Front page
Discussion and evaluation of theoretical approaches in the field of cross cultural management and cross cultural conflict management and their applicability to international companies with multi-cultural working environment
Name: Lubomira Vesselinova Popova
Name of supervisor: Simon Fischer
Number of pages: 44
Number of symbols: 55 077
Table of content:
1.Introduction……………………………………………………………..4
1.1Problem statement……………………………………………………….4
1.2Purpose of the paper……………………………………………………..4
1.3Theoretical framework and structure…………………………………….5
1.4Methodology…………………………………………………………….6
1.5Discussion of the chosen method and theories: A critical perspective…..6
2.Definitions and clarifications……………………………………………..7
2.1Culture……………………………………………………………………7
2.2Cross cultural management……………………………………………….8
2.3Conflict and cross cultural conflict……………………………………….8
3.Different perspectives towards cross cultural management………………9
3.1Primesz et al.’s four paradigms…………………………………………...9
3.1. The two dimensions……….………………………………………...... 10
3.1.2Burrell and Morgan’s matrix……………………………………………...11
3.1.3The main streams of research……………………………………………..11
3.1.3.1Cross-national comparison………………………………………………..12
3.1.3.2Intercultural interactions………………………………………………….12
3.1.3.3The multiple culture perspective………………………………………….13
3.1.4Discussion…………………………………………………………………13
3.2Fontaine’s (2007) perspectives……………………………………………14
3.2.1The classical approach…………………………………………………….15
3.2.2The anthropological approach……………………………………………..17
3.2.3The psychological approach……………………………………………….20
3.2.4The psychological approach with focus on stereotyping…………………...21
3.2.5The knowledge management approach……………………………………..22
4.Cross cultural conflict………………………………………………………26 management………………………………………………………………………...27
4.1Blake and Mouton’s (1964) typology………………………………………28
4.2Thomas and Kilmann’s (1974) model……………………………………...30
4.2.1Discussion of the different styles………………………...…………………34
4.2.2Applicability of the model…………………………………………………..36
4.3The role of emotions in cross cultural conflict……………………………...36
4.3.1The influence of cultural values on emotions……………………………….36
4.3.2Ting-Toomey and Oetzel’s (2002) model…………………………………...38
5.Conclusion…………………………………………………………………...40
6. Summary…………………………………………………………………….41
7. Bubliography………………………………………………………………...43
- Introduction:
In the world we live in nowadays, with the Internet access, the possibility to communicate freely around the world independently of time and space, the easiness to travel and the existence of different political and economic unions, the process of globalization is definitely taking place and developing fast (Neulip, 2012).
In this globalized world one of the most powerful entities are, in fact, big international organizations. Some companies are entitled with the task to manage an enormous amount of money. For example, statistics show that in 2011 Apple had bigger budget than the entire US government (
Such organizations operate on an international level, and have to manage employees, working together, who come from various cultural backgrounds, who have been socialized within different cultural norms, have different believes, attitudes and understandings of right and wrong, and share different religions. In this case intercultural conflict is inevitable.
1.1.Problem statement:
How can an international organization having employees from different cultural backgrounds turn cultural differences in the benefit of the company and manage cross cultural conflict effectively?
1.2.Purpose of the paper
Exploring the field of cross cultural management is extremely useful and relevant for organizations operating internationally in today's environment and it is so for several reasons.
First of all, nowadays companies have the task to create an international working environment in which employees coming from different ethnical backgrounds to feel comfortable and work productively. Moreover, this is a relatively new field of study and there is no complete clarity concerning the term as well as the tasks and responsibilities of a cross cultural manager (Fontaine, 2007). Thirdly, as Primecz et al. (2009) claim, most of the research done in that field has been focused on one particular direction - studying cross cultural management from the positivist approach, and other methods and viewpoints have been ignored or at least underestimated (Primecz et al., 2009). And finally, the review of the different papers on cross cultural management shows that there is a tendency towards perceiving cultural differences as a barrier to interaction and an obstacle to effective work rather than a benefit for the company (Bush, 2011; Holden & Sønderberg, 2002).
The aim of this paper is by critically reviewing a number of different theories and theoretical approaches to show that, if executed effectively, cross cultural management is a tool which can help manage internal conflict in the most productive way and, additionally, turn cultural differences into an important resource that works in the benefit of the company.
1.3.Theoretical framework and structure
The paper will discuss and evaluate a variety of theories on cross cultural management and conflict management.
The work is structured in four main chapters.
The first chapter will introduce the topic and define the framework from which the subject will be approached, as well as the structure and the methodology. In the second chapter the relevant terms will be defined.
The third chapter of the thesis will look at some different perspectives towards the field of cross cultural management and will be divided into two parts. The first part will be based mainlyand Primecz et al.’s (2009) work who offer four different paradigms into approaching cross cultural management. After that it will look at Fonatain’s (2007) study, who approaches the field from six different perspectives, using theoretical evidence from Hofstede, Holden and other acknowledged scholars.Only five of these paradigms will be discussed.
