Antagonistic and Nonantagonistic Dialectical Contradictions in Organizational Conflict

Abstract

Keywords

Organizational Conflict

Dialectical Theory

Conflict and Dialectics

Method

Respondents

Procedures

Coding

Results

Discussion

Implications for Organizational Conflict

Directions for Future Research

Limitations and Conclusion

Footnotes

References

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

Author Biography

This study examined the perceived importance of five dialectical contradictions to conflict episodes for 40 organizational employees. Using a revised version of the Retrospective Interview Technique and questionnaire data, organizational employees were asked to recall important conflict episodes, coded for issue type, over a 1-year time period. Following in-depth questions about the conflicts, a questionnaire was administered that asked participants to rate five dialectical contradictions according to their importance for each conflict episode. A second questionnaire was also administered that asked participants to determine if conflicts were dialectical (antagonistic and nonantagonistic) or nondialectical, relative to each conflict episode. Results reveal that all five dialectical contradictions were rated in the moderate range of importance to organizational conflict episodes. Ratings for differences among the five themes were significant for 3 of the 12 conflict issues identified. Results from the second questionnaire reveal that 49.9% of all conflicts were dialectical (15.7% antagonistic, 34.2% nonantagonistic), and 51.1% were nondialectical. Implications for future research are discussed.

organizational communication workplace interaction management communication dialectical theory organizational conflict

Conflict is a feature of organizational life where differences, oppositions, and contradictions are managed with varying degrees of success. Conflict is defined as an incompatibility between at least two persons or groups (Deutsch, 1973). Putnam (2001) argued that conflict is a fundamental aspect of organizational life and that “managers spend as much as 35% of their time processing routine complaints, dealing with decisions of hiring and/or retrenchment, and facing pressures imposed through a fast-paced, highly competitive marketplace” (p. 10). Conflict arises out of the need to manage opposition that may take the form of organizational ironies and dichotomies (Putnam, 2001), paradoxes and double binds (Quinn & Cameron, 1988; Wendt, 1998), or mutually exclusive assumptions or imperatives (Van de Ven & Poole, 1988).

Organizational conflict has been addressed from various theoretical orientations that have attempted to understand how oppositional forces can be resolved or managed within the workplace (Morrill & Thomas, 1992; Nicotera, 1994) or between work and family (Hammer, Allen, & Grigsby, 1997). Dialectical theory is a framework used with increasing frequency to help explain how people manage opposition and tensions in various life contexts. For example, relationship development scholars have explored dialectical contradictions in dating relationships (Baxter, 1990; Baxter & Erbert, 1999), friendships (Rawlins, 1992), and friends and work associates (Bridge & Baxter, 1992). Dialectical contradictions are defined as two or more themes or forces “that are interdependent with one another at the same time that they function to negate and oppose one another” (Baxter & Erbert, 1999, p. 548).

Research in organizational conflict often explores how individuals, groups, and organizations manage conflict dynamics (Gross & Guerrero, 2000; Rahim, 2002). Evaluations of conflict outcomes are often framed as either positive or negative; negative outcomes may result from outright denial of conflict, aggressive tactics (Infante, 1988), and/or highly competitive strategies designed to create clear winners and losers (Folger & Taylor, 1993; Kohn, 1992). Positive organizational conflict management has been linked to organizational learning (Rahim, 2002), positive individual and group performance (Poole & Garner, 2006; Rahim, 2002), and transformation of conflict elements, individuals, and organizations (Lipsky & Seeber, 2006).

More recently organizational conflict scholars have explored “constructive controversy” as a practice for positive conflict management (Tjosvold, 2008b). Tjosvold (2008a) argued that conflict is inevitable and potentially constructive and has advocated “conflict-positive” organizations.

Our research has documented that protagonists who emphasize their cooperative, positively related goals where they believe that as one moves toward goal attainment the others do too are prepared to engage in open-minded discussions; they express their various views directly, try to understand each other, and combine their ideas to solve the underlying problem for mutual benefit. (p. 20)

Promoting conflict-positive organizations is potentially hampered by a host of strategies and ideologies that frame conflict as negative (Tjosvold, 2008a). Gross and Guerrero (2000) used a communication competence model for exploring effective conflict management. Jameson (2004) asserted that a concern for politeness in conflict management, addressing critical face needs, helps manage tensions between an employee’s sense of control and autonomy versus connection to organizational others and organizational practices and policies. A concern for face needs of self and other may increase the likelihood of positive conflict outcomes.

Organizational conflict research that examines the positive and negative outcomes of conflict management clearly illuminates conceptual and communicative strategies that can increase the likelihood of managing difference constructively. However, the tendency to reduce conflict outcomes as either positive or negative reflects a dichotomous orientation toward outcome measures. Conflict research that examines either positive or negative conflict outcomes fails to recognize the possible interdependence between positive and negative interpretations and assessment. An interdependence model of conflict management suggests that management practices, conflict outcomes, and ideologies for conflict are constituted in the dynamic interplay of oppositional forces, a dialectical frame.

Organizational scholars have theorized that oppositional forces such as stability versus change, or individual goals versus group goals, play an important role in how organizational tensions are managed (Smith & Berg, 1987; Stohl & Cheney, 2001; Tracy, 2004). However, organizational scholars have infrequently applied dialectical theory to the empirical investigation of organizational conflicts. Therefore, the purpose of the present study is to determine if dialectical theory is a viable framework for understanding organizational conflict. In particular, the specific goals are the following: first, to identify the types of conflict issues faced by organizational members; second, to determine the extent to which five dialectical contradictions are perceived as important to organizational conflicts; and third, to ascertain how organizational members position themselves with regard to dialectical poles.

Dialectical theory focuses on contradictory tensions or the interplay and interconnectedness of oppositional forces (Baxter & Montgomery, 1996). For example, our understanding of conflict in social situations is partly defined by how we come to understand harmony. Conflict contributes to and defines our understanding of harmony and vice versa. Thus, contradictions are inherent in social relationships (Bakhtin, 1981) including organizational experiences.

