Межкультурные конфликты в организационном общении бакалавриата

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Intercultural conflicts in organisational communication bachelor's thesis

Introduction

The latest wave of globalisation has created remarkable cross-border opportunities for people and has made the possibility to work abroad much easier. Culture plays a vital role in the context of international organisational environment. The workforce, nowadays, is progressively diverse and multicultural. Regardless of all the advantages that can be acquired, having multicultural teams can result in experiencing challenges that are as unique as they are complex to resolve. Thus, culture is a plausible source of conflict in an organisational environment which is composed of employees from different nations; therefore, effective intercultural communication in today's workplaces has become pivotal in the professional success and in achieving strategic goals.

What is more, it is common knowledge that in any organisation conflicts can arise over various matters and inevitably affect the working dynamic, so they should be adequately managed. Conflict resolution is a complicated process as it is; however, when it involves cultural peculiarities, it becomes even more challenging. Hence, in order to achieve positive outcomes from the conflict situation, workers should recognise the type of conflict and how to effectively resolve it.

The management of conflicts in general, as well as intercultural conflicts, within organisations has been a topic of discussion for decades; nevertheless, although various theoretical and empirical studies on workplace conflicts have been published, most of the literature has been focused on the situation in North American organisations. In this paper we examine conflicts that can arise in Russian organisations based on the example of The National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE University). To do so we elaborated the research done by other scholars who described the essence of conflict situations, intercultural conflicts and organisational environment and communication. (Lewicki, Weiss, and Lewin, 1992; Avruch, 2002; Axley, 1984; Smith and Turner, 1995)

This research aims at determining the reasons for intercultural conflicts appearing in organisational communication and the ways of effectively managing them. In order to achieve this aim we used the method of theoretical analysis, along with creating a survey for three international professors of HSE in Moscow to identify the main reasons for conflicts in the organisation and discover their behaviour and attitude in these situations.

The research questions of this study are the following:

1. conduct a theoretical analysis of scientific publications on the notion of conflict;

2. define intercultural organisational conflict as a type of conflict occurring in organisational context with emphasis on academic environment;

3. investigate sources and types of intercultural organisational conflicts.

The outcome of this research is a description of organisational environment and of conflict types and sources that may arise in this environment.

Research on intercultural conflicts and organisational communication has been thoroughly done by a number of scholars; however, in the majority of cases these two notions have been examined separately without being explored in conjunction while taking into consideration intercultural element. In our paper we research intercultural conflicts in organisational communication to create the basis for analysis of these particular components. We believe that our analysis may pave the way for more empirical and theoretical research on intercultural conflict resolution in organisational communication.

1.Chapter one: theoretical framework

1.1 The Main Concepts of Conflict Theory

intercultural conflict publication

Firstly, we will start by defining the term “conflict”. There are several explanations of this notion. Physiologists define conflict as a state of interaction between two or more individuals whose goals and behaviours are to some degree incompatible with each other (Tedeschiet et al, 1973).

In the field of conflict management, R.A. Baron notes that conflict arises when a certain intensity level is exceeded in an argument and that level may vary from entity to entity (Baron, 1990).

Researchers further expand the definition by proposing that conflict is a process of interaction which is reflected in incompatibility, dispute, or disparity between or within social entities (Rahim, 2001). In the workplace conflict can be defined as a state between or among employees whose work is interdependent, who feel frustrated, view others as being at fault, and behave in such ways that can be sources of business problems (Dana, 2001).

Overall, conflict can be defined as a contest or clash between individuals with antagonistic needs, values, beliefs, ideas, or objectives (Diez et al, 2006).

What is more, within wide-ranging and comprehensive research on conflict, at least six major approaches can be found that subsume several theories and models. Three of them arise from academic disciplines. The micro-level (psychological) approach has focused on conflict within and among human beings as individuals, particularly on changes in interpersonal, intrapersonal and small group behaviour which can influence conflict sources, process and consequences (Nye, 1973). The macro-level (sociological) approach has concentrated on groups, departments, divisions and even the whole organisations as components of analysis for comprehending the source of conflict (March and Simon, 1958; Pondy, 1967). Scholars have also described the functional and dysfunctional aspects of social conflict among with the conflict analysis at the societal level (Coser, 1956; Dahrendorf, 1959; Marx, 1906). The third approach has applied economic analysis, employing models of economic rationality to decision-making of one person, as well as to compound social behaviour (Luce and Raiffa, 1957).

