Diversity and Ethical Codes

International Journal of Arts & Sciences,

CD-ROM. ISSN: 1944-6934 :: 09(02):135–144 (2016)

CULTURAL DIFFERENCES ON CONFLICT STRATEGIES IN THE

WORKPLACE

Vignesh Murugavel and Ajay Somaraju

University of Texas at Dallas, United States of America

Studies have established distinct cultural preferences for resolving workplace conflict; however, few

studies examine these cross-cultural differences within the context of a common host country. This

study proposes to abridge the gap in research by exploring conflict strategy preferences of South Asian,

East Asian, and Western cultures within the United States. Putnam and Wilson’s (1982) Organizational

Communication Conflict Instrument was distributed with a demographic sheet across 312 working age

individuals. Responses from individuals brought up in South Asian (n=95), East Asian (n=88), and

Western (n=89) cultures were grouped and analyzed, respectively. Findings revealed that East Asians,

South Asians, and Westerners preferred compromising/collaborative strategies over the alternatives. In

addition, East Asians were more likely to use controlling strategies than Westerners, Westerners were

more likely to use compromising/collaborative strategies than East Asians, and South Asians’ responses

resembled Westerners’ more than to East Asians’. Finally, westernization did not predict foreign

individuals’ conflict styles, suggesting that individuals did not simply conform to host country norms.

These results provide evidence for foreign individuals resolving disagreements differently within a host

country than within their heritage country and hold implications for the applicability of Hofstede’s

Individualism-Collectivism paradigm within a multinational company.

Keywords: Culture, Conflict, Organizational psychology, Applied psychology.

Introduction

Conflict

Organizational conflict refers to the exchange of opposing viewpoints within the workplace. Role

relationships influence organizational conflict through coworker-coworker and subordinate-superior

interactions (Khan et. al, 1964; Holt & DeVore, 2005; Putnam & Wilson, 1982). All cultures do not

experience these role relationships in the same manner (Hofstede, 1984), leading to an increased potential

for inter-organizational conflict in multinational companies (MNCs).

Not only should managers/leaders of MNCs resolve such conflict, they should also adjust their

approach to handling these differences across cultures. Approaching conflict resolution requires an

evaluation of employee conflict styles. Regarded as the first researchers to establish a conflict measure,

Blake and Mouton (1964) created a trait based dimensional model that examines individual conflict styles

(Putnam and Wilson, 1982). Blake and Mouton (1970) describe these dimensions as concerns for people

or results, from which they derive five distinct styles of conflict management.

135

136 Cultural Differences on Conflict Strategies in the Workplace

Though subsequent studies' findings converge to provide the basis for a dimensional model of

conflict, problems exist in their methodology. As these studies follow a trait based model, they imply a

predisposition of the individual towards using a certain conflict style. Determining this predisposition

may not prove useful. Though the measurement may find that individuals innately prefer one conflict

style over the others, the context of a given conflict can force these individuals to utilize a style that they

do not inherently prefer to achieve a resolution. In addition, an individual may score highly on as many as

three different styles (Putnam & Wilson, 1982). Therefore, though individuals may carry the strongest

disposition towards a certain conflict style, they may also strongly tend to use another conflict style. This

may provide conflicting information as some styles contradict each other. All of these deficiencies in

conflict studies lend themselves to faults in reliability and validity.

In order to address confounds in Blake and Mouton's (1964) trait-based model, Putnam and Wilson

(1982) created the Organizational Communication Conflict Instrument (OCCI). The OCCI splits conflict

preferences into three strategies: control, non-confrontation, solution-orientation. Utilizing a

strategic/situational paradigm that emphasizes the context of the situation over immutable traits, the OCCI

yields higher test-retest reliability and internal consistencies than almost all other measures of conflict

communication (Wilson & Waltman, 1988). Thus, the OCCI provides for strong “real-world” application

when evaluating employee conflict strategies.

