1

INTERCULTURAL CONFLICT MANAGEMENT: A MINDFUL APPROACH

By Stella Ting-Toomey**

California State University at Fullerton

[email protected]

Intercultural miscommunication and misattributions often underscore intercultural conflict.

Individuals coming from two contrastive cultural communities bring with them different value
assumptions, expectations, verbal and nonverbal habits, and interaction scripts that influence the
conflict process. Intercultural conflict is defined as the perceived or actual incompatibility of
values, norms, processes, or goals between a minimum of two cultural parties over content,
identity, relational, and procedural issues. While everyday intercultural conflicts are often based
on cultural ignorance or misunderstanding, it is obvious that not all intercultural conflicts are
based on miscommunication or lack of understanding. Some intercultural conflicts are based on
deep-seated hatred, and centuries-old antagonism often arising from long-standing historical
grievances. However, a majority of everyday conflicts that we encounter can be traced to cultural
miscommunication or ignorance.

Conflict is an intense disagreement process between two interdependent parties over

incompatible goals and the interference each perceives from the other in her or his effort to
achieve those goals. The major characteristics of intercultural conflict are the following: (1)
conflict involves intercultural perceptions--perceptions are filtered through our lenses of
ethnocentrism and stereotypes, and perceptions color our conflict attribution process; (2) conflict
involves interaction--conflict is sustained and managed via verbal and nonverbal behaviors, and
verbal and nonverbal behaviors are culture-bound concepts; (3) conflict involves
interdependence--for a conflict to arise, the behavior of one or both parties must have
consequences for the other, for otherwise the conflict parties can walk away from each other
easily; (4) conflict involves both self-interest and mutual-interest goals--conflict is a mixed-up
and incomplete jigsaw puzzle, both parties needing something from each other in order to
complete the entire picture; and (5) conflict involves the protection of inter-group images--in an
intercultural or inter-group conflict situation, conflict parties have to worry about protecting both
individual and group-based images.

This paper examines some of the cultural background factors that influence face-to-face
intercultural conflict. It is developed in two main sections. First, some underlying factors that
contribute to intercultural conflict processes are identified. Second, a mindful competence-based
approach to intercultural conflict management is discussed.

Intercultural Conflict: Contributing Factors

There are many factors that affect the escalation or de-escalation of intercultural conflict
 2

negotiation, some of which are: different conflict norms, different conflict styles, and different
conflict rhythms. In order to explain these factors, we need a perspective to organize and relate
ideas in a coherent fashion. We use a cultural variability perspective to illustrate how some of the
factors stem from our conceptions of cultural, personal, and communication self-images. A
cultural variability perspective emphasizes the four dimensions of: individualism-collectivism,
power distance, construal of self, and low or high-context communication. These four
dimensions influence the values we hold in approaching or avoiding conflict, the way we
attribute meanings to conflict events, and the way we communicate in specific conflict episodes.
This section is organized in two parts: first, we look at conflict from a cultural variability
perspective with examples, and then we consider some of the specific factors contributing to
intercultural conflicts.

A Cultural Variability Perspective

A value-based dimension, such as individualism-collectivism, can provide us with a more in-

depth understanding of why members of two contrastive cultures (e.g., those of Germany and
Thailand) approach conflict differently. Power distance, as a value dimension, also influences
our expectations of how we should be treated and how we treat others. In addition to these two
value dimensions, the dimension of self-construal helps us to understand individual distinctions.
While the construal of self dimension explains individual-level approaches to conflict, the
difference between low and high-context communication explains conflict style differences
between cultures and individuals.

Individualism-Collectivism Values. Basically, individualism refers to the broad value tendencies

of people in a culture to emphasize the individual identity over group identity, and individual
rights over group obligations. In contrast, collectivism refers to the broad value tendencies of
people in a culture to emphasize the group identity over the individual identity, and in-group-
oriented concerns over individual wants and desires (Hofstede, 1980, 1991; Triandis, 1995).

