concepts & strategies concerning intercultural...

CONCEPTS & STRATEGIES CONCERNING INTERCULTURAL COMPETENCES

1

This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This presentation reflects the views only of the author, and the

Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein. LLP Leonardo da Vinci Transfer

of Innovation Programme / Grant agreement number: DE/13/LLP-LdV/TOI/147636

CONCEPTS & STRATEGIES concerning

INTERCULTURAL COMPETENCES


2

Consortium

bfw Unternehmen für Bildung – RESO/ProG (coordinator)

Hauptstraße 25, 69117

Heidelberg, Germany

http://www.bfw.EU.com

Clemens Körte [email protected]

Learning Factory Beratung & Training Angela Fuhr-Schöchle

Verlängerte Triebstraße 20

Heddesheim, Germany

www.learning-factory.org

Angela Fuhr-Schöchle [email protected]

Höhere Technische Bundeslehranstalt Wolfsberg (HTL Wolfsberg)

Gartenstrasse 1,

Wolfsberg, Austria

www.htl-wolfsberg.at

Jürgen Jantschgi [email protected] Johann Persoglia johann.persoglia@@htl-wolfsberg.at

Instituto de Formación y Estudios Sociales

Calle Martín el Humano, 1-Entresuelo

Valencia, Spain

www.ifes.es

Fernando Benavente [email protected]

Sociedade Portuguesa de Inovação - Consultadoria Empresarial e Fomento da Inovação, S.A.

Avenida Marechal Gomes da Costa 1376

Porto, Portugal

www.spieurope.eu

Augusto Medina [email protected]

Campus Varberg

Campus Varberg, 432 80

Varberg, Sweden

www.campus.varberg.se

Martin Andersson [email protected]

Sihtasutus Junior Achievement Eesti

Lauteri 3-212

Tallinn, Estonia

www.ja.ee

Epp Vodja [email protected]

AKLUB Centrum vzdelavani a poradenstvi

aRicni okruh 26

Krnov, Czech Republic

www.aklub.org

Ludek Richter [email protected]

Vladimir Plesnik [email protected]


3

Contents

Contents ............................................................................................................................................3

Introduction ......................................................................................................................................5

1. Intercultural competence ..............................................................................................................9

2. Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................................ 13

2.1 Conflict .............................................................................................................................................. 14

2.1.1 Conflict types ............................................................................................................................. 14

2.1.2 Intercultural Interpersonal Conflict ........................................................................................... 15

2.2 Conflict Management in Intercultural Settings ................................................................................. 16

2.2.1 Modes of Conflict Resolution .................................................................................................... 17

2.2.2. Communication styles across cultures ...................................................................................... 20

2.3 Organizational Culture ...................................................................................................................... 23

2.4 Leadership styles ............................................................................................................................... 27

2.5 Intercultural Sensitivity – Developing an Ethno-Relativistic Worldview .......................................... 32

3. Strategies of Intervention – The Moderator’s Role in Intercultural Conflict Resolution ................... 35

3.1 The Six Steps to Conflict Resolution .................................................................................................. 35

3.1.1 Introducing ................................................................................................................................. 36

3.1.2 Collecting .................................................................................................................................... 38

3.1.3 Selecting ..................................................................................................................................... 44

3.1.4 Processing .................................................................................................................................. 46

3.1.5 Planning ...................................................................................................................................... 47

3.1.6 Concluding.................................................................................................................................. 49

3.2 Critical Situations and Possible Solutions ......................................................................................... 50

4. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 56

Sources ............................................................................................................................................ 58


4

Introduction


5

Introduction

The following document is framed within the project COSIMA-Competence Building in Simulation

Processes for Apprentices and Adolescent Employees. COSIMA is a Lifelong Learning Program project

that aims at adapting an instrument for simulating business processes initially developed in Germany –

the FIS (Factory In the Seminar room) of the “Learning Factory” – to the situation of young people in

career orientation, apprenticeships and adolescent employees (<25 years), and at transferring it to all

participating partner countries.

According to the foreseen project activities, the partners have developed modules and training

materials. In this case, the contents of the methods compiled are related to intercultural competences.

Living and working in a complex globalized world, people, societies, companies and organizations are

faced with a growing number of challenges. The increasingly diverse population of Europe has been a

result of changes in global communication and increased mobility. People have migrated to and from

Europe as well as within European countries for a wide range of often complex and overlapping reasons

and frequently under difficult circumstances.

The resulting great diversity has produced a change in the way that things are done, to engage with and

respond appropriately to the needs and aspirations of people from different countries and diverse

cultures and to accommodate broader demographic change. Europe’s social and cultural challenges

include creating jobs, absorbing immigrants, improving education, exploiting cultural diversity, and

addressing inequalities within the EU.

Responses to increased diversity have ranged from positive to negative. By some, diversity has been

embraced as an opportunity for creativity and innovation; but it has also been considered a threat. As a

result of fear of that which is different or unknown, some responses have focused on differences

between people rather than similarities, and association of difference with ‘bad’ or ‘risky’, and

similarities with ‘good’ or ‘safe’.

Diversity management has become a topic for work in schools, colleges, companies and organizations.

Effective diversity management includes the need for ‘intercultural competences’, well-developed

intercultural competences in order to work and interact effectively with people from different countries


6

or diverse cultures. Intercultural competences are required to meet the need for social, economic, and

cultural integration, and to satisfy legal and professional requirements that have a direct impact on

professional practice, the success of organizations and the overall effectiveness of work. In our context,

intercultural competences are vital for effective lifelong learning.

The contents considered within this project for the development of the module intercultural

competence include issues such as: creating awareness of stereotypes, creating acceptance for other

cultures, overcoming ethnocentrism, understanding attachment to own culture and enculturation and

understanding different cultures.

The objectives of this module are:

• To supply knowledge and make use of encounters with other cultures, people, nations, codes of

conduct in daily working life, etc.

• To create curiosity, to spark openness and interest in experiencing diversity

• To raise awareness of own weaknesses, strengths, needs and emotional stability

• To acquire skills of communication, behavior, and conflict resolution in situations of intercultural

contact (team work, project work, etc.).

The information given below aims at providing trainers with the necessary background needed for

successful intercultural interactions. Each section will make references to the fields of nationality and

ethnicity, socio-cultural differences, and hierarchical structures.

First, the term ‘intercultural competence’ will be defined and further elaborated. Readers will gain an

understanding of the specific communicative skills needed by people interacting in intercultural settings

and with people from diverse backgrounds.

The conceptual framework will be provided in section 2 of the module. It will deal with the different

types of conflicts that can arise in intercultural group activities and a special focus will be laid on the

intercultural interpersonal conflicts. Additionally, the section will give a clear understanding of conflict

management and the different modes of conflict resolution (the five-style model). In reference to

nationality, ethnicity, hierarchy and social interaction, it will give an overview of communication styles

across cultures (high-and low-context cultures). Furthermore, the conceptual framework will provide

insights into differences in organizational cultures, into different leadership styles, and the development


7

of intercultural sensitivity. Though cultural differences at the levels of values are more deeply rooted in

the minds and behavior of people – and especially religious issues are currently discussed controversially

– the module focuses on the more tangible aspects of cultural differences – like conflict,

communication, working together in an organization/ enterprise, leadership styles – because these

differences come to the fore in concrete daily practices.

Section 3 of the module will then move on from the conceptual framework to a more practical approach

which will, however, frequently refer back the different concepts, communication styles, and modes

which were discussed in the earlier sections. It will elaborate on the six steps that can be taken by a

moderator in situations where conflicts arise due to differences in culture and understanding.

Additionally, the section will provide some ideas about methods and strategies that may be helpful

during the different steps of conflict resolution. Last but not least, it will give some typical examples of

complex and critical situations which a moderator may be faced with, and point out some possible

resolution approaches.

Finally, the concluding section will summarize the key points made in the module for the development

of ‘intercultural competence’.


8

1. INTERCULTURAL

COMPETENCE


9

1. Intercultural competence

In simple terms, intercultural competence is defined as follows:

“Intercultural competence is a set of cognitive, affective and behavioral skills and characteristics that

supports effective and appropriate interaction in a variety of cultural contexts.”1

It is to be understood as a comprehensive concept which combines concepts for the interaction across

global and domestic barriers. People from diverse backgrounds have different, but equally significant

things to contribute to an intercultural encounter due to their own experiences with race, gender,

religion, etc. In order for interactions to run smoothly and to avoid conflict, individuals and organizations

should recognize the different values, beliefs, and codes of conduct which their counterparts contribute,

whether the differences are global or domestic. The concept of intercultural competence is an attempt

to construct a multilayered framework that values all (socio-) cultural influences and focuses on

similarities instead of differences.

