Reflection On INTERCULTURAL CONFLICT

Chapter10 [] IntercutturatConfhct 337

1. Define intelcultural conflict .

2. Define facework and identify three plimary facewo& strategies

3. List and define the five primaly and three secondary styles of conflict communication

4. Identify and discuss the conflict styles preferred by individuahstic and collectivistic cultures

5. Idenufy and discuss the conflict styles preferred by high- versus low-context cultures

6. Explain and apply the components of the contingency model of cross-cultural conflict

Imagine yourself m the following situation:

INTERCULTURAL CONFLICT

Mahatma Gandhi

Honest disagreement Js often a good sign of progress.

Aklra Abe is an internauonal exchange student from Japan who lives down the hall from you m your dorm. You have interacted with Aklra only occasionally and do not know him very well. This morning, Akira approached you to compiam that you frequently play your music so loudly that he Is unable to study or sleep. Aklra then asked if you would please stop playing your music so loudly.

What would you do m this situation? How would you resolve this conflict? Would you comply with Akira’s request? Would you argue with Akira?

Conflict, such as the one depicted above, is an inevitable part of living in a society with others. All types of human relationships–from strangers to acquaintances to intimates– experience conflict. Communication plays a paradoxical role in most conflicts because communicauon is required both to instigate conflict and to resolve it. Unfortunately, conflict is the source of much relational stress and dissolution; fortunately, the successful resolution of conflict is one of the strongest and most consistent predictors of relational sausfaction. Hence, an understanding of conflict and how to resolve it is an essential part of becoming a competent communicator, especially in your relationships with persons from other cultures.

DEFINITION OF INTERCULTURAL CONFLICT In the past 30 years, a growing body of theory and iesearch has emerged m the intercultural communication literature regarding the nature of intercultural conflict Much of this research Is based on the work of Stella Tmg-Toomey and John Oetzel) They define intercultural conflict as

the implicit ot exphcit emotional struggle between persons of different cultural commumties over perceived ol actual incompatibility of cultural ideologies and values, situational norms, goals, face-orientations, scarce resources, styles/processes,

)ntercu[tura[

conftlct The fmpLiclt

or explicit emotional

struggle between persons of different cultures over

perceived or actual

incompatibility of cultural Ideologies and values, sltuatmnal.

norms, goals, face onentatmns, scarce

resources, styles/

processes, and/or outcomes In a face-

to-face context

 

 

338 Chapter 10 m IntercuLtural.ConflictIntercultural. Communication

and/or outcomes in a face-to-face (oi mediated) context within a soclohistorical embedded system.2

Well-known lntercultmal communication scholai Young Yun Kun has developed a model of lntmcuhural conflict. Klm argues that lntelcultulal conflmt occuis at thiee interdependent and interrelated levels, mctudmg a mlclo oi individual level, an lnteime&aiy level; and a macro or societal level (see Figure 10.1).4

The miclo, ot zndividual, level of mteicultural conflmt refels to the unique attitudes, dispositions, and beliefs that each individual bnngs to the conflmt. According to Kim’s model, cognitive simpllcity/rlgl&ty refels to the degiee of mflexlbihty in the way individuals think about people fiom dlffelent cultules. Rigid, simphstic thinking includes gloss categmizanon and stereotyping (e.g., all Ameiicans ale rude, all Japanese are qmet). In-group bins lefers to the degree to which the individual is ethnocenuic

Recall from Chapter 1 that ethnocenmsm is defined as viewing one’s own group as being at the centei of evewthmg and using the standards of one’s own gloup to measure or gauge the woith of all other gioups. Insecuiity/fiustranon lefers to the degree to which the mdwidual has a high level of uncertainty about, and feat of, out-group members (e.g., they will steal our jobs) Divergent behavmr lefeis to the behavloial pattems of the individual that clearly dljÿerentlate and distance him oi her from out-group membeis For example, obviously &ffeient speech patterns or accents may ostensibly sepaiate groups from one anothei Duimg conflmt, people will often exaggerate their mannmisms and speech to accentuate then differences compared with out-gioups Because you ate upset about

Kim’s Model of IntercuLturaL ConfLict

Macro Level

° History of subjugation , Ideological or structural mequahties = Minority group strength

Intermediary Level

* Segregation/contact , Intergroup salience , Status discrepancy

Micro Level

° Cognitive simphclty/rlgtdlty • In-group bias

= Insecunty/frustratton • Dwergent behaviors

SOURCE Based on Kim, Y Y [1989] Interethnm Confl.Jct An InterdlscJphnary Overwew In J B Gÿttier {Ed 1, Annual Review of Conflict Knowledge and Conflict Resolution {Vot 1] New York GarLand, KLm, Y Y (19901 Explaining Interethmc Conflict An Interdisciplinary Overwew Paper presented at the annual convention of the Speech Comrnunlcatlon Assoctahon Chicago, IL

Micro Levelÿ

Akira’s complaint, you may intentionally turn up the volume on youi music. Imagine two employees worldng together, each fiom a different cultme, who have gross stereotypes of each other, are both ethnocentric, fear each other, and have highly divergent behavioral patterns Kim’s model predicts that such a situation is likely to engender conflict.5

The mtermedmry level of intercultural conflict refers to the actual location and context of the conflict. Some envuonments (e.g., neighborhoods, school, work) may be more likely than others to facilitate conflmt. Segregation and contact refer to the extent to whmh the individuals’ cultmal groups interact on a daily basis. Perhaps the most basic condition for intercultural conflict is contact between diverse cultures or ethnicitles on a day-to-day basis. Segregated wotkplaces or schools do not allow for much interaction, and components at the individual level (e.g, cognitive rigidity, m-group bias) tend to escalate to intolerable levels that facilitate intercultural conflmt. Intergroup salience refels to the observable physical and social differences between the confllcung mdwiduals. Such cultural markets include distinct physical and behavioral differences, such as race, language, and speech patterns.

As Kim notes, to the extent that the groups are cukurally distinct, the communicative skills of the less powerful cultural group will clash with those of the majority gioup members. The majority group’s symbol system is dominant. Status &screpancy refers to the degree to which conflicting parties differ in status along cukural lines. For example, African Americans often argue that U.S. culture practices an asymmetrical power snucture They may feel that the U S. corporate culture reflects the same asymmetry. On the job, managels and supervisors have more powei than workers. If all the managers in a business are of one race or ethnicity and all the workers are of another, then the status discrepancy is helghtened.6

Recall from Chapter 1 that a fundamental assumption of mteicultulal communication is that it Js a group phenomenon experienced by m&viduals. Likewise, duimg intercultural conflict, one’s group membership (l.e, culture) becomes a factor in how conflmt is perceived, managed, ÿ and resolved Some of these cultmal factms may be unconscious, such as one’s degree ofmdwiduahsm or c ollecnvism. Other factors are probably very conscious. Recall your conflict with Akira. The two of you are flora different cultural communities, have mcompanble goals, and desue d,fferent outcomes. You choose to play your music loudly. Akna piefets that you not play your musm loudly Flora a socmhistorical perspecnve, you may wondei if all Japanese ate quiet and dishke loud music. Perhaps Akira quest,ons If all Americans ale l ude and insensmve to the wishes of otheis. Although the conflict between you and Akna could Just as easily have occuued between two U.S. students oi two Japanese students, the fact that it happened between a U.S student and a Japanese student comphcates the issue.

Ting-Toomey and Oetzel maintain that intercultural conflict involves a ceitam degree of ethnocentiic percepuon and judgment. Recall from Chaptei 1 and Chapter 5 that ethnocenmc pmsons hold attitudes and behaviors about their in-group that ate bmsed m favor of the m-group, often at the expense of out-groups Ethnocentric persons fostei cooperative ldatlons with m-group members while competing with, and peihaps even battling, out-group members 3 Hence, by virtue of our cultural upbringing, we think we ate correct (i.e., loud musm is great vs. loud music is disrespectful). To explain intercultural conflict further, three models will be presented next’ Young Kim’s Model of Intercultuial Conflict, Tmg-Toomey and Oetze!’s Culture-Based Social Ecological Conflict Model, and BenJamin Bloome’s Model of Building a Culture of Peace ÿltÿrough Dialogue.

