FRANCE: A PASSION FOR CONFRONTATION
by Pascal Jacquelin

Part V in a series...

Let's face it! The French are well-known for being particularly partial to complaining and confrontation. Some might say we have even turned grumbling into an art form: countless strikes, innumerable demonstrations, and untold protest marches take place throughout the year in Paris alone. Only yesterday (February 1st), a demonstration was staged and many Métro lines were down.

Granted, our motivations are not frivolous, especially when concerns are being voiced over pensions, growing violence, or massive layoffs, for instance. But although we probably tend to strike and demonstrate more than any other country in the western world, the reasons we adopt this approach to problem-solving are common to all nationalities, albeit to differing degrees.

Analyze this!

Tradition and bad negotiating habits are undoubtedly the culprits here. In my negotiation seminars, I teach the importance of analyzing a situation before making any decision on how to tackle the issue(s) at stake. The first rule to remember is that preparation is an essential phase in negotiation. Particularly crucial is the choice of an adequate strategy: competition, collaboration, compromise, accommodation or avoidance.

The win-lose approach

Even though collaboration is much more likely to generate a positive attitude on either side of the negotiating table, most people naturally start with a competitive approach. Why is that? Think back to your school days. Students, especially in France, are expected to work alone. Sharing is frowned upon as it is thought to lead to chatting or cheating. Individualism is thus fostered. And the win-lose approach of sports like tennis or judo hardly helps. Also, contrary to what most people think, the qualities promoted by team sports are not totally beneficial to the real world. Aside from the undeniable advantage of promoting team spirit and solidarity, team sports seek to lead the opposing team to a crushing defeat. This kind of attitude may be what is needed for competition but it very often turns out to be quite counterproductive when applied to the real world. For the world is anything but a Manichean* place consisting of winners and losers.

Generalization leads to confrontation

In the case of negotiations between management and trade unions, trade unions often feel management is out to get them, and vice-versa. Why is that? Apart from the fact that it might sometimes be the case, this assessment of the situation can be accounted for by a characteristic of the human brain. As we are not able to consciously process a large number of facts, we tend to simplify the information our brain receives. One of the different ways of simplifying is called generalization. When we generalize, we ascribe to a whole group characteristics observed in some of the members of that group; which explains, for example, why the idea that all business leaders are "patrons voyous" (rogue bosses) is so widespread in France at the moment. It results from a generalization based on the unethical behavior of a small number of business leaders. With such a generalization and the adversarial frame of mind that goes hand in hand with it, only confrontation can ensue-and it rarely fails to do so in France.

Rubbing off on others causes friction

Two other important psychological phenomena I ask trainees to analyze in my seminars are projection (i.e. expecting the other party in the negotiation to experience the same feelings as you) and self-fulfilling prophecies (being so sure that the other party will adopt a specific attitude or strategy that they eventually do.) These are very common negotiating mistakes that can have disastrous and costly consequences.

In the case of the protest marches that took place this weekend, I am sure a large number of demonstrators knew very little about the complexities of the current economic situation (and who does anyway?) Yet, deep inside, they probably had this gut feeling that, by definition, management and political leaders are only pursuing their own interests and that any decision they might make will be detrimental to employees.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not commenting on whether the concerns were justified or not. I'm merely saying that a lot of the protesters were probably reacting as a result of generalization ("all managers are evil") and projection ("we want them to lose the battle because we think they want us to lose too") and that this combination is likely to lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy: by adopting inflexible positions protesters might force their counterparts to do be just as inflexible. This is called positional bargaining.

Tricky business

"Les acquis sociaux" (social entitlements) are very dear to the French and dealing with the subject is a tricky business for any government. A pivotal principle in negotiating is that change has to be approached extremely carefully. A lot of explaining has to be done before any decision is put forward, especially in France where the pre-negotiation discussion phase is almost a ritual.

The scary prospect of change

Change is a scary prospect to most people. If you tell somebody that a change you are proposing is going to occur, they will start by rejecting your idea (people always think that an idea they have come up with is better than somebody else's), then they will go through all the possible scenarios (generally the negative ones) that the change might produce. In the meantime you'll be desperately trying to make a case for your proposal. Your explanations are bound to be distorted, at best, or fall into deaf ears, at worst. The best approach is therefore to assess the situation together with the other party first (i.e. find a common ground), and then go through the different options (after establishing precisely what the issues are). Only then can the negotiation proper start.

Exposing the truth

The "common ground" phase was obviously not effective enough in the case of the current dispute over pensions in France. The French talk of "pédagogie" in this case. Our "Ministre de l'Emploi" (Minister for Employment), François Fillon, did indeed travel throughout Europe to show what other countries were doing in anticipation of the pension crunch but, to many, he was merely pointing out what the government was aiming for rather than actually evaluating options to be discussed. So it was not so much a case of "pédagogie" as one of "subliminal" persuasion. According to a psychological principle called the "mere exposure effect," the more you are exposed to an idea, the more you like it. That seemed to be the guiding principle in this case.

Size does matter!

Now why do people take to the streets? A shortcut answer could be: because people naturally behave like animals. Let me explain this apparently provocative remark. When an elephant wants to frighten off potential attackers, it trumpets and flaps its ears with its trunk extended. By doing so it creates noise becomes bigger physically. Similarly, when I'm angry I raise my voice and I stand with my legs apart and my arms akimbo; I am unconsciously trying to impress my interlocutor physically.
When people take to the street they form a large mass which makes a lot of noise. This is meant to frighten off the opponent. After all, the message they are trying to convey could very easily be presented on television or on the radio by a few representatives or explained in newspaper articles. But their "interlocutors" would not be physically impressed. The message would thus lose its potency.

This is a perfect example of the power of non-verbal communication. The greatest part of a message (at least two-thirds) does not actually derive from the words used but from the quality of the sound (intonation, volume, speed, etc.) and body language. Demonstrations and protest marches are just a large-scale version of non-verbal communication.

Misreading history

But why are we, in France, more prone to demonstrating and striking than other nationalities? I suspect we derive this characteristic from the fact that the guiding principles of our country "liberté, égalité, fraternité" come from the French Revolution and that, for some reason, we feel we have to perpetuate the tradition of protest which culminated in 1789-regardless of the fact that the French Revolution, initiated by the French bourgeoisie, first led to "la Terreur" before it really gave way to democracy.

* Manichean
Manichaean \Man`i*ch[ae]"an\, Manichean \Man`i*che"an\, Manichee\Man"i*chee\, n. [LL. Manichaeus: cf. F. manich['e]en.] A believer in the doctrines of Manes, a Persian of the third century A. D., who taught a dualism in which Light is regarded as the source of Good, and Darkness as the source of Evil.

About the Author

Pascal Jacquelin of Delta Training, has over 15 years' experience under his belt both as a translator and a trainer. At the age of 17 while pursuing his translation degree, he was quickly singled out for his exceptional linguistic abilities and had no difficulty finding a job as an English teacher and translator with a major language school in Paris. His eagerness to diversify his experience led him to move on to teaching young adults. After passing the prestigious Agrégation teaching diploma with flying colors (he came in 10th in France), he worked his way up as course organizer in a fast-expanding university outside Paris where he taught Translation, Business Negotiation and Public Speaking for five years.

Click here for more information about Pascal Jacquelin's translations services.