Conflict Management Style: Accounting for Cross-National Differences

Michael Mr. Morris, Katherine Y.Williams, Kwok Leung, Richard Larrick, M.Teresa Mendoza, Deepti Bhatnagar, JianfengLi, Mari Kondo, Jin-Lian Luo, Jun-Chen Hu

A problem in joint ventures be- flict style and the cultural values tween U.S. and Asian firms is that that account for these differences: cultural differences impede the Chinese managers rely more on an smooth resolution of conflicts avoiding style because of their between managers. In a survey of relatively high value on conformity youngmanagers in the U.S., and tradition. U.S. managers rely China, Philippines, and India we more on Q competing style because find support for two hypotheses of their relatively high value on about cultural differences in con- individual achievement.

recurring theme in studies of inter- exchange of signals.Since cultures A national business is the idea that have different signalling languages, problematic misunderstandings arise as negotiators faced with a counterpart a result of cultural differences in styles from another culture can easily misread of negotiating and handling conflict a signal or transmit an unintended mes- (Adler? 1986; Adler & Graham, 1989; sage. The literature suggests that U.S. Hofstede, 1991; Maddox, 1993). Nego- negotiators struggle with such crossed tiation can be thought of as a mutual signals not only with counterparts from

Michael W. Morris is an Associate Professor of Organizational Behavior at Stanford University’s Graduate School of Business, and research affiliateof the Institute for Social and Personality Research at U.C. Berkeley. Katherine Y.Williams is an advanced graduate student in Organizational Behavior at Stanford University’s Graduate School of Business. Kwok Leung is Professor and Chairman of the Department of Psychology at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. Richard Larrick is an Associate Professor of behavioral science at the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business. M. Teresa Mendoza is a faculty assistant at Stanford University’s Graduate School of Business. Deepti Bhatnagar is a Professor of Organizational Behavior at the Indian Instituteof Management, Ahmedabad, India. JianfengLi is a Professor of Organizational Behavior at The People’s University of China’s College of Business Administration. Mari Kondo is an Associate Professor of Asian Institute of Management in Manila. Jin-Lian Luo is an Associate Professor in the School of Economics & Management, Tongji University, Shanghai, China. Jun-Chen Hu is an Associate Professor in the School of Management, Fudan University, Shanghai, China. The authors acknowledge helpful comments from Michael Bond, Roderick Kramer, Joanne Martin, and Margaret Neale as well as insights from research colloquia at Stanford’s Graduate School of Business and atIPSR at UC Berkeley.

JOURNAL OF IA’TERMATIOMAL k?LJSlhrESS STUDIES, 29, 4 (FOURTH QIJARTER 1998):729-748. 729 CULTUREAND CONFLICXSTYLE completely unfamiliar c;ultures, such as severaltimes, but, like so many indigenous tribal groups, but also with Americans I’ve known, he’s not inter- counterparts from cdtures with which ested in listening when he thinks he’s they have a surface familiarity, such as right. He wantsthis thing done yes- Japan (Graham & Sano, 1984). China terday. He haspracticall?. screamed (Pye,1982) and India (Gopalan & this at me at our last few meetings- Rivera, 1997). As Pye (1982, pp. 20-23) once in front of a few of my employ- explained: ees” (Roongrerngsuke and Chansu- “Unquestionably the largest and pos- thus, in press). sibly the most intractable category of The many examples of joint ventures problems in Sino-American business that have run aground on cultural dif- negotiations can be traced to the cul- ferences have been an impetus for tural differences between the two research on cultural differences in societies. . . . Conscious efforts to take styles of handling conflic: with co- into account the other party’s cultural workers. Kesearchers have shifted from practices can eliminate gross misun- the method of inductively gcneralizing derstandings, but cultural factors con- from qualitative interviews (Pye, 1982) tinue to surface and cause problems to the method of testing hypotheses in more subtle and indirect ways.” with carefully matched samples of man- Although cultural differences present agersand quantitative measures a challenge in a one-time formal negoti- (Graham,1985). Many studies have ation, the problem of cultural differ- investigated so-called “East-West differences is even more endemic in joint ences” by comparing U.S. managers to a ventureswhere managers need to matched group in an Asian society. resolve everyday conflicts with co- Two patterns of findings have been workers from other cultures (Baird, observed repeatedly, aibeit the precise Lyles, Ji, Wharton, 1990; Miller, Glen, cultural boundaries on these differences Jaspersen,Karmokolias, 1997). In the arenot well understood. First, com- literature on joint ventures between pared to U.S. managers, Asian managers U.S. and Asian firms, two types of mis- rely on a style of avoiding explicit dis- understanding in conflicts are frequent- cussion of theconflict. Second, com- ly identified. In one type of misunder- pared to Asians, U.S. managers are more standing, U.S. managers make the error inclined toward a style of assertively of reading silence from their Asian comDeting with the other person to see counterpart as an indication of consent. who can convince the other of their pre- U.S. managers may fail to pick up on ferredresolution of thoconflict. the indirectly expressed objections of Although many researchers have specu- Asian colleagues (see Graham and Sano, lated that these behavioral differences 1984). A differenttype of misunder- reflect underlying differenccs in cultur- standing occurs when Asian managers alvalues (Bond & Hwang,1986; make the error of reading an U.S. col- Kirkbride, Tang, & Westwood, 19911, league’s direct adversarial arguments as this has not been rigorously investigat- indicating unreasonableness and lack of ed. We review the cross-cultural litera- respect. Consider the reaction of a Thai ture on conflict style and values to manager to his assertive U.S. colleague: derive mora precisepredictions. Then “I’ve tried to explain all this to Max we compare the conflict management MICHAELW. MORRIS

