“A bit of conflict is good for performance.”

One of the most influential studies on this topic

One of the most influential studies on this topic is the meta-analysis by De Dreu & Weingart (2003). They examined dozens of scientific studies on conflict within teams and its effects on performance and satisfaction. Their conclusion is uncomfortable, but clear:
conflict within teams harms performance far more often than it improves it.

The researchers make an important distinction. On the one hand, there is task conflict: differences of opinion about content, approach or strategy. On the other hand, there is relationship conflict: irritation, mistrust and wounded egos. In management literature, task conflict is often praised as “healthy” and “productive”. Relationship conflict, on the other hand, is seen as the real problem.

What does the research show?

Relationship conflict appears to have a consistently strong negative effect on both performance and satisfaction. That comes as no surprise. What is more surprising: task conflict does not produce a reliable positive effect. In many cases, the effect is neutral, and often even negative — especially because task conflict in practice quickly becomes personal.

I recognize this from practice. A discussion that starts with “I think we should approach this differently” can quietly turn into “you never listen” or “you simply don’t understand this”. At that point, the energy shifts. No longer towards solving the problem, but towards self-protection.

And that is where the costs begin.

The hidden costs of conflict

Teams in conflict lose productivity because conversations become more difficult, decisions are delayed and people start avoiding each other. Decision-making deteriorates because information is withheld and positions become more rigid. Engagement decreases. People mentally disengage, become cynical or become exhausted. Sometimes this leads to absenteeism. Sometimes to departure. Something is always lost.

Why organizations continue to underestimate conflict

The real problem is that many organizations romanticize conflict.

“It’s part of the job.”

“They should solve it themselves.”

“It’s just a difference of opinion.”

But conflict is rarely purely rational.

Once trust and psychological safety come under pressure, conflict becomes costly. Not visible on a single invoice, but noticeable in organizational results.

Address the conflict

The lesson from De Dreu & Weingart’s research is therefore not that we should avoid conflict. That is impossible. The lesson is that conflict needs to be managed professionally. Early. Consciously. With the right skills. Not only once it has escalated.

In practice, this responsibility often lies with HR. Not as a firefighter afterwards, but as the party that learns to recognize tension before it becomes personal. HR often sees patterns earlier than managers do and can make the difference between a difficult conversation and a long-lasting conflict.

Conflict is not a soft issue. It is an organizational cost.

And as with all costs: ignoring them rarely makes them smaller.

Felix Merks
Founder Result ADR

Would you like to read the research yourself?

The research is freely accessible. Source: De Dreu, C.K.W. & Weingart, L.R. (2003), Journal of Applied Psychology.