Reducing Relationship Conflict in Virtual Teams With Diversity Faultlines: The Effect of an Online Affect Management Intervention on the Rate of Growth of Team Resilience

Depósi o de in es igación de la Uni e sidad de Se illa h ps://idus.us.es/ This is an Accep ed Manusc ip o an a icle published by Sage in Social Science Compu e Re iew, a ailable a : h ps://doi.o g/10.1177/08944393209075 Reducing ela ionship con lic in i ual eams wi h di e si y aul lines: The e ec o an online a ec managemen in e en ion on he a e o g ow h o eam esilience Au ho s: Vicen e Peña oja 1 (co esponding au ho ) Bal asa González-An a 2 Vi ginia O engo 2 Ana Zo noza 2 Nu ia Game o 3 A ilia ions: 1 Facul y o Economics and Business, Uni e si a Obe a de Ca alunya (UOC), Ba celona, Spain. Add ess: A . del Tibidabo, 39-43, 08035 Ba celona, Spain 2 IDOCAL, Uni e si y o Valencia, Valencia, Spain 3 Depa men o Social Psychology, Uni e si y o Se ille, Se ille, Spain 2 Abs ac The aim o he p esen s udy was o analyze he e ec o an online a ec managemen in e en ion on ela ionship con lic h ough he a e o g ow h o eam esilience in i ual eams wi h di e si y aul lines. Fi y- wo ou -pe son eams pa icipa ed in a andomized con olled ial design wi h epea ed measu es (i.e., h ee measu emen occasions). Teams we e andomly assigned ei he o an in e en ion designed o help hem manage emo ions in i ual eams o o a con ol condi ion. Ou indings showed ha a ec managemen can educe he le el o ela ionship con lic in i ual eams wi h di e si y aul lines, and ha his e ec can be explained by he pa e n o change in eam esilience in esponse o he in e en ion. This s udy con ibu es o pas esea ch on iden i ying ways o p e en o mi iga e eam con lic s a ising om di e si y aul lines. Keywo ds: a ec managemen in e en ion, eam aul lines, eam esilience, ela ionship con lic , i ual eams 3 The apid de elopmen o in o ma ion and communica ion echnologies (ICT) and he globaliza ion p ocess ha e led o a g owing p e alence o i ual eams in oday’s o ganiza ions (Gibson, Huang, Ki kman, & Shapi o, 2014). Vi ual eams a e g oups o geog aphically dispe sed people who wo k in e dependen ly owa d common goals, using echnology o communica e and collabo a e ac oss ime and space (DeSanc is & Monge, 1999). These eams ha e he abili y o b ing oge he a a ie y o knowledge and expe ience om indi iduals who a e geog aphically dis an (Ba a seh, Ushe , & Daspi , 2017), which con ibu es o making oday’s o ganiza ions mo e di e se. A e i y yea s o esea ch, di e si y has been shown o ha e po en ial bene i s o c ea i i y, inno a ion, and pe o mance in eams and o ganiza ions (see an Knippenbe g & Mell, 2016; o a e iew). Fo ins ance, di e si y can bene i pe o mance by p e en ing p ema u e consensus while s imula ing he elabo a ion o ask- ele an in o ma ion ( an Knippenbe g & Schippe s, 2007). Howe e , inconsis en indings in di e si y esea ch ha e led schola s o pay a en ion o eam aul lines (Tha che & Pa el, 2011). Team aul lines a e de ined as hypo he ical lines di iding he eam in o ela i ely homogeneous subg oups based on he alignmen o mul iple indi idual a ibu es (e.g., age, sex, e c.) (Lau & Mu nighan, 1998). Because eam aul lines make social ca ego ies salien (Meye & Sche muly, 2012), he esul ing p ocesses o in e -subg oup bias a e likely o ha e ha m ul e ec s in i ual eams, such as an inc ease in ela ionship con lic (e.g., O’Lea y & Mo ensen, 2010; Polze , C isp, Ja enpaa, & Kim, 2006). De ined as he awa eness o in e pe sonal incompa ibili ies ega ding pe sonal issues (e.g., di e ences in pe sonal ai s, language, cul u al p ac ices) ha a e no ask- ela ed and p oduce eelings o ension and ic ion among eam membe s (Jehn & 4 Mannix, 2001), ela ionship con lic is ha m ul o g oup iabili y and pe o mance (de Wi , G ee , & Jehn, 2012). In his con ex , a ec managemen can be use ul in educing ela ionship con lic because i may limi subg oup o ma ion and in e g oup bias by e ec i ely add essing po en ially nega i e a ec i e esponses o eam aul lines (Homan, 2019). Howe e , al hough esea ch is paying mo e a en ion o in es iga ing how o p e en o mi iga e con lic s in eams ha ha e di e si y aul lines ( an de Kamp, Tjemkes, & Jehn, 2015), he ole played by a ec managemen in his con ex has been neglec ed. The e o e, o ex end his s eam o esea ch, he p esen s udy explo es how an online a ec managemen in e en ion can educe ela ionship con lic in i ual eams a ec ed by eam aul lines. Online aining was employed because his aining deli e y mode can be as e ec i e as adi ional class oom sessions (Si zmann, K aige , S ewa , & Wishe , 2006) while cu ing cos s and c ea ing con en ha can be deli e ed any ime, anywhe e, and on demand (DeRouin, F i zsche, & Salas, 2004). Mo eo e , online aining is widesp ead in an en i onmen cha ac e ized by dis ibu ed wo k and in ensi e echnology use (K aige , 2014). We also s udy he media ing ole o eam esilience in his ela ionship. Mo e conc e ely, we examined he ajec o y o g ow h o eam esilience in esponse o he in e en ion, and how he a e o g ow h o eam esilience media es he e ec o he in e en ion on he le el o ela ionship con lic . The e ec o an online