The Handbook of Conflict Resolution (3rd ed)

by Peter T Coleman

  Experiments

  Experiments directly test hypothesized causal relationships with high internal validity. We theorized, for example, that open discussion of conflict need not affront social face in China and could contribute to effective problem solving when face was confirmed (Tjosvold, Hui, and Sun, 2004). Eighty participants from a university in Guangzhou were randomly assigned to four conditions: open discussion–affront to face, open discussion–confirmation of face, avoiding discussion–affront, and avoiding discussion–confirmation.

  To begin, the participants read that as supervisors, they were to meet with employees about job rotation. The supervisor, as a representative of management, opposed this job rotation as inefficient. The “open” participants read where their organization valued frank discussion of differences and where they could earn up to five chances in a lottery if they discussed their differences openly and directly. The “avoiding” participants would earn chances to the extent that they minimized their disagreement.

  After eight minutes of discussion, the participant and a confederate completed a questionnaire with the social face induction, which the experimenter unexpectedly exchanged between them. The “affront” participants read the confederate’s ratings indicating that they were seen as ineffective and the “confirm” participants that they were seen as effective. After another ten minutes, participants made the decision, were fully debriefed, and were given a small gift and one chance in a lottery.

  The number of questions the participants asked measured curiosity and their listing the opposing arguments measured learning. Participants also indicated on seven-point scales their interest in learning and the strength of their relationship. Their decisions were coded as to the extent that they integrated the opposing view into their decision. Results indicated that the Chinese participants were curious, informed, and integrative when they had an open discussion, especially when their face was confirmed.

  Interview, surveys, and experiments have their strengths and limitations. Our results are not method specific and deserve confidence because they are derived from diverse methods.

  EAST ASIAN TESTS OF THE THEORY

  Results of experiments, surveys, and interview studies provide consistent support that Deutsch’s theory is useful for understanding conflict management in China. Cooperative conflict dynamics have been found to contribute substantially to effective teamwork, leadership, and quality customer service in today’s Chinese organizations. This section first reviews experiments indicating that discussion of conflicting opinions in a cooperative context promotes open-mindedness and integrated solutions (Chen, Lu, and Tjosvold, 2008; Chen, Tjosvold, Huang, and Xu, 2011; Chen, Tjosvold, and Wu, 2008a; Tjosvold and Sun, 2005, 2010). The second part summarizes surveys that provide evidence that these causal relationships generalize to Chinese organizations and demonstrate how Chinese values can contribute to constructive conflict (Chen, Tjosvold, Li, Fu, and Liu, 2011; Chen et al., 2008; Tjosvold, Wu, and Chen, 2010). The third part reviews studies showing that the cooperative and competitive approach to conflict is useful for understanding relationships between organizations as well as within them. The final part reviews evidence that diverse people can use the cooperative and competitive framework to guide their cross-cultural collaboration.

  Cooperation, Open-Minded Discussion, and Effectiveness: Experiments

  Chinese people who had cooperative compared to competitive goals demonstrated more openness toward the opposing position and negotiator (Tjosvold and Sun, 2001). Participants in cooperation were committed to mutual benefit, were interested in learning more about the opposing views, considered these views useful, had come to agree with them, and tended to integrate them into their own decisions. They were more attracted to the other protagonist and had greater confidence in working together in the future than did participants in the competitive condition.

  Perhaps more surprising, the Chinese participants were able to use and responded favorably to open discussion itself. Direct disagreement, compared to smoothing over the opposing views, strengthened relationships, and induced curiosity where Chinese people asked questions, explored opposing views, demonstrated knowledge, and worked to integrate diverse views (Tjosvold and Sun, 2003). Indicating that they found open discussion valuable, participants characterized protagonists who disagreed directly and openly as strong persons and competent negotiators, whereas avoiding protagonists were considered weak and ineffectual.

