СОВРЕМЕННАЯ КУЛЬТУРА КОММУНИКАЦИИ. СОЦИОКУЛЬТУРНЫЕ ПРОЦЕССЫ В СОВРЕМЕННОМ МИРЕ
Материалы II международной
(27 августа 2015)
Доктор экономических наук, профессор Ю.В. Федорова
Доктор филологических наук, профессор А.А. Зарайский
Доктор социологических наук, доцент Т.В. Смирнова
СОВРЕМЕННАЯ КУЛЬТУРА КОММУНИКАЦИИ. СОЦИОКУЛЬТУРНЫЕ ПРОЦЕССЫ В СОВРЕМЕННОМ МИРЕ: материалы II международной научно-практической конференции (27 августа 2015 г)/ Отв. ред. Зарайский А.А. – Саратов: Издательство ЦПМ «Академия Бизнеса», 2015. - 115с.
Сборник содержит научные статьи и тезисы ученых Российской Федерации и других стран. Излагается теория, методология и практика научных исследований в области информационных технологий, экономики, образования, социологии.
Для специалистов в сфере управления, научных работников, преподавателей, аспирантов, студентов вузов и всех лиц, интересующихся рассматриваемыми проблемами.
ISBN 978-5-9906712-5-6 УДК 004.02:004.5:004.9
© Институт управления и социально-экономического развития, 2015
© Саратовский государственный технический университет, 2015
© Richland College (Даллас, США), 2015
СЕКЦИЯ 1. СОВРЕМЕННАЯ КУЛЬТУРА КОММУНИКАЦИИ. СОЦИОКУЛЬТУРНЫЕ ПРОЦЕССЫ В СОВРЕМЕННОМ МИРЕ
professor, Doctor of social sciences
Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Lithuania
BUSINESS NEGOTIATIONS AND BUSINESS MEETINGS: START AND POSSIBLE INTERFERENCE OF MUTUAL UNDERSTANDING
Beginning of business negotiations and business meetings starts with perception (lat. perceptio
), process between interlocutors, opponents. It is a process in which the interlocutors are looking each other and from external view are trying to decipher and to understand their opponent. Impressions that arise by monitoring interlocutor’s appearance play an important regulatory role (Bonatti et al. 2014). First of all, it should be noted that negotiator knowing his opponent, improves himself, since he is improving his cognitive powers. On the other hand
, cognitive accuracy, disclosure of the interlocutors internal essence, determines course and future results of the business meetings and business negotiations (Zhang et al.
2014). Research shows that the perception of interlocutor is different depending on whether we see him for the first time, or whether we are already familiar and have communicated before. It was found that in the meeting with a stranger are activated intergroup communication mechanisms
and in communicating with familiar interface - are activated rules of interpersonal communication.
Intergroup communication mechanisms
include processes of social stereotypes that are based on the fact that image of other person (in this case, the interviewer) is created in accordance with one or two typical schemes.
Social stereotype - a simplified, schematic, often distorted domestic point of view about any social object (group of man belonging to any society, and other). Various social groups, people communicating with each other, create certain social stereotypes. These stereotypes rarely occur from personal experience, people usually pick them up from their parents in childhood, from teachers, out of the group that owns, from the mass media sources. Stereotypes wear off, become blurred if people from the different groups start to cooperate more closely, learn more about each other, seeking common goals (Tu 2013, 2014). Well-known ethnic or national (ethnic) stereotypes are, for example, that the English are very polite, the Germans - pedantic, French - are light, Russians - wide, unpredictable soul people, and so on. Thus, the image of the interviewer, negotiation opponent is formed on the basis of stereotypes. How much is an accurate first impression of stereotypical image is complex issue. On the one hand, almost everyone adult, having an experience, can quite accurately under clothing, language, manners, behavior to describe his interviewer characteristics: psychological characteristics, age, social class, profession. However, it works most accurately on neutral situations, while in other, when people are interested in each other, higher or lower potential errors. And if the people (in this case the negotiators, the interlocutors, opponents) are more interested in each other - the higher is the probability of error (Gunia et al. 2014).