339

 

 

340 IntercuLtural. Comrnunlcatlon Chapter10 m Intercu[turatConfhct 34,,

Photo 10.1 Segregated drinking fountain in use in the American South

• ne macro, or socmtal, level of intercultural conflict includes factors that are probably out of the lnteractants’ control. ÿnese conditions include any histoly of subjugation, ideological/ snuctural inequality, and minority group strength. The history of subjugation of one group by anothel is a key environmental factor in maW intercultural conflicts. For example, African Americans have long been subjugated by Whites in the United States. Historically, Aflican Americans were slaves. Even after emancipation, they were not allowed to vote. As late as the 1960s, restaurants in the South’

A CuRure-Based Social EcoLogicaL ConfLict Modet In a model of conflict that complements the Klm model discussed above, Ting-Toomey and Oetzel have developed what they call a cultme-based social ecological conflict model.8 You will see some similarities between this model and the Kim model. In their model, Tmg-Toomey and Oetzel highlight four main factors that come into play during an intercultmal conflict episode: primary orientation factors, situational appraisals, conflict processes, and conflict competence. During intercultural conflict, these four factors come together interdependently in a complex formula that defines the specific conflict episode

(see Figure 10.2). The piimary orientauon factors are what each individual brings to the conflict. This

would be similar to Klm’s micro level, but with some added variables. Tmg-Toomey and Oetzel suggest that each individual brings macro, exo, meso, and micro layers to the

enforced sepaiate bathrooms, seating aieas, and drinking fountains for Afiican Americans

and Whites (see Photo 10.1). Often, the tensions expiessed today are rooted in the history of one group’s subjugation

of another group. Ideological and structural inequity refers to societal diffelences regarding powel, piestige, and economic reward. Historically, in the United States, Whites have held most of the power positions and gained most of the economm reward. Hence, there is a vast ideological and structural &fference between Whites and othei groups. Minority (i.e., miciocuttural) group strength refers to the amount of power (e.g., legal, pohtical, economic) a particular group possesses. Microculturat groups vary in their ability to tally their members against structural inequahtms. Minority group strength varies as a function of the status of the group’s language within the society, the sheer number of members in the group, and forms of societal support (e.g., governmental services designed specifically for that group). Relative to other microcultural groups, African Americans, for example, ale economically and politically quite powerful. Pohucal scientists argue, for instance, that presidential elections are swung by the African Amelican voting bloc. According to Kim, the greater the ethnic group’s strength, the more likely that an individual in that group will take actmn in lntelcultural conflict situations.7 Taken together, these three levels of conflmt merge during any intercultural conflict. To the extent that these individual, intermediary, and societal factors are present, intercultural

conflict will likely ignite.

Q e ,I e Q e o e e e e

e o o o o

o e

e e e e e

o

o e e

e o o o

e

Q o

Mike Fabmn Is the wce president of Acme Marketing Fwm, a company his father founded o Acme ÿs a direct marketing firm for msurapce agencies Mike ÿs 58 years ol,d and White •

e He was born and rinsed In Kenfl.worth, II,l,mols, a weal,thy Chicago suburb Mÿke has six • directors under him in Acme’s organlzatmnat hierarchy These six directors each man- .ÿ

age and supervise about seven empl,oyees Thus, Mike superwses about 50 employees : Once a year, Mÿke has one-on-one meetings with each employee These meetings are a part of each empl,oyee’s annual, evaluation Today, Mÿke is meeting wÿth Nicote Newton •

o Nÿcol,e Js a new employee and has worked for Acme for just over a year She was hÿred ° soon after graduating from co[I.ege with a bachel,or’s degree In commumcatlon Thÿs wÿl,[ • be her first eval,uatmn meeting She was hwed as a tel.emarketer and hopes to move up o mtheorgamzahonsoon SheisAfricanAmer/canand23yearsol,d Shewasralsedlnthe ° city of Chicago, m a pubbe-houslng dÿstrmt Thew meeting takes pl.ace in Mÿke’s office She and Mÿke have never met

Mike Good morning, Nicol,e Come m and have a seat

Nlcole HI, Mike

Mike Actual,l,y, unhl, I get to know my employees, I prefer to be catl,ed Mr Fabmn

Nÿcole Oh, OK, Mr Fabian [pLacing emphasÿs on “Mr”}

Mike [Noticing her tone of vmce } So where are you from?

Ntcole I grew up on the South Side

Mike [Thinks to hlmsel,f, “She and I have nothing m common”} I’m from Kenilworth

Nlcole

Mike

Ntcole

Mÿke

Nicole

Mike

Yeah, I’ve heard of that

So do you have any education beyond high school,9

Yes As my rÿsum4 indicates, I have a bachelor’s degree That shoul,d be m my fil,e

Oh, yes, here it is It says here you have a degree In commumcabon2 What’s that al,l, about9 Cl,asses In speech, I guess, or radio and tel,evlsmn?

WeLl., no I took classes In orgamzahonat communication, pohhcal, com- mumcatmn, IntercuLtural. commumcahon courses l.lke that We dÿscuss

and explore how humans interact wÿthln a variety of contexts It’s a great majorl

WelJ., there was no such major when I went to school I don’t understand Why not major m business? Anyway I’ve been reading your manager’s monthl,y assessments of your performance I can see you need Improvement {n several.

areas, mcl,udlng customer serwce and attitude

[Continued]

 

 

342 IntercuLtural. Commumcatlon Chapter 10 [] IntercutturatConfhct 343

Nicole

Mike

Severat of the factors outhned In the KIm mode[ can be appljed to this brief confbct exchange between Mike and NIco[e In terms of the micro flndwldua[} revel, Mike’s cog- mhve rigidity and slmphclty are reflected m his mftexlbte stance about Nicote’s infor- mahty, which doesn’t seem to be an Issue with her customers since none of them has

comptamed, and his tack of knowtedge about commumcahon degrees Regardmgthe intermediary [eve[, that Mike prefers for Nicote to cal.[ him “Mr Fablon” hlghhghts the status discrepancy between them That Mike meets with his emptoyees onty once a year shows that he has httte contact with {I e, is segregated from} them Moreover, persons m Kenltworth may rarel.y interact with persons m the Inner city Fmal.ty, at a macro {so- oeta[} [eve[, there is a hstory of subjugatton between their groups, and Nlco[e’s group has demonstrabl.e minority group strength

conflict–with macto meaning “larger than,” exo meaning “external or outside,” meso

meaning “middle or intermediate,” and mzcto meaning “locahzed or small.” Similar to Klm’s model, the macro-level primary orientation factors are the larger

sociocuhural factors, histories, worldvlews, beliefs, and values held by each individual. Macro-level variables may be outside the individual’s control but nevertheless affect his or hel approach to conflict Some macro-level variables might include the effects of globahzauon (i.e., the compression of cultural boundaries) on an individual. Exo factols include the formal instituuons present in..anyÿcultq.ÿeLÿnc[udmg religious iÿsÿtÿtutigns, governments, and health care systems, among others that are externaFto the individual but affect his or her approach7 Mes0qevel factors refer to the mole Immediate dimensions

Real.[y9 I thought I was doing fine

Weft, your manager says you are informal, wRh customers 1 think that reaves a bad Impression {Thinks to himself, “1 guess that’s not taught In commumcatlon classes “}

Really9 I think they hke It I think it’s at[ right to be a httl.e retaxed once m a whll.e

Weft., maybe el.sewhere, but not here

Have any of my customers compl.amed9

Not directly, no

So then, what’s the problem9 (Thinks to hersel.f, “What’s his probtem9 He thinks he’s pretty specIat He needs a cl.ass In commumcatlon “}

Look, Nicol.e, I’m not going to argue with you I’m te[hng you to Improve your attitude and stop being so reformat with the customers

Whatever you say, Mr Fablon

Ntcole

Mike

Ntcole

Mike

Ntcole

Mike

NIcole

alsals

Madro Globahzatlon, hÿstery of unresolved conflEct Exo Technology Meso Relational parameters, m-group/out-group Micro Conflict goal assessments and Intensity

Person A

Mlcroconfllct Processes

EmotEonal Expressions

Conflmt Styles

Facework Sehawors

Conflict Rhythms

Conflict Comeetence

Appropriateness/effectiveness Productwlty/satlsfactlon

Principled et[]cs cultural relatlvÿsm/unIversahsm, moral ÿncluston/excluslon, social justice

Person B

of a particular culture–for example, the local church group, one’s workplace setting, or even one s extended family. Finally, the micro-leve[factors include the mdwNual s unique intraiÿersona[attdButesl such as his or her level of mdivlduahsm or collectivism, actual physical location, and personal experiences, among others? FoI example, Ting-Toomey and Oetzel point out that individualists tend to address conflict through assertiveness, express their emotions, and value personal accountability. Collecuvists restrain their emotions and protect the in-group.

