Negotiation Discussion 

ADVANCING DISPUTE RESOLUTION BY

UNDERSTANDING THE SOURCES OF CONFLICT:

TOWARD AN INTEGRATED FRAMEWORK

JOHN W. BUDD, ALEXANDER J. S. COLVIN, AND DIONNE POHLER*

Organizational leaders, public policymakers, dispute resolution pro-
fessionals, and scholars have developed diverse methods for resol-
ving workplace conflict. But inadequate recognition has been given
to the idea that the effectiveness of a dispute resolution method
depends on its fit with the source of a particular conflict.
Consequently, it is essential to better understand where conflict
comes from and how this affects dispute resolution. To these ends,
this article uniquely integrates scholarship from multiple disciplines
to develop a multidimensional framework to conceptualize the
sources of conflict. This framework provides an important founda-
tion for theorizing and identifying effective dispute resolution meth-
ods. Such methods are increasingly important as the changing
world of work raises new issues, conflicts, and institutions.

It isn’t that they can’t see the solution. It is that they can’t see the problem.
G. K. Chesterton (1932)

Resolving workplace conflict is both critically important and challenging.
Yet in the dynamic 21st-century world of work, dispute resolution has
become more complex and conflicts are often not isolated to issues arising
only in the workplace. Pinpointing the roots of a conflict can be increasingly
difficult, especially when multiple sources are in play. For instance, a recent
controversy surrounding the National Football League (NFL) over players
kneeling during the US national anthem in social protest against the treat-
ment of African Americans by the police involved myriad issues that were
difficult to disentangle. The complex nature of the conflicts that led to the
NFL players’ decisions to kneel during the anthem—and the responses of

*JOHN W. BUDD ( https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3971-7327) is the Industrial Relations Land Grant
Chair at the Carlson School of Management, University of Minnesota. ALEXANDER J. S. COLVIN is the
Kenneth F. Kahn Dean and Martin F. Scheinman Professor of Conflict Resolution at the ILR School,
Cornell University. DIONNE POHLER is an Associate Professor at the Centre for Industrial Relations and
Human Resources, University of Toronto. Please address correspondence to jbudd@umn.edu.

KEYWORDs: conflict, conflict management, conflict theory, dispute resolution, sources of conflict

ILR Review, 73(2), March 2020, pp. 254–280
DOI: 10.1177/0019793919866817. � The Author(s) 2019

Journal website: journals.sagepub.com/home/ilr
Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions

https://doi.org/10.1177/0019793919866817

https://journals.sagepub.com/home/ilr

https://sagepub.com/journals-permissions

other athletes, team owners, the public, and even the American president—
diverted attention from the players’ interests. This complexity made dis-
putes over the rights of players to engage in political expression at work that
much more difficult to resolve and led to numerous other conflicts.

Two seminal frameworks have significantly advanced our understanding
of types of workplace conflict (Jehn 1997), and the structural nature of
workplace disputes and approaches to their resolution (Ury, Brett, and
Goldberg 1989). The NFL dispute reveals the limitations of these frame-
works: It is not easily categorized as a task, process, or relationship conflict
as in Jehn (1997), and it highlights that structural factors such as interests,
rights, and power emphasized by Ury et al. (1989) are no more important
than factors such as emotion, disposition, identity, and communication.
Missing from these frameworks and other important developments in the
conflict and workplace dispute resolution literatures (Colvin 2016) is an
explicit acknowledgment that effectively resolving a dispute requires three
steps.1 First, the parties must recognize that conflict has multiple, varied
sources that go beyond structural issues. Second, they must accurately diag-
nose the source(s) of different conflicts. Third, dispute resolution methods
must be tailored to address the underlying sources.

Suppose a dispute prevents two colleagues from working together for any
number of possible reasons. A dispute rooted in competition for scarce
resources, such as administrative support or a single opening for a promo-
tion, needs to be addressed differently from a miscommunication. A clarify-
ing rule could be useful in resolving a conflict over administrative support,
but not in the case of miscommunication. Therefore, for a dispute resolu-
tion method to be successful, the parties must first understand the sources
of the conflict. Adding to the need to carefully diagnose the source(s) of a
conflict is the possibility that disputants might differ in their perceptions of
the source(s) of their conflict. Finally, a failure to diagnose and resolve the
source(s) of a conflict can cause it to persist and become more complicated.

We argue that while significant attention has been devoted to under-
standing the effects of conflict and approaches to dispute resolution across
academic disciplines and applied fields, the research tends to be splintered.
Scholars focus on particular types or sources of conflict. Among these are
1) resource constraints in economics, interests, rights, and other structural
issues in industrial relations; 2) power in sociology; 3) framing and social
identity in organizational behavior; 4) personality and emotions in psychol-
ogy; and 5) miscommunication in communication studies. While the depth
that comes from disciplinary focus is highly valuable, we propose that an
integrated framework is also needed to better understand, diagnose, and
resolve conflict in practice. The best dispute resolution professionals impli-
citly diagnose a particular dispute and tailor their interventions to address

1See Kochan and Jick (1978) for an exception in the context of collective bargaining and Arrow et al.
(1995) for an exception in the broader conflict resolution literature.

ADVANCING DISPUTE RESOLUTION 255

its diverse root causes. An explicit, integrated framework, however, is impor-
tant to educate new dispute resolution professionals and quicken their learn-
ing curves, assist managers and others who lack training or experience, and
promote reflection among experienced professionals. Such a framework can
also provide new insights for academic research, encouraging greater cross-
disciplinary pollination of ideas and approaches to studying conflict.

We define conflict as an apparent or latent opposition between two or
more parties that results from differences that are either real or imagined.
Our objective is to uncover the diverse causes of conflict. Our framework
synthesizes the varied sources of conflict into three multidimensional
categories—structural, cognitive, and psychogenic (see Table 1). Structural
conflicts are those caused by the relationship between the parties’ interests
or goals, rights, and sources of power. These types of conflicts frequently
appear as contests over scarce resources, but the literature on conflict and
dispute resolution often fails to recognize alternative perspectives on the
specific nature of interrelated interests. Cognitive functioning over prefer-
ences, information, and communication can also cause conflict. Lastly, psy-
chogenic conflict arises from the psychology of feelings or emotions:
affective reactions to situations and other people including those triggered
by individual personality traits or moods. This article describes the dimen-
sions of each of these three sources of conflict in more detail. We apply our
framework to re-analyze three classic case examples found in the conflict lit-
erature to demonstrate our unique contribution. We conclude with a brief
discussion of how to manage conflict at its sources.

Structural Sources of Conflict

The interests or goals that potentially underlie a conflict can be diverse.
One set of interests might involve economic resources to satisfy material

Table 1. A Multidimensional Framework of the Sources of Conflict

Category Definition and dimensions

Structural The nature of the relationship between the interests or goals of two or more people
or organizations, consisting of:
� Self-interested exchange with accessible alternatives (egoist)
� Lasting interdependence with mutual gains structure (unitarist)
� Lasting interdependence with mixed-motive structure (pluralist)
� Lasting interdependence with win-lose structure (antagonistic)

Cognitive Individual or group mental maps, assessments, or framing of a situation, consisting of:
� Cognitive frames and preferences
� (Limited) information processing
� (In- and Out-) group perceptions
�

(Mis)communication

Psychogenic Individual affective reactions to situations and other people, consisting of:
� Emotions and moods
�

Personality

256 ILR REVIEW

needs and desires. Other goals might have a value orientation toward
achieving certain outcome and procedural standards such as fairness, inclu-
sion, or respect. Another set of possible objectives might derive from iden-
tity needs for a sense of purpose and meaning in one’s life. Identity needs
can be tied to group affiliations such as racial, ethnic, or religious affinities.
Particularly difficult conflicts result when group members see their collec-
tive needs for recognition, security, and dignity threatened by other groups.
For any interest or goal, structural conflicts are those caused by the relation-
ship between the interests or goals of two or more people or organizations.
We label this category ‘‘structural conflict’’ because the nature of these con-
flicts is determined by the rules, institutions, and practices in which this rela-
tionship is situated—in other words, by the structural nature of the
relationship. To understand the nature of structural conflict, we need to
categorize the possible structures of these relationships. We present four
possible structures of the relationships between the interests or goals of the
parties (Budd and Colvin 2014).

We start with a relationship characterized by autonomous agents pursu-
ing their self-interests largely as equals in relationships that are relatively
easy to begin and end. A classic example is a worker seeking to trade his or
her labor with an organization in a perfectly competitive labor market.
When the interests of a worker and an organization coincide, they should
contract with each other; if either side can get a better deal with someone
else, then they will not (continue to) contract with each other. A relation-
ship between two workers might be seen in this same light when, for exam-
ple, they can choose to work with each other when it serves their own
interests and can otherwise choose not to without harming their careers.
Owing to this focus on self-interest, we label this an egoist structure.
Conflicts that arise from this structure pertain to the terms of exchange,
including following through on what is agreed to.

Alternatively, consider relationships that are expected to be more endur-
ing. One possibility is a relationship with strongly interdependent interests
in which a long-term partnership provides the greatest returns to both sides
when structured appropriately. In employment relations scholarship, an
employment relationship in which employers and employees have mutual
interests that can be fully satisfied by both parties through well-designed,
lasting human resource management policies is known as a unitarist
employment relationship. This unitarist perspective can be usefully general-
ized to relationships beyond the employer–employee focus of employment
relations. That is, any relationship between two or more people or organiza-
tions could be characterized by a unitarist structure in which long-term
goals and interests are interdependent and not structurally determined to
necessarily be incompatible. In this way, endemic or inherent conflicts of
interest are de-emphasized or nonexistent, at least in the ideal; rather, the
focus is on a belief that the relationship is dominated by mutual interests
that can be aligned to everyone’s benefit.

ADVANCING DISPUTE RESOLUTION 257

There can still be conflict in such a situation because of suboptimal poli-
cies or practices, but the source of such conflict is then in these policies or
practices rather than in the fundamental structure of the relationship. This
distinction has important implications for dispute resolution. Moreover,
because a unitarist relationship is characterized by features that bind the
parties together, trying to maintain rather than end the relationship has
value; this also has critical implications for dispute resolution. Note further
that unitarist relationships can often involve integrative or win–win negotia-
tions, which may be a useful method of problem solving focused on com-
mon interests. But integrative negotiations could also occur in other types
of relationships, and they are not guaranteed to occur in an underperform-
ing unitarist relationship. A unitarist conceptualization should therefore be
seen as a means of addressing a more fundamental issue (characterizing
the structural nature of a relationship) rather than an approach to charac-
terizing a specific negotiation.

A polar alternative to a unitarist structure focused on interest alignment
is a relationship structure characterized by sharply antagonistic conflicts of
interests. For such a relationship to exist, there needs to be some degree of
interdependent interests. At least to some extent, each side needs the other.
But because of the win–lose structure of the relationship, gains for one side
come at the expense of the other. At its simplest, the classic example is a
relationship largely or completely characterized by a contest over scarce
resources in which one’s consumption of resources limits another’s ability
to consume these resources. But again, because of interdependent interests
there needs to be at least some element of accommodation. So the relation-
ship can be seen as one with tensions between control or dominance and
accommodation.

This tension has been extensively theorized through Marxist and other
critical scholarship on the employment relationship. This research further
draws attention to the extent to which inequalities in the employment rela-
tionship are embedded in diverse elements of the structural context of the
employment relationship. In classical Marxism, for example, employment
relationship inequality is rooted in the ownership of the means of produc-
tion, which is in turn created and furthered not only by economic advan-
tages of capital over labor, but also through social, legal, and political
advantages. Relatedly, social dominance theory in social psychology draws
attention to the ways in which groups seek to maintain their dominance.
Conflict between groups, broadly defined, might therefore stem from individ-
uals with a high social dominance orientation (Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth,
and Malle 1994). These insights can be applied to all relationships in diagnos-
ing the nature of a conflict over scarce material or non-material resources.
For example, a dispute involving a temporary, contract employee and a regu-
lar full-time employee, who perhaps has civil service or other protections,
might involve complex power differences rooted in diverse rules, institutions,
practices, identities, and values. We label relationships characterized primarily

258 ILR REVIEW

by conflicts of (broadly defined) interests as antagonistic relationships,
and recognize that the degree and sources of inequality in the relation-
ship encompass a wide range of options.

The final possibility involves a mixture of unitarist and antagonistic
structures. That is, longer-term relationships can have a mixture of interde-
pendent interests in which some align with each other (as in unitarist rela-
tionships) and others are opposed to each other (as in antagonistic
relationships). Conflict is therefore mixed-motive conflict. To hold this rela-
tionship together, there needs to be some recognition of the other’s oppos-
ing interests as legitimate; otherwise, it is an egoist relationship. As this type
of relationship is characterized by a plurality of legitimately recognized
interests, we label this a pluralist structure. Unequal bargaining power is a
key feature of a pluralist relationship. As also highlighted by the antagonis-
tic model, we should fully diagnose the sources of power imbalances to
understand the nature of a conflict in a pluralist structure. Mainstream US
employment relations scholarship embraces this pluralist structure as the
most accurate representation of the contemporary employment relation-
ship. Other workplace conflicts, however, could also be situated in a plural-
ist structure if characterized by mixed-motive conflict.

The dispute over the NFL anthem protests occurred in the context of a
structural relationship among the various actors. Players, owners, and fans
have a shared interest in the success of the NFL, which requires motivated
players, team cohesion, and a loyal fan base. Within this interdependent
relationship, however, are also competing interests, including differing pre-
ferences over whether the players should engage in social protests during
an NFL game. This situation is therefore best seen as a pluralist relationship
with mixed-motive conflict. The importance of the structural context of the
player protests is further reflected in debates that emerged over whether
the players were protected under labor law as concerted action by
employees.

In sum, one key dimension of our integrated framework for understand-
ing the sources of conflict is the structural context, and there are four alter-
native structural possibilities of a relationship. Making these alternatives
explicit provides a way to understand actor interdependencies and conflicts
of interest, which helps actors diagnose the structural nature of a conflict
and become aware of their own and others’ ideologies regarding conflict.
As this last point suggests, the structural nature of a conflict can be real or
imagined. That is, we can think of the structural alternatives as either char-
acterizing the actual nature of a relationship, or as what the parties imagine
it to be. Indeed, it might not be possible to objectively determine the true
structural nature of a workplace dispute. In this case, the key is understand-
ing how the parties perceive the structural nature of their relationship,
while also appreciating alternative ways for thinking about it. This requires
a deeper understanding of the cognitive sources of conflict, which we out-
line next.

ADVANCING DISPUTE RESOLUTION 259

Cognitive Sources of Conflict

The previous section emphasized the structural causes of conflict, but actual
and potential conflicts involve people—whether as individuals, members of
groups, or representatives of organizations, countries, or other entities—
who act and react cognitively and emotionally. The second part of our
framework considers factors that cause or influence conflict related to cog-
nitive functioning, including interpretation, perception, information pro-
cessing, decision-making, and communication. Individuals may have
different preferences for or opinions about how to interact or solve a prob-
lem, perhaps influenced by cultural or other differences. Conflicts can arise
because individuals have access or pay attention to different information,
have differing or limited interpretations of the same information, or fail to
communicate effectively. We outline each of these cognitive dimensions of
conflict in turn.

Cognitive Frames and Preferences

Inside and outside of the workplace, people confront numerous cognitive
stimuli when they witness, experience, read, or hear things. To interpret this
information-rich environment and give things meaning, the human brain
develops and refines a knowledge structure or interpretative schema that
provides a cognitive frame for decision-making and action (Cornelissen and
Werner 2014). That is, how individuals perceive and react to things they
see, read, or hear depends on their cognitive frame or frame of reference
such that ‘‘frames shape how individual actors see the world and perceive
their own interests’’ (Kaplan 2008: 732). And since perception can be an
important element of conflict, cognitive frames are an important potential
source of conflict.

To appreciate the role of cognitive frames in influencing conflict, it is
necessary to recognize that each individual’s cognitive frame is a complex
by-product of their histories, including their culture, personal interactions,
and accumulated experiences. Thus, when organizational members have
distinct cognitive frames, conflicts can arise because even the same prob-
lem, task, or piece of information can be interpreted differently and engen-
der competing reactions and desired courses of action. For example, in
response to an unexpected event faced by two or more parties, unique indi-
vidual frames can create interpretative uncertainty ‘‘which leads to unex-
pected conflict about whether a relevant event occurred, how it is
impacting the exchange, and/or how to respond to it’’ (Weber and Mayer
2014: 347). This can lead to further conflict because the parties might mis-
interpret the others’ responses, for example, one side might perceive the
other as acting opportunistically (Weber and Mayer 2014). At an organiza-
tional level, cognitive frames shape the structure of organizations (Ranson,
Hinings, and Greenwood 1980), so clashing frames can yield conflicts over
the desired structural form. We can extend this to the desired structure of

260 ILR REVIEW

the employment relationship and other organizational relationships. The
four structural relationship possibilities outlined earlier can also be seen as
cognitive frames that shape how individuals interpret these relationships,
and clashes over the desired relationship can be rooted in the embrace of
alternative frames.

Individual frames can differ in many ways. Based on past experiences,
some individuals might prefer more conservative and risk-averse behaviors.
People might also have differing expectations regarding fairness and ethics.
Some might have strong beliefs about distributive justice; others, about pro-
cedural justice. Some might expect high ethical standards to be followed;
others might prefer a more instrumental approach. Money can also be
interpreted through alternative frames. For example, someone who inter-
prets their salary as an indication of their self-worth is likely to react differ-
ently to pay differences than someone who sees their salary as determined
by impersonal market forces.

Cultural differences can also be a source of conflict, and this can be
rooted in culturally influenced cognitive frames. The knowledge structure
or interpretative schema of an individual develops over time as he or she
gathers information and organizes it. And since people experience cogni-
tive stimuli through the lens of their culture, important linkages exist
between cognitive frames and culture. Indeed, research in cultural psychol-
ogy has uncovered significant cultural differences in beliefs over the impor-
tance of 1) effort or ability in determining outcomes, 2) self-enhancement
motivations and thus the importance of ‘‘face,’’ 3) the actions of others in
determining one’s choices, 4) conformity motivations, 5) individual disposi-
tions or social roles for attributing behavior, and 6) holistic or analytical
approaches to forecasting future events (Heine and Ruby 2010). Each of
these can be thought of as a cultural difference in the way one interprets
information and action, and each can lead to conflict as individuals from
different cultures have their own expectations and interpretations. Culture
does not only potentially create conflict; it also influences how individuals
react to and handle conflict (Aslani et al. 2016). Gender differences that
lead to and/or shape reactions to conflict can be thought of in a similar
fashion. There are many ways, then, in which differing worldviews, expecta-
tions, and preferences can lead to conflicts in the workplace and beyond.

(Limited) Information Processing

The human brain’s limited capacity to retain information and to process it
consistently can also cause or influence conflict. There are ongoing debates
over how the mind actually works. Two leading theories are that the mind
consists of specialized, domain-specific modules or of two systems of mental
processes—a fast, intuitive, heuristic system and a slower, analytical reason-
ing system. Complicated debates abound within and across these theories
(Eraña 2012), but at a general level, both point toward a human brain that

ADVANCING DISPUTE RESOLUTION 261

is not unitary or always internally consistent. Conflicts can therefore arise
because individuals perceive the same problem differently, such as when
one uses a heuristic and another approaches it analytically. Individuals can
also be motivated to process information in ways that validate pre-existing
beliefs, rather than by a search for accuracy (Ledgerwood, Callahan, and
Chaiken 2014). Again, differing levels of motivation can cause people to
make differing interpretations and thus find themselves in conflict with
each other. Indeed, dual process theories of cognition imply that individu-
als can even have multiple reactions to the same phenomenon. For
example, a worker who says money is not important when considered delib-
eratively might instinctively decline to do something that does not contain
an extrinsic reward. This makes conflict across individuals more likely
because of perceived inconsistencies in behavior. People may also have dif-
ferent reactions to an issue depending on whether they view it as affecting
themselves or someone else, and these reactions can further be shaped by
the amount of mental effort used (Paharia, Vohs, and Deshpandé 2013).

