CONFLICT MANAGEMENT The Psychology of conflict and conflict ...

1. CONFLICT IN THE WORKPLACE 31
focus from contentious, distributive communication to more constructive,
integrative communication. Harinck and De Dreu (2004) coded temporary
impasses—points in the negotiation where parties deadlocked on some
issues and remained stuck for a while. Higher levels of contending early
in the negotiation were related to temporary impasses, and temporary
impasses were, in turn, related to problem solving late in the negotiation.
Stepping back from and reflecting upon the negotiation during a temporary
impasse appears to facilitate a switch from competitive contending
to more cooperative problem solving (see also Olekalns, Brett, & Weingart,
2003), especially when competitive strategizing during such breaks
is avoided (Harinck & De Dreu, in press).
Because various chapters in the current volume treat conflict management
in great detail, here we selectively highlight that there appears to be
quite some consistency in tactics and strategies across levels of analysis. We
briefly discuss several more or less related taxonomies of conflict management
strategies that have been applied to the individual, group, and organization
levels of analysis. We then discuss the relationship between the
three sources of conflict identified earlier—(a) resource scarcity, (b) need
for a positive identity, and (c) need for a correct and socially shared understanding—and
the effectiveness of conflict management. Finally, as in
previous sections, we end with a discussion of research on culture and
conflict management, and whether the taxonomies and findings discussed
in this section are universal or subject to culture-specificity.
Individual and Small Group Level
An important theory about conflict management is Deutsch’s Theory
of Cooperation and Competition (Deutsch, 1949, 1973). In brief, the theory
argues that disputants may perceive their ultimate goals to be positively
linked (cooperative interdependence), negatively linked (competitive interdependence),
or not linked (independence). Cooperative versus competitive
goal-interdependences, and their origins, are closely related to the concept
of prosocial versus proself motives, discussed by Beersma and colleagues
(chapter 4, this volume). In the case of competitive interdependence (or to a
lesser extent, independence) disputants try to maximize their own outcomes,
with no (or negative) regard for the outcomes obtained by their counterparts.
In contrast, in the case of cooperative interdependency, disputants try to
maximize both own and other’s outcomes. Competitive interdependence
leads to distrust, hostile attitudes, and negative interpersonal perceptions.
Disputants use persuasive arguments, positional commitments, threats,
bluffs, and coercive power to get their way. Cooperative interdependence, in
contrast, leads to trust, positive attitudes and perceptions, and constructive
exchange of information. Parties listen and seek to understand one another’s
perspective, which is what Tjosvold (1991, 1998) referred to as “constructive
controversy.” The theory has been tested in experimental game situations, as