist
facilitators are the best option for avoiding these issues;
however, they are not the most com-
mon. In the end, the group will function best with the
facilitator—and method—with which
they feel most comfortable, as that will open them up to the
process of facilitation.
Group facilitators are like process mechanics who maintain a
group’s functioning and serve as
its process problem solvers. They support the group’s ability to
collaborate by fostering the
primary benefits of group interaction. To accomplish this,
facilitators generally employ strate-
gies geared toward:
• maintaining momentum and task focus;
• managing motivational balance among team members;
• fostering effective communication, knowledge sharing, and
constructive conflict; and
• mitigating or resolving dysfunctional conflict.
Group facilitators typically encounter two major obstacles to
effective collaborative perfor-

mance: inadequate participation and poor communication.
Effective collaboration requires that all group members actively
and equally participate and
contribute to group efforts. Despite the fact that cohesion and
mutual accountability tend
to encourage this, members do not always strive for active or
equal participation and con-
tribution. As noted in Chapter 5, sometimes group dynamics
generate an atmosphere that
fosters social loafing. Generally perceived of as freeloading or
failing to contribute their fair
share, social loafers are often overlooked, disregarded, or
resented by fellow group members
(Aggarwal & O’Brien, 2008). While their lack of participation
or contribution is not beneficial
to the group’s performance, neither are any of these negative
reactions, particularly when
dysfunctional dynamics have encouraged social loafing.
Table 7.3: Basic facilitator categories (continued)
cog81769_07_c07_245-280.indd 269 8/19/16 9:33 AM
Conflict
Poor or
insufficient
communication

Conflict
The second major obstacle facilitators face is poor
communication between group members.
As we have learned, communication plays a major role in
developing trust and cohesion,
accessing resources (including diverse KSAs), unifying scripts
and coordinating action, solv-
ing problems, and managing member relations (Olekalns et al.,
2008). Poor communication
can therefore have a dramatically negative effect on group
process. In fact, it is one of the most
frequently cited causes for failed teamwork. Nonparticipation
and poor communication can
be intertwined if, for example, members are holding back from
group discussions due to high
levels of evaluation apprehension. So how do facilitators deal
with these issues?
While specific duties and tactics can vary, facilitators primarily
address these issues by fos-
tering a climate of cooperation, encouraging members to be
mutually supportive, and guid-
ing members by maintaining a cooperative framework for group
interactions. While most
facilitators have similar training, differences in individual
personality, attitude, and expertise
can produce many variations in how they approach and carry out
their duties (Kramer et al.,
2001). Despite these differences, there are some key elements of
strategy and method that
remain fairly consistent. Facilitators model interpersonal skills,
help the group maintain con-
structive norms, foster mutual understanding and unity of
purpose—particularly in groups
that deal with cultural diversity—and assist in conflict

resolution. Let’s begin by looking at
the facilitator’s role in modeling interpersonal skills.
Modeling Interpersonal Skills
The quality of interpersonal relations, including how members
interact, group cohesiveness,
and the interplay of group norms with cooperative performance,
are powerful determinants
of conflicts (Pondy, 1967; Korsgaard et al., 2008).
Consequently, interpersonal skills are a criti-
cal asset in facilitating cooperation and conflict resolution.
While facilitators are not actively
involved with group process—they do not con-
tribute task-related information or ideas and
do not make decisions—they do play a major
role in fostering cooperation during group pro-
cess and interactions. One way in which they
do this is by modeling effective interpersonal
skills, particularly those associated with effec-
tive communication.
Effective communication is incredibly impor-
tant in groups and teams. It affects every aspect
of interaction, from task coordination to build-
ing and maintaining member relations. Com-
munication is also a major factor in shaping,
mitigating, and resolving conflict (Olekalns et
al., 2008). Not only are the potential benefits
of conflict more easily realized when issues
are openly and skillfully discussed (Tjosvold,
Wong, & Yi-Feng, 2014), but poor communica-
tion can cause conflict, and conflict itself can
foster communication avoidance (Wall & Cal-
lister, 1995). This can create a cycle that per-
petuates conflict and poor or insufficient com-
munication (see Figure 7.2).

