Tag: harmony

Tactical Negotiation Across Cultures: Learning Cultural Context

Posted on by Leave a comment

Negotiating across cultures requires more than just mastering negotiation tactics; it demands a deeper understanding of cultural norms, practices, and values. 

This is why you should seek to understand differences in basics, like small talk, which we’ve discussed over the past few weeks.

And you should also familiarize yourself with negotiation practices and customs in specific cultural contexts.

In this post, we’ll shed light on key considerations for successful negotiations in East Asian, Middle Eastern, and Latin American cultures.

East Asian Cultures: Harmony and Hierarchy

In East Asian cultures like Japan, China, and South Korea, negotiation is deeply influenced by values of harmony, respect for authority, and long-term relationship building. 

Negotiators prioritize maintaining harmony and preserving face, often preferring indirect communication and subtle cues to convey messages.

Key Considerations:

  • Emphasize building trust and rapport before diving into negotiations.
  • Be mindful of hierarchical structures and deference to authority figures.
  • Avoid confrontational or aggressive negotiation tactics, as they may damage relationships.

Middle Eastern Cultures: Relationship-Building and Hospitality

In Middle Eastern cultures such as those found in Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Egypt, negotiation is characterized by an emphasis on personal relationships, hospitality, and honor.

Negotiators value trust and loyalty, and negotiations may involve lengthy discussions and socializing before reaching agreements.

Key Considerations:

  • Invest time in relationship-building and demonstrating respect for cultural customs.
  • Be prepared for indirect communication and the use of intermediaries in negotiations.
  • Show patience and flexibility, as negotiations may progress slowly due to the emphasis on building trust.

Latin American Cultures: Warmth and Flexibility

In Latin American cultures like those in Mexico, Brazil, and Argentina, negotiation is marked by warmth, flexibility, and a focus on interpersonal relationships.

Negotiators value personal connections and may prioritize socializing and building rapport before engaging in formal negotiations.

Key Considerations:

  • Demonstrate warmth, friendliness, and openness in interactions with counterparts.
  • Be prepared for negotiations to be fluid and dynamic, with a focus on finding win-win solutions.
  • Respect cultural traditions and customs, such as taking time for small talk and building trust gradually.

Embrace Cultural Diversity

Navigating negotiations in diverse cultural contexts requires sensitivity, adaptability, and a willingness to understand and respect cultural differences. 

By recognizing the unique negotiation practices and customs of East Asian, Middle Eastern, and Latin American cultures, negotiators can build trust, foster collaboration, and achieve successful outcomes in a globalized world. 

High Context vs. Low Context: Navigating Cultural Communication

Posted on by Leave a comment

Communication is not just about the words we say; it’s about the nuance. 

The concepts of high context and low context communication play a crucial role in understanding how different cultures convey meaning and messages. 

These contrasting communication styles can sometimes result in conflict across cultures, so let’s dissect their cultural implications.

High Context Communication

High context communication refers to cultures where much of the meaning is conveyed through nonverbal cues, implicit messages, and contextual factors. 

In high context cultures – like Japan, China, Korea, and many Middle Eastern and Latin American countries – relationships are paramount, and communication is often indirect and nuanced.

In these cultures, individuals rely on shared cultural knowledge, social hierarchies, and implicit understandings to interpret communication accurately. 

For instance, a simple gesture, facial expression, or silence can convey volumes of meaning that may be missed by those unfamiliar with the cultural context.

Low Context Communication

Conversely, low context communication involves conveying meaning primarily through explicit verbal messages. 

In low context cultures, such as those found in the United States, Canada, Germany, and Scandinavia, communication tends to be direct, explicit, and to the point. 

Individuals prioritize clarity, transparency, and precision in their communication style.

Rather than relying heavily on nonverbal cues or contextual factors, much of the information is contained in the words themselves. 

As a result, misunderstandings are less common, but there may be less emphasis on building relationships or preserving harmony through communication.

Cultural Implications

The differences between high context and low context communication have significant implications for intercultural interactions and relationships. 

For example, in high context cultures like Japan, a simple “yes” may not always mean agreement; it could indicate politeness or acknowledgment without necessarily committing to a course of action.

