Climate and Conflict Interaction PDF

Chapter 7 CLIMATE AND CONFLICT INTERACTION...

Chapter 7 CLIMATE AND CONFLICT INTERACTION W e have many common idioms and expressions for describing the mood or atmosphere in any given setting. Listen to peers describe their experience in a particular context, and you might hear descriptions such as, “the tension was so thick you could cut it with a knife,” or “I could almost smell the fear,” or “I got such a negative vibe,” or “the positive energy was very uplifting.” What we are attempting to describe in colorful language is what organizational researchers call “climate,” and it has a powerful effect on the outcomes people achieve or don’t achieve together. As the meteorological name implies, climate is just as diffuse, and just as pervasive, as weather. The terms “culture” and “climate” are frequently and erroneously used interchangeably in much of the organizational literature. We can more clearly distinguish between these two concepts if we remember the influence of a group which dictates how many group members interact and address recurrent problems. Culture refers to deeply embedded values and assumptions of a group which dictates the acceptable ways by which group members interact and address recurrent problems (Janz, Colquitt, & Noe, 1997). Cultures evolve over time and are highly resistant to change. Climate, on the other hand, refers to the shared experiences of the group members arising from common practices and pro- cedures (Clegg, 2010). Because these practices can change, climate is also subject to orga- nizational and personal influence. Significant events, such as catastrophes or changes in leadership, are absorbed and interpreted through the culture. The culture applies the lens through which group members “make sense” of the event. Climate is much more mallea- ble. Major events or actions or sustained new practices can swiftly change the climate by altering experience. We establish new expectations for what can and will happen soon as Copyright © 2021. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved. a result of the change and therefore experience a profound shift in climate. Climate is created by the interactions among parties and is commonly measured by the dimensions which reflect this interaction. We can observe a climate in the sense that we can see the everyday practices and behaviors enacted by individuals in any given con- text (relationship, group, or organization), but climate is also the meaning attached to those practices. In other words, if interaction creates climate, it is also invented by what the interaction experience connotes. The major goal of early climate research was to demonstrate the relationship between climate and organizational outcomes, such as job satisfaction. This tradition continues but with a focus on what kinds of climates produce outcomes important to people. Researchers have examined climates of service, innovation, justice, safety, and ethics, among many others. Climates matter most when they are vigorous and strong. When cli- mate strength is weak, usually due to inconsistent behaviors or practices, the relationship between outcomes and climate is also weak. Conversely, when the strength of a climate 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 2023-10-02 17:20:30.  214 Climate and Conflict Interaction is high, the relationship to outcomes is noticeable. When an internal organizational climate is positive, customers may perceive better service. We recognize climates more easily when they shape outcomes important to us. For example, we know some organi- zational climates promote safe working conditions, whereas others champion speed or customer satisfaction over personal safety. So-called safety climates reinforce safety rules, track customer safety problems, and confront safety violations quickly. Not surprisingly, a strong safety climate predicts lower accident rates among employees (Wallace, Popp, & Mondore, 2006). Climate is important in understanding conflict interaction because it provides con- tinuity and coherence to mutual activities. As a general sense of a relationship, group, or organization, climate enables members to ascertain their general direction, what it means to be part of a relationship, group, or organization, what actions are appropriate, and how other parties are likely to react. In the Columnist’s Brown Bag (Case Study 1.1, page 35), the open and relaxed climate encouraged participants to exercise their curios- ity and to be receptive to one another’s comments. Questions, answers, and discussion flowed freely and spontaneously for most of the session. When the questioner challenged the editor, the atmosphere grew tense, and participants became hesitant and defensive. The challenge seemed out of place, given the openness of the previous discussion. It introduced uncertainty and even some hostility into the proceedings. People reacted to the challenge as a violation of appropriate behavior, and this colored subsequent interaction. Eventually, rather than risk escalation of the challenge and permanent col- lapse of free, relaxed exchange, the leaders chose to terminate the session. By evoking certain types of behavior and discouraging others, the open climate gave the discussion direction and held it together. It united the diverse styles and concerns of individuals by providing a common ground for acting together and for reacting to a “crisis.” 7.1 CLIMATE AND CONFLICT Implicit in any climate is an attitude toward conflict and how it should be handled. Climate constrains and channels conflict behavior; it lends a definite tenor to inter- changes that can accelerate destructive cycles or preserve a productive approach. During the brown-bag session, the questioner’s challenge was hastily cut off because the group was in “guest speaker mode,’ which implied a respectful and friendly attitude toward the editor. The challenge raised the specter of open and prolonged disagreement and potential embarrassment of the speaker. The group’s open, nonevaluative climate made the challenge seem inappropriate. Rather than allow disagreement to ripen, those in Copyright © 2021. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved. charge were eager to end the session. Ironically, the reaction of others to the challenge contributed to the sudden shift from an open climate to a tense and evaluative one, even though this is the last thing they would have wanted. The interplay between concrete, specific interactions and a generalized climate is a critical force determining the direction of conflicts. A large part of this section explores this relationship. In Chapter 3, we discussed a major theme that defines the climate in conflict situa- tions: the type of interdependence members perceive. Recall that there were three types of interdependence: promotive (cooperative), contrient (competitive), and individual- istic. As parties work out the type of interdependence they have, they answer questions related to motivation in the conflict, such as the following: Can we gain if we cooperate, or will one’s gain be another’s loss? Can I expect others to take a competitive attitude? Will my needs be met if I “go with the flow,” or do I need to take a competitive approach to get what I want? Can we shift this apparently competitive situation to one more con- ducive to cooperation and integration? 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 2023-10-02 17:20:30.  Climate and Conflict Interaction 215 Clearly, trust and support are closely related to interdependence. The promotive, contri- ent, or individualistic climate suggests answers to questions related to trust: Am I likely to be taken advantage of if I open up to others and try to engage in collaborating? Does the appar- ently friendly and cooperative approach of others really hide either competitive or “every man for himself” approaches? Is it safe to express my true feelings about this conflict, or should I hide them? Will there be tolerance for disagreements and differing points of view? Interdependence also has important implications for parties’ beliefs about how power will be used in the conflict. The three types of interdependence imply very different answers to critical questions related to power: Will this come down to a power play, or can we use open discussion, negotiation, and collaborating to resolve the conflict? Will the existing power structure determine how the conflict turns out, or is there a possibility of opening things up and addressing the needs of low-power participants? Finally, the climate of interdependence is also related to the cohesiveness of a dyad, group, or organization. The climate helps parties address questions such as the follow- ing: Does this relationship have a long-term future, or will it dissolve in the future? Do I and other parties feel some degree of ownership for this team? Am I really committed to this relationship (or organization or team)? Do others feel committed? Table 7.1 summarizes common beliefs associated with promotive, contrient, and individualistic climates. Note that these climates tend to foster a package of related and reinforcing beliefs about the context of the conflict. Table 7.1 Climates of Interdependence and Their Implications for Trust, Power, and Cohesiveness Type of Trust and Power Cohesiveness of the Interdependence Supportiveness Social Unit Promotive Parties can trust one Use of power is likely The social unit has a (Cooperative) another. to be downplayed in future. Opening oneself up favor of collaborating. There is common to others will be Shared power resources ownership of issues, and supported. will be favored. equality is emphasized. True feelings can be All parties will work All are committed to the expressed safely. toward an acceptable social unit. solution together. Contrient Parties cannot trust Power is likely to be The social unit may not (Competitive) each other if their used. have a future; its future interests differ. Unique sources of power depends on high-power It may not be safe will be favored. individuals. Copyright © 2021. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved. to open up or Higher-power parties will There may be common owner- express feelings attempt to force or ship of issues, but there are openly because pressure lower-power differences in the status and they may be used parties to accept their importance of members. against us. preferences. Some parties are more committed than others. Individualistic Parties cannot trust Power is likely to be There is not much future one another because used. for the social unit. it’s “everyone for Unique sources of power There is little common themselves.” will be favored. ownership, and there Others will not be Higher-power parties will are differences in the interested in or attempt to force or status and importance of concern themselves pressure lower-power members. with your true parties to accept their There is little commitment feelings. preferences. to the social unit. 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 2023-10-02 17:20:30.  