Conflict Management Styles: How Do Japanese, Koreans, and ... · differences in conflict management...
Transcript of Conflict Management Styles: How Do Japanese, Koreans, and ... · differences in conflict management...
Conflict Management Styles: How Do Japanese, Koreans,
and Filipinos Differ from One Another?
Tae-Yeol Kim
Management Department
City U. of Hong Kong
83 Tat Chee Avenue
Kowloon, Hong Kong
852-2788-7181
Chongwei Wang
Fisher College of Business
Ohio State University
Mari Kondo
Asian Institute of Management, Philippines
Tae-Hyun Kim
Kellogg School of Management
Northwestern University
37077
2
Conflict Management Styles: How Do Japanese, Koreans,
and Filipinos Differ from One Another?
We examined how Japanese, Koreans, and Filipinos resolve an interpersonal conflict with
their immediate supervisor differently from one another and how cultural factors can affect
the conflict management styles and explain the county differences. Based on a sample of 295
employees from various organizations in Japan, Korea, and Philippine, we found that
Koreans, compared to Japanese and Filipinos, were less likely to oblige to their supervisors
and less likely to use arbitration in solving an interpersonal conflicts. On the other hand,
Japanese, compared to Koreans and Filipinos, were less likely to use dominating,
compromising, and mediation. We also found that cultural factors significantly affect conflict
management styles and partially explain the country differences found. This study can open
the door for more fine-grained research and theory on cross-cultural differences associated
with conflict management.
37077
3
Conflict is inevitable in all cultures, but every culture has evolved its own way of
managing it (Brett, 2004). As the number of multinational companies and international
alliances increases, understanding cross-cultural differences in conflict management becomes
more and more important (Kozan, 1997; Tinsley, 2001). Much of this research has focused
on comparisons between Americans and Asians (Gelfand et al., 2001; Leung, 1987; Ohbuchi
& Takahashi, 1994; Ting-Toomey et al., 1991; Tinsley & Brett, 2002). Although these
studies have extended our understating about how culture influences conflict management
styles, they are based on the assumption that people in all Asian countries will behave alike.
Yet, there are reasons to believe that Asian countries have substantially different attitudinal
and behavioral patterns (Abramson & Inglehart, 1995; Callister & Wall, 1997; Kim, 2004;
Paik & Tung, 1999).
Recently several researchers have investigated how Asians resolve interpersonal
conflicts differently from one another (Morris et al., 1998; Ting-Toomey, Gao, Trubisky, &
Yang, 1991). For example, Ting-Toomey et al. (1991) examined how people from China,
Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and the U.S. resolve a conflict with a classmate in a hypothetical
situation using undergraduate samples. They found that Koreans and Chinese were more
likely to use integrating style (e.g., investigate the problem with another party and find a
solution acceptable to both of them) than Japanese. Although they have found some
significant difference among Asian countries, several important questions still remain
37077
4
unaddressed. First, they paid little attention to developing a sound theory to account for the
differences in conflict management styles among Asian countries. Second, they have mainly
focused on dyadic conflict management styles such as Rahim (1983)’s five types of conflict
management styles. Rahim (1983) differentiated the styles of handling interpersonal conflict
on two basic dimensions: concern for the self and concern for others. Combination of the two
dimensions results in the following styles: a) integrating (high concern for self and others); (b)
obliging (low concern for self and high concern for others); (c) dominating (high concern for
self and low concern for others); (d) avoiding (low concern for self and others); and (e)
compromising (intermediate concern for self and others). However, in Asian countries, third
party approaches, such as mediation or arbitration, may play an even more important role in
solving an interpersonal conflict considering the indirect nature of these cultures (Lind, Tyler,
& Huo, 1997; Ting-Toomey et al., 2000). Third, the current Asian conflict management
studies did not explicitly examine how cultural variables can affect conflict management
styles and explain the country differences in conflict management styles. Finally, they did not
examine how employees in the work place resolve an interpersonal conflict with their
supervisors differently across countries.
To address theses issues, this study examines how Japanese, Koreans, and Filipinos
resolve an interpersonal conflict with their immediate supervisors using Rahim (1983)’s five
types of dyadic conflict management styles and two third-party tactics (i.e., mediation and
37077
5
arbitration). We have chosen to contrast the three Asians counties for several reasons. First,
Japan and Korea are among the most frequently examined in the past cross-cultural
comparison studies on conflict management. Second, Philippine is one of the South Asian
countries that have been culturally influenced by the Mainland China and is one of the most
fast-growing South East Asian countries. It would be more comprehensive to include
Philippine to study Asian differences in conflict management styles. Third, in most studies,
only one or two countries were picked as the comparison to the U.S. or other country, and
research design varies across the studies. Thus, we do not know whether their findings can be
used to gauge how Asians differ from each other (cf., Van de Vijver & Leung, 2000). As a
result, it would be more accurate to study Asia differences with the three Asian countries with
the same research design. We also study how cultural factors can affect conflict management
styles and explain the country differences. Next, we discuss research hypotheses for Asian
differences in the conflict management styles.
Theoretical Backgrounds and Research Hypotheses
Country Differences in Conflict Management Styles
Conflict Management in Korea. Some of interesting social climates that can help us
understand Koreans’ conflict management styles are progressivism and optimism (Cho &
Park, 1998). Since an optimistic view of the future and social problems is very common,
when they have an interpersonal conflict with others, Koreans tend to resolve the conflict
37077
6
directly and in a speedy way. Consistent with this, Park and Tung (1999) found, on the basis
of interviews with American executives who had experienced international business
negotiations, that Koreans seldom hide their feelings in public and tend to directly address the
issues that may be regarded as sensitive to either Japanese or Chinese. In a similar vein, Lee
and Rogan (1991) found that Koreans were more likely than Americans to engage in
solution-oriented strategies (e.g., open and direct communication about the conflict) to
manage interpersonal conflicts.
