Reconciling and harmonising cultural conflict - Assignment Example

? Reconciling and harmonising cultural conflict BY YOU YOUR SCHOOL INFO HERE HERE Reconciling and harmonising cultural conflict Introduction When diverse individuals hailing from different cultures must work together in the organisation, conflict is virtually an inevitable outcome. Especially in the built environment, team functioning and inter-dependency is absolutely critical in meeting deadlines, identifying problem-solving solutions to a variety of business problems, and ensuring effective project management. The problem with establishing a team environment in which organisational members are representative of dissimilar cultures is that there may be disagreements about how to approach such conceptions as risk adoption, what is considered to be effective and appropriate communication style and language and even individual perceptions of political relativism regarding how power should be appropriately distributed amongst team members. In the role of manager or leader, it is necessary to reconcile such differences and establish a more cohesive and harmonised team ideology to achieve strategic, financial, efficiency or productivity goals. Not all conflict, of course, occurs between team members, but can also occur as a result of leadership and subordinate interactions. There are those in the organisation that will value a more aggressive and decisive leader whilst others want a more sensitive and compassionate leader to direct their activities. If the leader is not aware of their absolute importance in creating an environment where individuals are motivated and committed to following the leader, it is likely no conflict management strategy is going to be successful over the long-term. Reconciling and harmonising conflicts created by disparate cultural characteristics cannot occur within a proverbial vacuum, but requires direct strategy development and interaction by the leader to be successful. This essay identifies the potential catalysts for culturally-related conflict within the organisational model, inclusive of national customs related to ethnicity, attitudes associated with societal differences inherent within individuals hailing from different international regions, and communications styles that vary from individual to individual. The essay further examines the role of leadership in isolating these problems and developing effective strategies for productive conflict resolution. To achieve successful conflict resolution and re-establish cohesive team-working, evidence suggests the manager/leader must first identify the drivers of cultural characteristics, consider the psycho-social needs of different cultures, facilitate greater cross-cultural knowledge with diverse team members and also consider the role of internal organisational culture and individual management beliefs and values as a potential vehicle by which such cultural conflicts occur. Why cultural problems develop In the built environment, there are employees and managers that maintain specialised knowledge that is not understood by all members of the organisation. Considering a construction or engineering project as two relevant examples, there are those that maintain what is referred to as tacit knowledge, defined as the knowledge held by only an individual that is exceptionally difficult to transfer to others as it typically involves specialised understandings created through experience or through education (Lam 2000). Special projects in the organisation require that those with tacit knowledge be able to effectively transfer this knowledge to others in order to establish a collaborative and effective team environment. Complicating this process of attempting to make tacit knowledge explicit is that many tacit knowledge holders maintain unique cultural characteristics that oftentimes stand in the way of effective knowledge conveyance. People hailing from different culture decode communications differently, related to their inherent characteristics and personalities driven by their regional cultures which significantly complicates the process of effective team functioning. However, tacit knowledge exchanges must occur in order to have a project meet with successful and productive outcomes. Stover (2004) firmly supports this conception, stating that it is absolutely necessary for organisational members to interact, rather than working in isolation, if knowledge sharing is to successfully occur. As such, it cannot be understated the importance of team ideology in the built environment. Teams will often maintain individuals that hail from collectivist nations, societies in which group membership and establishment of respectful group loyalty are paramount demands. Collectivist cultures are considered to be we-conscious, where it is demanded that respect and trust be developed primarily before any effective negotiations or interventions can be produced (Cheung et al. 2008). In the collectivist society, reputation as a matter of loss of face is very important values needs. Furthermore, collectivist beliefs are constructed on the opinion and sentiment of other group members as reference groups where their personal identity is often built on group judgments and cohesive group attitudes. Team members in the