COM 263 Arizona State University Intercultural Conflicts Discussion Questions

Lesson 10 Intercultural Conflict
Instruction
View Glossary
Conflicts can occur between two or more individuals because of differences in personality,
values, and opinions.
(opens in a new tab)https://unsplash.com/photos/I_KFcP_an3g(opens in a new tab) by Claudia
Ramírez, Unsplash
Part 1: Communication and Conflict
Who do you have the most conflict with right now? Your answer to this question
probably depends on the various contexts in your life. If you still live at home with a
parent or parents, you may have daily conflicts with your family as you try to balance
your autonomy, or desire for independence, with the practicalities of living under your
family’s roof. If you’ve recently moved away to go to college, you may be negotiating
roommate conflicts as you adjust to living with someone you may not know at all. If
you’re working full time and have a family to support, you may be feeling a high level
of anxiety as you attempt to maintain a healthy work-life balance. So think back and
ask yourself, “How well do I handle conflict?” As with all areas of communication, we
can improve if we have the background knowledge to identify relevant communication
phenomena and the motivation to reflect on and enhance our communication skills.
Conflicts are natural parts of our lives. Some people tend to shy away from conflict,
while others tend to confront them head-on. Some cultures encourage their members
to conform, while others encourage their members to challenge.
Conflicts can occur between two or more individuals because of differences in
personality, values, and opinions. When this type of conflict happens, conflict resolution
techniques can be employed to help the parties find a peaceful solution to the
disagreement. When the conflict is resolved, the two parties may walk away feeling
somewhat or very satisfied.
Conflict occurs in interactions where there are real or perceived incompatible goals,
scarce resources, or opposing viewpoints. Conflict may be expressed verbally or
nonverbally along a continuum ranging from a nearly imperceptible cold shoulder to a
very obvious blowout.
As an inevitable part of relationships, conflict can take a negative emotional toll. It
takes effort to ignore someone or be passive aggressive, and the anger or guilt we may
feel after blowing up at someone are valid negative feelings. However, conflict isn’t
always negative or unproductive. When conflict is well managed, it has the potential
to lead to more rewarding and satisfactory relationships (Canary & Messman, 2000).
Improving your competence in dealing with conflict can yield positive effects in the real
world. Since conflict is present in our personal and professional lives, the ability to
manage conflict and negotiate desirable outcomes can help us be more successful at
both. Whether you and your partner are trying to decide what brand of flat-screen
television to buy or you are discussing the upcoming political election with your mother,
the potential for conflict is present. In professional settings, the ability to engage in
conflict management, sometimes called conflict resolution, is a necessary and valued
skill. However, many professionals do not receive training in conflict management even
though they are expected to do it as part of their job (Gates, 2006).
Being able to manage conflict situations can make life more pleasant rather than letting
a situation stagnate or escalate. The negative effects of poorly handled conflict could
range from an awkward last few weeks of the semester with a college roommate to
violence or divorce. However, there is no absolute right or wrong way to handle a
conflict. Remember that being a competent communicator doesn’t mean that you follow
a set of absolute rules. Rather, a competent communicator assesses multiple contexts
and applies or adapts communication tools and skills to fit the dynamic situation.
Asking for more information before you react to a conflict-triggering event is a good way to add
a buffer between the trigger and your reaction.
(opens in a new tab)https://images.unsplash.com/photo-1539295894554-9eb33a2fb847(opens
in a new tab) by Jonathan Sharp, Unsplash
Conflict Management Styles
Would you describe yourself as someone who prefers to avoid conflict? Do you like to
get your way? Are you good at working with someone to reach a solution that is
mutually beneficial? Odds are that you have been in situations where you could answer
yes to each of these questions, which underscores the important role context plays in
conflict and conflict management styles in particular. The way we view and deal
with conflict is learned and contextual. Is the way you handle conflicts similar to
the way your parents handle conflict? If you’re of a certain age, you are likely
predisposed to answer this question with a certain “No!” For most of us, it isn’t until our
late twenties and early thirties that we begin to see how similar we are to our parents,
even though we spend years trying to distinguish ourselves from them. Research does
show there is intergenerational transmission of traits related to conflict management.
As children, we test out the different conflict resolution styles we observe in our families
with our parents and siblings. Later, as we enter adolescence and begin developing
platonic and romantic relationships outside the family, we begin testing what we’ve
learned from our parents in other settings. If a child has observed and used negative
conflict management styles with siblings or parents, he or she is likely to exhibit those
behaviors with non–family members (Reese-Weber & Bartle-Haring, 1998).
There has been much research done on different types of conflict management styles,
which are communication strategies that attempt to avoid, address, or resolve a
conflict. Keep in mind that we don’t always consciously choose a style. We may instead
be caught up in emotion and become reactionary. The strategies for more effectively
managing conflict allow you to slow down the reaction process, become more aware of
it, and intervene in the process to improve your communication. A powerful tool to
mitigate conflict is information exchange. Asking for more information before you
react to a conflict-triggering event is a good way to add a buffer between the trigger
and your reaction. Another key element is whether or not a communicator is oriented
toward self-centered or other-centered goals. For example, if your goal is to “win” or
make the other person “lose,” you show a high concern for self and a low concern for
other. If your goal is to facilitate a “win/win” resolution or outcome, you show a high
concern for self and other. In general, strategies that facilitate information exchange
and include concern for mutual goals will be more successful at managing conflict
(Sillars, 1980).
The five strategies for managing conflict are competing, avoiding, accommodating,
compromising, and collaborating. Each of these conflict styles accounts for the concern
we place on self versus other (see “Five Styles of Interpersonal Conflict Management”
figure below).
Low to High Con
Competing
Compromising
Low to High
Concern for Self
Avoiding
“Five Styles of Interpersonal Conflict Management” Figure
Adapted from M. Afzalur Rahim, “A Measure of Styles of Handling Interpersonal Conflict,” Academy of
Management Journal 26, no. 2 (1983): 368–76.