a ec managemen in e en ion on ela ionship con lic in i ual eams wi h di e si y aul lines Following Ma ks, Ma hieu, and Zacca o (2001), a ec managemen can be de ined as a p ocess h ough which a eam e ec i ely manages membe s’ a ec du ing 5 ask accomplishmen . A ec managemen in ol es emo ion egula ion echniques such as calming membe s down, boos ing eam mo ale and cohesi eness among membe s, and p o iding empa hy, wi h implica ions o eam e ec i eness. I can imp o e eam pe o mance by inducing, displaying, and sus aining a posi i e g oup clima e (Meng, Fulk, & Yuan, 2015), whe eas i can keep un egula ed nega i e emo ions om esul ing in low membe sa is ac ion, educed g oup cohesion, and educed eam commi men (Jehn, 1997). An in e en ion o enhance a eam’s capaci y o e ec i ely manage nega i e a ec i e eac ions o eam aul lines can help o diminish ela ionship con lic (Homan, 2019). Simila o he p ocess o de-ca ego iza ion, an a ec managemen in e en ion educes he salience o in-g oup and ou -g oup ca ego y dis inc ions by p o iding pe sonalized in e ac ions be ween membe s o he subg oups (Gae ne , Do idio, & Houle e, 2010). Mo e speci ically, eam membe s a e p esen ed wi h a si ua ion whe e hey ha e o deal wi h o he s’ a ec i e eac ions, which may lead membe s o he in- subg oup o in e ac wi h ou -subg oup membe s as indi iduals a he han as membe s o he ou -g oup. In his si ua ion, i is mo e di icul o igno e he indi idual cha ac e is ics o membe s o he o he subg oup, making depe sonaliza ion and e alua ion based on social ca ego ies less likely and, consequen ly, educing ela ionship con lic (Homan, an Knippenbe g, an Klee , & De D eu, 2007a). In he p esen s udy, we designed an in e en ion o deli e communica ion s a egies ha acili a e a ec managemen in w i en compu e -media ed communica ion, which was he communica ion medium used by ou i ual eams. In such online se ings, s a egies o manage he iming o messaging can be used o a oid delays in esponses (e.g., a eam membe says ha s/he will ake ime o answe a ques ion), which c ea e us a ion (Pan eli & Fineman, 2005) and a ec he imp ession 6 o med by he ecipien (e.g., an un esponsi e pa ne is pe cei ed as less c edible) (Kalman & Ra aeli, 2011). Emo icons can be employed o s eng hen he posi i e emo ional con en o e bal messages in online w i en communica ion while so ening he nega i e con en (De ks, Bos, & on G umbkow, 2008). They a e also use ul o so ening speech ac s ha can be in e p e ed as au ho i a i e by he ecei e , such as eques s, co ec ions, ejec ions, and complain s, while s eng hening exp essions such as g ee ings, hanks, complimen s, and posi i e app aisals (Sko hol , G ønning, & Kankaan an a, 2014). Mo eo e , i ual eams need a posi i e g oup clima e in o de o educe con lic and inc ease coope a ion and pe cei ed pe o mance (Ba sade, 2002). This posi i e clima e can lead o adop ing lexible and adap i e s a egies when acing ad e si ies, hus p omo ing be e eam pe o mance in di icul si ua ions (Meneghel, Salano a, & Ma ínez, 2016). The e a e communica ion s a egies ha can help o c ea e a posi i e g oup clima e du ing g oup in e ac ions, such as chee ing on he eam by making encou aging commen s abou i s o e all p og ess and pe o mance o making suppo i e commen s abou o he eam membe s’ ideas and opinions (Rhee, 2007). A posi i e g oup clima e can also be suppo ed by p o iding new esponses o he s imulus e alua ions esul ing om eapp aisal s a egies (El enbein, 2007). In sum, ou online in e en ion is designed o acili a e he use o socio- emo ional cues and p omo e a posi i e g oup clima e in online w i en communica ion. In he nex sec ion, we u he explain ou p oposal, a guing ha he e ec o ou online in e en ion on ela ionship con lic is media ed by he a e o g ow h o eam esilience. 7 The media ing ole o he a e o g ow h o eam esilience in he ela ionship be ween an online a ec managemen in e en ion and ela ionship con lic Vi ual eams ha e se e al ad an ages such as lowe cos , no a el expenses, au oma ic cap u e o he discussion da a, and connec ing people ega dless o hei loca ion (Unde hill & Olms ed, 2003). Howe e , hey also ace addi ional sou ces o s ess ha a e inhe en o he cha ac e is ics o dis ibu ed wo k, such as echnical p oblems, spa ial dis ance, empo al dis ance, and cul u al di e si y (Nu mi, 2011; Schneide , Ke win, F ech ling, & Vi a i, 2002). In hese ci cums ances, esilience is a ele an psychological quali y ha allows people o wi hs and he s ess ha a ises om challenges and ad e si y and bounce back s eng hened and mo e esou ce ul (S ephens, Heaphy, Ca meli, Sp ei ze , & Du on, 2013; Su cli e & Vogus, 2003). Al hough esilience has adi ionally been de ined a he indi idual le el, i is also applied o eams and o ganiza ions (Bowe s, K eu ze , Cannon-Bowe s, & Lamb, 2017). Based on Ma ks e al.’s (2001) concep o an eme gen s a e, some schola s (e.g., Bowe s e al., 2017; Guccia di e al., 2018) ha e ecen ly s a ed o iew i as an eme gen eam phenomenon wi h a dynamic and mul ile el na u e. Acco ding o Guccia di e al. (2018), eam esilience eme ges because o he accumula ion o collec i e expe iences in dealing wi h ad