managing relational dialectics in organizational ... · pdf filemanaging relational dialectics...

Managing relational dialectics in organizational communication: Competition vs. cooperation

John Jordan; Student Augustana College; Rock Island, IL

Address: Box #1092, 639 – 38th Street, Rock Island, IL Email: [email protected]

PH: 847.987.8538

Competition vs. cooperation 2

Managing relational dialectics in organizational communication: Competition vs. cooperation Organizations and the individuals who work within them experience ongoing tensions between competitiveness and cooperation. In order for the organization to be successful, individuals must compete with each other, moving the individual towards feelings of closedness. At the same time, the organization must also create a cooperative environment where an "esprit de corps" among employees exists therefore creating an environment of connectedness and openness. This paper asks how an organization and the individuals within it deal with the competition/cooperation dynamic. Based on previous research in relational dialectics, dialectical management, and competition/cooperation within organizations, the researcher hypothesized that on both an organizational and personal level, the competitive/cooperative tension would be successfully managed using Baxter’s (1988) four responses to dialectical tensions: cyclic alternation, segmentation, selection, and integration. To understand this tension, 20 journal entries were made by 13 employees at a competitive midsize healthcare company, and addressed feelings of competition and cooperation in their workday. A thematic analysis was used to uncover patterns of dialectical management.

Humans strive to find success along their career paths. However, this “success” is

not frequently built upon the shoulders of one person. Rather, individuals rely on the

people with whom they work to achieve everyday goals within organizations. These very

same organizations also rely on these relationships between employees to become/remain

successful. The ability for coworkers to simply cooperate not only breeds success for the

individuals as they attempt to advance their careers, but for the organization as it benefits

from the developing corporate synergy. At the same time, the organization relies on

competition among employees as individuals independently “battling” to advance their

personal agendas. This competition does more than boost production; it can move


individuals to feel separate and closed-off from coworkers. How then, are organizations

and the individuals within them supposed to manage these opposing tensions?

Historically, tensions between individuals were studied by Marx or Freud and

were studied in economic terms of capitalism or social hierarchies. However, as the

complexities of global economics, increased diversity, and many other factors put

additional pressures on corporations to produce results, the need for deeper research on

these professional relationships has developed. In 1988, Baxter developed the sensitizing

theory of relational dialectics and it has emerged as an improved explanation for the

conflicting principles within a relationship. Baxter, who has remained a dominating force

in the field of dialectics ever since her initial research in the 80’s, states that individuals

can manage a healthy and productive relationship by finding a balance between three

primary tensions: autonomy/connectedness, privacy/transparency, and

novelty/predictability (Baxter, 1988). Baxter contended that individuals address these

tensions using four different strategies, cyclic alternation, segmentation, selection, and

integration (Baxter, 1988). Recently, there has been a second generation of dialectics

where researchers have been focusing on the role of dialogue to successfully manage

these opposing tensions (Baxter, 2004).

This study applied dialectical theory to an organizational context by considering

how the tensions of competition and cooperation were experienced by the individuals of

an organization. In order for the organization to be successful, individuals must compete

with each other, moving each of the individuals towards separation. At the same time, the

organization must also create a cooperative environment where an "esprit de corps"

among employees exists therefore creating an environment of connectedness and


openness. This study will help to explain how individuals choose to manage this tension.

I hypothesize that on both an organizational and personal level, the

cooperative/competitive tension will be successfully managed using Leslie Baxter’s

(1988) four responses to dialectical tensions: cyclic alternation, segmentation, selection,

and integration. The autonomy/connectedness and privacy/transparency dialectical

tensions will be experienced by individuals within an organization.

Review of Literature

Relational dialectics refers to the dynamic interplay between unity and difference

within a relationship (Montgomery & Baxter, 1998). The review of related literature

included an overview of dialectical theory and a consideration of how individuals manage

the opposing dialectical tensions. An understanding of organizational conflict was also an

important foundation for this study. Conflict or the disparity between individuals, is seen

as a source for the competitive/cooperative tension.

Research on Relational Dialectics

The foundation of this paper on the management of competition and cooperation

tensions is founded on the principle of relational dialectics. Baxter and Montgomery

(1998) defined dialectics as the interplay between unity and difference. However, unlike

dualisms, which consist of two polar points that cannot co-exist, dialectics are opposing

tensions that do co-exist (Duta, 2005). A simple way to understand this concept is that

dualisms refer to terms like “either” or “or,” dialectics refer to tensions in relationships

using terms such as “both” and “and” (Montgomery & Baxter, 1998). Dialectic

relationships exist everywhere, and individuals are constantly attempting to find balances


between them on both a conscious and unconscious level (Montgomery & Baxter, 1998).

Dialectics are actually viewed as positive tensions because they allow for the “positive

antagonism” of two points of view. Essentially, people benefit from these tensions

because by pitting the two ideas against one another, the hope is that individuals will

make space for new ideas to emerge (Duta, 2005). Even though dialectics are viewed as

“positive antagonism,” researchers have long ignored these important opposing tensions

when in fact, relational entities “cannot exist without fluctuating interactions between its

opposing parts” (Hung, 2007, pp 3). The prominence of dialectical relationships and the

lack of existing research call for further study.

Over time, researchers have developed four core concepts that underlie the

opposing tensions: contradiction, change, praxis, and totality. Contradiction is viewed by

dialectical researchers as the “dynamic interplay between unified opposites.” These

contradictions can be binary or multivocal existing between two tensions, or many

tensions, respectfully (Montgomery & Baxter, 1998). The key component to

understanding the importance of contradictions is that they are active and always present

(Duta, 2005). Change, the second core concept, refers to the tension of opposites that

remains fluid over time. While some believe the changing levels of tension happens

systematically, other researchers believe that the tension is unpredictable and always in

motion. The third core concept, praxis, explains how dialectical tensions are founded on

the understanding that individuals are shaped by previous events, and are shaping future

events at the same time. Britt (2005) elaborated on the concept of praxis stating that every

utterance acts a link in a dialogic chain. Totality, the final core concept of dialectics,


stresses the interdependence of the contradictions. Relationships may be defined by its

“knots of contradiction” or its totality (Montgomery & Baxter, 1998).