The cognitive skills needed for successful intercultural encounters include:

• cultural self-awareness (knowledge of the intersections of race, gender, religion, etc. within

oneself)

• culture-general knowledge (non-verbal behavior, communication style, cognitive style, cultural

values and language use (pragmatics), e.g. handshake as welcoming gesture)

• culture-specific knowledge (deeper and subtler interpretations of cultural patterns within a

specific culture, e.g. the length and firmness of a handshake)

• interaction analysis (observing members of another culture during their interactions and taking

mental note)

Affective skills require more active involvement than the cognitive processes described above. They

include:

1 Based on: Bennet, Janet. „Developing Intercultural Competence For International Education Faculty & Staff.“ Leaders in International Higher

Education Workshop, Association of International Education Administrators (AIEA), Competence Handout. San Francisco, CA, USA: 20-23 Feb

2011. Pdf.


10

• curiosity (suspending own assumptions and value judgments, practice cultural humility,

enhancing own perception skills, developing multiple perspectives, increasing tolerance of

ambiguity, asking questions as culturally appropriate, becoming analytically inquisitive, assessing

the credibility of our cultural sources)

• cognitive flexibility (the ability to switch between two or more cultural concepts or to

simultaneously consider both)

• motivation (the motivation behind certain behavioral patterns, both of one’s own and the

cultural other)

• open-mindedness (being receptive of the ideas, beliefs, and opinions of others)

Last but not least, the behavioral skills needed in all encounters are:

• relationship building skills

• behavioral skills (listening, problem solving, etc.)

• empathy for one’s counterpart

• information gathering skills

A person who commands a good number of the skills described above is generally considered

interculturally-competent. However, there are few things which should be addressed: Cultural

knowledge or cultural contact does not necessarily lead to competence. Instead, it may lead to a

reduction of stereotypes. Furthermore, it is often assumed that language learning suffices for culture

learning; that, however, is not always the case.

→ Then how does one develop intercultural competence? It may be achieved through:

• intentional and developmentally sequenced program design of learning

• balanced challenge and support, leading to the reduction of anxiety in intercultural encounters

• facilitating learning before, during, and after intercultural experiences

• language emersion and extensive intercultural experiences

• cultivating curiosity and cognitive flexibility


11

Cognitive, affective, and behavioral skills are needed in order to have successful intercultural

encounters. In addition, it helps to have some knowledge of cultural, hierarchical, and communicative

concepts.


12

2.

CONCEPTUAL

FRAMEWORK


13

2. Conceptual Framework

In order to fully grasp the issues related to conflict resolution in an intercultural, multinational setting,

and to provide moderators with the necessary tools for practice, it is indispensable to have a closer look

at the concept of conflict, especially in regard to intercultural interaction and communication. In most

traditional approaches, conflict is seen as a destructive force which literally shuts down progress. The

more recent interactive approach, however, focuses on the potential for improving interactions

between team members/ fellow employees:

CONNOTATIONS OF THE TERM ‘CONFLICT’2

positive negative

Refers to problems Leads to stagnation of processes

Avoids stagnation and begins process of change Fosters resistance

Sparks interest and curiosity Causes fear, anxiety, frustration, pain, stress,

unhappiness

Helps to bring about solutions Leads to a bad atmosphere

Leads to self-awareness Promotes assignment of guilt/ scapegoating

Strengthens group identity Leaves behind winners and losers

Serves as ‘cleansing’ storm

Fosters discussion

The five-style model of conflict resolution as well as contextual differences across cultures are needed

for a basic understanding of the different approaches people take when confronting each other in a

2 Lippmann, Eric. „Konfliktmanagement als Führungsaufgabe.“ In: Handbuch angewandte Psychologie für

Führungskräfte. 2. Auflage. Steiger/ Lippmann (Hgg.). Springer: Berlin, 2003. p. 340.


14

business context and beyond. In this section of the module, these concepts will be defined and further

elaborated where it seems necessary.

2.1 Conflict

2.1.1 Conflict types3

“A social conflict is to be understood as a social relationship in which two or more interdependent parties

emphatically attempt to realize opposing action plans while being completely aware of their opposition

(Watzlawick, 1969).”4

In business settings, such as meetings, conferences, seminars, etc. people will frequently be confronted

with ideas, beliefs, and behavior which do not comply with their own. When the parties involved fail to

work out these differences in opinion, conflict arises. In general, two different types of conflict can be

distinguished: factual conflict and interpersonal conflict. Misunderstandings and controversies are often

falsely categorized as a third conflict type (cf. ‘sham conflict’).

Factual conflicts arise due to differences in professional knowledge, interests, and views. They can be

further distinguished into conflict of goals, conflict of methods, and conflict over control and

distribution. Out of the different types, factual conflicts are the easiest to be resolved, since they

depend on facts, not on emotion. In order to avoid or resolve factual conflicts, it is absolutely necessary

to clarify goals, determine methods to be used, as well as assigning tasks to personnel ahead of time.

Should a factual conflict arise, it can be dissolved by discussing the issues with all parties involved and

negotiating further approaches with which everyone can be satisfied.

Interpersonal conflicts occur in the social coexistence of people and usually arise due to prejudices

(both positive and negative), as well as communication and cooperation problems. They are informed by

emotions and values, both greatly varying between different people. Sympathy, dislike, norms, values,

rules, lack of appreciation, and ethical attitude are the most common factors fostering conflict between

two or more people. In order to avoid interpersonal conflicts, team development needs to aim at the

3 Based on: Mayrshofer, Daniela und Hubertus A. Kröger. Prozeßkompetenz in der Projektarbeit. (Reihe Moderation in der Praxis). Hamburg:

Windmühle Verlag, 1999. pp. 81-90. 4 Translated from: Mayrshofer, Daniela und Hubertus A. Kröger. Prozeßkompetenz in der Projektarbeit. (Reihe Moderation in der Praxis).

Hamburg: Windmühle Verlag, 1999. p. 81.


15

harmonic interaction of team members. Should they arise, however, interpersonal conflicts have the

potential to be both destructive as well as constructive. The outcome largely depends on the ways of

conflict resolution that are employed. Social competence plays a significant role in the resolution

process.

As mentioned above, not all issues in communication and interaction can be categorized as conflicts.

Sometimes, they are solely misunderstandings or simple controversies that can easily be resolved

through negotiation. Additionally, when an interpersonal conflict is brought up in a factual discussion, it

cannot be resolved in the given context and needs to be addressed in a different setting. This can take

place, for instance, in a personal conversation or through mediation. In cases of misunderstanding,

controversy, or where a conflict has shifted from the factual to interpersonal level or vice versa, it is

considered a ‘sham conflict’.

2.1.2 Intercultural Interpersonal Conflict

Due to the globalized world we live in, it has become quite common to work with colleagues from all

parts of the world in diverse teams. Foreign team members may be employed by a subsidiary or an

associated company abroad. German companies, for instance, often consist of a multicultural team with

employees from Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, Greek, Turkish, etc. backgrounds. Oftentimes, they are

second generation immigrants who were born in Germany and have lived there all their lives. When

dealing with a multinational or multicultural group of people, the conflicts that can arise need to be

considered through the lens of intercultural diversity in conflict behavior and resolution. These

differences become especially visible on the interpersonal level, i.e. the level of interaction between

people of different cultural origin. These differences are not limited to nationality but go far beyond, as

Catarina Barios’ definition of intercultural interpersonal conflict shows:

“Intercultural conflicts do not only involve several cultural systems, they are conflicts in which culture in

general plays a significant role. Here, culture is not limited to nationality; it also includes regional,

organizational, and professional cultures and subcultures. When a conflict is intercultural, different

norms and values are responsible for the way in which behavior is perceived and interpreted. This opens


16

a new level of communication. Meaning has to be negotiated in order for any intercultural encounter to

be successful.”5

According to Barios, business culture is as much a part of intercultural interaction as national culture. A

manager can have fundamentally different views and values than someone employed with the same

company. The hierarchical structures involved will be further discussed in the later part of this module

(section 3.4).

In order to navigate between the multicultural parties involved, the moderator/ process manager/

process consultant needs to be interculturally competent, i.e. s/he has to command (at least) the

following skills:

• Awareness of his/ her own cultural concepts

• Willingness and ability to communicate on the meta level

• Comprehension of the specific concepts of perceiving, thinking, feeling, and acting of people

with cultural heritage different from his/ her own

2.2 Conflict Management in Intercultural Settings

In conflict management, it is the task of the moderator or process manager/ consultant to detect

conflicts, address them in the group, and try to solve them in cooperation with all parties involved. S/he

is responsible for:

• further developing his/ her own attitude towards conflicts,

• allowing conflict to happen instead of trying to oppress it,

• being objective and mediating between conflicting ideas/ interests,

• being sensitive & perceptive to the (professional) needs of all parties involved,

• clarifying problems and goals,

• compensating power relations and influence,

5 Barios, Catarina. „Interkulturelle Mediation in Teams mit multinationaler Belegschaft aus Deutschland und Lateinamerika.“ In: Interkulturelle

Kommunikation: Methoden, Modelle, Beispiele. Kumbier, Dagmar und Friedemann Schulz von Thun (Hg.) Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt Verlag,

2006. p. 253.


17

• being informed about the different types of conflict management (five-style model),

• improving team communication,

• pointing out alternative forms of behavior/ action,

• distinguishing real from sham conflicts,

• restoring a shifted conflict to its original level , and

• enhancing employee satisfaction.6

2.2.1 Modes of Conflict Resolution

Five different modes of conflict resolution have been classified according to degrees of assertiveness

and cooperativeness7: competing, collaborating, compromising, avoiding, and accommodating. Their

connection is shown in the following graph8:

Figure 1. Resolving conflict – The five-style conflict model

6 Cf. Mayrshofer, Daniela und Hubertus A. Kröger. Prozeßkompetenz in der Projektarbeit. (Reihe Moderation in der Praxis). Hamburg:

Windmühle Verlag, 1999. pp. 88-89. 7 Cf. Schneider, Susan S. and Jean-Louis Barsoux. „The ‚multicultural’ team.“ In: Managing Across Cultures, 2

nd ed. Financial Times Prentice Hall,

2003. p. 236-238. 8 Taken from: Schneider, Susan S. and Jean-Louis Barsoux. „The ‚multicultural’ team.“ In: Managing Across Cultures, 2

nd ed. Financial Times

Prentice Hall, 2003. p. 237.


