A Dualistic Model of Harmony and its Implications for Conflict Management in Asia

Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 19, 201–220, 2002c© 2002 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Manufactured in The Netherlands.

A Dualistic Model of Harmony and its Implicationsfor Conflict Management in Asia

KWOK LEUNG [email protected] of Management, City University of Hong Kong

PAMELA TREMAIN KOCHDepartment of Communication, University of Arizona

LIN LUDepartment of Management, City University of Hong Kong

Abstract. Conflict avoidance is common in East Asia, and the Confucian notion of harmony is often invokedto explain this tendency. We review the classical Confucian doctrines and found no encouragement of conflictavoidance in Confucian teachings. Quite the contrary, the Confucian notion of harmony embodies disagreement andopen debates. Thus, we argue that harmony as conflict avoidance is not a main feature of classical Confucianism,but a characteristic of the secular version that is associated with cultural collectivism. We then review severaltheories that are based on the notion of harmony, and show that they are compatible with a dualistic model ofharmony, which posits an instrumental as well as a value motive in harmony-seeking behavior. In the instrumentalperspective, harmony is viewed as a means to a typically materialistic end, whereas in the value perspective,harmony is deemed an end in its own right. Conflict avoidance is primarily driven by the instrumental motive.These two motives are then crossed to form four types of harmony-seeking behaviors. This typology is discussedin terms of its implications for future research and its applications in conflict management.

Keywords: harmony, conflict management, value, instrumentality, confucianism, Asia

“Confucianism emphasizes the value of harmony. When one is conflicting with someoneelse within his or her social network, the first thing one has to learn is ‘forbearance.’. . . (This leads to) giving up one’s personal goal, for a prior consideration of maintaininga harmonious relationships.” (Hwang, 1997–1998:28–29).

If one is to name an indigenous concept that is most important for conflict manage-ment in East Asia, the Confucian concept of harmony would definitely top the list (e.g.,Boisot and Child, 1996; Chen, 2001, 2002; Chen and Chung, 1994; Chen and Starosta,1997; Hwang, 1988, 1997, 1998; Kirkbride, Tang and Westwood, 1991; Knutson, Hwangand Deng, 2000; Triandis, McCusker and Hui, 1990). The basic thesis argued is that har-mony, a cultural value set forth by Confucius some 2500 years ago, leads members ofEast Asian societies to resort to conflict avoidance tactics in order to maintain smooth in-terpersonal relationships. For instance, when writing about the influence of Confucianismon East Asian management practices, Chen and Chung (1994) conclude that “The non-confrontational communication style is based on the Confucian concept ‘Ho’1 (harmony)”

202 LEUNG, KOCH AND LU

(p. 100). Chen and Pan (1993:135) note that there is a “ . . . Confucian imperative ofworking to achieve harmony, to which all other goals are subordinate.” Finally, Hwang(1997–1998) echos this view by stating that the Confucian emphasis on harmony leadsto forbearance and the suppression of personal goals in favor of maintaining a harmo-nious relationship. To summarize, this popular view equates harmony with conflict avoid-ance, i.e., giving up one’s goals for the sake of another, and attributes this tendency toConfucianism.

In this paper, we argue that while some aspects of this thesis are valid, the philosophicalroot of the central tenet is erroneous. Confucianism does emphasize harmony and EastAsians do engage in conflict avoidance more than do Westerners, but harmony as theequivalent of conflict avoidance is misattributed to the teachings of Confucius. We furtherargue that the unidimensional approach to harmony typically assumed in the literature isinadequate in specifying how harmony influences conflict behavior. Finally, a dualisticmodel of harmony is introduced, and its implications for conflict management in East Asiaand for advancing conflict theories are discussed.

1. Harmony and conflict: East Asian style

The prominence of harmony in East Asia is primarily ascribed to the teachings of Confucius.In the Confucian classics as well as in the writing of Mencius, the Chinese word “he” (har-mony) appears as one of the most frequent characters. From its origins in China, Confucianteachings eventually spread through much of East Asia. In Japanese, the word, “wa,” con-notes on the one hand a sense of balance and harmony; on the other, the proper way to reacha goal, i.e., while harmony is important, it, as well as other goals, must be pursued in anappropriate manner. In yet a third East Asian society, Korea, inhwa, a word combining theideas of both “people” and “harmony”, is also taken as an important social value. In thewriting systems of these three countries the same Chinese character “ ” is used to repre-sent the concept of harmony. While there are different shades of meaning across differentlinguistic labels, the central notion is similar. “Harmony” is the closest English translationof he, although the Chinese word has a richer connotation, including such meanings as “ongood terms with each other,” “gentle, mild,” and “peace.” (Foreign Language Teaching andResearch Press, 1988). In addition, numerous traditional Chinese sayings revolve aroundharmony, including “Harmony is valuable” , “Quiet in mind and peaceful (har-monious) in disposition” , and “If the family lives in harmony, all affairs willprosper” .

Harmony is a concept with a long history in Confucian countries, and so are traditions ofconflict avoidance. Many customs developed that reinforce the idea of a harmonious groupas one where conflict is avoided. In China, for example, reflected in people’s daily life, wefind many folk sayings of “wisdom” about avoidance, compromise and endurance with thepurpose of avoiding troubles associated with conflict: “Loss of tolerance in small matterswill destroy a big plan” , “The bird that stands out is shot first; a boardthat sticks out is the first to be hammered down” , and“Withdraw in order to advance” .

A DUALISTIC MODEL OF HARMONY 203

Conflict avoidance is also prevalent in other East Asian cultures. In Japan, for example,business negotiations are often ritualized, providing strict guidelines for the interactantsaccording to status and roles. Harmonious consensus is maintained in formal sessions andagreements among participants are usually pursued by informal negotiation in an indirectway. Even the Japanese national legal system, unlike those in western countries, tendsto discourage people from publicly pursuing conflicts in court (Ohbuchi, 1998). Japanesepeople generally accept social order or social harmony as a principle of justice, believingthat this value is more important than fairness (Ohbuchi, 1998). In Korea, similar valuespredominate. Cho and Park (1998), for example, argue that group harmony is the mostimportant managerial value in Korean firms.

2. Indigenous conflict theories in East Asia

Drawing upon this background in Confucianism, several theorists have incorporated har-mony within their theories of conflict management. Some of these developments have comein response to the inadequacies of Western mainstream conflict theories in describing con-flict behaviors in East Asian cultures.

2.1. Hwang’s model

Dual concern models of conflict management have dominated conflict research, beginningwith Hall’s (1969) two dimensions of “achieve personal goal” and “interpersonal consider-ation,” Thomas’s (1976) “assertiveness” and “cooperativeness,” and leading up to Rahim’s(1983, 1986) “concern for self” and “concern for other.” The five general conflict manage-ment patterns (integrating/collaborating, obliging/accommodating, compromising, domi-nating/competing, and avoiding) stipulated by Rahim (1986) have been used extensively inmono- and multicultural conflict management research.