While primary orientation factors are the principal influences on conflict, they affect how each individual percewes (appraises) the situation in which the conflict takes place. Macro, exo, meso, and mlcio levels appear here as well. Macro situational features might include the effects of globalizauon on this particular situation, such as Immigration. Oftentimes, immigrant groups are faced with conflict from the native cultural groups. But, of course, not all conflicts are about immlgrauon. Exo-level variables might include whether the intelactants are m-group or out-group members. We tend to use different communication strategies when interacting with the in-group compared with the out- group. Meso-level variables focus on relauonal dimensions in this particular conflict and

 

 

344 Intercul.tura[ Communmahon Chapter10 m Intercul.tura[Confhct 345

might include one’s status in the family or orgamzauon Finally, mlclo-level situational features might include the individual’s goal in a given situation (e.g., to ask foi a pay raise).1°

The micio conflict processes include those facto*s that emerge from the conflict lntelaction itself. Foi example, duung conflict, the two individuals’ conflict interacuon styles come into play interdependently. So how does Individual A’s competitive style combine with Individual B’s avoidance style? Finally, how do the individuals manage their

emotlonsÿ Are they expressive oi restrainedÿ Last, the model includes conflict competence criteria and outcomes, which include

effectiveness/appropriateness, productivity/satlsfacuon, and punclpled ethics. Conflict competence refers to the application of lnteicultulal conflict knowledge. In other words, how are we to use what we know about conflict to act competently and produce an effective, appropriate resolutionÿ Appiopriateness lefeÿs to the degree to which the individuals’ behaviols are suitable foi the cultural context m which they occui Effectiveness refers to the degree to which the individuals achieve mutually shared meaning, which leads to intercultural undeistandmg. Pÿoductivity/satisfaction refels to the degiee to which the individuals are able to cieate the desiled images of themselves, to what extent those images are accepted by the opposing party, and the perception by both parties that a successful resolution has been leached. Tmg-Toomey and Oetzel ÿefeÿ to productive resolution as a “win-win” conflict ouentation and to unpioductive lesolutlon as a “win-lose” conflict oiientation A compauson of the two orientations is presented in Table 10 1 ”

We can apply the Culture-Based Social Ecological Model to the ealhei interaction between Mike Fabion and Nicole Newton, as we did the Klm model Regaidmg their prunaiy oiientation factors, Mike and Nicole have veW different maclo-level oiientauons Race plays a key role heie, as Nicole’s cultmal loots are in subjugation and slavery Their exo-level factors are also key. M,ke and Nicole ale plobably not membeis of the same social institutions. Mike is unfamiliar with Nlcole’s education in communication. They differ in age, and their political affiliations ale likely to be different as well. The meso-level factors are particularly ielevant here because, within the workplace, Mike carries much higher status than Nicole. Interestingly, their micro-level factors may not differ considerably, as

Respecting cuttura[ differences

Sensitivity to conflict context

Uncovering deeper conflict needs

Compromising mode

Practicing mmdfut eonfhct skirts

Wlthngness to change

50URCE Oetzel., J G, Tmg-Toomey, S, Masumoto, T, YokochJ, Y, & Takal, J 120001 A Typotogy of Facework Behaviors in Conftlcts With Best Friends and Retatlve Strangers Communication Ouarterly, 48, 397-419

Ignoring cuttura[ differences

Insensitivity to confhct context

Arguing and defending serf-interest

Conflict mode

Engaging in mindtess behaviors

Rigidity of eonfhct posture

INTERCULTURAL DIALOGUE, CONFLICT RESOLUTION, AND A CULTURE OF PEACE So how might Mike and Nlcole resolve their conflict? Like the other scholars cited in this chapter, Benjamin Broome maintains that conflict is an unavoidable consequence of living in a culturally diverse world. But Broome also believes that among myriad cultural groups, peace is possible He argues that successful intercultural conflict resolution requires that conflicting lnteractants engage in dialogue and promote a culture ofpeace.12 Broome asserts the following:

To build and maintain peace, we must learn productive ways to handle disagreements, and we must develop norms, mechanisms, and institutions that will guide us toward resolving divisive issues without violence. A central means thlough which such actions can unfold is dmlogue.ÿ3

Broome traces the etymology (i.e., the origins) of the word dmlogue to ancient Greece, where dia means “through or across” and logos means “wolds or reason.” Btoome contends that via dialogue, conflicting parties can reason with each othei using communication as the vehicle toward understanding and eventual conflict resolution. Via dialogue, Broome asserts, conflicting parties become aware of how they each lnterplet and prescribe meaning to the immediate context. Broome is careful to point out that dialogue does not rule out disagreement. Instead, via dialogue, conflicting parties begin to understand each other’s unique perspective on the issue confronting them, which can then lead to peace. Broome’s model is presented in Figure 10.3.ÿ4

Accolding to this model, as conflicting individuals engage in dialogue, a number of processes can lesult and lead to the possibility of a culture of peace. First, dialogue makes possible sustained contact. Just as in the Kim model and Tmg-Toomey and Oetzels’s model, Broome maintains that conflict is often ongoing because conflicting parties are segregated or have little contact with each other. To engage in dialogue, conflicting patties must come togethei and inteiact. Without interaction, it is impossible to understand the othei’s position. And while Bioome admits that sustained contact does not guaiantee a resolution, without contact, resolution is unfeasible. Such contact, Broome asserts, can help the conflicting parties reduce uncertainty and become aware of each othei’s perspectives, which helps reduce hostility. By segregating themselves, the conflicting parties make any kind of empathy between groups impossible. But via dialogue, at least understanding the other’s point of view becomes possible, which can then lead to a reduction of hostility. As

both wele raised in the United States and probably calry an individualistic orientation. They likely appraise the conflict situation differently. At the macro level, the issue of lace is unresolved, especially in Chicago. At the meso level, Mike’s hieraichical status in this organization places him at a distinctadvantage. In this scenario, Nlcole’s goal is to receive a positive evaluation, while Mike’s goal is to point out what he sees as a problem (i.e., Nlcole’s informality). Ironically, Nicole is conect in thinking that Mike needs a course (or two) in communication.

 

 

346 IntercuLtural Communication Chapter 10 [] IntercutturalConfllct 347

My name is Corle Stlng[, and I had the privilege to attend St Norbert CoLLege from 2012 to 2016 I graduated with a bachelor of arts In commu- nication and received a Spanish Language cer-

tificate One of my favorite classes in my time In school was IntercuLturaL Communications WhiLe in this class, I Learned so much about myself and how I interact with others in this world

WhiLe at St Norbert CoLLege, I served as a mentor for International students as a Bridges International mentor We met weekly with international students and tried to serve as a resource for them to practice speaking EngLish and Learn about American culture Through thÿs experience, I met Haruka Asarl, a student from Japan Over the year that she was at our

Corie Stlngt

As a result of this, I Learned a few tips about avoiding conflict during intercuLturaL inter- actions The first is to practice honesty and ask permission I would say things Like, “Hey, Haruka, I would Love to Learn about Japanese culture Is it OK If l ask you a few questlonsg” or “Can you teLL me something I don’t know about your cul.ture’ÿ” Practicing asking per-

mission aL[owed for both of us to become more comfortable with Learning from and with each other

The second thing I Learned is to Listen genu- inely and try your best to remember significant pieces of information that are shared with you When you are able to recall information that was shared with you In a situation Like this, it makes the other person feel respected and vaL- ued I believe that creating this kind of environ- ment is what made my friendship with Haruka so strong

From Haruka, I was able to [earn so much about Japanese culture, such as what not to do with chopsticks, some commonly used Japanese phrases, and some historical facts about the country HopefuLLy, I can put the things she taught me to use, as I hope to visit her In Tokyo in a fewyears I am so gratefuL for my friendship with Haruka and for the things she taught and continues to teach meI

campus, our friendship grew immensely We both Longed to Learn about each other’s cuL- tures, but wanted to make sure we did it in a way that was respectful and sensitive of the other person

Promotes supports

Sustained Reduced Respect for Narrative of at,nn-ÿ contact ÿ hostility ÿ the other ÿ peace ÿ Cooper

Contributes to Contributes to Contributes to Contr/butes to

Dialogue

SOURCE This discussion of the model is based entirely on Broome, B J [2013} Building Cultures of Peace The Rote of Intergroup DiaLogue In J G Oetze[ & S TIng-Toomey IEds ), The SAGE Handbook of Conflict Commumcahon Integrating Theory, Research, and Practice (pp 3737-37611 Thousand Oaks, CA SAGE

conflicting parties engage in interaction and begin to reduce hostility, they can begin to develop respect for each other. Broome maintains that as members of each group begin to listen to each otÿer and to understand each other’s viewpoints, they will develop a degree of regard and respect for each other. Once again, Broome acknowledges that this does not necessitate agreement but at least can initiate the process of peaceful discussion rather than hostile confrontation. As peaceful discussion continues, interactants are moÿe likely to engage in cooperative rather than competitive and hostile acuon, l]lis, then, can lead to a culture of peace.ÿ5

