A Matter of Style?

1. A Matter of Style? Informal Networks and Dyadic Conflict Management Strategies in an Organization • Rafael Wittek University of Groningen • Filip AgneessensFree University Amsterdam

3. A claim • How a colleague will treat you during a conflict does not depend on your (lack of) power over this colleague, but on your power over other colleagues.

4. Structure of Presentation • Previous Research • Theoretical Framework • Organizational Context • Research Design • Results • Conclusion

5. Previous Research

6. Relevance of CMS • Introduction of teamwork: increasing importance of self-regulation • Negative and positive consequences of intra-organizational conflict • Type of conflict management can seriously improve or deteriorate organizational and individual outcomes  Need to explain choice of Dyadic Conflict Management Strategies (CMS)

7. Types of CMS • Large variation in types of conflict management strategies • more than 75 taxonomies and 800 tactics exist in the literature • Problem: weak theoretical foundation of typologies • Often mentioned dimensions of CMS • hard vs. soft • open vs. covert • confrontational vs. non-confrontational • coercive vs. cooperative • punishment vs. reward oriented • ingratiation/exchange vs. persuasion/consultation • compromising vs. forcing • …

8. Style approach CMS consistent across situations, contexts, targets (Sternberg and Dobson, JPSP, 1987) CMS Style depends on personal characteristics of source Situational approaches Organizational context (e.g. structure, Morrill, 1995) Situation (e.g. deadline, Brew and Cairns, 2004) Type of target (e.g. gender, Holt and DeVore, 2005) Power-dependence relation (e.g. functional hierarchy, Holt and DeVore, 2005) Goals of actors (e.g. concern for relation, Pruitt, Rubin, Kim, 2004) Networks of actors (e.g. Lazega, 2001) Two General Approaches

9. Shortcoming of Previous Research • Did not study the link between network embeddedness and dyadic conflict management strategies • Did insufficiently differentiate sources of power and dependence • Based on specific relationship with alter • Based on general embeddedness of ego or alter

10. Theoretical Framework

11. Three Explanations • Power-Dependence and Exchange Theory • Dual Concern Theory • Social Capital and Embeddedness Theory

12. Power-Dependence, Exchange Theory • Emerson, Cook, Molm • Focus on functional interdependence • In work settings: task interdependence, advice • Hypotheses • Those in power will use it to realize their goals: The more powerful, the more likely the use of ‘hard’ CMS (forcing) • The powerless use ‘soft’ CMS (negotiation) or remain passive

13. Dual Concern Theory • Pruitt, Rubin, Kim • Focus on cognitive interdependence and social goals: concern for self, concern for relation • In work settings: interpersonal trust, affection • Hypotheses • Powerful actors use ‘soft’ CMS (negotiation) if high concern for relation • Dependent actors use ‘hard’ CMS (retaliation) if low concern for relation

14. Dual Concern Theory

15. Social Capital, Embeddedness Theory • Burt, Krackhardt, Lazega • Focus on triads, structural interdependence • In work settings: structural holes in communication networks, coalitions in support networks • Hypotheses • Actors with dyadic power over a target use ‘soft’ CMS (negotiation) if target is well embedded (i.e. has power over third parties)

16. Some Exemplary Hypotheses: Sender and Receiver Effects

17. Generalized Power of Sender Forcing Forcing Generalized Dependence of Receiver Sender Receiver Receiver Sender H1 (Sender Power, Receiver Dependence)The stronger (a) the generalized power of the sender, or (b) the generalized dependence of the receiver, the more likely the use of forcing, and the less likely the use of problem solving, avoidance, accommodation by the sender.

18. Generalized Power of Receiver Problem solving Problem solving Generalized Dependence Sender Sender Receiver Receiver Sender H2 (Sender Dependence, Receiver Power) The stronger (a) the generalized dependence of the sender, or (b) the generalized power of the receiver, the more likely the use of problem solving, and the less likely forcing by the sender.

19. Generalized Power of Receiver Problem solving Generalized Dependence Receiver H3 (Embeddedness).The stronger the betweenness in generalized power/dependence of (a) the sender, or (b) the receiver, the more likely the use of problem solving. Receiver Sender

20. Some Exemplary Hypotheses:Dyad Level Effects

21. Dyadic Power Forcing Dyadic Dependence Receiver Sender Receiver Sender Dyadic Power Avoidance Dyadic Dependence H4 (Sender Power, Receiver Dependence Density Effect)The stronger (a) the dyadic power of the sender over the receiver, or (b) the dyadic dependence of the receiver, the more likely forcing by the sender. H5 (Receiver Power, Sender Dependence Density Effect)The stronger (a) the dyadic power of the receiver over the sender or (b) the dependence of the sender on the receiver, the more likely avoidance by the sender.

