஽ 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 expertise to see the The two dimensions of conflict expression are hidden costs in the situation, and demands that best thought of as latent constructs in that they they reopen the issue. Mary disagrees. are theoretical in nature but can only be ob- Viewed through the lens of conflict type, each served via their constituent parts (Byrne, 1998).1 of these two scenarios includes elements of task, process, and relationship conflict. In both, Tom The Directness of Conflict Expression and Mary disagree about how to allocate next year’s budget (a task-related conflict) and Directness of a conflict expression refers to the whether to reopen the issue (a process-related degree to which the sender explicitly versus im- conflict), and Tom questions Mary’s expertise (a plicitly conveys his or her opposition. When con- relationship-related conflict). Yet the two sce- flict is conveyed explicitly or directly, the sender narios are expressed very differently, and are articulates that there is problem, makes it clear likely to unfold through different processes and what position he or she is taking, and expresses to have distinct outcome effects. The conflict in it directly to the other party (Tinsley & Brett, the first scenario is expressed with much less 2001). Building on communication theories, we oppositional intensity and directness than it is posit that conflict expression that lies at the in the second scenario. As a result, we would direct end of this dimension involves a verbal or predict that the antagonists in the two scenarios nonverbal expression of the conflict at hand that would perceive the conflicts differently, attend- (1) explicitly identifies (rather than implies) ing to different information, experiencing differ- one’s position of opposition and (2) occurs be- ent emotions, and creating a different set of at- tween the parties involved (rather than involv- tributions about the other party based on how ing third parties). It is the combination of these the conflicts were expressed. These differences, two features that determines the extent of the we argue, would produce distinct processes and directness of conflict expression. More directly outcomes, even though the content of the conflict expressed conflicts take the form of statements is the same. Thus, conceptualizing conflict in and actions that make the oppositional posi- terms of directness and oppositional intensity tions in the conflict clear, leaving little room for can help reconcile and clarify previous equivo- interpretation that a conflict exists or what it is cal findings in the conflict-type literature. about. Direct conflict expressions might include While we believe that directness and opposi- verbally disagreeing with another’s position and tional intensity are relevant dimensions of con- arguing for an alternative, as well as shaking flict across cultural contexts, how a specific con- one’s head side to side in response to another’s flict expression will be experienced in terms of arguments to nonverbally indicate disagreement. directness and oppositional intensity and how a In contrast, low-directness conflict expres- resultant conflict spiral will develop will be in- sions are characterized by words or actions that fluenced by the cultural context in which the cue the existence of opposition but leave more conflict event occurs. Cultural context influ- room for inference by the receiver, both in terms ences conflict dynamics in three important of noticing the conflict cue and in terms of infer- ways: (1) how people choose to express opposi- tion, (2) how people perceive and react to ex- pressed opposition, and (3) the ease with which 1 Byrne (1998) noted that latent constructs must be opera- disputants can resolve the conflict. As such, we tionally defined in terms of the behavior believed to repre- will argue that the two dimensions of conflict sent them. 238 Academy of Management Review April

FIGURE 1 Components of Conflict Expression

ring the position the sender is taking (Beatty, about “conflicts” or “disagreements” and “differ- Valencic, Rudd, & Dobos, 1999; Brett, 2007). Low- ences of opinion,” or “friction,” “tensions,” and directness expressions take a variety of forms. “personality conflicts” (Jehn, 1995; Jehn & Man- They include more ambiguous expressions of nix, 2001). This leaves open the possibility that opposition, such as storytelling or asking a se- directness of conflict expression may matter but ries of reflective questions (Brett, 2000). They has not yet been captured. might include passive behaviors, such as teas- We posit that the directness of a conflict ex- ing or poking fun, that suggest (but do not ex- pression is a function of how it is expressed (the plicitly identify) a source of conflict. Low- clarity versus ambiguity of the oppositional po- directness expressions also include expressing sition) and who is involved in the event (only the to a third party rather than directly to the other antagonists versus expressing to third parties; see party (e.g., talking behind the other party’s Figure 1). Below we explain the two criteria to back). While there is variance in how high- ver- illustrate how the dimension of directness might sus low-directness expressions are conceived influence the way the conflict process unfolds. and received across cultures (e.g., via cultural How it is expressed: Ambiguity of expression. norms, politeness norms, and status differences; Unambiguous expression occurs when the for reviews see Brett, Behfar, & Sanchez-Burks, sender clearly makes the other party aware of 2014; Brown & Levinson, 1987; Maddux, Kim, his or her conflicting position, as well as what Okumura, & Brett, 2011), we argue that regard- that position is (Brett et al., 2014; Janz, Colquitt, & less of the specific form, when a conflict is ex- Noe, 1997; Ury, Brett, & Goldberg, 1993). This pressed with low directness, there is more that could occur verbally or nonverbally (Mehrabian the receiver must notice and infer. Thus, direct- & Williams, 1969). Words and actions are impor- ness is important because it influences the tant to consider in a conflict event because they equivocality or clarity of information about the are both forms of social influence and persuasion opposition that is being expressed. (Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Muraven, & Tice, 1998). Current theories of conflict do not explicitly Variation in the ambiguity of verbal opposi- consider directness of conflict expressions tion is a function of the clarity of the meaning of within conflict type. For example, Jehn and Man- what is said. Unambiguous verbal opposition nix, in their study of conflict dynamics, talk occurs when the words match the meaning about task conflict activities, such as “discus- (Grice, 1968). For example, the statement “I dis- sion of task goals and debate around the vari- agree with your analysis as well as your philos- ous opinions of various team members to deter- ophy for making budgeting decisions on this mine the specific content of the final product or project” is an unambiguous verbal expression of decision” (2001: 241), and relationship conflict conflict. The information about the existence processes, such as “politeness norms” (2001: (and possibly drivers) of opposing positions is 240). Similarly, items designed to measure task, clear. However, the same sentiment can be ex- process, and relationship conflict are often ag- pressed indirectly when the verbal message sent nostic about the directness of expression, asking is ambiguous or vague. For example, “Could we 2015 Weingart, Behfar, Bendersky, Todorova, and Jehn 239 see how others typically make budget decisions?” instantiated more ambiguously. Ambiguous is an expression that implies a desire to do things nonverbal expressions require more contextual differently, but without language that explicitly understanding or create a need to gather more identifies an opposing position. information in order to clearly conclude that op- In ambiguous verbal expressions, peripheral position exists. For example, an ambiguous non- cues (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986) and nonverbal verbal expression of opposition might be to de- cues often provide an additional, if not a pri- lay finishing work or to show up late to (or skip mary, source of meaning (Eisenhardt, 1989) re- altogether) meetings arranged by the other garding a conflict event (Brown & Levinson, party involved in the conflict. This type of ex- 1987). For example, conflict expressions are pression is ambiguous because there could be clearer and more direct when they are free from an alternative explanation, such as being sick sarcasm (tone of voice is a nonverbal cue) or or getting caught in traffic, causing the person to do not require knowledge of the context to inter- skip or be late to the meeting. This type of low- pret meaning. There is a difference, for example, directness expression is evidenced in contribu- between expressing frustration by stating, “I am tion conflict (Behfar, Mannix, Perterson, & Tro- frustrated because we’ve been having this dis- cussion for the past six months with no prog- chim, 2011), for example, which can occur via ress,” and sarcastically stating, “Well, here we actions (when people violate others’ expecta- go again. I can see this meeting will be useful.” tions by not contributing; Newton & Burgoon, Thus, saying one thing but meaning another or 1990). The ambiguity of these messages makes saying something that is very open to interpre- the sender’s intentions and the appropriate re- tation exemplifies low directness via verbal am- sponses uncertain. biguity. This “masking” or “channel inconsis- The cultural context will influence how am- tency” is ambiguous because it requires the biguous a given conflict expression will be per- receiver to decipher what seems to be a mis- ceived to be. In high-context communication cul- match between the words being used and the tures there are more cues embedded in social nonverbal expression (e.g., the sarcasm), but it rituals, language use, and nonverbal behaviors does not provide clear information about the than there are in low-context communication fundamental problem being communicated or cultures, which depend heavily on verbal capit- the intentions of the sender (Eknam, Friesen, & ulation (Hall, 1976). Thus, if both a sender and Ellsworth, 1972; Watzlawick, Beavin, & Jackson, receiver are from low-context communication 1967). In contrast, unambiguous expressions cultures and are culturally attuned to express do not obfuscate the existence and content of an opposition implicitly, they will transmit as much oppositional position. information about the problem during the con- The domain of actions includes meaning con- flict process as would happen if both parties veyed without language (for reviews see Eisen- were from high-context communication cultures hardt, 1989; Mehrabian & Williams, 1969; Pratt, (Ambady, Koo, Lee, & Rosenthal, 1996; Sanchez- 2000). Action-based nonverbal conflict expres- Burks et al., 2003). In this way, when a sender sions can be more or less direct depending on and a receiver from the same culture are in how clearly versus ambiguously they cue the conflict and their normative expectations align, existence of a conflict. Directly expressed ac- their shared cultural context provides the cues tions send unambiguous information about the existence of opposition. That is, direct actions for how to behave and interpret one another’s may not indicate why there is opposition (as do behavior. However, when parties are from dif- verbal expressions), but they do make it clear ferent cultures and enter a conflict with different that opposition exists. For example, hitting expectations, their normative scripts instead act someone with a baseball bat is an unambigu- more like filters through which they differen- ous cue that a conflict is occurring. In the realm tially perceive and interpret the behavior of the of work, a sender might unambiguously indicate other party. It follows, then, that disputants from opposition by nonverbally expressing disdain low-context communication cultures will have when the receiver talks (e.g., eye rolling, glar- an especially difficult time interpreting the “em- ing, heavy sighing, or walking angrily out of the bedded” messages from people from high- room). Nonverbal conflict behaviors can also be context communication cultures. 240 Academy of Management Review April

