A Case Study of Conflict in an Educational

Workplace: Managing Personal and Cultural

Differences
by Michael John Torpey — 2006

This article is about conflict in an educational workplace setting. It reports on a case study
investigating the emergence, development, and management of conflict among diverse native
English speakers working as language instructors within a Japanese university. The example of
conflict presented, which deals with divergent assumptions about the nature and management of
collaborative research projects, illustrates how communication is inextricably tied to culture, out
of whose interplay conflict may arise. This example also highlights one of the most important
challenges facing educators the world over: how to encourage people to cooperatively address
and manage conflicts. This challenge requires us as educators, in both our individual and
institutional capacities, to become more conversant with practices in the field of conflict
resolution and management. Such familiarity is a prerequisite to us becoming exemplary models
of its practices for our students, our colleagues, our organizations, and our society.

INTRODUCTION

As we move further into the 21st century, our daily interactions, whether at work, school, or play,
are becoming more and more complex. People from different backgrounds are increasingly being
drawn into close and challenging relationships with each other. This trend underscores the need
to better understand the challenges that people are often confronted with in their everyday lives,
most notably in the workplace. This development calls for research that focuses on the complex
social processes occurring in contexts comprising people of different backgrounds (Hermans &
Kempen, 1998).

This article reports on a study undertaken to investigate and describe the ways that people from
diverse backgrounds create and manage specific events in an intercultural/multicultural setting.
Specifically, it reports on aspects of a case study investigating the emergence, development, and
management of conflicts among diverse native English speakers working as language instructors
within a Japanese university. This study is valuable for two reasons. First, though the teaching of
English by native speakers is a ubiquitous phenomenon throughout the world, research
investigating the conflicts that may emerge in intercultural or multicultural settings where native
English speakers work together is limited.1 Second, the setting is illustrative of the broader
context in which more and more people are being confronted with the realities of working in
increasingly culturally diverse organizations.

The focus of this study was on elucidating the relationship between culture and conflict,
particularly with respect to investigating how culture, as social knowledge and meaning, affected
the ways in which words and actions were expressed, perceived, and interpreted in specific
contexts within a specific setting. Given this focus, it is appropriate to first clarify what the
constructs culture and conflict mean in the context of this research.

CULTURE

Though culture is seen as “a richly rewarding area to pursue,” it is nonetheless “a woefully

complex maddeningly dynamic phenomenon” (Faure & Rubin, 1993, p. 228). This complexity
was highlighted in the 1950s by anthropologists Kroeber and Kluckhohn (1952) when, in
identifying more than 160 distinct definitions, they illustrated the multiplicity of meanings that
the word “culture” can entail, depending on the perspective of its user. One definition that suits
the focus of this research is offered by Ting-Toomey (1999), who described culture as “a
complex frame of reference that consists of patterns of traditions, beliefs, values, norms, symbols
and meanings that are shared to varying degrees by interacting members of a community” (p.
10). This definition encourages a view of culture that extends beyond typical groups such as
nationality and race-ethnicity to include other cultural markers—for example, age, gender,
physical abilities, religion, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status—typically referred to in
research dealing with cultural diversity in the workplace (Fine, 1996; Hamada, 1995; Wanguri,
1996).

In addition, Ting-Toomey’s (1999) definition identifies the “complex,” “varying,” and

“interacting” nature of culture. This view complements a recent shift by scholars in the field of
conflict resolution who, in moving away from the previously adopted theoretical models that
viewed culture as a set of ascribed, uniform, and static traits, have begun to prioritize the
subjective, situated, and dynamic nature of cultural identities (Avruch, 1998; Cohen 1993; Faure,
1995; Kimmel, 1994; Lederach, 1995; Trompenaars, 1998). In this regard, culture is a
phenomenon that has a con-textualized and variable role to play in the emergence, development,
and management of conflict.

CONFLICT AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION

Conflict arises out of what Deutsch (1973) termed “incompatibility.” Building on this basic
conceptualization, Avruch (1998) provided a useful definition of conflict that encompasses the
notions of scarcity and power, as well as perception and belief: “When two related parties—
individuals, groups, communities or nation-states—find themselves divided by perceived
incompatible interests or goals or in competition for control of scarce resources” (pp. 24-25).

The example presented in this article illustrates the way in which conflict emerges from
perceived incompatibility. Although unique, this conflict is nonetheless indicative of the type of
challenges that increasingly characterize our times. Accordingly, there is a need for a greater
knowledge and application of conflict resolution theories and practices, and we, as educators,
have a crucial and exemplary role to play in attending to this need. Although it is beyond the
scope of this article to introduce and detail the basic principles and practices comprising the field
of conflict resolution (see Deutsch & Coleman, 2000), the potential that a greater awareness of
this field holds for us as both individuals and members of institutions bears mention.
First, conflict resolution theory promotes an acceptance of the inevitability of conflict and a
realization that conflict is neither inherently good nor bad. Second, research in the field has led to
a greater appreciation of both the constructive and destructive potential of conflict, increased
awareness of the effects of cooperative and competitive orientations toward conflict, and
informed ways of encouraging cooperative endeavors. Such research strongly suggests that the
constructive potential of conflict is closely aligned to cooperative problem-solving approaches,
as opposed to destructive orientations in which a competitive win-lose struggle ensues (Deutsch,
2000).

SETTING

The research was conducted in the English Language Centre (ELC) of a private university in
Japan. The ELC was established shortly after the university was founded. Its purpose was to
complement the English department’s more analytical linguistic approach to language learning,
with an explicit focus on developing students’ communicative proficiency. Native English-
speaking instructors were seen as the key to facilitating communicative competence, increasing
awareness and knowledge of English-speaking cultures, and contributing overall to the
university’s mission of educating internationally oriented citizens. Accordingly, the ELC has
developed a teacher recruitment policy aimed at exposing the students to major varieties of
English spoken throughout the world.

