Content uploaded by Chun-Chang Lee
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Chun-Chang Lee on Nov 15, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
International Journal of Management and Sustainability, 2014, 3(7): 415-432
415
THE IMPACT OF TEAM DIVERSITY, TASK INTERDEPENDENCE, TEAM
CONFLICT AND TEAM COOPERATION ON JOB PERFORMANCE: USING
REAL ESTATE BROKERS AS EXAMPLES
Chun-Chang Lee
Associate professor, Department of Real Estate Management, National Pingtung Institute of Commerce,
Taiwan, ROC Mingsheng East Road, Pingtung, Taiwan
Yu-Hsuan Lee
Graduated from the Department of Real Estate Management, National Pingtung Institute of Commerce,
Taiwan, ROC Mingsheng East Road, Pingtung, Taiwan
Hsiao-Han Chen
Graduated from the Department of Real Estate Management, National Pingtung Institute of Commerce,
Taiwan, ROC Mingsheng East Road, Pingtung, Taiwan
Pei-Shan Hsieh
Graduated from the Department of Real Estate Management, National Pingtung Institute of Commerce,
Taiwan, ROC Mingsheng East Road, Pingtung, Taiwan
Yung-Yun Yeh
Graduated from the Department of Real Estate Management, National Pingtung Institute of Commerce,
Taiwan, ROC Mingsheng East Road, Pingtung, Taiwan
Mei-Chu Lin
Graduated from the Department of Real Estate Management, National Pingtung Institute of Commerce,
Taiwan, ROC Mingsheng East Road, Pingtung, Taiwan
ABSTRACT
This study investigated the impact of team diversity, task interdependence, team conflict, and team
cooperation on job performance. The research subjects were real estate brokers in Kaohsiung City,
Taiwan, and the results were measured by a linear structural model. A total of 568 questionnaires
were distributed, of which367 were retrieved. After eliminating the invalid samples, 362 valid
questionnaires remained, with a valid return rate of 98.64%. According to the empirical results of
the study, the following conclusions can be drawn: team diversity positively and significantly
influences task conflict and relationship conflict; task interdependence positively and significantly
influences job performance and team cooperation; task interdependence negatively and
International Journal of Management and
Sustainability
journal homepage: http://pakinsight.com/?ic=journal&journal=11
International Journal of Management and Sustainability, 2014, 3(7): 415-432
416
significantly influences relationship conflict; relationship conflict negatively and significantly
influences team cooperation; and team cooperation positively and significantly influences job
performance. In addition, team diversity and task interdependence were found to be critical
exogenous factors of job performance.
© 2014 Pak Publishing Group. All Rights Reserved.
Keywords: Team diversity, Task conflict, Relationship conflict, Task interdependence, Team
cooperation, Job performance.
Contribution/ Originality
This study treats team diversity and task interdependence as exogenous variables and combines
them with the job performance model. The empirical results of this study indicate good explanatory
power. The results of our study suggest that managers of real estate companies should focus on the
impact of team diversity and relationship conflict on job performance. Likewise, real estate
industries should enhance task interdependence, because it increases team cooperation and lowers
relationship conflict.
1. INTRODUCTION
In research on teams, team diversity has been a central topic in recent years. In response to the
challenges of globalization, enterprises must enhance competitiveness and human resources.
Hence, the job performance of team members of different genders, ages, educational levels,
professional capacities, and work backgrounds must be upgraded. When team diversity is higher,
enterprises encounter the issue of how to effectively manage diversity and increase job
performance.
Therefore, the problem-solving capacity of teams must be enhanced in order to improve
productivity and work efficiency, decrease costs, use resources efficiently, and obtain higher
performance using less manpower (Wellins et al., 1994). Johnson and Johnson (1989) generalized
the advantages of team interdependence, including the enhancement of learning, achievements,
cognitive complexity, and interpersonal relationships.
The work of real estate brokers emphasizes personal performance and individualism. However,
some direct-selling stores and franchise companies encourage real estate brokers to work in teams
by providing team bonuses. Thus, the employees can fulfill their capacities and complement
individual talents and characteristics to enhance job performance. In the real estate market, brokers
usually support each other by promoting the cases of various developers, introducing properties to
clients for each other, and sharing information. Work accomplishments cannot be based exclusively
on individualism. Factors of team operation should be considered, including team cooperation and
team conflict.
In organizations and groups, members differ from each other in attitude and thought in work
matters. Such diversity increases team creativity, decision-making quality, and job performance. In
contrast, differing opinions and negative emotions in teams can result in conflict among employees.
International Journal of Management and Sustainability, 2014, 3(7): 415-432
417
Hence, in team cooperation, employee interdependence is critical. If agreement and trust exist
between members, then performance is upgraded considerably (Cleavenger et al., 2007). According
to Mankin et al. (1996), the result and output of team effort are higher than those of individuals.
Cooperation can trigger mutual assistance, resource exchange, and trust. Therefore, task
interdependence in teams influences job performance.
Schwenk (1990) suggested that conflict helps predict performance, and Lewicki et al. (1992)
showed that conflict encourages organizations and teams to maximize their efficacy. Research has
also indicated that conflict can have both positive and negative impacts. When the impact is
positive, it is known as task conflict, and when it is negative, it is called relationship conflict (Jehn,
1995; Amason, 1996).
