The Influence of Team Task Conflict and Team Communication on Employee Life Satisfaction:
Beyond the Effects of Work-Family Conflict
Professor Jarrod M. Haar
School of Management, College of Business Massey University (Albany)
Private Bag 102904 North Shore City 0745
and
Professor Ted E.Zorn
Pro-Vice Chancellor’s Office, College of Business
Massey University (Albany)
Private Bag 102904 North Shore City 0745 [email protected]
Page 1 of 23 ANZAM 2013
The Influence of Team Task Conflict and Team Communication on Employee Life Satisfaction:
Beyond the Effects of Work-Family Conflict
This paper takes a multi-level approach (298 employees from 80 teams) where task conflict and
communication were captured at the team level and work-family conflict at the individual level, and
tests these towards individual life satisfaction. Overall, work-family conflict was positively related to
team task conflict, negatively to life satisfaction, and both work-family and family-work conflict were
negatively related to team communication. Team communication was negatively related to team task
conflict and positively to life satisfaction, and team task conflict was negatively related and team
communication positively related to life satisfaction. Importantly, the influence of team task conflict
towards life satisfaction was fully mediated by team communication. Findings highlight the
importance of team communication towards understanding employee life satisfaction.
1. Introduction
Research has indicated that organizations are increasingly reliant on work teams (LaFollette, Hornsby,
Smith & Novak, 1996). Team work and the associated dynamics are likely to play an important role
for employees and their organization, especially given teams can produce conflict which leads to
stress (Chung-Yan & Moeller, 2010). Roloff (1987) stated that “conflict occurs when members
engage in activities that are incompatible with those of colleagues within their network” (p. 496). This
is similar to work-family conflict, which suggests that work and family roles can provide challenges
and issues for employees (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985) that are highly detrimental (Mesmer-Magnus
& Viswesvaran, 2005). Despite this theoretic alignment, few studies compare the influence of work
and family roles on conflict occurring in teams. Work-family issues are of vital importance in
understanding work-life balance in today’s diverse workplace (Haar, 2013).
Another gap in the literature is the outcome explored in the present study, as team studies
typically focus on job outcomes such as job satisfaction (e.g., Jackson & Schuler, 1985). Chung-Yan
and Moeller (2010) noted that the influence of workplace conflict can extend beyond the workplace to
include mental health outcomes, but team studies have not explored life satisfaction, despite the meta-
analysis support for such an influence from individual work-family conflict (Kossek & Ozeki, 1998).
Indeed, towards life satisfaction, Mesmer-Magnus and Viswesvaran (2005) found conflict originating
Page 2 of 23ANZAM 2013
in the workplace was the dominant predictor. Finally, Rahim (2002) asserts that communication
within teams might help resolve conflict, and Jones, Watson, Gardner, and Gallois (2004) noted the
need for multi-level analysis of the effects of communication to better understand how it operates.
The present study make three contributions by bringing these related, but presently, untapped
lines of research, together. (1), in addition to exploring work-family conflict on life satisfaction, we
test, using multi-level analysis, individual employee work-family and family-work conflict and find
them both detrimentally linked to team communication (how well a team communicates and shares
ideas), while work-family conflict is positively related to team task conflict (conflict between team
members towards their tasks), indicating individual conflict can erode a team’s ability to
communicate effectively and focus on their tasks. (2), individual work-family conflict and team
communication are found to have direct effects towards team task conflict, with team communication
partially mediating the influence of work-family conflict. Finally, (3), testing a unique outcome (life
satisfaction) on team constructs, we again find support for direct effects from both individual and
team dimensions, with team communications fully mediating the direct effects of team task conflict.
Overall, we find that both individual and team conflict are detrimental to employee outcomes, but
team communication appears to be a key variable in understanding these relationships.
2. Theory and Hypotheses
2.1. Work-Family Conflict
Greenhaus and Beutell (1985) defined work-family conflict as “participation in the work (family) role
is made more difficult by virtue of participation in the family (work) role” (p.77). Haar (2013)
asserted that because employees participate in many roles, they register conflict “due to unavailability
of resources for participation in a role” (p. 2). Unlike typical organizational based constructs, work-
family conflict occurs bi-directionally, with conflict originating in either the workplace or the home
and entering the other domain. These are typically referred to as work-family conflict (WFC) and
family-work conflict (FWC). WFC and FWC relate to a number of different factors, including time-,
strain- and behavior-based conflict sources. For example, spending excessive time at work may leave
little time for family, which creates problems. Conversely, anxiety and fatigue from personal issues at
home may flow into the workplace, having detrimental consequences. The outcomes of work-family
Page 3 of 23 ANZAM 2013
conflict on employees are well documented. In their meta-analysis, Eby, Casper, Lockwood,
Bordeaux and Brinleya (2005) noted that conflict has been shown to be detrimental to a wide range of
employee outcomes, including non-work outcomes. As noted above, meta-analyses have shown
strong support for links between work-family conflict and life satisfaction (Kossek & Ozeki, 1998;
Mesmer-Magnus & Viswesvaran, 2005). This leads to our initial hypothesis.