In order to better understand the elements of the five styles of conflict
management, we will apply each to the follow scenario:
Miguel and Lisa are newlyweds. Miguel is originally from Mexico and from a large, closeknit family. As a child Miguel shared a house with his extended family including his
grandparents and an aunt. Lisa is European-American. She left home at age 18, moved
to another state, and spent all of her life as a single adult living independently in a
small suburban apartment. Her closest relatives are 2,000 miles away, and she is only
able to see her parents twice a year due to her busy work schedule. Now that she is
married and shares a house with Miguel, Lisa is growing frustrated because members of
Miguel’s large family visit regularly, often showing up unannounced. Lisa is demanding
that Miguel talk to his family so they will stop coming to the house without an
invitation, thus giving her and Miguel more privacy and time together as a couple.
While conflicts regarding differences in values are common, we will see the numerous
ways that Lisa and Miguel could address this problem.
Lisa and Miguel could address this problem the following ways:
COMPETING
The competing style indicates a high concern for self and a low concern for
others. When we compete, we are striving to “win” the conflict, potentially at the
expense or “loss” of the other person. One way we may gauge our win is by being
granted or taking concessions from the other person. For example, if Lisa demands that
Miguel stop his family from visiting without an explicit invitation, she is taking an
indirect competitive route resulting in a “win” for her because she got her way. The
competing style also involves the use of power, which can be non-coercive or coercive
(Sillars, 1980).
Non-coercive strategies include requesting and persuading. When requesting, we
suggest the conflict partner change a behavior. Requesting doesn’t require a high level
of information exchange. When we persuade, however, we give our conflict partner
reasons to support our request or suggestion, meaning there is more information
exchange, which may make persuading more effective than requesting. Lisa could try
to persuade Miguel to stop allowing his family to the house, explaining her desire for
them to focus on their relationship. Coercive strategies violate standard guidelines for
ethical communication and may include aggressive communication directed at rousing
one another’s emotions through insults, profanity, and yelling, or through threats of
punishment if one does not get their way. In all these scenarios, the “win” that could
result is only short term and can lead to conflict escalation. Conflict is rarely isolated,
meaning there can be ripple effects that connect the current conflict to previous and
future conflicts. Lisa’s demands of Miguel lead to built-up negative emotions that could
further test their relationship.
Competing has been linked to aggression, although the two are not always paired. If
assertiveness does not work, there is a chance it could escalate to hostility.
The competing style of conflict management is not the same thing as having a
competitive personality. Competition in relationships isn’t always negative, and people
who enjoy engaging in competition may not always do so at the expense of another
person’s goals. In fact, research has shown that some couples engage in competitive
shared activities like sports or games to maintain and enrich their relationship (Dindia &
Baxter, 1987). And although we may think competitiveness is gendered, research has
often shown that women are just as competitive as men (Messman & Mikesell, 2000).
AVOIDING
The avoiding style of conflict management often indicates a low concern for self and
a low concern for other, and no direct communication about the conflict takes
place. However, as we will discuss later, in collectivistic, high-context cultures that
emphasize group harmony over individual interests, and even in some situations in the
United States, avoiding a conflict can indicate a high level of concern for the other. In
general, avoiding doesn’t mean that there is no communication about the conflict. You
cannot not communicate. Even when we try to avoid conflict, we may intentionally or
unintentionally give our feelings away through our verbal and nonverbal
communication. Lisa’s sarcastic tone with Miguel brings the conflict to the surface
without specifically addressing it. The avoiding style is either passive or indirect,
meaning there is little information exchange, which may make this strategy less
effective than others. We may decide to avoid conflict for many different reasons, some
of which are better than others.
If you view the conflict as having little importance to you, it may be better to ignore it.
If the person you’re having conflict with will only be working in your office for a week,
you may perceive a conflict to be temporary and choose to avoid it and hope that it will
solve itself. If you are not emotionally invested in the conflict, you may be able to
reframe your perspective and see the situation in a different way, therefore resolving
the issue. In all these cases, avoiding doesn’t really require an investment of time,
emotion, or communication skill, so there is not much at stake to lose.
Avoidance is not always an easy conflict management choice, because sometimes the
person we have conflict with isn’t a temp in our office or a weekend house guest. While
it may be easy to tolerate a problem when you’re not personally invested in it or view it
as temporary, when faced with a situation like Lisa and Miguel’s, avoidance would just
make the problem worse. For example, avoidance could first manifest as changing the
subject, then progress from avoiding the issue to avoiding the person altogether, to
even ending the relationship.
Indirect strategies of hinting and joking also fall under the avoiding style. While these
indirect avoidance strategies may lead to a buildup of frustration or even anger, they
allow us to vent a little of our built-up steam and may make a conflict situation more
bearable. When we hint, we drop clues that we hope our partner will find and piece
together to see the problem and hopefully change, thereby solving the problem without
any direct communication. The person dropping the hints often overestimates their
partner’s detective abilities. For example, Lisa leaves the room whenever Miguel’s
family visits in hopes that Miguel will realize she is unhappy with the situation. Miguel
may simply ignore her actions or even get irritated with Lisa for walking away. We also
overestimate our partner’s ability to decode the jokes we make about a conflict
situation. It is more likely that the receiver of the jokes will think you’re genuinely
trying to be funny or feel provoked or insulted than realize the conflict situation that
you are referencing. So more frustration may develop when the hints and jokes are not
decoded, which often leads to a more extreme form of hinting/joking: passiveaggressive behavior.
Passive-aggressive behavior is a way of dealing with conflict in which one person
indirectly communicates their negative thoughts or feelings through nonverbal
behaviors, such as not completing a task. For example, Lisa may wait a few days to tell
Miguel he received a voice mail message from his brother so he will focus more
attention on her rather than his family. Although passive-aggressive behavior can feel
rewarding in the moment, it is one of the most unproductive ways to deal with
conflict. These behaviors may create additional conflicts and may lead to a cycle of
passive-aggressiveness in which the other partner begins to exhibit these behaviors as
well, while never actually addressing the conflict that originated the behavior. In most
avoidance situations, both parties lose. However, as noted above, avoidance can be the
most appropriate strategy in some situations—for example, when the conflict is
temporary, when the stakes are low or there is little personal investment, or when
there is the potential for violence or retaliation.
