The Directness and Oppositional Intensity of Conflict Expression

Abstract

Conflicts in the workplace have been characterized by their type (task, process, relationship), 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 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 vs. 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 influence how conflict is expressed and perceived. We consider the implications of our conceptual framework for related literatures examining conflict.

Igniting and resolving content disagreements during team interactions: A statistical discourse analysis of team dynamics at work

“…Teams with superior productivity might capitalize on disagreements to improve their performance or have greater confidence to express their ideas (including conflicting ones), both of which tend to yield more disagreements (e.g., Lovelace, Shapiro, & Weingart, 2001;Van Woerkom & Sanders, 2010). Furthermore, a team that experiences greater intragroup conflict might (a) view disagreement as socially acceptable and hence express more disagreements compared to other teams (Weingart, Behfar, Bendersky, Todorova, & Jehn, 2016) or (b) suffer more social embarrassments, fear the consequences of fueling disagreements, and refrain from voicing disagreements (for an overview, see Weingart et al, 2016).…”

“…Yet we acknowledge that task conflict and content disagreement can overlap. Though conflict scholars have typically focused on team members' perceptions of disagreements about how to accomplish particular aspects of their tasks (e.g., De Dreu, 2006;Jehn, 1995;Simons & Peterson, 2000), recent work highlights the role of actual expressions of conflict (Todorova, Bear, & Weingart, 2014;Weingart et al, 2016). When an instance of content disagreement indicates a difference of opinion regarding the team's task content and related decisions, this disagreement can be viewed as a discrete expression of task conflict.…”

“…A team that perceives greater intragroup conflict states might not only tolerate disagreements but also view them as more socially acceptable and even normative (Ehrhart & Naumann, 2004). As a result, teams perceiving greater intragroup conflict might disagree more often than teams that experience less intragroup conflict do (e.g., Weingart et al, 2016). Similarly, groups with greater existing conflict often experience more disagreements (Kennedy & Pronin, 2008).…”

Unpacking the Meaning of Conflict in Organizational Conflict Research

“…There are, however, evident objections to the instrumental approach to studying conflict and whether the relationships between conflict types and performance should be so simple. It is particularly important to correctly diagnose task and process conflict, to harness the generative effects of conflict (Lê & Jarzabkowski, 2015) and that the manner and intensity of conflict expression influences conflict processes and subsequent outcomes (Weingart, Behfar, Bendersky, Todorova, & Jehn, 2015). Such studies move toward recognizing processual components of perception, interpretation, and expression as critical aspects influencing any relationships between conflict and performance.…”

A resource dependence perspective on intergroup conflict: The synthesis of two theories

“…In further support of multilevel conflict theory integration, scholars in social psychology studying the dynamics of interdependencies (i.e., Kelley & Thibaut, 1978;Thibaut & Kelley, 1959) were among the first to elucidate the joint form of dependence in interpersonal relationships (Lawler & Yoon, 1993. This concept has also branched into organizational behavioral explanations for intergroup conflict and has been extended to inter and intraorganizational contexts (Bradley et al, 2015;Gulati & Sytch, 2007;Weingart et al, 2015). As a central tenant,…”