Please address the questions listed in a three to five-page paper. Focusing on work teams: What are the key differences between a team and a working group?At what stage of team development does the te

Please address the questions listed in a three to five-page paper. Focusing on work teams: What are the key differences between a team and a working group?At what stage of team development does the te
Tit le : A uth ors : S ourc e: D ocu m en t T yp e: S ubje cts : A bstr a ct: T he lin k in fo rm atio n b elo w p ro vid es a p ers is te nt lin k to th e a rtic le y o u’v e r e queste d. P ers is te nt lin k to th is r e co rd : F ollo w in g th e lin k b elo w w ill b rin g y o u to th e s ta rt o f th e a rtic le o r c it a tio n. C ut a nd P aste : T o p la ce a rtic le lin ks in a n e xte rn al w eb d ocu m ent, s im ply c o py a nd p aste th e H TM L b elo w , s ta rtin g w it h ” < a h re f" T o c o ntin ue, in In te rn et E xp lo re r, s e le ct F IL E th en S AVE A S fr o m y o ur b ro w se r's to olb ar a bove . B e s u re to s a ve a s a p la in te xt file ( .tx t) o r a 'W eb P age, H TM L o nly ' file ( .h tm l) . In F ir e F ox, s e le ct F IL E th en S AVE F IL E A S fr o m y o ur b ro w se r's to olb ar a bove . In C hro m e, s e le ct rig ht c lic k (w it h y o ur m ouse ) o n th is p age a nd s e le ct S AVE A S Reco rd : 1 D if fe re nces in th e V alu in g o f P ow er A m ong T e am M em bers : a C ontin gency A ppro ach T o w ard E xam in in g th e E ffe cts o f P ow er V alu es D iv ers it y a nd R ela tio nship C onflic t. A lip our, K ent K . M oham med, S usan R aghura m , S um it a J ourn al o f B usin ess & P sycholo gy. A pr2 018, V ol. 3 3 Is sue 2 , p 231-2 47. 1 7p. 1 D ia gra m , 2 C harts , 2 G ra phs. A rtic le O RG AN IZ ATIO NAL b ehavio r G RO UP d ecis io n m akin g C O RPO RATE c ult u re M ETA -a naly sis T E AM S in th e w ork pla ce P urp ose: T he p urp ose o f th is s tu dy w as to in vestig ate th e c ondit io nal e ffe cts o f p ow er v alu es d iv ers it y a nd r e la tio nship c onflic t.D esig n/M eth odolo gy/A ppro ach: W e u tiliz ed a tim e-la gged s urv ey d esig n a nd m ult ile vel m odelin g to in vestig ate 6 0 te am s w ork in g o n a p ro je ct ta sk o ver th e c ours e o f 4 p re sence o f h ig h p ow er v alu es d iv ers it y w as p artic ula rly h elp fu l fo r r e ducin g r e la tio nship c onflic t. In tu rn , d ecre ased re la tio nship c onflic t te nded to in cre ase te am p erfo rm ance. A ddit io nally , w hen w ork lo ad s harin g w as lo w , h ig h r e la tio nship c onflic t w as e specia lly h arm fu l to te am p erfo rm ance.Im plic atio ns: R esult s s upport th e c onsid era tio n o f te am p artic ip ativ e safe ty c lim ate to b ette r u nders ta nd th e c ondit io ns u nder w hic h p ow er v alu es d iv ers it y is lik ely to le ssen r e la tio nship c onflic t a nd s ubsequently in cre ase te am p erfo rm ance. F in din gs a ls o h ig hlig ht th e im porta nce o f a void in g lo w w ork lo ad sharin g, in th e p re sence o f p ro m in ent r e la tio nship c onflic t, to in cre ase te am p erfo rm ance.O rig in alit y /V alu e: B y e xam in in g re la tio nship c onflic t a s a m edia to r a nd p artic ip ativ e s afe ty c lim ate a s a m odera to r o f p ow er v alu es d iv ers it y ’s e ffe cts , w e m ake a n ovel c ontr ib utio n to e xta nt lit e ra tu re b y h elp in g to e lu cid ate b oth < it a lic > how a lic > a nd < it a lic > under w hat condit io ns< /it a lic > d if fe re nces in p ow er v alu es, a m ong te am m em bers , c an in flu ence te am p erfo rm ance. R ela te dly , w e answ er th e c all fo r m ore r e searc h th at a dopts a c ontin gency a ppro ach to w ard e xam in in g th e e ffe cts o f v alu es d iv ers it y Full T ext W ord C ount: IS SN : DO I: A ccessio n N um ber: P ers is te n t lin k t o t h is r e co rd (P erm alin k): C ut a n d P aste : D ata b ase: and r e la tio nship c onflic t. In d oin g s o, w e h elp to id entif y th e c ondit io ns u nder w hic h p ow er v alu es d iv ers it y a nd re la tio nship c onflic t a re lik ely to d if fe re ntia lly in flu ence im porta nt te am o utc om es. [A BSTR AC T F R O M A U TH O R] Copyrig ht o f J ourn al o f B usin ess & P sycholo gy is th e p ro perty o f S prin ger N atu re a nd it s c onte nt m ay n ot b e c opie d o r em aile d to m ult ip le s it e s o r p oste d to a lis ts erv w it h out th e c opyrig ht h old er’s e xpre ss w rit te n p erm is sio n. H ow ever, u sers m ay p rin t, d ow nlo ad, o r e m ail a rtic le s fo r in div id ual u se. T his a bstr a ct m ay b e a brid ged. N o w arra nty is g iv en a bout th e accura cy o f th e c opy. U sers s hould r e fe r to th e o rig in al p ublis hed v ers io n o f th e m ate ria l fo r th e fu ll a bstr a ct. ( C opyrig ht applie s to a ll A bstr a cts .) 1 3347 0889-3 268 10.1 007/s 10869-0 17-9 488-7 1 28333502 http ://e zpro xy.u m gc.e du/lo gin ?url= http s://s earc h.e bscohost.c om /lo gin .a spx? dir e ct= tr u e& db= heh& AN =128333502& sit e = eds-liv e& scope= sit e < A h re f= "h ttp ://e zpro xy.u m gc.e du/lo gin ?url= http s://s earc h.e bscohost.c om /lo gin .a spx? dir e ct= tr u e& db= heh& AN =128333502& sit e = eds-liv e& scope= sit e "> D if fe re nces in th e V alu in g o f P ow er A m ong T e am M em bers : a C ontin gency A ppro ach T o w ard E xam in in g th e E ffe cts o f P ow er V alu es D iv ers it y a nd R ela tio nship C onflic t. < /A > H ealt h B usin ess E lit e D if fe re n ces in t h e V alu in g o f P ow er A m ong T eam M em bers : a C ontin gen cy A ppro ach T o w ard E xam in in g t h e E ffe cts o f P ow er V alu es D iv ers it y a n d R ela tio nsh ip C onflic t P urp ose: T he p urp ose o f th is s tu dy w as to in vestig ate th e c ondit io nal e ffe cts o f p ow er v alu es d iv ers it y a nd r e la tio nship c onflic t.D esig n/M eth odolo gy/A ppro ach: W e u tiliz ed a tim e-la gged s urv ey d esig n a nd m ult ile vel m odelin g to in vestig ate 6 0 te am s w ork in g o n a p ro je ct ta sk o ver th e c ours e o f 4 p artic ip ativ e s afe ty c lim ate w as h ig h, th e p re sence o f h ig h p ow er v alu es d iv ers it y w as p artic ula rly h elp fu l fo r r e ducin g r e la tio nship c onflic t. In tu rn , d ecre ased re la tio nship c onflic t te nded to in cre ase te am p erfo rm ance. A ddit io nally , w hen w ork lo ad s harin g w as lo w , h ig h r e la tio nship c onflic t w as e specia lly h arm fu l to te am perfo rm ance.Im plic atio ns: R esult s s upport th e c onsid era tio n o f te am p artic ip ativ e s afe ty c lim ate to b ette r u nders ta nd th e c ondit io ns u nder w hic h p ow er v alu es div ers it y is lik ely to le ssen r e la tio nship c onflic t a nd s ubsequently in cre ase te am p erfo rm ance. F in din gs a ls o h ig hlig ht th e im porta nce o f a void in g lo w w ork lo ad sharin g, in th e p re sence o f p ro m in ent r e la tio nship c onflic t, to in cre ase te am p erfo rm ance.O rig in alit y /V alu e: B y e xam in in g r e la tio nship c onflic t a s a m edia to r a nd partic ip ativ e s afe ty c lim ate a s a m odera to r o f p ow er v alu es d iv ers it y ’s e ffe cts , w e m ake a n ovel c ontr ib utio n to e xta nt lit e ra tu re b y h elp in g to e lu cid ate b oth < it a lic > how a lic > a nd < it a lic > under w hat c ondit io ns< /it a lic > d if fe re nces in p ow er v alu es, a m ong te am m em bers , c an in flu ence te am p erfo rm ance. R ela te dly , w e a nsw er th e c all fo r m ore r e searc h th at a dopts a c ontin gency a ppro ach to w ard e xam in in g th e e ffe cts o f v alu es d iv ers it y a nd r e la tio nship c onflic t. In d oin g s o, w e h elp to id entif y th e c ondit io ns u nder w hic h p ow er v alu es d iv ers it y a nd r e la tio nship c onflic t a re lik ely to d if fe re ntia lly in flu ence im porta nt te am o utc om es. Te am s; P ow er v alu es; D iv ers it y ; R ela tio nship c onflic t; T e am p erfo rm ance In tr o ductio n A lt h ough te am d iv ers it y r e searc h h as o fte n fo cused o n s urfa ce-le vel o r d em ogra phic c hara cte ris tic s ( e .g ., a ge, g ender), r e searc hers h ave r e com mended th at m ore a tte ntio n b e p aid to d eep-le vel o r p sycholo gic al d iv ers it y ( e .g ., v alu es; H olle nbeck e t a l. [4 2] ; V an K nip penberg a nd S chip pers [1 1 7] ) , in p art, b ecause it h as b een fo und to e xhib it g re ate r in flu ence o ver tim e ( H arris on e t a l. [3 9] ) . H ow ever, p rio r s tu die s e xam in in g th e e ffe cts o f d iv ers e p sycholo gic al c hara cte ris tic s have o fte n fo cused o n p ers onalit y tr a it s a nd/o r a ttit u des ( e .g ., H arris on e t a l. [3 8] ; M oham med a nd A ngell [7 8] ) a nd h ave la rg ely ig nore d th e in flu ence o f v alu es div ers it y w it h in te am s ( B ell [6 ] ) . P ow er v alu es d iv ers it y , o r d if fe re nces in th e d esir e to a tta in s ocia l s ta tu s a nd p re stig e, a s w ell a s s ocia l in flu ence o r c ontr o l o ver o th ers , m ay b e e specia lly im porta nt to c onsid er, in te am s, b ecause s uch d iv ers it y r e pre sents d if fe re nces in p ers onal, m otiv atio nal g oals r e gard in g s ocia l in te ra ctio ns ( S chw artz [9 6] ) . A ccord in g to Z it e k a nd T ie dens ( [1 25] ) , “ P eople a re e xposed to h ie ra rc hy fr o m th e e arlie st m om ents in th eir liv es, s in ce p are nt- c hild r e la tio nship s a re ty pic ally h ie ra rc hic al, a nd c ontin ue to b e e xposed to it th ro ughout th eir liv es in a lm ost e very o rg aniz atio n a nd g ro up th ey e ncounte r” ( p . 3 ). G iv en th e s alie nce o f a d om in ance/s ubm is sio n d im ensio n in in te rp ers onal r e la tio ns ( e .g ., L onner [6 8] ) , th e w id espre ad u se o f te am s in m odern o rg aniz atio ns ( S ala s e t a l. [9 5] ; T a nnenbaum e t a l. [1 1 3] ) , a nd a g ro w in g in te re st in p ow er a nd s ta tu s d if fe re nces in s uch te am s ( e .g ., A im e e t a l. [1 ] ; B enders ky a nd S hah [8 ] ) , it is u nfo rtu nate th at te am r e searc h o n p ow er v alu es d iv ers it y is c om para tiv ely la ckin g. T here fo re , in a n e ffo rt to in vestig ate p ow er v alu es d iv ers it y , in te am s, w e fo cus o n r e la tio nship c onflic t ( te nsio n a nd a nim osit y b etw een te am m em bers ) a s a p ro xim al o utc om e a nd p ote ntia l m edia to r o f p ow er v alu es d iv ers it y ’s e ffe cts o n te am p erfo rm ance. P ast r e searc h in dic ate s th at r e la tio nship c onflic t a ris es fr o m dif fe re nces in v alu es ( e .g ., C hun a nd C hoi [2 3] ; D e D re u [2 5] ; G re er a nd J ehn [3 7] ) a nd h as a h arm fu l im pact o n te am p erfo rm ance ( e .g ., D e D re u a nd W ein gart [2 7] ; d e W it e t a l. [2 9] ; O ʼN eill e t a l. [8 3] ) . T here fo re , h ig hlig htin g c ondit io ns th at m ay m in im iz e th e o ccurre nce o f r e la tio nship c onflic t a nd it s d etr im enta l c onsequences h as im porta nt im plic atio ns fo r b oth r e searc h a nd p ra ctic e. A doptin g a c ontin gency a ppro ach to w ard in vestig atin g p ow er v alu es d iv ers it y is e specia lly im porta nt b ecause d if fe re nces in p ow er v alu es m ay h ave e it h er com ple m enta ry o r c onflic tin g e ffe cts o n te am o utc om es. O n o ne h and, d if fe re nces in p ow er v alu es, a m ong te am m em bers , m ay in cre ase r e la tio nship c onflic t on th e b asis o f m em ber d is sim ila rit y ( e .g ., B yrn e [1 4] ; W oehr e t a l. [1 23] ) . O n th e o th er h and, r e searc h o n d om in ance c om ple m enta rit y s uggests th at te am mate s w ho d em onstr a te a ssertiv e c hara cte ris tic s c an w ork b ette r w it h th ose w ho a ssum e m ore p assiv e r o le s, a nd v ic e v ers a ( K ie sle r [5 9] ; K ris to f- B ro w n et a l. [6 4] ) . In o th er w ord s, te am s c onsis tin g o f m em bers w ho a re m otiv ate d to a tta in c ontr o l o ver te am mate s, in a ddit io n to m em bers w ho w ould r a th er d efe r to o th ers , m ay b enefit fr o m c om ple m enta ry te am m em ber d esir e s. S pecif ic ally , p ow er v alu es d iv ers it y m ay b e e specia lly r e le vant in te am s c hara cte riz ed b y n o fo rm ally a ppoin te d le ader a nd s ubsta ntia l a uto nom y w it h r e spect to h ow w ork is c om ple te d ( e .g ., s elf – m anaged te am s; H um phre y e t a l. [4 4] ; M anz a nd S im s [7 1] ; S ala s e t a l. [9 4] ) . In s uch te am s, m em bers a re fr e e to s tr u ctu re w ork a m ong th em selv es, a nd c an th ere fo re p re sent th eir c om ple m enta ry p ow er-re la te d m otiv atio ns, p ro vid ed th at th ey fe el e ncoura ged a nd in te rp ers onally s afe to d o s o. T hat is , d if fe re nces in p ow er v alu es c an p ote ntia lly h elp to p ro m ote a m ore d esir a ble d iv is io n o f la bor w it h in a uto nom ously fu nctio nin g te am s, a s m em bers ’ m otiv atio ns fo r c ontr o l a nd d om in ance a re c om ple m enta ry r a th er th an conflic tin g in a m anner th at m ay c ontr ib ute to in te rp ers onal te nsio ns b etw een te am mate s. There fo re , g iv en th e p ote ntia lly c ontr a stin g ( i. e ., c om ple m enta ry v s c onflic tin g) e ffe cts o f p ow er v alu es d iv ers it y , th e p re sent s tu dy a dopts a c ontin gency appro ach to in vestig ate th e in flu ence o f p ow er v alu es d iv ers it y o n r e la tio nship c onflic t a nd te am p erfo rm ance. C onceptu ally , w e a dvocate fo r th e p ers pectiv e th at te am -le vel v aria ble s a re b est u nders to od w it h in th eir s it u atio nal c ondit io n a nd in c om bin atio n w it h r e le vant p ro cess-re la te d p henom ena ( e .g ., V an K nip penberg a nd S chip pers [1 1 7] ) . T here fo re , w e in vestig ate w heth er th e p ow er v alu es d iv ers it y -re la tio nship c onflic t lin k d epends o n th e c onte xtu al m odera to r of p artic ip ativ e s afe ty c lim ate ( s hare d p erc eptio ns th at th e te am is in te rp ers onally n onth re ate nin g a nd e ncoura gin g o f in volv em ent) , a nd w heth er th e in te ra ctio n of p ow er v alu es d iv ers it y a nd p artic ip ativ e s afe ty c lim ate , o n te am p erfo rm ance, is m edia te d b y r e la tio nship c onflic t. F urth erm ore , w e e xam in e w ork lo ad sharin g, o r th e e xte nt to w hic h te am m em bers p erc eiv e th at te am mate s d o th eir e xpecte d s hare o f th e w ork , a s a p ro cess-re la te d m odera to r o f th e lin k b etw een re la tio nship c onflic t a nd te am p erfo rm ance. P artic ip ativ e s afe ty c lim ate a nd w ork lo ad s harin g a re c onnecte d in th at b oth a re m ark ed b y c oncern s a bout e quit y a nd c oopera tio n th at a ccom pany r e la tio nship c onflic t ( e .g ., F olg er [3 4] ; J ehn [5 0] ; R en a nd G ra y [9 1] ; S im ons a nd P ete rs on [1 09] ) . O ur r e searc h p ro vid es th re e k ey c ontr ib utio ns to e xta nt lit e ra tu re . F ir s t, w e e xte nd e xis tin g r e searc h o n p ow er v alu es b y s pecif ic ally a nsw erin g th e c all fo r m ore te am r e searc h o n th is u nder-in vestig ate d b ut “ re le vant a spect o f th e v alu es d om ain ,” ( W oehr e t a l. [1 23] , p .1 1 0). A lt h ough m ult ip le s tu die s h ave d em onstr a te d th e im porta nce o f p ow er v alu es in p re dic tin g a v arie ty o f in div id ual- le vel o utc om es ( e .g ., A rth aud-D ay e t a l. [3 ] ; B ond e t a l. [1 1 ] ; B re tt a nd O kum ura [1 3] ; R aub and R obert [9 0] ; S chw artz [1 01] , [1 02] ) , o nly a s m all n um ber o f s tu die s h as in vestig ate d p ow er v alu es in te am s ( e .g ., A rth aud-D ay e t a l. [3 ] ; W oehr e t a l. [1 23] ). M ore over, e ven fe w er s tu die s h ave e xplo re d d iv ers it y o f p ow er v alu es in te am s, d espit e b oth e m pir ic al ( W oehr e t a l. [1 23] ) a nd c onceptu al w ork ( e .g ., S chw artz [9 9] , [1 00] , [1 03] , [1 04] ) s uggestin g th at s uch d iv ers it y is lin ked to te am r e la tio nship c onflic t. S econd, w e a dopt a c ontin gency p ers pectiv e in e xam in in g p ow er v alu es d iv ers it y ’s e ffe cts . P rio r w ork o n p ow er v alu es d iv ers it y h as e m phasiz ed o nly m ain e ffe cts ( W oehr e t a l. [1 23] ) . H ow ever, w e a nsw er th e c all o f te am d iv ers it y r e searc hers w ho h ave a dvocate d fo r m ore c om ple x m odels th at c onsid er b oth m odera tin g a nd m edia tin g v aria ble s in v alu es d iv ers it y r e searc h ( V an K nip penberg a nd S chip pers [1 1 7] ) . T hat is , b y e xam in in g p artic ip ativ e s afe ty c lim ate a s a m odera to r a nd r e la tio nship c onflic t a s a m edia to r o f p ow er v alu es d iv ers it y ’s e ffe cts , w e m ake a n ovel c ontr ib utio n to e xta nt lit e ra tu re b y h elp in g to e lu cid ate b oth h ow a nd u nder w hat c ondit io ns p ow er v alu es d iv ers it y c an in flu ence te am p erfo rm ance. T hir d , r e searc hers h ave s im ila rly a dvocate d fo r a c ontin gency a ppro ach in e xam in in g th e e ffe cts o f r e la tio nship c onflic t ( e .g ., d e W it e t a l. [2 9] ; S haw e t a l. [1 07] ). In th eir m eta -a naly sis o f th e in tr a gro up c onflic t lit e ra tu re , d e W it e t a l. ( [2 9] ) s pecif ic ally c alle d fo r m ore w ork th at e xam in es th e c ondit io ns u nder w hic h perfo rm ance o utc om es o f p ro je ct ta sks m ay b e d if fe re ntia lly in flu enced b y r e la tio nship c onflic t. T here fo re , th e p re sent s tu dy u tiliz es a p ro je ct ta sk to in vestig ate w ork lo ad s harin g a s a m odera to r th at m ay b ette r e lu cid ate th e c ondit io ns u nder w hic h r e la tio nship c onflic t is m ore lik ely to d ele te rio usly im pact te am perfo rm ance. P ow er V alu es A ccord in g to S chw artz ( S chw artz [9 6] , S chw artz [9 7] ) , p ow er v alu es r e fe r to p ers onal, m otiv atio nal g oals fo cused o n th e a tta in m ent o f s ocia l s ta tu s a nd pre stig e, a s w ell a s in flu ence o r c ontr o l o ver p eople a nd r e sourc es. L ik e o th er v alu es, th ey tr a nscend s pecif ic s it u atio ns a nd g uid e th e e valu atio n o f a ctio ns, polic ie s, p eople , a nd e vents . A lt h ough p ow er v alu es m ay b e u nim porta nt to o ne in div id ual, th ey m ay b e v ery im porta nt to a noth er ( B ard i a nd S chw artz [4 ] ) . T hat is , w here as in div id uals w ho a re h ig h o n p ow er v alu es a re g re atly m otiv ate d to a tta in c ontr o l o ver o th ers , a s w ell a s s ocia l s ta tu s a nd p re stig e, th