Conflict

Conflict Styles

Miscommunication and misunderstanding between people within the same culture can feel overwhelming enough, but when this occurs with people of another culture, we may feel a serious sense of stress. Because of this, intercultural conflict experts have developed conflict style inventories based on the two general approaches discussed above. The Intercultural Conflict Style Inventory or ICS, measures people's approaches to conflict along two different continuums: direct/indirect and expressive/restrained.

Discussion Style

The discussion style combines direct and emotionally restrained dimensions. As it is a verbally direct approach, people who use this style are comfortable expressing disagreements. User perceived strengths of this approach are that it confronts problems, explores arguments, and maintains a calm atmosphere during the conflict. The weaknesses perceived by others is that it is difficult to "read between the lines," it appears logical but unfeeling, and it can be uncomfortable with emotional arguments. Discussion style can often be found in Northern Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and various co-cultures in the United States.

Engagement Style

The engagement style emphasizes a verbally direct and emotionally expressive approach to dealing with conflict. This style views intense verbal and nonverbal expressions of emotion as demonstrating a willingness to resolve the conflict. User perceived strengths to this approach are that it provides detailed explanations, instructions, and information. This style expresses opinions and shows feelings. The weaknesses perceived by others are the lack of concern with the views and feelings of others along with the potential for dominatingly rude behavior. Individual viewpoints are not separated from emotion. Engagement style is often used in Mediterranean Europe, Russia, Israel, Latin America, and various co-cultures in the United States.

Accommodating Style

The accommodating style combines the indirect and emotionally restrained approaches. People who use this approach may send ambiguous message because they believe that by doing so, the conflict will not get out of control. Silence and avoidance are also considered worthy tools. Strengths to this approach are sensitivity to feelings of the other party, control of emotional outbursts, and consideration to alternative meanings of ambiguous messages. Weaknesses are difficulty in voicing your own opinion, and appearing to be uncommitted or dishonest.

Accommodators tend to avoid direct expression of feelings by using intermediaries, such as friends or relatives who informally act on their behalf when dealing with conflict. Mediation tends to be used in more formal situations when one person believes that conflict will encourage growth in the relationship. Accommodating style is often used in East Asia, North America, and South America.

Dynamic Style

The dynamic style uses indirect communication along with more emotional expressiveness. These people are comfortable with emotions but tend to speak in metaphors and often use mediators. Their credibility is grounded in their degree of emotional expressiveness. User perceived strengths to this approach are using third parties to gather information and resolve conflicts, being skilled at observing nonverbal behaviors, and being comfortable with emotional displays. Weaknesses as perceived by others are appearing too emotional, unreasonable, and possibly devious, while rarely getting to the point. Dynamic style is often used in the Middle East, India, Sub-Saharan Africa, and various co-cultures in the United States.

Caution When Applying the ICS

It is important to recognize that people, and cultures, deal with conflict in a variety of ways for a variety of different reasons. Preferred styles are not static and rigid. People use different conflict styles with different partners. Economic, political, gender, ethnicity, religion, and social issues may all influence how we handle conflict. The ICS is just a guide for the understanding of intercultural conflict.