In the case of some real estate companies, team cooperation leads real estate brokers to work
more for the collective good of the team in order to enhance team collaboration. Close cooperation
increases the team’s job performance. Therefore, Mankin et al. (1996) suggested that performance
as part of a team is more effective than individual performance. Team cooperation thus influences
the performance of real estate brokers relatively. This study investigates the impact of team
diversity, task interdependence, team conflict, and team cooperation on job performance, using real
estate brokers as subjects.
This paper is organized as follows: Section 1 is the introduction, Section 2 proposes the
research hypotheses, Section 3 describes the questionnaire design, Section 4 presents the collected
data and descriptive statistics, Section 5 contains an analysis of the empirical results, Section 6 is
the discussion, and Section 7 offers conclusions and suggestions.
2. HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENT
2.1. Hypotheses Related to Team Diversity
Team diversity signifies the distribution of team members based on certain attributes. It exists
on the team level and refers to differences between one team and another team instead of a
comparison between individuals and others within groups (Jackson et al., 2003). When team
members come from different work backgrounds, their belief structures tend to be different
(Wieserma and Bantel, 1992). Belief structure refers to an individuals’ cognition, view, and attitude
toward objects that depend on the environment. For instance, members that have different belief
structures also have different preferences and explanations for particular tasks (Wagner et al., 1984;
Walsh, 1988). This inconsistency produces task conflict in teams.
Another type of conflicts are relationship conflicts. According to Pelled et al. (1999), there are
two main factors in relationship conflicts. One is generalization, in which individuals
unconsciously cluster and classify others. Once generalization exists in a group, people develop
negative views toward other groups. The other factor is permeability, which refers to a change in
attributes. For example, people can shift from one social status to another. When team diversity is
not easily permeable, obstacles in communication among individuals of differing statuses can arise.
In such cases, team members find it hard to put themselves in others’ shoes. Finally, team members
International Journal of Management and Sustainability, 2014, 3(7): 415-432
418
may be prejudiced against members of other statuses (Murray, 1989). Hostility toward different
statuses or conflicts caused by differences in age or gender are relationship conflicts.
Regarding decision-making in teams, Harrison and Klein (2007) suggest that differences in
position and opinion are based on individual values, beliefs, and attitudes. When the work
backgrounds of group members differ significantly, task conflict arises and job performance is
elevated. When race and working years differ greatly among team members, relationship conflict
can arise, resulting in decreased job performance. According to Jehn et al. (1999), when
information diversity is high among team members, task conflict increases. When value diversity is
high, relationship conflict increases. Based on these studies, when team diversity increases, beliefs,
cognition, and views among team members become inconsistent, and task conflict and relationship
conflict arise. Hence, this study proposes H1 and H2:
H1: Team diversity has a positive impact on task conflict.
H2: Team diversity has a positive impact on relationship conflict.
2.2. Hypotheses Related to Task Interdependence
Task interdependence includes group-work design, or group members’ interaction and
dependence on each other to accomplish work (Duffy et al., 2000). Team tasks refer to the essence,
composition, and structure of tasks. At work, members must integrate and share their materials,
information, and specialization with other members to attain the expected job performance (Cohen
and Bailey, 1997). Regarding task interdependence, the execution result of one task depends on the
performance of another (Milgrom and Roberts, 1990; 1995). When task interdependence is high,
the task is more difficult, and members rely on others’ work results.
Task interdependence is divided into positive interdependence and negative interdependence.
Under positive interdependence, team members’ personal goals are consistent with team goals,
whereas negative interdependence means that team goals are different from individual goals. Under
negative interdependence, team members may compete with one another, acquire the resources of
other members, and even hinder the work of other team members, thereby resulting in task conflict
(Deutsch, 1985). For resources, team members’ interdependence increases. A high degree of
interdependence enhances the risk of task conflict (Jelin, 1995). Based on these studies, we propose
H3:
H3: Task interdependence has a positive impact on task conflict.
When a team member performs one task without depending on other members, no
interdependence exists (Pfeffer and Salancik, 1978). Team members perceive interpersonal
conflict, which results in negative emotions (Jehn and Chatman, 2000). Wageman and Baker
(1997)suggest that relationship conflict among team members decreases as task interdependence
increases. Based on these studies, we propose H4:
H4: Task interdependence has a negative impact on relationship conflict.
Social interdependence theory refers to the individuals’ interaction within group situations.
Positive team interdependence enhances individual responsibility toward other team members, such
International Journal of Management and Sustainability, 2014, 3(7): 415-432
419
as accomplishing personal duties, helping other members complete their work, feeling bad about
one’s own and others’ failures. Collective responsibility increases team members’ motive to work
(Matsui et al., 1987). There is consistent agreement on the positive effects of task interdependence
on job performance (Van Der Vegt and Van De Vliert, 2002). (Stewart and Barrick, 2000) suggest
that interdependence and task type influence the relationship between interdependence and job
performance. Based on these studies, we propose H5:
H5: Task interdependence has a positive impact on job performance.
In task interdependence, helping others is an important mechanism of cooperation, which is
critical to enhancing the individual effectiveness of employees (Cleavenger et al., 2007). According
to the empirical results of Pearce and Gregersen (1991), reciprocal task interdependence is
positively related to employee responsibility. However, a negative correlation exists between task
interdependence and responsibility. Wageman (1995) suggested that in teams with high task
interdependence, members cooperate with each other, share information, and demonstrate other
cooperative behavior to accomplish tasks. It enhances members’ expectation of others’ assistance.