The relational dialectics perspective used in this study focuses on the interplay of oppositional forces over time (Baxter & Montgomery, 1996). The symbolic construction of opposites is a human endeavor that is based in a binary, sensemaking process of similarity and difference (Erbert & Duck, 1997; Gurevitch, 1988) and separation and connection (Bakhtin, 1981). It focuses on the practices of people in social scenes and recognizes both the contextual and temporal features of social interaction (Altman, 1993; Altman, Vinsel, & Brown, 1981; Werner, Altman, & Brown, 1992; Werner & Baxter, 1994). Thus, contradictions such as individual autonomy versus team commitment, stability versus change, and expressiveness versus protectiveness are not problems to be resolved per se, they represent basic needs of organizational members that exist in various degrees and intensities. Bakhtin (1981) and Baxter and Montgomery (1996) argued that the very act of relating with others invokes a simultaneous connection-with yet separation-from the other.

However, in organization studies, contradictions are often conceptualized as a type of paradox (see Leonardi, Treem, & Jackson, 2010) or as an inescapable dilemma, rather than a dominant social force inherent in acts of relating and communicating. Organizational scholars often define a paradox as a statement or set of statements that frustrates and/or confuses organizational members “because they create and sustain seemingly inescapable, lose-lose, double-bind situations” (Wendt, 1998, p. 324). For example, the statement “everything I say is a lie” is paradoxical because the speaker, if telling the truth is lying, and if lying, is telling the truth. Stohl and Cheney (2001) define paradox as a pragmatic or interaction-based circumstance in which the pursuit of one goal interferes with and/or undermines the pursuit of a second or competing goal.

Organizational scholarship that conceptualizes contradiction as paradox often focuses on rational incongruities in organizational contexts (see Wendt, 1998). For example, Price Waterhouse Change Integration Team (1996), using anecdotal evidence from managerial consulting, asserted that organizational paradoxes such as stability versus change are a natural part of organizational experience. Accordingly, the authors recognize that change must be “fortified” with stability to achieve organizational success. But promoting both change and stability can send conflicting and contradictory messages. Although a rational approach may be useful for identifying possible tensions in organizations, they should be supplemented with empirical investigation of the actual experiences of organizational members.

Although examples of empirical investigations of organizational contradictions are limited, Tracy’s (2004) research on contradictions in two correctional institutions stands as one of the few empirical studies that used a “dialectics as relation” frame. Tracy’s interpretive project not only distinguished among types of organizational contradictions but also explored organizational member responses. Tracy argued that responses to dialectical contradictions may be conceived in at least three ways. First, tensions are framed as contradictions where issues such as selecting (choosing one pole as dominant over the other), source-splitting (playing good cop/bad cop), and vacillating (move back and forth between two poles) may “split apart organizational norms” (p. 136). Second, tensions are framed as complementary dialectics where oppositional poles are not regarded as problematic or in conflict. Tracy noted that “several officers explicitly discussed how they were able to view one pole of an organizational tension (e.g., respect) as a means for achieving the other pole (e.g., suspicion or control)” (p. 137). Third, tensions are framed as pragmatic paradoxes or double binds where two dictates countermand each other. Tracy’s (2004) study is a model for examining responses to contradictions in organizations.

The relational dialectics approach advocated in the current study does not focus on rational incongruities or pragmatic paradoxes (as in tension 3 above), or responses to contradictions, but instead explores the relationship of conflict types with the magnitude (importance) of contradictions and the position or perceived value of each pole within organizational contradictions. A basic assumption is that symbolic contradictions represent important individual, organizational, and social needs and that conflict occurs not only as a product of contradictions but as an inherent feature of the interplay of oppositional forces.

Five themes were chosen for this study, a priori, based on existing theory and research in organizational dialectics. The themes were chosen based on their frequency of use of a variety of studies in the organizational literature. First, autonomy versus connection is based on the simultaneous need for independence versus separation (Smith & Berg, 1987). Within organizations, this contradiction has been labeled independence versus dependence and involves issues of control versus connection (Barge, 1994). Second, stability and change represent the basic interplay between certainty and order versus novelty and change (Conville, 1991). Ford and Ford (1994) argued that issues of change are central to managerial thinking about organizations and critical for organizational learning. Barge (1994) argued that change involves creativity and that creation simultaneously involves creation and destruction. Third, the openness and closedness contradiction reflects how social actors express or protect ideas, thoughts, and interpretations of social life (see VanLear, 1991); it is a tension about if, when, and how to communicate in organizational life. The extent to which organizational members express their ideas and opinions can be the function of multiple organizational dynamics such as management philosophy, culture, and organizational learning. Fourth, judgment versus acceptance means that organizational members may experience tension about the acceptance of work experience and being evaluated or judged. Fifth, the ideal versus real contradiction represents the quality or type of work that should get accomplished at work. Organizational members may experience tension from “doing it right” versus “just getting by.” To date, research in conflict and dialectics has been sparse and therefore requires a brief theoretical overview of these two orientations.

Conflict and dialectics are similar with respect to the role of opposition and interdependence. In conflict, opposition is a necessary component of how people engage each other over differences and problems. The degree of interdependence between relational parties may determine their choice of interaction styles or tactics or whether to engage the other or avoid the conflict (Canary, Cupach, & Messman, 1995). In relational dialectics, opposition is considered an a priori feature of contradictions embedded in social interaction. Giddens (1979, 1981) asserted that conflict occurs when individuals are in an antagonistic relationship, that is, when they struggle over oppositional positions (see also Baxter & Montgomery, 1996; Mao, 1965). For organizational members, an example of antagonistic conflict would be when one person embraces the need for stability and routine in the workplace, while the other argues for change and innovation. Conflict, then, represents the incompatible positions and the interference of one party with the goal of the other (Wilmot & Hocker, 2001). However, embracing oppositional poles is not the only option available to conflict participants; in fact, integrating a theory of relational dialectics with conflict experience implicates four broad typologies.

Erbert (2000) proposed a framework for the empirical investigation of dialectical contradictions and conflict. First, conflict may be dialectical and antagonistic. That is, interdependent individuals face a dilemma in which they recognize that both poles of an oppositional pair represent important needs, beliefs, or approaches to interaction. However, individuals “may become entrenched in a position and/or assertive in the right to fulfill a need [or goal] associated with one pole of a dialectical opposition” (p. 641). Within organizations, one member may assert the need for greater team work, whereas the other may assert greater individual contribution and effort.

