Chapter 11 Intercultural Negotiation Components Cross-Cultural Negotiation Components Before negotiating with persons from another culture, you should consider the players and the situation, cultural noise, national character, power and authority, perceptions, use of interpreters and translators, gender, environment, and relationships and substantive conflicts. The Players and the Situation According to Fisher (1980), you should learn how the negotiators and negotiating teams were selected. Try to determine the background of the players to anticipate the counterpart’s behavior. Determine the expectations of the other negotiators, their negotiating style, and the role they have played in past negotiations. Attempt to provide an environment that is free of tension and conducive to an exchange of ideas and problem resolution. Successful companies choose the players or team members carefully. If possible, have a local person on the team handle introductions, translations, explanations of cultural differences, permits, and navigation of the laws and customs of the country. Many times it is possible to hire such an individual through a local law firm, accountant, bank, or trade organization. If the negotiations are to take place in a hierarchical society, then be sure the people on the negotiating team come from the correct levels of seniority. As Malaysians say, “match eagles with eagles.” Also, if you bring management from your home country, they should be part of the negotiation team. Because many cultures consider relationships vital, changing people after negotiating a contract could be viewed very negatively. A company has to consider how the team members’ negotiating experience, seniority, political affiliation, gender, ethnic ties, kinship, technical knowledge, and personal attributes will relate to the individuals with whom the team members will be negotiating (Moran, Harris, & Moran, 2011). During negotiation orientations, U.S. Americans need to learn to take advantage of the opportunity to learn more about the personalities of their opponents. U.S. Americans tend to rush through this stage or fail to note its importance. The orientation allows each side to gain valuable information about the opponents. Relationship building is important in many cultures. In many organizations, the salespeople are responsible for the negotiations and relationship development. In an examination of cultural issues at the national, organizational, and individual levels, it was found that culture affects a salesperson’s negotiating style. Salespeople with high problem-solving orientation are likely to have a problem-solving approach that is more cooperative and leads to relationship building between two organizations. Successfully communicating interculturally is easier for people with a high cultural awareness and sensitivity to changing their actions depending on the cultural environment. How supportive or bureaucratic an organization is also empowers or disempowers an individual to use the problem-solving approach effectively. A salesperson in a bureaucratic organization loses the ability to use his or her intercultural communication competency due to the rules within the organization, although an individual from a supportive organizational culture is strengthened by the organization to use his or her intercultural communication abilities (Chaisrakeo & Speece, 2004). Cultural Noise Cultural noise includes anything that distracts or interferes with the message being communicated. Nonverbal messages, such as body language, space, and gift giving, can impede or expedite negotiations. For example, giving an inappropriate gift or one wrapped improperly is a form of cultural noise. In addition, what a person says can result in cultural noise, such as negotiators who criticize their competitor or make disparaging comments about their competitors’ products. National Culture Fisher (1980) maintains that “patterns of personality do exist for groups that share a common culture” (p. 37). National character affects the negotiation process a great deal. As has been mentioned in earlier chapters, people of the United States value time; punctuality is important. To a large degree, they also believe that they determine their own fate. The people of Latin American countries, on the other hand, are less concerned with time and stoically accept their fate. While numerous other differences exist between the values of the two cultures, these two attitudes could hamper negotiations considerably regardless of the attractiveness of the terms offered. Latin Americans ethnically are also a mixture of indigenous, European, Pacific Rim, and African heritages. Ethnic identity can be very personal in different parts of the world. In Kenya, the Maasai leaders have been negotiating without the Magadi community members concerning adding a second soda mining plant at Magadi. The Magadi community leaders say the Maasai leaders hijacked the process. It is not unusual for patronage and bribery to take place in Magadi. Workers at the Magadi Soda Company also have problems with company management concerning harsh working conditions, poor medical coverage, lack of employment opportunities, nepotism, and lack of water, education, and security (Tiampati, 2004). This is one example of national character and indigenous people having problems. Research on the impact of national culture on negotiation outcomes has shown that U.S.– Japanese cultural differences have limited the joint gains of the negotiation partners. The researchers attributed the negotiation shortcomings to the lack of knowledge of their counterparts’ national cultural priorities and the necessity of such an understanding (Brett & Okumura, 1998). Equitable governance structure, preferences for negotiation that integrates the negotiators’ interests, and the dyad’s collectivism to each other have all been found as important to the success of an alliance (Cai, Wilson, & Drake, 2000; Tinsley, 1998). Studying a national culture in preparation for negotiations will give you the central tendencies of a population, but it may not give you the within-group or individual variance you may need to negotiate successfully. It also does not tell you how many cultures may exist in the individuals with whom you are negotiating. National culture is only one of the cultures that we all carry within ourselves. Other cultures include professional, social class, ethnic, regional, gender, and organizational/corporate (Sebenius, 2002b). Power and Authority Power is the ability to influence others; authority is the power to give commands and make final decisions. With the ability to influence comes the responsibility of the action taken. Power can make people and companies dependent or independent. Power can be an advantage or a disadvantage, depending on how it is used, but it must be