Межкультурные конфликты в организационном общении бакалавриата



2.Chapter two: research design and methodology

2.1 Academic Environment as a Type of Organisational Context

In our paper we regard university as an organisation and examine intercultural conflicts in organisational context, which is in our case is academic environment.

For a long period of time higher education institutions were considered as institutions that have specific complex of rules which are established by the state and academic practices, regulations and norms. In sociology the notion of “institution”, generally, is described as a system of norms and rules with regulating validity that affects social behaviour of people and groups (Esser 2000). What is more, institutions may also be characterised as establishments which are fixed, such as public authorities and family.

A. Pellert (1999) and, more recently, F. Meier (2009) have contributed to the research with detailed evaluation of universities becoming organisations and have made an attempt to outline the reasons why universities should be changed from being regarded as institutions to organisations. The main arguments for this modification are the following:

1. Higher education institutions regulated by the state appear to be not flexible enough to respond fast and efficiently to new requirements and challenges. That is why the state withdrew from detailed directives and control, hence universities were granted with more freedom to make their own decisions and a shift happened from input and process control to output control (management by objectives and results);

2. It became harder for higher education systems to depend purely on funding from the state which resulted in accepting other possible sources of funding;

3. The need for distinguishing institutional profiles and the increasing competition provoked institutional differentiation that must be managed by the universities themselves (branding, marketing, vision and mission statements, position in rankings, etc.);

The change for universities to becoming organisations resulted in more independence and qualified leadership (Kehm, 2013). From an economic point of view organisations are groups of individuals that have the same goal. Organisation's members either act in accordance with the rules of that organisation or they terminate their belonging to it. Moreover, organisations, compared to institutions, are more dynamic and have a stronger division of work and hierarchical system.

Typically, universities manifest peculiarities of both institutions and organisations (Kehm, 2013). As institutions universities are societal structures that generate and transmit knowledge, as organisations they are units which comprise teachers, scholars, students, management staff, and leadership that operate together dividing tasks among each other.

In our research we examine the academic environment and conflicts that may occur in the communication in this environment on the example of the National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE University) in Moscow.

The Higher School of Economics is one of the renowned economics and social sciences universities in Eastern Europe and Eurasia. As HSE University has rapidly grown into a prominent research university, it gained international presence and cooperation. In the university, professors and students represent over fifty countries, which makes its academic environment vulnerable to misunderstandings and conflicts. Hence, we have chosen this specific environment in order to analyse its conflict potential and the main sources and outcomes of conflict situations that may arise in it.



2.2 Methodology and Participants

Methodology

In order to meet the goals of our paper, a semi-structured survey was used as a qualitative research method. We created a survey of twenty-three closed-ended and open-ended questions for three international professors that teach at the National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE University) in Moscow (see Appendix A). The respondents are originally from the USA, Italy and China.

The nature of survey method can be defined as providing individuals with questions on a specific topic or topics, and then analysing and outlining their responses (Jackson, 2011). The qualitative type of survey focuses on the direct experiences of human beings and on the establishment of the variety of some topic of interest throughout the given population. This kind of survey demonstrates the meaningful diversity (pertinent dimensions and values) throughout the respondents (Jansen, 2010).

Taking into consideration the goals and the methodological context of our research, we believe that a survey is the most applicable and sufficient method as it enables us to identify the characteristics of our respondents when confronting and dealing with conflicts in organisations. The qualitative method allows examining given issue in depth and get detailed information about a smaller number of participants which results in a deep understanding but diminishes generalisability.

Moreover, a theoretical analysis was conducted in order to obtain all the necessary information about the main concepts of our research, and to create an overview of the cultural peculiarities of the USA, Italy, and China.

Participants

The respondents of the survey that we have created are three international professors that teach at the National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE University) in Moscow. All of them have different cultural backgrounds: they are originally from the USA, Italy and China. Nevertheless, they have common input data: the participants started teaching in Russia on the same year, 2018, they work at the same university, HSE University, on the same educational programme, “Foreign Languages and Intercultural Communication”. We have chosen representatives of different cultures in order to have various perspectives on conflicts and, as our paper is devoted to intercultural conflicts, having participants who have different cultural backgrounds, helps to notice the distinction between attitudes and behaviours of representatives of different countries in conflict situations. Moreover, the participants are representatives of different parts of the world: North America, Europe, and Asia. Thus, the peculiarities may be more distinct.

