This article was downloaded by: [University of Connecticut]On: 10 October 2014, At: 04:34Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Communication Research ReportsPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcrr20

Interpersonal conflict in organizations: Explainingconflict styles via face‐negotiation theoryJohn Oetzel a , Mary Meares b , Karen K. Myers c & Estefana Lara da Associate professor in the Department of Communication and Journalism , University of NewMexico , Albuquerque, NM, 87131b Assistant professor in the E.R. Murrow School of Communication , Washington StateUniversity ,c Ph.D. student in the Hugh Downs School of Human Communication , Arizona StateUniversity ,d University of New Mexico ,Published online: 06 Jun 2009.

To cite this article: John Oetzel , Mary Meares , Karen K. Myers & Estefana Lara (2003) Interpersonal conflict inorganizations: Explaining conflict styles via face‐negotiation theory, Communication Research Reports, 20:2, 106-115, DOI:10.1080/08824090309388806

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08824090309388806

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in thepublications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representationsor warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not theviews of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses,actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoevercaused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Interpersonal Conflict in Organizations: Explaining Conflict Stylesvia Face-Negotiation Theory

John OetzelUniversity of New Mexico

Mary MearesWashington State University

Karen K. MyersArizona State University

Estefana LaraUniversity of New Mexico

The purpose of the current study was to test the assumption of the face-negotiationtheory (Ting-Toomey, 1988) that face concerns are predictive of conflict managementstyles. Managers and employees (N = 184) completed a self-report questionnaire thatasked them to describe their reactions to typical conflicts with either a peer or a personof different status. Self-face concern was associated positively with dominating andemotionally expressive styles, other-face concern was associated positively with inte-grating, obliging, and compromising styles, and mutual-face concern was associatedpositively with integrating, obliging, and compromising styles. Additionally, inclu-sion of face concerns provided a better prediction than other relevant variables alone forsix of the eight conflict styles considered.

Effective management of interpersonal conflict is essential for the successful op-eration of organizations. For example, Thomas and Schmidt's (1976) oft-cited studyestimates that supervisors devote approximately 20% of their time managing conflict.Conflict is "the perceived and/or actual incompatibility of values, expectations, pro-cesses, or outcomes between two or more parties over substantive and/or relational

John Oetzel (Ph.D., University of Iowa, 1995) is an associate professor in the Department ofCommunication and Journalism at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131.Karen Myers (M.A., University of New Mexico, 2001) is a Ph.D. student in the Hugh DownsSchool of Human Communication at Arizona State University; Mary Meares (Ph.D., Universityof New Mexico, 2002) is an assistant professor in the E.R. Murrow School of Communication atWashington State University; Estefana Lara (B.A., University of New Mexico 2001) is complet-ing training at the University of New Mexico to become an elementary school teacher.

COMMUNICATION RESEARCH REPORTS, Volume 20, Number 2, pages 106-115

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

4:34

10

Oct

ober

201

4

Conflict Styles and Face-107

issues" (Ting-Toomey, 1994, p. 360). Interpersonal conflict is disputes between twoorganizational members (Putnam & Poole, 1987).

The purpose of the current study is to use face-negotiation theory (Ting-Toomey,1988; Ting-Toomey & Kurogi, 1998) to explain interpersonal conflicts in organizations.The current study provides the first direct test of the importance of face concerns inpredicting conflict styles as prior researchers have assumed the importance of facerather than directly testing their importance (e.g., Oetzel, 1998). Ting-Toomey (1988)argues that face is an explanatory mechanism for different styles of conflict manage-ment. Face represents an individual's claimed sense of positive image in the context ofsocial interaction (Ting-Toomey, 1988). Ting-Toomey argues that individuals manageconflict in different ways because of different levels of face concerns, cultural back-grounds (e.g., self-construals), and situational factors such as organizational position.

