In negotiating persuasion “in the field,” we may find different attitudes towards the same proposal. Imagine making a presentation with persuasive intent to propose a training course to a firm. Entrepreneur A might be enthusiastic about a staff training project, while entrepreneur B might consider it a waste of time. The first step, then, is to understand how the item (the proposal) sits along the possible latitude (from unconditional acceptance to outright rejection, with all the possible nuances in between). Every negotiator can benefit from practicing both (1) the latitude survey, and (2) the next step, consisting of analyzing the underlying motivations that place an item (a specific proposal) along a particular point on the latitude (e.g., extreme rejection, unconditional acceptance, or acceptance with reservations, and other possibilities). Having acknowledged the position along the continuum, it is appropriate to understand the reason for that placement. Any persuasive activity will in fact have to confront the motives that determine that position.
Roles • Analyst: has the task of bringing out the picture • Interviewee: must contribute to the exploration that the analyst will attempt, in a spirit of openness Steps • The analyst must come up with a fairly long list of products, services, and buying ideas, and note how they rank along the continuum. • Second step: bring out the reasons for this placement, especially in reference to the most extreme positions. • Use the following survey sheet:
Acceptance Latitude Survey Sheet Place proposed products along the continuum, based on the respondent’s reactions to the product. Question: “would you buy a ……” (follows proposal of a product or service, even a strange or unusual one). Explore the motive underlying the evaluation and related motives. You would purchase a: ……
And the reaction was.Assign a score from -100 (extreme disgust) to + 100 (absolute unconditional adherence)
In-depth analysis of choices: use • probing (did I get that right? why, what motivation leads you to.?); • associative techniques (what do you associate with…?); • the belief/evaluation model: have the subject say, “I believe that ………..” (subject’s belief) and “I think this is ………” (subject’s evaluation of the belief); • For the most positive and most negative points: in-depth analysis of motivations.
Il ruolo del leader richiede una forte attenzione ai giochi comunicativi in corso, con la consapevolezza che nelle organizzazioni e nella negoziazione i messaggi non sono prodotti per fini poetici ma soprattutto per gestire il potere. Come sottolinea Tonfoni (2000): D’altra parte, considerare il modello comunicativo all’interno della Teoria dei Giochi richiede la preventiva chiarificazione del modello stesso, oltre che degli obiettivi.
Gli attori, all’interno della teoria, come “giocatori” proprio progettando e attuando sequenze di azioni finalizzate al raggiungimento di un fine prestabilito. Questo fine è costituito dal profitto, poiché la teoria è orientata ai comportamenti di natura prevalentemente economica. Gli “attori” sono anche “comunicatori verbali“; in quanto tali, le loro azioni devono essere essenzialmente finalizzate a una previsione il più possibile esatta di sequenze di azioni e a una determinazione esplicita delle cosiddette “regole del gioco“.
Gli attori operano attraverso l’attuazione di opportune strategie, volte a raggiungere l’obiettivo o a contrastare le controstrategie attivate dagli interlocutori, o da altri individui che prendono parte al gioco comunicativo.
La leadership del negoziatore comprende la capacità di:
Creare offerte tematiche specifiche: lanciare argomenti non casuali sul tavolo della conversazione, per vedere qual è la reazione degli interlocutori; osservare se riprendono il tema o lo lasciano andare, e altre possibili mosse dell’interlocutore (diminuire, accentuare, aggrapparsi al tema, valorizzarlo, ignorarlo);
Gestire il formato conversazionale: quale clima prevale durante la negoziazione? Siamo di fronte a un formato di “interrogatorio”, di “ricerca di una soluzione”, di “confessione reciproca”, o che altro? Se durante una trattativa di vendita il venditore si accorge che l’acquirente sta adottando il formato “interrogatorio”, la leadership conversazionale prevede di segnalarlo, con frasi del tipo “questa conversazione assomiglia più a un interrogatorio che a una ricerca di soluzioni, vorremmo provare a dare al nostro incontro un taglio diverso, forse più produttivo”;
Riequilibrare i rapporti di potere: nella vendita, soprattutto, esiste un “non detto” in cui l’acquirente detiene il potere di negoziare. Questo potere si esercita attraverso atteggiamenti tipici di chi è al potere: controllo dei contenuti, decidere chi parla, cosa si dice e come si dice. A volte questo si traduce in arroganza immotivata. La leadership conversazionale comporta la capacità di riformulare i giochi, riequilibrare gli atteggiamenti, riportare i due negoziatori allo stesso livello, per non essere schiacciati.
