The effect of conflict to social loafing in group work of organization research in ho chi minh city, vietnam

The Effect Of Conflict to Social Loafing in Group Work of Organization Research in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
Vu Ba Thanh
Food Farm Company Limited., Vietnam
Ngo Van Toan
University of Finance – Marketing, Vietnam

Abstract
This study explores the impact of conflicts on social loafing in the organization's group work. Through
quantitative analysis of the survey data for 457 civil servants working in Ho Chi Minh city to evaluate the scale
and research model. Research results show that the three components of conflict: task conflict, relationship
conflicts, and process conflict have the same effect on the social loafing of the individual in the group. The
results also show that conflicting relationships will have the greatest impact on social loafing. Therefore, each
organization should take measures to reduce social loafing in order to reduce the uncertainty of members in
the process of group work.
Keywords: Social loafing, Conflict, Group work, Ho Chi Minh City.

1. Introduction

In the life of the human working group is indispensable. According to Karau & Williams (1993), we join
teams to perform many important tasks that require collective effort to work together to address the ultimate
goal of organization set. Group activity is not limited to any field and in any area requires team existence and
teamwork is essential. As Poole et al. (2004) stated that "people live in groups, work in groups, and play in
groups." However, when working in groups, the conflict between members is unavoidable. According to
Tuckman (1965), a conflict is a place that will explain the discovery of social loafing among individuals in that
community. Although teamwork is highly recommended, social loafing in the group should not be ignored,
social loafing will reduce the effectiveness of the group (Latane et al., 1979). Thus, the conflict in the collective
will take place and then what will the members of the rest of the way? Understanding the importance of
collective conflict and social loafing among individuals in the organization, the authors explore the impact of
conflicts on social loafing in this study.
2. Theoretical background and research model

Conflict
Group work in the organization is a "tool" for us to feel the disturbance in the group. Conflict arises when
team members are not aware of a common goal and the interventions of each member to achieve that goal are
different (Singh et al., 2017). Conflict is likely to make the group members' cohesion less likely, and group
cohesion will also decrease if the conflicts between members are large (Jehn, 1995).

787


Conflicts identified by researchers consisted of three components: task conflicts, relationship conflicts and
process conflicts (Jehn, 1997; Jehn & Mannix, 2001). Task conflicts are defined as disagreements and arguments
among team members about the content of the work and the goals to be achieved, or arguments about the
merits of a problem in the team (Behfar et al., 2011; De Dreu & Weingart, 2003; Jenn, 1995, 1997; Priem & Price,
1991). When a conflict of interest is moderate, it helps the team members to better understand the goals and
will help them get more ideas. As a result, the group will be more efficient and the productivity of the group
will be increased (Amason, 1996; Jehn, 1995; Schweiger, Sandberg & Rechner, 1989; Cozier & Rose, 1977). In
addition, if high-level task conflicts in the group result in more individual conservatism with their proposals,
the effectiveness of the group will deteriorate and the quality of the termination Relationships among members
are also reduced (DeChurch, Hamilton, & Haas, 2007; Tidd, McIntyre & Friedman, 2004; Simons & Peterson,
2000). Conflict is a social conflict or emotional conflict that arises from differences in the value and personality
of each individual. In addition, conflict in relationships is often influenced by hostility, tension and discomfort
among team members (Behfar et al., 2011; De Dreu & Weingart, 2003; Pearson, Ensley & Amason, Jenn, 1995,
1997; Priem & Price, 1991). Relationships have a negative impact on group productivity and job satisfaction
(Wall & Nolan, 1986). Process conflict is the disagreement about how best to mix resources from group work,
including time issues and workload distribution (Janicik & Bartel, 2003). Process conflicts can reduce the
efficiency of the team as well as the ability to coordinate tasks in the most efficient way (Deutsch, 1973; Jehn
& Chatman, 2000). In addition, process conflicts can negatively affect the satisfaction of members when
working together by causing feelings of disrespect and unfairness in the group (Lind & Tyler, 1988). These
three types of conflicts not only affect the performance and satisfaction of the group, but also these three types
of conflicts are interrelated throughout the working group. Jehn's (1997) study has proven that conflicts of

