style approach

The French are noted for possessing a contradictory strain in their mentality and behaviour, and for a capacity to live in paradoxical situations. This is partly explained by their diverse origins, and the early and continued influence of contrasting cultures from neighbouring areas, notably the Latin and Mediterranean on the one hand, and the Atlantic and Germanic on the other.

Consequently, the French tend to maintain an equilibrium, a balance between contrasting tendencies, such as acceptance of centralised systematic, formal practices, control and order on the one hade and a rejection of this tradition expressed in a preference for individualistic, organic, informal practices, autonomy and even disarray on the other.

This tradition is traceable to a pre-1789 French administrative maxim of a

‘strict rule but a lenient practice’. These two facets of French behaviour I have called, for purposes of simplicity and clarity, the ‘impersonal’ and ‘personal’

approaches, developed respectively in section 2 and 3 below, in relation to conflict and negotiating and regarding ‘competing’ and cooperative styles.

Bearing in mind the above remarks, it is not surprising that the French style in negotiating has been described respectively as competitive or distinctive, akin to a zero sum game (win-lose), and also as a cooperative or problem-solving style (win-win). In reality the French approach tends to be a combination of both these styles as noted by Weiss (1983) which reflects their appreciation for lively confrontational debates and for reconciliation, harmony and consensus.

The two style approach to negotiating, competing and cooperating (in the sense of integrating rather than yielding) has already been developed in American literature on negotiations.

A metaphor which best captures the idea of the ‘impersonal’ approach is systematic whether applied to human behaviour or to organisations. In systematic cultures a close correlation exists between official procedures and practices and what actually happens in practice. In many respects the French are highly systematic. This is a reflection of first the strong centralising policies of successive governments. For many centuries, …the all-pervasive influence of the state in the life of the people, particularly through the impact of an elaborate range of laws, and third the French attachments to certainty and order. Security and dependence not unsurprisingly many large organisations in the private sector including businesses, tend to be hierarchical and bureaucratic like the civil service organisations. Problems and mistakes are regulated by reference to the normal reporting channels.

The influence of ‘systematic thinking’ is shown in the French respect for detailed legibly binding written agreements when interfirm negotiations are finished. More importance is attached to the letter of the contract than the spirit whereas the British, for example, give importance to ‘oral understanding’ and the spirit in which an agreement is concluded and applied.

At various stages during long negotiation the French sometimes desire various points agreed to be formally written down and initialised by the parties involved.

2.1 Dominating

Most comparisons tended to have traditional or directive management styles so not surprising a forcing or competitive strategy used to be the main option of superiors in handling conflicts with subordinates up until the end of the 1960s.

Sometimes managers or supervisors devised special methods for winning. One tactic was to give the subordinate a difficult task and when he failed to do it satisfactorily he would lose self-confidence and become more dependent and submissive. Another technique was to divert a conflict a superior had with two subordinates by getting them to compete with each other on identical assignments.

154 THE FRENCH APPROACH TO HANDLING CONFLICTS AND TO NEGOTIATING

Since 1968 employees have been less willing to be subjected by purely dominating strategies by superiors. Managers have also been encouraged to adopt more flexible strategies so as to help improve management-employee relations in companies.

Both in intra and in inter-firm negotiations the French have been and sometimes still are reputed for their rigid confrontational strategies more or less in the dominating or competing mode. Obviously in many situations such tactics will not work, particularly when power, skills or resources are equally shared.

However, the French may gain by a strategy of repeatedly saying “No” which will eventually lead to the other party yielding. Alternatively the French delegations, particularly in diplomatic negotiations, have been known to abruptly terminate meeting when they have not got their own way. Various reasons have been suggested for French inflexibility such as their approach to negotiations in general.

In the past the French tended to regard the process of negotiating rather sceptically as a valueless exercise or as an attempt to reconcile divergent aims of two opposed groups. Neither side favoured creative solutions for resolving a conflict which was seen as a power struggle. The result inevitably was a fruitless confrontational stalemate, as in the case of disputes between management and workers which invariably involved ideological dimensions.

Often the government intervened to impose a solution. Harrison (1987) has observed that negotiation is “quite far the list of preferred French methods for dealing with problems and conflicts either domestically or internationally”.

The French, encouraged in their education to develop a logical mind, sometimes see negotiations as an activity counter to logic. The truth is unequivocally to be found by reasoning. Therefore, if one side is right, the other must be wrong.

This attitude has influenced French behaviour during business or diplomatic relations and earned them the reputation for sometimes being inflexible. A French negotiating team customarily prepares its position meticulously in advance, which they may feel convinced is in the interests of both sides.

At the actual negotiating table they adhere their carefully prepared position without making an effort to understand the other side’s needs and motivations.

They seem reluctant to abandon attachment to a particular concept, idea or principle unless the other party finds a flaw in their reasoning.

Another reason for French inflexibility has been attributed to the hierarchical centralised nature of their decision-making. Too often French negotiations have little authority, autonomy or leeway to vary pre-arranged positions. Delays have occurred when new proposals have had to be referred back to superiors at headquarters.

2.2 Compromising

Another reason for the French view towards negotiating, contributing towards inflexibility, is the dislike for bargaining, making concessions or compromises.

To Anglo-Saxons the idea of “splitting the difference” seems a way of breaking a stalemate and a possible or natural outcome of negotiating. Many French do not share the English notion of ‘Fair play’. To them the compromise strategy suggests a nil contest, half measures, a lose-lose situation which satisfies neither side.

Often the practice of compromising suggests making a dishonest opportunistic or shady deal (“une compromission”) or as something faulty (“un compromis boiteaux”) as in the case where a manager asks two people to make concessions which leaves them irritated and does not solve the problem. A compromise has been regarded as an accommodation, more apparent than real, made between two equally strong sides. The disagreement may continue in a latent form.

However compromise may be viewed positively, particularly if words are used such as consensus and entente. Individuals in conflict sometimes recognise the need to transcend their differences to reach a consensual views, which enables them to continue working together while “agreeing to disagree”.

2.3