Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1860–7330/11/0031–0101 Text & Talk 31–1(2011),pp.101–125Online1860–7349 DOI10.1515/TEXT.2011.005©WalterdeGruyter
Building intercultural alliances: a study of moves and strategies in initial business
negotiation meetings
YUNXIA ZHU
Abstract
This paper proposes a conceptual model to study the discourse of initial nego-tiation meetings between members of New Zealand and Chinese corporations. It attempts to make two contributions to existing cross-cultural negotiation research, especially to rapport management. Firstly, it develops a conceptual position where negotiation meetings require mutual effort for building inter-cultural alliances. Secondly, the application and further division of initial moves (initiating moves-relational [IM-R] and initiating move-transactional [IM-T]), responding moves (responding move-cooperative [RM-C] and re-sponding move-uncooperative [RM-UC]), and strategies into politeness strat-egies (PS) and uncooperative strategies (UC-S) offer an in-depth analysis of the nuances of positioning construction between parties. The findings indicate that a successful negotiation meeting establishes and develops intercultural alliances through appropriate use of moves and strategies. Negotiations, how-ever, derail if inappropriate moves and strategies are used, and potential con-flicts and communication breakdowns are not addressed in time.
Keywords: negotiation meeting; intercultural alliances; moves; strategies; New Zealand; China.
1. Introduction
With the rapiddevelopmentofglobalizationand internationalization,cross-culturalbusinessnegotiationhasbecomeincreasinglyfrequent,hencetheneedto study themanagementofnegotiationbehaviour at an international level.Thispaper aims todevelopa conceptualmodel to analyze thediscourseofinitialcross-culturalnegotiationmeetingsusingNewZealand( NZ)andChi-nesenegotiationsasexemplar.
Brought to you by | University of Queensland - UQ LibraryAuthenticated
Download Date | 12/14/15 3:01 AM
102 Yunxia Zhu
Cross-culturalnegotiationhaslongdrawnresearchers’attention(e.g.,AdairandBrett2005;Graham1983;GrahamandSano1989;Lampi1986;Planken2005;VanZandt1970).Inparticular,extensiveresearchhasbeendoneonne-gotiatingwiththeChinese(e.g.,Spencer-Oatey2000;Spencer-OateyandXing1998,2004;Fang1999;Lietal.2001;Ulijnetal.2005;Zhuetal.2007)asChinaisbecomingthelargestmarketforinternationalbusinessintheworld.Agrowingtrendinsuchresearchistheuseofdiscoursalapproachesinthestudyofcross-culturalnegotiation.AdiscoursalapproachisdefinedbyWiddowson(1983)asaresearchperspectivewhichexaminestheinteractiveprocess.Re-searchers such as Bülow-Møller (1993), Lampi (1986), Charles (1996), Lietal.(2001),Spencer-Oatey(2000),andPlanken(2005)offerinsightsintothenatureofnegotiationbyanalyzingthelinguisticstrategiesused.Alsorelevanttothisstudyisresearchwhichfocusesonmanagingrapportin
negotiationsinlightofBrownandLevinson’s(1987)politenesstheory.SomerepresentativestudiescanbefoundinSpencer-Oatey’s(2000)workonrapportmanagementandinanearlierstudyconductedbyCharles(1996)onbusinessrelationshipbuildingwithsalescontacts.Theircontributionliesinhighlightingtheimportanceofrelationalgoalsincross-culturalnegotiation.AsdiscussedinSection2.1,Spencer-Oatey(2000)hasdevelopedafive-domainframeworkforstudyingrelationalgoalsinnegotiation:theillocutionary,content,partici-pation,stylistic,andnonverbaldomains.Thesefivedomainsallowforamorecomprehensiveconsiderationoffacework,whichsignificantlyextendsthepo-litenesstheoryoftheillocutionarydomain(BrownandLevinson1987).How-ever, while extensive research has been done in the illocutionary domain,therehasonlybeenlimitedresearch(e.g.,Planken2005;Spencer-Oatey2000;Spencer-OateyandXing2004)intheotherfourdomains.Thisisoneareatowhich thispaperendeavors tomakeacontribution.This studyalsoaims toextend Spencer-Oatey’s rapport management to cross-cultural negotiationresearch.Asnotedabove,rapportmanagementresearchersmainlyfocusontherela-
tionalgoal(Planken2005),exploringthediscourserelatingtothesocialrela-tionsofinteractions.Althoughthey(Planken2005;Spencer-Oatey2000)rec-ognizethecoexistenceofrelationalandtransactionalgoals,moreresearchisnecessarytoexplorehowcommongoalsandmutualinterestsareachievedinordertofitthenegotiationcontexts.AsLewickietal.(2007)note,thesecom-monalitiesareessentialforawin–winnegotiationoutcome.Existingresearch(e.g.,Miles2003;Zhuetal.2007)showsthatChinesenegotiatorstendtofocusonlong-termrelationshipsorrelationalgoals,whileWesternnegotiatorstendtofocusontransactionalgoals.Itisthereforeimperativetoappropriatelyad-dress potential conflicts involving different goals and help turn parties intocollaboratorsandalliances.Inordertoaddressthisissue,thispaperproposesculturalalliancestoextendrapportmanagement.Inaddition,thispaperadopts
Brought to you by | University of Queensland - UQ LibraryAuthenticated
Download Date | 12/14/15 3:01 AM
Moves and strategies in initial business negotiation meetings 103
andclassifiesmovesandstrategiestoextendtheotherdomainsdevelopedbySpencer-Oatey.Specifically,thepaper’saimsareasfollows:
1. Developaframeworkofinterculturalalliances(Collier2003),whichem-braces both transactional and relational goals in negotiation and turnsthemintoalliances(extendingrapportmanagementingeneral).
2. Incorporatenegotiationmoves,includinginitiatingandrespondingmoves(extendingtheparticipationdomain),toexaminethediscourseofnegotia-tionandmanagementofconflicts.
3. Identifystrategies,includingpositivepolitenessstrategiesanduncoopera-tivestrategies(extendingthediscoursecontentdomain),toexaminethemicro-leveldiscourseanditsrelationshipwiththemacro-leveldiscourse(e.g.,movesandthebuildingofinterculturalalliances).
Fromabroaderperspective,thispaperalsocontributestodevelopingnewap-proaches to enhance cross-cultural collaborations. Research on negotiationwiththeChinesetendstofocusonbarriersanddifficultiesofunderstandingChinesenegotiationbehaviorsandstyles(e.g.,Fang1999;JehnandWeigelt1999;SheerandChen2003;Young1994).However,severalresearchers,in-cludingEarley(2006)andHolden(2004),haverealizedthatidentifyingcul-turaldifferencesalonecannotaddressallthecross-culturalissues.Thispapermakesanattempttoshiftthefocusfromculturalbarrierstoculturalcollabora-tions.NewZealandandChinesecultureswerechosensincetheyrepresenttheWesternandEasternculturalclusters,respectively(e.g.,Hofstede1991).NewZealandisbecomingmoreandmoreinvolvedindoingbusinesswithChina,whichisclearlyevidencedinbeingthefirstWesterncountrytosignthefreetradeagreementwithChinain2008.Specifically,thispaperisorganizedasfollows.Firstly,aconceptualframe-
workisdeveloped.Thisoffersanunderpinningguidelinefortheanalysisofnegotiationdiscourse.Secondly,detailsaboutthedataandresearchmethodol-ogyareoutlined.Thirdly,acomparativeanalysisisprovidedforsuccessfulandunsuccessfulnegotiationmeetingstoshowhowappropriatemovesandstrate-giescanhelppromoteinterculturalalliances.Finally,conclusionsandimplica-tionsforfurtherstudyincross-culturalnegotiationsarediscussed.
