See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/249622327

Chinese Conflict Management Styles and Negotiation

BehavioursAn Empirical Test

Article in International Journal of Cross Cultural Management · April 2007

DOI: 10.1177/1470595807075177

CITATIONS READS

66 11,756

1 author:

Zhenzhong Ma
University of Windsor
97 PUBLICATIONS 2,629 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Zhenzhong Ma on 24 August 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Journal of Cross Cultural
Management
http://ccm.sagepub.com/

Chinese Conflict Management Styles and Negotiation Behaviours : An Empirical

Test
Zhenzhong Ma
International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 2007 7: 101
DOI: 10.1177/1470595807075177

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://ccm.sagepub.com/content/7/1/101

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for International Journal of Cross Cultural Management can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://ccm.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://ccm.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://ccm.sagepub.com/content/7/1/101.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Mar 6, 2007

What is This?

Downloaded from ccm.sagepub.com at University of Liverpool on July 20, 2012

Cultural Perspectives CCM International Journal of
Cross Cultural
2007 Vol 7(1): 101–119 Management

Chinese Conflict Management

Styles and Negotiation
Behaviours
An Empirical Test

Zhenzhong Ma
University of Windsor, Canada

ABSTRACT China has been one of the most important markets for western firms, but
negotiating with the Chinese is quite a challenging task. Researchers have been investigating
the distinctness in Chinese negotiation and conflict management styles, but have yet to
provide solid evidence for it. An attempt is made in this study to illustrate how Chinese
people approach conflicts, and thus how this affects their negotiation behaviours during
business negotiation, which provides an empirical test of Chinese conflict management styles
and their impact on negotiation outcomes. Results show that compromising and avoiding
are the most preferred methods of conflict management in China, while accommodating
and competing lead to more satisfaction during business negotiation. Managerial
implications and future studies are then discussed.
KEY WORDS • avoiding • Chinese culture • compromising • conflict management styles •
negotiation behaviours

Conflict management has developed into a
major field of organizational behaviour
(Kozan, 1997). This trend underlines the
greater acceptance of conflict as an organiza-
tional phenomenon and the concerns over its
management. The growing complexities of
work relationships and the rise of new orga-
nizational forms place unprecedented pres-
sure on managers to become more effective
in conflict management. Scholars and practi-
tioners have been attempting to identify the
mechanism that can improve conflict man-
agement skills. Researchers have also wit-
nessed an increased interest in management
in a cross cultural context (see Adler and
Graham, 1989), yet the existing literature
on cross cultural research is not as rich in
conflict management as in other fields
(Kiggundu et al., 1983; Kozan, 1997). A
better understanding of conflict management
across cultures is thus needed when the com-
parative and interactive aspects of conflict
Copyright © 2007 SAGE Publications
www.sagepublications.com
DOI: 10.1177/1470595807075177

