136 9. Managing cross-culture conflicts: A close look at the implication of direct versus indirect confrontation Jeanne Brett, Kristin Behfar and Jeffrey Sanchez-Burks The leader of a multicultural software development team was frustrated. The American and European members of the team were delivering on time, but he was getting nothing from the Japanese members. Multiple meetings with the Japanese members generated seeming commitment but no follow-up. The team leader, an Indian, located in Singapore considered two alternative strategic approaches to resolve this conflict. One approach he considered was to contact the head of IT in Japan to find out why the work was not being done. Ultimately, however, he decided to try a different approach. He asked the European team members to prepare a presentation of their progress on the project. He then went to Japan and invited the entire Japanese IT division of the company to attend the Europeans’ presen- tation. After the presentation he went back to Singapore without holding substantive meet- ings with the Japanese team members. Within a week he had a request from the Japanese team members to have the Japanese team’s completed work featured in the next corporate presentation. – An example of successful indirect confrontation from our research This chapter is about the meaning, cultural significance, and consequences of direct versus indirect confrontation of conflict. The distinction between direct and indirect confrontation captures important culturally driven differences in how meaning is expressed and received when parties are in conflict. Conflict occurs when at least one party in an interdependent relationship perceives differences in interests (Carnevale and Pruitt, 1992). For example, conflict occurs when one party wants something that the other party is reluctant to give. Conflict exists in all cultures, as it is inherent to social life (Homans, 1950). Culture is a lens through which people interpret conflict and orient themselves when conflict occurs. Though culture can be the source of conflict, here we focus on how ongoing participation in a culture prepares people to express and respond to conflict in ways that reflect their prevailing cultural ideolo- gies and practices. We begin by defining direct and indirect confrontation of conflict, and analyze why culture conditions people to confront conflict more or less directly. We then discuss the pros and cons of direct versus indirect confrontation of conflict and the forms that nonverbal, verbal, and third-party intervention take in indirect versus direct confrontation cultures. We conclude by discussing myths about dif- ferences in indirect and direct confrontation of conflict, arguing that labeling East Asian approaches to conflict management as “indirect” reflects a Western orientation toward conflict, and suggesting that East Asian approaches are quite explicit to one acculturated to them. AYOKO 978178100693 1 PRINT (M3428) (G).indd 136 30/04/2014 14:55