Culture

The effect of culture on workplace behavior is widely documented (e.g. Corey, Fok, and Payne, 2014;

Chang, 2002; Lee & Rogan, 1991). Researchers have often used Hofstede’s cultural dimensions to

categorize the effect of culture on workplace behavior: power distance, individualism-collectivism,

masculinity-femininity, uncertainty avoidance, long-term orientation, and indulgence (Hofstede, 1984;

1991; Hofstede & Bond, 1988). In particular, individualism-collectivism refers to an individual’s cultural

view on the importance of the individual versus the group. Individualistic cultures tend to view members

as autonomous and loosely connected, while tightly knit social frameworks characterize collectivistic

cultures (Song, Yong-Jin, 2004). The individualism-collectivism dimension accounts for the largest

difference in employee workplace behavior (Lee & Rogan, 1991), leading most cross-cultural research to

examine this dimension in comparative studies (Song, Yong-Jin, 2004).

Research does not universally support this dimension as the explanation for behavioral differences

between cultures. Other theories that propose cultural values as a more salient element than the

individualist-collectivist dimension have empirical support as well (Silverthorne, 2005). Morris et al.

(1998), Bond & Wang (1983), Chow & Ding (2001), and Tse, Francis, & Walls (1994) posit that

pervasive cultural values like self-enhancement, long-term relationships, and conformity underlie conflict

strategy usage. Consolidating these independent theories requires further research and theoretical

development of workplace and cultural constructs.

Understanding cross-cultural organizational conflict necessitates recognition of conflict strategies

within the context of both heritage and host country cultural values. Current research often focuses on the

former (e.g. Ohbuchi and Takashi, 1994; Chiu and Kosinski, 1994; Corey, Fok, & Payne, 2014), while

downplaying the latter; therefore, research does not often address the effect of a host country’s cultural

values on an individual’s conflict strategy. Knowing foreign individuals’ conflict strategies in their

heritage country may not predict their actions in a host country. For example, determining the effect of

collectivism or conformity on a Chinese employee is not enough if only limited to the scope of work

situations in China. These effects are possibly inapplicable when this Chinese employee immigrates to a

Western country and interacts with the unique cultural values of the West. This Chinese employee, who

may have consistently used an avoidance based conflict strategy during disagreements with a Chinese

superior, could change communication methods based upon exposure to Western ideals and norms.

As MNCs increase foreign hires, effectively resolving workplace conflicts with people of different

cultural backgrounds within a common country is paramount.

Vignesh Murugavel and Ajay Somaraju 137

This study proposes to examine the relationships between conflict strategies and cultural differences.

Specifically, we explore strategy usage and cultural differences of South and East Asian populations

within the United States. Based on past research, there are several assumptions we can make. The goal of

this study is to determine whether the following assumptions, based on findings from individuals’

heritage countries, will hold in a common host country (U.S.). If the aforementioned findings do not

generalize, we predict Westernization explains differences between individuals’ behavior in host and

heritage countries.

Hypotheses

The control strategy involves insistently pursuing self-interests and demonstrating a domineering

disposition during resolution formation. Westerners, particularly US citizens, often practice such

“competitive and adversarial” strategies during conflict resolution (Li, Cheung, and Kau, 1979; Leung

and Lind, 1986). Therefore, we expect Western participants in our study to utilize the control strategy

more than the alternatives. Furthermore, we expect Westerners to utilize the control strategy more than

East Asian participants.

Westernization is the process by which foreign individuals modify their behavior and/or values to

include traditionally Western principles. Morris et. al (1998) proposes that shared socialization leads to

behavioral social conformity; therefore, foreign populations in the US should converge towards western

ideals over time. Studies purporting Westernization affecting managerial values (e.g. Lin, 1995) provide

evidence for this phenomenon. We expect Westernization will predict foreign individuals’ control

strategy usage scores.

The non-confrontation strategy involves shying away from direct disagreements, resolutions

involving this style develop through indirect communication. East Asian culture emphasizes this

communication style through creating a deferential atmosphere and interpreting direct confrontation by a

subordinate as shots to management’s authority (Tjosvold and Sun, 2000). This evidence, along with

documented preference of avoidance strategies by Chinese workers (Bond and Wang, 1983), leads us to

predict that those from East Asian cultures will utilize the non-confrontation strategy more than the

alternatives. Furthermore, we expect East Asians to utilize the non-confrontation strategy more than

Western participants.

Since South Asian and East Asian cultures are both considered highly collectivist and Western

cultures are considered highly individualist (Hofstede, 1984), we predict that South Asian scores will not

significantly differ from East Asians’ scores across strategies. Conversely, we predict that South Asian

scores will significantly differ from Western scores on all strategies. Furthermore, we also predict that

East Asian scores will significantly differ from Western scores on all strategies.

