CHAPTER 16

How to Avoid the Mutation from Cognitive to Affective Conflict

To manage conflict, teams must learn how to promote cognitive conflict without triggering affective conflict. This is hard to do because project teams often report high levels of both forms of conflict, a phenomenon we argue exists mainly due to the tendency for cognitive conflict to degrade into affective conflict. A review of the literature, however, reveals that this mutation is not a given; while cognitive and affective conflict are highly correlated, they are not correlated perfectly (Jehn 1995). Some teams are able to manage conflict well and gain the benefits of cognitive conflict while avoiding the costs of affective conflict. Moreover, it seems that two factors relate to the ability of teams to manage conflict effectively: the degree to which team members trust one another, and the extent to which the team exhibits cooperative team norms.

Trust

We expect that one explanation for why cognitive conflict mutates into affective conflict is the role of intra-group trust in project teams. Intra-group trust refers to the extent that team members can rely and have confidence in fellow teammates. Researchers have found that intra-group trust promotes team performance in a variety of settings (Dirks 1999; Dirks and Ferrin, 2001; Klimoski, and Karol 1976). It seems that when team members trust one another, they are more inclined to share information and cooperate with one another (Dirks 1999). Thus, with high trust, team members feel safer to offer constructive feedback. At the same time, however, teams with high trust seem less inclined to take task-related perspectives personally because they have more confidence in the sincerity of their teammates (Simons and Peterson 2000).

On the other hand, when one person distrusts another, that person may be more prone to attribute the other person’s diverse perspectives as having self-serving motives or hidden agendas (Simons and Peterson, 2000). Thus, it has been proposed that when one person distrusts another, that person will tend to interpret ambiguous conflict behavior as sinister in intent and convey distrust through his or her conduct. Moreover, perceiving that he or she is distrusted, the person whose behavior is interpreted as sinister tends to reciprocate that distrust (Zand 1972).

Although they did not test cognitive conflict as a mediator between antecedent conditions and affective conflict, Simons and Peterson (2000) conducted one of the only studies that examined directly the relationship between cognitive and affective conflict. Consistent with the rationale reviewed above, Simons and Peterson (2000) found that trust moderated the relationship between the two forms of conflict. Specifically, under conditions of low trust, high levels of cognitive conflict spiraled into high levels of affective conflict; whereas, under conditions of high trust, cognitive conflict was less likely to spiral into affective conflict. We also expect this to be true of project teams.

H11: Trust will moderate the relationship between cognitive and affective conflict, such that relationship between cognitive conflict and affective conflict will be more positive under conditions of low trust than under conditions of high trust.

Behavioral Integration

Another factor influencing the relationship between cognitive and affective conflict is behavioral integration. Hambrick and Mason (1994, 1998) explain that behavioral integration is the extent to which the team engages in mutual and collective interaction. Such interaction “has three major elements: (1) quantity and quality of information exchange, (2) collaborative behavior, and (3) joint decision making” (Hambrick 1994, p. 189). Thus, a behaviorally integrated team is one who shares information and resources, and feels collectively accountable for decisions—or to put it more simply, exhibits a high degree of teamness (Hambrick, 1998).

Behavioral integration should not be confused with other, similar concepts. For instance, behavioral integration is different than social integration (O’Reilly, Caldwell, and Barnett 1989), communication frequency, and informal communication (Smith, et al., 1994). Social integration is the degree to which top management team members are psychologically linked to one another (O’Reilly, Caldwell, and Barnett, 1989). Communication frequency indicates how often team members communicate with one another, and informal communication refers to how often team members communicate outside of formal meetings and correspondence (Smith, et al., 1994). These concepts are similar to behavioral integration in that they relate to the nature of the communication among team members. However, unlike behavioral integration, these concepts do not focus on the TMT’s degree of mutual and collective interaction.

Hambrick (1998) also cautions against mistaking behavioral integration for management by committee, like-mindedness, or personal friendships. Instead, behaviorally integrated teams are coherent—they have an integrated logic and basis for action (Hambrick, 1998). Such coherence is important because it helps teams better respond to increasing needs of the market, create and exploit core competencies, develop global strategies, and meet competitors in multiple markets, all of which are becoming increasingly critical to a firm’s success (Hambrick, 1998).

Researchers have begun to explore the role of behavioral integration in team decision-making. Hambrick (1998) and Siegel and Hambrick (1996) found behaviorally integrated top management teams made better decisions and thus, performed better. Moreover, they suggested that behavioral integration enabled teams to manage conflict more effectively. By sharing information and resources and feeling mutually responsible for decisions, teams seem less likely to take cognitive debates personally. Supporting this relationship, Eisenhardt and Bourgeois (1998) found that strong dyadic ties, an indication of behavioral integration, enabled top management team members to engage in cognitive conflict by making them more comfortable airing their viewpoints. In addition, Amason and Sapienza (1997) suggested that behavioral integration makes teams less likely to engage in affective conflict. They found that the interaction of two key attributes of behavioral integration, openness and mutuality, were negatively related to affective conflict. Thus, we propose that cognitive conflict is less likely to degrade into affective conflict in project teams exhibiting high trust and high behavioral integration.

H12: Behavioral integration will moderate the relationship between cognitive and affective conflict, such that the relationship between cognitive conflict and affective conflict will be more positive under conditions of low behavioral integration than under conditions of high behavioral integration.