In addition, his research demonstrated a positive correlation between task interdependence and
team cooperation. High interdependence results in increased team cooperation. Based on these
studies, we propose H6:
H6: Task interdependence has a positive impact on team cooperation.
2.3. Hypotheses Related to Task Conflict and Relationship Conflict
Jehn and Mannix (2001) define conflict as a situation wherein individuals find others’ desires
to be difficult to achieve and others’ expectations to be contradictory to and incompatible with their
own. Communication or cooperation through the enhancement of collective benefits can avoid
conflict. Jehn (1995) developed types of team conflict and divided conflict into task conflict and
relationship conflict. Task conflict refers to situations wherein members have differing opinions
toward the work content. It does not include strong, negative personal emotions. Relationship
conflict refers to contradictions in interpersonal relationships. It is accompanied by frustration and
anger and is related to members’ personal preferences and emotions. To distinguish between task
conflict and relationship conflict, Bono et al. (2002) suggested focusing on the characteristics of
conflict. For instance, task conflict is associated with the perspective of a task and immediate
action. Relationship conflict is related to emotions and affection.
Jehn (1995) and Amason (1996) suggested that when task conflict exists in teams, members
express different opinions, clarify concepts, develop common consensus, accept decision-making,
and increase knowledge sharing. Such a situation is similar to real conflict or cognitive conflict.
When relationship conflict exists in teams, interpersonal conflict also arises, thereby increasing
anxiety, anger, fear, frustration, and pressure among team members. Lee (2013) indicated that for
real estate teams, limited resources and focus on individual performance results in competition
among members. However, members should often share their commission after closing cases
developed by others, and they cooperate with each other when introducing properties and sharing
International Journal of Management and Sustainability, 2014, 3(7): 415-432
420
market information. Therefore, conflict and cooperation exist among members. Conflict is the
mechanism whereby individuals rapidly trigger self-adjustment from behavior to emotional control.
It results in team cooperation and accomplishes team goals. Based on previous studies, task conflict
positively influences team cooperation, and relationship conflict negatively influences team
cooperation. Therefore, we present H7 and H8:
H7: Task conflict has a positive impact on team cooperation.
H8: Relationship conflict has a negative impact on team cooperation.
When cognitive conflict exists in teams, interaction among team members increases and helps
teams solve problems. According to Putnam (1994), task conflict helps team members
communicate with each other about potential problems, clarify misunderstandings, and exchange
information. Task conflict can increase work identification and understanding. According to
Amason (1996), when team members have different opinions during group interaction, discussions
arise for making decisions. Team members express different opinions at work and in discussions,
and task conflict helps enhance decision-making quality, understanding, commitment, as well as
team members’ emotional acceptance. Through task conflict, team members consider different
opinions, thereby enhancing task cognition. Therefore, when task conflict in teams is high,
decision-making performance increases.
Relationship conflict tends to produce negative emotions, therefore, it also hinders cognition
(Sarason, 1984). When team members ponder on problems, they neglect important information and
details. In situations of relationship conflict, team members harbor hostility. They do not share or
exchange information, and they cannot listen to or accept others’ opinions. With relationship
conflict, team members must spend more time and effort on solving the conflict. This influences
the quality of decision making and lowers team performance (Jehn, 1994). Based on these studies,
task conflict positively influences performance, and relationship conflict decreases job
performance. Therefore, we propose H9 and H10:
H9: Task conflict has a positive impact on job performance.
H10: Relationship conflict has a negative impact on job performance.
2.4. Hypotheses Related to Team Cooperation
Team cooperation is the outcome of members’ interdependence and consistent goals (Jessup,
1990). Salas et al. (1992) suggested that team interaction significantly influences job performance
and that the key factors of team interaction are negotiation, communication, and cooperation. Team
cooperation demonstrates the importance of team training, which allows team members to perceive
proper team interaction and increases overall job performance. Quick (1992) indicated that team
cooperation results in higher efficiency in the use of resources. Team members encourage each
other, respond immediately to problems, and solve problems collectively. They communicate
publicly and sincerely, participate in making decisions that impact the team, thereby producing a
more reliable work atmosphere and increasing their job performance. The empirical results of
Mankin et al. (1996) demonstrate that compared to independent work, team operation positively
International Journal of Management and Sustainability, 2014, 3(7): 415-432
421
and significantly influences performance. When team members have close relationships and share
their goals with one another, such team cooperation heightens job performance in teams. According
to Hackman (2002), when team members realize team goals, work progress, and task distribution,
the overall team operation influences the team members’ return and performance. Based on these
findings, positive team cooperation enhances job performance. Therefore, we propose H11:
H11: Team cooperation has a positive impact on job performance.
The research model and hypotheses are illustrated in Fig. 1.
Figure-1. Establishment of the Research Framework and Hypotheses
3. QUESTIONNAIRE DEVELOPMENT
The purpose of this study is to identify the effects of diversity, interdependence, and
conflict on team performance. The contents of the questionnaire are divided into two parts. The
first part concerns basic personal information, and the second part contains 6 latent variables: team
diversity, task interdependence, relationship conflict, task conflict, team cooperation, and team
performance. The questionnaire was scored using a Likert 5-point scale, ranging from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) (see the Appendix).
