Horizontal & Vertical Individualism – Collectivism and Conflict

Management Styles: A Pakistani Sub-Cultural Model

Muhammad K. Riaz
Institute of Management Sciences
1-A, E-5, Phase VII, Hayatabad, Peshawar, Pakistan
raqi148.imsc@yahoo.com
Waseef Jamal
Institute of Management Sciences
1-A, E-5, Phase VII, Hayatabad, Peshawar, Pakistan

Paper Presented at the

25th Annual International Association of Conflict Management Conference
Spier, South-Africa
July 12 – 14, 2012

Abstract
The omnipresent and inevitable conflict is debated a lot in organizational studies. Many
researchers study the relationship of conflict management styles and cultural dimensions
specifically with individualism – collectivism. But these studies deal the culture at a
national level aggregately. Hofsete’s demarcation of cultures in to individualistic and
collectivistic cultures is the basic pillar of such studies in cross cultural comparisons of
conflict management styles. In this study, an attempt was made to relate vertical and
horizontal dimensions of individualism – collectivism with conflict management styles at
sub-cultural level in Pakistan as all people in a presumed collectivistic/ individualistic
culture are not collectivists/ individualists. Getting support from literature, propositions
are developed and a model is proposed. Future research directions and prospects are
discussed.

Keywords: Vertical-Horizontal INDCOL, Conflict Management Styles, Sub-Cultural

Conflict, Inter-cultural Conflict

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2040582

1. Introduction
The omnipresent and inevitable workplace conflict is one among the most debated topic of social/
organizational psychology and organizational theory and behaviors. The impact of culture on
organization related phenomena, processes and behaviors is a widely accepted fact (Cai & Fink, 2002;
Taras, Kirman and Steel, 2010; Morris et al, 1998; & Kirkman, Lowe and Gibson, 2006 for a review
Steel & Taras, 2010). Similarly, culture affects the workplace conflict behaviors and management
styles (Leung, 1988; Miyahra et al, 1998; Trubisky et al, 1991 & Tse et al, 1988 for a review Cai &
Fink 2002).

Individualism – collectivism is a commonly used cultural dimension used in cross cultural

organizational research (Hostede, 1980a; & Ting-Toomy, 1988). But mostly researchers studied the
cultures at national (aggregate) level with relations to conflict management styles preferences. But
every national culture has many sub-cultures. These subcultures differ substantially in regards of
organizational behaviors. Therefore it is needed that this relationship should be studied at sub-cultural
as well as individual level (Riaz, Jamal, & Zulkifal, forthcoming). Therefore this study aimed to
propose a model for relationship of vertical and horizontal dimension of individualism – collectivism
and conflict management styles for sub-cultures of Pakistan. The coming sections will provide grounds
for the model.

2. Conflict Management Styles

Most of the people have a specific and long lasting approach (style) towards conflict although it is
possible the context and other variables may affect their approach timely (Freidman, Tidd, Currall &
Tsai, 2000). Conflict management styles are discussed a lot in conflict literature (ul-Haque, 2004).
Hocker & Wilmot (2010) define conflict management styles as “patterned responses or cluster of
behaviors the people use in conflict”. The concept of conflict management styles has its roots in
organizational research (Haque, 2003) and social psychology (Rahim, 2001).

Follet (1940), is the first researcher who discussed conflict management styles model in the book
“Dynamic Administration”. According to her, there are three primary styles to handle the conflict:

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2040582

domination, compromise and integration; and two secondary styles: avoidance and suppression. By
domination she means, the victory of one over the other conflicting party. Bales (1950) presented two
dimensions “agreeableness” and “activeness” to explain conflict behaviors. Bales defines agreement
as “acceptance, understanding, concurrence, release of tension and solidarity” and disagreement as
“withholding, showing, rejecting, tending and antagonizing” (ul- Haque, 2004).

The first well defined conceptual framework was presented by Black & Mouton (1964). Their
managerial grid which is based on two dimensions: Concerns for production and concerns for people.
The model was originally presented for the explanation of managerial behavior including managerial
conflict behavior. But later, Black & Mountain (1970) argues that these two dimensions can explain
the conflict behaviors of the all the conflicting parties irrespective of the fact that they are holding
managerial positions or not; and all social conflicts rather than managerial conflicts. The interaction of
these two dimensions gives rise to five conflict management styles: forcing, withdrawing, smoothing,
compromising, and confrontation. Their two dimensional theory hypothesizes that organizational
conflict depends up the desires to obtain one‟s own goal in opposition to retain interpersonal
relationships. Thomas (1976) redesigned the two dimensional model by adopting new refined
dimensions: assertiveness and cooperativeness. He defines assertiveness as „attempting to satisfy
one‟s own concerns‟ and cooperativeness as „attempting to satisfy other‟s concerns‟. He identifies five
styles: competing, collaborating, avoiding, accommodating and compromising.

