The Sustainable Development Team reports from Monday night are posted on the course Blackboard sites. Read through them. Consider these questions:
1. What in these reports stands out about negotiation?
2. What in these reports stands out about culture?
3. As you consider these projects, what are important cultural considerations?
1. What in these reports stands out about negotiation?
ReplyDeleteThe first thing that stood out to me about negotiation from these reports is the common issues that lead to negotiation. I noticed these factors included; the common need for negotiation, the parties involved, and economic effects. The other thing I noticed about negotiation most of the groups mentioned similar parties involved despite having different issues in different countries. Most groups mentioned local and state governments as players, as well as the local people, interests groups, and corporations/industries. The last thing I noticed is that that negotiation has many aspects that most people don't ever consider, and I am very interested to learn more about those aspects.
2. What in these reports stands out about culture?
The main thing that stood out to me in relation to culture in these reports is how complex and multifaceted culture in negotiation can be. By this I mean it is easy to classify culture as the main ideals and functions of a group, but after reading these reports it is clear that there are many aspects of culture such as; gender, history, social actions, subsistence, production,etc. And this complex make up of a group of people creates conflicting interests among the people and can make negotiation difficult.
3. As you consider these projects, what are important cultural considerations?
As aforementioned there are many different aspects of culture that have to be considered when making negotiations, especially ones between the state and locals. Age, gender, social norms, means of production are just a few mentioned. It is important to consider in negotiation all of these groups/cultures and subcultures especially when we are negotiating as a third party. We don't want to come across imperialistic or ethnocentric in our negotiations so understanding and respecting cultures is vital to international negotiation.
So I'm going off topic here a little bit but I've lately been struggling with the idea of aid agencies or programs like the Peace Corps that often send young idealists out to "save the world." I know that the volunteers and the core ideals of agencies are often with the best intentions so I'm not bashing the core ideas of these groups.
DeleteIt's one thing to fund a project, such as the WWF in Madagascar hiring a local person with cultural knowledge, but so often aid agencies get the okay from the host government then send experts in to fix the problem and leave. But this approach shows the superiority that "developed" countries have in two ways. First, this assumes that the foreigners know the biggest problem and how to best fix it (often with technology). Secondly, sending experts that often have no local knowledge and end up telling the locals how to manage some aspect of their lives just doesn't work. Why should these local people listen to an expert that shows up and starts saying they know best after living there for a short period of time? Just because this person has earned a bachelor’s degree in our country (and thus more respectability in the U.S.) doesn’t mean this respect or trust will carry over to another culture. At least with the Peace Corps the volunteers are required to live there for multiple years and it seems to work out that by the end of year two they often are able to get some goals accomplished because they have established some sort of relationship. But the main concept of coming into a community to fix things the American way is so very egocentric, don’t you agree?
I agree with what you are saying, but what about the fact that the project itself may take a few years. If the agency has the okay to come into the area to do the project, they may as well start as soon as possible and earn the relationship with the locals as they progress, as to not waste time. By the time the project is complete, hopefully they have fully educated and developed a relationship with the locals. Like you said, that relationship is crucial for the idea to sink and for them to respect the aid.
DeleteBut in a way this may just show the American attitude too well and the locals push the efforts. In this case the project should not even break ground until this relationship is made. I would say it depends.. depends on if its possible for the relationship to build later. Like you said, it is hard to figure it out.
I think that you both raise good points. Americans generally do approach the other countries with a egocentric approach. We always convince ourselves that we know best, so whatever attempts we make to "improve" other countries must be the best. However, think that it is unrealistic to accuse aid organizations of this arrogance. It seems to me that those affiliated with an aid organization will be the most educated in intercultural communication. Before volunteers may depart for a country they receive some training in cultural awareness and cross-cultural communication, not to mention the fact that those volunteers traditionally possess a more open minded attitude.
DeleteI thought that while the video from class was outdated it made some good points about the need to enter situations with an open mind. I would venture a guess that those representing aid organizations would not tend to act like the American business men and women from the video.
I think these are all good points that are being raised. We as Americans always need to be aware of how we're being perceived by the host or local community. However, I believe that the local community's perception of our involvement will be largely based on the project and service that we are providing. For example, in the case of developing water sustainability in Nigeria, the basic human need for water to survive, coupled with the extreme weather conditions, poverty, and lack of access by the local community, will cast our involvement in the project in a very positive light. I think we'll generally be viewed as helping to save African lives. The need for water transcends all human boundaries, as we all have this need in common.
DeleteHowever, the local community in Nigeria might perceive another project, such as transportation sustainability, as capitalistic westerners involving themselves with ulterior motives.
If it were a health care project, we could initially be perceived as infringing on their fundamental religious beliefs, if for example, we were trying to vaccinate the community or treat certain diseases.
All in all, some projects will seem heroic while others might seem calculated.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI like where you guys are taking this. I think that this is a huge issue that gets overlooked most of the time. I know I'm echoing you guys when I say that a lot of the times Americans barge into these countries thinking we know all and see all. However, I think it goes back to what we talked about in class; the culture and beliefs of that specific country or area in which we are trying to help. I think that an extensive amount of research and interaction with locals in the area of focus needs to be done in preparation to "fixing" a problem.
DeleteLike Rod said: when it comes to basic human needs such as water in Nigeria, I think it could be a little easier to get in and help without really stepping on a lot of toes. As for say transportation in some of these countries, that's a whole new ball game. How do we know that they even want/need to leave they're area? Just because as Americans we want to be able to get up and go anywhere in the world at any given time, doesn't mean the rest of the world is that way.
To help from being so pushy and intrusive, I think it would be wise to study the values in a diverse group. The people involved shouldn't only be Americans. There should be locals and people from other countries with other core values involved as well so that we can get the perspective that isn't just out of the "we can fix all" American approach. We need to be and stay as open-minded as possible and unless it's a life of death emergency--like getting water to villages who are struggling to stay alive--I think the process should move slow so we can make sure it's what the people feel comfortable with.
I couldn’t agree more with Tiara when it comes to including members of the local community in each prospective project. This course in International Conflict and Disputes has opened up my eyes in regards to rallying local support and maintaining local involvement in projects that we wish to succeed on foreign soil. As Americans, I think we tend to self-evaluate the project and proceed when we believe the cause has merit. I believe that when we judge the project’s eventual outcome to be positive, we tend to act, and assume that everyone else has judged our prospective project in a similar manner. The problem is that each individual worldview shapes each individual nation’s cultural perception. Through this course I am recognizing that the cultural dynamics that exist in every nation on Earth shape the lens in which the individual members of that society view each problem and its solution.
DeleteAnd the only way to fully understand those individual cultural differences in perception is to include the local community in addressing each project and mutually working through each problem and its solution. We can’t just assume that every cause the U.S. attempts to take up will be interpreted by all those involved internationally, as noble and just. Now obviously, every project involving every foreign nation will have its own distinct dynamics. International negotiation does not have a “one size fits all” model. As culture changes and political administrations come and go, the perception lens gets altered as well. That is why enlisting local advisors, defining each situation from the inside, and strategizing from the bottom up, is so vital to the success of the project. We are able to keep our hand on the pulse of the community and respond quickly to the unexpected issues that arise in a foreign land, while overtly showing respect to the community and the culture, in which we are operating in. Respect is a common language that everyone can understand and acknowledge. And when others genuinely respect all of the perceptions involved in the decision making process, common ground is easier to find and work partners are more eager to accommodate as hosts.
1. What in these reports stands out about negotiation?:
ReplyDeleteI found it very interesting that without any experience/background/research regarding the different countries and topics that our various groups were able to consider many different sides and avenues of approach to this topic. Which is the start to negotiations. Having the innovation to think about many different systems that could be affected by our particular topics, I believe is very beneficial for conflict resolution.
2. What in these reports stands out about culture?
I appreciated that the Nigerian Water group considered the historical and religious importance of water within that nation. All the groups as a whole regarding respect for another's culture as important, and understanding of the potential language barrier, but the Nigeria group took those thoughts to another level. Religion did not cross my mind, which shows the importance for working in teams when dealing with negotiations because everyone brings different thoughts and ideas to all situations.
3. As you consider these projects, what are important cultural considerations?
After reading Negotiating Globally, there are many cultural considerations I have found to be important that I did not consider before. I feel that when we enter into negotiations of this sort, it is of utmost importance to identify and examine what our motivations are, because that will be a prime question of the cooperative country. Also, I agree with the book in that 'information is the currency of negotiation'. In the case of my group (Peru Transportation) it is helpful to know that Peru is considered a collectivism type country, we need to understand gender roles, historical policy regarding transportation, we need to research all avenues of transportation, gain an idea of where areas are that need advancements, etc. Researching who we will be in communication with, what best practices are for presenting information/educating the public, and how best to incorporate Peru in our decision making process are all considerations that must be made.