Downloaded from ccm.sagepub.com at University of Liverpool on July 20, 2012

102 International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 7(1)
management across cultures become more
important in an increasingly globalized work
environment.
A number of studies have been con-
ducted to explore the differences in conflict
management across cultures (e.g. Jehn and
Weldon, 1992; Kozan, 1997; Sorenson et al.,
1999). However, even though these studies
have produced an impressive array of litera-
ture on the best way to manage conflict,
there are some deficiencies in the current
research on conflict management, and these
deficiencies have impeded further develop-
ment in cross cultural conflict management
studies.
The first deficiency of existing research
on conflict management is the lack of inte-
grative international studies (Kozan, 1997).
The majority of the conflict management
studies focus on investigation of samples from
western cultures; few studies have gone
beyond to explore conflict management
styles in a non-western culture (see Weldon
and Jehn, 1995 for a review). Since conflict is
a culturally defined event (Hocker and
Wilmot, 1991), the management of conflict
should differ across cultures. International
studies of conflict management with samples
from non-western cultures are thus necessary
in order to provide more useful information
on conflict management for the globalized
working environment. In addition, studying
conflict in a variety of cultural contexts can
also challenge and refine the understanding
of conflict management. Incorporating ideas
and practices of other cultures with regard to
conflict management can help develop more
enduring, elegant, and universal theories
(Tjosvold and Leung, 2000; van de Vijver
and Leung, 1997), which is an important step
for theory development in the conflict man-
agement area.
Among those studies that investigated
conflict management styles across cultures,
many only obtained inconsistent results,
accompanied by weak support for culturally
specific styles (see Weldon and Jehn, 1995 for
Downloaded from ccm.sagepub.com at University of Liverpool on July 20, 2012
a review). The problem with this line of
research comes from the fact that all the
studies on conflict management adopted a
single case method – that is, collecting data from
only one instance of a conflict situation. In her
assessment of the Thomas–Kilmann Conflict
Mode Instrument, Womack (1988) correctly
pointed out that since both an individual’s
personality and situational factors influence
his or her choices of conflict management
styles, correlations between an individual’s
actual behaviours and measured scores of
conflict management styles in a single situa-
tion might not be high. Along this line of
argument, she called for more integrative
studies to examine an individual’s preferred
styles across multiple situations; but it is
not evident from the literature on conflict
management that anyone has taken up the
challenge (Ma, 2006).
The second deficiency of existing litera-
ture on cross cultural conflict management is
the lack of actionable knowledge. As is well
known, a key part of the academic research
requires that science-based knowledge is
relevant, responsible, and makes a valuable
contribution to society and its institutions.
However, much of the current knowledge on
conflict management remains on the acade-
mic side of the chasm, failing to answer ques-
tions such as ‘so what?’ For instance, the
majority of the cross cultural studies on con-
flict management have painstakingly delin-
eated different conflict styles across different
cultures and have made great efforts to
explain such differences; few, if any, have
tried to link different conflict management
styles to actual results, and further to exam-
ine what is the most effective conflict style
within different cultural backgrounds and/or
in different situations within the same culture
(Jehn and Weldon, 1992; Trubisky et al.,
1991; Weldon and Jehn, 1995).
In response to these limitations, this study
explicitly investigates conflict management
styles in an important non-western culture –
the Chinese culture. Data are generated
 Ma: Chinese Conflict Management Styles and Negotiation Behaviours 103
using three contextually rich simulations of
business negotiation, a popular format for
conflict resolution, to explore Chinese con-
flict management styles across situations.
The purpose of this study is to answer the
question regarding what might be the most
effective method for resolving conflicts in
China during business negotiations. China is
a powerful test of the universalistic aspiration
of the western theory of conflict manage-
ment, in particular of its utility in under-
standing the conditions and dynamics
through which conflict is resolved. This is
because Chinese culture is a collectivistic cul-
ture, and Chinese people are expected to be
particularly wary of open confrontations in
the face of conflict in order to maintain good
relationships (Hofstede, 1980).
The present study is thus distinctive in
that (1) it intends to assess Chinese conflict
management styles across three different
situations, and further (2) it explores the
effects of different conflict management styles
on the process and outcomes of conflict
resolution, which thus provides helpful guid-
ance on what is the most effective method
for resolving conflicts in this collectivistic
country.
Conflict Management Styles
Researchers have been searching for the best
ways to manage conflict, resulting in an
impressive array of literature (see Thompson,
1990; van de Vliert, 1997; Wall and Blum,
1991). The dominant conflict management
model in this literature is the dual-concern
model. This assumes individuals choose dif-
ferent strategies or styles to deal with man-
agement conflict based on some variations of
two primary concerns – ‘concern for the self’
and ‘concern for others’ (Pruitt and Rubin,
1986).
One of the best known dual-concern
models is that of Thomas (1976), which iden-
tifies five different conflict-handling styles
based on two dimensions: assertiveness and
Downloaded from ccm.sagepub.com at University of Liverpool on July 20, 2012
cooperativeness. Assertiveness measures the
extent to which an individual attempts to
satisfy his or her own concerns, and coopera-
tiveness assesses the extent to which an indi-
vidual attempts to satisfy another person’s
concerns. As shown in Figure 1, the two
dimensions define five conflict styles: competing
(high concern for the self and low concern for
others), collaborating (high concern for the self
and high concern for others), compromising
(moderate concern for the self and for
others), accommodating (low concern for the self
and high concern for others), and avoiding
(low concern for the self and low concern for
others). These five styles reflect an indi-
vidual’s behavioural intentions in the face of
conflict situations (Womack, 1988). Subse-
quent studies suggest that the interrelation-
ships among the constructs are consistent
with those depicted in the model (van de
Vliert and Euwema, 1994; van de Vliert and
Kabanoff, 1990), and that the two dimen-
sions provide the basis for choices of conflict
management strategies (Sorenson et al., 1999).
These styles also represent different
motives in conflict management, either with
a distributive intent or with an integrative
intent (e.g. Kilmann and Thomas, 1975;
Lewicki and Litterer, 1985). The distributive
dimension (competing–accommodating) rep-
resents either extreme taking from others
(competing) or extreme giving to others
(accommodating). It comes with a zero-sum
mentality: if one party wins, then the other
loses. The integrative dimension (collaborat-
ing–avoiding) represents fully satisfying all
parties’ concerns when collaborating (a win–
win approach) or neglecting both the self and
others’ concerns when avoiding (a with-
drawal approach). The integrative dimension
addresses the extent to which all parties’
interests are incorporated into solutions. The
collaborating end of the integrative dimen-
sion represents both a cooperative and an
assertive attempt to expand the pie and to
generate solutions satisfactory to both par-
ties. The avoiding end is a withdrawal from
104 International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 7(1)
Competing
Assertive
Assertiveness
Compromising
Unassertive
Avoiding
Uncooperative
Cooperativeness
Figure 1 The Thomas model of conflict-handling styles adapted from Thomas (1976)
cooperation, while ignoring the concerns of
involved parties and leaving conflict unre-
solved. Along this dimension, collaborating
seeks to enlarge the pie by identifying alter-
natives that allow both parties to completely
satisfy their concerns; avoiding reduces the
size of the pie by neglecting both parties’ con-
cerns; the remaining styles are focused on a
pie of intermediate size (Thomas, 1992).
Conflict is a culturally defined event, and
conflict management styles in different cul-
tures are expected to differ from one another.
For example, in a collectivistic society like
China, social relationships and group har-
mony are important concerns (Triandis,
1995). Harmony often takes precedence over
task accomplishment and personal desires;
individual effort and achievement are ex-
pected to contribute to the collective good
(Hofstede, 1980). In contrast, in an individu-
Downloaded from ccm.sagepub.com at University of Liverpool on July 20, 2012
Collaborating
Accommodating
Cooperative
alistic society, people value autonomy,
assertiveness, competition, and individual
achievement. Consequently, they strive for
personal satisfaction and achievement even
at the expense of social relationships
(Triandis, 1995). Therefore, it can be ex-
pected that individualism should lead to
direct, task-oriented conflict management
styles, reflecting great concern for the self
and little concern for others, and collectivism
should motivate avoiding and indirect styles
that reflect concern for others. Because China
is a highly collectivistic country, it is expected
that the Chinese will use more avoiding,
accommodating, and compromising styles in
conflict situations such as business negotia-
tions, where attempts are made to avoid
direct confrontation in order to maintain
harmony.
 Ma: Chinese Conflict Management Styles and Negotiation Behaviours 105
The Impact of Conflict
Management Styles
Conflict Management Process
Different conflict management styles lead to
different behaviours in the process of conflict
resolution, which further lead to different
outcomes. According to the dual-concern
model, competing individuals tend to pursue
their own interests at others’ expense. This is
a power-oriented mode, in which one uses
whatever power seems appropriate – one’s
ability to argue, one’s rank, or economic
sanctions – to win one’s position. Competing
might mean ‘standing up for your rights’,
defending a position that you believe is
correct, or simply trying to win (Thomas and
Kilmann, 1974). Competing is based on the
interests of the competitor; it doesn’t take
into consideration others’ interests. Conse-
quently, competing behaviours are more
likely to result in high individual profits and
high satisfaction with both the conflict reso-
lution process and the outcomes.
The opposite of competing is accommo-
dating, and accommodating seems to be used
less in business negotiations in the West
because of its self-sacrificing nature. Accom-
modating individuals neglect their own con-
cerns to satisfy the concerns of others; there is
an element of self-sacrifice in this style.
During the process of conflict resolution,
such as business negotiations, accommodat-
ing might take the form of selfless generosity
or unnecessary concession, obeying another
person’s order when one would prefer not
to, or yielding to another’s point of view
(Thomas and Kilmann, 1974), which conse-
quently leads to low individual profits, and
possibly a low level of satisfaction.
Avoiding is unassertive and uncoopera-
tive (Thomas and Kilmann, 1974), and avoid-
ing individuals do not immediately pursue
their own concerns or those of others. Instead,
they just try to avoid the conflict. Avoiding
might take the form of diplomatically side-
stepping an issue, postponing an issue until a
Downloaded from ccm.sagepub.com at University of Liverpool on July 20, 2012
