Introduction

As argued by Coleman and Ferguson (2014) in their award-winning book Making Conflict Work: Harnessing the Power of Disagreement, conflicts can lead to better outcomes when people are able to use conflict management strategies strategically that fit with the characteristics of different situations. However, Coleman and Kugler (2014) suggest that most of people tend to get stuck in chronic conflict management mindsets and are unable to change strategies as required by situations. Unfortunately, they further argue that the importance of adaptation has been largely ignored in conflict management research with few exceptions (i.e., Druckman & Mitchell, 1995; Thomas, 1992a). Therefore, it is important for academic and training research to pay more attention on the role of adaptivity in managing conflicts effectively over time and across changing situations.

Similar to Coleman and Ferguson (2014), Thomas (1992a) argues that conflict- handling modes are best regarded as "the strategic intention of a party in conflict, what the party is attempting to accomplish in satisfying own and other's goals" (p. 269). In other words, conflict-handling modes "do not solely reflect individuals' predispositions, but also differences in the kinds of situations faced by the individuals" (Thomas, 1988, p. 435). According to Speakman and Ryals (2010), however, conflict management research has been heavily influenced by the "one best way" (e.g., Blake & Mouton, 1964, 1981; Fisher & Ury, 1981; Lax & Sebenius, 1986; Pruitt, 1981) as well as situational or contingency perspectives (e.g., Thomas, 1992b; Munduate, Ganaza, Peiro, & Euwema, 1999) which also mainly aim to find out the most and usually single effective mode of conflict management behavior.

On contrary to the "one best way" and situational or contingency perspectives, Coleman and Kugler (2014) have found that higher use of pure cooperative approaches is not strongly associated with satisfaction and well-being. Speakman and Ryals (2010) further argue that these two perspectives fail to "offer a real-world view in which managers both can and do change their behaviors" (p. 192) because any reaction to a conflict episode consists of "a mixture of accommodating, avoiding, competing, compromising and collaborating behaviors throughout the conflict episode is considered to be the rule rather than the exception" (p. 193). Specifically, research adopted the conglomerated perspective (Euwema & Van Emmerik, 2007; Euwema, Van de Vliert, & Bakker, 2003; Van de Vliert, Euwema, & Huismans, 1995; Van de Vliert, Ohbuchi, Rossum, Hayashi, & Van der Vegt, 2004) have indicated that effective individuals display "the combination of various degrees of several modes of conflict handling within a conflict episode" (Euwema et al., 2003, p. 120).

As argued by Coleman and Kugler (2014), therefore, conflict management "behavior (B) is ultimately a function of both the person (P) and the environment (E) in interaction [B = f(P, E)]" (p. 952), but a fundamental issue that has been largely neglected and lacks a theoretical answer is "the significance of fit". In other words, regardless of whether the collaborating mode or the integrative style is the best bargaining style across conflict situations, these authors contend that "a specific conflict strategy will be more or less effective or ineffective under a particular set of conditions" (p. 946). Specifically, people can constructively manage conflicts "when the disputants are able to adjust their orientations, strategies, and tactics as the evolving situation requires" (Coleman, Kugler, Bui-Wzosinska, Nowak, & Vallacher, 2012, p. 33).

To address this fundamental issue, Peter Coleman (Coleman et al., 2012; Coleman, Kugler, Mitchinson, Chung, & Musallam, 2010; Coleman, Kugler, Mitchinson, & Foster, 2013) has proposed a three-dimensional situated model of conflict in social relations in which the concept of conflict adaptivity has been used to integrate five approaches to conflict resolution and then have developed and tested the Managerial Conflict Adaptivity Assessment (MCAA) (Coleman & Kugler, 2014). Furthermore, Coleman and Ferguson (2014) have provided detailed discussions regarding effective adaptivity strategy and its related tactics for people to consider when they adopt adaptive approach to managing conflicts. Compared to prior research that focuses on a set of predispositions or conditions determining positive conflict management performance, Coleman and his research team emphasize "the necessity of adapting flexibly to diverse or changing situations in a manner fitting with the demands of each situation" (Coleman & Kugler, 2014, p. 946).

Despite the valuable contributions made by the situated model, however, there is one aspect of Coleman's adaptive approach to social conflict management that has not been fully examined. As argued by Coleman and Kugler (2014), conflict management research should simultaneously consider people's dispositional, stylistic, or behavioral preferences (i.e., P) to conflict and the role of situational contingencies (i.e., E) in determining the choice of conflict-handling strategies. Unfortunately, the necessity for people to manage opposing processes between P and E is only proposed without further explorations in its implications to the conceptualization of conflict adaptivity and the utilization of effective adaptivity strategy. To address this issue, this paper argues that the yin-yang paradigm perspective, which comprises three core principles including holism, change, and contradiction (Huang, 2017), provides a valuable framework for exploring the inherent duality between the interplay of personal preferences and situational contingencies in the process of conflict adaptivity.

From Five-style Paradigm to Adaptive Approach Five-style Paradigm: Two-dimensional Models

Compared to the single-dimensional model that depicts individuals' concern ranging from competition at one end to cooperation at the other end (Deutsch, 1949), the two-dimensional models have derived from the original work of Blake and Mouton's (1964) dual concerns theory. Several conflict management self-report instruments have been developed with the same set of assumptions that individuals have two main motivations regarding interpersonal conflict: "concern for production" versus "concern for people". Then, individuals may choose different modes, styles, or strategies for handling conflict based on the variation of "concern for production" and "concern for people." According to Blake and Mouton, five discrete leadership styles result from the variation of two concerns: smoothing (high concern for people and low concern for production), withdrawing (low concern for both people and production), compromising (medium concern for production and people), problem-solving (high concern for production and people), and forcing (high concern for production versus low concern for people) (Holt & DeVore, 2005).