Second, conflict can be dialectical but nonantagonistic, where individuals recognize important oppositional forces but do not position themselves on opposite poles. For example, conflicts may revolve around a need for greater innovation, versus the need for predictability, but struggle may occur over the means or methods for achieving greater change or innovation without sacrificing order and predictability in organizational processes. Organizational members will not position themselves on opposite ends of this contradiction, but they will recognize the basic interplay between stability and change.

Third, conflict can be antagonistic and nondialectical. In this form of conflict and dialectics, organizational members can be in opposition, but the underlying tensions and issues are not based in significant organizational contradictions. For example, conflicts over scarce resources, hiring and firing practices, and a multitude of other pragmatic issues may not be based in underlying organizational processes. However, empirical research has yet to validate what types of nondialectical conflicts actually exist (Erbert, 2000) and/or how a nondialectical antagonistic conflict may shift or transform into a dialectical, antagonistic or nonantagonistic, conflict.

Fourth, conflict in organizations may be nondialectical and nonantagonistic. Deutsch (1973) identified a typology of conflict types that included conflicts considered displaced, false, or contingent. Conflicts may also result from stress, anxiety, poor decision-making, lack of sleep, or other problems that are based more in individual issues or challenges than important organizational contradictions.

The present study focuses on the extent to which five dialectical contradictions are perceived as important to conflict episodes and how organizational members are positioned with regard to each pole of dialectical pairs. Research in conflict and dialectics has been limited to close, intimate relationships (Erbert, 2000) and has not examined organizational conflicts. Although research in organization studies has identified a number of paradoxes facing organizational members (see Barge, 1994; Jameson, 2004), the question of empirical verification of a dialectical conflict theory in organizations remains unanswered. Therefore, the first research question is the following:

Research Question 1: To what extent are the five dialectical contradictions perceived as central or important to organizational conflicts?

The second research question is designed to explore how organizational conflict participants perceive the relationship between their position and orientation to conflict as dialectical (antagonistic or nonantagonistic) or nondialectical (antagonistic or nonantagonistic) and how their conflict partner is positioned. Therefore, the second research question is the following:

Research Question 2: To what extent do organizational members perceive conflict as dialectical and nondialectical and antagonistic and nonantagonistic?

Forty individuals were recruited in one university and one college in two cities in the Northeastern United States. Each participant was interviewed in a laboratory or private setting, and the interviews ranged from 30 minutes to 2 hours. A minimum of 1-year length of employment was established for all participants. No other criteria were used for participant recruitment. The average length of employment for participants in their organization was just more than 6 years (M = 6.27). The average age of the participants was just less than 34 years (M = 33.83, SD = 8.19), with a range of 21 to 54 years. Participants in the study reported a range of organization and job titles: office managers (n = 4), bank officers (n = 3), mortgage company brokers (n = 2), teachers (n = 2), assistant VPs of brokerage firms (n = 2), realtors (n = 2), publishing companies (n = 2), insurance companies (n = 2), ministry (n = 2), lawyers (n = 2), government (n = 2), police (n = 1), researcher (n =1), sales (n = 1), unidentified (n = 12). Of the 40 people interviewed 55% (n = 22) were women, and 45% (n = 18) were men. Four categories of ethnicity were identified with 52.5% (n = 21) Caucasian, 20% (n = 8) African American, 10% Asian (n = 4), 7.5% (n = 3) Hispanic, and 10% (n = 4) nonidentified.

Data concerning conflict episodes between organizational employees were collected using a revised version of the Retrospective Interview Technique (RIT), most often used in the study of relational turning points (Baxter & Bullis, 1986; Bullis & Bach, 1989; Huston, Surra, Fitzgerald, & Cate, 1981). Turning point research is designed to examine all major events in an individual’s intimate relationship (Baxter & Erbert, 1999) or organizational socialization (Bullis & Bach, 1989). The RIT was modified in two ways. First, this version asked participants to chart conflict episodes within the past 12 months within their organization. Since conflict interaction may not be associated with “significant events” it was not reasonable to ask participants to trace all conflict episodes from the time of first employment. Second, rather than chart commitment for each episode, as in relationship research, participants were asked to rate their level of satisfaction with how the conflict was managed (ranging from “0” for complete dissatisfaction to “100” for complete satisfaction). Twelve months was assigned arbitrarily as the length of recall so as to limit conflict events to a reasonable time frame. Based on turning points research (see Baxter & Bullis, 1986), it is assumed that some conflict episodes, like turning points, are memorable events that result in legitimate perceptions of important conflict events. The author trained three colleagues at each location in the interview protocol over a 2-week period.

This version of the RIT was designed to solicit information about conflict episodes through interview and questionnaire data. A conflict episode was defined for participants in this way: “We mean those times when you and someone at work had a conflict, that is, a ‘fight,’ argument, or significant disagreement about something.” The definition offered to participants was a “lay” version of more formal conflict definitions (see Wilmot & Hocker, 2001), where incompatibility is framed as disagreement, fights, or arguments. When participants identified a conflict episode, the following questions were asked: (a) Describe in your own words what the problem, argument, or conflict was all about, (b) Describe what the interactions were like, (c) How would you describe your communication during this episode? (d) Has the issue been resolved? Why or why not? (e) Describe anything positive that resulted from this episode (if at all). Anything negative?

In addition, two questionnaires were administered after the interview portion that asked participants to determine the extent to which the five dialectical contradictions were central or important to each conflict episode identified in the RIT grid. Participants decided which conflicts were important and then rated their degree of importance in the first questionnaire. Participants were given a list and description of each of the five dialectical contradictions and then asked to determine if the dialectical contradiction was important to the conflict episode. If yes, then respondents indicated the degree of importance by rating the dialectic on a scale of “1” to “5,” where “1” is low in importance and “5” is high in importance. If no, then respondents indicated “0,” unimportant, as the response.

Dialectical contradictions were explained similarly. For example, the expression versus protection dialectic was communicated the following way:

Sometimes organizational employees deal with a basic tension between the degree or amount of openness or expressiveness about their ideas, thoughts, and actions, versus the need to protect thoughts, ideas, and actions by being closed or choosing not to communicate about certain issues regarding workplace experiences. To what extent did this conflict episode involve issues related to openness versus closedness?

Participants were then asked to indicate the degree to which these contradictions were evident in each conflict episode. The first questionnaire was a grid matrix and each conflict episode, participant identified and labeled, was placed in columns with each of the contradictions placed in rows. Thus, each column-by-row cell contained ratings from “0” to “5.”

