Interpersonal conflict on workplace American vs Chinese

              It is difficult to know how to react when you perceive that someone is behaving negatively towards you. However, the most effective way to confront negative behaviors is in the moment, not later. It's too easy for confrontation after the fact to devolve into finger pointing or disagreements over perception. Practice addressing conflict in the moment by re-writing past events that you found difficult.

              Interpersonal conflict that is not dealt with openly can lead to decreased morale and productivity, gossip, cliques, and attrition. By dealing with conflict directly, openly, and immediately, you improve your quality of life at work the functionality of your team. 

Chapter 2. Comparison of american and chinese cultures of interpersonal conflict in workplace

              In the future, the United States of America and the Peoples Republic of China have a number of fundamental issues which could escalate into any of multiple levels of conflict, from diplomatic disagreements to war. The United States military and government do not have an outstanding track record of understanding the different cultures with which the nation finds itself in conflict. This project investigates the differences between American and Chinese interpersonal conflict management styles by looking at the roots of Chinese culture, Chinese and American cultural differences, American conflict management models, and Chinese conflict management models. The project concludes by applying Chinese and American conflict management styles to contemporary issues involving the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea and the Republic of China. Overall, Americans overtly prefer collaborating or compromising techniques, but unconsciously tend towards competing. When compared to the Chinese, Americans are assertive and adversarial in their approach to conflict management. The Chinese, on the other hand, prefer non-confrontational strategies in order to maintain a harmonious relationship but will modify particular styles depending on the nature of the relationship. They will often involve a third party to mediate and think much more positively about avoidance and accommodation than Americans. Like the Americans, the Chinese also prefer compromise and collaboration, providing that common ground already exists between the two parties. Facework provides an overarching strategy to maintain one’s face within the group and determines which style has preference in a given circumstance.

Conclusion

              Currently, America’s military focus is on its involvement against terrorism, especially in the Middle East. However, China may be a major competitor into the future, potential conflict areas abound from nuclear weapons in North Korea, China’s increasing influence in South America and Africa to secure access to natural resources, territory disputes with neighbors especially off shore, and internal issues such as Tibet, democracy, and capitalism. America’s actions in each of these areas will determine whether these issues are managed peacefully or become the spark that sets off war.

              In order to avoid a major conflict with the Chinese, the US military must do a better job of understanding the Chinese than their understanding of the current foes.               If, after sixteen years of conflict in the Middle East, US policy makers cannot explain the difference between Shia and Sunni, what can be expected of senior leaders in their understanding of issues with China? If policy makers do not understand the basic elements underlying a conflict, they cannot accurately express to the American population or the world justification for action.

              Before considering military action within another nation, one must understand its culture and how it differs from America. Numerous cross-cultural studies exist to help policy maker and military leaders do just that. Hofstede’s five dimension model showed that the most significant differences between American and Chinese cultures are the US short-term views versus Chinese long-term orientation, American individualism versus their collectivism, and power distance between leaders and citizens.

              Chinese culture is defined by its history of agrarianism, highly contextual language, Confucianism, Daoism, Buddhism, and most recently Mao Zedong’s influence. The Chinese have built up more than 3,000 years of culture versus the barely 500 years since Columbus arrived in America. Within this culture, knowledge of the five elements is essential. Mianzi and lian, face, are the most important, underlying all Chinese relationships while he, harmony, is most common justification given for a choice of a particular conflict management style. However, guanxi, personal connections; shehui dengji, social status; and zhengti guannian, holistic thinking, contribute as well and must be taken into consideration.

              These cultural differences directly translate into the similarities and differences in the preferred methods of interpersonal conflict management. Americans say they prefer collaborating or compromising techniques, but unconsciously tend towards competing. When compared to the Chinese, Americans are assertive and adversarial in their approach to conflict management. The Chinese, on the other hand, prefer non-confrontational strategies in order to maintain a harmonious relationship but will modify particular styles depending on the nature of the relationship. They will often involve a third party to mediate and think much more positively about avoidance and accommodation than Americans. Like the Americans, the Chinese also prefer compromise and collaboration, providing that common ground already exists between the two parties. Facework provides an overarching strategy to maintain one’s face within the group and determines which style has preference in a given circumstance.