Individualism is expressed in interpersonal conflict through the strong assertion of personal

opinions, the display of personal emotions, and the importance of personal accountability for any
conflict problem or mistake. Collectivism, on the other hand, is manifested in interpersonal
conflict through the representation of collective opinions or ideas, the restraint of personal
emotional expressions, and the protection of in-group members, if possible, from being held
accountable for the conflict problem. In intercultural communication research, British, French,
German, Scandinavian, Swiss, Australian, Canadian, and the U.S. cultures have been identified
consistently as cultures high in individualistic value tendencies (Hofstede 1991). IN constrast,
strong empirical evidence has shown that many East Asian (e.g., China, Japan, and Korea),
Southeast Asian (e.g., Thailand and Vietnam), Mediterranean (e.g., Greece and Italy), Latino
(e.g., Brazil and Mexico), Middle Eastern (e.g., Iran and Saudi Arabia), and African (e.g.,
Ghana) cultures can be identified clearly as group-based cultures (Hofstede, 1991). Various
degrees and forms of individualism and collectivism (see, for example, Triandis, 1995) exist in
different cultures.

Nevertheless, we can also find both individualistic and collectivistic elements in all of these
countries, in different combinations (Triandis, 1995). Additionally, considerable within-culture
 3

differences have also been uncovered in many of the pluralistic societies. For example, within a
pluralistic society (such as Canada or the United States), different ethnic communities can also
display distinctive individualistic and group-oriented value tendencies. For example, ethnic
groups that follow their ethnic traditions such as African Americans, Asian Americans, Latino/a
Americans, and Native Americans tend to subscribe to some forms of collectivistic values more
than do many European Americans. Cultural and ethnic miscommunication and conflicts often
arise because of our ignorance of different value priorities in different ethnic communities and
cultures. In addition to individualism-collectivism, in order to mindfully manage intercultural
conflicts, we should pay close attention to the value dimension of power distance.

Power Distance Values. The Philippines, together with Malaysia, Korea, Japan, Guatemala,
Panama, Mexico, and many Arab countries have been identified as large power distance cultures
(Hofstede, 1991) whose members give priority treatment and asymmetrical respect to people
who are in high-status positions. Subordinates know their "humble" roles, whereas superiors and
managers know their "superior" role scripts. In comparison, in small power distance cultures
such as Denmark, Norway, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States (to a moderate
degree), members in either high-status or low-status positions strive to foster informal,
symmetrical interaction. Subordinates expect to be respected and valued based more on personal
attributes than on their by position or titles. Supervisors tend to play consultative roles more than
authoritarian roles.

Intercultural expectancy violations and miscommunications are commonplace when a supervisee

subscribes to small power distance values and a supervisor subscribes to larger power distance
values in an international corporation. The small power distance supervisee wants more personal
respect from his or her supervisor, and the large power distance supervisor expects more
deference and humility from the supervisee. Moving beyond the general discussion of culture-
level differences, we next examine individual-level differences within and across cultures.

Construal of Self. An alternative way to understand individualism and collectivism and power
distance focuses on how individuals within a culture conceptualize the sense of "self." Markus
and Kitayama (1991) argue that our self-conception within our culture profoundly influences our
communication with others: individuals with a strongly independent sense of self tend to see self
as autonomous, self-reliant, unencumbered, and as rational choice-makers; individuals with a
strongly interdependent sense of self tend to see themselves as in-group-bound, obligatory
agents, and as harmony seekers. Both types of self-construal exist within a culture. Overall,
however, whereas independent concepts of self are more common in individualistic cultures,
interdependent concepts of self are more common in collectivistic cultures.

Independent-self people tend to "make sense" of their environment through "autonomous self"
lenses, interdependent-self people tend to "make sense" of their surrounding through "in-group
self" lenses. Independent-self individuals tend to worry about whether they present their
"individualistic self" credibly and competently in front of others. Interdependent-self individuals
tend to be more reflective of what others think of their projected "face image" in the context of
in-group/out-group relations. Finally, while independent-self individuals tend to practice direct
verbal communication in expressing thoughts and feelings, interdependent-self individuals tend
to practice responsive communication in anticipating the thoughts and feelings of the other
 4

person. Direct, verbal communication reflects a low-context way of communicating, and

responsive communication reflects a high-context way of communicating (Hall, 1976, 1983).