Hwang (1997–1998), however, critiques such Western models as not adequately describ-ing conflict from an East Asian cultural perspective. Hwang argues that, because of theinfluence of Taoism, Confucianism, and the structure of traditional agricultural societies,East Asians believe that Ying and Yang should be maintained in a harmonious state. Thisimportance placed on harmony means that the Western dimensions of concern for oth-ers and concern for self do not adequately conceptualize the influence of relationship asopposed to individual concerns. Therefore, he proposes two new dimensions: “ignoring har-mony/maintaining harmony” and “pursuing goal/discarding goal.” From this scheme, fiveconflict management strategies are created: confrontation, obey publicly/disobey privately,compromise, endurance, and severance. Key differences here lie between Hwang’s strat-egy of obey publicly/disobey privately and the Western strategy of collaborating. Hwangwrites that the Chinese, particularly in situations where the relationship is very impor-tant, will not openly disagree. Hence, the search for common ground as stipulated bythe strategy of collaboration is not possible. Instead they will preserve the harmony ofthe relationship by agreeing with the other person in public while pursuing their goal insecret.


2.2. Huang’s model

Based on her qualitative research in Taiwan, Huang (1999) uncovers two major types ofharmony: “genuine” and “surface.” The former refers to holistic and sincere harmonious re-lationships while the latter indicates that, although surface relationships may appear smooth,conflicts remain underneath this surface. In this sense, surface harmony is a tool that coversor supports hidden conflicts: strategic tolerance might be employed to wait for a betteropportunity to achieve one’s own goals. Huang further classified genuine and surface har-mony into three sub-types each. She argues that genuine harmony is difficult to establishand that people instead generally settle for surface harmony. Leung and Wu (1998) secondthis finding that, while surface harmony is not considered optimal, Chinese still prefer it todirect confrontation.

2.3. Chen’s model

Chen (2001, 2002) argues that harmony is the cardinal virtue in Chinese culture and alongwith the values of guanxi (connections), mianzi (face), seniority, and authority, guidesChinese conflict management. As a result, establishing a harmonious relationship is themain focus of Chinese communication. Here Chen emphasizes that harmony is a goal thatChinese strive for and that the ability to interact harmoniously is the main criterion bywhich communication competence is measured. The management of conflict is assumed tobe motivated by a “sincere display of whole-hearted concern”. Chen adds that the pursuit ofharmony involves the pursuit of equilibrium and the sustenance of hierarchical relationships.These relationships are dependent upon sincerity and honesty, as well as efforts to avoidbeing involved in conflicts.

3. Non-Asian perspectives on harmony and conflict management

Researchers have also proposed theories with harmony as an integral part from non-Asianperspectives. While some of these theories draw upon East Asian cultures and conflictmanagement practices, yet others give a more varied view of harmony.

3.1. Kozan’s model

Kozan (1997) stipulates a model of conflict management that incorporates an emphasison harmony drawn from East Asian cultures. According to Kozan, three types of conflictmodels typically occur: confrontational, harmony, and regulative. In the confrontationalmodel, conflicts are conceptualized as consisting of sub-issues. A sense of reasonablecompromise is possible when these sub-issues are separated, and direct interaction anddiscussion can lead to a good resolution. This is not so in the harmony model, in whichconflicts are defined in totality. This holistic view of conflict makes compromise moredifficult and resolution is instead achieved by avoidance and accommodation. Thus, conflictmanagement starts with the minimization of conflict through norms stressing observance


of mutual obligations and status orderings. There is less emphasis on procedural justiceand more emphasis on the face of self and others. Third parties may be used as mediators.Finally, in the regulative model, bureaucratic means are used to minimize and avoid conflict.Roles and interactions are formalized and used as guides in resolving conflict issues.

3.2. Earley’s model

Drawing upon the notion of harmony in East Asia, Early (1997) has developed a generalmodel of organizational behavior in all cultures. He emphasizes face, encompassing bothlian (moral face) and mianzi (materialistic face), as the central concern of human interaction.Harmony is defined as the glue that links members to the social world. Earley’s use ofharmony, however, diverges from the typical East Asian concept. Harmony is seen as theprocess through which face is maintained in social relationships, a type of social exchangethat may involve either loss or enhancement of self and other face. Thus, its use does notnecessarily concern the conflict avoidance behaviors discussed in other theories.

3.3. Nadar’s model

A third Western author who gives harmony a central place in understanding human inter-action is the anthropologist Laura Nadar (1990), whose use of harmony diverges yet morefrom the traditional East Asian perspective that draws upon Confucian values. Nadar ar-gues that “harmony ideology” is derived from the worldwide spread of Christian values.Her seminal book has at its core a long-term ethnographic study of a village of ZapotecIndians in Mexico, the inhabitants of which observe “a bad compromise is better than agood fight.” Harmony ideology involves the basic idea that conflict resolution is good anddrawn out conflict is to be avoided. Consensus, conciliation, and peace are to be sought.While this cultural expression of harmony corresponds to the practices commonly observedin East Asia, the explanation that Nadar offers is very different. Nadar hypothesizes thatharmony is often used as an ideology closely linked with issues of power and control. Inthe Zapotec village, self-imposed harmony is used as a means to keep the Mexican out-siders from interfering in local village life. In yet other situations, however, Nadar seesan emphasis on harmony as a tool used by elites to control the masses—an emphasis onharmony and balance in relationships benefits those in power because it legitimizes theirauthority through the creation of “an illusion of unity that accords with their individual andclass interests” (p. 296). Nadar also emphasizes a structural explanation for the productionof harmony behaviors. The network of relationships, geographical location, and politicalsystems all contribute to their prominence.

4. Reconceptualizing harmony

The above theories all offer some explanation for the typical East Asian response to con-flict. Hwang (1997–1998) and Chen (2001, 2002) offer cultural explanations for harmonybehaviors that are derived from Confucianism. Kozan (1997) and Early (1997) offer some


insight into how the East Asian notion of harmony has been co-opted for use in more uni-versal theories, while Nadar (1990) provides a completely distinct approach. One commonweakness in these theories is that the notion of harmony is vague, and its meaning actuallyvacillates in different models. In a nutshell, Chen tends to view harmony as a whole-heartedconcern, while Hwang and Nadar are more inclined to see harmony as a means to an end.Kozan uses harmony to refer to a holistic view of conflict, and Earley sees harmony as asocial process for maintaining face. In the following, we will first trace the root of harmonyin classical Confucianism, and its manifestation in Chinese social life. We will then offer adualistic model of harmony, and its implications for conflict management will be discussed.

