Japanese Conflict Resolution: Cultural Differences, Contrasts, and Styles

Running head: JAPANESE CONFLICT

1

Japanese Conflict Resolution: Cultural Differences, Contrasts, and Styles Jeffrey Allan Department of Psychology University of North Dakota

JAPANESE CONFLICT

2

Japanese Conflict Resolution: Cultural Differences, Contrasts, and Styles The cross-cultural application of conflict resolution theories and techniques is a complex area. The subtle nuances and dissimilarities that exist between cultures can mean that our basic presumptions of what constitutes effective conflict resolutions are flawed. Perhaps no other country better exemplifies this conundrum than Japan does. As a major economic and military ally of the United States, Japan plays a key role in our relations with East Asia. As such, American businesses and government entities often find themselves engaged in various forms of negotiation and dispute resolution with Japanese partners. These efforts frequently derail due to fundamental misunderstandings that exist on both sides of the table, causing the situation to worsen rather than improve (Black & Mendenhall, 1993). The vast majority of these misunderstandings seem to stem from only a few areas, where parties make incorrect assumptions pertaining to their negotiation partners (Murayama, Ryan, Shimizu, Kurebayashi, & Miura, 2015; Onishi & Bliss, 2006; Black & Mendenhall, 1993). For those involved in negotiation, mediation, and alternative dispute resolution with Japanese partners, understanding context and expectations will go far toward achieving outcomes that are more satisfactory. Research Literature Much of the existing research on Japanese conflict resolution tends to center on negotiation and mediation within business settings. This is not unexpected given Japan’s economic and business prominence from the 1960s through the 1990s. Even today, Japan remains the world’s third largest economy, and is a major source of foreign direct investment (FDI) to many other countries (Onishi & Bliss, 2006).

JAPANESE CONFLICT

3

Despite this focus, however, one can see a gradual shift in the specifics of the research that began in the later 1990s. It was at this point that Japan’s economy had clearly stalled, and it became entrenched in a deflationary cycle that is only now starting to ease. While earlier research tends to look at understanding the process of conflict resolution as it related to international business partners, the later research has taken on a more general tone that could apply to any number of cross-cultural interactions. Specifically, a significant amount of research has attempted to answer the pressing questions that can help practitioners develop effective conflict management strategies and tactics for dealing with Japan. Azuma (2001), Iwasa (2001), Moriizum and Takai (2010), and Murayama, et al. (2015) all examined how the cultural anthropology of Japan has contributed to the way that its population perceives and handles conflict. Onishi and Bliss (2006) as well as Lee, Nakamura, Moon, Meng, Liang, and Liu (2013) looked at the differences and similarities of conflict management in Japan compared with its Asian neighbors. Lastly, Black and Mendehall (1993), Tinsley (2001), Brett, Tinsley, Shapiro and Okumura (2007), and Kim, Yamaguchi, Kim, and Miyahara (2015) compared and contrasted conflict management in Japan with the West. This body of research has been vital in helping conflict resolution professionals better understand Japan’s unique differences, while also avoiding the obstacles that many in the field encountered during earlier decades. As Black and Mendehall (1993) note, many attempts at conflict resolution during the heyday of Japanese-American trade often only aggravated the situation. In the 22 years since Black and Mendehall wrote that paper, researchers have made

JAPANESE CONFLICT

4

noteworthy gains that have provided a much better understanding of conflict resolution through the cultural eyes of Japan. Research Methodologies Due to the nature of the typical conflict interaction, it can be difficult to reproduce exact situations in a laboratory, or observe situations as they unfold in a controlled environment that would make experimentation possible. To overcome these limitations, the vast majority of the research studies reviewed for this paper relied on similar methodologies and designs. The most popular of these was to utilize some form of survey or questionnaire that would assist in assigning a quantitative value to attitudes and preferences concerning conflict management. From the seven research studies that presented experimental results, six of those used some type of survey or questionnaire (Tinsley, 2001; Onishi & Bliss, 2006; Brett, et al., 2007; Moriizumi & Takai, 2010; Kim, et al., 2015; Murayama, et al., 2015). Onishi and Bliss (2006) appear to have been the most rigorous of these questionnaire studies. Researchers relied on the Rahim Organizational Conflict Inventory-II (ROCI-II) scale to assess the five predominant conflict resolution styles of competing, collaborating, compromising, accommodating, and avoiding. Likewise, they used questions based on Hofstede’s (1991) five cultural dimensions that include power distance, masculinity, uncertainty avoidance, individualism, and long-term orientation, to gauge cultural attitudes. Benson (2012) presented an analysis of industry data to demonstrate prevailing trends in Japan that relate to alternative dispute resolution and, as termed by the authors, the “rise of individualism” within Japanese conflict management.

