Article Preview
TopIntroduction
The sociotechnical theory posits that the social and technical aspects of an organization are interrelated. The interaction of these two factors determine the success or failure of a group. Both need to be optimized as improvements in only one aspect may injure team performance. Hence, the social and technical systems need to be jointly optimized to ensure proper operations (Cooper & Foster, 1971).
Sociotechnical research dwells on the interrelationship between the social and the technical, while discarding technological determinism. In other words, it is assumed that there is a mutual constitution between the two—that there is co-evolution between them, creating interdependency. Thus, in essence, all technologies are socially situated.
One area of sociotechnical theorizing is the domestication of technology, or the way a technological innovation is incorporated into the social world (Berker, Hartmann, & Punie, 2006). As a person individual uses technology, he or she adapts it to the existing social structure—which, in turn, adapts to the innovation.
Although the sociotechnical perspective originally referred to organizations, technology domestication studies have started focusing on individuals. For instance, Haddon (2006), Haddon and Silverstone (1995), Hirsch (1992), and Russo Lemor (2005) focused on the use of technology by family members in the home.
The present research is a domestication study on how technology is used by Filipino migrant workers, specifically for conflict management. In any interpersonal relationship, conflicts are unavoidable (Folger, Poole, & Stutman, 2017; Johnson, 2010). This is because individuals differ in their needs, beliefs, goals, and behaviors (Canary, 2003).
Since the middle of the 20th century, perspectives on interpersonal conflicts have been explored and examined. The most widely used among them are the studies of Blake and Mouton (1964) and Hall (1969), who identified five conflict management styles based on a person’s assertiveness and cooperativeness (Ruble & Thomas, 1976). Assertiveness is a behavior intended to satisfy one’s own concerns, while cooperativeness is a behavior intended to satisfy the other individual’s concern. This viewpoint is now known as the Conflict Styles Perspective (Folger et al., 2017). The styles have changed names through the decades, but the most popular appellations were the ones by Kilmann and Thomas (1977). Their version is used throughout this paper.
When a person’s levels of assertiveness and cooperativeness are combined, he or she can have one of the following conflict management styles:
A competing style is high in assertiveness and low in cooperativeness. The person places a great emphasis on his or her own concerns and ignores those of the other party.
An accommodating style is low in assertiveness and high in cooperativeness. The person gives in to the other party at the cost of his or her own concerns.
An avoiding style is low in assertiveness and low in cooperativeness. The person simply withdraws and refuses to deal with the conflict.
A collaborating style is high in assertiveness and high in cooperativeness. The person works to attain a solution that will meet the needs of both parties.
A compromising style has intermediate levels of assertiveness and cooperativeness. Both parties agree to meet halfway; thus, giving up something without losing everything.
Although the Conflict Styles Perspective started out as an organizational communication theory, it did not take long for interpersonal communication researchers to adapt it to their subfield. Today, it is widely used in contexts other than organizational communication (Folger et al., 2017).
However, although the above typology is widely accepted in communication studies, it has been developed for geographically close relationships (GCRs). It cannot account for long-distance relationships (LDRs). Thus, it is necessary to examine conflict management among long-distance couples—especially that the number of people in LDRs is steadily increasing (see, for example, Pistole & Roberts (2006) and Renner (2017) for the situation in the United States, while Gavilan (2015) discusses the Philippine setting).