The other three approaches originate in distinct problem area applications. The labor relations approach emerged from a curiosity in comprehending and affecting the American industrial relations practice. T. Kochan and A. Verma have pointed out that industrial relations study has kept an understandable and logical series of assumptions about the type and function of conflict in organisations around problems connected to perseverance and management of the employment relationship (Kochan and Verma, 1983). The bargaining and negation approach stems from regular usage of these two processes in labor relations and international relations. Scholars in these fields listed a number of principles for effective negotiations in these areas (Chamberlain and Kuhn, 1965; Ikle, 1964). The last approach, third party dispute resolution, was prompted by attention to more efficient resolution of labor and international arguments, and highlights the interference of the external parties to manage the conflict and improve the negotiation process (Jackson, 1952). Early research concentrated on third party style and efficiency in arbitration (Kagel, 1961), mediation (Stevens, 1963) and process consultation (Walton, 1969), whereas more modern approaches have consolidated the intervention of third party in greater understanding of the sources and processes of conflict itself (Sheppard, 1984).

1.2 Organisational and Interpersonal Conflicts

Conflict in Organisation

In our research we examine conflict in a specific context - organisational communication, thus, it is crucial to characterise the particularities of this environment. The research on organisational communication is as eclectic as the works on conflict; nevertheless, there are two main approaches to characterising the connection between communicating and organising. The first approach, the container approach, suggests that organisations and communication exist independently and organisations perform as containers that have an impact on communication behaviour (Axley, 1984). The social constructionist approach considers that organisations are formed and shaped by communication (Smith and Turner, 1995). Thus, organisational communication can be defined differently depending on the view of the connection between organisation and communication. According to the first approach, organisational communication can be described as the process of communicating the message through a certain channel to a receiver. In the second approach organisational communication can be outlined as the way language is employed to built various types of social structures, for instance, relationships, teams, and networks. The former explanation highlights the limitations that are put on communication considering organisation structures that existed before and the latter definition emphasises the creative ability of communication to compose new opportunities for organising.

Scholars believe that intercultural research began from organisational research, that is why organisational environment receives attention as a specific field in intercultural investigation (Friedman and Berthoin, 2005). From this theory researchers pointed out that culture plays a pivotal role in organisations, hence the notion of corporate culture started to appear. The concept of culture in management research got accentuated. It became common knowledge that individuals in intercultural contact cannot detect cultural peculiarities of values and knowledge that underline their communication. Thus, these differences can lead to misunderstandings and conflicts. Nevertheless, Szkudlarek (2009) highlights that practical intercultural guidance which is employed in organisational context rarely changes people's understanding into more culturally sensitive.

Another challenge is how to distinguish organisational communication from non-organisational, as it is hard to detect structural differences between these two types. However, organisational communication can be characterised as more goal-oriented than non-organisational communication. Still, linguists may illustrate that no matter what the form of communication is, it always follows basic strategic aims and, thus, it cannot be considered as a unique feature of organisations.

In organisational communication conflicts will emerge regardless of any circumstances, but the way these conflicts are managed will determine the conflicts' outcomes. Successful conflict management demands an identification of the sources that cause a conflict. Having appropriate skills in conflict management becomes essential. Efficient conflict management demands an awareness of the levels of conflict, types, and sources that provoke a conflict situation.

Conflict situations in teams in organisations arise in at least two fundamental forms - substantive and emotional (Hellriegel, Slocum Jr, Woodman, 1989). Substantive conflict is a significant dispute over ends or goals that should be pursued and the means by which they will be accomplished. A disagreement with a superior or other team member over a plan of action, like a marketing strategy to promote a new product, can be considered as an example of substantive conflict. When employees work together every day, it is natural for different points of view on a various of substantive organisational issues to arise. Occasionally people can disagree over team and organisation goal, policies, procedures, task responsibilities, and so on. Emotional conflict includes difficulties between people that appear from feelings of anger, fear, dislike, mistrust, etc. This type of conflict is generally known as a “clash of personalities”. Emotional conflicts take a lot of energy and divert attention from task priorities and goals. Nonetheless, they arise in various circumstances and are frequent in teams.

Scholars also identify four levels of conflict which are intrapersonal (within an individual), interpersonal (between individuals), intergroup (between groups), and interorganisational (within organisations) (Hellriegel, Slocum Jr, Woodman, 1989). We will concentrate on the first two levels, as in our study we examine conflict situations that may arise between individuals in an organisation, and conflicts within an individual can also affect relationships with others.

