1.0 INTRODUCTION

In its basic form, negotiation is a method of conflict resolution. It is a problem-solving process in which two or more parties attempt to resolve their disagreement or conflict in a manner, and through a process, that is mutually agreeable. Whereas the general concept of negotiation is easy enough to understand, in practice it can be an extremely difficult proposition. Opposing views about what is right and wrong, disagreement on what is fair and equitable, understanding each other’s message and form of communication, and even the procedures that will be used to conduct negotiations are but a few of the hurdles that negotiators will encounter.

Negotiation is further complicated when the parties find themselves negotiating across dissimilar cultures. “Culture is a powerful factor in shaping how people think, communicate and behave. It therefore affects how they negotiate”. This paper investigates the impact of culture on negotiations. It begins by defining culture, to include a discussion on how culture is imbedded in an individual through their mental models and values.

A general overview of negotiations follows the chapter on culture. It includes a definition of negotiations and discusses the range or continuum of negotiation styles. The section on negotiations closes with an overview of negotiation skills to include the actors and their frames of reference.

Maxımum businesses , large or small , nowadays are not limiited to domestic borders and hence managers find themselves in dealing with peple of various countries more precisely people of various culture and hence involve in cross cultural negotiation process.We all know that people of different countries negotiate in different manner much of these differences can be attributed to different values,attitides an beliefs all that make up a culture and this is why cultural learning and understability is greatly required. As the world heads towards globalization, business dealings become more complex. Cross cultural negotiations is about more than just how foreigners close deals. It involves looking at all factors that can influence the proceedings. This term paper decodes how people from different geographical location handle business. And what their different gestures, during negotiating may mean, the proper understanding of which gives the business man a competitive edge over their rivals. Cultural diversity is not a simple or trivial issue. Understanding cultural differences is critical in the negotiation and operation of any international strategic alliance. Successful deal making requires that executives become experts in international business negotiations and that global negotiations be seen as fundamentally different from the negotiations of domestic deals are extensions of international relations as much as they are business negotiations – and a much different skill set is required.

1.1Methodology

Research approach:

In this term paper we have used the used the deductive approach. A deductive approach is taken when developing a theory and hypothesis based on already exsisting facts and theories on a particular field, for which the researcher designs a research strategy and test a theoretical proposition. Secondary data was used extensively for the preparation of the termpaper.

The reason for selecting this approach is that there is already a lot of studies and theories done on Cross cultural negotiation. And the result of this studies and theories has been crucial for the development of this term paper. And, also in the way of explaining the critical cross cultural negotiation process.

Research Question:

The term paper illustrates how negotiation process vary across the globe due to the differences in the cultural attributes in different countries and what techniques a global manager may adopt to win

1

cross cultural negotiation and so in short -How does the Cultural Intelligence influence the Business negotiation process?

1.2 Limitations:

Due to time constraints a survey that was originally thought of could not be executed.

2.0 CULTURE

What is Culture?

The word culture has many different meanings. . For example, in 1952, Alfred Kroeber and Clyde Kluckhohn compiled a list of 164 definitions of "culture" in Culture: A Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions. However, the word "culture" is most commonly used in three basic senses:Excellence of taste in the fine arts and humanities, also known as high culture. An integrated pattern of human knowledge, belief, and behavior that depends upon the capacity for symbolic thought and social learning. The set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterizes an institution, organization or group. For some it refers to an appreciation of good literature, music, art, and food.  For a biologist, it is likely to be a colony of bacteria or other microorganisms growing in a nutrient medium in a laboratory Petri dish.  However, for anthropologists and other behavioral scientists, culture is the full range of learned human behavior patterns.  Edward B. Tylor said that culture is "that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, law, morals, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society."   Of course, it is not limited to men.  Women possess and create it as well.  Since Tylor's time, the concept of culture has become the central focus of anthropology.

When the concept first emerged in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Europe, it connoted a process of cultivation or improvement, as in agriculture or horticulture. In the nineteenth century, it came to refer first to the betterment or refinement of the individual, especially through education, and then to the fulfillment of national aspirations or ideals. In the mid-nineteenth century, some scientists used the term "culture" to refer to a universal human capacity. For the German nonpositivist sociologist Georg Simmel, culture referred to "the cultivation of individuals through the agency of external forms which have been objectified in the course of history".

In the twentieth century, "culture" emerged as a concept central to anthropology, encompassing all human phenomena that are not purely results of human genetics. Specifically, the term "culture" in American anthropology had two meanings: (1) the evolved human capacity to classify and represent experiences with symbols, and to act imaginatively and creatively; and (2) the distinct ways that people living in different parts of the world classified and represented their experiences, and acted creatively. Following World War II, the term became important, albeit with different meanings, in other disciplines such as cultural studies, organizational psychology and management studies.

Culture is a powerful human tool for survival, but it is a fragile phenomenon.  It is constantly changing and easily lost because it exists only in our minds.  Our written languages, governments, buildings, and other man-made things are merely the products of culture.  They are not culture in themselves.  For this reason, archaeologists can not dig up culture directly in their excavations.  The broken pots and other artifacts of ancient people that they uncover are only material remains that reflect cultural patterns--they are things that were made and used through cultural knowledge and skills.

2

2.1 Layers of Culture

There are very likely three layers or levels of culture that are part of your learned behavior patterns and perceptions.  Most obviously is the body of cultural traditions that distinguish your specific society.  When people speak of Italian, Samoan, or Japanese culture, they are referring to the shared language, traditions, and beliefs that set each of these peoples apart from others.   In most cases, those who share your culture do so because they acquired it as they were raised by parents and other family members who have it.

The second layer of culture that may be part of your identity is a subculture.  In complex, diverse societies in which people have come from many different parts of the world, they often retain much of their original cultural traditions.  As a result, they are likely to be part of an identifiable subculture in their new society.  The shared cultural traits of subcultures set them apart from the rest of their society.  Examples of easily identifiable subcultures in the United States include ethnic groups such as Vietnamese Americans, African Americans, and Mexican Americans.  Members of each of these subcultures share a common identity, food tradition, dialect or language, and other cultural traits that come from their common ancestral background and experience.  As the cultural differences between members of a subculture and the dominant national culture blur and eventually disappear, the subculture ceases to exist except as a group of people who claim a common ancestry.  That is generally the case with German Americans and Irish Americans in the United States today.  Most of them identify themselves as Americans first.  They also see themselves as being part of the cultural mainstream of the nation.

The third layer of culture consists of cultural universals.  These are learned behavior patterns that are shared by all of humanity collectively.  No matter where people live in the world, they share these universal traits.  Examples of such "human cultural" traits include:

1) Communicating with a verbal language consisting of a limited set of sounds and grammatical

rules for constructing sentences

2) Using age and gender to classify people (e.g., teenager, senior citizen, woman, man)

3) Classifying people based on marriage and descent relationships and having kinship terms to

refer to them (e.g., wife, mother, uncle, cousin)

4) Raising children in some sort of family setting

5) Having a sexual division of labor (e.g., men's work versus women's work)

6) Having a concept of privacy

7) Having rules to regulate sexual behavior

8) Distinguishing between good and bad behavior

9) Having some sort of body ornamentation

10) Making jokes and playing games

11) Having art

12) Having some sort of leadership roles for the implementation of community decisions

3

 

While all cultures have these and possibly many other universal traits, different cultures have developed their own specific ways of carrying out or expressing them.  For instance, people in deaf subcultures frequently use their hands to communicate with sign language instead of verbal language.  However, sign languages have grammatical rules just as verbal ones do.

2.2 Culture and Society

Culture and society are not the same thing.  While cultures are complexes of learned behavior patterns and perceptions, societies are groups of interacting organisms.  People are not the only ones to have societies.  Schools of fish, flocks of birds, and hives of bees are societies.  In the case of humans, however, societies are groups of people who directly or indirectly interact with each other.  People in human societies also generally perceive that their society is distinct from other societies in terms of shared traditions and expectations.

While human societies and cultures are not the same thing, they are inextricably connected because culture is created and transmitted to others in a society.  Cultures are not the product of lone individuals.  They are the continuously evolving products of people interacting with each other.  Cultural patterns such as language and politics make no sense except in terms of the interaction of people.  If you were the only human on earth, there would be no need for language or government.

When we think of culture we often think of the national cultures reported in the international media. However, culture is much broader and encompasses the beliefs, attitudes and behaviors of diverse ethnic groups, clans, tribes, regional subcultures or even neighborhoods. Culture also differentiates people by religious or ideological persuasions, professions and educational backgrounds. Families also have cultures, as do the two largest cultural groups in the world, men and women. Companies, organizations and educational institutions also demonstrate unique cultures. With all of these cultural variables, and significant variations within cultures, how can we develop any common understanding, general hypotheses or conclusions about how a particular person or group from any one culture might behave in negotiations or conflicts?

Fig 1 and 2

Yet specific cultures do contain clusters of people with fairly common attitudinal and behavioral patterns. As indicated in Figure I above, these clusters occupy the middle portion of a bell-shaped curve (Trompenaars, 1994).

However, every culture includes outliers - people who vary significantly from the norm. While still contained within the range for their culture, their views and behaviors differ significantly from that of their peers and may even look similar to other cultures. For instance, a businessman or engineer from a developing country who was educated in England may have more in common with his or her peers in Europe than with his fellow countrymen (see Figure II).

4

For this reason, we must be wary of generalizations about how people from a specific culture may think or act. Rigid notions about a group's cultural patterns can result in inaccurate stereotypes, gross injustice to the group and inaccurate (and possibly disastrous) assumptions or actions. Common cultural patterns found in a group's central cultural cluster should be looked upon as possible, or even probable, clues as to the ways a cultural group may think or respond. But the hypothesis should always be tested and modified after direct interaction with the group in question. You may well encounter an outlier who seems more similar to us than we ever expected.

