SSO ANSLTY Managing Conflict With a Subordinate or a Superior: Effectiveness of Conglomerated Behavior Evert van de Vliert University of Groningen Martin C. Euwema University of Utrecht Sipke E. Huismans Free University Rather than a single behavior, handling conflict is a conglomeration of behavioral com- ponents characterized by a pattern of occurrence and by a pattern of covariation ofits components. Theories (R. R. Blake & J. S. Mouton, 1964, 1970; R. E. Walton, 1969) have predicted (a) that the forcing component counters effectiveness and (b) that the problem-solving component enhances effectiveness, especially at a moderate level of oc- currence of the forcing component. Systematic observations of videotapes of 116 male police sergeants handling a standardized conflict with either a subordinate or a superior supported the main effects but not the qualification. An increase in problem solving tended to enhance effectiveness, especially if a superior combined it with much forcing vis-i-vis a subordinate. An increase in controlling the process had an extremely positive effect on the parties’ joint outcomes and mutual relationship. iret 1995 ty he Amr Prt aA ‘The literature on interpersonal conflict in organiza- tions suggests that, at least within one cycle of transac- tion, each party uses only one distinct mode of conflict behavior. Mixtures of forcing, problem solving, and ac- ‘commodating, for example, actually seem much more ‘common (Blake & Mouton, 1964, 1970; Falbe & Yuki, 1992; Rubin, Pruitt, & Kim, 1994; Van de Vliert, 1994; Yuki, Falbe, & Young Youn, 1993). Similarly, itis often taken for granted that distinct modes of conflict behavior have only a mutually exclusive influence on the conflict outcomes. As evidence to the contrary, some effective Evert van de Vliet, Department of Social and Organizational Psychology, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Nether- lands; Martin C. Euwema, Department of Social and Organiza- tional Psychology, University of Utrecht, Utrecht, The Nether- lands; Sipke E, Huismans, Department of Psychonomy, Free University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands ‘The Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research is ‘gratefully acknowledged for funding this project (PSYCHON Grant 560-270-001 ). In addition, we would like to thank Cor- nelis Boekestiin, Fop Coolsma, Carsten de Dreu, Boris Kaba- noff, Leendert Koppelaar, Ivo Molenaar, and Adriaan Visser for their helpful contributions. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed. to Evert van de Viiert, Department of Social and Organiza- tional Psychology, University of Groningen, Grote Kruisstraat 2/1, 9712 TS Groningen, The Netherlands. Electronic mail ‘may be sent via Internet to e.van.de.vliert@ppsw.rug.n am ‘ways of conflict management are behavioral compounds instead of pure behaviors. Showing firmness with respect 10 one’s own ultimate interests in conjunction with flex- ibility with respect to the means for achieving these inter- ests—also called “firm flexibility” —is an effective nego- tiation strategy (Fisher & Ury, 1981; Rubin et al., 1994; ‘Tutzauer & Roloff, 1988). Aiso, forcing with regard toa ‘benefit or a cost that is important to oneself but unim- portant to the opponent while accommodating on a ben- fit ora cost that is unimportant to oneself but important to the opponent—or “logrolling”—usually results in mu- ‘ually beneficial outcomes (Lax & Sebenius, 1986; Man- nix, Thompson, & Bazerman, 1989; Rackham & Car- liste, 1978; Raiffa, 1982). In this article about severe conflict, we assume that effectiveness is a function of behavioral conglomerations rather than single modes of conflict handling. In the first section, conglomerated conflict behavior is defined, and its effectiveness is discussed. We then focus on Blake and Mouton’s (1964, 1970, 1981) conviction that forcing isa ‘bad way and problem solving is the best way to handle conflict and apply this dual postulate to the components of conglomerated conflict behavior. The experiment re- ported next focused on an escalating dyadic conflict be- ‘tween a police sergeant and either a subordinate or a su- Perior. We used systematic observations of videotaped transactions to test three hypotheses about the effective- ness of forcing and problem solving as main components of complex conflict management.2 E. VAN DE VLIERT, M, EUWEMA, AND S. HUISMANS Conglomerated Conflict Behavior Conflict behavior is an individual’ reaction to the per- ception that one’s own and another party's current aspi- rations cannot be achieved simultaneously (cf. Rubin et al., 1994). The most well-known assertive reactions are forcing—contending the adversary in a direct way—and problem solving—reconciling the parties’ basic interests. Ina severe conflict, the same actor usually blends or as- sembles forcing and problem solving, Elements of less as- sertive reactions, including compromising, accommodat- ing, and avoiding, may also be added (for definitions, see