Interdisciplinary perspectives on culture, conflict, and negotiation

Imai, Lynn; Gelfand, Michele J.

doi:10.1017/cbo9780511581151.014

Cited by 9 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Both Hofstede's collectivism and in‐group collectivism define societal‐level I–C as the way that individuals behave toward other in‐group members as opposed to out‐group members. More specifically, compared with those in individualistic societies, people in collectivistic societies are more likely to distinguish between in‐groups and out‐groups during situations of conflicts or cooperation (Imai & Gelfand, ). Because in‐groups tend to be narrowly defined in collectivistic societies (e.g., family members, friends, classmates), it is conceivable that work‐related group members may not be considered to be in‐group members.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interactive effects of levels of individualism–collectivism on cooperation: A meta‐analysis

Marcus

2013

J Organ Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary We examined the interactive effects of levels of individualism–collectivism (I–C) on cooperation at work by meta‐analytically combining results obtained from 201 studies, representing 225 independent samples. I–C was operationalized at the individual, organizational, and societal levels of analyses. Cooperation was conceptualized at both individual and group levels of analysis. Both cooperative behavior and performance were included as outcomes. The correlation between individual‐level I–C and cooperation/performance was stronger in collectivistic as opposed to individualistic societies. Similarly, the correlation between organizational‐level I–C and cooperation was stronger in collectivistic societies. Results also indicated that individual‐level and organizational‐level I–C, but not societal‐level I–C, were moderately related to study outcomes. Examination of other potential moderators indicated that neither study setting, I–C dimensionality, nor performance measurement type (objective vs subjective measures) altered these relations. However, a conceptual match between I–C and cooperation was a moderator such that effect sizes were generally larger when I–C and outcomes were both measured at the same level of analysis. Overall, our results indicate that I–C is both theoretically and empirically distinct across the various levels of analyses and that it may be a better predictor of outcomes in collectivistic as opposed to individualistic societies. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interactive effects of levels of individualism–collectivism on cooperation: A meta‐analysis

Marcus

2013

J Organ Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition, differences in communication styles (e.g., Von Glinow et al, 2004), negotiation tactics (e.g., Imai & Gelfand, 2009) and cultural values, such as assertiveness, uncertainty avoidance or performance orientation (House et al, 2004), are common sources of irritation and miscommunication in intercultural negotiations and can affect all three dimensions of QCE.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quality of communication experience: Definition, measurement, and implications for intercultural negotiations.

Liu

Chua

Stahl

2010

Journal of Applied Psychology

111

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In an increasingly globalized workplace, the ability to communicate effectively across cultures is critical. We propose that the quality of communication experienced by individuals plays a significant role in the outcomes of intercultural interactions, such as cross-border negotiations. In four studies, we developed and validated a multidimensional conceptualization of Quality of Communication Experience (QCE) and examined its consequences in intracultural versus intercultural business negotiation. We proposed and found three dimensions of QCE, namely Clarity, Responsiveness, and Comfort. Findings from intercultural and same-cultural negotiations supported the hypotheses that QCE is lower in intercultural than intracultural negotiation; and that a higher degree of QCE leads to better negotiation outcomes. Moreover, we found evidence that the beneficial effects of higher QCE on negotiation outcomes are more pronounced in intercultural than intracultural negotiation. We propose an agenda for future research and identify implications for practice. --Gergen, 1994 pp. viii At no time in human history has the contact between individuals from different cultures been greater. Today, managers and professionals at all levels work and interact with people from different cultural backgrounds. Employees travel around broader regions while their jobs remain headquartered in one place. Global virtual teams are created to address important strategic challenges and to enable companies to become globally competitive. Supplier and customer value chains circle the globe. As a result of this globalization process at both the societal and organizational levels, it becomes more and more important to be aware of cultural differences and be able to interact effectively with people from other cultures (e.g. Adler, 2002;Lane, DiStefano & Maznevski, 2006). Since communication is the "heart" and "central instrumental process" (Lewicki & Literer, 1985; p. 157) in social interactions, we propose that the quality of communication experience (QCE) of those involved in international business is likely to be consequential because it affects the dynamics and outcomes of these intercultural encounters.Intercultural negotiation represents one of the most common and critical challenges in conducting international business. The specific interaction involved in cross-cultural negotiation presents an ideal situation in which to explore the consequences of QCE due to the criticality of information sharing, the high level of uncertainty experienced by those involved, and the need for negotiators to come to a common understanding (Carroll & Payne, 1991). Gibson, Maznevski and Kirkman (2009) argue that the influence of culture on individuals' behavior is strongest in situations that do not provide specific guidance or explicit rules on how to deal with cultural differences, as well as those that require close collaboration among people. Mixed motive and 3 multi-issue negotiation that involves both distributive and integrative issues is one such...

show abstract

Section: Contextual Importance Of Intercultural Dynamicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While filling the gap of the limited research on both intra- and intercultural negotiations, Imai and Gelfand (2009a, b) and Liu et al (2010, 2012) emphasize the effect of cultural contexts on negotiation behavior and disputing processes. The cross-disciplinary findings show that negotiation motives and behavior, including communication norms, vary across cultures, and intercultural and intractultural interactions can have different pathways of reaching agreements (Adair et al , 2001; Brett and Okumura, 1998; Imai and Gelfand, 2009a, b; Liu et al , 2010, 2012; Weiss, 1994). For example, intracultural negotiators enjoy a higher level of consensus at the end of the negotiation than intercultural dyads (Liu et al , 2012) and intercultural negotiators may experience a lower quality of communication experience than intracultural negotiators (Liu et al , 2010).…”

Section: Contextual Importance Of Intercultural Dynamicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding intercultural dynamics

Liu

Adair

Tjosvold

et al. 2018

CCSM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview on the state of the field in intercultural dynamics on competition and cooperation at the individual, team, and organizational levels. The authors integrate previous studies from multiple disciplines to articulate the contextual importance of intercultural dynamics. The authors also suggest three overarching themes to expand the field of research on intercultural dynamics. Design/methodology/approach The authors use an integrative literature review to articulate the importance of intercultural dynamics, provide an introduction to the new contributions in this special issue, and propose new directions for future research. Findings Intercultural dynamics research has the potential to expand in three overarching areas: constructive controversy, collaborative communication, and global competency and identity at multiple levels. Research limitations/implications Intercultural dynamics is still a nascent field emerging from cross-cultural and strategic management. The authors hope the review lays the groundwork for more studies on intercultural dynamics at the interpersonal, team, organizational, and mixed levels of analysis in both theory building and empirical works. Practical implications Understanding intercultural dynamics in competition and cooperation can help individuals and managers in multinationals and born global organizations navigate cultural complexity and foster cooperation. Social implications The authors hope the ideas on intercultural dynamics can facilitate collaboration and reduce conflict in intercultural encounters at the individual, organization, and societal levels. Originality/value This paper offers an overview on the state of the field and lays groundwork for more systematic inquiries on intercultural dynamics in competition and cooperation.

show abstract

Interdisciplinary perspectives on culture, conflict, and negotiation

Cited by 9 publications

References 0 publications

Interactive effects of levels of individualism–collectivism on cooperation: A meta‐analysis

Interactive effects of levels of individualism–collectivism on cooperation: A meta‐analysis

Quality of communication experience: Definition, measurement, and implications for intercultural negotiations.

Understanding intercultural dynamics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About