Impacts of cross-cultural conflict in a workplace environment.
As mentioned by Avruch Kevin (p. 47), cross-cultural conflict is conflict between different cultural groups or conflict between individuals from separate cultures. Professionals receive and perceive information differently in their workplace environment because their general intelligence levels vary and their values and attitudes are different. The aim of this essay is to describe the impacts of cross-cultural conflict in a workplace environment for professionals.
According to Jassawalla et al. (p. 840), cross-cultural conflict impacts workplace environment for professionals negatively and positively. In the positive ways it drives innovation and inspire creativity among professionals, therefore, professionals perform their jobs better and become more productive. Again, cultural sensitivity in the workplace environment including local knowledge and insight leads to market targeting and improved quality. However, cross-cultural conflict has negative impacts such as conflicting styles of work among functional teams and misinterpretation of communication among professionals.
In conclusion, cross-cultural conflict resolution can be achieved via proper intercultural communication, proper interpretation and diversifying ways of decision making. Moreover, professionals can take competitive actions that involve diverging interests, concepts or ideas. Motivating of professionals to solve problems and developing conditions that will allow diversification and flexibility of concurrent ideas will also resolve cross-cultural conflict.
Avruch, Kevin. “Cross-cultural conflict.” Conflict Resolution 1 (2009): 45-57.
Brinson, Jesse A., Jeffrey A. Kottler, and Teresa A. Fisher. “Cross?Cultural Conflict Resolution in the Schools: Some Practical Intervention Strategies for Counsellors.” Journal of Counselling & Development 82.3 (2004): 294-301.
Jassawalla, Avan, Ciara Truglia, and Jennifer Garvey. “Cross-cultural conflict and expatriate manager adjustment: An exploratory study.” Management Decision 42.7 (2004): 837-849.