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 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 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 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 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 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 * RC * PC 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 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 levels from level to "completely disagree" to level as "absolutely agree" The number of participants in this study was 457 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), observation variables of task conflict variable (TC), variable observation variables (RC), and 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 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 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 t Sig Collinearity Statistics 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 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 (