Can Hierarchy Conflict Actually Help Organizations Thrive?

Based on research by Daan van Knippenberg, Maartje E. Schouten (Erasmus) and Lindred L. Greer (Michigan)

Key findings:

• “Conflict hierarchy” happens when members of a team have disputes in competing for influence and status.
• Academic literature on the topic tends to assume that self-interest is the primary driver.
• Daan van Knippenberg and his colleagues suggest that hierarchy conflicts can stem from a desire to benefit the team. When driven by such prosocial motives, these conflicts are expressed more directly and with less intensity, leading to more positive team performance.

In every team, there is a hierarchy. And in every hierarchy, there is competition for status.

In hierarchy conflict, team members seek to differentiate themselves to acquire socially valued resources like acknowledgment and influence. Senior members of a team might jockey for leadership roles or to guide the team’s mission. Junior team members sometimes compete for even informal recognition that could set them apart from peers and accelerate their climb up the corporate ladder.

The potential costs of hierarchy conflict are well-established in academic literature. Team members who engage in it might refuse to share their knowledge, reducing the flow of information and inadvertently hindering decision-making — all to maintain an advantage over internal competition.

But research by Daan van Knippenberg (Rice Business), along with colleagues at Michigan and Erasmus University in The Netherlands, challenges conventional wisdom, arguing that hierarchy conflict isn’t always a bad thing.

“It is certainly true that there can be a tension between the interest of an individual and what is best for the team as a whole,” says van Knippenberg, the Houston Endowed Professor of Management. “Actions that serve one team member’s career goals are often not the best way to achieve the team’s mission.”

When is Hierarchy Conflict Good? 

Hierarchy conflict can potentially serve the collective good, van Knippenberg and colleagues argue in the top journal Organization Science. When conflict is motivated by the broader interests of the team, it could actually improve rather than harm group performance. That’s because, in these situations, individual and team interests are aligned.

“It is a popular idea that all hierarchy conflict is bad and should be avoided at any cost,” says van Knippenberg. “But we argue that hierarchy conflict is not always self-serving, and the motivation for it could have a significant effect on its outcome.”

Consider the case of a company’s team managers competing for resources on an upcoming project. Each of the managers seeks to gain the favor of company executives so that resources will be allocated to their team. It is possible — even probable — that some of these managers are motivated by self-interest. After all, promotions and bonuses are given to people who show they can seal the deal.

But the managers could also earnestly believe their teams will make the most of those resources — that they really are best positioned to perform for the benefit of the firm.

CHECK OUT THIS EPISODE OF OWL HAVE YOU KNOW

The Motivation for Conflict is Key

To explore why people have different motivations in conflict over status or hierarchy, van Knippenberg and his team used something called interdependence theory. This theory suggests that it’s natural for people to have “pro-self” motivations and act in ways that focus on their own interests. Interdependence theory also argues that people can, at the same time, have “prosocial” motivations and act with the collective good in mind — depending on their deeper goals and values.

“Engaging in hierarchy conflict for prosocial reasons may occur less often than it does for pro-self reasons,” says van Knippenberg. “But when it does occur, it could be a more constructive force.”

The researchers created a theoretical model that predicts how these differences in motivation play out in practice. It predicts that when hierarchy conflict is motivated by a team member’s self-interest, it can lead to intense conflicts that are detrimental to team performance.

“When someone is trying to gain respect and recognition, they might challenge other team members or interrupt their peers,” says van Knippenberg. “Not only can that have a negative impact on team dynamics, it also limits the number of perspectives being expressed and how much information is actually being exchanged.”

But when hierarchy conflict is motivated by the team’s collective interest, the conflict itself tends to be a little more low-key. It is expressed more directly and less intensely, which could have the opposite effect, facilitating an exchange of ideas and increasing the flow of information between team members.

Managing Hierarchy Conflict

For management to deal effectively with hierarchy conflict, it’s important to consider motivations so they can anticipate what effects there will likely be. While the study of hierarchy has grown in recent years, it tends to focus on its negative aspects.

“We wanted to add nuance to this conversation, and shift how scholars think about hierarchy conflict,” van Knippenberg says.

“When team members engage in this type of conflict for prosocial reasons, the effects might not be so bad. But it is also not the same as acting out of altruism. In the context of a team, the self is a part of the collective, and every team member benefits when the team achieves its goals. When a team member is primarily motivated by this shared outcome, it could create significant differences in how hierarchy conflicts play out.”

Schouten, van Knippenberg, and Greer. “Hierarchy Conflict: Causes, Expressions, and Consequences.” Organization Science 35.4 (2024): 1534-51: https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2023.17976.