Methodology

Sample

Data were collected using a two portion self-reported survey. The first portion of the survey consisted of a

demographic sheet that evaluated age, gender, ethnicity, cultural background, and years spent in the US.

The second portion was a modified OCCI (Wilson & Waltman, 1988). The questionnaires were

administered to participants using convenience sampling through various social media outlets on the

Internet; all respondents lived in the US. There was no time limit for completing this survey.

Out of the 312 questionnaires, 291 were usable, as incomplete responses were discarded. Out of the

remaining questionnaires, 19 were unused because they did not fit the demographic of interest. The age

range of the participants varied widely from 18 to 71 (N=262; SD=9.29). There were 183 (63.1%) male

participants and 107 (36.9%) female participants. The cultural distribution of studied participants was

138 Cultural Differences on Conflict Strategies in the Workplace

relatively equal among East Asian (N=88, 30.2%), Western (N=89, 30.6%), and South Asian (N=95,

32.6%) cultures.

Organizational Communication Conflict Instrument (OCCI)

The Organizational Communication Conflict Instrument (OCCI) (Putnam & Wilson, 1982) reliably

measures an individual’s conflict style within the construct of three distinct strategies. The OCCI contains

35 items that measure conflict strategy usage on a 7-point Likert scale. These items refer to workplace

scenarios within the context of approaching conflict with a supervisor. Our study borrowed Wilson and

Waltman’s (1988) modified version of the OCCI. This instrument is comprised of 30 items from Putnam

& Wilson’s original Form B that load significantly higher on one strategy. The amount of usage of a

certain strategy is coded by using the formula observed in Wilson and Waltman (1988).

The conflict strategies were tapped using the following questions from Wilson and Waltman (1988).

Solution-orientation: Questions 1,4,6,8,9,11,13,16,19,20,21

Non-confrontation: Questions 2,5,7,12,14,15,23,24,25,27,28,29

Control: Questions 30,26,22,17,18,10,3

Sample items included:

* “I make my opinion known in a disagreement with my supervisor”

* “I steer clear of disagreeable situations”

* “I suggest solutions which combine a variety of viewpoints”

Results

Within-Subjects Effects

To test the hypothesis that Westerners would have lower control strategy scores compared to their scores

for solution-orientation and non-confrontation strategies, a repeated measures ANOVA was conducted on

our Western demographic sample on their strategy scores across all three strategies. Results revealed

significant main effect of strategy indicating differences between the three strategies, F(2, 176) = 69.77,

p < .001, 2= .44. A follow-up pairwise comparison indicated that participants had significantly lower

solution-orientation strategy scores (M = 3.19, SD = .08) compared to all other strategy scores (non-

confrontation, M = 4.30, SD = .10; control, M = 4.72, SD = .09), all ps < .001. Also, participant’s non-

confrontation strategy scores (M = 4.30, SD = .10) were significantly lower than their control strategy

scores (M = 4.72, SD = .09), p = .006. Remembering that lower scores indicate increased strategy usage,

these results are inconsistent with our hypothesis, Westerners actually used the solution-orientation

strategy more than the control or non-confrontation strategies. It is also interesting to note that Westerners

used control strategy the least compared to the solution-orientation and non-confrontation strategies.

To test the hypothesis that East Asians would have lower non-confrontation strategy scores

compared to their scores for solution-orientation and control strategies, a repeated measures ANOVA was

conducted on our East Asian demographic sample on their strategy scores across all three strategies.

Results revealed a significant main effect of strategy indicating differences between the three strategies,

F(2, 174) = 27.21, p< .001, 2= .24. A follow-up pairwise comparison indicated that participants had

significantly lower solution-orientation strategy scores (M = 3.69, SD = .07) compared to all other

strategy scores (non-confrontation, M = 4.18, SD = .07; control, M = 4.18, SD = .08), all ps < .001. Also,

participant’s non-confrontation strategy scores (M = 4.18, SD = .07) were not significantly different than

their control strategy scores (M = 4.18, SD = .08), p = 1.00. Remembering that lower scores indicate

increased strategy usage, these results are inconsistent with our hypothesis, East Asians actually used the

solution-orientation strategy more than the non-confrontation or control strategies.

