Asia Pacific Journal of Management

, Volume 27, Issue 1, pp 139–153 | Cite as

Cooperative goals and team agreeableness composition for constructive controversy in China



Studies have shown that constructive controversy, which is the open-minded discussion of diverse views, contributes to team effectiveness. However, there are few studies on the conditions that facilitate constructive controversy. This study explores the antecedents of constructive controversy from both team interdependence (cooperative goals) and team personality composition perspectives. Sixty customer service teams from a call center of a large mobile communication service provider in China participated in the study. Results further document that cooperative goals predict to constructive controversy. Agreeableness diversity was also found to be an antecedent of constructive controversy, and this effect was moderated by team agreeableness level: The higher the team average agreeableness, the stronger the positive association between agreeableness diversity and constructive controversy. Results were interpreted as suggesting that both cooperative goals and team agreeableness composition can develop constructive controversy in work teams in China and possibly in other cultures.


Constructive controversy Cooperative goals Team agreeableness composition 


  1. Aiken, L., & West, S. 1991. Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  2. Alper, S., Tjosvold, D., & Law, S. A. 1998. Interdependence and controversy in group decision making: Antecedents to effective self-managing teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 74: 33–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. 1986. The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical consideration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51: 1173–1182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., Neubert, M. J., & Mount, M. K. 1998. Relating member ability and personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83: 377–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barsade, S. G., Ward, A. J., Turner, J. D. F., & Sonnenfeld, J. A. 2000. To your heart’s content: A model of affective diversity in top management teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45: 802–836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. 1995. The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117: 497–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bell, S. T. 2007. Deep-level composition variables as predictors of team performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 595–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brewer, M. B., & Kramer, R. M. 1986. Choice behavior in social dilemmas: Effects of social identity, group size, and decision framing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50: 543–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brislin, R. W. 1970. Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1: 185–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bryne, D. E. 1971. The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  11. Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. 1997. What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23: 239–290.Google Scholar
  12. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. 1992. Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO five factor inventory. Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
  13. Chen, N. Y.-f., Huang, X., & Tjosvold, D. 2008. Similarity in gender and self-esteem for supportive peer relationships: The mediating role of cooperative goals. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38: 1147–1178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chen, N. Y.-f., & Tjosvold, D. 2007. Guanxi and leader member relationships between American managers and Chinese employees: Open-minded dialogue as mediator. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 24: 171–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Crown, D. F., & Rosse, J. G. 1995. Yours, mine, and ours: Facilitating group productivity through the integration of individual and group goals. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 64: 138–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Deutsch, M. 1973. The resolution of conflict. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Driskell, J. E., Hogan, R., & Salas, E. 1987. Personality and group performance. In C. Hendrick (Ed.). Group process and intergroup relations: Review of personality and social psychology, 9: 91–112. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  18. Edmondson, A. C. 1999. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44: 350–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ellis, A. P. J., Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D. R., Porter, C., West, B. J., & Moon, H. 2003. Team learning: Collectively connecting the dots. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 821–835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. George, J. M., & Bettenhausen, K. 1990. Understanding prosaic behavior, sales performance, and turnover: A group-level analysis in a service context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75: 698–709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gilson, L. L., & Shalley, C. E. 2004. A little creativity goes a long way: An examination of teams’ engagement in creative processes. Journal of Management, 30: 453–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gruenfeld, D. H. 1995. Status, ideology, and integrative complexity on the U.S. supreme court: Rethinking the politics of political decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68: 5–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Harrision, D. A., McLalughli, M. E., & Coalter, T. M. 1996. Context, cognition, and common method variance: Psychometric and verbal protocol evidence. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 68: 246–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., & Bell, M. P. 1998. Beyond relational demography: Time and the effect of surface- versus deep-level diversity on group cohesiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 41: 96–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., Gavin, J. H., & Florey, A. T. 2002. Time, teams, and task performance: Changing effects of diversity on group functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 45: 1029–1045.Google Scholar