Intrapersonal conflicts occur within the individual due to actual or anticipated pressures from inconsistent goals or expectations. Three main types can be distinguished. First, approach-approach conflict which arises when an individual has to make a choice between two beneficial and equally appealing alternatives. For instance, a person must choose between getting promoted in the organisation or getting an attractive new job in another workplace. Second, avoidance-avoidance conflict that emerges when an individual has to make a choice between two unfavourable and equally unappealing alternatives. For example, choosing between accepting to transfer to another undesirable location or quitting the job. Finally, approach-avoidance conflict which occurs when an individual has to make a decision to do something that has both positive and negative outcomes. For instance, being offered a new position with higher salary, but at the same time this job is more time consuming and has more responsibilities.

Interpersonal conflicts arise between two or more people opposing one another. It can be substantive, emotional, or both. Two individuals arguing with each other over hiring a particular job candidate is an instance of a substantive interpersonal conflict. Two people constantly quarrelling over each other's choice of work clothing is an instance of an emotional interpersonal conflict. Researchers also outline four main reasons for interpersonal conflicts to emerge in organisations (Luthans, 1998). The first reason is personality differences. Every person has a particular background as everyone has different upbringing, cultural and family values, and socialisation methods. As a result of not having identical background, education, traditions, and norms, this diversity may become one of the main sources of conflict situations. Arguments arising from these kinds of differences most of the time turn out to be very emotional and acquire moral implications. An argument over who is factually more accurate quickly becomes an intense dispute about who is morally correct. The second reason is information deficiency. This conflict source stems from breakdown of communication in the organisation. It can be that the two individuals in the conflict have different information or that one or both are misinformed. In comparison to personal differences this conflict source is not emotionally charged and once corrected, there is not much of animosity. The next source is role incompatibility. Nowadays, in horizontal organisations managers have responsibilities and assignments which are deeply interdependent. Nevertheless, the unique tasks of these managers can be incompatible. For instance, the production and the sales managers have interdependent roles: they both support each other. Yet the main job of the production manager is to reduce costs, and one method to do this is to maintain inventories low. Contrarily, the sales manager has to increase revenues by means of increasing sales. The sales manager can promise to customers certain delivery conditions that contradict the low levels of inventory kept by production. The emerged conflict from role incompatibility might have to be dealt with by higher superiors. The last reason for interpersonal conflict to occur is environmental stress. These types of conflict situations may be magnified by stressful settings. In environment that can be characterised by scarce resources, high turnover rate, pressure from competition, or high uncertainty degree, conflict of various types will be more likely to happen. For example, if two skilled and capable employees have the ability to get a superior position in the organisation but there is only one available, interpersonal conflict can evolve to a level that cannot be managed or controlled.

In addition to this categorisation of levels of conflict, other scholars distinguish one more level which is intra-organisational conflict (Kadam, Patel, Dhenge, Murai, 2018). This type of conflict situation arises within the organisation between different levels in the company. Three main types of intra-organisational conflict can be noted: (1) vertical conflict; (2) horizontal conflict; (3) line-staff conflict. Even though these types can overlap each one of them has unique features. Vertical conflict involves any disagreement between levels in the organisation, for instance, conflict between superior and subordinate. Horizontal conflict involves an argument between employees which are at the same hierarchical level in the organisation. Line-staff conflict involves arguments between line managers/departments and staff managers/departments, for example, a conflict between marketing manager (line employee) and accounting manager (staff employee).

While acknowledging sources of conflicts, it is crucial to point out the classification by D. Katz of conflict sources, which is: (1) structural conflict - conflict that arises from the necessity to control the inter-dependence between various organisational sub-units; (2) role conflict - conflict which emerges from sets of predetermined behaviour; (3) resources conflict - conflict arising out of groups going up against each other for organisational resources (Katz, 1964). S.P. Robbins also recognises three sources of organisational conflict. They are as follows: (1) communicational - conflicts which arise from ineffective communication that leads to misunderstandings; (2) structural - conflicts that are connected to roles in the organisation; (3) personal - conflicts that emerge from the differences of individuals (Robbins, 1974). It is important to remember that methods of conflict management that are applicable to a conflict created from one source may not be appropriate in another case.

It is common knowledge that in organisations conflict situations can be disturbing not only to the person who is directly involved, but also to people who get influenced by its occurrence. It may be rather uncomfortable, for instance, to operate in hostile atmosphere where other co-workers are constantly arguing with each other or different teams are fighting for their superior's attention. Nevertheless, conflicts can be both functional, having constructive side and dysfunctional, having destructive side (Hellriegel, Slocum Jr, Woodman, 1989).

Functional conflict, also known as constructive conflict, generates benefits to employees, the team, and the whole organisation. Considering positive side, conflict situations can reveal critical problems so they can be dealt with quicker and more effective. Conflict makes decisions to be thought-out cautiously and maybe revised to make sure that the correct path of action is being adopted. What is more, it may expand the amount of information applied to make any decisions. Conflict can also create space for creativity that has the ability to develop performance.