Vignesh Murugavel and Ajay Somaraju 139

A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted on our South Asian demographic sample on their

strategy scores across all three strategies. Results revealed significant main effect of strategy indicating

differences between the three strategies, F(2, 188) = 65.57, p< .001, ^2= .41. A follow-up pairwise

comparison indicated that participants had significantly lower solution-orientation strategy scores

(M = 3.26, SD = .09) compared to all other strategy scores (non-confrontation, M = 4.32, SD = .09;

control, M = 4.41, SD = .10), all ps < .001. Also, participant’s non-confrontation strategy scores

(M = 4.32, SD = .09) were not significantly different than their control strategy scores (M = 4.41,

SD = .10), p = .40. Remembering that lower scores indicate increased strategy usage, these results reveal

that South Asians used the solution-orientation strategy more than the non-confrontation or control

strategies.

Between-Subjects Effects

To test the hypotheses that East Asian scores will significantly differ from Western scores across all

strategies, East Asians would utilize the non-confrontation strategy more than Westerners, Westerners

would utilize the control strategy more than East Asians, and South Asian and East Asian responses will

resemble each other on more strategies than South Asian and Western responses will resemble each other,

a multivariate ANOVA was conducted with the three participant cultures (Western, N = 89; South Asian,

N = 95; East Asian, N = 88) as independent variables and the three conflict strategies (solution-

orientation, non-confrontation, and control) as dependent variables.

Results exposed a significant main effect of culture on strategy usage in general, F(6, 536) = 9.08,

p < .001, 2= .09 ,indicating culture has some effect on how our participants approached conflict.

Specifically, results revealed a significant main effect of culture on solution-orientation strategy scores,

F(2, 269) = 11.68, p < .001, 2= .08; no main effect of culture on non-confrontation strategy scores,

F(2, 269) = .76, p = .47, 2= .01; and, a significant main effect of culture on control strategy usage, F(2,

269) = 8.47, p < .001, 2= .06. This indicates that cultural differences influence solution-orientation and

control strategy usage but not non-confrontation strategy usage.

A stringent posthoc analysis was conducted to further explore results. A Games-Howell Post hoc

analysis revealed that East Asians, M = 3.69, SD = .08, significantly differ from Westerners, M = 3.19,

SD = .08, on their solution-orientation strategy scores, p < .000, and control strategy scores, (East Asian,

M = 4.18, SD = .09; Westerners, M = 4.72, SD = .09) p < .000; however, East Asians, M = 4.18,

SD = .09, do not significantly differ from Westerners, M = 4.30, SD = .09 on their non-confrontation

strategy scores, p = .59. These findings do not support our hypotheses that East Asians would utilize the

non-confrontation strategy more than the Westerners; In fact, East Asians and Westerners did not differ in

their use of the non-confrontation strategy. Furthermore, although the comparison revealed that that East

Asians significantly differ from Westerners on their control strategy scores, this finding supports our

hypothesis that Westerners would utilize the control strategy more than East Asians. Remembering that

lower scores indicate increased strategy usage, the means (Westerners, M = 4.72, SD = .09; East Asian,

M = 4.18, SD = .09; p < .000) reveal that Westerners actually use control strategy less than East Asian.

The analysis further reveals that South Asians, M = 3.26, SD = .08, significantly differ from East

Asians, M = 3.69, SD = .08, on their solution orientation usage; however, South Asians M = 4.32,

SD = .09, and East Asians, M = 4.18, SD = .09, do not significantly differ on non-confrontation strategy

usage, p = .43, and control strategy usage, (South Asian, M = 4.41, SD = .09; East Asian, M = 4.18,

SD = .09) p = .17. These findings indicate that South Asians responses resemble East Asian responses on

two strategies.

Additionally, results from the analysis reveal that South Asians do not significantly differ from

Westerners any of the three strategies. South Asian, M = 3.26, SD = .08, and Westerners, M = 3.19,

SD = .08, do not significantly differ on solution orientation strategy usage, p = .80. South Asian,

M = 4.32, SD = .09, and Westerners, M = 4.30, SD = .09, do not significantly differ on non-confrontation

strategy usage, p = .99. Finally, South Asian, M = 4.41, SD = .09 and Westerners, M = 4.72, SD = .09,

140 Cultural Differences on Conflict Strategies in the Workplace

only trend toward significantly differing on control strategy usage, p = .07. These findings indicate that

South Asians scores resemble Western scores on all three strategies.

