CONFLICT MANAGEMENT The Psychology of conflict and conflict ...

3. COMMUNICATION PROCESSES AND CONFLICT MANAGEMENT 85
Choosing Styles
Both the conflict styles and dual concern models are clear regarding
when particular styles are used: Individuals typically choose a style/strategy
based on the emphasis that they give to achieving their own or the
other’s goals. They differ in whether these preferences are stable across
time (e.g., conflict styles) or whether they are sensitive to changes in the
conflict context (e.g., dual concern model). Research suggests that the
choice of a conflict style is influenced by individual, dyadic, and organizational
factors; however, those factors that relate to the underlying relationship
between the parties yield the strongest link between communication
and choice of conflict strategies (Putnam & Poole, 1987). From this perspective,
S. R. Wilson and Putnam (1990) named identity and relational
goals as two critical factors that shape people’s choice of strategies. In this
section, we expand on how these goals affect the choice of conflict styles.
Identity Goals. Identity goals reflect an individual’s concern for maintaining
one’s own and the other person’s sense of self. These goals are
reflected in an individual’s efforts to manage his or her face, that is, the
concern or respect that this person shows for maintaining his or her own
and the other person’s self-esteem (Goffman, 1967). This variable is especially
interesting in that it captures both individual and cultural differences
in the use of conflict styles.
Strong parallels between identity concerns and the concern for self and
others suggest that individuals who desire to maintain the other party’s face
will choose less confrontational styles than those who focus on maintaining
their own face. In support of this argument, Oetzel, Myers, Meares,
and Lara (2003) showed that employees who express concern for the other
person’s face are more likely to use integrating, smoothing, and compromising
strategies than are individuals who focus on protecting, restoring,
or saving their own face. These results parallel findings from studies of
social motives; namely, concern for the other person facilitates the use of
integrative styles (De Dreu, Weingart, & Kwon, 2000).
Face concerns are evident as we move from individualistic to collectivistic
cultures. One consequence is that people in collectivistic cultures
prefer other-focused strategies, especially avoiding (Brew & Cairns, 2004;
Ting-Toomey et al., 1991; Tjosvold & Sun, 2002). Consistent with this argument,
managers from China, Korea, and the Middle East score higher on
avoiding as a preferred style than do managers from the United States and
Australia (Brew & Cairns, 2004; Elsayed-Ekhouly & Buda, 1996; Kirkbride,
Tang, & Westwood, 1991; Kozan & Ergin, 1999; Ting-Toomey et al., 1991).
A recent meta-analysis further supports this argument (Holt & DeVore,
2005). Several authors contend that such differences stem from the relative
emphasis that cultures place on preserving the other party’s face
(Ting-Toomey & Kurogi, 1998). Oetzel and Ting-Toomey (2003), for example,
reported that preservation of face accounts for most of the variance in the