How do different cultures approach conflict? Does the culture you come from tend to express disagreement openly or tacitly? <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Conflict and disagreement are necessary realities in the business world. But the rules for appropriate disagreement vary across cultures. In discussing conflict and culture, cultural communication expert Erin Meyer divides disagreement styles into two extremes: \u201cconfrontational\u201d and \u201cavoids confrontation.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In this article, we\u2019ll look at why it can be so hard to determine where a culture falls on the disagreement spectrum and present some strategies you can use to ensure that disagreements don\u2019t harm your business relationships.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
According to Meyer, cultures that disagree openly view disagreement as good for the group.<\/strong> A free exchange of ideas allows for greater innovations, and disagreements are a necessary part of that process. `<\/p>\n\n\n\n So in these cultures, people disagree with you frankly and publicly. It\u2019s not unusual for a strong debate to break out in a meeting.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These open disagreements aren\u2019t viewed as personal attacks\u2014indeed, they have little impact on your personal relationship at all. That\u2019s because in these cultures, the person is independent of the idea. Just because you disagree with somebody vehemently doesn\u2019t mean you disapprove of them overall. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Western and Northern European countries tend to disagree openly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n (Shortform note: In her chapter on trust, Meyer discusses how cultures that value cognitive trust<\/a> do so partly because they have reliable legal systems they can turn to if something goes wrong. This reasoning may have implications on disagreement styles as well. If damaging your personal relationship doesn\u2019t strongly affect your business dealings anyway, more open disagreement would likely be acceptable. In support of this, many cultures that disagree openly also develop trust cognitively. But not all: For example, the French are very confrontational but lie squarely in the middle of the trusting spectrum.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n Meyer suggests that just as the Hegelian method used in the French educational system influenced how they persuade people in business settings, it also influenced how they disagree. In other words, the French disagree openly in business settings because that\u2019s what they were taught to do in school.<\/p>\n\n\n\n (Shortform note: Meyer doesn\u2019t explicitly cite the Hegelian influence on education as a factor in why countries other than France also disagree openly. However, many other countries that practice theoretical thinking (Germany, Italy, and Spain, for example) also disagree confrontationally. This suggests that these countries also disagree openly due to Hegel\u2019s influence on their educational systems. This point is supported by the fact that the Anglo-Saxon countries which practice empirical thinking all lie in the middle of the disagreement spectrum.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n In some cultures, openly disagreeing with someone will harm your relationship<\/strong>\u2014sometimes seriously and potentially to the point of irreparability. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In these cultures, Meyer states, disagreement is considered to be bad for the group. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, in these cultures, disagreeing with someone implies that you disapprove of them as a person. In many disagreement-avoidant cultures, your image is extremely important. If that image is disrupted in any way, it\u2019s considered very embarrassing. To disagree publicly with someone in these cultures is to suggest that this person is trying to project a false image of themselves to the world. As such, openly disagreeing with someone amounts to a personal attack.<\/p>\n\n\n\n (Shortform note: People of all cultures value their image, but how an image disruption affects you personally varies based on what culture you\u2019re in, according to Meyer. Meyer neglects to attribute this idea to Stella Ting-Toomey, who developed face-negotiation theory<\/a> in 1985. Ting-Toomey was the first to propose that all cultures care about their \u2018face,\u2019 or image, but use different behaviors to protect or attack it.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n This doesn\u2019t not mean that disagreement never occurs in these cultures. But if people express disagreement, they do so subtly and privately.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Asian countries tend to be disagreement-avoidant.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Meyer sees Confucius\u2019s ideals about group harmony as a major influence on disagreement-avoidant Asian countries.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In Confucianism, there are five fundamental relationships that form the foundation of societal order. Each relationship comes with guidelines about how you need to behave towards each other, and not behaving the way you\u2019re supposed to leads to the breakdown of society. So to disagree openly with someone is to suggest they\u2019re not being true to their prescribed role\u2014and this carries a far greater taboo in Asian cultures due to the Confucian influence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In discussing conflict and culture, Meyer also explains the factors that complicate determining how a culture disagrees. <\/p>\n\n\n\n You might assume that cultures that disagree openly are equally open with their emotions, and disagreement-avoidant cultures are emotionally reserved. This tends to be the case, according to Meyer, but it\u2019s not a hard-and-fast rule. This is because cultures are governed by what psychologists refer to as \u201ccultural display rules<\/a>.\u201d These are norms within a culture that dictate how it\u2019s appropriate to express your emotions. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In other words, all of us express emotions in our faces and mannerisms\u2014but how often and how intensely is dictated by culture. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Meyer states that the key to evaluating where a culture lies on the disagreement spectrum is to ask yourself: How much would openly disagreeing with someone harm your relationship? <\/strong>Ignore how emotionally open they are. <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Meyer uses a quadrant to visually express the relationships between how cultures disagree and how they display their emotions. However, we found this unnecessarily confusing. So instead, we\u2019ll simply discuss the three main reasons Meyer posits for why a culture\u2019s level of comfort with disagreement is not always related to how comfortable they are with emotional displays. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Some cultures, like Germany and the Netherlands, are very reserved but very comfortable with open confrontation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to Meyer, this is because these cultures don\u2019t view disagreement as an emotional expression. Rather, debates and disagreement are purely intellectual exercises.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n People from these cultures view robust disagreement as a necessary tool that allows them to deepen their understanding of the topic at hand. It\u2019s not considered emotional.<\/p>\n\n\n\n (Shortform note: If you get emotional during debates, arguing with someone who is seemingly emotionally unaffected during the debate may be frustrating. Try referring to yourself in the third person<\/a>. This self-distancing allows you to regulate your emotions so that you can keep your cool.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n All cultures have different rules governing acceptable emotional displays. So sometimes, these rules clash.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Meyer specifically notes that many Latin American and Arabic cultures speak at high volumes and make many physical gestures in everyday interactions. So if you come from a culture that prefers lower volumes and is less physically expressive, you may see fighting when there is none and conclude that these cultures disagree openly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But these cultures are actually disagreement-avoidant. It\u2019s just that they display emotions differently than you do. (Shortform note: In fact, the loud, high voices that connote anger in many Western cultures are a sign of sincerity in Arab cultures. Knowing and imitating the cultural display rules of the culture you\u2019re working in are especially essential when they differ dramatically from yours. Keep in mind that your own actions will be interpreted differently, too. According to Richard Lewis\u2019s When Cultures Collide<\/em><\/a>, cultural display rules affected the first Gulf War: Saddam Hussein didn\u2019t take George H. W. Bush\u2019s threats seriously because he spoke too quietly.) <\/p>\n\n\n\n According to Meyer, China and Korea disagree with you differently based on how close you are.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Meyer uses the terms in-group and out-group<\/a>, both derived from social psychology, to define these relationships. An in-group is a group you identify as belonging to and whose members accept you. An out-group is a group you don\u2019t belong to.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If you\u2019re in the in-group in these cultures, the Confucian rules for relationships apply, so people avoid disagreeing with you.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But if you\u2019re in the out-group, according to Meyer, there are almost no Confucian rules governing your relationship. As such, open disagreement is not considered a threat to societal order and is justified. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Meyer suggests that the Chinese will have especially open and sometimes hostile confrontations with the outgroup, which she attributes to a competitive environment fostered by the country\u2019s large population. Meyer doesn\u2019t make the link between these explicit, but it\u2019s arguable that where there\u2019s more competition, there\u2019s more pressure to succeed. In this situation, you\u2019re likely far pickier about who you conduct business with, so it makes sense that you\u2019d disagree more with strangers. It might also explain why the Chinese value personal trust<\/a> highly, if they interact so differently with strangers than they do with people they know. <\/p>\n\n\n\n (Shortform note: The ingroup\/outgroup bias may be particularly strong in these cultures due to their racial homogeneity: South Koreans are 99% ethnically Korean, while 91.11% of China is Han Chinese. The \u201cfamiliar face overgeneralization hypothesis<\/a>\u201d suggests that we have an \u201cown-race positivity bias\u201d partly because we naturally react better to people we\u2019re familiar with. So it\u2019s possible that these countries\u2019 lack of other races increase their distrust of the outgroup.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n Consider not attending the meeting if you\u2019re the boss.<\/strong> In some countries, people are comfortable expressing their ideas openly amongst their peers but not amongst higher-status individuals.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Tell people what you\u2019re going to ask them in advance<\/strong> so they can prepare their opinions. Emphasize that you want to hear their original thoughts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Use techniques that help separate the idea from its original creator<\/strong>. Meyer specifically recommends brainstorming<\/a>: When many people ideate simultaneously in a limited amount of time, it\u2019s hard to remember who thought of what. Submitting each written idea anonymously can also further separate the idea from its creator.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Adjust your language<\/strong>. Use weakeners (words that mitigate your message, like \u201cslightly\u201d or \u201cmaybe\u201d), and avoid strengtheners (s that emphasize your message, like \u201cabsolutely.\u201d)<\/p>\n\n\n\n If you\u2019re the boss, state your opinion last. <\/strong>If your subordinate doesn\u2019t know what your opinion is, they don\u2019t know that they\u2019re disagreeing with you, so they might feel more comfortable expressing their opinions honestly. However, keep in mind that your subordinates will be looking for subtle cues to try and guess your opinion. (Shortform note: You can keep your face neutral by following strategies like using a mantra<\/a>.)<\/p>\n\n\n\nHow Cultures That Disagree Openly Develop<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Disagreement-Avoidant Cultures <\/h2>\n\n\n\n
How Disagreement-Avoidant Cultures Develop<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Factors That Complicate Determining How a Culture Disagrees: Disagreement vs Emotional Displays<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Reason #1: Debates are intellectual, not emotional.<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Reason #2: Some culture\u2019s emotional displays are widely misinterpreted.<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
\u200b\u200bReason #3: Some cultures express disagreement differently based on the relationship. <\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Strategies to Use in Disagreement-Avoidant Countries<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Strategies to Use in Countries That Disagree Openly<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n