Culture affects the way we see and process the world, with language, images, assumptions, norms, and the choices we see as acceptable and viable in particular situations.
Dominic Busch
The country will not change until it re-examines itself and discovers what it really means by freedom.
James Baldwin
Sometimes change doesn’t require more horsepower. Sometimes we just need to unlock the parking brake.
Jonah Berger
Introduction, and the price of getting this wrong
I do not subscribe to the liberal idea that, either in letter or in spirit, demands a complete homogenization of cultures, turning black and white into an unattractive shade of grey. I know from practical experience and my work itself that we are at our best when we are allowed to be true to ourselves, and when we enhance each others’ abilities and shortfalls, not when we are expected to pretend that our differences are inconsequential or inherently negative attributes.
In conflict management, diversity is to be celebrated, not as a politically fashionable mantra, but as a concept that earns its keep. As we will see, however, there is no easy way to arrive at the benefits of diversity, no automatic tick-a-box method of harnessing the potential and power of this modern reality. And so we end up in front of the sometimes controversial concept of intercultural conflict.
The question of intercultural conflict comes to us in a variety of real-world definitions and frameworks. It gets faced head-on, or wrapped in polite language to soften the perceived sensitivities involved. It includes life in our communities, in our cities, our workplaces, and our countries. It has increasingly become framed not just in terms of the content and causes of isolated intercultural conflict itself, but in existential terms, including the preservation of existing real or imagined groups, values and lifestyles. It includes the identity markers of racial conflict, but should, when properly understood, include modern questions and influences of culture in its wide sense, and to see these debates or actual conflicts as being limited to racial conflict only is to unnecessarily and unwisely narrow the scope of understanding them, as well as the conflict tools and solutions that are available in terms of modern research and best practices.
As our brief study here will show, many of the received wisdoms and even popular advice on effectively dealing with intercultural conflict is simply, and with all respect, wrong. This is important in several respects. In the modern multicultural society, if we are using the wrong information, arguments and strategies to deal with intercultural conflicts, we get repetitive, cyclical poor conflict outcomes.
This creates and entrenches conflict scepticism in this crucial aspect of modern living. People do not know that they have been ill-advised, or that their leaders are poorly skilled in this field, so it becomes natural to blame other cultures, values and “them”. “They” are just like that, “they” will never change. Attitudes harden over time, and even the possibility of working together becomes a challenge, even before we get to the merits of the various arguments. South Africa is a textbook study in this conflict scepticism.
But this mismanagement of a complex, very difficult conflict challenge leads to other, even more harmful consequences. In this environment of cyclical, even generational, conflict scepticism it becomes very easy to create and perpetuate narratives of victimhood, of polarised issues, and to cast extreme and radical options as being more reasonable, more necessary. South Africa continues to grapple with its unresolved, complex national conflicts while generally approaching them in their primary form – unemployment, inequality, redress and so on – but it cannot, from a conflict management perspective, be denied that these conflicts mostly have an intercultural aspect to them, where issues of race, class and other cultural markers should be accurately assessed and made part of the process and the available solutions.
Our constitution, our laws, our expectations of dignity and respect, are simply not enough in themselves to assure us the benefits of a fully and successfully integrated culturally diverse landscape. It is therefore crucially important, more so now than ever before, to understand the correct science and research behind these questions, to separate good intentions from good practice, and to understand what strategies are available to those of us who are involved in managing, resolving or, in those rare instances, transforming the potentially harmful intercultural conflicts that exist around us.
Saying goodbye to Shangri-La
Intercultural conflict, when it is ignored by political leadership (as it often is), will create a variety of primary and secondary conflict causes and symptoms in a society (see my latest book Skylines for extended examples). When it is however approached with outdated and just plain wrong studies and clichés, and the strategies built upon these errors, it simply exacerbates an already volatile and dangerous conflict environment. The easiest of these errors to notice is probably the well-worn “fact”, probably a leftover from our rainbow nation days, that diversity in itself is a common good, and that all we need to do is to force or allow different cultures and races to work and live together, and magic and harmony will automatically follow. Anyone arguing the contrary is obviously divisive and even racist. Or so we are told.
Researchers Robin J. Ely and David A. Thomas conclude that
They misconstrue or ignore what abundant research has now made clear: Increasing the numbers of traditionally underrepresented people in your workforce does not automatically produce benefits. Taking an “add diversity and stir” approach, while business continues as usual, will not spur leaps in your firm’s effectiveness or financial performance.
We will weigh this common misconception against the facts below, but for now we can simply note it as one of the popular misconceptions, which, of its own accord, makes effectively working with intercultural conflict more complex, and more difficult, than what it needs to be.