              Along with similarities and differences in preferences between the Americans and the Chinese, there are similarities and differences between style types and how each is utilized. Because the dual concern model, popular in the US, does not accurately describe Chinese behaviors, it was necessary to adapt the definitions of each style through relationship type and Chinese cultural values. Some styles, such as the compromising and collaborating styles, are very similar to American behaviors. Others are drastically different, such as accommodating and competitive styles which have different behavior depending on the relationship type. The Chinese use of the avoiding style is perhaps the most different from Americans, with usage varying depending on the quality of the relationship. In order to address the quality of harmony desired within the relationship, the dual harmony model presented by Leung and others is used to augment the dual concern model. Furthermore, there is one Chinese style of interpersonal conflict management not present in any of the models, third party involvement.

              With the expansion of the dual concern model, augmentation by the dual harmony, and addition of the third party involvement style, it is possible to develop a firm understanding of potential Chinese behaviors during conflicts. While this understanding of interpersonal conflict management styles does not directly translate into strategic negotiations.

              America and China are not fated to become military adversaries. However, it is guaranteed that current and future conflicts will involve both nations, either as adversaries, partners, or intermediaries. Understanding China is the first step in ensuring that American interests are best served in these future conflicts. Burying America’s head in the proverbial sand or thinking that future adversaries are no different than Americans in the same situation can only lead to defeat.

References.

1.    Aquino, K., & Bommer, W. (2003). Preferential mistreatment: How victim status moderates the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and workplace victimization. Organization Science, 14(4), 374-385.

2.    Aryee, S., Luk, V., Leung, A., & Lo, S. (1999). Role stressors, interrole conflict, and well-being: The moderating influence of spousal support and coping behaviors among employed parents in Hong Kong. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 259-278.

3.    Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497 –529.

4.    Burke, R. (1998). Work and non-work stressors and well-being among police officers: The role of coping. Anxiety, Stress & Coping: An International Journal, 11(4), 345-362.

5.    Callan, V., Terry, D., & Schweitzer, R. (1994). Coping resources, coping strategies and adjustment to organizational change: Direct or buffering effects? Work & Stress, 8(4), 372-383.

6.    Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Weintraub, J. K. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: A theoretically based approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 267–283.

7.    Chen, P., & Spector, P. (1991). Negative affectivity as the underlying cause of correlations between stressors and strains. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(3), 398-407.

8.    de Rijk, A.E., Le Blanc, P.M., Schaufeli,W.B., de Jonge, J. (1998). Active coping and need for control as moderators of the job demand-control model: Effects on burnout. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 71, 1–18.

9.    Dwyer, D. J., & Ganster, D. C. (1991). The effects of job demands and control on employee attendance and satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 12, 595– 608.

10.             Evans, M. G. (1985). A Monte Carlo study of the effects of correlated method variance in moderated multiple regression analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36, 305-323.

11.             Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2) 117-140.

12.             Fiske, A. P. (1992). The four elementary forms of sociability: Framework for a unified theory of social relations. Psychological Review, 99, 689-723.

13.             Fox, M. L., Dwyer, D. J., & Ganster, D. C. (1993). Effects of stressful job demands and control on physiological and attitudinal outcomes in a hospital setting. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 289–318.

14.             Frone, M. (2000). Interpersonal conflict at work and psychological outcomes: Testing a model among young workers. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5(2), 246-255.

15.             Ganster, D. C. (1989). Worker control and well-being: A review of research in the workplace. In S. L. Sauter, J. J. Hurrell Jr., & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Job control and worker health (pp. 3–23). New York: Wiley.

16.             Giebels, E., & Janssen, O. (2005). Conflict stress and reduced well-being at work: The buffering effect of third-party help. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 14(2), 137-155.

17.             Grebner, S., Elfering, A., Semmer, N. K., Kaiser-Probst, C., & Schlapbach, M. (2004). Stressful situations at work and in private life among young workers: An event sampling approach. Social Indicators Research, 67, 11–49.

18.             Havlovic, S. J., & Keenan, J. P. (1995). Coping with stress: The influence of individual differences. In R. Crandall & P. L. Perrewe (Eds.), Occupational stress: A handbook (pp. 179-192). Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis.