4.1. The Confucian view of harmony

In offering explanations for the East Asian emphasis on conflict avoidance, researcherstypically point to the Confucian emphasis on harmony. Yet a close scrutiny of Confucianclassical doctrines reveals a wide gap between what many writers allude to as Confucianismand what is actually stated in these doctrines. We call this common interpretation of Con-fucianism the secular version to distinguish it from the version depicted in the doctrines.Before we explore why and how the secular view of harmony has arisen, we first provide ashort summary of the classical view.

While Confucius did emphasize harmony, contrary to popular belief, he also encourageddiversity of views:

The Master said, “The gentleman agrees with others without being an echo. The smallman echoes without being in agreement.” (Lau, 1983)

Inherent in this quote is that morally superior people are able to maintain harmoniousrelationships even though they may have differing views. Small-minded people, on theother hand, echo another’s opinions while secretly disagreeing, which is not real harmony.The life history of Confucius exemplified his view of harmony, which was marked byactive advocacy of his views and public disagreement with authority figures, and not by anavoidance of confrontation.

Yet other Confucian writings reject surface agreement, arguing that it is impossible togovern well without seeking out opposing opinions:

When good men stop 1000 li off, calumniators, flatterers, and sycophants make theirappearance. When a minister lives among calumniators, flatterers, and sycophants, thoughhe may wish the state to be well governed, is it possible for it to be so?” (Legge, 1991).

This quote by Mencius, an influential Confucian scholar, points out that wise rulersshould listen to and adopt ideas that may oppose their own, and be alert to those subjectswho only offer obedience and praise. In fact, Mencius is famous for his eagerness to debate


and challenge rulers. He saw this argumentativeness as reflecting his desire to teach peoplethe right ways:

Indeed, I am not fond of disputing, but I am compelled to do it . . . I am alarmed by thesethings, and address myself to the defense of the doctrines of the former sages, . . . I alsowish to rectify men’s hearts, and to put an end to those perverse doctrines, to opposetheir one-sided actions and banish away their licentious expressions;—and thus to carryon the work of the three sages. . . . Whoever is able to oppose Yang and Mo is a discipleof the sages. (Legge, 1973)

Yet other Confucian passages support this argument that harmony cannot be equatedwith conflict avoidance and indiscriminant conformity. Harmony must be subordinate tothe higher-level goals of benevolence and righteousness. You Zi, a student of Confucius,makes this clear:

Of the things brought about by the rites, harmony is the most valuable. Of the waysof the Former Kings, this is the most beautiful, and is followed alike in matters greatand small, yet this will not always work: to aim always at harmony without regulatingit by the rites simply because one knows only about harmony will not, in fact, work.”(Lau, 1983).

Rites, in the Confucian view, are upheld for the sake of benevolence (jen) and righteous-ness (yi), but not for self-gain. In fact, Confucius highly disapproved of selfishness andmaterialistic motives:

The Master said, “The gentleman understands what is moral. The small man understandswhat is profitable.” (Lau, 1983)

In summary, a critical review of Confucian doctrines makes it clear that the Confucianemphasis on harmony is better understood as the need to maintain a mutually respectfulrelationship and a common concern for humanity and morality rather than the need to avoiddisagreement and confrontation, and to arrive at uniform views. Harmony is in fact sub-ordinate to higher-level goals of benevolence and righteousness. In Confucian philosophy,confrontation, debates, and disagreement in the pursuit of benevolence and righteousnesshave always been encouraged, and obedience and conformity at the expense of these supremevalues has repeatedly been denigrated. We therefore conclude that classical Confucianismis not the root of the conflict avoidance commonly observed in East Asia. Our position isthat religions and political ideologies are best viewed as facilitators of conflict avoidance.


In the following, we advance a cultural explanation for conflict avoidance that has little todo with Confucianism, but is closely related to cultural collectivism.

4.2. A cultural explanation of conflict avoidance: Influence of collectivism

Why do East Asians deviate from Classical Confucianism and exhibit a clear pattern ofconflict avoidance and a tolerance of transgressions directed at them? Chinese political his-tory coupled with the effects of cultural and structural collectivism provides an explanationand helps to illuminate the influence of harmony or conflict management strategies. First,Confucian ideals of harmony were appropriated by elites to preserve their power. Redding(1983) comments that in ancient China, “Peace was maintained by intense socialization intothe Confucian ethic . . . ” (p. 124). In this use of Confucius, the ideal harmonious relationwas emphasized to the detriment of the pursuit of benevolence and righteousness. A veryrecent statement of this position is given by the last Governor of Hong Kong, Chris Patten:

. . . order and harmony, which may sometimes be translated in practice as repressionand intolerance of dissent, have deep roots in the religious, philosophical and culturaltraditions of Asia . . . It is usually Confucius who is taken as the fount of Asian distasteand disregard for liberal values. Confucius, it is said, emphasized order, hierarchy, self-discipline and obedience . . . Leys notes that ‘Imperial Confucianism only extolled thosestatements from the Master that prescribed submission to the established authorities,whereas more essential notions were conveniently ignored—such as the precepts ofsocial justice, political dissent and the moral duty for intellectuals to criticize the ruler(even at the risk of their lives) when he was abusing his power, or when he oppressed thepeople’ (Patten, 1998:161–162).

This analysis resembles Nadar’s (1990) harmony ideology, which, while outwardly shar-ing some commonalities with Confucianism, is at best a “secular” version of the notion ofharmony advocated by Confucius. Its goal is not that of seeking good relationships withothers, but instead to either resist or preserve power.

Nonetheless, we argue that this political explanation emphasizing the pivotal role givento harmony and order by dynastic rulers is perhaps best viewed as a facilitating factor ofconflict avoidance rather than its major cause for two reasons. First, throughout history,rulers have often attempted to promulgate a variety of ideologies, most of which latervanished with them. Second, while dynastic rulers have been long gone in East Asia, conflictavoidance is still common even among current university students, and there is no sign thatthe tendency to avoid conflict is weakening. Obviously, a political analysis cannot explainthe self-perpetuating resilience of conflict avoidance, and a cultural explanation is in order.

Most conflict researchers, including those who link Confucianism to conflict avoidance,acknowledge the relationship between collectivism and conflict avoidance. Hwang (1997–1998), for example, supports his Confucian explanation by also referring to the agriculturaland collective structure of Chinese society that encourages harmony. The central argument ofthis cultural position is that the importance attached to groups in collectivistic cultures givesrise to values and norms favoring the maintenance of the integrity and proper functioning ofgroups. Conflict obviously threatens group cohesiveness and in some cases causes groups


to break up. Thus, in collectivistic cultures conflict is typically viewed negatively, and isavoided and even suppressed (see Brett, 2001; Carnevale and Leung, 2001; Leung, 1997;Morris et al., 1999). In fact, this analysis suggests that regardless of culture, if groupcohesiveness is deemed very important, conflict is likely to be suppressed. The well-knownanalysis of “group-think” provided by Janis (1972) demonstrates vividly how the emphasison group cohesiveness led presumably individualistic American politicians to suppressconflict and dissenting views in decision-making.

