Managing Conflict in a Multicultural Team

by Richard and Evelyn Hibbert

Conflict occurs wherever human beings live or work together. It is no surprise then that conflict is a major issue in multicultural teams. All of the eighty-one people we interviewed explained that their team had experienced some degree of conflict, and in some of these teams, conflict had deeply hurt team members and damaged the effectiveness of their team (Hibbert 2002; Hibbert 2011). 

Conflict occurs wherever human beings live or work together. It is no surprise then that conflict is a major issue in multicultural teams. All of the eighty-one people we interviewed explained that their team had experienced some degree of conflict, and in some of these teams, conflict had deeply hurt team members and damaged the effectiveness of their team (Hibbert 2002; Hibbert 2011). 

Conflict is a normal part of a healthy team. There is great potential for team members to grow and for teams to be strengthened through conflict. When handled well, conflicts can lead to renewed motivation, clarification and strengthening of vision and values, venting of frustrations, and growth in personal maturity. Conflict is also an opportunity to bring glory to God by trusting and obeying him through it.

David Dunaetz (2010) describes two different types of conflict. Task conflict arises when team members have different ideas. This kind of conflict happens when team members exchange their differing ideas and consider alternative perspectives on issues and challenges. This often leads to better ideas. Unfortunately, there is another kind of conflict in which relationships are damaged. This is known as relationship conflict. Cultural differences among team members are a frequent cause of relationship conflict.

Causes of Conflict in Multicultural Teams

Much of the conflict in the teams of the people we interviewed was a result of differences in cultural values between team members. When cultural values are perceived to be threatened, this provokes powerful emotions. Recognizing and managing these emotions is part of the process of learning to deal with conflict well. 

A Korean family, for example, found themselves in conflict with a South African leader when the amount of food given to their children was regulated by the leader. Each party found that they had a different, culturally shaped value concerning food. That this involved children increased the emotional impact of the conflict. This conflict could not be resolved without both parties being willing to let go of their strong, culturally shaped opinions. 

Team members also had differing expectations about what working together should look like, some of which were a result of cultural differences. One team member we interviewed, for example, said, “I expected the team to be more organized and more unified.” Some cultures have a stronger emphasis on order, time, and formal processes around decision-making, and these will impact how the team functions and the degree to which team members feel trusted or controlled.

Conflict was also often the result of poor communication. Misunderstandings were compounded when the team’s language was not spoken fluently by some of its members. One team member commented, “The greatest hindrance was lack of communication. Something was said, and then the misunderstanding was allowed to fester. Then mistrust takes root…” 

Conflict Escalates if Ignored

Conflict has the potential to cause serious damage to teams and their ministry if it is not handled well. Conflict that is ignored or ‘swept under the carpet’ can lead to a build-up of resentment, gossip, and backbiting, or turn into an aggressive and uncontrolled explosion of anger. The earlier a conflict is dealt with, the easier it is to get to resolution without participants being hurt. One interviewee said:

If you think there’s something wrong, there probably is, and you probably don’t know what it is, especially if you’re in an environment that is unusual or you’ve got someone who may not know that they’re offending. You probably would say, “Oh, that’s because of the culture. I wouldn’t talk to them about it. I don’t know how to.” Well, you’ve got to find a way.

Stages in the escalation of a conflict that is ignored are shown in Figure 1 on page 20 based on D.C. Palmer (1990, 61-64). In the early stages, tension develops, but team members are not sure what exactly is wrong. Then, confusion sets in. Confusion can be about what is happening, who or what is causing the conflict, and what each team member’s role in the conflict is. Communication often begins to break down and team members feel threatened. If the conflict is still not addressed, team members begin to nurse grudges. This is usually a preparation for some kind of confrontation. This stage cannot continue for very long as it is emotionally very draining.