JAPANESE CONFLICT

5

Lee, et al. (2013) utilized the most unique approach from all of the research studies reviewed for this paper. In this study, researchers asked married couples to work through a genuine unresolved issue for 30 minutes in the privacy an interview room. Although researchers left each couple unattended while working through their issue, the couples consented to have the session recorded on video. Specially trained observational coders then rated the content and process through which the couples managed the conflict. Lee, et al. was also the only study that did not tie the research to some form of international business context. Three of the studies relied on university students as participants in the various countries where the studies took place (Moriizumi & Takai, 2010; Kim, et al., 2015; Murayama, et al., 2015). Four studies used business managers and other corporate professionals as the subjects of their research (Tinsley, 2001; Onishi & Bliss, 2006; Brett, et al., 2007; Benson, 2012). Lee et al. (2013) used married couples across four countries, who were able to bring actual issues that required conflict resolution. Summary of Findings Japan represents a complex and unique cultural mix that is often difficult for outsiders to understand. This applies not only to Japan’s western business and diplomatic partners, but also its more immediate Asian neighbors (Onishi & Bliss, 2006). Countries, including China and South Korea, are often at odds with Japan on any number of issues. Frequently, these issues emerge from a fundamental lack of understanding and breakdown in communication (Black & Mendenhall, 1993). The research mainly points to a few key areas in relation to conflict management and resolution.

JAPANESE CONFLICT

6

Japan's Cultural Development Until the end of its feudal period near the latter half of the nineteenth century, Japan remained remarkably isolated from the rest of the world. Isolation was both geographic and social, with the Japanese people undergoing a sort of Galapagos-like cultural development. These anthropological effects continue to persist through the present day. An offshoot of this has been a differing perspective on moral values and reasoning than those commonly held by the West. Moral values and judgements play a large role in determining a culture’s opinions of what constitutes “good” and “bad.” Subsequently, when these value judgements do not align with those of a different culture, there is the possibility that a conflict will emerge. Azuma (2001) notes that as business moved toward a globalized state, the values of Japan and the United States – as the two dominant global economic powers – often came into conflict due to both “moral and material” issues. Imposing American moral standards on Japanese moral values has always been a difficult proposition. This is because during 250 years of Shogunate rule, the Japanese developed a very specific set of social expectations that are often incompatible with American cultural thinking (Azuma, 2001). These are perhaps best exemplified by Japanese attitudes concerning group behavior, work ethic, and social belonging. Similarly, the Japanese language has evolved into an elaborate and complex form of communication that clearly demonstrates the rigid role hierarchy plays in Japanese society, as one deals with members from inside and outside one’s own social circle and seniority level (Moriizumi & Takai, 2010).

JAPANESE CONFLICT

7

Ultimately, Japanese and Americans frequently use a different basis for moral reasoning when confronting dilemmas that are often central to conflict resolution issues (Iwasa, 2001). Iwasa’s research highlights the fact that often when Americans see a dichotomy of one choice or another, Japanese see far more gradation within the choice of available options. Coming from these two vastly different perspectives, Americans and Japanese who come to the negotiation table find they are not only playing on an uneven playing field, they find they are playing a completely different sport. As Black and Mendenhall (1993) note, within conflict management settings, efforts to resolve conflict between Japanese and American parties are often the greatest source of conflict. The Language of Conflict Specific to the Japanese language, Moriizumi and Takai’s (2010) research demonstrated a strong correlation between specific conflict resolution styles and language expressions. The researchers examined the five-style model of conflict styles, which includes integrating, obliging, dominating, avoiding, and compromising, in the context of situational factors and the resulting language expressions. Looking at the social constructs of in-groups (uchi) and out-groups (soto), and the level of acquaintance as intimate in-group (kino okenai kankei), familiar in-group (nakama), or acquaintance out-group (najimi no tanin), Moriizumi and Takai created a matrix of assertive, agreement, and problem-solving expressions, as well as with who and what type of conflict resolution style each correlated. This research possesses particular value due to the inherit differences between Japanese culture and many western cultures. Scholars classify Japan as a high-context culture where

