managing disagreement in problem solving meeting talk

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

www.elsevier.com/locate/pragmaJournal of Pragmatics 44 (2012) 1565--1579

Managing disagreement in problem solving meeting talk

Jo Angouri *

Department of English, Linguistics and Communication, University of the West of England, Bristol, Frenchay Campus,Coldharbour Lane, Bristol BS16 1QY, United Kingdom

Received 15 January 2012; received in revised form 10 June 2012; accepted 12 June 2012

Abstract

Problem solving (PbS) talk has been associated with disagreement and conflict as interactants oppose each other's views andexpress diverse opinions. Although disagreement and conflict have been regarded in earlier work as potentially negative actsmore recentwork points to the importance of context and local practices instead of a priori categorizations of what the interactants perceive as un/acceptable linguistic behaviour. The paper draws on data from two projects on workplace discourse, one focusing on multinationalcompanies situated in Europe and one on small/medium firms (SMEs). The dataset consists of recordings of meetings, ethnographicobservations and interviews. The analysis of the data shows that ‘deviating opinions’ are not only ‘acceptable’ but also unmarked and theyform an inherent part of the PbS process. At the same time linguistic behaviour perceived as face threatening or intentionally impolite istypically rare. The paper closes by drawing a theoretical distinction betweenmarked and unmarked disagreement. The latter is perceivedas task bound and does not pose a threat to the management of the meeting participants’ complex identities and relationships.© 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Disagreement; Meeting talk; Multinationals; Small-medium enterprises

1. Introduction

Problem solving (PbS) is a key area of business activity directly related to the development of employees but alsocompanies as a whole. PbS talk has been associated with disagreement as interactants introduce, negotiate andchallenge diverse views and opinions. Disagreement is a ‘‘necessary part of the process of reaching agreement’’(Bargiela-Chiappini and Harris, 1997:193) and as such an everyday phenomenon in both everyday and workplacecontexts. Despite its frequency however, disagreement has also been seen as a negative act both in socio/linguisticresearch and other areas of scholarship (e.g. business, organization studies, organizational psychology to name but few).Often directly related to conflict, disagreement has been presented as an act that may have repercussions for theinteractants’ relationships and the overall outcome of a task oriented event such as a business meeting. This stance hasbeen problematized and researchers (e.g. Kakava, 1993) have argued that disagreement can also be the norm in differentcontexts or a highly desirable act. The two positions that have co-existed and still co-exist in the literature, disagreementas the ‘norm’ vs. disagreement as a negatively ‘marked’ act, raise important issues this paper seeks to address on theimportance of the context of the interaction and the perceived appropriateness of disagreement in workplace talk ingeneral and in PbS meetings in particular.

Disagreement was discussed in early politeness literature, with scholars suggesting that it can threaten theinterlocutors’ (positive) face (Brown and Levinson's, 1978/1987). In both Brown and Levinson's and Leech's (1983)seminal works it constitutes the direct opposite of agreement and an act to be avoided or mitigated. Disagreement has

* Tel.: +44 117 3282397.E-mail address: [email protected].

0378-2166/$ -- see front matter © 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.06.010

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03782166

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.06.010

mailto:[email protected]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.06.010

J. Angouri / Journal of Pragmatics 44 (2012) 1565--15791566

also been studied in relation to the notion of preference in influential conversation analytic work where it tends to be seenas dispreferred1 (e.g. Pomerantz, 1984).

Disagreement has been construed negatively also from a management/organization theory point of view. As put byscholars ‘‘it is almost a truism that disagreement produces conflict’’ (Kennedy and Pronin, 2008:833). Hence it is stillpresented as a potentially negative phenomenon which can escalate in intensity and reach the ‘conflict threshold’. Thislinear view aswell as the direct relationship between disagreement and conflict is reflected in definitions. As an illustration,conflict is, typically, defined as ‘‘an interactive process manifested in incompatibility, disagreement, or dissonance withinor between social entities’’ (Rahim, 2011:16). From this point of view then, disagreement as an act can result in conflictbetween the interactants, a viewpoint that suggests long term negative repercussions in the interactants’ relationship.

At the same time, sociolinguistic research (e.g. Schiffrin, 1984; Tannen, 1981) has also suggested, over 30 years ago,that disagreement can create intimacy between interlocutors. Schiffrin's influential ‘sociable argument’ concept, referringto exchanges ‘‘with the form of argument, but without the serious substance of argument’’ (1984:331) is a clear illustrationof this. And Kakava (1993, 2002) has argued that disagreement can create closeness and solidarity. This body of workhas foregrounded the importance of the context of the interaction and has shown that styles differ depending on theinterlocutors’ experiences and expectations. In the same vein, according to recent research (e.g. Georgakopoulou, 2002;Bousfield and Locher, 2008; Angouri and Tseliga, 2010) disagreement is often perceived by interlocutors as appropriate,unmarked and aligned with ‘the way things are done’ in a particular context, pointing to the importance of local practicesand norms instead of an a priori prescriptive approach to what is acceptable, allowed or potentially face/relationshipthreatening in a given interaction (Kakava, 1993, 2002).

Undoubtedly a range of factors may cause conflict between individuals or groups in the workplace or elsewhere; theview taken in this paper is that disagreement and conflict are not and should not be placed on a linear continuum withdisagreement always being the antecedent. This evidently does not mean that disagreement cannot shift to a conflictualinteraction. As Locher (2004:94) argued ‘‘the need to get one's point across without seeming self-righteous or beinginjurious can cause friction’’. Disagreement is not, however, an a priory negative act and the paper will distinguish betweenpersonal attacks and task related opposing views. Although there is a rich body of work (e.g. Mooney et al., 2007)distinguishing between the cognitive (task) and affective (emotional) facets of disagreement, the area still warrantsfurther-research from a linguistic perspective.

Against this backdrop, the aim of this paper is to focus on disagreement in face to face meeting talk in two workplaceenvironments and discuss how it is enacted locally drawing also on the meeting participants’ perceptions of itsappropriateness. Special attention is paid to the power imbalance, the enactment of local knowledge as well as thestrategies the interlocutors use to oppose each others’ views.

The paper is organized in seven sections. I start by discussing further the distinction between disagreement andconflict and then move to the characteristics of problem solving events and the meeting context. The following section isconcerned with the method and data collection procedures. In the remaining sections, the discussion turns to the mainfindings and implications for further research.

2. From disagreement to conflict

Disagreement and conflict are conceptually related but the exact relationship between them is not always explicitlydiscussed. Conflict typically entails disagreement (e.g. Choi and Cho, 2011) and has been associated with factors rangingfrom personality traits (e.g. Bono et al., 2002) to characteristics of the team such as how well the members know eachother, the size of the team and its geographical distribution among others (e.g. Hinds and Bailey, 2003). Although thesestudies have different agendas and foci,2 what is common is the emphasis on the negative implications for theparticipants.

Particularly in the workplace, since conflict has strong negative connotations, an expected reaction for senioremployees would be to have the skills to either pre-empt or manage it. Thomas (1976) identified a well known and stillinfluential typology of conflict resolution strategies which captures a range of acts as follows: (a) dominating/competing,(b) avoiding, (c) accommodating, (d) compromising, and (e) collaborating/integrating (for a review, see also Thomas,1992). These resolution styles have been widely discussed (e.g. Rahim, 1983) and applied in conflict research (e.g.Brewer et al., 2002).

However, Critical Theorists (cf. Deetz, 2003 for a discussion) remain sceptical of attempts to manage and/or quicklyresolve conflict, especially in the context of complex workplace systems, which are the focus here. By focusing on conflict

1 CA scholars have extensively discussed the concept of preference in interaction. A full discussion goes beyond the scope of this paper (seeKotthoff, 1993; Gruber, 1998).