used within the bounds of moral and ethical behavior (Lewicki, Saunders, & Barry, 2011). Negotiators use power to influence strategies. Direct influence includes questioning, offering, posturing, and persuading. Indirect influence strategies include appeals for sympathy, references to personal stakes in the negotiation, and references to status. Direct power strategies are meant to help the opponent; indirect strategies are appeals to the opponent to help you. The use of direct or indirect influence strategies is different from culture to culture. For high joint gains, information sharing should be used immediately; posturing and persuading should not be used late in the negotiations (Brett, 2007). For power to be meaningful, it has to be accepted. Authority (associated with power) is how an alliance chooses to conduct decision making, strategy setting, and influence over each other. When you accept power, you are giving it the authority to exist to the extent the control is acceptable to you. The personal constructs of the receiver of the power determine the strength of the power exerted. To create a synergism between global business partners, the firms must have balanced authority. Balanced authority allows each partner to share the decision-making role (Bradenburger & Nalebuff, 1996). If one of the partners seeks an authority advantage over its partner, this is normally done by claiming to possess superior resources or a superior position in the alliance. The alliance will probably fall apart (Teegen, 1998). The incentives exist to collaborate and at the same time compete with their alliance partner both during and after negotiations (Bradenburger & Nalebuff, 1996). The balance of authority between partners positively affects the performance of the alliance (Saxton, 1997). If each partner has authority over its areas of expertise or specialization, generally you will have a successful dyad. Many researchers have found that an unbalanced authority relationship or asymmetrical relationship is inherently unstable and tends to collapse (Anderson & Weitz, 1989; Lorange & Roos, 1991; Nooteboom, Berger, & Noorderhaven, 1997; Teegen & Doh, 2002). An example of the use of power and authority might occur in a meeting between the Chinese, who do not believe in a time schedule for negotiations, and the time-conscious U.S. Americans. The Chinese have the power of time on their side and possibly could make the U.S. Americans feel pressured to make compromises. Japanese negotiators have observed that they can make U.S. negotiators agree to concessions because they can “outwait” the impatient Americans (Engholm, 1991) (see Figure 11-1). Figure 11-1 The Negotiation Waiting Game It is only with knowledge of the relative power of those negotiating that someone can determine if a deal is possible or not, will know whether to continue to negotiate, or if it is time to accept an offer (Brett, 2007). Perception Perception is the process by which individuals ascribe meaning to their environment; it is strongly affected by their culture. The stress of negotiation can cause misperception, but more often it is due to the different meanings of verbal and nonverbal cues in the cultures involved. For example, U.S. Americans might “talk” with their hands to clarify or exaggerate a particular point during negotiations with a German negotiating team. The Germans may incorrectly interpret the motions as spontaneous emotional displays that they consider impolite. Likewise, if companies were to send only one person to negotiate with the Japanese, the Japanese would assume the company was not serious about negotiating an agreement (Lewicki et al., 2011). An example of differences in perception: A group of U.S. businessmen are visiting China exploring the possibility of building a factory in China. While the Chinese are showing them sites, the U.S. people ask about the level of the available water pressure. The Chinese are perplexed and ask why. The U.S. people say because they need to be sure the water pressure is sufficient to fight fires for insurance purposes. The Chinese answer that they have sufficient water pressure but want to know why the U.S. people are speaking of bad luck before they begin the project because that will assure bad luck. What one culture sees as planning and being necessary, another culture may perceive differently. (Ping, 2000) Stimuli have both a physical size and a socioenvironmental meaning that can be different for each individual within and across cultures. Our experiences determine what stimuli we are sensitive or insensitive to. Although it is obvious to the Japanese and U.S. Americans that the two cultures are very different, it may not be so obvious that U.S. citizens and Canadians also have many cultural differences. Sometimes thinking we are alike can be more dangerous than knowing we are different and being careful of our verbal and nonverbal behaviors. Perceptions of alliance negotiation objectives, particularly uncertainty avoidance, have been found to cause problems in negotiations (Schneider & De Meyer, 1991). Interpreters and Translators Language considerations when negotiating include the following: Language serves as a key to culture. Who should be at the table and conversing? What is the social identity of those at the table? Facilitated dialogue is a slow process. (D’Amico & Rubinstein, 1999) Using interpreters and translators can affect the negotiation process both positively and negatively. On the positive side, you have more time to think about your next statement while your previous statement is being translated. Because of the time it takes to translate, you are also more careful to state the message succinctly. On the negative side, because language and culture are intertwined, translators may not convey the intended message due to the nuances of the languages involved. Additional suggestions for using interpreters and translators were given in chapter 5. Women as International Negotiators Although in some countries women are not typically included on negotiation teams, in many countries they are considered as equals at the negotiation table. These countries include Denmark, England, France, India, Israel, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United States. In these countries women are welcomed additions to international negotiation teams since women are acknowledged as important contributors to a team’s success because of their interpersonal skills, patience, social skills, sympathy, understanding, listening skills, and willingness to accept the values of other people. Research confirms that women actually have an advantage over men during negotiations because they are more adept than men at reading nonverbal messages and are therefore able to gain information from the body language, voice pitch, intonation, and eye movements of other