Generally speaking, Blake and Mouton's (1964) Managerial Grid and the subsequent conflict management instruments such as Conflict Management Survey (CMS) (Hall, 1969), Rahim Organizational Conflict Inventories I and II (ROCI-I and ROCI-II) (Rahim, 1983), Employee Conflict Inventory (ECI) (Renwick, 1975), and Management-of-Differences Exercise or MODE Instrument (Thomas & Kilmann, 1974) have been referred as "two-dimensional models" (Sorenson, Morse, & Savage, 1999, p. 26) or ''five-style paradigm'' (Holt & DeVore, 2005) because they all assume that "conflict comes from the opposing forces of production (trying to meet one's own goals) versus people (attempting to honor the needs of others), and then five basic styles of dealing with conflict: smoothing, withdrawing, compromising, problem-solving, and forcing" (Holt & DeVore, 2005, p. 167). It is worth to note, however, that the labels for each conflict style and the names for each dimension vary among instruments (see Figure 1).

While five conflict-handling modes have been plotted along two dimensions as depicted by Blake and Mouton's (1964, 1970) two-dimensional model, however, Womack (1988) indicates that there are key theoretical differences among various five-style instruments that have to be noted before they are employed for research or training purpose (see Figure 1). Particularly, Thomas (1988) contends that most of two-dimensional models are causal models that "attempt to explain the conflict modes (dependent variables) as a function of the two dimensions of the model (the independent variables)' (p. 433). A notable exception is the widely used Thomas-Kilmann's MODE (Thomas, 1976, 1992b), which has been depicted as a taxonomic model that only describes what the conflict modes are. In other words, it is possible for people who have a low competing score are able to behave competitively if the situation or other party forces them to do so (Schell, 2001).

Notes: (1)Black & Mouton (1964), (2)Hall (1969), (3)Renwick (1975), (4)Thomas (1976), (5)Rahim (1983), (6)Pruitt (1983), (7)Thomas (1992b); Taxonomic models: Thomas (1976) & Thomas (1992b), Causal models: Black & Mouton (1964), Hall (1969), Renwick (1975), Rahim (1983), Pruitt (1983)

Despite the importance of knowledge of conflict management styles generated from the studies of two-dimensional models, these models have been mainly used in the majority of studies to measure an individual's general preference of style via individuals' self-reports (Ogilvie & Kidder, 2008). As contended by Damp (2016), "this approach is oversimplified in that it results in categorizing individuals based on their dominant style or a style they appear to be utilizing most during the specific study" (p. 17). Conversely, Damp has found that 45% of the sample in the study reflects a general pattern of using all styles flexibly and interchangeably. According to the conglomerated or complexity perspective (Speakman & Ryals, 2010), furthermore, individuals actually use more than the five styles suggested by the two-dimensional models to manage conflict.

Additionally, Sorenson, Morse, and Savage (1999) have found that "concern about self" and "concern about other" are significantly associated with dominating and obliging strategies, but there are no similar associations among these two dimensions with avoid, compromise, and integrate strategies. Therefore, they have called for a new conflict-handling model with dimensions that account for more of the variance in the choices to avoid, compromise, and integrate strategies. Based upon a thoroughly overview of five approaches of interpersonal conflict resolution including dual- concern theory, Coleman et al. (2012) suggest that two-dimensional models have failed to address the issue of relative distribution of power between the parties. With an extra dimension of relative distribution of power, consequently, nine types of conflict management styles or strategies (cf. Coleman et al., 2012) have been proposed by Coleman and Ferguson (2014) based upon their three-dimensional situated model.

Adaptive Approach to Conflict Management: Three-dimensional Situated Model

According to the three-dimensional situated model (Coleman et al., 2012), type of goal interdependence, relative distribution of power and degree of total goal interdependence will constantly interact to "situate parties psychologically in different regions of the basic conflict stimulus field" (Coleman et al., 2013, p. 1966), which will induce distinct psychological orientations (POs) to conflict and then lead to certain behavioral responses that are fitting with that type of situation (Coleman et al., 2012, 2013). For example, region 1 (high power, cooperative, high interdependence) will induce a benevolence orientation and benevolent behaviors. However, region 4 (low power, competitive, high interdependence) will induce an appeasement orientation and appeasement behaviors.

Furthermore, the situated model argues that each of POs is useful in particular situations, but "problems typically arise for people when their orientation (such as support or dominance) becomes fixed or when an individual's chronic orientation(s) is inappropriate for a specific situation" (Coleman et al., 2012, p. 29). In other words, as contended by Coleman and Kugler (2014), "No one PO is feasible in all situations" (p. 952). Therefore, the situated model stresses the importance of adaptivity in constructive conflict resolution because conflict situations are usually in flux. As defined by the model, conflict adaptivity is "the capacity to identify and respond appropriately to different conflict situations or relevant changes in conflict situations by employing the different POs of the situated model and their related strategies in a manner consistent with the demands of the presenting situation" (p. 949).

Originally, conflict adaptivity has been treated as a competency or capacity that enables people to employ the adaptive approach to conflict (Coleman et al, 2010, 2012, 2013; Coleman & Kugler, 2014). Coleman and Kugler (2014) have found that conflict adaptivity, which has been measured by the Managerial Conflict Adaptivity Assessment (MCAA), is related to higher levels of satisfaction with conflict processes at work as well as higher levels of well-being at work. Later, the construct has been adapted into one of nine behavioral strategies (Coleman & Ferguson, 2014). As described by these authors, the use of effective adaptivity strategy is "to read situations accurately and employ any of the strategies (benevolence, dominance, support, appeasement, autonomy, cooperation, competition, and possibly mini-revolutions) where they fit, in a manner and to a degree appropriate to the context" (p. 218).

