W4D1 Wald Respond To Two Colleagues

Respond to at least two of your peers’ postings in one or more of the following ways:

See attachment for details
3 -4 paragraphs
No plagiarism
APA citing

Top of Form

Discussion 1: What’s Your Approach to Conflict?

As you look at the Conerly and Tripathy (2004) instrument, be aware that instrument evolved from the work of Thomas-Kilman. The article by Thomas, Thomas, and Schaubhut (2008) uses the categorizations from the original instrument by Thomas-Kilman. This may be a little confusing since most of the categories are different. The styles that match are smoothing–accommodating; withdrawing–avoiding; forcing–competing; and confronting–collaboration. Compromising is the same in both models.

Imagine you have gotten into a debate with a coworker. You can tell by the rising tone of voice that the discussion has gone beyond a mere disagreement of opinion and is heading toward something stronger. Depending upon your personality, your reaction to this and the consequences that will arise are unique to you. Perhaps you will immediately back off and attempt an apologetic appeal before the situation worsens, or maybe you are of the opposite ilk and are prepared to fight it out to the last man. Even between these extremes, there are myriad possible reactions, each with their own benefits and problems.

For this Discussion, complete the conflict styles assessment in the Conerly and Tripathi article in this week’s Resources. As you complete the conflict t styles assessment, please be sure to respond to each question as you really are, not as your ideal self would be. Who you are is not dependent upon context so much as it is dependent on habits developed over a lifetime.

To prepare for this Discussion, pay particular attention to the following Learning Resources:

Review this week’s Learning Resources, especially:

Conerly, K., & Tripathi, A. (2004). What is your conflict style? Understanding and dealing with your conflict style.

Journal for Quality & Participation, 27(2), 16–20.

Thomas, K. W., Thomas, G. F., & Schaubhut, N. (2008). Conflict styles of men and women at six organization levels. International Journal of Conflict Management, 19(2), 148–166.

doi:10.1108/10444060810856085

Cahn, D. D., & Abigail, R. A. (2014). Managing conflict through communication (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Bottom of Form

Assignment:

Respond to at least two of your peers’ postings in one or more of the following ways:

· Using the framework provided by Thomas, Thomas and Schaubhut (2008), at what level of the organization is your peer’s conflict style most likely to be effective? Why? What else would this article say about your peer’s conflict style?

· Please share your preferred conflict style and how it would most likely interact with your peer’s. Would it be helpful to style flex to make this interaction as positive as possible?

· What happens when you interact with someone with the same conflict style as yours? Does this work for both of you, or is it an opportunity to style flex?

· 3 -4 paragraphs

· No plagiarism

· APA citing

1st Colleague – Natasha Mills

Natasha Mills

What’s Your Approach to Conflict?

Top of Form

My results of the conflict style assessment show that my most preferred conflict style is confronting or collaboration, which is interpreted as high value for goals and relationships (Conerly & Tripathi, 2004). It is then followed by smoothing, withdrawing, compromising and forcing in that order. Whereas there is a significant gap in my adoption of conflict resolution style of confronting and the rest, there is a small margin between my adoption of the styles of withdrawing and compromising. Further, despite my high scores in the confronting conflict resolution style, my involvement in conflict is not always courageous. This can be attributed to the fact that not all conflict situations I have experienced have had a positive outcome. I would like to be more courageous in my involvement in conflict by adopting a more positive view of conflict situations and seeing them as opportunities (Cahn & Abigail, 2014).

My results from the conflict style assessment are accurate to a great extent. I prefer to confront conflict rather than withdraw, as well as smooth things over and compromise as opposed to forcing. However, before the test I thought that I use smoothing and compromising more frequently than confronting as conflict styles. This can be attributed to the higher value I place on relationships than goals. Therefore, the results of the assessment were shocking to some extent because they showed that my most preferred conflict style is confronting, followed by smoothing. The assessment also portrayed that I use the withdrawing style more than compromising (Conerly & Tripathi, 2004). As already mentioned, I highly value relationships hence I expected my results to show a higher frequency in using compromise than withdrawing as conflict styles and not vice versa.

Organizations contain people from diverse backgrounds with different conflict resolution styles. Thus, it is essential or valuable to understand one’s conflict style, as well as that of others, for more effectiveness in resolving conflicts. As Conerly & Tripathi (2004) put it, you can learn which aspects of your conflict style to apply in various situations, which is only possible if you are conscious of your style, while others are also conscious of their conflict styles. When this is the case, the organization will experience balance and effectiveness in solving conflict issues. “These approaches – and many others that create balance among the styles of group members – can be very beneficial in creating collaborative solutions in an effective and timely manner” (Conerly & Tripathi, 2004, p.20).

A leader or manager’s conflict style can be part of the problem because of the influence they have on their followers. For instance, when leaders and managers use the assertive conflict styles of collaborating and competing, their followers are bound to adopt the same styles and apply them in conflict situations as well. Similarly, when leaders use the least assertive conflict styles, which include accommodating and avoiding, their followers will equally apply these styles in conflict situations. The outcomes of the adoption of these styles will be those that Conerly & Tripathi (2004) associate with each of the styles. Leaders and managers who use accommodating will have followers with low goals, those who use avoiding will have low relationships and low goals, while those who collaborate will have high relationships and high goals during conflict resolution. Lastly, leaders and managers who frequently use the competing conflict style will have followers with high goals but low value for relationships. Therefore, the solution is for the leaders and managers to be conscious of their conflict styles and how they influence their followers for more positive outcomes. (Conerly & Tripathi, 2004).

My approach to conflict is confrontation, which categorized as one of the most assertive conflict styles (Thomas et al., 2008). This conflict style is associated with high relationships and high goals, both of which are critical to my success as a leader or manager. However, based on what I have learned, I have an opportunity to increase my success as a leader by being conscious at my conflict style and that of others, leading to timely and effective solutions during conflict (Conerly & Tripathi, 2004). My current awareness of this fact will critically help me cut on the time spent dealing with conflict as a leader.

Cahn, D. D., & Abigail, R. A. (2014). Managing conflict through communication (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Conerly, K., & Tripathi, A. (2004). What is your conflict style? Understanding and dealing with your conflict style. Journal for Quality & Participation, 27(2), 16–20.

Thomas, K. W., Thomas, G. F., & Schaubhut, N. (2008). Conflict styles of men and women at six organization levels. International Journal of Conflict Management, 19(2), 148–166.
Bottom of Form

2nd Colleague –

Donna

Donna Tizzano

RE: Discussion 1 – Week 4 Tizzano Initial Response

Top of Form

Hello Class,

Last week we learned that controversy/conflict within a discussion can generate creativity in decision-making and solve problems if it is managed correctly (Johnson & Johnson, 2014). How we approach conflict and what we value in terms of relationships and goals determine how successful we resolve issues (Conerly & Tripathi, 2004). Conerly and Tripathi (2004) have developed a model of Conflict Styles based on how much we desire to achieve our goals (assertive) and how important it is for us to preserve our relationships with those we are managing a conflict with (cooperative). After completing the Conflict Styles Self-Assessment, I identified my Conflict Style as Confronting. This Style is characterized by people who place a high value on both relationships and their goals. The outcome was very accurate and not surprising to me because I am passionate about maintaining strong collaborative professional relationships with my peers and solving problems effectively, efficiently, and timely. I believe that my involvement in conflict management is courageous because of the high value I place on maintaining relationships and not compromising my values or goals when I am in a conflict situation.

As previously stated, my results did not surprise me at all. My Conflict Style of “confronting” describes my approach to conflict management and my characteristics well. I strive to find the best solution to an issue, especially when dealing with policies and processes related to the delivery of patient care and nursing practice without taking shortcuts or compromising the safety of nurses or patients. I do not achieve this by force or aggression, but by recognizing the high value I place on maintaining collaborative relationships with others through assertion, cooperation, and confronting problems in a timely manner (Conerly & Tripathi, 2004).

There is great value in understanding each Conflict Style and to what extent people place value on their relationships with people vs achieving or attaining their goals. I am assertive and use collaboration to reach a solution that I believe is correct but must achieve this without creating negative feelings among my peers (Conerly & Tripathi, 2004). Others may find this approach to conflict management annoying since it may take a long time to reach an acceptable resolution. By recognizing the characteristics of the other Conflict Styles that people employ, I will better understand the perspectives and characteristics that my peers are demonstrating. I can then adjust my approach and choose which of my characteristics to bring forward or hold back on in the situation to help progress the conflict management and come to a mutually agreed-upon resolution (Conerly & Tripathi, 2004).

When people understand their Conflict Style and that of others, they can be sensitive to how their team members approach a conflict situation. They will then respect the characteristics each member demonstrates and the balance that each Style brings to the table. When people understand others Conflict Styles and are willing to adjust the characteristics that they bring forward or hold back on in each situation, they recognize the collaborative and creative solutions that can be achieved in Conflict Management (Conerly & Tripathi, 2004).

Thomas et al. (2008) describe the Five Conflict Styles through the dimensions of how cooperative vs how assertive a person is and discuss the problems that may result as characteristics of each Style may cause a reciprocal response by followers. For instance, leaders demonstrating low cooperativeness and high assertiveness (Competing Style) may dominate a meeting if others possess the opposite Conflict Style of Accommodation. Those possessing this Conflict Style strive for cooperativeness in meetings but lack assertiveness. Therefore, they would not be likely to share their opinions or goals with someone who is very assertive and does not feel the need to be cooperative. If there is a room full of people who all possess a Competing Style of Conflict Resolution, they are apt to have a dysfunctional outcome to their problem (Thomas et al., 2008). Those demonstrating these characteristics want to win and satisfy their own goals at the expense of their colleagues, so they will not be open to other people’s perspectives or ideas, and their peers may perceive them as not being team players (Thomas et al., 2008).

People who adopt the Conflict Style of Avoidance demonstrate low cooperativeness and low assertiveness and therefore completely avoid the issue or push it aside, so they don’t have to deal with the issue. In contrast, those who possess the Style of Collaboration demonstrate high cooperativeness and high assertiveness. Therefore, they will take time to ensure that they will succeed in reaching their goal while ensuring they do not solicit negative feelings from those they are working with, even if this takes a significant amount of time (Conerly & Tripathi, 2004). If a peer Compromises to manage conflict, they may not generate their own opinions or goals because they strive to reach a resolution that satisfies all parties equally, which may not be the best outcome.

Based on what I have learned about Conflict Styles and identifying my Conflict Style, I recognize that I must manage conflict by accepting other people’s Styles and characteristics and adjusting which features of mine to project or inhibit based on whom I am working with. In my role as Director of Acute and Critical Care, I participate in several committees and meetings that generate conflict. My Conflict Style places a strong value on relationships and goals resulting in a personality that is assertive and strives for cooperation through confrontation and collaboration (Conerly & Tripathi, 2004). It is important for me to recognize the characteristics and Styles of others, so I do not become reactive in a non-productive way while listening to their perspectives. Hopefully, by demonstrating the appropriate behaviors and interactions we will achieve a win-win resolution.

Thomas et al. (2008) share that leaders who demonstrate more assertive styles of Conflict Management are more likely to receive promotions and advancement within their organizations. As I continue to develop and improve my conflict resolution skills, I hope that I will be recognized as a leader who is proficient at conflict resolution.

Have a great week,

Donna

References:

Conerly, K., & Tripathi, A. (2004). What is your conflict style? Understanding and dealing with your conflict style. Journal for Quality & Participation, 27(2), 16–20.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson R. T. (2014). Constructive controversy as a means of teaching citizens how to engage in political discourse. Policy Futures in Education, 12(3), 417-430. https://doi.org/10.2304/pfie.2014.12.3.417

Thomas, K. W., Thomas, G. F., & Schaubhut, N. (2008). Conflict styles of men and women at six organization levels. International Journal of Conflict Management, 19(2), 148–166.

Bottom of Form

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Conflict styles of men and women at six organization levels
Thomas, Kenneth W;Thomas, Gail Fann
International Journal of Conflict Management; 2008; 19, 2; ProQuest One Academic
pg. 148

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

r Academy of Management Journal
2018, Vol. 61, No. 1, 324–347.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.0094

INTRODUCING TEAM MINDFULNESS AND CONSIDERING
ITS SAFEGUARD ROLE AGAINST CONFLICT

TRANSFORMATION AND SOCIAL UNDERMINING

LINGTAO YU
University of British Columbia

MARY ZELLMER-BRUHN
University of Minnesota

The authors introduce the concept of team mindfulness, defined as a shared belief
among team members that their interactions are characterized by awareness and at-
tention to present events, and experiential, nonjudgmental processing of within-team
experiences. Team mindfulness is examined as a safeguard against multilevel team
conflict transformation processes. Results from three multi-wave field studies validate
a team mindfulness instrument and indicate that team mindfulness (1) negatively relates
to team relationship conflict, (2) reduces the connection between task conflict and re-
lationship conflict at the team level, (3) and reduces the cross-level spillover of team
relationship conflict to individual social undermining. The research contributes to the
growing workplace mindfulness literature by conceptualizing mindfulness at the team
level and demonstrating its positive effects for team functioning. Results also contribute
to research on team conflict and social undermining, showing that team mindfulness is
a promising intervention to reduce team conflict and its ill effects.

If you’ve seen the Three Peat by the Bulls, the Lakers’
championships. . . then you’ve seen the magic of
mindfulness. . . I use it to help build both teams, as
a buffer against tensions in teams. It’s so vital for
a team to have this skill and to become mindful.

—Phil Jackson

Mindfulness has been defined as “a receptive at-
tention to and awareness of present events and ex-
perience” (Brown, Ryan, & Creswell, 2007: 212; see
also Brown & Ryan, 2003). In 1989, National Bas-
ketball Association coach Phil Jackson introduced
mindfulness to the Chicago Bulls. Despite suspicion
among players, including superstar Michael Jordan,
Jackson insisted on using mindfulness to help team
building, buffer against tensions, and ultimately

unite team members. As the opening quote illus-
trates, the Chicago Bulls won six championships.
Later, the Los Angeles Lakers won five champion-
ships under Jackson’s methods. Since then, mind-
fulness in teams has gone beyond the sports domain:
organizations as varied as Google, Aetna, LinkedIn,
and Ford have all used mindfulness to achieve more
productive teams (Gelles, 2015).