JAPANESE CONFLICT

8

language and behavior are adjusted according to the situation, circumstance, and people involved (Black & Mendenhall, 1993). In contrast, most western cultures are considered low-context, and specific to English, the language remains largely the same whether one is speaking to a family member, co-worker, or supervisor. It is difficult for many English-speaking monolinguists to fully comprehend the nuances that these subtle changes to language expressions provide. Using data provided by the study could allow conflict management practitioners to identify and categorize language style and expressions with the specific conflict resolution style employed by a Japanese party during dispute resolution. East versus West One of the most pervasive and persistent misconceptions that creeps into conflict management, as well as broader areas of social psychology, is the perception that eastern cultures share homogenous cultural traits and attitudes (Onishi & Bliss, 2006). The belief that Asian conflict resolution styles tend toward obliging and avoiding has some roots in the Confucian legacy of several east Asian countries. The reality, however, is far more complex and includes factors that relate – among others – to the country’s colonial past, social hierarchy, and views on masculinity (Onishi & Bliss, 2006; Lee, et al., 2013). Despite widespread beliefs, the conflict resolution preference shared by most Asian cultures is actually integrating, as is evident in Onishi and Bliss’ (2006) research. However, the degree to which that preference is shared shows a much greater amount of variability by country. To that end, Onishi and Bliss focused their research on the fundamental flaw that exists in making “eastern” and “western” conflict management comparisons, and also highlighted the preferred style of conflict resolution style favored by each country in their study.

JAPANESE CONFLICT

9

Lee, et al. (2013) pursued a similar objective, but placed the emphasis of their study on dispute resolution by married couples from various Asian cultures. Their research also examined how these cultures differ in relation to each another. Central to these studies is the preferences and attitudes that permeate dispute resolution in Japan and practical examples of conflict resolution. The findings are fascinating in that the results were largely unexpected. Onishi and Bliss (2006) found that although the four countries included in the study (Japan, Vietnam, Thailand, Hong Kong) had the most similarity in their preference for an integrating conflict resolution style, Japan, alone, had a clear and ardent preference for the competing approach to handle business-related disputes. This differed significantly in comparison to Lee, et al.’s (2013) findings, as they pertain to married Japanese couples who were working through disputes. Their data shows that Japanese couples had a far lower level of negative interaction than did other Asian couples. Furthermore, Japanese couples tended to prefer avoiding and compromising styles of conflict resolution for domestic issues. All of the research reviewed for this paper strongly suggests that Asian cultures have differing preferences and attitudes toward conflict resolution styles (Onishi & Bliss, 2006; Brett, Tinsley, Shapiro, & Okumura, 2007; Lee, et al., 2013). From those countries studied, Japan seems to differ the most from its Asian neighbors, with a greater preference for a competing style in business dispute matters, which might emanate from higher scores related to masculinity, and lower scores related to long-term outlook (LTO) (Onishi & Bliss, 2006). Prior to 1980, a large majority of western research tended to presume several homogenous characteristics across most eastern cultures (Onishi & Bliss, 2006). That means that

JAPANESE CONFLICT

10

until relatively recently, researchers had not taken into account key aspects of Japanese culture that would have provided further insight into the cross-cultural conflict management process. Japan versus the West A focus of research dating back to the 1960s has been differences between Japan and the West when managing conflict. In the wake of World War II, Japan rebuilt itself as a major financial, industrial, and technological leader with an economy that until recently was second only to the United States (Black & Mendenhall, 1993). As Japan rebuilt, its importance as a strategic trade partner increased. Likewise, its geographic location made it a key Cold War ally to help the US oppose the Soviet-backed expansion of communism in Asia. The United States continued to build business and political links with Japan, and inevitably, conflict resolution became an important element of making those partnerships work. Researchers understood at a fairly early juncture that Japanese and Americans approached conflict resolution in different ways. Often, those incompatible approaches were more likely to lead to additional conflict, instead of actually resolving issues (Black & Mendenhall, 1993). Black and Mendenhall (1993) note that American negotiators often complained that their Japanese counterparts provided vague and unsatisfactory responses, as the Americans tried to confront conflict using a direct approach. Japanese negotiators, however, felt that the progress was appropriate relative to the situation and parties involved. Through the 1980s, each side had adopted decidedly ethnocentric approaches to conflict management, with neither being particularly effective. This situation spurred a new body of research that took a closer look at how Japanese conflict management styles differed from those of western cultures. Four empirical studies

