Organizational Communication Conflict Instrument

Abstract

The Organizational Communication Conflict Instrument (OCCI) is a 30-item psychological scale developed by Putnam and Wilson (1982) designed to measure specific communication strategies employed by individuals during conflict within organizational settings. A key distinction of the OCCI is its focus on observable, behavioral choices that respondents make, rather than assessing an individual’s inherent personality style for dealing with conflict. The instrument is structured around three core dimensions: Nonconfrontation, Solution-Orientation, and Control.

Keywords

Organizational Communication Conflict Instrument, OCCI, conflict management, communication strategies, organizational behavior, Nonconfrontation, Solution-Orientation, Control, L. Putnam, C. Wilson.

Authors

Linda Putnam, Charmaine Wilson.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the OCCI is to operationalize and measure the specific communication behaviors individuals utilize during organizational conflict episodes. Developed in 1982, the scale aimed to address a gap in existing conflict assessment by shifting the focus from generalized internal “styles” to concrete, observable behavioral choices and strategies respondents employ when faced with disagreement in the workplace.

By focusing on strategies such as smoothing, avoidance, compromise, and collaboration, the OCCI provides researchers and practitioners with a granular tool to analyze how specific conflict communication is enacted in real-world organizational contexts, thereby offering a behaviorally anchored assessment of conflict interaction.

Construct

The OCCI measures the psychological construct of Conflict Management Strategies, specifically within an organizational communication framework. The underlying theoretical premise is that conflict resolution can be categorized into three distinct, measurable sets of behavioral strategies, which are factorially derived from the scale items.

These three core dimensions define the construct: Nonconfrontation (strategies aimed at minimizing or avoiding open dispute), Solution-Orientation (behaviors focused on mutual problem-solving and compromise), and Control (assertive or dominating behaviors intended to force acceptance of one’s own position). The instrument captures the frequency and intensity of these strategic behavioral choices.

Validity

The original study by Putnam and Wilson (1982) established the scale’s validity primarily through rigorous factor analysis, demonstrating strong construct validity. The successful extraction of three theoretically consistent dimensions that account for a significant portion of the variance in conflict behaviors supports the instrument’s ability to measure the intended constructs.

Subsequent research utilizing the OCCI, as evidenced by its inclusion in various PhD and EdD dissertations, further supports its utility and external validity in diverse professional and organizational settings. These applications confirm its ability to reliably differentiate between various communication approaches to conflict resolution among different organizational groups and cultures.

Reliability

The reliability of the OCCI was assessed using the internal consistency method, quantified by the alpha coefficient (Cronbach’s alpha). The results indicate high levels of consistency across all three measured subscales, confirming that the items within each dimension reliably measure the intended construct.

The internal consistency values reported by Putnam and Wilson (1982) are strong: the Nonconfrontation subscale achieved an alpha of 0.93; the Solution-Orientation subscale scored 0.88; and the Control subscale demonstrated an alpha of 0.82. These coefficients are well above the commonly accepted threshold of 0.70, indicating excellent reliability for psychological measurement instruments.

Factor Analysis

The structural integrity of the OCCI was confirmed through factor analysis, which successfully produced three distinct factors underlying the 30 items. These three factors collectively accounted for 56 percent of the common variance observed in the conflict response data, thus empirically supporting the theoretical division of conflict strategies.

The three dimensions identified by the factor analysis are:

• Nonconfrontation: This composite dimension is characterized by strategies aimed at reducing tension or avoiding direct engagement, incorporating both smoothing (minimizing the conflict’s significance) and avoidance (physically or mentally withdrawing from the dispute).
• Solution-Orientation: This dimension reflects integrative and cooperative strategies, combining elements of compromise (seeking middle-ground solutions or fifty-fifty settlements) and collaboration (blending ideas and generating creative, mutual solutions).
• Control: This dimension represents highly assertive and dominating behaviors. It includes polarized actions where the individual insists their position is accepted, argues forcefully, and refuses to retreat from their stance in group or dyadic situations.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report questionnaire measuring behavioral conflict strategies.

Format: 30 items rated on a 5-point Likert scale.

Language Available: English (Original).

Population Group: Individuals operating within organizational, professional, or group settings.

Age Group: Typically adult working professionals.

Population Details: Applicable across various industries and hierarchical levels where communication conflict management is relevant.

Test Methodology: Respondents indicate their level of agreement with statements describing specific conflict actions. Scoring ranges from Strongly Agree = 1 to Strongly Disagree = 5.

Keywords

Organizational conflict, conflict measurement, communication behaviors, behavioral choices, smoothing, avoidance, compromise, collaboration, dominance, psychometrics, internal consistency.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not specified in source content.

Affiliation Email addresses: Not specified in source content.

Correspondence Address: Not specified in source content.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Test Year: 1982.

Permissions and Fees: The OCCI was published in an academic yearbook. Standard academic and non-commercial research use typically requires proper citation of the primary source (Putnam & Wilson, 1982). Specific commercial licensing details or fees are not provided in the original publication.

Reference’s

Putnam, L., and Wilson, C. (1982). Communication strategies in organizational conflict: Reliability and validity of a measurement scale. In M. Burgoon, (ed.), Communication Yearbook. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Biediger-Collins, A. R. (2000). Communication and conflict management styles as perceived by special education directors and their subordinates in Region XX ESC in Texas. PhD dissertation, Texas A&M University.

Cullis, S. L. (2009). Science teacher retention: School and individual correlates of the intent to stay in current teaching position. EdD dissertation, Rutgers, State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick.

Mao, Y. (2010). Does culture matter? Relating intercultural communication sensitivity to conflict management styles, technology use, and organizational communication satisfaction in multinationals in China. PhD dissertation, Ohio University.

Rhodes, A. C. (2004). Effect of conflict management styles on stress level of correctional officers. PhD dissertation, Alliant International University, San Diego.

Torres, G. K. (2009). Perceptions of Michigan middle school principals regarding leadership styles, communication, and school climate. EdD dissertation, Wayne State University.

Items of the Organizational Communication Conflict Instrument

IMPORTANT: The following scale items must be preserved in their original language and must not be changed in any way.

1. I blend my ideas with others to create new alternatives for resolving conflict.
2. I shy away from topics that are sources of disputes.
3. I insist that my position be accepted during a conflict.
4. I suggest solutions that combine a variety of viewpoints.
5. I steer clear of disagreeable situations.
6. I avoid a person I suspect of wanting to discuss a disagreement.
7. I look for middle-of-the-road solutions.
8. I give in a little on my ideas when the other person also gives in.
9. I minimize the significance of conflict.
10. I integrate arguments into a solution from issues raised in a dispute.
11. I stress my point by hitting my fist on the table.
12. I will go fifty-fifty to reach a settlement.
13. I raise my voice when trying to get another person to accept my position.
14. I offer creative solutions in discussions of disagreement.
15. I keep quiet about views in order to avoid disagreements.
16. I frequently give in a little if the other person will meet me halfway.
17. I downplay the importance of a disagreement.
18. I reduce disagreements by saying they are insignificant.
19. I meet the opposition at the midpoint of our differences.
20. I assert my opinion forcefully.
21. I dominate arguments until the other person understands my position.
22. I suggest we work together to create solutions to disagreements.
23. I try to use everyone’s ideas to generate solutions to problems.
24. I offer tradeoffs to reach solutions to problems.
25. I argue for my stance.
26. I withdraw when someone confronts me about a controversial issue.
27. I sidestep disagreements when they arise.
28. I try to smooth over disagreements by making them appear unimportant.
29. I stand firm in my views during a conflict.
30. I take a tough stand, refusing to retreat.