Full-text source: WilsonSelectPlus
Conflict management style: accounting
for cross-national differences.
Author: Morris, Michael W.;
Williams, Katherine Y. Leung, Kwok. Source: Journal of
International Business Studies v. 29 no4 (1998) p. 729-47 ISSN:
0047-2506 Number: BBPI99014617 Copyright: The magazine publisher
is the copyright holder of this article and it is reproduced with permission.
Further reproduction of this article in violation of the copyright is
prohibited.
A recurring theme in studies of international business is the idea that
problematic misunderstandings arise as a result of cultural differences in
styles of negotiating and handling conflict (Adler, 1986; Adler & Graham,
1989; Hofstede, 1991; Maddox, 1993). Negotiation can be thought of as a mutual
exchange of signals. Since cultures have different signalling languages,
negotiators faced with a counterpart from another culture can easily misread a
signal or transmit an unintended message. The literature suggests that U.S.
negotiators struggle with such crossed signals not only with counterparts from
completely unfamiliar cultures, such as indigenous tribal groups, but also
with counterparts from cultures with which they have a surface familiarity,
such as Japan (Graham & Sano, 1984), China (Pye, 1982) and India (Gopalan
& Rivera, 1997). As Pye (1982, pp. 20-23) explained:.
"Unquestionably the largest and possibly the most intractable category of
problems in Sino-American business negotiations can be traced to the cultural
differences between the two societies.... Conscious efforts to take into
account the other party's cultural practices can eliminate gross
misunderstandings, but cultural factors continue to surface and cause problems
in more subtle and indirect ways.".
Although cultural differences present a challenge in a one-time formal
negotiation, the problem of cultural differences is even more endemic in joint
ventures where managers need to resolve everyday conflicts with co-workers
from other cultures (Baird, Lyles, Ji, Wharton, 1990; Miller, Glen, Jaspersen,
Karmokolias, 1997). In the literature on joint ventures between U.S. and Asian
firms, two types of misunderstanding in conflicts are frequently identified.
In one type of misunderstanding, U.S. managers make the error of reading
silence from their Asian counterpart as an indication of consent. U.S.
managers may fail to pick up on the indirectly expressed objections of Asian
colleagues (see Graham and Sano, 1984). A different type of misunderstanding
occurs when Asian managers make the error of reading an U.S. colleague's
direct adversarial arguments as indicating unreasonableness and lack of
respect. Consider the reaction of a Thai manager to his assertive U.S.
colleague:.
"I've tried to explain all this to Max several times, but, like so many
Americans I've known, he's not interested in listening when he thinks he's
right. He wants this thing done yesterday. He has practically screamed this at
me at our last few meetings--once in front of a few of my employees"
(Roongrerngsuke and Chansuthus, in press).
The many examples of joint ventures that have run aground on cultural
differences have been an impetus for research on cultural differences in
styles of handling conflict with co-workers. Researchers have shifted from the
method of inductively generalizing from qualitative interviews (Pye, 1982) to
the method of testing hypotheses with carefully matched samples of managers
and quantitative measures (Graham, 1985). Many studies have investigated
so-called "East-West differences" by comparing U.S. managers to a matched
group in an Asian society. Two patterns of findings have been observed
repeatedly, albeit the precise cultural boundaries on these differences are
not well understood. First, compared to U.S. managers, Asian managers rely on
a style of avoiding explicit discussion of the conflict. Second, compared to
Asians, U.S. managers are more inclined toward a style of assertively
competing with the other person to see who can convince the other of their
preferred resolution of the conflict. Although many researchers have
speculated that these behavioral differences reflect underlying differences in
cultural values (Bond & Hwang, 1986; Kirkbride, Tang, & Westwood,
1991), this has not been rigorously investigated. We review the cross-cultural
literature on conflict style and values to derive more precise predictions.
Then we compare the conflict management styles and values of young managers in
the U.S. and three Asian societies to test predictions about the values
underlying cultural differences in conflict style.
MODELS OF CONFLICT MANAGEMENT STYLEResearchers in social psychology and
organizational behavior have proposed models that reduce the myriad tactics of
negotiators and managers to several basic styles. Early models of strategy in
conflict (Deutsch, 1973) followed the intuitive notion that styles can be
arrayed on a single dimension ranging from selfishness (concern about own
outcomes) to cooperativeness (concern about the other party's outcomes).
However, a limitation of single-dimension models is that they fail to
encompass styles that involve high concern for both self and other and
likewise, styles that involve a high concern for neither self nor other (e.g.,
Thomas & Killman, 1974; Pruitt & Rubin, 1986).
Subsequent theorists have drawn on Blake, Shepard and Mouton's (1964)
taxonomy of managerial styles to model conflict styles within a framework of
two orthogonal motivational dimensions, a self-oriented and an other-oriented
concern (see Thomas & Killman, 1974; Pruitt & Rubin, 1986). Within
this framework, Thomas and Kilmann (1974) developed an instrument for
measuring an individual's dispositions toward five discrete styles. We will
focus on two of these, on avoiding (low self-concern and low other-concern)
and competing (high self-concern and low other-concern). The remaining styles
are, respectively, the polar opposites of avoiding (collaborating) and of
competing (accommodating) and a blend of the four foregoing styles
(compromising). The evidence from empirical assessments of the five-fold
taxonomy as a model of the overall structure of conflict behavior is mixed
(Jehn & Weldon, 1997; Rahim, 1983; Womack, 1988). Nevertheless, the Thomas
and Kilmann scales for tapping particular conflict styles, such as avoiding
and competing, compare favorably to other methods in terms of validity and
reliability (Brown, Yelsma, & Keller, 1981; Killman & Thomas, 1977).
On theoretical grounds, Pruitt and Rubin (1986) have argued that modelling
conflict style in terms of five dispositions is redundant. The important
insight is that low concern for the opponent occurs with two quite different
styles: Passively avoiding discussion of conflict as opposed to actively
collaborating, and competing as opposed to accommodating. These two styles,
then, seem particularly likely to underlie friction in a working relationship,
and this may explain why these styles have been the focus in cross-cultural
conflict management. To understand the roots of cultural differences in
avoiding and competing in conflicts, however, we need measures of underlying
values.