ose w ho are lo w o n p ow er v alu es h ave lit tle d esir e fo r p ow er o r s ta tu s, a nd a re m ore m otiv ate d to a ccept th e s ocia l e nvir o nm ent a s it is r a th er th an tr y to c ontr o l it . M ore over, s im ila r to o th er v alu es, p ow er v alu es m ay s erv e a s c rit e ria th at p ro vid e s ocia l ju stif ic atio n fo r d ecis io ns a nd a ctio ns ( R okeach [9 3] ; S chw artz [9 6] ) . Past r e searc h h as s how n th at p ow er v alu es a re r e la te d to b ehavio ra l in te ntio ns ( F eath er [3 3] ) , w hic h in dic ate s th at in div id uals d esir e to a ct in a m anner congru ent w it h th eir p ow er v alu es. F urth erm ore , m ult ip le s tu die s h ave d em onstr a te d th at p ow er v alu es p re dic t b ehavio r c onsis te nt w it h th eir m otiv atio nal g oals ( e .g ., B ard i a nd S chw artz [4 ] ; S chw artz [1 02] ) , in clu din g p re ssurin g o th ers to g o a lo ng w it h p re fe re nces o r o pin io ns a nd c hoosin g fr ie nds b ased o n p erc eiv ed fin ancia l r e sourc es. A ddit io nally , p ow er v alu es h ave b een fo und to in flu ence th e d egre e o f o rg aniz atio nal in volv em ent, p ro socia l b ehavio r ( S chw artz [1 02] ) , tr u st in o th ers ( S chw artz [1 01] ) , a nd c oopera tio n w it h o th ers ( S chw artz [9 8] ) . T hey h ave a ls o b een s how n to p la y a n im porta nt r o le in v ocatio nal c hoic e, c opin g sty le s, c onflic t r e solu tio n ( B ond e t a l. [1 1 ] ) , n egotia tio n s chem as ( B re tt a nd O kum ura [1 3] ) , a nd d ecis io n-m akin g ( S chw artz e t a l. [1 05] ) . T o o ur k now le dge, o nly a s in gle s tu dy h as e xam in ed th e r e la tio nship b etw een p ow er v alu es d iv ers it y a nd r e la tio nship c onflic t. In a s am ple o f u nderg ra duate s tu dents , W oehr e t a l. ( [1 23] ) c onducte d a la bora to ry s tu dy, w here by o ver th e c ours e o f a ppro xim ate ly 7 5 fo r a nd b uild a b rid ge-lik e s tr u ctu re . R esult s d em onstr a te d th at p ow er v alu es d iv ers it y w as p osit iv ely c orre la te d w it h r e la tio nship c onflic t, th ere by d em onstr a tin g it s p ro m is e fo r fu tu re in vestig atio n. H ow ever, th e a uth ors n ote d m ult ip le lim it a tio ns o f th eir s tu dy. S pecif ic ally , th ere w as n o in clu sio n o f m odera tin g v aria ble s, w hic h is h ig hly in consis te nt w it h th e c ontin gency a ppro ach th at h as b een r e com mended fo r th e g enera l te am d iv ers it y ( e .g ., V an K nip penberg a nd S chip pers [1 1 7] ) , v alu es d iv ers it y ( e .g ., V an K nip penberg a nd S chip pers [1 1 7] ) , a nd c onflic t ( e .g ., d e W it e t a l. [2 9] ; S haw e t a l. [1 07] ) lit e ra tu re s. In a ddit io n, th e a uth ors h ig hlig hte d th e fa ct th at fin din gs o f th eir s tu dy “ m ay b e q uit e d if fe re nt a m ong te am s o f lo nger lif e s pans, p urs uin g d if fe re nt o r m ult ip le ta sks, a nd o pera tin g in a m uch le ss c ontr o lle d e nvir o nm ent” ( W oehr e t a l. [1 23] , p . 1 1 8). T hus, fu tu re in vestig atio n in to th e r e la tio nship b etw een p ow er v alu es d iv ers it y a nd r e la tio nship c onflic t is w arra nte d ( W oehr e t a l. [1 23] ) . R ela tio nsh ip C onflic t R ela tio nship c onflic t r e fe rs to d is agre em ents a m ong te am m em bers s te m min g fr o m in te rp ers onal in com patib ilit ie s a nd is c hara cte riz ed b y te nsio n, a nnoyance, anger, a nd a nim osit y ( J ehn [5 0] ; J ehn a nd M annix [5 2] ) . B ased o n p ast v alu es a nd c onflic t r e searc h, r e la tio nship c onflic t w as id entif ie d a s a n im porta nt pro xim al o utc om e a nd p ote ntia l m edia to r o f p ow er v alu es d iv ers it y ’s e ffe cts . T hat is , r e la tio nship c onflic t w as id entif ie d fo r th re e p rim ary r e asons. F ir s t, p ast re searc h o n v alu es s uggests th at p ow er v alu es d iv ers it y s hould b e lin ked to r e la tio nship c onflic t, a s o pposed to ta sk o r p ro cess c onflic t. M ore s pecif ic ally , w ork o n S chw artz ’s v alu es, w hic h h ave r e ceiv ed c ro ss-c ult u ra l s upport a nd h ave b een c onsid ere d th e m ost r e cogniz ed c onceptu aliz atio n o f v alu es ( s ee H it lin a nd P ilia vin [4 1] ; R ohan [9 2] ) , h as c onsis te ntly a nd e xplic it ly e m phasiz ed th at p ow er v alu es a re in separa bly tie d to a ffe ctiv e a nd/o r e m otio n-re la te d o utc om es ( e .g ., S chw artz [9 9] , [1 00] , [1 03] , [1 04] ) . R ela te dly , r e la tio nship c onflic t, w hic h is o fte n r e fe rre d to a s e m otio nal c onflic t ( e .g ., K acm ar e t a l. [5 6] ; L i a nd H am bric k [6 7] ; S im ons a nd P ete rs on [1 09] ) , is b oth d efin ed a nd m easure d in a m anner in dic atin g a ffe ctiv e c om ponents ( e .g ., J ehn [5 0] ; J ehn a nd M annix [5 2] ) . In c ontr a st, n eit h er ta sk c onflic t n or p ro cess c onflic t is ty pic ally d efin ed o r o pera tio naliz ed in th is m anner ( e .g ., J ehn [5 0] ; J ehn a nd M annix [5 2] ) . S econd, r e la tio nship c onflic t h as b een s uggeste d to a ris e “ w hen m em bers p erc eiv e d is cre pancie s in p ers onalit y , v alu es, o r b elie fs ” ( C hun a nd C hoi [2 3] , p . 439, it a lic s a dded). A ccord in gly , p rio r r e searc h in dic ate s th at r e la tio nship c onflic t is r o ote d in in com patib ilit ie s r e le vant to fu ndam enta l p ers onal d if fe re nces ( e .g ., J ehn [5 0] ) . C onsis te nt w it h th is th in kin g, c onflic t r e searc hers h ave s pecif ic ally n ote d te am m em ber d is agre em ents , b ased o n d if fe rin g p ers onal v alu es, a s exam ple s o f r e la tio nship c onflic t ( e .g ., D e D re u [2 5] ; D e D re u a nd W ein gart [2 7] ; G re er a nd J ehn [3 7] ) . In c ontr a st, ta sk c onflic t d eriv es fr o m d if fe re nt ta sk- re la te d v ie w poin ts o r o pin io ns a bout a g ro up ta sk ( J ehn e t a l. [5 3] ; J ehn a nd M annix [5 2] ; P elle d e t a l. [8 4] ) , a nd p ro cess c onflic t s te m s fr o m d if fe re nt pers pectiv es s pecif ic to h ow th e g ro up ta sk w ill p ro ceed ( J ehn a nd M annix [5 2] ) . T here fo re , ta sk a nd p ro cess c onflic t a re c onceptu ally m ore s im ila r to e ach oth er th an to r e la tio nship c onflic t. S pecif ic ally , w here as r e la tio nship c onflic t is c hara cte riz ed b y in te rp ers onal te nsio n, a nnoyance, a nger, a nd a nim osit y , ta sk conflic t a nd p ro cess c onflic t a re m ore w ork -re la te d a s o pposed to “ p ers onal” ( M artín ez-M ore no e t a l. [7 2] , p .1 59). T hus, w e e xpecte d th at d if fe re nces a m ong te am m em bers , in th eir p ers onal p ow er v alu es, w ere m ore lik ely to a ffe ct r e la tio nship c onflic t, th an ta sk o r p ro cess c onflic t. T a ken to geth er, w e c onte nd th at re searc h in b oth th e v alu es a nd c onflic t lit e ra tu re s s uggests a c le are r lin k b etw een p ow er v alu es d iv ers it y a nd r e la tio nship c onflic t, a s c om pare d to ta sk o r pro cess c onflic t. T hir d , in a ddit io n to p ast w ork c onceptu ally ty in g p ow er v alu es d iv ers it y to r e la tio nship c onflic t, r e cent m eta -a naly tic in vestig atio n h as e xplo re d th e r e la tio nship b etw een th e th re e a fo re m entio ned c onflic t ty pes a nd te am p erfo rm ance, w hen te am p erfo rm ance w as r a te d b y e xperts ( e .g ., c ours e in str u cto rs ) a nd/o r superv is ors ( O ʼN eill e t a l. [8 3] ) . S pecif ic ally , e ffe ct s iz es r e porte d fo r th e r e la tio nship c onflic t- te am p erfo rm ance ( c orre cte d r s uperv is or r a tin gs), ta sk c onflic t- te am p erfo rm ance ( c orre cte d r ( c orre cte d r u nder w hic h it s h arm fu l in flu ence o n te am p erfo rm ance m ay b e m it ig ate d a nd/o r e xacerb ate d. T here fo re , r e la tio nship c onflic t w as id entif ie d a s a k ey m edia tin g pro cess fo r o ur m odel. T heo re tic al D evelo pm en t a n d H yp oth eses T he P ow er V alu es D iv ers it y -R ela tio nsh ip C onflic t L in k ( C om ple m en ta ry V ie w ) Pow er v alu es d iv ers it y m ay a ct a s a d ouble -e dged s w ord in it s in flu ence o n r e la tio nship c onflic t. N ota bly , it is p ossib le th at d if fe re nces in p ow er v alu es m ay h elp t o r e duce r e la tio nship c onflic t. M ore s pecif ic ally , te am m em bers w ho a ttr ib ute g re ate r im porta nce to p ow er v alu es s hould b e m ore m otiv ate d to a ssum e auth orit y o r a tta in p osit io ns o f s ta tu s w it h in th eir te am s. T hat is , th ey a re m ore lik ely to d esir e o pportu nit ie s r e pre senta tiv e o f a n a uth orit a tiv e r o le , s uch a s dele gatin g r e sponsib ilit ie s to o th er te am m em bers . In c ontr a st, m em bers lo w er in p ow er v alu es a re le ss m otiv ate d b y s uch o pportu nit ie s, a nd m ore c om fo rta ble c oopera tin g w it h th e d ir e ctio ns o f th eir te am mate s ( S chw artz [9 6] , [9 7] ) . G iv en th is in fo rm atio n, p ow er v alu es d iv ers it y m ay b e n egativ ely r e la te d to r e la tio nship c onflic t, b ecause d if fe re nces in m em bers ’ p ow er v alu es m ay a llo w fo r c om ple m enta ry fit ( H um phre y e t a l. [4 4] ; K ris to f [6 3] ; M uchin sky a nd M onahan [7 9] ) . In te am s c hara cte riz ed b y c om ple m enta ry fit , m em bers “ fit ” th e te am b ecause th ey a re d if fe re nt th an o th er te am mate s in s om e im porta nt w ay, a nd a re th ere fo re a ble to fill a n eed ( C able a nd E dw ard s [1 5] ; H um phre y e t a l. [4 4] ; M uchin sky a nd M onahan [7 9] ) . A ccord in g to H um phre y e t a l. ( [4 4] ) , c om ple m enta ry fit m ay expedit e th e c la rif ic atio n o f r o le s w it h in a te am . In te am s w it h h ig h p ow er v alu es d iv ers it y , n ot a ll te am m em bers w ill b e m otiv ate d to o bta in a p osit io n o f s ta tu s or d om in ance ( e .g ., a r o le o f d ele gatio n). T e am m em bers w it h lo w er p ow er v alu es m ay b e m ore c om fo rta ble “ g oin g w it h th e flo w ” a nd d efe rrin g to o th ers , w here as m em bers w it h h ig her p ow er v alu es m ay d esir e th e a uth orit y o f a ssig nin g ta sks to te am mate s. T hus, p ow er v alu es d iv ers it y o ffe rs th e p ote ntia l fo r com ple m enta ry te am r o le s, a s te am mate s a re d if fe re ntia lly m otiv ate d to fill u nm et n eeds w it h in th e te am . The P ow er V alu es D iv ers it y -R ela tio nsh ip C onflic t L in k ( C onflic tin g V ie w ) How ever, it is a ls o p la usib le th at p ow er v alu es d iv ers it y m ay b e p osit iv ely r e la te d to r e la tio nship c onflic t. A s s uggeste d b y th e s im ila rit y a ttr a ctio n p ara dig m (B yrn e [1 4] ) , d is sim ila rit y o f v alu es, b elie fs , a nd a ttit u des m ay d ecre ase in te rp ers onal a ttr a ctio n ( e .g ., M annix a nd N eale [7 0] ) . T hat is , te am m em bers w ho attr ib ute le sser im porta nce to p ow er v alu es m ay p erc eiv e “ p ow er h ungry ” te am mate s a s u ncom fo rta bly d om in eerin g. In a ddit io n, th ose h ig her in p ow er v alu es m ay p erc eiv e te am mate s w ho a re n ot e qually m otiv ate d to a tta in p ow er a s u ndesir a bly la ckin g in te re st in th e ta sk. T hus, d if fe re nces in p ow er v alu es m ay cre ate te nsio n a nd a nim osit y in te am m em ber in te ra ctio ns. C onsid erin g th ese p ossib ilit ie s, w e p osit th at w heth er p ow er v alu es d iv ers it y y ie ld s c om ple m enta ry o r c onflic tin g e ffe cts w ill d epend o n c erta in c ondit io ns. A C ontin gen cy A ppro ach Brid gin g r e com mendatio ns fr o m s chola rs in b oth th e te am d iv ers it y a nd c onflic t lit e ra tu re s ( e .g ., d e W it e t a l. [2 9] ; S haw e t a l. [1 07] ; V an K nip penberg a nd S chip pers [1 1 7] ) , w e p re sent a c ontin gency a ppro ach in w hic h th e p ow er v alu es d iv ers it y -re la tio nship c onflic t lin k d epends o n p artic ip ativ e s afe ty c lim ate , a nd th e r e la tio nship c onflic t- te am p erfo rm ance lin k d epends o n w ork lo ad s harin g. B ecause r e la tio nship c onflic t h as b een id entif ie d a s a d estr u ctiv e fo rm o f te am m em ber d is agre em ent a nd h as c onsis te ntly b een s how n to h ave n egativ e e ffe cts o n te am p erfo rm ance ( e .g ., D e D re u a nd W ein gart [2 7] ; d e W it e t a l. [2 9] ; O ’N eill e t a l. [8 3] ) , c onsid erin g m odera tin g v aria ble s th at h elp to r e duce r e la tio nship c onflic t, a s w ell a s it s h arm fu l im pact o n te am p erfo rm ance, h as m eanin gfu l im plic atio ns fo r p ra ctic e. R ela te dly , w e c onte nd th at te am -le vel v aria ble s a re b est u nders to od b y jo in tly fo cusin g o n d is tin ct a spects o f th e s it u atio n a nd r e le vant pro cesses ( e .g ., V an K nip penberg a nd S chip pers [1 1 7] ) . In deed, c onte xt a nd p ro cess a re tw o k ey c ontin gency fa cto r c ate gorie s th at h ave b een id entif ie d a s im porta nt to in vestig ate in th e g enera l te am ( e .g ., C am pio n e t a l. [1 6] , [1 7] ) , te am d iv ers it y ( e .g ., J oshi a nd R oh [5 5] ; V an K nip penberg a nd S chip pers [1 1 7] ) , a nd c onflic t ( e .g ., d e W it e t a l. [2 9] ; J ehn e t a l. [5 4] ; M anata [6 9] ; S haw e t a l. [1 07] ) lit e ra tu re s. In th e p re sent s tu dy, w e fe atu re o ne c onte xtu al m odera to r ( p artic ip ativ e s afe ty c lim ate ) a nd o ne p ro cess-re la te d m odera to r ( w ork lo ad s harin g) in o ur s tu dy m odel. C lim ate is a k ey c onte xtu al v aria ble in th e te am , d iv ers it y , a nd c onflic t lit e ra tu re s ( e .g ., B ra dle y e t a l. [1 2] ; F ra zie r a nd B ow le r [3 5] ; W ang e t a l. [1 1 9] ) , a nd w ork lo ad s harin g h as b een id entif ie d a s a n im porta nt te am p ro cess th at “ e nhances e ffe ctiv eness b y p re ventin g s ocia l- lo afin g o r fr e e r id in g” ( C am pio n e t a l. [ 1 6] , p . 8 30). U niq uely r e pre sentin g c onte xt a nd p ro cess, r e spectiv ely , p artic ip ativ e s afe ty c lim ate a nd w ork lo ad s harin g a re tie d to geth er in th at b oth a re c hara cte riz ed b y c oncern s o ver e quit y a nd c oopera tio n th at a ccom pany r e la tio nship c onflic t ( e .g ., F olg er [3 4] ; J ehn [5 0] ; R en a nd G ra y [9 1] ; S im ons a nd P ete rs on [1 09] ) . W here as p artic ip ativ e s afe ty c lim ate c aptu re s p erc eptio ns o f e quit y in d is cussio ns a nd d ecis io n m akin g ( A nders on a nd W est [2 ] ; W est [1 20] ) , w ork lo ad s harin g r e fle cts p erc eptio ns o f e quit y r e gard in g te am m em bers fu lf illin g th eir s hare o f r e sponsib ilit ie s ( E re z e t a l. [3 1] ; M urp hy e t a l. [8 1] ) . M ore over, w here as r e la tio nship c onflic t h as b een s uggeste d to d ecre ase c oopera tio n a m ong te am m em bers ( e .g ., J ehn [5 0] ) , p artic ip ativ e s afe ty c lim ate a nd w ork lo ad sharin g h ave b een s uggeste d to in cre ase c oopera tio n ( e .g ., C arle ss a nd D e P aola [1 8] ; W est [1 20] ) . S pecif ic ally , th e p re sence o f a h ig h p artic ip ativ e s afe ty c lim ate is c hara cte riz ed b y c oopera tio n in e ncoura gin g te am m em bers to fe el s ocia lly c om fo rta ble a nd p ro m otin g p artic ip atio n in d ecis io n-m akin g. S im ila rly , th e pre sence o f h ig h w ork lo ad s harin g is c hara cte riz ed b y te am m em bers c oopera tin g w it h e ach o th er in d oin g th eir e xpecte d s hare o f te am work . T here fo re , g iv en th at p artic ip ativ e s afe ty c lim ate a nd w ork lo ad s harin g a re c onnecte d v ia th eir im porta nce to g ro up c oncern s o ver e quit y a nd c oopera tio n, w hic h m ay b e heig hte ned b y r e la tio nship c onflic t ( e .g ., F olg er [3 4] ; J ehn [5 0] ; R en a nd G ra y [9 1] ; S im ons a nd P ete rs on [1 09] ) , w e e xpect th at p artic ip ativ e s afe ty c lim ate a nd w ork lo ad s harin g m ay b e p artic ula rly w ell- s uit e d fo r in vestig atio n a s m odera to rs in th e c urre nt s tu dy. P artic ip ativ e S afe ty C lim ate a s a M odera to r o f t h e P ow er V alu es D iv ers it y -R ela tio nsh ip … A s d iv ers it y s chola rs h ave a dvocate d a nd m eta -a naly ses d em onstr a te , v aria tio n in d iv ers it y e ffe cts is o fte n d ue to m odera to rs ( e .g ., J oshi a nd R oh [5 5] ; V an D ijk e t a l. [1 1 5] ; V an K nip penberg a nd S chip pers [1 1 7] ) . J oshi a nd R oh’s ( [5 5] ) m eta -a naly sis fo und th at d iv ers it y e ffe cts d ouble d o r tr ip le d in s iz e a fte r accountin g fo r m odera tin g c onte xtu al v aria ble s. In a r e vie w o f th e d iv ers it y lit e ra tu re , J ackson a nd J oshi ( [4 7] ) lis te d c ult u re a nd c lim ate a s k ey c onte xtu al m odera to rs th at r e searc hers s hould c ontin ue to in vestig ate . B uild in g o n th is r e searc h, w e in vestig ate th e in te ra ctiv e e ffe cts o f p artic ip ativ e s afe ty c lim ate a nd pow er v alu es d iv ers it y o n r e la tio nship c onflic t. P artic ip ativ e s afe ty c lim ate r e fe rs to s hare d p erc eptio ns th at th e te am is in te rp ers onally n onth re ate nin g a nd e ncoura gin g o f in volv em ent ( A nders on a nd W est [2 ] ; P elt o korp i a nd H asu [8 5] ; P ir o la -M erlo e t a l. [8 6] ; W est [1 20] ) . In te am s w it h a h ig h p artic ip ativ e s afe ty c lim ate , m em bers a re e ncoura ged to p artic ip ate in d is cussio ns a nd d ecis io n-m akin g, a s th ey p erc eiv e th e te am c lim ate to b e s upportiv e. T his c lim ate o f r e spect w it h in te am s a llo w s m em bers to fe el c om fo rta ble expre ssin g id eas w it h out fe ar o f b ein g d is re gard ed o r n egativ ely p erc eiv ed ( A nders on a nd W est [2 ] ; P elt o korp i a nd H asu [8 5] ; P ir o la -M erlo e t a l. [8 6] ; W est [1 20] ) . P artic ip ativ e s afe ty c lim ate is a n e specia lly im porta nt fa cto r to c onsid er in o ur m odel b ecause d om in ance, a m otiv atio nal g oal a ssocia te d w it h p ow er v alu es, can b e p erc eiv ed a s th re ate nin g a nd th ere by r e duce c oopera tio n a nd in cre ase c onflic t ( C arli e t a l. [1 9] ) . H ence, th e d egre e to w hic h th e te am h as e sta blis hed an a tm osphere o f o pen, s upportiv e, a nd fr e e c om munic atio n a m ong m em bers is c le arly r e le vant. T hat is , th e in flu ence o f p ow er v alu es d iv ers it y o n r e la tio nship c onflic t is lik ely to d epend o n w heth er g ro up m em bers s hare