Cross cultural negotiation management strategies

Cross Cultural Negotiation Management

The contemporaneous business community is evolving at a rapid pace and is as such forcing its collaborators and stakeholders to adapt along. But implementing change is not as easy as presented in the specialized works of university professors and several conflicts arise throughout its implementation. As a result, a new science has evolved and it revolves around studying and proposing solutions to resolving the arising conflicts within the economic entities. An important concept introduced through the study of conflict is that of framing, which basically refers to the interpretation of the conflict from various standpoints. In other words, "each party to a conflict has its own perception and understanding of their agenda, the relevance of various issues, their priorities, and the opportunities and risks involved with different choices. This assemblage of factors can be considered as a set of lenses, or filters, through which the various parties view the conflict, and is called the frame or conceptual frame" (Kaufman, Elliot and Shmueli, 2003)

To best understand the concept of framing an organizational conflict, one should look at an actual example of a conflict aroused within a company. This example will refer to a previous experience I had while working at a cable providing company. It will identify the parties to the conflict, the issues that motivated them, an actual framing of the situation, two alternative framing possibilities and finally, two incidents that influenced me as an individual and helped me get to know myself better.

1. The Parties

My experience as a sales assistant within a cable company has placed me in various situations, some with favourable outcomes, and others with less favourable results. Probably the most disliked experiences revolve around conflict situations, which didn't occur as rarely as one could wish for. Given the rapid dynamics of the environment, the operations conducted, the pressure the sales agents were under and the intense competition from other cable providing organizations, fights aroused a couple of times per week. The operational manager and head of the sales department was a participant to these conflicts almost always, sometimes as a party, other times as a negotiator. He had been with the company for ten years and his expertise was vast. His problems were however that he had relatively poor people skills and no matter how well intended he was, he was under a lot of stress, which meant that he would occasionally lash out at the sales staff. The second party to the conflict was a member of the sales team.

2. The Issues

Each sales agent was paid depending on the number of new contracts signed the previous month. When receiving his salary however, the sales employee realized that it was too little. In other words, from his calculi, he deduced that only 70% of his signed contracts had been paid. He addressed this issue to the head of the department, but he continually refused to sit down and talk to the employee, stating that he was too busy.

From his standpoint, the employee felt that he was being cheated out of his fair salary. He felt frustrated and disrespected and even more so, he got angry when he realized he could not talk it through with the operational manager. The employee felt that the manager knew about his problem and he was intentionally avoiding an open discussion. The manager on the other hand, was under intense stress, even more so when the competition had just launched a new item onto the market and when his company was late with developing a similar item. However he cared about his staff members, this particular time he simply did not find the complaint of the employee as important as the coming launch of the company's new service. He kept saying to himself that the employee would understand the impending necessity of developing a competitive item and that even if there had indeed been a mistake with the salary, he would resolve it once the new service is launched. The employee could not however wait until the launch and directly entered in conflict with the manager, accusing him of conspiring to steal the employees' hard earned wages.

3. Framing of the Conflict

Framing the conflict can be achieved from numerous standpoints, but given the characteristics of this particular conflict, the most relevant frame would be that of identity. This basically means that the two parties have different identities and the conflict could have even aroused due to their appurtenance to different groups. In this particular case then, it becomes obvious that each individual belongs to a different group, serving different interests. The head of the sales department belongs to the managerial team, and his focus falls on the company's success onto the market. This success also implies an increased cost efficiency, which, in the eyes of the employee, could explain his interest in granting lowered wages. The employee on the other hand, is a simple individual with personal interests. He got the job to ensure a salary and this is what he most cares about. As such, when analyzed from the lens of identity, the framing of the conflict identifies two opponent parties, one focused on the good of the company, even if at times this may come to the disadvantage of the employees, and the staff member, who is primarily focused on his own benefit. This particular frame clearly divides the conflicting parties and makes it easier for the outside observers to take sides, based on their appurtenance to a group or the other.

4. Alternative Framing Possibilities

The conflict aroused between the head of the sales department and the sales employee at the cable providing organization could also be framed from other perspectives. One is that of framing it based on characterization. This basically means that the parties have different characteristics; this particular framing type is seen as close to stereotyping (Kaufman, Elliot and Shmueli, 2003). From this point-of-view then, it could be said that the operational manager is the representative of the organization and his ultimate goal is to have the employees put in extra efforts for reduced amounts of money. The employee on the other hand, could be seen as the individual who cares only limitedly about the general well-being of the organization. Another framing possibility is that of presenting the conflict from the power frames. These would basically present the manager as the ultimate ruler within the organization and the employee and his colleagues would be able to criticize him based on his appurtenance to the leading team, which has the power to positively or negatively influence the individual outcomes of the staff members.