This study aims to investigate the effects of vertical conflict asymmetry – disparate conflict perceptions between leaders and members – on individual and team creativity. The authors theorize that vertical asymmetry in relationship and task conflict contributes in distinct ways to the creative performance of individual members and the entire team.
The authors collected field data from 53 leaders and 153 members across various organizations.
The authors found that individual creativity is high when both the leader and the member perceive low relationship conflict. Interestingly, contrary to prior beliefs endorsing conflict symmetry, vertical asymmetry in relationship conflict (both low–high and high–low conditions) was positively associated with team creativity. For task conflict, consistent patterns emerged across levels: low leader–high member asymmetry in task conflict perceptions was associated with higher levels of individual and team creativity than symmetry conditions and high leader–low member asymmetry.
This analysis provides novel insights into how asymmetrical conflict perceptions between leaders and members can shape creative outcomes of individuals and teams, highlighting the distinct roles of relationship and task conflict asymmetry in hierarchically structured work teams.
Conflict is commonly defined as perceived differences and incompatibilities between individuals (De Dreu and Gelfand, 2008; De Wit et al., 2012). It is an inevitable aspect of interpersonal interactions and teamwork, significantly influencing both individual and team outcomes (De Dreu, 2006). Prior research has consistently shown that conflict is negatively associated with interpersonal collaboration, innovative behavior, employee well-being and group performance (Hwang and Shin, 2024; Ullah and Kundi, 2023). A prevailing assumption in the literature is that team members tend to develop shared perceptions and experience conflict in a similar manner (Bergiel et al., 2015; Pelled, 1996). Consequently, studies on group conflict typically aggregate individual members’ responses to derive an average team conflict score (Amason, 1996; Jehn, 1995). Likewise, research on interpersonal conflict often relies on one party’s ratings to assess the level of conflict between two parties (De Clercq et al., 2017), treating that single perception as a proxy for the dyadic conflict experience.
However, research increasingly indicates that conflict is not uniformly perceived, even within the same team (De Jong and Dirks, 2012). Individuals may experience the same events yet interpret them differently, leading to divergent conflict perceptions. Such variation arises from cultural background (Gelfand et al., 2001), personality traits such as neuroticism (Suls et al., 1998) and agreeableness (Graziano et al., 1996) and differences in status, roles (Smith and Trope, 2006) and network positions (Avgar and Neuman, 2015). Consequently, relying on team averages or a single rating risks producing misleading conclusions. In this study, we move beyond the assumption that conflict perceptions are inherently shared and convergent by investigating conflict asymmetry and its implications for individual and team creativity.
Conflict asymmetry refers to the extent to which individuals within the same interaction or social unit perceive differing levels and intensities of conflict (Jehn et al., 2010). It emerges when one party perceives high levels of conflict while another perceives little or none, creating a misalignment in perceptions. Such divergence complicates communication and coordination by fostering confusion and misunderstanding (Kluwer and Mikula, 2003). Because individuals interpret others’ actions and intentions through the lens of their own beliefs and perspectives (Krueger et al., 2022), these perceptual discrepancies can easily lead to misattributions of motives. As a result, conflict asymmetry often produces discomfort and tension, diminishing interpersonal satisfaction (Williams and O’Reilly, 1998) and impeding effective communication (Van den Bos, 2009), with negative implications for both individual outcomes and broader team functioning.
Despite its theoretical importance, conflict asymmetry has received limited empirical attention, and existing findings remain inconclusive. Jehn et al. (2010) argued that conflict asymmetry undermines team performance and creativity by disrupting shared mental models that are critical for effective collaboration. In contrast, Wang (2022) demonstrated that relationship conflict asymmetry can enhance team performance through knowledge elaboration because divergent responses to conflict may interrupt escalatory spirals and stimulate constructive dialogue. Yong et al. (2014) further revealed a nuanced pattern: task conflict asymmetry reduced willingness to collaborate, thereby hindering creativity, whereas relationship conflict asymmetry encouraged varied interpretations of the situation, enabling the integration of diverse perspectives necessary for creativity. These mixed and context-dependent findings highlight the need for deeper inquiry.
Extending prior research, this study examines the performance implications of conflict asymmetry between individuals occupying different hierarchical positions – specifically, between leaders and members. Status differences often cause leaders and members to interpret the same situation differently or to experience the same events in distinct ways (Smith and Trope, 2006), thereby increasing the likelihood of divergent conflict perceptions. Moreover, because leaders generally hold greater power and access to resources, they are better positioned to influence or control conflict situations (Bai et al., 2017). This power imbalance suggests that vertical conflict asymmetry may be both more prevalent and more consequential than horizontal conflict asymmetry among coworkers (Harris et al., 2011). Despite its significance, prior research has largely overlooked vertical asymmetry, focusing instead on coworker asymmetry (Jehn et al., 2010; Wang, 2022). This study addresses the gap by examining how vertical conflict asymmetry influences performance, offering a more nuanced view of conflict in hierarchical teams.
We further elaborate on the effect of vertical conflict asymmetry by distinguishing between asymmetry in relationship conflict and task conflict. Relationship conflict involves interpersonal tensions stemming from differences in personality, values, or attitudes (Jehn, 1994), while task conflict refers to disagreements related to work issues, such as divergent ideas, perspectives, or approaches to accomplishing tasks (De Wit et al., 2012; Jehn, 1995). Prior research has shown that these two types of conflict have distinct effects on individual and team outcomes: relationship conflict is generally detrimental to team learning and knowledge sharing, whereas task conflict can be beneficial for these processes (Lu et al., 2011). Despite their contrasting effects, it remains unclear whether these differences extend to conflict asymmetry given that existing studies have either focused on just one type of conflict (e.g. Wang, 2022) or examined conflict asymmetry without distinguishing between conflict types (e.g. Jehn et al., 2010). To address this gap, the present study explores whether vertical asymmetry in relationship conflict and task conflict differentially affects individual and team outcomes.
Building on prior research linking conflict asymmetry to creative outcomes (Yong et al., 2014), this study examines how vertical conflict asymmetry predicts both individual and team creativity. Because interpersonal tension directly undermines the collaborative processes essential for creative work (Defillippi et al., 2007), scholars have long investigated the link between conflict and creativity. Yet empirical findings remain inconclusive. Relationship conflict is typically found to hinder creativity by provoking negative emotions and disrupting communication (Weingart et al., 2015), but other studies suggest curvilinear or nonsignificant effects (Hülsheger et al., 2009). Likewise, task conflict has been portrayed both as a catalyst for creativity – by stimulating diverse perspectives (Flores et al., 2018) – and as a barrier, by discouraging voice and knowledge sharing (Todorova et al., 2014), with meta-analyses reporting similarly mixed results (De Wit et al., 2012; O’Neill et al., 2013). Against this backdrop, the present study advances the literature by theorizing and testing the distinct effects of vertical asymmetry in relationship versus task conflict on creativity at both the individual and team levels.
This study advances the literature in several important ways. First, it examines the impact of conflict asymmetry on creativity, thereby challenging the prevailing assumption that conflict is a shared and convergent perception. Second, it introduces a focus on vertical conflict asymmetry – between leaders and members – which is likely to be pervasive in organizational settings but has been largely neglected in prior research that emphasized horizontal asymmetry among coworkers. Third, it differentiates the creativity implications of vertical asymmetry in relationship versus task conflict, highlighting their distinct performance consequences at multiple levels of analysis. By investigating how vertical conflict asymmetry shapes both individual and team creativity, this study provides a more nuanced account of conflict dynamics in hierarchical contexts and meaningfully expands the scope of conflict asymmetry research.