p erc eptio ns th at th e te am is in te rp ers onally n onth re ate nin g a nd e ncoura gin g o f in volv em ent. W e th ere fo re id entif y p artic ip ativ e s afe ty c lim ate a s a d ete rm in in g fa cto r in w heth er th e b enefit s o f p ow er v alu es d iv ers it y y ie ld m ore c om ple m enta ry o r c onflic tin g effe cts in te am s. B ecause it h elp s to fa cilit a te m utu al u nders ta ndin g o f te am m em bers ’ in te rp ers onal m otiv atio ns a nd b ehavio rs , p artic ip ativ e s afe ty c lim ate m ay h elp to r e duce m is attr ib utio ns p re sente d b y d if fe rin g p ow er v alu es a nd th us lim it r e la tio nship c onflic t. S pecif ic ally , w hen th e te am c lim ate is n onth re ate nin g, r e spectfu l, a nd e ncoura gin g o f c om munic atio n, m em bers a re lik ely to b e m ore c om fo rta ble a ro und te am mate s a nd le ss o ffe nded b y th ose w ho d esir e to a ssum e p osit io ns o f d om in ance w it h in th e te am . M ore over, th ere m ay b e a g re ate r p ro babilit y th at te am m em ber v alu es a nd s ubsequent r o le s w ill c om ple m ent r a th er th an c onflic t w it h o ne a noth er w hen p artic ip ativ e s afe ty c lim ate is h ig h. T he p ro cess o f n egotia tin g ro le s is a c ru cia l s te p in th e fo rm atio n o f te am s ( Ilg en e t a l. [4 5] ) , a nd it m ay c ause c onflic t b etw een te am m em bers w ho d esir e s im ila r r o le s. H ow ever, u nder a h ig h p artic ip ativ e s afe ty c lim ate , te am mate s m ay m ore e asily a gre e o n w ho w ill fu lf ill c erta in d utie s w it h in th e te am , a s a c lim ate c hara cte riz ed b y c om fo rt a nd re spect h as b een e sta blis hed ( A nders on a nd W est [2 ] ; W est [1 20] ) .In a ddit io n, c onsis te nt w it h th eory o n c om ple m enta ry fit ( H um phre y e t a l. [4 4] ) , te am m em bers w ho a ttr ib ute d if fe rin g le vels o f im porta nce to p ow er v alu es w ill h ave m ore c om ple m enta ry m otiv atio ns r e gard in g d esir e d te am r o le s. T e am m em bers w ho w is h to d ele gate w ork w ill n eed te am mate s w ho a re w illin g to ta ke o n th ese r e sponsib ilit ie s ( M ein dl [7 7] ) . A s te am m em bers a re a ble to m ore e asily a ssum e c om patib le d utie s th at a re c onsis te nt w it h th eir o w n p ers onal v alu es, th ey m ay n ot o nly b e m ore c onte nt w it h th eir o w n p la ce in th e te am , b ut a ls o w it h th e p la ce o f th eir te am mate s, lo w erin g th e p ossib ilit y o f r e la tio nship c onflic t. H ypoth esis 1 : P artic ip ativ e s afe ty c lim ate w ill m odera te th e a ssocia tio n b etw een p ow er v alu es d iv ers it y a nd r e la tio nship c onflic t: W hen p artic ip ativ e s afe ty c lim ate is h ig her ( v s lo w er), th e a ssocia tio n b etw een p ow er v alu es d iv ers it y a nd r e la tio nship c onflic t w ill b e m ore n egativ e. T he C ondit io nal In dir e ct E ffe ct o f P ow er V alu es D iv ers it y T hus fa r, w e h ave p ro posed th at th e in te ra ctio n o f p ow er v alu es d iv ers it y a nd p artic ip ativ e s afe ty c lim ate w ill p re dic t r e la tio nship c onflic t. S pecif ic ally , a s partic ip ativ e c lim ate in cre ases, p ow er v alu es d iv ers it y w ill b e m ore c onduciv e to r e ducin g r e la tio nship c onflic t, b ased o n c ondit io ns p ro m otin g c om ple m enta ry fit ( H um phre y e t a l. [4 4] ) . S ubsequently , it is e xpecte d th at r e la tio nship c onflic t w ill b e n egativ ely r e la te d to te am p erfo rm ance. R ela tio nship c onflic t m ay n egativ ely in flu ence th e in fo rm atio n p ro cessin g a bilit y o f te am m em bers , a s tim e a nd a tte ntio nal r e sourc es a re e xpended o n in te rp ers onal p ro ble m s r a th er th an te am ta sks ( E van [3 2] ; J ehn a nd M annix [5 2] ; S im ons a nd P ete rs on [1 09] ) . T hat is , r e la tio nship c onflic t m ay d etr im enta lly im pact te am s b y d is tr a ctin g m em bers a nd r e str ic tin g th e a tte ntio n th at th ey c an d evote to te am r e sponsib ilit ie s. A ddit io nally , r e la tio nship c onflic t h as b een suggeste d to g enera te n egativ e e m otio ns a nd a ttit u des th at m ay r e duce c oopera tio n a m ong te am m em bers a nd d ecre ase th eir e ffo rts ( C hoi a nd S y [2 2] ; J ehn et a l. [5 1] ) . S upportiv e o f th is r a tio nale , th re e m eta -a naly ses h ave fo und r e la tio nship c onflic t to b e n egativ ely a ssocia te d w it h te am p erfo rm ance ( D e D re u a nd W ein gart [2 7] ; d e W it e t a l. [2 9] ; O ’N eill e t a l. [8 3] ) . There fo re , if th e c om bin ed p re sence o f h ig h p ow er v alu es d iv ers it y a nd a h ig h p artic ip ativ e s afe ty c lim ate le ssens r e la tio nship c onflic t, th en te am p erfo rm ance should s ubsequently in cre ase. T hat is , c onsis te nt w it h o ur c ontin gency a ppro ach to w ard in vestig atin g p ow er v alu es d iv ers it y ’s e ffe cts , w e p ro pose th at th e m echanis m b y w hic h th e in te ra ctio n o f p ow er v alu es d iv ers it y a nd p artic ip ativ e s afe ty c lim ate p osit iv ely in flu ences te am p erfo rm ance, is th ro ugh r e la tio nship c onflic t. A s r e la tio nship c onflic t is r e duced, m em bers m ay m ore e asily d evote th eir tim e a nd e ffo rts to w ard c om ple tin g te am ta sks a s o pposed to m anagin g te nse d is agre em ents a nd a nim osit ie s. H ence, th e fo llo w in g w as p re dic te d: H ypoth esis 2 : T here w ill b e a p osit iv e in dir e ct e ffe ct o f p ow er v alu es d iv ers it y o n te am p erfo rm ance, th ro ugh r e la tio nship c onflic t, w hen p artic ip ativ e s afe ty c lim ate is h ig her ( v s lo w er). W ork lo ad S harin g a s a M odera to r o f t h e R ela tio nsh ip C onflic t-T eam P erfo rm an ce L in k A lt h ough th re e m eta -a naly ses h ave d em onstr a te d r e la tio nship c onflic t’s n egativ e e ffe cts o n te am p erfo rm ance, th ere h as c onsis te ntly b een e vid ence o f substa ntia l h ete ro geneit y in e ffe ct s iz es, in dic atin g th e p re sence o f m odera to rs ( D e D re u a nd W ein gart [2 7] ; d e W it e t a l. [2 9] ; O ʼN eill e t a l. [8 3] ) . T here fo re , schola rs h ave c alle d fo r fu rth er in vestig atio n o f m odera to rs r e le vant to th e r e la tio nship c onflic t- te am p erfo rm ance lin k ( e .g ., d e W it e t a l. [2 9] ) . B ecause o f it s d etr im enta l im pact, it is im porta nt to fin d w ays to a m elio ra te r e la tio nship c onflic t’s n egativ e c onsequences fo r te am p erfo rm ance, b oth th eore tic ally a nd pra ctic ally ( R en a nd G ra y [9 1] ) . A ddre ssin g th ese n eeds, w e e xam in e w ork lo ad s harin g a s a m otiv atio n-re la te d te am p ro cess v aria ble a nd m odera to r (C am pio n e t a l. [1 6] , [1 7] ; E re z e t a l. [3 1] ) . P rio r s tu die s c onsid erin g h ow to m anage r e la tio nship c onflic t h ave te nded to fo cus o n r e pair in g th e r e la tio nship th ro ugh v ario us c onflic t r e sponse s ty le s ( e .g ., c olla bora tin g, a void in g, o r c onte ndin g r e sponses; D e D re u a nd V an V ia nen [2 6] ) o r r e sto ra tio n a ctio ns ( e .g ., a polo gie s, p enance, d em onstr a tin g c oncern ; R en and G ra y [9 1] ) . H ow ever, in r e al- tim e, te am p erfo rm ance d em ands a re lik ely to c ontin ue w hile m em bers a re w ork in g o ut th eir d if fe re nces, w hic h m ay n ot b e re solv ed in th e s hort te rm . T here fo re , r a th er th an c oncentr a te o n th e p ote ntia lly tim e-c onsum in g r e pair o f b it te r h ostilit ie s, w e fo cus m ore o n a ctu al te am work a nd r e le vant p ro cesses in th e p re sence o f in te rp ers onal te nsio ns. T hat is , w e s eek to d ete rm in e w heth er r e la tio nship c onflic t’s n egativ e e ffe cts o n te am perfo rm ance a re e xacerb ate d w hen te am m em bers a re p erc eiv ed a s n ot d oin g th eir s hare o f th e w ork lo ad, in th e fa ce o f a nnoyance a nd a nim osit y . H ig h le vels o f w ork lo ad s harin g h ave b een s how n to h ave p osit iv e e ffe cts o n b ehavio ra l m easure s o f te am p ro ductiv it y a nd m anageria l ju dgm ents o f te am e ffe ctiv eness (e .g ., C am pio n e t a l. [1 6] , [1 7] ) . In c ontr a st, th e p erc eptio n th at te am mate s a re n egle ctfu l o f th eir d utie s h as b een fo und to b e d etr im enta l to te am fu nctio nin g (J assaw alla e t a l. [4 9] ) . T here fo re , w e fo cus o n th e in te ra ctiv e e ffe cts o f w ork lo ad s harin g b ecause it h as th e p ote ntia l to e xacerb ate p erfo rm ance d ecre m ents w hen in te rp ers onal in com patib ilit ie s a m ong m em bers e xis t. W e p osit th at th e d egre e to w hic h r e la tio nship c onflic t tr a nsla te s in to d ecre ased p erfo rm ance d epends o n th e e xte nt to w hic h m em bers p erc eiv e th at te am mate s c om ple te r e sponsib ilit ie s a s e xpecte d. S pecif ic ally , it is m ore p ro bable th at r e la tio nship c onflic t w ill n egativ ely im pact p erfo rm ance u nder lo w er w ork lo ad s harin g c ondit io ns. W hen m em bers d o n ot c om ple te th eir e xpecte d s hare o f r e sponsib ilit ie s, h ig h r e la tio nship c onflic t is e specia lly lik ely to r e sult in d ecre ased p erfo rm ance. A s fr u str a te d te am m em bers s plit th eir a tte ntio n b etw een m anagin g in te rp ers onal te nsio ns a nd c om ple tin g n egle cte d w ork , in a ddit io n to fu lf illin g n orm al r e sponsib ilit ie s to m eet p ro je ct d eadlin es, te am p erfo rm ance is lik ely to s uffe r. F urth er, c onsis te nt w it h th e n egativ it y b ia s ( K anouse a nd H anson [5 7] ) , e vents o f a n egativ e n atu re s hould h ave m ore o f a n in flu ence o n te am m em bers ’ c ognit io n a nd b ehavio r th an n eutr a l o r p osit iv e e vents . F or exam ple , a n in sta nce o f th e te am n ot c om ple tin g a d eliv era ble m ay b e m uch m ore s alie nt to m em bers th an a n in sta nce o f th e te am c om ple tin g a ta sk. T his m ay b e p artic ula rly r e le vant w hen th ere a re h ig h le vels o f te nsio n a nd a nim osit y b etw een te am m em bers . A s m em bers d o n ot c om ple te th e w ork e xpecte d o f th em , a lr e ady h ig h le vels o f a nim osit y m ay b ecom e e ven m ore d is tr a ctin g. G iv en th e h ig h le vel o f in te rp ers onal te nsio n p re sent, te am m em bers m ay p erc eiv e th at th ey a re b ein g e xplo it e d o r e ven r e ta lia te d a gain st w hen te am work is le ft u nfin is hed. In tu rn , th ey m ay r e duce th eir e ffo rts , u lt im ate ly d ecre asin g th e a m ount of a tte ntio n d evote d to a ccom plis hin g th e te am ta sk ( K err [5 8] ) . M ore over, te am m em bers m ay lo w er th eir g oals fo r th e g ro up, a s p erc eptio ns o f w ork lo ad in equit y m ay in cre ase a nd fu rth er d em otiv ate m em bers to p erfo rm th eir b est ( M ulv ey a nd K le in [8 0] ) . C onsid erin g th ese p oin ts , th e fo llo w in g w as p re dic te d: H ypoth esis 3 : W ork lo ad s harin g w ill m odera te th e a ssocia tio n b etw een r e la tio nship c onflic t a nd te am p erfo rm ance: W hen w ork lo ad s harin g is lo w er ( v s h ig her), th e a ssocia tio n b etw een r e la tio nship c onflic t a nd te am p erfo rm ance w ill b e m ore n egativ e. M eth od S am ple T he p re sent s tu dy in clu ded 3 05 s tu dents fr o m th e M id -A tla ntic r e gio n o f th e U nit e d S ta te s. P artic ip ants w ere e nro lle d in o ne o f fiv e s ubsectio ns o f a m anagem ent c ours e. In to ta l, 6 0 te am s p artic ip ate d. T e am s r a nged fr o m fo ur to s even m em bers in s iz e, w it h a n a vera ge o f a ppro xim ate ly 5 .1 m em bers p er te am . T e am m em bers w ere 4 5.2 % m ale , a nd o n a vera ge, 2 1.4 B la ck. Team T ask Te am s w ere r e quir e d to w ork o n a p ro je ct o ver th e c ours e o f 4 O utc om e in te rd ependence c hara cte riz ed th e te am ta sk, a s te am mate s w ere lin ked to o ne a noth er w it h r e spect to p ro je ct g ra des ( S hea a nd G uzzo [1 08] ; W agem an [1 1 8] ) . M ore s pecif ic ally , a ll te am m em bers r e ceiv ed th e s am e p ro je ct g ra de, w hic h u lt im ate ly c om pris ed 2 0% o f e ach in div id ual’s fin al c ours e g ra de. To e nsure th at m em bers w ere c onsis te ntly c om munic atin g, d is cussin g p ro gre ss, a nd w ork in g o n te am ta sks, te am s w ere a llo tte d tim e r e gula rly , d urin g c ours e m eetin gs, to w ork o n th e p ro je ct. M ore over, in th e s econd w eek o f th e s em este r, le ctu re s fo cused o n th e to pic o f te am s w it h th e o bje ctiv e o f m akin g s tu dents c onceptu ally a w are o f b asic p rin cip le s o f te am work a nd te am d ynam ic s. M em bers w ere e xplic it ly in str u cte d to a dopt th e c hara cte ris tic s o f s elf – m anaged te am s th ro ughout th eir p ro je ct ( e .g ., a uto nom ously d ete rm in in g p ro to cols , ta sk w ork , m em ber d utie s, d eadlin es fo r s ubta sks; H um phre y e t a l. [4 4] ; M anz a nd S im s [7 1] ; S ala s e t a l. [9 4] ) . T e am s w ere r e sponsib le fo r th e fo llo w in g: ( a ) id entif y in g a c urre nt p ro ble m atic e vent in a n o rg aniz atio n, ( b ) g enera tin g id eas to r e m edy th e p ro ble m , ( c ) d esig nin g a d eta ile d p la n to b e im ple m ente d, a nd ( d ) u sin g e xis tin g r e searc h to e xpla in w hy th e p la n w ould b e s uccessfu l. D ata C olle ctio n P ro ced ure D urin g th e fir s t w eek o f th e c ours e ( tim e 1 ), m em bers c om ple te d a s urv ey th at m easure d th eir o w n p erc eptio n o f p ow er v alu es. A s econd s urv ey m easurin g partic ip ativ e s afe ty c lim ate , r e la tio nship c onflic t, a nd w ork lo ad s harin g w as a dm in is te re d d urin g th e la st w eek o f th e c ours e ( tim e 2 ). T e am s s ubsequently s ubm it te d th eir p ro je cts o n th e fin al d ay, w hic h w ere e valu ate d b y th e c ours e in str u cto r, w ho a ssig ned e ach te am a n um eric al p erfo rm ance g ra de ( tim e 3 ). F or all d ata c olle ctio n p ro cedure s, p artic ip ants w ere a ssure d th at th eir r e sponses w ould r e m ain c onfid entia l a nd th at d ata w ould o nly b e r e porte d in a ggre gate fo rm . Durin g th e s tu dy, th e in str u cto r w as n ot a w are o f th e p ow er v alu es c om posit io n o f te am s. T he in tr a -te am r e sponse r a te w as 9 9% a t tim e 1 a nd 8 9% a t tim e 2 . M easu re s P ow er v alu es w ere a ssessed v ia fiv e it e m s fr o m th e p ow er s ubscale o f th e S chw artz V alu e S urv ey ( S chw artz [9 6] ) , a nd it e m r e sponses r a nged fr o m − 1 (o pposed to m y v alu es) to 7 ( o f s upre m e im porta nce). E ach te am m em ber r a te d th e im porta nce o f e ach it e m a s a “ m otiv atin g p rin cip le in m y lif e ,” in clu din g “S O CIA L P O W ER ( c ontr o l o ver o th ers , d om in ance).” T he α r e lia bilit y c oeffic ie nt w as.8 3. P artic ip ativ e s afe ty c lim ate w as a ssessed w it h th e fo ur-it e m p artic ip ativ e s afe ty m easure d evelo ped b y K iv im aki a nd E lo vain io ( [6 0] ) , w hic h is a s horte ned vers io n o f th e s cale d evelo ped b y A nders on a nd W est ( [2 ] ) . T he w ord “ P eople ” w as c hanged to “ T e am m em bers ” fo r o ne a pplic able it e m . S pecif ic ally , th e it e m “T e am m em bers fe el u nders to od a nd a ccepte d b y e ach o th er” w as u sed a fte r b ein g a dapte d to in clu de “ te am m em bers ” a s th e r e fe re nt. Ite m r e sponses w ere c oded fr o m 1 , “ s tr o ngly d is agre e,” to 7 , “ s tr o ngly a gre e.” T he α r e lia bilit y w as.8 5. R ela tio nship c onflic t w as m easure d u sin g th re e it e m s a dapte d fr o m th e r e la tio nship c onflic t s cale d evelo ped b y J ehn a nd M annix ( [5 2] ) , in clu din g “ T here w as em otio nal c onflic t in m y w ork g ro up.” Ite m s w ere r a te d o n a s even-p oin t L ik ert s cale fr o m 1 , “ n ot a t a ll, ” to 7 , “ a lo t.” T he α r e lia bilit y fo r th is s cale w as.9 3. W ork lo ad s harin g w as a ssessed w it h fiv e it e m s a dapte d fr o m th e w ork lo ad s harin g m easure u sed b y E re z e t a l. ( [3 1] ) , to in clu de te am m em bers a s th e re fe re nt. A n e xam ple it e m is “ M em bers a dequate ly c om ple te d th eir r e sponsib ilit ie s h ere in th is te am .” Ite m r e sponses r a nged fr o m 1 , “ s tr o ngly d is agre e,” to 7 , “s tr o ngly a gre e.” T he α r e lia bilit y c oeffic ie nt w as.8 8. Te am p erfo rm ance w as a ssessed b y th e c ours e in str u cto r, w ho g ra ded te am s’ fin al p ro je ct r e ports o n a s cale fr o m 0 to 2 5, w it h h ig her s core s r e pre sentin g hig her le vels o f te am p erfo rm ance. C ontr o l V aria b le s Te am s iz e, th e m ean o f p ow er v alu es, a ge d iv ers it y , g ender d iv ers it y , a nd r a ce/e th nic it y d iv ers it y w ere e xam in ed a s c ontr o l v aria ble s. T e am s iz e w as e xam in ed as a c ontr o l v aria ble b ecause la rg er te am s m ay b e m ore h ete ro geneous ( e .g ., J ackson e t a l. [4 6] ) , a nd te am s iz e h as b een fo und to b e a ssocia te d w it h m ult ip le te am o utc om es, in clu din g p erfo rm ance ( e .g ., S om ech [1 11 ] ; W heela n [1 21] ) . F urth erm ore , c onsis te nt w it h r e com mendatio ns o f d iv ers it y s chola rs (B edeia n a nd M osshold er [5 ] ; C ole e t a l. [2 4] ; H arris on a nd K le in [4 0] ) , th e m ean o f p ow er v alu es w as u sed a s a c ontr o l v aria ble . S urfa ce-le vel d iv ers it y c hara cte ris tic s w ere a ls o e xam in ed a s c ovaria te s to d ete rm in e th e e xte nt to w hic h p ow er v alu es d iv ers it y p re dic te d u niq ue v aria nce in o utc om es b eyond th ese backgro und v aria ble s. In a ddit io n, p ast r e searc h h as fo und d em ogra phic d iv ers it y to b e r e la te d to c onflic t ( e .g ., S ta hl e t a l. [1 1 2] ) a nd te am p erfo rm ance ( e .g ., B ell e t a l. [7 ] ) . A ge d iv ers it y w as e xam in ed v ia s ta ndard d evia tio n. G ender R esu lt s P re lim in ary A naly ses a n d A ggre g atio n Ta ble 1 s um mariz es d escrip tiv e s ta tis tic s a nd c orre la tio ns fo r te am -le vel v aria ble s in th e p re sent s tu dy. P ow er v alu es d iv ers it y w as c onceptu aliz ed a s separa tio n d iv ers it y ( H arris on a nd K le in [4 0] ) a nd w as a ssessed u sin g a d is pers io n m odel ( C han [2 0] ) . In div id ual- le vel s core s w ere a ggre gate d to th e te am le vel v ia s ta ndard