Tutorial: A che gioco state giocando? Chi detiene il potere?
Vengono presentate alcune situazioni comunicative di leadership e di negoziazione, in cui il leader mette in atto un gioco strategico di comunicazione. I partecipanti devono valutare quale gioco è in corso e il suo scopo.
Alcuni giochi da simulare:
Rilevamento delle offerte tematiche (quali argomenti di discussione offre il conduttore);
Rilevamento del formato conversazionale (quale clima conversazionale cerca di impostare l’argomento);
Rilevamento delle relazioni di potere (chi comanda su chi).
Trend and Progression of Interpersonal and Corporate Relationships in the 2V Model
Interference in communication due to code and language occurs when communicators do not have an adequately shared code, and misunderstandings occur.Wrong decodings are possible especially on ambiguous words and statements, such as “collaborate”, “implement”, “relate”, “share a goal”.
A further outcome of the different code / language is evident in the lack of clarity and precision, where one or more of the participants in the conversation use bureaucratic repertoires and / or imprecise languages.
Recognition exercise of “crawling” objectives
Create a company meeting through role-playing, in which subject 1 (who plays the role of the personnel manager) asks the sales manager (subject 2) to better “relate” to their Eastern European area manager to evaluate his performance.Subject 1 will use linguistic nuances such as “collaborate”, “implement”, “relate”, “share a goal”. In reality 1 has a precise motivational core (firing the area manager), a creeping goal, which remains in the background.Evaluate the results of the meeting between subject 1 and subject 2.
Interferences of communication due to worldview and ideology take place when communicators have different worldviews and ideologies, but this diversity acts in a latent way and without the knowledge of communicators.
The 2v model can be used to view the progress of a relationship and its degree of incommunicability.Given a distance between subjects at time 1 (t1), we can evaluate how this distance increases or decreases in terms of vision of the mode and communication code (t2) and measure the situation again at other moments of time (t3), (t4) .
We can thus reconstruct the trajectories of relationships and visualize the trends in relationships.
Hypothesis of progress of an intercultural relationship
The case shown highlights a relationship distinguished by the following times:
T1: the relationship starts with an average sharing of code and vision of the world;
T2: after an initial confrontation, the two subjects begin to reduce the linguistic communication distances, the distance due to the misunderstanding of the terms and the poorly shared vocabulary decreases, several previously incomprehensible terms are explained. However, this generates a chance to understand worldviews better than before. It turns out, therefore, that the underlying ideologies and values are more different than previously thought, and therefore the distance on the ideological-value variable increases;
T3: After a closer confrontation on the basic values, new areas of commonality and common interests are discovered, even the common language becomes richer and more articulated in shared terms and concepts.
This curve represents a simple hypothesis, one of the many possibilities that exist in the world of relationships. In fact, it is also possible that distances and distances will increase, and ever stronger conflicts arise.
Intercultural Levels and the Limits of Communication
The accuracy of the information exchange can be improved by reducing the distance along the “code” dimension, which is equivalent to reducing the linguistic distance. In some cases this means learning a foreign language, a dialect or subdialect within a nation, but also learning a professional language, a non-verbal code that characterizes other cultures, proxemic gestures and modalities, cadences and paralinguistic aspects of communication.
The agreement can be improved by decreasing the degree of difference between communicators in values, myths, beliefs, attitudes and ideologies – differences that can have negative consequences in the communication process. Furthermore, as the two are highly interrelated, an increase in code understanding will increase the ability of worldview understanding, and vice versa.
The 2V model can be a useful tool for analyzing hypothetical types of communications. However, the code and worldview dimensions should not always be considered completely different or completely the same, as they vary along a continuum of differences / similarities. Intercultural levels depend on the quantity and quality of difference in the world view and in the communicative code.
On this scale of communication differences, we believe that the ends of the two continuums (the COMSITS presented) represent only hypothetical points and that no real communication event can ever be located in one of the four “pure” COMSITS. In a visual way, this concept of “gradualness” in the differences can be represented by erasing the separations between the 4 quadrants and instead inserting a rating scale.
A further relevant reflection consists in evaluating whether all the points in the table could be realistically represented by a possible communication event.