2.3 Negotiations

What is Negotiation?

To most personnel managers, negotiation implies collective bargaining.To sales executive it will be thought of in terms of making a commercial deal.Quantity surveyors,purchasing managers ,and lawyers and people all professions negotiate.In reality all managers negotiate and much of their informal daily activity is in effect negotiation.They spend large proportion of their time trying to influence and persuade other managers over whom they have no executive authority or power.Negotiation is a process by which an individual group ort organization tries to change beliefs,preferences and behaviors of another individual,groupn or orghanization.It is a process of interaction by which two or more parties who consider they need to be jointly involved in an outcome ,but who initially havedifferent objectives,seek by the use of argument and persuationto resolve thier differences in order to achieve a mutually acceptable solution.It is used extensively in labor management industrial relations,business deals andsales agreement .Negotiating skills aretherefore a very important element in the effective managers portfolio of personal competencies.

Negotiation is a dialogue between two or more people or parties, intended to reach an understanding, resolve point of difference, or gain advantage in outcome of dialogue, to produce an agreement upon courses of action, to bargain for individual or collective advantage, to craft outcomes to satisfy various interests of two person/ parties involved in negotiation process. Negotiation is a process where each party involved in negotiating tries to gain an advantage for themselves by the end of the process. Negotiation is intended to aim at compromise. Negotiation is one of the most common approaches used to make decisions and manage disputes. It is also the major building block for many other alternative dispute resolution procedures.

Negotiation occurs in business, non-profit organizations, government branches, legal proceedings, among nations and in personal situations such as marriage, divorce, parenting, and everyday life. The study of the subject is called negotiation theory. Professional negotiators are often specialized, such as union negotiators, leverage buyout negotiators, peace negotiators, hostage negotiators, or may work under other titles, such as diplomats, legislators or brokers. Negotiation occurs between spouses, parents and children, managers and staff, employers and employees, professionals and clients, within and between organizations and between agencies and the public. Negotiation is a problem-solving process in which two or more people voluntarily discuss their differences and attempt to reach a joint decision on their common concerns. Negotiation requires participants to identify issues about which they differ, educate each other about their needs and interests, generate possible settlement options and bargain over the terms of the final agreement. Successful negotiations generally result in some kind of exchange or promise being made by the negotiators to each other. The exchange may be tangible (such as money, a commitment of time or a particular behavior) or intangible (such as an agreement to change an attitude or expectation, or make an apology).

Negotiation is the principal way that people redefine an old relationship that is not working to their satisfaction or establish a new relationship where none existed before. Because negotiation is such a common problem-solving process, it is in everyone's interest to become familiar with negotiating dynamics and skills. This section is designed to introduce basic concepts of

5

negotiation and to present procedures and strategies that generally produce more efficient and productive problem solving.

2.4 CONDITIONS FOR NEGOTIATION

A variety of conditions can affect the success or failure of negotiations. The following conditions make success in negotiations more likely.

Identifiable parties who are willing to participate. The people or groups who have a stake in the outcome must be identifiable and willing to sit down at the bargaining table if productive negotiations are to occur. If a critical party is either absent or is not willing to commit to good faith bargaining, the potential for agreement will decline.

Interdependence. For productive negotiations to occur, the participants must be dependent upon each other to have their needs met or interests satisfied. The participants need either each other's assistance or restraint from negative action for their interests to be satisfied. If one party can get his/her needs met without the cooperation of the other, there will be little impetus to negotiate. Readiness to negotiate. People must be ready to negotiate for dialogue to begin. When participants are not psychologically prepared to talk with the other parties, when adequate information is not available, or when a negotiation strategy has not been prepared, people may be reluctant to begin the process.

Means of influence or leverage. For people to reach an agreement over issues about which they disagree, they must have some means to influence the attitudes and/or behavior of other negotiators. Often influence is seen as the power to threaten or inflict pain or undesirable costs, but this is only one way to encourage another to change. Asking thought-provoking questions,

6

providing needed information, seeking the advice of experts, appealing to influential associates of a party, exercising legitimate authority or providing rewards are all means of exerting influence in negotiations.

Agreement on some issues and interests. People must be able to agree upon some common issues and interests for progress to be made in negotiations. Generally, participants will have some issues and interests in common and others that are of concern to only one party. The number and importance of the common issues and interests influence whether negotiations occur and whether they terminate in agreement. Parties must have enough issues and interests in common to commit themselves to a joint decision-making process. Will to settle. For negotiations to succeed, participants have to want to settle. If continuing a conflict is more important than settlement, then negotiations are doomed to failure. Often parties want to keep conflicts going to preserve a relationship (a negative one may be better than no relationship at all), to mobilize public opinion or support in their favor, or because the conflict relationship gives meaning to their life. These factors promote continued division and work against settlement. The negative consequences of not settling must be more significant and greater than those of settling for an agreement to be reached.

Unpredictability of outcome. People negotiate because they need something from another person. They also negotiate because the outcome of not negotiating is unpredictable. For example: If, by going to court, a person has a 50/50 chance of winning, s/he may decide to negotiate rather than take the risk of losing as a result of a judicial decision. Negotiation is more predictable than court because if negotiation is successful, the party will at least win something. Chances for a decisive and one-sided victory need to be unpredictable for parties to enter into negotiations.

A sense of urgency and deadline. Negotiations generally occur when there is pressure or it is urgent to reach a decision. Urgency may be imposed by either external or internal time constraints or by potential negative or positive consequences to a negotiation outcome. External constraints include: court dates, imminent executive or administrative decisions, or predictable changes in the environment. Internal constraints may be artificial deadlines selected by a negotiator to enhance the motivation of another to settle. For negotiations to be successful, the participants must jointly feel a sense of urgency and be aware that they are vulnerable to adverse action or loss of benefits if a timely decision is not reached. If procras- tination is advantageous to one side, negotiations are less likely to occur, and, if they do, there is less impetus to settle.

No major psychological barriers to settlement. Strong expressed or unexpressed feelings about another party can sharply affect a person's psychological readiness to bargain. Psychological barriers to settlement must be lowered if successful negotiations are to occur.

Issues must be negotiable. For successful negotiation to occur, negotiators must believe that there are acceptable settlement options that are possible as a result of participation in the process. If it appears that negotiations will have only win/lose settlement possibilities and that a party's needs will not be met as a result of participation, parties will be reluctant to enter into dialogue.

The people must have the authority to decide. For a successful outcome, participants must have the authority to make a decision. If they do not have a legitimate and recognized right to decide, or if a clear ratification process has not been established, negotiations will be limited to an information exchange between the parties. A willingness to compromise. Not all negotiations require compromise. On occasion, an agreement can be reached which meets all the participants' needs and does not require a sacrifice on any party's part. However, in other disputes, compromise--willingness to have less than 100 percent of needs or interests satisfied--may be necessary for the parties to reach a satisfactory conclusion. Where the physical division of assets, strong values or principles preclude compromise, negotiations are not possible.

7

The agreement must be reasonable and implementable. Some settlements may be substantively acceptable but may be impossible to implement. Participants in negotiations must be able to establish a realistic and workable plan to carry out their agreement if the final settlement is to be acceptable and hold over time.

External factors favorable to settlement. Often factors external to negotiations inhibit or encourage settlement. Views of associates or friends, the political climate of public opinion or economic conditions may foster agreement or continued turmoil. Some external conditions can be managed by negotiators while others cannot. Favorable external conditions for settlement should be developed whenever possible.

Resources to negotiate. Participants in negotiations must have the interpersonal skills necessary for bargaining and, where appropriate, the money and time to engage fully in dialogue procedures. Inadequate or unequal resources may block the initiation of negotiations or hinder settlement.

Why parties choose to negotiate

The list of reasons for choosing to negotiate is long. Some of the most common reasons are to:

• Gain recognition of either issues or parties;

• Test the strength of other parties;

• Obtain information about issues, interests and positions of other parties;

• Educate all sides about a particular view of an issue or concern;

• Ventilate emotions about issues or people;

• Change perceptions;

• Mobilize public support;

• Buy time;

• Bring about a desired change in a relationship;

• Develop new procedures for handling problems;

• Make substantive gains;

• Solve a problem.

Why parties refuse to negotiate

Even when many of the preconditions for negotiation are present, parties often choose not to negotiate.

Their reasons may include:

• Negotiating confers sense and legitimacy to an adversary, their goals and needs;

• Parties are fearful of being perceived as weak by a constituency, by their adversary or by the public;

• Discussions are premature. There may be other alternatives available--informal communications,

small private meetings, policy revision, decree, elections;

• Meeting could provide false hope to an adversary or to one's own constituency;

• Meeting could increase the visibility of the dispute;

• Negotiating could intensify the dispute;

8

• Parties lack confidence in the process;

•There is a lack of jurisdictional authority;

• Authoritative powers are unavailable or reluctant to meet;

• Meeting is too time-consuming;

• Parties need additional time to prepare;

• Parties want to avoid locking themselves into a position; there is still time to escalate demands and to

intensify conflict to their advantage.

2.5 Culture and Negotiation

Most businesses ,small or big , nowadays are not limiited to domestic borders and hence managers find themselves in dealing with peple of vaious countries more precisely people of various culture and hence involve in cross cultural negotiation process.We all know that people of different countries negotiate in different manner much of these differences can be attributed to different values,attitides an beliefs all that make up a culture and this is why cultural learning and understability is greatly required. As the world heads towards globalization, business dealings become more complex. Today, in the age of globalization only making a business offer that is to good to be ignored, is not enough to close the deal, a little extra effort also has to be put in. Today’s, business demands your understanding of not only what the clients demands are, but also of their cultures, and subcultures.