Another interesting social climate that strongly influences Koreans’ behaviors is
‘can-do’ spirit. Due to a result-oriented ‘can-do spirit’, aggressiveness has all become part of
social life (Cho & Park, 1998). In addition, Koreans tend to be more emotional than Chinese
and Japanese (Paik & Tung, 1999). In Korea, interpersonal relationships can be strongly
influenced by “kibun”, which refers to the personal feeling, mood, or state of mind, and is an
important factor in ego fulfillment (Steers, Shin, & Ungson, 1989). Kibun is a unique term
that has meaning only in Korea and not in China and Japan. Koreans try to interact with
others in a manner that will improve the kibun both in them and in those with whom they
interact. The state of kibun is easily disturbed, however, such as when a young person shows
irreverence toward an elder. In the workplace, individuals’ kibun can be disturbed when
co-workers treat their other co-workers without dignity or ignore others’ opinions. When
their kibun is disturbed, Koreans can be aggressive toward others and will be less likely to
37077
7
sacrifice their interests for others. Thus, Koreans are more likely to address an interpersonal
conflict in a way to get a positive solution for all parties involved due to progressivism and
optimism, or only for themselves due to aggressiveness associated with a ‘can-do’ spirit and
disturbed kibun in conflicting situations.
A managerial principle in Korean companies can also affect Koreans’ ways of dealing
with an interpersonal conflict with their supervisors. According to Alston (1989), Korean
companies, unlike other Asian companies, emphasize mutual dependence between
supervisors and subordinates, so called “inwha”. Subordinates and supervisors who are
highly schooled with inwha view their relationship with others in a “paternal-like” way, and
as a result, expect reciprocal caring, and expressions of loyalty and support (Scarborough,
1998). Thus, when there is disagreement between subordinates and supervisors, Koreans tend
to gives up something to make a mutually acceptable, compromising decision. In addition, as
Tung (1991) noted, in Korea subordinates tend to have a loyalty toward their supervisors and
try to make a mutually assisting relationship with their supervisors. Thus, Korean
subordinates are less likely to use arbitration styles that can break the mutual dependence
between subordinates and supervisors.
Conflict Management in Japan. Traditionally, Japanese have highly valued honor, and
consideration of the other’s honor is still very important in social relations (Honna & Hoffer,
1989). Consistent with this, Oetzel et al. (2001) argue that Japanese have high other-face
37077
8
concern, that is, concern for other people’s image. As a result, Japanese are very careful not
to mar the other person’s honor, and thus tend to satisfy the concern of the other party in
conflicting situations. Consistent with this, Moran et al. (1993) found that obliging is one of
the most frequently used conflict management styles for Japanese.
In addition, Japanese are strongly discouraged from making an interpersonal conflict
in public. A well-known Japanese proverb says “In a quarrel both parties (the two) are to
blame.” As a result, Japanese are less likely to talk with somebody about their conflicts with
others. In addition, Japanese believe that each person has his or her proper place and position
and is expected to behave within that social boundary. One should not step out of his or her
position and intrude in others’ affairs, especially in something as personal as an interpersonal
conflict (Callister & Wall, 1997; Dialdin & Wall, 1999). Moreover, Japanese are strongly
encouraged to enhance their group harmony by protecting the social identities of all
participants in conflict management. Consistent with this, Goldman (1994) noticed that
Japanese do not want to publicly rank participants into winners and losers. As a result,
Japanese will least frequently use arbitration that forces an accord on the disputants and may
make one disputant the winner and the other the loser. Taken together, Japanese tend to
oblige to (not to dominate) their supervisors, less likely to use mediation and arbitration that
involves a third party to resolve an interpersonal conflict.
Conflict Management in the Philippines. 1) In the Philippines, generally speaking,
37077
9
many scholars found their work style is "SRI: Smooth Interpersonal Relationships"
oriented. Direct conflict is, generally, avoided at any cost. In order to avoid conflict, people
tend to do "pakikisama", which is, befriend with each other. Making relationships (chatting
each other) are important at workplace. Any confrontational actions are, generally regarded,
as "hiya (shameful)". You should not express your feeling directly by making big voices
(shouting), etc.
2) Unlike other counries (Korea, Japan, China), the Philippines do not have much influence
of confuciosm. 80% of the Philippine population are consisted mainly by Malay (lowland
Catholics).
3) Unlike other countries, the kinship system of the Filipinoss are different. Their family
system is extended family, BOTH father and mother sides are important. (For the above
three countries, father side is much more important.) Because their family -kin is ever
expanding, they rely on their own security by a large network of kins. Yet, the family
boundary is not very clear, it is difficult to identify who is the "insider of the group." Their
"team work" tend to be weak, when this ambiguity exists.
4) Because Philippines was colonized by America, and the education and business system
were set during the American colonization periond, at least on the surface, Filipinoss tries to
follow what they perceive American system. For example, there are numerous litigation
among the Filipinoss. Many conflicts are brought into the court.
37077
10
5) About the groups, there are two important concepts. One is Patron-clinent system (based
on Utang-na-loob, or literaly means, a debt of gratitude). Another is barkada system. At the
workplace, people tend to rely on their security based on the paternalism (or bossism). It is
bsolutely NO to confront your own Padrino (your own boss), who may be your immediate
boss. However, if your Padrino is not your immediate boss, it is quite OK to confront with
them. They will shift an "American way". And sometimes, they even go for the law suit to
settle their demand.
6) Another important group concept is Barkada. Barkada is a peer group, loosely
formed. Thus, this is a horizontal relationships. However, in many workplace, barkadas are
less important/strong than patron-client system.
The general relationships between subordinates and supervisors.
High power distance, which makes patron-clinet system work. Frequently, subordinates use
words, such as "Sir", "Mom". Usually subordinates say "Yes", even they know that they
cannot do the work. This is to avoid to say "No" to the supervisors.
Use of intermediary is quite frequent when subordinates want something from the supervisors.
Rarely, they ask things directly. Taken together, we predict:
Hypothesis 1. Compared with Japanese and Filipinos, Koreans will be more likely to
use integrating to resolve an interpersonal conflict with a supervisor.
Hypothesis 2. Compared with Japanese and Filipinos, Koreans will be less likely to
37077
11
oblige to their supervisors to resolve an interpersonal conflict.
Hypothesis 3. Compared with Japanese and Filipinos, Koreans will be more likely to
compromise with their supervisors to resolve an interpersonal conflict.
Hypothesis 4. Compared with Koreans and Filipinos, Japanese will be less likely to
dominate their supervisors to resolve an interpersonal conflict.
Hypothesis 5. Compared with Koreans and Filipinos, Japanese will be less likely to
use mediation to resolve an interpersonal conflict with their supervisors.
Hypothesis 6. Compared with Koreans and Japanese, Filipinos will be more likely to
use arbitration to resolve an interpersonal conflict with their supervisors.
Hypothesis 7. Compared with Koreans and Japanese, Filipinos will be more likely to
avoid conflict with their supervisors.
