5.2. THE IMPACT OF CULTURE ON CONFLICT
Reports of cultural clashes and conflict within cross-border partnerships such as that of Daimler and Chrysler are common. Even much earlier, the merger of Metal Box with Carnaud was marked by conflicts between the autocratic management style of the French and the more participative orientation of the British; the GEC and Siemens partnership featured contrasts between the British firm's decentralized and short-term approach and the centralized longer-term style of the German partner.[] At its most basic, culture determines how we engage in conversation, dialogue, or negotiation with one another—even our conversational patterns reveal deeper cultural norms, as shown in the figure on the next page, which illustrates conversational patterns in the United States, Japan, and Brazil.
Conflict and culture go hand in hand. Different national and civilizational cultures have embedded in them different conflict styles, assumptions about conflict, conflict rhythms, and conflict norms. In the United States, for example, the very language that we use in conflict situations provides a clear picture of our direct, aggressive approach: "Lay your cards on the table," "Don't beat around the bush," and "Put it all on the line" are a few examples.
Some cultures believe that conflict provides opportunity. Western cultural groups share four primary assumptions about conflict:
That conflict is normal and useful;
That all issues are subject to change through negotiation;
That direct confrontation and conciliation are valued; and
That conflict is a necessary renegotiation of contract, a release of tensions, and a renewal of relationships.[]
For people who see conflict as opportunity, the benefits of working through conflicts include gaining new information about other people or groups, being cognizant of and defusing more serious conflicts, and increasing overall cohesiveness. In fact, research has shown that conflict leads to stimulation, adaptation, and innovation, which are considered to be psychologically and sociologically healthy. This is an attitude prevalent in Anglo-Saxon cultures such as the United States, the U.K., and Ireland.[]
But some cultures view conflict as unproductive and even destructive for relationships. Sometimes spiritual or cultural values dictate that conflict is dangerous or wrong. There are four assumptions underlying this approach to conflict:
Conflict is a destructive disturbance of the peace;
The social system should not be adjusted to the needs of its members, but rather, its members need to adapt to the established values;
Confrontations are destructive and ineffective; and
Disputants should be disciplined.[]
Professor Stella Ting-Toomey suggests that these two opposed orientations are based on different cultural orientations to identity and face-saving. The conflict-as-opportunity orientation stems from a concern for saving individual dignity, while the conflict-as-destructive orientation stems from a higher value attributed to maintaining harmony in interpersonal relationships and saving the dignity of others.
In the preceding chapters, and particularly in Chapter 1, the work of Geert Hofstede was used to provide a framework for understanding cultural dimensions of nation states. Hofstede's dimensions are useful in discussing the impact of culture on conflict. To review:
Individualism refers to the extent to which members of a culture view themselves as distinct persons rather than as part of a collective. Individualistic cultures include countries such as Canada, the United States, France, Germany, Switzerland, Australia, and Great Britain. Collectivist cultures include Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, Hong Kong, Greece, Italy, Brazil, Mexico, Iran, and Singapore. Because of this difference, competition is a counterproductive resolution method in Japan, but productive in the West. Some cultures have both individualist and collectivist tendencies, such as Turkey, which embodies strong individualistic elements alongside a collectivist outlook.
Power distance is the extent to which inequality of power and influence is seen as normal in the culture. Low power distance cultures such as Canada, the United States, Australia, and New Zealand subscribe to equal power distribution, while high power distance cultures like the Philippines, Malaysia, Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, Guatemala, Panama, Mexico, and many Arab countries adhere to hierarchical structures. Understanding the balance of power is vital in any conflict. There are several variables that affect this balance:[]
Time Which party is under the most time pressure? Money What are the financial stakes? Knowledge and Skill Which side is more experienced and knowledgeable? Information Who has access to what information? Authority Who has the authority to make decisions? Legitimacy Who has morality and/or law on his or her side? Network Which side brings the most powerful connections to the table? Uncertainty avoidance measures a culture's lack of tolerance for ambiguity and the extent to which members of the culture prefer structured to unstructured situations. Cultures that rank low in uncertainty avoidance such as the United States and Canada like to take risks, take individual initiative, and enjoy conflict, while cultures high in uncertainty avoidance like Japan and South Korea do not like conflict, but pursue group harmony. They need clear rules, procedures, and clearly defined job responsibilities.
Masculinity measures the extent to which "masculine" values such as assertiveness and success prevail. Japan ranks high on masculine dimensions; males there expect an "in-charge" role. Countries like Norway and Sweden have a stronger feminine dimension and roles are more fluid there between males and females. When harmony and consensus are highly valued, as in the Netherlands, conflict is likely to have a stronger and more negative impact.
Long-term orientation is the extent to which values are oriented to the future, rather than to the present and past. This can influence whether individuals take a short-term or long-term approach to conflict resolution.
Edward Hall's concepts of low-context and high-context communication (discussed in more depth in Chapter 3) are also important to our understanding of intercultural conflict. Low-context communication emphasizes expression of intention or meaning though explicit verbal messages, while high-context communication focuses on meaning being expressed through the context (such as social roles and positions) and nonverbal channels (such as pauses, silence, and tone of voice). In high-context cultures, the listener is expected to read between the lines to decode meaning. Whether a culture is low-context or high-context can affect whether direct or indirect communication is used to defuse conflict.
Of all these, the continuum of individualist and collectivist cultures may have the most impact on how people react to conflict situations.