Personalizing and Managing Conflict (Dallinger & Hample, 1995)

The International Journal of Conflict Management 1995, Vol. 6, No. 3 (July), pp. 273-289

PERSONALIZING AND MANAGING CONFLICT

Judith M. Dallinger Dale Hample

Western Illinois University

Taking conflict personally (TCP) is conceptualized as a negative emotional personalization of conflict episodes. Here, individuals' TCP levels were examined in relationship to both their own conflict management styles and their perceptions of supervisors' conflict management styles. Results indicate that one's TCP levels are associated with one's own preferred conflict management style, with supervisor's perceived conflict style, and with satisfaction with supervisor.

A common thread running through both theoretical and practical work on conflict is a concern about emotional, face-threatening moments. These have often been observed to derail conflict discussions, to move them away from substantive issues and onto personal ones. Gibb (1961) refers to this sort of thing as establishing a defensive climate; Collins and Guetzkow (1964, pp. 111-117) label it as an affective conflict, as opposed to a substantive one; and Coser (1956) calls it unrealistic. Though these terms do not quite mean the same thing, they have in common a recommendation that people should not take conflicts personally, and this injunction is perhaps the most common advice given to people studying conflict management (e.g., Hocker & Wilmot, 1985, pp. 99-102; Folger & Poole, 1984, ch. 5; Lippitt, 1982, p. 70; Filley, 1975; 1978, p. 63).

Dallinger and Hample (1989) have begun a research program which keys on individuals' tendencies to personalize conflict. Taking conflict personally (TCP) is a feeling of being personally engaged in a punishing life event while involved in a conflict. A person feels threatened, anxious, damaged, devalued, and insulted. One's focus is necessarily on self, and so reflexively on the self of the other. Face becomes an issue which overwhelms the substantive grounds of conflict. Self-defense is the first priority, and this leads to impulses for fight or flight, for competition or withdrawal. When people feel pressured, they are more likely to consider the conflict as being essentially personal in nature. Operationally, TCP has four dimensions: direct personalization, which refers most immediately to the idea of taking conflict personally; stress reactions, which index feelings of extreme emotional and physical upset; persecution feelings, which indicate that the respondent feels that s/he is the real issue in the interaction; and relational effects, which reflect the respondent's awareness that conflict can have enduring positive or neg-

274 PERSONALIZING CONFLICT

ative consequences for the participants' relationship. We understand TCP as being both a state (temporary feeling) and a trait (enduring predisposition) (see Dallinger & Hample, 1989, in press; Hample & Dallinger, 1995, for a more detailed development of these conceptualizations).

TCP, understood in its state aspect, is immediately stimulated by the present conflict situation. The climate and the other people's actions are interpreted. If unfairness or aggressive intent is perceived, the conflict is more likely to be taken personally. The exercise, suspicion, and appearance of power are instigations, and so are any persuasive attempts which engender reactance. The TCP reaction is more likely when the conflict is stressful, either because of its substantive issues, or because of the interpersonal interplays it contains. The presence of anger is threatening, as are other intense displays of emotion. TCP is contagious: it can manifest itself as aggression or avoidance, and can challenge or frustrate others into reciprocal TCP reactions.

Though it will always be a specific situation that calls out the TCP reaction, people probably differ in their sensitivity. The trait aspect of TCP refers to a general level of readiness to take conflict personally. People differ in their tolerance of others' actions, the hurt they feel from aggressive behaviors, the trust they typically feel in interaction, and in their own self-confidence. Different levels of trait TCP seem likely to be related to different behavioral inclinations during actual conflicts. The central purpose of this paper is to investigate that possibility, by exploring the relations between TCP and preferred conflict styles.

Conflict Management Styles The bulk of the research examining superior/subordinate interpersonal con

flict has focused on the participants' conflict styles (Putnam & Poole, 1987). Rahim (1992) suggests that this is one of four types of conflict that occur within organizations; interpersonal conflict "refers to conflict between two or more organizational members of the same or different hierarchical levels or units" (p. 22). Based on work originated by Blake and Mouton (1964), five conflict management modes, arising from the two continua of concern for people and concern for production, were generally thought to describe interactants' characteristic types of conflict participation. Forcing refers to asserting one's own view through the use of power and competitive behaviors. Confronting behaviors occur when a participant faces the issue directly, attempting to solve the problem through collaboration. Smoothing is glossing over the conflict issue and focusing instead on areas of mutual agreement. Avoiding means that individuals refrain from genuine involvement. Compromising is looking for an intermediate solution which lies somewhere between the two parties' stances.

