PMS 4001

ORGANIZATIONAL
COMMUNICATION
L E C T U R E S E R I E S
Jeremiah Teo
Let’s have a recap on what we
learnt during last lecture:
Models of the Decision-Making Processes
Models of the Decision-Making Processes
This has been labelled the normative model of decision-
making (Nutt, 1984), and it includes five stages: formulation,
concept development, derailing, evaluation, and
implementation.

Consider, for instance, a team at a consumer products

company trying to decide the best way to market a new
sports drink.

In the formulation stage (Stage 1), the team might conduct

focus group research with individuals in the target
demographic to learn more about their workout habits, their
media consumption, and their likes and dislikes.

In the concept development stage (Stage 2), the marketing

team would generate alternative approaches to the
campaign, perhaps involving distinct content, activity tie-ins,
and media delivery options.
Models of the Decision-Making Processes
During the detailing process (Stage 3), additional
research might be conducted and evaluated in terms
of factors such as reach and impact.

During the evaluation stage (Stage 4), the

information gathered during detailing would be
placed under intense scrutiny by the group to
determine the cost-effectiveness and appeal of each
marketing option.

Finally, in the implementation stage (Stage 5), the

chosen marketing campaign (perhaps an ongoing
tic-in with marathons and triathlons accompanied
by Internet and radio ads) would be rolled out.
Alternatives to Rational Models
Barnard (1938) suggests a distinction between logical and
nonlogical management processes.

Barnard argues that decision-makers are often forced to

make quick decisions without the opportunity for
information search and debate.

Managers in these situations often make decisions without

conscious knowledge of how these decisions are made.

Simon (1987) points out that although intuitive decision-

making is not "logical," neither is it "illogical."

Rather, this kind of decision-making is based on past

experience in similar contexts.
Alternatives to Rational Models
Intuitive decision-making depends on
the decision-maker accessing the
relevant chunk of information and
putting it to use.

In summary, despite our models of an

ideal rational process, decision-making
rarely follows this pattern.

Instead, decision-makers typically use

truncated decision procedures and rely
on the intuition of satisficing solutions.
Small-Group Decision Making
Descriptive Models of Small-Group Decision Making
Descriptive Models of Small-Group Decision Making
Most models of group decision making
propose that groups go through a series of
phases as they systematically attempt to
reach decisions.

One representative phase model of decision

making was proposed by B. A. Fisher (1970).

He identifies four phases: orientation, conflict,

emergence, and reinforcement.

In the orientation phase, group members

become acquainted with each other and with
the problem at hand.
Effective Small-Group Decision Making
Effective Small-Group Decision Making
Groupthink refers to "a mode of thinking that
people engage in when they are deeply involved
in a cohesive in-group, when the members striving
for unanimity overrides their motivation to
realistically appraise alternative courses of
action".

Hence, in a group characterized by groupthink,

there is more concern with appearing cohesive
and maintaining group relations than there is with
making a high-quality decision.

The major symptoms of groupthink identified by

Janis are presented in Table 8.2
Effective Small-Group Decision Making
Functional theory argues that effective decision-making
depends on groups attending to critical functions through
group communication.

Specifically, these functions are as follows (from Gouran,

Hirokawa, Julian & Leatham, 1993, p. 580).

1) The group should have a correct understanding of the

issues to be resolved.

2) The group should determine the minimal

characteristics required for any alternative to be
acceptable

3) The group should identify a relevant and realistic set of

alternatives.
Effective Small-Group Decision Making
4) The group should carefully examine the
alternatives about each previously agreed upon
required characteristic.

5) The group should select the alternative that is

most likely to have the desired characteristics.

As this list indicates, the functional theory works

through the same phases identified as necessary for
effective individual decision-making (e.g.,
understanding the problem, identifying alternatives,
and determining criteria for evaluating those
alternatives) and identifies how group
communication can enhance the likelihood of
success.
Participation and Collaboration
Participation in Decision-Making
Participation in Decision-Making
In this section, we will first discuss some of the
founding research on participation in decision-
making (PDM) and look at two models that
attempt to explain the effects of participation.

We then consider how participation can be

brought to life in organizations through
workplace democracy programs, look at the
role of collaboration in intergroup and inter-
organisational decision-making, and describe
ways in which many organizations have
enhanced the complexity of decision-making
through knowledge management processes.
The Affective Model
The affective model of participation is based on the work of
human relations theorists (see Chapter 3).

This model proposes that PDM is an organizational practice that

should satisfy employees‘ higher-order needs (e.g., esteem
needs and self-actualization needs).

