International Journal of Human Resource Management and Research (IJHRMR) ISSN 2249-6874 Vol.

2 Issue 4 Dec - 2012 59-68 TJPRC Pvt. Ltd.,

RAINBOW WORKFORCE - EXPLORING THE MACRO CONTRIBUTORS OF CROSS CULTURAL CONFLICTS IN GLOBAL MULTICULTURAL BUSINESS ORGANIZATIONS
1

SANJAY SHRIVASTAVA & 2PRASHANT SHRIVASTAVA

Associate Professor, IILM College of Management Studies, Greater Noida, India

2

Assistant Professor, ITM University, Gwalior, India

ABSTRACT
Cross cultural conflicts now have spread like organizational epidemic causing serious concern to the global organizations. The negative behavioral interplay of the rainbow workforce affects the overall efficiency. Cultural conflicts arise because of the differences in values, norms, and behaviors. Such situation creates misunderstanding and often leads to conflict. Cultural conflict can occur due to complicated dynamics including issues of disagreement. The present paper aims to focus on the potent sources causing cross culture conflicts in multicultural business sets including explorations on the effect of cross-cultural differences on conflict.

KEYWORDS: Conflict, Cross culture, Multicultural, Ethnocentrism, Enculturation INTRODUCTION

Cross cultural conflicts now have spread like organizational epidemic causing concern to the global organizations. The negative behavioral interplay of the rainbow workforce affects the overall efficiency. On the desk, professionals are involved in the dynamic flow of interpersonal relationships; often confront issues of uncertainty and conflict. It is observed that whenever a person faces conflicting behavior, he dips into a personal meaning reservoir and selects an appropriate meaning (Bergeron, 2000; Dana, 2001; Ormrod, 1995, Samovar, Porter & Jain, 1981). The highly dynamic demographics of a global society constantly supplies increasing opportunities for cross-cultural contacts within the community and work place, making effective intercultural communication a necessity. Hiebert (1985), an anthropologist, commented: "It is estimated that in normal communication within the same culture, people understand only about 70 percent of what is said. In cross-cultural situations the level is probably not above 50 percent." This inability to communicate across cultural is often reflected through conflict. This conflict may produce constructive or negative results (Grab, 1996). Johnson (1994) stated such results have been categorized and referred to as functional and dysfunctional, if positive results develop synergistic output with a lot of benefits, the destructive results are seen in the form of violence and aggression in society as a whole. Johnson (1996) further commented on the significance of managing conflict situations before behaviors become destructive and result in violence. The South African, which is an amalgamation of many cultures and races, is often faced with the challenges of finding creative, non-violent solutions for the inevitable conflicts of a multicultural workforce. To best supply the desired expectations and further, in response to the studied trend, educators should put in the efforts to develop an understanding of cultural elements, with the purpose of creating positive crosscultural interaction and will certainly lead to the resolution of conflicts (Myers, Buoye, McDermott, Strickler & Ryman, 2001; Weaver, 1995). It is observed that the positive result of reduced conflict in a school has been the cause of improved students performances (Johnson, 1996). Such outcomes at times indicate and emphasize the need for purposeful conflict