MODELS OF VALUESResearchers have taken several approaches to
conceptualizing and measuring values. Most research focuses on individual
differences within cultures rather than cross-cultural differences;
nevertheless, researchers assume that one's values represent cultural demands
as well as idiosyncratic goals (Rokeach, 1973). Members of the same culture
are likely to share a set of values acquired in the process of socialization
-- values that represent the acceptable modes of conduct in a particular
society. Furthermore, a separate research tradition has utilized values as a
way of distinguishing cultures (Kluckhorn & Strodbeck, 1961). These
researchers measure values that are equally interpretable, yet differentially
endorsed, across cultures.
The primary method for the study of individual differences in values has
been inventories of abstract terms. The seminal work of Rokeach (1973)
measured an individual's profile on thirtysix terms that are central to
Western discourse on values, such as "equality" and "freedom." By contrast,
the most influential cross-cultural studies have involved more specific
statements of attitudes and preferences (Hofstede, 1980). Hofstede (1980)
compared managers in a large sample of countries on a set of statements of
attitudes about work and life, which allowed him to position the countries on
several dimensions, such as Individualism-Collectivism. One limitation of this
study is that value scores could be derived only at the country level rather
than at the individual level. Triandis and colleagues (Triandis et al., 1986)
have developed a scale to measure Individualism-Collectivism at the level of
individual values; however, it increasingly appears that this construct is not
coherent at the individual level, and different components need to be
conceptualized separately (Triandis, 1995). Another limitation is that
Hofstede's (1980) instruments were developed in Western countries and then
translated. Because of the possibility that values not salient in Western
societies were omitted from the supposedly universal space of values,
researchers in non-Western settings have developed measures that concentrate
on the values central to their traditions. For example, a distinct value
dimension that emerged in studies of Chinese values, Moral Discipline,
involves self-regulation and attention to role obligations (Chinese Culture
Connection, 1987).
Schwartz (1992, 1994) has attempted to encompass the Western values studied
by Rokeach, as well as values identified in non-Western settings, into a
multidimensional model of the structure of basic human values. With regard to
the reliability of the measurement instrument and the representativeness of
the sample within and across cultures, this research dominates previous work.
Schwartz's model begins with respondents' endorsement of value descriptors
(such as "obedience," "politeness," etc.) which are then clustered into
measures of ten values, such as "Conformity." These values are further
aggregated into a few broad value dimensions, for example, "Conformity" and
"Tradition" make up the "Societal Conservatism" dimension. "Achievement" and
"Power" make up the "Self-Enhancement" dimension.
RELATING VALUES TO CONFLICT STYLEIS INDIVIDUALISM-COLLECTIVISM THE KEY?Most
previous researchers who have linked cultural values to conflict style have
pointed to the Individualism-Collectivism dimension. The most explicit
argument in the previous literature is the thesis of Ting-Toomey (1988) and
colleagues (Trubisky, Ting-Toomey & Lin, 1991) that country differences in
communication style can be accounted for in terms of the
Individualism-Collectivism dimension. Specifically, collectivism is associated
with indirect communication, such as the Avoiding style of handling conflict,
whereas individualism is associated with direct modes of expression, such as
the Competing style of handling conflict. Two predictions follow from an
Individualism-Collectivism (IC) account. First, measures of Avoiding and
Competing should dramatically separate U.S. managers from Asian managers; for
example, in Hofstede's IC data, the U.S. score (91) is far higher than those
of Asian societies, which are relatively close together (for example,
India=48, Phillipines=32, and Taiwan=17). Moreover, Asian patterns should
resemble those in other highly collectivist societies, such as Middle Eastern
and Latin societies. This general prediction of similarity across all highly
collectivist cultures is not tested in the current study because it has been
disconfirmed by careful comparative studies of conflict style (Graham, 1985);
we compare across Asia.
A second prediction is that differences between the countries in conflict
style should be mediated by individual differences on measures of
Individualism-Collectivism. Again, the existing data is not encouraging:
Researchers who have correlated participants' scores on
Individualism-Collectivism scales with conflict behaviors have found no
relationship (Leung, 1988). The problem may be that the
Individualism-Collectivism construct conflates a number of distinct values and
attitudes and hence obscures relations between specific values and social
behaviors. The reliability of Individualism-Collectivism scales has proved
quite low, and in recent years Triandis (1995) and colleagues have shifted
from the position that individualism versus collectivism is a unitary
dimension of values. Similarly, our view is that cross-cultural differences in
conflict management style cannot be reduced to a single value dimension
running from individualism to collectivism (see review by Morris & Leung,
1999).
WHICH VALUES IN CHINESE CULTURE LEAD TO CONFLICT AVOIDANCE?A number of
theorists have suggested that Chinese culture promotes an indirect, avoiding
style of handling conflicts (Bond & Wang, 1983). Some studies have
employed conflict style scales to test that Chinese managers are more disposed
to an avoidant style than Western managers. Tang and Kirkbride (1986) measured
the conflict styles of Hong Kong Chinese and British executives in the Hong
Kong Civil Service, and found that the Chinese managers were higher on the
Avoiding style. However, given that ingroup/outgroup differences influence
conflict avoidance (Leung, 1988), it is ambiguous whether British culture or
expatriate status was the key to the behavior of this sample of British
managers. Trubisky, Ting-Toomey and Lin (1991) compared Taiwanese and U.S.
students and found that Taiwanese participants relied on an indirect avoiding
style more than U.S. participants. Yet, as Leung (1997) pointed out, this is
one of many studies in the literature that suffers from interpretive
difficulties owing to the fact that the responses were not standardized before
making cultural comparisons; higher scores in one culture may thus reflect
differing response sets, such as acquiescence bias.
What underlies the difference that Chinese respondents rely on Avoiding
more than comparable groups of U.S. respondents? The evidence clearly suggests
that not all highly collectivist cultures share this tendency (Graham, 1985).