Finally, participants were asked to fill out a second questionnaire to determine the extent to which each pole of the five dialectical contradictions was important to each conflict episode. A list and description of the 10 individual themes were given to interviewees (the five themes were broken down into individual descriptions). Participants determined whether or not one pole of a contradiction was relevant to the conflict episode using the following categories: “0” if the dialectical pole was unimportant to self and other, “1” if the dialectical pole was generally more important to self, “2” if the dialectical pole was generally more important to other, and “3” if the dialectical pole was roughly equal in importance to self and other.

Thirteen conflict issues were culled from the interview portion of the study using the constant comparative method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). The coding manual included 12 content issues and one “other” category to be used when a clear issue could not be determined. Two independent coders were trained over the course of 2 weeks and double-coded 76.1% of all conflict episodes (86 of 113). The coders were asked to determine a primary conflict issue rather than focus on multiple conflict issues embedded within each participant description. Intercoder reliability for the 86 conflict issues, across 13 categories, resulted in a .61 (Cohen’s Kappa). Because Cohen’s Kappa was relatively low, the author and coders explored divergences in codes and determined that many descriptions involved multiple conflict types. The author and two coders discussed all codes in dispute and settled any discrepancies in the 13 categories. The 113 conflict types were all examined for topic discrepancies.

Data from the second questionnaire were used to determine how individuals perceived their position with respect to the dialectical themes. Participants were required to respond to each pole of each theme using the column-by-row (similar to questionnaire one) grid matrix. With each conflict episode labeled in columns, each dialectical pole of a theme was based on the theoretical classification system discussed earlier: conflict as dialectical (antagonistic, nonantagonistic) and conflict as nondialectical (antagonistic, nonantagonistic); see Tables 3 to 5.

The first research question examined the importance of five dialectical contradictions for organizational conflicts over a 1-year period. Conflict episodes were first classified into 13 categories based on participant responses, resulting in frequency and summary results. Thus, the number of conflicts reported during a 1-year time period for the sample was 113 (X = 2.83). Men reported 42 (37.2%) conflict episodes, and women reported 71 (62.8%). Table 1 reports the issue type and frequency of issue for females and males. The issues of work performance, customer relations, workload, and power/control constitute just more than 50% of all conflict issue types reported. The categories with the next greatest frequency included equity/fairness, discrimination/harassment, work evaluation, leadership, and policy issues (32.7%). The final categories, accounting for 16.8% of all conflict issues, were communication, recognition, technology, and “other.”

Table 1.

Conflict Issue Type by Frequency and Percentage for Females and Males.

Conflict issue type	Total (N = 113)	Percentage of total	Female (n = 71), frequency (%)	Male (n = 42), frequency (%)
1. Work performance	21	18.6	17 (15.0)	4 (3.3)
2. Customer relations	13	11.5	9 (7.9)	4 (3.5)
3. Workload	12	10.6	9 (7.9)	3 (2.7)
4. Power/control	11	9.7	8 (7.1)	3 (2.7)
5. Equity/fairness	9	7.9	6 (5.3)	3 (2.7)
6. Discrimination/ harassment	9	7.9	5 (4.4)	4 (3.5)
7. Work evaluation	9	7.9	6 (5.3)	3 (2.7)
8. Leadership	5	4.4	2 (1.8)	3 (2.7)
9. Policy issues	5	4.4	1 (0.8)	4 (3.5)
10. Communication	4	3.5	2 (1.8)	2 (1.8)
11. Recognition	4	3.5	1 (0.8)	3 (2.7)
12. Technology	3	2.7	0 (0.0)	3 (2.7)
13. “Other”	8	7.1	5 (4.4)	3 (2.7)

Once conflict issues were identified, data for responses to the second questionnaire, determining the extent to which five dialectical contradictions were perceived as central or important to conflict episodes, were subsequently analyzed. A repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA), with contradiction type as the repeated measure and gender as the between-subjects measure, was performed, with the perceived importance as the dependent variable. The ANOVA employed Hunyh-Feldt-corrected degrees of freedom due to violation of compound symmetry assumptions but did not produce a significant main effect for contradiction type. However, scores for all five contradictions revealed that participants rated all five in the moderate range of importance (autonomy/connection, M = 3.15, SD = 1.24; stability/change, M = 2.71, SD = 1.12; openness/closedness, M = 3.01, SD = 1.11; judgment/acceptance, M = 3.08, SD = 1.26; ideal/real, M = 3.08, SD = 1.49). No significant differences were found between males and females.

Table 2 reports the means and standard deviations for the reported importance or centrality of the five dialectical contradictions for each of the 12 conflict issue types. To account for multiple instances of conflict issue type, within-subject means were determined for each contradiction. Analyses were based on the number of participants reporting at least one conflict issue type. Separate repeated-measures ANOVAs, with contradiction type as the repeated measure, gender as between-subjects measure, and perceived importance as the dependent measure, were performed for each conflict type. Hunyh-Feldt-corrected degrees of freedom were employed when compound symmetry assumptions were violated. The author is aware that the increased number of tests can inflate the alpha error, and results should be interpreted accordingly. In analyses for which a significant F ratio was obtained, a reverse Helmert contrast (with p < .05) was used to identify the significant differences. None of the ANOVAs produced a significant main effect for sex or significant main effect for sex by contradiction type interaction.

Table 2.

Means and Standard Deviations for Reported Centrality/Importance of Six Contradictions by Conflict by Issue Type.