Conflict style refers to general tendencies or modes of patterned responses to con-flict in a variety of antagonistic interactive situations (Putnam & Poole, 1987; Ting-Toomey, 1997). In the current study, we include eight conflict styles based on a revi-sion of Rahim's (1983,1992) two-dimensional model of concern for self and other.(Ting-Toomey et al., 2000; Ting-Toomey & Oetzel, 2001). Rahim (1983,1992) based his classi-fication of conflict styles on the two conceptual dimensions of concern for self andconcern for others. The two dimensions combine for five styles of handling interper-sonal conflict: integrating (high self and other), compromising (middle on both dimen-sions), dominating (high self and low other), obliging (low self and high other), andavoiding (low on both dimensions). Ting-Toomey, Oetzel, and Yee-Jung (2001) ex-panded the five-style model to eight to account for ethnic differences in conflict. Theireight-style model included the five original styles along with emotional expression,third-party help, and passive aggression. Emotional expression refers to using one'semotions to guide communication behaviors during conflict (high self and moderateother). Third-party help involves using an outsider to mediate the conflict (moderateself and other). Passive aggression is characterized by indirect responses to threatenthe image of another person (high self and moderate other). Oetzel, Ting-Toomey,Yokochi, Masumoto, and Takai (2000) demonstrated that these three styles are qualita-tively different from the original five styles, but still fit within the other- and self-concern framework.

Self-construals and organizational position are two variables that predict conflictstyles and fit within the face-negotiation theory. Self-construal is one's self-image and iscomposed of an independent and interdependent self (Markus & Kitayama, 1991).Organizational position refers to the placement of an individual in the organizationand often focuses on the relative status of an individual. Status denotes a position, orrelative rank, within a hierarchy (Daniels, Spiker, & Papa, 1997). Prior research hasfound the following relationships among self-construals, organizational position, andconflict styles: (a) dominating and emotional expression are associated positively withindependence (Oetzel, 1998; Ting-Toomey, Oetzel, & Yee-Jung, 2001); (b) avoiding,obliging, integrating, third-party help, and compromising styles are associated posi-tively with interdependence (Oetzel, 1998; Ting-Toomey et al., 2001); (c) passive ag-gression is associated negatively with independence and interdependence (Ting-Toomey et al., 2001); and (d) managers appear to rely on dominating during conflictwith subordinates, while subordinates tend to avoid and accommodate conflicts with

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

4:34

10

Oct

ober

201

4

108-Communication Research Reports/Spring 2003

managers (Conrad, 1991; Fairhurst, Green & Snavely, 1984; Morley & Shockley-Zalabak,1986; Putnam & Wilson, 1982).

Contrary to organizational position and self-construal, the relationship among faceconcerns and conflict styles has only been posited at a theoretical level. Ting-Toomeyand Kurogi (1998) focused on three types of face concerns. Self-face is the concern forone's own image, other-face is the concern for another's image, and mutual-face isconcern for both parties' images and/or the "image" of the relationship. Ting-Toomeyand-Kurogi stated that self-face is associated positively with dominating conflict styles,while mutual- and other-face are associated positively with avoiding, obliging, com-promising and integrating conflict styles. Oetzel et al. (2000) found that dominating,emotional expression, and passive aggression clustered together, while third-party helpclustered with the avoiding style. Thus, we expect that self-face also is associated posi-tively with emotional expression and passive aggression, while mutual- and other-face are associated positively with third-party help. Based on these arguments, weproffer the following hypothesis:

' HI: Self-face concern is associated positively with dominating, passive ag-gression, and emotional expression conflict styles, while other-face con-cern and mutual-face concern are associated positively with avoiding,obliging, compromising, integrating, and third-party help conflict styles.

The underlying premise of the face-negotiation theory is that face is the link be-tween situational/cultural variables and conflict styles. The relationships among self-construal, organizational position, and conflict styles are well established. If face con-cerns are an important link, they should provide a better prediction of conflict stylesthan these other variables considered in the current study alone. Thus, we offer a sec-ond hypothesis:

H2: Face concerns provide a better prediction of conflict styles than self-construals and organizational position alone.

METHODSParticipants

Participants included 184 individuals; 65 respondents from a large moving com-pany, 71 participants from a moderate-sized manufacturing company, and 48 mem-bers of various organizations gathered via a snowball sampling technique where stu-dents recruited participants. There were 90 males and 92 females ranging in age be-tween 18 and 63 years old (M = 32.25, SD = 11.73). The participants included the fol-lowing ethnic/cultural backgrounds: 65 European American, 10 Hispanic, and 1 otherwith 108 individuals declining to state their ethnic background. The educational lev-els included 3 with some high school, 32 high school graduates, 107 with some college,32 college graduates, and 6 were postgraduate. There were 61 managers and 117 non-managers.

