Interpretive Differences
But even when translation and language differences are normative and accepted, interpretive differences may cause conflict in groups. For example, in the 1990s under the agreed on “social contract” of the European Union, workplace conflict erupted as German workers saw the contract as a mandate for workplace participation while Spanish government interpreted it as a call for ending the minimum wage.
Using semantic network analysis, Stohl (1993) found that although all the European managers in her study agreed that participation was a critical part of organizing, there were significant differences across regions. Meanings of participation ranged from legalistic, society-wide structures such as German codetermination to locating participation in the reorganization of work systems at the ground level. When multinational companies try to implement participation programs and work teams, semantic incompatibility often produces conflicts between management and workers as some expect to actually have a greater say in workplace routines and decisions, whereas others are only interested in efficiency and effectiveness (Stohl & Cheney, 2001).Employees in different national cultures may also view teamwork via different metaphors (e.g., sports, family, war, etc.), which can lead to divergent expectations of team roles, objectives, and membership (Stohl, 2005). For example, if Ecuadorean members of a multicultural workgroup view a project team in terms of a familial metaphor, relational concerns may well be prominent. On the other hand, American team members may be focused on the battle to “beat the competition at all costs.” What constitutes a “successful work group” can also differ culturally. In some cultures and/or situations, success may be partially (or even largely) gauged by the degree to which a team task can be achieved while best preserving existing relational networks; while in others, conflict (and perhaps the diminishing of a relationship) is a minor price to pay for a desired team outcome.
Interpretive differences may also be rooted in professional culture. In a study of a global software development team, Damian and Zowghi (2003) report that overt conflicts emerged when the engineers on the team (mostly Australians) said they needed to know why a particular strategy was suggested for the project. As professionals (occupational culture) and members of a low power distance culture (national culture, Australia), they felt this was their right, and that they should be able to voice their opinions and give their own assessment of the strategy. However, the American (national culture) managers (professional culture) (whose PDI score was only slightly higher on Hofstede’s power distance scale) saw the situation differently and did not see any need to involve the engineers in the initial decision making for the team. In their view, the engineers should only participate in determining the requirements of the technology and have no say in more strategic decisions. The conflict arose here not because there were necessarily large differences in power distance among the groups’ members but rather because there were differences in the assessment of what was appropriate in a particular context.