Yamagishi, Jin and Miller (1998) offer another intriguing view of relationships in collec-tivistic societies that is based not on the values that people hold, but instead upon the structureof relationships between members. In collectivistic societies informal mutual monitoringand sanctioning systems ensure cooperation and harmony among members (Yamagishi,Cook and Watabe, 1998). When members are removed from these systems, their behaviorsare no more harmonious or cooperative than those from Western, individualistic societies(Yamagishi, 1988). Thus, arguably these behaviors are instrumental rather than value driven.

An explanation of conflict avoidance based on collectivism opens up at least two importantavenues for future research. First, this framework is able to explain conflict avoidance inAsian societies that have not been influenced by Confucian thought, such as Indonesia andPhilippines, which are also noted for their tendency to avoid conflict (Benton and Setiadi,1998; Echauz, 1998). These other Asian societies, characterized by the multiplexity anddensity of social ties, are collectivistic as well. Conflict avoidance is common because theconsequences of any disruption of these ties are far-reaching and dangerous—as would alsohappen in any similar society whether under the influence of Confucian philosophy or not. Infact, this cultural framework is culture-general and is applicable to other continents as well.For instance, Nadar (1990) alludes to the influence of cultural collectivism as a major causeof similar conflict avoidant behaviors in the Zapotec village she studied. It is interestingthat while East Asian scholars link conflict avoidance to Confucianism, Nadar argues for aconnection of conflict avoidance with Christianity and its focus on reconciliation.

Second, the complex relationships between cultural collectivism and conflict avoidancecan be systematically explored. For instance, strong attachment to in-groups and the demar-cation of clear out-group boundaries is a distinguishing feature of interpersonal networksin collectivist cultures. Within the ingroup, such as families and work teams, conflict isoften minimized by various practices. In Japan for example, a well-known decision-makingprocess is the ringi system through which all parties affected by a decision are consultedto reach a conclusion (Brake, Walker and Walker, 1995). Utilizing such a method makesreaching intra-group consensus easier and thus helps contain confrontations. In addition,other research reports that in order to strengthen the harmonious relationship, Japanesemanagers spend much time interacting informally during and after work (Brannen, 1994,cited in Salk and Brannen, 2000).

With regard to the outgroup, however, conflict avoidance is less emphasized, and ag-gressive strategies are often deployed. For example, it was found that the Chinese weremore likely to sue a stranger, but less likely to sue a friend when compared with Americans(Leung, 1988). Hwang (1997–1998) also notes that Chinese can behave very aggressivelytoward outsiders. Thus, with outsiders, collectivists are more likely to choose confronta-tional strategies than individualists.


5. A dualistic model of harmony

5.1. Harmony as a means or an end

Our contrast of classical Confucianism and cultural collectivism helps crystallize the con-cept of harmony and extend the link between collectivism and conflict avoidance. In thefollowing, we propose a reconceptualization of harmony in the form of a dualistic model,which provides a new perspective on conflict management behavior.

Based on the individualism-collectivism framework, harmony has long been viewed asunidimensional and equated with lack of confrontation and conflict. The classical Confucianview suggests, however, that a harmonious relationship should not be pursued for self-gainsor at the expense of the more important values of benevolence and righteousness. Clearly,the classical view is in line with defining harmony as a goal rather than a means to an end,and may be label as a value perspective. In contrast, the secular version of Confucianism,or the dynamics set into action by cultural collectivism, is more in line with an instrumentalperspective. The role of interpersonal harmony is to secure the cohesiveness of a group andits proper function, and whether there is anything noble or moral about harmony mainte-nance per se is of secondary importance. It should be noted that the distinction between aninstrumental and a value perspective is well-known in social science. For instance, Thibautand Walker (1975) suggest that justice can be conceptualized in terms of terminal and in-strumental values. Ohbuchi, Fukushima and Tedeschi (1999) suggest that the idea peoplemay value justice either as an outcome or as a means to help them achieve other goalsprovides a coherent account of some cross-cultural findings.

Our preceding analysis suggests that the notion of harmony is best conceptualized asdualistic, with the value perspective emphasizing the intrinsic importance of harmony, andthe instrumental perspective emphasizing its practical importance. Leung (1996, 1997),in theorizing about the motives behind conflict avoidance, have identified two behavioralsyndromes. One cluster of behaviors mirrors the value perspective and is labeled as har-mony enhancement. People approach conflict and transgressions with a motive to promoteinterpersonal harmony because it is seen as a virtue and an end of itself. Their behaviors aredriven by trust, relationship building, and sincerity as emphasized by Chen (2001, 2002) inhis model of Chinese communication competence. The other cluster of behaviors mirrors theinstrumental perspective, and is labeled as disintegration avoidance, which refers to the ten-dency to avoid any actions that may strain or terminate a relationship. Harmony-enhancingbehaviors are not emphasized, because the primary focus is on potential repercussions of adisruption of interpersonal harmony.

5.2. Relationship of the dualistic model with other conflict models

How does the dualistic harmony model differ from other conflict models? We answerthis question by considering the indigenous models first. Hwang’s (1997–1998) theory ofChinese conflict management, while incorporating explanations of Confucianism, and ac-knowledging that guanxi can have both expressive and instrumental components, appearsto be concerned mainly with harmony as a means. His definition of harmony is instrumental


in nature, which is synonymous with conflict avoidance, and can be subsumed under ourinstrumental perspective. For example, his conflict management behavior of “agree pub-licly/disobey privately” clearly falls within the instrumental category as the interpersonalagreement is on the surface only, with the conflict among the parties hidden or temporarilyput away.

Chen’s (2001, 2002) theory, on the other hand, seems to focus more on harmony en-hancement as its primary explanation. He explicitly states that, “The Chinese approach tothe study of human communication differs from Western approaches in . . . that harmony isthe end rather than the means of human communication” (Chen, 2001:55). While this use ofharmony can be subsumed under our value perspective, Chen sometime leans toward instru-mentality in his focus on harmony as the exclusion of open discussion of differences, whichis more in line with “secular” Confucianism and the behaviors associated with disintegrationavoidance.

The model of Huang (1999) is close to our dualistic model because both value and instru-mentality dimensions of harmony are discussed. Her work provides a complex typology ofdifferent types of harmony, but a dualistic notion is clear. One major difference betweenher model and ours is that we take a more positivist stance and view the two perspectives ofharmony as independent and exert a causal effect on conflict behavior. Her conceptualiza-tion is more in the tradition of grounded theory, which views harmony as part of the socialcontext rather than an antecedent of conflict behavior.

