The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1044-4068.htm
IJCMA
18,3
260
Received 4 September 2006
Accepted 19 April 2007
International Journal of Conflict
Management
Vol. 18 No. 3, 2007
pp. 260-279
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1044-4068
DOI 10.1108/10444060710825990
Conflict management styles as
indicators of behavioral pattern in
business negotiation
The impact of contextualism in two countries
Zhenzhong Ma
Odette School of Business, University of Windsor, Windsor, Canada
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this study is to examine whether conflict management styles are able to
predict actual behaviors in business negotiation in two different countries.
Design/methodology/approach – Subjects were recruited from both Canada and China to
participate in a laboratory study. Three simulated business negotiations were used for participants to
negotiate deals in both countries in order to compare the validity of conflict management styles in
predicting negotiation behaviors.
Findings – This study shows that conflict management styles are valid predictors of actual
negotiation behaviors in Canada, but not in China. The results also show that Chinese people use a
more avoiding approach and demonstrate a higher level of integrativeness during business
negotiation simulations, while Canadians use a more compromising approach and show a higher level
of distributiveness.
Practical implications – Practical implications of the findings are discussed in terms of the
usefulness of self-reported conflict management styles for negotiation researchers and practitioners in
training seminars and in terms of the effectiveness of first offer as one negotiation strategy to achieve
better negotiation outcomes.
Originality/value – This study is particularly pertinent, given that the relationship between conflict
management styles and actual behaviors in negotiation receives little attention and that even less
attention is given to this relationship in a cross-cultural context.
Keywords Conflict management, Negotiating, Canada, China
Paper type Research paper
Some people are better negotiators than others. How do the best negotiators behave
differently from average negotiators? Researchers have been searching for factors that
determine effective negotiation behaviors ever since the early research efforts to
investigate negotiation began in the late 1950s (for detailed reviews see Bazerman et al.,
2001; Thompson, 1990). Many have argued that negotiation behaviors are predicated
upon conflict management styles (Kirkbride et al., 1991; Ma, 2006a; Volkema and
Bergmann, 1995), however, surprisingly few studies have attempted to examine this
relationship (Volkema and Bergmann, 1995), and even fewer have done so within a
cross-cultural context. With the increasingly globalized world economy, cross-cultural
studies of negotiation and conflict management styles have received more and more
attention from both academics and practitioners (Gelfand and Dyer, 2000; Graham and
Mintu-Wimsat, 1997; Tinsley, 1998). Sensitivity to cultural differences in negotiations
becomes an important success factor for today’s business. As a result, it is necessary to
study whether conflict management styles predict actual behaviors during negotiation Conflict
and, if so, whether such relationship exists within a cross-cultural context in order to management
understand the dynamics of international negotiations.
This study is to examine whether conflict management styles are able to predict styles
actual behaviors in business negotiation in two different countries – Canada and
China, one from the west and one from the east. Data will be generated using three
different contextually rich simulations of business negotiation in both countries to 261
explore this relationship across situations and to compare the cultural differences of
the relationships between conflict management styles and negotiation behaviors, given
that there are significant cultural differences between Canada and China.

