The DOI matches its Crossref record; 14 of the 14 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Downside of Self-Management: A Longitudinal Study of the Effects tf Conflict on Trust, Autonomy, and Task Interdependence in Self-Managing Teams
Abstract
The very flexibility and adaptability that make self-managing teams effective can also be limiting and dysfunctional. I propose that self-managing teams may unintentionally restructure themselves inefficiently in response to conflict. Although detrimental consequences of conflict are normally considered as process-related, I explore possible structure-related effects. Specifically, I suggest that increased team conflict is associated with lower intrateam trust, which in turn may influence team structure by (1) reducing individual autonomy and (2) loosening task interdependencies in teams. This combination makes for a less than ideal team design. Longitudinal data from 35 self-managing teams support these expectations.
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
Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability.
Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.420 · Cited by 24,532
Illusion and well‐being: A social psychological perspective on mental health
Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1988) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.103.2.193 · Cited by 7,814
Affect and Cognition Based Trust as Foundations for Interpersonal Cooperation in Organizations
McAllister, D. J. (1995) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/256727 · Cited by 7,346
Orlikowski, W. J. (2000) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.11.4.404.14600 · Cited by 4,760
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
A Temporally Based Framework and Taxonomy of Team Processes
Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/259182 · Cited by 3,659
What Makes Teams Work: Group Effectiveness Research from the Shop Floor to the Executive Suite
Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/014920639702300303 · Cited by 3,526
Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis.
De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. (2003) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.741 · Cited by 3,071 · cited 7×
“Conflict has long been known to have the potential to harm group processes, such as coordination and cooperation, as well as performance outcomes, such as goal accomplishment (for reviews, see De Dreu and Weingart [2003] and Peterson and Behfar [2003]), and much is known about the causes and effects of conflict in tea…”
BackgroundInfluentialBarley, S. R. (1986) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2392767 · Cited by 2,315
Teams in Organizations: From Input-Process-Output Models to IMOI Models
Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M., & Jundt, D. (2005) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070250 · Cited by 2,273
Cited by
A meta-analysis of shared leadership and team effectiveness
Wang, D., Waldman, D. A., & Zhang, Z. (2014) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0034531 · Cited by 731
Trust and team performance: A meta-analysis of main effects, moderators, and covariates.
De Jong, B. A., Dirks, K. T., & Gillespie, N. (2016) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/apl0000110 · Cited by 616
Self-managing organizations: Exploring the limits of less-hierarchical organizing
Lee, M. Y., & Edmondson, A. C. (2017) · Research in Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.riob.2017.10.002 · Cited by 540
Measuring trust in organisational research: Review and recommendations
McEvily, B., & Tortoriello, M. (2011) · Journal of Trust Research · doi:10.1080/21515581.2011.552424 · Cited by 477
Breuer, C., Hüffmeier, J., & Hertel, G. (2016) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/apl0000113 · Cited by 375
De Clercq, D., Thongpapanl, N., & Dimov, D. (2009) · Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science · doi:10.1007/s11747-008-0122-0 · Cited by 168
Conceptualizing Emergent States: A Strategy to Advance the Study of Group Dynamics
Waller, M. J., Okhuysen, G. A., & Saghafian, M. (2016) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/19416520.2016.1120958 · Cited by 143
Human-machine plan conflict and conflict resolution in a visual search task
Pan, Y., & Xu, J. (2025) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2024.103377 · Cited by 54
Zhao, E. Y., Thatcher, S. M. B., & Jehn, K. A. (2019) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/annals.2016.0153 · Cited by 45
Intra-team conflict: the moderating effect of emotional self-leadership
Flores, H. R., Jiang, X., & Manz, C. C. (2018) · International Journal of Conflict Management · doi:10.1108/ijcma-07-2017-0065 · Cited by 30
Gulati, P., Marchetti, A., & Puranam, P. (2026) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.2023.04127 · Cited by 2
Metadata
- Authors
- Langfred, C. W.
- Venue
- Academy of Management Journal
- Publisher
- Academy of Management
- Published
- 2007-08
- Volume
- 50
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 885-900
- ISSN
- 0001-4273 (ISSN-L)
- 1948-0989
- OpenAlex
- W2325317420
- Cited by
- 408
- References
- 14
- FWCI
- 19.15
- 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
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.