18

According to Schneider/ Barsoux (2003), the degrees of assertiveness and cooperativeness are

determined by someone’s hierarchical status, i.e. his/ her power and stakes in the interaction. The

model is based, to a large extent, on the hierarchical relationship between the parties involved, as the

following elaborations and examples of the five different modes will show.

The competing (or dominating) mode involves “conflict tactics that push for a person’s own position or

goal above and beyond the other person’s conflict interest”9. This can be done by pointing out a

difference in hierarchical status, as the example shows.

Example:

• At a team meeting, a conflict arises between the project manager and a team member. The

team member is in a subordinate position but wants to bring his point across. The project

manager, however, plays the status card and brushes the issue of the table by saying, “I’m the

boss here and I say this is how we are going to do it.” The project manager clearly employs a

dominating mode of conflict resolution and shuts down all other attendees of the meeting. After

experiencing such an outburst, it is highly unlikely that the further discussion will be fruitful

because it produces anxiety in the team members.

The mode of collaborating (or integrating) “reflects the need for closure in conflict and involves high

concern for one’s self and high concern for the other in substantive conflict negotiation.”10

Example:

• Sweden, where power is supposed to be equally distributed, there seems to be more concern

for the quality of relationships and mutual gain. Conflict resolution will likely be achieved

through collaboration.

Compromising is understood as a “give-and-take concession approach to reach a midpoint agreement

concerning the conflict content issue.”11

Here, the focus lies more on the content of discussion than

9 Ting-Toomey, Stella. “Translating Conflict Face-Negotiation Theory Into Practice.” In: SAGE Handbook of Intercultural Training. 3

rd ed. SAGE

Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA. 2004. p.229. 10

Ting-Toomey, Stella. ”Translating Conflict Face-Negotiation Theory Into Practice.” SAGE Publications, 2004. p.229. 11

Ibid.


19

relational or identity-based respect. Compromising is a mode of conflict management that can either be

employed by one party alone or simultaneously by all parties involved in a communicative setting.

Example:

• In order to keep a meeting/ discussion going, the project team members agree to take into

account all different ideas and opinions that were brought forth throughout the discussion.

In the avoiding mode, the person in question eludes the “conflict topic, the conflict party, or the conflict

situation altogether.”12

This mode is usually employed to maintain mutual face interests and relational

network interests, i.e. to ensure both parties’ interests are served. When power is low, there is only little

hope for mutual gain and, consequently, little interest in pursuing a relationship.

Examples:

• In an individualist country, such as France, power is generally distributed unequally. When this is

the case, conflicts are usually dealt with through avoidance, and then, after a while, by

confronting the opposing other.

• Avoidance can be a powerful tactic. Japanese business men use silence as power against rather

talkative Americans when negotiating business deals and often satisfy their interest.

• In saving-face countries (e.g. Japan), conflict is avoided in public to preserve relationships and

maintain maximum flexibility in satisfying mutual obligation.

• Avoidance can preserve team harmony and the leader’s authority status.

The accommodating (or obliging) mode is the “high concern for the other’s conflict interest above and

beyond one’s own conflict interest.”13

Just as avoiding, the mode of obliging is frequently used to find a

solution that satisfies the interest of the parties involved.

Example:

12 Ibid.

13 Ibid.


20

• In Japan, like in most relationship-oriented countries, interests are defined and perceived as

mutual. This means that a subordinate expects (and is expected) to submit to his/her boss (=low

perceived power). Furthermore, in business relations, the buyer is obliged to take care of the

seller by building long-term business relationships (interdependence & mutual obligation).

In addition to these five modes of communication, Ting-Toomey (2004) mentions three additional

factors that influence or inform conflict resolution (all of which go beyond the scope of this module and

cannot be discussed in detail): 14

• emotions

• third-party consultation

• passive-aggressive types of conflict tactics

2.2.2. Communication styles across cultures

High- and low-context cultures influence the style of communication in conflict resolution. The terms

have been coined by Edward T. Hall in 1976 and refer to “a culture’s tendency to use high-context

messages over low-context messages in routine communication.”15

In higher-context cultures, many

things are explained through the shared cultural background of a group and do not need to be explicitly

stated. The focus here is on word choice, since fewer words convey more meaning than in lower-context

cultures. In low-context culture, the speaker has to be much more specific because it follows that notion

that more words convey more meaning and the value of a single word is less important.

The differences in communicative behavior between high- and low-context cultures often become

visible in intercultural business settings, especially when nationality and ethnicity come into play.

2.2.2.1 High-context cultures

As stated above, communication takes place much more implicitly in high-context cultures.

Communicators expect and are expected to share a common knowledge that one falls back on in verbal

14 Ibid.

15 Wikipedia contributors. "High- and low-context cultures." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 26 Jun. 2014.

Web. 21 Sep. 2014.


21

exchanges. The following list16

gives the most important key points of communication in high-context

cultures:

• Communication is less verbally specific and there is generally less written or formal information

provided.

• Communicators have a kind of internalized understanding of what is communicated.

• High-context communication is frequently employed between people who have had a long term

(business or personal) relationship.

• Expresses a sense of belonging and makes visible who belongs to a certain group of people and

who is excluded as the cultural ‘outsider’.

• Knowledge is situational and relational.

• Decisions and activities focus around face-to-face relationships, often around a central

authoritarian person.

• People express themselves in a roundabout way and would never directly criticize someone, for

instance.

• Keeping-face (one’s own and that of the other) is considered the most important premise.

Examples for high-context cultures:

• Family gatherings

• Business dealings with long-term clients/ team members

• Employees of the same department of a company

• In general terms, certain societies/ nationalities/ cultures, e.g. Arabian culture, Japan, Mexico,

China, Turkey (respect of ‘social distance’, e.g. difference in age or social status)

2.2.2.2 Low-context cultures

In low-context cultures, communication is expected to be much more explicit. People who communicate

with one another have to state directly what they would like to say, since the level of shared knowledge

is expected to be relatively low. The key points of low-context communication are:

16 Taken from: Beer, Jennifer E. “High and Low Context”. Culture at Work. 21 Sep. 2014. http://www.culture-at-

work.com/highlow.html


22

• People play by external rules (rule orientation).

• Knowledge is on average more codified (i.e. expressed more directly), public, external, and

accessible.

• Time, space, activities, and relationships can be limited, separated, or sequenced.

• The personal connections are, though limited in time, rather deep.

• Knowledge can be transferred more easily.

• Communication is centered on a specific task at hand. Responsibility is distributed equally.

Decisions and activities focus on what needs to be done.

• Members of low-context cultures are better able to separate a conflict issue from the person

involved in the conflict.

• The argumentation style is factual-inductive.

Examples for low-context cultures:

• Business dealings with new team members, partners, clients.

• In general terms, certain societies/ nationalities/ cultures, e.g. USA, Germany

In regard to approaches of conflict resolution, there is a fundamental difference in attitude between

high- and low-context cultures.17

On the one hand, members of high-context cultures avoid direct

confrontation by employing a calculated degree of vagueness, typically in the face of tension and

anxiety. To disagree openly or to confront somebody in public is unthinkable and considered an extreme

insult of the other person/ the conflict partner. This is the case because to members of high-context

cultures, the conflict issue and the conflict topic are inseparable, i.e. to disagree with someone’s

different opinion means to disrespect the person per se. In their eyes, the direct communication that

members of low-context cultures employ is rude.

Members of low-context cultures, on the other hand, are more action oriented, so they are more likely

to assume direct confrontation in conflict situations. It can be quite frustrating for them when they

17 Cf. Earley, P.C. and C.B. Gibson. „Ch. 4: Individual and Group-Level Elements.” In: Multinational Work Teams. A New Perspective. Routledge:

New York, NY. 2008. pp. 104-105.


23

encounter low-context cultural conflict styles and perceive them to be ‘wishy-washy’ or just simply

ambivalent.

Often enough, these different communication styles lead to conflict that cannot be dissolved easily if the

parties involved are not (made) aware of these differences.

2.3 Organizational Culture

In addition to different conflict and communication styles, cultural differences can also be observed at

the level of practices in different kind of organizations or companies. These differences are particularly

relevant in a globalized working world where people have to adapt to different kinds of organizational

cultures during their working life. Furthermore, employees have to work together with employees who

have a different understanding of cooperation in an organizational context because of their cultural

background.

Differences in organizational culture are strongly interconnected to differences in national cultures that

are rooted in a difference of values. Though cultural differences at the level of values are more deeply

rooted in the minds and behavior of people, the differences in organizational culture are more tangible

because they become evident in concrete daily practices. To understand the dimensions of differences

in organizational culture helps to understand different expectations and behavior of people at the work

place.