Indeed, we believe that no real communication event can be located exactly on the edges (the perimeter of the table).
The underlying hypothesis depends on four axioms of communication that we formulate below:
COMCOND 1) impossibility of having a completely identical communication code between two individuals;
COMCOND 2) impossibility of having a completely equal worldview between two individuals;
COMCOND 3) impossibility of having a completely different communication code between two individuals;
COMCOND 4) impossibility of having a completely different world view between two individuals.
Some research perspectives on communication support these hypotheses.The genetic codes that govern the biological foundations of non-verbal and paralinguistic communication are similar for every human being.Human beings, like primates, always share a certain degree of similarity and are able to encode and decode signs and signals in some circumstances (eg: physical aggression) without differences between cultures.
In general, the ability to interpret human behavior increases in situations in which cultural codes are less relevant and biological codes take over, such as situations involving survival (aggression) and other more instinctive behaviors (such as eating or sex) .
Furthermore, the research results of Eckman and Friesen (1987) revealed a high level of agreement between cultures in their interpretation of facial expressions of emotions.Saral (1972) also highlighted the transversal and cross-cultural nature of facial communication and expressions.A decrease in the relevance of the cultural code and an increase in the relevance of the instinctive code can also be observed in human-animal communication and in general in communication between species, particularly in conditions of danger.
In other words, people of different cultures or creatures belonging to different species have the ability to perceive the aggressive or non-verbal friendly behavior of a member of another culture or species, while more cultural behaviors will be less interpretable. Biological constraints also have an influence on the impossibility of having a complete difference in the world view (COMCOND 4).
Every human being shares at a basic and instinctual level the tendency to reproduce the species, the attempt not to die of hunger or cold, the protection of children, and in general the behavior of biologically evolved living beings.The evolution towards self-realization is then one of the states that most characterizes every human being, as Carl Rogers points out, and cultures and religions only establish different modalities or “variations on the theme” of this underlying tendency towards self-realization.
The pursuit of self-destruction, the deliberate pursuit of hunger and suffering for oneself and one’s children, the pursuit of non-self-realization (whatever that means for a person) are extremely anomalous and deviant characteristics of the child’s behavior. ‘human being.
Statistically these cases represent outliers, that is cases extremely out of the norm.What we have in common biologically as human beings is vastly superior to what divides us culturally. Empathy techniques (learning to understand the world view of others) and greater attention to the optimization of communication codes can make an enormous contribution to the development of intercultural communication.
The improvement of intercultural communication, in turn, generates an enormous impulse to the realization of common development projects between states, cultures and countries – projects that do not have geographical barriers and borders, but unite people towards a common tendency to personal, social self-realization. and economical.
Human behavior is determined by two types of forces: from cultural conditioning (ontogenetic, learned during growth) and from hereditary biological conditioning (phylogenetic, received from DNA), and ontogenetic (cultural) learning is always grafted onto a phylogenetic basis, which constitutes our common heritage, and no culture will ever be able to scratch, but at the most it will be able to cover, to make people forget.
At the same time, the impossibility of a completely equal code derives from the great depth and semantic variety of signs (the semantic field is the extension and range of possible meanings of a sign).The meaning attributed to the signs is not a stable or “given” element, but is the result of a symbolic agreement between individuals, that is, it is the product of socializationand interpersonal and intergroup agreements, but socialization varies continuously over time, space, and between individual and individual, group and group, and therefore the meanings of the signs also continuously vary.
The signs, and the codes, are alive, and they change. Each dyad of individuals, each group, creates its own communication code over time, attributing particular meanings to the signs used.
This happens, and often unconsciously, within companies. The error determines how much it is taken for granted that the interlocutor of the counterparty company has a shared code. This problem requires a great work of metacommunication, that communicative activity that serves to explain the meaning attributed to the signs emitted and verify the accuracy of the meaning perceived in the signs received.
As with the code, no individual, no organized group, possesses exactly the same range of values, behaviors, attitudes, worldviews, beliefs, ideological positions, over the whole range of objects and situations that become objects of communication. Recognizing diversity is the first useful tool to be able to face it.
By combining the two cultural variables (1) code and (2) worldview, in a matrix, we can identify four hypothetical communication situations (COMSITS). Fig. 15 – T2V matrix
In this matrix we can trace a large part of the communicative interactions.