Similarly, in low context cultures like the United States, individuals may perceive indirect communication as vague or ambiguous, leading to frustration or misinterpretation. 

For instance, in negotiations, a straightforward approach may be expected, whereas in high context cultures, a more subtle negotiation style may be preferred.

Meet in the Middle

As with most cross-cultural relationships, approaching these differences with understanding is paramount.

Understanding the nuances of high context and low context communication is essential for effective cross-cultural communication and collaboration. 

By recognizing and respecting cultural differences in communication styles, individuals can navigate intercultural interactions with sensitivity and empathy, fostering mutual understanding and building stronger relationships across cultural divides. 

As the world becomes increasingly interconnected, the ability to bridge cultural gaps through effective communication becomes ever more vital for success in our globalized society.

Self-Assertive Interdependence: The Paradox of Arab Culture

Posted on by Leave a comment

How does one become self-assertive in an interdependent culture?

It might seem like a paradox.

After all, interdependent cultures generally prioritize harmony over self.

Being bold or self-assertive might be seen as “rocking the boat.”

But Arab culture is the exception that proves the rule.

Although it’s a treasure trove of rich heritage, Arab culture is often overlooked in the realms of cultural psychology. 

This study explores a unique interdependence, infused with a self-assertiveness that sets Arabs apart.

How Landscape Shapes Culture

Picture a world shaped by harsh ecological and climatic environments, where survival hinges upon the protection and unity of tribal groups. 

Within the tapestry of Arabian cultures, a code of honor emerges, demanding respect and trustworthiness as integral traits of every individual. 

As this study’s hypothesis takes shape, the pieces align.

East Meets West

Study 1 reveals the captivating psychological profile of Arabs, bridging the gap between East and West. 

Like their Eastern counterparts, Arabs showcase interdependence and holism, embracing the profound connections that bind us. 

But, in a fascinating twist, they combine this interdependence with a self-assertiveness akin to Western cultures. 

These cultural intricacies defy simplistic categorizations.

Motives Behind Self-Assertiveness

Study 2 and Study 3 paint an even more vivid picture, illuminating the underlying motivations that drive self-assertiveness in Arabs and Westerners. 

For Arabs, their self-assertiveness serves the greater cause of interdependence, amplifying their sense of unity and communal strength. 

On the other hand, Westerners channel their self-assertiveness towards independence, valuing individual autonomy as a cornerstone of their cultural fabric.

Nuance is Everything

The authors’ work marks a significant milestone in the ever-evolving landscape of cultural psychology.

Beyond the conventional East versus West, interdependence versus independence paradigm, it uncovers the nuanced complexities of Arab culture. 

The study contributes to a deeper understanding of human diversity and the interplay between socioecological environments and cultural identities.

How Does Personal Control & Relationship Strain Affect Well-Being in Independent/Interdependent Cultures

Posted on by Leave a comment

Do you feel personal control contributes most to your health and well-being?

How does relational strain come into play?

To investigate the relationship between culture and well-being, a cross-cultural survey was conducted, focusing on two hypotheses and the two very different cultures of Japan and America. 

The Hypotheses

The first hypothesis suggests that individuals are influenced by the predominant cultural norms of either independence (emphasizing personal control) in the United States or interdependence (emphasizing relational harmony) in Japan.

The second hypothesis proposes that individuals attain well-being and health by aligning with the cultural mandates of their respective societies. 

Ethnocentricity & Previous Studies

Previous studies, predominantly conducted in North America, have consistently found that personal control and mastery are strong predictors of well-being and health (Lachman and Weaver, 1998; Schneiderman et al., 2001). 

However, this may be a somewhat ethnocentric view.

The present research, utilizing diverse age groups from both the United States and Japan, reveals that the impact of these factors is contingent on cultural context. 

While biological factors certainly play a role in health, this survey highlights the significant influence of culture-specific psychological variables, such as personal control and relational harmony or strain, on various health outcomes.

The Results

Consistent with the first hypothesis, it was found that Americans who felt their personal control was compromised and Japanese individuals experiencing strained relationships reported higher levels of perceived constraint.

