Content uploaded by Dominic Busch
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Dominic Busch on Nov 17, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Article
Cultural theory and conflict
management in organizations:
How does theory shape our
understanding of culture in
practice?
Dominic Busch
University of the Federal German Armed Forces Munich, Germany
Abstract
Research studies on the management of cross-cultural conflict in organizations are put into an
analytically structured synoptic model that helps to reveal a wide range of forms and of the extent
of the assumed influence of culture on social interaction in organizational settings. Evaluations of
competent conflict management strategies derived from these theories will differ respectively.
Furthermore, the model may illustrate clusters of contemporary research vs idle approaches of
research that may hide some potential for future studies. To bypass the influence of theories on the
analysis of given conflict situations, this article will present a discourse analytic approach to discover-
ing interactants' subjective notions of culture, which will be illustrated by means of an empirical
example.
Keywords
conflict mediation, cultural anthropology, discourse theory, intercultural research, subjective
notions of culture, theoretical approaches to intercultural communication
Introduction
The management of cross-cultural conflict in organizations can be seen as a highly complex
phenomenon that is of interest to several fields of research from different disciplines. The vast array
of approaches from theory produces an even wider field of concepts on the issue itself, not to
Corresponding author:
Dominic Busch, University of the Federal German Armed Forces Munich, Department of Education, Werner-Heisenberg-
Weg 39, 85577 Neubiberg, Germany
Email: dominic.busch@unibw.de
International Journal of
Cross Cultural Management
12(1) 9–24
ª The Author(s) 2012
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsP ermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1470595811413106
ccm.sagepub.com
CCM
International Journal of
Cross Cultural
Management
mention the analysis of a given case in the search for an adequate scientific framing. Notions of
how and to what extent culture is supposed to influence people’s interaction (Busch, 2007: 75)
as well as notions of the function of organizations with respect to conflict management may lead
to very different evaluations of an actor’s competence in a given case. In other words, the scope
of action as well as the strategies that should best be applied in a situation of cross-cultural conflict
management largely depend on underlying theory. The article at hand will present a synoptic model
(cf.Figure 1) that helps to categorize theoretical approaches to the management of cross-cultural
conflict in organizations according to the theory’s assumed influence of culture on interaction.
1
For
given approaches, the model may help to make the results of their assessments more predictable.
Beyond this, the model may show which theoretical perspectives in contemporary research are still
rather neglected and which may contribute additional insights. On the basis of this model, this article
will develop a strategy to check the degree to which a given theory may produce results that are
adequate and relevant to the situation under analysis.
Towards a systematics of perspectives on conflict management
in cross-cultural settings in organizations
Despite the vast variety of theoretical approaches to culture, precise evaluations and measurements
of culture’s influence on individuals' action so far have rather been avoided even within general
cultural research. Schondelmayer (2008) identifies two main exceptions. Contemporary
intercultural research even today largely relies on Goodenough’s (1957) and D’Andrade’s
(1995) cognitive anthropology, taking cultu re as a system of k nowl edge shared by a
community. Researchers from this strand will thus see their challenge as revealing people’s
attitudes and interpretations. In contrast to this, s cholars from interpretive anthropology have
focusedonpeople’s practice. Research combining both perspectives and pointing at inter-
relations between both levels is hard to find.
In very general terms, the two strands mentioned propose two contrary notions of culture’s
influence on people’s action. If we see culture as a system of knowledge that people inter-
nalize, we tend to take culture as a given that pre-exists a s ituation under analysis. If we see
culture as what people practically do, culture will rather be conceived as being produced by
people’s actions. Acco r ding ly, A ppa dura i (199 6: 14) has intr od uce d a distinc ti on bet wee n pri-
mordialist and constructivist(Appaduraifirsttermsthem‘instrumentali st’)approaches.While
primordialist concepts tend to take culture as existing prior to a situation under analysis, con-
structivist concepts assume that people create culture, cultural differences and identities wi thin
the situation.
In the synoptic model presented in this article (cf. Figure 1), the distinction between
primordialist and constructivist approaches will be taken as a primary categorization. As an
additional dimension, there is a general tendency in intercultural research to equate culture with
either shared forms of knowledge or with norms and values. If culture is seen as knowledge
shared among the members of a cultural group, this form of cultural particularity is potentially
open for learning. Instead, if culture is equated with norms and values, this approach additionally
assumes a culture’s hegemonic majorities deliberately have power over who is considered as an
in-group member possessing the requisite knowledge and characteristics. Seeing cultures as
norms will thus include the notion of culture being an instrument for social inclusion and exclu-
sion that is developed in social discourse.
10 International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 12(1)
Primordialist perspectives on cross-cultural conflict management
In the following discussion, only studies directly focusing on organizational contexts are consid-
ered. However, it will additionally distinguish the respective authors' academic or professional
backgrounds. It will be assumed that cultural anthropologists, intercultural researchers, conflict
mediation practitioners as well as organizational researchers themselves from the discipline of
business economics will adhere to diverging notions of culture within their disciplines. Not all of the
studies explicitly refer to conflict management in terms of handling the escalation and de-escalation
of disputes. Although intercultural contact should not be seen as inevitably causing conflicts, most
of the studies show that cultural interferences in interaction may lead to some kind of interpersonal
irritation. These irritations may be seen as the basis of for intercultural conflict research: culture and
its influences may be the beginning of interpersonal or intergroup conflicts notwithstanding how a
conflict will play out.
Although at first sight, the numerous references cited in this review may suggest that some
passages are redundant, or less relevant, the planned systematization can only be accomplished by
taking into consideration the highly diverse field of studies from qualitative social research.
A review in this field thus has to point out marginal studies on aspects that have largely been
neglected. In other cases, the review will explicitly explore all those aspects of a category that have
been covered by research so far.
Beyond these reports, each category will close with a short assessment of what aspects of
competent intercultural conflict management in organizations may be derived from the category’s
logic.