We have contacted the respondents in advance in order to inform them about the research and to estimate their willingness to participate in the study. We also explained the goals and the nature of the paper. When the participants agreed to be a part of the study, we handed out the survey to them. The completed survey was returned to us for data analysis via e-mail.

In order to meet the goals of our research, and as we explore American, Italian, and Chinese cultures in our paper, we studied these nations within the framework of G. Hofstede's four cultural dimensions which were introduced above as well: large-power-distance versus small-power-distance, individualism versus collectivism, masculinity versus femininity, high-uncertainty-avoidance versus low-uncertainty-avoidance (Hofstede, Hofstede J., Minkov, 2010). We also studied these countries within R.D. Lewis's description of these cultures, their attitudes and patterns of behaviour (Lewis, 1996). By exploring these cultures through this literature, it is possible to obtain an overview of the main features of these cultures that influence relationships, communication, behaviour, decision-making, conflict resolution, etc. Nevertheless, it is important to remember that culture depicts a central disposition in society. Every individual is unique; however, social control makes certain that the majority of people will not diverge from the norm too much. What is more, even within every country cultural differences in regions exist. We will start with studying the USA culture.

According to G. Hofstede's theory America scores 40, which means that this culture has small-power-distance (Hofstede, Hofstede J., Minkov, 2010). Power distance is the extent to which members, who have less power than others in organisations within a country, accept the fact that power can be unequally distributed. In the U.S., as small-power-distance country, employers and employees view each other as practically equal; the system of hierarchy is implemented just for convenience, and it is possible for roles to change. Superiors are expected to be accessible and subordinates are supposed to be consulted before an important decision is made. Participative management is a key concept for Americans, employees should be involved by managers in decisions and information should be frequently shared. Communication can be rather informal.

The reasonably low score on power distance in conjunction with one of the highest scores on individualism, 91, reflects in the American concept “liberty and justice for all”. As highly individualist culture, America has a loosely-knit society where it is expected that individuals look after themselves and do not completely rely on superiors fro support. People are also supposed to act in accordance with their own interests. Americans perform best when they operate individually.

Another characteristic of Americans that should be pointed out is that they are the best joiners in the word; however, it can be challenging for them developing deep friendships, particularly among men.

People in this culture are used to interacting with individuals they do not know well. Hence, they are not shy to approach their potential counterparts to acquire or seek information. Employees should be initiative and self-reliant.

Masculine dimension indicates whether competition, achievement and success drive individuals. The U.S. score on this dimension is 62, which means that success in this society is defined by “winner” or “best-in-the-field” and can be observed in the typical American patterns of behaviour. High masculinity drive in the combination with high individualist drive results in Americans showing their masculinity drive individually, so they tend to demonstrate and talk openly about their achievements in life. Moreover, in this society there is a feeling that conflict situations have to be resolved by a good fight: “Let the best man win.”

As of uncertainty avoidance, American score is below average, 46, so as a result, people's behaviour in this society will be impacted by the perceived context in which they find themselves. Therefore, the pattern of this culture manifests itself as follows:

New ideas and willingness to try something new are accepted. Americans prone to being tolerant of ideas or opinions from anyone and allowing the freedom of expression. Concurrently, they do not need a lot of formal regulations and believe that rules are required only in absolute necessity and issues can be solved without them. What is more, Americans are not as emotionally expressive as higher-scoring cultures.

Furthermore, based on R.D. Lewis's description of the U.S. culture, the main features of American behavioural patterns and attitudes can be highlighted (Lewis, 1996):

1. Time is money, and work is associated with success;

2. Americans are driven by the national habit to press forward, conquer the environment, effect change, and reach their goal, even though they are not entirely sure what that goal is;

3. They are undying optimists and oriented toward the future;

4. Americans do not get scared by challenge and competition;

5. They can feel as their norms and values are the only correct ones which causes lack of interest in foreign cultures. Americans commonly have a little knowledge of such things as saving face, social incites, formalities, etc. that are important to others. Often representatives of other cultures have to explain to them plausible complexities of their culture, or else Americans may judge everything by their own standards, which can lead to misunderstandings and conflicts;