2 A review on conflict studies goes beyond the aims of this paper and the discussion will not distinguish between different types of conflict.

J. Angouri / Journal of Pragmatics 44 (2012) 1565--1579 1567

resolution strategies, the deep causes of conflict and the power imbalance, an inherent characteristic of workplace andinstitutional settings, remain uncovered (see e.g. Solomon, 1999). Power differentials are relevant in the process of eitherholding one's views or constructing, avoiding or resolving conflict within the context of dominant discourses of harmonyand alleged flat structures in modern corporations.

As Deetz (2003:26) argues

3 I usthe sec

Organizational life could be an explicit site of political struggle as different groups openly develop and try to realizetheir own interests but the conflicts there are often routinized, evoke standard mechanisms for resolution, andreproduce presumed natural tensions (e.g., between workers and management). The essential politics thusbecome invisible.

A conflict resolution orientation also sees disagreement as a threat to powerful consensus/harmony discourses. Thevision of a ‘harmonious workplace’, which is clearly ideological (e.g. Fleming and Spicer, 2007) and unsustainable (Harréet al., 2009), has not always been associated with positive outcomes also in management/organization studies. Thenotion of ‘group think’ (Janis, 1971) is indicative of this. Groupthink is used to refer to situations where seeking consensusimpedes different views from being expressed. As Janis (1971:43) has argued, groupthink takes place when‘‘concurrence seeking becomes so dominant in a cohesive ingroup that it tends to override realistic appraisal of alternativecourses of action’’.

Disagreement, apart from being ubiquitous, has been directly associated with creativity. As put by Haggith (1993),innovative and creative ideas by definition challenge and ‘disagree’ with the current status quo. He also suggested(Haggith, 1993) that disagreement in problem solving is not only positive but a desirable characteristic of democraticdebates (see e.g. parliament discourses, Fisher, 1974). Work in management studies as early as in 1990 (Cosier andSchwenk, 1990) has associated disagreement with ‘better decisions’. This view has gained considerable acceptance instrategic decision making. De Dreu and Van de Vliert (1997) argued that encouraging disagreement can enhance theopenness of a team but also its skills and ‘capital’ (in Bourdieu's sense) in reaching ‘superior’ decisions compared toteams that accept poorer decisions without debating or introducing opposing views.

Further to this, in an attempt to free disagreement and by extension conflict from negative connotations scholars haveintroduced a range of terms that distinguish between ‘damaging’ and ‘healthy’ disagreement/conflict.3 As an illustration:‘creative conflict’ (Haggith, 1993), ‘programmed conflict’ (Cosier and Schwenk, 1990), ‘functional conflict’ (e.g. Masseyand Dawes, 2007), ‘cognitive vs. affective conflict’ (Amason and Schweiger, 1994), ‘task vs. affective conflict’ (Mortensenand Hinds, 2001) and ‘positive conflict’ among others (Tjosvold, 2008). What these terms and studies have in common isthe stance that disagreement and conflict contribute positively to problem solving and decision making in the workplace(Tjosvold et al., 2009; De Dreu et al., 2004).

At the same time, this stance raises some contradictions: ‘Conflict’ can contribute towards an overall tenseenvironment. As Schwenk (1990:436) notes, ‘‘though it improves the quality of decisions, its aversiveness may causedecision makers to perceive it as harmful and to avoid it (Schweiger et al., 1986)’’. Also a problem resolution/decisionimplementation requires the effort of all employees (including those who may have been at the receiving end of conflict)(Amason, 1996); hence if ‘conflict’ is good for the quality of the ‘decision’ but affects the relationship of the employees, thiswill inhibit the follow up stages. Finally as a sociolinguist, it is difficult to see how the analyst can draw a clear line betweenpositive or non positive conflict. Both are ideological positions as participants in ‘conflictual’ encounters will not have thesame perceptions of ‘what is going on’ and the repercussions of the event will depend on a range of contextual factors(evidently who says what, when and where in a workplace event -- and arguably elsewhere too -- is particularly importantfor the perceived ‘force’ of the utterance). From this point of view Nelson (2001) has problematized the notion of ‘positive’conflict and argues that the ‘‘the paradoxical nature of this uncommon truth about the value of conflict’’ (2001:3) stemsfrom the polysemy of the term and related ‘‘senses of competition, or dispute, or negotiation, and the like’’ (2001:4, italics inthe original). Nelson's (2001) study is particularly useful in distinguishing conflict from conceptually close but distinctphenomena, points to the terminological lack of clarity and also brings to the fore everyday meanings of terms that bearstrong negative connotations (e.g. conflict).

Against this backdrop, conflict as a technical term is understood here as negatively marked, perceived as such by theinteractants and associated with linguistic behaviour that breaches the norm and bears implications for the rapportbetween the interlocutors. Disagreement, on the other hand, is understood as ‘opposing views’ and refers to the actualphenomenon particularly in the context of a task oriented event, that of a business meeting. I do not considerdisagreement an act that always results to conflict or is inherently positive or negative, bonding or damaging to the

e the two terms here as used in the literature discussed, where one seems to be a prelude for the other. I provide working definitions later intion.


interlocutors’ rapport or beneficial (or not) to the actual/perceived outcome of ameeting. I discuss this further in the contextof problem solving meeting talk in the next section.

3. Disagreement in problem solving (PbS) talk

Work related ‘problems’ vary in seriousness and in their repercussions for companies. Although the ‘problem’ is oftentaken for granted in PbS models, defining ‘what the problem is’ can be in itself a PbS interaction as discussed elsewhere(Angouri and Bargiela-Chiappini, 2011). In other work, we defined a problem as ‘‘as a work related topic raised by anemployee and ratified as a ‘problem’ requiring further or different-to-current action’’ (Angouri and Bargiela-Chiappini,2011:3) to emphasize its dynamic nature and situate it in business practice.

PbS events are typically resolution oriented as also argued in the business literature (e.g., Cyert et al., 1956).According to De Jong (2005) approaches to PbS fall under two types: one concerned with the knowledge needed for aproblem to be solved (semantically rich vs. semantically poor problems; see also Middleton, 2002) and the other focusingon the actual process. These approaches would comfortably match the well-known ‘content vs. process’ dichotomy. Aspin-off to the content approach is a substantial body of cognitive scholarship which places problems on a continuumranging from ‘well-defined’ (Middleton, 2002) -- where the term refers to repetitive and procedurally simple problems -- to‘ill-defined’ (Dillon, 1982). The latter category refers to problems classified by the researchers as ambiguous and complexwith multiple appropriate solutions (Reiter-Palmon and Illies, 2004) and which require a collaborative effort to be solved.This often takes the form of negotiating alternative suggestions in moving towards a resolution (Ehlich andWagner, 1995;Francis, 1995).

Although PbS typologies attempt to capture the complexity of the process (and often aim to make research relevant inthe form of practical skills for managers and employees), sociolinguistic research (e.g. Atkinson, 1999) has shown thelimitations of reducing PbS to a step by step process as well as the prescriptive nature of decontextualized classifications.What is relevant for this paper is the interactional complexity of PbS and particularly how employees raise and negotiatealternative courses of action and dissonant views in a meeting they perceive as having a PbS function. In this context,opposing views are an inherent characteristic and hence unmarked (for a full discussion see Angouri and Bargiela-Chiappini, 2011). Deviating opinions are not only ‘acceptable’ but construct a meeting as a PbS interaction.