Although practitioners and the media have con-
sidered team mindfulness (e.g., David, 2015; Gelles,
2015), the scientific literature has mostly examined
mindfulness as an individual-level, intrapsychic
phenomenon (Glomb, Duffy, Bono, & Yang, 2011;
Good et al., 2016), or as an organizational-level, in-
terrelated set of practices (Sutcliffe, Vogus, & Dane,
2016; Weick, Sutcliffe, & Obstfeld, 1999). Research
has indicated that mindfulness affects employee and
organizational performance (Dane, 2011), in-
novation (Vogus & Welbourne, 2003), turnover
(Dane & Brummel, 2014), decisions (Hafenbrack,
Kinias, & Barsade, 2014), and quality and safety
(Vogus & Sutcliffe, 2007). Given broad effects across
various social domains, some scholars have pro-
vocatively called mindfulness a “root construct” tha

is critical to understanding human functioning
(Good et al., 2016). Others have suggested that such

The authors would like to acknowledge the helpful di-
rection of Associate Editor Daan van Knippenberg and
three anonymous reviewers. The paper also benefitted
greatly from comments by Randall Peterson, Theresa
Glomb, and members of the Work and Organization De-
partment seminar and the IESE Business School Barcelona
seminar. We gratefully acknowledge the financial support
of the WOrg Department’s Research Grant awarded to
Lingtao Yu, and the Carlson School Dean’s Research Grant
awarded to Mary Zellmer-Bruhn, which helped to enable
and expedite this research. Authorship is alphabetical.

324

Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder’s express
written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only.

https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.0094

a proclamation is premature because of many open
issues, particularly regarding how mindfulness can
be applied in organizational settings, and what
mindfulness means at different construct levels
(Sutcliffe et al., 2016).

Notably, “management scholars have not yet se-
riously undertaken the challenge” of how mindful-
ness affects teamwork (Good et al., 2016: 15; see also
Hulsheger, 2015). Because modern organizations are
so team-based, failure to consider whether and how
mindfulness operates in teams limits conclusions
about the full impact and value of the mindfulness
concept. More important, without scientific in-
vestigation, team mindfulness practices that man-
agers already put into action could be an ineffective,
costly fad (Glomb et al., 2011; Sutcliffe et al., 2016).
Without evidence about its structure and function,
we cannot evaluate the relative risks or benefits of
team mindfulness. Developing and testing theory
about team mindfulness is therefore necessary to
advance both theoretical and practical knowledge
about this captivating construct (Good et al., 2016;
Hulsheger, 2015; Sutcliffe et al., 2016).

Our objectives are to introduce and validate a team
mindfulness construct, and show its function and
meaningfulness as a safeguard against dysfunctional
aspects of team conflict. We suggest that team
mindfulness is a shared perception among team
members that their interactions are typified by
present focused attention and awareness, and by
experiential, nonjudgmental processing of team ex-
periences. We propose that team mindfulness
emerges as team members develop similar percep-
tions about their interactions (Carter, Carter, &
DeChurch, 2017).

We designed three multi-wave field studies to in-
vestigate team mindfulness. In our first study, we
develop and validate a team mindfulness measure.
We designed the second and third studies to in-
vestigate the meaningfulness of team mindfulness by
exploring its function in team conflict. Although we
expect team mindfulness to differ structurally from
individual mindfulness (Morgeson & Hofmann,
1999), we propose that it has similar functions in
both teams and individuals (Davidson & Kaszniak,
2015; Good et al., 2016), with present focused at-
tention and awareness, and experiential, non-
judgmental processing as “safeguard” functions
affecting team conflict processes (Glomb et al., 2011;
Good et al., 2016).

We focus on team conflict for several reasons.
Team conflict is detrimental to teams; in fact,
“positive effects of conflict have been largely

elusive” (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003; de Wit, Greer, &
Jehn, 2012; Todorova, Bear, & Weingart, 2014). Task
conflict may have benefits (De Dreu & Weingart,
2003; de Wit et al., 2012; Jehn, Greer, Levine, &
Szulanski, 2008), but it is often tightly coupled with
consistently problematic relationship conflict (de
Wit et al., 2012; Yang & Mossholder, 2004). We fur-
ther introduce the novel idea that relationship con-
flict is problematic because it spills over to
individual deviant behaviors, such as social under-
mining. We explain how the team mindfulness
functions of attention stability and control, and less
reactive, open, nonjudgmental processing of expe-
riences (Davidson & Kaszniak, 2015; Good et al.,
2016), interrupt the connection among conflict types
and between conflict and individual deviant be-
havior, so that team mindfulness safeguards against
(1) relationship conflict, (2) the connection between
task conflict and relationship conflict, and (3) team
relationship conflict spilling over, cross-level, to in-
dividual social undermining. We test the safeguard
functions in two studies involving different socio-
cultural contexts and team types, offering further
construct validation for team mindfulness.

Our work answers the call for more empirical in-
vestigations of collective mindfulness in manage-
ment and organizations (Sutcliffe et al., 2016) by
introducing team mindfulness, explaining its con-
tent and structure, developing a psychometrically
sound scale, and delineating its safeguard role in
multilevel team conflict processes. Showing that
mindfulness can be evaluated in teams and is related
to interpersonal processes adds knowledge neces-
sary for the ongoing consideration of the value of
mindfulness in organizational behavior (Good et al.,
2016; Hulsheger, 2015; Sutcliffe et al., 2016). Our
research also has practical implications: teams
taught mindfulness may have fewer negative in-
terpersonal processes, suggesting that managers can
derive value by implementing team mindfulness
training.

We also contribute to research on team conflict
and individual social undermining, two endemic
negative interpersonal processes (de Wit et al., 2012;
Duffy, Ganster, & Pagon, 2002). We identify team
mindfulness as moderating the task conflict–
relationship conflict connection. Although team
trust has been shown to moderate this relationship
(Choi & Cho, 2011; Simons & Peterson, 2000), iden-
tifying other moderators is vital to refining team
conflict theory (Rispens, 2012). Moreover, we dem-
onstrate that team mindfulness can directly safe-
guard against relationship conflict, as well asprevent

2018 325Yu and Zellmer-Bruhn

a cross-level spillover effect on individual social
undermining. Showing that team conflict spills over
to individual social undermining adds to our un-
derstanding of how relationship conflict harms
teamwork, and adds insights to the social under-
mining literature by identifying team relationship
conflict as a contextual-level antecedent (Duffy,
Scott, Shaw, Tepper, & Aquino, 2012). By demon-
strating that team mindfulness can be a safeguard, we
demonstrate a way in which to prevent conflict
transformation and spillovers.

The centerpiece of our contribution, team mind-
fulness, is a new construct. Thus, we begin by
detailing its content, structure, and emergence.

TEAM MINDFULNESS

We define team mindfulness as a shared belief
among team members that team interactions are
characterized by awareness and attention to present
events, and by experiential, nonjudgmental pro-
cessing of within-team experiences. Team mindful-
ness is a shared unit property emerging from team
experience (Carter et al., 2017; Marks, Mathieu, &
Zaccaro, 2001) which distinguishes it from individ-
ual mindfulness. Individual and team mindfulness
both include the same two elemental content di-
mensions (present focused attention and experien-
tial processing), but their structures and composition
vary (Morgeson & Hofmann, 1999).

Elemental Content

Mindfulness involves “paying attention to what is
happening in the moment, and observing stimuli
without judgment or evaluation, and without
assigning meaning” (Glomb et al., 2011: 118).
Mindfulness thus has two elemental dimensions: (1)
attention to, and awareness of, what is perceived in
the present; and (2) receptive, open, and non-
judgmental experiential processing (e.g., Brown &
Ryan, 2003; Davidson & Kaszniak, 2015; Good et al.,
2016).

The first dimension involves “sustained and con-
centrated [attention] to see clearly what is arising in
the present moment” (Shapiro & Carlson, 2009: 10).
Present moment refers to what is going on right now,
rather than future issues and demands or past expe-
riences (Leroy, 2009; Smallwood & Schooler, 2015).
Sustained and concentrated attention means that
mindfulness involves paying attention on purpose
(Dreyfus, 2011). For example, a person may realize
she is eating, but not purposefully make herself

aware of her sensations about eating, or actively
bring her attention back to eating if her mind wan-
ders. The combination of present-moment attention
and purposeful awareness distinguish mindfulness
from related concepts emphasizing focused at-
tention that occurs without conscious decision
(e.g., absorption and flow [Good et al., 2016]).

The second dimension—receptive, open, and
nonjudgmental experiential processing (Good et al.,
2016; Weick & Sutcliffe, 2006)—reflects the Bud-
dhist origins of mindfulness not only as an atten-
tional process but as open-minded curiosity and
kind, compassionate intent (Weick & Putnam, 2006).
Experiential processing treats “facts as observed
without immediate judgment or labeling” (Good
et al., 2016: 4), and is distinguished from conceptual
processing (Good et al., 2016) involving thought-
dominated categorizing, labeling, evaluating, mak-
ing positive or negative attributions, or assuming
implications (Weick & Putnam, 2006). For example,
a driver may be cut off by a car rapidly changing
lanes to exit in front of her. Conceptual processing
would involve labeling the behavior (e.g., stupid
move), categorizing the driver (e.g., incompetent),
and projecting implications (e.g., they must have
a lot of traffic violations). Experiential processing
would instead involve simply noticing the behavior
and letting it pass without spontaneously evaluating,
analyzing, or reflecting upon why it happened.

Structure and Emergence

Individual mindfulness is intrapersonal, and has
been considered a trait, a state, or a practice (Brown &
Ryan, 2003; Glomb et al., 2011). The practice view
equates mindfulness with meditation (Davidson,
2010; Good et al., 2016), whereas both the state and
trait approaches consider individual mindfulness
a “quality of mind,” with mind seen as a bundle of
cognitive and perceptual processes (Weick &
Sutcliffe, 2006: 515). In our development of the
team mindfulness construct, we follow the “quality
of mind” view. In individual mindfulness, the “unit
of agency” is the individual (Morgeson & Hofmann,
1999), and, like similar individual psychological
constructs such as ability, personality, or efficacy,
mindfulness cannot be directly observed; it must be
inferred from behaviors. State and trait individual
mindfulness is commonly inferred from self-reports
(Davidson, 2010).

Team mindfulness is a team-level property, not
an aggregation of individual mindfulness. It is
an emergent, shared cognitive state, which team

326 FebruaryAcademy of Management Journal

members develop through experience in the team
(Marks et al., 2001). Emergent states and processes
are related, as emergent states are products of team
interaction, and affect subsequent interactions
(Marks et al., 2001; van Knippenberg, van Ginkel, &
Homan, 2013). In teams, “mind” is an interpersonal
(Vogus & Sutcliffe, 2012; Weick & Roberts, 1993),
collective cognition process occurring in in-
teractions among team members. Team mindfulness
is a shared perception about the qualities of team
mind, emerging from team interaction.

As teams interact, members observe, experience,
and learn how the team approaches its tasks, and
what actions are admissible (Bettenhausen &
Murnighan, 1991). Consider two teams. In one
team, members regularly interact on the side; some
members are unaware that participation is uneven or
that the team has lost its task focus, so discussions
must berepeated and work must beredone. Members
may be prevalently critical and defensive, and
quickly categorize and judge others’ positions or
perspectives (e.g., as correct or incorrect, productive
or unproductive). In another team, members stay
focused and reunite the team if they sense activities
and communication have veered off task. Discus-
sions focus on exploring facts, ideas, and options,
and avoid impulsive judgments about others’ ideas
or feelings. These examples illustrate how collective
action can involve qualitatively different attention
and judgmental processing across teams.

Collective action involves mutual adjustment
(Weick & Roberts, 1993); over time, interdependent
interaction cycles reduce within-team variability,
and interaction patterns become routinized (Gersick
& Hackman, 1990). Shared experience of such pat-
terned interaction exerts team-level influence on
perceptions, supporting the emergence of team
mindfulness (Morgeson & Hofmann, 1999; van
Knippenberg et al., 2013), and teams with higher
team mindfulness in turn display greater focused
attention and experiential, nonjudgmental process-
ing in subsequent interactions. Thus, mindful in-
teraction and emergent state mindfulness operate in
reinforcing cycles (van Knippenberg et al., 2013). We
focus on mindfulness as an emergent state.

Related Concepts

Two literature streams in organization studies also
use the term mindfulness. One stream focuses on
“mindlessness,” or routine and automatic process-
ing that prevents innovation and causes errors
(e.g., Gersick & Hackman, 1990; Langer, 1989;

Zellmer-Bruhn, 2003). That research is related to, but
distinct from, ours in that it aims to show that orga-
nizations can be more adaptive if individuals use
discriminatory attention and information processing
to devise new, discrete categories and alternative
actions (Langer, 1989). The second stream focuses on
high-reliability organizations (e.g., Weick &
Sutcliffe, 2006; Weick et al., 1999), where collec-
tive mindfulness refers to “organizational processes
or practices that help organizations detect, catego-
rize, and respond to unexpected events and errors”
(Weick et al., 1999: 88). That research has revealed
interrelated practices that allow some organizations
to better recognize unusual events, take action to
counteract problems, and avoid processing rou-
tinely, automatically linking observation to well-
worn categories, or assuming normality (Weick &
Putnam, 2006). Although that stream has a different
focus, it lends credibility to our proposal that
mindfulness can occur on a collective level (Sutcliffe
et al., 2016).

