Page 328 - Effective group discussion theory and practice by Adams, Katherine H. Brilhart, John K. Galanes, Gloria J

Managing Conflict in the Small Group 311

Cultural Factors in Conflict
The tips we have given you about expressing conflict openly and directly apply in the
United States and Western Europe; however, an analysis of conflict management stud-
ies questions the belief that it is always better to express conflict directly. Even in
64
other Western cultures, people differ in their approaches to conflict, as Klopf and
McCroskey explain:
German negotiators are technically oriented, disciplined and orderly. The British
want to get the job done properly in a civil and reserved manner. The French love to
debate issues. In Spain, foreign negotiators need to be patient because the Spanish
want to know and like with whom they interact. 65

The dimensions along which cultures differ, described in Chapter 4, also affect
how cultures perceive and deal with conflict. Two dimensions are particularly salient:
individualism/collectivism and high and low context. Ting-Toomey and Oetzel note
that in collectivist cultures, task and relational issues often blend so that people are
66
more likely to take personally what others might see as issue-related conflict. Because
the needs of the group predominate in collectivist cultures, conflict is perceived as
threatening the harmony of the group. Openly expressing conflict—particularly in a
loud or hostile way—is not considered appropriate. Conflict is usually handled through
avoidance, accommodation, and in indirect ways. In contrast, individualistic cultures
value individuality; people are more likely to express conflict directly, to speak up for
what they want and believe, and to try to do something about a conflict.
Facework, the communication strategies people use for preserving their own or Facework
others’ self-esteem (or face), is emphasized differently in collectivist and individualis- Communication
tic cultures. People from individualistic cultures are more concerned with saving their strategies used for
own face, whereas people from collectivist cultures are more concerned with saving preserving one’s own
67
the other person’s face. Individualistic people do not worry about backing someone or others’ self-esteem
else into a corner or forcing them to comply. Collectivist people will avoid backing (or face).
another into a corner because that leaves the person with no way to save face.
68
The high- and low-context dimension also affects how people approach conflict.
In low-context cultures, such as that of the United States, the words convey the bulk
of the meaning. In such cultures, individuals prefer straight talk and direct expression
of conflict. Members of such cultures are advised to “go directly to the person you are
in conflict with” to attempt to resolve the issue. In contrast, people from high-context
cultures rely on the context and the nonverbal signals to understand what something
means. They prefer subtle, ambiguous communication, nonverbal nuances, and tend
to avoid direct expression of conflict. Conflict will be expressed indirectly, perhaps
with the help of a third party.
We presented this brief discussion of intercultural conflict here simply to alert
you that how we handle conflict in the United States is not universal. We have over-
simplified the discussion, and we remind you that there is great individual variation
within all cultures. Individuals from the same culture will not all behave in the same
way. For example, although collectivist cultures such as Japan’s may prefer an integra-
tive conflict style that values harmony, the style may change, depending on the
69
context. Japanese avoid conflicts over values and opinions with acquaintances but

gal37018_ch11_291_320.indd 311 3/28/18 12:38 PM