Cultures in negotiating

Multicultural meetings & negotiations

Recognising cultural differences may be helpful in avoiding misunderstanding between individuals. But how can it be used constructively?

The range of situations in which readers may come across culture clash is vast, ranging from an annual visit to a trade fair to implementing a multinational merger. As a practical example of a culture-sensitive approach in a frequent situation, let us take a monthly coordination meeting between representatives of companies from different countries involved in some kind of association.

Let us also assume that each of them is a stereotypical example of their national culture. How can we predict from the Mole Map, and the other generalisations in this book, how they might behave? And what can be done to make their meeting as productive as possible?

1. Language

The first problem is language. It is most likely to be English, which will suit the north Europeans, or French, which may suit the south Europeans more. Whichever is chosen, there will be some participants who feel at a disadvantage because they do not speak it as fluently as others at the meeting. There is a risk that linguists will dominate the less fluent.

The language problem should be brought into the open by making the working language or languages the first item of discussion. It may be advisable to make arrangements for preparatory papers and minutes to be translated. At the meeting itself it may be decided that people may speak in any language they choose which is comprehensible to the rest. Some members may wish to bring along to the meeting chuchoteurs or 'whisperers', in other words personal simultaneous translators. Whatever is decided, the rules should be made clear.

2. Expectations

Participants will have different expectations of the function and outcome of the meeting. For those towards the individual end of the leadership dimension - French, Belgians, Spanish, Portuguese, Germans - the purpose will be to brief the others with information. If it is clear that the meeting has to result in an agreement or a joint proposal, they will come armed with a detailed plan which they will attempt to impose on the others with as little amendment as possible.

Those towards the GROUP end – Dutch, Danes, British, Italians, Greeks, Irish – will expect the meeting to pool information or problems and take steps to resolve them on a basis of consensus and compromise. If they have developed a plan of their own, it will be a working hypothesis to be negotiated and amended, rather than a position to be defended.

For those at the organic end of the organisation dimension -Italians, Greeks, Spanish - informal networking in the bar or over coffee or during lunch is as important as what goes on at the meeting itself. The meeting will give formal sanction to what has been discussed or agreed outside. For those at the systematic end the extracurricular socialising, while it oils the wheels, counts a lot less than what goes on at the meeting itself.

Time might, therefore, be allocated to both formal and informal socialising. Arrange to meet for dinner the night before If there are French or Spanish participants allow two hours for a proper lunch. For some participants this will be the most constructive part of the event.

3. Preparation

Those towards the systematic end of the organisation dimension - Germans, Dutch, Danes - will be well prepared. They will expect briefing papers which they will study and amend and the implications of which they will have meticulously researched. Those towards the organic end - British, Italians, Spanish, Irish, Greek - will have skimmed through the papers on the plane, and some may still be leafing through them at the meeting. They expect that what is actually said at the meeting has more importance than what is written in the briefing.

The chair should ensure that working papers are distributed well in advance with a request for comments on them before the meeting, to check that each participant has received them and, preferably, read them.

4. Attendance

The further towards the organic cud of the organisation dimension - Italians, Greeks - the more unpredictable it is who and how many will turn up. regardless of who has been designated.

If the designated participant cannot attend, those towards the group end of the leadership dimension – British, Dutch, Danes – will send a subordinate who may be much more junior. Higher up the dimension they will either send an immediate and trusted deputy or no one at all. Unaccustomed to meetings between people of different status, they will ignore the deputies of others.

5. Punctuality

Everyone will try to be there on time, but only those at the systematic end of the organisation dimension can be relied on to succeed. They will expect the meeting to start and end on time even if the aims of the meeting have not been fully achieved. If the meeting is called half an hour before the formal proceedings start it gives time for the unpunctual to arrive and for the others to socialise over tea and coffee.

Some participants, probably French or Italian, may feel less bound by the discipline of a meeting than others. They may leave in make phone calls or attend to paperwork if the discussion is not immediately relevant to them. One solution is not to serve refreshments during the meeting and to schedule interruption by breaking every hour for refreshment, small talk, telephone calls and other personal business.

Be overgenerous with time. Add at least half an hour on to the end of the projected schedule for slippage. Punctual people do not mind leaving early.

6. Agenda

Everyone will expect a prepared agenda, but only towards the systematic end will they expect to keep to it. The moderately organic, like the British, will expert to discuss and amend the agenda at the beginning of the meeting, while the more organic will feel free to introduce unscheduled topics at any time.

If possible, agree the agenda with each participant before the meeting and again at the start. Make the individual items as specific as possible, including the desired outcome of the discussion and the time allocated for it.

7. Chair

Those at the individual end of the leadership spectrum -French, Belgians, Spanish - will expect strong control from the chair over the agenda and the discussion. They will also find it natural to contradict and challenge the chair and vie for the real authority, as distinct from the formal, over the proceedings. Others will expect the chair to be more unobtrusive but his or her position to be more respected.

At the systematic end participants will expect contributions to be made through the chair when invited. At the organic end they will expect more of a free-for-all and feel less constrained by formalities of debate.

If possible it should be agreed before the meeting. who will chair it, whether the chair changes according to the topic, and so on. The chair should make clear whether discussion will always be through the chair or not. At first it is as well to make participation as formal as is necessary to ensure both orderly progression through the agenda and the contribution of every participant.

8. Participation

Participation will achieved by different styles of contribution depending as much on people's individual personalities as on their nationality. The following are extremely stereotypical and are examples of different styles that any participant could adopt.

German style is to be well prepared and to contribute only when they feel well qualified to do so and when they have something useful to say. They will not expect to be interrupted or immediately contradicted and regard their prepared positions as incontrovertible.

French contributions tend to be adversarial, dogmatic, and models of rationality. They expect their own and others' contributions to fit in to an overall schema or theory. They expect to be contradicted and to win the argument by logic and assertion.

Italian contributions tend to be innovative, complex, creative and usually stimulating. They are embellished with definitions, caveats, analogies, allusions and asides, and in the opinion of the rigorously pragmatic not always relevant.

British contributions tend to be pragmatic and realistic. They may not always be supported with hard fact, offering opinion and assertion for discussion rather than proposals for adoption or imposition. Their predilection for humour may relieve tense or tedious moments, but it can also be regarded as trivialising. They are the least likely to lose interest or temper.

The Dutch have a similar approach to the British in terms of seeking a common resolution instead of imposing one, preferring the practical to the theoretical and using humour to defuse conflict and tedium. Their contribution will be brutally frank.

Spanish tend not to risk embarrassment or discomfiture by saying anything that might be criticised for any reason, ranging from a poor command of the language spoken to the actual content. This can be mistaken for aloofness. They will participate in emphatic and spirited debate as long as they feel on firm ground.