The 6-D model of national culture Geert Hofstede, assisted.docx

The 6-D model of national culture
Geert Hofstede, assisted by others, came up with six basic
issues that society needs to come to
term with in order to organize itself. These are called
dimensions of culture. Each of them has
been expressed on a scale that runs roughly from 0 to 100.
Dimension maps of the world: Individualism
Each dimension has been derived by comparing many, but not
all, countries in
the world. The findings can be summarized into six world maps
of the distribution
of that dimension. Of course, in reality there can be quite a bit
of within-country
variation; these maps should be seen as rough 'climate maps' of
culture.
The last two dimensions
The last two dimensions were found later, and in different
studies, than the first

four. This is why different countries appear on the world maps.
These maps are
taken from the 2007 book "Why we are different and similar" by
Michael Minkov.
In our 2010 book they are re-scaled to a 0-100 format.
Remember, the numbers
do not really 'mean' anything. They are just there for
convenience.
Dimension maps: Long-term Orientation
Culture-Based Negotiation Styles
In an anonymous article, a Japanese writer describes United
States negotiators as hard
to understand. One of the reasons for this, we are told, is
because "unlike Japanese,
the Americans are not racially or culturally homogenous."[1]
While it is difficult to
characterize any national or cultural approach to negotiation,
generalizations are
frequently drawn. These generalizations are helpful to the
extent that the reader
remembers that they are only guides, not recipes. Any
generalization holds true or not
depending on many contextual factors including time, setting,
situation, stakes, history

between the parties, nature of the issue, individual preferences,
interpersonal dynamics
and mood.
Any generalization will apply to some members of a group some
of the time. This is best
seen by considering generalizations about groups to which you
belong. If you hear that
women or men tend to negotiate in this way, or Americans in
another way, what effect
does it have on you as a member of these groups? If you want to
answer, "Actually, it
depends," you are among the majority, for most of us resist easy
categorization and
broad classifications. At the same time, it can be useful to back
up and attempt to see
ourselves and others from a distance so that the patterns and
habits that define what is
"normal" in negotiation can be examined for what they are:
culturally bound and
culturally defined common sense.
In this essay, some generalizations about cultural and national
approaches to
negotiation will be outlined. These may help negotiators and
mediators prepare for
negotiations by raising the kinds of differences that occur
across cultures, and pointing
out possible pitfalls of lack of attention to cultural factors. They
should be taken as a
series of starting points rather than definitive descriptions,
since cultural groups are too
diverse and changing contexts too influential to be described
reliably.
Before outlining these generalizations, a caveat: most of the

ways of studying culture,
communication, and negotiation are derived largely from
Western concepts. When a
U.S. or Western European instrument to measure assertiveness
in negotiation is
translated into Japanese, for example, it retains Western
assumptions about the nature
of assertiveness. A Japanese idea of assertiveness that included
avoidance as an
adaptive and appropriate strategy could be easily missed,
labeled as unassertive
because of cultural assumptions about the natures of assertion
and avoidance.
Because of the lack of good studies that take an intercultural
approach (using a variety
of starting points and currencies in developing the research
itself and a multicultural
team to carry it out), the generalizations that follow are limited.
More research is being
done on culture-specific approaches by insiders of various non-
Western cultures, and
some intercultural research is also being conducted -- these
should be carefully
examined as they become available.[2]
Cultural Approaches to Negotiation
In this section, various ways of analyzing cultural differences
will be discussed as they
relate to negotiation. The analytical tools come from the work
of several well-known
intercultural experts, including Hofstede, Hall, Kluckholn,
Strodtbeck, and Carbaugh.[3]
It must be emphasized that there is no one right approach to

negotiations. There are
only effective and less effective approaches, and these vary
according to many
contextual factors (See Culture and Conflict Resolution,
Cultural and Worldview
Frames, Cross-Cultural Communication, and/or Communication
Tools for
Understanding Cultural Differences). As negotiators understand
that their counterparts
may be seeing things very differently, they will be less likely to
make negative
judgments and more likely to make progress in negotiations.
Time Orientations
Two different orientations to time exist across the world:
monchronic and
polychronic. Monochronic approaches to time are linear,
sequential and involve
focusing on one thing at a time. These approaches are most
common in the European-
influenced cultures of the United States, Germany, Switzerland,
and Scandinavia.
Japanese people also tend toward this end of the time
continuum. Polychronic orientations to time involve
simultaneous occurrences of many
things and the involvement of many people. The time it takes to
complete an interaction
is elastic, and more important than any schedule. This
orientation is most common in
Mediterranean and Latin cultures including France, Italy,
Greece, and Mexico, as well
as some Eastern and African cultures.
Negotiators from polychronic cultures tend to

ot take lateness personally.
Negotiators from monochronic cultures tend to
n sequence,
Another dimension of time relevant to negotiations is the focus
on past, present, or
future. Cultures like Iran, India, and the Far East are
categorized by Carbaugh as past-
oriented. The United States, he indicates, tends to be oriented to
the present and the
near-future. Latin America leans toward both present and past
orientations. As detailed
https://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/culture-conflict
https://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/cultural-frames
https://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/cross-cultural-
communication
https://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/communication-
tools
tools
in other essays, indigenous people in North America combine a
past- and future-

oriented approach to time that stretches seven generations
forward and back.
Negotiators focused on the present should be mindful that
others may see the past or
the distant future as part of the present. Negotiators for whom
time stretches into the
past or the future may need to remember that a present
orientation can bring about
needed change.
Space Orientations
Space orientations differ across cultures. They have to do with
territory, divisions
between private and public, comfortable personal distance,
comfort or lack of comfort
with physical touch and contact, and expectations about where
and how contact will
take place. In Northern European countries, personal space is
much larger than in
Southern European countries. For a German or a Swedish
person, for example, the
Italians or the Greeks get too close. An American etiquette
manual advises this about
personal space: "When you meet someone, don't stand too close.
(Remember the
angry expression, "Stay out of my face!") An uncomfortable
closeness is very annoying
to the other person, so keep your physical distance, or he'll have
to keep backing off
from you. A minimum of two feet away from the other person
will do it."[4]
Certain cultures, including Mediterranean, Arab, and Latin
American, are more tactile
and allow more touching. Asian, indigenous American,

Canadian, and U.S. cultures
tend to discourage touching outside of intimate situations.
Certain cultures allow cross-
gender touching, including the United States, while same-
gender touching is less
acceptable. These rules change in Japan, where women are
frequently seen holding
hands, but not men. In the Mediterranean, it is common to see
men holding hands or
touching in public, but not women. Greeting rituals fit with
these patterns, so awareness
of local norms is important for negotiators.
Space also relates to comfort with eye contact and attributions
related to eye contact or
lack of eye contact. In United States and Canadian dominant
culture settings as well as
many Arab cultures, eye contact is taken as a sign of reliability
and trustworthiness. In
North American indigenous settings, eye contact may be seen as
disrespectful and
inappropriate. Similarly, in Asian settings, looking down is
usually interpreted as a sign
of respect. Beyond these generalizations is a great deal of
complexity. Lederach
observes, for example, that in Central America, a slight
movement of the eyes may
indicate embarrassment, showing respect, or disagreement."[5]
Seating arrangements for negotiations should take norms for
space into account. In
general, Americans tend to talk with people seated opposite
them, or at an angle. For
the Chinese, these arrangements may lead them to feel alienated
and uneasy. They
may prefer to converse while sitting side by side.

There are large differences in spatial preferences according to
gender, age, generation,
socioeconomic class, and context. These differences vary by
group, but should be
considered in any exploration of space as a variable in
negotiations.
Nonverbal Communication
Closely related to notions of space is nonverbal communication.
In intercultural studies,
Japanese negotiators have been observed to use the most
silence, Americans a
moderate amount, and Brazilians almost none at all.[6]
Touching may convey closeness
in some contexts and create offense in others. For example, in
Mexico, a hug may
reliably communicate the development of a trusting
relationship, while a German
negotiator might experience a hug as inappropriately
intimate.[7] Facial gazing, or
looking directly into the face of a negotiating counterpart, is
more common in Brazil than
the United States, and even more infrequent in Japan.
Power Distance
Geert Hofstede is an organizational anthropologist from the
Netherlands who did his
research within large, multinational corporations. It should be
applied to negotiations
outside commercial settings with care, but it is useful to look at
it because of the

dimensions of difference he identified across national cultures.
Hofstede uses the idea
of power distance to describe the degree of deference and
acceptance of unequal
power between people. Cultures where there is a comfort with
high power distance are
those where some people are considered superior to others
because of their social
status, gender, race, age, education, birth, personal
achievements, family background
or other factors. Cultures with low power distance tend to
assume equality among
people, and focus more on earned status than ascribed status.
Generally, the more
unequally wealth is distributed, the higher will be the power
distance in any national
setting. According to Hofstede, national cultures with a high
power distance include
Arab countries, Guatemala, Malaysia, the Philippines, Mexico,
Indonesia, and India.
Negotiators from these countries tend to be comfortable with
es, and
Countries with a low power distance include Austria, Denmark,
Israel, New Zealand,
Ireland, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Switzerland, Britain, and
Germany. Negotiators from
these countries tend to be comfortable with
legitimate purposes.

