1. International Journal of Advanced Research in Management (IJARM), ISSN 0976 – 6324
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVANCED RESEARCH
(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6332 (Online), Volume 4, Issue 3, September - December 2013 © IAEME
IN MANAGEMENT (IJARM)
ISSN 0976 - 6324 (Print)
ISSN 0976 - 6332 (Online)
Volume 4, Issue 3, September - December 2013, pp. 43-49
© IAEME: www.iaeme.com/ijarm.asp
Journal Impact Factor (2013): 4.7271 (Calculated by GISI)
www.jifactor.com
IJARM
©IAEME
A STUDY ON TRUST AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION IN CROSSCULTURE
Dr. P.Srinivas Rao1, Dr. Padma Charan Sahu2,
Dr. Sathyapriya J3,
Vandhana.R4
1
Director (Integrated Development), AMC - CITY Group of Institutions,
Bangalore -560083
2
Professor, Department of Commerce & Management, Administrative Management College,
Bangalore - 560083
3
Assistant Professor, Department of Management Studies, Periyar Maniammai University,
Thanjavur - 613403.
4
Assistant Professor, CMR Institute of Management Studies (Autonomous),
Bangalore - 560043.
ABSTRACT
Given the notion that trust may be viewed as a continuum, and that different modes
of conflict management exist, this paper proposes that different modes of conflict
management are likely to be associated with different levels of trust. While culture is
typically viewed as the overarching variable in cross-cultural negotiations and that trust
operates in the background as a decisive factor. We are considering the essential factor in
cross-cultural negotiation is the level of trust that both parties have developed as part of their
relationship. The important idea of this paper is to study the role of culture and trust while
handling conflict in cross-culture scenario.
Key words: Trust, Conflict, Culture, Cross-Culture, Negotiation, Resolution
INTRODUCTION
Conflict is normal and healthy part of relationships. After all, managers and
subordinates can’t be expected to agree on everything at all times. In cross-culture scenario
conflict is inevitable. To resolve it immediately is the important task for managers. Trust helps
43

2. International Journal of Advanced Research in Management (IJARM), ISSN 0976 – 6324
(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6332 (Online), Volume 4, Issue 3, September - December 2013 © IAEME
the managers to resolve the conflict easily. It has been observed that a sense of belief becomes
the route of trust among managers and subordinates in an organization. The original point of
this route of trust begins with the cultural similarities of the concerned individuals. In an
organization dissimilar types of people are working from different corners of the nation with
diverse cultural background and in this cross-culture scenario culture stands as an instrument
to build up trust among the individual employees which inter alia becomes a major factor for
conflict negotiation. Culture has been identified as a potential source of conflict negotiations
(Varner & Beamer, 2006; Lewicki et al., 1992; Graham, 1985; Tung, 1991). When managers
are oblivious to cultural differences there may be significant obstacles to negotiation success.
Negotiating with individuals from other cultures, for example, means that behavioural
prediction and interpretation become more difficult (Casse, 1981; Ting-Toomey, 1985) thus
increases the possibility of conflict and reducing the likelihood of successfully managing
conflict. To derive successful outcomes, participants in cross-cultural negotiations are advised
to learn how their counterparts view and manage conflict (Tinsley, 2001). We know that
cultural sensitivity and adaptation are relevant in cross-cultural negotiations; other factors are
operative as well. There are many instances where negotiators fail to reach an agreement
despite the fact that all participants possess excellent cultural adaptation skills or come from
the same culture. Such observation implies that cultural sensitivity in negotiations may not
be the single most important factor in cross-cultural negotiation. That is, cultural
sensitivity and awareness must be bolstered by trust in order to build the foundation
critical for successful cross-cultural negotiation (Yeung & Tung, 1996; Samovar &
Porter, 1994).
OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY
* To understand the impact of the trust, and culture in conflict negotiation in cross-culture.
LITERATURE REVIEW
First, trust occurs within individuals and it can properly be viewed by a psychological
event. The key assumption underlying psychological perspective is that trust is based on
strong cognitive and emotional bases that result from close interpersonal relationships.
Madhok (1995), trust is based on the history of interactions between the partners that
provides the social “glue” within which economic exchange occurs. The concept of trust has
recently received growing attention among management scholars (Sheppard & Sherman,
1998; Lewicki et al., 1998; Zaheer & Vankatraman, 1995).