The perception of interviewer and possible errors of perception are determined by the following factors: superiority, attractiveness and approach to us.
Participants of business communication and business negotiations generally are not completely equal: they differ in their social status, life experience, intelligence and so on. The inequality of interlocutors and opponents, leads to perceptual errors resulting from the advantage factor.
This scheme is as follows: when we meet someone with some kind of advantage, we tend to assess him more positively than in the case if we would be equal in accordance with that parameter. On the contrary - if we have certain advantages against our interviewer, we underrate him and transfer our advantages to other our properties (parameters). Thus, the advantage is fixed by one parameter only, and self-overestimation (or underestimating) is moved to many properties. However, this scheme is activated only in case if there is significant advantage (Elahee, Brooks 2004; Fells 1993). How is determined advantage of other person, what criteria can be used? When we meet him for the first time, information about the participant provides: a) the clothing, the overall human image (glasses, hairstyle, jewelry); b) car, office equipment; c) behavior, manners (such as sitting, walking, language, etc.).
Attractiveness factor occurs when we evaluate the exterior - we like or do not like the other person. If we like him, we tend to keep him smarter, better, more interesting, and so on. Thus we overestimate many characteristics of the interviewer.
Approach to us factor works as follows: if the interviewer appreciates us very well, so we will evaluate him better. If the opinions and attitudes of interlocutors overlap more, the better they assess each other.
When we communicate with somebody who is already familiar - appear these interpersonal communication mechanisms: identification, empathy and reflection. Identification in business negotiations and business meetings - this is an unconscious identification with negotiator. In the case of identification interlocutor inserts himself mentally into the opponent's position and decides how he would behave in such a situation. Very close identification is empathy, that is, the ability to feel existence of the interlocutor, to empathize with his feelings, to enter into his inner world, to accept him all with his feelings and thoughts. Empathetic person knows how to understand others, interest in each other, to be tolerant. There are three forms of empathy: a) emotional empathy that is based on the projection, the ability to imitate motor and emotional reactions of another person; b) cognitive empathy that is based on intellectual mental processes: the search for analogies, comparison, etc.; c) prediction empathy, characterized by as a human's ability to anticipate another person's emotional reactions in specific situations. Reflection in business negotiations or business meetings is the understanding of interviewers as well as the perception of opponents. The phenomenon of reflection in business communication explains well the mirror "I" concept - that's "I", which, in my opinion I am perceived by other people. Meanwhile, the content of the actual or real "I" indicates what does the person see about himself in fact, without embellishment - capacity physical and moral qualities, behavioral goals and motives. Demonstrative "I" - is the "I" part, which we think is the best representing us. This demonstrative "I" is beautified with all kinds of ways and it means that person will present himself to others so as to create a favorable impression, align his behavior with interviewer desires, circumstances and environments requirements.
The main factors
, which rarely help, but in most cases only hinder to understand and evaluate correctly each other in business meetings, can be grouped as follows:
Preliminary (in respect of interviewer) estimates, beliefs, attitudes, which are derived from certain sources before the start of the business meeting. For example: „He came from Norway? So we will be uninteresting to him really, he will keep us as second-class human beings" or „And what can you say for me, with your ten year work experience, for the man, who has forty year work experience in this system? "
Formed stereotype, according to which the interviewer is assigned to a particular category of persons and those properties are sought showing the dependence precisely to that group. For example: „He reminds me the drug dealer from Gypsy encampment - I do not think we will begin with him."
Seeking to make too early conclusions about the personality of interviewer before obtaining complete and reliable information. Some people just meeting someone are making conclusions about him immediately. For example: „Well, a man with such a face, and yet with nose rings, can’t achieve anything in our area."
Irresponsible structuring of the other person's personality, mean that the overall picture of the interviewer includes only certain properties, and other features are rejected.
The Halo Effect: it is created integral image on the interlocutor, by a certain property and then according to this image are assessed all his other properties. If the first overall impression is good, then some other his characteristics are assessed positively. Conversely, if the overall impression on the participant is bad, then even his doings that are good and noble are not noticeable, or seen as self-serving.
