Ioana A. Cionea

“Do it this way, not that way”: An exploration of Chinese workplace conflicts

Purpose This paper aims to examine the occurrence and management of conflict in Chinese organizations, from an emic perspective. The authors provide an in-depth understanding of Chinese working adults’ lived experiences regarding workplace conflicts. Design/methodology/approach The study is a qualitative one, consisting of open-ended questionnaires administered to 55 Chinese nationals who worked in governmental, public or international organizations in China. A thematic analysis of the answers was conducted. Findings Chinese participants adopted a normative mental model that defined their preferred “way of doing” things. A skillful balance was expected in conflict management that incorporated integrated open communication and strategic silence. Chinese working adults emphasized maturity in the workplace and the recognition of shared goals. Research limitations/implications The online questionnaire format may have constrained participants’ responses. Also, the data were collected from various organizational contexts, but there were not enough participants from each type of organization so that comparisons between institutions could be made. Practical implications The results could help expatriate populations better prepare their lives abroad in China. Also, the findings could aid organizational or management consultants who work closely with Chinese partners. Social implications The findings enhance our understanding of how Chinese working adults deal with workplace conflicts and the circumstances in which conflicts arise in the workplace, which also reflected the social and cultural contexts of the Chinese workplace experience. Originality/value This study provides an alternative interpretation of workplace conflicts and their management in China that is anchored in the unique organizational and national cultural context. They constitute the base for future development of culture-based explanations of Chinese organizational conflict behaviors.

What Makes Some Intercultural Negotiations More Difficult Than Others? Power Distance and Culture-Role Combinations

This study examines whether and how intercultural negotiation dyads that vary in culture-role combinations experience different negotiation processes and outcomes. Participants completed an employment contract negotiation with a culturally different counterpart. Results indicated that high-status, high-power distance negotiators paired with low-status, low-power distance negotiators experienced more anger, placed less emphasis on cooperative goals, used less priority information exchange, and, consequently, gained less joint profits than high-status, low-power distance negotiators paired with low-status, high-power distance negotiators. Theoretical and practical implications of the study are discussed.

Taking Conflict Personally and the Use of the Demand/Withdraw Pattern in Intraethnic Serial Arguments

This paper examines the association between taking conflict personally and the use of the demand/withdraw pattern in intraethnic serial arguments. Asian-Americans (n = 172), African-Americans (n = 185), Caucasians (n = 224), and Hispanics (n = 124) living in the United States reported about arguments with another member of their ethnic group. Results revealed some ethnicity differences concerning the perceived positive effects of conflict on relationships and reliance on the self-demand/other-withdraw interaction pattern. Differences, though, were relatively small. Results also revealed that similar dimensions of taking conflict personally predicted the use of the demand/withdraw pattern across the four groups, with persecution feelings being a particularly strong predictor. Strength of ethnic identity had different effects on the self-demand/other- withdraw interaction pattern for Asian-Americans and Hispanics. These results are detailed, and implications for the study of serial arguments are discussed.

Modeling Serial Argument Goals, Tactics, and Their Effects on Arguers’ Satisfaction in the Case of Three Ethnic Groups in the United States

Abstract This manuscript reports research investigating the serial argument process model in the case of Asians/Asian-Americans, Blacks/African-Americans, and Caucasians/European-Americans (N = 581). Individuals’ goals in serial arguments were connected to the tactics they reported using to accomplish their goals, and, further, to any changes in their relational satisfaction following an argument. The study also examined the influence of one’s strength of ethnic identity on this process. A structural equation model incorporating these relationships was tested for each group. Results provided adequate support for the models proposed. The discussion details the dynamics of the serial argument process model for each ethnic group.

Arguing Goals: An Initial Assessment of a New Measurement Instrument

This manuscript presents two studies on arguing goals. In Study 1, participants (N = 147) provided open-ended descriptions of their goals while arguing with others. A content analysis of their answers revealed 10 arguing goals: mutual understanding, problem solving, conflict resolution, persuasion, dominance, personal expression, emotional release, standing up for oneself, enjoyment, and intellectual growth. In Study 2, participants (N = 303) rated statements measuring these goals. The convergent validity, reliability, and factor structure of the measures developed were examined. Results indicated good validity and reliability, as well as unidimensional factors, with strong loadings for indicators in each scale, suggesting a promising measurement for the assessment of goals in nonserial argumentative exchanges.

Understanding Argumentation in Interpersonal Communication: The Implications of Distinguishing Between Public and Personal Topics

In this chapter, we review an important distinction in interpersonal argumentation between public-issue arguments and personal-issue arguments. Public-issue arguments focus on concerns outside an interpersonal dyad, whereas personal-issue arguments focus on issues tied closely to an interpersonal relationship. These two types of interpersonal arguments differ in terms of who argues about these topics, how argumentative episodes are interpreted and enacted, and the stakes that the arguments have for relational outcomes. This distinction is argued to be consequential for several areas of communication research including persuasion, conflict, relational communication, political deliberation, and public argument.

Argument interdependence: Connections to serial argument goals and tactics in romantic relationships

This study examined the predictive utility of a new construct—argument interdependence—on serial argument goals (positive relational expressiveness, mutual understanding, desire to change the other person, negative expressiveness, dominance, desire to hurt the other while benefitting the self, and relational termination), tactics arguers report using to accomplish their goals (integrative and distributive), and arguers’ change in relational satisfaction following an episode of their serial argument. Participants (N = 675) provided cross-sectional data via an online questionnaire. A structural equation model (SEM) was conducted to examine the study’s predictions. Argument interdependence was associated with four of the seven goals examined: positive relational expressiveness, mutual understanding, desire to hurt other, and relational termination. It was also associated with integrative tactics both directly and indirectly, and distributive tactics indirectly. Mutual understanding was positively associated, whereas dominance and hurting the other while benefiting the self were negatively associated, with integrative tactics. Relational expressiveness was negatively associated, whereas negative expressiveness, changing the other, dominance, and hurting the other while benefiting the self were positively associated, with distributive tactics. Both tactics were related to changes in relational satisfaction, as were indirect effects from argument interdependence and goals. We discuss these results by focusing on the contributions argument interdependence makes to serial argument literature.