team members. In addition, the fact that women are often viewed as less threatening and less competitive than men can be advantageous in problem-solving situations (Martin & Chaney, 2012; Wilen, 2000). “Women traveling internationally report that they often receive more special treatment than their male colleagues: invitations to dine at special restaurants; additional sightseeing tours; and more courtesies, such as airport pick up and drop off.” (Wilen, 2000, pp. 175–176) To assure that they are treated professionally when negotiating in international situations, women should dress appropriately as people in many cultures are quite conscious of appearance. Dressing conservatively in dark, high-quality suits (preferably skirted suits) with leather handbag and dark leather medium-heeled shoes is recommended in many countries of Asia, Europe, and Latin America. Simple elegance in attire in traditional, conservative colors and styles is considered preferable to clothing in bright fashion colors and the latest styles. Further, casual attire for shopping and sightseeing should be conservative and in muted colors. A U.S. businesswoman, who was making a presentation in Japan on Valentine’s Day, wore a red dress for the occasion. She apparently did not know that red is not worn for business in Japan; it is considered too provocative. Japanese audience members were shocked; they just sat and stared. The businesswoman’s attire was totally inappropriate and was viewed as an insult. (Wilen, 2000) In addition to wearing appropriate attire, women who wish to be successful on international negotiating teams should become knowledgeable about issues to be discussed and should expand their knowledge of the language of their foreign counterparts. Women should research the customs, including attitudes toward women, of the country with which they plan to conduct business and be prepared to adjust their attitudes and behaviors to conform to expectations of the people of the country. For example, in some cultures older men are paternalistic and protective of women; thus, women should not be offended by such treatment (Hodge, 2000; Martin & Chaney, 2012). Additional suggestions for successful experiences as female members of international negotiating teams include behaving professionally with quiet self-assurance and self-confidence, being patient and compassionate, showing respect for the host culture and their customs, recognizing the importance of humility, demonstrating a cooperative attitude, and having a good sense of humor (Axtell, Briggs, Corcoran, & Lamb, 1997). If women establish their experience, competence, and authority prior to negotiating internationally, they will be given professional treatment by foreign executives, who are aware of the important role that women play in U.S. businesses (Hodge, 2000). Environment The environment in which the negotiations take place is particularly important for intercultural negotiations. If meetings are held at the office of one of the parties, then that party has control and responsibility as host to the other party. When one of the parties is at home, they have “home court” advantage—the advantage of access to information and human resources. When negotiators are on their home territory, they are likely to be more assertive than when in the host’s territory. A reason for this may be conditioning. We are taught that it is rude to be impolite to someone in his or her home or office. The host negotiators may also have a feeling of superiority because the other team is coming to them (Lewicki et al., 2011). One way to avoid this competitiveness is to choose a neutral site. The neutrality of the site eliminates the psychological advantage of the home ground. A U.S. company was negotiating with a Saudi company. The Saudi company determined all of the environmental factors: messengers were used between the negotiators, lists of questions and points were given for consideration, and the seating chart was dictated by the Saudis. The U.S. company conceded the process; however, they felt that it showed flexibility and interest rather than weakness. It depends on the two cultures. Between two hierarchical cultures it would signal weakness; between egalitarian cultures it signals flexibility. (Brett, 2007) The actual room where the negotiations take place could play an important role if the room makes one of the negotiating teams feel comfortable and the other team uncomfortable. Cultural differences need to be considered when choosing the site. Details to consider include the physical arrangement of the room, the distance between people and teams, and the formal or informal atmosphere of the room. The arrangement of the table and chairs can also make a difference. Some cultures ascribe a title to people according to the seating arrangement. Those same cultures also would expect the other team to have the same number of negotiators and negotiators of equal rank to theirs. The Japanese particularly have been surprised when the United States sends a younger person of a lower rank to meet with a top official of their company. Because the Japanese conduct side negotiations with their counterpart in the opposing company, it is necessary for everyone to know his or her counterparts. Two ways of arranging seating in a meeting to accomplish this purpose are shown in Figures 11-2 and 11-3 (Funakawa, 1997). Relationship and Substantive Conflicts Being able to identify the conflict in which you are involved is important. Issues form out of substantive and relationship-based differences. The substantive issues include use and control of resources. The relationship-based issues center on the long-term friendship or partnership. Negotiations should be conducted in such a way as to protect future relations. The conflict may be seen from the point of view of both negotiators or may be seen from the point of view of only one negotiator. The conflict may involve a deadlock, behavior difference, lack of a common goal, communication problems, poor translators, misunderstandings, secrets, lack of feedback, or unfamiliar tactics. Some of these factors may be due to the negotiators’ perceptions of reality and their unconscious ability to block out information that is inconsistent with their cultural beliefs. Negotiation breakdown or deadlock may be identified by the negotiators’ repeating themselves using the same arguments. The negotiators may not be saying anything constructive but merely allowing the passage of time, or nonnegotiation tactics may be used to try to change the attitudes of the other side (Brett, 2007). Jervis (2000) defines cognitive dissonance as follows: “Two elements are in a dissonant relation if, considering these two alone, the obverse of one element would follow from the other” (p. 442). A simpler definition is that cognitive dissonance is the