Dean Tjosvold
Kwok Leung
David W. Johnson
China is a powerful test of the universalistic aspirations of Deutsch’s (1949, 1973) theory of cooperation and competition and, in particular, its utility for understanding the conditions and dynamics through which conflict becomes constructive. China would seem to be a most inhospitable culture for the theory. As part of a collectivist culture, Chinese people are expected to be particularly wary of conflict and its open discussion (Leung, 1997). Many social scientists consider the application of Western developed theories to Asia unwarranted, even “imperialistic” (Li, Leung, Chen, and Luo, 2012). Since 1994, we have conducted cooperation and competition research in China and East Asia by using experimental, survey, and interview methods to understand interdependence and conflict and their manifestations in areas such as organizational teamwork and leadership, supply chain relationships, and government-business partnerships.
Although the work of Deutsch and other theorists of conflict management cannot be assumed to apply to other cultures, conflict theories that cannot be applied to various cultures are increasingly irrelevant in our global marketplace. Demonstrating that this theory can be applied in China would seem to be strong indirect evidence that it can be useful in various cultures and countries. In addition to substantial research in North America and growing research in China, studies directly document the value of the theory in other countries, including those in Europe and the Middle East (Desivilya, Somech, and Lidgoster, 2010; Tjosvold and Chia, 1989; Tjosvold and de Dreu, 1997; Vollmer and Seyr, 2012) as well as India (Bhatnagar and Tjosvold, 2012), Japan, and Korea (Chen, Tjosvold, and Pan, 2010; Tjosvold, Nibler, and Wan, 2001; Tjosvold and Sasaki, 1994; Tjosvold, Sasaki, and Moy, 1998; Tjosvold and Tsao, 1989).
This chapter proposes that the considerable research documenting the value of the theory for China, coupled with studies conducted in other countries, suggests that the cooperative and competitive framework can be fruitfully applied to understand conflict management in non-Western as well as Western cultures. However, much more research is needed to support the argument that the theory of cooperation and competition is highly useful for understanding conflict management worldwide.
Deutsch’s (1949) original theory aims to explain the development of relationships and values; actors were expected to have motives and goals, without assuming particular values and preconditions. China provides an opportunity to understand how values and other preconditions have an impact on the cooperative and competitive management of conflict. Chinese people are, for example, thought to be particularly oriented toward the projection and protection of social face and to rely on high-context, nonverbal communication. Studies have focused on the impact of Chinese values on cooperative conflict.
Westerners, believing they are open and responsive, often conclude that Chinese people avoid conflict and are closed to dealing with differences. They see themselves as democratic and Chinese as autocratic. Our studies explore and explode these generalizations about China.
The chapter first summarizes arguments against generalizing Deutsch’s theory to China and East Asia. It then describes our experimental, interview, and survey research approaches. Our studies show that Chinese people can use open discussions productively, especially within a cooperative context, and they value relationship-oriented, cooperative leadership. Research in China is just beginning to challenge and extend the theory. The final sections outline research and major practical implications, including how to manage conflict in Sino-Western teamwork.
Many social scientists are skeptical that Western theories can be applied in such collectivist cultures as China, arguing that an imposed theoretical framework captures the cultural experience only of the West. Specific objections can be raised to the application of Deutsch’s theory. The theory assumes that individuals are self-interested. Their actions and feelings are hypothesized to depend on whether they believe their self-interests are cooperatively or competitively related. As collectivists rather than individualists, Chinese are thought to pursue the interests of their groups rather than their own individual interests. Is the Deutsch assumption that self-interest motivates group behavior justified in China?
A related objection is that in a collectivist society, Chinese people are highly oriented toward cooperation rather than competition and independence. Are the Chinese able to interact in competitive and independent ways, or are these experiences infrequent and countercultural?
Deutsch argued that conflict is an inevitable aspect of social interdependence and that even with highly cooperative goals, group members conflict. However, the Chinese culture highly values harmony, making conflict anathema.
A related though somewhat inconsistent objection is that conflict, when surfaced, is inevitably competitive, although Deutsch argued that conflict has a cooperative face. The Chinese word for conflict connotes “warfare,” suggesting that conflict is invariably win-lose. Is the cooperative conflict approach viable in China?
Chinese people are thought to avoid conflict because they are particularly sensitive to social face and highly averse to interpersonal hostility and assertive ways of handling frustrations and problems. These values make it difficult to initiate conflict; even disagreeing easily and nonverbally communicates an aggressive affront to face. With social face values, can conflict be dealt with directly and open-mindedly?
Chinese society is considered traditional and hierarchical—one where employees readily defer to their superiors. But open conflict is more consistent with participative management. Is open-minded discussion consistent with hierarchical values in China?
More generally, the open-minded teamwork proposed by Deutsch’s theory supports organizations pressured to maximize value for customers. Deming and other popular theorists have argued that teamwork and conflict are necessary because of market demands to serve customers with quality products and services. China still remains a largely centrally controlled economy dominated by state-owned enterprises (SOEs) that appease ministers rather than serve customers. Are Chinese organizations using cooperative conflict to serve customers?
Studies have directly tested the validity of Deutsch’s theory in China. Before examining these findings, the next section reviews the experimental and field methods employed.
North American research methods to test the theory, like the theory itself, cannot be assumed to apply in China. East Asian researchers have modified our North American methods. Trained in both the East and West and based in East Asia, researchers have debated the theory and developed the methods. The research network itself has demonstrated the value of cooperative teamwork and constructive controversy. We are most grateful for our colleagues’ openness and contributions to the research.
In an initial step, network members as well as managers in the region argued that cooperation and competition were both important in Chinese organizations. Concretely, they translated the major concepts and research questions into Cantonese (the local Hong Kong dialect), Mandarin (the national language of China), Japanese, and Korean. This process also simplified and improved the English operations. Interview, questionnaire, and experimental methods have all been used to test the theory.
The interview studies have employed the critical incident methodology. Rather than provide general ratings, respondents describe concrete experiences. Interviewers can establish a relationship with the respondents, provide an informal and personal climate, clarify and answer questions, and encourage the respondents. Chinese people, with their relationship-oriented culture, were thought likely to respond positively to this climate.
The interview has a highly defined structure. For example, in a study on developing commitment to Japanese organizations in Hong Kong, Japanese and Chinese managers were asked to identify a specific interaction that affected their commitment and to describe the setting, what occurred, and the consequences (Tjosvold, Hui, and Law, 1998). Then they answered specific questions about goal interdependence, constructive controversy, and consequences that allow statistical tests of the framework and hypotheses.
The interviews provided rich descriptive information about effective and ineffective interaction between Japanese and Chinese that affected commitment. Data were coded and sorted to identify the reasons for cooperative, competitive, and independent goals; the interaction behaviors that occurred; and the consequences of the interactions. These interview methods have been used to study cooperation, competition, and constructive controversy in a variety of organizational contexts.