Cultural Values/Factors and Conflict Management Styles
We have so far discussed how conflict management styles can vary across countries.
Now we discuss how cultural values can affect conflict management styles. One of the
cultural values that we believe can influence conflict management styles is the view of the
self (i.e., self-construals1). Individuals with a high interdependent self-construal view the self
1 The independent-an interdependent self-construal should not be regarded as the same
construct as collectivism-individualism “despite the relevance of self-construals as a
consequence of a person’s cultural orientation (Earley & Gibson, 1998: 298).” The
self-construals is a focal element to help understand cultural effects on individuals while
collectivism-individualism is a broad cultural construct that explain both country and
individual differences (Earley & Gibson, 1998).
37077
12
as “a priori fundamentally interdependent with others; that is, the self is inherently socialan
integral part of the collective (Markus & Kitayama, 1994: 570).” Thus, they are generally
sensitive to others’ thoughts, feelings, and actions, and as a result perceive their surroundings
in terms of others that are vital and influential (Hernandez & Iyengar, 2001; Markus &
Kitayama, 1991). Their major task is to maintain their connectedness to others by thinking
and behaving in ways that fit in with relevant others (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). As a result,
when they have a conflict with their supervisors, people with a high interdependent
self-construal attempt to play down the differences and emphasize commonalities to satisfy
the concern of the other party (i.e., obliging style). Individuals with a high interdependent
self-construal are also motivated to become part of various interpersonal relationships and to
maintain a good relationship with others, particularly those who are vital and influential to
them such as an immediate supervisor (Markus & Kitayama, 1994). Thus, they will
collaborate with others (i.e., integrating style) to resolve any intense disagreement that
involves incompatible goals, needs, or viewpoints. In addition, people with a high
interdependent self-construal tend to resolve an interpersonal conflict in an indirect way not
to ruin the interpersonal relationship. Thus, they may shy away from topics that are sources
of disputes or ask someone to give them advice about how to resolve the problem. However,
people with a low interdependent (i.e., high independent) self-construal view the self as an
independent entity that “comprises a unique, bounded configuration of internal attributes (e.g.,
37077
13
preferences, traits, abilities, motives, values, and rights) and behave primarily as a
consequence of these internal attributes (Markus & Kitayama, 1994: 569).” As a result, they
tend to satisfy their own interests in interpersonal conflicting situations and stand up for their
own rights and defend a position that they believe to be correct. Taken together, we predict:
Hypothesis 8: People with a higher (rather than lower) interdependent self-construal
more likely use obliging conflict management styles to resolve a conflict with a supervisor.
Hypothesis 9: People with a higher (rather than lower) interdependent self-construal
more likely use integrating conflict management styles to resolve a conflict with a supervisor.
Hypothesis 10: People with a higher (rather than lower) interdependent self-construal
more likely use avoiding conflict management styles to resolve a conflict with a supervisor.
Hypothesis 11: People with a higher (rather than lower) interdependent self-construal
more likely use mediation to resolve a conflict with a supervisor.
Hypothesis 12: People with a higher (rather than lower) interdependent self-construal
less likely use dominating conflict management styles to resolve a conflict with a supervisor.
Another cultural value that can affect conflict management styles is power distance
which refers to “the extent to which a society accepts the fact that power in institutions and
organizations is distributed unequally (Hofstede, 1980: 45).” In high power distance societies,
differences in power are assumed to be natural. People in unequal status are considered being
of a different kind and this difference reflects an existential inequality (Hofstede, 2003). Thus,
37077
14
people with higher (rather than lower) power distance will probably view exchanges in which
an authority is treating a subordinate in a power-oriented (e.g., dominating) manner as natural
(Gudykunst & Ting-Toomey, 1988). Consistent with this, Bond, Wan, Leung, & Giacalone
(1985) found that individuals who were higher (rather than lower) in power distance tended
to perceive less interpersonal mistreatment in situations describing authorities as having
treated them aggressively. As a result, in an effort to reresolve an interpersonal conflict with a
supervisor, subordinates with a high power distance will be more likely to satisfy the concern
of their supervisors and are less likely to pursue their own interests and objectives. In addition,
they usually avoid open discussion of the differences with their supervisors and try to stay
away from disagreement with their supervisors and hardly explore the differences to find a
solution together. Moreover, employees in high power distance societies rely on a higher
level of authority in dealing with interpersonal issues (Leung, 1997; Tinsley & Brett, 2001).
Individuals in high power society involve an authority in a conflict not only because they
respect status distinctions but because to gain power by association over the outcome and to
minimize social friction (Leung, 1997; Tinsley, 1997). Consistent with this, Smith et al.
(1998) found that employees with a high power distance tend to ask a higher level of
authority to reresolve disagreements between coworkers within their own department and
with other department’s employees. Taken together, we predict:
Hypothesis 13: People with a higher (rather than lower) power distance more likely
37077
15
use obliging conflict management styles to resolve a conflict with a supervisor.
Hypothesis 14: People with a higher (rather than lower) power distance less likely
use dominating conflict management styles to resolve a conflict with a supervisor.
Hypothesis 15: People with a higher (rather than lower) power distance more likely
use avoiding conflict management styles to resolve a conflict with a supervisor.
Hypothesis 16: People with a higher (rather than lower) power distance less likely
use integrating conflict management styles to resolve a conflict with a supervisor.
Hypothesis 17: People with a higher (rather than lower) power distance more likely
use arbitration to resolve a conflict with a supervisor.
Communication styles. Another variable that can affect conflict management styles is
individuals’ indirect communication styles. According to Gudykunst et al. (1996), one of the
characteristics of high-context (HC) communication is indirect/ambiguous communication.
Individuals who use an indirect communication style tend to respond with an ambiguous
position in order to avoiding hurting others and imposing on others. Thus, they are more
likely to resolve an interpersonal conflict in an indirect mode (Gudykunst et al., 1996). For
example, they respond to disagreements with less coming face-to-face with whomever one
has a disagreement and less verbally talking about the differences one has with the other.
Indirectness is also illustrated by someone choosing to avoid being in the same location with
the person with whom there is a disagreement (Ting-Toomey et al., 1991), and to shy away
37077
16
from topics that are sources of disputes (Putnam & Wilson, 1982). In addition, individuals
who use indirect communication styles may be more likely to involve a third party to resolve
an interpersonal conflict with their supervisors. Taken together, we predict:
Hypothesis 18: People who use indirect (rather than direct) communication less likely
use integrating conflict management styles to resolve a conflict with a supervisor.