Hypothesis 1: Work-family conflict will be negatively related to life satisfaction.
2.2 Teamwork
While employee studies typically focus on the individual, this does not reflect typical workplace
contexts. As work teams become more popular (Lester, Meglino & Korsgaard, 2002), an increasing
number of researchers have turned their attention to teams (e.g. De Dreu & Weingart, 2003). Keyton
(1993) defined a work team as a group within an organization, which is established and maintained in
order to complete a common task, and where members are collectively responsible for the task. When
employees work towards a common task they become interdependent on each other (Bertcher, 1994)
and thus how team members relate to one another can impact upon the team. Hunter, Perry, Carlson,
and Smith (2010) found team resources based on “critical social resources at work that help
individuals to grow and develop” (p. 305) were positively related to work-family enrichment and
project satisfaction. As such, team members can provide positive enhancing influences in the
workplace. Despite this, not all the interactions with team members are positive.
2.3. Team Conflict
Olaniran (2010) noted that when people work in teams that conflict is inevitable. Conflict has been
defined as perceived incompatibilities (Boulding, 1963), or the belief that the parties involved are
incompatible, based on either the views they hold or their personalities (Jehn, 1995). In the context of
work teams, Martínez -Moreno, González-Navarro, Zornoza and Ripoll (2009) defined conflict as a
“process emerging from team members’ tension for real or perceived differences” (p. 252). Conflict is
a result of the substance of the task or the group’s interpersonal relations (Jehn, 1995). Irrespective of
its genesis, conflict is a form of distress (Spell, Bezrukova, Haar & Spell, 2011), and when a team is
experiencing conflict, the ability of members to work as a team is inhibited (Jehn, 1995).
Page 4 of 23ANZAM 2013
The present study focuses on task conflict, which Weingart, Todorova, and Cronin (2010)
noted is central in an employees’ core work activity, and relates to workplace problem solving and
decision making. Hinds and Bailey (2003) defined task conflict as “disagreements focused on work
content” (p. 616), and is likely to result when team members have different understandings of their
particular tasks (Jehn et al. 1997). Spell et al. (2011) provided the example of “group
members’disagreements over different opinions or viewpoints related to work” (p. 311). Hinds and
Bailey (2003) stated “task conflict may emerge because some team members are operating with
incomplete information” (p. 629), and they noted that while some studies find a positive relationship
between task conflict and performance, these are not consistent. Indeed, Jehn et al. (1997) found
teams task conflict was negatively related to performance. Our approach towards team task conflict is
warranted given Polzer, Crisp, Jarvenpaa, and Kim (2006) highlighted the importance of
understanding the innate processes of group functioning.
Although research has indicated that conflict can have beneficial effects, such as encouraging
greater cognitive understanding (Simons & Peterson, 2000), there is evidence that too much conflict
produces negative outcomes (Gersick, 1989). For example, Jehn (1995) found that group members
generally felt that task conflict was detrimental and contributed to low performance and
dissatisfaction. In their meta-analysis, De Dreu and Weingart (2003) stated that team conflict is
inexorably detrimental and produces “tension, antagonism, and distracts team members from
performing the task” (p. 741). Despite the similarities with task conflict and work-family conflict, the
links between these constructs is neglected. We argue that while work-family conflict originates from
different domains (work and family) and from different sources (time, strain and behavior), it is still
likely to influence task conflict amongst team members. Spell et al. (2011) suggests that task conflict
is central to employe core work function and the present study suggests that conflict originating in the
workplace and interfering with home life, are likely to create additional disagreements between team
members, creating higher task conflict amongst team members. Consequently, employees dealing
with work or family issues are more likely to create additional tensions within their work teams
resulting in greater team task conflict. This leads to the following hypothesis.
Hypothesis 2: Work-family conflict will be positively related to team task conflict.
Page 5 of 23 ANZAM 2013
2.3.1. Team Task Conflict and Outcomes
Jehn (1995) suggests that conflict within teams’ means members will become less receptive to the
ideas of other team members and may respond by becoming defensive, hampering the completion of
tasks and attention towards decision-making (Ayoko, 2007). Ultimately, team conflict can influence
performance. Ayoko (2007) suggests that when team members experience conflict they often choose
to compete with each other, leading to less team efficacy, but also higher feelings of distrust and
negative emotions. Overall, high levels of conflict are detrimental to team members, both personally
and in terms of their productivity at work (Jehn, 1995). Brett, Shapiro, and Lytle (1998) noted that
employee issues may be a stressor that leads to ever-increasing spirals of task conflict, and Spell et al.