e se e en s. In he p esen s udy, we use his concep ion o de ine eam esilience as an eme gen s a e ha en ails sha ed belie s abou he eam’s abili y o posi i ely ace challenges and di icul ies while eaching he eam’s goals. One o he ac o s ha ma e s in eam esilience is he quali y o he ela ionships (Meneghel e al., 2016). A s udy by S ephens e al. (2013) showed ha eam esilience is enhanced when indi iduals ha e he eeling ha hey can exp ess hei ue emo ions and manage hem in a cons uc i e manne in he eam. When eam membe s can exp ess ( a he han supp essing) how hey eel when aced wi h a 8 challenge, hey a e able o collec i ely comp ehend di icul si ua ions and e ec i ely espond o hem (Ca meli, F iedman, & Tishle , 2013). Fu he mo e, eeling posi i e emo ions is pa icula ly impo an o eam esilience (Meneghel e al., 2016). Acco dingly, we p opose ha ou online a ec managemen in e en ion can enhance eam esilience because i allows eam membe s o exp ess hei emo ions, add ess hem cons uc i ely, and build a posi i e g oup clima e. All o his may help o de elop a sa e space in which o gene a e a b oad a ay o esponses o challenging si ua ions, hus inc easing eam esilience (S ephens e al., 2013). Resea ch in es iga ing he capaci y o eam esilience o os e he eam’s abili y o wea he po en ial nega i e e ec s o eam aul lines (i.e., inc eased le els o ela ionship con lic ) is s ill lacking. Howe e , in an inc easingly di e se wo kplace, he o ma ion o subg oups due o eam aul lines can be a equen sou ce o ad e si y o challenge ha eams ha e o deal wi h, as in he case o high le els o ela ionship con lic in agmen ed eams (e.g., Polze e al., 2006). Thus, he de elopmen o eam esilience is impo an in o de o ace speci ic challenges o wo king in a eam, such as ela ionship con lic and eam aul lines (S ephens, e al., 2013), while achie ing be e eam pe o mance (Meneghel e al., 2016). Teams ha a e able o ebound om se backs and challenges a e mo e likely o be help ul owa d o he eamma es and main ain open lines o communica ion, a he han wi hd awing om hei eam and ocusing inwa d (Bowe s e al., 2017; Wes , Pa e a, & Ca s en, 2009). Acco dingly, eam esilience is likely o con ibu e o educing he le el o ela ional con lic p oduced by he di ision o he eam in o subg oups by making he eam able o wi hs and po en ially damaging e ec s o h ea ening si ua ions. Howe e , p e ious esea ch has no ound a signi ican ela ionship be ween eam esilience and in a-g oup con lic (Wes e al., 2009). In 15 use o emo icons, in ensi ica ion o so ening o emo ions), and he con en o he second session e e ed o managing and egula ing he a ec i e wo k clima e in i ual eams (i.e., s a egies ha can u n a ound any si ua ion, o e ing ewa ds o e o s, acknowledging he con ibu ions o o he s, suppo and mo i a ion o achie e he eam goal). Bo h sessions included indi idual and collec i e exe cises ha allowed he pa icipan s o pu he con en in o p ac ice. Du ing he indi idual exe cises, he pa icipan s acqui ed he con en p o ided and p ac iced i h ough a se ies o exe cises indi idually. In he collec i e exe cises, he eam wo ked online and p ac iced oge he , ying o each an ag eemen abou how o include he knowledge du ing he ollowing wo k sessions. In bo h sessions, he indi idual exe cises had o be pe o med on he wo k pla o m o ensu e ha no g oup membe could s a he collec i e exe cises i he es o he eam membe s had no p e iously comple ed hem indi idually. All he g oups pa icipa ed in he same sessions, ega dless o he expe imen al condi ion, bu in a di e en o de . Thus, pa icipan s in he expe imen al condi ion comple ed he ollowing wo k plan: p e-in e en ion ( ime 1); a ec in e en ion 1, a ec in e en ion 2; pos - in e en ion ( ime 2); and pos -in e en ion ( ime 3). Pa icipan s in he con ol condi ion ecei ed a ec managemen aining in he end wi h he goal ha all he s uden s would ecei e he same aining con en s: p e-in e en ion ( ime 1); pos -in e en ion ( ime 2); pos -in e en ion ( ime 3); a ec managemen in e en ion 1; and a ec managemen in e en ion 2. Measu es Team esilience. This a iable was measu ed by h ee i ems aken om S ephens e al. (2013). An example o an i em is: “This eam knows how o cope wi h 16 challenges”. The i ems we e measu ed on a six-poin Like scale om “I s ongly disag ee” (1) o “I s ongly ag ee” (6). The C onbach’s alphas o his scale we e .95, .95, and .94 o ime 1, ime 2, and ime 3, espec i ely. Mo eo e , he eam sco e was ob ained by agg ega ing indi idual esponses o he ques ionnai e a he eam le el. Following a e e en -shi consensus model (Chan, 1998), i is impo an o demons a e wi hin-g oup ag eemen o jus i y agg ega ion. The WG (J) index was used o assess wi hin-g oup ag eemen (James, Dema ee, & Wol , 1984). The mean o WG (J) was 0.80 (SD = 0.26) o ime 1, 0.85 (SD = 0.24) o ime 2, and 0.83 (SD = 0.27) o ime 3. These alues a e abo e he cu -o c i e ion o .70 (LeB e on & Sen e , 2008). We also calcula ed he In aclass Co ela ion Coe icien o ICC (1). This coe icien can be in e p e ed as he p opo ion o o al a iance ha can be explained by g oup membe ship o as an index o in e a e eliabili y (Bliese, 2000). ICC (1) was .07 o ime 1, .11 o