Technology has brought the world much closer together. This means that people of different cultures find themselves working together and communicating more and more. This is exciting and interesting, but it can also be frustrating and fraught with uncertainty. How do you relate to someone of another culture? What do you say, or not say, to start a conversation off right? Are there cultural taboos you need to be aware of?

Without the proper understanding of the varying cultural values of your clients in different geographical location, you cannot become an efficient negotiator.

similarly, people interacting with people from other cultures often feel 'lost'. Lacking familiar attitudes, beliefs, behaviors, procedures or structures that shape day-to-day interactions, people in cross-cultural situations often get disoriented, make mistakes and spend time and energy merely surviving rather than understanding and appreciating the differences they encounter. They also often fail to negotiate the most favorable agreements possible or to resolve serious conflicts due to cultural misunderstandings.

Negotiators need general principles to guide their negotiation strategies and a culture 'map' that helps them to:

Identify the general 'topography' of cultures - the beliefs, attitudes, behaviors, procedures and social structures that shape human interactions;

Identify potential hazards, obstacles and pleasant surprises that negotiators might miss if they did not have a trusty guide;

Select responses that will promote successful interactions and outcomes. Unfortunately, few analytical frameworks identify, interpret and respond to cultural differences. Few maps describe how different cultures solve problems, negotiate agreements or resolve disputes.

9

3.0 BACKGROUND STUDY

HOFSTEDE’S DIMENSIONS OF CULTURE

Although the term culture has taken on many different meanings, we use it to refer to the shared values and beliefs held by the members of a group. Cultures are considered to be stable over time. Hofstede conducted the most comprehensive and extensive program of research identifying and exploring different cultural dimensions in international business. Hofstede examined data on values that had been gathered from over 100,000 IBM employees from around the world; to date, over 53 cultures and countries have been included in this study. Statistical analysis these data suggests that five dimensions could be used to describe the important differences among the cultures in the study.These dimensions are:

1)POWER DISTANCE

The power distance dimension describes “the extent to which the less powerful members of organization and institutions (like the family) accept and expect that power is distributed unequally. According to Hofstede, cultures with greater power distance will be more likely to have decisions making concentrated at the top, and all of the important decisions will have to be finalized by the leader. Cultures with low power distance are more likely to spread the decision making throughout the organization and while leaders are respected, it is also possible to question their decisions. The consequences for international negotiations are that negotiators from comparatively high power distance cultures may need to seek approval from their supervisors more frequently, and for more issues, leading to slower negotiations process.

Countries that are high in power distance include Africa, Malaysia, Guatemala and Panama. Negotiators from these countries tend to be comfortable with :

Hierarchical structures, Clear authority figures, The right to use power with discretion.

Countries with a low power distance include Great Britain, Austria, Denmark, USA, New Zealand, Ireland, Sweden, Switzerland, and Germany. Negotiators from these countries tend to be comfortable with

Democratic structures and flat organizational hierarchies, Shared authority, The right to use power only in limited circumstances and for legitimate purposes.

2)INDIVIDUALISM/ COLLECTIVISM

The individualism/collectivism dimension describes the extent to which the society is organized around individuals or the group. Individualistic societies encourage their young to be independent and to look after themselves. Collectivistic societies integrate individuals in to very cohesive groups that take responsibility for the welfare of each individual. Individualistic countries include the USA, Great Britain, and Australia, while collectivistic countries include Indonesia, Pakistan, Africa, Japan and Costa Rica. Hofstede suggest that the focus on relations in collectivist societies plays a critical role in negotiations- negotiations with the same party can continue for years, and changing a negotiator changes the relationship, which may take a long time to rebuild. Contrast with individualistic societies, in which negotiators are considered interchangeable and competency,

10

rather than relationship, is an important consideration when choosing a negotiator. The consequences are that negotiators from collectivist culture will strongly depend on cultivating and sustaining a long term relationship, whereas negotiators from individualistic cultures may be more likely to swap negotiators, using whatever short term criteria seem appropriate.

3)MASCULINITY/ FEMININITY

Hofstede found that cultures differed in the extent to which they held values that were traditionally perceived as masculine or feminine. Masculine cultures were characterized by “assertiveness, the acquisition of money and things, and not caring for others, the quality of life or people. Feminine cultures were characterized by concern for relationships, nurturing and quality of life. Countries that are higher in masculinity include Japan, Austria, and Venezuela and, USA while countries that are higher in femininity include Costa Rica, Chile, And Finland. According to Hofstede, this dimension influences negotiation by increasing the competitiveness when negotiators from masculine cultures meet; negotiators from feminine cultures are more likely to have empathy for the other party and to seek compromise.

4)UNCERTAINTY AVOIDANCE

Uncertainty avoidance, the fourth dimension identified by Hofstede, “indicate to what extent a culture programs it members to few either uncomfortable or comfortable in unstructured situations.” Unstructured situations are characterized by rapid change and novelty, whereas structured situations are stable, secure, and absolutist. Countries that are high in uncertainty avoidance includes Greece, Portugal, and Guatemala, the United States, Scandinavia, and Singapore while countries that are lower in uncertainty avoidance include Sweden, Hong Kong, and Ireland. Members of these national cultures tend to value risk-taking, problem-solving, flat organizational structures, and tolerance for ambiguity. It may be easier for outsiders to establish trusting relationships with negotiating partners in these cultural contexts.Negotiators from uncertainty avoidance cultures are not comfortable with ambiguous situations and are more likely to seek stable rules and procedures when they negotiate. Negotiators from cultures more comfortable with unstructured situations are likely to adapt to quickly changing situations and we will be less uncomfortable when they rules of the negotiations are ambiguous or shifting.

5) LONG/SHORT-TERM ORIENTATION

Long-Term Orientation is the fifth dimension of Hofstede which was added after the original four to try to distinguish the difference in thinking between the East and West. From the original IBM studies, this difference was something that could not be deduced. Therefore, Hofstede created a Chinese value survey which was distributed across 23 countries. From these results, and with an understanding of the influence of the teaching of Confucius on the East, long term vs. short term orientation became the fifth cultural dimension.

Below are some characteristics of the two opposing sides of this dimension:Long term orientation-persistence-ordering relationships by status and observing this order-thrift-having a sense of shame

Short term orientation-personal steadiness and stability-protecting your ‘face’

11

-respect or tradition-reciprocation of greetings, favors, and gifts

This table shows some regions/countries’ dimensions according to Hofstede:

HOFSTEDE'S DIMENSIONS

REGION/COUNTRY

INDIVIDUALISM-COLLECTIVISM

POWERDISTANCE

UNCERTAINTYAVOIDANCE

MASCULINITY-FEMININITY

OTHERDIMENSIONS

North America(USA)

Individualism Low Medium Masculine

Japan

CollectivismHigh and

LowHigh

Masculine andFeminine

Amae (mutual dependence):authority is

respected butsuperior must

be a warm leader

Europe:Individualism

Low/ medium

Low/ medium Masculine

Anglo

Germanic West Slavic Medium

individualismLow Medium/ high

Medium/ highmasculine West

Urgic Near Eastern Balkanic

Collectivism High HighMedium

masculine Nordic Medium/ High

individualismLow Low/ medium Feminine

Latin Europe

Medium/ Highindividualism

High HighMedium

masculine East Slavic

Collectivism Low Medium Masculine

China

Collectivism Low LowMasculine and

Feminine

Emphasis on tradition, Marxism,

Leninism, and Mao Zedong

thoughtAfrica

Collectivism High High FeminineColonial

traditions; tribal customs

Latin America

Collectivism High High Masculine Extroverted, prefer orderly

12

customs and procedures

GEERT HOFSTEDE ANALYSIS TO TURKEY

(PDI): Power Distance Index

(IDV): Individualism

(MAS): Masculinity

(UAI): Uncertainty Avoidance Index

(LTO): Long-Term Orientation

Religion in Turkey:

13

There is a high correlation between the Muslim religion and the Hofstede Dimensions of Power Distance (PDI) and Uncertainty Avoidance (UAI) scores.

The combination of these two high scores (UAI) and (PDI) create societies that are highly rule-oriented with laws, rules, regulations, and controls in order to reduce the amount of uncertainty, while inequalities of power and wealth have been allowed to grow within the society. These cultures are more likely to follow a caste system that does not allow significant upward mobility of its citizens.

When these two Dimensions are combined, it creates a situation where leaders have virtually ultimate power and authority, and the rules, laws and regulations developed by those in power, reinforce their own leadership and control. It is not unusual for new leadership to arise from armed insurrection – the ultimate power, rather than from diplomatic or democratic change.

4.0 FINDING AND ANALYSIS

4.1Cross Cultural Negotıatıon

International deal-making by its very nature is complex. Fundamentally, they are the interaction of three key facets: parties’ RELATIONSHIPS, parties’ BEHAVIOURS, and influencing CONDITIONS (RBC) and the basic interaction between these aspects. The concept of international negotiation has been expanded to include environmental factors previously only touched on. Not only does the perception consist of political, economic, institutional-legal, and cultural issues, but the new paradigm also consists of “negotiation context, negotiator characteristics, strategic selections and process, and negotiation outcome”. Strongly implied in the above discussion is the fact that how differences in culture are dealt with will significantly dictate the success or failure of the negotiation of international deals. Furthermore, the environmental conditions in which negotiations are conducted will have someinfluence on the results of these negotiations.

Finally, behaviour patterns and priorities of the different parties are an important consider- ation for the negotiator in his or her deliberations. In other words, human behaviour is an important aspect of any negotiation process. It is even more important when the other negotiator’s behavior may be driven by another culture or religious belief.

14

Cross cultural negotiation is one of many specialized areas within the wider field of cross cultural communications. By taking cross cultural negotiation training, negotiators and sales personnel give themselves an advantage over competitors.

There is an argument that proposes that culture is inconsequential to cross cultural negotiation. It maintains that as long as a proposal is financially attractive it will succeed. However, this is a naïve way of approaching international business.