Conflict issue	Autonomy/connection	Stability/change	Openness/closedness	Judgment/acceptance	Ideal/real
1. Work performance	3.32 (1.65)	2.88 (1.19)	2.98 (1.49)	3.38 (1.41)	3.69 (1.15)
2. Customer relations	2.91 (1.87)	2.60 (1.83)	3.10 (1.92)	3.32 (1.38)	3.36 (1.63)
3. Workload	4.10 (1.45)	3.10 (1.45)	3.00 (1.41)	3.60 (1.35)	3.30 (1.83)
4. Power/control	4.11 (1.17)	3.44 (1.81)	3.61 (1.27)	2.74 (2.05)	3.44 (1.24)
5. Equity/fairness	4.14 (1.21)	2.93 (1.70)	3.57 (1.30)	3.36 (1.18)	4.66 (0.82)
6. Discrimination/ harassment	2.00 (2.00)	1.75 (2.05)	3.50 (1.77)	2.25 (1.83)	2.13 (2.03)
7. Work evaluation	2.86 (2.12)	2.57 (1.98)	3.43 (1.27)	4.57 (0.53)	3.71 (1.50)
8. Leadership	3.00 (2.35)	3.00 (1.22)	3.20 (1.64)	2.40 (1.95)	2.00 (2.00)
9. Policy issues	2.80 (1.48)	3.20 (1.92)	2.20 (1.79)	3.20 (1.48)	2.60 (2.41)
10. Communication	1.75 (2.36)	1.75 (2.06)	2.50 (1.91)	2.25 (2.22)	2.50 (1.73)
11. Recognition	3.33 (1.53)	2.50 (1.50)	1.50 (1.80)	2.17 (1.89)	2.66 (2.08)
12. Technology	4.33 (0.58)	3.67 (1.53)	1.33 (0.58)	1.00 (1.73)	2.33 (1.53)

For Work Performance, the main effect of contradiction type was significant, F(4, 56) = 1.46, p = .05, partial η² = .10. Contrasts revealed that the ideal versus real contradiction was perceived as more important than the other four contradictions (M = 3.69, SD = 1.15). For Work Evaluation, the main effect of contradiction type was significant, F(3.988, 19.942) = 1.51, p = .007, partial η² = .23. Contrasts revealed that the judgment-acceptance contradiction was perceived as more important than the other four contradictions (M = 4.57, SD = 0.53). For Policy Disputes, the main effect of contradiction type was significant, F(4, 12) = 2.05, p = .022, partial η² = .41. Contrasts revealed that the judgment-acceptance contradiction was perceived as more important than the other four contradictions (M = 3.20, SD = 1.48).

The second research question examined participant rating of each pole of the five dialectical contradictions. Results reveal that 15.7% (n = 89) of conflicts were perceived as dialectical and antagonistic. Table 3 reports the number of conflicts by contradiction type for each 1-2 (first pole important to self, second pole important to other) and 2-1 (first pole important to other, second pole important to self) responses. Table 4 reports the number of conflicts by contradiction type for dialectical, nonantagonistic conflicts. Of all conflicts reported 34.2% were perceived as dialectical but did not result in the perception that self and other were positioned on opposite poles. However, responses that involve any combination of 1 or 2 and 3 show that some opposition exists. Finally, Table 5 reveals the number of reported nondialectical conflicts by contradiction type (44.9% of all conflict).

Table 3.

Dialectical, Antagonistic Conflicts by Contradiction Type.

Note. a/c = autonomy/connection; s/c = stability/change; o/c = openness/closedness; j/a = judgment/acceptance; i/r = ideal/real.

Antagonistic codes: 1-2 = first pole important to self, second pole important to other; 2-1 = first pole important to other, second pole important to self (for each theme).

Table 4.

Dialectical, Nonantagonistic Conflicts by Contradiction Type.

Theme	a/c	s/c	o/c	j/a	i/r	Total
Nonantagonistic^a
3-3	10	11	9	16	18	64
1-3	12	8	5	7	18	50
3-1	3	10	14	12	10	49
2-3	2	1	1	11	1	16
3-2	5	2	1	5	2	15
Total	32	32	30	51	49	194

Note. a/c = autonomy/connection; s/c = stability/change; o/c = openness/closedness; j/a = judgment/acceptance; i/r = ideal/real.

Nonantagonistic codes: any combination of responses in which one of the two poles of a contradiction involves equal importance to self and other.

Table 5.

Nondialectical Conflicts by Contradiction Type.

Theme	a/c	s/c	o/c	j/a	i/r	Total
Nondialectical^a
0-0	4	6	5	10	6	31
1-0	5	12	9	1	7	34
0-1	7	0	1	6	2	16
2-0	5	3	4	0	0	12
0-2	1	0	0	0	0	1
3-0	7	21	21	0	2	51
0-3	6	0	0	3	1	10
1-1	23	17	20	23	20	103
2-2	7	5	3	4	8	27
Total	65	64	63	47	46	285

Note. a/c = autonomy/connection; s/c = stability/change; o/c = openness/closedness; j/a = judgment/acceptance; i/r = ideal/real.

Nondialectical codes: responses of any combination involving “0.”

The purpose of this study was to determine if dialectical theory is a viable framework for understanding organizational conflict. Although none of the five themes was statistically more significant than the others, results indicated that all five themes were perceived as moderately important to conflict episodes. In addition, conflict participants reported that just over 49% of all conflicts were dialectical (antagonistic and nonantagonistic). Taken together, these findings suggest that a dialectical framework is useful for analyzing conflict experiences and understanding ongoing tensions in the workplace.

Participants reported that the types of conflicts revolve around the amount of work required, the evaluation or assessment of individual performance, and issues of fairness, discrimination, and power. The issue of judgment versus acceptance was rated as significantly more important than the other four contradictions for the work evaluation and policy dispute categories. Performance appraisals can take place formally or informally within the workplace and can create anxiety and tension. Organizational scholars have long argued for performance appraisal systems where more people are involved in open, system-wide evaluations of individuals and teams (see Lepsinger & Lucia, 1997). In addition, the ideal versus real contradiction was rated as significantly more important than the other four themes for work performance. Perhaps organizational members use ideal frameworks or ideal goals to guide work performance but experience a type of “entropy” with work product or goal success. However, neither judgment/acceptance nor ideal/real has been identified in organizational discussion of paradox as important to organizational processes. The other three themes were rated as important to various conflict issue types. For example, the autonomy/connection contradiction was rated high in importance for workload (4.10), power/control (4.11), and equity/fairness (4.14).

A second goal was to determine the extent to which organizational participants reported conflicts as dialectical or nondialectical. Table 3 reports the number of dialectical and antagonistic conflicts for each contradiction type. The perception that a conflict is antagonistic is based on reports that one pole of a dialectical contradiction was important to self and the opposite pole important to other. For example, a rating of 1 for autonomy and 2 for connection demonstrates that the participants reported autonomy as more important to self and connection more important to other.