Questionnaire surveys allow for the sampling of many people and the use of independent sources for outcome measures. For example, 191 pairs of supervisors and employees were recruited from ten SOEs in Nanjing and Shanghai to participate in a leadership study on goal interdependence, justice, and citizenship behavior (Tjosvold, Hui, Ding, and Hu, 2002).
Employees completed questionnaires on cooperation, competition, independence, and constructive controversy with their supervisors and their level of procedural, distributive, and interactional justice. Their supervisors completed questionnaires on the extent to which the employees engaged in in-role performance (productivity) and extra-role performance (organizational citizenship). The overall model supported by a structural equation analysis of the data showed that a strong sense of justice promoted cooperative goals. These goals led to open-minded, constructive controversy, which in turn resulted in high levels of job performance and citizenship behavior.
Experiments directly test hypothesized causal relationships with high internal validity. We theorized, for example, that open discussion of conflict need not affront social face in China and could contribute to effective problem solving when face was confirmed (Tjosvold, Hui, and Sun, 2004). Eighty participants from a university in Guangzhou were randomly assigned to four conditions: open discussion–affront to face, open discussion–confirmation of face, avoiding discussion–affront, and avoiding discussion–confirmation.
To begin, the participants read that as supervisors, they were to meet with employees about job rotation. The supervisor, as a representative of management, opposed this job rotation as inefficient. The “open” participants read where their organization valued frank discussion of differences and where they could earn up to five chances in a lottery if they discussed their differences openly and directly. The “avoiding” participants would earn chances to the extent that they minimized their disagreement.
After eight minutes of discussion, the participant and a confederate completed a questionnaire with the social face induction, which the experimenter unexpectedly exchanged between them. The “affront” participants read the confederate’s ratings indicating that they were seen as ineffective and the “confirm” participants that they were seen as effective. After another ten minutes, participants made the decision, were fully debriefed, and were given a small gift and one chance in a lottery.
The number of questions the participants asked measured curiosity and their listing the opposing arguments measured learning. Participants also indicated on seven-point scales their interest in learning and the strength of their relationship. Their decisions were coded as to the extent that they integrated the opposing view into their decision. Results indicated that the Chinese participants were curious, informed, and integrative when they had an open discussion, especially when their face was confirmed.
Interview, surveys, and experiments have their strengths and limitations. Our results are not method specific and deserve confidence because they are derived from diverse methods.
Results of experiments, surveys, and interview studies provide consistent support that Deutsch’s theory is useful for understanding conflict management in China. Cooperative conflict dynamics have been found to contribute substantially to effective teamwork, leadership, and quality customer service in today’s Chinese organizations. This section first reviews experiments indicating that discussion of conflicting opinions in a cooperative context promotes open-mindedness and integrated solutions (Chen, Lu, and Tjosvold, 2008; Chen, Tjosvold, Huang, and Xu, 2011; Chen, Tjosvold, and Wu, 2008a; Tjosvold and Sun, 2005, 2010). The second part summarizes surveys that provide evidence that these causal relationships generalize to Chinese organizations and demonstrate how Chinese values can contribute to constructive conflict (Chen, Tjosvold, Li, Fu, and Liu, 2011; Chen et al., 2008; Tjosvold, Wu, and Chen, 2010). The third part reviews studies showing that the cooperative and competitive approach to conflict is useful for understanding relationships between organizations as well as within them. The final part reviews evidence that diverse people can use the cooperative and competitive framework to guide their cross-cultural collaboration.
Chinese people who had cooperative compared to competitive goals demonstrated more openness toward the opposing position and negotiator (Tjosvold and Sun, 2001). Participants in cooperation were committed to mutual benefit, were interested in learning more about the opposing views, considered these views useful, had come to agree with them, and tended to integrate them into their own decisions. They were more attracted to the other protagonist and had greater confidence in working together in the future than did participants in the competitive condition.
Perhaps more surprising, the Chinese participants were able to use and responded favorably to open discussion itself. Direct disagreement, compared to smoothing over the opposing views, strengthened relationships, and induced curiosity where Chinese people asked questions, explored opposing views, demonstrated knowledge, and worked to integrate diverse views (Tjosvold and Sun, 2003). Indicating that they found open discussion valuable, participants characterized protagonists who disagreed directly and openly as strong persons and competent negotiators, whereas avoiding protagonists were considered weak and ineffectual.
Chinese participants were found to choose disagreement when they felt confident in their own abilities (Tjosvold et al., 2001). Protagonists used direct controversy to build a cooperative relationship and open-mindedly explored and understood the opposing view, whereas avoiders were competitive and unaware of the opposing ideas (Tjosvold and Sun, 2003). In another experiment, participants in China found that open compared to avoiding discussion and problem solving compared to blaming stimulated the exploration, integration, and adoption of alternative ideas as well as strengthened interpersonal relationships (Tjosvold and Sun, 2005). Evidence also suggests that openness and problem solving have these effects by developing perceived cooperative interdependence that encourages people to believe that incorporating alternative ideas can help them succeed. Avoidance and blaming result in a competitive struggle to see who can impose their ideas on the others, leaving people committed to their original thinking.
Field studies provide evidence that the experimental findings apply to various kinds of tasks and organizational settings in China. Cooperative goals have been found to predict open-minded discussion of diverse views (Chen and Tjosvold, in press; Snell, Tjosvold, and Su, 2006; Tjosvold, Chen, Huang, and Xu, 2012; Tjosvold, Peng, Chen, and Su, 2012; Tjosvold and Su, 2007; Wang, Chen, Tjosvold, and Shi, 2010; Wong, Tjosvold, and Chen, 2010). Studies also indicate that managing conflict for mutual benefit (cooperative conflict) promotes effective teamwork and leadership (Chen, Liu, and Tjosvold, 2005; Chen, Tjosvold, and Su, 2005a; Tjosvold, Poon, and Yu, 2005; Tjosvold and Wong, 2010; Tjosvold, Yu, and Wu, 2009; Tjosvold, Law, and Sun, 2006; Zhang, Cao, and Tjosvold, 2011).
In a study of thirty-nine groups and their supervisors in Hangzhou, China, work teams in China that used open-minded, constructive discussion of their differences promoted product quality and cost reduction; these discussions were more likely with cooperative than competitive goals (Tjosvold and Wang, 1998). Cooperative, open-minded discussions of service problems helped restaurant employees work together to serve their customers (Tjosvold, Moy, and Sasaki, 1996). Conflicts over scarce resources have been thought particularly divisive. However, an open-minded discussion helped Hong Kong accountants and managers resolve budget issues, strengthen their relationships, and improve budget quality so that limited financial resources were used wisely (Poon, Pike, and Tjosvold, 2001). These discussions were much more likely with cooperative than competitive goals.
Constructive controversy can be useful for Chinese people to deal with both task and emotional issues. Over one hundred teams working in Chinese organizations that discussed issues open-mindedly were able to deal with biases and took risks effectively (Tjosvold and Yu, 2007). These risk-taking groups were able both to innovate and recover from their mistakes. Constructive controversy also helped managers and employees in Hong Kong and the Chinese mainland express and handle their anger productively (Tjosvold, 2002; Tjosvold and Su, 2007).
