CONFLICT MANAGEMENT The Psychology of conflict and conflict ...

4. CONFLICT AND GROUP DECISION MAKING: THE ROLE OF SOCIAL MOTIVATION 135
affect subsequent decision-making performance, in this section we will take
a closer look at characteristics of the teams’ tasks. We will start by reviewing
recent studies that have investigated how the effects of social motives during
conflict and negotiation on further team performance are moderated by the
characteristics of the team task, and we will conclude this section by suggesting
possible avenues of research in this new area of study.
Research by Beersma, Hollenbeck, et al. (2003) showed that different
aspects of team performance on a decision-making task can be distinguished,
and that the effects of a prosocial versus a proself orientation
on team performance are contingent on the different aspects of task performance.
They found that in a command-and-control simulation task, a
prosocial orientation helped teams enhance their decision-making accuracy,
but it reduced the speed with which decisions were made. A proself
orientation, on the other hand, was found to benefit speed but to inhibit
accuracy. This can be explained by the fact that in order to perform accurately,
teams need to coordinate by sharing information with one another,
building on this information, and helping one another to make the right
decisions. A prosocial orientation helps teams to do so. However, the same
coordination that helps teams to perform accurately also comes at the cost
of the team’s speed. When speed is critical, teams whose members have
a proself motive are at a clear advantage because these team members
do not bother to lose time by coordinating and helping one another, but
rather try to work for their own interests as fast as they can. Thus, which
social motive is more functional for team performance may depend on
which aspect of performance is more important, speed versus accuracy.
This in turn depends on the boundary conditions under which the team
is operating (e.g., type of market, number of competitors, difficulty of the
task, and cost associated with errors).
The preceding findings point to the intriguing possibility that whether a
prosocial or proself orientation to conflict helps or hinders subsequent team
decision making may depend on the characteristics of the decision-making
task the team has to perform. Consistent with theorizing on person–task
fit (Hollenbeck et al., 2002; Kristof, 1996, Muchinsky & Monahan, 1987),
Beersma and De Dreu (2005) proposed that there needs to be a fit between
the task requirements and the dominant behavioral tendencies within the
group for groups to perform well (cf. Peterson & Nemeth, 1996).
Tasks differ in the extent to which they require divergence or convergence
between group members. Team decision-making tasks with a strong
focus on creativity, as for example brainstorming tasks, require high levels
of divergent performance, whereas team decision-making tasks with
a strong focus on single solutions, such as planning and execution tasks,
require high levels of coordination and convergent performance (Hackman,
Jones, & McGrath, 1967; McGrath, 1984). Because individuals with
a prosocial motivation value harmony, inclusiveness, and coordination,
they may do much better on the convergent performance aspects of a
task than on the divergent performance aspects. Individuals with a proself