Over several decades, studies of the relationship between task conflict and team innovation have yielded mixed findings. In the present study, drawing on the resource-based view (RBV), we consider that task conflict can activate a dynamic pool of knowledge resources and argue that the impact of task conflict on team innovation is dependent upon the knowledge integration capacity of a team, which is defined as a team’s ability to effectively combine, capitalize, and utilize the resource pool. A study of 59 teams revealed that, in general, task conflict and team innovation exhibit an inverted U-shape relationship, which was moderated by knowledge integration capability. The implications of our findings with respect to conflict research and conflict management are discussed.
AmasonA. C. (1996). Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on strategic decision making: Resolving a paradox for top management teams. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 123–148. doi:10.2307/256633
2.
AmasonA. C.SapienzaH. J. (1997). The effects of top management team size and interaction norms on cognitive and affective conflict. Journal of Management, 23, 495–516. doi:10.1177/014920639702300401
3.
Badke-SchaubP.GoldschmidtG.MeijerM. (2010). How does cognitive conflict in design teams support the development of creative ideas?Creativity and Innovation Management, 19, 119–133. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8691.2010.00553.x
4.
BarneyJ. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17, 99–120. doi:10.1177/014920639101700108
5.
BaronR. A. (1991). Positive effects of conflict: A cognitive perspective. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 4, 25–36. doi:10.1007/BF01390436
6.
BehfarK. J.PetersonR. S.MannixE. A.TrochimW. M. K. (2008). The critical role of conflict resolution in team: A close look at the links between conflict type, conflict management strategies, and team outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 170–188. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.2.462
7.
BowmanC.AmbrosiniV. (2003). How the resource-based and the dynamic capability views of the firm inform corporate-level strategy. British Journal of Management, 14, 289–303. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8551.2003.00380.x
8.
BradleyB. H.PostlethwaiteB. E.KlotzA. C.HamdaniM. R.BrownK. G. (2012). Reaping the benefits of task conflict in teams: The critical role of team psychological safety climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 151–158. doi:10.1037/a0024200
9.
CarnevaleP. J.ProbstT. M. (1998). Social values and social conflict in creative problem solving and categorization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1300–1309. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.5.1300
10.
ChungY.JacksonS. E. (2013). The internal and external networks of knowledge-intensive teams: The role of task routineness. Journal of Management, 15, 442–468. doi:10.1177/0149206310394186
11.
CroninM. A.WeingartL. R. (2007). Representational gaps, information processing, and conflict in functionally diverse teams. Academy of Management Review, 32, 761–773. doi:10.5465/AMR.2007.25275511
12.
De ClercqD.MengucB.AuhS. (2009). Unpacking the relationship between an innovation strategy and firm performance: The role of task conflict and political activity. Journal of Business Research, 62, 1046–1053. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.10.021
13.
De DreuC. K. W. (2006). When too little or too much hurts: Evidence for a curvilinear relationship between task conflict and innovation in teams. Journal of Management, 32, 83–107. doi:10.1177/0149206305277795
14.
De DreuC. K. W. (2008). The virtue and vice of workplace conflict: Food for (pessimistic) thought. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 5–18. doi:10.1002/job.474
15.
De DreuC. K. W.WestM. A. (2001). Minority dissent and team innovation: The importance of participation in decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1191–1201. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.6.1191
16.
De WitF. R. C.GreerL. L.JehnK. A. (2012). The paradox of intragroup conflict: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 360–390. doi:10.1037/a0024844
17.
EdmondsonA. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 350–383. doi:10.2307/2666999
18.
EisenhardtK. M.MartinJ. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they?Strategic Management Journal, 21(10–11), 1105–1121. doi:10.1002/1097-0266(200010/11)21:10/11<1105::AID-SMJ133>3.0.CO;2-E
19.
FarhJ.-L.LeeC.FarhC. I. C. (2010). Task conflict and team creativity: A question of how much and when. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 1173–1180. doi:10.1037/a0020015
20.
FarmerS. M.TierneyP.Kung-McIntyreK. (2003). Employee creativity in Taiwan: An application of role identity theory. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 618–630. doi:10.2307/30040653
21.
GardnerH. K.GinoF.StaatsB. R. (2012). Dynamically integrating knowledge in teams: Transforming resources into performance. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 998–1022. doi:10.5465/amj.2010.0604
22.
GersickC. J. G. (1988). Time and transition in work teams: Towards a new model of group development. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 9–41. doi:10.2307/256496
23.