These models of cognitive limitations underlie the behavioral economics
principle of bounded rationality. Rather than seeing individuals as exten-
sively and carefully evaluating each situation, bounded rationality means
that people will use heuristics to overcome cognitive difficulties in fully han-
dling information processing, memory, and multitasking. Many of these
heuristics are now well-recognized in psychology and behavioral economics,
and are often labeled ‘‘cognitive biases’’ because they systematically appear
to fall short of the decisions that would result from a careful assessment of
each situation. Common types of cognitive bias that result in conflict
include loss aversion, anchoring, framing, fixed-pie perception, exaggera-
tion of conflict, illusions of transparency, decision fatigue, and overconfi-
dence. In sum, conflicts can arise because ‘‘the central characteristic of
agents is not that they reason poorly but that they often act intuitively’’ and
because ‘‘the behavior of these agents is not guided by what they are able to
compute, but by what they happen to see at a given moment’’ (Kahneman
2003: 1469).

(In- and Out-) Group Perceptions

Cognitive processing does not occur in a social vacuum. Teams, for exam-
ple, are mainstays of organizational life and, at a more fundamental level,
humans tend to identify with certain groups, whether on the basis of
employer, occupation, race, religion, or myriad other dimensions. Social
identity theory highlights the importance of group identification because
humans ‘‘need to feel positive about themselves (self enhancement),
and . . . to feel certain about themselves, their place in the world, and how
they relate to other people (uncertainty reduction)’’ (Hogg 2013: 554). To
derive these benefits, individuals magnify the differences between their own
and alternative groups, emphasizing the positive aspects of their in-groups

262 ILR REVIEW

and the negative aspects of out-groups, while also acting to maintain these
differences.

This behavior can lead to a variety of intergroup conflicts. Realistic group
conflict theory emphasizes conflicts between groups over scarce resources.
But social identity theory implies that intergroup conflict does not require a
conflict of interest because stereotyping, prejudice, stigmatizing, and impli-
cit bias do not require interaction. Cognitive biases can reinforce these
intergroup differences by, for instance, attributing undesirable out-group
behaviors to negative personal characteristics and negative in-group beha-
viors to the necessities of a particular situation. Because of the exaggerated
differences and biases that can emerge from in-group and out-group dis-
tinctions, resolving intergroup conflict can be challenging (Hogg 2013;
Halperin, Gross, and Dweck 2014), so recognizing these sources is
important.

(Mis)communication

Communication transmits ideas and information between people, and there
are many ways in which this can break down and thereby lead to or exacer-
bate conflict. Krauss and Morsella (2014) outlined four paradigms for mod-
eling how ideas and information are transferred. In the encoding–decoding
paradigm, a message is converted to a code (e.g., words) and transmitted to
someone else (e.g., by speaking or writing). Receivers then decode the mes-
sage based on their understanding of what they receive (e.g., the meaning
of the words they hear). But if the communication channel is noisy (e.g.,
multiple re-tellings) or the senders and receivers have different meanings
for a word (e.g., to ‘‘table’’ a negotiation issue means to put it forward for
consideration in British English but to put it aside in American English),
then misunderstandings can result, which can lead to conflict.

The intentionalist paradigm focuses on the intended meaning of a
message; understanding a message is not simply a matter of decoding the
actual words used but also deciphering the sender’s intent. Receivers then infer
this intent and filter messages through their own cognitive frame. So if there is
a lack of shared understanding, the sender’s intent can be misunderstood.

In the perspective-taking paradigm, the senders of a message should
understand the perspective of the receivers and try to phrase the message
in a way they will understand. But, similar to the intentionalist paradigm,
having dissimilar cognitive frames can make it difficult to understand the
other’s perspective, and thus it can be challenging to send a message that
will be understood correctly. In short, whether one approaches communica-
tion from the perspective of the sender or the receiver, the human ten-
dency to see the world through one’s own frames, to lack understanding of
alternative frames, and to heighten in-group and out-group differences can
lead to miscommunication. When there are multiple audiences for a

ADVANCING DISPUTE RESOLUTION 263

message, which can be common in labor relations and other work-related
settings, these communication challenges can be magnified.

In the first three perspectives, meaning lies in the message, the sender’s
intent, or the receiver’s perspective. A fourth perspective, what Krauss
and Morsella (2014) labeled the dialogic paradigm, identifies meaning
through the communication process itself. This approach highlights shared
meaning constructed in interactive communication processes, as would be
common between coworkers, team members, supervisors–subordinates, and
labor-management negotiators. The dialogic perspective highlights the
importance of active listening for creating understanding, which implies
that a lack of active listening can be problematic. Interactive communica-
tion also has the potential to increase the risks of miscommunication pres-
ent in the other models if back-and-forth communication magnifies rather
than lessens a misunderstanding. Moreover, the interactive dimension of
communication allows for the recognition that nonverbal cues and personal
demeanor can shape how information is interpreted (Burgoon, Blair, and
Strom 2008), which can lead to misunderstanding and conflict. Nonverbal
communication that is interpreted as aggressive or that contradicts gender-
based or other expectations can also cause or influence conflict (Burgoon,
Guerrero, and Floyd 2010).

Numerous cognitive sources of conflict can be observed in the NFL
anthem protest case. Identity-based framing of positions that differed along
racial, nationalist, and/or partisan lines exacerbated in- and out-group percep-
tions and solidly entrenched individuals into various camps. Miscommunication
between owners and players occurred because of language used during meet-
ings, press conferences, and interviews. Conflicting interpretations of the inten-
tion behind certain statements, exacerbated by both the mainstream and social
media, often served to fuel this miscommunication.

Psychogenic Sources of Conflict

The last part of our framework considers psychogenic sources of conflict.
Psychogenic conflict arises from or is affected by the psychology of feelings:
affective reactions to situations and other people that are triggered by
moods or individual personality traits. For example, two personalities might
clash, or a conflict might occur because someone is having a bad day.
Psychogenic conflict should be seen as interacting with the other sources of
conflict. This is because conflict may not manifest itself if an individual does
not perceive a situation, process, or outcome as threatening enough to his
or her well-being or quality of life to elicit an emotional reaction. In other
words, psychogenic factors might contribute to a conflict by magnifying
other types of differences or by escalating conflicts with structural and/or
cognitive roots rather than be a sole, independent source of conflict. In any
case, the psychogenic dimension is an important potential source of conflict

264 ILR REVIEW

to identify and understand. Resolving other underlying sources of conflict
often relies upon first addressing individuals’ emotional reactions.

Emotions and Moods

Emotions and moods are psychological experiences of feeling, or what psy-
chologists label affective experiences. Emotions—such as anger, fear, or
happiness—are reactions to specific causes and are therefore short-lived.
Moods, by contrast, refer more to general positive or negative feelings unre-
lated to a particular cause and are slightly more enduring than emotions.
The literature on conflict recognizes the importance of affective reactions
that result from interpersonal conflict, but we posit that emotions and
moods should also be seen as important causes of and influences on con-
flict. That is, we focus on a causal arrow that runs from emotions and moods
to conflict rather than the reverse.

Emotions can cause conflict through the behaviors they create or by
influencing decision-making. Perhaps most intuitively, hard or hostile emo-
tions such as anger, frustration, contempt, and jealousy can lead to aggres-
sive communication behaviors such as criticism and yelling while decreasing
constructive communication behaviors such as active listening (Guerrero
2013). Attribution is also likely to be important; for instance, aggression is a
normal response to emotions such as anger when individuals blame some-
one else for intentionally causing them harm. Hot emotions such as fear
can override self-regulation so that fight-or-flight reactions are automatic
and reflexive (Mischel, DeSmet, and Kross 2014). Fight reactions often lead
to observable manifestations of conflict while flight reactions allow conflicts
to fester. In these ways, emotional reactions might appear involuntary and
not mediated by any form of conscious deliberation, leading to conflict.
Alternatively, emotional reactions might lead to conflict when conscious
deliberation causes an emotional reaction. Moreover, negative emotions
that create a bad mood can also lead to displaced aggression whereby beha-
viors stemming from, for example, irritability, cause a conflict with someone
who was not involved in the initial affective event (Pruitt 2008). Emotional
contagion can also cause (lessen) conflict when a person’s negative (posi-
tive) mood affects the moods of others (Barsade 2002).

Negative emotions and moods can also cause a conflict to escalate
through the behaviors they prompt. For example, when someone finds
another’s negative behaviors surprising, overwhelming, and disorienting,
emotional flooding can make it difficult to process information and instead
focus a person’s attention on reducing their negative emotions by lashing
out (Guerrero 2013). Also, annoyance increases the chance of retaliation
while aggression commonly creates more aggression (Pruitt 2008). Groups
can similarly develop particularly strong emotions, as when fear or anger
spreads through a crowd (Hogg 2013), so the emotional impact on conflict
should not be seen in purely interpersonal terms.

ADVANCING DISPUTE RESOLUTION 265

In addition to possibly causing or influencing conflict through behavior,
emotions and moods can lead to conflict by affecting decision-making.
Individuals who are in happy or positive moods have been found to be
more confident and optimistic and to make riskier decisions (George and
Dane 2016). This effect can clash with someone who is less confident and
wants to make safer decisions. The scope for conflict to arise in this way is
magnified by incidental emotions that ‘‘pervasively carry over from one situa-
tion to the next, affecting decisions that should, from a normative perspec-
tive, be unrelated to that emotion’’ (Lerner, Li, Valdesolo, and Kassamet
2015: 803). Discrete emotions—that is, emotions linked directly to the issue
being addressed—can influence decision-making in additional ways, includ-
ing the content and depth of thought, and goal activation. Sometimes emo-
tions can improve decision-making, and other times they can have a
negative effect. But the main implication for theorizing the roots of conflict
is that if decision-making is affected by an individual’s emotional state, then
two individuals can assess or approach the same situation in different ways
because of contrasting emotional states.

Personality

The second dimension of psychogenic causes or influences on conflict is
personality—an individual’s typical way of feeling, thinking, and behaving.
One way in which personality can affect conflict is as a longer-term mood.
That is, one’s personality can include an overall tendency to have a positive
or a negative affect such that positivity or negativity is not just a mood
(state) but a more enduring trait. Positivity or negativity as a personality trait
can therefore influence conflict in a similar way as a good or a bad mood.

Other aspects of one’s personality can also cause or contribute to a con-
flict. A popular way to represent individual differences in personality is the
five-factor model consisting of extraversion, agreeableness, conscientious-
ness, neuroticism, and openness. While the effect of these traits can be com-
plex and context-dependent, individuals with high values of neuroticism
and extraversion and/or low values of agreeableness may be more likely to
be contentious, antagonistic, irritable, and even want to dominate others,
which can lead to behaviors that cause conflict (Bono, Boles, Judge, and
Lauver 2002; Sandy, Boardman, and Deutsch 2014). Similarly, those who
score low on openness and conscientiousness tend to be inflexible and dis-
organized, which can also lead to conflict with others. At the same time,
individuals who are conscientious can be more prone to conflict if they are
excessively fastidious, while open individuals can be argumentative and not
afraid of conflict (Bono et al. 2002). We assert that the potential importance
of personality traits for causing conflict is magnified when we appreciate the
prospect of personality differences across people. It is not just that a certain
personality type might be more prone to conflict than others; different per-
sonality types might clash to create conflict. For example, people who are

266 ILR REVIEW

low on conscientiousness may interact with those who are high on that same
dimension. This assertion is reinforced by research on the relationship
between group composition and performance (Mohammed and Angell
2003).

Personality can also affect conflict by affecting an individual’s attributions
such that different personality types tend to see a conflict as either task- or
relationship-based, and the influence of personality on this tendency is
stronger when one accounts for the personality of both people involved
(Bono et al. 2002). For example, differences in levels of extraversion lead to
more task-based conflict, whereas conscientiousness is associated with
relationship-based attributions of the nature of a conflict.

In the NFL anthem protest case, it was common to observe strong emo-
tions, including outrage, often amplified and fueled by social media. The
president of the United States, known for his quarrelsome disposition, used
Twitter to express his own emotional reaction to the situation, even calling
for boycotts of the NFL. This action exacerbated psychogenic conflicts
among other actors and more directly engaged the broader public. The
president’s response also led some team owners to shift their initial posi-
tions on the original conflict and/or become more outspoken about their
positions. This, in turn, generated support for the kneeling NFL players
from other athletes and teams.

Applications of the Framework

An important test of the usefulness of our framework is whether it enhances
our ability to analyze episodes of conflict; accurately diagnose the sources of
conflict; and, ultimately, tailor interventions and approaches to dispute reso-
lution to address the underlying sources. While we have applied our frame-
work to understand the complex sources of conflict in a recent high-profile
case, in this section we further demonstrate its diagnostic value by re-
analyzing classic examples from the conflict resolution literature. Three
seminal works describe the examples we draw on. These works are James
Kuhn’s 1961 book Bargaining in Grievance Settlement; William Ury, Jeanne
Brett, and Stephen Goldberg’s 1989 book Getting Disputes Resolved: Designing
Systems to Cut the Costs of Conflict; and Karen Jehn’s 1997 article ‘‘A
Qualitative Analysis of Conflict Types and Dimensions in Groups.’’ Each
develops a framework and/or provides insight into conflict and dispute res-
olution. Our intent is not to criticize these works, each of which we view as
an important cornerstone in the conflict literature and field of dispute reso-
lution; rather, we highlight how our framework adds value by demonstrat-
ing its unique contribution vis-à-vis these other works.

At the heart of Kuhn’s book, which investigated grievance processes, is
the classic example of the ‘‘hot tread’’ grievance filed by workers making
tires who alleged that they had suffered injuries from having to handle
overly hot tire treads, leading to burns and costing them compensation

ADVANCING DISPUTE RESOLUTION 267

under the plant’s piecework pay scheme (Kuhn 1961: 58–77). In arbitra-
tion, the union’s grievance was denied. Kuhn showed how a complex set of
interactions lay underneath this formal grievance and arbitration process.
The roots of this dispute were concerns by the workers that they would not
be able to generate their usual earnings from a mixture of piecework and
hourly pay. The union representative was unable to negotiate a resolution
of these concerns with the supervisor. Because of a combination of the
union representative’s lack of experience and political support, and the
increasing aggravation of the workers, the conflict intensified and the work-
ers decided to exert their power by filing a series of grievances. After a
period of heightened conflict, union and management representatives
negotiated a resolution that dealt with pay concerns and settled some out-
standing grievances. Labor relations on the shop floor then returned to a
more cooperative pattern.

Kuhn (1961) used the hot tread case to illustrate the process of fractional
bargaining, in which work groups exert their power on the shop floor to
negotiate resolution of conflicts by going around the formal grievance pro-
cedure. Applying our framework to this case more clearly reveals the under-
lying structural, cognitive, and psychogenic elements of the conflict that
needed to be recognized to produce an effective resolution.

The structural elements of the hot tread case are the most obvious. The
grievance that went to arbitration is a classic example of opposing interests
resolved through an adversarial adjudicative system. From either an antago-
nistic or pluralist perspective, a structural conflict of interest produced an
antagonistic relationship; management tried to maintain production while
the employees tried to ensure they received adequate compensation. Yet at
the same time, digging into the roots of the hot tread case shows how cogni-
tive framing can be an underlying source of conflict. The reason the work-
ers were so upset about the problems with the machine was that it
interfered with their ability to ‘‘make out’’ their expected earnings—that is,
their cognitive frame for understanding the wage–effort bargain included
expected daily earnings. The workers believed that the combination of
reduced piecework pay and inadequate supplemental hourly pay meant that
they would be unable to earn their expected wage. They perceived this as a
violation of the normative expectations embedded within their cognitive
frame, thereby producing the true conflict of the hot tread case.

In addition to its structural and cognitive elements, the hot tread case
illustrates the psychogenic sources of conflict. Although hot treads were a
frequent enough occurrence that the plant provided workers with asbestos
pads to protect their hands, in this particular case they had been treated at
the hospital, producing a shift in emotions and moods. Here is how one of
their own union leaders viewed the situation:

After talking to the committeeman and crew, he was not convinced that the
men had received any serious burns, though they undoubtedly had been incon-
venienced. Explaining his stand later, he said that if the men had not been in

268 ILR REVIEW

bad shape when they left for the hospital, ‘‘they sure were convinced of it when
they came back. The nurse was pretty dumb and had put Unguentine on and
bandaged their hands in yards of gauze. They were pretty worked up after that.’’
(Kuhn 1961: 63, emphasis added)

An important element in the hot tread case is the layering of physical injury
and the emotional reaction to it, which produced an intensified psycho-
genic conflict apart from the structural issues of compensation rules during
periods of machinery failure or conflicts arising from clashing cognitive
frames about what was necessary to ‘‘make out’’ a day’s earnings. To fully
resolve the conflicts in this case requires an understanding of all of these
layers.

Our second case example is taken from Ury, Brett, and Goldberg’s
Getting Disputes Resolved, which presented their framing of rights, power, and
interests as three approaches to resolving disputes. They illustrated this
framework with the classic case of a dispute involving a miner’s stolen boots
(Ury et al. 1989: 3–10). The miners, who owned their own safety boots, left
their work clothes and boots at the mine between shifts. One night a miner
arrived to discover that his boots were gone and complained to the shift
boss that they had been stolen. Because the miner could not work without
safety boots he would lose a shift’s pay. Ury et al. (1989) described the shift
boss’s initial denial of the company’s responsibility to replace the lost boots
as an example of a rights-based attempt to resolve the dispute based on the
rules. The miner responded to this denial of his complaint by organizing a
wildcat strike among his fellow miners. Ury et al. described this as a power-
based method of trying to resolve the dispute. Finally, the superintendent
of the mine stepped in and proposed replacing the stolen boots so the min-
ers could get back to work, the miner who lost his boots would earn his shift
pay, and the mine would not suffer the costs of lost production. The authors
described this last approach as an interest-based method of resolving a
dispute.

The framing of interests, rights, and power is a very valuable way of think-
ing about contrasting approaches or processes for resolving disputes. But it
is less successful in revealing the underlying sources or nature of the con-
flict processes that drive disputes; thus, applying one of these approaches
may not actually resolve the underlying sources of the conflict. At the out-
set, the mining dispute arose from a conflict in cognitive frames: The min-
er’s idea of fairness meant he believed he should not lose a shift’s pay as a
result of someone stealing his boots versus the shift boss’s idea that boots
were personal property and not the company’s responsibility. Layered on
top of this conflict between cognitive frames over what was considered
‘‘fair,’’ however, were psychogenic elements of the emotions expressed in
this interaction. Consider how Ury et al. (1989) described the way in which
each party communicated their respective positions:

ADVANCING DISPUTE RESOLUTION 269

‘‘Hard luck!’’ the shift boss responded. ‘‘The company isn’t responsible for per-
sonal property left on company premises. Read the mine regulations!’’ The miner
grumbled to himself, ‘‘I’ll show them! If I can’t work this shift, neither will anyone
else!’’ (Ury et al. 1989: 3, emphasis added)

These comments show invective language, exclamations, and a passionate
response to having a request denied. As the mood escalates from a discus-
sion of a problem to a clash of personalities in the workplace, we see the
conflict becoming increasingly psychogenic in nature, leading to the wildcat
strike.