We now turn to Western, harmony-based conflict models. As pointed out before, modelsby Kozan, Earley and Nadar address different issues and are not relevant to our modelalthough the notion of harmony is a cornerstone of their frameworks. Dual concern models,such as the Rahim (1983) model, are more relevant to our discussion. One weakness ofdual concern models is their sole focus on instrumentality because conflict behaviors aredriven completely by outcome concerns, be they for self or others (Sorenson, Morse andSavage, 1995). Our dualistic model overcomes this weakness by introducing a value per-spective to the conflict literature because harmony as a value does not focus on the needsand concerns of the other person, but on the relationship between the self and the other.Another distinctive feature of harmony is that unlike constructs in dual concern models, itis a group-level construct, because it does not describe a single individual, but is a quality atthe interpersonal level. Take instrumental harmony as an example, although it may resemblethe concern for self at the first glance, the focus is entirely different. While the concern forself is focused on the maximization of self gains, instrumental harmony is rather focused onhow a conflict-free relationship may be used to achieve a goal. Thus, our harmony conceptsare distinct from the individual-level, outcome-based concepts in dual-concern models. Weshould point out, however, that our harmony model is not to replace the dual concern model,but to supplement it.

5.3. Interplay between the value and instrumental perspectives

In the dualistic model, Instrumental Harmony and Value Harmony are not opposite ends ofone scale, but rather two distinct concepts. A significant consequence is that we can examinethe interplay of these two dimensions. As with prior bi-dimensional models of conflict, we


Figure 1. Model of instrumental and value harmony.

can map prototypical conflict behaviors on a two-by-two framework. A schematic descrip-tion of these four conflict styles is given in figure 1.

In the first category, a person is high in value harmony but low in instrumental harmony,and is willing to sacrifice personal goals for the sake of a harmonious ideal. People in thiscategory exemplify the Classical Confucian ideal because the pursuit of harmony is drivenby a value placed on harmony rather any other goals that are facilitated by harmoniousrelationships. We label this conflict style as aligning because of the emphasis on aligningthe harmony value and overt behaviors.

In the second category, people are high in instrumental harmony and low in value harmony,who exemplify the Secular Confucians often described by East Asian researchers, such asthe person who agrees publicly and defies privately (Hwang, 1997–1998). The harmonysought in this instance is presumably not value or terminal harmony, but is rather pursuedfor the benefit of other goals. In Western terms, we may call this a type of Machiavellianism,as deception and the use of relationships are justified by the accomplishment of one’s owngoals. We use the label of smoothing to describe this conflict style that seeks superficialharmony.

People in the third category are high in both value and instrumental harmony. Theynot only understand the important role that harmony plays in goal attainment, but also


see harmony as the right ideal to pursue. Interestingly, in a reinterpretation of classi-cal Confucianism, some contemporary scholars who loosely identify themselves as neo-Confucianists put a pragmatic spin on Confucian ideas. For instance, Tu, a major figureof this movement, noted that “. . . in the Analects or in Mencius . . . unless the livelihood ofthe people is sustained, unless there is sufficient prosperity, it is not possible to develop amoral community” (Tu, Hejtmanek and Wachman, 1992:74). In any event, people in thiscategory somewhat resemble the collaborating ideal in the western conflict literature inthat they strive to achieve goals, and will confront differences when necessary. There isone important difference, however, because these people have a genuine concern for har-monious relationships, whereas in collaborating, people are only concerned with win-winsolutions, and relational concern is only secondary. We label this conflict style as balancingbecause of the emphasis on balancing a moral ideal and goal attainment in the pursuit ofharmony.

In the fourth category, people are low in both instrumental and value harmony. Thesepeople probably resemble those who subscribe to the worst form of scientific managementand are not relationally oriented at all. While goals may be sought, and relationships pursued,the connections between the self and others are not acknowledged, sought, or used. Welabel this conflict style as disintegrating because of the total negligence of relational issues.A detailed description of the conflict behaviors of these four conflict styles is given inTable 1.

Table 1. Behaviors associated with the four conflict styles.

Conflict style Aligning Smoothing Balancing Disintegrating

Philosophical Classical Secular Neo-Confucianism Extreme form ofbasis Confucianism Confucianism scientific

management

Interest Concern for both Concern for self Concern for both Not definite

Behavioral Harmony Disintegration Harmony enhancement Total negligence ofsyndrome enhancement avoidance and disintegration relational issues

avoidance

Specific Problem solving; Strong preference for Problem solving; No attempt toconflict constructive conflict avoidance; constructive promote positivebehaviors confrontation; obey publicly while confrontation; interpersonal

direct, respectful defying privately; direct and indirect relationshipscommunication; severance; communication;building feelings of avoid building feelings ofintimacy; communication; intimacy;compatible and hidden competitive compatible andmutually beneficial behaviors; mutually beneficialbehavior. indirect behavior;

communication compromise;endurance, endurance,mediation; mediation;giving or giving or protectingprotecting face; face


6. Implications for conflict theories and future research

This reinterpretation of harmony has both theoretical and practical applications. In thissection, several major implications of the dualistic model of harmony are discussed in thecontext of identifying productive avenues for future research.

6.1. Harmony and other related concepts

Harmony is related to several East Asian concepts such as face and guanxi. In East Asiansocieties, face in social and business interactions is taken as more salient when comparedwith Western societies (Lindsay and Dempsey, 1985; Redding and Ng, 1982; Ting-Toomey,1988). Avoidance of conflict presumably provides East Asians the opportunity to save “face”in public because open confrontation is often embarrassing and may lead to the loss of facefor the interactants. Thus, in cultures that stress the importance of face, instrumental harmonyshould be a salient motive because damage to face is likely to have lasting repercussions thatwill spill over to other goals and render their accomplishment more difficult. Nonetheless,lian, which is moral face, may be less related to instrumental harmony, but more to valueharmony. lian may call for mutual respect and honest exchanges, which is in line with valueharmony. How face and harmony are related to each other seems multidimensional andprovides a rich area for future research.

Guanxi, the web of social connections, on which “two or more persons [have] a common-ality of shared identification” (Jacobs, 1979:243), is also related to harmony and face (Chen,2002; Huang, 1988, 1997–1998; Knutson, Hwang and Deng, 2000; Kirkbride, Tang andWestwood, 1991). While guanxi loosely translates to mean “connection” or “relationshipties,” it also carries the extra meanings of power, social status and resource transmission(Hackley and Dong, 2001), with an emphasis on reciprocal obligations (Tsui and Farh,1997). In these terms, guanxi would bear a stronger relationship to instrumental than tovalue harmony, but the two constructs are not identical. While guanxi involves the activeestablishment of relationship networks, instrumental harmony involves the maintenanceof smooth relationships. Hwang (1987) also notes that the strongest guanxi ties have bothaffective and instrumentality components. Thus, while guanxi-building is more likely tobe associated with instrumental harmony, it probably encompasses more than a purelyinstrumental harmony motive.

