Front page
Discussion and evaluation of theoretical approaches in
the field of cross cultural management and cross cultural
conflict management and their applicability to
international companies with multi-cultural working
environment
Name: Lubomira Vesselinova Popova
Name of supervisor: Simon Fischer
Number of pages: 44
Number of symbols: 55 077
1
Table of content:
1.
Introduction……………………………………………………………..4
1.1
Problem statement……………………………………………………….4
1.2
Purpose of the paper……………………………………………………..4
1.3
Theoretical framework and structure…………………………………….5
1.4
Methodology…………………………………………………………….6
1.5
Discussion of the chosen method and theories: A critical perspective…..6
2.
Definitions and clarifications……………………………………………..7
2.1
Culture……………………………………………………………………7
2.2
Cross cultural management……………………………………………….8
2.3
Conflict and cross cultural conflict……………………………………….8
3.
Different perspectives towards cross cultural management………………9
3.1
Primesz et al.’s four paradigms…………………………………………...9
3.1.
The two dimensions……….………………………………………...........10
3.1.2 Burrell and Morgan’s matrix……………………………………………...11
3.1.3 The main streams of research……………………………………………..11
3.1.3.1 Cross-national comparison………………………………………………..12
3.1.3.2 Intercultural interactions………………………………………………….12
3.1.3.3 The multiple culture perspective………………………………………….13
3.1.4 Discussion…………………………………………………………………13
3.2
Fontaine’s (2007) perspectives……………………………………………14
3.2.1 The classical approach…………………………………………………….15
3.2.2 The anthropological approach……………………………………………..17
3.2.3 The psychological approach……………………………………………….20
2
3.2.4 The psychological approach with focus on stereotyping…………………...21
3.2.5 The knowledge management approach……………………………………..22
4.
Cross cultural conflict………………………………………………………26
management………………………………………………………………………...27
4.1
Blake and Mouton’s (1964) typology………………………………………28
4.2
Thomas and Kilmann’s (1974) model……………………………………...30
4.2.1 Discussion of the different styles………………………...…………………34
4.2.2 Applicability of the model…………………………………………………..36
4.3
The role of emotions in cross cultural conflict……………………………...36
4.3.1 The influence of cultural values on emotions……………………………….36
4.3.2 Ting-Toomey and Oetzel’s (2002) model…………………………………...38
5.
Conclusion…………………………………………………………………...40
6.
Summary…………………………………………………………………….41
7.
Bubliography………………………………………………………………...43
3
1. Introduction:
In the world we live in nowadays, with the Internet access, the possibility to
communicate freely around the world independently of time and space, the easiness to
travel and the existence of different political and economic unions, the process of
globalization is definitely taking place and developing fast (Neulip, 2012).
In this globalized world one of the most powerful entities are, in fact, big international
organizations. Some companies are entitled with the task to manage an enormous
amount of money. For example, statistics show that in 2011 Apple had bigger budget
than the entire US government (http://www.itp.net/585623-apple-has-bigger-budgetthan-us-government).
Such organizations operate on an international level, and have to manage employees,
working together, who come from various cultural backgrounds, who have been
socialized within different cultural norms, have different believes, attitudes and
understandings of right and wrong, and share different religions. In this case
intercultural conflict is inevitable.
1.1.
Problem statement:
How can an international organization having employees from different cultural
backgrounds turn cultural differences in the benefit of the company and manage cross
cultural conflict effectively?
1.2.
Purpose of the paper
Exploring the field of cross cultural management is extremely useful and relevant for
organizations operating internationally in today's environment and it is so for several
reasons.
First of all, nowadays companies have the task to create an international working
environment in which employees coming from different ethnical backgrounds to feel
4
comfortable and work productively. Moreover, this is a relatively new field of study
and there is no complete clarity concerning the term as well as the tasks and
responsibilities of a cross cultural manager (Fontaine, 2007). Thirdly, as Primecz et al.
(2009) claim, most of the research done in that field has been focused on one
particular direction - studying cross cultural management from the positivist
approach, and other methods and viewpoints have been ignored or at least
underestimated (Primecz et al., 2009). And finally, the review of the different papers
on cross cultural management shows that there is a tendency towards perceiving
cultural differences as a barrier to interaction and an obstacle to effective work rather
than a benefit for the company (Bush, 2011; Holden & Sønderberg, 2002).
The aim of this paper is by critically reviewing a number of different theories and
theoretical approaches to show that, if executed effectively, cross cultural
management is a tool which can help manage internal conflict in the most productive
way and, additionally, turn cultural differences into an important resource that works
in the benefit of the company.
1.3.
Theoretical framework and structure
The paper will discuss and evaluate a variety of theories on cross cultural
management and conflict management.
The work is structured in four main chapters.
The first chapter will introduce the topic and define the framework from which the
subject will be approached, as well as the structure and the methodology. In the
second chapter the relevant terms will be defined.
The third chapter of the thesis will look at some different perspectives towards the
field of cross cultural management and will be divided into two parts. The first part
will be based mainly and Primecz et al.’s (2009) work who offer four different
paradigms into approaching cross cultural management. After that it will look at
Fonatain’s (2007) study, who approaches the field from six different perspectives,
5
using theoretical evidence from Hofstede, Holden and other acknowledged scholars.
Only five of these paradigms will be discussed.
In the last chapter of the paper, the different conflict management styles will be
evaluated. Brawaeys & Price’s (2008) work on conflicts and cultural differences, as
well as Neuliep’s (2012) book on intercultural communication. In this part two
different models of cross cultural conflict management styles will be described and
evaluated will serve as a main theoretical framework for that part.
1.4.
Methodology
The chosen method for creating the paper is using already-available secondary
research, rather than conducting a primary research or combining both.
The paper reviews the major perspectives on cross cultural management and some of
the main theories which are based on these perspectives, as well as the basic cross
cultural conflict management styles. The theories are reviewed critically with the
purpose to search for approaches that would best fit in international organizations
with multi-cultural working environment.
1.5.
Discussion of the chosen method and theories: a critical
perspective
Using already available research gives the opportunity to look at a large number of
different perspectives and compare their advantages and disadvantages. It allows an
in-depth review of the basic theories available in the different paradigms. On the other
hands, it limits the work only to the studies, which exist already, and does not give the
opportunity to contribute to the field with new findings.
Many authors have been interested in the field of cross cultural management and there
is a lot of research conducted already. The problematic area is that there is no
complete clarity concerning the origins of the field and therefore the main paradigms
6
which exist. The thesis tries to classify the different theories and perspectives and to
show that there is a predominance of one of the paradigms - the positivist one.
The theories studied in the paper differ significantly from one another. After the
evaluation some of them are considered not effective for international organizations,
but they are still included, because the aim is to show examples of all the basic
paradigms discussed.
2. Definitions and clarifications
When discussing the field of cross cultural management, it is necessary to define and
clarify some related terms.
2.1.
Culture
First of all, the term “culture” needs to be explained. “Culture” is an abstract notion,
which is very difficult to define, and the various fields of study use different
definitions. According to Neuliep (2012) over 300 definitions of culture exist, all of
which differ from one another. Probably the most commonly used one is Hofstede’s
definition, according to whom “culture is the programming of the mind that
differentiates one group from another” (Hofstede, 1980 in (Fontaine, 2007)).