A clue is suggested by a study comparing conflict styles of Japanese and U.S.
students, which found that twice as many Japanese students reported reliance
on avoiding in their most recent conflict (Ohbuchi & Takahashi, 1994). One
of the most important reasons for avoiding explicit discussion of the conflict
for the Japanese students was the desire to preserve their personal
relationships. Interestingly, though both Japanese and U.S. respondents agreed
that avoidance is the least effective strategy for resolving the issues, for
Japanese it was the preferred style because they value the conservation of
existing relationships. Adjusting one-self to the stable social structure--to
relationships, organizations, and institutions--is a virtue in Confucian
tradition of role-appropriate behavior, which is a central strain of Chinese
culture also influential in Japanese culture (Su, Chiu, Hong, Leung, Peng
& Morris, 1998). Confucian ethics lays out certain "rules of propriety"
which structure interpersonal relationships, and adjustment to these
prescribed patterns is valued. This Confucian virtue was tapped in studies of
Chinese values by the factor of Moral Discipline (Chinese Culture Connection,
1987). Chiu and Kosinski (1994) compared U.S. and Hong Kong Chinese
participants in their endorsement of Chinese values and in their conflict
management styles. Results showed that Chinese respondents were higher on both
Moral Discipline and Conflict Avoidance. This dimension corresponds to
Schwartz's value dimension of Societal Conservatism. Drawing together these
ideas, we hypothesize:.
H1: Chinese culture fosters an Avoiding style of conflict management.
H2: An Avoiding style of conflict management reflects an individual's
orientation toward Societal Conservatism values (e.g., Conformity).
H3: Country differences in the Avoiding style are mediated by country
differences in orientation toward Societal Conservatism.
WHICH VALUES IN U.S. CULTURE LEAD TO COMPETING IN CONFLICTS?Now let us
review the evidence about cultural differences in competitive styles of
handling conflict. A robust pattern of findings comes from studies of choices
between dispute resolution procedures. Leung and colleagues found that whereas
competitive adversarial procedures are preferred by North Americans, less
competitive procedures, such as mediation, are preferred in many other
cultural contexts, such as Hong Kong and Spain (Leung & Lind, 1986; Leung
et al., 1992). Other studies have measured participants' choices between
competitive and cooperative strategies in conflict games. Li, Cheung and Kau
(1979) found that U.S. children rely on competitive strategies to a greater
extent than do matched samples of children in Hong Kong and Taiwan. Although
not a cross-national comparison, a study by Cox, Lobel and McCleod (1991)
found that Anglo-Americans competed more than African-, Asian-, or
Hispanic-Americans.
What value orientation might underlie the tendency of U.S. managers toward
a Competing style? One possibility is that competing reflects the
value-orientation that Parsons (1951) referred to as an achievement versus
ascription-orientation, and McClelland (1961) later operationalized as need
for achievement. An achievement orientation means "looking out for number
one," placing a higher concern for one's own outcome than on the other's
outcome. Achievement orientation is high in societies, such as the United
States, that traditionally permit individual social mobility, and low in
societies such as India where ascribed characteristics (e.g., caste) determine
one's life outcomes. Value surveys have long revealed that U.S. respondents
endorse individual achievement more than South and East Asian respondents
(Singh, Huang & Thompson, 1962; Morris, Podolny & Ariel, 1999). An
orientation toward achievement and mobility is captured by the
Self-Enhancement dimension in Schwartz's model. Hence, we hypothesize the
following:.
H4: U.S. culture fosters a Competing style of conflict management.
H5: A Competing style of conflict management reflects an individual's
orientation toward Self-Enhancement values (e.g., Achievement).
H6: Country differences in the Competing style are mediated by country
differences in orientation toward Self-Enhancement.
EXPECTATIONS ABOUT OTHER COUNTRIESWe have proposed hypotheses about
distinct value dimensions underlying cultural differences in Avoiding and
Competing, which can be contrasted with previous arguments that cultural
differences in both conflict styles are a function of a general
Individualism-Collectivism dimension. To find support for our hypotheses it is
useful to not only compare U.S. and Chinese managers, but also to observe
managers in other Asian cultures that, while highly collectivist, have
cultural heritages that lead us to expect conflict styles differing from
Chinese managers. First let us consider India. Observers have argued that
Indian managerial conflict resolution tendencies reflect Hindu norms of
seeking a solution that pleases everyone, as well as British norms of active,
mutual problem solving (Moran & Stripp, 1991). Hence, we might expect that
Indian managers have a style less inclined toward competing that in the than
U.S. managers, but this does not take the form of avoidance that it takes in
Chinese contexts. Similarly in the Philippines, where the historical influence
of Chinese culture has been moderated by the more recent influence of Spanish
and U.S. cultures, it has been noted that managers avoid overt competing in
conflicts with colleagues, but not through avoidance of addressing the issues.
Rather the tendency is to express one's point indirectly, or to cushion one's
statements so as to preserve smooth relationships (Gouchenour, 1990).
We tested our hypotheses in a comparative survey involving MBA students in
four countries. This choice of sample was designed to satisfy several
important methodological goals. A first goal was to sample enough sites to
test our hypotheses that conflict management styles vary as a function of
specific cultural traditions as opposed to a very general
Individualism-Collectivism dimension. We compared a U.S. sample with Chinese,
Indian, and Philippine samples. Our key variables were scales measuring
Avoiding and Competing styles in conflict and measures of the Schwartz value
dimensions relevant to our hypotheses, "Social Conservatism" and
"Self-Enhancement." We also analyzed a standard scale of
Individualism-Collectivism and a scale measuring the value dimension that
Schwartz has described as most similar to Individualism-Collectivism, which is
"Openness to Change.".
METHODPARTICIPANTSTo compare groups who differ in culture yet are
relatively similar otherwise, we sampled students at highly ranked masters of
business administration (MBA) programs in each country -- in the United States
(Stanford University and University of Chicago), in China (Tong Ji and Fudan
Universities), in the Philippines (Asian Institute of Management), in India
(Indian Institute of Management-Ahmedabad) (see Tripathi, 1996). These
students have relatively similar academic training, work experiences, and
career goals. We recruited participants in large classes that comprised a
cross-section of the students enrolled in the program, and participation rates
were above 80 percent in each country. For the sake of clear comparisons, we
only analyzed data from participants who were citizens of the country where
the data was collected. There were 454 participants included in the analyses:
132 participants from the United States, 100 from China, 160 from India, and
62 from the Philippines. The percentage of females was 28 percent in the
United States, 24 percent in China, 11 percent in India, and 44 percent the
Philippines, respectively. The average age of respondents varied somewhat in
the four countries. In the United States the average age was 28.69 years. It
was 30.05 years in China, 23.31 years in India, and 26.26 years in the
Philippines. Overall 76 percent of the respondents were male, and the average
age of the respondents was 26.75 years.