216 Climate and Conflict Interaction Case Study 7.1, Riverdale Halfway House, provides an illustration of how climate develops and operates in a work group. It will serve as our main example in the remain- der of this section. CASE STUDY 7.1 RIVERDALE HALFWAY HOUSE Imagine yourself as Carole. How much of an impact do you perceive yourself having on the organization’s climate? How would you describe and explain the change in climate that occurs? How might descriptions and explanations be different for different people in this group? Riverdale Halfway House is a correctional institution designed to provide low-level security confinement and counseling for male youth offenders. It houses about twenty-five second- and third-time offenders and for all practical purposes represents the last stop before prison for its inhabitants. Residents are required to work or look for work and are on restricted hours. Counseling and other life-adjustment services are provided, and counselors’ reports on a prisoner can make an important difference in both the length of incarceration and the conditions of release. Because the counselors are also authority fig- ures, relationships between staff and prisoners are delicate. Staff members are subjected to a great deal of stress as the prisoners attempt to manipulate them. The staff of Riverdale consists of a director who handles funding, general administration, and external relations with other agencies, notably the courts and law enforcement offices; an assistant director who concentrates on exter- nal administration of the staff and the halfway house; three counselors; two night caretakers; and an administrative assistant who handles the books and paperwork. The director, George, was the newest staff member at the time of the conflict. The assistant director—who had applied for the director’s slot that George filled—and the three counselors had been at Riverdale for at least a year longer than George. They described George’s predecessor as a very “charis- matic” person. Prior to George’s arrival, relations among the staff were cordial, morale was high, and there was a great deal of informal contact among staff members. The staff reported high levels of respect for all workers under the previous director. Workers felt engaged by an important, if difficult, task that all worked on as a team. With George’s arrival, the climate at Riverdale changed. Right before he started, the staff changed offices and rearranged furniture, leaving the shod- Copyright © 2021. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved. diest pieces for George, who regarded this as a sign of rejection. He believed the staff had “gone around him” and had tried to undermine his authority by rearranging things without consulting him. He was hurt and angry despite the staff’s attempts to explain that no harm was meant. Added to this was George’s belief that Carole, the assistant director, resented him and wanted his job. Car- ole claimed she did not resent George, although she did fear that he might have her fired. She tended to withdraw from George in order to avoid conflict. George interpreted her withdrawal as a sign of further rejection, which reinforced his suspicion of Carole. The staff felt George was not open with them, and that he quizzed them about their work in a manipulative fashion. Several staff members, including Carole, complained that George swore at them and ordered them around; they 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 2023-10-02 17:20:30.  Climate and Conflict Interaction 217 considered this behavior an affront to their professionalism. George’s attempts to assert his authority also angered the staff. In one case, he investigated a dis- ciplinary problem with two staff members without consulting Carole, who was ordinarily in charge of such matters. George’s investigation did not reveal any problems, but it embarrassed the staff members (who had been manipulated by prisoners) and made Carole feel that George did not respect her. George admit- ted his mistake and hoped the incident would blow over. Ten months after George arrived at Riverdale, the climate had drastically changed. Whereas Riverdale had been a supportive, cohesive work group, it was now filled with tension. Interaction between George and the staff, particu- larly Carole, was formal and distant. While the staff had to some degree pulled together in response to George, its cohesiveness was gone. Informal commu- nication was down, and staff members received much less support from each other. A consultant was called in to address the problems. As the third party observed, “[T]he staff members expected disrespect from each other.” They felt stuck with their problems and believed there was no way out of their dilemma. There was no trust and no sense of safety in the group. Members believed they had to change others to improve the situation and did not consider changing themselves or living with others’ quirks. The staff wanted George to be less authoritarian and more open. George wanted the staff to let him blow up and then forget about it. There was little flexibility or willingness to negotiate. As Carole observed, each contact between herself and George just seemed to make things worse, “[S]o what point was there in trying to talk things out?” The consultant noted that the staff seemed to be unable to forget previous fights. They interpreted what others said as con- tinuations of old conflicts and assumed a hostile attitude even when one was not present. The third party tried to get the group to meet and iron out its problems, but the group wanted to avoid confrontation—on several occasions sched- uled meetings were postponed because of other “pressing” problems. Finally, George found another job and left Riverdale, as did one of the counselors. Since then, the staff reports that conditions have considerably improved. Discussion Questions Copyright © 2021. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved. At what points in this conflict could a significant change in climate have occurred? What alternatives were available to staff members at these points? To what extent do you feel that this group’s climate was inevitable? A quick perusal of Case Study 7.1 indicates that a contrient (competitive) climate prevailed after George replaced the previous director. George and Carole were each try- ing to protect their own “turf.” Relationships among employees were distrustful, and employees did not feel safe expressing themselves. Parties dug entrenched positions and assumed they were right—that it was up to others to mend their ways. Employees 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 2023-10-02 17:20:30.  