  Chinese participants were found to choose disagreement when they felt confident in their own abilities (Tjosvold et al., 2001). Protagonists used direct controversy to build a cooperative relationship and open-mindedly explored and understood the opposing view, whereas avoiders were competitive and unaware of the opposing ideas (Tjosvold and Sun, 2003). In another experiment, participants in China found that open compared to avoiding discussion and problem solving compared to blaming stimulated the exploration, integration, and adoption of alternative ideas as well as strengthened interpersonal relationships (Tjosvold and Sun, 2005). Evidence also suggests that openness and problem solving have these effects by developing perceived cooperative interdependence that encourages people to believe that incorporating alternative ideas can help them succeed. Avoidance and blaming result in a competitive struggle to see who can impose their ideas on the others, leaving people committed to their original thinking.

  Cooperation, Open-Minded Discussion, and Effectiveness: Surveys in Chinese Organizations

  Field studies provide evidence that the experimental findings apply to various kinds of tasks and organizational settings in China. Cooperative goals have been found to predict open-minded discussion of diverse views (Chen and Tjosvold, in press; Snell, Tjosvold, and Su, 2006; Tjosvold, Chen, Huang, and Xu, 2012; Tjosvold, Peng, Chen, and Su, 2012; Tjosvold and Su, 2007; Wang, Chen, Tjosvold, and Shi, 2010; Wong, Tjosvold, and Chen, 2010). Studies also indicate that managing conflict for mutual benefit (cooperative conflict) promotes effective teamwork and leadership (Chen, Liu, and Tjosvold, 2005; Chen, Tjosvold, and Su, 2005a; Tjosvold, Poon, and Yu, 2005; Tjosvold and Wong, 2010; Tjosvold, Yu, and Wu, 2009; Tjosvold, Law, and Sun, 2006; Zhang, Cao, and Tjosvold, 2011).

  In a study of thirty-nine groups and their supervisors in Hangzhou, China, work teams in China that used open-minded, constructive discussion of their differences promoted product quality and cost reduction; these discussions were more likely with cooperative than competitive goals (Tjosvold and Wang, 1998). Cooperative, open-minded discussions of service problems helped restaurant employees work together to serve their customers (Tjosvold, Moy, and Sasaki, 1996). Conflicts over scarce resources have been thought particularly divisive. However, an open-minded discussion helped Hong Kong accountants and managers resolve budget issues, strengthen their relationships, and improve budget quality so that limited financial resources were used wisely (Poon, Pike, and Tjosvold, 2001). These discussions were much more likely with cooperative than competitive goals.

  Constructive controversy can be useful for Chinese people to deal with both task and emotional issues. Over one hundred teams working in Chinese organizations that discussed issues open-mindedly were able to deal with biases and took risks effectively (Tjosvold and Yu, 2007). These risk-taking groups were able both to innovate and recover from their mistakes. Constructive controversy also helped managers and employees in Hong Kong and the Chinese mainland express and handle their anger productively (Tjosvold, 2002; Tjosvold and Su, 2007).

  Earlier studies found that cooperative goals and constructive controversy were useful for Singaporean Chinese managers and employees to resolve issues and work productively together (Tjosvold and Chia, 1989; Tjosvold and Tsao, 1989). Findings also demonstrated that student groups that have cooperative goals have more open-minded and more productive discussion of diverse ideas than those with competitive and independent goals (G. Chen and Tjosvold, 2002a; Tjosvold, Wong, Nibler, and Pounder, 2002).

  Cooperative approaches to managing conflict, evid
ence suggests, are typically more productive for getting things done as well as developing relationships compared to competitive and avoiding approaches to conflict. Cooperative conflict was found to help one hundred work teams in Shanghai, China, reflect on their work effectively so that they could adjust and strengthen their procedures (Tjosvold, Yu, and Hui, 2004). Teams that rated themselves as high on cooperative conflict and reflexivity were productive and good organizational citizens as rated by their managers. Cooperative conflict was found to develop a sense of fairness in teams that helped them be productive (G. Chen and Tjosvold, 2002b). Work teams in China that worked cooperatively strengthened their confidence in their relationships, and this confidence in turn predicted team innovation (Wong, and Tjosvold, 2009).

