- Email: [email protected]
Race, culture and interpersonal conflict
Infemutional Journal ofIt~terc&umi Relaiions. Vol. 16, pp. 437-454, 1992 Prinred in the USA. All rights reserved.
TRAINING
Copyright
0147-1767192rss.00 + .oo 0 1592 Pcrgamon Press Ltd.
SECTION
RACE, CULTURE AND INTERPERSONAL
HARRY Calijknia
WATERS,
CONFLICT
JR.
State University at Hayward
ABSTRACT The argument is presented that the traditional management course does little to heIp the business student or practitioner deal with race-based interpersonal conflicts in the workplace. Spectficall~ current management textbooks tend to avoid the topic of race and its organizational implications. The case is made that it is imperative for managers and organizations to begin the difficult task of understanding the impact of race on interpersonai conflict. To assist in this task a process model is introduced. Antecedent conditions that can contribute to race-related interpersonal confhct are identified as we/I as specific behaviors of social actors. FinalIy, elements of the model are discussed in terms of their ability to heIp organizations deaf with race-basedprobiems.
Recently I was approached by a white student who wanted to share a troubling experience he had had with a black colleague at work. During our conversation it became evident that a simple misunderstanding based on different perceptions of the same situation had flared briefly into interpersonal conflict. What the student found most troubling was not so much the existence of the interpersonal conflict itself, but rather that the conflict had subtle racial overtones that served to confound the situation. Further, he was taken aback by how uncomfortable he felt about being involved in this kind of situation. I concluded that his discomfort was in part a function of his not understanding what might have been underlying personal and situational factors that would let race be a consideration. Further, he was not sure that his handling of the conflict, given the race component, was appropriate. When I placed this student’s experience into the context of experiences of other students (both majority and minority) it became evident that interracial-interpersonal conflict within organizational settings is freReprint requests should be sent to Dr. Harry Waters, Jr., School of Business and Economics, Department of Management and Finance, California State University at Hayward, Hayward, CA 94542-9988.
437
quently not well understood and presents all sides with very real difficul ties. For example, from the minority perspective, issues of conflict present several unique problems. The first, of course, is being able to determine when conflict between members of different races is actually a function of race rather than some &her variable (e.g., a genuine personality difference). In a similar vein, when conflict does exist and when it takes on racial overtones, does it truly reflect a racial bias, or is it merely indicative of naivete, miscommunication, or misperceptions on the part of one or both disputants (Poskocil, 1977)? It is with these and other related questions that I began to reexamine the conflict component of the general management course I teach. My reexamination began with an inspection of the conflict chapter of the assigned management textbook (Daft, 1988) as well as other current management and organizational behavior textbooks on the market (Baron & Greenberg, 1990; Gibson, Ivancevich, & Donnelly, 1991; Higgins, 1991; Holt, 1990; Mondy, Sharplin, & Premeaux, 1991; Robbins, 1989; Roberts & Hunt, 1991; Van Fleet, 1991). Not surprisingly, none of these books adequately addresses the issue of conflict and race. As a matter of fact, few of the texts even mention race as a significant variable in any context (i.e., Ieadership, motivation, communication) (Waters, 1989). These textbooks provide little guidance to practitioners on how to think about and resolve interracial-int~rpersonai conflicts.
RACE AS AN ORGANIZATIONAL
ISSUE
It should come as little surprise that race is not adequately addressed by most management textbooks. Although there are some efforts ta address race-based issues, the shortage of research into this realm stands in marked contrast to other traditional management topics. In part, the unwiili~gness or inability to address this subject reflects the wider societal ambivalence about race. That is, few topics can evoke such strong feelings of discomfort. Our discomfort arises because such discussions touch sensitive nerves and force painful evaluations of cherished beliefs. Nevertheless, these issues must be addressed for several different reasons. The first and most compelling reason for addressing issues of race and conflict is the changing nature of the demographics of the U.S. workplace (N&v York Times, 1991). As more and more people of color enter the workforce (at both entry- and management-level positions) the potential for inmrracial-interpersonal conflict will rise correspondingly. It is axiomatic that a racially and culturally diverse workforce will experience conflict, if for no other reason, simply as a function of the diversity itself. The second reason for addressing race is the widespread perception among many that race does indeed impact organizational experiences (Thomas & Hughes, 1986). Creenhaus, Parasuraman, and Wormley
Race, Culture, and Interpersonal Conflict
439
(1990) refers to this as “treatment discrimination” and note that it centers on distinctive organizational subgroups who receive fewer rewards, resources, or opportunities. Treatment discrimination includes discrimination in such tangible areas as position assignment, training opportunities, salary increases, promotions, terminations, and layoffs, and such less tangible areas as acceptance into a work group or the availability of career enhancing and social support from supervisors (Ilgen & Youtz, 1986). Therefore, it is not at all unusual to read in popular and academic literature of minority employees who believe that race adversely impacted them in terms of opportunities for advancement, performance evaluations, and so forth (Jones, 1986; Leinster, 1988; Newsweek, 1988; Nixon, 1985a, 1985b; Pettigrew & Martin, 1987; Pomer, 1986; San Jose Mercury News, 1989; Tribune, 1989; Vaid & Vishist, 1983; Wall Street Journal, 1989a; Yw, 1985). Second, research in such areas as selection, performance appraisal, and supervisory relations reveals some bias against nontraditional groups (Arvey, 1979; Bartol, Evans, & Stith, 1978; Carroll & Schneier, 1982; Cox & Nkomo, 1986; Kraiger & Ford, 1985; Mobley, 1982; Olian, Schwab, & Haberfeld, 1985; Thompson & Thompson, 1985; Tosi & Einbender, 1985). Third, nonminorities may also see race as having an adverse impact on them but from a sharply different perspective. That is, they may see that minority advancement and opportunities are coming at their expense) (Glazer, 1988; Kluegel & Smith, 1983; Sherman, Smith, & Sherman, 1983). Not surprisingly, when the minority and majority perspectives meet in the workplace, conflict is often the result (Bielby, 1987; Cook, 1987). The topic of interracial-interpersonal conflict is also important from an organizational perspective. Whether real or perceived, the organizational ramifications of race conflict can be very pronounced ( WaN Street Journal, 1989b). This is particularly true in organizations that strive to instill a sense of teamwork and cooperation among their employees (Moran, 1988). Race-based conflicts undermine organizational unity, sap energy and motivation, create tensions, and, if not handled properly, lead to further feelings of hostility and resentment. Obviously, within such an environment, the task of achieving organizational goals becomes increasingly difficult (Moran, 1989).
Interpersonal/Interracial
Conflict
A general discussion of the topic of conflict in most management texts usually includes five elements: 1. A general definition of conflict. 2. A delineation of the level of conflict (e.g., intrapersonal, sonal, group level).
interper-
440
H. Waters, Jr
3. The various viewpoints on conflict (e.g., traditional, tions, and interactionalist). 4. A general conflict model. 5. A listing of conflict-handling behaviors.
human rela-
Of special concern to this article are the various conflict models that are presented in management textbooks. Although many of these models are appropriate for a general understanding of conflict, they are often inappropriate for understanding race-based conflict (Moran, 1986; Rahim, 1986). This inappropriateness is a function of the lack of specificity regarding relevant antecedent conditions that can contribute to racebased conflict. In an effort to provide students and practitioners alike with information that may help them identify and address underlying factors contributing to race-based conflict, the following proposed conflict process model is offered (Figure 1). This model attempts to integrate relevant literature into a form that will provide clues as to when and why race conflict occurs. The proposed model contains two broad categories. The first focuses on factors that shape the attitudes that an individual may have about (1) minorities and (2) race issues in general. The second category focuses on the interaction setting where conflict may occur. This category has as its specific focus the types of behaviors on the part of each party that can lead to misunderstandings and, hence, to conflict.
Attitudes and Beliefs The proposed model puts forth that the racial attitudes and beliefs that individuals bring to the workplace are in part a function of preconceived notions that they may have about minorities in general and about racerelated matters overall. These beliefs and attitudes are themselves a function of three factors: I. Level of general knowledge (cultural familiarity) about other cultures. 2. Perspectives on the issue of affirmative action. 3. Notions about a particular minority group.
Cultural Familiarity Often when two individuals of different races interact, each brings to the encounter differing levels of familiarity about the culture of the other (Caertner & McLaughlin, 1983). For example, in black/white encounters, it is frequently the case that whites have not had substantial previous contact with blacks (although blacks, as a minority, are more likely to
______.z__________.
442
H. Waters, Jr:
have had direct contact with whites or extensive indirect contact through the media). Hence, the preconceived notions held by the white individual may be based on something other than firsthand experience. In the absence of familiarity with other cultures, whites may be surprised when interracial encounters reveal different patterns of expression, modes of behavior, and different value sets. Further, this lack of general knowledge may reflect itself in several different ways. First, it may encourage individuals to develop an egocentric view of the world. That is, with little or no contact with other or different cultural groups, individuals may develop the idea that the way they interact with others is the “normal” or “correct” way. Of course, this will present problems in subsequent interactions with individuals who do not fit this particular mold. However, this lack of familiarity may have other implications besides shaping preconceived notions. First, those who are not knowledgeable about individuals of a different culture may tend to hold generalized stereotypical notions about individuals of that race (The Tribune, 1991). So, for example, whites who have little contact with blacks may perceive them, as a group, to be overaggressive, hostile, and lazy. Of course, this perspective may also be true of how some minorities perceive other minorities. For example, recent confrontations between blacks and Asians suggest that stereotypical notions about each group abound and contribute to increased levels of misunderstanding and conflict (Vivano, 1988). A second manifestation of the lack of familiarity may be a heightened sense of anxiety. That is, although for example, white individuals may have little prior firsthand contact with individuals of another culture (and may not hold any negative stereotypes), they may still be aware that in some vague way these other individuals are “different.” It is this perception of difference rather than having specifics about the nature of these differences that may create a heightened sense of anxiety (Smith, 1987). And, as indicated in Figure 1, this heightened level of anxiety may manifest itself in the interaction arena.
