Primary Orientation Factors

Cultural Value Patterns. The cultural social­ization patterns can include the study of the value patterns of individualism-collectivism and small-large power distance (Hofstede, 2001).

Basically, individualism refers to the broad value tendencies of a culture in emphasizing the importance of the “I” identity over the “we” identity, individual rights over group interests, and individuated-focused emotions over social-focused emotions. In compari­son, collectivism refers to the broad value tendencies of a culture in emphasizing the importance of the “we” identity over the “I” identity, in-group interests over individual wants, and other-face concerns over self-face concerns. Both Hofstede’s (2001) and House et al.’s (2004) international research studies have been critiqued as using overgeneralized value dimensions to superimpose on an entire national group and treating national culture as a homogeneous entity (D. Thomas, 2008; Ting-Toomey, 2009, 2010; Triandis, 2002). For example, cross-cultural family researchers Tamis-LeMonda et al. (2008) challenged the bifurcation of individualism and collectivism into two contrastive camps. They advanced the position of a dynamic coexistence of indi­vidualism and collectivism on both the culture level and individual level of analysis. By view­ing individualism and collectivism as existing on a dynamic continuum with conflicting and complementary elements and with multiple layers, cultural and ethnic identity diversity within a culture can be accounted for (Orbe & Everett, 2006; Ting-Toomey, 2010; Ting- Toomey et al., 2000).

Beyond individualism-collectivism, another important value dimension that is critical in understanding workplace conflict competence is the dimension of power distance (Carl, Gupta, & Javidan, 2004). Power distance, from the workplace values analysis stand­point, refers to the way in which a corporate culture approaches and deals with status dif­ferences and social hierarchies. People in small power distance corporate cultures tend to value equal power distributions, symmetrical relations, a mixture of positive and negative messages in feedback sessions, and equitable reward and cost distributions based on indi­vidual merits. People in large power distance corporate cultures tend to accept unequal power distributions, asymmetrical relations, authoritative feedback from the experts or high-status individuals, and rewards and sanc­tions based on rank, role, status, age, and perhaps even gender identity.

In combining both individualism-collec­tivism and small/large power distance value patterns, four predominant corporate value dimension approaches and related conflict styles have been identified: impartial, sta­tus-achievement, benevolent, and communal (Ting-Toomey & Oetzel, 2001). The impartial approach reflects a combination of an indi­vidualistic and small power distance value orientation; the s tatus-achievement approach consists of a combination of an individualistic and large power distance value orientation; the benevolent approach reflects a combi­nation of a collectivistic and large power distance value orientation; and the c ommu- nal approach consists of a combination of collectivistic and small power distance value orientation.

Individual Socialization Patterns. The indi­vidual socialization patterns can include the study of the personality tendencies of inde­pendent self and interdependent self. Self­construal is one of the major individual factors that focuses on individual variation within and between cultures. Self-construal is one’s self-image and is composed of an independent and an interdependent self (Gudykunst et al., 1996; Markus & Kitayama, 1991, 1998).

The independent construal of self involves the view that an individual is a unique entity with an individuated repertoire of feelings, cognitions, and motivations. In contrast, the interdependent construal of self involves an emphasis on the importance of relational or in-group connectedness. Self-construal is the individual-level equivalent of the cul­tural variability dimension of individualism­collectivism. However, both dimensions of self exist within each individual, regardless of cultural identity. The manner in which individuals conceive of their self-images— independent versus interdependent selves or both—should have a profound influence on the expectancies of what constitute appropri­ate or inappropriate conflict communication responses in a wide variety of situations across a diverse range of cultures (Zhang, Ting-Toomey, Dorjee, & Lee, 2012). For example, in a cross-national conflict study in four nations, Oetzel and Ting-Toomey (2003) found that independent self-construal is associated positively with self-face concern and the use of dominating/competing conflict strategies. Interdependent self-construal, on the other hand, is associated positively with other-face concern and the use of avoiding and integrating conflict tactics.