Rahim & Bonoma (1979) adopted the basic model of Black &Mouton (1964). But they named
dimensions differently: Concern for self and concern for others. They named the resulted conflict
management styles as integrating, obliging, dominating, avoiding and compromising. Later on this
model was referred as dual concern model (Rubin, Pruitt & Kim, 2004). Putnam & Wilson (1982)
suggested that there are three styles: Control (dominating), non- confrontation (obliging) and solution
orientation (integrating). Pruitt (1983) suggested that there are four conflict management styles. These
are yielding, problem solving, inaction and contending. He didn‟t recognize compromising as distinct
style. Similarly after conducting a review of conflict literature related to Rahim Organizational Conflict
Inventory (ROCI) - II, Weider-Hatfield (1988) concluded that individual might select from three styles
although five styles concept is widely accepted in conflict literature. Similarly, Hocker & Wilmot
(1991) in their review argued that there are three distinct conflict styles: avoidance, competition and
collaboration.

Adopted from Holt, J. F., & DeVore, C. J. (2005)

For this study, Rahim & Bronoma (1979) typology is used. Their dual concerns model is having two
dimensions: concern for self and concern for others. The interaction of these two dimensions results in
five distinct styles of conflict management. Those are integrating, obliging, dominating, avoiding and
compromising. In integrating style, concern for self and concern for others is high (Rahim, 2001). If
this approach is adopted, a solution will be of mutually acceptance (Pruitt, Carnevale, Ben-Yoav,
Nochajski & Van Slyk, 1983; Gray, 1989; Rahim, 2001; & Pruitt & Carnevvale, 1993). Low concern
for self and high concern for others is characterized by obliging style. In this style commonalities are
considered and differences are ignored. This style also has an element of self sacrifice (Rahim, 2001).
Some conditions like presence of pressure may encourage obliging (Rubin, Pruitt, and Kim, 2004).
Dominating style indicates high concern for self and low concern for others. Dominating party goes to
any extent to get results of its interests (Rahim, 2001). But context also affect the choice of this style
(Pruitt and Rubin, 1986). In non- confrontational style avoiding style, concern for self and for others
both are low. It‟s like “see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil” (Rahim, 2001). This style may be
adopted because pursuing benefit is not too important (Cai & Fank, 2002). The last style,
compromising style, is characterized by moderate concern for the self and for others. It involves give
and take and exchange of information for seeking a pareto optimal solution (Rahim, 2001).
Fig Summary of Conflict Management Styles Development

Study (ies) Dimensions/ Conflict Management Styles

Follet (1940) Primary Styles:

Domination, Compromise, Integration
Secondary Styles
Avoidance, Suppression
Bales (1950) Agreeableness
Activeness
Black and Mouton (1964) Concerns for production
Concerns for people

Black and Mountain (1970) Forcing,

Withdrawing,
Smoothing,
Compromising
Confrontation

Thomas (1976) Assertiveness, Cooperativeness

Competing
Collaborating
Avoiding
Accommodating
Compromising
Rahim and Bonoma (1979) Concern for Self, Concern for Others
Rahim (1983a)
Integrating
Obliging
Dominating
Avoiding
Compromising
Putnam and Wilson (1982) Control (Dominating)
Non- Confrontation (Obliging)
Solution Orientation (Integrating)
Pruitt (1983) Yielding
Problem solving
Inaction
Contending
Hocker and Wilmot (1991) Avoidance
Competition
Collaboration.
3. Individualism and Collectivism
The concept of individualism – collectivism in social sciences came under discussion in 1950s. A
number of researchers have analyzed the concept of individualism/collectivism in order to explain the
human patterned interactions within the organization or as a proxy for culture (Early and Gibson,
1998).

Parsons & Shils (1951) explained how individuals relate themselves with others in connection of
shared interests. They present Self Orientation – Collectivity Orientation concept. According to them
the private – collective gains dilemma can be explained using this concept. Individuals‟ actions are
based upon three systems: personality, social and cultural systems. At the personality level, self
oriented individual‟s need- disposition on his part, permit him to pursue his goal/ interest regardless of
its implications for the collectivity. While collectivity orientated individual‟s need disposition direct
his action according to the goals of collectivity. At social system level, self oriented individual is free
to pursue his private interest. While collectivity oriented individual is obliged to take in to
consideration the interest of the collectivity. At cultural level, self oriented individual follow a
normative pattern stipulating a range of permissible actions for perusing self-interest even if such
pursuits have a direct bearing on collectivity. While a collectivity oriented individual was prescribed a
sphere of actions to which he is obliged to pursue in order to attain the interests/ goals of the
collectivity (Early and Gibson, 1998).