60

Sanjay Shrivastava & Prashant Shrivastava

management through structured strategy. Global business units comprising multicultural organizations are facing the malresults of dysfunctional outcomes of conflict on everyday basis. Waters (1992) rightly comment "It is axiomatic that a racially and culturally diverse workforce will experience conflict, if for no other reason, simply as a function of the diversity itself." Such factors need immediate address with serious ramifications for an organization. The following example depicts the picture more sharply. Piturro and Mahoney (1992) in their study describe the incidences of an American based company, Corning, Inc., which discovered in the mid-1980's that the attrition rate of women and minorities in the company was twice the attrition rate of white men, and that this cost the company three million dollars per year. Besides, a high turnover rate among employees is one of the core outcomes of conflict. Its been constantly recorded by the researchers that there is a great fall in productivity and performance whenever people feel devalued or they develop a feeling of conflict (Horowitz & Boardman, 1994). Johnson (1994) attempted to list down dysfunctional outcomes as reduced communication; less effective interactions; decreased problem solving; demoralized employees; and chaos. Horowitz and Boardman (1994) observed that business organizations are dealing with more number of cultural conflicts because of the increasingly diverse work force across the world. Horowitz and Boardman (1994), sincerely advised to structure a model of conflict management which truly encompasses different dimensions of cultures and prevalent value systems. Piturro and Mahoney (1992) expressed the critical comment in context of a multicultural work force: "But now that we've assembled a rainbow work force, there's only one problemhow to make it work effectively." Johnson (1994) commented an analytical view on conflict management adding that the factors, which affect the outcome of conflict, are the amount of conflict and the management of conflict. Rubin (1994) supported the need of conflict management about the importance of broadening people's perspective through ideas which originate in other cultures. Wall and Callister (1995) were also of the opinion and emphasized the need for researchers to investigate cultural influences on conflict management more rigorously and meticulously. It is worth paying earnest attention that the change from a homogenous to a multicultural workforce requires leaders to develop new cross-cultural skills because such skills have the capacity of tremendously infuse new energy and creativity into the workforce. However, the process of communication and conflict management is intricate in nature. Studies prove that the dangers of being misunderstood gets multiplied when working with people in a cross-cultural organization or in such set ups. The need of the hour is to reframe the behavioral dynamics since earlier theories of management and motivation applied to a homogenous workforce (Tan, Morris & Romero, 1996). Piturro and Mahoney (1992) in their studies explained that the positive results of diversity comprises of multifaceted structuring in product development and sales and decides a competitive edge in the global environment which works as a redefined managerial mission and ultimately makes room for a new behavioral definitions resulting increased morale and productivity. It is worth acknowledging that diversity may be the greatest challenge of the twenty-first century but it is true that because of sophisticated technology, diversity is a most commonly found factor in the global society particularly in todays business practices.

WHAT IS CONFLICT
Initially, conflict may be defined as a constant struggle or contest between people with opposing needs, ideas, beliefs, values, attitudes and goals. Conflict in workforce is inevitable as well as essential for multifaceted development and approach to various business causes. However, the results of conflict are not predetermined and in no condition can be pre-estimated. It is probable that the conflict might escalate and lead to nonproductive results, or for varied purposes, conflict can be beneficially resolved and lead to quality products. As Abraham's has attempted to define that there are two important aspects of conflict. At minimal, there are at least two interdependent people involved in a conflict, and second, a conflict involves issues of different causes. In a study, Augsburger (1992) described conflict as a competition for similar

Rainbow Workforce Exploring the Macro Contributors of Crosscultural Conflicts in Global Multicultural Business Organizations

61

goals, rights and resources; he further added that "conflict is universal, cultural and individual." This reminder of the personal, or individual, dimension of conflict was particularly relevant to this project. It is important to know the person, as well as the cultural context. In a study Mayer (2000) educated that conflict may be seen as a feeling or as inconsistent views of the world. Dana (2001) attempted to accurately define conflict especially the work place conflicts informing that it involves people whose responsibilities are interdependent, who are angry, who believe the other person is to be blamed for the conflict, and whose actions are causing problems in the work place. Further, taking this concern to better understanding Haar and Krahe (1999) pointed out that "Apart from cultural background, gender is another variable that has been shown to influence the management of interpersonal conflict." In the opinion of Horowitz and Boardman (1994), the multi-cultural workforce may point out new factors of a conflict like some people may consider relationship-oriented goals and other people may strive for more task-oriented goals. However, Rubin's (1994) study proves the truth that Ultimately, people have to take responsibility for addressing their own conflicts." In the process of understanding conflict in-depth it is significant to know the potent sources of conflict.