In conjunction, the above two findings indicate that South Asian responses resemble Westerner

responses on conflict strategy usage more than they resemble East Asians on conflict strategy usage. This

conclusion does not support our hypothesis that South Asian and East Asian responses will resemble each

other on more strategies than South Asian and Western responses will resemble each other; in actuality

South Asian responses resemble Western responses on more strategies than East Asian responses.

To determine if sex difference affected our results, a co-varied multivariate ANOVA was conducted

with the three participant cultures and sex (male, N = 169; female, N = 102) as independent variables and

the three conflict strategies scores as dependent variables. Results revealed a significant interaction of sex

and culture on strategy usage in general, F(6, 528) = 2.82, p = .01, 2 = .03. However, there were no

significant interactions on each of the strategies. There was a trend towards a significant interaction of sex

and culture on control strategy usage, F(2, 265) = 2.79, p = .06, 2 = .02 and solution orientation strategy

usage, F(2, 265) = 3.00, p = .05, 2 = .02; but no significant interaction of sex and culture on non-

confrontation strategy usage, F(2, 265) = 2.32, p = .10, 2 = .02. These trends toward significance

warranted running this additional multivariate ANOVA to see any changes in significance in strategy

usage between cultures from our initial MANOVA. The co-varied results from the pairwise comparisons

of the test only produce new relationships between control strategy usage and culture. The comparison

now reveals that South Asians, M = 4.41, SD = .09, significantly differ from East Asians, M = 4.18,

SD = .09, p = .01; and South Asians’ scores significantly differ from Westerners’, M = 4.72, SD = .09,

p = .02 on control strategy. These findings now showing that South Asians only resemble East Asians on

one strategy (non-confrontation) and South Asians resemble Westerners on two strategies (solution

orientation and non-confrontation) once co-varied with sex.

The general interaction between sex and culture on strategy usage and trends towards interaction on

specific strategies implies that sex plays some role in influencing cultural differences on communication

strategies during a conflict. Though the effect of sex on our study merited consideration, even when

accounting for the changes that occurred when results were co-varied, our general findings remain

constant. East Asians still reported using the control strategy more often than Westerners, East Asians'

scores were not different than Westerners' on non-confrontation strategy, and South Asians' responses still

resembled Westerners' on conflict strategy usage more than they resembled East Asians' on conflict

strategy usage.

Time spent in the U.S.

To test the hypothesis that time spent in the U.S would predict control strategy usage in our South Asian

and East Asian sample two linear regression were run on time spent in the U.S. with control strategy

usage as the dependent variable for our South Asian sample and East Asian sample. The results of the

linear regression for our East Asian sample revealed that time spent in the U.S. (M = 3.20, SD = 4.23) did

not predict control strategy usage (M = 4.17, SD = .77), = .129, t(70) = 1.09, p = .28. Also, time spent in

the U.S. did not explain a significant portion of the variance in control strategy usage, R2= .02, F(1, 70) =

1.92, p = .28, in our East Asian sample. The results of the linear regression for our South Asian sample

revealed that time spent in the U.S. (M = 10.92, SD = 10.55) did not predict control strategy usage

(M = 4.49, SD = 1.03), = .129, t(68) = -.21, p = .84. In addition, time spent in the U.S. did not explain a

significant portion of variance in control strategy usage R2= .001, F(1, 68) = .04, p = .84, in our South

Asian sample. These results do not support our hypothesis that time spent in the U.S. would predict

control strategy usage in our South Asian and East Asian sample; in fact, time spent in the U.S. did not

have any predictive power on control strategy usage.

Vignesh Murugavel and Ajay Somaraju 141

Discussion

This study provides further confirmation of the effect of culture on conflict resolution. Although the

general trend found culture having an effect on behavior, this study found several inconsistencies with

current research that also suggests this.

Inconsistencies with Current Research

As the OCCI measures conflict approach through the context of a disagreement with a supervisor,

previous research indicates that East Asians would prefer a deferential, non-confrontational strategy

emphasizing the authority of management over subordinates. Contrary to previous research, our study

found that the East Asian demographic group preferred a solution-oriented approach over a non-

confrontation approach. Analyses comparing strategy usage between cultures further support this

inconsistency. Westerners and South Asians were just as likely as East Asians to use the non-

confrontation strategy. This implies that East Asians within the U.S. may not avoid disagreement or

conflict any more than any other culture.