JAPANESE CONFLICT

11

examined for this paper looked specifically at different perspectives of conflict management in Japan, in comparison with the United States and other countries. Tinsley (2001) examined the role that values and strategies play in negotiating conflict within Japan, the United States, and Germany. Tinsley found that managers within each of these respective cultures preferred to emphasize certain values, which had an effect on their conflict resolution styles. For example, managers from the United States put greater importance on individualism, polychronicity, and egalitarianism. This led those managers to use more conflict management strategies that focused on the mutual interests of parties. Conversely, Japanese managers tended to put more emphasis on hierarchy, collectivism, and low-explicit contracting, which culminated in their preferred use of power-oriented conflict strategies that put more importance on the relative social power of the speaker. Brett, et al. (2007) looked at the function of corporate managers in the role of mediator in Japan, the United States, and China. Perhaps most interestingly with this study, instead of differences, researchers found several similarities between the cultures. Across the three countries, managers who were superiors acted far more autocratically when filling the role of mediator. These managers often employed more conservative decision-making and conflict resolution techniques. Likewise, managers who were on a peer level generally sought greater involvement from the conflict parties, and preferred a more integrative style of dispute resolution. Both Kim, et al. (2015) and Murayama, et al. (2015) looked at two related areas within conflict management. Kim et al. examined the issue of self-construal, which is the tendency to personalize conflict, even when that conflict is not of a personal nature. Murayama, et al. studied the interaction of relationship conflict and task conflict, and misattribution of each type. Both of

JAPANESE CONFLICT

12

these areas touch on the realm of face management, which is often perceived as more highly valued in Japanese society than in western ones (Iwasa, 2001). In both the United States and Japan, Kim, et al. (2015) found positive correlations between interdependent self and self-construal, as well as negative correlations between independent self and self-construal. These findings demonstrated that both Japanese and Americans are just as likely to take conflict personally and this self-construal can affect conflict management styles. Murayama, et al. (2015) observed how task conflict could be misattributed as relationship conflict, and the likelihood of both Japanese and Americans to make this misattribution. Task conflict, which refers to disagreements about the nature of a task, is expected within many types of group settings and often has positive consequences. Relationship conflict, however, refers to actual incompatibilities of group members and is regarded as having various negative consequences. Aside from the possibility of misattribution, researchers also wanted to understand what type of conflict resolution behavior (active or passive) each group used to address either task or relationship conflict. Murayama, et al. (2015) confirmed their hypothesis that the higher the amount of task conflict, the more likely both Japanese and Americans would be to misattribute it to relationship conflict. Less expected, however, was the fact that Americans were more likely to misattribute task conflict to relationship conflict, leading researchers to believe that Americans might not be able to distinguish each conflict type as succinctly as the Japanese do. In Murayama, et al.’s (2015) research, they also found that Japanese preferred an active conflict resolution style when confronting task conflict, but took a more passive stance regarding