Evidently the roles of the participants in the company are central for unpacking the dynamics of handling divergentviews as they unfold in the context of PbS events. The way participants construct their roles, status and, as part of theprocess, hold their views and/or suggest courses of action for solving ‘problems’ is directly related to the perceived powerbalance. Power is not a straightforward concept (Dwyer, 2003; Holmes and Stubbe, 2003; Locher, 2004) but the roles theinteractants perform and their status in the temporary context of the meeting event (and outside of it) are foregrounded inboth initiating and negotiating opposing views. This is further elaborated next in relation to the characteristics of themeeting event.

4. The ‘meeting’

Meetings are key events in the life of any small or large firm. Their frequency and significance for decision making andproblem solving but also for the overall smooth running of any organization is agreed upon (see e.g. Bargiela-Chiappiniand Harris, 1997; Holmes and Stubbe, 2003; Angouri and Marra, 2011a) and frequently discussed in business reviewsand publications addressed to managers (e.g. Streibel, 2002; Rogelberg et al., 2007). The ‘meeting’ also constitutes afocal interactional site in which the organization's norms and practices are negotiated and co-constructed amongemployees. Hence it has also attracted the attention of sociolinguistic workplace research and this is reflected in thegrowing number of publications in recent years (see e.g. Locher, 2004; Asmuß and Svennevig, 2009; Angouri and Marra,2011b).

The way meetings are run and issues are raised and debated is directly related to the norms of each workplace, theroles and relationships of the speakers and their past histories. This is particularly relevant to whether and how opposingviews are voiced. In most workplaces employees need to work together intensively and collaboratively and good workingrelationships are clearly important (see Holmes and Stubbe, 2003). Recent research on relational work defined as ‘‘thework people invest in negotiating their relationships in interaction’’ (Locher and Watts, 2008:78; Locher, 2004:90; Watts,2003) provides a useful conceptual framework for shedding light on a situated understanding of in/appropriate linguisticbehaviour (see also relational practice, Holmes and Marra, 2004; rapport management, Spencer-Oatey, 2005). Theconcept of relational work encompasses ‘‘the entire spectrum of the interpersonal side of social practice’’ (Locher andWatts, 2008:78). The suggested framework shows a continuum ranging from appropriate to inappropriate behaviourbased on judgments the interlocutors make. These judgments however are dynamic in nature and change over time.While ‘‘participants enter verbal interaction in a specific social situation with a knowledge gained from previous


experiences about what forms of social behaviour are appropriate and inappropriate to that type of situation’’ (Watts,2003:144), these norms are constantly negotiated between the interactants.

Although this is evidently relevant to any workplace environment, it is particularly important in the context of establishedteams, which, over time, have often developed a tight set of practices. Personal relationships and interactional historiesbetween employees and managers constitute part of the teams’ shared/background knowledge (see also Young andDaniel, 2003). These practices are not static and come to scrutiny by the employees particularly in the context of themeeting event. As an example even in workplaces where disagreement is the norm, the local context of the interaction willdetermine whether the participants perceive a certain linguistic behaviour as un/acceptable. I return to this point later in thelight of the data.

5. Method and data

This paper draws onmeeting data from two different workplaces, a consortium of threemultinational (MNC) companies(Pegasus)4 involved in a heavy construction project and a small-medium (SME) retail firm (Orion). The specific activities ofthe companies are not relevant and will not be discussed to protect their identity. The companies’ lingua franca is English.Although MNC and SMEs differ not only in size but also in the way they are structured, the macro details of the businessenvironment go beyond the interest of this paper (see Angouri and Angelidou, in press) which draws on data from twoestablished teams in the two workplaces.5

The excerpts are drawn from interactions between established ‘in-house’ teams and second parties. The second partyin both cases has a contractual relationship with the company and a working relationship with the other meetingparticipants for a minimum of two years but also holds an external role. The excerpts were chosen because of theinteractional complexity of managing disagreement in a context where internal and external roles and loyalties comeunder scrutiny.

The data discussed here are drawn from a corpus of over 45 h of recorded data. The paper draws on twomeetings onein each of the two companies discussed. The real life data are collected by the participants themselves following a ‘hands-off’ approach whereby the participants are in control of the data collection process (Holmes and Stubbe, 2003). Theanalysis takes an interactional sociolinguistics informed approach. In addition to the recordings, ethnographicobservations and interviews with key participants are collected in an ongoing process and when/where possibleshadowing is also incorporated in the design (see also Angouri, 2010). Interview data with two employees, Phil and Celia(Pegasus andOrion respectively), are briefly discussed in this paper. The project participants become co-researchers andthey feed back in the analysis which is particularly important given the inherent limitations researchers face in studyingworkplace talk. As Sarangi (2002:7) argued, local knowledge is ‘‘well guarded and may not be made accessible toresearchers perceived as outsiders’’. Although this could apply to other research contexts too, because of the nature ofthe data and the thorny issues of protecting identity and confidentiality, local knowledge may not be made available to theresearcher even in longitudinal ethnographic projects.

6. Managing disagreement at work

In the context of the meeting event, the participants negotiate the organization's norms and practices in an ongoingprocess. This is enacted in relation to the individuals’ subjective realities, perceptions of their role and the roles of others.In a PbS context, this affects whether participants will see an ‘issue’ as a problem and the way they tackle it. As Gumperz(1992:303) argued, ‘‘interpretation of what a speaker wants to convey at any one point rests on socially constructedknowledge of what the encounter is about and what is to be achieved’’.

The following two excerpts draw on a meeting between an established team of five employees from Pegasus andGarry, who has taken on part of the works as a subcontractor. It is a meeting the participants perceived as related to anagreed problem, that of Garry not delivering to deadlines, and hence delaying the whole project. The meeting is held atPegasus’ offices in a dedicated meeting space.

In excerpt 1, Sam has called and is chairing the meeting. His role as a senior manager and meeting controller isevident. He introduces the agenda which has been circulated prior to the meeting and controls the floor throughout. There

4 All names in the text are pseudonyms.5 The selected excerpts represent the phenomena discussed here in relation to disagreement and the negotiation of norms. I do not discuss

‘cultural differences’ as I take the view that culture is an abstract construct and not a variable that can be used to either explain or predict theparticipants’ linguistic or other behaviour (Angouri and Glynos, 2009; Sarangi, 1994). Accordingly, I do not refer to the participants’ nationalitiesand I consider the construction of the participant's identities a complex process enacted and negotiated in discourse rather than a priori categoriesthat can be superimposed by the researcher. A further discussion goes beyond the scope of this paper.


is explicit disagreement between the two parties and the Pegasus’ team seems to be verymuch in agreement as to ‘whoseproblem it is’ to deliver. Sam in his initial turn (lines 1--5) performs a series of moves where he frames the meeting ashaving a ‘problem solving’ function, raises the problem (line 2 you have several complaints) from Garry's side and theconsortium's complaints (non delivery).