218 Climate and Conflict Interaction protected themselves and showed little concern for others’ feelings. Although emotions were expressed to some extent (at least by George), they were perceived as levers for manipulation and not as a means for deeper understanding. Power figured regularly in day-to-day interaction. George used his directorship to berate staff members. His attempts to circumvent Carole and her opposition created a climate in which the use of power in a competitive fashion was taken for granted, with predictable consequences. Just such an assumption about George kept Carole from con- fronting him about the issues that were undermining their relationship. George believed the employees were out to get him and that they did not respect his authority. The other employees were resistant to George and regarded him as an opponent who would try to defeat them by browbeating them and by using his author- ity. Members perceived different factions with opposing interests. There also seemed to be a general feeling that, although the employees of Riverdale were committed to the organization and Riverdale had a future, there was not much common ownership of the organization or its problems. An important reason the staff at Riverdale was unable to manage its conflict was that members believed raising the issues again “wasn’t worth the hassle” and would only worsen an already unpleasant situation. The group’s cohesive- ness had been so disrupted by its problems that members feared they would not be able to do their jobs if the conflict advanced any further. The Riverdale case offers an excellent illustration of some important points about climate that can now be explored in more detail. 7.1.1 More Precisely Defining Climate Climate can be defined more formally as the relatively enduring quality of a social unit that (1) is experienced in common by members, and (2) arises from and influences their interaction and behavior. Here we employ the term “social unit” to refer to dyads, groups, and organizations because the points we make apply to all. Several aspects of this definition require explanation and can be illustrated from the case. First, climate is not solely psychological—it is not an intangible belief or feeling in members’ minds. Climate is a quality of the social unit itself because it arises from inter- action among members. For this reason, a climate is more than the beliefs or feelings of any single individual (Fink & Chen, 1995; Poole, 1985). The climate of Riverdale was hostile and suspicious not because any one member had suspicions about or disliked another, but because of how the group as a whole interacted. Members were hostile and suspicious toward each other, and these interchanges built on themselves until most group activities were based on hostility. Copyright © 2021. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved. This is not to say that individual perceptions of climate are not important. Parties’ perceptions play an important role in the creation and maintenance of climate because these perceptions mediate the effects of climate on their actions. However, climate can- not be reduced to the beliefs or feelings of individuals. Various individuals in the Riv- erdale case had different perceptions of the hostile situation. George thought the group was hostile because Carole wanted his job and the staff resented him. Carole felt the hostility was because George cursed at her and went around her in making decisions. It is clear that neither George nor Carole had the “correct” or complete view, but they were reacting to a common situation. Their beliefs and feelings represent a sampling of experiences in the group. George’s and Carole’s perspectives on Riverdale’s climate can be viewed as individual interpretations of the group’s climate. However, individual perceptions provide only a partial picture of the climate itself. A social unit’s climate is more than any individual’s 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 2023-10-02 17:20:30.  Climate and Conflict Interaction 219 perceptions and can only be identified and understood if the unit’s interaction as a whole is considered (Poole, 1985). This can be understood by considering a second feature of the definition, that climate is experienced in common by members. As the preceding paragraph suggests, because climate emerges from interaction, it is a shared experience for the parties. This implies that there should be some common elements in members’ interpretations and descrip- tions of the group, even though there will be differences in specific details and concerns. Therefore, the staff at Riverdale all agreed that the group was tense, hostile, and hard to manage. Although each person focused on different evidence—George on the furniture incident, Carole on George’s cursing—and had somewhat different interpretations, a common theme emerged; the consultant was able to construct a unified picture of the climate from the various members’ stories. Common experiences do not mean identical interpretations, but they do mean a unifying theme. Third, because climates are products of interaction, no single person is responsible for creating a climate. In the Riverdale case, it would be easy to blame George for creating the hostile atmosphere, but closer consideration shows that all the others contributed as well. The counselors rearranged the furniture without considering that George might be insecure in a new job. Carole