Theory and hypothesis development
Vertical symmetry in relationship conflict and creativity
The effects of symmetric or congruent perceptions of relationship conflict can be inferred from prior research that assumes and operationalizes conflict as a shared perception. When both leaders and members perceive low levels of relationship conflict, they are less burdened by interpersonal tensions and do not need to expend time and energy resolving relational issues (Jehn and Chatman, 2000). This low-conflict environment facilitates open exchange of ideas and perspectives without fear of rejection or hostility (Jehn, 1995). Such conditions promote the free flow of information and collaborative dialogue, which in turn foster creativity at both the individual and team levels (Jehn and Mannix, 2001; Wang et al., 2019).
By contrast, when both leaders and members perceive relationship conflict to be high, creativity is likely hindered at both the individual and team levels. The interpersonal friction stemming from relationship conflict (Desivilya et al., 2010) tends to suppress open communication and reduce the capacity for information exchange (Benitez et al., 2018). As a result, a linear negative relationship may emerge between the level of symmetric relationship conflict – from low leader–low member to high leader–high member perceptions – and creativity. This reasoning leads to the following hypothesis:
The vertical symmetry in relationship conflict will be related to higher levels of (a) individual creativity and (b) team creativity when both leaders and members perceive low conflict (low–low fit) than high conflict (high–high fit).
Vertical asymmetry in relationship conflict and creativity
With regard to vertical asymmetry in relationship conflict, we expect creativity to be diminished under both forms of asymmetry, whether the leader perceives high conflict and the member low, or vice versa.
In the case of low leader–high member asymmetry, members may experience dissatisfaction and negative emotions toward their leaders over personal issues. However, power imbalances and leaders’ control over valuable resources deter them from expressing such feelings openly (Lan et al., 2023; Weingart et al., 2015). Instead, members are likely to suppress concerns, conceal emotions, or convey them only indirectly and with low intensity (Tiedens and Fragale, 2003). In such circumstances, leaders perceiving low relationship conflict may overlook members’ hidden discomfort (Jehn and Chatman, 2000). This lack of recognition leaves members feeling misunderstood and disrespected (De Dreu et al., 2008; Simon and Stürmer, 2005). Members’ distress and relational strain further discourage them from sharing novel ideas, considering alternative perspectives, or engaging in collaborative dialogue (Swann et al., 2004; Xu et al., 2015). Believing that their viewpoints will be disregarded, they limit the information exchange (Thiel et al., 2018), ultimately undermining creativity.
Second, in the case of high leader–low member asymmetry in relationship conflict, members who perceive little conflict may struggle to understand the source of their leader’s negative emotions or hostile behaviors (Koseoglu et al., 2017). In such situations, members may misattribute the leader’s negative expressions to stable personality traits or enduring leadership styles, rather than recognizing them as manifestations of relationship conflict (Wang, 2022). Given the ambiguous nature of relationship conflict and the power asymmetry favoring leaders, members may experience confusion and anxiety about their leader’s behavior. This uncertainty diverts attention and cognitive resources away from task engagement, limiting members’ ability to identify problems or propose improvements. Furthermore, misattributing conflict to the leader’s personality or leadership style may discourage members from sharing their distinct perspectives and ideas. As a result, opportunities for open information exchange are reduced, ultimately hindering both individual and team creativity.
In sum, vertical asymmetry in relationship conflict can be detrimental for individual and team creativity. While prior findings suggest that vertical symmetry, where both the leader and members experience high relationship conflict, may be most harmful, we also argue that vertical asymmetry can potentially lead to even worse outcomes. When both leaders and members congruently perceive high levels of relationship conflict, they are at least aware of the issue and able to interpret each other’s emotions and behaviors more accurately, which is essential for managing relational tensions (Rapisarda, 2002). Shared awareness also increases the likelihood of more sensitive and less intense communication, helping to prevent further misinterpretation or escalation (Edmondson and Smith, 2006; Weingart et al., 2015). In addition, parties experiencing high–high symmetry are more likely to adopt non-confrontational approaches to minimize the disruptive effects of interpersonal tensions on task execution (Huber and Lewis, 2010). By contrast, vertical conflict asymmetry deprives parties of this shared awareness, potentially creating greater confusion, misinterpretation and emotional strain. Such challenges can undermine constructive dialogue and task-related discussions needed for generating creative ideas. Based on this reasoning, we propose the following hypothesis:
The vertical asymmetry in relationship conflict (i.e. low–high misfit and high–low misfit conditions) will be related to lower levels of (a) individual creativity and (b) team creativity, as compared with the vertical symmetry.
Vertical symmetry in task conflict and creativity
Drawing on prior findings (De Dreu, 2006), we propose that vertical symmetric perceptions are beneficial for creativity when both the leader and members perceive high (rather than low) levels of task conflict. When both parties perceive low task conflict, they are less likely to challenge one another’s viewpoints and assumptions, as their consensus reflects a shared perspective (Petrou et al., 2019). This alignment may deprive opportunities for conveying diverse ideas or alternative approaches that are essential for fostering creativity (Perry-Smith, 2006). In contrast, when both leaders and members perceive high task conflict, they are apt to voice ideas and discuss divergent perspectives (Jehn, 1995). Such exchanges foster understanding of alternative positions and integrate diverse insights (Mumford and Gustafson, 1988). Additionally, task conflict prompts more critical thinking and deliberate information processing (Janssen et al., 1999). Divergent perspectives from both leaders and members can thus create valuable opportunities to reassess the status quo and generate innovative solutions (De Dreu and West, 2001):
The vertical symmetry in task conflict will be related to higher levels of (a) individual creativity and (b) team creativity when both leaders and members perceive high conflict (high–high fit) than low conflict (low–low fit).
Vertical asymmetry in task conflict and creativity
Regarding task conflict asymmetry, we propose differential effects depending on the direction of the asymmetry: specifically, higher creativity under low leader–high member asymmetry and lower creativity under high leader–low member asymmetry. On the one hand, low leader–high member asymmetry in task conflict can enhance creative performance of members. Because task conflict centers on work-related issues, its content is typically impersonal and rational in nature (Jehn, 1997). As a result, when members with lower status present divergent ideas in a polite and non-confrontational manner (Magee et al., 2007), leaders who perceive little task conflict may recognize and value these differing perspectives without interpreting them as personal challenges (Weingart et al., 2015).
Moreover, when leaders experience low task conflict, they are more flexible and receptive to new ideas, thereby fostering an open environment for team members to express unique perspectives (Castro et al., 2018). Such openness provides a powerful social context that encourages employees to share ideas and challenge existing assumptions (Amabile and Pratt, 2016; Javed et al., 2019). Given that team leaders typically possess a comprehensive understanding of workflows, whereas team members hold task-specific expertise, integrating these distinct perspectives can generate synergy between the leader’s broader experiences and members’ domain-specific insights (Leung et al., 2008). This synergy enhances the exploration of diverse alternatives and facilitates the development of innovative solutions.
