Five Ways of Understanding Cross-Cultural Conflict

In our ever-shrinking global community, cross-cultural relations and interactions – whether personal, professional, or in-between – are fast becoming the norm. They’re practically inescapable. Unfortunately, so is conflict. 

When it comes to placing blame for conflict, cultural differences are often the perfect scapegoat. Even worse, fear of or discomfort with conflict can sometimes make us nervous or hesitant to invest deeply in building diverse, cross-cultural connections. 

Seeing through the cultural ‘lens.’

Instead, it’s far more helpful to view cultural differences not simply as the reasons for conflict but rather as a ‘lens’ to use to examine and try to understand the root causes of conflict. Through this lens, we may begin to understand how different parties to the conflict might be experiencing or interpreting the conflict differently. 

In the 1970s, pioneering research was done by social psychologist Geert Hofstede on cross-cultural groups and organizations. His study involving upwards of 100,000 IBM employees from 50+ different countries resulted in defining 5 different ‘dimensions’ of national cultures, still used – with some modifications – today. These dimensions are Power Distance, Collectivism versus Individualism, Feminism versus Masculinity, Uncertainty Avoidance, and Long-term versus Short-term Orientation. 

Before we look at these 5 dimensions in greater detail, there are two important things to keep in mind: First, although Hofstede’s research looks at national cultures, culture is not necessarily shared homogenously across national boundaries. Relatedly, culture is something that belongs to a group of people, not individuals. So the general patterns laid out below may broadly describe culture on the macro level but cannot nor should not be thought of as prescriptive or specific to any individual. 

Looking at cross-cultural conflict from the lens of these cultural dimensions can be a useful tool to help determine the applicable conflict driver.

Power Distance

In any given society, some people will have more power or status than others. How people with different power and social status relate to each other is described as a measure of a culture’s Power Distance. Power Distance can include relations between employer and employee, teacher and student, parent and child, or others.  

In Large Power Distance cultures, those who have less power are unlikely to question, challenge, or even approach those in power. From a cultural standpoint, anyone with less power or status is not ‘supposed’ to address or question authority figures, and open disagreement or public confrontation is out of the question. Yet individuals with high or low power/status are meant to treat each other with a kind of ‘reciprocal sensitivity’ that is often known as ‘saving face.’   

On the flip side, when there is general inter-dependence among the relationships described above (for example, in a culture where an employer regularly consults employees for their input or opinions), the culture is considered to have a Small Power Distance. In a Small Power Distance culture, challenging authority is possible and might even be encouraged. It also tends to be easier for people in Small Power Distance cultures to separate the conflict-issue from the conflict-person. 

Collectivism versus Individualism

In Collectivist cultures, what is best for the group is considered more important than what is best for an individual. In Individualist cultures, the opposite is true.

In Individualist cultures, it tends to be easier for people to enter and leave their ‘in-groups,’ meaning they can move more easily in and out of circles of friends, family, coworkers, etc., but may have a harder time developing good skills for intimate behaviors. In Collectivist societies, movement in and out of social circles is generally more difficult, but intimacy among members of the in-group tends to be developed more easily.  

Uncertainty Avoidance

Uncertainty avoidance has to do with the extent to which people tend to feel threatened by ambiguous or unknown situations. Cultures with high Uncertainty Avoidance have a greater number of established (written or unwritten) ‘rules’ meant to control ambiguous situations or influence the future (the ultimate ambiguous situation!). Citizens of high Uncertainty Avoidance cultures also tend to be more anxious, expressive, and emotive. In low Uncertainty Avoidance cultures, populations tend to have lower levels of anxiety, express less emotion or aggression but may internalize stress more.

Long-term versus Short-term Orientation

Cultures oriented toward the ‘Long-term’ place higher value on what is possible in the future. There’s a general acceptance that potential future rewards may come slowly, over time. Meanwhile, cultures oriented or focused on the ‘Short-term’ place more emphasis on the past and present. A higher value is placed on traditions and social obligations, and there tends to be a general assumption that there are ‘universal guidelines’ defining what is good and bad, right and wrong. 

Feminity versus Masculinity    

The name of this cultural dimension may not have aged so well over the past 50 years, but setting the reference to gender aside, the idea it represents is still useful. This cultural dimension measures to what extent socialized gender-roles are distinct. When these roles are distinct and clearly defined, culture is deemed to be more ‘Masculine.’ In these so-named ‘Masculine’ societies, traits such as assertiveness, strength, and competitiveness are generally valued more highly. When the gender roles overlap, and the act of maintaining relationships is meant to sustain a general quality of life, the culture is considered more ‘Feminine.’ 

Putting it all together

Being aware of the ways in which culture, broadly speaking, aids in sculpting perspectives may help conflicting parties understand each other better. It can help clarify how and why they could be viewing the exact same conflict in completely different ways. For example, one side may see a conflict primarily as a matter of competition for limited resources, while the other side may see it primarily as a breakdown of a relationship. 

Understanding how cultural backgrounds might be shaping these differing views can help possibly bring that other perspective to light. And once a conflict is more deeply and clearly understood by all parties involved, it can much more easily be resolved.

See further: Hostede, Greet and Gert Jan Hofstede, Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. New York: McGraw Hill, 2005.

If you need help resolving conflict within your organization or through your work with outside partners, contact Spark Group today for a free consultation!

⭐ Join our weekly newsletter where we share tons of exclusive tips, tools, grant opportunities, and resources to our subscribers. Subscribe on the Spark Group home page.