Conflict Management training in Fribourg“A bit of disagreement is healthy”: what research really says about team conflict
Many leadership teams repeat that one must “dare to debate” and that conflict over ideas is productive, unlike conflict between people. The distinction is real and useful. What it allows us to conclude is narrower than usually claimed.
The original distinction
Karen Jehn (1995, Administrative Science Quarterly) distinguished task conflict, about the content of the work, from relationship conflict, about the people. In her data, relationship conflict was associated with lower satisfaction and weaker performance; task conflict could be beneficial for non-routine tasks. This study established the now common managerial idea of “good” and “bad” conflict.
What the meta-analyses showed next
Carsten De Dreu and Laurie Weingart (2003, Journal of Applied Psychology) pooled the available studies: task conflict was, on average, negatively correlated with team performance, almost as much as relationship conflict. Frank de Wit, Lindred Greer and Karen Jehn (2012, Journal of Applied Psychology) re-ran the analysis on a larger set: the average relation between task conflict and performance was close to zero, but varied across contexts. Disagreement about ideas is not, in itself, a driver of performance.
Why the two kinds of conflict blur
Tony Simons and Randall Peterson (2000, Journal of Applied Psychology) observed that task and relationship conflict are strongly correlated: disagreement about a file is often read as personal criticism. They showed that trust within the team moderated this spill-over. In other words, the effect of a debate depends less on its subject than on how it is received.
The conditions that change the outcome
In the de Wit et al. meta-analysis, task conflict was less negative, or even positive, in top management teams and when it was not accompanied by relationship conflict. These results are correlational: they describe associations across teams, not the causal effect of encouraging debate. They nonetheless suggest that inviting disagreement without working on the climate that makes it acceptable is a bet on an unverified condition. (our executive and employee training programmes)
Defensible conclusions, and their limits
The pooled studies measure conflict by questionnaire, at one point in time, in very different teams; performance is often rated by members or their managers. It can be said with caution that conflict over ideas is not automatically productive, that it often turns personal, and that prior trust is one of the best-documented factors in preventing that.
A practical check in Fribourg
In the next three meetings where disagreement is expected, separate two phases explicitly: first list objections to the proposal, attributed to the document rather than to people; only then discuss options. At the end of each meeting, ask everyone to indicate anonymously whether they perceived personal criticism. Comparing these answers across meetings gives a simple measure of climate, which we use with leadership teams in Fribourg. To go further: explore the Conflict Management training in Fribourg in the canton of Fribourg, or browse our executive and employee training programmes in Switzerland.
In pictures: Conflict Management in Fribourg
- conflict management
- Fribourg
- research
- training fribourg