2. Conceptualframework
2.1. Spencer-Oatey’s five domains of cross-cultural negotiation
Asnotedabove,Spencer-Oatey(2000)proposesfivedomainsofrapportman-agement in negotiation.Thefirst is the illocutionary domain (e.g., studyofspeech acts, such as offers and requests in negotiations) where politeness
Brought to you by | University of Queensland - UQ LibraryAuthenticated
Download Date | 12/14/15 3:01 AM
104 Yunxia Zhu
theoryiscentrallylocated.Thesecondisthediscoursedomain,whichincludessequenceofinteractionaltopic;thethirdistheparticipationdomainconcern-ingturntaking,suchaswhentorespondtoaconversation;thefourthisthestylisticdomainregardingtheregisteroflanguageandchoiceoftone.Thefifthdomainrelatestotheuseofnonverballanguage.Sincetheillocutionarydo-mainhasbeenthemoststudied,Spencer-Oateyhashighlightedtheimperativeformorecasestudiesandforincorporatingmoretheoreticalperspectives.Inresponse,Planken(2005)developedtheotherfourdomainsthroughinvesti-gatingtheinitiationofsafetalks(relationallyorientedtopics)andtheuseofpronounsasindicatorofrelationships,bothofwhichshefoundimportantforbuildingrelationshipsinnegotiations.Thepresentstudyproposesatheoreticalframeworkbasedonintercultural
alliancestoextendnotonlythefourdomainsbutalsotherapportmanagementtheory. This approach incorporates both relational and transactional goals,which is imperativesince themismatchbetween them isoften thecauseofmisunderstandingsinnegotiatingwiththeChinese(seeFang1999;SheerandChen2003;Ulijnetal.2005).
2.2. Intercultural alliances
AccordingtoCollier(2003),interculturalalliancesarealliancesinwhichpar-tiesseekcommongoals,shareresponsibilities,andrecognizetheirdifferencesand interdependenceoneachother.Researchers in thisareagenerallyagreethatalliancescanbeachievedthroughthenegotiationofvalues,identities,andnormsthatincorporateperspectivesfrombothcultures.Tofurtherunderstandculturalalliances,thefollowingthreedimensionsneedtobeconsidered.Firstly,itisessentialtorecognizebothculture-generalandculture-specific
(indigenous)dimensionsofculturaldifferences(Earley2006).Themostcom-monlycitedgeneralculturaldifferencesincludeindividualismandcollectiv-ism(Hofstede1991)andhigh-contextandlow-contextcultures(Hall1976).Theculture-specificorindigenoustheoriesthataremostrelevanttothisstudyincludetheconceptsofguanxior‘connections’andmianzior‘face’.Guanxiisanetworkofrelationships(Fei1985)andisessentialforbuildingrelationships(PaikandTung1999;Zhu2005,2009;Zhuetal.2006).Face,accordingtoTing-Toomey(1999),isanimportantconceptformanaginginterpersonalrela-tions.Spencer-Oatey(2000)furtherprovesthatpublicfaceisevenmoreim-portantfornegotiatingwithChinesepeople.Theseculturalvaluesanddimen-sionshavebeenprovedtoberelevantandusefulforstudyingnegotiationswiththeChinese(e.g.,Fang1999;Spencer-Oatey2000;Ulijnetal.2005).Secondly, interculturalalliancescenteronbuildingempathyand interper-
sonal relations or “relational empathy,” defined byBroome (inAllen et al.
Brought to you by | University of Queensland - UQ LibraryAuthenticated
Download Date | 12/14/15 3:01 AM
Moves and strategies in initial business negotiation meetings 105
2003:307)as“arelationalprocessthatinvolvesindividualsandgroupswork-ingtogethertobuildacollectiveinterpretationofthesituationtheyfaceandtodevelop a consensus for performing joined action.”Spencer-Oatey’s (2000)pioneeringworkonrapportinnegotiationhasbeennotedearlier.Thispaperwill view these relationally based frameworks as part of the interculturalalliances.Thirdly,interculturalalliancesfocusonseekingcommongoalstoachieve
business objectives, also known as transactional goals (Planken 2005). Toachievethesegoals,negotiatorsneedtobefullyawareoftheirdifferentneedsandwantsand,moreimportantly,understandtheirinterdependenceuponeachother and achieve awin–win common goal (Lewicki et al. 2007). Lewickietal.(2007)callthistypeofnegotiationcooperativeorintegrativenegotiation,while theyrefer to theopposite, i.e., focusingonone’sowninterest,asdis-tributiveorcompetitivenegotiation.
2.3. Stages in cross-cultural negotiations
Negotiationsareoftenseenascomposedofanumberofstages.GrahamandSano(1989)havedevelopedafour-stagemodelbasedontheirextensivestudyofAmericanandJapanesenegotiations,whichtheyclaimarealsoapplicabletointernationalnegotiationsallovertheworld(1989:79).
1. Non-tasksounding:negotiatingpartiesgettoknoweachother.2. Task-relatedexchangeofinformation:parties’subjectiveneedsandpref-
erencesopentodiscussion.3. Persuasion: parties attempt to influence the other side’s needs and
preferences.4. Concessionsandagreement(closing):partiesaccomplishanagreement.
Thefirststageisalsoseenasthebeginningstageandthefinalastheclosingstage.Unsuccessfulnegotiationscanalsohaveaclosing,evenwithoutadeal.These fourstagesareuseful forunderstandingnegotiations ingeneral sincetheyreflectthedevelopmentofrelationshipbuildingandthebusinesstransac-tion.However,thefourstagesmaynotbesufficienttostudyhownegotiatorsactuallyuselanguagetoinitiateandmaintaininterculturalalliances,hencetheneedtointroducetheconceptsofmovesandstrategies.
2.4. Moves
Positioning,definedasthevantagepointonetakesthroughwhichoneseestheworld(DavisandHarre1990:46),underpinsmovesinnegotiation,hencethe
Brought to you by | University of Queensland - UQ LibraryAuthenticated
Download Date | 12/14/15 3:01 AM
106 Yunxia Zhu
needtodiscusspositioninginthissection.Positioningcanbeseenaspartofthesociocognitiveprocesssimilartoframesorpointofview.However,differ-entfromframes,itfocusesonconstructingaperspectivethroughinteractionsor interactional roles involving the other party (Putnam and Jones 1982;Spencer-Oatey2000).Throughthisinteraction,locationiscreatedformediat-ingsocialrelationsandactionssuchaspositioningcredibilityforone’sfirmandpositioningabottom-linepriceasattractivetotheotherparty.Theterm“move”wasfirstintroducedbyBellacketal.(1966)tostudyclass-
roomdiscourseasaunitofinteractionbasedonWittgenstein’s(1953)gametheory.LaterGoffman(1969)appliedmovetosocialinteraction,anapproachwhichismorerelevanttothispaper.AccordingtoGoffman(1969),amoveisacourseofactionwhichinvolvesrealconsequences,whichofferssomeinsightintoitsgeneralmeaning.Thispaperfurtherdefinesmovesassignificantmo-mentsforpositioningoneselfinanegotiation,suchasadvocatingone’scredi-bilityandneeds.Forexample,commonlyusedmovesinnegotiationsincludemakingthreatsandappealingforsympathy.ThisdefinitionofmovesdiffersfromGoffman’s.Itrelatesmovestonegotiationpositioningratherthanfocus-ingonwhentomakeamoveandtakeaturn.Oneconversationalturncanin-volvemorethanonemovesinceonecanrespondtoanexistingmovewhileinitiatinganewmoveatthesametime.Amovecanalsobecomposedofmorethanone turn (e.g.,using several turns toexpressonemoveofestablishingone’scredibility).Movescanbeusedtoinitiateaposition(aninitiatingmove)orrespondtoan
existingposition(respondingmove).Initiatingmoves(IM)initiateaposition,suchasproposinganeedforoneself.IMcanbefurtherdividedintoinitiativemove-relational(IM-R)andinitiatingmove-transactional(IM-T)basedonthetwotypesofnegotiationgoals(relationalandtransactional).IM-Risusedtoexpressanintentiontobuildrapport,whileIM-Tfocusesonbusiness-relatedissuessuchasgettingajobdone.Respondingmovesplaytwofunctionsinnegotiation:theycaneitherbere-
sponses to initiatingmovesof thesamepositioning,or theycanchange themeanings of the initiatingmoves by repositioning themeanings.The latteroften happens in a negotiation between parties with different interests andneeds(Lewickietal.2007).Withinboth thesefunctions,onecanprovideacooperativeresponsetoaninitiatingmove.“Cooperative”isbasedoncoop-erative negotiation which stresses common goals (Lewicki et al. 2007), asnotedearlier,andalignswithinterculturalalliances.Thiskindofrespondingmoveiscalledrespondingmove-cooperative(RM-C).Incontrast,arespond-ingmove-uncooperative(RM-UC) tends tofocussolelyonone’sownposi-tioning.Anexampleisinterruptingthespeakertogetone’sownviewsacross.RM-UCcanbedamagingtointerculturalalliances(e.g.,imposingatransac-tionalfocusregardlessoftheotherparty’sinterestsinrelationalgoals).