d evia tio n. T e am p artic ip ativ e s afe ty c lim ate , te am r e la tio nship c onflic t, a nd te am w ork lo ad s harin g m easure s w ere a ls o o bta in ed b y aggre gatin g in div id ual- le vel r e sponses to th e te am le vel. H ow ever, b ecause th ey r e pre sent s hare d g ro up p ro pertie s ( K ozlo w ski a nd K le in [6 2] ) , a r e fe re nt- s hif t c onsensus m odel ( C han [2 0] ) w as u tiliz ed. B efo re s core s w ere a ggre gate d, w it h in -g ro up a gre em ent o r c onsensus w as e valu ate d. S pecif ic ally , IC C(1 ) w as u sed to a ssess th e le vel o f c onsensus a nd consis te ncy e xpecte d if a r a te r w as r a ndom ly s ele cte d fr o m th e p opula tio n a nd h is o r h er s core s w ere c om pare d to th e m ean s core o bta in ed fr o m a s am ple o f ra te rs ( B lie se [1 0] ; J am es [4 8] ; L eB re to n a nd S ente r [6 6] ) . IC C(1 ) w as.5 1 fo r p artic ip ativ e s afe ty c lim ate ,.3 5 fo r r e la tio nship c onflic t, a nd.4 6 fo r w ork lo ad sharin g. J am es ( [4 8] ) r e porte d a m edia n o bserv ed IC C(1 ) v alu e o f.1 2 in th e in dustr ia l/ o rg aniz atio nal p sycholo gy a nd o rg aniz atio nal b ehavio r lit e ra tu re . IC C(1 ) valu es, in th e c urre nt s tu dy, w ere w ell a bove.1 2. In a ddit io n to IC C(1 ), IC C(2 ) w as c alc ula te d to a ssess th e r e lia bilit y o r s ta bilit y o f te am -le vel m eans. F or IC C(2 ), w e fo llo w ed th e g uid elin e o f v alu es m eetin g o r e xceedin g.7 0 to ju stif y a ggre gatio n ( e .g ., K le in e t a l. [6 1] ; L eana a nd P il [6 5] ) . IC C(2 ) w as.8 4 fo r partic ip ativ e s afe ty c lim ate ,.7 3 fo r r e la tio nship c onflic t, a nd.8 1 fo r w ork lo ad s harin g. F urth erm ore , b ased o n r e com mendatio ns fr o m p ast r e searc h ( e .g ., L eB re to n a nd S ente r [6 6] ; W oehr e t a l. [1 24] ) , r v alu es w ere c alc ula te d a nd r e porte d fo r te am p artic ip ativ e s afe ty c lim ate , te am r e la tio nship c onflic t, a nd te am w ork lo ad s harin g r a tin gs. A u nif o rm n ull d is tr ib utio n w as th eoriz ed to b e m ost a ppro pria te , as w e d id n ot a ssum e a s yste m atic r e sponse b ia s ( L eB re to n a nd S ente r [6 6] ) . F or in sta nce, a le nie ncy b ia s w as th ought to b e u nlik ely , b ecause a ll p artic ip ants w ere a ssure d th at th eir r e sponses w ould r e m ain c onfid entia l a nd w ould o nly b e u sed fo r r e searc h p urp oses. W e fo llo w ed th e h euris tic o f m edia n r v alu es m eetin g o r e xceedin g.7 0 to fu rth er ju stif y a ggre gatio n ( e .g ., M ath ie u e t a l. [7 5] ; M ath ie u a nd S chulz e [7 4] ; R app a nd M ath ie u [8 9] ; S im sek e t a l. [1 1 0] ) , b eyond IC Cs. A lt h ough 4 te am s fo r p artic ip ativ e s afe ty c lim ate , 2 1 te am s fo r r e la tio nship c onflic t, a nd 2 2 te am s fo r w ork lo ad s harin g h ad c oeffic ie nts b elo w .7 0, m edia n valu es w ere s till a bove m in im um s ta ndard s. S pecif ic ally , th e m edia n r v alu e w as.8 9 fo r p artic ip ativ e s afe ty c lim ate ( M m axim um m in im um v alu es d em onstr a te d a ppro pria te w it h in -te am a gre em ent, ju stif y in g a ggre gatio n to th e te am le vel. C onfir m ato ry F acto r A naly sis C onfir m ato ry fa cto r a naly sis w as u tiliz ed to a ssess th e th eoriz ed fo ur-fa cto r s tr u ctu re o f th e m easure m ent m odel. F it in dic es a s w ell a s C hi- s quare d if fe re nce te sts w ere u sed to d ete rm in e if th e p ro posed m easure m ent m odel fit th e d ata a ppro pria te ly . P ow er v alu es, p artic ip ativ e s afe ty c lim ate , r e la tio nship c onflic t, a nd w ork lo ad s harin g w ere e xpecte d to lo ad o n s epara te fa cto rs . T here fo re , th e fo ur-fa cto r m odel w as e xpecte d to p ro vid e th e b est fit to th e d ata a s c om pare d to a lt e rn ativ e m odels . R esult s in dic ate d th at th e h ypoth esiz ed fo ur-fa cto r m easure m ent m odel fit th e d ata r e asonably w ell ( χ ( N S R M R model d id n ot fit th e d ata w ell ( χ ( N (N w ere s et to lo ad o n a s epara te fa cto r th an p artic ip ativ e s afe ty c lim ate , r e la tio nship c onflic t, a nd w ork lo ad s harin g, w hic h w ere c om bin ed in to a s in gle fa cto r. F or th e th re e-fa cto r m odel, p ow er v alu es a nd r e la tio nship c onflic t w ere s et to lo ad o n tw o s epara te fa cto rs , w hile p artic ip ativ e s afe ty c lim ate a nd w ork lo ad s harin g w ere c om bin ed in to a noth er fa cto r. B oth th e tw o-fa cto r ( χ ( N ( N d f ( N fa cto r ( ∆ χ ( N fo ur-fa cto r m odel, s ta ndard iz ed fa cto r lo adin gs fo r p ow er v alu es ( .7 3,.6 9,.7 4,.6 5,.7 6), r e la tio nship c onflic t ( .8 7,.9 4,.9 1), p artic ip ativ e s afe ty c lim ate ( .7 5,.8 4,.7 9,.7 7), a nd w ork lo ad s harin g ( .7 9,.7 8,.8 2,.8 2,.6 7) r a nged fr o m .6 5 to .9 4. A ll it e m s s ig nif ic antly lo aded o n th eir r e spectiv e la te nt fa cto rs ( p S ig nif ic ant c orre la tio ns e xis te d b etw een th e r e la tio nship c onflic t a nd p artic ip ativ e s afe ty c lim ate fa cto rs ( e stim ate w ork lo ad s harin g fa cto rs ( e stim ate to geth er, r e sult s s upport th e d is crim in ant v alid it y o f m easure s u sed in th e c urre nt s tu dy. N este d D ata w g(j) w g(j) w g(j) w g(j) 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Because te am s w ere n este d w it h in m anagem ent c ours e s ubsectio ns, IC C(1 ) v alu es w ere c alc ula te d to d ete rm in e th e a m ount o f v aria nce in r e la tio nship c onflic t and te am p erfo rm ance a ttr ib uta ble to s ubsectio n m em bers hip . IC C(1 ) v alu es w ere .0 1 fo r r e la tio nship c onflic t a nd.1 2 fo r te am p erfo rm ance. T hat is , 1 % o f th e varia nce in r e la tio nship c onflic t a nd 1 2% o f th e v aria nce in te am p erfo rm ance w ere fo und to b e a ttr ib uta ble to c ours e s ubsectio ns. B ecause c ours e s ubsectio n had a s m all e ffe ct o n r e la tio nship c onflic t s core s a nd a m ediu m to la rg e e ffe ct o n te am p erfo rm ance s core s ( L eB re to n a nd S ente r [6 6] ) , m ult ile vel m odelin g w as u sed, a nd p re dic to rs w ere g ra nd-m ean c ente re d. T his a llo w ed fo r th e e stim atio n o f le vel 1 ( te am ) e ffe cts w hile a ccountin g fo r le vel 2 ( s ubsectio n) e ffe cts . S pecif ic ally , h ypoth eses w ere a ssessed v ia m ult ile vel p ath a naly sis in M PLU S 7 , u sin g m axim um lik elih ood e stim atio n. B ecause w e d id n ot h ypoth esiz e th at re la tio nship s w ould s ig nif ic antly d if fe r b ased o n s ubsectio n m em bers hip , in te rc epts w ere a llo w ed to v ary a cro ss s ubsectio ns, b ut s lo pes w ere fix ed fo r th e te stin g o f a ll le vel 1 ( te am -le vel) r e la tio nship s. H yp oth eses T estin g H ypoth esis 1 p re dic te d th at p artic ip ativ e s afe ty c lim ate w ould m odera te th e r e la tio nship b etw een p ow er v alu es d iv ers it y a nd r e la tio nship c onflic t. W hile c ontr o llin g fo r a ge d iv ers it y , g ender d iv ers it y , r a ce/e th nic it y d iv ers it y , te am s iz e, a nd th e m ean le vel o f p ow er v alu es, w e fo und a s ig nif ic ant in te ra ctio n b etw een pow er v alu es d iv ers it y a nd p artic ip ativ e s afe ty c lim ate in p re dic tin g r e la tio nship c onflic t ( γ 1 2% o f th e v aria nce in r e la tio nship c onflic t b eyond c ontr o ls a nd m ain e ffe cts . A p lo t o f th e s im ple s lo pes a t o ne s ta ndard d evia tio n a bove a nd b elo w th e m ean re veale d th at th e fo rm o f th e in te ra ctio n w as c onsis te nt w it h p re dic tio ns ( s ee F ig . 1 ). P ow er v alu es d iv ers it y w as fo und to b e n egativ ely r e la te d to r e la tio nship c onflic t w hen p artic ip ativ e s afe ty c lim ate w as h ig h ( + 1S D : e stim ate e stim ate d iv ers it y a nd r e la tio nship c onflic t. * N ote . T he s olid lin e ( h ig h p artic ip ativ e s afe ty c lim ate ) is s ta tis tic ally d if fe re nt fr o m z ero a t o ne s ta ndard d evia tio n a bove th e m ean ( p A s e xpecte d, r e la tio nship c onflic t w as n egativ ely r e la te d to te am p erfo rm ance ( γ ([8 7] ) , w e fo und, a s p re dic te d in h ypoth esis 2 , a p osit iv e in dir e ct e ffe ct o f p ow er v alu es d iv ers it y o n te am p erfo rm ance, th ro ugh r e la tio nship c onflic t, w hen partic ip ativ e s afe ty c lim ate w as h ig h ( + 1S D : e stim ate S E is c onsid ere d m ost a ppro pria te b ecause it a ccounts fo r th e n on-n orm al s am plin g d is tr ib utio n o f th e in dir e ct e ffe ct ( P re acher e t a l. [8 8] ) . R esult s a t 2 0,0 00 re petit io ns s how ed th at th e c onfid ence in te rv als d id n ot in clu de z ero ( 9 5% C I [.2 3, 1 .5 9]) fo r th e p osit iv e in dir e ct e ffe ct w hen p artic ip ativ e s afe ty c lim ate w as hig h, w hic h p ro vid ed s upport fo r h ypoth esis 2 . H ypoth esis 3 p re dic te d th at w ork lo ad s harin g w ould m odera te th e r e la tio nship b etw een r e la tio nship c onflic t a nd te am p erfo rm ance. A s s how n in T a ble 2 , a s ta tis tic ally s ig nif ic ant in te ra ctio n w as fo und ( γ re la tio nship c onflic t. A n e xam in atio n o f th e s im ple s lo pes a t o ne s ta ndard d evia tio n b elo w a nd a bove th e m ean r e veale d th at th e fo rm o f th e in te ra ctio n w as consis te nt w it h p re dic tio ns ( s ee F ig . 2 ). R ela tio nship c onflic t w as n egativ ely r e la te d to te am p erfo rm ance w hen w ork lo ad s harin g w as lo w ( − 1S D : estim ate s upporte d. S ta ndard iz ed c oeffic ie nt e stim ate s o f th e fin al m odel a re p re sente d in F ig . 3 . U nsta ndard iz ed e stim ate s, w it h th eir s ta ndard e rro rs , a re r e porte d in T a ble 2 .W ork lo ad s harin g m odera tin g th e r e la tio nship b etw een r e la tio nship c onflic t a nd te am p erfo rm ance. * N ote . T he d otte d lin e ( lo w w ork lo ad s harin g) is sta tis tic ally d if fe re nt fr o m z ero a t o ne s ta ndard d evia tio n b elo w th e m ean ( p a re p ro vid ed. * p D is cu ssio n This s tu dy y ie ld ed th re e m ajo r fin din gs. F ir s t, th e in te ra ctio n b etw een p ow er v alu es d iv ers it y a nd p artic ip ativ e s afe ty c lim ate w as a s ig nif ic ant p re dic to r o f re la tio nship c onflic t. W hen p artic ip ativ e s afe ty c lim ate w as h ig her, p ow er v alu es d iv ers it y w as e specia lly h elp fu l in r e ducin g r e la tio nship c onflic t. S econd, th is r e duced r e la tio nship c onflic t w as s ubsequently a ssocia te d w it h in cre ased te am p erfo rm ance. T hat is , p ow er v alu es d iv ers it y e xhib it e d a p osit iv e in dir e ct e ffe ct on te am p erfo rm ance, th ro ugh r e la tio nship c onflic t, w hen p artic ip ativ e s afe ty c lim ate w as h ig her. T hir d , w ork lo ad s harin g m odera te d th e a ssocia tio n b etw een re la tio nship c onflic t a nd te am p erfo rm ance. W hen w ork lo ad s harin g w as lo w er, r e la tio nship c onflic t w as fo und to b e p artic ula rly d etr im enta l to te am perfo rm ance. T hese fin din gs h ig hlig ht th e c ondit io ns u nder w hic h p ow er v alu es d iv ers it y a nd r e la tio nship c onflic t m ay d if fe re ntia lly in flu ence te am o utc om es. T heo re tic al Im plic atio ns a n d F utu re D ir e ctio ns W e c onsid ere d te am p artic ip ativ e s afe ty c lim ate a s a m odera to r o f th e a ssocia tio n b etw een p ow er v alu es d iv ers it y a nd r e la tio nship c onflic t. In d oin g s o, w e b uilt u pon th e o nly p rio r s tu dy o n te am p ow er v alu es d iv ers it y , w hic h s ole ly e xam in ed m ain e ffe cts , a nd e xplic it ly r e cogniz ed th e e xclu sio n o f s it u atio nal m odera to rs a s a lim it a tio n ( W oehr e t a l. [1 23] ) . D ra w in g fr o m a c ontin gency a ppro ach to w ard th e in vestig atio n o f p ow er v alu es d iv ers it y ’s e ffe cts , w e fo und th at th e m odera tin g r o le o f p artic ip ativ e s afe ty c lim ate in th e p ow er v alu es d iv ers it y -re la tio nship c onflic t lin k c an b e e xpla in ed b y th eory o n c om ple m enta ry fit ( e .g ., H um phre y e t a l. [4 4] ) . S pecif ic ally , in th e p re sence o f a h ig h p artic ip ativ e s afe ty c lim ate , h ig h p ow er v alu es d iv ers it y is a ccom panie d b y a ccepta nce a nd encoura gem ent a m ong te am m em bers , w hic h m ay fa cilit a te te am m em bers ’ d esir e s to c om ple m ent r a th er th an c onflic t w it h o ne a noth er. T hus, a te am ’s c lim ate m ay b e c ru cia l fo r m axim iz in g th e d esir a ble e ffe cts o f p ow er v alu es d iv ers it y o n r e la tio nship c onflic t. R ela te dly , o ur w ork h ig hlig hts th e n eed to c onsid er th e in flu ence o f c onte xtu al m odera to rs in fu tu re r e searc h o n p ow er v alu es d iv ers it y . M em bers h ig her in p ow er v alu es m ay h ave th eir m otiv atio nal g oals e ncoura ged m ore , d ependin g o n s pecif ic g ro up a nd/o r o rg aniz atio nal v aria ble s. F or e xam ple , te am mate s m otiv ate d to a tta in p osit io ns o f p ow er m ay b e norm ativ ely a ccepte d in d ecentr a liz ed o rg aniz atio ns o r g ro ups in w hic h h ig h e m pow erm ent e xis ts . H ow ever, th ey m ay b e d is coura ged in s ettin gs w here s tr ic t norm s c onflic t w it h th eir g oals . G iv en th ese p ossib ilit ie s, fu tu re w ork m ay h elp to e lu cid ate a ddit io nal c ondit io ns u nder w hic h p ow er v alu es d iv ers it y is lik ely to d if fe re ntia lly in flu ence r e la tio nship c onflic t a nd te am p erfo rm ance. B y in vestig atin g th e im pact o f w ork lo ad s harin g o n th e r e la tio nship c onflic t- te am p erfo rm ance lin k, w e a nsw ere d th e c all to g ain fu rth er in sig ht in to th e c ondit io ns under w hic h p erfo rm ance o utc om es o f p ro je ct ta sks a re d if fe re ntia lly im pacte d b y r e la tio nship c onflic t ( d e W it e t a l. [2 9] ) . W hen te am m em bers p erc eiv ed th at th eir te am mate s fa ile d to d o a n a ppro pria te s hare o f th e w ork , th e p re sence o f h ig h r e la tio nship c onflic t w as p artic ula rly lik ely to h in der te am p erfo rm ance. F ru str a te d te am m em bers fo rc ed to s plit th eir a tte ntio n b etw een m anagin g in te rp ers onal te nsio ns, a nim osit ie s, a nd r e la te d c om plic atio ns in a ddit io n to th e te am ta sk, m ay b e m ore lik ely to b e o verb urd ened a nd/o r d em otiv ate d b y s la ckin g te am mate s. T hus, w ork lo ad s harin g m ay b e a n im porta nt m odera to r o f th e re la tio nship c onflic t- te am p erfo rm ance r e la tio nship . F utu re in vestig atio ns in to m odera to rs o f th e r e la tio nship c onflic t- te am p erfo rm ance a ssocia tio n s hould a ssess th e im pact o f w ork lo ad s harin g in c onju nctio n w it h d if fe re nt ta sk ty pes ( e .g ., c re ativ it y , d ecis io n-m akin g, p ro ductio n, m ix ed; d e W it e t a l. [2 9] ; M cG ra th [7 6] ) , w hic h m ay p ro ve fr u it fu l in id entif y in g th e e xte nt to w hic h th e in te ra ctio n o f r e la tio nship c onflic t a nd w ork lo ad s harin g o n te am p erfo rm ance, is r e le vant to o th er te am ta sks in a ddit io n to p ro je ct ta sks. F or in sta nce, th e u ndesir a ble e ffe cts o f lo w er w ork lo ad s harin g, o n th e r e la tio nship c onflic t- te am p erfo rm ance lin k, m ay b e le ss d etr im enta l in p ro ductio n ta sks c hara cte riz ed b y lo w c om ple xit y a nd r o utin e e xecutio n. Furth erm ore , w e h eeded th e r e quests o f d iv ers it y s chola rs b y n ot o nly in vestig atin g m odera to rs o f te am d iv ers it y -te am o utc om e r e la tio nship s, b ut a ls o p ayin g atte ntio n to th e c ondit io ns u nder w hic h te am p ro cesses m edia te th e e ffe cts o f d iv ers it y ( V an K nip penberg a nd S chip pers [1 1 7] ) . T hat is , w hen p artic ip ativ e safe ty c lim ate w as h ig her ( v s lo w er), a p osit iv e in dir e ct e ffe ct o f p ow er v alu es d iv ers it y o n te am p erfo rm ance, th ro ugh r e la tio nship c onflic t, w as p re sent. T a ken to geth er, th e c urre nt s tu dy h ig hlig hts u nder w hat c ondit io ns th e e ffe cts o f p ow er v alu es d iv ers it y c an b e c om ple m enta ry , o r d esir a ble , in a uto nom ously f u nctio nin g te am s. A lt h ough r e searc h o n th e c om ple m enta ry e ffe cts o f d iv ers it y h as te nded to fo cus o n d if fe re nces in s kills , in fo rm atio n, a nd e xpertis e ( M annix a nd N eale [7 0] ) , d iv ers it y o f v alu es, a nd p ow er v alu es in p artic ula r, m ay w arra nt fu rth er a tte ntio n. T hat is , b y e xam in in g a m odera te d m edia tio n m odel in w hic h surfa ce-le vel d iv ers it y c hara cte ris tic s ( i. e ., a ge, g ender, r a ce/e th nic it y d iv ers it y ) w ere a ccounte d fo r, th e p re sent s tu dy w as th e fir s t to e m pir ic ally d em onstr a te th at p ow er v alu es d iv ers it y c an b e b enefic ia l fo r r e ducin g r e la tio nship c onflic t a nd in cre asin g te am p erfo rm ance. A ddit io nally , e vid ence fu rth er s uggests th at th e posit iv e e ffe cts o f te am d iv ers it y a re n ot lim it e d to th e ty pic ally s tu die d d iv ers it y c hara cte ris tic s r e le vant to fu nctio nal b ackgro und, w hic h h ave g enera lly n ot b een em pir ic ally s upporte d w it h r e spect to d ir e ct e ffe cts ( V an K nip penberg a nd S chip pers [1 1 7] ) . T here fo re , fu tu re r e searc h o n th e c om ple m enta ry e ffe cts o f p ow er valu es d iv ers it y s hould n ot o nly c onsid er m odels th at in clu de b oth m odera tin g a nd m edia tin g v aria ble s, b ut s hould a ls o c onsid er d em onstr a tin g p ow er v alu es div ers it y ’s in flu ence a bove a nd b eyond o th er p ote ntia lly r e le vant d iv ers it y v aria ble s ( e .g ., fu nctio nal b ackgro und, o th er v alu es, p ers onalit y tr a it s ). N ota bly , p ow er v alu es d iv ers it y w as fo und to b e n egativ ely r e la te d to r e la tio nship c onflic t. T hese r e sult s a re in c ontr a st to th e o nly p rio r s tu dy e xam in in g th e re la tio nship b etw een p ow er v alu es d iv ers it y a nd r e la tio nship c onflic t, w hic h fo und a p osit iv e c orre la tio n ( W oehr e t a l. [1 23] ) . H ow ever, it s hould b e n ote d th at W oehr a nd c olle agues d id n ot a ccount fo r s urfa ce-le vel d iv ers it y , a nd a fte r c ontr o llin g fo r th e te am m ean o f p ow er v alu es, th e r e la tio nship d is covere d b y W oehr and c olle agues b ecam e n on-s ig nif ic ant. In th e p re sent s tu dy, in a ddit io n to c ontr o llin g fo r th e te am m ean o f p ow er v alu es, m ult ip le s urfa ce-le vel d iv ers it y d em ogra phic s w ere a ls o a ccounte d fo r ( i. e ., a ge, g ender, r a ce/e th nic it y ), w hic h m ay in flu ence th e r e la tio nship o bserv ed. T here fo re , a s a n e xte nsio n o f p ast w ork a nd a s tr e ngth o f th e c urre nt r e searc h, o ur s tu dy is th e fir s t to d em onstr a te th e u niq ue a nd in cre m enta l e ffe cts o f p ow er v alu es d iv ers it y b eyond o th er div ers it y v aria ble s. M ore over, d if fe re nces in e ffe ct s iz es, a cro ss s tu die s, m ay p ro vid e fu rth er s upport fo r a n e m phasis o n m ore c om ple x m odels th at in clu de m odera to rs in te am d iv ers it y r e searc h, a s w ell a s v alu es d iv ers it y r e searc h in p artic ula r ( V an K nip penberg a nd S chip pers [1 1 7] ) . R ela te dly , T e tt e t a l. ( [1 1 4] ) c onclu ded th at b id ir e ctio nalit y , a cro ss s tu die s, is c om mon a nd m ay b e a ttr ib ute d in p art, to th e s tu dy c onte xt. F or in sta nce, p ow er v alu es d iv ers it y m ay b e m ore b enefic ia l to te am m em ber in te ra ctio ns in s pecif ic ty pes o f te am s a nd/o r ta sks. In th e la bora to ry s tu dy c onducte d b y W oehr e t a l. ( [1 23] ) , s tu dents w ho d id n ot know e ach o th er b efo re p artic ip atin g in th e s tu dy, w ork ed to geth er fo r a ppro xim ate ly 7 5 re quir e d to w ork to geth er fo r a v ery s hort d ura tio n, c le ar a nd s pecif ic in str u ctio ns w ere p re sente d, a nd o ne o ptim al s olu tio n e xis te d, a tte m pts to a ssum e dom in ance o r c ontr o l o ver o th er m em bers , b y la rg ely u nfa m ilia r te am mate s, m ay b e p erc eiv ed a s u nnecessary a nd o ffe nsiv e, r e gard le ss o f m em bers ’ com ple m enta ry v alu es. P erh aps n ot s urp ris in gly , W oehr a nd c olle agues s ta te d th at “ th e fin din gs o f th e p re sent s tu dy m ay b e q uit e d if fe re nt a m ong te am s o f lo nger lif e s pans, p urs uin g d if fe re nt o r m ult ip le ta sks a nd o pera tin g in a m uch le ss c ontr o lle d e nvir o nm ent” ( p . 