In other words, effective adaptivity strategy is "multisituational" (Coleman & Ferguson, 2014, p. 201) that "cuts across seven situations" (p. 218). Theoretically speaking, thus, the most typical tactic to implement this strategy is to "move from strategy to strategy and tactic to tactic as the conflict evolves" (p. 201), which is labeled as match and mix tactic. Furthermore, these authors move beyond exploring prototypical styles or strategies that are the best suited to only particular situation types. With regard to situations that are not as pure as the seven situations presented in the book, in particular, these authors suggest that people have to combine prototypical strategies to fit the fuzzier situations. Under these circumstances, people may use create new adaptive hybrids tactic such as conditional assessment contingencies, tit-for-tat strategy, overt/covert strategy, negotiation chains, internal split strategy, and short-term/long-term strategy to manage fuzzier situations.

Therefore, although the three-dimensional situated model looks like a contingency-based perspective, it is different from the situational or contingency perspectives adopted by two-dimensional models in three aspects. Firstly, the former one allows more flexible relationships between dimensions and types of conflict situations in the model. That is, fuzzier situations have been also considered in addition to the seven pure types of situations presented in the model. Secondly, the use of more than one type of strategies instead of one single best strategy is expected to effectively manage the evolving nature of conflict situation. Thirdly, Coleman and Ferguson (2014) suggest that "adaptation, the capacity to change and fit in, is balanced by integrity, the capacity to hold on to a sense of consistency of values, worldview, goals, and aspirations" (p. 195). That is, the effective adaptivity strategy consists of "two opposing processes: adaptation and integrity" (p. 195).

Despite the valuable contributions made by the situated model, however, there is one aspect of Coleman's adaptive approach to social conflict management that has not been fully examined. As argued by Coleman and Kugler (2014), conflict management "behavior (B) is ultimately a function of both the person (P) and the environment (E) in interaction [B = f(P, E)]" (p. 952). In other words, although most conflict management assessments have been used to measure people's dispositional, stylistic, or behavioral preferences (i.e., P) to conflict, Coleman and Kugler contend that conflict management academics and practitioners should simultaneously consider the role of situational contingencies (i.e., E) in determining the choice of conflict- handling strategies. Unfortunately, the necessity for people to manage opposing processes between situational adaptation and personal integrity is only proposed without further explorations in its implications to the conceptualization of conflict adaptivity and the utilization of effective adaptivity strategy.

With regard to behavioral flexibility, which is positively associated with conflict adaptivity of managers (Coleman & Kugler, 2014), Kaiser, Lindberg, and Craig (2007) have proposed the "mastery of opposites" approach to assess the construct. Specifically, Kaiser, Lindberg and Craig argue that behavioral flexibility should be conceived as "capability and skill with contrasting behaviors that are both functional despite seeming to be mutually exclusive" (p. 42) instead of "a capability to adapt to new, different, or changing requirements" (p. 41) or "general tendency to vary behavior across situations" (p. 42). In other words, this approach regards "flexible leadership in terms of capability with opposing, but complementary, behaviors" (Kaiser & Overfield, 2010, p. 107). Furthermore, Kaiser and Overfield (2010) refer it as "The Wisdom of Opposites" (p. 108) that is mainly derived from the Eastern philosophy of yin-yang.

As conflict adaptivity is positively associated with behavioral flexibility (Coleman & Kugler, 2014), therefore, it seems reasonable to reconceptualize conflict adaptivity as a mastery of opposites, which might help academics and practitioners effectively operationalize the construct on the behavioral level (i.e., to utilize effective adaptivity strategy). As indicated by Smith & Lewis (2011), furthermore, opposing forces or tensions have been labeled differently including "paradox," "dilemma," and "dialectic" without sufficiently conceptual clarity among them. Consistent with the mastery of opposites approach used by Kaiser and Overfield (2010), the present paper adopts a paradox lens and views paradox as "contradictory yet interrelated elements that exist simultaneously and persist over time" (Smith & Lewis, 2011, p. 386). Furthermore, the present paper aims at exploring the two opposing processes in the construct of conflict adaptivity from the Chinese Yin-Yang paradigm perspective.

Yin-Yang Paradigm to Conflict Management: Conflict Adaptivity as Yin-Yang Balancing

As China becomes more influential in the world, the amount of research that embraces the Chinese dialectical thinking, the Chinese Yin-Yang paradigm, has increased rapidly. Although the Yin-Yang paradigm has been explored via various angels including naive dialecticism (Peng & Nisbett, 1999; Peng, Spencer-Rodgers & Zhong, 2006; Spencer-Rodgers, Williams & Peng, 2010), transparadox (Chen M.-J., 2002, 2008), Yin-Yang balancing (Li, 2008, 2012a, 2012b, 2014a, 2014b, 2016), the concept of bian (or change) (Chen, 2008, 2009a, 2009b), and the philosophy of "unity between nature and humans" (Ding, 2003), research on the Yin-Yang paradigm has postulated that the paradigm comprises three core principles, including holism (or holistic content), change (or dynamic process), and contradiction (or duality integration) (Li, 1998, 2008; Peng & Nisbett, 1999). Moreover, these principles are interrelated to one another (Peng & Nisbett, 1999).

Furthermore, Li (2016) argues that the Yin-Yang paradigm, which has been derived from the Yi Jing or I Ching (the Book of Changes), is the shared epistemology for all Chinese traditional philosophies and is the most influential Chinese philosophical ideas on scholars in the West. It is worth noting, however, that "the system of Yin-Yang balancing is neither a form of mysticism for divination (Zhang, 1991), nor a crude 'primitive mentality' (Lloyd, 2007; Zhang, 2011)" (p. 51), while I Ching is well known to the world as a book of oracles and divination (Ding, 2003). Consequently, Li (2016) argues that the Yin-Yang paradigm should be regarded as a novel frame of thinking which has significant global implications to complex issues in the area of paradox management.

