外贸邮件模板

外贸邮件模板 Conflict and Negotiation Cross-Cultural Management Dr Chris Lewis Conflict and Dispute Essentially synonymous, but have specific meanings in terms of labour relations When does disagreement become conflict? Dispute is often used as an official term by trade unions Handy (1985) distinguishes between competition and argument (beneficial) and conflict (harmful because it represents a failure of competition and argument to resolve the issue) when e.g. No perception of common interest One or both sides refuse to accept arbitration Responsible superior refuses to arbitrate or does so badly Arises through its structure and roles; - resource allocation; - administrative processes; - competition for promotion, status etc - goals and priorities; - hidden agendas; - conflicting loyalties; - personality clashes; - mis-communication; - culture clashes Diplomacy and War ‘War is the continuation of politics by other means’ Von Clausewitz 1832 Resolving Conflict (Mead 2005:8>151) Cooperation Confrontation A: Force D: Withdrawal B: Negotiation E: Appeasement C: Bargaining Factors influencing Interest Personality factors Stake Emotional Involvement Urgency Precedent Culture //.youtube3>/watch?v =- 4GjC0ipJIA&feature=related Personality – not cultural – some need to win more than others, some more collaborative Stake – what do you stand to win or lose and how much does it mean to you the more you are involved emotionally the Emotional Involvement – less inclined to give ground Urgency – if not you can stall Precedent – how are such conflicts usually dealt with, who won last time etc Culture – how does my culture handle this? Dispute in Individualist cultures Seen as necessary and creative Greek philosophy: conflict and discord necessary to keep universe going Greek reasoning: thesis > antithesis > synthesis In the US ‘creativity and adaptation are born of tension, passion and conflict. It makes us whole, it propels us along the journey of development’ (Pascal 1990:263) Separation of conflict from relationships Laurent’s research: tolerance of dispute ‘Most organizations would be better off if conflict could be eliminated forever’ Percentage of managers in agreement: Italians 41% Germans 27% French 24% Americans 6% 4% Swedish Dispute in collectivist cultures Relationships not separated from conflict Dispute seen as destabilising harmony and therefore unhealthy Hostile takeovers disliked in Japan ‘Modern economics is based on the assumption that it is human nature to compete. Buddhism, on the other hand, recognises that human beings are capable of both competition and cooperation„True cooperation arises from a desire for well-being with chanda ’ . ( Payutto 1994 in Mead 2005:147) Collectivist cultures avoid open dispute by tolerating latent dispute Subcultures may have differing 5>view of course Note issue of catholics and prots – catholics discriminated against so more likely to use trades unions and less trustworthy Trades Unions and Culture US and UK trades unions confrontational Japanese trade unions integral to firm and led from top So why have Japanese firms been successful in the UK? “The German labor unions are the most orderly and united; they do not like to strike (uncertainty avoidance), but they have achieved considerable codetermination (small power distance). The British unions are disorderly and resist codifying industrial relations rules (low uncertainty avoidance). The French unions are politically oriented, reasonably orderly (predictable strike behavior ) and in majority not very interested in formal codetermination.”( Hofstede 2001:376) Ironically, German trades unions were set up by the British Trades Union movement after the 2 nd World War – seen as an ideal system, but one which the British trades unions could never adopt themselves! Trompenaars TROMPENAARS (1994): 5 scales: Universalism versus Particularism Individualism versus Collectivism Neutral versus Affective relationships Specific versus Diffuse relationships versus Ascription Achievement Plus attitude to time and Inward/Outward directedness Here we focus on Inward/Outward directedness Inward/Outward Directedness Concerns the location of virtue “Inner direction conceives of virtue as inside each of us -- in our souls, wills, convictions, principles and core beliefs -- in the triumph of conscious purpose. Outer direction conceives of virtue as outside each of us in natural rhythms, the beauties and the power of nature, in aesthetic environments and relationships.” Hampden-Turner C. & Trompenaars F., Building Cross-Cultural Competence, Wiley, 2000, P. 234 “Two people from different cultures meet. There is an awkward pause, and the more inner-directed of the two starts to shout commands and/or wave weapons to control his anxiety. In contrast, the outer-directed person is more likely to adjust himself to external force, to temporise, to bend but not necessarily break [1] , and to study this new force for whatever potential opportunities it presents. Can he harness this force and use its momentum for his own purposes?” [1] The Chinese use bamboo to symbolise this cultural value. Alexander the Great versus Sun Zu? “It (The Art of War) is wise where Alexander was merely clever. The Chinese word for the strategy used by Sun Tzu is ji, for which no Western word exists. It can be translated as ‘Think through the whole situation’. Sun Tzu is famous for maxims that at