styles and values of young managers in cal assessments of the five-fold taxono- the U.S. and three Asian societies to test my as a model of the overall structure of predictions about the values underlying conflict behavior is mixed (Jehn & cultural differences in conflict style. Weldon, 1997; Rahim, 1983; Womack, 1988).Nevertheless, the Thomas and MODELSOF CONFLICT MANAGEMENT Kilmann scales for tapping particular STYLE conflict styles, such as avoiding and Researchers in social psychology and competing, compare favorably to other organizational behavior have proposed methods in terms of validity and relia- models that reduce the myriad tacticsof bility (Brown, Yelsma, 8r Keller, 1981; negotiators and managers to several Killman & Thomas, 19771. basic styles. Early models of strategy in On theoretical grounds, Pruitt and conflict (Deutsch, 1973) followed the Rubin (1986) have argued that model- I intuitive notion that styles can be ling conflict style in termsof five dispo- arrayed on a single dimension ranging sitionsis redundant. The important from selfishness (concern about own insight is that low concern for the oppo- outcomes) to cooperativeness (concern nent occurs with two quite different about the other party’s outcomes). styles: Passively avoidinsr discussion of However, a limitation of single-dimen- conflict as opposed to actively collabo- sion models is that they fail to encom- rating, and comDetine; as opposed to pass styles that involve high concern for accommodating,Theso two styles, both self and other and likewise, styles then, seem particularly likely to under- that involve a high concern for neither lie friction in a working relationship, self nor other (e.g., Thomas & Killman, and this may explain why these styles 1974; Pruitt & Rubin, 1986). have been the focus in cross-cultural Subsequent theorists have drawn on conflictmanagement. To understand Blake, Shepard and Mouton’s (1964) the roots of cultural differences in taxonomy of managerial styles to model avoiding and competing in conflicts, conflict styles within a framework of however, we need measures of underly- two orthogonal motivational dimen- ing values. sions, a self-oriented and an other-oriented concern (see Thomas & Killman, MODELSOF VALUES 1974; Pruitt & Rubin, 19861. Within this Researchers have taken several ap- framework,Thomas and Kilmann proaches to conceptualizing and measur- (1974) developed an instrument for ingvalues, Most research focuses on measuring an individual’s dispositions individual differences within cultures towardfive discrete styles. We will rather than cross-cultural differences; focus on two of these, on avoiding (low nevertheless, researchers assume that self-concern and low other-concern) one’s values represent cultural demands and comDeting (high self-concern and as well as idiosyncratic goals (Rokeach, lowother-concern). The remaining 1973). Members of the same culture are styles are, respectively, the polar oppo- likely to share a set of values acquired in sites of avoiding (collaborating) and of the process of socialization - values that competing (accommodating) and a represent the acceptable modes of con- blend of the four foregoing styles (com- duct in a particular society. Furthermore, promising). The evidence from empiri- a separate research tradition has utilized

VOL. 29,NO. 4, FOURTHQUARTER, 1998 731 CULTUREAND CONFLIC~STYLE

values as a wayof distinguishing cultures Culture Connection, 1987). (Kluckhorn & Strodbeck, 1961). These Schwartz (1992,1994) has attempted to researchers measure values that are encompass the Western values studied by equally interpretable, yet differentially Rokeach, as well as values identified in endorsed, across cultures. non-Western settings, into a multidimen- The primary method for the study of sional model of the structure of basic individual differences in values has been human values. With regard to the relia- inventories of abstract terms. The semi- bility of the measurement instrument and nal work of Rokeach (1973) measured an the representativeness of the sample individual’s profile on thirtysix terms within and across cultures, this research that are central to Western discourse on dominatesprevious work. Schwartz’s values, such as “equality” and “freedom.” model begins with respondents’ endorse- By contrast, the most influential cross- ment of value descriptors (such as “obe- I cultural studies have involved more spe- dience,’’ “politeness,” etc.) which are cific statements of attitudes and prefer- then clustered into measures of ten val- ences(Hofstede, 1980). Hofstede(1980) ues, such as “Conformity.” These values compared managers in a large sample of are further aggregated into a few broad countries on a set of statements of atti- valuedimensions, forexample, tudes about work andlife, which allowed “Conformity” and “Tradition” make up him to position the countries on several the “Societal Conservatism” dimension. dimensions, such as Individualism-Col- “Achievement” and “Power” make up lectivism. One limitation of this study is the “Self-Enhancement’’ dimension. that value scores couldbe derived only at the country level rather than at the indi- RELATINGVALUES TO CONFLICT viduallevel. Triandis and colleagues STYLE (Triandis et al., 1986) have developed a scale to measure Individualism-Col- Is Individualism-Collectivism the lectivism at the level of individual val- Key? ues: however, it increasingly appears that Most previous researchers who have this construct is not coherent at the indi- linked cultural values to conflict style vidual level, and different components have pointed to the Individualism-Col- need to be conceptualized separately lectivism dimension. The most explicit (Triandis, 1995). Anotherlimitation is argument in the previous literature is that Hofstede’s (1980) instruments were the thesis of Ting-Toomey (1988) and developed in Western countries and then colleagues (Trubisky, Ting-’I‘oomey & translated. Because of the possibility that Lin, 1991) that country differences in values not salient in Western societies communication style can be accounted were omitted from the supposedly uni- for in terms of the Indivjdualism- versal space of values, researchers in non- Collectivismdimension. Specifically, Western settings have developed mea- collectivisnl is associated with indirect sures that concentrate on the values cen- communication, such as the Avoiding tral to their traditions. For example, a style of handling conflict, whereas indi- distinct value dimension that emerged in vidualism is associated with direct studies of Chinesevalues, Moral modes of expression,such as the Discipline, involves self-regulation and Competing style of handling conflict. attention to role obligations (Chinese Twopredictions follow from an