Table 1, as presented later). The term conglomerated con- ‘flict behavior refers to such an aggregation of various de- -rees of several modes of conflict handling. ‘The behavioral components in a conglomeration may ‘occur simultaneously, or they may be sequentially linked to each other. For example, “tacit bargaining” isa merger of reactions in which one sticks to one’s guns and with- holds relevant information while revealing obligingness and real interests through nonverbal cues (Pruitt & Car- nevale, 1993; Putnam, 1990). In contrast, Blake and Mouton’s (1964) “paternalism” is a conglomeration of demanding compliance and subsequently offering secu- rity and well-being in return. Paternalism is just one illustration of forcing and problem solving, or even ac- ‘commodating, operating in sequential juxtaposition (for additional examples, see Blake & Mouton, 1964; Put- nam, 1990; Rubin et al., 1994; Van de Viiert, 1994) Effectiveness of Behavioral Conglomerations Conflict behavior is effective to the extent that it re- duces the conflict issues, improves the relationship with the other party, or both (cf. Thomas, 1992; Tjosvold, 1991). To our knowledge, there is no empirical evidence regarding the absolute or the relative effectiveness of par- ticular components of conglomerated conflict behavior. However, several authors have reported findings that per- suasively argue for studying the effectiveness of conglom- erated rather than single modes of conflict handling. The aforementioned effectiveness of firm flexibility and log- rolling seems to be a case in point. Similarly, more con- troversy within problem-solving groups appears to result in better ideas and more creative group decisions, more satisfaction, and more commitment to the implementa- tions ofthe decisions (Cosier, 1978; Janis, 1982; Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 1989; Schweiger, Sandberg, & Ragan, 1986; Schweiger, Sandberg, & Rechner, 1989; Schwenk, 1990; Tjosvold, 1985; Van de Vliert & De Dreu, 1994; Walton, 1969), Williams (1983, 1993) asked hundreds of experienced attorneys, for whom negotiating is a daily activity, to de- scribe in detail their effective as well as ineffective peers. For the current discussion, the single most important finding was that an aggressive approach was neither more nor less effective than a cooperative approach. Effective- ness as a negotiator appeared to be determined by a whole pattern of traits and behaviors and not by a single component. More specifically, negotiators with an ag- gressive pattern appeared to be rather effective if they were not arrogant, quarrelsome, or egoistic and if they ‘were not bluffing or using take-it-orleave-it offers. Even though effective aggressors used threats and were willing to stretch the facts, they never became insufferably ob- noxious. In contrast, the cooperative pattern of win-win negotiators appeared to be effective unless a number of overly cooperative components were added, including be- ing trustful, gentle, obliging, patient, and forgiving. In- effective cooperators were, in a manner of speaking, “marshmallows.” In conclusion, the effectiveness of con- wlomerated conflict behavior represents a frontier of knowledge. Application of Blake and Mouton’s Classic Theory Blake and Mouton proposed two factors to describe and explain conflict behaviors: “concern for the produc- tion of results” and “concern for people” (1964, pp. 8 9, 1970, pp. 417-418). Their original theory, which first appeared in 1964, was restricted to managerial behavior, including managerial conflict behavior However, in 1970, Blake and Mouton claimed that the concerns and the resulting styles of conflict management also apply to people other than managers and to social conflicts other than managerial conflicts. That is, any reaction to a con- fict is assumed to result from what may be interpreted as “concern for the production of results for oneself” and “concern for the production of results for the opponent” (Van de Viiert, 1994), ‘Asa core part of Blake and Mouton’s (1964, 1970) theory, they stated that bad and good ways exist for end- ing disputes. On the one hand, forcing, elicited by high concern for one’s own results and low concern for the op- ponents results, was notably pictured as a clearly de- structive mode of conflict handling. On the other hand, problem solving, elicited by high concern for both one’s own and the opponent's results, was proclaimed to be the most constructive mode of managing social discontent. One decade later, Blake and Mouton even presented their theory as a “one-best-style approach” (1981, p. 441; for similar views, see Fisher & Ury, 1981; Follett, 1940; Pneuman & Bruehl, 1982). Implicitly supporting this “bad-way-best-way” postu- late, many scholars asserted or showed that, more than other reactions, forcing undermines organizational effectiveness, whereas problem solving underpins it (e..,EFFECTIVE CONFLICT BEHAVIOR 23 Andrews & Tjosvold, 1983; Barker, Tjosvold, & An- drews, 