Being quite accurate, this definition, however, does not directly include the most
important components of culture, namely the values, beliefs and behaviors. Therefore,
for the purpose of this paper, culture, as defined by Neuliep (2012) will be viewed as
“an accumulated pattern of values, beliefs and behaviors, shared by an identifiable
group of people with a common history and verbal and non-verbal symbol system”
(Neuliep, 2012).
Cultural beliefs are strong perceptions about the world, and about what is right and
wrong, which are reluctant to change. Values are also perceptions, which are closely
related to the beliefs, but in contrast to them, they can be changed. Behaviors are the
actions which follow from the beliefs and values (Beamer and Varner, 2011).
7
2.2.
Cross cultural management
After clarifying the notion of culture, the term cross cultural management needs to be
defined. As Bush (2012) argues, there is no complete clarity concerning that term and
concerning what exactly the cross cultural manager should do. For the purpose of this
paper, Holden and Sonderberg’s (2002) definition will be used, which is “the task of
managing workforces from different cultural backgrounds, and moderating the impact
of cultural differences in the execution of management tasks” (Holden &
Sonderberg’s, 2002).
Although being quite accurate, this definition will be questioned further in the paper,
because some management approaches are not focused on moderating the negative
impact of cultural differences, but, on the contrary, on seeking ways to achieve a
positive impact (Jing, 2010).
2.3.
Conflict and cross cultural conflict
And finally, since the paper tries to prove that through sound management practices,
cross cultural conflict can be reduced, and when occurs, resolved effectively, this term
needs to be defined as well.
The term conflict also has different definitions in the different disciplines, but
Brawaeys & Price (2008) offer a relatively encompassing one, claiming that a conflict
appears when “people with different needs or goals are prevented – or perceive that
they are being prevented – by others in achieving these needs or goals” (Brawaeys &
Price, 2008).
Cross cultural conflict occurs in the process of communication between members of
different cultures, and as defined by Thing-Toomey and Oetzel is “the experience of
emotional frustration or mismatched expectations between individuals from different
cultures who perceive an incompatibility between their values, norms, goals, scarce
8
resources, or outcomes during an intercultural exchange” (Thing-Toomey and Oetzel,
2003 in (Fontaine, 2007)).
3. Different perspectives towards cross cultural management
After defining the relevant concepts, the paper will have a look at the main streams of
research and the different perspectives, which exist in cross cultural management.
The chapter will be divided into two main parts. Firstly, it will discuss the multiparadigmatic view of the field, offered by Primesz et al. (2009). The next part will be
focused mainly on Fontaine’s (2007) work, and it will evaluate the six main
approaches he describes.
3.1.
Primesz et al.’s four paradigms
As Redding (1994) argue, the field of cross cultural management has developed under
the influence of distinct paradigms, each of which having their own assumptions,
definitions and methodologies. There is also no consensus concerning the theoretical
field it has its roots in – weather it should be studied in the framework of
organizational
management,
human
resource
management,
communication
management, or another subject ((Redding, 1994) in Fontaine, 2007).
In this chapter, Primesz et al.’s (1994) multi-paradigmatic view towards the subject
will be used as a framework. Their study is built upon the argument that the fields of
organizational management and cross cultural management are closely related, and, in
fact, cross cultural management is a small discipline inside the more all-embracing
field of organizational management. Therefore the field of cross cultural management
should be approached with the same methodology and theoretical framework. They
use the same paradigms, which exist in organizational studies, in order to prove their
argument.
Primesz et al. (2009) argue against the general claim that the study of cross cultural
management is being at a stage of “early paradigmatic maturity” (Lower et al., 2007)
9
in Primesz et al., 2009)) and dominated by one paradigm only, namely the positivist
one. Their attempt is to show that various paradigms exist and to prove that there has
been valuable contribution from all the different approaches.
3.1.1. The two dimensions
In order to look at the field of cross cultural management from four different
paradigms, Primesz et al. (2009) use Burrell and Morgan’s (1979) two dimensions
dealing with assumptions about the nature of social sciences and assumptions about
the nature of society.
The first dimension distinguishes between objective and subjective view. Objectivists
believe that the social world is “objectively given and independently exists out there”
(Primesz et al., 2009). They believe that, seeking for causal relationships, they can
investigate its structure and regularities through scientific research (Primesz et al.,
2009).
The subjectivists, on the other hand, claim that society is socially constructed and
members of society actively participate in creating and recreating the social world.
They believe that social sciences cannot be studied and investigated independently
from outside, but investigators should, however, be actively involved, in order to be
able to understand the social processes (Primesz et al., 2009).
The second dimension distinguishes between the sociology of regulation and the
sociology of radical change.
Researchers in favor of the society of regulation believe that no better society than the
Western capitalist society exists and that all societal problems should be fixed “within
the framework of capitalism” (Primesz et al., 2009).
Proponents of the society of radical change believe that there are fundamentally better
societies. They try to put light on different social problems, such as power and wealth
10
inequalities, discrimination, social tensions etc. in order to highlight the need of new
better social order (Primesz et al., 2009).
3.1.2. Burrell and Morgan’s matrix
Based on the two dimensions discussed above, Burrell and Morgan’s (1979) grid is
created, which is shown in figure 1. The grid defines four paradigms in the field of
organizational studies. On the basis of these paradigms, the field of cross cultural
management will be discussed in the paper.
Figure 1:
The sociology of radical change
Radical
Radical
humanist
Structuralist
Subjective
Objective
Interpretive
Functionalist
The sociology of regulation
(Burrell and Morgan, 1979)
3.1.3 The main streams of research
The paper will now look at the three main streams of research identified by Sackmann
and Phillips (2004), and using the matrix as a basis, it will try to figure out in which
paradigms the different studies fit. The aim is to estimate whether the work has been
11
distributed equally within the paradigms, or some of them have been emphasized
more, while others ignored.
3.1.3.1. Cross-national comparison
The first stream of research is the cross-national comparison perspective, which
investigates the variations of values across cultures. It is associated with Hofstede,
whose theory will be discussed further in the paper, and other well-known
theoreticians such as Schwartz and House (Sackmann and Phillips, 2004).
Research in that field is generally conducted according to the functionalist paradigm
(Primesz et al., 2009). As Primesz et al. (2009) claim, some comparative studies have
been conducted from the interpretative paradigm as well.
It is important, however, to mention, that the cross national comparison conducted
according to the functionalist paradigm, or positivist, as referred to by many authors,
is the pre-dominant approach towards researching cross-cultural management
(Primesz et al., 2009; Holden and Sønderberg, 2002).
3.1.3.2 Intercultural interactions
The second main stream of research focuses on intercultural interactions and
investigates how cultural influences behavior during the process of interaction
(Phillips and Sackmann, 2004). As Primesz et al. (2009) claim it has been inspired by
anthropologists such as Geerz (1973) and Kluckholm and Strodbeck (1961).
Anthropological approaches will be discussed in more detail in the next chapter.
Phillips and Sackmann (2004) claim that anthropology can be both positive and
interpretative, and examples of intercultural interaction studies in both paradigms can
be found. They claim, however, that although the interpretative paradigm is gaining
acceptance, the functionalist perspective is still predominating (Phillips and
Sackmann, 2004). It is worth mentioning that some of the studies in this main stream
of research are radical humanist studies, but as Westwood & Jack (2007) argue, they
are very few.