Figure 7.2: The destructive cycle of
poor communication and conflict
Poor communication can instigate or escalate
conflict, and the reverse is also true.
Conflict
Poor or
insufficient
communication
cog81769_07_c07_245-280.indd 270 8/19/16 9:34 AM
Conflict
The interpersonal relations we experience during our tenure
with an organization, both as
individuals and in groups, affect our future cooperative
endeavors. Past interactions and rela-
tionships between groups or group members have a definite
effect on conflict. People who
have engaged in positive relations and friendships in the past
tend to be less aggressive and
confrontational during conflict than those who do not (Shah &
Jehn, 1993; Tjosvold & Sun,
2002). Conversely, previously negative interactions or
relationships can exacerbate conflict

by “priming” both parties to have negative expectations. When
this happens, it can be helpful
to enlist a neutral third party who has or can develop positive
ties with everyone, to provide
a positive buffer and break the existing negative pattern for
conflict interactions (Venkatara-
mani & Dalal, 2007). Thus, the role of facilitator can
significantly mitigate conflict by offering
this third-party relationship.
Next, let’s turn to the facilitator’s role in maintaining
constructive norms.
Maintaining Constructive Norms
Managing norms is a common facilitator activity—particularly
for leader–facilitators. As
we discussed in Chapter 1, norms represent the unspoken and
often unwritten set of social
expectations and rules that govern individual behaviors in a
group (Feldman, 1984). Some
group norms are imposed by the organization, but many develop
naturally as group members
interact. Taken together, a group’s norms represent its culture.
Norms have a tremendous
impact on a team’s performance effectiveness, yet the
spontaneous development of construc-
tive, task-appropriate norms is rare (Hackman, 2011). While
norms are emergent, they can
nonetheless be managed. It is the role of the facilitator to
question destructive norms and
help establish and maintain positive or constructive norms.
Imagine sitting around with a
group of friends, one of whom tells an offensive joke. It may be
easier to conform and laugh
when everyone else does than to indicate that the joke is
offensive. How often are we willing

to speak up in such a situation? What is implied if we do not
challenge our own or others’
assumptions within the group?
Constructive norms facilitate the group’s effective functioning
and decrease the probabil-
ity that dysfunctional dynamics will occur. Destructive norms
represent socially accepted
dysfunctional attitudes and behaviors that are all the more
damaging for the fact that they
are tacitly enforced and seldom challenged. Table 7.4 provides
examples of constructive and
destructive norms.
Table 7.4: Constructive versus destructive norms
Constructive norms Destructive norms
• Cohesion, solidarity, esprit de corps
• Encouraging conflict about issues, not people
• Shared airtime among group members
• Curiosity about other points of view
• Having the leader speak last to prevent
groupthink
• Self-monitoring and self-evaluation among
team members
• Making contributions public
• Lack of respect, trust, and cohesion
• Fear of conflict; destructive humor
• Some team members, including the leader,
dominate conversation
• Lack of effective listening among members

• Discouraging creativity and innovation
• Laziness, lack of commitment to the team’s
goals
• Lack of individual ownership for goals and
tasks
cog81769_07_c07_245-280.indd 271 8/19/16 9:34 AM
Conflict
Ideal opportunities to instill constructive norms include the
early stages of new team devel-
opment or the beginning of a new project in an established
team. However, it is important to
remember that teams are not socially static. Established norms
change, and new norms—
both good and bad—emerge. Developing constructive norms
within a specific team is an
ongoing process, one that represents a collaboration that
involves all of the people involved
with the teamwork, from team leaders and managers to
individual members. Establishing
and maintaining constructive norms is a high-leverage
activity—a practice that consistently
pays off effort with highly positive returns in terms of effective
teamwork and performance.
Facilitators and leaders can work together to help establish
constructive norms and continue

