面子协商理论

wenku.baidu.com
John Oetzel (Ph.D., University of Iowa, 1995) is an associate professor in the Department of Communication and Journalism at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131. Karen Myers (M.A., University of New Mexico, 2001) is a Ph.D. student in the Hugh Downs School of Human Communication at Arizona State University; Mary Meares (Ph.D., University of New Mexico, 2002) is an assistant professor in the E.R. Murrow School of Communication at Washington State University; Estefana Lara (B.A., University of New Mexico 2001) is completing training at the University of New Mexico to become an elementary school teacher. COMMUNICATION RESEARCH REPORTS, Volume 20, Number 2, pages 106-115
Conflict Styles and Face-107
issues" (Ting-Toomey, 1994, p. 360). Interpersonal conflict is disputes between two organizational members (Putnam & Poole, 1987). The purpose of the current study is to use face-negotiation theory (Ting-Toomey, 1988; Ting-Toomey & Kurogi, 1998) to explain interpersonal conflicts in organizations. The current study provides the first direct test of the importance of face concerns in predicting conflict styles as prior researchers have assumed the importance of face rather than directly testing their importance (e.g., Oetzel, 1998). Ting-Toomey (1988) argues that face is an explanatory mechanism for different styles of conflict management. Face represents an individual's claimed sense of positive image in the context of social interaction (Ting-Toomey, 1988). Ting-Toomey argues that individuals manage conflict in different ways because of different levels of face concerns, cultural backgrounds (e.g., self-construals), and situational factors such as organizational position. Conflict style refers to general tendencies or modes of patterned responses to conflict in a variety of antagonistic interactive situations (Putnam & Poole, 1987; TingToomey, 1997). In the current study, we include eight conflict styles based on a revision of Rahim's (1983,1992) two-dimensional model of concern for self and other (TingToomey et al., 2000; Ting-Toomey & Oetzel, 2001). Rahim (1983,1992) based his classification of conflict styles on the two conceptual dimensions of concern for self and concern for others. The two dimensions combine for five styles of handling interpersonal conflict: integrating (high self and other), compromising (middle on both dimensions), dominating (high self and low other), obliging (low self and high other), and avoiding (low on both dimensions). Ting-Toomey, Oetzel, and Yee-Jung (2001) expanded the five-style model to eight to account for ethnic differences in conflict. Their eight-style model included the five original styles along with emotional expression, third-party help, and passive aggression. Emotional expression refers to using one's emotions to guide communication behaviors during conflict (high self and moderate other). Third-party help involves using an outsider to mediate the conflict (moderate self and other). Passive aggression is characterized by indirect responses to threaten the image of another person (high self and moderate other). Oetzel, Ting-Toomey, Yokochi, Masumoto, and Takai (2000) demonstrated that these three styles are qualitatively different from the original five styles, but still fit within the other- and selfconcern framework. Self-construals and organizational position are two variables that predict conflict styles and fit within the face-negotiation theory. Self-construal is one's self-image and is composed of an independent and interdependent self (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Organizational position refers to the placement of an individual in the organization and often focuses on the relative status of an individual. Status denotes a position, or relative rank, within a hierarchy (Daniels, Spiker, & Papa, 1997). Prior research has found the following relationships among self-construals, organizational position, and conflict styles: (a) dominating and emotional expression are associated positively with independence (Oetzel, 1998; Ting-Toomey, Oetzel, & Yee-Jung, 2001); (b) avoiding, obliging, integrating, third-party help, and compromising styles are associated positively with interdependence (Oetzel, 1998; Ting-Toomey et al., 2001); (c) passive aggression is associated negatively with independence and interdependence (TingToomey et al., 2001); and (d) managers appear to rely on dominating during conflict with subordinates, while subordinates tend to avoid and accommodate conflicts with
Interpersonal Conflict in Organizations: Explaining Conflict Styles via Face-Negotiation Theory
John Oetzel University of New Mexico Mary Meares Washington State University Karen K. Myers Arizona State University Estefana Lara University of New Mexico
The purpose of the current study was to test the assumption of the face-negotiation theory (Ting-Toomey, 1988) that face concerns are predictive of conflict management styles. Managers and employees (N = 184) completed a self-report questionnaire that asked them to describe their reactions to typical conflicts with either a peer or a person of different status. Self-face concern was associated positively with dominating and emotionally expressive styles, other-face concern was associated positively with integrating, obliging, and compromising styles, and mutual-face concern was associated positively with integrating, obliging, and compromising styles. Additionally, inclusion of face concerns provided a better prediction than other relevant variables alone for six of the eight conflict styles considered. Effective management of interpersonal conflict is essential for the successful operation of organizations. For example, Thomas and Schmidt's (1976) oft-cited study estimates that supervisors devote approximately 20% of their time managing conflict. Conflict is "the perceived and/or actual incompatibility of values, expectations, processes, or outcomes between two or more parties over substantive and/or relational