Uncertainty Avoidance
Another of Hofstede's categories has to do with the way
national cultures relate to
uncertainty and ambiguity, and therefore, how well they may
adapt to change.
Generally, countries that show the most discomfort with
ambiguity and uncertainty
include Arab, Muslim, and traditional African countries, where
high value is placed on
conformity and safety, risk avoidance, and reliance on formal
rules and rituals. Trust
tends to be vested only in close family and friends. It may be
difficult for outsider
negotiators to establish relationships of confidence and trust
with members of these
national cultures.
Hofstede identified the United States, Scandinavia, and
Singapore as having a higher
tolerance for uncertainty. Members of these national cultures
tend to value risk-taking,
problem-solving, flat organizational structures, and tolerance
for ambiguity. It may be
easier for outsiders to establish trusting relationships with
negotiating partners in these
cultural contexts.
Masculinity-Femininity
Hofstede used the terms masculinity and femininity to refer to
the degree to which a
culture values assertiveness or nurturing and social support. The

terms also refer to the
degree to which socially prescribed roles operate for men and
women. Hofstede rated
countries and regions such as Japan and Latin America as
preferring values of
assertiveness, task-orientation, and achievement. In these
cultures, there tend to be
more rigid gender roles and "live to work" orientations. In
countries and regions
rated feminine such as Scandinavia, Thailand, and Portugal,
values of cooperation,
nurturing, and relationship solidarity with those less fortunate
prevail, and the ethic is
more one of "work to live." Of course, it is important to
remember that associations with
gender vary greatly across cultures, so that elements considered
masculine in one
culture might be considered feminine in another. Negotiators
may find it useful to
consider the way gender roles play out in the cultural contexts
of their negotiating
partners.
Cross-Cultural Negotiations
It is difficult to track the myriad starting points used by
negotiators from different national
settings, especially as cultures are in constant flux, and context
influences behavior in
multiple ways. Another complication is that much of the cross-
cultural negotiation
literature comes from the organizational area. While it cannot
be applied wholesale to
the realm of intractable conflicts, this literature may provide
some hints about
approaches to negotiation in various national settings. Dr.

Nancy Adler compares key
indicators of success as reported by negotiators from four
national backgrounds.[8] Her
table is reproduced here, ranking characteristics of negotiators
in order of importance as
reported by managers in each national setting:
As Adler points out, Brazilians and Americans were almost
identical in the
characteristics they identified, except for the final category.
The Japanese tended to emphasize an interpersonal negotiating
style, stressing verbal
expressiveness, and listening ability, while their American and
Brazilian counterparts
focused more on verbal ability, planning, and judgment. To the
Chinese in Taiwan, it
was important that the negotiator be an interesting person who
shows persistence and
determination.
Negotiators also vary in the styles of persuasion they rely upon

and their comfort with
emotionality. In American settings, appeals tend to be made to
logic, relying on
"objective" facts. Emotional sensitivity is not highly valued,
and dealings may seem
straightforward and impersonal. Japanese negotiators value
emotional sensitivity highly,
and tend to hide emotions behind calm exteriors. Latin
American negotiators tend to
share the Japanese appreciation of emotional sensitivity, and
express themselves
passionately about their points of view. Arab negotiators may
appeal to emotions and
subjective feelings in an effort to persuade others. Russians, in
contrast, tend to appeal
to ideals, drawing everyone's attention to overarching
principles.[9]
AMERICAN
NEGOTIATORS
JAPANESE
NEGOTIATORS
CHINESE
(TAIWAN)
NEGOTIATORS
BRAZILIAN
NEGOTIATORS

Preparation and
planning skill
Dedication to job
Persistence and
determination
Preparation and
planning skill
Thinking under
pressure
Perceive and
exploit power
Win respect and
confidence
Thinking under
pressure
Judgment and
intelligence
Win respect and
confidence

Preparation and
planning skill
Judgment and
intelligence
Verbal
expressiveness
Integrity
Product
knowledge
Verbal
expressiveness
Product
knowledge
Demonstrate
listening skill
Interesting
Product
knowledge
Perceive and

exploit power
Broad perspective
Judgment and
intelligence
Perceive and
exploit power
Integrity
Verbal
expressiveness
Competitiveness
Many other cultural differences have been identified by
negotiation scholars. Some of
these differences are discussed in the other Beyond
Intractability essays regarding
culture and conflict resolution (See Culture and Conflict
Resolution, Cultural and
Worldview Frames, Cross-Cultural Communication, and/or
Communication Tools for
Understanding Cultural Differences). This essay concludes with
negotiating styles
associated with national and regional cultures. As with all
cultural patterns, these
generalizations do not apply to every circumstance or
individual. They are general

patterns that will shift as cultures and contexts shift.
U.S. Approaches to Negotiation
U.S. negotiators tend to rely on individualist values, imagining
self and other as
autonomous, independent, and self-reliant. This does not mean
that they don't consult,
but the tendency to see self as separate rather than as a member
of a web or network
means that more independent initiative may be taken. Looking
through the eyes of the
Japanese negotiator who wrote "Negotiating With Americans",
American negotiators
tend to:
coming to the table
with a fall-back position but beginning with an unrealistic offer;
their positions, and
see things universally -- i.e., they like to talk about broad
applications of ideas;
s on areas of disagreement, not areas of commonality or
agreement;
-endedness or
fuzziness.
Do these generalizations ring true? Clearly, it depends which
Americans you are talking
about, which sector they represent, and the context surrounding
the negotiations. Is this
a family matter or a commercial one? Is it about community
issues, national policy, or a

large public conflict? Strategies change according to context
and many other factors.
African Approaches to Negotiation
Many African nations have indigenous systems of conflict
resolution that have endured
into the present, sometimes quite intact and sometimes
fragmented by rapid social
change. These systems rely on particular approaches to
negotiation that respect kinship
ties and elder roles, and the structures of local society
generally. In Nigeria, for
example, people are organized in extended families (nnu'),
village (idu' or obio), lineage
('duk), and lineage groups (iman).[10] A belief in the
continuing ability of ancestors to
affect people's lives maintains social control, and makes the
need to have formal laws
or regulations minimal. Negotiation happens within social
networks, following prescribed
roles. Women in conflict with husbands, for example, are to
defer and apologize,
preparing a ritual meal to symbolize the restoration of harmony.
In the Nigerian Ibibio context, the goal of restoring social
networks is paramount, and
individual differences are expected to be subsumed in the
interest of the group. To
ensure that progress or an agreement in a negotiation is
preserved, parties must
https://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/cross-cultural-

communication
tools
tools
promise not to invoke the power of ancestors to bewitch or
curse the other in the future.
The aim of any process, formal or informal, is to affect a
positive outcome without a
"residue of bitterness or resentment."[11] Elders have
substantial power, and when they
intervene in a conflict or a negotiation, their words are
respected. This is partly because
certain elders are believed to have access to supernatural
powers that can remove
protective shields at best and cause personal disaster at worst.
In other African contexts, a range of indigenous processes exist
in which relationships
and hierarchies tend to be emphasized.
Japanese Styles of Negotiation
There is a great deal written about Japanese approaches to
negotiation, and collisions
between American and Japanese approaches are legendary.[12]
The following values
tend to influence Japanese communication: focus on group
goals, interdependence,
and a hierarchical orientation.[13] In negotiations, these values
manifest themselves in
awareness of group needs and goals, and deference to those of
higher status.
Japanese negotiators are known for their politeness, their

