1. Negotiating Reality A Theory of Action Approach to Intercultural Competence Management Learning, March 2005, Vol.36(1), pp.69-86 Friedman, Victor J ; Antal, Ariane Berthoin Elena Riabenkaia

2. Objective: ICC competence requires “negotiating reality”; Methods: meta-analyses (analyses, critics and review of literature); Findings: 1. Earlier approaches: intercultural interaction is a source of problem. “Adaptation” models. 2. “Negotiating reality”-creates common understanding and collaboration. “Encapsulate” culture.

3. Conceptualising Culture Cultural dimensions (Hofstede,1980) Team composed of American, Chinese, Moroccan, Indian, Brazilian useful but misleading, support stereotyping Model of Organizational Culture (Schein, 1985)

4. Stages of Intercultural Sensitivity 1.Denial 2.Defense Minimisation. Acceptance Adaptation Integration (Bennett, 1998) Inappropriate Only long terms interaction Adaptation ”ADAPTIATION” ?

5. Negotiating reality 3 underlying believes 2. People differ because they possess different repertoires of ways of seeing and doing things. 1.All people are of equal importance and worthy of equal respect. 3. The repertoire of no individual or group has right to dominance(Friedman& & Antal, 2005). Friedman& & Antal, 2005

6. Cultural Repertoires as ‘Theories of Action’ How do I perceive the situation? What do I wish to achieve in this situation? Which action strategy do I intend to employ to achieve my goals? Argyris et al., 1985

7. Combining Advocacy with Inquiry Dewey, 1938 High Advocacy and High Inquiry Openly Express and stand up for what you want to achieve CONFLICTS, challenge your response to cultural difference Explore your own and others reasoning Cognitive process : experimenting with different ways of responding Identity conflict Rothman, 1997

8. Metaphor of culture: iceberg Intercultural Competence Why do I feel frustrated?

9. “negotiating reality” Consideration: 1. There is lack or no research on “online” practice; How to measure this competence? Conclusion: 1. This is the first approach to highlight cognitive and behavioural dimensions and individual perspective. 2. This competence is useful in intercultural interactions in where individuals experience hesitation or conflict. 3. Practical application in School of Management in Germany. 2. “Westernised” (Boud et al., 2006). 3. “Negotiating reality” may not be align with organisational culture(Boud, Cressey & Docherty, 2006).

10. References: Adler. (1997). International dimensions of organizational behavior / by Nancy J. Adler (3rd ed. ed.): South-Western College. Antal, A. B., & Friedman, V. J. (2008). Learning To Negotiate Reality: a Strategy for Teaching Intercultural Competencies. Journal of Management Education, 32(3), 363- 386. doi:10.1177/1052562907308794 Argyris, C., Putnam, R., & Smith, D. M. (1985). Action science : concepts, methods, and skills for research and intervention. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Boud, D., Cressey, P., & Docherty, P. (2006). Productive reflection at work : learning for changing organizations. London: Routledge. Dewey, J. (1938). Logic : the theory of inquiry. N. Y.: Holt. Friedman, V. J., & Antal, A. B. (2005). Negotiating Reality: A Theory of Action Approach to Intercultural Competence. Management Learning, 36(1), 69-86. doi:10.1177/1350507605049904 Holliday, Hyde, J. N., & Kullman. (2010). Intercultural communication : an advanced resource book for students / by Adrian Holliday, Martin Hyde and John Kullman (2nd ed. ed.): Routledge. Oddou, G. R. (2005). A Cross-Cultural Exercise: Expat in the Marketplace. Journal of Management Education, 29(5), 758-768. doi:10.1177/1052562905277318 Rothman, J. (1997). Resolving identity-based conflict in nations, organizations, and communities. San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey-Bass. Schneider, & Barsoux. (2003). Managing across cultures / by Susan C. Schneider and Jean-Louis Barsoux (2nd ed. ed.): FT Prentice Hall.