The Directness and Oppositional Intensity of Conflict Expression
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Academy of Management Review 2015, Vol. 40, No. 2, 235–262. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amr.2013-0124 THE DIRECTNESS AND OPPOSITIONAL INTENSITY OF CONFLICT EXPRESSION LAURIE R. WEINGART Carnegie Mellon University KRISTIN J. BEHFAR University of Virginia CORINNE BENDERSKY University of California, Los Angeles GERGANA TODOROVA University of Miami KAREN A. JEHN University of Melbourne Conflicts in the workplace have been characterized by their type (task, process, relation- ship), but little attention has been paid to how conflicts are expressed. We present a conceptual framework of conflict expression and argue that understanding how conflicts are expressed can help us gain new insights about the effects of conflict. We propose that conflict expressions vary in their directness and oppositional intensity and that these differences directly influence how people experience and react to conflict, resulting in dynamic escalatory or de-escalatory conflict spirals. We argue that directness of conflict expression is a function of the ambiguity of expression and who is involved (antagonists versus involving other people). Oppositional intensity of conflict expression is indicated by the communicated entrenchment in positions and subversiveness of actions. We argue that while oppositional intensity and directness are universal dimensions characterizing conflict expression, the cultural context and characteristics of the disputants will influ- ence how conflict is expressed and perceived. We consider the implications of our conceptual framework for related research examining conflict. Conflict is ubiquitous in organizations, taking 1995, 1997). Although research on conflict types many forms. However, definitively identifying has generated substantial insights into how con- the positive versus negative effects of conflict flicts affect work processes and outcomes, many of has been notoriously difficult to do, both theo- the findings are equivocal (for meta-analytic re- retically and empirically. The conflict literature views see DeChurch et al., 2013; De Dreu & Wein- typically focuses on how different types of conflict gart, 2003a; de Wit et al., 2012; O’Neill, Allen, & affect group processes and outcomes (DeChurch, Hastings, 2013). Mesmer-Magnus, & Doty, 2013; De Dreu & Wein- In this article we offer a conceptual frame- gart, 2003a; de Wit, Greer, & Jehn, 2012; Jehn & work that provides a new lens for understanding Bendersky, 2003). This conflict-type approach dis- why conflict can have contradictory effects on tinguishes how individuals perceive their experi- individuals and their workplace interactions. ences of conflicts over the task—for example, Our main proposition is that the manner in what needs to be done; work processes—for exam- which conflict is expressed will influence per- ple, how to coordinate the work; and relationship ceptions and reactions, changing the way the issues—for example, interpersonal tensions (Jehn, conflict process unfolds, the impact it has on the parties involved, and subsequent outcomes. We define conflict expression as the verbal and We thank Julia Bear, Matthew Cronin, Ruth Kanfer, Eliz- abeth Mannix, and Randall Peterson for comments on earlier nonverbal communication of opposition be- versions of this manuscript. tween people (Laursen & Collins, 1994; Peterson, 235 Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder’s express written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only. 236 Academy of Management Review April 1983). Our conceptual framework complements different outcomes. Thus, discussions where the dominant conflict-type approach by consid- people put forth a variety of points of view but ering how the properties of the precipitating do not oppose one another are not conflicts conflict expression in a conflict event set in mo- (Thomas, 1992). The conflict process we describe tion a contextualized, dynamic spiral of inter- in our conceptual framework begins with the pretations and reactions. We believe that con- observable expression of a conflict—what ceptualizing conflict in terms of expression and Pondy (1967) suggests occurs once a conflict is recognizing how those expressions influence manifest. However, unlike Pondy (1967), who ex- contextualized conflict processes will advance amined the stages of conflict where a latent theory by resolving some of the ambiguity that conflict must be perceived before it can be man- has plagued research on conflict types. ifest, we focus on perceptions that occur after Classic models of communication recognize conflict is expressed, during conflict manifesta- that all communications, including