MATERIALSParticipants received a booklet entitled "Managerial Style
Inventories" with brief instructions on the cover and a request for
demographic information, such as country of citizenship, age, and gender. Next
appeared Rahim's (1983) adapted version of the Killman-Thomas self-report
conflict style scale. This version involved a rating scale format, which is
important in cross-cultural studies because it facilitates checking the
inter-item reliability of the scale, which cannot be presumed to carry across
cultures. Participants were asked to consider interpersonal conflicts at work,
and rate how well their typical behavior is described by a series of 53
statements, such as "I try to win my position.".
Next, participants received the 57-item instrument for measuring value
orientations (Schwartz, 1994). Respondents were asked to indicate on a 9-point
scale ranging from -1 to 7, how important each value was to them personally. A
score of -1 indicated that the item was "opposed to my values," a 0 indicated
"not important," and 7 indicated of "supreme importance." Finally, we also
employed a widely used 18-item scale designed to measure the
Individualism-Collectivism dimension of social values (Triandis et al., 1986).
The scales were presented in the language of instruction of the MBA program:
English in the United States, India, and Philippines, and Mandarin in China.
Scales were translated and back-translated to achieve comparability.
Completing the full survey took participants about 20 minutes.
SCALE CONSTRUCTIONA first step in preparing the data was to standardize
participants' responses to each instrument so that response biases could not
enter into the cultural differences. This was done by subtracting from the raw
score for each item the mean of all the items on the focal scale, and dividing
this by the standard deviation of items on the scale. Next we examined, within
each country, the inter-item reliability of the specific factors from the
instruments relevant to our hypotheses. For the conflict style and value
factors, acceptable levels of reliability were reached. The appendix shows the
items that made up each scale. Table 1 below shows Cronbach a reliability
scores for Avoiding and Competing scales and the three Schwartz value
dimensions relevant to hypotheses (Openness to Change, Societal Conservatism,
and Self-Enhancement). As may be seen in Table 1, all these scales reached
acceptable levels within each country and satisfactory levels across
countries. However, the Individualism-Collectivism scale did not show an
adequate level of reliability (and no subset of items could be found that
improved its performance). Hence, this scale was not used further.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONCOUNTRY DIFFERENCESTable 2 indicates the extent to
which MBA respondents in the four countries rely on Avoiding and Competing
strategies for managing conflicts. We tested hypotheses using Analysis of
Variance (ANOVA) and planned comparisons. Consistent with H1, Chinese managers
relied more on the Avoiding style than managers in the other countries (t =
2.68, df = 449, p < .01 one-sided) leading to a main effect of Country (F =
3.14, p < .03). Consistent with H2, U.S. managers relied more on a
Competing style than managers from the other three countries (t = 1.92, df =
449, p < .05 one-sided), which resulted in a main effect of Country (F =
2.60, p < .05).
Table 2 also shows the profile across countries on the Schwartz value
dimensions relevant to the hypotheses. Because the Schwartz instrument
comprehensively covers the semantic space of values, it is again appropriate
to interpret the standardized scores (shown in bold). Factors with higher
standardized scores are those that respondents place above most other values.
Overall, our MBA respondents endorsed Societal Conservatism less than
Self-Enhancement or Openness to Change; however, there were strong and readily
interpretable country differences. Endorsement of Societal Conservatism varied
as a function of Country (F(3, 449) =22.17, p <.01). Consistent with our
expectation that this factor taps Confucian values, it was relatively high in
China and the Philippines compared with India and especially compared with the
United States (t=6.44, df=449, p<.01). This pattern with the Social
Conservatism scale reflected virtually identical profiles across countries on
its component subscales for Conformity and Tradition values.
Endorsement of the Self-Enhancement dimension was similar across the four
countries. However, the flat profile on this general dimension masks
interesting patterns on the component subscales for Achievement and Power.
Achievement varied as a function of Country (F(3, 449) =11.16, p <.01) in
the predicted pattern of greater endorsement by U.S. managers (M=.48) compared
with managers from China (M =.19), India (M =.30) or the Philippines (M =.25;
(t=5.46, df=449, p<.01). Yet the other component value, Power, revealed an
opposite pattern (F(3, 449) =49.58, p <.01) in which U.S. managers were
lower (M =-.63) than managers from China (M =-.24), India (M =-.39) or the
Philippines (M =-.40). This finding resonates with Hofstede's (1980) finding
that U.S. respondents were lower in Power Distance than those in the other
three samples. Apparently, U.S. managers believe in trying to get ahead, but
they are uncomfortable with the notion that people have privileges once they
get ahead. Because the components of this general dimension differ in their
profiles across countries, it will be important to examine relations to
conflict style both at the level of the general dimension and at the level of
its specific component values, Achievement and Power.
Finally, let us turn to the dimension in Schwartz's model closest to
Individualism-Collectivism, viz., Openness to Change. As expected, it varied
across countries (F(3, 449) =49.58, p <.01) in the pattern of U.S. managers
being higher than the other three groups (t=10.79, df=449, p<.01). This
pattern summarizes consistent profiles on the component values of
Self-Direction, Hedonism, and Stimulation. A further detail that can be noted
at the end of our discussion of Table 2 concerns the relative size of country
differences. Consistent with our conceptual model that values come between
country and conflict style, value-orientations differ more dramatically across
country than do conflict styles.
DO VALUES MEDIATE CONFLICT STYLE DIFFERENCES?To demonstrate that value
differences account for the differences in conflict style, several criteria
must be met (see Baron & Kenny, 1986). The putative mediating variable
should predict the dependent variable. Moreover, when the independent variable
and the putative mediating variables are simultaneously entered into an
equation predicting the dependent variable, the coefficient on the independent
variable should be markedly reduced. Whereas the coefficient on the mediating
variable should be less affected. Our analytic strategy will be to first test
whether country effects on conflict style are mediated by values in an
analysis that includes all the relevant value dimensions. Then we will try to
pinpoint the values responsible for effects by examining the role of specific
component values of the general value dimensions. Models with gender and age
as controls were run first. Gender had no effect, and age had a slight effect
only in the model for Competing, which did not alter the pattern of
inter-relationships between variables of interest. Hence, these controls are
dropped in our featured analyses.
