BACKGROUND:

A comparison between the French’s and Chinese’s cultures (Power Distance, Uncertainty Avoidance, Individualism, Masculinity, Long-Term Orientation) :

Country | Power Distance Index | Uncertainty Avoidance Index | Individualism Index | Masculinity Index | Long-Term Orientation Index | China | 80 | 30 | 20 | 66 | 118 | France | 68 | 86 | 71 | 43 | 39a |
Source: HOFSTEDE: Cultures And Organizations - Software of the Mind

Characteristics of high and low face-saving cultures:

Issue | High face-saving | Low face-saving | Context | High | Low | Favoured business communication approach | Politeness strategy; indirect plan | Confrontation strategy; direct plan | View of directness | Uncivil; inconsiderate; offensive | Honest; inoffensive | View of indirectness | Civil; considerate; honest | Dishonest; offensive | Amount of verbal self-disclosure | Low | High | Vagueness | Tolerated | Untreated |
Source: Adapted from Romana Paszkowska, Intercultural Communication Module. Cracow School of Business Cracow University of Economics, 2014; p.12

Other Face Concern
High
Low
High
Self Face Concern
Low
INDIVDUALISTIC LOW-CONTEXT CULTURE
COLLECTIVISTIC HIGH-CONTEXT CULTURE
Obliging
Compromising
Avoiding
Integrating
Dominating
Third-party help
Passive agressive
Emmotional expression
CHINESE
FRENCH
Conflict Communication Styles:
Dominating: One person's position or goal above the other. Avoiding: Eluding the conflict topic, the conflict party, or the conflict situation altogether. Obliging: High concern for the other person's conflict interest above a person's own interest. Compromising: A give-and-take concession approach in order to reach a midpoint agreement.

Source: Adapted from Em Griffin, A First Look at Communication Theory, 1997 (figs. 32.2 and 32.3)

Integrating: A solution closure that involves high concern for one's self and high concern for the other. Emotional Expression-Articulating a persons feelings in order to deal with and control conflict. Third Party Help-Resolving conflicts by enlisting additional help to manage communication. Passive Aggressive-Reacting to conflict in a roundabout way, placing blame indirectly.
THE FIVE THEORIES OF INTERCULTURAL AND INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION

1. Uncertainty Reduction Theory A. Initial encounters:

a) Prediction
Mr Masson guess that his technicians may be puzzled because trainees could have higher degrees – French workers should be presented to Chinese as eminent specialists. This should add them confidence and offset lower education

b) Explanation
Mr Masson who is responsible for the cooperation project with Dong Feng Motors know that Chinese expected a pragmatic and concrete approach. - The French company should develop and prepare very good training plan. In the case of default on the part of the French, Chinese people can pick it up as a lack of respect towards them.

B. Types of uncertainty:

a) Cognitive uncertainty b) Behavioral uncertainty

C. 8 axioms in Uncertainty Reduction Theory:

c) verbal communication d) nonverbal warmth e) information seeking f) self-disclosure g) reciprocity of disclosure h) similarity i) liking j) shared networks

D. Uncertainty reduction strategies:

a. Passive observation
Two specialist who were involved in the designe process should be sent on a trip to China where they could see how the Chinese work. They could understand the way of their thinking.

b. Action information gathering
People responsible for training program should collect as much information as they can about Chinese expectation about this atraining project.

c. Direct interaction
French consultants at the beginning should observe technicians during training to improve each steps. This could help in future to reorganize course.

2. Face negotiation theory

A. Face B. Facework C. Face management

a. Self-face oriented - defines French people b. - defines Chinese people
Other-face oriented c. Mutual-face oriented
Face Movements
Face movement refers to the options that a negotiator faces in choosing whether to maintain, defend and/or upgrade self-face versus other-face in a conflict episode. There are four opportunities a mediator has in regards to their concern for self-face, your personal image and other-face, the counterpart’s image of themselves that define face movements: 1. If there is a high level of concern for both self-face and other-face, the result is mutual-face protection. 2. If there is a low level of concern for both self-face and other-face, the result is mutual-face obliteration. 3. If there is a high level of concern for self-face but a low level of concern for other-face, the result is self-face defense. 4. If there is a high level of concern for other-face but a low level of concern for self-face, the result is other-face defense.