the conflict tion. In our conceptual framework we consider process, involve a message, a sender, and a how a receiver of a conflict expression perceives receiver (e.g., Shannon & Weaver, 1948). We ar- information and experiences emotions, which gue that the directness and oppositional inten- results in inferences about the intention of the sity of the sender’s conflict expression are key sender. These inferences both influence and are dimensions of expression that influence how a influenced by perception—that is, how recipi- receiver perceives and reacts to the conflict ents attend to, organize, and interpret the infor- message, as well as the nature of subsequent mation received (Goffman, 1959; Kohler, 1963; conflict spirals (Brett, Shapiro, & Lytle, 1998). Di- Warnock, 1966). We argue that the information rectness in our theoretical approach relates to that is exchanged and the emotions that are the explicitness of the opposing positions being activated during a conflict event will induce spi- conveyed, and oppositional intensity refers to rals of conflict escalation or de-escalation (Brett the degree of force with which opposition is con- et al., 1998; Lindsley et al., 1995) as the receivers veyed. Directness and oppositional intensity of conflict expressions interpret them through constitute two independent, continuous dimen- their own perceptual lenses and then respond. sions by which a conflict expression can be By integrating theories of conflict with theo- categorized. These characteristics of conflict ex- ries of communication, we recognize that the pression will influence the receiver’s percep- way senders express conflict conveys both sub- tions and emotions and the information ac- stantive and relational information to the re- quired, resulting in a dynamic conflict process ceiver, who perceives and reacts to the expres- spiral of escalation or de-escalation (Brett et al., sion (Ketrow, 1999). This is important to consider 1998; Lindsley, Brass, & Thomas, 1995). because the way conflict is expressed creates In developing our conceptual framework, we variance in interpretations by receivers (Elfen- first define and elaborate the constructs of con- bein, 2007; Gottman, Markman, & Notarius, 1977) flict expression directness and oppositional in- that is overlooked by research focusing only on tensity. We then consider the effects of conflict conflict type. This is not to say that a distinction expression on recipients’ perceptions, emotions, between conflict types is not informative but, and information acquired and on resultant con- rather, that it is incomplete and might mask flict spirals. We do this while considering how other differences that could account for a sub- these dynamics will differ depending on the stantial amount of the unexplained variation in norms and expectations imbued by the cultural conflict outcomes in past research. Our concep- context within which the conflict process occurs tualization is predicated on the belief that any and the participants involved. Finally, we dis- type of conflict can be expressed with more or cuss our conceptual framework as it relates to less oppositional intensity and directness such other theories of conflict, additional contextual that the effect of a type of conflict may change features, and characteristics of the disputants. depending on how the conflict is expressed. To illustrate, imagine the following situation. Coworkers Tom and Mary are engaged in a con- CONCEPTUALIZING CONFLICT EXPRESSION flict over budget allocations for the next fiscal We define conflicts as situations where peo- year. In one version of the conflict, Mary tries to ple are opposed to one another, advocating for explain why she believes the allocation is ade- 2015 Weingart, Behfar, Bendersky, Todorova, and Jehn 237 quate and even provides a bit of discretionary expression, intensity and directness, are etic funds to the project. Tom listens but remains and can be applied across cultures, whereas the concerned. He suggests that Mary may not un- categorizing of specific conflict behaviors into derstand the hidden costs in the situation and this dimensional space is emic and only mean- that they may want to discuss the issue further. ingful within the cultural context (e.g., Hofstede, Mary disagrees. In an alternative version of the 1980; Kopelman & Rosette, 2008; Sanchez-Burks, conflict, Mary defends her reasoning and un- 2002; Sanchez-Burks et al., 2003). equivocally states that the allocation is ade- In the next section we define directness and quate and might even be more than is needed. oppositional intensity in terms of their indica- Tom interrupts her before she is finished, asserts tors or observable characteristics (see Figure 1). that Mary does not have the