When these needs are met, job satisfaction should result.

Ritchie and Miles (1970) state that proponents of this model

believe simply in involvement for the sake of involvement,
arguing that as long as subordinates feel they are participating
and are being consulted, their ego needs will be satisfied and
they will be more cooperative" (p. 348).

Supporters of this model would then argue that satisfied

workers are more motivated and hence more productive.

The affective model is presented in Figure 8.1.

The Cognitive Model
The cognitive model is based on principles of the human resources
approach (see Chapter 3).

This model proposes that PDM improves the upward and downward flow
of information in the organization.

The improvement of upward information flow rests on the notion that

individuals close to the work (i.e., at the bottom of the organizational
hierarchy) know the most about how to accomplish the work.

Hence, when these individuals participate in the decision-making process,

a decision is made with higher-quality information.

The improvement of downward information flow rests on the idea that

individuals who participate in decisions will be better able to implement
the decisions down the road.

When decisions are made with a better pool of information and are better
implemented, productivity should improve.

Increased employee satisfaction is then seen as a by-product of their

participation in important organizational decisions.
Workplace Democracy
Workplace Democracy
More than just participation, workplace democracy
involves realizing the standards for a democratic
society in the workplace and is
grounded in even more fundamental notions of free
speech and human dignity.

From an economic and political standpoint,

participatory management is both inevitable and
ethically superior to authoritarian alternatives.

In other words, participation within a democratic

workplace is based on more than mere expediency-
it is based on humanistic ideals about how
individuals should be treated and involved in
society.
Collaboration Processes
Collaboration Processes
Organizations today, though, are more likely to be collaborating,
crossing the boundaries that have traditionally defined the
organizational container.

There are several reasons for this.

First, as we discussed in Chapter 1, the organizational world is

increasingly a global one, and collaborative processes are often
necessary as multinational companies or nongovernment
organizations deal with these global issues.

Second, technology allows for enhanced collaboration across

organizational boundaries through techniques such as audio,
video, and computer conferencing and online collaborative
communities.

Third, the business, political, and social issues confronting twenty-

first century organizations are increasingly complex, and multi-
organization solutions are often required to deal with this
complexity.
 Communication &
Organizational Knowledge
Communication & Organizational Knowledge
Finally, it is important to note that, to an ever-
increasing extent, organizations no longer see decision-
making as an isolated process but rather as an ongoing
system that is integrated into structures and behaviours
throughout and beyond the organisation.

The complexity of today's organizations and the ability

of technology to manage huge amounts of data make
the concepts of knowledge even more critical now.

The process of knowledge management involves

identifying and harnessing intellectual assets to allow
organizations to build on past experiences and create
new mechanisms for exchanging and creating
knowledge.
Communication & Organizational Knowledge
First, a successful system will allow individuals in an
organization to convert their tacit knowledge into
explicit knowledge that can be shared and used in
organizational decision-making and operations.

Second, a successful system will allow

organizational members to find ways to make the
codified knowledge meaningful once it has been
retrieved from organizational systems.

For example, knowledge management regarding

customer service at a restaurant will involve
statistics about restaurant operations and the stories
of waiters and waitresses about service encounters.
Lecture Nine:
Conflict
Management
Processes
Learning Outcomes
1) Be able to define organizational conflict
and explain its stages and the various levels
at which it might occur in the organization.

2) Be able to recognize various conflict

styles, identify their effectiveness, and
appreciate ways in which a styles approach
might fall short in analyzing organizational
conflict.

3) Know about the role of third parties in

conflict negotiation, especially the processes
of mediation and arbitration.
Learning Outcomes
4) Understand how personal,
relational, organizational, and
cultural factors influence the conflict
process.

5) Appreciate the need for an

alternative approach to conflict, such
as the approach suggested by
feminist theorists and practitioners.
Conceptualizing the Conflict Process
Defining Conflict
Conflict can be defined as the
interaction of interdependent people
who perceive opposition of goals,
aims, and values, and who see the
other party as potentially interfering
with the realization of these goals.

This definition highlights three

general characteristics that we might
think of as the three I's of conflict:
incompatible goals, interdependence,
and interaction.
Incompatible Goals
The notion of incompatible goals is central to
most definitions of conflict and can involve a
plethora of issues in the organizational
setting.

For example, many organizational conflicts

stem from contradictory ideas about the
distribution of organizational resources.