The basic model first described by Blake and Mouton has been modified and developed more recently. Thomas (1976) described the two continua as concerns for self and for other. Rahim (1983) more fully described five basic conflict management styles (integrating, obliging, dominating, avoiding and compromising)

The Internaional Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 6, No. 3, July 1995

J. M. DALLINGER AND D. HAMPLE 275

and devised a measurement instrument for them (the Rahim Organizational Conflict Inventory-II) which has been used as the basis for numerous investigations of conflict management styles. Van de Vliert and Kabanoff (1990) argued that the basic dimensions of concern for self and concern for other, when examined according to distributive and integrative dimensions, constitute not just a schema for description, but a theory of conflict management. Rahim (1992) has assimilated both theory and research findings into a comprehensive analysis of the management of conflict in organizations, incorporating it in relation to many ongoing organizational processes.

In an organization, subordinates are joined with superiors for relatively extended periods of time, and thus past conflicts set the stage for future interactions and current expectations about them. A subordinate's choice of conflict style will be affected both by his or her particular superior and by the nature of their previous conflict interactions. Both position level and interdependency between participants have been found to affect conflict style (Putnam & Poole, 1987). Subordinates prefer the smoothing style, though they rate confrontation as most effective and satisfactory. Superiors characteristically use forcing, and see it as most effective in situations where there are incompatible goals, past histories of agreement failure, and one side that the organization supports (Putnam & Poole, 1987). The formal and informal relationships between supervisors and subordinates give a special prominence to their histories, characteristic approaches to conflict, and emotional reactions to it.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the relationship between TCP and conflict styles. In particular, the two studies reported here examine the associations between a person's TCP and his or her own conflict style (Study I), and the conflict style s/he perceives his or her superior to have (Study II).

Study I: TCP and Own Conflict Styles The purpose of this first study was to explore the relationships between the

feelings measured by the four dimensions of the TCP scale, and the conflict style preferences operationalized by the Organizational Communication Conflict Instrument (OCCI) developed by Putnam and Wilson (1982). The OCCI is composed of three subscales: non-confrontation, solution orientation, and control.

Earlier work suggests that, for people high in TCP, avoidance is the most likely reaction to the anticipation of a conflict situation. The direct personalization, relational effects, and stress reaction factors are all positively correlated with argument avoidance (Dallinger & Hample, 1989). Myers and Bailey (1991) found that these same TCP factors also predict communication apprehension, which is essentially an avoidance to communication in a variety of contexts. The OCCI non-confrontation factor best represents an avoidance stance in conflict, and thus it ought to be associated with the three TCP factors of direct personalization, relational effects, and stress reaction. Thus our primary hypothesis for Study I was:

The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 6, No. 3, July 1995


Hypothesis 1: Direct personalization, stress reactions, and relational effects will be positively associated with non-confrontation (avoidance and smoothing).

Dallinger and Hample (1989) also found a relationship between persecution feelings and verbal aggressiveness. Forcing is the conflict management style that is most aggressive. The OCCI's control scale contains items which tap this predisposition. These items display aggressiveness, but appear to be more socially desirable than the verbal aggressiveness items, though they are less socially desirable than the items measuring non-confrontation and solution-orientation (see Wilson & Waltman, 1988). Therefore, we posed a second hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2: The persecution feelings factor will be positively associated with the control (forcing) style.

Method Respondents and Procedures. Respondents were 212 students enrolled in

communication courses at the authors' institution. Slightly more than half (56%) were male, and two-thirds were juniors or seniors. The sample's mean age was 21.4 years. We asked these students to list their work experience (excluding baby sitting, unsalaried work on family farms, etc.) and its duration. Combining part-time and full-time employment, our respondents had, on average, each worked for 4.4 years. Only three respondents reported no work experience at all, and only 18 (8.5%) said they had worked less than a year. Typical employment experiences were bartending, waitressing, and retail sales. After doing a median split on total duration of work experience, we conducted t-tests on the subscales of both the TCP and OCCI instruments, but found no significant differences. This indicates that our sample as a whole responded to the questionnaires in the same way that our most work-experienced respondents were.

Subjects were given a booklet containing the demographic questions, the Taking Conflict Personally scales (Dallinger & Hample, 1989), and the Organizational Communication Conflict Instrument (Putnam & Wilson, 1982). Participation was described as voluntary, and a handful of students did not complete the scales. After each classful of students finished, they were debriefed.

Measurement. The variables for the study were measured with the following questionnaires.