Broome is caleful to point out that building a culture of peace is a lengthy and difficult process. He understands that unequal social and economic conditmns, beyond either party’s control, may prevent conflicting pal ties from engaging m willful dialogue. He asserts that each party must be a walling participant. Moreover, current societal, national, or international events outside the control of either party may impede progress as well.16

So what Mike Fabion and Nlcole Newton might try is to engage in more frequent interacuon and get to know each other (i.e., reduce uncertainty–remembei Chapters 1 and 9?). They may find that they have more m common than they thought (remember the model of relational empathy and third-culture building in Chapter 9?). Foi example, they both work for the same company, and each wants the company to succeed. As they begin to

 

 

3/48 Intercultural Communication Chapter 10 e IntercutturatConfllct 349

face A person’s

sense of favorable self-worth or self-

image experienced during communicative situations Face IS an emotional extension

of the self-concept It is considered a ,

universal concept

serf-face The

concern for one’s

own image during communlcaUon,

especially confUct

ether-face Concern

for another s

Image during communication,

especially conflict

mutuat-face

Concern for both

parties images or the image of the relationship during

communication, especlatLy conflict

lacework

Communicative

strategies employed to manage one s own

face or to support or challenge another s racer self-face

dominating facework

Communicative behaviors characterized

by an individual s need to centrotthe situation

and defend his or her

self-face

avoiding lacework

Communÿcatwe behaviors that focus on

an attempt to save the face of the other person

during communlcaUon or conflict

integrating lacework

Communicative behaviors that allow

for the shared concern for self- and other-face

and strive for closure during communication

or confttct

educe uncertainty and discover their commonahues–at least in their shared desire for the good of the orgamzauon–they may begin to respect each other, engage in more peaceful

interaction, and eventually cooperate.

Facework In most conflict sÿtuauons, interactants are required to defend or save their faces when they are threatened or attacked. The various ways one might deal with conflict and face are collectively called lacework Specifically, lacework refers to the communicative strategies employed to manage one’s own face or to support or challenge another’s face Facework can be employed to imuate, manage, or terminate conflict)90etzel and his colleagues classify three general types of facework strategies used m intercultural conflict: dominating, avoiding, and integrating lacework (see Table 10.2). Dominating lacework behaviols are characterized by an mdwldual’s need to control the conflict situation and defend his or hei self-face. Avoiding heework behaviors focus on an attempt to save the face of the other person. Integrating lacework allows for the shared concern for self- and othei-face and

strives for closure in the conflict.2° Cross-cultural research has shown that individualists, such as U.S. Americans, tend to

prefer facework behaviors that defend the self-face or confront the other 0.e., aggression). Collectivists, such as Taiwanese and Chinese, tend to prefer other-face suategies such as avoiding the conflict, seeking a third party, or giving in to the otheL Collecuvists also prefer mutual-face lacework such as attempting to solve the pioblem through a third party,

having a private discussion, oi apologizing.21

Face In an effort to explain intercultural conflict, a number ofiesearchers apply a theory called face-negotiation tbe0ry,17 According to this view, the concept office explains how people of different cultures manage conflict. Face refers to a pelson’s sense of favolable self-worth or self-image experienced during communicative situations. Face is an emotional extension of the self-concept It is considered a umversal concept; that is, people in all cultures have a sense of face, but the specific meanings of face may vary across cultures. Tmg-Toomey and her associates differentiate among three types of face. self-face, other-face, and mutual- face. Self-face is the concern for one’s own image, other-face is the concern foi another’s image, and mutual-face is the concern for both parties’ images or that of the relationship Tmg-Toomey rdaintains that one’s face can be threatened, enhanced, undermined, and bargained over both emotionally and cognitively According to face-negotiation theory, people in all cultures try to maintain and negotiate face in virtually all communication situations. Generally, however, peisons of individualistic cultures have a greatel concern for self-face and a lesser concein foi other-face than do members of collectivistic cultures ÿ8 The concept of face becomes particularly significant in situations when uncertainty is high, as in conflict situations when the chalacter of the communicators might be called into

question.

Aggression verbally assault the other person “1 would say nasty things about the other person ”

“1 would ridicule the other person”

Defend self reply to a threat “! would be firm In my demands and not gwe in ”

“1 would resist my position be accepted ”

2,

Avoidance/pretend. dismissal of the conflict that does not threaten the other’s face “1 would act as though I wasn’t upset at art ” “1 would try to ignore it and behave as if nothing happened”

Give m. succumb and/or yield to the other “1 would give In to the other person’s wishes.”

“1 would let the other person win ”

Involve a thwd party, reliance on an outside party to help manage the conftrct “1 would ask another friend to help us negotiate a solution ” “1 would talk wath the other person through an outside party.”

1.

3,

Apologize offer an apology for the conflict “1 would offer an apology even though I didn’t do anything wrong ”

“1 would say i’m sorry and act as though it didn’t happen.'”

Compromise utilize direct discussion to resolve the conflict

“1 would try to find some middle ground to solve the problem.” “1 would try to combine both our viewpoints ”

Consider the other” show concern for the other “l would listen to the other person and show respect” “1 would te[tthe other person rm aware of thew position.”

Private dtscussJon: engage In relational talk about the conflict m a prwate setting “1 would keep our discussions private ”

“1 would wait until we were by ourselves to talk about it.”

Remain calm stay quiet and unruffled “1 would try to remain calm ”

“1 would try to listen well”

Express emotions communicate feelings about the conflict “1 would express my feelings m a straightforward manner.'”

“1 would be direct In expressing my fee[rags ”

SOURCE Adapted from Oetzet, J O, Ting-Toomey, S, Masumoto, T, Yokochl, Y, & Takaÿ, J {2000} A Typology of Facework Behaviors rn Conftÿcts With Best Friends and Retatwe Strangers Communication Quarterl,y, 48, 397-419

THE CONCEPT OF FACE, FACEWORK, AND COMMUNICATION CONFLICT STYLES

 

 

350 Intercultural Commumcatlon Chapter !0 [] Intercu[turaI. Confljct

SELF-ASSESSMENT 10.1 SELF-FACE, OTHER-FACE, AND MUTUAL-FACE CONCERNS

Scoring:

1 Sum your responses to Items 2, 7, and 10 Scores must range from 3 to 15 This ts your self-face score Higher scores, above 12, indicate a high self-face concern

2. Sum your responses to Items 4, 6, 8, and 9. Scores must range from 4 to 20. Thÿs Is your other-face score, Higher scores, above 16, indicate a high other-face concern.

3 Sum your responses to Items 1, 3, and 5 Scores must range from 3 to 15. This is your mutual-face score Higher scores, above 12, indicate a high mutual-face concern

SOURCE Th)s scaLe ls an adaptatlon of [he Face Concern Sca[e used m Oetzet, J G,Tmg-Toomey, S,

Masumoto, T,YokochqY,Pan, X,Taka),J,eta[ [200t] Face andFaceworkmConfltct ACross-Cultural Compartson of China, Germany, Japan, and the Umted States Commumcahon Monographs, 88, 235-258,

and Ttng-Toomey, S, & Oetze[, J G 1200t) Managing Intercultural Confhct Effectively Thousand Oaks, CA SAGE

Directtons. Take a moment and imagine yourself in this conflict What would you doÿ How would you handle this sltuatlonÿ For the following items, please indicate the degree to which you [5) strongly agree, [4] agree, (3] are neutral, [2) disagree, or [1] strongly disagree In terms of the conflict situation presented above

1 I am concerned with respectful treatment for both of us

2 My primary concern is saving my own face

3 Relationship harmony is important to me

4 I am concerned with maintaining the poise of the other person

5 iVlamtammg humbleness to preserve the relationship is important to me

6 Helping maintain the other person’s pride is important to me

7 I am concerned with protecting my self-image

8 My concern Is to act humble In orderto make the other person feetgood

9 iVly concern is to help the other person maintain his or her dignity

__ 10 I don’t want to embarrass myself m front of the other person

Remember your conflict with Aklra Abe at the opening of this chapter9 Now try to imagine yourself In a different situationt

You loaned your car, with a full tank of gas, to Aklra Recall that he Is an internat)onal exchange student from Japan whom you do not knowwe[l After he returned your car, you noticed that half of the gas had been used

Conftict Communication Stytes

In addiuon to the facewodÿ strategies one *night use to manage face during conflict, researchers have studied conflict interaction styles. Whereas facework Is employed to manage and uphold face during conflict, conflict interaction styles iefer to the ways individuals manage the actual conflict. How people manage communication during conflmt differs considerably across cultures.=