Management and labor negotiate about the

distribution of payroll and benefits or the top
executive team argues about what capital
investments to make in the coming fiscal year.
Incompatible Goals
Incompatibility can also disrupt organizational
procedures.

For example, two social workers might disagree on the

best way to conduct home visits for prospective foster
families.

Or conflict might stem from different value orientations.

For instance, in mergers and acquisitions, conflict often

arises if the culture of the acquiring company is based on
values different from those of the acquired company.

In short, the basis of organizational conflict lies in the

perception of incompatibility regarding a variety of
organizational issues.
Incompatible Goals
However, incompatibility is not a sufficient
condition for organizational conflict to
result.

It is only when the behaviours of the

organizational members are interdependent
that conflict arises.

Consider a situation in which one manager

supports participative decision-making,
while another believes in an authoritative
management style.
Interdependence
This incompatibility can exist harmoniously
until interdependencies develop between
the two managers.

For example, if the two managers are asked

to work together on a project or if their
subordinates begin to compare notes about
bosses, a conflict could well ensue.

However, until behaviours are

interdependently entwined, incompatibility
need not result in conflict.
Interaction
Finally, the definition of conflict
highlights the role of interaction in
organizational conflict.

That is, conflict involves the

expression of incompatibility, not the
mere existence of incompatibility.

This idea highlights the importance of

communication in the study of
conflict.
Levels of Organizational Conflict
Intergroup conflict considers aggregates
of people within an organization (e.g.,
work teams, departments) as parties in
the conflict.

As an illustration, two divisions fighting

over scarce fiscal resources are involved in
intergroup conflict.

Not surprisingly, intergroup conflict can

become complicated when members of a
single group hold varying views about the
conflict.
Levels of Organizational Conflict
For example, in labour negotiations,
dissension often occurs among
members of the union or members of
the management team regarding how
the conflict should be resolved.

Furthermore, in our increasingly

globalized world, work groups from a
single organization in different
nations might have radically different
ideas about work values and
procedures.
Levels of Organizational Conflict
Interorganizational conflict involves disputes
between two or more organisations.

This kind of conflict can involve competition in

the marketplace, perhaps between two stores
competing for the same market share or two
firms trying to get the same consulting
contract.

The more interesting interorganizational

conflicts, however, may be those among
organizations that are working together,
perhaps in joint operating agreements or
community consortiums.
Phases of Organizational Conflict
Individuals in organizations do not move
suddenly from peaceful coexistence to conflict-
ridden relationships.

Rather, people move through phases as conflicts

develop and subside.

Pondy (1967) has suggested five phases that

characterize organizational conflict. A summary
of these is presented in Table 9.1.

As Table 9.1 indicates, organizational conflict can

go through several phases before it becomes
manifest in communicative interaction.
Phases of Organizational Conflict
The first phase, latent conflict, involves a situation in which
the conditions are ripe for conflict because interdependence
and possible incompatibility exist between the parties.

The second phase, perceived conflict, occurs when one or

more of the parties believe that incompatibilities and
interdependence exist. It is possible, of course, to have latent
conflict without perceived conflict.

For example, two coworkers might have different ideas

about the best way to organize a report, but this difference of
opinion might not be an issue for either of them.

It is also possible to have perceived conflict without latent

conflict.

This situation would exist, for instance, if a manager and a

subordinate believed they had different standards about
working from home but actually had the same values.
Phases of Organizational Conflict
During the third phase of conflict, felt conflict, the
parties begin to formulate strategies about how to
deal with the conflict and consider outcomes that
would and would not be acceptable.

These strategies and goals are enacted in

communication during the manifest conflict phase.

Finally, the last phase discussed by Pond, conflict

aftermath emphasizes that conflicts can have both
short-term and long-term consequences.

Even after a conflict is settled, it can change the

nature of the individuals, their relationship, and their
functioning within the organization.
Managing Organizational Conflict
Conflict Styles
Theorists studying organizational conflict have used the
basic structure of the Managerial/Leadership Grid as a
way of exploring the styles and strategies people use
when involved in interpersonal conflict.

Indeed, the Managerial/Leadership Grid has been

described as the "conceptual grandparent" of conflict-
style research.

The analysis of conflict styles was most completely

developed by Thomas (1976). In adapting the
Managerial/Leadership Grid for conflict situations,
Thomas reconceptualized the two dimensions as concern
for self and concern for others.

He then identified five conflict styles that would fall at

various points on this conflict grid. The conflict grid and
resulting styles are presented in Figure 9.1.
Conflict Styles
These conflict styles can be illustrated by considering a specific
conflict situation.