While almost all researchers agree that there is not a finite list of relational

dialectics, three overarching tensions have been identified and agreed upon:

autonomy/connectedness, privacy/transparency, and novelty/predictability. These three

opposing forces can exist in two different arenas: within a relationship, and between a

couple and the surrounding community (Baxter, 1996). The tension between competition

and cooperation can be segmented within the internal autonomy/connectedness dialectic.

Those individuals managing this tension of connectedness and separateness must

sacrifice some autonomy to be in the relationship, but in order for the individuals to

maintain their autonomy they must not have too much connection either (Montgomery &

Baxter, 1998). This struggle for balance can relate to a variety of relationship types

including romantic relationships, friendships, and formal working relationships. It is

these interpersonal relationships within an organization that can create the “espirit de

corps” that can help to build a connected and open environment. It is equally important

for each (within the relationship and between the couple and their community) to manage

the dialectic effectively. As Jameson pointed out, “organizations are frequently met with

opposing needs that appear to be mutually exclusive, but must co-exist” (2004, pp 257).

Research on Managing Dialectics

While the preferred strategies for managing dialectics may differ between

individuals, genders, and cultures, theorists continually attempt to discover the most

effective management methods. Currently, the leading dialectical management theories

are Duta’s management through leadership, Brown and Levinson’s privacy management


theory, Putnam’s five dialectical management methods, and Baxter’s four strategies for

managing dialectics.

In recent second generation of dialectics, a phrase coined by Baxter, there is a

new focus on dialogue as a key to managing dialectics (Baxter, 2004). Dialogue does not

focus on reaching a consensus among individuals, but rather allows the dialectic tensions

to be negotiated and accepted among individuals to develop new levels of understanding

(Britt, 2005). Jameson noted in her research of autonomy and connection between

anesthesiologists and certified registered nurse anesthetists that some individuals within

organizations use dialogue to transcend this dialectical tension while others do very little

to manage the tension demonstrating the privacy/transparency dialectic. The members of

the organization were doing very little to protect their self-interests and relieve their

tension (2004). Perhaps there are additional management techniques yet to be discovered

to help organization members.

The foundation of Duta’s theory of dialectical management through leadership

was based in Bertalanffy’s Systems Theory (Duta, 2005). The theory focuses on the idea

of cybernetics where the regulation and control in systems emphasizes the role of

feedback as a powerful communication tool for improvement. Duta demonstrated that

within a system, a leader acts as a sensor, comparator, and activator of a small group.

First, the leader senses the existing pressures, or dialectic tensions, internally or

externally affecting a system. Then, the leader compares the current situation to a desired

standard. Lastly, the leader operates as an agent of change taking the necessary action to

relieve the tension. By considering the feedback from employees, the leader is

responsible for managing the dialectical tensions affecting the workers (Duta, 2005).


In a closely related study, Jameson studied the dialectical management of

cooperation and competition using politeness strategies (2004). Politeness strategies, as

developed by Brown and Levinson, focus on the concept of face management. The idea

of how we present ourselves and how we want to be seen by others grounds the concept

of face management. For example, if a communication situation among employees

threatens the need for connection or the need for autonomy, this could be considered a

face threatening act. Members within this context can apply a variety of tension

management strategies, as Jameson discovered, to manage the competitive and

cooperative dialectic. These strategies include protecting autonomy, protecting

connection, or threatening one of the tensions. Individuals use the face management

strategies to protect the face for themselves, for others, or for both parties. These

strategies for managing the dialectic include emphasizing: respect, solidarity,

explanation, difference, and discussing private issues at a later time (Brown & Levinson,

1987). Within her research, Jameson discovered that individuals use communication to

transcend dialectical tensions of autonomy and connection and are able to advance their

personal goals in addition to corporate goals, while other individuals do little to protect

their own self-interests and only contribute to a negative organizational climate (Jameson,

2004).

The study of dialectics can include studying tensions between individuals or

between a couple and the community. In a 2004 study, Putnam studied the dialectical

contradictions that an organization must manage. The strategies proposed are very similar

to strategies Baxter proposes for individuals to manage dialectics. The first of the five

strategies is the selection strategy where the parties ignore one of the opposite poles and


choose the more visible side. Integration, the second strategy is where polar pairs are

compromised and diluted to an extent. Putnam’s third management strategy was a

separation technique where sides acknowledge that both tensions exist and favor one over

the other. The fourth dialectic management strategy was a transcending approach where

the tensions are abandoned all together. Lastly, Putnam proposed a connection strategy

where sides embrace their opposition and give each an equal voice (2004).

Baxter has devoted decades to the study of dialectics and effective management

techniques. In 1988, she proposed four dialectic management strategies which have stood

the critique of her peers and continue to be studied today (West & Turner, 2003). The

four strategies are: cyclic alternation, segmentation, selection, and integration. As

previously noted, these strategies closely resemble the later developed dialectic

management strategies being proposed for organizational management of dialectics

(Putnam, 2004). Cyclic alternation, the first of the four strategies, refers to the alternating

of opposing tensions over time. Individuals within a relationship may desire to naturalize

different tensions at different times. In an organizational setting this may be seen when

employees choose to cooperate more with their boss when they are up for a promotion

and choose not to be competitive with their boss. The segmentation strategy refers to the

choice that individuals make to isolate separate arenas for emphasizing each opposite.