Kluckohn and Strodtbeck (1961) defined relationship of values orientations in their individualism –
collaterality – lineality concept. They distinguished the societies in to two distinct groups:
gemeinschaft (primitive culture) versus gesellschaft (modern, industrialized culture). Individualism
refers to autonomy in individual‟s action, and giving primacy to own goals over goals of the extended
groups. Collaterality is referred to giving primacy to the goals of the extended groups. Finally, lineality
is referred to a prioritization of group goals over time. Continuity of the group and ordered positional
succession are of immense importance in lineality (Early and Gibson, 1998).

In his ground breaking study, Hofstede (1980a),collected 116,000 surveys from 88,000 employees of
IBM of 53 countries, who were speaking 20 different languages in six years from 1968 to 1972 (Taras,
Kirman and Steel, 2010; Voronov and Singer, 2002). Hofstede, on the basis of this extensive study,
presented his most debated cultural values framework, which includes four dimensions:
Individualism/collectivism, power distance, masculinity/femininity and uncertainty avoidance. Among
these domains individualism/ collectivism is mostly used cultural value/domain in relations to work
related outcomes, processes, environment and behaviors. According to Web of Science, Hofstede‟s
study is cited as many as five thousand times and according to Google Scholar the number of citation is
ten thousand (Steel and Taras, 2010).

The relationship between management practices and culture has been extensive studied and considered
a phenomenon of immense importance (Gelfand, Erez, Aycan, 2007; Kirman, Lowe, Gibson 2006;
Taras, Kirman and Steel, 2010). According to Hofstede (1980a) culture is “the collective
programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one human group from another”.
According to Hofstede (1991),

“Individualism stands for a society in which the ties between individuals are loose;
everyone is expected to look after himself or herself and his or her immediate family only
…. Collectivism stands for a society in which people from birth onward are integrated
into strong, cohesive in-groups, which throughout people’s life time continue to protect
them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty ( 260-261)”

The phenomenon of individualism/ collectivism has been discussed in details. Individualists

value their own goals, wants, needs and rights over the goals, responsibilities and obligations of the
groups. They define themselves autonomous/ independent of groups. Their social behaviors are driven
by their own beliefs, attitude and values. They are mostly task oriented even at the cost of
relationships. Collectivists value the goals, obligations and responsibilities of the group over their own
goals, wants, needs and rights. They define themselves in terms of association in various in-groups.
Their social behaviors are driven by social norms, obligations and responsibilities. They emphasize on
relationships, even at the cost of task completion sometime (Cai and Fink, 2002; Markus and Kityama,
1991; Triandis,1995; and Chen , Chen and Meaindl, 1998)
Fig Summary of Individualism – Collectivism Concept Development

Study Concept/ Theory Dimensions

Personality
Parsons and
Shils Self Orientation – Collectivity Orientation
Social System
(1951)
Cultural System

Kluckohn Gemeinschaft
and Individualism – Collaterality – Lineality (Primitive Culture)
Strodtbeck
(1961) Gesellschaft
(Modern/
Industrialized Culture

Individualism –
Collectivism

Hofstede Cultural Values Framework Power Distance

(1980a)
Masculinity –
Femininity

Uncertainty
Avoidance

4. Conflict Management Styles and Individualism Collectivism

Researches (Schneider and Barsoux, 2003; Morris et al, 1998; Tinsley, 1998; Swierczek, 1994; Kozan,
1997; Tse et al, 1988; Leung, 1988; Ting-Toomey, 1988; and Leung and Linds 1986) concluded that
culture affect the selection of conflict management styles. But all most all researchers aggregately dealt
the culture at national level regarding differences in conflict management styles‟ preferences except.
Three is very less literature on sub-cultural level studies on the relationship of individualism-
collectivism and conflict management styles. In Pakistan there is no such study which relates these two
phenomena at any level (Riaz et al. forthcoming).
Individualism – collectivism is a commonly used cultural dimension used in cross cultural
organizational research (Hostede, 1980; and Ting-Toomy, 1988). As Individualists value their own
goals, wants, needs and rights over the goals, responsibilities and obligations of the group. While
Collectivists value the goals, obligations and responsibilities of the group over their own goals, wants,
needs and rights (Cai and Fink, 2002; Markus and Kityama, 1991; Triandis,1995; Chen , Chen and
Meaindl, 1998). Therefore employees from both individualistic and collectivistic cultures preferred for
those styles of conflict management which are in line with their indoctrinated values.

Hofstede (1980) study has classified the cultures in two categories. Those are individualistic and
collectivistic cultures. According to Morris et al (1998), US with a score of 91 on individualism –
collectivism dimension, is the highest individualistic culture while India has a score of 48
(collectivistic culture) and Taiwan with a score of 17 (more collectivistic culture). Pakistan has a score
of 10 on individualism – collectivism dimension of Hofstede Cultural Values Dimensions (Greet
Hofstede Cultural Dimensions, 2011), which means a highly collectivistic culture. But it can be
observed the many nationals of Pakistani not acted as collectivist.