22. Trust Problem solving Trust Receiver Sender H6 (Density Effect)The stronger the interpersonal trust relation between sender and receiver, the more likely problem solving by the sender.

23. Organizational Context

25. Organizational Context • Management Team of a Paper Factory in Germany • 18 managers, all male • Seniors vs. juniors • Production of professional status through advice key process • Organizational change 1995-1997 • Period of intensive collaboration (1995) • Breakdown of social control (1996) • Restructuring (1997) Seminaire Réseaux et Systèmes Relationnels (Université de Lille 1, 15 février 2007) 28

26. Research Design

27. Data Collection • Participant observation (1995-1997) • Trouble case/critical incidents resarch • Interviews • Longitudinal network research • Advice and interpersonal trust relations • Total networks, 4 measurements • Survey research and quasi-experiments • Vignette studies on CMS • Dyadic conflict management strategies

28. Dependent Variable

29. Conflict Management Strategies • Vignette Study on Conflict Management: You forget to give important information more than once, colleague gets into trouble due to you. Please indicate, for each of your colleagues, how your colleague would react towards you by indicating how likely it is that this specific colleague will show each of the following 12 reactions • Colleague 1 • Reaction A • Reaction B • … • Colleague 2 • Reaction A • Reaction B • …

30. Colleauge Damage Source Actor experiencing the grievance Strategy choice as perceived by target (respondent) Perceived dyadic conflict management behavior Respondent Target Actor causing a grievance

31. He asks you as kindly as possible to change your behavior (bilateral negotiation) He complains to you personally (bilateral arguing) He complains to a superior about you (vertical blame) He asks a supervisor to talk to you (vertical mediation) He complains to colleagues about you (complain to other) He asks a colleague to talk to you (lateral mediation) He will give you a taste of your own medicine when the opportunity arises (retaliate) He avoids meeting you as much as possible (avoidance) He keeps his anger to himself and will do nothing (resignation) Conflict Management Strategy Items

32. Cluster Analysis of CMS • Unit of analysis: 12 strategy choices perceived by each of the 18 sources for each of the 17 targets (n=17*18*12 = 3672 observations) • Results in 4 clusters, allocation of one strategy per source-target dyad

33. Results: Cluster analysis

34. Results: Cluster Analysis Items in MDS Cluster 3: Avoid Cluster 4: Negotiate (problem solving) Cluster 2: Force (fighting) Cluster 1: Retaliate

35. Independent Variables

36. Individual level (sender and receiver) covariates • generalized power (outdegree advice) • generalized dependence (indegree advice) • betweenness power and dependence (high in- and outdegree advice) • age

37. Dyad level covariates • power of sender over target (give advice) • dependence of sender on target (receive advice) • functional interdependence (reciprocal advice) • cognitive interdependence (reciprocal trust) • absolute difference between dependence and power • absolute difference in power • absolute difference in dependence • abslotue difference in age

38. Results

39. P2 Model Results: Sender Effects

40. P2 Model Results: Receiver Effects

41. P2 Model Results: Density Effects

42. Summary of Results • No effects at all for • Avoidance • Generalized power (based on advice giving) of sender (H1a, H2a) • Dyadic asymmetries (power or dependence) or reciprocal interdependence in advice relationships (H4, H5) • Support for receiver effect hypotheses (H1b, H2b, H3) and density hypothesis (H6)

43. Conclusion

44. Conclusion: Are CMS a matter of … • ...style? • No. People do not use same CMS style across different persons • …power asymmetries within the relationship? • No. Dependence on alter’s advice does not affect conflict management behavior towards alter. • …embeddedness of the sender? • To a limited extent. Generalized dependence of sender increases negotiation, but has no other effects.

45. Conclusion: Are CMS a matter of… • …embeddedness of the receiver? • Yes. Target’s power/dependence on others is the strongest predictor of source’s strategy choice. • Strongly embedded targets face less open forcing and more hidden retaliation. • Weakly embedded targets face more forcing and experience less negotiation attempts. • …interpersonal trust within the relation? • Yes. Reciprocal trust triggers negotiation.

46. In sum… • Retaliation • Is not so much a weapon of the weak, but a weapon against the powerful. • Forcing • is not so much a strategy of the powerful, but a strategy against the powerless (in need of advice) • Negotiation • is the strategy of the strongly embedded (giving and receiving advice) or those who trust each other