Dignity, face, and honor cultures: A study of negotiation strategy and outcomes in three cultures

• Author: Jimena Ramirez‐Marin,Soroush Aslani,Jingjing Yao,Laurie Weingart,Zhaleh Semnani‐Azad,Jeanne Brett,Wendi Adair,Catherine Tinsley,Zhi‐Xue Zhang
• Published date: 01 November 2016
• Date: 01 November 2016
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/job.2095

Dignity, face, and honor cultures: A study of

negotiation strategy and outcomes in three cultures

SOROUSH ASLANI

1

*, JIMENA RAMIREZ-MARIN

2

, JEANNE BRETT

3

,

JINGJING YAO

2

, ZHALEH SEMNANI-AZAD

4

, ZHI-XUE ZHANG

5

,

CATHERINE TINSLEY

6

, LAURIE WEINGART

7

AND WENDI ADAIR

8

1

University of Wisconsin, Whitewater,Wisconsin, U.S.A.

2

IESEG School of Management, Lille, France

3

Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, U.SA.

4

Clarkson University, Potsdam, New York, U.S.A.

5

Peking University, Beijing, China

6

Georgetown University, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.

7

Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.

8

University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, U.S.A.

Summary This study compares negotiation strategy and outcomes in countries illustrating dignity, face, and honor cul-

tures. Hypotheses predict cultural differences in negotiators’aspirations, use of strategy, and outcomes based

on the implications of differences in self-worth and social structures in dignity, face, and honor cultures. Data

were from a face-to-face negotiation simulation; participants were intra-cultural samples from the USA (dig-

nity), China (face), and Qatar (honor). The empirical results provide strong evidence for the predictions

concerning the reliance on more competitive negotiation strategies in honor and face cultures relative to dig-

nity cultures in this context of negotiating a new business relationship. The study makes two important the-

oretical contributions. First, it proposes how and why people in a previously understudied part of the world,

that is, the Middle East, use negotiation strategy. Second, it addresses a conundrum in the East Asian literature

on negotiation: the theory and research that emphasize the norms of harmony and cooperation in social inter-

action versus empirical evidence that negotiations in East Asia are highly competitive. Copyright © 2016

John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Keywords: negotiation strategy; culture; dignity; face; honor

Culture is the unique profile of a society, extending from easily observable behaviors and the social institutions to

impalpable psychological values and norms (Lytle, Brett, Barsness, Tinsley, & Janssens, 1995). Research on culture

in organizational behavior has primarily focused on East–West comparisons, relying on traditional theories that clas-

sify cultures as individualistic versus collectivist (Hofstede, 1980), independent versus interdependent (Markus &

Kitayama, 1991), or hierarchical versus egalitarian (Hofstede, 1980) to account for cultural differences. In an in-

depth review of literature using this cultural framework, Kirkman, Lowe, and Gibson (2006) concluded that whereas

Hofstede’s values continue to be relevant to cross-cultural research, there is a disproportionate emphasis on

individualism–collectivism in cross-cultural research, and this emphasis leaves theoretical and empirical gaps in

cross-cultural literature.

In this study, we address some of the gaps in cross-cultural negotiation research by drawing hypotheses for a com-

parative cultural study of negotiating a new business relationship in Qatar, China, and the USA from a new frame-

work in cultural psychology (Leung & Cohen, 2011). This framework builds on the nature of self-worth incumbent

in independence–interdependece theory and proposes that a unique third type of culture, honor, characterizes cul-

tures that exist across the Middle East, North Africa, Latin America, and South Asia. We use this framework in three

ways: first, to choose exemplars of dignity (USA), face (China), and honor cultures (Qatar), recognizing that

*Correspondence to: Soroush Aslani, Whitewater, 800 W Main St, HH4507, Whitewater, Wisconsin 53190, U.S.A. E-mail: aslanima@uww.edu

Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 13 April 2014

Revised 21 January 2016, Accepted 21 January 2016

Journal of Organizational Behavior, J. Organiz. Behav. 37, 1178–1201 (2016)

Published online 18 February 2016 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/job.2095

Research Article

although national boundaries generally provide good proxies for cultural boundaries (House, Hanges, Javidan,

Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004; Minkov & Hofstede, 2012; Peterson & Smith, 2008), there is always variation within na-

tions; second, to show that people from these three nations describe their cultures consistently with the conceptual-

izations of dignity, face, and honor culture; and third, to develop hypotheses concerning cultural differences in use of

negotiation strategy and in outcomes. In using exemplar nations to represent cultures, we recognize that culture is

not deterministic and that there will be differences within cultural types.