6.2. Exploring cultural differences in harmony behavior

While harmony has traditionally been thought to be more important in Eastern cultures,in our model this view is open to question. In interpreting some justice findings thatare inconsistent with previous conclusions, Ohbuchi, Fukushima and Tedeschi (1999)write that perhaps Americans and Japanese do not so much differ in their terminal val-ues for justice, but rather in their orientation toward justice as an instrumental value.In the same way, we may speculate that East Asians and Westerners may not differso much in the value they place upon terminal harmony, but may rather differ in theiruse of harmony to achieve instrumental ends. In any event, a clear distinction between


these two uses of harmony would inform cultural similarities and differences in thisarea.

This distinction may also help identify better ways to manage conflict both within EastAsian cultures and in cross-cultural situations. While accepting the fact that there are typicaldifferences in how we deal with conflict—with Americans, for example, more likely to en-gage in dominating behaviors and Chinese more likely to engage in avoidant behaviors—inour model neither of these behaviors is ideal as both would damage value harmony, the first,by openly damaging the relationship, and the second, by substituting superficial harmonyfor genuine problem solving. While the harm related to domineering and aggressiveness hasoften been commented upon in the conflict management literature, the damage related toconflict avoidance is more subtle, but nonetheless must be acknowledged. Lebra (1984:84),for example, points out that in Japan “the cultural value of harmony may intensify, insteadof mitigate, conflict” because it increases latent hostility. Krauss, Rholen and Steinhoff(1984:11) add that, “Harmony may be observed where there is, in fact, deep-seated antag-onism.” Instrumental harmony and its associated conflict avoidant behaviors may lead todestructive outcomes in both Eastern and Western cultures. No matter the culture, avoidanceand repression of conflict is as dysfunctional as domineering and imposition in the long run.

We argue that traditional East Asian values, however, allow for the constructive mitigationof conflict, in much the same way as Westerners are able to restrain their aggression and movetoward problem-solving. The program of research by Tjosvold and collaborators (Tjosvold,Hui and Law, 1998; Tjosvold, Nibler and Wan, 2001) on “constructive controversy” revealsclearly that, in conflict situations, avoidance does not have to be the method of choiceby East Asians. Open discussion and cooperation do lead to better problem-solving andmore positive outcomes. For example, in laboratory experiments conducted with Chineseparticipants, conflicting opinions, if discussed in a cooperative context, promoted open-mindedness and integrated views and led to better decisions. Field studies also documentthat cooperative conflict dynamics contribute to effective teamwork, leadership, and qualitycustomer service in Chinese organizations (for a review, see Tjosvold, Leung and Johnson,2000). Surprisingly, openness itself has been found to be valued and useful in conflictsamong Chinese. Furthermore, open controversy, as opposed to conflict avoidance, wasfound to strengthen relationships and induce epistemic curiosity, which was manifestedby asking questions, exploring opposing views, demonstrating knowledge, and integratingdiverse views (Tjosvold and Sun, 2000). Although open discussion of conflict is difficult,Chinese managers and employees were actually willing to engage in open discussion if theywere confident they could manage the demands of the situation (Tjosvold, Nibler and Wan,2001).

It is interesting to note that Hong Kong managers actually operate more effectivelywith cooperative goals, although they do not usually expect cooperative goals and opendiscussion, which is similar to the typical results in the U.S. (Tjosvold, Hui and Law,1998). Our dualistic model suggests that the benefits of debates and disagreement undercooperative goals are more possible if a value perspective on harmony is endorsed, whichis in fact in line with the central tenet of classical Confucianism. Thus, while some currentresearch/theorizing (e.g., Chen, 2001, 2002) proclaims that harmony, equated with conflictavoidance, as the ideal of Chinese communication, we must question its validity. We instead


argue that East Asians do see the benefits of open debates and disagreement, and once theyengage in such acts guided by a genuine concern for harmony, positive outcomes follow.Classical Confucianism is consistent with the modern notion that positive conflict gives riseto unity and true harmony (Leung and Tjosvold, 1998).

6.3. Constructs at the interpersonal level

Concepts in the conflict area are often defined in individualistic terms due to the obviousfact that most research is conducted in the West. Relational, group-level constructs areunderdeveloped (Kwan, Bond and Singelis, 1997; Ohbuchi, Suzuki and Hayashi, 2001),and to bridge this gap we offer the concepts of value and instrumental harmony. A majordirection for future research is to contrast these interpersonal-level constructs with well-known individual-level constructs and see if they offer any insight missed by the individual-level notions. It would be particularly interesting if interpersonal-level constructs prove tobe useful even in individualistic cultures, which has in fact been documented in a differentdomain, personality assessment (Cheung et al., 2002).

6.4. Dynamic view of conflict styles

In our model, instrumental and value harmony constitutes the dualistic structure of harmony,while disintegration avoidance and harmony enhancement are the behavioral syndromesthat manifest these two dimensions. In daily life, the harmony-seeking motive may containboth value and instrumental elements, and their relative salience is subject to the influenceof situational factors. This dynamic view suggests that in some situations, harmony istreasured mostly as a cultural or social value while in others, it mainly serves as a tool.Whether harmony is pursued for value or instrumentality and how this balance is shiftedby the situation is definitely a major topic for further discussion.

6.5. Toward a universal model

The dualistic model of harmony is intended to be more than a coherent way to characterizeconflict management behaviors in East Asia. The separation of harmony from Confucianismallows us to extend our theorizing to account for conflict behavior in other parts of the world.Conflict avoidance has been noted not only in East Asia, but also in other areas of Asiaand other parts of the world. Asch’s (1956) famous experiment on conformity and socialinfluence has been replicated in many Western cultures, suggesting that conformity andconflict avoidance are universal social phenomena and not solely the province of EastAsian societies. While culture does exert a strong influence on our behaviors and ourinterpretations of others’ behaviors, we must not overemphasize this influence (Leung, Suand Morris, 2001). Viewed in this light, our dualistic model is likely to be a universal model,the usefulness of which should be evaluated around the world in the future.


Note

1. The Chinese character for harmony has been transliterated as both “ho” and “he.”

References

Asch, S. (1956). “Studies of Independence and Conformity: A Minority of One Against Unanimous Majority.”Psychological Monographs 70, 1–70.

Balatbat-Echauz, L. (1998). “Conflict Management in the Philippines.” In K. Leung and D. Tjosvold (eds.),Conflict Management in the Asia Pacific: Assumptions and Approaches in Diverse Cultures. John Wiley &Sons: Singapore.

