Elizabeth Weldon, School of Business, Indiana UniversityKaren A. Jehn, The Wharton School, University of PennsylvaniaWorking Paper 95-10 Conflict Management in US-Chinese Joint VenturesAbstractThis study of conflict management in US-Chinese joint ventures was designed to improve our understanding of inter-cultural conflict in bicultural teams. An inductive technique (multidimensional scaling) was used to uncover the dimensions underlying strategies used by American and Chinese managers to manage conflict with same-culture (intra-cultural conflict) and different-culture managers (inter-cultural conflict). This approach avoids problems created when Western theory and Western questionnaires are transported across cultures. Results showed that (1) although Chinese and American managers are similar in some ways, important cross-cultural differences in conflict management behavior exist; and (2) in each culture, the behaviors used to manage inter-cultural conflict differ from those used to manage intra-cultural conflict. Implications for inter-cultural interaction in US-Chinese joint ventures and cross-cultural theories of conflict management behavior are discussed.
Conflict Management in US-Chinese Joint VenturesManaging conflict can be difficult in any work group, but it can be particularly difficult when two cultures are involved. In this proposal, we describe a study of conflict management in US-Chinese joint ventures designed to improve our understanding of conflict management in bicultural teams.
US-Chinese Joint VenturesEffective inter-cultural interaction is important to the success of US-Chinese joint ventures. Members of the bicultural board-of-directors must work together to guide the venture, and members of the top-management team, American and Chinese, must work together to run the firm (Davidson, 1987; Hendryx, 1986a).Unfortunately, inter-cultural interaction is problematic in many joint ventures, because the Americans and Chinese are unable to resolve their differences. For example:
"The Chinese and Americans [at Beijing Jeep] had been trying to coexist and adapt to one another, but it wasn't easy. Both sides found that the cultural differences were even greater than either had expected before the joint venture opened its door" (Mann, 1989: 199).Similar problems were reported at Babcock & Wilcox Beijing Company, LTD (B&WBC), another manufacturing joint venture (Grub & Lin, 1991). In both joint ventures, dislike and mistrust polarized the groups and threatened the survival of the firm (Mann, 1989; Grub & Lin, 1991):
"Workers [at B&WBC] evaluated Chinese managers by a simple standard: whoever quarreled with Americans the most aggressively would be considered comrade in arms, and whoever cooperated with the Americans would be nicknamed "Er Gui Zi" (fake foreigners)" (Grub & Lin, 1991: 194). "The atmosphere [at Beijing Jeep] became so tense that even the most trivial business dealings between the American and Chinese became bogged down in charges and countercharges" (Mann, 1989: 180).In some international joint ventures these problems can be eliminated by assigning responsibility for operations to one partner (Wright, 1979; Peterson & Shimada, 1978), or using informal arrangements to remove one group of managers from the decision making loop, as sometimes happens to American managers in Japanese firms operating in the US (Japan Firms, 1992). These strategies can be used when one party has all the technical and managerial information necessary to run the firm. Or, cultural differences could be reduced by assigning ethnically similar managers from the American firm to the joint venture (Beck, Beck, Ritchie & Tsui, 1990). Unfortunately, these solutions will not work in most US-Chinese joint ventures. First, the American partner may not employ Chinese-Americans or ethnic-Chinese managers who are qualified to run a foreign joint venture. Second, in most US-Chinese joint ventures, neither partner has all the information necessary to run the firm. The Americans contribute technical and managerial skill (Zhang, 1987; Hendryx, 1986b), and the Chinese contribute an understanding of the firm's political and economic environment. Therefore, managers in US-Chinese joint ventures must learn to work together as a team.