To whom conflict is expressed: Between an- about the opposition is not conveyed between tagonists versus to others. The most direct ex- the parties themselves and, thus, can be consid- pressions happen between a sender and a tar- ered less direct. In this case the engagement of get receiver rather than to a third party (Tinsley a third party as a mediator initiates the conflict & Weldon, 2003). Expressions between a sender management process, which is outside the and target are more direct because there is no scope of our conflict expression framework. third-party filter or feedback loop, only a direct channel that makes it clear that a conflict exists The Oppositional Intensity of and who is involved (Daft & Lengel, 1984; Shan- Conflict Expression non & Weaver, 1948). In contrast, less direct expressions of conflict The oppositional intensity of conflict expres- occur when the expression involves other peo- sion refers to the degree of strength, force, or ple. For example, talking behind the other par- energy with which the sender conveys opposi- ty’s back and venting to coworkers or friends are tion during a given conflict event. Higher oppo- indirect expressions. The other person may be- sitional intensity conflicts (e.g., fights) are con- come aware of this conflict behavior, interpret it veyed with greater force than are lower as “backstabbing,” and realize indirectly that oppositional intensity conflicts (e.g., debates). there is a problem (Harvey, 1989). Going to third Intensity has been shown to direct the attention parties to form coalitions, gain support, or vent of the recipient of the expression toward fulfill- can be done with or without intending the mes- ing particular needs, to change how different sage to be received by the target. It does, how- stimuli are weighted and prioritized, and to in- ever, increase the distance between the sender fluence which cues and information in an ex- and the receiver and introduces the possibility change are attended to (Baumeister et al., 1998; for intervening parties to change or distort the Berlyne, 1950; Heuer & Penrod, 1986; Hutchinson meaning of the original expression (i.e., intro- & Tenenbaum, 2007; Nissen, 1977; Sonnemans & duce noise; Shannon & Weaver, 1948). Consis- Frijda, 1994; Wilson & MacLeod, 2003). tent with our definition, we have argued that Building on theories of negotiation, emotions, less directly expressed conflicts create more and subversive behavior, we argue that opposi- need for inference. As such, the more removed tional intensity of conflict expression is charac- the two parties are from one another, the more terized by (1) entrenchment in a position and (2) potential there is for intervening forces to distort subversiveness of actions. We focus on these two the message. We posit that expressions con- indicators because together they allow us to veyed via third parties are less direct because capture both defensive and offensive posturing the substantive and relational information in in verbal and nonverbal conflict expressions the expression may be filtered and distorted. For (see Figure 1). example, the information expressed to the third High-intensity expressions of opposition are party might get communicated back to the tar- typified by entrenched defense of a position get inaccurately in terms of content or opposi- (e.g., digging in or arguing one’s position) and/or tional intensity (the proverbial game of tele- subversive attempts to undermine the other par- phone). Each of these strategies expresses the ty’s position (e.g., personal attacks or blocking conflict in a low-directness fashion by diffusing behavior). Expressions of such force tend to in- the access a receiver has to a message regard- voke a degree of threat response in a receiver ing the position of the sender. because they convey the possibility of a loss of Cultural norms play a role in how third par- personal goals or status (Lee & Aaker, 2004). For ties are used in expressing conflict. For exam- example, in negotiations, distributive tactics ple, in some Eastern cultures it is common to such as the use of threats, which are high inten- involve a third party as a way to indicate one’s sity because they are entrenched and subver- intention to resolve the conflict and preserve the sive expressions, tend to invoke more emotional other party’s face (Schlenker, Soraci, & Mc- and rigid responses than do integrative negoti- Carthy, 1976). While one’s willingness to engage ation tactics such as questioning one’s position with a third party may express a message about (a lower-intensity conflict approach), which are the intentions to preserve the relationship more likely to imply a willingness of parties to (Schlenker et al., 1976), substantive information trade interests (Ury et al., 1993). Similarly, high- 2015 Weingart, Behfar, Bendersky, Todorova, and Jehn 241 intensity conflict expressions that convey disre- ways deviates in favor of oneself and against spect by threatening to subvert people’s social another. standing or damage their “face” also tend to Entrenchment in a position. Entrenchment of induce high levels of rigidity and restricted in- conflict expression, the first indicator of opposi- formation sharing (Bendersky & Hays, 2012; Brett tional intensity, reflects behaviors designed to et al., 2007). protect one’s own position (i.e., entrenchment: Our conceptualization of oppositional inten- “to place [oneself] in a strong defensive posi- sity is different from how intensity has been tion”; www.merriam-webster.com). Entrench- considered in related bodies of literature in im- ment signals a cognitive and affective commit- portant ways. Conflict intensity has been con- ment to a position (for work on cognitive ceptualized vis-à-vis the negotiability and trac- entrenchment see Dane, 2010) that influences tability of conflicts (Heuer & Penrod, 1986; the strength and force of conflict expression. For Hiltrop & Rubin, 1982; Rubin, 1980), the strength example, the use of an angry voice signals more of the experience of conflict (Beutell & Green- entrenchment than does a calm voice, or the haus, 1983), the negative affect associated with willingness to consider another’s point of view a conflict event (Laursen & Collins, 1994; Shantz, signals being open-minded to the receiver’s 1987), the importance of the conflict to those in- substantive and relational needs (Brett, 2007; volved (Ayoko, Callan, & Hartel, 2003; Thomas, Weingart, Prietula, Hyder, & Genovese, 1999). 1992), and the extent of conflicting opinions and Entrenched expression communicates a desire perspectives (Barker, Tjosvold, & Andrews, 1988). for compliance from the other party. In these bodies of literature, scholars have used Entrenchment is easily recognizable in verbal intensity to characterize the situation (negotia- interactions. In that conflict involves people be- bility, importance, extent of differences) or expe- ing opposed to one another, verbal entrench- rience of the receiver (strength, affect). Our ap- ment is evidenced by people defending their proach differs and expands on how intensity own opinions and rebutting others’ beliefs or has been operationalized in previous work in perspectives. Heavily entrenched conflict ex- that we begin by explicating the properties of pression is often characterized by arguments, oppositional intensity in the initiating conflict attacks on others’ positions, positional lan- expression—that is, how it is communicated guage, or an unyielding defense of a point of from a sender to a receiver, followed by how the view or desired outcome (e.g., see work on iden- receiver perceives and reacts in the conflict pro- tity trap language in conflict situations by Dono- cess. Thus, our approach takes an event-based hue, 2012; see also work on positional bargain- view, allowing conflict intensity to be differen- ing by Pruitt, 1983; Pruitt & Rubin, 1986; Walton & tiated from conflict frequency because each McKersie, 1965). In comparison, a conflict that is event, comprising the conflict process and its expressed verbally with low entrenchment descriptive properties (e.g., intractability, affect, would be evidenced by a process where people and importance), has a frequency of one. Fur- are open to considering opposing opinions and thermore, the communication literature consid- points of view, such as debating (see work on ers the concept of language intensity, defined as integrative negotiation by Olekalns & Smith, “the quality of language which indicates the 2000; Pruitt & Lewis, 1975; Putnam & Wilson, degree to which the speaker’s attitude toward a 1989; Weingart, Thompson, Bazerman, & Carroll, concept deviates from neutrality” (Bowers, 1963: 1990). This is low oppositional intensity conflict 345) and operationalized as the strength of the expression because, in the case of debate, for words used in messages conveyed (e.g., how example, a position is being conveyed with con- value laden or evaluative; for a review see Bra- viction, but challenging or questioning may im- dac, Bowers, & Courtwright, 1979). This construct ply consideration of the other position rather differs from oppositional intensity in that it fo- than strictly fortifying one’s own. In all cases cuses solely on language rather than opposition individuals have a clear stance to defend, but in more generally, thus excluding nonverbal be- high oppositional intensity (entrenched) con- havior. In addition, it does not include a valence flicts there is strong defensive positioning with component in that intense language can deviate a low likelihood of yielding, whereas in lower from neutrality in either positive or negative oppositional intensity (less entrenched) conflicts directions. In contrast, oppositional intensity al- participants are still able to monitor the merits 242 Academy of Management Review April of others’ actions or viewpoints and integrate conflict, and defensiveness (Bar-Tal, 2000; Cole- them into their own response. man, 2003; Deutsch, 1968; Pruitt & Olczak, 1995; The very words we use to describe entrenched Pruitt & Rubin, 1986). From this work we know expressions of conflict reflect the central role of that with high levels of entrenchment (some- oppositional intensity. Words like “quarrel,” times referred to as “rigidification” [e.g., “fight,” “argue,” “clash,” and “dispute” all de- Northrup, 1989]), both senders and receivers are scribe verbalized, highly intense, entrenched more ego involved so that making concessions conflicts. Words like “debate,” “express differ- to the other party can imply a personal loss ing viewpoints,” and “deliberate” describe less (Brockner, 1992; Staw & Ross, 1987). When iden- intense and less entrenched conflicts that still tity is threatened, people act to maintain it (Brett encompass clearly articulated differences. Yet et al., 2007; Northrup, 1989). Therefore, as en- all these words have been indiscriminately as- trenchment increases such that people argue sociated with the operationalization of “conflict” more forcefully and defensively in favor of their in the literature, resulting in unclear constructs own positions, they will be less willing to con- and measurement. Related to this issue are crit- sider other points of view as viable alternatives icisms of early measures of conflict that used to their own. the word “conflict” in items such that the mean- Subversiveness of actions. Subversiveness re- ing of the referent term conflict was unclear flects the extent to which people engage in ac- (e.g., Barki & Hartwick, 2004; Bendersky et al., tivities designed to overturn, overthrow, or un- 2014). While some people might respond in dermine another (i.e., subvert: “to overturn or terms of arguments they’ve had at work, others overthrow from the foundation”; www.merriam- might respond in terms of debates, resulting in webster.com). Subversive expression is implic- error in measurement. Differentiating by the op- positional intensity of conflict expression recog- itly embedded in extant theories of conflict, such nizes that all conflicts, even within a conflict as “status conflict” (when people jockey for rel- type, are not alike. ative status within the group; Bendersky & Hays, Entrenchment can also be conveyed nonver- 2012), and can occur via actions, coalition forma- bally. Gottman and colleagues (Gottman et al., tion, or passive aggressive communication. A 1977; Gottman & Silver, 1999) referred to high- conflict expression that is more subversive is intensity nonverbal behavior as “stonewalling,” more oppositionally intense because it harms where there is a steadfast refusal to answer or the other party with greater strength or force consider the other person’s point of view. By than does a less subversive expression. Subver- refusing to answer questions, return phone sion can be expressed directly or indirectly, al- calls, or attend meetings, one signals an en- though colloquial use of the term tends to focus trenched stance. This might also be displayed on indirect, covert behaviors, which are hidden by storming out of a meeting, pointing a finger or not openly displayed. An overt subversive in the other party’s face, filibustering, or running conflict expression plainly or clearly advances out the clock, all of which indicate an unwilling- the sender’s position in a way that detracts from ness to engage the other party (Smithson & Venette, 2013). Low-entrenchment nonverbal ex- or threatens the resources of the receiver. A co- pressions display some willingness to consider vert subversive conflict expression might com- the other party’s opposing position while still municate the intent to oppose, but the immedi- defending one’s own position. For example, ate threat to the receiver is harder to recognize. making skeptical facial expressions (like rais- Work on social undermining is especially rel- ing an eyebrow), appearing frustrated while evant to subversive, high-intensity conflict ex- maintaining eye contact, or crossing one’s arms pression, in that subversive behavior under- while listening to the other person all convey a mines others’ capabilities and status (e.g., Duffy, defensive posture but also a degree of engage- Ganster, & Pagon, 2002; Duffy, Ganster, Shaw, ment (Gibb, 1961). Johnson, & Pagon, 2006). Social undermining is Entrenchment is a central feature of many “behavior intended to hinder, over time, the conflict processes discussed in the literature, ability to establish and maintain positive inter- including positional bargaining, escalation of personal relationships, work-related success, conflict, competitive orientations, intractable and favorable reputation” (Duffy et al., 2002: 2015 Weingart, Behfar, Bendersky, Todorova, and Jehn 243

332).2 More intense subversive conflict expres- the workplace, in violation of norms for respect, sions include blatant attempts to dominate or with an ambiguous intent to harm (Andersson & subjugate others; personal attacks or insults; Pearson, 1999; Cortina, Magley, Williams, & backstabbing behavior, in which an individual Langhout, 2001; Pearson, Andersson, & Wegner, is supportive to another individual’s face but 2001; Porath & Erez, 2007). The motivation for talks negatively about that person behind his or incivility may be unclear such that the target her back; or blocking behavior, which diverts may not know what he or she did to engender critical resources (Bendersky & Hays, 2012; Brett the uncivil treatment, or even if he or she is the et al., 2007). One might, for example, create pro- target of intentional mistreatment (e.g., maybe cedures to control the budget or institute approval the actor is just having a bad day). processes that thwart a project the individual Just as cultural context and individual char- does not support. In these cases subversive ex- acteristics will influence the interpretation of pressions advance one’s own interests to the det- the level of directness of a given conflict expres- riment of others. Less intense subversive expres- sion, so they should also influence the percep- sions include avoidant behavior or actions where tion recipients have of its oppositional intensity. the intent to harm is unclear, such as withholding For example, patterns or scripts of argumenta- information, not saying what one really means, or tion (i.e., convergence-seeking discourse) differ lighthearted teasing. This happens in meetings across cultures (e.g., Feghali, 1997; Katriel, 1986) when, for example, people create diversions to and also differ as a function of having majority stall decision making in order to buy themselves versus minority membership (Meyers, Brashers, more time. & Hanner, 2000). Studies of argumentation in- Passive aggressive behavior and incivility volving Israeli Jews and Palestinians show that are also examples of less subversive conflict while culturally normative styles (i.e., musayra expressions. Passive aggressive behavior is and dugri) are dominant in intracultural inter- characterized by expressions of covert aggres- actions, holding a majority/minority status sion that by definition are expressed indirectly within a group influences the use of these ex- (McIlduff & Coghlan, 2000), such as failing to pression styles in intercultural interactions, sug- pass on needed information, inefficiency and gesting accommodation for levels of expressed procrastination, resisting change, or withdraw- intensity (Ellis & Maoz, 2002; Zupnik, 2000). For ing from work and interactions with others example, in one study minority members (Pales- (Baron & Neuman, 1996; Bush, 1983; Gelfand, Les- tinians) expressed conflict issues with more in- lie, & Keller, 2008). Such behaviors are lower in tensity (using a more assertive argumentation subversiveness (and, thus, intensity) because style) when facing majority members (Israeli their intent to harm is more diffuse. Passive ag- Jews) than their own cultural codes (i.e., mu- gression is often masked by compliance and sayra) would predict. In contrast, the Israeli Jews cordiality (McIlduff & Coghlan, 2000) or general maintained their culturally normative, assertive moodiness and negativism (Millon, 1993), mak- style (i.e., dugri) in their objections and chal- ing the substance and intent of the opposition lenges to one another but demonstrated more ambiguous and confusing. Incivility is also an submissive, accommodating, and generally hes- example of low-intensity conflict behavior, since itant behavior in the same intercultural ex- it involves acting with disregard for others in changes (Ellis & Maoz, 2002). Gender is another individual characteristic that may influence expression of oppositional 2 Included in Duffy et al.’s (2002) conceptualization of so- intensity. Research on gender and emotional ex- cial undermining are both direct and indirect actions, as pression suggests that both the expression of well as both verbal and physical behaviors, again suggest- ing that intensity and directness are independent dimen- conflict (in terms of gendered display rules; sions. For example, directly expressed undermining in- Brody, 1997) and perception by others may be cludes making derogatory statements about (and to) another influenced by the sender’s gender (Ragins & person or belittling their ideas; indirect undermining can Winkel, 2011). For example, the display of anger occur by withholding support or not defending someone. (a negative emotion) is a prototypical high- Verbal undermining includes making derogatory statements or failing to transmit information, whereas physical under- intensity conflict expression. Gendered display mining might include withholding resources (Duffy et rules suggest that anger is expected of men but al., 2002). not women (Brescoll & Uhlmann, 2008). As a re- 244 Academy of Management Review April sult, when women display anger, it is counter- sender, the receiver’s perception of the sender’s normative, resulting in more negative reactions expression, and a reaction and expression by than when men express anger. Research shows the receiver, which then feeds back into a pro- that whereas men are afforded influence after cess of escalation or de-escalation of conflict displaying anger (Tiedens, 2001), women tend to (see Figure 2). be negatively evaluated (Brescoll & Uhlmann, 2008). This interferes with a woman’s ability to The Conflict Spiral leverage power in a conflict situation (Ragins & Winkel, 2011). We explore the role of gender in Conflict spirals occur when an individual ini- more detail later in our discussion. tiates a conflict communication, the other party responds with a similar kind of conflict expres- sion, and the first person continues in a consis- THE EFFECTS OF CONFLICT EXPRESSION ON tent manner (Brett et al., 1998; Olekalns & Wein- PERCEPTION, EMOTION, INFORMATION, AND gart, 2008; Weingart et al., 1990). Escalatory CONFLICT SPIRALS conflict spirals are exchanges characterized by Up to this point we have focused on the defin- reciprocated negative communications, such as ing attributes of directness and oppositional in- threats or other tactics that suppress informa- tensity that characterize a sender’s conflict ex- tion availability and usage, that are difficult to pression. In this section we argue that these break and generally produce negative outcomes attributes of conflict expression will impact the for the participants (Brett et al., 1998; Rubin, way a receiver perceives and responds to a con- Pruitt, & Kim, 1994; Schelling, 1960; Weingart et flict expression, thereby influencing subsequent al., 1999). De-escalatory conflict spirals are ex- conflict escalatory and de-escalatory spirals. In changes characterized by reciprocated informa- doing so we introduce the interplay among per- tion exchange and complementary questioning ception, information, and emotion in response to and answering that generally produce positive a conflict expression. We then consider how the outcomes for participants (Weingart et al., 1999; perceptions of the directness and oppositional Weingart et al., 1990). intensity of a conflict expression set the dynam- For a conflict expression to elicit a reaction, it ics of conflict spirals in motion. We argue that must first be perceived. That is, it must be no- all spirals consist of a dynamic process that ticed and interpreted by a receiver. We have begins with the initiating expression by a argued that the directness and intensity of a