Research describes Western cultures, the U.S. in particular, as more likely to use adversarial and

competitive techniques in communication than East Asians (Li, Cheung, and Kau, 1979; Leung and Lind,

1986). Since dominating an argument and ‘forcing’ behaviors characterize the control strategy (Putnam

& Wilson, 1982), research would predict a stronger control profile for Westerners compared to East

Asians. This study found that East Asians were actually more likely to use the control strategy than

Westerners. This suggests that East Asians are less avoidant and Westerners are less controlling than

previous research predicts. Analysis of strategy usage within the Western culture supports these findings

and points to a more collaborative picture of Western communication, revealing a stronger preference for

solution-orientation than control strategy.

Researchers often explore cultural tendencies within a heritage country (e.g. South Asian evaluation

within South Asia). This can lead organizations to overgeneralize researchers' findings to all individuals

from that heritage country regardless of the individuals' current context. For example, South Asians in a

host country (ex. U.S., China, etc.) would be expected to behave the same as South Asians within South

Asia. The largest discrepancy between the current study and previous research is the evaluation of culture

and conflict within the context of a host country rather than the heritage country. We propose that a

fundamental difference between individuals' behavior in their heritage country and individuals' behavior

in a host country exists and accounts for the inconsistencies we observed.

Implications for the Individualism-Collectivism Dimension

Previous research often uses the Individualism-Collectivism (I-C) dimension defined by Hofstede to

account for variations within workplace behavior (Song, Yong-Jin, 2004). Results from this study suggest

that using the I-C dimension to account for behavior may be misguided and that the model itself may not

apply to foreign populations within a host country. Collectivist cultures often use avoidance based

strategies to maintain an air of deference and respect. In contrast, research describes individualist cultures

as normalizing, if not encouraging, subordinate-supervisor disagreements (Song, Yong-Jin, 2004). From

the I-C perspective, our study yields contradictory results. South Asians and East Asians both use the

solution-orientation strategy more often than non-confrontation. South Asians and East Asians are more

likely to use the control strategy than Western cultures. Therefore, collectivist cultures in our study

preferred direct confrontation strategies just as much, if not more than, individualist cultures.

Although South Asian culture emphasizes collectivist ideals, South Asian responses more closely

resemble Western responses than East Asian responses; South Asian responses did not differ from

Westerners' on any strategy but differed with East Asians' on one strategy. Under the Individualist scale

(Hofstede, 1984) South Asian cultures fall closer to East Asian cultures than Western cultures.

142 Cultural Differences on Conflict Strategies in the Workplace

The finding that South Asian responses did not differ at all to Westerners’ across all strategies implies

that the I-C dimension may not sufficiently account for behavioral differences. South Asian and East

Asian cultures likely emphasize related but distinct values, causing them to score similarly on blanket

labels like Collectivism but differently on more contextualized measures like the OCCI. Our findings

suggest that the I-C dimension does not accurately explain the behavior of foreign populations within a

host country and may neglect important nuances between cultures.

Cultural fit and Identity Threat as Possible Explanations

Foreign participants in this study were either immigrants or sojourners (people who plan to stay in a

country temporarily) living in the United States. Thus, the cultural fit construct may account for some of

the surprising findings in this study. Individuals who choose to immigrate or visit a foreign country may

already have values that match those of the host country (Heine, 2008). Time spent in the U.S. did not

predict any changes within foreign individuals' conflict strategies. This suggests that Westernization had

no effect on individuals' responses, implying that individuals did not change their strategies once they

arrived in the United States. Individuals from this study's South Asian and East Asian sample may

inherently mirror scores of Westerners, causing their conflict strategy preference to differ from what

previous research expects. This can account for the ubiquitous preference of solution orientation within

cultures, why there was no difference between cultures on non-confrontation strategy usage, and may

offer some explanation as to why South Asian responses mirrored Western responses so closely.

