The 11th edition of my book, “An Introduction to Intercultural Communication,” has just been published.

In support of this latest version, I recently did an interview and was asked what are the most important factors to consider while negotiating and mediating across cultures.

I provided two examples:

First, remember we negotiate with individuals, not with cultures. A national cultural stereotype doesn’t necessarily apply to any one individual.

Second, is to appreciate the concept of “saving face.” Some make the mistake in assuming this concern is only important in Asian countries. However, most languages can be translated into the English word “face” to refer to a person’s sense of worth, dignity, and identity and is associated with image, respect, honor, status, reputation, and competence. People in all cultures try to avoid embarrassment by maintaining face in all communication.

But how “saving face” is managed varies by culture. For example, in the U.S., it is expected that if you have a problem with someone, you should confront them directly, which can be viewed as a challenge. By contrast, in China there is more concern for mutual respect and honor. in an instance where a subordinate is in conflict with a superior, the subordinate must protect the superior’s face and maintain interpersonal harmony by suppressing direct confrontation. The subordinate may communicate indirectly by relying on a third party in their social network to communicate their greivance with the superior.

Decades ago, Dale Carnegie wrote in “How to Win Friends and Influence People,” that winning an argument by proving another wrong, makes others feel inferior and results in them striking back. Instead, Carnegie propased letting the other party save face in order to achieve a shared desire to resolve any issue with reverance.

For a broader understanding of such cultural similarities and differences in how we communicate, please consider “An Introduction to Intercultural Communicationt, 11th Edition,” available wherever books are sold, as well as directly from the publisher.

It seems there are conflicts among people who say there’s no way they’ll ever agree with one another.

Conflict researchers call these conflicts “intractable.” Their defining characteristics are ongoing and involve issues of values and identity. The parties view others as polar opposites and ignore or downplay any positive information about them. Peter Coleman describes the “fuel and lifeblood” of intractable conflict as “pain, misery, loss, loyalty, rage, frustration, fear, anxiety, and despair.

There are some guidelines for dealing with intractable conflicts. First step is to de-escalate anger and distrust. This is illustrated by activist Sally Gearhart profiled in the 2025 film “Sally!.” In her environmental activist days she admits to having made obscene gestures to the drivers of logging trucks loaded with redwoods in Northern California. Later, she said, she was “gentler,” by merely glaring at the drivers and mouthing obscenities. Though she acknowledged neither tactic was effective.

Still, later she recounts how she stopped judging and badgering, but instead chose to seek what she calls the “joining point” or the place they share as human beings who deal with similar struggles, such as working to feed one’s family. Recognizing those shared struggles made it possible for her to crusade without creating enemies.

In addition to identifying any goals the parties shared Sally described other steps for dealing with intractable conflicts, which included addressing peripheral issues first to establish a working relationship before working with secondary parties. She would turn her efforts on secondary partiers if she discovered they were more realistic and hoped they might exert influence on the primary parties.

Most importantly, though, is to accept the reality that no progress can be made until all parties are ready for resolution.

In the words attributed to Coco Chanel, “Timing is everything.”