FIGURE 2 Components of the Conflict Spiral 2015 Weingart, Behfar, Bendersky, Todorova, and Jehn 245 conflict expression will influence which aspects perceives a conflict expression differently from of the expression get noticed and processed by what the sender intended, escalatory conflict the receiver, as well as how the receiver inter- spirals might result. Escalatory spirals are prets that information. That is, embedded in the likely to occur when one person perceives the delivery of a conflict expression (i.e., directness other as overreacting, when a team member and intensity of the expression) is a great deal of feels that he or she is being ignored by the other information about the sender’s intentions, emo- party (as in the case where an indirect expres- tions, reasons for opposing, and willingness to sion is missed by a receiver), or when a person engage in problem solving. Upon receiving an feels offended by a response that is different expression of opposition, the receiver must go from what was expected. When people feel their through the complex perceptual processes of at- conflict expression has been responded to inap- tending to and interpreting the conflict expres- propriately, they might feel frustrated or con- sion by registering and appraising both the fused, resulting in lower levels of satisfaction characteristics of the expression and the mean- with the other party and the process. ing conveyed, processing his or her own emo- Conflict perceptions, therefore, are likely to tional reaction to the opposition, acquiring in- trigger emotional reactions. Thus, emotions play formation about the problem, and then deciding a central role in our conceptual framework. how to regulate his or her reaction (for reviews There are a host of emotions that people expe- see Elfenbein, 2007, and Folkman, Lazarus, Dun- rience during conflict, both positive and nega- kel-Schetter, DeLongis, & Gruen, 1986). Receiv- tive (Chen & Ayoko, 2012). These emotions in the ers’ perceptions subsequently determine their receiver will drive his or her willingness and cognitive and behavioral responses that influ- ability to process and act on the information ence the nature of a conflict spiral (e.g., Cham- provided. In our framework we consider how bers & Melnyk, 2006; Jehn, Rispens, & Thatcher, emotional reactions can influence the nature of 2010). Immediate reactions to and interpreta- conflict spirals, for better or for worse. Theories tions of an initiating conflict expression are, of emotions distinguish between their activation therefore, essential to understanding the con- level, ranging from low activation (sad, calm) to flict process (e.g., for a discussion of how initial high activation (angry, excited), and their va- expressive cues influence interpersonal pro- lence, ranging from unpleasant (sad, angry) to cesses, see Ambady & Rosenthal, 1992, 1993). pleasant (calm, excited; Feldman-Barrett & Rus- When perceptions are not aligned across the parties involved in a conflict, asymmetry occurs. sell, 1998; Watson & Tellegen, 1985). We argue Research on conflict asymmetry shows that peo- below that while conflict usually leads to un- ple within the same work team can perceive pleasant emotions because of the salience of different levels of conflict (Jehn, Rispens, & conflicting interests or goals, the combination of Thatcher, 2010; Jehn, Rupert, Nauta, & van den directness and oppositional intensity will influ- Bossch, 2010). It also shows that increased dis- ence whether those unpleasant emotions are crepancies among team members regarding high or low activation and whether pleasant their perceptions of conflict (e.g., two members emotions are also evoked. We feel this is impor- perceive a high level of conflict while the third tant to note because the existing conflict litera- perceives little) have a stronger negative influ- ture has also considered how people experience ence on group processes and outcomes than in- emotion in response to conflict. However, that creased mean-level perceptions of conflict in the literature has a history of conflating emotion group. The differences in perception cause with conflict type such that task (and often pro- members to feel less cohesive, communicate cess) conflict is synonymous with “cognitive” less, and respect each other less, as well as feel intellective conflict and relationship conflict is dissatisfied and have lower levels of group per- synonymous with “affective” emotional conflict formance and creativity based on these mediat- (Amason, 1996; Cosier & Rose, 1977), even though ing processes (Jehn, Rispens, & Thatcher, 2010; research has demonstrated that all types of con- Jehn, Rupert, Nauta, & van den Bossch, 2010). It is flict (task, process, and relationship) can elicit therefore likely that asymmetry in perceptions emotions, both positive and negative (Greer & of conflict expression between parties will also Jehn, 2007; Jehn, 1997; Jehn, Greer, Levine, & Szu- influence the conflict process. When a receiver lanski, 2008; Todorova, Bear, & Weingart, 2014). 246 Academy of Management Review April

Our conceptualization is in line with this more teristics of the disputants, including power, gen- recent work. der, and race, or personality characteristics, In addition to emotions, our conceptual frame- such as agreeableness or neuroticism from the work also includes how conflict expressions pro- Big Five personality characteristics (Antonioni, vide information to the recipient about the send- 1998; Goldberg, 1990), might influence how peo- er’s positions and interests (Cronin & Bezrukova, ple perceive and react to others’ expression of 2006). We have argued that the amount of infor- conflict. All of these differences are “lenses” mation communicated varies across expres- through which people organize, interpret, and sions with intensity and directness, as does the decide how to respond to the conflict expres- recipient’s ability and willingness to receive sions they receive. Thus, our conceptual frame- that information. In our framework, therefore, we work will help explain why some people can allow emotion and information to be tightly cou- reach an agreement while others hit an impasse pled in the perception process (Elfenbein, 2007; when addressing similar conflicts. Folkman & Lazarus, 1985; Weiss & Cropanzano, With this in mind, we next describe conflict 1996). For example, a highly direct and high- expression in terms of directness and opposi- intensity, entrenched conflict expression may tional intensity simultaneously, and we summa- evoke a defensive and emotional response to rize their connections to conflict spirals. We con- the implied desire for compliance from the other sider four theoretical clusters of behavior at the party (Tedeschi & Felson, 1994), interfering with extremes of the continua, crossing directness information acquisition. with oppositional intensity (see Table 1). Focus- Just as the interpretation of conflict behaviors ing on the extremes allows us to capture proto- in terms of oppositional intensity and directness typical behavior or reactions that would charac- is emic (context/culture specific), so, too, is the terize associated conflict spirals. We assume for development of conflict spirals. Perception is a this exercise that any given expression will take function of the filters, biases, and history that on a directness and oppositional intensity value people bring into the conflict situation (Bruner, (ranging from low to high). How the behavior 1957; Fiske, 1993). Individual differences like per- will be perceived in terms of the degree of di- sonality and conflict experience, expectations rectness and oppositional intensity will depend derived from organizational and cultural norms, on the culture within which it occurs and the power differences between the parties, and the characteristics of the people involved. It is those history of the conflict all can influence an indi- perceptions of directness and oppositional in- vidual’s perception of a conflict expression, over tensity that will then influence the disputants’ and above the observable characteristics of the emotional reactions and the amount of informa- expression itself. Norms for confronting and re- tion available vis-à-vis the conflict expression. sponding to opposition will mirror such varia- For the purposes of illustrating the conceptual tion in how spirals develop. For example, in framework, we base Table 1 on the assump- national cultures that rely heavily on early tion that the disputants share a frame for the third-party intervention as part of expressing conflict—either a shared cultural script or set of positive intentions to resolve a conflict and norms around conflict. Later in the article we maintain the face of all parties, an escalatory explore situations where senders’ and receivers’ conflict spiral probably will not develop at all. frames are less similar. Or when opposing parties are culturally attuned (e.g., via organizational, regional, or national Perceptions of and Responses to High-Directness culture) to recognize and interpret cues embed- Conflict Expressions ded in low-directness expression, there is less likely to be a loss in the transmission of mean- Direct conflict expression makes explicit the ing that we describe below (Ambady et al., 1996; information embedded in messages to which Sanchez-Burks et al., 2003). others will respond. In particular, directness in- However, culture is not the only factor that fluences the extent to which the receiver will be will influence how an individual interprets the able to accurately perceive a conflict expression cues embedded in a conflict message. Charac- or will need to make inferences about the exis- teristics of both the person and the situation will tence and substance of opposition. Directly ex- influence a receiver’s perceptual filter. Charac- pressed conflicts with different levels of opposi- TABLE 1 Combined Effects of Oppositional Intensity and Directness of Conflict Expression

Dimensions of Directness and Oppositional Intensity Characteristics of Expression Emotional Reaction Information Availability Conflict Spirals