Triandis (1995) suggested that individualism and collectivism are the two discrete categories rather
these have two dimensions i.e. vertical and horizontal. According to this study, there are four aspect of
individualism – collectivism. These are horizontal individualism (HI), vertical individualism (VI),
horizontal collectivism (HC), and vertical collectivism (VC). Horizontally individualists have an
autonomous self, they pose themselves as independent from others but equal to them. They have high
self reliance. While vertically individualists have autonomous self, but they think that are different
from others. Thus they exhibit dominating behaviors while managing conflicts. Horizontal collectivists
behave as part of their in-groups and that they think that all members of the group are equal. While
vertically collectivists behave as a part of their in-group but at the same time they pose themselves
different from the group members (Balluerka & Aritzeta, 2006).
 Following table summarizes the studies undertaken for investigating country (individualists/
collectivist categorization) and their preferences for conflict management styles.
Sample and Target
Study Country (ies) / Population/ Findings
Cultures Measurement
Tool(s)

 Young Arab and Arabs prefer mostly integrating and

Arab US students of An compromising (no significant difference in preference in
Countries US University these two), then dominating, obliging and avoiding (no
Khakimova (Collectivistic) significant difference in preference in these two), then
(2008) and  n = 330 emotional experience and 3rd party help. Their least
US preferred style is aggressive (neglect). While American
(Individualistic)  185 (Arabs) and students mostly preferred integrating, compromising,
145 (Americans) dominating (no significant difference in preference in these
three), then emotional experience, obliging, and 3rd party
 Extended ROCI- help. Their least preferred style is aggressive (neglect). The
II (Ting-Toomy researcher concluded that there is no major difference in
et al. 2000) for preferences of Arab and American students because Arabs
are studying in US, so maybe they adopted the US culture
eight styles of
or due to social desirability bias.
conflict
management

 Korean & US Intra-culturally as well as with Americans, Korean

South Korea students and theirrespondents preferred collaborating (integrating),
(Collectivistic) families in three compromising, accommodating (obliging), avoiding styles
Hung (2005) And respectively and they least preferred style is competition
Universities‟
US (dominating). While American respondents preferred
(Individualistic) communities collaborating (integrating), compromising, accommodating
(obliging) and competition (dominating) styles
 n = 453
respectively. Their least preferred style is avoiding.
 228 (Koreans) and Koreans preferred an avoiding style while Americans
preferred competition (dominating style). Almost the
225 (Americans)
preferences of both the cultural groups are same. According
 Modified ROCI – to this research this may be because of increasing
globalization.
II (Wilmot &
Hocker, 2001)
  Business Students Nigerians business students preferred avoidance,
in Nigeria and US collaborating (integrating), accommodating (obliging), and
Nigeria compromising styles respectively. Their least preferred
(Collectivistic)  n = 126 style is competition (dominating). While Americans
And preferred compromising, collaborative (integrating), and
Anakwe & US  105 (Nigerians) competition (dominating). Their least preferred style is
Purohit (Individualistic) and 121 accommodating (obliging). The surprising finding of this
( ) (Americans) study is that Nigerian students are more individualist than
Americans. Researchers concluded that as the respondents
 Management of were from a business study, that‟s why they are affected by
Difference the increasing dissemination of US originated “B-School
Exercise (MODE) (Business School) Culture”. The findings of the study
contradict all the previous studies; according to which
(Kilmann &
African countries (including Nigeria) are classified as
Thomas, 1977) collectivist countries. Similarly that Americans are less
and Individualism individualist than Nigerian because Hofstede and other
–Collectivism studies placed Americans the most individualist nation.
Scale (Wanger,
1995)

Iran
(Collectivistic,  Technical students
Masculine, and Engineers in Iranians preferred avoiding, compromising,
Khanaki & Larger Power Iran and Sweden collaborative (integrating), and accommodating (obliging)
Hassanzadeh Distance, styles respectively. Their least preferred style is
(2010) Moderate  n = 87 competition (dominating). While Swedish preferred
Uncertainty ) collaborating (integrating), avoiding, competition
And  57 (Iranians) and (dominating), and compromising styles. Their least
Sweden 25 (Swedish) preferred style is accommodating (obliging). According to
(Individualistic, the study, Iranian‟s preferences for cooperative styles are
Feminine,  Management of rooted in their collectivism and moderate uncertainty
Small Power Difference avoidance. Similarly, Swedish preferences are because of
Distance, Weak Exercise (MODE) their individualism and weak uncertainty avoidance.
Uncertainty )
(Kilmann &
Thomas, 1977)
  College Students Inside one culture (US culture), individuals with
Komarraju US individualist orientation inclined towards dominating style
et al., (Individualistic)  n = 640 rather than obliging styles. While collectivistic individuals
(2008)* have inclinations towards integrating styles. Additionally,
 ROCI – II and IC horizontal collectivists more likely preferred obliging while
Scale vertical collectivists have inclinations for avoiding style.
These finds are restricted to college students only.