Inter-cultural Conflict ManagementUnfortunately, there is no comprehensive theory of inter-cultural conflict management that can be used to improve interaction in US-Chinese joint ventures. Before a theory can be developed, two issues must be addressed. First, cross-cultural differences in conflict management behavior must be identified. It is important to study cross-cultural differences, because conflict is a culturally defined and regulated event (Sillars & Weisberg, 1987). That is, each culture defines what constitutes conflict and the appropriate behaviors for dealing with it (Hocker & Wilmot, 1991). Second, the distinction between inter-cultural and intra-cultural conflict management must be explored. Cross-cultural studies focus on intra-cultural conflict management (members of the same culture are involved), whereas inter-cultural conflict involves members of different cultures. As Adler and Graham (1989) point out, theories of cross-cultural differences should not be applied to inter-cultural interaction without testing the assumption that people behave similarly with domestic and foreign colleagues.An understanding of these two issues will contribute to a theory of inter-cultural conflict management that considers cross-cultural differences in conflict management behavior and differences between inter-cultural and intra-cultural conflict. In the next section, we review existing theory and research focusing on cross-cultural differences in conflict management, and explain why this work provides little useful information about these differences. Following this discussion, the distinction between intra-cultural conflict management behavior and inter-cultural behavior is discussed. After these two issues are addressed, a study of intra-cultural and inter- cultural conflict in US-Chinese joint ventures is described.
Cross-Cultural Differences in Conflict ManagementExisting theory and research focusing on cross-cultural differences in conflict management behavior examine the links between dimensions of cultural variability and conflict management. Jehn and Weldon (1992), Trubisky, Ting-Toomey, and Lin (1991) and Lee and Rogan (1991) have described the impact of individualism-collectivism on conflict management behavior. Ting- Toomey (1988) and Ting-Toomey, Gao, Trubisky, Yang, Kim, Lin, & Nishida (1991) describe the impact of face work, and Weldon (in press) and Ting-Toomey (1985) consider communication style.Individualism-collectivism is an important dimension of cultural variability (Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck 1961; Parsons & Shils, 1951; Triandis, 1986), because it provides a key to understanding the norms and values that govern social relationships and social exchange (Triandis, Bontempo, Villareal, Asai & Lucca, 1988). In a collectivist society, social relationships and group welfare dominate individual needs and desires. As a result, behavior is influenced more by social norms and social obligations than by personal desires (Triandis, 1986); cooperation and social harmony are emphasized (Waterman, 1984) and individual effort and achievement are expected to contribute to the collective good (Laaksonen, 1988). In contrast, in an individualistic society, people value autonomy, assertiveness, competition, and individual achievement, and for personal satisfaction and growth are important (Triandis, 1986). These differences in cultural values are believed to influence attitudes toward conflict and conflict management behavior (Jehn & Weldon, 1992; Trubisky, Ting-Toomey, & Lin, 1991; Lee & Rogan, 1991). Face is "the public self-image that every member of a society wants to claim for himself/herself" (Brown & Levinson, 1978, p. 66). Face work is the social behavior used to create and support one's face (Goffman, 1967). Because the relative importance of self and group differ in individualistic and collectivistic cultures, the characteristics of an appropriate face and the nature of face work also differ. In a collectivistic culture, face work is used to present the self as an appropriate member of the social network, and people are expected to help others maintain a similarly appropriate face (Ting-Toomey, 1988). In contrast, in an individualistic society, face work focuses more on maintaining one's personal identity with little concern about helping others maintain theirs (Ting-Toomey, 1988). Ting-Toomey (1988) and Ting-Toomey, et al. (1991) suggest that differences in face work have important implications for conflict management behavior. Communication style can be described along a dimension called high- vs low- context (Hall, 1976). In a high-context culture, "most of the information [to be communicated] is either in the physical context or internalized in the person, while very little is in the coded, explicit, transmitted part of the message" (Hall, 1976, p. 79). In contrast, in a low-context society, "the mass of the [communicated] information is vested in the explicit code" (Hall, 1976, p. 79). Communication in high-context and low-context cultures differs in four important