ACCOMMODATING
The accommodating conflict management style indicates a low concern for self and a
high concern for other and is often viewed as passive or submissive, in that
someone complies with or obliges another without providing personal input. The context
for and motivation behind accommodating plays an important role in whether or not it
is an appropriate strategy. Generally, we accommodate because we are being
generous, we are obeying, or we are yielding (Bobot, 2010). If we are being generous,
we accommodate because we genuinely want to; if we are obeying, we don’t have a
choice but to accommodate (perhaps due to the potential for negative consequences or
punishment); and if we yield, we may have our own views or goals but give up on them
due to fatigue, time constraints, or because a better solution has been
offered. Accommodating can be appropriate when there is little chance that our
own goals can be achieved, when we don’t have much to lose by
accommodating, when we feel we are wrong, or when advocating for our own
needs could negatively affect the relationship (Warren Isenhart & Spangle, 2000).
The occasional accommodation can be useful in maintaining a relationship, such as
when we voluntarily put another’s needs before our own as a way to achieve our goals
for the relationship. For example, Lisa may say, “It’s OK if you host a party this
weekend for your niece’s birthday.” However, being a team player can slip into being a
pushover, which people generally do not appreciate. If Lisa keeps telling Miguel, “It’s
OK this time,” the conflict may escalate as they question each other’s motives.
Research has shown that the accommodating style is more likely to occur when there
are time restraints and less likely to occur when someone does not want to appear
weak (Cai & Fink, 2002). If you’re standing outside the movie theatre and two movies
are starting, you may say, “Let’s just have it your way,” so you don’t miss the
beginning of the show. If you’re a new manager at an electronics store and an
employee wants to take Sunday off to watch a football game, you may say no to set an
example for the other employees. As with avoiding, there are certain cultural
influences, which we will discuss later, that make accommodating a more effective
strategy.
COMPROMISING
The compromising style shows a moderate concern for self and other and may
indicate there is a low investment in the conflict and/or the relationship. Even
though we often hear the best way to handle a conflict is to compromise, the
compromising style isn’t a win/win solution; it is a partial win/lose. In essence, when
we compromise, we give up some or most of what we want. It’s true that the conflict
gets resolved temporarily, but lingering thoughts of what you gave up could lead to a
future conflict. Compromising may be a good strategy when there are time limitations
or when prolonging a conflict may lead to relationship deterioration. Compromise may
also be good when both parties have equal power or when other resolution strategies
have not worked (Macintosh & Stevens, 2008).
A negative of compromising is that it may be used as an easy way out of a conflict.
The compromising style is most effective when both parties find the solution agreeable.
Lisa and Miguel could decide that it would be OK for Miguel’s family to stop by the
house on weekends, even if without notice. They are both giving up something, and if
neither of them has a problem with the proposed solution, then the compromise was
equitable. If the couple agrees Miguel’s family could not, under any circumstances, stop
by without an invitation, the compromise isn’t as equitable, and Miguel, although he
agreed to the compromise, may end up with feelings of resentment. Wouldn’t it be
better to both win?
COLLABORATING
The collaborating style involves a high degree of concern for self and other and
usually indicates investment in the conflict situation and the relationship.
Although the collaborating style takes the most work in terms of communication
competence, it ultimately leads to a win/win situation in which neither party has to
make concessions because a mutually beneficial solution is discovered or created. The
obvious advantage is that both parties are satisfied, which could lead to positive
problem solving in the future and strengthen the overall relationship. For example, Lisa
and Miguel may agree that Miguel’s family would continue to be welcome at the house
except on days when Lisa works from home. In this case, they didn’t make the
conflict personal but focused on the situation. The disadvantage is that this style
is often time consuming, and only one person may be willing to use this approach while
the other person is eager to compete to meet their goals or is willing to accommodate.
Here are some tips for collaborating and achieving a win/win outcome (Hargie, 2011).
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Do not view the conflict as a contest you are trying to win.
Remain flexible and realize there are solutions yet to be discovered.
Distinguish the people from the problem (don’t make it personal).
Determine what the underlying needs are that are driving the other person’s
demands (needs can still be met through different demands).
Identify areas of common ground or shared interests that you can work from to
develop solutions.
Ask questions to allow them to clarify and to help you understand their
perspective.
Listen carefully and provide verbal and nonverbal feedback.
Key Takeaways
•
•
•
•
•
Conflict occurs in interactions where there are real or perceived incompatible
goals, scarce resources, or opposing viewpoints.
The quantity of conflict in a relationship is not as important as how the conflict is
handled.
The way we view and deal with conflict is learned and contextual.
Asking for more information before you react to a conflict-triggering event is a
good way to add a buffer between the trigger and your reaction.
The five strategies for managing conflict are competing, avoiding,
accommodating, compromising, and collaborating.
Through facework, we deploy communication strategies that enable us to manage our
reputations as well as the reputations of others.
(opens in a new tab)https://unsplash.com/photos/DFtjXYd5Pto(opens in a new tab) by Lesly
Juarez, Unsplash
Part 2: Culture and Conflict
Culture is an important context to consider when studying conflict, and recent research
has called into question some of the assumptions of the five conflict management styles
discussed so far, which were formulated with a Western bias (Oetzel et al., 2008). For
example, while the avoiding style of conflict has been cast as negative, with a low
concern for self and other or as a lose/lose outcome, research found that participants in
the United States, Germany, China, and Japan all viewed avoiding strategies as
demonstrating a concern for the other. While there are some generalizations we can
make about culture and conflict, it is better to look at more specific patterns of how
intercultural communication and conflict management are related. We can better
understand some of the cultural differences in conflict management by further
examining the concept of face (面子).
The Concept of Face
Do you recall what it means to “save face?” Saving face refers to preventing
embarrassment or preserving our reputation or image, which is similar to the concept
of face in interpersonal communication. Our face is the projected self we desire to put
into the world, and facework refers to the communicative strategies we employ to
project, maintain, or repair our face or maintain, repair, or challenge another’s
face. Face negotiation theory argues that people in all cultures negotiate face
through communication encounters, and that cultural factors influence how we engage
in facework, especially in conflict situations (Oetzel & Ting-Toomey, 2003). These
cultural factors influence whether we are more concerned with self-face or other-face
and what types of conflict management strategies we may use. One key cultural
influence on face negotiation is the distinction between individualistic and collectivistic
cultures.