Taking Conflict Personally. The 19 item Taking Conflict Personally scale includes four dimensions. Factor analysis suggested that item 6, part of the stress scale, be dropped, but all other items loaded on the appropriate factors. Reliabilities, which ranged between .68 and .80, were acceptable. Scale items are included in the Appendix.

Organizational Communication Conflict Instrument. Putnam and Wilson (1982) developed the OCCI, a communication focused measure of one's own conflict management behaviors. Though their initial effort included the five modes



Table 1 Zero-order Correlations Between TCP and OCCI (Study I)

Variables

1. Direct Personalization 2. Persecution Feelings 3. Stress Feelings 4. Relational Effects 5. Control 6. Non-Confrontation 7. Solution Orientation

M

15.5 14.7 13.3 10.8 26.3 53.3 28.9

Note: Cronbach αs are in the diagonal. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001. (two-tailed)

SD

3.7 2.7 3.2 3.0 6.0

10.0 7.0

1

.80

.56***

.51*** -.25***

.08

.36*** -.16**

2

.68

.36*** -.25***

.15*

.24"* -.20**

3

.72 -.18***

.04

.33*** -.15*

4

.73 -.10 - . 2 0 "

.08

5

.80

.08

.04

6

.86 -.13*

7

.82



originating with Blake and Mouton, the final instrument measures three amalgamated styles: non-confrontation, a combination of avoidance and smoothing; solution orientation, direct confrontation and compromise; and control, direct confrontation inclined toward forcing (Putnam & Wilson, 1982; also see Wilson & Waltman, 1988). Our own three factor solution, once items 3, 8, and 13 were dropped, produced suitable loadings on the appropriate factors. Reliabilities for the adjusted subscales, which ranged between .80 and .86, were acceptable.

Analysis and Results. Zero-order correlations among the TCP and OCCI dimensions are included in Table 1.

Hypothesis 1 suggested that the direct personalization, stress, and relational effects subscales of TCP would be directly associated with the non-confrontation subscale of the OCCI and Hypothesis 2 predicted that persecution feelings are associated with preference for the control style. We conducted a canonical analysis to address these issues, and those results are in Table 2. We found one significant root, in which the two variates explained about 20% of the variance in one another.

Table 2 Canonical Structure Matrix Showing the Relationships

between the TCP Scales and the OCCI (Study I)

Scales

TCP Direct Personalization Persecution Feelings Stress Feelings Relational Effects

OCCI Control Non-Confrontation Solution Orientation

Loading

.88

.71

.73 -.51

.32

.93 -.36

Note: Rc2 = .20, Wilks' λ = .782, Approximate F (12, 524) = 4.27, p <

.005.

The primary result is that the non-confrontation style is clearly preferred by people who are high in direct personalization, persecution feelings, and stress reactions. Non-confrontation is least likely to be preferred by those who are especially sensitive to the possibility of long-term positive relational consequences of conflict. The same pattern, in weaker form, appears for the control style, and the opposite pattern is just discernible for the solution orientation.

These results are only partly conformable to our expectations. Our predictions that direct personalization and stress reactions would be positively associated with non-confrontation are supported. However, we made the same hypothesis for the relational effects scale, and this was not borne out. Our expectation that people

The International Journal of Conflict Management,Vol. 6, No. 3, July 1995


who report more feelings of persecution would be more likely to select the control style is supported, but is not an especially strong effect.

Table 1, which reports correlations among the scales, may provide some elaborative detail. The results, of course, parallel those in Table 2, and sustain the interpretations just offered. Notice, however, that the only scale which predicts preference for the control style is persecution feelings, although the relationship is not as strong as persecution's associations with the other OCCI scales.

Study II: TCP, Perceptions of Superior's Conflict Style, and Satisfaction with Supervisor

Having sketched the relationships between a person's TCP levels and own conflict style preferences, we now turn to the more complex issue of how a person's TCP is likely to be associated with his or her perceptions of a superior's conflict styles. A fundamental assumption of our reasoning is that a superior and a subordinate will typically have had enough interaction with each other to have a history of conflict and discussion together, and that this will lead to expectations about how the other will act in an argumentative situation.

Superiors' Conflict Styles Intense conflict interactions tend to have closely connected styles, often

reciprocal but sometimes complementary. For instance, Stamp, Vangelisti, and Daly (1993) report that people's estimates of their own and other's defensiveness in conflict are strongly associated (r = .60). Farina, Wheeler, and Mehta (1991) demonstrate that people are noticeably reactive to a demeaning interaction. Baron (1988) shows that people receiving destructive criticism are angrier and more stressed than those criticized constructively; furthermore, those exposed to the person-focused criticisms express more interest in meeting future conflicts with aggression or avoidance, and less interest in being cooperative. Sillars and Parry (1982) show that high levels of stress during conflict lead one to blame the other for what is going wrong. These findings, of course, are in line with the theoretical predictions reviewed in the first part of this paper.

