No other occurrence can be as overwhelming to a given group’s efficiency and operation as conflict. At the same time, conflict can also be of benefit in assisting group members face reality and establish new answers to serious challenges (Hjertø, 2006, p.7).
Conflict within groups may be considered as inevitable in high achieving firms. Several studies have brought an invaluable insight into the extent of the relationships between conflict and group operations. Since the 1950s, there have been three decades of major contributions in the study of group conflicts. In the early ‘90s, studies on various perspectives of intragroup conflicts and their links with group performance increased. The causality between the two conflict dimensions, which are cognitive and emotional, and group performance, has attracted a lot of inquiries. This has constantly accelerated to a significant amount of researches from then on (Hjertø, 2006, p.7).
For a long time, the general impression has been that the link between E/R dynamics of group conflicts and group performance is positive is negative, while the causality between C/T dimensions of conflict and group performance is positive. Later, researchers, however, showed that most of the scientific researches carried out in the last decade, in fact, showed that also the C/T dimensions of group conflict are not positively, but negatively correlated to group performance and efficiency. One of the major weaknesses of previous group conflict studies is that they always put much emphasis on the supposition that all members of a given group view the same amount of conflict, overlooking the assumption that group members possess differing perceptions concerning the extent of conflict existing within a given group(Hjertø, 2006, p.7).
Most of the studies conducted on group conflict focus on shared team properties, or the common experiences and perceptions that the team members share. Thus, they often ignore the presence of