Hypothesis 19: People who use indirect (rather than direct) communication more
likely use avoiding conflict management styles to resolve a conflict with a supervisor.
Hypothesis 20: People who use indirect (rather than direct) communication more
likely use mediation conflict management styles to resolve a conflict with a supervisor.
Hypothesis 21: People who use indirect (rather than direct) communication more
likely use arbitration conflict management styles to resolve a conflict with a supervisor.
Cumulatively, the above predictions indicate mediation, such that country predict
interdependent self-construal, power distance, and communication styles, which in turn
influences conflict management styles (Hypothesis 22).
METHODS
Participants and Procedures
The participants consist of current employees who are working at a large company in
Japan, Korea, and Philippine. A total of 295 surveys were collected and used for the further
analyses (i.e., Japan = 105, Korea = 90, and Philippines = 100). Table 1 shows the sample
37077
17
size, participants’ age, tenure, and gender by country. There were significant cross-cultural in
age and tenure (r = -.17, p <.01, r = -.18, p <.01). Japanese were significantly older and had a
longer tenure than Chinese and Koreans had. However, age and tenure was not significantly
associated with conflict management styles, and thus they were not controlled in further
analyses.
Insert Table 1 about here
Procedures
Surveys were distributed by undergraduate students who study in a university in
each country to their friends, relatives, or parents who are working in a company. Participants
were told that the survey is a voluntary exercise and were asked to return it to the researcher
at the address attached to the survey. To ensure that participants’ survey-responses would be
anonymous, the survey explained that respondents would not place their name anywhere on
the survey and their individual results would not be analyzed nor reported.
All surveys began by asking respondents to assess their values and attitudes toward
themselves, others, and the organization. Then, they were asked to describe the most recent
incident that they had an interpersonal conflict with their immediate supervisor in terms of
incompatible goals, needs, and view points. After describing the incident, respondents were
asked to answer how they reresolved the conflict. The survey was initially developed in
37077
18
English and then will be translated into Japanese, Korean, and Filipinos using Brinslin’s
(1986) back-translation procedure. All of the variables in this study were assessed on a
7-point Likert scale (where 1= extremely disagree or not at all and 7= extremely agree or
very much).
Measure
Conflict management styles. We measured conflict management styles using the
Rahim Organizational Conflict Inventory–II (Rahim, 1983). We also assessed two third-party
involved conflict management styles: mediation and arbitration. Mediation was assessed by
Ting-Toomey et al.’s (2000) two items and Lind et al.’s (1997) two items. Example items are
“Asked a peer for advice in settling the dispute” and “Discussed the conflict with my peers to
get some advice.” Arbitration is assessed by Ting-Toomey et al.’s (2000) four items.
Example items are “Appealed to a person at a higher level to settle the conflict” and “Asked a
higher-level manager to make a decision about how to settle the dispute.” Respondents were
asked to assess the extent to which they used each conflict management style to resolve the
interpersonal conflict with their immediate supervisor they described earlier (1 = not at all; 7
= very much).
Cultural values. We measured two types of cultural values. First, power distance was
measured by Dorfman and Howell’s (1988) five items. Example items are
“Managers should seldom ask for the opinions of employees” and “Managers should not
37077
19
delegate important tasks to employees.” Second, interdependent self-construal is measured by
Cross, Bacon, and Morris’s (2000) five items. Example items are “When I think of myself, I
often think of my close friends or family also” and “In general, my close relationships are an
important part of my self-image.”
Communication styles. Indirect communication style was measured using Gudykunst
et al.’s (1996) five items. Example items are “I communicate in an indirect fashion.” and “I
avoid eye contact when I communicate with others.”
Control variable. We controlled the severity of the conflict that respondents had with
the immediate supervisor reported. We measure the conflict severity by asking respondents to
assess the conflict with three sets of appositive adjectives using a 7-point Likert scale: 1 = not
at all important, 7 = very important; 1 = not at all serious, 7 = very serious; and 1 = not at all
serious, 7 = very critical.
Analysis
We run several regression analyses to test the effects of country and cultural values on
conflict management styles. In addition, to test the mediating effects of cultural values on the
country differences, we followed Baron and Kenny’s (1986) procedure. That is, we tested
whether significant country differences in conflict management styles remained significant or
reduced significantly after entering cultural values in the same regression equation.
RESULTS
37077
20
Descriptive statistics, reliability estimates, and correlations for all measures are
reported in Table 2. As shown in Table 2, all reliability estimates exceeded the .70 criterion
suggested by Nunnally (1978) except for power distance and indirect communication (α = .61
and .66, respectively). The mean for integrating conflict management style was relatively
higher than those for others, suggesting that employees from moderate high (i.e., Mean =
4.24). As expected, the mean for dominating style to resolve an interpersonal conflict with a
supervisor was the lowest (Mean = 3.65). Correlations between dyadic and third-party
involved conflict management styles were positively significant, suggesting that third-party
involved tactics (i.e., mediation and arbitration) can be used simultaneously with dyadic
tactics. Correlations between dominating and obliging and avoiding were not significant, and
conflict severity was significantly correlated with some of conflict management styles such as
mediation and arbitration. There are also some cross-cultural differences in the correlation
patterns. For example, the correlation between integrating and avoiding was negative and
significant in the Philippines (r = -.23, p < .01), but it was not significant in Japan and Korea
(r = .01, .n.s., and -.01, n.s., respectively).
Insert Table 2 about here
Country Difference in Conflict Management Styles
Hypothesis 1 predicted that compared with Japanese and Filipinos, Koreans would be
more likely to use integrating to resolve an interpersonal conflict with a supervisor. Table 3
37077
21
shows that there was no significant country difference regarding the integrating style. Thus,
Hypothesis 1 was not supported.
Insert Table 3 about here
Hypothesis 2 proposed that compared with Japanese and Filipinos, Koreans would be
less likely to oblige to their supervisors to resolve an interpersonal conflict. Consistent with
this, Table 3 shows that Koreans used less obliging tactics than Japanese and Filipinos did
(Means = 3.90 vs. 4.44., p <.01; 3.90 vs. 4.49, p < .01, respectively). Thus, Hypothesis 2 was
supported.
Hypothesis 3 stated that compared with Japanese and Filipinos, Koreans would be
more likely to compromise with their supervisors to resolve an interpersonal conflict.