Both economic and
sociological standpoints emphasized trust. While economists tend to emphasize trust in
reducing transaction costs in business transactions (Williamson, 1993; Barney & Hansesn,
1994; Ring, 1996), sociology tradition recognizes the value of trust in term of embedded
(Granovetter, 1985). Ring (1996) refers to the first type of trust “fragile“trust while he
defines latter type of trust as “resilient“trust. Fragile trust is associated with the concept of
risk assumed to be a consequence of the threat of opportunistic behavior. Meanwhile,
resilient trust is non-calculative reliance in the moral integrity or goodwill of others on whom
economic actors depend for the realization of collective and individual goals (Ring, 1996:
156). Parkhe (1998), reviewing past literature, argues that extant literature
recognizes three components of trust: psychological, sociological, and economic
components. Using different terms, Inkpen et al. (1998) also identifies three different aspects
44

3. International Journal of Advanced Research in Management (IJARM), ISSN 0976 – 6324
(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6332 (Online), Volume 4, Issue 3, September - December 2013 © IAEME
of trust: structural property, social property, and psychological property. This paper applies
the how the level of trust is helpful to resolve conflicts in cross-cultural negotiations.
METHODOLOGY
A questionnaire was developed in order to investigate the relationship between
different levels of trust and different modes of resolving conflict in cross-cultural
negotiations. Five-point Likert scale questions were developed for collecting the respondent’s
perpetual views in this matter to measure the level of trust both at the company and individual
level as suggested by the existing research (Inkpen & Currall, 1998, Zaheer et al, 1998). To
assess the level of trust in the model, the questionnaire described the quality and past
experiences of the relationship and asked the respondents to choose the one that best captured
the nature of their relationship with a particular partner. To develop multiple measures of
trust at the two levels, measurement relied primarily on an instrument created and validated
by Rempel at al. (1985) as modified Rempel and Holmes (1986). The questionnaires were
distributed among the 500 respondents in five different (three IT and two other) kinds of
organizations randomly. Out of 500 we have only got 180 (36%) duly filled in
questionnaires, 99 and 81 respondents from IT and non IT Organizations. To justify the study
we used some statistical tools such as analysis F-ratio) and coefficient correlation between
trust and conflict and culture and conflict.
DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
The primary as well as the secondary data so collected for the purpose is classified
tabulated and analysed the perpetual views of the respondents. For analysis purpose we have
opted factors like role of trust in conflict redress, cultural potency, relationship, team task and
job satisfaction.
SA - Strongly Agree
A - Agree
N - No Comments
DA - Disagree
SDA - Strongly Disagree
Table No. 1 Respondents’ perpetual views on role of trust in conflict redress and
influence of culture
Parameters
SA
A
N
DA SDA
Do you agree the role of
trust on conflict redress
42
20
07
16
Do you agree the influence
of culture on trust
28
18
22
17
Source: Compilation of data
45
Mean
SD
15
3.57
23.34
15
3.28
9.59
r
Fratio
0.715
0.113

4. International Journal of Advanced Research in Management (IJARM), ISSN 0976 – 6324
(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6332 (Online), Volume 4, Issue 3, September - December 2013 © IAEME
Table No. 2 Respondents’ perpetual views on cultural potency on conflict management
and influence of culture
Parameters
SA A N DA SDA Mean SD
r
Fratio
Do you agree the role of cultural
potency on conflict redress
20
32 12
18
17
3.22
14.14
Do you agree the influence of
culture on potency
Source: Compilation of data
16
31 13
22
18
3.08
12.89 0.907 0.861
Table No. 3 Respondents’ perpetual views on relationship in conflict redress and
influence of culture
Parameters
SA A N DA SDA Mean SD
r
F-ratio
Do you agree the role of
relationship on conflict
redress
35
13 23
10
19
3.34
17.43
Do you agree the influence
of culture on relationship
Source: Compilation of data
19
15 24
07
35
2.76
18.54
0.353 0.907
Table No. 4 Respondents’ perpetual views on team task in conflict redress and influence
of culture
Parameters
SA A N DA SDA Mean SD
r
F-ratio
Do you agree the role of
team task on conflict
redress
11
19 22
23
25
2.66
10.05
Do you agree the influence
of culture on team task
Source: Compilation of data
11
13 20
22
34
2.43
16.91
0.832 0.389
Table No. 5 Respondents’ Perpetual views on job satisfaction in conflict management
and influence of culture
Parameters
SA A N DA SDA Mean SD
r
F-ratio
Do you agree the role of job
satisfaction on conflict
redress
31
20 16
15
18
3.29
11.18
Do you agree the influence
of culture on job satisfaction
Source: Compilation of data
19
16 11
18
36
2.65
16.82
0.057 0.448
46

5. International Journal of Advanced Research in Management (IJARM), ISSN 0976 – 6324
(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6332 (Online), Volume 4, Issue 3, September - December 2013 © IAEME
Table 1depicts that role of trust on conflict redress and cultural influence on trust
r=0.715. In Table 2, r=0.861 which shows the relationship between cultural potency and
conflict redress, the table 3 indicates r=0.907 which shows the influence of conflict
management and cultural influence on individual relationship, and in table 4 r=0.832 which
indicates team task on conflict management and cultural influence on team task.