1 1 8). In c ontr a st, th e m ore a uto nom ous te am s in t h e c urre nt s tu dy w ork ed o n ill- d efin ed p ro ble m s olv in g ta sks, o r ta sks la ckin g p re dete rm in ed o r c onclu siv e s olu tio ns ( W ild m an e t a l. [1 22] ) . T hese ta sks, chara cte riz ed b y h ig h c om ple xit y , w ere c arrie d o ut o ver th e c ours e o f 4 o f w ork . T here fo re , p ow er v alu es d iv ers it y , w hic h is c hara cte riz ed b y m em bers ’ m otiv atio ns to a ssum e c om ple m enta ry d utie s, m ay h ave b een p erc eiv ed m ore fa vora bly , a s d if fe re ntia l r o le s a nd r e sponsib ilit ie s w ere lik ely n ecessary to m anage th e c om ple xit ie s o f te am ta sks. B ecause te am m em bers h old m any v alu es, a nd th ey m ay a ttr ib ute g re ate r im porta nce to c erta in v alu es th an o th ers ( B ard i a nd S chw artz [4 ] ; S chw artz [9 6] ) , fu tu re w ork s hould n ot o nly c ontin ue to a dopt a c ontin gency a ppro ach to w ard th e s tu dy o f v alu es d iv ers it y , b ut s hould a ls o s eek to e xpand c urre nt k now le dge wit h r e spect to in te ra ctio ns a m ong v alu e ty pes. F or e xam ple , it is p ossib le th at p ow er v alu es d iv ers it y m ay in te ra ct w it h a chie vem ent v alu es to p re dic t te am perfo rm ance. G iv en th at p ow er v alu es d iv ers it y is a ssocia te d w it h c om ple m enta ry m otiv atio ns b etw een te am m em bers w it h r e spect to a ssum in g s pecif ic d utie s, th e a dded p re sence o f h ig h m ean a chie vem ent v alu es w it h in th e te am s uggests th at, in g enera l, m em bers w ill a ls o b e h ig hly m otiv ate d to d em onstr a te th eir c om pete nce a nd p erfo rm w ell. T here fo re , r e searc hers s hould e xplo re th e e xte nt to w hic h d if fe re nces in te am m em bers ’ p ow er v alu es in te ra ct w it h o th er valu e ty pes to p re dic t te am o utc om es. F urth er, a lt h ough th e c urre nt s tu dy fo cused o n p ow er v alu es, a nd in d oin g s o, h elp ed to b ro aden th e r a nge o f v alu es pre vio usly c onsid ere d in te am s, fu tu re r e searc hers s hould c ontin ue to e xplo re th e c ondit io ns u nder w hic h o th er s pecif ic ty pes o f v alu es d iv ers it y , in a ddit io n to p ow er, a re r e le vant to te am o utc om es. T his is n ote w orth y, a s p ast w ork h as o fte n c onceptu aliz ed v alu es d iv ers it y , a nd v alu es in g enera l, a s if th e n um ero us valu e ty pes ( e .g ., p ow er, a chie vem ent, tr a dit io nalis m ) w ere e quiv ale nt. F or in sta nce, a skin g p artic ip ants a bout th e d egre e to w hic h th eir g enera l v alu es a re s im ila r to , o r d if fe re nt fr o m , o th er g ro up m em bers m ay n ot b e p artic ula rly in fo rm ativ e fo r u nders ta ndin g th e p re cis e, u nderly in g v alu e ty pe(s ) in flu encin g ( a nd m echanis m s e xpla in in g) m em bers ’ b ehavio r. B y c onsid erin g v alu es in a n o verly g enera l m anner, th e e ffe cts o f s pecif ic v alu e ty pes m ay b e o bscure d a nd/o r th ose v alu e ty pes th at a re m ost s alie nt to r a te rs m ay b e m is re pre sente d. T here fo re , fu tu re w ork o n v alu es d iv ers it y , a nd v alu es in g enera l, s hould c onsid er th e specif ic v alu e ty pes th at a re c onceptu ally r e le vant to th e r e searc h q uestio n(s ) o f in te re st, a nd o pera tio naliz e th em a ppro pria te ly . In a ddit io n, r e searc hers s hould c ontin ue to in vestig ate c ondit io ns u nder w hic h th e p osit iv e e ffe cts o f v alu es d iv ers it y m ay b e m axim iz ed. F or in sta nce, e xta nt lit e ra tu re h as d em onstr a te d th at d iv ers it y is m ore lik ely to h ave b enefic ia l e ffe cts w hen te am m em bers b elie ve in th e v alu e o f d iv ers it y ( D e M euse a nd H osta ger [2 8] ; V an K nip penberg a nd H asla m [1 1 6] ) . S pecif ic ally , H om an e t a l. ( [4 3] ) fo und th at d iv ers e te am s h ad g re ate r p erfo rm ance w hen m em bers v alu ed d iv ers it y a s c om pare d to w hen th ey d id n ot. T hus, th e v alu e o f d iv ers it y a s w ell a s c onte xtu al v aria ble s s uch a s c lim ate s th at s upport d iv ers it y m ay b e p ro m is in g dir e ctio ns fo r s ubsequent s tu dy. W it h r e spect to lim it a tio ns o f th e p re sent s tu dy, th e s am ple u sed m ay lim it th e g enera liz abilit y o f fin din gs. W e in vestig ate d s tu dent p ro je ct te am s, w hic h w ere re sponsib le fo r p erfo rm in g a ta sk o ver th e c ours e o f s evera l m onth s fo r w hic h th ey r e ceiv ed a g ra de. T hese te am s w ould h ave e xis te d r e gard le ss o f d ata c olle ctio n, a nd w ere m ost s im ila r to ta sk fo rc es w it h a d h oc m em bers hip , lim it e d lif e tim es, a nd n arro w ly d efin ed g oals . H ow ever, fu tu re w ork s hould in vestig ate th e e xte nt to w hic h fin din gs g enera liz e to lo nger-te rm te am s in o rg aniz atio ns. A ddit io nally , th e c urre nt s tu dy m ay b e lim it e d in r e gard to te am s’ le vel o f ta sk in te rd ependence. S pecif ic ally , v ario us fo rm s o f ta sk in te rd ependence w ere lik ely p re sent, d ependin g o n th e s pecif ic p ro je ct s ubta sk a t h and ( e .g ., W ild m an e t a l. [1 22] ) . F or e xam ple , a lt h ough in it ia l c olle ctiv e b ra in sto rm in g e ffo rts a nd subsequent p erio ds o f in fo rm atio n s ynth esis m ay h ave b een c hara cte riz ed b y r e cip ro cal a nd/o r in te nsiv e ta sk in te rd ependence, in w hic h m ult ip le m em bers o r entir e te am s jo in tly c olla bora te d in b ack-a nd-fo rth c om munic atio ns ( W ild m an e t a l. [1 22] ) , it is lik ely th at, a t tim es, e ffo rts w ere d iv id ed o n v ario us ta sks in a m anner c hara cte ris tic o f p oole d in te rd ependence. A lt h ough w e r e cogniz e th ese p ote ntia l c hanges in ta sk in te rd ependence a s a lim it a tio n o f th e c urre nt s tu dy, w e a ls o c onte nd th at th is is lik ely s im ila r to h ow m any te am s fu nctio n in o rg aniz atio ns. F or in sta nce, W ild m an e t a l. ( [1 22] ) , in p re sentin g a ta xonom y o f in te gra tiv e te am ta sk ty pes a nd te am -le vel c hara cte ris tic s, s uggeste d th at te am s in o rg aniz atio ns m ove fr o m o ne s ubta sk to a noth er, a nd th is m ay b e accom panie d b y s hif ts in ta sk in te rd ependence. C onsequently , fu tu re w ork s hould c onsid er o th er ty pes o f te am ta sks, a nd in vestig ate th e e xte nt to w hic h ta sk in te rd ependence in o rg aniz atio nal te am s c hanges o ver tim e, a s w ell a s th e c ondit io ns u nder w hic h s uch c hanges m ay r e la te to te am p ro cesses ( e .g ., r e la tio nship c onflic t, w ork lo ad s harin g) a nd te am p erfo rm ance. P ra ctic al Im plic atio ns a n d C onclu sio n Stu dy r e sult s s uggest th at m anagers m ay b enefit fr o m e ncoura gin g te am s w it h d iv ers e p ow er v alu es to fo rm a h ig h p artic ip ativ e s afe ty c lim ate , w hic h m ay h elp t o d ecre ase th e lik elih ood o f r e la tio nship c onflic t. C erta in c hara cte ris tic s o f le aders m ay b e a nte cedents to fo ste rin g a h ig h p artic ip ativ e s afe ty c lim ate . F or exam ple , le ader in clu siv eness ( N em bhard a nd E dm ondson [8 2] ) , le ader a ccessib ilit y , a nd le ader a cknow le dgem ent o f fa llib ilit y ( E dm ondson [3 0] ) h ave b een fo und to b e a ssocia te d w it h th e e sta blis hm ent o f a n in te rp ers onally s afe te am c lim ate . G iv en th ese fin din gs, it m ay b e b enefic ia l to tr a in le aders o n th ese chara cte ris tic s, o r c onsid er a ppoin tin g le aders w ho e xhib it th em . More over, to m it ig ate th e d ele te rio us e ffe cts o f r e la tio nship c onflic t o n te am p erfo rm ance, m anagers m ay b enefit fr o m e ncoura gin g h ig her w ork lo ad s harin g. T he use o f te am c harte rs m ay b e a w ay to fa cilit a te h ig her w ork lo ad s harin g. In a s am ple o f M BA te am s, h ig h-q ualit y c harte rs , w hic h in corp ora te d w rit te n expecta tio ns fo r e ach te am m em ber r e gard in g w ork r e sponsib ilit ie s, c ontin gency p la ns, a nd d eadlin es, w ere a ssocia te d w it h g re ate r te am p erfo rm ance b y th e m id poin t ( e .g ., C hid am bara m a nd B ostr o m [2 1] ; G ers ic k [3 6] ) o f a te am ta sk ( M ath ie u a nd R app [7 3] ) . In c onclu sio n, o ur s tu dy is th e fir s t to h ig hlig ht h ow a nd u nder w hat c ondit io ns p ow er v alu es d iv ers it y in flu ences te am o utc om es. C onsis te nt w it h th e contin gency a ppro ach r e com mended b y b oth te am d iv ers it y a nd c onflic t s chola rs , w e h elp to e lu cid ate th e c ondit io nal e ffe cts o f b oth p ow er v alu es d iv ers it y a nd re la tio nship c onflic t. R esult s s upport th e u tilit y o f c onsid erin g te am p artic ip ativ e s afe ty c lim ate to b ette r u nders ta nd th e c ondit io ns u nder w hic h d if fe re nces in p ow er v alu es, a m ong te am m em bers , a re lik ely to r e duce r e la tio nship c onflic t a nd s ubsequently b enefit te am p erfo rm ance. F in din gs a ls o h ig hlig ht th e m odera tin g r o le o f w ork lo ad s harin g fo r u nders ta ndin g th e c ondit io ns u nder w hic h r e la tio nship c onflic t is m ore lik ely to u ndesir a bly im pact te am p erfo rm ance. T he p re sent s tu dy a dds to th e e m erg in g r e searc h a dvocatin g fo r m ore c om ple x m odels th at c onsid er b oth th e m odera tin g a nd m edia tin g e ffe cts o f te am div ers it y , a s w ell a s m ore r e searc h o n te am v alu es d iv ers it y in p artic ula r. F urth erm ore , a lt h ough r e searc h o n th e c om ple m enta ry e ffe cts o f te am d iv ers it y h as com monly p ro posed d iv ers it y v aria ble s r e le vant to s kills , in fo rm atio n, a nd e xpertis e, w e d em onstr a te th at p ow er v alu es d iv ers it y , o r d if fe re nces in th e d esir e to a tta in s ocia l s ta tu s a nd p re stig e a s w ell a s s ocia l in flu ence o r c ontr o l o ver o th ers , w arra nts fu tu re c onsid era tio n w it h r e spect to b enefic ia l e ffe cts o n b oth te am pro cesses a nd te am p erfo rm ance. A ckn ow le d gem en ts T he fir s t a uth or w ould lik e to th ank M aria D . A lip our, E den B . K in g, a nd tw o a nonym ous r e vie w ers fo r th eir h elp fu l c om ments o n e arlie r v ers io ns o f th is p aper. R efe re n ces C it a tio ns 1 A im e F , H um phre y S , D eR ue D S, P aul J B , T he r id dle o f h ete ra rc hy: p ow er tr a nsit io ns in c ro ss-fu nctio nal te am s, A cadem y o f M anagem ent J ourn al, 2 014, 5 7, 2, 3 27, 3 52 2 A nders on N R, W est M A, M easurin g c lim ate fo r w ork g ro up in novatio n: d evelo pm ent a nd v alid atio n o f th e te am c lim ate in vento ry , J ourn al o f O rg aniz atio nal B ehavio r, 1 998, 1 9, 3 , 2 35, 2 58 3 A rth aud-D ay M L, R ode J C , T urn le y W H, D ir e ct a nd c onte xtu al e ffe cts o f in div id ual v alu es o n o rg aniz atio nal c it iz enship b ehavio r in te am s, J ourn al o f A pplie d P sycholo gy, 2 012, 9 7, 4 , 7 92, 8 07 4 B ard i A , S chw artz S H , V alu es a nd b ehavio r: s tr e ngth a nd s tr u ctu re o f r e la tio ns, P ers onalit y a nd S ocia l P sycholo gy B ulle tin , 2 003, 2 9, 1 207, 1 220 5 B edeia n A G , M osshold er K W , O n th e u se o f th e c oeffic ie nt o f v aria tio n a s a m easure o f d iv ers it y , O rg aniz atio nal R esearc h M eth ods, 2 000, 3 , 2 85, 2 97 6 B ell S T, D eep-le vel c om posit io n v aria ble s a s p re dic to rs o f te am p erfo rm ance: a m eta -a naly sis , J ourn al o f A pplie d P sycholo gy, 2 007, 9 2, 5 95, 6 15 7 B ell S T, V illa do A J, L ukasik M , B ela u L , B rig gs A , G ettin g s pecif ic a bout d em ogra phic d iv ers it y v aria ble a nd te am p erfo rm ance r e la tio nship s: a m eta – analy sis , J ourn al o f M anagem ent, 2 011 , 3 7, 7 09, 7 43 8 B enders ky C , S hah N P, T he c ost o f s ta tu s e nhancem ent: p erfo rm ance e ffe cts o f in div id uals ’ s ta tu s m obilit y in ta sk g ro ups, O rg aniz atio n S cie nce, 2 012, 23, 2 , 3 08, 3 22 9 B la u P M , In equalit y a nd h ete ro geneit y : a p rim it iv e th eory o f s ocia l s tr u ctu re , 1 977, N ew Y ork , F re e P re ss 10 B lie se P D , K le in K J, K ozlo w ski S W J, W it h in g ro up a gre em ent, n on-in dependence, a nd r e lia bilit y : im plic atio ns fo r d ata a ggre gatio n a nd a naly sis , M ult ile vel th eory , r e searc h, a nd m eth ods in o rg aniz atio ns: fo undatio ns, e xte nsio ns, a nd n ew d ir e ctio ns, 2 000, S an F ra ncis co, J ossey-B ass, 3 48, 3 81 11 B ond M H, L eung K , A u A , T o ng K K, C hem onges-N ie ls on Z , C om bin in g s ocia l a xio m s w it h v alu es in p re dic tin g s ocia l b ehavio urs , E uro pean J ourn al o f P ers onalit y , 2 004, 1 8, 3 , 1 77, 1 91 12 B ra dle y B H , P ostle th w ait e B E, K lo tz A C , H am dani M R, B ro w n K G , R eapin g th e b enefit s o f ta sk c onflic t in te am s: th e c rit ic al r o le o f te am p sycholo gic al safe ty c lim ate , J ourn al o f A pplie d P sycholo gy, 2 012, 9 7, 1 , 1 51, 1 58 13 B re tt J M , O kum ura T , In te r-a nd in tr a cult u ra l n egotia tio n: U S a nd J apanese n egotia to rs , A cadem y o f M anagem ent J ourn al, 1 998, 4 1, 5 , 4 95, 5 10 14 B yrn e D , T he a ttr a ctio n p ara dig m , 1 971, N ew Y ork , A cadem ic P re ss 15 C able D M , E dw ard s J R , C om ple m enta ry a nd s upple m enta ry fit : a th eore tic al a nd e m pir ic al in te gra tio n, J ourn al o f A pplie d P sycholo gy, 2 004, 8 9, 5 , 8 22, 834 16 C am pio n M A, M edsker G J, H ig gs A C , R ela tio ns b etw een w ork g ro up c hara cte ris tic s a nd e ffe ctiv eness: im plic atio ns fo r d esig nin g e ffe ctiv e w ork g ro ups, P ers onnel P sycholo gy, 1 993, 4 6, 4 , 8 23, 8 47 17 C am pio n M A, P apper E M , M edsker G J, R ela tio ns b etw een w ork te am c hara cte ris tic s a nd e ffe ctiv eness: a r e plic atio n a nd e xte nsio n, P ers onnel P sycholo gy, 1 996, 4 9, 2 , 4 29, 4 52 18 C arle ss S A, D e P aola C , T he m easure m ent o f c ohesio n in w ork te am s, S m all G ro up R esearc h, 2 000, 3 1, 1 , 7 1, 8 8 19 C arli L L, L aF le ur S J, L oeber C C, N onverb al b ehavio r, g ender, a nd in flu ence, J ourn al o f P ers onalit y a nd S ocia l P sycholo gy, 1 995, 6 8, 1 030, 1 041 20 C han D , F unctio nal r e la tio ns a m ong c onstr u cts in th e s am e c onte xt d om ain a t d if fe re nt le vels o f a naly sis : a ty polo gy o f c om posit io n m odels , J ourn al o f A pplie d P sycholo gy, 1 998, 8 3, 2 34, 2 46 21 C hid am bara m L , B ostr o m R , G ro up d evelo pm ent ( I) : a r e vie w a nd s ynth esis o f d evelo pm ent m odels , G ro up D ecis io n a nd N egotia tio n, 1 997, 6 , 2 , 1 59, 187 22 C hoi J N , S y T , G ro up-le vel o rg aniz atio nal c it iz enship b ehavio r: e ffe cts o f d em ogra phic fa ult lin es a nd c onflic t in s m all w ork g ro ups, J ourn al o f O rg aniz atio nal B ehavio r, 2 010, 3 1, 7 , 1 032, 1 054 23 C hun J S , C hoi J N , M em bers ’ n eeds, in tr a gro up c onflic t, a nd g ro up p erfo rm ance, J ourn al o f A pplie d P sycholo gy, 2 014, 9 9, 3 , 4 37, 4 50 24 C ole M S, B edeia n A G , H ir s chfe ld R R, V ogel B , D is pers io n-c om posit io n m odels in m ult ile vel r e searc h a d ata -a naly tic fr a m ew ork , O rg aniz atio nal R esearc h M eth ods, 2 011 , 1 4, 4 , 7 18, 7 34 25 D e D re u C K, W hen to o lit tle o r to o m uch h urts : e vid ence fo r a c urv ilin ear r e la tio nship b etw een ta sk c onflic t a nd in novatio n in te am s, J ourn al o f M anagem ent, 2 006, 3 2, 1 , 8 3, 1 07 26 D e D re u C K, V an V ia nen A E, M anagin g r e la tio nship c onflic t a nd th e e ffe ctiv eness o f o rg aniz atio nal te am s, J ourn al o f O rg aniz atio nal B ehavio r, 2 001, 2 2, 3, 3 09, 3 28 27 D e D re u C KW , W ein gart L R , T a sk v ers us r e la tio nship c onflic t, te am p erfo rm ance, a nd te am m em ber s atis fa ctio n: a m eta -a naly sis , J ourn al o f A pplie d P sycholo gy, 2 003, 8 8, 4 , 7 41, 7 49 28 D e M euse K P, H osta ger T J, D evelo pin g a n in str u m ent fo r m easurin g a ttit u des to w ard a nd p erc eptio ns o f w ork pla ce d iv ers it y : a n in it ia l r e port, H um an R esourc e D evelo pm ent Q uarte rly , 2 001, 1 2, 1 , 3 3, 5 1 29 W it F R C, G re er L L, J ehn K A, T he p ara dox o f in tr a gro up c onflic t: a m eta -a naly sis , J ourn al o f A pplie d P sycholo gy, 2 012, 9 7, 2 , 3 60, 3 90 30 E dm ondson, A . C . ( 2 003). M anagin g th e r is k o f le arn in g: P sycholo gic al s afe ty in w ork te am s. In M . W est, D . T jo svold , & K . G . S m it h ( E ds.) , In te rn atio nal handbook o f o rg aniz atio nal te am work a nd c oopera tiv e w ork in g. d oi: 1 0.1 002/9 780470696712.c h13. 