The Principle of Holism: Asymmetrical Balancing between Situational Adaptation and Personal Integrity

According to the principle of holism (Peng & Nisbett, 1999) or holistic content (Li, 1998, 2012a), "nothing is isolated and independent, but everything is connected" (Peng & Nisbett, 1999, p. 743). Moreover, Peng and Nisbett argue that this "holistic mode of thought" draws on the assumption that "everything exists in the mystical integration of yin-yang, entities that are opposed to one another and yet also are connected in time and space as a whole" (p. 743). As indicated by Fang (2012), thus, "Yin and Yang coexist in everything, and everything embraces Yin and Yang" (p. 34). Specifically, this principle reflects "the complex interdependence and interpenetration between opposite elements (i.e., mutually inclusive with partial overlaps in spatial terms)" (Li, 2016, p. 52).

In particular, Ding (2003) claims that I Ching, the earliest Chinese cultural classic which has been completed around 500 B.C., has proposed a philosophy of "unity between nature and humans." In other words, I Ching advocates "unity between a context (e.g., nature) and the individual events or objects (e.g., humans) that exist in that context" (p. 327). Further, Li (2016) argues that this philosophy is the shared ontology for all Chinese traditional philosophies. To be more specific, it refers to "a complex world that is both objective and subjective in balance rather than being separated, and the macro-level context is integrated with the micro-level object rather than being separated" (Li, 2014b, p. 31). As a result, I Ching provides various perspectives on problems that are "actually contextual information, which is provided for audiences to use in examining a situation in order to decide whether perform a task" (Ding, 2003, p. 327) instead of how to perform a task.

With regard to the study of conflict management styles, there seems to be two incompatible lines of conflict management assessments research between organizational between "P" and "E" (Coleman & Kugler, 2014). The first and the most popular line of research measures "dispositional, stylistic, or behavioral preferences (i.e., P) to conflict at work", but the alternative line of research emphasizes "the importance of situational conditions (i.e., E)" (p. 951). Notably, the three-dimensional situated model has taken an interactive perspective that is consistent with the principle of holism. Consistent with the principle of holism, specifically, these authors assert that "behavior (B) is ultimately a function of both the person (P) and the environment (E) in interaction [B = f(P, E)]" (p. 952).

Proposition 1a: Adaptive people are persons whose conflict management strategies are determined simultaneously by their personal preferences as well as situational contingencies.

The operating mechanism for the principle of holism (Li, 2012b, 2014b), however, provides further insights for a more thorough exploration regarding "the dominant-subordinate mix" of "P" (i.e., personal preferences) and "E" (i.e., situational contingencies). According to Li (2012b, 2014b), "asymmetrical balancing" is the operating mechanism that relates to the principle of holistic content, which refers to "with one of the opponent elements being the dominant while the other being the subordinate" (Li, 2014a, p. 326). To be more specific, the dominant-subordinate mix of opposite elements operates as noted by Li (2016, p.57):

[...] the interdependence and interpenetration of opposite elements
require one of the two opposite elements to play the dominant role in
performing one specific function (e.g., a sub-goal) because this
opposite element is compatible with the specific function given their
positive association [...], while the other opposite element will play
the subordinate role in performing the same specific function because
this element is incompatible with the specific function [...].

It is worth to note, however, that the balance between adaptation and integrity suggested by the adaptive approach seems to be symmetrical balancing instead of asymmetrical balancing. Specifically, Coleman, and Ferguson (2014) argue that "adaptive people must be simultaneously principled and pragmatic, firm with their goal but flexible with their means" (p. 194). Conversely, the Yin-Yang paradigm assumes an asymmetrical balancing relationship between the opposite elements that reflects a dominant-subordinate mix of them. Based on the proposition of asymmetrical balancing, thus, the present paper argues that the overall goal of conflict adaptivity should not only accompany with personal integrity (i.e., "P") and situational adaptation (i.e., "E") as two sub-goals, but also be fostered by an asymmetrical balancing between integrity and adaptation.

Proposition 1b: Adaptive people are persons whose conflict management strategies should reflect a dominant-subordinate mix of their personal preferences and situational contingencies.

The Principle of Change: Dynamic Balancing between Spatial Content and Temporal Process

According to the principle of change (Peng & Nisbett, 1999) or dynamic process (Li, 1998, 2012a), opposite elements in a phenomenon will mutually transform into each other under specific conditions at a certain time. Specifically, as indicated by Li (2016), this principle reflects "the complex interaction and inter-transformation between opposite elements (i.e., mutually inclusive with partial overlaps in temporal terms)" (p. 52). In other words, this principle assumes a dynamic and changeable reality (Peng & Nisbett, 1999). Furthermore, Peng et al. (2006) argue that the principle of change is the logical foundation of Chinese dialectical thinking and point out that "the notion of change leads to a belief in contradiction, and contradiction comes as a result of a belief in change... Holism, in turn, is the consequence of a belief in change and contradiction" (p. 255).

I Ching or the Book of Changes, as implied by the name of the book, focuses on the concept of change (Lai, 2008). Moreover, Lai indicates that change is inevitable and imminent and people have to anticipate change and be well-prepared for it in order to deal with it. Thus, I Ching is about "changes (or problems) in the world" and advises people on how to cope with these changes (Ding, 2003, p. 322). Specifically, Chen (2008) argues that "change itself is the only constant phenomenon of the universe" (p. 7) and 64 hexagrams in I Ching represent all the possible situations of the universe because each hexagrams contains six lines (yao), in which "the movement from the bottom line up to the top line symbolizes the change of a specific situation" (p. 8):

The first or the bottom line indicates the foundation of change; the
second line is the sprouting period which indicates the formation of a
change of things; the third line is the embodiment indicating the
concretizing stage of change; the fourth line is like the leaves of a
tree, indicating the strong growth of change; the fifth line is the
blooming period, indicating the flourishing of change; and the sixth or
top line is the fruit, indicating the fullness of change which implies
a stage of transformation to another cycle.