6. As it was mentioned, Americans are individualists, so they may make decisions without checking with the superiors;

7. They immediately initiate informality by, for instance, using first names, discussing personal matters, and so on;

8. Americans implement humour when they can, although their partner may fail to understand it or consider it as out of place;

9. They reveal what they want right from the start and have difficulties when their partner does not do the same;

10. They want a positive answer in principle and later on they will work on details. Nevertheless, they may be tough in the details, checking on everything, even if they trust their partner;

11. Americans commonly do not have patience. They like to simplify issues and can get annoyed with what they think is unneeded complication;

12. They are tenacious and determined. They will always find a solution and analyse all options when they face stalemate;

13. Americans are blunt, if they disagree, they will say so. This can lead to embarrassment of Italians, for instance, who are not used to such behaviour;

14. They solve problems through give-and-take position on the basis of respective strengths, and do not respect if others have only one position;

15. They are not used to long silences and talking openly about problems, so it is better to avoid these kinds of situations;

Overall, Americans are straightforward, honest, and tough when dealing with details. They appreciate resilience and open disagreement. They also respect when people get right to the point and do not “beat around the bush”, contrary to Italians and Chinese.

As it was mentioned above, cultural regional differences exist even within one country. It is the case of Italy, as it can be divided in some aspects to Southern and Northern.

Starting with the cultural dimension of G. Hofstede, Italy scores 50 on power distance. Northern Italy prefers equality and having power and decision-making process dispersed from central authorities to the employee as well. People do not appreciate control and formal supervision, but they favour work in teams and open management style. It is important to note that high score on individualism highlights the disinclination to being told what to do. In Southern Italy all the results of power distance index are often high, rather contrary to Northern Italy.

Italy is an individualist culture, “I” centred, at a score of 76, particularly in the big Northern cities. Although they value friendship, at work “friend” has a slightly different meaning to them: it is a person that they know who can be beneficial for introducing them to important people.

When Italians have their own personal opinions, objectives and ideas, it is very motivational for them, and personal fulfilment brings them happiness. In Southern Italy this dimension does differ, as less individualist behaviour can be discovered: the group which a person belongs to is a significant social aspect and important occasions cannot be missed. In Northern Italy approaches in relationships are less “warm”.

Italy is highly masculine society with a score 70: it is success oriented and very driven. Competition is seen as a healthy aspect of life and it is vital to be a winner. Italians view working environment as a place where they can reach their success, so competition among employees in order to climb the ladder can be very strong.

Contrary to the USA and China, Italy is a strong-uncertainty-avoidance country, at the score of 75, so Italians are not comfortable in unclear and suspicious circumstances. In this nation formality is highly important. They plan everything in details, and flexible planning process can be quite stressful for them. In conjunction, high masculinity score and high uncertainty avoidance score complicates their lives and makes it more stressful.

By reason of having high score in this dimension, Italian nation is extremely passionate: people's emotions are so strong that they cannot hide them and keep them inside, so they express them to everyone, particularly with body language.

On the basis of R.D. Lewis's description of cultures, the following characteristics of Italians can be pointed out:

1. Italians are accustomed to being crowded, that is why they work in close proximity to each other, so when people stand too far away from what they are used to, they may think that they are avoided or that their physical presence makes people uncomfortable;

2. Italians have a completely different concept of time comparing to Northerners and Americans. They do not come on time; for people in Milan being punctual means arriving twenty minutes late, in Rome - thirty minutes, and in the South - forty-five minutes;

3. They do not follow agendas at meetings as precisely as Northerners do. They may jump from one point to another, skipping ahead or going back to the point that has been already settled;

4. They do not enjoy silences for more than few seconds. Italians talk loudly, with excitement, and taking their time;

5. Contrary to northerners, Italians are less direct and seem to talk in circuitous manner;

6. They do not get easily offended, so it is possible to criticise them and joke with them;

7. They are very flexible in work, in a way that they are able to bend or break rules and put adjustable interpretations on particular agreements and regulations.

Finally, if we explore China cultural dimensions, it can be observed that, contrary to Italy and the USA, China scores in the higher rankings of power distance index, 80, which means that this nation accepts inequalities among people. The relationships between subordinates and superiors tend to be polarised and there is no resistance against power abuse by employers. Formal authority and sanctions influence people, and individuals are commonly optimistic about the capacity of people for leadership. Employees are expected not to have aspirations beyond their position. Only superiors are supposed to initiate contacts between them and subordinates, and subordinate-superior relationships are often loaded with emotions.

