People bring with them different sets of culturally constructed
perspectives toward appropriate behavior. With this in mind, it is no
surprise that conflict and disputes exist when communicating across
cultures. Further, it should be no surprise that within the context of
conflict, people have different sets of perceptions about appropriate ways to
handle that conflict. This article begins with an exploration of background
components that influence intercultural conflict escalation. We then turn
to an examination of key conflict process factors, such as conflict styles
across cultures and considerations of face. We then offer some insights to
managing intercultural conflict flexibly.
The definition of conflict is an expressed
struggle between interdependent parties with incompatible goals or unmet
emotional needs. In an intercultural context, conflict is the explicit or
implicit emotional struggle or frustrations between people from different
cultures over perceived incompatible goals, norms, values, face concerns,
scarce resources, and/or communication outcomes. How we manage conflict
matters much more than whether or not we engage in it in the first
place. It is this management of conflict that shapes the
outcome. Engaging in conflict with an inflexible approach generally leads
into a polarized situation.
Background
Our attitudes, expectations and behaviors are generally influenced by
and result from our cultural value patterns, such as individualistic or
collectivistic. These different patterns of values can be the first thing
that engenders intercultural frustration. For example, someone from a
collectivistic culture will likely approach a situation with the group's goals
in mind, while someone from an individualistic culture will likely approach
that same situation with self-serving goals in mind. These two individuals
are coming from very different mindsets, and it is easy to see how frustration
and conflict can emerge when they clash.
The global workplace situation is the second set of background elements
that contributes to intercultural conflict, as it relates to the expectations
and structure of power distance.
These two dimensions combine to yield four distinct
approaches. Individualism plus large power distance yields astatus-achievement
conflict approach. The values here are personal freedom and earned
inequality. Employees may feel free to voice their concerns, but
simultaneously don't anticipate much change from their superiors. The US
falls into this category.
Individualism combined with small power distance brings about an impartial
conflict approach. Expectations are personal freedom and equal
treatment. Managers are expected to deal with employee concerns fairly and
objectively. This approach is common in Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden,
and Norway.
Collectivism and large power distance combine to yield abenevolent
conflict approach. Values at play here are obligation to others and
asymmetrical treatment within interactions. Managers view themselves as
part of a larger system, with responsibilities to other members of that
system. Most Latin and South American cultures as well as most Asian,
Arab, and African nations hold to this approach.
Collectivism and small power distance together bring a communal
conflict approach. This is the least common, and includes
values of authentic interdependent connection to others and genuine equality
manifest in genuinely respectful communications at all levels. Mindful
listening and collaborative dialog are paramount to this perspective, currently
found only in Costa Rica.
Conflict Processes
Face is a person's public self-image. Face work is the strategies
we use to defend and protect our self-image and the self-images of
others. For example, when confronted with a threat to our sense of public
self-image, we will likely either leave the situation or engage in face-saving
strategies. In this article, we will discuss three approaches to examining
conflict styles.
In general, a conflict communication
style is a pattern of verbal and nonverbal messages routinely sent in
a variety of conflict situations. There are three approaches to studying
this: the dispositional approach, the situational approach, and the systems
approach.
In a dispositional approach, individualized conflict
behaviors are emphasized. Here, people learn conflict behaviors through
their socialization process in conjunction with an individual's personality
traits. For example, extroverts may tend to use a dominant conflict style
while introverts will more likely use a submissive or avoiding style. Such
traits can be extended to the cultural level, as members of some cultures would
systematically show certain characteristics.
In a situational approach the topic of the conflict is
emphasized as well as the situation, relationship type, time pressure, and
communication goals with the conflict. Each of these plays a role in
whether we engage in the conflict or avoid it completely. A systems
approach is a combination of the other two. Individual
differences are recognized here and are held as a result of socialization and
personal disposition, but the situation is also recognized as influencing the
conflict.
Conflict is often categorized with two dimensions in mind: concern for
self and concern for other. The first dimension considers the extent to
which people engage in their own face work, while the second dimension
considers the face and desires of others. These combine to result in five
conflict styles.