732 JOURNAL Oh’ IATERNATIO.VAL RL’SIJYESS STUDIES MICHAELW. MORRIS

Individualism-Collectivism(IC) Which Values in Chinese Cuiture account.First, measures of Avoiding Lead to Conflict Avoidance? and Competing should dramatically A number of theorists have suggested separate U.S. managers from Asian that Chinese culture pronlotes an indi- managers; for example, in Hofstede’s IC rect, avoiding style of handling conflicts data, the U.S. score (91) is far higher (Bond 8r Wang, 1983). Somestudies than those of Asian societies, which are have employed conflict style scales to relatively close together (for example, test that Chinese managers are more dis- India=48,Phillipines=32, and posed to an avoidant style than Western Taiwan=17).Moreover, Asian patterns managers.Tang and Kirkbride (1986) should resemble those in other highly measured the conflict styles of Hong collectivist societies, such as Middle Kong Chinese and British executives in Eastern and Latin societies. This gener- the Hong Kong Civil Service, and found al prediction of similarity across all that the Chinese managers were higher highly collectivist cultures is not tested on the Avoiding style. However, given in the current study because it has been that ingroup/outgroup differences influ- disconfirmed by careful comparative ence conflict avoidance (Leung, 1988), studies of conflict style (Graham, 19851; it is ambiguous whether British culture we compare across Asia. or expatriate status was the key to the A second prediction is that differ- behavior of this sample of British man- ences between the countries in conflict agers. Trubisky,Ting-Toomey and Lin style should be mediated by individual (1991) compared Taiwallese and U.S. differences on measures of Individual- students and found that Taiwanese par- ism-Collectivism.Again, the existing ticipants relied on an indirect avoiding data is not encouraging: Researchers stylemore than U.S. participants.Yet, who have correlated participants’ scores as Leung (1997) pointed out, this is one on Individualism-Collectivism scales of many studies in the literature that with conflict behaviors have found no suffers from interpretive difficulties relationship(Leung, 1988). Theprob- owing to the fact that the responses lem may be that the Individualism- were not standardized before making Collectivism construct conflates a num- cultural comparisons; higher scores in ber of distinct values and attitudes and one culture may thus reflect differing hence obscures relations between spe- response sets, such as acquiescence cific values and social behaviors. The bias. reliability of Individualism-Collectivism What underlies the difference that scales has proved quite low, and in Chinese respondents rely on Avoiding recent years Triandis (19951 and col- more than comparable groups of U.S. leagues have shifted from the position respondents? The evidence clearly sug- that individualism versus collectivism gests that not all highly collectivist cul- is aunitary dimension of values. tures share this tendency (Graham, Similarly, our view is that cross-cultural 19851. A clue is suggested by a study differences in conflict management comparing conflict styles of Japanese style cannot be reduced to a single and U.S. students, which found that value dimension running from individ- twice as many Japanese students report- ualism to collectivism (see review by ed reliance on avoiding in their most Morris 8t Leung, 19991. recent conflict (Ohbuchi & Takahashi,

VOL. 29, No. 4, FOI:RTH QUARTER,1998 733 CULTUREAND CONFLICTSTYLE

1994). One of the most important rea- Which Values in U.S. Culture sons for avoiding explicit discussion of Lead to Competing in Conflicts? the conflict for the Japanese students Now let us review the evidence about was the desire to preserve their personal cultural differences in competitive relationships.Interestingly, though styles of handling conflict. A robust both Japanese and U.S.respondents pattern of findings comes from studies agreed that avoidance is the least effec- of choices between dispute resolution tive strategy for resolving the issues, for procedures.Leung and colleagues Japanese it was the preferred style found that whereas competitive adver- because they value the conservation of sarial procedures are preferred by North existingrelationships. Adjusting one- Americans, less competitive proce- self to the stable social structure-to dures, such as mediation, arc preferred relationships, organizations, and insti- in many other cultural contexts, such as I tutions-is a virtue in Confucian tradi- Hong Kong and Spain (Leung & Lind, tion of role-appropriate behavior, which 1986; Leung et al.. 1992). Other studies is a central strain of Chinese culture have measured participants’ choices also influential in Japanese culture (Su, between competitive and cooperative Chiu, Hong, Leung, Peng & Morris, strategies in conflict games. Li, Cheung 1998). Confucian ethics lays out certain and Kau (3979) found that U.S. children “rules of propriety” which structure rely on competitive strategies to a interpersonal relationships, and adjust- greater extent than do matched samples ment to these prescribed patterns is val- of children in Hong Kong and Taiwan. ued. This Confucian virtue was tapped Although not a cross-national compari- in studies of Chinese values by the fac- son, a study by Cox, Lobel and McCleod tor of Moral Discipline (Chinese Culture (1991) found that Anglo-Americans Connection,1987). Chiu and Kosinski competed more than African-, Asian-,or (1994) compared U.S. and Hong Kong Hispanic-Americans, Chinese participants in their endorse- What value orientation might under- ment of Chinese values and in their lie the tendency of U.S. managers conflictmanagement styles. Results towarda Competing style? One possi- showed that Chinese respondents were bility is that competing reflects the higher on both Moral Discipline and value-orientation that Parsons (195 1) ConflictAvoidance. This dimension referred to as an achievement versus corresponds to Schwartz’s value dimen- ascription-orientation, and McClelland sion of Societal Conservatism. Drawing (1961) later operationalized as need for together these ideas, we hypothesize: achievement.An achievement orienta- Hl: Chinese culture fosters an Avoid- tion means “looking out for number ing style of conflict management. one,” placing a higher concern for one’s HZ: An Avoiding style of conflict man- own outcome than on the other’s out- agement reflects an individual’s orien- come.Achievement orientation is high tation toward Societal Conservatism in societies, such as the United States, values leg, Conforrnity). that tradit.ionally permit individual H3: Countrydifferences in the social mobility, and low in societies Avoiding style are mediated by country such as India where ascribed character- differences in orientation toward istics (e.g.. caste] determine one’s life Societal Conservatism. outcomes.Value surveys have long

7 34 MICHAELW. MORRIS revealed that U.S. respondents endorse style less inclined toward competing individual achievement more than that in the than U.S. managers, but this South and East Asian respondents does not take the formof avoidance that (Singh, Huang & Thompson, 1962; ittakes in Chinese contexts. Similarly Morris, Podolny & Ariel, 1999). An ori- in the Philippines, where the historical entationtoward achievement and influence of Chinese culture has been mobility is capturedby the Self- moderated by the more recent influence Enhancement dimension in Schwartz’s of Spanish and U.S. cultures, it has model. Hence, we hypothesize the fol- been noted that managers avoid overt lowing: competing in conflicts with colleagues, H4: U.S. culture fosters a Competing but not through avoidance of addressing style of conflict management. the issues. Rather the tendency is to ex- H5: A Competing style of conflict man- press one’s point indirectly, or to cush- agement reflects an individual’s orien- ion one’s statements so as to preserve tation toward Self-Enhancement values smooth relationships (Gouchenour, (e.g., Achievement). 1990). H6: Country differences in the Com- We tested our hypotheses in a compara- peting style are mediated by country tive survey involving MB.4 students in differences in orientation toward Self- four countries.This choice of sample Enhancement. was designed to satisfy several important methodological goals. A first goal Expectations About Other was to sample enough sites to test our Countries hypotheses that conflict management We have proposed hypotheses about styles vary as a function of specific cul- distinct value dimensions underlying tural traditions as opposed to a very cultural differences in Avoiding and general Individualism-Collectivism Competing, which can be contrasted dimension. We compareda U.S. sam- with previous arguments that cultural plewith Chinese, Indian, and differences in both conflict styles are a Philippinesamples. Our key variables function of a general Individualism- were scales measuring Avoiding and Collectivismdimension. To findsup- Competing styles in conflict and mea- port for our hypotheses it is useful to sures of the Schwartz value dimensions not only compare U.S. and Chinese relevant to our hypothoses, “Social managers, but also to observe managers Conservatism” and “Sclf-Enhance- in other Asian cultures that, while high- ment.”We also analyzed a standard ly collectivist, have cultural heritages scale of Individualism-Collectivism and that lead us to expect conflict styles dif- a scale measuring the value dimension fering from Chinese managers. First let that Schwartz has described as most us considerIndia. Observers have similar to Individualism-Collectivism, argued that Indian managerial conflict which is “Openness to Change.” resolution tendencies reflect Hindu norms of seeking a solution that pleases METHOD everyone, as well as British norms of active, mutual problem solving (Moran Participanis & Stripp, 2991). Hence,we might To compare groups who differ in cul- expect that Indian managers have a ture yet are relatively similar otherwise,