Conflict management style and negotiation

Scholars have been studying the best way to manage conflict, resulting in impressive
literature on conflict management styles (cf. Thompson, 1990; Van de Vliert, 1997; Wall
and Blum, 1991). The dominant conflict management model in this literature is the
dual-concern model. Originated from the work of Blake and Mouton (1964) and further
developed by many other theorists (e.g. Deutsch, 1994; Rahim, 1983; Thomas, 1976;
Thomas and Kilmann, 1974), the dual-concern model has several variations, all of
which assume that individuals choose different modes, strategies, or styles for
handling conflict based on some variations of two primary concerns/interests –
“concern for self” and “concern for other”. These two dimensions define five conflict
management styles: competing or dominating (high concern for self, low concern for
other); collaborating or integrating (high concern for self and for other); compromising
(moderate concern for self and for other); accommodating or obliging (low concern for
self and high concern for other); and avoiding (low concern for self and low concern for
other). The defined five styles reflect an individual’s behavioral intentions when facing
conflict situations (Womack, 1988). Subsequent studies suggest that the
interrelationships among the constructs are consistent with those depicted in the
model (Van de Vliert and Euwema, 1994; Van de Vliert and Kabanoff, 1990) and that
the two dimensions provide the basis for choice of conflict mode (Sorenson et al., 1999).
Among the instruments developed for assessing conflict management styles, Hall’s
(1969) conflict management survey, Rahim’s (1983) organizational conflict inventory,
and Thomas and Kilmann’s (1974) conflict MODE instrument have been used
extensively in academic research, training seminars, and organizational intervention
and development, yet few studies have linked the conflict management styles
measured by these instruments with actual behaviors (Ma, 2006a; Volkema and
Bergmann, 1995), which makes it difficult to assess the usefulness of these instruments
in predicting actual conflict-resolving behaviors such as in business negotiation. This
study will explore whether the conflict management styles measured by the
Thomas-Kilmann conflict MODE instrument are valid indicators of behavioral pattern
in business negotiation and further whether such relationship between conflict
management styles and actual behaviors hold across cultures.
Conflict management has been defined as a culturally bound event (Hocker and
Wilmot, 1991) and consequently, the relationship between conflict management styles
and actual behaviors are affected by cultural values. The most relevant cultural
dimension that is likely to affect this relationship is contextualism, also the dimension
that has been widely examined in cross-cultural negotiation literature. Contextualism
IJCMA reflects the degree of sensitivity to communication context (Hall, 1976; Kirkbride et al.,
18,3 1991). People from low context cultures, such as Canadian culture, use explicit and
direct language, whereas those from high context cultures such as Chinese culture use
implicit and indirect language in which words and phrases derive their meanings from
contextual clues.
More important, the sensitivity to contextual clues determines individuals’
262 perceptions towards the particulars of the context, and therefore, their behavioral
responses will be affected, many times even in a way that is incongruent to their
dispositional characters. In a low context culture, individuals tend to pay less attention
to contextual clues and are more likely to behave in a way consistent with what is
determined by their dispositional characters; in a high context culture, individuals pay
close attention to what is inside the context, therefore their behaviors are less likely
reflect what is predetermined by their dispositional factors, but are more related to the
particulars of specific context. As a result, their self-reported conflict management
styles may not be able to predict what they will actually behave during conflict
resolution. Therefore, I expect that because of the high context characteristic of Chinese
culture, the self-reported conflict management styles will be less likely to predict what
the Chinese will behave during the actual process of conflict resolution. This does not
apply to low context Canadian culture though, for which I predict that Canadians will
approach the conflicts in a way consistent with their reported conflict management
styles:
H1a. The high context Chinese culture makes it less likely that self-reported
conflict management styles will predict how Chinese people will actually
behave to resolve conflicts across situations.
H1b. The low context Canadian culture makes it more likely that self-reported
conflict management styles will predict how Canadians will actually behave
to resolve conflicts across situations.
Another major cultural dimension, and also the most distinguishable characteristic
between Canadian culture and Chinese culture is individualism. Individualism, as
opposed to collectivism, measures the extent to which people value individual goals
over group goals, individual concerns over group concerns, and individual rights and
needs over collective responsibilities and obligations (Graham and Mintu-Wimsat,
1997; Triandis, 1995). People from an individualistic society value autonomy,
assertiveness, competition, and individual achievement. Consequently, they strive for
personal satisfaction and achievement even at the expense of social relationships
(Triandis, 1995). In contrast, in a collectivistic society, social relationships and social
harmony are important concerns (Triandis, 1995). Harmony often takes precedence
over task accomplishment and personal desires, and individual effort and achievement
are expected to contribute to the collective good (Hofstede, 1980).
Empirical studies have provided mixed results on the relationship between
individualism and conflict management styles. Researchers have often documented
that people in individualistic cultures prefer to use assertive and confrontational styles
for resolving conflicts and people in collectivistic cultures prefer passive and avoiding
tactics for resolving conflicts (Hirokawa and Miyahara, 1986; Ohbuchi and Tedeschi,
1994; Trubisky et al., 1991). However, other scholars who have correlated participants’
scores on individualism scales with conflict behavior have reported to find no Conflict
relationship (Leung, 1988; Morris et al., 1998). management
In this study the relationship between individualism and conflict management
styles is examined from a different perspective by relating individualism to styles
individual’s behavioral pattern across multiple situations rather than to single isolated
individual behaviors. This approach is more likely to shed light on the relationship
between individualism and individuals’ characteristic conflict management styles, for 263
the reason as follows. That cultures and societies differ in many subtle and
not-so-subtle ways is well known, so is the fact that cultures influence the behaviors of
the people who are living in. Cultures give order and direction to the over-flowing
stream of human acts and thoughts as they relate to the solution of common human
problems in different societies. Linking aggregated behavior pattern across situations
to individualism is more likely to obtain meaningful results, compared to the
traditional empirical studies that often investigate this relationship in a single case.
Research has provided solid evidence on the differences between Canadian culture
and Chinese culture (see Oyserman et al., 2002, for a review). Basically, it is widely
accepted that residents of Canada are more individualistic and less collectivistic than
most others (Fiske, 2002) and that, among Asians, Chinese are consistently less
individualistic and more collectivistic (Oyserman et al., 2002), even though it is not
without debate on whether there really are two different psychologies of individualism
and collectivism. Individualist people view interactions within relationships and
groups as occurring between independent individuals, and thus, disagreements and
conflicts are accepted as a natural and inevitable aspect of social life, whereas
collectivistic people emphasize group harmony and dislike social disorganization or
disagreement, and thus try to avoid or reduce conflicts. Therefore, it can be expected
that high individualism in Canada should produce direct, task-oriented conflict
management styles reflecting concern for self and little concern for others, while high
collectivism in China should motivate avoidance, indirect styles that reflect concerns
for others and the desire for harmony (Leung and Tjosvold, 1998; Ma, 2006b; Morris
et al., 1998). I predict that Canadians will use more competing styles and probably more
collaborating styles too, and the Chinese will use more accommodating, compromising,
and avoiding styles; the former are more direct, confrontational styles, and the latter
attempt to avoid conflict and to maintain the harmony:
H2a. Chinese culture fosters non-confrontational styles of conflict management,
such as avoiding and compromising.
H2b. Canadian culture fosters confrontational styles of conflict management, such
as competing and collaborating.