JAPANESE CONFLICT

13

relationship conflict. This differed with Americans who were more likely to take an active conflict resolution style to handle relationship conflict regardless of the task conflict involved. All of the reviewed studies provide interesting insights into how Japanese conflict management styles compare and contrast with those of the West, and particularly with the United States. It also seems significant that the majority of these studies, which contrast Japanese conflict management styles with the West at such a granular level, only emerged over the last 15 years. This underscores the fundamental misunderstandings that likely dominated much of the United States’ earlier economic and diplomatic relations with Japan over the last century. Perhaps the biggest challenge of utilizing this research is that all of the studies tend to focus on very narrow areas of scope. Conflict management practitioners will need to consume extensive amounts of research to develop a clearer picture of Japanese conflict management styles, in comparison with their western counterparts, if they are to make effective use of the research. Resolving Conflict with the Japanese Ultimately, conflict management professionals want to understand how to best apply research to the practical realm of cross-cultural negotiation and mediation with their Japanese counterparts. Most of the research reviewed by this paper is concerned with providing social science perspectives to very specific questions about conflict interaction and resolution in Japan. To that end, it tends to be academic in nature. The one piece of literature that looked at an applied perspective of Japanese conflict management was Black and Mendenhall’s (1993) piece for the MIT Sloan Management Review journal. Although dated, compared with other studies used for this paper, Black and Mendenhall

JAPANESE CONFLICT

14

provide the most comprehensive and practical view of effective conflict management between American and Japanese interests. Black and Mendenhall (1993) begin by highlighting the fact that much of the research that came before the 1990s makes the fundamental mistake of presuming that Asian conflict style is homogenous, and as a result, most Americans expect their Japanese counterparts to prefer an avoiding style of conflict resolution. This has historically led to confusion by American negotiators as their expectations differed with reality, and in turn, resulted in the exacerbation of conflict instead of resolution (Black & Mendenhall, 1993). They also note that since Americans rightly assume that Japanese value harmony that their Japanese counterparts should likewise be naturally skilled conflict resolvers, since harmony and conflict exist at opposite ends of a single spectrum. These myriad misconceptions have acted as an obstacle to greater American success within the realm of negotiation and conflict resolution with the Japanese (Black & Mendenhall, 1993; Tinsley, 2001). Rather than avoiding conflict, Black and Mendenhall (1993) posit that the Japanese prefer to take a more managed approach that allows them to both minimize obligations and provide flexibility in fulfilling obligations. They pointedly note that negotiations in Japan are much more of a give-and-take than is apparent on the surface. Even when one party concedes a point without an obvious immediate benefit, that concession can later become currency within the relationship of the two parties. Japanese are hesitant to put themselves in a position where they incur this obligation, and when they must incur it, seek flexibility in its fulfillment. Black and Mendenhall (1993) go on to explain that Japanese negotiators often correctly perceive that their American counterparts do not understand the nature of this give-and-take

JAPANESE CONFLICT

15

responsibility, nor would they fulfill their obligations within the relationship. As a result, Japanese can come across as non-committal and standoffish within dispute resolution, unless the American party changes the nature of their relationship with their Japanese counterpart. In Black and Mendenhall’s (1993) model, the relationship with a Japanese party exists in a quadrant that consists of in-group or out-group status combined with public or private setting. Black and Mendenhall’s assertions are backed by the work of Azuma (2001) and Iwasa (2001). The least favorable combination for an American negotiator would be out-group/public, and almost invariably result in little to no progress made toward conflict resolution. Conversely, the best combination would find the American within the in-group/private sector of the quadrant, which would allow the Japanese counterpart much greater flexibility and latitude for direct conflict resolution activities. Given the abovementioned, the most effective approach would be for American negotiators to invest more into the nontask time at the front of the conflict resolution interaction to create a certain level of intimacy (Black & Mendenhall, 1993). This intimacy will help move the American party from the out-group to the in-group over time. Likewise, American negotiators should seek to create an accommodating situation that allows for more private conflict resolution to take place. Although Black and Mendenhall’s (1993) work does not directly address issues related to conflict management style or preferences, it does provide an important perspective frequently overlooked by other literature. Factors relating to Japan’s very rigid social hierarchy and constructs can have a critical influence over conflict resolution efforts. Investment of time into intimacy building at the front side of conflict resolution, as well as creating the proper setting can