Dysfunctional conflict, also called destructive conflict, damages the performance of individuals and the team. Such conflicts redirect energies, harm group union, encourage interpersonal hostilities, and just in general build a negative atmosphere for employees. This type of conflict rises, for instance, when two members of a team cannot work alongside as they have some interpersonal differences - a destructive emotional conflict - or when individuals are unsuccessful in operating as they fail to agree on the goals of the given task - a destructive substantive conflict. Dysfunctional conflict situations can deteriorate job satisfaction and lead to absenteeism and job turnover. Managers and team leaders have to pay close attention to such conflicts and act quickly to make sure they are prevented or resolved, or at least any harm is reduced.

The techniques and methods for analysing, preventing and resolving conflict situations at all levels can be applied from conflictology.

Conflictology can be defined as the process of recognising conflicts considering all related spheres, like conflict resolution, transformation and management, and at the same time basing all the theories on non-violence principle (Vinyamata, 2010). By the help of conflictology it becomes possible to understand conflicts, crises, violence of any kind, and, concurrently, the compilation of transformation, intervention and support methods, resources, and procedures.

To prevent or resolve a conflict it is crucial to know about conflict management and its techniques. Ways to manage organisational conflicts are as diverse as its sources, roots and circumstances. The goal of conflict management is to influence the whole components of a conflict situation to ensure the containment of the destructive elements in the conflict process, such as hostility, verbal aggression and so on, and assist the parties in finding the right solution to their conflict. Effective conflict management benefits in reducing division in the team and coming up with a solution that satisfies everyone and would be accepted by every member.

All organisations, no matter how simple or complex they are, have a selection of methods or processes for managing conflict situations. They are engraved in the organisational structure and are studiously applied by managers to affect the progress and outcome of a conflict.

We would like to focus in more detail on managing one type of conflict situation- interpersonal conflict, as it is the most common type occurring in organisations.

Managing Interpersonal Conflicts

Interactions between individuals are extremely complicated. People are unified and maintained together because of personal appeal or reciprocal relationship from which both sides can gain benefits. In organisations all positions are interlinked or dependent on each other so the perspectives and behaviour of one person impact the perspectives and behaviour of another. Organisations can be described as systems of constant, complementary and expected communications between people (Argyle, 1972).

Even though individuals in organisations communicate in a comparatively regular way with a stable-cooperative dimension - norms that are developed to guarantee balanced interactions, interpersonal conflicts are a fundamental part of organisational life. To prevent damaging impact on people as well as on organisational operations, managers have to recognise the sources of interpersonal conflict and act appropriately to handle it.

R.R. Blake and J.S. Mouton described five models of conflict management: withdrawal, smoothing, compromise, forcing and problem-solving. Withdrawal is an effort to handle the conflict by avoidance. Smoothing emphasises shared, organisational interests and giving in by one or both parties. Compromise is a model of managing conflict by anticipating each person to yield something. Forcing appears when the conflict is handled in a way that makes one person to comply. Problem-solving is used to gain joined collaboration and unifying decision-making between people (Blake and Mouton, 1964).

Of these five methods of conflict management only problem-solving method emphasises the attitudinal, situational and behavioural elements of conflict. It is not directed at almost mechanical, unthinking reactions, but at utilising higher mental processes to attain an exceptional, integrative and fulfilling result (Maier, 1970).

Problem-solving method is not commonly used when dealing with conflict situations. There should be particular conditions to realise problem-solving method. The conditions are as follows (Filley, 1975):

1. situational requirements - familiarity and the degree of how flexible the interactions are, no time pressures, power equality, etc.;

2. attitudinal requirements - trust and faith in each other, expectation for the conflict being resolved by coming up with the resolution, rather than by avoiding it;

3. perceptual requirements - employees do not feel threatened and do not have to win and dominate others;

4. behavioural requirements - individuals have free access to information, defined issues, they have opportunity to discuss alternatives and thoroughly explore solutions.

When these requirements or a few of them are absent, parties from outside of the organisation to within it have to intervene to propose the conditions that suite problem-solving method. The interference of a behavioural consultant, for example, may help to accomplish this goal.

Consultation-based approaches to managing interpersonal conflicts concentrate on comprehension of psychological and operational environment of a person, using behavioural researchers in a supportive-conducive fashion and encouraging to establish problem-solving (Walton, 1969). Interventions of behavioural consultants can happen by providing theoretical contribution, for instance, offering concepts about conflict, by presenting content observation, for example, pointing out different interpretations of outcomes, and by suggesting process observation, for instance, boosting constructive communication with the help of openness and integration of forces. Such consultants provide people with freedom and encouragement to give up inflexible behaviour. They devote their attention to the attitudinal and behavioural dimensions of communication and to joining assignments and socio-emotional exercises, so that they are able to illustrate and facilitate the establishment of the problem-solving requirements.