Another possible explanation arises from identity threat. Individuals who perceive themselves as

foreigners or outsiders in American culture may feel the need to ‘fit in’ & distance themselves from

traditional ethnic behaviors (Steele, Spencer, & Aronson, 1995). Thus, these individuals may exaggerate

conflict strategies they perceive as ideal in Western culture (e.g. dominating, adversarial behaviors) or

downplay strategies they perceive as incompatible with Western culture. This would explain why East

Asian respondents were more likely to use the control strategy than Westerners and why East Asians were

less likely to use compromising strategies (solution-orientation) than Westerners.

Combining identity threat and cultural fit can account for the large majority of conflicting results this

study has with current research. For instance, a Chinese individual who chooses to immigrate to the U.S

may already practice direct confrontation, but perceive Western culture to be even more confrontational

than himself. Therefore, in order to fit into the organization, he may overcompensate and exaggerate his

already confrontational nature, leading to a stronger preference for adversarial, dominating behaviors than

his American co-workers.

Though each of these explanations holds some level of merit intuitively, they are still far from

definitive. Reaching a conclusive theory for these findings requires further research.

Limitations

Since the OCCI was developed in Western culture, its level of generalizability to other cultures poses as a

limitation to this study. The measure itself may have a bias toward Western ideals. The OCCI may be

incapable of evaluating differences between respondents from non-Western cultures as strongly as

differences within Western respondents. Although less widely used, other more culturally focused

measures, such as the Intercultural Conflict Style (ICS) Inventory (Hammer, 2005), may produce

responses that better represent cultural differences. Further problems with the OCCI stem from the usage

of Likert-style self-report questions to quantify conflict strategy usage. Self-reports present many

problems in cross-cultural research. Many cultures have an inclination to respond in a certain manner

independent of the question being asked. Eastern cultures are more inclined to prefer moderate answers to

extreme ones (moderacy effect) which may affect results. The acquiescence bias, a tendency of

holistic/Eastern cultures to find truths in situations, could also skew results since participants may respond

strongly to all questions, causing them to score highly on multiple strategies. In addition, collectivist

Vignesh Murugavel and Ajay Somaraju 143

cultures respond to questions in socially desirable manners more so than Western cultures (Heine, 2008).

This bias may result in responses that represent perceived social norms instead of the respondent's true

behavior. These biases are especially pertinent to the current study since Eastern and collectivist cultures

compose most of our foreign sample. Finally, our sample of participants from South Asian, East Asian,

and Western cultures was mostly comprised of individuals from India, China, and America. Therefore,

the results from this study may not generalize to individuals from other countries who are part of the same

broader culture.

Future Research

The context of gender adds an additional dimension to a given social interaction that should not be

understated. When responses were co-varied for gender, South Asians were distinct from both East

Asians and Westerners on the control strategy. They reported using the strategy more frequently than

Westerners but less frequently than East Asians. Furthermore, because this study found trends towards

interactions between sex and culture on solution-orientation and control strategies, future research should

address relationships between these factors.

A thorough model of conflict should address all contextual factors in a conflict scenario. The

strength of the OCCI stems from its situational conceptualization of conflict. Similarly, in order to truly

address all cultural contexts, future research must place influences from individuals’ various cultural

backgrounds within the larger cultural framework of the society that hosts the individual. Direct

comparisons between cultures in host and heritage countries will expand the understanding of the effect

of society on cross-cultural interactions. Determining which specific factors of society (e.g. social

institutions, societal values, etc.) affect communication will lead to more efficient practices during

conflict mediation.

References

1. Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1964). The managerial grid. Houston: Gulf.

2. Bond, M. H., and King, A. Y. C. (1985). Coping with the threat of westernization in Hong Kong. International

Journal of Intercultural Relations, 9, 351–364.

3. Bond, M. H., and Wang, S. H. (1983). Aggressive behavior in Chinese society: The problem of maintain order

and harmony. In A. P. Goldstein and M. Segall (eds.),Global perspectives on aggression. New York:

Pergamon.

4. Chiu, R. K., and Kosinski, F., (1994). Is Chinese conflict-handling behavior influenced by Chinese values?

Social Behavior and Personality, 22(1), 81–90.

5. Chow, I. H. S., and Ding, D. Z. Q. (2001). Moral judgment and conflict handling styles among Chinese in

Hong Kong and PRC. Journal of Management Development, 2(9/10), 666–679.