 Public and private Turkish individuals are more likely used

managerial collaborating (integrating) style rather than compromising
Turkey employees or avoiding as expected from a collectivistic culture.
Ma et al., (Collectivistic) Different aspects of collectivism affect their preferences.
(2010)*  n = 244 Due to competitive success they go for competition
(dominating style). Valuing working alone leads them to
 Rahim less inclination towards integrating. Preferring group
Organizational norms is positively related to more integrating and
Conflict Inventory avoiding styles. Similarly that they can contribute to group
lead them to have more compromising style of conflict
– II
management.

 Muslims and The study found that Indian Muslims mostly

Croucher et India Hindus of India preferred integrating and compromising styles. Their least
al., (2011)* (Collectivistic) preferred styles are dominating and avoiding. While Indian
 n = 827 Hindus have more inclination towards integrating and
dominating and least inclination towards avoiding and
 Oetzel‟s Conflict obliging. Demographic variables such as age, gender and to
Style Measure some extent education level also have predictive power for
conflict management styles preferences.

France
Croucher (Individualistic)  Respondents from The study found that religious orientation /
(2011)* Germany France, Germany identification has a significant influence on conflict style
(Individualistic) and UK preferences. Muslims of the Western Europe countries
UK mostly preferred compromising and obliging styles while
(Individualistic)  n = 909 Christians preferred dominating style. French people are
more dominating than Germans and UK.
 Oetzel Conflict
Style Measure
  Respondents are
Top Management This study found that top management teams of the
Fu et al. China Teams (TMT) of Chinese firms preferred integrating style in handling of
(2008)* (Collectivistic) conflicts. These results contradict the previous findings that
16 Chinese firms
being collectivist Chinese mostly preferred avoiding style
 n = 952 mostly.

 Interviews

China  Chinese and Results showed that conflict management behaviors

Doucet et al. (Collectivistic) American exercised by Chinese and Americans are different. For
(2009)* US managers Chinese embarrassing the peers and teaching a moral
(Individualistic) lesson are important elements. For American, hostility and
 Semi structure vengefulness are important elements. The study suggested
Interviews that both Chinese and American acknowledge avoidant
approaches, but underlying intensions for American alone
are associated with a lack of confidence.
China  Employees from
(Collectivistic) China, Japan and The study reported that Koreans were more likely
Kim et al. Japan South Korea used compromising than Chinese and Japanese. Japanese
(2007)* (Collectivistic) less likely used dominating and obliging than Chinese and
Korea  n = 275 Koreans. The researches explained the differences in
(Collectivistic) preferences on the basis of goal orientation (self vs
 Survey (recalling collective) and concern for self respectively.
previous conflict
situation)

Boonsathorn Thailand  Thais and According to the study, Thais preferred more
(2007)* (Collectivistic) American avoiding and obliging styles of conflict management than
US employees in 73 Americans. Thais posited no differences in preferences for
(Individualistic) integrating, dominating and compromising. Gender has no
MNCs in Thailand
role in preference for conflict management styles. Exposure
 n = 275 of the Thais to the other cultures is negative related with
preferences for avoiding and obliging styles of conflict
 64 (American), management while have positive relation with preference
250 (Thais) for dominating style of conflict management.

 Own instrument
Boros et al. Netherlands  125 groups of The study found that where group members experiences
(2010)* (Individualistic) Netherland horizontal collectivistic feeling, for them cooperation is
better, and contending and avoiding styles are used-less.
 Field study When they experiences vertical individualism, then they
used more avoiding style. Horizontal individualism leads to
cooperative styles of conflict management.
Many studies have taken the Triands (1995) typology while studying impact of individualism –
collectivism on conflict management styles. Komarraju, Dolliger & Lovell (2008) found that vertical
and horizontal individualists preferred dominating style. Horizontal individualists least preferred styles
is avoiding. Vertical collectivists prefer avoiding styles more and dominating styles less. Horizontal
collectivists preferred more cooperative styles. The study of Kaushal and Kwantes (2006) results
contradicts these findings. According to them vertical individualism and vertical collectivism is
positively related with domination style while negatively related to horizontal collectivism (although
the relation is not significant statistically). Avoiding style is positively associated with vertical
individualism and vertical collectivism and negatively with horizontal individualism. While according
to Boros, Meslec, Curseu and Emons (2010) concluded that only two- horizontal collectivism and
vertical individualism have significant effect of conflict management styles. Vertical individualism has
a positive impact on avoiding while horizontal collectivism impacted positively cooperative styles,
while negative on avoiding and dominating styles.

