Conflict Competence
The updated CBSECM includes the same competence elements from the original model. Conflict competence involves a variety of factors, including managing identity threats, managing prescriptive expectations, and managing mutual face saving (Ting- Toomey, 2005a, 2007).
Being able to effectively and appropriately manage these facets during conflict generally results in positive outcomes and reinforces or changes our primary orientations (Cupach et al., 2010). For example, Shupe (2007) surveyed 206 international students from 50 countries in a midwestern U.S. university and found that the presence of (poorly or unresolved) intercultural conflict predicted poor work- related outcomes and sociocultural adaptation. Furthermore, Brew, Tan, Booth, and Malik (2011) examined 128 Australian and 108 Chinese students in a quasi-experiment and found distinct patterns of effectiveness and appropriateness. Effectiveness of conflict management for Australians predicted relationship improvement. In comparison, appropriateness of conflict management for Chinese predicted relational maintenance. Finally, Schlosser, Talleyrand, Lyons, and Baker (2007) explored the use of dialogue to address conflict between Blacks and Jews in the United States. They found that dialogue was a competent way to address the conflict and allowed the participants to learn about the other and resulted in the exploration of shared cultural values.The updated model also includes ethics as part of the competence assessment. The assessment of ethics focus on the guidelines that regulate appropriate or inappropriate conflict behavior in a given situation and is a growing interest in the communication discipline (Cheney, May, & Munshi, 2011; see also, Dorjee, Baig, & Ting-Toomey, 2012). We consider three ethical guidelines for assessing conflict competence: (1) ethical universalismrelativism, (2) moral inclusion-exclusion, and (3) social justice (Oetzel, 2009). Ethical universalism emphasizes that a consistent set of standards should be used to judge other people’s behavior as good or bad, regardless of cultural context issues, and, in the ideal sense, reflect universal-humanistic concerns.
In comparison, ethical relativism is a code of ethics that judges people’s conduct based on the importance of considering the cultural context (i.e., different cultures have evolved and developed their own cultural codes of ethics; Pedersen, 1997). Interestingly, a third position, the ethical absolutism position emphasizes the principles of right or wrong in accordance with a set of “assumed universal” fixed standards but, in actual reality, are based on narrow-ranged, ethnocentric standards and judgments (Munshi, 2005; Ting-Toomey, 1999, 2011). Moral inclusion-exclusion focuses on the degree to which we believe that people are within the boundaries of respect, fairness, and moral values. Social justice is a philosophical stance that emphasizes fair distribution of wealth, power, and income across cultures (Oetzel, 2009). The ethical guidelines provide a further framework for determining the degree of conflict competence.In sum, the CBSECM provides a multilevel approach to understanding intercultural conflict. The model considers multilevel primary orientation and situational appraisal factors that shape conflict communication processes. These processes then influence the evaluation of conflict in terms of conflict competence features. The next section uses a case study of a conflict to illustrate how the CBSECM is a useful tool for understanding the many layered and nuanced features of intercultural conflict.
More on the topic Conflict Competence:
- Conflict Competence Features
- Conflict Competence
- With rapid changes in the global economy, technology, transportation systems, and immigration policies, the world is becoming a small, intersecting community.
- About the Editors
- A Synoptic Review of the Original Cbscm
- Addressing Other Through Intercultural Competence
- Peer Mediation and Negotiation
- References
- Critique of the CBSCM
- References