Having detailed its conceptual elements, struc-
ture, and emergence, we next consider the mean-
ingfulness and value of the team mindfulness
construct by illustrating how team mindfulness
functions as a safeguard against dysfunctional effects
of team conflict, which are largely due to opposi-
tional intensity and negative emotionality. Mind-
fulness theory emphasizes that its two dimensions
offer cognitive and affective functions (Good et al.,
2016) that ought to reduce oppositional intensity and
negative emotionality, connecting team conflict and
mindfulness through these concepts. Therefore,
team conflict offers a valuable test of the function and
meaningfulness of team mindfulness.

TEAM MINDFULNESS AS A SAFEGUARD

Team member incompatibilities and differences
can generate intragroup conflict, which varies in
content, with task and relationship conflict as the
most common topics of team conflict research (Jehn,
1995). Task conflict involves disagreements about
policies, work procedures, and resource distribu-
tions; relationship conflict involves clashes over
personal values, work habits, and interpersonal in-
teractions (Jehn, 1995). Team conflict is consequen-
tial: task conflict may enhance team performance,
but is often instead harmful (De Dreu & Weingart,
2003; Schulz-Hardt, Jochims, & Frey, 2002), and re-
lationship conflict is uniformly associated with poor
team outcomes (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003; de Wit
et al., 2012).

2018 327Yu and Zellmer-Bruhn

Effective teamwork requires isolating the benefits
of task conflict and avoiding relationship conflict
(Rispens, 2012; Todorova et al., 2014)—a difficult
challenge because task conflict and relationship
conflict are often closely associated (e.g., Greer, Jehn,
& Mannix, 2008; Simons & Peterson, 2000; Tidd,
McIntyre, & Friedman, 2004; Yang & Mossholder,
2004). Because of the person-focused content of re-
lationship conflict (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003; de Wit
et al., 2012), we further theorize that relationship
conflict often spills over to individual counterpro-
ductive behaviors. Thus, reducing relationship
conflict, disconnecting task conflict and relation-
ship conflict, and blunting spillovers from rela-
tionship conflict are essential to reducing the
detrimental effects of conflict in teams.

Emotions activated in conflict determine whether
conflict has productive or unproductive outcomes
(Todorova et al., 2014; Weingart, Behfar, Bendersky,
Todorova, & Jehn, 2015; Yang & Mossholder, 2004).
Positive emotionality, at least in task conflict, in-
creases cooperation (Ayoko, Callan, & Härtel, 2008),
and supports positive proximal outcomes such as
satisfaction with the team (Todorova et al., 2014). In
contrast, negative emotionality distracts teams from
their tasks, triggers competitive reactions (Van Kleef,
2010), fuels conflict spirals (Weingart et al., 2015),
and facilitates dysfunctional transformation from
task to relationship conflict (Yang & Mossholder,
2004). To prevent such problems, negative emotions
need to be kept in check when conflict occurs.

Because “conflict and emotions are inextricably
linked” (Nair, 2008: 369; see also Bodtker & Jameson,
2001), any type of team conflict activates emotions
(Jehn et al., 2008; Todorova et al., 2014; Yang &
Mossholder, 2004), but the level and valence of
emotions is influenced by conflict content and ex-
pression (Weingart et al., 2015). For example, task
conflict is psychologically pressing and stressful,
activating emotions. Depending on the circum-
stances, these emotions may be positive and energiz-
ing, or negative and disruptive (Todorova et al., 2014).
Likewise, relationship conflict can be experienced
with high or low emotionality (Jehn et al., 2008);
however, while relationship conflict is not “emo-
tional” conflict, due to its personally antagonistic
content it is likely to activate negative emotions
(Todorova et al., 2014: 459).

Conflict expression theory suggests that negative
emotions are activated when conflict is perceived as
oppositionally intense (Barsade, 2002; Todorova
et al., 2014). Team members go through complex
processes of attending to and interpreting its

expression (Weingart et al., 2015), and conflict is
perceived as oppositionally intense when members
interpret it as defensive positioning, conveying re-
buttal, attacks, or threats (Weingart et al., 2015).
Any type of conflict can be experienced as opposi-
tionally intense. For example, if task conflict is
expressed as disagreement (Jehn, 1995) teams will
perceive more opposition (Tsai & Bendersky, 2016)
compared to conflict expressed as debate (Tjosvold,
1983), because disagreement communicates lower
receptivity to alternatives (Tsai & Bendersky, 2016).
Likewise, if relationship conflict is expressed as
clashes or personality differences (Jehn, 1995), as
compared to differing styles, it will be perceived
as more oppositional (Weingart et al., 2015: 243).
Conflict states reflect the “shared perceptions
among members of [a] team about the [conflict]”
occurring in the team (Bradley, Anderson, Baur, &
Klotz, 2015: 265). When conflict states tap perceived
disagreement or clashes occurring in conflict, the
level of conflict offers insights about oppositional
intensity.

Oppositional intensity and negative emotions are
tightly coupled (Ayoko et al., 2008; Bell & Song,
2005); thus, in order to reduce unproductive conflict
outcomes, teams need to regulate oppositional in-
tensity and negative emotionality (Curşeau, Janssen,
& Raab, 2012). Through present focused attention
and experiential, nonjudgmental processing, mind-
fulness provides cognitive and affective functions
that can limit the oppositional intensity and negative
emotions experienced with conflict (Glomb et al.,
2011; Good et al., 2016). As a result, we propose that
team mindfulness provides a multipoint safeguard
against dysfunctional conflict. If true, there ought to
be less dysfunctional conflict outcomes in teams
with higher mindfulness.

Team Mindfulness and Team

Conflict

Team mindfulness disrupts the connection be-
tween task and relationship conflict, as well as gen-
erally reducing relationship conflict. Task conflict
absorbs attentional resources (Yang & Mossholder,
2004), increases cognitive load (Carnevale & Probst,
1998), and narrows thinking, reducing members’
ability to separate task-related and personal stimuli
(Jehn & Mannix, 2001; Simons & Peterson, 2000).
Teams are prone to crossing task content stimuli with
the individuals involved, and to interpret task con-
flict as personal criticism (Choi & Cho, 2011; Greer
et al., 2008; Simons & Peterson, 2000), personal
dislike (Greer et al., 2008), or judgments about

328 FebruaryAcademy of Management Journal

competency (Tidd et al., 2004). This changes the fo-
cus of task conflict to relationships.

High levels of task disagreement increase percep-
tions that team efforts and goals are being subverted
(Choi & Cho, 2011; Greer et al., 2008), and lowers
perceptions that members are receptive to dissenting
opinions (Tsai & Bendersky, 2016). Likewise, if past
experiences and conflicts influence current conflict
appraisal, teams may interpret task conflict as an
indication that conflict is entrenched, elevating op-
positional intensity and associated negative emo-
tions (Weingart et al., 2015). As a result, teams with
high levels of task disagreement have increasing re-
activity and escalating conflict. Since task and per-
son stimuli are often crossed in conflict, the
escalation target includes people, thereby increasing
relationship conflict. Therefore, to benefit from task
conflict, teams need to maintain attention to task
content amid competing attentional demands from
its source and expression, and keep negative emo-
tions and associated reactions in check.

Mindfulness provides attentional stability and
control, more positive emotional tone, and lower re-
activity.Focusonthepresent(Smallwood&Schooler,
2015) provides attentional stability to keep task goals
at the center, lowering distraction from off-task
thoughts and activities (Good et al., 2016) and allow-
ing teams to perceive greater nuance in member be-
haviors (Morrison, Goolsarran, Rogers, & Jha, 2013;
Slagter, Davidson, & Lutz, 2011). This prevents over-
investment in irrelevant stimuli, such as the source or
expression of task conflict (Slagter et al., 2011). Sim-
ple misunderstandings and automatic, narrowed
heuristic processing are lesslikely (Brown etal.,2007;
Glomb et al., 2011; Weick & Sutcliffe, 2006), making
teams less susceptible to attribution errors and cor-
respondence bias (Hopthrow, Hooper, Mahmood,
Meier, & Weger, 2017), such that person and task
stimuli are less likely to cross. As a result, intense
team experiences are less likely to be interpreted as
person-oriented.

Mindful teams process experiences in more open,
nonjudgmental ways (Good et al., 2016), lowering
personalization and reactivity (Glomb et al., 2011;
Good et al., 2016). This may make mindful teams
generally less susceptible to relationship conflict
(Amason & Sapienza, 1997; Hackman, 1992). Open-
ness enables disagreement without opposition (Jehn,
1995), so mindful teams may perceive less opposi-
tion associated with task conflict. In mindful teams,
task conflict is less imbued with meaning, instead
processed as factual and neutral (Kross & Ayduk,
2011; Kross & Grossmann, 2012); thus, mindful

teams will experience lower oppositional intensity.
In addition, even with the same level of expressed
opposition, receptive, experiential processing limits
its perceived intensity because opposition can be
experienced without being characterized as threat-
ening team identity, or judged as transgression,
thereby reducing affect-based responses such as re-
taliation (Brown et al., 2007; Glomb et al., 2011).

Mindfulness is associated with more positive
emotional tone (Eberth & Sedlmeier, 2012; Good
et al., 2016), allowing mindful teams to view task
conflict as involving positive intent, and thus in-
creasing positive and reducing negative emotions.
Conflict is sustained and escalated in a negative
emotional environment (Jones & Bodtker, 2001) be-
cause negative emotions are viewed as something
that needs to be controlled and resolved (Glomb
et al., 2011). Even if negative emotions are acti-
vated in conflict, because behaviors are viewed
with openness and without spontaneous judgment
mindfulness allows teams to simply observe them,
lowering the need to resolve them (Glomb et al.,
2011). This reduces reactivity, inhibiting escalation.

In sum, mindfulness creates an internal team en-
vironment that is less prone to relationship conflict
in general. It disrupts the connection between task
conflict and relationship conflict by limiting the
transfer of attention from task to person so that task
conflict remains the focus of reactions, and limits
oppositional intensity and negative emotions oc-
curring with conflict, thereby limiting escalation.
Therefore, we expect that team mindfulness safe-
guards teams in two ways:

Hypothesis 1. Team mindfulness is negatively
related to relationship conflict.

Hypothesis 2. Team mindfulness moderates the
positive relationship between task conflict and
relationship conflict: when team mindfulness is
high (low), task conflict has a weaker (stronger)
relationship with relationship conflict.

Team Relationship Conflict Spillovers to
Individual

Social Undermining

Relationship conflict presents homogenous situa-
tional factors to members, leading to both individual
and team response tendencies (Kozlowski & Hattrup,
1992). Theoretical explanations regarding the con-
sequences of relationship conflict have largely fo-
cused on the team-level outcomes (De Dreu &
Weingart, 2003; Jehn & Bendersky, 2003). This is

2018 329Yu and Zellmer-Bruhn

unfortunate because relationship conflict is in-
herently personalized, and likely to transmute to
individual responses (de Jong, Curşeu, & Leenders,
2014; Jehn, 1995).

Relationship conflict generates a desire to assess
personal relationships according to team expecta-
tions regarding appropriate individual reactions
(Jehn, 1995), causing members to focus on in-
dividuals expressing conflict as the source of oppo-
sition (Bettencourt, Talley, Benjamin, & Valentine,
2006). In addition, they may interpret relationship
conflict as violating team social functioning, thus
activating negative emotions (Weiss, Suckow, &
Cropanzano, 1999) and further spurring person-
focused reactions. When team members see others
acting badly, oppositional behaviors are more
cognitively accessible, thereby lowering inhibi-
tions against similar behavior (Felps, Mitchell, &
Byington, 2006) and encouraging “contagious ag-
gression” (Glomb & Liao, 2003).

Negative interpersonal relationships can prompt
individual deviant behaviors (Felps et al., 2006;
Venkataramani & Dalal, 2007; Wu, Ferris, Kwan,
Chiang, Snape, & Liang, 2015). Thus, team relation-
ship conflict may spill over, with a particularly
likely outcome being social undermining—that is,
“behavior intended to hinder a worker’s ability
to establish and maintain positive interpersonal
relationships, work-related success, and favorable
reputation” (Duffy et al., 2002: 332). Social context
affects social undermining (Duffy et al., 2012; Duffy,
Shaw, Scott, & Tepper, 2006). Relationship conflict,
being part of a team’s internal social context, may
be particularly prone to elicit social undermining
because it is a form of workplace aggression
entangled with “relationships at work” (Hershcovis,
2011: 504).

As team members try to make sense of why
relationship conflict happened, they may make
moral judgments that their teammates should or
could have acted differently (Duffy et al., 2006). As
a result, oppositional intensity is elevated because
they are likely to perceive subversive intent behind
relationship conflict (Weingart et al., 2015), thereby
elevating negative emotions such as antagonism.
The desire to ease negative emotions (Van Kleef,
2010), along with “action readiness” produced by
negative emotionality (Frijda, 2007), generates
greater impulsiveness, and more automatic re-
actions. Negative relationships attract attention
(Gersick & Hackman, 1990) and become the target of
hostile, impulsive actions, such as social under-
mining (Lee, Kim, Bhave, & Duffy, 2016).

Overriding impulsive temptations in favor of
maintaining good relationships requires effort
(Muraven, Baumeister, & Tice, 1999). As a result,
team members experiencing relationship conflict are
less able to recognize and systematically process
moral issues, and less able to respond in morally
desirable ways. Therefore, team members experi-
encing relationship conflict may simply “get back at”
their teammates (Carver & Hi Harmon-Jones, 2009;
Van Kleef, 2010). Indeed, social undermining may be
motivated by a desire to punish those perceived to
generate the negative interpersonal experiences
(Duffy et al., 2002). Consequently, we propose:

Hypothesis 3. Team relationship conflict is
positively associated with individual social
undermining.