One’s conflict interaction style is based on two communmauon &mensions. The first Is the degree to which a person asserts a seÿface need that is, seeks to satlsfyhls oi her own interests during conflict. The second is the degree to which a person is cooperative (i.e, observes an other-face need) and seeks to incorporate the interests of the other.2ÿ The combination of assertiveness, or self-face need, and coopelanveness, oi other-face need, defines five primary commumcauon styles and three secondary styles of managing conflict The five primary styles are dominating, integrating, obliging, avoiding, and compromising.24 The three secondary styles are emotional expression, thild-party help, and neglect (see Figure 10.4).25

The degree to which a person asserts a high self-face need while simultaneously discounting the other-face need defines the dominating communicatmn style A person exercising a dominating approach might use his or her authority, expmtise, or rank to try to win the conflict. The person who assumes a high self-face need while also attending to the needs of the other-face takes on an Integrating style This person might try to collaborate with the opponent or try to find an agreeable solution that fully sausfies both parties. The person who tries to balance both self-face and other-face needs takes on a compromis,ng style. This person would probably use a “give-and-take” approach and might propose some

Hÿgh

€-

o t- Om

09

Low

ID°minatingl INeglect I IIntegrating

Emotional Expression

HeÿlpThlrd-PartyJ Compromising

IAv°’ding I I Oblig’ng-ÿ

High Other-Face Concern (Cooperativeness)

351

 

 

352 Intercultural Communication Chapter 10 Iÿ Intercultural Confbct 353

middle ground foi lesolvmg the conflict, understanding that each party may have to give up something to gain something. The person using an avozdmg style ignores both self-face need and other-face need. ÿlhls person might keep the conflict to himself or heiself and not discuss it The person who puts the other-face need ahead of self-face need assumes an obliging style. This person will try to accommodate the opponent or try to satisfy the needs of the other before satisfying his or her own needs.

Ting-Toomey and Oetzel maintain that the five primary conflict styles overlook some I

of the subtle, fine distinctions of conflict behavior used across cultures, so they have added three secondary styles. Jgmatzonal expression refers to how one might use his or her emotions to guide conflict. This is demonstrated by the type of person who listens to his oi her base feelings and proceeds accordingly. Third-party help is the extent to which a person is willing to engage an outsider to act as a go-between in the conflict. Neglect is the use of a passive- aggressive approach, whereby a person might ignore the conflict but attempt to elicit a response from the other via aggressive acts. For example, this peison might insult the other or say things that might damage the other’s reputation (e.g., “I would say nasty things about the pelson to others”)?6

Research in this area has shown that, m general, individualists tend to use more dominating styles during conflict than do collectivists Collectivists tend to use more mtegiatlve, obliging, and avoiding styles during conflict. Such generalizanons do not hold for all cultures considered collectivistic, however. For example, in a study comparing five cultures, Tmg-Toomey and her colleagues found that Korean, Japanese, and U.S. college students used fewer avoidance-type conflict styles than did Chinese and Taiwanese students. They also found that Korean and U.S.students were less likely to engage in obliging styles than were Chinese, Japanese, and Talwanese students.27 In their study, Hyun Lee and Randall Rogan found that U.S. clnzens were actually less conffontauonal during conflict than were Koreans, a culture considered to be collectivistic.28

o o o e o o e o

Q o o o o o o i

Q o e e e o o o

I

e o o

o o o

Kevm

Kevln, who grew up m Madison, Wisconsin, is a student at the University of Wisconsin Kewn ÿs enrolled In an introductory commumcatlon course The professor has assigned Kewn and Kokkeong, an international exchange student from Malaysia, to work on a project together The professor has given them the ophon of either submitting a paper or gwmg a presentahon Kevln and Kokkeong disagree on which option to pursue Kewn prefers the presentation ophon, white Kokkeong prefers the paper option

In the following conversation, Kevln asserts himself forcefully He stresses his experi- ence and experbse on the matter of presentations versus papers His approach Is typ- ical of a dominating confbct style Kokkeong, on the other hand, tries to convince Kevln that they should seek the advice of a third party, eÿther other students or the professor Kevm simply refuses

Kokkeong

Kevm

Kokkeong

Kevm

Kokkeong

Kevln

Kokkeong

Kevm

Kokkeong

Kevln

We[[, Kokkeong, I think we should do a presentabon I hate writing papers

Weft, what have other students done9

( don’t know, probably presentahons Nobody tikes writing papers

Well, maybe they might have some adwce

Adwce about what9

About which assignment Is preferred

But I already knowwhat assignment I prefer

I wonder If we should ask the professor for his advice

Why9 He’s already gwen us the option Look, I’ve been a student here for 2 years I know how these things work Let’s just do the presentation

I think I'[1 ask some others what they think

Go ahead, but doing a presentation Is the best choice I know what I’m talking about

THE INTERCULTURAL CONFLICT STYLE INVENTORY Mitchell Hammer has developed a model of intercultural conflict based on his Intercultural Conflict Style (ICS) Inventory. Hammer is the founder of several orgamzanons that focus on intercultural communication. He has applied his conflict model in work with the NASA Johnson Space Center, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the National Institutes of Health. Hammer’s ICS hwentory ÿs a theoretical model and assessment tool used by professional mediators andÿtramers to diagnose and manage intercultural conflicts. Hammer contends that the dynamics of conflict revolve aiound two fundamental features of all conflict: disagreement and emotional reaction. Lÿke others, Hammer maintains that a central characteristic of conflict is disagreement. This is consistent wÿth Ting-Toomey and Oetzel’s defimtion, presented earlier in this chapter, which describes conflict as mismatched expectations between individuals from &fferent cultures who perceive an incompatibility between theii values, norms, goals, scarce resources, or outcomes. Dÿsagreement would be considered the cognitive component of conflict. A second fundamental feature of conflict is the affecnve or emotional response to the dÿsagreement. According to Hammer, conflicting parties experience an antagonistic emotional reaction toward each other based on their disagreement and the perception of threat associated with it. So Hammer’s conflict model ÿs based on a cognitive and affecuve component–that is, disagreement and the negative emotional reaction to it.29

The focus of Hammer’s model is on intercultural conflict style. Like others, Hammer contends that people respond in patterned ways to conflict and that their communication styles are predictable. Conflict style, then, is the behavioral component of conflict that follows from the cognitive (i.e., disagÿeement) and affective (i.e., negative emotional

 

 

354 Intercutturat Commumcahon

Chapter 10 m Intercu(tura[Confllct 355

I ‘i ii

reaction) dimensions of conflict. Echoing the work of Tmg-Toomey and others, Hammer maintains that one’s conflict style is learned cultulally. But Hammer argues that the five conflict styles based on an individual’s concern fol self- or other-face have been developed within indivlduahstic, Western cultural conceptions and that these models may not adequately reflect intercultural conflict styles. Take, for example, the avoiding style, in which the person ignores both self-face need and other-face need. Consistent with Tmg- Toomey’s, research, Hammei notes that in collecuvistic cultures, an avoiding style is used to maintain relational harmony and actually reflects a high concern for self and others. Following his contention that conflicts evolve from disagreement and its resulting negatwe emotional reactions, Hammer proposes that people, legardless of culture, deal with disagreement either directly or mdnectly and that they either openly express or restrain their emotional reactions to conflict. Thus, one’s inteicultural conflict style is defined by one’s &rect or indirect communication about disagreements and his or her emotionally expressive or emotionally restrained behaviors2°

Recall fiom Chapter 7 that direct communication includes the use of precise language, in which one’s intentions are explicitly stated and the sender is responsible for making his oi her case known. Indirect communication includes the use of ambiguous language, or hinting, and the burden of understanding rests with both the sender and the receiver. Ting- Toomey’s research has indicated that a direct style is often associated with individualistic and low-context cultures, while an indirect style is associated with collectivistic and high- context cultures. Emotionally expressive individuals overtly and visibly (i.e., nonverbally) communicate their feelings through intense facml expressions, frequent gesturing, body posture, and ovelall active involvement. Emotionally restrained individuals minimize gesturing, mask their emotions both verbally and nonverbally, hold back their senuments, and control their feelings. Extant research suggests that individualistic and low-context cultures are often emotionally expressive, while collectÿvistic, high-context cultures are often emotionally restrained?1

Accoiding to Hammer’s model, during conflict, the extent to which an indwidual is either &rect or induect and emotionally expresswe oi emotionally restrained defines his or hei intercultural conflict style, of which there are four types. Hammer maintains that these styles are independent of culture. The four styles are (a) discussion, (b) engagement, (c) accommodation, and (d) dynamic style (see Figure 10.5)?2

As the graphic shows, an individual who approaches conflict directly but Is emouonally restrained takes on a discussion conflict style. This person emphasizes precise language and straightforward communication about the disagreement while withholding his oi her emotions This person is typically comfortable addressing conflict and is calm and collected emotionally. The person who is direct in his or her communication and is also emotionally expressive takes on an engagement style. This person is confrontational about the disagieement and forthright with his or her emotions. This is the type of style that “pulls no punches.” When a person communicates about conflict indirectly and without emotion, he or she takes on an accommodatian style. This is the type of person who only hints at the nature of the disagieement and may prefer an intermediary to address the conflict This person sees emotional outbursts as potentmlly dangerous. Finally, the person who communicates in&rectly about the &sagreement but Is emotionally expressive takes on a dynamic style. Verbally, this person may use exaggeration and lepetition of his or her messages while also employing a nonveibal, emotionally confrontational foim of expression.