D. Style of conflict management

Conflict Communication Styles
Conflict style consists of learned behaviors developed through socialization within one’s culture. Rahim[14][15] based his classification of conflict styles into two dimensions. The first dimension demonstrates the concern for self, how important it is for the individual to maintain their own face or that of their culture (this is rated on a high to low continuum) and the second is concern for others, how important is it to the individual to help them maintain their own face (also rated on a high to low continuum). The two dimensions are combined to create five styles for dealing with conflict. The individual will choose a style of handling conflict based on the importance of saving their face and that of the face of the other. 1. Dominating: One person's position or goal above the other. 2. Avoiding: Eluding the conflict topic, the conflict party, or the conflict situation altogether. 3. Obliging: High concern for the other person's conflict interest above a person's own interest. 4. Compromising: A give-and-take concession approach in order to reach a midpoint agreement. 5. Integrating: A solution closure that involves high concern for one's self and high concern for the other.
In 2000 Ting-Toomey, Oetzel, and Yee-Jung incorporated three additional conflict communication styles to the original five.[16] These three have further enhanced conflict communication across cultures. 1. Emotional Expression-Articulating a persons feelings in order to deal with and control conflict. 2. Third Party Help-Resolving conflicts by enlisting additional help to manage communication. 3. Passive Aggressive-Reacting to conflict in a roundabout way, placing blame indirectly.
Other researchers used a different way to group the conflict tactics. Ting-Toomey (1983) grouped strategies into three categories of tactics for handling conflict; integrative,distributive and passive-indirect.
Integrative conflict tactics incorporated integrating and compromising styles and is reflective of mutual-face and the need for a solution. Those who chose this tactic work with the other person involved in the conflict to get the best possible solution for both parties. Examples of Integrative tactics may include listening to the other, respecting their feelings, and providing their own personal viewpoints in a manner that assists in the negotiation.
Distributive conflict tactics use the dominating style of handling conflict, and emphasizes the individuals own power over the other. This style reflects self-face. Passive-indirect conflict tactics are consistent with obliging and avoiding styles of handling conflict and reflects other-face.

3. Speech codes theory 4. Genderlect styles 5. Communication accommodation theory
Bibliography
http://www.laetusinpraesens.org/docs00s/burkha.php http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Face_negotiation_theory Chinese
The Chinese, like most Asians, “walk around the pool” in order to make wellconsidered decisions, but they also have a keen sense of the value of time. This can be noticed especially in their attitude toward taking up other people’s time, for which they frequently apologize. At the end of a meeting in China, it is customary to thank the participants for contributing their valuable time. Punctuality on arrival is also considered important—more so than in many other Asian countries. Indeed, when meetings are scheduled between two people, it is not unusual for a Chinese to arrive 15 to 30 minutes early “in order to finish the business before the time appointed for its discussion,” so not stealing any of the other person’s time! It is also considered polite in China to announce, 10 or 15 minutes after a meeting has begun, that one will soon have to be going. Again, the worthy aim involved is to economize on their use of your time. The Chinese will not go, of course, until the transaction has been completed, but the point has been made.
This is indeed a double standard. The Chinese penchant for humility demands that the other person’s time be seen as precious; on the other hand, the
Chinese expect a liberal amount of time to be allocated for repeated consideration of the details of a transaction and to the careful nurturing of personal relationships surrounding the deal. They frequently complain that Americans, in
China to do business, often have to catch their plane back to the U.S. “in the middle of the discussion.” The American sees the facts as having been adequately discussed; the Chinese feel that they have not yet attained that degree of closeness—that satisfying sense of common trust and intent—that is for the
Chinese the bedrock of the deal and of other transactions in the future.

French
French managers inhabit quite a different linguistic world. They are clinically direct in their approach and see no advantage in ambiguity or ambivalence. The
French language is crisp and incisive, a kind of verbal dance or gymnastics of the mouth, which presses home its points with an undisguised, logical urgency. It is rational, precise, ruthless in its clarity.
The French educational system, from childhood, places a premium on articulateness and eloquence of expression. Unlike Japanese, Finnish or British children,
French children are rarely discouraged from being talkative. In the French culture loquacity is equated with intelligence, and silence does not have a particularly golden sheen. Lycée, university and École normale supérieure education reinforces the emphasis on good speaking, purity of grammar and mastery of the French idiom. The French language, unquestionably, is the chief weapon wielded by managers in directing, motivating and dominating their staff. Less articulate French staff members will show no resentment. Masterful use of language and logic implies, in their understanding, masterful management.

For Hispanics,
Italians, Portuguese, Chinese and Japanese, the lack of face-to-face interaction is a far more serious matter. Asian customers, in general, want to be visited, visited

These same low-context Germans and Americans frequently exasperate the highcontext
French and Italians with their painstaking emphasis on instructions, explanation and clarification. Tell a Frenchman something twice and he is likely to reply, “Je ne suis pas stupide.”
There are no easy answers as

French refusal to compromise indicates obstinacy.