(2011) stated that “ultimately, conflict is a form of distress; it is a behavioral analogue of stress and a
reaction of group members” (p. 312) to various workplace issues. In their meta-analysis of 45 studies
with 13,000 employees, Jackson and Schuler (1985) found that conflict was significantly related to
job satisfaction and other types of work-related satisfaction (e.g., supervision, pay, advancement), as
well as commitment, involvement and turnover. Overall, they concluded that conflict has a substantial
and significant influence on affective reactions. That Jackson and Schuler (1985) found job
satisfaction to be the most commonly studied outcome further highlights how the literature fails to
account for its influence beyond the workplace, despite calls for greater exploration (Chung-Yan &
Moeller, 2010). Similarly, in their meta-analysis of team task conflict, De Dreu and Weingart (2003)
found team task conflict negatively related to team member satisfaction. However, the destructive
effects of conflict in the workplace are not experienced only in situ, but can spillover into team
members’ personal and family lives as previous research has highlighted the time and energy that the
resolution and handling of conflict demands (Baron, 1991; Jehn, 1995).
The present study seeks to explore this gap in the literature by testing the effects of team task
conflict on the life satisfaction of individual team members. While there is strong meta-analytical
evidence for the influence of conflict on job satisfaction (Jackson & Schuler, 1985), the links between
task conflict and life satisfaction are likely to be similar due to the similarities between job and life
satisfaction (Iverson & Maguire, 2000). Judge and Colquitt (2004) noted that conflict is a commonly
examined variable in the stressor domain. As such, employees who feel their team is experiencing
Page 6 of 23ANZAM 2013
disagreements on work content due to different understandings of their particular tasks are likely to
create pressure that ultimately creates a stressor than impacts satisfaction with life. This is because
such pressures spillover beyond the workplace (Kossek & Ozeki, 1998) and thus can have a
detrimental influence on life satisfaction. Meta-analysis from the conflict literature shows that such
role spillover can be detrimental to life satisfaction (Kossek & Ozeki, 1998), and indeed Mesmer-
Magnus and Viswesvaran (2005) meta-analysis findings suggest work-family conflict is the dominant
predictor of life satisfaction, accounting for greater variance than family-work conflict, leading to:
Hypothesis 3: Team task conflict will be negatively related to life satisfaction.
2.4. Team Communication
In addition to a detrimental team task conflict, we also explore a potentially positive team factor via
communication. Goris (2007) noted that organizations are social systems, and, as such, operate
through processes of communication. Indeed, Frone and Major (1988) asserted that communication is
perhaps the fundamental process of most organizations. Research suggests that communication is
linked to organizational success (Quirke, 1992) as well as employee satisfaction (Goris, 2007). There
is also a general consensus that communication plays a significant role in employees’ job performance
and job satisfaction (Pettit et al., 1997; Goris, 2007) and efficient communication can enable group
members to keep relationships going, providing solutions to conflict arising out of incompatibilities
(Arslan, Hamarta & Uslu, 2010). Overall, communication can aid group performance (Campion,
Medsker, & Higgs, 1993) and good group relations (Lester et al., 2002).
2.4.1. Team Communication and Outcomes
Various communication factors have been found to positively relate with both organizational
commitment and job satisfaction (Chen, Silverthorne & Hung, 2006; Goris, 2007). Orpen (1997)
found that the quality of communication influenced both work motivation and job satisfaction, while
Chen et al. (2006) found communication was positively linked to job performance. The benefits
towards performance have also held when tested at the team-level (Stewart & Barrick, 2000). Scott,
Connaughton, Diaz-Saenz, Maguire, Ramirez, Richardson, et al. (1999) found that communication
factors were significantly related to turnover intentions, stating “communication variables are
Page 7 of 23 ANZAM 2013
important contributors to one’s intent to leave” (p. 423). Finally, Leiter (1988) found communication
was negatively related to job burnout, highlighting an influence on non-work outcomes.
Multiple studies have also demonstrated the effectiveness of communications in increasing
team cooperation and reducing conflict (Langbein & Jorstad, 2004). For example, Stewart and Barrick
(2000) found team communication was significantly and positively related to performance,
accounting for 13 percent of variance. In summation, there is strong evidence indicating that
communication within organizations and teams can have a favourable impact on job satisfaction
(Goris, 2007), and as noted earlier, a number of scholars have found that job satisfaction is
significantly related to life satisfaction (Rode, 2004). This ‘spillover effect’ from work to home life
has been attributed to the fact that work is a central activity in a number of employees’ lives (Rode,
2004). As such, extending the literature to determine the influence that communication has on life
satisfaction has some indirect support. The present study hypothesizes that team communication will
directly influence two outcomes: (1) team task conflict and (2) individual employee life satisfaction.