VOL.29, No. 4, FOURTHQLIARTER, 1998 735 CULTUREAND CONFLICTS~LE

we sampled students at highly ranked reportconflict style scale. This version masters of business administration involved R rating scale format, which is (MBA) programs in each country - in importantin cross-cultural studies the United States (Stanford University because it facilitates checking the inter- and University of Chicago), in China item reliability of the scale, which cannot (Tong Ji and Fudan Universities), in the be presumed to carry across cultures. Philippines(Asian Institute of Participants were asked to consider inter- Management), in India (Indian Institute personal conflicts at work, and rate how of Management-Ahmedabad)(see well their typical behavior is described Tripathi, 1996). Thesestudents have by a series of 53 statements, smh as “I try relatively similar academic training, to win my position.” work experiences, and career goals. We Next, participants received the 57- recruited participants in large classes item instrument for measuring value f thatcomprised cross-sectiona of the orientations(Schwartz. 1994). students enrolled in the program, and Respondents were asked to indicate on participation rates were above 80 per- a 9-point scale rangingfrom -1 to 7, how cent in each country. For the sake of important each value was to them per- clear comparisons, we only analyzed sonally. A score of -1 indicated that the data from participants who were citi- item was “opposed to my values,” a 0 zens of the country where the data was indicated “not important,” and 7 indi- collected.There were 454 participants catedof“supreme importance.” included in the analyses: 132 partici- Finally, we also employed a widely pants from the United States, 100 from used 18-item scale designed to measure China, 160 from India, and 62 from the the Individualism-Collectivism dimen- Philippines. The percentage of females sion of social values (Triandis et al., was 28 percent in the United States, 24 1986). Tho scales were presented in the percent in China, 11 percent in India, language of instruction of the MBA pro- and 44 percent the Philippines, respec- gram: English in the United States, tively.The average age of respondents India, and Philippines, and Mandarin in varied somewhat in the four countries. China. Scales were translated and back- In the United States the averageage was translated to achieve comparability. 28.69years. It was 30.05 years in Completing the full survey took partici- China, 23.31 years in India, and 26.26 pants about 20 minutes. yearsin the Philippines, Overall 76 percent of the respondents were male, Scale Construction and the average age of the respondents A first step in preparing the data was to was 26.75 years. standardize participants’ responses to each instrument so that response biases Materials could not enter into the cultural differ- Participants received a booklet entitled ences.This was done by subtracting “Managerial Style Inventories” with brief from the raw score for each item the instructions on the cover and a request mean of all the items on the focal scale, for demographic information, such as and dividing this by the standard devia- country of citizenship, age, and gender. tion of items on the scale. Next we exam- Next appeared Rahirn’s (1983) adapted ined, within each country, the inter-item version of the Killman-Thomas self- reliability of the specific factors from the MICHAELW. MORRIS instruments relevant to our hypotheses. hypotheses using Analysis of Variance For the conflict style and value factors, (ANOVA) and planned comparisons. acceptable levels of reliability were Consistent with H1, Chinese managers reached. The appendix shows the items relied more on the Avoiding style than that made up each scale. Table 1 below managers in the other countries (t = shows Cronbach cx reliability scores for 2.68, df = 449, p < .01 one-sided) lead- Avoiding and Competing scales and the ing to a main effect of Country (F = 3.14, three Schwartz value dimensions rele- p < .03). Consistent with HZ, U.S. man- vant to hypotheses (Openness to Change, agers relied more on a Competing style SocietalConservatism, and Self- than managers from the other three Enhancement). As may be seen in Table countries (t = 1.92, df = 449, p < .05 1, all these scales reached acceptable lev- one-sided), which resulted in a main els within each country and satisfactory effect of Country (F = 2.60, p < .05). levelsacross countries. However, the Table 2 also shows the profile across Individualism-Collectivism scale did not countries on the Schwartz value dimen- show an adequate level of reliability (and sionsrelevant to the hypotheses. no subset of items could be found that Because the Schwartz instrument com- improvedits performance). Hence, this prehensively covers the semantic space scale was not used further. of values, it is again appropriate to in- terpret the standardized scores (shown RESULTSAND DISCUSSION in bold]. Factors with higher standardized scores are those that respondents Country Differences place above most other values. Overall, Table 2 indicates the extent to which our MBA respondents endorsed Societal MBA respondents in the four countries Conservatism less than Self-Enhance- rely on Avoiding and Competing strate- ment or Openness to Change; however, gies for managingconflicts. We tested there were strong and readily inter-

TABLE1 RELIABILITY SCORES FOR CONFLICT AND SCHWARTZ VALUESSCALES WITHIN EACH COUNTRY Cronbach’s Ahha U nited China India PhilippinesIndiaUnitedChina Total States Construct Conflict Style Avoidant -87 .60 .77.83 .76 Competitive I75 ,78 .73 .83 .77 Schwartz Values Societal Conservatism .75.72 .76.71 .79 Self-enhancement .80 .EO .84 .83 .82 Openness to Change -74 .77 .87 .77 -79

Individualism/Collectivism .34 I 69 .41 .4 9 .4a

VOL. 29, NO. 4,FOURTH QUARTER, 1998 73 7 CULTUREAND CONFLICTSTYLE pretablecountry differences. Endorse- nent subscales for Conformity and ment of Societal Conservatism varied as Tradition values. a function of Country (F(3, 449) =22.17, Endorsement of the Self-Enhancement p c.01). Consistentwith our expecta- dimension was similar across the four tion that this factor taps Confucian val- countries.However, the flat profileon ues, it was relatively high in China and this general dimension masks interesting the Philippines compared with India patterns on the component subscales for and especially compared with the Achievement and Power.Achievement United States (t=6.44, df=449, p<.Ol). varied as a function of Country (F(3, This pattern with the Social Conser- 449) =11.16,p c.01)in the predicted pat- vatism scale reflected virtually identical tern of greater endorsement by U.S. profiles across countries on its compo- managers (M=.48) compared with man-