Let us first consider the result of regressing the Avoiding style on
Country dummy variables and value measures. As may be seen in Table 3, and
specifically in Equation 1a, there is an effect of the China dummy variable on
Avoiding (Chinese managers are higher than U.S. managers). Consistent with H2,
the value-orientation of Social Conservatism predicts conflict avoidance (see
Equation 2a). By contrast, Self-Enhancement and Openness to Change, which
corresponds most closely to Individualism-Collectivism, do not predict
Avoiding. A mediation relationship is seen in that the country effect is
reduced when values are simultaneously entered, yet the effect of the value
dimension is undiminished (see Equation 3a). In sum, results unequivocally
support H3 that the value dimension of Social Conservatism accounts for the
greater Chinese tendency to avoid conflict. Seeking a more fine-grained
understanding of the mediating variable, we conducted parallel analyses using
the specific component values of Tradition and Conformity, one at a time, and
found that either serves to completely account for the greater Chinese
tendency to rely on an avoiding strategy in conflicts.
Now let us consider the Competing style. As shown in Equation 1b,
consistent with the ANOVA results, there is an effect of the India dummy
variable on Competing (indicating that U.S. managers are higher than Indian
managers on competing). Moreover, consistent with H5, the value dimension of
Self Enhancement predicts a Competing style (see Equation 2b). A sign of a
partial mediation relation is that the country effect drops by an order of
significance when the value scores are simultaneously entered in the model
(compare Equation 3b to Equation 1b). The decrease in the beta coefficients is
small, but it is best appreciated in opposition to increase in the beta
coefficients on the value scores. This increase indicates that their causal
relation to the conflict style is not diminished; it is instead clarified by
the inclusion of the country dummy variable (compare Equation 3b to Equation
2b).
To look for more fine-grained relationships, we conducted parallel analyses
with the components of Self-Enhancent (Power and Achievement) and of Openness
to Change (Hedonism, Self-Direction, and Stimulation) examined one at a time
as possible mediators of the country difference in Competing. Not surprisingly
given the pattern of means, Power does not mediate the country difference at
all. Achievement performs better than the overall measure, and hence seems to
capture the value that partially mediates the country difference. The
component values of Openness to Change do not perform as well as the overall
scores in Table 3. Hence, we can conclude that compared with other values,
individual achievement is most relevant to country differences in the
competing style of conflict management.
GENERAL DISCUSSIONCONTRIBUTION OF CURRENT FINDINGSThe current findings make
a substantial contribution to the research evidence that conflict management
behavior differs as a function of cultural values. Using samples that provide
a conservative test of cultural differences, we have identified two patterns
of differences between U.S. and Asian managers in conflict management style.
Chinese managers tend toward an Avoiding style, U.S. managers, toward a
Competing style. More importantly, we have provided an analysis of how these
differences in managerial behavior reflect underlying differences in
value-orientations. A Societal Conservatism value-orientation, tapping values
such as Conformity and Tradition, underlies the tendency of Chinese managers
to avoid explicit negotiation of workplace conflicts. An orientation toward
Self Enhancement, and specifically Achievement, underlies the tendency of U.S.
managers to take a competing approach in workplace conflicts.
Another general pattern that can be seen by comparing standardized scores
in Table 2 is that the country differences on value dimensions are sharper
than the country differences in conflict style. This makes sense given that
individuals are more or less free to value what they want, but the role
requirements of a manager require use of all of the different conflict
management strategies. It is consistent with our argument that values are
proximally related to country, and that the influence of country on conflict
styles arises through the values into which managers are socialized.
Our use of managers in elite MBA programs raises another important question
in the literature on cultural differences in international business, which is
whether the most cosmopolitan groups in every country have converged to a
common global business culture (Barnet & Cavanaugh, 1994). Our Asian
participants are arguably among the most Westernized members of their
societies, and yet they still differed quite markedly in their values from the
U.S. participants. Hence, our data are consistent with the view that even the
most cosmopolitan sectors of these societies have not completely converged in
their values and managerial behaviors.
Evidence about cultural differences in style and underlying values, can be
of help to managers in joint ventures who must interact as colleagues and
resolve conflicts with managers from other cultures. Although a U.S. manager
in China may find it difficult that colleagues withhold their critical
feedback, knowing that he or she should not expect direct expression of
conflict will prevent the error of taking the lack of expressed disagreement
as an indication of support. Correctly interpreting the source of this
behavior in the Confucian values of the accommodating oneself to the social
structure will guide against erroneous attributions to personal
characteristics or intentions that can have harmful and self-fulfilling
effects (Morris, Leung & Sethi 1996; Morris, Larrick & Su 1999).
Likewise, for Asian managers, an understanding that a U.S. manager's
competitive style is not based on a lack of respect for the others in the
room, but merely in a value on achievement, may help this behavior to be
accepted without offence.
ISSUES FOR FUTURE RESEARCHThe current findings lay the groundwork for
future analyses that include more variables. One issue of interest is the role
of personality in determining conflict style. Sternberg and colleagues
(Sternberg & Dobson, 1987) have found mixed evidence that North American
college students' conflict styles are predicted by personality variables. It
is interesting to consider whether personality plays an equal role in other
countries, given that some studies have found that social behavior is driven
more by personality in the individualistic context of the U.K. than in the
collectivist context of Japan (Argyle, Shimoda & Little, 1978).
Another important variable to manipulate in future studies is the status of
the other person in the conflict. For example, the difference in conflict
avoidance may interact with status, such that managers who show the most
deference to a superordinate will also demand the most deference from a
subordinate. In predicting general styles of conflict management in recurrent
roles, the current strategy of adducing these behavioral style differences to
fairly general differences in values is likely to be a useful strategy. Yet to
the extent that we want to predict cultural differences in responses to
particular situations, then, it is likely that theories will have to shift
from reliance on general value constructs to more specific belief constructs
(for a review, see Morris & Leung, 1999).