Culture as knowledge
Anthropologists. Some cultural anthropologists take primordialist perspectives, seeing culture as
knowledge from an emic point of view as an entry point to empirical ethnographic field
research on culture-specific mediation techniques, as does Davidheiser (2005). However, many
other authors in this category run the risk of remaining caught within ethnocentrism. Augusti-
Panareda ( 200 6) for example describe s the practices of social workers acting as mediators
helpingimmigrantstointegrateandtoadapttolocal society in the Catalonia region of Spain.
While that approach promotes an unquestioned notion of cultural-essentialist adaptation,
Avruch et al. (1991: 4–7) in contrast point t o the fact th at even t he notio n of a problem
situation, for example a conflict, will di ffer among cultures. To face this challenge as confli ct
mediators, Merry (1987a) and Handwerker (2002) point to t he vital aspect of making clients
aware of potential different understandings of the basic settings.
Interculturalists. Laying the basis for a perspective of cultures as knowledge in intercultural
research, Hall (1976) introduced the distinction between high-context and low-context cultures.
Here, interacting smoothly across cultures will require interactants to internalize culture-specific
forms of communication. Later, Trompenaars (1993) aligned this approach even closer to the par-
ticular needs of business contexts. Looking at culture-specific forms of communication, Ting-
Toomey (1985) focuses on conflict communication in particular, stating that individuals' needs to
preserve ‘face’ are subject to culture-specific forms of communication. How to successfully cope
with one’s own and others' face concern here will be subject to culture-specific knowledge.
Busch 11
Practitioners. Conflict mediation practitioners for a long time have neglected cultural influences on
conflict management in general. Today, especially primordial understandings of culture as
knowledge have found their way into official practitioners' definitions, as Potsch-Ringeisen (2008:
345) illustrates in the example of the German mediators' association Bundesverband Mediation e.V.
Similar to the recommendations from anthropological research, mediators here will need to help
their clients get acquainted with differences in culture-specific knowledge. In practice, mediators
should explain these differences to their clients. The western ethnocentric notion of mediation itself
remains untouched as it is in many comparative studies, which take western forms of mediation as
reference points for their comparison (Abu-Nimer, 1996).
Management researchers. In contrast to the groups discussed so far, management researchers in
the field of business studies have rather refrained from seeing culture as knowledge. However,
scholars from neighboring disciplines have tried to offer alternative perspectives and paradigms to
business research (for a synoptic model cf. Fisher et al., 2008). From a linguist’s perspective, for
example, Bargiela-Chiappini (2002: 235) has shown that cross-cultural business negotiations may
be influenced by cultural differences in participants' interrupting behaviour in conversation. Again,
the acquisition of culture-specific knowledge, here in the field of communicative conventions, may
help to overcome these problems. Using the example of international mergers, Weisinger and
Salipante (2000) show that even the notion of how culture influences interaction may itself be part
of culture-specific knowledge that may differ among international partners. Competent
cross-cultural conflict managers would thus need to make their clients aware of these different
assumptions about culture.
Culture as values
Anthropologists. Considering culture as values instead of as knowledge, Gulliver’s (1979) early
study starts from a universalist standpoint assuming that conflict will always result from diverging
norms. Cultural differences among these norms, however, here are said to play a minor role whereas
Merry (1987b) sees a major role for cultural differences. Merry (1989) takes western forms of
mediation as an ethnocentric starting point for her investigations, and so do Roberts Callister and
Wall (2004) in their comparison of Thai and American mediators.
Interculturalists. Early intercultural researchers derived their ideas from the 1930s anthropological
theory that culminated in the Culture and Personality School (e.g. Benedict, 1934) in the US.
Authors here suggested that there are some interdependencies between cultural characteristics on a
national level and individual personalities. Hofstede ’s (1980) seminal study on ‘work-related values'
that can be measured across cultures by means of four dimensions relies on this early notion of
culture and it still serves as a strong point of reference in intercultural research. Focusing on conflict
in particular, Buller et al. (1997) present a systematics of conflicts arising from differences in
cultural value systems. Even more precisely, Triandis assumes that certain combinations of cultural
values will favour particularly aggressive and violent behaviour in cross-cultural conflict settings
towards outgroups (Triandis, 2000: 151). Instead of focusing on aspects supporting escalation,
Gabrielidis et al. (1997) state that people from collectivist societies in conflict situations will be
much more concerned about saving the faces of their opponents than people from individualist
societies. Confirming these views, Cai et al. (2000) sum up that collectivist value preferences may
lead to more competent conflict management strategies in general.
12 International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 12(1)
Practitioners. Folberg and Taylor (1984) in their comprehensive handbook on mediation practice
assume that differences in cultural values may also result in the preference or dispreference of
western forms of conflict mediation differing significantly among clients from different cultures.
Nonetheless, the authors insist on their ethnocentric viewpoint and they recommend that mediators
persuade and convince the parties of the advantages of the tool. Augsburger (1992) agrees with this
universalist stance and points to some advantages of this perspective. Since he assumes that people
in any culture will perceive conflict in more or less similar ways, there will always be enough
common ground for its settlement, too. Augsburger sees a culturally universal preference of people
for strategies of triangulation in conflict situations, he assumes that an implementation of western
forms of conflict mediation will not be met by too much resistance in any culture (Augsburger,
1992: 152–63)
Management researchers. While some studies in the field of management research directly
concentrate on comparisons of conflict management styles (Kozan, 1990), many other authors try to
root their approaches to conflict in more general intercultural theories. Following Hofstede’s (1980)
notion of culture, the GLOBE (Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness)
project (House et al., 2004) relies on an even larger corpus of quantitative empirical data. While the
study primarily focuses on cultural preferences of different leadership styles, some inferences on
conflict management can be made, too. The authors recommend that individuals in cross-cultural
contact should get to know differences in preferred leadership styles to prevent and to manage
cross-cultural conflict in a more efficient way (House et al., 2004: 6). Leadership style preferences
are also investigated by Holmes et al. (2009), who state that the additional consideration of
preferences from minority cultures concerned may contribute to smooth organizational efficiency
in general. Kanungo (2006), however, warns that not all culture-specific managerial values will
remain the same over time but that some of them will change or converge due to ongoing
cross-cultural interaction. McGuigan and McMechan (2005) from a universalist stance assume that
any organization will tend to develop an internal culture that promotes conflict avoidance. From an
ethnocentric western point of view the authors recommend that consultants and mediators instead
introduce a proactive conflict culture that sees conflict as a chance for positive change.