In avoiding, the conflict is simply dodged. This
demonstrates a low concern for self, because your own needs are not being
addressed let alone met, and a low concern for other because you're backing
away. In avoiding the conflict, it cannot really be resolved.
A person using a competing or dominating style
seeks to have his or her own way, regardless of the impact or cost on the other
person. This represents a high concern for self and low concern for
other. One's own interests are protected and fought for while the other's
interests are essentially steamrolled. Communication behaviors here
include tactics of aggressiveness, defensiveness, control and domination.
An accommodating or obliging style
demonstrates a low concern for self and high concern for other. Your own
needs aren't being addressed while the other person's are accepted in
full. This can be useful in situations where the relationship is valued
over the conflict.
In compromising, both parties gain something but both
parties lose something as well. Neither gets all she or he
wants. This style represents a medium concern for self and a medium
concern for other. Common tactics are appeals to fairness, trade-offs, and
other quick short-term fixes.
An integrative or collaborative conflict
style reflects a high concern for self and a high concern for
other. Solutions which satisfy everyone's goals are sought. None evaluative
descriptive messages, qualifying statements and hedges, and statements that
demonstrate mutual interest are common in collaborating.
The concept of face ties quite closely with
the individualistic-collectivistic scale and relates to conflict styles as
well. Those who are more individualistic will be more concerned with
self-face, while those of collectivistic cultures will be highly concerned with
other- or mutual-face preservation strategies. Those concerned with
protecting self-face will tend to use a direct conflict style, while those
concerned with other- or mutual-face will tend to use a much more indirect
style in efforts to preserve relational harmony. The more individualistic
or independent you are, you'll likely use more linear logic, coupled with
self-defensiveness, domination, and competitive conflict styles. Those of
collectivistic perspectives will use more spiral logic along with integrative
and compromising conflict styles.
In sum, in interacting with individuals from
other cultures, differences in conflict styles and approaches emerge. Here
perhaps more than in other situations, given the emotional escalation common to
conflict situations, care must be taken to remain flexible.
Individualists finding themselves in conflict
within a collectivistic culture or with an individual from a collectivistic culture
would do well to keep the following in mind. First, be aware of
face-saving concerns, especially in terms of balancing humiliation and pride,
respect and disrespect, and shame and honor. Second, be patient and
observe mindfully. Give yourself a few seconds before responding. Be
aware of past experiences that are shaping your behavior in this
one. Also, collectivists tend to focus on how questions,
so be aware of this and limit your why questions. Third,
be a mindful listener. Pay attention to nonverbal cues.
For collectivists engaging in conflict with
individualists, another set of recommendations may apply. First, try to be
assertive and practice a conflict communication style that allows everyone the
right to speak equally. Second, use "I" statements and ask more why questions. Third,
as a mindful listener, paraphrase often and learn to occasionally verbalize
your emotions, attitudes, and experiences within the conflict situation itself. That
is, don't rely too heavily on nonverbal cues or count on others to read yours.
It's vital to be able to take others' perspectives into consideration
when engaging in intercultural conflict. Remember that every culture is
unique (even though there are often similarities), and has its own set of
values and priorities that guide conflict behavior. Be sensitive to this
as well as flexible and adaptable.
Global Identity: Communicating with a Cross-Cultural Audience
We live in a world today where people from all over the world can
easily share information at the press of a button. Over 536 million people
around the world have tuned in to the internet, and Web 2.0 has made web-based
social communication possible. The language of the internet is largely
English, and through communication in English, global connections are forged
and maintained. In this very public space, we communicate with multiple
others through blogs, Twitter, and Facebook. We can all share in an event
a world away through the use of live feeds. This global identity of
individuals has brought a new avenue to intercultural communication.
With the easy spread of information via
technological advancements comes ease in sharing other media forms as
well. Many US films and television programs reach global audiences, either
in local language voice-over or sub-titles. Hip-hop music, sometimes
referred to as rap, began with African-American youths expressing their dissatisfaction
with their social position at the fringes of society and discouragement with
racial oppression and general inequality of life. It was an art
form. It exploded when white teens began to buy the music. Hip-hop
music has now had a global influence.
