Search results

This study examines the method of scenario analysis as a means of exposing hidden assumptions which cause misattributions that lead to multicultural conflict and as a way of assessing cross‐cultural understanding. Results from thirty‐five critical incident interviews of technical professionals and semi‐structured scenario questionnaires from graduate business and engineering students are presented. The results provide support for the use of scenarios as a method of exposing hidden assumptions leading to multicultural conflict and as a process which helps participants deal with the conflict. Implications for organizational research and practice are discussed, including the use of scenario analysis as an evaluation and measurement tool for culturally‐related conflict in organizations.

The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate insights into cross‐cultural conflict, identity and values amongst selected managers within a South African management context. It aims to increase the understanding of these complexities from an academic managerial perspective, thereby providing in‐depth information which can lead to the development of managerial training tools for improving diversity and conflict management in the described context.

The authors selected qualitative data from a case study that was conducted in the international South African automotive industry. The case study was based on the post‐modernist premise by considering phenomenological and interpretative paradigms most relevant.

Findings show conflicts in managerial communication and treatment, position and competition, organisation, race and gender and are often defined as “cross‐racial” conflict fuelled by the society's past.

The generalisability is limited to this specific context and needs to be proven by follow‐up studies which expand the context and the methodological approach of the study.

Practical suggestions address the implementation of training tools, coaching and counselling in cross‐cultural conflict management. They are anticipated to create awareness on managing the present challenges and are aimed at managers and international organisations investing in South Africa.

The paper provides new insights into the discussion on human resource management in a specific South African management context by referring to the highly important topics of cross‐cultural conflict, values and identities.

The purpose of this paper is to provide insights into cross‐cultural conflicts and their management in ecclesiastical organizations in Tanzania. It aims at increasing the understanding of these complexities from an emic perspective of employees with a Christian background, thereby providing in‐depth information on the topic. These new insights provide fresh ideas for further research on this topic in the Tanzanian context.

Qualitative data were selected from a more comprehensive case study carried out in multiple governmental, educational, ecclesiastical and economic organizations in Tanzania. The case study was based on phenomenological and interpretative paradigms and hermeneutical interpretations using qualitative methodology including in‐depth interviews and observation during field stays, as well as documentary and secondary analysis.

The findings show that senior management staff of ecclesiastical organizations function as mediators for conflicting parties to regain harmony and peace through third‐party intervention and spiritual self‐development. Mediation in ecclesiastical organizations is mainly used in relationship conflicts, employment conflicts and church re‐structuring processes. It supports the resolution of value conflicts between the conflict parties and the environment and at the same time re‐constructs religious and Christian values and concepts, such as the concept of “Shalom” and “creating lobe” and thereby re‐enforces spiritual integrity and the reality of the church.

The findings are not generalizable and are limited to this specific research context. Findings should be verified by follow‐up studies which expand the content, the context and the methodological approach of this study. These findings should be viewed as exploratory research findings and as highly contextual and sample‐bound.

The paper describes the practical implications for further research relating to future research topics for researchers interested in the field of cross‐cultural conflict management in ecclesiastical organizations in Tanzania.

The authors present original data and provide new insights into managing conflicts in Tanzanian ecclesiastical organizations through mediation.

A key reason for the return of expatriates before the official end of their foreign assignment is the uncertainty and frustration resulting from poor cross‐cultural adaptation. The literature provides this general, normative view without much to say about the interpersonal conflict expatriates experience in the workplace abroad caused by cultural differences. Our exploratory study finds that conflicts with co‐workers in host countries occur frequently causing high stress and discomfort, and provides three specific sources of conflict as recounted by sample managers. The implications of our findings include: selecting expatriate managers with high emotional intelligence, providing extensive pre‐departure cultural training that consists not only of cultural facts but also interpersonal skills such as active listening, conflict management, and ethical reasoning, utilizing sensitivity training techniques to better prepare managers for new situations, and sending the expatriate on one or two pre‐sojourn visits to familiarize themselves with the host culture and workplace norms even before the actual expatriate assignment begins. An additional implication is training the host‐country workers, particularly those who will work most closely with the expatriate manager, on home country cultural beliefs and workplace norms. We aim to stimulate managerial thinking and further research on the workplace conflicts that challenge expatriates managers.

In this paper, the authors examine the role of idiocentric and allocentric cultural orientations in employees’ preference for relationship help and for emotional help from third parties in two cross-cultural samples. The purpose of this paper is to clarify the psychological dynamics of cultural dimensions in relation to cross-cultural conflict intervention.

The authors tested the theoretical assumptions by using questionnaire survey in two cross-cultural samples. Study 1 is a cross-cultural comparison within a country, including 83 Dutch employees and 106 Turkish immigrants in the Netherlands. Study 2 is a comparison between countries, including 123 Germany-based German employees and 101 Pakistan-based Pakistani employees.

