Our friend is summoned to court, as are we, as a witness to testify about his driving speed.
What do we do? Can he expect us to lie for the sake of friendship?
Stay In Touch!
Do we value truth most of all and do we testify against his interests? The answer depends on your culture. Integrity could mean: helping our friend or — telling the truth. The problem is the question — you cannot find integrity on a linear scale. Welcome to reality, that is both yin and yang. Trompenaars shows interesting slides of which competing values different countries tend to emphasize: universal versus particular, individual versus collective, neutral versus affective etc. Innovation is the reconciliation between creativity and adaptation, states Trompenaars.
Culture types in the CVF can be innovative versus efficient, people versus results-oriented. Trompenaars culture model is slightly different but just as recognizable: he distinguishes four corporate cultures and you need them all to create innovation.
You have to make the movement of a figure 8 to stir innovation. Personally, I think that reconciling dilemmas as Trompenaars explains, is exactly what the world and workplaces need to become un-stuck and move away from conflict. We must foster diversity and respect and collaborate and innovate to solve the challenges of our time.
What does that tell you about your current workplace culture? You will become more aware of your value hierarchy! Sign up for the update. Comments 2 Hello — Thank you for the excellent article. Maybe I am missing something, but does this idea not connect to Polarity Management from Dr. Barry Johnson? Seems so. Good to know there is more theory and thinking in this area.
Wondering if Dr. Johnson has connection to this work too? Time to check it out! Diversity is beautiful and dramatic if you don't manage it well. We need the whole car — and reconcile dilemmas. To innovate is to combine values that are not easily joined, therefore profitable. Click To Tweet By the way — how to discern a dilemma?
Learning Through Differences: Dilemma Theory in Action
Integrity is finding wholeness by integrating opposites. Click To Tweet Welcome to reality, that is both yin and yang. Innovation stems from creativity and adaptation. Click To Tweet Trompenaars culture model is slightly different but just as recognizable: he distinguishes four corporate cultures and you need them all to create innovation. All rights reserved. In recent years, reconciliation has emerged as an important area of inquiry in international relations. Both empirical and theoretical studies on reconciliation have received growing interest from scholars.
A research question of lasting interest is: why some former adversaries have achieved deeper reconciliation than others?
Carol A.L. Prager (Author of Dilemmas of Reconciliation)
Yet in the review article, he does not empirically examine the effects of these factors on reconciliation, and his conceptual treatment of reconciliation by equating it to peace building deserves further discussion and critiques. More specifically, we distinguish between reconciliation and peace building, clarify different states of reconciliation, and examine the above-mentioned cases to propose a number of factors to explain the variation in degree of reconciliation and the variation in degree of peace.
While the number of cases seems too large for a wieldy research, we believe it is necessary to include all the five cases for the following reasons. First, by including multiple cases, we can evaluate whether cases of small variations in their independent variables will have differences in their dependent variables i.
By comparing these cases, we can see the effects of multiple factors on reconciliation and peace building. Second, by including multiple cases, we have cases of variations in the degree of reconciliation and the degree of peace, so that we can avoid the selection bias problem—that is, selecting cases based on the value of dependent variable 3.
Third, all the five cases are well-known major cases of reconciliation and peace building in international relations, having received a large amount of scholarly attention, and thus we do not need much ink to describe their details. The five cases that we select cover the geopolitical landscape across the Eurasia. The regional politics in Europe and that in Northeast Asia have formed contrasting pictures: while European countries have successfully overcome their historic animosity and constructed a security community, Northeast Asian countries are still trapped by the past, with very low level of trust among China, Japan, and South Korea and little progress in political regionalization beyond economic interdependence.
This article does not attempt to disprove these arguments, but to show that there are structural and historical reasons for the German—Japanese contrast and the underdevelopment of reconciliation in Northeast Asia. By examining the South Korean—Japanese and Sino—Japanese relations alongside the European cases, we may be able to better understand these reasons. The rest of this article proceeds in five sections. The last section, Sect. Before proceeding to the cases, we need to clarify some concepts.
The English literature on reconciliation covers domestic politics more than international politics, and the concept of reconciliation mainly evolved from studies of intrastate reconciliation. Bar-Tal and Bennink examine reconciliation in two aspects, as the outcome and as the process. In sum, Bar-Tal and Bennink juxtapose reconciliation with peacemaking by delimiting the former to psychological elements and processes and the latter to structural elements and processes, and according to them reconciliation and peacemaking together lead to stable and lasting peace.
Similarly, Miller defines three types of peace, cold peace, normal peace, and warm peace. Corresponding to their typologies, He : 15—20 outlines three categories of reconciliation—nonreconciliation, shallow reconciliation, and deep reconciliation—by considering the intergovernmental dimension measured by mutual expectation of war, national recognition, and economic interaction as well as the popular dimension measured by the degree of mutual trust, sense of affinity, and others.
Instead, we should distinguish between reconciliation and peace building. In its most fundamental sense, reconciliation concerns how two countries deal with their unhappy past; it is a process in which two former foes reach agreement on perceiving and treating their inimical history. Peace building denotes the actions to upgrade the state of peace; it is the process of reducing the probability of war between two countries significantly. Reconciliation is one of the mechanisms that lead to changes in the state of peace, yet it is not peace building itself.
Besides reconciliation, peace building can result from other processes, such as state realignment, democratization, building of international institutions, and so on. Admitting reconciliation as an important mechanism for the emergence of deep peace does not need to negate the effects of other variables on peace building. As the studies on security communities by scholars including Acharya , Adler and Barnett , and Kupchan find, the degree of peace does not always reflect the degree of reconciliation.
Sign up for our monthly newsletter
If we treat them equivalent to each other, we may miss the possibility of clarifying the path of causation that connects them. In this section, we select five dyads which have experienced belligerency or enmity—France and Germany, Poland and Germany, Poland and the Soviet Union Russia , South Korea and Japan, and China and Japan—and describe their unhappy pasts as well as their efforts to reconcile with each other. These five pairs of countries have historical memories of war or brutal colonial rule, which require reconciliation and peace building. France and Germany have had a long history of rivalry.
From to , France and Germany experienced three large-scale wars. Poland was partitioned in , , and , with Russia participating in all three of them and Prussia participating in the first two. As a result, Poland bordered the newly founded East Germany with the Oder—Neisse line, and many Germans who lived on the land transferred to Poland were expelled to West Germany.
Considering that West German government in Bonn did not recognize the Oder—Neisse line as the permanent border between Poland and Germany until , Poland perceived Bonn as a major rival that threatened its survival during much of the Cold War. As for the bilateral relations between South Korea and Japan, Japan imposed repressive colonial rule on the Korean Peninsula from to , forcing many Koreans to change their names to Japanese ones, their language to Japanese, and even their religion to Shinto.
China and Japan have been in constant geopolitical competition since both nations encountered the advent of Western powers in the mid-nineteenth century.
The Japanese aggression starting from the Mukden Incident on 18 September —in which Japan invaded Manchuria in the northeast of China—and ending in had resulted in the loss of about 35 million Chinese lives, with cities being occupied and 26 out of the 30 provinces being engulfed into the war He , — In particular, the Nanking Massacre in December and the Unit experiments on humans have become horrible war memories among the Chinese people. Although these dyads of countries have unhappy pasts and animosity that need to be resolved, they are in different states of reconciliation and states of peace.
In this sub section, we briefly review how they have reached their current states of reconciliation and states of peace. We describe the cases in the order set by the previous sub section. Transforming themselves from foes to friends, France and Germany have made their bilateral relations a benchmark for reconciliation. German conservative politicians did not deny the Nazi crimes.