Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

The Effects of Team Self-Guided Training on Conflict Management in Virtual Teams

  • Published:
Group Decision and Negotiation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of this study is to investigate in detail the specific tendencies of conflict management strategies displayed by trained and untrained synchronous computer-mediated communication (CMC) teams over time. A laboratory experiment was carried out with 54 virtual teams of four members each randomly assigned to the two conditions: experimental condition and control condition. In the experimental condition 28 teams received a training program for improving virtual team functioning among session 1 and 2, consisting in a team self-guided training. These results were compared with 26 control teams, who did not receive any training program. Content analysis of the chat was used as research method. Our results showed that trained synchronous CMC teams use more frequently functional conflict management strategies, like open communication and rotating responsibilities, and less dysfunctional conflict management strategies (avoiding) over time. In contrast, untrained synchronous CMC teams tend to use more frequently dysfunctional conflict management strategies (avoiding) and less frequently functional conflict management strategies (rotating responsibility) over time. Our study shows that team self-guided training can be useful for virtual teams. Feedback given to teams about their processes and results improves group conflict management in a virtual context.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Andriessen JHE (2003) Working with groupware. Understanding and evaluating collaboration technology. Springer, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Argote L, McGrath JE (1993) Group processes in organizations: continuity and change. In: Cooper C, Robertson I (eds) International review of industrial and organizational psychology. Wiley, New York, pp 333–389

    Google Scholar 

  • Baltes BB, Dickson MW, Sherman MP, Bauer CC, LaGanke JL (2002) Computer-mediated communication and group decision making: a meta-analysis. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 87:156–179. doi:10.1006/obhd.2001.2961

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumeister RF, Vohs KD, Funder DC (2007) Psychology as the science of self-reports and finger movements: Whatever happened to actual behavior? Perspect Psychol Sci 2:396–403. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00051.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Behfar KJ, Peterson RS, Mannix EA, Trochim WMK (2008) The critical role of conflict resolution in teams: a close look at the links between conflict type, conflict management strategies, and team outcomes. J Appl Psychol 93:170–188. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beranek PM, Martz B (2005) Making virtual teams more effective: improving relational links. Team Perform Manag 11:200–213. doi:10.1108/13527590510617774

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berelson B (1952) Content analysis in communication research. Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Bottger PC, Yetton PW (1988) An integration of process and decision scheme explanations of group problem solving performance. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 42:234–249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown TC (2003) The effect of verbal self-guidance training on collective efficacy and team performance. Pers Psychol 56:935–964. Retrieved from ABI/INFORM Global database

  • Callanan GA, Benzing DB, Perri DF (2006) Choice of conflict-handling strategy: a matter of context. J Psychol 3:269–288. doi:10.3200/JRLP.140.3.269-28

  • Cannon-Bowers JA, Salas E (1998) Team performance and training in complex environments: recent findings from applied research. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 7:83–87. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20182510

  • Carnevale PJ, Pruitt DG (1992) Negotiation and mediation. Annu Rev Psychol 43:531–582. doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.43.020192.002531

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Champoux JE, Peters WS (1987) Form, effect size and power in moderated regression analysis. J Occup Psychol 60:243–255. Retrieved from PsycINFO database

  • Cornelius C, Boos M (2003) Enhancing mutual understanding in synchronous computer-mediated communication training: trade-offs in judgmental tasks. Commun Res 30:147–177. doi:10.1177/0093650202250874

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Culnan MJ, Markus ML (1987) Information technologies. In: Habling FM, Putman LL, Roberts KH, Porter LW (eds) Handbook of organizational communication. Sage, Beverly Hills, pp 420–443

    Google Scholar 

  • Daft RL, Lengel RH (1986) A proposed integration among organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Manag Sci 32:554–671. doi:10.1287/mnsc.32.5.554

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Dreu CKW, Evers A, Beersma B, Kluwer ES, Nauta A (2001) A theory-based measure of conflict management strategies in the workplace. J Organ Behav 22:645–668. doi:10.1002/job.107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Dreu CKW, Harinck F, Van Vianen AEM (1999) Conflict and performance in groups and organizations. In: Cooper C, Robertson I (eds) International review of industrial and organizational psychology. Wiley, Chichester, pp 396–414