6.4.5. COMSIT A: characteristics
COMSIT A is defined as “same communication code – same worldview”. The communication process is easy and without problems, since we have precision in the exchange of information and agreement on the objectives. In COMSIT A, the lack of differences in the communication code generates a high degree of accuracy and efficiency in the exchange of information, without misinterpretations, misunderstandings, misunderstandings, semantic confusions and the need for translation. At the same time, the completely equal vision of the world among communicators – the concordance of underlying orientations and values, produces convergence of goals and vision. This circumstance is, however, only hypothetical, as the differences in communication code occur to varying degrees in every human process of communication.
Conflict exercise based on the discovery of the different “view of things” Analyze in pairs at least two situations of conflict, divergence or misunderstanding with people from your family or business, from the present or from the past. In particular, analyze:
the theme of the conflict (what the conflict was about, what produced it);
our “world view” on the subject;
the vision of others on the subject;
when, how and where did a different vision of things appear;
what results were produced and in what times;
what is the status of the relationship today.
6.4.6. COMSIT B: characteristics
COMSIT B (completely different code – same world view) represents the case in which the obstacle to communication is the lack of a common communication code (common language). The problem is therefore solely linguistic, people are unable to dialogue because they lack a shared communication system. If a common code could be provided or learned, the situation would turn into ideal COMSIT A.
Exercise of alteration of communication codes
Two couples of friends / colleagues meet to decide on a holiday to be carried out in a group of four. Before the meeting, the two couples, separately, must invent five new words (to be chosen from nouns of thing, verbs, adjectives), for example, an offensive word, a word of appreciation, a word to express a discomfort, a verb to inquire, and other inventions of the group. Make the meeting happen and check how the new words interfere in understanding, and other ongoing communication dynamics.
6.4.7. COMSIT C: characteristics
COMSIT C (same code – completely different world view) represents the hypothetical case in which communication difficulties result from a lack of sharing in the world view. The elements of diversity may concern:
In COMSIT C, a common code allows the exchange of information, but the outcome of communication is initially negative, as completely different beliefs, different values, diversity in underlying attitudes, attitudes and goals, will result in a complete lack of agreement. . The outcome of the communication is therefore bankruptcy, unless one of the two parties, or both, are willing to review some positions.
Conflict exercise between different personal positions
Create a group of people, even a minimum (2 per group, but in the absence it can also be achieved by 2 individuals) who are looking for all the advantages of taking short holidays but several times a year. The group must produce a list of at least 10 (or more) arguments in favor. It will also have to produce a list of at least 10 or more arguments against taking longer vacations at one time. An opposing group will do the opposite work, looking for the arguments in favor of taking long vacations, once a year, and the arguments or disadvantages and risks of taking more broken holidays. The representatives of the 2 groups meet and have to support their positions.
Conflict exercise between different company positions on the conception of times
Create a group of people, even a minimum (2 per group, but in the absence it is also achievable by 2 individuals) who are looking for all the advantages of making fast, rapid business projects (the “rabbits”) The group must produce a list of at least 10 (or more) arguments in favor. It will also have to produce a list of at least 10 or more arguments against making projects that are too thoughtful and too long in scope. An opposite group (the “bears”) will do the opposite work by looking for the arguments in favor of long-term projects, very reasoned and thought out, and the arguments or disadvantages and risks of fast projects. The representatives of the 2 groups meet and have to support their positions.
Conflict exercise: “buy merchandise” versus “buy partnerships”
Create a group of people, even a minimum (2 per group, but failing that it can also be created by 2 individuals) who represent a manufacturing company (office furniture production) interested in buying training hours for its sellers (eg: 5 group hours, for a group of 8 people). The mini-course program is the one found on the internet, relating to a basic sales course. The intentions are to test the effectiveness of trainers and spend little (for now), distract their salespeople from their work a little, and perhaps evaluate other interventions in the future. An opposing group will play the role of the training company, extremely convinced that a training project previously requires a good diagnosis, individual interviews with future participants, and that the hours cannot be fixed if the diagnosis has not been carried out.
At the same time, the training company does not want to commit to the fact that it is already foreseeable that a course is the best solution (for example, it wants to be free to decide on solutions such as coaching in the field, and other methods of professional intervention it considers effective). The representatives of the 2 groups meet and have to support their positions.