Pakistan is categorized aggregately more collectivist and least individualist as Greet Hofstede Cultural
Dimensions, (2011), its score on individualism is 10 as compared to 91 of US. But it is a diverse
country having so many sub–cultures like Pakhtun, Panjabi, Sindhi, Balochi, Sraeki, Hindku, Chitrali,
Gilgiti/Biltiti, Brahvi, and Urdu Speaking. Some of these sub-cultures is more collectivist than others
and some are more individualist than others.

Therefore it is suggested that

Proposition 1: Pakhtun and Balochi sub-cultures will be high on horizontal collectivism

(HC), therefore will be associated with higher use of avoiding, and obliging;
low use of compromising; and lower use of integrating and dominating styles
of conflict management.

Proposition 2: Sindhi and Brahvi sub-cultures will be high on vertical collectivism (VC);
therefore will be associated with higher use of avoiding and compromising
styles; low use of obliging and integrating; and lower use of dominating styles
of conflict management.
Proposition 3: Hindko and Urdu sub-cultures will be high on vertical individualism (VI);
therefore will be associated with high use of dominating and integrating
styles; low use of compromising; and lower use of obliging and avoiding.

Proposition 4: Panjabi, Chitrali, and Gilgiti/ Biltiti will be high on horizontal individualism
(HI); therefore will be associated with higher use of integrating style; low use
of dominating and compromising styles; and lower use avoiding and obliging.

On the basis of these propositions the following model is proposed

INDCOL – CMS Sub-cultural Conceptual Model

Control Variables

Age
Education
Vertical Gender
Individualism

Integrating
Horizontal
Individualism Obliging

Dominating
Vertical
Collectivism
Avoiding

Horizontal Compromising
Collectivism

Individualism / Collectivism Conflict Management Styles

(Independent Variables) (Dependent Variables)
5. Conclusion and Limitations
This study attempts to establish a relationship of vertical and horizontal dimensions of individualism –
collectivism with conflict management styles at sub-cultural level with the major theme that this
specific cultural dimension differs person to person within a culture and so the conflict management
style. Hence a model is proposed to elaborate this relationship. But the model isn‟t tested empirically.
This is the major limitation of this study. Future researches can study this relationship with empirical
evidences from sub cultures of Pakistan. And then across other countries to support that, individualism
and collectivism is present in each culture irrespective of the aggregate presumed nature of the culture
and so individuals differs in their conflict management styles based on their personal orientation of
individualism – collectivism rather than their aggregate presumed preferences of conflict management
styles. It will be more beneficial for the researchers as well as managers to know about this relationship
so that they easily make strategies for the maximum use of beneficial types like task and process
conflicts (Riaz and Juniad, in press; & Riaz, 2010) and they will be able to minimize the
counterproductive types of conflicts like relationship conflicts (Riaz & Junaid, in press). Finally,
longitudinal studies will enhance the generalizability of this model.
References
Ali, A.J., Taqi, A.Z., & Krishnam K. (1997). Individualism, collectivism, and decision styles of
managers in Kuwait. The Journal of Social Psychology 137: 629-637

Anakwe, U. P., & Purohit, Y. (undated). Conflict management styles: A Comprehensive analysis
between Nigeria and The US. Working paper No. 00-05 available at
https://www.sju.edu/hsb/working_papers/00-5.doc

Bales, R. F. (1950). Interaction Process Analysis: A Method for the Study of Small Groups, Addison-
Wesley.ssss

Barnlund, D. C. (1989). Communicative Styles of Japanese and Americans: Images and Realities,
Belmont: Wadsworth

Blake, R. R, & Mouton, J. S. (1970). The fifth achievement", Journal of Applied Behavioral Science
6:413-426

Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1964). Managing inter-group conflict in industry, Houston: Gulf.

Boonsathorn, W. (2007). Understanding conflict management styles of Thais and Americans in

multinational corporations in Thailand (Abstract). International Journal of Conflict
Management, 18(3): 196-221

Boros, S., Meslec, N., Curseu, P. L., & Emons, W. (2010). Struggles for cooperation: Conflict
resolution strategies in multicultural groups (Abstract). Journal of Managerial Psychology,
25(5): 539-554

Cai D., & Fink E. (2002). Conflict style differences between individualists and collectivists.
Communication Monograph 69: 67-87

Chen, C. C., Chen, X. P., & Meindl, J. R. (1998). How can cooperation be fostered? The cultural
effects of individualism-collectivism, Academy of Management Review 23: 285-304

Croucher, S. (2011). Muslim and Christian conflict styles in Western Europe (Abstract). International
Journal of Conflict Management. 22(1):60-74

Croucher, S. M., Holody, K. J., Hicks, M. V., Oommen, D., & DeMaris, M. (2011). An examination of
conflict style preferences in India (Abstract). International Journal of Conflict
Management, 22(1):10-34

Doucet, L., Jehn, K. A., Weldon, E., Chen, X., & Wang, Z. (2009). Cross-cultural differences in
conflict management: An inductive study of Chinese and American Managers (Abstract).
International Journal of Conflict Management. 20(4): 355-376
Early P. C., & Gibson C. B. (1998). Taking stock in our progress on individualism - collectivism: 100
years of solidarity and community, Journal of Management 24: 265-304

Fisher, R., & Ury, W. (1981). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in, New York:
Penguin Books.