PARTICIPANTS

The participants in the study held master’s degrees, predominantly in TE-SOL (Teacher of
English to Speakers of Other Languages) or applied linguistics; were aged 25-35; and were from
various national and ethnic/racial backgrounds. The majority of these teachers were employed on
a 2-year contract with the possibility of a 1-year extension. In addition to teaching English
proficiency classes or content courses, the teachers were required to contribute to one of the
ongoing institutional research projects related to curriculum renewal or testing.2

METHODOLOGY

APPROACH

Although there is no assured way to investigate the complex social phenomenon of conflict, an
exploratory and essentially qualitative approach was adopted. This approach was believed to
facilitate explicating how people in a particular context come to understand, account for, and
manage their day-today interactions and take action (Miles & Huberman, 1994). The focus on
how individuals construct a subjective account of their social world reflects an important guiding
premise; that is, any effort to understand conflict and develop appropriate models for managing it
needs to be grounded in, and drawn from, the cultural knowledge of those “in situ” (Lederach,
1995).
DATA COLLECTION

The data presented in this article stem primarily from interviews. All interviews began along
semistructured lines, allowing participants an opportunity to instigate topics.3 This phase was
followed by a more structured component that reflected the need to obtain concrete, detailed, and
varied perspectives on the interactive or communicative processes inherent in specific conflicts.
An analytical framework entitled Conflict and Communication Schemes (see the next section)
guided the focus of this phase of the interview. Responses to questions developed in accord with
the framework were expected to clarify how communicative processes affected the emergence
and development of conflicts in specific contexts within this setting. Data derived from these
responses are crucial in understanding the conflict case presented in this article. All interviews
were audio recorded and ranged in duration from 45 minutes to 2 hours.

DATA ANALYSIS

Of particular interest for this study was the relationship between culture and conflict, and the role
that communicative processes played in contributing to conflict. Gaining insight required
clarifying how culture affected the ways in which individuals and groups expressed themselves,
influenced what they observed or attended to, and contributed to the ways in which they
interpreted events.

To elucidate the relationship between communicative processes and conflict, Lederach’s (1995)
analytical framework, Communication and Conflict Schemes, was adopted. This framework
integrates aspects of communication theory built on Austin’s (1962) and Searle’s (1969) seminal
work on speech acts, with a constructionist perspective that draws on the work of Schutz (1967),
Blumer (1969), and Berger and Luckman (1967). This social constructionist perspective
prioritizes the role that culture, as social knowledge and meaning, plays in the creation of
conflict. From this perspective, conflict is viewed as a socially constructed phenomenon that is
created as people attach meaning to events within a given context and respond accordingly.

Lederach’s (1995) framework presents a way to analyze this process by focusing on three
consequential aspects of communication: the expressive scheme, the perceptual scheme, and the
interpretive scheme. As Figure 1 illustrates, these schemes take place on two levels: the internal
world of individuals, and the communicative behaviors that they display in the social world.

The expressive scheme, guided by “the knowledge base about how expression of intent is to be
accomplished” (p. 41), is the means by which intended meaning is conveyed to the external
world. The perceptual scheme is “built on social knowledge related to what our senses are
accustomed to and trained to watch for, listen to, or intuit” (p. 42). The interpretive scheme, in
which meanings are attributed to observations, involves a comparative process “accomplished by
locating any given object, event, or word in our bank of knowledge . . . a process of making
sense of something by placing it in relationship with other things that are already known” (p. 43).
This framework was used to analyze data generated by the structured component of the
interviews. The approach was twofold. In the first instance, the focus was on examining to what
extent, if at all, participants expressed, perceived, and interpreted events differently and how this
contributed to the creation and emergence of conflict. In this regard, initial analysis was
restricted to an understanding of events leading up to actualization of the conflict.4 The second
stage of analysis sought to consider how the cycle of expression, perception, and interpretation
involved actual conflict behaviors—that is, once the conflict was in the open, how it was
expressed, what types of conflict behavior were observed, and how they were interpreted.5 Data
derived from this analysis are presented in the conflict case that follows.

click to enlarge

THE CONFLICT CASE

OVERVIEW

Case Title

A Collaborative Research Project: A Tale of Two Templates

Brief Description of the Case

This case concerns work done on a curriculum renewal research project, particularly with respect
to issues of recognition of work done, ownership of intellectual property, and the nature and
management of a collaborative research project.
Protagonists

Main: Greg, Kevin, Margaret, and Valerie

Other Perspectives: Chris, Ian, Kate, Lynne, and Richard

Background

Greg and Kevin were the coordinators of the curriculum renewal research project for the first-
year English proficiency course (FEP). One of the primary concerns for the FEP research
committee was to develop a new template that could be used to guide the writing of instructional
materials. This template, in keeping with the longer-term goal of individualizing the curriculum,
was designed to add optional activities to current materials and to build in greater opportunities
for student choice.

As heads of the committee, Greg and Kevin assumed responsibility for developing and
implementing the new template. Their plan to undertake this work had been fomenting, as Kevin
said, “since the end of the year before.” However, Margaret and Valerie, two members of the FEP
committee, had also thought about ways to build in options based on a new thematic unit that
they were developing. As Margaret explained, their interest coincided with “a lot of talk at the
beginning of this academic year about the new self-access learning center, and how we can
integrate that into our curriculum.” Once the two pairs realized that they were working
independently toward the same goal, they met three or four times to discuss and share their ideas
about the proposed new template. Following these periodic meetings, one of the FEP
coordinators, Greg, presented a progress report in a general meeting, informing other ELC
members of the committee’s current work.

In the section that follows, I first consider the events leading up to the actualization of the
conflict by focusing on the participants’ understandings of both the periodic meetings held to
discuss the template, and Greg’s progress report in the general meeting. I then detail what
happened once the conflict came out into the open.

click to enlarge
PHASES OF THE CONFLICT
For the purposes of analysis and discussion, this conflict has been categorized into distinct
phases that highlight its progression. Table 1 depicts, in chronological order, the key events.

In presenting the five phases, I provide a relatively informal commentary that accompanies a
more structured analysis of the participants’ utterances based on Lederach’s (1995) framework.

Phase 1: Pre-General Meeting

Based on data gathered from in-depth interviews with each of the 4 participants involved, their
understandings of the situation prior to the general meeting are summarized below. These
understandings are based on the impressions that they formulated as a result of joint meetings
held to discuss and compare ideas on the proposed new template. Valerie stated,

As far as I remember, what I thought and I think what Margaret thought was that we’d raised a
lot of issues that needed to be talked about in terms of both models. I was under the impression
that we were going to go away and think about those issues and get back together sometime in
the future to work them out. . . . I got that impression because the models were so different and
also Margaret and I had been talking about all the things that still needed to be resolved. . . . So
because there were all these issues and because they were very different, I think we left it saying,
you know, we must meet again and talk about this some more. . . . And then there was a general
meeting.

Margaret similarly pointed out that “they [the templates] were very different in terms of we had
moved a lot further than their main template.” She also expressed her delight in having these
kinds of meetings, which she had prompted, observing “the very positive thing about that was we
had a forum to exchange ideas and I’m always up for that.” From Valerie’s understanding of
Margaret’s position, that Margaret herself commented on the differences and stated her interest in
open forums indicated that she too was expecting continued collaboration with Kevin and Greg
on this matter. Kevin’s recollection of the meetings resembled Margaret’s and Valerie’s in its
focus on the difference between the templates. However, he appeared to adopt a more critical
view:

I sort of explained my ideas and heard what they were thinking and, you know. . . . I just came
away thinking their ideas were sound basically, but they were getting very very bogged down in
details. And I just thought their basic model, as they were presenting it, wasn’t workable, given
the FEP format.

When I asked Kevin if he had communicated these concerns to Margaret and Valerie, he replied,
“I sort of remember raising a few of my concerns about the complexity of the model. I think they
nodded and agreed and, you know, it was a fairly loose kind of meeting over a coffee.” Kevin’s
view of their model as complex, and his impression that the meetings went fine, would appear to
be in line with Greg’s assessment of what went on. Here is how Greg described the initial
meeting:

We had a little meeting, we sat down and we told them what we were thinking about and they
showed us what they were thinking about. And we, you know, we told them that we thought their
thing was too complicated and not really practical in a way we needed to be at this moment in
time. . . . It was very congenial. They reacted fine and I think they agreed. It was fine. We kind of
thought that we’re all just thinking about the same kind of thing, that we’re all in the same
committee.

Even though Greg acknowledged that they were all thinking along the same lines, he and Kevin
went ahead and introduced a new template in the general meeting without any subsequent
meetings with Margaret and Valerie. Greg and Kevin attributed their actions in part to the
positions they held “as heads of the committee,” and the associated “pressure,” as Kevin put it,
“to get some results, to justify their position or whatever.” They were also motivated by their
realization that both models were far too complex, which resulted in a meeting one weekend over
coffee “to bang out what we thought was a much simpler and more realistic plan . . . a very pared
down version, that incorporated elements of both [templates].” As Kevin pointed out, this plan
“offered a real way forward, to move from just talking about it and all the theory . . . it was a
practical step forward, we could actually get down to make some materials.” Consequently, as
Greg recounted, “we kind of worked it [the template] up into kind of a slick colorful diagram in
the computer and decided at the next general meeting just to hand out copies.”

Phase 2: ELC General Meeting

As mentioned earlier, coordinators of the research project committees usually give a progress
report in the general meetings. In this meeting, Greg introduced the new template that some
members of FEP had been working on. It is appropriate to first consider how Greg represented
his intention in giving this report, and the way in which he believed that he expressed himself.

click to enlarge

This representation concurs with what Kevin noticed in the meeting: Kevin:
Observation/Perception

We mentioned some FEP everyday business, then Greg said, “This is the new template for the
FEP materials that we’ve been working on,” and he mentioned Valerie and Margaret by name,
I’m certain. . . . I can’t remember the exact phrase, I think he said, “‘It’s been something we’ve
been working on or Valerie and Margaret have been working on.”‘

It appears that what was intended by Greg during the meeting was interpreted in a very
discordant way by Margaret and Valerie. Margaret’s observations and interpretations are as
follows:

click to enlarge

Margaret’s interpretations of events reflect her serious concern with issues related to the nature
of collaborative research, recognition of work, and ownership of work. Valerie’s understanding
of events highlights similar concerns.

click to enlarge
It is clear that both Margaret’s and Valerie’s interpretations of what had transpired in the meeting
were similar. This consensus seemed especially important to Margaret, who pointed out, “I felt
quite confident that my interpretation was correct because Valerie felt the same way. If it was just
me, that’s a different point, I think, because individual interpretations can be very subjective.”
This common attitude no doubt had an influence on how Margaret chose to deal with this
conflict.

Phase 3: Margaret’s Memo to the ELC

There was a period of apparent calm for a couple of days after the meeting, until the following
Monday, when all members of the ELC received in their mailboxes a memo from Margaret. She
decided to address the memo to everyone for several reasons. The first stems from her
experience of working in the ELC. She felt that there were no clearly articulated procedures in
place detailing what to do in the event of a grievance. As she put it, “What am I supposed to do?
Who am I supposed to talk to? You know, I think having been here and seen how the
communication works, it wasn’t clear. And it wasn’t clear also anything would happen if I just go
to one person.” In addition, the issues of recognition of work done and ownership were matters
that Margaret believed concerned all members of the ELC:

I thought direct is the best because I needed to know where people stand on this issue of who
owns what because I think it’s important. And, you know, it may be subjective but I really think
it’s important for not only the FEP committee but for people in general. . . . So I decided to write
a memo because I thought it was a broader issue, that this sort of “whose work is what” and
“who’s recognized for what” is a broader issue. . . . I think there are a lot of people doing work
who are not recognized and I’m not talking about star-spangled banners. . . . I think the make-up
of the committees, the members are different, but in essence the dynamics that happen are the
same I think. And so I think these sorts of things that come up are very useful for other
committees. And so I was hoping that would help other committees as well . . . and it took me a
long time to sort of rationalize why this is a good thing to do and for the reason . . . that it might
be better for the wider vision of what’s happening in the department.

The actual wording of Margaret’s memo, written much closer to the time of the event, conveys
her frustration and disappointment. A copy of Margaret’s memo is reproduced in Figure 2.6
 click to enlarge

Valerie, who was still in her first semester at the university, explained that although Margaret
wanted to write a memo, she didn’t commit herself to any action. As for her reaction to
Margaret’s memo, she commented,

She signed the memo from Margaret and she meant it from Margaret. While I definitely was
involved in the situation, that was not my definitive response to it. Had I written a memo, I
would have given it to Greg and Kevin first and I would have worded it differently. I thought
some of her phrases weren’t phrases that I would have used, but I thought on the whole she did
express a lot of the issues that we shared.

The way in which Margaret expressed herself, and the manner in which she did it, shocked
Kevin and Greg. Kevin’s impression was that “the tone of the memo was pretty strident, pretty
hysterical. . . . We were accused of ‘unethical’ and ‘unprofessional’ practice.” He further
exclaimed, “I was pretty flabbergasted, I was totally gob-smacked, if I can use that word. . . .
Unethical and unprofessional—there’s not too much left once you’ve been publicly accused of
that.”

Greg’s understanding of the essence of the memo was that Margaret was basically “stating that
the heads of the committee, and I’m paraphrasing, stole her idea, the idea that she and Valerie
had worked on and that we were unprofessional and unethical and that she couldn’t continue to
work on the committee for those reasons.” Though the gist of the memo was condemning, Greg
appeared more upset with the way Margaret had gone about trying to deal with the conflict than
with any actual problem that there may have been:

I was furious, I was very, very angry. Particularly I wasn’t angry that a miscommunication had
occurred. I would be perfectly willing to discuss with someone had they said, “Hey you’re out of
line, we worked on that too, before you went ahead and said this is what we’ve done you need to
clear it with the other people.” It was absolutely the manner in which she dealt with it was the
issue . . . the fact that she made these very disparaging, very strong condemnations of us, strong
indictments and made them public without ever having tried to consider any other means.

At Greg’s behest, the four met at lunchtime on the same day that Margaret’s memo was
distributed. As a result of this meeting, they agreed to issue a second, coauthored memo to all
members of the ELC to clarify what had happened. What took place during this meeting is
described next.

Phase 4: Follow-up Memo to the ELC

Greg directly approached Margaret after reading her memo and requested that they all meet and
talk as soon as possible. Following a fiery start to the meeting, principally between Greg and
Margaret, Kevin observed, “Eventually those guys calmed down a bit and so we agreed to issue a
joint memo.” Greg in particular expressed concern about being able to “repair such a damaging
thing,” noting that “it’s very difficult to un-ring a bell.” He nonetheless demanded a public
retraction and, in doing so, provided the impetus for the drafting of a memo that Valerie offered
to put together.

During the meeting, a first draft of the memo was written. As Valerie pointed out, “before it was
sent to everyone, I sent it to Greg, Kevin and Margaret individually and got their comments on it.
After it had the group’s approval, at least ostensibly the group’s approval, it was sent out to the
ELC—one day after Margaret’s first memo was distributed.” A copy of this memo is shown in
Figure 3.

Both Valerie and Kevin referred to the memo as a clarification, with Kevin elaborating that “the
compromise reached was that Greg and I explained that we hadn’t meant to claim sole credit for
the model and Margaret admitted that the way she had gone about her complaint was
‘questionable.”‘ Margaret expressed her understanding of the memo in more general terms:

It was basically stating what people were thinking. And I thought it was quite fair, the
interpretation, for example, how we interpreted their statements in the general meeting and stuff
like that. I think what she [Valerie] wrote was fair. It wasn’t too much “oh we’re so sorry” and it
wasn’t too much “Greg and Kevin are in the wrong.” It was really a problem that we have and
this is how we were thinking, that’s really what it was about. And there was a bit more on the
side that maybe we could have thought about it a bit more—how we responded.
 click to enlarge

Margaret seems to conclude that the end result was fair. This view does not, however, seem to be
the case for Greg. He mentioned on one occasion his unhappiness with Margaret’s refusal to
apologize but said, “I backed off that just for the sake of harmony.” As for the wording of the
first draft, he noted,

I thought it was unacceptable because it basically said something to the effect that Greg and
Kevin recognize that they were insensitive and did not “whatever,” but there was nothing in there
saying that Margaret acted too hastily and should have handled the problem in a different way.
And I said I wanted something in there about that. So she included something, it was vague, it
didn’t express any regret or anything. It just said something like “it may have been possible to do
something in a different way,” you know, something very noncommittal and vague. I wasn’t
completely satisfied with it, but I just wanted the issue to be done with.

However, it soon became apparent that the issue was far from over. One member of the ELC
thought it was an appropriate time to air some personal concerns related to what Margaret had
voiced in her first memo and what the four had written in the follow-up memo.

Phase 5: Lynne’s Memo to the ELC

On the same day that the follow-up memo was distributed to all members of the ELC, Lynne
responded to it with her own memo. In it, Lynne essentially articulated concerns about “group
dynamics, especially the issue of majority/minority speak.” She referred to the dominance of
“White, Anglo men” as heads of the research groups and the impact that this had on how
members of the research groups functioned and communicated with each other:

Because my primary research interest is in gendered language, I have acquired a lot of

information on this topic. Although gender is not the only topic facing the groups we are in, the
fact that the ELC is primarily male and all but one of the research groups are headed by White,
Anglo men, the “speak” that tends to be recognized in public discussion and in memos like this is
only that of White, Anglo men. As was pointed out in the memo, “surprised and hurt” feelings
were coming from Margaret and Valerie and Greg and Kevin expressed “regret” because of a
miscommunication. This points to a communication problem that may not necessarily be only a
gender issue, but certainly has some of its origin in that fact.

Margaret felt that Lynne’s response vindicated her initial strategy of opening up the conflict to all
members of the ELC. In fact, Margaret believed that her own actions were “sort of like
preventative conflict management” in that this incident would enable others within the ELC to
“recognize possible conflict in their own committees and talk about it before it even happens.”
Unlike Lynne, though, she did not seem to focus on the issue of gender in the conflict.

Valerie, meanwhile, seemed to interpret Lynne’s memo as a general statement “about the sending
of a memo and the airing of views” rather than anything specific about the FEP committee. She
further stated, “I don’t think it [gender] had anything to do with it. I don’t think Greg and Kevin
were attacking us as women. I think Margaret reacted so strongly because we had a lot invested
in the work that we had done.” Likewise, Kevin’s perspective was that “the whole thing of
gender, it doesn’t seem an issue here.”

Greg’s reaction to Lynne’s memo was more fervent: “Ludicrous . . . I thought she had no idea
what is happening on our committee. I thought it was idiotic for her to think that she could
comment on it. People all thought it was ridiculous.” Greg further speculated that Lynne’s memo
“ is all based on gender language and gender issues and everybody knows she’s so hot for that
topic . . . that she’s looking for any opportunity to jump on that bandwagon and misconstrue
something.” Kate, who was a member of the same research group as Lynne, offered another
perspective. She believed that “it [group dynamics] is a healthy issue to address.” Yet, she noted,
“it was brought up in a very confrontational and aggressive manner.”

DISCUSSION

In this section, I first discuss certain assumptions that seem to have contributed to the emergence
and development of this conflict and that influenced the strategies that were adopted in trying to
resolve it. I then consider the outcomes of this conflict in terms of its negative and positive
effects.

DIFFERENT ASSUMPTIONS

This case appears to have largely originated from three divergent assumptions held by those
involved in the conflict. The assumptions concerned the overall nature of a collaborative research
project with respect to issues of ownership, recognition of work done, and roles and
responsibilities of project coordinators.
Margaret, in her memo announcing her resignation from the FEP committee because of
“unprofessional working ethics,” referred to different expectations of the research project by
noting that her “trust in the collaborative process has been undermined.” She had “expected the
collaboration to continue until a finished product was obtained.” As she mentioned in an
interview, in this setting, “you can’t be an academic, a researcher in your ivory tower. . . . If
you’re in education, you have to be collaborative in some ways unless you’re a linguist doing
whatever.” Clearly, in Margaret’s eyes, members of a committee working on an ongoing
curriculum renewal project should not be off doing individual pieces of research. It appears as if
Margaret fully expected that Greg and Kevin, irrespective of their empowering roles as joint
coordinators, would fully collaborate with them on developing the template.

During an interview, Margaret also emphasized the frustration she felt because

it wasn’t ever clear “who owns what” when I came here. No one ever said, “OK, everything you
do now is for FEP; you can’t put your name on it; we’re not going to say who did it; it’s just FEP
stuff.” Now, now if that was clear I wouldn’t have a problem.

For Margaret, the question of ownership seemed to be an important issue that was not
sufficiently clarified in the context of working on a collaborative research project.

Valerie also expressed concerns about working more collaboratively and recognizing people’s
efforts appropriately. She seemed to differ, though, in her understanding of the FEP project.
Valerie felt that she, as well as Margaret, “were both aware that FEP is something you contribute
to. It’s something that clearly is going into an institution and it’s going to be shared, changed,
developed by other people.” Valerie did not appear to be concerned about ownership to the
degree that Margaret did; rather, as she acknowledged, “that’s the system we work in.” However,
she expressed her surprise “in seeing something presented at a meeting that you had worked on,
and you didn’t seem to be getting any credit and somebody else did seem to get all the credit.”

The viewpoints of Margaret and Valerie, though differing in emphasis, conveyed a sense of how
people may interpret events in a manner contrary to what was originally intended. This
observation does not necessarily exonerate Greg from his role in the conflict; rather, it highlights
the need to avoid assuming that people who come from very different backgrounds will
necessarily understand and concur with each other on what is happening in a particular context.

For Chris, one of the longest serving members of the ELC, the designated context—a research
report in a general meeting—evoked certain beliefs about what was happening. His
understanding seems to illustrate the taken-for-granted assumptions that some members of the
ELC may or may not hold:

It was my impression that the coordinators were certainly not saying this is our idea. . . . This
was in the context of a report by FEP of what has been happening, and it was a report that we
have adopted this template and we are going to be modifying things.

Richard, also a member of the FEP committee, offered a different perspective:

In the meeting when Greg handed out these colored diagrams, this new template, I didn’t know
that anyone had been working on it before and so it definitely did come across as something he
had done, so I thought. Without him saying this is something that “somebody else” has done, or
“we” have done, maybe he used the word “we,” maybe he didn’t, but you’re not sensitive enough
to those kinds of things. . . . I think if Greg stands up and says “we,” most people will be thinking
Greg and Kevin.

These contrasting views indicate how people may attend to and interpret events differently,
depending on the assumptions that they may make. Whereas Chris appeared to disassociate Greg
from the work he presented, Richard seemed to associate the work more directly with Greg and
Kevin. Chris attributed much of this conflict to a second assumption: people “not recognizing
what a collaborative research project is.” The notion that everyone knows what a collaborative
research project is and how it operates within the context of the ELC—without it being clearly
articulated—seemed to be an erroneous one. The issue of ownership was particularly important
to Margaret, and she felt that it had not been sufficiently clarified. However, others held a
common assumption about the irrelevance of ownership when working on a collaborative
project. Chris believed that in such a project, “all members of the group share ownership of the
intellectual property rights of anything that is there.” Ian referred to this assumption as akin to
“common sense,” in that

we develop so many materials that most of the stuff you do is built on the work of other people,
so I don’t know how anyone can start copyrighting bits of material anyway. . . . I’m saying they
were a little bit overly sensitive and perhaps don’t appreciate the culture of the place they work
in, where people do just make a lot of materials and they move on and it’s there for everyone to
use.

Greg and Kevin assumed that their colleagues on the FEP committee held similar beliefs about
the irrelevance of ownership in a collaborative research project and thus understood their roles as
coordinators of the project. Ian commented on this assumption by inferring that “probably Greg,
or whoever, never said ‘this is our job, this is what we do’; and if we say this we don’t mean that
because, you know, they’ve been working here for so long.” Greg and Kevin both seemed to
attribute their actions more to their legitimate roles as joint coordinators than their roles as
collaborative colleagues. Greg noted, “because we are the heads of the committee, and it’s not a
completely democratic committee anymore, I think we are empowered to stand up and give a
progress report.” Kevin’s identity as a joint coordinator of the project also seemed important to
him. He acknowledged that “a little bit of pressure as head of FEP” was what motivated him to
pare down the template with Greg so that they could move forward in a practical way and
therefore “show whoever that things were moving along.” It should be noted that Greg and
Kevin had worked on the FEP for several years and had invested enormous time and effort into
it; yet, they still seemed to see their role as “to advance the plan that is in place.”
 click to enlarge

It seems clear that the varying assumptions held about the nature of collaborative research
contributed to the emergence of this conflict. These assumptions are summarized in Table 2.

The degree to which individuals or groups within the ELC hold particular assumptions will be
tempered not only by their experiences prior to coming to the ELC but also by their experiences
of working within this particular organization.

In making decisions, Greg and Kevin seemed to draw on their understanding of how things had
progressed over the years, a sense of what was needed to develop the project, and their
experience in their official roles. It is interesting that organizational changes introduced earlier in
the year had formalized project coordinator positions, providing more compensation and greater
legitimacy. Greg noted how these changes had affected the work dynamics:

Because we went from this sort of de facto leadership and democratic environment to a more
specified power structure . . . because I was kind of used to being able to do whatever I wanted in
terms of the project, I guess I wasn’t as inclusive enough as I could have been. . . . I felt less
bothered to tell everybody what I was doing because in the past I never felt like anybody really
wanted to know or didn’t really care.

Greg’s experience of informally coordinating the project the past few years with little input from
his colleagues seemed to have resulted in a tendency to be less collaborative and more
independent. Kevin was also affected by this experience, but to a lesser degree.

DIFFERENT STRATEGIES

Margaret’s experience of working in the ELC and on the FEP committee for the previous year
and a half also influenced her behavior, particularly the strategy she chose in dealing with this
conflict. As detailed earlier, Margaret felt that there were no clearly articulated procedures in
place about how to address concerns. To her, recognition of work, especially “who owns what,”
was a major concern that necessitated more than “just going to a place, shutting the door, sitting
on a sofa, explaining what happened, leaving, and that’s it.” Valerie concurred that “she’s
[Margaret] worked here longer than I have and she has a year’s more history with Greg and
Kevin . . . and I suspect that Margaret, well I know, that she felt sometimes that her comments
weren’t taken on board in the past.” This observation is useful in interpreting Margaret’s
response in a cumulative light, which Valerie believed to be the “difference in the act and the
medium of complaint.”

Although Valerie appreciated Margaret’s position, she and the others involved in this conflict
appeared to hold vastly different assumptions about the manner in which it should be resolved.
Valerie felt, in this instance, that “we should have directly notified them [Greg and Kevin]” and
waited for their response. She added, “If we’re not satisfied with that, then we are going to moan
to the whole of the ELC.” Kevin stated, “It’s just common sense that if you have a grievance, go
and see the person you’re aggrieved with.” Greg concurred: “All they have to do is knock on my
door”; if anyone had a problem with him, he was “willing to meet them more than halfway.”
Lynne, however, advocated addressing communication and group dynamic problems caused by
“White, Anglo men” who were heads “of all but one of the research groups.”

These varied perspectives held by the main protagonists are important to examine. First, they
exemplify that there is very little agreement on how to go about solving a problem. Second, they
provide an insight into the strategies that people adopt in dealing not only with the initial stage of
a conflict but also with the various stages of its escalation. For example, Margaret’s choice to
write a public memo announcing her resignation from the committee to protest unprofessional
work ethics before considering any other options reflects a competitive stance. Although there
were no clearly articulated procedures in place informing her of available recourse, she showed
scant regard for the reputation of two colleagues within the ELC. Kevin noted this lack of
concern: “It seemed as if she wanted to expose us for the rotters that we were. And she wanted
everyone to know; she wasn’t bothered what that did to our relationships or what that did to our
standing in the ELC.”

There were mixed reactions to Margaret’s memo from members of the ELC not directly involved
in this conflict. Lynne, in her memo to all members of the ELC, supported Margaret’s strategy.
Richard’s reaction to Margaret’s memo, however, was one of surprise; he respected Margaret but
found her response “quite ill-tempered, too strong, and to everyone!” He alluded to the
distinction previously mentioned about the difference between the original act and the mode of
complaint. As he put it,

Greg started it, I suppose. But no way did he deserve that sort of reaction. And whether he started
it by being just sort of blase about acknowledging people’s work or whether he wanted to steal
Margaret’s ideas—I don’t think in any way he wanted to steal Margaret’s ideas—he didn’t
deserve that.

When the four involved in this conflict met and agreed to draft a second memo clarifying what
had happened, Margaret was still quite adamant that what she had done was correct on the
grounds that she “felt everybody had a right to know.” Greg, despite his dissatisfaction with the
“noncommittal and vague” wording in the memo, reluctantly accepted Margaret’s “refusal to
apologize,” declaring that he wanted the matter to be over with.

Whereas Margaret was still adopting a primarily competitive style in which she continued to
assert her own position, Greg adopted a more compromising manner. Through this choice, Greg
provided the impetus to move toward some sort of reconciliation. Even though the conflict
eventually subsided, it had significant and lingering effects of both a negative and positive
nature.

NEGATIVE OUTCOMES

Although Valerie affirmed that this conflict had not affected her productivity or her ability to
work with certain people, she did believe that a stressful situation like this “changes the way you
relate to each other”; she stated that even if matters improve, “there can be no going back to
where you were before.”

Greg concurred and then mentioned two other negative consequences of this conflict: a decrease
in his motivation to do things on the project and a feeling that this incident had set a bad
precedent. He feared that the strategy taken by Margaret would encourage “the idea that if you
have a problem you publicize it, as opposed to knocking on someone’s door and saying, ‘Hey,
listen, I’m irritated by what you did.”‘ In fact, Greg stated that Margaret’s memo—informing all
ELC members of the conflict—was the first time that someone had used this kind of strategy.
Lynne, as discussed earlier, had followed suit to show her support for Margaret and, at the same
time, aired some of her own concerns. Kevin claimed that Margaret’s memo “really sort of
marked the start of the season of conflict, if you like.” Here he seems to be referring to several
other conflicts in which people had made public allegations against colleagues without adhering
to “any due process beforehand,” such as “going to see the person you’re aggrieved with.”

POSITIVE OUTCOMES

Although Margaret did not mention any negative outcomes of this conflict, she did highlight
certain positive results. She was pleased with how the weekly project committee meetings
changed, saying that “the way Greg conducts them is quite different. It’s more discussion
oriented; it’s not one person, and the language has changed; the framework of the meetings has
changed.” Valerie affirmed that “there are good things happening. I think people are trying to
communicate more and they’re more aware of being open and working forward as a group.”

In fact, Greg felt that this conflict had taught him “how to deal with people and make sure they
are included and feel validated. And that’s a big thing and that’s something I didn’t consider
before.” Richard, a member of the FEP committee not involved in this conflict, confirmed this
positive outcome by observing that “Greg has become a bit more of a considerate manager.” In
addition, Greg seemed to have gained the understanding that Margaret and Valerie “did have a
lot invested in that idea, even if it wasn’t their idea from the beginning.” He also admitted to the
“rashness” of what he and Kevin did and that they “shouldn’t have represented it as the state of
that idea without asking them [Margaret and Valerie] first if they agreed.” These realizations led
him to conjecture that “maybe it [the conflict] had to happen.”

Ian offered another important perspective on this conflict. He attributed the conflict to the rapid
expansion of the ELC: “It’s grown so much—assumptions and things—people just miss them
because they’re new.” He pointed out that as the number of staff increases, there is a greater need
to articulate some assumed understandings. Such clarification would enable members of the ELC
who do not share these same assumptions to more fully appreciate “the culture of the place they
work in.”

CONCLUSIONS

In this article, I have presented an example of a conflict in an educational workplace setting.

Although it is a unique conflict within a specific setting, the analysis reveals certain contributing
factors that may apply to other similarly situated conflicts. First, misunderstandings arose
because of certain assumptions about a shared common reality, and unconscious expectations
related to one’s own cultural group or identity (Kimmel, 2000). Second, these assumptions
played significant roles in contributing to both the emergence of the conflict and its escalation.
Third, aspects of communication—expression, perception, and interpretation—based on
erroneous assumptions of shared cultural knowledge resulted in intended meanings being missed
or misconstrued because that meaning lay outside the realm of shared knowledge.

Institutions like the ELC that endorse an underlying ideology of cultural pluralism need to focus
attention on facilitating constructive orientations to conflict management. This approach requires
formalizing a system of conflict management within an organization. This system must first
attend to the requisite knowledge base and skills of individuals, especially given that “ignorance
of conflicting interests and values” and “skills deficits” are among the root causes of conflict
(Slaikeu & Hasson, 1998,p. 6). Hence, the focus should be on (1) increasing people’s awareness
of the diversity of interests, values, and accompanying identities that their colleagues may hold
in various contexts within the workplace setting, and (2) equipping individuals with the skills
necessary to manage and even resolve conflict.7

In addition to addressing the needs of individuals, organizations have a responsibility to

institutionalize practices conducive to the constructive management of conflict. Organizations
that are effective in encouraging people to pursue their differences in a cooperative manner
typically (1) acknowledge that conflict is inevitable and encourage individuals to voice concerns
early; (2) encourage resolution of the conflict at the lowest level; (3) integrate a collaborative
approach to problem-solving into the organization; and (4) provide multiple options for
addressing problems and multiple access points (Society of Professionals in Dispute Resolutions,
2000, pp. 2-5).

The provision of a range of viable options for individuals to choose from in dealing with conflict
is one way of encouraging more cooperative processes, particularly among people from different
backgrounds. By articulating a range of strategies, there may well be less temptation to assume
that there are universal solutions—for example, directly confronting someone in person— that
can be applied to every situation (Cohen, 1993). Furthermore, by specifying and implementing
various options that individuals have recourse to, it is hoped that the need for individuals to
choose their own strategies for dealing with conflicts may be reduced. These prescribed options
are of particular importance given that, as shown in the conflict presented in this article,
individual initiatives can result in merely escalating the conflict.
Given the range of intercultural settings in our new millennium and the reality that the majority
of people in such settings—like those in the ELC— have had little or no training in
constructively managing conflict, the potential for conflict to contribute to the growth of
individuals and groups has not been properly understood. However, it is possible to mitigate the
tendency of individuals to assume that people, despite having different backgrounds, will
nonetheless understand and concur with each other on what is happening in a particular context.
It is also possible to increase awareness that the mere intelligibility of spoken or written language
does not necessarily lead to effective communication. Furthermore, it is possible to equip people
with the requisite knowledge and skills for becoming more mindful in dealing with others and to
provide them with institutional support for guiding and encouraging cooperative work. The more
conversant we, our colleagues, our students, and our organizations are with the practices
involved in the field of conflict management, the more likely we are to realize more positive
outcomes whenever conflict arises.

References

Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Avruch, K. (1998). Culture and conflict resolution. Washington, DC: U.S. Institute of Peace.

Berger, P., & Luckman, T (1967). The social construction of reality. New York: Anchor Books.

Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.

Cohen, R. (1993). An advocate’s view. In G. Faure & J. Rubin (Eds.), Culture and negotiation:
the resolution of water disputes (pp. 22-37). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Deutsch, M. (1973). The resolution of conflict: Constructive and destructive processes. New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Deutsch, M. K. (2000). Cooperation and conflict. In M. Deutsch & P. Coleman (Eds.), The
handbook of conflict resolution: theory and practice (pp. 21-40). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.

Deutsch, M., & Coleman, P. (2000). (Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and
practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Faure, G. O. (1995). Conflict formulation: Going beyond culture-bound views of conflict. In B.

B. Bunker & J. Z. Rubin (Eds.), Conflict, cooperation and justice (pp. 39-57). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

Faure, G. O., & Rubin, J. (1993). Lessons for theory and research. In G. Faure & J. Rubin (Eds.),
Culture and negotiation: the resolution of water disputes (pp. 209-231). Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Fine, M. G. (1996). Cultural diversity in the workplace: The state of the field [Electronic
version]. Journal of Business Communication, 33, 485-503.

Hamada, T (1995). Inventing cultural others in organizations: A case of anthropological

reflexivity in a multinational firm [Electronic version]. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,
31, 162-185.

Hermans, H. J., & Kempen, H. J. (1998). Moving cultures. American Psychologist, 53, 1111-
1120.

Kimmel, P. R. (1994). Cultural perspectives on international negotiations. Journal of Social

Issues, 50, 179-196.

Kimmel, P. (2000). Culture and conflict. In M. Deutsch & P. Coleman (Eds.), The handbook of
conflict resolution: theory and practice (pp. 453-474). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kroeber, A., & Kluckhohn, C. (1952). Culture: A critical review of concepts and definitions
((Papers of the Peabody Museum,Vol. 47). Cambridge, MA: Peabody Museum.

Lederach, J. P. (1995). Preparing for peace: Conflict transformation across cultures. Syracuse,
NY: Syracuse University Press.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.

Raider, E., & Coleman, S. (1997). Collaborative negotiation. Brooklyn, NY: Ellen Raider
International and oleman Group International.

Schutz, A. (1967). The phenomenology of the social world. Chicago: Northwestern University
Press.

Searle, J. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.

Slaikeu, K., & Hasson, R. (1998). Controlling the costs of conflict: How to design a system for
your organization. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Society of Professionals in Dispute Resolution. (n. d.). Guidelines for the design of Integrated
conflict management systems within organizations. Retrieved October 25, 2002, from
http://www. acrnet.org/

Ting-Toomey, S. (1999). Communicating across cultures. New York: Guilford Publications.

Trompenaars, F. (1998). Riding the waves of culture: Understanding diversity in global business
(2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Wanguri, D. (1996). Diversity, perceptions of equity, and communicative openness in the
workplace. Journal of Business Communication, 33, 443-458.

Cite This Article as: Teachers College Record Volume 108 Number 12, 2006, p. 2523-2549
http://www.tcrecord.org ID Number: 12852, Date Accessed: 12/9/2008 11:14:53 AM

Related Articles
• Community, Diversity and Conflict Among Schoolteachers: The Ties That Blind
• Constructive Conflict: How Controversy Can Contribute to School Improvement
• The School Superintendent : Living with Conflict
• Current Dynamics in the Teaching of English and Foreign Languages in High School and
College: New Patterns in College English: Communication Arts in the Making

• Improving School-to-Work Transitions

About the Author

• Michael Torpey
Kanda University of International Studies, Japan
E-mail Author
MICHAEL TORPEY has lived and worked in Australia, Germany, Papua New
Guinea, and Japan. He is currently an associate professor at Kanda University
of International Studies in Chiba, Japan, where he is the assistant director of
the English Language Institute. He received his doctorate in education
(specializing in conflict resolution) from Teachers College, Columbia
University, in 2003. His interests range from social organizational psychology
to language education. Recent works include “English Language Teachers
Abroad: The Relationship Between Culture and Conflict —A Social
Constructionist Perspective” (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Teachers
College, Columbia University, 2003) and “From the Classroom to the Self-
Access Centre: A Chronicle of Learner-Centered Curriculum Development”
(The Language Teacher, 2004).