Discussion of substantive among coworkers is vital to group effectiveness (see, for example, Burnett, 1991), and workplace discussion is rightfully encouraged by many business communication textbooks, which warn of the pitfalls of groupthink. However, when an employee disagrees with the boss or a colleague, the employee must carefully consider the merits of pursuing the issue to the point of an argument. Although some recent business communication textbooks explain how to argue (e.g., Ewald & Burnett, 1997; Locker, 1997), there is little discussion in the business communication literature of the potential benefits and risks of argument, or of the personality predisposition known as argumentativeness that leads some individuals to argue more than others. This predisposition is of interest to business communication practitioners and teachers for two reasons: (a) argumentativeness can be influenced by training, and (b) highly argumentative individuals have been shown to have characteristics linked with workplace success. Achievement of supervisory authority is a widely recognized indicator of workplace success. Since supervisors must both present departmental results to upper management and convey executive decisions to their own subordinates, the possibilities for argumentative discussion are numerous, and the potential importance of those arguments is great. The supervisor's position is held at the pleasure of management, which must have confidence in the supervisor's ability to communicate about corporate issues (Gorden, Infante, & Izzo, 1988, p. 20). The importance of this and other management skills increases at higher supervisory levels. The value of argumentativeness for business people seems clear, yet, for female employees, a contradiction emerges regarding what Infante calls a desirable communication (1982, p. 146) in the workplace. Recent assertiveness research shows that males may react negatively to females' use of powerful communication (Carli, 1990; Wiley & Eskilson, 1985), defined as direct, assertive communication, in contrast to a traditional, tentative communicative manner (Wiley & Eskilson, 1985, p. 996). Yet argumentativeness is an assertive trait (Rancer, Baukus, & Infante, 1985) which claims numerous positive assertions over the last 15 years of study (Infante & Rancer, 1996, p. 321). The contradiction between the argumentativeness and the assertive research is striking. For ambitious women who have been encouraged to be assertive, or who are predisposed to argumentativeness, these findings pose a dilemma which this paper attempts to resolve. In this paper, I examine the relationship between argumentativeness and women's success in organizations, as operationalized by the women's supervisory levels. I begin by defining argumentativeness, including descriptions of how it relates to assertiveness and aggression, and how it is quantified. Then, I review the literature related to the following issues: the benefits of argumentativeness, relevant cultural perceptions/misperceptions, current workplace demographics, and the contradictory research regarding the value of assertiveness for women. Finally, I present the results of my own study which indicates that a moderate level of argumentativeness is optimum for women seeking supervisory advancement and explore the implications of this new information in research, in the classroom, and in the workplace. Literature Review The distinctions among aggressiveness, assertiveness, and argumentativeness are important to understand since the academic definitions, while validated by research, may differ from popular connotations and, therefore, workplace perceptions. Argumentativeness and assertiveness are academically defined as distinct, constructive aspects of aggressive behaviors (Infante & Rancer, 1982). Argumentativeness is One Type of Assertive (and, Therefore, Aggressive) Behavior. …
Read full abstract