As expected, the study revealed that the strongest predictor of well-being and health in the United States was personal control, whereas in Japan, the absence of relational strain played a significant role.

The data revealed relatively small but statistically significant effects of relational harmony or relational strain on wellbeing and health among Americans. 

The overall results highlight the existence of culturally distinct pathways to achieving positive life outcomes.

In the United States, personal control emerges as a crucial factor, whereas in Japan, the absence of relational strain is key. 

These findings underscore the influence of cultural values on individual well-being and emphasize the importance of understanding cultural nuances when studying and promoting positive life outcomes.

Values & Communication: How Cultural Perspective Colors Our Speech

Posted on by 1 Comment

You’re flying to London, and you’re sitting by someone from another culture on the plane.

You decide to try and strike up a conversation.

You start chitchatting, sharing about your visit to London, asking about their final destination, wondering what their plans are…but they seem reluctant to speak.

They avoid eye contact and offer only short answers. After a while, you catch a clue and give them the solace of silence.

You walk away from the attempt at small talk with the impression that they’re shy.

While you may be right that they’re more introverted, their communication style may also simply be part of their culture.

In this study in the International Education Journal, titled “Why do they not talk?”, unique habits of communication were found in individualist and collectivist cultures.

The study evaluated the communication tactics of Australian and Chinese students to discover the distinct cultural differences that set each apart.

The Australians

The Australian students demonstrated a more independent self, emphasizing individuality in their communication. 

They expressed themselves openly and asserted their unique inner qualities in interactions with friends, parents, and in class. 

Their behavior was guided by their individual personalities rather than predefined roles. 

They appeared nonchalant about others’ opinions, focusing on being their own person while still desiring their parents’ pride.

The Chinese

In contrast, the Chinese students displayed a high degree of self-monitoring. 

They exhibited an interdependent self, prioritizing group harmony and considering others’ perceptions.

They were sensitive to others’ feelings and often hesitated to voice their opinions, particularly in class or group settings, for fear of imposing on others. 

Some researchers suggested that their attentiveness to others’ expectations might compromise their verbal fluency and creative expression. 

Additionally, the Chinese students tended to downplay their abilities and engage in self-effacement, adhering to societal expectations and valuing humility.

The Chinese students also demonstrated a strong inclination toward affiliating with groups that shared their language and cultural background. 

This sense of security and belonging contributed to their intense focus on working collectively and cooperatively as a group. 

It’s important to note that interdependence does not negate individual judgment, opinions, or abilities.

Instead, it highlights the adaptive nature of Chinese students who navigate interpersonal situations by balancing their self-awareness and agency.

As one student put it,

“As long as I know I am good, enough already. We were not brought up to brag about ourselves.”

Individualism vs. Collectivism

To sum up, the Australian students emphasized their individuality and personal expression in communication, while the Chinese students prioritized group harmony and were attuned to others’ perceptions. 

This is common in individualist versus collectivist cultures.

These cultural differences shape communication styles and strategies, highlighting the diverse ways in which individuals navigate social interactions.

Assertive vs. Avoidance Tactics: How Does Culture Determine Approach to Conflict Resolution?

Posted on by Leave a comment

How do you approach conflict resolution?

Are you tactically assertive or avoidant?

And is your approach determined by personality or culture?

Over the coming weeks, I’ll discuss scientific studies dealing with the six cultural constructs, the first of which is individualism versus collectivism.

This paper by cognitive and cross-cultural psychologist, C. Dominik Guess, takes a look at conflict resolution in individualist and collectivist cultures.

Japan Collectivism vs. US Individualism

One of the studies in Guess’ paper explores how cultural background shapes the way conflict is handled – specifically, American individualism versus Japanese collectivism.

A group of researchers, led by Ohbuchi, Fukushima, and Tedeschi, gathered American and Japanese students and unleashed the power of conflict recall. 

They asked participants to dig deep into their memories and recall a conflict they had experienced.

These participants were then asked to share their conflict experience – what they did, what they wanted to achieve, etc. 

Using rating scales, they were asked to measure various aspects of the conflict, like goals and tactics. 

In the battlefield of conflict, four major tactics emerged, each with its own arsenal of sub-tactics: conciliation, assertion, third-party intervention, and avoidance.

