Chapter 1 Communication and Conflict PDF

Chapter 1 COMMUNICATION AND CONFLICT W...

Chapter 1 COMMUNICATION AND CONFLICT W e have argued that conflicts are best understood if we view them as a form of interaction. But interaction is an extraordinarily complicated phenomenon. How can we get a grasp on what happens in conflicts? How can we use that knowledge to turn conflict interaction in productive directions? This chapter provides an introduction to conflict interaction. First, we describe a model of conflict interaction as a “balancing act.” The model proposes that in order to manage a conflict effectively, parties must first articulate and understand the differences in their positions and interests. Only after this has been done can they move toward a mutually acceptable, integrative solution. However, this is a precarious process, fraught with difficulties. If parties make the wrong moves, their differentiation may spiral into uncontrollable escalation or, alternatively, to rigid suppression and avoidance of a con- flict that they should be able to face and manage. Walking the tightrope to productive conflict management requires insight into the forces that push conflict in negative direc- tions and the appropriate actions required to control them. The second part of this chapter presents five basic properties of conflict interaction which suggest a number of factors that are important in conflicts. These factors, dis- cussed in subsequent chapters, can move conflict in productive and destructive direc- tions and suggest various levers parties can use to manage conflict effectively. 1.1 A MODEL OF EFFECTIVE CONFLICT MANAGEMENT Copyright © 2021. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved. At the outset it is a good idea to consider effective conflict management, the type of interaction that will lead to productive conflict. In his book, Interpersonal Peacemaking, Richard Walton (1969) described a simple yet powerful model of effective conflict man- agement that reflects insights echoed by a number of other influential writers (Fisher & Ury, 1981; Pruitt & Carnevale, 1993; Putnam, 2010). The model views conflict in terms of two broad phases: a differentiation phase followed by an integration phase. In dif- ferentiation, parties raise the issues underlying the conflict and spend time and energy clarifying positions, pursuing the reasons behind those positions, and acknowledging their differences. As Putnam suggests, “Differentiation refers to the pattern of interac- tion that sharply distinguishes opposing positions” (2010, p. 327). This first phase is sometimes uncomfortable and tense, and it may evoke unpleasant emotions, but it is valuable because it helps parties to become more knowledgeable about the issues and the different goals and points of view they have (Wageman & Donnenfeld, 2007). After Folger, Joseph P., et al. Working Through Conflict : Strategies for Relationships, Groups, and Organizations, Taylor & Francis Group, 2021. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uhdowntown/detail.action?docID=6476632. Created from uhdowntown on 2023-12-10 18:38:55.  16 Communication and Conflict some time differentiating, the process reaches a “tipping point,” and an integration phase begins. Parties begin to acknowledge common ground, explore possible options, and move toward some solution—sometimes one that meets everyone’s needs, and some- times simply one they can live with. If integration is not completely successful, the con- flict may cycle back through a new differentiation phase. This two-phase model of conflict may seem elementary, but it is highly suggestive because it indicates what parties must do to move through a conflict successfully. How and whether conflict interaction moves from differentiation through integration is complicated. 1.1.1 Moving Through Differentiation and Integration The differentiation stage of conflicts is often difficult because of the seemingly unbridge- able differences that emerge and the intense negative emotions these differences often spark. The combination of hostility and irreconcilable positions may encourage behav- ior that spurs uncontrolled escalation into a destructive conflict. In a different overre- action, parties fearful of escalation and loss of control may “sit on” and suppress the conflict, which then festers and undermines their relationship. But it is important to navigate differentiation successfully in order to set up the conditions for integration, during which “parties appreciate their similarities, acknowledge their common goals, own up to positive aspects of their ambivalence, express warmth and respect, and/or engage in other positive actions to manage their conflict” (Walton, 1969, p. 105). The simultaneous need for and fear of differentiation poses a difficult dilemma for parties who want to work through important conflicts. Adequate differentiation is necessary for constructive conflict resolution. Without a clear statement of each party’s position, finding a satisfactory result—one in which “the participants all are satisfied with their outcomes and feel they have gained as a result of the conflict”—is a hit-or-miss venture (Deutsch, 1973, p. 17; Putnam, 2013). Unless parties honestly acknowledge their differences and realize that they must tackle the conflict and work it out, they may not be sufficiently motivated to deal with the problem. And unless they understand their points of difference, they do not have the knowledge required to find a workable solution. Expressing different points of view and dissenting from consensus are often the foundation for creativity and high-quality decision making (Behfar & Thompson, 2007; Schulz-Hardt, Mojzisch, & Vogelgesang, 2008). Similarly, parties’ ability to confront another’s unacceptable or nonnormative behavior is often tied to greater productivity and satisfaction with participating in groups (Urch, Druskat, & Wolff, 2007). Despite its real value and critical importance, differentiation may also lead to open Copyright © 2021. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved. confrontation and competition. Discovering that others disagree or want something that threatens our best interests is frustrating. Others may be combative, demanding and angry, or complaining and insistent, as they express their demands and air grievances. Differentiation may initially involve personalizing the conflict and blame-placing as par- ties clarify their stands and identify with positions. Due to these and other potential problems, parties may be reluctant to openly explore and understand their differences (Putnam, 2010). Paradoxically, though, it is not until opposing positions are articulated that the con- flict can finally be managed. Once individual positions have been clarified, it is just a short step to the realization that the heart of the conflict lies in the incompatibility of posi- tions and is not the other party’s “fault.” If parties can clarify the issues and air diverse positions without losing control (a difficult problem in its own right), they can recast the conflict as an external obstacle that they can work together to surmount. Folger, Joseph P., et al. Working Through Conflict : Strategies for Relationships, Groups, and Organizations, Taylor & Francis Group, 2021. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uhdowntown/detail.action?docID=6476632. Created from uhdowntown on 2023-12-10 18:38:55.  Communication and Conflict 17 Once achieved, this depersonalized and more accurate view of the issues serves as a basis for commonality. It often marks the beginning of an integrative phase, but by no means does it signify the end of the conflict process. The parties must still generate ideas and choose a solution that, as Simmel (1955, p. 14) puts it, “resolves the tension between contrasts” in the group or social relationship. From this point of view, people can build on the accomplishments of differentiation. Differentiation and Escalation Although differentiation is necessary for constructive conflict resolution, it can also nourish destructive tendencies. Differentiation surfaces disagreements and makes them the center of attention. It raises the stakes, because fail- ure to resolve the disagreements means that members must live with a keen awareness of this failure and with the negative consequences it entails. In some cases, the process of differentiation can spiral out of control into “malevolent cycling”—highly personalized or hostile conflict that is not directed toward issues (Wal- ton, 1969). Baxter, Wilmot, Simmons, and Swartz (1993) conducted open-ended inter- views with students that suggested that spiraling escalation is common in interpersonal conflicts. They labeled one commonly occurring type of conflict in their interviews “Esca- latory Conflict” because it involved increasing emotional intensity and multiple stages in which the scope and intensity of the conflict increased over time. One female respondent provided this example from a romantic relationship: “I might bring up a topic. Then he will get mad that I brought up this particular topic. Then I will lose my patience and get frustrated. He, in turn, will get more mad” (Baxter et al., 1993, p. 98). “Serial arguing,” in which unresolved conflicts manifest over the course of many interactions, is a common feature of many interpersonal relationships (Roloff & Wright, 2013; Koerner, 2013). This type of escalation also occurs in workplace conflicts, conflicts between groups, and international conflicts (North, Brody, & Holsti, 1963; Garner & Poole, 2013; Walton, 1969). As we discuss in Chapters 2 and 3, it is fueled by negative emotions such as anger and hurt, by social cognitive processes such as attributing fault for the conflict to the other, and by interaction processes such as reciprocity. Differentiation and Avoidance A second, equally damaging pattern in conflict inter- action is overly rigid avoidance. Parties may sometimes fear the consequences of open conflict so much that they refuse to acknowledge the conflict and avoid anything that might spark a confrontation. They may respond to potential conflicts with ambiguous statements (“I’m not sure how I feel about that”) and skirt troublesome issues. They may openly suppress discussion of the conflict (“Let’s not talk about that”) and refuse to acknowledge it (“There’s really no problem here”). Even when both parties know there is a conflict, they may simply avoid discussing it, even if there is palpable discomfort with that “elephant in the room,” the potential conflict. Even when someone is being bullied Copyright © 2021. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved. by another person, he or she is often likely to avoid addressing the behavior (sometimes by leaving a group or organization) rather than confront the issues (Coyne, Stockdale, Busby, Iverson, & Grant, 2011; Raver & Barling, 2008). The fear of conflict escalation easily motivates people to avoid talking about the conflict (Pruitt, 2008; Speakman & Ryals, 2010). The problem with rigid avoidance is that parties may never realize their own potential for finding creative solutions to important problems (Garner & Poole, 2013; Tjosvold, 1995). Trying to avoid conflict at all costs, parties may quickly accept an unsatisfactory solution. A classic study by Guetzkow and Gyr (1954) provides a vivid picture of the conse- quences of rigid avoidance. In a sample of seventy-two decision-making groups they compared interaction in groups with high levels of substantive conflict (conflict focused on the issues and on disagreements about possible solutions) to interaction in groups Folger, Joseph P., et al. Working Through Conflict : Strategies for Relationships, Groups, and Organizations, Taylor & Francis Group, 2021. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uhdowntown/detail.action?docID=6476632. Created from uhdowntown on 2023-12-10 18:38:55.  