International Negotiation Alpaslan Korkmaz KOÇ UNIVERSITY - ISTANBUL MIM 2013 1
Module IV Making decisions and Managing conflict in multicultural teams 2
1. Multicultural teams Today it is more than a reality: The 60% of the Turkish exports are to EU (more than 135 bio USD total exports in 2011) EU (28 countries united their destiny), Turkey is linked to it, etc. In one word: Globalization… Post-Globalization even… 3
1. Multicultural teams II Tasks become more and more complex => a multitude of competences and specializations is essential. It becomes impossible that a single person accomplishes a task completely 4
1. 2. 3 challenges for multicultural teams 1. To negotiate an agreement within the framework of increasingly complex tasks (task conflict) 2. To solve conflicts on the way of concluding the respective tasks (procedural conflict) 3. To manage the arguments relating to the tasks and the procedures which often lead to interpersonal conflicts (inter-personal conflict) 5
Conflict in a team. . . Not necessarily counter-productive! It can generate efficient and original solutions. Provided that conflicts are managed and framed. . . 6
How to frame a conflict in a team Create systems that avoid the conflicts relating to the tasks and procedures (systems of information share, pre-established integration of information, etc) Create systems that avoid “unfounded conflicts” (clear procedures, build confidence, etc) Set up the structures that solve the conflicts and arguments when they appear 7
2. 1. Conflict concerning goals and allocated ressources (task conflict) Appear in a multicultural context When the goal is not clearly defined by the management Each person having a different reference framework, he tends to take it as THE Truth. Ex: Data system to be set up between US, Switzerland EU. Goal: quality control system. Which quality, which standards, etc… 8
2. 2. Conflict concerning means (procedural conflict) Appear in a multicultural context When each person has a different approach/idea to adopt Ex. US think that “French must analyze all data and outcomes before deciding” French think that “the Americans act suddenly, without thinking, easy to be mistaken” 9
2. 3. Interpersonal conflict Appear, according to the psychological theories: When an attack towards the social identity takes place Social identity: “perception that one has of his own image or reputation within a group” Every member of a group is easily subject to an attack towards his social identity Ex. “To lose face” 10
2. 3. Interpersonal conflicts Every attack to the social identity is taken in a personal way ÞWithdrawal from the team or even waiting for the moment of “revenge” ÞEthnocentrism can emerge (us vs. others) We justify all our actions (“my right!”) Competition instead of collaboration Logic of war (e. g. “the axis of the evil vs the great Satan”) 11
2. 3. Interpersonal conflicts Solutions: Always try to “save the face” of the intervening people Develop a positive social identity by decreasing the social distance between the in-groups and outgroups, by social conformity => creation of your own internal rules by freeing the synergies between the 2 visions (easy to say! But a real challenge for managers) 12
3. Solutions Multicultural teams face more and more complex tasks Members of the teams have: 1. Different interests => task conflict 2. Different approaches => procedural conflict 3. + preconceived and stereotyped ideas about other cultures 13
3. 1. Solutions – Information Share Multicultural teams can reach very good quality decisions if they can: Use/apply their knowledge Integrate their interests => Thus information should be shared 14
3. 1. 1 Solutions – Information Share Try to: Give information in periods Demand information Build confidence and respect Do not have preconceived ideas Obtain reactions to multiple propositions Suggest other propositions 15
3. 1. Solutions – Information Share Know that: Common goals encourage cooperation Cooperation encourage information share => thus underlining the common goal of the group supports information share 16
3. 1. Solutions – Information Share Establish the rules of “reasonable participation” The group member has to participate when: His area of knowledge and expertise is the subject He is subject to a doubt concerning the group’s direction 17
3. 2. Obstacles concerning information share There are Linguistic Cultural Structural and Psychological obstacles in the reasonable participation. Managers should watch over 18
3. 2. 1 Linguistic obstacles The language is a very powerful tool of exclusion or inclusion. Ex. Fast personal remarks in a negotiation in English; you are an intermediate English speaker => potential problem! The language can also be the source of misunderstandings. Ex. I ask (polite) for vs I demand (order!) 19
20
3. 2. 1 Linguistic obstacles The language can also be the source of frustrations if it is not well controlled. Ex. We often hear negotiators say that they feel like amputees or reduced if they are suddenly brought to interact in a poorly mastered language 21