COMSIT D: features
COMSIT D (completely different code – completely different world view) is the hypothetical situation in which communication is disturbed for two reasons: from a technical point of view, the lack of common code does not allow the exchange of information, and even if a common code could be provided, a completely different view of the world would lead to the situation previously identified as COMSIT C, characterized by a lack of agreement. COMSIT D therefore represents the most difficult circumstance when the communication aims at the exactness of the data exchange and the search for an agreement between different positions. Similar communication contexts were considered Barnett and Kincaid (1983), who considered the combination of two variables: mutual understanding and agreement. Summarizing, according to the T2V model, the result of communication, understood as communicative efficiency in the exchange of information, and effectiveness in reaching an agreement, is negatively correlated with the differences in the code used and the differences in the world view. On the other hand, as the similarity of communication codes and worldview increases, the probability of success increases.
Other Important Dimensions to Consider in the World View for the ALM Method are:
• culture of personal times and temporal priorities: include the search for emotions (intangible goals) or tangible goals among the priorities; temporal experience and temporal dominances, awareness of the differences between personal culture (of the individual), organizational culture and national culture: how I live time, how my company lives it, how my national culture lives it – in haste either in relaxation, in planning or in chaos. In this context, one of the main objectives of the ALM method is the re-appropriation of the sense of pleasure of time, eliminating the forced conditioning produced by the cognitive prototypes of one’s own culture (self-determination of time);
religious beliefs, both in the difference between religions, but above all in the degree of overt or latent religiosity that the individual experiences and applies in daily and working life;
the conception of the human being and the deep reason for existence;
the conception of interpersonal relationships (exploitation, utility, sharing, symbiosis, competition) and the versatility of interpersonal relationships (ability to live on multiple levels, characterized by different motivational systems);
the conception of the relationship between man and nature, the degree of spirituality vs. materialism;
internal orientation (self-exploration, exploration of the internal and psychological world, introspection) vs. orientation to the outside (exploration of the outside world);
the orientation to being vs. the orientation to having;
orientation towards positivity or negativity;
orientation to the past, present or future (and other specific quadrants identified in the proprietary T-chart model of the ALM method);
personal competitiveness and orientation towards competitiveness;
egocentrism, ethnocentrism, selfishness, centering on the self or on one’s own needs, vs. heterocentrism, altruism, also centering on the other and on the needs of others.
Comparison exercise of one’s own vision of the world on some personal elements (compare & contrast) Explain and compare (compare & contrast) your own world view with a colleague or exercise partner, search for differences and similarities, on the following topics:
meaning of love and difference from “loving”;
possible meanings of the term “betrayal” in a marriage;
debate between two different visions of life: “rejoice while you can, live for the day” or “sacrifice yourself for a better future, save, invest”;
the role of destiny on people’s success and career;
to what extent it is possible to predict behavior based on a person’s nationality, in which fields we can be more certain, in which less;
whether the people in the company perform better when you command or let them do it.
Vision of Time, Long- vs. Short-Term Time Orientation
The measurement of cultural differences makes sense when it is done in comparative terms, and not in absolute terms. In the following table we show some comparisons between countries with respect to the four dimensions (some of the more extreme scores are highlighted in bold). To create the table, indicators (indices) were produced that measure certain behaviors and attitudes on the four variables:
power distance index (PDI).
individualism index (IDV)
masculinity index (MAS)
uncertainty avoidance index (UAI)
Tab. 9 – Scores of some countries with respect to the parameters of cultural difference (Hofstede), scale from 0 to 125
POWER DISTANCE (Low/High)
UNCERTAINTY AVOIDANCE (Low/High)
The scores allow us to confirm some common stereotypes, such as the fact that Latin American countries are predominantly male-dominated cultures, Norway is very little, that the US is individualistic, or that the Japanese are a very structured society. Without getting tired of repeating it, these classifications speak in probabilistic terms, and nothing prevents you from finding Venezuelan companies headed by female managers, or collectivistically managed US companies, or extremely competitive and aggressive Norwegian managers, and other major deviations from cultural stereotypes.