Negotiation behaviors and outcomes

Negotiation behaviors involves the dynamic interaction between negotiators by which
the two parties exchange goods or services and attempt to agree upon an exchange rate
by resolving incompatible goals (Carnevale and Pruitt, 1992; Wall, 1985; Wall and
Blum, 1991). Among other behaviors, first offer, assertiveness, and distributiveness
have been found to play important roles during negotiations and thus have often been
examined in numerous negotiation and conflict management studies (Barry and
Friedman, 1998; Lewicki and Litterer, 1985; Greenhalgh et al., 1985). Their relationship
IJCMA with conflict management styles and with the negotiation outcomes will be examined
18,3 in this study.
As one of the central dimensions of negotiation behavior, the level of assertiveness
during negotiation has been examined and proved to be an important factor that
affects negotiation outcomes and therefore its role in negotiation process cannot be
overrated (Greenhalgh et al., 1985; Jaeger et al., 1999; Mnookin et al., 1996). Similarly,
264 the level of distributiveness or “win-lose” intent of negotiation behavior has also been
closely related to negotiation outcomes (Lewicki and Litterer, 1985; Lewicki et al., 1994).
In this study, their relationship with conflict management styles will be examined.
The effect of first offer will also be investigated in this study. In any negotiation, the
decision to put the first offer on the table is a double-edged sword (Barry and
Friedman, 1998). To the offerer’s potential disadvantage, an initial offer conveys
information about aspirations and utilities (Rubin and Brown, 1975). Depending on the
underlying structure of reservation prices, this information may reduce the range of
potential agreements, to the disadvantage of the offerer. On the other hand, an opening
offer may lead the opponent to perceive that settlements will favor the party making
the first offer. This is more likely to happen when the first offer is an extreme one
(Siegel and Fouraker, 1960). For example, a seller who initially demands a high price
may induce the buyer to believe that the range of potential agreements is closer to the
seller’s reservation price than originally thought. Moreover, extreme initial offers can
signal that the party making the offer is hard bargainer who will not be induced to
retreat (Lewicki et al., 1994). When this occurs, the recipient of such an offer may
moderate his or her negotiation objectives and be more inclined to offer concessions.
Therefore, bargainers who make the first move may be better off starting with a
relatively extreme offer, though there are limits to the effectiveness of extreme offers
(e.g. offers so extreme that they discredit the bargainer who made the offer or reduce
hope on the other side to the point of withdrawal) (Barry and Friedman, 1998).
Inclusion of the level of assertiveness, the level of distributiveness, and the level of
first offer in this study shows an internal relationship among these variables. The level
of assertiveness reflects the extent to which individuals are not afraid to express their
needs/desires and willing to defend their own interests, while the level of
distributiveness assesses the extent to which individuals believe the current
situation to be a win-lose situation versus a win-win situation. The interaction of
these two leads to choice of different approaches of conflict resolving or negotiating.
The level of first offer sets a tone for the whole negotiation process, which is the
manifestation of such choice.
In the present study, two key outcome constructs will be considered: negotiator’s
individual profits, and negotiator’s satisfaction. The inclusion of negotiator’s
individual profits reflects the main objective of most negotiation studies. The
ultimate goal of negotiation research is to find approaches that could be used to
improve negotiator’s individual profits and to look for those factors – no matter how
they are categorized – that influence individual profits. To explore the effects of
different conflict management styles, individual profits will be measured in this study
as one criterion variable.
Satisfaction as one affective outcome has been linked to functional behaviors in a
variety of settings (Churchill et al., 1990), and is considered a critical outcome measure
of exchange relationships like business negotiation (Ruekert and Churchill, 1984). This
is especially true when integrative negotiations are crucial and long-term relationships Conflict
become more important than one-shot negotiation successes. Satisfaction is the factor management
that can increase the possibility of an integrative or “win-win” solution and that helps
maintain the positive relationships. Thus, it is essential to include satisfaction as a styles
primary negotiation outcome.
The relationship between negotiation process and outcomes will be examined by
relating different process variables to negotiation outcomes. As discussed in the 265
previous sections, the level of first offer is a double-edged sword. Research findings
seem to support the claim that bargainers who make the first move may be better off
starting with a relatively extreme offer, even though there are limits to the
effectiveness of extreme offers (Ma, 2004; Ma and Jaeger, 2005). Therefore it is expected
that higher level of first offer will lead to better individual profits both in China and
Canada:
H3a. Higher level of first offer will lead to better individual profits both in China
and in Canada.
The impacts of the level of assertiveness and distributiveness are different. Since both
assertiveness and distributiveness are associated with negotiator’s efforts to resolve
the conflict and to reach an agreement, not directly with the agreement itself, their
impacts are mainly manifested on the affective outcome, rather than on the economic
outcomes. In other words, whether negotiators have clearly and fully expressed their
opinions and defended their interests (level of assertiveness) and whether they have
worked towards a win-win solution and preserved the positive relationship (level of
distributiveness) will be more likely to directly associate with negotiators’ feeling
about the negotiation instead of with their final profits obtained in the negotiation. In
this explorative study, I expect that the level of assertiveness will have positive
influence on negotiator’s satisfaction both in China and in Canada; the level of
distributiveness will have a positive influence on negotiator’s satisfaction in Canada
but a negative influence in China because the distributive bargaining and the win-lose
mindset are more accepted in the individualistic Canada and less in collectivistic China:
H3b. Higher level of assertiveness will lead to more satisfaction with negotiation
both in Canada and in China.
H3c. Higher level of distributiveness will lead to more satisfaction with negotiation
in Canada but less satisfaction in China.

Methods
This study used three different simulations of business negotiation to investigate
whether conflict management styles are able to predict actual behaviors in business
negotiation both in Canada and in China. The conflict management styles were
measured with Thomas-Kilmann conflict mode instrument. Negotiation process and
outcomes were assessed by a variety of methods. The simulations and all the
questionnaires were administered in English in Canada and in Mandarin in China.
Translation and back translation were conducted to ensure the equivalency of the
materials and the scales used in both countries.
IJCMA Simulations
18,3 Because conflict management styles is a generalized, enduring tendency for people to
respond to conflicts in a similar manner across situations and times (Thomas, 1976;
Volkema and Bergmann, 1995; Womack, 1988), the appropriate way to study the
impact of conflict management styles on negotiations is to gather data from many
different negotiation situations and to investigate their effects on the average
266 negotiation outcomes across situations (Lewicki et al., 1994). Such a method allows
measurements and other errors to cancel each other out across negotiation situations
and increases the probability that true effects will be found.
In response to such an argument, three diverse negotiation simulations were used in
this study: the used car case, the knight/Excalibur case, and the best book/page turner
case, which are common exercises in many negotiation textbooks (cf. Lewicki et al.,
1994). We chose these three cases as they represent increasing level of complexity and
different integrative potentials. The used car case is the simplest one wherein the seller
and the buyer try to negotiate on the price of one second-hand car. This case is purely
distributive, with price as the only issue for both sides. In the best book/page turner case,
which is the most complex, there are eight issues to be negotiated, including royalties,
signing bonus, duration of the contract, and other conditions. Representatives of the
publisher and the author have to come to an agreement on all eight issues. To assess
individual negotiator’ profits, each subject receives a profit table indicating his or her
profit points earned on each issue of a set of possible agreements.
The knight/Excalibur case falls in the middle, simpler than the best book case, but
more complex than the used car case. In this simulation, representatives of two
companies come to negotiate on the price of one special type of piston, but the buyer
could possibly give the seller a free ride ad so that the seller might receive orders from
the government in the future, if the seller would lower the price. The knight/Excalibur
case has a much simpler structure than that of the best book but its integrative
potential is easier to perceive.
The manipulation check showed that subjects’ perceptions of the integrative
potential for each simulation were significantly different from one another within
cultures. For Canadian subjects, the average perceptions of the integrative potentials
(reversely coded) for the used car case, the knight/Excalibur case, and the best book
case were 4.19, 3.32, and 3.89 respectively, on a 1 to 7 scale (F ¼ 15:781, p , 0.001,
one-way ANOVA test), with the used car the most distributive case, and the
knight/Excalibur the most integrative case. For Chinese subjects, the average
perceptions were 3.19, 1.81, and 2.63 (F ¼ 27:72, p , 0.001), and again the used car
case was the most distributive and the Knight/Excalibur the most integrative.