Finally, we see the superintendent returning to the structural conflicts
underlying this dispute. The different cognitive frames and psychogenic
conflicts are important here because of the structural conflict between the
mine management’s interest in maintaining its authority and ensuring pro-
duction and the workers’ interests in maintaining their earnings. The antag-
onistic element of this relationship was resolved in pluralistic fashion. The
superintendent recognized the mutual interest involved in having work
resume so that production could be maintained and the workers continued
to earn their pay. But this structural resolution is quite possibly a temporary
solution because the cognitive and psychogenic aspects have not been
addressed and thus may keep festering until another flashpoint again brings
them to the surface.

Our third illustration is drawn from Jehn’s (1997) seminal article on
intragroup conflict. Jehn used qualitative evidence from a study of six work
groups to develop a model of the nature and effect of intragroup conflict.
At the core of the model is the typology of three types of conflict: task
conflict, involving disagreements over ‘‘the content and goals of the work’’;
relationship conflict, involving ‘‘interpersonal relationships’’; and process
conflict, involving ‘‘how tasks would be accomplished’’ (Jehn 1997: 551).

Our own analysis of three sources of conflict—structural, cognitive, and
psychogenic—should not be seen as an alternative schema to Jehn’s (1997)
typology, which is a categorization focused on the locus of conflict. Rather,
our framework represents an analysis of the underlying sources of conflict
that can produce disparate manifestations in the types of conflict Jehn iden-
tifies. We illustrate this point by examining some of the examples of con-
flicts Jehn used to illustrate her model. For example, she illustrated task
conflict with the following interview comments and field notes:

‘‘Sometimes people get irritated at each other about work matters.’’

‘‘We usually fight about work things—interpreting our reports, disagreeing about
government regulations.’’

‘‘The pace is so fast. They don’t have time to deliberate so that it’s a constant give
and take. It’s very busy and they are all doing ten things at once yet they need to
reach agreement on the border decision.’’ (Jehn 1997: 542, emphasis added)

270 ILR REVIEW

These are three good examples of situations in which the locus of conflict is
the task. They each, however, have a distinct source. The first illustrates psy-
chogenic conflict in which a mood or emotion (i.e., irritability) was driving
the conflict. The second is an example of cognitive conflict in which the
individuals had their own interpretative schema over how to interpret the
reports and government regulations. The third shows structural sources of
conflict in which the pace of work and the tension between organizational
demands and individual work capacity produced conflict.

Jehn described a relationship conflict between an informant and a cowor-
ker that included comments—‘‘Her attitude just stinks’’ and ‘‘I just can’t
stand her attitude and her voice’’ (Jehn 1997: 542)—suggesting a conflict
rooted in the psychogenic reactions of emotion and mood, or personality
differences. By contrast, other relationship conflicts might be rooted in cog-
nitive elements such as cultural differences or miscommunication. Similarly,
the following description of a process conflict suggests structural roots of
conflict based on organizational incentives: ‘‘The group was discussing
which operations would include Pat. . . . ‘I’m not sure if it’s his responsibility
to be included in this. He doesn’t count on our budget’’’ (Jehn 1997: 542).
And yet other process conflicts are rooted in different cognitive perceptions
of the most efficient way to get things done: ‘‘Jeff suggested that he finish
the mail so Joan could go on break but Mary told him that he wouldn’t be
fast enough. They were having a big problem figuring out how to utilize
their people and schedule breaks efficiently’’ (Jehn 1997: 542).

Note that these examples illustrate not only that Jehn’s (1997) different
types of conflict may arise from various sources within each type of conflict
(e.g., task conflict could be caused by structural, cognitive, and/or psycho-
genic factors) but also that different types of conflict can result from the
same sources (e.g., cognitive factors could cause a task, relationship, or pro-
cess conflict). This difference is an important one between our framework
and Jehn’s. Even though unit members in her study perceived causes of
‘‘process conflict as uniquely and identifiably different from task conflict’’
(1997: 541), our framework identifies the possibility that disputants are una-
ware that different types of conflict may be originating from the same
source. Thus, by focusing on resolving the underlying source(s) of the con-
flicts, unit members may be able to more effectively resolve multiple types
of conflict at the same time.

Our point in re-analyzing these examples is to illustrate the need for
understanding the underlying structural, cognitive, and psychogenic sources
of conflict. We propose that only by analyzing the sources of conflict in work-
place disputes can we begin to develop better approaches to resolving them.

Managing Conflict at Its Sources

Disputes can be resolved in various ways (Ury et al. 1989; Coleman,
Deutsch, and Marcus 2014; Roche, Teague, and Colvin 2014). But a

ADVANCING DISPUTE RESOLUTION 271

comprehensive framework for the causes of conflict needs to be better inte-
grated with the varying approaches to dispute resolution—that is, to man-
age conflict at its sources. Conceptually, the dimensions of conflict that
different dispute resolution methods are more or less better equipped to
address should be identified to set a foundation for future empirical work
analyzing these links. Practically, this is important for helping dispute reso-
lution professionals determine which interventions and methods are appro-
priate and effective for resolving conflict. In this section, we identify ways in
which workplace dispute resolution could be more closely tied to an under-
standing of the root causes of a conflict. Given the often-complex interac-
tions among conflict sources, it is beyond the scope of this article to fully
develop all the implications of our framework for effective dispute resolu-
tion. However, we make a preliminary effort toward highlighting some of
the ways in which our framework can guide us in arriving at the most effec-
tive interventions or dispute resolution approaches for each of our three
sources.

Resolving Structural Conflict

Resolving structural conflict requires diagnosing whether a particular con-
flict is best characterized by the egoist, unitarist, pluralist, or antagonistic
mind-sets. If the structure of a relationship is characterized by unitarism,
then the structure likely is not the problem. Rather, conflict may stem from
failing to recognize the mutual nature of the relationship, which implies
that participants’ frames need to change, and/or that the particular policies
and practices need revising to reflect the unitarist nature of the relation-
ship. By contrast, if the structure of a relationship is better characterized by
an egoist structure, then resolving a conflict may require determining
whether there are realistic alternatives to the proposed exchange and ensur-
ing each side fulfills its side of the bargain. In a pluralist relationship, more
attention needs to be paid to the relationship itself and hence the other’s
interests. Because there are fewer alternatives, the parties need to live with
the consequences to a greater extent than they do in an egoist relationship.
Failing to recognize these differences makes it more difficult to effectively
address conflict rooted in varying structural contexts.

Recognizing alternative structural forms of conflict is also important for
appropriately factoring in issues of power. In an egoist relationship, power
is less important than self-interest. If someone gives you a good deal, take it;
if not, take your next best alternative. In a unitarist relationship, a focus on
power likely interferes with finding interest-aligning policies. By contrast,
power differences are likely a significant aspect of an antagonistic relation-
ship, and distributive negotiations would be fully consistent in this structure.
Integrative bargaining is very difficult in an antagonistic structure. In a plur-
alist relationship, both distributive and integrative negotiations are likely.
The parties, or third-party dispute resolution actors, will likely need to

272 ILR REVIEW

ensure that power is not exercised in an overly aggressive way that under-
mines the shared interests and enduring nature of the relationship.

The appropriate roles of rules and third-party interventions for resolving
conflict will also vary with the nature of the relationship. In an egoist rela-
tionship, the existence of rules governing exchanges should serve to prevent
conflict by allowing efficient exchanges to occur. Third-party intervention
will only be necessary to resolve conflict to the degree that enforcement of
these rules is necessary, including adherence to agreed-upon terms, suggest-
ing arbitration-type procedures that allow adjudication of rule violations. In
a unitarist relationship, the mutuality of the situation suggests that rules are
not necessary to police behaviors, nor is arbitration of conflicts desirable.
Rather, mediation-type third-party interventions are most useful in helping
the parties recognize their mutual interests and resolving any coordination
problems or barriers to achieving the integrative potential inherent in their
relationship. If the relationship is antagonistic in structure, however, efforts
to mediate in search of common interests risk obscuring the fundamental
oppositions of interest that drive conflict in the relationship. Rules and
arbitration-type third-party interventions may be useful, but only to the
extent that they address the antagonistic structure of the relationship and
correct its inherent power imbalances. By contrast, pluralist relationships
are most open to a range of dispute resolution responses. These include
both establishing governing rules by the parties themselves and engaging in
mediation- and arbitration-type third-party interventions, reflecting the
diverse nature of distribution and integrative issues inherent in this type of
relationship.

Failing to accurately diagnose the structural nature of a conflict can make
efforts to resolve the conflict ineffective. Prior to the 2018 season, NFL
Commissioner Roger Goodell issued a policy directive stating that teams
would be fined if players knelt during the anthem. In issuing this top-down
directive, the league arguably misdiagnosed or ignored the pluralist struc-
ture of the relationship between the players and the owners. This means
that certain players’ interests were being ignored and that the structural
imbalance of power between the owners and the African American players
was being overlooked. Predictably, then, the conflict was not resolved by this
directive and was challenged by the players’ union.

Resolving Cognitive Conflict

Diagnosing the factors that cause or influence conflict that relate to
cognitive functioning—interpretation, perception, information processing,
decision-making, and communication—is also important for applying effec-
tive approaches to dispute resolution. Various techniques exist to address a
conflict rooted in differing cognitive frames. Frame-alignment processes
include frame bridging, amplification, extension, and transformation
(Snow, Rochford, Worden, and Benford 1986). If one party to a dispute

ADVANCING DISPUTE RESOLUTION 273

recognizes that a conflict is rooted in conflicting frames, that party can try
to align the frames (Cornelissen and Werner 2014), and this can also be an
important mediator task (Bodtker and Jameson 1997).

One aspect of frame adjustment to resolve a dispute is reframing the
structural nature of a conflict. But to recognize the fundamental impor-
tance of cognitive frames is to appreciate that they are not simply lenses for
viewing the structural nature of a particular conflict; rather, they are poten-
tial causes of conflict by shaping how participants interpret information
and communication. So, exaggerated differences between in-group and
out-group members may be occurring because of a cognitive frame.
Interventions can be constructed to change this cognitive frame and
thereby open up possibilities for conflict resolution (Halperin et al. 2014).

In the case of conflict that has an aspect of limited information process-
ing, people can more easily identify cognitive errors made by others than by
themselves. Providing training in decision-making biases and teaching criti-
cal thinking and self-awareness can help people identify decision-making
blind spots and enable them to work through this type of cognitive conflict.
A complementary approach involves considering and shaping individuals’
motives for information processing—especially with regard to enhancing an
accuracy motivation, lessening a defense motivation, and managing an
impression motivation (Ledgerwood et al. 2014). Rules and choice architec-
ture can also be used to guide individuals around undesirable heuristics
and cognitive biases. Communication strategies for overcoming misinforma-
tion have also been developed (Lewandowsky et al. 2012).

Recognizing when miscommunication causes or contributes to a conflict
also points to specific conflict resolution strategies. For example, the four
paradigms of communication outlined earlier yield a number of principles.
These include avoiding communication channels with low signal-to-noise
ratios, listening for the intended meanings of what is being said, communi-
cating in ways that help the listener understand your intent and that reflects
the listener’s perspective, and establishing conditions that promote effective
dialogue (Krauss and Morsella 2014). Using strategies designed to address
communication challenges in cross-cultural interactions is challenging but
particularly important (van Meurs and Spencer-Oatey 2007).

Last, both negotiation and different forms of third-party assistance to
solve cognitive conflict have their strengths and weaknesses. Negotiation
may more easily resolve access to information, whereas neutral outside third
parties such as mediators may be required to help resolve conflict due to
different frames of reference held by the parties or difficulties in communi-
cating. The use of rules that structure interactions and arbitration-type
third-party interventions that impose a solution on the parties may provide
ways of resolving an immediate dispute. These approaches, however, may
be less effective in preventing the recurrence of conflict if the roots of the
conflict are cognitive, since they do not directly address the key sources.

274 ILR REVIEW

Resolving Psychogenic Conflict

Psychogenic conflict is perhaps the most difficult type of conflict to tackle,
but much literature exists to draw on (e.g., Shapiro 2017). This aspect of
conflict is not easily resolved through negotiation, nor is it likely to be truly
resolved by the imposition of a solution by a third party such as a manager
or an arbitrator. Rules and choice architecture may prevent stressful situa-
tions from resulting in emotional flare-ups (Lerner et al. 2015). But the
most effective strategy is to give people tools to work through their own
emotions or to control their moods in various situations, either in advance
of a conflict or during it. When dealing with hot emotions, cooling strate-
gies such as taking a time-out or a break and trying to reorient an individu-
al’s attention to be more reflective and self-distanced rather than self-
immersed can facilitate problem solving (Mischel et al. 2014; Lerner et al.
2015).

If hot emotions such as anger or humiliation are contributing to a con-
flict, facilitators can lessen these emotions by acknowledging them. Some
emotions may be helpful in resolving a conflict to the extent that individuals
want to feel a sense of belonging and recognition (Lindner 2014). An
understanding of how various personality types approach not only conflict,
but feeling, thinking, and behavior more generally also can be useful to
understand how to engage constructively with others. Dispute resolution
professionals who recognize the psychogenic aspects of conflict are better
prepared to intervene in productive ways. For instance, for transformative
mediation to be successful in empowering the parties to resolve future con-
flicts themselves, they must be taught methods for self-regulating their emo-
tions and using them strategically during negotiations. Even if not adopting
a specific transformative mediation approach, dispute resolution profession-
als need to develop some of these skills in addressing psychogenic conflict,
as they often apply across various dispute resolution processes and even
help resolve structural and cognitive sources of conflict.

The Need for Multipronged Approaches for Multilayered Disputes

Effectively managing conflict at its sources requires recognizing that dispute
resolution needs to be tailored to the specifics of each conflict based on a
careful diagnosis of the possible overlapping structural, cognitive, and psy-
chogenic dimensions. A recent example of the importance of this is the
response of Google executives to a leaked internal memo written by an
employee, James Damore, who criticized Google’s diversity practices—
particularly the company’s attempts to recruit and retain women. The con-
flict contained elements of all three of our sources of conflict. Google fired
Damore, an action indicative of Google seeing this as an antagonistic struc-
tural conflict with incompatible interests between the company and
Damore. Damore’s firing caused an outpouring of reactions inside and out-
side of Google, with key debates focusing on employee free speech and the

ADVANCING DISPUTE RESOLUTION 275

broader challenges for women within the highly masculine Silicon Valley
culture. The conflict eventually faded from public discussion, particularly
after the NLRB did not uphold the complaint Damore filed against Google.
Thus, on the surface the conflict appeared to have a successful resolution.

More recent events, however, highlight that Google employees are on dif-
ferent sides of the debated issues; the memo conflict was symptomatic of
much deeper cognitive sources of conflict within the company—specifically,
dissimilar cognitive frames and preferences, in-group and out-group percep-
tions, and (mis)communication. For instance, less than a year after Damore
was fired, Tim Chevalier, a transgender employee with disabilities, filed a
lawsuit alleging that Google fired him over his creation of internal memes
that defended women of color and other marginalized people, and stated
that he would not work with people who shared Damore’s views. HR
received a complaint against Chevalier about his posts, and his manager
told him he was engaging in too much ‘‘social activism.’’ The strong emo-
tional reactions to the Damore and Chevalier cases both within and outside
Google, including the expressions of outrage and disgust, also imply that
these conflicts have a psychogenic element. All of this suggests that the
underlying source of the conflict within Google that led to Damore’s memo
was not effectively resolved by the structural solution of firing him.

The Google case illustrates that misdiagnosing the initial source(s) of a
conflict and applying an inappropriate dispute resolution approach may be
ineffective at resolving the dispute, or worse, compound its complexity by
introducing new conflicts and/or new sources (e.g., psychogenic reactions
to the dispute resolution tactic). Moreover, the case highlights that there is
not necessarily one best way to resolve a dispute, especially a complex one,
and there may be multiple aspects of a conflict that require multipronged
dispute resolution strategies.

In contrast to the dispute resolution failings of the Google case, Kuhn’s
(1961) ‘‘hot tread’’ case provides an example in which managers and union
officials were ultimately able to successfully negotiate resolutions to multiple
(and sometimes unrelated) issues driven by multilayered sources of conflict.
Kuhn’s analysis (1961: 73) focused on how union officials and workers ini-
tially exerted their power both within and outside the grievance process,
and how different contextual factors limited the ability to adopt more
‘‘peaceful’’ approaches to dispute resolution. Yet, the structural nature of
this analysis did not identify the cognitive and psychogenic sources of con-
flict that were key reasons the workers chose to adopt more disruptive tac-
tics. The workers in this case felt as though they had been mistreated and
exhibited psychogenic reactions including anger and hurt feelings. At the
same time, workers who had not been injured began to convince themselves
that their health and safety was also at risk (Kuhn 1961: 62–63), demonstrat-
ing a classic case of the cognitive bias known as groupthink. As a result, a
negotiation-based approach to resolving the hot tread dispute based solely

276 ILR REVIEW

on a structural understanding of interests and sources of power failed to
address the full set of sources of this dispute, and likely exacerbated it.

One of the major reasons the line manager and union official were ulti-
mately able to resolve the conflict was because both finally recognized its
cognitive and psychogenic sources:

The trouble was largely a shop problem, local and personal, and not a conflict
between union and management. The settlement depended first of all upon the
personal accommodation that Howard and Buchanan gradually reached and later
upon an understanding between the tuber crew and the tuber foremen, but in
any case not directly upon any larger solution. (Kuhn 1961: 76, emphasis
added)

Perhaps ironically, the case was not fully resolved until it had been taken to
arbitration. While arbitration is more often associated with resolving antago-
nistic structural sources of conflict, the workers’ perceptions that they had
been initially mistreated would not allow them to back down based on prin-
ciple, even though they had a weak case. Although the union lost the grie-
vance at arbitration, the delay of seven months in getting to arbitration that
it introduced into the dispute resolution process produced a cooling-off
effect, which allowed the strong psychogenic reactions and cognitive group-
think that had been key sources of conflict to subside. With the multilayered
structural, cognitive, and psychogenic sources of conflict all addressed,
workplace labor relations on the tread-tuber line returned to a more posi-
tive, cooperative pattern.

Both the Google and hot tread examples illustrate that conflicts can be
dynamic, rather than static, with the potential for the source of the conflict
to change during attempts to resolve the initial source(s) of the dispute.
This reinforces the need for those trying to resolve disputes to understand
the range of possible sources of conflict, so that changes in the nature or
sources of a particular dispute can be identified and appropriately
addressed rather than inadvertently compound the conflict. Also, by becom-
ing more aware of the range of possible sources and being primed to look
for them, dispute resolution professionals can be better prepared to recog-
nize that disputants may have different perceptions of the sources of a dis-
pute. The potential for disputes to have dynamic and/or perceptual
elements also implies that organizational dispute resolution systems need to
be flexible to allow the dispute resolution method to match the changing
nature and/or differing perceptions of the conflict sources. Moreover, the
potential for conflict to occur within groups should not be underestimated
(e.g., with the separate factions of workers within Google), and should usu-
ally be resolved before attempts to address conflicts between groups. Our
framework can easily be applied to understand the sources of conflict that
occur within groups as well as between groups, and further illustrates the
need for dispute resolution professionals to develop multipronged and/or

ADVANCING DISPUTE RESOLUTION 277

multi-method approaches to understanding the sources of conflict and its
resolution.