Much of conventional wisdom and strategies involved are put together on a complete misunderstanding of the role that identities and values play in intercultural conflict. Thanks to a multidisciplinary effort in recent years, we now understand these critical conflict levers so much better, and we understand the limitations of rationality and perceptions of fairness so much better. Not being trained at a high level in this complex conflict dashboard means that wrong questions are asked, leading to wrong answers, and more remarkably, as case studies show, increased effort with incorrect conflict tools do not just fail to persuade, they actually deepen and entrench people in their previously held views.
With intercultural conflict, at any level, and more so than with any other organizational level of conflict, identity conflicts must be studied and understood in general, and as it relates to a specific community or group. Anything short of this leads to the wrong tools being used for the challenge. In these intercultural conflict environments, strategies built on competitiveness or domineering narratives are doomed to fail.
Arguments, policies or campaigns built on statements, or intimations, of irrationality in the other group (“How can people not see the simple truth”) are clearly shown to be counterproductive, and in fact increases in-group opposition and intolerance. Sharing time and space together inter-culturally is a popular strategy, especially at the corporate level. Sharing time and experiences, eating and working together, even living together for specified periods of time is supposed to create an improved sense of understanding, empathy and common purpose in strained intercultural environments. And a good theory it is, except the case studies show that (if these experiments work at all) an improved perception only of the involved individual occurs, without much or any improvement of the previously held negative view of the main cultural group.
Laws enforcing one or another form of cultural rebalancing or cooperation, demands of redress framed incorrectly, or superficial campaigns of harmony simply do not work as they are presented, and they are, at best, wasting time that could have been better spent in pursuing these same goals, only in more efficient ways.
Updated case studies, research and best practices
Conflict studies have, in recent years, made a conscious effort to upgrade both its theoretical foundations as well as its praxis through taking a multi-disciplinary approach to what seemed to be settled concepts. The result was a startling realization of how limited, and sometimes plain wrong, some of those strategies of old were, and how much harm was being done in persisting with such strategies. One of those fields affected was intercultural conflict. In the process, a rich vein of deeper understanding and of the available solutions became available to us.
Studying scientific fields and areas of information as seemingly diverse as communication, migration, neuroscience and the existence of face-saving mechanisms in various societies has unlocked a completely new skillset, a field of knowledge that has turned much of recent intercultural conflict best practices on its head. As briefly mentioned earlier, our knowledge and experience with the dynamics of identity conflicts now, at last, gives us the necessary insight into how the ideas, fears and dreams that shape and drive conflicts are created, guided and maintained. Access to this part of the conflict engine is irreplaceable. I have written on this extensively, and the interested reader can find several more detailed discussions of this pivotal concept elsewhere.
Following this expansion of the conflict horizon, we now have access to wonderful and practical work from sociology (including micro-sociology), complexity science, behavioural sciences and so many others to integrate into better understandings, better conflict tools and an added layer of solutions to previously deemed intractable intercultural conflicts.
The inspiring work done with cultural intelligence (CQ, as opposed to IQ and EQ, see the link below for my article on this fascinating topic) removes the necessity of using old and ill-suited conflict concepts in describing and addressing some of the rather unique challenges faced in modern intercultural conflicts.
It, used in conjunction with advanced identity conflict skills, removes (as one contentious example) the need to be working with an objective idea of concepts such as “right” or “truth”, an obstacle that proved fatal to so many earlier intercultural interventions, without making the other common and popular error, that of trying to approach these conflicts from a position of debilitating neutrality and relativism.
New York University professor Jay Van Bavel is doing high-level and practically relevant work on these topics, and the design and implementation of any serious intercultural conflict work should take note of this body of case studies and other empirical work. His 2021 book The Power of Us (co-authored with Dominic Packer) shows practical strategies how the shaping of identities and the creation of shared interests leads to measurable improvements in co-operation, performance and sustainable social harmony. This brings us back to the need for the understanding and use of identity conflicts in order to re-characterize the involved identities.
A few specific conflict strategies
Approaching any specific instance of intercultural conflict, for instance an urban community, or workplace conflict, requires a focused and targeted assessment, where the relevant questions and solutions will of course pertain to that environment only. Care should be had in approaching these conflicts with too much of a “one-size-fits-all” mind-set. We can however, for our purposes here, consider the following general strategies.