ime 2, and .06 o ime 3. Acco ding o Bliese, hese alues a e wi hin he ange o ypical alues ound in applied esea ch, anging om .05 o .20. Rela ionship con lic . I was measu ed by h ee i ems aken om Jehn and Mannix (2001). An example o an i em is: “How much ela ionship ension is he e in you wo k g oup?” The i ems we e measu ed on a i e-poin Like scale anging om 1 = “no a all” o 5 = “a lo .” The C onbach’s alphas o his scale we e .84, .86, and .89 o ime 1, ime 2, and ime 3, espec i ely. Mo eo e , esul s o da a agg ega ion analysis o ela ionship con lic we e: The mean o he WG (J) was 0.90 (SD = 0.18), 0.86 (SD = 0.22), and 0.83 (SD = 0.28) o ime 1, ime 2, and ime 3, espec i ely. All hese alues we e abo e .70. Mo eo e , ICC (1) was .18, .15, and .14 o ime 1, ime 2, and ime 3, espec i ely. 17 S a is ical plan ANCOVA models we e calcula ed o es hypo hesis 1 wi h SPSS, and la en g ow h cu e models we e calcula ed o es hypo heses 2, 3, and 4 wi h Mplus 7.4 (Mu hén & Mu hén, 1998–2015). The la en g ow h cu e model allows us o analyze in e - eam a iabili y o change in eam esilience o e ime and examine he an eceden s and consequences o change (P eache , Wichman, MacCallum, & B iggs, 2008). In ou s udy, we examined ou a ec managemen online in e en ion as he an eceden o change in eam esilience, whe eas ela ionship con lic was he consequence o change. To do so, we i s es ima ed wo la en ac o s: he ini ial mean and he linea change ac o . The ini ial le el (in e cep ) is a cons an o any gi en eam ac oss ime, whe eas he linea change ac o (slope) desc ibes eam di e ences in he cons an a e o mean-le el change ac oss he h ee measu emen poin s. Linea g ow h is ob ained by ixing he g ow h ac o loadings a 0.0, 1.0, and 2.0. The pa ame e s o he model we e es ima ed wi h maximum likelihood. We ollowed a sequence o inc easingly complex nes ed models in which ixed e ec s we e successi ely eed o a y in o de o de e mine whe he signi ican sou ces o be ween- eam a iance exis ed o he in e cep and g ow h ac o pa ame e s (Bliese & Ployha , 2002). Thus, we compa ed a baseline model, in which he in e cep was ixed ac oss all eams and he g ow h ac o was ixed o ze o, and a model in which he in e cep was eed o a y ac oss eams. Subsequen ly, a model in which he g ow h ac o was eed o a y ac oss all eams (model 1) was compa ed wi h models ha allowed only be ween- eam a ia ion in he in e cep s. Nes ed models we e compa ed using he chi- squa e di e ence es . Addi ionally, goodness-o - i o he models was es ed ollowing he cu -o c i e ia o a compa a i e i index (CFI) and a Tucke -Lewis Index (TLI) 18 g ea e han 0.95 (Hu & Ben le , 1999) and a oo mean squa ed e o o app oxima ion (RMSEA) o 0.08 o less (B owne & Cudeck, 1993). Finally, we examined he e ec o he online in e en ion on he a e o g ow h o eam esilience (model 2) and he e ec o he a e o g ow h o eam esilience on he le el o ela ionship con lic (model 3). Resul s P elimina y analysis Table 1 p o ides he means, s anda d de ia ions, and Pea son co ela ions o he agg ega ed sco es o he a iables measu ed in ou s udy. We also calcula ed pa ial co ela ions by con olling o condi ion o check ha he co ela ions among he dependen a iables we e no caused by he manipula ion. To do so, we c ea ed a dummy a iable in which eams in he in e en ion condi ion we e assigned sco es o one, and he eams in he con ol condi ion we e assigned sco es o ze o. As Table 1 shows, mean alues indica e ha eam esilience inc eased o e he h ee measu emen poin s in he in e en ion condi ion, whe eas i emained mo e o less s able in he con ol condi ion. Pea son co ela ions show a posi i e co ela ion be ween measu emen s o eam esilience a ime 2 and ime 3. Fu he mo e, hese measu emen s o eam esilience co ela ed nega i ely wi h ela ionship con lic . --PLEASE, INSERT TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE-- Manipula ion check 19 We checked he manipula ion o a ec managemen wi h eigh i ems. An example o an i em is “In my eam, we ha e used emojis o sha e ou emo ions”. The esponse scale anged om 1 (“No a all”) o 4 (“Ve y much”). The C onbach’s alphas we e .81, .87, and .89 o ime 1, ime 2, and ime 3, espec i ely. Al hough we measu ed his manipula ion check a he indi idual le el, we agg ega ed membe s’ answe s o he eam le el because indi iduals wo ked in eams, and so hei answe s we e p obably no independen (Bliese, 2000). Agg ega ion o da a o he eam le el was jus i ied, conside ing ha we ob ained he ollowing esul s: The mean o he WG (J) was 0.85 (SD = 0.11), 0.84 (SD = 0.12), 0.82 (SD = 0.16) o ime 1, ime 2, and ime 3, espec i ely; ICC (1) was .22, .37, and .38 o ime 1, ime 2, and ime 3, espec i ely. Resul s showed ha his manipula ion had he desi ed e ec . Pa icipan s in he in e en ion condi ion indica ed ha hey used a ec managemen s a egies wi h hei espec i e eamma es mo e o en han in he con ol condi ion in ime 2 (in e en ion: M = 2.84; SD = 0.47; con ol condi ion: M = 2.55; SD = 0.43; (50) = 2.33; p < .01) and ime 3 (in e en ion: M = 3.03; SD = 0.49; con ol condi ion: M = 2.57; SD = 0.40; (50) = 3.73; p < .001). In ime 1 (p e-in e en ion session), he e we e no signi ican di e