Let us look at a brief example of how cross cultural negotiation training can benefit the international business person:

There are two negotiators dealing with the same potential client in the Middle East. Both have identical proposals and packages. One ignores the importance of cross cultural negotiation training believing the proposal will speak for itself. The other undertakes some cross cultural training. He/she learns about the culture, values, beliefs, etiquette and approaches to business, meetings and negotiations. Nine times out of ten the latter will succeed over the rival. This is because 1) it is likely they would have endeared themselves more to the host negotiation team and 2) they would be able to tailor their approach to the negotiations in a way that maximizes the potential of a positive outcome.

Cross cultural negotiations is about more than just how foreigners close deals. It involves looking at all factors that can influence the proceedings. By way of highlighting this, a few brief examples of topics covered in cross cultural negotiation training shall be offered.

Eye Contact : In the US, UK and much of northern Europe, strong, direct eye contact conveys confidence and sincerity. In South America it is a sign of trustworthiness. However, in some cultures such as the Japanese, prolonged eye contact is considered rude and is generally avoided.

Personal Space & Touch: In Europe and North America, business people will usually leave a certain amount of distance between themselves when interacting. Touching only takes place between friends. In South America or the Middle East, business people are tactile and like to get up close. In Japan or China, it is not uncommon for people to leave a gap of four feet when conversing. Touching only takes place between close friends and family members.

Time: Western societies are very ‘clock conscious’. Time is money and punctuality is crucial. This is also the case in countries such as Japan or China where being late would be taken as an insult. However, in South America, southern Europe and the Middle East, being on time for a meeting does not carry the same sense of urgency.

Meeting & Greeting: most international business people meet with a handshake. In some countries this is not appropriate between genders. Some may view a weak handshake as sign of weakness whereas others would perceive a firm handshake as aggressive. How should people be addressed? Is it by first name, surname or title? Is small talk part of the proceedings or not?

Gift-Giving: In Japan and China gift-giving is an integral part of business protocol; however in the US or UK, it has negative connotations. Where gifts are exchanged should one give lavish gifts? Are they always reciprocated? Should they be wrapped? Are there numbers or colours that should be avoided?

There are three interconnected aspects that need to be considered before entering into cross cultural negotiation:

The Basis of the Relationship

In much of Europe and North America, business is contractual in nature. Personal relationships are seen as unhealthy as they can cloud objectivity and lead to complications. In South

15

America and much of Asia, business is personal. Partnerships will only be made with those they know, trust and feel comfortable with. It is therefore necessary to invest in relationship building before conducting business.

Information of Negotiations

Western business culture places emphasis on clearly presented and rationally argued business proposals using statistics and facts. Other business cultures rely on similar information but with differences. For example, visual and oral communicators such as the South Americans may prefer information presented through speech or using maps, graphs and charts.

Negotiation Styles

The way in which we approach negotiation differs across cultures. For example, in the Middle East rather than approaching topics sequentially negotiators may discuss issues simultaneously. South Americans can become quite vocal and animated. The Japanese will negotiate in teams and decisions will be based upon consensual agreement. In Asia, decisions are usually made by the most senior figure or head of a family. In China, negotiators are highly trained in the art of gaining concessions. In Germany, decisions can take a long time due to the need to analyse information and statistics in great depth. In the UK, pressure tactics and imposing deadlines are ways of closing deals whilst in Greece this would backfire.

Clearly there are many factors that need to be considered when approaching cross cultural negotiation. Through cross cultural negotiation training, business personnel are given the appropriate knowledge that can help them prepare their presentations and sales pitches effectively. By tailoring your behaviour and the way you approach the negotiation you will succeed in maximising your potential (yorum olarak).

It is difficult to track the myriad starting points used by negotiators from different national settings, especially as cultures are in constant flux, and context influences behavior in multiple ways. Another complication is that much of the cross-cultural negotiation literature comes from the organizational area. While it cannot be applied wholesale to the realm of intractable conflicts, this literature may provide some hints about approaches to negotiation in various national settings. Dr. Nancy Adler compares key indicators of success as reported by negotiators from four national backgrounds.Her table is reproduced here, ranking characteristics of negotiators in order of importance as reported by managers in each national setting:

AMERICAN NEGOTIATORS

JAPANESE NEGOTIATORS

Preparation and planning skill

Dedication to job

Thinking under pressure

Perceive and exploit power

Judgment and intelligence

Win respect and confidence

Verbal expressiveness Integrity

Product knowledgeDemonstrate listening skill

Perceive and exploit power

Broad perspective

16

Integrity Verbal expressiveness

As Adler points out, for instance; Brazilians and Americans were almost identical in the characteristics they identified, except for the final category. The Japanese tended to emphasize an interpersonal negotiating style, stressing verbal expressiveness, and listening ability, while their American and Brazilian counterparts focused more on verbal ability, planning, and judgment. To the Chinese in Taiwan, it was important that the negotiator be an interesting person who shows persistence and determination.

Negotiators also vary in the styles of persuasion they rely upon and their comfort with emotionality. In American settings, appeals tend to be made to logic, relying on "objective" facts. Emotional sensitivity is not highly valued, and dealings may seem straightforward and impersonal. Japanese negotiators value emotional sensitivity highly, and tend to hide emotions behind calm exteriors. Latin American negotiators tend to share the Japanese appreciation of emotional sensitivity, and express themselves passionately about their points of view. Arab negotiators may appeal to emotions and subjective feelings in an effort to persuade others. Russians, in contrast, tend to appeal to ideals, drawing everyone's attention to overarching principles.

a-)U.S. Approaches to Negotiation

U.S. negotiators tend to rely on individualist values, imagining self and other as autonomous, independent, and self-reliant. This does not mean that they don't consult, but the tendency to see self as separate rather than as a member of a web or network means that more independent initiative may be taken. Looking through the eyes of the Japanese negotiator who wrote "Negotiating With Americans", American negotiators tend to:

Be competitive in their approach to negotiations, including coming to the table with a fall-back position but beginning with an unrealistic offer;

Be energetic, confident, and persistent; they enjoy arguing their positions, and see things universally -- i.e., they like to talk about broad applications of ideas;

Concentrate on one problem at a time; Focus on areas of disagreement, not areas of commonality or agreement; Like closure and certainty rather than open-endedness or fuzziness.

Do these generalizations ring true? Clearly, it depends which Americans you are talking about, which sector they represent, and the context surrounding the negotiations. Is this a family matter or a commercial one? Is it about community issues, national policy, or a large public conflict? Strategies change according to context and many other factors.

b-)African Approaches to Negotiation

Many African nations have indigenous systems of conflict resolution that have endured into the present, sometimes quite intact and sometimes fragmented by rapid social change. These systems rely on particular approaches to negotiation that respect kinship ties and elder roles, and the structures of local society generally. In Nigeria, for example, people are organized in extended families (nnu'), village (idu' or obio), lineage ('duk), and lineage groups (iman). A belief in the continuing ability of ancestors to affect people's lives maintains social control, and makes the need to have formal laws or regulations minimal. Negotiation happens within social networks, following prescribed roles. Women in conflict with husbands, for example, are to defer and apologize, preparing a ritual meal to symbolize the restoration of harmony.

17

In the Nigerian Ibibio context, the goal of restoring social networks is paramount, and individual differences are expected to be subsumed in the interest of the group. To ensure that progress or an agreement in a negotiation is preserved, parties must promise not to invoke the power of ancestors to bewitch or curse the other in the future. The aim of any process, formal or informal, is to affect a positive outcome without a "residue of bitterness or resentment." Elders have substantial power, and when they intervene in a conflict or a negotiation, their words are respected. This is partly because certain elders are believed to have access to supernatural powers that can remove protective shields at best and cause personal disaster at worst.

In other African contexts, a range of indigenous processes exist in which relationships and hierarchies tend to be emphasized.

c-)Japanese Styles of Negotiation

There is a great deal written about Japanese approaches to negotiation, and collisions between American and Japanese approaches are legendary. The following values tend to influence Japanese communication: focus on group goals, interdependence, and a hierarchical orientation. In negotiations, these values manifest themselves in awareness of group needs and goals, and deference to those of higher status. Japanese negotiators are known for their politeness, their emphasis on establishing relationships, and their indirect use of power.Japanese concern with face and face-saving is one reason that politeness is so important and confrontation is avoided. They tend to use power in muted, indirect ways consistent with their preference for harmony and calm. In comparative studies, Japanese negotiators were found to disclose considerably less about themselves and their goals than French or American counterparts.

Japanese negotiators tend to put less emphasis on the literal meanings of words used in negotiation and more emphasis on the relationships established before negotiating begins.They are also less likely than their U.S. counterparts to make procedural suggestions.

d-)European Styles of Negotiation

European styles of negotiation vary according to region, nationality, language spoken, and many other contextual factors. One study found the French to be very aggressive negotiators, using threats, warnings, and interruptions to achieve their goals. German and British negotiators were rated as moderately aggressive in the same study.

e-)Latin American Styles of Negotiation

Role expectations influence negotiation in Latin American contexts. Responsibility to others is generally considered more important than schedules and task accomplishment. Their negotiation approach relates to the polychronic orientation to time and patterns of high-context communication and communitarianism, described earlier. Lederach reports that a common term for conflict in Central America is enredo, meaning "entangled" or "caught in a net." He explains that enredo signifies the way conflict is part of an intimate net of relations in Guatemala and elsewhere in Central America. Thus, negotiation is done within networks, relationships are emphasized, and open ruptures are avoided.