On the other hand, high leader–low member asymmetry in task conflict can undermine individual and team creativity. When members perceive low task conflict with their leaders, they assume that their task-related ideas and viewpoints align with those of their leaders. This perceived agreement reduces their motivation to share their own ideas or perspectives, which seems unnecessary (Farh et al., 2010; Janis, 1972). Instead, members are likely to defer to their leaders’ directives, believing that their ideas are already aligned. This assumption, combined with the leaders’ formal decision-making authority (Van Vugt, 2006), leads members to readily accept leader decisions rather than critically evaluate them or propose alternatives (Wang, 2022). As a result, members may refrain from voicing novel ideas or suggesting different approaches, thereby limiting the diversity of input and diminishing the potential for creativity within the team. Considering that leaders typically possess extensive knowledge of overall processes but limited task expertise (Von Krogh et al., 2012), relying solely on their judgment without incorporating members’ specialized insights may undermine creative outcomes. Based on these arguments, we hypothesize the following relationship:
The low leader–high member vertical asymmetry in task conflict will be related to higher levels of (a) individual creativity and (b) team creativity, as compared with the high leader–low member asymmetry in task conflict.
Method
Sample and data collection procedure
We tested our hypotheses using data collected from work teams across a range of organizations. The current data collection was approved by the institution in which this study was conducted. Managers enrolled in executive education programs at a major university in South Korea were invited to participate in the study via email and subsequent online surveys upon agreement. To mitigate the risk of common method bias, data were gathered from both team leaders and their members. To determine the required sample size, we conducted an a priori power analysis with G*Power (see Online Supplementary Materials, Figure S21). Of the 100 initial invitations, we received completed responses from 54 leaders and 156 team members. After removing surveys with missing data and member responses that could not be matched to a corresponding leader, the final sample comprised 53 teams, including 53 leaders and 153 team members – an average of 2.89 members per team. The sampled teams represented diverse industries, including finance and insurance (18.87%), manufacturing (20.75%), service (7.55%), public enterprises (15.09%), and others (37.74%). These teams carried out various functions, such as general management and administration (62.26%), sales (22.64%), R&D (7.55%), manufacturing/technology (1.89%), and other roles (5.66%).
The team leaders were 56.60% male and 43.40% female, with an average age of 44.58 years (SD = 6.30) and an average team tenure of 4.49 years (SD = 4.02). Their educational backgrounds included high school (13.21%), two-year college (20.75%), undergraduate degree (41.51%), and graduate degree (24.53%). Among team members, 49.67% were male and 50.33% were female, with an average age of 35.23 years (SD = 6.33) and an average team tenure of 2.36 years (SD = 2.83). Their education levels included less than high school (0.66%), high school (9.27%), two-year college (13.25%), undergraduate degree (66.89%), and graduate degree (9.93%).
Measures
To test our hypotheses, we used measurement scales validated in prior research. As all items were originally developed in English, we followed a double-blind translation and back-translation procedure to ensure linguistic and conceptual equivalence (Brislin, 1980). All items were rated using a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Team members were asked to assess their relationship and task conflict with the team leader, while leaders evaluated their relationship and task conflict with each individual team member as well as with the team as a whole. In addition, leaders assessed the creative performance of each member and of the entire team.
Member relationship conflict with leader. We used the three-item scale developed by Xin and Pelled (2003) to measure relationship conflict. Team members assessed their relationship conflict with the leader using the following items:
“There is friction between me and my leader.”
“There are personality conflicts between me and my leader.”
“There is emotional conflict between me and my leader.”
The scale demonstrated high internal consistency (α = 0.91). For team-level analysis, we aggregated members’ ratings to compute the average level of perceived relationship conflict with the leader (team-level α = 0.92, ICC(1) = 0.09, ICC(2) = 0.21, rwg(3) = 0.66). The aggregation statistics indicated a medium effect of group membership and a moderate level of within-team agreement (LeBreton and Senter, 2008). Consistent with the present study’s focus on the overall elevation of relationship conflict as perceived by members, the aggregation of individual ratings to the team level was deemed appropriate (Woehr et al., 2015). At the team level, the resulting aggregated score reflects the collective quantity of relationship conflict experienced by members within the same team.
Leader relationship conflict with each member. Leaders were asked to rate their relationship conflict with each team member using the same three-item scale from Xin and Pelled (2003) that was administered to members. The items were adapted to reflect the leader’s perspective on each dyadic relationship (e.g. “There is friction between me and [this member]”). The adapted three-item scale demonstrated high internal reliability (α = 0.90).
Leader relationship conflict with team members. Leaders also reported their relationship conflict with the team as a whole using the same three items from Xin and Pelled (2003), modified to reflect their perceptions of conflict at the team level (e.g. “There is friction between me and the members in my team”). The adapted scale demonstrated strong internal reliability (α = 0.90).
Member task conflict with leader. We adopted the three-item task conflict scale developed by Xin and Pelled (2003) to assess team members’ task conflict with their leader. Members responded to the following items:
“There is disagreement about opinions regarding the work being done between me and my leader,”
“There is conflict about work/projects between me and my leader,” and
“There are conflicts about ideas related to work between me and my leader.”
The scale demonstrated good internal consistency (α = 0.87). For team-level analysis, members’ responses were aggregated to reflect the overall level of task conflict with the leader (team-level α = 0.89, ICC(1) = 0.19, ICC(2) = 0.41, rwg(3) = 0.80).
Leader task conflict with each member. Leaders were asked to assess their task conflict with each team member using the same three-item scale from Xin and Pelled (2003) that was administered to members. The items were adapted to reflect the leader’s perspective on each dyadic relationship (e.g. “There is disagreement about opinions regarding the work being done between me and [this member]”). The adapted scale demonstrated acceptable internal reliability (α = 0.84).
Leader task conflict with team members. Leaders also reported their task conflict with the team as a whole by rating the same three items from Xin and Pelled (2003), modified to capture their overall perceptions of task-related disagreements with team members (e.g. “There is disagreement about opinions regarding the work being done between me and members in my team”). The adapted scale demonstrated acceptable internal reliability (α = 0.80).
Individual creativity. To assess individual creativity, we used a three-item scale developed by Sung et al. (2017). The scale demonstrated good internal reliability (α = 0.86). Leaders evaluated each team member using the following items:
“[This member] suggests new ways of performing work in a proactive manner,”
“[This member] suggests useful ideas and solutions even without a specific problem to solve,” and
“[This member] is a useful source of unexpected creative solutions.”
Team creativity. Using the measure developed by Sung and Choi (2012), we assessed team creativity with a three-item scale (α = 0.79). Leaders rated the following items:
“Our team comes up with new and practical ideas in solving problems.”
“Our team easily develops new ways and procedures related to the task.”
“Confronting problems, our team generates creative solutions.”
Control variables. To reduce potential confounding effects, we included several control variables in our analyses. At the individual level, we controlled for members’ age, gender, education, and team tenure, as these factors may influence leader–member relationships and individual creativity (Zhang et al., 2012). At the team level, team size was included as a control variable, given that larger teams are more prone to experiencing conflict (Farh et al., 2010). Additionally, we controlled for the gender and team tenure of both members and leaders in the team-level analysis, as these variables can influence team processes and outcomes, including team creativity (Somech and Drach-Zahavy, 2013).