psychological conflict or anxiety that results from inconsistencies between what one does and what one believes. Cognitive dissonance, logic, and reasoning differences normally due to cultural differences are often the focus of such conflicts because your perspectives are based on your cultural training, and your oppositions’ perspectives are based on their cultural training. Cognitive dissonance may generate the following emotions and actions: frustration, regression, fixation, resignation, repression, projection, and aggression (Cohen, 1998). If you are aware of the possible cultural shocks before entering negotiations, it will be easier to adapt your negotiation style to accommodate both your own and others’ ethnocentrism and maintain your patience while dealing with the differences. Part of negotiation is being able to discern what is going on mentally with the negotiators on the other side of the table. By Figure 11-2 Seating Arrangement A Figure 11-3 Seating Arrangement B studying the psychological predisposition of the other culture, you will be familiar with at least some of the variations between the two cultures. Communicating adequately is difficult when the cultural programming of the negotiators differs. Within a culture, there is normally an internal consistency to the beliefs and values of that culture. In intercultural negotiation, people need to be cognizant of not projecting their cultural thinking onto the other side. Be sure to discuss every point and not attribute motives to the other side that may, in fact, be nonexistent. Cultures are different concerning how they conceptualize information, how they use information, and how they associate causes and effects. A sales executive who worked in Vietnam had been meeting with a potential customer to gain his business. The Vietnamese person was very difficult to convince about the advantages of the product, and it did not seem as if a contract would be signed. Later the sales executive was walking with his boss to the tennis court and ran into the potential customer. The customer knew his boss and told him to come to the customer’s office the next day to sign the contract. (Verluyten, 2002) To prepare for behavioral differences, you must train yourself to perceive the differences and adjust your reasoning accordingly. Developing “an efficient and coherent mental crossreferencing system” (Fisher, 1997, p. 22) that automatically adjusts your reactions saves time and money and avoids problems. Although it is not possible in the international setting, much less in our day-to-day activities, to have a built-in response to all situations, if you build a mechanism to screen, sort, code, and store differences, you are able to respond more quickly. In other words, you develop a new mindset. This new cognitive structure allows us to share a defined culture and way of acting and thinking. Because our cognitive structures are programmed to our own cultures, reprogramming disturbs the existing system. Our mind inherently tries to make cognitive dissonance fit our current cognitive system rather than expanding our cognitive system by recognizing the difference and developing more storage cognitively (Fisher, 1997). Lifestyles within cultures vary, and so does the vocabulary that develops to explain the culture. When cultures are different, the words that develop are also different. The subjective meaning of the translation can be very important. The United States is a very individual-oriented society. The Japanese equivalent of the word for individual has a negative connotation because the Japanese are a group-oriented culture. Education in the United States means academic achievement and is associated with school attendance. In the Spanish culture, however, education includes being polite, well bred, and sensitive as well as covering school attendance and academic achievement. The idea of “fair play” is an example of a concept that does not exist in any other language, yet is used frequently in U.S. business, sports, and other aspects of life. Because fair play is a culturally bound phrase, other cultures cannot be expected to understand its meaning. Gestures, tone of voice, and cadence further complicate the translation situation (Cohen, 1998). A study by Planken (2005, p. 386) indicates that the areas you can talk about safely during negotiations involve: The initiator—greetings, enquiry about how the other person feels, introductions, business card exchange, and personal work history The business relationship—prenegotiation contract and history of existing corporate relationship Future business—future cooperation and future dealings The business environment—markets, target groups, competitors, and the economy Product information—product characteristics, manufacturing information, product range, and delivery Corporate information—management; company history; core activities such as distribution, promotion, personnel, or pricing policy The invitation—lunch, drinks, coffee, and company/factory visit Nonbusiness topics—travel, sports, news, culture, language, hobbies, holidays, and family Planken (2005) also found that younger, aspiring negotiators used “you” more than the experienced negotiators did (indicates other orientedness); however, both established negotiators and aspiring negotiators used the “we,” which shows inclusiveness. Stereotypes That Affect Intercultural Negotiations The way people of a culture view themselves and the way they are actually viewed by persons of other cultures often have an impact on intercultural negotiations. (A discussion of stereotypes of persons of selected cultures was included in chapter 1.) Schneider and Barsoux (2002) point out the disparities that exist between the way U.S. people think of themselves and the way they are viewed by foreigners. U.S. Persons’ Views Foreign ers’ Views of U.S. Persons • Informal, friendly, casual Undisciplined, too personal, familiar • • Egalitarian Insensitive to status • • Direct, aggressive rude, oppressive • Blunt, • Efficient Obsessed with time, opportunistic • • Goal/achievement oriented Promise more than they deliver • • Profit oriented Materialistic • • Resourceful, ingenious oriented; deals are more important than people • Work • Individualistic, progressive absorbed, equating the “new” with “best” • Self- • Dynamic, find identity in work • Driven • Enthusiastic, prefer hard-sell Deceptive, fearsome • • Open untrustworthy • Weak, Negotiators from the United States should, therefore, take into consideration this disparity in viewpoints and make a concerted effort to change some of the negative stereotypes, such as being rude and obsessed with time, when interacting during negotiations. Comparative Negotiation Styles Intercultural negotiators need to be selected carefully. People who can negotiate well in their own culture may not be successful at