Misty L. Loughry, Ph.D.
Alan and Sandra Gerry Chair in Business Excellence | Professor of Management
Research & Articles
Loughry, M. L., & Amason, A. C. (2014) 25(4), 333-358 | Winner of the International Journal of Conflict Management’s 2015 Outstanding Paper Award.
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to suggest why the theoretically positive relationship between task conflict and team performance has received mixed empirical support. Design/methodology/approach – We review the literature on task conflict and offer explanations for findings that contradict the expected positive relationship between task conflict and team performance. Findings – High levels of correlation among task, relationship and process conflict, and measurement and data analysis issues make it difficult to isolate the effects of each type of conflict. Group-level moderators, including values congruence, goal alignment, norms for debate and the group’s performance history and conflict history affect the relationship between task conflict and performance. The complex relationship between conflict and trust may cause task conflict to have mixed effects on performance. Individual differences and conflict management approaches also affect the relationship between task conflict and performance. Temporal issues and stages of group development are other relevant influences. Practical implications – To better achieve the theorized performance benefits of task conflict, a context characterized by trust is needed. Then norms fostering task conflict can be cultivated and employees can be trained in conflict management. Individual differences that affect team members’ ability to confidently accept task conflict can be considered in selection. Originality/value – Suggestions are presented for future research that may explain discrepant findings in the past empirical literature. In particular, it may be difficult for some team members to perceive task conflict in well-functioning teams. Measures of task conflict that avoid the use of words with a negative connotation should be tested.
Ohland, M. W., Loughry, M. L., Woehr, D. J., Bullard, L. G., Felder, R. M., Finelli, C. J., Layton, R. A., Pomeranz, H. R., & Schmucker, D. G. (2012). Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11(4), 609-630. | Winner of the 2013 Maryellen Weimer Scholarly Work on Teaching and Learning Award.
Instructors often incorporate self- and peer evaluations when they use teamwork in their classes, which is common in management education. However, the process is often time consuming and frequently does not match well with guidance provided by the literature. We describe the development of a web-based instrument that efficiently collects and analyzes self- and peer-evaluation data. The instrument uses a behaviorally anchored rating scale to measure team-member contributions in five areas based on the team effectiveness literature. Three studies provide evidence for the validity of the new instrument. Implications for management education and areas for future research are discussed.
Loughry, M. L., & Tosi, H. L. (2008) | Organization Science, 19(6), 876-890.
Peer monitoring, which occurs when individuals notice and respond to their peers’ behavior or performance results, is an informal organizational control that has not been extensively studied. Agency theory suggests that peer monitoring should be associated with higher performance because it allows workers whose interests are aligned with those of the organization to encourage their peers to perform well and deters inappropriate behavior by increasing the chances that it would be detected.
This paper considers two research questions. The first is, “What is peer monitoring?” We found two types of peer monitoring. Direct peer monitoring occurs when workers notice their peers’ behavior or results and respond in a forthright way, such as correcting coworkers who make mistakes. Indirect peer monitoring occurs when workers gossip about or avoid poorly performing peers. The second research question is, “Is peer monitoring associated with higher work-unit performance?” We examined the effects of both types of peer monitoring on the performance of 67 theme park work units. We considered supervisory monitoring, task interdependence, and cohesiveness as moderators.