emphasis on establishing
relationships, and their indirect use of power.[14] Japanese
concern with face and face-
saving is one reason that politeness is so important and
confrontation is avoided. They
tend to use power in muted, indirect ways consistent with their
preference for harmony
and calm. In comparative studies, Japanese negotiators were
found to disclose
considerably less about themselves and their goals than French
or American
counterparts.[15]
Japanese negotiators tend to put less emphasis on the literal
meanings of words used
in negotiation and more emphasis on the relationships
established before negotiating
begins.[16] They are also less likely than their U.S.
counterparts to make procedural
suggestions.[17]
European Styles of Negotiation
European styles of negotiation vary according to region,
nationality, language spoken,
and many other contextual factors. One study found the French
to be very aggressive
negotiators, using threats, warnings, and interruptions to
achieve their goals. [18]
German and British negotiators were rated as moderately
aggressive in the same study.
Latin American Styles of Negotiation
Role expectations influence negotiation in Latin American
contexts. Responsibility to

others is generally considered more important than schedules
and task
accomplishment. Their negotiation approach relates to the
polychronic orientation to
time and patterns of high-context communication and
communitarianism, described
earlier. Lederach reports that a common term for conflict in
Central America is enredo,
meaning "entangled" or "caught in a net."[19] He explains that
enredo signifies the way
conflict is part of an intimate net of relations in Guatemala and
elsewhere in Central
America. Thus, negotiation is done within networks,
relationships are emphasized, and
open ruptures are avoided.
In Central America, people think about and respond to conflict
holistically. Lederach
contrasts his natural (American) inclination to "make a list, to
break [a] story down into
parts such as issues and concerns" with his Central American
experience, where
people tended to respond to requests for naming issues to be
negotiated with "yet
another story."[20] They preferred a storied, holistic approach
to conflict and
negotiation, rather than a linear, analytical one. When Central
Americans needed help
with negotiations, they tended to look to insider partials rather
than outsider neutrals,
preferring the trust and confidence of established relationships
and cultural insight to
other credentials or expertise. They referred to the concept of

confianza to explain this
preference. Confianza means "trustworthiness," that "they know
us" and "we know
them" and they will "keep our confidences."[21]
The Evolution of Negotiation
Even as different approaches to negotiation across national
cultures are identified,
change is constant. International business culture tends to
privilege Western
approaches to negotiation, centered in problem-solving and
linear communication, as
do many settings. As Western norms are balanced with Eastern
and Southern values,
and local traditions are balanced with regional and national
approaches, negotiation
practices continue their global evolution.
[1] Anonymous. Negotiating with the American. Disseminated
by James T. Felicita,
head of contract systems for NASA Systems Division, Hughes
Aircraft Co. March 1983.
[2] For more explanation of the Western bias of negotiation and
conflict resolution
research, see Kimmel, Paul. Cultural Perspectives on
International
Negotiations, Journal of Social Issues, 50, (1), 1994, PP. 179-
196 and Weldon,
Elizabeth and Karen A. Jehn. Examining Cross-Cultural
Differences in Conflict
Management Behavior: A Strategy for Future Research. The
International Journal of
Conflict Management 1995, 6, (4) October, pp. 387-403.

<http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=165992
4>.
[3] Intercultural Communication Presentation, European Career
Orientation.
<http://eco.ittralee.ie/personal/theories_III.php#1>.
[4] Novinger, Tracy. Intercultural Communication: A Practical
Guide. Austin, TX:
University of Texas Press, 2001, pg 121,
<http://books.google.com/books?id=1CbdF68fzOsC>, quoting
from Baldrige,
Letitia. Letitia Baldrige's New Complete Gudie to Executive
Manners. New York:
Macmillan, 1993, p. 121.
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=1659924
http://eco.ittralee.ie/personal/theories_III.php#1
http://books.google.com/books/about/Intercultural_Communicat
ion.html?id=1CbdF68fzOsC
[5] Lederach, John Paul. Preparing for Peace. Syracuse, NY:
Syracuse University
Press, 1995, p. 43.
<http://www.beyondintractability.org/library/external-
resource?biblio=8297>.
[6] Adler, Nancy. International Dimensions of Organizational
Behavior, 5th ed.
Cincinnati, OH: South-Western College Publishing, 2008.
<http://books.google.com/books?id=w_AnUby8L3EC>.
[7] Ibid., p. 219.
[8] Ibid., p. 196. Based on the work of Professor John Graham,

University of California
at Irvine.
[9] Ibid., p. 190 and 192, based on the work of Glenn,
Witmeyer, and Stevenson and
Casse.
[10] Offiong, Daniel A. Conflict Resolution Among the Ibibio
of Nigeria. Journal of
Anthropological Research, 53, 4, Winter 1997, pp. 423-442.
<http://www.jstor.org/stable/3631242>.
[11] Ibid., p. 438.
[12] Adair et al. Negotiating Behavior When Cultures Collide:
The United States and
Japan. Journal of Applied Psychology. Vol 86(3), June 2001.
<http://www.arts.uwaterloo.ca/~wladair/papers/JAP%202001%2
0Negotiation%20Behavi
or%20When%20Cultures%20Collide.pdf>.
[13] Nakanishi, Masayuki and Kenneth M. Johnson.
Implications of Self-Disclosure on
Conversational Logics, Perceived Communication,
Communication Competence, and
Social Attraction: A Comparison of Japanese and American
Cultures. In Wiseman,
Richard L. and Jolene Koester. Intercultural Communication
Competence. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1993, p. 207.
<http://books.google.com/books?id=Y7TZAAAAMAAJ>.
[14] Graham, Sano, and March. Negotiating Behaviors in Ten
Foreign
Cultures. Management Science. Vol. 40(1), January 1994.
<http://www.jstor.org/stable/2632846>.

[15] Nakanishi, Masayuki and Kenneth M. Johnson.
Implications of Self-Disclosure on
Conversational Logics, Perceived Communication,
Communication Competence, and
Social Attraction. A Comparison of Japanese and American
Cultures. In Wiseman et all.
http://www.beyondintractability.org/library/external-
resource?biblio=8297
http://www.beyondintractability.org/library/external-
resource?biblio=8297
http://books.google.com/books/about/International_Dimensions
_of_Organization.html?id=w_AnUby8L3EC
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3631242
http://www.arts.uwaterloo.ca/~wladair/papers/JAP%202001%20
Negotiation%20Behavior%20When%20Cultures%20Collide.pdf
http://www.arts.uwaterloo.ca/~wladair/papers/JAP%202001%20
Negotiation%20Behavior%20When%20Cultures%20Collide.pdf
http://books.google.com/books/about/Intercultural_communicati
on_competence.html?id=Y7TZAAAAMAAJ
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2632846
Culture and Conflict
Culture is an essential part of conflict and conflict resolution.
Cultures are like

underground rivers that run through our lives and relationships,
giving us messages that
shape our perceptions, attributions, judgments, and ideas of self
and other. Though
cultures are powerful, they are often unconscious, influencing
conflict and attempts to
resolve conflict in imperceptible ways.
Cultures are more than language, dress, and food customs.
Cultural groups may share
race, ethnicity, or nationality, but they also arise from cleavages
of generation,
socioeconomic class, sexual orientation, ability and disability,
political and religious
affiliation, language, and gender -- to name only a few.
Two things are essential to remember about cultures: they are
always changing, and
they relate to the symbolic dimension of life. The symbolic
dimension is the place where
we are constantly making meaning and enacting our identities.
Cultural messages from
the groups we belong to give us information about what is
meaningful or important, and
who we are in the world and in relation to others -- our
identities.
Cultural messages, simply, are what everyone in a group knows
that outsiders do not
know. They are the water fish swim in, unaware of its effect on
their vision. They are a
series of lenses that shape what we see and don't see, how we
perceive and interpret,

and where we draw boundaries. In shaping our values, cultures
contain starting points
and currencies[1]. Starting points are those places it is natural
to begin, whether with
individual or group concerns, with the big picture or
particularities. Currencies are those
things we care about that influence and shape our
interactions with others.
How Cultures Work
Though largely below the surface, cultures are a shifting,
dynamic set of starting points that orient us in particular
ways and away from other directions. Each of us belongs to
multiple cultures that give
us messages about what is normal, appropriate, and expected.
When others do not
meet our expectations, it is often a cue that our cultural
expectations are different. We
may mistake differences between others and us for evidence of
bad faith or lack of
common sense on the part of others, not realizing that common
sense is also cultural.
What is common to one group may seem strange,
counterintuitive, or wrong to another.
Cultural messages shape our understandings of relationships and
of how to deal with
the conflict and harmony that are always present whenever two
or more people come
together. Writing about or working across cultures is
complicated, but not impossible.