12
3.1.3.3 The multiple culture perspective
The third and final main stream which Phillips and Sackmann (2004) describe is the
multiple culture perspective, which investigates the various cultural influences that
exist simultaneously at the different levels of analysis, such as nation industry,
organization. It analyzes also cultural groups such as ethnic groups, professional
groups etc. The aim is to figure out how culture influences individual’s identity and
perception of self (Phillips and Sackmann, 2004).
Research, conducted in this perspective is mainly interpretative, but there are
examples of functionalist studies as well (Phillips and Sackmann, 2004).
3.1.4 Discussion
Considering the above information, it can be concluded that most of the research in
cross cultural management is conducted according to the functionalist paradigm.
Interpretative studies are quite common as well. There are some radical humanist
studies to be found, but the radical structuralist paradigm is missing completely.
Further on, considering the three main streams of research, it can be concluded that
there is a predominance of the cross-national comparisons. Intercultural interaction
studies can be found as well, while the multiple culture studies are very few.
To show this imbalance clearer, Primecz et al. (2009) develop a model, which is
based on Burrell and Morgan’s (1979) paradigm grid. It is shown in figure 2.
13
Figure 2:
The sociology of radical change
???
2
1
11
3
Subjective
Objective
2
2
3
The sociology of regulation
1:Cross-national comparisons; 2:Intercultural interaction; 3: Multiple cultures
Primecz et al. (2009) using Burrell and Morgan (1979) paradigm grid
The grid summarizes the discussion above and shows once again the dominance of
the functionalist cross national comparison studies.
After looking at the field of cross cultural management from the theoretical
framework of organizational management, and discussing the four basic paradigms,
introduced by Burrell and Morgan (1979) as well as the different research
perspectives, the paper will discuss and evaluate six more specific approaches towards
cross cultural management.
3.2.
Fontaine’s perspectives
The next chapter of the paper will be based on Fontaine’s (2007) work, who believes
that there are six basic approaches towards cross-cultural management, which lead to
completely different management styles. Five of these approaches will be described,
and analyzed thoroughly, and their applicability, and advantages and disadvantages
14
will be discussed. The sixth approach is not considered relevant for the purpose of this
paper.
3.2.1. The classical approach
The first perspective – the classical approach - is based on Hofstede’s theory
(Fontaine, 2007).
Hofstede (1980) conducted a research among IBM employees around the world with
the purpose to identify similarities and differences between their cultures, and more
specifically he was concerned with their work ethics. He used four dimensions, based
on which every culture can be analyzed and described. The dimensions are
individualism versus collectivism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance, and
masculinity versus femininity (Peterson, 2007).
Hofstede defines individualism as “a loosely knit social framework in which people
are supposed to take care of themselves and their immediate families only” (Hostede,
1980 in (Kirkman, 2006), while collectivism, according to his work, is “characterized
by a tight social framework in which people distinguish between ingroups and
outgroups, they expect their ingroup to look after them, and in exchange for it they
feel they owe absolute loyalty to it” (Hostede, 1980 in (Kirkman, 2006)).
The second dimension deals with the power distance between individuals, occupying
different positions in society, because of their age, gender, position in the office or
something else. Hofstede defines power distance as “the extent to which a society
accepts the fact that power in institutions and organizations is distributed unequally”
(Hostede, 1980 in (Kirkman, 2006)).
The third dimension deals with uncertainty and measures the degree to which a
society feels threatened by ambiguous and uncertain situation and tries to prevent
them and achieve greater stability and clear view of the future (Kirkman, 2006).
15
The masculinity versus femininity dimension studies weather the dominant values in a
culture are masculine or feminine, masculine values being, for example
“assertiveness, the acquisition of money and things” while feminine “quality of life, other people, etc.” (Kirkman, 2006).
Hofstede and Bond (1988) include a fifth dimension, which is long-term orientation.
It distinguishes between cultures with future-oriented values, such as persistence, for
example, and cultures with values, such as respect for tradition, which are oriented
towards the past (Kirkman, 2006).
The classical approach states that cross cultural managers should be cultural experts,
studying the variations of values across cultures in the framework of Hofstede’s
dimensions. Their aim is to grasp the past of the cultures they are dealing with,
together with their value systems, in order to be able to understand the present
behavior of the employees and communicate to them successfully (Fontaine, 2007).
Discussion:
Hofstede’s theory is based on serious research and it presents a very good ground for
approaching another culture, identifying similarities and differences, and trying to
figure out effective ways of communication, as well as possible causes of outbursts
and conflict.
It does, however, have serious weaknesses. First of all, it is quite simplistic,
classifying all cultures in terms of five dimensions. Moreover, using Hofstede’s work,
people can easily jump into stereotypes. Stereotyping involves “members of one
group attribute characteristics to members of another group” which characteristics
“carry a positive or negative evaluation” (Neuliep, 2012). Basically, based on the
impression of the behavior of one individual people tend to believe that all the
members of the group he/she belongs to possess certain characteristics. People can
attribute stereotypes also from stories they have heard or read (Neuliep, 2012).
Managers, depending on Hofstede’s work can make the conclusion that all Japanese
employees, for example (Japan is a highly collectivist country (Varner and Beamer,
16
2011)), will be dedicated to the company, and put the interest of the company before
their own, but it might not always be the case. It could be so for a variety of reasons.
For example, some Japanese employees might not be able to relate to the
organizational culture, and therefore would not perceive it as an in-group. Others
might feel constantly offended at the workplace by their colleagues, because of their
directedness and straightforwardness (individualistic characteristics (Varner and
Beamer, 2011)) and again, perceive the company as an out-group. In such cases, a
cross cultural manager depending entirely on Hofstede and perceiving his findings as
an absolute truth will be very confused.
Another weak point in Hofstede’s study is that he uses the words culture and ethnicity
as synonyms- as two perfectly overlapping concepts. In reality, however, in
multicultural countries, such as the Netherlands, Belgium, Malaysia, the United States
and many others, children might be socialized at home by their parents who represent
one ethnic group, in school by their teacher who is a member of another, and at the
same time probably study in a multicultural environment. Such children grow up
without a clear national identity- they learn and accept some values from their
family’s culture and others from the culture they live in, study, and socialize with
friends (Staber, 2006).
Moreover, it has been proven that when living abroad, people unconsciously start to
forget some of the norms and values of their home culture while at the same time
acquire new norms and values from the host culture. This is known as the process of
“acculturation” (Frongillo et al., 2003). This concept is missing in Hofstede’s theory.
Considering the discussion above it can be argued that the classical approach might
serve as a good start to cross cultural managers, helping them to get to know the bases
of the value systems, and the basic differences and similarities between the cultures
they have to deal with.
It should not, however, be used as the dominant approach, because managers need to
take into account the concept of stereotyping, all the exceptions, such as mixed
marriages, children, whose parents represent one ethnic group, but who have been
born and socialized in another, as well as the fact that most of the foreign employees
17
in a company would be living abroad for many years and would have outgone the
process of acculturation to some extent.
3.2.2. The anthropological approach
The second perspective Fontaine (2007) talks about is the anthropological approach.
This perspective recognizes that there is a difference between the terms culture and
ethnicity and that in one ethnic group several distinct cultures might be found.
To describe the validity of this approach, Fontaine (2007) uses Fontaine and Tan
(2003)’s work. They conducted a study among students from various ethnic
backgrounds in a Malaysian university. The results showed significant variations in
the way the students perceived their ethnic identity, depending on their parents’ ethnic
background, the degree to which their family is religious, the schools they attended
prior to university and other factors (Fontaine, 2007).