Benton S. and B. Setiadi. (1998). “Mediation and Conflict Management in Indonesia.” In K. Leung and D. Tjosvold(eds.), Conflict Management in the Asia Pacific: Assumptions and Approaches in Diverse Cultures. Singapore:John Wiley & Sons Pvt. Ltd.

Blake, R.R. and J.S. Mouton. (1964). The Managerial Grid. Houston, TX: Gulf.Blake, R.R. and J.S. Mouton. (1970). “The Fifth Achievement.” Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 6, 413–

426.Boisot, M. and J. Child. (1988). “The Iron Law of Fiefs: Bureaucratic Failure and the Problem of Governance in

the Chinese Economic Reforms.” Administrative Science Quarterly 33, 507–527.Brake T., D.M. Walker, and T. Walker. (1995). Doing Business Internationally: The Guide to Cross-Cultural

Success. New York: Irwin.Brett, J.M. (2001). “Negotiating Globally.” San Francesco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Brunner, J.A. and A.C. Koh. (1988). “Negotiations in the People’s Republic of China: An Empirical Study of

American and Chinese Negotiators’ Perceptions and Practices.” Journal of Global Marketing 2(1).Carnevale, P.J. and K. Leung. (2001). “Cultural Dimensions of Negotiation.” In M.A. Hogg and R.S. Tindale

(eds.), Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: Group Processes, Massachusetts: Blackwell, pp. 482–496.Chen, G.M. (2001). “Towards Transcultural Understanding: A Harmony Theory of Chinese Communication.” In

V.H. Milhouse, M.K. Asante, and P.O. Nwosu (eds.), Transculture: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Cross-Cultural Relations, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 55–70.

Chen, G.M. (2002). “The Impact of Harmony on Chinese Conflict Management.” In G.M. Chen and R. Ma (eds.),Chinese Conflict Management and Resolution, Westport, CONN: Ablex, pp. 3–17.

Chen, G.M. and J. Chung. (1994). “The Impact of Confucianism on Organizational Communication.” Communi-cation Quarterly 42, 93–105.

Chen, G.M. and W.J. Starosta. (1996). “Intercultural Communication Competence: A Synthesis.” CommunicationYearbook 19, 353–383.

Chen, M. and W. Pan. (1993). Understanding the Process of Doing Business in China, Taiwan and Hong Kong.Lewistown, NY: The Edward Mellen Press.

Cheung, F.M., S.F. Cheung, K. Leung, C. Ward, and F. Leong. (2002). The English Version of the ChinesePersonality Assessment Inventory. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Cho, Y.H. and H.H. Park. (1998). “Conflict Management in Korea: The Wisdom of Dynamic Collectivism.” InK. Leung and D. Tjosvold (eds.), Conflict Management in the Asia Pacific: Assumptions and Approaches inDiverse Cultures. Singapore: John Wiley & Sons.

Confucius. (1983). The Analects (Lun Yu), Translated by D.C. Lau, Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press.Early, P.C. (1997). Face, Harmony, and Social Structure: An Analysis of Organizational Behavior Across Cultures.

New York: Oxford University Press.Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. (1988). A Modern Chinese-English Dictionary. Editorial Division

(eds.). Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.Hackley, C.A. and Q. Dong. (2001). “American Public Relations Networking Encounters China’s Guanxi.” Public

Relations Quarterly 46(2), 16–19.Hall, J. (1969). Conflict Management Survey. Rochester, NY: Technometrics.Huang, L.L. (1999). Interpersonal Harmony and Conflict: Indigenous Theories and Research. Taipei: Gui Guan

(in Chinese).


Hwang, K.K. (1987). “Face and Favor: The Chinese Power Game.” American Journal of Sociology 92, 944–974.

Hwang, K.K. (1997–1998). “Guanxi and Mientze: Conflict Resolution in Chinese Society.” Intercultural Commu-nication Studies VII 1, 17–42.

Jacobs, B.J. (1979). “A Preliminary Model of Particularistics in Chinese Political Alliances: ‘Renqing’ and ‘Guanxi’in a Rural Taiwanese Township.” Chinese Quarterly 78, 237–273.

Janis, I. (1972). Victims of Groupthink. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Kirkbride, P., S. Tang, and R. Westwood. (1991). “Chinese Conflict Preferences and Negotiating Behavior: Cultural

and Psychological Influences.” Organization Studies 12, 365–386.Kozan, M.K. (1997). “Culture and Conflict Management: A Theoretical Framework.” The International Journal

of Conflict Management 8, 338–360.Knutson, T.J., J.C. Hwang, and B.C. Deng. (2000). “Perception and Management of Conflict: A Comparison of

Taiwanese and US Business Employees.” Intercultural Communication Studies 9, 1–31.Krauss, E.S., T.P. Rholen, and P.G. Steinhoff. (1984). “Conflict: An Approach to the Study of Japan.” In E. Krasuu,

T. Rohlen, and P. Steinhoff (eds.), Conflict in Japan. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.Kwan, V.S.Y, M.H. Bond, and T.M. Singelis. (1997). “Pancultural Explanations for Life Satisfaction: Adding

Relationship Harmony to Self-Esteem.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 73, 1038–1051.Lebra, T.S. (1984). “Nonconfrontational Strategies for Management of Interpersonal Conflicts.” In Ellis Krasuu,

Thomas Rohlen, and Patricia Steinhoff (eds.), Conflict in Japan. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.Lee, H.O. and R.G. Rogan. (1991). “A Cross-Cultural Comparison of Organizational Conflict Management

Behaviors.” The International Journal of Conflict Management 2, 181–199.Legge, J. (1991). The Chinese Classics: With a Translation, Critical and Exegetical Notes, Prelegomena, and

Copious Indexes by James Legge. Taipei: SMC Pub.Leung, K. (1988). “Some Determinants of Conflict Avoidance.” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 19, 125–

136.Leung, K. (1996). “The Role of Harmony in Conflict Avoidance.” Paper presented at 50th Anniversary Conference

of the Korean Psychological Association, Seoul.Leung, K. (1997). “Negotiation and Reward Allocations Across Cultures.” In P.C. Earley and M. Erez (eds.), New

Perspectives on International Industrial-Organizational Psychology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Leung, K., S.K. Su, and M.W. Morris. (2001). “Justice in the Culturally Diverse Workplace: The Problems of Over

and Under Emphasis of Cultural Differences.” In S. Gilliland, D. Steiner, and D. Skarlicki (eds.), Research inSocial Issues in Management, Vol. 1. Information Age Publishing.

Leung, K. and D.W. Tjosvold. (1998). “Introduction: Conflict Management in the Asia Pacific.” In K. Leung andD.W. Tjosvold (eds), Conflict Management in the Asia Pacific. Wiley: Singapore.