Here are some complications in working with cultural
dimensions of conflict, and the
implications that flow from them:
Culture is multi-layered -- what you see on the surface may
mask differences below the
surface.
Therefore, cultural generalizations are not the whole story, and
there is no substitute for
building relationships and sharing experiences, coming to know
others more deeply
over time.
Culture is constantly in flux -- as conditions change, cultural
groups adapt in dynamic
and sometimes unpredictable ways.
Therefore, no comprehensive description can ever be formulated
about a particular
group. Any attempt to understand a group must take the
dimensions of time, context,
and individual differences into account.
Culture is elastic -- knowing the cultural norms of a given group
do not predict the
behavior of a member of that group, who may not conform to
norms for individual or
contextual reasons.
Therefore, taxonomies (e.g. "Italians think this way," or
"Buddhists prefer that") have
limited use, and can lead to error if not checked with
experience.

Culture is largely below the surface, influencing identities and
meaning-making, or who
we believe ourselves to be and what we care about -- it is not
easy to access these
symbolic levels since they are largely outside our awareness.
Therefore, it is important to use many ways of learning about
the cultural dimensions of
those involved in a conflict, especially indirect ways, including
stories, metaphors, and
rituals.
Cultural influences and identities become important depending
on context. When an
aspect of cultural identity is threatened or misunderstood, it
may become relatively more
important than other cultural identities and this fixed, narrow
identity may become the
focus of stereotyping, negative projection, and conflict. This is
a very common situation
in intractable conflicts.
Therefore, it is useful for people in conflict to have interactive
experiences that help
them see each other as broadly as possible, experiences that
foster the recognition of
shared identities as well as those that are different.
https://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/stereotypes
https://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/identity-issues
Since culture is so closely related to our identities (who we
think we are), and the ways
we make meaning (what is important to us and how), it is
always a factor in conflict.

Cultural awareness leads us to apply the Platinum Rule in place
of the Golden Rule.
Rather than the maxim "Do unto others as you would have them
do unto you," the
Platinum Rule advises: "Do unto others as they would have you
do unto them."
Culture and Conflict: Connections
Cultures are embedded in every conflict because conflicts arise
in human relationships.
Cultures affect the ways we name, frame, blame, and attempt to
tame conflicts.
Whether a conflict exists at all is a cultural question. In an
interview conducted in
Canada, an elderly Chinese man indicated he had experienced
no conflict at all for the
previous 40 years.[2] Among the possible reasons for his denial
was a cultural
preference to see the world through lenses of harmony rather
than conflict, as
encouraged by his Confucian upbringing. Labeling some of our
interactions as conflicts
and analyzing them into smaller component parts is a distinctly
Western approach that
may obscure other aspects of relationships.
Culture is always a factor in conflict, whether it plays a central
role or influences it subtly
and gently. For any conflict that touches us where it matters,
where we make meaning
and hold our identities, there is always a cultural component.
Intractable conflicts like
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or the India-Pakistan conflict
over Kashmir are not just
about territorial, boundary, and sovereignty issues -- they are

also about
acknowledgement, representation, and legitimization of
different identities and ways of
living, being, and making meaning.
Conflicts between teenagers and parents are shaped by
generational culture, and
conflicts between spouses or partners are influenced by gender
culture. In
organizations, conflicts arising from different disciplinary
cultures escalate tensions
between co-workers, creating strained or inaccurate
communication and stressed
relationships. Culture permeates conflict no matter what --
sometimes pushing forth with
intensity, other times quietly snaking along, hardly announcing
its presence until
surprised people nearly stumble on it.
Culture is inextricable from conflict, though it does not cause it.
When differences
surface in families, organizations, or communities, culture is
always present, shaping
perceptions, attitudes, behaviors, and outcomes.
When the cultural groups we belong to are a large majority in
our community or nation,
we are less likely to be aware of the content of the messages
they send us. Cultures
shared by dominant groups often seem to be "natural," "normal"
-- "the way things are
done." We only notice the effect of cultures that are different
from our own, attending to
behaviors that we label exotic or strange.

Though culture is intertwined with conflict, some approaches to
conflict resolution
minimize cultural issues and influences. Since culture is like an
iceberg -- largely
submerged -- it is important to include it in our analyses and
interventions. Icebergs
unacknowledged can be dangerous, and it is impossible to make
choices about them if
we don't know their size or place. Acknowledging culture and
bringing cultural fluency to
conflicts can help all kinds of people make more intentional,
adaptive choices.
Culture and Conflict: How to Respond
Given culture's important role in conflicts, what should be done
to keep it in mind and
include it in response plans? Cultures may act like
temperamental children:
complicated, elusive, and difficult to predict. Unless we develop
comfort with culture as
an integral part of conflict, we may find ourselves tangled in its
net of complexity, limited
by our own cultural lenses. Cultural fluency is a key tool for
disentangling and managing
multilayered, cultural conflicts.
Cultural fluency means familiarity with cultures: their natures,
how they work, and ways
they intertwine with our relationships in times of conflict and
harmony. Cultural fluency
means awareness of several dimensions of culture, including

Each of these is described in more detail below.
Communication refers to different starting points about how to
relate to and with others.
There are many variations on these starting points, and they are
outlined in detail in the
topic Communication, Culture, and Conflict. Some of the major
variations relate to the
division between high- and low-context communications, a
classification devised by
Edward T. Hall.[3]
In high-context communication, most of a message is conveyed
by the context
surrounding it, rather than being named explicitly in words. The
physical setting, the way
things are said, and shared understandings are relied upon to
give communication
meaning. Interactions feature formalized and stylized rituals,
telegraphing ideas without
spelling them out. Nonverbal cues and signals are essential to
comprehension of the
message. The context is trusted to communicate in the absence
of verbal expressions,
or sometimes in addition to them. High-context communication
may help save face
because it is less direct than low-context communication, but it
may increase the
possibilities of miscommunication because much of the intended
message is unstated.
Low-context communication emphasizes directness rather than
relying on the context to
communicate. From this starting point, verbal communication is

specific and literal, and
less is conveyed in implied, indirect signals. Low-context
communicators tend to "say
https://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/face
what they mean and mean what they say." Low-context
communication may help
prevent misunderstandings, but it can also escalate conflict
because it is more
confrontational than high-context communication.
As people communicate, they move along a continuum between
high- and low-context.
Depending on the kind of relationship, the context, and the
purpose of communication,
they may be more or less explicit and direct. In close
relationships, communication
shorthand is often used, which makes communication opaque to
outsiders but perfectly
clear to the parties. With strangers, the same people may choose
low-context
communication.
Low- and high-context communication refers not only to
individual communication
strategies, but may be used to understand cultural groups.
Generally, Western cultures
tend to gravitate toward low-context starting points, while
Eastern and Southern cultures
tend to high-context communication. Within these huge
categories, there are important
differences and many variations. Where high-context
communication tends to be

featured, it is useful to pay specific attention to nonverbal cues
and the behavior of
others who may know more of the unstated rules governing the
communication. Where
low-context communication is the norm, directness is likely to
be expected in return.
There are many other ways that communication varies across
cultures. High- and low-
context communication and several other dimensions are
explored in Communication,
Culture, and Conflict.
Ways of naming, framing, and taming conflict vary across
cultural boundaries. As the
example of the elderly Chinese interviewee illustrates, not
everyone agrees on what
constitutes a conflict. For those accustomed to subdued, calm
discussion, an emotional
exchange among family members may seem a threatening
conflict. The family
members themselves may look at their exchange as a normal and
desirable airing of
differing views. Intractable conflicts are also subject to
different interpretations. Is an
event a skirmish, a provocation, an escalation, or a mere trifle,
hardly worth noticing?
The answer depends on perspective, context, and how identity
relates to the situation.
Just as there is no consensus across cultures or situations on
what constitutes a conflict
or how events in the interaction should be framed, so there are
many different ways of
thinking about how to tame it. Should those involved meet face
to face, sharing their

perspectives and stories with or without the help of an outside
mediator? Or should a
trusted friend talk with each of those involved and try to help
smooth the waters? Should
a third party be known to the parties or a stranger to those
involved?
John Paul Lederach, in his book Preparing for Peace: Conflict
Transformation Across
Cultures, identifies two third-party roles that exist in U.S. and
Somali settings,
respectively -- the formal mediator and the traditional elder.[4]
The formal mediator is
generally not known to those involved, and he or she tries to act
without favoritism or
investment in any particular outcome. Traditional elders are
revered for their local
https://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/misunderstandings
https://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/escalation
https://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/parties
knowledge and relationships, and are relied upon for direction
and advice, as well as for
their skills in helping parties communicate with each other. The
roles of insider
partial(someone known to the parties who is familiar with the
history of the situation and
the webs of relationships) and outsider neutral (someone
unknown to the parties who
has no stake in the outcome or continuing relationship with the
parties) appear in a
range of cultural contexts. Generally, insider partials tend to be

preferred in traditional,
high-context settings, while outside neutrals are more common
in low-context settings.
These are just some of the ways that taming conflict varies
across cultures. Third
parties may use different strategies with quite different goals,
depending on their cultural
sense of what is needed. In multicultural contexts, parties'
expectations of how conflict
should be addressed may vary, further escalating an existing
conflict.
Approaches to meaning-making also vary across cultures.
Hampden-Turner and
Trompenaars suggest that people have a range of starting points
for making sense of
their lives, including:
particularist (favoring
exceptions, relations, and contextual evaluation)
wholes into component
parts, and measurable results) and diffuseness (focusing on
patterns, the big
picture, and process over outcome)
n (sees virtue in individuals who strive to
realize their conscious
purpose) and outer direction (where virtue is outside each of us
in natural rhythms,
nature, beauty, and relationships)

(linear and
unidirectional).[5]
When we don't understand that others may have quite different
starting points, conflict is
more likely to occur and to escalate. Even though the starting
points themselves are
neutral, negative motives are easily attributed to someone who
begins from a different
end of the continuum.[6]
For example, when First Nations people sit down with
government representatives to
negotiate land claims in Canada or Australia, different ideas of
time may make it difficult
to establish rapport and make progress. First Nations people
tend to see time as
stretching forward and back, binding them in relationship with
seven generations in both
directions. Their actions and choices in the present are thus
relevant to history and to
their progeny. Government negotiators acculturated to Western
European ideas of time
may find the telling of historical tales and the consideration of
projections generations
into the future tedious and irrelevant unless they understand the
variations in the way
time is understood by First Nations people.
Of course, this example draws on generalizations that may or
may not apply in a
particular situation. There are many different Aboriginal
peoples in Canada, Australia,
New Zealand, the United States, and elsewhere. Each has a
distinct culture, and these

cultures have different relationships to time, different ideas
about negotiation, and
unique identities. Government negotiators may also have a
range of ethno cultural
identities, and may not fit the stereotype of the woman or man
in a hurry, with a
measured, pressured orientation toward time.
Examples can also be drawn from the other three dimensions
identified by Hampden-
Turner and Trompenaars. When an intractable conflict has been
ongoing for years or
even generations, should there be recourse to international
standards and interveners,
or local rules and practices? Those favoring a Universalist
starting point are more likely
to prefer international intervention and the setting of
international standards. Particular
lists will be more comfortable with a tailor-made, home-grown
approach than with the
imposition of general rules that may or may not fit their needs
and context.
Specificity and diffuseness also lead to conflict and conflict
escalation in many
instances. People, who speak in specifics, looking for practical
solutions to challenges
that can be implemented and measured, may find those who
focus on process, feelings,
and the big picture obstructionist and frustrating. On the other
hand, those whose

starting points are diffuse are more apt to catch the flaw in the
sum that is not easy to
detect by looking at the component parts, and to see the context
into which specific
ideas must fit.
Inner-directed people tend to feel confident that they can affect
change, believing that
they are "the masters of their fate, the captains of their
souls."[7] They focus more on
product than process. Imagine their frustration when faced with
outer-directed people,
whose attention goes to nurturing relationships, living in
harmony with nature, going with
the flow, and paying attention to processes rather than products.
As with each of the
above sets of starting points, neither is right or wrong; they are
simply different. A focus
on process is helpful, but not if it completely fails to ignore
outcomes. A focus on
outcomes is useful, but it is also important to monitor the tone
and direction of the
process. Cultural fluency means being aware of different sets of
starting points, and
having a way to speak in both dialects, helping translate
between them when they are
making conflict worse.
These continua are not absolute, nor do they explain human
relations broadly. They are
clues to what might be happening when people are in conflict
over long periods of time.
We are meaning-making creatures, telling stories and creating
understandings that
preserve our sense of self and relate to our purpose. As we come
to realize this, we can

look into the process of meaning making for those in a conflict
and find ways to help
them make their meaning-making processes and conclusions
more apparent to each
other.
This can be done by storytelling and by the creation of shared
stories, stories that are
co-constructed to make room for multiple points of view within
them. Often, people in
conflict tell stories that sound as though both cannot be true.
Narrative conflict-
resolution approaches help them leave their concern with truth
and being right on the
https://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/narratives
sideline for a time, turning their attention instead to stories in
which they can both see
themselves.
Another way to explore meaning making is through metaphors.
Metaphors are compact,
tightly packaged word pictures that convey a great deal of
information in shorthand
form. For example, in exploring how a conflict began, one side
may talk about its origins
being buried in the mists of time before there were boundaries
and roads and written
laws. The other may see it as the offspring of a vexatious
lawsuit begun in 1946. Neither
is wrong -- the issue may well have deep roots, and the lawsuit
was surely a part of the
evolution of the conflict. As the two sides talk about their
metaphors, the more diffuse

starting point wrapped up in the mists of time meets the more
specific one, attached to a
particular legal action. As the two talk, they deepen their
understanding of each other in
context, and learn more about their respective roles and
identities.
Identities and roles refer to conceptions of the self. Am I an
individual unit, autonomous,
a free agent, ultimately responsible for myself? Or am I first
and foremost a member of
a group, weighing choices and actions by how the group will
perceive them and be
affected by them? Those who see themselves as separate
individuals likely come from
societies anthropologists call individualist. Those for whom
group allegiance is primary
usually come from settings anthropologists call collectivist, or
communitarian.
In collectivist settings, the following values tend to be
privileged:
nce toward elders)
In individualist settings, the following values tend to be
privileged:
lfillment
-reliance

When individualist and communitarian starting points influence
those on either side of a
conflict, escalation may result. Individualists may see no
problem with "no holds barred"
confrontation, while communitarian counterparts shrink from
bringing dishonor or face-
loss to their group by behaving in unseemly ways. Individualists
may expect to make
agreements with communitarians, and may feel betrayed when
the latter indicate that
they have to take their understandings back to a larger public or
group before they can
come to closure. In the end, one should remember that, as with
other patterns
described, most people are not purely individualist or
communitarian. Rather, people
tend to have individualist or communitarian starting points,
depending on one's
upbringing, experience, and the context of the situation.
https://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/identity-frames
tools
Conclusion
There is no one-size-fits-all approach to conflict resolution,
since culture is always a
factor. Cultural fluency is therefore a core competency for those
who intervene in
conflicts or simply want to function more effectively in their
own lives and situations.
Cultural fluency involves recognizing and acting respectfully
from the knowledge that
communication, ways of naming, framing, and taming conflict,

approaches to meaning-
making, and identities and roles vary across cultures.
1
Christie, D. J., Wagner, R. V., & Winter, D. A. (Eds.). (2001).
Peace, Conflict, and Vio-
lence: Peace Psychology for the 21st Century. Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall.
Note: Copyright reverted to editors (2007). Permission is
granted for downloading and copying.
CHAPTER 16
THE CULTURAL CONTEXT OF PEACEMAKING
Paul B. Pedersen
Conflict is a natural aspect of any relationship. Conflict may be
positive or negative, that is,
functional or dysfunctional. Whereas negative conflict threatens
to erode the growth and devel-
opment of a relationship, positive conflict can actually
strengthen relationships, especially when
the parties in conflict share fundamental values.

One of the major difficulties peacemakers confront in conflicts
between groups from differ-
ent cultures is the uncertainty about cultural values. Peaceful
resolution of intercultural conflict
often involves the parties acknowledging their shared values
and mutually appreciating their cul-
tural differences. However, in intercultural conflict resolution
even when different cultural
groups share the same values, their behavioral expression of
these values may differ. Not only
can different behaviors have the same meaning, the same
behavior can have different meanings.
Therefore, it is important to interpret each behavior in its
cultural context. In order to intervene
constructively in intercultural conflict, it is essential that a
peacemaker understand both the basic
values of the cultures and the behavioral expressions of these
values. The peacemaker is then in a
good position to help the parties empathize with one another
and to gauge how best to approach
2
them in the context of their own conflict resolution processes.

A consistent weakness of many international peacemaking
efforts derives from the cultural
insularity of the practitioners, especially the insensitivity of
Western peacemakers to the cultural
context of non-Western groups in conflict. Lund, Morris, and
LeBaron-Duryea (1994) suggest
that culture-centered models which incorporate a culturally
sensitive approach to conflict may be
more appropriate than any universal (“one-size-fits-all”) model
of intervention. It is the purpose
of this chapter to explore, clarify, and propose methods of
meeting the critical need to incorpo-
rate cultural understanding into the peacemaking process. In the
first section, I present a culture-
centered perspective on conflict. Then, I compare Western and
non-Western models of peace-
making, contrasting the collectivist model invoked in the Asia-
Pacific region with the individual-
istic model of the West. In the third section, I describe in detail
certain features of the Chinese
and Hawaiian conflict resolution systems to exemplify some
non-Western peacemaking proce-
dures which could prove useful in the West. In the fourth
section, I present the Cultural Grid, a

model that helps identify the complexity of culture and guides
the training of people to manage
conflict in multicultural settings. Finally, I turn to prospects for
the future, noting the growing
importance of cultural understanding and certain cultural
fictions that must be set aside if we are
to promote peace effectively in the twenty-first century.
A CULTURE-CENTERED PERSPECTIVE ON CONFLICT
The ways that conflicts between groups are managed reflect
each group’s culturally acquired pat-
terns of attitudes and beliefs. These patterns may involve
punishing wrongdoers, repairing
strained or broken relationships, depending on courts or legal
systems or relying on informal so-
cial pressure through teasing, gossip, exclusion, and
supernatural forces. These typical ways of
3
perceiving and responding to conflict are so natural to ingroup
members of a culture that they
assume their perspectives can be applied in other cultures (Fry
& Bjorkqvist, 1997).
The impact of culture on conflict has important implications.

First, misunderstandings may
occur as groups in conflict interpret the behavior of outsiders
according to the cultural rules of
insiders. Second, conflict may not be resolved when groups in
conflict seek quick and easy an-
swers by forcing their own cultural perspective on one another.
Third, a better understanding of
the impact of culture on conflict may allow us to adapt others’
peacemaking strategies to enlarge
our own repertoire.
Peacemaking requires that both parties to a conflict be able to
accurately understand the con-
flict from the other side’s point of view. In a failing conflictual
process, two groups are frustrated
in their efforts to achieve agreement by an inability (or
unwillingness) to accurately interpret or
understand each other’s perspective. In contrast, when
conflicting groups adopt a culture-
centered perspective, they actively seek meaning in the other’s
actions and proactively try to
make their own actions understandable to the other (Dubinskas,
1992). By jointly constructing
cultural meaning, the cultural differences are not erased.
Instead, the cultural integrity of all par-

ties is preserved and a new basis for intercultural cooperation
and coordination is constructed as
a metaphoric bridge to an island of common ground for both
sides of the dispute.
WESTERN AND NON-WESTERN MODELS OF
PEACEMAKING
Individualistic vs. Collectivistic Cultures
Non-Western cultures have typically been associated with
“collectivistic” perspectives, while
Western cultures have typically been associated with
“individualistic” value systems (Kim, Tri-
4
andis, Kagitcibasi, Choi, & Yoon, 1994). One difference
between the two value systems is that
individualism describes societies where the connections
between people are loose, and each per-
son is expected to look after him or herself. Collectivism
describes cultures where people are part
of strong cohesive ingroups which protect them in exchange for
unquestioned lifetime loyalty
(Hofstede, 1991). Differences on the individualism-collectivism
dimension can lead to problems.

For instance, the concept of individual freedom is a reflection
of an individualistic value and it
would be improper to impose such a value on a collectivistic
society.
A second difference is that in non-Western collectivistic
cultures, one of the ways to manage
disagreement between people is through the use of quoted
proverbs or stories that give guidance
on how to manage power differentials, handle disputes, locate
mediators or go-betweens, and
how to achieve mutually satisfactory settlements (Augsburger,
1992). For example, Watson-
Gegeo and White (1990) describe how Pacific Islanders prefer
the term “disentangling” over the
more individualistic notions of conflict resolution or dispute
management. Disentangling is more
a process than an outcome and the image of a tangled net or line
blocking purposeful activity has
a practical emphasis as well as implying the ideal state where
the lines of people’s lives are
“straight.” Katz (1993) likewise talks about “the straight path”
as a healing tradition of Fiji with
spiritual dimensions of health for the individual and for society.

A third difference is the notion of self. In Western societies, the
self is grounded intrapsychi-
cally in self-love, self-definition, and self-direction. In the
solidarity of a collectivistic setting,
the self is not free. It is bound by mutual role obligations and
duties, structured and nurtured in
an ongoing process of give-and-take in facework negotiations.
In the West, there must be high
consistency between public face and private self-image. In the
East, the self is not an individual
5
but a relational construct” (Augsburger, 1992, p. 86).
High and Low Context Cultures
Another way of distinguishing cultures is the degree to which
context matters.
Low context cultures generally refer to groups characterized by
individualism,
overt communication and heterogeneity. The United States,
Canada and Central
and Northern Europe are described as areas where low context
cultural practices
are most in evidence. High context cultures feature collective

identity-focus, cov-
ert communication and homogeneity. This approach prevails in
Asian countries
including Japan, China and Korea as well as Latin American
countries. (Hall,
1976, p. 39)
Gudykunst and Ting-Toomey (1988) have made similar
distinctions: Low-context cultures
are likely to emphasize the individual rather than the group, be
concerned about autonomy rather
than inclusion, be direct rather than indirect, take a controlling
style of confrontation rather than
an obliging style, and be competitive rather than collaborative.
To illustrate, Hall (1976) con-
trasts the American (low-context) with the Japanese (high-
context) perspective regarding justice.
In a Japanese trial, the accused, the court, the public, and the
injured parties come together in a
collaborative effort to settle the dispute. In the United States,
the function of a trial is to focus on
the crime, confront the perpetrator, and affix blame in a way
that the criminal and society see the
consequences.

Gudykunst and Ting-Toomey associate high-and low-context
with collectivism and individu-
alism, respectively. While low-context persons view indirect
conflict management as weak, cow-
6
ardly, or evasive, members of high-context cultures view direct
conflict management as impolite
and clumsy. While low-context persons separate the conflict
issue from the person, high-context
cultures see the issue and person as interrelated. While low-
context persons seek to manage con-
flict toward an objective and fair solution, high-context cultures
focus on the affective, relational,
personal, and subjective aspects which preclude open conflict.
While low-context cultures have a
linear and logical worldview which is problem-oriented and
sensitive to individuals, high-context
cultures see the conflict, event, and all actors in a unified,
holistic context. While low-context
cultures value independence focused on autonomy, freedom, and
personal rights, high-context
cultures value inclusion, approval, and association.

Table 16.1 Differences between Low-and High-context
Cultures
Low Context High Context
Individual participants must first accept and
acknowledge that there is a conflict before
resolution/mediation can begin.
Traditional groups must first accept and acknowl-
edge that there is a conflict before resolution/
mediation can begin.
Conflict and resolution/mediation process
must often be kept private.
Conflict is not private and must be made public
before the resolution/mediation process can begin.
Conflict management trains an individual to
negotiate/mediate or resolve conflict reac-
tively.
Social conflict management emphasizes monitor
ing or mediating stress in a proactive manner.
Resolution and mediation are individually de-
fined by the individuals involved in the con-

flict.
Conflict and its resolution/mediation are defined
by the group or culture.
Settlements are usually devoid of ritual and
spirituality.
Settlements are most often accompanied by ritual
and spirituality.
7
Negotiations are face-to-face and confidential. Negotiations are
indirect (through intermediaries)
and public.
Preference for court settlements. Relying on courts to
resolve/mediate conflict is
regarded as a failure.
Using data from a 1994 conference on “Conflict resolution in
the Asia Pacific Region,” Ped-
ersen and Jandt (1996) developed some hypotheses about how
high-and low-context cultures ex-
perience conflict differently. These hypotheses are presented in
Table 16.1.