In Central America, people think about and respond to conflict holistically. Lederach contrasts his natural (American) inclination to "make a list, to break a story down into parts such as issues and concerns" with his Central American experience, where people tended to respond to requests for

18

naming issues to be negotiated with "yet another story." They preferred a storied, holistic approach to conflict and negotiation, rather than a linear, analytical one. When Central Americans needed help with negotiations, they tended to look to insider partials rather than outsider neutrals, preferring the trust and confidence of established relationships and cultural insight to other credentials or expertise. They referred to the concept of confianza to explain this preference. Confianza means "trustworthiness," that "they know us" and "we know them" and they will "keep our confidences."

4.2 Negotiation Elements and Cultural Dimensions

Actors. The actors in a negotiation are members of some form of culture, whether it is national, ethnic, professional or any of a multitude or combination of other types of cultures. As such, their cultural background, which includes the values associated with and shared by that culture, will play a significant role on the negotiation especially how they “perceive issues, other actors, and their intentions”. A negotiator from one culture may view the process as a power confrontation whereas his counterpart may view it from a cooperative perspective. Reflecting on Hofstede’s Dimensions of Culture, this would demonstrate the differences between high IDV (individualistic) cultures versus a low IDV (collectivist) culture. The culture itself may determine who the negotiator will be. Some cultures may not allow women to play a role in certain negotiation settings. This could be indicative of a culture that exhibits a high PDI where inequalities among people are both expected and encouraged.

Structure. The structure of a particular negotiation also holds examples of how culture can influence the negotiation process. The structural dimension includes variables such as the size of the negotiation team, the number and type of issues, power distribution between the parties, the organizational setting, and the degree that outside influences, such as the media or other interested but not directly related parties, bring to bear on the negotiations. Consider the determination as to the size of the negotiating teams as an example. With their proclivity toward a strong cohesive in-group and consensus orientation, negotiators from a collectivist culture may be preferential to a larger team structure than their individualistic counterparts. This dynamic also demonstrates how cultural aspects could have additional affects. Frank Pfetsch hypothesizes that the more participants in a negotiation the higher the cost (time) of reaching a consensus. In a high UAI (low tolerance for ambiguity) culture, time is money versus a low UAI culture where time is a framework for orientation.

Strategy. The strategy used by negotiators, particularly along the negotiation continuum previously discussed, is another area of where culture holds an influence on the negotiation process. Strategy is the actor’s orientation used to achieve their goals. As Faure further states “strategic choices are led by interests and values that in turn relate to culture”. Certain cultures, based on their values, do not shy away from a confrontational approach and aggressive tactics. This could lead the negotiators to adopt a more competitive style of negotiations. Other cultures may adopt a much less confrontational style in order to avoid direct, aggressive conflict. This culture may adopt a more collaborative orientation toward the negotiations. The first type would be indicative of a high MAS culture where decisive and assertive actions are the general norm and a dominant value is success versus the opposite general norm set from the low MAS cultures.

Faure further identifies strategy as “the result of deliberate calculations that consider the cost-effectiveness of different possible means”. In developing a strategy, these deliberate calculations must also include calculations concerning levels of risk a party is willing to take in the form of sharing of information, revealing positions, and general considerations pertinent to how to best approach a collaborative negotiation strategy. According to Hofstede, cultures with a high UAI also tend to be “fearful of unfamiliar risks”.

19

The approaches used to deal with these uncertainties or risks within the strategy framework may also be affected by differing cultural preferences. Cultures that exhibit a high UAI might prefer a “deductive” approach whereby the parties first agree on principles that are then applied to the issues during the negotiation process. This way, the rule sets are established up-front, thus removing some of the uncertainties in the process. This approach would provide the framework for dealing with the issues as they occur. Conversely, low UAI cultures might approach a negotiation from an “inductive” style “…dealing pragmatically with encountered difficulties, and underlying principles may become discernible only in the end”.

Process. The fourth area where culture impacts negotiations is the process itself; that is “the actual interaction between parties”. These interactions are the methods or tactics that the parties use to communicate; that is, the way they exchange information, seek out methods to create options, or find room for maneuver and concessions.

The manner in which the parties are communicating then, is an important element in the negotiation process. Low context communications is the predominant form of communications in an individualistic culture (high IDV) while high context communications is predominate in collectivist cultures. A low context message involves communications where “the mass of information is vested in the explicit code”; it tends to be more direct. In a high context message, “…the information is either in the physical context or internalized in the person while very little is in the coded, explicit, transmitted part of the message”; it is generally more indirect and ambiguous.

The area of communication style provides another example of the crossover and interrelationship amongst cultural dimensions. The potential for misunderstandings caused by the hidden messages transmitted by a high context negotiator complicates the negotiation process, especially if negotiating with parties from a culture that is ambiguity adverse (the high UAI dimension).

Overlaying Hofstede’s four dimensions of culture with the basic elements of negotiations reveal that cultural variation does play a role in negotiations. The next section provides another view of how culture impacts the negotiation process by drawing from Jeswald Salacuse’s identification of ten factors in the negotiation process that appear to be culturally driven.

4.3 Cultural Affects on Negotiating Style

In a survey of 310 persons from 12 countries and 8 occupations, Salacuse asked participants to rate their negotiating style covering ten negotiation process factors. Table lists the ten negotiation factors. The countries that were represented in the survey were Spain, France, Brazil, Japan, the U.S, Germany, the U.K., Nigeria, Argentina, China, Mexico and India. The occupational specialties included law, military, engineering, diplomacy/public sector, students, accounting, teaching, and management/marketing.

The purpose of this section is to demonstrate through Salacuse’s research, that culture does have an effect on negotiating styles. Although Salacuse’s research reveals cultural affects to varying degrees in all ten of the factors, for demonstration purposes this paper will address four of the factors in particular; negotiation goals, attitudes, agreement form, and risk-taking.

Table 6. The Impact of Culture on

Negotiations (18:223) NEGOTIATION

FACTORS

CULTURAL RESPONSES

Goal Contract or Relationship

Attitudes Win/Lose or Win/Win

Personal Styles Informal or Formal

Communications Direct or Indirect

20

Time Sensitivity High or Low

Emotionalism High or Low

Agreement Form Specific or General

Agreement Building Bottom Up or Top Down

Team Organization One Leader or Consensus

Risk-taking High or Low

4.4 Variables influencing Cross-Cultural Negotiations

The process of international business negotiation is considered to be influenced by two groups of variables:1. Background factors, which include the party’s objectives, often categorized as being common, conflicting, or complementary. Other aspects include third parties involved, such as consultants, agents, and the respective government. The position of the market (seller’s vs. buyer’s) and finally, the skills and experience of the negotiators.2. Atmosphere is the perceived “milieu.” It can include: perceived cooperation/conflict--that the parties have something to negotiate for and something to negotiate about; power and dependence-- that one of the parties gains more power in the relationship; and perceived distance--that the parties are unable to understand each other. Finally, the expectations, long-term expectations of the true deals or benefits and short-term expectations concerning the prospects of the present deal.Twelve variables in the negotiations process which will lead to understand international negotiating styles better include:

Basic concept: different groups view the purpose and process of negotiation differently. Negotiation may be seen as a conflict in which one side wins and another loses, as a competition to identify who is best or as a collaborative process to formulate some undertaking. The winner of a negotiation in some countries is the one who gains the most concessions, regardless of the value of the concessions. Americans tend to see negotiations as a competitive process; the Japanese see it as collaborative

Criteria for selecting negotiators: Different groups choose negotiators on the basis of a variety of factors. Negotiators may be selected on the basis of their previous experience, their status, knowledge of a particular subject, or personal attributes such as trustworthiness. Americans tend to select negotiators on the basis of ability and experience; the Japanese look for high-status negotiators.

Issues stressed: different groups stress different aspects of the negotiations. some groups stress substantive issues directly related to the agreement while others stress relationships. Americans tend to stress substantive issues (price, delivery, quality) while the Japanese are more concerned with building relationships.

Protocol: Different groups have their own particular etiquette associated with the negotiation process and their adherence to protocol varies according to its perceived importance. Protocol factors that should be considered are gift giving, entertainment, dress codes, seating arrangements, numbers of negotiators, timing of breaks, planned duration of the process of negotiations. Degree of formality or informality is an important component of protocol that should be assessed. Americans tend to be informal; the Japanese are conservative and formal.

Communications: Different groups communicate in different ways and are more comfortable with one or another form of communications. Some groups rely on verbal communications, others on nonverbal such as gestures, space and silence. Some groups rely on one method, others mixed. The more varied the methods of communications, the more complex is the communications context and the

21

more care must be given to understand this context. Americans tend to be verbal; Japanese often use periods of silence.

Nature of Persuasive Arguments: Different groups attempt to persuade others and are persuaded by the use of a variety of different types of arguments. Some rely on facts and logical arguments, others on tradition and the way things were done in the past, still others on intuition or emotion and others on the beliefs associated with a particular religion or philosophy. Americans emphasize empirical information and rational arguments; the Japanese rely more on sensitivity and intuition.

Role of the Individual: Individuals play different roles in different societies. In some groups, the individual is seen as very important and a particular individual’s success or failure can depend on the outcome of the negotiation process. In other groups, individuals are subordinate to the home negotiating party and personal ambitions are contained. Still others may view the entire group as consisting of all negotiation parties, both home and host and are most concerned with achieving overall success. Americans are individualistic; the Japanese are collectivist and rely on the group as a whole in the negotiations process.

Basis for Trust: Trust is a necessity if groups are going to work together to their mutual benefit and all groups seek to establish trust with the other parties in the negotiation process. Each group may, however, establish trust on a different basis. Some groups look to past experience and past records, others rely on intuition and emotion and still others are most comfortable when sanctions exist to guarantee performance. Americans look to the past record of those with whom they are negotiation and trust in sanctions; the Japanese are more concerned with the relationships that have been built with their counterparts.

Risk taking propensity: Negotiations involve a degree of risk because the final outcome is unknown when the negotiations begin. Different groups view uncertainty and risk as relatively desirable or undesirable. Some groups are therefore open to new ideas and unexpected suggestions whereas others prefer to remain within the expected boundaries and accustomed agreements. Americans tend to take risks and accept uncertainty; the Japanese are more risk averse.