For example, if two coworkers choose to be more autonomous while in a meeting and

more connected while working on a project, they are practicing segmentation. When

individuals in a relationship make a choice between opposites, they are practicing

Baxter’s third tension, selection. Integration, the fourth tension refers to the synthesis of

opposites. Baxter broke the concept of integration into three subcategories: neutralizing,


when individuals compromise between polarities; reframing, when individuals transform

the dialectic to not seem like an opposition; and disqualifying, where a couple neutralizes

dialectics by exempting certain (perhaps taboo) issues (Baxter, 1988). Out of these four

techniques that Baxter suggested for managing dialectics, she stresses that no matter

which strategy is used, each will have three characteristics: improvisation, affected by

time, and that strategies may be complicated by unexpected consequences (Baxter, 1996).

The dialectic management strategies proposed by Baxter have been developed to fit

leadership, and organizational contexts (Duta, 2005; Putnam, 2004). However, the reality

that seems to be overlooked in these “new” dialectical strategies is that those individuals

and their personal relationships compose the organizational environment which I feel

Putnam overlooks in her research. For this reason, I hypothesize that Baxter’s dialectic

management strategies will be evident in the results of this study.

Research on Organizational Conflict: Competition and Cooperation

Individuals within an organization come in contact with a significant number of

people on a regular basis. Some of the relationships with other individuals will remain

superficial and harmless, while others will develop into important personal and/or

professional relationships (McCrosky & Richmond, 2000). Within all types of

relationships, conflict seems inevitable. Examining elements of organizational conflict, in

addition to competition and cooperation in organizational conflict, has exposed a need for

additional research that I aim to address in this study.

Significant developments have occurred in the understanding of organizational

conflict since Freud and Marx originally discussed tensions and contradictions within a

capitalist economy, social hierarchy, and population growth (Ball, 1979). Additionally,


individuals need conflict within their important relationships in order to for the

relationship to grow and develop (Baxter, 1993). In fact, Baxter (1996) claimed that

relationships do not even start until there is disparity between the two individuals.

Within an organization conflict exists as a result of social and corporate class

conflict and as a result of organizational structure as two individuals fight for influence

and control. Over time, as organizations struggle to compete on a global level, companies

are moving towards a flatter structure creating “adhocracy.” The flatter structured

organizations rely on task forces and project teams composed of specialists from different

fields to succeed. However, these groups with less structured rules within the

organizations are made up of individuals fighting for power in a very competitive nature

Unfortunately, because cooperation is so highly praised within an organization, the role

of conflict in achieving cooperation tends to be understudied (Kolb & Putnam, 1992).

Cooperation plays a large role in the performance of an organization. These

organizations are able to achieve their purpose only insofar as they are cooperative, and it

is organizational management who is responsible for instilling this purpose (Barnard,

1938). Leaders from within these organizations must understand that this highly praised

element of cooperation can only be achieved if they, as leaders, create a supportive and

participatory structure to enhance communication among employees (Barnard, 1938).

Management, from all across the functional boundaries prefers this collaboration over

competition (Walton & Dutton, 1969). The problem is, these managers are not

necessarily good conflict managers.

The advantage for supervisors and subordinates to both manage the tensions

created by the chaos and contradiction within an organization is the development of


“positive chaos” (Stroh, 1999). These conflicts between employees and management are

taken for granted, because they actually provide an opportunity for the relationships

within the company to grow and create a “positively chaotic” environment (Kolb &

Putnam, 1992). Over time, researchers developed studies to reflect competitive situations

where participants wanted to maximize their personal gain and minimize their personal

losses. Through this research, they began to understand that competition and cooperation

cannot be understood apart from one another. Essentially, parties rely on one another to

achieve their individual goals, and are forced to cooperate and to compete (Kolb &

Putnam, 1992).

In organizational theory, conflict is not typically studied from a dialectical

perspective (Burrell & Morgan, 1979). Organizational conflicts were only being studied

as particular aspects of conflict and were ignoring the polar opposite tensions: the public

tension, the formal tension, and the rational tensions (Kolb & Putnam, 1992). I want to

understand the relationship between both poles. If effective conflict management can lead

to the improved performance of an organization, than I propose further study.

Q: How do an organization and the individuals within it deal with the

cooperation/competition dynamic?

H1: On both an organizational and personal level, the cooperative/competitive tension

will be successfully managed using Baxter’s (1988) four responses to dialectical tensions:

cyclic alternation, segmentation, selection, and integration.

H2: The autonomy/connectedness and privacy/transparency dialectical tensions will be

experienced by individuals within an organization.


Methodology

Twenty participants were asked to keep a daily journal and to respond to

questions about competition and cooperation in their workday (Appendix 1). The thirteen

participants that completed the study were asked open-ended questions to allow them to

select a response structure to best explain their experiences. This protocol helped

establish structure for responses without placing response limits on their narrative.

Several members of Augustana College’s Admissions staff were asked to pilot these

questions before they were finalized.

Participants responded once per day for 20 days and did so by accessing a website

to enter their daily journal entry. The website was accessed with a confidential username

and password and was drawn at random from a list of 100 username/password

combinations. The researcher had no means of associating individual participants with

their random username/password assignment.

Participants included were both male and female, adults ages 21-65, and

approximately half supervisor participants / half subordinate participants from the

participating organization. In order to be included in the study, participants had to be

employees at the organization for a minimum of one year and have had daily access to

the internet.

The organization that participated is “a developer and manufacturer of innovative

healthcare products used by professional and retail customers throughout the world.” The

organization employs approximately 500 people, and has representative qualities of both

a medium and large size company. In addition, the organization participates in a highly

competitive field where qualities of cooperation and competition become increasingly


important. Volunteers came from two participating departments at the organization:

Marketing and New Product Development. These particular departments were chosen

because of the high level of demand placed on each to produce results. These

environments were predicted to have a high need for competition and collaboration both

internally and externally.

