Presentation on theme: "Intercultural Conflict/ Negotiation Dr. Phyllis Ngai Department of Communication Studies The University of Montana-Missoula."— Presentation transcript:
Intercultural Conflict/ Negotiation Dr. Phyllis Ngai Department of Communication Studies The University of Montana-Missoula
Workshop Overview Focus: Intercultural interpersonal communication Cultural-general skills Foundation for on-going development 3-step competence-development approach : 1. Self-discovery 2. Cross-cultural comparison 3. Simulated application/Case study
Intercultural Context consider cultural influences 1.Encoding effectively? 2.Using culturally appropriate channels and forms? 3.Decoding correctly?
Cultural Dimensions: r ange of possibilities Direct Indirect “We” focused ”I” focused Status conscious Egalitarian Long-term Short-term
Direct vs. Indirect Explicit/verbal. Details verbalized. Linear. Deductive. Silence avoided. Reactions oblivious. Schedule specific. Feels threatened by ambiguous situations. Implicit/nonverbal. Details implied. Circular. Inductive. Silence meaningful. Reactions reserved Time open, flexible. Tolerate uncertainty, ambiguity. Me? My culture? My counterpart? My counterpart’s culture? Direct Indirect
Are there cultural meanings implied in nonverbal cues? Facial Expression Glaze & Eye Movement Gestures Space & Territory PosturesBody Movement TouchUse of Time Conversation Regulators ArtifactsPhysical appearance Vocalics
Case Study: What would you have done differently? Was Somebody Saying No? Direct-----U.S X-----Indirect Request for a Price Concession Direct-----U.S L-----Indirect
We focused vs. I focused Interdependent. Relationship paramount. Decision=what is good for the group. Try to blend in. Prefer avoidance. Desire or even demand consensus. Independent. Autonomy paramount Decision=what is good for the individual. Try to speak out. Prefer confrontation. Accept and encourage dissent among members. Conflict and competition are natural. Me? My culture? My counterpart? My counterpart’s culture? “WE” ”I”
Case Study: What would you have done differently? The Quiet Participant “We” focused----W US ”I” focused In the Matter of Mr. K “We” focused----K M/chair ”I” focused Attributes of collectivists vs. individualists: Implications for Negotiation (handout)
Status Conscious vs. Egalitarian Status, age, gender shape how one communicate. Extensive set of rules, regulations, & rituals. (more formal) Prefer a humble style esp. with superiors (self criticism). Authorities should not be (openly) challenged. Communicate in more or less the way with everyone. Try to minimize rules and rituals (more informal) Prefer assertiveness (self enhancement) One can disagree with superiors. More democratic decision making. Me? My culture? My counterpart? My counterpart’s culture? Status Egalitarian
Case Study What would you have done differently? Considering The Source Status conscious----Y S------Egalitarian The Sick Secretary Status conscious----K T------Egalitarian Indirect Direct “We” “I”
What is conflict? Ting-Toomey 2003 “I”, Egalitarian Cultures To air out differences and problems. Dysfunctional when repressed. Functional when provides opportunity for solving problems. Separated from relational issues. Dealt with openly and directly. Can be win-win problem- solving game. “We”, Status-conscious As damaging to social face and relational harmony. Should be avoided. Dysfunctional for the most part. Signals a lack of self- discipline and self- censorship of emotional outbursts. Relational face issues and conflict intertwined. Dealt with subtly. Win-win face game.
How to deal with conflicts/disagreements? “I”, Egalitarian, => Direct Direct request. Direct verbal justifications. Upfront clarifications to defend one’s action or decision. Silence as admission of guilt or incompetence. “We,” Status conscious, => Indirect Use qualifier (Perhaps we should…). Tag questions (Don’t you think…). Disclaimers (I’m probably wrong but..). Tangential responses (Let’s not worry about that now.). Indirect request (If it won’t be too much trouble,…). Pick up the hidden message and respond indirectly or equivocally. Verbal messages believed to compound the problem. Silence as self-discipline.
Case Study What is going on? Business or Pleasure? Long-term H T------Short-term
Long-Term vs. Short-Term Take time to building relationships. Important to maintain the “face” of self and others. Reciprocity a key element in building relationships. Expectation of quick results following one’s actions. Confrontational and aggressive in social relationships. Commitment to long- term relationships is lower. Me? My culture? My counterpart? My counterpart’s culture? Long Term Short Term
Case Study What would you have done differently? The Tea Party Long-term -----K US-----Short-term
When working in… Indirect, “We,” Status-conscious, Long-term Cultures Build trust slowly by saving face and focusing on relationship. Be proactive in dealing with disagreements (informal consultation and “go-between” method)=help opponents save face. Focus on nonverbal “how” process. Manage disagreements on the implicit, nonverbal pacing level (i.e.use silence, deliberate pauses, attentive listening, and patient conversational turn- taking.) Be sensitive to the importance of quiet, mindful observation. Restrain from asking too many “why” questions. Let go of a disagreement if the other does not want to deal with it directly. Let the relationship heal first. (a cooling period).
When working in… Direct, “I,” Egalitarian, Short-term Cultures Focus on resolving the substantive issues; openly express points of view. Open negotiation with upfront thesis statement. Be to the point. Be ready to accept disagreements, counter-proposals, etc. Verbally explain a situation fully and learn not to expect others to infer their points of view. Use verbal paraphrases, summaries, interpretative statements to verify the reasoning. Use direct, integrative verbal messages that clearly convey concerns. Avoid silent moments (perceived as weak). Learn to work out disagreements collaboratively.