Unresolved conflict leads to teams ‘getting stuck’ or dissolving. Getting stuck means that team members experience ongoing confusion and even emotional trauma that they can carry for years afterwards. The team may stay together, but trust between team members becomes eroded. One team member gave a particularly poignant description of this:

Conflict explodes, and then it is left. The big thing is that the local people see it—that we are not of one accord, that we don’t think the same way. That’s really sad; that’s an agony. We all feel very hurt. . . . Some of us feel a deep ache, like a hole in the heart in a way, because we know it’s not right.

Team Members from Different Cultures Approach Conflict Differently

Team members from different cultures will have different preferred ways of dealing with conflict. Each person’s style will be influenced partly by his or her culture and partly by his or her unique individual background. Individualistic approaches to conflict management tend to separate people from issues and often focus on efficiency at the expense of relationships. Values such as fairness, individual choice, and empowerment are stressed. Team members from more individualistic cultures often see Asian and Latin American conflict styles as weak or passive. People from collectivistic cultures are more concerned to preserve face and relationships and to work towards achieving each party’s goals. 

People from collectivist cultures do not usually separate the issue from the person with whom he or she is having the conflict. Japanese managers, for example, are more likely to see criticism and objections to their ideas as personal attacks, while North American managers usually do not (Gudykunst 2004, 278).

 

Kenneth Thomas (1976) outlined a model that is widely used for categorizing approaches to conflict. He describes five different styles of managing conflict: 

•  Avoiding (also known as withdrawing)

•  Accommodating (also known as yielding or obliging)

•  Competing (also known as dominating) 

•  Compromising

•  Collaborating (also known as integrating) 

Western conflict management theorists tend to promote collaborating as the best style to adopt. But each of these styles is appropriate in particular situations. Abraham used an accommodating approach when it became clear that he and Lot could not stay in the same place, seemingly because of the priority he put on their relationship (Gen. 13:1-12). 

There are many times when avoiding conflict is best. This is the approach advocated in the proverb: “A person’s wisdom yields patience; it is to one’s glory to overlook an offense” (Prov. 19:11). Using a competitive style may be important when you are sure that your teammate is acting in a way that contravenes the heart of the gospel, as Paul did when he confronted Peter concerning salvation by grace alone (Gal. 2:11-21). 

A wonderful example of collaborative conflict resolution is found in the Early Church in response to the complaint of some Hellenistic Jews that their widows were missing out on food donated by the church (Acts 6:1-7). In the Jerusalem council in Acts 15, a compromise approach was employed to find the best way for the church to keep growing. Gentiles were not required to be circumcised, but they were to avoid some practices that would have caused Jewish Christians offense. 

These five styles do not encompass all the possible ways people deal with conflict. To find out how to resolve conflicts in a multicultural team, we need to look beyond the literature that assumes a Western context and that collaboration is always the best approach. Mitchell Hammer’s (2005) study of intercultural conflict, based on studies of multicultural teams in NASA, is particularly helpful. He found that people from different cultures vary along two scales: (1) how directly they communicate in conflict and (2) how emotionally expressive they are.  

Directness of communication: People from cultures that prefer direct communication focus on the specific words people use and emphasize precise, explicit language. They prefer face-to-face methods of resolving conflict and want people to speak their mind. People from cultures that prefer indirect communication, in contrast, focus more on nonverbal behavior than the words being spoken, and often prefer to use mediators to help resolve conflict. 

Emotional expression: People from emotionally expressive cultures value overt displays of emotion during conflict and want to hear how the other person is feeling as well as what he or she is thinking about an issue. To be authentic and sincere means to show one’s emotion. Emotionally restrained cultures, in contrast, focus on maintaining emotional control and hiding strong feelings. For them, maintaining calm communicates sincerity. 