For the five contradictions, the openness/closedness tension revealed a meaningful difference in perception of the role or importance of openness. For example, 16 of the 22 antagonistic conflicts in this category rated openness as important to self. This perception suggests that participants wanted greater openness regarding conflict and that the other conflict party was being closed. Although the other four themes do not reveal as dramatic a difference in 1-2 versus 2-1 ratings, it does appear as though participants rated their concerns of connection, change, acceptance, and realism over their oppositional poles.

Table 4 reports those conflicts and themes for which the dialectical contradictions were perceived as important to the conflict but where a clear antagonism was not perceived. For example, the greatest number of conflicts reported as dialectical and nonantagonistic was the 3-3 response, where both poles were rated as roughly equal in importance to self and other. This category designation suggests that participants are aware of both conflict parties’ positions for each of the contradictions rated 3-3. The issue of perspective taking is especially relevant given that understanding another’s position is often regarded as an important step to conflict management (see Papa & Pood, 1988; Wilmot & Hocker, 2001). In the other four nonantagonistic categories, participants reported that one pole of a contradiction was important either to self or other and that the other pole was important to both. These results suggest that both parties recognize the interplay of both poles but that one pole is somehow of greater importance to one conflict party compared to the other.

Finally, Table 5 reveals the number of conflicts that are considered nondialectical. However, the 1-1, 2-2 categories included in this table suggest the existence of dialectical opposites but are not reported as such by this group of participants. For example, a 1-1 score, for which autonomy and connection are considered important to the conflict for self, does not demonstrate the relational recognition of the contradiction between the conflicting parties. Furthermore, for each contradiction, the 1-1 rating is indicated much more frequently than 2-2 ratings, which might be expected because of greater self-monitoring or because of assessment of the needs of self versus the assessment of the needs of other. Finally, these data clearly show that for the contradictions of stability/change and openness/closedness, participants reported the poles of stability and openness as important to both parties, where issues of change and closedness were not perceived as important. For example, the dialectic of stability/change revealed that participants rated stability important to self and other (3-0; n = 21), whereas change was not indicated in a single case (n = 0) for the nonantagonistic category. Likewise, an identical pattern emerged for the openness/closedness dialectic (3-0 responses = “21,” whereas 0-3 responses = “0”). For nonantagonistic conflicts, both stability and openness are perceived as important to conflict episodes and may suggest that organizational members continue to experience the workplace as one of chaos and closedness. The implications for these and other findings for future research require elaboration.

If organizational contradictions are part and parcel of the experience of work, then management must consider how theorizing about and empirically investigating dialectical contradictions affect organizational conflict. Specifically, the argument in this research is that both poles of contradictory processes point to deeper needs within the workplace, and therefore, denial of workplace contradictions can lead to the suppression of important need fulfillment and may hinder effective conflict management. Suppression of individual, departmental, or organizational needs can potentially have negative consequences such as a decrease in satisfaction or an increase in destructive conflict. For example, although satisfaction is only marginally correlated with improved productivity, it has been linked to team success (Doolen, Hacker, & Van Aken, 2003) and team effectiveness (Sheehan & Martin, 2003). More generally, satisfaction is often cited as an important indicator of work motivation (Hershey & Blanchard, 1993) and intentions and effort (Kreitner & Kinicki, 2001). Furthermore, Eisenberg and Goodall (2004) argued that satisfied employee is one whose needs are being met.

A second potential negative consequence for the denial of important needs, an understanding of the oppositional forces that underpin some types of conflict, often implicated in organizational contradictions, may be an increase in destructive and/or unproductive conflict. When two organizational employees are in an antagonistic relationship with respect to a given conflict, that opposition can lead to entrenchment or intractability (unwillingness or inability to move away from one pole of the contradiction; Erbert, 2000). Thus, when two members become entrenched, the management of conflict may be based on more competitive orientations (vs. collaborative) or on the perception and exercise of power/coercion. Recognizing the legitimacy of each pole of a contradiction not only helps identify critical issues (such as individual autonomy versus group collaboration) but also may legitimate the position that each party in the conflict has taken. If a party construes the issue as legitimate then greater understanding about how that issue is supported and defended are possible.

One of the central tenets of a dialectical perspective is that oppositional forces are the drivers of social change (Baxter & Montgomery, 1996; Mao, 1965). And since understanding organization processes, such as organizational learning and organizational survival (Senge, 1990; Tjosvold, 2008b), are contingent on managerial responses and promotion of change initiatives, successful organizational change necessitates an understanding of how change unfolds. In a dialectical frame, contradictions constitute and reflect critical organizational change dynamics. Successful change may hinge on successful understanding of complementary dialectics (Tracy, 2004) and contradictions that result in conflict.

Management should also take a number of proactive approaches to organizational contradictions and conflict. In participatory and democratic organizational systems and structures, contradiction and paradox are inevitable (Stohl & Cheney, 2001). When the goals of organizational processes involve active participation, decision-making, and leadership from organizational members, an awareness of the tensions, problems, conflicts, and contradictions is essential to organizational learning and health. Tracy (2004) argued that managers should acknowledge tensions and encourage employees to see contradictions as complementary rather than as paradoxical. However, theoretically, the current research would suggest that important conflicts may be embedded in oppositions, and awareness of the nature of conflict processes is equally important to complementary processes. That is, productive conflict about oppositions may be as important as seeing two oppositions as compatible. What if managers created opportunity for “sustained productive conflict” through organizational dialogue about contradictory processes? What potential advantages might accrue from such a dialogue?

Finally, managers may want to incorporate conceptual and practical dimensions of dialectical theory into programs of change, including formal, structural change initiatives, as well as into new employee socialization and training and ongoing training sessions. If organizational members need to understand change processes, the more they know about how change works, and the greater their understanding of the drivers of organizational change, the less likely they may be to experience debilitating and negative consequences of organizational tensions.

