CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 370Team Dynamics and PerformanceConflict Management and NegotiationLeadership, Behavior, and Decision-Making Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Conflict and Strategic Choice: How Top Management Teams Disagree

Eisenhardt, Kathleen M., Kahwajy, Jean L., Bourgeois, L. J.·1997·California Management Review
DOI 10.2307/41165886
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Substantive conflict is natural within top management teams as executives struggle with making high-stakes choices under conditions of ambiguity and uncertainty. Yet, many top management teams fail to sufficiently debate appropriate courses of action. This article reports on a field study of top management teams and examines four managerial levers that can help executives overcome the cognitive, emotional, and political barriers to engaging in conflict. These levers are: build a heterogeneous team; create frequent interactions within that team; cultivate a distinct symphony of roles such as Counselor, Futurist, and Ms. Action around fundamental tensions within managing; and use multiple-lens tactics such as competitor role playing and multiple alternatives to provide unexpected vantage points on key issues.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/41165886

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 5 references

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. Priem R., 1990, Strategic Management Journal (
  2. Tjosvold D., 1991, The Positive Conflict Orga- nization (Reading
  3. Janis I., 1982, Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascos (Boston
  4. D., 1986, Hickson et al
  5. Eisenhardt K., 1988, Academy of Management Journal (
  6. Pelled L. H., 1996, Demographic Diversity in Work Groups: An Assessment of Linkages to Intragroup Conflict and Performance," unpublished manuscript
  7. Pruitt D., 1986, Social Conflict: Escalation, Stalemate, and Settlement (New York
  8. Guetzkow H., 1968, Group Dynamics: Research and Theory (New York
  9. Hackman J.R., 1980, Work Redesign (Reading
  10. Eisenhardt K., But Still Get Along," in V

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–300 of 370

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Eisenhardt, K. M., Kahwajy, J. L., & Bourgeois, L. J.
ORCID
Eisenhardt, Kathleen M.
Venue
California Management Review
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
1997-01
Volume
39
Issue
2
Pages
42-62
ISSN
  • 0008-1256 (ISSN-L)
  • 2162-8564
DOI
10.2307/41165886
OpenAlex
W2031754154
Cited by
370
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 12
FWCI
11.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
California Management Review (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Team Dynamics and Performance
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Conflict Management and Negotiation
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Leadership, Behavior, and Decision-Making Studies
Keywords
top management teams, team conflict, strategic choice, decision making under uncertainty, team heterogeneity, team roles, role play, multiple alternatives, organizational politics

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