Earlier studies found that cooperative goals and constructive controversy were useful for Singaporean Chinese managers and employees to resolve issues and work productively together (Tjosvold and Chia, 1989; Tjosvold and Tsao, 1989). Findings also demonstrated that student groups that have cooperative goals have more open-minded and more productive discussion of diverse ideas than those with competitive and independent goals (G. Chen and Tjosvold, 2002a; Tjosvold, Wong, Nibler, and Pounder, 2002).
Cooperative approaches to managing conflict, evidence suggests, are typically more productive for getting things done as well as developing relationships compared to competitive and avoiding approaches to conflict. Cooperative conflict was found to help one hundred work teams in Shanghai, China, reflect on their work effectively so that they could adjust and strengthen their procedures (Tjosvold, Yu, and Hui, 2004). Teams that rated themselves as high on cooperative conflict and reflexivity were productive and good organizational citizens as rated by their managers. Cooperative conflict was found to develop a sense of fairness in teams that helped them be productive (G. Chen and Tjosvold, 2002b). Work teams in China that worked cooperatively strengthened their confidence in their relationships, and this confidence in turn predicted team innovation (Wong, and Tjosvold, 2009).
Cooperative conflict management may be an important contributor to effective top management teams in China. Executives from 105 high-technology firms around Beijing who indicated that they relied on cooperative rather than competitive or avoiding conflict were rated by their CEOs as effective and their organizations as innovative (Chen, Liu, and Tjosvold, 2005).
Research has documented support for Deutsch’s theorizing that the theory applies at the intergroup as well as the interpersonal level (Hempel, Zhang, and Tjosvold, 2009). Indeed, studies have used the theory to document that cooperative conflict management is useful for facilitating coordination among supply chain partners (Tjosvold, Wong, and Chen, 2005; Wong et al., 2010; Wong, Tjosvold, and Zhang, 2005a; Wong, Tjosvold, Wong, and Liu, 1999a, 1999b) and among competitors in the marketplace (Wong, Tjosvold, and Yu, 2005; Wong, Tjosvold, and Zhang, 2005b; Wong, Wei, and Tjosvold, 2011). Hong Kong, Korean, Taiwanese, and Japanese building contractors used cooperative conflict, but not competitive or avoiding conflict, to work successfully with their subcontractors (Tjosvold Cho, Park, Liu, Liu, and Sasaki, 2001). Studies indicate that cooperative conflict management promotes the effectiveness of partnerships between government officials and business managers (Tjosvold, Peng, Chen, and Su, 2008; Wong and Tjosvold, 2010). In addition to promoting teamwork and leadership, developing cooperative relationships and discussing conflicts for mutual benefit very much contribute to an effective functioning market economy and society.
A few studies have directly suggested that the theory is useful in cross-cultural settings (Chen et al., 2010). Hong Kong senior accounting managers were found to be able to lead employees working on the mainland of China when they had cooperative goals but not when their goals were competitive or independent (Tjosvold and Moy, 1998). They were then able to discuss their views openly, which led to stronger relationships and productivity, consequences that resulted in future internal motivation.
Chinese employees described specific examples of when they worked with their American or Japanese managers (Chen et al., 2005a). Results indicated that cooperative goals contributed to an open discussion of views that led to productive collaborative work and strengthened relationships. Managers in the Hong Kong parent company and new product specialists in Canada who developed cooperative links and engaged in constructive controversy were able to develop strong, trusting relationships despite their cultural differences and geographic separation (Tjosvold, 1999). Cooperative, constructive controversy interactions were also found critical for Chinese staff to work productively and develop relationships with Japanese managers, outcomes that built commitment to their Japanese companies (Tjosvold, Sasaki, and Moy, 1998). Cooperative conflict was found to help Chinese employees develop effective relationships with their Western managers (Chen, Tjosvold, and Su, 2005b).
More than two hundred Chinese employees from various industries in Beijing, Shanghai, Fujian, and Shandong indicated that cooperative, but not competitive or independent, goals helped them and their foreign managers develop a quality leader-member exchange relationship and improve leader effectiveness, employee commitment, and future collaboration (Chen and Tjosvold, in press). Cooperative interdependence and open discussion of opposing views appear to be important for overcoming obstacles and developing an effective leader relationship within and across cultural boundaries (Tjosvold and Moy, 1998).
Field and experimental studies in North America and Asia provide strong internal and external validity to central hypotheses of cooperative and competitive approaches to conflict. Whether protagonists emphasize cooperative or competitive goals dramatically affects the dynamics and outcomes of their conflict management. Contradicting cultural stereotypes, Chinese participants appear to appreciate others who speak their minds directly and cooperatively.
Chinese people have traditionally been characterized as conflict avoiders because as collectivists, they do not want to risk their relationships with open disagreement. However, as the previous section suggests, Chinese people are able to use cooperative goals as a basis for discussing their ideas openly and productively. This section reviews research that directly examines how values can affect conflict management. It argues that collectivist-valuing relationships are not an impediment to effective conflict management, and indeed, as the studies reviewed already indicate, cooperative relationships are a foundation for open, constructive conflict.
Leung and his colleagues (Leung, Koch, and Lu, 2002; Leung, Brew, Zhang, and Zhang, 2011) have proposed that harmony has two distinct motives in Chinese society. Disintegration avoidance is instrumental in nature in that maintenance of harmony is a means to other ends. With this motive, people avoid conflict as a way to further their self-interests and avoid potential interpersonal problems. Harmony, though, can also refer to the desire to engage in behaviors that strengthen relationships, a motive called harmony enhancement. This motivation represents a genuine concern for harmony as a value in and of itself and involves feelings of intimacy, closeness, trust, and compatible and mutually beneficial behaviors. Leung et al. (2011) found that this harmony value, which has a long tradition in the collectivist Chinese culture, is related to problem solving in conflict management, whereas disintegration avoidance is related to conflict avoidance. Some collectivist values in Chinese societies are conducive to open conflict management.
Consistent with Leung’s argument, a study of 194 teams in three regions of China suggests the positive role of collectivist values on conflict (Tjosvold, Law, and Sun, 2003). Teams that had developed collectivist rather than individualistic values were found to have cooperative goals. The analysis also indicated that these cooperative goals helped the teams discuss their opposing views openly and constructively; the result was strong relationships and productivity as rated by their managers.
A recent experiment supported the causal relationships that collectivist values heighten cooperative goals and open-minded controversy. Chinese protagonists with opposing views in organizations that valued collectivism, compared to individualism, were found to feel cooperatively interdependent (Tjosvold and Wu, 2005). They were also confident that they could work together and make decisions, sought to understand the opposing position by asking questions, demonstrated that they understood the opposing arguments, accepted these arguments as reasonable, and combined positions to create an integrated decision.