Excerpt 1.6 A formal meeting between a Pegasus’ team and the subcontractor responsible for part of the works. Sam is asenior regional manager and is chairing the meeting. There are six people in the room.[TD$INLINE]

Sam

GarrySam

GarryKevin

PhilSam

Garry

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

we are here with paul right to resolve some of the issues right i know you have several complaints right about the amounts right ((financial details

omitted)) for example i know there is an issue right about the ((deadline details)) ri[ght ] [that w]as= =wait and listen to me right (.) for example for the wood planks in the stack right in the contract right it states that it is your responsibility right ((details))(.)it’s in the cont[ract ]

[no it]’s n [ot ] [it is] in the contract

it’s in the contr[act ] [it ] is in the contract but i can understand right the loss in ((details)) so i am wil[ling to pay an amount] [what about the amount] the ((details)) (.) isa lot of money[…]

Although the repetition of right throughout is consistent to Sam's idiolect and mitigates the force of his utterances,Sam does not allow Garry to take the floor (line 7) and brings up the issue of the contractual responsibilities of the twoparties. There is a clear power negotiation between the interactants, indicated by Sam's utterance wait and listen tome (line 7) and Garry allows Sam to take the floor back until the point where Sam ‘lists’ Garry's responsibilities. Theuse of the first person singular pronouns (e.g. lines 2, 17, 18) indicates Sam's senior position as he has the authorityto clarify budgets and commit the consortium to any agreement. Even though two opposing views are ‘on the table’,the event is a ‘resolution’ oriented one which is typical for PbS interactions (Holmes and Stubbe, 2003; Angouri andBargiela-Chiappini, 2011). The issue here is that each day's delay involves costs to the consortium and this can alsoexplain the team's determination to solve the ‘problem’. Despite Sam's clear power enactment, his utterances (line 16onwards) where he attempts to ‘put himself in Garry's shoes’ can also be read as an indication of rapport work in theprocess of this dynamic negotiation between the two parties (see also Wodak et al., 2011 on the discursive strategiesleaders use; Putnam, 1994; Amason and Schweiger, 1994). At the same time Garry resists Sam's argumentation butunsuccessfully as his argument wood planks are not in the contract (as reported by Sam, lines 8--9) seems to befactually erroneous.

The protagonists in this meeting are Sam and Garry. They both enact their roles as simultaneously belonging to thesame project team (in Pegasus) but Garry, as a sub-contractor, also represents his own company, doing part of the worksfor Pegasus. The other participants do not intervene, but form a strong alliance with Sam (e.g. emphasis on it is in thecontract, lines 11--16) and the explicit agreement among the Pegasus team influences the style of interaction. Theinfluence of third parties has been discussed in linguistic research long ago (Goffman, 1976, 1981; Bell, 1984) and in the

6 The excerpt has been edited because of space limitations and sensitive information discussed. For transcription conventions see Appendix A.


case of the meeting event the participants are clearly more actively involved than bystanders even when they do notcontribute directly (e.g. this episode, excerpt 2; see also Kangasharju, 2002 on alliances in meeting talk).

In line 19 Garry seems to accept Sam's argumentation and instead of debating further the issue of whether it is in hisremit to work on the wood planks or not, he focuses on the negotiation of the revised budget. Although there is explicitdisagreement in this excerpt and the key (in a Hymesian sense) is argumentative, both parties are task oriented and fromthe analyses nobody seems to perceive the interactions as rapport threatening.

As Phil suggested in a post analysis interview:

Phil-

7 In linnegotiati(Dannere

‘‘We found an acceptable solution here (.) I believe we were right but he has his own agenda hmm wellunderstandable [. . .]

Jo-
hmh sorted now? Phil- Yea till next time ((laughter)) (.) but yes the problemwas pretty serious but then again different sides different views
it's always like that and of course takes ages to go through things [. . .]’’

It is particularly important that Phil constructs the disagreement as part of the ‘normal’ life of the project as indicatedelsewhere in the post analysis interview (‘‘there are always issues to sort out with the subcontractors (.) and with ((Garry))at least we know each other we’ve been working together for ((details))’’). Nothing in the data collected around thatmeeting indicated that the parties involved responded to or perceived the disagreement as having a long term negativeeffect.

The negotiation of the two points of view7 continues in excerpt 2, which is taken from the same meeting. Havingreached an agreement on increasing the budget, the meeting focuses on the time schedule as there has been a delay inthe project already. Sam continues holding the meeting's controller role and heavily regulates the floor (see for examplespeaker selection line 12).

Excerpt 2. In the same (as in excerpt 1) formal meeting the team discusses a revised time schedule. Paul, CEO, and Sam,regional manager, negotiate Garry's exigencies and Sam ratifies the decisions.

[TD$INLINE]

SamGarry

PaulSam

GarryPaul

GarrySam

Paul

Sam

1234567891011121314151617181920

are you confident you can do itif the weather is good (.) and if ((the company)) (.) assists me [(.) i can do it]

[we always assi[st you ][what kind o]f assistance

do you meanfor example crane[s (.) ]

[you alrea]dy have the ((details)) crane and the ((details)) one will be ready within [the day ]

[ok then ]paul is there anything you need to clarify((provides details))yes (.) as we discussed earlier we think that (.) in order uhm to speed up the works and not leave the rest of the project (.) behind (.) you need uhm to have more workers (.) uhm one more ((details)) operator (.)at least one fore[man ]

[certai]nly you need mo[re people ]

e with other work in negotiation talk (e.g. Ehlich and Wagner, 1995; Weigand and Dascal, 2001) I distinguish between businessons (e.g. between two parties that are not already in a partnership) and negotiating as part of the argumentation process in business talkr, 2001).


[TD$INLINE]

Garry

30313233

you right as a partner in this project right ((financial details)) upon completion of ((details)) to the date you agreed rightcorrect

Garry

Paul

Phil

Sam

212223242526272829

[if i find ] I need more people (.) i will bring more people=

=and of course now (.) and in the future (.) since your work is at heights (.) to take care of safety (.) so [helmets ]

[of course ]garry you need helmets (.)safety boots (.) safety belts (.) stable scaffolding(.) clear walkways ((details))ok so let’s summarize right we are willing to give

The local knowledge is particularly relevant here; as Phil suggested in the post analysis interview ‘‘Paul was the onewho had the main issue with Garry delaying us and he was not happy at all when he came to the meeting’’. In the sameinterview, Sam is constructed by Phil as holding the prime problem solver temporary role. This is directly relevant to hissenior status in the company and his role as regional manager (to be held accountable for any delays to the overallschedule agreed with the stakeholder) and expertise in finance. It is also consistent with the way Sam is handling themeeting floor and his overall performance.

Sam explicitly asks for agreement on the new schedule (line 1). In the local context this question could be related toGarry's previous delays with the schedule and hence has connotations of accountability and, arguably, indirect referenceis made to the delay which is the reason of the meeting discussed here. Garry responds cautiously, and possiblydefensively, and identifies two conditions under which he can meet the deadline and provides the agreement (if theweather is good and the company assists me). He draws on a twofold argumentation (e.g. Grasso et al., 2000), anaccepted ‘truth’ for the site (no works in adverse weather conditions) but also an underlying criticism and accountabilitysharing (the consortium does not always assist and hence commitment is not possible). Providing, as well as defending/rejecting justifications is part of argumentation processes which are central in discussing opposing views (see also Potter,1996). Paul in his role as the CEO responds directly to the latter (line 4 we always assist you) and by doing so rejects theimplication that ‘non assistance’ is a legitimate claim for further delays. Garry's utterance (line 3) may also be read ashaving an emotional appeal (e.g. Samra-Fredericks, 2004) on the difficulties involved in meeting the tight deadlines,8

which however does not seem to move the participants, and Paul's response constructs Pegasus in general and the teamin particular as supportive (line 4).

Sam possibly pre-empts Paul's cue (note emphasis on always, line 4) as a diversion which could lead to personalconfrontation over past histories, instead of a future/resolution oriented interaction, which Samhas encouraged. Hence hemoves on to clarify with Garry the content of the required assistance (line 5). In the brief negotiation that follows, Paul(lines 8--9) rejects Garry's claim for more help confirming that the cranes are already in place. Line 11 is significant as thereis explicit agreement from Garry for the first time in the four hour long meeting.

Sam and Paul form a strong alliance in the rest of the excerpt. Paul (line 14) takes the floor and repeats the ‘agreed’presumptions (not leave the project behind) and the choice of pronouns is significant to this effect (we think . . . you need).Paul and Sam set the conditions and Garry's attempt to intersect (line 21) seems to go unnoticed by the two seniormanagers. As Phil suggested in the post analysis interview ‘‘Garry got a bit defensive here but he knew he would have todo as he was told at this stage’’.

