ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION FOR SURVIVAL: AN ANALYSIS (part 14)

Argumentativeness and Tolerance for Disagreement

by

Charles Lamson

Argumentativeness and tolerance for disagreement (Infante & Rancer, 1982).    Since these two communication traits are highly similar, we will focus here on the argumentativeness trait. An argument includes the statement of a position on an issue, and the support for that position, including reasons why alternative positions are incorrect. While some people perceive arguing to be involved with attacking other people and loud verbal exchanges, this is not the kind of communication behavior that we are considering here. The writers of this book that I am analyzing, Organizational Communication for Survival, see arguing as involving two or more people in an exchange of ideas, stating positions and providing support for those positions. If these exchanges begin to involve personal attacks rather than exchanges of positions and support, the communication has moved into the category of verbal aggression, which is discussed later in this article.

There is wide variance among people in terms of their ability to form and present strong arguments to support their views in contrast to those of others. There also is wide variance in their willingness to argue at all. The argumentative communication trait concerns both of these factors. People scoring higher in this trait generally are good at arguing and enjoy doing so. People scoring lower on this trait generally are not good at arguing and do not enjoy doing so. In the give and take of communication in organizations, being able to argue one's views is an important factor in a person's success or failure. High argumentatives are likely to have more influence in the organization. They also are more likely to misunderstand strong arguments against their ideas, if any are advanced, and perceive them as direct personal attacks, which they are not. This is likely to result in interpersonal conflict with others. Disagreement in organizations is critical to making good decisions, and finding better ways to do things. Hence, high argumentatives are likely to be much more valuable employees than those who are low in argumentativeness.

While argumentativeness is a communication trait, it also is associated with both higher extroversion and higher psychoticism, these relationships suggest that both of these traits are likely to be the result of the same brain systems.

Verbal Aggression (Infante & Wigley 1986).    Although argumentativeness and tolerance for disagreement are positive communication traits in organizations, verbal aggressiveness usually is considered to be a negative communication trait. Verbally aggressive communication behavior involves attacking the self-confidence, character, and/or intelligence of another person, in addition to to, or instead of, their position on an issue. It takes on the character of "you are a bad person," rather than "your position is a bad idea." This, of course, is very likely to lead to interpersonal conflict.

People who are low in argumentativeness are more likely to resort to this type of communication, because they are less capable of defending their own positions in arguments with others. When their ideas are attacked, they take it as a personal attack, and respond with a personal attack on the other communicator. 

Verbal aggressiveness is associated with the psychoticism temperament variable, but is not associated with either extraversion, or neuroticism. Hence, this type of behavior seems to be the product of only the brain system associated with psychoticism. People higher in psychoticism, and verbal aggressiveness traits, are likely to use verbal aggression as a strategic weapon against colleagues in the workplace. They may become verbal bullies to gain control over others. While this can be a serious problem involving any two people in an organization, it may have its most negative impact when it involves supervisors who are verbally aggressive. Those under such supervisors, may perceive that they have no way to deal with such individuals, and develop negative attitudes, not only toward that supervisor, but also toward the organization. It is also likely that people working under such supervisors will be lower in their job satisfaction and motivation to work.

END