31 E re z A , L eP in e J A , E lm s H , E ffe cts o f r o ta te d le aders hip a nd p eer e valu atio n o n th e fu nctio nin g a nd e ffe ctiv eness o f s elf – m anaged te am s: a q uasi- e xperim ent, P ers onnel P sycholo gy, 2 002, 5 5, 9 29, 9 48 32 E van W , C onflic t a nd p erfo rm ance in R &D o rg aniz atio ns, In dustr ia l M anagem ent R evie w , 1 965, 7 , 3 7, 4 6 33 F eath er, N . T . ( 1 995). V alu es, v ale nces, a nd c hoic e: th e in flu ences o f v alu es o n th e p erc eiv ed a ttr a ctiv eness a nd c hoic e o f a lt e rn ativ es., J ourn al o f P ers onalit y a nd S ocia l P sycholo gy, 6 8( 6), 1 1 35-1 1 51. 34 F olg er, R . ( 1 987). R efo rm ula tin g th e p re condit io ns o f r e sentm ent: a r e fe re nt c ognit io ns m odel. In J . C . M aste rs & W . P . S m it h ( E ds.) , S ocia l c om paris on, ju stic e, a nd r e la tiv e d epriv atio n: th eore tic al, e m pir ic al, a nd p olic y p ers pectiv es ( p p. 1 83-2 15). H ills dale : E rlb aum . 35 F ra zie r M L, B ow le r W M, V oic e c lim ate , s uperv is or u nderm in in g, a nd w ork o utc om es a g ro up-le vel e xam in atio n, J ourn al o f M anagem ent, 2 015, 4 1, 3 , 8 41, 863 36 G ers ic k C J, T im e a nd tr a nsit io n in w ork te am s: to w ard a n ew m odel o f g ro up d evelo pm ent, A cadem y o f M anagem ent J ourn al, 1 988, 3 1, 1 , 9 , 4 1 37 G re er L L, J ehn K A, T he p iv ota l r o le o f n egativ e a ffe ct in u nders ta ndin g th e e ffe cts o f p ro cess c onflic t o n g ro up p erfo rm ance, R esearc h o n m anagin g gro ups a nd te am s, 2 007, 1 0, 2 3, 4 5 38 H arris on D A, P ric e K H , B ell M P, B eyond r e la tio nal d em ogra phy: tim e a nd th e e ffe cts o f s urfa ce-a nd d eep-le vel d iv ers it y o n w ork g ro up c ohesio n, A cadem y o f M anagem ent J ourn al, 1 998, 4 1, 1 , 9 6, 1 07 39 H arris on D A, P ric e K H , G avin J H , F lo re y A T, T im e, te am s, a nd ta sk p erfo rm ance: c hangin g e ffe cts o f s urfa ce a nd d eep-le vel d iv ers it y o n g ro up fu nctio nin g, A cadem y o f M anagem ent J ourn al, 2 002, 4 5, 5 , 1 029, 1 045 40 H arris on D A, K le in K J, W hat’s th e d if fe re nce? D iv ers it y c onstr u cts a s s epara tio n, v arie ty , o r d is parit y in o rg aniz atio ns, A cadem y o f M anagem ent R evie w , 2007, 3 2, 4 , 1 1 99, 1 228 41 H it lin , S ., & P ilia vin , J . A . ( 2 004). V alu es: r e viv in g a d orm ant c oncept., A nnual R evie w o f S ocio lo gy, 3 59-3 93. 42 H olle nbeck J R , D eR ue D S, G uzzo R , B rid gin g th e g ap b etw een I/O r e searc h a nd H R p ra ctic e: im pro vin g te am c om posit io n, te am tr a in in g, a nd te am ta sk desig n, H um an R esourc e M anagem ent, 2 004, 4 3, 4 , 3 53, 3 66 43 H om an A C , V an K nip penberg D , V an K le ef G A, D e D re u C K, B rid gin g fa ult lin es b y v alu in g d iv ers it y : d iv ers it y b elie fs , in fo rm atio n e la bora tio n, a nd perfo rm ance in d iv ers e w ork g ro ups, J ourn al o f A pplie d P sycholo gy, 2 007, 9 2, 5 , 1 1 89, 1 1 99 44 H um phre y S E, H olle nbeck J R , M eyer C J, Ilg en D R, T ra it c onfig ura tio ns in s elf – m anaged te am s: a c onceptu al e xam in atio n o f th e u se o f s eedin g to m axim iz e a nd m in im iz e tr a it v aria nce in te am s, J ourn al o f A pplie d P sycholo gy, 2 007, 9 2, 3 , 8 85, 8 92 45 Ilg en D R, H olle nbeck J R , J ohnson M D, J undt D K, T e am s in o rg aniz atio ns: fr o m in put- p ro cess-o utp ut m odels to IM OI m odels , A nnual R evie w o f P sycholo gy, 2 005, 5 6, 5 17, 5 43 46 J ackson S E, B re tt J F, S essa V I, C ooper D M , J ulin J A , P eyro nnin K , S om e d if fe re nces m ake a d if fe re nce: in div id ual d is sim ila rit y a nd g ro up h ete ro geneit y a s c orre la te s o f r e cru it m ent, p ro m otio ns, a nd tu rn over, J ourn al o f A pplie d P sycholo gy, 1 991, 7 6, 6 75, 6 89 47 J ackson, S . E ., & J oshi, A . ( 2 011 ). W ork te am d iv ers it y . In S . Z edeck ( E d.) , A PA h andbook o f in dustr ia l a nd o rg aniz atio nal p sycholo gy ( v ol. 1 , p p. 6 51- 686). W ashin gto n, D C: A m eric an P sycholo gic al A ssocia tio n. 48 J am es, L . R . ( 1 982). A ggre gatio n b ia s in e stim ate s o f p erc eptu al a gre em ent., J ourn al o f A pplie d P sycholo gy, 6 7( 2), 2 19-2 29. 49 J assaw alla A , S ashit ta l H , S ashit ta l A , S tu dents ’ p erc eptio ns o f s ocia l lo afin g: it s a nte cedents a nd c onsequences in u nderg ra duate b usin ess c la ssro om te am s, A cadem y o f M anagem ent L earn in g & E ducatio n, 2 009, 8 , 1 , 4 2, 5 4 50 J ehn, K . A . ( 1 995). A m ult im eth od e xam in atio n o f th e b enefit s a nd d etr im ents o f in tr a gro up c onflic t., A dm in is tr a tiv e S cie nce Q uarte rly , 2 56-2 82. 51 J ehn K A, C hadw ic k C , T hatc her S M , T o a gre e o r n ot to a gre e: th e e ffe cts o f v alu e c ongru ence, in div id ual d em ogra phic d is sim ila rit y , a nd c onflic t o n w ork gro up o utc om es, In te rn atio nal J ourn al o f C onflic t M anagem ent, 1 997, 8 , 4 , 2 87, 3 05 52 J ehn K A, M annix E A, T he d ynam ic n atu re o f c onflic t: a lo ngit u din al s tu dy o f in tr a gro up c onflic t a nd g ro up p erfo rm ance, A cadem y o f M anagem ent J ourn al, 2 001, 4 4, 2 38, 2 51 53 J ehn K A, N orth cra ft G B, N eale M A, W hy d if fe re nces m ake a d if fe re nce: a fie ld s tu dy o f d iv ers it y , c onflic t a nd p erfo rm ance in w ork gro ups, A dm in is tr a tiv e S cie nce Q uarte rly , 1 999, 4 4, 4 , 7 41, 7 63 54 J ehn K A, R is pens S , T hatc her S M , M anagin g c onflic t in g ro ups a nd te am s: c onflic t a bout c onflic t, L ookin g b ack, m ovin g fo rw ard : a r e vie w o f g ro up a nd te am -b ased r e searc h ( re searc h o n m anagin g g ro ups a nd te am s), 2 012, 1 5, 1 33, 1 59 55 J oshi A , R oh H , T he r o le o f c onte xt in w ork te am d iv ers it y r e searc h: a m eta – a naly tic r e vie w , A cadem y o f M anagem ent J ourn al, 2 009, 5 2, 3 , 5 99, 6 27 56 K acm ar K M , B achra ch D G , H arris K J, N oble D , E xplo rin g th e r o le o f s uperv is or tr u st in th e a ssocia tio ns b etw een m ult ip le s ourc es o f r e la tio nship c onflic t and o rg aniz atio nal c it iz enship b ehavio r, T he L eaders hip Q uarte rly , 2 012, 2 3, 1 , 4 3, 5 4 57 K anouse D E, H anson L R , J r, J ones E E, K anouse D E, K elle y H H, N is bett R E, V alin s S , W ein er B , N egativ it y in e valu atio ns, A ttr ib utio n: p erc eiv in g th e causes o f b ehavio r, 1 972, M orris to w n, N J, G enera l L earn in g P re ss, 4 7, 6 2 58 K err N L, M otiv atio n lo sses in s m all g ro ups: a s ocia l d ile m ma a naly sis , J ourn al o f P ers onalit y a nd S ocia l P sycholo gy, 1 983, 4 5, 8 19, 8 28 59 K ie sle r D J, T he 1 982 in te rp ers onal c ir c le : a ta xonom y fo r c om ple m enta rit y in h um an tr a nsactio ns, P sycholo gic al R evie w , 1 983, 9 0, 3 , 1 85, 2 14 60 K iv im aki M , E lo vain io M , A s hort v ers io n o f th e te am c lim ate in vento ry : d evelo pm ent a nd p sychom etr ic p ro pertie s, J ourn al o f O ccupatio nal a nd O rg aniz atio nal P sycholo gy, 1 999, 7 2, 2 , 2 41, 2 46 61 K le in , K . J ., B lie se, P . D ., K ozolo w ski, S . W ., D ansere au, F ., G avin , M . B ., G rif fin , M . A .,… & B lig h, M . C . ( 2 000). M ult ile vel a naly tic al te chniq ues: C om monalit ie s, d if fe re nces, a nd c ontin uin g q uestio ns. In K . J . K le in & S . W . J . K ozlo w ski ( E ds.) , M ult ile vel th eory , r e searc h, a nd m eth ods in o rg aniz atio ns: fo undatio ns, e xte nsio ns, a nd n ew d ir e ctio ns ( p p. 5 13-5 53). S an F ra ncis co: J ossey-B ass. 62 K ozlo w ski S W J, K le in K J, K le in K J, K ozlo w ski S W J, A m ult ile vel a ppro ach to th eory a nd r e searc h in o rg aniz atio ns: c onte xtu al, te m pora l, a nd e m erg ent pro cesses, M ult ile vel th eory , r e searc h, a nd m eth ods in o rg aniz atio ns: fo undatio ns, e xte nsio ns, a nd n ew d ir e ctio ns, 2 000, S an F ra ncis co, C A, J ossey-B ass, 3, 9 0 63 K ris to f A L, P ers on-o rg aniz atio n fit : a n in te gra tiv e r e vie w o f it s c onceptu aliz atio ns, m easure m ent, a nd im plic atio ns, P ers onnel P sycholo gy, 1 996, 4 9, 1 , 1 , 49 64 K ris to f- B ro w n A , B arric k M R, K ay S te vens C , W hen o pposit e s a ttr a ct: a m ult i- s am ple d em onstr a tio n o f c om ple m enta ry p ers on-te am fit o n e xtr a vers io n, Journ al o f P ers onalit y , 2 005, 7 3, 4 , 9 35, 9 58 65 L eana C R, P il F K , S ocia l c apit a l a nd o rg aniz atio nal p erfo rm ance: e vid ence fr o m u rb an p ublic s chools , O rg aniz atio n S cie nce, 2 006, 1 7, 3 , 3 53, 3 66 66 L eB re to n, J . M ., & S ente r, J . L . ( 2 008). A nsw ers to 2 0 q uestio ns a bout in te rra te r r e lia bilit y a nd in te rra te r a gre em ent., O rg aniz atio nal R esearc h M eth ods, 11 , 8 15-8 52. 67 L i J , H am bric k D C, F actio nal g ro ups: a n ew v anta ge o n d em ogra phic fa ult lin es, c onflic t, a nd d is in te gra tio n in w ork te am s, A cadem y o f M anagem ent Journ al, 2 005, 4 8, 5 , 7 94, 8 13 68 L onner W J, T he s earc h fo r p sycholo gic al u niv ers als , H andbook o f c ro ss-c ult u ra l p sycholo gy, 1 980, 1 , 1 43, 2 04 69 M anata , B . ( 2 016). E xplo rin g th e a ssocia tio n b etw een r e la tio nship c onflic t a nd g ro up p erfo rm ance., G ro up D ynam ic s: T heory , R esearc h, a nd P ra ctic e, 20( 2), 9 3-1 04. 70 M annix E , N eale M A, W hat d if fe re nces m ake a d if fe re nce? T he p ro m is e a nd r e alit y o f d iv ers e te am s in o rg aniz atio ns, P sycholo gic al S cie nce in th e P ublic I n te re st, 2 005, 6 , 2 , 3 1, 5 5 71 M anz, C . C ., & S im s J r, H . P . ( 1 987). L eadin g w ork ers to le ad th em selv es: T he e xte rn al le aders hip o f s elf – m anagin g w ork te am s., A dm in is tr a tiv e S cie nce Q uarte rly , 1 06-1 29. 72 M artín ez-M ore no, E ., Z orn oza, A ., G onzále z-N avarro , P ., & T hom pson, L . F . ( 2 012). In vestig atin g fa ce-to -fa ce a nd v ir tu al te am work o ver tim e: w hen d oes early ta sk c onflic t tr ig ger r e la tio nship c onflic t? , G ro up D ynam ic s: T heory , R esearc h, a nd P ra ctic e, 1 6( 3), 1 59-1 71. 73 M ath ie u, J . E ., & R app, T . L . ( 2 009). L ayin g th e fo undatio n fo r s uccessfu l te am p erfo rm ance tr a je cto rie s: th e r o le s o f te am c harte rs a nd p erfo rm ance str a te gie s., J ourn al o f A pplie d P sycholo gy, 9 4( 1), 9 0-1 03. 74 M ath ie u, J . E ., & S chulz e, W . ( 2 006). T he in flu ence o f te am k now le dge a nd fo rm al p la ns o n e pis odic te am p ro cess-p erfo rm ance r e la tio nship s., A cadem y of M anagem ent J ourn al, 4 9( 3), 6 05-6 19. 75 M ath ie u, J . E ., G ils on, L . L ., & R uddy, T . M . ( 2 006). E m pow erm ent a nd te am e ffe ctiv eness: a n e m pir ic al te st o f a n in te gra te d m odel. , J ourn al o f a pplie d psycholo gy, 9 1( 1), 9 7-1 08. 76 M cG ra th J E , G ro ups: in te ra ctio n a nd p erfo rm ance, 1 984, E ngle w ood C lif fs , N J, P re ntic e-H all 7 7 M ein dl J R , R ein ventin g le aders hip : a r a dic al, s ocia l p sycholo gic al a ppro ach, S ocia l p sycholo gy in o rg aniz atio ns: A dvances in th eory a nd r e searc h, 1 993, 12, 1 59, 2 03 78 M oham med S , A ngell L C , S urfa ce- a nd d eep-le vel d iv ers it y in w ork gro ups: e xam in in g th e m odera tin g e ffe cts o f te am o rie nta tio n a nd te am p ro cess o n re la tio nship c onflic t, J ourn al o f O rg aniz atio nal B ehavio r, 2 004, 2 5, 1 015, 1 039 79 M uchin sky P M , M onahan C J, W hat is p ers on-e nvir o nm ent c ongru ence? S upple m enta ry v ers us c om ple m enta ry m odels o f fit , J ourn al o f V ocatio nal B ehavio r, 1 987, 3 1, 3 , 2 68, 2 77 80 M ulv ey P W , K le in H J, T he im pact o f p erc eiv ed lo afin g a nd c olle ctiv e e ffic acy o n g ro up g oal p ro cesses a nd g ro up p erfo rm ance, O rg aniz atio nal B ehavio r and H um an D ecis io n P ro cesses, 1 998, 7 4, 6 2, 8 7 81 M urp hy S M , W ayne S J, L id en R C, E rd ogan B , U nders ta ndin g s ocia l lo afin g: th e r o le o f ju stic e p erc eptio ns a nd e xchange r e la tio nship s, H um an r e la tio ns, 2003, 5 6, 1 , 6 1, 8 4 82 N em bhard IM , E dm ondson A C , M akin g it s afe : th e e ffe cts o f le ader in clu siv eness a nd p ro fe ssio nal s ta tu s o n p sycholo gic al s afe ty a nd im pro vem ent effo rts in h ealt h c are te am s, J ourn al o f O rg aniz atio nal B ehavio r, 2 006, 2 7, 9 41, 9 66 83 O ’N eill T A , A lle n N J, H astin gs S E, E xam in in g th e “ p ro s” a nd “ c ons” o f te am c onflic t: a te am -le vel m eta -a naly sis o f ta sk, r e la tio nship , a nd p ro cess c onflic t, H um an P erfo rm ance, 2 013, 2 6, 3 , 2 36, 2 60 84 P elle d L H , E is enhard t K M , X in K R , E xplo rin g th e b la ck b ox: a n a naly sis o f w ork g ro up d iv ers it y , c onflic t a nd p erfo rm ance, A dm in is tr a tiv e S cie nce Q uarte rly , 1 999, 4 4, 1 , 1 , 2 8 85 P elt o korp i V , H asu M , H ow p artic ip ativ e s afe ty m atte rs m ore in te am in novatio n a s te am s iz e in cre ases, J ourn al o f B usin ess a nd P sycholo gy, 2 014, 2 9, 1, 3 7, 4 5 86 P ir o la -M erlo A , H ärte l C , M ann L , H ir s t G , H ow le aders in flu ence th e im pact o f a ffe ctiv e e vents o n te am c lim ate a nd p erfo rm ance in R &D te am s, T he Leaders hip Q uarte rly , 2 002, 1 3, 5 , 5 61, 5 81 87 P re acher K J, R ucker D D, H ayes A F, A ddre ssin g m odera te d m edia tio n h ypoth eses: th eory , m eth ods, a nd p re scrip tio ns, M ult iv aria te B ehavio ra l R esearc h, 2 007, 4 2, 1 , 1 85, 2 27 88 P re acher, K . J ., Z yphur, M . J ., & Z hang, Z . ( 2 010). A g enera l m ult ile vel S EM fr a m ew ork fo r a ssessin g m ult ile vel m edia tio n., P sycholo gic al M eth ods, 15( 3), 2 09-2 33. 89 R app, T . L ., & M ath ie u, J . E . ( 2 007). E valu atin g a n in div id ually s elf – a dm in is te re d g eneric te am work s kills tr a in in g p ro gra m a cro ss tim e a nd le vels ., S m all G ro up R esearc h, 3 8( 4), 5 32-5 55. 90 R aub S , R obert C , D if fe re ntia l e ffe cts o f e m pow erin g le aders hip o n in -ro le a nd e xtr a -ro le e m plo yee b ehavio rs : e xplo rin g th e r o le o f p sycholo gic al em pow erm ent a nd p ow er v alu es, H um an R ela tio ns, 2 010, 6 3, 1 1 , 1 743, 1 770 91 R en H , G ra y B , R epair in g r e la tio nship c onflic t: h ow v io la tio n ty pes a nd c ult u re in flu ence th e e ffe ctiv eness o f r e sto ra tio n r it u als , A cadem y o f M anagem ent R evie w , 2 009, 3 4, 1 , 1 05, 1 26 92 R ohan M J, A r o se b y a ny n am e? T he v alu es c onstr u ct, P ers onalit y a nd S ocia l P sycholo gy R evie w , 2 000, 4 , 3 , 2 55, 2 77 93 R okeach M , T he n atu re o f h um an v alu es, 1 973, N ew Y ork , F re e P re ss 94 S ala s, E ., B urk e, C . S ., & F ow lk es, J . E . ( 2 006). M easurin g te am p erfo rm ance ‘in th e w ild ’: , C halle nges a nd tip s. P erfo rm ance m easure m ent: C urre nt pers pectiv es a nd fu tu re c halle nges, 2 45-2 72. 95 S ala s, E ., P rie st, H . A ., S ta gl, K . C ., S im s, D . E ., & B urk e, C . S . ( 2 007). W ork te am s in o rg aniz atio ns: a h is to ric al r e fle ctio n a nd le ssons le arn ed., H is to ric al p ers pectiv es in in dustr ia l a nd o rg aniz atio nal p sycholo gy, 4 07-4 38. 96 S chw artz S H , Z anna M P, U niv ers als in th e c onte nt a nd s tr u ctu re o f v alu es: th eore tic al a dvances a nd e m pir ic al te sts in 2 0 c ountr ie s, A dvances in e xperim enta l s ocia l p sycholo gy, 1 992, N ew Y ork , A cadem ic P re ss, 1 , 6 5 97 S chw artz S H , A re th ere u niv ers al a spects in th e s tr u ctu re a nd c onte nts o f h um an v alu es?, J ourn al o f S ocia l Is sues, 1 994, 5 0, 4 , 1 9, 4 5 98 S chw artz S H , S elig m an C , O ls on J M , Z anna M P, V alu e p rio rit ie s a nd b ehavio r: a pply in g o f th eory o f in te gra te d v alu e s yste m s, T he p sycholo gy o f v alu es: th e O nta rio s ym posiu m , 1 996, H ills dale , N J, E rlb aum , 1 , 2 4 99 S chw artz , S . H . ( 2 003). A p ro posal fo r m easurin g v alu e o rie nta tio ns a cro ss n atio ns., Q uestio nnair e P ackage o f th e E uro pean S ocia l S urv ey, 2 59-2 90. 100 S chw artz S H , A th eory o f c ult u ra l v alu e o rie nta tio ns: e xplic atio n a nd a pplic atio ns, C om para tiv e S ocio lo gy, 2 006, 5 , 2 , 1 37, 1 82 101 S chw artz , S . H . ( 2 007). V alu e o rie nta tio ns: M easure m ent, a nte cedents a nd c onsequences a cro ss n atio ns., M easurin g a ttit u des c ro ss-n atio nally : Lessons fr o m th e E uro pean S ocia l S urv ey, 1 61-1 93. 102 S chw artz S H , M ik ulin cer M , S haver P R , B asic v alu es: h ow th ey m otiv ate a nd in hib it p ro socia l b ehavio r, P ro socia l m otiv es, e m otio ns, a nd b ehavio r: th e bette r a ngels o f o ur n atu re , 2 009, W ashin gto n, D C, A m eric an P sycholo gic al A ssocia tio n, 2 21, 2 41 103 S chw artz S H , B asic v alu es: h ow th ey m otiv ate a nd in hib it p ro socia l b ehavio r, P ro socia l m otiv es, e m otio ns, a nd b ehavio r: T he b ette r a ngels o f o ur natu re , 2 010, 1 4, 2 21, 2 41 104 S chw artz , S . H . ( 2 012). A n O verv ie w o f th e S chw artz T heory o f B asic V alu es., O nlin e R eadin gs in P sycholo gy a nd C ult u re , 2 ( 1) . d oi: 1 0.9 707/2 307- 0919.1 11 6. 105 S chw artz S H , C apra ra G V, V ecchio ne M , B asic p ers onal v alu es, c ore p olit ic al v alu es, a nd v otin g: a lo ngit u din al a naly sis , P olit ic al P sycholo gy, 2 010, 3 1, 3, 4 21, 4 52 106 S elig , J . P ., & P re acher, K . J . ( 2 008). M onte C arlo m eth od fo r a ssessin g m edia tio n: A n in te ra ctiv e to ol fo r c re atin g c onfid ence in te rv als fo r in dir e ct e ffe cts [C om pute r s oftw are ]. 