The power imbalance is clear with the consortium having projected ‘terms and conditions’ which are not presented asopen to negotiation. This is reflected on the way the senior managers handle the closing of the meeting. Following Paul'sframing (lines 14--18), where he presents what we think as what needs to be done to achieve the set deadlines, the twomanagers put forward a ‘to do list’ for Garry. This is supported by Phil (line 26) in his role as safety engineer. Phil aligns withSam and Paul and in a long turn he goes through the safety requirements which presumably are locally known to all the

8 The role of emotions in business negotiations has attracted interest in studies on organization behaviour (e.g. Morris and Keltner, 2000) butremains under researched from a linguistic perspective (see also Locher and Langlotz, this issue).


participants. Garry does not claim the floor and does not challenge any of the other meeting participants. Sam resumes hisrole (line 29) and summarizes the two focal points of this untypically long meeting, the revised budget and the new agreeddeadlines.

The negotiation of the two sides’ views was intense but the outcome was deemed as ‘positive’. Both sides seemedsatisfied, Garry with the revised budget and Pegasus with the new schedule (see also Phil's interview quote). This is in linewith the ethnographic data showing that themeeting was perceived as ‘successful’ by the participants and this view is alsosupported by the final agreement between them. Problem solving events however do not always reach a resolution stage.This is the case in the third excerpt.

7. It's not personal

Everyday understandings of phenomena/terminology and academic analyses are not always aligned as the richbody of work on politeness theory has suggested. The difference between first (every day) and second (academic)order understandings has been foregrounded in research (e.g. Watts, 2003; Locher, 2004; Daly et al., 2004;Angouri and Tseliga, 2010). The view taken in this paper is that second order analyses are crucial for ourunderstanding of complex phenomena but these analyses need not to lose sight of non-academic discourses aroundthe same issues.

From this point of view, in both corpora, from which the two meetings are drawn, opposing views are more thenorm than the exception. However, the employees distinguish between disagreement and conflict which stands for ‘‘arow or a massive fall out’’ in Phil's words: ‘‘You spend a minimum of 11 hours a day with these people for for uhh acouple of years (.) it's uhhh make or break if you can’t disagree without making it personal then it's not for you((referring to one's job))’’. The importance of maintaining good working relationship is in line with what other researchhas suggested (Holmes and Stubbe, 2003) and employees in my datasets also put considerable effort into relationalwork.

In the meeting below, Rob (Orion's director) is responding forcefully to a demand for extra stock issued by one ofOrion's franchise stores (of which Mike is the director). The issue here is that the franchise stores seem to putconsiderable pressure on the headquarters (HQ) by asking for unexpected supplies. In line with literature on smallmedium enterprises (SMEs; e.g. Matley, 1999), Rob, as the director of the company, plays a key role in decision-makingand problem solving interactions (Angouri and Angelidou, in press). In this meeting Mike's request for an extra 40‘Volcanoes’ causes Rob to forcefully disagree to him being positioned (Davies and Harré, 1990) as responsible forproviding the products.

Excerpt 3. The Orion team (Rob, Sara, Nick and Celia) in an informal meeting with a franchisee (Mike); in this excerpt,they discuss the issue of orders and stocks in the headquarters’ warehouse. There are five people in the room.

[TD$INLINE]

Mike

RobMike

Rob

MikeRob

MikeRob

123456789101112

[…] i will definitely need a few volcanos ((product pseudonym)) i never said i will give you volcanos i ll definitely need a few can’t do without for this one ((recent big order details)) yes but look here we need to plan ahead and i am not only talking to you now but to all the shops […]it’s a new product

no it’s not after all these year it’snot [new ]

[haven’t] used volcanos before this for me [was ][you ]

Mike

13141516

have ((details)) the point though here is to stock up what we need in advance=

=when you haven’t worked with the product you are reserved you don’t wanna order=


[TD$INLINE]

Rob

Mike

Rob

Mike

Rob

MikeRob

MikeSara

Nick

Rob

Sara

RobMikeRobMikeRobMike

171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243444546

=yes butyou have to

and if a big order comes up after we order our stock then what we [turn it down ]

[when the order comes up] you say rob i need 40 volcanos but can’t afford them

ok iagree don’t get upset=

=no no ((you could say)) stock some extra ‘volcanos’ in your warehouse and if i need more i’ll let you know

that was never an option==you are

not serious now right yes wait we didn’t discuss this

well if it was something you did want to discuss why didn’t you say

hang on a sec here we never heard a thing from you on what rob says

you didn’t look for alternatives=

=you know what the problem is mike (.) you all wait from us to solve all problems (.) well you also need to pull your weight right (.)you seem to be under the [impression ]

[ok you are ]in the right it’s not a matter of right or wrong i am afraid very simply you are right we didn’t think of it then(.)don’t think I am only talking to you=

=no problem

[TD$INLINE]

RobNickMikeSaraRob

Mike

4748495051525354555657

no i need to make clear it’s not personal nothing personal

really it’s ok ((laughter))it’s not personal=

=it’s not personal it’s a complaint ihave for all ((the franchisees)) and it’s not fair you don’t give me the orders in time and then if i run out i have to hear all the rant ((imitates))can’t work (.)losing orders but hang on a sec (.)you are right robert this is not fair on you and frommy end we totally understand the issue

The key (in a Hymesian sense) is confrontational and Mike ‘resists’ accountability until line 42 on the following twogrounds: (a) it is a new product and (b) the franchise stores did not know they could use the company's main warehouse.This reflects two classical argumentation strategies (see also Reisigl and Wodak, 2001): (a) Mike draws on logic to


support his viewswhich are presented as a general truth (when oneworks with a new product one needs to be careful) and(b) he claims lack of information, which can be read as a criticism to the HQ's communication policy. Both arguments arerejected by Rob who reacts strongly and expresses disbelief in what Mike says but in doing so may also personallyundermine Mike (you are not serious, line 30). Risking personal offense is very rare in my datasets in disagreementcontexts when the perlocutionary uptake indicates that an utterance was not understood as constructing solidaritybetween the speakers.

This is a fast paced meeting as evidenced by the continuous latching and interruptions (e.g. lines 10, 11, 12, 14,15). Rob is chairing the meeting and this excerpt is a diversion from the main agenda which is concerned with Orion'sfuture planning and marketing. Rob is enacting his role as the company's director and raises a problem/complaint(see also Daly et al., 2004), which he addresses to all shops (line 7) but only Mike is present. The two opposingviews draw on a pattern where Mike rejects accountability for having to have planned forward and Rob raises amutlifaceted complaint according to which: the shops do not order what they need, they are conservative in theirorders and rely heavily on the mother company. As a result of this reasoning the shops (and Mike) are presented asnot pulling their weight (line 40). The last part of the argument is a generic complaint which is supported by the othertwo senior Orion HQ's members, Sara and Nick who align with Rob (Kangasharju, 2002) later in the meeting (e.g.lines 34--40).

Local knowledge is again important as Mike has been working with Rob and Sara for 5 years. What the analysesof the data shows is that long histories often provide solid grounds for more forceful exchange of dissonant views(Myers, 2004). As Celia (the communication department director/meeting participant not featuring in the excerpt)noted ‘‘((Mike)) works very well with us (.) he is one of the best stores (.) clearly valued never had any issues but it sohappened and the timing wasn’t great for Rob ((because of other stores demanding products from the HQ)). Thealignment between Rob, Sara and Nick shows (as in excerpts 1 and 2) a strong team identity for Orion's HQ. At thesame time, Mike is in the interactionaly complex position of juggling his roles as: belonging to the Orion wider team,having a long history with the HQ team members but also rejecting the projected criticism on his/his team'sperformance and hence defending his own local team. In this particular context there seems to be a tension betweenthese roles.

