Conflict management styles: the differences among the Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to examine how the Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans resolve an interpersonal conflict with their supervisors and how cultural factors explain the differences in conflict management styles.Design/methodology/approachA survey was conducted involving 275 employees from China, Japan and South Korea. A hierarchical regression analysis and A‐matrix hypothesis test were used to analyze the data.FindingsKoreans, compared with the Chinese and Japanese, were more likely to use a compromise style. In addition, the Japanese, compared with the Chinese and Koreans, were less likely to dominate and were more likely to oblige their supervisors. The country differences in obliging and dominating styles were partially explained by goal emphasis (self vs collective) and concern for the self, respectively.Research limitations/implicationsWhile limited to recalling specific incidents and self‐reported responses, there is evidence that East Asians differ from each other in resolving their interpersonal conflicts with supervisors. Future research needs to examine East Asian differences in resolving an interpersonal conflict with other targets such as peers and subordinates and using other kinds of conflict management styles such as mediation and arbitration.Originality/valueThis is one of few studies that have examined East Asian differences in conflict management styles.

"Cultural Values, Emotional Intelligence, and Conflict Handling Styles: A Global Study"

“…One potential explanation for the mixed findings might be that previous studies have often failed to consider the culture-specific pattern of emotional intelligence (Gunkel, Schlä gel, & Engle, 2014;Miller, 1997;Shao, Doucet, & Caruso, 2014). While previous studies have shown that preferences for conflict handling styles vary substantially across countries (e.g., Doucet, Jehn, Weldon, Chen, & Wang, 2009;Gabrielidis, Stephan, Ybarra, Pearson, & Villareal, 1997;Kim, Wang, Kondo, & Kim, 2007;Posthuma, White, Dworkin, Yá nez, & Swift, 2006;Ting-Toomey et al, 1991), only a small number of studies (e.g., Kaushal & Kwantes, 2006;Komarraju, Dollinger, & Lovell, 2008;Morris et al, 1998) has analyzed the underlying reasons for these differences. Prior research suggests that differences in individuals' orientation toward different cultural value dimensions (i.e., the set of aspects that characterize a society according to its apparent place within the continuum of patterns described by the respective aspect) may be one promising explanation for cross-country differences in individual preferences for conflict handling styles (e.g., Holt & DeVore, 2005;Komarraju et al, 2008).…”

“…By directly measuring the full set of cultural value dimensions across a large number of countries and cultural regions the present study overcomes these limitations. Kim et al (2007) Power distance Integrating, obliging, avoiding, compromising, dominanting Cultural dimension is directly measured; respondents from three countries (China, Japan, and Korea) Kim & Meyers (2012) Holism Accommodating, avoidance, competing, collaborating, compromising…”

Cultural Difference in Conflict Management Strategies of Children and Its Development: Comparing 3- and 5-Year-Olds Across China, Japan, and Korea

“…Ting-Toomey et al (1991) conducted a questionnaire survey comparing American, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and Taiwanese students, noting that (a) Chinese prefer obliging, dominating, and avoiding more than Japanese and Koreans; (b) Chinese and Koreans prefer integrating and compromising more than Japanese; and (c) Japanese prefer obliging more than Koreans. Kim, Wang, Kondo, and Kim (2007) looked at conflict management styles of corporate subordinates and supervisors and found that Japanese use obliging styles more than Chinese and Koreans, whereas Koreans use compromising styles more than Chinese and Japanese. Yi and Park (2003) observed decision-making styles within interpersonal conflict among Americans, Canadians, Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans in their questionnaire survey and discovered that Koreans preferred dominating and obliging styles, whereas Japanese scored low on all styles relative to the other cultures.…”

The Conflict Management Grid: A Selection and Development Tool to Resolve the Conflict between the Marketing and Sales Organizations

“…Lee, 2003;Trubisky et al, 1991). Kim et al (2007) compared three different groups in terms of conflict management strategies at the workplace and found that the compromising strategy was used often when conflicts existed between employees and supervisors. The compromising strategy may produce beneficial results due to the fact that this strategy helps conflicting people quickly find solutions and provide benefits to both sides through concessions (Hocker and Wilmot, 1998;Gross and Guerrero, 2000;Rahim, 2002).…”