Conclusion

Conflict is an enduring feature of all social life. In the workplace, it often
manifests in disputes between coworkers, collective agreement negotiations
between managers and employees over wages and workloads, or any one of
an infinite number of interactions that may occur between various organiza-
tional stakeholders—and even those beyond the organization. Our article
both synthesizes and integrates diverse views on conflict to create a unique
multidisciplinary framework for understanding major sources of conflict,
distilled to three multidimensional categories—structural, cognitive, and
psychogenic. Disputes can be multifaceted, with numerous causes that inter-
act in complex ways. We assert that conceptually different aspects of the full
range of sources of conflict must be distinguished to appreciate the nature
of each particular dispute, because what can be considered ‘‘effective’’ dis-
pute resolution must be rooted in a comprehensive and accurate under-
standing of its origins.

While our comprehensive multidisciplinary framework generates a new
approach for identifying the root sources of workplace conflict that trans-
cends disciplinary silos, we do not suggest that structural, cognitive, and psy-
chogenic sources are independent or can be isolated in practice. But by
identifying and synthesizing the separate pieces of a potentially complex
puzzle into an integrative framework, researchers and practitioners are bet-
ter equipped to understand, analyze, diagnose, and propose solutions to
these complex puzzles. Moreover, explicit consideration of the full range of
potential causes of a dispute should help practitioners appreciate whether
an intervention is likely to have only temporarily resolved the manifestations
of a conflict, rather than the underlying sources. Consequently, appropriate
and effective dispute resolution methods should be based on a comprehen-
sive understanding of the robust range of conflict sources. This charge fur-
ther implies that organizational dispute resolution systems, processes, and
interventions need to be both tailored and flexible enough to encompass
diverse types of disputes.

References
Arrow, Kenneth, Robert H. Mnookin, Lee Ross, Amos Tversky, and Robert Wilson (Eds.).

1995. Barriers to Conflict Resolution. New York: W.W. Norton.
Aslani, Soroush, Jimena Ramirez-Marin, Jeanne Brett, Jinging Yao, Zhaleh Semnani-Azad,

Zhi Xue Zhang, Catherine Tinsley, Laurie Weingart, and Wendi Adair. 2016. Dignity,
face, and honor cultures: A study of negotiation strategy and outcomes in three cultures.
Journal of Organizational Behavior 37(8): 1178–201.

Barsade, Sigal G. 2002. The ripple effect: Emotional contagion and its influence on group
behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly 47(4): 644–75.

Bodtker, Andrea M., and Jessica K. Jameson. 1997. Mediation as mutual influence: Reexam-
ining the use of framing and reframing. Conflict Resolution Quarterly 14(3): 237–49.

278 ILR REVIEW

Bono, Joyce E., Terry L. Boles, Timothy A. Judge, and Kristy J. Lauver. 2002. The role of per-
sonality in task and relationship conflict. Journal of Personality 70(3): 311–44.

Budd, John W., and Alexander J. S. Colvin. 2014. The goals and assumptions of conflict man-
agement in organizations. In William K. Roche, Paul Teague, and Alexander J. S. Colvin
(Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Conflict Management in Organizations, pp. 12–29. Oxford,
UK: Oxford University Press.

Burgoon, Judee K., J. Pete Blair, and Renee E. Strom. 2008. Cognitive biases and nonverbal
cue availability in detecting deception. Human Communication Research 34(4): 572–99.

Burgoon, Judee K., Laura K. Guerrero, and Kory Floyd. 2010. Nonverbal Communication. New
York: Routledge.

Coleman, Peter T., Morton Deutsch, and Eric C. Marcus (Eds.). 2014. The Handbook of Con-
flict Resolution: Theory and Practice, 3rd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Colvin, Alexander J. S. 2016. Conflict and employment relations in the individual rights era.
In David B. Lipsky, Ariel C. Avgar, and J. Ryan Lamare (Eds.), Managing and Resolving
Workplace Conflict—Advances in Industrial and Labor Relations, Vol. 22, pp. 1–30. Bingley,
West Yorkshire, UK: Emerald Group Publishing.

Cornelissen, Joep P., and Mirjam D. Werner. 2014. Putting framing in perspective: A review
of framing and frame analysis across the management and organizational literature. Acad-
emy of Management Annals 8(1): 181–235.

Eraña, Angeles. 2012. Dual process theories versus massive modularity hypotheses. Philosophi-
cal Psychology 25(6): 855–72.

George, Jennifer M., and Erik Dane. 2016. Affect, emotion, and decision making. Organiza-
tional Behavior and Human Decision Processes 136: 47–55.

Guerrero, Laura K. 2013. Emotion and communication in conflict interaction. In John G.
Oetzel and Stella Ting-Toomey (Eds.), Sage Handbook of Conflict Communication, pp. 105–
32. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Halperin, Eran, James J. Gross, and Carol S. Dweck. 2014. Resolving intractable intergroup
conflicts: The role of implicit theories about groups. In Peter T. Coleman, Morton
Deutsch, and Eric C. Marcus (Eds.), The Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice,
3rd ed., pp. 382–99. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Heine, Steven J., and Matthew B. Ruby. 2010. Cultural psychology. Wiley Interdisciplinary
Reviews: Cognitive Science 1(2): 254–66.

Hogg, Michael A. 2013. Intergroup relations. In John DeLamater and Amanda Ward (Eds.),
Handbook of Social Psychology, 2nd ed., pp. 533–61. New York: Springer.

Jehn, Karen A. 1997. A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational
groups. Administrative Science Quarterly 42(3): 530–57.

Kahneman, Daniel. 2003. Maps of bounded rationality: Psychology for behavioral economics.
American Economic Review 93(5): 1449–75.

Kaplan, Sarah. 2008. Framing contests: Strategy making under uncertainty. Organization Sci-
ence 19(5): 729–52.

Kochan, Thomas A., and Todd Jick. 1978. The public sector mediation process: A theory and
empirical examination. Journal of Conflict Resolution 22(2): 209–40.

Krauss, Robert M., and Ezequiel Morsella. 2014. Communication and conflict. In Peter T.
Coleman, Morton Deutsch, and Eric C. Marcus (Eds.), The Handbook of Conflict Resolution:
Theory and Practice, 3rd ed., pp. 168–81. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kuhn, James W. 1961. Bargaining in Grievance Settlement: The Power of Industrial Work Groups.
New York: Columbia University Press.

Ledgerwood, Alison, Shannon P. Callahan, and Shelly Chaiken. 2014. Changing minds: Per-
suasion in negotiations and conflict resolution. In Peter T. Coleman, Morton Deutsch,
and Eric C. Marcus (Eds.), The Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice, 3rd ed.,
pp. 533–57. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lerner, Jennifer S., Ye Li, Piercarlo Valdesolo, and Karim S. Kassamet. 2015. Emotion and
decision making. Annual Review of Psychology 66: 799–823.

Lewandowsky, Stephan, Ullrich K. H. Ecker, Colleen M. Seifert, Norbert Schwarz, and John
Cook. 2012. Misinformation and its correction: Continued influence and successful
debiasing. Psychological Science in the Public Interest 13(3): 106–31.

ADVANCING DISPUTE RESOLUTION 279

Lindner, Evelin G. 2014. Emotion and conflict: Why it is important to understand how emo-
tions affect conflict and how conflict affects emotions. In Peter T. Coleman, Morton
Deutsch, and Eric C. Marcus (Eds.), The Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice,
3rd ed., pp. 283–309. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Mischel, Walter, Aaron L. DeSmet, and Ethan Kross. 2014. Self-regulation in the service of
conflict resolution. In Peter T. Coleman, Morton Deutsch, and Eric C. Marcus (Eds.), The
Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice, 3rd ed., pp. 310–30. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

Mohammed, Susan, and Linda C. Angell. 2003. Personality heterogeneity in teams: Which
differences make a difference for team performance? Small Group Research 34(6): 651–77.

Paharia, Neeru, Kathleen D. Vohs, and Rohit Deshpandé. 2013. Sweatshop labor is wrong
unless the shoes are cute: Cognition can both help and hurt moral motivated reasoning.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 12(1): 81–88.

Pratto, Felicia, Jim Sidanius, Lisa M. Stallworth, and Bertram F. Malle. 1994. Social domi-
nance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology 67(4): 741–63.

Pruitt, Dean G. 2008. Conflict escalation in organizations. In Carsten K. W. De Dreu and
Michele J. Gelfand (Eds.), The Psychology of Conflict and Conflict Management in Organiza-
tions, pp. 245–66. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ranson, Stewart, Bob Hinings, and Royston Greenwood. 1980. The structuring of organiza-
tional structures. Administrative Science Quarterly 25(1): 1–17.

Roche, William K., Paul Teague, and Alexander J. S. Colvin (Eds.). 2014. The Oxford Handbook
of Conflict Management in Organizations. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Sandy, Sandra V., Susan K. Boardman, and Morton Deutsch. 2014. Personality and conflict.
In Peter T. Coleman, Morton Deutsch, and Eric C. Marcus (Eds.), The Handbook of Conflict
Resolution: Theory and Practice, 3rd ed., pp. 400–29. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Shapiro, Daniel. 2017. Negotiating the Nonnegotiable: How to Resolve Your Most Emotionally
Charged Conflicts. New York: Penguin Books.

Snow, David A., E. Burke Rochford Jr., Steven K. Worden, and Robert D. Benford. 1986.
Frame alignment processes, micromobilization, and movement participation. American
Sociological Review 51(4): 464–81.

Ury, William L., Jeanne M. Brett, and Stephen B. Goldberg. 1989. Getting Disputes Resolved:
Designing Systems to Cut the Costs of Conflict. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

van Meurs, Nathalie, and Helen Spencer-Oatey. 2007. Multidisciplinary perspectives on inter-
cultural conflict: The ‘‘Bermuda Triangle’’ of conflict, culture and communication. In
Helga Kotthoff and Helen Spencer-Oatey (Eds.), Handbook of Intercultural Communication,
pp. 99–122. Berlin: de Gruyter.

Weber, Libby, and Kyle Mayer. 2014. Transaction cost economics and the cognitive perspec-
tive: Investigating the sources and governance of interpretive uncertainty. Academy of Man-
agement Review 39(3): 344–63.

280 ILR REVIEW

Copyright of ILR Review is the property of Sage Publications Inc. and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.

Journal of Management Information Systems / Summer 2014, Vol. 31, No. 1, pp. 79–106.

© 2014 M.E. Sharpe, Inc. All rights reserved. Permissions: www.copyright.com

ISSN 0742–1222 (print) / ISSN 1557–928X (online

)

DOI: 10.2753/MIS0742-1222310104

Achieving IT Program Goals with
Integrative Conflict Management

JAMES J. JIANG, JAMIE Y.T. CHANG, HOUN-GEE CHEN,
ERIC T.G. WANG, AND GARY KLEIN

James J. Jiang is the Fu-Bon Chair Professor, College of Management, National Taiwan
University (NTU), Taiwan. Prior to joining NTU he was a distinguished professor of
information systems at the Australian National University and professor of informa-
tion systems at the University of Central Florida. He earned his Ph.D. in information
systems from the University of Cincinnati. Dr. Jiang’s research interests include IS
project and program management and IT service qualit

y.

He has published over 160
academic journal articles related to these subjects. He is an associate editor of Infor-
mation & Management and Journal of the Association for Information Systems and
a senior editor of MIS Quarterly.

Jamie Y.T. Chang is an assistant professor of information management at Tunghai Uni-
versity, Taiwan. She received her Ph.D. in information management from the National
Central University, Taiwan. Her research interests include IS project management, IS
program management, and enterprise systems implementation. Her current research
projects involve the development of program goal consensus theory. Dr. Chang’

s

work has been published in International Journal of Project Management, Journal
of Systems and Software, and MIS Review.

houn-gee Chen is associate dean and professor of business administration in the
College of Management, National Taiwan University, Taiwan. He earned his Ph.D. in
industrial engineering from the University of Wisconsin–Madison. He was previously
a faculty member at the University of Notre Dame and National Tsing Hua University.
His research interests include e-commerce, management information systems, infor-
mation technology, project management, and software quality. Dr. Chen’s research
has been published in Journal of Management Information Systems, Information &
Management, Decision Sciences, Communications of the ACM, IEEE Transactions
on Professional Communication, and others. He is the editor-in-chief of the Journal
of Information Management and serves on the editorial boards of many international
journals.

eriC T.g. Wang is Information Management Chaired Professor in the Department
of Information Management at National Central University, Taiwan. He received a
Ph.D. in business administration, specialized in computer and information systems,
from the William E. Simon Graduate School of Business Administration, Univer-
sity of Rochester. His research interests include electronic commerce, supply chain
management, outsourcing, organizational economics, and organizational impact of
information technology. His research has appeared in Journal of Management Infor-
mation Systems, MIS Quarterly, Information Systems Research, Management Science,
Decision Sciences, and others.

80 JIANG, CHANG, CHEN, WANG, AND KLEIN

garY Klein is the Couger Professor of Information Systems at the University of
Colorado, Colorado Springs. He earned his Ph.D. in management from Purdue Uni-
versity. His research interests include project management, technology transfer, and
mathematical modeling, with over 160 academic publications in these areas. He served
as Director of Education for the American Society for the Advancement of Project
Management, is an active member of the Project Management Institute and the Inter-
national Project Management Association, and is a Fellow of the Decision Sciences
Institute. He serves on the editorial boards of the International Journal of Information
Technology Project Management and Information & Management, as a departmental
editor for the Project Management Journal, as a senior editor of the Journal of the
Association for Information Systems and the Pacific Asia Journal of the Association
for Information Systems, and as an associate editor of MIS Quarterly.

absTraCT: Information technology (IT) programs are collections of projects structured
to meet goals established by top management regarding the use of technology. Prior
research has established the importance of commitment to the organizational goals set
by top management and a shared understanding of the goals among the project teams.
However, conflicts occur among project teams due to pursuit of their own goals, their
unique approaches to completion of required tasks, and their individual need for limited
resources. These conflicts need to be resolved in a fashion that leads to the pursuit of
program goals, not the independent goals lodged in individual projects. We develop
a model of an IT program environment to study the effects of goal interdependence
among projects and shared understanding of organizational goals on promoting inte-
grative conflict management (ICM). ICM techniques yield agreement on decisions
in the face of conflicting ideas. In turn, ICM promotes arrival at an agreement about
implementation means and commitment to the IT program goals, which are better
achieved as a result. The model presents a new perspective for research on conflict
that considers the specific resolution process to be a key component in the attainment
of goals. Practitioners should instill integrative conflict resolution techniques into
program and project processes as a fundamental means of achieving goals critical to
the organization.

KeY Words and phrases: conflict management, goal commitment, goal consensus,
goal understanding, IT program, IT projects, means consensus project integration,
project management.

Conflict among projects within a program was unavoidable . . . the challenge is
having each project manager working cooperatively toward the overall program
goals. (T.J. Fang, vice president of the Management Information Center for
Quanta Computer, personal communication, January 13, 2013)

programs are inCreasinglY applied To manage Complex, ambiguous information
technology (IT) deployments that are essential for organizations to remain competi-
tive [12, 50]. A program is “a temporary flexible organization created to coordinate,
direct and oversee the implementation of a set of related projects and activities in order

ACHIEVING IT PROGRAM GOALS WITH INTEGRATIVE CONFLICT MANAGEMENT 81

to deliver outcomes and benefits related to the organization’s strategic objectives” [65,
p. 4]. Traditional project management is limited to low-ambiguity situations where
clear deliverables and parameters have been identified, while program management
is a methodology that enables organizations to deal with increased ambiguity and
complexity. Program management is well suited to reduce ambiguity, which occurs
when large numbers of possible solutions and stakeholders present no clear path to
defined business goals. Addressing ambiguity is essential for project management to be
effective [93]. As examples, IT programs are commonly organized around enterprise
system implementations with each module considered a separate project, large-scale
software contracts with each major deliverable a separate project, and major product
lines of software providers with the satisfaction of each client’s requirements consid-
ered a separate project [80].

In spite of such widespread acceptance of the program as a management structure,
researchers still identify several key barriers to successful IT programs due to the
complex relationships among projects and stakeholders [15, 51]. The relationships
are complex due to multiple interdependent projects with distinct managers, resource
limitations, differing and often conflicting needs, emergent inputs and conditions
affecting the processes, and elevated ambiguity [44]. Management of each individual
project still requires effective project management skills within each project team, but
IT program management requires managing across teams to both overcome and capi-
talize on the interdependences to deliver promised benefits [67, 69]. Thus, a program
brings together the diverse interests of many teams, resulting in conflict associated with
interteam relationships instead of intrateam relationships [14, 67]. However, without
the success of all the projects, the program will fail to deliver business value. Potential
challenges are evident and include conflict among the interdependent project teams
and a failure to gain commitment to the overall direction and technical infrastructure,
both prominent occurrences in IT deployments [26, 30, 81].

One theoretical perspective applied to the program environment is based on the
tradition of goal research [6, 70]. Each project within a program will have its own
goals that each project team is motivated to achieve [19], while the program itself
will have established program goals that should serve to direct the program. These
collective overall and project-level goals will be interdependent [69]. Goal interde-
pendence means that failing to pursue overall goals by a project may affect the ability
to achieve the established goals of other projects in the program. A program requires
that each related project team within the program treat the overall program goals as
a high priority to fully push successful program completion, as well as to strive to
achieve individual project goals [18, 78]. Chang [18] addresses this issue in program
goal consensus theory (PGCT), which advocates that a shared understanding of clearly
formulated IT program goals and commitment to accomplish the goals by key program
members are the necessary conditions for effective program implementation. The
theory, however, does not address how and why the interdependence issues must be
resolved to accomplish the desired ends, only considering coordination as a coping
mechanism. Although projects are to collectively provide the expected deliverables
that enable business functions, potential task-related conflicts among these projects

82 JIANG, CHANG, CHEN, WANG, AND KLEIN

have not been considered in prior research. Project leaders must have an early agree-
ment on the implementation means and approaches that impact the ability to integrate
the deliverables into a common program outcome. Our knowledge on how to resolve
conflicts due to independent goals and perspectives in IT programs so as to accomplish
the common program goals is very limited [80].

Significant work exists that addresses the concerns of task conflict within a group.
In particular, constructive controversy theory (CCT) proposes that group members
examine the diverse sides of an issue and come to a reasoned solution to a problem.
One required condition is a common goal to pursue, so the solution should have no
individual “winners” or “losers,” and only the quality of the final decision matters.
The positive feelings and commitment individuals feel in creating a solution to the
problem together is shared by all participants. We use the principles of CCT and extend
its scope from a single group with a common goal to multiple groups with interrelated
goals. Our research question is whether the application of constructive controversy
practices, by managing the amalgamation of conflict among projects, can help attain
goal commitment in a goal-interdependent environment and lead to an agreement on
the means to reach program goals. To address this question, we adopt PGCT as the
research foundation and incorporate the concepts drawn from CCT, interdependence,
and the means to deliver a program’s desired outcomes. CCT itself must be extended
to a multiteam and multigoal environment as well as empirically tested in an IT setting
with the stakeholder and goal variations common to the field. The resulting model
combines interteam interdependences, goal establishment and commitment, and pro-
cesses that best unite disparate projects in a single program. Beyond these important
theoretical extensions, organizations will benefit from any inferences regarding the
setting of goals, the process of gaining uniform goal commitment, reaching agreement
on processes, and the management of conflicts due to interdependences.