Here are two short videos that address the concept of “face” and face negotiation
theory, the first regarding Mianzi and the second by researcher Stella Ting-Toomey.
The distinction between individualistic, low-context and collectivistic, highcontext cultures is an important dimension across which all cultures vary. As you may
recall from Lesson 3, individualistic cultures like the United States and most of Europe
emphasize individual identity over group identity and encourage competition and selfreliance. Collectivistic cultures like Taiwan, Colombia, China, Japan, Vietnam, and Peru
value in-group identity over individual identity and value conformity to the social norms
of the in-group (Dsilva & Whyte, 1998).
In collectivist, high-context cultures, where the community’s well-being is
promoted or valued above that of the individual, face-saving strategies are common
communicative strategies. In Japan, for example, to confront someone directly is
perceived as humiliation, a great insult. If our goal is to solve a problem, and preserve
the relationship, then consideration of a face-saving strategy should be one option a
skilled communicator considers when addressing negative news or information.
However, within the larger culture, individuals will vary in the degree to which they
view themselves as part of a group or as a separate individual, which is called selfconstrual. Independent self-construal indicates a perception of the self as an individual
with unique feelings, thoughts, and motivations. Interdependent self-construal indicates
a perception of the self as interrelated with others (Oetzel & Ting-Toomey, 2003). Not
surprisingly, people from individualistic cultures are more likely to have higher levels
of independent self-construal, and people from collectivistic cultures are more likely
to have higher levels of interdependent self-construal.
Self-construal impacts how people engage in facework as well as their preferred conflict
management style.
(opens in a new tab)https://unsplash.com/photos/RYqQFrixLAw(opens in a new tab) by diGital
Sennin, Unsplash
While people from individualistic cultures are most likely to engage in competing as a
conflict management strategy, not all members of this type of culture will prefer this
strategy and some may look to the circumstances of each individual situation before
choosing the most appropriate strategy. This is true for collectivistic cultures as well,
which would normally prefer collaboration.
Self-construal alone does not have a direct effect on conflict style, but it does affect
face concerns, with independent self-construal favoring self-face concerns and
interdependent self-construal favoring other-face concerns. There are specific
facework strategies for different conflict management styles, and these strategies
correspond to self-face concerns or other-face concerns.
•
•
•
•
•
Accommodating. Giving in (self-face concern)
Avoiding. Pretending conflict does not exist (other-face concern)
Compromising. Giving up some or most of what we want (other-face concern)
Competing. Defending your position, persuading (self-face concern)
Collaborating. Apologizing, having a private discussion, remaining calm (otherface concern) (Oetzel et al., 2008)
Research done on college students in Germany, Japan, China, and the United States
found that those with independent self-construal were more likely to engage in
competing, and those with interdependent self-construal were more likely to engage in
avoiding or collaborating (Oetzel & Ting-Toomey, 2003). And in general, this research
found that members of collectivistic cultures were more likely to use the avoiding style
of conflict management and less likely to use the competing styles of conflict
management than were members of individualistic cultures.
The following examples bring together facework strategies, cultural orientations, and
conflict management style:
•
Someone from an individualistic culture may be more likely to engage in
competing as a conflict management strategy if they are directly confronted,
which may be an attempt to defend their reputation (self-face concern).
•
Someone in a collectivistic culture may be more likely to engage in avoiding or
accommodating in order not to embarrass or anger the person confronting them
(other-face concern) or out of concern that their reaction could reflect
negatively on their family or cultural group (other-face concern).
While these distinctions are useful for categorizing large-scale cultural patterns, it is
important not to essentialize or arbitrarily group countries together, because there are
measurable differences within cultures. For example, expressing one’s emotions was
seen as demonstrating a low concern for other-face in Japan, but this was not true in
China, which shows there is variety between similarly collectivistic cultures. Culture
always adds layers of complexity to any communication phenomenon, but experiencing
and learning from other cultures also enriches our lives and makes us more competent
communicators.
The concept of “public self” or “tatemae” is a type of saving face and functions as a method to
ensure harmony in a relationship.
(opens in a new tab)https://images.unsplash.com/photo-1529090077844-25078a8d3f80(opens
in a new tab) by Philippe Verheyden, Unsplash
Public and Private Selves
The concept of “tatemae” (public self) and “honne” (private self) in Japan can be
noted as a type of “face.” Like China, Japan is a collectivistic culture and as such it
places significant emphasis on the maintenance of social harmony and group cohesion.
It is of utmost importance to avoid hurting another person’s feelings or causing
embarrassment.
“Tatemae” (建前) in Japanese literally means “to stand before” (public self) while
“honne” (本音) can be translated as “true sound” or “true feelings” (private self). In
essence, “tatemae” can be compared to what in the West we call a “white lie” or a
harmless, trivial “fib” told to avoid hurting someone’s feelings, while “honne” represents
how we really feel or what we really think.
Imagine, for example, you give your telephone number to a person you meet at a party
and discuss getting together for dinner “sometime this coming week.” The week passes,
no phone call. You run into this person at a supermarket two weeks later. Having made
eye contact, it is impossible for you not to acknowledge his or her presence. You
engage in small talk. What you really want to say to this person (“honne”) is, “I thought
we were going to get together for dinner. I waited and waited for your call but the
phone never rang. I’m very disappointed in you and I can no longer trust that you will
do what you say you will do.” However, for the sake of maintaining social harmony and
avoiding conflict, you simply comment, when asked how things are going, “I’ve been so
busy! My boss has me on a new project and I’ve been putting in 12-14 hours every
day.” This is “tatemae.”