As Study I shows, a subordinate who has high levels of direct personalization and stress reactions will likely prefer a non-confrontational style. Given the frequently reciprocal nature of conflict interactions, this may in turn predict the superior's use of a non-confrontation style as well. Thus, the first hypothesis for Study II was:

Hypothesis 3: Subordinates' direct personalization and stress reactions will be positively associated with their perceptions of superiors' use of avoiding (withdrawing) and smoothing styles.

When the subordinate has substantial persecution feelings, s/he is likely to use either a non-confrontational or a control style of conflict in future interaction.



A superior's response to those styles may be either non-confrontation or controlling as well. Thus, the second hypothesis for this study was:

Hypothesis 4: Subordinates' persecution feelings will be positively associated with their perceptions of superiors' use of forcing, withdrawing, and smoothing styles.

Supervisor Satisfaction A subordinate's level of satisfaction with his or her supervisor is affected by

many variables. Subordinates who take conflict personally are attuned to conflict situations with their supervisors and may evaluate their relationship with their supervisor more negatively. This may result in less satisfaction. Hypothesis five then was:

Hypothesis 5: Subordinates' levels of TCP will be negatively related to satisfaction with supervisor.

Method Respondents and Procedures. Respondents were 117 employees of three

organizations located in a small Midwest city. Questionnaires were distributed to all employees except the CEOs of a variety retail store, a grocery store, and a pottery manufacturing company. Employees were asked to complete the questionnaire on their own time and return it to a central location where an author would collect them. Employees were given approximately three to six days to complete the instrument. Fifty-seven of 77 employees at the pottery company returned questionnaires, a 74% response rate. At the retail store, 31 of 79 employees, or 39%, returned questionnaires, and 31%, or 29 of 94 employees, completed the questionnaire at the grocery store. A description of summary data was developed and given to each organization.

Employees included 37 males, 77 females, and 3 respondents who failed to indicate their sex. Seventy-eight percent of the sample were full-time employees at their respective organizations, and 66% had worked at their organization for longer than 5 years. Employees were fairly well distributed between the ages of 21 to 60. Thirty seven (32% of respondents) reported that they supervised the activities of at least one other employee. A clear majority (85%) reported that they worked for a male.

Measurement. The questionnaire for study II contained the items from Conflict Resolution Strategies (CRS) instrument, the Taking Conflict Personally scale, and the Job Description Index, as well as several demographic questions.

Conflict Resolution Strategies. The CRS scale is made up of 25 items, five each to measure the five conflict modes deriving from Blake and Mouton (Howat & London, 1980). The questionnaire is designed to obtain individuals' perceptions of their supervisor's use of the styles. The results of our factor analysis conformed reasonably well to the five factor solution, and reliabilities for four of the styles, which ranged between .67 and .80, were acceptable. Item analysis indicated that if



item #2 were removed from the withdrawing scale, its alpha would increase to .53. This was done, and the withdrawing style was included in the analyses in this form, even though its reliability was quite low. Daves and Holland (1989) have reported evidence that the CRS actually has three dimensions. However, we were unsuccessful in replicating their three factor solution, and will therefore report results in terms of the original five styles.

Taking Conflict Personally. Factor analysis of the TCP instrument revealed its four dimensions, and alpha reliabilities, which ranged between .62 and .71, were acceptable.

Job Description Index. The Job Description Index asks respondents to evaluate five characteristics of their jobs (Smith, Kendall, & Hulin, 1969). Subjects respond to 72 items, which are subdivided into the five factors. However, only the satisfaction with supervision scale was used in our analyses. Its reliability was acceptable a = .88.

Analysis and Results. Table 3 includes zero-order correlations among the TCP scales, CRS scales, and JDI supervision scale.

Hypotheses 3 and 4, which predicted relationships between subordinates' TCP levels and superiors' conflict styles, were tested by examining a canonical correlation between the two sets of variables. Table 4 displays the results of this analysis. One significant root was produced. This root is dominated by the positive relationship between subordinates' persecution feelings and supervisors' use of the forcing style. This result provides partial support for hypothesis 4.