Parallel to the above self construal idea, we can examine power distance from a personal
variation dimension. Individuals and their behaviors can be conceptualized as either moving
toward the "horizontal self" spectrum or the "vertical self" spectrum. Individuals who endorse
horizontal self- construal prefer informal, symmetrical interactions (i.e., equal treatment)
regardless of people's status positions or the occasion. In comparison, individuals who emphasize
vertical self-construal prefer formal, asymmetrical interactions (i.e., differential treatment) with
due respect to people with high-status positions, titles, and the special occasion. While horizontal
selves tend to be predominant in small power distance cultures, vertical selves tend to be
predominant in large power distance cultures.

Low-Context and High-Context Communication. Low-context communication emphasizes how

intention or meaning can be best expressed through the explicit verbal message. High-context
communication emphasizes how intention or meaning can be best conveyed through the context
(e.g., social roles, positions) and nonverbal channels (e.g., pauses, silence, tone of voice) of the
verbal message (Hall, 1976). In general, low-context communication refers to communication
patterns of direct verbal mode, straight talk, nonverbal immediacy, and sender-oriented value. In
low-context communication, the speaker of the message is expected to be responsible for
constructing a clear, persuasive message that the listener can decode easily. In contrast, high-
context communication refers to communication patterns of indirect verbal mode, ambiguous
talk, nonverbal subtleties, and interpreter-sensitive value (Ting-Toomey, 1985). In high-context
communication, the listener or interpreter of the message is expected to read "between the lines,"
to accurately infer the implicit intent of the verbal message, and to observe the nonverbal
nuances and subtleties that encircle or "wrap" the verbal message.

Low-context communication emphasizes the importance of explicit verbal messages to convey

personal thoughts, opinions, and feelings. High-context communication emphasizes the
importance of multilayered contexts (e.g., historical context, social norms, roles, situational and
relational contexts) that frame the interaction encounter. While independent-self individualists
engage in low-context styles of conflict management, interdependent-self collectivists engage in
high-context styles of conflict negotiation. Overall, the cultural variability dimensions of
individualism versus collectivism, small or large power distance, independent or interdependent
self, horizontal or vertical self, and low- or high-context communication patterns help to guide us
toward a general understanding of conflict process between members of individualistic and
collectivistic cultures.

Cultural-Based Conflict: Different Lenses

Drawing from the key ideas of a cultural variability perspective, the following sub-sections
identify the different lenses that create intercultural frictions and conflicts between individualists
and collectivists. These lenses include: different conflict assumptions, conflict rhythms, conflict
norms, conflict styles, and ethnocentric lenses. Culture-based lenses can distort our perceptions
and interpretations of exchanged messages in conflict episodes.
 5

Different Conflict Assumptions. The values of individualism versus collectivism, and how these
are linked to individual self-construals and low-context and high-context interaction, affect our
assumptions about conflict. Cultural assumptions about conflict color our attitudes, expectations,
and behaviors in a conflict episode. Different cultural assumptions toward conflict serve as the
first set of factors that contribute to intercultural miscommunication and antagonism.

For individualists, interpersonal conflict resolution follows an "outcome-oriented" model.

However, for collectivists, interpersonal conflict management follows a "process-oriented"
model. An outcome-oriented model emphasizes the importance of asserting I-identity interests in
the conflict situation and moving rapidly toward the phase of reaching tangible outcomes or
goals. A process-oriented model, in contrast, emphasizes the importance of the management of
"mutual or group face" interests in the conflict process before any tangible outcomes or goals can
be discussed. As earlier, "face," in this context, refers to the orientation of upholding a claimed
sense of positive public image in any social interactive situations (Ting-Toomey, 1994c). From
the collectivistic perspective, face is not about what one thinks of oneself but about what others
think of one's worth, especially within the context of one's ingroup and outgroup. For
individualists, effective conflict negotiation means settling the conflict problem openly and
working out a set of functional conflict solutions conjointly. Effective conflict resolution
behavior (e.g., emphasizing the importance of addressing incompatible goals/outcomes) is
relatively more important for individualists than is appropriate facework behavior. For
collectivists, on the other hand, appropriate conflict management means the subtle negotiation of
ingroup/outgroup face-related issues--pride, honor, dignity, insult, shame, disgrace, humility,
trust, mistrust, respect, and prestige--in a given conflict episode. Appropriate facework moves
and countermoves are critical for collectivists before tangible conflict outcomes or goals can be
addressed. To summarize, independent-self individualists tend to operate from the following
"outcome-oriented" model of conflict assumptions:

