Workplace conflict is often treated as a single problem: people disagree, tensions rise, and managers are expected to restore harmony. But new research suggests that this familiar picture misses a crucial part of office life. Conflict is not expressed in one standard way. Employees may challenge one another openly, exchange measured arguments, undermine colleagues indirectly or conceal opposition behind polite language. These differences, researchers say, can shape whether disagreement becomes a source of learning or a trigger for distrust, stress and damaged relationships.
In a new study published in Small Group Research, researchers from Carnegie Mellon University, Indiana University, the University of California, Los Angeles, California State University, Stony Brook University, the University of Melbourne, INSEAD and an independent research team developed a tool designed to measure these distinct patterns. Called the Conflict Expression Tendencies, or CET, measure, the instrument is intended to show how members of a workgroup typically communicate opposition, rather than simply identifying what a disagreement is about or whether it was resolved.
“Past studies of workplace conflict have tended to take two approaches—focusing on what a conflict is about and how conflicts are managed,” says Laurie R. Weingart, Richard M. and Margaret S. Cyert Professor of Organizational Behavior and Theory at Carnegie Mellon University’s Tepper School of Business and a coauthor of the study. “In our research, we took a different approach, focusing on how conflict is expressed.” That shift places communication behavior itself at the center of analysis, allowing researchers to examine the social signals carried by disagreement: how visible it is, how forcefully it is delivered and how easily other people can interpret it.
The CET framework organizes conflict expression along two technical dimensions: directness and intensity. Directness refers to whether opposition is communicated openly and unmistakably, while intensity reflects the strength, emotional charge or force of the challenge. Combining those dimensions produces four measurable tendencies: arguing, debating, subverting and disguising. The categories do not simply label employees as aggressive or cooperative. Instead, they describe the communication climate a group tends to create when its members resist ideas, decisions or one another’s behavior.
Debating represents opposition that is relatively direct but comparatively low in intensity. A team member may clearly question an assumption, request evidence or propose an alternative without making the exchange personal or hostile. Arguing combines directness with higher intensity, making disagreement more forceful and potentially more emotionally charged. Subverting involves opposition expressed less directly but with greater intensity beneath the surface, including behaviors such as social undermining, obstruction or passive aggression. Disguising is both less direct and less intense: disagreement may be hidden behind silence, strategic politeness, ambiguous comments or apparent agreement that does not reflect a person’s actual view.
The researchers describe the scale as an integration of workplace conflict concepts that have often been studied separately. Open disagreement, debate and argument have traditionally received more attention than subtle forms of resistance. Yet indirect behaviors can also influence whether a group functions effectively. A colleague who withholds information, quietly blocks a proposal or signals disapproval through exclusion may create serious problems even when no explicit confrontation occurs. By measuring these forms together, the CET approach aims to distinguish the unique contribution of each pattern instead of treating every negative interaction as the same type of conflict.
Across six studies involving participants from both laboratory and field settings, the researchers tested whether the measure was reliable and whether it was connected to meaningful individual outcomes. The studies included diverse participants and examined cognitive, affective and psychological responses to conflict expression. The results indicated that the way opposition was communicated mattered. In general, debating was associated with greater information acquisition, more positive affect and higher trust. Arguing, subverting and disguising were generally linked to less favorable outcomes, although the effects depended on how people perceived the interaction and the social environment in which it occurred.
The apparent advantage of debating may be explained by its combination of clarity and restraint. Direct communication makes disagreement easier to interpret: team members can identify the issue, evaluate the evidence and respond to the substance of the challenge. Lower intensity may reduce the threat that often causes people to defend their status rather than reconsider their assumptions. In this sense, debate can preserve the informational value of dissent while limiting the interpersonal costs of confrontation. It does not eliminate disagreement; it makes disagreement more usable for collective decision-making.
The findings also suggest that conflict is not experienced identically by everyone in the same group. Two employees may participate in the same exchange but interpret it differently depending on their expectations, personalities, prior relationships and beliefs about conflict. One worker may view a direct question as constructive scrutiny, while another may experience it as disrespect. A seemingly polite interaction may also be interpreted as evasive or manipulative by someone who suspects that opposition is being concealed. Because of this perceptual variation, the CET measure is designed to capture conflict expression tendencies through the eyes of multiple workgroup members rather than relying only on one observer or a manager’s assessment.
Yeonjeong Kim, lead author of the study, visiting assistant professor of management at Indiana University’s Kelley School of Business and a former Tepper doctoral student, says the measure could help leaders diagnose conflict more precisely. Instead of responding to every disagreement with the same intervention, managers could identify whether a group needs clearer channels for direct discussion, stronger protections against retaliation or strategies for reducing indirect undermining. A team dominated by high-intensity arguing may need practices that lower emotional escalation, while a group characterized by disguising may need mechanisms that make it safer for employees to voice concerns openly.
The researchers emphasize that the CET scale is not intended to classify conflict as universally good or bad without considering context. A forceful challenge may be necessary when safety, ethics or major organizational risks are involved, while even mild disagreement can become destructive if it is deliberately concealed or used to isolate a colleague. The measure’s value lies in making patterns visible: who speaks directly, who holds back, how much emotional force enters the exchange and whether opposition is helping the group think more effectively or quietly eroding trust. By turning these patterns into measurable dimensions, the study offers organizations a more detailed vocabulary for understanding the conflicts that shape everyday work.
Subject of Research: Conflict expression tendencies and their effects on workgroup communication, trust, information acquisition and employee psychological outcomes.
Article Title: “Conflict Expression Tendencies in Workgroups: Measure Validation and a Test of Theory”
Web References: https://doi.org/10.1177/10464964261448469
References: Small Group Research, article published June 11, 2026.
Keywords: Workplace conflict, workgroups, conflict expression, debating, arguing, subverting, disguising, organizational behavior, team management, workplace communication, trust, psychological outcomes