InstrumentIndependent variables (self-construal, face concern, and organizational position)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

4:34

10

Oct

ober

201

4

Conflict Styles and Face-109

and dependent variables (conflict styles) were measured through self-report items. Allitems (unless otherwise reported) were on a Likert-type scale that rated each statementfrom 1 = strongly agree to 5 = strongly disagree. Conflict styles were measured usingTing-Toomey et al.'s (2000) instrument. The reliability (Cronbach's alpha) of the con-flict styles ranged from .73 to .88. The instrument for the current study included fouritems (with highest factor loadings) from each of the eight conflict management styles.

We used Gudykunst et al.'s (1996) instrument to measure self-construal. The origi-nal questionnaire contains 29 items and 12 items—six independent and six interdepen-dent self-construal—were included. The instrument has been used in several previousstudies about self-construal (Ting-Toomey et al, 2000; Oetzel, 1998; Oetzel & Bolton-Oetzel, 1997). In these previous studies, reliabilities (Cronbach's alpha) ranged from.72 to .85 for the two scales. We used Ting-Toomey and Oetzel's (2001) measure tooperationalize face concerns. This instrument utilized 12 items (the four highest factorloadings from each scale). Ting-Toomey and Oetzel reported the reliabilities as .87 forother-face, .80 for self-face, and .77 for mutual-face.

Organizational position was measured with a fill-in-the-blank item. Respondentswere instructed to check whether they were a manager or non-manager. Additionally,the other conflict party for the respondents was manipulated in the questionnaire. Spe-cifically, participants were asked to focus on typical conflicts that occurred betweeneither a peer (n = 100) or someone of different status (a manager for non-managers,and a subordinate for managers; n = 84).

ProceduresThe majority of the participants were recruited via personnel directors at two or-

ganizations. Students of an upper-division communication course recruited the remain-der of the participants. All respondents volunteered to participate in the study. Ques-tionnaires were self-administered via email from the researchers (n = 65), hardcopyfrom personnel directors (n = 71), or hardcopy from the students (n = 48). The ques-tionnaire took approximately 15 minutes to complete.

RESULTSTable One displays the zero-order correlations, means, standard deviations, and

Cronbach's alpha for the variables1. Hypothesis One predicted that self-face is associatedpositively with dominating, passive aggression, and emotional expression conflict styles,while other-face and mutual-face are associated positively with avoiding, obliging, com-promising, integrating, and third-party help conflict styles. Zero-order correlations werecalculated to test this hypothesis. Self-face was found to be significantly and positivelycorrelated with dominating and emotional expression. There was no significant relation-ship found between self-face and passive aggression. Integrating, compromising, andobliging were associated positively with other-face and mutual-face. Other-face and mu-tual-face were not correlated with the avoiding or third-party help conflict styles. Twofindings not predicted included (a) passive aggression was associated negatively withother-face and mutual-face, and (b) emotional expression and dominating were associ-ated negatively with other-face. Overall, Hypothesis One was supported.

Hypothesis Two stated that face concerns would provide a better prediction ofconflict styles than self-construals, and organizational position alone. A series of hier-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

4:34

10

Oct

ober

201

4

TABLE 1Correlation Matrix of Self-Construals, Face Concerns, and Conflict Styles

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) Is.o3SO

Io

C/33

a.

(l)Independent Self-Construal 1.00(2)Interdependent Self-Construal .11 1.00(3)Self-Face .28*** .05 1.00(4)Other-Face .06 .17* .15* 1.00(5)Mutual-Face .26*** .67*** .27*** .44*** 1.00(6)Avoiding Style -.31*** .03 .01 -.06 .13 1.00(7)Integrating Style .00 .43*** -.03 .48*** .57*** -.36***(8)Dominating Style .17* -.18* .31*** -.19** -.07 -.03(9)Third-party Help Style -.19** .17* .11 .00 .07 .34***(lO)Emotional Style .18* -.06 .23** -.22** .10 .23**(ll)Passive Style -.02 -.29*** .13 -.47*** -.33*** .26***(I2)ObligingStyle -.25*** .28*** .13 .46*** .46*** .57***(13)Compromising Style .08 .20** .00 .49*** .56*** .38***

Alpha .61 .62 .66 .78 .68 .76

1.00-.13-.11-.21**-.54***,44***

1.00.26***.42***.57***.16*

.41*** -.25***2.15 3.16

.69 .70

1.00.22**

• . 3 4 * * *

.31***

.22**

.78

1.00.71** *.05

-.16*

.74

1.00.06

-.40***

.71

1.00.56*** 1.00

.60

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

4:34

10

Oct

ober

201

4

Conflict Styles and Face-Ill

archical regression analyses were conducted to test this hypothesis. For each of theconflict styles, the independent variables were entered in two blocks. Block one con-sisted of self-construals, organizational position, and status (equal/unequal), whileblock two included the three face concerns. The change statistics were analyzed todetermine if face concerns predicted a significant amount of variance above that of thefirst block. Table 2 displays the regression coefficients for each of the significant pre-dictors.