Added material.
Michael W. Morris is an Associate Professor of Organizational Behavior at
Stanford University's Graduate School of Business, and research affiliate of
the Institute for Social and Personality Research at U.C. Berkeley. Katherine
Y. Williams is an advanced graduate student in Organizational Behavior at
Standford University's Graduate School of Business. Kwok Leung is Professor
and Chairman of the Department of Psychology at the Chinese University of Hong
Kong. Richard Larrick is an Associate Professor of behavioral science at the
University of Chicago Graduate School of Business. M. Teresa Mendoza is a
faculty assistant at Stanford University's Graduate School of Business. Deepti
Bhatnagar is a Professor of Organizational Behavior at the Indian Institute of
Management, Ahmedabad, India. Jianfeng Li is a Professor of Organizational
Behavior at The People's University of China's College of Business
Administration. Mari Kondo is an Associate Professor of Asian Institute of
Management in Manila. Jin-Lian Luo is an Associate Professor in the School of
Economics & Management, Tongji University, Shanghai, China. Jun-Chen Hu is
an Associate Professor in the School of Management, Fudan University,
Shanghai, China.
The authors acknowledge helpful comments from Michael Bond, Roderick
Kramer, Joanne Martin, and Margaret Neale as well as insights from research
colloquia at Stanford's Graduate School of Business and at IPSR at UC
Berkeley.
TABLE 1 RELIABILITY SCORES FOR CONFLICT AND SCHWARTZ VALUES SCALES WITHIN
EACH COUNTRY.
(TABLE) Cronbach's Alpha United China India Philippines Total
StatesConstructConflict Style Avoidant .87 .60 .83 .76 .77 Competitive .78 .75
.73 .83 .77Schwartz Values Societal Conservatism .72 .71 .79 .76 .75
Self-enhancement .80 .80 .84 .83 .82 Openness to Change .77 .74 .77 .87
.79Individualism/Collectivism .34 .69 .41 .49 .48.
TABLE 2 CONFLICT STYLE AND MAJOR VALUE DIMENSIONS OF MANAGERS IN 4
COUNTRIES.
(TABLE) United China India Philippines StatesCONFLICT STYLEAvoiding Style
Raw 3.17 (.84) 3.21 (.50) 2.96 (.86) 3.42 (.73) Standardized -.37 (.61) -.19
(.37) -.39 (.55) -.32 (.53)Competing Style Raw 3.75 (.55) 3.45 (.55) 3.39
(.57) 3.82 (.63) Standardized .12 (.61) .05 (.47) -.06 (.52) .02 (.61)MAJOR
VALUEDIMENSIONSSocial Conservatism(conformity, tradition) Raw 2.74 (.93) 4.27
(.93) 3.64 (1.13) 4.33 (.97) Standardized -.69 (.40) -.36 (.38) -.43 (.44)
-.23 (.37)Self-enhancement(power, achievement) Raw 3.81 (.91) 4.68 (.99) 4.25
(1.09) 4.53 (1.05) Standardized -.08 (.43) -.03 (.36) -.05 (.48) -.07
(.38)Openness to Change(hedonism,stimulation,self-direction)Raw 4.44 (.77)
4.31 (.94) 4.44 (.89) 4.17 (1.22)Standardized .33 (.32) -.14 (.31) .14 (.36)
-.14 (.31)N 131 99 160 62.
Note. Means and (sds) for raw and standardized variables are shown. Means
of standardized variables are in boldface.
TABLE 3 CONFLICT STYLES REGRESSED ON COUNTRY AND MAJOR VALUE DIMENSIONS.
(TABLE) Avoiding CompetingPredictors 1a 2a 3a 1b 2b 3bChina .14(FN*) .08
-.05 .03India -.02 -.07 -.15(FN**) -.12(FN*)Philippines .04 -.02 -.06
.02SocialConservatism .16(FN**) .19(FN**) -.03 -.00SelfEnhancement .01 .02
.26(FN**) .27(FN**)OpennessTo Change -.02 .02 .15(FN**) .20(FN**)Adjusted R2
.01 .03 .03 .01 .10 .12d.f. 449 448 445 449 448 445F 3.14(FN*) 4.82(FN**)
3.51(FN**) 2.60 18.18(FN**) 10.76(FN**).
Note: Coefficients are standardized beta weights. The country variables are
dummy variables with the United States as the excluded category. All variables
are standardized.
FOOTNOTES* p < .05;.
** p < .01.
REFERENCESAdler, Nancy J. 1986. International dimensions of organizational
behavior. Boston, MA: Kent Publishing Company.
Adler, Nancy J. & John L. Graham. 1989. Cross-cultural interaction: The
international comparison fallacy? Journal of International Business Studies,
20(3): 515-37.
Argyle, Michael, Kazuo Shmoda & Brian Little. 1978. Variance due to
persons and situations in England and Japan. British Journal of Social and
Clinical Psychology, 17: 335-37.
Baird, Inga S., Marjorie A. Lyles, Shaobo Ji & Robert Wharton. 1990.
Joint venture success: A Sino-U.S. Perspective. International Studies of
Management & Organization, 20(1): 125-34.
Barnet, Richard J. & John Cavanaugh. 1994. Global dreams: Imperial
corporations and the new world order. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
Baron, Reuben & David A. Kenny. 1986. The moderator-mediator variable
distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and
statistical consideration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
51(6): 1173-82.
Blake, Robert R., Herbert Shepard & Jane S. Mouton. 1964. Managing
intergroup conflict in industry. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing.
Bond, Michael H. 1979. Winning either way: The effect of anticipating a
competitive interaction on person perception. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 5(3): 316-19.
Bond, Michael H. & Kwang-kuo Hwang. 1986. The social psychology of
Chinese people. In M. H. Bond, editor, The psychology of the Chinese people.
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Bond, Michael H. & Sung-Hsing Wang. 1983. Aggressive behavior in
Chinese society: The problem of maintaining order and harmony. In A. P.
Goldstein & M. Segall, editors, Global perspectives on aggression. New
York, NY: Pergamon.