1. All involved leaders, whether they be selected political, community or business leaders, must buckle down and undergo an intensive, focused, and tailor-made coaching program on CQ and identity conflicts, and how this affects, shapes and changes existing programs and goals in the organization. No shortcuts. This must become an intrinsic part of their leadership abilities. This makes it possible to lead from the top as far as intercultural communication, integration, actual conflict, and problem solving is concerned, and has a measurable effect in transferring these goals and attributes to others. Briefly put, without a high efficiency in CQ and identity conflicts, you will not have much success, and you may very well do more harm than good.
2. In workplaces, cultural awareness training, if done with great precision and tailor-made for that specific community, has shown a modicum of success. Case studies show that this needs to be a sustained project, though, as the positive effects and perceptions seem to dissipate over time. Specifically, training across all levels in targeted CQ goals and outcomes lead to measurable improvement in intercultural conflict occurrences and outcomes. A 2025 study in the Beijing Business Centre can be used as a case study guide here.
3. Applying culturally embedded negotiation in resolving existing conflicts, using the correct and incident-specific application of face-saving techniques, and realistic, negotiated goals at local level. Recent intercultural conflicts between Balinese and Lampungese communities in Indonesia are instructive, with a large and growing body of work becoming available on global case studies.
4. Avoid top-down, external solutions, and craft tailor-made conflict narratives, process agreements and problem-solving solutions at local level, including all decision-makers and influencers at an early stage. The storytelling narratives in place in intercultural conflict determine the conflict, its solutions and its areas of risk.
5. Specific instances of empathy-building can be successful if managed carefully over a period of time, with case studies in Singapore and South Korea showing promise.
6. Integrate goals and policies into the actual essence and fibre of an organization. Slogans and directives are often counterproductive, and hard, patient work must be done to elevate policies from politically-correct clichés to ways of life that makes sense, that is preferred by recipients as a superior option, not because they were instructed to do so. This could include workshops and discussions about the real benefits of integration and / or intercultural harmony.
7. Stop building cultural integration on foundations of sacrifice and compromise. Compromise is an awful and lazy conflict strategy, and it leads to resentment, conflict rigidity and increased scepticism in intercultural conflict settings. Skilfully consult, explore and implement creative problem-solving solutions as opposed to “meet you in the middle” solutions. Stop asking people to sacrifice in order to help others, it does not work in general, much less in an interculturally sensitive environment. Change this narrative and show people the actual benefits of working or living together (see #8 below). Teach people that disagreement can be constructive and healthy, that not every conflict can, or should be, resolved. Remove the personal attack from mere disagreement. Irshad Manji expresses this so beautifully: Practicing honest diversity, we listen without having to agree, we cultivate common ground even as we stand our ground, we act from a place of grace.
8. Only when diversity and cultural frictions are skilfully and sustainably integrated into a community or workplace will there be tangible, worthwhile benefits. Then, and only then, it becomes a powerhouse driving prosperity and productivity, harmony and a range of other common good benefits. For this to happen, these specialised forms of conflict must be deeply understood, and specific solutions must be designed and applied to specific communities. Small benefits must be achieved and built upon, any small momentum must be celebrated and serve as motivation for the next, bigger success. Too often we see small instances of intercultural conflict successes celebrated, and then these events are left to die on the vine. Show people, in practical terms, in their worlds, that successfully dealing with intercultural conflict has real benefits for them, and that all of this is not just a question of asking for favours. Self-interest is always going to be a more reliable conflict ally than a list of platitudes.
9. Start valuing process, and change our conflict and dispute resolution mechanisms in meaningful ways. Too many of our systems and processes are still, certainly not by conscious intent, designed to exacerbate some of the very differences between people. Individualist versus collectivist societies, how criticism and offences are framed, the content and duration of important conflict dynamics like the differentiation process, the role of respect and dignity in conflict resolution, these are all currently part of the processes we have put in place, and by definition they must add to these conflicts, and to lasting resolution. Re-design processes extensively, build intercultural mediation into places like workplace disciplinary processes, train involved staff differently, and realise that it does not help to have high expectations of people in intercultural conflicts if the very process adds negative experiences to these conflicts. Effective intercultural conflict management demands systems thinking, the use of modern conflict tools such as dispute systems design and complexity insights. These crucial requirements are nowhere to be seen in the vast majority of political and commercial strategies in South Africa.
10. We need to do a lot of work on how we communicate with each other. I mean this not in a woke, sentimental way, but in a cold, scientific manner. Much has been done to illustrate the efficient methods of communication required in order to assure, convince and communicate with dignity and respect, but also with efficiency and meaning. The research / recommended reading list below contains some material towards that goal.
Can cultures prove to be incompatible?
