The paper examines the widespread avoidance of conflicts in hierarchical Indian organisations. The article's major premise is that this prevalent organisational behaviour is driven by two sociocultural factors: (i) high power distance and (ii) individuals placing far more value on social institutions like the family, community or organisation, than on their own ideas, goals and desires. These values are considered necessary for maintaining cohesion and harmony in groups. Unfortunately for Indian companies this state of affairs disables positive change and stifles growth in a number of important ways. Firstly, it ensures that intra-organisational conflicts that might have beneficial consequences by providing new ways of looking at problems are stifled by a covert agreement to maintain harmony. Secondly by preventing the airing of differences it helps to create an atmosphere of ‘dysfunctional silence’ where subordinate voices are not heard and debate does not take place. Alongside this cultural practice is an overwhelming tendency towards ‘group think’ which suppresses initiatives for change. Together, these factors create an unpropitious environment that undermines innovation and slows down growth. Rather than viewing conflict as something that is inherently unhelpful, this paper makes a distinction between interpersonal conflicts which can damage relationships and the task related conflicts that arise out of differences in opinions. Although not always popular hierarchical organisations have the potential to gain much from encouraging more ‘constructive’ kinds of conflicts. Drawing from two examples of Indian businesses as well as a review of relevant literature, the paper presents an integrative framework called hierarchically-sensitive engagement which outlines a culturally appropriate approach for better managing conflicts. To achieve this goal it brings together concepts derived from western integrative bargaining strategies with elements taken from local dispute resolution practices, such as the panchayat system. According to this model, conflict management requires a shift in the leader’s role from an arbitrator to a facilitator. By creating depersonalised forums for discussion the aim is to encourage individuals to participate without fear of being accused of disloyalty or creating problems for superiors.