ences be ween condi ions (in e en ion: M = 2.45; SD = 0.55; con ol condi ion: M = 2.59; SD = 0.56; (50) = -1.40; ns). Hypo hesis es ing The ANCOVA esul s showed ha he le el o ela ionship con lic was lowe in he in e en ion condi ion han in he con ol condi ion in he pos -in e en ion session ( ime 2) (F (1, 49) = 11.61; p < .01) and in he ollow-up session ( ime 3) (F (1, 49) = 8.01; 20 p < .01), a e con olling o he p e-in e en ion session ( ime 1). The Mean and s anda d de ia ion o each condi ion and session a e shown in Table 1. Table 2 shows he esul s o he la en g ow h cu e analysis. A posi i e slope in model 1 indica es a linea a e o posi i e change in eam esilience o e he h ee expe imen al sessions (𝛼𝛼2 �= 0.11). Model 2 shows ha he in e en ion has a posi i e e ec on he a e o g ow h o eam esilience (𝛾𝛾�21 = 0.16; p < .05), so ha eams ha ecei ed he online a ec managemen in e en ion had a as e a e o posi i e change han eams in he con ol condi ion. We also ound ha he a e o g ow h o eam esilience had a nega i e in luence on ela ionship con lic (b = -1.11; p < .05) (see model 3 in Table 2), so ha a as e inc ease in eam esilience yielded lowe le els o ela ionship con lic a he end o he expe imen al s udy. Finally, o es he media ion e ec o he online in e en ion on ela ionship con lic h ough he slope ac o o eam esilience, we used boo s apping. Resul s showed ha he a e o posi i e change in eam esilience media ed he e ec o he online a ec managemen in e en ion on ela ionship con lic (es ima e o indi ec e ec = -0.18; 95% con idence in e al = - 0.50 o -0.01). Mo eo e , his media ion was ull because he e ec o he online a ec managemen in e en ion on ela ionship con lic was nonsigni ican a e con olling o he a e o g ow h o eam esilience (es ima e o di ec e ec = -0.13; ns). --PLEASE, INSERT TABLE 2 ABOUT HERE-- Discussion The aim o his s udy was o analyze he e ec o an online a ec managemen in e en ion on ela ionship con lic h ough he a e o g ow h o eam esilience in 21 i ual eams. Suppo ing hypo hesis 1, ou da a showed ha ou online in e en ion helped i ual eams o educe ela ionship con lic unde aul line condi ions. Thus, his esul sugges s ha i is impo an o ain pa icipan s in a ec managemen . In ou s udy, his aining speci ically in ol ed con en abou how o iden i y, exp ess, and egula e emo ions in i ual eams (i.e., pa alanguage, ime managemen , use o emo icons, in ensi ying o so ening emo ions). We also included communica ion s a egies (i.e., s a egies ha can u n a ound any si ua ion, o e ing ewa ds o e o s, acknowledging he con ibu ions o o he s, suppo and mo i a ion o achie e he eam goal) o c ea e a posi i e g oup clima e du ing he g oup in e ac ion. Conside ing ha ou online a ec managemen in e en ion can be concei ed as a de-ca ego iza ion s a egy, we con ibu e o p e ious esea ch examining whe he p omo ing pe sonalized in e ac ions be ween subg oup membe s educes he nega i e consequences o subg oup o ma ion (e.g., Chiu & S aples, 2013; Homan e al., 2007a; Gae ne e al., 2010; Rico e al., 2012). This esul is also consis en wi h esea ch sugges ing ha w i en compu e -media ed communica ion is no impe sonal (Glikson & E ez, 2013; Wal he & D’Adda io, 2001). Ins ead, i ual eams ha use his communica ion medium can bene i om an online in e en ion o app op ia ely manage a ailable cues in w i en compu e -media ed communica ion o con ey socio- emo ional in o ma ion o ela ional communica ion (De ks e al., 2008; Kalman & Ra aeli, 2011; Pan eli & Fineman, 2005; Sko hol e al., 2014). In addi ion, ou online in e en ion inc eased he a e o posi i e change in eam esilience o e he h ee expe imen al sessions, which empi ically suppo s hypo hesis 2. Coinciding wi h S ephens e al. (2013), ou esul s indica e ha when indi iduals can exp ess hei emo ions because o he s a e esponsi e o hem, eam esilience is de eloped. Thus, he inc ease in he g ow h a e o eam esilience in esponse o he 22 online in e en ion shows ha when eam membe s exp ess hei emo ions and manage hem in a cons uc i e manne , hey become mo e capable o collec i ely dealing wi h challenging si ua ions (Ca meli e al., 2013; S ephens e al., 2013). We also ound empi ical suppo o hypo hesis 3 because he a e o g ow h o eam esilience o e he h ee expe imen al sessions educed he le els o ela ionship con lic in agmen ed i ual eams. The main con ibu ion his esul makes o p e ious esea ch (e.g., Meneghel e al., 2016; S ephens e al., 2013) consis s o showing ha eam esilience also makes he eam mo e capable o dealing wi h in e nal sou ces o ad e si y o challenge, such as he o ma ion o subg oups. This esul sugges s ha esilien eams a e mo e likely o be help ul o o he eamma es and main ain open lines o communica ion, a he han wi hd awing om hei eam and ocusing inwa d (Wes e al., 2009). Fu he mo e, he signi ican esul o he in luence o he a e o g ow h o eam esilience on ela ionship con lic shows he impo ance o s udying eme gen s a es om a empo al pe spec i e (Bowe s e al., 2017; Guccia di e al., 2018). Fo ins ance, his app oach allowed us o ind a signi ican ela ionship be ween he a e o g ow h o eam esilience and ela ionship con lic . This was no he