Week 4 Application Assignment- Shanah McKnight

Kumar and Patriotta (2011) offer some interesting insight on the role that culture plays on sensemaking during alliance negotiations. Examining the potential impact that culture is noteworthy when evaluating international alliances. Kumar and Patriotta (2011) note that the majority of “this research has not explicitly assessed the impact of culture in the context of international alliance negotiations” (p.512). I found this to be particularly interesting as it also crossed over with my previous learning on international communication.

Sensemaking is key to the negotiation process as it “enables individuals to identify problems and form explanations” (Kumar & Patriotta, 2011, p. 514). This particular article narrows in on how task ambiguity as well as cultural ambiguity is managed through the sensemaking process. According to Kumar and Patriotta (2011), “depending on the degree of task and cultural ambiguity, international alliance negotiations will require different types of sensemaking with correspondingly different implications for how the negotiation process might unfold” (p. 521). I appreciate the flexibility of this design, as multiple ways to address each constraint and approaches to manage a combination of the two are mentioned.

Cultural ambiguity comes into play when cultural barriers are hidden; therefore, it is difficult to gauge the other partner’s intention (Kumar & Patriotta, 2011, p. 524). This discussion leads to a short discussion on trust, as there is a lack of it in the assessment of the partner. This notion ties into Barney and Hansen’s (1994) discussion on how to recognize a strong form trustworthy partner. I found myself considering the difference in cultures can affect one’s ability to judge whether a organization is trustworthy. As Barney and Hansen (1994) note, “an organization’s culture, and associated control systems, may be difficult to observe, and their implications for individual behavior ambiguous- at least to those not deeply embedded in this culture” (p. 186).  This carries over to cultural ambiguity, as the same concepts apply. In fact, an organizations culture is often times influenced by the country’s dominant culture.

A proposed solution for managing cultural ambiguity by Kumar and Patriotta (2011) is “affective intermediation” (p. 524). Essentially, this is a cultural mediator that attempts to align the two entities by assisting in the “recalibration (of) their perceptions, emotions, and attitudes about their partner” (Kumar & Patriotta, 2012, p. 524). While this can aid in the sensemaking process of the negotiation, it can also assist in identifying a strong form trustworthy partner (Barney & Hansen, 1994). Barney and Hansen (1994) state that “one would expect to see strong form trustworthy firms and individuals to be very open to outside auditors chosen by outside exchange partners” (p. 187). This is because these types are also interested in bringing clarity to the situation as well as the fact that they don’t have anything to hide. “The more ambiguous the negotiating situation the greater the necessity of sensemaking” (Kumar & Patriotta, 2012, p. 529). With international alliances on the rise and reaching to new countries, more attention should be paid to evaluating the culture discrepancies as well as utilizing (or creating) strategies to minimize the ambiguity in these new relationships.

Barney, J. & Hansen, M. (1994). Trustworthness as a Competitive Advantage.  Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 15, p. 186-187

Kumar, R., & Patriotta, G. (2011). Culture and international alliance negotiations: A sensemaking perspective. International Negotiation, 16(3), 511-533.