Methods of intervention in interpersonal conflict involve perceptual, informational and interactional processes (Schein, 1969). Perceptual procedures include (1) identification of conflict issues, (2) description of alternative issues, (3) “reality-testing”. Informational procedures include (1) clarification of issues, (2) encouragement and collection of information (by the means of interviews, meetings, etc.), (3) increment of interactions, their openness and precision. Interactional procedures include (1) regulation of the interaction pace, (2) proposition of observation of processes to support people in being more efficient, (3) contribution in concepts, models or principles that can be helpful in recognition of a conflict, (4) assistance in designing steps which can be applied in conflict resolution.

M. A. Rahim emphasises that management scholars agree that one best approach to making decisions, leading and managing conflict does not exists. Researcher developed a meta-model for conflict management styles, rather than designing a very distinctive model, which is based on two dimensions - concern for self and concern for others (Rahim, 2002).

Within this framework five approaches to conflict management can be found: integrating, obliging, dominating, avoiding, and compromising (Rahim, 2002). Integration includes openness, exchange of information, search for alternatives, and examination of differences to eventually solve the issues so both parties will be satisfied by the end. Obliging is an attempt to reduce the differences and accentuate the common characteristics to please the unease of the other party. In dominating approach one party strives to win their objectives without taking into consideration the needs of the other party. In avoiding style one party is unsuccessful at satisfying their own needs as well as the needs of the other party. Finally, compromising implicates give-and-take approach in which both parties give something up to come up with a decision that will satisfy both of them.

Scholars K.W. Thomas and R.H. Kilmann have also created a model that they named Thomas-Kilmann model, which implies five principles guiding people through conflict situation: competing, accommodating, avoiding, compromising, and collaborating. Competing includes one party holding to their rights and fighting for what they believe is true. Accommodating involves giving in to the other party's viewpoint. Collaborating means both parties agreeing to cooperate and listen to each other. In compromising approach both sides are looking for a solution which is in the middle ground and satisfies both of them. By avoiding both parties delay searching for a solution or avoid it altogether. This approach is quite unassertive and uncooperative (Thomas and Kilmann, 1974).

1.3 Culture and Conflict: Correlation and Models to Confront

The latest wave of globalisation has created remarkable cross-border opportunities for people and has made the possibility to work abroad much easier. Culture plays a vital role in this international organisational environment. The workforce, nowadays, is progressively diverse and multicultural, thus it is crucial to concentrate on how team members that have various cultural backgrounds are able to successfully interact with each other and improve team dynamics.

The concept of culture is very complicated as the notion can be observed from the perspectives of variety of scholars. Some researchers explain culture as the ways that have certain patterns, in which individuals think, feel and respond to different situations, and behaviours which are acquired and contributed to people by the application of symbols and artefacts (Earley, Ang, Tan, 2006).

People and society have particular aspects that permeate their culture with a high level of centrality. The aspects that can be considered as cultural indicators are religion, shared historical background, ethnicity, and language. Other features will also impact culture but to a lesser extent, for instance, geographical belonging, occupation, age, and gender. Even more minor aspects of culture can involve music and art preferences, etiquette and so on. These minor cultural elements are observed as more contextual than the principal elements that are more likely to considerably shape perception and behaviour.

Overall, the concept of culture is viewed as a complex of elements which are diverse in nature and centrality. Although culture is multi-layered and the importance of its aspects varies according to the context, several crucial cultural characteristics can be highlighted (Plessis, 2012):

1. culture is a principal component of the human experience that has an impact on every social relationship;

2. culture influences behaviour, drawing behavioural patterns which are challenging to break;

3. culture composed of an organised system of values, beliefs, attitudes, and meanings that ingrained in an environmental context.

What is more, culture is strongly connected to person's identity. Hence, identity is deeply linked to cultural norms and identities of a group and can be characterised as “the norms, beliefs, practices, and traditions with which one engages one's environment” (Seymour, 2003). The organisational environment in the 21st-century vary from that of a more traditional organisation as it is distinctly competitive and frequently has to get adapted to the needs of external environment.