Constructivist perspectives on cross-cultural conflict management
Constructivist framings of intercultural communication as well as conflict management are still
rather rare compared to the vast number of primordialist studies. So although this article sees
constructivist approaches as an equivalent category to primordialist ones, this does not correspond
to equal quantities in their publications.
Culture as knowledge
Anthropologists. Watson-Gegeo and White (1990) in their anthology give examples of constructi-
vist approaches to culture that see culture as a form of knowledge. Basing their writings on linguistic
and psychological anthropology, the authors describe conflict management strategies in several
societies from the Pacific region. From their point of view, culture is closely connected to language
use, and notions of cultural belonging will thus be activated by the interactants themselves in a given
situation. Although the authors do not derive any concrete conflict management strategies, we may
infer that individuals should actively be encouraged to engage in the situational verbal negotiation of
cultural belonging and identity.
Busch 13
Interculturalists. For intercultural researchers, too, linguistic approaches seem to be best suited to
the description of construction processes of culture as knowledge. Day (1994, 2006) for example
describes ascription processes of cultural identity in multicultural workgroups, and Pütz (2004),
drawing on the example of Turkish leaders of small companies in Berlin, focuses on the processes of
boundary construction in particular. Here, a competent management of cross-cultural conflict would
require interactants to become aware of the role of cultural identities in their interaction, i.e. of the
way individuals constrict their areas of operation according to culturalist separations.
Practitioners. Conflict mediation practitioners may profit from some argumentative advantages of
constructivist approaches doing their work: Lederach (1995, 1997) takes a phenomenological
perspective, seeing conflict and conflict managements as cultural products themselves. Since cul-
tures now are seen as constructions, clients should understand that they will be able to con-
sciously change these constructions, too. With similar intentions, Abu-Nimer (2001) bases his
approach on Bennett (1986) and Hammer ’s (1999) Developmental Model of Intercultural Sen-
sitivity (DMIS). Here, it is assumed tha t i ndi vidu als construct th e deg r ee of influence o f c ul ture
on their lives on a subjective and situational basis. Practitioners even more precisely can eval-
uate the consequences of their clients' constructions of culture when facing potential conflict
management situations.
Management researchers. Again, studies promoting constructivist notions of culture as
knowledge that are genuinely rooted in management research are hard to find. Because of the clear
disregard for this perspective within management studies, Mayer (2010) puts this approach to
business management into a conceptual model that she introduces as the Model of Identity-Based
Managerial Mediation. Mayer points out that, normally, assumptions from organizational and
management research suggest that organizations will provide their members with respective
collective identities that will supersede individual peculiarities. Conflicts, however, even here come
to a point of escalation if the individual’s identity is threatened. For successful conflict mediation in
organizational settings, Mayer thus recommends taking individuals' identities as starting and central
points.
Culture as values
Anthropologists. Nader (1997) presents an anthology tracing the social construction of traditions of
law in different societies. According to her, law may be understood as the result of local social
discourse on competing value preferences. Silbey (1992) confirms this view and adds that, from a
discourse perspective, law may be seen as a strong tool to maintain existing power relations and
inequalities. Efficient cross-cultural conflict management here would require interactants not only to
become aware of the construction processes of cultural identity, but also of the fact that this
construction is subject to their own and others' arbitrary decisions that basically are changeable.
Interculturalists. From an interculturalists' perspective, the construction of cultures as values may
help to show how criteria of social and cultural belonging are constructed on an arbitrary basis,
which is dominated and controlled by members of a society’s dominant majorities. Approaches from
critical discourse analysis may help to empirically describe these processes (van Dijk, 1987). For
intercultural contexts, Koole and ten Thije (1994) have shown that successful interaction may be
traced back to the fact that interactants in a situation implicitly agree to assign each other certain
14 International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 12(1)
discourse roles as experts on and representatives of their own cultures. However, these balances
are potentially threatened by instrumentalizations where there are power inequalities. In practice, the
mutual ascription and acceptance of constructive discourse roles may be controlled by the
interactants themselves as a way of competent conflict management.
Practitioners. From a practitioner’s perspective, Grose (1995) demonstrates the constructivist
character of culture using the example of the consideration of the particular needs of indigenous
groups within Australian national law. Because of ongoing interaction and discourse between
members of the majority and the minority cultures, Aboriginal value preferences are subject to
constant change and development and they can hardly be considered in a stable way. Grose thus
pleads for a constructivist perspective on expectations towards law and justice as something that is
under constant change. Competent conflict management in intercultural organizational settings thus
will require a constant reconsideration of the participants' value preferences.
Management researchers. Frenkel and Shenhav (2006) criticize the permanent process of
unification and westernization that the tradition of management research has undergone, leading to
western value preferences being more and more taken for granted in international business
management contexts – and even in research on it. Alvesson and Wilmott (2002) argue that a
positive matching of individuals' (local) cultural preferences with their organization’s cultural values
may strongly enhance employees' identification with their organization in the case of economic
success.
