In light of these studies though, interpersonal conflict in the workplace does not look the same in all situations or in all relationships. Depending on the nature of the relationship, interpersonal conflict can affect the workplace, the culture, the organization, and the individuals in various ways (Frone, 2000). Interpersonal communication can be difficult and to better understand conflict and how to handle it we can look at communication scholars and their work on communication between people.

Cognitive dissonance by Festinger says “the individual strives toward consistency within himself” (Festinger, 1957, p. 1). When there is unease internally due to dissonance between two contrasting ideas, Festinger says humans will work to resolve it. The idea here is that humans work towards consonance internally, so opinions and attitudes are consistent (Festinger, 1957, p. 1). However, we know that inconsistency, or dissonance, is inevitable (Festinger, 1957). When a person experiences these inconsistencies, they are motivated to reduce the cognitive dissonance by either making changes to justify the behavior, avoiding the circumstances or contradictory information that is likely to increase the dissonance, to outweigh the dissonant thought with consonant thoughts, or incorporate the dissonant thought into their current belief system.

This theory can also be applied to group settings as we know if one’s self can feel dissonance, so can different members of a group and it inevitable will produce dissonance (Festinger, 1957). The dissonances between groups can occur with different opinions between people, between group members, between an individual and the company, and more. Different opinions can be healthy for an organization, however, it can feel very uncomfortable and unsettling for the individual. 

Festinger (1957) predicts that when dissonance exists, that person will be motivated to not only reduce the dissonance but will avoid all situations and information that would increase dissonance. In the workplace, the conflicts are most likely something you cannot just avoid. Your coworker doesn't just leave the company, the group doesn't just not work together anymore, and you don't just get to choose what conflict you get to handle and not handle. However, cognitive dissonance theory helps us better understand why we feel dissonance and a need to resolve conflict. Although we cannot always avoid it, humans are known to have other ways to get back to consonance with themselves or a group.

Relational Dialectics Theory

Relational dialectics theory shines light on the tensions in interpersonal relationships and how we interact with them. Baxter and Montgomery propose that these tension in relationships are both inevitable, and necessary to relationships (Baxter & Braithwaite, 2008). Baxter and Montgomery’s relational dialectics is a “theory of the meaning-making between relationship parties that emerges from the interplay of competing discourses” (Baxter & Braithwaite, 2008, p. 349). With competing discourses being inevitable, this theory works to understand the types of discourses that come up in relationships. 

The relational dialectics theory defines a dialectical tension as “opposing needs that appear mutually exclusive but must be met simultaneously” (Jameson, 2004, 257). The most common dialectical tensions are "autonomy-connection, equality-inequality, impartiality-favoritism, judgement-acceptance, and openness-closedness" (Bridge & Baxter, 1992, p. 217). 

Autonomy is the need to separate oneself as an individual versus connection which is the desire to have ties and connections with others. Connection would be someone who would want to feel a part of the team or department at work, versus wanting to be highlighted and awarded individually for their work. Equality is the desire to be treated and considered as equals versus inequality which is the desire to develop levels of superiority. In the workplace, equality would be willing to be awarded as a group for an achievement, versus wanting rewarded individually for your contribution to the team or project. Impartiality is to strive for equitable treatment and discourage bias versus impartiality which is the desire to provide each other with special support. An example would be friends within an organization desiring to provide each other with special treatment or benefits, versus an organization striving for equitable treatment and discouraging bias. Judgement is seeing actions as what they are and potentially providing criticism versus acceptance which is taking the person for who they are without criticisms. An example of this is when one person might expect a work associate to provide sympathetic understanding and empathy when working with a friend versus work associated who find themselves in conflict or critical evaluation based on performance or competing interests. Openness is the willingness to open up and share information with high self-disclosure versus closedness which is wanting to keep to yourself and not open up about everything. An example would be when close friends can be open and honest with one another, but organizations often expect a level of confidentiality that places strain on relationships that value the sharing of information (Bridge & Baxter, 1992, p. 203).

Expectancy Violations Theory

The basic premise of Judee Burgoon's Expectancy Violations Theory is that we have “shared understandings and rules that make the joint construction of reality and action in concert possible” (Burgoon, 1993, p. 31) Due to these understandings, when these expectations are violated, the communicator sees it as a violation. The communicator can interpret this violation and attaches valence to it that defines the violation as positive or negative (Burgoon, 1993). The behavior is valenced by the communicator to be either a more positive interaction than what was predicted, or a more negative interaction than what was predicted. (Burgoon, 1993).

For example, the social norm of personal distance is something a culture has a shared understanding and rule of that allow us to form the reality that we do on a daily basis. However, a violation of this might have more positive valence associated to it if it is someone of wealthy, powerful, physically appealing members of the opposite sex versus a homeless person with bad breath. The evaluation of the violation is based upon the relationship between the behavior and the valence of the person committing the violation (Afifi & Metts, 1998).

When the action is more positive than the expected action, it is more positively valenced which is predicted to product positive interactions patters and outcomes than expected. When the behavior is more negative than the expected behavior, it is negatively valenced which is predicted to be detrimental relative to expectancy confirmation (Burgoon, 1993).

Now that we know the background of these communication theories, we can dive into some examples of workplace conflict on television to illustrate these ideas.

At the start of the clip, Wahlberg’s character is bothered by Ferrell’s character humming and smiling. We can see that there is a lot of tension. Then, Wahlberg starts to yell about how Ferrell’s character should not be as happy as he is about doing basically irrelevant work. Wahlberg then continues to walk out and come back in to tell Ferrell’s character how much he detests him. 