Affirmative Action A second area that may contribute to preconceived notions revolves around the issue of affirmative action (Pettigrew & Martin, 1987). Currently there is widespread disagreement on exactly what affirmative action is and what it is designed to do (Katz & Proshansky, 1987; Kluegel & Smith, 1986). Nevertheless, there seems to be growing hostility among the majority culture to the whole notion of affirmative action (Evans & Novak, 1988; Kamen, 1989; Kenworthy & Edsall, 1991; Kluegel, 1985; Wermiel, 1989). It is unfortunate for minority organizational members who may have been hired under the aegis of affirmative action that they are often viewed with suspicion by their organizational peers (Waters,
Race, Culture, and Interpersonal Conflict
443
1991). The suspicion regarding qualifications is of particular significance. If the perception is that a person was hired or promoted based on a different set of criteria than was applied to others, interactions become altered (i.e., suggestions may be ignored) (Garcia, Erskine, Hawn, & Casmay, 1981). Yet, it should be noted that the affirmative action stigma may not be applicable to all minority groups alike. For example, although blacks and Hispanics may have their competence questioned, the same does not seem to be true of Asians as a group (The Economist, 1989). Asians on the whole are not only more readily seen as entering the workforce as competent individuals but are also perceived as being already highly acculturated to the majority culture workplace. Therefore, even though these individuals may, in fact, have entered the organization or been promoted under the affirmative action umbrella, it does not seem to carry the strong pejorative connotation that it does for other minority groups. Not surprisingly, blacks and Hispanics who have gotten the message that their competence is questioned may develop an attitude of resentment or outright hostility. Unfortunately, this attitude may both serve as a further spur to conflict and as further reinforcement of negative stereotypes.
Specific Minority Groups The last area that can have an impact on preconceived notions is the specific stereotypes that an individual may have of specific minority groups. It is important to note that these specific stereotypes will, in part, reflect the degree to which the opinion holder has specific knowledge of, or is familiar with, the culture in question. For example, like blacks, Hispanics suffer from the generalized stereotype of dark-skinned people as performers of manual labor. Unfortunately, even for Hispanics who break into the managerial and professional ranks, the stereotype of the dark-skinned menial is still applied (Chase, 1982). In summary, as Figure 1 suggests, individuals’ preconceived notions are in part a function of specific stereotypes that are held about specific minority groups, perspectives on affirmative action as applied to that group, and the level of general knowledge individuals may have of other cultures. These three factors combine to influence preconceived notions that, in turn, shape subsequent attitudes and beliefs. It is these attitudes and beliefs that are brought into the social interaction that is the point where conflict is likely to occur, THE
INTERACTIVE
ARENA
The focus of the interactive arena is on the nature and quality of the interaction that occurs between two individuals. It is important to note that in the model being proposed, the attention is not on the examination
444
H. Waters, .JI:
of substantive issues (e.g., organizational resource inadequacies) that may themselves be the source of conflict. These issues are appropriately addressed in more traditional models of conflict. Rather, the focus here is on the dynamics that occur when individuals from different races interact in face-to-face situations. Hence, the outcome of the interaction between the two parties is in part a function of the interactive style the two parties bring to the exchange. Although it is recognized that the possible positive outcomes of conflict would include opportunities for personal growth, intellectual challenge, excitement, and stimulation (Stulberg, 1987), it is more likely that the outcome of conflict in this instance will be negative. consequently, it is argued that the greater the congruence of style between the two parties, the greater is the likelihood that conflict will not be an outcome of the interaction. This is true because, in general, individuals tend to anticipate less conflict and more rewarding interactions with those who are perceived as being similar (Berscheid & Walster, 1978; Wilder & Allen, 1974). Relatedly, individuals with similar interactive styles provide each other with unstated consensual validation of many beliefs and behaviors. And, last, and not surprisingly, there is less anxiety between individuals who perceive themselves as being similar.
Interacfive Style Efemen fs Although interactive styles may differ on a number of important dimensions, I’ve elected to focus on three elements that can have an impact on the quality of interactions. These three elements are conversational norms, degree of eye contact during interaction, and speaking style. These elements have been selected both because they tend to be reflective of individual culture and because they are a potential source of cultural miscues that can lead to conflict. Because most of the literature on race in the United States is focused on black and white interactions, this section will focus on individuals in these two groups as they interact.
The typical white employer (and employee for that matter) has little understanding of black culture present in most urban U.S. locales. One area in which cultural difference may manifest itself is in the area of conversational norms (Kochman, 1981). That is, the way one shows attention to another in a conversational setting is different for whites and blacks (and, indeed, for other races) (Hall, 1976). For whites, paying attention in a conversational episode usually involves several different but distinct behaviors. Typically, white listeners will demonstrate attention by looking at the speaker, nodding occasionally (which is generally a sign of agreement), and making little noises that indicate they are paying atten-
Race, Culture, and rnte~per~onaI Conflict
44s
tion. For some urban blacks who are familiar with one another, these typical conversational feedback mechanisms may be completely absent. That is, these individuals don’t particularly feel the need to look at one another while conversing. Second, the use of the conversational nod can indicate something quite different in the black conversation (Asante & Davis, 1985). Among blacks, the nod can also serve as a catalyst for conversation. That is, it is a way of encouraging speakers to continue with their argument or point. It is not at all difficult to imagine the problems that occur when white and black social actors with the two different conversational styles interact. The lack of “standard” conversational feedback may cause white speakers to attempt to illicit some feedback by perhaps asking black counterparts, “Are you listening to me?” or “Do you agree?” In response, black listeners may consider such efforts to be inappropriately intrusive and rude. Conversely, as a response to the “nonstandard” responses of black listeners, white speakers may engage in what is called “hyperexplanation” (Erickson, 1976). Hyperexplanation is the tendency to repeat oneself while explaining. Hyperexplanation tends to take one of two forms: (1) talking down to the listener repeatedly (e.g., lowering the level of conversational abstraction in successive clauses that repeat the same point being explained); and (2) giving reasons repeatedly, with each successive reason justifying the original point. Erickson notes “that a white speaker may persist at a speaking point more with black listeners than with white listeners simply because the white speaker thinks black listeners are likely to be less bright” (1976). However, white speakers may not be operating from the perspective that black listeners are less bright, but may be engaging in hyperexplanation as a way to ensure that black listeners (in the absence of “standard” conversational feedback) have understood what is being said. However, black listeners may interpret white hyperexplanation as an intended insult and will perhaps, in turn, react in a negative or hostile fashion. In turn, this negative or hostile reaction will serve to reinforce any pejorative stereotypes that white participants may already have and ultimately will manifest itself in increased levels of anxiety. It is important to note that for many middle-class, acculturated blacks, these “nonstandard” conversational response mechanisms may not present a problem, given that they have deveioped a “conversational script” for different types of social interactions. Therefore, a social episode with a white may see the acculturated black using conversational norms considered “standard” by his or her white counterpart. Conversely, with other blacks, he or she may elect to use conversational norms considered “standard” in the black community. The point here is not so much that black and white social actors will necessarily use differing definitions
446
H. Waters, Jr
of standard conversational norms, but rather to the extent there is incongruity in terms of what is considered standard, there will be conflict.