Analytic strategy
To test the current hypotheses, we used polynomial regression analysis (Jansen and Kristof-Brown, 2005) followed by response surface analysis (Edwards and Cable, 2009). Polynomial regression has been widely recommended as a robust method for testing congruence hypotheses because it allows for the assessment of both agreement and discrepancy between two predictor variables in relation to an outcome (Edwards and Parry, 1993). For team-level analyses, we conducted polynomial regression and response surface analysis using SPSS. For individual-level analyses, we applied a multilevel polynomial regression model (Nestler et al., 2019) to account for the nested structure of the data because team members were nested within the same teams and leaders. These multilevel models were estimated using Mplus and R to appropriately address the hierarchical nature of the data set.
We mean-centered all variables used in the analysis to mitigate concerns about potential multicollinearity (Kreft et al., 1995). Following the recommended procedure for polynomial regression analysis, we entered control variables first, followed by the independent variables, and then added the interaction and quadratic terms (Edwards, 1996). A representative polynomial regression equation is as follows:
After conducting the polynomial regression analysis, we examined the response surface model to interpret the results more effectively (Edwards and Cable, 2009) because the individual coefficients from polynomial regression are often difficult to interpret directly. The response surface approach facilitates the analysis and interpretation of the joint effects of two independent variables, allowing for a more nuanced understanding of how their agreement or discrepancy influences the outcome variable (Edwards, 2002).
Using the five regression terms from the polynomial regression model shown above, we visualized the slope and curvature of the relationship through a three-dimensional response surface. In this graph, member-reported conflict is plotted on the x-axis, leader-reported conflict on the y-axis and creativity on the z-axis. The line of congruence (X = Y) illustrates the effects when leader and member conflict perceptions are aligned (i.e. conflict symmetry), while the line of incongruence (X = –Y) represents the effects of misalignment between the two (i.e. conflict asymmetry) (Shanock et al., 2010). By analyzing the slope and curvature along these two lines, we can assess the direction and nature – whether linear or curvilinear – of the joint effects of leader and member conflict perceptions on creativity.
Specifically, the significance of the response surface is assessed using four surface test values: a1, a2, a3 and a4. The slope of the congruence line (X = Y), which reflects vertical conflict symmetry, is represented by a1 = b1 + b2. The curvature of the congruence line is indicated by a2 = b3 + b4 + b5. In contrast, the slope of the incongruence line (X = –Y), representing vertical conflict asymmetry, is captured by a3 = b1 – b2, and its curvature is calculated as a4 = b3 – b4 + b5 (Shanock et al., 2010). These surface values allow for a detailed interpretation of how both congruence and incongruence in leader and member conflict perceptions influence creativity.
As supplementary to the main hypothesis-testing analyses, we also estimated a set of multilevel polynomial regression models to account for potential confounding between the two forms of conflict. Specifically, when examining relationship conflict asymmetry, we controlled for task conflict, and when examining task conflict asymmetry, we controlled for relationship conflict. These supplementary models produced results that were consistent with the main analyses reported below (see Online Supplementary Materials, Tables S7–S8 and Figures S13–S16).
Results
We first conducted confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) to assess the empirical distinctiveness of the study variables. As shown in Table 1, the results indicated that the hypothesized five-factor model provided a good fit to the data (χ2 [df = 80] = 141.86, p < 0.001, CFI (comparative fit index) = 0.95, RMSEA (root-mean-square error of approximation) = 0.07, SRMR (standardized root-mean-square residual) = 0.06). We compared this model with two alternative four-factor models, one in which leader-reported relationship and task conflict were combined into a single construct (χ2 [df = 84] = 245.60, p < 0.001, CFI = 0.87, RMSEA = 0.11, SRMR = 0.08), and another in which member-reported relationship and task conflict were combined (χ2 [df = 84] = 297.17, p < 0.001, CFI = 0.82, RMSEA = 0.13, SRMR = 0.09). The results clearly demonstrated that the hypothesized five-factor model fit the data significantly better than the alternative models. Descriptive statistics and correlations among the study variables at the individual and team levels are reported in Tables 2 and 3, respectively. Before testing the hypotheses using polynomial regression equations, we conducted a VIF analysis to assess multicollinearity among the predictor variables, including their quadratic terms. As reported in the Online Supplementary Materials (Table S11), all VIF values were below 10, indicating that multicollinearity is not a concern for our analysis.
Model comparison for the confirmatory factor analysis at the individual level
| Model | χ2 (df) | p | CFI | RMSEA | SRMR | AIC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Five-factor model | 141.86 (80) | 0.00 | 0.95 | 0.07 [0.05, 0.09] | 0.06 | 4,823.17 |
| Four-factor model: Relationship conflict and task conflict from leader as a single construct | 245.60 (84) | 0.00 | 0.87 | 0.11 [0.10, 0.13] | 0.08 | 4,928.46 |
| Four-factor model: Relationship conflict and task conflict from member as a single construct | 297.17 (84) | 0.00 | 0.82 | 0.13 [0.11, 0.15] | 0.09 | 4,970.85 |
CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = root-mean-square error of approximation; SRMR = standardized root-mean-square residual; AIC = Akaike’s information criterion
Means, standard deviations and correlations among study variables at the individual level
| Variable | M | SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Gender (member) | 0.50 | 0.50 | 1.00 | ||||||||
| 2. Age (member) | 35.23 | 6.33 | −0.11 | 1.00 | |||||||
| 3. Education (member) | 3.76 | 0.78 | −0.19* | −0.10 | 1.00 | ||||||
| 4. Team tenure (member) | 2.36 | 2.83 | −0.18* | 0.09 | 0.04 | 1.00 | |||||
| 5. Relationship conflict (leader) | 2.04 | 0.77 | 0.05 | 0.11 | −0.11 | 0.03 | 1.00 | ||||
| 6. Relationship conflict (member) | 2.42 | 0.99 | 0.05 | −0.04 | 0.11 | −0.04 | 0.00 | 1.00 | |||
| 7. Task conflict (leader) | 2.59 | 0.82 | −0.10 | −0.09 | 0.11 | 0.00 | 0.49*** | −0.09 | 1.00 | ||
| 8. Task conflict (member) | 2.90 | 0.84 | −0.10 | −0.20* | 0.20* | −0.11 | −0.09 | 0.56*** | 0.00 | 1.00 | |
| 9. Individual creativity | 3.42 | 0.70 | −0.08 | −0.04 | 0.25** | −0.07 | −0.41*** | 0.10 | −0.22** | 0.27** | 1.00 |
Unit of analysis is individual (n = 153); *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001
Means, standard deviations and correlations among study variables at the team level
| Variable | M | SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Team size | 2.89 | 0.32 | 1.00 | |||||||||
| 2. Gender (leader) | 0.57 | 0.50 | 0.07 | 1.00 | ||||||||
| 3. Gender (member) | 1.50 | 0.35 | 0.17 | 0.43** | 1.00 | |||||||
| 4. Team tenure (leader) | 4.49 | 4.02 | −0.30* | 0.11 | 0.19 | 1.00 | ||||||
| 5. Team tenure (member) | 2.29 | 2.16 | 0.23 | 0.02 | −0.12 | −0.15 | 1.00 | |||||
| 6. Relationship conflict (leader) | 2.28 | 0.80 | 0.13 | 0.04 | 0.09 | 0.07 | −0.03 | 1.00 | ||||
| 7. Relationship conflict (member) | 2.42 | 0.62 | 0.00 | −0.03 | 0.00 | 0.03 | −0.01 | −0.04 | 1.00 | |||
| 8. Task conflict (leader) | 2.84 | 0.71 | 0.26 | −0.26 | −0.01 | −0.07 | −0.12 | 0.58*** | −0.05 | 1.00 | ||
| 9. Task conflict (member) | 2.90 | 0.57 | −0.01 | −0.02 | −0.18 | −0.09 | −0.05 | −0.16 | 0.60*** | 0.00 | 1.00 | |
| 10. Team creativity | 3.43 | 0.66 | 0.21 | 0.04 | −0.15 | −0.22 | 0.10 | −0.39** | 0.06 | −0.18 | 0.42** | 1.00 |
Unit of analysis is team (n = 53); *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001
Effects of vertical symmetry in relationship conflict
H1 proposes that vertical symmetry in relationship conflict is associated with higher creativity when both the leader and members perceive low conflict (low–low fit), compared to when both perceive high conflict (high–high fit). To test this hypothesis, we examined the slope of the congruence line (a1), which captures changes in the outcome variable from low–low to high–high fit. A significant and negative a1 value indicates that creativity decreases as both leader and member perceptions of relationship conflict increase, supporting the hypothesis that low–low fit is more conducive to creativity than high–high fit.