Consistent with this, Koreans used more compromising tactics in dealing with an
interpersonal conflict with their supervisors than Japanese did (Means = 4.75 vs. 4.14, p <.01).
However, there was no significant difference between Koreans and Filipinos (Means = 4.75
vs. 4.79, n.s.). On the other hand, Filipinos were more likely to compromise with their
supervisors than Japanese were (Means = 4.79 vs. 4.14, p <.01). Thus, Hypothesis 3 was
partially supported.
Hypothesis 4 proposed that compared with Koreans and Filipinos, Japanese would be
less likely to dominate their supervisors to resolve an interpersonal conflict. Consistent with
this, Japanese dominated their supervisors in conflict situations less likely than Koreans and
37077
22
Filipinos did (Means = 3.27 vs. 3.84., p <.01; 3.27 vs. 3.91, p < .01, respectively), as can be
seen in Table 3. Thus, Hypothesis 4 was supported.
Hypothesis 5 predicted that compared with Koreans and Filipinos, Japanese would be
less likely to use mediation to resolve an interpersonal conflict with their supervisors. Table 3
shows that Japanese used mediation in dealing with an interpersonal conflict with their
supervisors less likely than Koreans and Filipinos did (Means = 4.25 vs. 4.69., p <.01; 4.25 vs.
4.65, p < .01, respectively), supporting Hypothesis 5.
Hypothesis 6 stated that compared with Koreans and Japanese, Filipinos would be
more likely to use arbitration to resolve an interpersonal conflict with their supervisors.
Consistent with this, Filipinos used arbitration in dealing with an interpersonal conflict with
their supervisors more likely than Koreans did (Means = 3.96 vs. 3.41, p <.01). However,
there was no significant difference between Filipinos and Japanese (Means = 3.96 vs. 3.80,
n.s.). On the other hand, Koreans were less likely to use arbitration than Japanese were
(Means = 3.41 vs. 3.80, p <.01). Thus, Hypothesis 6 was partially supported.
Hypothesis 7 predicted that compared with Koreans and Japanese, Filipinos would be
more likely to avoid conflict with their supervisors. Consistent with this, Filipinos were more
likely to avoid dealing with an interpersonal conflict with their supervisors than Koreans and
Japanese were (Means = 4.63 vs. 4.09., p <.01; 4.63 vs. 4.03, p < .01, respectively), as can be
seen in Table 3. Thus, Hypothesis 7 was supported.
37077
23
The country differences discussed above are shown in Figure 1. As can be seen in
Figure 1, there were significant country differences except for integrating conflict
management style.
Insert Figure 1 about here
Cultural Values/Factors and Conflict Management Styles
Hypothesis 8 predicted that people with a higher (rather than lower) interdependent
self-construal more likely used obliging conflict management styles to resolve a conflict with
a supervisor. Consistent with this, Table 4 shows that interdependent self-construal was
significantly associated with obliging tactic (β = .14, p < .05). Thus, Hypothesis 8 was
supported.
Insert Table 4 about here
Hypothesis 9 proposed that people with a higher (rather than lower) interdependent
self-construal more likely used integrating conflict management styles to resolve a conflict
with a supervisor. Table 4 shows that interdependent self-construal was significantly
associated with integrating tactic (β = .26, p < .01), supporting Hypothesis 9.
Hypothesis 10 predicted that people with a higher (rather than lower) interdependent
self-construal more likely used avoiding conflict management styles to resolve a conflict with
a supervisor. Consistent with this, interdependent self-construal was significantly associated
37077
24
with the tendency to avoid an interpersonal conflict with their supervisors (β = .25, p < .01),
as shown in Table 4. Thus, Hypothesis 10 was supported.
Hypothesis 11 stated that people with a higher (rather than lower) interdependent
self-construal more likely used mediation to resolve a conflict with a supervisor. Consistent
with this, Table 4 shows that interdependent self-construal was significantly associated with
mediation (β = .26, p < .01). Thus, Hypothesis 11 was supported.
Hypothesis 12 proposed that people with a higher (rather than lower) interdependent
self-construal less likely used dominating conflict management styles to resolve a conflict
with a supervisor. As can be seen in Table 4, interdependent self-construal was significantly
associated with integrating tactic, but the direction was positive rather than negative (β = .26,
p < .01). That is, people with a high interdependent self-construal were more likely to
dominate their supervisors to resolve an interpersonal conflict. Thus, Hypothesis 12 was not
supported.
Hypothesis 13 predicted that people with a higher (rather than lower) power distance
more likely used obliging conflict management styles to resolve a conflict with a supervisor.
Table 4 shows that power distance was significantly associated with obliging tactic (β = .28,
p < .01), supporting Hypothesis 13.
Hypothesis 14 stated that people with a higher (rather than lower) power distance less
likely used dominating conflict management styles to resolve a conflict with a supervisor.
37077
25
Contrary to this, power distance did not significantly affect dominating tactic subordinates
use to resolve an interpersonal conflict with their supervisors (β = .02, n.s). Thus, Hypothesis
14 was not supported.
Hypothesis 15 proposed that people with a higher (rather than lower) power distance
more likely used avoiding conflict management styles to resolve a conflict with a supervisor.
Consistent with this, power distance was significantly associated with the tendency to avoid
an interpersonal conflict with their supervisors (β = .15, p < .05), as shown in Table 4. Thus,
Hypothesis 15 was supported.
Hypothesis 16 predicted that people with a higher (rather than lower) power distance
less likely used integrating conflict management styles to resolve a conflict with a supervisor.
Table 4 shows that power distance was negatively associated with integrating tactic, but the
effect size is not significant (β = -.01, n.s). Thus, Hypothesis 16 was not supported.
Hypothesis 17 stated that people with a higher (rather than lower) power distance
more likely use arbitration to resolve a conflict with a supervisor. Consistent with this, power
distance was significantly associated with arbitration (β = .19, p < .01). Thus, Hypothesis 17
was supported.
Hypothesis 18 proposed that people who use indirect (rather than direct)
communication less likely use integrating conflict management styles to resolve a conflict
with a supervisor. Table 4 shows that indirect communication had a significantly negative
37077
26
effect on integrating tactic (β = -.17, p < .01), supporting Hypothesis 18.