High directness/high Opposition is communicated unambiguously High-activation unpleasant Clear and explicit information Negative, escalatory conflict spirals oppositional intensity and directly between disputants, who are emotions (e.g., anger, about the presence and characterized by highly activated entrenched in their positions and/or frustration, tension) substance of the opposition emotional states, distributive subversive in their actions and salient oppositional orientations, positional statements, and Examples include shouting, aggressive threat little problem solving; or de-escalatory language, storming out, eye rolling, or conflict spirals, including withdrawal or making threats submission if power differences or norms dictate High directness/low Opposition is communicated unambiguously Mixed emotions: High- Clear and explicit information De-escalatory conflict spirals characterized oppositional intensity and directly between disputants who are activation pleasant and about the presence and by reflective responses, including not entrenched in positions or subversive unpleasant emotions substance of the opposition, questioning premises, clarifying in actions (e.g., frustration and made accessible by assumptions, offering disconfirming Examples include debating and deliberating excitement) relatively low oppositional evidence, and seeking integrative (e.g., prototypical task conflict) threat solutions Low directness/high Opposition is communicated ambiguously High- and low-activation Clear and salient oppositional Escalatory conflict spirals where oppositional intensity and/or via third parties, with high unpleasant emotions threat, but the receiver will unpleasant negative emotions are entrenchment and subversiveness (e.g., anxiety, contempt, have to infer the substance accompanied by a focus on sensemaking Examples include ignoring or discounting humiliation, anger and of the opposition from about the conflict through interpreting another’s perspective, mean-spirited sadness, hurt) peripheral cues others’ actions and by trying to recover teasing, social undermining to third face or protect interests rather than on parties, backstabbing, or mobilizing a working to solve the problem blocking coalition Low directness/low Opposition is communicated ambiguously Low-activation unpleasant Ambiguous information about Conflict spirals difficult to identify because oppositional intensity and/or via third parties, with low emotions (e.g., hurt, the presence and substance of conflict avoidance or collusion where entrenchment and subversiveness irritation, confusion, of the conflict; difficult to parties find a way to work around or Examples include when people avoid saying guilt); lessened emotional discern the sender’s suppress rather than engage the what they really mean, withhold reaction if the culture interests or intentions and substance of a conflict information, tease in fun, engage in supports indirect may not attract much incivility, or engage in generalized passive communication as a way attention aggressive behavior (e.g., purposely to save face missing a deadline) 248 Academy of Management Review April tional intensity are likely to be perceived as elands, & Dutton, 1981), and their use of the in- more or less threatening to the receiver’s inter- formation will be driven by reactive or “reflex- ests and so will produce different kinds of ive” conclusions rather than by reflective reactions. reasoning regarding the other party’s positions Direct expressions with high intensity. When (cf. Smith & Edmondson, 2006). opposition is expressed with high intensity, neg- Because the threat from the oppositional in- ative conflict cycles will occur as the perceived tensity of a direct expression narrows receivers’ threat and negative emotions interfere with re- possible responses (e.g., comply or fight), the ceivers’ ability and willingness to use the infor- interactions produce a negative spiral that may mation provided constructively. For example, be characterized by fighting, quarreling, or ar- conflict expressions that are characterized by guing. For example, an escalatory conflict spiral high directness and high intensity provide ac- would be typified by increasing highly acti- cessible and unambiguous information about vated emotional states and a win-lose orienta- the problem, but they also communicate to the tion toward the information presented, where receiver that opposition is front and center, that the conflicting parties typically focus on repeat- the sender is entrenched or unwilling to budge ing their positions rather than on uncovering from his or her position, and that the sender potentially compatible interests (Elfenbein, might be trying to force the receiver to go along 2007; Fisher, Ury, & Patton, 1991). Such a nega- with an undesirable position. Directly communi- tive spiral is likely to be deleterious to outcomes cated high oppositional intensity (e.g., shouting, such as trust, satisfaction, and performance (for storming out, rolling eyes, or aggressive lan- a review of the influence of this type of spiral on guage) is easily recognized because the mes- proximal and distal outcomes, see Fisher et al., sage sent is strong and explicit. While the di- 1991). Alternatively, a conflict expression that is rectness of the message will increase the unambiguous and intense may signal to the re- likelihood that it will be perceived as intended, cipient that the conflict is intractable, resulting the cultural context and characteristics of the in stalemate, withdrawal, or submission. This receiver will influence how he or she interprets would represent an impasse and an end to the the oppositional intensity of the expression. For conflict spiral, and would likely depend on the example, in organizational cultures that support relative power of the individuals, cultural direct, intense expressions of confrontations, re- norms, and the individuals’ characteristics. cipients may perceive the behavior as accept- Direct expressions with low intensity. In con- able and not personal. However, we might still trast, expressions that are categorized by high expect that intense, direct conflict expressions directness and low oppositional intensity make will evoke arousal in receivers because they the opposition clear, but the low intensity pro- may be stimulated by the entrenchment or sub- vides the receiver with more room to respond to versiveness of the behavior. Direct, intense con- interests rather than to positions. When opposi- flict expressions make threat salient (Mehra- tion is expressed with low intensity, people are bian & Williams, 1969) and focus receivers on more likely to perceive positive intent in the pending cost or loss, which is likely to affect the sender and use the information provided to seek level of activation of emotional responses (Bar- solutions because they do not feel attacked. As a sade, 2002) in them. Psychologically, the force result, such an expression is less likely to ab- with which a sender communicates attracts the sorb attention or distract the receiver from the receiver’s attention and induces stronger emo- directly conveyed information and will result in tional reactions (Friedman & Riggio, 1981; Rob- the concomitant experience of positive and neg- inson & McArthur, 1982). Physiologically, the en- ative emotions derived from perceived progress ergy with which emotion is expressed leads to toward a mutually agreeable outcome (which an increase in autonomic nervous system re- may include coming to agreement or agreeing to sponses (e.g., heart rate acceleration, skin con- disagree) and the potential for de-escalatory ductance, facial activity) and long-term affective conflict cycles. The target of a directly expressed involvement in those receiving the expression low-intensity conflict may feel angry or annoyed (Jacob et al., 1999). As a result, receivers likely by the opposition to his or her ideas (and in will experience high-activation emotions such some cultures direct expression may be per- as anger, frustration, and tension (Staw, Sand- ceived as high intensity under any circum- 2015 Weingart, Behfar, Bendersky, Todorova, and Jehn 249 stances), but the low-intensity expression may Perceptions of and Responses to Low-Directness also energize the receiver because less en- Conflict Expressions trenchment from the sender signals that he or Low-directness conflict expressions, regard- she is willing to engage in trying to resolve the less of intensity, provide ambiguous cues to a conflict. In a U.S. context, for example, the re- recipient about the existence and content of a ceiver is likely to experience mixed emotions, or conflict. This ambiguity leaves more room for a combination of positive and negative emo- interpretation on the part of the receiver about tions (such as excitement and anger) simultane- the reasons, intentions, and meaning of the con- ously (Larsen, McGraw, & Cacioppo, 2001; Rafa- flict. Expressions that are low on the directness eli, Rogers, & Revelle, 2007; Zautra, Reich, Davis, dimension require more effort for the receiver to Potter, & Nicolson, 2000). Mixed emotions can process because the link between the source of create a duality or discomfort in receivers (Wil- the sender’s opposition and the receiver’s expe- liams & Aaker, 2002) that motivates them to seek rience of the conflict (i.e., the availability of un- or consider new information to alleviate their ambiguous information) is weaker and, hence, discomfort (Festinger, 1957), which could lead to depends more on the situation (Elfenbein, 2007). de-escalatory cycles. This makes the receiver’s interpretation and In the absence of high intensity, receivers can “emotional registration” (Elfenbein, 2007) of an use directly communicated information reflec- event more prone to subjective evaluation— tively rather than reactively (Smith & Edmond- where the receiver pays more attention to son, 2006). As such, responses to a direct, low- sensemaking about “expressive cues” (“what intensity expression may include questioning does this mean” or “why is this happening”) premises (not motives), clarifying assumptions than to the source of the problem itself (Elfen- (not dismissing legitimacy), offering disconfirm- bein, 2007). In other words, a great deal of atten- ing evidence (not discounting possibilities), or tion in the perceptual process is spent trying to suggesting a different frame (not assigning figure out why there is a conflict and where it is blame). Direct, low-intensity conflict expression coming from, prior to being able to focus on how will likely spark a more de-escalatory conflict to address the substance of the opposition. How spiral than will direct, high-intensity expression a recipient interprets and emotionally reacts to because it is typified by processes such as de- indirectly expressed conflict behavior, therefore, bating one another’s ideas, presenting counter- will depend to some extent on the contextual arguments, and deliberating rather than de- cues and characteristics of the individuals involved. fending threatened positions. This type of Low-directness expressions with high inten- virtuous conflict cycle of de-escalatory interac- sity. When oppositional intensity accompanies tions has been tied to proximate outcomes that low directness, it adds some context to the indi- enhance effectiveness, such as psychological rect expression because it conveys entrench- safety, learning, and trust (see Chen & Ayoko, ment or a subversive intent. Expressions that 2012; Edmondson, 1999; Edmondson, Dillon, & are characterized by low directness and high Roloff, 2007). This should facilitate the search for oppositional intensity can take the form of integrative solutions and enhance cooperation mean-spirited teasing, sarcastic humor, or talk- in a way that facilitates meeting both parties’ ing behind someone’s back. This kind of expres- interests (Walton & McKersie, 1965), at which sion is low in directness because the informa- point the conflict process would end. tion in the expression is contradictory or In sum, the high-directness characteristic of ambiguous (e.g., an insult delivered in jest; Kelt- expression, regardless of intensity, is likely to ner, Capps, Kring, Young, & Heerey, 2001) but is provoke a conflict process where parties will high in intensity because it conveys a face- react with negatively valenced emotions com- threatening, subversive, and derogatory mes- bined with high understanding of the informa- sage (Alberts, 1992; Schnurr & Chan, 2011). Re- tion made available. The intensity of the expres- ceivers of these low-directness, high-intensity sion will influence whether or not these are also conflict expressions experience negatively va- accompanied by positively valenced emotions lenced, high- and low-activation feelings like and what information is actually attended to. anxiety, contempt, humiliation, and anger, as 250 Academy of Management Review April well as sadness and hurt, because they recog- upon (e.g., De Dreu, 2007; De Jong & Elfring, 2010; nize the opposition in the high intensity of the Hirowaka & Pace, 1983; Janz et al., 1997). There- expression (Keltner et al., 2001) yet are left feel- fore, an escalatory conflict spiral is likely to ing confused or unclear about the substance of occur in this quadrant of Table 1, where un- the opposition owing to its lack of directness pleasant negative emotions are accompanied (Alberts, 1992). Receivers’ attention and their by a focus on sensemaking about the conflict subsequent responses tend to focus on the neg- through interpreting others’ actions (Jehn, ative rapport with the sender and/or on recover- Rispens, & Thatcher, 2010) and by trying to re- ing face (Keltner et al., 2001). This is also true of cover face or protect interests rather than on expressions made indirectly to a third party, working to solve the problem. Low trust, dissat- such as disparaging “off the record” remarks or isfaction, competitive orientations, and poor backstabbing, since the intention of the expres- performance are likely to ensue. sion is clearly to harm or negatively impact the Because of the wider range of possible inter- target but the delivery is not direct (Keltner et pretations from low-directness expressions, it is al., 2001). Such behaviors express oppositional important to point out how individual differ- intensity via subversive dominance behavior ences or cultural context might play a role in and can influence the status hierarchy within how such expressions are perceived. Gender the work unit (Bendersky & Hays, 2012). differences, for example, might come into play. When the receiver is deciding how to respond For instance, women report feeling more angry to these types of expression, ambiguity about than do men in response to unresolved conflicts the substance of the conflict exposes the re- that are characterized by continued fighting or ceiver to risk. For example, the ambiguity of the by the silent treatment (El-Sheikh, Buckhalt, & expression gives the other party the ability to Reiter, 2000). Corporate conflict culture could easily “decommit” or invalidate any response also play a role in setting the norms regarding with an “only joking” defense (for a review see which behaviors to respond to and which to ig- Johnson, 1990). There is also risk to the receiver nore (Gelfand, Leslie, Keller, & De Dreu, 2012). in responding to hurtful (but ambiguous) state- For example, in an organization where good- ments because responses can often reveal a natured teasing is the norm, a recipient can deeply personal reaction or thought process in laugh off the comment without inferring in- the receiver (Elfenbein, 2007) that can quickly be tended harm. But where such teasing is un- invalidated (e.g., “don’t be paranoid” or “you are usual, a recipient might question the “true” overanalyzing this”). In these situations the re- meaning of the comment. As we have discussed ceiver risks overreacting, looking foolish, or be- above, national culture also plays a part in how ing viewed as overly sensitive, and so might receivers respond to low-directness expressions, hesitate to express an authentic reaction or con- often turning more quickly to third-party medi- cern (Jehn, Rispens, & Thatcher, 2010). Research ation. These factors will influence the degree to on responses to this type of conflict expression which this type of spiral will or will not escalate suggest that typical reactions from receivers are and/or perpetuate itself. to respond in kind with sarcastic or insulting Low-directness expressions with low inten- humor, to turn to third parties to complain, or to sity. When both intensity and directness are retaliate if the receiver has high power or status low, receivers are subject to even greater ambi- (Crick & Dodge, 1994; Lightner, Bollmer, Harris, guity in interpreting a conflict expression. As Milich, & Scambler, 2000; Volkema, Farquhar, & described above, in the absence of direct ex- Bergmann, 1996). As such, in-kind interactions in pression to make information available, high the conflict process become characterized by oppositional intensity provides at least some carefully veiled subversive behaviors designed information about the target and intent of the to exert influence and avoid further negative receiver (i.e., the intent to harm is more overt outcomes, often observed as the “office politics” owing to higher levels of subversion). In con- around blocking goal progress, protecting one- trast, low directness with low oppositional in- self from further harm, or building coalitions (for tensity leaves the intention of the sender and a review see Vigoda-Gadot & Drory, 2008). When identification of the target ill-defined, so the this happens, people are left out or uninformed meaning and intent of the opposition are diffi- and information is not freely shared or reflected cult to infer and recognize. Conflict expressions 2015 Weingart, Behfar, Bendersky, Todorova, and Jehn 251 that are low oppositional intensity and low di- a strong focus on maintaining interpersonal rectness are passive and not targeted, such as harmony (Gelfand et al., 2008). withholding information, being noncommittal, In cultures where it is normative to be more and missing a deadline. this ambiguous and direct, this avoidance by the receiver is associ- undirected (i.e., passive) aggression creates a ated with lack of problem solving, fear around difficult situation for receivers: they experience addressing “undiscussables” (Argyris, 1990), opposition via disruption or disappointment and a more rigid learning mindset (Argyris, without knowing what to attribute it to or how 1982). As norms for behaviors strengthen, they big of a deal to make of it (Buss & Durkee, 1957). develop into processes or routines that suppress In these low-directness, low-intensity conflict or avoid conflict altogether (see Argyris, 1982, situations, the felt opposition is real but the 1985) and, instead, trigger interactions designed meaning is so ambiguous that receivers might to “smooth over” or avoid bringing up issues by question whether the behavior was even a con- finding ways to work around rather than engage flict expression in the first place. In response to the substance of a conflict. If the conflict is sup- ambiguous conflict expressions, receivers may pressed through these kinds of interactions, mis- experience negative, low-activation emotions of information and ambiguous intentions may be hurt, irritation, confusion, and guilt as they at- exacerbated, thereby eroding efficacy. The con- tempt to make sense of these expressions flict process that emerges is often described as (McIlduff & Coghlan, 2000). When they experi- collusion (e.g., McIlduff & Coghlan, 2000) or ence negatively valenced, low-activation emo- avoidant (Leung, 1988). In contrast, in cultures tions, recipients will tend to respond in kind where relational harmony is a positive social value, a low-directness and low oppositional in- with low-directness expressions, such as avoid- tensity approach is more normative, usually in- ance, stalling, and procrastination (McIlduff & cluding turning more quickly to the involvement Coghlan, 2000), because of the risk of potentially of third parties (Brett, 2007). Third parties pro- misidentifying, misinterpreting, or eliciting a vide a mechanism for minimizing the potential more difficult problem or pattern of behavior for the problem to escalate or expand to include with any given response. For example, address- others, without necessarily inducing the nega- ing a sender’s chronically late behavior that dis- tive collusion or avoidant conflict spirals de- rupts the group could damage interpersonal re- scribed above (Ambady et al., 1996; Brett et al., lationships if that person was actually 2014; Sanchez-Burks et al., 2003). committed to the group but juggling multiple In sum, the low-directness characteristic of commitments. Alternatively, questioning that expression, regardless of intensity, has the po- person might prompt a broader (more difficult) tential to provoke a conflict process where par- discussion about his or her commitment, or re- ties are more prone to subjective perception quire others to make sacrifices to accommodate about the meaning or intent of the conflict ex- the individual (raising fairness concerns). An- pression. A high-intensity expression provides other example involves responding to a col- the receiver with a degree of information about league who never says what he or she really intent, but the low directness can create ambi- means, which requires the discussion to focus guity about the sincerity or motivation for the on changing that person’s behavior (i.e., to be behavior. In contrast, low-intensity, low-direct- more direct when communicating), rather than ness expressions provide the receiver with little on figuring out the substance of the opposition. information about the extent or even existence Receivers thus have a different type of problem of a conflict. Thus, responding to opposition that than when they are responding to conflict ex- is low in both intensity and directness has the pressions that are low directness but high inten- potential to manufacture a problem where one sity because there is a broader range of poten- doesn’t exist or to exacerbate a small problem tial response options to choose from (e.g., ignore rather than solve it. However, the valence of the the behavior, respond in kind, or complain about emotion and the absolute amount of information it). This type of conflict process is difficult to acquired will be perceived as a function of the identify as a spiral but is evident nonetheless in cultural context and characteristics of the par- terms of the participants’ unwillingness to di- ticipants. These are important determinants of rectly respond, efforts to find workarounds, and the nature of a conflict spiral. 252 Academy of Management Review April