Brought to you by | University of Queensland - UQ LibraryAuthenticated
Download Date | 12/14/15 3:01 AM
Moves and strategies in initial business negotiation meetings 107
2.5. Negotiation strategies
Tofurtherexplorehowmovesareconstructedthroughlanguageitisessentialtolookatstrategies.Twosetsofstrategiesarerelevant:cooperativestrategiesanduncooperativestrategies.Theformerpromotecooperationwhilethelatterfocusonone’sownneedsandinterests.Comparedtomoves,strategiesfunc-tionatamicrodiscoursallevel,whichtendstooverlapwithspeechactsintheillocutionarydomainsuchasmakingapromise.BrownandLevinson’s (1987)positivepolitenessstrategiescanprovidea
basisforcooperativestrategiesastheyareusefulforbuildingrapport(Planken2005;Spencer-Oatey2000),which isalsoacomponentof interculturalalli-ances.Inaddition,politenessstrategiesarerelatedtoface,whichisanessentialvalueforChineseculture(Ting-Toomey1999).VanderWijstandUlijn(1995)showed the validity of using politeness strategies in cross-cultural negotia-tions.Viewingpolitenessstrategiesascooperativecanalsobejustifiedthroughtheirfocusonincorporatingtheperspectivesofbothspeakerandhearer.Thisdualperspectivecoincideswithtwo-sidedmessages,definedasmessagesin-corporatingtheotherparties’perspectives,akeyfeatureofcooperativenego-tiation(Lewickietal.2007).Incontrast,one-sidedmessages,whichtendtoignoretheotherparty’sargu-
mentsandimposeone’sownargumentas theonlyrightargument(Lewickietal.2007),frequentlyoccurinlesscooperativenegotiations.Thesearenotcovered by politeness strategies so this paper proposes two uncooperativestrategies:(i)ignoringtheotherparty(asUncooperativeStrategy1orUC-S1)and(ii)interruptingtheotherpartywhenhisorherinterestisnotaddressed(UncooperativeStrategy2orUC-S2).Toexaminecooperativenegotiation,thispaperadoptsninerelevantpolite-
nessstrategiesfromBrownandLevinson(1987):politenessstrategy1(PS1)attend tohearer; (PS2)seekagreement; (PS3)exaggerate interest,approval,sympathy; (PS4) avoid disagreement; (PS5) assert common ground; (PS6)offerandpromise;(PS7)assumeorassertreciprocity;(PS8)providereasons;and(PS9)makejokes.Thesearechosenastheyclearlyreflectinteraction,lis-teningskills,makinganoffer,andpersuadingothers,whichareessentialforcooperativenegotiation(Lewickietal.2007).This paper excludes the following six strategies proposed byBrown and
Levinson(1987):(i)intensifyinterest,(ii)usein-groupidentitymarkers,(iii)assert concernofS’sknowledgeofandconcern forH’swants, (iv) includebothSandH,(v)beoptimistic,and(vi)givegiftsforthefollowingreasons.Firstly,intensifyinginterestmergeswithPS3(exaggeratinginterest)sincebothcoverthesameaspectofinteraction.Secondly,strategies(ii)–(v)areallrelatedtocooperativeinitiativeswhichhavealreadybeencoveredbyseekingagree-mentandseekingcommonground,whichshouldsufficefor thenegotiation
Brought to you by | University of Queensland - UQ LibraryAuthenticated
Download Date | 12/14/15 3:01 AM
108 Yunxia Zhu
contextsasawhole.Finally,giftgivingisnotsignificantsinceitistreatedasaritualisticpracticeinallnegotiationmeetingswehaveobserved.
2.6. Proposing a theoretical framework for analyzing negotiation meetings
Drawingontheaboveconceptualoverview,thispaperproposesaframeworkforunderstandingcross-culturalnegotiationsdiscourse(SeeFigure1).Abriefexplanationisgivenheresinceextensivetheoreticalbackgroundhas
alreadybeenprovided.AsshowninFigure1,contextualfactors(e.g.,cultural,group,interpersonal)playanimportantroleforunderstandingcross-culturalnegotiations.Buildinginterculturalalliancesfocusesonbothtransactionalandrelationalgoals.Thenon-tasksoundingstageisrelatedtoinitiatingintercul-turalalliances.Appropriatemovesandstrategiesshouldbeusedtoidentifyandseekcommonground.Thesecondstageaimsatdevelopinginterculturalalli-ances.Conflictsatthisstagetendtooccursincebothpartieshavestartedex-ploringeachother’swantsandneeds(Zhuetal.2007).Thethirdstageofper-suasion should be seen as part ofmaintaining intercultural alliances as the
Figure1. Model of intercultural alliances for cross-cultural negotiations
Brought to you by | University of Queensland - UQ LibraryAuthenticated
Download Date | 12/14/15 3:01 AM
Moves and strategies in initial business negotiation meetings 109
negotiationprogressestowardmoreessentialissuessuchasprices.Thefourthstageofconcessionandagreementisimportantforconsolidatinginterculturalalliances.Appropriatemovesandstrategiesrelatingtooffersandpromisescanberelevant.
3. Researchmethodology
3.1. Data
Two initial negotiationmeetings (one successful and one unsuccessful) areanalyzedinthispaper.1Asuccessfulnegotiationmeetingisdefinedasameet-ingthathasapromisingoutcomeaboutabusinessdeal.BothmeetingstookplaceinAucklandandareinitialnegotiationsbetweennewcontacts.Thesetwomeetingswerechosenfollowingtheseselectioncriteria:(i)the
negotiationswerebetweenChineseandNewZealanders.Inthisresearchthelatterreferstopeople(excludingthosefromChina)whohavebeenNZresi-dentsformorethantenyears.TheChinesenegotiatorswereofChinesenation-ality;(ii)themeetingswereconductedinNZculturalcontexts;(iii)thecontentofthenegotiationsfocusedonbusinesstopicsinvolvingtwopartiesinterestedin exploring business opportunities; and (iv) the meetings indicated clearstagesofnegotiation.WiththehelpofHongdaConsulting,2thetwonegotiationswererecorded
andtranscribed.Theywerethencodedbythreecoders(includingtheauthor),allofwhomhaveadiscourse-analyticbackground,followedbyextensivedis-cussiontoreachagreementaboutthecodingofmovesandstrategies.
3.2. Background information about the two meetings
BothinitialnegotiationmeetingswereconductedinAuckland,NewZealand,withinterpretersastheChinesegrouppreferstospeakChineseanduseinter-preters.OnlytheEnglishtranslationisgivenintheextractsforanalysisinthispapersincethefocusofanalysisisonthecontentofthetext.InMeeting1(successful), theChinesepeoplepresent(fourintotal)were
Mr.WangandMs.LifromHongdaConsulting(asuccessfulagencyforsettingupbusinesslinkswithChina)andoneinterpreter,Ms.Liu.InDecember2004,Mr.Wang,thegeneralmanagerofaChineseagriculturalcorporation,cametoNewZealand to look forbusinessopportunities.Oneofhismajorduties inNewZealandwas tomeetJohn — generalmanagerofaNZ tradecompany,whowantedtopurchasesunflowerandsesameseedsfromMr.Wang’scom-pany for a company in Macedonia. Before this meeting, with the help of
Brought to you by | University of Queensland - UQ LibraryAuthenticated
Download Date | 12/14/15 3:01 AM
110 Yunxia Zhu
HongdaConsulting, John had sent a fax toMr.Wang to indicate his basicrequirements.Meeting2(unsuccessful)wasalsoorganizedthroughHongdaConsulting.