We suggest that employees who experience a team environment where ideas are shared and members
are understood are less likely to experience work content disagreements with team members having
better understandings of their particular tasks, and thus having less team task conflict. This has some
empirical support (e.g., Langbein & Jorstad, 2004). Furthermore, building on the findings of Leiter
(1988), we argue that better team communication may also spillover beyond the workplace, leaving
employees more satisfied with life. This leads to the following hypotheses.
Hypothesis 4: Team communication will be negatively related to team task conflict.
Hypothesis 5: Team communication will be positively related to life satisfaction.
In addition to the direct effects of team communication on team task conflict and individual
life satisfaction, we also draw back into the literature discussed above to suggest that individual team
members with issues at work (WFC) and at home (FWC) might also influence their ability to
communicate with their team members. So, team members with workplace problems intruding into
the home may feel withdrawn and resentful of their teams, thus leading to reduced efficiency in their
communications. Similarly, home issues entering the workplace may leave team members distracted
and less likely to engage in effective communication. This leads to our last hypothesized direct effect.
Page 8 of 23ANZAM 2013
Hypothesis 6: Work-family conflict will be negatively related to team communication.
Figure 1 shows the overall hypothesized model: << Insert Figure 1 about here >>
3. Method
3.1. Sample and Procedure
A total of 200 New Zealand organizations were approached for the present study and managers were
invited to participate, which required access a random team in their organization. A total of 80 teams
with useable data were ultimately received (a 53.3% response rate). Overall, team compositions
ranged from three to five employees, with the majority having three team members (80.5%), and a
total of 298 employees completed surveys. On average, the gender composition of respondents was
evenly spread (53% male), with the slight majority being single (53%) and non-parents (54%). By
education, 49.4% held a bachelor’s degree qualification or higher, and worked 36.3 hours per week
(SD=11.8). Average tenure in respondents teams were 3.6 years (SD=6.2), and respondents came
from a wide range of ethnicities: 38% white, 17% Asian, 15.5% Indian, 11.5% Maori, 7% Pacifika
peoples, and 11% other.
3.2 Measures
All measures were coded 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree. Life Satisfaction was measured
using the 5-item scale by Diener, Emmons, Larsen, and Griffin (1985), e.g., “In most ways my life is
close to ideal” (α= .86). Work-family conflict was measured using six items by Carlson, Kacmar and
Williams (2000): WFC e.g., “I am often so emotionally drained when I get home from work that it
prevents me from contributing to my family” (α= .87), and FWC e.g., “Tension and anxiety from my
family life often weakens my ability to do my job” (α= .88). Team Task Conflict was measured using
four items adapted from Jehn (1995), e.g., “Members in my team fight about task matters” (α= .88).
The construct items were situated in relation to the team, thus we used the average score of team
members to generate a team-level construct. This implies a direct consensus aggregation model
(Chan, 1998) and as such, we calculated inter-rated agreement to determine if aggregating team
members’ ratings of their teams’ role conflict was appropriate. This was supported, with a mean rWG
of .87, which indicates good inter-rater agreement (LeBreton & Senter, 2008). Team Communication
was measured using four items taken from Lester, Meglino, and Korsgaard (2002), e.g., “My team
Page 9 of 23 ANZAM 2013
members are willing to share information with other team members about our work” (α= .88) and had
a mean rWG of .92, indicating good inter-rater agreement.
Control variables. A variety of control variables were including in the analyses that are typically
included in the conflict field (e.g., Carlson, Ferguson, Kacmar, Grzywacz, & Whitten, 2011) including
gender (1=female, 0=male), marital status (1=married/de facto, 0=single), parental status (1=parent,
0= non-parent), education (1=university degree or higher, 0=no university education), hours worked
(per week), and team tenure (in years).
3.3 Measurement Model
The current study variables were confirmed with structural equation modeling (SEM) using AMOS v.
20. Three goodness-of-fit indexes recommended by Williams, Vandenberg and Edwards (2009) were
used to assess the measurement models with a superior model is reflected in scores of CFI ≥0.95,
RMSEA ≤ 0.08 and SRMR ≤ 0.10. The hypothesized measurement model and two alternative models
are shown in Table 1, showing good fit.
<<Insert Table 1 about here>>
3.4 Analyses
Multi-level analysis was conducted using the MLwiN program (Rashbash, Browne, Healy, Cameron,
& Charlton, 2000), because data had individuals nested in teams. Various models were run and all
models included control variables which were centered to the grand mean. WFC and FWC are at the
individual level (Level 1), and the team-level constructs of team task conflict and team
communication, where individual employee responses were nested within their teams (Level 2).