Additional experimental studies indicate that social face concerns, when expressed by confirming the face of protagonists, can promote cooperative conflict in China (Tjosvold, Hui, and Sun, 2000; Tjosvold and Sun, 2001). Emphasizing their cooperative goals, protagonists demonstrated more curiosity in that they explored the opposing views and were interested in hearing more of the others’ arguments. Protagonists whose face was confirmed, compared to those affronted, were prepared to pressure the others, and when they also disagreed, they experienced more collaborative influence. They also indicated that they learned in the discussion, considered the opposing views useful, and worked to integrate and accept them. Studies also indicate that confirmation of social face helped Chinese people discuss their frustrations cooperatively and productively (Peng and Tjosvold, 2011; Tjosvold, Hui, Ding, and Hu, 2002).
Chinese people have been theorized to avoid conflict because they assume that conflict requires coercion and they prefer persuasion. However, conflict can give rise to either persuasion or coercion. Persuasive influence was found to result in feelings of respect, cooperative relationships, and openness to others and their positions (Tjosvold and Sun, 2001). Persuasion compared to coercion helped discussants seek mutual benefit, listen to each other openly, integrate their reasoning, and strengthen their relationship.
Chinese culture has been characterized as a high-context society where implicit communication is influential (Gudykunst, Ting-Toomey, and Chua, 1988). Conflict is avoided because open conflict communicates interpersonal hostility. However, nonverbal communication can help develop a cooperative context for conflict discussion. Expressing warmth compared to coldness developed a cooperative, mutually beneficial relationship with the opposing discussant (Tjosvold and Sun, 2003). Protagonists who experienced warmth incorporated the opposing view and reasoning into their decision and thinking and were confident they could work with the others in the future.
Chinese values are not only compatible with cooperative goals and constructive controversy; they can be a valuable foundation for them. Feeling collective, endorsing harmony enhancement rather than disintegration avoidance, being sensitive to social face and in particular confirming social face, using persuasive influence attempts, and expressing interpersonal warmth have been found to help Chinese managers, employees, and partners deal with their differences openly and productively.
Although leaders not only have conflict with employees, they often get involved in resolving conflicts between employees and departments. However, conflict management research has not been brought to bear much in the study of leadership. This section reviews research using Deutsch’s theory to understand leadership strategies and effectiveness in China and to show that leaders in China who manage conflict cooperatively can provide direction to get things done and strengthen their relationships.
A persistent Western stereotype is that Chinese leadership is autocratic: followers quickly and automatically follow the wishes and decisions of leaders. Consistent with this image of power distance, Chinese employees have been found to accept unilateral decision making and prefer their leaders to be benevolent autocrats (Leung, 1997). Whereas superior power in the West is often associated with domination and authoritarianism, leaders in China are expected to be supportive and nurturing (Spencer-Oatey, 1997).
Our research challenges Western stereotypes and indicates that effective leaders in China must develop an open, mutual relationship with employees (Chen and Tjosvold, in press; Liu, Tjosvold, and Yu, 2004; Tjosvold, Hui, and Su, 2004; Tjosvold and Leung, 2004; Tjosvold, Wong, and Hui, 2004). Authority cannot be assumed; leaders must earn it by demonstrating a commitment to employees and openness to them. Strong cooperative goals were found to be critical for a high-quality leader relationship, and this relationship in turn led to employees being effective organizational citizens (Tjosvold, Law, and Hui, 1996). An open discussion of opposing views between leaders and employees was highly crucial, resulting in productive work, strong work relationships, experiencing the leader as democratic, and believing that both the leader and employee are powerful (Tjosvold, Hui, and Law, 1998). Hong Kong senior accounting managers were able to lead employees working on the mainland when they had cooperative goals, but not when their goals were competitive or independent (Tjosvold and Moy, 1998).
Democratic, open-minded leadership is valued in China; Chinese employees want a cooperative relationship with their leaders. Although they are hesitant to initiate conflictful discussions, they expect their leaders to consider their needs and views. Despite power distance values, cooperative conflict is a concrete way for managers in China to develop the leader relationship and demonstrate their openness. Cooperative conflict is an ideal that both managers and employees in China and in the West can aspire to.
Studying conflict in different cultural contexts can challenge and refine understandings of cooperative and competitive conflict management. Our research in China has not capitalized much on this possibility, but there are worthwhile possibilities. Research in China has the potential to deepen our understanding of conflict and the theory of cooperation and competition.
Chinese society has a unique relation system, guanxi , where personal connections are central to work. Maintaining good relations is a key job motivator and ingredient for success. Particularistic ties—coming from the same village, attendance at the same school, and prior connections between fathers—all can build guanxi.
Research on guanxi may illuminate how cooperative goals evolve. Guanxi bases may be prima facie evidence that the partners are on the same side with cooperative goals, and these beliefs of cooperative interdependence in turn leads to mutual trust and assistance (Y. Chen and Tjosvold, 2007; Y. Chen et al., 2008a; Y. Chen, Tjosvold, and Wu, 2008b; Wong and Tjosvold, 2010). Guanxi bases, however, do not inevitably result in mutual relationships. Perhaps the development of competitive goals between partners can explain the failure to capitalize on guanxi bases. At present, it is unclear how guanxi may facilitate or hinder the development of cooperative goals. Studies could also explore the extent to which Westerners have similar relational ties that help them develop strongly cooperative relationships.
Research in China has begun to suggest conditions conducive to the formation of cooperative goals. Confirmation of face, implicit communication to convey warmth, benevolent and participative leadership, and in-group relationships and guanxi may convince Chinese people that their goals are cooperative. These conditions may also promote cooperative goals among Westerners.
Approaches to harmony may affect goal interdependence in China (Leung, 1997; Leung et al., 2002, 2011). Harmony enhancement—the desire to engage in behaviors that strengthen relationships—is solid and involves feelings of intimacy, closeness, trust, and compatible and mutually beneficial behaviors, whereas disintegration avoidance—a tendency to avoid actions that will strain a relationship—involves differences in values and interpersonal styles and the avoidance of disagreement and conflict. Research can explore the hypothesis that harmony enhancement induces cooperative goals and constructive controversy whereas disintegration motives develop competitive goals and close-mindedness.
Research is needed on the conditions under which competitive goals and alternative approaches to cooperative conflict are useful in Chinese culture. One study suggests that competition can be constructive in China when competitors already have a quality interpersonal relationship (Tjosvold, Johnson, and Sun, 2006). China should be a fertile context to study when and how conflicts can be avoided (Peng and Tjosvold, 2011). Cooperative interpersonal relationships were found to be important to effective conflict avoidance (Tjosvold and Sun, 2002). Cooperative goals appear to be foundations for constructive competition and conflict avoidance.
A potential cultural difference is that Chinese people, as highly relationship oriented, may be particularly responsive to goal interdependence differences. They are flexible and responsive to the situation, and hence they may be very conscious of the goal relationship they have with others. In-group members are allies worthy of trust; out-group members are suspect. Leung (1988) found that, compared to Americans, Chinese were more likely to pursue conflict with a stranger and less likely to pursue conflict with a friend.