GersickC. J. G. (1989). Marking time: Predictable transitions in task groups. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 274–309. doi:10.2307/256363
24.
HackmanJ. R.KatzN. (2010). Group behavior and performance. In FiskeS. T.GilbertD. T.LindzeyG. (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed., pp. 1208–1251). New York, NY: Wiley.
25.
HelfatC. E.PeterafM. A. (2003). The dynamic resource-based view: Capability lifecycles. Strategic Management Journal, 24, 997–1010. doi:10.1002/smj.332
26.
HülshegerU. R.AndersonN.SalgadoJ. F. (2009). Team-level predictors of innovation at work: A comprehensive meta-analysis spanning three decades of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1128–1145. doi:10.1037/a0015978
27.
JehnK. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 256–282. doi:10.2307/2393638
28.
JehnK. A. (1997). Qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 530–557. doi:10.2307/2393737
29.
JehnK. A.BenderskyC. (2003). Intragroup conflict in organizations: A contingency perspective on the conflict–outcome relationship. Research in Organizational Behavior, 25, 187–242. doi:10.1016/S0191-3085(03)25005-X
30.
JehnK. A.MannixE. A. (2001). The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 238–251. doi:10.2307/3069453
31.
JehnK. A.NorthcraftG. B.NealeM. A. (1999). Why differences make a difference: A field study of diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 741–763. doi:10.2307/2667054
32.
LovelaceK.ShapiroD. L.WeingartL. R. (2001). Maximizing crossfunctional new product teams’ innovativeness and constraint adherence: A conflict information exchanges perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 779–783. doi:10.2307/3069415
33.
MooneyA. C.HolahanP. J.AmasonA. C. (2007). Don’t take it personally: Exploring cognitive conflict as a mediator of affective conflict. Journal of Management Studies, 44, 733–758. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00674.x
34.
MoyeN. A.LangfredC. W. (2004). Information sharing and group conflict: Going beyond decision making to understand the effects of information sharing on group performance. The International Journal of Conflict Management, 15, 381–410. doi:10.1108/eb022919
35.
PelledL. H.EisenhardtK. M.XinK. R. (1999). Exploring the black box: An analysis of work group diversity, conflict, and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 1–28. doi:10.2307/2667029
36.
SalazarM. R.LantT. K.FioreS. M.SalasE. (2012). Facilitating innovation in diverse science teams through integrative capacity. Small Group Research. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1046496412453622
37.
SiemsenE.RothA.OliveiraP. (2010). Common method bias in regression models with linear, quadratic, and interaction effects. Organizational Research Methods, 13, 456–476. doi:10.1177/1094428109351241
38.
SimonsT. L.PetersonR. S. (2000). Task conflict and relationship conflict in top management teams: The pivotal role of intragroup trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 102–111. doi:10.1037//0021-9010.85.1.102
39.
SirmonD. G.HittM. A.IrelandR. D. (2007). Managing firm resources in dynamic environments to create value: Looking inside the black box. Academy of Management Review, 32, 273–292. doi:10.5465/AMR.2007.23466005
40.
StasserG.VaughanS. I.StewartD. D. (2000). Pooling unshared information: The benefits of knowing how access to information is distributed among group members. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82, 102–116. doi:10.1006/obhd.2000.2890
TiddS. T.McIntyreH. H.FriedmanR. A. (2004). The importance of role ambiguity and trust in conflict perception: Unpacking the task conflict to relationship conflict. The International Journal of Conflict Management, 15, 364–380. doi:10.1108/eb022918
43.
TindaleR. S.SheffeyS. (2002). Shared information, cognitive load, and group memory. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 5, 5–18. doi:10.1177/1368430202005001535
44.
Van KnippenbergD.De DreuC. K. W.HomanA. C. (2004). Work group diversity and group performance: An integrative model of research agenda. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 1008–1022. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.1008
45.
WeingartL. R.TodorovaG.CroninM. A. (2008, August). Representational gaps, team integration and team creativity. Paper presented at the 2008 Academy of Management Meetings, Anaheim, CA.
46.
WernerfeltB. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5, 171–180. doi:10.1002/smj.4250050207
47.
Zellmer-BruhnM. E.MaloneyM. M.BhappuA. D.SalvadorR. (2008). When and how do differences matter? An exploration of perceived similarity in teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 107, 41–59. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2008.01.004
