Culture binds its members to a range of acceptable norms. During the different stages of a conflict cycle, culture prescribes what precursors will create stress and anxiety in a person, it determines how the individual will assess the conflict, identify a preferred course of action and evaluate the consequences of his or her chosen path. 

Different cultures exhibit differences in the way certain values are prioritized over others. For example, the perception of having reached a fair settlement may be attached to a preference for procedural or distributive justice, the time-span used for evaluating outcomes can vary greatly between cultures, as does the nature of third-party involvement and who is an acceptable third-party.

Culture and its relationship to conflict management preferences

In his article “Culture and Conflict Management: a Theoretical Model,” M. Kamil Kozan’s (1997) [1] describes three distinct cultural systems and their preference for certain types of conflict management styles. Below is a discussion of Kozan's paper and its implications for the design of mediation processes by third-parties.

Associative Cultures (Harmony Conflict Resolution Model)

Asian, Middle Eastern and Latin American countries can be characterized as associative cultures where people are highly dependent on each other through mutual obligations and social arrangements that serve to mitigate conflict. Group norms and collective values, seen as more important than individual ambitions and capabilities, drive members towards in-group conformity. Because direct expressions of negative feelings may disrupt harmony, third-parties are often sought out to help resolve conflicts. Religious or traditional mediators will tend to be authoritative, evaluative and fault-finding in style, typically using their position to pressure the parties for concessions. For an external third-party to gain buy-in and trust, attention should be paid to hierarchy and respect shown to elders.

At the mediation table you may notice different conflict resolution styles exhibited by the parties depending on whether the adversary is someone from inside the group or an outsider. In-group conflict management behaviors will show a high desire for cooperation and accommodation and solutions will be identified that seek to preserve the group’s unity. On the other hand, parties in a mediation between two out-groups may start off looking for compromises but quickly degenerate towards retribution and cutthroat competition. 

Because these are high context cultures, communication is not always explicit which means that a mediator probing the parties for information about the conflict may need to read between the lines.  A broad frame of reference is used to make sense of the whole situation in an expanded time-frame, so no need to try to re-focus the parties on the here-and-now before the entire story has been recounted...several times.

Mediation success in collective cultures is judged by the long-term sustainability of the agreement.  The effectiveness of a process is rated in terms of symbolic concerns, such as preserving the social status of the parties or the observance of rituals. Kozan explains that the neutrality of the mediator or his/her ability to control the process is not as important. Perceptions of outcome fairness are linked to face-saving concerns and distributive justice.

Abstractive Objective Cultures (Confrontational Conflict Resolution Model)

As M. Kamil Kozan mentions in his article, people in Anglophone countries tend to be individualistic and comfortable with the uncertainty of informal interactions. The culture allows for the aggressive pursuits of one’s goals. Conflict is natural and negative emotions are openly expressed. Competitiveness is seen as a desirable trait because it challenges the status quo and avoids stagnation.

Conflict resolution strategies are governed by norms of fair-play and mutual compromises. The parties will confront each other then try to compromise by persuading the other to make reciprocal concessions using a problem-solving approach. The negotiation tactics exhibited at the mediation table are characterized by pragmatism and a search for facts limited to specific and relevant issues, abstracted from the totality of the relationship. Larger, more complicated issues are tackled analytically and divided into sub-issues that are resolved sequentially. In-group/out-group differentiation is not very strong.

Mediation in abstractive objective cultures tends to be facilitative in style and institutionalized. An effective mediation will prioritize reaching a functional agreement over restoring relationships. Success is perceived in terms of fairness, with the process and the outcome, the mediator’s impartiality and his or her ability to control the agenda and arrive at a logical resolution.

Abstractive Co-subjective Cultures (Regulatory Conflict Resolution Model)

Often displayed in European countries, abstractive co-subjective cultures are also individualistic but demonstrate a low tolerance for ambiguity, instead relying heavily on principles, rules, procedures and the law to minimize uncertainty. Kozan describes co-subjective thinking as referring to the creation of universal concepts through shared ideologies and the codification of behavior through written policies and procedures.

Bureaucracies mitigate tensions and help people avoid conflict, unless departments manipulate to create rules that disenfranchise the other party. Meditation services are accessed thought a referral from a higher-up or through formal grievance mechanisms. When tensions arise, individuals will become authoritative when existing rules support their position. Hence, making concessions is seen as a weakness because it assumes that the rules don't back up your position and tends to be used only if one’s reasoning is faulty.

The regulatory conflict resolution model allows the parties to resolve their disputes without the use of strong emotional displays or aggressive behaviors. Communicating expectations about the process and adherence to the afore mentioned design is therefore key in the parties' evaluation of success.  Parties will look to resolve the immediate situation and focus on short-term solutions which emphasize the principles and rules that apply to the conflict, rather than the efficiency, practicality and/or cost-effectiveness of the settlement.

Indicators of success will be framed in terms of procedural justice and due process. Restoring a long-term relationship between the parties is often not the primary preoccupation of the people at the mediation table.

Conclusion

In his 1997 article on “Culture and Conflict Management: a Theoretical Model,” M. Kamil Kozan describes three distinct cultural types whose normative framework affects why and how an individual will escalate and what will resonate as an effective third-party intervention. In all likelihood, these cultures in their pure form do not exist. Instead, a mediator will encounter individuals in conflict that exhibit traits from several cultures. It is up to him or her to recognize the predominant cultural characteristics and design his or her process to maximize the parties’ chances of successfully finding common ground.

---

[1] M. Kamil Kozan. “Culture and Conflict Management: a Theoretical Model,” published in the International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 8, No 4 (October, 1997)