Team Mindfulness and Relationship
Conflict Spillovers

As a contextual element for team members, team
mindfulness affects how members perceive and
evaluate each other’s behaviors, and how they react
(Elsbach & Pratt, 2007), thereby influencing the
cross-level connection between relationship conflict
and social undermining. Present focused attention
makes members more aware of circumstances that
generated behaviors, thus lowering attribution to
personal attributes (Simons & Peterson, 2000), so
mindful teams are less likely to evaluate relationship
conflict as evidence that team members are pur-
posefully hurtful (Heppner & Kernis, 2007). Experi-
ential processing disrupts automatic judgment
(Chaiken, 1980), so relationship conflict is less likely
to be categorized as subversiveness. As a result,
mindfulness should reduce the oppositional in-
tensity associated with relationship conflict.

Experiential processing also buffers negative
emotional reactions to social challenges (Heppner,
Adams, Vidrine, & Wetter, 2017; Leary, Tate, Adams,
Batts, & Hancock, 2007), and allows more rapid re-
covery following emotional events such as relation-
ship conflict (Davidson & Kaszniak, 2015; Good et al.,
2016). Particularly, mindfulness mitigates anger
(Wright, Day, & Howells, 2009), tendencies toward
hostility (Krishnakumar & Robinson, 2015), and
contagious aggression (Glomb & Liao, 2003). To-
gether, these functions encourage more flexible cop-
ing strategies (Weinstein, Brown, & Ryan, 2009), so
mindful teams are more likely to let relationship
conflict pass without person-targeted escalation
through social undermining. Sinceteam mindfulness

330 FebruaryAcademy of Management Journal

minimizes person-focused appraisals, reduces nega-
tive emotionality, and prevents contagious aggres-
sion, we expect:

Hypothesis 4. Team mindfulness moderates the
positive relationship between team relationship
conflict and individual social undermining:
when team mindfulness is high (low), team re-
lationship conflict has a weaker (stronger) re-
lationship with individual social undermining.

We draw on the cumulative arguments to propose
a final, integrative hypothesis:

Hypothesis 5. Team mindfulness moderates the
relationship between task conflict and individ-
ual social undermining via relationship con-
flict: when team mindfulness is high (low), both
the task conflict–relationship conflict link and
relationship conflict–individual social under-
mining link is weaker (stronger).

Our theoretical model is summarized in Figure 1.

METHODS

To test our theoretical model and hypotheses, we
designed and conducted three studies. Study 1 was
created to develop a team mindfulness scale and
establish its content validity. We then conducted two
field studies with differentsamples and team typesto
examine the function and meaningfulness of team
mindfulness and further establish its nomological
network. Specifically, Study 2 tested the overall

model using a multi-wave study of U.S. MBA stu-
dent teams. Study 3 was a constructive replication
providing generalizability evidence in a multiwave
study of teams in a healthcare organization in
China.

Study 1: Scale Development

Before we could test our theoretical model and
hypotheses, we had to develop a reliable and
construct-valid measure of team mindfulness. Fol-
lowing Hinkin’s (1998) scale development pro-
cedures, weadoptedadeductivemultistageapproach
to develop a measure of team mindfulness. To gener-
ate potential scale items, we reviewed individual
mindfulness scales and literature (e.g., Baer, Smith, &
Allen, 2004; Brown & Ryan, 2003), and identified 63
statements that could be modified to be succinct,
easily comprehended, and consistent with the two
dimensions in our definition of team mindfulness
(awareness and attention to present events, and ex-
periential, receptive, and nonjudgmental processing
regarding team experiences). Two researchers were
highly consistent in sorting the statements based on
the representativeness (average r 5 .92). The re-
searchers resolved their few sorting disagreements
and reached consensus. As a result, we retained 3

statements with the highest average ratings; the
dropped items largely represented different ways to
frame retained statements.

In our study, the team is the construct level for
team mindfulness, but the individual is the source of

FIGURE

Theoretical Model

Team Mindfulness

Task Conflict
Relationship

Conflict
Social Undermining

Level 2: Team Level

Level 1: Individual Level

2018 331Yu and Zellmer-Bruhn

data (Chan, 1998; Rousseau, 1985). It is important to
specify how lower-level data generate a higher-level
construct (Chan, 1998). Drawing on Chan’s (1998)
framework, our conceptualization of team mindful-
ness reflects a referent-shift consensus model, which
occurs when team-level aggregations begin with in-
dividual assessments of group experiences. The
original construct, individual mindfulness, pro-
vided the basic content for perceptions of team
mindfulness, but we changed the referent from the
individual to the team. Thus, the attributes being
assessed for consensus are conceptually distinct, but
derived from the original individual-level construct.
We modified the 30 retained statements so that par-
ticipants rated the team as a whole, rather than rating
themselves. After modification, two HR managers
who were unaware of our hypotheses reviewed and
further clarified the statements. In this approach,
survey participants are treated as “informants” about
team mindfulness and instructed to answer with
reference to their team as a whole (Morgeson &
Hofmann, 1999: 261). Our view of team mindfulness
as a shared perception of the typical group experi-
ence is consistent with other research introducing
team constructs (e.g., Guzzo, Yost, Campbell, & Shea,
1993; Hofmann & Jones, 2005). We thus represent
team mindfulness with the team mean (Carter et al.,
2017), as social interaction should produce uniform,
but not necessarily perfectly homogenous, percep-
tions (Bliese, 2000).

We explored the factor structure of the state-
ments by surveying 263 undergraduates in a large
U.S. Midwest university. Based on their team expe-
riences, participants rated their reactions to state-
ments using a five-point Likert scale (1 5 strongly
disagree to 5 5 strongly agree). We received 241 re-
sponses. Using exploratory factor analyses (EFAs),
a two-factor structure with five items for each factor
emerged and explained 74% of the total variance (see
Appendix A). In line with our conceptualization, the
five items for factor 1 represent present-moment at-
tention and awareness, and have factor loadings
larger than .79 (a 5 .93). Factor 2 indicates receptive,
open, and nonjudgmental experiential processing,
and consists of five items with factor loadings larger
than .80 (a 5 .94). The two dimensions had high
intercorrelation (r 5 .78, p , .01; a 5 .93).

We next performed a series of confirmatory factor
analyses (CFAs). We administered a questionnaire
survey to 201 MBA students in a large Midwest
university and received 176 returned question-
naires, representing an 88% response rate. An ex-
cellent fit was found for a two-factor model with

a second-order factor (x2 5 157.68, df 5 33, CFI 5 .94,
RMSEA 5 .05). Additionally, the model fit the data
significantly better than did an alternative model
with the two components as separate indicators
(Dx2 5 183.68, Ddf 5 2, CFI 5 .89, RMSEA 5 .13).
Because our interest was overall team mindfulness
rather than its subdimensions, we averaged items
into a single score to represent team mindfulness.

Related constructs and nomological network.
For team mindfulness to make inroads into man-
agement and organizational behavior, construct
validation and specification of the nomological net-
work for team mindfulness are essential (Cronbach &
Meehl, 1955; Sutcliffe et al., 2016). Developing the
nomological network for team mindfulness involves
examining the relation of team mindfulness with
similar (i.e., convergent validity) and dissimilar
(i.e., discriminant validity) constructs. Team mind-
fulness might share conceptual space with other
team-level constructs, and should be differentiated
conceptually and empirically. To support construct
validation, we included psychological safety, team
learning behaviors, and constructive controversy.

One construct connected to team mindfulness is
psychological safety (Edmondson, 1999). Like team
mindfulness, psychological safety is an emergent
state. It reflects a shared sense among members that
the team context allows for making mistakes, asking
for help, and bringing up problems, without pun-
ishment or retribution (Edmondson, 1999). Psycho-
logical safety most aligns with the experiential,
nonjudgmental processing dimension of team
mindfulness, but also focuses on whether the team
favors specific actions, and does not address present-
moment attention and awareness. As a result,
mindfulness allows teams to create cognitive
“space” between what members observe or share,
and less-biased attributions about the associated
knowledge, beliefs, and opinions. We expect that
team mindfulness may support an environment of
psychological safety (Good et al., 2016) and thus be
related to, albeit distinct from, psychological safety.
Team mindfulness should also relate to team learn-
ing behaviors involving examining actions and
outcomes for opportunities to enhance team perfor-
mance (Edmondson, 1999). Awareness, central to
team mindfulness, allows members to identify suc-
cessful procedures and ascertain opportunities for
improvement. However, team learning behaviors do
not involve the experiential, nonjudgmental pro-
cessing component. Thus, we expect that team
mindfulness is related to, but distinct from, team
learning. Finally, team mindfulness should relate to

332 FebruaryAcademy of Management Journal

constructive controversy in that members can
openly express opposing views, explore and un-
derstand others’ perspectives, and integrate different
ideas and information (Tjosvold, 1983). Acceptance
of others, openness to influence rather than in-
sistence on dominance and control, and viewing
problems as challenges to solve are central to con-
structive controversy (Tjosvold, 1983). We expect
that mindfulness should support constructive con-
troversy. Therefore the two constructs should be re-
lated but distinct.

To empirically examine the nomological network
of team mindfulness, we surveyed 103 MBA stu-
dents at a Midwest U.S. university. Psychological
safety (a 5 .78) and team learning (a 5 .82) were
assessed using Edmondson’s (1999) measures. Con-
structive controversy was assessed using a validated
scale (Alper, Tjosvold, & Law, 1998) (a 5 .93). Be-
cause individual mindfulness was the basis for our
referent-shift conceptualization of team mindful-
ness, it was included and assessed using the Mindful
Attention and Awareness Scale (MAAS) (Brown &
Ryan, 2003). Team mindfulness was significantly
related to psychological safety (r 5 .60, p , .01),
constructive controversy (r 5 .63, p , .01), and in-
dividual mindfulness (r 5 .23, p , .01) but unrelated
to team learning behaviors (r 5 .18, p . .10). Because
of their significant correlation coefficients, we con-
ducted CFA to ensure that team mindfulness is
separable from psychological safety, constructive
controversy, and individual mindfulness. We
assessed whether a single-factor model (covariance
between the latent team mindfulness and other
construct factor was set to 1.0) provided a better fit to
the data than did a two-factor model for which the
latent team mindfulness and other construct factor
were allowed to covary freely. Team mindfulness
would be distinguishable from the other construct
when the x2 was significantly worse for the single-
factor model than for the two-factor model
(Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). For the three con-
structs, a two-factor model provided a significantly
better fit than did a model where the variance be-
tween the two latent factors was set to 1.0: psycho-
logical safety, Dx2 (1, n 5 103) 5 117.3; constructive
controversy, Dx2 (1, n 5 103) 5 134.9; and individual
mindfulness, Dx2 (1, n 5 103) 5 87.4, indicating that
team mindfulness is related to, but distinct from,
psychological safety, constructive controversy, and
individual mindfulness.

Study 1 provides initial evidence for the re-
liability, content-related, and construct-related val-
idity of team mindfulness. We now turn to Study 2 to

investigate its function and meaningfulness and to
further establish its criterion-related validity by ex-
amining three safeguard roles of team mindfulness in
multilevel team conflict processes.

Study 2: Field Study with U.S. MBA Teams

Sample and procedures. Study 2 took place at
a large, public U.S. Midwest university. Before the
semester started, the MBA program office assigned
full-time MBA students to teams, where they
remained for the semester. We recruited those teams.
To achieve a sufficient sample size, we collected data
from two incoming MBA classes (224 individuals; 44
teams). Teams included four to six members; 86%
had five members. In our final sample, 198 in-
dividuals (89.19%) and 44 teams (100%) responded
to all surveys (all teams had 75% or more responding
members); 68% were Caucasian, 30% were Asian,
and 2% were Hispanic; 27% were women; the av-
erage age was 28 (SD 5 3.53); and average work ex-
perience was 6.45 years (SD 5 5.62). Participants
were given a $5 coffee shop gift card for completing
each survey.

Measures. Unless noted, ratings were derived
using a seven-point Likert-type scale (1 5 strongly
disagree to 7 5 strongly agree).

Task conflict (T1, two weeks after the semester
started) was assessed using three items adapted from
Jehn’s (1995) scale (Pearson, Ensley, & Amason,
2002) and aggregated to the team level (rwg(j) across
teams 5 .94, ICC(1) 5 .21, F(43, 231) 5 3.16, p , .01;
ICC(2) 5 .63). A sample item is: “Team members
frequently disagree about the content of our team’s
work.”

Relationship conflict (T2, six weeks after T1) was
assessed using three items adapted from the scale
developed by Jehn (1995; Pearson et al., 2002) and
aggregated to the team level (rwg(j) across teams 5 .95,
ICC(1) 5 .24, F(43, 231) 5 3.22, p , .01; ICC(2) 5 .67). A
sample item is: “Personality clashes are evident in
this team.”

Team mindfulness (T2, 6 weeks after T1) was
measured using the 10-item scale developed in
Study 1 (for “present-focused attention” factor, a 5
.89, and for “experiential, nonjudgmental process-
ing” factor, a 5 .91). The two dimensions had high
intercorrelation (r 5 .76, p , .01; a 5 .90). An ex-
cellent fit was found for a two-factor model with
a second-order factor (x2 5 187.35, df 5 33, CFI 5 .96,
RMSEA 5 .06). Additionally, the model fit the data
significantly better than did an alternative model
with the two components as separate indicators

2018 333Yu and Zellmer-Bruhn

(Dx2 5 198.24, Ddf 5 2, CFI 5 .86, RMSEA 5 .15).
The rwg(j) across teams was .93; ICC(1) was .22;
F(43, 231) was 3.19, p , .01; ICC(2) was .65, indicating
appropriate aggregation. We thus calculated the
mean value across team members to create the team
mindfulness score.

Social undermining (T3, 8 weeks After T2) was
assessed with a six-item measure from Duffy et al.
(2006), adapted to have team members as the referent
for each item. Participants reported their perceived
social undermining over eight weeks since the T

survey was completed. A sample item is: “(Team
members) looked at me in a negative way.”

