**7. Traditional intragroup conflict**

Conflict in group settings (e.g., teams, department, task group) has been described as being a dynamic process consisting of a series of conflict episodes [29]. Greer et al. [37] supported this description by indicating that "conflict is dynamic". Likewise, Pondy [29] proposed: "Conflict can be more readily understood if it is considered a dynamic process". Since Pondy's [29] stages of conflict, the field of intragroup conflict has expanded into a multidimensional model. Balkundi et al. [38] indicated that team conflict could have multiple effects including distracting team members, undermining relationships, and reducing the team's ability to function (similar to those effects outlined by Pondy's conflict episodes). Team conflict is synonymous with intragroup conflict or within group conflict. Intragroup conflict can be formally defined as: "Perceived incompatibilities or perceptions by the parties involved that they hold discrepant views or have interpersonal incompatibilities" [39].

Traditionally, intragroup conflict has been described as being a multidimensional construct [40] consisting of task, relationship, and process conflict. Intragroup conflict originated with Jehn [39] in which task and relationship conflict were first combined into one larger concept - intragroup conflict. Further expansion of intragroup conflict began with the introduction of process conflict [40–43]. At this point, intragroup conflict was identified as consisting of the "trio of task, relationship, and process conflict" [44]. Jehn and Chatment [41] highlighted the point that the three intragroup conflict types were interrelated and each one should be included in any research effort that looks at intragroup conflict (**Figure 4**).

duties and resources [43], conflict over logistics [37], controversies relating to task accomplishment [42], to simple disagreements over procedures [40, 41]. Process conflict has been shown to negatively impact team performance [46]. As confusion about how to accomplish a task grows, or when resources become unavailable for task completion, tensions grow, resulting in process conflict. Managing process conflict early on during the team's initial formation pays dividends, especially when process conflict has the potential to lead to relationship conflict and status conflict, ultimately resulting in a snowball effect being counter-productive to

Complex Adaptive Systems: Adapting and Managing Teams and Team Conflict

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.72344

81

Once intragroup conflict had been generally accepted by the field, some extensions to the original trio had been proposed. These extensions had extended process conflict into two separate sub-components, logistical conflict and contribution conflict [44, 47]. Logistical and contribution conflict were derived as extensions of process conflict primarily due to the lack of process conflict being able to differentiate itself from task and relationship conflict, resulting in most studies dropping process conflict and only using task and relationship conflict [47]. Reasons for this were highlighted in Behfar et al.'s [47] research: "Process conflict has been difficult to distinguish empirically from task conflict and is often highly correlated with relationship conflict". Also, process conflict has been confused with task and relationship conflict due to the inconsistencies in their definitions [47]. Logistic conflict relates to allocation of resources for task accomplishment, whereas contribution conflict identifies with coordination of these activities: "Logistical conflict is about task-related differences, but contribution conflict is about people related differences" [47]. From their studies, high levels of logistical conflict can lead to poor group performance and the presence of contribution conflict negatively

Much in the same manner that process conflict was confused with other types of intragroup conflict due to inconsistent definitions within the literature, so too was cognition conflict misrepresented. A number of studies would identify cognition conflict by name, and use the definition for task conflict (see [44]). Missing from the trio of conflict was the cognitive aspect, representing the team member's representation of knowledge and understanding and the representation of the team's shared knowledge. From the literature relating to team mental models (TMM) and shared mental models (SMM), Turner [44] introduced the construct of cognition conflict to the trio of intragroup conflict. Cognition conflict represents "team member cognitive states (overlapping cognitive representation of team member knowledge, team member representation of tasks, equipment, working relationships, and situations)". Here, cognition conflict was represented by two sub-categories: elicitation and representation. Elicitation represents the team's accuracy of knowledge and representation represents

team performance.

**8.2. Cognition conflict**

**8. Emerging intra-group conflict**

**8.1. Logistical and contribution conflict: process conflict**

affected group satisfaction and other team processes [47].

similarity in team member structures [44].

#### **7.1. Task conflict**

Task conflict is associated to task related functions and the judgement differences that arise when completing specific tasks [44]. Jehn [39] identified that high levels of task conflict could be associated with "tension, antagonism, and unhappiness among group members and an unwillingness to work together in the future". Also, task conflict relates to differences in opinions or viewpoints about the team's task, including task awareness, disagreement of work issues, and disagreements surrounding the work being conducted [37, 40, 44, 45]. Increasing task conflict has been associated to increasing team performance [46], up to a point. Like most things, too much results in negative consequences.
