Culture and Interpersonal Conflicts

Finally, communication theorists and anthropologists have alerted us to the impact of cultural differences both inter- and intra-state, in the way people manage conflicts. There are books aplenty for dealing with the minutiae of specific cultures (e.

From the perspective of the theorist, these manuals lose the forest for the trees. Hall (1959) pioneered an early, coherent taxonomy for understanding un-spoken dimensions of culture. Nisbett (2004) suggested differences in the way Europeans and East Asians think, for instance the former emphasizing categories and the latter relationships. Hofstede (2004) factor analyzed data on IBM employees in 50 countries and college students in 23 countries to identify five key cultural variables. Other studies modified or added to the list. Just which ones are the most important remains more a matter of judgment than science. Of many factors suggested, ten seem useful in conflict situations.

Assertiveness is the ability to state one’s interests confidently and clearly. Too much can seem aggressive; too little can convey weakness. It varies individually with culture, education, personality, and sex. Austrians, Germans, and Swiss are among cultures that tend toward high assertiveness. Americans and British are moderately high. French, Spaniards, and Thai are moderately low, and the Dutch and Scandinavians tend to be low on assertiveness.

Authority to make decisions can take on both tactical and culturally characteristic forms. Negotiators usually have limits on their authority. They may be practical (e.g., limited funds to make a purchase) or hierarchical (rank in an organization).

Communal vs. individualistic cultures vary in how dependent people are on one another. In communal cultures, people are integrated from birth onwards into strong, cohesive groups, often extended families, which provide security in exchange for loyalty. Individualistic cultures are tolerant of a wide range of behaviors outside the norm but expect people to look after themselves. In between, “cradle to grave” government dependency is strongest in socialist countries. Cultures with high individualism scores tend toward higher per capita gross national product and mobility between social classes.

Conversational distance takes four forms: intimate, personal, social, and public (0-1.5, 1.5-4, 4-10, and 10 or more feet for Americans). The simplest of the factors to control, all one really has to do in unfamiliar situations is stand (or sit) still and let the local take up the culturally appropriate distance. This automatically adjusts for all sorts of unknown variables such as age, duration of acquaintance, sex, situation, and social class.

Eye contac t in the United States, England, and much of northern Europe signals confidence, sincerity, and interest. In South America, it conveys trust-worthiness, but in Japan it conveys aggressiveness or rudeness.

Giving gifts requires research or local advice from sources such as hotel concierges. In some countries such as China and Japan, gifts are an integral part of business protocol; in others, they may be interpreted as bribes or may be illegal. Where gift giving is part of the culture, it raises many questions. How expensive? How practical? Are there types, colors, or numbers to avoid? Should you reciprocate? Should you wrap a gift? Should you give gifts in private or in public? If invited to a home for dinner, what sort of gift if any is expected?

Humor and gestures are among the most subtle and hardest aspects of a culture to understand, let alone master.

Meeting and greeting requires knowing how to address people and whether or not to engage in small talk and if so about what. In some countries, shaking hands is not appropriate between genders or those of unequal status. Some interpret the grip as a sign of weakness, strength, or aggressiveness. Observe how people address one another. Is it by first name, surname, or title? Observe whether they shake hands, bow, hug, or use some other gesture. How do age, sex, and social class change the forms used?

Risk orientation (Chapter 2) varies by age, personality, position, and sex as well as by culture. As tolerance of risk declines, cultures try to increase certainty by rigid social codes and regulations. Risk accepting cultures are more tolerant of differing opinions and have fewer rules. Japan, Latin, and Germanic countries avoid risk more than Anglo, Chinese, and Nordic ones.

Time has three important dimensions. The first is when things actually happen compared to when they are scheduled. To North Americans and Northern Europeans, time is money and punctuality is crucial. They tend be precise in business situations but slightly less so in social ones. Most cultures are considerably more relaxed, particularly in social situations—although their members remain perfectly capable of getting to planes on time. You need to know when to show up and when to expect others to do so.

The second dimension is the time horizon. Americans are notoriously short-term thinkers, while East Asians are willing to wait much longer to see results. Westerners say “time heals all wounds,” but this is not true everywhere. A Serb asked to explain why he hates Muslims might trace every perceived slight against his race since the battle of Kosovo in 1389.

The third dimension is the distribution of time among the phases of a negotiation. Americans tend to move quickly through the exploration to concentrate on the bargaining phase during which they put considerable time into precise wording, reflecting the notorious litigiousness of their culture. Many cultures, especially those in which relationships are important, spend more time on the exploratory phase and, once trust is established, don’t worry much about the details. The Japanese tend to close slowly, delaying to make sure that they can go ahead immediately once a deal is struck. Americans tend to close quickly and figure out later how to carry out the agreement.

Truthfulness or lack of it is a factor in many conflicts. Bluffing and lying (Chapter 6) are common in low-trust and one-time negotiations so the payoffs usually are small. They are unexpected in high-trust or long-term relationships, so can have huge payoffs. They are common in some cultures, even at the highest levels, and expected in some situations, such as playing poker.

There is nothing definitive about such lists, which are useful but a long way from a parsimonious theory integrating cultural considerations with conflict management. Furthermore, these studies have five significant weaknesses. First, college students and employees of international companies were over-sampled in the research. Thus, the conclusions may be less useful if you are working with people of different socioeconomic classes than the studies considered.

Second, individuals may vary from the norms predicted by the researchers. Even communal societies have their dissidents, while individualistic ones have members who always “go with the flow.”

Third, cultures change over time, particularly with increasing globalization, some more rapidly than others. It is not unheard of for Mongolian horse nomads, otherwise living a completely traditional life on the steppes, to have a satellite dish, generator, and TV and thus to know more about but have a somewhat distorted view of your world than you expect.

Fourth, theorists tend to expect Americans to adjust whether they are the visitors or the visited. Might it not be appropriate to expect visitors to adjust?

Fifth, it is almost impossible to master all dimensions of a culture quickly. Perhaps more important than trying to master them all in every culture you encounter, it is best to assume that small social errors will not stand in the way of a mutually advantageous agreement. Except in low-trust situations, you must do the best you can, make sure others understand your good will, and rely on the tolerance of your hosts, while remaining tolerant of others and focusing on substance if you are the host.