Table 3 offers further information on the relationships between TCP and supervisor. No support is shown for hypothesis 3, which projected associations among direct personalization, stress reactions, withdrawing, and smoothing. Perceived supervisors' use of the compromising style, however, was related to several of the TCP scales. Compromising apparently lessens subordinates' levels of direct personalization, persecution feelings, and stress reactions. Finally, use of the forcing style by a supervisor leads not only to persecution feelings, but also to increased stress reactions, and to expectation of less positive relational effects.

Hypothesis 5 was tested by examining the multiple regression between the four TCP scales and satisfaction with superior. Table 5 contains results of this multiple regression, as well as zero-order correlations between supervisor satisfaction and TCP. The hypothesis is supported by the significant multiple correlation of .38. The zero-order correlations show that each of the TCP scales is related to supervisor satisfaction, with the highest levels of direct personalization, stress reactions, and persecution feelings (and the lowest expectations of future positive relational effects) predicting the lowest satisfaction with supervisor. The persecution scale is the most important in predicting supervisor satisfaction.

The International Journal of Conflict Management Vol. 6, No. 3, July 1995


Table 3 Zero-order Correlations Among TCP, CRS, and Satisfaction With Supervision (Study II)

Variables

1. Direct Personalization 2. Persecution Feelings 3. Stress Reactions 4. Relational Effects 5. Confronting 6. Withdrawing 7. Forcing 8. Smoothing 9. Compromising

10. Satisfaction

M

17.9 10.1 15.5 10.5 18.9 8.9

15.0 13.3 16.1 38.9

Note: Cronbach αs are in the diagonal.

SD

4.3 2.9 3.8 3.2 4.6 3.3 5.0 3.5 4.7

11.1

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001. (two-tailed)

1

.71

.46***

.61*** -.34*** -.02

.02

.08 -.10 -.28** -.16*

2

.63

.52** -.26** -.15

.19*

.39*** -.16* -.25** -.36***

3

.67 -.35*** -.06

.14

.25** -.09 -.18* -.17*

4

.62

.08 -.13 -.16*

.09

.09

.21**

5

.80 -.36***. -.15

.66***

.58***

.16

6

.53

.21** -.16* -.09 -.12

7

.78 -.23** -.43*** -.43***

8

.67

.70***

.24**

9

.80

.28**

10

.88



Table 4 Canonical Structure Matrix Showing the Relationship

Between the TCP and CRS Scales (Study II)

Scales

TCP Direct Personalization Persecution Feelings Stress Feelings Relational Effects

CRS Confronting Withdrawing Forcing Smoothing Compromising

Loading

-.14 .74 .42

-.35

-.32 .49 .86

-.22 -.15

Note: Rc2 = .22, Wilks' λ = .665, Approximate F (20, 339) = 2.22, p <

.05.

Table 5 Multiple Regression and Zero-order Correlations Between

TCP and Satisfaction With Supervision (Study II)

TCP Scales

Direct Personalization Persecution Feelings Stress Reactions Relational Effects

R2 = .15, F (4, 105) = 4.54, p < .005. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

ß .03

-.36 .04 .14

t-ratio

.28 -3.36***

.35 1.43

r

-.16* -.36** -.17*

.21**

Discussion Neither the TCP nor the two conflict style scales are behavioral measures,

and they have different theoretical distances from conflict actions. TCP assesses feelings about conflict, feelings which not only accumulate over time, but which are also stimulated by an immediate situation. These sentiments are part of the psychological background for a person's conflict behaviors. Conflict style scales measure one's preferences for, or perceptions of, particular communication styles in conflict. These stylistic predilections are more immediate to behavior than are the feelings explored by the TCP.



The results of Study I generally fit our theoretical expectations. People who have strongly negative feelings about conflict—those who personalize the most, are most stressed, and feel most persecuted—prefer non-confrontation. This result resembles earlier findings that these same people are higher in argument avoidance (Dallinger & Hample, 1989) and communication apprehension (Myers & Bailey, 1991). Persecution feelings are the only ones to call out the more combative control style, just as they were associated with verbal aggressiveness in earlier work (Dallinger & Hample, 1989). But notice the duality of persecution's correlations in Table 1: while it is associated positively with control and negatively with solution orientation, it has its strongest correlation with non-confrontation. Persecution feelings, in short, seem to raise one's estimates of the stakes in a conflict and make either fight or flight more likely. This duality may well deserve more research attention.