TABLE 2Predictors of Conflict Style

Conflict Style

AvoidingIntegrating

Dominating

Third-Party HelpEmotional Expression

Passive Aggressive

Obliging

Compromising

Predictor

Independent Self-ConstrualMutual-FaceOther-FaceSelf-FaceOrganizational PositionOther-FaceIndependenceOther-FaceStatusOther-FaceOrganizational PositionOther-FaceIndependent Self-ConstrualMutual-FaceMutual-FaceOther-Face

B

-.33**.30**.21**.27*.22*

-.19*-.24*-.29*-.23*-.42**.27*.21**

-.21*.27*.35**.23**

SEB

.10

.08

.06

.10

.11

.09

.10

.10

.11

.09

.11

.07

.07

.09

.09

.07

Beta

-.25.28.26.21.15

-.16-.18-.22-.15-.32.17.24

-.22.24.31.25

*/><05, **p<.00\

Face concerns made a significant contribution to the variance explained in six ofthe eight conflict styles. For the integrating conflict style, the model without face con-cerns accounted for 5.20% of variance (F (4, 173) = 3.42, p < .01), while the secondmodel accounted for 20.40% of variance (F (7,170) = 7.48, p < .001). This difference wassignificant (F = 12.01, p < .001). The regression model for the integrating conflict styleyielded other-face and mutual-face2. The dominating conflict style model without faceaccounted for 2.50% of the variance (F (4,173) = 2.14, p = ns), while the second modelaccounted 7.10% of variance (F (7,170) = 2.93, p < .01). This difference was significant(F = 3.85, p < .05). The regression model for the dominating conflict style yielded self-face, other-face, and organizational position (Manager's M = 3.02, SD = .75; Subordinate'sM = 3.23, SD = .65). The emotional expression conflict style model without face ac-counted for 4.20% of variance (F (4,173) = 2.96, p < .05), while the second model ac-counted for 9.10% of variance (F (7,170) = 3.53, p = .001). This difference was signifi-cant (F = 4.08, p < .01). Other-face and status (Equal Status M = 3.36, SD = .64; UnequalStatus M = 3.07, SD = .88) were significant predictors of emotional expression.

For the passive aggression conflict style, the model without face accounted for6.30% of variance (F (4, 173) = 3.99, p < .01) compared with 18.10% of variance ac-counted for in the model including face (F (7,170) = 6.60, p < .001). This difference wassignificant (F = 9.31, p < .001). Other-face and organizational position (Manager's M =

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

4:34

10

Oct

ober

201

4

112-Communication Research Reports/Spring 2003

3.75, SD = .77; Subordinate's M = 4.05, SD = .71) were significant predictors of the useof the passive aggressive style. The obliging conflict style model without face concernscounted for 4.30% of variance (F (4, 173) = 3.00, p < .01) as compared to 17.10% ofvariance for the model with face concerns (F (7,170) = 6.23, p < .001). This differencewas significant (F = 9.93, p < .001). Significant predictors of the obliging style wereother-face, independent self-construal, and mutual-face. The compromising conflictstyle model without face accounted for 1.50% of variance (F (4, 173) = 1.66, p = ns),while the second model accounted for 17.20% of variance (F (7,170) = 6.24, p < .001).This difference was significant (F = 11.93, p < .001). Mutual-face and other-face weresignificant predictors for the compromising style.

The regression models of avoiding and third-party help were not helped by theaddition of face concerns into their models. The models for avoiding (F (7,170) = 1.95,p - ns) and for the third-party help conflict style (F (7,170) = 1.38, p = ns), both withand without face concerns, were not significant. The addition of face concerns into theregression model for the integrating, dominating, emotional expression, passive ag-gression, obliging, and compromising conflict styles explained more of the variancethan was explained without the face concerns. For six of the conflict styles, HypothesisTwo was supported.

DISCUSSIONThe purpose of the current study was to test the underlying premise of the face-

negotiation theory that face concerns are critical predictive variables for conflict stylesin interpersonal conflict in organizations. In the section, we discuss the theoretical andpractical implications of the findings and limitations of the current study.