Leung, K. and P.G. Wu. (1990). “Dispute Processing: A Cross-Cultural Analysis.” In R.W. Brislin (ed.), AppliedCross-Cultural Psychology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Leung, K. and P.G. Wu. (1998). “Harmony as a Double-Edge Sword in Management.” In B.S. Cheng, K.L. Huang,and C.C. Kuo (eds.), Human Resources Management in Taiwan and China. Taiwan: Yuan Liou Publishing.(In Chinese).

Lindsay, C.P. and B.L. Dempsey. (1985). “Experiences in Training Chinese Business People to Use U.S. Manage-ment Techniques.” Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 21, 65–78.

Morris, M.W. and K. Leung. (2000). “Justice for All? Progress in Research on Cultural Variation in the Psychologyof Distributive and Procedural Justice.” Applied Psychology: An International Review 49, 100–132.

Morris, M.W., K.Y. Williams, K. Leung, D. Bhatnagar, J.F. Li, M. Kondo, J.L. Luo, and J.C. Hu. (1999). “Culture,Conflict Management Style, and Underlying Values: Accounting for Cross-National Differences in Styles ofHandling Conflicts Among US, Chinese, Indian and Filipino Managers.” Journal of International BusinessStudies 29, 729–748.

Nadar, L. (1990). Harmony Ideology: Justice and Control in a Zapotec Mountain Village. Stanford, CA. StanfordUniversity Press.

Patten, C. (1998). East and West: The Last Governor of Hong Kong on Power, Freedom and the Future. London:Mcmillan.

Pearce, J.L. (1998). “Face, Harmony, and Social Structure: An Analysis of Organizational Behavior AcrossCultures.” Personnel Psychology 51, 1029–1032.


Ohbuchi K. (1998). “Conflict Management in Japan: Cultural Values and Efficacy.” In K. Leung and D. Tjosvold(eds.), Conflict Management in the Asia Pacific: Assumptions and Approaches in Diverse Cultures. Singapore:John Wiley & Sons.

Ohbuchi, K., O. Fukushima, and J. Tedeschi. (1999). “Cultural Values in Conflict Management: Goal Orientation,Goal Attainment, and Tactical Decision.” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 30, 51–71.

Ohbuchi, K., M. Suzuki, and Y. Hayashi. (2001). “Conflict Management and Organizational Attitudes AmongJapanese: Individual and Group Goals and Justice.” Asian Journal of Social Psychology 4, 93–101.

Rahim, M.A. (1983). “A Measurement of Styles of Handling Interpersonal Conflict.” Academy of ManagementJournal 26, 368–376.

Rahim, M.A. (1986). Managing Conflict in Organizations. New York: Praeger.Redding, S.G. (1983). The Spirit of Chinese Capitalism. New York: Walter de Gruyter.Redding, S.G. and M. Ng. (1982). “The Role of Face in Organizational Perceptions of Chinese Managers.”

Organization Studies 3, 201–219.Salk, J.E. and M.Y. Brannen. (2000). “National Culture, Networks, and Individual Influence in a Multinational

Management Team.” Academy of Management Journal 43, 191–203.Schwartz, S.H. (1992). “Toward a Psychological Structure of Human Values.” Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology 53, 878–891.Shwartz, S.H. (1992). “Universals in the Content and Structure of Values: Theoretical Advances and Empirical

Tests in Two Countries.” In M.P. Zanna (ed.), Advances in Experimental and Social Psychology 25. New York:Academic Press.

Smith, P.B. and M.H. Bond. (1994). Social Psychology Across Cultures. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Sorenson, R.L., E.A. Morse, and G.T. Savage. (1995). “What are the Key Dimensions Underlying Choice of

Conflict Management Strategies?” Paper Presented at the Annual Convention of the Academy of Management.Thomas, K. (1976). “Conflict and Conflict Management.” In M. Dunnette (ed.), Handbook of Industrial and

Organization Psychology. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.Ting-Toomey S. (1988). “Intercultural Conflict Styles: A Face-Negotiation Theory.” In Y. Kim and W. Gudykunst

(eds.), Theories in Intercultural Communication. Newbury Park, CA:Sage.Tjosvold, D., C. Hui, and K.S. Law. (1998). “Empowerment in the Manager-Employee Relationship in Hong

Kong: Interdependence and Controversy.” Journal of Social Psychology 138, 624–636.Tjosvold, D., K. Leung, and D.W. Johnson. (2000). “Cooperative and Competitive Conflict in China.” In M.

Deutsch and P.T. Coleman (eds.), The Handbook of Conflict Resolution. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Tjosvold, D., R. Nibler, and P. Wan. (2001). “Motivation for Conflict Among Chinese University Students: Effects

of Others’ Expertise and One’s Own Confidence on Engaging in Conflict.” Journal of Social Psychology 141,353–365.

Tjosvold, D. and H. Sun. (2000). “Social Face in Conflict: Effects of Affronts to Person and Position in China.”Group Dynamics 4, 259–271.

Tsui, A.S. and J.L. Farh. (1997). “Where Gunaxi Matters: Relational Demography and Gunaxi in the ChineseContext.” Work and Occupations 24, 56–79.

Yamagishi, T. (1988). “The Provision of a Sanctioning System in the United States and Japan.” Social PsychologyQuarterly 51, 265–271.

Yamagishi, T., K.S. Cook, and M. Watabe. (1998). “Uncertainty, Trust, and Commitment Formation in the UnitedStates and Japan.” American Journal of Sociology 104, 165–194.

Yamagishi, T., N. Jin, and A.S. Miller. (1998). “In-Group Bias and Culture of Collectivism.” Asian Journal ofSocial Psychology 1, 315–328.

Yamagishi, T. and M. Yamagishi. (1994). “Trust and Commitment in the United States and Japan.” Motivationand Emotion 18, 9–66.

Yang, M.M. (1986). The Art of Social Relationships and Exchange in China. Berkerly, CA: University of CaliforniaPress.

Professor K. Leung (Ph.D. in psychology, University of Illinois) is a professor of management at City Univer-sity of Hong Kong. He has published widely on justice, conflict, international joint ventures in China, cross-cultural research methodology, and cross-cultural psychology. He is the editor of Asian Journal of Social Psy-chology and an associate editor of Asia pacific Journal of Management. He also serves on the editorial board


of several academic journals, and is currently co-editing a handbook of Asian management to be published byKluwer.

Pamela Tremain Koch (Ph.D. candidate in communication, University of Arizona) is currently a visiting researchstudent in the Department of Management at City University of Hong Kong. Her research interests are in cross-cultural communication, conflict management, cooperation and competition in the work place, and qualitativemethodology. She has co-authored several articles in communication psychology and pragmatics.

Lin LU (M.A. in Applied Linguistics, Shanghai Jiao Tong University) is now a Ph.D. student in the Departmentof Management, City University of Hong Kong. Her research interests include cross-cultural management andknowledge management.

Documents

A Dualistic Model of Harmony and its Implications for Conflict Management in Asia