Why Strategic Conflict?

First, how people manage conflict strategically leads to positive versus negative consequences (Deutsch, 1973). Putnam (2006, p. 9) listed several positive and negative outcomes.

Second, and related to the first point, the use of conflict strategies and tactics largely determines the quality of your work associations, social ties, and the qual­ity of your close relationships (Canary et al., 1995). Burpee and Langer (2005) exemplify results regarding the connection of conflict management and relational quality:

When characterized by stubbornness, defensiveness, and withdrawal, con­flicts become detrimental to the relationship because these elements remove the possibility for cooperation and constructive interaction. When couples handle conflict together with the mutual intent to repair emotional damage, however, each spouse is likely to leave the conflict feeling better. (emphasis ours)

Next, how people manage interpersonal conflicts at work or at play tends to affect their physical health. As we elaborate in a later chapter, researchers now point to poor conflict management as a major cause of problems in the cardiovas­cular, endocrine, and immunological systems (Kiecolt-Glaser & Newton, 2001). For instance, the use of hostile conflict has been found to predict heart disease, high blood pressure, heart attacks, strokes, decreased ability to fight colds, sexual dysfunction, and so on (e.g., Metz & Epstein, 2002; Suarez, 2004).

Finally, a cynic might argue that learning strategic conflict is self-serving and ignores ethical considerations. However, strategic conflict requires the consideration of ethical behavior (for elaboration, see Cupach, Canary, & Spitzberg, 2010). The eth­ical position in this book is clearly instrumental. Attempts to achieve one’s desired goals succeed most when they follow the principles of one’s interaction partner. People in modern societies engage in interdependent thoughts and actions. Such interdependence indicates that you can obtain what you want a vast majority of the time simply by using civil communicative behavior. Being strategic, then, requires that people adjust their thoughts and actions to meet the standards of what is considered civil and ethical.

By extension, other people are similar in one respect: they are instrumental in achieving their desired goals through strategic conflict. Individuals who coerce or manipulate to get their way are often bullies and liars. These people fail to use three important facets of being a strategic communicator in the twenty-first century—knowledge, motivation, and skill (Spitzberg & Cupach, 1984). That is, you should know various thoughts and messages that lead to your benefit, be moti­vated enough to act on your knowledge, and apply your thoughts and tactics to manage your interactions—especially interpersonal conflicts. Of course, atypical situations can call for atypical actions. Strategic conflict, however, is about how a vast majority of people, most of the time, and in typical situations rely on their intelligence and communication competence in ethical ways. If the reader hoped to find a book on how to manipulate people, he or she must continue to search.

Parties in conflict each have the right to pursue happiness. The problem is that people’s visions of happiness often collide. Mindful thoughts and message behaviors provide the primary means for people to obtain their valued goals. And research on conflict has demonstrated that one’s effectiveness in obtaining goals positively connects to appropriateness—that is, meeting the other person’s expectations for behavior during conflict (Spitzberg, Canary, & Cupach, 1994). Importantly as well, people are judged as more competent during conflict the more they consider the other person’s goals at stake (Lakey & Canary, 2002).