Particularities of organizational communication
Asking why organizational contexts are receiving so much attention as a particular field in
intercultural research, Friedman and Berthoin Antal (2005: 70–2) assume that, generally,
intercultural research has its roots in organizational research. Accordingly, applie d res earc h
may have started with the launch of the American Peace Corps in 1961 (Dahlén, 1997: 33;
Harrison and Hop ki ns, 19 67: 431–2). From ther e, re sea rc her s as a next st ep tr ie d to ent er
contexts of the private corporate economy, and for this sector, some authors even tried to
develop concepts of corporate cultures (Schein, 1992). While the notion of culture was highly
contested by anthropologi st s (Fox, 1999; Stolcke, 1995), Friedman an d Berthoin Antal note
that management researchers did not engage in this debate ( Friedman and Berthoin Antal,
2005: 70; Mo osmül le r, 2007: 19). Instead, many of them concluded that that t he iceberg model
of culture can still be taken as the prevailing metaphor for notions of culture in management
research. According to this view, people in intercultural contact are not able to notice cultural
differences in values and knowledge underlying their communication. These underlying
differences ma y thus l ea d to mis und er stan di ng s and i nter p erso na l con fl icts.
Beyond this, a consensus about structural differences between organizational and non-
organizational communication will be hard to achieve. Instead, both contexts rather seem to dif-
fer in the expectations that we have towards the role and funct ion of organizatio ns. Szkud lar ek
(2009) in this regard points out that practical intercultural train ing a ppli ed i n busi ne ss co ntex ts
rarely tries to turn clients into more s ensitive cultura l under stan de rs. Instead, organizational
communication may be defined as more goal-oriented than non-organizational communication.
In contrast, lingui stic pragmaticists may show that any form of communicat ion will alwa ys
follow underlying strategic aims and that this is not a unique characteristic of organizations.
Busch 15
In addition, some very general assumptions about the contents of business and organizational
communication’s strat egic ai ms stil l can be ma d e. Hann erz ( 199 8: 237 –46) has identified
general aims concerning the handling of cu lture in different social spheres. For the field of
management communication in particular, Moosmüller (2004: 63) sums up that, in corporate
contexts, cultures are considered a hindrance that at best should be overcome. In m igration
contexts, in contrast, cultural differences mostly are to be appreciated and preserved. One fur-
ther characteristic of organizational resear ch on cross- cu ltural communication may be seen in
the f act that etic approaches clearly prevail in quantitative terms at the expense of emic studies
(Schaffer and Riordan, 2003: 170). Schaffer a nd Ri or dan point out that carrying out etic studies
is less expensive and less time consumi ng than doing emic r esea rch , and this may be a decid-
ing factor for the dominant role of etic approaches in management research (Schaffer and
Riordan, 2003: 173).
A tendenc y towards culture as values
To delineate cross-cultural communication in organizational settings, Cardon (2008), drawing on
the analysis of 224 publications from business research, reveals a remarkable preference for
value-based notions of culture (cf. Hofstede, 1980) at the expense of contextualizing models like,
for example, the one of Hall (1959, 1976). Along with Hermeking (2005), Cardon (2008: 400)
presumes that business researchers may have preferred Hofstede’s empirical quantitative study,
whereas Hall uses anecdotal narrations and single examples. Aside from this, Cardon concedes that
the preference for value-based models refers to the integration of culture into management theories.
A tendenc y away from cultural essentials towards aspects of identity construction
Early studies saw organizations as homogeneous entities whose main function is to prevent
their members from being involved into conflict. Pondy (1992) instead promotes a more open per-
spective on the organization itself. In fact, organizations can be seen as forums that encourage their
members to openly manage their conflicts, i.e. internal conflicts should actually be seen as a
characteristic of organizations. As McSweeney (2009) points out, organizational research indeed
has recently started to abandon the assumption of inner-organizational homogeneity. Consequently,
theories considering concerns of individual identity and issues of individual conflict in organiza-
tions are needed. Friedman and Berthoin Antal (2005) in this regard refer to Swidler’snotionof
cultural repertoire. In intercultural business negotiations questions of individual identity and
belonging should be considered as the most salient issues to be dealt with. According to the
authors' concept of high advocacy/high inquiry, people should engage in finding out about the
identity of others and at the same time explicitly present their own identities as well as their stand-
points (Friedman and Berthoin Antal, 2005: 80).
Towards a synoptic model of concepts of the influence of culture on
interaction
On the basis of the analytically structured considerations on cross-cultural conflict management in
organizations, Figure 1 illustrates a respective synoptic model of theoretical concepts of the influ-
ence of culture on social interaction.
The model includes the distinction between primordialist and constructivist approaches to cul-
ture, as well as between approaches taking culture as knowledge and those which view culture as
16 International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 12(1)
values. Furthermore, emic vs etic approaches may be distinguished. To the categories resulting from
the crossing of these dimensions, cultural anthropologists, interculturalists, conflict mediation
practitioners as well as management researchers may contribute their views on how culture may
influence social interaction. As the short overview has shown, research literature today may easily
contribute to each of the potential categories.
Beyond this, some tendencies may be derived over time. The upper left arrow in the figure
symbolizes the current development of research on cross-cultural conflict management in very
generalized terms. There is a tendency from primordialist towards constructivist approaches. Cul-
tures from the beginning have been conceptualized as values instead of knowledge. Within the
framework of cultures as values, research tends towards a growing preference for emic
approaches. The field of management research, that here may be considered as the actual field
of implementation for research results, is fed by approaches from interculturalists as well as med-
iation practitioners. Ideas from cultural anthropologists, however, can rarely be found in the final
applied management approaches.
This visualization reveals some of the hidden potential of research approaches that are currently
rarely used, and this potential is demonstrated by the second and bigger arrow on the right in Figure
1. Beyond the contemporary predominant approaches, applied research as well as the derivation of
actual conflict management strategies may well consider approaches from cultural anthropology, in
any fields, and it may even consider constructivist as well as emic approaches.
Figure 1. Synoptic Model of Theoretical Concepts of the Influence of Culture on Social Interaction
Busch 17
Looking beyond the scope of current research approaches
For any situation under analysis, the mere increase in available approaches from theory may help to
provide explanations and interpretations that are as adequate and as detailed as possible. However,
although the model promotes the consideration of a wider range of theories, it does not propose any
procedure that may help to find out which one of these approaches will be the most adequate in a
given case.