Fashion is a third component that joins
people from so many different cultures along a common theme. There are
global fashion centers and influential trendsetters. Around the globe,
people follow the latest trends, preferring to be "in" rather than
"out", with fashion an easy surface indicator of who's
"cool" and who's not. Together, these influences reach people
around the globe, having the effect of minimizing cultural differences as we
are all receiving some of the same influences. This results in more of a
global culture. Globalization has changed the idea of culture – each
culture is not as distinct as it once was, but tends to share some global and
local factors.
Despite similarities resulting from popular
culture influences, nations are not culturally homogenous. Therefore, a
nation or its people cannot be considered singularly. Multiple demographic
differences exist among a nation's people: age, social class, gender,
education, religion, and more. Therefore, generalizations about a nation's
people are often flawed, as there are a great number of people who will not fit
them. Consequently, individual values may be a better predictor of
behavior than cultural values. Globalization is a factor of
diversity. When communicating with a diverse audience, no cultural
generalizations can be relied upon completely, though they can help inform our
communication choices.
Considerations for communicating with an
intercultural audience
Since cultural generalizations are unreliable
due to demographic – and life experience, values, perspectives and attitudes –
differences within cultures, in communicating with diverse cultural audience,
qualities of general intercultural competent communication come into play.
First, it is important to be aware that
whatever you say or do, you are communicating a message. How that message
is interpreted by the receiver may be beyond your control, as it is based on
myriad influences from the recipient's life, and the recipient's set of
perceptual filters. But you can be aware that you're sending messages,
even if you can't control how they're received. In this awareness, being
mindful of your behaviors can help minimize unintended interpretations.
To be flexible intercultural communicators,
appropriateness, effectiveness and adaptability are the key characteristics. Briefly,
being appropriate is to behave in ways that are generally perceived as
acceptable for the situation. Effectiveness means that you are getting
your message across. In a sense, effectiveness and appropriateness are
linked in that if you are behaving inappropriately, you're probably also not
going to be effective. Adaptability means your ability to shift and move
with the situation and its demands. These three characteristics comprise
the foundation of quality intercultural communications. In order to accomplish
this, it is helpful to bear in mind some components of intercultural
communication.
In order to be effective, appropriate, and adapt your message to your
audience, you first must have an idea of who your audience is. Cultural
values, as discussed in lesson 2, largely influence an individual's
communications. What a person expects from an interaction and a person's
(appropriate) behavior within that interaction vary across cultures and align
with cultural values. Therefore, even a superficial understanding of some
key cultural values can be very useful in informing your communications with an
intercultural audience. The most essential cultural value to keep in mind
is the individualism-collectivism position, followed closely by power distance.
These two dimensions have the most profound effects on an individual's
communication behaviors and patterns, as they factor deeply in an individual's
perception of self-to-other relations.
A third major influencer of communication is
the low-context versus high-context communication style, as discussed in lesson
3. This refers to the level of directness (low-context) or indirectness
(high-context) a culture's people tend to sense is appropriate in sending a
message. Considerations of face always factor into an appropriate and
effective interaction, but within an intercultural context these may take on
heightened meaning if dealing with people from more collectivistic cultures.
Nonverbal cues can be especially powerful in
sending messages, particularly given our mind's natural tendency to fill in
blanks of missing information about what we see and experience. It is
perhaps important to keep in mind that gestures have different meanings in
different cultures, so don't expect a "thumbs-up" to necessarily be
perceived in the way that you intend. In fact, in some cultures this is a
very vulgar gesture. Further, it may be prudent to be mindful of
considerations of personal space, and the physical distance people need in
order to be at a comfortable speaking distance.
In interacting with an intercultural
audience, there is no place for this. Your audience needs to be met with
no prejudgments of any kind for you to have any hope of your message being
appropriate or effective.
Our technological advances have globalized our world, minimized
individual cultural distinctions, and helped construct a global
identity. This makes communication across cultures much more likely today
than it was in the past, and considerations of appropriate and effective
intercultural communication all the more salient. Ultimately, this boils
down to being flexible intercultural communicators.