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ter explain the effects of conflict on information availability and use. Given the ambiguity that predominates and In addition, the conflict-type framework is perpetuates the extensive amount of research rather lackluster and confused in its treatment on conflict types, we think it is time to consider of emotion in the conflict process. Early on, conflict from a different perspective. By focusing scholars defined relationship conflict as affec- first on the characteristics of expressed conflict tive conflict (Amason, 1996; Pelled, Eisenhard, & behavior—directness and oppositional inten- Xin, 1999), and in later work discussed separat- sity—and then on the impact of those expressions ing the emotional aspect from the conflict type on receivers’ perceptions, emotional reactions, in- (Jehn & Bendersky, 2003), but in little work have formation availability, and conflict spirals, we of- they actually done so (for exceptions see Jehn et fer a more comprehensive conceptual framework al., 2008, and Todorova et al., 2014). Also missing of the conflict process. Our theoretical approach from the past framework regarding conflict helps resolve the paradox of the positive versus types is the escalation of emotion that can occur negative effects of conflict by shedding light on when conflict spirals lead to intractable con- the neglected effects of conflict expression, and flicts. While intractable conflicts have been ex- it extends conflict research by considering the amined at a more macro level, dealing with communication process, entrenchment, and sub- nations at war (Bar-Tal, 2000; Coleman, 2003; versiveness of action. Our hope is that this al- Kreiseberg, Northrup, & Thorson, 1989; Pruitt & ternative approach is embraced by conflict Olczak, 1995), they have not been integrated into scholars and will help move research on this the conflict-type paradigm, which focuses on topic forward in new and exciting directions. workgroups. We fully develop the concept of the responses to the expressions of conflict, both emotional and behavioral, to better delineate Implications for Theories of Conflict the escalation and de-escalation of interper- Our theorizing builds on the extant literature sonal conflict. on conflict in important ways. The literature has The positive and negative effects of task con- focused on type of conflict (task, process, and flict. Prior research on different types of conflict relationship), conflict management approaches has provided much insight into how conflict is or styles, conflict spirals, cross-cultural interac- experienced in groups and teams, as well as its tions, organizational conflict cultures, and other effects on individual and group outcomes. This contextual and individual factors. Our concep- literature has consistently identified contradic- tual framework extends each of these. tory findings across studies for the effects of Conflict types versus conflict expression. In task conflict on team performance (see meta- past research using the conflict-type paradigm analyses by De Dreu & Weingart, 2003a; de Wit (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003a; de Wit et al., 2012; et al., 2012; O’Neill et al., 2013). Focusing on Jehn, 1995), scholars have overly focused on per- conflict expression provides a different take on ceptions of the content of task, process, and re- the varying effects of task conflict. lationship conflict within a group, while ignor- Task conflict includes disagreements over ing conflict expression and behavior. Our ideas and opinions pertaining to a group’s framework offers a broader window on the con- task—for example, what the objective of a proj- flict process by incorporating conflict expres- ect should be or what the best course of action is sion, perceptions, and process spirals. In addi- (Jehn, 1995, 1997). Scholars have shown this type tion, in past approaches scholars have only of conflict both helps and hinders team perfor- tangentially addressed information about the mance and have identified several moderators conflict and sender’s intentions, a key concept in of the effect (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003a,b; de Wit our model. For example, conflict-type ap- et al., 2012; Jehn & Bendersky, 2003; O’Neill et al., proaches theorize but rarely explicitly examine 2013). One prominent moderator is the co- the mediating role of information acquisition in occurrence of relationship conflict with task con- the effect of task conflict on improved decision flict. Two meta-analyses of the conflict literature making (for an exception see Todorova et al., found that the relationship between task conflict 2014). We believe that our more integrative con- and team performance is more negative in ceptual framework will allow researchers to bet- teams that also have high levels of relationship 2015 Weingart, Behfar, Bendersky, Todorova, and Jehn 253 conflict (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003a; de Wit et al., intensity or more directness. Future research is 2012). This implies that the task conflict is either needed to tease apart the effects of conflict type occurring in a hostile environment or transform- from conflict expression to determine their inde- ing into relationship conflict. Either way, our pendent effects on individual and team outcomes. framework would predict that when relationship Conflict management approaches. Extant re- conflict is also present, task conflict is likely to search on conflict management identifies five be expressed with more intensity in terms of distinct approaches that are influenced both by entrenchment and subversion. situational features and people’s preferred Another example is the curvilinear, inverted-U ways of resolving conflict. These approaches in- effect of task conflict on team performance and clude collaborating/problem solving, compet- innovation that has been observed, indicating ing, avoiding, giving in, and compromising that moderate task conflict is optimal for teams (Pruitt & Rubin, 1986). Interestingly, the literature (De Dreu, 2006; Farh, Lee, & Farh, 2010; Jehn, on conflict type and the literature on conflict 1995), especially when relationship conflict is management approaches are largely indepen- low (Shaw et al., 2011). De Dreu (2006) argued dent. However, a recent meta-analysis of studies that conflict intensity (in the form of tension) incorporating both demonstrates independent interferes with complex thinking in a curvilinear effects of conflict types (task and relationship fashion. Walton (1969) argued that low conflict conflict) and conflict management processes intensity leads to avoidance and inactivity, (collaborating, avoiding, competing) on both whereas high conflict intensity reduces one’s team effectiveness and affective outcomes capacity to perceive and process information, (DeChurch et al., 2013). There is also some evi- both resulting in poor joint performance. Our dence that the conflict management approach conceptual framework could help elucidate used moderates the relationship between con- Walton’s by identifying the characteristics of ex- flict type and team outcomes (Behfar, Peterson, pression that are likely to drive the low versus Mannix, & Trochim, 2008; DeChurch & Marks, high conflict intensity effects. What Walton 2001; Greer, Jehn, & Mannix, 2008; Kuhn & Poole, (1969) referred to as low-intensity conflict is sim- 2000; Tekleab, Quigley, & Tesluk, 2009). Our con- ilar to our characterization of low oppositional ceptual framework of conflict expression might intensity, low-directness conflict expression, in serve well to link the conflict literature and con- that both can trigger inactivity and avoidance. flict management literature because it is likely Walton’s (1969) high-intensity conflict aligns that the way in which a conflict is expressed with our characterization of high oppositional will influence the choice of conflict manage- intensity, low-directness conflict expression, ment approach. For example, conflicts that are where tension is high and expressions are sub- more direct and less oppositionally intense versive but may be vague, resulting in difficul- might be more likely to evoke collaborative/ ties in information exchange. Finally, moder- problem-solving approaches to resolving the ately intense conflicts relate to our low conflict. This occurs because direct, clear com- oppositional intensity, high-directness quad- munication between the parties in the conflict, rant, where parties engage in more information coupled with less subversion and entrenchment, search, integration, and openness to informa- should build the trust and willingness needed to tion, resulting in the highest performance. find mutually beneficial solutions. Conflicts that It is also plausible that conflict type and ex- are less direct and more oppositionally intense, pression interact such that the distinct effects of however, might increase the likelihood of using type vary by the oppositional intensity and di- competing or avoiding approaches to resolve rectness with which conflicts of different types the conflict. These conflicts might invite recipro- are expressed. For example, the distinctions cal action from receivers who experience anger among conflict types may be more salient when and perceive themselves as equally powerful, or they are expressed with less oppositional inten- avoidance from those who experience sadness sity and more directness. People may consis- and don’t believe they are powerful enough tently respond negatively to intensely or indi- to act. rectly expressed conflicts of any type, but have Conflict spirals. Understanding the processes more nuanced reactions to conflicts of different typified in conflict spirals is important because types that are expressed with less oppositional these processes lead to proximate and distal 254 Academy of Management Review April outcomes that have substantial implications for being confronted. Thus, while low directness individual, team, and organizational effective- may not interfere with the transmission of infor- ness (de Wit et al., 2012). Much like downward mation when both parties are culturally attuned vicious efficacy spirals (Lindsley et al., 1995), the to indirect expression, differences in directness shared experience in an escalatory conflict spi- will result in a loss of information when the ral erodes trust (Brett, Northcraft, & Pinkley, more direct receiver has difficulty “reading be- 1999), and the imbalanced outcomes, such as tween the lines” and the more indirect receiver extremely one-sided outcomes, that tend to re- has difficulty seeing past the “crassness” of the sult (Brett et al., 1998) may decrease participants’ other party (Ambady et al., 1996; Sanchez-Burks collective belief that they can solve their prob- et al., 2003). Across cultures it is not necessarily lems and work together effectively in the future. the directness that influences how much infor- Most of the research in this area has focused on mation is being conveyed or how ambiguous it breaking escalating conflict spirals by not recip- is but, rather, how culturally attuned the parties rocating contentious communication at all are to recognize the differences. Similarly, if dis- (Schelling, 1960), or by reciprocating with a mix putants hold dissimilar norms for what is or of contentious and noncontentious communica- is not intense—for example, expectations of ap- tion (e.g., Brett et al., 1998). Thus, identifying the propriate levels of argumentativeness—they are combinations of conflict expressions that are more likely to escalate their conflict when a less more and less likely to generate escalatory con- normatively intense receiver “overreacts” to a flict spirals through these different mechanisms more normatively intense sender’s expressed is important for predicting the likelihood that line of reasoning. As such, we hope that our participants will experience proximate or distal conceptual framework will contribute to the outcomes shown to increase effectiveness, such cross-cultural literature by carefully explicating as collective efficacy and future performance how the properties of expression can influence (Lindsley et al., 1995). actions and reactions during conflict episodes. Contextual factors and characteristics of the Organizational conflict cultures. Our concep- disputants. We have argued that disputant char- tual framework complements the recent work on acteristics and the conflict context will influence conflict cultures in organizations (Gelfand et al., both the way people encode conflict expressions 2012; Gelfand et al., 2008). Conflict cultures, de- in terms of their directness and oppositional in- fined as shared norms that specify how conflict tensity and the development of conflict spirals. should be managed in organizations, may man- While we primarily focused on the role of na- ifest at higher levels of analysis if the conflict tional culture, other contextual factors are spirals discussed above become normatively clearly important. Next we extend our discus- entrenched. Or the conflict spirals and concom- sion of culture to consider cross-cultural interac- itant conflict expressions might reflect the con- tions and organizational conflict culture. We flict culture within which they occur. then explore in more detail the role of gender, Gelfand and colleagues (Gelfand et al., 2012; personality, communication skills, and dispu- Gelfand et al., 2008) have identified four conflict tant familiarity with one another. cultures that are relevant to our conceptual Cross-cultural interactions. For understand- framework: passive aggressive, dominating, ing cross-cultural conflict, our conceptual frame- collaborating, and avoiding. For example, when work may be useful in explaining how the intent conflict events in a firm are characterized by of the sender can be misinterpreted by the re- low-intensity, low-directness expressions like ceiver. For example, if a well-intentioned West- passive aggression, incivility, or teasing in fun, ern sender expresses conflict with clear articu- they may be associated with a passive aggres- lation of the problem (high directness) and a sive conflict culture. In passive aggressive cul- willingness to recognize the interests of the tures conflict is not dealt with in an open and other party (low intensity), an Eastern receiver active manner. Instead, norms develop that sup- may interpret the directness of the message as a port passive resistance, competition, and anti- direct face threat (Ting-Toomey & Kurogi, 1998). social behavior, with specific constraints on That is, when norms of confrontation differ, it is their expression (Gelfand et al., 2008). Similarly, likely that there will be conflict about appropri- we expect that conflict events typified by highly ate forms of confrontation in addition to what is direct and oppositionally intense expressions 2015 Weingart, Behfar, Bendersky, Todorova, and Jehn 255 might be related to a dominating conflict cul- sertion (Stuhlmacher & Linnabery, 2013). Women ture, “characterized by conflict management are less likely to initiate negotiations, more likely norms that encourage active confrontation in to engage in cooperative behavior, and more order to publicly win conflicts” (Gelfand et al., likely to experience backlash when they engage 2012: 1133). Conflict events typified by high di- in agentic behavior (Amanatullah & Morris, 2010; rectness and low oppositional intensity might Bowles, Babcock, & McGinn, 2005; for recent re- be consistent with a collaborative conflict cul- views of this literature, see Olekalns, in press, and ture, “characterized by conflict management Stuhlmacher & Linnabery, 2013). In addition, gen- norms for active, cooperative discussion of con- der may interact with race and ethnicity in both flict” (Gelfand et al., 2012: 1133). the expression and perception of conflict behav- The relation of our conceptual framework to iors in diverse work relationships (cf. Biernat & their final conflict culture, avoidant cultures, is Kobrynowicz, 1997; Livingston, Rosette, & Wash- a bit more complicated. Avoidant conflict cul- ington, 2012; Ragins & Winkel, 2011). tures are characterized by agreeable, passive Personality, communication skills, and dispu- behaviors, such as acquiescence and accommo- tant familiarity. There is some evidence that peo- dation (Gelfand et al., 2012). Although these be- ple with different personality traits demonstrate haviors might be related to low-directness, low- reliable reactions to conflict situations. For exam- intensity conflict expressions, when one thinks ple, perceivers higher in agreeableness tend to about them as a cultural norm, they describe see less conflict in their interactions with others conflict suppression rather than expression. than do perceivers lower in agreeableness (Gra- Thus, the boundary between expressing conflicts ziano, Jensen-Campbell, & Hair, 1996), and they indirectly and with low intensity and avoiding are therefore more likely to experience subjective conflicts altogether needs to be explored in future distress when they do encounter conflict than research. those lower in agreeableness. People who are Gender. The gender of the disputant is likely to higher in neuroticism tend to be more reactive to be relevant in our conceptual framework. Gender both conflict and nonconflict problems (Suls, Mar- influences both the ways people choose to express tin, & David, 1998). Future research might consider conflict (Amanatullah & Morris, 2010) and the how personality traits influence the expression of ways recipients perceive the conflict expression and reaction to conflict. (Kulik & Olekalns, 2012; Rudman, 1998). Social role Another avenue of interesting research would theory (Eagly, 1987) suggests that women are ex- be to examine the influence that individuals with pected to be more communal and less agentic poor communication skills have on conflict spi- than men, and that they often adjust their behav- rals. For example, if people “talk past” one an- ior to conform to these expectations. When people other or do not communicate clearly, it is likely do not conform to expectations, others may react to that intensity of expression will rise as they raise them negatively (Kulik & Olekalns, 2012; Rudman their voices or repeat entrenched points in order to & Phelan, 2008). Thus, it follows that the expres- be “understood” better. The way individuals react sion of more intense and more direct conflict be- to confusion, are open to alternative ideas, and haviors (which can be characterized as dominant like structure and order in their ideas may be and agentic) by women may violate gender role important individual differences to consider. Poor stereotypes, resulting in more negative reactions communication, while itself not an expression of and attributions by the receiver. Similarly, a given opposition, is a likely trigger of an in-kind reaction conflict behavior—say, arguing one’s point—may pattern that can trigger conflict spirals. be seen as more intense or as more emotional As with any individual difference, the more when expressed by a woman rather than a man as senders and receivers become familiar with one a consequence of shifting standards (Biernat, 1995; another, the more person-specific knowledge they Ragins & Winkel, 2011). That is, because observers gain that will influence how they perceive the hold stereotypes of women as being less agentic other party’s expression. That is, one of the ways than men, any agentic behavior displayed by a that people interpret others’ intentions in the per- woman will be viewed as more extreme (e.g., in- ceptual process is by the consistency of behavior tense) than it would had it been displayed by a and how appropriate it is in the context in which man (Biernat, Manis, & Nelson, 1991). Research on they observe it (Martinko, 2005). After repeated in- gender and negotiation supports this general as- tense interactions, for example, a receiver may 256 Academy of Management Review April come to recognize or learn that the other party cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, typically has an entrenched reaction to every- 70: 996–1011. thing—and thereby learn to ignore that informa- Ambady, N., & Rosenthal, R. 1992. Thin slices of expressive tion in his or her interpretation. Two people may behavior as predictors of interpersonal consequences: A also learn that they prefer to express opposition meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111: 256–274. differently (one might prefer to be direct, whereas Ambady, N., & Rosenthal, R. 1993. Half a minute: Predicting the other might be more comfortable being indi- teacher evaluations from thin slices of nonverbal behav- ior and physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality rect). In this case the parties may become more and Social Psychology, 64: 431–441. accurate in perceiving the intentions and the mes- Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. 1999. Tit for tat? The sage of the other person as they become familiar spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace. Academy with their difference. A better understanding of of Management Review, 24: 452–471. the conflict process when parties express opposi- Antonioni, D. 1998. Relationship between the Big Five per- tion with different expression styles, rather than sonality factors and conflict management styles. Inter- in-kind reactions, is an interesting area for future national Journal of Conflict Management, 9: 336–355. empirical study. Argyris, C. 1982. Reasoning, learning and action: Individual and organizational. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Argyris, C. 1985. Strategy, change, and defensive routines. Conclusion Marshfield, MA: Pitman. In conclusion, the time is ripe for a new way to Argyris, C. 1990. Overcoming organizational defenses: Facil- itating organizational learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: think about conflict. The literature on conflict Prentice Hall. type has produced conflicting results. In re- Ayoko, O. B., Callan, V. J., & Hartel, C. E. J. 2003. Workplace sponse, many mediators and moderators of the conflict, bullying, and counterproductive behaviors. In- effect of conflict type on team performance have ternational Journal of Organizational Analysis, 11: 283– been proposed, resulting in a lack of parsimony. 301. We believe that focusing on conflict expression Barker, J., Tjosvold, D., & Andrews, I. R. 1988. Conflict ap- will help integrate the disparate results in prior proaches of effective and ineffective managers: A field research and open new avenues of research. We study in a matrix organization. Journal of Management think a focus on conflict expression also will Studies, 25: 167–178. help us better understand the conflict process Barki, H., & Hartwick, J. 2004. Conceptualizing the construct and will provide a clearer view into how and of interpersonal conflict. International Journal of Con- why processes differ from one another and why flict Management, 15: 216–244. people react to conflict differently. It is our hope Baron, R. A., & Neuman, J. H. 1996. Workplace violence and that a call to focus on conflict expression will workplace aggression: Evidence on their relative fre- quency and potential causes. Aggressive Behavior, 22: initiate a new stream of research aimed at better 161–173. understanding how to manage and maximize the Barsade, S. G. 2002. The ripple effect: Emotional contagion potential benefits of conflict in organizations. and its influence on group behavior. Administrative Sci- ence Quarterly, 47: 644–675. Bar-Tal, D. 2000. From intractable conflict through conflict REFERENCES resolution to reconciliation: Psychological analysis. Po- litical Psychology, 21: 351–365. Alberts, J. K. 1992. An inferential/strategic explanation for the social organisation of teases. Journal of Language and Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. M. Social Psychology, 11: 153–177. 1998. Ego depletion: Is the active self a limited resource? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74: 1252– Amanatullah, E. T., & Morris, M. W. 2010. Negotiating gender 1265. roles: Gender differences in assertive negotiating are mediated by women’s fear of backlash and attenuated Beatty, M. J., Valencic, K. M., Rudd, J. E., & Dobos, J. A. 1999. A when negotiating on behalf of others. Journal of Person- “dark side” of communication avoidance: Indirect inter- ality and Social Psychology, 98: 256–267. personal aggressiveness. Communication Research Re- ports, 16: 103–109. Amason, A. C. 1996. Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on strategic decision making: Behfar, K. J., Mannix, E. A., Peterson, R. S., & Trochim, W. M. Resolving a paradox for top management teams. Acad- 2011. Conflict in small groups: The meaning and conse- emy of Management Journal, 39: 123–148. quences of process conflict. Small Group Research, 42: 127–176. Ambady, N., Koo, J., Lee, F., & Rosenthal, R. 1996. More than words: Linguistic and nonlinguistic politeness in two Behfar, K. J., Peterson, R. S., Mannix, E. A., & Trochim, W. M. 2015 Weingart, Behfar, Bendersky, Todorova, and Jehn 257