A model for dimensions of cultural differences among organizations was developed by Geert Hofstede.18

Based on observations in companies Hofstede defined six dimensions of cultural differences among

organizations:

Power distance

The dimension of power distance describes to what extent people in organizations expect and accept an

unequal distribution of power.

Individualism vs. collectivism

18 Hofstede, Geert. Culture’s Consequences – Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations Across Nations. Thousand Oaks,

London, New Delhi: SAGE. 2001.


24

This dimension differs between cultures that emphasize the rights of individuals and cultures that give

priority to collective goals. While individualistic cultures highlight self-responsibility and self-

determination, collectivistic cultures subordinate individual interests and perspectives to the

achievement of collective goals.

Uncertainty avoidance

Uncertainty avoidance describes the extent to which members of a culture feel threatened by

ambiguous or unknown situations. Cultures with strong uncertainty avoidance tend to a high level of

regulation and intolerance towards different religions and convictions. Cultures with weak uncertainty

avoidance tend to have fewer and more flexible regulations as well as more tolerance towards different

religions and convictions.

Masculinity vs. femininity

Masculinity describes a culture in which gender roles are clearly distinct. Men are expected to be

assertive, tough, and focused on material success. Women are supposedly to be more modest, tender,

and concerned with the quality of life. Femininity describes a culture in which gender roles overlap. Both

men and women are supposed to be modest, tender, and concerned with quality of life.

Long-term-orientation vs. short-term-orientation

This dimension describes how far the planning horizon in a culture is. Cultures with a long-term-

orientation tend to canniness and persistence. Cultures with a short-term-orientation tend to flexibility

and egoism.

Indulgence vs. restraint

Indulgence stands for a culture that allows relatively free gratification of basic and natural human drives

regarding enjoying life and having fun. Restraint stands for a culture that suppresses gratification of

needs and regulates it by means of strict social norms.


25

Overview of the six dimensions of cultural differences among organizations developed by Geert Hofstede

Power distance

Large power distance

• people expect and accept unequal distribution of

power

• people accept a hierarchical order in which everybody

has a place and which needs no further justification

Low power distance

• people strive to equalize the distribution of power

• people demand justification for inequalities of power

Individualism vs. collectivism

Collectivism

• preference for a tightly-knit framework in society in

which individuals can expect their relatives or

members of a particular in-group to look after them in

exchange for unquestioning loyalty

• people’s self-image is defined in terms of “we”

Individualism

• preference for a loosely-knit social framework in which

individuals are expected to take care of only

themselves and their immediate families

• people’s self-image is defined in terms of “I”

Uncertainty avoidance

Strong uncertainty avoidance

• threatened by ambiguous or unknown situations

• high level of regulation

• intolerance towards unorthodox behavior and ideas

Weak uncertainty avoidance

• more relaxed attitude towards uncertainty and

ambiguity

• practice counts more than principles

• tolerance towards unorthodox behavior and ideas

Masculinity vs. femininity

Masculinity

• clearly distinct gender roles

• preference for achievement, heroism, assertiveness

and material rewards for success

• more competitive

Femininity

• overlapping gender roles

• preference for cooperation, modesty, caring for the

weak and quality of life

• more consensus-orientated

Long-term-orientation vs. short-term-orientation

Long-term-orientation

• long planning horizon

• canniness and persistence

Short-term-orientation

• short planning horizon

• flexibility and egoism

Indulgence vs. restraint

Indulgence

• relatively free gratification of basic and natural human

drives in regard to enjoying life and having fun

Restraint

• suppressing gratification of needs and regulates it by

means of strict social norms


26

The model was further developed by Bob Waisfisz. In collaboration with Geert Hofstede Bob Waisfisz

identified the following eight dimensions of cultural differences among organizations:

Overview of the eight dimensions of cultural differences among organizations developed by Bob Waisfisz

Means-oriented vs. goals-oriented

Means-oriented

• key feature is the way in which work has to be carried

out

• people identify with the “how”

• risk avoiding

• limited effort on the jobs

Goals-oriented

• preference for the achievement of internal goals or

results

• people identify with the “what”

• willingness to take a risk

Internally driven vs. externally driven

Internally driven

• employees perceive their task towards the outside

world as totally given, based on the idea that business

ethics and honesty matters most and that they know

best what is good for the customer and the world at

large

Externally driven

• the only emphasis is on meeting the customer’s

requirements

• results are most important

• a pragmatic rather than an ethical attitude prevails

Easygoing work discipline vs. strict work discipline

Easygoing work discipline

• loose internal structure

• a lack of predictability

• little control and discipline

• improvisation and surprises

Strict work discipline

• People are very cost-conscious, punctual and serious

Local vs. professional

Local

• employees identify with the boss and/or the unit in

which they work

• employees are very short-term directed

• they are internally focused

• there is strong social control to be like everybody else

Professional

• identity of an employee is determined by his

profession and/or the content of the job

• long-term orientation

• externally focused

Open system vs. closed system

Open system

• newcomers are welcome immediately

• one is open both to insiders and outsiders

• belief that almost anyone would fit in the organization

Closed system

• reluctance towards newcomers and outsides


27

Employee-oriented vs. work-oriented

Employee-oriented

• members of staff feel that personal problems are

taken into account and that the organization takes

responsibility for the welfare of its employees, even if

this is at the expense of the work

Work-oriented

• heavy pressure to perform the task even if this is at

the expense of employees

Degree of acceptance of leadership style

Low degree

• leadership style of direct boss is not in line with the

respondent’s preferences

High degree

• leadership style of direct boss is in line with the

respondent’s preferences

Degree of identification with the organization

Low degree

• low degree of identification with the organization in its

totality or with different aspects like internal goals,

clients, own group or direct boss

High degree

• high degree of identification with the organization in

its totality or with different aspects like internal goals,

clients, own group or direct boss

2.4 Leadership styles

The successes and failures of a business/ company depend, to a large extent, on the hierarchic

structures and leadership style used in the organizational structure. It is important to note that there is

no all-purpose attitude that will be successful for every leader in all instances. Depending on different

factors, such as business goals, employees’ skill-level, and the industry itself, one type of leadership

might actually work more productively than another.19

19 „Leadership Styles in Business – The 3 Main Types.“ http://www.sooperarticles.com/self-improvement-articles/leadership-

articles/leadership-styles-business-3-main-types-594871.html#ixzz3G6t0HG3n . Last accessed: 14 Oct 2014.


28

Figure 2. Leadership Styles20

Kurt Lewin established three main leadership styles in his early influential study (1939): authoritarian

(autocratic) leadership, participative (democratic) leadership, and delegative (laissez-faire) leadership.

Autocratic (authoritarian) leadership gives all control to the leaders, meaning that they are fully in

charge of making the decisions. They provide clear expectations for what needs to be done, when it

should be done, and how it should be done. This style of leadership is strongly focused on both

command by the leader and control of the followers. There is also a clear division between the leader

and the followers. Authoritarian leaders make decisions independently with little to no input from the

rest of the group.21

As research has shown, decision-making was less creative under authoritarian

leadership and that moving from an authoritarian style to a democratic style is much harder than vice

versa.

20 Clark, Donald. „Leadership Styles.“ http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/leader/leadstl.html. Last accessed: 14 Oct 2014.

21 For the description of leadership styles, please cf: Cherry, Kendra. „Lewin’s Leadership Styles – The three major styles of leadership.“

http://psychology.about.com/od/leadership/a/leadstyles.htm Last accessed: 14 Oct 2014.


29

POSITIVE NEGATIVE

The authoritarian approach is best employed

where

• there is little time for group decision-

making

• the leader is the most knowledgeable

member of the group

• decisive and rapid decisions are needed

• staff might not hold the skills or

knowhow to look after their own

individual workloads

When abused, the authoritarian style is usually

viewed as:

• bossy

• controlling

• dictatorial

• creating a hostile environment where

the followers are pitted against the

dominating leader

• negatively affecting creativity and

innovation

Participative (or democratic) leadership is generally the most effective leadership style. Democratic

leaders offer guidance to group members, but they also participate in the group and allow input from

other group members. This means that the groups is granted some decision-making, insofar as they’re

consulted and asked for their opinions by those in charge. Lewin found that people working with the

democratic style are generally less productive than members of authoritarian groups; however, their

contributions and results are of much higher quality, due to the collaborative nature of this leadership

style.

POSITIVE NEGATIVE

• participative leaders encourage group

members to participate but retain the final

say over the decision-making process

• group members feel appreciated and

important

• group members are more motivated and

creative

• fosters commitment to goals of the group

• decisions may take longer to implement

• the leader still has the opportunity to shut

down the ideas of others and pushing for his/

her own


30

Delegative (laissez-faire) leadership is a fairly relaxed leadership style. As shown in Lewin’s research,

produces the least productive results. Members of the group tend to make more demands to the leader,

show little cooperative effort, and are sometimes even unable to work independently.

POSITIVE NEGATIVE

• can be effective in situations where

group members are highly qualified in an

area of expertise

• makes group members feel important

due to the high level of responsibility

and independence

• delegative leaders offer little to no

guidance to group members

• decision-making is completely left to

group members

• often leads to poorly defined roles and

lack of motivation

• members often blame each other for

mistakes

• members refuse to accept personal

responsibility

• members produce a lack of progress and

work


31

→ When is which style best employed?22

A good leader uses all three styles, depending on what forces are involved between the followers, the

leader, and the situation.