In practice, yes. Europe is seeing an increase in populist arguments around this very question, and there is a steady stream of limited but persistent arguments to this effect here in South Africa, to name but two global examples. Scholarly consensus however sees this, quite correctly in my view, as nothing other than inefficient intercultural conflict management.
Cultures exist on continua, and helpful ranges of work around individualist versus collectivist societies makes this a very manageable challenge. There should, with competent leadership and conflict management, be no truly irreconcilable differences. Once we understand that apparently intercultural conflicts are often caused or exacerbated by other conflict drivers, such as scarcity of resources, inequality and so on, we see that this is not simply a politically correct statement, but an actual conflict reality.
I would concede that, should effective and skilful conflict management in a given situation fail persistently, then the incompatibility of given cultures may need other conflict interventions, some of which have become more popular as political and conflict discussion points, and which may include real or imagined solutions such as secession in a national context, or a variety of proven solutions in a commercial environment.
Conclusion
Intercultural conflict is a contentious, difficult topic. We have our rather set ways of viewing what is wrong, and how this should be repaired. Strangely enough, none of those plans have really worked out so far.
One of the problems we have never really addressed here in South Africa, among our other unresolved conflicts, is the question to what extent intercultural harmony is necessary. Other than the benefits of reconciliation, do we need to heal from current conflicts? Listening to some, we should be aiming at the eradication of all intercultural conflict in South Africa.
This loses sight of the many benefits to be reaped from conflict skilfully executed, conflict as engine of change and prosperity. What do we need to do to change the dial from our conflicts as destructive, corrosive force, to the constructive, creative force that it can be? This article suggest some of the many real-world solutions available to us. We can add to those. We need, for example, to be more inclusive (in an effective manner) in defining and resolving our conflicts, we need to replace a few Western methods that have globally been found wanting, we need to find and build a confidence in our own abilities to resolve what so many tell us are irretrievably broken beyond repair. Intercultural conflict is, like most other forms of conflict, about power and the use of power.
So much has been learnt about how this works, how persuasion really does its magic, and how conflict is sustainably managed. We see very little of this knowledge being applied in our modern political or business arenas. There are several reasons for this, and we need not resolve those questions here. The simple facts are that intercultural conflict should be effectively managed in the best interests of all, and that those new tools exist.
We need to build and then follow a new roadmap through our current problems. Leaving the hard work to other people, to the next incumbent politician or the various peddlers of promises will not get us out of this place. Wishing is a terrible conflict strategy. The way we conduct ourselves, the processes and methods we are using, our goals and our strategies, are mostly ineffective or counterproductive. We defer to election cycles and democratic processes to fix the problems all around us, neutralizing our own responsibilities, potential and agency in the process.
The strategies we have discussed here have nothing to do with being polite or politically correct, but with being effective, with getting the results we so urgently need. We have complex, existential problems ahead of us, and we have squandered an awful amount of time. It is time that we start using the proper tools for the job that lies ahead.
Summary of main sources, references and suggested reading
1. Weihong Guo’s excellent January 2025 article on effective intercultural conflict communication can be found at: (PDF) Conflict resolution in intercultural communication: strategies for managing cultural conflicts
2. Katie Shonk’s recent article on intercultural conflict lessons learned during the Covid pandemic remains of practical value, and can be accessed at: Lessons Learned from Cultural Conflicts in the Covid-19 Era - PON - Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School
3. Chapter 6 of my book Dangerous Magic: essays on conflict resolution in South Africa (Paradigm Media or Amazon) comprehensively deals with intercultural conflict in a workplace environment.
4. A more statistical approach to our topic can be found in Shihong Wang’s 2024 article, at: (PDF) Culture and Conflict Resolution in Cross-Cultural Projects: Insights from Questionnaires and Interviews
5. The Routledge Handbook of Intercultural Mediation (Routledge Handbooks in Communication Studies, by Dominic Busch, Taylor & Francis (2023)
6. My article on the practical efficiency of Cultural Intelligence (CQ) can be found at: https://www.conflict-conversations.co.za/conversations/cultural-intelligence-cq-intercultural-mediation-and-south-african-conflicts
7. Insofar as this may have bearing on this article, my article on the current best practices around BBBEE debates, can be accessed at: https://www.conflict-conversations.co.za/conversations/the-case-for-and-against-affirmative-action-an-update-on-global-best-practices-options-and-the-south-african-position-from-a-conflict-management-perspective
8. Relevant articles for our conflict work, can be found at www.conflict-conversations.co.za
(Andre Vlok can be contacted at andre@conflict1.co.za for any further information.)
(c) Andre Vlok
February 2026