Hypothesis 19 predicted that people who use indirect (rather than direct)
communication more likely use avoiding conflict management styles to resolve a conflict
with a supervisor. Consistent with this, indirect communication was significantly associated
with the tendency to avoid an interpersonal conflict with their supervisors (β = .28, p < .01),
as shown in Table 4. Thus, Hypothesis 19 was supported.
Hypothesis 20 stated that people who use indirect (rather than direct) communication
more likely used mediation conflict management styles to resolve a conflict with a supervisor.
Contrary to this, indirect communication did not significantly affect mediation tactic although
the association was positive (β = .05, n.s.). Thus, Hypothesis 20 was not supported.
Hypothesis 21 proposed that people who use indirect (rather than direct)
communication more likely used arbitration conflict management styles to resolve a conflict
with a supervisor. Table 4 shows that indirect communication had a significantly positive
effect on arbitration (β = .16, p < .01). Thus, Hypothesis 21 was supported.
Hypothesis 22 stated that cultural values mediated the effects of country on conflict
management styles. Consistent with this, Table 5 shows that the significant differences
between Japan and Korea in terms of obliging, avoiding, and arbitration became
nonsignificant after taking interdependent self-construal, power distance, and indirect
communication into account. In addition, the significant differences between Japan and
37077
27
Philippine in terms of avoiding, compromising, and dominating became nonsignficant or
substantially reduced. However, the significant differences between Korea and Philippine in
terms of obliging, compromising, domination, and mediation remained significantly. Taken
together, Hypothesis 22 was partially supported.
Insert Table 5 about here
DISCUSSION
This research can provide several important theoretical implications for cross-cultural
conflict management studies and suggest opportunities for more fine-grained research and
theory. For example, this study can enhance our understanding about cross-cultural
differences by examining the subtle but important cultural attributes among different
“collectivist” cultures (i.e., Japan, Korea, and Philippine) that have been distorted or simply
overlooked.
Another theoretical contribution of this study was examining
Collectivism has served as a powerful theoretical construct for cross-cultural
comparison of conflict management styles (Leung, 1987). However, this framework will not
work for this study since the three Asian countries examined are collectivist. Thus, as a
growing group of researchers advocate, this study will consider more specific values and
belief constructs that have meaning only within a given culture to explain East Asia
37077
28
differences in conflict management styles (Earley & Gibson, 1998; Morris & Leung, 2000).
The values and beliefs include “face” concerns and managerial principles as well as cultural
values such as power distance and self-construals.
Finally, with regard to consideration, self-construals significantly mediated the
country’s moderating effects on the relationship between normative comparison and
interactional justice. Specifically, there was a significant indirect effect of country on the
relationship between normative comparison and interactional justice through an independent
self-construal. This result extends current cross-cultural justice research (e.g., Chen et al.,
1998; Hui et al., 1991; Leung & Iwawaki, 1988) by successfully explaining the country
differences found in justice judgments. This success may result from the fact that this study
used more specific cultural dimensions (i.e., self-construals) rather than general dimensions
(e.g., collectivism) in explaining the country differences (Morris & Leung, 2000). However,
future studies should make further efforts to explore other variables that may explain the
country differences found in justice judgments. For instance, materialism that indicates the
extent to which people use possessions as an indicator of success in life (Richins & Dawson,
1992) and varies across countries (Abramson & Inglehart, 1995) may explain the country
differences in the effects of social comparison on justice perceptions, especially for
distributive justice.
37077
29
Although, for some types of treatment, country and self-construals interacted as
expected with social/normative comparison, others behaved in unpredicted ways. For
example, for job security, voice opportunity, and accuracy rule, U.S. Americans, compared to
Asians, were more likely to be sensitive to social comparison when making justice judgments.
Specifically, for job security the curvilinear relationship between social comparison and
justice perceptions was stronger for U.S. Americans than Asians. These results are
consistent with the classical social comparison theory that has typically implied that social
comparison processes differ across domains of comparison (Kruglanski & Mayseless, 1990).
It is possible that recent economic recession in the U.S. that results in relatively high
This study has some practical implications too. For example, it helps cross-cultural
managers decrease unnecessary animosity from different Asian countries by enhancing their
understanding of Asian differences in conflict management styles. Furthermore, this study
suggests that multinational companies need to develop different conflict reduction systems
across Asian countries. For example, Koreans are rather direct and solution-oriented in
conflict management situations, and Japanese hesitate to involve a third party to resolve a
conflict, whereas Filipinoss tend to avoid the conflict itself. If cross-cultural managers fail to
distinguish among Asian countries, they will reduce their ability to do business in one of the
37077
30
most formidable markets in the world (Sommer, Bae, & Luthans, 1996).
Limitations and Strengths
It should be noted that as in most cross-cultural studies, we did not have completely
matched samples from the three countries. For example, Japanese were significantly older
than Koreans and Filipinoss. However, the demographic variables did not significantly affect
conflict management styles, and thus we expect that the demographic differences across
countries will not influence the interpretation of the results. Nevertheless, this limitation
underscores the urgent need for better data in future cross-cultural studies.
In addition, this study did not measure all of the variables that may explain the
differences found across countries. Regarding Asian differences, this was a pioneering effort;
developing scales for the variables that explain Asian differences was out of this study’s
scope. However, cross-cultural justice literature can be benefited by future studies to develop
measures to explain Asian differences (e.g., inwha).
The limitations of this study are countered by several important strengths. First, this
study provides a better comprehension of East Asia differences associated with reward
distribution by examining different types of inputs and rewards. Considering various types of
rewards will obviously extend our understanding of how individuals react to different forms
of contribution (Bond et al., 1982).
Second, this study employed a discrepancy approach using a polynomial regression
37077
31
analysis to examine how inequity affects justice perceptions. Specifically, we measured
inputs (i.e., contributions) and rewards separately and tested how the difference between
inputs and rewards affects distributive justice. This approach makes it possible to test how
justice perceptions change as inputs increases toward rewards, inputs exceeds rewards, and
inputs and rewards both increases together (cf., Edwards & Parry, 1993).
In addition, the results of this study were based on a large sample in many different
firms across more than eight industries from each country. This sampling diversity increased
our confidence that the results were not simply based on the idiosyncratic organizational
culture of a single firm, or the unique experience in a certain industry. Thus, the
characteristics of our sample increased the generalizability of the results across different
contexts.