The results of the polynomial regression analyses are presented in Tables 4 and 5, predicting individual and team creativity, respectively. For individual creativity, as shown in Model 3 of Table 4, the slope along the congruence line representing vertical symmetry in relationship conflict was significant and negative (a1 = –0.43, p < 0.01). This pattern indicates that creativity is higher under low–low fit than high–high fit. As illustrated in Figure 1, the corresponding three-dimensional response surface reveals that low leader–low member symmetry in relationship conflict is associated with higher individual creativity compared to high–high symmetry. This finding supports H1a. In contrast, the slope along the congruence line for team creativity was not significant as reported in Model 3 of Table 5 (a1 = –0.35, ns.), indicating that symmetric perceptions of relationship conflict are not significantly related to team creativity. Thus, H1b was not confirmed.
This three-dimensional graph displays the interaction of individual creativity, leader relationship with each member, and member relationship with the leader. The vertical axis represents individual creativity, while the horizontal axes depict leader relationship with each member and member relationship with the leader. Grid lines are present for reference. The graph includes two significant lines: a congruence line, indicating alignment between leader and member relationships, and an incongruence line, showing misalignment. The plotted curves illustrate the dynamics between these relationships and individual creativity, situated within a cartesian coordinate system that allows for visualisation of the data in three dimensions.Response surface analysis for vertical asymmetry in relationship conflict and individual creativity
Note(s):RC = relationship conflict
Source: Figure created by the authors
This three-dimensional graph displays the interaction of individual creativity, leader relationship with each member, and member relationship with the leader. The vertical axis represents individual creativity, while the horizontal axes depict leader relationship with each member and member relationship with the leader. Grid lines are present for reference. The graph includes two significant lines: a congruence line, indicating alignment between leader and member relationships, and an incongruence line, showing misalignment. The plotted curves illustrate the dynamics between these relationships and individual creativity, situated within a cartesian coordinate system that allows for visualisation of the data in three dimensions.Response surface analysis for vertical asymmetry in relationship conflict and individual creativity
Note(s):RC = relationship conflict
Source: Figure created by the authors
Multilevel polynomial regression model predicting individual creativity
| Individual creativity | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | Model 5 | |
| Step 1. Control | |||||
| Gender (member) | −0.03 (0.11) | −0.12 (0.11) | −0.13 (0.11) | −0.15 (0.10) | −0.14 (0.10) |
| Age (member) | −0.01 (0.01) | −0.01 (0.01) | −0.01 (0.01) | −0.01 (0.01) | −0.01 (0.01) |
| Education (member) | 0.20*** (0.07) | 0.18*** (0.06) | 0.18** (0.06) | 0.19** (0.06) | 0.18** (0.06) |
| Team tenure (member) | −0.02 (0.02) | −0.02 (0.02) | −0.02 (0.02) | −0.01 (0.02) | −0.02 (0.02) |
| Step 2. Main effect | |||||
| Relationship conflict (leader) | −0.39*** (0.09) | −0.41*** (0.09) | |||
| Relationship conflict (member) | 0.00 (0.08) | −0.02 (0.07) | |||
| Relationship conflict2 (leader) | 0.09 (0.15) | ||||
| Relationship conflict (leader) × relationship conflict (member) | 0.00 (0.09) | ||||
| Relationship conflict2 (member) | 0.05 (0.07) | ||||
| Task conflict (leader) | −0.30** (0.11) | −0.25* (0.11) | |||
| Task conflict (member) | 0.08 (0.11) | 0.07 (0.11) | |||
| Task conflict2 (leader) | −0.19 (0.12) | ||||
| Task conflict (leader) × task conflict (member) | 0.16 (0.18) | ||||
| Task conflict2 (member) | 0.10 (0.13) | ||||
| Congruence line | |||||
| Slope (a1) | −0.43** | −0.18 | |||
| Curvature (a2) | 0.14 | 0.07 | |||
| Incongruence line | |||||
| Slope (a3) | 0.40** | 0.32* | |||
| Curvature (a4) | 0.14 | −0.25 | |||
n = 153, *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001. Unstandardized regression coefficients are shown
Multilevel polynomial regression model predicting team creativity
| Team creativity | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | Model 5 | |
| Step 1. Control | |||||
| Team size | 0.42 (0.32) | 0.55 (0.30) | 0.42 (0.30) | 0.56 (0.30) | 0.53 (0.30) |
| Gender (leader) | 0.25 (0.23) | 0.25 (0.21) | 0.32 (0.21) | 0.20 (0.21) | 0.22 (0.22) |
| Gender (member) | −0.52 (0.35) | −0.49 (0.32) | −0.47 (0.31) | −0.45 (0.31) | −0.45 (0.32) |
| Team tenure (leader) | −0.02 (0.02) | −0.02 (0.02) | −0.01 (0.02) | −0.02 (0.02) | −0.01 (0.02) |
| Team tenure (member) | 0.00 (0.04) | −0.01 (0.04) | −0.01 (0.04) | −0.01 (0.04) | −0.01 (0.04) |
| Step 2. Main effect | |||||
| Relationship conflict (leader) | −0.32** (0.11) | −0.35** (0.12) | |||
| Relationship conflict (member) | 0.09 (0.14) | −0.01 (0.15) | |||
| Relationship conflict2 (leader) | −0.01 (0.11) | ||||
| Relationship conflict (leader) × relationship conflict (member) | −0.05 (0.17) | ||||
| Relationship conflict2 (member) | 0.52* (0.22) | ||||
| Task conflict (leader) | −0.20 (0.14) | −0.14 (0.14) | |||
| Task conflict (member) | 0.50** (0.15) | 0.47** (0.15) | |||
| Task conflict2 (leader) | 0.26 (0.17) | ||||
| Task conflict (leader) × task conflict (member) | −0.21 (0.29) | ||||
| Task conflict2 (member) | −0.04 (0.26) | ||||
| Congruence line | |||||
| Slope (a1) | −0.35 | 0.33 | |||
| Curvature (a2) | 0.46 | 0.01 | |||
| Incongruence line | |||||
| Slope (a3) | 0.34 | 0.61** | |||
| Curvature (a4) | 0.56* | 0.42 | |||
| R2 | 0.12 | 0.28 | 0.38 | 0.33 | 0.39 |
| Adj. R2 | 0.02 | 0.16 | 0.22 | 0.22 | 0.23 |
Note(s):n = 53; *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01. Unstandardized regression coefficients are shown
Effects of vertical asymmetry in relationship conflict
H2 posits that vertical asymmetry in relationship conflict is associated with lower creativity compared to conditions of vertical symmetry. To test this hypothesis, we examined the curvature of the response surface along the line of incongruence (X = –Y). An inverse-U-shaped curve along this line would indicate that creativity decreases under both high leader–low member and low leader–high member asymmetry conditions (Edwards and Cable, 2009). To confirm this pattern, we assessed the a4 coefficient, which represents the curvature of the incongruence line. A significant and negative a4 would support the presence of the hypothesized inverse-U-shaped relationship, thereby providing evidence for H2.