Vision of time, Long- vs. Short-Term Time Orientation
Time Orientation distinguishes cultures based on the propensity to reason and plan in the long run, vs. an orientation “to the day”, and is related to dimensions such as spiritualism vs materialism, the religious concept of life, knowing how to live in meditative phases or only in active phases. Hofstede’s studies also distinguish between monochronic and multi-chronic time. Monochronic time has the following characteristics
the tendency to do one thing at a time – one after the other, in a linear way, a long-term orientation, dependence on agendas and calendars;
in monochronic time, precision is generally rewarded;
time is often scarce, we are often late. On the other hand, multicronic time is a multi-tasking, non-linear time, a short-term orientation, a life lived without an agenda and calendar, precision is something suspicious or at most irrelevant, the sense of time is cyclical (as in Hinduism ).
In the ALM method there is a tendency to distinguish the culture of the times by using in a disjoint way the evaluation of single psychological times (monochronic) or the condition of living in multiple psychological times (multicronicity), concentration on the task (monotasking) or application on several tasks (multitasking).
La cultura è considerata in questo metodo come un insieme di modelli di pensiero, categorizzazione, comportamento e comunicazione, che sono sia appresi (durante la crescita dell’individuo) che ereditati (il risultato del codice genetico comportamentale). Questi schemi influenzano la percezione del mondo, la comunicazione e il comportamento. Inoltre, seguendo la prospettiva teorica di Watzlawick e altri, la comunicazione è considerata come un processo che si verifica sia intenzionalmente che involontariamente, in qualsiasi momento il comportamento avviene in presenza di altri.
Da una prospettiva semiotica, l’unità fondamentale di analisi e la prima componente della comunicazione percepita durante l’interazione è il segno, la più grande categoria inclusiva di entità di significato. I segni sono ciò che emettiamo, e costituiscono il comportamento comunicativo esterno percepito da un ricevente o osservatore. Quindi, i comportamenti verbali, i comportamenti non verbali (immaginate per esempio la postura del corpo che assumiamo di fronte a un interlocutore, e i suoi significati nascosti), la comunicazione scritta, i simboli, le immagini che usiamo per comunicare sono segni. I segni (usati per comunicare) e il significato della comunicazione sono legati da un codice di comunicazione, che a sua volta è composto da sottocodici.
Un codice di comunicazione è quindi inteso come un sistema di regole utilizzate per collegare espressioni (qualsiasi segno utilizzato per comunicare, sia verbale che non verbale) ai significati sottostanti. La consapevolezza dei molteplici codici della comunicazione è essenziale per la qualità della comunicazione. Ogni comunicatore / negoziatore consapevole sa che il suo corpo emette segnali tutto il tempo, e che questi segnali possono essere incoerenti o congruenti con i segnali verbali (parole o frasi dette). Possiamo dire – a parole – di essere sereni, ma trasmettere con il corpo la sensazione di essere tesi e nervosi, e i nostri interlocutori lo noteranno… Possiamo esprimere verbalmente piacere e trasmettere inconsciamente repulsione.
Il problema dei codici di comunicazione è soprattutto un problema di stile di comunicazione, che richiede la scelta del tipo di linguaggio da utilizzare. Quale stile, quale linguaggio usiamo per esprimere il messaggio? Usiamo una metafora sugli stili di comunicazione sessuale: … attualmente conosciamo quattro diversi linguaggi nella sessualità, ognuno dei quali dà un’impronta completamente diversa alla stessa situazione.
Per esempio, se vuole essere penetrata, una donna può chiedere:
“Inserire il pene nella vagina” (linguaggio tecnico);
“Vorrei sentirti dentro di me, vedere le stelle” (linguaggio romantico);
“Scopami e fammi godere” (linguaggio pornografico);
“Con il bastone di giada apri il mio fiore di loto” (linguaggio poetico).
Ogni negoziatore, ogni comunicatore, consapevolmente o no, usa uno stile linguistico. Lo stile può essere visto in ogni fase del discorso e della conversazione, in ogni comunicazione scritta e persino nei media fisici (materiali, oggetti).
Un negoziatore può aprire la conversazione con un interlocutore commerciale affermando:
“Siamo qui per valutare come sia possibile costruire un progetto insieme” (linguaggio cooperativo);
“È necessario valutare la fattibilità e il possibile punto di pareggio di una delle nostre joint venture” (linguaggio manageriale anglofono);
“Ok, ci siamo, ora tagliamo corto, dimmi le tue condizioni e sbrigati, non ho tempo da perdere” (linguaggio aggressivo);
“Cerchiamo di esplorare i nostri orizzonti comuni e vediamo se tra noi può sorgere un’alba, spero non un tramonto” (linguaggio poetico-ironico).