Can you see a relationship between “tatemae” and “honne” and the high-context and
low-context communication styles we discussed earlier? Is “tatemae” an example of a
high- or low-context culture? “Honne”? You might recall that high-context cultures relay
on the context or the social environment for meaning. The communication style of highcontext cultures is indirect and relies extensively on nonverbal communication cues. As
such, you may have guessed that “tatemae” is prevalent in high-context cultures, of
which Japan is a perfect example. This is yet another reason why understanding the
impact of culture on communication is crucial to our competences as communicators in
an intercultural context. As you develop a deeper understanding of how people in highcontext cultures communicate, you will learn when a statement is made as a social
courtesy as opposed to when it is genuine. In Japan, a neighbor might say, “feel free to
stop by anytime”—only to find your appearance at their front door at 3:30 PM the next
afternoon causes your neighbor to look at you in complete shock as you are suddenly
both at a loss for words.
To learn more about these interesting concepts, watch the following video:
In essence, we might look at the Eastern concept of “face” overall as the equivalent of
identity or impression management in the West. Both are means for influencing the
perceptions other people have about us, which we attempt to actively “manage” or
control in an attempt to create a good reputation of ourselves.
Low-context cultures separate the person from the issue in their communication.
(opens in a new tab)https://images.unsplash.com/photo-1528789408128-bf8999ce0091(opens
in a new tab) by Unsplash
Conflict Resolution in High- and Low-Context Cultures
As we already know, high-context cultures are collectivistic while low-context cultures
are individualistic. Not surprisingly, high-context cultures prefer a non-confrontational
approach to conflict while low-conflict cultures are outcome oriented and seek a
tangible solution.
Low-Context Cultures
•
When it comes to conflict, separate the issue (conflict) from the person.
o “It’s not about you, it’s about business.”
For example, in a low-context culture, two parties may engage in intense negotiations
in an effort to strike a business deal. Even though the negotiation may be high stress
and people argue or even shout, both parties understand that the process of
negotiating is not personal. As such, to claim that a statement is unwarranted doesn’t
mean the person who made it is a bad person; the statement is separate from the
person, and it is the statement that is being attacked. If you criticize a report generated
by a person, the report is being called into question, not the knowledge, character, or
integrity of the person who created it.
High-Context Cultures
•
When it comes to conflict, the issue and the person are one (inseparable).
o If you attack the issue, you attack the person.
You can see how these differences play a significant factor in the way communicators
state their thoughts when communicating in an intercultural context. In high-context
communication, it is important to avoid direct language, even if it means beating
around the bush. This is perceived negatively in a low-context culture. For example,
rather than saying, “You’re wrong” in reference to a report, you might say, “These
statistics don’t make sense.” High-context cultures do not like confrontation.
Because low-context cultures value the explicit (direct) expression of one’s thoughts
and opinions—i.e., “say what they mean and mean what they say,” the preservation of
social harmony is not a primary concern because people separate the person from the
issue. (In other words, if I tell you the quality of your latest presentation is poor, it is
understood that I am speaking about the presentation itself, which has no reflection on
you as a person—and even if your feelings are hurt, you would not show it). As such,
people are more comfortable with confrontation. Low-context communication may, in
some cases, help prevent misunderstandings even in a predominantly high-context
situation, especially when people from different cultures are present, but it must be
approached with utmost caution because if participants are not well versed in how
culture impacts communication, the conflict could escalate.
The extent to which communication is high- or low-context in a mixed environment will
depend on how well participants know and trust each other as well as on the
purpose of the communication. Moreover, it is possible that the communication style
will “flow” between high- and low-context over the course of time, even within a single
engagement, depending on the context—i.e., the purpose of the communication, the
relationship and social status of participants, the location (formal or casual), the
importance of the event, and even the day/time itself.
We need to understand the various types, characteristics, and stages of conflict in order
to identify different conflict management styles and to recognize potential risk areas—
i.e., where a conflict management or negotiation strategy is most likely to fail due to
differences in culture.
Taking failures or criticism personally negatively impacts our ability to think clearly during a
conflict situation.
(opens in a new tab)https://unsplash.com/photos/tnxRFtXI9dI(opens in a new tab) by Cristian
Newman, Unsplash
Part 3: Handling Conflict Better
Conflict is inevitable and it is not inherently negative. A key part of developing
intercultural communication competence involves being able to effectively manage the
conflict you will encounter in all your relationships. One key part of handling conflict
better is to notice patterns of conflict in specific relationships and to generally have an
idea of what causes you to react negatively and what your reactions usually are.
Identifying Conflict Patterns
Much of the research on conflict patterns has been done on couples in romantic
relationships, but the concepts and findings are applicable to other relationships. Four
common triggers for conflict are criticism, demand, cumulative annoyance, and
rejection (Christensen & Jacobson, 2000). We all know from experience that criticism,
or comments that evaluate another person’s personality, behavior, appearance, or life
choices, may lead to conflict. Comments do not have to be meant as criticism to be
perceived as such. If Gary comes home from college for the weekend and his mom
says, “Looks like you put on a few pounds,” she may view this as a statement of fact
based on observation. Gary, however, may take the comment personally and respond
negatively back to his mom, starting a conflict that will last for the rest of his visit. A
simple but useful strategy to manage the trigger of criticism is to follow the old adage
“Think before you speak.”
In many cases, there are alternative ways to phrase ideas so they are taken less
personally, or we may determine that our comment doesn’t need to be spoken at all.
Ask yourself, “What is my motivation for making this comment?” and “Do I have
anything to lose by not making this comment?” If your underlying reasons for asking
are valid, perhaps there is another way to phrase your observation.
Demands also frequently trigger conflict, especially if the demand is viewed as unfair or
irrelevant. It’s important to note that demands rephrased as questions may still be
perceived as demands. Tone of voice and context are important factors here. When you
were younger, you may have asked a parent, teacher, or elder for something and heard
back “Ask nicely.” As with criticism, thinking before you speak and before you respond
can help manage demands and minimize conflict episodes. Demands are sometimes
met with withdrawal rather than a verbal response. If you are doing the demanding,
remember a higher level of information exchange may make your demand more
clear or more reasonable to the other person. If you are being demanded of,
responding calmly and expressing your thoughts and feelings is likely more effective
than withdrawing, which may escalate the conflict.