Eye Contact A second element of interactive communication styles that is both reflective of culture and a potential source of conflict is the degree of eye contact a social actor may maintain in a conversational episode. Research in intercultural communications suggests that blacks (and especially black males) are reluctant to look another person directly in the eye (Hall, 1976). This is particularly true if the other social actor is in a position of authority. As has been noted (Johnson, 1971), avoiding eye contact with a person of higher status or authority is a sign of respect in certain segments of African-American culture. However, among majority culture members, it is considered desirable to maintain frequent eye contact when engaged in a face-to-face conversation (Asante & Davis, 1985). The issue of eye contact is important because it is seen to be intimately related to a person’s levef of trustworthiness, masculinity, sincerity, and directness. That is, from the perspective of whites, individuals who do not maintain eye contact in a social episode are people whose trustworthiness and sincerity (if not masculinity!) are suspect. It is not difficult to imagine how conflict can emerge in a situation where black and white social actors interact with these differing conversational norms. If an individual with the majority cultural perspective were to become conversationally involved with a black person who avoided eye contact, the white individual would probably: (1) attempt to illicit from the black person behaviors consistent with the majority culture orientation (e.g., perhaps, again, by asking “Are you listening to me?” or physically repositioning to increase the possibility of eye contact); (2) conclude that the black person was uninterested, being dishonest, or dissembling; (3) conclude that the black person was engaging in rude behavior on purpose; or (4) some combination of the above. None of these options are likely to lead to high-quality communication. From a conflict perspective, all of the options are likely to lead to interracial conflict. This point becomes even more apparent when one considers the likely response of the black person to the efforts of the white individual to force or encourage majority culture conversational behaviors. Not surprisingly, blacks may consider such efforts to be both rude and highly intrusive. The eventual outcome of a social episode where there are manifest cultural miscues are decreased levels of communication, a high probability of interpersonal conflict, and a heightened sense of tension and anxiety accompanying any future social episodes. The issue of differing eye-contact norms has implications beyond con-
Race, Culture, and ~n~erpersonaI Conflict
447
versational episodes for blacks and whites. Differing rules of eye contact also exist outside the United States and tend to be reflective of distinct cultures behaviors (Adler, Doktor, & Redding, 1986). This is especially true of many Asian cultures (Saner-Yiu & Saner-Yiu, 1985) and particularly true of the Japanese culture. Given the tremendous influx of Asian immigrants to the United States, which is estimated to have increased by 127% from 1980 to 1990 in California alone (New York Times, 1991), the potential for cultural misunderstanding and, hence, conflict in social episodes where whites (and others) are interacting with those of Asian descent is significant. As with conversational styies, the extent to which interracial conflict may emerge as a function of differing eye contact norms is the extent to which there is congruence between the social actors on what constitutes “appropriate” behavior.
Speaking Style The last element of interactive style is that of speaking style. As with conversational norms and eye contact, speaking style is seen to be both culturally reflective and a source of cultural miscues leading to potential conflicts. The issue here is that normally regulated speech styles strongly affect observers’ assumptions about the background and values of the speaker (McKirnan, Smith, & Hamayan, 1983). In part, this notion of speaking style is related to the belief-similarity paradigm indicating the importance of language to intergroup behavior (Giles & Powseland, 1975). Language is seen to exert its influence by being normatively regulated (McKirnan & Hamayan, 1980). That is, the extent to which one’s language is seen as conforming to the “norm” dictates the extent to which one is seen as being an in-group or out-group member. This is because language and language similarity are used as markers of social group membership. In a study of speech styles, McKirnan, Smith, and Hamayan (1983) focused on dialects (in this case Black English Vernacular [BEV] and Standard English [SE]). Shuy (1969) showed there to be relatively clear norms for black and white dialects, with BEV seen as less a deviant form of SE but rather as a highly rule-governed speech style shared by the members of a distinct social group. The choice of BEV versus SE can be seen as a reflection of one’s value commitment and may powerfully affect others’ attitudes. Perceived similarity in speech style is seen as an indicator of social group membership and reflective of cultural values and beliefs. Clearly, in terms of belief similarity, we tend to like others who share our vaIues and attitudes and to dislike those with dissimilar values and attitudes. Further, interracial conflict may, in part, be induced by each person’s assumption that the other holds dissimilar values or beliefs.
448
H. Waters, Jr.
Speech styles induce assumptions about the attitude and value structure of others. The connection between speech style and conflict is subtle and indirect. If a white person using SE should engage in a conversation with a black individual with a strong BEV style (perhaps complete with a substantial amount of unique urban jargon), the outcome would more than likely be both lowered levels of effective communication and a high potential for conflict. Conflict may occur, because both individuals would more than likely be aware of the linguistic dissimilarity, and each would be unable to avoid communicating their uncomfortableness with the other. Conflict would occur as each reacts to the heightened sense of uncomfortableness.
DISCUSSION For the student and the management practitioner alike, this proposed model offers valuable perspectives. First and foremost is the rather obvious fact that interracial-interpersonal conflict can have many distinct causes. This has several implications. For the manager who wishes to reduce the possibility that conflict of this nature will occur, there should be a realization that there is no one single source of racial conflict. Therefore, any program to combat this organizational problem will have to reflect its multidimensional nature. Second, although organizations may set in place organization-specific policies and mechanisms designed to reduce interracial conflict, the success of such actions may be limited. As the model points out, many of the potential sources of cultural miscues are individually based. And, to complicate the matter even further, different sources of interracial conflict may come into play as a function of different cultural groups. For example, white individuals may experience problems with black coworkers as a function of whites’ negative views of affirmative action (as it refers to blacks in general) as well as misreading certain cultural behaviors (e.g., eye contact avoidance). Conversely, whites may also experience misunderstandings with Asian coworkers, but the affirmative action element may not be a contributory factor, and similar cultural behaviors may be interpreted in an entirely different fashion (e.g., eye contact avoidance may be interpreted as a reflection of modesty or humility). In essence, different conflict sources may emerge purely as a function of different social actors. A second, very valuable feature of this model is the implied assumption that the outcome of conflict may be unintended. Although it is acknowledged that organizations may experience interracial conflict as a result of blatant behaviors such as slurs and name calling, such behaviors tend not to be the norm. Racial conflict is more frequently the result of less obvious, less overt, and, in many cases, very subtle behaviors on the part of the social actors. For example, the use of the nod by blacks as a
Race, Culture, and Interpersonal Conflict
449
conversational catalyst mechanism rather than as an indicator of agreement or the eye contact avoidance tendencies are very subtle behaviors that can easily be misinterpreted and can contribute to misunderstandings. In a related fashion, this model underscores the fact that certain aspects of interracial-interpersonal friction may be unintentional. That is, although overt discriminatory behavior may be an important source of conflict, the previous model suggests that such behaviors might not be the only cause. As indicated conflict can result from innocent behaviors that are misinterpreted by others. For the manager or coworker who engages in hyperexplanation, the behavior may be a sincere effort to ensure that the listener has a good understanding of what has been said or what must be done. Yet, this behavior may be misinterpreted to be a subtle (or overt) insult. In terms of conflict resolution strategies, the notion that some behaviors may be misinterpreted suggests that education on the cultural implications of certain behaviors could be of value. Specifically, alerting organizational members to the cultural behaviors of themselves and others and anticipating their occurrence in certain situations could prove beneficial. Finally, the model also suggests that interracial conflict is a dynamic process. That is, different elements of the model tend to interact with and reinforce other elements. For example, use of BVE may be considered by some to be an organizationally inappropriate behavior. This, in turn, may serve to reinforce stereotypical beliefs that members of a particular minority group in general are not qualified to be hired and/or promoted. Further, given this scenario, pejorative notions about the appropriateness of affirmative action programs may also be reinforced. Clearly, this model suggests that interracial-interpersonal conflict is not static. Any longterm effective conflict resolution strategies must take into account this dynamic quality.
CONCLUSION As Figure I suggests, there are many possible contributory sources of actual or perceived interracial conflict. In some cases actual behaviors on the part of one or both social actors may be the catalyst for conflict. In other cases it is the transmission of attitudes and beliefs that are incongruent with the beliefs and attitudes of other social actors that may serve as the initiating conflict agent. However, it is important to note the problematic nature of the notion of interracial conflict, which, in no small measure, adds to the difficulty of finding adequate solutions to resolve the conflict. For example, there can be an almost infinite combination of the sources that can ultimately manifest themselves in conflict. The purpose of this article was to draw on relevant literature from the fields of sociology, anthropology, linguistics, and psychology, to help
450
H. Waters, Jr.
organizational members understand what are the potential sources of interracial conflict. This proposed model is not all-inclusive and was not intended to be. In order to have a more powerful, precise, and useful model of interracial conflict, elements of organizational systems (such as structure, culture, power) as well as elements reflecting differential groups status (such as number of different racial groups or nature of intergroup interaction) would also have to be included in a model. The aim of the current model is to give the management student and practitioner alike clues about the possible origins of and nature of interracial conflict problems. Although the model is not all-inclusive, it is an effort to bridge the current gap that exists in the organizational behavior literature about the nature of race and conflict in the organizational setting. Given the reluctance of our society to engage in fruitful problem-solving discussions of issues of race and ethnicity, the increasing diversity of the U.S. workplace, and the expected continued negative impact racial conflict will have on organizations, it seems critical that serious attention be focused in this arena.
REFERENCES ADLER, N. J., DOKTOR, R., & REDDING, S. G. (1986). From the Atlantic to the Pacific century: Cross-cultural management reviewed. Journal of Management, 12,295-318. ARVEY, R. D. (1979). Unfair discrimination in the employment interview: Legal and psychological aspects. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 736-765. ASANTE, M., & DAVIS, A. (1985). Black and white communication: Analyzing work place encounters. Journal of Black Studies, 16, 77-93. BARON, R. A., & GREENBERG, J. (1990). Behavior in Organizations: Understanding and Managing the Human Side of Work, 3rd ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. BARTOL, K. M., EVANS, C. L., & STITH, M. T. (1978). Black versus white leaders: A comparative review of the literature. Academy of Management Review, 3, 293-304. BERSCHEIV, E. S., & WALSTER, E. H. (1978). Interpersonal Attraction (2nd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. BIELBY, W. T. (1987). Modern prejudice and institutional barriers to equal employment opportunity for minorities. Journal of Social Issues, 43, 79-84. CARROLL, S. J., & SCHNEIER, C. E. (1982). Performance appraisal and review systems: The identification, measurement, and development of performance in organizations. Glenview, IL: Scott-Foresman. CHASE, M. (1982). Mired minority: Latins rise in numbers in U.S. but don’t win influence or affluence. Wall Street Journal, June 9. COOK, S. W. (1987). Behavior change implications of low involvement in an issue. Journal of Social Issues, 43, 105-l 12.