ways. First, communication in a low-context culture is explicit and direct (Gudykunst & Ting-Toomey, 1988). In contrast, in a high-context culture, communication is implicit, and the receiver must invoke the context to interpret the message (Gudykunst & Ting-Toomey, 1988). Second, communication in a low-context culture is sender-oriented (Gudykunst & Ting-Toomey, 1988), whereas communication in a high-context culture is process-oriented. In sender-oriented communication, the speaker and listener are assigned distinct roles and the burden of communication is placed on the sender. It is the speaker's responsibility to make the listener understand. In process-oriented communication, the roles of the speaker and the listener are highly interdependent, and the burden of communication is shared. Third, in high-context cultures people are more tolerant of silence during conversation, they use silence strategically, and they place more emphasis on nonverbal cues (Gudykunst & Ting- Toomey, 1988). In a low-context culture, talk is more important than nonverbal information and silence is avoided. Fourth, people in high-context cultures adopt a role-oriented style. Role- oriented communication emphasizes the social roles that the participants hold and different scripts are invoked depending on role relationships. As a result, interaction is formal and ritualistic. In contrast, people in low-context cultures, use a personal style. A personal style emphasizes personal identity over social position. Because role relationships and status differences are less important, and communication is less formal and often more intimate (Okabe, 1983). Weldon (in press) and Ting-Toomey (1985) link conflict management behavior to low- vs high- context communication style. Links to conflict management behavior. The problem with this literature is not the choice of these dimensions for consideration. All have been recognized as important dimensions of cultural variability that explain how values and behavior differ across cultures (Brown & Levinson, 1978; Goffman, 1967; Hofstede, 1980; Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck 1961; Triandis, 1986). And, as these descriptions suggest, it seems that these dimensions of cultural variability would influence conflict management behavior. Instead, the problem centers on the way that conflict management behavior is conceptualized, and the way it is measured in studies of cross-cultural differences. In each case, a theory of conflict management behavior developed in the West is adopted. These theories focus on dimensions that differentiate strategies of conflict management, using these dimensions: the extent to which the style (1) shows concern for self; (2) shows concern for others; (3) focuses on getting the problem resolved quickly (issue oriented) or maintaining social harmony (relationship- oriented); (4) reflects a willingness to deal with conflict or a desire to avoid conflict; and (5) reflects a direct approach to managing conflict or an indirect approach. These dimensions of conflict management behavior are then linked to dimensions of cultural variability. Individualism, low- context communication and self-oriented face work are believed to produce a direct, solution- oriented conflict management style reflecting concern for self, whereas collectivism, other-oriented face work and high-context communication are believed to motivate avoidance and produce indirect, relationship-oriented styles reflecting concern for others. Researchers test these predictions by linking dimensions of conflict management behavior to specific conflict management styles (or strategies), selecting samples from cultures that differ on dimensions of cultural variability, and administering questionnaires designed to measure these styles. Jehn and Weldon (1992) administered the Thomas-Kilmann questionnaire (Kilmann & Thomas, 1977), which measures five styles, and predicted that people in collectivistic cultures would use accommodating and avoiding more often than those from individualistic societies, and individualists would use competing, compromising and collaborating more than collectivists, because the former are attempts to avoid conflict and the latter are direct, confrontational styles. Trubisky, Ting-Toomey and Lin (1991) and Ting-Toomey, et al. (1991) administered the Rahim Organizational Conflict Instrument (Rahim, 1983), which measures the same five styles, and made similar predictions. Lee & Rogan (1991) administered the Organizational Communication Conflict Instrument, which measures three styles, and predicted that solution-oriented and controlling strategies would be used more in individualistic cultures compared to collectivistic, because these strategies are direct or self-oriented, whereas nonconfrontational strategies would be used more in collectivistic societies, because these are indirect. In each case, results produced mixed support for predictions. More detailed descriptions of these studies are provided in Table 1.
Table 1. Cross-cultural studies of conflict management behavior.
