Not so long ago, I wrote one of my most popular articles: “Beyond the Stereotypes: French Work Culture vs. Corporate America.” I briefly touched on conflict resolution then, but there’s more to say now!
The world of cross-cultural conflict resolution is fascinating. So, let me deconstruct the distinctive approaches I observed the French employ to address conflicts compared to Americans.
I’ve been based in the US for the past quarter century, working in global settings. This experience has allowed me to witness how people approach conflicts in an American-led culture at work and in society. From team disagreements to negotiations, it helped me build a solid comparison with my native French culture.
Conflicts tend to arise in similar situations in France and America, and top-resolution techniques are fundamentally the same, involving a few well-known steps:
-
- Clarify the problem to ensure all parties understand the issue at hand.
-
- Generate and evaluate potential solutions through collaboration.
-
- Decide on the solution that best aligns with the business’s interests (vision/mission, strategy).
After decades of globalization, a lot of cultural differences have softened. However, there are still ingrained societal values and differences in communication styles between the French and the Americans. Here are the top ones I’ve witnessed first-hand:
Directness vs. Consensus
Napoleon Bonaparte once said, “The people to fear are not those who openly disagree with you, but those who disagree with you and are too cowardly to let you know”. This sentiment encapsulates the French attitude towards conflicts. French people are known for their directness and willingness to express their opinions openly. This direct approach often involves vigorous discussions where conflicting viewpoints are laid bare, and individuals are unafraid to defend their ideas.
In contrast, I’ve seen many Americans value consensus–building and seeking common ground. They’re generally more inclined toward compromises that satisfy all parties involved. This approach prioritizes maintaining positive relationships and avoiding overt conflict. The downside is it sometimes leads to a reluctance to address issues head-on.
The Art of Debate
French culture highly values intellectual agility, a legacy of Cartesianism and philosophy in education. One of the critical concepts in French education is ‘thesis-antithesis-synthesis‘. This method of argumentation involves countering a proposition (thesis) with an opposing proposition (antithesis) and reconciling the two in a synthesis. Intellectual debates and conflict resolution in France use this a lot.
The French also tend to oppose initially, and a blunt “non” is often just the beginning of a negotiation rather than a final stance. Virginie, my wife, knows it all too well! I start with a “no,” responding to her otherwise reasonable requests. It allows us to articulate our respective points fully and understand the rationale behind initial resistance.
Compared to Americans and their urge to reach a decision, the challenge for the French can be a never-ending debate with no decision in sight. That’s where the best leaders chime in and know when to conclude debates and make decisive choices. This concept is epitomized by the saying, “an iron hand in a velvet glove”. In other words, how to reach a firm and decisive action hidden behind a gentle and diplomatic exterior.
Exacerbated Emotions
French conflict management also incorporates a significant emotional component. The French are often considered ‘Latin people’ due to their shared linguistic and behavioral characteristics with other Southern Europeans, meaning that emotions play a crucial role in their interactions.
This load of emotion starkly contrasts with the “no-nonsense approach” I’ve experienced in Corporate America. It refers to a straightforward, practical, and efficient way of doing things, where feelings and emotions often take the backseat in conflict management.
The French use various techniques to handle emotions, such as attitudinal bargaining, sending mixed messages, or appealing to personal relationships. It’s easy to get caught in that emotional whirlwind.
Interestingly, my best strategy for managing conflicts with the French has been to remain calm and composed while consistently reinforcing my arguments. I acknowledge the emotional dimension but don’t fall for it.
After all these years, I wonder if I’m more French or American in handling conflicts. I have integrated a mix of both approaches now! For instance, I like the directness and intellectual debate of the French. But I also appreciate the American approach of seeking consensus, compromise, and harmony. In practice, I might start a discussion with a direct statement, but then I’m open to hearing other viewpoints and finding a middle ground.
Embracing these cultural differences has enriched my personal experiences and helped me develop more effective conflict-resolution strategies. It allowed me to build outstanding and lasting relationships. I trust it can do the same for you!