1 07 S haw J D , Z hu J , D uffy M K, S cott K L, S hih H A, S usanto E , A c ontin gency m odel o f c onflic t a nd te am e ffe ctiv eness, J ourn al o f A pplie d P sycholo gy, 2 011 , 9 6, 2 , 3 91, 4 00 108 S hea G P, G uzzo R A, G ro ups a s h um an r e sourc es, R esearc h in P ers onnel a nd H um an R esourc es M anagem ent, 1 987, 5 , 3 23, 3 56 109 S im ons T , P ete rs on R , T a sk c onflic t a nd r e la tio nship c onflic t in to p m anagem ent te am s: th e p iv ota l r o le o f in tr a gro up tr u st, J ourn al o f A pplie d P sycholo gy, 2 000, 8 5, 1 02, 1 11 11 0 S im sek, Z ., H eavey, C ., & V eig a, J . J . F . ( 2 010). T he im pact o f C EO c ore s elf – e valu atio n o n th e fir m ’s e ntr e pre neuria l o rie nta tio n., S tr a te gic M anagem ent Journ al, 3 1( 1), 1 1 0-1 1 9. 111 S om ech A , T he e ffe cts o f le aders hip s ty le a nd te am p ro cess o n p erfo rm ance a nd in novatio n in fu nctio nally h ete ro geneous te am s, J ourn al o f M anagem ent, 2 006, 3 2, 1 , 1 32, 1 57 11 2 S ta hl G K, M aznevski M L, V oig t A , J onsen K , U nra velin g th e e ffe cts o f c ult u ra l d iv ers it y in te am s: a m eta -a naly sis o f r e searc h o n m ult ic ult u ra l w ork g ro ups, J ourn al o f In te rn atio nal B usin ess S tu die s, 2 010, 4 1, 4 , 6 90, 7 09 11 3 T a nnenbaum S I, M ath ie u J E , S ala s E , C ohen D , T e am s a re c hangin g: a re r e searc h a nd p ra ctic e e volv in g fa st e nough?, In dustr ia l a nd O rg aniz atio nal P sycholo gy, 2 012, 5 , 1 , 2 , 2 4 11 4 T e tt R P, J ackson D N, R oth ste in M , R eddon J R , M eta -a naly sis o f b id ir e ctio nal r e la tio ns in p ers onalit y -jo b p erfo rm ance r e searc h, H um an P erfo rm ance, 1999, 1 2, 1 , 1 , 2 9 11 5 V an D ijk H , E ngen M L, K nip penberg D , D efy in g c onventio nal w is dom : a m eta -a naly tic al e xam in atio n o f th e d if fe re nces b etw een d em ogra phic a nd jo b- re la te d d iv ers it y r e la tio nship s w it h p erfo rm ance, O rg aniz atio nal B ehavio r a nd H um an D ecis io n P ro cesses, 2 012, 1 1 9, 1 , 3 8, 5 3 11 6 V an K nip penberg , D ., & H asla m , S . A . ( 2 003). R ealiz in g th e d iv ers it y d iv id end: e xplo rin g th e s ubtle in te rp la y b etw een id entit y , id eolo gy, a nd r e alit y . In S . A. H asla m , D . v an K nip penberg , M . J . P la to w , & N . E lle m ers ( E ds.) , S ocia l id entit y a t w ork : d evelo pin g th eory fo r o rg aniz atio nal p ra ctic e ( p p. 6 1-7 7). N ew Y ork : P sycholo gy P re ss. 11 7 V an K nip penberg D , S chip pers M C, W ork g ro up d iv ers it y , A nnual R evie w o f P sycholo gy, 2 007, 5 8, 5 15, 5 41 11 8 W agem an, R . ( 2 001). T he m eanin g o f in te rd ependence. In M . E . T urn er ( E d.) , G ro ups a t w ork : th eory a nd r e searc h ( p p. 1 97-2 17). M ahw ah: E rlb aum . 11 9 W ang, P ., R ode, J . C ., S hi, K ., L uo, Z ., & C hen, W . ( 2 013). A w ork gro up c lim ate p ers pectiv e o n th e r e la tio nship s a m ong tr a nsfo rm atio nal le aders hip , w ork gro up d iv ers it y , a nd e m plo yee c re ativ it y ., G ro up & O rg aniz atio n M anagem ent, 3 8( 3), 3 34-3 60. 120 W est, M . A . ( 1 990). T he s ocia l p sycholo gy o f in novatio n in g ro ups. In M . A . W est & J . L . F arr ( E ds.) , In novatio n a nd c re ativ it y a t w ork : p sycholo gic al a nd org aniz atio nal s tr a te gie s ( p p. 3 09-3 33). C hic heste r: W ile y. 1 21 W heela n, S . A . ( 2 009). G ro up s iz e, g ro up d evelo pm ent, a nd g ro up p ro ductiv it y ., S m all G ro up R esearc h, 4 0( 2), 2 47-2 62. 122 W ild m an, J . L ., T hayer, A . L ., R osen, M . A ., S ala s, E ., M ath ie u, J . E ., & R ayne, S . R . ( 2 012). T a sk ty pes a nd te am -le vel a ttr ib ute s: s ynth esis o f te am cla ssif ic atio n lit e ra tu re ., H um an R esourc e D evelo pm ent R evie w , 1 1 ( 1), 9 7-1 29. 123 W oehr D J, A rc in ie ga L M , P olin g T L, E xplo rin g th e e ffe cts o f v alu e d iv ers it y o n te am e ffe ctiv eness, J ourn al o f B usin ess a nd P sycholo gy, 2 013, 2 8, 1 07, 121 124 W oehr D J, L oig non A C , S chm id t P B, L oughry M L, O hla nd M W, J ustif y in g a ggre gatio n w it h c onsensus-b ased c onstr u cts a r e vie w a nd e xam in atio n o f cuto ff v alu es fo r c om mon a ggre gatio n in dic es, O rg aniz atio nal R esearc h M eth ods, 2 015, 1 8, 4 , 7 04, 7 37 125 Z it e k E M , T ie dens L Z , T he flu ency o f s ocia l h ie ra rc hy: th e e ase w it h w hic h h ie ra rc hic al r e la tio nship s a re s een, r e m em bere d, le arn ed, a nd lik ed, J ourn al of P ers onalit y a nd S ocia l P sycholo gy, 2 012, 1 02, 1 , 9 8, 1 1 5 P H O TO ( C O LO R) PH O TO ( C O LO R) PH O TO ( C O LO R) ~~~~~~~~ B y K ent K . A lip our; S usan M oham med a nd S um it a R aghura m Journ al o f B usin ess & P sycholo gy is a c opyrig ht o f S prin ger, 2 018. A ll R ig hts R eserv ed.
Please address the questions listed in a three to five-page paper. Focusing on work teams: What are the key differences between a team and a working group?At what stage of team development does the te
Tit le : A uth ors : S ourc e: D ocu m en t T yp e: S ubje cts : A bstr a ct: T he lin k in fo rm atio n b elo w p ro vid es a p ers is te nt lin k to th e a rtic le y o u’v e r e queste d. P ers is te nt lin k to th is r e co rd : F ollo w in g th e lin k b elo w w ill b rin g y o u to th e s ta rt o f th e a rtic le o r c it a tio n. C ut a nd P aste : T o p la ce a rtic le lin ks in a n e xte rn al w eb d ocu m ent, s im ply c o py a nd p aste th e H TM L b elo w , s ta rtin g w it h ” < a h re f" T o c o ntin ue, in In te rn et E xp lo re r, s e le ct F IL E th en S AVE A S fr o m y o ur b ro w se r's to olb ar a bove . B e s u re to s a ve a s a p la in te xt file ( .tx t) o r a 'W eb P age, H TM L o nly ' file ( .h tm l) . In F ir e F ox, s e le ct F IL E th en S AVE F IL E A S fr o m y o ur b ro w se r's to olb ar a bove . In C hro m e, s e le ct rig ht c lic k (w it h y o ur m ouse ) o n th is p age a nd s e le ct S AVE A S Reco rd : 1 H ow to P re em pt T e am C onflic t. T O EG EL, G IN KA BAR SO UX, J E AN -L O UIS H arv ard B usin ess R evie w . J un2016, V ol. 9 4 Is sue 6 , p 78-8 3. 6 p. 1 C olo r P hoto gra ph. A rtic le M AN AG EM EN T o f te am s in th e w ork pla ce IN TE R PER SO NAL c onflic t C O M MUNIC ATIO N in m anagem ent C O W ORKER r e la tio nship s T R UST G RO UP p ro cess E M OTIO NS Te am c onflic t c an a dd v alu e o r d estr o y it . G ood c onflic t fo ste rs r e spectfu l d ebate a nd y ie ld s m utu ally a gre ed-u pon solu tio ns th at a re o fte n fa r s uperio r to th ose fir s t o ffe re d. B ad c onflic t o ccurs w hen te am m em bers s im ply c an’t g et p ast th eir d if fe re nces, k illin g p ro ductiv it y a nd s tif lin g in novatio n. D estr u ctiv e c onflic t ty pic ally s te m s n ot fr o m d if fe re nces o f opin io n b ut fr o m a p erc eiv ed in com patib ilit y b etw een th e w ay c erta in te am m em bers th in k a nd a ct. T he c onventio nal appro ach to w ork in g th ro ugh s uch c onflic t is to r e spond to c la shes a s th ey a ris e. B ut th is a ppro ach r o utin ely fa ils b ecause it a llo w s fr u str a tio ns to b uild fo r to o lo ng, m akin g it d if fic ult to r e set n egativ e im pre ssio ns a nd r e sto re tr u st.In th eir r e searc h o n te am d ynam ic s a nd e xperie nce w ork in g w it h e xecutiv e te am s, T o egel a nd B ars oux h ave fo und a p ro activ e appro ach to b e m uch m ore e ffe ctiv e. In th is a rtic le , th ey in tr o duce a m eth odolo gy th at fo cuses o n h ow p eople lo ok, a ct, s peak, th in k, a nd fe el. T e am le aders fa cilit a te fiv e c onvers atio ns— one fo cused o n e ach c ate gory — befo re th e te am g ets u nder w ay, to b uild a s hare d u nders ta ndin g o f th e p ro cess, r a th er th an th e c onte nt, o f w ork a nd la y th e fo undatio n fo r effe ctiv e c olla bora tio n. [A BSTR AC T F R O M A U TH O R] Copyrig ht 2 016 H arv ard B usin ess P ublis hin g. A ll R ig hts R eserv ed. A ddit io nal r e str ic tio ns m ay a pply in clu din g th e u se o f th is c onte nt a s a ssig ned c ours e m ate ria l. P le ase c onsult y our in stit u tio n's lib ra ria n a bout a ny r e str ic tio ns th at m ig ht a pply Full T ext W ord C ount: IS SN : Accessio n N um ber: P ers is te n t lin k t o t h is r e co rd (P erm alin k): C ut a n d P aste : D ata b ase: S ectio n: under th e lic ense w it h y our in stit u tio n. F or m ore in fo rm atio n a nd te achin g r e sourc es fr o m H arv ard B usin ess P ublis hin g in clu din g H arv ard B usin ess S chool C ases, e Learn in g p ro ducts , a nd b usin ess s im ula tio ns p le ase v is it h bsp.h arv ard .e du. (C opyrig ht a pplie s to a ll A bstr a cts .) 2 906 0017-8 012 11 5490552 http ://e zpro xy.u m gc.e du/lo gin ?url= http s://s earc h.e bscohost.c om /lo gin .a spx? dir e ct= tr u e& db= heh& AN =11 5490552& sit e = eds-liv e& scope= sit e < A h re f= "h ttp ://e zpro xy.u m gc.e du/lo gin ?url= http s://s earc h.e bscohost.c om /lo gin .a spx? dir e ct= tr u e& db= heh& AN =11 5490552& sit e = eds-liv e& scope= sit e "> H ow to P re em pt T e am C onflic t.< /A > H ealt h B usin ess E lit e S PO TLIG HT O N M ANAG IN G T E A M S How t o P re em pt T eam C onflic t Jeff P erro tt, B urd en o f G ood, 2 014 O il o n lin en Te am c onflic t c an a dd v alu e o r d estr o y it . G ood c onflic t fo ste rs r e spectfu l d ebate a nd y ie ld s m utu ally a gre ed-u pon s olu tio ns th at a re o fte n fa r s uperio r to th ose fir s t o ffe re d. B ad c onflic t o ccurs w hen te am m em bers s im ply c an’t g et p ast th eir d if fe re nces, k illin g p ro ductiv it y a nd s tif lin g in novatio n. D is para te o pin io ns a re n’t th e r o ot o f th e p ro ble m , h ow ever. M ost d estr u ctiv e c onflic t s te m s fr o m s om eth in g d eeper: a p erc eiv ed in com patib ilit y in th e w ay vario us te am m em bers o pera te d ue to a ny n um ber o f fa cto rs , in clu din g p ers onalit y , in dustr y , r a ce, g ender, a nd a ge. T he c onventio nal a ppro ach to w ork in g th ro ugh s uch c onflic t is to r e spond to c la shes a s th ey a ris e o r w ait u ntil th ere is c le ar e vid ence o f a p ro ble m b efo re a ddre ssin g it . B ut th ese a ppro aches ro utin ely fa il b ecause th ey a llo w fr u str a tio ns to b uild fo r to o lo ng, m akin g it d if fic ult to r e set n egativ e im pre ssio ns a nd r e sto re tr u st. In o ur 2 5 y ears o f r e searc hin g te am d ynam ic s, c oachin g te am s in F ortu ne 5 00 c orp ora tio ns, a nd te achin g th ousands o f e xecutiv es a t D uke U niv ers it y , L ondon B usin ess S chool, a nd IM D, w e’v e fo und th at a p ro activ e a ppro ach is m uch m ore e ffe ctiv e. W hen y ou s urfa ce d if fe re nces b efo re a te am s ta rts w ork – – e ven w hen th e g ro up s eem s h om ogeneous a nd h arm onio us – – y ou c an p re em pt d estr u ctiv e c onflic t. W e h ave d evelo ped a nd te ste d a m eth odolo gy th at fo cuses o n fiv e a re as: h ow p eople lo ok, a ct, s peak, th in k, a nd fe el. T e am le aders fa cilit a te a s erie s o f 2 0- to 3 0-m in ute c onvers atio ns, e ncoura gin g m em bers to e xpre ss th eir p re fe re nces a nd e xpecta tio ns in e ach a re a, id entif y th e m ost lik ely a re as o f m is alig nm ent o r fr ic tio n, a nd c om e u p w it h s uggestio ns fo r h ow th ose w it h d if fe rin g e xpecta tio ns c an w ork to geth er. T hro ugh th e n onju dgm enta l e xchange o f id eas a nd fe edback, te am s e sta blis h a fo undatio n o f tr u st a nd u nders ta ndin g a nd a re a ble to s et g ro und r u le s fo r e ffe ctiv e c olla bora tio n. T hough s ettin g a sid e tim e fo r th ese c onvers atio ns u p fr o nt m ig ht s eem o nero us, w e’v e fo und th at it ‘s a w orth w hile in vestm ent fo r a ny te am – – n ew o r o ld , C – suit e o r fr o ntlin e – – th at w ill b e c olla bora tin g o n s ig nif ic ant w ork fo r a n e xte nded p erio d o f tim e. L eaders n eed n o s pecia l tr a in in g to fa cilit a te th e d is cussio ns. In deed, w e’v e fo und th at m anagers c an m aste r th ese c onflic t- p re ventio n s kills fa r m ore e asily th an th ose r e quir e d fo r c onflic t r e solu tio n. F iv e C onvers atio ns B ecause th e fiv e c onvers atio ns w e p ro pose g o s o fa r b eyond ty pic al ” g ettin g to k now y ou” c hit c hat, it ‘s im porta nt to k ic k th em o ff p ro perly . F ir s t, a lt h ough th is m ay s eem o bvio us, m ake s ure to in clu de e very one o n th e te am a nd e xpla in w hy y ou’r e in it ia tin g th e d is cussio ns. Y ou m ig ht s ay s om eth in g lik e: ” W ork in g o n a te am m eans c olla bora tin g w it h p eople w hose a ppro aches m ay d if fe r fr o m y our o w n. L et’s e xplo re th ese d if fe re nces n ow , w hile th e p re ssure is o ff, s o th at th ey don’t c atc h u s b y s urp ris e a nd g enera te u npro ductiv e c onflic t a t a n in opportu ne m om ent.” E xpla in th at th e fo cus o f th e d is cussio ns w ill b e o n th e p ro cess o f w ork r a th er th an th e c onte nt. A s th e fa cilit a to r, m ake s ure th at p eople a re c om fo rta ble s harin g a t th eir o w n p ace a nd c oach th em o n h ow to a sk c la rif y in g, n onju dgm enta l q uestio ns o f o ne anoth er. E ncoura ge e very one to b egin s ta te m ents w it h ” In m y w orld …” a nd q uestio ns w it h ” In y our w orld .? ” T his p hra sin g, b orro w ed fr o m o rg aniz atio nal b ehavio r schola r E dgar S chein , r e in fo rc es th e id ea th at u nderly in g s ourc es o f d if fe re nces a re ir re le vant. W hat d oes m atte r is th e a ttit u des a nd b ehavio rs e xpre ssed a s a r e sult o f e ach p ers on’s c um ula tiv e p ers onal a nd p ro fe ssio nal e xperie nce. F or e xam ple , th e fa ct th at y ou a re a ssertiv e m ay b e r e la te d to y our p ers onalit y , g ender, o r c ult u re , b ut th e o nly th in g y our c olle agues n eed to k now is th at y ou te nd to v ocaliz e y our o pin io ns in p la in te rm s. Te am m em bers a re lik ely to b e h esit a nt a s y ou b egin , s o e ase e very one in to th e p ro cess b y v olu nte erin g to s hare fir s t. O nce th e d ia lo gue g ain s s te am , le t oth ers g uid e ( b ut n ot d om in ate ) it . E ventu ally , p eople w ill m ove fr o m s uperfic ia l d is clo sure s to d eeper d is cussio n. A s th ey lis te n to th e r e sponses o f o th ers a nd offe r th eir o w n, th ey w ill d evelo p n ot o nly a b ette r u nders ta ndin g o f th eir c olle agues b ut a ls o g re ate r s elf – a w are ness. T he fiv e to pic s c an b e a ddre ssed in a ny o rd er; h ow ever, w e’v e fo und th e s equence p re sente d h ere to b e th e m ost lo gic al, e specia lly w it h n ew te am s, b ecause w e p erc eiv e fir s t h ow o th ers lo ok a nd th en h ow th ey s peak a nd a ct. O nly a fte r o bserv in g th em fo r a lo nger p erio d c an w e in fe r h ow th ey th in k o r fe el. T hat s aid , fa cilit a to rs s hould n ot g et h ung u p o n th e c ate gorie s, b ecause th ere is in evit a ble o verla p. L ik ew is e, if p artic ip ants s tr u ggle w it h th e ” In m y w orld ” la nguage, it c an be tw eaked. L et’s n ow c onsid er th e fiv e c ate gorie s in tu rn . L O OK: Spottin g t h e D if fe re n ce C olle agues r o utin ely m ake fa st ju dgm ents ( e specia lly n egativ e o nes) a bout th e c hara cte r, c om pete nce, o r s ta tu s o f th eir p eers o n th e b asis o f th e b rie fe st exposure – – w hat N alin i A m bady a nd R obert R osenth al, in r e searc h c onducte d a t H arv ard , c alle d ” th in s lic es” o f b ehavio r. T hese r e actio ns a re o fte n tr ig gere d b y dif fe re nces in th e w ay p eople p re sent th em selv es. W e u nconscio usly r e spond to c ues in h ow th ey lo ok, m ove, a nd d re ss, in th eir to ne o f v oic e, a nd in w hat th ey s ay a bout th em selv es. T he g oal o f th is c onvers atio n is to h elp te am m em bers r e fle ct o n h ow th ey in te nd to c om e a cro ss to o th ers – – a nd h ow th ey a ctu ally d o. A g ood p la ce to b egin is a d is cussio n a bout th e d riv ers o f s ta tu s in te am m em bers ‘ r e spectiv e ” w orld s.” F or e xam ple , s om e p eople p ut a p re m iu m o n jo b- r e la te d c hara cte ris tic s, s uch as e xperie nce, c onnectio ns, a nd fu nctio nal b ackgro und. F or o th ers , s ta tu s is lin ked to d em ogra phic c ues s uch a s a ge, g ender, n atio nalit y , a nd e ducatio n. T e am m em bers c an q uic kly p ut c olle agues o ff b y e m phasiz in g th e w ro ng c re dentia ls , a doptin g a n u nsuit a ble p ers ona, o r e ven d re ssin g in appro pria te ly fo r th e c ult u re . O ne e xecutiv e fr o m th e ” b utto ned-u p” b ankin g s ecto r fa ced th is ty pe o f c onflic t w hen h e jo in ed a n a dvertis in g g ro up. In a te am d is cussio n, o ne o f h is c olle agues to ld h im , ” T he n orm h ere is b usin ess c asual. S o b y w earin g a s uit a nd tie a t a ll tim es, it ‘s lik e y ou th in k y ou’r e s pecia l, a nd th at c re ate s d is ta nce.” A s im ila r s it u atio n a ro se a t a h eavy-e ngin eerin g c om pany w hen a fe m ale d esig ner jo in ed it s b oard . H er c olo rfu l c lo th in g a nd in tr o ducto ry c om ments , w hic h in clu ded tw o lit e ra ry r e fe re nces, m ade h er p ra gm atic p eers th in k s he v alu ed s ty le o ver s ubsta nce, w hic h s et h er u p to b e m arg in aliz ed. A n e xam ple th at h ig hlig hts th e v alu e o f d is cussin g p erc eptio ns u p fr o nt c om es fr o m a g lo bal fo od g ro up, w here a le aders hip -d evelo pm ent r o ta tio n o f p ro m is in g young e xecutiv es h ad b een c re atin g r e sentm ent a m ong o ld er s ubsid ia ry e xecutiv es, m ost n ota bly in th e A ustr a lia n o pera tio n. T he lo cal te am h ad d evelo ped a d ysfu nctio nal ” k eep y our h ead d ow n” a ttit u de a nd s im ply to le ra te d e ach a m bit io us M BA u ntil h e o r s he m oved o n. B ut w hen o ne in com in g m anager e ngaged h is t e am in th e fiv e c onvers atio ns a t th e s ta rt o f h is te rm , h e w as a ble to d is pel th eir n egativ e p re conceptio ns a nd d evelo p fa r-m ore – p ro ductiv e r e la tio nship s th an his p re decessors h ad. Q UESTIO NS T O A SK ” In y o ur w orld … …what m akes a g ood fir s t im pre ssio n? A b ad o ne? …w hat d o y ou n otic e fir s t a bout o th ers ( d re ss, s peech, d em eanor)? …what d oes th at m ake y ou th in k a bout th em ( rig id , p ushy, la zy)? …w hat in ta ngib le c re dentia ls d o y