Cumulative annoyance is a building of frustration or anger that occurs over time,
eventually resulting in a conflict interaction—and this is particularly true where cultural
differences are concerned. Cumulative annoyance can build up like a pressure cooker,
and as it builds up, the intensity of the conflict also builds. Criticism and demands can
also play into cumulative annoyance. We have all probably let critical or demanding
comments slide, but if they continue it becomes difficult to hold back, and most of us
have a breaking point. The problem here is that all the other incidents come back to
your mind as you confront the other person, which usually intensifies the conflict.
You’ve likely been surprised when someone has blown up at you due to cumulative
annoyance or when someone you have blown up at didn’t know there was a problem
building. A good strategy for managing cumulative annoyance is to monitor
your level of annoyance and occasionally let some steam out of the pressure
cooker by processing through your frustration with a third party or directly
addressing what is bothering you with the source.
No one likes the feeling of rejection. Rejection can lead to conflict when one person’s
comments or behaviors are perceived as ignoring or invalidating the other person.
Vulnerability is a component of any close relationship. When we care about someone,
we verbally or nonverbally communicate. We may tell our best friend that we miss
them, or plan a home-cooked meal for our partner who is working late. The
vulnerability that underlies these actions comes from the possibility that our relational
partner will not notice or appreciate them. When someone feels exposed or
rejected, they often respond with anger to mask their hurt, which ignites a
conflict.
Managing feelings of rejection is difficult because it is so personal, but controlling the
impulse to assume that your relational partner is rejecting you, and engaging in
communication rather than reflexive reaction, can help put things in perspective. If
your business partner doesn’t get excited about the meal you planned and cooked for a
personal invitation to your home, it could be because he or she is physically or mentally
tired after a long day. Concepts, such as perception checking which we discussed in
Lesson 4, are useful in taking inventory of your attributions and engaging in information
exchange to help determine how each person is punctuating the conflict and managing
all four of the triggers discussed.
Validating the person with whom you are in conflict can be an effective way to
deescalate conflict. While avoiding or retreating may seem like the best option in the
moment, one of the key negative traits found in research on married couples’ conflicts
was withdrawal, which as we learned before may result in a demand-withdrawal pattern
of conflict. Often validation can be as simple as demonstrating good listening
skills, discussed earlier in this course, by making eye contact and giving verbal and
nonverbal back-channel cues like saying “mmm-hmm” or nodding your head (Gottman,
1994). This doesn’t mean that you have to give up your own side in a conflict or that
you agree with what the other person is saying; rather, you are hearing the other
person out, which validates them and may also give you some more information about
the conflict that could minimize the likelihood of a reaction rather than a response.
As with all the aspects of communication competence we have discussed so far, you
cannot expect that everyone you interact with will have the same knowledge of
communication that you have after finishing this course. But it often only takes one
person with conflict management skills to make an interaction more effective.
Remember that it’s not the quantity of conflict that determines a relationship’s success;
it’s how the conflict is managed, and one person’s competent response can deescalate a
conflict. Another way conflict can be successfully managed is through the creation of a
third culture.
Some people have a higher need for validation than others. Being sensitive to our own needs, as
well as the needs of others, will help ensure we see a situation objectively.
(opens in a new tab)https://unsplash.com/photos/23KdVfc395A(opens in a new tab) by Thought
Catalog, Unsplash
Creating a Third Culture
When two culturally-different people come together and develop a long-term
relationship, they create a third culture. The third culture is a blend of one’s native
culture and that of a second culture. These two cultures could be national cultures such
as the United States and Japan or microcultures such as Asian and African Americans or
two generations—e.g., a “baby boomer” and a “millennial.” In the case of a third
culture, we do not identify ourselves with one culture or the other, but rather a
combination of the two. The concept of third culture helps us to understand how people
come together, create, and participate in a culture of their own based on shared beliefs,
values, and attitudes.
As an example, consider how two unique people come together to get married or
become best friends. It is doubtful that anyone could have predicted the result from
this interaction between two people who were originally strangers. Yet, through
extended communication, the two strangers develop a culture of their own wherein
they share common goals, interests, values, and aspirations for the future—in spite of
their differences. This third culture is a “safe place” that people voluntarily establish as
a result of their interaction and shared worldview. It is derived from two different
cultural orientations where participants build an inclusive foundation for nonjudgmental
communication and intercultural understanding.
Knowing what you now know about third cultures, how can you apply this concept to
the challenges you encounter as an intercultural communicator? Outside of a marriage
or a blended family, can you think of any other examples of a third culture?
Key Takeaways
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Interpersonal conflict is an inevitable part of relationships that, although not
always negative, can take an emotional toll on relational partners unless they
develop skills and strategies for managing conflict.
Perception plays an important role in conflict management because we are often
biased in determining the cause of our own and others’ behaviors in a conflict
situation, which necessitates engaging in communication to gain information and
perspective.
Culture influences how we engage in conflict based on our cultural norms
regarding individualism or collectivism and concern for self-face or other-face.
People from an individualistic culture may be more likely to engage in competing
as a conflict management strategy if they are directly confronted, which may be
an attempt to defend their reputation (self-face concern).
People in a collectivistic culture may be more likely to engage in avoiding or
accommodating in order not to embarrass or anger the person confronting them
(other-face concern) or out of concern that their reaction could reflect negatively
on their family or cultural group (other-face concern).
The extent to which communication is high- or low-context in a mixed
environment will depend on how well participants know and trust each other as
well as on the purpose of the communication.
We can handle conflict better by identifying patterns and triggers such as
demands, cumulative annoyance, and rejection and by learning to respond
mindfully rather than reflexively.
A third culture results when two or more people come together to form a “new”
culture to achieve common goals, whether those goals are related to the
completion work tasks or simply the desire to develop a more intimate
interpersonal relationship or friendship.