Similar to other studies about dialectical tensions in relationships, the method for

this study was qualitative as a means to understanding the relatively new and complex

communication concept of dialectics (Britt, 2005; Jameson, 2004; Krusiewicz, 2001).

The benefit of using a qualitative approach for this study allowed for a more wide-

ranging portrayal of the problem and will aid in identifying unanticipated outcomes

(Marshall, 1989). This method of collecting data minimized the manipulation of

antecedent conditions at the participating organization (Owen, 1984). Styles of dialectical

management have been identified; however as competition and cooperation are newly

juxtaposed tensions being studied in the workplace, it is important to consider what new

dialectical management discoveries and methods arise. While a content analysis could

have been used to identify existing management strategies, a thematic analysis provided

an opportunity for new management themes to emerge.

Data Analysis

In order to draw meaning from the data an analytic induction was applied. This

analysis was guided by what emerged from the data rather than by priori conceptual

categories (Krusiewicz, 2001). Reliability for this type of analysis was achieved using a

constant comparative method (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Using a constant comparative


method, the researcher considered the insights emerging in later journal entries to guide

the revisiting of earlier entries (Charmaz, 1983).

The analytic induction proceeded in three stages: first by identifying broad

themes, then identifying more specific sub-themes, and thirdly by naming the identified

themes to encapsulate the meaning of the data (Krusiewicz, 791). These themes were

identified when three criteria were present: recurrence, repetition, and forcefulness

(Owen, 1984). Recurrence was identified as at least two parts of a report having the same

thread of meaning. Repetition was recognized as the explicit repeated use of the same

wording. Lastly, forcefulness was considered text stressing an idea. For example,

underlining text, increased fonts, or the use of colored marks represented forcefulness

(Krusiewicz, 2001; Owen, 1984).

Results

The following sections rely on journal transcripts to illustrate the frequently

occurring themes. In order to clarify the role of each speaker while keeping participant

anonymity, employees will be referred to by “employee” followed by a first name (all are

pseudonyms).

Competitive Situations for Employees

When employees were asked to describe a competitive situation at work 12 out of

53 responses described situations where the employee felt competitive trying to get a

share of the boss’s attention or time. Responses were coded accordingly based on

mentioning a boss or superior and a desire for more time or attention with them. The

following two examples represent a typical response for this theme.

Employee Frank: I felt I was competing with a coworker for my boss’s undivided attention. I needed to discuss a few important budget items that are holding projects at a standstill. I was unable to get the time I needed to discuss.


Employee Mark: I needed to include some information to a conversation and I had to wait for a break in the discussion. I had to compete for talking time.

Mentioned just as frequently (12 out of 53 responses), was the competitive feeling

associated with the acceptance of ideas. Responses were associated with this theme if an

entry expressed getting idea acceptance in a group, with a peer, or with a supervisor. The

responses below represent typical answers associated with this theme.

Employee Alex: …I also found myself feeling competitive when delivering and discussing a design idea to the boss. Employee Missy: I felt competitive with a sales rep in a group meeting while trying to convey the attributes of one of our new products and thought he was being negative.

The third most frequently appearing theme was feeling competitive when having

different opinions (6 of 53 responses) at work. Employees had different opinions

regarding a variety of opinions including strategic planning, taking care of one’s family,

and time management. The following responses were examples of entries included in this

theme.

Employee Kathy: During a strategic planning meeting I wanted to state my opinion and challenge another’s statements. Employee Dan: I was discussing a project with a colleague and knew I was right about something, but this colleague has many more years experience, so I was finding it difficult to disagree without seeming as if I was trying to one-up them.

Responses to Competitive Feelings

Based on employee journal responses, the most frequent response to competitive

situations was an employee feeling frustrated. Out of 55 total responses, 12 expressed

feelings feeling frustrated. While many responses expressed a course of action associated

with feelings of anger or disappointment, did not outline an employee action to

accompany their feelings. The following, are examples of responses in this theme.

Employee Mike: I was somewhat frustrated but I’ve seen it happen so often… Employee Maggie: [I feel] frustration and incredulous audacity that he has to do this.


The second most frequent response to a competitive situation was talking it

through to create a better understanding between employees (10 of 55 responses).

Responses were placed in this category if they mentioned speaking out, having a

discussion, or talking it through with another employee or a superior. The examples

below demonstrate typical responses in this theme.

Employee Judy: I wanted to make sure I met with him to discuss [the competitive situation] individually before day’s end. Employee Tim: In this case I spoke in the form of a question vs. a statement of fact. In another [competitive situation] I just discussed quietly with the person next to me in a positive manner – did not go negative at all.

Selecting not to respond to feelings of competition appeared in 7 out of 55

responses from employees. These responses often expressed a desire to speak out, but

having reservations about doing so. Frequently employees also chose not to speak out

because they were competing with someone with more experience or status within the

department. Expressions of muteness differ from expressions of frustration because

frequently employees that chose to stay silent, felt their were benefits for their career

when doing so, and did not necessarily express feelings of frustration when staying quiet.

The following responses are representative samples of this theme.

Employee Mary: I felt like telling him I [know the situation] best, and to mind his own business. Of course I didn’t, but I wanted to. I just listened and pretended to agree. Employee Dave: …they get agreement with their proposals…because no employees want to disagree with them. Employee Justin: I was mad that my coworker asked [for my opinion] and then proceeded to answer the question. The next question to be asked is did I confront the situation? No, because society has developed me into an individual whom does not want to offend.

Cooperative Situations for Employees

Providing information for another employee was the most frequently occurring

cooperative situation according to employee responses. In 14 of 87 responses, employees

described situations when they felt cooperative providing input, information, or feedback

for others. The following responses are representative samples of this theme.