Race, Culture, and Interpersonal Confhct
4.51
COX, T., & NKOMO, S. M. (1986). Differential performance appraisal criteria: A field study of black and white managers. Group and Organization Studies, 11, 101-119. DAFT, R. L. (1988). Management. San Francisco: The Dryden Press. THE ECONOMIST. America’s Asians: The glass ceiling. June 3, 23-26. ERICKSON, F. (1976). Talking down and giving reasons: Hyperexplanation and listening behavior in interracial interviews. International Conference on Nonverbal Behavior, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, Toronto, Canada, May 11. EVANS, R., & NOVAK, R. (1988). No affirmative action. The ~shington Post. June 3, PA19. GAERTNER, S. L., & MCLAUGHLIN, J. P. (1983). Racial stereotypes: Associations and ascriptions of positive and negative characteristics. Social Psychofogy Quarterly, 46, 23-30. GARCIA, L. T., ERSKINE, N., HAWN, K., & CASMAY, S. R. (1981). The effect of affirmative action on attribution about minority group members. Journal of Personality, 49,427-437. GIBSON, J. L., IVANCEVICH, J. M., & DONNELLY, JR., J. H. (1991). Organizations: behavior, structure, andprocesses (7th ed.). Homewood, IL: Irwin. GILES, H., & POWSELAND, P. F. (197.5). Speech style and social evaluation. New York/London: Academic Press. GLAZER, N. (1988). The affirmative action stalemate. Public Interest, 90, 99-l 14. GREENHAUS, J. H., PARASURAMAN, S., & WORMLEY, W. M. (1990). Effects of race on organizational experiences, job performance evaluations, and career outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 33,64-86. HALL, E. (1976). How cultures collide. Psychology Today, 10(2), 66-74. HIGGINS, J. M. (1991). The management challenge. New York: MacMillan. HOLT, D. H. (1990). Management:principles andpractices (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. ILGEN, D. R., & YOUTZ, M. A. (1986). Factors affecting the evaluation and development of minorities in organizations. In K. Rowland and G. Ferris (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources management: A research annual (pp. 307-337). Greenwich, CT JAI Press. JOHNSON, D. (1971). Black kinesics: Some non-verbal communication patterns in black culture. FLorida FL Reporter, 9, 1-2. JONES, E., Jr. (1986). Black managers: The dream deferred. Harvard Business Review, May-June, 84-93. KAMEN, A. (1989). Bias suites by whites bolstered; split court eases way for challenges to affirmative action. The Washington Post, June 13, pA1. KATZ, I., & PROSHANSKY, H. M. Rethinking affirmative action. Journal of Social Issues, 43,99-104. KENWORTHY, T., & EDSALL, T. B. (1991). Whites see jobs on line in debate; some Chicagoans fear reverse discrimination. The Washington Post, June 4, pA1. KLUEGEL, J. R. (1985). If there isn’t a problem, you don’t need a solution: The bases of contemporary af~rmative action attitudes. American Behavjora~ Scientist, 28, 761-784.
452
H. Waters, Jr.
KLUEGEL, J. R., 8~ SMITH, E. R. (1986). Beliefs about inequality: Americans’ views of what is and what ought to be. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. KLUEGEL, J. R., & SMITH, E. R. (1983). Affirmative action attitudes: Effects of self-interest, racial affect, and stratification beliefs on whites’ views. Social Forces, 61, 797-824. KOCHMAN, T. (1981). Black and white styles in conflict. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. KRAIGER, K., & FORD, J. K. (1985). A meta-analysis of ratee race effects in performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 56-65. LEINSTER, C. (1988). Black executives: How they’re doing. Fortune Magazine, Jan. 18, 109-120. McKIRNAN, D. J., & HAMAYAN, E. V. (1980). Language norms and perceptions of Ethno-linguistic diversity. In H. Giles (Ed.), Language: Socialpsychologicalperspectives (pp. 161-169). New York: Pergamon. McKIRNAN, D. J., SMITH, C. E., & HAMAYAN, E. V. (1983). A sociolinguistic approach to the belief-similarity model of racial attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 434-447. MOBLEY, W. H. (1982). Supervisor and employee race and sex effects on performance appraisal: A field study of adverse impact and generalizability. Academy of Management Journal, 25, 598-606. MONDY, R. W., SHARPLIN, A., & PREMEAUX, S. R. (1991). Management: concepts, practices, and skills (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. MORAN, R. T. (1986). Who makes the rules in cross-cultural conflicts? Znternational Management (European Edition), 4, 39. MORAN, R. T. (1988). A formula for success in multicultural organizations. International Management, 44, 74. MORAN, R. T. (1989). A formula for success in multicultural organizations. International Management, 43, 74. NEWSWEEK (1988). Black and white in America. March 7, 18-23. NEW YORK TIMES (1991). California shows Hispanic increase. February 26, A14. NIXON, R. (1985a). Perceptions of job power among black managers in corporate America. Washington, DC: National Urban League. NIXON, R. (1985b). Black managers in corporate America: Alienation or integration? Washington, DC: National Urban League Research Department. OLIAN, J. D., SCHWAB, D. S., & HABERFELD, I. (1985). Gender effects on hiring decisions: A meta-analysis. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Academy of Management, Boston, MA. PETTIGREW, T. F., & MARTIN, J. (1987). Shaping the organizational context for black American inclusion. Journal of Social Issues, 43, 41-78. POMER, M. I. (1986). Labor market structure, intragenerational mobility, and discrimination: Black male advancement out of low-paying occupations, 19621973. American Sociological Review, 51, 650-659. POSKOCIL, A. (1977). Encounters between black and white liberals: The collision of stereotypes. Social Forces, 55, 715-727. RAHIM, M. A. (1986). Managing conflict in organizations. New York: Praeger Special Studies.
Race, Culture, and Interpersonal Conflict
453
ROBBINS, S. P. (1989). Organizational behavior: Concepts, controversies, and applications (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. ROBERTS, K. H., & HUNT, D. M. (1991). Organizational behavior. Boston: PWS-Kent Publishing Company. SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS (1989). Black executives are blazing trail to the top. February 26, p. 2. SANER-YIU, L., & SANER-YIU, R. (1985). Value dimensions in American counseling: A Taiwanese-American comparison. International JournaI for the Advancement of Counselling, 8, 137-146. SHERMAN, M. F., SMITH, R. J., & SHERMAN, N. C. (1983). Racial and gender differences in perceptions of fairness: When race is involved in job promotion. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 57, 719-728. SHUY, R. W. (1969). Subjective judgments in sociolinguistic analysis. In J. E. Alatis (Ed.), Monograph series on language and linguistics 20th annual round table. Washington, DC: Georgetown Press, 1755188. SMITH, A. W. (1987). Racial trends and countertrends in American organizational behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 43, 91-94. STULBERG, J. B. (1987). Taking charge/managing conflict. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. THOMAS, M. E., & HUGHES, M. (1986). The continuing significance of race: A study of race, class, and quality of life in America, 1972-1985. American Sociological Review, 51, 830-841. THOMPSON, D. E., & THOMPSON, T. A. (1985). Task-based performance appraisal for the blue-collar jobs: Evaluation of race and sex effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70,747-753. TOSI, H. L., & EINBENDER, S. W. (1985). The effects of the type and amount of information in sex discrimination research: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 28,7 12-723. THE TRIBUNE. (1989). Racism seen as barrier to promotion. March 20, p. B-l. THE TRIBUNE. (1991). Survey: How whites view minorities. January 9, p. A-10. VAID, R., & VISHIST, K. (1983). Statistical analysis of multiracial group characteristics and interracial conflict. Psychological Reports, 52, 39-42. VAN FLEET, D. D. (1991). Contemporary management (2nd ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin. VIVANO, E (1988). Conflict over the “New Bay Area.” San Francisco Chronicle, December 6, 1 and 4a. WALL STREET JOURNAL (1989a). On firm’s bid to keep blacks, women. February 16, p. B-l. WALL STREET JOURNAL. (1989b). Holding firm on affirmative action. March 13, 87-88. WATERS, H. (1989). Making the organizational behavior course relevant to black students. The OrganizationaI Behavior Teaching Review, XIII, 38-44. WATERS, H. (1991). Business education: meeting the needs of the AfricanAmerican student. Journal of Business Education, 66, 232-234. WERMIEL, S. (1989). Workers hurt by affirmative action may sue; Justices
454
H. Waters. Jr.
ruling open plans, approved by the courts, to a new string of suits. The Wall Street Journal, June 13, pA3. WILDER, D. A., & ALLEN, V. (1974). Effects of social categorization and belief similarity upon intergroup behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 281-283. YU, W. (1985). Asian Americans charge prejudice slows climb to management ranks. The Wall Street Journal, September 11, p. 35.