Throughout this entire exchange Will Ferrell remains calm in most of his responses and especially nonverbals. At the end of the clip, Ferrell responds in a calm demeanor, but with a long explanation on how Wahlberg’s plan will not work. Two of the communication theories can help us better understand what is causing this conflict and how they might be internally deciphering these interactions.

Cognitive dissonance can help us understand the internal turmoil that occurs between these individuals as they have to work in the same environment. Cognitive dissonance says that as humans we strive toward consistency or consonance within ourselves and it can also be applied to social or group settings (Festinger, 1957).

Wahlberg’s character cannot find consonance in the idea that Ferrell’s character is humming and smiling so much about a “boring, numbers job.” In hopes to find consonance in the situation he attempts to yell at Farrell’s character to get him to be the same as him at work. In theory this would alleviate the dissonance and Ferrell's character would be similar to his ideas by being bored and mad at having to be at work. 

There are a few ways that expectancy violations theory explains the interaction of the two coworkers. Burgoon says that communicators have expected rules and understandings that give us a joint construction of reality (Burgoon, 1993). These expectations were violated in this clip when Ferrell’s characters is humming and smiling about forensic accounting all day, is unphased by Wahlberg’s angry emotions, or when he responds with a logical argument to Wahlberg’s angry yelling about his plan to what he would do to him if they were in the wild. 

The nature of these interactions from Farrell were positive because he was being a nice person with kind nonverbals. However, Wahlberg was not expecting these responses at all and they increased uncertainty for his understanding of their relationship and of Farrell himself. So according to Afifi and Metts (1998) this is a negative violation that increases uncertainty according to Wahlber's character. This is why even though Farrell’s responses were positive in nature, they were negative or annoying responses to Wahlberg. These continued interactions are predicted to be detrimental to the health or effectiveness of the relationship of their communication abilities in the future.

Two of the communication theories can help us better understand what is causing this conflict and how they might be internally deciphering these interactions.

Cognitive dissonance can help us understand why Rachel kept feeling these internal needs to find consonance in the uncomfortable situations she was in. Festinger studies how we as humans strive for consistency in the ways we interact and internally (1957). These feelings may even be heightened when in professional or stressful settings such as an interview. In her hopes to be consistent with the atmosphere you act a certain way in an interview in hopes that they will like you. When the interviewer stepped to open the door and she thought he was making a pass for her to kiss him, her instinct of needing consonance in the situation could have stepped in. Festinger again reports how in times of dissonance, we will work towards consonance which is what Rachel was doing in this situation.

Expectancy violations theory can help us see this situation from both Rachel and the interviewer’s position. Burgoon reports that as a society we react to violations of the expected ways we interact in society based on rules and understandings we create collectively (Burgoon, 1993). Rachel recognizes him going in for a kiss in both interview settings as violations. From her view as the interpreter and evaluator, these experiences were negative violations that increased uncertainty. However, when she did kiss him back, she may have been hoping to decrease uncertainty as a natural response. The interview also recognizes violations, but from his point of view they are when Rachel kisses him and then when Rachel thinks he is trying to get her to kiss him or have sex with him in order to get the job. For him, these are negative violations that increase uncertainty about their relationship and the potential for this job.

At the end of the clip there is another expectancy violation which is when the man gives Rachel a chance for the job after all that happens. To Rachel, this is a positive violation that decreases uncertainty. 

There are two communication theories that can help explain this scenario better.

Relational dialectics theory seeks to understand and make sense of the tensions within interpersonal relationships which are defined as “opposing needs that appear mutually exclusive but must be met simultaneously” (Jameson, 2004, p. 257). These competing discourses are inevitable and necessary to relationships, so they inevitably find themselves in the workplace also. Chandler and his boss have a good relationship, but there is a tension of openness-closedness in their relationship. Chandler wants to be on his boss’ good side, but does not want a relationship close enough to hit each other’s butts at work to show that. However, Chandler’s boss is much more open to a more personal relationship that is more casual. This causes a tension, especially for Chandler because he does not feel comfortable with the tension.

Expectancy violations theory also explains Chandlers reactions to his boss hitting his butt at work. The expected reality of the social norms at work are to not hit people in the butt, so when it does occur Chandler is very taken back. This behavior was a negative violation to Chandler that increased uncertainty about their relationship. In the future, there would need to be more interactions to reduce uncertainty and balance out the negative violation if the relationship wanted to get back to normal or even stay a relationship in general.

Baxter, L. A., & Braithwaite, D. O. (2008). Relational dialectics theory: Crafting meaning from competing discourses. In L. A. Baxter &D. O. Braithwaite (Eds.), Engaging theories in interpersonal communication (349-361). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Bridge, K., & Baxter, L. A. (1992). Blended relationships: Friends as work associates. Western Journal of Communication, 56, 200-225. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10570319209374414

Burgoon, J. K. (1993). Interpersonal expectations, expectancy violations and emotional communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 2(1- 2), 30-48. doi: 10.1177/0261927X93121003

Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.

Frone, M. R. (2000). Interpersonal conflict at work and psychological outcomes: Testing a model amoung young workers. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5(2), 246-255. doi: 10.1037//1076-8998 5.2.246

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. doi:10.1080/10570310409374801

Kalyva, E. & Agaliotis, I. (2011). Ways of defining and resolving peer interpersonal conflict: Applications in general and special education settings.  In A. M. Columbus (Ed), Advances in Psychology Research (1-23). New York: Nova Science Publishers.

McKimmie, B. M. (2015). Cognitive dissonance in groups. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 9(4), 202-212. doi: 10.1111/spc3.12167

Myers, K. K. (2008). Workplace relationships and membership negotiation. In S. W. Smith & S. R. Wilson (Eds.), New directions in interpersonal communication research, (135-156).