19.             Heinisch, D., & Jex, S. (1997). Negative affectivity and gender as moderators of the relationship between work-related stressors and depressed mood at work. Work & Stress, 11(1), 46-57.

20.             Hutt, J., & Weidner, G. (1993). The effects of task demand and decision latitude in cardiovascular reactivity to stress. Behavioral Medicine, 18, 181–188.

21.             Jehn, K. A. (1994). Enhancing effectiveness: An investigation of advantages and disadvantages of value-based intragroup conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management , 5, 223-238.

22.             Jex, S. M. (1998). Stress and job performance: Theory, research, and implications for managerial practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

23.             Jex, S., & Thomas, J. (2003). Relations between stressors and group perceptions: Main and mediating effects. Work & Stress, 17(2), 158-169.

24.             Johnson, J. V., & Hall, E. M. (1988). Job strain, workplace social support, and cardiovascular disease: A crosssectional study of random sample of the Swedish working population. American Journal of Public Health, 78, 1336–1342.

25.             Kasl, S. V. (1998). Measuring job stressors and studying the health impact of the work environment: A epidemiological commentary. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 3, 390-401.

26.             Keashly, L., & Harvey, S. (2005). Emotional abuse in workplace. In S. Fox & P. Spector (Eds.), Counterproductive workplace behavior. Washington: APA Press.

27.             King, L., & Emmons, R. (1991). Psychological, physical, and interpersonal correlates of emotional expressiveness, conflict, and control. European Journal of Personality, 5(2), 131-150.

28.             Kolenc, K., Hartley, D., & Murdock, N. (1990). The relationship of mild depression to stress and coping. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 12(1), 76-92.

29.             Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Psychological stress in the workplace. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6, 1-13.

30.             Lazarus, R. S. (1995). Psychological stress in the workplace. In R. Crandall and P.L. Lyubomirsky, S., & Lepper, H. S. (1999). A measure of subjective happiness: Preliminary reliability and construct validation. Social Indicators Research, 46, 137-155.

31.             Mantler, J., Matejicek, A., Matheson, K., & Anisman, H. (2005). Coping With Employment Uncertainty: A Comparison of Employed and Unemployed Workers. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10(3), 200-209

32.             Parker, S. K., & Sprigg, C. A. (1999). Minimizing strain and maximizing learning: The role of job demands, job control, and proactive personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 925–939.

33.             Penney, L., & Spector, P. (2005). Job stress, incivility, and counterproductive work behavior (CWB): The moderating role of negative affectivity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(7), 777-796.

34.             Peters, L. H., O’Connor, E. J., & Rudolf, C. J. (1980). The behavioral and affective consequences of performance-relevant situational variables. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 25, 79-96.

35.             Pierce, G. R., Sarason, I. G., & Sarason, B. R. (1996). Coping and social support. In M. Zeidner & N. S. Endler (Eds.), Handbook of coping: Theory, research, applications (pp. 434—451). NewYork: Wiley.

36.             Rothbaum, F., Weisz, J. R., & Snyder, S. S. (1982). Changing the world and changing the self: A two process model of perceived control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 5-37.

37.             Schaubroeck, J., & Merritt, D. E. (1997). Divergent effects of job control on coping with work stressors: The key role of self-efficacy. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 738–754.

38.             Spector, P. E. (1998). A control theory of the job stress process. In C. Cooper (Ed.), Theories of organizational stress (pp. 153–169). New York: Oxford.

39.             Spector, P., & Bruk-Lee, V. (2008). Conflict, health, and well-being. The psychology of conflict and conflict management in organizations (pp. 267-288). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Group/Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

40.             Spector, P. E., & Jex, S. M. (1998). Development of four self-report measures of job stressors and strain: Interpersonal Conflict at Work Scale, Organizational Constraints Scale, Quantitative Workload Inventory, and Physical Symptoms Inventory. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 3, 356-367.

41.             Yamasaki, K., Sakai, A., & Uchida, K. (2006). A longitudinal study of the relationship between positive affect and both problem and emotion-focused coping strategies. Social Behavior and Personality, 34(5), 499-510.

45