As China has a low score on individualism, 20, it is a highly collectivistic nation, again opposite to Italy and the USA. Chinese act in accordance with the group interests and not necessarily theirs. Personal relationships dominate over company and its goal. The subordinate-superior relationships are viewed in moral terms; it is similar to family relationship with reciprocal obligations to protect in exchange for loyalty. Chinese perform best when they operate within a team with a common goal.

Similarly to the USA and Italy, China scores high on masculinity, 66, so this nation is oriented toward success and is very driven. Chinese may sacrifice family priorities and leisure time to work, as they believe that time for rest is not that important as ensuring success.

In contrast to Italians and similarly to Americans, Chinese have a low score on uncertainty avoidance, 30. People view truth as a relative information: for someone it can be true, for others - not. For Chinese obedience for rules and laws is flexible to fit the current situation. People are acceptable of ambiguity; even the language consists of ambiguous meanings that Westerns follow with difficulty. Chinese adapt easily and quite ambitious.

On the grounds of R.D. Lewis's research on cultures, the following features of Chinese can be noted:

1. They avoid loss of face and confrontations; their principal goals are harmony and consensus, politeness can be seen at all times;

2. Chinese are long-term oriented and having objectives is advisable;

3. They appreciate privacy and remain distance from their partner in conversations;

4. They are very punctual and detest to waste anyone's time, they may even arrive earlier;

5. Although Chinese are polite, they may be blunt and ask how people feel about specific important issues. This helps them not to refuse or belittle opinions of others;

6. They express criticism indirectly, but their general openness makes Westerners believe they are aware where the conversation is heading;

7. Chinese seldom say “no”, they only suggest that some difficulties exist;

8. They do not jump into decisions and feel hostility towards Americans' eagerness to sign a deal;

9. Chinese look beyond the contact and prioritise reciprocal trust in the long term;

10. They put principle and values above money;

11. Chinese do not show anger and try not to appear upset.

Overall, Chinese combine politeness with firmness, they show respect for rank, prepare their meetings in detail and do not speak loudly. They are patient and do the best they can to reach their goals.

2.3 Survey Results Analysis and Recommendations

Survey Structure

The survey questions explore the attitudes of participants towards conflicts in organisations and how they behave in such situations. The main aims of the survey are to reveal the sources of conflicts in organisations, the way they are resolved and how cultural aspect affect people's behaviour in conflict situations. As it was mentioned above, the survey consists of twenty-three questions: nineteen closed-ended and four open-ended questions. The closed-ended questions have at least five response options, while some of them consist the alternative to choose multiple answers and/or write down their own answer. Through the survey we wanted to explore how well the respondents adapt to new organisational environment and how much they think it takes to completely adjust to different conditions.

Furthermore, it was crucial for us to find out about the conflict potential of the environment the participant work at and at what levels of the organisation they observe the most conflict situations. What is more, we wanted to find out about their behaviour in conflicts that they have ever participated in and attitudes towards conflicts in organisations in general. Moreover, the types of conflict situations they faced were examined and what causes conflicts in organisations from their viewpoint.

As our research is dedicated to intercultural conflicts, it was vital to ask in what types of conflict the respondents have ever observed intercultural aspects, and we also explored the difference in resolving conflict situations in organisations in their native countries and in Russia. The participant gave their opinion on whether it is important to train personnel how to interact in conflict situations and who they think should take the role of advisor when conflicts happen.

Finally, the responders commented on what they learned from conflict situations about Russian mentality, the typical characteristics that they can observe in Russians in conflicts and if they believe cultural aspects play a big role in conflicts in organisations.

Survey Results Analysis

Before proceeding to the survey analysis, it is crucial to emphasise that qualitative data analysis is a subjective procedure which develops between the researcher, the data, and the participants. Bearing this in mind, we made an effort to control plausible biases by connecting the analysis and the data interpretation to theory and literature. Each answer to every question of the survey was attentively reviewed, having in mind the definitions of culture, conflict, organisation, and the main features of each culture of our participants. We decided to present the questions that were asked and the answers of the participants in the form of table, followed by our comments and analysis, in order to make the examination more vivid and graphic.



