Gender and culture differences to consider in negotiation
A diverse group of panelists brought together an array of perspectives in addressing the issue of gender and cultural differences to consider in negotiation, whether in a business agreement or in court. To carry the point home, the speakers in the program, "Negotiating Difference: Appreciating Gender and Culture in Negotiation," talked a bit about their heritage and experiences that led to their ability to speak to the need for consideration of ethnicity, sex, race and culture when coming to the table or courtroom for discussion and in order to reach agreement.
Emily Nicklin, a trial lawyer with Kirkland & Ellis in Chicago, said that doing your homework is critical. In trying cases outside one's realm, Nicklin said, forge a relationship with someone in the local legal community. And bring that person with you to the courtroom. Nicklin cited an example of teaming up with a local lawyer in Arkansas – her local ally raised objections while she pled the case.
Panelist Olivia Fox, a lawyer who now teaches interpersonal skills to lawyers and executives, had a different way of framing the message of establishing the relationship or connection. She agreed with Nicklin's assessment of the necessity of doing one's homework and said that to negotiate, once needs to "adapt to the other side." Fox said that a main component of that homework was to find common ground. "Playing up that common ground" is critical in establishing trust and creating a better flow of communication. With that trust, one can exert more influence over the negotiation or transaction.
Rod McLeod, a product of Philippine and Scots heritage, enumerated contrasts in cultural norms in communication between the cultures of East and West. Americans, especially, and Europeans to a somewhat lesser degree, said McLeod, view the world as simple. Westerners tend to be goal-oriented, tend to focus on the individual, like controversy, and see the actor as a causal agent. On the other hand, Easterners tend to see people as part of a group, think of life as fluid, and believe that people need to harmonize within the group. McLeod further said that those in the Eastern culture tend not to want to debate, and act more indirectly compared to the directness of Americans. These are all factors to take into consideration when conducting a global business agreement.
The dialogue continued with further review of local mores, evolutionary psychology of how humans tend to interact, as well as human prejudice and how to address it.
There was some noticeable edginess in the audience about prejudice and stereotypes. Nicklin continues to wear a wedding ring to court after her divorce, insists on being called Mrs. and wears a skirt. Several women in the audience objected to "having" to do that. Don't do what you're uncomfortable doing, both Fox and Nicklin said in response to questions regarding how to deal with racial and gender stereotypes.
The balancing act remains an issue. "You have to get [the opposing side in a negotiation or trial] to hear you," said Nicklin. And until you have found common ground, that's not likely to occur. However, there are times where one cannot or does not want to give up one's own individuality. The larger question, then, is deciding when it is worthwhile in order to get one's message across.
The Annual Meeting CLE program was sponsored by the Section of Law Practice Management's Women Rainmakers Committee. The committee hosts a listserve open to any interested ABA member. Back to top
© 2006 American Bar Association
|