Group members from collectivistic (high-context) cultures are more likely to value relationships
and want to protect those relationships, and so group members from individualistic (low-context)
cultures will need to factor the importance of relationships.
https://unsplash.com/photos/OJcEMZHoY80 by Nicole Baster, Unsplash
Part 4: International Diversity in Group Interactions
Cultural value orientations such as individualism/collectivism, power distance, and
high-and low-context communication styles all manifest on a continuum of
communication behaviors and can influence group decision making. Group members
from individualistic, low-context cultures are more likely to value task-oriented,
efficient, and direct communication. This could manifest in behaviors such as dividing
up tasks into individual projects before collaboration begins and then openly debating
ideas during discussion and decision making. Additionally, people from cultures that
value individualism are more likely to openly express dissent from a decision,
essentially expressing their disagreement with the group. Needless to say, group
members from collectivistic, high-context cultures are more likely to value
relationships over the task at hand. Because of this, they also tend to value conformity
and face-saving (often indirect) communication. This could manifest in behaviors such
as establishing norms that include periods of socializing to build relationships before
task-oriented communication like negotiations begin or norms that limit public
disagreement in favor of more indirect communication that doesn’t challenge the face of
other group members or the group’s leader. In a group composed of people from a
collectivistic culture, each member would likely play harmonizing roles, looking for signs
of conflict and resolving them before they become public.
Power distance can also affect group interactions. Some cultures rank higher on
power-distance scales, meaning they value hierarchy, make decisions based on status,
and believe that people have a set place in society that is fairly unchangeable. Group
members from high-power-distance cultures would likely appreciate a strong
designated leader who exhibits a more directive leadership style and prefer groups in
which members have clear and assigned roles. In a group that is homogenous in terms
of having a high-power-distance orientation, members with higher status would be
able to openly provide information, and those with lower status may not provide
information unless a higher status member explicitly seeks it from them. Low-powerdistance cultures do not place as much value and meaning on status and believe that
all group members can participate in decision making. Group members from low-powerdistance cultures would likely freely speak their mind during a group meeting and
prefer a participative leadership style.
An individual from one culture operating in a group with people of a different cultural
orientation could adapt to the expectations of the host culture, especially if that person
possesses a high degree of intercultural communication competence or cultural
intelligence. Additionally, people with a high degree of intercultural communication
competence or cultural intelligence can also adapt to a group member with a different
cultural orientation than the host culture. Even though these cultural orientations
connect to values that affect our communication in fairly consistent ways, individuals
may exhibit different communication behaviors depending on their own individual
communication style and the situation.
It is important that all participants in an organization understand how masculine and feminine
values may impact the preferred conflict management styles.
(opens in a new tab)https://unsplash.com/photos/VI1UCQe4U4A(opens in a new tab) by Claudio
Hirschberger, Unsplash
Domestic Diversity and Group Communication
While it is becoming more likely that we will interact in small groups with international
diversity, we are guaranteed to interact in groups that are diverse in terms of the
cultural identities found within a single country or the subcultures found within a larger
cultural group.
Gender stereotypes sometimes influence the roles that people play within a group.
For example, the stereotype that women are more nurturing than men may lead group
members (both male and female) to expect that women will play the role of
supporters or harmonizers within the group. Since women have been the primary
performers of secretarial work since the 1900s, it may also be expected that women
will play the role of recorder. In both of these cases, stereotypical notions of gender
place women in roles that are typically not as valued in group communication. The
opposite is true for men. In terms of leadership, despite notable exceptions, research
shows that men fill an overwhelmingly disproportionate amount of leadership positions.
We are socialized to see certain behaviors by men as indicative of leadership
abilities, even though they may not be. For example, men are often perceived to
contribute more to a group because they tend to speak first when asked a question or
to fill a silence and are perceived to talk more about task-related matters than
relationally oriented matters.
Both of these tendencies create a perception that men are more engaged with the task.
Men are also socialized to be more competitive and self-congratulatory, meaning their
communication may be seen as dedicated and their behaviors seen as powerful, and
when their work isn’t noticed they will be more likely to make it known to the group
rather than take silent credit. Even though we know the relational elements of a group
are crucial for success, even in high-performance teams, that work is not as valued in
our society as the task-related work.
Despite the fact that some communication patterns and behaviors related to our typical
(and stereotypical) gender socialization affect how we interact in and form perceptions
of others in groups, the differences in group communication that used to be attributed
to gender in early group communication research seem to be diminishing. This is likely
due to the changing organizational cultures from which much group work emerges,
which have now had more than sixty years to adjust to women in the workplace. It is
also due to a more nuanced understanding of gender-based research, which doesn’t
take a stereotypical view from the beginning, as many of the early male researchers
did.
Now, instead of biological sex being assumed as a factor that creates inherent
communication differences, group communication scholars see that men and women
both exhibit a range of behaviors that are more or less feminine or masculine.
It is these gendered behaviors, and not a person’s gender, that seem to have more of
an influence on perceptions of group communication. Interestingly, group interactions
are still masculinist in that male and female group members prefer a more masculine
communication style for task leaders and both males and females in this role are more
likely to adapt to a more masculine communication style. Conversely, men who take on
social-emotional leadership behaviors adopt a more feminine communication style. In
short, it seems that although masculine communication traits are more often associated
with high status positions in groups, both men and women adapt to this expectation
and are evaluated similarly (Bonniwell & Ruebush, 1999).
Multiple generations are now working side-by-side in organizations of all types. Conflict is likely
to arise from the difference in values between generations if they are not well managed.
(opens in a new tab)https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Diversity_(Unsplash).jpg(opens in
a new tab) by Rawpixel, wikimedia
Other demographic categories are also influential in group communication and decision
making. In general, group members have an easier time communicating when they are
more similar than different in terms of race and generation (age). This ease of
communication can make group work more efficient, but the homogeneity may sacrifice
some creativity. Groups that are diverse (e.g., they have members of different races
and generations) benefit from the diversity of perspectives in terms of the
quality of decision making and creativity of output.
In terms of generation or age, for the first time since industrialization began, it is
common to have three generations of people (and sometimes four) working side-byside in an organizational setting. Although four generations often worked together in
early factories, they were segregated based on their age group, and a hierarchy existed
with older workers at the top and younger workers at the bottom. Today, however,
generations interact regularly, and it is not uncommon for an older person to have a
leader or supervisor who is younger than him or her (Allen, 2011). The current
generations in the US workplace, and consequently in work-based groups, include the
following:
•
The Silent Generation
Born between 1925 and 1942, currently in their mid-sixties to mid-eighties, this
is the smallest generation in the workforce right now, as many have retired or
left for other reasons. This generation includes people who were born during the
Great Depression or the early part of World War II, many of whom later fought
in the Korean War (Clarke, 1970).
