|
COPYRIGHT 2004 Western States Communications Association
INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION scholars have noted that individuals struggle with dialectical tensions--opposing needs that appear mutually exclusive but must be met simultaneously (Baxter, 1988; 1990; Baxter & Montgomery, 1996; Bochner, Ellis, & Tillmann-Healy, 1998; Bridge & Baxter, 1992; Cissna, Cox, & Bochner, 1990; Goldsmith, 1990; Rawlins 1983). Core dialectical tensions include the need for both stability and change, open and closed communication, and autonomy and connection (Baxter, 1988; 1990). Although scholars have previously demonstrated that these conflicts exist in all interpersonal relationships, the present research has implications for merging theory in interpersonal and organizational communication. It explores the management of one specific tension that pervades the relationships of individuals in organizations--the dialectical tension between autonomy and connection.
Communication between certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs) and anesthesiologists reveals each group's desire for autonomous decision-making and their simultaneous needs for connection. In-depth interviews with CRNAs and anesthesiologists illustrate that these professionals feel pressured to both demonstrate their individual contributions to the anesthesia process and earn each other's respect. This difficult balance of autonomy and connection creates an environment of on-going conflict between members of these groups. Yet members of both groups express desires to improve their communication and create a collaborative relationship.
Critical incident questions reveal that successful interactions--those that maintain positive working relationships and contribute to a collaborative climate--are consistent with politeness strategies, as originally defined by Brown and Levinson (1987). Unsuccessful interactions--those that lead to conflict escalation and relational deterioration--are characterized by antagonistic communication that emphasizes autonomy over connection, resulting in negative long-term outcomes. Examples from the CRNA-anesthesiologist context will illustrate and support the impact of politeness strategies on balancing autonomy and connection, and implications for theory and practice will be discussed.
Interpersonal and Organizational Dialectical Tensions
Dialectical theory assumes that relational partners experience contradictory needs throughout a relationship and examines the strategies used to manage the tension. Although Baxter (1988; 1990) has developed a typology of such strategies, many studies of this phenomenon have been limited to informal relationships: romantic (Baxter, 1990; Goldsmith, 1990), friendship (Bridge & Baxter, 1992; Rawlins 1983), and family (Bochner et al., 1998; Cissna, et al., 1990).
Scholars of organizational communication and management have also found that organizational members experience inherent contradictions that are similar to the dialectical tensions studied at the interpersonal level. Explored on the macro level, these scholars use the term "paradox" to address apparently conflicting needs or mutually exclusive alternatives (Lewis, 2000; Putnam, 1986; Stohl & Cheney, 2001). Organizational paradoxes include coping with members' desire for participation as well as control (Buzannell, 1998; Stohl & Cheney, 2001; Wendt, 1998), need for individual difference as well as conformity (Smith & Berg, 1987; Stohl & Cheney, 2001), needs for innovation as well as stability (Kellett, 1999; Weick, 1979), and needs for cooperation and competition (Blair & Payne, 2000; Donohue, 2001; Kellett, 1999). These paradoxes operate at both individual and aggregate levels, with some more relevant to the interpersonal level (i.e., participation versus control) and others more salient at the organizational level (i.e., stability versus change).
Although interpersonal and organizational theorists define dialectical tensions and paradoxes in different ways and operate at different levels of analysis, the strategies offered for managing, responding to, or transcending them are quite similar. This consistency is not surprising given that organizations are, after all, collections of individuals. The coping strategies used include cognitive as well as communicative activities. Whereas internal, cognitive strategies enable individuals to manage the dialectic through emphasizing one pole over another or reframing the tension for themselves (Baxter, 1988; Putnam, 1986), the interpersonal communication strategies are more germane to the current study.
Indirectness and ambiguity are the most commonly discussed communication strategies for dealing with the autonomy-connection paradox (Baxter, 1988; Tannen, 1986). Specific examples of ambiguous communication include making small talk rather than self-disclosing, indirect communication, and the use of humor (Baxter, 1988; Brown & Levinson, 1987; Saunders, 1988; Tannen, 1986). Stohl and Cheney (2001) describe irony as an important mechanism for recognizing the contradiction. Importantly, communication that makes the parties conscious of the tension is an important step toward transcending it.
While organizational communication research suggests strategies for coping with paradox, these theorists tend to operate at the organizational level and do not explicitly describe the communication used by individuals to manage dialectical tensions. Eisenberg's (1984) treatment of strategic ambiguity in organizational communication is consistent with ideas presented here, but it has received little empirical or theoretical follow-up. The purpose of this study is to probe interpersonal dialectical tensions within the organizational context in more detail, and to elucidate specific communicative strategies that balance the tensions, serving to improve conflict management and fostering a collaborative work climate. This research provides an important link between the interpersonal and organizational levels of analysis by showing how Brown and Levinson's theory of interpersonal politeness (1987) illuminates communicative strategies that directly help organizational members balance the autonomy-connection dialectic. The next section outlines politeness theory and presents a detailed argument for making a direct link between dialectical tensions in organizations and politeness in interpersonal communication.
Confronting Dialectical Tensions through Politeness
Face is a central concept in interpersonal communication. Erving Goffman (1967) used this term to describe the social presentation of self--how we want to be seen by others. Brown and Levinson's (1987) politeness theory demonstrates linguistic features that either show consideration for the face of others or conversely, threaten face. Obviously, interaction that supports face goes more smoothly than interaction that is face threatening. Conflict scholars also discuss the importance of face in conflict interaction. Specifically, they note that when face is threatened people become defensive and engage in face saving behaviors that typically result in competitive, rather than collaborative, interaction (Oetzel & Ting-Toomey, 2003; Wilmot & Hocker, 2001; Wilson, 1992).
Brown and Levinson (1987) differentiated positive and negative face. Positive face is defined as the desire to be accepted by others (i.e., to maintain connection) while negative face is the desire to not be imposed upon by others (i.e., maintain autonomy). Communication that threatens either the need for connection or the need for autonomy may therefore be considered a "face threatening act." This is how politeness theory and dialectical theory complement each other and point to ways individual communication helps members cope with the relational tensions inherent in organizational life. That is, balancing face threatening with face saving communication can manage the tension between autonomy and connection.
Brown and Levinson (1987) used the terms negative politeness and positive politeness to provide examples of linguistic strategies that either redress or minimize face threatening communication. Negative politeness conveys that the speaker recognizes the other's desire to not be imposed upon while positive politeness conveys respect and connection the speaker feels for the hearer. Because the term "negative politeness" may cause confusion, examples of politeness strategies that enhance or protect autonomy will be described here as face saving, and those that enhance or protect connection will be termed face supporting. This terminology results in three options for managing face concerns: face threatening, face saving, and face supporting.
Face negotiation theory (Oetzel & Ting-Toomey, 2003) indicated that the role of face in social interaction is complex because participants may be concerned with three aspects of face: self-face, or protecting one's own autonomy and]or connection needs; other-face, protecting the other party's needs for autonomy and/or connection; and mutual face, protecting the relational needs for both autonomy and connection. Consistent with the propositions of dialectical theory, any individual speech act may simultaneously protect autonomy while threatening connection. In order to improve communication and conflict management, parties must be able to manage both aspects of face for the speaker and hearer concurrently. The components of this negotiation is illustrated in Table One.
Face Saving Communication Strategies
As Table One illustrates, face saving strategies may serve to protect the speaker's autonomy or minimize the...
Read the full article for free courtesy of your local library.
|
Bookmark this article
Print this article
Link to this article
Email this article
Digg It!
Add to del.icio.us
RSS