Based on the above arguments, people in conflict situations need to always anticipate the change and be well-prepared for dealing with it. As interpreted by Lai (2008), as each of the eight trigrams in I Ching have its unique characteristics, "change is necessary to allow 'the myriad things to become all that they can be' (trans. Lynn, 1994, p. 122)" (p. 224). Similar to the Yin-Yang paradigm perspective, Coleman and Ferguson (2014) argue that although each of the prototyped strategies (i.e., situation-specific strategies) presented in the book "can be valuable and fitting in particular situations, they each have their associated costs and benefits" (p. 194). Consistent with the principle of change, the adaptive approach has emphasized the importance of conflict adaptivity and proposed effective adaptivity strategy to address this important concern in the constantly changing conflict situation.

Proposition 2a: Adaptive people are persons whose conflict management strategies should not always be dominated by either their personal preferences or situational contingencies.

It is important to note, however, that Coleman and Ferguson (2014) has argued that effective adaptivity strategy is "not always advantageous" because "some ongoing conflicts call for a focus on only one or two of the strategies" (p. 201). Specifically, they argue that "more cooperative approaches (benevolence, cooperation, and support) are more likely to lead to positive outcomes for all parties in a longer term" (p. 205). Furthermore, Coleman and Ferguson depict the strategy as "a contingency-based approach to conflict" that "helps to manage the immediate demands of a situation" when they describe the "adapt today while leaning toward a more constructive tomorrow" tactic. In other words, the advantages and disadvantages of adaptation should be considered with a time frame. Unfortunately, this issue has not been addressed when they define conflict adaptivity and its behavioral counterpart, effective adaptivity strategy.

Based upon the proposition of transitional balancing (Li, 2014a), the operating mechanism for the principle of change, conflict adaptivity is redefined as a capability to manage an asymmetrical balancing between adaptation and integrity in both spatial and temporal terms. As a result, effective adaptivity strategy is redefined as behaviors intended to manage an asymmetrical balancing between adaptation and integrity in both spatial and temporal terms. In other words, conflict adaptivity and effective adaptivity strategy can be conceived on two dimensions: (1) asymmetrical balancing between situational adaptation and personal integrity in terms of its spatial content and (2) asymmetrical balancing between situational adaptation and personal integrity in terms of its temporal process.

Proposition 2b: Adaptive people should allow the respective role of situational contingencies and personal preferences in the dominant-subordinate mix to switch as conflict evolves over time.

As depicted by Kaiser and Overfield (2010), "everything has both yin and yang components that are in constant interaction, never resting in a static state of balance but rather constantly adjusting to find harmony in a fluid and dynamic equilibrium" (p. 108).

The Principle of Contradiction: Curvilinear Balancing between Situational Adaptation and Personal Integrity

Li (2016) argues that the principle of duality balance is "the underlying anchor" for the first two principles of Yin-Yang paradigm. According to the principle of contradiction (Peng & Nisbett, 1999) or duality balance (Li, 2016), all contradictions (opposite elements) co-exist as a duality which is always partially complementary and partially conflicting. In other words, all contradictions are characterized as "contrary (weaker than 'contradictory') yet complementary (stronger than 'interrelated') opposites-in- unity ([phrase omitted] in Chinese)" to partially affirm and partially negate each other (Li, 2016, p. 52). Consequently, "Old and new, good and bad, strong and weak, and so on coexist in everything" and "the two sides of any contradiction exist in an active harmony, opposed but connected and mutually controlling" (Peng & Nisbett, 1999, p. 743).

In contrast to Aristotle's 'either/or' system, Hegel's 'both/or' system, and the typified but misleading 'both/and' system for Yin-Yang paradigm, the present paper adopts the 'either/and' system proposed by Li (2016) to define the paradoxical relationship between yin and yang. Specifically, the 'either' refers to "the existence of tension, tradeoff, and conflict" between two opposite elements and the 'and' refers to "the existence of harmony, synergy, and complementarity" (p. 60) between the same opposite elements. In other words, the present paper argues that situational adaptation and personal integrity should be treated as a duality instead of a dualism. Consequently, situational adaptation and personal integrity should partially affirm and partially negate each other. For example, Schell (2001) has found that " there is remarkable stability to the predispositions people report as the foundation for their styles--and an associated stability to the struggles people report overcoming these predispositions to improve their practice" (p. 157).

As defined by Li (2016), mutual affirmation refers to a partial integration of the complementary elements of adaptation and integrity in both spatial and temporal terms. Similarly, Schell (2001) has found that people often have their own combination of bargaining style preferences which enable them to shift their bargaining styles from the most preferred one to the next preferred one in order to fit the situation and the opponents they encounter. Under this circumstance, personal integrity and situational adaptation partially affirm each other. On contrary, mutual negation refers to a partial separation of the conflicting elements of adaptation and integrity in different "spatial" aspects and levels or at different temporal stages and steps (Li, 2016). Schell (1999) indicates that people who have scored very high on only one style have to know how to compensate for the weaknesses inherent in their dominant style to be better adaptable to different situations. Under this circumstance, personal integrity and situational adaptation partially negate each other.

Proposition 3a: Adaptive people should know how to utilize the partially complementary and partially conflicting relationship between their personal preferences and situational contingencies to determine effective conflict management strategies.

Based on 'either/and' system, Li further argues that "when opposite elements are both at a high level in the same spatial aspect and at the same temporal stage, they tend to have the higher conflict in their interaction as unhealthy tension, but they will be in a good balance as healthy tension when one opposite element is at a high level, and the other is at a moderate level" (Li, 2016, p. 57). To be more specific, there is a curvilinear balancing relationship within the dominant-subordinate mix of opposite elements, in which "the subordinate opposite will be related to the dominant opposite in an inverted U-shaped nonlinear pattern with their interaction effect on the specific function" (p. 57). Accordingly, important implications to the utilization of the concept of conflict adaptivity can be derived from this operational mechanism for the principle of duality balance.