withdrew when George confronted her, which prevented an airing of the issues and possibly increased the latter’s suspicions. The hostile atmo- sphere at Riverdale was so pervasive because most members acted in accordance with it. Their actions reinforced each other and created an expectation of hostility in most interchanges. Climates are also relatively enduring; that is, they persist for extended spans of time and do not change with every simple change in interaction. In some social units, the same climate may hold steady for months or years. At Riverdale, for example, before the previous director’s departure, the climate had been promotive, and it took a good deal of interaction among George and the staff to redefine the climate. Once established, however, the contrient climate built for ten months before a consultant was called in. Of course, the operative term here is “relative.” In some cases, a climate may have a shorter life, as in the brown-bag discussion of Case Study 1.1, where a challenging, hostile cli- mate supplanted the generally relaxed climate after only an hour. Both long- and short-lived climates represent periods wherein definite themes and directions predominate in a social unit’s interaction. The “life span” of a climate is deter- mined by the relative stability of the interaction that generates and sustains it (Poole, 1985). In some social units, the climate is firmly established in fundamental assump- tions of group operation and therefore changes very slowly because interaction patterns change slowly as well. In other cases, interaction can shift the underlying assumptions of Copyright © 2021. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved. the group rather quickly, as in the brown-bag discussion. This is particularly true when those involved are relative strangers. Because climate reinforces the patterns of interac- tion from which it arises, the longer a climate holds, the more entrenched and enduring it is likely to become. Climates are changed by changes in interaction that “break the spell” and reroute the interaction. 7.1.2 Climate and Conflict Interaction In all interactions, and particularly in conflicts, one of the key problems parties face is their uncertainty about how to act and about what the consequences of their actions will be. Even if it is a dreary rehash of a long-standing argument, each conflict holds the potential for change, for better or worse, and uncertainty always hangs over its course and outcome. 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 2023-10-02 17:20:30.  220 Climate and Conflict Interaction There are two ways in which individuals can respond to this uncertainty. First, they can “let nature take its course,” and follow their natural psychological and interac- tion-based processes for reducing uncertainty, as detailed in Chapters 2 and 3. These chapters described a number of processes, including falling back on beliefs about con- flict or conflict scripts, making attributions (often erroneous) about the causes of conflict and using these to predict future behavior, relying on matching and accommodation, or by becoming rigid, responding to all conflicts in the same way regardless of circum- stances. Each of these, or a combination, represents ways of responding to conflict that do not involve much adaptation on the part of the individual. The second means to cope with uncertainty is to try to diagnose the situation so that we can react in an appropriate manner. Because the complexity and emergent nature of interaction render exact prediction impossible, parties must project their actions and estimate how others will respond to them. This projection can occur consciously (as when we plot out a strategy in response to the situation), or it can be unconscious (as when we recognize the nature of the situation and react to it unthinkingly), but it always involves estimations and guesswork about the future. Climate is indispensable in this process. Parties use their sense of climate to gauge the appropriateness, effectiveness, or likely consequences of their behavior. The prevailing climate is projected into its future and enables us to project the impacts of various moves or styles. At Riverdale, for example, the firmly entrenched climate of hostility and suspicion led Carole to expect hostile interactions with George, and therefore she came into situations with her guard up, tended to interpret most of George’s actions in an unfavorable light, and acted in a hos- tile or defensive manner toward George. Unable to predict the specifics of a conflict, parties use their general impressions of a situation (in other words, of its climate) to generate specific expectations about how things should or will go. Because climate is so diffuse and generalized, it is difficult to trace the particular reasoning involved in these projections; for this reason, it is often thought of as intuition. Climate also plays an important role in understanding others, an important supple- ment to the hierarchy of meaning discussed in the previous section. Climate provides cues to help us interpret others’ intentions. For example, at some point early in the con- flict, Carole decided George intended to undermine her authority and maybe even force her to leave Riverdale. As a result, she was uncooperative and withdrew whenever George confronted her, answering what she perceived as hostility with hostility. Carole may have been right or wrong about George; the fact that she drew conclusions at all was enough to stimulate her hostile behavior. As discussed in Chapter 2, however, several biases can Copyright © 2021. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved. influence the attributions parties make about others during conflicts, so climate may be contributing to misunderstanding. Individual actions, each guided by climate, combine and build on one another to impart a momentum in the social unit. At Riverdale, for example, individuals picked up on the hostile climate, and their defensive and unfriendly actions thrust the group into a tense spiral of hostile exchanges. This process can also have beneficial effects. Friendly and responsive actions encouraged by an open climate also tend to create a chain reac- tion and to give the conflict a positive momentum. In particular, studies of trust have found a bias toward assuming cooperativeness on the part of others once trust has been established (Deutsch, 1973; Zand, 1972). The influence that climate exerts on individual behavior translates into a more encompassing influence on the direction of the unit. Because each party acts on an interpretation of climate based on observations of oth- ers (and their reactions to him or her), the prevailing climate has a multiplier effect—it 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 2023-10-02 17:20:30.  Climate and Conflict Interaction 221 tends to reproduce itself because parties orient themselves to each other and each orients to the climate in projecting his or her own acts (Fink & Chen, 1995). For example, friends tend to be cooperative because they assume that is “the way things should be” between friends. When one party sees the other being friendly and cooperative, this reaffirms the relational climate and probably strengthens the inclination toward cooperativeness. Because this happens for everyone, the effect multiplies itself and becomes quite strong. The multiplier effect, however, can also change the climate under some conditions. If one party deviates in a way that “breaks” the prevailing climate, and other parties follow the lead, the nature of conflict interaction may change. If the change is profound and enduring, it can result in a shift in the overall climate. Take the cooperative relationship among friends in the previous paragraph. If one party selfishly starts to press her inter- ests, the other may conclude that he must do the same. Once individuals begin to act only for themselves, the underlying assumptions may shift to emphasize competition and individualism. This reflects a radical shift in the relational climate, the result of a single party’s shift multiplied through the actions of the others. Obviously, this is a very complicated process. Sustained as they are by interaction, climates are vulnerable to temporary shifts due to temporary alterations of interaction patterns. These shifts can be beneficial, as when a couple with a serious relationship problem declares a temporary “truce,” or they can present problems—for example, when a normally harmonious group is disrupted by a “no holds barred” fight between two members. The shifts, however, are also vulnerable to the reassertion of the former climate. The longer the climate has been sustained, the deeper its grooves are worn, and the more likely the traditional quality of the social unit is to reassert itself. It is only by hard work that a temporary improvement in climate can be institutionalized. As this chapter has shown, climates are created and maintained by particular events in interaction. However, because climates are generalized and diffuse, it is easy to forget this. Parties are often aware of a change in the tone of the team or relationship soon after a critical incident occurs. It is hard, for example, to miss the connection between an insult and increased tension. However, if the tension persists and becomes a part of the prevailing climate, the climate tends to become second nature. It is easy to forget that climate depends on how individuals interact and assume that things are “just that way,” that the enduring qualities are independent of what parties do. Climates are often difficult to identify because they are so diffuse and generalized, and because they tend to be taken for granted. Exhibit 7.1 describes some ways in which we might diagnose the prevailing climate of a situation. Copyright © 2021. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved. Exhibit 7.1 Identifying Climates Climates are diffuse and implicit, so it takes some art to identify them. Our discus- sion implies several guidelines for the diagnosis of climates: 1. Climate themes are best identified by observing the entire social unit for an extended period. Although exchanges between key members—for example, George and Carole at Riverdale—can play an important role in the team or dyad, they must be generalized and influence other parties’ interchanges to become part of the unit’s climate. To become a relatively enduring feature of a social unit, 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 2023-10-02 17:20:30.  222 Climate and Conflict Interaction interchanges “with the same feel” must occur repeatedly and be recognized as characteristic by members. This implies that climate themes should permeate interaction and that those that are most enduring and significant will tend to emerge most frequently over time. 2. Focus on interaction. Talking with people is a critical part of diagnosis. The con- sultant gets most of her initial ideas about Riverdale by interviewing the staff involved in the conflict. However, members’ ideas will always be somewhat biased. One may be angry at another and therefore attempt to cast that per- son in a negative light by claiming he or she causes problems. In other cases, people bias their accounts to make themselves look good. In the Riverdale case, neither George nor Carole was aware that their behavior contributed to the conflict; each blamed the other and believed the other had to change to resolve the conflict.   