(1) Conflict is perceived as closely related to the goals or outcomes that are salient to the
respective individual conflict parties in a given conflict situation;

(2) Communication in the conflict process is viewed as dissatisfying when the conflict parties are
not willing to deal with the conflict openly and honestly;

(3) Conversely, communication in the conflict process is viewed as satisfying when the conflict
parties are willing to confront the conflict issues openly and share their feelings honestly (i.e.,
assertively but not aggressively);

(4) The conflict outcome is perceived as unproductive when no tangible outcomes are reached or
no plan of action is developed;

(5) The conflict outcome is perceived as productive when tangible solutions are reached and
objective criteria are met;

(6) Effective and appropriate management of conflict means individual goals are addressed and
differences are being dealt with openly, honestly, and properly in relation to timing and the
 6

situational context.

Interdependent-self collectivists follow the conflict assumptions of a "process-oriented" model:

(1) Conflict is weighed against the face-threat incurred in the conflict negotiation process; it is
also being interpreted in the webs of ingroup/outgroup relationships;

(2) Communication in the conflict process is perceived as threatening when the conflict parties
push for substantive issue discussion before proper facework management;

(3) Communication in the conflict interaction is viewed as satisfying when the conflict parties
engage in mutual face-saving and face-giving behavior and attend to both verbal and nonverbal
signals;

(4) The conflict process oroutcome is perceived as unproductive when face issues are not
addressed and relational/group feelings are not attended to properly;

(5) The conflict process or outcome is defined as productive when both conflict parties can claim
win-win results on the facework fronts in addition to substantive agreement;

(6) Appropriate and effective management of conflict means that the mutual "faces" of the
conflict parties are saved or even upgraded in the interaction and they have dealt with the conflict
episode strategically in conjunction with substantive gains or losses.

Thus, whereas individualists are concerned with conflict problem-solution closure, collectivists
are concerned with ingroup/outgroup face dynamic issues. These implicit conflict assumptions
are, in turn, superimposed on the rhythms and pacing of intercultural conflict resolution.

In dealing with intercultural conflict situations mindfully, we must first recognize just what our
ethnocentric lenses we look through to evaluate a conflict situation. In perceiving unfamiliar
conflict behaviors, we use our culture-based scripts to evaluate whether the behavior is "proper"
or "improper," "nonthreatening" or "threatening." Ethnocentrism colors our perceptions and
attitudes in any intergroup-based conflict situation. Acknowledging our own ethnocentric biases
and suspending our reactive evaluations are critical in managing the intercultural misattribution
process. By withholding our gut-level negative judgments concerning unfamiliar behavior, we
are giving ourselves and others a chance to understand the cultural nuances that exist in a
problematic situation.

Intercultural Conflict Management Skills

Constructive and destructive intercultural conflict management depends on many factors. One of
the key factors is the ability to apply flexible communication skills in managing both culture-
based and individual-based differences. Constructive intercultural conflict management is
defined as the use of culture-sensitive communication skills to manage the process of conflict
productively and reach important goals of all parties amicably. By contrast, destructive conflict
 7

means the parties are engaging in inflexible thinking and inflexible conflict patterns that lock
them into prolonged cycles of defensiveness and mutual dissatisfaction leading to escalation or
total impasse.

In constructive conflict resolution, the parties are mindful of culture-based factors that contribute
to the different approaches to the dispute. They are mindful of the different goals that underlie
the issue between them. They are also willing to experiment with different constructive conflict
management skills and to draw on cultural resources to reach a synergistic common ground. This
section is divided into two parts: first constructive conflict operational skills and then
suggestions for how individualists and collectivists can deal with conflicts productively.