Team diversity is based on items developed by McGrath et al. (1995), and it includes a
total of 4 items. Task interdependence is based on items developed by Jarvenpaa and Staples
(2001), with a total of 4 items. Relationship conflict and task conflict are based on items developed
by Jehn and Mannix (2001) and Pelled et al. (1999), with a total of 6 items. Team cooperation is
H4(-)
Relationship
conflict
Job
performance
Team
cooperation
Team diversity
Task
interdependence
Task conflict
H1(+)
H2(+)
H3(+)
H5(+)
H6(+)
H7(+)
H8(-)
H9(+)
H10(-)
H11(+
)
International Journal of Management and Sustainability, 2014, 3(7): 415-432
422
based on items developed by Chatman and Flynn (2001), with a total of 4 items. Job performance
is based on items developed by Campbell (1990) and Motowidlo and Van (1994), with a total of 6
items. In this study, the structural relationship among team diversity, task interdependence,
relationship conflict, task conflict, team cooperation and job performance is the subjects’ cognitive
relationship.
4. DATA COLLECTION AND DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF SAMPLES
4.1. Sample and Data Collection
Real estate brokers in Kaohsiung City were recruited as participants in this study. The real
estate industry in Taiwan is classified under two systems: self-operating and chain. Generally, self-
operating real estate companies are smaller in scale and system. They lack brand image, and it is
difficult to survey them. Therefore, this study focuses on larger-scale, chain real estate companies
that have complete systems and recognizable brand images. The survey was conducted from July 1
to August 31, 2013, and it includes chain real estate companies such as Pacific Realtor, Sinyi
Realty, Century 21 Real Estate, H & B Business group, Eastern Realty, Taiwan Realty Estate,
Yungching Real Estate Agency, and others. A total of 568 questionnaires were distributed, with a
total of 367 retrieved. After eliminating 5 invalid questionnaires, the researcher obtained 362 valid
questionnaires, and the valid return rate was 98.6%.
4.2. Descriptive Statistics of Samples
Among the retrieved samples, 58.3% are males and 41.7% are females. Most of the
participants are aged 26-30 (21.0%), followed by 31-35 (19.9%), and 41-45 (14.4%). Most of the
participants (53.1%) are married, with 43.3% unmarried. The majority of participants are university
graduates (43.3%), followed by those whose highest levels of education are senior high school and
vocational school (27.2%) and college (27.2%). Regarding average personal annual income, most
of the participants earned NTD 310,000-500,000 (24.1%), followed by NTD 510,000-700,000
(23.8%) and NTD 300,000 (23.2%). Most of the participants (28.3%) worked 41-50 hours per
week, followed by 51-60 hours per week (24.1%).
5. EMPIRICAL RESULTS
SPSS/AMOS (v20.0) for Windows was used for data analysis. The structural equation model
(SEM) was used for technical analysis and was divided into a measurement model and a structural
model for descriptive purposes.
5.1. Analysis of the Measurement Model
The latent variable’s composite reliability (CR) is composed of the validity of all of its
measurement variables, suggesting the internal consistency of the composite indicators. A higher
level of validity suggests a higher level of consistency of these indicators. The CR of the latent
variables in this research exceeds 0.6, which corresponds to Fornell and Larcker (1981) (Table 1);
International Journal of Management and Sustainability, 2014, 3(7): 415-432
423
As shown in Table 1, the factor loadings of the measured variables are mostly above 0.70 and
reaches a significant level, indicating that the questionnaire exhibits the required convergent
validity.
The latent variable’s average variance extracted (AVE) is to compute the explanatory power of
the various measured variables of the latent variables on the latent variable. Therefore, a higher
level of AVE indicates that the latent variable has a higher level of reliability and convergent
validity. Furthermore, Fornell and Larcker (1981) stated that the AVE should be higher than 0.50.
Table 1 shows that the AVE values are higher than the acceptable level of 0.50. Overall, the
internal consistency of the scale is acceptable.
In terms of discriminant validity, the square roots of the AVE of the latent variable must be
larger than the correlation coefficients of the variables paired with the other variables (Fornell and
Larcker (1981). This suggests that all components exhibit good discriminant validity. As shown in
Table 2, for example, the square roots of task conflict and relationship conflict AVE values are
0.952 and 0.933, respectively, which are greater than the correlation coefficients of task conflict
and relationship conflict of 0.013, suggesting a discriminant validity. The rest are similar by
deduction. Therefore, the scales in this study have considerable levels of discriminant validity.
Table-1. Scale Reliability, Loadings, and Average Variance Extracted
Variables
Loadings
(standardized)
CR
AVE
2
R
Team diversity
0.841
0.755
Diversity 1
0.778***
Diversity 2
0.812***
Diversity 3
0.676***
Diversity 4
0.681
Task interdependence
0.832
0.746
Interdependence 1
0.559
Interdependence 2
0.808***
Interdependence 3
0.775***
Interdependence 4
0.717***
Relationship conflict
0.932
0.907
0.045
Relationship 1
0.853***
Relationship 2
0.927***
Relationship 3
0.918
Task conflict
0.904
0.871
0.034
Task 1
0.829
Task 2
0.823***
Task 3
0.840***
Team cooperation
0.754
0.715
0.312
Cooperation 1
0.519
Cooperation 2
0.033
Cooperation 3
0.886***
Cooperation 4
0.922***
Job performance
0.957
0.887
0.393
Performance 1
0.804
Continue
International Journal of Management and Sustainability, 2014, 3(7): 415-432
424
Performance 2
0.785***
Performance 3
0.787***
Performance 4
0.851***
Performance 5
0.863***
Performance 6
0.856***
Note: *
10.0p
. **
05.0p
. ***
01.0p
. The meaning of the measurement variables are shown in the
Appendix.