better time. or simply withdrawing from a
conflict situation. Although it prevents direct
face-to-face confrontation, avoiding may
result in escalated frustration that might spill
over in other ways, as it doesn’t resolve the
conflict. Too much avoiding leaves impor-
tant business issues unresolved, which often
leads to heightened tension, dissatisfaction,
and limited achievement (Sorenson et al.,
1999).
Collaborating is both assertive and co-
operative. Collaborating involves an attempt
to work with others to find solutions that fully
satisfy both parties’ needs (Thomas and
Kilmann, 1974). Like accommodating, col-
laborating indicates a willingness to adjust
one’s own position; unlike accommodating,
collaborating is not a yielding only strategy,
but an active search for integrative or
‘win–win’ solutions. Collaborating involves
attempts to dig into an issue to identify the
underlying concerns of both sides, and to find
a solution to meet both sides’ concerns. In
the process of conflict resolution, collaborat-
ing might take the form of exploring a dis-
agreement to learn of each other’s interests,
and deciding to resolve some conditions that
would otherwise result in competing for
resources, or it might take the form of con-
fronting and trying to find a creative solution.
Therefore, collaborating is undoubtedly
desirable for managing conflict, and it will
lead to ‘win–win’ solutions and positive rela-
tionships. However, collaborating requires
time and effort from both parties. It also
requires good interpersonal skills, including
open communication, trust, and mutual sup-
port (Seymour, 1993). As a result, people
might find it challenging to use a collaborat-
ing style to resolve conflicts.
Compromising falls in a middle ground
between competing and accommodating; it
means giving up more than when competing,
but less than when accommodating. Like-
wise, it addresses an issue more directly
than avoiding, but doesn’t explore it in as
much depth as collaborating (Thomas and
106 International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 7(1)
Kilmann, 1974). A compromising style involves
splitting differences, exchanging concessions,
or seeking a quick middle-ground position,
with the objective of finding an expedient,
mutually acceptable solution that partially
satisfies both parties. Similar to collaborating
as it might look, compromising is a zero-sum
approach with a distributive intent, having a
flavour of ‘giving in to keep the peace’.
Because both parties have to give up some-
thing, neither is completely satisfied.
Conflict Management Styles
and Negotiation
Negotiation is a frequently invoked mecha-
nism for resolving conflicts between individu-
als or representatives of groups. To a certain
extent negotiation behaviours are predicated
on conflict management styles (Kirkbride et
al., 1991). In this study, buyer–seller negotia-
tion tasks are used with integrative potentials
to examine the influence of conflict manage-
ment styles on negotiating behaviours and on
subsequent outcomes. It is predicted that
conflict management styles influence negoti-
ation behaviours, which further lead to dif-
ferent negotiation outcomes. These styles
may also have direct effects on negotiation
outcomes without operating through the
intervening medium of negotiation behav-
iours.
Negotiation process The negotiation pro-
cess is the dynamic interaction between
negotiators by means of which they exchange
goods or services and attempt to agree on an
exchange rate by resolving incompatible
goals (Carnevale and Pruitt, 1992; Wall,
1985; Wall and Blum, 1991). Among other
factors, the level of assertiveness, level of inte-
grativeness, and level of first offer have been
found to play important roles during negoti-
ations (Barry and Friedman, 1998; Green-
halgh et al., 1985; Lewicki and Litterer,
1985). Their relationship with conflict man-
agement styles and with negotiation out-
comes is examined in this study.
Downloaded from ccm.sagepub.com at University of Liverpool on July 20, 2012
As one of the central dimensions of nego-
tiation behaviour, the level of assertiveness
during negotiation has been examined and
proved to be an important factor that affects
negotiation outcomes (e.g. Greenhalgh et al.,
1985; Ma and Jaeger, 2005; Ma et al., 2002;
Mnookin et al., 1996). Similarly, the level of
integrativeness or ‘win–win’ intent of negoti-
ation behaviour has also been closely related
to negotiation outcomes (Lewicki and Litterer,
1985; Lewicki et al., 1994). In this study,
their relationships with conflict management
styles are explored within a non-western cul-
ture context.
The impact of the level of first offer is also
investigated in this study. In any negotiation,
the decision to put a first offer on the table is
a double-edged sword (Barry and Friedman,
1998). To the offerer’s potential disadvan-
tage, an initial offer conveys information
about aspirations and utilities (Rubin and
Brown, 1975). Depending on the underlying
structure of reserve prices, this information
may reduce the range of potential agree-
ments, to the disadvantage of the offerer. On
the other hand, an opening offer may lead
the opponent to perceive that settlement
favours the party making the first offer. This
is more likely to happen when the first offer is
an extreme one (Siegel and Fouraker, 1960).
For example, a seller who initially demands a
high price may induce the buyer to believe
that the range of potential agreements is
closer to the seller’s reserve price than origi-
nally thought. Moreover, extreme initial
offers can signal that the party making the
offer is a hard bargainer who will not be
induced to retreat (Lewicki et al., 1994).
When this occurs, the recipient of such an
offer may moderate his or her negotiation
objectives and be more inclined to make con-
cessions. Therefore, bargainers who make
the first move may be better off starting with
a relatively extreme offer, though there are
limits to the effectiveness of extreme offers
(e.g. offers so extreme that they discredit the
bargainer who makes the offer, or reduce
 Ma: Chinese Conflict Management Styles and Negotiation Behaviours 107
Conflict styles
Figure 2 Hypothesized relationships between conflict management style, negotiation process,
and negotiation outcomes
hope on the other side to the point of with-
drawal) (Barry and Friedman, 1998).
Negotiation outcome In this study, two
key outcome variables are considered: (1) the
negotiator’s individual profit, and (2) the
negotiator’s satisfaction. Inclusion of the nego-
tiator’s individual profit reflects the main
objective of most negotiation studies. The
ultimate goal of negotiation research is to
find approaches that could improve the
negotiator’s individual profit and to look
for those factors – no matter how they are
categorized – that influence individual profit.
To explore the effects of different conflict
management styles on negotiations, individ-
ual profit is examined in this study as one
criterion variable.
Satisfaction as one affective outcome has
been linked to functional behaviours in a
variety of settings (Churchill et al., 1990), and
is considered a critical outcome measure of
exchange relationships like business negotia-
tions (Ruekert and Churchill, 1984). This is
especially true when integrative negotiations
are valued, and long-term relationships
become more important than one-shot nego-
tiation successes. Satisfaction is the factor
that increases the possibility of an integrative
or ‘win–win’ solution and that helps maintain
Downloaded from ccm.sagepub.com at University of Liverpool on July 20, 2012
Negotiation process
Negotiation outcomes
positive relationships. Thus it is essential to
include satisfaction as a primary negotiation
outcome.
Research question Although there are
some studies linking conflict management
styles to actual conflict resolution behaviours
in both western and non-western cultures
(Kirkbride et al., 1991; Volkema and Berg-
mann, 1995), there is no study focusing
directly on what styles would be most effec-
tive in producing desirable outcomes.
Thus the research issue in this study is the
link between different conflict management
styles and the negotiation process and out-
comes. More specifically, the question to be
answered in this study is: ‘Which conflict
management styles will affect a negotiator’s
behaviour and the corresponding outcomes
in China? And which style is the most effec-
tive one?’
Figure 2 shows hypothesized relation-
ships investigated in this research. Negotia-
tion outcomes, including the economic out-
come (individual profit) and the affective
outcome (satisfaction with the negotiation
process and satisfaction with the negotiation
outcome), are determined by conflict man-
agement styles and the negotiation process.
Conflict management styles also affect the
108 International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 7(1)
negotiation process and hence have an indi-
rect effect on outcomes. For example, com-
peting styles could influence the negotiation
process by raising the level of first offer,
which might affect negotiation outcomes.
The relationships between conflict manage-
ment styles, negotiation process, and negoti-
ation outcomes are investigated within three
simulated scenarios. These simulations have
different potential for integrative solutions,
ranging from the least integrative to the most
integrative. Finally, satisfaction with both the
negotiation outcomes and the negotiation
process is measured as the negotiator’s gen-
eral evaluation of the negotiation results.
Methods
This study used three simulated business
negotiations to explore the nature of conflict
management styles in China and to examine
the effects of different styles on the negotia-
tion process and outcomes. The conflict
management styles were measured with the
Thomas–Kilmann Conflict Mode Instru-
ment, and the negotiation process and out-
comes were assessed by a variety of methods.
The original questionnaires and negotiation
cases used in this study were developed in
English. Translation and back-translation
procedures were followed to ensure equiva-
lence for all the questions and cases used in
the simulations (Brislin, 1986).
Simulations
Because conflict management style is a gen-
eralized, enduring tendency that reflects the
way people respond to conflicts across situa-
tions and times (Thomas, 1976; Volkema and
Bergmann, 1995; Womack, 1988), the
appropriate way to study the impact of con-
flict management styles on negotiations is to
gather data from many different negotiation
situations and to investigate their effects on
average negotiation outcomes across situa-
tions (Lewicki et al., 1994). Such a method
allows measurements and other errors to
Downloaded from ccm.sagepub.com at University of Liverpool on July 20, 2012
cancel each other out across situations, and
increases the probability that true effects will
be captured.
Following this logic, three diverse negoti-
ation simulations were used in this study: the
Used Car case, the Knight/Excalibur case,
and the Best Book/Paige Turner case, all of
which are popular exercises in many negoti-
ation textbooks (see Lewicki et al., 1994).
These cases were chosen because they repre-
sent increasing levels of complexity and dif-
ferent integrative potentials. The Used Car
case is the simplest one, wherein a seller and
a buyer try to negotiate a price for a second-
hand car. This case is purely distributive,
with price as the only issue that matters to
both sides. In the Best Book/Paige Turner
case, which is the most complex, there are
eight issues to be negotiated, including royal-
ties, signing bonus, duration of the contract,
and other conditions. Representatives of the
publisher and the author have to come to an
agreement on all eight issues. To assess the
individual negotiator’s profits, each subject
receives a profit table indicating the profit
points earned on each issue or a set of possi-
ble combinations of these issues.
The Knight/Excalibur case falls in the
middle, simpler than the Best Book case, but
more complex than the Used Car case. In
this simulation, representatives of two com-
panies come to negotiate the price of one
special type of piston; the buyer could possi-
bly give the seller a free advertisement so that
the seller might receive orders from govern-
ment in the future, if the seller would lower
