Discussion: View Thread

**Apologies for Cross Postings** 

 

 

 

Articles:
Introduction to the Special Issue on Culture, Communication, and Conflict Management
Wendi L. Adair
University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ncmr.12165

How Power Distance Interacts with Culture and Status to Explain Intra‐ and Intercultural Negotiation Behaviors: A Multilevel Analysis
Meina Lui
Department of Organizational Sciences and Communication, George Washington University, Washington, DC, U.S.A.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ncmr.12140

Abstract
This study examines how culture and status qualify the effects of power distance (PD) values on bargaining tactics in intra‐ and intercultural negotiations, as well as Chinese and American negotiators' behavioral difference in these contexts. Data were collected from 34 intercultural dyads, 32 American dyads, and 35 Chinese dyads that completed job offer negotiations. Results showed substantial contextual variations in the actor and partner effects of PD values. Whereas Chinese employees' PD values positively influenced American managers' priority information exchange, American employees' PD values had a negative partner effect on it. Whereas Chinese employees' PD values negatively influenced Chinese managers' relationship building, American employees' PD values had a positive partner effect on it. American managers and employees both used significantly fewer integrative tactics and more distributive tactics in intercultural than intracultural negotiations, but neither Chinese managers nor Chinese employees exhibited behavioral difference. Theoretical and practical implications of the study are discussed.

Managerial and Employee Conflict Communication in Papua New Guinea: Application of the Culture‐Based Social Ecological Conflict Model
Polang Forenuwe Tommy¹, John G. Oetzel^2
1Independent Contractor, Lae, Morobe Province, Papua New Guinea
²Waikato Management School, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ncmr.12137

Abstract
Framed by the culture‐based social ecological conflict model (CBSECM), this study examines individuals' accounts of conflict communication in Papua New Guinea (PNG) between Chinese managers and PNG employees. In‐depth qualitative interviews were conducted with 14 participants: six Chinese managers and eight PNG employees. The findings show that primary orientation elements of face and power distance and situational features of labor laws and family obligations shape reported conflict communication strategies. PNG employees tended to submit to managers even when they felt wrongly accused given their cultural orientations and situational constraints. To express dissent, these employees often used indirect, passive resistance strategies. Chinese managers reported using competition to resolve conflicts. The resulting conflict outcomes are distrust and dissatisfaction and have potential negative implications for intercultural relations and organizational success. The study contributes to the CBSECM by illuminating some of the multilevel effects proposed in the model.

Building an Inclusive Climate for Intercultural Dialogue: A Participant‐Generated Framework
Benjamin J. Broome¹, Ian Derk², Robert J. Razzante³, Elena Steiner⁴, Jameien Taylor⁵, and Aaron Zamora^{6
1,2,3,4,5,6}Hugh Downs School of Human Communication, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, U.S.A

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ncmr.12158

Abstract
This study investigates the question of how to build an inclusive environment for intercultural dialogue. Using the university campus as a context for our research, we conducted a facilitated idea generation workshop in which participants identified a set of dialogic competencies, followed by individual interviews in which we explored participants' perceptions of the relationships among these competencies. Interviews were conducted utilizing a software‐assisted, idea‐structuring methodology referred to as Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM). Based on our results, we constructed a framework that depicts the overall flow of influence among the set of dialogic competencies identified by the participants. While findings confirm the importance placed in current literature on factors such as listening and empathy, they provide a more sophisticated and nuanced perspective on how to accomplish one of the oft‐stated goals of intercultural dialogue, which is to help participants examine their unconscious biases, prejudices, and privileges.

Northerners and Southerners Differ in Conflict Culture
Evert Van de Vliert¹, Lucian Gideon Conway III^2
1Department of Social and Organizational Psychology, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
²Department of Psychology, University of Montana, Missoula, MT, U.S.A.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ncmr.12138

Abstract
The present study uses regression analysis of existing cross‐national data sets to demonstrate that ingroup–outgroup discrimination and intergroup conflict management vary more along the north–south (latitudinal) axis than along the east–west axis of the Earth. Ingroup favoritism, outgroup rejection, political oppression, legal discrimination, and communication bullying are all less prevalent among Northerners than among Southerners in the Northern Hemisphere, but more prevalent among Northerners than among Southerners in the Southern Hemisphere. These findings provide a rich source for further research into how social conflicts are habitually experienced and handled by residents of northern versus southern habitats. A supplementary analysis specifies the extent to which ecological stressors-thermal stress, hydraulic stress, pathogenic stress, and subsistence stress-help explain why there are oppositely sloping north–south gradients of conflict culture above and below the equator. Taken in total, these results demonstrate the importance of considering latitude in forming a deeper understanding of conflict management and negotiation.

 NCMR Journal Home Page: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1750-4716

------------------------------
Michael Gross
Professor
Colorado State University
Fort Collins CO
(970) 491-6368
------------------------------