As the interaction unfolds two interesting moves are noted: Mike responds to Rob getting upset (lines 23, 24) and heis quick to offer agreement. And from lines 45 onwards Rob and the HQ team try to persuade Mike that their reactionsare not personal. From Mike's side, his early move to accept Rob's claims (line 23) seems to have aggravated Rob'sreaction (see also in lines 25, 43). Both the directive don’t get upset (line 24) and accepting Rob to be in the right (line42) may have been seen by the Orion core team as patronizing given Rob's role and this could explain Rob's strongreaction (line 25, no no).

At the same time, Orion is also very sensitive to manage Mike's face needs. Although Mike explicitly agrees (lines 42,46, 49), the HQ team repeat the non personal intentions and by doing so they re-align with Rob. As Celia notes during herpost interview ‘‘Nobody would want for Mike to think this is about him (.) Rob wanted all the shops to plan ahead (.) I thinkhe knew it was unfair for Mike only ((to be at the receiving end))’’.

The diversion ends with Mike accepting Rob's position. His role as the director of one of the franchise stores becomesvisible (the use of pronouns is again interesting here where Mike's first person plural pronoun indicates that the shopagrees (we totally understand, line 57)). Rob framed the interaction as not being addressed to Mike, a move that isrepeated towards the end in an attempt to ‘defocalise’ the event; a strategy that has also been associated with facework(e.g. Nevala, 2010). Rob's attempt to distinguish between their disagreement on how to handle orders and maintaining agood rapport is evident.

Mike closes the episode with an explicit agreement where he repeats that Rob is right but provides a longer justificationwhich is then accepted. Although this meeting was perceived as having a positive outcome, nothing was solved, but theissue, originally not on the agenda, was agreed as a problem between the two parties (and recycled in later meetings).This illustrates the dynamic nature of PbS where a work related ‘issue’ may lead and trigger other nested or past‘problems’ in a snowball effect.

Overall, this is one of the few excerpts in my datasets where explicit reference is made to disagreement not beingpersonal. Meeting participants draw on a range of linguistic strategies to manage rapport and to signal their intendedperlocutions to their co-workers (which do not always need to include explicit references as is the case here). What isimportant to note is that the employees seem to draw a distinction between personal attacks and task related opposingviews (Holmes, 2006) and pay attention to the relational needs of their co-workers.9 I discuss this further in the last sectionof the paper.

9 This is not to question the value of good relationships in other contexts of human activity too.


8. Disagreement revisited

The analyses of the datasets show that the way disagreement is enacted is related to the specific interactional contextand the wider professional and sociocultural order (Gee, 2005). The relational histories of the participants, purpose of theevent, local knowledge and power im/balance affect if not determine the way in which opposing views are expressed.Evidently these aspects of the participants’ habitus (in Bourdieu's sense) are not static but renegotiated and co-constructed within the political context of each interaction. The role and status of each participant in their professionalcontext in general and the meeting event in particular, as well as self characteristics (e.g. Rob seems to favour anargumentative style of interaction throughout the whole corpus) are both relevant but also part of the local knowledge ofthe participants when judging specific linguistic behaviours as un/acceptable. The meeting participants renegotiate theboundaries of politic behaviour (Locher, 2004) and they do so by drawing on anchored positions and local knowledgeoutside the temporary context of the meeting event (e.g. unmitigated disagreement is the norm in both workplacesdiscussed here; Sam and Paul in the first excerpt socialize outside work as the ethnographic data suggest; Rob and Mikeare also seen as good work colleagues and so on). As these teams have worked together for quite some time theinterlocutors have developed specific interactional norms that distinguish them from other communities (also Wenger,1998 on Communities of Practice) and which influence the way they express views in the meeting context.

Furthermore, the very nature of the issue (and whether it is perceived as a problem by the participants) is also central.In the first meeting where the ‘problem’ was agreed and time was of the essence, all meeting participants were resolutionoriented. The nature of Rob's ‘complaint’ and the direct relationship between ordering practices and Orion's structureaffects how the disagreement unfolds. In line with other literature (Spence, 2004) the distribution of responsibilities in smallfirms is often not as regularized as in their larger counterparts and accordingly a renegotiation of ‘whose responsibility iswhat’ is more frequent.

Although commonsensically many would agree that controversial topics arouse strong emotions (see also Langlotzand Locher, this volume) and may lead to conflict which can affect the relationship of the interlocutors, what constitute acontroversial topic in a workplace context is less predictable for the researcher given our lack of knowledge of the habitusof the participants. Despite the context specific nature of the interactions however, the employees show a preferencetowards task rather than person oriented argumentation (Jacobs, 2002) and avoid referring to personal qualities (cf. Robin excerpt 3 line 29) or personality traits. Although opposing views are common, direct confrontation leading to conflict isoverall avoided in all my datasets and the participants seem to repair or preempt conflict potential (see e.g. Sam's reactionto Paul's turn in excerpt 2 line 4).

Further to this, the participants in interview/observation data avoid terms such as confrontation/argument/conflict anddraw a clear line around disagreement as a ‘normal part of the work’ typically referred to ‘different views/ideas’. Not losingsight of the everyday understanding of terms is, in my view, important and why terms such as ‘positive conflict’ (or otherattributes bearing positive connotations) can be conceptually difficult to sustain. At the same time ‘disagreement’ alsobears negative connotations (though to a lesser extent than conflict) and the juxtaposition of the phenomenon andfunction of the speakers’ utterances (e.g. ‘positive disagreement’) can be problematic in studying how the speakersinitiate, hold or debate and change their views in the meeting context. Against this backdrop, I would favour the use of theterms ‘opposing views’ and ‘deviating opinions’ so that the actual phenomenon can be studied free of any negativeconnotations on the speakers’ intentions.

Overall, in the context of powerful discourses which place emphasis on the ideals of efficiency and harmony,disagreement has often suffered from being represented as a negative act in the workplace. As it brings the status quo intoscrutiny, disagreement has been open to classifications as impolite, aggressive, conflictual and hence bearing rapportimplications for the interactants. What the analysis of the data suggests however is that it is a common daily reality andpractice for the employees. ‘Deviating opinions’ are not only ‘acceptable’ but also typically form an inherent part of anynegotiation process (Ehlich and Wagner, 1995) and task oriented event (such as a PbS meeting where the participantsoppose their views and opinions). The way these deviating opinions are enacted is influenced by a range of contextualfactors as discussed earlier in the paper. Hence a case can be made for repositioning disagreement and distinguishingbetween marked and unmarked linguistic behaviour (see also Sifianou, this issue). I consider ‘marked’ the linguisticbehaviour that is reacted to/sanctioned by at least some of the interactants as breaking the norms of what is perceived asappropriate or ‘politic’ in their local and wider professional context. As an illustration strong argumentation practices inOrion are unmarked and the norm for the core members of the team. At the same time, however, personal attacks andconfrontation (e.g. enacted through labeling/name-calling, irony or sarcasm, accusations and so on) is avoided, seen asmarked across the whole corpus and perceived as bearing implications for the rapport between team members.

To conclude, within the increasingly complex modern workplace, further studies on how participants introduce/negotiate opposing views in their daily life at work are necessary and can feed back into the theoretical work on thecomplex relationship between disagreement, accepted/appropriate linguistic behaviour and business practice.


Appendix A. Transcription conventions

All names used in extracts are pseudonyms. Line divisions are intended to support understanding and typicallyrepresent sense unit boundaries. There has been minor editing for reasons of space and ease of reading.