1. What in these reports stands out about negotiation?
ReplyDeleteThe first thing that stands out about negotiation in these reports is all about not stepping on any feet, or in other words, to have all ducks in a row, to have all outcomes mapped out. These reports identify that you must have the paperwork in place before you take action. One cannot just build a massive aid program in a country without proper authorization, even if a stable government does not exist. Communication is always key in order for everyone to win. I noticed that in most all reports, the government wasn’t the only party other than CAID. Communities and key individuals of groups play a huge part in negotiation also, even if their government ignores them, CAID should not. This is to prevent conflicts.
2. What in these reports stands out about culture?
What stands out about culture in these reports is that culture is a huge consideration in negotiations. Researching the culture and abiding by the peoples way of life may be the means of a successful project. The reports also mention that CAID has the best intentions in mind for these projects, which need to be communicated as clearly as possible to everyone that is affected by the project. A couple of reports mention power and money (say from tourism). I believe that these two parts of culture need to be deeply considered and watched when negotiating an international project due to how much trouble is associated with these two items. In all, culture is considered a large piece of the pie for negotiations in these reports. The reports thus infer that these countries value a good relationship.
3. As you consider these projects, what are important cultural considerations?
Important cultural considerations should entail tensions between parties, i.e. government and the people, religion A and religion B, or community A and community B. CAID does not want to entangle itself in a local conflict by seeming to take sides by giving one party more than the other. As was said above, CAID needs to communicate as clearly as possible why they are there. Also, one assumption that almost all reports consider is that the existing culture needs education to improve their situation. It isn’t just the resources that are needed to implement the project, but the knowledge to build and maintain a sustainable system. With this in mind, the cultural aspects of the people need to be considered. Their ways of life may be a part of what they value, but in the case of their health or their environment surrounding them, these ways of life are hurting them. When CAID educates the people, they need to convince the people to change their culture so this doesn't happen again, but not offend them.
1. From these reports it demonstrates that in no matter what country or type of project negotiations are going to be necessary. When working with a group a negotiation is going to be inevitable. Most of the reports listed the same people/groups/organizations that they negotiations would occur with such as the local people, government, or other organizations in the area. It's important to take into consideration all stakeholders of the project.
ReplyDelete2. Culture is a huge consideration when dealing with negotiations. The culture of the country and people need to be taken into account as well as the subcultures of the different groups of individuals the project will have an effect on. Cultures and social norms can greatly vary in different regions of a country so it's vital to understand these cultures. The organization needs to take into account the views on gender, age, race, power distance, collectivism/individualism, and social norms in order to have an effective negotiation.
3. As I touched on in the previous question there are many considerations that are important when negotiating. Power distance, social norms, individualism, masculinity, uncertainty avoidance, and long term orientation are the major factors of culture and need to be evaluated when dealing with a project involving negotiations. It's also crucial that negotiators have respect and appreciation for the culture of the country and groups they will be dealing with.
Post from Carissa Bunnell
DeleteWhat in these reports stands out about negotiation?
ReplyDeleteI found a common theme in these reports about negotiation and that theme was organization. There was regiment to complete paperwork before action could even be taken to ensure thoroughness. A person may not build a large aid program in a subpar security country regardless if the government is present or not. Thus, establishing proper communication is vital in any circumstance. Communication not only provides a stable ground in which to negotiation, but also promotes the possibility of innovation. These reports offered a look into how different people/countries went about their business in hopes for a better future.
2. What in these reports stands out about culture?
Culture in these reports was obviously present and should be noted in negotiations. Understanding other parties’ culture and norms is vital to completing the goal at hand. For example, the Nigerian Water group assessed the historical and religious importance of water within that nation to appease the party and not step on any toes. The CAID used this tactic to best establish a line of communication to all affected by the project and to reduce bumps further down the road. Therefore, these reports displayed an avid picture of just how important culture was in these negotiations and just how understanding of culture could make or break a deal.