interest can be transformed into conflicting relationships when criticisms regarding task performance are
considered negative or unresolved tasks. Successful. Research by Behfar et al. (2008) also suggests that process
conflicts will reach a higher level than all other types of conflict in group interaction.
Social Loafing
The origin of social loafing began with researcher Ringelmann (1913, led by Latané et al., 1979; Simms,
2014), who experimented with participants in pulling a rope when the participants pull the rope, they work
less and their pull is lower when they do it alone. As the size increases, the performance in the group is lower
than that of an individual performing the same job. From the above observations, Ringelmann pointed out
that when working in groups, the individual's effort would decrease. So, these effects are called the
"Ringelmann effect" (Latané et al., 1979). After discovering the "Ringelmann Effect," many researchers have
come up with statements for this effect. Steiner (1972), led by Singh (2017), proposed two explanations to
explain the Ringelmann effect: One is individuals without motivation to pull the rope or by those who lack
motivation. Reduce effort, especially when group size increases. The second explanation is that the team may
not work together so that the efforts of the members are not optimal. Ingham, Levinger, Graves, and Peckham
(1974) repeated the rope spinning experiment. In this experiment, researchers asked participants to blind their
eyes to pull the rope and make the test takers believe they were pulling the rope along with others, while in
fact, They have to do it alone. And the results have shown that the individual's performance is still lower than
when they know they will perform alone. Williams & et al (1981) expanded the experiment and came to the
conclusion that if the efforts of the individuals in the organization were measured, those who caused conflict
or cause indifference would decrease and Their research focuses on the study of how to measure the output
of individuals in the organization. With Ingham et al. (1974) and Latane et al. (1979), there are many other
authors who have followed Karau et al. (1993); George (1992); Etemadi et al. (2015) argue that collective
resilience is a phenomenon where the individual's efforts to achieve a goal when they work in a team are lower
when the individual works independently.

788


The relationship between conflict and social loafing
Social loafing is directly provoked by the conflict between individuals because the perception of unfair

work and the distribution of unfair rewards is where social loafing begins. Negative influences caused by
conflict among team members can be lengthened, leaving members to remain indifferent to the work that
needs to be done within the group (Öhman, Flykt, & Esteves, 2001)
In addition, social loafing also comes directly or indirectly from conflicting relationships. Direct
engagement of individuals within the group can be initiated by arguing to withdraw from this conflict and
may at least reduce one's contribution to the group (i.e. two basic factors determining collective ignorance).
Although withdrawing from the conflict of relationships and reducing efforts in the group does not mean that
support for collective redundancy occurs, the issue is also considered to have negative effects on productivity
and group spirit (Deutsch, 1973). Baxter (1982) likewise argues that avoiding conflicting relationships is a
common means of dealing with conflict within the group. Team members are quite alert and sensitive to those
who tend to avoid and work to reduce conflict within the group because they do not want to be unfairly judged
by potential lazy people. conflicting relationship. At the same time, relationship conflict can also affect
collective neutrality through reconciliation (Jehn, 1997). Based on the above analysis of the relationship
between collective indifference, conflict of relations, it can be seen that both conflict and conflict can directly
cause collective indifference in the group.
The relationship between task conflicts and process with collective ignorance may depend on the level of
negative emotions in the group. Research has shown that groups discuss and discuss issues of goals or tasks
when confronted with each other at a moderate level of work (Jehn, 1995). These conflicting interactions show
the motivation of team members to reorganize the group's resource structure by assigning the right job to the
right person. They can also minimize collective negligence because group members believe that their
involvement in resolving tasks or conflicting processes is meaningful and important to achieving personal
goals. as well as the group (Karau and Williams, 1993)
From the above discussion, the authors propose the following research model

Task conflict (TC)

Relationship conflict (RC)

Social loafing (SL)

Process conflict (PC)

Model: The model aims to examine the factors that affect organizational equality

SL    1 * TC   2 * RC   3 * PC
3. Research methodology

Research using qualitative-quantitative research method. The qualitative method is used to find the scale
that matches the model and then uses a quantitative method to verify that the model is appropriate. The data
was collected from staff working at organizations in Ho Chi Minh City through convenient sampling.

789


The data collection tool consists of 3 parts. First, the tool includes demographic questions designed to
determine the age, gender, location, the time they work at the organization and find out if they are part of a
team. or not. In the second part, 18 questions are designed to measure the composition of conflict elements in
an organization. And finally, the third part is the 10 questions that are designed to measure organizational
ignorance. These scales are used on the Likert scale of 5 levels from level 1 to "completely disagree" to level 5
as "absolutely agree". The number of participants in this study was 457.
4. Analysis of data and results
Cronbach’s Alpha and Exploratory Factor Analysis
Verification of Cronbach's Alpha scale reliability showed that four observation variables of process conflict
(PC), 3 observation variables of task conflict variable (TC), 3 variable observation variables (RC), and 8
observable variables in 10 variables of collective barometric variability (SL) (observed variables SL3 and SL7
with index less than 0.3 should be excluded) have the reliability High dependence (greater than 0.6), these
independent variables will be included for EFA analysis for the next step. After performing EFA as shown in
Table 1, the KMO = 0.751> 0.6 indicates that the results of the EFA analysis are reliable and that the analysis
is appropriate. Sig value. = 0.000 ≤ 0.05 in the Battle test showed that the analysis results were statistically
significantly greater than 95% and the observed variables were correlated in the overall. The total variance of