THE SOURCES OF CONFLICT

The sources of conflict inter-play a very critical role in determining suitable ways to manage conflict. Studies made from time to time do indicate various dimensions of conflict. The major identified sources are; The communication process Emotional Impulses Personal Values Individuals Need As has been enlisted above, most of the sources are common as Mayer used in his wheel of conflict. Mayer (2000) enumerates six major sources of conflict include methods of communication, emotions, history, values, structures, and needs. In Mayer (2000) opinion "Culture affects conflict because it is embedded in individuals' communication styles, history, and way of dealing with emotions, values, and structures." Some of the most identified sources of conflict are communication, emotions, and personal values. Psychologists Art Bell and Brett Hart identified eight causes of conflict in the early 2000s. The eight causes are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Conflicting resources. Conflicting styles. Conflicting perceptions. Conflicting goals. Conflicting pressures. Conflicting roles. Different personal values. Unpredictable policies.

62

Sanjay Shrivastava & Prashant Shrivastava

DIFFERENCE IN LANGUAGE
Language facilitates communication. Coleman (1995) realized the role of language causing conflict when workforce consists of cultural diversity. Where on the positive side, language is a strong source to understand and feel other cultures but as Steyn (1994) observes that the un-favoring attitude which people make an approach to other languages breeds intolerable problems resulting in conflict ultimately for which the language diversity is responsible in multicultural organizations. As Mayer (2000) experienced and expressed that people find some language elements of another culture to be amusing or disgusting. The y further added that "The most basic constant is that everyone fundamentally wants to be understood". Lupi & Tong (2001) stated that languages have enough strength to cause immediate communication barriers. Ewert (2000) and Finley (2000) sought solution to this problem adding that it is highly significant to make a conscious decision to respect people comprising conditions even when their differences produce discomfort. Hermann et al (1997) and Robbins (2001) are of the view that language conflicts are often flared up by someone attributing negative intentions to another person of other culture. Having viewed, the potential role of language causing communication can be better understood and handled at pre-mature stages.

THE DIFFERENCE IN PERCEPTION

Perception is how one looks at one particular information or situation. Ormrod (1995) defines perception as referring to the meaning that people attach to information received. Perception is described as a cognitive process which helps one organize and interpret any stimuli received from the internal or external environment (Swanepoel, Erasmus, Van Wyk & Schenk, 2001). Perceptions are subjective experience and while passing through this people interpret meaning through their own field of experience whether sweet or bitter. However, perception one may suffer from an inaccurate interpretation to a information or situation. The nature of perception is indefinite making it a critical issue in cross-cultural communication set because most of the times the meaning of perception is determined by ones cultural orientation and as a result it naturally happens to be easier to make a premature judgment than to delay it to grasp it fully. Supporting the concept Steyn (1994) further stated that multicultural interactions require people to consult each other for differing perceptions which may cause conflict.

THE CONFLICT THROUGH COMMUNICATION

In the work place most of the times different communication styles can lead to misunderstandings between employees or between employee and manager. Even lack of communication causes conflict. Communication is the most potential medium to connect people. No doubt, communication is a very complicated process. Anyhow, communication is affected by different cultural backgrounds. As Bergeron (2000) has pointed out, communication takes place anytime a person receives information whether oral or written, assigning meaning to it performs behavioral actions. Such behavior may be conscious or unconscious and it may be intentional or unintentional response. Rutter (1996) examines communication to be a complex process besides being a tool to create understanding between people Hesselgrave (1991) suggested that "effective communication is not easily achieved and miscommunication is not easy to avoid." Myers, et al (2001) accepted that the process becomes even more difficult when the source and the participant originate from different cultures. Such difference causes conflict because of the difficulty of dissimilarity between the two different cultures. It has been observed that the wider the variation in communication between cultural backgrounds, the higher the possibility of conflict.

