1

Wardle

Module 6 Paper

Baylee Wardle

Professor Akpan-Obong

OGL 350: Diversity and Organiza ons

August 9 2022
 2
Wardle
Introduc on

Throughout this course we have learned the importance being conscien ous and

understanding other people’s cultures. Culture can manifest in a number of ways to which we

have addressed and learned how to empathize with others who have different cultural

perspec ves than our own. In Module 6, the focus was on diversity in conflict and how our

cultural upbringing and values can affect how we manage conflict. This is where understanding

other cultures gets difficult, as you are faced with a fundamental; disagreement and must

analyze how someone’s reac on may be associated with their culture. Further, I will be breaking

down Giraffe and Elephants key dynamics and explaining my results from doing the Personal

Diversity Maturity ac vity.

Diversity Conflict in Organiza ons

I wanted to first share what I learned about the concept of low and high context

orienta on regarding conflict resolu on. We all have that one friend that will tell you straight up

their upset, or on the flip side, be passive and avoid having a conversa on about it. In the ar cle

by Fredrich (2018) describes people in low context cultures to solve conflicts in a fairly direct

manner and that these people can talk about issues more openly (p.2). This is great to know if

you are dealing with someone that may deal with conflict in the opposite way, and to find

balance in how you deal with the conflict considering both of your preferences.

Further, Fredrich (2018) men ons a point that goes along with the issue of conflict

management which is whether someone approaches a conflict deduc vely or induc vely.

Someone who is deduc ve o en makes generaliza ons slowly leading up to more specific

asser ons based on what the generaliza ons hold true (p.3). This is what someone might say is
 3
Wardle
the “beat around the bush” type of approach, while induc ve conflict resolu on style involves

gathering the specifics to make a generaliza on. These people make be considered the

overbearing or aggressive approach. Deduc ve approach is o en associated with high context

cultures. This has taught me to be aware that people arrive at their conclusions differently, even

though their inten ons to solve the problem may be the same.

Moving forward, the conflict styles dicussed by Goncalves (2016) helped me

understanding the root of how people manage conflicts. The author men oned that there two

main categories in which conflict management styles fit under: the goal to sa sfy the counter

party’s interest, or to sa sfy your own interests. This is then broken down further into 5 conflict

management styles: integra ng, avoiding, domina ng, compromising and obliging (p.4). In a

nutshell, these styles are a measure of how much someone priori zes their self-interests vs. the

interests of others. In organiza ons, integra ng style is most effec ve due to the emphasis on

“win-win” philosophy and finding common ground, while a style such as domina ng is not as

effec ve considering its authoritarian and unforgiving nature (Goncalves 2016, p.4). This idea of

conflict management goes hand in hand with cultural intelligence which is defined as the ability

to understand and be compromising with other people’s conflict management styles. This made

me realize that the way your culture typically handles conflict can also affect how easily

someone is able to understand other cultures conflict styles.

I am also going to touch on a concept that I found highly relatable and have experienced

in my own organiza on at my job in the construc on industry. In a team oriented se ng like my

work, intragroup conflicts are inevitable. In the ar cle by Jehn and Greer (2013) they described

both task and rela onship conflicts. They describes rela onship conflicts as “non-work related
 4
Wardle
issues between members, such as differences about poli cs, religion, environmental issues or

commu ng that are o en important to people” (p.2). In my department, there is an older man

who has asserted his believes on abor on and same-sex marriage which are wildly different

than mine. I never understood how these issues came up, but it has s rred up rela onship

conflicts in the workplace. Further, I would say I have a more low context orienta on while the

rest of my team is very high context. Some mes when I want to speak my mind I feel rude or

disrespec ul because I am the only with with low context orienta on. No where in these

readings did they say that one was more favorable than the other, but to be mindful of other

around you. This encourages me to communicate in the way that suits me culturally and to be

courteous and understand if my teammates communicate issues or ideas differently.

Giraffe and Elephant

In the giraffe and elephant story, the giraffe invites the elephant into his house and tries

to be accommoda ng, but when it proves disastrous, he tries to make changes to the elephant.

The elephant does not want to take full responsibility for the problem, and accepts that he will

always be an elephant and that he could make some adjustments to his house too. The key

dynamics men oned in this story involved analyzing how these different perspec ve created

different components of what should be done. In this situa on, the giraffe and elephant had

different approachs; the giraffe was more domina ng and the elephant was more submissive.

With these two roles, the dominant party is more likely to exert change on tohers while the

submissive party will be more accommoda ng and forgiving. In this situa on, I bleive the big

take away was the elephant explaining that he will always be an elephant and that the giraffes
 5
Wardle
house is also a part of the problem. In a real world situa on, this is behavior is crucial to be able

to come to common ground and meet in the middle with opposing perspec ves.

Personal Diversity Maturity Index

I was actually slightly surprised by the outcome of this ac vity as I was fairly confident in

my approach regarding conflict management entering in this module. My score indictated I sat

fairly in the middle of diversity maturity. Based on the scores and from my answers which I tried

to be transparent on, my low context nature seems to get the best of me. I took this in the

perspec ve of a professional se ng, since my answers would have differed if I considered

family or friends. From the results, I think I have inten ons of sa sfying others interests and

acknowledging others in situa ons with conflict. There are mes where I fall into the

domina ng conflict style, which is ineffec ve in conflict resolu on as discussed previously. This

ac vity has taught me to be an ac ve listener and be mindful of others perspec ves instead of

just asser ng my own opinions and views.

Conclusion

Overall, conflict and diversity management as with countless other aspects of life is

culturally rooted. We are all programmed to behave and react a certain way, which is great and

we should embrace that. However, where people fall short is expanding their cultural

intelligence and being understanding of how others may approach conflict management and

resolu on. Then, there can be common ground and the issue at hand can be truly solved.
 6
Wardle
References

Friedrich, P. (2018). Cultural Differences in Conflict Resolution . In The TESOL

Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching (pp. 1–6). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Gonçalves, G., Reis, M., Sousa, C., Santos, J., Orgambídez-Ramos, A., & Sco , P. (2016). Cultural

intelligence and conflict management styles. Interna onal Journal of Organiza onal Analysis,

24(4), 725-742. Cultural Intelligence and Conflict Management Styles.pdf

Jehn, K.A. & Greer, L. (2013). Diversity as Disagreement: The Role of Group Conflict. Chapter 10

in The Oxford Handbook of Diversity and Work. ASU Library Holdings. Diversity as

Disagreement.pdf