Table-2. Correlation Matrix of Latent Variables
Team diversity
0.869
Task interdependence
-0.155
0.864
Task conflict
0.075
-0.001
0.952
Relationship conflict
0.094
-0.089
0.013
0.933
Team cooperation
-0.077
0.142
-0.021
-0.103
0.846
Job performance
-0.082
0.166
0.015
-0.092
0.158
0.942
Note: Thediagonal represents the square roots of the AVE of components.
5.2. Analysis of the Structure Model
5.2.1. Overall Model Fit
Bagozzi and Y (1988) indicated that the model fit cannot be determined by a single criterion or
indicator alone and that the testing results of the overall model should also be considered.
Regarding the overall theoretical model fit analysis, the absolute fit indicator = 775.815 (p <
0.000) reached the significant level of 0.05, and the normal = 3.233 is within the acceptable range.
In addition, the goodness-of-fit index (GFI) = 0.851, adjusted goodness of hit index (AGFI) =
0.813, normal fit index (NFI) = 0.858, comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.896, incremental fit index
(IFI) = 0.897, and root mean square residual (RMR) = 0.092, standardized root mean square
residual (RMSEA) = 0.079 are mostly acceptable standard values. Overall, the theoretical model fit
is acceptable.
5.2.2. Empirical Results
The empirical results of this study are shown in Fig. 2 and Table 3. The coefficient estimation
of team diversity on task conflict is 0.245, and it reaches a significance level of 1%. Therefore, H1
is supported. The coefficient estimation of team diversity on relationship conflict is 0.167, which
reaches a significance level of 10%. H2 is therefore supported. The coefficient estimation of task
interdependence on task conflict is 0.116, and it does not reach a significance level of 10%.
Therefore, H3 is not supported. The coefficient estimation of task interdependence on relationship
conflict is -0.198, and it does reach a significance level of 10%. H4 is supported.
The coefficient estimation of task interdependence on job performance is 0.285, which reaches
a significance level of 1%. H5 is therefore supported. The coefficient estimation of task
interdependence on team cooperation is 0.423, which reaches a significance level of 1%. H6 is
therefore supported. The coefficient estimation of task conflict on team cooperation is -0.036,
which does not reach a significance level of 10%. H7 is not supported. The coefficient estimation
International Journal of Management and Sustainability, 2014, 3(7): 415-432
425
of relationship conflict on team cooperation is -0.089, which reaches a significance level of 1%. H8
is therefore supported.
The coefficient estimation of task conflict on job performance is 0.050, which does not reach a
significance level of 10%. H9 is not supported. The coefficient estimation of relationship conflict
on job performance is -0.019, which does not reach a significance level of 10%. H10 is not
supported. The coefficient estimation of team cooperation on job performance is 0.524, which does
reach a significance level of 1%. H11 is supported. According to these empirical results, aside from
for H3, H7, H9 and H10, all of the other hypotheses are supported.
Figure-2. Analysis of the Structure Model
Note: *
10.0p
. **
05.0p
. ***
01.0p
.
6. DISCUSSION
This study treats team diversity and task interdependence as exogenous variables and
investigates the impact of task conflict, relationship conflict, and team cooperation on job
performance, using the real estate industry as subject. In recent years, housing prices in Taiwan
have increased steadily. Although the government has attempted to suppress the rise in real estate
prices, it has not been completely successful. Real estate companies actively recruit talents as
brokers. In this competitive industry, the turnover rate of labor is significantly high. Some brokers
become top salespeople within a year, whereas others stay for only several months or even several
days. Because the members of real estate branches come from different places and grew up in
different environments, these aspects of their backgrounds can result in differing individual
characteristics, such as personality, within the team. Furthermore, information within the real estate
International Journal of Management and Sustainability, 2014, 3(7): 415-432
426
industry is usually not transparent, and members must often help each other. Work dependence and
team diversity therefore impact the chain of team conflict, cooperation, and job performance.
Table-3. Hypotheses Testing Results
Path
Expected
sign
Non-standardized
coefficient
t-value
p-value
Hypotheses
H1 team diversity-> task
conflict
+
0.245***
2.859
0.004
Supported
H2 team diversity->
relationship conflict
+
0.167*
1.763
0.078
Supported
H3 task interdependence-
> task conflict
+
0.116
1.245
0.213
Not
supported
H4 task interdependence-
> relationship conflict
--
-0.198*
-1.883
0.060
Supported
H5 task interdependence-
> job performance
+
0.285***
4.186
0.001
Supported
H6 task interdependence-
> team cooperation
+
0.423***
6.142
0.001
Supported
H7 task conflict-> team
cooperation
+
-0.036
-1.081
0.280
Not
supported
H8 relationship conflict->
team cooperation
--
-0.089***
-3.020
0.003
Supported
H9 task conflict-> job
performance
+
0.050
1.299
0.194
Not
supported
H10 relationship conflict-
> job performance
--
-0.019
-0.557
0.564
Not
supported
H11 team cooperation->
job performance
+
0.524***
5.860
0.001
Supported
Notes: *
p
0.10, **
p
0.05, ***
p
0.01.