the price. The Knight/Excalibur case has a
much simpler structure than that of the Best
Book, but its integrative potential is easier to
perceive.
The manipulation check showed that
subjects’ perceptions of the integrative poten-
tial for each case were significantly different
from one another: The average perceptions
of the integrative potentials for the Used Car
case, the Knight/Excalibur case, and the
Best Book case were 3.81, 5.19, and 4.37
 Ma: Chinese Conflict Management Styles and Negotiation Behaviours 109
respectively, on a 7-point Likert scale (F =
27.72, p < .001, one-way ANOVA test), with
the Used Car the most distributive case, and
the Knight/Excalibur the most integrative
one. The differences in perceived possibilities
for integration confirm the validity of the
current research design and thus make it
more likely for subjects to show their disposi-
tional consistency in approaching different
conflict situations. With different possibilities
for integration, these simulated negotiation
cases provide a valid venue to test the true
impact of conflict management styles on the
negotiation process and outcomes across
different situations.
Subjects
Two hundred Chinese students participated
in negotiation simulations in this study,
which is part of a larger international project.
The students were senior undergraduates in
business or related fields from the business
school of a premier university in Beijing,
China. Most subjects were between 20 and
26 years old, and 70% were male. All sub-
jects participated in order to fulfil course
requirements, and were randomly assigned
into pairs, who in turn were randomly
assigned to different roles as either the buyer
or the seller in each simulation.
Procedures
Before the simulations, subjects were told
that they would be participating in three
simulated business negotiations in which they
would play the roles they were randomly
assigned to. They were instructed to be as
creative as they wanted to be, and they were
also assured that this study was only for
academic purposes and confidentiality was
guaranteed.
For each simulation, the subjects were
randomly paired into buyer–seller dyads and
assigned to different rooms for negotiation,
where every subject read a common back-
ground statement and a separate confidential
information sheet for the role he or she was
Downloaded from ccm.sagepub.com at University of Liverpool on July 20, 2012
assigned to. The sheet outlined issues from
the point of view of the constituency he or
she represented, giving the subjects a general
idea of the importance of the issue to be
negotiated, and a detailed idea of the relative
importance of the bargaining issues, if more
than one issue had to be negotiated. Each
subject was given the Thomas–Kilmann
Conflict Mode Instrument (MODE) to com-
plete before starting the negotiations. The
relationships being investigated had not been
discussed with the subjects, and there were
no inter-subject discussions of the negotia-
tions until the simulations had been com-
pleted.
Before starting the actual negotiation, all
the subjects spent 30 minutes reading and
preparing for it. Then they filled out a pre-
negotiation questionnaire (see ‘Measures’
section below). They had 30 minutes to nego-
tiate an agreement. A post-negotiation ques-
tionnaire was given to students to fill out
(see ‘Measures’ section below) after they
completed the negotiation or when the time
was up. The same procedure was followed
for the other two simulations, with debriefing
and questions answered when all simulations
had been completed. All subjects reached
agreements in at least two simulations, and
therefore all were included in the analysis.
Measures
Conflict management styles The Thomas–
Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (MODE)
was used to measure conflict management
styles. The MODE is designed to gauge an
individual’s behavioural intention in conflict
situations, and it has been widely used in
both research and training. Compared with
other scales derived from the dual-concern
model, the MODE is also relatively uncon-
taminated by social desirability effects
(Womack, 1988). The MODE has been used
in numerous studies on conflict management
in both single culture research and cross
cultural studies (Calhoun and Smith, 1999;
Weldon and Jehn, 1995). Scholars have
110 International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 7(1)
argued that it can be used cross culturally
(e.g. Kirkbride et al., 1991).
The MODE consists of 30 pairs of state-
ments describing different behavioural
responses to conflict situations. Typical items
contrast responses such as ‘I try to avoid cre-
ating unpleasantness for myself’ and ‘I try to
win my position’, or ‘I try to find a compro-
mise solution’ and ‘I sometimes sacrifice
my own wishes for the wishes of the other
person’. Respondents are forced to choose
the response most typical of their own behav-
ioural intentions from each pair of state-
ments, and the resulting pattern of responses
generates individual scores for each of the
five conflict management styles.
Cronbach (1951) alpha coefficients were
calculated for the MODE in this study.
Coefficients for the five styles ranged from
.52 to .71, with a mean of .58, which are
comparable to those of prior studies that used
the same scale (for a review, see Womack,
1988). It is worthwhile to point out that the
Cronbach alpha coefficients for the MODE
are underestimated as a result of its unique
design. Because the MODE is designed to
force people to choose between a pair of
statements, or between the conflict-handling
modes, each item should load on two differ-
ent styles. As a result, even if the measure
were perfect, each scale score could at best
account for only half the variance in any
given item. In other words, even with a per-
fectly reliable and valid MODE, each item
could only at most have a correlation of
about .7 with its scale score, so that its
R-square value would be .5 in explaining
variances in the scale (K. Thomas, personal
communication, 21 December 2003).
Negotiation process The negotiator’s level
of first offer was measured in the pre-negoti-
ation questionnaire by asking subjects to
write down what their first offer would be
for the current negotiation. In the post-
negotiation questionnaire, each subject
answered the question regarding the level of
Downloaded from ccm.sagepub.com at University of Liverpool on July 20, 2012
their integrativeness and the level of their
opponent’s assertiveness. The level of inte-
grativeness was measured on a 7-point Likert
scale by asking subjects to indicate to what
extent they were trying to reach integrative
or distributive solutions during the negotia-
tion (1 = very distributive, 7 = very integra-
tive). To reduce the common-method errors,
their opponents’ assessment was used to
measure the individual negotiators’ level of
assertiveness on a 7-point Likert scale, with 1
representing ‘not at all assertive’ and 7 repre-
senting ‘very assertive’.
Negotiation outcome Also collected in
the post-negotiation questionnaire were the
negotiator’s individual profit and his or her
satisfaction with the negotiation. Individual
profit came from the final agreement reached
in the simulations. The measure of the nego-
tiator’s satisfaction consisted of two items: the
negotiator’s satisfaction with the process, and
the negotiator’s satisfaction with the out-
come, both of which were measured by ask-
ing subjects to indicate on a scale from 1 (the
most dissatisfied) to 7 (the most satisfied) how
satisfied they were with the negotiation pro-
cess or with the negotiated outcome. The
satisfaction scale had a Cronbach alpha of
.87.
As suggested by van de Vijver and Leung
(1997) for conducting international studies,
standardization was used in this study to
reduce the influence of measurement units
and to eliminate unwanted inter-group dif-
ferences such as those due to response sets.
The level of first offer and individual profit
were standardized for sellers and for buyers
respectively. Then the standardized scores
for the buyers were reversed so that a higher
score represented a better deal for both the
buyers and the sellers.
To test the true effects of conflict man-
agement styles on negotiation process and
outcomes, all the behavioural and outcome
variables were averaged across simulations
before the analysis, including the standard-
 Ma: Chinese Conflict Management Styles and Negotiation Behaviours 111
ized level of first offer, the level of assertive-
ness assessed by opponents, the level of
integrativeness during negotiation, the stan-
dardized individual profits, and the negotia-
tor’s satisfaction with the negotiation.
Results
Table 1 reports means, standard deviations,
and correlations among gender, conflict
management styles, negotiation process, and
negotiation outcomes. In general, the bivari-
ate correlations reflect expected relations
and provide confidence that the measures
functioned properly for the effects tested in
this study.
From the mean scores of conflict man-
agement styles we can see a clear preference
for compromising style and a secondary
preference for avoiding, followed by compet-
ing and collaborating. The results suggest
that, on the one hand, the Chinese tend to
approach conflicts in a non-assertive style –
that is, compromising – which is the first
choice for conflict management in China.
On the other hand, avoiding, instead of
accommodating, is the second choice for
conflict handling in China, which suggests
that the Chinese may not be willing to sacri-
fice themselves only for the sake of relation-
ship building, as many have expected. Such a
preference structure supports our prediction
that collectivistic Chinese prefer to use more
indirect styles, such as compromising, to
manage conflict, although competing is also
found to be very important in China.
Figure 3 presents the results of hierarchi-
cal regression analysis. In order to assess
the independent and incremental effects of
conflict management styles on the two sets
of dependent variables – the negotiation
process and outcomes – a hierarchical regres-
sion analysis is appropriate. When conduct-
ing regression analysis, gender was always
entered first, followed by conflict manage-
ment styles, where gender was treated as one
control variable because of its inconsistent
Downloaded from ccm.sagepub.com at University of Liverpool on July 20, 2012
impact on negotiations (see Carnevale and
Lawler, 1986; Neu et al., 1988).
As shown in Figure 3, both competing
and accommodating were found to be posi-
tively related to the negotiator’s satisfaction
with the negotiation, but none of these styles
was related to the level of first offer, the level
of assertiveness, or the level of integrative-
ness. As a result, the quest for the most effec-
tive conflict management style only produces
a partial result; that is, competing and
accommodating will lead to a satisfied nego-
tiator, but cannot predict negotiation behav-
iours actually used in the process. This result
deserves further exploration. When the rela-
tionships between negotiation behaviours
and outcomes were examined, the level of
first offer was the single important factor that
predicted the negotiator’s individual profits,
whereas both the level of assertiveness and
the level of integrativeness were closely
related to the negotiator’s satisfaction. No
relationship was found between the eco-
nomic negotiation outcome – individual
profit – and the affective negotiation out-
come – satisfaction with negotiation – which
could be an interesting topic for future
studies because it might indicate that Chinese
people have a relatively independent evalua-
tion of economic gains from negotiations and
affective components of negotiation that is
closely associated with long-term interper-
sonal relationships.
Discussion
The central focus of this research was to
explore Chinese conflict management prefer-
ences and their impact on the process of con-
flict resolution. I began this study by realizing
that few integrative studies had been con-
ducted in the area of cross cultural conflict
management, and even fewer had provided
actionable knowledge for conflict manage-
ment practitioners. Then using multiple
instances of simulated negotiation, I investi-
gated the conflict management styles in
 112