The French give pride of place to logic and rational argument. The aesthetics of the discussion are also important to them, and this will be reflected in their dress sense, choice of venue, imaginative debating style and preoccupation with
166 WHEN CULTURES COLLIDE proper form.

The French have an equally strong sense of history and consider themselves the principal propagators of Western European culture. This encourages them to take a central role in most discussion
The Japanese, on the other hand, are comfortable with American power. As victors in the Second World War, the U.S. earned the number one spot. Inequality is basic in both Japanese and Chinese philosophies, and the former are quite satisfied with the number two spot—for the time being. The Japanese see themselves as farsighted negotiators and courteous conversationalists. They have no aspirations to dominate discussion any more than they have to become world or even Asian leaders. They are privately convinced, however, of their uniqueness, of which one facet is intellectual superiority. Unlike the French, they base this belief not on intellectual verbal prowess, but on the power of strong intuition.
Compromise
It

Arab teams will take a recess for prayer and come back with a more conciliatory stance; Japanese delegations will bring in senior executives to “see what the problem is”; Swedish opponents will go out drinking together; Finns will retire to the sauna.
The Italians, although they respect logic almost as much as the French, know that our world is indeed irrational and pride themselves on their flexibility. The Spaniards and South
Americans see compromise as a threat to their pundonor (dignity), and several nations, including Argentina, Mexico and Panama, display obstinacy

French debating logic is Cartesian in its essence, which means that all presuppositions and traditional opinions must be cast aside from the outset, as they are possibly untrustworthy. Discussion must be based on one or two indubitable truths upon which one can build, through mechanical and deductive processes, one’s hypotheses. Descartes decreed that all problems should be divided into as many parts as possible and the review should be so complete that nothing could be omitted or forgotten. Given these instructions and doctrine, it is hardly surprising that French negotiators appear complacently confident and longwinded.
They have a hypothesis to build and are not in a hurry.
Opponents may indeed doubt some of the French “indubitable truths” and ask who is qualified to establish the initial premises. Descartes has an answer to this: rational intellect is not rare; it can be found in anyone who has been given help in clear thinking (French education) and is free from prejudice. What is more, conclusions reached through Cartesian logic “compel assent by their own natural clarity.” There, in essence, is the basis for French self-assurance and an unwillingness to compromise.
The fellow French would certainly meet thrust with counter-thrust, attempting to defeat the other side’s logic. Many cultures feel little inclined to do this.
The Japanese—easy meat to corner with logic—have no stomach for the French style of arguing or public demonstrations of cleverness.
Chinese logic is different again, founded as it is on Confucian philosophy. The
Chinese consider the French search for truth less important than the search for
MEETINGS OF THE MINDS 169 virtue. To do what is right is better than to do what is logical. They also may show disdain for Western insistence that something is black or white, that opposite courses of action must be right or wrong. Chinese consider both courses may be right if they are both virtuous. Confucianism decrees moderation in all things
(including opinion and argument); therefore, behavior toward others must be virtuous.
Politeness must be observed and others must be protected from loss of face.
Taoist teaching encourages the Chinese to show generosity of spirit in their utterances.
The strong are supposed to protect the weak, so the Chinese negotiator will expect you not to take advantage of your superior knowledge or financial strength!
1. What is the intended purpose of the meeting? (Preliminary, fact-finding, actual negotiation, social?)
2. Which is the best venue?
3. Who will attend? (Level, number, technicians?)
4. How long will it last? (Hours, days, weeks?)
5. Are the physical arrangements suitable? (Room size, seating, temperature, equipment, transportation, accommodation for visitors?)
6. What entertainment arrangements are appropriate? (Meals, excursions, theater?) 7. How much protocol does the other side expect? (Formality, dress, agendas?)
8. Which debating style are they likely to adopt? (Deductive, inductive, freewheeling, aggressive, courteous?)
9. Who on their side is the decision maker? (One person, several, or only consensus?) 10. How much flexibility can be expected during negotiation? (Give-andtake, moderation, fixed positions?)
11. How sensitive is the other side? (National, personal?)
12. How much posturing and body language can be expected? (Facial expressions, impassivity, gestures, emotion?)
13. What are the likely priorities of the other side? (Profit, long-term relationship, victory, harmony?)
14. How wide is the cultural gap between the two sides? (Logic, religion, political, emotional?)
15. How acceptable are their ethics to us? (Observance of contracts, time frame?) 16. Will there be a language problem? (Common language, interpreters?)
17. What mechanisms exist for breaking deadlocks or smoothing over difficulties?
18. To what extent may such factors as humor, sarcasm, wit, wisecracking and impatience be allowed to spice the proceedings?