Follett, M. P. (1940). Constructive conflict. In HC Metcalf and L. Urwick (Eds.), Dynamic

administration: The collected papers of Mary Parker Follett (pp. 30–49). New York:
Harper and Row.

Friedman R. A., Tidd S. T., Currall S. C., & Tsai J. C. (2000). What goes around comes around: The
impact of personal conflict styles on work conflict and stress. International Journal of
Conflict Management 11(1): 32-35

Fu, P. P., Yan, X. H., Li, Y., Wang, E., & Peng, S. (2008). Examining conflict- handling approaches by
Chinese top management teams in IT firms (Abstract). International Journal of Conflict
Management,19(3): 188-209

Gelfand, M. J., Erez, M., & Aycan, Z. (2007). Cross-cultural organizational behavior. Annual Review
of Psychology 58:1–35.

Gray, B. (1989). Collaborating: Finding common ground for multiparty problem, San Diego: Jossey-
Bass.

Greet Hofstede Cultural Dimensions . (2011). available at http://www.geert-

hofstede.com/hofstede_pakistan.shtml [accessed on 24.04.2011]

Hall, J. (1969). Conflict measurement survey: A Survey of one's characteristic reaction to and handling
conflict between himself and others. Canoe, TX: Teleometrics International

Hocker J. L., & Wilmat W. W. (2010). "Interpersonal conflict" Boston: McGraw Hills

Hocker J. L., & Wilmat, W.W. 1991. "Interpersonal conflict". Boston: McGraw Hills

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work Related Values.

Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

Hofstede, G. (1991). Culture and Organizations: Software of the Mind. London, England: McGraw-
Hill.

Hung, J. (2005). Conflict management in an age of globalization: A comparison of intra-cultural and

inter-cultural conflict management styles between Koreans and Americans.
Global Media Journal. 4(6):1-19
Khakimova, L. (2008). Conflict management styles among young Arabs and Americans: Exploring the
effects of ethnic identity and self construal. Unpublished Master
Dissertation, University of Kansas, US
Khanaki, H., & Hassanzadeh, N. (2010). Conflict management styles: The Iranian general preference
compared to the Swedish. International Journal of Innovation, Management and
Technology, 1(4): 419-426

Kim, T., Wang, C., Kondo, M., & Kim, T. (2007). Conflict management styles: The differences among
Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans(Abstract). International Journal of Conflict Management.
18(1): 23-41

Kirkman, B.L., Lowe, K.B., & Gibson, C.B. 2006. "A quarter century of culture's consequences: a
review of empirical research incorporating Hofstede's cultural values framework" . Journal
of International Business Studies 37,285–320.

Kluckhohn, F., & Strodtbeck, F. (1961). Variations in Value Orientation. Westport: Greenwood Press.

Komarraju, M., Dollinger, S. J., & Lovell, J. L. (2008). Individualism - collectivism and horizontal and
vertical dimensions as predictors of conflict management styles (Abstract). International
Journal of Conflict Management.19(1):20-35

Kozan, M. K. (1997). Culture and Conflict Management: A Theoretical Framework. International

Journal of Conflict Management 8: 338-360.

Kumagai, F., & Straus, M. A. (1983). Conflict resolution tactics in Japan, India, and the U.S.A.
Journal of Comparative Family Studies 14,377–392.

Leung, K. (1988). Some determinants of conflict avoidance. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 19,
35-49

Leung, K., & Lind, E. A. (1986). Procedure and Culture: Effects of Culture, Gender, and Investigator
Status on Procedural Preferences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 50,1134-
1140

Ma Z., Erkus, A., & Tabak, A. (2010). Explore the impact of collectivism on conflict management
styles: A Turkish study (Abstract). International Journal of Conflict Management. 21(2):
169-185

Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and
motivation. Psychological Review 98, 224-253.

Miyahara, A., Kim, M. S., Shin, H. C., & Yoon, K. (1998). Conflict resolution styles among
“collectivist” cultures: A comparison between Japanese and Koreans". International
Journal of Intercultural Relations 22, 505–525.
Moran, R. T., Allen, J., Wichman, R., Ando, T., & Sasano, M. (1994). "Japan". In Rahim, M.A. Blum,
A.A. (Eds.), Global Perspectives on Organizational Conflict, Westport: Praeger, 33-52.
Morris, M. W., Williams, K. Y., Leung K., Larrick M., Mendoza, M. T., Bhatnagar. D., Li, J.,
Kondo, M., Luo, J., & Hu, J. (1998). Conflict Management Style: Accounting for Cross-
National Differences. Journal of International Business Studies 29, 729-747

Parsons, T., & Shils, E. A. (1951). Toward A General Theory of Action. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press

Pruitt, D. G. (1983). Strategic choice in negotiation. American Behavioral Scientist, 27, 167–194.