Theoretical Backgroun

d

programs are formed of disCreTe proJeCTs, each of which has unique requirements
and features that may mesh or conflict with one another [34]. The differences and
similarities across projects create interdependences of limited resources, diverse
requirements and system features, and multiple perspectives of implementation means
that lead to conflict across the projects and create difficulties in managing them as a
collective program to deliver the expected business functions. In other words, in addi-
tion to the program goal formulation, implementations’ means and approaches among
these identified projects must be compatible to enable integration of the deliverables.
Unfortunately, with the exception of Chang [18], the existing literature on program
management is sparse and still in the definition and exploratory stages that include
topics such as (1) defining the program management concept [74], (2) exploring
program management success factors [75], (3) providing governance frameworks or
methods [62], and (4) examining the benefits of program management [80].

Chang [18] proposes a PGCT to provide a foundation for explaining the achieve-
ment of desired program outcomes. Her model, generalized in Figure 1, is derived

ACHIEVING IT PROGRAM GOALS WITH INTEGRATIVE CONFLICT MANAGEMENT 83

from strategic consensus theory in the strategic management literature [84]. Strategic
consensus proposes that agreement among members of the top management team about
strategic goals will be positively associated with organizational performance [43].
Business enablement goals of an IT program, however, are pursued by participants at
multiple levels within an organization who have both direct and indirect control over
the final outcome. Unless all the key managers of a program have a shared understand-
ing and are committed to the IT program goals, they may continue to pursue their
personal self-interests or interests of their subunits instead of those established for a
higher purpose [18]. A shared goal understanding is essential for deployment teams
whose primary objective is to deliver the goals established by the top management
teams [87]. Skepticism or lack of commitment will deter the promotive coordination
and effort behaviors critical to program goal achievement [1].

The PGCT-based model considers the important motivational and directional aspects
of having common outcome goals (IT-enabled business functions), which is ingrained
into key members of a deployment team (shared IT goal understanding) and has full
support of those involved (goal commitment). The coordination and effort fostered (pro-
motive interaction behaviors) will drive the deployment forward in a positive fashion.
However, the model does not consider the bigger problem of conflict that arises due to
interdependences [11], including the aspect of reaching agreement on the best means
to achieve overall program goals as opposed to means directed at achieving individual
project goals [91]. We expand the perspective to include potential implementation
conflicts among projects [77]. Moving a program forward requires decisions about
the policies and processes to manage each project [86]. Conflicts will arise among the
multiple projects because of the diversity of available methods, different backgrounds
and experiences of participants, interdependent team goals, and different perspectives
of the many stakeholders [60, 69]. Conflict strains interactions and trust, leads to
further conflict, and has a negative effect on software product development and client
satisfaction [31]. Therefore, resolving conflict that arises among the project teams,
from interdependences and from deciding the means to accomplish the collective goal,
is one of the crucial issues in the successful management of programs [22].

The relation between conflict and IT development has been considered critical
for decades. Table 1 highlights the information systems (IS) literature on conflict.
Conflict examined in the IT implementation context focuses on either the conflicts

Figure 1. Program Goal Consensus Conceptual Model

84 JIANG, CHANG, CHEN, WANG, AND KLEIN

T
ab

l

e

1

.

C

on

fl
ic

t
Id

en
ti

fi
ed

i
n

th
e

IS
L

it
er

at
ur

e

S
ou

rc
es

C
on

st
ru

ct
D

efi
ni

ti
on

C

o
n

fli

ct
s

a
m

o
n

g
g

ro

u
p

m

e
m

b

e
rs

R

o

b
e

y

e

t

a

l.

[7
6
]

C
o

n
fli

ct

C
o
n
fli

ct
is

d
e

fi

n
e

d
a

s
a

m
a

n
ife

st
d

is
a

g
re

e
m

e
n

t
a

m
o

n
g

g
ro

u
p

m
e

m
b

e
rs

.
R

o
b

e
y

e

t
a
l.

[7
7
]

C

o
n
fli

ct

C
o
n
fli

ct
in

te
n

si
t

y

is
d

e
fin

e
d

a
s

t

h
e

e
xt

e
n

t
o

f

d

is
a
g
re
e
m
e
n
t
a
m
o
n
g
g
ro
u
p

m
e

m
b
e
rs

.
B

a
rk

i

a
n

d
H

a
rt

w
ic

k
[1

0
]

C
o
n
fli

ct
C

o
n

fli
ct

is
d
e
fin
e
d
a
s

a
m

a
n

ife
st

d
is

a
g

re

e
m
e
n
t
a
m
o
n
g
g
ro
u
p
m
e
m
b
e
rs

.
A

n
d

re

s
a
n
d
Z

m
u

d
[

2

]

G
o

a
l c

o
n
fli
ct

C
o
n
fli
ct
is

t
h

e
d

e
g

re

e
o

f
d
is
a
g
re
e
m
e
n
t
o

n
t

h
e

p
ro

j

e
ct

g
o

a
ls

a
m

o
n

g
m

e
m
b
e

rs
.

B
a
rk

i

a
n

d
H

a
rt
w
ic
k
[1

1
]

I

n
te

r

p
e

rs

o
n
a
l c

o
n
fli
ct

In

te
rp

e
rs
o
n
a
l c
o
n
fli
ct
is
d
e
fin
e
d
a
s

a
p

h
e

n
o

m
e
n
o
n
t

h
a

t
o

cc
u

rs
b

e
tw

e
e

n
in

te
rd

e
p

e
n
d
e

n
t

p
a

rt
ie

s
a

s

th

e
y

e
xp

e
ri

e
n

ce
n

e
g

a
tiv

e
e

m
o

t

io
n

a
l r

e
a

ct
io

n
s

to
p

e
rc

e
iv

e
d
d
is

a
g
re

e
m
e
n

ts
a

n
d

in

te
rf

e
re

n
ce

w
ith

t
h

e
a

tt
a

in
m

e
n
t
o

f
th

e
ir
g

o
a

ls
.

L
ia

n
g
e

t
a
l.

[5
5
]

Ta
sk

c
o

n
fli

ct

Ta
sk
c
o
n
fli
ct
is
t
h
e
d
is
a
g
re
e
m
e
n
t
a
m
o
n
g

t
e

a
m
m
e
m
b
e
rs

r
e

g
a

rd
in

g
t

h

e
c

o
n
te
n
t
o
f
th

e

t
a

sk
s

b
e

in
g

p
e

rf
o

rm
e

d
a
n
d

d
iff

e
re
n
ce

s
in

v
ie

w
p

o
in

ts
,

id
e

a
s,

a
n

d
o

p
in

io
n

s.
L
ia

n
g
e
t
a
l.

[5
6
]

Ta
sk

c
o
n
fli

ct

Ta
sk
c
o
n
fli
ct
is

jo
b

-o
ri

g
in

a
te

d
d

is
a
g
re
e
m
e
n
t
a
m
o
n
g
t
e
a
m
m
e
m
b
e
rs
r
e
g
a
rd
in

g
p

e
rs
p
e

ct
iv

e
s,

th

o
u

g
h

ts
,

o
r

o
p

in
io

n
s
o
n

h

o
w

t
o

c
o

m
p

le
te

t
a
sk
s
o
r

e
ve

n
w

h
e

th
e

r
to

d
o

c
e

rt
a

in
t

a

sk
s.

C
o
n
fli
ct
s

b
e
tw

e
e

n
u

se
rs

a
n

d
I

S
d

e
ve

lo
p

e
rs

F

o
st

e
r

a
n
d
F

ra
n
z

[2
8
]

U
se

r–
IS

t
a
sk

c
o
n
fli
ct

C
o
n
fli
ct
is
t
h
e
d

iff
e

re
n

t
p

e
rc
e
p

tio
n

s
b

e
tw
e
e
n
u
se
rs
a
n
d
I
S
d
e
ve
lo
p
e
rs

o
n

s
ys

te
m

d
e

si
g

n
a

n
d

sy

st
e

m
im

p
le

m
e

n
ta

tio
n

p
ro

ce
ss

e
s.

Y

e
h

a

n
d
T

sa
i [

9
5
]

U
se
r–
IS
c
o
n
fli
ct
C
o
n

si
d

e
r

co
n

fli
ct
t
o

b
e

t
h
e
e

xt
e

n
t

o
f

a
rg

u
m

e
n

t
b

e
tw
e
e
n
u
se
rs
a
n
d
d
e
ve
lo
p
e
rs

.
S

n
e
a
d
a

n
d
N

d
e
d
e
-A

m
a
d
i [

8
3
]

U
se
r–
IS
c
o
n
fli
ct

C
o

n
si

d
e

r

co

n
fli

ct
t

o
b

e
t

h
e
e
xt
e
n
t
o

f
u

se
rs
a
n
d
I
S
d
e
ve

lo
p
e

rs
h

a
vi

n
g
t
h

e

ir
o

w
n

r
e

so
u

rc
e

a
n

d

o
rg

a
n

iz
a

tio
n
a
l c
o
n

st
ra

i

n
ts

a
n

d
p

ro
te

ct
in

g
t
h
e
ir
o
w
n

in
te

re
st

s.

W
a
n
g
e

t
a
l.

[9
1
]

U
se
r–
IS
c
o
n
fli
ct

C
o
n
fli
ct
is
t
h
e
e
xt
e
n
t
o
f
d
is
a
g
re
e
m
e
n
t
b
e
tw
e
e
n
u
se
rs
a
n

d

I
S

s
ta

ff
d

u
ri

n
g
s
ys
te
m

d
e
ve
lo
p
m
e
n
t
p
ro
ce
ss

.
M

e
is

so
n
ie

r
a

n
d
H

o
u
zé

[
6
1
]

U
se
r–
IS
t
a
sk
c
o
n
fli
ct
C
o
n
fli
ct

is
a

n
y

d
is
a
g
re
e
m
e
n
t
a

b
o

u
t

th
e
s
ys
te
m

,
d

e
fin

iti
o

n
s,

a
n

d
e

xe
cu

tio
n

o
f

ta

sk
s

b
y

u
se

rs
.

C
o
n
fli

ct
a

m
o
n
g

p
ro

je
ct

t

e
a
m

s
w

it

h
in

a
p

ro

g
ra

m

T

h
is

s
tu

d
y

In
te

rt
e
a
m

t
a
sk

-r
e

la
te

d

co
n
fli

ct
s
Ta
sk
-o
ri
g
in
a
te
d
d
is
a
g
re
e
m
e
n
t
a
m
o
n
g
p
ro
je
ct
t
e
a
m

le
a

d
e

rs
r

e
g

a
rd

in
g
p
e

rs
p

e
ct

iv
e

s,

th
o

u
g

h
ts

,
o

r
o

p
in
io
n

s
o

n
t
h
e

s
e

q
u

e
n

c

e
s

o
f
p
ro
je
ct
c
o

m
p
le

tio
n

;

h
o
w

t
o
c
o
m
p
le
te
r
e
q
u

ir
e

d

ta
sk

s
fo

r
e

a
ch

p
ro
je
ct

,
a

n
d

/o
r

im
p

le
m

e
n

t

a
tio

n
; d

is
a
g
re
e
m
e
n
t
o

n
r

u
le

s,
p

ro
ce

d
u

re
s,

a
n
d

st
ra

te
g

y.

ACHIEVING IT PROGRAM GOALS WITH INTEGRATIVE CONFLICT MANAGEMENT 85

among team members on a project or between users and IT personnel. These studies
have dissected conflict in a traditional intrateam environment, but in spite of valuable
insights, overlooked the conflict in the multiteam environment. Conditions associ-
ated with conflict among IT program teams include (1) competition for resources,
(2) lack of cooperation, (3) conflicting subgoals/system features among projects, and
(4) implementation methods/strategy conflicts [10, 44]. These task-related conflicts
must be resolved to improve prospects of success. Table 2 highlights the IS literature
about how to deal with conflicts effectively under intrateam situations along with
associated benefits. In general, conflict resolution processes that strive to capitalize
on the conflict differ in results from those that attempt to force consensus, with strong
benefits arising from viewing conflict as a competition across teams under the theories
of constructive controversy and conflict [40]. These processes can be classified as either
integrative (attempts to identify and achieve outcomes that are mutually satisfying)
or nonintegrative. In general, integrative conflict management (ICM) processes are
the more effective approach compared to the others (e.g., compromising, assertion, or
avoidance) in the IT project implementation context. Still, these conclusions have not
been considered in an interteam environment where there is a need for joint decision
making that accounts for differences in goals and perceptions [45]. In such a case,
ICM may be the most appropriate [13].

To consider a productive view of conflict resolution, we turn to CCT. CCT begins
with a strong goal [40]. Once the goal is universally understood, group members must
collectively examine the various perspectives of any issue to arrive at the best deci-
sion on how to achieve the goal. The common goal must be shared and understood by
participants in the resolution of conflict, embedded in the shared IT goal understanding
of PGCT. A process that implements the principles of CCT should create the desired
goal commitment of PGCT through the improved relationships and designing the
means to accomplish the program goal. To date, however, CCT has not been consid-
ered and tested in the interteam context, nor has any shared understanding of goals
been considered as the input. We will consider and test these extensions in this study.
In summary, interdependence often results in conflict among project teams; however,
adopting a process following the principles of CCT will lead to a decision on delivery
means and the commitment toward completing a mutually shared goal.

To meet the principles of implementing CCT, an ICM approach is encouraged [41,
63]. In ICM, satisfactory conflict resolution should not inhibit discussion to avoid
disagreement or argument. Instead, a realistic appraisal of alternative ideas and courses
of action present a more fruitful environment. When individuals present their rationale
and solutions to others, they engage in cognitive rehearsal, deepen understanding of the
problem and their position, and use high-level reasoning [89]. When confronted with
different rationales and solutions, individuals become uncertain as to the correctness
of their views. By adapting their perspective to the reasoning of others, individuals
arrive at reconceptualized solutions. The outcomes of such a process can include
cognitive reasoning about decision outcomes, attitude change about the problem and
decisions, and increased self-esteem. Furthermore, the commitment individuals feel
to the common problem and solution is enhanced. Although the process of ICM can

86 JIANG, CHANG, CHEN, WANG, AND KLEIN

T
ab

le
2

. C
on

fl
ic

t
M

an
ag

e

m
en

t
in

t
he

I
S

L
it

er
at

ur
e

S
ou
rc
es
C
on

ce
pt

D
efi

ni
ti

on

S
a
w

ye
r

a

n
d
G

u
in

a
n
[

7
9
]

C
o
n
fli

ct
m

a
n
a
g
e
m

e
n

t
T

h
e

a
b

ili
ty

o
f
th
e
t
e
a
m
t
o
r
e
a
ch

a
g
re

e
m
e
n
ts
a
m
o
n
g
m
e
m
b
e
rs
.
S

u
ss

m
a
n
a

n
d
G
u
in
a
n
[

8
5
]

C
o
n
fli

ct
r

e
so

lu
tio

n
T

h
e
d
e
g
re
e
t
h
e
t
e
a
m

m
in

im
iz

e
s
te
n

si
o

n
s
b
e

tw
e

e
n
m
e
m
b
e
rs

.
A

ri
a
s-

A
ra

n
d
a
a

n
d
B

u
st

in
za

–
S

a
n
ch

e
z

[4
];

B
a
rk

i a
n
d

H
a
rt

w
ic
k
[1
1
]

A
ss

e
rt

in
g
A
ss
e
rt
in
g

o
cc

u
rs

a
s

in
d

iv
id

u
a

ls
s

tr
iv

e
t

o
w

in
o

r
p

re
va

il.
C

o
n
fli
ct

is
s

e
e
n
a
s
a

z
e

ro
s

u
m

s
itu

a
tio

n
,

w
ith
o
n

e
p

a
rt

y’
s

g
a

in
c

o
m

in
g
o
n

ly
w

ith
t

h
e

o
th

e
r’s

lo
ss

,
o

r
w

it

h
o

n
e

p
a

rt
y’

s
a
cc
u

ra
cy

o
r

co
rr

e
ct
n
e

ss
o

cc
u

rr
in

g
a

s
o
th
e

rs
a

re

f
o

u
n

d
t

o
b

e
in

a
cc

u
ra

te
o

r
in

co
rr
e
ct
.
A

cc
o

m

m

o
d

a
tin

g
A

cc
o

m
m

o
d
a
tin

g
v

ie
w

s
co

n
fli
ct
a

s
ze

ro
s
u
m
s
itu
a
tio
n
s
a
n
d
o
cc
u
r
w
h
e
n
in

d
iv

id
u

a
ls

s
a

cr
ifi

ce
t
h

e
ir

o
w

n
n

e
e

d
s

a
n
d
d

e
si

re
s

in
o

rd
e

r
to
s
a

tis
fy

t
h

o
se

o
f
o
th
e
r
p
a
rt
ie

s

.
C

o
m
p
ro

m
is

in
g
C
o
m
p

ro
m

is
in

g
v
ie
w
s
co
n
fli
ct
a
s
a
z
e
ro
s
u
m
s
itu
a
tio

n
. H

o
w
e
ve

r,
c

o
m
p
ro
m
is
in
g

f
re

q
u
e
n

tly
s

p
lit

s
th

e
d
iff
e
re
n

ce
o

r
in

v

o
lv

e
s

g
iv

e
-a

n
d

-t
a

k

e
b

e
h
a
vi

o
rs

w
h

e
re

e
a
ch

p
a

rt
y

w
in

s
g
ro

u
n
d
a
n
d

lo
se

s
g
ro
u
n

d
.

P
ro

b
le

m
-s

o
lv
in
g
P
ro
b
le
m
-s
o
lv
in
g
o
cc
u
rs

w
h

e
n

in
d

iv
id
u
a

ls
in

c
o
n
fli
ct
t

ry
t

o
f

u
lly

s
a
tis
fy
t
h
e
c
o
n

ce
rn

s
o

f
a

ll
p

a
rt

ie
s.

H

e
re

,
co

n
fli
ct
is

n
o

t
se

e
n
a
s

a
z

e
ro

s
u

m
s

itu
a

tio
n
.
A

vo
id

in
g

A
vo

id
in

g
o

cc
u

rs
w

h
e
n
in
d
iv
id
u
a
ls

a
re

in
d
iff
e
re
n

t
to

t
h
e
c
o
n
ce
rn
s
o

f
e

ith
e

r
p
a
rt

y
o

r

re

fu
se

t
o

a

ct
o

r
p
a
rt

ic
ip

a
te

in
c

o
n
fli
ct

. H
e

r

e
,

o
n

e
w

ith
d

ra
w

s,
p

h
ys

ic
a

lly
o

r
p

sy
ch

o
lo

g
ic

a
lly

,
a

b
d

ic
a

tin
g

re

sp
o

n
si

b
ili

ty
f
o

r
th

e
s

o
lu

tio
n

.
P

a
u
l e

t
a
l.

[6
8
]

C

o
lla

b

o
ra

tiv
e

c

o
n
fli
ct

m
a
n
a
g
e
m

e
n
t

C
o

lla
b

o
ra
tiv
e
c
o
n
fli
ct
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n

t
re

fe
rs

t
o

a
m

e
ch

a
n

is
m

b
y

w
h

ic
h

b
o

th
p

a
rt

ie
s

sa
tis

fy
t
h

e
ir

d
e

si
re

s
a
n
d

n
e

ith
e

r
si

d
e

h
a

s
to

s
a
cr
ifi

ce
c

o
n
si
d

e
ra

b
ly

. C
o

lla
b
o

ra
tiv

e
s

ty
le

(
h

ig
h

c
o
n
ce

rn
f
o

r
o
th
e
rs
a
n
d
f
o

r
se

lf)
p

e
rt

a
in

s
to
in
te
g
ra
tin
g
t
h

e
v

ie
w
s
o
f
a

l

l
in

vo
lv

e
d

.
N

o

n
co

lla
b
o
ra

tiv

e

co
n
fli
ct

m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

N
o

n
co
lla
b
o
ra
tiv
e
c
o
n
fli
ct
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
in

cl
u

d
e

s
a
vo

id
a

n
ce
,
a
cc
o
m
m
o
d
a
tio

n
,
co

m
p

e
tit

io
n
,
a
n
d

co
m
p
ro
m

is
e
.