In North America, independent goals have an impact on dynamics and outcomes similar to but not as powerful as competition. However, in some field studies in China, interactions characterized by independent goals have been more powerful and destructive than those characterized by competition (Tjosvold, 1998; Tjosvold and Poon, 1998). It can be speculated that Chinese people are particularly suspicious and closed-minded toward persons with whom they are not involved. They may find the lack of relationship implied by independent goals more highly disruptive of effective collaborative work than competition.
Studies reviewed indicate that learning how to resolve conflicts cooperatively helps managers and employees build teamwork and strengthen supply chain and other partnerships that cross organizational boundaries. But how can individuals, teams, and organizations become committed and skilled at managing conflict cooperatively?
Research on cooperation and competition, as well as training research, indicates that employees need to be motivated and knowledgeable of the target ideas and behaviors, actively participate in the training, be trained as a cohort, and engage in ongoing development and feedback for effective training (Johnson, Druckman, and Dansereau, 1994). In addition, cooperative goals have been found to facilitate learning and application to a wide range of training objectives, including learning teamwork.
Cooperative goals should be strengthened over time and supported by ongoing feedback. Unresolved disputes, promotion opportunities, ineffective interaction, and many other developments may lead team members to emphasize that their goals are negatively or independently related. Competition and independence are both possible and, at times, highly appealing alternatives.
A major advantage of cooperative team training is that the use of cooperative groups can facilitate training goals (Johnson et al., 1994). Team members become more knowledgeable and skilled in working cooperatively through team training and follow-up activities. The method of cooperative team training reinforces the message. Cooperative experiences also can improve feedback processes that stimulate learning. Chinese people have been found to be more accepting, open, and respectful of feedback when they are working cooperatively rather than competitively (Tjosvold, Tang, and West, 2004).
A combined consideration of training and cooperation and competition research suggests the following features for cooperative conflict training. Members from interdependent teams
Cooperative team workshop and two-month follow-up of team feedback and development followed these four steps to train teams in a high-technology company based in Beijing (Lu, Tjosvold, and Shi, 2010). Over 150 employees from all the teams in the company participated in the workshop and follow-up activities. Overall, the results support that the theory of cooperation and competition not only can identify conditions and dynamics by which teams can effectively contribute to their organization, but also provide a basis on which teams can strengthen their internal functioning, collaboration among teams, and their contributions to their organization. In particular, the study indicates that cooperative teamwork training can heighten beliefs that goals are positively related, foster constructive controversy and creative processes across teams as well as within them, and enhance group productivity and potency.
Call center employees in Guiyang, China, formed teams that developed cooperative goals and open discussion of differences. Results after two months indicated they felt more interdependent and involved and turnover had fallen (Tjosvold et al., 2012). They also performed their individual tasks much more effectively, resulting in over 50 percent fewer complaints and nearly 40 percent increase in phones answered on time.
These studies validate that the theory of cooperation and competition can be applied to strengthen teamwork in China. They also suggest that developing a cooperative conflict team is a practical investment that pays off for organizations and employees.
Can cooperative conflict be a common platform for people from diverse cultures? This section argues that cooperative conflict has this potential, but more research, especially in Africa and the Middle East, is needed to demonstrate how diverse culture teams can develop and use cooperative conflict.
Cross-cultural teams confront many challenges in working together productively. Although research supports the theory of cooperation and competition in China, results do not imply that goal interdependence is operationalized in a highly similar way in the East as in the West (Tjosvold and Hu, 2005). While the “geneotype,” that is, the underlying conceptual structure of the theory, appears to be similar, the “phenotypes,” how the theory is manifested in particular situations, often are not (Leung and Tjosvold, 1998). In particular, the actions that develop cooperative goals or communicate an attempt to discuss conflicts openly may be quite different in China than in North America, as may the general levels of goal interdependence and cooperative conflict. Even if they have common goals and objectives, people from China and the West may have different views of right and wrong, the best ways to accomplish goals, the value of a long-term versus a short-term perspective, appropriate etiquette, and the value of the contributions people make to a joint venture.
Chinese and Western team members then are likely to confront a great deal of conflict. But this chapter has reviewed research showing that Chinese people as well as Westerners can understand cooperative conflict, agree that this approach is useful, and manage their conflicts cooperatively and constructively. Cooperative conflict is not an imposition of Western culture on Chinese but offers a common approach that they all can use to manage their many conflicts.
Researchers have called for direct tests of cross-cultural interaction to identify conditions that facilitate how diverse people can work together productively to supplement the traditional focus on documenting differences between cultures (Bond, 2003; Smith, 2003). People from the East and West who rely on cooperative conflict were found to collaborate effectively compared to those who approach conflict competitively or avoid conflict (Y. Chen and Tjosvold, 2005, 2007, in press; Y. Chen et al., 2010; Y. Chen, Tjosvold, and Wu, 2008a, 2008b; Chen et al., 2005a, 2005b; Tjosvold, 1996, 2008; Wong, Tjosvold, and Lee, 1992). These findings directly support that Sino-Western teams can approach their conflicts cooperatively and productively.
If studies can demonstrate the value of cooperative conflict in Africa and the Middle East as well as continue to be successfully demonstrated in Europe and East Asia (Desivilya et al., 2010; Tjosvold and de Dreu, 1997; Vollmer and Seyr, 2012) as well as India (Bhatnagar and Tjosvold, 2012), Japan, and Korea (Chen et al., 2010; Tjosvold, Cho, Park, Liu, Liu, and Sasaki, 2001; Tjosvold and Sasaki, 1994; Tjosvold, Sasaki, and Moy, 1998), the framework of cooperative conflict has the potential of acting as a common guide for how people from different cultures can develop their own ways of managing conflict.
Without a common framework, organizations are likely to impose the procedures of one culture on another by, for example, insisting that everyone conforms to the head office’s ways. With cooperative conflict as a common framework, people from several cultures can structure ways of managing conflict cooperatively that are appropriate and effective for them, express their diversity, solve problems and strengthen their relationships.
The theory of cooperation and competition has performed well in China, with the amount of variance explained comparing favorably with studies in North America. Chinese people distinguish and understand cooperation and competition, and they recognize that they can pursue individual and collective outcomes when they believe their goals are cooperative (X. Chen, Xie, and Chang, 2011).
Conflict research in China questions the unidimensionality of collectivism-individualism. Individuals can be highly committed to the collective with strong cooperative goals, but this does not assume a lack of individuality. Indeed, a cooperative, collective commitment has been found to promote the open expression of individual opinions and needs. A strong cooperative team fosters outspoken, assertive, and confident individuals; an effective cooperative team depends on members’ willingness to express their individuality (Tjosvold, 1991, 2002; Tjosvold, Chen, and Liu, 2003). Individuals can be both self-assertive and team oriented; cooperative goals encourage both.