organisation also hail from individualistic cultures, which is a radical contrast from the collectivist social model. Individualists value their autonomy and independence, as well as recognition for their own individual accomplishments (Hofstede 2001). Individualists are much less concerned about building identity through group membership, instead priding themselves on their diversity from others that make them unique. Conflicting the aforesaid disparities of cultural characteristics in the team environment, some individuals maintain personality-based attributes related to hedonism versus benevolence. Hedonists, such as is common in China, seek the pursuit of pleasure as a primary goal, satisfying one’s own utility first and foremost as part of psychological positioning (Overskeid 2002). Other national cultures are more focused on benevolence, which is the antonym (opposite) of hedonism, in which generosity, compassion and general goodwill are primary values and beliefs of the society. When individuals in a team have radically contrasting values associated with how the social condition is developed, conflict is likely going to be an outcome with differing levels of severity depending on the socially-driven contrasts. Outside of culturally-driven differences in sentiment about appropriate social behaviour and the mediating role of self-service versus benevolence, conflict can occur as it directly relates to the role of management and leadership as a facilitator of the team environment or moderator of occurring conflict. Some cultures believe that leaders should be aggressive and decisive when making decisions about team functioning or strategic project direction, maintaining the general sentiment that sensitive leaders are weak and ineffectual (Den Hartog et al. 1999). In opposite accord, some cultures take an opposite approach to leadership, believing that leaders who seek consensus and illustrate empathy toward others are acceptable and the most respected set of leadership characteristics. This set of beliefs would find an aggressive and controlling manager to be unacceptable and might be likely to resist change when it is attempted to be implemented within the team dynamic (Den Hartog et al. 1999). Why is this situation necessarily an important consideration in the team-based built environment? The role of a leader is to ensure that work is successfully accomplished directly through people (human capital). However, in order to gain commitment and dedication to project tasks, the leader must understand what is likely going to drive followership and develop strategies that are aligned with cultural values, social values, and inherent beliefs driven by personality factors of diverse team members. The organisation, at the same time, maintains its own unique organisational culture that might be autocratic (top-down controls, controlling and bureaucratic) or decentralised in which shared decision-making and autonomous working is the focus in order to build motivation within employees and facilitate more effective problem-solving and innovation to sustain competitive advantages. Generally, the inherent constructs of leadership direction are driven by the mechanisms that drive organisational culture, meaning that the leader’s competencies and attitudes about what constitutes effective leadership are aligned with the established internal culture that drives current and historical business practices and policy developments. As with cultural differences, the role of the leader in ensuring productive group work and conflict reduction in the team environment cannot be understated. The Fiedler Leadership Contingency Model emphasises that group productivity and effective performance is correlated with (contingent) on the style of leadership selected by the leader and must be relevant to what would be considered favourable to generic or specific team situations or team culture. There are two leadership styles associated with Fiedler’s model, which are task-motivated and relationship-motivated. Task-motivated leadership is a structured approach to the leadership function and usually remain emotionally distant from the entire group whilst maintaining a more consultative position as leader. Relationship-motivated leadership is more engaging focusing on establishing a more psychologically-focused role as leader using such conceptions as social belonging and empathy to build trust, commitment and followership. If the leader selects a strategy, either task-based or relationship-based, that is not appropriate to the team dynamic and inherent values or beliefs of team members, conflict is likely going to occur between the team members and the team leader. Some team members may believe that a structured and distant leader style is absolutely inappropriate whilst other team members may hold the perception that such task-motivated leadership qualities are exceptional and follow the more aggressive leader design with more motivation and commitment. Further conflicting whether task-based or relationship-based leadership styles are utilised is yet another relationship to cultural characteristics with diverse team members. Geert Hofstede, a respected cultural researcher and theorist, identified the concept of power distance, which is the level to which members in