We included a number of control variables (T1)
in our analyses. To establish whether relationships
hold between team mindfulness and outcomes, above
and beyond individual mindfulness (Morgeson &
Hofmann, 1999), we controlled for individual mind-
fulness using the 15-item MAAS (Brown & Ryan,
2003). In addition, to support our theory that team
mindfulness (composition) is distinct from aggregate
individual mindfulness (compilation), we included
average individual mindfulness as a control. Fur-
thermore, age, gender, and negative affective dispo-
sition may be related to mindfulness and social
undermining (Duffy et al., 2006; Good et al.,2016) and
were therefore controlled. Negative affectivity was
measured using the Positive and Negative Affect
Schedule (PANAS) (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988).
Finally, we controlled for team size as larger teams
experience more conflict (de Wit et al., 2012).

Analytic strategy. We used multilevel structural
equation modeling (MSEM) via Mplus to test the
overall model because MSEM can capture the nested
nature of multilevel data while simultaneously test-
ing mediation and moderation effects proposed in
a theoretical model (Preacher, Zyphur, & Zhang,
2010). Furthermore, the conditional indirect effects
described in the hypotheses require calculation of
nonnormally distributed compound coefficients. We
therefore employed the RMediation program
(Tofighi & MacKinnon, 2011) to obtain the bias-
corrected confidence intervals (CIs) to justify the
significance of the indirect effects (Liu, Zhang, &
Wang, 2012).

Results. Table 1 displays the descriptive statistics
and correlations among the variables. Among the
controls, individual mindfulness (r 5 2.21, p , .01)
and aggregate individual mindfulness (r 5 2.15, p ,
.05) were negatively related to social undermining.
No other controls were related to key model vari-
ables. Including these controls in our analyses had
no substantive effect on the results, so we excluded
them in our report of results (Becker, 2005).

We first conducted a series of CFAs to confirm the
dimensionality and the discriminant validity of our
multiitem measures. Results showed that our hy-
pothesized four-factor model (i.e., task conflict, re-
lationship conflict, team mindfulness, and social
undermining) was a better fit to the data (x2 5
1169.42, df 5 203, CFI 5 .97, RMSEA 5 .06) than
were the following, more parsimonious, models:

TABLE 1
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations among Study Variables in Study 2

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1. Age 28 3.53
2. Gender .27 0.54 0.08
3. Negative affectivity 1.80 0.78 0.10 0.04 0.88
4. Individual

mindfulness
3.54 1.01 0.11 0.03 –0.14* 0.85

5. Aggregate individual
mindfulness

2.41 0.93 0.06 0.02 –0.07 0.19*

6. Team size 4.36 0.31 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.01
7. Team task conflict 2.35 0.68 0.07 –0.03 0.06 –0.08 –0.04 0.10 0.83
8. Team mindfulness 2.76 0.56 0.03 0.05 –0.05 0.18* 0.14 –0.06 –0.09 0.90
9. Team relationship

conflict
2.79 0.77 0.08 0.11 0.12 –0.09 –0.06 0.07 0.27** –0.22** 0.85

10. Individual social
undermining

3.21 10.03 0.04 0.07 0.14 –0.21** –0.15* 0.03 0.15* –0.19** 0.28** 0.96

Notes. For individual-level, n 5 198; for group-level, n 5 44. Gender coded 1 for “female” and 0 for “male.” a reliability coefficients appear
on the main diagonal in italics.

*p , .05

**p , .01, two-tailed

334 FebruaryAcademy of Management Journal

a three-factor model collapsing task conflict and re-
lationship conflict (Dx2 5 698.24, Ddf 5 3, CFI 5 .83,
RMSEA 5 .13), a three-factor model collapsing rela-
tionship conflict and social undermining (Dx2 5
725.21, Ddf 5 3, CFI 5 .84, RMSEA 5 .11), and
a one-factor model with all variables loaded on
a single factor (Dx2 5 1025.21, Ddf 5 6, CFI 5 .76,
RMSEA 5 .17).

Table 2 provides the MSEM results for simulta-
neous testing all hypotheses. All control variables
and variables of interest were mean centered before
being entered into the model, and the interaction
terms were created with the products of the mean-
centered variables (Aiken & West, 1991). Team
mindfulness had a significant negative association
with relationship conflict (b 5 2.19, p , .05), sup-
porting Hypothesis 1. The interaction term for task
conflict and team mindfulness had a negative and
statistically significant relationship with relation-
ship conflict (b 5 2.29, p , .01), supporting Hy-
pothesis 2. Relationship conflict was positively
related to social undermining (b 5 .27, p , .01),
supporting Hypothesis 3. The interaction term for
relationship conflict and team mindfulness was
negatively related to individual social undermining
(b 5 2.28, p , .01), supporting Hypothesis 4.

We used bootstrapping methods to construct bias-
corrected CIs on the basis of 1,000 random samples
for the indirect effects (Liu et al., 2012). As the upper
part of Table 3 shows, the indirect effect of task

conflict on social undermining through relationship
conflict was significant and stronger for low team
mindfulness (CI95 5 [.004, .130], excluding zero), but
not for high team mindfulness (CI95 5 [–.016, .042],
including zero). Figure 2 shows differences in simple
slopes for high and low team mindfulness in pre-
dicting relationship conflict (first stage) and indi-
vidual social undermining (second stage). Both task
conflict and relationship conflict, and relationship
conflict and individual social undermining, had
steeper relationships for low team mindfulness,
supporting Hypothesis 5.

Discussion. Study 2 provides initial support for
our theoretical model and hypotheses. Team
mindfulness was negatively related to relationship
conflict, reduced the connections between task
conflict and relationship conflict, and between re-
lationship conflict and individual social under-
mining. The results indicate that team mindfulness
has function, meaningfulness, and predictive val-
idity, offering a safeguard against multilevel conflict
processes. Importantly, the results held with indi-
vidual mindfulness and average individual mind-
fulness in the models. This supports our proposal
that team mindfulness is a share unit property, dis-
tinct from individual mindfulness. In addition,
the finding that team relationship conflict is posi-
tively connected to individual social undermining
extends reasons to prevent relationship conflict
whenever possible.

TABLE 2
MSEM Results for Testing Hypotheses in Study 2

Relationship Conflict Individual Social Undermining

Estimate SE Estimate SE

Control variables
Individual mindfulness –0.11 0.10 –0.12* 0.11
Aggregate individual mindfulness –0.08 0.04 –0.10* 0.10
Independent variable
Task conflict 0.21* 0.14 0.15 0.12
Moderator
Team mindfulness –0.19* 0.10 –0.19* 0.07
Interaction terms
Task conflict 3 team mindfulness –0.29** 0.11
Mediator
Relationship conflict 0.27** 0.13
Interaction terms
Relationship conflict 3 team mindfulness –0.28** 0.11

Note. For individual-level, n 5 198; for group-level, n 5 44. Standardized coefficients were reported. SE 5 Standard error.
*p , .05

**p , .01, two-tailed

2018 335Yu and Zellmer-Bruhn

Despite the compelling results, Study 2 has limi-
tations. First, the MBA student teams had the same
short-term start and end point. Student teams are
more homogenous than many workplace teams,
particularly in age and education level. Team
members had no prior relationships, and familiar-
ity may be important in conflict (Davis & Todd,
1985) and affect the ability to disagree with one
another (Gruenfeld, Mannix, Williams, & Neale,
1996). In addition, participants may have realized
that they are unlikely to work together again, so
social undermining would be less interpersonally
risky. Thus, the workplace might show quite dif-
ferent relationships. Second, although Study 2
provides encouraging initial support for our theo-
retical predictions, concerns about replicability are
natural when testing complex multilevel models,

particularly those involving new constructs. Overall,
it was essential to constructively replicate Study 2 to
rule out whether the results were sample or context
specific, and to better gauge the value of team
mindfulness as a safeguard against negative in-
terpersonal processes in teams.

Study 3: Field Study with Chinese
Healthcare Teams

Sample and procedures. Study 3 was conducted
in a Chinese healthcare organization. With senior
management approval and assistance, we were able
to access all 50 teams, consisting of a total of 318
employees. We recruited participants through the
HR office and informed them that the purpose of the
study was to examine individual characteristics,

TABLE 3
Indirect Effects of Task Conflict on Individual Social Undermining (via Relationship Conflict) at Low and High Levels

of Team Mindfulness in Study 2 and Study 3

Moderators Path a (SE) Path b (SE) Indirect effect via mediator a * b [95% CI]

Study 2
High team mindfulness 0.08 (00.02) 0.14 (00.17) 0.01 [–0.016, 0.042]
Low team mindfulness 0.22* (00.08) 0.25** (00.11) 0.06** [0.004, 0.130]

Study 3
High team mindfulness 0.10 (00.02) 0.13 (00.09) 0.01 [–0.005, 0.033]
Low team mindfulness 0.24** (00.07) 0.35** (00.13) 0.04** [0.017, 0.175]

Notes. In study 2, for individual-level, n 5 198; for group-level, n 5 44. In study 3, for individual-level, n 5 292; for group-level, n 5 48. Path
a refers to the path from the independent variable (task conflict) to the mediator (relationship conflict); path b refers to the path from the
mediator (relationship conflict) to the dependent variable (individual social undermining) while including the independent variable in the
model; low andhigh conditionsare 1 standarddeviationaboveand belowthe mean. 95% bias-corrected confidence intervals forindirect effects
computed with the RMediation distribution-of-the-product method. SE 5 standard error; CI 5 confidence interval.

*p , .05
**p , .01, two-tailed

FIGURE 2
Moderation Plots Study 2

Low Team
Mindfulness

Low Team
Mindfulness
2

1.5

0.5

0
2
1.5

R
el

a
ti

o
n

sh
ip

C
o
n

fl
ic

P
er

ce
iv

ed
s

o
ci

a
l

u
n

d
er

m
in

in
g

1
0.5
0

High Team
Mindfulness

Low Relationship
Conflict

High Relationship
Conflict

Low Task Conflict

High Task Conflict

336 FebruaryAcademy of Management Journal

behaviors, and group dynamics. We matched team
numbers and members’ responses through organi-
zational records. Participants were assured of con-
fidentiality and were paid 60 Yuan (about $10).

Excluding cases with missing data, our response
rate was 92% for individual participants (n 5 292)
and 96% for teams (n 5 48). Management facilitated
the high response rate by allowing research assis-
tants to distribute the surveys during monthly man-
datory meetings. Teams in our sample were ongoing
and diverse, representing all major functions such as
technical support, internal monitoring, family care,
pharmacy, marketing, and customer service. Teams
ranged from five to eight members (mean of 6). The
average team member was 38 years old (SD 5 4) and
had worked in their team for 26 months (SD 5 12);
59% were women; and 78% held bachelor’s degrees
while 22% held master’s degrees or higher.

Measures. All survey instruments were adminis-
tered in Chinese following translation and back-
translation procedures (Brislin, 1990).

Task conflict (T1) was assessed with four items
developed by Jehn (1995). Results suggest appro-
priate aggregation of individual responses to the
team level (rwg(j) across teams 5 .95, ICC(1) 5 .24,
F(47, 246) 5 3.07, p , .01; ICC(2) 5 .66).

Relationship conflict (T2, two months after T1)
was assessed with four items developed by Jehn
(1995). Results suggest appropriate aggregation of
individual responses to the team level (rwg(j) across
teams 5 .96, ICC(1) 5 .25, F(47, 246) 5 2.98, p , .01;
ICC(2) 5 .69).

The 10-item scale developed in Study 1 was used to
measure team mindfulness (T2, two months after T1,
for “present-focused attention” factor, a 5 .91, and for
“experiential, nonjudgmental processing” factor, a 5
.92). The two dimensions had high intercorrelation
(r 5 .76, p , .01; a 5 .91). An excellent fit was found
foratwo-factormodelwithasecond-orderfactor(x2 5
235.42, df 5 33, CFI 5 .94, RMSEA 5 .05). Addi-
tionally,themodelfitthedatasignificantlybetterthan
did an alternative model with the two components as
separate indicators (Dx2 5 304.52, Ddf 5 2, CFI 5 .83,
RMSEA 5 .17). As in Study 2, given our focus on
overall team mindfulness, we averaged the compo-
nents into a single score. The rwg(j) across teams was
.93; ICC(1) was .22; F(43, 231) was 3.19, p , .01; ICC(2)
was .65, indicating appropriate aggregation.

Social undermining (T3, two months after T2) was
measured using Duffy et al.’s (2002) 13-item scale.
We adapted the scale to reflect team members’ self-
reports of perceptions of social undermining over the
previous two months.

Following the inclusion arguments described in
Study 2, we controlled for age, gender, negative af-
fectivity using PANAS (Watson et al., 1988), and
individual mindfulness using MAAS (Brown &
Ryan, 2003) at the individual level, and team size
at the team level. In addition, we controlled for team
performance because poor performance has been
positively associated with relationship conflict
(Jehn & Mannix, 2001) and social undermining
(Duffy et al., 2002). Team leaders rated their team
performance using the scale developed by Carson,
Tesluk, and Marrone (2007). A sample item is: “This
team is effective in meeting my expectation in terms
of the quality of their final output.” Finally, research
considering team trust as a moderator of the re-
lationship between task conflict and relationship
conflict has been conducted in both a student setting
(Choi & Cho, 2011) and an organization setting
(Simons & Peterson, 2000). Therefore, an investiga-
tion of whether team mindfulness can counter con-
flict transformation above and beyond team trust is
warranted. We controlled for team trust by retrieving
archival data from the organization’s records. Spe-
cifically, an annual companywide survey was ad-
ministered about the time of our survey (T2), and
that survey included a trust scale adapted from
Simons and Peterson (2000).

Analytic strategy and results. We followed the
same analytical strategy as that described in Study 2
to test our hypotheses. In Study 3, we were able to
include the long version of the social undermining
scale and additional control variables. Table 4 dis-
plays descriptive statistics and correlations.