TRAINING
Copyright
0147-1767192rss.00 + .oo 0 1592 Pcrgamon Press Ltd.
SECTION
RACE, CULTURE AND INTERPERSONAL
HARRY Calijknia
WATERS,
CONFLICT
JR.
State University at Hayward
ABSTRACT The argument is presented that the traditional management course does little to heIp the business student or practitioner deal with race-based interpersonal conflicts in the workplace. Spectficall~ current management textbooks tend to avoid the topic of race and its organizational implications. The case is made that it is imperative for managers and organizations to begin the difficult task of understanding the impact of race on interpersonai conflict. To assist in this task a process model is introduced. Antecedent conditions that can contribute to race-related interpersonal confhct are identified as we/I as specific behaviors of social actors. FinalIy, elements of the model are discussed in terms of their ability to heIp organizations deaf with race-basedprobiems.
Recently I was approached by a white student who wanted to share a troubling experience he had had with a black colleague at work. During our conversation it became evident that a simple misunderstanding based on different perceptions of the same situation had flared briefly into interpersonal conflict. What the student found most troubling was not so much the existence of the interpersonal conflict itself, but rather that the conflict had subtle racial overtones that served to confound the situation. Further, he was taken aback by how uncomfortable he felt about being involved in this kind of situation. I concluded that his discomfort was in part a function of his not understanding what might have been underlying personal and situational factors that would let race be a consideration. Further, he was not sure that his handling of the conflict, given the race component, was appropriate. When I placed this student’s experience into the context of experiences of other students (both majority and minority) it became evident that interracial-interpersonal conflict within organizational settings is freReprint requests should be sent to Dr. Harry Waters, Jr., School of Business and Economics, Department of Management and Finance, California State University at Hayward, Hayward, CA 94542-9988.
437
quently not well understood and presents all sides with very real difficul ties. For example, from the minority perspective, issues of conflict present several unique problems. The first, of course, is being able to determine when conflict between members of different races is actually a function of race rather than some &her variable (e.g., a genuine personality difference). In a similar vein, when conflict does exist and when it takes on racial overtones, does it truly reflect a racial bias, or is it merely indicative of naivete, miscommunication, or misperceptions on the part of one or both disputants (Poskocil, 1977)? It is with these and other related questions that I began to reexamine the conflict component of the general management course I teach. My reexamination began with an inspection of the conflict chapter of the assigned management textbook (Daft, 1988) as well as other current management and organizational behavior textbooks on the market (Baron & Greenberg, 1990; Gibson, Ivancevich, & Donnelly, 1991; Higgins, 1991; Holt, 1990; Mondy, Sharplin, & Premeaux, 1991; Robbins, 1989; Roberts & Hunt, 1991; Van Fleet, 1991). Not surprisingly, none of these books adequately addresses the issue of conflict and race. As a matter of fact, few of the texts even mention race as a significant variable in any context (i.e., Ieadership, motivation, communication) (Waters, 1989). These textbooks provide little guidance to practitioners on how to think about and resolve interracial-int~rpersonai conflicts.
RACE AS AN ORGANIZATIONAL
ISSUE
It should come as little surprise that race is not adequately addressed by most management textbooks. Although there are some efforts ta address race-based issues, the shortage of research into this realm stands in marked contrast to other traditional management topics. In part, the unwiili~gness or inability to address this subject reflects the wider societal ambivalence about race. That is, few topics can evoke such strong feelings of discomfort. Our discomfort arises because such discussions touch sensitive nerves and force painful evaluations of cherished beliefs. Nevertheless, these issues must be addressed for several different reasons. The first and most compelling reason for addressing issues of race and conflict is the changing nature of the demographics of the U.S. workplace (N&v York Times, 1991). As more and more people of color enter the workforce (at both entry- and management-level positions) the potential for inmrracial-interpersonal conflict will rise correspondingly. It is axiomatic that a racially and culturally diverse workforce will experience conflict, if for no other reason, simply as a function of the diversity itself. The second reason for addressing race is the widespread perception among many that race does indeed impact organizational experiences (Thomas & Hughes, 1986). Creenhaus, Parasuraman, and Wormley
Race, Culture, and Interpersonal Conflict
439
(1990) refers to this as “treatment discrimination” and note that it centers on distinctive organizational subgroups who receive fewer rewards, resources, or opportunities. Treatment discrimination includes discrimination in such tangible areas as position assignment, training opportunities, salary increases, promotions, terminations, and layoffs, and such less tangible areas as acceptance into a work group or the availability of career enhancing and social support from supervisors (Ilgen & Youtz, 1986). Therefore, it is not at all unusual to read in popular and academic literature of minority employees who believe that race adversely impacted them in terms of opportunities for advancement, performance evaluations, and so forth (Jones, 1986; Leinster, 1988; Newsweek, 1988; Nixon, 1985a, 1985b; Pettigrew & Martin, 1987; Pomer, 1986; San Jose Mercury News, 1989; Tribune, 1989; Vaid & Vishist, 1983; Wall Street Journal, 1989a; Yw, 1985). Second, research in such areas as selection, performance appraisal, and supervisory relations reveals some bias against nontraditional groups (Arvey, 1979; Bartol, Evans, & Stith, 1978; Carroll & Schneier, 1982; Cox & Nkomo, 1986; Kraiger & Ford, 1985; Mobley, 1982; Olian, Schwab, & Haberfeld, 1985; Thompson & Thompson, 1985; Tosi & Einbender, 1985). Third, nonminorities may also see race as having an adverse impact on them but from a sharply different perspective. That is, they may see that minority advancement and opportunities are coming at their expense) (Glazer, 1988; Kluegel & Smith, 1983; Sherman, Smith, & Sherman, 1983). Not surprisingly, when the minority and majority perspectives meet in the workplace, conflict is often the result (Bielby, 1987; Cook, 1987). The topic of interracial-interpersonal conflict is also important from an organizational perspective. Whether real or perceived, the organizational ramifications of race conflict can be very pronounced ( WaN Street Journal, 1989b). This is particularly true in organizations that strive to instill a sense of teamwork and cooperation among their employees (Moran, 1988). Race-based conflicts undermine organizational unity, sap energy and motivation, create tensions, and, if not handled properly, lead to further feelings of hostility and resentment. Obviously, within such an environment, the task of achieving organizational goals becomes increasingly difficult (Moran, 1989).
Interpersonal/Interracial
Conflict
A general discussion of the topic of conflict in most management texts usually includes five elements: 1. A general definition of conflict. 2. A delineation of the level of conflict (e.g., intrapersonal, sonal, group level).
interper-
440
H. Waters, Jr
3. The various viewpoints on conflict (e.g., traditional, tions, and interactionalist). 4. A general conflict model. 5. A listing of conflict-handling behaviors.
human rela-
Of special concern to this article are the various conflict models that are presented in management textbooks. Although many of these models are appropriate for a general understanding of conflict, they are often inappropriate for understanding race-based conflict (Moran, 1986; Rahim, 1986). This inappropriateness is a function of the lack of specificity regarding relevant antecedent conditions that can contribute to racebased conflict. In an effort to provide students and practitioners alike with information that may help them identify and address underlying factors contributing to race-based conflict, the following proposed conflict process model is offered (Figure 1). This model attempts to integrate relevant literature into a form that will provide clues as to when and why race conflict occurs. The proposed model contains two broad categories. The first focuses on factors that shape the attitudes that an individual may have about (1) minorities and (2) race issues in general. The second category focuses on the interaction setting where conflict may occur. This category has as its specific focus the types of behaviors on the part of each party that can lead to misunderstandings and, hence, to conflict.
Attitudes and Beliefs The proposed model puts forth that the racial attitudes and beliefs that individuals bring to the workplace are in part a function of preconceived notions that they may have about minorities in general and about racerelated matters overall. These beliefs and attitudes are themselves a function of three factors: I. Level of general knowledge (cultural familiarity) about other cultures. 2. Perspectives on the issue of affirmative action. 3. Notions about a particular minority group.
Cultural Familiarity Often when two individuals of different races interact, each brings to the encounter differing levels of familiarity about the culture of the other (Caertner & McLaughlin, 1983). For example, in black/white encounters, it is frequently the case that whites have not had substantial previous contact with blacks (although blacks, as a minority, are more likely to
______.z__________.
442
H. Waters, Jr:
have had direct contact with whites or extensive indirect contact through the media). Hence, the preconceived notions held by the white individual may be based on something other than firsthand experience. In the absence of familiarity with other cultures, whites may be surprised when interracial encounters reveal different patterns of expression, modes of behavior, and different value sets. Further, this lack of general knowledge may reflect itself in several different ways. First, it may encourage individuals to develop an egocentric view of the world. That is, with little or no contact with other or different cultural groups, individuals may develop the idea that the way they interact with others is the “normal” or “correct” way. Of course, this will present problems in subsequent interactions with individuals who do not fit this particular mold. However, this lack of familiarity may have other implications besides shaping preconceived notions. First, those who are not knowledgeable about individuals of a different culture may tend to hold generalized stereotypical notions about individuals of that race (The Tribune, 1991). So, for example, whites who have little contact with blacks may perceive them, as a group, to be overaggressive, hostile, and lazy. Of course, this perspective may also be true of how some minorities perceive other minorities. For example, recent confrontations between blacks and Asians suggest that stereotypical notions about each group abound and contribute to increased levels of misunderstanding and conflict (Vivano, 1988). A second manifestation of the lack of familiarity may be a heightened sense of anxiety. That is, although for example, white individuals may have little prior firsthand contact with individuals of another culture (and may not hold any negative stereotypes), they may still be aware that in some vague way these other individuals are “different.” It is this perception of difference rather than having specifics about the nature of these differences that may create a heightened sense of anxiety (Smith, 1987). And, as indicated in Figure 1, this heightened level of anxiety may manifest itself in the interaction arena.