JAPANESE CONFLICT

16

be effective techniques when combined with other conflict resolution strategies discussed in this paper. Limitations of Research As is often the case with empirical research that relies on survey data from a large sample of the population, several of the studies reviewed in this paper used university students as participants. This of course raises questions concerning generalization and external validity. Although it seems reasonable that certain aspects of conflict resolution will be universal across the entire population, many of these studies are concerned with business applications of conflict management. In these cases, it would be preferable to choose participants from the business population, as these participants would have a more highly developed sense of organizational goals, teamwork, and negotiation. Test validity also becomes a concern for many of the studies covered by this paper. Surveys, questionnaires, and simulations made up a significant number of the instruments used to collect data for the research. One has to consider that conflict resolution often involves a great deal of emotion, even when the issue is not a personal one. Likewise, organizational mandates can often dictate how a negotiation will proceed, regardless of an individual’s preferred conflict resolution style. Both of these factors are difficult to account for in surveys and simulations, where participants are more likely to provide ideal answers and are not emotionally invested in the proceedings of a simulation. A different limitation is the highly fragmented and disparate nature of the research. Cross-cultural dispute resolution is a highly complex area that involves far more issues than one faces when dealing with a single culture. Examining only one or two aspects of an interaction

JAPANESE CONFLICT

17

might fail to introduce other factors that could potentially confound results. For example, one might consider how Brett, et al.’s (2007) research might have differed if managers were moved into one of several quadrants from Black and Mendenhall’s (1993) model. Suggestions for Future Research Although significant progress has been made over the last 15 years toward better understanding of Japanese conflict management attitudes, styles, and techniques, future research should focus on taking a more integrative approach. The typical conflict management practitioner is unlikely to be able to piece together the various aspects of existing research to develop a clearer picture of Japanese conflict management as it applies to western understanding. The research is narrow and fragmented, making it difficult to apply to practical aspects of cross-cultural conflict management. Likewise, a more integrative approach would potentially eliminate several of the possible confounding variables that might be present in the existing research. Future research would also benefit by moving away from surveys and simulations toward more case studies and field experiments that rely on real-world interactions. This will help steer research away from ideal survey answers and zero-risk simulations toward data that accounts for the stress and emotions present in most conflict resolution scenarios.

JAPANESE CONFLICT

18 References

Azuma, H. (2001). Moral scripts: A US-Japan comparison. In H. Shimizu, & R. A. Levine (Eds.), Japanese frames of mind: Cultural perspectives on human development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Benson, J. (2012). Alternative dispute resolution in Japan: The rise of individualism. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(3), 511-527. Black, J. S., & Mendenhall, M. (1993, April 15). Resolving conflicts with the Japanese: Mission impossible? Sloan Management Review, 34(3), pp. 49-59. Brett, J. M., Tinsley, C. H., Shapiro, D. L., & Okumura, T. (2007). Intervening in employee disputes: How and when will managers from China, Japan and the USA act differently? Management and Organization Review, 3(2), 183-204. doi:10.1111/j.17408784.2007.00070.x Hofstede, G. (1991). Culture and Organizations: Software of the Mind. London: McGraw Hil. Iwasa, N. (2001). Moral reasoning among adults: Japan-US comparison. In H. Shimizu, & R. A. Levine (Eds.), Japanese frames of mind: Cultural perspectives on human development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kim, E. J., Yamaguchi, A., Kim, M. S., & Miyahara, A. (2015). Effects of taking conflict personally on conflict management styles across cultures. Personality and Individual Differences, 72, 143-149. Lee, W. Y., Nakamura, S., Moon, J. C., Meng, F., Liang, S. C., & Liu, C. L. (2013). Asian couples in negotiation: A mixed-method observational study of cultural variations across five Asian regions. Family Process, 52(3), 499-518. doi:10.1111/famp.12040

JAPANESE CONFLICT

19

Moriizumi, S., & Takai, J. (2010). The relationships between Japanese interpersonal conflict styles and their language expressions. The Journal of Social Psychology, 150(5), 520539. Murayama, A., Ryan, C. S., Shimizu, H., Kurebayashi, K., & Miura, A. (2015). Cultural differences in perceptions of intragroup conflict and preferred conflict-management behavior: A scenario experiment. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 46(1), 88-100. doi:10.1177/0022022114551051 Onishi, J., & Bliss, R. E. (2006). In search of Asian ways of managing conflict: A comparative study of Japan, Hong Kong, Thailand and Vietnam. International Journal of Conflict Management, 17(3), 203-225. Tinsley, C. H. (2001). How Negotiators Get to Yes: Predicting the Constellation of Strategies Used Across Cultures to Negotiate Conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(4), 583593.