a society are willing to tolerate disparities of power and authority between members of the organisation (Kelley 2009). Cultures that find significant power distance between managers and subordinates often respond and tolerate autocratic organisational cultures and leadership practices. In opposite accord, other cultures find such distance (common in individualistic cultures) to be absolutely intolerable and will resist change when such systems are present. What all aforesaid, potential drivers of conflict mean to the leadership role in team advocacy and control is that there are multiple considerations that must be determined before adopting an effective leadership philosophy and methods by which to curb conflict when it occurs. The leader cannot risk alienating some members of the team by adopting task-motivated leadership whilst satisfying others as this could enhance conflict. Concurrently, the leader cannot ignore or refute the culturally-driven characteristics of diverse group members when adopting an appropriate leadership approach, but this could occur if leadership approaches are not carefully aligned to the recognised dynamics of team values, attitudes and beliefs. It is, therefore, somewhat of a proverbial Catch-22 situation, a potential lose-lose scenario as it is highly unlikely that once the leader has established his or her relevant leadership approach that all members of the team are going to find the style appropriate and worthy of respect and followership. Reconciling and harmonising conflict when it occurs Having established some of the fundamental drivers of what causes conflict in teams, there are methodologies by which conflict can be reduced and controlled that might have a more appropriate, universal effect even when there are known disparities in cultural values as well as society-related beliefs within the team dynamic. The first duty of the leader, before adopting an effective conflict control system, is to identify commonalities that might exist within all diverse team members. Maslow (1998) provides this universalist perspective, offering that one fundamental need of the majority of global society is the need for social belonging. Maslow’s respected psychological model of motivation known as Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs indicates that members of the organisation must first feel secure, which leads to a need to have social belonging established, thereby providing the foundation for self-esteem growth (Maslow 1998). All needs along the hierarchy must be fulfilled in order to advance to higher order psychological growth and personal development. Since social belonging is a universal construct inherent in all cultures, it should be the first duty of the leader to ensure that all members of the team are valued and feel as though they are respected and appreciated contributors to the team project. Allowing any member of the team to feel isolated either socially or politically could create further conflict from an inherent motivational perspective. Thus, it might be the leadership inability to create perceptions of cohesion and belonging that could be driving conflict development; a relatively simplistic solution to ending interpersonal conflict. When conflicts occur as a result of interpersonal differences, the leader might be able to develop a win-win philosophy, which is one of the most fundamental conflict resolution strategies that favour all parties involved in the conflict scenario (Fisher and Ury 1991). It is in this scenario that the model known as communities of practice has been effective in producing better social interaction and diverse social integration as well as productive knowledge exchanges despite cultural differences. Communities of practice are when face-to-face knowledge exchanges and problem-solving occur with tacit knowledge holders in order to accustom diverse organisational members to working dependently with disparate individuals in the organisation (Kogut and Zander 1992). This is effective, over time, in creating a series of shared stories, metaphors that assist in connecting culturally-driven disparities. Communities of practice provide the foundation for establishing an appropriate win-win scenario where all organisational members gain both cultural wisdom and mutual respect whilst also satisfying the team-based objectives for effective team outcomes as desired by the organisational leadership. Furthermore, communities of practice allow the team leader to create a new type of cultural wisdom and knowledge exchange so that individuals learn to embrace one another’s differences and understand how cultural characteristics drive unique behaviours. LeBaron (2003) offers that this structure of knowledge exchange allows for a type of in-service training about the magnificence of cultural diversity as part of a team mission or ideological vision. One effective method in communities of practice, as it relates to the role of the organisational leader is role playing, in which scenarios are developed so that individuals must respond to various culturally-related scenarios in order to gain empathy and proverbially step into another’s shoes for better relationship development. Oftentimes, it is misconceptions or lack of knowledge about cultural disparities and cultural