negotiating interculturally. Intercultural negotiators need to be able to ascertain where their opposition “is coming from.” The negotiator must be able to grasp the situation and be able to recognize whether the opposition’s negotiators are bound by their culture or are taking on some of the opposing cultural characteristics. Being able to discern role behavior and knowing the proper deference is important in intercultural negotiations (Moran & Stripp, 1991). A brief comparison of the negotiation styles of different cultures is shown in Table 11-1 (Elashmawi & Harris, 1998; Ruch, 1989). Characteristics of Effective Negotiators Effective negotiators are observant, patient, adaptable, and good listeners. They appreciate the humor in a situation but are careful to use humor only when appropriate. Good negotiators are mentally sharp. They think before they speak, and they are careful to speak in an agreeable, civil manner. Businesspeople who negotiate internationally know that negotiations are carried out consistently within a culture but that cultures have their own distinct negotiating styles (Berger, 2006). They do their homework on the countries with which they are negotiating and become knowledgeable about their history, customs, values, and beliefs. Effective negotiators know that in many cultures history is revered, and displaying knowledge of the country’s past can do much to pave the way to smooth negotiations. Good negotiators praise what is praiseworthy and refrain from criticizing anything about the negotiators or their country. They keep their promises and always negotiate in good faith (Sebenius, 2002a). Negotiators, however, cannot escape their own cultural mindsets. Even professional training cannot erase the deep-seated perceptions from childhood (Cohen, 1998). These perceptions must not be vocalized, however, because nothing is to be gained by denouncing the behavior or customs of others simply because they do not fit your cultural mindset. Because such factors as social skills, gender, age, experience in intercultural relations, and background may be important in a specific culture, considering these factors when selecting negotiators is recommended. Noted negotiator Dr. Chester L. Karrass says, “In business, you don’t get what you deserve; you get what you negotiate. Why take ‘no’ for an answer? Successful people don’t. They get what they want by negotiating better deals for both parties.” (Karrass, 1996) Importance of Protocol in Intercultural Negotiations Protocol is important in understanding which negotiation strategy should be followed. Leaptrott (1996) gives three fundamental classifications of protocol: tribal, collective, and pluralist. Tribal involves the family unit, close relationships, and a connection to the past. Collectivism is an extension of tribal and includes larger groups, such as a town, nation, or race. The pluralist society has many different groups and combinations of groups, and individuals are free to join those they want to join. Most countries fit one of these three protocol classifications. Table 11-2 includes a comparison of the three protocol types. Parts of China, Africa, and India are examples of countries that are still basically tribal because they are agrarian societies. A person’s word is more important to building a relationship than anything else in tribal cultures. Collectivistic cultures are also very concerned with relationships; examples can be found in Japan, Greece, Spain, and Indonesia. Examples of pluralist societies include the United States, United Kingdom, and France. The three styles of protocol are very different in some areas and similar in others. This makes the way the variables of policy, interaction, deliberation, and outcome are used vary, depending on the two cultures involved in the negotiation. In addition, remembering to consider the situation from the other culture’s viewpoint yet maintaining your own cultural viewpoint will avoid problems in many instances. Although all cultures share the need for honesty, courage, respect for human dignity, fairness, and love, these values can have very different meanings in different cultures (Samovar, Porter, & McDaniel, 2009). Reality is difficult to assess when two cultures do not share the same definition of needs. If the expectations are not met and the perceptions are wrong, disastrous business consequences are usually the result (Ping, 2000). Group versus Individual Orientation Group orientation ideally results in a solution that is good for everyone because all points of view are supposedly considered. Negotiations with group-oriented negotiators are detail oriented to determine the proper solution. Your identity belongs to the group of which you are a member. The group has to reach a consensus on any and all decisions, and this probably is not done during the negotiation sessions. The individuals in the group avoid making an individual decision. Individuals who are not group oriented may feel that group-oriented negotiators appear to stall, are not interested in the negotiations, and give ambiguous statements. Grouporiented cultures tend to view contracts as flexible (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005). Japan is one of the most group-oriented cultures in the world, perhaps because of the number of years they were physically secluded from other cultures; however, given the number of years they have now interacted with other cultures, many Japanese have adapted very well to different negotiation strategies. Although the Japanese culture is quite different from that of the United States, Japan and the United States do have a common work ethic—both applaud hard work. Even though the original management styles were very different, as joint ventures and subsidiaries of Japanese companies become part of the U.S. economy, U.S. corporations are beginning to use some of the Japanese management concepts. Both cultures are gaining an understanding of their differences and are learning to cope. Other group-oriented cultures include the Chinese, Polynesians, Native Americans, and Africans (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005). This group approach assumes that the action taken is conservative and well thought out and that all options were considered in the decision (Berger, 2006). Brazilians, although very gregarious, value the group over the individual, believe in saving face, and are indirect in business affairs. Brazilians also are very flexible; they feel that to be intelligent and imaginative you have to be able to adjust to new developments (Moran et al., 2011). If you are individually oriented, you will be concerned with the best contract for your company and may not be concerned about whether the agreement is good for the other company. If more than one negotiator is on your team, one person will probably