ACHIEVING IT PROGRAM GOALS WITH INTEGRATIVE CONFLICT MANAGEMENT 87

F
u
ru

m
o
[
2
9
]

In
te
g
ra
tin
g

H
ig

h
c

o
n
ce
rn
f
o
r
se

lf
a

n
d

o
th

e
rs
.
C
o
m
p
ro
m
is
in
g

M
o

d
e

ra
te

c
o
n
ce
rn
f
o
r
se
lf
a
n
d
o
th
e
rs

.
D

o
m

in
a
tin

g
H

ig
h
c
o
n
ce
rn
f
o
r
se
lf
a
n
d

lo
w

c
o
n
ce
rn
f
o
r
o
th
e
rs
.

O
b
lig

in
g

L
o
w

c
o
n
ce
rn
f
o
r
se
lf
a
n
d

h
ig

h
c
o
n
ce
rn
f
o
r
o
th
e
rs
.

M
ir
a
n
d
a
a

n
d
B
o
st
ro
m

[
6
3
]

In
te
g
ra

tiv
e
b

e

h
a
vi

o
r

In
te
g
ra
tiv
e
b
e
h
a
vi
o
r

a
tt

e
m

p
ts

t
o

id
e

n
tif

y
a

n
d

a
ch

ie
ve

o
u

tc
o

m
e

s
m

u
tu

a
lly
s
a
tis
fy
in
g
t
o
b
o

t

h

p
a
rt
ie

s.
D

is
tr

ib

u
tiv

e
b

e
h
a
vi

o
r

D
is

tr
ib

u
tiv
e
b
e
h
a
vi
o
r
e
m

p
h

a
si

ze
s

th
e
a
ch
ie
ve
m
e
n
t
o
f
th
e
o
u
tc
o
m
e
s
o

f
o

n
e
p
a
rt
y

o
ve

r
th
e
o
th
e

r.
A

vo
id

a
n
ce

A
vo
id
a
n
ce

is
f
a

il

u
re

t
o
c
o

n
fr

o
n
t
o
r
a

tt
e

m
p
t
to
r
e

so
lv

e
c
o
n
fli
ct

,
sh

o
w
in
g
lo
w
c
o
n
ce
rn
f
o
r
e
ith
e
r
p
a
rt

y.
K

a
n
ka

n
h
a
lli

e
t
a

l.
[4

1
]
In
te
g
ra
tiv
e

S
o

lv
in

g
t
h
e
p
ro
b
le

m
t

h
ro

u
g
h
c
o
lla
b
o

ra
tio

n
.

D
is
tr
ib
u
tiv

e
S

o
lv
in
g
t
h
e
p

ro
b
le

m
t
h
ro
u
g

h
a

ss
e

rt
io

n
.

G
o

o
e

t
a
l.

[3
2
]

H
a
rm

o
n
io

u
s

co
n
fli
ct

re
so

lu
tio
n
T
h
e
e
xt
e
n
t
to
w
h
ic
h
p
a
rt
ie
s
a

ch
ie

ve
m

u
tu
a
lly
s
a
tis
fy
in
g
r
e

so
lu

tio
n
s
o

f
co

n
fli
ct
s

th
ro

u
g
h

a
g
re
e
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
c
o

n
se

n
su

s.
T

h
is
s
tu

d
y

In
te
g
ra

tiv
e
c

o
n
fli
ct

m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
S
o
lv
in
g
t
h
e
p
ro
b
le

m
s

th
ro
u
g
h
c
o
lla
b
o
ra
tio
n
a
m
o
n
g
p
ro
je
ct
t
e
a
m
le
a
d
e

rs
t

o

r
e

m
o
ve

c
o
n
fli

ct
b

y
a

d
d

re
ss

in
g
t
h
e
c
o
n
ce
rn
s
o
f
a
ll
p
a
rt
ie
s.

88 JIANG, CHANG, CHEN, WANG, AND KLEIN

Figure 2. Proposed Research Model

operate in a beneficial way, certain conditions are required, including the heterogene-
ity of participants, the dissemination of information among the decision makers, and
the capability of participants to engage in rational discourse [39]. These conditions
are met in IT programs by the diversity of key players, specialized knowledge and
information held among the different participants, and the professional competence
of IT professionals to share and discuss problems. Under the pressure of goal interde-
pendence and constrained by shared, common goals, these conditions should result in
agreement about delivery means and an increased commitment to the program goals
by key members of the multiproject teams.

Based on the above discussion of PGCT, CCT, and ICM, we propose an extended
model of PGCT as shown in Figure 2. Specifically, both project goal interdependence
and shared IT goal understanding among key program members will encourage
ICM approaches. ICM will, in turn, foster commitment to the overall program goal
and arrive at an agreement as to the means of delivery. Both goal commitment and
agreement on the program’s delivery means will be positively associated with final
IT program goal achievement. PGCT is extended by adding goal interdependence,
ICM, and delivery means consensus to explain how the interdependent project goals
impact the program environment and how agreement on delivery means influences
achieving the program goals. CCT is elevated from a single group consideration to
an interteam setting, enriched by considering more goal related concepts in a formal
managerial structure.

Research Hypotheses

When KeY plaYers aCross mulTiple proJeCTs perceive their goals to be interdependent,
they will act to resolve differences and drive toward commonalities. The perception of
related goals is an important variable affecting the dynamics and outcome of a group
interaction: either competition or cooperation [25]. People in a cooperative setting
want each other to pursue their goals effectively, for the other’s effectiveness helps all
of them reach their goals. Furthermore, CCT suggests that intended cooperation over
multiple goals is an implicit condition for people to adopt ICM approaches. In an IT
program, each project team strives to act effectively and expects other teams to do the

ACHIEVING IT PROGRAM GOALS WITH INTEGRATIVE CONFLICT MANAGEMENT 89

same. By necessity, projects rely on the output of others in their own accomplishment
of deliverables. Interdependences require an overlap of responsibilities to ensure a
smooth transition between activities of two different components or entities. A program
cannot be successful if the interdependences among projects are not identified and
managed. ICM approaches would allow the related project team leaders to resolve the
task-related conflicts caused by interdependences. In the literature, studies have shown
a positive relationship between interdependences and cooperation behaviors such as
sharing information, acknowledging each other’s perspective, and communicating
effectively [20, 90]. Therefore, we propose:

Hypothesis 1: Goal interdependence is positively associated with using an ICM
approach among key project and program members of an IT program.

A common understanding of the communal goals is essential for taking intelligent
actions by all members of the program. Goal theorists suggest that goals regulate and
sustain efforts toward goal accomplishment [19]. Furthermore, goals have an energizing
function; they serve as a moving force that entails both physical effort and subjec-
tive effort from individuals toward attainment [9]. A shared IT goal understanding
among program members will establish a common set of expectations for the entire
program. All else being equal (e.g., team competence), people tend to be motivated
to achieve a desired target when they have precise expectations [58]. Goals also affect
teams by leading to the creation, discovery, and use of task-relevant knowledge and
strategies [23]. Common goals encourage harmony [17]. They reduce or erase the
possibility of opportunistic behavior and increase team effectiveness [66]. Programs
are created to deliver expected business benefits. Projects are established in the early
stages following the establishment of program goals; however, at this early stage the
technical and task-related implementation procedures have not been established. These
task-related strategies must be established so individual projects can be effective. The
above discussion suggests that when shared IT goal understanding exists, program
members are more likely to adopt a cooperative method such as ICM to resolve the
task-related interteam conflicts. Thus, we propose:

Hypothesis 2: Shared IT goal understanding is positively associated with the use
of ICM among key project and program members of an IT program.

Working in a positive climate with respect for all perspectives will promote working
toward a common goal. Teams are effective when they coordinate and apply available
resources of individuals to stimulate creative solutions and implementation [92]. How-
ever, groups may undermine motivation, leaving members tempted to engage in social
loafing and letting others do the work [42]. A cooperative approach to conflict com-
municates the intention to seek a mutually beneficial solution; a competitive approach
indicates that protagonists are trying to win [24]. The success of the program depends
on the completion of all the projects. ICM approaches allow each of the projects to
be successfully delivered. Furthermore, the adoption of ICM will lead to a positive
climate among project leaders. Previous studies, in fact, find that ICM approaches
promote perceptions of fairness, working relationships, resource usage efficiency,

90 JIANG, CHANG, CHEN, WANG, AND KLEIN

commitment, and general satisfaction [13]. In short, an ICM approach among inter-
dependent projects will not only enhance the chance of individual project success but
also the perceptions of solution satisfaction and confidence, cooperative attitudes, and
trust in the others to perform effectively by team members. This positive team climate
is a critical factor for the final team outcomes [78]. Therefore, program team members
are likely to perceive a higher expectation of goal attainment, which is considered a
proximal antecedent of goal commitment [36]. Therefore, we believe:

Hypothesis 3a: The use of ICM among key project and program members is
positively associated with their extent of program goal commitment.

Using the collective experience and knowledge of participants will add to the
generation of agreeable methods to achieve common goals. Participative decision
making focuses more on how to complete the desired ends instead of on revisit-
ing the goals [47]. Principles of productive conflict resolution include higher-level
reasoning strategies, viewing problems from different perspectives, and bringing
individuals together [40]. These principles bring to light advantageous outcomes that
include more reasoned solutions, decisions that consider a large number of options,
and commitment to the solutions driven by a higher degree of involvement. As a final
product, a mutually agreed upon solution is usually achieved when ICM approaches
are adopted. Therefore, a higher level of delivery means that consensus among pro-
gram team members is likely to be reached with greater levels of ICM approaches.
We propose the following:

Hypothesis 3b: The use of ICM approaches among key project and program
members is positively associated with the extent of delivery means consensus.

Business value realization in a program is a learning process of sense making, due
to program ambiguity. Changes to individual project functions and objectives are not
uncommon [88]. Project managers are, unfortunately, averse to change. The program
teams must not only clearly resolve task-related implementation conflicts among
projects to reduce the uncertainty of implementation but also ensure that each project
takes a continuous commitment to work as a team to cope with changes. Continuous
monitoring and correction of the program to achieve the program goals cannot be
accomplished without strong commitment. Conceptually, individuals who are highly
committed to a goal direct their cognitive and behavioral resources to attaining the goal,
whereas individuals with low-goal commitment may be distracted from the assigned
goal and may put effort into unrelated activities because they have not internalized
the goal [73]. The relationship between goal commitment and performance is most
evident when performance is measured in relation to the goal level, providing a direct tie
between the two [5]. However, regardless of goal difficulty, the more the team members
are committed to their assigned team goals, the more they are willing to take actions to
reach them and the better the performance will be. To realize a program goal requires
not only effective plans and procedures but also collaboration and positive attitudes
toward changes within the interdependent projects during the program implementation
period [87]. Based on the above discussion, we propose the following:

ACHIEVING IT PROGRAM GOALS WITH INTEGRATIVE CONFLICT MANAGEMENT 91

Hypothesis 4: The extent of goal commitment among key project and program
members is positively associated with IT goal achievement.

Effectively promoting how the implementation process is to be conducted positively
influences a participant’s persistence to a course of action. Knowledge about key opera-
tional elements of one’s relevant environment enhances coordination and effectiveness
in performing tasks that are complex, unpredictable, urgent, or novel [16, 52]. When
the members of an IT program team organize their knowledge of tasks, equipment,
roles, goals, and abilities for each project within the program, they share a mental
model that allows anticipation of actions across projects so that they can coordinate
their behaviors effectively [48]. Task models capture perceptions and understanding
of team procedures, strategies, and task contingencies. Thus, shared understanding
and consensus on the delivery means is a shared task agreement for active parties in
the IT program. Those agreeing on means achieve higher levels of performance [57].
Therefore, we propose:

Hypothesis 5: The extent of delivery means consensus among key project and
program members is positively associated with IT goal achievement.

We control for possible confounds by including four relevant control variables in
the analysis—program size, number of projects, program duration, and time since
go-live. Program size and the number of projects could affect program goal achieve-
ment because of greater effort required to coordinate the activities. They were mea-
sured by asking program managers to indicate the number of key program members
involved in their IT program and the number of component projects. Program duration
is a potential confound, as longer programs are exposed to greater risk of changing
requirements. Time since go-live could affect the dependent variable because elimina-
tion of bugs in the original implementation could alter perceptions of the outcomes.
A longer time since go-live also means the program has had a longer time to achieve
its overall goals. These were measured by asking IT managers to indicate the duration
of the program and how long the resulting system has been in use.

Research Methodology

The TargeT respondenTs of This sTudY were key players in organizations that had
completed an enterprise system program. Enterprise systems were chosen because of
their ambiguity of isolated goals with a clear demarcation of the multiple projects, each
project being a unique module in the enterprise system. Potential organizations came
from the list of annual top performance firms issued by the China Credit Information
Service, a leading business database in Taiwan. Eligibility constraints included that
(1) the organization conducted at least two projects within the program, (2) the enter-
prise system program was completed, and (3) the desired three key informants were
available to respond to questionnaires. Within each potential organization, we first
contacted the chief information officer or a top functional manager to introduce the
purpose of the study, to serve as one respondent, and to obtain permission of access.

92 JIANG, CHANG, CHEN, WANG, AND KLEIN

The contacts willing to participate identified two other key informants who matched
the selection criteria in their firm during a visit by one of the researchers. Mailed
questionnaires and an instruction letter followed within a few days.

For each enterprise system sampled, we required responses from a top management
team member serving as the program manager, the IT manager of the organization
serving as a coordinator of technology for all projects and vendors, and one func-
tional manager serving as a project manager in the program. Program managers are
in charge of the entire implementation and are in a good position to answer items
that assess program goal achievement; functional managers in charge of their own
projects are appropriate to answer items about program goal understanding by their
teams; and IT managers assessed goal interdependence, ICM, goal commitment, and
delivery means consensus as they supervised the IT function for all the projects and
had the opportunity to externally observe behaviors of those efforts. The use of three
questionnaires and three key informant classes lessen potential problems of common
method variance [71].

Construct Development

Two researchers reviewed the IT project management and team effectiveness literature
to consider prior measures that represent the variables in the research model. Goal
interdependence refers to the extent to which project teams believe they are assigned
group goals and that achievement of their unique goals affects the achievement of
overall goals or goals of the other teams. The items for measuring project goal inter-
dependence are from the scale of Chen et al. [21]. Integrative conflict management
refers to the integration extent of different ideas and interests while resolving disagree-
ments and friction among key program members. The items for integrative conflict
management were adapted to our context from the scales of Janssen et al. [38]. Shared
IT goal understanding refers to the extent of goal consensus among key program
members about desired IT outcomes. Shared IT goal understanding is measured with
items adopted from the scales of Ko et al. [49]. Delivery means consensus refers to
the shared understanding of methods and procedures by key program members. The
items for measuring delivery means consensus are adjusted for our context from the
scales of Ko et al. [49]. Goal commitment refers to the extent to which the key program
members consider the program goals to be important. Items were adapted from the
scale of Hollenbeck et al. [37] to suit our research context. IT goal achievement refers
to the extent to which the program deliverables meet outcome expectations. This was
measured with items suggested by Hoegl and Gemuenden [35].

To consider validity of the items for our context, a group of eight managers, expe-
rienced in managing IT programs, evaluated the measures for the new context. We
edited certain items based on feedback from these managers to create a revised draft
of the instrument. At this point, 30 managers with enterprise resource planning (ERP)
program experience in an executive master of business administration (MBA) class
agreed to participate in a pilot test of the survey in a group meeting off-site from their
organizations. The researchers encouraged these managers to ask questions while
completing the questionnaire and to make notes on the instruments if they had com-

ACHIEVING IT PROGRAM GOALS WITH INTEGRATIVE CONFLICT MANAGEMENT 93

ments about particular items. Following completion, the researchers led a discussion
to elicit feedback and comments. The items were further edited at this time, but no
items were added or deleted.

To further consider content validity, we determined the content validity ratio (CVR)
and the content validity index (CVI) for all the measurement items. Eight content
experts were chosen from among the earlier sample to evaluate each item on whether
or not the item is an essential and applicable element and whether or not the item is
worded clearly. CVR is evaluated from responses to binary scales of the item being
“essential” or “nonessential” and “applicable” or “not applicable.” CVR represents
the agreement of the content experts on whether an item reflects the true content of
the variable. CVI is determined as the percentage of experts rating the item as 3 on a
clarity scale of 1 to 3 (where 3 means very clear). We dropped three items from the
instrument because the CVR and CVI were lower than 0.75 (for eight experts), sug-
gesting reasonable content validity [53, 72]. The items remaining on the instrument
are shown in Table 3.

The next measurement development step was a trial sample. One hundred and fifty-
three managers from executive MBA classes at three major universities served as the
sample. The knowledge of business processes, structures, and procedures is high for
this experienced group. With the trial sample, we performed a preliminary assess-
ment of the scales based on a principal components analysis with varimax rotation
of all the items. The strength of the resulting reliability estimates suggested a high
internal consistency among the scale items, with all alpha values greater than 0.7.
All the items also loaded significantly on their respective constructs, with no cross-
loading issues. This provided preliminary evidence of the reliability and validity of
the measurement scales.

Data Collection

The final sample daTa ColleCTion sTarTed in deCember 2010 and was completed
in August 2012. Reminders followed after two weeks of not receiving anticipated
responses. Incomplete questionnaires were further processed by e-mails or telephone
calls. A total of 183 firms with 549 respondents, for a response rate of 18.3 percent
from those initially contacted, were collected and included in our analysis. The
characteristics of the 549 respondents are depicted in Table 4. To consider whether
nonresponse bias is a problem, we compared the demographics of all the companies
returning the questionnaires early and those of the companies returning the question-
naires late, divided by the date we sent out reminders [82]. We compared the means
of program size and the dependent variables between the two groups and found no
significant difference (p = 0.99).

Assessment of the Measurement Model

On the final sample, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using
AMOS 18. Estimation of the CFA with six constructs yielded good fit statistics:

94 JIANG, CHANG, CHEN, WANG, AND KLEIN

T
ab

le
3

.

M
ea

su
re

m
en
t
M

od
el

:
R

el
ia

bi
li

ty
a

nd
C

on
ve

rg
en

t V
al

id
it

y
C
on
st
ru
ct
s
M
ea
su
re
m
en

t
it

em
s

L
oa

di
ng

s
C

om
po

si
te

re

li
ab

il
it

y

A
ve

ra
ge

va

ri
an

ce

ex
tr

ac
te

d

S
h
a
re

d
I
T

g
o

a
l

u
n
d
e
rs

ta
n
d
in

g

(

S
G

U

1
)

T
h
e
m

a
in

g

o
a
ls

o
f
th
e

e
n

te
rp

ri
se

p
ro
g
ra

m
a

re
w

e
ll

u
n
d
e

rs
to

o
d
f
o

r

a
ll

ke
y

p
ro
g
ra

m
m

e
m
b
e

rs
in

m
y

o
rg
a
n
iz
a
tio
n

.
0

.9
0

**

0

.9
3

0
.8

2
(S
G

U

2
)

A
ll

th
e
k

e
y
p
ro
g
ra
m
m
e
m
b
e
rs
a
g
re
e
o
n
w

h
ic

h
o

b
je

ct
iv
e
s
a
re

im

p
o
rt

a
n
t

to
t

h
e
e

n
te

rp
ri

se
p

ro
g
ra

m
.

