The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
MAXIMIZING THE BENEFITS OF TASK CONFLICT: THE ROLE OF CONFLICT MANAGEMENT
Abstract
Intragroup conflict research has shown that task conflict can improve group outcomes, but it has not addressed how groups ensure that the positive aspects of task conflict are realized. This study examines the influence of group conflict management on group effectiveness, as well as the moderating role of group conflict management on task conflict—group outcome relationships. Results of a field survey of 96 business school project groups indicated that the use of agreeable conflict management in response to task conflict was associated with greater group satisfaction. Results examining group conflict management as a moderator showed that the relationship between task conflict and group performance was positive when conflict was actively managed and negative when it was passively managed. Similarly, task conflict improved group satisfaction when managed with agreeable behavior, and harmed satisfaction when neutral or disagreeable behaviors were used. Results from this work provide an important first look at how group conflict management behaviors directly impact group outcomes and affect task conflict—group outcome relationships.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.69.1.85 · Cited by 4,774
A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict
Jehn, K. A. (1995) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393638 · Cited by 4,050
Levels issues in theory development, data collection and analysis
Klein, K. J., Dansereau, F., & Hall, R. J. (1994) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258703 · Cited by 1,607
A disagreement about within-group agreement: disentangling issues of consistency versus consensus
Kozlowski, S. W., & Hattrup, K. (1992) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.77.2.161 · Cited by 514
POSITIVE EFFECTS OF CONFLICT: A FIELD ASSESSMENT
Cosier, R. A., & Dalton, D. R. (1990) · International Journal of Conflict Management · doi:10.1108/eb022674 · Cited by 74
Cited by
Knowledge networks in new product development projects: A transactive memory perspective
Akgün, A. E., Byrne, J., Keskin, H., Lynn, G. S., & Imamoglu, S. Z. (2005) · Information & Management · doi:10.1016/j.im.2005.01.001 · Cited by 386
Conflict in Small Groups: The Meaning and Consequences of Process Conflict
Behfar, K. J., Mannix, E. A., Peterson, R. S., & Trochim, W. M. (2011) · Small Group Research · doi:10.1177/1046496410389194 · Cited by 257
Zajac, S., Woods, A., Tannenbaum, S., Salas, E., & Holladay, C. L. (2021) · Frontiers in Communication · doi:10.3389/fcomm.2021.606445 · Cited by 235
Research mentoring and scientist identity: insights from undergraduates and their mentors
Robnett, R. D., Nelson, P. A., Zurbriggen, E. L., Crosby, F. J., & Chemers, M. M. (2018) · International Journal of STEM Education · doi:10.1186/s40594-018-0139-y · Cited by 116
ProsocialDialog: A prosocial backbone for conversational agents
Kim, H., Yu, Y., Jiang, L., Lu, X., Khashabi, D., Kim, G., Choi, Y., & Sap, M. (2022) · Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.emnlp-main.267 · Cited by 80
Metadata
- Authors
- DeChurch, L. A., & Marks, M. A.
- Venue
- International Journal of Conflict Management
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2001-01-01
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 4-22
- ISSN
- 1044-4068 (ISSN-L)
- 1758-8545
- OpenAlex
- W2005108322
- Cited by
- 331
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 16.32
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: MAXIMIZING THE BENEFITS OF TASK CONFLICT: THE ROLE OF CONFLICT MANAGEMENT. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1108/eb022847
- The paper
- DeChurch, L. A., & Marks, M. A. (2001). MAXIMIZING THE BENEFITS OF TASK CONFLICT: THE ROLE OF CONFLICT MANAGEMENT. International Journal of Conflict Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb022847
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