Although a theory developed in the West has guided our research, the resulting studies have exposed Western stereotypes of China. In contrast to the ideas that Chinese consider conflict anathema and inevitably deal with open conflict competitively, Chinese people were found to welcome open discussion of opposing views and to use conflict to explore opposing views and integrate them, especially when they had cooperative goals.
Chinese values on social face, persuasion, and nonverbal communication need not imply conflict avoidance. These values, when constructively expressed, contribute to open cooperative conflict management. Organizational values in China support developing effective, two-way relationships among leaders and employees. Chinese leaders are more effective and appreciated when they seek the views of employees and develop cooperative relationships with them. Participative management requires that leaders be responsive and open; cooperative conflict contributes to open, productive relationships between leaders and employees.
Cooperative conflict was also found to develop teamwork for delivering high-quality, high-value service to customers, a competitive advantage organizations need to survive and flourish in China’s growing market economy (Tjosvold, Chen, and Liu, 2003; Tjosvold and Hu, 2005). Chinese employees who use their conflicts cooperatively have been found to improve the quality of products and services and reduce costs as they strengthen their relationships within their groups and with alliance partners. Ironically, although the theory of cooperation and competition has been developed in the West, it may be particularly applicable to relationship-oriented China.
Our research on cooperation and competition in China is just a beginning. More work is needed on how Chinese values and settings affect the underlying dynamics of cooperative and competitive interdependence and to modify the theory. Research can usefully explore the ways the theory is operationalized, important antecedents to cooperative goals, and when and how competition and conflict avoidance might be constructive. Research clearly documents that cooperative conflict is a viable, potentially highly constructive approach in China and can be a foundation for productive cross-cultural teamwork.
Bhatnagar, D., & Tjosvold, D. (2012). Leader values for constructive controversy and team effectiveness in India. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23 , 109–125.
Bond, M. H. (2003). Cross-cultural social psychology and the real world of culturally diverse teams and dyads. In D. Tjosvold & K. Leung (Eds.), Cross-cultural foundations: Traditions for managing in a cross-cultural world . Aldershot, Hampshire, UK: Ashgate.
Chen, G., Liu, C. H., & Tjosvold, D. (2005). Conflict management for effective top management teams and innovation in China. Journal of Management Studies, 42 , 277–300.
Chen, G., & Tjosvold, D. (2002a). Cooperative goals and constructive controversy for promoting innovation in student groups in China. Journal of Education for Business, 78 (1), 46–50.
Chen, G., & Tjosvold, D. (2002b). Conflict management and team effectiveness in China: The mediating role of justice. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 19 , 557–572.
Chen, G., Tjosvold, D., Li, N., Fu, Y., & Liu, D. (2011). Knowledge management in Chinese organizations: Collectivist values for open-minded discussions. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22 (16), 3393–3412.
Chen, X. P., Xie, X., & Chang, S. (2011). Cooperative and competitive orientation among Chinese people: Scale development and validation. Management and Organization Review, 7 , 353–379.
Chen, Y. F., Lu, J., & Tjosvold, D. (2008). Effects of team goal interdependence on newcomer socialization: An experiment in China. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38 , 198–214.
Chen, Y. F., & Tjosvold, D. (2005). Cross cultural leadership: Goal interdependence and leader-member relations in foreign ventures in China. Journal of International Management, 11 , 417–439.
Chen, Y. F., & Tjosvold, D. (2007). Guanxi and leader member relationships between American managers and Chinese employees: Open-minded dialogue as mediator. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 24 , 171–189.
Chen, Y. F., & Tjosvold, D. (in press). Inside the leader relationship: Constructive controversy for team effectiveness in China. Journal of Applied Social Psychology .
Chen, Y. F., Tjosvold, D., Huang, X., & Xu, D. (2011). New manager socialization and conflict management in China: Effects of relationship and open conflict values. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41 (2), 332–356.
Chen, G., Tjosvold, D., Li, N., Fu, Y., & Liu, D. (2011). Knowledge management in Chinese organizations: Collectivist values for open-minded discussions. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22 (16), 3393–3412.
Chen, Y. F., Tjosvold, D., & Pan, Y. J. (2010). Collectivist team values for Korean-Chinese co-worker relationships and job performance. International Journal of Intercultural Relationships, 34 , 475–481.
Chen, Y. F., Tjosvold, D., & Su, F. (2005a). Goal interdependence for working across cultural boundaries: Chinese employees with foreign managers. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29 , 429–447.
Chen, Y. F., Tjosvold, D., & Su, F. (2005b). Working with foreign managers: Conflict management for effective leader relationships in China. International Journal of Conflict Management, 16 , 265–286.
Chen, Y. F., Tjosvold, D., & Wu, P. G. (2008a). Effects of relationship values and goal interdependence on guanxi between foreign managers and Chinese employees. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38 , 2440–2486.
Chen, Y. F., Tjosvold, D., & Wu, P. G. (2008b). Foreign managers’ guanxi with Chinese employees: Effects of warm-heartedness and reward distribution on negotiation. Group Decision and Negotiation, 17 , 79–96.
Desivilya, H. S., Somech, A., & Lidgoster, H. (2010). Innovation and conflict management in work teams: The effects of team identification and task and relationship conflict. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 3 (1), 28–48.
Deutsch, M. (1949). A theory of cooperation and competition. Human Relations, 2 , 129–152.
Deutsch, M. (1973). The resolution of conflict . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Gudykunst, W. B., Ting-Toomey, S., & Chua, E. (1988). Culture and interpersonal communication . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hempel, P. S., Zhang, Z. X., & Tjosvold, D. (2009). Conflict management between and within teams for trusting relationships and performance in China. Journal of Organization Behavior, 30 , 41–65.
Johnson, D. W., Druckman, D., & Dansereau, D. (1994). Training in teams. In D. Druckman & R. Bjork (Eds.), Learning, remembering, believing: Enhancing human performance (pp. 140–170). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Leung, K. (1988). Some determinants of conflict avoidance: A cross-national study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 19 , 125–136.
Leung, K. (1997). Negotiation and reward allocations across cultures. In P. C. Earley & M. Erez (Eds.), New perspectives on international industrial/organizational psychology (pp. 640–675). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Leung, K., Brew, F. P., Zhang, Z. X., & Zhang, Y. (2011). Harmony and conflict: A cross-cultural investigation in China and Australia. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42 , 795–816.
Leung, K., Koch, P. T., & Lu, L. (2002). A dualistic model of harmony and its implications for conflict management in Asia. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 19 , 201–220.
Leung, K., & Tjosvold, D. (1998). Conclusion: Conflict management in the Asia Pacific. In K. Leung & D. Tjosvold (Eds.), Conflict management in the Asia Pacific (pp. 335–344). Singapore: Wiley.
Li, P. P., Leung, K., Chen, C. C., & Luo, J.-D. (2012). Indigenous research on Chinese management: What and how. Management and Organization Review, 8 , 7–24.