control the negotiations and make the final decision concerning the various issues being discussed. Usually, much individual sparring has taken place with members of the other team before the negotiation meeting. The individually oriented person tends to interpret the contract very rigidly. Aramco was losing money on one of its trucking operations in Saudi Arabia. Finally, an Arab was able to buy the franchise and set up his own system. Knowing his own people, he worked out a series of complex reinforcement schedules for each truck and driver. He even penalized them for every valve cap that was missing and rewarded drivers when nothing that was supposed to be there was missing. Oil levels in the crankcase, maintenance schedules, time schedules. everything was examined and recorded. The cost per ton-mile dropped to a third of what it had been under American management. (Weaver, 2000, p. 14) The U.S. culture is probably one of the most individualistic cultures in the world. Another individualistic culture is Latin America. According to Brett (2007), a Latin negotiation is frequently an internal contest of individuals battling for position and power. Other cultures that are very individualistic include the British, French, Australians, and Canadians (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005). Face-to-Face Strategies Face-to-face strategies are concerned with negotiating in person rather than through the mail, fax, telephone, telegraph, lawyers, or other intermediaries. People in many cultures will only negotiate on a face-to-face basis. The Japanese, in particular, do not like to make commitments over the telephone or in writing until after numerous face-to-face meetings have taken place. In many European countries, as well as in India and Japan, contracts are considered an insult to the trust of the partners. They place great importance on face-to-face encounters and oral agreements (Moran et al., 2011). Arabs also place a lot of importance on trust and relationship building; most negotiations will be broken into many different meetings (Alon & Brett, 2007). Some of the face-to-face negotiators’ behaviors include the following: Irritators—phrases that are used repeatedly, such as “generous offer.” Counterproposals —immediate counterproposals made less frequently by skilled negotiators. Argument dilution—using multiple arguments when one is sufficient; a technique used less by skilled negotiators. Reviewing the negotiation—done more often by the more skilled negotiators (Moran et al., 2011). Role of the Media Representatives of the media—television, radio, and newspapers—have a unique position in creating multicultural understanding and misunderstanding. Most of the views you have of other cultures have been gained through the media window. The media have been used in various ways, including supporting and tearing down political candidates and officeholders and defining and distorting numerous messages. Media people also represent a culture and have cultural biases. The media tend to have a stereotypical view of business. Media members have generally presented other cultures through the bias of the U.S. perceptual grid. Advertisers make up the largest group of negotiators in the world—they all compete for consumers’ dollars. Advertisers use media extensively and have learned that differences in culture necessitate different delivery and content if the ad is to successfully promote a product (Prosser, 1985). Movies are big promoters of stereotypes. Many times, the wrong perception of a culture is gained from the subject matter presented in movies or a television series that is broadcast in foreign countries. Many of the stereotypes foreigners have of U.S. Americans (such as all carry guns) are due to movies and television series. Likewise, U.S. Americans hold views of other cultures (such as the belief that all followers of Islam do not drink alcoholic beverages) based on movie and television messages. Because perceptions of other cultures are often acquired through the media and may be brought to the negotiation table, an awareness of the role of the media is important. An example of media influence in the world today is the CNN (Cable News Network) broadcasts during Operation Desert Storm. The antagonists and protagonists in the battle and everyone else in the world who had access to satellite television broadcasts watched the CNN coverage. Another example of media influence is the number of teenagers worldwide who wear jeans, listen to the same music, and watch the same movies. Still more examples of world coverage were the 9/11 attacks in the United States, the war in Afghanistan against the Taliban, and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Chapter 11 Intercultural Negotiation Components Cross-Cultural Negotiation Components Before negotiating with persons from another culture, you should consider the players and the situation, cultural noise, national character, power and authority, perceptions, use of interpreters and translators, gender, environment, and relationships and substantive conflicts. The Players and the Situation According to Fisher (1980), you should learn how the negotiators and negotiating teams were selected. Try to determine the background of the players to anticipate the counterpart’s behavior. Determine the expectations of the other negotiators, their negotiating style, and the role they have played in past negotiations. Attempt to provide an environment that is free of tension and conducive to an exchange of ideas and problem resolution. Successful companies choose the players or team members carefully. If possible, have a local person on the team handle introductions, translations, explanations of cultural diNerences, permits, and navigation of the laws and customs of the country. Many times it is possible to hire such an individual through a local law firm, accountant, bank, or trade organization. If the negotiations are to take place in a hierarchical society, then be sure the people on the negotiating team come from the correct levels of seniority. As Malaysians say, “match eagles with eagles.” Also, if you bring management from your home country, they should be part of the negotiation team. Because many cultures consider relationships vital, changing people after negotiating a contract could be viewed very negatively. A company has to consider how the team members’ negotiating experience, seniority, political aNiliation, gender, ethnic ties, kinship, technical knowledge, and personal attributes will relate to the individuals with whom the team members will be negotiating (Moran, Harris, & Moran, 2011). During negotiation orientations, U.S. Americans need to learn to take advantage of the opportunity to learn more about the personalities of their opponents. U.S. Americans tend to rush through this stage or fail to