3. 2. 2 Solutions Avoid the jargons (or have a glossary in hand) Use visual aids (PP, graphs, screens, tables to be filled progressively, …) Frequent breaks (everyone can refresh knowledge), start again by a Q&A session Adopt a common system of interruption if necessary (to raise the hand, a flag, …) Ex. Humor is welcome (EMI…) Never hesitate to understand better! 22
3. 3. 1 Cultural obstacles Cultural values can prevent a good communication Ex. In collectivism, the harmony and cohesion are more than important. How to contradict without breaking the harmony? One can prefer not to say anything Ex. In an environment of high context communication, a direct remark becomes counterproductive. One can prefer not to say anything… 23
3. 3. 2 Solutions Develop your own approach of “reasonable participation” in: Charge someone in the group with supervising the process and with intervening if necessary (teamleader or even another person, free of any other function) Ask the group to detect all the advantages, but also the disadvantages, proposed ideas. Contribute to responsibilizing everyone on the decided direction 24
25
3. 3. 2 Solutions (cont’d) Ask feedback from outside of the group’s dynamic. By email, for example. In the email world: Hierarchy is reduced In anonymous environment bareers tend to disappear 26
3. 3. 3 Attention Misunderstandings & misinterpretations Ex. Looking in the eyes: US = sincerity vs Japon = impolite For a North American, it can seem that his Japanese partner is not sincere, if this latter avoid his look. But it is not the case. 27
28
3. 3. 3 Solution Detecting if the misunderstood attitude is crucial Then define it in its own culture Ex. Head-balancing in Indian culture 29
3. 4. 1 Structural obstacles Physical distance Time zone difference Solutions: e-mails, teleconferences, etc. . . Attention: social alienation, loss of identification of the group, etc 30
3. 4. 2 Risks When an electronic response comes late or doesn’t arrive => feeling of: “they are not working!” “this is not that much important for them!” Exacerbation of interpersonal animosity! 31
3. 4. 3 Solutions Define the norms concerning Acknowledgement of delivery in 24 h Response in 72 h Regular check by the chief of the team Alert system in case of irrespect etc. . . 32
3. 4. 3 Solutions (cont’d) Reverse “unpleasant functions” Switch the multi-zone teleconference call hours (rotation of call hours) 33
3. 5. 1 Psychological obstacles Groups in the groups (former friends, colleagues, etc) Support the “reasonable participation” (not inevitably to force everyone to take part, but necessary competence at the convenient period) => task of the manager Take care not to let competences disappear 34
35
3. 5. 1 Psychological obstacles Look for the social concensus (of the group) rather than the good solution Ex. Invasion of “Baie des Cochons”-Cuba in 1961 by USA. Kennedy government doubted, BUT. . . The social pressure in the group was stronger => we know the failure of the operation. . . 36
3. 5. 2 Solutions Bring out a norm of confidentiality Protect the team members from social ostracism 37
3. 6. 1 Integrate information = winwin First of all: we know that using imported norms is not the panacea! Ex: decide in hierarchical env. => the chief egalitarian env. => the majority Not necessarily the good decision (because distributive) Nor an integrated decision 38
3. 6. 1 Mutual-gains strategy 1. Structure elements considering an integrated agreement Gather the maximum elements (ideas, propositions, preferences in short term for certain members vs long term for others, etc) and lay them on the table Goal: not to let go anything that can help us in an integrated approach 39
3. 6. 2 “Mutual gains” (cont’d) 2. Obtain the propositions Goal: understand make understand the preferences and interests of everyone in order to negotiate them afterwards 40
3. 6. 2 “Mutual gains” (cont’d) 3. Establish the rules concerning decision making Large proportion, majority by 2/3, concensus or else total agreement 41
3. 6. 3 Attention In “mutual gain” approach, a decision by the vast majority allows a greater share of information (bigger participation) Ex: majority 2/3, concensus or unanimity Attention with the pre-established groups (fractions, coalitions, etc) => information share can be distorted The part that is thought to be in strong position “will not listen” with all the necessary attention in order to reach an integrated agreement 42
3. 6. 4 BATNA of the lately formed teams: all that can happen if an agreement is not found” (not known precisely, therefore risks!) ÞThe members of the team for which a nonagreement involves the most risks will be the most cooperative and flexible ÞTry to satisfy everyone with the approach of the “mutual gain” 43
3. 6. 5 Multiple alternatives, then agreement in second round 2 possible ways to reach the “mutual gain” approach: Brainstorming different alternatives, then balancing them in order of importance Look for minimal agreement, then develop it 44