Directness Discussion Style

Indirectness

Engagement Style

Dynamic Style

Emot)onally Emobonally Restrained Expressive

Hammer has developed an instrument that measures these four styles. He maintains that the ICS Inventory is useful in applied settings, such as organizations and even families. Hammer asseits that after the conflicting parties recognize their own style and that of their counterpart, they can better manage conflict. For example, Hammer cites a case in which one of the conflicting parties used an engagement style and the other used accommodation. Hammer points out that a large part of the conflict between the two was the mlsperceptions each party held about the other. The accommodation- style individual felt that the engagement-style person was rude and aggressive, while the engagement-style party felt that the accommodating-style individual was deceptive and lacking m commitment.

Hammer also notes that, paiticularly in the United States, many people beheve that their conflict style is discussion and that this is the most style. But after

. \ ap r(ÿpirlate completing his scales, many of these people see that they actuallyPp oach conflict with an accommodauon, engagement, oi dynamic style. Hammei concludes by saying that when persons try to implement a discussion style, thinking it is the most appropriate and having little awareness of the other three styles–particularly their cultural loots–they tend to see the engagement style as callous, theaccommodation style as lacking sincerity, and the dynamic style as unstable and disorganized. Knowledge of these various styles is the first step toward successful conflict management and resolutionY

INDIVIDUALISTIC AND COLLECTIVISTIC APPROACHES TO CONFLICT A central theme articulated throughout this book Is that whenever individuals from different cultures come together and interact, they bring with them a whole host of dlfferent value orientations, cultural expectations, verbal and nonverbal routines, perceptual

Accommodat)on Style

 

 

1

356 Intercultural Communication Chapter 10 m Intercultural Conflict 357

expellences (e g., ethnocentrism), and dlvelgent group membelships (e.g., ethniclty) that often lead to communication problems and conflict. A source of intercultural conflict is often a felt need to plotect one’s group–that is, one’s cultule. This need may be felt

passionately. In her wolk, Tmg-Toomey maintains that peisons from mdividuahstic cultules

apploach conflict differently than do pelsons from collectivistic cultules 34 According to Tmg-To6mey, individualists tend to follow an outcome-oiiented approach to intercultural conflict Collectivists, on,othe other hand, tend to follow a plocess-oliented approach The outcome-oriented apploach preferred by individualists emphasizes the lmpoltance of asseltmg theii self-identity m the conflict and the accomplishment of pelceived tangible outcomes ol goals The process-oriented approach preferled by collectivists focuses on mutual-face or gloup-face intelests. These interests are sought puor to, ol in lieu of, any tangible outcomes or goals 35 The specific chalactelistics of the outcome-oliented approach are summaiized as follows’36

1. The significance of the conflict is assessed against any face threat incurred in the conflict; it ÿs also evaluated in terms ofm-gioup versus out-group.

2. Conflict is seen as threatening when the paitles move folwaid on substantive issues befoie propel facework management.

3. Conflict is seen as satisfying when the paities engage m mutual face-saving and face-giving behavior and attend to velbal and nonverbal communication.

4. Conflict is seen as unproductive when face issues and relational/group feelings are

not addressed propelly. 5. Conflict is defined as productive when both parties can declare win-win results on

facework in addition to substantive agreement 6 Successful management of conflict means that the faces of both conflict paities

ale saved or upgraded and each person has dealt with the conflict stlategically in conjunction with substantive gains or losses.

Ting-Toomey maintains that the outcome-oliented model pleferted by individualists encourages an effective finish to the conflict over the applopilate treatment of the parties

• he specific charactelisucs of the process-oriented appioach are summarized as follows?7

1. To the individualist, conflict is closely related to the goals oi outcomes. Conflict is “end” oriented, in that the individualist seeks to achieve something.

2. Individualists become fiustiated during conflict when their counteiparts are unwilling to addiess the conflict openly and honestly.

3. Individualists see conflict as satisfying when their countelparts ale willing to confiont the conflict openly and assert theH feelings honestly.

4. Conflict is seen as unproductive when no tangible outcomes ale negotiated and no plan of action is executed.

5. Conflict is seen as ploducuve when tangible lesolutions ale leached. 6. Successful management of conflict is defined as when individual goals and the

differences between the palues are addressed openly and honestly.

involved. ÿlhe collectivist-preferled process-oriented model emphasizes the appropliate treatment of the palties involved over an effective solution. Moreover, asserts Tmg- Toomey, the accomplishment of one criterion may help accomplish the other. For example, as individualists successfully addiess the cole issues in the conflict, apploprlate and genial interaction between the parties can follow naturally–that is, face saving. On the other hand, from the collectivist’s perspective, acting appropriately in the conflict by engaging in necessary lacework eventually brings about effective outcomes. For collectivists, strategic lacework is more important than winning ol losing a conflict. In fact, collectivists often see losing a given conflict for the moment as gaining key advantages in the long term. In the end, the key to competent intercultural conflict management is mindfulness, in which each person is mindful of cultural differences, mindful of the different goals, and willing to experiment with different conflict management styles?8

CONFLICT RESOLUTION IN HIGH- VERSUS LOW-CONTEXT CULTURES As we have seen throughout this book, communication is very much dependent on the context in which it occurs The contextual model guiding the olganization of this book includes the cultural, miclocultural, environmental, perceptual, and sociorelauonal contexts and how these contexts affect the choice of verbal and nonverbal messages. And recall from Chapter 2 that the degree to which interactants focus on these contexts while communicating varies considerably from culture to culture. In some cultures, persons choose to focus more on the verbal codes than on the nonverbal elements, while in other cultures, people actively momtol the nonverbal elements of the context Edward Hall desclibes the former as low context and the latter as high context.

According to Hall, a high-context culture is one in which most of the information during communication is found in the physical context lnternahzed in the person, while very little is found in the explicit code (see Photo 10.2). A low-context culture is one in which the mass of information is in the explicit code (i.e., the verbal code). Elizabeth Chua and William Gudykunst have compared conflict resolution styles between high- and low-context ‘ÿ cultures?9 They aJgue that in low-context cultures, such as the United States, individuals are more likely to sepaiate the conflict issue from the persons involved. In high- context cultures, such as China, the conflict issue and the ÿ persons involved are typically connected. For example, °i directly disagreeing with someone may be seen as losing face and is perceived as insulting. Moreover, Chua and Gudykunst asseit that persons in low-context cultures tend to be more direct and explicit in their dealings with conflict, whereas persons in high-context cultures prefel implicit communication. In their study of nearly 400 pelsons from both high- and low-context cultures, Chua

Photo 102 What kind of confhct styl, e might be at play here9

 

 

358 Intercultural Communication Chapter 10 [] Intercu[tura[Confllct 359

I do not believe that people from Mexico deal with trouble or stressful situations in the same way as

others do To generalize on a particular set of characteristics that define how a person of Mexican nationality resolves his or her own problems would be almost impossible The social and economic surroundings of every

individual in Mexico are usually completely dif- ferent, which makes their problem-solving pro-

cesses much different as well

However, there are certain behaviors or atti-

tudes that one can expect to see from a Mexican when that person is in a stressful or uncom-

fortable situation

As Mexicans are Latlnos, our characters and

personalities are rather warm and heartfelt

We express our feelings, to a certain extent,

more than people from other races or eth- nlcltles do For example, when a sÿtuatlon

makes a Mexican person happy, he or she will express it more boldly than someone from Sweden would In the same manner, when a Mexican person feels uncomfortable,

upset, or mad about a specific problem or situation, this person’s reaction will be quite

volatile {e g , yelling, screaming, lack of ver-

bal communication, trying to avoid the prob-

lem, etc }

We all know that the shortest way to solve prob- lems Is through commumcatlon and an open-

minded understanding of the situation Perhaps the slower pace of life In Mexico affects how Mexicans approach their problems {e g, post- ponmg dealing with problems} Also, pride and lack of will to reconcile might be obstacles a Mexican must confront before consldenng a possible sol.utlon