  Cooperative conflict management may be an important contributor to effective top management teams in China. Executives from 105 high-technology firms around Beijing who indicated that they relied on cooperative rather than competitive or avoiding conflict were rated by their CEOs as effective and their organizations as innovative (Chen, Liu, and Tjosvold, 2005).

  Cooperative Conflict between Organizations in Chinese Society

  Research has documented support for Deutsch’s theorizing that the theory applies at the intergroup as well as the interpersonal level (Hempel, Zhang, and Tjosvold, 2009). Indeed, studies have used the theory to document that cooperative conflict management is useful for facilitating coordination among supply chain partners (Tjosvold, Wong, and Chen, 2005; Wong et al., 2010; Wong, Tjosvold, and Zhang, 2005a; Wong, Tjosvold, Wong, and Liu, 1999a, 1999b) and among competitors in the marketplace (Wong, Tjosvold, and Yu, 2005; Wong, Tjosvold, and Zhang, 2005b; Wong, Wei, and Tjosvold, 2011). Hong Kong, Korean, Taiwanese, and Japanese building contractors used cooperative conflict, but not competitive or avoiding conflict, to work successfully with their subcontractors (Tjosvold Cho, Park, Liu, Liu, and Sasaki, 2001). Studies indicate that cooperative conflict management promotes the effectiveness of partnerships between government officials and business managers (Tjosvold, Peng, Chen, and Su, 2008; Wong and Tjosvold, 2010). In addition to promoting teamwork and leadership, developing cooperative relationships and discussing conflicts for mutual benefit very much contribute to an effective functioning market economy and society.

  CROSS-CULTURAL STUDIES

  A few studies have directly suggested that the theory is useful in cross-cultural settings (Chen et al., 2010). Hong Kong senior accounting managers were found to be able to lead employees working on the mainland of China when they had cooperative goals but not when their goals were competitive or independent (Tjosvold and Moy, 1998). They were then able to discuss their views openly, which led to stronger relationships and productivity, consequences that resulted in future internal motivation.

  Chinese employees described specific examples of when they worked with their American or Japanese managers (Chen et al., 2005a). Results indicated that cooperative goals contributed to an open discussion of views that led to productive collaborative work and strengthened relationships. Managers in the Hong Kong parent company and new product specialists in Canada who developed cooperative links and engaged in constructive controversy were able to develop strong, trusting relationships despite their cultural differences and geographic separation (Tjosvold, 1999). Cooperative, constructive controversy interactions were also found critical for Chinese staff to work productively and develop relationships with Japanese managers, outcomes that built commitment to their Japanese companies (Tjosvold, Sasaki, and Moy, 1998). Cooperative conflict was found to help Chinese employees develop effective relationships with their Western managers (Chen, Tjosvold, and Su, 2005b).

  More than two hundred Chinese employees from various industries in Beijing, Shanghai, Fujian, and Shandong indicated that cooperative, but not competitive or independent, goals helped them and their foreign managers develop a quality leader-member exchange relationship and improve leader effectiveness, employee commitment, and future collaboration (Chen and Tjosvold, in press). Cooperative interdependence and open discussion of opposing views appear to be important for overcoming obstacles and developing an effective leader relationship within and across cultural boundaries (Tjosvold and Moy, 1998).

  Field and experimental studies in North America and Asia provide strong internal and external validity to central hypotheses of cooperative and competitive approaches to conflict. Whether protagonists emphasize cooperative or competitive goals dramatically affects the dynamics and outcomes of their conflict management. Contradicting cultural stereotypes, Chinese participants appear to appreciate others who speak their minds directly and cooperatively.

  CHINESE VALUES FOR CONFLICT MANAGEMENT IN CHINA

  Chinese people have traditionally been characterized as conflict avoiders because as collectivists, they do not want to risk their relationships with open disagreement. However, as the previous section suggests, Chinese people are able to use cooperative goals as a basis for discussing their ideas openly and productively. This section reviews research that directly examines how values can affect conflict management. It argues that collectivist-valuing relationships are not an impediment to effective conflict management, and indeed, as the studies reviewed already indicate, cooperative relationships are a foundation for open, constructive conflict.

