Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 1 – uploaded by Paulo Renato Lourenço

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Table lgives the means, standard deviations and inter-correlations for all variables, as well as the scale reliabilities. The scale reliabilities were analysed by the Cronbach’s Alpha and, as can be seen, all values are above .70 (Nunnally, 1978) showing that all the measures have good levels of internal consistency. Regarding the correlations, as we expected the two types of intragroup conflict were positively correlated and both were negatively correlated with team satisfaction. Also, all of the dimensions of group emotional intelligence had statistically significant correlations with team satisfaction. As we also expected task conflict was negatively correlated to team performance, but contrary to our expectations relationship conflict and two dimensions of group emotional intelligence (group social awareness/skills and group self-regulation) were not correlated to team performance. Since these three variables (relationship conflict, group social awareness/skills and group self-regulation) didn’t correlate with team performance, they won’t be used in the first regression analysis that has team performance as the dependent variable.

Table 1 lgives the means, standard deviations and inter-correlations for all variables, as well as the scale reliabilities. The scale reliabilities were analysed by the Cronbach’s Alpha and, as can be seen, all values are above .70 (Nunnally, 1978) showing that all the measures have good levels of internal consistency. Regarding the correlations, as we expected the two types of intragroup conflict were positively correlated and both were negatively correlated with team satisfaction. Also, all of the dimensions of group emotional intelligence had statistically significant correlations with team satisfaction. As we also expected task conflict was negatively correlated to team performance, but contrary to our expectations relationship conflict and two dimensions of group emotional intelligence (group social awareness/skills and group self-regulation) were not correlated to team performance. Since these three variables (relationship conflict, group social awareness/skills and group self-regulation) didn’t correlate with team performance, they won’t be used in the first regression analysis that has team performance as the dependent variable.

Related Figures (3)

The analysis of the third step (interaction terms) shows that the variance of team performance explained by the addition of the interaction terms was marginally significant (AR’= .07, p< .10). Furthermore, the interaction between task conflict and group regulation of members had a statistically significant effect (B= 53, p< .05), hence, the dimension group regulation of members moderated the relationship between task conflict and team performance. We further examined the slopes of the relationships between task conflict and team performance using the tests of significance of simple slopes proposed by Cohen et al. (2003). As shown in Figure 1, the relationship between task conflict and team performance was negative and marginally significant under very low levels of group regulation of members (B= -1,02, SE= .57, p< .10). In contrast, the relationship between task conflict and team performance was positive and marginally significant under very high levels of group regulation of members (B= 1,53, SE= .80, p< .10). Thus, hypothesis 7a was partially supported, as one dimension of group emotional intelligence — group regulation of members moderated the relationship between task conflict and team performance, such as that in teams with high levels in this dimension the effects of task conflict on team performance was positive.
The analysis of the third step (interaction terms) shows that the variance of team performance explained by the addition of the interaction terms was marginally significant (AR’= .07, p< .10). Furthermore, the interaction between task conflict and group regulation of members had a statistically significant effect (B= 53, p< .05), hence, the dimension group regulation of members moderated the relationship between task conflict and team performance. We further examined the slopes of the relationships between task conflict and team performance using the tests of significance of simple slopes proposed by Cohen et al. (2003). As shown in Figure 1, the relationship between task conflict and team performance was negative and marginally significant under very low levels of group regulation of members (B= -1,02, SE= .57, p< .10). In contrast, the relationship between task conflict and team performance was positive and marginally significant under very high levels of group regulation of members (B= 1,53, SE= .80, p< .10). Thus, hypothesis 7a was partially supported, as one dimension of group emotional intelligence — group regulation of members moderated the relationship between task conflict and team performance, such as that in teams with high levels in this dimension the effects of task conflict on team performance was positive.
Related topics:
PsychologySocial PsychologyTeam EffectivenessGroup ConflictGroup EffectivenessEmotions Social Psychology
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved