In order to find out solutions for leadership and communication conflicts of Western expatriates in Asia, this paper examines cultural characteristics of the Asian, as well as Western, leader-follower construct and how miscommunication could occur. Furthermore, expected leadership styles are explained and which leadership traits and behaviors are desirable from the Asian point of view. Finally, improvement approaches for better cross-cultural conflict management and expatriate leadership in Asia are discussed, while pointing out their limitations.
In an increasingly globalized world, it is more and more common to work in intercultural teams with intercultural leaders. This paper is about the problems that arise when leadership is not meeting the expectations in a particular culture and when conflicts are not managed with regard to the cultural backgrounds.
Asian societies tend to be collectivist cultures, where conflicts are usually avoided and where harmony is the ultimate goal. In Western societies, conflict resolution is usually characterized by direct confrontation. Expectations to a leader also differ: In Asian societies, a paternalistic leadership approach seems to be more common, whereas in Western societies a participative leadership style is used. Awareness is the first step of a successful cross-cultural cooperation, but it does not give instructions how to act in a certain situation.
Table of Contents
I. Cross-Cultural Conflict Management Challenges
A. Cultural Differences: Asian Collectivism and Conflict Avoidance
1. Collectivism vs. Individualism
2. Conflict avoidance in collectivist Asian societies
B. Miscommunication between Cultures
1. Language Challenges
2. Direct, indirect and non-verbal communication
II. Opposing Leadership Expectations
A. Paternalistic vs. Participative Leadership Style
B. Expected Leadership Traits and Behaviors in Asia
III. Discussion of Improvement Approaches for Conflict Management
A. Creating Awareness for Different Leadership Expectations and Practical Advice
B. Limitations of Approach
Research Objectives and Core Themes
This paper investigates the leadership and communication conflicts encountered by Western expatriates working in Asian business environments, specifically focusing on the clash between Western individualistic/participative styles and Asian collectivist/paternalistic cultural expectations.
- Cultural dimensions and the impact of collectivism vs. individualism on conflict management.
- The role of miscommunication, including language barriers and non-verbal cues.
- Comparative analysis of paternalistic versus participative leadership models.
- Identification of desirable leadership traits and behaviors within Asian organizational contexts.
- Discussion of strategies for improving cross-cultural leadership effectiveness.
Excerpt from the Book
2. Conflict avoidance in collectivist Asian societies
Chen and Tjosvold (2006) summarized that Chinese people are “typically characterized as conforming and respectful, if not submissive to those of higher status”. They prefer compromises, while avoiding “conflicts and aggressive ways of dealing with them” to preserve social relationships and keep one’s countenance. Furthermore, they avoid face-to-face disagreement and try to avert open discussions of controversies and conflicting views. These Chinese peculiarities in behavior make it rather difficult for a foreign manager to identify, let alone resolve, any conflicts in the team, if dissatisfaction and disagreements are withheld to maintain a superficial harmonious environment. However, it has been found that creating a genuinely harmonic atmosphere seems to be motivation enough for Chinese people to openly discuss and solve problems (Leung et al., 2002; Chen & Tjosvold, 2006). Generally, the maintenance of harmony is deeply embedded in Asian cultures and is said to be the primary interest in all social relationships (Westwood, 1997).
The dimension of collectivism and individualism also show to be linked to the way conflicts are resolved in a particular culture: Individualist participants in a conducted study preferred manners of conflict resolution that did not show as much concern for others than collectivists’ ways of conflict resolution did (Gabrielidis, Stephen, Ybarra, Dos Santos Pearson, & Villareal, 1997). Interestingly, it has been assumed that collectivists actually favor an adversarial resolution method, but avoid it because of the confrontation that might be involved (Leung & Lind, 1986). This behavior has been confirmed in a study, where individualists gave preference to confrontational resolution procedures, whereas collectivists favored mediation or open negotiations (Leung, 1987).
Summary of Chapters
I. Cross-Cultural Conflict Management Challenges: This chapter analyzes how cultural dimensions like power distance and individualism influence communication styles and the general propensity to avoid or confront conflict.
II. Opposing Leadership Expectations: This chapter contrasts Western participative leadership with Asian paternalistic structures and identifies specific leadership traits valued in Asian work environments.
III. Discussion of Improvement Approaches for Conflict Management: This chapter evaluates practical training strategies for expatriate managers while acknowledging the inherent limitations and generalizations of cross-cultural leadership theories.
Keywords
Conflict Management, Asia, Germany, Collectivism, Individualism, Leadership, Cultural Challenges, Leadership Styles, Paternalism, Participative Leadership, Power Distance, Cooperative Leadership
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this research?
The paper examines the interpersonal and organizational problems that arise when Western expatriate managers, specifically those accustomed to individualistic and participative cultures, interact with subordinates in collectivist Asian societies.
What are the core thematic pillars of the work?
The core themes include cultural dimensions (Hofstede’s framework), communication nuances (direct vs. indirect), leadership styles (paternalism vs. participation), and the practical implementation of expatriate training.
What is the central research objective?
The objective is to explore why conflicts occur due to mismatched cultural expectations and to discuss potential management approaches to mitigate these clashes and improve leadership effectiveness.
Which scientific methodologies are utilized in the paper?
The paper employs a qualitative literature review and comparative analysis, drawing upon existing academic frameworks like Hofstede’s cultural dimensions, Paternalism theory, and GLOBE project findings.
What content is addressed in the main body?
The main body breaks down the specific behavioral differences between German and Chinese work cultures, the difficulty of managing communication in a foreign language, and the debate between applying directive or cooperative leadership styles.
Which keywords best describe this study?
Key terms include Conflict Management, Collectivism, Individualism, Paternalism, Participative Leadership, and Power Distance.
Why is "Paternalism" considered a specific leadership style in this context?
Paternalism in Asian cultures refers to a fatherly approach where the manager treats subordinates like an extended family, involving themselves in their private lives in exchange for loyalty and respect.
How does "face-to-face" interaction impact conflict resolution in China?
Due to the cultural desire for harmony, direct face-to-face disagreement is often avoided to prevent embarrassment, making it difficult for foreign managers to accurately assess team morale.
Are there limitations to the suggested improvement approaches?
Yes, the author highlights that mere awareness of cultural differences does not automatically translate into behavioral change, and that general theories may not apply to every individual employee.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Benjamin Chée (Autor:in), 2017, Cross-Cultural Leadership and Conflict Management in the Asian Context, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/457218