This three-culture comparative study makes two important contributions to our understanding of culture and ne-

gotiation strategy. First, it proposes how and why people in a previously understudied part of the world, that is, the

Middle East, use negotiation strategy. Past research, based on the individualism–collectivism framework, simply as-

sumes such regions are collectivist, without considering how Middle Eastern cultures might be different from East

Asian cultures. Second, it addresses a contradiction in the East Asian negotiation research between the theory that

emphasizes the norms of harmony and cooperation in social interactions (Gelfand et al., 2013; Oetzel & Ting-

Toomey, 2003) versus the mounting empirical evidence that negotiations in East Asia are highly competitive (Brett

& Okumura, 1998; Liu, Friedman, & Hong, 2012; Rosette, Brett, Barsness, & Lytle, 2012).

Dignity, Face, and Honor Cultures

The theories of individualism–collectivism and independence–interdependence primarily distinguish cultures by the

degree to which people’s social identity is independent versus interdependent with their social roles. Social identity

is one of cultural psychology’s core concepts. The basis of social identity is self-worth—a person’s view of his/her

value in society (Ayers, 1984). Self-worth is an outcome of the self-construal process—it is a construal of the way a

person views him/herself in relation to others. In collectivist cultures, identity is interdependent with the fulfillment

of role obligations to family, community, and society. In individualistic cultures, identity is relatively less dependent

on fulfilling fixed social role obligations that govern collectivist cultures and, instead, is manifest in personal

achievement and autonomy (Hofstede, 1980; Kitayama & Park, 2007; Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Singelis,

Triandis, Bhawuk, & Gelfand, 1995; Triandis, 2001). Leung and Cohen (2011) propose that there is yet a third

way to construe identity, called honor, which is characteristic of people in cultures in the Middle East, North Africa,

Latin America, and South Asia. They extend the traditional theorizing in cultural psychology by proposing that the

basis for self-worth in a culture varies along with the stability and hierarchical nature of the culture’s social structure.

To understand Leung and Cohen’s (2011) conceptualization, we first review the nature of self-worth in three types of

culture: dignity, face, and honor.

Dignity is self-worth based on the individual’s achievements in pursuit of the individual’s goals and values

(Schwartz, 1994). Dignity does not depend on others’esteem (Ayers, 1984; Leung & Cohen, 2011) or their assess-

ment of whether role obligations are being met. People in dignity cultures take on role obligations, but their obliga-

tions are temporally limited. As one obligation is fulfilled, people in dignity cultures are free to choose new ones.

They do not have to follow the goals and obligations dictated by the social groups to which they belong (Schwartz,

1994). Dignity is not reputation conferred extrinsically by others; rather, it is intrinsically determined by people’s

own assessments of whether they are meeting their standards and achieving their own goals. As a result, an individ-

ual’s dignity is not easily challenged by others (Ayers, 1984). All of these characteristics of self-worth in dignity

cultures generate a wide acceptance of self-interest and autonomy. Unlike cultures where self-interest is controlled

by social monitoring and sanctioning, in dignity cultures, self-interest is constrained by an effective system of law

that enforces contracts in an egalitarian social structure (Leung & Cohen, 2011).

Face is self-worth based on others’assessments of whether the individual is fulfilling stable social role obligations

(Heine, 2001; Ho, 1976; Kim & Cohen, 2010). Obligations are socially dictated, not freely chosen as in dignity cul-

tures, and they are ongoing. They depend on the individual’s status in stable social hierarchies such as families or

organizations. Those with lower social status maintain face by fulfilling their duties and deferring to those of higher

DIGNITY, FACE, AND HONOR IN NEGOTIATION 1179

Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 37, 1178–1201 (2016)

DOI: 10.1002/job