View of time: The value of time differs from one group to another. Some people view time as limited and something to be used wisely. Punctuality, agenda and specified timeframes are important to them. Others view time as plentiful and always available; therefore they are more likely to expect negotiations to progress slowly and to be flexible about schedules. Americans view time as a scarce commodity that must be maximized so as not to be wasted; the Japanese view time in the long term.

Decision making systems: Decisions are made differently in different groups. They may be made by individuals or by the group as a whole. Within a group, participants may defer to the person of highest status or to the most senior group member; alternatively, some groups accept the decision of the majority of the group members; other groups seek consensus among group members and will not make a decision until all members have agreed.

Form of Agreement: In some cultures, written agreements are expected; in others verbal agreements or a handshake is accepted. In some cultures, agreements are detailed and set out as many points as possible, discussing contingencies and potential events; in others, broad general agreements are preferred with details to be worked out as they arise. In some cultures, agreements are expected to be legally binding; in others, there is little faith in legal contracts and much more emphasis is placed on a person’s obligation to keep his or her word.

22

5.0 NEGOTIATING GLOBALLY

23

International deal-making by its very nature is complex. The concept of international negotiation has been expanded to include environmental factors previously only touched on. Not only does the perception consist of political, economic, institutional-legal, and cultural issues, but the new paradigm also consists of “negotiation context, negotiator characteristics, strategic selections and process, and negotiation outcome”. Strongly implied in the above discussion is the fact that how differences in culture are dealt with will significantly dictate the success or failure of the negotiation of international deals. Furthermore, the environmental conditions in which negotiations are conducted will have some influence on the results of these negotiations. Finally, behaviour patterns and priorities of the different parties are an important consideration.

As shown in table below Russians typically use an axiomatic approach to negotiating-they base their arguments on asserted ideals.

Russians generally don’t expect to develop a continuing relationship with their bargaining partners and so see little need for relationship building.As a negotiation progress Russians make few, if any, concessions a view their counterparts’ concessions as signs of weakness.Russians often start with extreme positions, ignore deadlines and due to their very limited authority, frequently check back with headquarters.

By contrast, Arabs typically use an effective approach to negotiating- they counter to other side’s arguments with emotional appeals based on subjective feelings. Arabs generally want to build long term relationships with their bargaining partners. Therefore, they are often willing to make concessions throughout the bargaining process and almost always reciprocate their opponents’ concessions. Most Arabs do not feel limited by time or authority; they frequently approach deadlines very causally and rarely lack the broad authority necessarry to discuss and to agree on all issues pertinent to the negotiation.

Americans differ from both Russians and Arabs. Americans typically use a factual approach to negotiating; they attempt to counter the other sides’ arguments with logical appeals base on objective facts.Americans make small concessions early in the negotiation in an attempt to establish a relationship , and they generally expect their bargaining partners to do likewise. Americans, far from casual about time and authority, genrally take deadlines very seriously and have broad authority.

What happens when Russians begin negotiating with Arabs or Americans? Who persuades whom when styles of negotiating differ? Who wins when bargainers from each culture define the process negotiating, the rules of the game, differently? How can I get what my company and I want from them while maintaning a good relationship? To succeed in global business, negotiator must continually solve this dilemmas.

TABLE: Styles of Persuasion Vary Across Cultures

24

Styles of Persuasion Vary Across Cultures  

  NORTH AMERICANS ARABS RUSSIANS

Primary Negotiation Styles Process

Factual appeals made to logic

Affective appeals made to emotions

Axiomatic appeals made to

ideals

Conflict:Counterparts’ Arguments

Countered With… Objective fact Subjective feelings Asserted ideals

Making Concessions

Small concessions made early to establish a

relationship

Concessions made throughout as a part of

bargaining process

Few, if any,concessions

made

Response to Counterparts’ Concessions

Usually reciprocate counterparts’ concessions

Almost always reciprocate counterparts’

concessions

View counterparts' concesions as weakness and almost never reciprocate

Relationship Short term Long termNo continuing

relationship

Authority Broad Broad Limited

Initial Position Moderate Extreme Extreme

Deadline Very important Casual Ignored

5.1 Negotiation Contingencies: Characteristics of the situation leading to success or failure

Situations in which negotiators find themselves very widely.Situational contingency influence success just as do individual characteristics, but they are rarely as critical success as a strategy and tactics used.

1)LOCATION

Should you meet at their office, your office or at a neutral location? Negotiation wisdom generally advises teams to meet at their own or a neutral location. Meeting in another country disadvantages negotiators because it reduces their access to information and increases travel-related stres and costs. Meeting at home allows a team to control the situation more easily.

Many negotiators select neutral locations. Business entertainment remains a common type of neutral location used primarily to get to know and improve relations with members of the opposing team. Heavy users of business entertainment Japanese spend almost 2% of their GNP on entertaining clients-even more than they spend on national defense. Americans generally consider such high business entertainment costs absurd, but perhaps Americans’ extraordinarily high legal expenses reflect the cost of insufficient relationship building.

25

In choosing neutral locations, business negotiators often select resorts geographically located somewhere between each company’s headquarters. Asian and North American negotiators, for example, have traditionally selected Hawaii for business meetings; both sides travel, both ideas have reduced access information, and as a consequence, the incentive increases for both sides to conclude the negotiation as quickly as possible. The opportunity cost of executives’ time, along with the cost of travel and hotels, usually, but not always, increases pressure to conclude negotiations expeditiously. In one negotiation between an American and a Russian company , negotiators, conducted the sessions at a resort in the south of France. The Russian bargainers made it clear that they did not want to end their ‘vacation’ early by concluding the negotiation prematurely.

2)PHYSICAL ARRANGEMENTS

In traditional American negotiatons, the two teams face each other, often sitting on opposite sides of a boardroom table. Unfortunately, this arrangement maximizes competition. By contrast, sitting at right angle facilitates cooperation. If negotiators view the process as a collaborative search for mutually beneficial outcomes(win-win solutions), the physical arrangements support cooperation, not competition. As an alternative to the boardroom table, negotiators from both teams may choose to sit on the same side of the table, “facing the problem”. In this way they compete with the problem not with the people. The Japanese, in posting all information related to a negotiation on the walls, structure the environment so that all parties involved “face the problem” holistically.

3)PARTICIPANTS

Who should attend the formal negotiationg sessions? Americans tend to want to “go it alone”- they consider extra team members an unneccessary expense. This strategy is usually ineffective in global negotiations, where more team members tends to be better. Why? Firstly, the physical presence of more people communicates greater power and importance- an essential nonverbal message. Second, as discussed earlier, communicating cross-culturally is complex and difficult. Giving some team members primary responsibility for listening to the discussion and observing nonverbal cues while other members focus primarily on conducting substantive negotiations has repeatedly prove to be an extremely effective strategy.

Who should present at a negotiation? Should the press be present? Will public opinion make it easier or more difficult to develop mutuallly beneficial soutions? Should the union have direct representation? Should bargainers keep government agencies informed during the negotiation or only present them with final agreement? The power that government, unions and public opinion have over business negotiators varies considerably across cultures. Negotiating with government officials from such open democracies as Australia, Canada and New Zeland, for example, requires broader public debate than is generaly necessary in the more tightly controlled governments of Iran and Kenya, or in communist and quasi-communist countries such as Albania, Cuba, and North Korea. Effective global negotiators, carefully manage access to the proceedings.

4)TIME LIMITS

The duration of a negotiation can vary markedly across cultures . Americans being particularly impatient, often expect negotiations to take a minimum amount of time. During the Paris Peace Talks, designed to negotiate an end to the Vietnam War, the U.S. team arrived in Paris and made hotel reservations for a week. Their Vietnamese counterparts leased a château for a year.As the negotiations proceed, timing forced the frustrated Americans to continually renew their weekly reservations to accommodate the more measured pace of the Vietnamese.

Negotiators generally make more concessions as their deadline approaches . Americans’ sense of urgency put them at a disadvantage with respect to their less hurried bargaining partners. Negotiators from outside the United States often recognize Americans’ time consciousness,

26

achievement orientation, and impatience. They know that Americans make more concessions close to their deadline( Time consciousness) in order to get a signed contract( Achievement orientation). One Brazilian company, for example invited a group of Americans to Brazil to negotiate a contract the week before Christmas. The Brazilians aware that the Americans would want to return to the United States by Christmas with a signed contract, knew that they could push hard for concessions and an early agreement. The final agreement definitely favored the Brazilians.

Some negotiators attempt to discover their opponents’ deadline and refuse to make major concessions until after that deadline has passed. The local team may determine their opponents’ deadlines by checking hotel reservations or politely offering to reconfirm return airline tickets. Effective global negotiators determine the best alternative to not meeting their deadline. If they find the best alternative acceptable, they may choose a less hurried pace than they had originally planned or than they typically use at home.

5)STATUS DIFFERENCES

The United States prides itself on its egalitarian, informal approach to life, in which titles do not seem particularly important and ceremonies are often considered a waste of time. Americans often attempt to minimize status differences during negotiations; for example, they use first names to promote equality and informality. Unfortunately this approach, which succeeds at putting Americans at ease, often makes people from other cultures uncomfortable. Most countries respect hierarchy and formality more than does the United States; and most negotiators from these countries feel more comfortable in formal situations with explicit status differences. The Japanese, for example, must know the other person’s company and position before being able to select the grammatically correct form of address. For this reason Japanese always exchange business cards- meishi- before a business conversation begins.. For similar reasons, German negotiators would almost never address colleagues on their own team, let alone those from another team, by first name. Such informality would severely insult their sense of propriety, hierarchy, and respect.