    Google Scholar 

  • DeChurch LA, Hamilton KL, Haas C (2007) Effects of conflict management strategies on perceptions of intragroup conflict. Group Dyn Theory Res Pract 11:66–78. doi:10.1037/1089-2699.11.1.66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dennis AR, Valacich JS (1999) Rethinking media richness: Towards a theory of media synchronicity. In: Proceedings of the 32nd annual Hawaii international conference on systems sciences, vol 1, pp. 1–10. doi:10.1109/HICSS.1999.772701

  • Dennis AR, Fuller RM, Valacich JS (2008) Media, tasks, and communication processes: a theory of media synchronicity. MIS Q 32:575–600

    Google Scholar 

  • Geister S, Konradt U, Hertel G (2006) Effects of process feedback on motivation, satisfaction, and performance in virtual teams. Small Group Res 37:459–489. doi:10.1177/1046496406292337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • González-Navarro P, Orengo V, Zornoza A, Ripoll P, Peiró JM (2010) Group interaction styles in a virtual context: the effects on a group outcomes. Comput Hum Behav 26:1472–1480

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon J (2003) Pfeiffer’s classic activities for building better teams. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffith TL, Mannix EA, Neale MA (2003) Conflict and virtual teams. In: Gibson CB, Cohen SG (eds) Virtual teams that work: creating conditions for virtual team effectiveness, 1st edn. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp 335–353

    Google Scholar 

  • Hinds PJ, Bailey DE (2003) Out of sight, out of sync: understanding conflict in distributed teams. Organ Sci 14:615–632. doi:10.1287/orsc.14.6.615.24872

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Human Synergistics (2003) Bushfire survival situation\(^{\rm TM}\) Leaders guide. Human Synergistics International, Playmouth, MI

  • Jehn KA, Bendersky C (2003) Intragroup conflict in organizations: a contingency perspective on the conflict–outcome relationship. Res Organ Behav 25:187–242. doi:10.1016/S0191-3085(03)25005-X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jung JH, Schneider C, Valacich J (2010) Enhancing the motivational affordance of information systems: the effects of real-time performance feedback and goal setting in group collaboration environments. Manag Sci 56:724–742. doi:10.1287/mnsc.1090.1129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn T, Poole MS (2000) Do conflict management styles affect group decision making? Evidence from a longitudinal study. Hum Commun Res 26:558–590. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2000.tb00769.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biom 33:159–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lira EM, Ripoll P, Peiró JM, Zornoza AM (2008) The role of information and communication technologies in the relationship between group effectiveness and group potency: a longitudinal study. Small Group Res 39:728–745. doi:10.1177/1046496408323481

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu X, Magjuka RJ, Lee S (2008) An examination of the relationship among structure, trust, and conflict management styles in virtual teams. Perform Improv Q 21:77–93. doi:10.1002/piq.20016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maruping LM, Agarwal R (2004) Managing team interpersonal processes through technology: a task-technology fit perspective. J Appl Psychol 89:975–990. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.975

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGrath JE (1991) Time, interaction, and performance (TIP): a theory of groups. Small Group Res 22:147–174. doi:10.1177/1046496491222001

  • Miranda SM, Bostrom RP (1994) The impact of group support systems on group conflict and conflict management. J Manag Inf Syst 10:63–95. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40398068

  • Montoya-Weiss MM, Massey AP, Song M (2001) Getting it together: temporal coordination and conflict management in global virtual teams. Acad Manag J 44:1251–1262. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3069399

  • Paletz SBF, Schunn CD, Kim KH (2011) Intragroup conflict under the microscope: micro-conflicts in naturalistic team discussions. Negot Confl Manag Res 4:314–351. doi:10.1111/j.1750-4716.2011.00085.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poole MS, Holmes M, DeSanctis G (1991) Conflict management in a computer-supported meeting environment. Manag Sci 37:926–953. Retrieved from ProQuest Psychology Journals database

  • Pruitt DG, Rubin JZ (1986) Social conflict: escalation, stalemate, and settlement. Random House, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam LL (1986) Conflict in group decision making. In: Hirokawa RY, Poole MS (eds) Communication and group decision making, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 114–146