According to the empirical results of this study,
2
R
of relationship conflict = 4.5%. This
indicates that the explained variance of team diversity and task interdependence on relationship
conflict is 4.5%.
2
R
of task conflict = 3.4%, which means that the explained variance of team
diversity and task interdependence on relationship conflict is 3.4%.
2
R
of team cooperation =
31.2%, which indicates that the explained variance of task conflict, task interdependence, and
relationship conflict on team cooperation is 31.2%.
2
R
of job performance = 39.3%, which means
that the explained variance of task conflict, team cooperation, task interdependence, and
relationship conflict on job performance is 39.3%.
In teams with highly diverse members, task conflict and relationship conflict are more likely to
exist. Pelled et al. (1999) suggest that when group members have high work-related background
diversity, task conflict may arise. According to Jehn et al. (1999), when team members’
information diversity is high, task conflict more likely arises. When team members’ value diversity
is high, relationship conflict is more likely to exist. This study demonstrates that diversity
positively and significantly influences task conflict and relationship conflict. It supports the
findings of Pelled et al. (1999) and Jehn et al. (1999).
International Journal of Management and Sustainability, 2014, 3(7): 415-432
427
According to the empirical results of this study, task interdependence and relationship conflict
have an inverse relationship. In situations that contain relationship conflict, team members
recognize interpersonal conflict, and this results in negative emotions (Jehn and Chatman, 2000).
Wageman and Baker (1997) indicated that relationship conflict among team members decrease as
task interdependence increases. This study demonstrates that task interdependence negatively and
significantly influences relationship conflict. It supports the results of Jehn and Chatman (2000);
Wageman and Baker (1997).
According to the empirical results of this study, task interdependence positively influences job
performance. In social interdependence theory, Matsui et al. (1987) suggested positive
interdependence among team members enhances the individual’s responsibility toward other team
members, such as accomplishing duties, helping other members complete their work, and feeling
bad about one’s own and others’ failures. Responsibility enhances team members’ work motive.
This study demonstrates that task interdependence positively and significantly influences job
performance, and supports the findings of Matsui et al. (1987).
Task interdependence also positively influences team cooperation. Wageman (1995) indicated
that high task interdependence leads team-members to cooperate with each other, share
information, and demonstrate other collaborative behavior to accomplish tasks. Task
interdependence enhances members’ expectations of others’ assistance. A high level of
interdependence results in higher team cooperation. This study demonstrates that task
interdependence positively and significantly influences team cooperation. Therefore, it supports the
finding of Wageman (1995).
A high level of conflict in interpersonal relationships impact team cooperation negatively.
Sarason (1984) suggested that relationship conflict tends to result in negative emotions, thereby
hindering the cognition of team members. When team members ponder on problems, they neglect
important information and details. This study shows that relationship conflict negatively and
significantly influences team cooperation. The finding of Sarason (1984) is therefore supported.
Team cooperation positively influences job performance. Quick (1992)suggested that team
cooperation leads to a more efficient use of resources. Members encourage each other, respond
immediately to problems and solve them collectively. They communicate publicly and sincerely,
participate in making decisions that impact the team, thereby producing a more reliable work
atmosphere and increasing their job performance. This study demonstrates that team cooperation
positively and significantly influences job performance. The finding of Quick (1992) is supported.
Based on previous research, task interdependence impacts task conflict positively. For instance,
Jelin (1995) indicated that interdependence among team members increase resources. A high
degree of interdependence enhances the risk of task conflict. This study demonstrates that task
interdependence does not influence task conflict significantly. The research findings of Wageman
and Baker (1997) and Jelin (1995) are therefore not supported.
Previous research has also found task conflict to impact team cooperation positively. For
instance, Jehn (1995) and Amason (1996) suggested that task conflict in teams allows members to
International Journal of Management and Sustainability, 2014, 3(7): 415-432
428
express different opinions, clarify concepts, reach a consensus, accept decision making, and share
knowledge. This study demonstrates that task conflict does not influence team cooperation
significantly. The research findings of Jehn (1995) and Amason (1996) are therefore not supported.
Task conflict has also been shown to have a positive impact on job performance. Putnam (1994)
demonstrated that task conflict helps team members discuss potential problems, clarify
misunderstandings, and exchange information. It can enhance team members’ identification and
understanding of tasks. This study shows that task conflict does not significantly influence job
performance. The finding of Putnam (1994) is therefore not supported. Based on past research,
relationship conflict negatively impacts job performance. Relationship conflict tends to result in
negative emotions, hindering the cognition of team members (Sarason, 1984). When team members
think about problems, they neglect important information and details. This study demonstrates that
relationship conflict does not influence job performance significantly. The result of Sarason (1984)
is therefore not supported.
7. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
7.1. Conclusions
This study elucidates the main factors that influence the job performance of real estate brokers.