Employee Nick: [The meeting] went great. I got them the info they needed and built on an established relationship to make it stronger.


Employee Molly: While presenting, everyone provided valuable feedback.

The second most frequently occurring cooperative situation for employees was

engaging in open communication with other employees and the theme was indicated in 8

of 87 responses. These themes were identified in responses that used words such as

“listening,” “communicating,” “speaking with,” “open discussion,” and “conversation.”


Employee Sven: My neighbor and I cooperated and communicated about posters for a show coming up.

Employee Melissa: During our Monday meeting where I was trying to listen first and then be supportive of activities and plans for the week. In 8 of 87 cases acting as a resource for another employee was considered a

cooperative situation by employees. These responses included words like “resource,” or

“providing insight,” or “help.” Responses were coded into this category not only because

of the terminology used, but because of an expressed on implied experience or status

relationship. For example, an employee who has been with the company for 10 years may

have expressed their “resourcefulness” for a younger employee in their cooperation

response. The following responses are representative samples of this theme.

Employee Aaron: Agreed to help someone with a project by reviewing some information and strategizing an action.

Employee Jonathan: Superior provided insight into a current situation.

Responses to Cooperative Feelings Out of 70 responses, 23 indicated “good” feelings associated with their

cooperative situation. Frequently the responses simply said “good,” or explained which

part(s) of the situation was “good” for them. The following responses are representative

samples of this theme.

Employee Karen: I felt very good about our last discussion, that in the end we both got what we were looking for. Employee Michelle: Good.


The second most frequently occurring feeling, in 7 out of 70 responses, associated

with a cooperative situation was relief. These responses included the word “relief” and

typically explained why the employee felt relief about that particular situation. The

following responses are representative samples of this theme.

Employee Nikki: Relief that I did not have to carry the entire load. Employee Jeter: Relief that he wanted to help and knew it would be ok even though I wasn’t going to be there. Being thankful for the cooperative situation was the third most frequently

appearing feeling in the journal responses and appeared in 6 out of 70 responses.

Responses were identified as being “thankful” by the vocabulary they used such as:

“appreciative,” “grateful,” or “thanks.” The following responses are representative

samples of this theme.

Employee Pam: Grateful someone else stepped up to bat to help. Employee Mark: Gratefulness, delighted and shared my feelings with others.

Responses to Competitive/Cooperative Interplay Out of 51 responses, 20 respondents expressed the importance of avoiding or

reducing competition and a willingness to work hard for “good” cooperation. Responses

were coded into this category if they expressed sentiments of wanting to avoid or reduce

competition. Responses were also coded into this category if they expressed a desire to

move towards, or put effort towards cooperation rather than competition with coworkers.


Employee Katie: Cooperation is easy and worth any effort. Employee Jon: I find myself trying to manage cooperation between areas vs. dealing with competition between us. Employee Brad: I always tend to move towards cooperative solutions. There are certain personalities that bring out the competitiveness, but I usually focus on mutual decisions and try to lead others in that manner rather than going for the personal win.


Discussion

The purpose of this study is to explore the relationship between competition and

cooperation within a particular organizational setting and the management strategies that

may be used to balance this tension. This article relies on previous research in relational

dialectics, dialectical management, and competition/cooperation within organizations in

addition to the performed qualitative research, to illustrate the connections and the

benefits of connecting dialectical relationships and management strategies within an

organization. The findings suggest that some individuals practice the selection strategy

and choose frequently to not participate in competitive and frustrating situations.

However, some employees choose to talk through the situation to create a better

understanding between one another. Consistently, participants associated negative

feelings (frustration, anger, disappointment) with competitive situations, and associated

positive feelings (good, relief, thankful) with cooperative situations.

While this research is qualitative and is limited to a small sample, its findings are

consistent with previous research demonstrating that by participating in conversation to

relieve competitive feelings, employees are able to manage the need for both autonomy

and connectedness (Baxter 1988, Jameson 2004). This finding demonstrates the

relationship between interpersonal communication and the positive results it may have

for an organization.

This study demonstrates the frequency with which employees select not to

participate in competitive situations. While the study was not designed to compare the

success of different management strategies, those who used dialogue to manage a


competitive situation associated frequently with positive feelings whereas those who

selected not to engage in a competitive situation often remained frustrated.

When employees were engaged in cooperative situations they almost always

expressed positive feelings. Along with the expression of positive feelings, employees

often mentioned having a discussion or talking a situation through. Perhaps potentially

competitive situations never manifested because of the dialogue that took place between

employees. Interestingly, these situations that provoked feelings of competition and

cooperation were frequently interactional in nature and did in fact impact the employee’s

interpersonal relationships whether the employees realized the impact or not. From an

organizational perspective, the results indicate that it may be beneficial to train

employees in confrontation and relational management techniques. Perhaps training

employees in constructive argumentation could positively impact employee interactions

and their collaborative performances.

This study contributes to Baxter’s second generation of dialectical management

and the role of dialogue while managing dialectical tensions. The analysis demonstrates

how communication leads to positive feelings after a competitive situation in comparison

to the feelings of frustration that are associated with selecting not to engage in the

situation. Employees rarely practiced integration techniques when managing competitive

and cooperative situations. Workers were not focused on discussing or resolving feelings

of competition or frustration. Rather, employees were more likely to internalize their

feelings of frustration or muteness instead of working to resolve the conflict.

The study also adds to the focus on dialogue because the discussions between

individuals appear to change the perception of employees. Early discussions and the


sharing of feelings seemed to give employees the perception that they were not even

involved in competitive situations. For example, if an employee anticipates a

confrontation with another employee because of different ideas, but instead the

employees have an open discussion and provide one another with background

information, then the employees would journal about a cooperative situation rather than a

competitive situation.