On the one hand, the proposition of curvilinear balancing helps to develop a more refined definition of conflict adaptivity on the behavioral level. Specifically, Li (2016) proposes that "the subordinate opposite is the least complementary and the least conflicting when it is at a low level [...]; it is the most conflicting, but the least complementary, when it is at a high level [...]; it is the most complementary, but the least conflicting, when it is at a moderate level[...]" (p. 57). That is, as conflict adaptivity and effective adaptivity strategy has been broken up into two dimensions from the Yin-Yang paradigm perspective: (1) asymmetrical balancing between situational adaptation and personal integrity in terms of its spatial content and (2) asymmetrical balancing between situational adaptation and personal integrity in terms of its temporal process, the occurrence of asymmetrical balancing between situational adaptation and personal integrity can be measured on these two dimensions.

On the spatial content dimension, according to Yin-Yang paradigm perspective, both situational adaptation and personal integrity will be measured respectively with a scale ranging across low, moderate, and high level. The present study assumes that the level of situational adaptation can be determined by the level of concreteness of situational cues. Thus, the less the ambiguous the situational cues are, the higher the level of situational adaptation is. With regard to the level of personal integrity, the higher people have scored on one or more conflict styles in a conflict style assessment tool such as the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI), the higher the level of personal integrity they will be assigned. It is worth noting, however, that the occurrence of adaptivity strategy should be measured simultaneously on the temporal process dimension because the respective role of situational adaptation and personal integrity in the dominant-subordinate mix mentioned above will switch constantly as conflicts evolve over time.

On the other hand, effective adaptivity strategy should consist of a high level of personal integrity with a moderate level of situational adaptation or a moderate level of personal integrity with a high level of situational adaptation as conflicts evolve over time. Accordingly, it is likely to oversimplify the complexities of conflict management behaviors when some researchers postulate that highly adaptable individuals are people who lack preference for any style and report low, moderate, or high usage across all styles (e.g., Damp, 2016) or people who have scored in the middle range for all five bargaining styles have a very adaptable style (e.g., Schell, 2001) without taking the level of adaptation in conflict situations into consideration at the same time. In other words, situational adaptation and personal integrity are two opposite elements that co-exist in a curvilinear way.

Proposition 3b: Adaptive people determine effective conflict management strategies through either a mix of a high level of situational adaptation with a moderate level of personal integrity or a mix of a moderate level of situational adaptation with a high level of personal integrity.

Discussion

Based on a critical review of two-dimensional models and three-dimensional situated model of conflict management, the present paper addresses the opposing processes (personal integrity vs. situational adaptation) in conflict adaptivity and the related effective adaptivity strategy from a Yin-Yang paradigm perspective. Firstly, according to the principle of holism, this paper argues that conflict adaptivity should be understood as asymmetrical balancing between two partially conflicting and partially complementary elements: situational adaptation (i.e., situational contingencies) and personal integrity (i.e., personal preferences) Secondly, according to the principle of change, this paper further argues that conflict adaptivity should be regarded as dynamic balancing between spatial content and temporal process. Thirdly, according to the principle of contradiction, this paper proposes that conflict adaptivity should be measured as curvilinear balancing between level of situational adaptation and level of personal integrity.

The present paper contributes to conflict management theory and practice in several ways. Firstly, I use a Yin-Yang paradigm perspective to explore the paradoxical roles played by situational contingencies and personal preferences when people adapt their conflict management strategies as required by situations. That is, situational adaptation and personal integrity have been conceptualized not as a dualism but as a duality. As a duality, these two opposite elements, "while conceptually distinct, are mutually enabling and a constituent of one another" (Farjoun, 2010, p. 203). To perceive the paradoxical nature of conflict adaptivity as a duality from a Yin-Yang paradigm perspective, therefore, conflict adaptivity is a capability not only to master the opposing processes of a situational daptation and personal integrity respectively but also to manage an asymmetrical balancing between them in both spatial and temporal terms.

Conversely, although Kaiser and Overfield (2010) contend that "Yin and yang are complementary but opposing forces that form a greater whole and each is dependent on the other" (p. 108) when they articulate the philosophical foundations of the mastery of opposites approach, they further claim that "When either force dominates, harmony is disrupted and the larger whole is compromised" (p. 108). As suggested by Proposition 1b in this paper, however, adaptive people should reflect a dominant-subordinate mix of their personal preferences and situational contingencies in their conflict management strategies. Furthermore, according to Proposition 2b, the respective role of situational adaptation and personal integrity in the dominant-subordinate mix should be allowed to switch as conflict evolves over time. That is, choice of conflict management strategy should not always be dominated by either people's personal preferences or situational contingencies (i.e., Proposition 2a).

Secondly, regarding conflict adaptivity as Yin-Yang balancing also offers an alternative view to assess the utilities of strategies proposed by Western scholars to address the paradoxical relationship between stability and change. For instance, Poole and Van de Ven (1989), a frequently cited reference (e.g., Farjoun, 2010; Smith & Lewis, 2011; Zhang, Waldman, Han, & Li, 2015), have proposed four methods to deal with two opposing theses (A and B) (p. 565):

(1) We can keep A and B separate and their contrasts appreciated; (2)
We can situate A and B at two different levels or locations in the
social world; (3) We can separate A and B temporally in the same
location; or (4) We can find some new perspectives which eliminate the
opposition between A and B.

According to Farjoun (2010), the first three methods accommodate the paradox, only the fourth dissolves or supersedes the paradox. Nevertheless, Smith and Lewis (2011) argue that "the first strategy focuses on acceptance, whereas the last three seek to resolve the underlying tensions" (p. 385).

As suggested by Proposition 1a and Proposition 3a in this paper, however, people's conflict management strategies are simultaneously determined by their personal preferences and situational contingencies in which the partially complementary and partially conflicting relationship between these two tensions should be exploited. Accordingly, it seems that both spatial separation strategy and temporal separation strategy are less effective for dealing with the paradoxical tensions between personal integrity and situational adaptation in the process of conflict adaptivity because either the influence of integrity or adaptation has been eliminated from the process of choosing conflict management strategy. With regard to the fourth strategy, it suggests that adaptive people should adopt a new perspective that cognitively eliminates the existence of opposition. Obviously, the use of the fourth strategy simple eschews rather than accepts (i.e., the first strategy) and exploits the existence of "contrary yet complementary opposites-in- unity ([phrase omitted] in Chinese)" (Li, 2016, p. 52).