•
The Baby Boomers
Born between 1946 and 1964, currently in their late forties to mid-sixties, this is
the largest generation in the workforce right now. Baby boomers are the most
populous generation born in US history, and they are working longer than
previous generations, which means they will remain the predominant force in
organizations for ten to twenty more years.
•
Generation X
Born between 1965 and 1981, currently in their early thirties to mid-forties, this
generation was the first to see technology like cell phones and the Internet make
its way into classrooms and our daily lives. Compared to previous generations,
“Gen-Xers” are more diverse in terms of race, religious beliefs, and sexual
orientation and also have a greater appreciation for and understanding of
diversity.
•
Generation Y
Born between 1982 and 2000, “Millennials,” as they are also called, are currently
in their late teens up to about thirty years old. This generation is not as likely to
remember a time without technology such as computers and cell phones. They
are just starting to enter into the workforce and have been greatly affected by
the economic crisis of the late 2000s, experiencing significantly higher
unemployment rates.
The benefits and challenges that come with diversity of group members are important
to consider. Since we will all work in diverse groups, we should be prepared to address
potential challenges in order to reap the benefits. Diverse groups may be wise to
coordinate social interactions outside of group time in order to find common ground
that can help facilitate interaction and increase group cohesion.
Race, for example, is a highly contested topic in today’s world. It is one many people
have difficulty discussing for fear of saying the wrong thing. In this TEDx Talks video
entitled, “How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Discussing Race,” Jay Smooth
contends that only by accepting that we are all imperfect human beings who sometimes
act unkind to others without intention can we move forward in the process of selfdiscovery and work on the bigger issues of race without fear. Only by working together
and communicating can disparities resulting from racism be addressed and resolved.
We should be sensitive but not let sensitivity create fear of “doing something wrong”
that then prevents us from having meaningful interactions. Reviewing the key concepts
and principles presented in Lesson 3 on culture and communication will give you useful
knowledge to help you navigate both international and domestic diversity and increase
your communication competence in small groups and elsewhere.
Key Takeaway
Cultural influences on decision making include the heterogeneity or homogeneity of the
group makeup; cultural values and characteristics such as individualism/collectivism,
power distance, and high-/low-context communication styles; and gender and age
differences.
Transforming conflict is a process, not a single event or activity, which requires an on-going
effort to achieve common ground.
(opens in a new tab)https://unsplash.com/photos/VJHb4QPBgV4(opens in a new tab) by Nathan
Dumlao, Unsplash
Part 5: Transforming Conflicts in Culturally Diverse Groups
What is conflict transformation?
Conflicts can occur between both individuals and organizations or groups. Conflicts that
occur between groups may no longer be about individual differences, but also about
divisions perpetuated by intolerance or fear. In such cases, problem solving between
individuals may not be enough. The groups affected not only have to reconcile their
differences; they also have to strengthen their ability to value each other, build
alliances, and find common ground in order to change the systems that support their
division. They have to “transform” their conflicts.
Conflict transformation, therefore, is the process whereby conflict is both resolved
and used to build the capacity of groups to develop alliances that value
equitable relationships, promote harmony, and effect systems change.
Why is transforming conflict in diverse communities important?
In a diverse community composed of two or more ethnic or cultural groups, conflicts
are more likely to occur because of:
•
•
•
Differences in group identity, which is shaped by the group’s cultural values,
history, socioeconomic status, and perceived power.
History of hostile interaction and discrimination.
Misinformed stereotypes and perceptions caused by prejudiced attitudes and
other external influences (e.g., the media).
Previously we discussed five strategies for managing conflict: competing, avoiding,
accommodating, compromising, and collaborating. We will now look at the steps
required to transform conflict.
Transforming conflicts takes time, patience, humility, a long-term commitment, and a
willingness to trust and to take the risk of making mistakes. But the effort is well worth
it because diversity enriches our lives and our communities, and diversity is not
something you can eliminate. Global changes and natural disasters (climate change,
earthquakes, hurricanes), war, economic downturns, and other factors cause different
groups of people to move in and out of countries, states, cities, and
communities. Conflict is dynamic and always evolving. Therefore, it is important
to be able to transform conflicts to create and sustain stronger alliances,
organizations, and communities.
How can conflicts be transformed?
There are four basic steps to transforming conflict. Within each step, different methods
can be used move the process toward a positive outcome. Remember, transforming
conflict is a process, not a single event or activity. In practice, it is not always clear as
to which step you and your group may be in. We may spend a lot of time working on
one step before moving to the next step. You and several others may be ready to move
to the next step, but the rest of the group may not. When this happens, we don’t try
and move ahead without everyone. Rather, we need to try to work together to figure
out what is holding some of the group back and what it would take to move forward
together. The most important function of these steps is to provide us with a general
framework and direction for our effort and to remind us of certain
components that have to be considered during the process. The steps are:
1. Acknowledgement:
All groups that are affected by the conflict should acknowledge that there is a
problem and commit to working together to deal with the conflict.
2. Reconciliation:
The root causes of the conflict should be identified, made explicit, and reconciled
collectively by the groups.
3. Envision and Strategize:
The groups involved should develop a common vision for what they can do
together and how they can do it.
4. Sustain:
The groups should determine what they need in order to sustain their ability to
continue to work together to manage or eliminate the causes of the conflict, and
to promote peace.
Want to learn about transformative conflict? Click here for more information on the
steps, as well as how to apply the steps in a case study with cultural influences.
Key Takeaways
•
•
•
Conflict transformation is important in diverse communities to resolve conflicts
and to promote peace among groups of different races, ethnicities, and cultures.
It is a process that takes time, patience, humility, a long-term commitment, and
a willingness to trust and to take risks.
The key steps of the conflict transformation process are:
o Acknowledge the problem and commit to working together
o Identify the root causes of the conflict and reconcile group differences
o Develop a common and connected future
o Develop sustainable strategies and actions
Conflict transformation, therefore, is the process whereby conflict is both
resolved and used to build the capacity of groups to develop alliances that value
equitable relationships, promote harmony, and effect systems change.