note its importance. The orientation allows each side to gain valuable information about the opponents. Relationship building is important in many cultures. In many organizations, the salespeople are responsible for the negotiations and relationship development. In an examination of cultural issues at the national, organizational, and individual levels, it was found that culture aNects a salesperson’s negotiating style. Salespeople with high problem-solving orientation are likely to have a problem-solving approach that is more cooperative and leads to relationship building between two organizations. Successfully communicating interculturally is easier for people with a high cultural awareness and sensitivity to changing their actions depending on the cultural environment. How supportive or bureaucratic an organization is also empowers or disempowers an individual to use the problem-solving approach eNectively. A salesperson in a bureaucratic organization loses the ability to use his or her intercultural communication competency due to the rules within the organization, although an individual from a supportive organizational culture is strengthened by the organization to use his or her intercultural communication abilities (Chaisrakeo & Speece, 2004). Cultural Noise Cultural noise includes anything that distracts or interferes with the message being communicated. Nonverbal messages, such as body language, space, and gift giving, can impede or expedite negotiations. For example, giving an inappropriate gift or one wrapped improperly is a form of cultural noise. In addition, what a person says can result in cultural noise, such as negotiators who criticize their competitor or make disparaging comments about their competitors’ products. National Culture Fisher (1980) maintains that “patterns of personality do exist for groups that share a common culture” (p. 37). National character aNects the negotiation process a great deal. As has been mentioned in earlier chapters, people of the United States value time; punctuality is important. To a large degree, they also believe that they determine their own fate. The people of Latin American countries, on the other hand, are less concerned with time and stoically accept their fate. While numerous other diNerences exist between the values of the two cultures, these two attitudes could hamper negotiations considerably regardless of the attractiveness of the terms oNered. Latin Americans ethnically are also a mixture of indigenous, European, Pacific Rim, and African heritages. Ethnic identity can be very personal in diNerent parts of the world. In Kenya, the Maasai leaders have been negotiating without the Magadi community members concerning adding a second soda mining plant at Magadi. The Magadi community leaders say the Maasai leaders hijacked the process. It is not unusual for patronage and bribery to take place in Magadi. Workers at the Magadi Soda Company also have problems with company management concerning harsh working conditions, poor medical coverage, lack of employment opportunities, nepotism, and lack of water, education, and security (Tiampati, 2004). This is one example of national character and indigenous people having problems. Research on the impact of national culture on negotiation outcomes has shown that U.S.– Japanese cultural diNerences have limited the joint gains of the negotiation partners. The researchers attributed the negotiation shortcomings to the lack of knowledge of their counterparts’ national cultural priorities and the necessity of such an understanding (Brett & Okumura, 1998). Equitable governance structure, preferences for negotiation that integrates the negotiators’ interests, and the dyad’s collectivism to each other have all been found as important to the success of an alliance (Cai, Wilson, & Drake, 2000; Tinsley, 1998). Studying a national culture in preparation for negotiations will give you the central tendencies of a population, but it may not give you the within-group or individual variance you may need to negotiate successfully. It also does not tell you how many cultures may exist in the individuals with whom you are negotiating. National culture is only one of the cultures that we all carry within ourselves. Other cultures include professional, social class, ethnic, regional, gender, and organizational/corporate (Sebenius, 2002b). Power and Authority Power is the ability to influence others; authority is the power to give commands and make final decisions. With the ability to influence comes the responsibility of the action taken. Power can make people and companies dependent or independent. Power can be an advantage or a disadvantage, depending on how it is used, but it must be used within the bounds of moral and ethical behavior (Lewicki, Saunders, & Barry, 2011). Negotiators use power to influence strategies. Direct influence includes questioning, oNering, posturing, and persuading. Indirect influence strategies include appeals for sympathy, references to personal stakes in the negotiation, and references to status. Direct power strategies are meant to help the opponent; indirect strategies are appeals to the opponent to help you. The use of direct or indirect influence strategies is diNerent from culture to culture. For high joint gains, information sharing should be used immediately; posturing and persuading should not be used late in the negotiations (Brett, 2007). For power to be meaningful, it has to be accepted. Authority (associated with power) is how an alliance chooses to conduct decision making, strategy setting, and influence over each other. When you accept power, you are giving it the authority to exist to the extent the control is acceptable to you. The personal constructs of the receiver of the power determine the strength of the power exerted. To create a synergism between global business partners, the firms must have balanced authority. Balanced authority allows each partner to share the decision-making role (Bradenburger & NalebuN, 1996). If one of the partners seeks an authority advantage over its partner, this is normally done by claiming to possess superior resources or a superior position in the alliance. The alliance will probably fall apart (Teegen, 1998). The incentives exist to collaborate and at the same time compete with their alliance partner both during and after negotiations (Bradenburger & NalebuN, 1996). The balance of authority between partners positively aNects the performance of the alliance (Saxton, 1997). If each partner has authority over its areas of expertise or specialization, generally you will have a successful dyad. Many researchers have found that an unbalanced authority relationship or asymmetrical relationship is inherently unstable and tends to collapse (Anderson & Weitz, 1989; Lorange & Roos, 1991; Nooteboom, Berger, & Noorderhaven, 