The Role of Task and Process Conflict in Strategizing

Date01 July 2015
Published date01 July 2015
DOIhttp://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12076
British Journal of Management, Vol. 26, 439–462 (2015)
DOI: 10.1111/1467-8551.12076
The Role of Task and Process Conflict
in Strategizing
Jane K. Lê and Paula A. Jarzabkowski1
University of Sydney Business School, Room 434, H03 Institute Building, The University of Sydney, NSW
2006, Australia, and 1Cass Business School, City University London, London, UK
Corresponding author email: Jane.Le@sydney.edu.au
The implementation of strategic initiatives is central to organizational success because it
involves not just the execution of strategy, but also the formulation of strategy content.
Yet, strategy implementation is complex, partially because it is critically affected by
human dynamics. These dynamics are an integral but poorly understood aspect of how
organizations negotiate multiple goals. Conflict is one dynamic that has received little
attention in the context of strategy implementation. The authors address this gap by
studying task and process conflict as a firm implements a strategy in real time. The study
demonstrates that process conflict directs attention to problems with how to implement
a strategy, while task conflict directs attention to problems with the content of the
strategy. Critically, however, managers can only harness generative effects of conflict if
they correctly diagnose process and task conflict, and respond to both forms of conflict.
This requires an understanding of the entwined nature of task and process conflict, and
highlights the necessity of aligning responses to these forms of conflict. Thus, this study
offers conflict as one explanatory mechanism of how actors execute strategy and clarify
strategy content.
The implementation of strategic initiatives is
central to organizational success (Balogun and
Johnson, 2004; Maitlis and Lawrence, 2003).
Recent studies show that implementation does
not simply operationalize and execute strategy,
but also results in subtle adjustments or explicit
reformulations of strategy content (Sminia and de
Rond, 2012; Vaara and Whittington, 2012). Strat-
egy implementation is thus central to effective
strategizing. Yet, strategy implementation is
complex, partially because it is critically affected
by human dynamics such as resistance
(Courpasson, Dany and Clegg, 2012), politics
(Whittle et al., 2014) and tension (Jarzabkowski,
Lê and Van de Ven, 2013). Rather than indicators
of failure, such dynamics are an integral part of
the way in which organizations negotiate multiple
goals (Denis, Lamothe and Langley, 2001; Denis,
Langley and Rouleau, 2007; Johnson, Melin and
Whittington, 2003) and can improve the quality
of strategy (Normann, 1977; Pettigrew, 1977). It is
thus important to understand the human dynam-
ics underlying strategy implementation.
While strategy scholars have studied the role of
dynamics such as resistance, politics and tensions
during strategy implementation, little focus has
been put on conflict. This is surprising as: (i) con-
flict is specifically about incompatibility of goals,
processes and relationships (De Dreu and
Gelfand, 2008; Jehn and Bendersky, 2003), which
are central to strategy implementation; (ii) conflict
significantly affects organizational outcomes such
as performance (de Wit, Greer and Jehn, 2012)
and helps develop organizational capability
(Danneels, 2008; Hinthorne, 1996); (iii) all organi-
zations are affected by conflict to some degree
(De Dreu and Gelfand, 2008); and (iv) conflict
often precedes resistance, politics and tensions
(Courpasson, Dany and Clegg, 2012;
Jarzabkowski, Lê and Van de Ven, 2013; Whittle
et al., 2014). Hence, conflict is a critical dynamic
for strategist to understand.
© 2014 British Academy of Management. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4
2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA, 02148, USA.
The few studies explicitly investigating conflict
in the strategy process tend to focus on formula-
tion by studying strategic decisions (e.g. Amason,
1996; Amason and Schweiger, 1994; Eisenhardt,
1999; Eisenhardt, Kahwajy and Bourgeois, 1997).
Such studies show that conflict leads to increased
scrutiny of information and, consequently, better
decisions (Eisenhardt, 1999; Kellermanns et al.,
2008; Mooney, Holahan and Amason, 2007).