As shown in Model 3 of Table 4, which predicts individual creativity, the curvature of the incongruence line representing vertical asymmetry in relationship conflict was not statistically significant (a4 = 0.14, ns.). In Model 3 of Table 5, the curvature along the incongruence line was significant and positive for team creativity (a4 = 0.56, p < 0.05), which is the opposite of the hypothesized direction. To further explore this unexpected result, we examined the three-dimensional response surface for the relationship. As depicted in Figure 3, the surface along the incongruence line curves upward on both sides, reflecting a U-shaped pattern and indicating that higher team creativity is associated with both low leader–high member and high leader–low member asymmetry in relationship conflict. This unanticipated asymmetry effect will be discussed in a later section. Based on these results, H2a and H2b were not supported.
Effects of vertical symmetry in task conflict
H3 proposes that vertical symmetry in task conflict is associated with higher creativity among individual members and teams when both leaders and members perceive high task conflict (high–high fit), compared to when both perceive low task conflict (low–low fit). This hypothesis was tested by examining the slope of the congruence line (a1), as reported in Model 5 of Tables 4 and 5 for individual and team creativity, respectively. A significant and positive slope would indicate that creativity increases as both leader and member perceptions of task conflict increase. However, the results showed that the slope along the congruence line was not significant at either the individual level (a1 = –0.18, ns.) or the team level (a1 = 0.33, ns.) (see Figures 2 and 4, respectively). Thus, we found no evidence supporting a positive relationship between high–high congruence in task conflict and creativity. H3a and H3b are not supported.
This three-dimensional graph shows the relationship of individual creativity plotted against two axes: leader's team cohesion (T C) with each member and member's TC with the leader. The vertical axis represents individual creativity, ranging from one to four. Contours show data points across the surface, demonstrating various levels of individual creativity based on different configurations of team cohesion. Two significant lines are indicated: the congruence line and the incongruence line, which likely represent levels of alignment between leader and member cohesion. The axes are marked with values that include positive and negative ranges, suggesting the variations in cohesion levels. The overall structure is complex, with intersecting lines and curves creating a multifaceted view of the data relationship.Response surface analysis for vertical asymmetry in task conflict and individual creativity
Note(s):TC = task conflict
Source: Figure created by the authors
This three-dimensional graph shows the relationship of individual creativity plotted against two axes: leader's team cohesion (T C) with each member and member's TC with the leader. The vertical axis represents individual creativity, ranging from one to four. Contours show data points across the surface, demonstrating various levels of individual creativity based on different configurations of team cohesion. Two significant lines are indicated: the congruence line and the incongruence line, which likely represent levels of alignment between leader and member cohesion. The axes are marked with values that include positive and negative ranges, suggesting the variations in cohesion levels. The overall structure is complex, with intersecting lines and curves creating a multifaceted view of the data relationship.Response surface analysis for vertical asymmetry in task conflict and individual creativity
Note(s):TC = task conflict
Source: Figure created by the authors
Effects of vertical asymmetry in task conflict
H4 predicts that low leader–high member asymmetry in task conflict is associated with higher creativity than high leader–low member asymmetry. This hypothesis was tested by examining the slope of the line of incongruence (a3), which represents the linear direction of vertical asymmetry in task conflict. We assessed whether a3 was positive and significant, consistent with the hypothesized direction. The polynomial regression results presented in Model 5 of Tables 4 and 5 indicate that the slope along the incongruence line was positive and significant for both individual creativity (a3 = 0.32, p < 0.05) and team creativity (a3 = 0.61, p < 0.01). The corresponding three-dimensional response surfaces shown in Figures 2 and 4 illustrate that both individual members and teams demonstrated higher levels of creativity under conditions of low leader–high member asymmetry compared to high leader–low member asymmetry. These findings provide support for H4a and H4b.
Discussion
We investigated the effects of vertical asymmetry in relationship and task conflict on individual and team creativity using polynomial regression and response surface analysis. In doing so, we emphasized the distinct dynamics that emerge from asymmetrical conflict perceptions between leaders and members and how these dynamics influence the creativity of individuals and teams. Our findings indicate that symmetry in relationship conflict is linked to higher individual creativity when both leaders and members perceive lower conflict; however, this effect did not hold for team creativity. By contrast, we found no support for the hypothesis that symmetry in task conflict enhances creativity when both leaders and members perceive high conflict rather than low conflict. Notably, our results revealed that low leader–high member asymmetry in task conflict is associated with greater creativity for both individuals and teams. The following section discusses the theoretical and practical implications of these findings, acknowledges key limitations and outlines directions for future research.
Theoretical contributions
Theoretically, this study contributes to the conflict literature in several important ways. First, it brings attention to the underexplored phenomenon of conflict asymmetry, challenging the prevalent assumption that parties involved in the same conflict event or situation tend to perceive and experience it similarly (Mason, 2006). In this respect, we advance the conflict literature by focusing on asymmetrical conflict perceptions between leaders and members. Hierarchical differences influence how conflict is expressed, perceived and managed, often diverging from coworker interactions (Van Kleef and Lange, 2020). Complementing the lack of attention to vertical conflict asymmetry (Jehn et al., 2010; Wang, 2022), this study provides a more nuanced understanding of conflict processes in hierarchical contexts and opens new directions for research at the intersection of leadership and conflict.
Second, we contribute to the conflict literature by examining the distinct impacts of relationship and task conflict asymmetry on creativity. Although prior research has established divergent effects of relationship and task conflict (Benitez et al., 2018), studies on conflict asymmetry have focused on a specific aspect of conflict and failed to uncover the disparate functions of asymmetry in different conflict types (Jehn et al., 2010; Wang, 2022). The present study distinguishes relationship and task conflict asymmetry and empirically validates their distinct effects on creativity, thereby offering a more refined understanding of conflict asymmetry on individual and team outcomes. Additional analyses indicate that these effects are stable across different industry categories (see Online Supplementary Materials, Tables S1–S6 and Figures S1–S12).