4. Results
Table 2 presents the means, standard deviations, and correlations among the study variables:
<<Insert Table 2 about here>>
Table 2 shows that at the individual level all variables were significantly related as expected.
Furthermore, analysis shows that a significant amount of the variance could be attributed to group-
level differences towards team communication (27%), team task conflict (43%) and individual life
satisfaction (29%). These significant amounts of variance justifying the multi-level approach.
Page 10 of 23ANZAM 2013
Tables 3 and 4 shows the results of the multilevel analyses for each hypothesized step of the
relationships between outcomes of team communication and team task conflict (Table 3) and life
satisfaction (Table 4). The analyses for the other direct effects are not shown but are detailed below.
<<Insert Tables 3 and 4 about here>>
Hypothesis 1 was partially support, with WFC being significantly related to life satisfaction
(β = -.258, p < .001) although FWC was not (see Table 4). Hypothesis 2 was partially supported, with
WFC being significantly related to team task conflict (β = .154, p < .05), although FWC was not (see
Table 3). Hypothesis 3 is supported (analysis not shown), with team task conflict being significantly
and negatively related to individual life satisfaction (β = -.200, p < .01). Hypothesis 4 suggested team
communication would be negatively related to team task conflict (see Table 3), and this was
supported (β = -.426, p < .001), as was hypothesis 5, with team communication being significantly
related to life satisfaction (β = .305, p < .01). Hypothesis 6 related to work-family conflict being
negative related to team communication and this was supported from both dimensions: WFC (β = -
.108, p < .05) and FWC (β = -.149, p < .05).
Addressing these findings towards Figure 1 (our hypothesized model), we find that only WFC
is a significant predictor of life satisfaction and team task conflict, although both WFC and FWC are
significantly related to team communication. Furthermore, as expected, both team task conflict and
team communication were both significantly related to life satisfaction, in the expected directions
(negatively and positively respectively). Overall, this shows that while only WFC is directly related to
all constructs, it also has an additional effect working through its influences on team task conflict and
team communication, which both related to our outcome. Similarly, FWC indirectly influences life
satisfaction via team communication, further encouraging the use of non-work constructs in team
models.
5. Discussion
The present study made unique contributions through bringing together theories relating to individuals
(work-family conflict) and teams (task conflict and team communication) towards a seldom tested
outcome in teams’ research (life satisfaction), using multi-level analysis. In addition, testing the direct
influence work-family conflict had on team constructs and then how they in turn influenced life
Page 11 of 23 ANZAM 2013
satisfaction, created new understanding of how these relationships form and influence each other. Our
findings support the meta-analytical findings where work-family conflict was negatively related to life
satisfaction (e.g., Kossek & Ozeki, 1998), and in particular the analysis of Mesmer-Magnus and
Viswesvaran (2005), which found WFC to be the dominant predictor. In the present study, both
directions of conflict (WFC and FWC) were significantly correlated with life satisfaction, although
the analysis showed that WFC was the dominant predictor.
The present study also tested some unique effects, including the relationship between
individual work-family conflict and team-based outcomes. We argued that employees dealing with
conflicts between their work and family roles would create greater conflict at the team level and this
was supported, with WFC again predicting team task conflict. Our finding supports Shockley and
Singla (2011) who found support for the source attribution perspective, where domain based conflict
is likely to more strongly influence outcomes in the same domain. Thus, individual work conflict that
interferes with home life is more likely to be destructive to work outcomes like the way a team
discusses ideas and task matters. We also found support for both WFC and FWC influencing team
communication, indicating that interference between work and family roles does erode a team’s
ability to communicate effectively. Perhaps employees are distracted by home issues (FWC) or react
negatively to work issues (WFC), and this makes them less engaged and interested in discussing
issues and events with team members. Interestingly, this is somewhat counter to the source attribution
perspective (Shockley & Singla, 2011) and may suggest that team communication – while a
workplace construct – is universally able to be influenced by conflict from both work and family
domains. Further replication is needed to better understand these effects.
In addition, by responding to calls for non-workplace outcomes to be tested (Chung-Yan &
Moeller, 2010) including at the multi-level (Jones et al., 2004), we found support for team-based
factors influencing individual-level life satisfaction. Teams that reported higher levels of task conflict
was found to be negatively linked to life satisfaction, while conversely, teams that reported greater
communication were positively related. We argued that given employee life satisfaction is strongly
predicated on job satisfaction (Iverson & Maguire, 2000), that teams-based factors could spillover
beyond the workplace and influence an employee’s overall satisfaction with life. While we found
Page 12 of 23ANZAM 2013
team task conflict was negatively related and team communication was positively related, in the
overall model where both these variables were included, we found team communication was the
dominant predictor amongst the two team-based factors, with communication mediating the influence
of task conflict. This shows that while team task conflict and communication are important, team
communication may have an additional benefit in being able to mitigate the effects of task conflict, at
least towards life satisfaction. This further encourages the examination of team-based constructs like
communication towards non-work outcomes. Finally, our analysis also showed that team
communication was directly and negatively related to team task conflict, which supported the
literature (e.g., Langbein & Jorstad, 2004). As such, teams that are better able to communicate and
share issues are less likely to be distracted and conflicted towards their work tasks.
