CONFLICT MANAGEMENT The Psychology of conflict and conflict ...

1. CONFLICT IN THE WORKPLACE 35
Gelfand et al., in press). In general, research has shown that in individualistic
cultures, individuals tend to prefer forcing conflict resolution styles
(Holt & DeVore, 2005) along with integrating interests (Tinsley, 2001). By
contrast, individuals in collectivistic cultures tend to prefer power strategies
(Tinsley, 2001) or styles of avoidance and withdrawal (Friedman, Chi,
& Liu, 2006; Holt & DeVore, 2005; Morris et al., 1998; Oetzel et al., 2001),
especially in intense disputes and disputes with ingroup members and
superiors (Brew & Cairns, 2004; Derlega, Cukur, Kuang, & Forsyth, 2002;
Friedman et al., 2006; Pearson & Stephan, 1998).
Fewer studies have examined whether the basic assumptions underlying
these taxonomies (e.g., the dual concern model, interest–rights–
power theory) are applicable in other cultural contexts. Gabrielidis,
Stephan, Ybarra, Pearson, and Villareal (1997), for example, showed that
avoidance reflects a concern for others, rather than a lack thereof, as originally
conceived in the dual concern model (see also Cai & Fink, 2002).
Similarly, Brett and Gelfand (2005) argued that while silence and avoidance
are strategies that are viewed negatively in Western cultures, they
are viewed quite positively in Eastern cultures. As discussed in Tsjovold
and Sun (2002), the motives and strategies for avoidance in East Asian cultures
range from passive strategies to highly proactive strategies, which
often involve working through third parties (Tinsley & Brett, 2001). Thus,
research on avoidance needs to capture this complexity in order to capture
cross-cultural variation in the construct. Additionally, while basic
tenets of interest–rights–power framework are likely universal, the theory
also likely needs to be expanded to capture conflict management strategies
in other contexts. For example, power strategies might be more likely
to include the interests and well-being of subordinates when used in high
power distance and paternalistic cultures. In line with this, Tinsley (2004)
argued that theory and research would benefit from examining not only
individual but also collective rights, interests, and power as foci of conflict
strategies, to better capture conflict management strategies in East
Asian cultures. In sum, although the typologies discussed previously are
applicable to other cultures, they need to be expanded and/or refined to
adequately reflect cross-cultural variation in conflict management.
Conclusions About Conflict Management at Different Levels of Analysis
Across levels of analysis, conflict management strategies can be meaningfully
classified as unilateral actions (e.g, forcing, avoiding, yielding),
as joint actions (e.g, negotiation, problem solving, mediation), or as thirdparty
intervention (e.g., arbitration, going to court, fate). At the organization
level, these tendencies to manage conflict are less fluid and subject
to exogenous influences such as the fundamental sources of the conflict,
and more ingrained in organizational structures, rules and regulations,
and perhaps, organizational culture. Finally, national culture also plays