Future research in the area of organizational conflict and dialectics may be important for understanding the various tensions and oppositions that emerge in the process of managing organizations. In particular, this research suggests a number of directions for continued empirical investigation of dialectical contradictions in organizational conflict. First, research should be conducted on the various types of contradictions and tensions that organizational members experience. Barge (1994), Smith and Berg (1987), and Wendt (1998) have identified numerous paradoxes or tensions that should be empirically investigated. Future research can examine whether certain types of organizations contend with different/various dialectical contradictions, that is, comparing profit versus nonprofit or highly structured versus participative organizations. In addition, researchers can explore how or whether different tensions get communicated within the workplace, especially with regard to conflict. Putnam (2001) noted that conflicts often remain hidden in organizations, more so within classical management approaches where conflict is regarded as a disruption to the progress of work. Future research should examine the link between ideologies of harmony versus conflict and how employees respond psychologically, organizationally, and socially to hidden conflicts. Does the degree or amount of tension or dialectical opposition determine the extent to which employees communicate problems and differences or remain closed and private about problems in organizations?

Second, this study examined how conflict parties perceive dialectical contradictions, as antagonistic and nonantagonistic. What remains unexplored with regard to antagonisms are the processes by which people move toward and move away from antagonisms in the workplace. What communicative processes are at play to increase and decrease workplace antagonisms? More important, is the question of the degree to which antagonistic and nonantagonistic conflicts lead to destructive and productive conflict outcomes. Under what conditions are antagonistic conflicts beneficial? Destructive? Clearly, this area of inquiry is in its infancy but could provide rich insights into the nature of opposition and conflict between organizational members.

Third, over half of all conflicts were nonantagonistic and/or nondialectical, and future studies can determine the relevance of nondialectical conflicts. As Erbert (2000) noted, at least some conflicts may be considered false or displaced (see Deutsch, 1973). However, the determination of dialectical antagonistic/nonantagonistic conflicts was based on participants’ perceptions of the importance of each pole of an oppositional pair. If a participant rated only one pole of an opposition important, it may be that the oppositional pole could function at a subconscious level. That is, an understanding of an important need, like autonomy, implies its opposition (see Baxter & Montgomery, 1996, for discussion of logical and functional oppositions).

Particular limitations of the present study should be considered when interpreting the results. First, participants were asked to recall conflicts in the workplace and to discuss the details of those conflicts within a 1-year time frame. Although the purpose of the 1-year time frame was to identify a reasonable time within which to recall conflicts, the everyday experiences of workers and the degree and intensity of conflict over time are not well represented. For example, a diary method may actually capture more of the detailed nuance of conflict on an ongoing basis.

Second, this study captured ratings of the importance of dialectical contradictions and of antagonistic versus nonantagonistic conflict but failed to capture the ongoing interplay between oppositional poles. Thus, a static representation of contradictions is reported rather than a process orientation. However, the purpose of the interview protocol was to have participants discuss, think about, and replay past conflict experiences, such that the recall was based on the conflict experiences/events over time. Thus, the reporting of the importance of each contradiction reflects participant assessments of conflict experience. Furthermore, even the relatively static representation of ratings allows for a conclusion that dialectical theory is a useful and appropriate framework for exploring conflict in organizations.

Third, although the five dialectical themes showed evidence of support through moderate mean scores, the number of participants and number of conflict episodes limits the generalizability of findings. Furthermore, although no significant differences were found across the sample, there are indications that certain conflict issues may be more problematic or contentious. For example, the conflict issues of technology, power/control, and workload were all rated above 4.0. Perhaps these higher ratings are a product of unique experiences of the study sample, or perhaps they reflect common conflict across organizational types.

To date, research has largely ignored the relationship between a dialectical perspective and organizational conflict. These findings indicate that further examination of dialectical processes of conflict interaction is merited. This study has found that at least a portion of relational conflict involves dialectical contradictions that are rooted in important organizational needs. Additional research is necessary to determine what, if any, other types of contradictory processes are important to the exploration of organizational conflict.

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Larry A. Erbert (PhD, The University of Iowa) is an Associate Professor, Director of the Mediation Certificate, and Director of the Sustainability Minor at the University of Colorado Denver. He is a past faculty member of the University of Texas at El Paso where he Founded and Directed the Institute for Peace and Conflict Studies and was a Research Fellow in the Sam Donaldson Center for Communication.

Antagonistic^a

Altman

(1993). Dialectics, physical environments, and personal relationships. Communication Monographs, 60, 26-41.

Altman

Vinsel

Brown

B. B.

(1981). Dialectic conceptions in social psychology: An application to social penetration and privacy regulation. In Berkowitz

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 14, pp. 107-160). New York, NY: Academic Press.

Bakhtin

M. M.

(1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays by M. M. Bakhtin ( Holquist

, Ed.; Emerson

Holquist

, Trans.). Austin: University of Texas Press.

Barge

J. K.

(1994). Leadership: Communication skills for organizations and groups. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.

Baxter

L. A.

(1990). Dialectical contradictions in relationship development. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7, 69-88.

Baxter

L. A.

Bullis

(1986). Turning points in developing romantic relationships. Human Communication Research, 12, 469-493.

Baxter

L. A.

Erbert

L. A.

(1999). Perceptions of dialectical contradictions in turning points of development in heterosexual romantic relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 16, 547-569.

Baxter

L. A.

Montgomery

B. M.

(1996). Relating: Dialogues and dialectics. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Bridge

Baxter

L. A.

(1992). Blended friendships: Friends as work associates. Western Journal of Communication, 56, 200-225.

10.

Bullis

Bach

B. W.

(1989). Socialization turning points: An examination of change in organizational identification. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 53, 273-293.

11.

Canary

D. J.

Cupach

W. R.

Messman

S. J.

(1995). Relationship conflict. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

12.

Conville

R. L.

(1991). Relational transitions: The evolution of personal relationships. New York, NY: Praeger.

13.

Deutsch

(1973). The resolution of conflict: Constructive and destructive processes. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

14.

Doolen

T. L.

Hacker

M. E.

Van Aken

E. M.

(2003). The impact of organizational context on work team effectiveness: A study of production team. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 50, 285-297.

15.

Eisenberg

E. M.

Goodall

H. L.

(2004). Organizational communication (4th ed.). New York, NY: Bedford/St. Martin’s Press.

16.

Erbert

L. A.

(2000). Conflict and dialectics: Perceptions of dialectical contradictions in marital conflict. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17, 638-659.

17.

Erbert

L. A.

Duck

S. W.

(1997). “Rethinking” satisfaction in personal relationships from a dialectical perspective. In Sternberg

R. J.

Hojjat

(Eds.), Satisfaction in close relationships (pp. 190-216). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

18.