Limitations
Like all self-reported cross-sectional designed employee studies, the present study has some
limitations. However, while self-reported, the team constructs do provide greater confidence because
these constructs supported a consensus aggregation model (Chan, 1998), and as such, these constructs
reflect the combined team members, rather than individual responses. Kenny (2008) notes that the use
of SEM also alleviates issues around common method variance (CMV). Finally, given the large
number of teams (80), the multi-level analysis, and the broad range of organizational sectors and firm
sizes the data was drawn from, that the findings are likely not be due to issues of CMV.
Conclusion
The present study sought to make a number of contributions, specifically extending the work-family
conflict literature and its influence to life satisfaction by including team constructs associated with
task conflict and communication. By bringing these related, but typically untapped lines of research,
together, this study helps us better understand the influence that team factors can have on life
satisfaction, and the influence conflict from work and family roles have. Overall, a number of direct
effects were found that show the complexity and interrelationship between these variables and team
communication was highlighted as being especially important, in the way it influenced all other
variables including mediating influence on the individual and team conflict factors.
Page 13 of 23 ANZAM 2013
REFERENCES
Arslan, C., Harmarta, E., & Uslu, M. (2010). The relationship between conflict communication,
selfesteem and life satisfaction in university students. Educational Research and Reviews,
5(1), 31-34.
Ayoko, O. B. (2007). Communication openness, conflict events and reactions to conflict in
culturally diverse workgroups. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal,
14(2), 105-124.
Baron, R. A. (1991). Positive effects of conflict: A cognitive perspective. Employee
Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 4, 25-36.
Bertcher, H. J. (1994). Group participation: Techniques for leaders and members (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Boulding, K. (1963). Conflict and defense. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Brett, J., Shapiro, D., & Lytle, A. (1998). Breaking the bonds of reciprocity in negotiations.
Academy of Management Journal, 41(4), 410-424.
Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J., & Higgs, A. G. (1993). Relations between work group
characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups.
Personnel Psychology, 46, 823-850.
Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, K. M., & Williams, L. J. (2000). Construction and initial validation of a
multidimensional measure of work–family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56, 249–
276.
Carlson, D. S., Ferguson, M., Kacmar, K. M., Grzywacz, J. G., & Whitten, D. (2011). Pay it
forward: The positive crossover effects of supervisor work-family enrichment. Journal of
Management, 37(3), 770-789.
Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels
of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 234-246.
Chen, J., Silverthorne, C., & Hung, J. (2006). Organization communication, job stress,
organizational commitment, and job performance of accounting professionals in Taiwan and
America. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 27(4), 242- 429.
Page 14 of 23ANZAM 2013
Chung-Yan, G. A. & Moeller, C. (2010). The psychosocial costs of conflict management styles.
International Journal of Conflict Management, 21(4), 382-399.
De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team
performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88(4), 741–749.
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction with life scale.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71-75.
Eby, L., Casper, W., Lockwood, A., Bordeaux, C., & Brinleya, A. (2005). Work and family
research in IO/OB: Content analysis and review of the literature (1980–2002). Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 66(1), 124–197.
Frone, M., & Major, B. (1988). Communication quality and job satisfaction among managerial nurses.
Group & Organization Studies, 13(3), 332-347.
Gersick, C. J. G. (1989). Marking time: Predictable transitions in task groups. Academy of
Management Journal, 32, 274-309.
Goris, J. R., Pettit, J. D., Vaught, B. C. (2002). Organizational communication: Is it a moderator
of the relationship between job congruence and job performance/satisfaction?
International Journal of Management, 19(4), 664-672.
Goris, J. R. (2007). Effects of satisfaction with communication on the relationship between
individual-job congruence and job performance/satisfaction. Journal of Management
Development, 26(8), 737-752.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles.
Academy of Management Review, 10(1), 76-88.
Guertzkow, H. & Gry, J. (1954). An analysis of conflict in decision-making groups. Human
Relations, 7, 367-381.
Haar, J. M. (2013). Testing a new measure of work–life balance: a study of parent and non-
parent employees from New Zealand. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, (ahead-of-print), 1-20.
Page 15 of 23 ANZAM 2013
Hunter, E. M., Perry, S. J., Carlson, D. S., & Smith, S. A. (2010). Linking team resources to
work–family enrichment and satisfaction. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 77(2),
304–312
Iverson, R. & Maguire, C. (2000). The relationship between job and life satisfaction: Evidence
from a remote mining community. Human Relations, 53 (6), 807-839.