Affirmative Action A second area that may contribute to preconceived notions revolves around the issue of affirmative action (Pettigrew & Martin, 1987). Currently there is widespread disagreement on exactly what affirmative action is and what it is designed to do (Katz & Proshansky, 1987; Kluegel & Smith, 1986). Nevertheless, there seems to be growing hostility among the majority culture to the whole notion of affirmative action (Evans & Novak, 1988; Kamen, 1989; Kenworthy & Edsall, 1991; Kluegel, 1985; Wermiel, 1989). It is unfortunate for minority organizational members who may have been hired under the aegis of affirmative action that they are often viewed with suspicion by their organizational peers (Waters,
Race, Culture, and Interpersonal Conflict
443
1991). The suspicion regarding qualifications is of particular significance. If the perception is that a person was hired or promoted based on a different set of criteria than was applied to others, interactions become altered (i.e., suggestions may be ignored) (Garcia, Erskine, Hawn, & Casmay, 1981). Yet, it should be noted that the affirmative action stigma may not be applicable to all minority groups alike. For example, although blacks and Hispanics may have their competence questioned, the same does not seem to be true of Asians as a group (The Economist, 1989). Asians on the whole are not only more readily seen as entering the workforce as competent individuals but are also perceived as being already highly acculturated to the majority culture workplace. Therefore, even though these individuals may, in fact, have entered the organization or been promoted under the affirmative action umbrella, it does not seem to carry the strong pejorative connotation that it does for other minority groups. Not surprisingly, blacks and Hispanics who have gotten the message that their competence is questioned may develop an attitude of resentment or outright hostility. Unfortunately, this attitude may both serve as a further spur to conflict and as further reinforcement of negative stereotypes.
Specific Minority Groups The last area that can have an impact on preconceived notions is the specific stereotypes that an individual may have of specific minority groups. It is important to note that these specific stereotypes will, in part, reflect the degree to which the opinion holder has specific knowledge of, or is familiar with, the culture in question. For example, like blacks, Hispanics suffer from the generalized stereotype of dark-skinned people as performers of manual labor. Unfortunately, even for Hispanics who break into the managerial and professional ranks, the stereotype of the dark-skinned menial is still applied (Chase, 1982). In summary, as Figure 1 suggests, individuals’ preconceived notions are in part a function of specific stereotypes that are held about specific minority groups, perspectives on affirmative action as applied to that group, and the level of general knowledge individuals may have of other cultures. These three factors combine to influence preconceived notions that, in turn, shape subsequent attitudes and beliefs. It is these attitudes and beliefs that are brought into the social interaction that is the point where conflict is likely to occur, THE
INTERACTIVE
ARENA
The focus of the interactive arena is on the nature and quality of the interaction that occurs between two individuals. It is important to note that in the model being proposed, the attention is not on the examination
444
H. Waters, .JI:
of substantive issues (e.g., organizational resource inadequacies) that may themselves be the source of conflict. These issues are appropriately addressed in more traditional models of conflict. Rather, the focus here is on the dynamics that occur when individuals from different races interact in face-to-face situations. Hence, the outcome of the interaction between the two parties is in part a function of the interactive style the two parties bring to the exchange. Although it is recognized that the possible positive outcomes of conflict would include opportunities for personal growth, intellectual challenge, excitement, and stimulation (Stulberg, 1987), it is more likely that the outcome of conflict in this instance will be negative. consequently, it is argued that the greater the congruence of style between the two parties, the greater is the likelihood that conflict will not be an outcome of the interaction. This is true because, in general, individuals tend to anticipate less conflict and more rewarding interactions with those who are perceived as being similar (Berscheid & Walster, 1978; Wilder & Allen, 1974). Relatedly, individuals with similar interactive styles provide each other with unstated consensual validation of many beliefs and behaviors. And, last, and not surprisingly, there is less anxiety between individuals who perceive themselves as being similar.
Interacfive Style Efemen fs Although interactive styles may differ on a number of important dimensions, I’ve elected to focus on three elements that can have an impact on the quality of interactions. These three elements are conversational norms, degree of eye contact during interaction, and speaking style. These elements have been selected both because they tend to be reflective of individual culture and because they are a potential source of cultural miscues that can lead to conflict. Because most of the literature on race in the United States is focused on black and white interactions, this section will focus on individuals in these two groups as they interact.
The typical white employer (and employee for that matter) has little understanding of black culture present in most urban U.S. locales. One area in which cultural difference may manifest itself is in the area of conversational norms (Kochman, 1981). That is, the way one shows attention to another in a conversational setting is different for whites and blacks (and, indeed, for other races) (Hall, 1976). For whites, paying attention in a conversational episode usually involves several different but distinct behaviors. Typically, white listeners will demonstrate attention by looking at the speaker, nodding occasionally (which is generally a sign of agreement), and making little noises that indicate they are paying atten-
Race, Culture, and rnte~per~onaI Conflict
44s
tion. For some urban blacks who are familiar with one another, these typical conversational feedback mechanisms may be completely absent. That is, these individuals don’t particularly feel the need to look at one another while conversing. Second, the use of the conversational nod can indicate something quite different in the black conversation (Asante & Davis, 1985). Among blacks, the nod can also serve as a catalyst for conversation. That is, it is a way of encouraging speakers to continue with their argument or point. It is not at all difficult to imagine the problems that occur when white and black social actors with the two different conversational styles interact. The lack of “standard” conversational feedback may cause white speakers to attempt to illicit some feedback by perhaps asking black counterparts, “Are you listening to me?” or “Do you agree?” In response, black listeners may consider such efforts to be inappropriately intrusive and rude. Conversely, as a response to the “nonstandard” responses of black listeners, white speakers may engage in what is called “hyperexplanation” (Erickson, 1976). Hyperexplanation is the tendency to repeat oneself while explaining. Hyperexplanation tends to take one of two forms: (1) talking down to the listener repeatedly (e.g., lowering the level of conversational abstraction in successive clauses that repeat the same point being explained); and (2) giving reasons repeatedly, with each successive reason justifying the original point. Erickson notes “that a white speaker may persist at a speaking point more with black listeners than with white listeners simply because the white speaker thinks black listeners are likely to be less bright” (1976). However, white speakers may not be operating from the perspective that black listeners are less bright, but may be engaging in hyperexplanation as a way to ensure that black listeners (in the absence of “standard” conversational feedback) have understood what is being said. However, black listeners may interpret white hyperexplanation as an intended insult and will perhaps, in turn, react in a negative or hostile fashion. In turn, this negative or hostile reaction will serve to reinforce any pejorative stereotypes that white participants may already have and ultimately will manifest itself in increased levels of anxiety. It is important to note that for many middle-class, acculturated blacks, these “nonstandard” conversational response mechanisms may not present a problem, given that they have deveioped a “conversational script” for different types of social interactions. Therefore, a social episode with a white may see the acculturated black using conversational norms considered “standard” by his or her white counterpart. Conversely, with other blacks, he or she may elect to use conversational norms considered “standard” in the black community. The point here is not so much that black and white social actors will necessarily use differing definitions
446
H. Waters, Jr
of standard conversational norms, but rather to the extent there is incongruity in terms of what is considered standard, there will be conflict.