values that leads to conflict as well as an inherent lack of tolerance for individuals that share different perspectives and attitudes. Communities of practice move beyond the team functioning to a more cohesive and interactive curriculum of knowledge exchanges where shared stories (the aforesaid metaphors) create more empathetic reasoning so that team members will be more willing to value cultural diversity and build respect amongst unique team participants. Rahim (2002) reinforces that knowledge is one of the most fundamental foundations of conflict management where organisational learning is promoted by the leader, challenging and motivating others to question their own cultural status quo. Overskeid (2002) identified the hedonistic versus benevolent characteristics present usually in collectivist versus benevolence-valuing societies. Why, though, would this create a conflict situation? Members of the team that demand or expect compassion and/or generosity as a valued leadership trait, as well as from team colleagues, might be significantly dismayed or offended by individuals that seek their own gain within a political hierarchy. When attempting to resolve this type of conflict, it is known that one of the accessory functions of leadership is to be a figurehead or an ambassador to team members in an effort to filter out different negative stimuli that can influence a negative collaborative environment. The leader should therefore be identifying opportunities to satisfy the hedonistic desires of the individual that seeks self-fulfilment whilst also developing opportunities to extend such compassions and empathy toward other group members that are motivated by benevolent managerial/leader actions. Since not all team members have the same philosophy or ideology about self- versus group service, to avoid conflict the relationship-motivated leader should be developing contingency strategies that provide a balanced approach, another win-win scenario, that provide fulfilment for each type of personality characteristic. Since it is likely that the hedonistic and benevolent personalities are going to find absolute commonality and cohesiveness taking a singular approach to leadership, reducing conflict would then theoretically involve setting transactional rewards as a strategy to essentially please all team members. Antonakis, Avolio and Sibasubramaniam (2003) identify the transactional leadership style that involves setting a specific performance target and then rewarding individuals for meeting outcome expectations aligned with the target. It is a type of management by objectives. This has the ability to satisfy the hedonistic individual that seeks self-gratification as a cultural or personality-based characteristic and also the individual valuing generosity in leadership. The goal of the leader is to identify what strategies would be beneficial to all parties involved in the built environment, whilst also adhering to highly important compliance systems as a representative of the organisation in order to ensure competitive advantages or sustainability for the organisation’s future. Transactional leadership blends the ability to generate further win-win scenarios and also satisfy very diverse individuals which can then theoretically reduce conflict, at least, between subordinates in the team and the leader. Terrell (1989, p.51) suggests a different approach to harmonising cultural disparities in team environments, offering that it is the first duty of the leadership to create an environment that supports “psychological safety”. This is directly related to the influence of organisational culture and political structures guiding management ideology within the organisation. Kelley (2009) identified that some members of different cultures either tolerate or resist significant power distances between managers and subordinates and will respond according to these tolerances. The notion of psychological safety is also associated with Maslow’s (1998) view of a universal need for social belonging establishment as a means of approaching a form of universalism in trying to curb conflict when it occurs. When the organisational culture is one driven by autocratic political systems, it can lead to mistrust and the establishment of vague communications systems that are generally considered unfavourable by most team members, especially those that hail from individualistic cultures. Trust is another foundational, universal need within Maslow’s motivational hierarchy and Greenberg (2001) indicates that in order to manage conflict successfully, the leader must establish trust and positive communications systems. Respect, mutual appreciation, and affection are part of the relationship-motivated leadership style which are essential elements to building trust between team members and between managers and subordinates, which are aligned with establishment of psychological safety as identified by Kelley (2009). There, therefore, seems to be the most effective methodologies for conflict management and resolution by utilising a relationship-motivated leadership style since it touches on all of the universal constructs of psychological needs and behaviours present in most global members of society. Even though there is no concrete evidence that task-motivated leadership