Some examples include:

• Using an authoritarian style on a new employee who is just learning the job. The leader is

competent and a good coach. The employee is motivated to learn a new skill. The situation is a

new environment for the employee.

• Using a participative style with a team of workers who know their jobs. The leader knows the

problem, but does not have all the information. The employees know their jobs and want to

become part of the team.

• Using a delegative style with a worker who knows more about the job than the leader. The

leader cannot do everything and the employee needs to take ownership of the job. In addition,

this allows the leader to be more productive.

• Using all three: Telling your employees that a procedure is not working correctly and a new one

must be established (authoritarian). Asking for their ideas and input on creating a new

procedure (participative). Delegating the tasks in order to implement the new procedure

(delegative).

Forces that may influence the style to be used:

• Amount of time available

• Are relationships based on respect and trust or on disrespect?

• Who has the information – the leader, the employee, or both?

• How well the employees are trained and how well the leader knows the task

• Internal conflicts

• Stress levels

• Type of task: structured, unstructured, complicated, or simple?

22 Clark, Donald. „Leadership Styles.“ http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/leader/leadstl.html. Last accessed: 14 Oct 2014.


32

• Laws or established procedures, such as training plans or OSHAs (Operational Safety and Health

Administration)

• etc.

2.5 Intercultural Sensitivity – Developing an Ethno-Relativistic Worldview23

Intercultural sensitivity is a process of altering the perception of one’s own and other cultures through

becoming aware, or being made aware, of the values of diversity. This process can be divided into three

main stages: ethnocentric worldview, transition, and ethno-relative worldview.

Ethnocentric worldview is a stage in which cultural differences are not perceived but rather negated.

Cultures are evaluated through one’s subjective categories of value. This state of denying is often

expressed by a person’s disinterest and differences are usually considered irrelevant. In order to

maintain this worldview, cultures often remain separated, e.g. by avoiding journeys in other cultural

territories.

The defense mechanism can be seen as the first step towards developing ‘intercultural sensitivity’. The

individual begins to notice differences between himself/ herself and other cultures but does not

immerse himself into the other culture. In this stage, a person experiences culture through superficial

categories, such as ‘food’, ‘architecture’, ‘rituals of welcoming’, etc. S/he begins to consider her/his

culture to be superior to the other and polarizes cultural differences in a ‘we/us’ vs. ‘they/them’

dichotomy. This is called the stage of reversal. The following statements are common for people who

see the world in an ethnocentric way:

• “There are no different cultures. Everyone is equal.” (denial)

• “There are different cultures, but mine is superior.” (defense)

• “My culture is better than yours.” (reversal)

In the transition phase, individuals overcome their stereotypical thinking and romanticizing attitudes

towards other cultures. This minimization of cultures can be considered a progression from ethnocentric

23 For ‘stages of intercultural sensitivity’, please cf.: Annette Gisevius, Tom Kehrbaum, Karsten Meier, Frauke Peter. „3. Theorie-Praxis-Dialog.

Aspekte ‚Interkultureller Kompetenz‘. Methoden internationaler Bildungsarbeit im Praxistest.“ IGM Qualitätsentwicklung in der Bildungsarbeit.

Bad Orb, 15./16.04.2010. pp. 22-23.


33

thinking. The individual is now able to notice similarities between his own and the other culture and

focusses less on differences. Consequently, cultural commonalities and universal human values become

more important. Minimization enables people to have a better understanding of different cultures:

• “I have my culture and others have theirs, and that’s okay. In the end, we are all human. We eat,

we drink. Differences are more visible between individuals.” (minimization)

When the individual is aware of the multiplicity of ‘cultures’, their similarities and differences, s/he is

more likely to develop an ethno-relative worldview, i.e. moving into a state of accepting, adapting, and

integrating cultural specifics.

Acceptance manifests itself in the awareness and understanding that one’s culture is only one of many

possible worldview. In this stage, individuals fully grasp the cultural differences, e.g. way of life,

structure, and diversity, between their own and another culture. Additionally, acceptance includes the

revelation that one’s own culture does not always provide an explanation for the way others view the

world.

The step of adaptation uses the ‘results’ of accepting cultural differences in order to enable the person

to act and behave in a culturally-adequate way. This includes taking one’s own repertoire of behavior

and adapting it to a given cultural context. Once this has taken place, the individual moves into the final

stage of developing intercultural sensitivity.

In this last phase, s/he tries to integrate behavioral patterns and ways of thinking from different cultural

backgrounds into his/ her own personality. This does not necessarily mean a better preparation for the

individual to successfully handle intercultural situations. It is, however, rather typical for members of

non-dominant minorities, “global nomads”, or expatriates who return to their home country after a long

stay abroad. Integration concludes a person’s progression from an ethnocentric into an ethno-relative

worldview:

• “There are various cultures and lifestyles. I think it’s interesting and I would like to learn more

about it.” (acceptance)

• “I view the world in a different way and behave differently.” (adaptation)

• “I live in both worlds!” (integration)


34

3. STRATEGIES OF

INTERVENTION – THE

MODERATOR’S ROLE

IN INTERCULTURAL

CONFLICT

RESOLUTION


35

3. Strategies of Intervention – The Moderator’s Role in

Intercultural Conflict Resolution

When dealing with the conflicting ideas, beliefs, and needs of people, the moderator can follow a basic

structure which helps organize any conflict management.

3.1 The Six Steps to Conflict Resolution24

The moderation cycle consists of six steps that form a simple, logical, and comprehensible process

toward the resolution of a conflict.

1. Introducing: The moderator officially opens the meeting, outlines the process of conflict resolution,

and builds confidence in the participating parties.

2. Collecting: This step mainly serves to figure out what the conflict is about in detail and what needs

to be addressed.

3. Selecting: Here, the moderator selects or prioritizes the topics to be addressed and, then, begins

with the most urgent issue.

4. Processing: In this phase, conflicting issues are worked out. ‘Hidden feelings’, i.e. underlying feelings

which fuel the conflict under the surface, are addressed. If there is a way to real conflict resolution,

it is achieved mainly through processing of feelings rather than negating their existence. Emotional

scratches, bruises, and scars should be spoken about explicitly. Anxiety, fears, (secret) wishes,

(unfulfilled) hope, etc. must be given the attention they require.

5. Planning: After processing the misunderstandings, conflicts, hopes, etc., it may be possible to set up

contracts and draft agreements for how to continue on.

6. Concluding: At the end of each conflict resolution process, it is important to reflect on the process.

Has everything been addressed? Did something remain unsaid? How do I/ you evaluate the

situation? How am I/ are you doing?

24 The following information is taken from: Seifert, Joseph W. Moderation und Konfliktklärung. Gabal: Offenbach,

2009. pp. 38-85.


36

In the following, the individual steps will be further elaborated and explained by use of example

questions that the participants or the moderator may use to clarify the conflict.

3.1.1 Introducing

The first phase of conflict moderation is usually profoundly affected by the participants’ passive

behavior: waiting, careful observation, tension, and insecurities are typical. The involved parties may ask

themselves a variety of questions:

• “What are we doing here?”

• “What impression does the moderator leave me with?”

• “Can I trust the moderator?”

• “I wonder how this process is going to take place…”

• “Is everyone going to participate?”

• “What can/ should I expect?”

• “Hopefully this doesn’t end in a worse situation than before we started…”etc.

Some people may have already participated in a team development session or a conflict resolution and

may have made more or less positive and negative experiences with it. Some may not be comfortable

with ‘psychological games’. This is why it is very important to build trust and help participants settle into

the situation. It is the moderator’s responsibility to help ease the beginning of the conflict resolution.

In this phase, it is not about sugar-coating the situation or trying to explain oneself or the conflict in too

great a detail. The introduction should be brief and, depending on the context, include an official

opening. If the conflict arose in a project team meeting and can be tackled in the same setting without a

special conflict resolution meeting, the introduction may fall a lot shorter. Here are some ideas on how

to begin the initial phase:

• Explains why and how the meeting was set up

• Clarifies the aim of the conflict resolution (e.g. by asking the parties involved, “In your opinion,

what is the most important aspect that needs to be addressed today/ before we go on?”)


37

• Introduces is role of the conflict moderator: “I am here to help you figure out a way to resolve

the issue.”; “I will mediate between the two (or more) opposing parties”; “I am objective, a by-

stander, and not emotionally involved.” etc.

• In case of a conflict resolution workshop, the introduction might be done by the team leader

instead: “Welcome to our workshop. We are here today to determine our positions. We will

reflect on our cooperation and try to find a way of optimizing it. Mr. X (moderator) will support

us today as a moderator. […]”

• Clarifies his role: In order to give orientation to participants and minimize resistance towards the

conflict resolution, the process should be made clear. Thus, it is helpful for the moderator to explain

his own role to the conflict partners, e.g. by saying,

o “I am the moderator. I am not an expert in this field but I am here to help you through the

process of explaining the different work processes and support you as best as I can. I will try

to remain as objective as possible. In this instance, I have no oligation to anyone in

particular but I am here to help all of you.”