6. Corey, C. M., Fok, L. Y., and Payne, D. M. (2014) Cross-Cultural Differences in Values and Conflict

Management: A Comparison of U.S. and Puerto Rico. Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications

and Conflict, 18(2).

7. Hammer, M. R. (2009). Solving problems and resolving conflict using the intercultural conflict style model

and inventory. In M. A. Moodian, M. A. Moodian (Eds.) , Contemporary leadership and intercultural

competence: Exploring the cross-cultural dynamics within organizations (pp. 219-232). Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc.

8. Heine, S. J. (2008). Cultural psychology. New York: W.W. Norton.

9. Hempel, P. S., and Chang, C. Y. D. (2002). Reconciling traditional Chinese management with high-tech

Taiwan. Human Resource Management Journal, 12(1), 77–95.

10. Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values (abridged ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

144 Cultural Differences on Conflict Strategies in the Workplace

11. Hofstede, G., and Bond, M. H. (1988). Confucius and economic growth: New insights into culture’s

consequences. Organizational Dynamics, 15, 5–21.

12. Hofstede, G. H. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London, UK: McGraw-Hill.

13. Holt, J. L., & DeVore, C. J. (2005). Culture, gender, organizational role, and styles of conflict resolution: A

meta-analysis. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29(2), 165-196. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.

2005.06.002

14. Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D . M., Quinn, P. R., Snoeck, J.D., & Rosenthal, R. A. (1964) Organizational stress:

Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. New York:Wiley.

15. Lawrence, P., and Lorsch, J. (1967). Differentiation and Integration in Complex Organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12, 1-30.

16. Lee, O. H., Rogan, G. R., (1991) A cross-cultural comparison of organizational conflict management

behaviors. International Journal of Conflict Management, 2(3), 181 - 199. Leung, K. and Lind, A. B. (1986). Procedural justice and culture: Effects of culture, gender, and investigator status on procedural preference.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(6), 1134-1140.

17. Li, M. C., Cheung, S. F., and Kau, S. (1979). Competitive and cooperative behavior of Chinese children in

Taiwan and Hong Kong. Acta Psychologica Taiwanica, 21(1), 27-33.

18. Lin, R. Y. (1995). How individualism-collectivism influence Asian and U.S. managers in choosing their career

goals and tactics. Journal of Asian Business, 11(3), 97–116.

19. Morris, M. W., Williams, K. Y., Leung, K., Larrick, R., Mendoza, M. T., Bhatnagar, D., Li, J., Kondo, M.,

Luo, J. L., and Hu, J. (1998). Conflict management style: Accounting for cross-national differences. Journal of

International Business Studies, 29(4), 729–747.

20. Ohbuchi, K., and Takahashi, Y. (1994). Cultural styles of conflict management in Japanese and Americans:

Passivity, covertness, and effectiveness of strategies. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24(15), 1345– 1366.

21. Putnam , L. L., & Wilson, C. (1982). Communicative strategies in organizational conflict: Reliability and

validity of a measurement scale. In M. Burgoon (Ed.) Communication Yearbook, (yearbook 6), 629-652. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

22. Rahim, M. A. (1983). A measure of styles of handling interpersonal conflict. Academy of Management

Journal, 26, 368-376.

23. Silverthorne, Colin P. (2005-01-01). Organizational Psychology in Cross Cultural Perspective. NYU Press.

Kindle Edition.

24. Song, Y. (2004). A Comparison of Organizational Conflict Management Strategies Between Americans and

Koreans. Conference Papers -- International Communication Association, 1.

25. Steele, C. M., Spencer, S. J., & Aronson, J. (2002). Contending with group image: The psychology of

stereotype and social identity threat. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, 34, 379 – 440. New York, NY: Academic Press.

26. Tjosvold, D. and Sun, H. (2000), Social face in conflict: Effects of affronts to person and position in China.

Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice, 4(3), 259-271.

27. Tse, D. K., Francis, J., and Walls, J. (1994). Cultural differences in conducting intra-and inter-cultural

negotiations: A Sino Canadian comparison, Journal of International Business Studies, 24, 537-555.

28. Wilson, S. R., & Waltman, M. S. (1988). Assessing the Putnam-Wilson Organizational Communication

Conflict Instrument (OCCI). Management Communication Quarterly, 1, 367-388.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.