Operational Skills Needed for Constructive Conflict Management

Skills refer to the actual abilities to perform those behaviors that are considered effective and
appropriate in a given situation. Operational skills enable us to put our culture-based knowledge
into practice. Such skills also depend heavily on our motivation or commitment to working out
the conflict peacefully and productively together with our opponents.

A major problem exists, however, when individualists and collectivists hold different notions of
what constitute effective and appropriate practices in conflict resolution. For individualists a
conflict is effectively resolved when personal opinions are voiced and acknowledged, interests
are defined and clarified, each side’s goals are either reached or compromised, and action plans
are drawn up for avoiding trouble in the future. In addition, individualists perceive themselves to
have acted appropriately when they display sensitivity to the background and causes of the
conflict. Conversely, for collectivists a conflict is effectively resolved when both parties help to
attain mutual face-saving while reaching a consensus on substantive issue between them. In
addition, a conflict is appropriately managed when both sides acknowledge the expectations of
the relevant ingroups, and give honor and attention to the ingroups’ needs. To collectivists, a
conflict solution has group-based and long-term implications. It entails fulfilling mutual face
needs during disagreement and repaying any incurred "face" debts and obligations from a long-
term, historical perspective.

Overall, the individualistic, outcome-oriented model promotes the criterion of effectiveness over
that of appropriateness. Conversely, the collectivistic, process-oriented model emphasizes the
criterion of appropriateness over that of effectiveness. Moreover, achieving one criterion may
help achieve the other. For individualists, by effectively resolving the substantive issues in
conflict, appropriate and cordial interaction between the parties can follow naturally. However,
from a collectivist point of view, acting appropriately (in accordance to one's status and position)
in the conflict situation and inducing facework cooperation can ultimately bring about effective
outcomes. For collectivists, making strategic face moves and incurring face debts from the other
party are often much more important than "winning" or "losing" a conflict. From a collectivist
perspective, "losing" a given conflict in the moment can be interpreted as "winning" key
advantages in the long-term facework obligatory process. Of course, the facework negotiation
sequence would vary according to individualistic and collectivistic value tendencies. To manage
intercultural conflict constructively, we must take other people's cultural perspectives and
personality factors into consideration. If others are interdependent-self collectivists, we may
 8

want to pay extra attention to their "process-oriented" assumptions as to the negotiation. If others
are independent-self individualists, we may want to be sensitive to their "outcome-oriented"
assumptions as to the negotiation. The following are some skills that both individualists and
collectivists can practice during their conflict negotiation process.

Mindful Listening. Acquiring new information in conflict negotiation means both parties have to
learn to listen mindfully to each other even when they are disagreeing. In an intercultural conflict
situation, disagreeing parties have to learn to listen attentively to the cultural assumptions that
are being expressed in the interaction. They have to learn to listen responsively or ting (the
Chinese word for "listening" means attending closely with our "ears, eyes, and a focused heart")
to the sounds, tones, gestures, movements, nonverbal nuances, pauses, and silence in a given
situation.

They parties have to learn to mindfully notice the verbal, nonverbal, and meta-nonverbal
contexts that are being conveyed in the conflict negotiation process. It is also important to create
new categories or contexts in "minding" our listening process. Creating new categories in
conflicts means learning to create or apply culturally-sensitive concepts such as low or high-
context communication styles in making sense of conflict variation behaviors. Finally, being
aware that multiple perspectives exist means individuals can apply different frameworks (such as
both individualistic and collectivistic perspectives) in analyzing and interpreting a conflict
situation and come up with a creative, synergistic solution.

Mindful Reframing. Mindful reframing means that both individualists and collectivists need to
learn how to "translate" the other's verbal and nonverbal messages from the context of the other's
cultural viewpoint. Reframing also means conflict parties need to reprioritize their goals after
mindfully observing and listening to the viewpoints and expectations of their conflict opponents.
For example, after listening to the complaint from a collectivist, an individualist may realize that
the friction lies not in content goal issues but in identity respect/disrespect issues. Conversely,
after understanding the complaint from an individualist, a collectivist may realize that an
individualist really wants solution closure and is in no way trying to "slight" the face-image of
the collectivist. Both parties should also remember that many of these conflicts are based on out-
of-awareness cultural habits and scripts.