Jackson, S. E., & Schuler, R. S. (1985). A meta-analysis and conceptual critique of research on
role ambiguity and role conflict in work settings. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 36, 16-78.
Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup
conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(2), 256-282.
Jones, E., Watson, B., Gardner, J., & Gallois, C. (2004). Organizational communication: Challenges
for the new century. Journal of Communication, 54, 722–750.
Judge, T. A., & Colquitt, J. A. (2004). Organizational justice and stress: The mediating role of work-
family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 394-404.
Kenny, D. A. (2008). Reflections on mediation. Business Research Methods, 11(2), 353-358.
Keyton, J. (1993). Group termination. Small Group Research, 24, 84–100.
Kossek, E. E., & Ozeki, C. (1998). Work–family conflict, policies, and the job–life satisfaction
relationship: A review and directions for organizational behavior-human resources research.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 139–149.
LaFollette, W., Hornsby, J. S., Smith, B. N., & Novak, W. I. (1996). The use of work teams in
organizations: An analysis of type and implementation. Mid-American Journal of
Business, 11(1), 55-62.
Langbein, L. & Jorstad, C. (2004). Productivity in the workplace: Cops, culture, communication,
cooperation, and collusion. Political Research Quarterly, 57(1), 65- 79.
LeBreton, J. M., & Senter, J. L. (2008). Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and
interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11(4), 815-852.
Leiter, M. P. (1988). Burnout as a function of communication patterns: A study of a
multidisciplinary mental health team. Group & Organization Studies, 13(1), 111- 129.
Page 16 of 23ANZAM 2013
Lester, S. W., Meglino, B. M., & Korsgaard, M. A. (2002). The antecedents and consequences of
group potency: A longitudinal investigation of newly formed work groups. Academy of
Management Journal, 45, 352-368.
Martínez-Moreno, E., González-Navarro, P., Zornoza, A. & Ripoll, P. (2009). Relationship, task
and process conflicts on team performance: The moderating role of communication
media. International Journal of Conflict Management, 20(3), 251-268.
Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., & Viswesvaran, C. (2005). Convergence between measures of work- to-
family and family-to-work conflict: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 67(2), 215-232.
Olaniran, B. A. (2010). Group communication and conflict management in an electronic medium.
International Journal of Conflict Management, 21(1), 44-69.
Orpen, C. (1997). The interactive effects of communication quality and job involvement. The
Journal of Psychology, 131(5), 519.
Pettit, J. D., Goris, J. R. & Vaught, B. C. (1997). An examination of organizational
communication as a moderator of the relationship between job performance and job
satisfaction. Journal of Business Communication, 34(1), 81-98.
Polzer, J. T., Crisp, C. B., Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Kim, J. W. (2006). Extending the faultline model to
geographically dispersed teams: How collocated subgroups can impair group functioning.
Academy of Management Journal, 49, 679-692.
Quirke, B. (1992). Communicating quality. In M. Hand & B. Plowman (Eds.), Quality
Management Handbook (pp. 253-263). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Rahim, A. (2002). Toward a theory of managing organizational conflict. International Journal of
Conflict Management, 13(3), 206-35.
Rode, J. C. (2004). Job satisfaction and life satisfaction revisited: A longitudinal test of an
integrated model. Human Relations, 57(9), 1205-1230.
Roloff, M. E. (1987). Communication and conflict. In C. R. Berger & S. H. Chaffee (Eds.),
Handbook of communication science (pp. 484-534). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Page 17 of 23 ANZAM 2013
Scott, C. R., Connaughton, S. L., Diaz-Saenz, H. R., Maguire, K., Ramirez, R., Richardson, B.,
Shaw, S. P., & Morgan, D. (1999). The impacts of communication and multiple identifications on
intent to leave: A multimethodological exploration. Management Communication Quarterly,
12(3), 400-435.
Shockley, K. M., & Singla, N. (2011). Reconsidering work-family interactions and satisfaction:
A meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 37, 861–886.
Simons, T. & Peterson, R. (2000). Task conflict and relationship conflict in top management
teams: The pivotal role of intragroup trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 102– 111.
Stewart, G. L. & Barrick, M. R. (2000). Team structure and performance: assessing the mediating
role of intrateam process and the moderating role of task type. Academy of
Management Journal, 43(2). 135–148.
Weingart, L. R., Todorova, G., & Cronin, M. A. (2010). Task conflict, problem-solving, and
yielding: Effects on cognition and performance in functionally diverse innovation teams.
Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 3, 312-337.
Williams, L. J., Vandenberg, R. J., & Edwards, J. R. (2009). 12 Structural equation modelling in
management research: A guide for improved analysis. The Academy of Management
Annals, 3(1), 543-604.
