Prior literature on conflict in teams has generally established that team heterogeneity (vs. homogeneity) influences the extent to which conflict occurs in teams. However, to date literature has not examined different types of culturally homogeneous teams’ experience of team conflict and its effect on team identity. In two field studies, I look at the effect of team cultural composition and conflict on team identity (Study 1) and the effect of team cultural composition on the tendency to engage in conflict over time (Study 2). Consistent with the literature on culture and dialectical reasoning that suggests East Asians are better able to tolerate contradictions and mixed emotions which usually accompany conflict situations, my results revealed that conflict did not affect East Asian teams’ identity, but it negatively impacted North American teams’ identity. Further, my results revealed that North American teams reported higher levels of conflict during the initial team interaction, but East Asian teams reported higher levels of conflict during later team interactions. I discuss contributions to theory on team conflict and identity and implications for managing culturally homogeneous North American and East Asian teams.

Prior literature on conflict in teams has generally established that team heterogeneity (vs. homogeneity) influences the extent to which conflict occurs in teams. However, to date literature has not examined different types of culturally homogeneous teams’ experience of team conflict and its effect on team identity. In two field studies, I look at the effect of team cultural composition and conflict on team identity (Study 1) and the effect of team cultural composition on the tendency to engage in conflict over time (Study 2). Consistent with the literature on culture and dialectical reasoning that suggests East Asians are better able to tolerate contradictions and mixed emotions which usually accompany conflict situations, my results revealed that conflict did not affect East Asian teams’ identity, but it negatively impacted North American teams’ identity. Further, my results revealed that North American teams reported higher levels of conflict during the initial team interaction, but East Asian teams reported higher levels of conflict during later team interactions. I discuss contributions to theory on team conflict and identity and implications for managing culturally homogeneous North American and East Asian teams.

This study investigates whether team members work harder and perform better when they are compensated based on both team and individual performance than when compensated based on team or individual performance alone and whether teammates? familiarity with one another influences the effectiveness of the compensation scheme. Four-member ad hoc student teams repeatedly complete an interdependent task on the computer in an experiment in which I manipulate individual compensation plan (flat wage or performance-based incentives), team compensation plan (flat wage or performance-based incentives), and teammate familiarity (identified teammates with pre-experiment interaction ? strong id or unidentified teammates with no pre-experiment interaction ? weak id). Results indicate that while the combination of team and individual performance-based compensation results in the highest performance, the incremental performance boost is higher from the first performance-based reward strategy, regardless of whether it is team or individual. Under both strong and weak identity, offering a combination of individual and team performance-based compensation results in comparable performance, suggesting that lower productivity levels associated with low team identity can be overcome with performance-based compensation. Together these results suggest that, regardless of team identity, firms can benefit from offering both team and individual performance-based compensation. However, companies should understand that the performance bump may be smaller from the second performance-based scheme.

This study investigates whether team members work harder and perform better when they are compensated based on both team and individual performance than when compensated based on team or individual performance alone and whether teammates? familiarity with one another influences the effectiveness of the compensation scheme. Four-member ad hoc student teams repeatedly complete an interdependent task on the computer in an experiment in which I manipulate individual compensation plan (flat wage or performance-based incentives), team compensation plan (flat wage or performance-based incentives), and teammate familiarity (identified teammates with pre-experiment interaction ? strong id or unidentified teammates with no pre-experiment interaction ? weak id). Results indicate that while the combination of team and individual performance-based compensation results in the highest performance, the incremental performance boost is higher from the first performance-based reward strategy, regardless of whether it is team or individual. Under both strong and weak identity, offering a combination of individual and team performance-based compensation results in comparable performance, suggesting that lower productivity levels associated with low team identity can be overcome with performance-based compensation. Together these results suggest that, regardless of team identity, firms can benefit from offering both team and individual performance-based compensation. However, companies should understand that the performance bump may be smaller from the second performance-based scheme.