Subjects
The subjects were 226 MBA students from one major Canadian university in East
Canada and 200 senior undergraduate students from one leading business school in
Beijing, China. While none of the subjects was a professional negotiator, all had taken
elective courses on managerial negotiation skills. The Canadian subjects were aged
between 26 and 38, and 35 percent of them were female, while Chinese sample were aged
between 20 and 26, and 30 percent were female. All subjects participated in order to fulfill
course requirements, and all subjects were randomly assigned to dyads, which in turn
were randomly assigned to different roles for either buyer or seller in each simulation.
Procedures Conflict
All the simulations were conducted among subjects from the same university in their management
home country, that is, only intra-cultural negotiation was examined. Every student was
given the Thomas-Kilmann conflict mode instrument (MODE) to complete about two styles
weeks before the negotiations. Before the simulations, subjects were told that they
would be participating three business negotiation simulations in which they would
play the roles they were randomly assigned to. They were instructed to be as creative 267
as they wanted to be, and they were also ensured that this study was only for academic
purposes and confidentiality was guaranteed.
For each simulation, the subjects were randomly paired-off into buyer-seller dyads
and assigned to different rooms for negotiation, where every subject read a common
background statement and a separate confidential information sheet for the role he or
she was assigned to. The sheet outlined the issues from the point of view of the
constituencies he or she represented, giving the subjects a general idea of the
importance of the issues to be negotiated, and a detailed idea of the relative importance
of the bargaining issues, if more than one issue had to be negotiated. The relationships
being investigated had not been discussed with the subjects, and there were no
inter-subject discussion of the negotiation until the study had been completed.
Before starting the actual negotiation, all the subjects spent 30 minutes reading and
preparing for each negotiation, and then they filled out a pre-negotiation questionnaire
(see measures section below). They had 30 minutes to negotiate an agreement. A
post-negotiation questionnaire was given to student to fill out (see measures section
below) after they completed the negotiation or when the time was up. The same
procedure was followed for the other two simulations, with debriefing and questions
answered when all simulations had been completed. All subjects negotiated in the
same order and reached agreements in at least two simulations, and therefore were all
included in the analysis.

Measures
The Thomas-Kilmann conflict mode instrument (MODE) was used to measure conflict
management styles in both Canada and China. The MODE is designed to gauge an
individual’s behavioral intention in conflict situations, and it has been one of the most
widely accepted instruments of its type in both research and training. Comparing with
other scales derived from the dual-concern model, the MODE is relatively
uncontaminated by social desirability effects (Womack, 1988). The MODE has also
been used in numerous studies on conflict management styles in both single culture
research and cross-cultural studies (Calhoun and Smith, 1999; Weldon and Jehn, 1995),
and scholars have argued that it can be used cross-culturally (Kirkbride et al., 1991).
The MODE consists of 30 pairs of statements describing different behavioral
response to conflict situation. Typical items contrast responses such as “I try to avoid
creating unpleasantness for myself” and “I try to win my position” or “I try to find a
compromise solution” and “I sometimes sacrifice my own wishes for the wishes of the
other person”. Respondents are required to choose the response most typical of their
own behavioral intentions from each pair of statements and the resulting pattern of
responses generates individual scores for each of the five conflict management styles.
Cronbach (1951) alpha coefficients were calculated for the MODE in this study.
Coefficients for the five styles ranged from 0.52 to 0.71, with a mean of 0.58 for Chinese
IJCMA sample, and ranged from 0.52 to 0.74, with a mean of 0.61 for Canadian sample, which
18,3 are comparable to prior results (for a review, see Womack, 1988). It is worthwhile to
point out that the Cronbach alpha coefficients for the MODE are underestimated due to
the unique design of the MODE. Because the MODE is designed to force people to
choose between a pair of statements, or between the conflict-handling modes, each item
should load on two different styles. As a result, even if the measure were perfect, each
268 scale score could at best account for only half the variance in any given item. In other
words, even with a perfectly reliable and valid MODE, each item could only at most
have a correlation of about 0.7 with its scale score, so that its R-square value would be
0.5 in explaining variance in the scale (Thomas, 2003).
Negotiator’s level of first offer was measured in pre-negotiation questionnaire by
asking subjects to write down what their first offer would be for the current
negotiation. In post-negotiation questionnaire, each subject answered the question
regarding the level of their distributiveness and the level of their opponents’
assertiveness. The level of distributiveness was measured on a seven-point Likert scale
by asking subjects to indicate to what extent they were trying to reach integrative or
distributive solutions during the negotiation (1 – very integrative, 7 – very
distributive). To reduce the common method errors, their partners’ assessment of
assertiveness was used to measure individual negotiators’ level of assertiveness on a
seven-point Likert scale, with 1 representing “not at all assertive” and 7 representing
“very assertive”.
Also collected in post-negotiation questionnaire were negotiator’s individual profits
and satisfaction with negotiation. Individual profits were measured as the profits
earned in the final agreement. Negotiator’s satisfaction was measured by asking
subjects to indicate on a scale from 1 (the most dissatisfied) to 7 (the most satisfied)
how satisfied they were with the negotiation process and negotiated outcome. Then the
general satisfaction index was obtained by averaging the satisfaction with process and
the satisfaction with outcome (Cronbach alpha ¼ 0:87 for Chinese sample and 0.70 for
Canadian sample).

Analysis
As suggested by Van de Vijver and Leung (1997) for doing comparative research,
standardization was used in this study to eliminate unwanted inter-group differences
such as those due to response sets and to reduce the influence of measure units. First
offer and individual profits were standardized for sellers and for buyers respectively,
and then the standardized scores for the buyers were reversed so that the higher score
represents better deal for both buyers and sellers.
To test the true effects of conflict management styles on negotiation process and
outcomes and to cancel out possible variances caused by other exogenous factors, all
the behavioral and outcome variables were averaged across simulations before the
analysis, including standardized level of first offer, the level of assertiveness assessed
by opponents, the level of distributiveness during negotiation, standardized individual
profits, and satisfaction with negotiation.

Results
Table I reports means, standard deviations, and correlations among gender, conflict
management styles, negotiation behaviors, and negotiation outcomes for both
Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Canadian sample
1. Gender 0.65 0.48
2. Competing 5.52 2.90 0.03
3. Collaborating 5.77 2.64 0.01 0.21 * *
4. Compromising 7.75 2.46 20.18 * * 2 0.25 * * * 2 0.21 * *
5. Avoiding 5.97 2.18 0.08 2 0.33 * * * 2 0.39 * * * 2 0.24 * * *
6. Accommodating 4.98 2.37 0.05 2 0.45 * * * 2 0.27 * * * 2 0.28 * * * 0.17 * *
7. First offer 0.01 0.60 0.01 2 0.04 2 0.04 0.09 20.14 * 0.00
8. Assertiveness level 4.79 0.91 0.06 0.18 * 0.06 0.04 20.19 * * 20.18 * 0.02
9. Distributiveness
level 4.45 1.25 20.00 2 0.15 * 2 0.07 0.12 0.16 * 0.02 20.06 0.01
10. Individual profits 0.05 0.76 0.16 * 0.15 * 2 0.05 0.00 20.09 20.05 0.28 * * * 0.15 * 0.09
11. Satisfaction with
negotiation 4.19 0.84 20.05 0.08 0.10 2 0.02 20.12 20.06 0.03 0.01 0.17 * 0.31 * * *
Chinese sample
1. Gender 0.70 0.46
2. Competing 6.27 2.45 0.05
3. Collaborating 5.31 1.94 20.12 2 0.23 * * *
4. Compromising 7.11 2.14 20.09 2 0.44 * * * 2 0.24 * * *
5. Avoiding 6.51 1.62 20.05 2 0.14 * 2 0.19 * * 2 0.24 * * *
6. Accommodating 4.80 2.00 0.18 * 2 0.40 * * * 2 0.28 * * * 2 0.09 20.16 *
7. First offer 2 0.01 0.59 20.07 0.07 0.02 0.02 20.10 20.05
8. Assertiveness level 5.03 1.06 20.13 2 0.02 2 0.03 2 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.01
9. Distributiveness
level 2.23 1.10 20.02 2 0.02 0.07 0.04 0.02 20.12 20.03 20.12
10. Individual profits 2 0.00 0.68 0.06 0.02 0.08 2 0.09 0.05 20.05 0.15 * 0.10 20.10
11. Satisfaction with
negotiation 4.66 0.92 0.04 0.07 2 0.13 2 0.07 20.05 0.16 * 0.08 0.22 * * 20.45 * * * 0.10
Notes: n ¼ 227 for Canadian sample and 200 for Chinese sample, respectively. Variables were coded as follows: gender, 0 ¼ female, 1 ¼ male; conflict
style ranged from 0 to 12; Assertiveness level: 1 ¼ not at all assertive, 7 ¼ very assertive; Distributiveness level: 1 ¼ very integrative, 7 ¼ very
distributive; Satisfaction with negotiation: 1 ¼ very dissatisfied, 7 ¼ very satisfied; First offer and individual profits are standardized scores; *p , 0.05
(two-tailed); * *p , 0.01 (two-tailed); * * *p , 0.001 (two-tailed)
management
Conflict

Canadian and Chinese

Means, standard

sample
correlations for the
deviations, and
styles

269

Table I.
IJCMA Canadian sample and Chinese sample. In general, the bivariate correlations reflect
18,3 expected relations and provide confidence that the measures functioned properly for
the effects tested in this study.
From the mean scores of conflict management styles we can see a clear preference
for compromising and a secondary preference for avoiding by both Canadian and
Chinese samples, followed by collaborating for Canadians and competing for the
270 Chinese. The similarity reveals that both Canadian and Chinese people prefer
non-confrontational approaches to conflict management and try to avoid direct
confrontation.
Independent t-test was conducted to compare the difference between the relative
importance of different conflict management styles in Canada and China. The test
showed that Canadians had stronger preferences for compromising and collaborating
styles during conflict situation than the Chinese (7.75 vs 7.11, t ¼ 2:87, p , 0.01; 5.77
vs 5.32, t ¼ 2:03, p , 0.05, respectively), and the Chinese had stronger preferences for
avoiding and competing styles than Canadians (6.51 vs 5.97, t ¼ 2:88, p , 0.01; 6.27 vs
5.52, t ¼ 2:89, p , 0.01, respectively). Both samples had the least preferences, while at
similar level (4.98 vs 4.80, p , 0.41, not significant), for accommodating. Comparison of
the negotiation process and outcomes between Canadian and the Chinese indicated that
Canadians demonstrated higher level of distributiveness (4.45 vs 2.23, t ¼ 2:71,
p , 0.01), lower level of assertiveness (4.79 vs 5.03, t ¼ 2:44, p , 0.05), and lower level
of satisfaction with negotiation (4.19 vs 4.66, t ¼ 5:38, p , 0.001). No significant
differences were found between individual profits and between the levels of first offers.
The cross-cultural comparison supported that individualist Canadians were more
collaborating, though not more competing, than collectivistic Chinese (H2b was
partially supported) and the Chinese were more avoiding than Canadians in their
preferred conflict management styles (H2a was supported). Surprisingly, the
comparison also showed that both the Chinese and Canadians preferred the less
assertive, non-confrontational styles – compromising and avoiding, which is an
interesting topic for future studies, although it is not a total surprise considering that
the major Canadian values include multiculturalism and tolerance for difference.
Another finding worth attention was that the Chinese sample showed relatively
stronger preferences for competing style than Canadians. However, since competing
was only the third preferred conflict management style for the Chinese and the fourth
for Canadians among five different styles, such a difference makes less practical sense.
A close look on the ranking of different conflict management styles in these two
cultures reveals an interesting phenomenon. The order of preferred conflict
management styles for Canadians is compromising, avoiding, collaborating,
competing, and accommodating while for the Chinese it is compromising, avoiding,
competing, collaborating, and accommodating. It seems to suggest that in face of
conflict Canadians are inclined to compromise first, then try to avoid the conflict,
followed by attempts to collaborate with the other before they are willing to get into a
battle or competition. While the Chinese also choose to compromise first and then try to
avoid the conflict, they tend to resort to competition to resolve the conflict if
compromising and avoiding are not effective before they attempt to collaborate with
the other. Such a difference may be a fruitful topic in studying the dynamic conflict
resolving process in different cultures.
 To test whether conflict management styles is able to predict actual behaviors in Conflict
business negotiation, hierarchical regression analysis was conducted and Figures 1 management
and 2 present the regression analysis results for Canadian sample and Chinese sample.
In order to assess the independent and incremental effects of conflict management styles
styles on the two sets of dependent variables – negotiation process and outcomes, and
for the exploratory nature of this study, the hierarchical regression analysis was
appropriate. In the regression analysis, gender was always entered first, followed by 271
conflict management styles, where gender was treated as one control variable because
of its inconsistent impact on negotiation processes (cf. Carnevale and Lawer, 1986; Neu
et al., 1988).
As seen from the figures, not only were the preferred conflict management styles in
Canada quite different from those from China, but they also had different power in
predicting actual behaviors in business negotiation. While no conflict management
style predict any actual behavior across different negotiation situations in China (see
Figure 2), because of the high contextualism in Chinese culture which supported H1a,
the relationships between conflict management styles and negotiation behaviors were
quite strong in Canada (see Figure 1). As shown in Figure 1, avoiding was the most
influential factor that predicted the level of first offer and further negotiator’s
individual profit. Avoiding was also found to have negative significant relationships
with the level of assertiveness and distributiveness during negotiation. In addition,
other conflict management styles, like accommodating and compromising, also had
negative significant influences on the level of assertiveness and distributiveness.
These findings supported the prediction that compromising, avoiding, and
accommodating would lead to less aggression and less contentious behaviors in
business negotiation. Moreover, the strong relationships between different conflict
management styles and negotiation behaviors supported H1b, which stated that the
low context Canadian culture makes it more likely that self-reported conflict
management styles will predict how Canadians will actually behave across situations.
Comparing Figures 1 and 2 showed that conflict management styles in Canada
predicted actual negotiation behaviors and further negotiation outcomes while in
China no conflict management style was related to the actual behaviors manifested in
the business negotiation. This finding provides evidence in support of the prediction
that people from low context cultures, like Canadian culture, have more consistency
between their self-reported conflict management styles and actual behaviors in conflict
resolving situation, and as a result, conflict management styles are valid predictors for
actual behaviors, while people from high context cultures, like Chinese culture, are
more sensitive to context clues and therefore are more likely to behave according to
contextual constraints and consequently, conflict management styles are not valid
predictor of actual behaviors.
Surprisingly, competing was the only conflict management style that consistently
predicted high negotiation outcomes (individual profits for Canadian sample and
satisfaction for Chinese sample) in both Canada and China, contrary to the expectation
that competing would be very effective in Canada but not in China in conflict resolving
situation like business negotiation. The results suggested that competing style, i.e.
assertive and uncooperative, might be effective even when dealing with the people
from Eastern cultures, such as the Chinese.
IJCMA
18,3

272

Figure 1.
Results of hierarchical
regression analysis
(Canada): main effects of
conflict management
styles on negotiation
process and outcomes
 Conflict
management
styles

273

Figure 2.
Results of hierarchical
regression analysis
(China): main effects of
conflict management
styles on negotiation
process and outcomes
IJCMA First offer was another important factor that predicted high individual profit both in
18,3 Canada and in China. In this study, the level of first offer was found positively related to
individual profits both in Canada ( p , 0.001) and in China ( p , 0.05), which supported
H3a and provided more evidence for the importance of first offer during business
negotiation. As predicted in H3c, higher level of distributiveness led to more satisfaction
with negotiation in Canada but less satisfaction in China. This is consistent with the
274 cultural differences between these two countries: collectivistic Chinese people emphasize
group values and collective good and further a harmonious relationship, therefore they
are not comfortable with the high level of distributiveness during negotiation, and
instead, they are striving for a win-win solution; individualistic Canadians are more
comfortable with the competitive win-lose situation, and thus are more satisfied with the
high level of distributiveness. The results from this study also partially supported H3b,
that is, high level of assertiveness led to more satisfied Chinese negotiators but this did
not hold in Canada, which could be an interesting topic for future studies.
The potential mediating effects of the level of first offer, assertiveness, and
distributiveness on the relationship between conflict management styles and
negotiation outcomes were also examined, based on the procedures prescribed by
Baron and Kenny (1986). No mediating effects were found for these factors in either
Canadian sample or Chinese sample.
An interesting result was found about the relationship among negotiation outcome
variables. For Canadians, high individual profits predicted high satisfaction with
negotiation, while for the Chinese, obtaining high individual profits did not affect their
satisfaction with the negotiation, which indicates that the economic outcome and the
affective outcome of negotiation are relatively independent from each other for Chinese
negotiators but are closely related to each other for Canadian negotiators.

Discussion
The central focus of this study was to examine whether self-reported conflict
management styles can predict actual behaviors in business negotiation both in China
and Canada. I began this study by noticing that few studies had linked conflict
management style with actual behaviors, and even fewer had done so within a
cross-cultural context. Then using multiple sets of negotiation simulations, I compared
the power of conflict management styles in predicting actual behaviors in two cultures
and examined the general impact of different conflict management styles on
negotiation behaviors and outcomes.
The results of this study provide support for the differences in conflict management
styles in Canada and China during business negotiation, and for the significance of
conflict management styles as predictors of behavioral pattern in business negotiation
in low context cultures. Specifically, the results show that conflict management styles
are valid indicators of actual behaviors in Canada but not in China. Moreover,
Canadians use more compromising and collaborating styles and show higher level of
distributiveness than the Chinese whereas the Chinese use more avoiding and
competing tactics and show lower level of distributiveness than Canadians. The results
also support different styles lead to different behaviors and negotiation outcomes,
where competing is the single most important factor that predicts negotiation
outcomes in both Canada and China, and avoiding is the most influential factor in
Canada that affects the negotiation process.
 This research extends and enriches the understanding of conflict management Conflict
styles and negotiation process, especially the cross-cultural differences between management
Canada and China. Although there is no lack of studies investigating the cultural
differences of conflict management styles (Kirkbride et al., 1991; Tinsley, 1998), there styles
are no studies that have attempted to relate conflict management styles to actual
conflict-resolving behaviors and further to different outcomes (Volkema and
Bergmann, 1995). Focusing directly on whether conflict management styles predict 275
actual behaviors and further comparing such links in two different cultures
distinguishes this study from the others. Furthermore, this study investigates conflict
management style across multiple situations, which provides a more valid support for
different conflict management styles in different cultures than do single case studies.
Using multiple instances of situation should be a rule rather than an exception for
future studies of exploring the impact of stable and generalized individual
characteristics.