first glance are virtually a negation of force itself, much as outer direction may appear to be the negation of inner direction: ‘Subdue the enemy without fighting’. For Tzu, you only fight when mental agility and cunning fail to win the day. ‘Wars must be brief’, he states„. Crucial to leadership is the harmony between leader and led, fighting ‘with one heart’„ The key is to create a situation that traps your opponent, to use natural terrain and natural elements against him ‘as one rolls logs and stones down from a mountain’. You should ‘lie in wait’ for your enemy---let him exhaust himself finding you, ambushing him when you are rested, provisioned and poised.” “It is obvious, surely, that for A to be inner-directed and supervising and managing B, B must be directed from outside himself by A. An inner-directed culture is therefore highly adversarial and argumentative, because each party is attempting to direct the other in accordance with his or her own values. This leads to what Deborah Tannen calls ‘the argument culture’ [1] „” (my emphasis) [1] Tannen D., The Argument Culture, Random House, 1998 Simplistic Use of Hofstede’s for Dispute collectivist cultures dislike direct confrontations, since harmony should prevail; individualist cultures tend to respect ‘speaking one’s mind’; large power-distance cultures assume that latent conflict across ranks is normal and that colleagues are reluctant to trust each other; small power-distance cultures value harmony between the powerful and the powerless and assume willingness to cooperate by colleagues high uncertainty - avoidance cultures dislike competition and the emotionality of conflict in organisations, showing little inclination for compromise; low uncertainty avoidance implies competition conflict and compromise unless inner-direction and masculinity pushes the person to demand his or her own way; masculine cultures resolve conflicts by fighting; feminine cultures resolve conflicts through a process of negotiation and consensus. Remember that there may be conflicting values which have to be resolved in any culture – eg UK comes out as highly masculine by is also understated and medium context in communications large power distances, large uncertainty avoidance [1] needs and collectivist interests would be one where a subordinate would avoid any action which might: - imply disagreement ; - imply his superior had failed to express himself clearly ; - cause his superior to lose face . In turn, the superior would be expected to understand and appreciate the difficulties faced by his (yes, almost always!) staff and attempt to accommodate their concerns; hence maintaining harmony [1] This is clearly Hofstede’s misclassification of Confucian cultures again. The conclusions are correct if we drop the large uncertainty avoidance assumption and substitute diffuseness. Culture and Resolution of Conflict Anglo cultures: confront and fight it out; only ‘wimps’ withdraw; survival of the fittest ‘Loser’ is an insult in American English Japanese and Chinese prefer compromise and consensus and contracts often refer detail to later negotiation. Confucian principles and collectivism influence this tendency Though there are differences in the way the do things, the overwhelming thing with Anglos is the ‘zero sum game’ winners and losers “ The American legal system is highly adversarial, with many lawyers admitting they play ‘the devil’s advocate’ and that ‘attack is the best defence’. The search is often not for justice but to uphold the rights of each to fight the other. The ‘sacred’ attorney-client bond is between fellow combatants. „ Where each adversary is entirely inner-directed, no hope of reconciliation can survive, no joint search for truth is possible. They preach past each other. Civility and dialogue are casualties” [1] [1] Hampden-Turner C. & Trompenaars F., Building Cross-Cultural Competence, Wiley, 2000, P.242 Mediation Wall, et al.2001 Mediation: A current review and theory development The Journal of Conflict Resolution; Jun 2001; 45, 3; pg. 370 Must be a person or organisation outside the dispute and trusted by both sides Ensures facts are clear and there are no failures of communication Asian cultures tend to prefer this way Offers the chance for both sides to avoid losing face Mediator does not impose solution but gets two sides to agree Intervention by superior See Problem of when to intervene In high power distance cultures, superior risks loss of face if unsuccessful Superior may: impose solution Counsel the two sides (mediation) Avoid taking part Separate the two sides Issues in Leadership Intervention in Disputes Ayoko & Hartel 2006 Your Experience Consider a dispute or conflict that took place in an organisation you have worked in At what point did disagreement become conflict? What was the attitude towards conflict in your organisation? How was the conflict handled in the organisation? How typical in your culture was the handling of this event Have you taken part in conflict resolution across cultures? How was it resolved? Universal Aspects of Negotiation (Hofstede 2001) Two or more parties with (partly) conflicting interests A common need for agreement because of expected gain from such an agreement An initially undefined outcome A means of communication between parties A control and decision-making structure on either side by which negotiators are linked to their