-~~~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ TABLE2 CONFLICTSTYLE AND MAJOR VALUEDIMENSIONS OF MANAGERSIN 4 COUNTRIES

Un ited China India Philippines India ChinaUnited States CONFLICT STYLE Avoiding Style Raw 3.17 (.84) 3.21 (.50) 2.96 (.86) 3.42 (.73) Standardized -.37 (-61) -.19 (.37) -.39 (-55) -.32 (.53) Competing Style Raw 3.75 (.55) 3.45 (.55) 3.39 (.57) 3.82 (.63) Standardized .12 (.61) .05 (.47) -.06(.52) .02 t.61) MAJOR VALUE DIMENSIONS Social Conservatism (conformity, tradition) Raw 2.74 (.93) 4.27 (-93) 3.64 (1.13) 4.33 (.97) Standardized -.69(.40) -.36 (.38) -.43 (.44) -.23 (.371 Self-enhancement (power, achievement] Raw 3.81 (.91) 4.68 (.99) 4.25 (1.09) 4.53 (1.05) Standardized -.08 (.43) -.03 (.36] -.05 ( .48] -.07 ( .38) Openness to Change (hedonism, stimulation, self-direction) Raw 4.44 (.77) 4.31 (.94) 4.44 (-89) 4.17 (1.22) Standardized .33 (.32) -.14 (.31) .14 (.36] -.14 ( .31) N 131 99 160 62

Note. Means and (sds) for raw and standardized variables are shown. Means of standardized variables arein boldface. MICHAELW. MORRIS agers from China (M =.19), India (M at the level of its specific: component =.30]or the Philippines (M =.25; (k5.46, values, Achievement and Power. df=449,pc.01). Yet theother compo- Finallv, let us turn to the dimension nent value, Power, revealed an opposite in Schwartz’s model closest to Indivi- pattern (F(3, 449) =49.58, p <.01) in dualism-Collectivism, viz., Openness to which U.S. managers were lower (M =- Change. As expected, it variedacross .63) than managers from China (M =- countries (F(3, 449) =49.58, p c.01) in .24], India (M =-.39) or the Philippines the pattorn of U.S. managers being high- (M =-.40). Thisfinding resonates with er than the other three groups (k10.79, Hofstede’s (1980) finding that U.S. df=449, p<.O1). Thispattern summa- respondentswere lower in Power rizes consistent profiles on the compo- Distance than those in the other three nent values of Self-Direction, Hedon- samples.Apparently, U.S. managers ism,and Stimulation. A furtherdetail believe in trying to get ahead, but they that can be noted at the end of our dis- are uncomfortable with the notion that cussion of Table 2 concerns the relative people have privileges once they get size of countrydifferences. Consistent ahead. Because the components of this with our conceptual modd that values general dimension differ in their profiles come between country and conflict across countries, it will be important to style, value-orientations differ moredra- examine relations to conflict style both matically across country than do con- at the level of the general dimension and flict styles.

TABLE3 CONFLICT STYLES REGRESSEDON COUNTRY AND MAJOR VALUE DIMENSIONS

Avoiding Competing

Predictors la 2a 3a Ib 2b 3b China .14* .08 -.OS .03 India -.02 -.07 -.15** -.12* Philippines .04 -.02 -.Of3 .02 Social Conservatism .16** .19** -.03 -.oo Self Enhancement .01 .02 .26** .27** Openness To Change -*02 .02 .15** .20* * Adjusted R2 .o 1 .03 -03 .01 .10 .12 449 4413 445 449 440 445 440 a. f. 449 445 4413 449 F 3.14* 4.a2** 3.51** 2.60 18.18** 10.76**