Table 1 Means, standard deviations, and correlationsa

Variable Mean s.d. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1. Gender 0.70 0.46

2. Competing 6.27 2.45 0.05
3. Collaborating 5.31 1.94 –0.12 –0.23***
4. Compromising 7.11 2.14 –0.09 –0.44*** –0.24***
5. Avoiding 6.51 1.62 –0.05 –0.14* –0.19** –0.24***
6. Accommodating 4.80 2.00 0.18* –0.40*** –0.28*** –0.09 –0.16*
7. First offer –0.01 0.59 –0.07 .07 0.02 0.02 –0.10 –0.05
8. Assertiveness level 5.03 1.06 –0.13 –0.02 –0.03 –0.06 0.07 0.07 0.01
International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 7(1)

9. Integrativeness level 4.77 1.10 0.02 0.02 –0.07 –0.04 –0.02 0.12 0.03 0.12
10. Individual profit –0.00 0.68 0.06 0.02 0.08 –0.09 0.05 –0.05 0.15* 0.10 0.10
11. Satisfaction with negotiation 4.66 0.92 0.04 0.07 –0.13 –0.07 –0.05 0.16* 0.08 0.22** 0.45*** 0.10
a
N = 200. Variables were coded as follows: gender, 0=female, 1=male; conflict style ranged from 0 to 12; Assertiveness Level: 1= not at all assertive, 7= very assertive;
Integrativeness Level: 1=very distributive, 7=very integrative; Satisfaction with Negotiation: 1=very dissatisfied, 7=very satisfied; First Offer and Individual Profit are stan-
dardized scores.
* p < 0.05 (2-tailed).