to guide them by seizing opportunities to reinforce and support
those norms though posi-
tive feedback and encouragement. Facilitators watch for
negative member dynamics that can
sabotage the practical value of constructive norms and create
potentially destructive patterns
within the team’s social dynamics.
Fortunately, destructive norms often derive much of their
strength from the fact that no one
wants to actively challenge them. Although it can be difficult to
be the first to speak out, once
challenged, destructive norms tend to lose much of their power.
This is often the case because
other team members either agree the destructive norms are
indeed negative, or are open to
changing them to keep the peace with team members who find
them offensive. Facilitator-
led questioning of destructive norms can prompt open
discussion of negative issues and col-
laborative problem solving. It can also help form positive norms
such as speaking up about
concerns and issues, self-monitoring and regulating group
attitudes and behavior, sharing
knowledge and viewpoints, and actively listening to other
people’s viewpoints. These, in
turn, facilitate effective communication and other interpersonal
skills. Both modeling inter-
personal skills and maintaining constructive norms help manage
conflict caused by cultural
differences. The task of facilitating cooperation across cultures
often falls to leaders of virtual
teams but can occur in face-to-face settings as well. In both
cases, group leaders and/or facili-
tators must work against additional obstacles to cooperative
attitudes and behaviors.

Cooperating Across Cultures
Cultural diversity can generate relational conflict and
communication issues within multina-
tional groups, both at the organizational level and within the
smaller context of individual
teams. For example, when U.S. company Sage Publications
initiated an operational move into
India, management faced many cultural issues. These included
U.S.–India political relations
and governmental bureaucracy, the instability of local currency,
unionized resistance to West-
ern management practices, and misunderstandings due to
differences in Indian and Ameri-
can body language and nonverbal cues (Whiting & Reardon,
1994). Likewise, an attempted
collaboration between U.S. and Japanese management teams at
Las Vegas’s original Aladdin
Hotel in the late 1980s also experienced major difficulties due
to cultural diversity. American
team members perceived the Japanese emphasis on consensus as
being at odds with the fast-
paced, dynamic casino environment, and the conflict over
management styles ultimately sunk
the venture (Ricks, 1993). The operational confusion,
communication issues, and managerial
disagreements experienced in these settings were primarily
caused by differences in national
and organizational culture.
Social identity theory asserts that, in a process similar to
stereotyping, people predictably
exhibit favorable bias toward those perceived as in-group
members and will make negative
Creatas/Thinkstock

Semiheterogeneous, multinational teams tend to
form divisive in- and out-groups unless a collective
effort is made to generate a shared framework and
mutual understanding between team members.
cog81769_07_c07_245-280.indd 272 8/19/16 9:34 AM
Conflict
associations and/or view themselves
as in conflict with those perceived
as out-group members (Turner &
Haslam, 2001). Members of the same
culture assume a basic similarity
of cultural norms, views, attitudes,
and knowledge. This perception
is strengthened when those mem-
bers are contrasted with members
of other cultures. The predisposi-
tion of basic similarity can heighten
bonding between members of the
same culture and foster psychologi-
cal in-groups and out-groups within
a cross-cultural team. Cooperative
behavior follows our assumption that
in-group members share our same
interests and goals and will therefore
help us achieve them (Joshi & Jack-
son, 2003). Categorizing people into

2457Cooperation and ConflictStocktrek ImagesThinkstoc.docx

2457Cooperation and ConflictStocktrek ImagesThinkstoc.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to 2457Cooperation and ConflictStocktrek ImagesThinkstoc.docx

Similar to 2457Cooperation and ConflictStocktrek ImagesThinkstoc.docx (17)

More from lorainedeserre

More from lorainedeserre (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

2457Cooperation and ConflictStocktrek ImagesThinkstoc.docx