0
.9

2
**

(S
G

U

3
)

T
h
e
g

o
a
ls
o
f
th
e
e
n
te
rp
ri
se
p
ro
g
ra
m
a
re
w
e
ll

co
m

m
u

n
ic

a
te
d
a
m
o
n
g

a
ll
th
e
k
e
y
p
ro
g
ra
m
m
e
m
b
e
rs
.
0
.9
2
**

G
o
a
l i

n
te

rd
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
ce

(

G
I1

)
O

u
r

te
a
m

r
e
a
ch

e
s
p
ro
je
ct

o
b

je
ct
iv
e

s
b
y

h
e

lp
in

g
t
h
e
o
th
e
r
p
ro
je
ct

te

a
m

s’
r

e
a
ch

t
h
e
ir
o

b
je
ct
iv
e
s.
0
.8

1
*

0
.9

1
0

.7
7

(G
I2

)
A

cc
o
m

p
lis

h
in
g
o
u
r
p
ro
je
ct
g
o
a
ls

a
ff
e

ct
e

d
w

h
e
th
e
r
th
e
o
th
e
r
p

ro
je

ct

te
a
m

s
a
ch

ie
ve
d
o

r
d

id
n

o
t

a
ch
ie
ve
t
h
e
ir
g
o
a

ls
.

0
.9

0
**

(G
I3

)
A

ll
th

e
t
e
a
m
s
w

ith
in

t
h
e
e
n
te
rp
ri

se
s

ys
te

m
p

ro
g
ra
m
a

re
c

o
lle

ct
iv

e
ly

h
e
ld

a
cc

o
u
n
ta

b
le

f
o
r

p
e
rf
o

rm
a

n
ce

/s
u

cc
e

ss
.

0
.9
2
**
In
te
g
ra
tiv
e
c
o
n
fli
ct

m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n

t
(I

C
M

1
)

U
til

iz
e
d
o

p
p
o
si

te
v

is
io

n
s

to
w

o
rk

o
u

t
co

m
p

re
h

e
n

si
ve

d
e

ci
si

o
n

s.
0

.9
1

**
0

.9
5

0
. 8

6
(I

C
M
2
)
In
te
g
ra

te
d

iv
e
rs

e
id

e
a
s
in

to
c

o
m

p
re

h
e
n
si

ve
d

e
ci

si
o

n
s.

0
.9

5
**

(I
C

M
3
)

R
e
p
lie

d
t

o
a

rg
u

m
e
n
ts

w
ith

c
o
u
n

te
ra

rg
u
m
e
n
ts

u
n

til
s

u
ita

b
le

s
o

lu
tio
n
s

w
e
re

f
o
u
n
d
.

0
.9
2
**

G
o
a
l c

o
m

m
itm

e
n
t

(

G
C

1
)
A
ll
ke
y
p
ro
g
ra
m
m
e
m
b
e
rs
a

re
s

tr
o

n
g

ly
c

o
m

m
itt

e
d
t
o

p
u

rs
u

in
g
t
h
e

g
o
a
ls

e
st

a
b
lis

h
e
d
f
o

r
th
e
p
ro
g
ra
m
.
0
.8

8
**

0
.9

3
0

.8
0

(G
C
2
)

K
e
y

p
ro
g
ra
m
m
e
m
b
e
rs
b

e
lie

ve
d

t
h

a
t

it
is

r
e

a
lis

tic
t

o
e

xp
e

ct
t

o
r

e
a

ch

th
e
g

o
a
ls

s
p
e
ci

fie
d

in

o
u
r
p
ro
g
ra
m
.
0
.9
2
**
(G
C
3
)

It
is

e
a

sy

t
o
s

a
y

th
a

t
ke

y
p

ro
g
ra
m
m
e
m
b
e
rs
t

a
ke

t
h
e
e
n
te
rp
ri

se

p
ro
g
ra

m
g

o
a
ls

s
e
ri

o
u

sl
y.

0
.8

9
**

ACHIEVING IT PROGRAM GOALS WITH INTEGRATIVE CONFLICT MANAGEMENT 95

D
e
liv

e
ry

m
e
a
n
s

co
n
se

n
su

s
(M

C
1
)

K
e
y
p
ro
g
ra
m
m
e
m
b
e

rs
f

u
lly
u
n
d
e

rs
ta

n
d
h
o
w
t
h
e
e
n
te
rp
ri
se
p
ro
g
ra
m

w
ill

b

e
im

p
le

m
e
n
te

d
.
0
.9
2
**
0
.9

6
0

.8
3

(

M
C

2
)
K
e
y
p
ro
g
ra
m
m
e
m
b
e
rs
h

a
ve

a
s

h
a

re
d

u
n
d
e
rs
ta
n
d
in
g
o
f
h
o
w
e
a
ch

p
ro
je
ct
w
ith
in
t

h
e
p

ro
g
ra

m
w

o
u

ld
b

e
c
o
n
d
u
ct
e
d
.
0
.9

3
**

(M
C
3
)
K
e
y
p
ro
g
ra
m
m
e
m
b
e
rs
f
u
lly
u
n
d
e
rs
ta
n
d
t
h

e
r

u
le
s
a
n
d
p
ro

ce
d

u
re
s
fo

r
p
ro

b
le

m
s/

co
n
fli

ct
s

o
lv
in
g
.
0

.8
7

**
(M
C

4
)

K
e
y
p
ro
g
ra
m
m
e
m
b
e
rs
f
u
lly
u
n
d
e
rs
ta
n
d
t
h
e
im
p
le
m
e
n
ta
tio
n

st

ra
te

g
ie

s/
p
la

n
s

fo
r

o
u
r
e
n
te
rp
ri
se
p
ro
g
ra
m
.
0
.9

4
**

(M
C

5
)

T
h
e
p

ro
ce

d
u
re

f
o
r
o
u
r
e
n
te
rp
ri
se
p
ro
g
ra
m
im
p
le
m
e
n
ta
tio
n

w
a

s
w
e
ll
u
n
d
e
rs

to
o
d
a

t
th

e
t

im
e

o
f

th
is

p
ro
g
ra
m
s

ta
rt

e
d
.
0

.8
9

**

IT
g

o
a
l a

ch
ie

ve
m

e
n
t

(

G
A

1
)

G
o
in

g
b

y
th

e
r

e
su

lts
,

th
is
p
ro
g
ra

m
c

a
n
b
e
r
e
g
a
rd
e
d
a

s
su

cc
e

ss
fu

l.
0

.9
5
**
0

.9
7

0
.9

1
(G

A
2
)

A
ll

o
b
je

ct
iv

e
s/

g
o
a
ls
o
f
th
e
p
ro
g
ra

m
h

a
ve
b
e
e
n
s
a

tis
fie

d
.
0
.9
5
**
(G
A
3
)

F
ro

m
t

h
e
c

o
m

p
a
n
y’

s
p

e
rs
p
e
ct
iv
e
,
a
ll
p
ro
je
ct
g
o
a
ls

w
e

re
a

ch
ie
ve
d
.
0

.9
6

**
(G

A
4
)

T
h
e
o

rg
a
n
iz

a
tio
n
w
a
s
sa
tis
fie
d
w
ith
t
h
e
im
p
le
m
e
n
ta
tio
n
.
0
.9
5
**

**
p

< 0

.0
5.

96 JIANG, CHANG, CHEN, WANG, AND KLEIN

Table 4. Demographic Analysis (183 Firms; 549 Respondents)

Frequency Percent

Industry
Electronic/electrical 71 38.7
Commerce business 25 13.7
Information and communication technologies 14 7.7
Finance/management service 12 6.6
Integrated circuit design/semiconductor 7 3.8
Food 4 2.2
Plastics 4 2.2
Others 46 25.1

Program size (number of key program members)
≤ 5 22 12.0
6–10 44 24.0
11–15 31 16.9
16–20 34 18.6
≥ 21 51 27.9

Number of projects
≤ 3 118 64.5
≥ 4 65 35.5

ERP vendor
DSC 123 67.2
Oracle 31 16.9
SAP 8 4.4
Others 21 11.5

Time since go-live
< 1 month 22 12.0 1–3 months 65 35.5 4–7 months 67 36.6 8–11 months 24 13.1 > 12 months 5 2.7

Implemented period
≤ 6 months 54 29.5
7–11 months 76 41.5
1–2 years 38 20.8
> 2 years 15 8.2

χ2 = 295.98, df (degrees of freedom) = 189; χ2/df = 1.57, NFI (normed fit index) = 0.92,
CFI (comparative fit index) = 0.97, GFI (goodness-of-fit index) = 0.88, NNFI (non-
normed fit index) = 0.96, AGFI (adjusted goodness-of-fit index) = 0.83, RMSEA (root
mean square error of approximation) = 0.06. This model satisfies the recommended
levels [33]. Composite reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE) served
to demonstrate convergent validity. CR should be greater than 0.7 [33], and AVE, the
ratio of the sum of the variances captured by the construct and measurement variances,
should greater than 0.5 [7]. These criteria were clearly met, as shown in Table 3. We

ACHIEVING IT PROGRAM GOALS WITH INTEGRATIVE CONFLICT MANAGEMENT 97

took three steps to assess discriminant validity: (1) all items should have a higher
loading on the defined construct than on any other construct, (2) the square root of
the AVE for each construct should be higher than all the interconstruct correlations
with the construct [27]; and (3) the correlation between any pair of constructs should
below 0.80 [8]. As shown in Tables 5 and 6, strong discriminant validity is present
in this data set.

Assessment of Structural Model

The structural equation modeling analysis with maximum likelihood estimation in
AMOS 18 served to test the hypothesized paths. Estimation of the structural model
with six constructs resulted in good fit indices (χ2 = 437.04, df = 254; χ2/df = 1.72,
NFI = 0.88, CFI = 0.95, GFI = 0.84, NNFI = 0.94, AGFI = 0.80, RMSEA = 0.06).
The model has a statistical power greater than 0.9 [59]. The strong statistical power
enhances our confidence in the results of hypothesis testing, which is based on the
examination of the standardized coefficients shown on the paths in Figure 3. All the
hypothesized paths are significant at p < 0.05. Of the four control variables, program size (number of key program members) and time since go-live are significant.

Discussion

This sTudY suCCessfullY addresses an imporTanT researCh issue: the need for con-
ducting ICM approaches with program implementation members to determine imple-
mentation means for all projects within the program. Specifically, based on a survey
of key players in 183 IT programs, all of the expected relationships show statistical
significance. A shared understanding of goals and the goal interdependence among
projects within an IT program has a positive effect on program teams pursuing ICM, as
expected by program management practices. Employing constructive conflict resolution
techniques of ICM is a way to promote commitment toward overall program goals by
the key program members and reach an agreement on the tactics for bringing the IT

Table 5. Correlation Matrix and AVE

SGU GI ICM GC MC GA

Shared IT goal understanding
(SGU)

0.90

Goal interdependence (GI) 0.09 0.88
Integrative conflict management

(ICM)
0.29 0.15 0.93

Goal commitment (GC) 0.23 0.07 0.44 0.89
Delivery means consensus (MC) 0.27 0.20 0.48 0.62 0.91
IT goal achievement (GA) 0.26 0.11 0.37 0.39 0.37 0.95

Note: The boldface values on the diagonal are the square roots of the AVEs. Off-diagonal elements
are the correlations among constructs.

98 JIANG, CHANG, CHEN, WANG, AND KLEIN

T
ab

le
6

. C
ro

ss
-F

ac
to

r
L

oa
di

ng
s

It
em

s
IT
g

oa
l

ac
hi

ev
em

en
t

(G

A
)

G
oa

l
in
te
rd

ep
en

de
nc

e

(G
I)

In
te

gr
at

iv
e

co
nfl

ic
t

m
an

ag
em

en
t

(I

C
M
)

D
el

iv
er

y
m

ea
ns

co

ns
en

su
s

(M

C
)

S
ha

re
d

IT
g
oa
l

un
de

rs
ta

nd
in

g

(S
G

U
)

G
oa

l

co
m

m
it

m
en

t

(G
C
)
G
A

1
0
.9

5

0
.0

9

0
.3

3

0
.3

1

0
.1

8

0
.3
3

G
A

2
0

.9

5

0
.1

2

0
.3

7

0
.3
5

0
.2

8

0
.3
9

G
A

3
0
.9

6

0
.1
2

0
.3
7

0
.3
8

0
.2
5

0
.3
9

G
A

4
0
.9

5

0
.0
9

0
.3

4

0
.3
4

0
.2
6

0
.3
6

G
C

1
0
.3

4

0
.0
7

0
.3
7

0
.6

1

0
.2
1

0
.8
8

G
C

2
0
.3

5

0
.0
6

0
.4

2

0
.5

5

0
.2
4

0
.9
2

G
C

3
0
.3

5

0
.0
8

0
.4

0

0
.5
0

0
.1
6

0
.8
9

S
G

U
1

0
.1
9

0
.0
7

0
.2
5

0
.2
2

0
.9
0

0
.1
6

S
G

U
2

0
.1
9

0
.0
7

0
.2
4

0
.2
2

0
.9
2

0
.1
8

S
G

U
3

0
.3
1

0
.1
0

0
.2
9

0
.2
8

0
.9
2

0
.2
6

G
I1
0
.1
2

0
.8
0

0
.0
7

0
.0
6

0
.0
3

0
.0

2
G

I2
0
.0

2

0
.9
0

0
.1
1

0
.1
2

0
.0
2
0

.0
2

G

I3
0
.1

4

0
.9
2

0
.1
7

0
.2
7

0
.1
6

0
.1
4

IC
M

1
0
.3
2

0
.0
9

0
.9
1

0
.4
3

0
.2
4

0
.3
6

IC
M
2
0
.3
7

0
.1
4

0
.9
5

0
.4
5

0
.2
8

0
.4
3

IC
M
3
0
.3
6

0
.1
9

0
.9
2

0
.4
5

0
.2
7

0
.4
4

M
C
1
0
.3
4

0
.1
9

0
.4
5

0
.9
2

0
.2
4

0
.5
9

M
C
2
0
.3
8

0
.2
0

0
.4
5

0
.9
3

0
.2
5

0
.5
6

M
C
3
0
.3
7

0
.1
6

0
.4
4

0
.8
7

0
.2
3

0
.5
3

M
C

4
0
.3

2

0
.2
0

0
.4
7

0
.9
4

0
.2
6

0
.5
6

M
C

5
0
.2

6

0
.1
6

0
.3
7

0
.8
9

0
.2
5

0
.5
7

N
o
te

:
B

ol
df

ac
e

va
lu

es
i

nd
ic

at
e

hi
gh

es
t

lo
ad

in
g.

ACHIEVING IT PROGRAM GOALS WITH INTEGRATIVE CONFLICT MANAGEMENT 99

program’s goals to fruition. The relationships of this model were derived from two
separate theories to create a single illustrative picture of achieving program manage-
ment success to include both motivational goals and the processes required to attain
those goals. PGCT brings in the aspects of utilizing goals to motivate and develop a
common understanding across projects in an IT program. The focus of PGCT is to
examine the impact of the program goal formulation; however, it does not consider
the technical implementation issues associated with the designed program goals and
the interdependences among the projects within the program. In other words, it leaves
out consideration of the task-related conflict caused by project interdependences and
fails to consider how the conflict should be managed to generate the commitment to
overall goals and the tactics used to develop an IT product that deliver organizational
benefits. CCT provides a way to fill the void by indicating how differences among the
stakeholders in a project can lead to the desirable methods and attitudes agreement.
On its own, however, CCT cannot explain the roles that goals play in IT programs
situated in a different management structure. CCT implicitly assumes the existence of
a commonly accepted goal among team members, with all the members motivated by
the common goal. The logical meshing of PGCT and CCT raised to the program level
creates a picture that encompasses both motivational and process needs for program
management. Each relationship in the model of this study has implications for further
research as well as for practitioners.

One implication involves the current understanding of conflict in IT deployments
at the program level. While cross-functional teams may be more likely to produce
innovative IT outcomes, the potential for conflict and stagnation is also high [54].
Cross-functional teams are likely to experience tension caused by diverse professional
philosophies and competing goals from cross-functional representatives [94]. As a
consequence, tension, conflict, and misunderstanding among functional units may
win over cooperation and threaten commitment [11]. The existing studies, however,
focus only on the conflicts in an “intrateam” setting. The results of this study, however,

Figure 3. Structural Model Results

* Statistically significant at p < 0.05.

100 JIANG, CHANG, CHEN, WANG, AND KLEIN

indicate that interdependences among the projects within an IT program must also
be effectively addressed. In addition, the results of this study suggest that the exis-
tence of interdependence among related projects could also facilitate the adoption of
integrative problem-solving approaches to resolve the task-related conflicts among
projects. This result was suggested by a recent study [69] at the project level, which
observed a positive relationship between goal interdependence and the knowledge-
sharing behaviors among businesses and external IT consultant subgroups, leading
one to suspect that the property of interdependence is relevant at multiple structural
levels, but more prominent in programs of higher complexity than component projects.
The interdependence among projects must be identified and managed to ensure the
success of program.

A second implication of this study involves the view of shared IT goal understand-
ing being a major contributor to pursuing methods of ICM and on to the eventual
success of goal achievement in IT programs. This level of sharing goes beyond the
traditional concepts of knowledge sharing that includes business needs and process
methods. Nelson and Cooprider [64] observed that the absence of shared functional
understanding across teams can contribute to dysfunctional group dynamics, such as
the incomplete or inaccurate capture of user requirements. Klein and Jiang [46] argued
that agreements among IT stakeholders on evaluation criteria must be reached to pro-
vide directions for IT development and implementation. Ghobadi et al. [30] suggested
that generating a shared requirements understanding between IT and business users
is the biggest challenge for cross-functional IT development teams. Existing studies
focused on the shared understanding in the IT intrateam setting, whereas the shared
IT goal understanding in the current study examined the shared understanding of
program goals, objectives, and performance indicators across teams. Communicating
goals and ensuring their understanding may be an essential first step in an IT program
prior to program deployment activities to facilitate integrative conflict management
of delivery means in the program setting.

Finally, directly confronting conflict in a positive fashion improves the agreement
as to how to complete the program as well as adds to the commitment associated with
the program goals. Based on Chang’s model [18], the level of goal commitment is
a crucial aspect of achieving desired business goals of the IT program. The current
study, however, provides an explanation as to how to develop goal commitment that
is desirable in the interteam context of IT programs—adopting integrative problem-
solving approaches for resolving the task-related conflicts. Because conflicts tend to
be unavoidable in the IT context, this positive result is encouraging for the prospects
of building success in either intrateam or interteam contexts [3, 61]. These conse-
quents of integrative approaches may have a stronger implication in Asian and other
collectivist societies. Asians tend to use avoidance or accommodating approaches to
conflict [45]. The positive outcomes found in this study, however, indicate that taking
an ICM approach can have similar benefits in a collectivist society, as is suggested
by Western cultures.

In spite of the encouraging results, this study has a few limitations. First, all of the
enterprise system programs in our sample were implemented successfully, or at least

ACHIEVING IT PROGRAM GOALS WITH INTEGRATIVE CONFLICT MANAGEMENT 101

went live. Although enterprise systems are typically large and complex, and represent
a variety of functional areas, they do not proceed through all stages of an in-house
development. Furthermore, situations forcing abandonment of enterprise programs will
not be contained in the sample, leading to potential bias toward systems that achieved
implementation. Conclusions regarding causes of failure cannot be made with the
data, placing a boundary on PGCT as extended in this study. Of similar concern is our
focus on ICM techniques, ignoring other possible approaches to conflict management
and negotiation. We encourage future studies to examine other conflict management
approaches to confirm and generalize the results of this study.