2008. The critical role of conflict resolution in teams: A flict management: 136-154. Cheltenham, UK: Edward close look at the links between conflict type, conflict Edgar. management strategies, and team outcomes. Journal of Brett, J. M., Olekalns, M., Friedman, R., Goates, N., Anderson, Applied Psychology, 93: 170–188. C., & Lisco, C. C. 2007. Sticks and stones: Language, face, Bendersky, C., Bear, J., Behfar, K. J., Weingart, L. R., Todorova, and online dispute resolution. Academy of Management G., & Jehn, K. A. 2014. Identifying gaps between the Journal, 50: 85–99. conceptualization of conflict and its measurement. In N. Brett, J. M., Shapiro, D. L., & Lytle, A. L. 1998. Breaking the Ashkanasy, O. Ayoko, & K. A. Jehn (Eds.), Handbook of bonds of reciprocity in negotiations. Academy of Man- research in conflict management: 79–89. Cheltenham, agement Journal, 41: 410–424. UK: Edward Elgar. Brockner, J. 1992. The escalation of commitment to a failing Bendersky, C., & Hays, N. A. 2012. Status conflict in groups. course of action: Toward theoretical progress. Academy Organization Science, 23: 323–340. of Management Review, 17: 39–61. Berlyne, D. E. 1950. Stimulus intensity and attention in rela- Brody, L. R. 1997. Gender and emotion: Beyond stereotypes. tion to learning theory. Quarterly Journal of Experimen- Journal of Social Issues, 53: 369–393. tal Psychology, 2: 71–75. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in Beutell, N. J., & Greenhaus, J. H. 1983. Integration of home and language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University non-home roles: Women’s conflict and coping behavior. Press. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68: 43–48. Bruner, J. S. 1957. On perceptual readiness. Psychological Biernat, M. 1995. The shifting standards model: Implications Review, 64: 38–57. of stereotype accuracy for social judgment. In Y. Lee, L. Bush, D. F. 1983. Passive-aggressive behavior in the busi- Jussim, & C. R. McCauley (Eds.), Stereotype accuracy: ness setting. In R. D. Parsons & R. J. Wicks (Eds.), Passive- Toward appreciating group differences: 87–114. Wash- aggressiveness: Theory and practice: 155–173. New York: ington, DC: American Psychological Association. Brunner/Mazel. Biernat, M., & Kobrynowicz, D. 1997. Gender- and race-based Buss, A. H., & Durkee, A. 1957. An inventory for assessing standards of competence: Lower minimum standards different kinds of hostility. Journal of Consulting Psy- but higher ability standards for devalued groups. Jour- chology, 21: 343–349. nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72: 544–557. Byrne, B. M. 1998. Structural equation modeling with Lisrel, Biernat, M., Manis, M., & Nelson, T. E. 1991. Stereotypes and Prelis, and Simplis: Basic concepts, applications, and pro- standards of judgment. Journal of Personality and Social gramming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Psychology, 60: 485–499. Chambers, J. R., & Melnyk, D. 2006. Why do I hate thee? Bowers, J. W. 1963. Language intensity, social introversion, Conflict misperceptions and intergroup mistrust. Per- and attitude change. Speech Monographs, 30: 345–352. sonality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32: 1295–1311. Bowles, H. R., Babcock, L., & McGinn, K. L. 2005. Constraints Chen, M. J., & Ayoko, O. B. 2012. Conflict and trust: The and triggers: Situational mechanics of gender in nego- mediating effects of emotional arousal and self- tiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89: conscious emotions. International Journal of Conflict 951–965. Management, 23: 19–56. Bradac, J. J., Bowers, J. W., & Courtwright, J. A. 1979. Three Coleman, P. T. 2003. Characteristics of protracted, intracta- language variables in communication research: Inten- ble conflict: Toward the development of a metaframe- sity, immediacy, and diversity. Human Communication work—I. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychol- Research, 5: 257–269. ogy, 9: 1–37. Brescoll, V. L., & Uhlmann, E. L. 2008. Can an angry woman Cortina, L. M., Magley, V. J., Williams, J. H., & Langhout, R. D. get ahead? Status conferral, gender, and expression of 2001. Incivility in the workplace: Incidence and impact. emotion in the workplace. Psychological Science, 19: Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6: 64–80. 268–275. Cosier, R. A., & Rose, G. L. 1977. Cognitive conflict and goal Brett, J. F., Northcraft, G. B., & Pinkley, R. L. 1999. Stairways to conflict effects on task performance. Organizational Be- heaven: An interlocking self-regulation model of nego- havior and Human Performance, 19: 378–391. tiation. Academy of Management Review, 24: 435–451. Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. 1994. A review and reformulation Brett, J. M. 2000. Culture and negotiation. International Jour- of social information-processing mechanisms in chil- nal of Psychology, 35: 97–104. dren’s social adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 115: Brett, J. M. 2007. Negotiating globally: How to negotiate 74–101. deals, resolve disputes, and make decisions across cul- Cronin, M. A., & Bezrukova, K. 2006. Sweet and sour conflict: tural boundaries (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Information and affront as active ingredients of dis- Brett, J. M., Behfar, K. J., & Sanchez-Burks, J. 2014. Managing agreements. Paper presented at the annual conference cross-cultural conflicts: A close look at the implication of of the International Association of Conflict Manage- direct versus indirect confrontation. In N. Ashkanasy, O. ment, Montreal. Ayoko, & K. A. Jehn (Eds.), Handbook of research in con- Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. 1984. Information richness: A new 258 Academy of Management Review April