  Leung and his colleagues (Leung, Koch, and Lu, 2002; Leung, Brew, Zhang, and Zhang, 2011) have proposed that harmony has two distinct motives in Chinese society. Disintegration avoidance is instrumental in nature in that maintenance of harmony is a means to other ends. With this motive, people avoid conflict as a way to further their self-interests and avoid potential interpersonal problems. Harmony, though, can also refer to the desire to engage in behaviors that strengthen relationships, a motive called harmony enhancement. This motivation represents a genuine concern for harmony as a value in and of itself and involves feelings of intimacy, closeness, trust, and compatible and mutually beneficial behaviors. Leung et al. (2011) found that this harmony value, which has a long tradition in the collectivist Chinese culture, is related to problem solving in conflict management, whereas disintegration avoidance is related to conflict avoidance. Some collectivist values in Chinese societies are conducive to open conflict management.

  Consistent with Leung’s argument, a study of 194 teams in three regions of China suggests the positive role of collectivist values on conflict (Tjosvold, Law, and Sun, 2003). Teams that had developed collectivist rather than individualistic values were found to have cooperative goals. The analysis also indicated that these cooperative goals helped the teams discuss their opposing views openly and constructively; the result was strong relationships and productivity as rated by their managers.

  A recent experiment supported the causal relationships that collectivist values heighten cooperative goals and open-minded controversy. Chinese protagonists with opposing views in organizations that valued collectivism, compared to individualism, were found to feel cooperatively interdependent (Tjosvold and Wu, 2005). They were also confident that they could work together and make decisions, sought to understand the opposing position by asking questions, demonstrated that they understood the opposing arguments, accepted these arguments as reasonable, and combined positions to create an integrated decision.

  Additional experimental studies indicate that social face concerns, when expressed by confirming the face of protagonists, can promote cooperative conflict in China (Tjosvold, Hui, and Sun, 2000; Tjosvold and Sun, 2001). Emphasizing their cooperative goals, protagonists demonstrated more curiosity in that they explored the opposing views and were interested in hearing more of the others’ arguments. Protagonists whose face was confirmed, compared to those affronted, were prepared to pressure the others, and when they also disagreed, they experienced more collaborative influence. They also indicated that they learned in the discussion, considered the opposing views useful, and worked to integrate and accept them. Studies also indicate that confirmation of social face helped Chinese peop
le discuss their frustrations cooperatively and productively (Peng and Tjosvold, 2011; Tjosvold, Hui, Ding, and Hu, 2002).

  Chinese people have been theorized to avoid conflict because they assume that conflict requires coercion and they prefer persuasion. However, conflict can give rise to either persuasion or coercion. Persuasive influence was found to result in feelings of respect, cooperative relationships, and openness to others and their positions (Tjosvold and Sun, 2001). Persuasion compared to coercion helped discussants seek mutual benefit, listen to each other openly, integrate their reasoning, and strengthen their relationship.

  Chinese culture has been characterized as a high-context society where implicit communication is influential (Gudykunst, Ting-Toomey, and Chua, 1988). Conflict is avoided because open conflict communicates interpersonal hostility. However, nonverbal communication can help develop a cooperative context for conflict discussion. Expressing warmth compared to coldness developed a cooperative, mutually beneficial relationship with the opposing discussant (Tjosvold and Sun, 2003). Protagonists who experienced warmth incorporated the opposing view and reasoning into their decision and thinking and were confident they could work with the others in the future.

  Chinese values are not only compatible with cooperative goals and constructive controversy; they can be a valuable foundation for them. Feeling collective, endorsing harmony enhancement rather than disintegration avoidance, being sensitive to social face and in particular confirming social face, using persuasive influence attempts, and expressing interpersonal warmth have been found to help Chinese managers, employees, and partners deal with their differences openly and productively.