• Clarifies fears/ anxieties, achieved through questions like,

o “How are you feeling in this particular moment?”

o “Are there any circumstances that limit your ability to get involved in the conflict

resolution?” (This gives the moderator the opportunity to learn about experiences,

expectations, and fears)

o “What would you like to see happen/ how would you like this to proceed?” etc.

o It is important that each and every person involved answers the questions truthfully.

• Distinguishes personal versus private: Should an attendee fear that the conflict resolution process

will bring forth issues that s/he considers too personal, it might be quite helpful to verbally make a

distinction between the private and the personal:

o Personal: the subjective view of each and every conflict partner should be taken seriously,

acknowledged, and considered.


38

o Private: private matters, such as a person’s familial situation, his/ her hobbies, preferences

and dislikes should not be discussed. An exception can be made only if a private matter has

an impact on the cooperation between group members.

o Disturbances are priority: if a discussion partner leaves the room, there will be a break for

everyone. The person leaving has to explain why s/he is leaving and when s/he will return.

This makes it easier for the moderator and the conflict partners to estimate the situation

accordingly.

• Explains the necessity of discretion:

o e.g. “What is being said in this room will not be repeated to anyone who is not present

today. This goes for you and me equally.”

Transition into the content phase

The moderator should conclude the introductory phase by asking whether the process has become clear

to everyone and, if there are no more questions, transitions into the actual resolving process. S/he can

do so by asking, “Are we ready now?/ Can we start now?”. By keeping eye contact to the members of

the group, s/he makes sure the participating parties are attentive and receptive.

3.1.2 Collecting

This is where the content level begins. First, it is necessary to determine which aspects need to be

addressed most urgently. On a rather abstract level, this should be clear to everybody. However, it helps

to spell out what exactly is bugging the participants.

In conflict resolution, the moderator does not collect opinions by asking conflict partners to write on

cards to verbally express their views. The collection methods are rather analogous and enable the

moderator to focus on origins of and reasons for a conflict. In this special situation, one needs to choose

a way of collecting opinions that does not neglect the emotions that informed the conflict in the first

place. The following methods reach farther than ‘regular’ moderation techniques:

• Team sketching

• Weather map

• Scratches, scars, and wounds


39

• Wishing wishes

• [Making a collage] not elaborated any further

• [Silent writing] not elaborated any further

By employing one of these methods, one makes visible the emotional database which the group can

utilize in the here and now of the situation. They are intended to display the individuals’ personal

subjective view of the conflict. The moderator needs to understand how the individual views his/ her

team and the conflict situation in the most honest way possible.

TEAM SKETCHING

Time frame: 15 minutes

Material: Flip chart sheets, Pens

Description

Team sketching is a simple technique which can be used to establish the basis for every conflict

resolution. The participants are asked to make a sketch of the current situation in the team and share it

with the others. Each person reflects on their own opinion and expresses their individual standpoint in

the sketch. Consequently, the moderator learns about the basic underlying issues that caused the

conflict. Of course, this method is also intended to bring about an ‘aha moment’ for the other

participants who might not even be aware of a specific problem.

Procedure

The method is best introduced by stating that the group will now use a somewhat exotic, extraordinary

method that will reveal a clear overview of the situation. The moderation of this phase might look

something like the following:

“Now we will begin our work on the content level. It is necessary for me to understand how each and

every one of you views the problem. Please take a flip chart sheet and pens and draw a picture of the

current situation – the way you see it – completely subjective and incomplete. It is important that you


40

are able to illustrate the situation using your drawing and that the others and I can understand your very

personal point of view.”

The participants have 15 minutes to draw their team sketch. Afterwards, they present their result to the

rest of the group.

Rules

• The youngest employee begins presenting, the senior finishes. The person that has been with

the company/ team the shortest amount of time may have the least tainted view of the

problem. S/he may not be as deeply involved in the interplay of the team and may be able to

explain in a neutral way how the team presents itself to the outside world. Additionally, s/he

can express how s/he was welcomed by the team.

• If the team has made a member the ‘scapegoat’, this person should take the last turn. If it is

clear from the beginning who is ‘to blame for the whole situation’, it may be helpful to hear the

others’ opinions first. When the scapegoat begins, it can add fuel to the fire of those presenting

afterwards and give them the opportunity to respond to the scapegoat’s view of things.

• The manager/ boss should take the last turn, since s/he is in an elevated position relative to the

other team members. Their opinion is of high importance and influences the others in a special

way. By choosing this order, the team is less likely to orientate themselves towards what was

said by the manager.

The moderator’s role

In this method, the moderator takes the backseat and remains passive for the most part. During the

presentation, s/he should try to look for the following points:

• How close or distant do the team members seem to be in each sketch?

• What roles does hierarchy play in the sketch? Who is inferior, who superior?

• What colors and symbols did the team member use?

• Are all team members represented in the sketch? Who is missing, and why?

• Where are the team members situated? Why in this position and not elsewhere?


41

It is quite helpful to take notes of what is being presented. The notes can later be used for the

systematic sketch in the processing phase (Step 4).

WEATHER MAP

Time frame: 15 min

Material: Flip chart sheets, pens

Description

The weather map is an altered version of the team sketch. The difference becomes clear when

considering the moderation of the method. The moderator asks:

“How has the weather been lately? [If there is a specific time frame in which the conflict arose, name it!]

Warm? Hot? Cold? Chilly? Unsettled? Has it been foggy or sunny, bright or dark? Has there been a

storm? Lightning? Hail? When did the weather change, and how? What is the weather like now?”

Procedure

The team members have 15 minutes to draw their individual weather map on a flip chart sheet. As in

the team sketching method, participants present their results to the rest of the group.

The moderator’s task

Please refer to the method ‘team sketching’ above.

SCRATCHES, SCARS, AND WOUNDS (OR: TRAFFIC LIGHT)

Time frame: 15 minutes

Material: Moderation cards (red, yellow, green), pens

Description:


42

This method is a special form of the classic writing cards method. The moderator asks the participants

to write down the emotional scratches, scars, and wounds that they have collected since the beginning

of the cooperation. The method reveals even those emotional wounds that have remained untreated

but still have an impact on the cooperation within the team.

Procedure:

The moderator introduces the method (see moderator’s task). Afterwards, participants have 15 minutes

to write their cards. In the presenting phase, turn-taking will be handled as described above according to

the duration of involvement with the team and the hierarchical position (bottom-to-top). Every team

member explains their cards from scratches to scars to wounds. Again, this method is about making

visible the personal, subjective views and opinions of each person involved in the conflict. For later

referral, the cards can be displayed at a pin board.

Rules:

• Green cards should be used for scratches, an issue that has irritated the person about another

team member but did not leave a permanent mark on their relationship.

• Yellow cards should be used for scars, a bigger issue that has already left a permanent mark on a

relationship. A scar is something one can live with but cannot let go of completely.

• Red cards are for wounds, a bigger issue that is currently still open and needs to be taken care

of. It is something urgent that has to be expressed and resolved.

The moderator’s task:

The moderator could introduce the method with the following words:

“Now it is time to collect what we would like to address today. Please think about which issues are the

most pressing and should be resolved immediately. Please use the green, yellow, and green cards to

write down your emotional scratches, scars, and wounds so that we can address them later in the

group. Additionally, the cards will serve as your personal guideline of what is most urgent to you.”


43

WISHING WISHES

Time frame: 3-5 minutes per person, depending on the size of the group

Material:

Flip chart, with the caption “My Wishlist” and three alternative beginnings of sentences that each team

member will have to complete: “For the future, I wish that you… as you have done…/ more than

before…/ less than before or not at all…”

Description:

‘Wishing wishes’ is an indirect method in which participants word their criticism in a way that is oriented

towards the solution of the conflict. Its indirect nature is both the method’s strength and weakness. Its

strength lies in the wishing itself, since it may be easier for participants to express a wish towards a team

member rather than to openly criticize or hurt them. The method is a simple way of initiating an open

conversation about work relationships. Its weakness is, however, that it makes focusing on the origin of

the conflict quite hard. Expressing hopes for the future does not necessarily help solve a conflict. An

actual reconciliation is almost impossible to achieve if the roots of conflict are not addressed. Thorough

conflict resolution requires more than that. Should you decide to employ this method, however, it is

indispensable to ask lots of questions when participants present their wishes.

Procedure:

The moderator puts the flip chart with the pre-formulated sentence beginnings in the center so that

everybody has a clear view of it. Each team member now completes the sentences for all other

members that are present.

To make the method more direct, the moderator can ask the addressee whether s/he is willing and able

to fulfill the requested wish and possibly make a contract that binds him/ her to the promise. In conflict

resolution, however, it is important not to question or negotiate the wishes right away. Instead, they

should be noted down for future reference. Consequently, the wish lists do not serve as basis for

contracts but as a method of collecting what needs to be addressed in the process.

The moderator’s task:


44

The moderator is responsible for quickly preparing the flip chart as a supporting tool for the participants.

Furthermore, he can summarize the statements of the participants using key words.

→ When to use which method?

When emotional tensions are high, people are likely to be more talkative. Team sketching may be best

used in this situation to slow down and structure the process of conflict resolution. When participants

are nervous or scared of falling in disgrace or losing their job, it might be easier for them to make wishful

statements.