Conclusion
Future studies may benefit from the development of a better and a more responsive
theory that discusses how Asians differ from one another in conflict management styles, and
it would also be interesting to examine how they differ from one another in solving an
interpersonal conflict with their peers and subordinates. Moreover, it is likely that other Asian
countries (e.g., Singapore) are substantially different from the three East Asian countries
examined here, suggesting that future research should examine the differences within Asian
countries with regard to allocation preferences and justice judgments. Finally, it would also
37077
32
be interesting to examine the contextual variables that enhance or mitigate the country
differences in allocation preferences and justice judgments.
37077
33
Reference
Anderson, L., & Wilson, S. 1997. Critical incident technique. In D. L. Whetzel & G. R.
Wheaton (Eds.), Applied measurement methods in industrial psychology (pp. 89–112).
Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black.
Brislin, R. W. 1986. The wording and translation of research instruments. In W.J. Lonner and
J. W. Berry (Eds.), Field methods in cross-cultural research (pp. 137-164). Beverly
Hills: Sage Publications.
Cross, S. E., Bacon, P. L., & Morris, M. L. 2000. The relational-interdependent self-construal
and relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78: 791-808.
Dorfman, P. & Howell, J. 1988. Dimensions of National Culture: Hofstede Revisited. In E.G.
McGoun (Ed.), Advances in International Comparative Management, Vol. 3: 127-149.
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Fischer, R. 2004. Standardization to account for cross-cultural response bias: A classification
of score adjustment procedures and review of research in JCCP. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35: 263-282.
Gudykunst. W.B., Matsumoto, Y., Ting-Toomey, S., Nishida, T., Kim, Y., & Heyman, S.
1996. The influence of cultural individualism-collectivism, self contruals, and values on
communication styles across cultures. Human Communication Research, 22: 510-543.
Hui, C. H. 1988 Measurement of individualism-collectivism. Journal of Research in
37077
34
Personality, 22: 17-36.
Lind, E. A., Tyler, T. R, & Huo, Y. J. 1997. Procedural context and culture: Variation in the
antecedents of procedural justice judgments. Journal of Personality & Social
Psychology, 73: 767-780.
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets,V. 2002. A
comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects.
Psychological Method, 7: 83-104.
Rahim, M. A. 1983. A measure of styles of handling interpersonal conflict. Academy of
Management Journal, 26: 368-376.
Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. 2002. Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies:
New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7: 422-445.
Smith, P. C., & Kendall, L. M. 1963. Retranslation of expectations: An approach to the
construction of unambiguous anchors for rating scales. Journal of Applied Psychology,
47: 149-155.
Ting-Toomey, S., & Oetzel, J. G. 2001. Managing intercultural conflict effectively.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Ting-Toomey, S., Yee-Jung, K. K., Shapiro, R. B., Garcia, W., Wright, T. J., & Oetzel, J. G.
2000. Ethinic/cultural identity salience and conflict styles in four US ethnic groups.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 24: 47-81.
37077
35
Triandis, H.C., & Gelfand, M.J. 1998. Converging measurement of horizontal and vertical
individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74:
118-128.
Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement
invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational
research. Organizational Research Methods, 3: 4-69.
Abramson, P., & Inglehart, R. 1995. Value change in global perspective. Ann Arbor, MI:
University of Michigan Press.
Aquino, K., Bennett, R., Shapiro, D. L., Lim, V. K. G., & Kim, T. “Demographic and
Cultural Dissimilarity’s Effects on Responses to Offense.” R & R at Academy of
Management Journal.
Bond, M.H., Wan, K., Leung, K., & Giacalone, R.A. 1985. How are responses to verbal
insult related to cultural collectivism and power distance? Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 16: 111-127.
Callister, R. R., & Wall, J. A. 1997. Japanese community and organizational mediation.
Journal of Conflict Resolution, 41: 311-328.
Cho, Y., & Park, H. 1998. Conflict management in Korea: The wisdom of dynamic
collectivism. In Leung, K., & Tjosvold, D. (Eds.), Conflict management in the Asia
37077
36
pacific. New York: Wiley.
Earley, P. C., & Gibson, C. B. 1998. Taking stock in our progress in
individualism-collectivism: 100 years of solidarity and community. Journal of
Management, 24: 265-304.
Gao, G. 1998. An initial analysis of the effects of face and concern for "other" in Chinese
interpersonal communication. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22:
467-482.
Gelfand, M. J., Nishii, L. H., Holcombe, K. M., Dyer, N., Ohbuchi, K., & Fukuno, M. 2001.
Cultural influences on cognitive representations of conflict: Interpretations of conflict
episodes in the United States and Japan. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 1059-1074.
Goldman, A. 1994. The centrality of "ningensei" to Japanese negotiating and interpersonal
relationships: Implications for U.S.^Japanese communication. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 18: 29-54.
Honna, N. & Hoffer, B. 1989. An English dictionary of Japanese ways of thinking. Tokyo:
Yuhikaku.
Kim, T. “Reactions to Unfairness: Differences between Americans and Asians and among
Asians” R & R at Journal of Applied Psychology.
Kim, T., & Edwards, J. R. “Social Comparison and Justice Perceptions: The Moderating
Effects of Individual Values and Country”. Under Review at Organizational Behavior
37077
37
and Human Decision Processes.
Laden, G. M. 1988. While mediation is wide-spread in China, trade with west calls for new
DR methods. ADR Report, 2: 398-400.
Lebra, T. S. 1976. Japanese patterns of behavior. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Lee, H. O., & Rogan, R. G. 1991. A cross-cultural comparison of organizational conflict
management behaviors. International Journal of Conflict Management, 2: 181-199.
Leung, K. 1987. Some determinants of reactions to procedural models for conflict resolution:
A cross-national study. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 53: 898-908.
Moran, R. T., Allen, J., Wichmann, R., Ando, T., & Sasano, M. 1994. Japan. In Rahim, M. A.
& Blum, A. A. (Eds.), Global perspectives on organizational conflict (pp. 33-51)
Westport, Conn.: Praeger.
Morris, M. W., & Leung, K. 2000. Justice for all? Progress in research on cultural variation
in the psychology of distributive and procedural justice. Applied Psychology: An
International Review, 49: 100-132.
Oetzel, J., Ting-Toomey, S., Masumoto, T., Yokochi, Y., Pan, X. Takai, J. & Wilcox, R.
2001. Face and facework in conflict: A cross-cultural comparison of China, Germany,
Japan, and the United States. Communication Monographs, 68: 235-258.