Face-Management Skills. Intercultural conflict parties should learn to cultivate face-management

skills in dealing with intergroup negotiations competently. Face-management skills basically
address the fundamental core issue of social self-esteem. All human beings like to be respected
and be approved of in their daily interactions. However, how they behaviorally show such self-
respect needs and concerns as well as how others accord them respect and dignity very likely
differ from one culture to the next.

Individualists may want to learn to "give face" to the collectivists in the conflict negotiation
process. Giving face means not humiliating others, especially one’s opponents, in public. It also
means acknowledging collectivists' ingroup concerns and obligations. Collectivists, on the other
hand, may want to reorient facework concerns and learn to pay more attention to the substantive
issues at stake. Collectivists may also want to recognize that individualists often separate
substantive issues from socioemotional issues in conflict. Conversely, individualists may want to
 9

pay more attention to the interlink between substantive issues and facework/relational issues
when negotiating disagreements with collectivists. Thus, although the concern for face
maintenance is universal, how we manage face issues is a cultural-specific phenomenon.

Trust-Building Skills. Another skill that is critical in intercultural conflict competence is that of
trust-building. If conflict parties do not trust each other, they tend to move away (cognitively,
affectively, and physically) from each other rather than struggle side-by-side with each other in
the negotiations. Trust is often viewed as the single most important element of a good working
relationship (Fisher & Brown, 1988). When we do not trust someone's words or actions, we also
tend to automatically turn off our listening devices. We may hear the words, but we are not
taking them in. Trust-building is both a mindset and a communication skill. Especially in
intercultural conflict situations, when we are experiencing high anxieties with unfamiliar
behavior (e.g., accents, nonverbal gestures), we may automatically withhold our trust. Well-
founded trust is critical in any effective and appropriate management of intercultural conflicts.

To develop trust, we have to understand the cultural meanings behind the words "trust" and
"trustworthiness." Trust means to rely on the consistency of someone's credibility, words,
behaviors, actions, or network support. Trustworthiness means to make our own behaviors or
actions worthy of the trust of others. In small power distance cultures, trust is often based on
charismatic personality traits, personal credibility, reliability, persuasive words, and decisive
actions. In comparison, in large power distance cultures, trust is usually based on credible roles
in a reputable organization, dependable family and kinship networks, and consistency between
words and actions from a long-term perspective. For example, Lederach (1997), in working with
many peace-building projects in Central America (e.g., El Salvador, Guatemala) observes that
the following three key terms are vital to the conflict resolution process in this region: confianza,
cuello, and coyuntura. In brief, confianza refers to "trust" or "confidence". It refers to individuals
who "inspire my confidence" and in whom "I can deposit my trust." Confianza emphasizes
sincerity, reliability, and continuous support across time. Cuello literally means "neck, the
connection of head and heart, but is one of many vernacular metaphors in Spanish for
'connections' that help get things done. In other words, cuello is the strategic use of my network.
When faced with everyday problems and conflicts, Central Americans are more likely to think
first of 'who' than of 'what' in order to get out of the problem. Coyuntura is often translated as
'juncture' and or 'timing,' but it really represents a metaphor for placing oneself in the stream of
time and space and determining at any given moment what things mean and therefore what
should be done. Coyuntura is 'timing' to the degree that timing contemplates the fluidity and art
of the possible. In practical conflict resolution terms, it means being present and available on an
ongoing basis" (Lederach, 1997, p. 96). Thus, the "TNT" or "Trust, Networking, and Timing"
approach is essential to foster trust in the peacemaking process in the Central American region.

Understanding core metaphors, terms, and cultural premises and meanings behind these
"linguistic categories" sensitize so we can glimpse part of the social reality from cultural insiders'
standpoint. In fact, the Chinese word for "trust" or "xin" means "a person keeping his or her
words consistently, in a dependable manner, and one who will deliver them properly in a
functional context." In many high power distance cultures, the pledged of high-status individuals
are their "face." When the words are spoken, the actions will be carried out and promises will be
diligently kept. Thus, people in high power distance cultures tend to be verbally cautious in their
 10

conflict negotiations. They tend not to trust people who are too "wordy" or "verbally persuasive."