Imagine that your boss has come to you with some good news
and some bad news.

The good news is that the public relations firm you work for has
a chance to attract an important new client.

The bad news is that either you or your coworker Wilma will
have to spend a healthy portion of the weekend preparing the
proposal.

Your boss has told you and Wilma to work it out and have a
draft of the proposal ready to go on Monday morning.

Neither you nor Wilma really wants to work on Saturdays, but

the work must get done.

According to the conflict grid in Figure 9.1, you could approach

this conflict in five distinct ways.
Conflict Styles
First, you could simply decide to not talk with Wilma about the
problem because you know that the issue will not be easy to
resolve.

This strategy avoidance shows little concern for either your own
needs or Wilma's. Not surprisingly, this strategy is rarely
effective.

Two other strategies emphasize one person's needs at the

expense of the other person's needs.

For example, by accommodating, you could simply volunteer to

work on Saturday because you know Wilma wants the day off,
and you want to make her happy. This strategy, though, does
nothing to satisfy your own needs.

Or you could pit your will against Wilma's, insisting that she
must work because you cannot.

This strategy competition- might get you what you want, but
Wilma's needs will be sacrificed in the process.
Conflict Styles
A fourth strategy compromise could involve each of
you working for four hours on Saturday.

Although this strategy seems ideal in some ways, it

means that neither you nor Wilma will be able to
follow through on your weekend plans because
each of you has to work on Saturday, albeit for a
shorter period of time.

Finally, you might sit down with Wilma and

collaborate to reach a solution that could benefit
both of you.

For example, you might find that you both have

Thursday and Friday evenings free, and by working
together, you can write the proposal without
relinquishing weekend plans.
Critique of Conflict Styles Construct
The first criticism presented in Table 9.2
involves the extent to which a grid approach
reflects the complex interactive nature of
organizational conflict.

By arguing that individuals possess particular

conflict styles, the grid approach downplays
the extent to which individuals change their
tactics during interaction with others in conflict
situations.

For example, an individual might begin by

attempting to collaborate but, having little
success, might then force a solution on the
other party.
Critique of Conflict Styles Construct
The second criticism presented in Table 9.2
addresses the two-dimensional nature of the
conflict grid.

Knapp and associates (1988) argue that

issues other than concern for self and
concern for others might influence a conflict
interaction.

For example, individuals might be worried

about the political implications of
communication or the impact of conflict
resolution on the organization as a whole.
Critique of Conflict Styles Construct
Third, these scholars believe that research on
conflict styles has downplayed the important
roles that nonverbal and nonrational
communication might play in conflict
management.

Finally, they contend that by concentrating

on individual conflict style, the role of the
organizational setting is ignored.

An individual might deal very differently

with conflict in a highly mechanistic company
than in a more democratic and loosely
structured one.
Bargaining & Negotiation
A second general strategy for dealing with
organizational conflict is bargaining (also
referred to as negotiation).

According to Putnam and Poole (1987),

bargaining constitutes a unique form of conflict
management in that participants negotiate
mutually shared rules and then cooperate within
these rules to gain a competitive advantage over
their opponent.

Bargaining, then, differs from other forms of

conflict in its emphasis on proposal exchanges as
a basis for reaching a joint settlement in
cooperative-competitive situations.
Bargaining & Negotiation
Several characteristics of bargaining are
important.

First, bargaining is often a formal activity in

which disputants settle conflicts about scarce
resources or policy disagreements.

Formal bargaining is marked by a clear

understanding of (and adherence to) the rules of
the negotiation situation.

For example, one rule bargainers often follow is

the rule of "mutual concessions." According to
this rule, if one party in the conflict gives
something up, the other party should concede an
issue of like value.
Bargaining & Negotiation
Second, bargaining often involves individuals who
serve as representatives for the parties in the dispute.

Third, bargaining is the strategy often used to settle

intergroup or inter-organizational conflicts.

For example, disputes between labour and

management are typically settled through formal
negotiation.

An important distinction often made about bargaining

is that of distributive and integrative bargaining.

Distributive and integrative bargaining differ in terms

of goals, issues, communication processes, and
outcomes. These differences are summarized in Table
9.3.
Bargaining & Negotiation
In distributive bargaining, the two conflicting parties
are working to maximize their own gains and minimize
their own losses.

The bargaining centres on the limited resources that

must be divided in the negotiation (e.g. wages, benefits,
hours).

