FROM THEORY TO PRACTICE

Application of research findings in real world situations is far from being satisfactory. The very weak relation between theory and practice has several causes. Researchers sometimes formulate their analysis in a language that is so far from what practitioners may expect for an effective communication that they are simply not read.

Practitioners in action, pressured by dead­lines, do not always have enough time and motivation to read full books whose content applicable to their needs may be tenuous. Confronted with the urgent necessities of their task, they may also realize that cultures are far more complex and much less homogeneous than the model offered by current taxonomies. Negotiators’ culture aggregates a number of variables and de facto combines several cultures. It may thus be quite a challenge to make an effective use of what has been learned about one type of national negotiating style. In addition, if knowing the language of the counterpart is important, it is far from being sufficient to grasp the whole of the complexities of a culture in a conflict situation. And, finally, culture evolves throughout time, making behaviors sometimes still very difficult to predict when coming to practice at the negotiation table.

The most important opportunity for trans­ferring knowledge into practice is done through training. Intercultural training pro­grams have developed tremendously in these last decades, especially with the globaliza­tion process. However, very few address substantive issues directly related to conflict resolution or mediation. They rather deal with cultural self-awareness and focus on cultural assumptions that have been unconsciously internalized.

The basic hypothesis on which intercultural training workshops rely is simply that they can provide the participants with skills for modifying their psycho-cultural interpreta­tions, and for developing new metaphors allowing parties to view each other differently (Avruch, 1998; Ross, 1997a). Wanis-St John (2005: 129) suggests that parties should “move toward ethno-relative approaches” and once they have recognized their own cultural preferences, and understood oth­ers, they should be able to build bridges between them. In intercultural negotiation, the maxim “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” does not apply as soon as we abandon the universalistic assumption.

One of the most important practical uses of cultural differences is in creativity to seek new options when confronted with a problem. Each culture has a specific range of capabilities for innovating. As both ranges do not strictly overlap, the resulting range is wider than any of the one culture range, thus broadening the scope of possible options.

When the point in a negotiation is to bridge the cultural gap, in order to operate effectively, Salacuse (1999: 233) suggests several ways:

• Learn about the other side's culture.

• Do not stereotype. Treatpeopleas individuals, not as cultural robots.

• Bridge the gap using the other side's culture to identify and build a relationship.

• Use one's own culture, helping the other to become more familiar with it.

• Combine elements from both cultures in an integrative cultural blend.

• Resort to a third culture if, for instance, both sides have studied or lived in a common country.

Culture may also be strategically instru­mentalized by shrewd negotiators.

When one knows enough about the culture of the other, the subsequent question is what to do. The advice of “when in Rome do as the Romans” may not be either always feasible or effective (Weiss, 1994a&b). It is far from being obvious that when in China, a Western negotiator is expected to behave like a Chinese person. Such behavior may raise more questions than answers and end up confusing the other party.

A number of practice-oriented books have been published such as Foster (1992), Moran and Stripp (1991), and Salacuse (1991), giving clues and advice about what to do while negotiating in some specific circumstances. Research has also provided some useful con­clusions that can be used by practitioners to foresee what could happen when negotiating. Elgstrom (1994:295) points out the following observations:

• The degree of dissimilarity between negotiating parties makes culture exert more impact (Cohen, 1987: 75).

• Culturally caused misunderstandings are more prevalent in new relationships than between parties that have been meeting on a regular basis (Elgstrom, 1990).

• When essential interests are at stake, culture has less opportunity to influence the negotiation process (Cohen, 1987: 76).

Other useful findings show that the role of culture is correlated with the intensity of the conflict. As conflict increases, so does the role of culture (Faure and Rubin, 1993: 216). Complex, multilateral, long- lasting negotiations (such as the WTO) leave less room for cultural influences than one- shot, bilateral encounters (Winham, 1980).

Considerable efforts have been made to grasp and explain mechanisms that conduct a particular culture to solve conflict among its members (Faure, 2003; Gulliver, 1979; Nader and Todd, 1978; Zartman, 2000). However, knowing that there are still something like 8000 cultures remaining in the world, and that the speed of extinction is such that after a generation there might be only a few hundred left, it is more than urgent to investigate these societies to get a better understanding of the basic process of conflict resolution in its multiple expressions.