3.1.3 Selecting

Step 3 focuses on the visualization of key statements made by the team members in the collection

phase. The moderator selects the order in which the topics that were collected (step 2) should be dealt

with. This step is mainly about prioritizing topics. In ‘normal’ business moderation, the priorities would

be chosen according to which of the topics received the most points by all team members. In conflict

resolution, however, the moderator makes this decision based on the urgency of each underlying issue.

This way, team members are less likely to prioritize those issues that are least relevant to the conflict at

hand.

Material: Flip chart, pens

Method/ Moderator’s task

The moderator draws up a systematic or situational sketch which summarizes what s/he has heard and

understood from the other phases up to this point. For the sketch, the moderator follows these steps.

S/he:

• draws a circle on the flip chart sheet.

• writes down the names of all team members.

• adds key statements that s/he noted down during the collection phase.

• prioritizes those topics that affect the team as a whole.

• divides the statements into three categories:


45

a) statements that affect the team on an interpersonal level: What did A say to B? What does C

“always” do to D? How does E treat F?

b) statements that persons make about themselves: “In the team I feel…” “It is difficult for me

to meet these expectations.”

c) statements that are entirely factual, e.g. the moderation of team meetings or the acquisition

of new software.

In the systematical sketch, a-statements will be

expressed as arrows, reaching from the person that

made the statement to the person that it was made

about.

←↑→↓↔↕↖↗↘↙

B-statements will be written on top or next to the

speaker’s name via speech or thought bubbles.

C-statements will be noted on a separate sheet. They

are of lowest priority and not directly relevant for

interpersonal conflicts.

Since the preparation for this method is rather time-consuming, it may be best to take set up a short

break for the team members. The moderator uses this time to draw up the sketch. Before the break,

team members should be reminded to not talk about what has been discussed. Everyone should be able

to hear what is being said which would not be possible during break time. When the basic sketch is

drawn and all participants have returned, the topic will be selected.

Rules for selection

• Acute before chronic: Incidents that occurred a while ago have to be dug up and the memory be

refreshed. Anger about a recent incident is usually fresher.

• Social before individual: conflict resolution is about working together. Individual feelings are

only relevant if they make cooperation difficult or are part of the problem. Private issues should

be dealt with in a private setting and are not part of conflict resolution.


46

• Hierarchical before lateral: the team leader is responsible for making sure that processes run

smoothly, no matter if their leadership style is vertical or horizontal.

• Personal before factual: Factual conflicts are easier resolved when the relationship between the

people involved is harmonious. When relationships are rocky, it makes little sense to address

factual issues before personal ones because the willingness for conflict resolution might be low.

Thus, interpersonal issues should always be treated with more urgency.

• Internal before external: Problems that include a third party should be addressed last. Solutions

for internal problems are easier to find because they can be tackled in the current situation.

Conflict resolution aims at people speaking to and not about each other. However, external

problems need to be addressed in an appropriate setting at a later time if they affect team

cooperation.

3.1.4 Processing

In this phase of the conflict resolution, the moderator and participants employ communicative

techniques, such as questioning, listening, and giving feedback. Through the selection phase, the

participants may already have a better understanding of each other and the conflict at hand. However,

issues were only named but not properly discussed. Processing is about diving deeper into the conflict

topics and clearing them up.

The moderator’s role

The moderator may introduce this phase by presenting the systematical sketch from step 3 (selecting).

S/he can do so by adding to or correcting the sketch. When the visualization is finished and clear to

everyone, the moderator picks up the most urgent topic (following the order he decided on in step 3).

S/he reads the first statement from the sketch and asks the author to further explain what s/he means

by it. It is very important that the moderator employs active listening skills and questions the author

until the statement is completely clear to him and the rest of the group. The moderator then turns to

the ‘defendant’ and asks him, “Do you understand what s/he means?”. If the answer is, “No!”, the

defendant asks his accuser questions until s/he has at least a basic understanding. The moderator then

returns to the accuser, asking him, “How do you feel about what s/he just told you?”.


47

The purpose of the ‘ping-pong dialogue’ technique used in processing is not necessarily about sharing

the same opinion. Awareness and understanding are the most important aspects of this fourth step.

Everyone wants to be acknowledged and belong. This is why the dialogue should focus on things that

participants can do differently that may help solving the conflict and changing the situation for the

better. Processing the selected conflict topics helps solve conflicts by looking at issues that might not

have been addressed due to time or other reasons.

The following step of planning will only make sense if problems and underlying issues are clarified. The

moderator should try to keep participants from making fast arrangements or agreements for further

handling the conflict. S/he should take note of suggestions for resolving conflict and let the conflict

partners know that they will be brought up in the later phases of the process. This gives participants

time to think about the opinions which were revealed in the processing phase without making decisions

they might later regret or that wouldn’t hold up. The moderator may conclude this phase after

addressing the different conflict issues within the group by saying, “I would like to leave it at that. We

will come back to our result a little later and will try to find a common ground for further dealing with

the issues/ conflicts.”

3.1.5 Planning

In phase 5, the moderator addresses all suggestions, solutions, and agreements that the phases

collecting and processing may have produced. Every topic will be checked one last time and, if possible,

concluded in a collaborative effort by the participants and the moderator. Some topics might have

already been successfully resolved, others might require further consideration.

The moderator briefly names every topic and asks whether any agreements can be made or planned

further:

• “Would you, Mrs. A and Mr. B, continue as you have already mentioned earlier, i.e. that both of

you will [do XYZ] in the future?”

• “Has either one of you had an idea for how to resolve this, Mr. C and Mr. D?”

• “Would you like to specify your thoughts from earlier, Mrs. E?”

• “Mrs. F, how would you like to continue with Mrs. G regarding [XYZ]?”

• “Can we leave it at that, Mr. H and Mrs. I, or would you prefer to make an agreement?”


48

People involved in conflicts will, generally, have a good understanding and ideas on how to move on

from the issues. The moderator should, however, point out the importance of making arrangements

between the conflicting parties. These can be made in written form or via verbal contracts.

Furthermore, the moderator should still remain in the position of the critic and ask pointed questions

that help participants formulate specific agreements. Helpful questions are:

• “What precisely do you plan on doing now?”

• “How will you know whether you succeeded or not?”

• “How will you know that the agreement failed?”

• “What precisely do you plan to do if things don’t turn out the way you had planned?”

• “Could you incorporate some tools of controlling the process? What could they be?”

Should the participants still have a hard time finding a common ground, the moderator can think aloud.

However, s/he should not suggest solutions himself/ herself, since this would jeopardize the objective

role of the moderator. Thinking aloud avoids the danger of interfering with the conflict content. Rather

it sets impulses without putting pressure on the people involved.

• “It really is tricky. From an outsider’s perspective, one could easily say, well, all you need to do is

[XYZ], but you might, of course, see it differently. They way it looks, this will not work for you.”

• “One could say, you should do [XYZ], which might be a bit much to ask.”

S/he then transitions from his/ her input to the conclusion by stressing the responsibility of the

participants:

• “Well, it is what it is. The question is, what you are going to make of it. What should happen

now? How do you move forward?”

If a real solution cannot be found, the moderator helps participants find solutions on the meta-level:

• “What do you/we make out of not being able to find a solution at this point?”


49

The worst possible outcome of the processing phase is that a certain point needs to be postponed and

cannot be solved at the moment. If possible, a second round of conflict resolution might help clarify the

issue.

3.1.6 Concluding

In this last step, the moderator should briefly reflect on and conclude the conflict resolution process.

S/he can make use of the following methods:

• Verbal flash lights: quickly summarizing the process verbally

• Visualized flash lights: visualizing a reflective question and answering with help of sticky dots

Additionally, the conclusion phase gives participants the opportunity to comment on the moderator’s

role. In a direct question-and-answer, the moderator could ask:

• “How are you feeling now? Would you like to say anything before we close?”

• “Is there anything you would like to leave me with, anything you think I should learn to do?”

• “Did I overlook, pressure, or frustrate you at any point during the process?”

• “Did you feel treated fairly?”

• “Did you feel comfortable with the way I led you through the process?”

If a participant complains about being treated unfairly, the moderator should take this last chance to

apologize. Of course, he should not explain himself/ herself in detail, but rather acknowledge the

participant’s feelings. The moderator might have basic questions of understanding, but will not

comment on them.

And what happens after the conflict resolution procedure?

Afterwards, the conflicting parties are left to their own. The moderator does not mediate between the

parties anymore. He can no longer directly support the group. It is, however, possible, to set up another

meeting to check in on the progress which has been made since the intervention. Alternatively,

telephone conversations can be set up.


50

3.2 Critical Situations and Possible Solutions25

In general, the people involved in a conflict situation will appreciate the support they receive from the

moderator when a conflict arises. However, when dealing with opposing ideas, it is the moderator’s task

to try and figure out the hidden reasons behind a conflict by digging into the parties’ hidden feelings and

convincing them to reveal causes for the conflict that may be of personal nature. This can, of course,

lead to emotional outbursts which can become visible in multiple ways. The following passages will

provide some helpful information about how to react to outbursts, disturbances, and refusals of working

on solving the conflict at hand.

Attacking the ‘setting’:

• Expressed in statements like, “Where are the tables?” or, “I need a table!”

• Possible reactions:

o Use a calm voice

o “We are working without tables!” or,

o “We currently don’t need any tables!”