The results show that employees’ allocentric orientation, but not idiocentric orientation, explains the differences in preference for relationship help in both the within-country comparison (Study 1: individualistic Dutch culture vs collectivistic Turkish culture) and the between-country comparison (Study 2: individualistic German culture vs collectivistic Pakistani culture). However, only in the between-country comparison (Study 2), the findings reveal that the difference in preference for emotional help between individualistic German culture and collectivistic Pakistani culture is mediated by idiocentric orientation (not by allocentric orientation).

The study confirms that the extent to which disputants’ preference for third-party help regarding social and personal aspects does differ across national cultures, and supports that the argument that social relationship is one of the paramount concerns in conflict handling in the collectivistic cultures. In addition, the study signals an alternative way of conducting two culture comparisons and expands our view on the cultural dimension of individualism-collectivism.

The findings have practical implications both for third-party intervention and for managing cultural diversity in the workplace.

In general, this study contributes to our understanding on how culture influences conflict handling and provides suggestions for third parties to be culturally adaptive.

The research demonstrates that culture plays an important role in determining the extent to which disputants favour relationship help and emotional help from third parties. The research is also valuable in terms of reliability. The authors tested the hypotheses in two cross-cultural samples both within a country and between countries.

The purpose of this paper is to examine how the Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans resolve an interpersonal conflict with their supervisors and how cultural factors explain the differences in conflict management styles.

A survey was conducted involving 275 employees from China, Japan and South Korea. A hierarchical regression analysis and A‐matrix hypothesis test were used to analyze the data.

Koreans, compared with the Chinese and Japanese, were more likely to use a compromise style. In addition, the Japanese, compared with the Chinese and Koreans, were less likely to dominate and were more likely to oblige their supervisors. The country differences in obliging and dominating styles were partially explained by goal emphasis (self vs collective) and concern for the self, respectively.

While limited to recalling specific incidents and self‐reported responses, there is evidence that East Asians differ from each other in resolving their interpersonal conflicts with supervisors. Future research needs to examine East Asian differences in resolving an interpersonal conflict with other targets such as peers and subordinates and using other kinds of conflict management styles such as mediation and arbitration.

This is one of few studies that have examined East Asian differences in conflict management styles.

This paper proposes a broad perspective for studying the influence of culture on the process of conflict management. Three models of conflict management are described, based on the culture framework of Glen (1981). In the confrontational model, conflicts are conceptualized as consisting of subissues, and a sense of reasonable compromise aids resolution despite a confrontational style. In the harmony model, conflict management starts with the minimization of conflict in organizations through norms stressing observance of mutual obligations and status orderings. Conflicts are defined in their totality, and resolution is aided by avoidance and an accommodative style. Less emphasis is placed on procedural justice, as on maintenance of face of self and others. Third parties are used extensively, and their role is more intrusive. In the regulative model, bureaucratic means are used extensively to minimize conflicts or to aid avoidance. Conflicts get defined in terms of general principles, and third party roles are formalized. The implications of the differences among the three models for conflict resolution across cultures and for future research are discussed.

Two understandings of “conflict” are derived from a multi‐cultural East‐West experience: as a fundamental threat in which conflict is normally avoided, and as competitive games in which conflict is associated with confrontation and negotiation, and is sought after. Suggests that it is the view of conflict as competitive games that is promoted through “managerialism” and that it is this view that is largely being transferred to post‐Iron‐Curtain countries, despite the fact that conflict as competitive games does not lend itself easily to HR and management practice in cross‐cultural situations. Questions the appropriateness of transporting models of HR that promulgate the free‐market myth to transitional economies.

The purpose of this paper is to compare conflict management behaviors of American and Chinese managers. Its main aim is to uncover cultural differences in the way Chinese and American managers approach conflict – thereby developing a more thorough understanding of conflict management across cultures.

Inductive analysis is used to uncover conflict management constructs that are unique to each culture. Structured interviews and multidimensional scaling techniques are used.

Results show that the conflict management behaviors suggested by American and Chinese managers are different. For Chinese managers alone, embarrassing the colleague and teaching a moral lesson is an important element. For American managers alone, hostility and vengefulness are important elements. Results suggest that both cultures acknowledge avoidant approaches, but the underlying intentions for Americans alone are associated with a lack of confidence.

Results are based on one conflict scenario and the participants are managers working in mainland China. These factors may limit the generalizability of the results.

The findings of this paper suggest that managers should consider cultural differences in conflict management when diagnosing and intervening in conflict situations in different cultures.

The authors present new concepts for potential inclusion in a comprehensive model of conflict management. The authors illustrate the value of using an inductive approach to improve our understanding of conflict management across cultures.

This chapter focuses on transforming cross-cultural conflict and misunderstanding into a learning opportunity, using a case study to illustrate an approach that has proven effective in tens of thousands of conflicts. This approach surfaces cultural values and approaches to work, toward improving intercultural management practices. It also supports employees to resolve their issues themselves, toward more sustainable solutions.