The study described above proves that there are people with unclear ethnic identities,
who live according to a set of values, which is created as a mixture of the value
systems of two or more cultures.
Therefore, according to the anthropological
approach, Hofstede’s theory is considered misleading in multicultural societies.
Cross cultural managers, following this perspective, “should be more like
anthropologists” (Fontaine, 2007), studying carefully in details the differences, which
exist between the little subgroups in every ethnic group, in terms of religious beliefs,
education, family, living area, and all factors that serve as agents of socialization
(Fontaine, 2007).
The focus of the cross cultural manager as anthropologist is again directed towards
understanding the past with the purpose to understand the behavior of the employees
and their attitudes towards work, conflict at the workplace etc. (Fontaine, 2007).
18
Discussion:
Studying the subgroups and the small ethnic groups would give the cross cultural
managers a very good understanding of the cultures they have to work with, and very
good explanation for their employees’ behavior. It can again serve as an excellent
start to get to know what they can expects from the people working in the company.
Knowing their values and attitudes will help them create a guideline for the
management practices they can adopt and execute, and how to do it in a way that
everyone in the company can understand and accept these practices.
Like in the classical approach, however, the risk of stereotyping exists. When
studying smaller groups, which are considered more homogeneous that entire
countries, it becomes even easier to attribute characteristics that describe the whole
group. Managers, adopting this approach, should be able to distinguish stereotypes
from proven with evidence qualities, typical for a certain cultural group. Further on,
they should always be prepared for exceptions and instead of being surprised, they
should react reasonably and start to search for an explanation for the unexpected
behavior of a certain individual.
And finally, there is one serious weakness which exists both in the anthropological
and the classical approaches, which is that they view culture as “pre-existing and
static” (Fontaine, 2007), not ever-changing and dynamic. The focus of this two
approaches is directed entirely to the past, believing that culture is learned by the
individuals but not as well created and changed by them.
Bush (2012) makes the distinction between these two ways of understanding culture
very clear. He talks about two general perspectives into approaching culture – the
primordialist and the constructivist perspectives.
Primordialists view culture as a static phenomenon, which is passed on from one
generation to another without any alteration. It is perceived as existing prior the
situation of analysis, and it is assumed to remain the same (Bush, 2012).
19
According to the constructivist perspective, “people create culture, cultural
differences and identities within the situation” (Bush, 2012). Culture is perceived as
ever-changing and “potentially open for learning” (Bush, 2012).
Cross cultural management perspectives, which view culture as dynamic rather then
static, will also be discussed in the paper.
3.2.3. The psychological perspective
The third perspective presented by Fontaine (2007) in the psychological perspective.
It is based on Fontaine and Richardson’s (2005) (Fontaine, 2007).
Fontaine and Richardson (2005) claimed that contextual factors, such as national and
organizational policies and individual factors, are more important in determining
employees’ behavior than culture (Fontaine, 2007).
The idea of the psychological approach is that since cultural factors are “essentially
fixed and cannot be managed” (Fontaine, 2007), the cross cultural manager needs to
work as a psychologist, putting his/her effort into modifying contextual factors in
order to “minimize cultural differences at work” (Fontaine, 2007) and that way reduce
cross cultural conflict.
The focus of this approach is, again, on understanding the past (culture is again
considered static) but this time with a clear goal in the future – to create a less
diversified working environment, which would shape employees’ behavior in a
productive for the organization way and reduce conflict.
Discussion:
A serious weakness of this approach is that cultural differences are seen as an obstacle
to productive work and the main goal is to reduce diversity. In fact, as (Holden and
Sønderberg, 2002) claim, many of the work done in the field of cross cultural
management is directed towards the same goal. Culture is often treated as a “barrier to
20
interaction and a source of confusion” and cultural differences are seen as “a source of
conflict, friction and miscommunication” (Holden and Sønderberg, 2002).
There is, however, an alternative perspective which views cultural differences as a
“source of competitive advantage” (Holden and Sønderberg, 2002) rather than a
threat. Authors, following this approach, believe that diversity leads to competitive
advantage and organizational health, because culture is unique knowledge that cannot
be learned and the only way to bring it into the organization and to create a multicultural environment.
The idea of minimizing cultural differences automatically implies that the company
will lose the unique contribution cultural diversity can bring to the organization.
Therefore the psychological approach is not the best perspective cross cultural
managers can chose to adopt
There are few theories, which consider cultural differences as an important bringing
unique knowledge to the organization and they will be discussed later in the paper.
3.2.4. The psychological perspective, with a focus on stereotyping
The fourth approach, which Fontaine (2007) talks about, is again a psychological
perspective, but this time, with a focus on stereotypes. This approach is based on the
idea that cross cultural conflict and misunderstandings are not entirely due to different
cultural values, but primarily arise “because of ignorance and stereotyping rather than
actual differences in culture” (Fontaine, 2007).
It is based on Hewstone’s (2003) theory who claims that before engaging in cross
cultural contacts people usually hold negative stereotypes but after developing a
relationship most of that stereotypes disappear and positive impressions start to arise.
These positive impressions are directed not only towards the people they were in
contact with but towards the whole cultures they represent (Fontaine, 2007).
21
Managers following this approach should act like “psychological counselors”
(Fontaine, 2007). Their job would be to help people overcome the negative
stereotypes they have towards the other cultural groups. The focus will be again on
understanding the past, or understanding where the stereotypes come from, in order to
be able to eliminate them and change the future behavior of the employees (Fontaine,
2007).
Discussion:
This approach goes directly against all positivist theories on culture including
Hoftede’s theory and against all interpretative studies, which try to explain the impact
culture has on the way people form their identities and acquire an understanding of
self.
It is true that stereotypes exist and that stereotyping is underestimated in many
theories on cross cultural management. On the other hand, it is acknowledged and
proven by evidence that the culture people are socialized in, the cultural beliefs and
values they learn shape their identities and dictate their behavior (Beamer and Varner,
2011). Ignoring the cultural differences and claiming such degree of similarity is not
legitimate considering all the evidence in the opposite pole.
3.2.5. The knowledge management approach
The fifth perspective, which Fonatiane (2007) proposes is build around the belief that
cultural diversity is a valuable resource for the organization rather than a treat. This
viewpoint has been mentioned briefly earlier in the paper.
The knowledge management approach is based on Holden’s (2002) theory who
claims that knowledge is the most important asset in a firm. He distinguishes between
“explicit” and “tacit” knowledge. According to his theory, “explicit knowledge” is
easy to explain and share with others. “Tacit knowledge”, on the other hand, is
difficult to explain and is often gained by personal experience. It includes “believes,
mental models and perception that are taken for granted” (Fonatiane, 2007).
22
Holden (2002) believes that culture is tacit knowledge and organizations should take
advantage of it (Fonatiane, 2007).
Holden’s (2002) basic process model of cross cultural management is presented in
figure 3.
Figure 3:
Crosscultural
management
Participation
across
cultures
Maintaining
equivalence
across cultures
Learning
from
experience
Knowledge
sharing
Holden (2002)
Holden’s (2002) model shows how the knowledge which cultural diversity brings can
be used by the company. The cross cultural manager should execute his/her
management tasks and develop strategies, then participate across the different
cultures, maintain equivalence between the cultures, exchange knowledge with
employees, learn from experience, moderate the management strategies, and then the
cycle starts again.