Again, results of a series of CFAs showed that our
hypothesized four-factor model (i.e., task conflict,
relationship conflict, team mindfulness, and social
undermining)wasabetterfittothedata(x2 5 1503.42,
df 5 428, CFI 5 .97, RMSEA 5 .08) than were the
following, more parsimonious, models: a three-
factor model collapsing task conflict and relation-
ship conflict (Dx2 5 814.24, Ddf 5 3, CFI 5 .84,
RMSEA 5 .14), a three-factor model collapsing re-
lationship conflict and social undermining (Dx2 5
836.56, Ddf 5 3, CFI 5 .86, RMSEA 5 .13), and a one-
factor model with all variables loaded on asingle factor
(Dx2 5 1368.21, Ddf 5 6, CFI 5 .75, RMSEA 5 .18).

Table 5 summarizes the MSEM results for testing
the hypotheses simultaneously. Team mindfulness
had a significant negative association with relation-
ship conflict (b 5 2.29, p , .01), again supporting
Hypothesis 1. The interaction between task conflict
and team mindfulness was negatively related to
relationship conflict (b 5 2.35, p , .01), again

2018 337Yu and Zellmer-Bruhn

T
A
B
L
E
4

D
es
cr
ip
ti
v
e
S
ta
ti
st
ic
s
a
n
d
C
o
rr
el
a
ti
o
n
s
a
m
o
n
g
S
tu
d
y

V
a
ri
a
b
le

s
in

S
tu
d
y
3

V
a
ri
a
b
le

M
S
D

1
2

3
4

5
6

7
8

9
1
0

1
1

1
2

1
.A

ge
3
8
.4
5

4
.2
1

2
.G

en
d
er

0
.5
9

2
.1
3

0
.0
7

3
.N

eg
at
iv
e
af
fe
ct
iv
it
y

1
.7
6

0
.6
7

0
.1
1

0
.0
4

0
.8
2

4
.I
n
d
iv
id
u
al

m
in
d
fu
ln
es
s

3
.1
2

0
.5
2

0
.0
9

0
.0
4

–
0
.1
5
*

0
.8
6

5
.A

gg
re
ga

te
in
d
iv
id
u
al

m
in
d
fu
ln
es
s

2
.3
3

1
.0
2

.0
5

0
.0
1

–

0
.0
8

0
.1
8
*

6
.T

ea
m

si
ze

6
.2
0

0
.5
6

0
.0
3

0
.0
2

0
.0
2
0
.0
2
0
.0
1

7
.T

ea
m

ta
sk

p
er
fo
rm

an
ce

5
.6
2

0
.6
5

0
.0
4

–
0
.0
2

–
0
.0
4

0
.1
1
0
.0
3
–
0
.0
2

0
.8
5

8
.T

ea
m

tr
u
st

4
.7
3

0
.7
3

0
.1
0

0
.1
1

–
0
.1
3

0
.1
7
*

0
.1
6
*

–
0
.1
4

0
.1
7
*

0
.8
8

9
.T

ea
m
ta
sk

n
fl
ic
t

3
.2
6

0
.7
1

0
.0
5

–
0
.0
1

0
.0
5

–
0
.0
3

–
0
.0
2
0
.0
8
–
0
.1
3

–
0
.2
0
*

0
.8
1

1
0
.T

ea
m
m
in
d
fu
ln
es
s

2
.5
5

0
.6
8

0
.0
2
0
.0
3
–
0
.0
1
0
.1
6
*

0
.1
2

–
0
.0
3
0
.0
9
0
.1
8
*

–
0
.0
5

0
.9
1

1
1
.T

ea
m

re
la
ti
o
n
sh

ip
co

n
fl
ic
t

2
.6
4

0
.6
1

0
.1
1

–
0
.0
9

0
.0
6

–
0
.0
5
–
0
.0
3
0
.1
0
–
0
.0
5

–
0
.1
7
*

0
.3
1
*
*

–
0
.2
0
*
*

0
.8
9

1
2
.I
n
d
iv
id
u
al

so
ci
al

u
n
d
er
m
in
in
g

3
.1
5

0
.9
7

–
0
.0
6

–
0
.0
5
0
.1
2

–
0
.1
9
*
*

–
0
.1
8
*

0
.0
4
–
0
.0
6

–
0
.2
1
*

0
.1
7
*

–
0
.2
4
*
*

0
.2
6
*
*

0
.9
3

N
o
te
s.
F
o
r
in
d
iv
id
u
al
-l
ev

el
,n

5
2
9
2
;f
o
r
gr
o
u
p
-l
ev

el
,n

5
4
8
.G

en
d
er

co
d
ed

1
fo
r
“
fe
m
al
e”

an
d
0
fo
r
“
m
al
e.
”
a
re
li
ab

il
it
y
co

ef
fi
ci
en

ts
ap

p
ea

r
o
n
th
e
m
ai
n
d
ia
go

n
al

in
it
al
ic
.

*
p
,

.0
5

*
*
p
,

.0
1
,t
w
o
-t
ai
le
d

338 FebruaryAcademy of Management Journal

supporting Hypothesis 2. Relationship conflict was
positively related to individual social undermining
(b 5 .30, p , .01), again supporting Hypothesis 3.
Relationship conflict and team mindfulness were
negatively related to individual social undermining
(b 5 2.31, p , .01), again supporting Hypothesis 4.
Following the same procedures as those described
in Study 2, the lower part of Table 3 shows a signif-
icant and stronger indirect effect for low team
mindfulness (CI95 5 [.017, .175], excluding zero),
but a nonsignificant effect for high team mindful-
ness (CI95 5 [–.005, .033], including zero). Figure 3
illustrates simple slope differences for high and low
team mindfulness in predicting relationship con-
flict (first stage) and individual social undermining
(second stage). The relationship between task con-
flict and relationship conflict and the relationship
between relationship conflict and individual social
undermining appear steeper in the presence of low
team mindfulness, again supporting Hypothesis 5.1

GENERAL DISCUSSION

In three studies, we present evidence for the
construct validity, function, and meaningfulness of
team mindfulness. Results are consistent with our
theory that mindfulness safeguards against multi-
level team conflict transformation processes by re-
ducing relationship conflict, disconnecting the
association between task conflict and relationship
conflict, and preventing relationship conflict from
spilling over to social undermining. Our studies
extend mindfulness research, with added implica-
tions for team conflict and social undermining
research.

Implications for Theory and Research

Our paper contributes to the literature on mind-
fulness implications for organizational behavior
(Davidson & Kaszniak, 2015; Glomb et al., 2011;
Good et al., 2016). Our results reinforce views that
mindfulness is more than an individual-level phe-
nomenon (e.g., Gersick & Hackman, 1990; Sutcliffe
et al., 2016; Weick & Sutcliffe, 2006), and capture
team-level mindfulness, in which team members
form collective perceptions of their interactions.
Team mindfulness has predictive validity, safeguards
against negative interpersonal team processes, and
has effects above and beyond individual-level or ag-
gregate measures of mindfulness, suggesting that it is
worthy of future consideration in both mindfulness
and teams research.

TABLE 5
MSEM Results for Testing Hypotheses in Study 3

Relationship Conflict Individual Social Undermining
Estimate SE Estimate SE

Control variables
Individual mindfulness –0.13 0.07 –0.14* 0.06
Aggregate individual mindfulness –0.10 0.11 –0.08 0.11
Team trust –0.13* 0.09 –0.12* 0.10
Independent variable
Task conflict 0.21* 0.10 0.15 0.12
Moderator
Team mindfulness –0.29** 0.12 –0.23* 0.12
Interaction terms
Task conflict 3 team mindfulness –0.35** 0.11
Mediator
Relationship conflict 0.30** 0.10
Interaction terms
Relationship conflict 3 team mindfulness –0.31** 0.16

Notes. For individual-level, n 5 292; for group-level, n 5 48. Standardized coefficients were reported. SE 5 Standard error.
*p , .05

**p , .01, two-tailed

1 In both Studies 2 and 3, we also collected data on team
mindfulness at T3. The results suggested that across two
studies, there is no significant difference between team
mindfulness measured at T2 and T3 (for Study 2, Mt2 5
2.76, Mt3 5 2.80, t(43) 5 211.42, p . .10; and for Study 3,
Mt2 5 2.55, Mt3 5 2.58, t(47) 5 29.63, p . .10). As a ro-
bustness check, we reran the analyses with T3 team
mindfulness substituting for T2 team mindfulness in the
interaction term predicting social undermining, and our
findings held. Details are available from the corresponding
author.

2018 339Yu and Zellmer-Bruhn

Our findings are consistent with individual-
level mindfulness research in that higher levels of
team mindfulness are beneficial to teams. Impor-
tantly, our test of Hypothesis 5, which considered
the simultaneous effects of team mindfulness on
multilevel conflict transformation processes, shows
how high team mindfulness is preemptive. Specifi-
cally, when team mindfulness is high, the connec-
tions between task conflict and relationship conflict
and relationship conflict and social undermining
are weakened. Drawing on research about the cog-
nitive functions of mindfulness (Glomb et al., 2011),
we argued that present-focused attention reduces
cross-contamination of task and personal cues,
and limits interpretations of conflict being dis-
positional, defensive, and ego-driven (Hopthrow
et al., 2017), thereby lowering oppositional in-
tensity. The affective functions of mindfulness
increase positive emotional tone and lower re-
activity (Good et al., 2016), thus limiting negative
emotionality. Our results are consistent with re-
cent advances in the conflict literature indicating
that reducing oppositional intensity and negative
emotionality are key to blunting conflict spirals and
transformation (Todorova et al., 2014; Weingart et al.,
2015).

Beyond introducing team mindfulness, we offer
insights about why team conflict continues to be
a vexing problem (Greer et al., 2008; Jehn &
Bendersky, 2003). Particularly, we found that con-
flict transformation is a multilevel process. In addi-
tion to the well-known team-level link between task
and relationship conflict, we found that when re-
lationship conflict is elevated, it is associated with
higher levels of interpersonal aggression in the form
of social undermining. Thus, conflict may be a

multilevel phenomenon, further complicating its
remedies. By showing that mindfulness simulta-
neously safeguards against relationship conflict, task
conflict transformation, and relationship conflict
spilling over to individual social undermining, our
paper illustrates that team mindfulness is a particu-
larly potent defense.

When combined with research showing that trust
limits conflict transference (Choi & Cho, 2011;
Simons & Peterson, 2000), mindfulness offers an
additional mechanism to help teams avoid negative
repercussions of task conflict. While there may be
a number of moderators of the task conflict–
relationship conflict relationship, it is valuable to
establish additional contingency factors (Rispens,
2012). Future research should evaluate which mod-
erators are the most important, or whether there
are complementary or compensatory relationships
among moderators. For example, team mindfulness
may safeguard teams with low trust, because mind-
fulness is amenable to short-term inducement
(Hafenbrack et al., 2014), so mindfulness inter-
ventions in low-trust teams may prevent conflict
transformation.

Understanding antecedents of social undermining
is essential (e.g., Duffy et al., 2002, 2006). Organiza-
tional research has offered various theoretical ex-
planations for individual-level predictors of social
undermining, including envy, moral disengagement
(Duffy et al., 2012), bottom-line mentality, and social
learning (Greenbaum, Mawritz, & Eissa, 2012), but
they have not sufficiently explored social-contextual
predictors such as team conflict, which limits theory
development because much work happens in teams
where conflict is a common occurrence. More im-
portant, social undermining occurs interpersonally

FIGURE 3
Moderation Plots Study 3

2
1
0.5
0
1.5
2
1
0.5
0
1.5
Low Team
Mindfulness
Low Team
Mindfulness
High Team
Mindfulness
High Team
Mindfulness

Low Task Conflict Low Realationship
Conflict

High Relationship
Conflict

R
el
a
ti
o
n
sh
ip
C
o
n
fl
ic

P
er
ce
iv
ed
s
o
ci
a
l
u
n
d
er
m
in
in
g
High Task Conflict

340 FebruaryAcademy of Management Journal

in social contexts (Duffy et al., 2002, 2006, 2012). By
demonstrating a cross-level spillover, we identify
team conflict as a contextual determinant of social
undermining in teams (Duffy et al., 2002, 2012). In
doing so, we clarify and extend knowledge of why
relationship conflict is detrimental in teams. Task
and relationship conflict are likely to provoke so-
cial undermining among individual team mem-
bers, but mindful teams are less likely to show
cross-level transference, thus revealing how
group-level contextual factors prevent team-level
conflict from transferring to individual social
undermining.

Interestingly, our results suggest that low mind-
fulness may exacerbate team conflict transforma-
tion. In both studies, plotted results indicated that
when team mindfulness was low, the connections
between task conflict and relationship conflict,
and between relationship conflict and social
undermining were strengthened. Future mind-
fulness research should further explore the role
mindfulness plays in conflict expression and
consequences, considering whether low mind-
fulness is harmful, rather than neutral, to team-
level processes. As mindfulness theory continues
to develop, contingencies like these will be an
important area for further work. We explain and
support that team mindfulness is conceptually
distinct from aggregate individual mindfulness.
Even so, more research would be beneficial to
understand team mindfulness emergence and the
possible relationship between team member traits
and team mindfulness development, particularly
using the controlled conditions of laboratory re-
search designs.

Finally, we tested and replicated our hypotheses
in project teams in an MBA program and teams in
a healthcare program, in two different national cul-
ture contexts. This further strengthens the validity of
our results, and conclusions that team mindfulness
can be applied in a wide variety of workplace
settings.

Limitations and Recommendations
for Future Research

Like other studies, our research has limitations.
Our study uses single-source data and a correla-
tional design. While the use of single-source data
raises the possibility that common method biases
influenced our results (Podsakoff, MacKenzie,
Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003), self-reported data are ap-
propriate for constructs such as mindfulness,

conflict, and undermining (Berry, Carpenter, &
Barratt, 2012), and, following recommendations
(Podsakoff et al., 2003), we assessed key variables
at different times, mitigating some concern. In
addition, within limitations of correlational re-
search, we improved the validity of our findings by
using multi-wave designs and temporally sepa-
rating collection of the independent variables from
dependent variables. Even so, this suggests some
caveats to our results. Our theoretical model states
that team mindfulness can reduce the occurrence
of relationship conflict in teams directly. Team
mindfulness and relationship conflict measures
were collected at the same time. Therefore, while
our theory suggests that team mindfulness lowers
relationship conflict, this finding must be inter-
preted with caution until further research is con-
ducted to address the causal order in this
relationship.