18 Communication and Conflict with high levels of affective conflict (interpersonal conflict characterized by extreme frus- tration, according to an outsider’s observations). They were interested in the difference between substantive and affective conflicts because affective conflicts are more likely to exhibit spiraling escalation. Affective conflict was highly correlated with how critical and punishing members are to each other and how unpleasant the emotional atmosphere is. In essence, affective conflict is a sign of differentiation gone awry. The objective of Guetzkow and Gyr was to determine what conditions allowed groups with substantive and affective conflict, respectively, to reach consensus. Guetzkow and Gyr found that different behaviors contributed to each group’s ability to reach consensus. Groups that were high in substantive conflict and were able to reach consensus sought three times as much factual information and relied on that informa- tion more heavily in reaching a decision than did groups that were not able to reach consensus. In other words, substantive conflict was resolved by determined pursuit of the issue. In contrast, groups high in affective conflict engaged mostly in flight or avoidance to reach consensus. Members withdrew from the problem by addressing simpler and less controversial agenda items, showed less interest in the discussion overall, and talked to only a few others in the group. When consensus was achieved in the affective conflict groups, it was most often the result of ignoring the critical problem at hand and finding an issue on which members could comfortably reach agreement. If the primary goal is to reduce tension and discomfort at any cost, then flight behaviors will serve well. When people cannot easily ignore an issue, however, destructive tension can result from their inability to pursue the conflict. Baxter et al. (1993) also found this type of avoidance in their study of interpersonal conflict. One of the interviewees in their study called this type of conflict “don’t talk about it” conflict. When confronting particularly serious issues, friends reported that they would change the subject and avoid the conflict because they did not want to threaten their relationship. Results similar to those in the two studies just summarized have been found in numerous other studies (Nicotera & Dorsey, 2006; Garner & Poole, 2013). Differentiation and Rigidity In the Greek epic poem The Odyssey, Ulysses and his men must sail through a narrow strait guarded by two monsters. On one side is Scylla, a rav- enous six-headed snake who would seize six men from each passing ship to satisfy her ravenous hunger. On the other is Charybdis, a whirlpool that would suck unsuspecting ships into the deeps. Ships had to navigate the strait very carefully to escape the two monsters. To drift too far one way or the other was to court death and disaster. Avoidance and hostile escalation are the Scylla and Charybdis of differentiation, and carefully nav- igating a course that escapes both is key to effective conflict management. Copyright © 2021. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved. Differentiation is often threatening or anxiety-ridden, and this makes sticking to the straight and narrow course toward integration difficult. Threat and anxiety tends to pro- duce rigidity that causes people to cling inflexibly to patterns of interaction that emerge during differentiation. We will consider the relationships among threat, anxiety, and rigidity in more detail in Chapter 2, but we will undertake some preliminary discussion here to explain the nor- mative model. Figure 1.1 illustrates the relationship among differentiation, inflexibility, and the course of conflict interaction. Psychodynamics, discussed in Chapter 2, are one source of inflexibility. Psychody- namic theory traces maladaptive, repetitive behavior—behavior that persists despite its destructive outcomes—to a threatening or anxiety-inducing environment (Volkan, 1994). During differentiation parties in conflict are faced with anxiety-inducing pres- sures that work against flexibility and adaptability: (1) an initial personalization of the Folger, Joseph P., et al. Working Through Conflict : Strategies for Relationships, Groups, and Organizations, Taylor & Francis Group, 2021. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uhdowntown/detail.action?docID=6476632. Created from uhdowntown on 2023-12-10 18:38:55.  Communication and Conflict 19 Figure 1.1 Possible Responses to the Demands of Differentiation in Conflict Situations Spiraling escalation Inflexibility Differentiation Integration Problem-solving solution Inflexibility Avoidance conflict; (2) the stress of acknowledging opposing stands; (3) hostile and emotional statements; (4) uncertainty about the outcomes of the conflict; and (5) heightened awareness of the consequences of not reaching a resolution (Holsti, 1971; Smart & Ver- tinsky, 1977). These pressures tend to lead toward radical escalation. Failure to differentiate and search for an acceptable resolution can rigidify relation- ships as well. The Baxter et al. (1993) interviews indicated that relational conflicts some- times exhibit predictable repetitions, and they labeled these déjà vu conflicts. In these cases, the parties enact the same conflict over and over again. In one case, an interviewee indicated that she and her partner ‘know in advance’ that they will (a) enact a conflict on a certain topic or issue, (b) know how the conflict will play itself out, and (c) know that the enactment will never end in genuine resolution. (p. 97) This sort of frustrating “broken-record” interaction is fed by rigidity and can be overcome if parties engage and explore their differences directly. Differentiation is a necessary but anxiety-provoking process that people face during any conflict. If parties pursue issues and work through the demands of differentiation without rigidly adhering to counterproductive interaction patterns, there is a clear prom- ise of innovation and of finding an integrative solution to the conflict (Alberts, 1990). The pressures toward escalation are formidable, however, and the anxiety of differentia- tion can promote rigidity of behavior, resulting in either spiraling conflict or flight from the issue. Copyright © 2021. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved. 1.1.2 Taking the Middle Path: Moving Toward Integration The key to effective conflict management is to achieve the benefits of differentiation— clear understanding of differences, acceptance of others’ positions as legitimate (but not necessarily agreeing with them), and motivation to work on the conflict—and to make a clean transition to integration, which sets the conflict on an entirely different course (Putnam, 2009). Making the transition from differentiation to integration is not always easy. It requires parties to make a fundamental change in the direction of the conflict, turning it from a focus on differences—often accompanied by intense emotions and a desire to defeat each other—to negotiation and cooperative work. Several measures can facilitate this transition. First, it is important to ensure that differences have surfaced as completely as possible. Diverse points of view are valuable in finding and creating solutions and outcomes, but Folger, Joseph P., et al. Working Through Conflict : Strategies for Relationships, Groups, and Organizations, Taylor & Francis Group, 2021. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uhdowntown/detail.action?docID=6476632. Created from uhdowntown on 2023-12-10 18:38:55.  20 Communication and Conflict only if diverse perspectives are articulated clearly by the parties (Cassidy, 2010; Gouran, 2010). If parties do not feel that they have articulated their issues completely, they are likely to return to them later on, moving what had been constructive work back into dif- ferentiation. There is less temptation to do this if parties attain a thorough understand- ing of each other’s positions, even if they do not agree with each other. A second condition that promotes a transition to integration is when parties realize that others will not give into them or be pushed into an inferior settlement. It is an old adage that armies go to the negotiating table when they reach a “standoff.” Chapter 5 discusses how the balance of power affects conflicts and how parties can attain a workable balance. Pruitt, Rubin, and Kim (1994) recommend that parties be encouraged to set ambi- tious goals for themselves in negotiation. If parties “aim high” and strive for outcomes that are truly meaningful to them, rather than settling for subpar results, they are more likely to stand their ground and act decisively. This, in turn, is likely to convince others that they will not be intimidated or easily moved, and those others are likely to recognize the need to deal with the party on terms other than competition. Experiencing the negative consequences of differentiation can also motivate parties to work on the conflict. Sometimes parties must inflict serious practical or emotional dam- age on each other before they realize that it is not appropriate or workable to compete, but that some other route must be taken to resolve the situation. For example, many married couples seek counseling only after repeated, damaging fights. This is unfortu- nate, but a case can be made that these couples seek counseling only because they finally realize the dire consequences of continuing in their present, miserable patterns. This last point reemphasizes the paradox of the positive results that can emerge from enduring the often negative and unpleasant experience of differentiation. It is important for parties to synchronize their transition to the integration stage (Wal- ton, 1969). If one party is ready to work on the problem, but the other still wants to fight, the first might give up on cooperation and restart escalating conflict. The burden of synchronizing often falls to the one who first develops cooperative intentions. This party must endure the other’s “slings and arrows” and attempt to promote cooperation and a shift to collaborating. The transition to integration will be easier if the other feels that his or her position has been heard. Active listening—in which the party draws out the other’s issues and grievances and responds in a respectful manner—encourages conciliation. This enables both parties to build “positive face,” as explained in Chapter 6. Chapter 4 discusses strategies and tactics that promote integration. One such strategy is the “reformed sinner”—after an initial period of competition, the party offers coop- eration and signs of goodwill in response to the other’s behavior; if the other continues to compete, the party responds with competition and then returns to cooperation. This Copyright © 2021. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved. indicates that the party could compete if he or she wanted to, but instead prefers cooper- ation. A final condition that promotes integration is a cooperative climate—the general situation surrounding the conflict is not threatening or defensive. The ways in which climates are created and sustained are discussed in Chapter 7. In many cases, a third party can be a great help in making the transition from differ- entiation to integration. People sometimes become so involved in the conflict that they have neither the motivation nor the insight to take the necessary actions. A third party has a more objective stance and can often determine what must be done to move the conflict into integration. In addition, individuals often trust the third party and will fol- low advice that they would not accept from each other. A discussion of third parties and their role in sharpening conflicts and inducing integration can be found in Chapter 9. One key to moving through differentiation and integration is the ability to recognize destructive and productive patterns, which we will now address. Folger, Joseph P., et al. Working Through Conflict : Strategies for Relationships, Groups, and Organizations, Taylor & Francis Group, 2021. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uhdowntown/detail.action?docID=6476632. Created from uhdowntown on 2023-12-10 18:38:55.  Communication and Conflict 21 1.1.3 Recognizing Destructive Cycles It is often difficult to determine when conflict interaction has turned in a destructive direction. Conflict can develop tendencies in gradual and subtle steps, and sometimes it is difficult to assess the consequences of gradual changes. Conflicts can also be difficult to understand due to conscious efforts by some parties to keep the conflict “hidden”— out of the more public forums in a group or organization (Kolb & Bartunek, 1992). Unsuspecting parties may suddenly find themselves caught in an escalating spiral or persistent avoidance. Once in these destructive cycles, the rigidity that sets in may pre- vent parties from pulling out. It is important to be constantly on the alert for signs of destructive patterns and to act quickly to alter them. Developing the ability to recognize protracted, destructive spirals is a key conflict management skill because such insight is the first step in taking some control over the conflict. People in conflict must be aware of concrete symptoms that signal