Age, like title, connotes seniority and demands respect in most countries of the world. Sending a young, albeit brillant, North American expert to Indonesia to lead a negotiation team is more likely to insult senior Indonesian officials than facilitate a successful exchange of technical information. In almost all cases, North Americans need to increase formality in dress, vocabulary, behavior and style when working outside of the United States.

6.0 NEGOTIATION PROCESS

6.1 Negotiation Strategy: A Culturally Synergistic Approach

In “Getting to Yes” based on the work of the Harvard International Negotiation Process Fisher and Ury propose a principled approach to negotiating. As shown in table, this approach includes 4 steps:

1.Seperating the people from the problem.2.Focusing on interests, not on positions.3.Insisting on objective criteria(and never yielding to pressure)4.Inventing options for mutual gain.

Does this principle approach become easier or harder when negotiating globally? Let’s analyze the principled approach from a cross cultural prospective. Cultural differences make communicating more difficult. Steps 1, 2 and 3 therefore become more difficult. Understanding opponents their interests and their assessments, ciriteria becomes more complex and fraught with cross cultural communication pitfalls. By contrast step 4 can become easier. Inventing options for mutual gain requires recognizing and using indifferences. The fewer identical options sought by both

27

negotiating teams, the greater chance of simultaneously satisfying each teams needs. If teams recognize, clearly communicate, and understand cross culture differences (i.e. Step 1, 2, 3 ), They can become the basis for constracting win-win solutions. Western European countries that import Indonesian batiks, for example exchange an economically develop market for a labor intensive good.The Europans could not afford to hand make batiks in Europe, and the Indonesians could not comment as high price in stable currencies within their own country. This culture synergistic approach which uses cultural differences as a resource rather than a hindrance to organizational functiating, allows global negotiators to maximize benefits to all parties.

TABLE: 3 Approaches to Each of Negotiatiating Globally

3 Approaches to Each Stage of Negotiating GloballyTraditional Approach Principled Approach Synergistic Approach

Preparation Preparation Preparation

-Define economic issues -Define interests -Cross Cultural training

    -Define Interest

Relationship Building Relationship Building Relationship Building

-Assess counterparts -Seperate the people from the problem

-Seperate the people from the problem

    -Adjust to their styles and pages

Information Exchange Information Exchange Information Exchange

-Exchange task related information

-Exchange task and participant related information

-Exchange task and participant related information

-Clarify positions -Clarify interests -Clarify Interests and customary approach

Persuasion Inventing options for mutual gain

Inventing options for mutual gain appropriate to

both culturesConcessions Choice of best option Choice of best option

  -Insist of using objective criteria

-Insist on using criteria appropriate to both cultures

  -Never yield to pressure -Never yield to pressure

Agreement Agreement Agreement

    -Translate and back-translate agreement

    -If necessary re-negotiate

6.2 NEGOTIATION TACTICS

28

As you know, there are verbal and nonverbal tactics in negotiation. These are changing across cultures.

VERBAL TACTICS

Some of the more common tactics used in negotiating include promises, threat, recommendatitons, warnings, rewards, punishments, normative appeals, commitmence, self-disclosure, questions and commons. The use and meaning of these tactics change accrross cultures as shown in table. Negotiators from Asia(Japanese), North America (Americans), South America(Brazilians) use different verbal tactics in negotiating. Brazilians for instance, say “no” nine times more frequently than do Americans and almost 15 times more frequently than do Japanese. Similarly, Brazilians make more initial concessions than do Americans, who in turn make more than Japanese.

TABLE: Verbal Negotiating Behaviors Vary Across Cultures

Average Number of Times Tactics Was Used In Half Hour Negotiation SessionsVerbal Negotiating Behavior(Tactic)

JAPAN UNITED STATES BRAZIL

Promise 7 8 3

Threat 4 4 2

REcommendatiton 7 4 5

Warning 2 1 1

Reward 1 2 2

Punishment 1 3 3

Normative Appeal 4 2 1

Commitment 15 13 8

Self-disclosure 34 36 39

Question 20 20 22

Command 8 6 14

No’s (per 30 minutes)

5,7 9 83,4

Profit Level of first offers(80 max)

61,5 57,3 75,2

Initial Concessions 6,5 7,1 9,4

NON-VERBAL TACTICS

29

Nonverbal behavior refers to what negotiators do rather than what they say. It involves how they say their words, rather than the words themselves. Nonverbal behavior includes ton of voice, facial expressions, body distance, dress, gestures, timing, silence and symbols. Nonverbal behavior is complex, it sense multiple messages, many of which are responded to subconsequencly. Negotiators frequently respond more emtionaly and powerfully to the nonverbal than the verbal message, often leading to positive or negative spirals, which directly affect the outcome of negotiation.

As with verbal behavior, nonverbal behavior changes markedly across cultures. As shown in table, extent to which Americans, Brazilians and Japanese use silence, conversational overlaps, facial gazing and touching during a negotiation varies consideraly.

TABLE: Nonverbal Negotiaing Behaviors Vary Accross Cultures

Behavior(Tactic) AMERICANS BRAZILIANS JAPANESE

Silence Periods:number of silence perod greater than 10 seconds per 30 minutes

3,5 0 5,5

Conversational Overlaps: number of overlaps per 10 minutes

10,3 28,6 12,6

Facial Gazing: minutes of gazing per 10 minutes

3,3 5,2 1,3

Touching: not including handshaking per 30 minutes

0 4,7 0

DIRTY TRICKS

Neither all domestic nor all global negotiators search for mutually beneficial agreements. In attempting to gain the most for themselves, some negotiators resort to “dirty tricks,” tactics designed to pressure opponents into undesirable concessions and agreements. Negotiators can reduce the use of dirty tricks in the following ways:

1. Not using them themselves.2. Recognizing them when their counterparts use them explicitly pointing them out, and

negotiating about their use (i.e. establishing the “rules of the game”)3. Knowing what the cost of walking out is if the other party refuses to use principled

negotiation (i.e. knowing what the best alternative is to a negotiated solution)4. Realizing that tactics that appear “dirty” to people from another culture may be acceptable

to your team.

Avoiding dirty tricks is more complex internationally than domestically. Effective negotiators systematically question their own interpretations of their counterparts’ tactics rather than naively assuming that others’ tactics have the same intended meanings as they would within the negotiators’ home culture.

30

Reviewing the range of dirty tricks from a cross-cultural perspective reveals some of the possible misinterpretations global negotiators face. Brazilians, for example, expect more deception among negotiators who do not know each other than do Americans. Brazilians are therefore more likely to use “ phony facts” during the initial a stages of a global negotiator than are some of their counterparts. the recommendation therefore is: “unless you have good reason to trust someone, don’t”.

A negotiating team’s discretion ( the extent of its authority) varies across cultures.

Under communist regimes, Russians and Easterm Europeans traditionally had very limited authority; they had to check with their superiors if they wanted to deviate at all from the planned agenda. American, by contrast, generally have extensive authority they expect to make the most important decisions at the negotiating table. When the other team has limited authority, experts recommend making all commitment tentative and conditional on the ability of other party to accept and commit to their side of the deal. In cross cultural business situations, negotiators must remember that the other party may not be using limited authority as a form of deliberate deception; they may simply come from cultures where the authorities delegate very little discretion to individual team members.

Psychological warfare (tactics design to maket he other person feel uncomfortable) has different meanings in different cultures. a common psychological trick, for example, involves too much touching or too little eye contact. As discussed earlier, both extremes make people uncomfortable; both make them want to get out of the situations quickly (and therefore conclude the negotiation as soon as possible). Problems arise in defining appropriate versus extreme amounts of touching and eye contact across cultures. Latins touch much more than Canadians, who in term touch more than Swedes, Arabs maintain much greater eye contact than do Americans, who in turn use more than the Japanese. What appears to be a dirty trick from a domestic perspective may simple express another cultures typical behavior. As with other potantially inappropriate tactics, negotiators must differentiate intended psychological warfare from unintended expressions of a cultures normal behavior patterns.

6.5WHOSE STYLE TO USE?

When should global negotiators continue to use their own cultural style of negotiating and when should they adopt the style of their counterparts? Global negotiation experts suggest that negotiators have five options, depending on the nature of the negotiation and level of cross cultural knowledge of each negotiating team has. As outlined in table, if neither team is familiar with the others culture, it would be best to consider employing agents to represent the teams. If your team has a high knowledge of their culture, but their team has a limited knowledge of your teams culture, you have the option of embracing their cultural approach if the opposite is true, they have a high knowledge of your culture while you only have a limited knowledge of their culture, you can attempt to induce your counterparts to follow your cultures approach to negotiating. If both teams have a moderate knowledge of their counterparts culture, both teams can adapt somewhat to each others style. In the ideal situation, in which both teams have an in-depth knowledge of other’s culture, the two teams can improvise an approach that works for them both, that is, they can create a culturally synergistic approach to the negotiation. Although no option quarantees a positive outcome, the higher the cross cultural knowledge on the part of both negotiatings, the more options open to them and the greater their chance of reaching a satisfactory agreement.

TABLE: When to Use Their Style -- When to Use Your Style Culturally Responsive Negotiating Strategies.

31

high

Induce Counterpart to Improvise an Approach Following One’s Own Approach [Effect Synergy]

Counterpart’s Adapt to the Counterpart’s Approach Familiarity with [Coordinated Adjustment of Both Parties] Negotiator’s Culture

Employ an Agent or Advisor Embrace the [Involve a Mediator] Counterpart’s Approach

Low Low High Negotiator’s Familiarity with Counterpart’s Culture

Brackets indicates a joint strategy requiring deliberate consultation with one’s counterpart. At each level of cultural familiarity negotiators can consider as feasible the strategies at that level or any lower level.