While Baxter’s (1988) four responses to dialectical tensions: cyclic alternation,

segmentation, selection, and integration did not all emerge from the study, they may very

well be used among employees. In future study, it may be beneficial to conduct a longer

study to see if the four strategies can be identified. It may be difficult to see cyclic

alternation, segmentation, and integration without getting a longer series of data. The

questions were phrased in a way that encouraged employees to reflect on day to day

situations rather than ongoing competitive/cooperative occurrences, and in future study it

may be beneficial to observe employee dialectical management over a longer period of

time.

In the process of conducting the research as well as reflecting on the methodology

after conducting research, a few limitations existed in this study. The first limitation was

the drop-out rate of participants. While originally the study was designed for 20

participants, only 13 continued to participate for the duration of the twenty days.

Originally, participants were supposed to participate for 25 days, however because of the

organizations holiday schedule, it was only possible for the participants to journal for 20

days. The third limitation was the timing of the Microsoft Outlook reminders that

participants received every day. While reminders were supposed to display twice


everyday at 9:00am and 3:00 pm, reminders only went out in the morning and

participants would often journal for two days at once to catch up for a missed day. A

significant limitation to the study was the anonymity worries of the participants. While

participants were repeatedly assured that their responses would remain confidential, I

believe participants will always be worried about where the information will end-up

especially since they may perceive the researcher to be an amateur undergraduate

researcher.

For future study it would be beneficial to examine the organizational culture and

the effect on employee management strategies by conducting research in multiple

organizations and in different departments where cultures will inevitably vary. While this

study did require a one year employment minimum at the organization, it would be

helpful to better understand this temporal component to the autonomy-connection

dialectic. Perhaps as employees get to know one another better they would be likely to

use different management strategies. As Jameson suggests (2004) perhaps after having

more trust-enhancing interactions, future cooperation may become easier between

employees.


Appendix 1

Journal Entry Protocol

For Organizational Employees

Response Questions Please consider each prompt. Feel free to take as much space as needed to respond. Please be frank and refrain from using names in your responses.

1. Describe a situation when you felt competitive today at work. 2. What were some of the responses you had to these feelings? 3. Describe a situation when you felt cooperative today at work. 4. What were some of the responses you had to these feelings? 5. Are there any additional comments you have?

Survey results are kept private and anonymous.


Appendix 2

Augustana Institutional Review Board Request for Review of Research Using Human Participants

This form may be submitted by faculty or staff only. Electronic submission of this form and supporting documents should be made to the IRB committee via email by mailing to [email protected]. A signed paper copy of this form should be submitted by regular mail once the review is completed and any amendments have been incorporated. When possible, please submit all your supporting documents along with this form in a single electronic file. Principal Investigator and/or faculty advisor: John Jordan, Dr. Ellen Hay Department: Speech Communication Date Submitted: 10/10/07 Project Title: “Managing relational dialectics in organizational communication: cooperation vs. competition.” Review of this project is requested on which basis:

X Regular review. Complete all items and attach questionnaires, non-standard tests, consent forms, cover letters, and other supporting documents.

____ To confirm exempt status. Complete items 1 through 7. Under which

exempt category, as designated in section D. of the IRB guide, do you think this project qualifies for exemption? (Give paragraph letter/number.)

Please type your responses to items 1-11 below. Add additional space as needed to give sufficient information for the committee to evaluate the risks and benefits of your research project. 1. If any pre-approved departmental or other protocols will be followed for this project, please indicate the name of the protocol: None. 2. Brief Project Description – Please write for a lay audience and explain any technical terminology

a. Purpose, hypothesis or research questions:

Many organizations and the individuals who work within them experience ongoing tensions between competitiveness and cooperation. In order for the organization to be successful, individuals must compete with each other, moving the individual towards separation. At the same time, the organization must also create a cooperative environment where an "esprit de corps" among employees exists therefore creating an environment of connectedness and openness.

Q: How do an organization and the individuals within it deal with the cooperation/competition dynamic?


H: On both an organizational and personal level, the cooperative/competitive tension will be successfully managed using Leslie Baxter’s (1988) four responses to dialectical tensions: cyclic alternation, segmentation, selection, and integration.

b. Procedures:

Twenty participants will be asked to keep a daily journal responding to questions about competition and cooperation in their workday. The questions are open-ended to allow participants to select a response structure allowing them to best respond to their experiences (see Journal Questions). The protocol will help establish structure for responses without placing response limits on the narrative. Several members of the Augustana admissions staff will be asked to pilot these questions before they are finalized.

Participants will respond once per day for approximately 25 days. Participants will access a website to enter their daily journal entry. The website will be accessed with a confidential username and password. The username/password combination for the 20 participants will be drawn at random from a list of 100. The researcher will have no means of associating individual participants with their random username/password. A copy of the Informed Consent Form will be provided to each participant.

Analytic procedures will involve a thematic analysis. This analysis allows meaning to emerge from the data rather than coding themes into pre-created categories. All analyses will be conducted by the principal investigator.

