Workplace conflict has long been central to theories about how people interact on the job. A new study takes a closer look at how workers express disagreement, finding that the way conflict is communicated can influence team dynamics and individual outcomes. Researchers developed a new measure that examines how expressions of opposition vary in their directness and intensity.

The research, published in Small Group Research, was conducted by researchers from Carnegie Mellon University, Indiana University, the University of California, Los Angeles, California State University, Stony Brook University, the University of Melbourne and INSEAD, along with an independent researcher. The study introduces a new way of understanding workplace conflict beyond traditional approaches.

Previous research has generally focused on either what workplace conflicts are about or how they are managed. The researchers instead examined how disagreement itself is expressed. According to co-author Laurie R. Weingart of Carnegie Mellon University’s Tepper School of Business, this approach provides a different perspective on how conflict operates within teams.

Building on conflict expression theory, the researchers developed the Conflict Expression Tendencies (CET) measure to identify patterns in how groups communicate disagreement. The measure includes four dimensions: arguing, debating, subverting and disguising. Each represents a different combination of how directly opposition is communicated and how intensely it is expressed.

The CET measure brings together several types of oppositional workplace communication that have often been studied separately. These range from subtle behaviours, such as passive aggression and social undermining, to more visible forms of disagreement, including arguing and debating. By examining these behaviours together, researchers can gain a broader picture of how conflict is expressed within a workgroup.

Across six laboratory and field studies involving diverse participants, the researchers found that different forms of conflict expression were associated with cognitive, emotional and psychological outcomes. Debating, characterised by high directness but relatively low intensity, was generally associated with positive outcomes, including greater information acquisition, more positive feelings and higher levels of trust.

Other approaches were associated with less favourable outcomes. Arguing, subverting and disguising tended to have negative effects, suggesting that workplace disagreement itself may not necessarily be harmful. Instead, the manner in which employees communicate their opposition can play an important role in determining whether conflict contributes to productive discussion or creates difficulties within a team.

The researchers also found that members of the same team may experience the same conflict differently depending on how they perceive the interaction. Lead author Yeonjeong Kim of Indiana University’s Kelley School of Business said the CET scale offers a more nuanced way to diagnose and manage workgroup conflict. The researchers suggest it could help leaders better understand team disagreements, encourage constructive communication and develop healthier, more responsive approaches to conflict management.

More information: Yeonjeong Kim et al, Conflict Expression Tendencies in Workgroups: Measure Validation and a Test of Theory, Small Group Research. DOI: 10.1177/10464964261448469

Journal information: Small Group Research Provided by Carnegie Mellon University