These variations give rise to four main styles of communicating in conflict that are shown in Figure 2:

1. Engagement style: verbally direct and emotionally expressive—typical of African Americans 

2. Discussion style: verbally direct and emotionally restrained—typical of northern Europeans; European-background North Americans, Canadians, Australians, and New Zealanders

3. Dynamic style: emotionally expressive and verbally indirect—typical of  Arabs 

4. Accommodation style: verbally indirect and emotionally restrained—typical of East and South-East Asia (including China, Japan, Thailand, Indonesia, and Malaysia), and Latin America 

Adjusting Our Approach to Resolving Conflict

A key way of navigating managing multicultural team conflict is for team members to learn their own and other team members’ preferred conflict resolution styles and make adjustments. Team members need to adjust their conflict management styles in order to communicate in a way that is understood and is least likely to cause harm to the relationships. 

Although it feels uncomfortable for team members to make these adjustments, it is necessary for effective communication. Every team member will be stretched as they begin to engage in conflicts in ways that are outside of their comfort zone. 

Team members from individualistic, low context cultures will need to use less direct approaches than they are used to when approaching high context teammates. They should try to help collectivists to maintain face by not embarrassing them in public, pay attention to nonverbal behavior, be more tentative, and use more qualifier words such as “maybe” and “possibly.” 

Those from high context collectivistic cultures will need to be more direct in communicating than they would with someone from their own cultural background. This will include using more “I” statements, directly stating opinions and feelings, and providing more verbal feedback than they normally would do. 

Team members will need to be sensitive to how emotionally expressive other teammates are during conflict and try to adjust their own expression of emotion accordingly so that they are seen to be taking the conflict seriously. When conflict escalates or seems unresolvable, team members need to be willing to use unfamiliar conflict management methods as a part of the process for relationship restoration. 

A second step towards better conflict resolution is for Western team members to recognize some specific indirect methods of communication. These include: 

•  Using a mediator: This minimizes the possibility of either of the parties in the conflict losing face or feeling dishonored. The mediator needs to be someone who is respected and trusted by both parties and is  seen as neutral and fair. For multicultural teams, organizational leaders such as field and regional leaders, or team coaches, often make ideal mediators. 

•  Taking the “one-down” position: In this approach, as described by Duane Elmer (1993, 80-98), a person makes him or herself vulnerable by taking a position of need and asking for the other person’s help. It often involves asking the other party to preserve our honor and, in the process, to preserve his or hers too. Doing this communicates that, above all else, we value the relationship. 

•  Gift-giving. Giving a gift can be a way of signaling to another person that we want to be reconciled with him or her. In one team we interviewed, a Korean couple and an English couple had been in conflict with each other for some time. One morning, the English couple found a gift at their doorstep that had been placed there by the Korean couple. For the Koreans, the gift was an indirect and non-verbal way of expressing that they were sorry for their part in the conflict and that they wanted to be reconciled with the English couple. 

• Storytelling. Team members can use stories to communicate indirectly what they cannot communicate directly. This can help to defuse the tension and help members build a deeper understanding of each other. Team members can also tell stories of their own lives to help their teammates understand their needs and fears. 

In the first few months of leading a multicultural team, a Spanish team member and Evelyn had so many sharp disagreements that Richard thought the team would collapse. Then, our whole family became so sick that we could not even get out of bed for several weeks. 

Throughout our sickness, the Spanish team member brought over meals to our house, carefully laid out with everything we would need. Her silent service communicated more powerfully than any words that she cared about us. From that point, it didn’t matter to us that there were disagreements about the way we should approach our task of training local leaders. We knew that we could work through these disagreements, because underneath them our relationship was built on mutual appreciation and care. 

Steps to Managing Conflict

1. Communicate. Communication is the cornerstone of conflict resolution. It doesn’t matter what conflict resolution style members use as long as it involves communication. Members from more direct communication cultures need to learn to read the silent language of teammates from more indirect cultures. But it is also vital that communication includes a verbal component, especially for members from low context cultures who place a lot of value on words and who will not understand what is being communicated non-verbally. 