ou v alu e ( e ducatio n, e xperie nce, c onnectio ns)? …h ow d o y ou p erc eiv e s ta tu s d if fe re nces?” A CT: M is ju dgin g B eh avio r O n d iv ers e te am s, c la shin g b ehavio ra l n orm s a re c om mon s ourc es o f tr o uble . S eem in gly tr iv ia l g estu re s c an h ave a d is pro portio nate im pact, a ggra vatin g ste re oty pes, a lie natin g p eople , a nd d is ru ptin g c om munic atio n flo w s. P hysic al b oundarie s a re o fte n a p ro ble m a re a. C onsid er th e m edia fir e sto rm th at r e tir e d F re nch s occer p la yer T hie rry H enry s et o ff w hen, a s a T V p undit r e actin g to s urp ris in g b re akin g n ew s, h e to uched th e th ig h o f h is m ale E nglis h c olle ague. F re nch c ult u re a ccepts th at s ort o f in te ra ctio n, b ut fo r te le vis io n s tu dio c olle agues in th e m acho w orld o f B rit is h fo otb all, it w as a s te p to o fa r. O r c onsid er th e in tr o verte d, h ig h- a nxie ty e xecutiv e w e w ork ed w it h w hose w arm a nd gre gario us p eer m ade h im u ncom fo rta ble : T heir e xpecta tio ns fo r th e p ro per d is ta nce a t w hic h to in te ra ct d if fe re d s ta rk ly . ” I w as ta kin g a c offe e w it h h im a t o ne o f th ose s ta ndin g ta ble s,” h e r e m em bers . ” W e lit e ra lly s huffle d r o und th e ta ble a s h e m oved to w ard m e a nd I tr ie d to r e esta blis h m y b uffe r z one.” A ttit u des a bout tim e c an s tir u p c onflic t, to o. P eople d if fe r w id ely – – e ven w it h in th e s am e fir m o r d epartm ent – – w it h r e gard to th e im porta nce o f b ein g p unctu al and r e spectfu l o f o th er p eople ‘s s chedule s. M ore b ro adly , th e v alu e o f k eepin g p ro je cts o n p ace a nd h it tin g m ile sto ne d eadlin es m ay b e p ara m ount to s om e, w here as o th ers m ay v alu e fle xib ilit y a nd th e a bilit y to n im bly r e spond a s c ir c um sta nces u nfo ld . A n e xam ple c om es fr o m a N ord ic in dustr ia l m achin ery c om pany th at h ad r e curre nt te nsio ns in th e to p te am . T he n on-N ord ic e xecutiv es in th e g ro up w ere d eeply fr u str a te d b y w hat th ey s aw a s a la ck o f u rg ency show n b y th eir N ord ic c olle agues, a nd th ey r e sponded w it h b ru squeness – – w hic h, o f c ours e, u pset th eir p eers . E ventu ally , th e g ro up d is cussed th e s it u atio n and s et n ew r u le s o f e ngagem ent. B ut a p re em ptiv e c onvers atio n w ould h ave s aved th em a ll a g re at d eal o f tim e a nd e nerg y. D if fe rin g le vels o f a ssertiv eness b etw een te am m em bers c an p re sent p ro ble m s a s w ell. M ale e xecutiv es, fo r e xam ple , o r p eople fr o m in div id ualis tic c orp ora te a nd n atio nal c ult u re s, o fte n fe el q uit e c om fo rta ble v olu nte erin g fo r s pecia l a ssig nm ents o r n om in atin g th em selv es to ta ke o n a ddit io nal r e sponsib ilit ie s b ecause th ey c onsid er it a s ig n o f c om mit m ent, c om pete nce, a nd s elf – c onfid ence. B ut o th ers m ay s ee th ose a ctio ns a s b la ta nt, u ndig nif ie d, a nd s hallo w s elf – p ro m otio n. E xpecta tio ns fo r h ow m uch c olle agues s hould h elp o ne a noth er, a s o pposed to c ontr ib utin g in div id ually to th e g ro up e ffo rt, c an a ls o v ary w id ely . F or e xam ple , a te am o f s oftw are e ngin eers r a n in to p ro ble m s w hen it b ecam e c le ar th at s om e m em bers w ere v ery s ele ctiv e in g iv in g a id to p eers , w hile o th ers d id s o w henever a sked. T hose w ho s pent m ore tim e h elp in g o th ers u nders ta ndably b egan to fe el r e sentfu l a nd d is advanta ged, s in ce d oin g s o o fte n in te rfe re d w it h th eir o w n w ork . It’s im porta nt to e sta blis h te am n orm s a ro und a ll th ese b ehavio rs u p fr o nt to a void u nnecessary a nta gonis m . QUESTIO NS T O A SK ” In y o ur w orld … …how im porta nt a re p unctu alit y a nd tim e lim it s ? …are th ere c onsequences o f b ein g la te o r m is sin g d eadlin es? …what is a c om fo rta ble p hysic al d is ta nce fo r in te ra ctin g in th e w ork pla ce? …should p eople v olu nte er fo r a ssig nm ents o r w ait to b e n om in ate d? …w hat g ro up b ehavio rs a re v alu ed ( h elp in g o th ers , n ot c om pla in in g)? ” S PEA K: Div id in g b y L an guag e C om munic atio n s ty le s h ave m any d im ensio ns – – th e w ord s p eople c hoose to e xpre ss th em selv es, to le ra nce fo r c andor, h um or, p auses a nd in te rru ptio ns, a nd so o n – – a nd th e p ossib ilit ie s fo r m is unders ta ndin g a re e ndle ss. Te am s m ade u p o f p eople w it h d if fe re nt n ativ e la nguages p re sent s ig nif ic ant c halle nges in th is a re a. B ut e ven w hen e very one is flu ent in a p artic ula r la nguage, th ere m ay b e d eep d if fe re nces in h ow in div id uals e xpre ss th em selv es. F or e xam ple , d ependin g o n c onte xt, c ult u re , a nd o th er fa cto rs , ” y es” c an m ean ” m aybe” or ” le t’s tr y it ” o r e ven ” n o w ay.” A t a E uro pean s oftw are fir m w e w ork ed w it h , tw o e xecutiv es w ere a t e ach o th er’s th ro ats o ver w hat o ne o f th em c alle d ” b ro ken pro m is es.” D is cussio n r e veale d th at w ord s o ne h ad in te rp re te d a s a fir m c om mit m ent w ere m ere ly a spir a tio nal to h is c ounte rp art. S om etim es e ven la udable o rg aniz atio nal g oals c an e ngender tr o uble som e c om munic atio n d ynam ic s: F or e xam ple , c orp ora tio ns th at p ro m ote a c ult u re o f posit iv it y m ay e nd u p w it h e m plo yees w ho a re r e lu cta nt o r a fr a id to c halle nge o r c rit ic iz e. A s th e m ark etin g d ir e cto r o f a fa st- m ovin g c onsum er g oods fir m to ld u s: ” Y ou’r e n ot s upposed to b e n egativ e a bout p eople ‘s id eas. W hat’s g oin g th ro ugh th e b ack o f y our m in d is ‘I c an’t s ee th is w ork in g.’ B ut w hat c om es o ut o f your m outh is ‘Y eah, th at’s g re at.'” W hen te am s d is cuss a t th e o uts et h ow m uch c andor is a ppro pria te , th ey c an e sta blis h c le ar g uid elin es a bout s peakin g u p o r p ushin g b ack o n o th ers . A t a G erm an in vestm ent b ank, a to p te am th at h ad b een d om in ate d b y s evera l a ssertiv e c onsult a nts a dopte d a ” fo ur s ente nce” r u le – – a c uto ff fo r e ach p ers on’s c ontr ib utio ns in m eetin gs – – a s a w ay to e ncoura ge ta kin g tu rn s a nd g iv e m ore -re serv ed m em bers a c hance to c ontr ib ute . A t H ein eken U SA, b oard m em bers u se lit tle to y h ors es th at s it o n th e c onfe re nce ta ble to a ccom plis h th e s am e g oal: If y ou’r e ta lk in g a nd s om eone tip s o ne o ver, y ou k now y ou’r e b eatin g a d ead hors e a nd it ‘s tim e to m ove o n. Q UESTIO NS T O A SK “In y o ur w orld … …is a p ro m is e a n a spir a tio n o r a g uara nte e? …w hic h is m ost im porta nt: d ir e ctn ess o r h arm ony? …are ir o ny a nd s arc asm a ppre cia te d? …do in te rru ptio ns s ig nal in te re st o r r u deness? …does s ile nce m ean r e fle ctio n o r d is engagem ent? …should d is sentin g v ie w s b e a ir e d in p ublic o r d is cussed o ff- lin e? …is u nsolic it e d fe edback w elc om e?” T H IN K: O ccu pyin g D if fe re n t M in dsets P erh aps th e b ig gest s ourc e o f c onflic t o n te am s s te m s fr o m th e w ay in w hic h m em bers th in k a bout th e w ork th ey’r e d oin g. T heir v arie d p ers onalit ie s a nd experie nces m ake th em a le rt to v ary in g s ig nals a nd c ause th em to ta ke d if fe re nt a ppro aches to p ro ble m s olv in g a nd d ecis io n m akin g. T his c an r e sult in th eir w ork in g a t c ro ss-p urp oses. A s o ne e xecutiv e w it h a U .S . a ppare l c om pany n ote d: ” T here is o fte n te nsio n b etw een th e r e ady-fir e -a im ty pes o n o ur te am a nd th e m ore a naly tic al c olle agues.” W e fo und th is d ynam ic in a n ew -p ro duct te am a t a D utc h c onsum er g oods c om pany. M em bers ‘ c ognit iv e s ty le s d if fe re d g re atly , p artic ula rly w it h r e gard to m eth odic al v ers us in tu it iv e th in kin g. O nce a w are o f th e p ro ble m , th e p ro je ct m anager in it ia te d d is cussio ns a bout w ays to r o ta te le aders hip o f th e p ro je ct, m atc hin g te am n eeds to m in dsets . D urin g th e m ore c re ativ e a nd c onceptu al p hases, th e fr e eth in kers w ould b e in c harg e, w hile a naly tic al a nd d eta il- o rie nte d m em bers w ould ta ke o ver e valu atio n, o rg aniz atio n, a nd im ple m enta tio n a ctiv it ie s. A ll m em bers c am e to u nders ta nd th e v alu e o f th e d if fe re nt a ppro aches. Te am s a ls o n eed to fin d a lig nm ent o n to le ra nce fo r r is k a nd s hif tin g p rio rit ie s. A s tr ik in g e xam ple c om es fr o m a b io te ch te am m ade u p o f s cie ntis ts a nd executiv es. B y v ir tu e o f th eir tr a in in g, th e s cie ntis ts e m bra ced e xperim enta tio n, a ccepte d fa ilu re a s p art o f th e d is covery p ro cess, a nd v alu ed th e c ontin ued purs uit o f b re akth ro ughs, r e gard le ss o f tim e h oriz on o r p ote ntia l fo r c om merc ia l a pplic atio ns. T hat m in dset ja rre d th eir M BA-tr a in ed p eers , w ho s ought pre dic ta bilit y in r e sult s a nd p re fe rre d to k ill p ro je cts th at fa ile d to m eet e xpecta tio ns. T o b rid ge th ose d if fe re nces, a fa cilit a to r u sed r o le p la y to h elp th e tw o gro ups b ette r u nders ta nd e ach o th er’s p ers pectiv e. Q UESTIO NS T O A SK “In y o ur w orld … …is u ncerta in ty v ie w ed a s a th re at o r a n o pportu nit y ? …w hat’s m ore im porta nt: th e b ig p ic tu re o r th e d eta ils ? …is it b ette r to b e r e lia ble o r fle xib le ? …w hat is th e a ttit u de to w ard fa ilu re ? …how d o p eople to le ra te d evia tio ns fr o m th e p la n?” F E EL: C hartin g E m otio nals T e am m em bers m ay d if fe r w id ely in th e in te nsit y o f th eir fe elin gs, h ow th ey c onvey p assio n in a g ro up, a nd th e w ay th ey m anage th eir e m otio ns in th e fa ce o f dis agre em ent o r c onflic t. Som etim es e nth usia sm c an o verw helm p eers o r fu el s keptic is m . A n e xtr o verte d C M O a t a lo gis tic s c om pany w e w ork ed w it h a ssum ed th at th e m ore p assio n she s how ed fo r h er id eas, th e m ore r e sponsiv e th e g ro up w ould b e to th em . B ut h er ” ra h-ra h” a ppro ach w as to o m uch fo r th e in tr o verte d, p ra gm atic C EO . S he w ould s ta rt p ic kin g a part p ro posals w henever th e C M O g ot e xcit e d. A t th e o th er e xtr e m e, s tr o ng n egativ e e m otio ns – – e specia lly o vert d is pla ys o f a nger – – c an be u psettin g o r in tim id atin g. N egativ e fe elin gs c an b e a s ensit iv e is sue to b ro ach, s o it ‘s h elp fu l to s ta rt b y ta lk in g a bout th e k in d o f c onte xt te am m em bers a re u sed to . F ro m th ere , th e dis cussio n c an g et m ore p ers onal. F or e xam ple , in o ne c onvers atio n w e fa cilit a te d a t a c onstr u ctio n c om pany, a n e xecutiv e to ld h is c olle agues th at ” y ellin g w as com mon” in h is p re vio us w ork pla ce – – b ut th at it w as a h abit h e w ante d to c orre ct. H e to ld u s th at h e h ad m ade th is d is clo sure to ” k eep [h im ]s elf h onest” in p urs uit o f th at g oal. E arly d is cussio ns s hould to uch o n n ot o nly th e r is ks o f v entin g b ut a ls o th e d anger o f b ottlin g th in gs u p. T he te ndency to s ig nal ir rit a tio n o r d is conte nt in dir e ctly – – th ro ugh w it h dra w al, s arc asm , a nd p riv ate ly c om pla in in g a bout o ne a noth er – – c an b e ju st a s d estr u ctiv e a s v ola tile o utb urs ts a nd in tim id atio n. It’s im porta nt to a ddre ss th e c auses o f d is engagem ent d ir e ctly , th ro ugh o pen in quir y a nd d ebate , a nd c om e u p w it h w ays to d is agre e p ro ductiv ely . Q UESTIO NS T O A SK “In y o ur w orld … …what e m otio ns ( p osit iv e a nd n egativ e) a re a ccepta ble a nd u naccepta ble to d is pla y in a b usin ess c onte xt? …h ow d o p eople e xpre ss a nger o r e nth usia sm ? …how w ould y ou r e act if y ou w ere a nnoyed w it h a te am mate ( w it h s ile nce, b ody la nguage, h um or, th ro ugh a th ir d p arty )? ” T H E B EN EFIT S of a ntic ip atin g a nd h eadin g o ff c onflic t b efo re it b ecom es d estr u ctiv e a re im mense. W e’v e fo und th at th ey in clu de g re ate r p artic ip atio n, im pro ved c re ativ it y , a nd, u lt im ate ly , s m arte r d ecis io n m akin g. A s o ne m anager p ut it : ” W e s till d is agre e, b ut th ere ‘s le ss b ad b lo od a nd a g enuin e s ense o f valu in g e ach o th er’s c ontr ib utio ns.” H BR R eprin t R 1606F Id ea in B rie f T H E P R O BLE M Te am c onflic t e ru pts n ot b ecause o f d if fe re nces in o pin io n b ut b ecause o f a p erc eiv ed in com patib ilit y in th e w ay d if fe re nt te am m em bers th in k a nd a ct. W hen people c an’t g et p ast th eir d if fe re nces, th e r e sult in g c la shes k ill p ro ductiv it y a nd s tif le in novatio n. A N A LT E R NATIV E V IE W D if fe re nces in p ers pectiv e a nd e xperie nce c an g enera te g re at v alu e, o f c ours e. A n ew m eth odolo gy h elp s le aders g uid e th eir te am s th ro ugh fiv e c onvers atio ns befo re w ork s ta rts , to b uild s hare d u nders ta ndin g a nd la y th e fo undatio n fo r e ffe ctiv e c olla bora tio n. IN P R ACTIC E The a ppro ach fo cuses o n th e p ro cess o f w ork r a th er th an th e c onte nt. L eaders fa cilit a te ta rg ete d d is cussio ns th at e xplo re th e v ary in g w ays te am m em bers lo ok, a ct, s peak, th in k, a nd fe el, to im muniz e th e te am a gain st u npro ductiv e c onflic t w hen th e p re ssure is o n. ~~~~~~~~ B y G IN KA T O EG EL a nd J E AN -L O UIS B AR SO UX G in ka T o egel is a p ro fe ssor o f o rg aniz atio nal b ehavio r a nd le aders hip a t IM D in L ausanne, S w it z erla nd. Jean-L ouis B ars oux is a s enio r r e searc h fe llo w a t IM D. Copyrig ht 2 016 H arv ard B usin ess P ublis hin g. A ll R ig hts R eserv ed. A ddit io nal r e str ic tio ns m ay a pply in clu din g th e u se o f th is c onte nt a s a ssig ned c ours e m ate ria l. P le ase c onsult y our in stit u tio n’s lib ra ria n a bout a ny r e str ic tio ns th at m ig ht a pply u nder th e lic ense w it h y our in stit u tio n. F or m ore in fo rm atio n a nd te achin g r e sourc es fr o m H arv ard B usin ess P ublis hin g in clu din g H arv ard B usin ess S chool C ases, e Learn in g p ro ducts , a nd b usin ess s im ula tio ns p le ase v is it h bsp.h arv ard .e du.
Please address the questions listed in a three to five-page paper. Focusing on work teams: What are the key differences between a team and a working group?At what stage of team development does the te
Tit le : A uth ors : P ublic atio n In fo rm atio n: R eso urc e T yp e: D escrip tio n: S ubje cts : C ate g orie s: R ela te d IS B Ns: O CLC : Accessio n N um ber: P ublis h er P erm is sio ns: T he lin k in fo rm atio n b elo w p ro vid es a p ers is te nt lin k to th e a rtic le y o u’v e r e queste d. P ers is te nt lin k to th is r e co rd : F ollo w in g th e lin k b elo w w ill b rin g y o u to th e s ta rt o f th e a rtic le o r c it a tio n. C ut a nd P aste : T o p la ce a rtic le lin ks in a n e xte rn al w eb d ocu m ent, s im ply c o py a nd p aste th e H TM L b elo w , s ta rtin g w it h ” < a h re f" T o c o ntin ue, in In te rn et E xp lo re r, s e le ct F IL E th en S AVE A S fr o m y o ur b ro w se r's to olb ar a bove . B e s u re to s a ve a s a p la in te xt file ( .tx t) o r a 'W eb P age, H TM L o nly ' file ( .h tm l) . In F ir e F ox, s e le ct F IL E th en S AVE F IL E A S fr o m y o ur b ro w se r's to olb ar a bove . In C hro m e, s e le ct rig ht c lic k (w it h y o ur m ouse ) o n th is p age a nd s e le ct S AVE A S Reco rd : 1 C ult u ra l In te llig ence : T he C om petit iv e E dge fo r L eaders C ro ssin g B oundarie s Julia M id dle to n London : A &C B la ck B usin ess In fo rm atio n a nd D evelo pm ent. 2 014 eB ook. R ig ht n ow , v ast a m ounts o f tim e a nd m oney a re b ein g in veste d a ll r o und th e w orld in b uild in g g lo bal b ra nds a nd org anis atio ns. B ut w here a re th e g lo bal le aders w ho w ill le ad th em ? L eaders w ho c an c ro ss c ult u ra l b oundarie s: b etw een east a nd w est, a nd n orth a nd s outh ; b etw een fa it h s a nd b elie fs ; b etw een p ublic , p riv ate a nd v olu nta ry s ecto rs ; a nd betw een th e g enera tio ns? W here a re th e le aders w ho c an le ad in w hat J ulia c alls th e “ m agnet c it ie s” o f th e w orld : w here th e w orld 's m ost ta le nte d y oung p eople w ill c onvene? B ecause th ese p eople w ill s im ply tu rn th eir b acks o n b osses w ho dem and th at th eir te am s th in k a nd b ehave a lik e. T he r a ce is o n to d evelo p le aders w it h C Q . A nd th is b ook is d esig ned to g iv e r e aders a d ecis iv e h ead s ta rt. In th e p ro cess, J ulia h as s poken to le aders a ll r o und th e w orld , a nd in vit e d th em to te ll t h eir o w n C Q s to rie s: s uccessfu l a nd d is astr o us, s erio us a nd fu nny, p oig nant, p ra gm atic a nd o fte n h ig hly p ers onal. T he re sult is s urp ris in g, c halle ngin g a nd fr e quently u ncom fo rta ble ( th ere is n o s im plis tic a dvic e h ere a bout h ow to e xchange busin ess c ard s in th e c orre ct lo cal m anner). B ut th e a m bit io n is h uge. A s is th e p riz e fo r th e n ext g enera tio n o f le aders w ho s ee th e o pportu nit y s he o utlin es - a nd g ra sp it . C ult u ra l in te llig ence Leaders hip B U SIN ESS & E C O NO M IC S / M anagem ent B U SIN ESS & E C O NO M IC S / H um an R esourc es & P ers onnel M anagem ent 9781472904812. 9 781472971784. 9 781472904836. 9 781472904829. 879074510 761263 P rin t/E -m ail/ S ave 5 0 P ages R estr ic te d C opy/P aste Pers is te n t lin k t o t h is r e co rd (P erm alin k): C ut a n d P aste : D ata b ase: http ://e zpro xy.u m gc.e du/lo gin ?url= http s://s earc h.e bscohost.c om /lo gin .a spx? dir e ct= tr u e& db= nle bk& AN =761263& sit e = eds-liv e& scope= sit e < A h re f= "h ttp ://e zpro xy.u m gc.e du/lo gin ?url= http s://s earc h.e bscohost.c om /lo gin .a spx? dir e ct= tr u e& db= nle bk& AN =761263& sit e = eds-liv e& scope= sit e "> C ult u ra l In te llig ence : T he C om petit iv e E dge fo r L eaders C ro ssin g B oundarie s< /A > eB ook C olle ctio n ( E BSC O host)