The first hypothesis focused-on the relationships among face concerns and conflictstyles. The results were largely consistent with Ting-Toomey and Kurogi's (1998) pre-dictions and with other research on conflict in personal relationships (Oetzel, 1998).The second hypothesis posited that face concerns provide a better prediction of con-flict styles than self-construals, and organizational position. This hypothesis was sup-ported for six of the eight conflict styles: integrating, compromising, dominating, emo-tional expression, obliging, and passive aggression. Face concerns were significant pre-dictive factors for each of these conflict styles and, in fact, were collectively better pre-dictors than the other variables for all of these styles. These findings provide directempirical support of the face-negotiation theory (Ting-Toomey, 1988; Ting-Toomey &Kurogi, 1998). Prior research (e.g., Oetzel, 1998) has utilized face as a post hoc explana-tion for conflict styles. However, the current study demonstrates the importance ofdirectly measuring face concerns and understanding their importance for conflict styles.The measure utilized in the current study provides an operationalization of face thatcan be used in a variety of studies about communication behavior.

The lack of significance of face concerns for avoiding and third party is likely dueto the nature of both of these conflict styles. Specifically, both avoiding and third partycan be employed for all three face concerns. Many individuals avoid conflict because itwill keep them out of harms way and thus support self-face. Additionally, many indi-viduals avoid conflict because it will preserve a relationship or the other person's feel-ings. These uses of avoiding are in contrast with traditional conflict style models (e.g.,Blake & Mouton, 1964; Rahim, 1983) which state that avoiding is a style that results in

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

4:34

10

Oct

ober

201

4

Conflict Styles and Face-113

both conflict parties losing. Similarly, individuals can utilize a third party to balancethe power in order to have a better chance in the conflict (self-face) or to help smoothover any bad feelings between the conflicting parties (mutual-face). Future researchshould help to isolate the multiple goals that can be accomplished with avoiding andthird party conflict styles as their relationships with other variables are complex.

The findings also have practical implications. Much research has shown that pro-ductive conflict occurs when parties approach the issues with a problem-solving andcooperative approach (e.g., Deutsch, 1969; Tjosvold, Sasaki, & Moy, 1998). The find-ings of the current study suggest that a cooperative conflict approach (e.g., integratingand compromising) occurs when individuals have high mutual- and other-face con-cerns. The difficulty for organizations is that a lot of organizational communicationand organizational rewarding centers on individual gain. To combat this "tradition,"restructuring the organization (e.g., rewarding teamwork instead of individual effort)and team-building efforts are necessary to enhance the level of other- and mutual-facein an organization. This suggestion is not unique; many managers and consultantshave recognized the importance of collaborative efforts and have instituted programsto enhance teamwork. The current study does, however, provide empirical evidencefor their importance and continued practice.

There are a couple of limitations of the current study. First, only a couple of orga-nizations were represented. While the sample size and number of organizations issufficient to draw conclusions about the relationships among variables, a greater num-ber of organizations would improve the generalizability of the findings. A secondlimitation is the conceptualization and measurement of variables (especially self-construal and conflict style) as general, stable tendencies. While this study has ob-tained some meaningful results concerning conflict styles, there may be situationalfactors that influence conflict styles, face concerns, and self-construals. Further, thisstudy focused on people's perceptions of conflict styles instead of studying actual con-flict behaviors. Studying actual conflict interactions may yield a clearer understandingamong the relationships of self-construal, face concerns, organizational position, andconflict styles.

In sum, the current study provides a key step in understanding interpersonal con-flict styles in organizations. In particular, face concerns were revealed as significantpredictors of conflict styles thus support the underlying premise of the face-negotia-tion theory (Ting-Toomey, 1988). These findings have important implications for themanagement of everyday organizational conflicts. It is hoped that the current researchand future research will provide further understanding of face and conflict styles.