63.802% representing the factors derived from the analysis can account for 63.802% of the variation in the
initial survey data. The coefficient of Eigenvalues of the four factors in the model is equal to 1,835> 1,
confirming that there will be three factors derived from the analysis and the factor load factor of the observed
variables in each factor of the variables. Observations in each factor are greater than 0.5 showing the good
representation of the variables for the factor that the variables represent. The results in Table 1 also show that
factors that represent research concepts and are highly reliable are well suited for subsequent analyzes.
Bảng 1: Results of Cronbach’s Alpha and EFA
Variable

Component

PC1

0.775

PC4

0.763

PC2

0.751

PC3

0.630

Cronbach Alpha

Cronbach's Alpha = 0,724

TC3

0.835

TC1

0.813

TC2

0.811

Cronbach's Alpha = 0,772

RC1

0.878

RC2

0.775

RC3

0.759

Cronbach's Alpha = 0,762

SL10

0.856

SL9

0.820

SL8

0.810

SL1

0.743

SL6

0.655

SL5

0.628

790

Cronbach's Alpha = 0,861


SL2

0.597

SL4

0.591

Invalid method

32.106

49.949

63.802

51.786

Eigenvalues

3.211

1.784

1.385

4.143

KMO = 0,751

Sig=0.000

Sig=0.000

Sig=0.000

Sig=0.000

Regression results
The authors performed regression analysis with SL dependent variables and three independent variables,
TC, RC and PC. Results are presented in Table 2
Table 2: Results of regression analysis
Unstandardized
Coefficients

Standardized
Coefficients

B

Std. Error

Beta

(Hằng số)

1.000

0.119

Task Conflict (TC)
Relationship Conflict

(RC)
Process Conflict (PC)

.211

.020

.290
.234

Model

1

Collinearity Statistics
t

Sig.
Tolerance

VIF

8.434

0.00

.345

10.548

.000

0.941

1.062

.026

.377

11.009

.000

0.855

1.170

.025

.321

9.410

.000

0.863

1.159

a. Biến phụ thuộc: Social Loafing (SL)
R2 = 0,546 ; Adj R2 = 0,543
F = 181,030; Sig. = 0,000

From the regression result of Table 2, the R2 coefficient is 0.546 and the R2 correction is 0.543. Thus, the
model with 3 task conflict variables (TCs), conflict relationships (RC) and process conflicts (PC) accounted for
54.3% of the impact of conflicting components collective indifference in the group. Sig value = 0.000 (<0.05),
so the combination of two independent variables can explain the variability of the dependent variable. The
magnified coefficients of the VIF variance (Table 2) are less than 2, indicating that the regression model does
not occur in multi-collinear phenomena (when VIF exceeds 10, multipliers occur and when VIF is greater than
2, it is necessary to be careful in interpreting the regression weights.
Regression analysis gives us the normalized linear regression equation as follows

OJ  0.345* TC  0.377* RC  0.321* PC
Through the above equation, it can be seen that the TC, RC and PC components have the same effect on
the behavior of card issuers of organizations in Ho Chi Minh City. From the equation on the components of
conflicts, the levels of impact are nearly the same, but the internal communication factor has the lowest impact
on collective indifference in the organization with 0.321
5. Conclusion

Research results show that the components of collective conflicts, such as conflicts of interest, conflicts of
relationships and process conflicts, have the same impact on collective indifference at the organizations in
HCMC. Ho Chi Minh City with a representative sample of 457 samples. In particular, conflicting relationships

791


are most strongly influenced by the collective consciousness, followed by conflicts of interest and conflicts that
have the least effect on collective ignorance. The study by Simon and Peterson (2000) also showed that conflicts
of duty would turn into conflicts of relationships when resource allocation to solve problems was wrong. This

demonstrates that in order to stimulate creativity and increase efficiency, a reduction in task conflicts is needed
and that team members will understand more about the tasks that need to be done in the team (Jehn, 1995;
Simons & Peterson, 2000). Therefore, in order to reduce collective negligence, members of the organization
should also avoid possible conflicts when working together. In order to minimize conflicts that may occur
during group work, members need to have agreements, rules, or standards to manage conflicts while
performing group tasks. In addition, the performance of tasks to achieve the objectives of the work, the
members also need to clearly assign responsibilities and rights of each member when performing tasks in the
group. In addition, when assigning tasks to each member, they should be assigned fairly and appropriately so
that every member of the team understands that the assignment is appropriate to their abilities and believes
that success The group's contribution is due to the contribution of that member's effort. Finally, in the event
of a conflict, discussions, and discussions need to be limited to finding mistakes or mistakes in the group
process rather than the individual's failure to do so. For greater conflict between individuals. From the above
suggestions, collective redundancy will be reduced in the event of a conflict, and in conflicting group
operations, conflict resolution will be effective. Reduce the team and make the team work better
However, research is limited to the relationship between conflict and social loafing, so more research is
needed to find out how other components affect social loafing. In addition, non-probability sampling in some
central districts may make the sample less representative, so this is another direction to improve the sampling
method. In addition, the differences of the surveyed subjects such as age, sex, education level, job position ...
also affected the social loafing. And one suggestion for further research is that further research is needed in a
specific industry so that it is possible to identify which sector factors have a strong impact on social loafing.