Results of Study II indicate that several aspects of TCP are related to supervisors' strategies. The primary relationship occurs between a subordinate's tendency to feel persecuted during conflict and his or her perception of his or her supervisor's use of force. Persecution feelings also correlate negatively with the supervisor's use of compromising. When subordinates feel stress reactions, the supervisor is more likely to be seen as using a forcing style and less likely to be seen as using a compromising or smoothing style. Direct personalization outcomes are negatively associated with a supervisor's compromising style.

Study IPs data also indicate that subordinates' levels of satisfaction with their supervisor are related both to the supervisor's strategies (particularly smoothing and forcing) and to their own reactions to conflict (particularly persecution feelings). The satisfaction level no doubt enters into the dynamics of conflict.

TCP reactions to conflict are feelings and seem to be antecedent to one's own conflict behaviors. Earlier, it was suggested that one interactant's conflict style (the subordinate's) influences the other's (the superior's). Of course the exchange may actually begin with either person. Our results point to largely symmetrical feeling/behavior cycles. Reciprocity appears in the direct relations between subordinate's persecution feelings and the supervisor's forcing strategy, and in the indirect associations between subordinates' direct personalization, persecution feelings, and stress reactions on one hand, and supervisors' compromising strategy on the other.

Our results therefore permit some useful discussion about destructive conflict cycles. Destructive spirals are of two sorts, one featuring reciprocal refusal to deal with the problem and the other exploding into competitive escalation (Folger & Poole, 1984). Both types of disastrous outcome are associated with conflict styles and feelings about conflict.

We have evidence, for instance, that both style preferences and feelings are responsive to the partner's. Cosier and Ruble (1981) showed that one's conflict behavior style was contingent on the other person's. Competition and solution orientation were markedly reciprocal. These reciprocities were stronger as people spent more time together in conflict. Avoidance was primarily a withdrawal reaction when the other was noncooperative. Conflict style also affected feelings about



the other, such that competitive people were evaluated more negatively, and non-confronting others were seen as least dynamic. Dallinger, Hample, and Myers (1990) report evidence that one spouse's TCP scores predict those of the marital partner. Persecution feelings are symmetrical, so that both spouses tend to be either high or low. Direct personalization, stress, and relational consequences scores, however, are complementary—one spouse being high predicts that the other will be low. So for both OCCI and TCP factors, both reciprocity and complementarity are common.

These results suggest that we broaden our understanding of destructive cycles. Normally, we see these in terms of behavior exchanges, perhaps in observing one's actions in response to a face threat. While the behavioral exchanges are the cycles, perhaps we ought also look to their climactic and personal backgrounds. Emotions and behavioral predilections suggest themselves as obvious explanatory resources.

Several limitations of the present study should be kept in mind when considering the results. First, measurement methods for all variables used the same self report methodology. Indeed, the scales for TCP, for conflict management styles, and for job satisfaction all were composed of 5-point Likert items. Although this is a common weakness of this type of research, it should be noted that at least some share of the resulting correlations may be due to the common method of measurement, rather than to a true relationship among these variables.

It is somewhat difficult to directly combine results from Study I and Study II because of the use of different conflict management scales, which resulted in 3 and 5 dimension configurations of conflict management styles. The OCCI scale focuses specifically on communication behaviors in managing conflict and was chosen for that reason. For Study II, the CRS scale was selected because it clearly directed subjects to describe another's style of conflict management, as compared to reporting their own. The results of these two studies might be more easily combined if the same scale had been used in both, and might also be better integrated into existing theoretical approaches to conflict management if a more standard 5—dimension scale had been selected.

Nevertheless, the results of this study provide an extended understanding of the concept of taking conflict personally and its relationships to other variables and also suggest that continued work is needed in the development of an emotional description of conflict and resulting behavioral cycles.

References

Baron, R. A. (1988). Negative effects of destructive criticism: Impact on conflict, self-efficacy, and task performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 199-207.

Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1964). The managerial grid. Houston: Gulf. Collins, B. E., & Guetzkow, H. (1964). A social psychology of group processes for decision

making. New York: Wiley.



Coser, L. A. (1956). The functions of social conflict. New York: Free Press. Cosier, R. A., & Ruble, T. L. (1981). Research on conflict-handling behavior: An experi

mental approach. Academy of Management Journal, 24, 816-831. Dallinger, J. M., & Hample, D. (1989, November). Taking conflict personally: Conceptual

ization and scale development. Paper presented at the meeting of the Speech Communication Association, San Francisco, CA.

Dallinger, J. M., & Hample, D. (in press). A Lewinian perspective on taking conflict personally: Revision, refinement, and validation of the instrument. Communication Quarterly.