Team diversity positively and significantly influences task conflict and relationship conflict. Teams
with highly diverse members result in differences of opinion, task conflict, and relationship
conflict. Task interdependence influences relationship conflict, job performance and team
cooperation significantly. Relationship conflict has a negative and significant impact on team
cooperation. Relationship conflict in teams can lead to interpersonal conflict and decrease team
cooperation. Team cooperation has a positive and significant impact on job performance. Positive
team cooperation enhances job performance. This study treats team diversity and task
interdependence as exogenous variables and combines them with the job performance model. The
empirical results of this study indicate good explanatory power.
The results of our study suggest that managers of real estate companies should focus on the
impact of team diversity and relationship conflict on job performance. For instance, team members
with similar educational, professional, and family backgrounds working together can avoid
interpersonal problems. It lowers the risk of negative emotions and increases team cooperation and
job performance. Likewise, real estate industries should enhance task interdependence, because it
increases team cooperation and lowers relationship conflict. High task interdependence in teams
leads to cooperation, information sharing and other collaborative behavior among team members to
finish tasks (Wageman, 1995). For instance, different team members develop and sell properties
and share the commission after sales. When introducing properties, team members cooperate with
each other, thereby enhancing task interdependence and cooperation.
International Journal of Management and Sustainability, 2014, 3(7): 415-432
429
7.2. Research Suggestions
Previous academic research has explored team diversity, conflict, and performance. However,
few studies have focused on the impact of team diversity on the performance of real estate brokers.
This study treats team diversity as a latent variable. In the future, team diversity can be divided into
other factors of performance, such as age, educational level, and sex, in order to investigate their
impact on conflict and performance. In this study, the structural relationship among team diversity,
task interdependence, relationship conflict, task conflict, team cooperation, and job performance
refers to the subjects’ cognitive relationship. Future research can divide the research level into
individual and team levels and conduct hierarchical linear modeling to explore cross-level factors
of individual performance in order to obtain a more complete research framework.
Appendix
Operational Definitions of Variables
Constructs
Items
References
Team diversity
1. Ages of members in the firm are highly similar.
2. Educational backgrounds of members in the firm are highly
similar.
3. Professional knowledge of members in the firm is highly
similar.
4. Working years of members in the firm are highly similar.
McGrath et al. (1995)
Task
independence
1. I usually rely on my colleagues’ assistance to accomplish the
tasks.
2. I usually rely on my colleagues’ sharing of
information/knowledge for the task.
3. I usually use my colleagues’ information/knowledge for the
task.
4. My work performance relies on the efforts of my colleagues.
Jarvenpaa and Staples
(2001)
Relationship
conflict
1. Members of the firm have interpersonal tension.
2. Members of the firm tend to get angry at each other.
3. Members of the firm are in emotional conflict.
Jehn and Mannix
(2001); Pelled et al.
(1999)
Task conflict
1. In the team, members usually have conflict of ideas.
2. Regarding tasks in the firm, members have different views
3. Regarding tasks in the firm, members have opinion conflict.
Team
cooperation
1. In my firm, members are willing to sacrifice personal benefit
for team benefit.
2. In my firm, members rarely cooperate with each other and they
finish tasks individually.
3. In my firm, members often cooperate with each other.
4. In my firm, members show a high degree of sharing.
Chatman and Flynn
(2001)
Job
performance
1. I can effectively respond to clients’ needs.
2. I can effectively plan and arrange tasks.
3. I have positive overall performance on capacity.
4. When encountering obstacles at work, I try to overcome them
and finish the task.
5. I cooperate with coworkers in the team.
6. When coworkers encounter problems, I support and encourage
them.
Campbell
(1990);Motowidlo and
Van (1994)
International Journal of Management and Sustainability, 2014, 3(7): 415-432
430
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.
Bagozzi, R.P. and Y. Y, 1988. On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 16(1): 74-94.
Bono, J.E., T.L. Boles, T.A. Judge and K.J. Lauver, 2002. The role of personality in task and relationship
conflict. Journal of Personality, 70(3): 311-344.
Campbell, J.P., 1990. Modeling the performance prediction problem in industrial and organizational
psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Chatman, J.A. and F.J. Flynn, 2001. The influence of demographic heterogeneity on the emergence and
consequences of cooperative norms in work teams Academy of Management Journal, 44(5): 956-
974.
Cleavenger, D., W.L. Gardner and K. Mhatre, 2007. Helping-seeking: Testing the effects of task
interdependence and normativeness on employees propensity to seek help. Journal of Business and
Psychology, 21(3): 331-359.
Cohen, S.G. and D.E. Bailey, 1997. What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop
floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23(3): 239-290.
Deutsch, M., 1985. Distributive justice: A social psychological perspective. New Haven: Yale University
Press.
Duffy, M.K., J.D. Shaw and E.M. Stark, 2000. Performance and satisfaction in conflicted interdependent
groups: When and how does self-esteem make a difference? Academy of Management Journal,
43(4): 772-782.
Fornell, C. and D.F. Larcker, 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and
measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1): 39-50.
Hackman, J.R., 2002. Leading teams: Setting the stage for great performances. Boston: Harvard Business
School Press.
Harrison, D.A. and K.J. Klein, 2007. What’s the difference? Diversity constructs as separation, variety, or
disparity in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32(4): 1199-1228.