Third, applying a psychological measure developed in one culture to another creates three problems: (1) the psychometric properties of the measure may differ across the two cultures; (2) emics operating in the new culture are not included in the measure, and (3) etic dimensions may be measured improperly in the new culture. This third concern is particularly important when descriptions of behavior are used to measure the constructs of interest, because similar activities do not always have similar functions in different cultures (Frijda & Jahoda, 1966). Thus, the functional equivalence of the measure across cultures is suspect. There is reason to worry about all these issues in this body of work. First, these theorists and researchers offer no evidence that the constructs used to compare cultures are in fact etic constructs. That is, there is no evidence that the distinctions used to differentiate conflict management behavior in the West are useful for understanding conflict management behavior in other cultures. Second, these theorists and researchers made no attempt to discuss or measure emic constructs. Therefore, constructs necessary to an understanding of conflict management behavior in non-Western cultures are ignored. Third, measures of conflict management behavior developed by researchers in a Western, individualistic culture (i.e., the United States) were applied to Eastern, collectivist societies. Thus, the cross-cultural equivalence of these measures is suspect. In fact, there is evidence that they are not equivalent. First, the functional equivalence of the items is not established. For example, silence is used to measure avoidance behavior on the Organizational Conflict Communication Instrument administered by Lee and Rogan (1991). Although silence might reflect a desire to avoid conflict in individualistic, low-context cultures, it does not necessarily reflect avoidance in all cultures. In a high-context culture, silence may be a natural part of dealing with conflict. Second, there is evidence of psychometric inequivalence. Although Lee and Rogan (1991) performed separate intra-cultural factor analyses, and these analyses produced three factor solutions in each culture (presumably the same solution), the correlations between the factors differed across the two cultures. The factor representing a nonconfrontational style was positively correlated with the solution-oriented factor in the Korean sample, but a negative correlation was found for Americans. This difference violates the assumption of psychometric equivalence, and raises questions about the psychological equivalence of the constructs, because these results suggest that a nonconfrontational strategy contributes to a solution in Korea, but does not contribute to a solution in the United States. Trubisky et al. (1991) checked the internal reliabilities of the scales on Rahim's questionnaire and found them to be equally reliable in the two cultures. However, correlations between the scales were not reported. Jehn and Weldon (1992) performed intra-cultural factor analyses for the Thomas-Kilmann questionnaire and found different factor solutions in the two cultures. Ting-Toomey et al. (1991) performed a pancultural principal components analysis. Although a five factor solution that is quite similar to Rahim's was discovered, a pancultural analysis can not be used to draw inferences about the similarity of factor structures across cultures. Moreover, estimates of internal consistencies for the different scales varied across cultures, ranging from .59 for the Chinese on the compromising scale to .84 on the dominating scale for the American sample. Thus, in each study, the assumption of metric equivalence must be questioned. Together, these shortcomings suggest that this research provides little useful information about cross-cultural differences in conflict management style. To produce useful information, the ethnocentric assumption that Western theories and measures of conflict management behavior can be applied in any culture must be discarded, and an inductive search for etic dimensions of conflict management behavior and emic constructs must be conducted. Discovering true etics allows meaningful comparisons across cultures on a set of common dimensions, and the discovery of emics contributes to a full understanding of each culture.
Inter-cultural InteractionOnce cross-cultural differences are discovered, their relevance to inter-cultural conflict management can be tested. It is important to conduct these tests, because cross-cultural differences in intra-cultural conflict management may not generalize to inter-cultural conflict. That is, people may use different strategies to manage conflict when a foreigner is involved.Studies of social categorization and intergroup relations show that people group others based on salient characteristics, and they create stereotypes of people who are different from themselves (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). This research also shows that stereotypes tend to favor the ingroup (Messick & Brewer, 1983). The group that the categorizer feels similar to and identifies with is called the "ingroup" and other groups are called "outgroups". Outgroup members are believed to be less attractive, less capable, less trustworthy, less honest, less cooperative, and less deserving than members of the ingroup (Messick & Mackie, 1989; Kramer, 1991). As a result, people behave differently toward outgroup members. As a result, people working in bicultural teams might be expected to use different strategies to manage conflict with their cultural compatriots compared to foreigners.
Current ResearchAs the preceding analysis suggests, a program of research focusing on (a) cross-cultural differences in intra-cultural conflict management, and (b) differences between inter-cultural and intra-cultural conflict should be performed. This research must include a search for (1) etic dimensions of intra-cultural and inter-cultural conflict management behavior; (2) emic constructs necessary to understand intra-cultural and inter-cultural conflict management in different cultures; and (3) differences in the etic and emic constructs used to understand intra-cultural compared to inter-cultural conflict management behavior. The study described here is a first step in that program of research.In this study we compare inter-cultural and intra-cultural conflict management in US-Chinese joint ventures, by identifying the strategies used to manage each type of conflict. US-Chinese joint ventures were chosen for this study because the United States and China differ on important dimensions of cultural variability, and inter-cultural conflict is common in US-Chinese joint ventures (Mann, 1989; Grub & Lin, 1991). The United States is an individualistic culture (Hofstede, 1980), and Americans use a low context communication style (Ting-Toomey, 1985) and self-oriented face work (Ting-Toomey, et al., 1991). In contrast, China is a collectivistic culture (Ho, 1976; Li, 1978), the Chinese use a high-context communication style (Weldon, in press), and face work includes a concern for others (Ting-Toomey, et al., 1991). Thus, this study contributes to our understanding of how these dimensions of cultural variability influence conflict management behavior and provides an opportunity to study inter-cultural conflict.