Ohbuchi, K. 1998. Conflict management in Japan. In Leung, K., & Tjosvold, D. (Eds.),
Conflict management in the Asia pacific. New York: Wiley.
37077
38
Paik, Y., & Tung, R. L. 1999. Negotiating with Asians: How to attain “win-win” outcomes.
Managerial International Review, 39: 103-122.
Peng, K., & Nisbett, R. E. 1999. Culture, dialectics, and reasoning about contradiction.
American Psychologist, 54: 741-754.
Rahim, M. A. 1983. A measure of styles of handling interpersonal conflict. Academy of
Management Journal, 26: 368-376.
Sommer, S. M., Bae, S., & Luthans, F. 1996. Organizational commitment across cultures:
The impact of antecedents on Korean employees. Human Relations, 49: 977-993.
Steers, R., Shin, Y., & Ungson, G. 1989. The Chaebol: Korea’s new industrial might. New
York, NY: Harper & Row.
The Korean Broadcasting System (KBS), & Yonsei University. 1996. The Handbook of
Values and Beliefs among Korean, Chinese, and Japanese.
Ting-Toomey, S., Gao, G., Trubisky, P., & Yang, Z. 1991. Culture, face maintenance, and
styles of handling interpersonal conflicts: A study in five cultures. International
Journal of Conflict Management, 2: 275-296.
Wall, J. A., & Blum, M. 1991. Community mediation in the People's Republic of China.
Journal of Conflict Resolution, 35: 3-20.
37077
39
Table 1
Sample Characteristics
Sample Age Gender (%) Tenure
Country size M SD Male Female (year)
Korean 90 31.91 7.93 47.80 52.20 4.73
Japanese 105 35.72 12.44 53.90 44.30 9.95
Philippines 100 31.68 8.53 55.00 45.00 6.28
37077
40
Table 2
Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations, and Coefficients for Variables in All Data
Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1. Country — — —
2. Conflict severity 4.66 1.27 .08 (.87)
3. Integrating 4.71 1.01 -.03 .16 (.83)
4. Obliging 4.29 1.02 -.03 .00 .24 (.81)
5. Avoiding 4.25 1.00 .14 .01 -.05 .55 (.71)
6. Compromising 4.54 1.02 .05 .01 .59 .36 .26 (.71)
7. Dominating 3.65 1.08 -.04 .14 .28 .05 .08 .25 (.79)
8. Mediation 4.52 1.09 .04 .18 .52 .25 .17 .45 .34 (.75)
9. Arbitration 3.73 1.16 -.02 .15 .31 .20 .21 .39 .43 .57 (.79)
10. Interdependent self 5.07 .96 .34 .17 .28 .16 .23 .27 .22 .25 .11 (.70)
11. Power distance 4.11 .98 .22 .11 .02 .25 .21 .10 .04 .15 .17 .19 (.61)
12. Indirect communication 3.19 1.09 .20 -.12 -.16 .16 .28 .13 .08 .02 .18 -.40 .19 (.66)
Note.(N = 295; Korea = 90, Japan = 105, Philippines = 100). Reliabilities are in parentheses.
For all correlation above .10 or below -.10, p ≤.05; and above .15 or below -.15, p ≤.01.
37077
41
Table 3
Country Differences in Conflict Management Styles
Koreans Japanese Filipinos Country Differences
Conflict management styles
Integrating 4.83 4.70 4.62 N/A
Obliging 3.90 4.44 4.49
Japanese > Koreans**
;
Filipinos > Koreans**
Avoiding 4.09 4.03 4.63
Filipinos > Koreans**
;
Filipinos > Japanese**
Compromising 4.75 4.14 4.79
Koreans > Japanese**
;
Filipinos > Japanese**
Dominating 3.84 3.27 3.91
Koreans > Japanese**
;
Filipinos > Japanese**
Mediation 4.69 4.25 4.65
Koreans > Japanese**
;
Filipinos > Japanese*
Arbitration 3.41 3.80 3.96
Japanese > Koreans*;
Filipinos > Koreans**
Note. (N = 295; Korea = 90, Japan = 105, Philippines = 100).
* : p < .05
** : p < .01
37077
42
Table 4
Regression Results for the Effects of Cultural Values on Conflict Management Styles
Integrating Obliging Avoiding Compromising Dominating Mediation Arbitration
Conflict severity .09 -.03 -.01 -.02 .09 .13* .13
*
Interdependent self .26**
.14* .25
** .34
** .29
** .26
** .09
Power distance -.01 .28**
.15**
.01 .02 .08 .19**
Indirect
communication -.17**
.12 .28**
.19**
.17**
.05 .16**
R2 .12
** .13
** .19
** .15
** .13
** .11
** .11
**
Note. (N = 295; Korea = 90, Japan = 105, Philippines = 100).
* : p < .05
** : p < .01
37077
43
Table 5
Regression Results for the Mediating Effects of Cultural Values on Country Differences in Conflict Management Styles
Integrating Obliging Avoiding Compromising Dominating Mediation Arbitration
Step
1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2
Conflict severity .10 .16* -.03 -.05 -.02 -.02 -.01 -.02 .13
* .12 .18
** .14
* .13
* .13
*
Korea vs. Japan -.07 -.16 .28**
.11 .25**
.12 .04 -.08 .04 -.04 -.05 -.16 .16* .05
Korea vs. Philippine -.03 -.04 .23**
.24**
-.05 .01 -.29**
-.25**
-.27**
-.23**
-.18* -.18
* .10 .12
Japan vs. Philippine .06 .12 -.05 .13 -.31**
-.12 -.33**
-.17* -.31
** -.18
* -.13 -.02 -.07 .07
Interdependent self .23**
.18**
.26**
.27**
.21**
.18* .12
Power distance .07 .24**
.08 .04 .05 .14 .15*
Indirect communication
-.19**
.16* .25
** .15
* .15
* -.02 .17
*
R2 .03 .13 .06
** .18
** .08
** .20
** .10
** .18
** .11
** .17
** .06
** .11
** .04
* .11
**
R2 change .10
** .12
** .12
** .08
** .06
** .05
** .07
**
Note. (N = 295; Korea = 90, Japan = 105, Philippines = 100).
* : p < .05
** : p < .01
37077
44
Figure 1
Country Differences in Conflict Management Styles
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
Conflict Management Styles
Fre
qu
ency
Integrating Obliging Avoiding Compromising Dominating Mediation Arbitration
Korea
Japan
Phillippine