Rainbow Workforce Exploring the Macro Contributors of Crosscultural Conflicts in Global Multicultural Business Organizations

63

ETHNOCENTRISM AND ENCULTURATION

Hiebert (1985) defined ethnocentrism as the emotional response which people often have when they first face with another culture. Ethnocentrism is a kind of universal syndrome of discrimination including seeing behaviors attitudes and believing ones own group as virtuous and superior having standards of value as universal considering other groups as contemptible and inferior. LeVine and Campbell (1972) depicting the critical ethnocentrism, stated that behaviors associated with ethnocentrism it can be affirmed as supportive and cooperative relations within the group framework and the absence of cooperative relations with other cultural groups. The major aspects of like language, accent, physical features, or religion encompass ethnocentrism. The most observable characteristics are based on group boundaries that are typically defined by one or more such behaviors (Sumner 1906; Hirschfeld 1996; Kurzban, Tooby, and Cosmides 2001). The said behaviors do also encompass all strong territorial components (Sumner 1906). The boundaries of ethnocentrism also include other conflicts beyond ethnic implications (Brewer 1979; Chirot and Seligman 2001). The essence of ethnocentric behaviors strongly believes ones own culture is superior in every way which causes multiple reasons to breed conflicts (Elmer, 1993). Harris & Kumra (2000) were of the view that the two dimensions which can partially resolve the issue are overcoming this propensity toward ethnocentrism by having open mindedness with increased awareness of one's own culture and the second is the practice of gathering more information about the differences in work values and cultural values of other cultures Ethnocentrism often develops through the complex process of enculturation. Enculturation has its inevitable affects on every opinion or action that a person thinks, says and does because of the strength of enculturation; people often compare new cultural ways to their own ways and mostly deduce that their ways are best. Both, ethnocentrism and enculturation are potent source of introducing conflicts among the rainbow workforce of multicultural organization.

THE ILL HISTORY RELATIONS

The history between two groups is a potent deciding factor the possibility of conflicts. It has been observed that countries which have a long history of conflicts and inter-struggle cause conflicts between groups. Besides, families have maintained serious conflicts for generations together as sometimes a conflict between two people may have roots in an event that is many years past. In all such examples history stands as a potent source of conflicts and such conflict must be viewed within its historical context. (Mayer, 2000). Lingenfelter and Mayers (2001) stated that it takes time and effort to overcome the historical issues where the multicultural organizations provide a good platform for interaction between people of various backgrounds to have talks to overcome such issues but in despite such effort the history between the two cultures and countries most of the time acts as a potential source of conflicts.

THE VALUE SYSTEM

The impact of value system of a particular culture in conflicts is immeasurable. Robbins (2001) pointed out that value systems is one of the most overlooked variables in the study of conflict. Banks (2001) elaborated that the practice of openness to value systems for other cultures helps people to begin the process of questioning personal assumptions resulting questioning monoculture perspective. Simerly (1998) stated that a conflict of values is the potent source to conflicts. Hiebert (1985) accepted that in a situation when multicultural behavioral practices are threatened, the response is more instinctive and provocative. The value system, at an extended level is associated with ones cognition through which one develops beliefs and faiths about personal or social issues undergoing personal experience (Samovar, et al, 1981). Various decisions related to the development of our own likeness and aversion comes from within the culture. Mayer (2000) has significantly commented that the value system at times works as an evaluative tool to decide and determine right and wrong for people, and such are developed through the process of enculturation and are most of the times operational on a subconscious level.

64

Sanjay Shrivastava & Prashant Shrivastava

The values govern the actions and reactions of an individual. The values also dictate appropriate and inappropriate behavior in society. The analysis and understanding of personal values and the values of others are significant elements in crosscultures. Hermann et al (1997) stated that understanding values and assumptions usually contributes to avoid the misinterpretation of behavior and intentions in a cross-cultural setting.

IMPULSIVE EMOTIONS
Overflowing impulsive emotions are most of the times the root cause of conflicts. Manifestation of anger is in every form of conflict varying in degrees. (Browning, Davis & Resta, 2000; Dana, 2001) made statement that anger is most observable element in every conflict. The forms of anger might be hidden or palpable but remains present causing and flaring conflicts. Some other strong emotions also regularly contribute on the spontaneity and nature of conflict. The impulses of emotional blocks often forces rationality to set aside. Horowitz and Boardman (1994) commented that the influences of perception are concrete and potential where the intentions play as catalytic agent.