La consapevolezza dei codici e degli stili utilizzati è essenziale, poiché codici e stili possono essere antitetici o simili, funzionali o disfunzionali rispetto agli obiettivi.
This dimension has given rise to much controversy, because it is considered sexist and discriminatory. Hofstede’s will, on the other hand, was simply to analyze a gendered behavior as a cultural category, such as “caring” (taking care of children), deriving from the biological history of the female human race, vs. the prototypical male role in archaic societies linked to defense, competition, hunting and fighting.
By identifying phenomena related to gender, we can see nations such as Japan where there are strong expectations of roles, men are expected to differ from the behavior of women, an “in-charge” role. countries like Norway, or Sweden, the dimension is more feminized, which means that the roles between men and women are much more fluid and interchangeable in social organizations.
Tab. 7 – Differences between high masculinity and high femininity cultures
The roles between genres are interchangeable
The roles between the sexes are very distinct
Equality, solidarity, quality of life, quality of work
Competition, performance, success, money
Managers use intuition and seek consensus
Managers are authoritarian and assertive
Humility and modesty are important in both sexes
The man must be tough, the woman tender
Conflict resolution occurs through compromise and negotiation
Conflict resolution occurs through disputes, fights and fighting (also figuratively)
The vision of the role of women is certainly a still strong variable that differentiates some cultures (where, for example, women are prevented from appearing in public with their faces uncovered) from others where a woman is encouraged to assume roles of visibility and responsibility on the social scale. As social roles become less distinct, the masculinity-femininity scale is increasingly independent of genetic sexuality, and becomes above all a “way of being”, an existential condition, a way of living and being, which can be adopted or modified without changing one’s sexual identity.
The avoidance of uncertainty, the tolerance of ambiguity. Distinguishes the need for clear rules, procedures, well-identified work responsibilities (high degree of avoidance of uncertainty), from the ability / condition to act in conditions of uncertain or imprecise rules, without well-identified responsibilities or in climates of organizational chaos , or in poorly structured environments (low degree of uncertainty avoidance). This variable is related to the “need for structuring” and the “tolerance for ambiguity” which varies greatly in cultures, or between social classes, and even between families, and therefore also between negotiators of different cultures.
Tab. 8 – Differences between cultures with high and low uncertainty avoidance
Acceptance of uncertainty
Avoidance of uncertainty
Uncertainty is a normal feature of life
The uncertainty present in life is a constant threat that must be fought
Low consciousness of time, fluid time
High awareness of time, programmed time
The day is accepted as it is
The day must be structured
People appear calm, relaxed, calm, sometimes sluggish or lazy
People appear active, busy, emotional, aggressive
Low stress, well-being
High level of stress, subjective experience of anxiety
What is different is curious
What is different is dangerous
Ambiguous situations are experienced without problems
Fear of what is unknown
Fear of risk
The rules must be kept to a minimum
Strong emotional need for detailed rules
What is new is sought and deviations from the norm are accepted
Innovation is resisted, new or deviant ideas encounter strong obstacles
If the rules are not followed, they must be changed
If the rules are not respected, guilt arises
The rules are few and generic
The rules are many and precise
Citizens can protest
Protests must be suppressed
Tolerance and moderation
Conservation, extremism, law and discipline
Nobody can be blamed for their ideologies and ideas. Tolerance
Different ideas (religious, political, social) are pursued. Fundamentalism and intolerance
Students feel comfortable in open-ended learning situations
Students feel comfortable in structured learning situations, they look for the “right answer”
As can also be seen from the last difference (high or low structuring of a training or school intervention), interculturality can also occur in the same country, between a trainer who uses experiential and active techniques, in the face of a traditionalist culture and structured mindset. Or again, in the didactic and training situations carried out between different countries and cultures. Interculturality also opens the way to the existence of other “ways of being”, of new ways of living life, and can be very therapeutic.
The real problem of cultural psychology is to recognize how much cultural absorption has affected one’s personality, and to regain possession of a different way of being, be it less “anxious” or “more dynamic”, with the awareness that it is not possible to “have everything ”, Be busy and relaxed at the same time. Intercultural communication, seen in the ALM method, poses the challenge of “internal multi-existentiality” – the new ability to live in different states of the personality by absorbing the best of different cultures – eg: knowing how to be lively and dynamic in certain moments, relaxed in others, and includes the ability to avoid existential and cultural drag, eg: living a vacation with anxiety and over-planning stress, or on the contrary not knowing how to live in a system that requires deadlines and planning, when necessary.