3. Participants

a. Age, sex and approximate number:

Adults (21-65), M/F, 14-20 participants, approximately half supervisor participants, half subordinate participants Sage Products, the participating organization, is “a developer and manufacturer of innovative healthcare products used by professional and retail customers throughout the world.” The organization employs approximately 500 people, and represents qualities of a medium and large size company. In addition, Sage Products participates in a highly competitive field where qualities of cooperation and competition become increasingly important. Permission has been obtained from the company to proceed with this study. Sage Products Inc. 3909 Three Oaks Road Cary, IL 60013


b. Inclusion/Exclusion criteria, if any: Participants must be employees at Sage Products, have daily access to the internet at work, and had been employees at Sage Products for a minimum of one year. c. Method of recruiting: Word of mouth, email participation request, flyers d. Inducement for participation: None

4. Are participants at risk? (Describe, if ‘yes’.) Participants will be at limited risk. Procedures to limit the disclosure of personal information are described below in the “Anonymity Procedures.” 5. Steps taken to minimize any risks identified in #4. N/A 6. Are illegal activities involved? (Describe, if ‘yes’.) No 7. Is deception involved (e.g. withholding information, misinformation, use of confederates)? (If ‘yes’, please describe. Explain why it is necessary, explain how participants will be debriefed, and, if applicable, attach a copy of the debriefing statement.) No 8. Anticipated benefits to participants and/or society? The anticipated benefits to both the participants and society include a more thorough understanding of corporate communication. With the overwhelming presence of conflicting tensions in professional relationships and minimal research on cooperation and competition juxtaposed, I anticipate improved corporate communication. The outcomes of this study will be presented via paper/presentation to the Augustana Speech faculty. I hope to submit research for presentation at a regional communication conference in the spring of 2008, and a national conference in the fall of 2008. In addition, the final paper will be shared with the management of Sage Products, but the individual contributions of the employees will not. 9. How will prior informed consent be obtained? (Attach copies of consent forms and/or cover letters if they are to be used.) All participants will sign an informed consent form that will not only be approved by Augustana College, but by the participating corporation Sage Products. (Please see attached consent form) 10. If extra credit is used as an inducement for participation, what alternatives for gaining extra credit are offered to participants? N/A


11. Describe the procedures relating to the anonymity of participants, if applicable, and procedures for keeping participant data confidential and secure. For example, what documents or databases will contain names or participant numbers, who will have access to these, and how will they be physically or otherwise secured? When will the research materials gathered from or about individual participants be destroyed? “Journal entries” can be made at any time throughout the day when the participant has a private moment. All journal entries will be kept private and secure at an off-site location and only the principal investigator will have access to the information. A database on a separate computer will contain the names of the participants. All materials will be kept with Dr. Ellen Hay at Augustana College and destroyed within five years of data collection. Sole access to the online database will be granted to her. This will be insured by a change of password (to be assigned by Dr. Hay) after the results have been analyzed. Participants will access a website to enter their daily journal entry. The website will be accessed with a confidential username and password. The username/password combination for the 20 participants will be drawn at random from a list of 100. The researcher will have no means of associating individual participants with their random username/password. The participating company, Sage Products, will have access only to the list of participants and the final draft of the study publication. No potentially identifying information will be provided. I have reviewed the Augustana College Policies and Guidebook for Research Involving Human Participants and agree to adhere to the responsibilities of investigators as specified in Section B. I also agree to report any significant and relevant changes in the procedures or instruments to the Committee for additional review. Signatures ________________________ , Sponsor or Principal Investigator ________________________ Review Request # ____________________ Date Approved __________________


Appendix 3

Informed Consent for Research Participants

Augustana College: Department of Speech Communication Researcher’s name: John Jordan, Student Researcher, Department of Speech Communication. Research project title: “Managing relational dialectics in organizational communication: cooperation vs. competition.” Purpose of this research project: The purpose of this study is to observe the roles of cooperation and competition at an organization and among the individuals within it. Observing and understanding this tension and the way in which it is managed, may allow society a more methodological approach to improving corporate communications. Description of the involvement by participants: Participants will be asked to reflect on feelings of cooperation and competition at the workplace once per day for approximately 25 days. Responses will be submitted daily and will be prompted by provided questions relating to this relationship. The study will be conducted from November 19, 2007 to December 21, 2007. The outcomes of this study will be presented via paper/presentation to the Augustana Speech faculty. I hope to submit research for presentation at a regional communication conference in the spring of 2008, and a national conference in the fall of 2008. In addition, the final paper will be shared with the management of Sage Products, but the individual contributions of the employees will not. We have set up the email system for entering your journal entries so that your participation will be anonymous. In addition the report of the project, which will be sent to Sage, will describe journal entries only in general terms without quoting specifics. You should be aware, however, that the number of participants in this study and is small, about 20, and that the names of the participants will be provided to Sage for purposes of permitting your Internet journaling activities only. There are no identifiable risks associated with participating in this study. For any questions regarding your participation, please contact: Dr. Ellen Hay Faculty Sponsor (309) 794-7724 [email protected] This research project has been reviewed and approved by the Augustana Human Research Review Committee, which can be contacted at [email protected].

mailto:[email protected]



I hereby give my consent to participate in this research study. I understand that:

• I must be at least 18 years old to participate in this study. • My participation is entirely voluntary, and I may terminate my participation at

any time prior to the completion of the study without penalty • Any information I may give during my participation may be recorded and will be

employed for research only. • Any information I may give will be kept confidential and physically secure. • The results of this study will be reported without identifying individuals directly,

and any reported statistical data will be aggregated so as to make indirect identification of individual participants very unlikely or impossible.

• Any information provided by the participants will be kept either without personal identifiers, or identified only by participant numbers. If participant numbers are used, the data and name/participant number list will never be stored in the same location or in the same computer.

• The research materials gathered from individual participants, e.g. survey forms, emails, journal entries, will be destroyed within five years after completion of the research report.

Signature of Participant: _______________________________ Date: ___________ Signature of Researcher: _______________________________ Date: ___________ Signature of Faculty Advisor: ___________________________ Date: ___________


Appendix 4

CALL FOR VOLUNTEERS TO PARTICIPATE IN COMMUNICATION RESEARCH ON

MANAGEMENT OF COOPERATION

AND COMPETITION IN THE WORKPLACE

Do you compete and cooperate with others at work? Have you been a full-time Sage Products employee for at least one year? Do you have daily access to the internet? If yes, and you would like to participate in a research study on managing cooperation and competition in the workplace, please contact John Jordan (Student Researcher, Department of Communication, Augustana College): By phone: (847) 987-8538 By email: [email protected] Participation will include short daily journal entries for approximately one month. Individuals in all positions are welcomed and encouraged to participate.