Eye Contact A second element of interactive communication styles that is both reflective of culture and a potential source of conflict is the degree of eye contact a social actor may maintain in a conversational episode. Research in intercultural communications suggests that blacks (and especially black males) are reluctant to look another person directly in the eye (Hall, 1976). This is particularly true if the other social actor is in a position of authority. As has been noted (Johnson, 1971), avoiding eye contact with a person of higher status or authority is a sign of respect in certain segments of African-American culture. However, among majority culture members, it is considered desirable to maintain frequent eye contact when engaged in a face-to-face conversation (Asante & Davis, 1985). The issue of eye contact is important because it is seen to be intimately related to a person’s levef of trustworthiness, masculinity, sincerity, and directness. That is, from the perspective of whites, individuals who do not maintain eye contact in a social episode are people whose trustworthiness and sincerity (if not masculinity!) are suspect. It is not difficult to imagine how conflict can emerge in a situation where black and white social actors interact with these differing conversational norms. If an individual with the majority cultural perspective were to become conversationally involved with a black person who avoided eye contact, the white individual would probably: (1) attempt to illicit from the black person behaviors consistent with the majority culture orientation (e.g., perhaps, again, by asking “Are you listening to me?” or physically repositioning to increase the possibility of eye contact); (2) conclude that the black person was uninterested, being dishonest, or dissembling; (3) conclude that the black person was engaging in rude behavior on purpose; or (4) some combination of the above. None of these options are likely to lead to high-quality communication. From a conflict perspective, all of the options are likely to lead to interracial conflict. This point becomes even more apparent when one considers the likely response of the black person to the efforts of the white individual to force or encourage majority culture conversational behaviors. Not surprisingly, blacks may consider such efforts to be both rude and highly intrusive. The eventual outcome of a social episode where there are manifest cultural miscues are decreased levels of communication, a high probability of interpersonal conflict, and a heightened sense of tension and anxiety accompanying any future social episodes. The issue of differing eye-contact norms has implications beyond con-
Race, Culture, and ~n~erpersonaI Conflict
447
versational episodes for blacks and whites. Differing rules of eye contact also exist outside the United States and tend to be reflective of distinct cultures behaviors (Adler, Doktor, & Redding, 1986). This is especially true of many Asian cultures (Saner-Yiu & Saner-Yiu, 1985) and particularly true of the Japanese culture. Given the tremendous influx of Asian immigrants to the United States, which is estimated to have increased by 127% from 1980 to 1990 in California alone (New York Times, 1991), the potential for cultural misunderstanding and, hence, conflict in social episodes where whites (and others) are interacting with those of Asian descent is significant. As with conversational styies, the extent to which interracial conflict may emerge as a function of differing eye contact norms is the extent to which there is congruence between the social actors on what constitutes “appropriate” behavior.
Speaking Style The last element of interactive style is that of speaking style. As with conversational norms and eye contact, speaking style is seen to be both culturally reflective and a source of cultural miscues leading to potential conflicts. The issue here is that normally regulated speech styles strongly affect observers’ assumptions about the background and values of the speaker (McKirnan, Smith, & Hamayan, 1983). In part, this notion of speaking style is related to the belief-similarity paradigm indicating the importance of language to intergroup behavior (Giles & Powseland, 1975). Language is seen to exert its influence by being normatively regulated (McKirnan & Hamayan, 1980). That is, the extent to which one’s language is seen as conforming to the “norm” dictates the extent to which one is seen as being an in-group or out-group member. This is because language and language similarity are used as markers of social group membership. In a study of speech styles, McKirnan, Smith, and Hamayan (1983) focused on dialects (in this case Black English Vernacular [BEV] and Standard English [SE]). Shuy (1969) showed there to be relatively clear norms for black and white dialects, with BEV seen as less a deviant form of SE but rather as a highly rule-governed speech style shared by the members of a distinct social group. The choice of BEV versus SE can be seen as a reflection of one’s value commitment and may powerfully affect others’ attitudes. Perceived similarity in speech style is seen as an indicator of social group membership and reflective of cultural values and beliefs. Clearly, in terms of belief similarity, we tend to like others who share our vaIues and attitudes and to dislike those with dissimilar values and attitudes. Further, interracial conflict may, in part, be induced by each person’s assumption that the other holds dissimilar values or beliefs.
448
H. Waters, Jr.
Speech styles induce assumptions about the attitude and value structure of others. The connection between speech style and conflict is subtle and indirect. If a white person using SE should engage in a conversation with a black individual with a strong BEV style (perhaps complete with a substantial amount of unique urban jargon), the outcome would more than likely be both lowered levels of effective communication and a high potential for conflict. Conflict may occur, because both individuals would more than likely be aware of the linguistic dissimilarity, and each would be unable to avoid communicating their uncomfortableness with the other. Conflict would occur as each reacts to the heightened sense of uncomfortableness.
DISCUSSION For the student and the management practitioner alike, this proposed model offers valuable perspectives. First and foremost is the rather obvious fact that interracial-interpersonal conflict can have many distinct causes. This has several implications. For the manager who wishes to reduce the possibility that conflict of this nature will occur, there should be a realization that there is no one single source of racial conflict. Therefore, any program to combat this organizational problem will have to reflect its multidimensional nature. Second, although organizations may set in place organization-specific policies and mechanisms designed to reduce interracial conflict, the success of such actions may be limited. As the model points out, many of the potential sources of cultural miscues are individually based. And, to complicate the matter even further, different sources of interracial conflict may come into play as a function of different cultural groups. For example, white individuals may experience problems with black coworkers as a function of whites’ negative views of affirmative action (as it refers to blacks in general) as well as misreading certain cultural behaviors (e.g., eye contact avoidance). Conversely, whites may also experience misunderstandings with Asian coworkers, but the affirmative action element may not be a contributory factor, and similar cultural behaviors may be interpreted in an entirely different fashion (e.g., eye contact avoidance may be interpreted as a reflection of modesty or humility). In essence, different conflict sources may emerge purely as a function of different social actors. A second, very valuable feature of this model is the implied assumption that the outcome of conflict may be unintended. Although it is acknowledged that organizations may experience interracial conflict as a result of blatant behaviors such as slurs and name calling, such behaviors tend not to be the norm. Racial conflict is more frequently the result of less obvious, less overt, and, in many cases, very subtle behaviors on the part of the social actors. For example, the use of the nod by blacks as a
Race, Culture, and Interpersonal Conflict
449
conversational catalyst mechanism rather than as an indicator of agreement or the eye contact avoidance tendencies are very subtle behaviors that can easily be misinterpreted and can contribute to misunderstandings. In a related fashion, this model underscores the fact that certain aspects of interracial-interpersonal friction may be unintentional. That is, although overt discriminatory behavior may be an important source of conflict, the previous model suggests that such behaviors might not be the only cause. As indicated conflict can result from innocent behaviors that are misinterpreted by others. For the manager or coworker who engages in hyperexplanation, the behavior may be a sincere effort to ensure that the listener has a good understanding of what has been said or what must be done. Yet, this behavior may be misinterpreted to be a subtle (or overt) insult. In terms of conflict resolution strategies, the notion that some behaviors may be misinterpreted suggests that education on the cultural implications of certain behaviors could be of value. Specifically, alerting organizational members to the cultural behaviors of themselves and others and anticipating their occurrence in certain situations could prove beneficial. Finally, the model also suggests that interracial conflict is a dynamic process. That is, different elements of the model tend to interact with and reinforce other elements. For example, use of BVE may be considered by some to be an organizationally inappropriate behavior. This, in turn, may serve to reinforce stereotypical beliefs that members of a particular minority group in general are not qualified to be hired and/or promoted. Further, given this scenario, pejorative notions about the appropriateness of affirmative action programs may also be reinforced. Clearly, this model suggests that interracial-interpersonal conflict is not static. Any longterm effective conflict resolution strategies must take into account this dynamic quality.
CONCLUSION As Figure I suggests, there are many possible contributory sources of actual or perceived interracial conflict. In some cases actual behaviors on the part of one or both social actors may be the catalyst for conflict. In other cases it is the transmission of attitudes and beliefs that are incongruent with the beliefs and attitudes of other social actors that may serve as the initiating conflict agent. However, it is important to note the problematic nature of the notion of interracial conflict, which, in no small measure, adds to the difficulty of finding adequate solutions to resolve the conflict. For example, there can be an almost infinite combination of the sources that can ultimately manifest themselves in conflict. The purpose of this article was to draw on relevant literature from the fields of sociology, anthropology, linguistics, and psychology, to help
450
H. Waters, Jr.
organizational members understand what are the potential sources of interracial conflict. This proposed model is not all-inclusive and was not intended to be. In order to have a more powerful, precise, and useful model of interracial conflict, elements of organizational systems (such as structure, culture, power) as well as elements reflecting differential groups status (such as number of different racial groups or nature of intergroup interaction) would also have to be included in a model. The aim of the current model is to give the management student and practitioner alike clues about the possible origins of and nature of interracial conflict problems. Although the model is not all-inclusive, it is an effort to bridge the current gap that exists in the organizational behavior literature about the nature of race and conflict in the organizational setting. Given the reluctance of our society to engage in fruitful problem-solving discussions of issues of race and ethnicity, the increasing diversity of the U.S. workplace, and the expected continued negative impact racial conflict will have on organizations, it seems critical that serious attention be focused in this arena.
REFERENCES ADLER, N. J., DOKTOR, R., & REDDING, S. G. (1986). From the Atlantic to the Pacific century: Cross-cultural management reviewed. Journal of Management, 12,295-318. ARVEY, R. D. (1979). Unfair discrimination in the employment interview: Legal and psychological aspects. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 736-765. ASANTE, M., & DAVIS, A. (1985). Black and white communication: Analyzing work place encounters. Journal of Black Studies, 16, 77-93. BARON, R. A., & GREENBERG, J. (1990). Behavior in Organizations: Understanding and Managing the Human Side of Work, 3rd ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. BARTOL, K. M., EVANS, C. L., & STITH, M. T. (1978). Black versus white leaders: A comparative review of the literature. Academy of Management Review, 3, 293-304. BERSCHEIV, E. S., & WALSTER, E. H. (1978). Interpersonal Attraction (2nd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. BIELBY, W. T. (1987). Modern prejudice and institutional barriers to equal employment opportunity for minorities. Journal of Social Issues, 43, 79-84. CARROLL, S. J., & SCHNEIER, C. E. (1982). Performance appraisal and review systems: The identification, measurement, and development of performance in organizations. Glenview, IL: Scott-Foresman. CHASE, M. (1982). Mired minority: Latins rise in numbers in U.S. but don’t win influence or affluence. Wall Street Journal, June 9. COOK, S. W. (1987). Behavior change implications of low involvement in an issue. Journal of Social Issues, 43, 105-l 12.