    Google Scholar 

  • Rahim MA (1983) Rahim organizational conflict inventories. Consulting Psychologist Press, Palo Alto

    Google Scholar 

  • Rahim MA (2001) Managing conflict in organizations, 3rd edn. Quorum Books, Westport

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodríguez I, Bravo MJ, Peiró JM, Schaufeli WB (2001) The Demands-Control-Support model, locus of control and job dissatisfaction: a longitudinal study. Work Stress 15:97–114. doi:10.1080/02678370110066968

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salas E, Nichols DR, Driskell JE (2007) Testing three team training strategies in intact teams. Small Group Res 38:471–488. doi:10.1177/1046496407304332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schippers MC, Den Hartog DN, Koopman PL, Wienk JA (2003) Diversity and team outcomes: the moderating effects of outcome interdependence and group longevity and the mediating effect of reflexivity. J Organ Behav 24:779–802. doi:10.1002/job.220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shin Y (2005) Conflict resolution in virtual teams. Organ Dyn 34:331–345

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Short JA, Williams E, Christie B (1976) The social psychology of telecommunication. Wiley, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegel J, Dubrovsky V, Kiesler S, McGuire TW (1986) Group processes in computer-mediated communication. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 37:157–187. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(86)90050-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith-Jentsch KA, Cannon-Bowers JA, Tannenbaum SI, Salas E (2008) Guided team self-correction: impacts on team mental models, processes, and effectiveness. Small Group Res 39:303–327. doi:10.1177/1046496408317794

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tekleab AG, Quigley NR, Tesluk PE (2009) A longitudinal study of team conflict, conflict management, cohesion, and team effectiveness. Group Organ Manag 34:170–205. doi:10.1177/1059601108331218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas KW, Kilmann RH (1974) The Thomas–Kilmann conflict mode instrument. Xicom, Tuxedo

    Google Scholar 

  • Van de Vliert E, Kabanoff B (1990) Toward theory-based measures of conflict management. Acad Manag J 33:199–209. doi:10.2307/256359

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wakefield RL, Leidner DE, Garrison G (2008) A model of conflict, leadership, and performance in virtual teams. Inf Syst Res 19:434–455. doi:10.1287/isre.1070.0149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walther JB (1996) Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Commun Res 23:3–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warkentin M, Beranek PM (1999) Training to improve virtual team communication. Inf Syst J 9:271–289. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2575.1999.00065.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber RP (1990) Basic content analysis: quantitative application in the social sciences, 2nd edn. Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

  • West MA (2002) Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: an integrative model of creativity and innovation in work groups. Appl Psychol An Int Rev 51:355–424. doi:10.1111/1464-0597.00951

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zornoza A, Ripoll P, Peiró JM (2002) Conflict management in groups that work in two different communication contexts: face-to-face and computer-mediated communication. Small Group Res 33:481–508. doi:10.1177/104649602237167

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The present study has been developed within the framework of a project sponsored by of the Spanish Agency of Education and Science SEJ 2005-3107; CONSOLIDER Project SEJ2006-14086; ACOMP07-304 by the Generalitat Valencia, Spain and PROMETEO/2012/048.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Social Psychology and Methodology of Behavioral Sciences, Faculty of Psychology, University of Basque Country, Av. Tolosa, 70, 20018, San Sebastián, Spain

    E. Martínez-Moreno

  2. Department of Social Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, University of Valencia, Av. Blasco Ibáñez, 21, 46010, Valencia, Spain

    A. Zornoza & V. Orengo

  3. Department of Psychology, North Carolina State University, 106 Caldwell Hall, Campus Box 7650, Raleigh, NC, 27695-7650, USA

    L. F. Thompson

Authors
  1. E. Martínez-Moreno
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. Zornoza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. V. Orengo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. L. F. Thompson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to E. Martínez-Moreno.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Martínez-Moreno, E., Zornoza, A., Orengo, V. et al. The Effects of Team Self-Guided Training on Conflict Management in Virtual Teams. Group Decis Negot 24, 905–923 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-014-9421-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-014-9421-7

Keywords