Collaborative Dialogue and Communication Adaptability

Collaborative Dialogue. In collaborative dialogue sessions with collectivists, individualists may

want to: (1) Practice patience and verbal restraint in articulating their personal interests, goals,
and wants, (2) use vocal segregates or back-channeling cues such as "uhm, uhm," or "uh-huh" to
signal listening attentiveness, (3) be open to the expressions of stories, proverbs, metaphors,
analogies, and understatements, (4) use self-effacing questions to encourage the others to coach
you or show you the way, (5) address the conflict problem to general team members rather than
singling out one person, (6) accept longer turn-taking pauses and reflective silences, (7) use
appropriate head nods to indicate identity affirmation, and (8) listen to the identity and relational
meanings that underscore the conflict content messages.

In collaborative dialogue sessions with individualists, collectivists may want to: (1) Practice
verbal assertiveness in articulating their personal interests, goals, and wants, (2) use direct verbal
responses to indicate agreements, negotiable points, and disagreements, (3) articulate clearly the
reasons behind the disagreement from either an inductive mode (i.e., from specific reasons to
general conclusions when dealing with say ,U.S. Americans) or a deductive logical mode (i.e.,
from a general framework to specific reasons, for example, dealing with Western Europeans), (4)
use direct, specific questions to cross-check facts, interests, and unclear goals, (5) target the
questions to a specific individual, (6) learn to engage in overlap talks and faster turn-taking
verbal behavior, (7) use verbal paraphrasing to summarize what you have heard in your own
words to prevent misunderstanding, (8) use perception check questions to clarify whether you
have interpreted the nonverbal messages accurately, and (9) listen to content messages and action
plans, as well as identity and relational meanings that underlie content messages.

Collaborative dialogue is based on a culture-sensitive, respectful inquiry process in which

conflict parties try to suspend their own assumptions regarding the conflict situation. Rather,
they work on inviting the other conflict parties to tell their stories, expectations, and needs. In the
inquiry stage, new dimensions of thinking, feeling, and seeing are explored. Cultural dimensions
of inquiry can include the following questions: (a) What are their cultural identity tendencies--
individualistic-based or group-based? (b) What are their power value tendencies--horizontal-
based or vertical-based? (c) What are their facework assumptions--"I-identity" or "we-identity"
facework model? (d) What are their preferred interaction styles--direct, low-context or indirect,
high-context styles?

Personal dimensions of inquiry can include the following questions: (a) What activates their
personal motivations--independent-self or interdependent-self motivations--and what is the
extent of discrepancy between the personal-self and the cultural-self motivations? (b) How
would they like to be respected--on an equal basis or a deferential basis? (c) What would it take
to satisfy their face needs--approval face (self vs. other) and/or boundary respect (personal
privacy vs. group-based regulation) issues? and (d) What are the most effective ways to practice
appropriate facework interaction in this particular situation?

Collaborative dialogue, in a long-term negotiation session, aims to unfold common identity-need

 11

issues such as safety, honor/dignity, boundary, approval, competence, and meaning issues. The
more we learn to display a genuine, inquiring attitude, the more we may uncover deep-level
common interests and common ground. Collaborative dialogue also emphasizes inclusivity in
terms of drawing from local cultural resources in mediating or managing the historical,
intergroup conflict problem. To engage in genuine collaborative dialogue, the international
community needs to adopt a paradigm shift : "that we move beyond a simple prescription of
answers and modalities for dealing with conflict from outside the setting and focus at least as
much attention on discovering and empowering the resources, modalities, and mechanisms for
building peace that exist [within] the context" (Lederach, 1997, p. 95). any examples of cultural
resources' inclusivity can be identified. From Somalia, we have the extraordinary example of
"women functioning as forerunners in rebuilding interclan communication, which prepared the
way for clan conferences--guided by elders and massaged by poets--that led to local and regional
peace agreements. From Mozambique is the...example of the UNICEF-funded 'Circus of Peace,'
built on traditional arts, music, and drama, which targeted and incorporated children at the
village level in conflict resolutions and peacebuilding activities"

(Lederach, 1997, p. 95). While the roads to peace are diverse, the ultimate goal of universal
peace without violence remains a common vision.