Third, this study contributes to the creativity literature by introducing conflict asymmetry as a critical theoretical lens for explaining the complex and inconsistent relationship between conflict and creativity. Prior meta-analyses have reported mixed effects of conflict on interpersonal processes – such as communication and information processing – that are essential for creativity (De Dreu and Weingart, 2003; De Wit et al., 2012). By shifting attention from average levels of conflict to perceptual asymmetries, this study offers a more nuanced understanding of how divergent conflict experiences shape creative outcomes, thereby advancing a novel perspective.
Implications of vertical asymmetry in relationship conflict
For vertical symmetry in relationship conflict, our findings indicate that high–high symmetry is associated with lower individual creativity compared to low–low symmetry. This pattern aligns with prior research highlighting the detrimental effects of relationship conflict (e.g. Ullah and Kundi, 2023). However, at the team level, vertical symmetry in relationship conflict does not show a significant association with team creativity. This suggests that the impact of relationship conflict symmetry is more pronounced at the individual level than at the team level. At the individual level, when relationship conflict occurs within a dyadic leader–member interaction, its negative impact may be more acute and salient (Farh and Chen, 2014). The focal member may feel singled out, heightening the possibility of unfavorable treatment from the leader, thereby diminishing their creative engagement (Peng et al., 2014). By contrast, when most team members report experiencing a certain level of relationship conflict with the leader, an individual may perceive their own conflict as less personally threatening, given that they are not alone in facing relational tension with the leader (Mao et al., 2019). Accordingly, vertical symmetry may generate greater consequences for members’ individual versus team creativity.
By contrast, the analysis results for vertical asymmetry in relationship conflict diverge from our initial hypotheses. Unexpectedly, our analysis shows that vertical asymmetry in relationship conflict yields higher creativity than vertical symmetry. At the individual level, the significant slope along the incongruence line indicates that individual creativity is higher under conditions of low leader–high member asymmetry than under high leader–low member asymmetry. As illustrated in Figure 1, individual creativity is lowest when both the leader and member perceive high relationship conflict (high–high symmetry) and highest under the condition of low leader–high member asymmetry (see Online Supplementary Materials, Table S12). This pattern is particularly noteworthy because, under the same condition in which members report high relationship conflict, their creativity can vary substantially – ranging from the lowest to the highest levels – depending on how the leader perceives the conflict. This suggests that leaders’ interpretations of relational tension may play a critical role in shaping members’ creative engagement.
The finding that creativity peaks under low leader–high member asymmetry is both surprising and intriguing. One possibility is that when a member perceives high relationship conflict, they may feel less constrained by the need to preserve harmony with the leader and therefore express their ideas more candidly, including dissenting views, which in effect can promote idea-focused processes (see Figure 1; also Online Supplementary Materials, Table S9 and Figures S17–S18). In this case, the member prioritizes idea contribution over interpersonal harmony. At the same time, if the leader perceives low conflict, they are likely to interpret the member’s input not as defiance but as constructive, thereby becoming more receptive to the ideas presented. While this scenario may seem uncommon or counterintuitive, it is plausible, particularly in light of the low correlation found between leader and member reports of relationship conflict (r = 0.00, ns.; see Table 2), which suggests that such perceptual misalignments are not rare.
At the team level, the positive effects of vertical asymmetry in relationship conflict are even more pronounced. The three-dimensional response surface reveals that both ends of the incongruence spectrum – high–low and low–high asymmetry – are associated with elevated levels of team creativity (see Figure 3; also Online Supplementary Materials, Table S13). One possible explanation for the positive effect of low leader–high member asymmetry at the team level aligns with the logic proposed earlier for its benefit at the individual level (Burris et al., 2013). When leaders perceive low relationship conflict, they may be more open to suggestions from team members, which in effect can promote idea-focused processes even if those members feel relational strain with the leader (see Online Supplementary Materials, Table S10 and Figures S19–S20). High leader–low member asymmetry can also be beneficial when it occurs at the team level. When dissenting ideas or concerns are raised by the team as a whole – rather than from an individual member – it is more difficult for the leader to ignore them. As suggested by Frazier and Bowler (2015), collective opinions tend to carry greater weight and legitimacy, thus prompting the leader to take them seriously and engage in resolution despite personal discomfort. These unexpected empirical findings introduce new insights and highlight the need for further research to examine the implications of vertical conflict asymmetry.
This is a three-dimensional graph illustrating the concept of team creativity in relation to two variables: leader relationship creativity (R C) with team members and member RC with the leader. The vertical axis represents team creativity, which ranges from two to five. The horizontal axes depict the leader RC and the member R C, both ranging from negative two to positive two. The graph features curved surfaces showing how these relationships affect creativity, with a congruence line and an incongruence line marked. The grid lines and axes convey the spatial relationships among these variables, emphasizing their interplay in team dynamics.Response surface analysis for vertical asymmetry in relationship conflict and team creativity
Note(s):RC = relationship conflict
Source: Figure created by the authors
This is a three-dimensional graph illustrating the concept of team creativity in relation to two variables: leader relationship creativity (R C) with team members and member RC with the leader. The vertical axis represents team creativity, which ranges from two to five. The horizontal axes depict the leader RC and the member R C, both ranging from negative two to positive two. The graph features curved surfaces showing how these relationships affect creativity, with a congruence line and an incongruence line marked. The grid lines and axes convey the spatial relationships among these variables, emphasizing their interplay in team dynamics.Response surface analysis for vertical asymmetry in relationship conflict and team creativity
Note(s):RC = relationship conflict
Source: Figure created by the authors
The image presents a three-dimensional graph showing the interaction between team creativity and the creativity levels of both leaders and members. The vertical axis denotes team creativity, ranging from one to five. The horizontal axes represent leader creativity with team members and member creativity with leaders, both ranging from negative two to two. Prominent gridlines form a surface that illustrates how varying combinations of leader and team member creativity levels impact overall team creativity. Two significant lines, labelled as the Congruence line and the Incongruence line, intersect the grid, demonstrating key interactions or thresholds in these relationships.Response surface analysis for vertical asymmetry in task conflict and team creativity
Note(s):TC = task conflict
Source: Figure created by the authors
The image presents a three-dimensional graph showing the interaction between team creativity and the creativity levels of both leaders and members. The vertical axis denotes team creativity, ranging from one to five. The horizontal axes represent leader creativity with team members and member creativity with leaders, both ranging from negative two to two. Prominent gridlines form a surface that illustrates how varying combinations of leader and team member creativity levels impact overall team creativity. Two significant lines, labelled as the Congruence line and the Incongruence line, intersect the grid, demonstrating key interactions or thresholds in these relationships.Response surface analysis for vertical asymmetry in task conflict and team creativity
Note(s):TC = task conflict
Source: Figure created by the authors
Implications of vertical asymmetry in task conflict
For task conflict, our analysis did not support the hypothesized positive effect of vertical symmetry on creativity. Although we anticipated mutual perceptions of high task conflict to enhance creativity by stimulating idea exchange, prior meta-analyses have reported mixed (De Wit et al., 2012) or negative effects on general performance (De Dreu and Weingart, 2003). Some studies suggest that task conflict has weak negative or neutral effects on team performance, while others argue that its potential benefits may be more likely to emerge in contexts involving decision-making or creative problem-solving (Langfred, 2007). Furthermore, meta-analytic evidence indicates that, regardless of conflict type, the presence of conflict reduces information-processing capacity, which in turn hinders creativity (De Dreu and Weingart, 2003). Taken together, these nuanced findings may help explain the absence of a significant effect in our study and underscore the importance of considering task type and context when evaluating the implications of task conflict (Puck and Pregernig, 2014).