is ineffective, the complex dynamics of human psycho-social needs coupled with characteristics of individualism versus collectivism would point toward establishing an environment that fosters psychological safety as the most viable tool for reducing conflict scenarios. Conclusion The complexity of attitudes, values, beliefs and behavioural tendencies of individuals hailing from diverse cultures poses a plethora of dilemmas for the leader. Coupled with the restraints and demands of the existing organisational culture, the leader must perform dynamically between satisfying organisational needs and objectives whilst also developing diverse strategies that will assist in reducing conflict both team-based and as it relates to the leader and subordinates under his or her charge. Research uncovered that collectivist versus individualistic characteristics can contribute to culturally-driven conflicts as well as hedonistic versus benevolent characteristics of diverse workers. Reducing conflict under these circumstances would seem to entail taking a more relationship-motivated leadership ideology and also providing opportunities to educate organisational members about the richness of human diversity. This was proposed to be effective through communities of practice methodologies, acting as an ambassador for all team members, and even setting up a transactional leadership philosophy that uses diverse people-centric rewards that will be embraced by all team members. However, in order for any conflict management strategy to work effectively, the leader must first understand what drives the behaviours and values of disparate team members with unique cultural characteristics in order to be effective in the conflict management process. Whether relationship-based or working as a facilitator of cultural knowledge training through communities of practice strategies, using shared metaphors, or whether using the concept of building an environment promoting psychological safety, the leader must be fully aware of their personal influence in establishing a trust-based team ideology. Conflict management seems to be only achievable through direct intervention by the leader and working to build an organisational culture of social inclusion (as a set of universal human values) if conflict is to be reduced and prevented into the long-term. Though there are likely many additional conflict management strategies, those that have been proposed are most likely to be effective in an environment where there are diverse cultural characteristics that drive social functioning and group behaviour. Breaking down restrictive barriers created by a rigid and politically-centric organisation would also seem to be a facilitating factor in achieving successful conflict management, illustrating that the role of organisational culture cannot be dismissed in this effort. References Antonakis, J., Avolio, B. and Sivasbramaniam, N. (2003), ‘Context and leadership: an examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the multifactor leadership questionnaire, The Leadership Quarterly, 14, pp.261-295. Cheung, F.M., Cheung, S.F., Zhang, J., Leung, K., Leong, F. and Yeh, K.H. (2008), ‘Relevance for openness as a personality dimension in Chinese culture’, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 39(1), pp.81-108. Den Hartog, D., House, R.J., Hanges, P., Ruiz-Quintanilla, S.A., Dorfman, P.W. et al. (1999), ‘Culture specific and cross-culturally generalisable implicit leadership theories: are attributes of charismatic/transformational leadership universally endorsed?’, Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), pp.219-254. Fisher, R. and Ury, W. (1998), Getting to Yes: negotiating agreement without giving in. London: Penguin Books. Greenberg, J. (2001), ‘Studying organisational justice cross-culturally: fundamental challenges, International Journal of Conflict Management, 12(4), p.365. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: comparing values, behaviours, institutions and organisations across nations, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Kelly, J. (2009), ‘Global consumer culture: consumers’ global brand attitudes in Brazil and Germany’ [online] Available at: http://home.ku.edu.tr/globalbrand/files/Kelley.pdf (accessed 14 April 2013). Kogut, B. and Zander, U. (1992), ‘Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities and the replication of technology’, Organization Science, 3(3), pp.383-397. Lam, A. (2000), ‘Tacit knowledge, organisational learning and societal instructions: an integrated framework’, Organization Studies, 21(3), pp.487-51. LeBaron, M. (2003), Bridging cultural conflicts – a new approach for a changing world. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Maslow, A. (1998), Maslow on Management. New York: Wiley. Overskeid, G. (2002). ‘Psychological hedonism and the nature of motivation: Bertrand Russell’s anhedonic desires’, Philosophical Psychology, 15(1), pp.77-93. Rahim, M.A. (2002). ‘Toward a theory of managing organisational conflict’, The International Journal of Conflict Management, 13(3), pp.206-235. Stover, M. (2004), ‘Making tacit knowledge explicit’, Reference Services Review, 32(2), pp.164-173. Terrell, R.D. (1989). ‘The elusive menace of office politics’, Training, 26(5), pp.48-54. Read More