case o Wes e al. (2009), whose indings did no empi ically suppo he ela ionship be ween eam esilience and in a-g oup con lic . Al hough mo e esea ch is equi ed on his ma e , one plausible explana ion is ha examining he ajec o ies o change in eam esilience e eals i s dynamic na u e. The e o e, he p esen s udy con ibu es o pas esea ch by examining he ela ionship be ween eam esilience and ela ionship con lic om a longi udinal app oach. Rega ding he ou h hypo hesis, ou esul s showed ha he a e o posi i e change in eam esilience media ed he e ec o he online a ec managemen in e en ion on ela ionship con lic . Thus, hypo hesis 4 was suppo ed by he da a. This 23 esul indica es ha ou online in e en ion helped i ual eams o de elop s a egies o iden i y and manage a ec i e esponses in he eam, he eby os e ing he g ow h o eam esilience. Subsequen ly, as e g ow h o eam esilience led o less ela ionship con lic . In sum, we con ibu e o p e ious esea ch by sugges ing ha , in agmen ed i ual eams, a ec managemen is impo an o amelio a e he le el o ela ionship con lic associa ed wi h he p esence o subg oups (Polze e al., 2006), and ha an online in e en ion designed o imp o e a ec managemen based on key indings abou online w i en communica ion is e ec i e o his pu pose (De ks e al., 2008; Kalman & Ra aeli, 2011; Pan eli & Fineman, 2005; Sko hol e al., 2014). We also showed ha he ope a ionaliza ion o eam esilience as an eme gen s a e allowed us o con i m i s dynamic na u e (Bowe s e al., 2017; Guccia di e al., 2018). Unlike p e ious s udies ha ha e ocused on he le el o eam esilience (Wes e al., 2009), we examined he g ow h o eam esilience. Finally, we con ibu e o calls o mo e esea ch on well- being in i ual eams (Gilson, Mayna d, Young, Va iainen, & Hakonen, 2015) om a posi i e pe spec i e and using a collec i e app oach. Acco ding o posi i e psychology (Seligman & Csikszen mihalyi, 2000), well-being is no jus he lack o dys unc ion (i.e., s ess), bu also he p esence o posi i e s a es (i.e., eam esilience). Limi a ions and u u e esea ch This s udy p esen s some limi a ions and implica ions o u u e esea ch. Fi s , ou esul s ha e some limi a ions in e ms o ex e nal alidi y and gene alizabili y o o ganiza ional se ings because hey we e ob ained wi h a sample o s uden s. Al hough he e is ample ag eemen abou he capaci y o expe imen al s udies o add ess applied 24 p oblems in his ield (Do idio & Gae ne , 2010), u u e s udies should a emp o eplica e ou indings in eal o ganiza ional con ex s. Second, we did no analyze he ans e o an a ec managemen online in e en ion o job pe o mance. Because his ans e ence is impo an in p omo ing o ganiza ional change (K aige , 2003), u u e s udies should examine whe he an online a ec managemen in e en ion is e ec i e in imp o ing o ganiza ional esul s. Thi d, we s udied newly o med i ual eams. Al hough ou esul s p o ide a be e unde s anding o how an online a ec managemen in e en ion in luences he a e o g ow h o eam esilience and ela ionship con lic in i ual p ojec eams, i is also necessa y o s udy i s e ec i eness in long- e m i ual eams. Fou h, we only used one speci ic elec onic communica ion medium (e.g., elec onic ex -based cha ), al hough i ual eams in o ganiza ions can use di e en ypes o communica ion echnologies o coope a e, which can in luence he da a ichness p oduced as a esul o he medium i sel (Ab ams, Wang, Song, & Galindo-Gonzalez, 2015). Thus, ou esul s should be es ed in eams communica ing h ough di e en communica ion media. Fi h, because eam aul lines we e a cons an in ou s udy, we should be ca e ul no o conclude ha ou indings a e due o eam aul lines. Ins ead, gi en ha he e ec o eam aul lines on ela ionship con lic has p e iously been shown (O’Lea y & Mo ensen, 2010; Polze e al., 2006), ou design allowed us o es he e ec s o an online a ec managemen in e en ion on ela ionship con lic in aul line condi ions. E en hough we based ou wo k on p e ious s udies ha examined how o minimize o o e come he de imen al e ec s o eam aul lines unde cons an condi ions o aul line s eng h (e.g., Homan e al., 2007b; Rico e al., 2012), u u e esea ch should inco po a e di e en aul line condi ions (i.e., s ong s weak aul lines) o assess whe he an online a ec managemen in e en ion can minimize o o e come he e ec o aul line s eng h on 31 El enbein, H. A. (2007). Emo ion in o ganiza ions. The Academy o Managemen Annals, 1(1), 315-386. doi: 10.1080/078559812 Gae ne , S. L., Do idio, J. F., & Houle e, M. A. (2010). Social ca ego iza ion. In J. F. Do idio, M. Hews one, P. Glick, & V. M Esses (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook o P ejudice, S e eo yping and Disc imina ion (pp. 526-543). London: Sage. Gibson, C. B., Huang, L., Ki kman, B. L., & Shapi o, D. L. (2014). Whe e global and i ual mee : The alue o examining he in e sec ion o hese elemen s in wen y- i s -cen u y eams. Annual Re iew o O ganiza ional Psychology and O ganiza ional Beha io , 1, 217-244. doi:10.1146/annu e -o gpsych-031413- 091240 Gilson, L. L., Mayna d, M. T., Young, N. C. J., Va iainen, M., & Hakonen, M. (2015). Vi ual eams esea ch: 10 Yea s, 10 Themes, and 10 Oppo uni