1988; Burke, 1970; Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967; Likert & Likert, 1976; Phillips & Cheston, 1979; Rahim, 1983b; Renwick, 1977; Tjosvold, 1991; Volkema & Bergmann, 1989). However, the studies that laid empiri- cal connections between forcing and ineffectiveness on the one hand and problem solving and effectiveness on the other hand have a number of restrictions in common. First, these studies implicitly assumed that forcing, problem solving, and other reactions a) are mutually ex- clusive and (b) have mutually exclusive impacts on the effectiveness of conflict management. As a consequence, the calculated interrelationships between a particular conflic-behavior mode and the outcome criteria were not statistically controlled for the interrelationships be- tween that mode and the other modes. Second, these studies investigated relatively small misunderstandings or slight disagreements rather than escalated conflicts. This ‘may have distorted the occurrence of the distinct modes of conflict behavior and the estimations of their effects. Third, these studies typically relied on intended or re- ported instead of actual conflict behaviors. As a conse- ‘quence, the occurrence of socially undesirable reactions such as forcing may have been underestimated, whereas the occurrence of socially desirable reactions such as problem solving may have been overestimated (Kilmann & Thomas, 1977; Rahim, 1983a). Fourth, these studies ‘were restricted to the five-part typology of forcing, prob- lem solving, compromising, accommodating, and av ing (Blake & Mouton, 1964, 1970; Cosier & Ruble, 1981; Hall, 1969; Kabanoff, 1987; Knapp, Putnam, & Davis, 1988; Rahim, 19832, 1983b; Thomas, 1992; Thomas & Kilmann, 1974). The aforementioned restrictions of prior research in- Cited us (a) to retest Blake and Mouton’s (1964, 1970, 1981) bad-way-best-way postulate for forcing and prob- Jem solving as main components of conglomerated con- flict behavior; (b) to focus on a major clash rather than a minor discontent; (c) to investigate actual rather than reported behavioral components; and (d) to explore the effectiveness of two additional behavioral components, namely confronting and process controlling (for defini- tions, see Table | and the Exploration section) Hypotheses ‘We tested three hypotheses about the main and the in- teractive effects of the forcing and the problem-solving ‘components on the effectiveness of conglomerated con- flict behavior. The hypotheses dealing with the main effects were as follows Hypothesis 1, Forcing is negatively related to. the effectiveness of conglomerated conflict behavior. Table 1 Definitions of Seven Components of Conglomerated Conflict Behavior Component Definition Forcing CContending the adversary in a direct way Confronting Demanding attention tothe conflict issue Process controling ‘Dominating the procedures to one's own ‘advantage Problem solving Reconciling the parties" basic interests ‘Compromising Settling through mutual concessions Accommodating Giving in tothe opponent ‘Avoiding Moving away from the confit issue Hypothesis 2. Problem solving is positively related to the effectiveness of conglomerated conilict behavior. A qualification ofthe last hypothesis is suggested by the proposition that an individual's capacity for complex and effective thinking tends to be optimal at a moderate level of conflict intensity and escalative behavior (Brown, 1983; Levi, 1981; Mugny & Pérez, 1991; Rahim, 1992; Walton, 1969). That is, too little and too much escalation tend to hamper information processing and subsequent effectiveness, whereas just enough escalation tends to fa- cilitate the communication and the constructive utiliza- tion of information. This can be translated into the fol- lowing expectation of a nonlinear interactive effect of forcing and problem solving on effectiveness Hypothesis 3. Problem solving is more positively related to the effectiveness of conglomerated conflict behavior at a ‘moderate level of forcing than at lower and higher levels of forcing, For reasons of generalizability and social psychological relevance, we tested each hypothesis twice, for both downward conflict with a subordinate and upward con- flict with a superior. Exploration ‘The five-part taxonomy of forcing, problem solving, ‘compromising, accommodating, and avoiding can be criticized for underrepresenting relatively aggressive ‘modes of conflict handling ( Van de Vliert, 1990, 1994). ‘We therefore included two potentially relevant variants of forcing—confronting and process controlling—in our study of conglomerated conflict behavior reported here. Confronting, or differentiating (Walton, 1969), refers to straightforward and rather adversarial actions of de- manding the opponent's attention to one’s own dis- content by launching the conflict issue (Euwema, 1992; Prein, 1976; Schmidt & Tannenbaum, 1960). Unlike forcing in a restricted sense and unlike problem solving, confronting does not refer to potential outcomes. It deals