  26. Hempel, P. S., Zhang, Z. X., & Tjosvold, D. 2009. Conflict management between and within teams for developing trusting relationships in China. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30: 41–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., & Johnson, M. 2005. Teams in organizations: From input-process-output models to IMOI models. Annual Review of Psychology, 56: 517–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jackson, S. E., & Joshi, A. 2004. Diveristy in social context: A multi-attribute, multilevel analysis of team diversity and sales performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25: 675–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. 1984. Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69: 85–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jehn, K. A. 1995. A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40: 256–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jehn, K. A. 1997. A quantitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational group. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42: 530–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jehn, K. A., Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. 1999. Why differences make a differences: A field study in diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44: 741–763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. 1989. Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.Google Scholar
  34. Katz, R. 1982. The effects of group longevity on project communication and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27: 81–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. 1993. The wisdom of teams: Creating the high performance organization. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  36. Leung, K., Koch, P. T., & Lu, L. 2002. A dualistic model of harmony and its implications for conflict management in Asia. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 19: 201–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lun, V. M. C., & Bond, M. H. 2006. Achieving relationship harmony in group and its consequence for group performance. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 9: 195–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mathieu, J., Maynard, M. T., Rapp, T., & Gilson, L. 2008. Team effectiveness 1997–2007: A review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. Journal of Management, 34: 410–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mohammed, S., & Angell, L. C. 2004. Surface- and deep-level diversity in workgroups: Examining the moderating effects of team orientation and team process on relationship conflict. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25: 1015–1039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Moynihan, L. M., & Peterson, R. S. 2001. A contingent configuration approach to understanding the role of personality in organizational groups. In B. Staw & R. I. Sutton (Eds.). Research in organizational behavior, 23: 327–378. Greenwich: JAI.Google Scholar
  41. Neuman, G. A., Wagner, S. H., & Christiansen, N. D. 1999. The relationship between work-team personality composition and the job performance of teams. Group & Organization Management, 24: 28–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Neuman, G. A., & Wright, J. 1999. Team effectiveness: Beyond skills and cognitive ability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84: 376–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Offerman, L., & Gowing, M. 1990. Organizations of the future: Changes and challenges. American Psychologist, 45: 95–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Riordan, C. M., & Shore, L. M. 1997. Demographic diversity and employee attitudes: An empirical examination of relational demography within work units. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82: 342–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Shalley, C. E., & Zhou, J. 2004. The effects of personal and contexutual characteristics on creativity: Where should we go from here?. Journal of Management, 30: 933–958.Google Scholar
  46. Spector, P. E., & Brannick, M. T. 1995. The nature and effects of method variance in organizational research. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.). International review of industrial and organizational psychology: 249–274. Chichester, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar
  47. Stewart, G. L., & Barrick, M. R. 2000. Team structure and performance: Assessing the mediating role of intrateam process and the moderating role of task type. The Academy of Management Journal, 43: 135–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tajfel, H. 1978. Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations. London: Academic.Google Scholar
  49. Ting-Toomey, S., & Cocroft, B. A. 1994. Face and facework: Theoretical and research issues. In S. Ting-Toomey (Ed.). The challenge of facework: Cross-cultural and interpersonal issues: 307–340. New York: State University of New York-Albany Press.Google Scholar
  50. Tjosvold, D. 1998. Cooperative and competitive goal approaches to conflict: Accomplishments and challenges. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 47: 285–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tjosvold, D. 2008. Controversy for management education: Developing committed, open-minded researchers. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 7: 73–85.Google Scholar
  52. Tjosvold, D., & Sun, H. 2000. Social face in conflict among Chinese: Effects of affronts to person and position. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 4: 259–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Tjosvold, D., & Sun, H. 2002. Understanding conflict avoidance: Relationship, motivations, actions, and consequences. International Journal of Conflict Management, 13: 142–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Triandis, H. C., McCusker, C., & Hui, C. H. 1990. Multimethod probes of individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59: 1006–1020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tsui, A. S., & O’Reilly, C. A. 1989. Beyond simple demographic effects: The importance of relational demography in superior–subordinate dyads. Academy of Management Journal, 32: 402–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Turner, J. C. 1982. Toward a cognitive definition of the group. In H. Tajfel (Ed.). Social identity and intergroup relations: 15–40. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Homan, A. C. 2004. Work group diversity and group performance: An integrative model and research agenda. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89: 1008–1022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Van Knippenberg, D., & Schippers, M. C. 2007. Work group diversity. Annual Review of Psychology, 58: 515–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Williams, K. Y., & O’Reilly, C. A. 1998. Demography and diversity in organizations: A review of 40 years of research. Research in Organizational Behavior, 20: 77–140.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of PsychologyChinese Academy of Sciences & Graduate University of Chinese Academy of SciencesBeijingChina
  2. 2.Management DepartmentLingnan UniversityTuen MunChina

Personalised recommendations