The main idea of this paper is that different types of conflict resolution are likely to be
related with different levels of trust. To study the impact of the trust, relationship, team task,
job satisfaction and culture in conflict negotiation in cross-culture, mean, standard deviation,
correlation and f-test analysis was conducted with trust and culture as the dependent variable
and the conflict management as the independent variable. Positive significance was found in
all the factors that related to trust and culture. The perpetual views of respondents with regard
to role of trust, cultural potency, relationship between employee and employer, team task and
job satisfaction in conflict redress and influence of culture correlation and f-test values are
0.715 and 0.448, 0.907 and 0.113, 0.353 and 0.861, 0.832 and 907, and 0.057 and 0.359
correspondingly at 5% level with the degree of freedom 04 in both ways.
The result indicates that both the category of organizations rely on the similar types
of conflict resolving modes depending on the level of trust they have developed between the
employer and employee. However, low degree of positive significance was found in job
satisfaction in conflict redress and influence of culture. Overall, the results support that there
is an impact of trust and culture in conflict resolution. All respondents’ perpetual view shows
that all believe on concession. Other variables such as the relative importance of the issue
under negotiation may also influence the conflict-resolving modes. For example, a party
may choose to concede to the other party regardless of the level of trust when the
issue at stake is relatively unimportant. While these exceptions may occur, the role of trust
is normally paramount in cross-cultural negotiations. A model of cross-cultural negotiation
based on trust can be better understood in this matter. Whatever it may be, further research is
necessary to provide more complete explanations in this matter.
CONCLUSION
Where there are human beings there are conflicts. Conflict is a feature of all human
societies, and potentially an aspect of all social relationships. Conflict is competition by
groups or individuals over incompatible goals, scarce resources or the sources of power
needed to acquire them. Conflict and its systematic resolution is the pillar of success in
modern organization. For smooth management of conflict in cross-cultural organization
understanding the impact of cultural difference is especially important for analysts of conflict
resolution who work in intercultural contexts, since culture affects many of the
communicational or interlocutory processes that lie at the heart of most conflict resolution
techniques. Trust comes into play in two main areas: professional and personal. Professional
relationships are normally task-oriented and aimed at achieving objectives, while personal
relationships deal more in the social/emotional realm and focus on the relationship itself. As
relationships are based on differing levels of trust, when that trust breaks down, conflict may
arise between the parties involved. The Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory & Practice
(Deutsch,M. & Coleman, P.T;, 2000), Lewicki & Wiethoff look at the relationship between
trust and conflict in relationships. Hence, trust among the employee and employer plays a key
role in conflict resolution in cross-cultural organization.
47

6. International Journal of Advanced Research in Management (IJARM), ISSN 0976 – 6324
(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6332 (Online), Volume 4, Issue 3, September - December 2013 © IAEME
REFERENCES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
Barney, J., and Hansen, M., “Trustworthiness as a source of competitive advantage”,
Strategic Management Journal, Volume 15, pages 175-190, 1994.
Casse, P., Training for the Cross-cultural Mind (2nd ed.). Washington D.C.:
Society for Intercultural Education, Training, and Research, 1981.
Graham, J., “The influence of culture on the process of business negotiations”,
Journal of International Business Studies, Volume 16, Number 1, pages 81-96, 1985.
Granovetter,M. “Economic action and social structure: The problem of
embeddedness”, American Journal of Sociology, Volume 78, pp.481-510, 1985.
Inkpen, A. and Currall, S., “The nature, antecedents, and consequences of joint
venture Trust”, Journal of International Management, Volume 4, Number 1, pp.1-20,
1998.