Note: Coefficients are standardized beta weights. The country variables are dummy vari ables with the United States as the excluded category. All variables are standardized. * p < .05; **p < .01

~~~ ~ ~~ VOL. 29. No. 4,FOLIKTH QUARTER, 1998 739 CULTUREAND CONFLICTSTYLE

Do Values Mediate Conflict Style predict Avoiding. A mediation relation- Differences? ship is seen in that the countryeffect is To demonstrate that value differences reduced when values are simultaneous- account for the differences in conflict ly entered, yet the effect of the value style, several criteria must be met (see dimension is undiminished(see sa). Baron & Kenny, 1986). Theputative Equation In sum, results unequivo- mediating variable should predict the cally support H3 that the value dimen- dependentvariable. Moreover, when sion of Social Conservatism accounts the independent variable and the puta- for the greater Chinese tendency to tive mediating variables are simultane- avoidconflict. Seeking a morefine- ously entered into an equation predict- grained understanding of the mediating ing the dependent variable, the coeffi- variable, we conducted parallel analy- f cientonthe independent variable ses using the specific component values should be markedly reduced. Whereas of Tradition and Conformity, one at a the coefficient on the mediating variable time, and found that either serves to shouldbe less affected. Our analytic completely account for the greater strategy will be to first test whether Chinese tendency to rely on an avoiding country effects on conflict style are strategy in conflicts. mediated by values in an analysis that Now let us consider the Competing includes all the relevant value dimen- style. As shown in Equation Ib, consis- sions. Then we will try to pinpoint the tent with the ANOVA results, there is values responsible for effects by exam- an effect of the India dummy variable ining the role of specific component on Competing (indicating that U.S. values of the general value dimensions. managers are higher than Indian man- Models with gender and age as controls agers on competing). Moreover, consis- wererun first. Gender had no effect, tent with H5, the value dimension of and age had a slight effect only in the Self Enhancement predicts a Competing model for Competing, which did not style (see Equation 2b). A sign of a par- alter the pattern of inter-relationships tial mediation relation is that the coun- betweenvariables of interest. Hence, try effect drops by an order of signifi- these controls are dropped in our fea- cance when the value scores are simul- tured analyses. taneously entered in the model (com- Let us first consider the result of pareEquation 3b toEquation Ibl. The regressingthe Avoiding style on decrease in the beta coefficients is Country dummy variables and value small, but it is best appreciated in oppo- measures. As may be seen in Table 3, sition to increase in the beta coefficients and specifically in Equation la, there is on the value scores. This increase indian effect of the China dummy variable cates that their causal relation to the on Avoiding (Chinese managers are conflict style is not diminished; it is higher than U.S. managers).Consistent instead clarified by the inclusion of the with H2, the value-orientation of Social country dummy variable (compare Conservatism predicts conflict avoid- Equation 3b to Equation Zb). ance(see Equation 2a). By contrast, To look for more fine-grained rela- Self-Enhancement and Openness to tionships, we conducted parallel analy- Change, which corresponds most close- ses with the components of Self- ly to Individualism-Collectivism, do not Enhancment (Power and Achievement) MICHAEL W. MORRIS and of Openness to Change (Hedonism, approach in workplace conflicts. Self-Direction, and Stimulation) exam- Another general pattern that can be ined one at a time as possible mediators seen by comparing standardized scores of the country difference in Competing. in Table 2 is that the country differ- Not surprisingly given the pattern of ences on value dimensions are sharper means. Power does not mediate the than the country differenties in conflict countrydifference at all. Achievement style.This makes sense given that performs better than the overall mea- individuals are more or less free to sure, and hence seems to capture the value what they want, but the role value that partially mediates the coun- requirements of a managw require use trydifference. The component values of all of the different conflict manage- of Openness to Change do not perform mentstrategies. It isconsistent with as well as the overall scores in Table 3. our argument that valuesare proximally Hence, we can conclude that compared related to country, and that the influ- with other values, individual achieve- ence of country on conflict styles arises ment is most relevant to country differ- through the values into which managers ences in the competing style of conflict are socialized. management. Our use of managers in elite MBA programs raises another important ques- GENERALDISCtJSSlON tion in the literature on cultural differences in international business, which Contribution of current findings is whether the most cosmopolitan The current findings make a substan- groups in every country have converged tial contribution to the research evi- to a common global business culture dence that conflict management behav- (Barnet & Cavanaugh, 1994). Our Asian ior differs as a function of cultural val- participants are arguably among the ues. Using samples that provide a con- most Westernized members of their servative test of cultural differences, we societies, and yet they still differed have identified two patterns of differ- quite markedly in their values from the ences between U.S. and Asian managers U.S. participants.Hence, our data are inconflict management style. Chinese consistent with the view that even the managers tend toward an Avoiding most cosmopolitan sectors of these soci- style, U.S. managers,toward a eties have not completell- converged in Competing style. More importantly, we their values and managerial behaviors. have provided an analysis of how these Evidonce about cultural differences in differences in managerial behavior style and underlying values, can be of reflect underlying differences in value- help to managers in joint ventures who orientations. A Societal Conservatism must interact as colleaguos and resolve value-orientation, tapping values such conflicts with managers from other cul- as Conformity and Tradition, underlies tures.Although a U.S. manager in the tendency of Chinese managers to China ma37 find it difficult that col- avoid explicit negotiation of workplace leagues withhold their critical feedback, conflicts.An orientation toward Self knowing that he or she should not Enhancement,specificallyand expect direct expression of conflict will Achievement, underlies the tendency of prevent the error of taking the lack of U.S. managers to take a competing expressed disagreement as an indication