References
Behfar, K. J., Mannix, E. A., Peterson, R. S., & Trochim, W, M. (2011). Conflict in small groups: The meaning and consequences of process
conflict. Small Group Research, 42, 127-176.
Behfar, K., Peterson, R., Mannix, E., & Trochim, W. (2008). The critical role of conflict resolution in teams: A close look at the links between
conflict type, conflict management strategies, and team outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 170-188
Cosier, R., & Rose, G. (1977). Cognitive conflict and goal conflict effects on task performance. Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 19, 378-391.
De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A metaanalysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 741–749.
DeChurch, L. A., Hamilton, K. L., & Haas, C. (2007). Effects of conflict management strategies on perceptions of intragroup conflict. Group

Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 11, 66-78.
Deutsch, M. (1973). The resolution of conflict: Constructive and destructive processes. New Haven, CT: Yale Press.
Etemadi, M., Darab, M. G., Khorasani, E., Moradi, F., & Vazirinasab, H. (2015). Social loafing among nurses and its relation with
organizational justice. International Journal of Educational and Psychological Researches, 1(2), 125-130
George, J. M. (1992). Extrinsic and intrinsic origins of perceived social loafing in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 191–
202.
Greer, L. L., & Jehn, K. A. (2007). The pivotal role of negative affect in understanding the effects of process conflict on group performance.
In E. A. Mannix, M. A. Neale, & C. P. Anderson (Eds.). Research on managing groups and teams ( Vol. 10, pp. 21-43). Greenwich, CT: JAI
Press
Guetzkow, H. & Gyr, J. (1954). An analysis of conflict in decision-making groups. Human Relations, 7, 367-381
Ingham, A. G., Levinger, G., Graves, J., & Peckham, V. (1974). The Ringelmann effect: Studies of group size and group performance. Journal
of Experimental Social Psychology, 10(4), 371-384
Janicik, G., & Bartel, C. (2003). Talking about time: Effects of temporal planning and time awareness norms on group coordination and
performance. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 7, 122-134. doi:10.1037/1089-2699. 7.2.122
Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40,
256-282
Jehn, K. A. (1997). Qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 530557.
Jehn, K. A., & Mannix, E. A. (2001). The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance.
Academy of Management Journal, 44, 238–251.
Jehn, K., & Chatman, J. (2000). The influence of proportional and perceptual conflict composition on team performance. International
Journal of Conflict Management, 11, 56-73.

792


Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 65, 681-706.
Latané, B.,Williams, K., & Harkins, S. (1979). Many hands make light the work: The causes and consequences of social loafing. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 822-832.
Lind, A., & Tyler, T. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York, NY: Plenum Press.

Öhman, A., Flykt, A., & Esteves, F. (2001). Emotion drives attention: Detecting the snake in the grass. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
General, 130, 466–478
Pearson, A. W., Ensley, M. D., & Amason, A. C. (2002). An assessment and refinement of Jehn’s Intragroup Conflict Scale. The International
Journal of Conflict Management, 13, 110-126.
Poole, M. S., Hollingshead, A. B., McGrath, J. E., Moreland, R. L., & Rohrbaugh, J. (2004). Interdisciplinary perspectives on small groups.
Small Group Research, 35, 3–16.
Priem, R., & Price, K. (1991). Process and outcome expectations for the dialectical inquiry, devil's advocacy, and consensus techniques of
strategic decision making. Group and Organization Studies, 16, 206-225
Schweiger, D., Sandberg, W. & Rechner, P. (1989). Experiential effects of dialectical inquiry, devil's advocacy, and consensus approaches
to strategic decision making. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 745-772.
Simons, T., & Peterson, R. (2000). Task conflict and relationship conflict in top management teams: The pivotal role of intragroup trust.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 102-111.
Singh, S., Wang, H., & Zhu, M. (2017). Perceptions of Social Loafing in Groups: Role of Conflict and Emotions.
Tidd, S. T., McIntyre, H. H., & Friedman, R. A. (2004). The importance of role ambiguity and trust in conflict perception: Unpacking the
task to relationship conflict linkage. International Journal of Conflict Management, 15, 364-380.
Tuckman, B.W. (1965). Developmental sequences in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63, 384-399
Wall, V., & Nolan, L. (1986) Perceptions of inequity, satisfaction, and conflict in task-oriented groups. Human Relations, 39, 1033-1052.

793