CONCLUSIONS
The problem of cross-cultural communication in modern multicultural organizations, no doubt, produces confusion among co-workers leading to conflicts; which is further flared up by the personal assumptions. Roerden (2001) comments the todays workforce need to adept themselves in the art and artifice of new social skills and a continuous update on other cultures front. Ewert (2000) further added that employees need tools of cultural analysis, along with specific cultural information to adept and skill themselves for the better comprehension of cross-cultural interactions and styles, he pointed out that "Understanding does not inevitably lead to harmony, but it is a necessary pre-condition". Ewert (2000). Actually conflict of any sort is highly unaffordable for any organization expecting coherency in work. The most essential element to root out conflict as Kramsch (2002) suggests is "bridges of tolerance" while the most potential obstacles to raise such bridge is prejudice and discrimination (Mor Barak, 2000). However, the potent reason to aggravate and provoke conflict in multicultural organizational set gets closely attached with the elements like communication, perception, ethnocentric behavior and enculturation, impulsive emotions, the history of relations and the ones value system. This suggests a separate research on these issues to melt down and evaporate cultural conflicts in multicultural organizations.

REFERENCES
1. Arai, M, Wanca-Thibault, M & Shockley-Zalabak, P 2001. Communication theory and training approaches for multiculturally diverse organizations: Have academics and practitioners missed the connection? Public Personnel Management, 30(4):445-457. 2. Art Bell and Brett Hart (2000). Source: http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/eight-causes-conflict.htm Accessed on October 02, 2012. 3. Augsburger, DW 1992. Conflict mediation across cultures: Pathways and patterns. Kentucky:Westminster/John Knox Press. 4. Banks, JA 2001. Citizenship education and diversity: Implications for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(1), 5-16. 5. 6. Barbian, J 2003. Moving toward diversity. Training, 40(2):44-48. Best, JW & Kahn, JV 1993. Research in education. 7th edition. Boston:Allyn & Bacon.

Rainbow Workforce Exploring the Macro Contributors of Crosscultural Conflicts in Global Multicultural Business Organizations

65

7.

Borg, WR, Gall, JP & Gall, MD 1993. Applying educational research: A practical guide. 3rd edition. New York:Longman Publishing Group.

8. 9.

Bottery, M 1995. The ethics of educational management. New York:Cassell. Brewer, Marilynn B. 1979. The role of ethnocentrism in intergroup conflict. In The psychology of intergroup relations, edited by W. G. Austin and S. Worchel. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

10. Browning, L, Davis, B & Resta, V 2000. What do you mean "think before I act"?: Conflict resolution with choices. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 14(2):232-239. 11. Chesler, MA & Zuniga, X 1991. Dealing with prejudice and conflict in the classroom: The pink triangle exercise. Teaching Sociology, 19(2):173-181. 12. Chirot, Daniel, and Martin E. P. Seligman. 2001. Ethno political warfare: Causes, consequences, and possible solutions. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association. 13. Coleman, HLK 1995 Strategies for coping with cultural diversity. The Counseling Psychologist, 23:722-740. 14. Conrad, C 1991. Communication in conflict: Style-strategy relationships. Communication Monographs, 58:135-155. 15. Dana, D 2001. Conflict resolution: Mediation tools for everyday worklife. New York:McGraw-Hill. 16. Ewert, DM 2000. Building intercultural understanding: The passenger in row 22. Adult Learning, 11(4):30-32. 17. Elmer, D 1993. Cross-cultural conflict: Building relationships for effective ministry. Illinois:InterVarsity Press. 18. Ewert, DM 2000. Building intercultural understanding: The passenger in row 22. Adult Learning, 11(4):30-32. 19. Finley, S 2000. Transformative teaching for multicultural classrooms: Designing curriculum and classroom strategies for master's level teacher education. 20. Haar, BF & Krahe, B 1999. Strategies for resolving interpersonal conflicts in adolescence: A GermanIndonesian comparison. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30(6):667-683. 21. Harris, H & Kumra, S 2000. International manager development: Cross-cultural training in highly diverse environments. Journal of Management Development, 19(7):602-614. 22. Hermann, K, Carstarphen, N & Coolidge, JO 1997. Meeting the challenges of diversity and conflict: The immigrant student experience. Teaching and Change, 4(3):206-226. 23. Hesselgrave, DJ 1991. Communicating Christ cross-culturally. 2nd edition. Michigan:Zondervan Publishing House. 24. Hirschfeld, Lawrence A. 1996. Race in the making. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 25. Hiebert, PG 1985. Anthropological insights for missionaries. Michigan:Baker Book House. 26. Horowitz, SV & Boardman, SK, 1994. Managing conflict: Policy and research implications. Journal of Social Issues, 50(1):197-211. 27. Kramsch, C 2002. Review article: In search of the intercultural. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 6(1):275285.