VOL. 29,No. 4,FO~JRTH QUARTEH, 1998 741 of support.Correctly interpreting the ues is likely tobe a useful strategy. Yet to source of this behavior in the Confucian the extent that we want to predict cultur- values of the accommodating oneself to al differences in responses to particular the social structure will guide against situations, then, it is likely that theories erroneous attributions to personal char- will have to shift from reliance on general acteristics or intentions that can have value constructs to more specific belief harmfuland self-fulfilling effects constructs (for a review, see Morris & (Morris, Leung & Sethi 1996; Morris, Leung, 1999). Larrick & Su 1999). Likewise, for Asian managers, an understanding that a U.S. REFERENCES manager’s competitive style is not based Adler, Nancy J. 1986. International on a lack of respect for the others in the dimensions of organizational behav- room, but merely in a value on achieve- ior. Boston, MA: KentPublishing / ment,may help this behavior to be Company. accepted without offence. & john L. Graham. 1989. Cross- cultural interaction: The international Issues fur future research comparisonfallacy? Journalof The current findings lay the ground- International Business Studies, 20(3): work for future analyses that include 515-37. more variables. One issue of interest is Argyle, Michael, Kazuo Shmoda & Brian the role of personality in determining Little. 1978. Variance due to persons conflict style. Sternberg and colleagues and situations in England and Japan. (Sternberg & Dobson, 1987) have found British Journal of Social and Clinical mixed evidence that North American Psychology, 17: 335-37. college students’ conflict styles are pre- Baird, Inga S., Marjorie A. Lyles, Shao- dictedby personality variables. It is bo Ji & Kobert Wharton. 1990. Joint interesting to consider whether person- venture success: A Sino-U.S. Per- ality plays an equal role in other coun- spective. International Studies of tries, given that some studies have Management & Organizat.ion, ZO(1): found that social behavior is driven 125-34. more by personality in the individualis- Barnet, Richard J. & John Cavanaugh. tic context of the U.K. than in the col- 1994. Global dreams: Imperial corpo- lectivistcontext of Japan(Argyle, rations and the new world order. Shimoda & Little, 1978). New York, NY: Simon and Schuster. Another important variable to rnanipu- Baron, Reuben & David A. Kenny. 1986. late in future studies is the status of the The moderator-mediator variable dis- other person in the conflict. For exam- tinctionin social psychological ple, the difference in conflict avoidance research: Conceptual, strategic, and may interact with status, such that man- statisticalconsideration. Journal of agers who show the most deference to a Personality and Social Psychology, superordinate will also demand the most 51(6): 1173-82. deference from a subordinate. In predict- Blake, Robert R., Herbert Shepard & ing general styles of conflict management Jane S. Mouton. 1964. Managing in recurrent roles, the current strategy of intergroupconflict in industry. adducing these behavioral style differ- Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing. ences to fairly general differences in val- Bond, Michael H. 1979. Winning either MICHAELW. MORRIS

way: The effect of anticipating a com- Goldenberg, Susan. 1988. Hands across petitive interaction on person percep- the ocean: Managing joint ventures tion. PersonalityandSocial with a spotlight 011 China and Japan. Psychology Bulletin, 5(3): 316-19. Boston, MA: HarvarclUniversity & Kwang-kuo Hwang. 1986. Press. The social psychology of Chinese Gopalan, Suresh & Joan B. Rivera. 1997. people. In M. H. Bond, editor, The Gaining a perspective on Indian value psychology of the Chinese people. orientations: Implications for expatri- New York, NY: Oxford University ate managers. International Journal of Press. Organizational Analysis, 5(2): 156- & Sung-Hsing Wang. 1983. 179. Aggressive behavior in Chinese soci- Gouchenour, Theodore. 1990. Con- ety: The problem of maintaining order sideringFilipinos. Yarmouth: I and harmony. In A. P. Goldstein & M. International Press. Segall, editors, Global perspectives on Graham, John. 1985, The influence of aggression. New York, NY: Pergamon. culture on business negotiations. Brown, Charles T., Paul Yelsma & Paul Journal of International Business W. Keller. 1981. Communication-con- Studies, 16(1]: 81-96. flict predisposition: Development of a & Yoshihiro Sano. 1984. theory and an instrument. Human Smart bargaining: Doing business Relations, 34(12): 1103-17. withthe Japanese. Cambridge: Chinese Culture Connection. 1987. Ballinger Publishing Co. Chinese values and the search for cul- Hofstede, Geert H. 1980. Culture’s con- ture-freedimensions of culture. sequences: International differences Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, in work-related values. Beverly Hills: 18(2):143-64. Sage Publications. Chiu, Randy K. & Frederick A. Kosinski, - 1991. Cultures and organiza- Jr. 1994. Is Chinese conflict-handling tions: Software of the mind. London, behavior influenced by Chinese val- UK: McGraw-Hill. ues? Social Behavior S Personality, Hui, C. Harry & Harry C. ‘Triandis. 1985. 22(1): 81-90. Measurement in cross-cultural psy- Cox, Taylor, Sharon Lobe1 & Poppy chology: A review and comparison of McLeod. 1991. Effects of ethnic group strategies. Journal of Cross-Cultural cultural differences on cooperative Psychology, 36(2): 131-52. and competitive behavior on a group Jehn, Karen & Elizabeth Weldon. 1997. task. Academy of Management Managerial attitudes toward conflict: Journal, 34(4): 827-47. Cross-cultural differences in resolu- Davis, Herbert J. & Anvaar S. Rasool. tion styles. Journal of International 1988. Values research and managerial Management, 34: 102-24. behavior:Implications for devising Kilmann.Ralon H. & Kenneth W. cultural consistent managerial styles. Thomas. 1977. Developing a forced- Management International Review, choice measure of collflict-handling 28(3): 11-20. behavior: The “MODE” instrument. Deutsch,Morton. 1973. The resolution EducationandPsychological of conflict. New Haven, CT: Yale Measurement, 37(2): 309-25. University Press. Kirkbride, Paul S., Sarah Tang & Robert CULTUREAND CONFLICTSTYLE

I. Westwood. 1991. Chinese conflict ing society. New York, NY: Free Press, preferences and negotiation behavior: London: Collier-Macmillan Limited, Cultural and psychological influ- Miller, Robert, Jack Glen, Fred Jas- ences. OrganizationStudies, 12(3): persen, Xr Yannis Karmokolias. 1997. 365-86. International joint venture in devel- Kluckhorn, Florence & Fred Strodbeck. oping countries. Finance & Develop- 1961. Variations in value orienta- ment, 34[1): 26-9. tions. Evanston, IL: Peterson Row. Moran, Robert T. & William G. Stripp. Leung, Kwok. 1988. Some determinants 1991. Dynamics of successful interna- of conflict avoidance. Journal of tional business negotiations.Houston, Cross-Cultural Psychology, 19(1):125- TX: Gulf Publishing. 36. Morris, Charles W. 1956. Varieties of . 1997. Negotiationand human t.alue. Chicago, IL: University I reward allocations across cultures. In of Chicago Press. P. Earley & M. Erez, editors, New per- Morris, Michael W., Richard Larrick & spectives on international industri- Steven Su. 1999. Misperceiving nego- al/organizational psychology. San tiation counterparts: Ascribing per- Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. sonality traits for situationally deter- , Yuk-fai Au. Jose M. mined bargaining behaviors. Journal Fernandez-Dols & Saburo Iwawaki. of Persor~ality and Social Psychology 1992. Preference for methods of con- (forthcoming). flict processing in two collectivist , Kwok Leung & Sheena Sethi. cultures. International Journal of 1996. Person perception in the heat of Psychologdv,27(2): 195-209. conflict: Attributions about thc oppo- & Michael Bond. 1989. On the nent and conflict resolution in two empirical identification of dimen- cultures.Stanford Univorsity Re- sions for cross-cultural comparisons. search Paper No. 1360, Stanford. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, & Kwok Leung. 1999. Justice ZO(2): 133-51. for all? IJnderstanding cultural influ- & Allan E. Lind. 1986. Pro- ences on judgments of outcome and cedural justice and culture: Effects of process fairness. Applied Psycholog-v: culture, gender, and investigator sta- An International Review (forthcom- tus on procedural preferences. Journul ing]. of Personality and Social Psychology, J. Podolny & S. Ariel. 1999. 50(6): 1134-40. Missing relations: Incorporating rela- Li, Mei-chih, See-fat Cheung & Shwu- tional constructs into models of cul- ming Kau. 1979. Competitive and ture. New Approaches to Internation- cooperative behavior of Chinese chil- al Differences in Organizational dren in Taiwan and Hong Kong. Acta Behavior (forthcoming). Psychologica Taiwanica, 21(1): 27-33. Ohbuchi, Ken-Ichi & Yumi Takahashi. Maddox, Robert C. 1993. Cross - cultur- 1994. Cultural styles of conflict man- al problems in international business: agement in Japanese and Americans: The role of the cultural integration Passivity, covertness, and effective- function. Westport,CT: Quorum ness of strategies. Journal of Applied Books. Social Psychology, 24(15): 1345-66. McClelland, David C. 1961. The achiev- Parkhe, Arvind. 1996. Messy research,