TheChinesepresentatthemeetingincludedabusinessdelegationoftenpeo-ple(onebusinessmanandninegovernmentofficersfromacommerceofficeofTProvince),oneinterpreter,andonerepresentativefromHongdaConsulting.OnlyoneNZbusinessman,Michael,ispresent,whoistheCEOofalargetradefirm.SimilartoMeeting1,theChineseteamleaderalsohadfaxcontactpriorto themeetingwith thehelpofHongdaConsultingmainly toprovidesomebackgroundinformationabouttheirvisit.Thetwomajorobjectivesofthedel-egationweretofindabusinesspartnerforthebusinessmenandtopromotetheproductsandtradeofTProvince.ComparedtoMeeting1,Meeting2involvesa largeChinesegroupandthuspublicfacemoreevidently. Italsohasclearbusinessgoals.Follow-upmeetingstobothmeetingswereorganizedwithHongdaConsult-
ingtoconfirmtheobjectivesofeachparty.AccordingtoHongda,Meeting1achieveditsobjectivewithanoralagreement.However,Meeting2derailed:theChinesegrouppreparedspecificquestionstoexplorebusinessopportunitiesasthegovernmentofficershadextensivecontactsandinfluenceinstate-ownedcompanies,buttheynevergottheopportunitytoexchangethisinformation.
4. Analysisofthetwonegotiationmeetings
4.1. Overview of negotiation meetings
Table1providesanoverviewofthemovesandstrategiesusedbythetwone-gotiationmeetings.AsshowninTable1,Meeting1hascompletedthefournegotiationstages
andthedurationofthemeetingis72minutes.Incontrast,Meeting2doesnotfallintothenormalfour-stagemodelasitisderailedinStage2andsplitsintoanegotiationbetweentwoparties,hencethe15-minuteinterlude.Inaddition,meeting 2 also encounters significant communication barriers.Appendix Bprovidesspecificdetailsaboutthemoves(includingIMsandRMs)usedforpositioning each party’s needs and stances.Although the twomeetings aresimilarinlength(66vs.72minutes),morethanhalfofthetime(38/72min-utes)was spent onStage 1 in building relationship and trust inMeeting 1,whileMeeting2spendsmoretimeonsortingoutissuesandcommunicationbreakdownsinStage2(30/66).Inaddition,Meeting1showsanappropriateuseofIMsandRMs,andmore
PSwithineachstage,whichfinallyleadstoaverbalagreementbetweenthetwoparties(seeAppendixB).Incontrast,Meeting2hasexperiencedinterrup-tionsusingmoreUC-Sand,asaresult,itisderailedatthesecondstage.
Brought to you by | University of Queensland - UQ LibraryAuthenticated
Download Date | 12/14/15 3:01 AM
Moves and strategies in initial business negotiation meetings 111
4.2. Comparing the strategies used in the two negotiation meetings
4.2.1. Comparative analysis of Stage 1. Table 2 details all the strategiesusedandshowsthateachpartyfocusesonPSinMeeting1whileUC-SoccursinMeeting2.Thefollowingcomparesthestrategiesofthesetwomeetingsinrelationto
movesofthisstage.NegotiationMeeting1spendsalongtimeonthenon-tasksoundingstage.Thisstageiscomposedofthefollowingmoves(seealsoAp-pendixA):
– IM1-RandRM1-C:JohnandMr.Wanggreeteachother.– IM2-R:Mr.Wangseeksinformationabouttheotherparty.– IRM2-C:Johnintroduceshimselfandhisbusiness.– RM3-C:Mr.WangstopsJohnfromtalkingaboutTaiwan.– RM4-C:Johnswitchestofriendshipandcollaboration.
Table1. Overall structure of the two negotiation meetings
Meeting1 Meeting2
Stage1 IMRMPSUC-STime
2 438—38minutes
3 425 415minutes
Stage2 PMNPMPSUC-STime
3 323 1 8minutes
3 419 630minutes
Interlude IMRMPSTime
— 1 2 915minutes
Stage3 IMPMPSTime
2 43810minutes
—
Stage4 IMRMPSTime
2 44214minutes
2 1 7 6minutes
Totaltime 72minutes 66minutes
Brought to you by | University of Queensland - UQ LibraryAuthenticated
Download Date | 12/14/15 3:01 AM
112 Yunxia Zhu
ThisstagestartswithgreetingsandJohn’sexperienceinDalian,China,andhisfriendshipwiththeChinesepeople.Bydoingthis,Johnshowsthathehaspre-viousexperienceofestablishingformalandinformalrelationshipswithChi-nese,whichisobviouslyrelevantforhismeetingwithMr.Wang.Mr.Wangstartstheirnegotiationtopicaftertheabovewarming-up:
(1) Mr.Wang: Couldyouexplainfirstyourbackground,andwhyyouwanttodobusinesswithourcompany?
John: Thankyou.IamfirstverysurprisedandpleasedthatIcouldmakecontactwiththerepresentativefromChineseagricul-turalcorporation.
Mr.Wang’squestionclearlystresseshis interest in thepersonand theotherparty’spointofview(PS1),whichisalsoessentialforbuildingrelationalem-pathy.Mr.Wang’squestionseemstooccurattherightmomentaftertheyhaveboth established a friendly relationship or some common ground (PS5) bysharingeachother’sbackground.JohnrespondstoMr.Wang’squestionusingemotiveexpressions“Iamverysurprisedandpleased”(PS3,exaggeratein-terestandapproval),whichshowshispositiveattitudestowardhiscontactwithMr.Wang.John then introduces himself and speaks about how he started business
inNewZealand.His response at this point focuses on his past experience.However, it is communicative since this iswhatMr.Wang is interested in(PS1).Johnskillfullyunfoldshisinternationalbackgroundasabusinessrep-resentative forNewZealand andMacedonia, addressingMr.Wang’s querygradually:
Table2. Strategies used in Stage 1 (non-tasking)
Meeting1 Meeting2
John Wang Mike Lu Feng Ye
PS1 9 11 3 — — —PS2 — 2 4 6 1 1PS3 1 2 1 — — —PS4 1 — —PS5 2 2 —PS7 1 — 1PS8 1 5 6 1PS9 1 — 1 — — —UC-S1 — — 3 — — —UC-S2 — — — 1 — —
Subtotal 38PS 25PSand4UCS
Brought to you by | University of Queensland - UQ LibraryAuthenticated
Download Date | 12/14/15 3:01 AM
Moves and strategies in initial business negotiation meetings 113
(2) John: It isvery important formeandmyassociates inMacedonia tosee, to talk, and to work with Mr. Wang [speaking to theinterpreter] — the representative of a very big country.... Forme,todayisaverybigdaytomakecontacts.
Here,JohnreferstoMr.Wangasarepresentativefrom“averybigcountry”,whichgivesface(PS3)toMr.Wang.Johnthenquicklymovesontoemphasizethe friendship between China and Macedonia (PS5 relating to commonground),whichalsopointstoanadditionalreasonfordoingbusinesswithMr.Wang.AsJohnclearlyindicateshere,thisreasonembracesbothbusinessdealsandfriendship.However,hislongintroductioniscutshortbyMr.Wangwhenhemakesajoke(PS9)aboutTaiwan:
(3) Mr.Wang: (laughs)Forgetaboutit.
Mr.Wangmaintainsanattentivesilence(PS1)untilherespondswiththeaboveinterruption.Bothpartiesseemtounderstandwhatisneededtoestablishtheiralliances.Mr.Wang interrupts John’s joke toavoidpotentialconflictoverasensitivetopicaboutTaiwan(PS4,avoidingdisagreement).ThejokedoesnotseemtobefunnytoMr.Wangandinsteaditthreatensthepublicfacebecauseofthepresenceofothers.JohnthenflexiblyadaptshistopictofocusonthepositiverelationshipwithChina(hence,PS5,seekingcommonground).Johnseemstohavehandledwellthecultural,political,andpersonalcontextsatthesametime,thusdevelopingrelationalempathy.Incontrast,Meeting2doesnothaveasmoothstart.Communicationbreak-
downoccursattheverybeginningofStage1(moredetailsinAppendixB):
– IM1-RandRM1-C:MichaelandtheChinesegroupgreeteachother.– IM2-RandIM3-T:Michael’sintroductionandindicationtostartinforma-
tionexchange– RM2-C:Luexpressesgratitude.– RM3-UC:Michaelinterruptswithspecificquestions.– RM 4-UC: Lu ignores this and continues the introduction to Feng, the
groupleader.
BothpartiesseemtofocusontherelationalaspectofthenegotiationtostartwithusingPS1andPS2(seeTable1).However,beforethegroupleaderMr.Fengisintroduced,MichaelmovesonquicklytobusinessbyinterruptingMr.Lu:
(4) Michael: Thisisabriefintroduction,andIwelcomeyoutoAuckland,NewZealand.AndIwelcomequestionsifyouhaveforme.IhopeIcananswersomething.