Individual oral or written accounts are thus “contaminated,” and they should not be the sole source of evidence on climate. If observations based on interaction are consistent with reports, then the conclusions in the reports can be trusted, at least to some extent.   However, if interaction is inconsistent with reports, the inconsistency itself can be an important source of information about the organization, team, or dyad. One of the authors was working with a citywide charitable group to try to resolve arguments over its budget. The secretary of the group had confided that he believed the president always favored funding proposals from groups in which she had special interests. However, on observing several meetings, the consultant noted that the president was fairly objective, whereas the sec- retary pushed his interests very strongly. This suggested that the secretary had trouble monitoring his own behavior and had projected his personal ten- sions and biases onto the president, who was threatening because she stood in the way of his priorities. The consultant took the secretary aside to discuss the problem, and, for a while, the secretary was able to take his biases into account. (The group later reverted to its old bickering, however, because of problems in following the third party’s advice.)   To obtain a valid reading of climate, it is valuable to cross-check individual oral or written accounts, minutes of meetings, other historical records, and actual observations. This has a particularly important implication for those trying to diagnose their own relationships or groups: They need to talk to other members, and to outside observers, if available, to get their views. One’s Copyright © 2021. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved. own views represent only one perspective and may yield biased perceptions. There is no privileged vantage point; even the external observer can be sub- ject to misperceptions: All views must be cross-checked to identify climates accurately. 3. Use indirect evidence. Parties may not be aware of the climate, so it is also nec- essary to utilize whatever indirect evidence we can get concerning climate. Metaphors that are explicitly expressed in the interaction are a particularly good source of insight into climate. Often metaphors incorporate uncon- scious associations capable of telling us more about the social unit’s sense of itself than anyone’s account.   For example, one college department we are acquainted with described itself as a “family.” Members repeatedly referred to the department family, and 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 2023-10-02 17:20:30.  Climate and Conflict Interaction 223 potential new hires were told the department was like a “big family.” In line with this metaphor, several faculty members filled the slots reserved for father, mother, uncle, and aunt. Even the problems and conflicts in the faculty related to issues of authority and independence often associated with parent-child or parent-parent relationships. Patterns of conflict behavior in the department reflected the family metaphor to some extent. The “father” tried to take charge of the situation, and the “mother” tried to soothe those involved and sympa- thized with them. The “children” were rebellious but unsure of themselves and tended to buckle when the father applied pressure. Because the precise details of meaning are only implicit in a metaphor parties will often use met- aphors rather than provide an explicit description carrying similar meaning. This makes metaphors valuable as a means of understanding a relationship, group, or organization. In failing to realize that they themselves hold the key to maintaining or changing the climate, parties are inadvertently controlled by the climate. Like the employees of Riverdale, parties may assume they have to keep acting as they do because there is no alternative. This assumption is responsible for the tendency of climates to reproduce themselves rather than to change. When attempting to discern the prevailing climate of a situation, we can sometimes distinguish between “conflict positive” climates and “conflict negative” climates. When a conflict positive climate exists, parties more commonly employ integrative approaches to conflict management, share knowledge and enhance each other’s learning and perfor- mance (Janz & Prasarnphanich, 2003). Strong positive team-oriented climates are asso- ciated with more positive communication, which in turn reduces the severity of conflicts in teams (Gonzalez-Romi & Hernandez, 2014). Conversely, when a conflict negative climate persists, parties often grow defensive and may resort to more competitive styles. Interestingly, the relationship between conflict negative climates and fractious expressions of conflict is somewhat reflexive. A negative climate produces more extreme expressions of conflict which in turn produces a more conflict negative climate. For this reason, it is important not to let conflicts fester or become explosive on a repetitive basis as they are likely to produce more of the same. As we have discussed, climates are characterized by features and attributes enacted on an everyday basis. This is not to say, for example, that parties within a conflict positive Copyright © 2021. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved. climate are never defensive or do not utter threats or harsh criticism. But the overall tenor of a positive climate is one more likely characterized by supportive communication and nonjudgmental language (Nordin et al., 2014). We can outline those features common to both conflict negative and conflict positive climates. Table 7.2 contrasts those features most likely to produce a difference in climate. Encouraging a conflict positive climate or changing a conflict negative climate is not easy, but not impossible either. In the next section, we discuss how to change and improve climates and their impacts on conflict. 