Jackson, S.E., A. Joshi and N.L. Erhardt, 2003. Recent research on team and organizational diversity: SWOT
analysis and implications. Journal of Management, 29(6): 801-830.
Jarvenpaa, S.L. and D.S. Staples, 2001. Exploring perceptions of organizational ownership of information and
expertise. Journal of Management information Systems, 18(1): 151-183.
Jehn, K.A., 1994. Enhancing effectiveness: An investigation of advantages and disadvantages of value-based
intragroup conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management, 5(3): 223-238.
Jehn, K.A., 1995. A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(2): 256-282.
Jehn, K.A. and J.A. Chatman, 2000. The influence of proportional and perceptual conflict composition on
team performance. The International Journal of Conflict Management, 11(1): 56-73.
International Journal of Management and Sustainability, 2014, 3(7): 415-432
431
Jehn, K.A. and E.A. Mannix, 2001. The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study of intragroup conflict
and group performance. The Academy of Management Journal, 44(2): 238-251.
Jehn, K.A., G.B. Northcraft and M.A. Neale, 1999. Why difference make a difference: A field study of
diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(4): 741-
763.
Jelin, E., 1995. Building citizenship: A balance between solidarity and responsibility. In J. S. Tulchin (Ed.):
The Consolidation of Democracy in Latin America. pp: 83-97.
Jessup, H.R., 1990. New roles in team leadership. Training and Development Journal, 44(11): 79-83.
Johnson, D.W. and R.T. Johnson, 1989. Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina: Interaction
Book Company.
Lee, C.C., 2013. Bonus and education heterogeneity effects on helping efforts. Bothalia Journal, 43(2): 159-
176.
Lewicki, R.J., S.E. Weiss and D. Lewin, 1992. Models of conflict, negotiation and third party intervention: A
review and synthesis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(3): 209-252.
Mankin, D., S.G. Cohen and T.K. Bikson, 1996. Teams and technology: Fulfilling the promise of the new
organization. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Matsui, T., T. Kakayama and M. Onglatco, 1987. Effects of goals and feedback on performance in groups.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 72(3): 407-415.
McGrath, J.E., J.L. Berdahl and H. Arrow, 1995. Traits, expectations, culture, and clout: The dynamics of
diversity in work groups. Washington: American Psychological Association.
Milgrom, P. and J. Roberts, 1990. The economics of modern manufacturing: Technology, strategy, and
organization. The American Economic Review, 80(3): 511-528.
Milgrom, P. and J. Roberts, 1995. Complementaries and fit strategy, structure, and organizational change in
manufacturing. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 19(2/3): 179-208.
Motowidlo, S.J. and S.J.R. Van, 1994. Evidence that task performance should be distinguished from
contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(4): 475-480.
Murray, A.I., 1989. Top management group heterogeneity and firm performance. Strategic Management
Journal, 10(1): 125-141.
Pearce, J.L. and H.B. Gregersen, 1991. Task interdependence and extrarole behavior: A test of the mediating
effects of felt responsibility. Journal of Apply Psychology, 76(6): 834-844.
Pelled, L.H., K.M. Eisenhard and K.R. Xin, 1999. Exploring the black box: An analysis of work group
diversity, conflict, and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1): 1-28.
Pfeffer, J. and G.R. Salancik, 1978. The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective.
New York: Stanford University Press.
Putnam, L.L., 1994. Productive conflict: Negotiation as implicit coordination. International Journal of Conflict
Management, 5(3): 284-299.
Quick, T.L., 1992. Successful team building. New York: American Management Association.
International Journal of Management and Sustainability, 2014, 3(7): 415-432
432
Salas, E., T.L. Dickinson, S.A. Converse and S.I. Tannenbaum, 1992. Toward an understanding of team
performance and training. In R.W. Swezey & E. Salas (Eds.), Teams: Their training and
performance. Norwood: Ablex. pp: 3-29.
Sarason, I.G., 1984. Stress, anxiety, and cognitive interface: Reactions to tests. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 46(4): 929-938.
Schwenk, C., 1990. Conflict in organizational decision making: An exploratory study of its effects in for-
profit and not-for-profit organizations. Management Science, 36(4): 436-448.
Stewart, G.L. and M.R. Barrick, 2000. Team structure and performance: Assessing the mediating role of intra
team process and the moderating role of task type. Academy of Management Journal, 43(2): 135-
148.
Van Der Vegt, G. and E. Van De Vliert, 2002. Intragroup interdependence and effectiveness: Review and
proposed directions for theory and practice. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17(1): 50-67.
Wageman, R., 1995. Interdependence and group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(1): 145-
180.
Wageman, R. and G. Baker, 1997. Incentives and cooperation: The joint effects of task and reward
interdependence on group performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18(2): 139-158.
Wagner, W.G., J. Pfeffer and C.A.I. O'Reilly, 1984. Organizational demography and turnover in top-
management groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29(1): 74-92.
Walsh, J.P., 1988. Selectivity and selective perception: An investigation of managers belief structures and
information processing. The Academy of Management Journal, 31(4): 873-896.
Wellins, R.S., W.C. Byham and G.R. Dixon, 1994. Inside teams: How 20 world-class organizations are
winning through teamwork. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Wieserma, M.F. and K. Bantel, 1992. Top management team demography and corporate strategic change. The
Academy of Management Journal, 35(1): 91-121.