In teams identity of an individual is built by their association with or social belonging to people, groups, and organisations inside a particular environment and is consequently an outcome of in-group and out-group actions which can be described by occupation, status, socialisation, gender, religion, race, language, lifestyle, social behaviour, and societal class, etc. (Lamont and Molnaмr, 2002). This indicates that a group member may have multiple identities, and in a multicultural group the multiple identities, also can be called multiple cultures, have to coexist. Depending on the organisational context, the degree of importance of multiple identities can change.

Therefore, multiple identities present, on the one hand, positive effects; however, on the other hand, they establish grounds for negative outcomes.

A number of benefits of cultural diversity in organisational teams can be listed (Matveev and Nelson, 2004):

1. Diversity in teams brings mixture of perspectives, abilities and personal features;

2. Culturally diverse teams produce higher quality approaches in brainstorming activities;

3. Combining the energy and synergy of representatives of different cultures that work together may introduce more creative ideas to solving problems and challenges which the team has faced;

4. Communication among members of intercultural team prompts the establishment of emerging team culture. As in multicultural teams a few commonalities can be found among the members, they create and lean on a team culture which consists of clarified rules, performance expectations and member perceptions;

However, it is vital to remember about a few negative outcomes as well (Matveev and Nelson, 2004):

1. Members of multicultural teams have diverse understanding of the environment that can lead to a negative influence on social coherence of the team. Members of intercultural teams have varied perceptions, motives and objectives, norms in communication, stereotypes, and prejudices. Such differences can manifest in decreased team performance because of obstructed social cohesion;

2. Differences in cultural background of team members can lead to misunderstandings as they have varied interpretation and responses to the same team issues and tasks. This, in turn, can cause intercultural conflicts.

The management of intercultural conflict in organisations is complicated and challenging. Ting-Toomey and Oetzel described intercultural conflict as the implicit or explicit emotional clash between individuals of varied cultural background over cultural incompatibility of ideologies, values, norms, objectives, face orientations, scarce resources, styles/procedures, and outcomes in a face-to-face context within a sociohistorical fixed system (Ting-Toomey and Oetzel, 2013).

From the definition it can be determined that intercultural conflict situation can arise at the microlevel of a work team or at the macrolevel in an international environment, with effects that range from emotional stress and negative attitudes to behavioural disruptions and task intervention. Intercultural conflicts are wide-ranging in multicultural organisations. Looking at it from the point of view of socially conducted occurrence, three theories have been established which are the main methods correlated to intercultural conflict: social identify theory (Tajfel, 2010), social comparison theory (Festinger, 1954), and similarity attraction theory (Baskett, 1973).

The social identity theory presupposes that when an individual belongs to a particular group, they get provided with a source for their social identity, with which people enrich a sense of belonging or fitting in the group. The theory claims that individuals generally compare “us” to “them” and generate differences between in-group and out-group (Tajfel, 2010). According to the social identity theory, people are inclined to search for similarities in order to form in-groups and recognise opposing cultural characteristics to eliminate out-groups. Members of an in-group are likely to doubt and discriminate members of out-group with negatively stereotyping and forming a bias in favour of one's own group. This theory clarifies why in organisations people prefer to interact with members of their own cultural group, particularly in an informal setting, and this preference is true not only to the minority members of the group but to the majority as well.

Similarly, the social comparison theory concludes that people have a tendency to make a comparison between their own abilities and opinion and those they believe are similar with an aim to obtain precise self-evaluation. Continuously looking at oneself from the point of view of others produces the feeling of inclusion and exclusion on the communication with each other, which is one more point that can explain intercultural organisational conflicts (Festinger, 1954).

The similarity attraction theory points out that individuals are attracted to people who have similarities with them in behaviours, values, and beliefs as similar individuals tend to have opinions and views of the world which assist in validating their own (Baskett, 1973). This theory sheds light on the reason why individuals in organisational environment feel the need to belong to a group on the ground of similar cultural backgrounds in which they get a feeling of acceptance and safety. People see interactions with individuals who are similar to them as a source of social reinforcement. However, this phenomenon produces a bias attitude toward members of other cultural groups and promotes disconnection and conflict.

These three theories describe why individuals come up with social categories and form in-groups and out-groups which can impact organisational relationships and provoke intercultural conflict.

In addition to the above mentioned theories, there is another common theoretical approach to comprehension of intercultural conflict which is G. Hofstede's cultural dimension theory that explains how culture may affect attitudes, behaviours, and communication styles of individuals. This theory correlates intercultural conflicts in diverse organisations to dimensions of cultural variability and presents a framework with the help of which it would be possible to understand the reason why differences in cultures exist and how conflict situations occur from these cultural differences.

The research of cultures resulted in four main cultural dimensions, which are individualism versus collectivism, masculinity versus femininity, large-power-distance versus small-power-distance, high-uncertainty-avoidance versus low-uncertainty-avoidance (Hofstede, Hofstede J., Minkov, 2010).