approach to managerial information processing and or- behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quar- ganization design. Research in Organizational Behav- terly, 44: 350–383. ior, 6: 191–233. Edmondson, A. C., Dillon, J. R., & Roloff, K. S. 2007. Three Dane, E. 2010. Reconsidering the trade-off between expertise perspectives on team learning: Outcome improvement, and flexibility: A cognitive entrenchment perspective. task mastery, and group process. Academy of Manage- Academy of Management Review, 35: 579–603. ment Annals, 1: 269–314. DeChurch, L. A., & Marks, M. A. 2001. Maximizing the benefits Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. Building theories from case study of task conflict: The role of conflict management. Inter- research. Academy of Management Review, 14: 532–550. national Journal of Conflict Management, 12: 4–22. Eknam, P., Friesen, W. V., & Ellsworth, P. 1972. Emotion in the DeChurch, L. A., Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., & Doty, D. 2013. Mov- human face: Guidelines for research and an integration ing beyond relationship and task conflict: Toward a of findings. New York: Pergamon. process-state perspective. Journal of Applied Psychol- Elfenbein, H. A. 2007. Emotion in organizations: A review and ogy, 98: 559–578. theoretical integration. Academy of Management An- De Dreu, C. K. W. 2006. When too little or too much hurts: nals, 1: 315–386. Evidence for a curvilinear relationship between task Ellis, D. G., & Maoz, I. 2002. Cross-cultural argument interac- conflict and innovation in teams. Journal of Manage- tions between Israeli-Jews and Palestinians. Journal of ment, 32: 83–107. Applied Communication Research, 30: 181–194. De Dreu, C. K. W. 2007. Cooperative outcome interdepen- El-Sheikh, M., Buckhalt, J. A., & Reiter, S. L. 2000. Gender- dence, task reflexivity, and team effectiveness: A moti- related effects in emotional responding to resolved and vated information processing perspective. Journal of Ap- unresolved interpersonal conflict. Sex Roles, 43: 719–734. plied Psychology, 92: 628–638. Farh, J. L., Lee, C., & Farh, C. I. 2010. Task conflict and team De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. 2003a. Task versus creativity: A question of how much and when. Journal of relationship conflict, team performance and team mem- Applied Psychology, 95: 1173–1180. ber satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 741–749. Feghali, E. 1997. Arab cultural communication patterns. In- ternational Journal of Intercultural Relations, 21: 345– De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. 2003b. A contingency 378. theory of task conflict and performance in groups and organizational teams. In M. West, D. Tjosvold, & K. Smith Feldman-Barrett, L., & Russell, J. A. 1998. Independence and (Eds.), International handbook of organizational team- bipolarity in the structure of current affect. Journal of work and cooperative working: 151–166. Chichester, UK: Personality and Social Psychology, 74: 967–984. Wiley. Festinger, L. 1957. A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, De Jong, B. A., & Elfring, T. 2010. How does trust affect the CA: Stanford University Press. performance of ongoing teams? The mediating role of Fisher, R., Ury, W. L., & Patton, B. 1991. Getting to yes: Nego- reflexivity, monitoring, and effort. Academy of Manage- tiating agreement without giving in. New York: Penguin. ment Journal, 53: 535–549. Fiske, S. T. 1993. Social cognition and social perception. Deutsch, M. 1968. The effects of cooperation and competition Annual Review of Psychology, 44: 155–194. upon group process. In D. Cartwright & A. Zander (Eds.), Group dynamics: Research and theory (3rd ed.): 461–482. Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. 1985. If it changes it must be a New York: Harper & Row. process: Study of emotion and coping during three stages of a college examination. Journal of Personality de Wit, F. R., Greer, L. L., & Jehn, K. A. 2012. The paradox of and Social Psychology, 48: 150–170. intragroup conflict: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97: 360–390. Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Dunkel-Schetter, C., DeLongis, A., & Gruen, R. J. 1986. Dynamics of a stressful encounter: Donohue, W. A. 2012. The identity trap: The language of Cognitive appraisal, coping, and encounter outcomes. genocide. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50: 992– 31: 13–29. 1003. Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., Shaw, J. D., Johnson, J. L., & Friedman, H. S., & Riggio, R. E. 1981. Effect of individual Pagon, M. 2006. The social context of undermining be- differences in nonverbal expressiveness on transmis- havior at work. Organizational Behavior and Human sion of emotion. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 6: 96– Decision Processes, 101: 105–126. 104. Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., & Pagon, M. 2002. Social under- Gelfand, M. J., Leslie, L. M., Keller, K., & De Dreu, C. 2012. mining in the workplace. Academy of Management Jour- Conflict cultures in organizations: How leaders shape nal, 45: 331–351. conflict cultures and their organizational level conse- Eagly, A. H. 1987. Sex differences in social behavior: A social- quences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97: 1131–1147. role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum As- Gelfand, M. J., Leslie, L. M., & Keller, K. M. 2008. On the sociates. etiology of conflict cultures. Research in Organizational Edmondson, A. C. 1999. Psychological safety and learning Behavior, 28: 137–166. 2015 Weingart, Behfar, Bendersky, Todorova, and Jehn 259

Gibb, J. R. 1961. Defensive communication. Journal of Com- dence, team development, and contextual support vari- munication, 11: 141–148. ables. Personnel Psychology, 50: 877–904. Goffman, E. 1959. The presentation of self in everyday life. Jehn, K. A. 1995. A multimethod examination of the benefits Garden City, NY: Doubleday. and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40: 256–282. Goldberg, L. R. 1990. An alternative “description of person- ality”: The Big-Five factor structure. Journal of Personal- Jehn, K. A. 1997. A qualitative analysis of conflict types and ity and Social Psychology, 59: 1216–1229. dimensions in organizational groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42: 530–557. Gottman, J., Markman, H., & Notarius, C. 1977. The topogra- phy of marital conflict: A sequential analysis of verbal Jehn, K. A., & Bendersky, C. 2003. Intragroup conflict in orga- and nonverbal behavior. Journal of Marriage and the nizations: A contingency perspective on the conflict- Family, 39: 461–477. outcome relationship. Research in Organizational Be- havior, 25: 187–242. Gottman, J., & Silver, N. 1999. The seven principles for making marriage work. New York: Three Rivers Press. Jehn, K. A., Greer, L. L., Levine, S., & Szulanski, G. 2008. The effects of conflict types, dimensions, and emergent Graziano, W. G., Jensen-Campbell, L. A., & Hair, E. C. 1996. states on group outcomes. Group Decision and Negotia- Perceiving interpersonal conflict and reacting to it: The tion, 17: 465–495. case for agreeableness. Journal of Personality and So- cial Psychology, 70: 820–835. Jehn, K. A., & Mannix, E. A. 2001. The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and Greer, L. L., & Jehn, K. A. 2007. The pivitol role of negative group performance. Academy of Management Journal, affect in understanding the effects of process conflict on 44: 238–251. group performance. In E. Mannix, M. Neal, & C. Ander- son (Eds.), Research on managing groups and teams, vol. Jehn, K. A., Rispens, S., & Thatcher, S. M. B. 2010. The effects 10: 23–43. Oxford: Elsevier Science. of conflict asymmetry on work group and individual outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 53: 596– Greer, L. L., Jehn, K. A., & Mannix, E. A. 2008. Conflict trans- 616. formation: A longitudinal investigation of the relation- ships between different types of intragroup conflict and Jehn, K. A., Rupert, J., Nauta, A., & van den Bossch, S. 2010. the moderating role of conflict resolution. Small Group Crooked conflicts: The effects of conflict asymmetry in Research, 39: 278–302. mediation. Negotiation and Conflict Management Re- search, 3: 338–357. Grice, H. P. 1968. Utterer’s meaning, sentence-meaning and word meaning. Foundations of Language, 4: 225–242. Johnson, A. M. 1990. The “only joking” defense: Attribution bias or impression management? Psychological Re- Hall, E. 1976. Beyond culture. New York: Doubleday. ports, 67: 1051–1056. Harvey, J. B. 1989. Some thoughts about organizational back- Katriel, T. 1986. Talking straight: Dugri speech in Israeli stabbing: Or, how come every time I get stabbed in the sabra culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. back my fingerprints are on the knife? Academy of Man- agement Executive, 3(4): 271–277. Keltner, D., Capps, L., Kring, A. M., Young, R. C., & Heerey, E. A. 2001. Just teasing: A conceptual analysis and em- Heuer, L. B., & Penrod, S. 1986. Procedural preference as a pirical review. Psychological Bulletin, 127: 229–248. function of conflict intensity. Journal of Personality and Ketrow, S. M. 1999. Nonverbal aspects of group communica- Social Psychology, 51: 700–710. tion. In L. R. Frey, D. Gouran, & M. S. Poole (Eds.), The Hiltrop, J. M., & Rubin, J. Z. 1982. Effects of intervention mode handbook of group communication theory and research: and conflict of interest on dispute resolution. Journal of 251–287. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Personality and Social Psychology, 42: 665–672. Kohler, I. 1963. The formation and transformation of the per- Hirowaka, R. Y., & Pace, R. 1983. A descriptive investigation ceptual world. Psychological Issues, 3(4, Monograph 12): of the possible communication-based reasons for effec- 1–173. tive and ineffective group decision making. Communi- Kopelman, S., & Rosette, A. S. 2008. Cultural variation in cation Monographs, 50: 363–379. response to strategic emotions in negotiations. Group Hofstede, G. 1980. Cultures and organizations: Software of Decision and Negotiation, 17: 65–77. the mind. New York: McGraw-Hill. Kreiseberg, L., Northrup, T. A., & Thorson, S. J. 1989. Intracta- Hutchinson, J. C., & Tenenbaum, G. 2007. Attention focus ble conflicts and their transformation. Syracuse, NY: Syr- during physical effort: The mediating role of task inten- acuse University Press. sity. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 8: 233–245. Kuhn, T., & Poole, M. S. 2000. Do conflict management styles Jacob, R. G., Thayer, J. F., Manuck, S. B., Muldoon, M. F., affect group decision making? Evidence from a longitu- Tamres, L. K., Williams, D. M., Ding, Y., & Gatsonis, C. dinal field study. Human Communication Research, 26: 1999. Ambulatory blood pressure responses and the cir- 558–590. cumplex model of mood: A 4-day study. Psychosomatic Kulik, C. T., & Olekalns, M. 2012. Negotiating the gender Medicine, 61: 319–333. divide: Lessons from the negotiation and organizational Janz, B. D., Colquitt, J. A., & Noe, R. A. 1997. Knowledge worker behavior literatures. Journal of Management, 38: 1387– team effectiveness: The role of autonomy, interdepen- 1415. 260 Academy of Management Review April

