Research examining the positive effects of cognitive conflict and controversy has relied largely on laboratory protocol and case studies. This work develops a field-based instrument to assess decision conflict and cooperation. This study of 63 practicing managers indicates a robust three factor solution for the 10 item DCCQ instrument.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bourgeois, L. J. (1985). Strategic goals, environmental uncertainty, and economic performance in volatile environments. Academy of Management Journal, 28, 548-573.
2.
Cosier, R. A. and Dalton, D. R. (1988). Presenting information under conditions of uncertainty and availability: Some recommendations. Behavioral Science, 33, 272-281.
3.
Cosier, R. A. and Schwenk, C. R. (in press). Agreement, consensus, and thinking alike: Ingredients for poor decisions. Academy of Management Executive.
4.
Diehl, P. F. and Goertz, G. (1988). Territorial changes and militarized conflict. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 32, 103-122.
5.
Eisenhardt, K. M. and Bourgeois, L. J. (1988). Politics of strategic decision making in high-velocity environments: Toward a midrange theory. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 737-770.
6.
Fader, P. S. and Hauser, J. R. (1988). Implicit coalitions in a generalized prisoners dilemma. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 32, 553-582.
7.
Schwenk, C. R. (in press). Do devil's advocacy and dialetical inquiry improve decision making: A meta-analysis. Strategic Management Journal.
8.
Tjosvold, D. (1985). Implications of controversy research for management. Journal of Management, 11, 21-37.