It can be said that the intercultural dimension opens the doors to new frontiers of the human being, who (at least in Western societies) for the first time in history can choose to adhere to a culture or not, can change their way of being and of to live.
Classifying Cultural Differences (Hofstede Categories)
A second component of culture considered in the 2V model is “World-View” – the “world view” The worldview is considered in anthropological studies as a set of beliefs, values and attitudes, used by social actors to interpret and categorize reality, giving meaning to events, establishing relationships between them and guiding behavior.
The worldview is such a personal concept that it is difficult to classify in rigid schemes, however the need (or attempts) to provide classifications have led some social scientists to produce categories through which to read cultures. Among these, we expose the Hofstede classification, one of the most used in the literature.
Among the classics of intercultural communication, Hofstede’s categories are often cited as parameters for differentiating and categorizing cultures. Hofstede’s categories can be an interesting starting point for starting a reflection on cultural differences. However, the risk of generalization is high, and it is undesirable to use them for automatic predictive purposes. It would be extremely wrong to conclude that – because a person has a certain passport or a certain nationality – his mere belonging to a country allows us to predict with certainty how he will behave.
It seems more useful to think about how these categories can help us understand who we are dealing with when we negotiate, based on the concrete behaviors we observe, and without letting ourselves be clouded by automatic judgment. We therefore suggest using categories above all as tools to analyze the organizational cultures with which one comes into contact.
Individualistic cultures characterize systems in which the bonds between individuals are weak, vary over time, and each has to look after himself substantially, or at most his close family. Individual freedoms are high, and social security substantially low, the possibility of social ascent and career high, as well as the risk of failing and falling without nets and protections. Collectivist cultures, on the other hand, incorporate the individual into the group in a very cohesive way, offering him protection in exchange for loyalty and fidelity, giving security but at the same time limiting freedom of expression and deviations from the norm.
The individual is very controlled. This dimension is typically used to distinguish how some cultures manage work and social practices, distinguishing between individualistic cultures such as Canada, US, Australia, and Great Britain, from other cultures considered collectivistic, such as those of East Asia (Japan, Korea South, Hong Kong, and Singapore) and Latin America.
Tab. 6 – Differences between cultures with high individualism and high collectivism
Identity is based on the individual
Identity comes from belonging to social groups or families
We move in the first person, without waiting for help. The strategy is determined by the individual
Help is expected from the community; greater passivity. The strategy is expected from others
High degree of autonomy. Autonomy is rewarded
Little autonomy. Autonomy is punished
The value comes from the results produced by the individual himself
The value is inherited or absorbed based on the group to which you belong
Employment relationships are seen as contracts based on mutual benefit
Work relationships are seen as moral functions, like family relationships
The task or goal takes precedence over the relationship
Relationships come before tasks or goals
The recruitment comes as a result of selections based on skills
Hiring depends on recommendations, on connections
Career depends on the results produced
Career depends on internal and external affiliations
Speaking openly and asking for an open confrontation indicates honesty
Harmony must be maintained at any cost and confrontation and confrontation must be avoided
Communications are direct
Communications are “veiled”
Failure to comply with the rules produces a sense of guilt and a loss of self-esteem
Failure to comply with the rules produces public shame and loss of social face
Management is the management of individuals
Management is group management
As we argue throughout the course of this publication, the advanced intercultural negotiator should never assume that a counterpart is individualistic or collectivist (or otherwise characterized) just because it is classified in terms of nationality and stereotypes. Even within Western countries and industrialized areas (mainly individualistic) we can find “bubbles” of collectivism, in rural areas but also in corporate areas (partly for example in industrial districts) where the facade is individualistic but the heart and habits are essentially collectivist.
The mental practice of collectivism as “living and doing together”, hit hard by the crisis of the former Soviet Union, becomes a sign to be hidden in public statements. Intrinsically, in many cultures, there remains a strong need for sociality and collectivity, typical of Latin and Mediterranean areas, but also of Asian cultures, which continues to express itself despite the educational “mainstream” (prevailing culture, dominant proposal) proposed by the model Anglo-Saxon culture.