the possible onset of escalation or avoidance. Table 1.1 summarizes several symptoms of when a conflict is heading toward destruc- tive escalation or avoidance. The mere appearance of any symptom should not be an automatic cause for concern. Productive conflict interaction can pass through periods of escalation, avoidance, constructive work, and relaxation. Cycles become threatening only when they are repetitive and pre-empt other responses. Once a destructive cycle has been recognized, parties (or third parties) can inter- vene to break it. The previous section mentioned some measures, and we will explore these and other interventions throughout the remainder of this book. Countermeasures against destructive cycles need not be formal or particularly systematic. Simply making a Table 1.1 Interaction Symptoms of Escalation or Avoidance Cycles Symptoms of Avoidance Symptoms of Escalation Marked decrease in the parties’ An issue takes much longer to deal with commitment to solving the problem than was anticipated. (“Why would we care?”). Quick acceptance of a suggested solution. Parties repeatedly offer the same argument in support of a position. Parties stop themselves from raising Parties overinflate the consequences of not controversial aspects of an issue. reaching agreement. People “tune out” of the interaction. Threats are used to win arguments. Unresolved issues keep emerging in the Mounting tension is felt. Copyright © 2021. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved. same or different form. Discussion centers on a safe aspect of a The parties get nowhere but seem to be broader and more explosive issue. working feverishly. Little sharing of information. There is name-calling and personal arguments. Outspoken people are notably quiet. Immediate polarization on issues or the emergence of coalitions. No plans are made to implement a chosen Hostile eye gaze or less-direct eye contact solution. occurs between parties. No evaluation is made of evidence that is Sarcastic laughter or humor is used as a offered in support of claims. form of tension release. Heated disagreements seem pointless or are about trivial issues. Folger, Joseph P., et al. Working Through Conflict : Strategies for Relationships, Groups, and Organizations, Taylor & Francis Group, 2021. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uhdowntown/detail.action?docID=6476632. Created from uhdowntown on 2023-12-10 18:38:55.  22 Communication and Conflict surprising comment can jolt a conflict out of a destructive cycle. We recall a group mem- ber who recognized a fight developing and suddenly said, “Are we having fun yet?” This cliché got others to laugh at themselves, defusing the situation. 1.1.4 Tacking Against the Wind Effective conflict management is much like tacking a sailboat to move upstream against an unfavorable wind (and steering it so as to avoid Scylla and Charybdis!). A sailor wish- ing to move her boat against the wind can do so by directing the boat at an angle, back and forth across the water, taking advantage of the sail’s ability to capture some force from the opposing wind if they are set at an angle to it, as illustrated in Figure 1.2. In the same way, the tensions introduced by the danger points of escalation and avoidance may provide useful forces to move the conflict in productive directions, because they “jar loose” parties’ assumptions that things are going well and encourage them to realize that others may have opinions/needs that differ from their own. Even though tacking a sail- boat takes time and does not seem as direct as moving straight to one’s destination, it is in fact the only choice we have when we want to steer our ship in a productive direction. There is no way to get a sailboat to go against the wind without tacking, and there is no way to work through a conflict without braving the balance between rampant escalation and stubborn avoidance. In performing this balancing act, it is important to manage conflict interaction effec- tively. This is no easy task because, as noted in the Introduction, interaction often seems to have a “mind of its own.” It seems to be driven by forces beyond our control, and sometimes may even seem incoherent and uncontrollable. This encourages people to ignore the give-and-take of interaction and rely instead on generalizations or rules of thumb. For instance, there is a temptation to say “she is just a difficult person to get along with” as a way of explaining why discussions with Joelle always seem to end in con- flicts. Of course, this ignores the fact that Joelle might be reacting to the aggressive Figure 1.2 Tacking Against the Wind Copyright © 2021. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved. Folger, Joseph P., et al. Working Through Conflict : Strategies for Relationships, Groups, and Organizations, Taylor & Francis Group, 2021. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uhdowntown/detail.action?docID=6476632. Created from uhdowntown on 2023-12-10 18:38:55.  Communication and Conflict 23 presentation of our position. Alternatively, we might assume that “the best way to win our position is to never disclose it, but rather to find out the others’ position and try to exploit any weaknesses.” This rule of thumb eliminates the need to make sense of an evolving situation because we have decided to do the same thing no matter what the other party does. However, this inflexible approach may discourage a cooperative party and lead her to adopt a competitive stance in the face of manipulation. It is important to avoid these easy paths and to recognize that the key to conflict management is under- standing conflict interaction and taking appropriate measures to redirect it in positive directions. It is easy to say this, but now how do we go about doing it? There is no simple answer to this challenge. However, about fifty years ago scholars in sociology, social psychology, communication, conflict studies, labor relations, and other fields began to untangle the puzzle that is human interaction. Our knowledge has grown rapidly over the past thirty years, to the point where we can understand some of the general contours and also spe- cific dynamics of human interaction. We are not yet at a point where we can predict it with any certainty, and it may be impossible to get to such a point. Additionally, many aspects of interaction remain uncharted territory—unknown, unmapped, unstudied. But some general principles have emerged, and we focus this book on them. 1.2 PROPERTIES OF CONFLICT INTERACTION Five properties of conflict interaction offer keys to understanding the development and consequences of conflicts: 1. Conflict is constituted and sustained by moves and countermoves during interaction. 