Table 1. The structure of the survey was as follows. Firstly, we asked our respondents about their experience working in other countries except their native country and Russia.

By this question we wanted to find out whether they had any cultural experience and faced multiple cultures in organisational settings. All the participants have worked in several countries before coming to Russia, such as Australia, Germany, Uzbekistan, and Azerbaijan. We hypothesised that having experience in coming in contact with various cultures, it would be less challenging for the respondents to adapt to new organisational and cultural environments, as well as they would have a better understanding of different cultures and effective ways of dealing with intercultural conflicts.

Table 2. To prove or refute our hypothesis, the respondents were asked about their adaptation period in HSE University.



The hypothesis was confirmed; the respondents have adapted to new organisational environment in relatively quick period of time. G.Hofstede's theory on cultural dimensions also proves that these cultures are quite flexible and adapt to new environment quite easily (Hofstede, Hofstede J., Minkov, 2010). Participants were also asked about the difficulties they faced while adapting. According to the answers, while adapting the participants have encountered such problems as differences in work related procedures and differences in educational processes. Only the respondent from America also gave an answer that cultural differences and misunderstandings were the cause of longer adaptation.

Before asking in-depth questions about conflict situations that they have faced or observed, we wanted to know about the conflict potential of the environment they were working at. It would give an insight of whether they believe the organisation they operate at is prone to arousing conflicts. All of the participants disagree that the organisation is vulnerable to conflict situations.

Table 3

The next point that is important for us to obtain knowledge about is at what level of the organisation the participants observe the most conflicts and how often they have to deal with conflict situations in the workplace.



Table 4

Through this data we are able to assume if the respondents are used to conflicts and have the possibility to overcome them, as well as finding out what levels of the organisation the most conflicts occur at in order to be aware of where to expect the potential conflicts. All the participants responded that they almost never have to face conflict situations; however, the most conflict that they have ever observed were between professors and students. As it was mentioned before, we explore university as organisation, so as a result of this answer, we may hypothesise that in this particular organisation, HSE University, situations of conflict do not arise frequently between colleagues, or superiors and employees.

Then, taking into consideration the participants' cultural background, we analysed how they react to conflicts in organisational communication and how they choose to handle them. Through their answers to the questions, we wanted to find out how, if at all, their cultural peculiarities influence their attitude to and behaviour in conflict situation. We asked three questions based on which we made some conclusions about each participant.



Table 5

Table 6

Table 7

We will start with the analysis of the answers of the American participant. From above mentioned analysis of cultures, it can be observed that Americans are pretty straightforward and do not get scared by challenge and competition; nevertheless, our respondent has proven that even though the cultural analysis is very close to the truth and depicts overall cultural features, individuals are different, and certain characteristic does not have to necessarily be present in every person. Although Americans are believed to be comfortable in conflict situations and not being affected by them as much, our participant responded that they feel nervous and stressed in conflicts. What is more, people from the USA are considered to commonly use competing and collaborating conflict management styles; however, when the participant was asked which conflict management style is typically implemented by the members of staff to resolve conflicts in the organisations that they worked at in their native country, they responded with compromising and collaborating, and they believe that they themselves use the model of compromising to tackle conflict situations.

Next, we shall analyse the answers of the participant from Italy to the same questions. As it was mentioned before, Italians are regarded as highly masculine nation, which means that they view competition as an ordinary aspect of life, so competition between employees can be very strong. Our respondent validates this point by answering that they do not feel any strong emotions towards conflicts, as they believe that they are “possible and normal in social life”. They also have an opinion that staff members in the organisations they worked at in their native country implement competing conflict management style. However, the respondent themselves prefer looking for compromise to deal with conflicts.

From aforementioned about Chinese cultural peculiarities, they avoid confrontations; they try to preserve harmony and consensus, and do not belittle opinion of others. This features can be traced in the answers of our Chinese respondent. They prefer not to contradict their opponent while dealing with conflicts, but as Chinese are fairly firm on their objectives, the participant as well would act in their own way but without arguing. As collectivistic society people in China try to avoid conflicts at all costs, and the participant believes as well that in the organisations, which they worked at in their native country, employees implement avoiding conflict management style.