If we try to at least find an approach towards a potential answer to this problem, we may rely on
the tendencies and developments of research perspectives over time that have been traced within the
synoptic model. We may assume that research over time will have identified methods of description,
analysis and interpretation that have become more and more adequate to the issue under research.
On this basis, we may expect even more significant insights if we try to think one more step ahead of
these current tendencies in research.
The synopt ic m od el reveals a general tendency towards a preferen ce for constr u ctiv ist
approache s taki ng cult ur es as valu es anal ys ed fro m an emic per spe ct ive. Cult ur e from thi s
perspecti ve is mostly seen as s ome thin g that does not pre-e xist but tha t c ome s in to being
through p eople’s interac ti on in an y giv en s it uati on . Inte r acti on f rom this per sp ecti ve m ay b e
seen as a constant process of negotiation about which r ules to accept for the definition of peo-
ple’s reality. Beyond these assumptions it may be concluded that the notion of culture itself
will not be excluded from these negotiations. Beyond academic reflections, and even there, cul-
ture and its influence on social interaction can be seen as an issue that is continually discussed
by academic and everyday society. From this perspective, individuals will not only have their
own subjective concepts of culture and its influences, but it may be expected that they will also
base their decisions about actions on these premises.
In neighbouring disciplines, like, for example, gender studies, this awareness about the
constructivist character of the disciplines' central objects of research has been pushed much
further (Butler, 1993: 4). As Mae (2003: 195) points out, these notions developed within gender
studies may be worth considering for transfer to the field of intercultural research. The notion of
culture may then be seen as an object of discourse that from an academic point of view may best
be traced by empirical methods from the field of discourse analysis. Discursive constructions of
comparable notions like the term ‘cultural diversity’ have been described by Blommaert and
Verschueren (1998).
For the field of gender studies, Butler argues that individuals continually reproduce the social
construction of gender by what she terms performative acts. Barinaga (2007) has traced the con-
struction of a notion of cultural diversity within groups by means of ethnographic description. For
further analysis of these phenomena, an empirical method will be needed that as a precondition will
be able to leave the description of the notion of culture itself open to observation and analysis.
A suitable approach fulfilling these conditions may be found in ethnomethodology’s (Garfinkel,
1967) membership categorization analysis (MCA) (Sacks, 1974). MCA as a framework for con-
versation analysis is based upon the assumption that individuals constantly assign themselves and
other persons, as well as objects, to a range of categories (membership categorization) to produce
meaning in a given situation. On a superordinate level, several categories may be grouped into so-
called devices signalling that members of found categories will be seen in relation to each other. As a
next step, analysts will see that interactants will attribute certain activities to members of given cate-
gories (‘category-bound activities', Sacks, 1974: 221) that are seen as typical of members of that
category.
18 International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 12(1)
Early ethnomethodologists claimed that their approach would need to be confined to the analysis
of very small micro-contexts, and that only those aspects that are explicitly mentioned in a given
situation may be considered for analysis. Later authors, however, have continually broadened their
approach. They have started to make use of MCA to describe cultural phenomena by identifying
respective categorizations of individuals and groups (Hester and Eglin, 1997; Housley and
Fitzgerald, 2002; Jalbert, 1999; Lepper, 2000; Moermann, 1988). McIlvenny (2002) made use of
MCA to trace the construction of social categories in the construction of gender. Housley and
Fitzgerald (2009) have shown how to identify a society’s normative orientation by means of
MCA. With a similar aim, Stokoe and Smithson (2002: 101) have extended Sacks's notion of
category-bound activities towards a notion of category-bound performances, considering the fact
that individuals fulfil category-bound activities just to maintain and to reproduce the categories and
their membership of these categories.
An empirical example under analysis
As an empirical example, the following passage will present a short extract from a guided interview
that was taken in German from a German manager whose company is cooperating with partners in
Bulgaria. The example has been taken from a study by Burghardt-Petrova (2004) who used the data
for a different analysis. Here, it may show how individuals may delineate their subjective under-
standings of the influence of culture on their interactions and of how to best deal with it in the case
of conflict situations. In this passage, the interviewee describes his experiences of interacting with
his Bulgarian partners. The subsequent translation is provided by the author of this article:
[297] Man muss bei stark emotionale Personen z.B. bei stark
[298] emotionale Personen muss man von vornherein erst mal diese
[299] Spielregeln klar machen. Das heisst es ist alles zugelassen
[300] und ich würde nichts kritisieren, wir sammeln erst mal die
[301] Ideen, wie wir das Projekt lösen können und nicht voreilig
[302] sagen, nein es ist alles Scheiße, machen wir nicht. Man muss
[303] erst mal alles zulassen und dann gehen wir gemeinsam in die
[304] Kritik und gucken unter der einen oder der anderen Idee.
[305] Nicht, dann kommt man auch weiter, auch mit emotionalen Typen,
[306] wenn man das vorher auslässt dann zwischendurch etwas, was
[307] falsch geht, dann sind man mit einem Schlag demotiviert, weil
[308] man wird zu stark Druck aufgebaut hat. Zu diesem kulturellen
[309] Unterschied gehört es auch neue Ideen zu sammeln. Im Gegensatz
[310] zu dem strukturierten Deutsche steht der improvisierende
[311] Südländer. Er sagt dann ‘Das kann man so machen, das machen
[312] wir irgendwie, kriegen wir schon hin’ und das sind so die
[313] Dinge unterschiedliche Kulturen das kann man bei der ersten
[314] und bei der zweiten Runde gar nicht so sagen.