3. As you consider these projects, what are important cultural considerations?
After reviewing these projects it has become apparent of some cultural considerations that must be acknowledged. One must understand who the audience is: age, gender, norms, etc. Also understand where the audience stands, state or local. Furthermore, one cannot oppress a lifestyle or ideal upon an already established culture who are set in their ways. There are many hoops to jump through in considering culture, but these hoops will inevitably lead to greater success.
On International Assignment - Managing the Overseas Assignment
ReplyDelete*I made the following observations
-Manage the relationship (harmony)
-Manage the hierarchy (use proper channels)
-Manage the social constructions of the culture
-Manage the information and how you retrieve it (where, from whom, how, when)
-Manage the signals sent from your negotiating partner
-Locate a trustworthy, local contact to guide you through the process
-Stay flexible (maintain an open mind)
1. What in these reports stands out about negotiation?
ReplyDeleteWhen the reports were presented, I found it interesting that all of them had many of the same things in common despite the fact that they were concerning different countries with separate issues. Each report stated that when negotiating to those in charge, they needed to make sure that they would make sure to respect each country and understand their values or ways, along with making sure everything is in order. When it comes to terms of creating a large aid program, you’re building a large corporation that it meant to help others; you must ensure that you have a solid foundation yourself. Communication is another large part of success, when dealing with other countries you must make sure to have a good understanding of their values and motives so that an effective plan can be implemented and carried out. Considering that negotiations are inevitable, by having clearly set guidelines and communicating effectively, each report seems to show that negotiating correctly will lead to the desired improvements.
2. What in these reports stands out about culture?
In each report, it is clear that culture plays a huge role in the process of negotiation. Each culture varies and has multiple features that make each unique. Therefore, you must adapt to each culture and understand the values. By doing so, the reports demonstrate how CAID is able to show that they value what each country and its culture has to offer. When culture is disregarded, it’s evident that the deal would most likely be broken and the offer would then be ignored. Culture is key to creating a positive relationship and when creating these strong connections, it will effect the final outcomes of any project being proposed.
3. As you consider these projects, what are important cultural considerations?
I think that important cultural considerations are the target audience, religion and government structure. Since communication plays such a large role of negotiation, it’s commonly stated that CAID needs to ensure they do so in an effective manner so that the other party can understand. Also, being able to understand the existing situation thoroughly and can express the need for CAID and the plans of action for the future. By understanding these different cultural considerations, it sets the path for structure and clarity.
1. What in these reports stands out about negotiation?
ReplyDelete-What stands out the most about negotiation to me in these reports is the style in which the negotiation is communicated before they choose to take action. The steps you need to take before doing things is key and that’s why the communication is also key. It was interesting how the different groups went about doing different things but in common they all had a style of communication to go about doing things because there was conflict involved.
2. What in these reports stands out about culture?
-In culture you always have to be careful and consider all parties involved with the negotiation because of the simple fact that everyone’s culture is going to be different and you want to make sure everyone agrees and you create something that everyone can work with- I think it all of these projects everyone does a good job when it comes to culture because they aren’t crossing the lines and culture is highly considered when you are working with international conflicts and trying to work at a good relationship for all
3. As you consider these projects, what are important cultural considerations?
-Important cultural considerations include what other parties may have as discrepancies and what their cultural values are. Some cultures might even have religion that you need to keep in mind. You need to treat their considerations as important as you would want your considerations to be considered.
These reports can help understand the time consuming process it takes for charitable agencies to help others in need. When the ‘parties involved’ question was asked everyone started out with naming government agencies whether they be federal, state, or community based. Then eventually we all started naming the companies that would be hired to help, and the last party involved would be the locals dealing with the problem. Sadly, in order to help these people, good hearted organizations need to gain acceptance from the top first, then their acceptance will eventually trickle down to communal organizations and that is when they can deal with the actual problem at hand. Organizations have to do this to gain trust and respect from the host country or else they would be ‘stepping on toes.’ I feel that if an organization like CAID were to go into that particular country and start from the bottom (community) and gain acceptance from the local government first, the problem would be taken care of at a much faster rate. It would be a “take action first and ask questions later” scenario but by doing it this way you would be able to learn cultural norms and gain trust from local officials. From there you would be collaborating with local agencies, putting locals to work, and taking care of the problem. And now it would seem that the locals have taken care of their own problems with the assistance of CAID. This would then create a sense of pride in the communities that would trickle up the political ladder. But that scenario would be much harder when the problem is derived from the community, such as local loggers in Madagascar. Here it would be harder to gain trust at a local level because you are depicted as a foreigner telling a local how to earn his/her living. If it was Madagascar I would start form the federal government and work my way down to the local governments. Then you must really try and understand all of the cultural values of that particular community and take care of the problem (deforestation) in the most sincere way possible.