Downloaded from ccm.sagepub.com at University of Liverpool on July 20, 2012

** p < 0.01 (2-tailed).
*** p < 0.001 (2-tailed).
 Ma: Chinese Conflict Management Styles and Negotiation Behaviours 113

–.13*
Competing .16*

First offer
Collaborating .16* Individual
profit

.22** Satisfaction
Compromising Assertiveness
(Other)
.17*
Avoiding .43*** Satisfaction
Integrativeness (Self)

Accommodating
.23**
.20**
a
Only significant relationships are presented; values along the arrows are Standardized Beta.
* p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

Figure 3 Results of hierarchical regression analysis: main effects of conflict styles on

negotiation process and outcomesa

China and examined the general impact of Contributions

different conflict management styles on the
negotiation process and outcomes.
The results of this study provide strong
support for the notion that collectivistic
Chinese tend to use a non-confrontational
style to resolve conflicts. Specifically, Chinese
people are more likely to use compromising
as a way to handle conflicts; that is, split the
differences, exchange concessions, and seek a
quick middle-ground position. The results
also question the relationship between con-
flict management styles and the negotiation
process and outcomes in China, for which no
significant impact of conflict management
styles on negotiation process is found in this
study. Considering the unique research
design here – that is, using three negotiation
cases with differential possibilities for integra-
tion – the findings of this study are even more
powerful and thus are able to make a great
contribution to the literature of conflict man-
agement.
This research extends and enriches our
understanding of Chinese conflict manage-
ment styles in a variety of ways. First, the
study confirms the notion that collectivistic
Chinese are more likely to use compromising
to resolve conflict, which provides empirical
evidence for the universality of conflict
management theory. Developed in an indi-
vidualistic culture, the dual-concern model of
conflict management theory proves its utility
in a collectivistic culture. Surprisingly, com-
peting is found to be the third preferred
style in China in conflict resolution, and it
influences the negotiator’s affective outcome,
which might reflect an either–or mentality of
Chinese culture, unique in its collectivistic
nature. On the one hand, Chinese people
place social relationships and group harmony
above task accomplishment and personal
desires (Triandis, 1995). Open and con-
frontational conflict is not socially sanc-
tioned. As a result, splitting the difference,
seeking a quick middle-ground position, or