For conflict management practitioners, thirdly, Proposition 3b in this paper suggests that adaptive people determine effective conflict management strategies through either a mix of high level of situational adaptation with a moderate level of personal integrity or a mix of moderate level of situational adaptation with a high level of personal integrity. To mix these opposing processes well, however, adaptive people should find more proactive strategies rather than just passively "live with" or "play through" paradox. As indicated by Smith and Lewis (2011), for instance, meaningful acceptance of paradox calls for a creative thinking to yield strategic and effective action (Beech, Burns, de Caestecker, MacIntosh, & MacLean, 2004). In other words, adaptive people accept or embrace paradox, but they do not "simply react to unfolding events" (Thomas, 1992b, p. 670).

There are two limitations in this paper. Firstly, although the author has proposed six propositions for conflict management researchers, the author has not tested them empirically. As a result, these propositions currently only have a heuristic value for the future research. To examine these propositions empirically, for example, future research may collect data through a three-step research design. The first step is asking participants to fill out a conflict style assessment tool such as the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI) to assess their conflict styles in general. At the second step, participants read various conflict scenarios with different situational contingencies and then describe how they will respond to each of scenarios. At the final step, data from the first two steps will be analyzed to see whether participants' responses to various conflict scenarios fit any one of the propositions. Secondly, for conflict management practitioners, this paper would be more helpful if it provided a specific "how-to" instruction for people to follow step by step. However, it will not be possible unless empirical studies have been conducted systematically to test these propositions.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the anonymous reviewer for valuable comments and feedbacks. Additionally, I would like to thank Prof. Guo-Ming Chen for proof reading and the Ministry of Science and Technology in Taiwan for the research grant (MOST 103-2511-S-128-001-MY3).

References

Beech, N., Burns, H., de Caestecker, L., MacIntosh, R., & MacLean, D. (2004). Paradox as invitation to act in problematic change situations. Human Relations, 57, 1313-1332.

Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1964). The managerial grid. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing.

Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1981). Management by grid principles or situationalism: Which? Group and Organization Studies, 6, 439-455.

Brandenburger, A., & Nalebuff, B. (1996). Co-opetition. New York: Doubleday.

Chen, G. M. (2008). Bian (Change): A perpetual discourse of I Ching. Intercultural Communication Studies, 17(4), 7-16.

Chen, G. M. (2009a). Toward an I Ching model of communication. China Media Research, 5(3), 72-81.

Chen, G. M. (2009b). Beyond the dichotomy of communication studies. Journal of Asian Communication, 19(4), 398-411.

Chen, M-j. (2002). Transcending paradox: The Chinese "middle way" perspective. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 19, 179-199.

Chen, M-j. (2008). Reconceptualizing the competition-cooperation relationship: A transparadox pyrspective. Journal of Management Inquiry, 17(4), 288-304.

Coleman, P. T., & Ferguson, R. (2014). Making conflict work: Navigating disagreement up and down your organization. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

Coleman, P. T., & Kugler, K. G. (2014). Tracking managerial conflict adaptivity: Introducing a dynamic measure of adaptive conflict management in organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35, 945-968.

Coleman, P. T., Kugler, K. G., Mitchinson, A., & Foster, C. (2013). Navigating conflict and power at work: The effects of power and interdependence asymmetries on conflict in organizations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43(10), 1963-1983.

Coleman, P. T., Kugler, K. G., Bui-Wzosinska, L., Nowak, A., & Vallacher, R. (2012). Getting down to the basics: A situated model of conflict in social relations. Journal of Negotiation, 28, 7-43.

Coleman, P. T., Kugler, K., Mitchinson, A., Chung, C., & Musallam, N. (2010). The view from above and below: The effects of power and interdependence asymmetries on conflict dynamics and outcomes in organizations. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 3, 283-311.

Damp, A. (2016). Conflict style fit: A novel approach to studying conflict management in the workplace. Unpublished master's thesis, Saint Mary's University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.

Deutsch, M. (1949). A theory of cooperation and competition. Human Relations, 2, 129-51.

Ding, D. D. (2003). The emergence of technical communication in China--Yi Jing (I Ching): The budding of a tradition. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 17(3), 319-345.

Druckman, D., & Mitchell, C. (1995). Flexibility in international negotiation and mediation. San Francisco, CA: Sage.

Euwema, M. C., & Van Emmerik, H. (2007). Intercultural competencies and conglomerated conflict behaviors in intercultural conflicts. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 31, 427-441.

Euwema, M. C., Van de Vliert, E., & Bakker, A. B. (2003). Substantive and relational effectiveness of organizational conflict behavior. International Journal of Conflict Management, 14(2), 119-139.

Fang, T. (2012). Yin Yang: A new perspective on culture. Management and Organization Review, 8(1), 25-50.

Farjoun, M. (2010). Beyond dualism: Stability and change as a duality. Academy of Management Review, 35(20), 202-225.

Fisher, R. J., & Ury, W. (1981). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. New York: Penguin.

Hall, J. (1969). Conflict management survey: A survey of one's characteristic reaction to and handling conflict between himself and others. Canoe, TX: Teleometrics International.

Holt, J. L., & DeVore, C. J. (2005). Culture, gender, organizational role, and styles of conflict resolution: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29(2), 165-196.

Huang, Lin-Mei (2017). Exploring the interplay between intuitive and deliberate modes of persuasive information processing: A yin-yang paradigm perspective. China Media Research, 13(3), 29-39.

Kaiser, R. B., & Overfield, D. V. (2010). Assessing flexible leadership as a mastery of opposites. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 62(2), 105-118.

