have described decision making in Chinese organizations. This process incorporates
data collection and analysis, canvassing subordinates for their opinions, distribution
of background data, and meetings to discuss the issues. Senior members retain and
exercise personal power by ultimately making a top-down decision crafted to reflect
the group’s assessments and efforts. The final result is a“harmony-within-hierarchy
arrangement”designed to convey a sense of shared responsibility, create cohesion,
and lessen loss-of-face opportunities among the work group participants.^19 In Japanese
organizations, the stronger sense of institutional collectivism produces a much more
inclusive consensus-based decision-making style, one structured to avoid relational
disharmony. Japanese managers employ what could be called a middle-level up-
and-down process. All affected personnel subject disseminated ideas and proposals to
comprehensive discussion. If an agreement is reached, the proposal will be sent to
upper-management and executive levels. When a consensus emerges, the proposal
becomes policy. This method provides the opportunity for everyone to engage in the
process of decision making. But shared decision making often requires considerable
time to reach a final decision.
In Western nations, specifically those listed in Table 10.4, decision making is more
individualistically oriented, with delegated authority usually vested in one person or a
small group of personnel who are expected to take full responsibility for the final deci-
sion. This results in an expedient, top-down decision style based on the careful analy-
sis of various options and potential outcomes. The opinion of experts and others may
be solicited during the process, but there is no requirement or guarantee that their
advice will be followed. This type of decision making is a reflection of the strong
sense of individualism, egalitarianism, independence, and low levels of uncertainty
that characterize Western culture. A Western manager working in a globalized orga-
nization will have to recognize and accommodate to the importance placed on face,
group orientation, and positive social relations when engaged in decision making with
employees from Northeast Asian nations.Conflict Management
At almost every level of commercial activity, the potential exists for interpersonal
and organizational conflict. Given that cultural beliefs and values contrast, the
methods, opinions, and attitudes regardingthe completion of tasks and achievement
of goals also differ. Quite naturally, thesevariations provide fertile ground for dis-
agreements that can adversely impact organizational relationships, both internally
and externally. Yuan points out that in globalized organizations, the array of cultural
differences within employee work groups and between clients presents an environ-
ment that heightens the potential for conflict and the ability to intensify discord.^20
Indeed, conflicts can even be caused by cultural variances that are beyond partici-
pants’awareness.
It is imperative that global managers be able to recognize when a conflict is driven
more by cultural differences than by substantive disagreement. They must also be cog-
nizant of how different cultures perceive and manage conflict. Some of these differ-
ences are listed in Table 10.5, which provides a comparison of how conflict is
perceived in Northeast Asian and several Western nations, respectively. To illustrate,
among in-group members in Northeast Asian cultures, conflict is considered undesire-
able because it carries the possibility of harming interpersonal relations and can be
face threatening. As a result, open, direct conflict between in-group members is350 CHAPTER 10• Intercultural Communication in Contexts
Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).