Because bargainers are working with a "fixed pot," the

only possible outcomes are win-lose solutions or
compromises.

Finally, because the bargainers are concerned with

their outcomes, communication is marked by withheld
information, deception, and attempts to learn as much
as possible about the other party's position.
Bargaining & Negotiation
In integrative bargaining, the conflicting parties
are trying to maximize gains for both parties.

Hence, the bargainers discuss issues that could lead

to a more creative solution to the problem at hand.

Outcomes of integrative bargaining are often

solutions that allow both parties to benefit, and
communication tends to be marked by open
disclosure, careful listening, and multiple
communication channels.

In its integrative form, bargaining can serve as a

forum for identifying problems, clarifying
misconceptions, signalling needs and interests, and
negotiating the meaning of organizational events.
Bargaining & Negotiation
Consider, for instance, a labour dispute between a nurses union and
the administration of a large hospital.

Often, bargainers in this situation take a distributive approach.

They concentrate on issues such as salary, working hours, or power
to make decisions and try to get as much as possible (or give as little
as possible) in the negotiation.

The actual bargaining sessions would be marked by distrust and

information provided in spurts and starts.

However, the parties could choose to take an integrative approach

to the negotiation.

In this case, the bargainers might consider the mutual benefit of a

new organizational model in which nurses are part of the fiscal
decision-making group and gain more voice in medical
collaborations.

The development of such a solution would be difficult and would

involve intense communication and problem solving but could
benefit both parties in the long run.
Third-Party Resolution
There are times when the individuals (or groups)
involved in a conflict are unable to resolve the
disagreement on their own either through informal
discussion or formal negotiation.

At these times, a third party is often relied on to help

resolve the conflict.

Sometimes, the third party might be a friend or

coworker who is brought in to help settle the conflict
or to provide support for one of the parties.

Especially in conflicts of a relational nature,

individuals can often gain important insights from
those who are not directly involved in the
organizational context.
Third-Party Resolution
More often, when conflicts between
coworkers stem from differences in working
style or personality or when disputes arise
over work processes or organizational
procedures, a supervisor might be called in to
help settle the dispute.

For example, a manager might address a

dispute by establishing rules or dictating a
specific solution, might reward or punish
subordinates to facilitate a solution, or might
work to change the organization to keep
similar problems from occurring in the future.
Third-Party Resolution
Finally, third parties from outside the organization also
sometimes assist in settling disputes.

These third parties typically serve as either mediators or

arbitrators.

A mediator attempts to help the parties facilitate the

dispute but holds no decision power.

In contrast, an arbitrator makes decisions (often binding)

based on the proposals and arguments of the parties
involved in the conflict.

For example, professional athletes often go to arbitration

to settle contract disputes.

The arbitrator hears the proposals and arguments of both

the players and team management and decides on one
proposal or the other without compromise.
Third-Party Resolution
There are a variety of tactics that mediators can
use to facilitate effective communication in
mediation.

These strategies include directive tactics, in which

the mediator initiates recommendations; non-
directive tactics, in which the mediator attempts
to secure information and clarify
misunderstandings; procedural tactics, in which
the mediator establishes an agenda and protocol
for conflict resolution; and reflexive tactics, in
which the mediator regulates the tone of the
interaction by "developing rapport with
participants, using humour, and speaking the
language of each side"
Factors Influencing Conflict Management
Processes
Personal Factors
It might seem that individual characteristics
such as personality and gender would
strongly influence how conflict is resolved.

Indeed, our cultural stereotypes suggest that

men are more likely to use competitive
strategies, whereas women are prone to
accommodate or compromise.

It also seems likely that people's conflict

management strategies would vary
according to their personal characteristics,
such as aggressiveness, introversion, or need
for control.
Personal Factors
However. Putnam and Poole's (1987) review of studies
indicates that, on the contrary, personality plays a
small role in conflict resolution strategies and that the
findings on gender differences are mixed.

Indeed, some of the research findings on gender

differences contradict our stereotypical expectations.

For example, Turner and Henzl (1987) found that

women were very assertive when managing conflict.

Burrell, Buzzanell, and McMillan (1992) found that

female managers described conflicts using the
typically "male" metaphors of war and aggression.

Hence, personality and gender have a limited impact

on conflict management tactics.
Personal Factors
It does appear, however, that the way an
individual frames a conflict will influence how the
conflict is managed.

Framing has been studied as both cognitive

representations of the conflict and the way the
conflict is enacted during interaction and involves
perceptions of self, of others, or of the conflict
itself.