3. 6. 5 Rules of brainstorming Generate maximum ideas Support the “out of the box” ideas Move with the quantity (even at the expense of quality) No judgements, nor criticisms during the session Leave the possibility to everyone “of continuing the extension” of each idea Attention: not to eliminate the ideas by a binary vote (which is likely to eliminate certain ideas), but to balance by order of importance 45
3. 6. 6 Minimal agreement, then development 1. Reach a minimal agreement based on lowest common denominator 2. Then determine the interests of each part (by graphics if necessary) 3. Possibilities of eliminating the ideas on which we agree less. 4. Then build the agreement on the lowest common denominator 46
3. 6. 6 Attention This method has handicaps: The work is hard and can discourage the team members The fact of posing a fixed base with the first agreement, can constitute a too rigid constraint in order to find integrative alternatives 47
4. Preventing unfounded conflicts Clear job description Respect and tolerance to different cultures Establish bonds of confidence Have pre-established decision-making systems (canevas) 48
4. 1 Clear definition of tasks Management’s responsability of clearly defining the achieved results Attention to the differences of perspectives between International Management ( the team yields) vs Local (the team members yield) Challenge of multicultural team: manage the relation between International Management vs. Local Management Systematical communication is essential 49
4. 1 Challenges In every multi-cultural team, first of all, let all team members hear/read/understand the mission! ÞAvoid misunderstandings based on hypothesis! Then ask them to give back the mission to the Management (by comparing it to the allocated ressources – sufficient or not? ) 50
4. 2 Respect and tolerance for cultural differences Subtle balance between “tolerating and facing” a cultural difference! Ex. The successful marriages are the best example of this balance First of all understand! Then act (or not) if necessary Ex. Know why the Indians balance the head 51
4. 3 Building confidence Confidence reduces the probability of conflict Ex. We know that a promise will be kept We know that a clumsy word is not personal We put on the “good faith” glasses Confidence reduces conflicts because it generates tolerance! 52
4. 4 Establish the norms of interaction The norms of inter-personal interaction are imported (based on passed experiences) Þ Respectful or not respectful Establish rapidly (in-house) norms of interaction 53
4. 4 The 3 basic rules To impose: 1. Accept the fact that the other members of the group may have other legitimate interests 2. Admit immediately that no party is superior to another 3. Treat each party with dignity and respect 54
4. 5 Teambuilding? Activities carried on by all teammembers apart from the usual professional staff in order to create solid interpersonal bonds Regard only as supplement, never as solution! Ex. Is the collaborator who can tie nodes in mountain also good to untie a problem involved in data processing? 55
5. Resolve disfunctional conflicts Any withdrawal from a reasonable participation can also be regarded as a disfunctional conflict The final decision will not be integrated! There exist means of solving the disfunctional conflicts 56
5. 1 Means of action The observation responsible intervenes in aside (even in group) in order to bring back the part in withdrawal into the circle of participation The observation responsible can act as mediator if necessary The group can establish a standard “forcing” the parts feeling injured with openly announcing their frustration (before an emotional reaction) 57
5. 2 Important Creating the means of action before emergence of the conflicts is more efficient (prevention) Legitimate the interventions in case of dispute Apologizing is a good means of reducing tensions Ex. Efficient method that is used in Japan is less used in USA 58
5. 2 Important (cont’d) Mastering or Applying the management competences of multicultural teams are 2 different things! One should motivate his team to apply them Ex. Congratulating in the presence of all people a US participant for an appreciated job vs a Chinese participant (he will not be comfortable to be spotlighted) 59
5. 2 Important (cont’d) To motivate soundly: Establish the level of measurable performances Equilibrating between individual goals and that of the group Establish clearly the timing of evaluations Establish also the rewards (financial/recognition/etc) Never forget that motivational attitudes could be different according to cultures 60
6. Conclusion Any multicultural team needs systems: Of decision making Of management of the conflict, taking account of the collection of information allowing the integrated solutions Of prevention the unfounded conflicts Of resolution of the disfunctional conflicts Management must take care to motivate the teams to apply these tools in order to achieve the goals set. 61
Скачать презентацию International Negotiation Alpaslan Korkmaz KOÇ UNIVERSITY — ISTANBUL
c71d1b5459547be6ada918244e771e1e.ppt