Intheaboveexcerpt,MichaelfinishesrelationshipbuildingbywelcomingtheChinesetoNewZealand(PS3),buthealsoinitiatesanothermovetoindicate
Brought to you by | University of Queensland - UQ LibraryAuthenticated
Download Date | 12/14/15 3:01 AM
114 Yunxia Zhu
thestartofbusinesstalk.Thereisaclearlackofrelationalempathybecausethetwopartieshavenotreachedconsensusaboutwhentheyshouldstartthenextstage,andhowlongthenon-taskstageshouldbe,hencetheclashbetweenre-lationalandtransactionalgoals.Neitherpartyseemstounderstandtheneedsoftheother.Eventuallytheyfail toestablishaninterculturalalliance,whichisessentialfortheinitialmeeting.Thefollowingexcerptshowsthedifferentpo-sitionsofthetwoparties:
(5) Lu: Althoughwehavebeenhereforonlytwodays,thebeautifulviewofNewZealandhasimpressedusdeeply.Here,I’dliketo thank Hongda Consulting for their arrangement of thismeetingandthankMr.Chairmanforcomingtothismeeting...
Michael: Well,Ihopeyoucanaskmesomespecificquestions.Itwillbeeasiertostartfromthatpointofview.
Mr.Lusignalshis intentiontodevelopinterpersonalrelationshipwithade-scriptionofhis impressionofNewZealandandhisgratitude towardothers(PS3).However,hisresponsedoesnotseemtobesharedbyMichael,whotriestochangeMr.Lu’spositioningbyinsistingonspecificquestions(usingUC-S2)evenbeforeMr.Fenghasbeenintroduced.Michael’sinterruptionnotonlythreatensMr.Lu’sfacebutalsocausesthegrouptolosefaceaswell,asMr.Fengisthemostseniorpersoninthegroup.ComparedwithMeeting1,whichestablishesinterculturalalliancessuccess-
fully,Meeting2endsStage1withconflict,failingtomanagetheclashbetweenbusinesstalkandrelationalneeds.
4.2.2. Comparative analysis of Stage 2: task-related exchange of informa-tion. Table3comparesthespecificmovesusedinthetwomeetings.Meeting1continueswithPSstrategiesandonlyadoptsoneUC-Sstrategy.Incontrast,Meeting2appliesfewerPSstrategiesbutmoreUCstrategies.ThesecondstageofMeeting1 iscomposedof the followingmoves (see
AppendixA):
– IM1-Tand IM1-R: Johnexpressesaneed for1,000 tonsof sunflowerseeds.
– RM1-UC:Mr.Wangasksforspecifications.– RM2-C:JohnoffersambiguousexplanationstoMr.Wang’srequest.– RM3-C:Mr.WangdropshisrequestandpraisesJohn’sknowledgeabout
theChinesemarket.
Exchangeof information is an important stage todevelop intercultural alli-ancesinbusinesstransactions.Johnstartsthisstagebyindicatinghisneedfor1,000tonsofsunflowerseeds,followedbyarequesttoMr.Wangforproduct
Brought to you by | University of Queensland - UQ LibraryAuthenticated
Download Date | 12/14/15 3:01 AM
Moves and strategies in initial business negotiation meetings 115
specifications. Some conflict occurswhenMr.Wang tries to change John’spositioning:
(6) Mr.Wang: Butcanyouofferusfirstyourrequirementsfortheseitems,justroughly.Forexample,whatisyourrequirementforthepercentageofthepurity?
John: Thepercentofthepurityis....Inthisbusiness,thepeopleknowverywellwhatthatis.
Mr.Wang: Butthereshouldbeapercentage. John: Yes,shouldbe. Mr.Wang: Sohowmanypercentdoyouwantittobe? John: Youknow,youknowhowmany. ... Mr.Wang: (laughs)Iunderstand.Youneedmetotellyoutheoilper-
centfirst,andthenyouoffermetheprice. John: Ireallydon’tknowwhatpercentageitshouldbe. Mr.Wang: (laughs) So you know Chinese and Chinese market very
well.
InsteadofaddressingJohn’srequest,Mr.WangasksJohntoprovidespecifica-tionsinRM1-UCusinganinterruptionstrategy(UC-S2).Asshownabove,exchangeofinformationaboutthespecificationoftheproducttakesplaceandbothpartiesexploretheirbusinessneeds.JohndoesnotseemtobepreparedforMr.Wang’squestion.Heeitherdoesnothavethespecificinformationordoesnotwant toprovide it (usingavoiding strategies,PS4).Bydoing this,Johnprotectshisownface(notbeingabletoproviderequiredinformation)infrontofhisChinesecounterpart.Eventually,Mr.Wangdropshisquestionby
Table3. Strategies used in Stage 2 (information exchange)
Meeting1 Meeting2
John Wang Michael Feng
PS1 2 4 1 3PS3 — 2 0 3PS4 4 2 — —PS5 1 1 — —PS6 1 — — —PS7 1 2 4 2PS8 1 2 4 2UC-S1 — 1 1 3UC-S2 — — 2 —
Subtotal 23PSand1UC-S 19PSand6UC-S
Brought to you by | University of Queensland - UQ LibraryAuthenticated
Download Date | 12/14/15 3:01 AM
116 Yunxia Zhu
saying“SoyouknowChineseandChinesemarketverywell.”Insayingthis,Mr.Wangswitchestorelationships,closingthisstagecooperatively(RM2-C),usingapproval(PS3)toeasethetensionbetweenthetwoparties.Inthisstage,limitedinformationseemstohavebeenexchanged.Thetwo
partieshaveexploredeachother’sneeds,whichisusefulfor thenextstage.WhatisimportantisthewayMr.WangandJohnhandleconflictwellbygivingeachotherface(PS3),whichisessentialhereforfurtherdevelopingintercul-turalalliances.Meeting 2, in contrast, involves a series of communication breakdowns
whichleadstothecollapseofinterculturalalliancesasshownbythefollowingmoves(moredetailsinAppendixB):
– IM1-RandIM2-T:Mr.FangasksgeneralquestionsaboutNZtrade.– RM1-UC:Michaelinterruptsforspecificquestions.– RM2-UC:Mr.FengcontinueswithgeneralquestionsaboutNZexports.– RM3-UCandIM3-R:Michaelquestionstherelevancewithajoke.– RM4-UCandIM4-T:Mr.Fengdefendstherelevanceofhisquestions.– RM5-CandIM5-R:MichaelanswersthequestionandstressesChina–
NewZealandrelationship.
Themovesofthisstagebecomemorecomplexaseachpartytendstousemorethanonemoveatthesametime(Michael,forexample,combinesaquestionwithajoke)toaddresstheongoingconflictbetweenbusinessandrelationalgoals.Insteadofdevelopingalliances,thepartieshavetodealwiththeissueofwhatcanbeconsideredanappropriatequestion.WhenMr.Fengasksageneralquestion,MichaeltriestochangeMr.Feng’spositioningbyinterruptinghim(UC-S2)formorespecificinformation.Mr.FengignoresMichael’sinterrup-tion(UC-S1)andsimplycontinueswithhispositioning:
(7) Feng: IwanttoknowthegrossvalueandthestructureofimportsinNewZealand.
Michael: What’sthesituationofexportsfromChina?Everything(withalaugh)!
Michael’s response toMr. Feng’s question represents an RM-UCwhich iscomposedof twostrategies: thefirst isUC-S2, interrupting thespeakerandevenchallengingtheappropriatenessof thespeaker’sview.Thesecondisapolitenessstrategyofusingajoke(PS9)tominimizethenegativeimpactofquestioning.However,jokescanbeverysensitiveinsuchsituationsandmayinvolve face, in particular the public face (Spencer-Oatey 2000).Michael’shumorous rhetoricalquestionaboutChina isnot interpretedas suchbyMr.Feng.Instead,itisseenasasatireaboutMr.Feng’slackofknowledge,whichisfacethreateningandalsoaddstothetensionbetweenthetwoparties.SoMr.Feng,insteadofchanginghispositioning,challengesMichael:
Brought to you by | University of Queensland - UQ LibraryAuthenticated
Download Date | 12/14/15 3:01 AM
Moves and strategies in initial business negotiation meetings 117
(8) Mr.Feng: LetmeexplainwhyIaskthisquestion...IfeelthemarketofNewZealandissosmallcomparedtotheChinesemarket.ThegrossvalueofimportsandexportsinChinaisover800billionUSdollars,butNewZealandonlyhas1.8billionUSdollars.Eventoourprovince,1.8billionUSdollarsisstillasmallfigure.