[
Left square brackets indicate a point of overlap onset. ] Right square brackets indicate a point at which two overlapping utterances both end, where one ends while the
other continues, or simultaneous moments in overlaps which continue.
= Equal signs indicate continuous utterance with no break or pause and/or latch. (.) A dot in parentheses indicates an unmarked/short pause. " # The up and down arrows mark rises or falls in pitch. ((NOTES)) Double parentheses are used to indicate transcriber's comments. emphasis Underlining is used to indicate some form of stress or emphasis.
References

Amason, Allen, 1996. Distinguishing the effect of functional and dysfunctional conflict on strategic decision making: resolving a paradox for topmanagement teams. Academy of Management Journal 39, 123--148.

Amason, Allen, Schweiger, David, 1994. Resolving the paradox of conflict, strategic decision making and organizational performance.International Journal of Conflict Management 5, 239--253.

Angouri, Jo, 2010. Quantitative qualitative or both? Combining methods in linguistic research. In: Litosseliti, L. (Ed.), Research Methods inLinguistics. Continuum, London, pp. 29--49.

Angouri, Jo, Angelidou, Evi. Managing the director's views; Personal and Professional identities in action. In: Mada, S., Saftoiu, R., Gheorghe, M.(Eds), Professional Communication Across Languages and Cultures. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, in press.

Angouri, Jo, Bargiela-Chiappini, Francesca, 2011. ‘So what problems bother you and you are not speeding up your work?’ Problem solving talk atwork. Discourse & Communication 5 (3), 209--229.

Angouri, Jo, Glynos, Jason, 2009. Managing cultural difference and struggle in the context of the multinational corporate workplace: solution orsymptom. Working Papers in Ideology and Discourse Analysis, 26. Available from: http://www.essex.ac.uk/idaworld/paper261209.pdf.

Angouri, Jo, Marra, Meredith (Eds.), 2011a. Constructing Identities at Work. Palgrave, Basingstoke.Angouri, Jo, Marra, Meredith, 2011b. Corporate meetings as genre: a study of the role of the chair in corporate meeting talk. Text and Talk 30 (6),

615--636.Angouri, Jo, Tseliga, Theodora, 2010. ‘You have no idea what you are talking about’: from e-disagreement to e-impoliteness in two online fora.

Journal of Politeness Research 6 (1), 57--82.Asmuß, Birte, Svennevig, Jan, 2009. Meeting talk -- an introduction. Journal of Business Communication 46, 3--22.Atkinson, Paul, 1999. Medical discourse evidentiality and the construction of professional responsibility. In: Sarangi, S., Roberts, C. (Eds.), Talk,

Work and Institutional Order: Discourse in Medical, Mediation and Management Settings. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 75--109.Bargiela-Chiappini, Francesca, Harris, Sandra, 1997. Managing Language: The Discourse of Corporate Meetings. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.Bell, Allan, 1984. Language style as audience design. Language in Society 13, 145--204.Bono, Joyce, Boles, Terry L., Judge, Timothy A., Lauver, Kristy J., 2002. The role of personality in task and relationship conflict. Journal of

Personality 70 (3), 311--344.Bousfield, Derek, Locher, Miriam A. (Eds.), 2008. Impoliteness in Language: Studies on its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice

(Language, Power & Social Process). Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.Brewer, Neil, Mitchell, Patricia, Weber, Nathan, 2002. Gender role, organizational status, and conflict management styles. The International

Journal of Conflict Management 13 (1), 78--94.Brown, Penelope, Levinson, Stephen, 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Choi, Kyoosang, Cho, Bongsoon, 2011. Competing hypotheses analyses of the associations between group task conflict and group relationship

conflict. Journal of Organizational Behavior 32, 1106--1126.Cosier, Richard, Schwenk, Charles, 1990. Agreement and thinking alike: ingredients for poor decisions. Executive 4 (1), 69--74.Cyert, Richard, Herbert, Simon, Donald Trow, 1956. Observation of a business decision. Journal of Business 29, 237--248.Daly, Nicola, Holmes, Janet, Newton, Jonathan, Stubbe, Maria, 2004. Expletives as solidarity signals in FTAs on the factory floor. Journal of

Pragmatics 36 (5), 945--964.Dannerer, Monika, 2001. Negotiation in business meetings. In: Weigand, E., Dascal, M. (Eds.), Negotiation and Power in Dialogic Interaction.

Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 91--106.Davies, Bronwyn, Harré, Rom, 1990. Positioning: the discursive production of selves. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 20 (1), 44--63.De Dreu, Carsten, Van de Vliert, Evert, 1997. Using Conflict in Organizations. Sage, London.De Dreu, Carsten, Van Dierendonck, Dirk, Dijkstra, Maria, 2004. Conflict at work and individual well-being. International Journal of Conflict

Management 15 (1), 6--26.De Jong, Ton, 2005. Problem-Solving Methodologies. Encyclopedia of Social Measurement. Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 171--177.Deetz, Stanley, 2003. Disciplinary power conflict suppression and human resource management. In: Alvesson, M., Willmott, H. (Eds.), Studying

Management Critically. Sage, London, pp. 23--45.Dillon, James T., 1982. Problem finding and solving. Journal of Creative Behavior 16, 97--111.Dwyer, Judith, 2003. The Business Communication Handbook, 6th ed. Pearson Education, Frenchs Forest, N.S.W..Ehlich, Konrad, Wagner, Johannes (Eds.), 1995. The Discourse of Business Negotiation. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.

http://www.essex.ac.uk/idaworld/paper261209.pdf


Fisher, Aubrey, 1974. Small Group Decision Making. McGraw-Hill, New York.Fleming, Peter, Spicer, André, 2007. Contesting the Corporation: Struggle Power and Resistance in Organizations. Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge.Francis, David, 1995. Negotiation decision making and formalism: the problem of form and substance in negotiation analysis. In: Wagner, J.,

Ehlich, K. (Eds.), The Discourse of Business Negotiation. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 37--64.Gee, James Paul, 2005. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method. Routledge, London.Georgakopoulou, Alexandra, 2002. Narrative and identity management: discourse and social identities in a tale of tomorrow. Research on

Language and Social Interaction 35, 427--451.Goffman, Erving, 1976. Replies and responses. Language in Society 5, 257--313.Goffman, Erving, 1981. Forms of Talk. Blackwell, Oxford.Grasso, Floriana, Cawsey, Alison, Jones, Ray, 2000. Dialectical argumentation to solve conflicts in advice giving: a case study in the promotion of

health nutrition. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 53, 1077--1115.Gruber, Helmut, 1998. Disagreeing sequential placement and internal structure of disagreements in conflict episodes. Text 18, 467--503.Gumperz, John, 1992. Interviewing in intercultural situations. In: Drew, P., Heritage, J. (Eds.), Talk at Work. Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge, pp. 302--327.Haggith, Mandy, 1993. Disagreement in creative problem solving. AAAI Technical Report SS-93-01. Available from: http://www.aaai.org/Papers/

Symposia/Spring/1993/SS-93-01/SS93-01-005.pdf.Harré, Rom, Moghaddam, Fathali, Cairnie, Tracey, Rothbart, Daniel, Sabat, Steven, 2009. Recent advances in positioning theory. Theory and

Psychology 19 (1), 5--31.Hinds, Pamela, Bailey, Diane, 2003. Out of sight, out of sync: understanding conflict in distributed teams. Organization Science 14, 615--632.Holmes, Janet, 2006. Gendered Talk at Work. Blackwell, Oxford.Holmes, Janet, Marra, Meredith, 2004. Relational practice in the workplace: women's talk or gendered discourse? Language in Society 33, 377--

398.Holmes, Janet, Stubbe, Maria, 2003. Power and Politeness in the Workplace. Pearson Education, London, UK.Jacobs, Scott, 2002. Messages, functional contexts and categories of fallacy: some dialectical and rhetorical considerations. In: van Eemeren, F.