Little attention has been paid to conflict during
strategy implementation (exceptions are Floyd
and Lane, 2000; Regnér, 2003). Thus, while con-
flict is likely to affect implementation, we do not
know how it affects implementation. That is focus
of this paper.
Employing a strategizing perspective, we theorize
the role of human dynamics in strategy implemen-
tation, focusing on conflict. We then investigate
these ideas in a detailed longitudinal study of imple-
menting a strategy in real time, highlighting the
importance of task and process conflict. This study
shows that the interaction of task and process con-
flict, and the responses that this interaction evokes,
enable strategy to emerge as actors implement it.
Both conflict types enable actors to identify strategy
problems, but the recursive relationship between
them is critical in iteratively shaping the emergence
of strategy content and process. Managers iterate
back and forth between strategy process and strat-
egy content issues, as they experience and respond
to both process and task conflict. This iteration is
critical, as actors cannot define all strategy content
and process in advance and must follow an incre-
mental, process-based feedback loop, identifying
and resolving problems as these emerge during
implementation. We thus contribute to the under-
standing of how strategy content emerges during
implementation. Specifically, we show that conflict
is revelatory of the emergent process of strategy
implementation and thus integral to how managers
strategize in practice.
A strategizing perspective
This paper adopts a strategizing perspective,
which implies a focus on ‘the detailed processes
and practices which constitute the day-to-day
activities of organizational life and which relate to
strategic outcomes’ (Johnson, Melin and
Whittington, 2003, p. 3). In line with the turn
towards practice in organization studies
(Orlikowski, 1992, 2000; Schatzki, Knorr-Cetina
and von Savigny, 2001), this requires shifting
focus away from strategy as a static input or
output towards strategy as a dynamic set of activi-
ties enacted by individuals (Jarzabkowski, 2005).
Strategizing has important implications for how
we view and study strategy (Jarzabkowski,
Balogun and Seidl, 2007; Johnson, Melin and
Whittington, 2003). First, it emphasizes micro-
activities, i.e. what people in organizations do
when they do strategy, thereby giving critical
importance to everyday human dynamics such as
information-sharing, coordination and conflict
(McGrath and Argote, 2001). These are seen as
central to strategizing, because of their link to
strategic outcomes such as firm direction and sur-
vival (Jarzabkowski, Balogun and Seidl, 2007).
Second, strategizing encourages a broader defi-
nition of strategists by demonstrating that middle
managers are central in shaping strategy (e.g.
Balogun, 2003; Balogun and Johnson, 2004, 2005;
Mantere, 2005; Regnér, 2003; Rouleau, 2005).
This suggests that strategy, once formulated, is
not stable, shifting attention from strategy formu-
lation toward implementation. Since the seminal
work of Mintzberg (1978), Mintzberg and Waters
(1985) and Pettigrew (1985, 1987), we know that
strategy content emerges through implementation
and, hence, is inimically entwined with the
processes that produced it. Strategy-making is
an emergent process (Hutzschenreuter and
Kleindienst, 2006; Tsoukas, 2010; Vaara and
Whittington, 2012) and working out strategy
content is messy, incremental and continuous
(Bartunek, Balogun and Do, 2011). Thus, we are
called to study the social mechanisms that explain
the relationship between strategy process and
content (Sminia and de Rond, 2012); we propose
conflict as one such mechanism.
Conflict is likely to be central to strategizing,
because strategy is complex and ambiguous
(Denis, Langley and Rouleau, 2007; Sillince,
Jarzabkowski and Shaw, 2012), creating the
potential for disagreement over what the strategy
is and how it should be implemented. Indeed, con-
flict is a common occurrence in strategy processes
(Amason, 1996; Eisenhardt, Kahwajy and
Bourgeois, 1997), owing to the plurality of strate-
gic roles and activities (Balogun and Johnson,
2004; Floyd and Lane, 2000; Stensaker and
Falkenberg, 2007; Westley, 1990). We thus need
to understand conflict in strategy implementation.
© 2014 British Academy of Management.
440 J. K. Lê and P. A. Jarzabkowski

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT