Overview Of The Area Under Study Management Essay

Overview Of The Area Under Study Management Essay

For assignment help please contact at help@hndassignmenthelp.co.uk or hndassignmenthelp@gmail.com

Impact of Communication Styles on Conflict and Conflict Management Strategies applicable in Organizations operating in Pakistan

The title must contain some independent and dependent variables along with the description of geographical area covered in the study as in a reflection of the study material. Therefore, it will be quite long, enough to satisfy the requirements.

As the world economy moves toward globalization, individuals who speak different languages and who come from different cultural backgrounds need to develop mutual understanding and skills to communicate effectively with one another. Theories state that the multiplicity of language use and the diversity of cultures in the world economy have a constraining influence on the operation of international business. Many at times, due to communication gap, a situation of conflict arises and creates barrier between effective relations between a manager or an employee, or an employee and a global client. To a large degree, international business depends on communication, and language, of course, is the key component of communication. Although the accurate use of linguistic form is essential for effective communication, in most communicative situations, there must be familiarity with the culture of the communicator's language. In other words, miscommunication can occur if the communicators do not possess some awareness of culture differences. As cultural distance increases, communication becomes more different. Where there is a cultural gap, communication problems can be greatly compounded.

Even though there is widespread awareness that knowledge of the language and culture is an essential prerequisite for efficient communication in the international business practice, systematic knowledge correlating language proficiency, cultural awareness and skill level is still not readily available. Therefore the purpose of this research is to examine intercultural organizational communication, and specifically, how employees with various levels of second language proficiency communicate with international personnel and the ways and methods these employees adapt in order to communicate more effectively and efficiently.

OVERVIEW OF THE AREA UNDER STUDY

This research aims to focus on the adjustments local employees make in their communication styles and methods and the ways in which the global clients respond to these adjustments. The adjustments vary according to the language skills which the local employees possess and their cultural knowledge of the client they are communicating with.

1.3 HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT

Shifting our analytic lens from understanding the focus, or content, of a conflict ("What's this about?") to the source, or origin, of the conflict ("How did it get started?"), managers, especially those who feel uncomfortable with conflict, often behave as though interpersonal conflict is the result of personality defects. They label people who are frequently involved in conflicts "troublemakers" and attempt to dismiss them as a way of resolving disagreements.

In contrast to the personality-defect theory of conflict, we propose four sources of interpersonal conflict. These are personal differences, informational deficiencies, role incompatibility, and environmental stress. Personal differences are a common source of conflict because individuals bring different backgrounds to their roles in organizations. Their values and needs have been shaped by different socialization processes, depending on their cultural and family traditions, level of education, breadth of experience, and so forth. As a result, their interpretations of events and their expectations about relationships with others in the organization will vary considerably. Conflicts stemming from incompatible personal values and needs are some of the most difficult to resolve. They often become highly emotional and take on moral overtones. Under these conditions, a disagreement about what is factually correct easily turns into a bitter argument over who is morally right. Because these conclusions are likely to become strongly held beliefs that conflict with equally strong beliefs held by coworkers, it is easy to see how these could spark interpersonal conflicts. However, parties to a dispute still have choices regarding what path their dispute will take, in terms of focusing on the issues (e.g., conflicting points of view reflecting different values and needs) or the people (e.g., questioning competence, intent, acceptance, understanding, etc.). It is precisely because conflicts stemming from personal differences tend to become person-focused that effective conflict managers need to understand this analytical distinction so they can help disputants frame their conflict in terms of offending (troublesome) issues, not offensive (troublemaking) people.

1.4 ISSUES RELATED TO THE TOPIC

One of the leading causes of business failure among major corporations is too much agreement among top management. They have similar training and experience, which means they tend to view conditions the same way and pursue similar goals. The resulting lack of tension between competing perspectives can foster a climate of complacency. We focus on conflict because most of the secondary data suggests that distributed teams find conflict not only prevalent, but particularly difficult to isolate and manage. Another reason we study conflict is because of the well-established relationship between conflict and performance. Although some studies have reported a positive relationship between task conflict and performance analysis suggests that both task and interpersonal conflict are consistently linked with worse performance, particularly when teams are engaged in highly complex tasks. Conflict can interfere with performance, decrease satisfaction, and reduce commitment to the organization. If, as suggested, conflict is more prevalent in distributed teams, the ability of distributed teams to perform effectively may be endangered.

1.5 IMPORTANT PRACTICAL ISSUES

This course aims to provide an awareness of the range of variation in the conflict and dispute management processes starting with an examination of small scale, preindustrial societies, and a consideration of ways in which insights gained from these societies, quite different from our own, can help in understanding conflict and dispute settlement in more familiar settings.

At the most general level, conflicts are about divergent interests and threatened identities which can both be captured in the competing, often hostile and threatening interpretations of a dispute the parties offer. A broad conceptual goal of this study is to understand the dynamics of interests and identities in conflict processes. A key working hypothesis is that conflicts in very different cultural settings involving a wide range of social and political groups share important common properties. Additional general questions underlying the research concern understanding the distant vs. proximate causes of disputes, an appreciation of the sequences or stages through which conflicts go, a sense of the ways in which external and internal community dynamics affect outcomes, and the role of perceptions and group dynamics in conflict processes. Finally, all theories of conflict contain underlying assumptions about conflict management. Making these explicit can help us better connect an analysis of conflict to strategies for managing it constructively.

1.6 FINDINGS OF THIS STUDY

This study aims to give essential information on the fundamental causes of conflict due to communication barriers and its corresponding effects to the organization that will assist in the proper management of conflict. This research can be usefully employed as a heuristic tool for conflict management researchers and practitioners both to understand better and to predict decision modes and methods that are likely to be used by decision makers in different conflict situations that rose in many different multinational companies in Pakistan due to the presence of any communication gap. This research work plans to take into account the way in which conflict is treated at each of its various stages for the growth and success of an organization.

1.7 THEORIES AND THEIR SUGGESTIONS

Scholars have consistently argued that conflict will be more extreme on geographically distributed as compared with collocated teams, and empirical work has confirmed that distributed teams often experience high levels of conflict. For example, observed misunderstandings between distant team members when members in the United States curtailed a video conference without giving a proper farewell to one of their European colleagues. This was due, in part, to unshared contextual information as the team members in the United States were unaware of the importance of appropriately acknowledging their European colleague's departure, while those in Europe were unaware of the pressure on the American team members to save costs by shortening video conferences. Similarly, in further more studies, it was observed that conflict erupted as team members made harsh attributions about their distant colleagues when information was missing or miscommunications occurred. Theory suggests that conflict in these teams is a result of weak interpersonal bonds between sites, unshared context, and poor information sharing; although the mechanisms have seldom been closely examined, particularly in teams within organizations.

Although theory and evidence suggest that conflict will be greater in distributed teams, few empirical studies systematically compare distributed with collocated teams to determine whether conflict is more severe, and even fewer have compared the conditions under which conflict occurs in these teams.

In this study, we explicitly examine the moderating factors that determine whether or not distribution will fuel conflict in distributed teams.

CHAPTER 2 - LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 INTRODUCTION TO THE LITERATURE

Information technologies in modern times are offering new opportunities for engaging in geographically distributed work. Research and development laboratories rely on facilities which are available all around the globe (Brockhoff 1998), and software development teams are increasingly spread across multiple countries in present times (Carmel 1999) to take advantage of resources at local sites at their maximum.

Although an increasing number of organizations are nowadays relying on technology-enabled geographically distributed teams (McDonough et al. 2001), these teams are more than often extremely difficult to manage and fall short of performance expectations. Distributed teams frequently suffer coordination issues (Cramton 2001), crises of trust (Jarvenpaa and Leidner 1999), and detrimental subgroup dynamics (Armstrong and Cole 2002, Cramton and Hinds 2005).

2.1.1 OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY

Even though an increasing quantity of research probing the dynamics of distributed work (e.g., Gibson and Cohen 2003), it is not yet clear whether or not and how, the dynamics of distributed teams can be predicted and concluded by existing models of teams that are based on decades of research on collocated teams. Some scholars have, in fact, questioned whether distributed teams are essentially different than collocated teams and thus worthy of separate study. With our study, we strive to address this query by comparing the dynamics of distributed and collocated teams, in particular their experiences with conflict, as a means of understanding the extent to which geographic distribution of these teams affects this important dimension of teamwork.

2.2 ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION AS A SYSTEM PROCESS

We focus on conflict because previous work suggests that distributed teams find conflict not only prevalent and natural but particularly difficult to isolate and manage (Hinds and Bailey 2003, Mannix et al. 2002). Studies of geographically distributed teams report significant conflict between distant members as team members struggle to come to terms with different perspectives, unshared information, and tensions between distant subgroups (Armstrong and Cole 2002, Cramton 2001). Existing experimental research has however, typically included no collocated comparison teams and, for the most part, has not set out to study conflict.

Another reason we study conflict is because of the well-established affiliation between conflict and performance. Although some studies have reported a positive affiliation between conflict and performance (e.g., Pelled et al. 1999), a recent meta-analysis suggests that both task and interpersonal conflict are consistently linked with worse performance, mainly when teams are engaged in highly complex tasks (De Dreu and Weingart 2003). Conflict can interfere with performance, decrease satisfaction, and reduce commitment to the organization. If, as suggested, conflict is more prevalent in distributed teams, the ability of distributed teams to perform effectively may be endangered.

2.3 GENERAL THEORY OF COMMUNICATION IN TEAMS

In this study, we aim to better understand the factors that alleviate conflict on distributed teams. Not all distributed teams experience crippling or even serious conflicts. We strive to understand why some do and others do not. With few exceptions (i.e., Lovelace et al. 2001), there has been surprisingly little empirical research that examines the factors that moderate the relationship between conflict and its antecedents. Recent research instead has tended to focus on the direct effect of diversity on conflict or on moderators of the conflict performance relationship. Because of this, in their review of 40 years of research on diversity (Williams and O'Reilly 1998) call for more research into the moderators of diversity on group process. They, and others, suggest that the mechanisms through which diversity affects conflict fall into two categories: those related to social categorization or affective ties and those acting on informational factors. This is consistent with (McGrath's 1984, Chapter 1) argument that group dynamics are affected by both interpersonal relations and task-related patterns. Regarding conflict, (Jehn et al. 1999) argue that social classification and differences in information mediate the relationship between diversity and conflict, although they do not actually measure either social classification or differences in information.

In theorizing about conflict in distributed teams, (Hinds and Bailey 2003) argue that shared identity and creating similar contexts moderate the relationship between distribution and conflict. Thus, although many scholars have suggested that social categorization and informational factors are keys to understanding conflict in teams, the exact nature of the relationships between social categorization, informational factors, and conflict remain vague.

2.4 EFFECTS AND MODERATING FACTORS OF CONFLICT

Our goal in this paper is to shed light on these relationships through an experiential investigation. We propose that geographic distribution contributes to conflict and that this effect is moderated by shared identity and shared context (an informational factor). Using the classification of (Marks et al. 2001), we argue that shared identity and shared context are emergent states within teams. Emergent states are "properties of the team that are typically dynamic in nature and vary as a function of team context, inputs, processes, and outcomes" (Marks et al. 2001, p. 357). We also argue that spontaneous communication plays a pivotal role in reducing conflict on distributed teams. According to (Marks et al. 2001, p. 357), team processes are "members' interdependent acts that convert inputs to outcomes through cognitive, verbal, and behavioral activities directed towards organizing task work to achieve collective goals." We suggest that spontaneous communication is a team process that aids in the development of a shared identity and contributes to a shared context. In addition to its indirect effects, we also posit that spontaneous communication independently moderates the relationship between distribution and conflict by facilitating conflict identification and handling.

A number of scholars have argued that informal communication plays an important role among workers who are not co present (e.g., Kraut et al. 2002, Sarbaugh-Thompson and Feldman 1998, Sproull and Kiesler 1991). (Sarbaugh-Thompson and Feldman 1998), for example, stress the importance of casual conversations as a mechanism for appropriately signaling availability and avoiding potentially embarrassing social interactions. With the exception of the work of Sarbaugh-Thompson and Feldman (1998), little research has empirically examined how informal, spontaneous communication contributes to the healthy functioning of distributed teams.

2.5 ORGANIZATIONAL PROCESSES AS COMMUNICATION

We propose that geographic distribution leads to conflict and that this effect is moderated by shared identity and shared context, and by spontaneous communication that acts on shared identity and shared context as well as independently (see Figure 1). Finally, we consider the effect of conflict on performance in distributed and collocated teams. By geographically distributed teams, it is those teams in which team members are located at significant distances from one another, e.g., residing in different cities or countries.

As indicated by the shading, shared identity is expected to primarily moderate the relationship between distribution and interpersonal conflict, and shared context is expected to primarily moderate the relationship between distribution and task conflict.

Along with others, we differentiate interpersonal conflict and task conflict (e.g., Jehn 1994, 1995; Pelled 1996; Pelled and Adler 1994). Interpersonal (also known as affective or emotional) conflict refers to conflicts that arise from perceived interpersonal incompatibilities and clashing personalities.

Such conflict is typically characterized by feelings of anger, frustration, and distrust. In contrast, task conflict refers to discord over different opinions and viewpoints about the work being performed, often including differences of opinion about what should be done. While task conflict may involve heated debates regarding the task being performed, it is typically devoid of the intense negative feelings characteristic of interpersonal conflict. Although interpersonal and task conflict often are correlated, the mechanisms through which they operate on group process are different, as are their effects on group performance. We therefore treat interpersonal and task conflict as separate constructs throughout this study. A third type of conflict, process conflict, has also been identified (Jehn 1997). Process conflict refers to conflicts not about the task itself, but about how the work should be done.

We do not examine process conflict because it was not well established nor were the measures well developed at the time of this study. Geographic Distribution and Conflict Scholars have consistently argued that conflict will be more extreme on geographically distributed as compared with collocated teams (Hinds and Bailey 2003, Mannix et al. 2002), and empirical work has confirmed that distributed teams often experience high levels of conflict (Armstrong and Cole 2002, Cramton 2001). (Olson and Olson 2000), for example, observed misunderstandings between distant team members when members in the United States curtailed a video conference without giving a proper farewell to one of their European colleagues. This was due, in part, to unshared contextual information as the team members in the United States were unaware of the importance of appropriately acknowledging their European colleague's departure, while those in Europe were unaware of the pressure on the American team members to save costs by shortening video conferences. Similarly, in her study of distributed student teams, (Cramton 2001) observed that conflict erupted as team members made harsh attributions about their distant colleagues when information was missing or miscommunications occurred. Theory suggests that conflict in these teams is a result of weak interpersonal bonds between sites, unshared context, and poor information sharing (see Hinds and Bailey 2003), although the mechanisms have seldom been closely examined, particularly in teams within organizations.

Although theory and evidence suggest that conflict will be greater in distributed teams, few empirical studies systematically compare distributed with collocated teams to determine whether conflict is more severe, and even fewer have compared the conditions under which conflict occurs in these teams. One exception is a study comparing 12 distributed and 12 collocated product development teams (Mortensen and Hinds 2001).

Surprisingly, (Mortensen and Hinds 2001) found no significant difference between distributed and collocated teams in the amount of interpersonal or task conflict. They conclude that relationships between distant team members become more harmonious over time as teams develop familiarity and shared processes (Zack and McKenney 1995, Walther 1995). In this study, we explicitly examine the moderating factors that determine whether or not distribution will fuel conflict in distributed teams.

As noted earlier, a shared team identity is an emergent state - a dynamic property of a team. A strong shared identity among team members has been linked to reduced conflict, particularly interpersonal conflict (Jehn et al. 1999). We argue that when a team has a strong shared identity, the effect of geographic distribution on conflict will be mitigated. Social identity and social categorization theories suggest that individuals reduce ambiguity and promote self-enhancement by partitioning their colleagues on the basis of relative similarity to themselves. They create "in-groups" composed of similar others and "out-groups" of those perceived as different (Tajfel 1974, 1981).

Members of in-groups are subsequently evaluated more favorably than those considered part of the out-group (Hogg and Abrams 1988, Levine and Moreland 1987). Although in-group and out-group designations are most frequently viewed as intra team phenomena, the distinction also occurs among subgroups within a single team (Hogg and Terry 2000, Gibson and Vermeulen 2003). In the absence of a strong shared identity, team members are likely to evaluate other team members' behaviors negatively, assuming a competitive rather than cooperative stance when problems or miscommunications arise: "This intergroup hostility can surface as relationship conflict-conflict over workgroup members' personal preferences or disagreements about interpersonal interactions, typically about non-work issues such as gossip, social events, or religious preferences" (Jehn et al. 1999, p. 745).

Because of the potential for conflict resulting from rifts between distant sites, we expect a shared identity to be an important mechanism for ameliorating interpersonal conflict in geographically distributed teams. Distributed teams, especially those that rely heavily on mediating technologies, are often less cohesive, and their members are less satisfied with their interaction and like each other less than members of face-to-face teams (e.g., McLeod and Liker 1992, Straus and McGrath 1994, McGrath 1984).

Members of distributed teams also are inclined toward harsh, dispositional attributions about distant team members because they lack situational information to help them interpret the behaviors and activities of their distant colleagues (Cramton 2002). When a shared group identity is salient, team members are inclined to be more loyal, more trusting, and more concerned about promoting the welfare of the group (Brewer and Miller 1996). Thus, we reason that a shared identity can create a psychological tie between distant team members that helps them to bridge the physical and contextual distance that otherwise separates them. In the presence of a shared team identity, distant team members may have more faith in other members and be more likely to talk through issues that arise (Hinds and Bailey 2003).

Such arguments led (Mannix et al. 2002) to identify a lack of common social identity as a key hurdle distributed teams must overcome to effectively deal with conflict. Based on these arguments, we predict that interpersonal conflict in distributed teams will be lessened when teams have a strong shared identity. Although our theoretical arguments suggest that a shared identity will more strongly moderate the relationship between distribution and interpersonal conflict, shared identity might also moderate the relationship between distribution and task conflict. In distributed environments, mistrust might disrupt working relationships and inhibit information sharing, thus spurring task conflict (Simons and Peterson 2000).

A strong shared team identity across distributed sites, however, can reduce mistrust and, potentially, ease the flow of information because team members are concerned about maintaining strong group ties and promoting the group welfare. We therefore argue that shared identity will moderate the relationship between distribution and interpersonal conflict, but also more weakly moderate the relationship between distribution and task conflict.

Hypothesis 1: Shared identity will moderate the relationship between geographic distribution and conflict, particularly interpersonal conflict.

Shared Context

A shared context exists when team members have access to the same information and share the same tools, work processes, and work cultures. Occupying different contexts can make it more difficult to co-orient to a particular object or approach (Schober 1998), develop mutual understanding (Fussell and Kreuz 1992), and establish common behavioral norms (Hinds and Bailey 2003).

We anticipate that a shared context-an emergent state that develops in a team - will moderate the relationship between geographic distribution and task conflict. Although it is nearly impossible to provide distributed teams with identical contexts, standardization of work processes, tools, and systems might reduce the extent to which distance becomes a burden. A shared context can reduce the likelihood that misunderstandings and divergent approaches emerge. When collocated, team members are able to easily see what their colleagues are doing, identify dissimilar work processes, and understand the source of coordination problems (Kraut et al. 2002). In distributed teams, however, missing contextual information is likely to make it more difficult to identify and resolve coordination problems before they degenerate into conflict. Grinter et al. (1999), for example, recall one of the members of a software development team they studied as saying he was "fighting upstream" when trying to stay informed about decisions being made at the other site. We therefore reason that distributed teams will have less severe task conflict when their context is more shared.

We predict that shared context will more strongly moderate the relationship between distribution and task conflict, but that it may also moderate the relationship between distribution and interpersonal conflict. In distributed environments, interpersonal conflict arises, in part, because of confusion and misattributions about distant members' behaviors (Cramton 2002). A shared context across sites provides the grounding necessary to better understand and make sense of these behaviors, potentially mitigating harsh attributions and, in turn, reducing interpersonal conflict. In sum, we predict that conflict of both types will be reduced when distributed teams have a shared context, although task conflict will be more strongly affected.

Hypothesis 2: Shared context will moderate the relationship between geographic distribution and conflict, particularly task conflict.

Spontaneous Communication

Spontaneous communication refers to informal, unplanned interactions that occur among team members (Kiesler and Cummings 2002, Kraut et al. 2002, Monge and Kriste 1980). In contrast to shared identity and shared context, which are emergent states, spontaneous communication is a team process-a set of behavioral activities. Numerous scholars have argued for the importance of informal, spontaneous communication among distributed workers, suggesting that these interactions build bonds between distant colleagues (Nardi and Whittaker 2002, Sarbaugh-Thompson and Feldman

1998) and enable information to flow more fluidly between sites (e.g., Kiesler and Cummings 2002, Kraut et al. 2002). As (Zack 1993) discovered, informal interaction can compensate for a loss of meaning introduced by the use of mediating technologies. Few scholars, however, have directly examined how spontaneous communication affects the dynamics of distributed teams.

Although communication can lead to increased conflict as team members bring more of their differences to the surface (Jehn and Mannix 2001), we speculate that spontaneous communication will play a central role in mitigating conflict on distributed teams because it allows team members to learn informally about what others are doing, enabling them to identify and resolve issues before they escalate (Kiesler and Cummings 2002). It will, we argue, do this in three ways. First, it will increase shared identity.

Second, it will increase shared context. Finally, it will have an independent moderating effect on the relationship between distribution and conflict that can be explained by its role in facilitating conflict identification and handling.

We posit that spontaneous communication will have a direct effect on a team's ability to establish and maintain a shared identity. Spontaneous communication builds social ties (Festinger et al. 1950), increases awareness of others' moods and states (Olson et al. 2002), and strengthens interpersonal bonds between distant workers (Nardi and Whittaker 2002). Consistent with this, (Morris et al. 2002) reported that "schmoozing" before an e-mail negotiation increased rapport between dyads and decreased the number of impasses. Often, even task related casual conversation turns to personal topics and provides a means through which to get to know one another better (McGrath 1984, Sarbaugh-Thompson and Feldman 1998).

The absence of spontaneous communication, however, can disrupt the development and maintenance of a shared identity. In their study of the introduction of e-mail into a research institute, (Sarbaugh-Thomspon and Feldman 1998, p. 692), for example, suggest that the absence of informal, spontaneous communication may have resulted in "decreased perceptions of connectedness and community."

Hypothesis 3a: Spontaneous communication will be positively related to shared identity.

We also argue that spontaneous communication will contribute to a shared context in distributed teams. We reason that, in collocated teams, a large amount of information is shared without the need for explicit communication.

People can see what others are working on, watch their colleagues struggle on a task, notice when team members come and go, overhear activities in the background, and monitor progress unobtrusively (Olson et al. 2002, Weisband 2002). Without access to this rich visual and sensory data, the members of distributed teams lack awareness of what is occurring and what their teammates are doing at distant sites (Weisband 2002). Spontaneous communication can help overcome this limitation of distributed work. With planned, formal communication, people often feel constrained to pre specified topics and timeframes (Olson and Olson 2000). In contrast, spontaneous communication is more flexible and allows more open, uninhibited conversations about topics that are salient at a particular point in time. Casual encounters increase the convenience and enjoyment of communication, and therefore the likelihood that it will occur (Kiesler and Cummings 2002, Kraut et al. 2002). As people interact informally and spontaneously, more information, particularly contextual information, is shared (Nardi and Whittaker 2002).

Hypothesis 3b: Spontaneous communication will be positively related to shared context.

In addition to its positive effects on shared identity and shared context, we hypothesize that spontaneous communication will independently moderate the relationship between distribution and conflict. Spontaneous communication provides opportunities for team members to expand contact with their teammates (Festinger et al. 1950). These opportunities to interact, we argue, enable more effective conflict identification and handling on distributed teams. Conflicts on distributed teams are said to fester longer than conflicts on collocated teams (Armstrong and Cole 2002). With spontaneous communication, however, conflicts may be identified more rapidly, and thus dealt with before they escalate (Hinds and Bailey 2003). Spontaneous communication also increases opportunities to share information, including information about one's own interests, a crucial element for fostering collaborative conflict resolution (Thomas 1992). As parties share information about their own concerns, they have a greater opportunity for creating a win-win solution (Lovelace et al. 2001, Tinsley 1998).

Potential or low-level conflicts can be discussed and worked through before they have a chance to worsen and grow into larger, more substantive conflicts. We therefore argue that spontaneous communication will serve to ameliorate conflicts that arise in distributed teams.

Hypothesis 3c: Spontaneous communication will moderate the relationship between geographic distribution and conflict.

Performance Extensive research has examined the conflict-performance relationship. Although research generally reports a negative relationship between interpersonal conflict and performance (e.g., Jehn et al. 1997, Jehn 1997), the relationship between task conflict and performance is less clear. Some studies have reported a positive relationship between task conflict and performance (e.g., Jehn 1995, Pelled et al. 1999); whereas others have reported that groups often do not achieve the benefits of having diverse perspectives on a task (Hackman 1990, Jehn et al. 1997, Stasser and Titus 1985, Wittenbaum and Stasser 1996). A recent meta-analysis suggests that these inconsistent findings can be explained by task type: teams with highly complex tasks appear to be most hindered by task conflict (De Dreu and Weingart 2003).

We anticipate a negative conflict-performance relationship in distributed as well as collocated teams, but we posit that the relationship will be stronger in distributed teams for two reasons. First, to the extent that conflict is beneficial, its benefits are realized because team members are sharing information and thinking through options more thoroughly (Pelled et al. 1999). Sharing complex information, however, is particularly difficult for distributed teams because of the limitations of mediating technologies, differences in time zones, and dissimilar experiences and perspectives at distant sites (Kraut et al. 2002). Thus, the benefits of considering more information and perspectives may be elusive in distributed teams.

Second, we argue that it might be more difficult to harness the potential benefits of task conflict in distributed as compared with collocated teams because task conflicts will be resolved less readily and will, consequently, be more likely to degenerate into interpersonal conflict. Thus, we anticipate that task and interpersonal conflict will diminish performance in all types of teams and that these effects will be stronger in distributed as compared with collocated teams.

Communication in organizations

Communication in an organization involves two overlapping areas: interpersonal communication and organizational communication. Interpersonal communication is the exchange of information between two individuals, whereas organizational communication is the pattern of communication between groups and individuals in the organization. In multiple-language use and in a culturally divergent business environment both language and cultural factors impact on interpersonal and organizational communication.

Interpersonal communication has been described in a general model that traces the flow of information between two individuals (Adler, 1991). Language and cultural factors have an impact on all the dimensions and phases of the communication process. Thus, international communication can suffer in the multicultural business environment. Common sense supported by the communication literature indicates that limited language proficiency changes the dynamics of the communication process. Both speed and accuracy are affected. The communication process must be slowed down and simplified in order to complete the interchange of information between sender and receiver. Status, hierarchy, and power always affect organizational communication. In this study, most of the expatriates assumed upper-level positions in the corporation. This adds to the lack of English language competence and the tendency to respect the authorities' status and power, in compounding the communication difficulty.

Consequently, information loss would always occur as information is filtered up through the organizational levels even though information loss is considered a widely accepted organizational phenomenon. Cultural difference is also a factor that affects the communication process and individual communication styles. (Hall 1976) individuals from different societies and cultures communicate differently. He developed a comparative model that is directly related to interpersonal communication and that has contrasting polar dimensions, namely, high-context communication versus low-context communication.

In a high-context environment, more of the information lies either within the context or within the counterparts who are parts of the interaction. Less of the meaning of a message is provided in the coded, explicitly transmitted part of the total message. In contrast, in low-context cultures, the verbal part of the message itself contains more of the information and the majority of the transmitted information is vested in explicit codes.

In a low-context culture, the prime responsibility lies with the sender to encode a clear and understandable message. Verbal messages are extremely important since people do not look in the environment for information. The messages are usually explicitly coded unless they pertain to relatively sensitive issues. Once the message is encoded and sent, the receiver has the responsibility to ask for clarification of the communicated message if the message is unclear. Direct feedback is an integral part of the communication process. In contrast, in the high-context culture a different flow of information is created and different responsibilities between the sender and receiver are expected. In a high-context cultural environment, the sender firstly assesses the communication environment or context and then encodes the verbal message. Once the message is sent, the receiver also assesses the communication environment before interpreting the meaning of words in the verbal message. The syntax, taken by it, may be vague and indirect, especially when dealing with sensitive interpersonal issues. Interlocutors instinctively receive contextual or environmental variables as part of the message. As a result, what might be considered incomplete or vague becomes complete by adding the context dimension to the communication process in high-context communication. During the communication process, immediate feedback and asking for clarification may not always be an integral part of the communication process in a high-context culture. Face consideration is another crucial but subtle factor that impacts the communication process. While all cultures give importance to "saving and giving face", Hsu (1971) notes that losing face is the ultimate social sanction and is "a real dread affecting the social system" that is more than physical fear.

CHAPTER 3 - RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 RESEARCH DESIGN

Qualitative research: In order to analyze how its employees handled conflicts with each other, groups of employees will be interviewed from 4 different multinational companies from different sectors. Each group would be asked to describe the everday work related conflict due to cultural, communication and linguistic differences, which they have possibly faced in recent times, how they resolved it, what was learnt and how it contributed not to just their personal growth but also the growth of the organization where they worked. Interviewees would be assured that their responses would be held confidentially.

Qualitative interview: A questionnaire asking employees to discuss an incident in which they had opposing views, had difficulty getting support from their supervisor, confronted a change in the work place, were developing an innovation, or engaged in team decision making would be made. This questionnaire would also give a variety of ways conflict was managed and communication was improved later. Employees were to respond to a series of questions using 5-point scales to code their answers. A sample of 50 employees from 5 corporations would be taken where 5 different industries would be taken from the population of different corporations in Pakistan.

3.2 DATA COLLECTION (PRIMARY/SECONDARY)

In order to ensure that the methods contained relevant items, extensive review of literature of conflict management is to be done - general management books/journals, basically management articles, journals are to be consulted. A total of 50 copies of questionnaire surveys along with 4 detailed interviews have to be administered and retrieved from respondents and that analysis will be utilizing frequency counts and percentages as well as argumentations towards conflict management.