Kaiser, R. B., Lindberg, J. T., & Craig, S. B. (2007). Assessing the flexibility of managers: A comparison of methods. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 15(1), 40-55.

Lai, K. L. (2008). An introduction to Chinese philosophy. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Lax, D. A., & Sebenius, J. K. (1986). The manager as negotiator. New York: The Free Press.

Li, P. P. (1998). Toward a geocentric framework of organizational form: A holistic, dynamic and paradoxical approach. Organization Studies, 19(5), 829-861.

Li, P. P. (2008). Toward a geocentric framework of trust: An application to organizational trust. Management and Organization Review, 4(3), 413-439.

Li, P. P. (2012a). Toward an integrative framework of indigenous research: The geocentric implications of Yin-Yang balance. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 29(4), 849-972.

Li, P. P. (2012b). Exploring the unique roles of trust and play in private creativity: From the complexity-ambiguity-metaphor link to the trust-play-creativity link. Journal of Trust Research, 2(1), 71-97.

Li, P. P. (2014a). The unique value of Yin-Yang balancing: A critical response. Management and Organization Review, 10(2), 321-332.

Li, P. P. (2014b). Toward the geocentric framework of intuition: The Yin-Yang balancing between the Eastern and Western perspectives on intuition. In M. Sinclair (Ed.), Handbook of research methods on intuition (pp. 28-41). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Li, P. P. (2016). Global implications of the indigenous epistemological system from the East: How to apply Yin-Yang Balancing to paradox management. Cross Cultural & Strategic Management, 23, 42-77.

Lloyd, G. E. R. (2007), Cognitive variations: Reflections on the unity and diversity of the human mind. New York: Oxford University Press.

Lynn, R. J. (1994). The classic of changes: A new translation of the I Ching as interpreted by Wang Bi. New York: Columbia University Press.

Munduate, L., Ganaza, J., Peiro, J. M., & Euwema, M. (1999). Patterns of styles in conflict management and effectiveness. International Journal of Conflict Management, 10(1), 5-24.

Ogilvie, J. R., & Kidder, D. L. (2008). What about negotiator styles? International Journal of Conflict Management, 19(2), 132-147.

Peng, K., & Nisbett, R. E. (1999). Culture, dialectics, and reasoning about contradiction. American Psychologist, 54(9), 741-754.

Peng, K., Spencer-Rodgers, J., & Zhong, N. (2006). Naive dialecticism and the Tao of Chinese thought. In U. Kim, K.-S. Yang, & K.-K. Hwang (Eds.), Indigenous and cultural psychology: Understanding people in context (pp. 247-262). New York: Springer.

Poole, M. S., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1989). Using paradox to build management and organizational theories. Academy of Management Review, 14, 562-578.

Pruitt, D. (1981). Negotiation behavior. New York: Academic Press.

Rahim, M. (1983). Rahim Organizational Conflict Inventories. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Renwick, P. A. (1975). Perception and management of superior-subordinate conflict. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 444-456.

Rubin, J. Z., Pruitt, D., & Kim, S. H. (1994). Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate, and settlement. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Schell, G. R. (1999). Bargaining for Advantage: Negotiation strategies for reasonable people. New York: Penguin.

Schell, G. R. (2001). Bargaining styles and negotiation: The Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument in negotiation training. Negotiation Journal, 17(2), 155-174.

Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36, 381-403.

Sorenson, R. L., Morse, E. A., & Savage, G. T. (1999). A test of the motivations underlying choice of conflict strategies in the dual-concern model. The International Journal of Conflict Management, 10(1), 25-44.

Speakman, J., & Ryals, L. (2010). A re-evaluation of conflict theory for the management of multiple, simultaneous conflict episodes. International Journal of Conflict Management, 21 (2), 186-201.

Spencer-Rodgers, J., Williams, M., & Peng, K. (2010). Cultural differences in expectations of change and tolerance for contradiction: A decade of empirical research. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14(3), 296-312.

Thomas, K.W. (1976). Conflict and conflict management. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 889-935). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.

Thomas, K. W. (1988). The conflict-handling modes: Toward more precise theory. Management Communication Quarterly, 1 (3), 430-436.

Thomas, K. W. (1992a). Conflict and conflict management: Reflections and update. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(3), 265-274.

Thomas, K. W. (1992b). Conflict and negotiation processes in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 3) (pp. 651-717). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc:

Thomas, K. W., & Kilmann, R. H. (1974). Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument. Tuxedo, NY: Xicom.

Trippe, B., & Baumoel, D. (2015). Beyond the Thomas-Kilmann model: Into extreme conflict. Negotiation Journal, 31(2), 89-103.

Van de Vliert, E., Euwema, M. C., & Huismans, S. E. (1995). Managing conflict with a subordinate or a superior: Effectiveness of conglomerated behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 271-281.

Van de Vliert, E., Ohbuchi, K., Rossum, B. V., Hayashi, Y., & Van der Vegt, G. S. (2004). Conglomerated contending by Japanese subordinates. International Journal of Conflict Management, 15(2), 192-207.

Womack, D. F. (1988). A review of conflict instruments in organizational settings. Management Communication Quarterly, 1(3), 437-445.

Zhang, W.-R. (2011), Yin-Yang bipolar relativity: A unifying theory of nature, agents and causality with applications in quantum computing, cognitive informatics and life sciences. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

Zhang, Y., Waldman, D., Han, Y. L., & Li, X. B. (2015). Paradoxical leader behavior in people management: Antecedents and consequences. Academy of Management Journal, 58(2), 538-566.

Lin-Mei Huang

Shih Hsin University, Taiwan

Correspondence to:

Lin-Mei Huang, Ph.D. Department of Speech Communication Shih Hsin University #1 Lane 17 Sec.1 Mu-Cha Rd., Taipei, Taiwan Email: lmhuang@mail.shu.edu.tw

[Please note: Some non-Latin characters were omitted from this article]