The results align with prior research suggesting that both excessive and insufficient levels of task conflict can impede creativity (e.g. Farh et al., 2010; Petrou et al., 2019). While high levels of task conflict may expose team members to diverse viewpoints and encourage critical thinking, they can also lead to information overload and cognitive fatigue, thereby diminishing individuals’ capacity to generate creative ideas (Petrou et al., 2019). In addition, task conflict often overlaps with emotional or relational tensions, which can disrupt collaboration and communication among team members. The potential benefits of task conflict may be offset by these detrimental side effects, contributing to the null findings of vertical symmetry observed in this study (De Dreu, 2006).
For vertical asymmetry in task conflict, our analyses reveal a consistent pattern across both individual and team creativity. Creativity is heightened when members perceive high task conflict while leaders perceive low task conflict. This finding aligns with prior evidence that performance improves when only a minority of members report high conflict while the majority experience little conflict, or when task conflict is confined to just a few members within the team (Shah et al., 2021; Sinha et al., 2016). Our results build on this line of inquiry by demonstrating that asymmetry is not solely about minority versus majority perceptions but also fundamentally about status. Echoing the minority–majority contrasts documented in previous work (Shah et al., 2021; Sinha et al., 2016), our findings highlight the creative benefits that arise when low-status members experience high task conflict while high-status leaders experience low task conflict. In contrast, the reverse pattern – low conflict among members combined with high conflict perceived by leaders – is linked to reduced creativity at both levels of analysis. Collectively, these results extend the literature on conflict asymmetry by showing that the hierarchical status of those perceiving conflict plays a pivotal role in shaping team processes and ultimately fostering or undermining both individual and team creativity.
These results suggest that asymmetric perceptions between leaders and members can, under certain conditions, foster more favorable environments for creativity than symmetric perceptions. Furthermore, the significant impact of the direction of asymmetry (i.e. whether leaders or members perceive higher conflict) emphasizes the need to consider which party experiences more conflict. Our analysis challenges the previous assumption that conflict perceptions are inherently shared among involved parties, which further generates intriguing new dynamics and consequences (Mason, 2006). Future studies should explore how conflict asymmetry influences other individual and team outcomes, such as organizational citizenship behaviors and counterproductive work behaviors, and examine its effects in contexts involving parties of equal status, such as coworkers.
Implications for practice
The current findings yield several practical implications that move beyond the conventional view that relationship conflict should be minimized and that moderate task conflict can be beneficial for creativity and decision-making (De Clercq et al., 2009). Our results indicate that vertical asymmetry in conflict perceptions can, under certain conditions, enhance creativity. In particular, low leader–high member asymmetry in both relationship and task conflict was associated with higher creativity at individual and team levels. These insights suggest that traditional one-size-fits-all conflict management approaches may be insufficient. Instead, managers should consider more tailored strategies that take into account hierarchical relationships and power dynamics. Specifically, fostering an environment where members feel encouraged to voice divergent perspectives, coupled with leaders’ openness to such input, may promote creativity even when leaders and members do not share the same conflict perceptions.
Because leaders’ perceptions of low rather than high conflict are more beneficial for creativity, organizations should train leaders to interpret members’ reactions in a constructive and positive light. Such training can help leaders reframe dissatisfaction or negative comments as valuable input rather than personal attacks or resistance. This shift in mindset reduces leaders’ tendency to experience interpersonal conflict, enhances their tolerance for divergent viewpoints and improves their ability to respond constructively. By remaining open and receptive, leaders can strengthen communication, nurture creative collaboration and mitigate the detrimental effects of perceived conflict.
In addition, cultivating a climate of psychological safety is essential for enabling members to share their distinct ideas and viewpoints despite their lower status relative to leaders. Through such efforts, members feel free to voice dissenting opinions and challenge existing practices without fear of negative consequences (Janssen and Giebels, 2013). In this context, members’ perceptions of relationship and task conflict may serve a functional role by discouraging complacency and sustaining a productive sense of urgency for improvement and change. To support this process, organizations should also train leaders to respond constructively – rather than defensively – when members raise interpersonal concerns or present conflicting ideas, ensuring that conflict perceptions become a catalyst for creativity rather than a barrier.
Study limitations and future directions for research
Despite the theoretical and practical contributions, this study has several limitations. First, there is a potential concern regarding reverse causality between conflict asymmetry and creativity. While prior research suggests that conflict can stimulate divergent thinking and enhance creative performance (e.g. Van Dyne and Saavedra, 1996), it is also plausible that creativity triggers conflict by challenging existing ideas and disrupting the status quo (Amason, 1996). To disentangle this causal direction, future research should replicate the current findings using longitudinal designs or experimental methods.
Second, this study relied on leaders’ ratings to assess individual and team creativity. Although leader evaluations are widely used in organizational research, they may be subject to bias stemming from the leader’s overall relationship with particular members or with the team as a whole (Jehn et al., 2015; Liden et al., 1997). To mitigate such concerns, future research should adopt a multisource approach – incorporating peer and self-ratings – and complement perceptual measures with more objective indicators of creativity.
Third, our study does not capture the multidimensional nature of conflict asymmetry. While we used well-established scales of relationship and task conflict, their effects may vary depending on other dimensions, such as conflict intensity and frequency, which influence the emotional responses and cognitive openness (Tsai, 2022). Furthermore, asymmetry may also occur in conflict types. For example, leaders may interpret a situation as task conflict, whereas members may experience it as relationship conflict, or vice versa, leading to divergent consequences for outcomes. Future research should use multi-dimensional measures of conflict and disaggregate conflict asymmetry into more specific components – such as type, intensity and frequency – to provide nuanced understanding.
Finally, because our data were collected in Korea, a high power distance culture (Hofstede, 2001), vertical conflict asymmetry may be particularly prevalent and consequential, as members are less inclined to voice dissent or dissatisfaction toward leaders. At the same time, meta-analytic evidence indicates that cultural context does not significantly moderate the conflict–performance relationship (De Wit et al., 2012), suggesting that our findings may generalize across cultural settings. Nevertheless, future research should examine vertical conflict asymmetry in low power distance cultures and investigate how cultural norms shape conflict perceptions and dynamics between leaders and members.
Conclusion
While much of the conflict literature assumes that conflict is uniformly perceived by all parties, this study challenges that assumption by examining the effects of vertical conflict asymmetry on creativity. Our findings indicate that low–low symmetry in relationship conflict is associated with high individual creativity, whereas vertical asymmetry in relationship conflict appears to facilitate team creativity. We also find that low leader–high member asymmetry in task conflict is positively related to both individual and team creativity. Together, these results highlight the importance of recognizing and managing differing conflict perceptions between leaders and members as a means of fostering creativity at multiple levels. Given the limited research on conflict asymmetry, our study underscores the theoretical and practical value of further exploring how asymmetry between vertical (status-differentiated) and horizontal (status-equal) interaction partners in both relationship and task conflict shapes a wide range of individual and team outcomes.
Supplementary material
The supplementary material for this article can be found online.
This study is supported by the Institute of Management Research at Seoul National University.