Downloaded from ccm.sagepub.com at University of Liverpool on July 20, 2012

114 International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 7(1)
even totally avoiding the conflict becomes the
best way to approach any conflict. On the
other hand, Chinese people also attach high
value to face-saving, which has been studied
by a number of scholars (e.g. Kirkbride et al.,
1991; Triandis, 1995). Consequently, when
a compromising and avoiding position is
rejected, or when compromising doesn’t
resolve the conflict, the Chinese will feel hurt,
believing that their opponents are not giving
their face, and naturally the power-oriented,
win–lose competing style is the most effective
way to fight back. Such a mentality reflects
the distributive intent during conflict man-
agement, which may damage the long-term
relationship between business partners.
This finding may also be related to the
sample used in this study: students without
professional negotiation experience. Students
often do not know how to communicate
about the possibilities of integration and to
work to find integrative solutions. They know
what compromise is, but not integration,
until they are exposed to ideas and practice.
The tendency to compromise could be a
good starting point to the hard work of find-
ing integrative solutions since it indicates that
student subjects begin to be concerned with
both sides’ interests, even only partially in
terms of compromising. What they need is to
understand that integrative solutions can be
reached not just by compromising their own
positions, but by communicating more and
exchanging information on each side’s inter-
ests and demands, and by practising more.
The hierarchical analysis in Figure 3 also
shows that when subjects do attempt integra-
tion they are more satisfied and their part-
ners are also more satisfied (integrativeness
leads to higher self-satisfaction and other’s
satisfaction). More efforts are thus needed to
help them realize that integrative, win–win
solutions are possible, and distributive or
win–lose tactics are not the only way to
approach conflict.
Although this study supports the validity
of a conflict management model in a collec-
Downloaded from ccm.sagepub.com at University of Liverpool on July 20, 2012
tivistic culture like in China, no relationship
is found between conflict management style
and conflict-resolving behaviours – that is,
negotiation behaviours – during business
negotiations. This might suggest that either
the selected behavioural factors are not valid
variables to measure the negotiation process,
or the conflict management model is not a
good candidate for explaining negotiating
behaviours. From the results in Figure 3 we
can see that all the behavioural factors – the
level of first offer, the level of assertiveness,
and the level of integrativeness – were found
to be significantly related to negotiation out-
comes. Therefore we are more inclined to
believe that the dual-concern model of con-
flict management theory is not a good candi-
date for predicting negotiation behaviours
during business negotiations in China. The
search for the underlying reasons will make
an interesting topic for future research.
Potential research issues include whether
other factors such as cultural values or some
situational factors suppress the impact of
conflict management styles.
Second, evidence about the important
role of the first offer in business negotiations
also emerges from this study. The level of
first offer is found to be a key process factor
that predicts individual profits. This may be
an important message for negotiation practi-
tioners. As discussed previously, a high first
offer is a double-edged sword. A relatively
extreme first offer can be favourable to the
offerer as it sends a message that the party
making the offer is a hard bargainer, and
thus the recipient of such an offer will be
more likely to offer concessions, but an over-
extreme offer will discredit the offerer to
the point of breaking the negotiation. The
current study supports the positive effect of a
relatively extreme first offer for obtaining the
best individual results.
However, caution has to be exercised in
applying this finding to management prac-
tices, because of the interactive nature of
business negotiations. To further explore the
 Ma: Chinese Conflict Management Styles and Negotiation Behaviours 115
effect of an extreme first offer, we conducted
an ad hoc test to examine the relationship
between the negotiator’s first offer and his or
her opponent’s satisfaction with the negotia-
tion. The result showed that an extreme first
offer had a significant negative relationship
with the opponent’s satisfaction (β = –.13,
p < .05) (see Figure 3). Therefore, even if an
extreme first offer can help negotiators
achieve higher individual profits, they are
achieving this at the expense of their oppo-
nents’ satisfaction, which is detrimental to
the long-term relationship.
Third, the relative impacts of two sets of
behavioural variables also emerge from this
study: the one that affects the negotiator’s
approach to the economic outcomes during
negotiations – the level of first offer – and the
one that affects the negotiator’s approach to
the affective outcome – the level of assertive-
ness and the level of integrativeness. Our
findings, as pictured in Figure 3, indicate that
although a higher level of first offer leads to
higher individual profits, it results in a dis-
satisfied opponent, as discussed above. In
contrast, the second set of behaviours, the
level of assertiveness and the level of integra-
tiveness, satisfies both the negotiator and his
or her opponent. The relative emphasis on
different behaviours seems to suggest that
some are more important than others for
understanding the negotiation process in
China. It is worthwhile to point out here that
assertiveness is not equal to aggressiveness
(Yik and Bond, 1993). Assertiveness involves
a freer exchange of information and persua-
sion, and more active involvement in pushing
the negotiation forward. If the negotiator is
doing this with an integrative intent, a higher
level of assertiveness will result in more co-
operation and willingness to share informa-
tion, which consequently could satisfy both
sides during the negotiation.
Limitations and Future Studies
This study was based on a student sample in
simulated business negotiations, a character-
Downloaded from ccm.sagepub.com at University of Liverpool on July 20, 2012
istic that limits the generalization of its
findings. For example, the most preferred
conflict management style chosen by these
students – compromising – could be a
demand artefact, since the participants were
students, and perhaps they got through their
task by compromising instead of doing the
hard work necessary for integrative solutions.
This being said, however, the research design
has made the demand artefact less likely
because student participants were asked for
their preferred conflict management styles
based on their general life experiences, not
based on the current negotiation tasks in the
simulations. The self-administered question-
naire on their preferred conflict management
styles evaluates their general behavioural
intentions in conflict situations, not the actual
behaviours or strategies they will use in any
specific situation. Regression analysis also
shows that competing and accommodating,
instead of compromising, are the predictors
of actual negotiation outcomes.
The data are not immune to the possi-
bility of common-method bias – always a
concern when single-source, single-report
data are used. However, a key criterion of
conflict management styles, that is, the level
of assertiveness, did not come from the focal
individual, but from his or her opponent. In
addition, the level of first offer and individual
profit – two key dependent variables in this
study – are actual numbers, not just evalua-
tive reports, and they were both standardized
in the data analysis. Therefore, even though
the student sample may not represent the
general population of China, this study is still
valuable for its exploratory nature, and it
makes important contributions to the current
conflict management and negotiation litera-
ture. While there is no lack of anecdotal and
descriptive evidence confirming the diffi-
culties when Westerners negotiate with the
Chinese, little research exists documenting
the actual process of Chinese business nego-
tiation and conflict management (Adler et al.,
1992; Ma and Jaeger, 2005). More reliable
116 International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 7(1)
data on how the Chinese negotiate among
themselves are thus needed before West-
erners can begin to decipher their own pat-
terns of interaction with the Chinese.
The results of this study also provide
insightful directions for advanced studies in
this area. Future studies are needed to exam-
ine some of the issues not answered here.
First, using different samples to replicate this
study is a reasonable extension for this line of
research. Second, if conflict management
styles are not valid predictors of negotiating
behaviours in China, then what other factors
would be? In addition, the effect of extreme-
ness of the first offer can be examined in order
to find the ultimate limit for negotiators to
make their first offers, which will be very
interesting for professional negotiators.
Future studies can also investigate the reasons
why the Chinese prefer compromising to
other styles during conflict resolution, and
how Chinese national culture affects the
impact of conflict management styles on the
conflict resolution process. Two topics, in
particular, pertain to this line of research. The
first topic is in-group/out-group differences,
and the second is cultural contextualism.
The first topic that deserves more atten-
tion is in-group/out-group stereotyping in
collectivistic cultures. Chinese people treat
out-group members and in-group members
differently, which is not the case in an indi-
vidualist culture (Brewer, 1999; Ma and
Jaeger, 2005; Triandis, 1995). Espinoza and
Garza (1985) also found that when compet-
ing with members of out-groups, collectivists
were more competitive than individualists,
even if doing so hurt their in-groups. In this
study, only negotiations among the Chinese
themselves were examined; that is, only
negotiations among in-group members (com-
pared with negotiations between the Chinese
and the Westerners). So whether or not the
results will hold in negotiations between the
Chinese and Westerners when the effects of
the in-group/out-group are more salient
deserves further investigation.
Downloaded from ccm.sagepub.com at University of Liverpool on July 20, 2012
The other topic that deserves more explo-
ration in negotiation studies on China is
contextualism, which reflects the degree of
sensitivity to context (Hall, 1976; Kirkbride