The model shows that cross cultural management is a process, a never ending learning
experience.
Managers following this approach should encourage employees to openly express
their cultures and bring it to the workplace. They should appreciate different opinions,
different behaviors and alternative ways of performing a task. Their goal would be
directed towards the future – to shape the future of the company with diversity being
one of the core values.
23
Discussion:
The knowledge management approach is extremely valuable, because, in contrast to
most of the cross cultural management theories, it encourages diversity and
appreciates the contribution of the different cultures to the organization. It shows how
multicultural environment can be beneficial for a company and how culture brings
unique knowledge which employees cannot learn from courses or trainings.
This approach is very useful for organizations with less hierarchy, less control and
direct supervision, and more task autonomy, because it automatically assumes more
freedom for the employees to chose themselves how to execute the tasks they are
assigned.
The only weak point of the knowledge management perspective is that when
encouraging employees to express their own cultural values and to behave according
to their own cultural norms, the danger of intercultural conflict raises.
If sticking to Holden’s (2002) theory, in a situation of cross cultural conflict managers
should intervene less and again, try to take advantage of the knowledge the different
parties have to offer during the conflict. This would mean that the two parties would
be encouraged to use their own cultural patterns of resolving conflict. These patterns,
however, vary significantly in the different cultures.
The first major difference is due to whether a society is individualist or collectivist.
As mentioned earlier, in individualist societies the individual is the basic unit of
society and members of such cultures are interested more into achieving their own
goals then into the collective good (Beamer and Varner, 2011).
24
On the contrary, in collectivist cultures the group is more important than the
individual and members of these cultures work together for the benefit of their society
with the ultimate goal to preserve the harmony (Beamer and Varner, 2011).
In collectivist cultures the concept of face is of significant importance. People are
very sensitive about losing face, and, at the same time, about preserving the face of
others. In a situation of conflict they will be very careful not offend their opponent.
In individualist societies, on the other hand, people are more straightforward and they
are likely to say directly what they disagree with or what they feel their colleague is
doing wrong.
A conflict between a member of a collectivist society and one of an individualist
culture might end up with the first being seriously offended, even in situations when
the latter has no such intentions.
Another point to be considered is the difference between high-context and lowcontext cultures.
In high-context cultures the communication is highly dependent o the context and
people do not need to put in words all their thoughts in order to understand each other.
Non-verbal language is more important and silence can mean a lot. On the contrary, in
low-context cultures language is the most important factor for the production of
meaning and only what is expressed out loud matters (Beamer and Varner, 2011).
Considering this, in a situation of conflict between members of high-context cultures
and members of low-context cultures, the result could be serious misunderstanding
which might be dangerous for the outcome of their work.
The discussion above shows that in some situations without a third-party intervention
conflict might not be resolved, or even worse, one party could feel that he/she has
expressed clearly a position of disagreement, for example, through silence or gesture,
while the other party could be convinced that the conflict is settled. Therefore it is
25
logical to state that a company needs to have a clear policy for dealing with conflict,
applicable to all employees.
Different conflict management styles will be discussed further in the paper. What is
worth mentioning now is that there should be a fixed pattern, which is the same for all
employees, so that no one feels discriminated. At the same time it should be chosen
carefully, considering the different cultures, members of which work in the company,
their attitudes towards conflict and behavioral differences.
It can be concluded that Holden’s (2002) theory is very useful because it allows cross
cultural managers to take advantage of the unique tacit knowledge, which the
employees posses. It should be, however, applied carefully and reasonably. Cross
cultural managers should not fall into the idea of giving complete freedom to the
employees to express their cultural differences and behave according to their own
cultural norms. They should, however, work towards creating an organizational
culture, which allows the company to take advantage of employees’ that knowledge.
Core values of this culture should be diversity and appreciation of the contribution of
cultural variety. Employees should be able to relate to that culture together with its
values, as well as norms and rules. And most importantly, they should be able to feel
part of that culture and valued for bringing something unique.
4. Cross cultural conflict management
After discussing the various approaches to cross cultural management the paper will
focus on one specific part of that field, namely management of conflict between
members of different cultures. Browaeys and Price (2008) and Neuliep (2012) will be
used as a main theoretical framework for this chapter.
Before discussing the conflict management styles, offered by the different
theoreticians, it is important to mention that all the studies talk about a person’s
“conflict style”, which Browaeys and Price (2008) define as “patterned responses or
26
clusters that people use in conflict” (Browaeys and Price, 2008). This behavior,
according to their work, depends on three factors - cultural traits; personality; and the
situation in which the conflict takes place.
Basically, in a situation of conflict, the job of the cross cultural manager would be to
consider carefully the different conflict styles of the individuals involved, and to find
the best and the most effective solution to resolve the conflict fast, without any
serious negative outcome for the organization, and without negative consequences for
the employees and the working environment.
A conflict is considered resolved, when there is a solution which guarantees that this
subject matter would not be a cause for another conflict or misunderstanding
(Neuliep, 2012).
After clarifying the most important notions, the thesis will have a look and discuss a
variety of cross cultural conflict styles proposed by the different theoreticians.
4.1.
Blake and Mouton’s (1964) typology
Many of the models of cross cultural conflict styles are based on Blake and Mouton’s
(1964) typology. They define the behavior of people in a situation of cross cultural
contact, based on two dimensions – concern for production and concern for people.
These dimensions are corresponding to concern for self and concern for others, which
other authors such as Beamer and Varner (2011) talk about.
These dimensions are closely related to the concept of self-construal. Basically,
people with independent self-construal define themselves separately from their social
context, while people with interdependent self-construal define themselves based on
their relationships with others (Beamer and Varner, 2011).
Generally, in collectivist societies, where people have an interdependent self
construal, during cross cultural communication and negotiations they show a high
concern for people, or a high concern for others. High concern for production, or self,
27
is typical for members of individualist societies with independent self-construal
(Neuliep, 2012).
Discussion:
The difference in the communication styles in a situation of conflict between
members of individualist and members of collectivist societies has been discussed
briefly in chapter two.
To summarize, in such situation effective conflict management style from the
organization is extremely important, because the chances that the conflict can be
resolved by the employees themselves are slim. The most likely outcome would be
that the member of the collectivist society, because of the high concern for people,
would not express his/her position completely in the attempt to save the face of
his/her opponent. The member of the individualist society, however, might
unconsciously offend his/her opponent, because of the high-concern for production
(or self) and because of the directedness and straightforwardness typical for
individualist cultures.
4.2.
Thomas and Kilmann’s (1974) model
Thoman and Kilmann (1974) devise a model, which is based on two dimensions,
corresponding in meaning to Blake and Mouton’s (1964) “concern for production”
and “concern for people”, and Varner and Beamer’s “concern for self” and “concern
for others”. They name the dimensions “assertiveness” and “co-operativeness”
Browaeys and Price (2008). Assertiveness will be defined as “the degree to which a
person is concerned with his or her own interests” (Browaeys and Price, 2008) Cooperativeness is “the degree to which a person is concerned with the interest of
others” (Browaeys and Price, 2008).
The model is shown in figure 3.
28
Figure 3:
Thomas and Kilmann (1974)
Thomas and Kilmann (1974) claim that based on the degree of assertiveness and the
degree of co-operativeness people possess, they can be placed in five categories, as
shown in the model.
