Communication and Conflict Synthesis Part I: Conflict Theories

1

Attribution theory when applied to the manager-employee interview would suggest that both the manager and the employee are attributing feelings, beliefs, attitudes and intentions towards the other in ways that are neither productive nor entirely fair. Each may appear to make a valid point, or a point that justifies the position of each, but neither is really conducive to developing a better working environment or work relationship. Each is seeking to scapegoat—the manager by blaming poor production results on the employee for not figuring out how to lead when the manger himself appears to be “hands off” and not demonstrate leadership examples for the workers to follow. The worker on the other hand views the manager as being overly negative and purposefully difficult because he wants to place blame on the boss. For example, the worker attributes indifference to the manager because the manager has not bothered all year to find out what is going on with his workers to see if they have any needs. The manager on the hand attributes ignorance to the worker, saying, “You should know by now that I don’t over structure the teams that work for me. Rigid lines of responsibility discourage people from flexibility in working together. That’s my management philosophy.” By attributing only negative qualities to one another, the relationship is basically breaking down. Each should make an effort to attribute more positive qualities to the other to achieve a more balanced perspective.

Expectancy violations theory would suggest that both are ratcheting up their words in response to the words of the other. For example, the manager says the worker should know his management philosophy and not be so surprised. Then he escalates the situation by saying, “There is more to this, though. You have actually been unhappy for some time in this unit. Maybe we should think … consider … moving you to another department.” The manager’s expectations for how the employee should take the negative feedback have been violated, so he reacts negatively himself, which provokes more frustration on the part of the employee. The worker’s expectations for the interview are unknown but he gives the impression that he is quite familiar with the manager’s antics by now yet is still surprised and angered that his boss should be so obtuse. When the boss suggests the employee move to a different department the employee becomes defensive and challenges the manager’s care for the employee.

Confrontation episodes theory would suggest that the issue between the employee and the manager is the issue of who should be accepting responsibility for not meeting expectations. The employee argues the measure is not even legitimate because expectations are not known ahead of time. The manager argues that his management philosophy is purposefully vague with defining roles and objectives but that the worker should know what the objectives and tasks are anyway. The employee argues that the manager cannot hold the employee accountable for not meeting objectives that are never defined and therefore are illegitimately applied as measures at the employee annual review. The worker refuses to accept responsibility or acknowledge the legitimacy of the review’s value and questions the validity of the manager’s leadership style. The manager likewise questions the value of the worker and singles out his bad attitude and inability to accept criticism and move on. The confrontation episodes theory thus suggests that the two are at an “issue-driven” impasse.

2

In displacement theory, the mind when faced with conflict escalation will substitute a new object or aim to get around the obstacle and divert attention from the conflict zone. Escalation is conceptualized in displacement theory as part of a process of disjunctive retaliation: the worker and the manager, for instance, view each other’s...

When the first argument fails, another is used in its place in the same way an enemy combatant
In arousal deficit theory, escalation is conceptualized in terms of the individual’s need to acquire ever increasing levels of arousal via self-stimulation. In an active situation, arousal is stimulated, which helps the individual to address the arousal deficit. In other words, conflict creates arousal and stimulates the individual with low arousal. The individual with low arousal can be said to initiate and benefit from conflict. The conflict itself becomes a way for the individual to gain satisfaction. It has nothing to do with the other person or the job performance that person is doing. Rather it is based on the individual arousal level of the individual and that individual’s need for stimulation, of which conflict is a great source.

In moral conflict theory, conflict escalation occurs when two groups have different deeply held moral beliefs or views about how things should be ordered. Unable to converge or get along, the two groups clash and conflict ensues because they fail to agree on how to resolve the order. The moral order is defined by knowledge, values, beliefs, judgments and experiences—and each group will be using different criteria to determine their own sets of principles. Escalation is thus conceptualized in moral conflict theory in terms of two or more moral orders that clash over values, perceptions, beliefs and so on.

Escalation is conceptualized similarly in each theory in the sense that conflict is viewed as a result of each individual or group seeking something for itself and running into conflict with another who is also seeking something for himself but just in a different way or that is different from what the other wants. In displacement theory, the individual is looking to win the argument. In arousal deficit theory, the individual is looking for stimulation. In moral conflict theory, the individual is looking to instill a moral order that appeals to him. In each theory, the individual wants something.

Escalation is conceptualized differently in each theory in the sense that conflict escalation is characterized in unique terms of purpose. In displacement theory, it is characterized as a way to get around a previous obstacle. In arousal deficit theory, it is characterized as a way to obtain stimulation and arousal. In moral conflict theory, it is characterized as a way to assert one’s own moral order view on another and what happens when the other also has the same intention.

Thus each theory conceptualizes escalation in similar and dissimilar ways. In the manager-employee interview example, both the manager and the employee could be said to be suffering from a state of low arousal, forcing an escalation as a way of avoiding a previous argument, and in need of asserting their own respective moral orders. At the same time, both is showing a willingness to pursue one’s own aims over the course of the interview, neither having any regard whatsoever for what the other has to say. For that reason, all three theories could be applied.

3

Moral conflict theory is based in the underlying ideas in the coordinated management of meaning in the sense of how the latter focuses on creating and interpreting meaning through discourse. Via interaction, two parties come to coordinate an agreeable view or worldview or value system in which both can work towards a common aim or vision. The moral conflict arises when there is tension or dissension among parties as to what the order should be. Though communication and discourse should bring about a coordinated management of meaning, it can end in moral conflict if both sides are unyielding and resolute, as can be seen in the case of the manager and the employee. The process of arriving at an agreed upon meaning…