Next, we invoke the term “conflict trans-
formation” (Choi & Cho, 2011; Simons & Peterson,
2000), which implies a causal order. While we did
collect measures of task conflict in an earlier pe-
riod than the measures of relationship conflict,
there is ongoing debate in the team conflict liter-
ature about transformation versus cooccurrence of
conflict types (Rispens, 2012). Recent conceptual
developments in conflict expression theory have
suggested that the processes involved in conflict
spirals—situations within a conflict type where
conflict increases in frequency and intensity—
occur in complex, interdependent microexchanges
that may be difficult to sort out temporally (Weingart
et al., 2015). It is possible that rather than relation-
ship conflict being caused by task conflict, task and
relationship conflict are bound by a similar set of
mutually reinforcing processes and experiences,
generating high or low levels of the two (Choi &
Cho, 2011; Simons & Peterson, 2000). This view,
however, is less helpful in explaining situations
where one is high and the other is low, particularly
when there is high task conflict and low relation-
ship conflict. Distinctions between conflict types,
conflict frequency, conflict events, and conflict
expression are all valuable avenues for future
research.

As a final point related to the correlational design,
although our theoretical model states that team re-
lationship conflict spills over to individual social
undermining, individual social undermining may
lead to team relationship conflict. This is unlikely to
be a concern because we measured individual team
members’ social undermining after they completed

2018 341Yu and Zellmer-Bruhn

the survey assessing team relationship conflict.
Nevertheless, future research should adopt experi-
mental methods or longitudinal designs to facilitate
stronger causal inferences.

We invoked recent theoretical developments to
suggest that the mechanisms linking task conflict
and relationship conflict, and connecting relation-
ship conflict and social undermining, are opposi-
tional intensity and negative emotions (Todorova
et al., 2014; Weingart et al., 2015; Yang &
Mossholder, 2004). Because we measured task and
relationship conflict using Jehn’s (1995) constructs
as their basis, which emphasize disagreement and
clashes, we argued that higher levels of conflict
provide some indication of oppositional intensity
and negative emotions associated with conflict;
however, cutting-edge research (Weingart et al.,
2015) has suggested that as team conflict research
moves ahead, scholars should develop and include
separate measures of content and expression. Our
empirical findings are consistent with our theory,
but future research should directly test the proposed
mechanisms.

We focused on team mindfulness effects on team
conflict only; however, we strongly encourage
scholars to consider potential effects on other im-
portant outcomes, such as multilevel performance
effects, considering that both individual and team
performance are essential to team effectiveness and
organizational success (Carter et al., 2017). Fur-
thermore, performance may affect conflict levels in
teams (Jehn & Mannix, 2001). Future research
should theoretically and empirically examine
whether, how, and when team mindfulness and
individual mindfulness may jointly influence
group and individual performance in teams, and
employ more complex longitudinal designs to an-
alyze the cycles of team mindfulness, conflict, and
performance.

Beyond those specific limitations, future research
could further explore the validity and importance of
team mindfulness. For instance, while Study 1 in-
cluded various related constructs, providing initial
evidence about the nomological network for team
mindfulness, there are two limitations to this evi-
dence. First, our design prohibited an evaluation of
whether team mindfulness generates, or simply
correlates with, states such as team cohesion and
psychological safety. Teasing apart these relation-
ships could offer important insights. Second, the
emergent states included in our nomological net-
work analysis were all cognitive emergent states.
Given the emotion regulation role team mindfulness

is proposed to play, it is important for future research
to explore how team mindfulness relates to affective
emergent states.

Practical Implications

A primary goal of organizational research has
been to prevent costly interpersonal work outcomes
(de Wit et al., 2012; Duffy et al., 2012). Considering
mindfulness at the team level and examining its role
in countering conflict transference in teams has
implications for practitioners. Research showing
benefits from individual mindfulness mediation has
suggested that mindfulness may be teachable (Good
et al., 2016). Team mindfulness training may help
team members and leaders support highly success-
ful teamwork. For example, training, meditation, or
activities aimed at enhancing team mindfulness
may offset negative influences of interpersonal
conflict.

CONCLUSIONS

We add to increasing interest in mindfulness by
introducing a new collective-level construct—
team mindfulness—and shed light on its influence
on teams and their members. Our studies suggest
that mindfulness could safeguard teams against
negative interpersonal processes. We hope our
research sparks further interest in mindfulness,
motivates more nuanced inquiries into the full
impact of mindfulness in organizations, and
generates mindfulness-related practical solutions
that preempt negative interpersonal processes at
work.

REFERENCES

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. 1991. Multiple regression:
Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.

Alper, S., Tjosvold, D., & Law, K. S. 1998. Interdependence
and controversy in group decision making: Anteced-
ents to effective self-managing teams. Organiza-
tional Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 74:
33–52.

Amason, A. C., & Sapienza, H. J. 1997. The effects of top
management team size and interaction norms on
cognitive and affective conflict. Journal of Manage-
ment, 23: 495–516.

Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. 1988. Structural equation
modeling in practice: A review and recommended

342 FebruaryAcademy of Management Journal

two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103:
411–423.

Ayoko, O. B., Callan, V. J., & Härtel, C. E. 2008. The influ-
ence of team emotional intelligence climate on con-
flict and team members’ reactions to conflict. Small
Group Research, 39: 121–149.

Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., & Allen, K. B. 2004. Assessment of
mindfulness by self-report the Kentucky inventory of
mindfulness skills. Assessment, 11: 191–206.

Barsade, S. G. 2002. The ripple effect: Emotional contagion
and its influence on group behavior. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 47: 644–675.

Becker, T. 2005. Potential problems in the statistical con-
trol of variables in organizational research: A qualita-
tive analysis with recommendations. Organizational
Research Methods, 8: 274–289.

Bell, C., & Song, F. 2005. Emotions in the conflict process:
An application of the cognitive appraisal model of
emotions to conflict management. International
Journal of Conflict Management, 16: 30–54.

Berry, C. M., Carpenter, N. C., & Barratt, C. L. 2012. Do
other-reports of counterproductive work behavior
provide anincremental contribution over self-reports?
A meta-analytic comparison. The Journal of Applied
Psychology, 97: 613–636.

Bettencourt, B., Talley, A., Benjamin, A. J., & Valentine, J.
2006. Personality and aggressive behavior under pro-
voking and neutral conditions: a meta-analytic re-
view. Psychological Bulletin, 132: 751–777.

Bettenhausen, K. L., & Murnighan, J. K. 1991. The devel-
opment of an intragroup norm and the effects of in-
terpersonal and structural challenges. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 36: 20–35.

Bliese, P. D. 2000. Within-group agreement, non-
independence, and reliability: Implications for data
aggregation and analysis. In K. Klein & S. Kozlowski
(Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in
organizations Foundations, extensions, and new di-
rections: 349–381. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bodtker, A., & Jameson, J. K. 2001. Emotion in conflict
formation and its transformation: Application to or-
ganizational conflict management. International
Journal of Conflict Management, 12: 259–275.

Bradley, B. H., Anderson, H. J., Baur, J. E., & Klotz, A. C.
2015. When conflict helps: Integrating evidence for
beneficial conflict in groups and teams under three
perspectives. Group Dynamics, 19: 243–272.

Brislin, R. W. 1990. Applied cross-culture and psychol-
ogy. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. 2003. The benefits of being
present: Mindfulness and its role in psychological
well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 84: 822–848.

Brown, K. W., Ryan, R. M., & Creswell, J. D. 2007.
Mindfulness: Theoretical foundations and evidence
for its salutary effects. Psychological Inquiry, 18:
211–237.

Carnevale, P. J., & Probst, T. M. 1998. Social values and
social conflict in creative problem solving and cate-
gorization. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 74: 1300–1309.

Carson, J. B., Tesluk, P. E., & Marrone, J. A. 2007. Shared
leadership in teams: An investigation of antecedent
conditions and performance. Academy of Manage-
ment Journal, 50: 1217–1234.

Carter, N. T., Carter, D. R., & DeChurch, L. A. 2017. Impli-
cations of observability for the theory and measure-
ment of emergent team phenomena. Journal of
Management. Published online ahead of print.

Carver, C. S., & Harmon-Jones, E. 2009. Anger is an
approach-related affect: evidence and implications.
Psychological Bulletin, 135: 183–204.

Chaiken, S. 1980. Heuristic versus systematic information
processing and the use of source versus message cues
in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 39: 752–766.

Chan, D. 1998. Functional relations among constructs in
the same content domainat different levelsof analysis:
A typology of composition models. The Journal of
Applied Psychology, 83: 234–246.

Choi, K., & Cho, B. 2011. Competing hypotheses analyses
of the associations between group task conflict and
group relationship conflict. Journal of Organiza-
tional Behavior, 32: 1106–1126.

Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. 1955. Construct validity in
psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52:
281–302.

Curşeau,P. L.,Janssen,D.E., & Raab,J. 2012.Connectingthe
dots: Social network structure, conflict, and group
cognitive complexity. Higher Education, 63: 621–629.

Dane, E. 2011. Paying attention to mindfulness and its ef-
fects on task performance in the workplace. Journal of
Management, 37: 997–1018.

Dane, E., & Brummel, B. J. 2014. Examining workplace
mindfulness and is relations to job performance and
turnover intention. Human Relations, 67: 105–128.

David, D. S. 2015. Training minds for better team-
building. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/deborah-
schoeberlein/training-minds-for-better_b_6160142.
html.

Davidson, R. J. 2010. Empirical explorations of mindful-
ness: Conceptual and methodological conundrums.
Emotion (Washington, D.C.), 10: 8–11.

Davidson, R. J., & Kaszniak, A. W. 2015. Conceptual and
methodological issues in research on mindfulness

2018 343Yu and Zellmer-Bruhn

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/deborah-schoeberlein/training-minds-for-better_b_6160142.html

and meditation. The American Psychologist, 70:
581–592.

Davis, K. E., & Todd, M. J. 1985. Assessing friendships:
Prototypes, paradigm cases, and relationship de-
scription. In S. Duck & D. Perlman (Eds.), Un-
derstanding personal relationships: Sage series in
personal relationships, vol. 1: 17–37. Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage.

De Dreu, C. K., & Weingart, L. R. 2003. Task versus re-
lationship conflict, team performance, and team
member satisfaction: a meta-analysis. The Journal of
Applied Psychology, 88: 741–749.

de Jong, J. P., Curşeu, P. L., & Leenders, R. T. A. 2014. When
do bad apples not spoil the barrel? Negative relation-
ships in teams, team performance, and buffering
mechanisms. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 99:
514–522.

de Wit, F. R., Greer, L. L., & Jehn, K. A. 2012. The paradox of
intragroup conflict: a meta-analysis. The Journal of
Applied Psychology, 97: 360–390.

Dreyfus, G. 2011. Is mindfulness present-centered and
non-judgmental? A discussion of the cognitive di-
mensions of mindfulness. Contemporary Buddhism,
12: 41–54.

Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D., & Pagon, M. 2002. Social under-
mining in the workplace. Academy of Management
Journal, 45: 331–351.

Duffy, M. K., Scott, K. L., Shaw, J. D., Tepper, B. J., &
Aquino, K. 2012. A social context model of envy and
social undermining. Academy of Management
Journal, 55: 643–666.

Duffy, M. K., Shaw, J. D., Scott, K. L., & Tepper, B. J. 2006.
The moderating roles of self-esteem and neuroticism
in the relationship between group and individual
undermining behavior. The Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 91: 1066–1077.

Eberth, J., & Sedlmeier, P. 2012. The effects of mindful-
ness meditation: a meta-analysis. Mindfulness, 3:
174–189.

Edmondson, A. C. 1999. Psychological safety and learning
behavior in work teams. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 44: 350–383.

Elsbach, K. D., & Pratt, M. G. 2007. The physical environ-
ment in organizations. The Academy of Management
Annals, 1: 181–224.

Felps, W., Mitchell, T. R., & Byington, E. 2006. How,
when, and why bad apples spoil the barrel: Nega-
tive group members and dysfunctional groups.
Research in Organizational Behavior, 27: 175–
222.

Frijda, N. H. 2007. The laws of emotion. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Gelles, D. 2015. Mindful work: How meditation is
changing business from the inside out. Boston, MA:
Eamon Dolan/Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

Gersick, C. J., & Hackman, J. R. 1990. Habitual routines in
task-performing groups. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 47: 65–97.

Glomb, T. M., Duffy, M. K., Bono, J. E., & Yang, T. 2011.
Mindfulness at work. In J. Martocchio, H. Liao, & Joshi,
A. (Eds) Research in Personnel and Human Resource
Management, Vol. 30: 115–157. Bingley, U.K.: Em-
erald Group Publishing.

Glomb, T. M., & Liao, H. 2003. Interpersonal aggression in
work groups: Social influence, reciprocal, and indi-
vidual effects. Academy of Management Journal, 46:
486–496.

Good, D. J., et al. 2016. Contemplating mindfulness at
work: An integrative review. Journal of Management,
42: 114–142.

Greenbaum, R. L., Mawritz, M. B., & Eissa, G. 2012. Bottom-
line mentality as an antecedent of social undermining
and the moderating roles of core self-evaluations and
conscientiousness. The Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 97: 343–359.

Greer, L. L., Jehn, K. A., & Mannix, E. A. 2008. Conflict
transformation: An exploration of the inter-
relationships between task, relationship, and process
conflict. Small Group Research, 39: 278–302.

Gruenfeld, D. H., Mannix, E. A., Williams, K. Y., & Neale,
M. A. 1996. Group composition and decision making:
How member familiarity and information distribution
affect process and performance. Organizational Be-
havior and Human Decision Processes, 67: 1–15.