When an individual is low on both dimensions, it means that he/she is not willing to
communicate or negotiate, neither in the interest of others, nor in his/her own. People,
who possess a high degree of assertiveness and a low-degree of co-operativeness are
competitive, working towards their own interest and ignoring the needs and wants of
others. People with high degree of co-operativeness and low degree of assertiveness
are more concerned with the interest of others and try to accommodate to the situation
in the expense of their own needs. Individuals, who are high on both dimensions, are
likely to collaborate and to look for a solution which is in the best interest of both
parties. And finally, individuals, who are placed in the middle of the model, with a
middle degree of both assertiveness and co-operativeness, are compromising. They
look for their own interest, as well as for the needs of others, but at the same time are
willing to compromise, if the other party would do the same (Browaeys and Price,
2008).
29
4.2.1. Discussion of the different styles:
It is obvious that one of the major factors determining the category in which an
individual will be placed is the culture he/she has been socialized in, and the cultural
values he/she has learnt (Browaeys and Price, 2008).
Logically, only people who come from highly collectivist societies, such as Japan, for
example, can fit in the accommodating category. On the contrary Western societies
are usually highly individualistic, and people coming from the US, for example are
most likely to be placed in the competing category.
Countries like Italy, Greece and Bulgaria, for example, are described as relatively low
in both individualism and collectivism (Georgas, 1989), or as Georgas (1989) defines
them- they are “family collectivist”. This means that the basic unit of society is
neither the individual, nor the collective, but it is the family and the closest friends.
Individuals coming from family-collectivist countries are sometimes likely to
compromise with closer friends and colleagues, while at the same time competing
with people they do not know that well.
As Browaeys and Price (2008) argue, Thomas and Kilmann’s (1974) model can be
used to determine five basic conflict resolution management styles in a company,
which correspond to the five categories. Clearly, the best way to resolve a conflict in
an organization will be collaboration. It is, of course, the most difficult to achieve.
What cross cultural managers can do is provide cultural trainings and courses to their
employees to help them understand the differences between their own communication
patterns and conflict resolution behavior and those of their colleges. They should
understand how value systems vary across cultures.
When talking about organizational context, a very important factor to be considered is
the variations in power distance among the different cultures. The concept of power
distance was explained earlier in the paper. As defined by Browaeys and Price (2008)
30
it will be “the degree to which the less powerful members of organizations and
institutions within a country expect and accept that power is distributed unequally”
(Browaeys and Price, 2008).
In large power distance countries there is strong hierarchy and the power of its
members is defined by their position in society, namely age, gender and status, which
Hofstede define as “positional power”. In companies in such countries employees
need to be very careful when talking to their superiors. They should be respectful,
never disagree loudly, and even use different language from the one they use when
they talk to their equals (Neuliep, 2012). An example of high power-distance culture
would be the Indian society, where the position of a person in society depends entirely
on the cast in which he/she is born and cannot be changed (Kumar and Sinha, 2004).
In small power distance cultures there is less hierarchy, the organizations are more
decentralized, people who occupy the lower positions in an organization are also
involved in the decision-making process and are allowed and welcome to express
their concerns and to openly disagree with their superiors. The type of power, which
individuals possess in low power distance societies, is defined by Hofstede as “earned
power”, because individuals earn it with their efforts, hard work and motivation
(Browaeys and Price, 2008).
This factor can also be related to individualism and collectivism, since usually in
collectivist societies such as Mexico, Malaysia and India the power distance is large,
while in individualist societies such as the United States and Denmark, it is small.
Today, in the Western world, and especially in big international companies, there is a
growing tendency towards decentralization of power and less hierarchy (Axel, 2008).
When having employees, which come from large power-distance cultures, the
organization needs to make sure that they understand clearly the difference. They
should be encouraged, on the one hand, to express opinions and openly disagree with
their superiors, when they feel there is a reason to do so, and, on the other hand, that
they should not consider it disrespectful when their subordinates talk to them in a
similar manner they talk to their friends and sometimes question the effectiveness and
the outcomes of their work.
31
The difference in power distance should also be explained to the employees, who
come from small power-distance societies, because otherwise the behavior of their
colleges might seem weird and unnatural in some situations.
During the cultural trainings employees need to be familiarized with the concept of
ethnocentrism. Ethnocentrism is the tendency to use your own culture as a frame of
reference when communicating with people from different cultures (Beamer and
Varner, 2011). Ethnocentrists usually perceive the different behavior and cultural
values of a member of another culture as wrong, because they compare it to the
behavior and values of their own culture, which they consider the correct ones.
As (Neuliep, 2012) explain, everyone possesses a certain degree of ethnocentrism,
and it is the job of the cross cultural managers to reduce that ethnocentrism and to
make sure that everyone in the company understands that there is no right and wrong
behavior, when it comes to cultural differences, but there is a certain behavior, which
is part of the companies rules and policy and everyone is expected to act upon it.
In addition, a company that wants to achieve the collaborative style of resolving
conflict needs to have a specific organizational culture, in which teamwork,
cooperativeness and employee satisfaction should be among the core values.
The organization should try to oppress, to a very little degree, of course, the
individualism among the members of the highly individualistic societies, by
explaining them that high competition is not desirable. The company should promote
the basic values carefully, explaining that effective teamwork can be achieved through
sharing of ideas and listening to others. It should be clear that employee satisfaction
means that the needs of everybody are met or at least seriously considered, and that
the needs of all employees are equally important.
The cross cultural managers need to explain clearly that ignoring the needs of others
in the expense of someone’s own needs would be against the organizational culture.
32
Of, course, the company will promote the same values to the employees coming from
highly collectivist societies, but this time the approach will be slightly different. The
managers need to explain that effective teamwork means that the ideas and opinions
of everybody are valuable and encourage them to speak up when they feel dissatisfied
with something. They should explain that cooperativeness is important, but the
organization values not only the final result, but the contribution of each teammember. It should be clear that employee satisfaction is a core value and it is a main
goal of the company to be familiar with the needs and desires of everybody, in order
to be able to work towards achieving them and it is the employees’ responsibility to
help that happen, by speaking up and explaining clearly what they feel is going well
and where they see problems.
As stated above, it is very important how the company presents the core values to the
employees, considering carefully their culture. It is even more important, however,
that the organization actually works upon these values. This is so because if the
company does not have the organizational culture, which the managers are trying to
promote, then it is impossible for the employees to understand and feel part of that
culture. They will be confused because the values they are supposed to follow would
not correspond to the values, which are actually important for the company.
The collaborating approach, of course, is not suitable for every company, and is not
the only effective conflict management style. Finding a solution, which satisfies
everyone’s needs is difficult and time-consuming. Organizations, which have
productivity and fast work as a main goal, might prefer the compromising approach. It
would mean that managers would encourage employees to compromise and seek for
fast solutions to the conflicts in order to get the job done faster.
In such cases, of course cultural training is still helpful, and again it is important that
employees are familiar with and able to relate to the organizational culture. Again,
members of individualist societies should be encouraged to consider the needs of
others more, while members of collectivist societies – to express their own needs
more. If this is the chosen style for managing conflict, however, the trainings will
require less time, because the employees will just need to understand the basic
33
cultural differences and to slightly moderate their communication patterns, not to
adopt new behavior, like the collaborative approach requires.
