US – Success Across Cultures

Building Bonds Across Borders: The Crucial Role of Trust in Cross-Cultural Negotiations

22. March 2024by J. WittwerLeave a comment

Who do you trust? And why?

The answer may be partially rooted in your culture.

Through two eye-opening experiments in a study on cross-cultural differences in trust, researchers examined how people from different cultures build trust with strangers.

They focused on Americans and Japanese, expecting their trust-building methods to differ.

And they were right.

American vs. Japanese Trust

For Americans, trust was thought to come from shared group memberships, while for Japanese, it was about having direct or indirect connections with others.

The results confirmed these ideas.

In both experiments – one involving questions and the other a money-sharing game – Americans trusted people from their in-group more.

But for the Japanese, something interesting happened: when there was a chance of having an indirect connection with someone outside their group, their trust increased even more than for Americans.

These findings show how cultural backgrounds shape the way we trust others.

For Americans, it’s about being part of the same group, while for Japanese, it’s more about having connections, even if they’re not direct.

Understanding these differences is crucial for better communication and relationships across cultures.

And for negotiations.

Understanding the Significance of Trust

In cross-cultural negotiations, trust goes beyond mere reliance on promises or assurances; it reflects a deep-seated belief in the integrity, credibility, and goodwill of one’s counterparts.

Trust fosters open communication, facilitates collaboration, and enhances the likelihood of reaching mutually satisfactory outcomes.

Without trust, negotiations may stall, misunderstandings may arise, and relationships may falter.

Strategies for Building Trust Across Cultural Divides

Think about what you learned in the earlier study.

Before negotiations commence, you might consider researching how the culture views trust and attempting to adapt to that view.

For instance, let’s say you’re a businessperson from the United States negotiating a deal with a company based in Japan.

In American culture, trust might be primarily based on shared goals or business interests.

However, in Japanese culture, trust is often built through personal connections and relationships.

To adapt to the Japanese cultural sense of trust, you might prioritize building rapport and establishing personal connections before diving into business discussions.

This could involve taking the time to engage in small talk, showing genuine interest in your Japanese counterparts’ backgrounds and interests, and demonstrating respect for their cultural norms and customs.

By understanding and adapting to the Japanese view of trust, you can lay the foundation for a more productive and harmonious negotiation process, ultimately increasing the likelihood of reaching a mutually beneficial agreement.

We’ll discuss more strategies for building trust next week.

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

19. May 2023by J. WittwerLeave 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.

Individualism & Social Capital: Does Autonomy Actually Require Dependence?

1. April 2023by J. WittwerLeave a comment

Have you ever thought about how your independence and individuality can make you more dependent on society?

Social scientists have been pondering this fascinating oxymoron for quite some time.

But as we’ve discussed in previous posts, individualistic societies often depend more on social capital, and here’s yet another study to explain why.

When discussing the cause and effect, research by Juri Allik and Anu Realo at the University of Tartu concluded,

“Individualistic values appear to be conducive to social capital and social capital appears to be conducive to individualism (see also Inkeles, 2000).”

But why?

The study, which is a reanalysis of previously published data, delves deeper to find out.

Individualistic States Have High Levels of Social Capital

On one hand, some experts believe that as modernization takes hold, individualism will run rampant, putting the unity of society at risk.

However, others argue that autonomy and independence are necessary for developing cooperation and social solidarity.

Data on individualism and collectivism were reanalyzed in the United States and across 42 countries.

The study found that states in the US with high levels of social capital were also more individualistic.

This capital comes with a higher degree of civic engagement, political activity, and interpersonal trust.

Moreover, these states have a strong system of social networks based on voluntary cooperation and mutual trust, and people in these states prefer to live alone, be self-employed, and vote for the Libertarian political program.

This association held true across many different countries as well.

Except China.

China is an Outlier

China‘s interpersonal dynamics often puzzle outsiders as it defies the stereotype of a collectivist culture.

While China scores low on individualism, it ranks high on trust between individuals, even those outside of the in-group.

This is surprising given the country’s strong emphasis on family and kinship ties.

Scholars attribute this unusual phenomenon to the limitations of simplistic measurement tools and suggest a more nuanced understanding of the Chinese social fabric.

Despite the need for further exploration, China remains an exceptional case that challenges our preconceptions about how culture shapes interpersonal relationships.

Autonomy = Dependence

Although China broke the mold, these results lend support to the theory of Emile Durkheim, who believed that as individuals become more autonomous, they actually become more dependent on society.

So the question remains: how can we balance being our own unique selves while still staying connected to the larger community?

Is It Worth the Risk?: Different Cultural Takes on Risk Perception

16. December 2022by J. WittwerLeave a comment

Are some cultures greater risk-takers than others?

This study dove in to find out.

Analyzing the data of respondents from Germany, Poland, the US, and China, the study measured respondents’ risk preference for pricing financial options.

These are their findings.

Hypothesis

Studies have shown a correlation between a culture’s position on the individualism-collectivism scale and its risk preference.

Called the Cushion Hypothesis (Weber & Hsee, 1998), the theory suggests that those from collectivist cultures are more likely to take financial risks.

Why?

Due to the perceived support from their collectivist culture and, thus, the reduced negative consequences such a risk might have on the individual.

While this study did arrive at the same conclusion – that the collectivist society of China was less risk-averse than its American counterpart – it did identify a more specific reason for it.

Risk-Averse

The majority of respondents in all four cultures were identified as risk-averse (i.e. they were willing to pay more for options they saw as “less risky”).

When you look at a risk-return conceptualization, it is natural that most people, no matter what culture, would perceive risk this way.

When risk preference was evaluated in the traditional expected-utility framework, Chinese respondents were considerably less risk-averse in pricing than Americans.

But what this study found was that the difference in risk preference may not be due to a cultural attitude toward perceived risk; instead, it appears largely due to the perception of the financial options’ risk itself.

Chinese participants simply did not find the options as risky as their counterparts.

Conclusion

The study states:

“Chinese respondents were closest to risk neutrality in their pricing of the financial options and judged the risk of these options to be the lowest, but were not significantly less perceived-risk averse.

“American and Germans offered the lowest prices and also perceived the risk of the options to be highest, but were not significantly more perceived-risk averse.”

One might practically apply this knowledge to commerce and negotiation when working across these particular cultures, affording both negotiators joint gains.

The study concludes that while cultures do vary on a collectivism-individualism continuum which undoubtedly impacts perceived risk, other cultural factors in risky decision-making – locus of control, differences in achievement motivation, etc. – may also come into play in risk preference.

Further studies into the subject might provide more insight.