Western cultures have typically been associated with more
individualistic perspectives with
less emphasis on the importance of context. Non-Western
cultures have typically been more col-
lectivistic with more emphasis on the importance of context. Of
course, neither of these two per-
spectives is right or wrong or exclusively Western or non-
Western. Nevertheless, in any conflict
involving parties from different cultures, peacemakers need to
be sensitive to the different rules
that apply to peacemaking in each culture. An examination of
conflict in a high-context culture
located in the Asian-Pacific region of the world, can help
illustrate many of the principles of
peacemaking across cultures.
CONFLICT IN AN ASIAN-PACIFIC CONTEXT: A CASE
STUDY
The Asian-Pacific perspective is unique in several ways, as
described by a Chinese mediator.
“We who engage in mediation work should use our mouths, legs
and eyes more often. This
means we should constantly explain the importance of living in
harmony and dispense legal edu-
cation. We should also pay frequent visits to people’s houses

and when we hear or see any symp-
toms of disputes we should attempt to settle them before they
become too serious” (Barnes,
1991, p. 26).
8
The Concept of “Face”
Conflict management in the Asian context has been described as
face maintenance, face saving,
face restoration, or face loss (Duryea, 1992). The concept of
“face” is Chinese in origin as a lit-
eral translation of the Chinese term lian, representing the
confidence of society in the integrity of
moral character. Without moral character, individuals cannot
function in their community (Hu,
1945). One loses face when an individual or group or someone
representing the group fails to
meet the requirements of their socially defined role or position.
Face can become more important
than life itself as the evaluation of the self by the community is
essential to identity. What one
thinks of self is less important than what one thinks others
think. Ting-Toomey (1994) defines

the concept of face in conflict management as important in all
communications.
The traditional Chinese approach to conflict resolution is based
on saving face for all parties
by the choices each makes regarding personal goals and
interpersonal harmony. This approach
follows the Confucian tradition in which the choice between
personal goals and interpersonal
harmony depends on the particular nature of the relationship
between conflicted parties (Hwang,
1998). When a subordinate is in conflict with a superior he or
she must protect the superior’s
face to maintain interpersonal harmony. Opinions are expressed
indirectly, and any personal goal
must be achieved privately while pretending to obey the
superior.
When the conflict involves horizontal relationships among
“ingroup” members, they may
communicate directly, and to protect harmony they may give
face to each other through com-
promise. If, however, one insists on his or her personal goal in
spite of the feelings of the other,
the fight may continue for a long time. If both parties insist on
their conflicting personal goals,

they may treat the other as an “outgroup” member and confront
that person directly, disregarding
9
harmony and protecting their own face. A third party might be
required to mediate this conflict
and it may result in destroying the relationship.
Hwang (1998) describes the Confucian relationships of
father/son, husband/wife, senior/
junior brother, and superior/subordinate in a vertical structure
emphasizing the value of harmony.
“When one is conflicting with someone else within his or her
social network, the first thing one
has to learn is forbearance…In its broadest sense, forbearance
means to control and to suppress
one’s emotion, desire and psychological impulse” (p. 28).
Therefore a subordinate must obey and
endure the superior’s demands, relying on indirect
communication from some third party in their
social network to communicate with the superior. Because
Confucian rules of politeness require
both sides to “care about the other’s face” at least superficially,
conflict among ingroup members

may not be evident to outsiders. In a family, for example,
members take care of each other’s face
in front of outsiders to maintain superficial harmony by obeying
publicly and defying privately
(Gao & Ting-Toomey, 1998)
Ho’oponopono
One Pacific Islands model for peacemaking and managing
conflict is through ho’oponopono,
which means “setting to right” in the Hawaiian language. The
traditional Hawaiian cultural con-
text emphasizes cooperation and harmony. The extended family,
or ohana, is the foundation of
traditional Hawaiian society, … [and] successful maturation of
a person in the Hawaiian culture
thus requires that an individual cultivate an accurate ability to
perceive and attend to other peo-
ple’s needs, often without being asked” (Shook, 1985, p. 6).
Unregulated conflict disrupts bal-
ance and harmony, requires self-scrutiny, admission of
wrongdoing, asking forgiveness, and res-
titution to restore harmony. Illness becomes a punishment that
occurs when one ignores the so-

10
cial pressure against taking negative actions or having negative
feelings toward others.
The traditional ho’oponopono approach to problem solving and
conflict management begins
with prayer, asking God for assistance and placing the process
in a cosmic or spiritual context.
This is followed by identification, which means sharing strength
to solve the family’s problems
by reaching out to the persons causing disruption to establish a
favorable climate. The problem is
then described in a way that ties the person who was wronged
and the wrongdoer together in an
entanglement. Then the many different dimensions of the
entanglement problem are explored
and clarified, one by one. As each aspect is identified through
discussion, the layers or tangles of
the problem are reorganized until family relationships are again
in harmony. Individuals who
have been wronged are encouraged to share their feelings and
perceptions and to engage in hon-
est, open self-scrutiny. If the group discussion is disrupted by
emotional outbursts, the leader

may declare a period of silence for family members to regain
harmony in their discussion. Fol-
lowing this is the sincere confession of wrongdoing, where the
wrongdoer seeks forgiveness and
agrees to restitution. Untangling the negative then joins both the
wronged and the wrongdoer in a
mutual release and restores their cosmic and spiritual harmony.
A closing spiritual ceremony re-
affirms the family’s strength and bond.
Attempts to adapt ho’oponopono to Westernized contexts have
applied those aspects of (1)
recognizing the importance of conflict management in a
spiritual context, (2) channeling the dis-
cussion with sanctions of silence should disruption occur, and
(3) bringing the wrongdoer back
into the community as a full member with complete restitution
and forgiveness. Understanding a
radically different dispute resolution system should help
peacemakers become more sensitive to
whatever cultural differences they encounter in their work.
11
THE CULTURAL GRID

Hines and Pedersen (1980) introduced and developed The
Cultural Grid to help identify and de-
scribe the complexity of a cultural context in a way that would
suggest research hypotheses and
guide the training of people to manage conflict in multicultural
settings. Table 16.2 presents the
Within-Person Cultural Grid. The grid provides a conceptual
framework that demonstrates how
cultural and personal variables interact in a combined context,
linking each behavior (what you
did) to expectations, each expectation to values (why you did
it), and each value to the social
system (where you learned to do it). Each cultural context is
complicated and dynamic so that
each value is taught by many teachers, with different values
becoming salient in different situa-
tions. Multicultural self-awareness means being able to identify
what you did (behavior), why
you did it (expectation and value), and where you learned to do
it (culture-teachers).
The Within-Person Cultural Grid is intended to show the
complex network of culturally
learned patterns behind each behavior in a chain of logic from
teachers to values and expecta-

tions to the behavior. The dangers of interpreting behaviors “out
of context” are apparent once
the contextual linkage of behaviors to expectations, values, and
social systems has been demon-
strated. Cultural conflict can arise when the context of behavior
is not interpreted appropriately.
For example, our cultural teachers may have taught us the value
of being fair and might have
communicated that we should “do unto others as you would
have them do unto you.” Someone
from another culture might share the same value (i.e., being
fair), but there may be differences in
which behaviors are viewed as indications of fairness. If you
focus only on the behavior out of
context, a misunderstanding may occur.
Table 16.2 Within-Person Cultural Grid
12
Cultural Teachers
Personal Variables
Where you learned to do
it (teachers)

Why you did it (val-
ues and expect.)
What you did
(behavior)
1. Family relationships
relatives
fellow countrypersons
ancestors shared beliefs
2. Power relationships
social friends
sponsors and mentors
subordinates
supervisors and
superiors
3. Memberships
co-workers
organizations
gender and age
groups

workplace colleagues
13
4.
Non-family rela-
tionships
friendships
classmates
neighbors
people like me
In order to examine interpersonal processes, we now consider
another cultural grid. The
Between-Persons Cultural Grid is illustrated in Table 16.3. This
grid describes the relationship
between two people or groups by separating what was done
(behaviors) from why it was done
(expectations). The Between-Persons Cultural Grid includes
four quadrants. Each quadrant ex-
plains parts of a conflict between two individuals or groups,
recognizing that the salience of each
quadrant may change over time and across situations (Pedersen,
1993). In the first quadrant