superiors” Rules differ according to culture Hofstede 2001 The nature of the control and decision-making structure on either side; the number of people involved and the distribution of decision-making power among them Reasons for trusting or distrusting the behaviour of the other side (A certain amount of trust is an indispensable ingredient of successful negotiation.) Tolerance of ambiguity during the negotiation process Emotional needs of negotiators, such as ego enhancement or ego effacement” Hofstede’s Values and Negotiation “ Power distance affects the degree of centralization of control and decision-making structure and the importance of the status of the negotiators. Uncertainty avoidance affects the (in)tolerance of ambiguity and ( dis )trust in opponents who show unfamiliar behaviors and the need for structure and ritual in the negotiation procedures. Collectivism affects the need for stable relationships between (opposing) negotiators. In a collectivist culture replacement of a person means that a new relationship will have to be built, which takes time. Mediators (go-betweens) have an important role in maintaining a viable pattern of relationships that allows negotiators to discuss problem content. Hofstede’s Values and Negotiation 2 Masculinity affects the need for ego-boosting behavior and the sympathy for the strong on the part of negotiators and their superiors, and the tendency to resolve conflicts by a show of force. Feminine cultures are more likely to resolve conflicts through compromise and to strive for consensus. Long-term orientation affects the perseverance with which desired ends are pursued, even at the cost of sacrifices.” Deception in Negotiations Triandis et al (2001) distinguish between vertical and horizontal collectivist cultures and vertical and horizontal individualist cultures “The vertical cultures emphasise hierarchy; the horizontal cultures stress equality. The vertical collectivist (VC) cultures see some members of the ingroup as more important than most members of the ingroup . Thus, authorities must be obeyed without argument. Sacrifice of the individual for the ingroup is valued. This aspect of collectivism is stressed in South Asia. Horizontal collectivist (HC) cultures see most members of the ingroup as equal. This aspect of collectivism is stressed in the Israeli kibbutz. Vertical individualist (VI) cultures emphasise that the individual is different (superior, the best) from others. In US academic and business subcultures this aspect is important. In horizontal individualist (HI) cultures the individual is unique, but not superior. Australia and Sweden tend to emphasise this aspect of individualism.” (P. 75) Triandis (2001) ‘Business Negotiations: A Multilevel Analysis’, International Journal of Cross-Cultural Management, Vol.1, No. 1, 2001 Triandis’ Conclusions vertical collectivist samples were more likely to lie in a negotiation situation than horizontal individualist samples; in the samples where more lying was observed there were higher levels of guilt and shame than in the samples that did not show as much lying; idiocentrics (inner directed) were more likely to lie than allocentrics (outer directed) Triandis attributes this to greater competitiveness Yet Americans often tend to ‘lay all their cards on the table’ and don’t usually lie at this stage. They may lie about what concessions they can make however. Harvard Negotiation Project - 4 Principles Separate the people from the problem. Focus on interests, not positions. Invent options for mutual gain. Insist on using objective criteria (Hofstede 2001) But„ “Separating the people from the problem assumes an individualist value set. In collectivist cultures, where relationships prevail over tasks, this is an impossible demand. People are the first problem. Focusing on interests, not positions, assumes a not-too-large power distance. In high PDI cultures negotiation processes are often linked to power issues, which are often of primary importance; vital interests are sacrificed to the maintenance of power positions. Inventing options for mutual gain assumes a tolerance of new solutions---that is, not-too-large uncertainty avoidance . In high UAI cultures, where “what is different is dangerous”, some options are emotionally unthinkable for reasons that seem mysterious to the other party. Insisting on using shared objective criteria assumes that there is shared objectivity between the parties. Cultural values, „ , include attributions of rationality . What is objective for one party is subjective from a cross-cultural point of view”. This is a universalist inner-directed assumption; viz, everyone shares my values Relationship-focused or Deal-focused Gesteland R.R., Cross-Cultural Business Behavior, Handelsh?jskolens Forlag, Copenhagen Business School Press, 2nd ed., 1999 Most cultures are Relationship Focused Relationship is essential precursor to deal Latin America, Mediterranean, Arabic, most of Asia-Pacific People get things done through intricate networks of personal contacts. Feeling that legal system cannot be trusted to solve conflict RF people prefer to deal with family, friends and persons or groups well known to them—people who can be trusted. They are uncomfortable doing business with strangers, especially strangers who also happen to be foreigners Because of this key cultural value, relationship-orientated firms want to know