CONFLICT MANAGEMENT The Psychology of conflict and conflict ...

4. CONFLICT AND GROUP DECISION MAKING: THE ROLE OF SOCIAL MOTIVATION 117
ConfliCt anD GrouP DeCision MaKinG: the role of soCial Motives
In the literature about group decision making, the words group and
team are often used interchangeably, and many different definitions of
what groups and teams are have been offered over the years (e.g., Guzzo
& Dickson, 1996; Kerr & Tindale, 2004; Levine & Moreland, 1998; Levine
& Thompson, 1996). Although there are exceptions, most authors converged
on the idea that it seems wiser to be inclusive than exclusive and,
therefore, to use a broad definition of what a team or group is (Levine &
Moreland, 1998). In line with Guzzo and Dickson and Hackman (1987), we
define a decision-making team or group as a number of individuals who
view themselves and are viewed by others as a social entity and who are
interdependent because they perform a task together which has a specified
output (e.g., solutions or decisions).
This interdependence, which is the defining characteristic of a team, is
mixed motive in nature (Schelling, 1960). This means that two different
motivations are present in any team: the proself motivation to achieve a
high utility or outcome for oneself, and the prosocial motivation to achieve
a high utility or outcome for the team as a whole. Which of these motives
should take precedence often creates a dilemma for group members (Kelley
& Thibaut, 1978). As an example, imagine a team in which some members
have to work overtime in order to finish an important presentation for
a customer. In this case, a proself motivation would lead a team member
to go home early and let others finish the job, whereas a prosocial motive
would lead this team member to stay late and make sure the presentation
is ready before the customer arrives. The dilemma of choosing between
the prosocial and the proself motives can be resolved by personal dispositions
of team members and situational demands which lead team members
to put more weight on either of the two motives at any moment (De
Dreu, Weingart, & Kwon, 2000; Liebrand, Jansen, Rijken, & Suhre, 1986;
Van Lange, 1999; Van Lange & Kuhlman, 1994; Weingart, Bennett, & Brett,
1993). Moreover, over time, team members may resolve some of the tension
between the two motives, for example, by demonstrating “enlightened
self-interest,” the realization that, oftentimes, one’s own interests will
be best served if one takes into account the interests of others. This can
prompt them to adopt some “middle position” between a purely proself
and a purely prosocial motivational orientation. Even then, situations will
occur in which prosocial tendencies predominate or in which proself tendencies
prevail. For now, it is important to note that we should not assume
that members of a given team are always prosocial or proself motivated.
Rather, their motives are flexible to a large extent. Nevertheless, throughout
this chapter, we will show that the social motives team members
adopt have a strong and consistent influence on their conflict management
strategies and further team processes and decision-making outcomes.
Therefore, comparing the effects of prosocial and proself motives serves
an important analytical function.