CONFLICT MANAGEMENT The Psychology of conflict and conflict ...

166 SCHULZ-HARDT, MOJZISCH, AND VOGELGESANG
a unanimity rule, because both factions have to reach a consensus. In
contrast, under a majority rule majorities can simply overrule minorities,
which makes their dissent almost useless (Miller, 1985). Consequently,
groups working under a unanimity rule have been shown to express
more disagreement as well as to exchange more arguments and opinions
than groups working under a majority rule (Nemeth, 1977). In addition,
the former are more satisfied with their decision and report greater confidence
about the correctness of their decision than the latter (Nemeth,
1977). However, although more disagreement and more opinion exchange
under a unanimity rule should imply more creativity, more divergence,
and higher quality of problem solutions, systematic empirical tests of this
link are still lacking.
Second, both the expression and the transformation of dissent are facilitated
if participation is a given. The more the group members are used to
being heard when important decisions are made and being able to influence
these decisions through expressing their own opinion, the more each
group member will be motivated to express a dissenting opinion if he or
she disagrees with the prevailing opinion in the group. Furthermore, participation
also supports the transformation of dissent into outcomes that are
beneficial to the organization. For example, De Dreu and West (2001) argued
that creative thinking instigated by dissent is a necessary yet not sufficient
condition for innovation to occur. The reason is that product and process
innovations not only require creative ideas but also a careful selection of the
most promising ideas as well as a solid implementation of the ones chosen,
and both processes are facilitated by participation. In two field studies with
self-managed teams in a postal service and with cross-functional teams
from different public and private organizations, De Dreu and West demonstrated
that measures of self-reported minority dissent in the team were
positively correlated with supervisor ratings of the corresponding team’s
innovativeness only when participation in the team was high. Thus, without
participation, dissent is not transformed into innovation.
Third, facilitating the expression and transformation of dissent in
groups requires a leadership style that we call “dialectical.” By this, we
mean that the leader is open to dissent and even encourages thoughts and
ideas that run counter to the solution and to decision alternatives or ideas
that are currently favored in the group. As shown by Peterson (1997), as
well as Peterson, Owens, Tetlock, Fan, and Martorana (1998), decision making
in top management teams in organizations as well as elite groups in
politics does not suffer if leaders clearly advocate their own position. On
the contrary, high decision quality is associated with strong leaders who
actively structure the group process and who take a firm stand on the
issue at hand. However, the critical point is whether such leaders are still
open to dissent. Leaders who explicitly or implicitly communicate intolerance
against counterarguments and criticism systematically suppress the
expression of dissent and destroy the acceptance of contrary positions in
the group. In contrast, if the leader is open to dissent and encourages a con-