Lewicki, R., McAllister, D., and Bies, R., “Trust and distrust: New relationships and
Realities”, Academy of Management Review, Volume 23, Number 3, pages 438-458,
1998.
Lewicki, R., Weiss, S., and Lewin, D., “Models of conflict, negotiation and
third party intervention: A review and synthesis”, Journal of Organizational
Behavior, Volume 13, pages 209- 252, 1992.
Madhok, A., “Revisiting multinational firms’ tolerance for joint ventures: a trustbased approach”, Journal of International Business Studies, Volume 26, pages117138, 1995.
Parkhe, A., “Understanding trust in international alliances,” Journal of World
Business, Volume 33, Number 3, pages 219-240, 1998.
Rempel, J. and Holmes, G., “How do I trust thee”? Psychology Today, February,
pages 28-34, 1986. Rempel, J., Holmes, G., and M. Zanna, “Trust in close
relationships”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Volume 49, pages 95112, 1985.
Ring, P., “Fragile and resilient trust and their roles in economic exchange”, Business
and Society, Volume 35, Number 2, pages 148-175, 1996.
Samovar, L. and Porter, R., Intercultural Communication: A Reader. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth, 1994. Sheppard, B. and Sherman, D., “The grammars of trust: A model
and general Implications”, Academy of Management Review, Volume 23, Number 3,
pages 422-437, 1998.
Sullivan, J., Kameda, N., Peterson, R., and Shimada, J., “The relationship between
conflict resolution approaches and trust: Cross cultural study”, Academy of
Management Journal, Volume 24, pages 803-815, 1981.
Ting-Toomey, S., “Toward a theory of conflict and culture”, In W. Gudykunst, L.
Stewart, & S. Ting- Toomey (Eds.). Communication, Culture and Organizational
Processes, pages 71-86, Beverly Hills, CA: Stage, 1985.
Tinsley C., “How negotiators get to yes: Predicting the constellation of strategies
used across cultures to negotiate conflict”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Volume
86, Number 4, pages 583-593, 2001.
Tung, R., “Handshakes across the sea: Cross-cultural negotiating for business
success”, Organizational Dynamics, Volume 19, Number 3, pages 30-40, 1991.
Varner, I. and Beamer, L., Intercultural Communication in the Global Workplace,
McGraw-Hill Companies, 2006.
48

7. International Journal of Advanced Research in Management (IJARM), ISSN 0976 – 6324
(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6332 (Online), Volume 4, Issue 3, September - December 2013 © IAEME
18. Wells, S., “Building trust”, Executive Excellence, Volume 14, Number 9, pages
11-12, 1997.
19. Williamson, O., “Calculative, trust, and economic organization”, Journal of Law
and Economics, Volume 36, pages 269-296, 1993.
20. Yeung, I. and Tung, R., “Achieving business success in Confucian society: The
importance of guanxi”, Organizational Dynamics, Volume 25, Number 2, pages
54-65, 1996.
21. Zaheer, A., McEvily, B., and Perrone, V., “Does trust matter? Exploring the effects
of inter organizational and interpersonal trust on performance”, Organization
Science, Volume 9, Number 2, pages 141-159, 1998.
22. Zaheer, A. and Venkatraman, N., “Relational governance as an inter organizational
strategy: An empirical test of the role of trust in economic exchange”, Strategic
Management Journal, Volume 16, pages 373-392, 1995.
23. J. Neelakanta Gugesh and Dr. S. Sheela Rani, “Influence of Culture in Knowledge
Management on Virtual Team”, International Journal of Management (IJM),
Volume 2, Issue 2, 2011, pp. 103 - 112, ISSN Print: 0976-6502, ISSN Online:
0976-6510.
24. Deblina Saha Vashishta and Dr. B.Balaji, “Cross Cultural Study of Customer
Satisfaction with Self Service Technology in Retail Settings of India and Indonesia”,
International Journal of Management (IJM), Volume 4, Issue 5, 2013, pp. 139 - 152,
ISSN Print: 0976-6502, ISSN Online: 0976-6510.
25. Bhuvaneswari.Gowthaman and Rau.S.S, “Trust in Relationship Marketing”,
International Journal of Management (IJM), Volume 1, Issue 2, 2010, pp. 14 - 19,
ISSN Print: 0976-6502, ISSN Online: 0976-6510.
49