2. Patterns of behavior in conflict tend to perpetuate themselves. 3. Conflict interaction is influenced by and in turn affects relationships. 4. Conflict interaction is influenced by context. 5. Conflict interaction is always punctuated. By “unpacking” these simple statements, we can discover a number of important points about conflict. We introduced the idea of conflict as interaction at the beginning of this book, and Property 1 expands this idea by distinguishing moves and countermoves as the basic features of interaction. This suggests that it will be useful to explore various strategies and tactics that can be used to enact conflicts. Property 1 also highlights the importance Copyright © 2021. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved. of power in conflict because moves and countermoves depend on power. As we will see, power is often regarded as a possession or personal characteristic; for example, it is com- mon to use phrases like “he or she is powerful.” In Chapter 5, however, we explain that power is created and sustained during interaction, so moves and countermoves play an important role in determining a person’s power in a given situation. Property 2 expands on the previous section to focus on the momentum that con- flicts develop. Sometimes momentum contributes to destructive cycles of avoidance or escalation, but in other cases momentum for productive conflict management develops. Momentum depends on psychological and behavioral dynamics that parties are often unaware of. We will explore these in Chapters 2 and 3. With so many factors, no wonder conflicts sometimes escape our control! Property 3 directs our attention to relationships. The prior history of the relation- ships among parties has a powerful influence on conflict. Face, which refers to the side Folger, Joseph P., et al. Working Through Conflict : Strategies for Relationships, Groups, and Organizations, Taylor & Francis Group, 2021. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uhdowntown/detail.action?docID=6476632. Created from uhdowntown on 2023-12-10 18:38:55.  24 Communication and Conflict of themselves that people try to present in public, is particularly important in conflict. Interactions go differently for those perceived to be honorable, competent, or intelligent than it does for those perceived to be untrustworthy, incompetent, or simpleminded. During conflicts people often challenge face, and the drive to maintain or restore it can dominate all other concerns. In Chapter 6, we explore how face and other relational concerns influence conflicts. Other relational aspects of conflict will be discussed in Chapters 2, 3, and 4, which focus on the psychology of conflict, conflict interaction, and conflict styles, respectively. Property 4 addresses how context shapes conflict interaction. Several aspects of con- text are relevant. Previous history strongly shapes conflict interaction. Parties bring a history of personal experiences that affect how they act during conflicts. The parties may also have a previous relationship with each other that contextualizes the conflict. The unfolding situation also has a character—generally known as climate—that represents the immediate context for interaction. Climate refers to the general interpretations that parties attach to a situation, such as whether it is competitive or threatening. Finally, organizations and communities often develop normative systems of norms and proce- dures for the management of conflict. These, too, form part of the context and shape how the conflict unfolds. Property 5 shows how we make sense of conflict depends on when we believe it starts and ends. By punctuating the beginning and ending of conflict, we emphasize what mat- ters and situate what is at issue in the conflict. This punctuation often occurs implicitly without mindful consideration but wields considerable influence on what people attend to in the conflict. The five properties of conflict interaction suggest points at which conflicts can be influenced by judicious interventions. Many of these interventions can be under- taken by the parties themselves. In some cases, it may be more effective for third parties—facilitators, mediators, arbitrators, even therapists and lawyers—to inter- vene. We will discuss interventions throughout this book. Chapters 4 through 7 have special sections on intervention, and Chapter 8 focuses on methods for managing conflict. Chapter 9 considers how third parties can help manage conflicts. Chapter 10 focuses on practical strategies students of conflict can learn and apply to everyday situations. Now let us turn to each of the five properties, with special emphasis on the role of communication. 1.2.1 Property 1: Conflict Is Constituted and Sustained by Moves and Countermoves During Interaction Copyright © 2021. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved. Conflicts emerge as a series of actions and reactions. The “he did X and then she said Y and then he said Z and then...” formula is often used to explain a quarrel. When parties try to deal with incompatibilities, the way in which their actions mesh plays an import- ant role in the direction the conflict takes. In this sense, conflict is emergent; it emerges through the unfolding actions and reactions of the parties (Okhuysen & Richardson, 2007). Suppose Robert criticizes Susan, an employee under his supervision, for her decreas- ing productivity. Susan may accept the criticism and explain why her production is down, thus reducing the conflict and moving toward a solution. Susan may also shout back and sulk, inviting escalation, or she may choose to say nothing and avoid the conflict, result- ing in no improvement in the situation. Once Robert has spoken to Susan and she has responded, the situation is no longer totally under Robert’s control: His next behavior Folger, Joseph P., et al. Working Through Conflict : Strategies for Relationships, Groups, and Organizations, Taylor & Francis Group, 2021. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uhdowntown/detail.action?docID=6476632. Created from uhdowntown on 2023-12-10 18:38:55.  Communication and Conflict 25 will be a response to Susan’s reaction. Robert’s behavior, and its subsequent meaning to Susan, is dependent on the interchange between them. The behavioral sequence of initiation-response-counterresponse is the basic building block of conflicts. This sequence cannot be understood by breaking it into its parts, into the individual behaviors of Robert and Susan. It is more complex than the individual behaviors and, in a real sense, has a “life” of its own. Taylor and Donald (2003) conducted a study of interaction during nine hostage negotiations and twenty-seven divorce mediations that sheds some light on the inter- connections between acts during conflict sequences. They found significant amounts of conflict in both and that disputant behaviors could be classified into “avoidant (with- drawal), distributive (antagonistic), and integrative (cooperative) behavior” (Taylor & Donald, 2003, p. 218). This classification reflects the three different trajectories of con- flicts described earlier in this chapter, and we will revisit them often in the remainder of this book. However, Taylor and Donald studied individual behaviors or acts that occur during negotiations and conflicts, the “building blocks” of the more general directions that we have discussed. Taylor and Donald found that a four-act sequence served as the basic structure of the interaction in these negotiations. For example, one sequence might run as follows: 1. Robert: I didn’t mean to hurt your feelings (Integrative Act). 2. Susan: But you did hurt me, and I’m mad! (Distributive Act). 3. Robert: I just meant my remark to be constructive criticism (Integrative Act). 4. Susan: OK, I understand... but it still hurt (Integrative Act). In this sequence, Robert makes an integrative move by apologizing. Susan responds with a distributive act that is probably meant more to emphasize her hurt feelings than to actually compete with Robert. Robert then explains more by way of apologizing. Finally Susan accepts his apologies, but again she underscores that she was hurt. This sequence is also called a “triple-interact” because it strings together three pairs of acts, each of which is called an “interact”: act 1-act 2; act 2-act 3; and act 3-act 4. Note that each act serves as the response to the previous act and as an initiator of the next act. For instance, act 2 by Susan is both a response to act 1 by Robert and a stimulus for Robert’s act 3. Taylor and Donald’s research indicated that we must consider four-act sequences to adequately understand what is occurring during these negotiations. If we consider just the first two acts, we might conclude that Robert has made an overture for reconciliation and that it was rejected by Susan. However, if we go on to consider all four acts, we see Copyright © 2021. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved. that Susan accepts Robert’s apology, but just wants him to know how hurt she was. No single act, or pair of acts, is sufficient to understand or to enact a conflict. Longer struc- tures may also help us to understand the conflict, but structures shorter than three are not sufficient. Conflicts cannot be reduced to the acts of individuals, for they are com- posed of interactions among the parties: moves, responses, and countermoves. Moves and countermoves depend on participants’ ability and willingness to exert power. Power can be defined as the capacity to act effectively. Power sometimes takes the form of outward strength, status, money, or allies, but these are only the most obvious sources of power. There are many other sources such as time, attractiveness, and persua- sive ability that operate in a much more subtle fashion. In the Women’s Hotline case (Case Study I.1) on pages 2–3, for example, Diane might have used the other workers’ guilt to try to get her way, and the workers did use their seniority and familiarity with their jobs to pass judgment on her by drafting a list of Folger, Joseph P., et al. Working Through Conflict : Strategies for Relationships, Groups, and Organizations, Taylor & Francis Group, 2021. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uhdowntown/detail.action?docID=6476632. Created from uhdowntown on 2023-12-10 18:38:55.  26 Communication and Conflict worker responsibilities. In both cases, power operates much more subtly and indirectly than is commonly assumed. More generally, a person is powerful when he or she has the resources to act and to influence others and the skills to do so effectively. The third party in the hotline case provides a good example of the effective use of power: The third party had certain resources to influence the group—experience with other conflicts and knowledge about how to work with groups—and made skillful use of them to move both sides toward a solution. Participants’ attempts to mobilize and apply power can drastically shift the direction conflict takes. As possible solutions to the conflict are considered, the parties learn how much power each is willing to use to encourage or to prevent the adoption of various alternatives. This is critical in the definition of conflict issues and solutions because it signals how important the issue is. The balance of power often tips the scale in a productive or destructive direction. If a party perceives that he or she can dominate others, there is little incentive to compromise. A dominant party can get whatever he or she wants, at least in the short term, and negotia- tion only invites others to cut into the party’s solution. In the same vein, feeling powerless can sap parties’ resolve and cause them to appease more powerful individuals. Of course, this method often encourages powerful people to be more demanding. Only when all parties have at least some power is the conflict likely to move in a productive direction. At the Women’s Hotline, the third party was called in only after both Diane and the workers had played their first “trumps”—the workers by informing Diane of her responsi- bilities, and Diane by filing a grievance. The use of power could have prompted additional moves and countermoves: Rather than calling in a third party, both sides could have con- tinued to try to force each other to yield, and the conflict could have continued escalating. In this case, however, the two sides perceived each other’s power and, because they wanted the hotline to survive, backed off. As risky as this process of balancing power is, many social scientists have come to the conclusion that it is a necessary condition for construc- tive conflict resolution (Deutsch, 1973; Folberg & Taylor, 1984; Pruitt et al., 1994). Power often begets power. Those who have resources and the skills to use it wisely can use it in such a way that their power increases and reinforces itself. Those with little power find it difficult to assert themselves and to build a stronger base for the future. Yet, for conflicts to maintain a constructive direction there should be a balance of power. This requires members to reverse the usual flow: The weaker parties must build their power and the stronger ones must share theirs, or at least not use it to force or dominate the weaker ones. As shown in Chapter 5, managing this reversal is both tricky and risky. It is tricky because power is difficult to identify, and sharing power may run up against members’ natural inclinations. It is risky because the process of increasing some parties’ Copyright © 2021. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved. power and decreasing or suspending others’ is a sensitive operation and can precipitate even sharper conflicts. Power is a fact of life in conflicts (Berger, 1994). Trying to ignore power or to pretend power differences do not exist is pointless because power is operating notwithstanding and will influence the moves and countermoves in the conflict. Chapter 5 discusses the role of power in conflict interaction. 1.2.2 Property 2: Patterns of Behavior in Conflicts Tend to Perpetuate Themselves As we just noted, conflict often seems to take on a “life of its own.” To continue our example, suppose that Susan shouts back at Robert, Robert tries to discipline her, Susan becomes more recalcitrant, and so on, in an escalating spiral. The cycle could also limit Folger, Joseph P., et al. Working Through Conflict : Strategies for Relationships, Groups, and Organizations, Taylor & Francis Group, 2021. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uhdowntown/detail.action?docID=6476632. Created from uhdowntown on 2023-12-10 18:38:55.  Communication and Conflict 27 itself if Robert responds to Susan’s shouting with an attempt to calm her and listen to her side of the story. Conflict interaction acquires a momentum of its own through these self-reinforcing cycles. Such cycles tend to take a definite direction—toward esca- lation, toward avoidance and suppression, or toward productive work on resolving the conflict. The depth of the momentum in conflict interaction becomes even more apparent when we remember that Robert formulated his original criticism on the basis of his previous experience with Susan. That is, Robert’s move is based on his perception of Susan’s likely response. In the same way, Susan’s response is based not only on Robert’s criticism but also on her estimate of Robert’s likely reaction to her response. Usually such estimations are “intuitive”—that is, they are not conscious—but sometimes parties do plot them out (“If I shout at Robert, he’ll back down, and maybe I won’t have to deal with this”). Parties’ actions in conflict are based on their perceptions of each other and on whatever theories or beliefs each holds about the other’s reactions. Because these estimates are only intuitive predictions, they may be wrong to some extent. The estimates will be revised as the conflict unfolds, and this revision will largely determine what direc- tion the conflict takes. The most striking thing about this predictive process is the extraordinary difficulties it poses when we attempt to understand the parties’ thinking. When Susan responds to Robert on the basis of her prediction of Robert’s answer, from the outside we see Susan making an estimate of Robert’s estimate of what she means by her response. If Robert reflects on Susan’s intention before answering, we observe Robert’s estimate of Susan’s estimate of his estimate of what Susan meant. This string of estimates can increase with- out bounds if one tries to pin down the originating point, and after a while the prospect is just as dizzying as a hall of mirrors. Several studies of different conflicts in contexts such as arms races (North et al., 1963), marital relations (Rubin, 1983; Scarf, 1987; Watzlawick, Beavin, & Jackson, 1967), and employee-supervisor interactions (Brown, 1983) have shown how this spiral of predictions poses a critical problem. If the parties do not take this spiral into account they run the risk of miscalculation. However, it is impossible to calculate all of the pos- sibilities. At best, people have limited knowledge of the consequences of their actions for others, and their ability to manage conflicts is therefore severely curtailed. Not only are parties’ behaviors inherently interwoven in conflicts, but their thinking and antici- pations are as well. The tendency of conflicts to develop through repetitive cycles is present in all types of human interaction. Any message is based on some, perhaps only barely conscious, assumption about how it will be received. Each assumption or prediction about the Copyright © 2021. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved. reaction is based on an estimate, a best guess, about the other person or social unit as a whole. The choice of message anticipates and reflects the response it seeks, and thus pro- motes the reaction included in its construction. A predictable sequence of act-response is often established in conflict interaction because each message in the sequence helps to elicit the response it receives. In the previous section we discussed the tendencies of escalation and avoidance to perpetuate themselves. Perversely, this tendency toward self-perpetuation is also useful because it helps par- ties know what to expect. Even if they are oversimplified, any grounds for predicting how the conflict will go is more assuring than not knowing what will happen next. For this reason, parties are often willing to make assumptions about the