et al., 1991). Low context cultures use explicit
and direct language, whereas high context
cultures such as Chinese culture use implicit
and indirect language in which words and
phrases derive their meanings from contextu-
al clues. More importantly, the sensitivity to
contextual clues determines individuals’ per-
ceptions of the particulars of each conflict
situation, and therefore their behavioural
responses will be affected, often even in a way
that is incongruent with their dispositional
character. In a low context culture, individu-
als tend to pay less attention to contextual
clues and are more likely to behave in a way
consistent with what is determined by their
dispositional character; in a high context
culture, individuals pay close attention to the
context, therefore their behaviours are less
likely to reflect what is predetermined by
their dispositional factors, but are more
related to the particulars of the specific con-
flict situation. This might be the reason why
the preferred conflict management styles,
measured as general behavioural intentions,
did not predict how the participants really
behaved during business negotiations in this
study, which needs more investigation in the
future.
References
Adler, N. and Graham, J.L. (1989) ‘Cross-
cultural Interaction: The International
Comparison Fallacy?’, Journal of International
Business Studies 20: 515–37.
Adler, N., Braham, R. and Graham, J. (1992)
‘Strategy Implementation: A Comparison of
Face-to-Face Negotiation in the People’s
Republic of China and the United States’,
Strategic Management Journal 13: 449–66.
Barry, B. and Friedman, R.A. (1998) ‘Bargainer
Characteristics in Distributive and Integrative
Negotiation’, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 74: 345–59.
Brewer, M.B. (1999) ‘The Psychology of
 Ma: Chinese Conflict Management Styles and Negotiation Behaviours 117
Prejudice: Ingroup Love or Outgroup Hate?’,
Journal of Social Issues 55(3); 429–44.
Brislin, R.W. (1986) ‘The Wording and
Translation of Research Instruments’, in W.J.
Lonner and J.W. Berry (eds) Field Methods in
Cross-cultural Research, pp. 137–64. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Calhoun, P.C. and Smith, W.P. (1999)
‘Integrative Bargaining: Does Gender Make a
Difference?’, International Journal of Conflict
Management 10: 201–24.
Carnevale, P.J. and Lawer, E.J. (1986) ‘Time
Pressure and the Development of Integrative
Agreements in Bilateral Negotiations’, Journal
of Conflict Resolution 30: 636–56.
Carnevale, P.J. and Pruitt, D.G. (1992)
‘Negotiation and Mediation’, Annual Review of
Psychology 43: 531–82.
Churchill, G., Walker, O. and Ford, N. (1990)
Sales Force Management, 3rd edn. Homewood,
IL: Irwin.
Cronbach, L.J. (1951) ‘Coefficient Alpha and the
Internal Structure of Tests’, Psychometrika 16:
297–334.
Espinoza, J.A. and Garza, R.T. (1985) ‘Social
Group Salience and Inter-ethnic
Cooperation’, Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology 231: 380–92.
Greenhalgh, L., Nelsin, S.A. and Gilkey, R.W.
(1985) ‘The Effects of Negotiator Preferences,
Situational Power, and Negotiator Personality
on Outcomes of Business Negotiations’,
Academy of Management Journal 28: 9–33.
Hall, E.T. (1976) Beyond Culture. Garden City,
NY: Anchor.
Hocker, J.L. and Wilmot, W.W. (1991)
Interpersonal Conflict. Dubuque, IA: W.C.
Brown.
Hofstede, G. (1980) Culture’s Consequences:
International Differences in Work Related Values.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Jehn, K.A. and Weldon, F. (1992) ‘A
Comparative Study of Managerial Attitudes
toward Conflict in the United States and the
People’s Republic of China: Issues of Theory
and Measurement’, paper presented at the
annual meeting of the Academy of
Management, Las Vegas, NV.
Kiggundu, M.N., Jorgensen, J.J. and Hafsi, T.
(1983) ‘Administrative Theory and Practice in
Developing Countries: A Synthesis’,
Administrative Science Quarterly 28: 66–84.
Kilmann, R.H. and Thomas, K. (1975)
‘Interpersonal Conflict-handling Behavior as
Reflections of Jungian Personality
Dimensions’, Psychological Reports 37: 971–80.
Downloaded from ccm.sagepub.com at University of Liverpool on July 20, 2012
Kirkbride, P.S., Tang, F.Y. and Westwood, R.I.
(1991) ‘Chinese Conflict Preferences and
Negotiating Behavior: Cultural and
Psychological Influence’, Organization Studies
12(3): 365–89.
Kozan, M.K. (1997) ‘Culture and Conflict
Management: A Theoretical Framework’,
International Journal of Conflict Management 8(4):
338–60.
Lewicki, R.J. and Litterer, J.A. (1985) Negotiation.
Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Lewicki, R.J., Litterer, J.A., Minton, J.W. and
Saunders, D.M. (1994) Negotiation, 2nd edn.
Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin.
Ma, Z. (2006) ‘Negotiating into China: The
Impact of Individual Perception on Chinese
Negotiation Styles’, International Journal of
Emerging Markets 1(1): 64–83.
Ma, Z. and Jaeger, A. (2005) ‘Getting to Yes in
China: Exploring Personality Effects in
Chinese Negotiation Styles’, Group Decision and
Negotiation 14(5): 415–37.
Ma, Z., Wang, X., Jaeger, A., Anderson, T. and
Saunders, D. (2002) ‘Individual Perception,
Bargaining Behaviour, and Negotiation
Outcomes: A Comparison across Two
Countries’, International Journal of Cross Cultural
Management 2: 171–84.
Mnookin, R.H., Peppet, S.R. and Tulumello,
A.S. (1996) ‘The Tension between Empathy
and Assertiveness’, Negotiation Journal 12(3):
217–30.
Neu, J., Graham, J.L. and Gilly, M.C. (1988)
‘The Influence of Gender on Behaviors and
Outcomes in a Retailer Buyer–Seller
Negotiation Simulation’, Journal of Retailing 64:
427–51.
Pruitt, D.G. and Rubin, J.Z. (1986) Social Conflict:
Escalation, Stalemate and Settlement. New York:
Random House.
Rubin, J.Z. and Brown, B.R. (1975) The Social
Psychology of Bargaining and Negotiation. New
York: Academic Press.
Ruekert, R. and Churchill, G. (1984) ‘Reliability
and Validity of Alternative Measures of
Channel Member Satisfaction’, Journal of
Marketing Research 21: 226–33.
Seymour, K.C. (1993) ‘Intergenerational
Relationships in the Family Firm: The Effect
of Leadership on Succession’, Family Business
Review 6: 263–81.
Siegel, S. and Fouraker, L.E. (1960) ‘Bargaining
and Group Decision Making: Experiments in
Bilateral Monopoly. New York: McGraw Hill.
Sorenson, R.L. Morse, E.A. and Savage, G.T.
(1999) ‘A Test of the Motivations Underlying
118 International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 7(1)
Choice of Conflict Strategies in the Dual-
concern Model’, International Journal of Conflict
Management 10(1): 25–44.
Thomas, K.W. (1976) ‘Conflict and Conflict
Management’, in M. Dunnette (ed.) Handbook
of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, pp.
889–935. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Thomas, K.W. (1992) ‘Conflict and Negotiation
Process in Organizations’, in M. Dunette (ed.)
Handbook of Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, 2nd edn, Vol. 3, pp. 651–717. Palo
Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Thomas, K.W. and Kilmann, R.H. (1974)
Thomas–Kilmann Conflict MODE Instrument.
Tuxedo, NY: Xicom.
Thompson, L. (1990) ‘Negotiation Behavior and
Outcomes: Empirical Evidence and
Theoretical Issues’, Psychological Bulletin 108:
515–32.
Tjosvold, D., Leung, K. and Johnson, D. (2000)
‘Cooperative and Competitive Conflict in
China’, in M. Deutsch and P.T. Coleman
(eds) Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory and
Practice, pp. 475–95. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Triandis, H.C. (1995) Individualism and Collectivism.
Boulder, CO: Westview.
Trubisky, P., Ting-Toomey, S. and Lin, S.L.
(1991) ‘The Influence of
Individualism–Collectivism and Self-
monitoring on Conflict Styles’, International
Journal of Intercultural Relations 15: 65–84.
Van de Vijver, F. and Leung, K. (1997)
‘Methods and Data Analysis of Comparative
Research’, in J.W. Berry, Y.H. Poortinga and
J. Pandey (eds) Handbook of Cross-cultural
Psychology, Vol. 1, pp. 257–300. Needham
Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Downloaded from ccm.sagepub.com at University of Liverpool on July 20, 2012
Van de Vliert, E. (1997) Complex Interpersonal
Behavior: Theoretical Frontiers. Hove, East
Sussex: Psychology Press.
Van de Vliert, E. and Euwema, M.C. (1994)
‘Agreeableness and Activeness as
Components of Conflict Behavior’, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 66: 674–87.
Van de Vliert, E. and Kabanoff, B. (1990)
‘Toward Theory-based Measures of Conflict
Management’, Academy of Management Journal
33: 199–209.
Volkema, R.L. and Bergmann, T.J. (1995)
‘Conflict Styles as Indicators of Behavioral
Patterns in Interpersonal Conflicts’, Journal of
Social Psychology 135(1): 5–15.
Wall, J.A. (1985) Negotiation: Theory and Practice.
Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman, & Company.
Wall, J.A. and Blum, M.W. (1991) ‘Negotiations’,
Journal of Management 17: 273–303.
Weldon, E. and Jehn, K.A. (1995) ‘Examining
Cross-cultural Differences in Conflict
Management Behavior: A Strategy for Future
Research’, International Journal of Conflict
Management 6: 387–403.
Womack, D.F. (1988) ‘Assessing the Thomas-
Kilmann Conflict Model Survey’, Management
Communication Quarterly 1(3): 321–49.
Yik, M.M. and Bond, M.H. (1993) ‘Exploring
the Dimensions of Chinese Person Perception
with Indigenous and Imported Constructs:
Creating a Culturally Balanced Scale’,
International Journal of Psychology 28(1): 75–95.
ZHENZHONG MA is in the Odette School of
Business, University of Windsor, 401 Sunset
Avenue, Windsor, Ontario, Canada N9B 3P4.
[email: maz@uwindsor.ca]
 Ma: Chinese Conflict Management Styles and Negotiation Behaviours 119

Résumé
Styles de gestion des conflits et comportements de négociation en Chine: un
test empirique (Chi Zhenzhong Ma)
Si la Chine est devenue l’un des marchés les plus importants pour les entreprises occidentales,
négocier avec les Chinois reste une entreprise relativement difficile. Des chercheurs se sont
penchés sur les spécificités de la négociation et des styles de gestion des conflits en Chine, mais
il restait à en apporter la preuve tangible. Cette étude tente d’illustrer la façon dont les
Chinois abordent les conflits et donc influent sur leurs comportements en situation de
négociation dans un contexte commercial, ce au moyen d’un test empirique sur les styles de
gestion des conflits et leur impact sur les résultats des négociations. Les résultats montrent que
le compromis et le fait d’éviter les conflits sont les méthodes préférées par les Chinois dans la
gestion des conflits, tandis que la conciliation et la mise en concurrence mènent à davantage
de satisfaction au cours des négociations commerciales. Sont ensuite abordées les implications
managerielles et les études futures.

Chi Zhenzhong Ma

Downloaded from ccm.sagepub.com at University of Liverpool on July 20, 2012

View publication stats