In individualist cultures people focus on their individual objectives, whereas in collectivist cultures people concentrate on the belonging to a group and its goals, with the emphasis on harmony and community. Employees in an individualist culture suppose to act in accordance with their own interests, and work has to be arranged in such way that the individual's interest and the interest of the employer coincide. In a collectivist culture an employer does not recruit just an individual, but a person who will fit in an in-group. The employee should act in accordance with this in-group's interests, which may not coincide with their individual interests. Japan, China, and Russia can be considered as examples of collectivist countries, while the United States, Germany, and Ireland, for instance, - individualist nations.

The core values of masculine cultures are achievement and success, while feminine cultures concentrate on care for others and life quality, high performance is not that important. In masculine cultures, such as the United States, England, and Italy, conflicts mostly resolved by a healthy competition. Organisations in such societies emphasise results and reward accomplishments based on equity (to everyone in accordance with performance). In feminine cultures, such as Russia, the Netherlands, and Sweden, conflicts are preferred to be resolved by compromising and negotiating. In the workplace of such society people are rewarded according to equality (to everyone in accordance with need).

Power distance dimension focuses on how members of the culture accept inequality in power distribution. In large-power-distance cultures, such as Russia, Turkey, and Portugal, each individual has a certain social position, whereas in Austria, Germany, and the United States, which are small-power-distance countries, hierarchy does not play a big role and people try to collaborate on various power levels. In large-power-distance cultures dependence of subordinates on bosses exists. In small-power-distance countries subordinates do not depend on their superiors, people in such organisation prefer consultation - interdependence among subordinates and superiors. Employees are welcomed to approach and contradict their supervisors.

Uncertainty avoidance depicts the extent to which individuals feel uncertain and would prefer to avoid unknown situations where ambiguity is present. In strong uncertainty-avoiding cultures, like Italy, Mexico, and Russia, people appreciate rules and security, whereas in weak uncertainty-avoidance cultures individuals are likely to experiment and tent to take risks.

What is more, Stohl and his colleagues highlighted that along with all of mentioned cultural dimensions, there are multilevel processes that play a part in intercultural conflict, which include microlevel variables of a culture like unique rituals, communicative practices, and other various preferences (Stohl et al., 2013). Microlevel variables like this can enlarge cultural differences, aggravate conflicts, and result in particular perceptions of procedures and policies in organisations.

Consequently, to be able to manage intercultural conflicts in diverse teams, it is vital to have a profound comprehension of the multiple levels of culture and cultural identity, the numerous sources of conflict and the organisational environment.

Models to Confront Intercultural Conflicts

Intercultural conflicts can result from various negotiation styles, decision-making processes, or even contradictory views on the ways of resolving conflicts. Nowadays, culture is fundamental part of conflict and conflict resolution.

Effective management has to pay a close attention to the study of cultures which, especially, includes following issues (Suder, 2011):

1. systems of mutual ares;

2. the value of diversity;

3. believes, norms, and values;

4. patterns of symbols.

It is important to remember that for efficient intercultural communication there is a necessity to deal with verbal and non-verbal languages as well in order to find a common language. In addition to verbal information, organisations can be impacted by interpretations of organisational context which consists of interpretation of body and facial expressions, time, space, social patterns, behaviours, attitudes, and how conflicts are handled and agreements are reached.

Moreover, intercultural conflicts can be considered as a vital source of interpersonal awareness, as well as an opportunity for people to increase their understanding of cultural peculiarities. Implementation of comprehensive development of the organisation can decrease intercultural conflict and increase diversity benefits. Scholars highlight five main areas that organisations have to introduce: (1) leadership that has high commitment and efficient communication strategies; (2) investigation for thorough assessment and standards of the organisation; (3) education programmes that will promote awareness and internal expertise; (4) cultural and management systems changes, such as appraisal of the performance, recruitment process, promotion, benefits, and compensation; (5) follow-up actions to evaluate the work and continuously improve (Cox, 1994). In addition to these five ares, a number of frameworks from various disciplines have been emphasised in order to lead organisational practises to confront different types of intercultural conflicts occurring in diverse workforce. These models are briefly described below.