Projection effect arises where the interviewer is assigned the own characteristics and emotional functioning by analogy. A man according himself understands and appreciates the participant, based on the following logic: "All people are like me," or "All people are different than am I." A person, who is stubborn and suspicious, tends to see the same qualities in others also, while objectively they do not exist. Kind, helpful, honest man, in contrast, may look to an unfamiliar interlocutor through rose-tinted glasses and sorely be mistaken. Therefore, when a man complains that everyone around him is cruel, greedy, unscrupulous, it may be that he decides by oneself.
Priority effect: when the first information on the interlocutor, which is heard or seen, is very important and becomes entrenched in mind so much that can affect the entire communication time with this person. And even if later will be received information contradicting the original, it nevertheless will be remembered, appreciated and will be taken into account.
The mood of perceiver influences perception of interviewer: if it is bad (because of poor well-being, health, etc.), then the first impression on interviewer will be negative. In order to obtain an objective impression of the interviewer needs to be disposed.
Lack of desire and habits of listening to other people's opinions, always takes into consideration only personal impressions.
Over time does not change the perceptions and evaluations, while for different reasons many things are changed. This is the case when there remains unchanged once created perception or conclusions about the man, while there a lot of new information.
Latest information effect: when the last received adverse information on the interlocutor wipes all previous information.
Understanding and build trust with opponent, interlocutor is very strongly influenced by the pre-create perception. This determines how the recipient accepts and interprets information. Even human facial image can be perceived differently, depending on what you know on him for example: Is he the president of a far country? Is he criminal? Whether he is manager of the bankrupt bank? Is he discus throw champion? Experiments have shown that it is very difficult to deny wrong thoughts and the lie if the other person this justifies logically. This phenomenon (called belief sustainability) shows that beliefs can live their lives and they can survive even after destruction of the evidence. So misperception about other people or themselves may continue to survive and exist, despite disrepute. To change views are needed much stronger proof, arguments nor to create them (Van Kleef et al., 2006; Kong et al., 2014, Koeszegi 2004
Already at the beginning of the business negotiation, business meeting with the interviewer it is very important to be able to take off the mask, to be open and sincere. In an open, honest communication it is impossible the trust worthy relationship. In order to better understand your business relationships characteristics with other human we have to take interest what is his reaction, what are your own deeds in specific situations, to evaluate the real consequences of your behavior, expressions. With this information - how we perceive, understand, evaluate - from different people we can see ourselves in several different mirrors and modify the behavior in further stages of the business relationship in the right direction, avoiding difficulties, confidence-building problems at the beginning of conversation (Lewicki 2006; Lennane, Weidner 2006).
What are characteristics which man emphasize and exaggerate, when he seeks to create a credible human image for surroundings? It appears that most we want to appear nice, friendly and sincere, understanding and polite, intelligent and talented, energetic, hardy, able to do everything on time as required. We also want to look honest, tolerant and even altruistic, temperate and modest, that we should be more reliable (Ross, LaCroix 1996; Sinaceur 2010).
Creating trust often gets indulging, insinuation, the interviewer praise direct or indirect approval of his opinion. If this behavior is successful, other people become enthusiastic with person, who is seeking favor, not because of the specific features and characteristics, but because of his behavior. Research shows that trust is created by the following:
1. Responsiveness to other people, taking into account their views, needs and interests;
2. Ambient pleasing behavior, though it would be contrary to your own beliefs or values;
3. Showing of respect and sympathy, but do not overdo praising as well as complimenting words;
4. The aid proposal, the provision of services;
5. Approval the opinion of the surrounding (or more);
6. The demonstration of such properties, which are assessed around and hiding those that can be evaluated negatively.
One can predict that in doing so, person must be very careful, because other people can see his behavior as a manipulation. To create and maintain confidence is necessary communication and willingness to cooperate between the relations of two (or more) participants. If one side will be inclined to trust only and the other indiscriminately will seek their goals alone, after one naive trust case will come ... distrust. The importance of trust or distrust intensifies when two people or groups are functionally dependent, and any process error can harm them both or whole group. For trust building in business negotiations and business talks are essential the following components:
• the ability to trust (which includes all the life experience of both sides of the negotiations, which formed the ability of its members and willingness to risk by relying on others);
• perception of your and the opponent’s competence (your negotiating team), evaluation of skills to compete in the current circumstances, evaluation of the opponent’s (the opponent's negotiating team) capacity to compete;
• perception of the intentions of negotiators, opponents (your understanding that opponents actions, words, missions and decisions are influenced by companies, he represents rather than the opponents motives).
1. Bonatti, Piero; Oliveira, Eugenio; Sabater-Mir, Jordi; Sierra, Carles; Toni, Francesca (2014) „On the integration of trust with negotiation, argumentation and semantics“, The Knowledge Engineering Review, Vol. 29 Iss, 1, pp.31-50.
2. Gunia, Brian C.; Brett, Jeanne M.; Nandkeolyar, Amit K.; Kamdar, Dishan (2011) „Culture, trust, and negotiation consequences“, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol 96(4), pp.774-789. doi:10.1037/a0021986
3. Elahee, Mohammad; Brooks, Charles M. (2004) "Trust and negotiation tactics: perceptions about business‐to‐business negotiations in Mexico", Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 19 Iss: 6, pp.397 – 404. doi: 10.1108/08858620410556336
4. Fells, R. E. (1993) "Developing Trust in Negotiation", Employee Relations, Vol. 15 Iss: 1, pp.33 – 45. doi: 10.1108/01425459310024910
5. Van Kleef, Gerben A.; De Dreu, Carsten K. W.; Manstead, Antony S. R. (2006) „Supplication and appeasement in conflict and negotiation: The interpersonal effects of disappointment, worry, guilt, and regret“, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 91 Iss1, pp.124-142. doi: 10.1037/0022-35126.96.36.199
6. Koeszegi, Sabine T. (2004) "Trust‐building strategies in inter‐organizational negotiations", Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 19 Iss: 6, pp.640-660. doi: 10.1108/026839404105515347. Kong, Dejun Tony; Dirks, Kurt T.; Ferrin, Donald L. (2014) „Interpersonal Trust within Negotiations: Meta-Analytic Evidence, Critical Contingencies, and Directions for Future Research“, Journal ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT Vol.57, Iss 5, pp.1235-1255.
8. Lennane, Michael T. ; Weidner, Laura E. (2006) „In Each Other We Trust: The Importance of Relationship Building in Cross-Cultural Negotiations „: In Cross Cultural Negotiation for U.S. Negotiators / Edited by Kristen Blankley, pp.47-70. http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/programs/adr/docs/cross_cultural_negotiation.pdf
9. Lewicki, Roy J. (2006) „Trust and Distrust“: In The negotiator‘s Fieldbook / Editors: Andrea Kupfer Schneider, Christopher Honeyman, pp.191-202.
10. Ross, William; LaCroix, Jessica (1996) "MULTIPLE MEANINGS OF TRUST IN NEGOTIATION THEORY AND RESEARCH: A LITERATURE REVIEW AND INTEGRATIVE MODEL", International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 7 Iss: 4, pp.314 – 360. doi: 10.1108/eb022786
11. Sinaceur, Marwan (2010) „Suspending judgment to create value: Suspicion and trust in negotiation“, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 46 Iss: 3, pp.543-550. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2009.11.002
12. Tu, Yu-Tu (2014) „Trust Affecting on Negotiation Styles“, International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp.259-267.
13. Tu, Yu-Tu (2013) „The Relationships between Trust and Unethical Negotiation“, International Journal of Business, Humanities and Technology, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp.45-52.
14. Zhang, Jian-Dong; Liu, Leigh Anne; Liu, Wu (2014) „Trust and Deception in Negotiation: Culturally Divergent Effects“, Management and Organization Review, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/more.12028/pdf