The Four Tactics

Let’s better understand the four tactics identified.

Conciliation – this tactic involves finding common ground. It’s a way to indirectly communicate expectations and build bridges. 

Assertion – this tactic is a bold and assertive move, where you fiercely demand what you want.

Third-party intervention – this tactic involves calling in reinforcements in the form of seeking help or advice from an outsider. 

Avoidance – this tactic is the ultimate passivity, dodging confrontation like a pro.

Considering these differing approaches to conflict resolution, you can imagine the cultural clash that may result.

The Results: Assertive vs. Avoidant

As you may have guessed, the American students, with their individualistic spirit, generally used assertive tactics in their conflicts. 

On the flip side, the Japanese students, being the collectivist champions they are, took a more subtle approach overall. 

They opted for avoidance tactics, sidestepping confrontation and prioritizing harmony in their relationships.

This may be because each group’s main goal in these conflicts also differed.

The Japanese participants prioritized their relationships, while the American participants’ goal was more often geared toward achieving a sense of justice.

While the results confirm what most would have hypothesized, considering what we already know about individualist and collectivist cultures, the research could be adapted so that the type of conflict being discussed is more uniform. 

An individual’s approach (the tactics and goals) may vary based on the conflict.

As the students were allowed to choose whichever conflict they wanted to assess, their responses may have differed based upon the type they chose.

Regardless, this study may tell us something key about how individualists and collectivists approach conflict: individualists with justice in mind, and collectivists with harmony.

Holistic vs. Analytic Thinking in Culture

Posted on by Leave a comment

How would you describe your living room?

Would you say it’s a space to commune with your family and entertain your friends? Would you describe it as a welcoming area to offer your guests food and drink?

Or would you list its working parts? Would you explain that it has two sofas, a coffee table, an entertainment center, and a 65″ flat-screen TV?

If you’d describe your living room the former way, you’re thinking holistically; if you’d describe it the latter way, you’re thinking analytically. 

Last week, we discussed how cross-cultural research might take a more positive approach to cultural differences.

In seeking out the positive, researchers took a look at Hyun-Jung Lee’s interview with renowned cognitive social psychologist, Richard Nisbett, who authored The Geography of Thought.

In the paper, Nisbett analyzes these two dominant cultural thinking styles – holistic and analytic thinking – and outlines some pros and cons of each.

Before we get to his analysis, let’s take a closer look at these two thinking styles.

Holistic Thinking

The holistic thinking style is characteristic of East Asian cultures.

This thinking style perceives everything as interconnected.

It sees the whole, and specifically the relationships between objects.

The style of thinking relates to the broader philosophy of East Asian cultures with their focus on balance, harmony, and cyclical change.

Holistic thinking also blends with the values of these cultures, which are collectivist in nature.

The understanding of the world as an interconnected whole has its benefits, as we will discuss shortly.

Analytic Thinking

As you may have guessed, the analytic thinking style is characteristic of Western cultures.

Analytic thinking identifies separate objects and categorizes them according to their attributes.

This style of thinking relates to the broader philosophy of Western cultures with their focus on individualism and personal motivations. 

Analytic thinking corresponds to the values of Western cultures, which are individualist in nature.

The understanding of the world’s moving pieces in isolation is valuable as well, as Nisbett will explain.

Nisbett’s Analysis

In Hyun-Jung Lee’s interview, Nisbett examines each thinking style.

He notes that holistic thinking allows one to notice a great depth of the physical world and context, enabling one to accept contradictions.

Whereas analytic thinking is more black-and-white, holistic thinking allows shades of grey.

Due to the lack of universalistic rules in this style of thinking, however, Nisbett concludes that one is more vulnerable to potential abuse.

As for analytic thinking, it is scientific.

This logical type of thinking has given the world all of the advantages of modern science and technology, taking us leaps and bounds.

However, its “hyper”-logicizing can give way to disconnecting from the phenomenon itself. 

Rather than suggesting that one thinking style is better than the other, Nisbett concludes that the best thinking lies in between these two ways of thought.

It’s the attempt to understand the different cognitive and intellectual styles that can help us improve our own method of reasoning.