Mr.Feng’sexplanationshowsheactuallyknowsthegrossvaluesofNZim-ports.ThemessagebehindhisquestionsseemstoberelatedtohisdoubtaboutdoingbusinessthroughMichael’scompany.Comparedtothefirstnegotiationmeeting,whichuseshedgesandavoidssaying“no”,Mr.FengisverydirectinchallengingMichael’spositioning.Apparently,thiswasnottheoriginalinten-tionofhisvisit,andclearlyshowsthelackofinterculturalalliances.Michaelnowfeelsthetensionandhislongresponsefocusesonrepairing
trust.HeexplainstheimportsaswellasthespecificexportingproductsinNewZealand.Inaddition,hemakesthefollowingcomment:
(9) Michael: ...IthinkmostChinesemightfinditiseasierdoingbusinesswithNewZealand.MostNewZealand people involved intrade,or thesaleandpurchaseofservicesarehonest,openandveryfrankpeople.
Bydoingtheabove,MichaeltriestoidentifysomecommongroundwiththeChinesegroup(PS5)showinghiswillingnesstobuildtrustwiththeChinesedelegates.However, thecommongrounddoesnotseemtohavebeenestab-lishedsinceMr.FenggoesontoasktwomoregeneralquestionsaboutNZandChinatraderelations,whichdonotseemtoexpandonthecommongroundMichaelistryingtoestablish.Itcanbeseenfromtheaboveanalysisthat,likeMeeting1,Meeting2in-
volves more conflicts. However, unlike Meeting 1, in which conflicts areaddressedpositivelyandcooperatively,Meeting2addsfurthertension,result-ingincommunicationbreakdown.TheclashbetweenthetwopartiesinMeet-ing2canalsobeexplainedintermsofdifferentcommunicationstylesinhigh-andlow-contextcultures.Previousresearch(e.g.,PaikandTung1999;Young1994)indicatesthattheChinesetendtofollowaninformationsequencefromgeneraltospecific,whiletheoppositeistrueofsomeofthelow-contextcul-tures.Asneitherpartyispreparedtoaccepttheother’scommunicationstyleinMeeting2,Stage2fallsapart.
4.2.3. Comparative analysis of strategies of the rest of moves. AsummaryofmovesandstrategiesusedfortherestofthenegotiationforbothmeetingsispresentedinTable4(moredetailscanbefoundinAppendicesAandB).
Brought to you by | University of Queensland - UQ LibraryAuthenticated
Download Date | 12/14/15 3:01 AM
118 Yunxia Zhu
Meeting1progressesintothepersuasionstage,althoughitalsodealswithasensitiveissueaboutprice.Bothpartiesseemtomanagethisstagewell.Thefinal stage is then reachedwithanoralagreementaddressing theirbusinessneeds(e.g.,productspecificationsandquoteofprice).Meeting2,however,isderailedintoaninterludeduringwhichMr.YemakessomebusinessqueriesofMichael,andtherestoftheChinesechatinsmallgroups.Acomparisonofthetwomeetingsisdiscussedbelow.Meeting1actuallystartswithadifficultquestioninMr.Wang’sIM-T:
(10) Mr.Wang: Following your style of business negotiation, I’d like toaskonemorequestion:Canyouoffermethelowestpriceyoucanaccept?
Thisisanessentialquestionforbothpartiessinceitdealswiththebottom-lineprice.Additionally,itisnotasafetopic(Planken2005)andispotentiallyfacethreateningifJohnoffersapricetooloworfailstoofferaprice.Toolowanoffermaythrowbothpartiesintoastateofdistributivebargaining.FailuretoofferapricewillnotsatisfyMr.Wang’squestion.JohnseemstobefullyawareofthechallengeashecarefullyaddressesMr.Wang’squestion:
(11) John: Honestly,butdon’tbesurprised,Ireallyexpectedthisquestion.Ifyouarehereforafewdays,Iwillorganizetofindwhatthat
Table4. Strategies used for Stages 3 and 4
Meeting1 Meeting2
John Wang Michael Feng Ye
Stage3 PS1 4 4 Interlude PS1 3 — 1PS2 1 1 PS3 — — 2PS3 2 1 PS6 1 — —PS5 — 3 PS7 — — 2PS6 1 1PS7 1 5PS8 10 4
Subtotal:38PS Subtotal:9PS
Stage4Dealandclosing
PS1 10 8 Stage4Closing
PS1 3 — 2PS2 2 3 PS3 1 1 —PS3 1 3PS5 1 1PS6 2 —PS7 3 —PS8 — 8
Subtotal:42PS Subtotal:7PS
Brought to you by | University of Queensland - UQ LibraryAuthenticated
Download Date | 12/14/15 3:01 AM
Moves and strategies in initial business negotiation meetings 119
limit is. But I am not sure, because this is my first time in-volvedwith these seeds. If you discusswheat seeds, I know.Butforthisone,Idon’tknow.ButIreallybelievethatweshoulddo something,we really have an opportunity to do this busi-ness,becauseItrustintheopportunitiesforChinatohavethisquantity,...
ThisindicatesJohnispreparedforthequestion.HetriestoconvinceMr.Wangbyindicatingthathewouldknowthebottom-linepriceofwheatseedsbutnotofsunflowerseeds.ThisknowledgeaboutthepricesofothersimilarproductsgivesfacetobothhimselfandtoMr.Wang(PS3).Evenmorepersuasiveishisstressoncollaborationwhenhesays“Ireallybelievethatweshoulddosome-thing,wereallyhaveanopportunitytodothisbusiness,...”,whichassumesorassertsreciprocalrightsfordoingbusinesstogether(PS7).JohnalsohelpstomaintainhisallianceswithMr.Wangwho,inturn,de-
cidestodrophisquestionandmovesontointroducinghiscompanyinmoredetail, which is also an indication of goodwill for cooperation. John con-tinuesbeingcooperative through theuseof a seriesof attending (PS1) andapproval strategies (PS3) to show appreciation aboutMr.Wang’s informa-tion. Each party addresses their business needs for “more information andmoredetailedrequirements”followedbyJohn’s reassuringresponse topro-videtheinformationlaterafterfurtherconsultationwithhisbusinesspartnerinMacedonia. Eventually John successfully persuadesMr.Wang,which isalso the climax formaintaining intercultural alliances.However, thewholeprocessofmakingthisacceptableisverychallenging,anditwouldnothavebeen possible without shared understanding and trust (relational empathy)from thenegotiatingparties andwithout thedetailed information Johnpro-vided about his connection with his Macedonian colleagues (transactionalinformation).Having managed the most challenging part of negotiating a price, the
final stage becomesmuch easier for both parties. Stage 4 is predominantlytransactional, and both parties use a series of politeness strategies (such asPS1,PS2,PS3),agreeingonmethodofpaymentandsomeshipping issues.ThepartiesswitchbacktoarelationalfocusattheclosingwhenMr.Wangin-vitesJohntolunch,andbothpartieswishthebestfortheirfuturecollabora-tions(PS5).Incontrast,thedeadlockinStage2,descendsintochaosinMeeting2.There
wassilenceandanxietyintheroom.SomemembersevenbegantomurmuraboutMichaelandMr.Feng’sdialogueinChinese.Duringthisbreakofaboutfifteenminutes,Mr.Ye,thegeneralmanagerofasyntheticchemicalcompanyandalsothebusinessmaninthegroup,approachedMichael.Mr.YeshowedMichaelabrochureabouthistoothpasteproductandexpressedaneedtofind
Brought to you by | University of Queensland - UQ LibraryAuthenticated
Download Date | 12/14/15 3:01 AM
120 Yunxia Zhu
atradingpartnertosellthetoothpasteinNewZealand.MichaelhelpedMr.YebyringingoneofhisNZcolleagues,Jonathan,andgaveMr.YeinformationaboutfuturecommunicationswithJonathan.So,althoughMichaelseemstobepreparedforthemeetinginsomeway,therestoftheChinesegroupappearstohavelostinterest.Thisinterludeclearlyindicateshowanegotiationcanderailifitisnotmanagedappropriately.Intheend,Meeting2drawstoaclosewithbothpartiesexchanginggiftsbut
withnorealoutcomeachieved.Ironically,thegifttheChinesegrouppresentedtoMichaelwasanintroductionpackageaboutthebusinessopportunitiesthegrouphadbeenprepared topromote.Asnotedearlier, theyseemed tohavechangedtheiroriginalobjectivetoanon-substantialnegotiation.Thisinterpre-tationwasalsoconfirmedbyHongdaConsulting.Theabovecomparisonsharplycontraststheoutcomesofthetwomeetings.