Liu, C. H., Tjosvold, D., & Yu, Z. Y. (2004). Traditional values for applying abilities and leader effectiveness in China. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 25 , 318–331.
Lu, J. F., Tjosvold, D., & Shi, K. (2010). Team training in China: Testing and applying the theory of cooperation and competition. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40 (1), 101–134.
Peng, A. C., & Tjosvold, D. (2011). Social face concerns and conflict avoidance of Chinese employees with their Western and Chinese managers. Human Relations, 64 (8), 1031–1050.
Poon, M., Pike, R., & Tjosvold, D. (2001). Budget participation, goal interdependence and controversy: A study of a Chinese public utility. Management Accounting Research, 12 , 101–118.
Smith, P. B. (2003). Meeting the challenge of cultural difference. In D. Tjosvold & K. Leung (Eds.), Cross-cultural management: Foundation and future (pp. 59–73). Aldershot, Hampshire, UK: Ashgate.
Snell, R. S., Tjosvold, D., & Su, F. S. (2006). Resolving ethical conflicts at work through cooperative goals and constructive controversy in the People’s Republic of China. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 23 , 319–343.
Spencer-Oatey, H. (1997). Unequal relationships in high and low power distance societies: A comparative study of tutor-student role relations in Britain and China. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 28 , 284–302.
Tjosvold, D. (1991). The conflict-positive organization: Stimulate diversity and create unity . Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Tjosvold, D. (1996). Conflict management in a diverse world: A review essay of Caplan’s understanding disputes: The politics of argument. Human Relations, 49 (9), 1203–1211.
Tjosvold, D. (1998). The cooperative and competitive goal approach to conflict: Accomplishments and challenges. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 47 , 285–313.
Tjosvold, D. (1999). Bridging East and West to develop new products and trust: Interdependence and interaction between a Hong Kong parent and North American subsidiary. International Journal of Innovation Management, 3 , 233–252.
Tjosvold, D. (2002). Managing anger for teamwork in Hong Kong: Goal interdependence and open-mindedness. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 5 (2), 107–123.
Tjosvold, D. (2008). Controversy for management education: Developing committed, open-minded researchers. Exemplary contributions. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 7 , 73–85.
Tjosvold, D., Chen, Y. F., Huang, X., & Xu, D. (2012). Developing cooperative teams to support individual performance and well-being in a call center in China. Group Decision and Negotiation . doi:10.1007/s10726–012–9314–6.
Tjosvold, D., Chen, G., & Liu, H. (2003). Team organization in China: How to work together to get things done . Shanghai: Shanghai Far East Publishers. (In Chinese)
Tjosvold, D., & Chia, L. C. (1989). Conflict between managers and employees: The role of cooperation and competition. Journal of Social Psychology, 129 , 235–247.
Tjosvold, D., Cho, Y. H., Park, H. H., Liu, C., Liu, W. C., & Sasaki, S. (2001). Interdependence and managing conflict with sub-contractors in the construction industry in East Asia. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 18 , 295–313.
Tjosvold, D., & de Dreu, C. (1997). Managing conflict in Dutch organizations: A test of the relevance of Deutsch’s cooperation theory. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27 (24), 2213–2227.
Tjosvold, D., & Hu, J. (2005). Managing conflict in China . Shanghai: Shanghai Far East Publishers. (In Chinese).
Tjosvold, D., Hui, C., Ding, D. Z., & Hu, J. (2002). Conflict values and team relationships: Conflict’s contribution to team effectiveness and citizenship in China. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24 (1), 69–88.
Tjosvold, D., Hui, C., & Law, K. S. (1998). Empowerment in the manager-employee relationship in Hong Kong: Interdependence and controversy. Journal of Social Psychology, 138 , 624–637.
Tjosvold, D., Hui, C., & Su, F. (2004). Leadership in Chinese enterprises . Shanghai: Shanghai Far East Publishers. (In Chinese)
Tjosvold, D., Hui, C., & Sun, H. (2000). Building social face and open-mindedness: Constructive conflict in Asia. In C. M. Lau, K. S. Law, D. K. Tse, & C. S. Wong (Eds.), Asian management matters: Regional relevance and global impact (pp. 4–16). London: Imperial College Press.
Tjosvold, D., Hui, C., & Sun, H. (2004). Can Chinese discuss conflicts openly? Field and experimental studies of face dynamics in China. Group Decision and Negotiation, 13 (4), 351–373.
Tjosvold, D., Hui, C. & Yu, Z. Y. (2003). Conflict management and task reflexivity for team in-role and extra-role performance in China. International Journal of Conflict Management, 14 , 141–163.
Tjosvold, D., Johnson, D. W., & Sun, H. (2006). Competitive motives and strategies: Understanding constructive competition. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 210 , 87–99.
Tjosvold, D., Law, K. S., & Hui, C. (1996). Goal interdependence, leadership relationship, and citizenship behavior in China . Paper presented at the International Association for Conflict Management 9th Annual Conference, Ithaca, NY.
Tjosvold, D., Law, K. S., & Sun, H. F. (2003). Collectivistic and individualistic values: Their effects on group dynamics and productivity in China. Group Decision and Negotiation, 12 , 243–263.
Tjosvold, D., Law, K. S., & Sun, H. (2006). Conflict in Chinese teams: Conflict types and conflict management approaches. Management and Organization Review, 2 , 231–252.
Tjosvold, D., & Leung, K. (2004). The leadership challenge in high growth Asia: Developing relationships. In D. Tjosvold & K. Leung (Eds.), Leading in high growth Asia: Managing relationships for teamwork and change (pp. 1–12). London: World Scientific.
Tjosvold, D., & Moy, J. (1998). Managing employees in China from Hong Kong: Interaction, relationships, and productivity as antecedents to motivation. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 19 , 147–156.
Tjosvold, D., Moy, J., & Sasaki, S. (1996). Managing for customers and employees in Hong Kong: The quality and teamwork challenges. Journal of Market-Focused Management, 1 , 339–357.
Tjosvold, D., Nibler, R., & Wan, P. (2001). Motivation for conflict among Chinese: Effects of other’s expertise and confidence on choosing disagreement. Journal of Social Psychology, 141 , 353–363.
Tjosvold, D., & Poon, M. (1998). Dealing with scarce resources: Open-minded interaction for resolving budget conflicts. Group & Organization Management, 23 , 237–255.
Tjosvold, D., Peng, A. C., Chen, Y. F., & Su, F. (2008) Business and government interdependence in China: Cooperative goals to develop business and industry. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 25 , 225–249.
Tjosvold, D., Peng, A. C., Chen, N.Y.F., & Su, S. F. (2012). Individual decision-making in organizations: Contribution of uncertainty and controversy in China. Group Decision Making and Negotiation Journal . Advance online publication. doi:10.1007/s10726–012–9294–6
Tjosvold, D., Poon, M., & Yu, Z. Y. (2005). Team effectiveness in China: Cooperative conflict for relationship building. Human Relations, 58 , 341–367.