Page 18 of 23ANZAM 2013
Table 1. Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Study Measures
Model Fit Indices Model Differences
Model χχχχ2 df CFI RMSEA SRMR χχχχ
2 ∆∆∆∆df p Details
Model 1 230.755 142 .974 .046 .047
Model 2 522.946 146 .891 .093 .064 292.191 4 .001 Model 2 to 1
Model 3
782.944 146 .815 .121 .122 552.189 4 .001 Model 3 to 1
Model 1= Hypothesized 5-factor model: WFC, FWC, team task conflict, team communication, and life satisfaction.
Model 2= Alternative 4-factor model: WFC and FWC combined, team task conflict, team communication, and life satisfaction.
Model 3= Alternative 4-factor model: WFC, FWC, team task conflict and team communication combined, and life satisfaction.
Page 19 of 23 ANZAM 2013
Table 2. Correlations and Means of Study Variables
Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Level 1:
1. Age 34.8 17.6 --
2. Hours Worked 36.3 11.8 .18** --
3. WFC 2.4 .93 .06 -.04 --
4. FWC 2.0 .80 -.09 -.09 .52** --
5. Life Satisfaction 3.2 .79 .21** .02 -.17** -.13* --
Level 2
1. Team Tenure 3.6 6.2 --
2. Team Task Conflict 2.2 .95 .19** --
3. Team Communication 4.0 .63 -.08 -.40**
Teams N=80, Employees N=298. *p< .05, **p< .01.
Page 20 of 23ANZAM 2013
Table 3. Multilevel Results of the Relationships to Team Communications and Team Task Conflict
Outcomes
Team Communication Team Role Conflict
Model 1:
Controls
Model 2:
Predictors
Model 1:
Controls
Model 2:
Predictors
Model 3:
Mediator
Β SE Β SE Β SE Β SE Β SE
Intercept 3.925‡ .084 3.890‡ .081 1.998‡ .134 2.015‡ .132 2.013‡ .128
Age -.007 .005 -.009* .005 -.004 .008 -.00 .008 -.007 .007
Gender .008 .091 .026 .087 .203 .131 .204 .129 .203* .121
Marital Status .068 .120 .038 .115 .090 .165 .098 .164 .112 .154
Parental Status .072 .134 .158 .132 -.017 .188 -.050 .192 -.057 .180
Education -.007 .088 -.005 .084 -.133 .123 -.119 .122 -.131 .114
Work hours .001 .005 -.000 .005 -.010 .007 -.010 .007 -.008 .007
Team Tenure -.011 .008 -.006 .008 .015 .011 .011 .011 .003 .010
WFC -.108* .055 .154* .080 .130* .076
FWC -.149* .068 .057 .097 -.022 .094
Team Communication -.426‡ .103
Variance level 2 (team) .042 .028 .041 .026 .351‡ .096 .334‡ .091 .380‡ .094
Variance level 1 (employee) .313‡ .038 .282‡ .034 .508‡ .063 .491‡ .061 .410‡ .051
-2 Log Likelihood 352.457 333.240 498.093 490.792 469.472
Note. N = 80 teams, 298 employees. B = unstandardized estimate, SE = standard error.
*p < .05, **p < .01, ‡p < .001
Page 21 of 23 ANZAM 2013
Table 4. Multilevel Results of the Relationships to Life Satisfaction
Life Satisfaction
Model 1:
Controls
Model 2:
Predictors
Model 3:
Mediators
Β SE Β SE Β SE
Intercept 3.056‡ .114 3.052‡ .113 3.030‡ .111
Age .003 .007 .004 .007 .004 .007
Gender -.104 .117 -.120 .112 -.104 .109
Marital Status .434** .150 .465‡ .144 .508‡ .139
Parental Status -.105 .169 -.146 .168 -.145 .162
Education -.207* .111 -.222* .107 -.218* .103
Work hours .006 .006 .009 .006 .007 .006
Team Tenure .001 .010 .003 .010 .008 .009
WFC -.258‡ .070 -.226‡ .068
FWC .063 .085 .096 .083
Team Communication .305** .101
Team Task Conflict -.073 .078
Variance level 2 (team) .189‡ .063 .221‡ .064 .224‡ .063
Variance level 1 (employee) .438‡ .054 .384‡ .048 .351‡ .043
-2 Log Likelihood 450.185 435.303 421.590
Note. N = 80 teams, 298 employees. B = unstandardized estimate, SE = standard error.
*p < .05, **p < .01, ‡p < .001
Page 22 of 23ANZAM 2013
Figure 1. Study Model: Mediation and Moderation (Both Individual and Team Level)
WFC
FWC
Team Task Conflict
(Team Level)
Team Communication
(Team Level)
Life
Satisfaction
Page 23 of 23 ANZAM 2013