MethodsMultidimensional scaling was used to uncover the dimensions that characterize the behaviors that American and Chinese managers use to manage intra-cultural and inter-cultural conflict. Multidimensional scaling (MDS) is a quantitative inductive technique used to uncover the dimensions underlying a social phenomenon (Kruskal & Wish, 1978). Thus, with MDS, etic and emic dimensions of conflict management can emerge from the data.Our MDS analysis was conducted in six steps. In Step 1, American and Chinese managers working in China were asked to describe two conflicts they had experienced recently, one involving a same-culture manager (intra-cultural conflict) and another involving a different- culture manager (inter-cultural conflict). To ensure thorough descriptions the interviewer prompted the respondent to answer five questions: 1) "What was the conflict about?"; 2) "Who was involved?; 3) "What caused the conflict?"; 4) "What did you do to deal with this conflict?"; and 5) "If the conflict was resolved, how was it resolved? If not, what is its current status?" All the respondents interviewed in Step 1 were currently working in or had recently worked in a US- Chinese joint venture or the Chinese operation of an American firm, and all had frequent interaction with different-culture managers. Although some of our American colleagues who are familiar with China believed that Chinese managers might be reluctant to discuss conflict, because it is a sensitive issue there, this was not the case. The Chinese social-scientist who interviewed the Chinese managers found them willing to participate. Many of the conflicts described in Step 1 involved problems commonly found in American organizations. For example, one conflict centered on the size of a pay raise; another involved an argument about promotion; and another manager said that people were jealous of perquisites enjoyed by some people in the firm. However, others were peculiar to US-Chinese operations. For example, American managers complained that the Chinese do not recognize the importance of deadlines and schedules; that the Chinese are not proactive and will not take risks; that the Communist party representative at the firm often has more power than the Chinese managers; and that the hardship of working in China is a chronic stressor, which exacerbates inter-cultural conflict. The Chinese managers complained that Americans do not try to understand and learn from the Chinese; that the American management style is too abrupt; that Americans fail to recognize the importance of relationships; and they overemphasize the importance of formal rules and regulations. Perhaps the most interesting finding involves American intra-cultural conflict. Most reported little conflict among themselves (although every American could report an intra-cultural conflict) and believed that conflicts with other Americans were less emotional, easier to resolve, and more likely to be ignored, compared to conflicts with Chinese. While this difference might be explained by cultural similarity, which reduces conflict and makes it easier to resolve, one American attributed this difference to the fact that the American community in China is small and close-knit. American managers live in close proximity (often in the same hotel) and they socialize outside work. As a result, the Americans can not afford to fight among themselves. In Step 2, American and Chinese research assistants read the conflict scenarios collected in Step 1 and rated them on clarity, completeness and succinctness. Scenarios that scored high on all three dimensions were retained. Then the research assistants considered each scenario and indicated whether that scenario was a good example of conflict. This step was taken to identify scenarios that represent conflict in both cultures. In most cases, research assistants agreed that these scenarios described conflict, which shows that the experience of conflict is similar for Americans and Chinese. From these scenarios, two were selected, one generated by a Chinese manager and one generated by an American manager, and an inter-cultural version and an intra-cultural version of each scenario was produced. These scenarios are shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Inter-cultural and intra-cultural versions of the conflict scenarios used in Step 3.