Implications for management

The results of this study will have important implications for management practices.
The first important implications is that negotiation researchers and practitioners
cannot rely on self-reported conflict management styles to predict actual behaviors and
therefore the training seminars and practice-oriented workshops should be adjusted
accordingly since most of these interventions and organizational development are
based on self-administered paper-and-pencil tests. Due to the difference in cultural
contextualism the usefulness of the self-reported conflict management styles in
predicting negotiation behaviors largely depends on the sensitivity to context clues. In
low context cultures such as that of Canada, negotiators’ preferred conflict
management styles predict their behaviors very well, which indicates that
practitioners can count on these styles to plan and prepare for business negotiation.
In high context cultures such as Chinese culture, contexts play a much more important
role in determining negotiators’ behaviors, and therefore, negotiators should closely
examine the features of negotiation tasks in order to make accurate predictions on
negotiation behaviors.
The second implication is about the usefulness of high level of first offer. Evidence
about the important role that first offer plays in business negotiation emerges from this
study. The level of first offer is found to be the key process factor that predicts
individual profits both in Canada and in China. This might be an important message to
negotiation practitioners. As discussed previously, high first offer is a double-edged
sword. Relatively extreme first offer can be favorable to the offerer as it sends a
message that the party making the offer is a hard bargainer and thus the recipient of
such an offer will be more likely to offer concessions, but too extreme offer will
discredit the offerer to the point of breaking the negotiation. The current result
supports an extreme first offer for obtaining the best individual results, which is
encouraging news for the use extreme first offer in actual business negotiations.

Directions for future studies

In addition to replication of this study in different cultures and contexts, there are other
issues that should be explored in future studies. A widely held view is that negotiation
professionals, that is, those who negotiate for a living, should be better negotiators
IJCMA than are novices, and research partially supports this view (Neale and Northcraft,
18,3 1986). Therefore, an important issue to be addressed in future studies is to use
professional negotiators and real negotiation situations to examine whether conflict
management styles predict actual behaviors and further outcomes. Difficult as it may
be, results from such studies will greatly contribute to negotiation scholarship. Using
samples from other cultural backgrounds will also increase the external validity of
276 similar studies. Investigating why the competitive approach is so useful in both
countries will be another interesting topic for future studies.

Limitation of the study

As with any exploratory study, this research has some limitations. The use of same
source responses might have contributed to common method variance. This study was
also based on the analysis of student samples from two cultures, a characteristic that
limits the generalization of results. On the one hand, the student sample might be
different from the general population. On the other hand, the two samples from Canada
and China may not be perfectly matched samples. This being said, however, one could
argue that similar educational background, similar gender composition, and similar
age provide validity support for this comparative study between the two cultures.
Even though the student samples may not represent the general population from the
two cultures, this study is still valuable for its exploratory nature, and the results
provide insightful directions for advanced studies. The results of this study are also
consistent with the expected cultural differences in individualism between Canada and
China where Canadians and the Chinese show different preferences for conflict
management styles, which provides further support to the validity of this study.