ies. Jou nal o Managemen , 41(5), 1313-1337.doi: 10.1177/0149206314559946 Glikson, E., & E ez, M. (2013). Emo ion display no ms in i ual eams. Jou nal o Pe sonnel Psychology, 12(1), 22-32. doi:10.1027/1866-5888/a000078 Guccia di, D. F., C ane, M., N oumanis, N., Pa ke , S. K., Thøge sen-N oumani, C., Ducke , K. J., Peeling, P., Chapman, M. T., Ques ed, E., & Temby, P. (2018). The eme gence o eam esilience: A mul ile el concep ual model o acili a ing ac o s. Jou nal o Occupa ional and O ganiza ional Psychology, 91(4), 729- 768. doi:10.1111/joop.12237 Homan A. C. (2019). Dealing wi h di e si y in wo kg oups: P e en ing p oblems and p omo ing po en ial. Social and Pe sonali y Psychology Encompass, 13, e12465. doi: 10.1111/spc3.12465 32 Homan, A. C., an Knippenbe g, D., an Klee , G. A., & De D eu, C. K. W. (2007a). In e ac ing dimensions o di e si y: C oss-ca ego iza ion and he unc ioning o di e se wo k g oups. G oup Dynamics: Theo y, Resea ch and P ac ice, 11, 79- 94. doi:10.1037/10892699.11.2.79. Homan, A. C., an Knippenbe g, D., an Klee , G. A., & De D eu, C. K. W. (2007b). B idging aul lines by aluing di e si y: Di e si y belie s, in o ma ion elabo a ion, and pe o mance in di e se wo k g oups. Jou nal o Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1189-1199. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1189 Hu, L., & Ben le , P. M. (1999). Cu o c i e ia o i indexes in co a iance s uc u e analysis: Con en ional c i e ia e sus new al e na i es. S uc u al Equa ion Modeling, 6(1), 1-55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118 Human Syne gis ics. (2003). Bush i e su i al si ua ionTM leade s guide. Plymou h, MI: Human Syne gis ics In e na ional. James, L. R., Dema ee, R. G., & Wol , G. (1984). Es ima ing wi hin-g oup in e a e eliabili y wi h and wi hou esponse bias. Jou nal o Applied Psychology, 69(1), 85-98. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.69.1.85 Jehn, K. (1997). A quali a i e analysis o con lic ypes and dimensions in o ganiza ional g oups. Adminis a i e Science Qua e ly, 42(3), 530-557. doi:10.2307/2393737 Jehn, K., & Mannix, E. (2001). The dynamic na u e o con lic : A longi udinal s udy o in ag oup con lic and g oup pe o mance. Academy o Managemen Jou nal, 44(2), 238-251. doi:10.2307/3069453 33 Kalman, Y. M., & Ra aeli, S. (2011). Online pauses and silence: Ch onemic expec ancy iola ions in w i en compu e -media ed communica ion. Communica ion Resea ch, 38(1), 54-69. doi:10.1177/0093650210378229 K aige , K. (2003). Pe spec i es on aining and de elopmen . In W. C. Bo man, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook o psychology: Indus ial and o ganiza ional psychology (Vol.12, pp. 171-192). London: Wiley. K aige , K. (2014). Looking back and looking o wa d: T ends in aining and de elopmen esea ch. Human Resou ce De elopmen Qua e ly, 25(4), 401- 408. doi:10.1002/h dq.21203 Lau, D. C., & Mu nighan, J. K. (1998). Demog aphic di e si y and aul lines: The composi ional dynamics o o ganiza ional g oups. Academy o Managemen , 23(2), 325-341. doi:10.5465/AMR.1998.533229 LeB e on, J. M., & Sen e , J. L. (2008). Answe s o 20 ques ions abou in e a e eliabili y and in e a e ag eemen . O ganiza ional Resea ch Me hods, 11(4), 815–852. doi:10.1177/1094428106296642 Ma ks, M. A., Ma hieu, J. E., & Zacca o, S. J. (2001). A empo ally based amewo k and axonomy o eam p ocesses. Academy o Managemen Re iew, 26(3), 356- 376. doi:10.2307/259182 McG a h, J. E. (1984). G oups: In e ac ion and pe o mance. Englewood Cli s, N. J.: P en ice-Hall, Inc. Menenghel, I., Salano a, M., & Ma ínez, I. M. (2016a). Feeling good makes us s onge : How eam esilience media es he e ec o posi i e emo ions on eam 34 pe o mance. Jou nal o Happiness S udies, 17, 239–255. doi:10.1007/s10902- 014-9592-6 Meng, J., Fulk, J., & Yuan, Y. C. (2015). The oles and in e play o in ag oup con lic and eam emo ion managemen on in o ma ion seeking beha io s in eam con ex s. Communica ion Resea ch, 42(5), 675–700. doi:10.1177/0093650213476294 Mennecke, B. E., Valacich, J. S., & Wheele , B. C. (2000). The E ec s o Media and Task on Use Pe o mance: A Tes o he Task-Media Fi Hypo hesis. G oup Decision and Nego ia ion, 9(6), 507-529. doi: 10.1023/A:1008770106779 Meye , B., & Sche muly, C. C., (2012). When belie s a e no enough: Examining he in e ac ion o di e si y aul lines, ask mo i a ion, and di e si y belie s on eam pe o mance. Eu opean Jou nal o Wo k and O ganiza ional Psychology, 21(3), 456-487. doi:10.1080/1359432X.2011.560383 Mu hén, L. K., & Mu hén, B. O. (1998-2015). Mplus, Ve sion 7.4 [Compu e so wa e]. Los Angeles, CA: Mu hén & Mu hén. Nu mi, N. (2011). Coping wi h coping s a egies: How dis ibu ed eams and hei membe s deal wi h he s ess o dis ance, ime zones and cul u e. S ess and Heal h, 27(2), 123-143. doi:10.1002/smi.1327 O’Lea y, M. B., & Mo ensen, M. (2010). Go (con) igu e: Subg oups, imbalance, and isola es in geog aphically dispe sed eams. O ganiza ion Science, 21(1), 115- 131. doi:10.1287/o sc.1090.0434 O'Neill, T. A., Hancock, S., McLa non, M. J. W., & Holland, T. (2020). When he SUIT i s: Cons uc i e con o e sy aining in ace‐ o‐ ace and i ual eams. 35 Nego ia ion and Con lic Managemen Resea ch, 13(1), 44-59. doi:10.1111/ncm .12154 Pan eli, N., & Fineman, S. (2005). The sound o silence: The case o i ual eam o ganizing. Beha iou & In o ma ion Technology, 24(5), 347-352. doi:10.1080/01449290512331335618 Pe i , J., & Fe guson, K. J. (2017). Medical eme gency du ing ligh : A eam-building exe cise. MedEdPORTAL, 13, 10530. doi: 10.15766/mep_2374-8265.10530 Polze , J. T., C isp, C. B., Ja enpaa, S. I., & Kim, J. W. (2006). Ex ending he aul line model o geog aphically dispe sed eams: How co-loca ed subg oups can impai g oup unc ioning. Academy o Managemen Jou nal, 49(4), 679-692. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2006.22083024 P eache , K. J., Wichman, A. L., MacCallum, R. C., & B iggs, N. E. (2008). Quan i a i e applica ions in he social sciences: La en g ow h cu e modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publica ions, Inc. doi:10.4135/9781412984737 Rhee, S. Y. (2007). G oup emo ions and g oup ou comes: The ole o g oup-membe in e ac ions. In E. A. Mannix, M. A. Neale, & C. P. Ande son (Eds.), Resea ch on managing g oups and eams (Vol 10. A ec and g oups, pp. 65-96). Ox o d, UK: JAI P ess Rico, R., Molleman, E., Sánchez-Manzana es, M., & Van de Veg , G. S. (2007). The E ec s o Di e si y Faul lines and Team Task Au onomy on Decision Quali y and Social In eg a ion. Jou nal o Managemen , 33(1), 111-132. doi:10.1177/0149206306295307 36 Rico, R., Sanchez-Manzana es, M., An ino, M., & Lau, D. (2012). B idging eam aul lines by combining ask ole assignmen and goal s uc u e s a egies. Jou nal o Applied Psychology, 97(2), 407-420. doi:10.1037/a0025231 Schneide , S. J., Ke win, J., F ech ling, J., & Vi a i, B. A. (2002). Cha ac e is ics o he discussion in online and ace- o- ace ocus g oups. Social Science Compu e Re iew, 20(1), 31-42. doi:10.1177/089443930202000104 Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszen mihalyi, M. (2000). Posi i e psychology: An in oduc ion. Ame ican Psychologis , 55(1), 5-14.doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.5 Si zmann, T., K aige , K., S ewa , D., & Wishe , R. (2006). The compa a i e e ec i eness o Web-based and class oom ins uc ion: A me a-analysis. Pe sonnel Psychology, 59(3), 623–664. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00049.x Sko hol , K., G ønning, A., & Kankaan an a, A. (2014). The communica i e unc ions o emo icons in wo kplace e-mails: :-). Jou nal o Compu e ‐Media ed Communica ion, 19(4), 780-797. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12063 S ephens, J., Heaphy, E. D., Ca meli, A., Sp ei ze , G. M., & Du on, J. E. (2013). Rela ionship quali y and i uousness: Emo ional ca ying capaci y as a sou ce o indi idual and eam esilience. Jou nal o Applied Beha io al Science, 49(1), 13-41. doi:10.1177/0021886312471193 Su cli e, K. M., & Vogus, T. J. (2003). O ganizing o esilience. In K. S. Came on, J. E. Du on, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Posi i e o ganiza ional schola ship: Founda ions o a new discipline (pp. 94–110). San F ancisco: Be e -Koehle . 37 Tha che , S. M. B., & Pa el, P. C. (2011). Demog aphic aul lines: A me a-analysis o he li e a u e. Jou nal o Applied Psychology, 96(6), 1119-1139. doi:10.1037/a0024167 Tichon, J. G., & Ma in, T. (2017). Expe iencing esilience ia ideo games: A con en analysis o he plays a ion blog. Social Science Compu e Re iew, 35(5), 666- 675. doi:10.1177/0894439316664507 Unde hill, C., & Olms ed, M. G. (2003). An Expe imen al Compa ison o Compu e - Media ed and Face- o-Face Focus G oups. Social Science Compu e Re iew, 21(4), 506–512. doi:10.1177/0894439303256541 an de Kamp, M., Tjemkes, B. V., & Jehn, K. A. (2015). Faul line deac i a ion: Dealing wi h ac i a ed aul lines and con lic s in global eams. In J. L. Wildman & R. L. G i i h (Eds.), Leading global eams: T ansla ing mul idisciplina y science o p ac ice (pp. 269-293). New Yo k, NY, US: Sp inge Science + Business Media. doi:10.1007/978-1-4939-2050-1_12 an de Kleij, R., Sch aagen, J. M., We kho en, P., & De D eu, C. K. W. (2009). How con e sa ions change o e ime in ace- o- ace and ideo-media ed communica ion. Small G oup Resea ch, 40(4), 355-381. doi:10.1177/1046496409333724 an Knippenbe g, D., & Mell, J. N. (2016). Pas , p esen , and po en ial u u e o eam di e si y esea ch: F om composi ional di e si y o eme gen di e si y. O ganiza ional Beha io and Human Decision P ocesses, 136, 135-145. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2016.05.007 an Knippenbe g, D., & Schippe s, M. C. (2007). Wo k g oup di e si y. Annual Re iew o Psychology, 58, 515–541. doi:10.1146/annu e .psych.58.110405.085546 38 Wal he , J. B., & D’Adda io, K. P. (2001). The impac s o emo icons on message in e p e a ion in compu e -media ed communica ion. Social Science Compu e Re iew, 19(3), 324–347. doi:10.1177/089443930101900307 Wes , B. J., Pa e a, J. L., & Ca s en, M. K. (2009). Team le el posi i i y: In es iga ing posi i e psychological capaci ies and eam le el ou comes. Jou nal o O ganiza ional Beha io , 30(2), 249-267. doi:10.1002/job.593 39 Figu e cap ions Figu e 1. Resea ch model. 40