Make the summary of the text: Once the conflict has become unavoidable, the parties involved determine its further course. Members of collectivist cultures, in particular, will usually try to avoid conflict altogether before it occurs. They consider this factor by meticulously planning official events involving participants, seating order etc. In this way, they ensure against possible embarrassment or conflict that may be caused by not positioning a person appropriately according to his status. In an effort to recognize and avoid impending conflict, members will concentrate intensely on verbal and especially non-verbal signals of well-being or discomfort shown by their conversation partner (Tjitra 2001). If, for example, a Japanese employee wishes to express his reservation regarding his superior’s request, he will hesitate for a moment before asking for clarification (Nihida 1996). A more indirect conversational style is observed in face-to-face communication behavior that interprets the message in a number of different ways in order to gain flexibility and avoid conflict.
If conflict is unavoidable, an effort will be made to change the subject, withdraw from the situation or remain silent to take off the edge. This behavior contrasts with the Western concept that a conflict must be addressed before reaching a reasonable solution. In order to minimize conflict potential in intercultural encounters, it is important that people from “low-context cultures” (Hall 1959), who emphasize explicit verbalization, are able to read between the lines and listen carefully. More particularly, they will do well to listen and hear what is not being said and to closely observe their conversation partner’s non-verbal signals. People from “high-context cultures” (Hall 1959), who tend to glean information from content-based observation and have a more indirect communication style, need to understand that a direct communication style does not automatically limit their freedom of action and is focused on the task rather than the person. Both groups can benefit from the valuable learning potential inherent in this experience. A German manager in Beijing reports: “At the beginning of my assignment as an engineer in China, I had a slight disagreement with a Chinese colleague about a technical detail. I just kept after him to prove that I was right about a certain point and all the facts were absolutely clear, so that I could finally just drive him into a corner giving him no other choice but to agree with me. However, this did not happen. Instead, my colleague began responding to my questions with answers that had nothing to do with the question. While I talked about the short circuit, he spoke about the
weather. This continued for a while until I finally gave up” (Thomas and
Schenk 2001, p. 98).
Emotions arising in a conflict are expressed in a culture-specific manner and are easily misunderstood by over- or underestimating or simply misjudging their significance. Consequently, it is imperative in Asian cultures to literally “save face” in public by maintaining an expression of harmony in spite of inner turmoil. By contrast, we feel threatened very quickly by the exaggerated gesturing, mimicry and the high-pitched velocity of speech exhibited by Southern Europeans at even the slightest disagreement, and tend to misinterpret this behavior as highly aggressive.
Conflict can arise due to different communication habits relative to proxemics that may infringe on respective “comfort zones”. There is evidence that a felt sense of too little interpersonal distance from the conversation n partner can trigger a physiologically proven stress reaction to the point where the “cornered” person tries to reestablish the distance to which he/she is accustomed (Middlemist et al. 1976). If the person cannot avoid this situation, the conversation partner may be perceived as invasive or too distant and affect the ambience of the encounter, increasing the probability of an all-out conflict.