The competing approach is also applicable to some companies, namely organizations
which value personal contribution more then teamwork. Such organizations usually
encourage employees to compete with each other through personal bonuses and other
methods (Cai and Fink, 2002).
It is logical to state that a core value of such organizations would be individualism,
and probably these companies would be looking to hire members of individualist
societies in order to easily fit in the organization and relate to its culture. Therefore,
such organizations are out of the range of this paper and will not be discussed further.
The accommodating conflict management style encourages employees to suppress
their opinions and needs, which automatically makes it not applicable in the Western
world where the big international organizations are located, and therefore it is again
not part of the subject. This style might be encountered in local organizations in
highly collectivist societies.
The last possible choice, the avoiding style would not be useful for any company
anywhere in the world because it would encourage employees to be indifferent to
their own and the others’ needs and consequently, indifferent to the work.
4.2.2. Applicability of the model:
Thomas and Kilmann’s (1974) model has been criticized by many authors. Saphiro
and Kulik (2004) argue that it is hardly applicable in today’s world because
communication nowadays is not always face-to-face and sometimes disputes take
days over the internet before they get resolved. In such situations, it is very difficult to
engage in an open discussion and to understand clearly all the needs of your
opponent, especially if there are unspoken needs to be considered. Another problem is
that sometimes conflict between colleges can take place in open platforms, for
example, in the intranet chat forums of the company, where there will be a lot of
34
interventions. In such cases, even with the best intentions and the best training, it will
be very difficult for the two parties to understand clearly the needs and wants of one
another (Browaeys and Price, 2008).
Having this in mind, Saphiro and Kulik’s (2004) argument can be considered
legitimate and it can be stated that the model is applicable when it comes to face-toface communication and conflicts that take place at the physical working context
(Saphiro and Kulik’s, 2004 in(Browaeys and Price, 2008 )).
The model has also been criticized by Leung et al. (2002), who claim that the concept
of “harmony” and is missing in the model. The idea of preserving the harmony is very
typical for some collectivist societies, such as the Mexican society, for example.
Members of such cultures would avoid arguments because they will be afraid it will
harm the harmony (Beamer and Varner, 2011).
Leung et al. (2002) sees harmony as “concerned with the relationship between the self
and others” (Leung et al., 2002 in (Browaeys and Price, 2008)) rather than “concern
for others”. They claim that “concern for others” means to be concerned with the
goals they want to reach during the dispute, while “concern for the relationship”
would mean not engaging in the dispute at all, because it threatens the harmony
(Browaeys and Price, 2008).
If perceiving the idea of preserving the harmony as different from the concern for
others, as Leung (2002) describes it, than the harmony is really missing from the
model and the criticism could be accepted. The two concepts, however, are closely
related and the same solutions, which were proposed earlier in the paper for
encouraging employees with high-concern for others to express their needs and
opinions, can be applied to employees concerned with preserving the harmony
(Browaeys and Price, 2008).
To summarize these solutions, the cross cultural managers should present the core
values of the company to these employees in a specific way, by underlying how much
the company appreciates each employee’s opinions and ideas and how important it is
for the company the needs of all employees are met.
35
This is necessary because running away from conflict can under no means be
considered constructive for the company. This is a completely different situation from
the avoiding category, when there is low concern for self and for others, and hence
low concern for the work outcomes. Here the employees run away from conflict
because of their fear of damaging the harmony. The result, however, is the samethere is something wrong which cannot be fixed, because employees ignore it. As
Posthuma (2012) argues, the unspoken conflict is still conflict which needs to be
resolved (Posthuma, 2012).
As mentioned above, the Thomas and Kilmann’s (1974) model has received a certain
degree of criticism. In addition, it is quite simplistic, putting all people, or all cultures,
into five categories. Another weak point would be that it does not discuss the role that
emotions plays during conflict. The relationship between culture and emotions and the
role of emotions in a situation of conflict will be discussed in the next chapter.
Despite all the criticism and the weakness discussed above, it can be concluded that
the model is useful for companies. It can serve as a general tool to determine the
conflict management style they want to follow and to decide how to promote their
basic organizational values to the employees with different cultural backgrounds.
4.3.
The role of emotions in cross cultural conflict
After discussing Thomas and Kilmann’s (1974) model, the paper will talk about the
relationship between culture and emotions and how emotions influence behavior
during conflict. After that another model of conflict management styles will be
proposed, which is based on similar dimensions, as the model discussed in the
previous chapter, but this time emotions are included in the model.
4.3.1. The influence of cultural values on emotions
As Beamer and Varner (2011) argue, the degree to which an individual is likely to
display emotions is very much dependant on the value system of the culture he/she
36
has been socialized in. Members of individualist cultures with independent selfconstrual usually show their emotions openly. They shout when they get angry which
can happen even in the workplace. In collectivist societies this type of behavior is
considered unacceptable, because people are concerned more with saving the face of
their co-workers than with their own feelings (Varner and Beamer, 2011).
Kumar (2004) claims that not only the degree to which people display emotions vary
across cultures, but even the emotions themselves are different. He defines emotions
as “high-intensity affective states that stem from the focal actors’ ability or inability to
achieve their goals” (Kumar, 2004 in (Browaeys and Price, 2008)). He believes that
the nature of the goals pursued by the different parties varies across cultures and if the
two cultures are more distant, the differences in the nature of the goals and the means
of communication to achieve that goal will cause negative emotions to both parties,
which might lead to a conflict.
Kumar (2004) distinguishes between “ego-focused” and “other-focused” emotions.
He believes that “ego-focused” emotions are usually experienced by members of
individualist cultures. These are emotions such as anger, frustration, pride and guilt
and they are usually caused by fulfillment or non-fulfillment of individual goals and
“reflect the need of the individual to show their particular identity” (Kumar, 2004).
“Others-focused” emotions, according to Kumar (2004), are emotions such as shame,
anxiety and fear, and they are experienced by members of collectivist societies. He
argues that these emotions are related to the ability or inability “to promote the
interdependent self, to show oneself as belonging to the social context, and they
reflect the need to fit in” (Kumar, 2004).
Kumar (2004) believes that there are differences between the outcomes of these
emotions as well. He claims that “ego-focused” emotions can cause people to try
harder to reach their goals, while “others-focused emotions” can motivate them to
work harder to fix the relationship. Therefore, in a situation of conflict, the members
of the individualist societies may put more pressure on their opponent in order to
reach all of the desired outcomes, while the members of collectivist societies might
37
give up or reduce some of their wants in order to recover the relationship (Browaeys
and Price, 2008).
4.3.2. Ting-Toomey and Oetzel’s (2002) model
Many authors, such as Nicotera (1993) and Ting-Toomey and Oetzel (2000) come to
the conclusion that since emotions play such an important role during conflict, they
need to be included in the model. Therefore Ting-Toomey and Oetzel (2000) design
an eight style conflict grid, which is in a way, an improved version of Thomas and
Kilmann’s (1974) model (Browaeys and Price, 2008). It is shown in figure 4.
Figure 4:
Ting-Toomey and Oetzel (2002)
It can be seen that the model includes the five conflict styles, introduced earlier, but
some of the names are changed. In addition, there are three more styles - emotional
expression, neglect and third party help.
The emotional expression is placed in the top left side of the model, because, as stated
earlier, only members of individualist cultures are likely to display emotions in public.