744 /Ol.YLVAL OI.'IhTER.VATIO.VAt BGSI~ESSSTUDIES MICHAELW. MORRIS

methodological predispositions, and editor, Advances in experimental theory development in international social psychology. New York, NY: joint ventures. Academy of Manage- Academic Press. ment Review,18(2): 227-68. 1994. Beyond individualism/ Parsons, Talcott. 1951. The social sys- collectivism: New cultural dimen- tem. New York, NY: Free Press. sions of values. In L!. Kim, H. C. Pruitt, Dean G. & Jeffrey Z. Rubin. 1986. Triandis, C. Kacitcibasi, S. C. Choi & Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate, G. Yoon, editors, Indilyidualism and andsettlement. New York, NY: collectivism: Theory, methods, and Random House. applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pye, Lucian. 1982. Chinese commercial Sage. negotiatingstyle. Cambridge: Shenkar, Oded & Simcha Ronen. 1987. Oelgeschlager, Gunn & Hain. The cultural context of negotiations: I Rahim, M. Afzalur. 1983. A measure of The implications of Chinese interper- styles of handling interpersonal con- sonal norms. Journ(11of Applied flict. Academy of Management Behavioral Science, 23 (2): 263-75. Journal, 26(2): 368-76. Singh, Paras N., Sophia C. Huang & Ralston, David A., David H. Holt, Robert George G. Thompson. 1962. A com- H. Terpstra & Yu Kai-Cheng. 1997. parative study of selected attitudes, The impact of national cultural and values, and personality characteristics economic ideology on managerial of American, Chinese, and Indian stu- work values: A study of the United dents. TheJournal of Social States, Russia, Japan and China. Psychology, 57(1): 123-32. Journal of International Business Sternberg, Robert J. & Diane M. Dobson. Studies, 2812): 177-207. 1987. Resolving interpersonal con- Rokeach, Milton. 1973. The nature of flicts: An analysis of stylistic consis- human values. New York, NY: Free tency. Journal of Personality and Press. Social Psychology,52(4): 794-812. Roongrerngsuke,Siriyupa & Daryl Su, Steve K., Chi-yue Chiu, Ying-yi Chansuthus.In press. Conflict Hong, Kwok Leung, Kaiping Peng & Management in Thailand. In K. Leung Michael W. Morris. Self organization & D. W. Tjosvold, editors, Conflict and social organization: American management in the Asia Pacific. and Chinese constructions. In T. R. Singapore: Wiley. Tyler, R. M. Kramer and 0. P. John, Schnepp, Otto, Mary Anne Von Glinow editors, Psychology of the Social Self. & ArvindBhambri. 1990. United In press. States - China technology transfer. Tang, Sara & Paul Kirkbride. 1986. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Development of conflic:t management Schuster,Camille P. & Michael skills in Hong Kong: An analysis of Copeland. 1996. Globalbusiness, some cross-cultural implications. planning for sales and negotiations. ManagementEducation and Fort Worth, TX: Dryden. Development, 17(3):287-301. Schwartz, Shalom H. 1992. Universals Thomas,Kenneth W. Lk Ralph H. in the content and structureof values: Kilmann. 1974. The Thomas-Kilmann Theoretical advances and empirical mode instrument. New York, NY: tests in 20 countries. In M. P. Zanna, Xicom.

VOL. 29, No. 4, FOURTHQUARTER, 1998 74 5 CULTUREAND CONFLICTSTYLE

Ting-Toomey, Stella. 1985. Toward a theory of conflict and culture. In W. B. Gudykunst, I. P. Stewart and S. Ting-Toomey, editors, International and intercultural communication annual: Vol 9. Communication, culture and organizational processes. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Ge Gao, Paula Trubisky, Zhiz- hong Yang, H. S. Kim, Sungl-ling Lin & T.Nishida. 1991. Culture,face maintenance, and styles of handling interpersonal conflict: A study in five I cultures. The International Journal of Conflict Management,2(4): 275-96. Triandis, Harry C. 1995. Individualism andcollectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. , Robert Bontempo, Hector Betancourt, Michael Bond, Kwok Leung,Abelando Brenes, James Georgas, C. Harry Hui, Gerardo Marin, Bernadette Setiadi, Jai B. P. Sinha, JyotiVerma, John Spangenberg, HubertTouzard & Germainede Montmollin. 1986. The measurement of the etic aspects of individualism and collectivism across cultures. Australian Journal of Psychology, 38(3):257-67. Tripathi,Salil. 1996. Who needs Stanford?Asia's business schools can't match the West's best MBA programs, but the product is improving and some prefer the Asianized cur- riculum. Asia, Inc. September: 26-33. Trubisky, Paula, Stella Ting-Toomey & Sung-ling Lin. 1991. The influence of Individualism-Collectivism and self- monitoringon conflict styles. International journal of Intercultural Relations, 15(1):65-84. Womack, Deanna F. 1988. Assessing the Thomas-Kilmann conflict mode survey. Management Communication Quarterly, l(3):321-49. MICHAELW. MORRIS

APPENDIX Scales Measuring Avoiding and Competing Styles of Managing Conflict and Schwartz Value Factors. Component Value Scale Reliabilities Indicatedby Cronach Alpha Statistics. Conflict Stvle: AVOIDING 1. I attempt to avoid being “put on the spot” and try to keep my conflict with others to myself. 2. I usually avoid open discussion of my differences with the other person. 3. I generally avoid an argument. 4. I try to stay away from disagreement with the other person. 5. I avoid an encounter with others. 6. I try to keep my disagreement with othersto myself in order to avoid hard feelings. 7. I try to avoid unpleasant exchanges. a. I sometimes avoid taking positions which would create controversy. 9. I try to do what is necessaryto avoid useless tensions. 10.1 feel that differences are not always worth worrying about,* 11.There are times when I let others take responsibility for solving problems.*

Conflict Stvle: COMPETING 1. I usually hold on to my solution to a problem. 2. I use my influence to get my ideas accepted. 3. I use my authority to make a decision in my favor. 4. I argue my case to show the meritsof my position. 5. I am generally firm in pursuing my side of the issue. 6. I sometimes use my power to win a competitive situation. 7. I try to win my position. 8. I am usually firm in pursuing my goals. 9. I try to show others thelogic and benefits of my position. 10.1 assert my wishes.

.- *Indicates item dropped from scalc dueto low correlations with other items.

Value Factor: SOCIETAL CONSERVATISM Component Value: Conformity (a= .66): self-discipline, politeness, honoring of parents and elders Component Value: Tradition (a= .55): accepting of my portion in life, moderate, respectfor tradition, devout, humble Value Factor: SELF ENHANCEMENT Component Value: Power (a = .75): preserving my public image, social recognition, authority, wealth, social power

Component Value: Achievement (a= .67): ambitious, influential, successful, capable, intelligent Value Factor: OPENNESS TO CHANGE Component Value: Hedonism (a= ,751: pleasure, enjoying life, self-indulgent Component Value: Self-Direction (a= .63): self-respect, creativity, choosing own goals, curious, independent, freedom Component Value: Stimulation (a= .71): a varied life, an exciting life, daring

VOL. 29, No. 4, FOURTHQUARTER, 1998 747