NOTES1 The correlations were attenuated for measurement error. They were adjusted to remove the

error by the following formula: rxy / (rs *ry) where rxy is the correlation between x and y and rx

is the reliability of x and r is the reliability of y.2 The t-tests of the B coefficients can be used to determine which predictor variables best ex-

plain the dependent variable (Rencher, 1995). The test is computed by using the B coefficientsfor the mean and the standard error of the B as estimates of the standard deviation in thetypical t-test formula. The results indicated that none of the differences between predictors ofthe conflict styles were significant.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

4:34

10

Oct

ober

201

4

114-Corrununication Research Reports/Spring 2003

REFERENCESBlake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1964). The managerial grid. Houston: Gulf Publishing.Conrad, C. (1991). Communication in conflict: Style-strategy relationships. Communication Mono-

graphs, 58, 135-155.Daniels, T. D., Spiker, B. K., & Papa, M. J. (1997). Perspectives on organizational communication (4th

ed.). Madison, WI: Brown & Benchmark.Deutsch, M. (1969). Conflicts: Productive and destructive. Journal of Social Issues, 25, 7-41.Fairhurst, G. T., Green, S. G., & Snavely, B. K. (1984). Face support in controlling poor perfor-

mance. Human Communication Research, 11, 272-295.Gudykunst, W. B., Matsumoto, Y., Ting-Toomey, S., Nishida, T., Kim, K. S., & Heyman, S. (1996).

The influence of cultural individualism-collectivism, self construals, and individual values oncommunication styles across cultures. Human Communication Research, 22, 510-543.

Markus, H., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, andmotivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.

Morley, D. M., & Shockley-Zalabak, P. (1986). Conflict avoiders and compromisers: Toward anunderstanding of their organizational communication style. Group and Organizational Behav-ior, 11, 387-402.

Oetzel, J. G. (1998). The effects of ethnicity and self-construals on self-reported conflict styles.Communication Reports, 11, 133-144.

Oetzel, J. G., & Bolton-Oetzel, K. D. (1997). Exploring the relationship between self-construaland dimensions of group effectiveness. Management Communication Quarterly, 10, 289-315.

Oetzel, J. G., Ting-Toomey, S., Yokochi, Y., Masumoto, T., & Takai, J. (2000). A typology offacework behaviors in conflicts with best friends and relative strangers. Communication Quar-terly, 48, 397-419.

Putnam, L. L. & Poole, M. S. (1987). Conflict and negotiation. In F. M. Jablin, L. L. Putnam, K. H.Roberts, & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication (pp. 549-599). NewburyPark, CA: Sage.

Putnam, L., & Wilson, C. E. (1982). Communicative strategies in organizational conflicts: Reli-ability and validity of a measurement scale. In M. Burgoon (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 6(pp. 629-652). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Rahim, M. A. (1983). A measure of styles of handling interpersonal conflict. Academy of Manage-ment Journal, 26, 368-376.

Rahim, M. A. (1992). Managing conflict in organizations (2nd ed.). Westport, CT: Praeger.Rencher, A. (1995). Methods of multivariate analysis. New York: John Wiley.Thomas, K. W., & Schmidt, W. H. (1976). A survey of managerial interests with respect to con-

flict. Academy of Management Journal, 19, 315-318.Ting-Toomey, S. (1988). Intercultural conflict styles: A face-negotiation theory. In Y.Y. Kim & W.

Gudykunst (Eds.), Theories in intercultural communication (pp. 213-235). Newbury Park, CA:Sage.

Ting-Toomey, S. (1994). Managing intercultural conflicts effectively. In L. Samovar & R. Porter(Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader (7th ed., pp. 360-372). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Ting-Toomey, S. (1997). Intercultural conflict competence. In W. Cupach & D. Canary (Eds.),Competence in interpersonal conflict (pp. 120-147). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Ting-Toomey, S., & Kurogi, A. (1998). Facework competence in intercultural conflict: An up-dated face-negotiation theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22, 187-225.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

4:34

10

Oct

ober

201

4

Conflict Styles and Face-115

Ting-Toomey, S., & Oetzel, J. G. (2001). Managing intercultural conflict effectively. Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

Ting-Toomey, S., Oetzel, J. G., & Yee-Jung, K. (2001). Self-construal types and conflict manage-ment styles. Communication Reports, 14, 87-104.

Ting-Toomey, S., Yee-Jung, K., Shapiro, R., Garcia, W., Wright, T., & Oetzel, J. G. (2000). Cul-tural/ethnic identity salience and conflict styles. International Journal of Intercultural Relations,23, 47-81.

Tjosvold, D., Sasaki, S., & Moy, J. W. (1998). Developing commitment in Japanese organizationsin Hong Kong: Interdependence, interaction, relationship, and productivity. Small Croup Re-search, 29, 560-582.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

4:34

10

Oct

ober

201

4