Dallinger, J. M., Hample, D., & Myers, K. A. (1990, June). Spouses' understandings of marital conflict. Paper presented at the meeting of the International Communication Association, Dublin, Ireland.

Daves, W. F., & Holland, C. L. (1989). The structure of conflict behavior of managers assessed with self- and subordinate ratings. Human Relations, 42, 741-756.

Farina, A., Wheeler, D. S., & Mehta, S. (1991). The impact of an unpleasant and demeaning social interaction. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 10, 351-371.

Filley, A. C. (1978). Some normative issues in conflict management. California Management Review, 21 (7), 61-66.

Filley, A. C. (1975). Interpersonal conflict resolution. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman. Folger, J. P., & Poole, M. S. (1984). Working through conflict. Glenview, IL: Scott, Fores-

man. Gibb, J. R. (1961). Defensive communication. Journal of Communication, 11 (3), 141-148. Hample, D., & Dallinger, J. M. (1995, May). Taking conflict personally and the affective

climate for conflict discussions. Paper presented at the meeting of the International Communication Association, Albuquerque, NM.

Hocker, J. L.., & Wilmot, W. W. (1985). Interpersonal conflict (2d. ed.). Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown.

Howat, G., & London, M. (1980). Attributions of conflict management strategies in supervisor-subordinate dyads. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 172-175.

Lippitt, G. L. (1982). Managing conflict in today's organizations. Training and Development Journal, 36 (7), 67-74.

Myers, K. A., & Bailey, C. L. (1991). Conflict and communication apprehension in campus ministries: A quantitative analysis. College Student Journal, 25, 537-543.

Putnam, L. L., & Poole, M. S. (1987). Conflict and negotiation. In F. M. Jablin, L. L. Putnam, K. H. Roberts, & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication (pp. 549-599). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Putnam, L. L., & Wilson, C. E. (1982). Communicative strategies in organizational conflicts: Reliability and validity of a measurement scale. In M. Burgoon (Ed.), Communication yearbook 6 (pp. 629-652). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Rahim, M. A. (1983). A measure of styles of handling interpersonal conflict. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 368-376.

Rahim, M. A. (1992). Managing conflict in organizations (2nd ed.). Westport, CT: Praeger. Sillars, A., & Parry, D. (1982). Stress, cognition, and communication in interpersonal con

flicts. Communication Research, 9, 201-226. Smith, F. J., Kendall, L. M., & Hulin, C. L. (1969). The measurement of satisfaction in work

and retirement. Chicago: Rand-McNally. Stamp, G. H., Vangelisti, A. L., & Daly, J. A. (1993). The creation of defensiveness in

social interaction. Communication Quarterly, 40, 177-190.

The Intemationd Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 6, No. 3, July 1995


Thomas, K. W. (1976). Conflict and conflict management. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 889-935). Chicago: Rand-McNally.

Van de Vliert, E., & Kabanoff, B. (1990). Toward theory-based measures of conflict management. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 199-209.

Wilson, S. R., & Waltman, M. S. (1988). Assessing the Putnam-Wilson Organizational Communication Conflict Instrument (OCCI). Management Communication Quarterly, 1, 367-388.

Appendix

A. Questionnaire Items for Study I

Taking Conflict Personally Scale

Direct Personalization: 1. When people criticize something I say, I don't take it personally. (R) 6. I have a strong emotional reaction to being criticized. 7. It doesn't bother me to be criticized for my ideas. (R) 10. When the rest of the group rejects one of my suggestions, I take it very personally. 14. I usually take criticisms personally. 16. It really hurts my feelings to be criticized.

Persecution Feelings: 2. In conflict discussions I often feel that other people are trying very hard to make sure that I lose. 8. If you make a bad suggestion, people think you are stupid. 13. I think that people often attack me personally. 15. I think that some of the people that I often have conflict discussions with really like to pick on me.

Stress Reactions: 5. I rarely feel uncomfortable in conflict situations. (R) 11. After a stressful meeting, my day is usually ruined. 12. Stressful discussions make my stomach hurt. 17. Arguments make me upset. 19. I often feel beaten up after a stressful meeting.

Relational Effects: 3. Conflict discussions can really jeopardize working relationships with other people in the group. (R) 4. Conflict discussions can really jeopardize friendships. (R) 9. Conflict discussions can really strengthen friendships. 18. Conflict discussions can really strengthen working relationships with other people in the group. (Scale: 1 = Strongly Disagree . . . 5 = Strongly Agree)

Note: R = Scales for these items were reversed. Item 5 was removed from the current analysis.