Guzzo, R. A., Yost, P. R., Campbell, R. J., & Shea, G. P. 1993.
Potency in groups: Articulating a construct. British
Journal of Social Psychology, 32: 87–106.

Hackman, J. R. 1992. Group influences on individuals in
organizations. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psycholo-
gists Press.

Hafenbrack, A. C., Kinias, Z., & Barsade, S. G. 2014.
Debiasing the mind through meditation mindfulness
and the sunk-cost bias. Psychological Science, 25:
369–376.

Heppner, W. L., Adams, C. E., Vidrine, J. I., & Wetter,
D. W. 2017. Mindfulness and emotion regulation. In
B. D. Ostafin M. D. Robinson & B. P. Meier (Eds.),
Mindfulness and self-regulation. New York, NY:
Springer.

Heppner, W. L., & Kernis, M. H. 2007. “Quiet ego” func-
tioning: The complementary roles of mindfulness,
authenticity, and secure high self-esteem. Psycho-
logical Inquiry, 18: 248–251.

Hershcovis, M. S. 2011. “Incivility, social undermining,
bullying. . . oh my!”: A call to reconcile constructs

344 FebruaryAcademy of Management Journal

within workplace aggression research. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 32: 499–519.

Hinkin, T. R. 1998. A brief tutorial on the development of
measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organi-
zational Research Methods, 1: 104–121.

Hofmann, D. A., & Jones, L. M. 2005. Leadership, collective
personality, and performance. The Journal of Ap-
plied Psychology, 90: 509–522.

Hopthrow, T., Hooper, N., Mahmood, L., Meier, B. P., &
Weger, U. 2017. Mindfulness reduces the correspon-
dence bias. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psy-
chology, 70: 351–360.

Hulsheger, U. R. 2015. Making sure that mindfulness is
promoted in organizations in the right way and for the
right goals. Industrial and Organizational Psychol-
ogy: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 8:
674–679.

Jehn, K. A. 1995. A multi method examination of the ben-
efits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Adminis-
trative Science Quarterly, 40: 256–282.

Jehn, K. A., & Bendersky, C. 2003. Intragroup conflict in
organizations: A contingency perspective on the
conflict-outcome relationship. Research in Organi-
zational Behavior, 25: 187–242.

Jehn, K. A., Greer, L., Levine, S., & Szulanski, G. 2008. The
effects of conflict types, dimensions, and emergent
states on group outcomes. Group Decision and Ne-
gotiation, 17: 465–495.

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.

Jones, T. S., & Bodtker, A. 2001. Mediating with heart in
mind: Addressing emotion in mediation practice.
Negotiation Journal, 17: 207–244.

Kozlowski, S. W., & Hattrup, K. 1992. A disagreement
about within-group agreement: Disentangling issues
of consistency versus consensus. The Journal of Ap-
plied Psychology, 77: 161–167.

Krishnakumar, S., & Robinson, M. D. 2015. Maintaining
an even keel: An affect-mediated model of mind-
fulness and hostile work behavior. Emotion, 15:
579–589.

Kross, E., & Ayduk, O. 2011. Making meaning out of neg-
ative experiences by self-distancing. Current Di-
rections in Psychological Science, 20: 187–191.

Kross, E., & Grossmann, I. 2012. Boosting wisdom: Dis-
tance from the self enhances wise reasoning, attitudes,
and behavior. Journal of Experimental Psychology.
General, 141: 43–48.

Langer, E. J. 1989. Mindfulness. Reading, MA: Addison-
Wesley.

Leary, M. R., Tate, E. B., Adams, C. E., Batts, A., & Hancock,
J. 2007. Self-compassion and reactions to unpleasant
self-relevant events: the implications of treating one-
self kindly. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 92: 887–904.

Lee, K., Kim, E., Bhave, D. P., & Duffy, M. K. 2016. Why
victims of undermining at work become perpetrators
of undermining: An integrative model. The Journal of
Applied Psychology, 101: 915–924.

Leroy, S. 2009. Why is it so hard to do my work? The
challenge of attention residue when switching be-
tween work tasks. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 109: 168–181.

Liu, D., Zhang, Z., & Wang, M. 2012. Mono-level and
multilevel mediated moderation and moderated me-
diation: Theorizing and test. In X. Chen A. Tsui & L.
Farh (Eds.), Empirical methods in organization and
management research (2nd ed.): 545–579. Beijing,
China: Peking University Press.

Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. 2001. A tempo-
rally based framework and taxonomy of team processes.
Academy of Management Review, 26: 356–376.

Morgeson, F. P., & Hofmann, D. A. 1999. The structure and
function of collective constructs: Implications for re-
search and theory development. Academy of Man-
agement Review, 24: 249–265.

Morrison, A. B., Goolsarran, M., Rogers, S. L., & Jha, A. P.
2013. Taming a wandering attention: short-form
mindfulness training in student cohorts. Frontiers in
Human Neuroscience, 7: 1–12.

Muraven, M., Baumeister, R. F., & Tice, D. M. 1999. Lon-
gitudinal improvement of self-regulation through
practice: Building self-control strength through re-
peated exercise. The Journal of Social Psychology,
139: 446–457.

Nair, N. 2008. Towards understanding the role of emotions
in conflict: A review and future directions. In-
ternational Journal of Conflict Management, 19:
359–381.

Pearson, A. W., Ensley, M. D., & Amason, A. C. 2002. An
assessment and refinement of Jehn’s intragroup con-
flict scale. International Journal of Conflict Man-
agement, 13: 110–126.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff,
N. P. 2003. Common method biases in behavioral re-
search: a critical review of the literature and recom-
mended remedies. The Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88: 879–903.

Preacher, K. J., Zyphur, M. J., & Zhang, Z. 2010. A general
multilevel SEM framework for assessing multilevel
mediation. Psychological Methods, 15: 209–233.

Rispens, S. 2012. The influence of conflict issue impor-
tance on the co‐occurrence of task and relationship

2018 345Yu and Zellmer-Bruhn

conflict in teams. Applied Psychology, 61: 349–
367.

Rousseau, D. M. 1985. Issues of level in organizational
research: Multi-level and cross-level perspec-
tives. Research in Organizational Behavior, 7:
1–37.

Schulz-Hardt, S., Jochims, M., & Frey, D. 2002. Pro-
ductive conflict in group decision making: Genuine
and contrived dissent as strategies to counteract
biased information seeking. Organizational Be-
havior and Human Decision Processes, 88:
563–586.

Shapiro, S. L., & Carlson, L. E. 2009. The art and science of
mindfulness: Integrating mindfulness into psychol-
ogy and the helping professions. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.

Simons, T. L., & Peterson, R. S. 2000. Task conflict and
relationship conflict in top management teams: the
pivotal role of intragroup trust. The Journal of Ap-
plied Psychology, 85: 102–111.

Slagter, H. A., Davidson, R. J., & Lutz, A. 2011. Mental
training as a tool in the neuro-scientific study of brain
and cognitive plasticity. Frontiers in Human Neuro-
science, 5: 135–146.

Smallwood, J., & Schooler, J. W. 2015. The science of mind
wandering: empirically navigating the stream of con-
sciousness. Annual Review of Psychology, 66:
487–518.

Sutcliffe, K. M., Vogus, T. J., & Dane, E. 2016. Mindfulness
in organizations: A cross-level review. Annual Re-
view of Organizational Psychology and Organiza-
tional Behavior, 3: 55–81.

Tidd, S. T., McIntyre, H. H., & Friedman, R. A. 2004. The
importance of role ambiguity and trust in conflict
perception: Unpacking the task conflict to relation-
ship conflict linkage. International Journal of Con-
flict Management, 15: 364–380.

Tjosvold, D. 1983. Social face in conflict: A critique.
International Journal of Group Tensions, 13:
49–64.

Todorova, G., Bear, J. B., & Weingart, L. R. 2014. Can con-
flict be energizing? A study of task conflict, positive
emotions, and job satisfaction. The Journal of Ap-
plied Psychology, 99: 451–467.

Tofighi, D., & MacKinnon, D. P. 2011. RMediation:
An R package for mediation analysis confidence
intervals. Behavior Research Methods, 43:
692–700.

Tsai, M. H., & Bendersky, C. 2016. The pursuit of in-
formation sharing: Expressing task conflicts as debates
vs. disagreements increases perceived receptivity to
dissenting opinions in groups. Organization Science,
27: 141–156.

Van Kleef, G. A. 2010. The emerging view of emotion as
social information. Social and Personality Psychol-
ogy Compass, 4: 331–343.

van Knippenberg, D., van Ginkel, W. P., & Homan, A. C.
2013. Diversity mindsets and the performance of di-
verse teams. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 121: 183–193.

Venkataramani, V., & Dalal, R. S. 2007. Who helps and
harms whom? Relational antecedents of interpersonal
helping and harming in organizations. The Journal of
Applied Psychology, 92: 952–966.

Vogus, T. J., & Sutcliffe, K. M. 2007. The impact of safety
organizing, trusted leadership, and care pathways on
reported medication errors in hospital nursing units.
Medical Care, 45: 997–1002.

Vogus, T. J., & Sutcliffe, K. M. 2012. Organizational
mindfulness and mindful organizing: A reconciliation
and path forward. Academy of Management Learn-
ing & Education, 11: 722–735.

Vogus, T. J., & Welbourne, T. M. 2003. Structuring for high
reliability: HR practices and mindful processes in re-
liability‐seeking organizations. Journal of Organiza-
tional Behavior, 24: 877–903.

Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. 1988. Development
and validation of brief measures of positive and neg-
ative affect: the PANAS scales. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 54: 1063–1070.

Weick, K. E., & Putnam, T. 2006. Organizing for
mindfulness Eastern wisdom and Western knowl-
edge. Journal of Management Inquiry, 15:
275–287.

Weick, K. E., & Roberts, K. H. 1993. Collective mind in
organizations: Heedful interrelating on flight decks.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 38: 357–381.

Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M. 2006. Mindfulness and the
quality of organizational attention. Organization
Science, 17: 514–524.

Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. 1999. Orga-
nizing for high reliability: Processes of collective
mindfulness. Research in Organizational Behavior,
21: 81–123.

Weingart, L. R., Behfar, K. J., Bendersky, C., Todorova, G., &
Jehn, K. A. 2015. The directness and oppositional in-
tensity of conflict expression. Academy of Manage-
ment Review, 40: 235–262.

Weinstein, N., Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. 2009. A
multi-method examination of the effects of mind-
fulness on stress attribution, coping, and emotional
well-being. Journal of Research in Personality, 43:
374–385.

Weiss, H. M., Suckow, K., & Cropanzano, R. 1999. Effects of
justice conditions on discrete emotions. The Journal
of Applied Psychology, 84: 786–794.

346 FebruaryAcademy of Management Journal

Wright, S., Day, A., & Howells, K. 2009. Mindfulness and
the treatment of anger problems. Aggression and Vi-
olent Behavior, 14: 396–401.

Wu, L. Z., Ferris, D. L., Kwan, H. K., Chiang, F., Snape, E., &
Liang, L. H. 2015. Breaking (or making) the silence:
How goal interdependence and social skill predict
being ostracized. Organizational Behavior and Hu-
man Decision Processes, 131: 51–66.

Yang, J., & Mossholder, K. W. 2004. Decoupling task and
relationship conflict: The role of intragroup emotional
processing. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25:
589–605.

Zellmer-Bruhn, M. E. 2003. Interruptive events and team
knowledge acquisition. Management Science, 49:
514–528.

Lingtao Yu (lingtao.yu@sauder.ubc.ca) is an assistant
professor in the Sauder School of Business at the Univer-
sity of British Columbia. He received his PhD in business
administration from the University of Minnesota. His
current research interests include leadership and ethics,
abusive supervision, workplace deviance, emotions, and
mindfulness.

Mary Zellmer-Bruhn (zellm002@umn.edu) is associate
professor of organizational behavior at the Carlson School
of Management at the University of Minnesota. She
completed her PhD in organizational behavior at the
University of Wisconsin-Madison. Dr. Zellmer-Bruhn’s
current research focuses on context and teaming, team
diversity, and knowledge processes and learning in
teams.

APPENDIX A

TABLE A1
Exploratory Factor Analysis Factor Loadings for Team Mindfulness Scale

Items

Factor

1 2

1. It is difficult for the team to stay focused on what is happening in the present. (R) 0.92 0.45
2. The team rushes through activities without really being attentive to them. (R) 0.86 0.34
3. Within the team, we listen to each other with one ear while doing something else at the same time. (R) 0.84 0.43
4. The team is preoccupied with the future or the past. (R) 0.79 0.39
5. The team does things without paying attention. (R) 0.85 0.32
6. The team criticizes members for having irrational or inappropriate thoughts or emotions. (R) 0.36 0.87
7. Some of the team’s thoughts or emotions are inappropriate. (R) 0.28 0.88
8. The team is aware of thoughts and feelings without over-identifying with them. 0.41 0.91
9. This team is friendly to members when things go wrong. 0.42 0.92

10. The team experiences moments of peace and ease, even when things get hectic and stressful. 0.37 0.80

Notes. Dominant factor loadings are presented in boldface. Factor 1 5 present-focused attention; Factor 2 5 experiential, nonjudgmental
processing. R 5 reverse scored.

2018 347Yu and Zellmer-Bruhn

mailto:lingtao.yu@sauder.ubc.ca

mailto:zellm002@umn.edu

Copyright of Academy of Management Journal is the property of Academy of Management
and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without
the copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users may print, download, or
email articles for individual use.

Turn in your highest-quality paper
Get a qualified writer to help you with

“ W4D1 Wald Respond To Two Colleagues ”

Get high-quality paper

NEW! AI matching with writer

Order a unique copy of this paper

Type of paper needed:

Pages:

600 words

Academic level:

We'll send you the first draft for approval by September 11, 2018 at 10:52 AM

Total price:

$26

Our Services

W4D1 Wald Respond To Two Colleagues

Order a unique copy of this paper