In the last chapter of the paper, the different conflict management styles will be evaluated.Brawaeys & Price’s (2008) work on conflicts and cultural differences, as well as Neuliep’s (2012) book on intercultural communication. In this part two different models of cross cultural conflict management styles will be described and evaluated will serve as a main theoretical framework for that part.
1.4.Methodology
The chosen method for creating the paper is using already-available secondary research, rather than conducting a primary research or combining both.
The paper reviews the major perspectives on cross cultural management and some of the main theories which are based on these perspectives, as well as the basic cross cultural conflict management styles.The theories are reviewed critically with the purpose to search for approaches that would best fit in international organizations with multi-cultural working environment.
1.5.Discussion of the chosen method and theories: a critical perspective
Using already available research gives the opportunity to look at a large number of different perspectives and compare their advantages and disadvantages. It allows an in-depth review of the basic theories available in the different paradigms. On the other hands, it limits the work only to the studies, which exist already, and does not give the opportunity to contribute to the field with new findings.
Many authors have been interested in the field of cross cultural management and there is a lot of research conducted already. The problematic area is that there is no complete clarity concerning the origins of the field and therefore the main paradigms which exist. The thesis tries to classify the different theories and perspectives and to show that there is a predominance of one of the paradigms- the positivist one.
The theories studied in the paper differ significantly from one another. After the evaluation some of them are considered not effective for international organizations,but they are still included, because the aim is to show examples of all the basic paradigms discussed.
- Definitions and clarifications
When discussing the field of cross cultural management, it is necessary to define and clarify some related terms.
2.1.Culture
First of all, the term “culture” needs to be explained. “Culture” is an abstract notion, which is very difficult to define, and the various fields of study use different definitions. According to Neuliep (2012) over 300 definitions of culture exist, all of which differ from one another. Probably the most commonly used one is Hofstede’s definition, according to whom “culture is the programming of the mind that differentiates one group from another” (Hofstede, 1980 in (Fontaine, 2007)).
Being quite accurate, this definition, however, does not directly include the most important components of culture, namely the values, beliefs and behaviors. Therefore, for the purpose of this paper, culture, as defined by Neuliep (2012) will be viewed as “an accumulated pattern of values, beliefsand behaviors, shared by an identifiable group of people with a common history and verbal and non-verbal symbol system” (Neuliep, 2012).
Cultural beliefs are strong perceptions about the world, and about what is right and wrong, which are reluctant to change. Values are also perceptions, which are closely related to the beliefs, but in contrast to them, they can be changed. Behaviors are the actions which follow from the beliefs and values (Beamer and Varner, 2011).
2.2.Cross cultural management
After clarifying the notion of culture, the term cross cultural management needs to be defined. As Bush (2012) argues, there is no complete clarity concerning that term and concerning what exactly the cross cultural manager should do. For the purpose of this paper, Holden and Sonderberg’s (2002) definition will be used, which is “the task of managing workforces from different cultural backgrounds, and moderating the impact of cultural differences in the execution of management tasks” (Holden & Sonderberg’s, 2002).
Although being quite accurate, this definition will be questioned further in the paper, because some management approaches are not focused on moderating the negative impact of cultural differences, but, on the contrary, on seeking ways to achieve a positive impact (Jing, 2010).
2.3.Conflict and cross cultural conflict
And finally, since the paper tries to prove that through sound management practices, cross cultural conflict can be reduced, and when occurs, resolved effectively, this term needs to be defined as well.
The term conflict also has different definitions in the different disciplines, but Brawaeys & Price (2008) offer a relatively encompassing one, claiming that a conflict appears when “people with different needs or goals are prevented – or perceive that they are being prevented – by others in achieving these needs or goals” (Brawaeys & Price, 2008).
Cross cultural conflict occurs in the process of communication between members of different cultures, and as defined by Thing-Toomey and Oetzel is “the experience of emotional frustration or mismatched expectations between individuals from different cultures who perceive an incompatibility between their values, norms, goals, scarce resources, or outcomes during an intercultural exchange” (Thing-Toomey and Oetzel, 2003 in (Fontaine, 2007)).
- Different perspectives towards cross cultural management
After defining the relevant concepts, the paper will have a look at the main streams of research and the different perspectives, which exist in cross cultural management.
The chapter will be divided into two main parts. Firstly, it will discuss the multi-paradigmatic view of the field, offered by Primesz et al. (2009). The next part will be focused mainly on Fontaine’s (2007) work, and it will evaluate the six main approaches he describes.
3.1.Primesz et al.’s four paradigms
As Redding (1994) argue, the field of cross cultural management has developed under the influence of distinct paradigms, each of which having their own assumptions, definitions and methodologies. There is also no consensus concerning the theoretical field it has its roots in – weather it should be studied in the framework of organizational management, human resource management, communication management, or another subject ((Redding, 1994) in Fontaine, 2007).
In this chapter, Primesz et al.’s (1994) multi-paradigmatic view towards the subject will be used as a framework. Their study is built upon the argument that the fields of organizational management and cross cultural management are closely related, and, in fact, cross cultural management is a small discipline inside the more all-embracing field of organizational management. Therefore the field of cross cultural management should be approached with the same methodology and theoretical framework. They use the same paradigms, which exist in organizational studies, in order to prove their argument.