Qualities of a good negotiator

What qualities does a good negotiator possess? According to negotitators’ extensive research the answer depends on the cultures as shown on table, American managers believe that effective negotiators at highly rationally. Brazilian managers to the surprise of many Americans hold an almost identical view, differing only in replacing integrity with competitiveness as one of the seven most important qualities of effective negotiators. By contrast the opinions of Japanese negotiators differ quite makedly from those of both Americans and Brazilians. Japanese see an interpersonal, rather than national, negotiating style as leading to success. Japanese differ from Americans in stressing both verbal expressiveness and listening ability, whereas Americans only emphasise verbal ability. In contrast to Americans, Brazilians, Chinese and Japanese managers. In Taiwan emphasise negotiators’ rational skills and, to a lesser extent, their interpersonal skills. To the Chinese, a successful negotiator must be an interesting person and should show persistance and determination, the ability to win respect and confidence, preperation, and planning skills, product knowledge, good judgement and intelligence.

The role that individual qualities play varies accross cultures. Favorable outcomes are most strongly influenced by negotiators’ own characteristics in Brazil, opponents’ characteristics in the USA, the negotiators role in Japan( the buyer always does better.) and the mixture of negotiators’ and

32

their counterparts’ characteristics in Taiwan. Spesifically, Brazilian negotiators achieve higher profit when they act more deceptively and in their own self-interst, when they Express higher self-esteem, when their bargaining partners act wtih more honesty. American negotiators achieve greater success when theşr counterparts are honest not self .nterested, introverted, not particularly interesting as people and made to feel uncomfertable by the negotiators’ actions. By contrast Japanese buyers always do beter than sellers. Both Japanese buyers and sellers can improve their positions by making their bargaining partners feel moe comfortable. In Taiwan, negotiators do beter when they act deceptively and when their counterpart are neither self-interested nor have particularly attractive personalities.

TABLE: Which Indıvidual Characteristics Do Negotiators See as Most Important for Negotiating Succesfully?

Which Individual Characteristic Do Negotiators See as Most Important forNegotiating Succesfully? The Answer Varies by Culture

AmericanNegotiators

JapaneseNegotiators

Chinese(Taiwan)Negotiators

BrazilianNegotiators

Preparation andplaning skill

Dedication to job Persistence anddetermination

Preparation andplaning skill

Thinking underpressure

Perceive andexploit power

Win respect andconfidence

Thinking underpressure

Judgement andintelligence

Win respect andconfidence

Preparation andplaning skill

Judgement andintelligence

Verbalexpressiveness

Integrity Product knowledge Verbalexpressiveness

ProductKnowledge

Demonstratelistening skill

Interesting ProductKnowledge

Perceive andexploit power

Broad perspective Judgement andintelligent

Perceive andexploit power

Integrity Verbalexpressiveness

  Competitiveness

7.0 RECOMMENDATİON

33

Different nationalities have different values and ways of behaving. You need to understand ritual and culture in order to make people of other nationalities more comfortable when negotiating with you. You may not even have to deal abroad to need to understand the ritual and culture of another society - many companies in the UK have settled here from overseas and strive to maintain their native beliefs and traditions.

Build a model

In order to understand a different culture, you need information. Simply mimicking a few rituals that you have observed is unlikely to be enough of a basis on which to found a lasting business relationship. A good way to approach a new culture is to follow a three stage, cyclical process; observe, analyse, and act accordingly.

Observe

Step one in observation might be to conduct some research into the country of origin of the people with whom you will be dealing. Check out the basics, such as size, population, religion, economic situation and so on. The fact that you can converse intelligently regarding the homeland of your counterparts shows that you have done your homework and wish to make the business relationship a success. You can also pick up ‘cross-culture’ books that will warn you off making some of the more obvious errors, such as not putting money directly into the hand of a Korean, for example (it’s considered to be rude).

It is also a good idea to learn a few words of the language. You may not be expected to be fluent, but if you can greet people and say ‘please’ and ‘thank you’ in their language, then your efforts will be noted and appreciated. The British are notoriously bad at learning other languages in order to do business within other countries; with the advent and widespread use of the Internet, this may be an issue that is largely resolved for us as other cultures learn English in order that they may make the most of the unique advantages offered. However, you would be wise to remember that the Germans have a saying: ‘We will sell to you in any language, but we will only buy from you in German’.

The next stage of observation takes place when you meet and begin to develop a relationship. Observe how people behave. Are they very formal, or very relaxed? Do they touch or avoid touching? These are all valuable insights into how to fit in with the culture.

Remember that we like people who are like ourselves. Everyone has experience, either personally or through observation, of the fact that opposites attract. Despite this, the norm is for similarities to attract. People in long-term relationships often look quite alike, too - they take the desire to see a mirror image a step further than would be the case in a friendship or business relationship. Consequently your efforts to understand and emulate another culture are likely to pay off handsomely in a business relationship.

Analyse

It is a good idea not only to know how people behave, but also why they behave in certain ways. Understanding the underlying reason for something both helps you to get it right and enhances your relationship with others. Think about someone observing our culture; things they might notice include:

We suffer poor service in silence; On meeting someone, we smile, shake hands and make eye contact; Despite this, we rarely make eye contact on a crowded bus or train; Touch can make people uncomfortable, with the exception of an expected handshake; and, Everything stops for football!

34

Knowing what to expect guides people’s behaviour. Remember also that people are often very flattered to be asked about their country’s culture and traditions. Most people enjoy talking about themselves and will appreciate your showing an interest.

Act accordingly

Once you have observed and understood something, amend your own behaviour to suit and assimilate your new habits into your everyday ritual. Don’t become a mimic overnight - little by little should encourage and impress. It is arguably better to show improvement in your understanding over a period of time, so demonstrating that this is a long-term commitment and something that you are prepared to work at. Once you have taken on board everything you have learned, it is time once more to observe.

By following the cycle you become, by degrees, more comfortable with the culture in which you are working. You do not need to lose your essential British ways or subsume your own personality, just act in a way that makes people more comfortable when doing business with you.

Useful tips

Accept that different cultures have different values and behaviours Make an effort to understand alternative cultures Pick up a bit of the language

Do not be afraid to try speaking a few words of the language; people will appreciate your efforts and may even find it endearing if your pronunciation is less than perfect. It gives them a chance to correct you, which begins to develop a bond, and at the very least you tried.

Show an interest in what is happening and why Be respectful

8.0 CONCLUSİON

35

Negotiation is an important and valuable tool for resolving conflict when all parties involved have a shared commitment to reaching a collaborative, joint outcome that satisfies both parties needs and interests. Cultural considerations play an important role in the negotiation process as all of the actors bring with them their own specific cultural behaviors; that is their patterns of thinking, feeling, acting and most importantly, their own set of culturally shared values.

This paper explains the nature of culture and the salient characteristics of negotiations. A working definition for culture was provided to lay the groundwork for understanding the concept of culture. In order to further develop this understanding, the role of mental programs and values were discussed. Human nature, culture and personality all make up an individual’s mental program, but it is the cultural piece that is a singularly a learned trait formed by collective programming. Ingrained in this collective programming contains the culture’s values. Understanding these two areas is crucial to conceptualizing cultural variations. Hofstede’s dimensions of culture provided a summarization of how cultures differed based on their overall proclivity toward various values or norms. An understanding of cultural theory in this manner is an important element in describing culture’s impact on negotiations.

Equally important is an understanding of key aspects of negotiations. Negotiations differ from other forms of conflict resolution in that, when appropriately conducted, the parties strive to reach agreement by accommodating their conflicting interest into a mutually acceptable agreement. In order to achieve this state, all parties must be willing to commit to understanding each other’s position, work toward building trust, and effectively communicate with each other.

Although other factors can and will impede on any negotiation, this paper intended to demonstrate that cultural differences are also a variable in the negotiation process. Understanding culture’s implications, the cultural baggage that individual actors bring to the negotiation table and that it does play a role in the process, is an important element for any negotiator to prepare for in order to reach for the optimum negotiated solution for all parties. The “bottom line” may well be the important aspect to a negotiated settlement, but defining what that is, the processes that will be utilized, and the manner in which the parties will interact in an attempt to reach an interdependent, joint decision agreeable to and accepted by the parties will be influenced by each negotiator’s culture.

The key to the success of an international strategic alliance is the negotiation prior to the culmination of the “deal”, and the ongoing communication between the two or more parties during the life of the alliance. The very negotiation process that reaches agreement may ultimately determine the success or failure of the relationship. Moreover, one cannot assume stereotypical responses from different cultures any more than one can with one’s own culture. To the extent that stereotypes are assumed, there is a risk of failure. Competition is getting tougher, and good strategic deals are beneficial to all partners. Furthermore, these partnerships contribute to an increased understanding among people around the world, and hopefully an increased interdependence thus reducing the possibility of martial conflict. To position the strategic alliance in a win-win mode requires that the negotiator be sensitive to the cultural driven needs of the other party.

9.0 REFERENCES

36

ADLER, N.J. “International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior”, fourth edition, pp 208-256.

http://www.kwintessential.co.uk/cultural-services/articles/cross-cultural-negotiation.html

http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/culture_negotiation/

http://www.amchamchile.cl/files/Cross-cultural%20Negotiation%20and%20Dispute%20Resolution1.pdf

http://strategicdecisionsciences.com/documents/Cross_Cultural_Negotiations.pdf

http://www.krannert.purdue.edu/centers/ciber/publications/pdf/2003-007%20Drnevich.pdf

http://www.mediate.com/articles/cdr1.cfm

http://www.springerlink.com/content/j65k26524520412q/fulltext.pdf

http://www.arts.uwaterloo.ca/~wladair/papers/Neg%20J%202004Culture%20and%20Negotiation%20Strategy.pdf

http://laxman.net.np/articles/Cultural%20perspective%20on%20negotation%20progress%20pitfalls%20and%20pro.pdf

37