• If that does not work:

o “I can only offer you this approach. I work like this, it is my approach.”

o “I have made great experiences with this approach.”

o “I suggest you try it this way, alright?”

25 For the following strategies, please cf. Seifert, Joseph W. Moderation und Konfliktklärung. Gabal: Offenbach, 2009. pp. 138-142.


51

Refusing involvement:

• Expressed in statements like, “I have nothing to say about that!”, or, “I won’t talk about things

this private.”


o Allow it to happen and do not question the statement. However, you can point out the

difference between personal and private by saying, “Of course, you don’t have to speak

about private issues. But your personal take on the topic is very valuable.”

o Make the offer to postpone participant A’s involvement by saying, “In that case, I will

first work with Ms. B and you just come in when you have something to contribute. Is

that alright?”

o Make an extensive self-explanation with Ms. B (until A wants to engage in the

conversation again), or include A again after some time has passed, “as if nothing

happened”.

Ridiculing the situation/ the moderator

• A participant in the conflict is making fun of the procedure, the moderator’s role in the procedure,

or another participant.


o Accept the critique and take it seriously. Express yourself by saying, “I see what you are

saying./ Oh, so this is how you see it!”

o “Well, this is my only option of helping you. You can either take it or leave it.”

o Treating the attack as a wish for clarification: “I am not sure what it is you want to tell me

right now. / I think I still have not fully comprehended your contribution. What is it that you

want to tell me?/ I would like to understand where you are coming from. What is it that you

need me to do?”

The team sketches do not supply relevant information

• The information is insufficient as database for the solution of the conflict situation.


o Take the situation as it is and work with it as well as possible.


52

o After concluding the first phase of the conflict resolution process, the following

questions could be asked: “Do you feel that all that needed to be addressed was

brought up?/ Were we able to resolve everything that needed clarification?/ What

percentage of things to be discussed have we covered so far?”

o If necessary, begin a second round of the drawing phase.

o If rejection/ refusal persists, accept the anxieties and utilize other methods (e.g. ‘wishing

wishes’) in order to achieve at least a superficial level of clarification

Crying fit

• This usually happens when someone does not allow himself/ herself to cry but the crying

becomes more powerful, ending in a crying fit.


o Discontinue your work.

o Address the person by saying, “I am here for you./ Just let it out./ It’s okay.”

o Put your hand on the person’s arm or give them a hug.

o Take a break!

Leaving

• Someone runs out/ leaves the room.


o Address the person before s/he leaves, “Stop, before you leave. What is your reason for

leaving?”.

o Clarify the situation: What is the reason, the attention of the person leaving the room?

Does s/he need anything? When will s/he return?

o Take a break!

o Make sure the person is attended to!

Accusing the moderator

• Someone accuses the moderator of something, e.g. “I am under the impression that you have

no sense of decency. The way you are invading people’s personal space, one just doesn’t do

that.”


53


o Receive accusations. “Thank you for bringing this to my attention.”

o Question accusations by figuring out the person’s reason for accusing you.

o Talk about the situation with the accuser and possibly other people involved.

o Do not answer from a therapeutic distance, but rather try to work it out on a personal

level.

Threatening

• Somebody threatens someone else, e.g. by saying, “If this is how this works here (that x is done

in a certain way), then…”


o Receive the threat; do not brush it off the table!

o Take threats very seriously!

o If possible, ask and work out what is going on here.

o Clarify if and how the meeting/ discussion can continue.

o If the situation escalates and requires legal council, consult a lawyer.

o Should it become necessary, discontinue the discussion and set up a meeting between

the conflict partners and a lawyer.

Violent outbreak

• Somebody raises their voice/ screams.


o Say “Stop!” in a loud voice and determined manner.

o Ask “What happened?”, or, “What’s going on?”

o Take the situation as it is and try to work with it, if possible.

o Should it be necessary, discontinue the discussion and suggest legal council/ assistance.


54

Going in circles

• The discussion/ meeting does not progress, comes to a halt, or returns to the same issue over

and over again.


o Accept standstill; do not try to force clarification.

o Say, “Okay, it won’t become any clearer at this moment. I would like to leave it at that

for now.”

o Receive the situation and tackle the next topic.

o If necessary, come back to this point later. Should the discussion end at the same point

again, you can conclude the topic. It is okay to accept that certain aspects cannot not be

solved in a certain setting.


55

4. Conclusion


56

4. Conclusion

The project COSIMA aims at adapting an instrument for simulating business processes – the Factory In

the Seminar room (FIS) to the needs and situations of younger people and at disseminating it to the

participating partner countries by training trainers in the use of the instruments and the provision of

training material. The FIS simulates team work situations and encourages the participants to reorganize

and optimize the process of production commonly. Thereby, the participants not only learn the analysis

of production processes but also to communicate and interact in reorganizing team work processes.

In a globalized working environment skills in dealing with cultural diversity are a required competence.

So, the teaching of intercultural competences has to be an integral part of an instrument that aims at

teaching the analysis and reorganization of team work processes and that is based on the self-

responsible communication and interaction of the participants.

The module CONCEPTS & STRATEGIES concerning INTERCULTURAL COMPETENCES gives the trainers an

orientation on intercultural competences as well as instruments for solving intercultural conflicts. It

defines intercultural competences as a set of cognitive, affective, and behavioral skills that enables

people to appropriately interact in a variety of cultural contexts. And it presents a three-step-model for

the development of intercultural sensitivity from an ethnocentric worldview over a transition to an

ethno-relative worldview.

Based on a positive understanding of conflicts as productive impulses for the improvement of

interactions between team members the module focuses on the management of intercultural conflicts.

It presents different styles of communication across cultures that could be the origin of

misunderstanding and conflicts and gives an overview on modes of conflict resolution in general.

Especially in the working context different organizational cultures and different leadership styles have a

significant influence on the solution of problems. So, the module also gives an orientation of different

leadership styles and their specific modes of functioning.

Based on this theoretical background the module gives concrete instruments for the moderation of

conflict management to the trainers. These encompass moderation concepts and recommendations for

six steps to conflict resolution: introducing, collecting, selecting, processing, planning and concluding.


57

Sources


58

Sources

o Barios, Catarina. „Interkulturelle Mediation in Teams mit multinationaler Belegschaft aus

Deutschland und Lateinamerika.“ In: Interkulturelle Kommunikation: Methoden, Modelle,

Beispiele. Kumbier, Dagmar und Friedemann Schulz von Thun (Hg.) Reinbek bei Hamburg:

Rowohlt Verlag, 2006. pp. 248-310.

o Beer, Jennifer E. “High and Low Context”. Culture at Work. 21 Sep. 2014. http://www.culture-

at-work.com/highlow.html

o Cherry, Kendra. “Lewin’s Leadership Styles – Three Major Styles of Leadership.”

http://psychology.about.com/od/leadership/a/leadstyles.htm. Last accessed: 14 Oct 2014.

o Clark, Donald. “Leadership Styles.” http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/leader/leadstl.html. Last

accessed: 14 Oct. 2014.

o Earley, P.C. and C.B. Gibson. „Ch. 4: Individual and Group-Level Elements.” In: Multinational

Work Teams. A New Perspective. Routledge: New York, NY. 2008. pp.78-118.

o Gisevius, Annette, Tom Kehrbaum, Karsten Meier and Frauke Peter. „3. Theorie-Praxis-Dialog.

Aspekte ‚Interkultureller Kompetenz‘. Methoden internationaler Bildungsarbeit im Praxistest.“

IGM Qualitätsentwicklung in der Bildungsarbeit. Bad Orb, 15./16.04.2010.

o Hofstede, Geert. Culture’s Consequences – Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and

Organizations Across Nations. Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: SAGE. 2001.

o Interkulturelles Bewusstsein – Ein Handbuch. Bfw-Unternehmen für Bildung: Heidelberg, 2002.

o Lippmann, Eric. „Konfliktmanagement als Führungsaufgabe.“ In: Handbuch angewandte

Psychologie für Führungskräfte. 2. Auflage. Steiger/ Lippmann (Hgg.). Springer: Berlin, 2003. p.

340.

o Mayrshofer, Daniela und Hubertus A. Kröger. Prozeßkompetenz in der Projektarbeit. (Reihe

Moderation in der Praxis). Hamburg: Windmühle Verlag, 1999. pp. 81-90, 98-105.

o Morgan, Steve P. „Leadership Styles in Business – The three main types.“

http://www.sooperarticles.com/self-improvement-articles/leadership-articles/leadership-styles-

business-3-main-types-594871.html. Last accessed: 14 Oct 2014.

o Schneider, Susan S. and Jean-Louis Barsoux. „The ‚multicultural’ team.“ In: Managing Across

Cultures, 2nd

ed. Financial Times Prentice Hall, 2003. pp. 216-252.

o Seifert, Joseph W. Moderation und Konfliktklärung. Gabal: Offenbach, 2009.


59

o Ting-Toomey, Stella. “Translating Conflict Face-Negotiation Theory Into Practice.” In: SAGE

Handbook of Intercultural Training. 3rd

ed. SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA. 2004. pp. 217-

248.

o Wikipedia contributors. "High- and low-context cultures." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia.

Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 26 Jun. 2014. Web. 21 Sep. 2014.

concepts & strategies concerning intercultural...

Documents