Conflict Processes

The original CBSCM included conflict styles, facework, emotional expressions, and conflict rhythms as part of the conflict process. It also explained that our primary orientation factors shape our perceptions about conflict and lead to preferences in how to manage conflict.

Several recent studies provide subtle addi­tions to the traditional dual concern model resulting in five conflict styles. Peng and Tjosvold’s (2011) study of Chinese employees considered four strategies to avoid conflict: (1) yielding, (2) outflanking, (3) delay, and (4) passive aggression. Yielding is giving in on the issues; outflanking is using a third party to resolve the conflict; delay is waiting until a later and better time to discuss the conflict; and passive aggression is taking subtle actions against the other party. Similarly, A. S. M. Leung (2008) identified three ways to avoid conflict: (1) deference to authority, (2) giving face, and (3) maintaining harmony. T. Leung and Kim’s (2007) study of university students identified three new styles: (1) coercing, (2) deceiving, and (3) ingratiating. Coercing is forcing the other party to change; deceiving is using false messages to manage the conflict; and ingratiating is “buttering up” or compli­menting the other party.

Other studies look to identify larger patterns of conflict behavior. That is, rather than identi­fied specific styles or strategies, they focus on conglomerated behavior. For example, Euwema and Van Emmerick (2007) surveyed 542 Dutch military peacekeepers and found that there were two predominant patterns: (1) coopera­tive and (2) competitive.

While our own research identifies up to 8 different conflict styles and 11 different face­work strategies during conflict, it appears that there are three broad patterns of approaching conflict: (1) avoiding, (2) competing, and (3) cooperating.

Table 29.1 Conflict Styles, Facework Strategies, and Conflict Expressions of Three Conflict Style Approaches

Table 29.1 displays these three approaches and lists various facework strategies, conflict expressions, and conflict rhythms within these three broad patterns.

Regardless of how conflict approaches are categorized, the dynamic nature of the conflict process cannot be underestimated. The origi­nal CBSCM did not emphasize the dynamic nature of conflict interaction. It is difficult to represent a dynamic process in a static figure such as Figure 29.3. Conflict goals and con­flict interaction are processes as we negotiate our positions and interests with other parties. For example, Keck and Samp (2007) found that one party’s conflict goals and tactics covary with the other party’s during conflict interaction. Thus, the primary orientation factors and situational appraisals provide a starting point for our conflict approach, and yet during conflict process interaction, we consistently reassess our approaches based on further appraisal, emotional arousals, or reactive processes and how the other person is behaving. We also consider the outcomes of the conflict in the CBSECM.