ReplyDeleteCulture is one of the most significant factors involved in productive negotiation. The video we watched in class was an example of how cultural practices can effect the outcome of negotiations. Each culture had specific expectations and motives for negotiations. By not respecting the cultural practices of the country which, you desire to do business, you are setting yourself up for failure. It does not take much effort to learn, and respect the practices of other cultures. By doing a little research before a negotiation with a foreign country, you can increase the productivity, and the overall effectiveness of your negotiation. The ideas from the video still apply to the world today. Even more importantly now that we have the internet, there is no reason someone should enter a situation that unprepared. The first simulation also, included these cultural factors. Each country in the simulation had specific needs. Each country also, had a different way of going about the negotiation. Even though it was only a simulation it is important to respect other peoples requests. These examples are just support for the need to research before entering a situation like this
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1. What in these reports stands out about negotiation?
ReplyDeleteThese reports exemplify the complexity of negotiation. There are so many factors that goes into a situation like this. Even if the process you are trying to implement in another country is mutually beneficial, that doesn't mean it will run smoothly. If you are trying to negotiate the safety of an animal species in another country, and you have the funding to back them in this cause, it doesn't mean they will go through with it. Maybe the poachers are heavily armed, maybe poaching is essential to the local economy, maybe the tribal cultures have been killing these animals for survival over hundreds of years, the politicians could be receiving funds from the poachers etc. These levels of complexity need to be addressed before a plan can be implemented. Negotiation is necessary to reach a goal in a plan such as this, but the research done before hand or pre-negotiation factors can be equally as important.
2. What in these reports stands out about culture?
Well, as I said before it is important to research every possible aspect of a situation before addressing it. Culture is one of those aspects, and arguably the most important one. You need to be respectful and considerate of other cultures, and learn what they are not fond of, in order to reach peak productivity. You can't go into a situation that is already uncertain,be completely unprepared and expect success. By taking the time to learn the proper way to communicate, you can only benefit yourself and your cause.
3. As you consider these projects, what are important cultural considerations?
This question is hard to give a pinpoint answer because I believe it varies by situation. Each culture has different considerations that need to be taken into account. Some of the broader aspects that can be addressed are: respectful behavior, interior motives, common goals and many more. All cultural considerations are important for a quality negotiation. If someone wanted to do business with me, but wouldn't shake my hand, or look me in the eyes I would not trust them. The same goes for other countries but with different rules. Learning these rules are as important as the data you present in the negotiation. It shows a certain level of dedication to take the time, to learn these customs and practice them to the best of your ability.
So I want to add to the discussion from earlier. Americans do tend to have this "egocentric effect" when dealing with other cultures, but could something different be said about any other economic or military hegemony in history? The world would be a different place without the United States, and China has now caught up militarily and economically with India close behind, the peace of a grand nuclear arbiter in juxtaposition with the development of a common world trade language (aided and abetted by the British empire before us, no doubt) and the fixed financial exchange rate to the American dollar has put us in that position.
ReplyDeleteAmerican supremacy has undoubtedly had detrimental effect in places around the world. The political games played during the Cold War in Africa has crippled many nations in that continent, South American economic dependency has led to years of violence concerning drugs, and the list goes on. I don't look to try and justify that, but I also know that American influence in the globe has led to unprecedented prosperity in other places. Forgive me for being insensitive-- but it seems that the world has benefited from following the American lead.
When reading through the sustainable development team reports it seemed as if nearly every group felt that negotiation would be necessary between similar groups (local governments and citizens of the varying host nations). There were some cultural considerations in place but what interested me was that the mindset of every group was that the countries would almost undoubtedly agree with the developmental programs they looked to introduce. While it may very well be true that the people of these countries would happily welcome this outside organization, we cannot instantly assume this to be so. There may be cultural traditions in place that would cause some countries to be reluctant to a perceived intrusion (I am sure that in a real-life situation these would be seen and taken into account, which we were unable to do with the time constraint). In real negotiations there would be cultural considerations in place, but I feel as if it is innately in us to place our cultural values ahead of those that differ, even if those differing values were coming from a country an organization was looking to support.
ReplyDelete