In Step 4, another sample of American and Chinese managers read the responses to scenario 1 collected in Step 3, and rated how similar they are to each other. These similarity ratings were used in the MDS analysis described in step 5. These managers also listed the criteria (i.e., characteristics of the responses) they considered when they made their ratings. Thirty-three criteria were listed by Americans for the American inter-cultural conflict responses; 28 were listed for the American intra-cultural conflict; 29 were listed by the Chinese who rated the Chinese inter-cultural conflict responses; and 30 were listed for the Chinese intra-cultural conflict. These criteria were used to produce four attribute questionnaires: one for American inter-cultural responses; one for American intra-cultural responses; one for Chinese inter-cultural responses; and one for Chinese intra-cultural responses. These questionnaires asked respondents to indicate the extent to which each response reflected each of the attributes. Four American men and four Chinese men completed these questionnaires. In Step 5, the similarity ratings for scenario 1 were submitted to four classical metric multidimensional scaling analyses (Young & Lewyckyj, 1979): one to analyze American responses to the intra-cultural version of scenario 1; one to analyze American responses to the inter-cultural version; one to analyze Chinese responses to the intra-cultural scenario; and one to analyze Chinese responses to the inter-cultural story. In Step 6, attribute ratings collected in step four were correlated with the MDS dimension scores. These correlations indicate the extent to which a dimension reflects an attribute. These correlations were used to interpret the meaning of the dimensions.
ResultsIn this section we report results for Scenario 1. The results for Scenario 2 will be available soon.
American intra-cultural conflictA two-dimensional solution was selected based on a scree diagram and the interpretability of the dimensions. Dimension 1 reflects the extent to which the respondent appealed to the boss rather than using some other strategy. As shown in Table 3, responses with high positive scores on this dimension all involve the boss. Responses with midrange and low scores (high negative) fall into two categories: (1) responses that do nothing to deal directly with the conflict, and (2) talking to the colleague and trying to work it out. The correlations between scores on dimension 1 and the attribute ratings confirm this interpretation (see Table 4), and clarify the perceived intentions of the actor. The strong correlation with vengeful suggests that going to the boss is a from of retaliation. Dimension 2 reflects the extent to which some action is taken to deal directly with the conflict. Responses with high positive scores are actions that do nothing to deal directly with the conflict, whereas responses with negative scores describe actions focused directly on the conflict (i.e., going to the boss or dealing directly with the colleague). The high correlation with "resigned" and "under confidant" suggests that inaction reflects a feeling of helpfulness. In sum, American responses to intra-cultural conflict fall into three categories defined by two dimensions (see Figure 1): Americans tried to get revenge by telling the boss; tried to work it out with the colleague; or took no direct action to deal with the conflict.
Table 3. American intra-cultural conflict: Dimension scores.
Table 4: American intra-cultural conflict: Correlations between attributes and dimension scores.
Figure 1: American intra-cultural responses: Dimensions 1 and 2American inter-cultural conflictA three dimensional solution was selected (see Table 5). Dimension 1 reflects the extent to which a response involves direct interaction with the colleague to address the problem, rather than some other strategy. Correlations with "moral", "positive attitude" and "pleasant" (see Table 6) indicate that this is a desirable response in this situation. Dimension 2 reflects the extent to which the response reflects a team orientation, rather than some other approach. High scores on this dimension suggest that the colleagues behavior is not a problem to be solved, because they should be working together on the same team. Figure 2 shows responses arrayed on dimensions 1 and 2. Dimension 3 reflects the extent to which the response reflects active hostility. This dimension distinguishes one actively hostile response (9) and two passive avoidance responses (4, 8) from the others. In sum, these three dimensions produce four categories of responses: those involving a direct attempt to work with the colleague to solve the problem; those treating the colleague as a team member; actively hostile responses; and attempts to avoid the issue.
Table 5. American inter-cultural conflict: Responses and dimension scores
Table 6: American inter-cultural conflict: Correlations between attributes and dimension scores.
Figure 2. American inter-cultural conflict: Dimensions 1 & 2.Chinese intra-cultural conflictA two dimensional solution was selected (see Table 7). Dimension 1 reflects the extent to which the response was an attempt to deal directly with the colleague to address the problem, rather than using some other strategy. Responses with low scores on this dimension all involve direct interaction with the colleague. Negative correlations with "fair competition", and "sign of mutual help" suggest that dealing directly with the colleague is a fair and helpful approach in this situation (see Table 8). Dimension 2 reflects the extent to which a response reflects a concern with maintaining harmony. Responses with high positive scores are designed to maintain a peaceful coexistence, whereas those with high negative scores draw attention to the conflict and make it more intense. The positive correlation with "concern for coexistence" supports this interpretation and the correlation with "moral" suggests that concern for harmony is a positive approach in this situation. Figure 3 shows the responses arrayed on dimensions 1 and 2.
Table 7. Chinese intra-cultural conflict: Dimension scores.
|