Handbook of Principles of Organizational Behavior - Soltanieh ...

MANAGE INTRA - TEAM CONFLICT THROUGH COLLABORATION
335
(De Dreu et al., 1999 ). Small groups composed of members with a high need for closure
have been found to be less egalitarian in their decision making and more tolerant of an
authoritarian leader (De Grada, Kruglanski, Pierro, and Mannetti, 1999 ), both of which
run counter to collaboration.
Like a cooperative orientation, epistemic motivation is jointly determined by individual
differences and situational cues. People with low epistemic motivation are likely to have
a high need for closure (Webster and Kruglanski, 1994 ). The internal pressure to quickly
complete the task at hand associated with a high need for closure tends to limit the motivation
to deeply process information. Similarly, external time pressure has been shown to
limit team members ’ epistemic motivation (De Dreu et al., 1999 ).
To increase the odds that a team includes epistemically motivated members, one could
screen people in terms of their need for closure or for cognition. In addition, epistemic
motivation can be induced by reducing time pressure (reducing the need for closure) or
making them accountable for their process. Process accountability has been shown to
increase epistemic motivation because when people expect to be observed and evaluated
by others regarding the processes they engage they are more likely to use a more thorough
process (Lerner and Tetlock, 1999 ).
Propensity to collaborate as a combination of cooperative orientations and epistemic motives. The two
dimensions, cooperative orientations and epistemic motives , are independent – cooperatives and
individualists can hold high or low epistemic motivation. However, both a cooperative
motive and high epistemic motivation are necessary for team members to effectively collaborate
(De Dreu et al., 2006 ). Team members who hold the goal of maximizing joint
(individual and group) gain and are motivated to process information thoroughly are most
likely to engage in problem - solving behaviors and succeed in mixed - motive negotiations.
The same should hold in teamwork contexts.
Team member behavior
Collaboration is enacted through group member behavior. Thus it is important to identify
the behaviors that constitute collaboration. Although collaboration differs from negotiation,
we can look to the negotiation literature to consider how to manage confl ict in
collaborative settings. The negotiation literature has identifi ed integration of interests as a
collaborative strategic approach for managing conflict (see Chapter 28 ). Integration of
interests includes increasing the availability of resources (thus, “ expanding the pie ” ) as
well as sharing in the distribution of those resources. The literature on integrative negotiation
has identified a host of tactics that aid in the identification of opportunities for joint
gain. We focus on three that are central to the process: exchange information, use packaging
and tradeoffs, and work to break the chain of confl ict escalation.
Exchange information. A key mechanism for enacting an integrative strategic approach
involves the exchange of accurate information. Exchanging information increases insight
into the other party ’s preferences and priorities and the probability that negotiators will
find integrative agreements, if a zone of agreement exists (Pruitt, 1981 ; Putnam and
Jones, 1982 ). The benefit of sharing information varies depending on the type of information
that is shared and how it is used. Sharing factual information, like constraints