2. Be open to other ways of thinking. Ethnocentric assumptions and feelings that ‘our way is the right way’ should as much as possible be brought out into the open. Any refusal to consider other ways as possible or acceptable will increase conflict. Rigidly-held aspirations relating to security, identity, respect, strongly-felt principles, or either-or options tend to magnify conflict and make it difficult to resolve (Pruitt and Kim 2004, 19).

3. Adjust our communication style. We need to adjust our ways of communicating so that our teammates can hear what we are saying clearly and decrease interference from discomforting extremes of emotional expression and verbal directness. 

4. Establish conflict management guidelines. These need to be discussed and agreed by the team, but could include statements like the following:

•  We commit to communicating openly, honestly, simply, and clearly with each other about our thoughts and feelings (cf. Josh. 22).

•  We agree to actively listen to our teammates to try to understand what they are thinking and feeling, needing and afraid of (James 1:19).

•  We will do all we can to trust, respect, and think the best of each other (Phil.  4:8-9). This means that we will also avoid divisive comments and gossip, speak in ways that build the other person up, and check with teammates directly if we have heard rumors about them (Eph. 4:29). 

•  When we realize we may have conflict with a teammate, we will: 

*  ask the Lord to reveal any wrong attitude, grudge, or behavior in ourselves and deal with it (Matt. 7:1-5);

*  ask the Lord to help us forgive the other person in our heart (Luke 17:3-4; Col. 3:13);

*  approach the person to talk about the issue (Matt. 18:15);

*  affirm the other person and listen carefully (James 1:19);

*  identify areas of agreement and disagreement (Eph. 4:15); and

*  commit ourselves to do everything we can to be reconciled, including being willing to adopt his or her culture’s preferred conflict management style. 

•  If we are unable to resolve the conflict by communicating with our teammates, we will ask for the help of a mediator (cf. Acts 9:26-28). 

•  When conflict occurs, its resolution has priority over scheduled team activities. 

If we follow these simple guidelines, we just may find that conflict can be an opportunity to deepen our relationships. 

References

Dunaetz, David R. 2010. “Good Teams, Bad Teams: Under What Conditions Do Missionary Teams Function Effectively?”  Evangelical Missions Quarterly 46: 443-444.

Elmer, Duane. 1993. Cross-cultural Conflict: Building Relationships for Effective Ministry. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press.

Gudykunst, William B. 2004. Bridging Differences: Effective Intergroup Communication. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.

Hammer, Mitchell R. 2005. “The Intercultural Conflict Style Inventory: A Conceptual Framework and Measure of Entercultural Conflict Resolution Approaches.”  International Journal of Intercultural Relations 29(6): 675–695.

Hibbert, Evelyn. 2011. “Identifying Essential Characteristics and Competencies of Good Multicultural Team Leaders: A Pilot Study.” EdD, School of Humanities, University of New England.

Hibbert, Evelyn, and Richard Hibbert. 2014. “Managing Team Conflict.” In Leading Multicultural Teams. Pasadena, Calif.: William Carey Library.

Hibbert, Richard. 2002. “Enhancing WEC Church Planting Teams: A Study of the Factors Influencing Their Effectiveness.” DMin, Columbia International University.

Palmer, D.C. 1990. Managing Conflict Creatively. Pasadena, Calif.: William Carey Library.

Pruitt, Dean G., and Sung Hee Kim. 2004. Social Conflict: Escalation, Stalemate, and Settlement. 3rd ed. Boston: McGraw Hill.

Thomas, Kenneth. 1976. “Conflict and Conflict Management.” In Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Ed. M.D. Dunette. Chicago: Rand McNally.

. . . .

Richard and Evelyn Hibbert have led and now support and encourage leaders of multicultural mission teams. Richard is director of the Centre for Cross-Cultural Mission at the Sydney Missionary and Bible College. Evelyn is academic dean of The Salvation Army Booth College, Sydney, Australia.

EMQ, Vol. 53, No. 3. Copyright  © 2017 Billy Graham Center for Evangelism.  All rights reserved. Not to be reproduced or copied in any form without written permission from EMQ editors.