Folger

J. P.

Taylor

(1993). The nature of conflict. In. Lewiki

R. J.

Litterer

J. A.

Saunders

D. M.

Minton

J. W.

(Eds.), Negotiation (pp. 15-19). Boston, MA: Irwin.

19.

Ford

J. D.

Ford

L. W.

(1994). Logics of identity, contradiction, and attraction in change. Academy of Management Review, 19, 756-785.

20.

Giddens

(1979). Central problems in social theory. Berkeley: University of California Press.

21.

Giddens

(1981). A contemporary critique of historical materialism. Berkeley: University of California Press.

22.

Glaser

B. G.

Strauss

A. L.

(1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.

23.

Gross

M. A.

Guerrero

L. K.

(2000). Managing conflict appropriately and effectively: An application of the competence model to Rahim’s organizational conflict styles. International Journal of Conflict Management, 11, 200-226.

24.

Gurevitch

Z. D.

(1988). The other side of dialogue: On making the other strange and the experience of otherness. American Journal of Sociology, 93, 1179-1199.

25.

Hammer

L. B.

Allen

Grigsby

T. D.

(1997). Work-family conflict in dual-earner couples: Within individual and crossover effects of work and family. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50, 185-203.

26.

Hersey

Blanchard

K. H.

(1993). Management of organizational behavior (6th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

27.

Huston

T. L.

Surra

Fitzgerald

Cate

(1981). From courtship to marriage: Mate selection as an interpersonal process. In Duck

Gilmour

(Eds.), The emerging field of personal relationships (pp. 53-88). New York, NY: Academic Press.

28.

Infante

D. A.

(1988). Arguing constructively. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.

29.

Jameson

J. K.

(2004). Negotiating autonomy and connection through politeness: A dialectical approach to organizational conflict management. Western Journal of Communication, 68, 257-277.

30.

Kohn

(1992). No contest: The case against competition (revised ed.). New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin.

31.

Kreitner

Kinicki

(2001). Organizational behavior (5th ed.). New York, NY: Irwin McGraw-Hill.

32.

Lepsinger

Lucia

A. D.

(1997). The art and science of 360 degree feedback. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.

33.

Lipsky

D. B.

Seeber

R. L.

(2006). Managing organizational conflicts. In Oetzel

J. G.

Ting-Toomey

(Eds.), The Sage handbook of conflict communication: Integrating theory, research, and practice (pp. 359-390). Thousand Oaks: CA: Sage.

34.

Leonardi

P. M.

Treem

J. W.

Jackson

M. H.

(2010). The connectivity paradox: Using technology to both decrease and increase perceptions of distance in distributed work arrangements. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 38, 85-105.

35.

Mao

(1965). On contradiction. Beijing, China: Foreign Languages Press.

36.

Morrill

Thomas

C. K.

(1992). Organizational conflict management as disputing process: The problem of social escalation. Human Communication Research, 18, 400-428.

37.

Nicotera

A. M.

(1994). The use of multiple approaches to conflict: A study of sequences. Human Communication Research, 20, 592-621.

38.

Papa

M. J.

Pood

E. A.

(1988). Coorientational accuracy and differentiation in the management of conflict. Communication Research, 15, 400-425.

39.

Pool

M. S.

Garner

J. T

(2006). Perspectives on workgroup conflict and communication. In Oetzel

J. G.

Ting-Toomey

(Eds.), The sage handbook of conflict communication (267-292). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

40.

Price Waterhouse Change Integration Team. (1996). The paradox principles: How high performance companies manage chaos, complexity, and contradiction to achieve superior results. Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin.

41.

Putnam

L. L.

(2001). The language of opposition: Challenges in organizational dispute resolution. In Eadie

W. F.

Nelson

P. E.

(Eds.), The language of conflict and resolution (pp. 10-20). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

42.

Quinn

R. E.

Cameron

K. S.

(Eds.). (1988). Paradox and transformation: Toward a theory of change in organization and management. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

43.

Rahim

M. A.

(2002). Toward a theory of managing organizational conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management, 13, 206-235.

44.

Rawlins

W. K.

(1992). Friendship matters: Communication, dialectics, and the life course. New York, NY: Aldine De Gruyter.

45.

Senge

P. M.

(1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of organizational learning. New York: Doubleday/Currency.

46.

Sheehan

A. L.

Martin

(2003). Understanding diversity to maximize work team effectiveness: Field studies designed to unravel the complex relationship between diversity and team effectiveness. Australian Journal of Psychology, 55, 144-159.

47.

Smith

K. K.

Berg

D. N.

(1987). Paradoxes of group life: Understanding conflict, paralysis, and movement in group dynamics. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

48.

Stohl

Cheney

(2001). Participatory processes/paradoxical practices. Management Communication Quarterly, 14, 349-407.

49.

Tjosvold

(2008a). Constructive controversy for management education: Developing committed, open-minded researchers. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 7, 73-85.

50.

Tjosvold

(2008b). The conflict-positive organization: It depends on us. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 19-28.

51.

Tracy

S. T.

(2004). Dialectic, contradiction, or double bind? Analyzing and theorizing employee reactions to organizational tension. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 32, 119-146.

52.

Van de Ven

A. H.

Poole

M. S.

(1988). Paradoxical requirements for a theory of organizational change. In Quinn

R. E.

Cameron

K. S.

(Eds.), Paradox and transformation: Toward a theory of change in organization and management (pp. 19-63). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

53.

VanLear

C. A.

(1991). Testing a cyclical model of communicative openness in relationship development: Two longitudinal studies. Communication Monographs, 58, 337-361.

54.

Wendt

R. F.

(1998). The sound of one hand clapping: Counterintuitive lessons extracted from paradoxes and double binds in participative organizations. Management Communication Quarterly, 11, 323-371.

55.

Werner

C. M.

Altman

Brown

B. B.

(1992). A transactional approach to interpersonal relations: Physical environment, social context and temporal qualities. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 9, 297-323.

56.

Werner

C. M.

Baxter

L. A.

(1994) Temporal qualities of relationships: Organismic, transactional, and dialectical views. In Knapp

M. L.

Miller

G. R.

(Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (2nd ed., pp. 323-379). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

57.

Wilmot

W. W.

Hocker

J. L.

(2001). Interpersonal conflict (6th ed.). Dubuque, IA: WCB Brown & Benchmark.