To explain how intercultural conflicts are resolved in organisations, researchers pointed out four types of acculturation processes in organisations which are assimilation, separation, deculturation and pluralism (Cox and Finley-Nickelson, 1991). The goal of the assimilation process is to abolish cultural differences, and it means complete adaptation with new members being obliged to dismiss or suppress the norms and values of their culture. Separation concerns a situation where very little exchange between cultures happens, and new members are unable or reluctant to adapt to the culture of the organisation and become separated from other members. Deculturation arises when members of the outnumbered group have detached themselves from their original group but were unsuccessful at being accepted in the dominant culture. Pluralism regards learning of both sides and the process of adaptation when both new members from different cultural backgrounds and the organisation change to a certain degree to manifest the cultural values and norms of the others. An acculturation process in organisations shows how to mediate intercultural conflict between new members and the dominant group, and it influences if organisations are able to efficiently bring cultural groups in organisations closer to each other.

In order to confront cultural tensions in multicultural workforce, scholars described four efficient strategies of intervention (Brett, Behfar, Kern, 2006): (1) adaptation - openly recognising cultural gaps and making adjustments by the members to accommodate each other. Adaptation functions when members are ready to accept cultural differences and take responsibility to find ways to operate with or around the faced challenges; (2) structural intervention - changing one team to another in order to terminate conflict. Structural intervention is a relocation arranged to eliminate s conflict source when members are influenced by emotional tensions; (3) managerial intervention - from early on establishing rules, norms, or policies or involving a higher level manager. Managerial intervention may be sufficient when the conflict has caused a high level of emotions and the team has gotten into a deadlock; (4) exit - withdrawing a member of the team when there are no other options left. Exit is an extreme measure when a member of the team is unable to adapt to the situation that challenges them and fail to contribute to the team work; however, it is not a common strategy used to manage intercultural conflicts.

In the sphere of intercultural communication, researchers examined patterned reactions to in intercultural conflict in various situations and have described seven conflict management styles: integrating, compromising, dominating, avoiding, neglecting, emotional expression, and third party help (Ting-Toomey et al., 2000).

In order to improve recognition of various ways of acknowledging conflicts, Hammer (2009) created an intercultural conflict style model that demonstrates the four-quadrant model of differences in intercultural conflict styles: discussion, engagement, accommodation, and dynamic. Discussion and engagement styles both follow direct strategies while discussing disagreements; however, the engagement style, unlike the discussion style, illustrates an emotionally expressive attitude. Both accommodation and dynamic styles adopt indirect strategies in communicating about issues, while accommodation style uses an emotionally restrained approach, and dynamic style - emotionally expressive. This model has been efficiently incorporated in the process of mediation when intercultural disputes occur and has been established to be advantageous in resolving intercultural conflicts, making decisions, and improving relations across cultures (Hammer, 2009).

To manage intercultural conflicts, it is important to understand how people perceive and handle cultural differences. In order to comprehend the process of dealing with cultural peculiarities, Bennett (1998) presented the developmental model of intercultural sensitivity (DMIS) that expresses the process of evolution in demeanour and behaviour towards cultural differences. The researcher claimed that the way individuals regard cultural peculiarities forms the development of their intercultural sensitivity, which is the capacity to distinguish and encounter cultural differences. The process of expanding intercultural sensitivity consists of two stages: ethnocentric stage which includes denial, defence, and minimisation, and ethnorelative stage involving acceptance, adaptation, and integration (Bennett, 1998). At the stage of denial individuals are not able to recognise cultural peculiarities at all or continue culturally stereotyping others. At the state of defence individuals perceive cultural differences; however, they are prone to disparage others by negatively stereotyping them while attributing themselves with positive stereotypes. Individuals are at the minimisation stage if they perceive and accept existing cultural differences, but at the same time they suppose that fundamentally all people are alike and just have a tendency to employ their own cultural outlook in order to interpret cultural behaviour. At the ethnorelative stage individuals tend to perceiving, welcoming, and analysing cultural peculiarities; adapting their behaviour to different cultural contexts; and are able to engage in contextual evaluation.

Not long ago literature in business management has drifted from management of diversity to inclusion. To manage intercultural conflicts, it is also crucial to search for methods to engage diverse people in organisation to generate inclusive environment where members of the group feel valued and embraced. Scholars demonstrate an inclusion framework in order to encourage the fact that uniqueness and belongingness can contribute to the creation of the feeling of inclusion, and to minimise cultural clashes and conflicts (Shore et al., 2011). Particularly, the inclusion framework explains inclusion perceptions, which range from exclusion, differentiation, assimilation, and inclusion, and the way they are connected to the feelings of uniqueness and belongingness. According to the researchers, low uniqueness value leads to exclusion and assimilation, while high uniqueness value contributes to differentiation and inclusion. Correspondingly, low belongingness causes exclusion and differentiation, whereas high belongingness leads to assimilation and inclusion. The inclusion framework assists organisational inclusion practices and supports people in avoiding rejection by work groups.