After understanding the different angles on all issues (e.g., cultural premises toward conflicts,
face/identity, relational, and process issues), the two cultural teams can then use the following
substantive problem-solving sequence: differentiation, mutual problem description, and
integration (Papa & Papa, 1997). The differentiation phase refers to the important stage of
clarifying conflict positions, interests, and goals, and pursuing the underlying reasons that
underscore the positional differences. The mutual problem description phase refers to the stage
wherein the conflict problem is described in specific, mutually understandable terms. Each party
tries to use neutral-toned language to describe the conflict situation and its related dilemmas.
Individuals refrain from any evaluative comment or intrusive interruptions. Individuals also
focus on peace-building outcomes rather than on assigning blames.

Lastly, the integration phase includes (1) displaying cooperative, mutual-interest intentions via
culture-sensitive verbal and nonverbal acknowledgment and supportive messages; (2) generating
creative solutions via a wide range of cultural approaches such as traditional dramas, storytelling,
naming cultural metaphors, proverbs, visualization or sculpting techniques (i.e., using people as
nonverbal living sculptures to role-play the solutions), and Western "brainstorming"; (3)
evaluating the positive and negative aspects of each solution and making sure that all cultural
members are committed and involved in the selection process; (4) combining the best of different
solutions that members of both teams help to blend together; (5) selecting the best synergistic
solutions that are applicable (i.e., desirable and feasible) to both cultural teams; and (6)
establishing a monitoring system (e.g., a timeline and criteria for successful implementation) to
determine if the solution or action plan is culturally workable.

Communication Adaptability. All the skills already mentioned cannot be applied prescriptively.
Depending on the context, the conflict issue, the people, relationship, resources, and timing--no
conflict resolution relies primarily on collaborative dialogue or mindful reframing alone. Even in
the best of negotiations, there will be a mixed pattern of competitive and collaborative
 12

exchanged messages. The key in any constructive conflict management is to be flexible and
adaptable and not be locked into by one set of thinking patterns or behavioral patterns.

Communication adaptability is one of the key skills to constructive intercultural conflict

negotiation. Communication adaptability refers to our ability to change our conflict goals and
behaviors to meet the specific needs of the situation (Duran, 1985). It signals our mindful
awareness of the other person's perspectives, interests, and/or goals, and our willingness to
modify our own interests or goals to adapt to the conflict situation. It can also imply behavioral
flexibility in dealing with the intercultural conflict episode. By mindfully observing what is
going on in the intercultural conflict situation, both parties may modify their nonverbal and
verbal behavior to achieve a more synchronized interaction process. In modifying or tailoring our
behavioral styles, polarized views on the conflict content problem may also be depolarized or
"softened."

In sum, constructive intercultural conflict management requires us to communicate effectively

and appropriately in different intercultural situations, which necessitates adaptation. Constructive
conflict management requires us to be knowledgeable and respectful of different worldviews and
multiple approaches to dealing with a conflict situation. It requires us to be sensitive to the
differences and similarities between individualistic and collectivistic cultures. It also demands
that we be aware of our own ethnocentric biases and cultural-based attributions when making
snapshot evaluations of other person's conflict management approaches.

Constructive conflict negotiation promotes flexible, adaptive behaviors in attuning to both the
process and the outcome of an intercultural conflict episode. While the study of intercultural
conflict is a complex phenomenon, understanding conflict along the individualism-collectivism
continuum and the personal variation continuum (e.g., the independent and interdependent self
across a spectrum) serves as the beginning step in understanding conflict variations among
different clusters of cultures.

**Citation source: Excerpted from the chapter (pp. 194-230): Constructive Intercultural Conflict
Management-- In Stella Ting-Toomey (1999), Communicating Across Cultures. New York:
The Guilford Press. All rights reserved. (http://www.guilford.com)