Appendix 5

Protocol Description

Purpose:

Many organizations and the individuals who work within them experience ongoing tensions between competitiveness and cooperation. In order for the organization to be successful, individuals must compete with each other moving the individual towards separation. At the same time, the organization must also create a cooperative environment where an "esprit de corps" among employees exists therefore creating an environment of connectedness and openness. The purpose of this study is to observe this relationship and how it is managed among employees.

Description of Participation:

Participants are asked to keep a daily journal responding to questions about competition and cooperation in their workday.

Participants will respond once per day for approximately 25 days. Participants will access a website to enter their daily journal entry. The website will be accessed with a confidential username and password. The username/password combination for participants will be drawn at random from a list of 100. The researcher will have no means of associating individual participants with their random username/password. A copy of the Informed Consent Form will be provided to each participant Anonymity and confidentiality will be maintained by allowing participants to make “Journal entries” at any time throughout the day when the participant has a private moment. The participants will randomly be assigned username/passwords in order to submit their responses. All journal entries will be kept private and secure at an off-site location and only the principal investigator will have access to the information. A database on a separate computer will contain the names of the participants. All materials will be kept with Dr. Ellen Hay, faculty advisor, and destroyed within five years of data collection.

Requirements:

Participants for the study must be full-time employees at Sage Products of at least one year, have daily access to the internet, and have signed the informed consent form.

Questions may be directed to:

• John Jordan, Student Researcher; (847) 987-8538 or at [email protected] • Dr. Ellen Hay, Faculty Advisor; (309) 794-7724 or at [email protected]

Your participation is greatly appreciated. Thank you.




References

Ball, R. (1979). The dialectical method: Its application to social theory. Social Forces, 57, 785-798.

Barnard, C. (1938). The function of the executive. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Baxter, L. (1988). A dialectical perspective on communication strategies in relationship development. In S. W. Duck (Ed.), A handbook of personal relationships (pp. 257-273) John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Baxter, L. (1993). The social side of personal relationships: A dialectical perspective. In S. W. Duck (Ed.), Understanding relationship processes (pp. 139-165). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Baxter, L. (2004). Relationships as dialogues. Second generation of theory (pp. 1-22)

Baxter, L., & Montgomery, B. (1996). Relating: Dialogues and dialectics. New York: Guilford.

Britt, L. L. (2005). Negotiating and communicating community in a neighborhood homeowners' association. Kaleidoscope: A Graduate Journal of Qualitative Communication Research, 4, 13-33.

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organizational analysis. Portsmouth, NH: Heineman Educational.

Charmaz, K. (1983). The grounded theory method: An explanation and interpretation. In R. Emerson (Ed.), Contemporary field research (pp. 109-126). Boston: Brown & Co.

Duta, A. The dialectic theory of leadership - the balancing act of "both" and "and". Paper presented at the Sheraton New York, New York City, NY. Retrieved 2007-09-28 from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p13324_index.html

Duta, A. Meta-level dialectical interpenetrations in transformational and charismatic leadership. Paper presented at the The Annual Meeting of the International Communication Association, Sheraton New York, New York City, NY. Retrieved 2007-12-07 from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p13299_index.html


Frey, L. R., Botan, C. H., & Kreps, G. L. (2000). Naturalistic inquiry. Investigating communication: An introduction to research methods (2nd ed., pp. 257-285). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Frey, L. R., Botan, C. H., & Kreps, G. L. (2000). Textual analysis. Investigating communication: An introduction to research methods (2nd ed., pp. 225). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Griffin, E. (2006). Relational dialectics of leslie baxter & barbara montgomery. A first look at communication theory (6th ed., pp. 160). Dubuque, IA: McGraw-Hill.

Hung, C. Exploring the dynamics of organization-public relationships from the dialectical perspective paper presented at the annual meeting of the international communication. Paper presented at the Sheraton New York, New York City, NY. Retrieved 2007-09-12 from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p14891_index.html

Jameson, J. K. (2004). Negotiating autonomy and connection through politeness: A dialectical approach to organizational conflict management. Western Journal of Communication, 68(3), 257-277.

Kolb, D., & Putnam, L. (1992). Introduction: The dialectics of disputing. In D. Kolb, & J. Bartunek (Eds.), Hidden conflict in organizations: Uncovering behind-the-scenes disputes (pp. 1-31). London: SAGE Publications.

Krusiewicz, E. S., & Wood, J. T. (2001). 'He was our child from the moment we walked in that room': Entrance stories of adoptive parents. Journal of Social & Personal Relationships, 18(6), 785.

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. (1989). Designing qualitative research. London: SAGE Publications.

McCrosky, J., & Richmond, V. (2000). Applying reciprocity and accomodation theories to supervisor/subordinate communication. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 28, 278-289.

Montgomery, B., & Baxter, L. (1998). A guide to dialectical approaches to studying personal relationships. In B. Montgomery, & L. Baxter (Eds.), Dialectical approaches to studying personal relationships (pp. 1-15). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Owen, W. (1984). Interpretive themes in relational communication. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70, 274-287.

Putnam, L., Grant, D., Hardy, C., & Oswick, C. (2004). The SAGE handbook of organizational discourseSage.


Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative analysis. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications.

Walton, R., & Dutton, J. (1969). The management of interdepartmental conflict: A model and review. Administrative Science Quarterly, 14, 73-84.

West, R., & Turner, L. H. (2003). Relational dialectics theory. Introducing communication theory: Analysis and application (pp. 221). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

managing relational dialectics in organizational ... · pdf filemanaging relational dialectics...

Documents