Pruitt, D. G., & Carnevale, P. J. (1993). Negotiation and social conflict. Buckingham: Open University
Press.

Pruitt, D. G., & Rubin, J. Z. (1986). Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate, and settlement. New York:
Random House.

Pruitt, D. G., Carnevale, P. J., Ben-Yaoav, O., Nochajski, T. H., & Van Slyk, M. (1983). Incentive for
cooperation in integrative bargaining. In R. Tietz (Ed), Aspiration levels in bargaining and
economic decisions making ( pp. 22-34). Berlin: Springer

Putnam, L. L., & Wilson, C.E. (1982). Communicative strategies in organizational conflicts:
Reliability and validity of a measurement scale. In M. Burgoon (Ed.), Communication
Yearbook 6 ( pp. 629–652). Beverly Hills: Sage.

Rahim, M. A. (1983). A measure of styles of handling interpersonal conflict. Academy of Management

Journal , 26, 368–376.

Rahim, M. A. (2001). Managing conflict in organizations. London: Quorum Books

Rahim, M. A., & Bonoma, T. V. (1979). Managing organizational conflict: A model for diagnosis and
intervention. Psychological Reports", 44, 1323–1344.

Riaz, M. K. (2010). Workplace Conflict: An overview and analysis, Unpublished MBA Dissertation,
Institute of Management Sciences, Peshawar, Pakistan

Riaz, M. K, & Junaid, F. A. (In press). Workplace Conflict: Constructive or destructive. African
Journal of Business Management

Riaz, M. K., Zulkifal, S., & Jamaal, W. (forthcoming). Conceptualizing the Relationship between
Individualism – Collectivism and Conflict Management Styles at Individual level.
European Journal of Social Sciences available
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1983846
ROCI Bibliography (2002). "Publications which used the conceptualization and/or operationalization
of the Rahim Organizational Conflict Inventory–I & II" available at
http://www.wku.edu/~afzal.rahim/ [accessed on Feb 24th 2010]

Rubin, J. Z., Pruitt, D. G.., & Kim, S. H. (2004). Social Conflict: Escalation, stalemate, and Settlement,
New York: McGraw-Hills

Schneider, S. C., & Barsoux, J. L. (2003). Managing Across Cultures, Harlow, England: Prentice Hall

Steel P, & Taras V. (2010). "Culture as a consequence: A multi-level multivariate meta-analysis of the
effects of individual and country characteristics on work-related cultural values". Journal
of International Management 16, 211-233

Swierczek, F. W. (1994). Culture and Conflict in Joint Ventures in Asia". International Journal of
Project Management 12, 39-47.

Taras, V., Kirkman, B.L., & Steel, P. (2010). Examining the impact of culture‟s consequences: a
three-decade, multi-level, meta-analytic review of Hofstede‟s cultural value dimensions.
Journal of Applied Psychology 95 , 405–439.

Thomas, K. W. (1976). Conflict and conflict management. In M.D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of
Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp. 889–935). Chicago: Rand-McNally.

Ting-Toomey, S. (1988). Intercultural conflict styles: A face-negotiation theory". In Y.Y. Kim and
W.B. Gudykunst (Eds.), Theories in intercultural communication (pp213–235). Newbury
Park: Sage.

Ting-Toomey, S., Gao, G., Trubisky, P., Yang, Z., Kim, H.S., Lin, S.L., & Nishida, T. (1991). Culture,
face maintenance, and styles of handling interpersonal conflict: A study of five cultures.
International Journal of Conflict Management, 2, 275–29

Tinsley, C. H. (1998). Model of Conflict Resolution in Japanese, German, and American Cultures.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 316-323.

Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder: West view.

Trubisky, P., Ting-Toomey, S., & Lin, S. L. (1991). The influence of individualism-collectivism and
self monitoring on conflict styles. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 15,
65–84.

Tse, D. Lee, K. H., Vertinsky, I., & Wehrung, D.A. (1988). Does Culture Matter? A Cross-cultural
Study of Executives' Choice, Decisiveness, and Risk Adjustment". International Journal of
Marketing, 52, 81-95.
Ul-Haque, M. A. (2004). "Personal Attributes and Conflict Management Styles of Corporate
Managers". Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Peshawar, Peshawar available
at http://eprints.hec.gov.pk/6858/1/3653H.htm [accessed on 24.04.2011]

Voronov M., & Singer J. A. (2002). The myth of individualism - collectivism: A critical review. The
Journal of Social Psychology, 142, 4, 461-480

Wagner III, J. A., & Moch, M. K. (1986). Individualism-collectivism: Concept and measure. Group
and Organization Studies, 11, 3, 280-305