For example, conflict participants might choose to

frame others in the conflict as "enemies" in
thought or through interaction, and this frame
will undoubtedly influence the process and results
of the conflict episode.
Personal Factors
Similarly, individuals in conflict can frame
the situation in terms of what they have to
lose or in terms of what they have to gain.

Neale and Bazerman (1985) found that

individuals who frame conflict in terms of
losses will be much more likely to take risks
than those who frame conflict in terms of
gains.

Individuals using a frame in terms of loss

are also more likely to reach an impasse
and seek arbitration.
Relational Factors
In contrast to personal factors, the relationship
between the conflict parties appears to have a
strong impact on conflict resolution.

One important characteristic of the relationship

between the conflict parties is power, or the
hierarchical position of the individuals.

Putnam and Poole (1987) have reviewed the

literature on hierarchical level and conflict
styles. Several findings stand out.

First, it appears that organizational members

generally prefer competitive styles when
dealing with subordinates.
Relational Factors
However, these individuals are likely to use
accommodation or collaboration when dealing
with superiors and accommodating or avoiding
styles when dealing with peers.

Hence, conflict management style depends to a

large extent on the hierarchical relationship
between the conflict parties.

Conflicts with supervisors and administrators

are also recalled as more emotionally intense
than conflicts with individuals at the same
hierarchical level
Relational Factors
Another aspect of the relationship between conflict
parties is how the relationship influences the interaction
through which conflict is managed.

For example, Jameson (2004) argued that

organizations and their members often struggle with
opposing needs for autonomy and connection.

That is, workers depend on each other- but also want to

maintain independence and this basic relational
contradiction can cause conflict.

In a study of conflict between anesthesiologists and

certified registered nurse anesthetists, Jameson (2004)
found that individuals can use politeness strategies to
keep these competing needs balanced and forge more
collaborative solutions to conflict situations.
Cultural Factors
Finally, aspects of organizational, national, and
ethnic culture might influence the ways in which
conflict is enacted and managed in organizations.

With regard to national culture, for instance, Brett

and Okumura (1998) found that intercultural
negotiations between U.S. and Japanese
negotiators were far less successful than
intracultural negotiations among these two national
groups.

These researchers found that U.S. and Japanese

negotiators worked from different conflict "scripts,"
and although the Japanese negotiators understood
the U.S. priorities, the U.S. negotiators did not
understand the Japanese schema.
Cultural Factors
Ethnic and racial culture also may play a role in conflict
negotiation.

For example, Tumer and Shuter (2004) compared African

American women and European American women in terms
of their approaches to and perceptions of workplace conflict.

Both groups viewed conflict negatively, but the perceptions

of African American women were particularly negative and
passive.

In terms of conflict resolution, European American women

were seen as being conflict-avoidant, and African American
women were seen as using more direct means of conflict
resolution.

Generational differences have also recently been considered

as a "cultural" factor that influences the likelihood of
organizational conflict.
Cultural Factors
Finally, several scholars have investigated how
organizational culture can influence the conflict
resolution process.

This work emphasizes the extent to which conflict

resolution can be difficult when organizational
subcultures based on professional identity or
hierarchical position do not see eye to eye.

For example, Geist (1995) examined conflict within

hospices, school systems, and hospitals to
demonstrate how the culture built around power
relationships, technology, and the interests of
organizational groups can influence perceptions of
conflict and how conflict is managed.
Cultural Factors
Similarly, Smith and Eisenberg (1987) examined a
labour dispute at Disneyland, arguing that the
subcultures of the workers and management were
distinct, with managers seeing Disney as "show
business" or "drama" and workers seeing Disney as
"family."

Hence, workers looked at the contract proposals set

out by management in the labour conflict and were
appalled because "this is no way to treat members of
your family."

Management was shocked when workers went on

strike because in showbiz "the show must go on."
References
Burrell, N. A., Buzzanell, P. M., & McMillan, J. J. (1992). Feminine
tensions in conflict situations as revealed by metaphoric analyses.
Management Communication Quarterly, 6(2), 115-149.

Henzl, S., & Turner, L. (1987). Rationalizing conflict choices: Do men and
women speak the same language. Advances in gender and
communication research, 175-183.

Neale, M. A., & Bazerman, M. H. (1985). The effects of framing and

negotiator overconfidence on bargaining behaviors and outcomes.
Academy of Management Journal, 28(1), 34-49.

Putnam, L. L., & Poole, M. S. (1987). Conflict and negotiation.

See you in the next
class!