When East Meets West: Understanding the Rationale Behind Indian Norms in the Workplace

Posted on by Leave a comment

You’re a Westerner working in a cross-cultural environment in India.

As a Westerner, you prefer communication that’s direct and clear.

You see ambiguity as a stumbling block in business, so you ask direct questions and expect direct answers in return.

Your Indian colleagues, on the other hand, demonstrate some indirect behaviors that you don’t understand.

The rationale behind this style of communication is a mystery to you, and the need for managerial approval in many cases rubs you the wrong way. You see it as unnecessary micromanagement.

This is a situation in which understanding the rationale behind your colleagues’ culture will forge a better business relationship.

Harmony & Many Truths

Mr. Waseem Hussain cleared up this mysterious rationale for me.

As a bicultural professional who has grown up in Switzerland with Indian parents, he knew both sides of the coin and could bridge that cross-cultural barrier between Indian and European mentalities.

In other words, he was the best zookeeper to explain the behavior of other animals in the zoo to me, the monkey.

When I posed a question about why I couldn’t receive a clear answer to a clear issue from Indian colleagues, he replied that, in some ways, it has to do with Hinduism.

As the majority of Indians believe in many gods, the cultural rationale would be that there are many truths.

Another explanation for the rationale has to do with the cultural concept of harmony.

Say, you ask an Indian colleague to meet a 5 o’clock deadline.

Whether or not it’s possible to complete the work by that point, the colleague will tell you, “Yes, no problem.”

In reality, he may have no intention of completing the work by this deadline, but by offering the positive “yes,” he is in harmony with his Western counterpart.

A “no” means disharmony and discomfort on his part.

Universal Truth & Accountability

From the Westerner’s point of view, this behavior appears as blatant dishonesty.

You expect your colleague to abide by his word, as accountability and time sensitivity are important to your culture.

Most Western cultures are largely shaped by Christianity – that is, the belief in one god. As such, the culture’s norms and values revolve around a single universal truth.

This is one obstacle for Westerners in cross-cultural business environments: universal truths do not exist there.

You must have a higher ambiguity tolerance and be willing to accept and even adapt to foreign norms and beliefs.

Your cultural rationale is not everyone’s rationale.

Reasoning and logic are shaped by culture and evolve accordingly with the history and tradition of the people.

Unless a person is counter-culture, he will likely follow the values, norms, and beliefs of his culture’s rationale.

No assumptions should be made about a culture’s behavior being silly or illogical. Refrain from judging something you don’t understand.

As an effective manager, it is your job to find the rationale behind the behavior and accept and adapt accordingly.

In this case, adopting, for a moment, the Indian culture’s worldview – its belief in many truths and emphasis on harmony – will enable you to see the reasoning behind your colleagues’ behaviors. 

Conformity in Culture: The Colored Pens Study

Posted on by Leave a comment

Say, you’re given a bin of pens.

Most of them are black and a few are blue. Your favorite color to write with is blue.

Which pen would you choose?

This study was conducted by Japanese researcher Toshio Yamagishi and his research team with participants from Japan and the US.

The study involved a default scenario, an initial scenario, a final scenario, and a purchase scenario.

  • Default scenario – participants simply told to choose a pen
  • Initial scenario – participants told they were the first person to choose a pen
  • Final scenario – participants told they were the last person to choose a pen
  • Purchase scenario – participants told they were buying a pen

Considering previous research on the differences between individualist and collectivist cultures, one might think the Japanese would always choose the majority color, due to their preference for conformity, while the American would always choose the minority color, due to their preference to stand out.

The results, however, were a bit more complex.

Preference for Uniqueness

Although the Japanese did choose the majority color and the Americans the minority color in the default scenario, the results between the two cultures were similar in the other three scenarios: the Americans and the Japanese were just as likely to choose either the majority or minority color.

These last three results indicate that both cultures prefer uniqueness in equal measure.

The results also show that each culture, in being the first to choose, is cognizant of other peoples’ desire for uniqueness and, therefore, may be reluctant to offend those who have yet to choose their colored pen.