InMeeting1,thenegotiationcouldhavegonewrongatseveralpointsiftherehadnotbeensufficientbusinessknowledgeorrelationalempathyandtrust.IthastobenotedthatcomparedtothecontextualfactorsofMeeting1,Meeting2posesmorechallengesofdealingwithpublicfaceofalargergroup.Yetpar-tiesinMeeting2seemtoexertmuchlessefforttobuildinterculturalalliances;instead,theyinsistontheirownpositioningandonusinguncooperativestrate-gies.Meeting2thusisanexampleabouthowpartiescanabandonanexplora-tionofbuildinginterculturalallianceswhenconfrontedwithcommunicationbarriersandbreakdown.
5. Summaryandconclusion
Thispaperhasdevelopedatheoreticalframeworkbasedoninterculturalalli-anceswhichextendsSpencer-Oatey’s(2000)rapportmanagement.ThefurtherdivisionofmovesintoIM-RversusIR-TandRM-CversusRM-UC,andstrat-egies intoPS andUC-S, offers insight for understanding how alliances arebuiltincomplexcross-culturalnegotiationsinvolvingdifferenttypesofposi-tioningandconflict.Thefindingsdrawnfromacomparativestudyoftwoini-tialbusinessmeetingsbetweenChineseandNZfirmshaveconfirmedtheva-lidityofthisframework.ThestudyshowsthatappropriatemovesandstrategieswereusedinMeeting
1,whileMeeting2failedtousethemappropriately.Forexample,Meeting1ischaracterizedbyuseofattendingskills,givingfacetoeachother,andseekingconsensus,whichestablishescommongroundbetweenthetwopartiesinthefirst stage.WhereasMeeting2didnotcomplete thefirst stagesuccessfully,confrontedwiththreattopublicface,whichapparentlyledtocommunicationbreakdown.Bothmeetingssuggesttheimportanceofusingpolitenessstrate-
Brought to you by | University of Queensland - UQ LibraryAuthenticated
Download Date | 12/14/15 3:01 AM
Moves and strategies in initial business negotiation meetings 121
giesandthepotentialdangerofusinguncooperativestrategies.ThefailureofMeeting2alsohighlights thechallengesofdealingwithcontextual factors:whennegotiatingwithlargergroupsthepublicfaceisevenmoreparamount.Inaddition,bothmeetingsalsodemonstratethatjokesarenotaneasystrategytousesincetheyinvolvepublicfaceandcancausemisinterpretationsacrosscultures.Thefindingsalsohighlightthattherelationshipbetweeninterculturalalliances,moves,strategies,andeffectivenegotiationswalksa tightropebe-tweentransactionalandrelationalneedsofbothparties,whileineffectivene-gotiatorstendtoimposetheirownpositioninganddisregardtheothers’needsandwants.Onthebasisoftheabovefindings,thefollowingconclusionscanbedrawn.
Firstly, it isessential todevelop interculturalalliances.Anemphasison thisaspectwillhelpnegotiatorstofocusonbuildingrelationalempathyand,moreimportantly, onworking on how to incorporate both relational and transac-tionalgoals.Secondly,communicatingempathy(PS3)andassertingcommonground (PS5) are important strategies for both parties in the first stage tofacilitateasmoothmovetothesecondstage.Further,itisimportanttogivefaceandstresscommonground,especiallyatcriticalmomentssuchasdeal-ingwithjokesorsensitivequestionsaboutthebottom-lineprice.Lastbutnotleast,itisessentialtopromptlyaddressdifferentialpositioningbeforethesitu-ationsnowballsintoconflict,asshowninMeeting2.Managingconflictseemsto be essential for Stage 2, and the different approaches (e.g., focusing onalliances or on own positioning) tomanaging conflict can lead to differentoutcomes.This studyhas implications for future researchon cross-cultural negotia-
tions.More research is needed to explore intercultural alliancesbuilding invariousconflict-relatedsituations.Morestrategiesalsoneedtobeexploredatthediscourselevelsincethisresearchisbasedonalimitedcomparisonoftwonegotiationmeetings.Furthermore,morenegotiationdatabasesacrossculturesshouldbeestablishedtotestsomeofthefindingsofthisstudyandtofurthersubstantiate and investigate the relationship between micro-level discourseandmacroissuesofpromotinginterculturalalliances.
Brought to you by | University of Queensland - UQ LibraryAuthenticated
Download Date | 12/14/15 3:01 AM
122 Yunxia Zhu
AppendixA.OverallstructureofNegotiationMeeting1
John Mr.Wang
Stage1 IM1-R:Greeting(alsochatsabouthisexperienceinDalian)
RM2-C:Respondswithbackgroundinformation
RM4-C:Changestopictofriendship
RM1-C:Greeting(showsinterestandagreement)
IM2-R:AskswhyJohnisdoingbusinesswithhim
RM3-C:InterruptstostopthesensitivetopicofTaiwan
Stage2 IM1-TandIM2-R:Explainsproductneeds(10,000tonsofsunflowerseeds)andasksforspecifications
RM2-C:Providessomeambiguousexplanations
RM1-UC:AsksJohnforhisspecificationsaboutproduct
RM3-C:DropshisquestionaboutspecificationsandpraisesJohn
Stage3RM1-C:Givesindirectresponsetoindicatecompetitivemarketprice
RM3-C:Showsinterestandagreement
RM4-C:Agreesandstressescollaboration
IM1-T:AsksJohntomakeanofferofprice
RM2-C:Dropshisquestiontointroducecompanyinformationandcredentials
IM2-T:AsksJohntogivemoreinformationlater
Stage4RM1-C:Respondstothequerieswithhispreferencebackedupwithreasons
IM2:Requestforchemicalanalysis
RM4-C:Thanksandacceptstheinvitation
IM-T1:Asksaboutmethodofpayment,shipping,etc.
RM2-C:Promisestosendaquoteandsamplereport
RM3-CandIM3-R:Agreesandexpresseshiswishforcollaborationsfollowedbyalunchinvitation
——►
▼|—————————
–————►
———————————▼|
▼|—————————
———————▼|
▼|———————
▼|—————————
———————▼|
▼|—————————
————————▼|
▼|——————————–
▼|——————————
————————▼|
▼|———————————
—–——————————▼|
▼|——————————
Brought to you by | University of Queensland - UQ LibraryAuthenticated
Download Date | 12/14/15 3:01 AM
Moves and strategies in initial business negotiation meetings 123AppendixB.O
verallstructureofNegotiationMeetin
g2
Michael
Mr.Lu
Mr.Feng
Mr.Ye
Stage1
IM1-R:G
reeting
IM2-RandIM
3-T:Introduces
companyandinvitesq
uestions
RM3-UC:Interruptsfor
specificquestions
RM1-C:G
reeting
RM3-C:E
xpresses
thanks
RM4-UC:Ignoresand
beginsintroducingFeng,
thegroupleader
Greeting
Greeting
Stage2
RM1-UC:Interruptsforsp
ecific
questions
RM3-UCandIM
3-R:Q
uestions
therelevancewithajoke
RM5-CandIM
5-R:A
nswers
thequestionandstressesChina–
NZrelationship
IM1-RandIM
2-T:A
sks
generalquestionaboutN
Ztrade
RM2-UC:C
ontinuesw
ith
generalquestionaboutN
Zexports
RM4-UCandIM
4-T:D
efends
relevanceofquestion
Interlude
RM1-C:R
espondsandringsh
is
colleagueJo
nathan
IM1-R:A
sksabout
sellinghistoothpaste
RM2-C:Thanks
Michael
Closing
RM1-C:E
xchangesgifts
IM1-RandIM
1-T:Presentsg
ifts
(com
panyinformation)andthanks
Michael
————–—
—►
———
►——————–—
———
►——————— ▼|
▼|———————————
———————— ▼|
▼|—————————————————————
————–—
————————— ▼|
▼|—————————————————————
——————–—
——————— ▼|
▼|—————————–—
—————————
▼|———————————————————————————————
————————————————————————————— ▼|
▼|—————————–—
—————————
Brought to you by | University of Queensland - UQ LibraryAuthenticated
Download Date | 12/14/15 3:01 AM
124 Yunxia Zhu
Notes
1. ThanksaregiventoSandraSun,whocollectedandtranscribedthetwonegotiationmeetingsandalsohelpedwiththeinterviewswiththeHongdaConsultinginAuckland,NewZealand.ThanksarealsoextendedtoDrMandyScottwhohasproof-readthispapermeticulouslyandhasprovidedvaluablefeedbacktotheearlierversionofthispaper.