Since friendships have a lot of value to persons from Latin America (not to say they don’t to people from other p[aces], friends will ask for advice and talk to each other for insight Into a problem

and Gudykunst found that persons from low-context cultures preferred soluuon- oriented confhct resolution styles, whereas persons from high-context cultures prefened nonconfrontauonal styles.4°

Chua and Gudykunst conclude that their results are consistent with other research that has found a simdar pattern between high- and low-context cultures. Specifically, research has revealed that Mexicans (i.e., a high-context culture) prefer to deny that conflict exists or to avoid instigating conflict, while U.S. Americans (i.e., a low-context culture) are more direct m their deahngs with conflict.4]

I am from,oLeon, Gua-

najuato, Mexico, but

now reside In the UmtedStates lama graphic design major

Rodmgo Vfl.tatobos

o o o o e o o e o o

o o o

1 Direct commumcabon about the conflict

2 Collaborating behaviors that aim to find a soluhon for both parbes

3 Gwmg m or compromising

4 Accommodating the other

5 Confronting the Issue

” 1 Indirect commumcahon o

o 2 Avoiding or withdrawing from the Issue

° 3 Using silence °

4 Glossing over differences

5 Conceabng ill feelings I ° ° I • = ° • • • ° • • • • • • • o • • • • • • e o o o e o ° o e o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o e e o o o o o e o o o

RESOLVING CROSS-CULTURAL CONFLICT: A CONTINGENCY MODEL As mentioned abthe beginning of this chapter, conflict Is an inevitable part of living in a society with others. Although we cannot eliminate conflict, we can learn to manage and resolve It competently. To be sure, Klm’s Model of Intercultural Conflict, Tmg-Toomey and Oetzel’s Culture-Based Socml Ecological Conflict Model, and Benjamin Broome’s Model of Building a Culture of Peace 3hrough,Dmlogue are excellent examples that describe and explain intercultural conflict. Now, we will focus on how to resolve conflict with persons from cultures dÿfferent than our own.

Recall from earher m this chapter that cross-cultmal conflict often results from the incompatibility of cultural ideologies and values. How many wives should a man have? Is it acceptable to abort a child because she is female? Is a dinner of dog meat acceptable? Is direct eye contact with someone of higher status OK? When mdwiduals experience and respond to cross-cultural conflict, they ale faced with a dilemma. To what extent do they adapt to the other person’s cultural Ideologies and values, and to what extent do they adhere to their own cultme’s Ideologies and values? To the extent that people adapt to the other person’s cultural values, they may be following the familiar adage “When in Rome, do as the Romans do.” Or instead, do they hold fast to their native cultural values? Perhaps doing as the Romans do violates a core value that one holds firmly John Kohls and Paul

 

 

360 Intercutturat Communication Chapter10 I Intercuttural,Confhct 361

avoiding The person

using an avotdlng styl,e to manage conflict ignores both sel,f-face need and other-face need

TNs person might keep the confl,lct to hlmsetf or herself and not discuss It Often,

persons with l,lttte

power or influence choose to avoid

addressing confhct

Avoiding may an effective strategy If one needs to do more

research on the topic of confl.mt

forcing A forcing

strategy to resol,ve confl,lct is used when

one coerces another

into compl.lance Forcing el,lmlnates choice and Js often

used by persons who possess power over others

education/ persuasion This

strategy to resol,ve conflict is defined by one’s use of

information, l,oglc, or emotional, appeal,s to Influence another

mfll,tratlon Wtth this strategy to manage conflict, one introduces his or her

vatue orientation,

hoping that the opposing party will. see the val,ue and

adopt it

negotiation/ compromise Using

ths strategy to

manage conflict,

both parties gwe up somethmg Often, wtth compromise

neither party Is comp[etel.y satisfied wÿth the outcome

Avoiding. As the label suggests, persons using an avoiding style choose not to addiess the conflict Often, pmsons with little power or influence choose to avoid addressing conflict. Avoiding may an effective strategy if one needs to do more research on the topic of conflict Another reason to use avoiding is if passions are high. Temporarily avoiding conflict may allow the emotions to settle.

Forcing’ A forcing strategy is when one coerces another into compliance. Forcing eliminates chome and is often used by persons who possess powei over others. Recall that in many cultmes rigid and strict social hierarchies prescribe who has power.

Education/Persuaswn: This strategy is defined by one’s use of information, logic, or emotional appeals to influence anothm. This strategy is often seen in small powm distance cultures where people are seen as essentially equal.

Inflltratwn: With this strategy, one introduces his m her value orientation, hoping that the opposing party will see the value and adopt it.

Negotmtwn/Compromlse: Using this strategy, both parties give up something in ruder to resolve the conflict. Often, with compromise neither party is completely sansfied with the outcome.

Regarding the seven communicative strategies outlined above, Kohls and Buller argue that the specific strategy one uses in cross-cultural conflict is contingent on at least three factors, including (a) the central values at stake in the conflict (i.e., centrality) and the degree to which such values are held by the majouty (i.e., consensus), (b) the individual’s ability to resolve the conflict, and (c) the degree of uigency in resolvmg the conflict.44

Kohls and Buller maintain that not all conflicts are equal in terms of the centrality of the cultural values at stake and the consensus with which they are held For example, in the brief examples cited above, not making direct eye contact with a supelior certainly does not hold the same importance as aborting a fetus because she is female. Cultural values vary along a continuum of cultmal centrality (see Figure 10.6). Some values are at the core of a cultme (t.e, central) while others are pelipheral.45

In managing cross-cultmal conflict, one must assess the centrality of the conflicting values in gauging what kind of communicative strategy to adopt. Peripheral values may have to be sacrificed tn order to maintain cross-cultural relationships, while central values may need to be defended at the cost of the relationship Related to the cennality of values

Accommodauon: With this strategy, one of the conflicting parties simply adopts or cooperates with the position of the opposition. This is the “When in Rome, do as the Romans do” strategy.

Collaboration/Problem Solving’ With this approach, the conflicting patties work together to find a mutually agleeable solution in which each party accomplishes his or her goal without compromise. This is the win-win strategy.

Buller argue that neither of these responses ts satisfactory. Instead, Kohls and Buller point out that throe are several communication stiategies one can use when addressing cross- cultural conflicts.42 These include avoiding, forcing, education/persuasion, infiltration, negotiation/compromise, accommodation, and collaboration/problem-solving Note that these seven strategies parallel those outlined earlier with Face Negotiation Theory and are based on the reseaich of Thomas and Kilmann.43

is the degree to which the majority holds the particulai value as centlal to their cultme (i.e., consensus). Kohls and Bullet maintain that if a value is at stake but is not widely held by the majority, it may be considmed less important and more easily sacrificed. They point to providing matemity leave for the paients of newboms, which responds to cennal familial values in many Western cultures such as the United States But such practices ale not widely held across cultmes So while this may be a cenual value in the United States, it does not reach consensus across cultures.

The combination of value centrality and value consensus is what Kohls and Buller call intensaty.46

Another factor that will influence how one

Good Grades

SOURCE Adapted from Bul,ter, P F, Kohts, J J, &Anderson, K S [1991] The Chattenge of Gtobal, Ethics Journal of Busmess Ethics, 10[101 7,57-775 Koh[s, J, & Butter, P {19941 Reserving Cross-Cuttura[ Ethlca[ Confl,ict

Exptormg Al,ternahve Strategies Journal of Business Ethics, 13{1] 31-38

responds to cmss-cultuial conflict is the degree to which an individual has influence over the conflict In some cases, an individual may not have any control ot ability to affect the outcome of the conflict, while in other cases an individual may have considmable control. For example, recall from Chapter 9 the issue of arranged marriages. In many cultures, young women have no control over whom they will marry and that such decisions ate made for them by theu parents who have complete control

Fmally, the thnd factoi is urgency. This refers to the timeline that ts needed to resolve the conflict. In some cases, there will be pressure, perhaps even a deadline, for which the conflict needs to be resolved quickly. In othm cases, the conflicting parties may have sufficient time to resolve it. Fm example, in many cultures patents may take a consldmable amount of time finding the apptopiiate paitnm fm their son m daughter in an arranged marriage. They may even place matrimonial ads in newspapers and take weeks or months finding a potential spouse for their child Howevm, when the parents do find an appÿopuate match, there is often a strict deadline placed on the son or daughter to accept the partner, sometimes only a mattei of hours.