Tjosvold, D., & Sasaki, S. (1994). Consumer satisfaction and inter-organizational relationship. Bulletin of the Institute for Research of Regional Autonomy, 29 , 57–73. (In Japanese)
Tjosvold, D., Sasaki, S., & Moy, J. (1998). Developing commitment in Japanese organizations in Hong Kong: Interdependence, interaction, relationship and productivity. Small Group Research, 29 , 560–582.
Tjosvold, D., & Su, F. S. (2006). Manager as mediator: Developing a conflict-positive organization. In M. S. Herrman (Ed.), The Blackwell handbook of mediation (pp. 344–354). London: Blackwell.
Tjosvold, D., & Su, F. S. (2007). Managing anger and annoyance in organizations in China: The role of constructive controversy. Group and Organization Management, 32 (3), 260–289.
Tjosvold, D., & Sun, H. (2001). Effects of influence tactics and social contexts: An experiment on relationships in China. International Journal of Conflict Management, 12 , 239–258.
Tjosvold, D., & Sun, H. (2002). Understanding conflict avoidance: Relationship, motivations, actions, and consequences. International Journal of Conflict Management, 13 , 142–164.
Tjosvold, D., & Sun, H. (2003). Openness among Chinese in conflict: Effects of direct discussion and warmth on integrated decision making. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33 , 1878–1897.
Tjosvold, D., & Sun, H. (2005). Effects of openness, problem-solving, and blaming on learning: An experiment in China. Journal of Social Psychology, 145 , 629–644.
Tjosvold, D., & Sun, H. (2010). Using power to affect performance in China: Effects of employee achievement and social context. International Journal of Conflict Management, 21 , 364–381.
Tjosvold, D., Tang, M. L., & West, M. A. (2004). Reflexivity for team innovation in China: The contribution of goal interdependence. Group and Organization Management, 29 , 540–560.
Tjosvold, D., & Tsao, Y. (1989). Productive organizational collaboration: The role of values and cooperation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 10 (2), 189–195.
Tjosvold, D., & Wang, Z. M. (1998). Cooperative goals and constructive controversy in work teams in China: Antecedents for performance . Paper presented at the Academy of Management Meetings, San Diego, CA.
Tjosvold, D., & Wong, A.S.H. (2010). Conflict management for justice and innovation and strategic advantage in organizational partnerships. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40 (3), 636–665.
Tjosvold, D., Wong, A.S.H., & Chen, Y. F. (2005). Conflict management for justice, and innovation and strategic advantage in organizational partnerships . Paper presented at the Academy of Management, Hawaii, United States.
Tjosvold, D., Wong, A.S.H., & Hui, C. (2004). Leadership research in Asia: Developing relationships. In K. Leung & S. White (Eds.), Handbook of Asian management (pp. 373–395). Amsterdam: Kluwer.
Tjosvold, D., Wong, A.S.H., Nibler, R., & Pounder, J. S. (2002). Teamwork and controversy in undergraduate management courses in Hong Kong: Can the method reinforce the message? Swiss Journal of Psychology, 61 , 131–138.
Tjosvold, D., & Wu, P. (2005). Collectivist values for discussing and integrating opposing views: An experiment on goal Interdependence in China . Paper presented at the International Association for Conflict Management 18th Annual Conference, Seville, Spain.
Tjosvold, D., Wu, P., & Chen, Y. F. (2010). The effects of collectivist and individualistic values on conflict and decision-making: An Experiment in China. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40 (11), 2904–2926.
Tjosvold, D., & Yu, Z. Y. (2007). Group risk-taking: The constructive role of controversy in China. Group and Organization Management, 32 , 653–674.
Tjosvold, D., Yu, Z. Y., & Hui, C. (2004). Team learning from mistakes: The contribution of cooperative goals and problem-solving. Journal of Management Studies, 41 , 1223–1245.
Tjosvold, D., Yu, Z. Y., & Wu, P. (2009). Empowering individuals for team innovation in China: Conflict management and problem-solving. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 2 , 185–206.
Tjosvold, D., Yu, Z. Y., & Hui, C. (2004). Team learning from mistakes: The contribution of cooperative goals and problem-solving. Journal of Management Studies, 41 , 1223–1245.
Tjosvold, D., Yu, Z. Y., & Wu, P. (2009). Empowering individuals for team innovation in China: Conflict management and problem-solving. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 2 , 185–206.
Vollmer, A., & Seyr, S. (2012). Constructive controversy in innovation processes: Application and evaluation . Paper presented at the International Association for Conflict Management 25th Annual Conference, Spier, South Africa.
Wang, Z., Chen, Y. F., Tjosvold, D., & Shi, K. (2010). Cooperative goals and team personality composition for constructive controversy in China. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 27 , 139–153.
Wong, A.S.H., & Tjosvold, D. (2010). Guanxi and conflict management for effective partnering with competitors in China. British Journal of Management, 21 , 772–788.
Wong, A.S.H., & Tjosvold, D., & Chen, Y. F. (2010). Managing outsourcing to develop business: Goal interdependence for sharing effective business practices in China. Human Relations, 63 , 1563–1586.
Wong, A.S.H., Tjosvold, D. (2009). Innovation by teams in Shanghai, China: Cooperative goals for group confidence and persistence. British Journal of Management, 20 , 238–251.
Wong, A.S.H., Tjosvold, D., & Yu, Z. Y. (2005). Organizational partnerships in China: Self-interest, goal interdependence, and opportunism. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90 , 782–791.
Wong, A.S.H., Tjosvold, D., & Zhang, P. (2005a). Supply chain relationships for customer satisfaction in China: Leadership, interdependence, and cooperative goals. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 22 , 179–199.
Wong, A.S.H., Tjosvold, D., & Zhang, P. (2005b). Developing relationships in strategic alliances: Commitment to quality and cooperative interdependence. Industrial Marketing Management, 34 , 722–731.
Wong, A.S.H., Tjosvold, D., Wong, W., & Liu, C. K. (1999a). Cooperative and competitive conflict for quality supply partnerships between China and Hong Kong. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, 29 , 7–21.
Wong, A.S.H., Tjosvold, D., Wong, W., & Liu, C. K. (1999b). Relationships for quality improvement in the Hong Kong-China supply chain: A study on the theory of cooperation and competition. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 16 , 24–41.
Wong, A.S.H., Wei, L., & Tjosvold, D. (2011). Conflict management for government and businesses to share effective practices in China. Group and Organization Management, 36 (5), 597–629.
Wong, C. L., Tjosvold, D., & Lee, F. (1992). Managing conflict in a diverse workforce: A Chinese perspective in North America. Small Group Research, 23 (3 ), 302–332.
Zhang, X. A., Cao, Q., & Tjosvold, D. (2011). Linking transformational leadership and team performance: A conflict management approach. Journal of Management Studies, 48 , 1586–1611.