7.2 WORKING WITH CLIMATE Much of the previous discussion has focused on how a climate is generated and sus- tained in interaction. However, interaction can also change climates. One bit of advice 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 2023-10-02 17:20:30.  224 Climate and Conflict Interaction Table 7.2 Conflict Positive and Negative Climates Conflict Positive Climates Conflict Negative Climates Transparency and openness in everyday Information is often guarded, with items on a conversation. “need to know” basis. Secrets and hidden agendas are also common. Information is free flowing and spontaneous. Important information is saved up and shared in schedules, conversations, or meetings. Empathy (the desire to understand others’ Relationships are highly evaluative with thoughts and views) is expressed between perceptions that others routinely judge and parties. criticize. Provisionalism is in play, whereby parties Viewpoints are rigid, and a desire to listen express a willingness to listen to competing after reaching a conclusion is uncommon. ideas. Recognition of good work and acts. Indifference and disengagement from others’ work or actions. Disconfirming statements and implied threats are not uncommon. Frequency of communication is high, using a Frequency of communication is low, wide variety of rich media (more verbal and depending more exclusively on “lean” nonverbal cues exist, such as face-to-face media (fewer verbal and nonverbal cues and voice-to-voice interaction). exist, such as email, text messaging, and voicemail) for exchange. Decision making is highly collaborative, Decisions are more frequently unilateral. including dialogue and discussion about Directive actions maintain high control and temporal and long-term issues. impose one party’s will on others. Equality is valued and everyone’s viewpoint is Superiority is frequently expressed, with one considered important. party claiming a dominant stance. Identification with institutionalized entity Identification is so strong “groupthink” (e.g., friendship, relationship, marriage, commonly occurs. There is desire not team, group, or organization) is high. to rock the boat or get in the way of consensus. Emotions are expressed as enthusiasm and Emotions are charged, frequently expressed passion for people and ideas. as anger or frustration. often given to lower-status members is simply to be more assertive, to speak up when issues concern them, and to resist interruptions. This advice is sound, for the most part. To shift the climate of Riverdale in a less competitive direction, Carole might have dis- cussed her feelings about being passed over for the director position with George. By Copyright © 2021. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved. confiding in George, she might have taken a first step to building trust and changing the climate to a more promotive footing. Consider Case Study 7.2, “Breakup at the Bakery.” How might the bakery employees change their climate? CASE STUDY 7.2 BREAKUP AT THE BAKERY Imagine yourself as an employee at this bakery. Why would you be reluctant to share your emotional reactions with the others? A group of seven people had established and run a bakery for two years when a severe conflict emerged and threatened the store’s existence. Two workers, 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 2023-10-02 17:20:30.  Climate and Conflict Interaction 225 Joe and Juanita, had been in a committed intimate relationship for several years but were now going through a difficult breakup. Neither Joe nor Juanita could stand being around one another, but neither could afford to quit his or her job. The bakery needed both members’ skills and experience to survive financially. Over three months the climate in the workplace grew more and more unbear- able. Workers had to deal with the tension between the couple while working under daily time pressures and the constraints of having a minimal staff. Many believed that they could not work effectively if the situation got worse. Important information about bakery orders and deliveries was not being exchanged as workers talked less and less to each other. The group decided to call in a third party to help improve the situation. In dis- cussing the problem with individual staff members, the third party realized that the workers strongly resented having to deal with the “relationship problem” at the bakery. They felt they were being forced to choose sides in the conflict or risk losing the friendship of both. At the same time, it was painful to see two friends endure a difficult emotional trauma. Although the staff members were eager to share these feelings with the third party, almost nothing had been said to Joe or Juanita about their conflict. The staff was not willing to discuss the emotional issues because they seemed highly volatile and might lead to the breakdown of the work group. The climate had prevented them from expressing emotional reactions, which might have helped the couple understand how their breakup was affecting everyone. As a result, tension heightened and the bakery was about to go under. The third party increased members’ feelings of safety, and eventually all were able to talk about the problems. Finally, at one tension-filled meeting, another member, Karen, openly stated that she felt uncomfortable and that she wanted to talk about Joe and Juanita’s problems and their effect on the group. In the ensuing discussion, many issues and feelings emerged. Members were relieved to talk openly, and both Joe and Juanita could unburden themselves and get support from the group. The ten- sion between Joe and Juanita did not subside because of Karen’s intervention (in fact, it continued until Joe left the bakery), but the group’s climate improved