References
Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), “The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51, pp. 1173-82.
Barry, B. and Friedman, R.A. (1998), “Bargainer characteristics in distributive and integrative
negotiation”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 74, pp. 345-59.
Bazerman, M.H., Curhan, J.R. and Moore, D.A. (2001), “The death and rebirth of the social
psychology of negotiation”, in Clark, M. and Fletcher, G. (Eds), Blackwell Handbook of
Social Psychology, Blackwell, Cambridge, MA, pp. 196-228.
Blake, R.R. and Mouton, J.S. (1964), The Managerial Grid, Gulf Publishing, Houston, TX.
Calhoun, P.S. and Smith, W.P. (1999), “Integrative bargaining: does gender make a difference?”,
International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 203-24.
Carnevale, P.J. and Lawer, E.J. (1986), “Time pressure and the development of integrative
agreements in bilateral negotiations”, Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 30, pp. 636-56.
Carnevale, P.J. and Pruitt, D.G. (1992), “Negotiation and mediation”, Annual Review of
Psychology, Vol. 43, pp. 531-82.
Churchill, G., Walker, O. and Ford, N. (1990), Sale Force Management, 3rd ed., Irwin, Homewood,
IL.
Cronbach, L.J. (1951), “Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests”, Psychometrika,
Vol. 16, pp. 297-334.
Deutsch, M. (1994), “Constructive conflict resolution: principles, training, and research”, Journal Conflict
of Social Issues, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 13-32.
management
Fiske, A.P. (2002), “Using individualism and collectivism to compare culture – a critique of the
validity and measurement of the constructs: comment on Oyserman et al. (2002)”, styles
Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 128 No. 1, pp. 78-88.
Gelfand, M. and Dyer, N. (2000), “A cultural perspective on negotiation: progress, pitfalls, and
prospects”, Annual Psychology: An International Review, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 62-99. 277
Graham, J. and Mintu-Wimsat, A. (1997), “Culture’s influence on business negotiations in four
countries”, Group Decision and Negotiation, Vol. 6, pp. 483-502.
Greenhalgh, L., Nelsin, S.A. and Gilkey, R.W. (1985), “The effects of negotiator preferences,
situational power, and negotiator personality on outcomes of business negotiations”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 28, pp. 9-33.
Hall, E.T. (1976), Beyond Culture, Anchor, Garden City, NY.
Hall, J. (1969), Conflict Management Survey: A Survey of One’s Characteristic Reaction to and
Handling of Conflict between Himself and Others, Teleometrics International, Conroe, TX.
Hirokawa, R. and Miyahara, A. (1986), “A comparison of influence strategies utilized by
managers in American and Japanese organizations”, Communication Quarterly, Vol. 34,
pp. 250-65.
Hocker, J.L. and Wilmot, W.W. (1991), Interpersonal Conflict, W.C. Brown, Dubuque, IA.
Hofstede, G. (1980), Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values,
Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
Jaeger, A., Ma, Z., Wang, X., Anderson, T., Butt, A. and Saunders, D.M. (1999), “The influence of
personality, social perceptions, and goals on negotiation behaviors and outcomes:
a Chinese study”, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management,
Chicago, IL.
Kirkbride, P.S., Tang, F.Y. and Westwood, R.I. (1991), “Chinese conflict preferences and
negotiating behavior: cultural and psychological influence”, Organization Studies, Vol. 12
No. 3, pp. 365-89.
Leung, K. (1988), “Some determinants of conflict avoidance”, Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 125-36.
Leung, K. and Tjosvold, D. (1998), Conflict Management in the Asian Pacific: Assumptions and
Approaches in Diverse Cultures, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Lewicki, R.J. and Litterer, J.A. (1985), Negotiation, Irwin, Homewood, IL.
Lewicki, R.J., Litterer, J.A., Minton, J.W. and Saunders, D.M. (1994), Negotiation, 2nd ed., Irwin,
Burr Ridge, IL.
Ma, Z. (2004), “West meets Muslim: comparing Canadian and Pakistani conflict styles in
business negotiations”, paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of
Management, New Orleans, LA.
Ma, Z. (2006a), “Conflict styles as indicators of behavioral pattern in business negotiations”,
paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Atlanta, GA.
Ma, Z. (2006b), “Negotiating into China: the impact of individual perception on Chinese
negotiations styles”, International Journal of Emerging Markets, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 64-83.
Ma, Z. and Jaeger, A. (2005), “Getting into yes in China: exploring personality effects in Chinese
negotiation styles”, Group Decision and Negotiation, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 425-37.
Mnookin, R.H., Peppet, S.R. and Tulumello, A.S. (1996), “The tension between empathy and
assertiveness”, Negotiation Journal, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 217-30.
IJCMA Morris, M.W., Williams, K.Y., Leung, K., Larrick, R.P., Mendoza, M.T., Bhatnagar, D., Li, J.,
Kondo, M., Luo, J. and Hu, J. (1998), “Conflict management style: accounting for
18,3 cross-national differences”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 29 No. 4,
pp. 729-48.
Neale, M.A. and Northcraft, G.B. (1986), “Experts, amateurs and refrigerators: comparing expert
and amateur negotiators in a novel task”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
278 Processes, Vol. 38, pp. 305-17.
Neu, J., Graham, J.L. and Gilly, M.C. (1988), “The influence of gender on behaviors and outcomes
in a retail buyer-seller negotiation simulation”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 64, pp. 427-51.
Ohbuchi, K. and Tedeschi, J.T. (1994), “Cultural styles of conflict”, Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, Vol. 24, pp. 1345-66.
Oyserman, D., Coon, H.M. and Kemmelmeier, M. (2002), “Rethinking individualism and
collectivism: evaluation of theoretical assumption and meta-analyses”, Psychological
Bulletin, Vol. 128 No. 1, pp. 3-72.
Rahim, M.A. (1983), “A measure of styles of handling interpersonal conflict”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 368-76.
Rubin, J.Z. and Brown, B.R. (1975), The Social Psychology of Bargaining and Negotiation,
Academic, New York, NY.
Ruekert, R. and Churchill, G. (1984), “Reliability and validity of alternative measures of channel
member satisfaction”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 21, pp. 226-33.
Siegel, S. and Fouraker, L.E. (1960), Bargaining and Group Decision-making: Experiments in
Bilateral Monopoly, McGraw Hill, New York, NY.
Sorenson, R.L., Morse, E.A. and Savage, G.T. (1999), “A test of the motivations underlying choice
of conflict strategies in the dual-concern model”, International Journal of Conflict
Management, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 25-44.
Thomas, K.W. (1976), “Conflict and conflict management”, in Dunnette, M. (Ed.), Handbook of
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Rand McNally, Chicago, IL, pp. 889-935.
Thomas, K.W. (2003), personal communications, December 21.
Thomas, K.W. and Kilmann, R.H. (1974), Thomas-Kilmann Conflict MODE Instrument, Xicom,
Tuxedo, NY.
Thompson, L. (1990), “Negotiation behavior and outcomes: empirical evidence and theoretical
issues”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 108, pp. 515-32.
Tinsley, C. (1998), “Models of conflict resolution in Japanese, German, and American cultures”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 83, pp. 316-23.
Triandis, H.C. (1995), Individualism and Collectivism, Westview, Boulder, CO.
Trubisky, P., Ting-Toomey, S. and Lin, S.L. (1991), “The influence of individualism-collectivism
and self-monitoring on conflict styles”, International Journal of Intercultural Relations,
Vol. 15, pp. 65-84.
Van de Vijver, F. and Leung, K. (1997), “Methods and data analysis of comparative research”,
in Berry, J.W., Poortinga, Y.H. and Pandey, J. (Eds), Handbook of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, Vol. 1, Allyn & Bacon, Needham Heights, MA, pp. 257-300.
Van de Vliert, E. (1997), Complex Interpersonal Behavior: Theoretical Frontiers, Psychology
Press, Hove.
Van de Vliert, E. and Euwema, M.C. (1994), “Agreeableness and activeness as components of
conflict behaviors”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 66, pp. 674-87.
Van de Vliert, E. and Kabanoff, B. (1990), “Toward theory-based measures of conflict Conflict
management”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 199-209.
Volkema, R.L. and Bergmann, T.J. (1995), “Conflict styles as indicators of behavioral patterns in
management
interpersonal conflicts”, Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 135 No. 1, pp. 5-15. styles
Wall, J.A. (1985), Negotiation; Theory and Practice, Scott, Foresman & Company, Glenview, IL.
Wall, J.A. and Blum, M.W. (1991), “Negotiations”, Journal of Management, Vol. 17, pp. 273-303.
Weldon, E. and Jehn, K.A. (1995), “Examining cross-cultural differences in conflict management 279
behavior: a strategy for future research”, International Journal Conflict Management,
Vol. 6, pp. 387-403.
Womack, D.F. (1988), “Assessing the Thomas-Kilmann conflict model survey”, Management
Communication Quarterly, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 321-49.

About the author

Zhenzhong Ma is an assistant professor in management at Odette School of Business, University
of Windsor, Ontario, Canada. He received his PhD in management from McGill University in
2005. Dr Ma has published in Group Decision and Negotiation, International Journal of
Cross-cultural Management, International Journal for Emergent Markets, and Contemporary
Management Review. His research interests include conflict management, negotiation,
cross-cultural management, and organizational behavior and human resource management,
with a focus on how national cultures and individual differences affect the dynamics of group
process and negotiations. Zhenzhong Ma can be contacted at maz@uwindsor.ca

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints