Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Is too much cognitive conflict in strategic decision‐making teams too bad?

Is too much cognitive conflict in strategic decision‐making teams too bad? Purpose – Past research on strategic decision making has emphasized the influence of cognitive conflict and affective conflict on the decision outcomes. Early researchers demonstrated that affective conflict has negative outcomes whereas cognitive conflict has positive outcomes. While the negative outcomes of affective conflict remain non‐controversial, the positive outcomes of cognitive conflict are not always consistent. The research on the outcomes of cognitive conflict is perplexedly mixed. Taking an information processing perspective, the present study aims to examine the relationship between cognitive conflict on decision outcomes, while controlling for affective conflict. Design/methodology/approach – The authors surveyed 109 hospitals in the USA and collected data from top management teams (CEOs and senior executives). After performing confirmatory factor analysis of the measures used, the data were analyzed using hierarchical regression techniques to examine the curvilinear relationships between cognitive conflict among the teams and its influence on decision quality and decision understanding. Findings – Analysis of team data supports the hypotheses that there exists curvilinear (inverted‐U shaped) relationship between cognitive conflict and decision quality, and between cognitive conflict and decision commitment. Research limitations/implications – Since the data were collected from self‐report measures, limitations of social desirability bias may be inherent. Practical implications – Evidence for a curvilinear relationship between cognitive conflict and decision outcomes extends to the existing strategic management literature. Further, the findings from this study are particularly useful for practicing managers. This study suggests that CEO and team members need not overemphasize cognitive conflict beyond a limit because it may have deleterious consequences. The findings reveal that a moderate level of cognitive conflict, instead of too much conflict, is always desirable. Originality/value – Though the sample in the present study focuses only on the healthcare industry, to the extent strategic decision making process is similar in other industries, the findings can be generalizable across other industries. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png International Journal of Conflict Management Emerald Publishing

Is too much cognitive conflict in strategic decision‐making teams too bad?

Download PDF
16 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/emerald-publishing/is-too-much-cognitive-conflict-in-strategic-decision-making-teams-too-gBx3p1dxme

References (55)

Publisher
Emerald Publishing
Copyright
Copyright © 2011 Emerald Group Publishing Limited. All rights reserved.
ISSN
1044-4068
DOI
10.1108/10444061111171350
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Purpose – Past research on strategic decision making has emphasized the influence of cognitive conflict and affective conflict on the decision outcomes. Early researchers demonstrated that affective conflict has negative outcomes whereas cognitive conflict has positive outcomes. While the negative outcomes of affective conflict remain non‐controversial, the positive outcomes of cognitive conflict are not always consistent. The research on the outcomes of cognitive conflict is perplexedly mixed. Taking an information processing perspective, the present study aims to examine the relationship between cognitive conflict on decision outcomes, while controlling for affective conflict. Design/methodology/approach – The authors surveyed 109 hospitals in the USA and collected data from top management teams (CEOs and senior executives). After performing confirmatory factor analysis of the measures used, the data were analyzed using hierarchical regression techniques to examine the curvilinear relationships between cognitive conflict among the teams and its influence on decision quality and decision understanding. Findings – Analysis of team data supports the hypotheses that there exists curvilinear (inverted‐U shaped) relationship between cognitive conflict and decision quality, and between cognitive conflict and decision commitment. Research limitations/implications – Since the data were collected from self‐report measures, limitations of social desirability bias may be inherent. Practical implications – Evidence for a curvilinear relationship between cognitive conflict and decision outcomes extends to the existing strategic management literature. Further, the findings from this study are particularly useful for practicing managers. This study suggests that CEO and team members need not overemphasize cognitive conflict beyond a limit because it may have deleterious consequences. The findings reveal that a moderate level of cognitive conflict, instead of too much conflict, is always desirable. Originality/value – Though the sample in the present study focuses only on the healthcare industry, to the extent strategic decision making process is similar in other industries, the findings can be generalizable across other industries.

Journal

International Journal of Conflict Management – Emerald Publishing

Published: Oct 4, 2011

Keywords: Cognitive conflict; Affective conflict; Decision quality; Decision commitment; Decision making; Corporate strategy; Chief executives; United States of America

There are no references for this article.