IT management must take notice of the implications of this study. The importance
of goal understanding and project goal interdependence suggest that top management
and IT program managers must ensure that key program members understand both the
purpose of the IT program and how the individual projects are interrelated. The more a
program relates to broader organizational goals, the more important it becomes because
of the potential problems due to diversified stakeholders. Front-end communication,
perhaps via kick-off practices, is essential to promote shared understanding. Ques-
tions about the intended results of the program should be clarified prior to program
commencement. The extent of the interdependence among projects within the IT
program should be formally evaluated to motivate cooperative interaction, especially
in the management of inevitable conflicts.

Conflict, as IT managers commonly experience it, has the potential to destroy the
quality and timeliness of efforts by minimizing effective communication, creating
inferior technical performance, contributing to schedule slippage, and perhaps even
resulting in work stoppage. The positive effects of ICM on goal commitment and
delivery means consensus suggest that conflicts can be beneficial to IT program teams
when resolved constructively. IT program managers must be prepared to conduct
ICM processes, or similar approaches. More importantly, program managers and top
managers should be involved in the conflict resolution process to understand factors
causing the conflict; as a result, top management and program managers are able to
make organizational adjustments to resources assigned to the program and the reward
systems, or take steps to improve communication processes.

Finally, management studies suggest that an individual’s competency or capacity
for performing required tasks and the individual’s assessed likelihood of achieving
specific outcomes will determine one’s commitment. ICM can increase the program
team’s confidence and capability through the sharing of ideas and discussion of dif-
ferences [41]. Program managers should involve all the key program members to
propose and discuss the implementation strategies, plans, and methods. Each project
team must understand and agree on these implementation means, and are best arrived
at through integrative approaches.

Conclusions

an iT program musT resolve anY differenCes among proJeCTs that might impede
progress toward the overall goals of realizing business potential through technology.

102 JIANG, CHANG, CHEN, WANG, AND KLEIN

This can be problematic due to the interdependences of projects and the different
means that the individual project teams may employ to pursue their own goals, rather
than those of the program. The conflicts that arise in a situation of multiple, differ-
ing goals being forced toward a common objective must be resolved in the existing
framework of shared goals and interdependences. Central tenets related to research
on goals in programs focus on the importance of all project teams being committed
to a goal that has a common understanding among the multiple projects, but these
models fail to consider the importance of resolving conflicting views on how best to
attain overall goals as well as independent goals of the individual projects. To this
end, an existing model of goal attainment in programs is extended to consider positive
techniques for conflict resolution under preconditions of the interrelatedness of proj-
ects and shared goals. Furthermore, existing work focuses on intrateam conflict and
not the interteam context. Thus, the theories are translated to a different level within
an organization along with expanded consideration of the roles of goal conditions.
The resulting model is substantially more complete, as it now considers agreement
on the means to achieve delivery of technology-related business objectives and the
unique environmental conditions that were not part of either component of the merged
model. The results confirm that determination of means to deliver the technology is
a critical aspect in promoting goal commitment and eventually achieving desired
business outcomes of IT.

referenCes
1. Amason, A.C. Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on

strategic decision making: Resolving a paradox for top management teams. Academy of Man-
agement Journal, 39, 1 (1996), 123–148.

2. Andres, H.P., and Zmud, R.W. A Contingency approach to software project coordination.
Journal of Management Information Systems, 18, 3 (Winter 2001–2), 41–71.

3. Arazy, O.; Nov, O.; Patterson, R.; and Yeo, L. Information quality in Wikipedia: The
effects of group composition and task conflict. Journal of Management Information Systems,
27, 4 (Spring 2011), 71–78.

4. Arias-Aranda, D., and Bustinza-Sanchez, O. Entrepreneurial attitude and conflict manage-
ment through business simulations. Industrial Management and Data System, 109, 8 (2009),
1101–1117.

5. Aubé, C., and Rousseau, V. Team goal commitment and team effectiveness: The role
of task interdependence and supportive behaviors. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and
Practice, 9, 3 (2005), 189–204.

6. Austin, J.T., and Vancouver, J.B. Goal constructs in psychology: Structure, process, and
content. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 3 (1996), 338–375.

7. Bagozzi, R.P., and Yi, Y. On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 16, 1 (1988), 74–94.

8. Bagozzi, R.P.; Yi, Y.; and Phillips, L.W. Assessing construct validity in organizational
research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 3 (1991), 421–458.

9. Bandura, A., and Cervone, D. Self-evaluative and self-efficacy mechanisms governing
the motivational effects of goal systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 5
(1983), 1017–1028.

10. Barki, H., and Hartwick, J. User participation, conflict, and conflict resolution: The me-
diating roles of influence. Information Systems Research, 5, 4 (1994), 422–438.

11. Barki, H., and Hartwick, J. Interpersonal conflict and its management in information
system development. MIS Quarterly, 25, 2 (2001), 195–228.

ACHIEVING IT PROGRAM GOALS WITH INTEGRATIVE CONFLICT MANAGEMENT 103

12. Bayraktar, E.; Demirbag, M.; Lenny Koh, S.C.; Tatoglu, E.; and Zaim, H. A causal analysis
of the impact of information systems and supply chain management practices on operational
performance: Evidence from manufacturing SMEs in Turkey. International Journal of Produc-
tion Economics, 122, 1 (2009), 133–149.

13. Behfar, K.; Peterson, R.; Mannix, E.; and Trochim, W. The critical role of conflict resolu-
tion in teams: A close look at the links between conflict type, conflict management strategies,
and team outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 2 (2008), 170–188.

14. Bostrom, R.P., and Heinen, J.S. MIS problems and failures: A socio-technical perspective.
MIS Quarterly, 1, 3 (1997), 17–32.

15. Boutross, D. Enterprise program management: A Sprint case study. Journal of Corporate
Real Estate, 7, 3 (2005), 199–209.

16. Cannon-Bowers, J.A., and Salas, E. Reflections on shared cognition. Journal of Organi-
zational Behavior, 22, 2 (2001), 195–202.

17. Carver, C.S., and Scheier, M.F. Attention and Self-Regulation: A Control-Theory Approach
to Human Behavior. New York: Springer, 1981.

18. Chang, J.Y.T. Effect of goal consensus among key members of information technology
program implementation on program efficiency and system-business alignment. Ph.D. disserta-
tion, National Central University, Taiwan, 2012.

19. Chen, G., and Kanfer, R. Toward a systems theory of motivation behavior in work teams.
In B.M. Staw (ed.), Research in Organizational Behavior: An Annual Series of Analytical Es-
says and Critical Reviews, vol. 7. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2006, pp. 223–267.

20. Chen, G.; Liu, C.H.; and Tjosvold, D. Conflict management for effective top management
teams and innovation in China. Journal of Management Studies, 42, 2 (2005), 277–300.

21. Chen, Y.F.; Tjosvold, D.; and Su, S.F. Goal interdependence for working across cultural
boundaries: Chinese employees with foreign managers. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 29, 4 (2005), 429–447.

22. Crawford, J.K. Portfolio management: Overview and best practices. In J. Knutson (ed.),
Project Management for Business Professionals: A Comprehensive Guide. New York: John
Wiley & Sons, 2001, pp. 33–48.

23. DeShon, R.P.; Kozlowski, S.W.J.; Schmidt, A.M.; Milner, K.R.; and Wiechmann, D.
A multi-goal, multilevel model of feedback effects on the regulation of individual and team
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 6 (2004), 1035–1056.

24. Deutsch, M. The Resolution of Conflict. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1973.
25. Deutsch, M. Sixty years of conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management, 1, 3

(1990), 237–263.
26. Elbanna, A. Rethinking IS project boundaries in practice: A multiple-projects perspective.

Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 19, 1 (2010), 39–51.
27. Fornell, C., and Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable

variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 1 (1981), 39–50.
28. Foster, S.T., and Franz, C.R. User involvement during information systems development:

A comparison of analyst and user perceptions of system acceptance. Journal of Engineering
and Technology Management, 16, 3 (1999), 329–348.

29. Furumo, K. The impact of conflict and conflict management style on deadbeats and desert-
ers in virtual teams. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 49, 4 (2009), 66–73.

30. Ghobadi, S.; Daneshgar, F.D.; and Low, G. A model of cross-functional coopetition in
software development project teams. In W. Abramowicz (ed.), Business Information Systems.
Berlin: Springer, 2010, pp. 12–22.

31. Gill, J., and Butler, R.J. Managing instability in cross-cultural alliances. Long Range
Planning, 36, 6 (2003), 543–563.

32. Goo, J.; Kishore, R.; Rao, H.R.; and Nam, K. The role of service level agreements in
relational management of information technology outsourcing: An empirical study. MIS Quar-
terly, 33, 1 (2009), 119–146.

33. Hair, J.F.; Anderson, R.E.; Tatham, R.L.; and Black, W.C. Multivariate Data Analysis.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1995.

34. Hatzakis, T.; Lycett, M.; and Serrano, A. A programme management approach for ensur-
ing curriculum coherence in IS (higher) education. European Journal of Information Systems,
16, 5 (2007), 643–657.

104 JIANG, CHANG, CHEN, WANG, AND KLEIN

35. Hoegl, M., and Gemuenden, H.G. Teamwork quality and the success of innovative
projects: A theoretical concept and empirical evidence. Organizational Science, 12, 4 (2001),
435–449.

36. Hollenbeck, J.R., and Klein, H.J. Goal commitment and the goal-setting process: Prob-
lems, prospects, and proposals for future research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 2 (1987),
212–220.

37. Hollenbeck, J.R.; Williams, C.L.; and Klein, H.J. An empirical examination of the anteced-
ents of commitment to difficult goals. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 1 (1989), 18–23.

38. Janssen, O.; Van de Vliert, E.; and Veenstra, C. How task and person conflict shape the
role of positive interdependence in management teams. Journal of Management, 25, 2 (1999),
117–142.

39. Johnson, D.W.; Johnson, R.T.; and Stanne, M.B. Impact of goal and resource interdepen-
dence on problem-solving success. Journal of Social Psychology, 129, 5 (1989), 621–629.

40. Johnson, D.W.; Johnson, R.T.; and Tjosvold, D. Constructive controversy: The value
of intellectual opposition. In M. Deutsch and P.T. Coleman (eds.), The Handbook of Conflict
Resolution: Theory and Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2000, pp. 65–85.

41. Kankanhalli, A.; Tan, B.C.Y.; and Wei, K.K. Conflict and performance in global virtual
teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 23, 3 (Winter 2006–7), 237–274.

42. Karau, S.J., and Williams, K.D. Social loafing: A meta-analysis review and theoretical
integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 4 (1993), 681–706.

43. Kellermanns, F.W.; Walter, J.; Lechner, C.; and Floyd, S.W. The lack of consensus about
strategic consensus: Advancing theory and research. Journal of Management, 31, 5 (2005),
719–737.

44. Khamooshi, H., and Cioffi, D.F. Program risk contingency budget planning. IEEE Trans-
actions on Engineering Management, 56, 1 (2009), 171–179.

45. Kim, T.Y.; Wang, C.; Kondo, M.; and Kim T.H. Conflict management styles: The differ-
ences among the Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans. International Journal of Conflict Manage-
ment, 18, 1 (2007), 23–41.

46. Klein, G., and Jiang, J.J. Seeking consonance in information systems. Journal of Systems &
Software, 56, 2 (2001), 195–202.

47. Klein, H.J.; Wesson, M.J.; Hollenbeck, J.R.; and Alge, B.J. Goal commitment and the
goal-setting process: Conceptual clarification and empirical synthesis. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 84, 6 (1999), 885–896.

48. Klimoski, R., and Mohammed, S. Team mental model: Construct or metaphor? Journal
of Management, 20, 2 (1994), 403–437.

49. Ko, D.G.; Kirsch, L.J.; and King, W.R. Antecedents of knowledge transfer from consultants
to clients in enterprise system implementations. MIS Quarterly, 29, 1 (2005), 59–85.

50. Koh, S.C.L.; Gunasekaran, A.; and Goodman, T. Drivers, barriers and critical success
factors for ERP II implementation in supply chains: A critical analysis. Journal of Strategic
Information Systems, 20, 4 (2011), 385–402.

51. Koh, S.C.L.; Gunasekaran, A.; and Rajkumar, D. ERP II: The involvement, benefits
and impediments of collaborative information sharing. International Journal of Production
Economics, 113, 1 (2008), 245–268.

52. Latham, G.P., and Pinder, C.C. Work motivation theory and research at the dawn of the
twenty-first century. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 1 (2005), 485–516.

53. Lawshe, C.H. A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology, 28, 4
(1975), 563–575.

54. Levina, N. Collaborating on multiparty information systems development projects: A
collective reflection-in-action view. Information Systems Research, 16, 2 (2005), 109–130.

55. Liang, T.P.; Liu, C.C.; Lin, T.M.; and Lin, B. Effect of team diversity on software project
performance. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 107, 5 (2007), 636–653.

56. Liang, T.P.; Wu, J.C.H.; Jiang, J.J.; and Klein, G. The impact of value diversity on in-
formation system development projects. International Journal of Project Management, 30, 6
(2012), 731–739.

57. Lim, B.C., and Klein, K.J. Team mental models and team performance: A field study of
the effects of team mental model similarity and accuracy. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
27, 4 (2006), 403–418.

ACHIEVING IT PROGRAM GOALS WITH INTEGRATIVE CONFLICT MANAGEMENT 105

58. Locke, E.A., and Latham, G.P. Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and
task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57, 9 (2002), 705–717.

59. MacCallum, R.C.; Browne, M. W.; and Sugawara, H.M. Power analysis and determina-
tion of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1, 2 (1996),
130–149.

60. March, J.G., and Simon, H.A. Organizations. New York: Wiley, 1958.
61. Meissonier, R., and Houzé, E. Toward an “IT conflict-resistance theory”: Action re-

search during IT pre-implementation. European Journal of Information Systems, 19, 5 (2010),
540–561.

62. Milosevic, D.Z.; Martinelli, R.J.; and Waddell, J.M. Program Management for Improved
Business Results. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2007.

63. Miranda, S.M., and Bostrom, R.P. The impact of group support systems on group con-
flict and conflict management. Journal of Management Information Systems, 10, 3 (Winter
1993–94), 63–95.

64. Nelson, K., and Cooprider, J. The contribution of shared knowledge to IS group perfor-
mance. MIS Quarterly, 20, 4 (1996), 409–429.

65. Office of Government Commerce. Managing Successful Programmes, 3d ed. Norwich,
UK, 2007.

66. Ouchi, W.G. Markets, bureaucracies, and clans. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25,
1 (1980), 129–141.

67. Parolia, N.; Jiang, J.J.; Klein, G.; and Sheu, S. The contribution of resource interdepen-
dence to IT program performance: A social interdependence perspective. International Journal
of Project Management, 29, 3 (2011), 313–324.

68. Paul, S.; Samarah, I.M.; Seetharaman, P.; and Mykytyn, P.P., Jr. An empirical investigation
of collaborative conflict management style in group support system–based global virtual teams.
Journal of Management Information Systems, 21, 3 (Winter 2004–5), 185–222.

69. Pee, L.G.; Kankanhalli, A.; and Kim, H.W. Knowledge sharing in information systems
development: A social interdependence perspective. Journal of the Association for Information
Systems, 11, 10 (2010), 550–575.

70. Pellegrinelli, S. Programme management: Organising project-based change. International
Journal of Project Management, 15, 3 (1997), 141–149.

71. Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; and Podsakoff, N.P. Sources of method bias in social
science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63
(2012), 539–569.

72. Polit, D.; Beck, C.T.; and Owen, S.V. Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity?
Appraisal and recommendations. Research in Nursing and Health, 30, 4 (2007), 459–467.

73. Renn, R.W. Moderation by goal commitment of the feedback–performance relationship:
Theoretical explanation and preliminary study. Human Resource Management Review, 13, 4
(2003), 561–580.

74. Ribbers, P., and Schoo, K. Program management and complexity of ERP implementations.
Engineering Management Journal, 14, 2 (2002), 45–49.

75. Ritson, G.; Johansen, E.; and Osborne, A. Successful program wanted: Exploring the
impact of alignment. Project Management Journal, 43, 1 (2012), 21–36.

76. Robey, D.; Farrow, D.; and Franz, C.R. Group process and conflict in system development.
Management Science, 35, 10 (1989), 1172–1189.

77. Robey, D.; Smith, L.A.; and Vijayasarathy, L.R. Perceptions of conflict and success in
information systems development projects. Journal of Management Information Systems, 10,
1 (Summer 1993), 123–139.

78. Salas, E.; Sims, D.E.; and Burke, C.S. Is there a “big five” in teamwork? Small Group
Research, 36, 5 (2005) 555–598.

79. Sawyer, S., and Guinan, P.J. Software development: Processes and performance. IBM
System Journal, 37, 4 (1998), 552–569.

80. Seddon, P.B.; Calyert, C.; and Yang, S. A multi-project model of key factors affecting
organizational benefits from enterprise systems. MIS Quarterly, 34, 2 (2010), 305–328.

81. Sherif, K.; Zmud, R.W.; and Bowne, G.J. Managing peer-to-peer conflicts in disruptive
information technology innovations: The case of software reuse. MIS Quarterly, 30, 2 (2006),
339–356.

106 JIANG, CHANG, CHEN, WANG, AND KLEIN

82. Sivo, S.A.; Saunders, C.; Chang, Q.; and Jiang, J.J. How low should you go? Low response
rates and the validity of inference in IS questionnaire research. Journal of the Association for
Information Systems, 7, 6 (2008), 351–414.

83. Snead, K.C., and Ndede-Amadi, A.A. Attributional bias as a source of conflict between
users and analysts in an information systems development context—Hypotheses development.
Systemic Practice and Action Research, 15, 5 (2002), 353–365.

84. Stagner, R. Corporate decision making: An empirical study. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 53, 1 (1969), 1–13.

85. Sussman, S.W., and Guinan, P.J. Antidotes for high complexity and ambiguity in software
development. Information & Management, 36, 1 (1999), 23–35.

86. Teeni, D. A cognitive affective model of organizational communication for designing IT.
MIS Quarterly, 25, 2 (2001), 251–312.

87. Thiry, M. Combining value and project management into an effective programme manage-
ment model. International Journal of Project Management, 20, 3 (2002), 221–227.

88. Thiry, M. Program Management. Gower, UK: MGP Books Group, 2010.
89. Tichy, M.; Johnson, D.W.; Johnson, R.T.; and Roseth, C.J. The impact of construc-

tive controversy on moral development. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40, 4 (2010),
765–787.

90. Tjosvold, D. The conflict-positive organization: It depends upon us. Journal of Organi-
zational Behavior, 29, 1 (2008), 19–28.

91. Wang, E.T.G.; Chen, H.G.; Jiang, J.J.; and Klein, G. Interaction quality between IS
professionals and users: Impacting conflict and project performance. Journal of Information
Science, 31, 4 (2005), 273–282.

92. West, M.A. Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An integrative model of creativity
and innovation implementation in work groups. Applied Psychology: An International Review,
51, 3 (2002), 355–387.

93. Winch, G.; Usmani, A.; and Edkins, A. Towards total project quality: A gap analysis ap-
proach. Construction Management and Economics, 16, 2 (1998), 193–207.

94. Witt, L.A.; Hilton, T.F.; and Hochwarter, W.A. Addressing politics in matrix teams.
Group & Organization Management, 26, 2 (2001), 230–247.

95. Yeh, Q., and Tsai, C. Two conflict potentials during IS development. Information &
Management, 39, 2 (2001), 135–149.

Copyright of Journal of Management Information Systems is the property of M.E. Sharpe Inc.
and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without
the copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users may print, download, or
email articles for individual use.