[297] If you have persons who are extremely emotional, for example extremely
[298] emotional persons, from the beginning you will have to make them
[299] realize the rules of the game. This means that everything is allowed
[300] and I would not criticize anything. Firstly, we do some brainstorming
Busch 19
[301] around how to solve the project instead of prematurely
[302] saying ‘no that ’s all bullshit, we won’t do that’. Firstly, you will
[303] have to allow anything, and then, together we will enter into a phase
[304] of criticism and have a closer look at one idea or another.
[305] Right, this way you can manage to go ahead, even with emotional guys,
[306] if you skip something beforehand and then in-between something goes
[307] wrong, then they will be demotivated at a single blow because
[308] you have put them under too much pressure. This cultural difference
[309] also implies the ability to collect new ideas. In contrast to
[310] the structured German you will find the improvising Southerner
[311] He will say ‘You can do it like that, somehow we will manage,
[312] we will get it right somehow’ and these are the kinds of things,
[313] different cultures, you cannot say that during the first
[314] and the second stage that precisely.
Scanning this passage for categorizations relating to cultural characteristics or memberships,
the category of the German (310) as well as the category of the Southerner (310) can be found.
At the same time, the interviewee attaches some category-bound characteristics to them (struc-
tured vs improvising). Members of these categories may be framed under a device that may
be termed as cultural differences (308, 313) in joint project work (301). In doing this, the inter-
viewee constructs a dichotomy of Germans vs a generalized group of Southerners including Bul-
garians. This dichotomy prevents the speaker and others from establishing additional or
alternative categories besides us and them. The interviewee elaborates and confirms the
category-bound characteristics of the Bulgarians as extremely emotional persons (297–8) and
in an even more pejorative form as emotional guys (305).
From these categorizations, the interviewee derives some category-bound activities that from his
perspective are characteristic of members of the categories that he has established. Accordingly, the
German interviewee assumes that members of the category of Southerners will accomplish
their working tasks in an improvising way, which from his own perspective is neither adequate nor
efficient, as he virtually quotes his partners saying You can do it like that, somehow we will manage,
we will get it right somehow (311–12). The interviewee himself instead claims to have substantial
and structured knowledge about their project (cf. the rules of the game, 299). From this, he derives
his right to suppress the Southerner’s action, to teach him (make them realize the rules of the game,
298–9) and to take over complete control on the first phase of their project instead of jointly
developing a form of cooperation (300–2). Not until the end of the brainstorming initiated by the
German will the Bulgarian partner be allowed a right to speak, when the German partner
decides to form a joint team (together we will enter in a phase of criticism, 303–4). However,
even in this phase of the process, the German partner claims to always keep control, and he thus
reconfirms his over-all concept of a device.
Giving an answer to the field of cross-cultural conflict management in organizations, this
example may show how individuals make use of their own understandings of culture and its influ-
ences to make their decisions about how to proceed in situations of conflict. The German business
partner develops a culture-based theory of managerial supremacy that helps him to take control of a
decision-making process in a cross-cultural context that he presumes is conflictual. His perspective
on the culture-dyad at hand assumes that Germans and Southerners will be more or less be forced to
manage a conflict between two contrasting and predetermined strategies, i.e. brainstorming vs
20 International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 12(1)
improvising. The organizational context in this example serves as a stable frame for the constructive
and efficient management of conflicting issues.
Conclusion
This article has started analysing the complex issue of cross-cultural conflict management in orga-
nizations. It has been assumed that different academic traditions have contributed diverging con-
cepts of how culture is believed to influence social interaction. From this, it has to be assumed
that estimations about individuals' free scope of action in situations of cross-cultural contact may
vary significantly. This article has thus defined categorizations of different approaches to the issue
of cross-cultural communication from theory. These categorizations have been summed up in a
synoptic model of theoretical concepts of intercultural communication. From the discussion of
contemporary tendencies of research, it has been shown that research on cross-cultural management
in organizations primarily remains confined to small areas of the synoptic model. Several alternative
approaches that may produce additional insights have tended to be neglected. Considering contem-
porary research tendencies, this article has proposed a discourse approach to subjective notions of
culture and intercultural conflict, assuming that interacting individuals will have their own construc-
tions of culture and of its influences on their action. These concepts may be thought to have a high
degree of relevance for real cross-cultural interaction since they are considered by the interactants
themselves. Finally, an empirical method for the description of these processes of cultural influences
on conflict management was developed and illustrated by means of an empirical example.
Note
1. The role of diverging notions of culture on further research has been traced by Ardichvili and Kuchinke
(2002) for the field of human resources development research as well as by Zagefka (2009) for the field
of psychology.
References
Abu-Nimer M (1996) Conflict resolution approaches: Western and Middle Eastern lessons and possibilities.
American Journal of Economics and Sociology 55(1): 35–53.
Abu-Nimer M (2001) Conflict resolution, culture, and religion: toward a training model of interreligious peace-
building. Journal of Peace Research 38(6): 685–704.
Alvesson M and Wilmott H (2002) Identity regulation as organizational control: producing the appropriate
individual. Journal of Management Studies 39(5): 619–43.
Appadurai A (1996) Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization. Minneapolis, MN: University
of Minnesota Press.
Ardichvili A and Kuchinke KP (2002) The concept of culture in international and comparative HRD research:
methodological problems and possible solutions. Human Ressource Development Review 1(2): 145–66.
Augsburger DW (1992) Conflict Mediation across Cultures: Pathways and Patterns. Louisville, KY: West-
minster John Knox Press.
Augusti-Panareda J (2006) Cross-cultural brokering in the legal, institutional and normative domains: intercul-
tural mediators managing immigration in Catalonia. Social and Legal Studies 15(3): 409–33.
Avruch K, Black PW and Scimecca JA (eds) (1991) Conflict Resolution. Cross-Cultural Perspectives. New
York: Greenwood Press.
Bargiela-Chiappini F (2002) Conflict corporate discourse: the case of interruptive behaviour in meetings. In:
Gotti M, Heller D, and Dossena M (eds) Conflict and Negotiation in Specialized Texts: Selected Papers of
the 2nd CERLIS Conference. Bern: Peter Lang, 235–48.