Furthermore, as one of the aims of our research is to reveal the main sources and outcomes of intercultural conflict situations, the participants were asked what they think the main causes of conflicts are and what their consequences. To begin with, our participants highlighted the following main sources of intercultural conflicts:

1. cultural differences;

2. heavy workloads;

3. personal clashes;

4. stress;

5. internal conflict; and

6. lack of clarity.

Moreover, they noticed that in such types of conflict as interpersonal, process, and task conflicts they observe an intercultural aspect. Hence, they suppose that in these types of conflict situation, culture plays a crucial role.

As for the outcomes of conflicts in organisational communication, we can divide them into positive and negative. The respondents emphasised the following negative consequences:

1. absenteeism;

2. confusion; and

3. project failure.

The participants underlined twice as many positive outcomes as negative, such as:

1. better understanding of others;

2. finding better solution to a problem;

3. improved working relationships;

4. higher performance in the team;

5. finding a mutually beneficial options; and

6. increased motivation.

In addition, we were interested in how the participants perceive Russians in the organisational communication and conflict situations. The respondents believe that Russians implement accommodating, collaborating and compromising conflict management styles. The differences in the types of style that people from various cultures apply to resolve conflicts can lead to misunderstandings as individuals may feel threatened, misinterpreted, and/or confused by the behaviour and attitude of their opponent. Apart from that, the participants pointed out verbal aggression, uncompromising categorical tone, and emotional communication as typical characteristics of Russians in conflicts. Besides that, the respondents learned from conflict situations that Russians are straightforward, direct, not flexible, and not always ready to discuss the conflict and find a solution. They also pointed out that during the conflict situation Russian can be silent, but then “follows immediate explosion”. Nevertheless, the respondents do not believe that it is difficult to find a common ground with Russians; communication plays a vital role in this process, and the participants claim that if the person is open and friendly, it is possible to find an area of agreement. These findings can be useful in further research on Russians' behaviour, attitude, conflict resolution strategies, etc. in organisational environment.

In order to resolve conflicts between individuals sometimes a third-party has to get involved. Employees have to trust such person and be able to open up about the problem they faced. The respondents were asked who they think should take the role of advisor when conflicts happen in the organization. The answers to this question are as follows:

Table 8



Finally, all of the participants speculate that cultural aspects play a big role in conflicts in organisational communication; it brings a mixture of values and perspectives, that influence the conflict situation. The respondent from China stresses that “cultural aspects play a decisive role in organisations. Culture decides thinking, thinking decides behavioural patterns, and different behaviours can cause different conflicts”.

Overall, the participants hold an opinion that it is necessary to train personnel how to interact in conflict situations, as well as the specifics of effective conflict resolution.

From the analysis of the survey we can conclude that culture is a pivotal element of organisations, and it is important to know about cultural differences in the workforce. However, people should bear in mind that not every characteristic that can be observed in one representative of a certain culture can be found in another representative of the same culture; individuals are different even if they are from the same origin. What is more, the commonly used style of managing conflicts is compromising. Apart from that, positive outcomes of conflict situations can be noticed more often than negative, and the sources of conflicts vary; nevertheless, cultural aspect is frequently seen in interpersonal, process, and task conflicts. It is crucial to educate employees about conflict types, sources, and outcome, how to interact efficiently in conflict situations, and the particularities of conflict resolution.

Recommendations

As it was pointed out by Rahim (2002), a definite set of guidelines which helps to deal with conflicts does not exist. Our study can be advanced from investigation of how theoretical discoveries can be used in resolving intercultural conflicts in organisational communication. It is encouraged to examine variety of models and determine the ones that will be effective in a specific communication setting. The models of conflict management introduced in this study depict how crucial it is to research in the field of intercultural communication, and intercultural conflict resolution.

Certain recommendations can be formulated of how to handle intercultural conflicts in organisational communication:

1. One of the most important quality that employee should have is an ability to listen. While dealing with intercultural conflicts it is vital to listen to the opponent to try to understand where they are coming from and from which perspective they think;

2. When it concerns with culture, we need to remember that everyone has their own set of values, norms and traditions. Being respectful to these peculiarities can bring trust and reliance from the opponent;

3. As lack of clarity may be one of the sources of intercultural conflicts, it shows that when people from different nations work together, they all have various understanding of the environment as they have different processes in cognition and perception. Setting clear goals, objectives, and rules for everyone helps eliminate any potential conflict situations;

4. Learning about cultural differences can enormously influence the conflict process. If people are taught about the peculiarities of different cultures, less intercultural conflicts would arise as there would be fewer misunderstandings, misinterpretations, and so on.