H., Houtlosser, P. (Eds.), Dialectic and Rhetoric. TheWarp andWoof of Argumentation Analysis. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp.119--130.

Janis, Irving, 1971. Groupthink. Psychology Today 5 (43--46), 74--76.Kakava, Christina, 1993. Negotiation of disagreement by Greeks in conversations and classroom discourse. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation.

Georgetown University, Washington, DC.Kakava, Christina, 2002. Opposition in modern Greek discourse: cultural and contextual constraints. Journal of Pragmatics 34, 1537--1568.Kangasharju, Helena, 2002. Alignment in disagreement: forming oppositional alliances in committee meetings. Journal of Pragmatics 34, 1447--

1471.Kennedy, Kathleen, Pronin, Emily, 2008. When disagreement gets ugly: perceptions of bias and the escalation of conflict. Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin 34, 833--848.Kotthoff, Helga, 1993. Disagreement and concession in disputes: on the context sensitivity of preference structures. Language in Society 22, 193--

216.Leech, Geoffrey, 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. Longman, London.Locher, Miriam A., 2004. Power and Politeness in Action: Disagreements in Oral Communication. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.Locher, Miriam A., Watts, Richard J., 2008. Relational work and impoliteness: negotiating norms of linguistic behaviour. In: Bousfield, D., Locher,

M.A. (Eds.), Impoliteness in Language. Studies on Its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 77--99.Massey, Graham, Dawes, Philip, 2007. The antecedents and consequence of functional and dysfunctional conflict between Marketing Managers

and Sales Managers. Industrial Marketing Management 36 (8), 1118--1129.Matley, Harry, 1999. Employee relations in small firms. Employee Relations 21 (3), 285--295.Middleton, Howard, 2002. Complex problem solving in a workplace setting. International Journal of Educational Research 37, 67--84.Mooney, Ann C., Holahan, Patricia, Amason, Allen, 2007. Don’t take it personally: exploring cognitive conflict as a mediator of affective conflict.

Journal of Management Studies 44 (5), 733--758.Morris, Michael, Keltner, Dacher, 2000. How emotions work: an analysis of the social functions of emotional expression in negotiations. Review of

Organizational Behavior 22, 1--50.Mortensen, Mark, Hinds, Pamela, 2001. Conflict and shared identity in geographically distributed teams. International Journal of Conflict

Management 12 (3), 212--238.Myers, Greg, 2004. Matters of Opinion: Talking About Public Issues. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Nelson, Christian K., 2001. If it sounds too good to be true, it is: a Wittgensteinian approach to the conflict literature. Language & Communication

21, 1--22.Nevala, Minna, 2010. Keeping up appearances: facework in self and addressee-oriented person reference. In: Culpeper, J., Kadar, D. (Eds.),

Historical (Im)politeness. Peter Lang, Bern, pp. 147--175.Pomerantz, Anita, 1984. Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In: Atkinson, J.M.,

Heritage, J. (Eds.), Structure of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 57--101.Potter, Jonathan, 1996. Representing Reality: Discourse Rhetoric and Social Construction. Sage, London.Putnam, Linda, 1994. Challenging the assumptions of traditional approaches to negotiation. Negotiation Journal 10, 337--346.Rahim, Afzalur, 1983. A measure of styles of handling interpersonal conflict. Academy of Management Journal 26, 368--376.Rahim, Afzalur, 2011. Managing in Conflict Organizations. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, NJ.Reisigl, Martin, Wodak, Ruth, 2001. Discourse and Discrimination. Routledge, London.Reiter-Palmon, Roni, Illies, Jody, 2004. Leadership and creativity: understanding leadership from a creative problem-solving perspective. The

Leadership Quarterly 15 (1), 55--77.Rogelberg, Steven, Scott, Cliff, Kello, John, 2007. The science and fiction of meetings. MIT Sloan Management Review 48, 18--21.

http://www.aaai.org/Papers/Symposia/Spring/1993/SS-93-01/SS93-01-005.pdf

http://www.aaai.org/Papers/Symposia/Spring/1993/SS-93-01/SS93-01-005.pdf


Samra-Fredericks, Dalvir, 2004. Managerial elites making rhetorical and linguistic ‘‘moves’’ for a moving (emotional) display. Human Relations 57(9), 1103--1143.

Sarangi, Srikant, 1994. Intercultural or not? Beyond celebration of cultural differences in miscommunication analysis. Pragmatics 4 (3), 409--427.Sarangi, Srikant, 2002. Discourse practitioners as a community of interprofessional practice: some insights from health communication research.

In: Candlin, C. (Ed.), Research and Practice in Professional Discourse. City University of Hong Kong Press, Hong Kong, pp. 95--135.Schiffrin, Deborah, 1984. Jewish argument as sociability. Language in Society 13, 311--335.Schweiger, David, Sandberg,William, Ragan, James, 1986. Group approaches for improving strategic decisionmaking: a comparative analysis of

dialectical inquiry, devil's advocacy, and consensus approaches to strategic decision making. Academy of Management Journal 29, 51--71.Schwenk, Charles, 1990. Conflict in organizational decision making: an exploratory study of its effects in for-profit and not-for-profit organizations.

Management Science 36, 436--448.Solomon, Nicky, 1999. Culture and difference in workplace learning. In: Boud, D., Garrick, J. (Eds.), Understanding Learning at Work. Routledge,

London, pp. 119--131.Spence, Laura, 2004. Small firm accountability and integrity. In: Brenkert, G. (Ed.), Corporate Integrity and Accountability. Sage, London, pp.

115--128.Spencer-Oatey, Helen, 2005. (Im)Politeness, face and perceptions of rapport: unpackaging their bases and interrelationships. Journal of

Politeness Research 1, 95--119.Streibel, Barbara, 2002. Manager's Guide to Effective Meetings. McGraw-Hill Professional, New York.Tannen, Deborah, 1981. New York Jewish conversational style. International Journal of the sociology of language 30, 133--149.Thomas, Kenneth, 1976. Conflict and conflict management. In: Dunnette, M.D. (Ed.), Handbook in Industrial and Organizational Psychology.

Rand McNally, Chicago, pp. 889--935.Thomas, Kenneth, 1992. Conflict and conflict management: reflections and update. Journal of Organizational Behavior (1986--1998) 13 (3), 265--

274.Tjosvold, Dean, 2008. The conflict-positive organization: it depends upon us. Journal of Organizational Behavior 29, 19--28.Tjosvold, Dean, Yu, Zi-you, Wu, Peiguan, 2009. Empowering individuals for team innovation in China: conflict management and problem solving.

Negotiation and Conflict Management Research 2 (2), 185--205.Watts, Richard, 2003. Politeness. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Weigand, Edda, Dascal, Marcelo (Eds.), 2001. Negotiation in Dialogic Interaction. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.Wenger, Etienne, 1998. Communities of Practice: Learning Meaning and Identity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Wodak, Ruth, Kwon, Winston, Clarke, Ian, 2011. Getting people on board: discursive leadership for consensus building in team meetings.

Discourse and Society 22 (5), 592--644.Young, Louise, Daniel, Kerr, 2003. Affectual trust in the workplace. International Journal of Human Resource Management 14 (1), 139--155.

Jo Angouri is a Senior Lecturer at the University of the West of England, Bristol, UK. Her research focus is language in the workplace. She haspublished work on meeting talk, workplace written discourse and (foreign) language use and language policy in the corporate workplace. Hercurrent work includes a comparative analysis of discourse in business meetings and a multidisciplinary project on hospital talk.

managing disagreement in problem solving meeting talk

Documents