Busch 21
Barinaga E (2007) ‘Cultural diversity’ at work: ‘national culture’ as a discourse organizing an international
project group. Human Relations 60(2): 315–40.
Benedict R (1934) Patterns of Culture. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Bennett MJ (1986) Towards ethnorelativism: a developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. In: Paige MR
(ed.) Cross-Cultural Orientation: New Conceptualizations and Applications. Lanham, MD: University
Press of America, 27–70.
Blommaert J and Verschueren J (1998) Debating Diversity: Analysing the Discourse of Tolerance. London:
Routledge.
Buller PF, Kohls JJ and Anderson KS (1997) A model for addressing cross-cultural ethical conflicts. Business
and Society 36(2): 169–93.
Burghardt-Petrova S (2004) Interkulturelle Kompetenz in der deutsch-bulgarischen Wirtschaftskommunikation.
Unpublished master thesis. Europa-Universität Viadrina, Frankfurt (Oder).
Busch D (2007) Sprach- und kommunikationswissenschaftliche Perspektiven auf den Forschungsgegenstand
interkulturelle Kommunikation. In: Moosmüller A (ed.) Interkulturelle Kommunikation-Konturen einer
Disziplin. Münster: Waxmann, 67–95.
Butler J (1993) Bodies that Matter: On the Discursive Limits of ‘Sex’. New York: Routledge.
Cai DA, Wilson SR and Drake LE (2000) Culture in t he context of intercultural negotiation:
individualism-collectivism and paths to integrative agreements. Human Communication Research 26
(4): 591–619.
Cardon PW (2008) A critique of Hall's contexting model: a meta-analysis of literature on intercultural business
and technical communication. Journal of Business and Technical Communication 22(4): 399–428.
D'Andrade RG (1995) The Development of Cognitive Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dahlén T (1997) Among the Interculturalists: An Emergent Profession and its Packaging of Knowledge.
Stockholm: Department of Social Anthropology.
Davidheiser M (2005). Mediation and multiculturalism: domestic and international challenges. Beyond
Intractability: www.beyondintractability.org/essay/mediation_multiculturalism/?nid=1190.
Day D (1994) Tang's dilemma and other problems: ethnification processes at some multicultural workplaces.
Pragmatics 4(3): 315–36.
Day D (2006) Ethnic and social groups and their linguistic categorization. In: Bührig K, ten Thije JD (eds)
Beyond Misunderstanding: Linguistic Analyses of Intercultural Communication. Amsterdam and
Philadelphia: Benjamins, 218–44.
Fisher C, Doughty D and Mussayeva S (2008) Learning and tensions in managerial intercultural encounters:
a dialectical interpretation. Management Learning 39(3): 311–27.
Folberg J and Taylor A (1984) Mediation: A Comprehensive Guide to Resolving Conflicts without Litigation.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Fox RG (1999) Editorial: culture – a second chance? Current Anthropology 40(S1): Si–Sii.
Frenkel M and Shenhav Y (2006) From binarism back to hybridity: a postcolonial reading of management and
organization studies. Organization Studies 27(6): 855–76.
Friedman VJ and Berthoin Antal A (2005) Negotiating reality: a theory of action approach to intercultural
competence. Management Learning 36(1): 69–86.
Gabrielidis C, Stephan WG, Ybarra O, Dos Santos Pearson VM and Villareal L (1997) Preferred styles of
conflict resolution: Mexico and the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 28(6): 661–77.
Garfinkel H (ed.) (1967) Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Goodenough WH (1957) Cultural anthropology and linguistics. In: Garvin PC (ed.) Report of the Seventh Annual
Roundtable Meeting on Linguistics and Language Study. Washington, DC: Georgetown University, 167–73.
Grose PR (1995) An indigenous imperative: the rationale for the recognition of aboriginal dispute resolution
mechanisms. Mediation Quarterly 12(4): 327–38.
Gulliver PH (1979) Disputes and Negotiations: A Cross-Cultural Perspective. New York: Academic Press.
Hall ET (1959) The Silent Language. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Hall ET (1976) Beyond Culture. New York: Random House.
22 International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 12(1)
Hammer MR (1999) Cross-cultural training: the research connection. In: Fowler SM, Mumford MG (eds)
Intercultural Sourcebook: Cross-Cultural Training Methods. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press, vol. 2, 1–17.
Handwerker WP (2002) The construct validity of cultures: cultural diversity, culture theory, and a method for
ethnography. American Anthropologist 104(1): 106–22.
Hannerz U (1998) Transnational research. In: Bernard HR (ed.) Handbook of Methods in Cultural
Anthropology. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press, 235–56.
Harrison R and Hopkins RL (1967) The design of cross-cultural training: an alternative to the university model.
Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 3(4): 431–60.
Hermeking M (2005) Culture and internet consumption: contributions from cross-cultural marketing and
advertising research. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 11(1): jcmc.indiana.edu/vol11/
issue11/hermeking.html.
Hester S and Eglin P (1997) Membership categorization analysis: an introduction. In: Hester S, Eglin P (eds)
Culture in Action: Studies in Membership Categorization Analysis. Washington, DC: International Institute
for Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis and University Press of America, 1–23.
Hofstede G (1980) Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. Beverly Hills,
CA: SAGE.
Holmes J, Vine B and Marra M (2009) Maori men at work: leadership, discourse and ethnic identity.
Intercultural Pragmatics 6(3): 345–66.
House RJ, Hanges PJ, Javidan M, Dorfman PW and Gupta V (eds) (2004) Culture, Leadership, and
Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Housley W and Fitzgerald R (2002) The reconsidered model of membership categorization analysis.
Qualitative Research 2(1): 59–83.
Housley W and Fitzgerald R (2009) Membership categorization, culture and norms in action. Discourse and
Society 20(3): 345–62.
