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
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

References

  • Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on strategic decision‐making: resolving a paradox for top management teams
    Amason, A.C.
  • The effect of conflict on strategic decision making effectiveness and organizational performance
    Amason, A.C.; Schweiger, D.
  • Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two‐step approach
    Anderson, J.C.; Gerbing, D.W.
  • An Introduction to Cybernetics
    Ashby, W.R.
  • Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavior Sciences
    Cohen, J.; Cohen, P.; West, S.G.; Aiken, L.S.
  • Implications of top managers’ communication choices for strategic decisions
    Daft, R.L.; Bettenhausen, K.R.; Tyler, B.B.
  • When too little or too much hurts: evidence for a curvilinear relationship between task conflict and innovation in teams
    De Dreu, C.
  • Using Conflict in Organizations
    De Dreu, C.; Van de Vliert, E.
  • Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: a meta‐analysis
    De Dreu, C.; Weingart, L.
  • Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: toward the solution of a riddle
    Diehl, M.; Stroebe, W.
  • Attaining decision quality and commitment from dissent: the moderating effects of loyalty and competence in strategic decision‐making teams
    Dooley, R.S.; Fryxell, G.E.
  • Belaboring the non‐so‐obvious: consensus, commitment, and strategy implementation speed and success
    Dooley, R.S.; Fryxell, G.E.; Judge, W.Q.
  • Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams
    Edmondson, A.
  • Strategic decision making
    Eisenhardt, K.M.; Zbaracki, M.J.
  • The impact of participation on goal acceptance and performance: a two‐step model
    Erez, M.; Earley, P.C.; Hulin, C.L.
  • Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error
    Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.
  • Designing Complex Organizations
    Galbraith, J.R.
  • Development and validation of a 360‐degree‐feedback instrument for healthcare administrators
    Garman, A.N.; Tyler, J.L.; Darnall, J.S.
  • The past is the past—or is it? The use of retrospective accounts as indicators of past strategy
    Golden, B.R.
  • Strategy implementation versus middle management self‐interest
    Guth, W.D.; MacMillan, I.C.
  • Further assessment of a three‐component model of organizational commitment
    Hackett, R.D.; Bycio, P.; Hausdorf, P.
  • Top management groups: a conceptual integration and reconsideration of the team label
    Hambrick, D.C.
  • Upper echelons: the organization as a reflection of its top managers
    Hambrick, D.C.; Mason, P.
  • The Managerial Decision‐making Process
    Harrison, E.F.
  • Top Decisions: Strategic Decision Making in Organizations
    Hickson, D.J.; Butler, R.J.; Cray, D.; Mallory, G.R.; Wilson, D.C.