The Tripartite Model of Team Conflict
The modern understanding of team conflict rests on a tripartite model — three distinct types of conflict that differ in their sources, dynamics, and effects on team performance.
Jehn (1995) introduced the initial distinction between task conflict and relationship conflict, laying the foundation for subsequent research. Researchers built upon Jehn’s work (Jehn & Chatman, 2000; Jehn & Mannix, 2001; and Jehn & Shah, 1997) by adding process conflict as a third construct, completing the tripartite (Behfar et al., 2011; Greer et al., 2008; Song et al., 2006).
| Conflict Type | Core Definition | Focus |
|---|---|---|
| Task Conflict | An awareness of differences in viewpoints and opinions pertaining to a group task (Jehn & Mannix, 2001) | What the team is doing |
| Relationship Conflict | An awareness of interpersonal incompatibilities, including affective components such as feeling tension and friction (Jehn & Mannix, 2001) | Who team members are to each other |
| Process Conflict | An awareness of controversies about aspects of how task accomplishment will proceed (Jehn & Mannix, 2001) | How the team will accomplish its work |
Amason (1996) identified conflict as a multidimensional construct and noted that conflating these distinct types could produce inconsistent findings. Studies that treat conflict as a single undifferentiated construct reach contradictory conclusions precisely because task, relationship, and process conflict carry different implications for team functioning. Behfar et al. (2011) highlighted that many studies have historically neglected the tripartite classification, favoring only the task/relationship distinction — an oversight with real consequences for both research and practice.
See Also
References
Amason, A. C. (1996). Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on strategic decision making: Resolving a paradox for top management teams. Academy of Management Journal, 39(1), 123–148. https://doi.org/10.2307/256633
Behfar, K. J., Mannix, E. A., Peterson, R. S., & Trochim, W. M. (2011). Conflict in small groups: The meaning and consequences of process conflict. Small Group Research, 42(2), 127–176. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496410389194
Greer, L. L., Jehn, K. A., & Mannix, E. A. (2008). Conflict transformation: A longitudinal investigation of the relationships between different types of intragroup conflict and the moderating role of conflict resolution. Small Group Research, 39, 278–302. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496408317793
Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 256–282. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2393638
Jehn, K. A., & Chatman, J. A. (2000). The influence of proportional and perceptual conflict composition on team performance. The International Journal of Conflict Management, 11, 56–73. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb022835
Jehn, K. A., & Mannix, E. A. (2001). The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 238–251. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069453
Jehn, K. A., & Shah, P. P. (1997). Interpersonal relationships and task performance: An examination of mediating processes in friendship and acquaintance groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 775–790. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.72.4.775
Song, M., Dyer, B., & Thieme, J. R. (2006). Conflict management and innovation performance: An integrated contingency perspective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34, 341–356. https://doi.org/10.1177/00092070306286705