Jalbert PL (ed.) (1999). Media Studies: Ethnomethodological Approaches. Lanham, MD: University Press of
America.
Kanungo RP (2006) Cross culture and business practice: are they coterminous or cross-verging?
Cross-Cultural Management 13(1): 23–31.
Koole AJ and ten Thije JD (1994) The Construction of Intercultural Discourse: Team Discussions of
Educational Advisers. Amsterdam and Atlanta, GA: Rodopi.
Kozan KM (1990) Relationships of hierarchy and topics to conflict management styles: a comparative study.
In: Rahim AM (ed.) Theory and Research in Conflict Management . New York: Praeger Publishers, 174–87.
Lederach J (1995) Preparing for Peace: Conflict Transformation across Cultures. Syracuse: Syracuse
University Press.
Lederach J (1997) Building Peace: Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies. Washington, DC: United
States Institutes of Peace Press.
Lepper G (2000) Categories in Text and Talk: A Practical Introduction to Categorization Analysis. London:
SAGE.
McGuigan R and McMechan S (2005) Integral conflict analysis: a comprehensive quadrant analysis of an
organizational conflict. Conflict Resolution Quarterly 22(3): 349–63.
McIlvenny P (ed.) (2002) Talking Gender and Sexuality. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
McSweeney B (2009) Dynamic diversity: variety and variation within countries. Organization Studies 30(9):
933
–57.
Mae M (2003) Transkulturalität und interkulturelle Kompetenz: Erwägen – Wissen – Ethik 14(1): 194–6.
Mayer CH (2010) Cross-cultural business mediation: the model of identity-based managerial mediation in
international management. In: Busch D, Mayer CH, and Boness CM (eds) International and Regional Per-
spectives on Cross-Cultural Mediation. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang Publishers, 173–97.
Merry SE (1987) Cultural frameworks of mediation. PCR Occasional Paper Series: Cultural Aspects of
Disputing 1987(2): 1–23.
Merry SE (1987). Disputing without culture. Harvard Law Review 100: 2057–73.
Busch 23
Merry SE (1989) Mediation in nonindustrial societies. In: Kressel K, Pruitt DG (eds) Mediation Research: The
Process and Effectiveness of Third-Party Intervention. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 68–90.
Moermann M (1988) Talking Culture: Ethnography and Conversation Analysis. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press.
Moosmüller A (2004) Das Kulturkonzept in der interkulturellen Kommunikation aus ethnologischer Sicht. In:
Lüsebrink HJ (ed.) Konzepte der Interkulturellen Kommunikation: Theorieansätze und Praxisbezüge in
interdisziplinärer Perspektive. St Ingbert: Röhrig Universitätsverlag, 45–67.
Moosmüller A (2007) Interkulturelle Kommunikation aus ethnologischer Sicht. In: Moosmüller A (ed.)
Interkulturelle Kommunikation-Konturen einer Disziplin. Münster: Waxmann, 13–49.
Nader L (ed.) (1997) Law in Culture and Society. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Pondy LR (1992) Reflections on organizational conflict. Journal of Organizational Behavior 13(3): 257–61.
Potsch-Ringeisen S (2008) Mediation als Methode der Konfliktbearbeitung in der deutsch-chinesischen
Wirtschaftskooperation. In: Crijns R, Thalheim J (eds) Kooperation und Effizienz in der Unternehmenskoo-
peration: Inner- und außerbetriebliche Kommunikationsaspekte von Corporate Identity und Interkultura-
lität. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag, 339–54.
Pütz R (2004) Transkulturalität als Praxis: Unternehmer türkischer Herkunft in Berlin. Bielefeld: Transcript.
Roberts Callister R and Wall JAJ (2004) Thai and U.S. community mediation. Journal of Conflict Resolution
48(4): 573–98.
Sacks H (1974) On the analysability of stories by children. In: Turner R (ed.) Ethnomethodology: Selected
Readings. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 216–323.
Schaffer BS and Riordan CM (2003) A review of cross-cultural methodologies for organizational research: a
best-practices approach. Organizational Research Methods 6(2): 169–215.
Schein EH (1992) Organizational Culture and Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schondelmayer S (2008) Stereotypisierung am Arbeitsplatz: Zur Handlungsrelevanz von Selbst- und
Fremdbildern in der deutsch-polnischen Interaktion. Münster: Waxmann.
Silbey SS (1992) Making a place for cultural analyses of law. Law and Social Inquiry 17(1): 39–48.
Stokoe EH and Smithson J (2002) Gender and sexuality in talk-in-inte raction: considering conversation
analyt ic perspectives. In: McIlvenny P (ed.) Talking Gender a nd Sexuality.Amsterdam:John
Benjamins, 79–109.
Stolcke V (1995) Talking culture: new boundaries, new rhetorics of exclusion in Europe. Current Anthropology
36(1): 1–24.
Szkudlarek B (2009) Through western eyes: insights into the intercultural training field. Organization Studies
30(9): 975–86.
Ting-Toomey S (1985) Toward a theory of conflict and culture. In: Gudykunst W, Stewart L and
Ting-Toomey S (eds) Communication, Culture and Organizational Processes. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE,
71–86.
Triandis HC (2000) Culture and conflict. International Journal of Psychology 35(2), 145–52.
Trompenaars F (1993) Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding Cultural Diversity in Business
. London:
Economist Books.
Van Dijk TA (1987) Communicating Racism: Ethnic Prejudice in Thought and Talk. Newbury Park, CA:
SAGE.
Watson-Gegeo KA and White GM (eds) (1990) Disentangling: Conflict Discourse in Pacific Societies. Stan-
ford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Weisinger JY and Salipante PF (2000) Cultural knowing as practicing: extending our conceptions of culture.
Journal of Management Inquiry 9(4): 376–90.
Zagefka H (2009) The concept of ethnicity in social psychological research: Definitional issues. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations 33(3): 228–41.
24 International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 12(1)