Larsen, J. T., McGraw, A. P., & Cacioppo, J. T. 2001. Can Olekalns, M., & Smith, P. L. 2000. Understanding optimal people feel happy and sad at the same time? Journal of outcomes: The role of strategic sequences in competitive Personality and Social Psychology, 81: 684–696. negotiations. Human Communication Research, 26: 527– Laursen, B., & Collins, W. A. 1994. Interpersonal conflict dur- 557. ing adolescence. Psychological Bulletin, 115: 197–209. Olekalns, M., & Weingart, L. R. 2008. Emergent negotiations: Lee, A. Y., & Aaker, J. L. 2004. Bringing the frame into focus: Stability and shifts in negotiation dynamics. Negotia- The influence of regulatory fit on processing fluency and tion and Conflict Management Research, 1: 135–160. persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- O’Neill, T. A., Allen, N. J., & Hastings, S. E. 2013. Examining ogy, 86: 205–218. the “pros” and “cons” of team conflict: A team-level Leung, K. 1988. Some determinants of conflict avoidance. meta-analysis of task, relationship, and process conflict. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 19: 125–136. Human Performance, 26: 236–260. Lightner, R. M., Bollmer, J. M., Harris, M. J., Milich, R., & Pearson, C. M., Andersson, L. M., & Wegner, J. W. 2001. When Scambler, D. J. 2000. What do you say to teasers? Parent workers flout convention: A study of workplace incivil- and child evaluations of responses to teasing. Journal of ity. Human Relations, 54: 1387–1419. Applied Developmental Psychology, 21: 403–427. Pelled, L. H., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Xin, K. R. 1999. Exploring the Lindsley, D. H., Brass, D. J., & Thomas, J. B. 1995. Efficacy- black box: An analysis of work group diversity, conflict performance spirals: A multilevel perspective. Academy and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44: of Management Review, 20: 645–678. 1–28. Livingston, R. W., Rosette, A. S., & Washington, E. F. 2012. Peterson, D. R. 1983. Conflict. In H. Kelly, E. Berscheid, A. Can an agentic black woman get ahead? The impact of Christensen, J. Harvey, T. Huston, G. Levinger, E. Mc- race and interpersonal dominance on perceptions of Clintock, L. Peplau, & D. Peterson (Eds.), Analyzing close female leaders. Psychological Science, 23: 354–358. relationships: 360–396. New York: Freeman. Maddux, W. W., Kim, P. H., Okumura, T., & Brett, J. M. 2011. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. 1986. The elaboration likelihood Cultural differences in the function and meaning of model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social apologies. International Negotiation, 16: 405–425. Psychology, 19: 123–205. Martinko, M. (Ed.). 2005. Attribution theory in the organiza- Pondy, L. R. 1967. Organizational conflict: Concepts and tion sciences: Theoretical and empirical contributions. models. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12: 296–320. Tallahassee: Florida State University. Porath, C. L., & Erez, A. 2007. Does rudeness really matter? McIlduff, E., & Coghlan, D. 2000. Understanding and contend- The effects of rudeness on task performance and help- ing with passive-aggressive behaviour in teams and fulness. Academy of Management Journal, 50: 1181–1197. organizations. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 15: Pratt, M. G. 2000. The good, the bad, and the ambivalent: 716–736. Managing identification among Amway distributors. Mehrabian, A., & Williams, M. 1969. Nonverbal concomitants Administrative Science Quarterly, 45: 456–493. of perceived and intended persuasiveness. Journal of Pruitt, D. G. 1983. Strategic choice in negotiation. American Personality and Social Psychology, 13: 37–58. Behavioral Scientist, 27: 167–194. Meyers, R., Brashers, D. E., & Hanner, J. 2000. Majority/ Pruitt, D. G., & Lewis, S. A. 1975. Development of integrative minority influence: Identifying argumentative patterns solutions in bilateral negotiation. Journal of Personality and predicting argument-outcome links. Journal of Com- and Social Psychology, 31: 621–633. munication, 50: 3–30. Pruitt, D. G., & Olczak, P. V. 1995. Beyond hope: Approaches Millon, T. 1993. Negativistic (passive-aggressive) personality to resolving seemingly intractable conflict. In B. Bunker disorder. Journal of Personality Disorders, 7: 78–85. & J. Z. Rubin (Eds.), Conflict, cooperation, and justice: Newton, D. A., & Burgoon, J. K. 1990. Nonverbal conflict be- Essays inspired by the work of Morton Deutsch: 59–92. haviors: Functions, strategies, and tactics. In D. Cahn San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. (Ed.), Intimates in conflict: A communication perspective: Pruitt, D. G., & Rubin, J. Z. 1986. Social conflict: Escalation, 77–104. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. stalemate and settlement. New York: Random House. Nissen, M. J. 1977. Stimulus intensity and information pro- Putnam, L. L., & Wilson, S. R. 1989. Argumentation and bar- cessing. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 22: gaining strategies as discriminators of integrative out- 338–352. comes. In M. Rahim (Ed.), Managing conflict: An inter- Northrup, T. A. 1989. The dynamic of identity in personal and disciplinary approach: 121–144. New York: Praeger. social conflict. In L. Kreiseberg, T. A. Northrup, & S. J. Rafaeli, E., Rogers, G. M., & Revelle, W. 2007. Affective syn- Thorson (Eds.), Intractable conflicts and their transfor- chrony: Individual differences in mixed emotions. Per- mation: 55–82. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press. sonality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33: 915–932. Olekalns, M. In press. Natural-born peacemakers? Gender Ragins, B. R., & Winkel, D. E. 2011. Gender, emotion and and the resolution of conflict. In P. Coleman, M. Deutsch, power in work relationships. Human Resource Manage- E. Marcus, & J. Dillard (Eds.), The handbook of conflict ment Review, 21: 377–393. resolution: Theory and practice (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Robinson, J., & McArthur, L. Z. 1982. Impact of salient vocal 2015 Weingart, Behfar, Bendersky, Todorova, and Jehn 261

qualities on causal attribution for a speaker’s behavior. tiation: A social role analysis. In M. Olekalns & W. Adair Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43: 236–247. (Eds), Handbook of research on negotiation: 221–248. London: Edward Elgar. Rubin, J. Z. 1980. Experimental research on third-party inter- vention in conflict: Toward some generalizations. Psy- Suls, J., Martin, R., & David, J. P. 1998. Person-environment fit chological Bulletin, 87: 379–391. and its limits: Agreeableness, neuroticism, and emo- tional reactivity to interpersonal conflict. Personality Rubin, J. Z., Pruitt, D. G., & Kim, S. H. 1994. Social conflict: and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24: 88–98. Escalation, stalemate, and settlement (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Tedeschi, J., & Felson, R. B. 1994. Violence, aggression, and coercive actions. Washington, DC: American Psycholog- Rudman, L. A. 1998. Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: ical Association. The costs and benefits of counterstereotypical impression management. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- Tekleab, A. Q., Quigley, N. R., & Tesluk, P. E. 2009. A longi- ogy, 74: 629–645. tudinal study of team conflict, conflict management, co- Rudman, L. A., & Phelan, J. E. 2008. Backlash effects for hesion, and team effectiveness. Group & Organization disconfirming gender stereotypes in organizations. Re- Management, 34: 170–205. search in Organizational Behavior, 28: 61–79. Thomas, K. W. 1992. Conflict and negotiation processes in Sanchez-Burks, J. 2002. Protestant relational ideology and organizations. In M. Dunnette & H. Hough (Eds.), Hand- (in)attention to relational cues in work settings. Journal book of industrial and organizational psychology, vol. 3 of Personality and Social Psychology, 83: 919–929. (2nd ed.): 652–717. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychology Press. Sanchez-Burks, J., Lee, F., Choi, I., Nisbett, R., Zhao, S., & Koo, J. 2003. Conversing across cultures: East-West commu- Tiedens, L. Z. 2001. Anger and advancement versus sadness nication styles in work and nonwork contexts. Journal of and subjugation: The effects of negative emotion ex- Personality and Social Psychology, 85: 363–372. pressions on social status conferral. Journal of Person- ality and Social Psychology, 80: 86–94. Schelling, T. C. 1960. The strategy of conflict. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Ting-Toomey, S., & Kurogi, A. 1998. Facework competence in intercultural conflict: An updated face-negotiation the- Schlenker, B. R., Soraci, S., & McCarthy, B. 1976. Self-esteem ory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22: and group performance as determinants of egocentric 187–225. perceptions in cooperative groups. Human Relations, 29: 1163–1176. Tinsley, C. H., & Brett, J. M. 2001. Managing workplace con- flict in the United States and Hong Kong. Organizational Schnurr, S., & Chan, A. 2011. When laughter is not enough. Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 85: 360–381. Responding to teasing and self-denigrating humour at work. Journal of Pragmatics, 43: 20–35. Tinsley, C. H., & Weldon, E. 2003. Responses to a normative conflict among American and Chinese managers. Interna- Shannon, C., & Weaver, W. 1948. A mathematical theory of tional Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 3: 183–194. communication. Bell System Technical Journal, 27: 379– 423. Todorova, G., Bear, J., & Weingart, L. R. 2014. Can conflict be energizing? A study of task conflict, positive emotions, and Shantz, C. U. 1987. Conflict between children. Child Devel- satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99: 451–467. opment, 58: 283–305. Ury, W. L., Brett, J. M., & Goldberg, S. B. 1993. Getting disputes Shaw, J. D., Zhu, J., Duffy, M. K., Scott, K. L., Shih, H. A., & resolved (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: PON Books. Susanto, E. 2011. A contingency model of conflict and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96: Vigoda-Gadot, E., & Drory, A. 2008. Handbook of organiza- 391–400. tional politics. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar. Smith, D. M. L., & Edmondson, A. C. 2006. Too hot to handle? Volkema, R. J., Farquhar, K., & Bergmann, T. J. 1996. Third- How to manage relationship conflict. California Man- party sensemaking in interpersonal conflicts at work: A agement Review, 49(1): 6–31. theoretical framework. Human Relations, 49: 1437–1454. Smithson, J., & Venette, S. 2013. Stonewalling as an image- Walton, R. E. 1969. Interpersonal peacemaking: Confronta- defense strategy: A critical examination of BP’s response tions and third-party consultation. Reading, MA: Addi- to the Deepwater Horizon explosion. Communication Stud- son-Wesley. ies, 64: 395–410. Walton, R. E., & McKersie, R. B. 1965. A behavioral theory of Sonnemans, J., & Frijda, N. H. 1994. The structure of subjective labor negotiations. New York: McGraw Hill. emotional intensity. Cognition & Emotion, 8: 329–350. Warnock, G. J. 1966. The perceptual process. Philosophical Staw, B. M., & Ross, J. 1987. Behavior in escalation situations: Books, 7: 19–20. Antecedents, prototypes, and solutions. Research in Or- Watson, D., & Tellegen, A. 1985. Toward a consensual struc- ganizational Behavior, 9: 39–78. ture of mood. Psychological Bulletin, 98: 219–235. Staw, B. M., Sandelands, L. E., & Dutton, J. E. 1981. Threat- Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J., & Jackson, D. 1967. Pragmatics of rigidity effects in organizational-behavior: A multilevel human communication. New York: Norton. analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26: 501–524. Weingart, L. R., Prietula, M. J., Hyder, E. B., & Genovese, C. R. Stuhlmacher, A. F., & Linnabery, E. 2013. Gender and nego- 1999. Knowledge and the sequential processes of nego- 262 Academy of Management Review April

tiation: A Markov chain analysis of response-in-kind. Wilson, E., & MacLeod, C. 2003. Contrasting two accounts of Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35: 366–393. anxiety-linked attentional bias: Selective attention to Weingart, L. R., Thompson, L. L., Bazerman, M. H., & Carroll, varying levels of stimulus threat intensity. Journal of J. S. 1990. Tactical behavior and negotiation outcomes. Abnormal Psychology, 112: 212–218. International Journal of Conflict Management, 1: 7–31. Zautra, A. J., Reich, J. W., Davis, M. C., Potter, P. T., & Nicolson, Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. 1996. Affective events theory: N. A. 2000. The role of stressful events in the indepen- A theortical discussion of the structure, causes and con- dence of affective states: Evidence from field and exper- sequences of affective experiences at work. Research in imental studies. Journal of Personality, 68: 927–951. Organizational Behavior, 18: 1–74. Zupnik, Y. J. 2000. Conversational interruptions in Israeli- Williams, P., & Aaker, J. L. 2002. Can mixed emotions peace- Palestinian “dialogue” events. Discourse Studies, 2: 85– fully coexist? Journal of Consumer Research, 28: 636–649. 110.

Laurie R. Weingart ([email protected]) is the Carnegie Bosch Professor of Organiza- tional Behavior and Theory and senior associate dean of education at the Tepper School of Business, Carnegie Mellon University. She earned her Ph.D. from the Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University. Her research examines negotiation, conflict, and group dynamics. Kristin J. Behfar ([email protected]) is an associate professor of leadership and organizational behavior at the Darden School of Business, University of Virginia. She earned her Ph.D. from the Johnson School at Cornell University. Her research focuses on conflict management, team processes, and variance in leadership prac- tices around the world. Corinne Bendersky ([email protected]) is an associate professor of management and organizations at the Anderson School of Management, University of California, Los Angeles, and faculty director of the Human Resources Round Table (HARRT). She earned her Ph.D. from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Sloan School of Management. She studies the effects of workplace conflict, status, and justice on group and organizational performance. Gergana Todorova ([email protected]) is an assistant professor in the De- partment of Management in the School of Business Administration, University of Miami. She received her Ph.D. in organizational behavior from Carnegie Mellon University. Her research examines group dynamics, with a focus on conflict, cognition, and creativity. Karen A. Jehn ([email protected]) is a professor of organization behavior at Melbourne Business School, University of Melbourne. She earned her Ph.D. from Northwestern University. Her research focuses on intragroup conflict, group composition and per- formance, and lying in organizations; her two most recent research interests are asymmetry of perceptions and member entitlement in workgroups.