Furthermore, as it was motioned before, conflict management concerns the behaviours that members of a team employ to address their existent and perceived dissimilarities, some relate to conflicts driven by emotions (relationship conflicts) and other deal with more substantial components of discord (task conflicts). It is extremely difficult to manage conflicts productively if relationship have already worsened so much that team members stop trusting each other. The following steps illustrate how to manage intercultural conflict situations:

1. The first step that should be taken is recognising the necessity of teamwork, and, consequently, setting up explicit and transparent goals so that every member understands the aim of the work and everyone's responsibility and role within this work. It is crucial to clear up any possible misinterpretations in regard to the subject and process, including any cultural suppositions, in order to ensure that each member of the team aims for the same outcome. Establishing multicultural teams which possess shared goals and norms can ensure that members will more easily move beyond their national differences and their own cultural believes;

2. The next step to manage intercultural conflicts is to pick team members who are suitable for the required work and its needs. At this step it is vital to acknowledge deeper cultural components. People's diversity is defined by two perspectives: cognitive matters, so the way team members consider and interpret the procedure and the goals (content); and behavioural matters in regard to cultural components, for instance, languages and norms. It is important to establish the representation of complementary skills, attitudes, and knowledge in teams. Selecting an appropriate leader of the team who all members trust to and respect, and determining whether there is a necessity of an external facilitator or coach can be a great advantage as well;

3. The third step is dedicated to managing and smoothing the team process. Managers have to facilitate and provide open and abundant communication between team members and build trust and respect. It should be ensured that cultural intelligence is developed, and the progress of the team should be recognised by openly reviewing the team's intercultural growth towards a team culture;

4. The last step is to be devoted to team communication and sharing, rather than becoming complacent or disheartened. It is crucial to discuss what works in the team and what does not, and how to improve understanding, acknowledge shared responsibilities in order to make diverse teams work in a compound environment. Organisations that operate in multicultural environment should develop the abilities to cope with high levels of complexity and uncertainty, skills that may produce advantages when performing in different cultures (Du Plessis, 2011). Working out the best strategies which should be employed to flawlessly manage intercultural conflicts on multiple levels, such as the individual, group, and organisational levels, is the biggest challenge. However, these challenges in managing intercultural conflicts can turn out to be positive if they are addressed rather than avoided and denied (Monat and Lazarus, 1985).



Conclusion

To conclude, we can point out that in organisations conflicts arise frequently and the forms of those conflicts vary. Being aware of different types of conflicts, and even more importantly, the causes of problems might be the key to prevention of conflict situations in organisations. Considering that culture has an underlying impact on human interactions, it plays a notable role in conflict situations, and it became a feasible conflict source in organisational environment that consists of workers from various nations, consequently, in today's workforce efficient intercultural communication has become focal in the professional success and in reaching strategic goals.

In addition to that, recognition and acceptance of cultural differences can facilitate the process of identification of the conflict source and later on the way of resolving it. Intercultural conflicts within multinational teams cannot be effortlessly resolved and can in many cases they can create further conflict situations causing embarrassment, confusion, insults, misunderstanding, or ruined relationships. Thus, intercultural research has become progressively more vital in the organisational environment.

We expanded our knowledge base through creation of a better understanding of how culture works and what intercultural conflicts exist nowadays in the complex organisational communication without geographical boarders. This paper suggests that cultural origin of members of teams determines the perception of the communicative behaviour. The research is congruous with earlier studies highlighting the importance of national culture in conflict management.

This research attempted to make the connection between communication behaviours and organisational environment, and the impact of cultures of employee on conflicts and communication less confusing and more comprehensible. We emphasise the significance of further investigation of communication patterns in different cultures and of intercultural management.

As cultural diversity in the workplace increases, mangers of multinational workforce have to be efficient intercultural communicators to operate successfully and reach high levels of performance. Functional interpersonal skills, ability to deal with intercultural conflicts and work in teams are behaviours that are learned through training. This paper contributes to the debate about the necessity to train employees in order to become more productive.