Brown, Charles T., Paul Yelsma & Paul W. Keller. 1981.
Communication-conflict predisposition: Development of a theory and an
instrument. Human Relations, 34(12): 1103-17.
Chinese Culture Connection. 1987. Chinese values and the search for
culture-free dimensions of culture. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology,
18(2): 143-64.
Chiu, Randy K. & Frederick A. Kosinski, Jr. 1994. Is Chinese
conflict-handling behavior influenced by Chinese values? Social Behavior &
Personality, 22(1): 81-90.
Cox, Taylor, Sharon Lobel & Poppy McLeod. 1991. Effects of ethnic group
cultural differences on cooperative and competitive behavior on a group task.
Academy of Management Journal, 34(4): 827-47.
Davis, Herbert J. & Anvaar S. Rasool. 1988. Values research and
managerial behavior: Implications for devising cultural consistent managerial
styles. Management International Review, 28(3): 11-20.
Deutsch, Morton. 1973. The resolution of conflict. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Goldenberg, Susan. 1988. Hands across the ocean: Managing joint ventures
with a spotlight on China and Japan. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.
Gopalan, Suresh & Joan B. Rivera. 1997. Gaining a perspective on Indian
value orientations: Implications for expatriate managers. International
Journal of Organizational Analysis, 5(2): 156-179.
Gouchenour, Theodore. 1990. Considering Filipinos. Yarmouth: International
Press.
Graham, John. 1985. The influence of culture on business negotiations.
Journal of International Business Studies, 16(1): 81-96.
Graham, John & Yoshihiro Sano. 1984. Smart bargaining: Doing business
with the Japanese. Cambridge: Ballinger Publishing Co.
Hofstede, Geert H. 1980. Culture's consequences: International differences
in work-related values. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
Hofstede, Geert H. 1991. Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind.
London, UK: McGraw-Hill.
Hui, C. Harry & Harry C. Triandis. 1985. Measurement in cross-cultural
psychology: A review and comparison of strategies. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 16(2): 131-52.
Jehn, Karen & Elizabeth Weldon. 1997. Managerial attitudes toward
conflict: Cross-cultural differences in resolution styles. Journal of
International Management, 34: 102-24.
Kilmann, Ralon H. & Kenneth W. Thomas. 1977. Developing a forced-choice
measure of conflict-handling behavior: The "MODE" instrument. Education and
Psychological Measurement, 37(2): 309-25.
Kirkbride, Paul S., Sarah Tang & Robert I. Westwood. 1991. Chinese
conflict preferences and negotiation behavior: Cultural and psychological
influences. Organization Studies, 12(3): 365-86.
Kluckhorn, Florence & Fred Strodbeck. 1961. Variations in value
orientations. Evanston, IL: Peterson Row.
Leung, Kwok. 1988. Some determinants of conflict avoidance. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 19(1): 125-36.
Leung, Kwok. 1997. Negotiation and reward allocations across cultures. In
P. Earley & M. Erez, editors, New perspectives on international
industrial/organizational psychology. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Leung, Kwok, Yuk-fai Au, Jose M. Fernandez-Dols & Saburo Iwawaki. 1992.
Preference for methods of conflict processing in two collectivist cultures.
International Journal of Psychology, 27(2): 195-209.
Leung, Kwok & Michael Bond. 1989. On the empirical identification of
dimensions for cross-cultural comparisons. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 20(2): 133-51.
Leung, Kwok & Allan E. Lind. 1986. Procedural justice and culture:
Effects of culture, gender, and investigator status on procedural preferences.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(6): 1134-40.
Li, Mei-chih, See-fat Cheung & Shwuming Kau. 1979. Competitive and
cooperative behavior of Chinese children in Taiwan and Hong Kong. Acta
Psychologica Taiwanica, 21(1): 27-33.
Maddox, Robert C. 1993. Cross - cultural problems in international
business: The role of the cultural integration function. Westport, CT: Quorum
Books.
McClelland, David C. 1961. The achieving society. New York, NY: Free Press,
London: Collier-Macmillan Limited.
Miller, Robert, Jack Glen, Fred Jaspersen, & Yannis Karmokolias. 1997.
International joint venture in developing countries. Finance &
Development, 34(1): 26-9.
Moran, Robert T. & William G. Stripp. 1991. Dynamics of successful
international business negotiations. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing.
Morris, Charles W. 1956. Varieties of human value. Chicago, IL: University
of Chicago Press.
Morris, Michael W., Richard Larrick & Steven Su. 1999. Misperceiving
negotiation counterparts: Ascribing personality traits for situationally
determined bargaining behaviors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
(forthcoming).
Morris, Michael W., Kwok Leung & Sheena Sethi. 1996. Person perception
in the heat of conflict: Attributions about the opponent and conflict
resolution in two cultures. Stanford University Research Paper No. 1360,
Stanford.
Morris, Michael W. & Kwok Leung. 1999. Justice for all? Understanding
cultural influences on judgments of outcome and process fairness. Applied
Psychology: An International Review (forthcoming).
Morris, Michael W., J. Podolny & S. Ariel. 1999. Missing relations:
Incorporating relational constructs into models of culture. New Approaches to
International Differences in Organizational Behavior (forthcoming).
Ohbuchi, Ken-Ichi & Yumi Takahashi. 1994. Cultural styles of conflict
management in Japanese and Americans: Passivity, covertness, and effectiveness
of strategies. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24(15): 1345-66.
Parkhe, Arvind. 1996. Messy research, methodological predispositions, and
theory development in international joint ventures. Academy of Management
Review, 18(2): 227-68.
Parsons, Talcott. 1951. The social system. New York, NY: Free Press.
Pruitt, Dean G. & Jeffrey, Z. Rubin. 1986. Social conflict: Escalation,
stalemate, and settlement. New York, NY: Random House.
Pye, Lucian. 1982. Chinese commercial negotiating style. Cambridge:
Oelgeschlager, Gunn & Hain.
Rahim, M. Afzalur. 1983. A measure of styles of handling interpersonal
conflict. Academy of Management Journal, 26(2): 368-76.
Ralston, David A., David H. Holt, Robert H. Terpstra & Yu Kai-Cheng.