Race, Culture, and Interpersonal Confhct
4.51
COX, T., & NKOMO, S. M. (1986). Differential performance appraisal criteria: A field study of black and white managers. Group and Organization Studies, 11, 101-119. DAFT, R. L. (1988). Management. San Francisco: The Dryden Press. THE ECONOMIST. America’s Asians: The glass ceiling. June 3, 23-26. ERICKSON, F. (1976). Talking down and giving reasons: Hyperexplanation and listening behavior in interracial interviews. International Conference on Nonverbal Behavior, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, Toronto, Canada, May 11. EVANS, R., & NOVAK, R. (1988). No affirmative action. The ~shington Post. June 3, PA19. GAERTNER, S. L., & MCLAUGHLIN, J. P. (1983). Racial stereotypes: Associations and ascriptions of positive and negative characteristics. Social Psychofogy Quarterly, 46, 23-30. GARCIA, L. T., ERSKINE, N., HAWN, K., & CASMAY, S. R. (1981). The effect of affirmative action on attribution about minority group members. Journal of Personality, 49,427-437. GIBSON, J. L., IVANCEVICH, J. M., & DONNELLY, JR., J. H. (1991). Organizations: behavior, structure, andprocesses (7th ed.). Homewood, IL: Irwin. GILES, H., & POWSELAND, P. F. (197.5). Speech style and social evaluation. New York/London: Academic Press. GLAZER, N. (1988). The affirmative action stalemate. Public Interest, 90, 99-l 14. GREENHAUS, J. H., PARASURAMAN, S., & WORMLEY, W. M. (1990). Effects of race on organizational experiences, job performance evaluations, and career outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 33,64-86. HALL, E. (1976). How cultures collide. Psychology Today, 10(2), 66-74. HIGGINS, J. M. (1991). The management challenge. New York: MacMillan. HOLT, D. H. (1990). Management:principles andpractices (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. ILGEN, D. R., & YOUTZ, M. A. (1986). Factors affecting the evaluation and development of minorities in organizations. In K. Rowland and G. Ferris (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources management: A research annual (pp. 307-337). Greenwich, CT JAI Press. JOHNSON, D. (1971). Black kinesics: Some non-verbal communication patterns in black culture. FLorida FL Reporter, 9, 1-2. JONES, E., Jr. (1986). Black managers: The dream deferred. Harvard Business Review, May-June, 84-93. KAMEN, A. (1989). Bias suites by whites bolstered; split court eases way for challenges to affirmative action. The Washington Post, June 13, pA1. KATZ, I., & PROSHANSKY, H. M. Rethinking affirmative action. Journal of Social Issues, 43,99-104. KENWORTHY, T., & EDSALL, T. B. (1991). Whites see jobs on line in debate; some Chicagoans fear reverse discrimination. The Washington Post, June 4, pA1. KLUEGEL, J. R. (1985). If there isn’t a problem, you don’t need a solution: The bases of contemporary af~rmative action attitudes. American Behavjora~ Scientist, 28, 761-784.
452
H. Waters, Jr.
KLUEGEL, J. R., 8~ SMITH, E. R. (1986). Beliefs about inequality: Americans’ views of what is and what ought to be. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. KLUEGEL, J. R., & SMITH, E. R. (1983). Affirmative action attitudes: Effects of self-interest, racial affect, and stratification beliefs on whites’ views. Social Forces, 61, 797-824. KOCHMAN, T. (1981). Black and white styles in conflict. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. KRAIGER, K., & FORD, J. K. (1985). A meta-analysis of ratee race effects in performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 56-65. LEINSTER, C. (1988). Black executives: How they’re doing. Fortune Magazine, Jan. 18, 109-120. McKIRNAN, D. J., & HAMAYAN, E. V. (1980). Language norms and perceptions of Ethno-linguistic diversity. In H. Giles (Ed.), Language: Socialpsychologicalperspectives (pp. 161-169). New York: Pergamon. McKIRNAN, D. J., SMITH, C. E., & HAMAYAN, E. V. (1983). A sociolinguistic approach to the belief-similarity model of racial attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 434-447. MOBLEY, W. H. (1982). Supervisor and employee race and sex effects on performance appraisal: A field study of adverse impact and generalizability. Academy of Management Journal, 25, 598-606. MONDY, R. W., SHARPLIN, A., & PREMEAUX, S. R. (1991). Management: concepts, practices, and skills (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. MORAN, R. T. (1986). Who makes the rules in cross-cultural conflicts? Znternational Management (European Edition), 4, 39. MORAN, R. T. (1988). A formula for success in multicultural organizations. International Management, 44, 74. MORAN, R. T. (1989). A formula for success in multicultural organizations. International Management, 43, 74. NEWSWEEK (1988). Black and white in America. March 7, 18-23. NEW YORK TIMES (1991). California shows Hispanic increase. February 26, A14. NIXON, R. (1985a). Perceptions of job power among black managers in corporate America. Washington, DC: National Urban League. NIXON, R. (1985b). Black managers in corporate America: Alienation or integration? Washington, DC: National Urban League Research Department. OLIAN, J. D., SCHWAB, D. S., & HABERFELD, I. (1985). Gender effects on hiring decisions: A meta-analysis. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Academy of Management, Boston, MA. PETTIGREW, T. F., & MARTIN, J. (1987). Shaping the organizational context for black American inclusion. Journal of Social Issues, 43, 41-78. POMER, M. I. (1986). Labor market structure, intragenerational mobility, and discrimination: Black male advancement out of low-paying occupations, 19621973. American Sociological Review, 51, 650-659. POSKOCIL, A. (1977). Encounters between black and white liberals: The collision of stereotypes. Social Forces, 55, 715-727. RAHIM, M. A. (1986). Managing conflict in organizations. New York: Praeger Special Studies.
Race, Culture, and Interpersonal Conflict
453
ROBBINS, S. P. (1989). Organizational behavior: Concepts, controversies, and applications (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. ROBERTS, K. H., & HUNT, D. M. (1991). Organizational behavior. Boston: PWS-Kent Publishing Company. SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS (1989). Black executives are blazing trail to the top. February 26, p. 2. SANER-YIU, L., & SANER-YIU, R. (1985). Value dimensions in American counseling: A Taiwanese-American comparison. International JournaI for the Advancement of Counselling, 8, 137-146. SHERMAN, M. F., SMITH, R. J., & SHERMAN, N. C. (1983). Racial and gender differences in perceptions of fairness: When race is involved in job promotion. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 57, 719-728. SHUY, R. W. (1969). Subjective judgments in sociolinguistic analysis. In J. E. Alatis (Ed.), Monograph series on language and linguistics 20th annual round table. Washington, DC: Georgetown Press, 1755188. SMITH, A. W. (1987). Racial trends and countertrends in American organizational behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 43, 91-94. STULBERG, J. B. (1987). Taking charge/managing conflict. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. THOMAS, M. E., & HUGHES, M. (1986). The continuing significance of race: A study of race, class, and quality of life in America, 1972-1985. American Sociological Review, 51, 830-841. THOMPSON, D. E., & THOMPSON, T. A. (1985). Task-based performance appraisal for the blue-collar jobs: Evaluation of race and sex effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70,747-753. TOSI, H. L., & EINBENDER, S. W. (1985). The effects of the type and amount of information in sex discrimination research: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 28,7 12-723. THE TRIBUNE. (1989). Racism seen as barrier to promotion. March 20, p. B-l. THE TRIBUNE. (1991). Survey: How whites view minorities. January 9, p. A-10. VAID, R., & VISHIST, K. (1983). Statistical analysis of multiracial group characteristics and interracial conflict. Psychological Reports, 52, 39-42. VAN FLEET, D. D. (1991). Contemporary management (2nd ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin. VIVANO, E (1988). Conflict over the “New Bay Area.” San Francisco Chronicle, December 6, 1 and 4a. WALL STREET JOURNAL (1989a). On firm’s bid to keep blacks, women. February 16, p. B-l. WALL STREET JOURNAL. (1989b). Holding firm on affirmative action. March 13, 87-88. WATERS, H. (1989). Making the organizational behavior course relevant to black students. The OrganizationaI Behavior Teaching Review, XIII, 38-44. WATERS, H. (1991). Business education: meeting the needs of the AfricanAmerican student. Journal of Business Education, 66, 232-234. WERMIEL, S. (1989). Workers hurt by affirmative action may sue; Justices
454
H. Waters. Jr.
ruling open plans, approved by the courts, to a new string of suits. The Wall Street Journal, June 13, pA3. WILDER, D. A., & ALLEN, V. (1974). Effects of social categorization and belief similarity upon intergroup behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 281-283. YU, W. (1985). Asian Americans charge prejudice slows climb to management ranks. The Wall Street Journal, September 11, p. 35.