We met the goals of our study by identifying the main sources of intercultural conflict situations which are cultural differences, heavy workloads, personal clashes, stress, internal conflict, and lack of clarity. We have also determined that there are more positive outcomes of organizational conflicts than negative; nevertheless, positive outcomes can be achieved only by efficient conflict management. What is more, based on the survey analysis and literature review, we have provided recommendations of how to handle intercultural conflicts in organisations. The extensive amount of information and literature on intercultural conflict, organisation and conflict management in intercultural situations, and its complexity is alone a monumental challenge. By no means our research has depleted the scholarly literature and further research regarding these topics is crucial. Our study was conducted to attain more profound understanding of intercultural conflicts arising in organisational communication and to acquire the experience and perspectives of three international participants, thus the results should not be generalised.

The findings do not represent all individuals in every organisation, and the identified sources of the conflicts and the characteristics regarding the participants are not necessarily typical of all circumstances and all representatives of the same cultures as our respondents. Further research on this topic is recommenced to explore modern multicultural teams and intercultural conflicts and the ways of managing them in various organisational contexts. We believe that our paper can contribute to future studies as effective conflict management requires deep understanding of types, forms and sources of intercultural conflicts in organisations.



References

1.Argyle, M. (1972). The Psychology of Interpersonal Behaviour. 2nd ed.; Harmondsworth, Middx.: Penguin.

2.Avruch, Kevin. (2002). Cross-cultural conflict.

3.Axley, S. (1984). Managerial and organizational communication in terms of the conduit metaphor. Academy of Management Review, 9, pp. 428-437.

4.Baron, R.A. (1990). Organizational Conflict: Theory and Research in Conflict Management. Praeger Publishers, New York, NY.

5.Baskett, G. D. (1973). Interview decision as determined by competency and attitude similarity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, 343-345.

6.Bennett, M. J. (1998). Intercultural communication: A current perspective. In M. J. Bennett (Ed.), Basic concepts of intercultural communication: Selected readings (pp. 1-34). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.

7.Blake, R.R. and Mouton, J.S. (1964). The Managerial Grid. Houston: Gulf Publishing Co.

8.Brett, J., Behfar, K., Kern, M. (2006). Managing multicultural teams. Harvard Business Review, 84(11), 84-91.

9.Chamberlain, N. W. and Kuhn, J. W. (1965). Collective Bargaining. 2nd edn, McGraw Hill, New York.

10.Coser, L. A. (1956). The Functions of Social Conflict. Free Press, New York.

11.Cox, T. H. (1994). Cultural diversity in organizations. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

12.Cox, T. H. and Finley-Nickelson, J. (1991). Models of acculturation for intraorganizational cultural diversity. Canadian Journal of Administrative Science, 8(2), 90-100.

13.Dana, D. (2001). Conflict Resolution: Mediation Tools for Everyday Work Life. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

14.Diez, T., Stetter, S., Mathias, A. (2006). The European Union and Border Conflicts: The Transformative Power of Integration' International Organization. Vol. 60, no. 3, pp. 565.

15.Du Plessis, Y. (2011). Cultural intelligence as managerial competence. Alternation 18(1): 28-46.

16.Du Plessis, Y. (2012). Exploring teamwork paradoxes challenging 21st-century cross-cultural conflict management in a multicultural organizational context. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 12(1), 49-71.

17.Earley, P.C., Ang, S., and Tan, J. (2006). Developing Cultural Intelligence at Work. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

18.Esser, H. (2000). Sociology. Special Foundations. Band 5: Institutions. Frankfurt/M., New York: Campus.

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

20.Filley, A.C. (1975). Interpersonal Conflict Resolution. Glenview, III.: Scott, Foresman.

21.Friedman, V.J. and Berthoin, A. A. (2005). Negotiating reality: a theory of action approach to intercultural competence. Management Learning 36(1): 69-86.

22.Hammer, M. R. (2009). Solving problems and resolving conflict using the intercultural conflict style model and inventory. In M. A. Moodian (Ed.), Contemporary leadership and intercultural competence (pp. 219-232). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

23.Hellriegel, D., Slocum, Jr J. W., Woodman, R. W. (1989). Organizational Behaviour. 5th ed., West, St.Paul, Minn.

24.Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: software of the mind: intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival. 3rd ed. New York; London: McGraw-Hill.

25.Ikle, F. C. (1964). How Nations Negotiate. Harper and Row, New York.

Размещено на Allbest.ru