1997. The impact of national cultural and economic ideology on managerial work
values: A study of the United States, Russia, Japan and China. Journal of
International Business Studies, 28(1): 177-207.
Rokeach, Milton. 1973. The nature of human values. New York, NY: Free
Press.
Roongrerngsuke, Siriyupa & Daryl Chansuthus. In press. Conflict
Management in Thailand. In K. Leung & D. W. Tjosvold, editors, Conflict
management in the Asia Pacific. Singapore: Wiley.
Schnepp, Otto, Mary Anne Von Glinow & Arvind Bhambri. 1990. United
States -- China technology transfer. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Schuster, Camille P. & Michael Copeland. 1996. Global business,
planning for sales and negotiations. Fort Worth, TX: Dryden.
Schwartz, Shalom H. 1992. Universals in the content and structure of
values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. P.
Zanna, editor, Advances in experimental social psychology. New York, NY:
Academic Press.
Schwartz, Shalom H. 1994. Beyond individualism/collectivism: New cultural
dimensions of values. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kacitcibasi, S. C. Choi
& G. Yoon, editors, Individualism and collectivism: Theory, methods, and
applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Shenkar, Oded & Simcha Ronen. 1987. The cultural context of
negotiations: The implications of Chinese interpersonal norms. Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science, 23 (2): 263-75.
Singh, Paras N., Sophia C. Huang & George G. Thompson. 1962. A
comparative study of selected attitudes, values, and personality
characteristics of American, Chinese, and Indian students. The Journal of
Social Psychology, 57(1): 123-32.
Sternberg, Robert J. & Diane M. Dobson. 1987. Resolving interpersonal
conflicts: An analysis of stylistic consistency. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 52(4): 794-812.
Su, Steve K., Chi-yue Chiu, Ying-yi Hong, Kwok Leung, Kaiping Peng &
Michael W. Morris. Self organization and social organization: American and
Chinese constructions. In T. R. Tyler, R. M. Kramer and O. P. John, editors,
Psychology of the Social Self. In press.
Tang, Sara & Paul Kirkbride. 1986. Development of conflict management
skills in Hong Kong: An analysis of some cross-cultural implications.
Management Education and Development, 17(3): 287-301.
Thomas, Kenneth W. & Ralph H. Kilmann. 1974. The Thomas-Kilmann mode
instrument. New York, NY: Xicom.
Ting-Toomey, Stella. 1985. Toward a theory of conflict and culture. In W.
B. Gudykunst, I. P. Stewart and S. Ting-Toomey, editors, International and
intercultural communication annual: Vol 9. Communication, culture and
organizational processes. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Ting-Toomey, Ge Gao, Paula Trubisky, Zhizhong Yang, H. S. Kim, Sungl-ling
Lin & T. Nishida. 1991. Culture, face maintenance, and styles of handling
interpersonal conflict: A study in five cultures. The International Journal of
Conflict Management, 2(4): 275-96.
Triandis, Harry C. 1995. Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.
Triandis, Robert Bontempo, Hector Betancourt, Michael Bond, Kwok Leung,
Abelando Brenes, James Georgas, C. Harry Hui, Gerardo Marin, Bernadette
Setiadi, Jai B. P. Sinha, Jyoti Verma, John Spangenberg, Hubert Touzard &
Germaine de Montmollin. 1986. The measurement of the etic aspects of
individualism and collectivism across cultures. Australian Journal of
Psychology, 38(3): 257-67.
Tripathi, Salil. 1996. Who needs Stanford? Asia's business schools can't
match the West's best MBA programs, but the product is improving and some
prefer the Asianized curriculum. Asia, Inc. September: 26-33.
Trubisky, Paula, Stella Ting-Toomey & Sung-ling Lin. 1991. The
influence of Individualism-Collectivism and self-monitoring on conflict
styles. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 15(1): 65-84.
Womack, Deanna F. 1988. Assessing the Thomas-Kilmann conflict mode survey.
Management Communication Quarterly, 1(3): 321-49.
APPENDIXScales Measuring Avoiding and Competing Styles of Managing Conflict
and Schwartz Value Factors. Component Value Scale Reliabilities Indicated by
Cronach Alpha Statistics.
CONFLICT STYLE: AVOIDING1. I attempt to avoid being "put on the spot" and
try to keep my conflict with others to myself.
2. I usually avoid open discussion of my differences with the other person.
3. I generally avoid an argument.
4. I try to stay away from disagreement with the other person.
5. I avoid an encounter with others.
6. I try to keep my disagreement with others to myself in order to avoid
hard feelings.
7. I try to avoid unpleasant exchanges.
8. I sometimes avoid taking positions which would create controversy.
9. I try to do what is necessary to avoid useless tensions.
10. I feel that differences are not always worth worrying about.(FN*).
11. There are times when I let others take responsibility for solving
problems.(FN*).
CONFLICT STYLE: COMPETING1. I usually hold on to my solution to a problem.
2. I use my influence to get my ideas accepted.
3. I use my authority to make a decision in my favor.
4. I argue my case to show the merits of my position.
5. I am generally firm in pursuing my side of the issue.
6. I sometimes use my power to win a competitive situation.
7. I try to win my position.
8. I am usually firm in pursuing my goals.
9. I try to show others the logic and benefits of my position.
10. I assert my wishes.
FOOTNOTE* Indicates item dropped from scale due to low correlations with
other items.
VALUE FACTOR: SOCIETAL CONSERVATISMComponent Value: Conformity (a = .66):
self-discipline, politeness, honoring of parents and elders.
Component Value: Tradition (a = .55): accepting of my portion in life,
moderate, respect for tradition, devout, humble.
VALUE FACTOR: SELF ENHANCEMENTComponent Value: Power (a = .75): preserving
my public image, social recognition, authority, wealth, social power.
Component Value: Achievement (a = .67): ambitious, influential, successful,
capable, intelligent.
VALUE FACTOR: OPENNESS TO CHANGEComponent Value: Hedonism (a = .75):
pleasure, enjoying life, self-indulgent.
Component Value: Self-Direction (a = .63): self-respect, creativity,
choosing own goals, curious, independent, freedom.
Component Value: Stimulation (a = .71): a varied life, an exciting life,
daring.