(same behavior, same expectation), two individuals have similar
behaviors and similar positive
expectations. The relationship is congruent and harmonious and
there are positive shared expec-
tations behind the behavior. Both persons are smiling (behavior)
and both persons expect friend-
ship (expectation). There is little conflict in this quadrant.
Table 16.3 Between-Persons Cultural Grid
Why It Was Done(expectation) What Was Done? (behavior)
Same action Different action
Perceived same and positive reason
Perceived different and negative
reason
14
In the second quadrant, two individuals or groups have different
behaviors but share the same
positive expectations. There is a high level of agreement in that
both persons expect trust and
friendliness. However, if behavior is interpreted out of context,
it is likely to be incorrectly seen

as different and possibly hostile. This quadrant is characteristic
of cultural conflict in which each
person or group is applying a self-reference criterion to
interpret the other person’s or group’s
behavior. Both expect respect but one shows respect by being
very formal and the other by being
very informal. In another example, two people may both expect
harmony but one shows har-
mony by smiling a lot and the other by being very serious. If the
behaviors are not perceived as
reflecting shared, positive, common-ground expectations, the
conflict may escalate as each party
perceives the other as hostile. The conditions described in the
second quadrant are very unstable
and, unless the shared positive expectations are quickly found
and made explicit, the salience is
likely to change toward the third quadrant.
In the third quadrant, the two persons have the same behaviors
but now they have different or
negative expectations. The similarity of behaviors gives the
appearance of harmony and agree-
ment, but the hidden expectations are different or negative and
are not likely to bode well for the
relationship. While you may have cross-cultural conflict when

the behaviors are the same and
expectations are different, the salient feature here is no longer
the shared cultural value, meaning,
or expectation, but rather the similar behaviors outside their
cultural context. When I interpret
your behavior from my own cultural perspective, I impose my
culture on you and interpret your
behavior out of context. Although both persons are now in
disagreement this may not be obvious
or apparent to others. One person may continue to expect trust
and friendliness while the other
person is now distrustful and unfriendly, even though they are
both behaving similarly, both
15
smiling and glad-handing. If these two people can be guided to
remember an earlier time when
they shared positive expectations, they might be able to return
to the second quadrant and reverse
the escalating conflict between them. If the difference in
expectations is ignored or undiscovered,
the conflict may move to the fourth quadrant.
In the fourth quadrant, two people have different and/or

negative expectations and they stop
pretending to be congruent. The two persons are at war with one
another and may not want to
increase the harmony in their relationship any longer. Their
disagreement is now obvious and
apparent, and they may just want to hurt one another. This
condition would describe intimate
violence, hate crimes, ethnopolitical violence, terrorism, and
other extreme forms of conflict.
It is very difficult to retrieve conflict from the fourth quadrant
because one or both parties
have stopped trying to find shared positive expectations.
Unfortunately, many conflicts between
people and groups remain undiscovered until reaching the fourth
quadrant. An appropriate pre-
vention strategy would be to identify the conflict in behaviors
early in the process when those
differences in behaviors are in a context of shared positive
expectations, allowing both parties to
build on the common ground they share without forcing either
party to lose integrity.
Therefore, two people may both share the positive expectation
of trust but one may be loud
and the other quiet; they may share respect but one may be open

and the other closed; they may
both believe in fairness but one may be direct and the other
indirect; they may value efficiency
but one may be formal and the other informal; they may seek
effectiveness but one may be close
and the other distant; or they may want safety but one may be
task-oriented and the other
relationship-oriented. Only when each behavior is assessed and
understood in its own context
does that behavior become meaningful. Only when positive
shared expectations can be identified
16
will two individuals or groups be able to find common ground
without sacrificing cultural integ-
rity.
CULTURALLY BASED CONFLICT MANAGEMENT IN THE
TWENTY-
FIRST CENTURY
There are many reasons for conflict across cultures. Different
needs and wants, different beliefs,
competing goals, different loyalties, values, ideologies, and
geopolitical factors provide opportu-

nities for conflict. Limited resources and wealth, the
availability of technological solutions, dis-
parities in power across social groups and classes all provide
reasons for disagreement.
The United States offers one example of the increasing
importance of a culture-centered per-
spective on conflict and the need to develop more adequate
culture-sensitive tools for managing
conflict. Demographic changes in the United States, with some
minority groups growing more
rapidly than others, will change the nature of community
disputes so that issues of race, national
origin, and ethnicity are more likely to be important
considerations in the twenty-first century.
The culture-based approach emphasizes that although cultures
may embrace the same core val-
ues, the expression of these values in observable behaviors may
differ dramatically, thereby in-
creasing the likelihood of misunderstanding. Those seeking to
mediate or manage community
disputes will need to know more about the cultural background
of the people involved. Cultur-
ally defined tools and strategies will become necessary not only
to understand the disputes, but

also to assist and resolve them (Kruger, 1992).
Sunoo (1990) provides seven guidelines for mediators of
intercultural disputes.
1. Anticipate different expectations.
17
2. Do not assume that what you say is being understood.
3. Listen carefully.
4. Seek ways of getting both parties to validate the concerns of
the other.
5. Be patient, be humble, and be willing to learn.
6. Apply win-win negotiating principles to the negotiation
rather than traditional adversarial
bargaining techniques.
7. Dare to do things differently.
These recommendations parallel ten guidelines by Cohen
(1991), who suggests that the nego-
tiator study the opponent’s culture and history, try to establish a
warm personal relationship, re-
frain from assuming that others understand what you mean, be
alert to indirect communication,

be sensitive to face/status issues, adapt your strategy to your
opponent’s cultural needs, be ap-
propriately flexible and patient, and recognize that outward
appearances are important.
Lund, Morris, and LeBaron-Duryea (1994) note that culture is
complicated and dynamic with
considerable diversity within each cultural group. Culture
provides a metaphor for respecting the
complicated and dynamic diversity within and between cultural
groups while also defining the
common ground that connects the groups. Finding common
ground without giving up integrity
and without resorting to simplistic stereotypes or
overgeneralizations is the primary challenge.
Dominant-culture methods of conflict resolution are based on
culture-bound assumptions and
incorporate values and attitudes not shared by members of
minority groups. These culture-bound
assumptions are implicit or explicit in many of the models of
mediation and negotiation originat-
ing in the West. It is important to separate fact from fiction in
these models and to make peace-

18
makers aware of culturally bound assumptions.
Fictions
One fiction is that conflicts are merely communication problems
and if effective communication
can be facilitated, then the conflict will be solved. In fact, the
cultural context mediates all com-
munications between groups and must be attended to in all
conflict management.
A second fiction is that there is a middle ground which both
parties must reach through com-
promise to get some of what they want. In fact, the conflict may
not fit a winlose model and
compromising may be less effective than reframing the conflict
so that both parties gain without
losing integrity.
A third fiction is that the optimal way to address conflict is to
get both of the parties in the
same room and facilitate an open, forthright discussion of the
issues. In fact, direct contact in
many cultural contexts may be destructive, especially in
contexts where conflicts are managed
indirectly.

A fourth fiction is that parties in conflict should emphasize
their individual interests over col-
lective values of family, community, or society. In fact, the
collective interests may be more im-
portant than individual interests in some cultures.
A fifth fiction is that any third-party mediator must be a neutral
person with no connections
to any of the conflicting parties. In fact, neutrality may be
impossible or even undesirable when it
requires going outside the group to find a third party.
A sixth fiction is that good procedures for conflict resolution
should be standardized accord-
ing to fair, reasonable, and rational formats and policies. In
fact, the expectation of fairness, rea-
19
sonableness, and rationality may be expressed quite differently
by each culture.
Peacemaking between ethnocultural groups has become an
urgent need in recent times and
promises to be a major priority of the twenty-first century. By
better understanding the positive

contribution that a culture-centered approach to peacemaking
provides, we might be better pre-
pared to promote the sustainable satisfaction of human needs for
security and a high quality of
life on a global scale for the twenty-first century.

The 6-D model of national culture Geert Hofstede, assisted.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to The 6-D model of national culture Geert Hofstede, assisted.docx

Similar to The 6-D model of national culture Geert Hofstede, assisted.docx (19)

More from todd801

More from todd801 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

The 6-D model of national culture Geert Hofstede, assisted.docx