But when the social situation becomes ambiguous, as in the default scenario, why do the Japanese assume the majority pen, when the results show that they prefer the unique pen just as much as their American counterparts?

This is where the preference for harmony comes in.

Do Not Offend

The default scenario reveals that the Japanese don’t necessarily prefer to conform; after all, they were just as likely to choose unique over conformity in the other three scenarios.

Rather, the Japanese prefer harmony over disharmony.

Yamagishi and his team concluded that the disparity was in the ambiguity: the desire not to offend is stronger in the Japanese than in the Americans, particularly in ambiguous social situations.

And why not offend?

One theory posed by Yamagishi is centered around interpersonal relationships.

Japan is a “closed society” regarding groups and relationships. By this, we mean that it’s considerably more closed to outsiders; if you’re not part of the in-group, you’re not welcome. In this way, it’s harder to replace lost relationships when you’ve offended someone.

The US, on the other hand, is an “open society.” It’s much easier to replace a lost relationship if one has caused offense.

This is why the Japanese avoid offending in ambiguous situations, which may come at the cost of their preferences on occasion. Group loyalty over self-loyalty, as we talked about last week.

The ambiguity of whether your choice of a unique pen may or may not offend someone is balanced against the cost of social rejection.

The result is this strategic and nuanced adaptation under differing scenarios.

How does this apply to the type of management style a culture prefers?

We’ll talk more about that next week.

What Makes a ‘Face’: Losing Face, East vs. West

Posted on by Leave a comment

When you hear the term “losing face,” more often than not, you associate it with Eastern cultures. But people of every culture have “face” that they can either lose or save.

Basically, “face” is pride, esteem, and reputation, which is interpreted and determined in different ways, depending on the culture in which you live. Face is, in short, the idea that you must behave or achieve in a certain manner to preserve your image. What makes up your “face” and how to “save” it depends on what your culture values.

Face: East

Tradition is greatly emphasized in Eastern cultures, and face can be had by birth (i.e. if you were born into a family of status or wealth).

Last week, we talked about how collectivist societies tend to value group harmony over individualism. Personal ambition or success is much less important than improving the whole.

This prevents individualist characteristics from being fostered from youth. For instance, I’ve been told by Chinese students that they receive lower marks or fails on essays or exams if they contradict the teacher’s opinion or the culturally accepted sentiment on any given topic, no matter how well argued. For this reason and for similar standards set during primary socialization, you find fewer who will “rock the boat,” so to speak, in collectivist countries than you might in their capitalist counterparts.

Individualism is considered much more radical in places like China. It is not embraced, and those who are unconventional and break the mold are thought to be aggressive. Due to the fact that harmony is of the utmost importance to collectivist cultures, anyone considered disharmonious would lose face under this set of cultural values.

Face: West

Western cultural values lie in individualism and independence. They’re also geared toward innovation and so embrace change more readily over tradition.

And in the West, you must earn your face. It isn’t given to you. Even if you’re born into a wealthy family or a family of status, more often than not, you must prove yourself to establish a face.

To make your face, you must make yourself. And to do so in an individualist culture, you must stand out from the crowd. You can do this through professional/personal success or achievement, status, wealth, etc. And once you obtain a certain level of recognition, whether in your town or nationwide, whether in your company or your industry, you must reassert your voice regularly to maintain face.

What can make a Western person of stature lose face?

Disgrace can. Disgrace paramount to much of what is going on in America right now, with sexual assault and harassment scandals knocking down titans of entertainment, politics, and industry. This is just one of the things that can make a Westerner lose face.

Can Face Be Restored?

Face can be restored only through drastic measures in collectivist cultures. In the East, once one’s reputation has been damaged, it’s nearly impossible to recover. As put by sociologist Marcel Mauss, in such cultures, “to lose one’s face is to lose one’s spirit.” It’s better to avoid such face-destroying conflict, altogether.

In Western cultures, if face is lost, it can be more readily restored. In fact, many cheer comebacks, and the restoration of a good reputation might even be considered inspirational by some.

Whether face is restored or not, the loss of it cuts deep in any culture.

Next week, we’ll continue contrasting Eastern and the Western values by discussing the differences in social power structures and business culture. Stay tuned.