2. Allpersonalandcompanynamesinthepaperarefictitiousforthesakeofconfidentiality.
References
Adair,WendiL.&JeanneM.Brett.2005.Thenegotiationdance:Time,culture,andbehaviouralsequencesinnegotiation.Organisation Science16(1). 33–51.
Allen,BrendaJ.,BenjaminJ.Broome,TriciaS.Jones,VictoriaChen&MaryJ.Collier.2003.Intercultural alliances:A cyberdialogue among scholars–practitioners. InM. J.Collier (ed.),Intercultural alliances: Critical transformation,249–319.NewYork:Sage.
Bellack,ArnoA.,HerbertM.Kliebard,RonaldT.Hyman&FrankL.Smith.1966.The language of the classroom. NewYork:TeachersCollegePress.
Brown,Penelope&StephenC.Levinson.1987.Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Bülow-Møller,AnneM.1993.Negotiatinginaforeignlanguage.Hermes, Journal of Linguistics11.11–25.
Charles,Mirjaliisa.1996.Businessnegotiations:Interdependencebetweendiscourseandthebusi-nessrelationship.English for Specific Purposes15(1).19–36.
Collier,MaryJ.(ed.).2003.Intercultural alliances: Critical transformation.NewYork:Sage.Davis,Bronwyn&RomHarre.1990.Positioning:Thediscursiveproductionofselves.Journal for
the Theory of Social Behaviour20(1).43– 63.Earley,ChristopherP.2006.Leadingculturalresearchinthefuture:Amatterofparadigmsandtaste.Journal of International Business Studies 37.922–931.
Fang,Tony.1999.Chinese business negotiation style.ThousandOaks:Sage.Fei,Xiaotong.1985.Shihui diaocha zibai [Statementregardingsocialinvestigations].Shanghai:ZhishiChubanShe.
Goffman,Erving.1969.Forms of talk.Philadelphia:UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress.Graham,JohnL.1983.Brazilian,Japanese,andAmericanbusinessnegotiations.Journal of Inter-
national Business Studies14(1).47– 61.Graham,JohnL.&YoshihiroSano.1989.Smart bargaining: Doing business with the Japanese.NewYork:HarperBusiness.
Hall,Edward.T.1976.Beyond culture.GardenCity,NY:Anchor.Hofstede,GeertH.1991.Cultures and organisations: Software of the mind. NewYork:McGraw-Hill.
Holden,NigelJ.2004.Whymarketersneedanewconceptofculturefortheglobalknowledgeeconomy.International Marketing Review 21(6).563–572.
Jehn,Karen,A.&KeithWeigelt.1999.Chinesethought,gametheory,andstrategicinternationalnegotiations.International Negotiations4(1).79–93.
Lampi,Mirjaliisa. 1986.Linguistic components of strategy in business negotiations.Helsinki:HelsinkiSchoolofEconomics,StudiesB-85.
Lewicki,RoyJ.,DavidM.Sunders&BruceBarry.2007.Negotiation.London:McGraw-Hill.Li,Wei,HuaZhu&YueLi. 2001.Conversationalmanagement and involvement inChinese–Englishbusinesstalk.Language and Intercultural Communication 1(2).135–150.
Brought to you by | University of Queensland - UQ LibraryAuthenticated
Download Date | 12/14/15 3:01 AM
Moves and strategies in initial business negotiation meetings 125
Miles,Michael.2003.NegotiatingwiththeChinese:Lessonsfromthefield.Journal of Applied Behavioural Science39(4).453– 472.
Paik,Yongsun&RosalieTungL.1999.NegotiatingwithEastAsians:Howtoattain“win–win”outcomes.Management International Review39(2).103–122.
Planken,Brigitte.2005.Managingrapportinlinguafrancasalesnegotiations:Acomparisonofprofessionalandaspiringnegotiators.English for Specific Purposes15(1).381– 400.
Putnam,LindaL.&TriciaJones.1982.Reciprocity innegotiations:Ananalysisofbargaininginteractions.Communication Monograph49(3).171–191.
Sheer,VivianC.&LingChen.2003.SuccessfulSino–Westernbusinessnegotiation:Participants’accountsofnationalandprofessionalcultures.The Journal of Business Communication40(1).50 –85.
Spencer-Oatey,Helen.2000.Face,(im)politenessandrapport.InH.Spencer-Oatey(ed.),Cultur-ally speaking: Culture, communication and politeness theory,11– 47.London:Continuum.
Spencer-Oatey,Helen&JianyuXing.1998.RelationalmanagementinChinese–Britishbusinessmeetings.InS.Hunston(ed.),Language at work,31– 46.Clevedon:BritishAssociationforAp-pliedLinguisticsinassociationwithMultilingualMatters.
Spencer-Oatey,Helen&JianyuXing.2004.RapportmanagementproblemsinChinese–Britishbusinessinteractions:Acasestudy.InJ.House&J.Rehbein(eds.),Multilingual communica-tion,197–221.Amsterdam&Philadelphia:JohnBenjamins.
Ting-Toomey,Stella.1999.Communicating across cultures.NewYork:TheGuilfordPress.Ulijn,JanM.,AnneF.Rutkowski,RajeshKumar&YunxiaZhu.2005.Patternsoffeelingsinface-to-facenegotiation:ASino–Dutchpilotstudy.Cross-cultural Management: An International Journal15(3).103–118.
VanderWijst,Per&JanM.Ulijn.1995.PolitenessinFrench/ Dutchnegotiations.InK.Ehlich&J.Wagner(eds.),The discourse of business negotiation,313–348.Berlin&NewYork:MoutondeGruyter.
Widdowson,HenryG.1983.Language purpose and language use.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
Wittgenstein,Ludwig.1953.Philosophical investigations.London:OxfordUniversityPress.Young,LindaW.L.1994.Crosstalk and culture in Sino–American communication.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Zhu,Yunxia.2005.Written communication across cultures: A sociocognitive perspective on busi-ness genres.Amsterdam&Philadelphia:JohnBenjamins.
Zhu,Yunxia.2009.ManagingbusinessrelationshipsinNewZealandandChina:Asemanticper-spective.Management International Review 49(2).225–248.
Zhu,Yunxia,BernardMcKenner&ZhuSun.2007.NegotiatingwiththeChinese:Successofini-tialmeetingsisthekey.Cross-cultural Management: An International Journal 14(4).354 –364.
Zhu,Yunxia,PieterNel&RaviBhat.2006.Acrossculturalstudyofcommunicationstrategiesforbuilding business relationships. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 6(3).319–341.
YunxiaZhu receivedherPh.D. in linguistics andbusiness communication from theAustralianNationalUniversity(ANU)andiscurrentlyseniorlecturerintheUniversityofQueenslandBusi-nessSchool.Herresearchinterestsincludebusinessandorganizationaldiscourse,cross-culturalcommunication,andcross-culturalmanagement.Shehaspublishedtwobooksonbusinesscom-municationandherworkappearsinjournalssuchasText,Discourse Studies,Management Inter-national Review,andAcademy of Management Learning and Education.Addressforcorrespon-dence:UQBusinessSchool,UniversityofQueensland,4072QLD,Australia<[email protected]>.
Brought to you by | University of Queensland - UQ LibraryAuthenticated
Download Date | 12/14/15 3:01 AM