This is not considered a productive way of resolving cross cultural conflict, because
38
members of collectivist societies might feel offended, threatened or the least confused
by emotional outbursts (Browaeys and Price, 2008).
The cross cultural managers should try to reduce emotional outbursts by explaining to
the employees that this behavior is against the policy of the company.
The second addition, the neglect, or the passive aggression, refers to situations when
individuals give up and leave the conflict unresolved. This could be very harmful for
the organization because it will affect the results of the work, which the employees in
conflict have to do together. This behavior is again caused by emotions. It is typical
for people who are concerned equally for themselves and for others. It occurs when
individuals experience inability to achieve their goals and notice unwillingness for a
compromise by the other party (Browaeys and Price, 2008).
Of course, the company should try to avoid such situations, but when it happens,
probably the best solution would be the last addition to the model – the third party
help. It involves the use of an outsider, who is acceptable to both parties, to act as a
mediator. The third-party help is considered a concern both for self and for others
(Browaeys and Price, 2008).
This conflict management style is definitely effective and in most cases results is
successful conflict resolution. The problem, however, is that if companies adopt this
style and turn it into a common practice, then the freedom of the employees to choose
their own way of managing tasks, problems, conflicts etc. is limited. This goes against
the value of diversity and the appreciation of the contribution employees bring from
their own cultures. Therefore, managers should choose to put this style into practice
only in situations when they see no alternative.
Considering the models discussed in this chapter and the different conflict resolution
styles they are related to, it can be concluded that, although there are some styles
which cannot work in any firm, there is no ultimately best solution, which can be
applied in everywhere. The different organizations have different cultures, different
visions and different goals for the future, and based on that, they are free the chose the
conflict management style that would suit their company best.
39
What is important is that they have a clear understanding of their organizational
culture and they act upon the core values they promote to the employees. If this is so,
then the choice of conflict management style and the proper way to execute it should
not be an unattainable goal.
And finally, as stated earlier, for an international organization with a multi-cultural
working environment, “diversity, teamwork and employee satisfaction” should
probably be among the core values, and if this is so, the collaborative approach can be
considered a very good solution.
5. Conclusion
The paper discussed the main paradigms and perspectives to cross cultural
management, described by Sackman et al.’s (2009) and Fonatain’s (2007) and the
basic theories, related to them. By evaluating them, the thesis aimed to find out the set
of approaches which would serve most effectively international organizations, which
work with employees from different cultural backgrounds.
Later on, the thesis described and evaluated two models dealing with the different
styles for managing cross-cultural conflict.
Considering all the different theories reviewed, it can be concluded that cultural
differences are an important source of knowledge for an organization, if the cross
cultural management is executed in a sound way.
In today’s globalized world, international organizations often have employees from
different ethnic backgrounds, and it is a necessity for them to find a way to operate
effectively in a multi-cultural working environment and to take advantage of all the
different types of knowledge, which employees possess, including the culture.
40
Summary
The paper is developed around the idea that in today’s globalized world there are
many international organizations which have employees coming from different
cultural backgrounds. It aims to help identify solutions for effective cross cultural
management, which in the framework of this thesis, is understood as turning cultural
differences in the benefit of the organization. The other aim is to find out effectives
ways for managing cross-cultural conflict in the company.
The paper reviews Sackman et al.’s (2009) work, who approach the field of cross
cultural management from the theoretical framework of organizational studies. They
develop four paradigms, which are based on two dimensions: the subjective-objective
dimension, which distinguishes between the belief that society is socially constructed
and the conviction that social world is objectively given; and the society of radical
change and society of regulation dimension, which deals with weather there are better
societies, or the Western capitalist society is the best possible one (Sackman et al.,
2009).
Sackman et al.’s (2009) also describes three main streams of research I the field of
cross cultural management, which are also discussed in the paper.
Further on, the thesis takes a look at Fontaine et al.’s (2007) work, who introduces six
different perspectives to cross cultural management. Only five of them are discussed
in the paper. The last one is not considered relevant for the purpose of the paper.
The five perspectives are the classical approach, which deals with comparing cultures
on the basis on Hofstede’s dimension; the anthropological approach which deals with
studying small cultural groups and subgroups; the two psychological approaches,
which focus on reducing cultural differences, and reducing stereotypes respectively;
and the knowledge management approach, which views culture as a source of unique
knowledge (Fontaine, 2007).
The last chapter is dedicated to conflict management and describes and evaluates two
models of conflict management styles – Thomas and Kilmann’s (1974) model, which
offers five conflict management styles (competition, collaboration, compromising,
accommodating and avoiding); and the Ting-Toomey and Oetzel’s (2002) model,
41
which is a moderated version of the previous model, and includes three new styles –
emotional expression, neglect and third-party help (Browaeys and Price, 2008).
The paper aims to prove that with effective management cross cultural conflicts can
be minimized and cultural differences can be transformed into a huge resource for the
organization.
42
Bibliography
Axel, D. (2008). The political economy of international organizations. The review of
international organizations, 3(4), 331-334.
Beamer, L. & Varner, I. (2011). Intercultural Communication in the Global
Workplace. McGraw-Hill (5th ed.).
Brawaeys, M and Price, R. (2008). Understanding cross-cultural management (1st
ed.). Prentice Hall: New Jersey
Bush, D. (2011). Cultural theory and conflict management in organization: How does
theory shape our understanding of culture in practice? International Journal of Cross
Cultural Management, 12(1), 9-24.
Cai and Fing (2002). Conflict style differences between individualists and
collectivists. Communication Monographs,69(1), 67-87.
Fontaine, R. (2007). Cross cultural management: Six perspectives. Cross Cultural
Management: An International Journal, 14(2), 125-135.
Frongilo, E., Sobal, J. and Soo-Kyung, L. (2003). Comparison of models of
acculturation : The case of Korean Americans. Journal of cross-cultural psychology,
34(3), 282-296.
Georgas, J. (1989). Changing family values in Greece: From collectivist to
individualist. Journal of cross-cultural psychology, 20(1), 80-91.
Holden, N & Sønderberg, A. (2002). Rethinking cross cultural management in a
globalized business world. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 2(1),
103-121.
Jing, 2010
Kirkman, B. (2006). A quarter century of "culture's consequences": A review of
empirical research incorporating Hofstede's cultural values framework. Journal of
international business, 27(3), 285-320.
Kumar, E. (2004). The handbook of negotiations and culture, Stanford University
press: Stanford.
Kumar, R. and Sinha, J. (2004). Methodology for understanding Indian culture.
Copenhagen journal of Asian studies,19, 98-104
Neuliep, J. (2012). The necessity of intercultural communication. Intercultural
communication: a contextual approach. Sage publications.
43
Peterson, M. (2007). The heritage of cross cultural management: Implications for the
Hofstede chair in cultural diversity. International journal of cross cultural
management, 7(3), 359-377.
Posthuma, R. (2012). Conflict management and emotions. International journal of
conflict management, 23(1), 4-5.
Primecz, H., Romani, L. & Sackmann, A. (2009). Cross-cultural management
research: Contribution from various paradigms. International Journal of Cross
Cultural Management, 9(3), 267-274.
Philips, M. and Sackmann, S. (2004) Contextual influences of culture research:
Shifting assumptions for new workplace realities. International journal of cross
cultural management, 4(3), 370-390.
Staber, U. (2006) Social capital processes in cross cultural management. Journal of
cross cultural management, 6(2), 289-203.
44