their prospective business partners very well typically before talking business with them Contracts seen as ‘summary of latest stage of relationship’ “Through all social spheres Confucianism emphasizes the importance of filial submission, loyalty, conscience, harmony, consensus, reciprocity, trust, and sympathy (..). It urges individuals to adapt to the collectivity, control personal desires and emotions, restrain self-interest for the benefit of the group, avoid conflict, and maintain harmony („)” (P.9) “„ they are markets where people get things done through intricate networks of personal contacts. RF people prefer to deal with family, friends and persons or groups well known to them—people who can be trusted. They are uncomfortable doing business with strangers, especially strangers who also happen to be foreigners Because of this key cultural value, relationship-orientated firms typically want to know their prospective business partners very well before talking business with them. In contrast, the deal-focused approach is common in only a small part of the world. Strongly deal-focused cultures are found in northern Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand, where people are relatively open to doing business with strangers.” (P.19) Deal-Focused US, UK, northern Europe, Australia & New Zealand Contract or deal-oriented Not interested in people Believe legal procedure can sort out conflicts Contract seen as final and binding (especially in the US) Variables in Negotiating Process Basic conception of process Negotiator selection criteria Significance of types of issues Concern with protocol Complexity of communicative context Nature of persuasive arguments Role of individual’s aspirations Bases of trust Risk-taking propensity Value of time Decision-making system Form of satisfactory agreement (Deresky 2006 international Management, p.151) Stages of Negotiation non-task relationship creation ; task-related exchange of information ; persuasion; concession and agreement NB process is usually NOT linear and each stage can take varying amounts of time – from minutes to years! Linear Model of Negotiation Process (Graham 1986 in Doole & Lowe 2001:81) Non-Task Sounding Task-Related Exchange of Info Persuasion Concession and Agreement Of course, most negotiations are NOT linear! (Lewin & Johnston 1997) Differences in Buyer-Seller Relationships Negotiations in China Confucian focus on relationships Reluctance to take legal proceedingsPreference for negotiation, mediation or arbitration, legal proceedings as a last resort ‘Doctrine of the mean’ – no extreme behaviours Avoid confrontation and challenge Save everyone’s face See Tang J and Ward A.: The Changing Face of Chinese Management, Routledge , 206>03, P.183 and Shi Xinping , Antecedent factors in international business negotiations in the China context, Management International Review, 2nd Q., 2001 Negotiations in India Kumar sees Indian negotiating behaviour as combination of Brahmanical idealism and imported Western ‘anarchic individualism’ Brahmanical idealism focuses on the purity of the mental world, anarchical individualism lays emphasis on the primacy of attaining the ideal solution through absolutist forms of interpersonal behaviour. ‘the attainment of this [ Brahmanical ] ideal is problematic because under these conditions cooperative behaviour is a rarity. In this sense, anarchical individualism fragments rather than enhances total effort, thereby draining energy away from the system” (p.39) “Negotiating with Indians, therefore, requires an excessive supply of patience as they seek to arrive at the optimal outcome. It is not a process that can necessarily be hurried along, and especially so when Indian negotiators wish to minimise negative outcomes. An extensive preoccupation with detail and what many perceive to be an overcritical attitude are also reflective of the same idealistic mindset .” Kumar R.: Brahmanical Idealism, Anarchical Individualism, and the Dynamics of Indian Negotiating Behavior , International Journal of Cross-Cultural Management, Vol. 4, No. 1, 2004 Negotiations in Nigeria Katz L. (2007) Negotiating International Business, 2 nd ed., Booksurge Importance of managing Relationship Negotiations slow and protracted Relatively short-term viewpoint Polychronic not sequential Cooperative stance but only compromise to avoid stuck negotiations Not necessarily win-win Emotions shown easily but not anger Love or bargaining & haggling Bluffing and ‘good cop/bad cop’ Dispute Resolution in Korean and US Markets White & Lee 2004 Korea Confucianism Relationships Hierarchies Harmony and Collectivism Non-legalistic (distrust of law) Mediation Win-win Avoid confrontation and culpability US Christian right/wrong Contracts ‘Equality’ Competition and ambition Individualism Legalistic ‘Fair fight’ Win-lose Confront and blame Australian Expat in Korea Case 1) To what extent does Kylie have the qualities which Caligiuri and Cascio [1998] stated are necessary for a woman to bea successful expatriate manager? 2) To what extent has her company put in place the other elements which Caligiuri and Cascio say are necessary for female expatriate success? 3) How are the negotiating and conflict resolution styles of US and Korean managers different? 4) How can/should this conflict be resolved? What are the advantages and disadvantages of each method? Which do you recommend and why?