Organizational Communication Conflict Instrument Non-Confrontation: 2. I shy away from topics which are sources of disputes with my supervisor. 5. I steer clear of disagreeable situations. 7. I avoid my supervisor when I suspect that he or she wants to discuss a disagreement. 12. I keep quiet about my views in order to avoid disagreements. 14. I downplay the importance of a disagreement. 15. I reduce disagreements by making them seem insignificant. 23. I withdraw when my supervisor confronts me about a controversial issue. 24. I side-step disagreements when they arise. 25. I try to smooth over disagreements by making them appear unimportant. 27. I make our differences seem less serious. 28. I hold my tongue rather than argue with my supervisor. 29. I ease conflict by claiming our differences are trivial.

Solution Orientation. 1. I blend my ideas with my supervisor to create new alternatives for resolving an argument. 4. I suggest solutions which combine a variety of viewpoints. 6. I give in a l i t t le on my ideas when my supervisor also gives in. 8. I integrate arguments into a new solution from the issues raised in a dispute with my supervisor. 9. I will go 50-50 to reach a settlement with my supervisor. 11. I offer creative solutions in discussions of disagreements. 13. I give in if my supervisor will meet me halfway. 16. I meet my supervisor at a mid-point in our differences. 19. I suggest we work together to create solutions to disagreements. 20. I try to use my supervisor's ideas to generate solutions to problems. 21. I offer trade-offs to reach solutions in a disagreement.

The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 6, No.3, July 1995


Control: 3. I make my opinion known in a disagreement with my supervisor. 10. I raise my voice when I'm trying to get my supervisor to accept ray position. 17. I assert my opinion forcefully. 18. I dominate arguments until my supervisor understands my position. 22. I argue insistently for my stance. 26. I insist my position be accepted during a disagreement with my supervisor. 30. I stand firm in expressing my viewpoints during a disagreement with my supervisor. (Scale: 1 = Always . . . 7 = Never)

6. Questionnaire Items for Study II

Conflict Resolution Strategies

Compromising: 5. Tries to find a compromise. 10. Searches for an intermediate position. 15. Is willing to give and take. 20. Gives a little to get a little. 25. Takes both sides of the issue into account.

Smoothing: 4. Emphasizes common interests. 9. Stresses that our differences are less important than our common goals. 14. Plays down our differences. 19. Tries to smooth over our differences. 24. Acts as though our common goals are of prime importance.

Forcing: 3. Forces acceptance of his/her point of view. 8. Insists on one solution. 13. Demands to get his/her way. 18. Will not take no for an answer. 23. Imposes his/her solution.

Confronting: 1. Brings the problem clearly into the open and carries it out to resolution. 6. Confronts the issue openly. 11. Does not drop the issue until it is resolved. 16. Faces the conflict directly. 21. Clearly expresses a point of view.

Avoiding: 2. Refrains from argument. 7. Tries not to get involved. 12. Gives in easily. 17. Withdraws from the situation. 22. Ignores the conflict. (Scale: 1 = Describes behavior which never occurs . . . 5 = Describes very typical behavior which usually occurs)

Satisfaction With Supervision

Asks my advice; Hard to please (R); Impolite (R); Praises good work; Tactful; Influential; Up-to-date; Doesn't supervise enough (R); Quick tempered (R); Tells me where I stand; Annoying (R); Stubborn (R); Knows job well; Bad (R); Intelligent; Leaves me on my own; Around when needed; Lazy (R). (Scale: Respondents were asked to put Y beside each item if it described the feature in question, N if the item did not describe that feature, or ? if they could not decide)

Biographical Note

Judith Dallinger Department of Communication Western Illinois University Macomb, IL, 61455 Phone/Fax: 309-298-1673/2049 E-mail: [email protected]

Dr. Dallinger is a Professor of Communication at Western Illinois University, Macomb. She completed her Ph.D. at the University of Nebraska in 1984. Her primary research interest is in the area of organizational communication. She has published articles in Human Communication Research, Communication Research Reports, and Argumentation, as well as a number of chapters in books.


mailto:[email protected]


Dale Hample is a Professor of communication at Western Illinois University, Macomb. He received his Ph.D. in 1975 from the University of Illinois. He has published numerous articles on argumentation and persuasion in journals such as Communication Monographs, Argumentation and Advocacy, and Human Communication Research.

Received: September 20, 1993 Accepted after three revisions: July 12, 1995

V


Personalizing and Managing Conflict (Dallinger & Hample, 1995)

Documents

Transcript of Personalizing and Managing Conflict (Dallinger & Hample, 1995)