66

Sanjay Shrivastava & Prashant Shrivastava

28. Kurzban, Robert, John Tooby, and Leda Cosmides. 2001. Can race be erased? Coalitional computation and social categorization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 98:15387-92. 29. LeVine, Robert A., and Donald T. Campbell. 1972. Ethnocentrism. New York: John Wiley. 30. Lingenfelter, SG & Mayers, MK 2001. Ministering cross-culturally: An incarnational model for personal relationships. Michigan: Baker Book House. 31. Lupi, MH & Tong, VM 2001. Reflecting on personal interaction style to promote successful cross-cultural school-home partnerships. Preventing School Failure, 45(4):162-166. 32. Mayer, B 2000. The dynamics of conflict resolution: A practitioner's guide. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass, Inc., A Wiley Company. 33. Mor Barak, ME 2000. The inclusive work place: An ecosystems approach to diversity management. Social Work, 45(4):339-353. 34. Myers, DJ, Buoye, AJ, McDermott, J, Strickler, DE & Ryman, RG 2001. Signals, symbols and vibes: An exercise in cross-cultural interaction. Teaching Sociology, 29(1):95-101. 35. Ormrod, JE 1995. Human learning. 2nd edition. New Jersey:Prentice-Hall, Inc. 36. Piturro, M & Mahoney, SS 1992. Managing diversity. Adult Learning, 3(7):13-15. 37. Robbins, SP 2001. Organisational behaviour. 9th edition. New Jersey:Prentice-Hall, Inc. 38. Roerden, LP 2001. The resolving conflicts creatively programme. Reclaiming Children and Youth, 10(1):24-29. 39. Rubin, JZ 1994. Models of conflict management. Journal of Social Issues, 50(1):33- 45. 40. Rutter, G 1996. Communication: Most overworked but least performed act in business. Human Resource Management, 12(7):24, 33. 41. Samovar, LA, Porter, RE & Jain, NC 1981. Understanding intercultural communication. California:Wadsworth Publishing Company. 42. Simerly, RG 1998. Managing conflict for productive results: A critical leadership skill. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 46(2):2-11. 43. Steyn, M 1994. Cross-culturally speaking. People Dynamics, 12(9):15-17, 36. 44. Steyn, M 1994. Cross-culturally speaking. People Dynamics, 12(9):15-17, 36. 45. Steyn, GM 1996. Theme 3: Managing interpersonal relationships. Pretoria:University of South Africa. 46. Sumner, William G. 1906. Folkways. Boston: Ginn and Co. 47. Swanepoel, B (Editor), Erasmus, B, Van Wyk, M & Schenk, H 2001. South African human resource management: Theory and practise. 2nd edition. Lansdowne:Juta and Co. Ltd. 48. Tan, DL, Morris, L & Romero, J 1996. Changes in attitude after diversity training. Training and Development, 50(9):54-55.

Rainbow Workforce Exploring the Macro Contributors of Crosscultural Conflicts in Global Multicultural Business Organizations

67

49. Wall, JA & Callister, RR 1995. Conflict and its management. Journal of Management, 21(3):515-558. 50. Waters, Jr., H 1992. Race, culture and interpersonal conflict. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 16:437-454. 51. Weaver, GR 1995. Communication and conflict in the multicultural classroom. Adult Learning, 6(5):23-24.