7.5 How Can Culture Influence Conflict?
-
Examine how culture influences conflict.
More than any other generation, you are likely to enter into an interpersonal relationship at home, school, or work with someone from another culture or co-culture. Social media, video calling, instant messaging, and smartphones allow us to venture into cross-cultural relationships with ease.
Our growing country also gives us more opportunity. According to the U.S. Census Bureau in 2012, the total U.S. population was 313,873,685. Of that population, 63% were white (non Hispanic/Latino), 16.9% Hispanic or Latino, 13.1% African American/Black, 5.1% Asian, 1.2% American Indian/Alaska Native, 0.2% Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, and 2.4% identified themselves as two or more races.11 Because differing cultures, co-cultures, and daily experiences inform our values, attitudes, and beliefs, how we handle conflict—or even what we consider conflict—can vary.
Intercultural communication scholar Stella Ting-Toomey notes that our “cultural and primary individual orientation factors go hand-in-hand with situational features such as ethnocentrism and biased attributions, prejudice and racism … in shaping our interpretations of an intimate conflict situation.”12 Biased attributions refer to the errors we make when we evaluate others or their behaviors. If we make these attributions from our cultural and personal perspectives, we can misinterpret others’ conflict behavior and/or view it as extremely negative.
Most research exploring the intersection of culture and conflict in relationships centers on the cultural dimensions of individualist/collectivist, low context/high context, and low power/high power distance. See the following table.
Below are some common findings of how the norms and rules of these cultural dimensions have the potential to influence conflict in the workplace. Keep in mind, these are generalizations; use them only as a starting point for understanding others.
Workplace Differences with the Potential to Intensify Conflict13
| Individualist—Low Context—Low Power | Collectivist—High Context—High Power |
|---|---|
| More outcome-focused and content goal-oriented (conflict effectiveness) | More process-focused and relational goal-oriented (conflict appropriateness) |
| Often prefer moving quickly to a plan of action and reaching a concrete solution | May view moving too quickly to action or resolution—before building relationships and facework (saving our own or others’ honor)—as threatening |
| May prefer moderate respect for those in power (parents, elders, boss) but will challenge and speak up (be persuasive, assertive of opinions) | Prefer respect and obedience (never or rarely question or contradict); offer collective opinions and ideas; very protective of in- group (a group with strong solidarity) |
| Prefer norms and rules grounded in fairness to resolve conflict | Prefer norms that focus on in-group and relational harmony to resolve conflict |
| Prefer direct (dominating) communication or saying exactly what you mean; may display more emotions (although not as true for the United States, especially in work groups) | Prefer indirect and face-saving communication or even silence; avoid confrontation and stress restraint in displaying emotions and opinions |
| Feel that listeners should be able to easily decode a message because it is well-constructed, persuasive, and clear | Feel that listeners should “read between the lines” and observe nonverbal nuances |
| Prefer resolving disputes through competing or collaborating | Prefer resolving disputes through compromising, integrating, or avoiding |
| Prefer short-term, individual rewards | Prefer long-term, group rewards |
| Tend to view the avoiding strategy as rarely effective because it is a “lose–lose” position from this cultural perspective | Tend to view the avoiding strategy as often effective because it is a “win–win” position from this cultural perspective |