To repeat, Kohls and Buller argue that there ale sevelal communicative strategies one may use dining conflict (e.g., avoiding, infiltration, etc). But they maintain that the particular strategy to be used is contingent on the urgency of the conflict, the intensity of the conflict, and how much influence one holds in the conflict. 47

Kohls and Buller’s contingency model can be applied to a number of cross-cultural conflicts.

accommodation

With thrs conflict-

resol,utlon strategy, one of the confhctmg

parties slm ply adopts or cooperates with the positron of the

opposition Th,s is the When in Rome, do

as the Romans do

strategy

cotl,aboratlon/ probtem-sotvlng

WRh this conflict-

resotutlon approach,

the confhctmg parties work together to find

a mutually agreeable so[utmn m which each

party accomptlshes hrs or her goat without

compromise This is the win-win strategy

SCENARIO #1: LATE FOR MEETINGS

Gene Lanoye is a U.S. manager for Acme Corporation based in Acme’s Mexico office in Cuelnavaca, which is the capital and laigest city of the state of Motelos. Gene manages a team of nine Mexican workeis and holds routine Monday morning meetings at 8.00 a.m to brief the team about the week ahead. Gene is frustrated because many of his employees are often late to the meeting, and some do not show at all Gene doesn’t know how handle the situation

 

 

362 Chapter 10 m IntercutturaI. Confllct

Intercultural Communication

SCENARIO #2″ WRITE A PAPER OR GIVE A PRESENTATION?

SOURCE Adapted from Butter, P F, Kohts, J J, & Anderson, K S (1991} The Cha[tenge of GtobotEthlcs Journal of Business Ethtcs, 10110} 767-775 Kohls, J, & Butter, P (1994] ResoLving Cross-CutturaL Ethtcat Conflict ExptorJng At[ernohve Strategies Journal of Business Ethtcs, 1311] 31-38

Recall from Chapter 4 that the United States is a monochronlc-ouented cultme in which schedules and punctuality ate unportant and guide the communicative context. Mexico is a polychronic culture in which time is relaxed, schedules are flexible, and the natural context guides one’s communicative acts Mexico is the United State’s thud- largest trading partner, and many U.S. companies send their manageis to Mexico to manage their businesses and Mexican employees. These managels take with them their monochronic orientation, which can lead to a variety of cross-cultural conflicts within a polychronic culture such as Mexico. In many U S. companies, meetings ale routinely scheduled (e.g., weekly or monthly) and are held legularly, often coveung relatively mundane topics. Many U.S. managers have complained that their Mexican employees are often late for such meetings or sometimes do not attend at all In this case, we have a conflict that is relatively low in urgency, of high intensity (i.e., the monochronic orientation is a central value across the United States), and the U S. manager carries considerable influence over his employees, given that Mexico is a large power distance culture. Here, the contingency model would prescube that Gene Lanoye exercise an infiltration, collaboration, or education strategy Gene might tiy to emphasize to the employees why it is important to be on ume for such meetings, while simultaneously collaborating with them by suggesting that if they are prompt for the meetings they will be rewarded somehow, honically, oftentimes persons from monochronic cultures who spend time in polychronlc cultures adjust lather quickly to the polychronic orientation and find it difficult and stressful when leturning home to their native monochionic orientation. To be sure, there may be instances in which an emergency occurs and Gene needs to schedule an urgent meeting. Here, because the urgency is high and Gene cairies influence, he may be forced to require that his employees attend a meeting at the precisely scheduled time and mete out punishment if his employees are late.

High Infl[trahon, Cotiaborate, or Educate

High Force

Low Avoid

Low Negotiate

Low Accommodate

, Scenario 1 I Lovÿ High

Scenario 2. High High

Scenario 3. High High

Scenario 4, Low Low

Scenario 5. High Low

Jim and Akua are students at a university in the United States. Jim is from Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and Akira is.an international exchange student from Japan. Although they share the same major and have had a few classes together, Jim and Akira have only interacted occasionally and do not know each other veiy well. A professor has assigned Jim and Akira to work together on a class assignment that is due in 2 weeks. The professor has given them the option of either submitting a paper or giving a presentation to the class. Jim and Akua disagree on which option to pursue. Jim wants to give a presentation. Akira insists on writing a papei.

Coming from a collectivistic, high-context cultule, it is undeistandable why Akira would prefer to write a paper. He would prefer to not stand out among his fellow students. Remember that in Japan, “the tallest nail gets hammered down” Coming from an individualistic, low-context culture, Jim might prefer to give a presentation–that way he doesn’t have to write a paper. In this situation, because the assignment is not due for 2 more weeks, the urgency is relatwely low. The intensity is relatively low as well. Thele is probably not a stiong consensus on whether to write a paper ol deliver a presentation. Nor is this assignment attached to some strong cultural value in either Japan or the United States. Finally, since both Jim and Akua are students, neither possesses any hierarchical status over the other. Here, the contingency model would prescribe that the two students negotiate. It is likely that there will be more asslgnments in the futme since they share the same major. So perhaps Jim could agiee that they write a papel for this assignment, but when ol if the next assignment is given, they would dehver a presentation. Akira would probably agree.

SCENARIO #3: TOO MUCH TOUCHING

Morgan is a student from the United States who is studying abroad for a semester in Ecuador. Morgan has taken on a part-time job as a waitress in a restaurant in Quito, the capital city of Ecuador The restaurant is very popular and busy. As in most restauran’ÿs during the prime-time dinner hour, the kitchen area is hectic with chefs, kitchen staff, and the wait staff, working diligently in close quarters. Although she likes her job there, Morgan is very uncomfortable with the amount of touching that occurs in the kitchen. Othei employees constantly bump into her, touch her, rub up against her, and stand very close to her. Morgan is upset and believes this is borderline sexual harassment and wants to approach the managei about it.

Recall from Chapter 8 that cultures vary considerably regarding haptics, or touch behavior. Cultures vary along a high-, moderate-, and low-contact continuum. High-contact cultures tend to encourage touching and engage in touching more frequently than do either moderate- or low-contact cultures, in which touching occurs less fiequently and is generally discouraged Many South and CentralAmerican countries, including Ecuador, are considered high-contact cultuies. The United States is legarded as a moderate- to low-contact culture. Coming from the United States, Morgan probably misinterprets the intent of the frequent contact in the kitchen. During peak dining hours, there is some degiee of urgency to get the

363

 

 

t

364 Intercultural. Communication

food orders prepaled and delivered to the customers The intensity is rathei low, howevei. Serving guests in a restaurant is important but probably is not as central a value among Ecuadorlans as is family, for example. Finally, Molgan possesses little influence compared to the head chefs, tire managers, and the owneis of the restauiant. Applying the contingency model, the urgency is relatively high, the intensity is low, and hel influence is low. Hence, Morgan should accommodate her fellow employees and perhaps engage in the high-contact behaviors herself. This might be a case of “When in Rome, do as the Romans do.” Recall Lindsey Novitÿke’s Student VaicesAcrass Gultuÿes profile in Chapter 8, in which she recounts how uncomfortable she was initially with the high-contact behaviors in Zambia. Lindsey accommodated the behaviors, and ilomcally, aftei retmning to the United States, Lindsey actually craved touch and felt that people in the United States wele unusually distant

SCENARIO #4: BRIBERY?

Jeff Zahn is a U.S. businessman who has been approached by some of his Chinese business acquaintances about opening a business in China that may plove very useful to many Chinese and piofitable to Zahn. There ale some deadlines to meet, so Jeff needs to make a decision. After explessing an intelest in the business, Jeff learns from his Chinese business acquaintances that many companies in China pay bribes oi give gifts to local government officials and tax collectors in older to operate. In Bei)ing, almost half all companies report the need to bribe or give gifts in oldel to stay in business.48 So Jeffis faced with a dilemma. The conflict is relatively regent, as deadlines need to be met. The intensity foi Jeffis high because of the ethical issue of paying bribes. Such acts are clearly illegal in the United States, but because Jells from the United States, he has little control over the issue. Given the contingency model prescription of high uigency and intensity–but low influence–it might be best for Jeff to avoid this opportumty.

As we can see flora the previous discussion of Kohls and Buller’s contingency model, there ale a numbei of ways to manage cross-cultural conflict, depending on the urgency of the issue, the intensity of the conflict, and the deglee of influence one has over the outcome.

This chapter began by asking you to imagine your-

self in a conflict, All types of human relationships we

have–from ones with strangers to acquaintances to

intimates–experience conflict We cannot avoid or

eliminate conflict, but we can manage and reduce it

Communication plays a paradoxical role in most con-

flicts because communication is required both to insti-

gate conflict and to resolve it. Unfortunately, conflict

is the source of much relational stress and dissolution

In this chapter, we have seen that a variety

conflict. Three models were presented, including

Kim’s Model of Intercultulal Conflict, Ting-Toomey

and Oetzel’s Culture-Based Social Ecological

Model, and Broome’s Model of Building a Culture

of Peace Through Dialogue. We have seen how the

concepts of face and lacework contribute to inter-

cultural conflict. Finally, the chapter ended with a

contingency model of conflict styles and a discus-

sion of how persons from different cultures man-

age conflict.