Primesz et al. (2009) argue against the general claim that the study of cross cultural management is being at a stage of “early paradigmatic maturity” (Lower et al., 2007) in Primesz et al., 2009)) and dominated by one paradigm only, namely the positivist one. Their attempt is to show that various paradigms exist and to prove that there has been valuable contribution from all the different approaches.
3.1.1.The two dimensions
In order to look at the field of cross cultural management from four different paradigms, Primesz et al. (2009) use Burrell and Morgan’s (1979) two dimensions dealing with assumptions about the nature of social sciences and assumptions about the nature of society.
The first dimension distinguishes between objective and subjective view. Objectivists believe that the social world is “objectively given and independently exists out there” (Primesz et al., 2009). They believe that, seeking for causal relationships, they can investigate its structure and regularities through scientific research (Primesz et al., 2009).
The subjectivists, on the other hand, claim that society is socially constructed and members of society actively participate in creating and recreating the social world. They believe that social sciences cannot be studied and investigated independently from outside, but investigators should, however, be actively involved, in order to be able to understand the social processes (Primesz et al., 2009).
The second dimension distinguishes between the sociology of regulation and the sociology of radical change.
Researchers in favor of the society of regulation believe that no better society than the Western capitalist society exists and that all societal problems should be fixed “within the framework of capitalism” (Primesz et al., 2009).
Proponents of the society of radical change believe that there are fundamentally better societies. They try to put light on different social problems, such as power and wealth inequalities, discrimination, social tensions etc. in order to highlight the need of new better social order (Primesz et al., 2009).
3.1.2.Burrell and Morgan’s matrix
Based on the two dimensions discussed above, Burrell and Morgan’s (1979) grid is created, which is shown in figure 1. The grid defines four paradigms in the field of organizational studies. On the basis of these paradigms, the field of cross cultural management will be discussed in the paper.
Figure 1:
The sociology of radical change
Radicalhumanist / Radical
Structuralist
Subjective / Interpretive / Functionalist / Objective
The sociology of regulation
(Burrell and Morgan, 1979)
3.1.3 The main streams of research
The paper will now look at the three main streams of research identified by Sackmann and Phillips (2004), and using the matrix as a basis, it will try to figure out in which paradigms the different studies fit. The aim is to estimate whether the work has been distributed equally within the paradigms, or some of them have been emphasized more, while others ignored.
3.1.3.1. Cross-national comparison
The first stream of research is the cross-national comparison perspective, which investigates the variations of values across cultures. It is associated with Hofstede, whose theory will be discussed further in the paper, and other well-known theoreticians such as Schwartz and House (Sackmann and Phillips, 2004).
Research in that field is generally conducted according to the functionalist paradigm (Primesz et al., 2009). As Primesz et al. (2009) claim, some comparative studies have been conducted from the interpretative paradigm as well.
It is important, however, to mention, that the cross national comparison conducted according to the functionalist paradigm, or positivist, as referred to by many authors, is the pre-dominant approach towards researching cross-cultural management (Primesz et al., 2009; Holden and Sønderberg, 2002).
3.1.3.2 Intercultural interactions
The second main stream of research focuses on intercultural interactions and investigates how cultural influences behavior during the process of interaction (Phillips and Sackmann, 2004). As Primesz et al. (2009) claim it has been inspired by anthropologists such as Geerz (1973) and Kluckholm and Strodbeck (1961). Anthropological approaches will be discussed in more detail in the next chapter.
Phillips and Sackmann (2004) claim that anthropology can be both positive and interpretative, and examples of intercultural interaction studies in both paradigms can be found. They claim, however, that although the interpretative paradigm is gaining acceptance, the functionalist perspective is still predominating (Phillips and Sackmann, 2004). It is worth mentioning that some of the studies in this main stream of research are radical humanist studies, but as Westwood & Jack (2007) argue, they are very few.
3.1.3.3 The multiple culture perspective
The third and final main stream which Phillips and Sackmann (2004) describe is the multiple culture perspective, which investigates the various cultural influences that exist simultaneously at the different levels of analysis, such as nation industry, organization. It analyzes also cultural groups such as ethnic groups, professional groups etc. The aim is to figure out how culture influences individual’s identity and perception of self (Phillips and Sackmann, 2004).
Research, conducted in this perspective is mainly interpretative, but there are examples of functionalist studies as well (Phillips and Sackmann, 2004).
3.1.4 Discussion
Considering the above information, it can be concluded that most of the research in cross cultural management is conducted according to the functionalist paradigm. Interpretative studies are quite common as well. There are some radical humanist studies to be found, but the radical structuralist paradigm is missing completely.
Further on, considering the three main streams of research, it can be concluded that there is a predominance of the cross-national comparisons. Intercultural interaction studies can be found as well, while the multiple culture studies are very few.
To show this imbalance clearer, Primecz et al. (2009) develop a model, which is based on Burrell and Morgan’s (1979) paradigm grid. It is shown in figure 2.
Figure 2:
The sociology of radical change
Subjective / / ??? / Objective
1
The sociology of regulation