1997; Teegen & Doh, 2002). An example of the use of power and authority might occur in a meeting between the Chinese, who do not believe in a time schedule for negotiations, and the time-conscious U.S. Americans. The Chinese have the power of time on their side and possibly could make the U.S. Americans feel pressured to make compromises. Japanese negotiators have observed that they can make U.S. negotiators agree to concessions because they can “outwait” the impatient Americans (Engholm, 1991) (see Figure 11-1). Figure 11-1 The Negotiation Waiting Game It is only with knowledge of the relative power of those negotiating that someone can determine if a deal is possible or not, will know whether to continue to negotiate, or if it is time to accept an oNer (Brett, 2007). Perception Perception is the process by which individuals ascribe meaning to their environment; it is strongly aNected by their culture. The stress of negotiation can cause misperception, but more often it is due to the diNerent meanings of verbal and nonverbal cues in the cultures involved. For example, U.S. Americans might “talk” with their hands to clarify or exaggerate a particular point during negotiations with a German negotiating team. The Germans may incorrectly interpret the motions as spontaneous emotional displays that they consider impolite. Likewise, if companies were to send only one person to negotiate with the Japanese, the Japanese would assume the company was not serious about negotiating an agreement (Lewicki et al., 2011). An example of diNerences in perception: A group of U.S. businessmen are visiting China exploring the possibility of building a factory in China. While the Chinese are showing them sites, the U.S. people ask about the level of the available water pressure. The Chinese are perplexed and ask why. The U.S. people say because they need to be sure the water pressure is suNicient to fight fires for insurance purposes. The Chinese answer that they have suNicient water pressure but want to know why the U.S. people are speaking of bad luck before they begin the project because that will assure bad luck. What one culture sees as planning and being necessary, another culture may perceive diNerently. (Ping, 2000) Stimuli have both a physical size and a socioenvironmental meaning that can be diNerent for each individual within and across cultures. Our experiences determine what stimuli we are sensitive or insensitive to. Although it is obvious to the Japanese and U.S. Americans that the two cultures are very diNerent, it may not be so obvious that U.S. citizens and Canadians also have many cultural diNerences. Sometimes thinking we are alike can be more dangerous than knowing we are diNerent and being careful of our verbal and nonverbal behaviors. Perceptions of alliance negotiation objectives, particularly uncertainty avoidance, have been found to cause problems in negotiations (Schneider & De Meyer, 1991). Interpreters and Translators Language considerations when negotiating include the following: Language serves as a key to culture. Who should be at the table and conversing? What is the social identity of those at the table? Facilitated dialogue is a slow process. (D’Amico & Rubinstein, 1999) Using interpreters and translators can aNect the negotiation process both positively and negatively. On the positive side, you have more time to think about your next statement while your previous statement is being translated. Because of the time it takes to translate, you are also more careful to state the message succinctly. On the negative side, because language and culture are intertwined, translators may not convey the intended message due to the nuances of the languages involved. Additional suggestions for using interpreters and translators were given in chapter 5. Women as International Negotiators Although in some countries women are not typically included on negotiation teams, in many countries they are considered as equals at the negotiation table. These countries include Denmark, England, France, India, Israel, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United States. In these countries women are welcomed additions to international negotiation teams since women are acknowledged as important contributors to a team’s success because of their interpersonal skills, patience, social skills, sympathy, understanding, listening skills, and willingness to accept the values of other people. Research confirms that women actually have an advantage over men during negotiations because they are more adept than men at reading nonverbal messages and are therefore able to gain information from the body language, voice pitch, intonation, and eye movements of other team members. In addition, the fact that women are often viewed as less threatening and less competitive than men can be advantageous in problem-solving situations (Martin & Chaney, 2012; Wilen, 2000). “Women traveling internationally report that they often receive more special treatment than their male colleagues: invitations to dine at special restaurants; additional sightseeing tours; and more courtesies, such as airport pick up and drop oN.” (Wilen, 2000, pp. 175– 176) To assure that they are treated professionally when negotiating in international situations, women should dress appropriately as people in many cultures are quite conscious of appearance. Dressing conservatively in dark, high-quality suits (preferably skirted suits) with leather handbag and dark leather medium-heeled shoes is recommended in many countries of Asia, Europe, and Latin America. Simple elegance in attire in traditional, conservative colors and styles is considered preferable to clothing in bright fashion colors and the latest styles. Further, casual attire for shopping and sightseeing should be conservative and in muted colors. A U.S. businesswoman, who was making a presentation in Japan on Valentine’s Day, wore a red dress for the occasion. She apparently did not know that red is not worn for business in Japan; it is considered too provocative. Japanese audience members were shocked; they just sat and stared. The businesswoman’s attire was totally inappropriate and was viewed as an insult. (Wilen, 2000) In addition to wearing appropriate attire, women who wish to be successful on international negotiating teams should become knowledgeable about issues to be discussed and should expand their knowledge of the language of their foreign counterparts. Women should research the customs, including attitudes toward women, of the country with which they plan to conduct business and be prepared to adjust their attitudes and behaviors to conform to expectations of the people of the country. For example, in some cultures older men are paternalistic and protective of women; thus, women should not be oNended by such treatment (Hodge, 2000; Martin & Chaney, 2012). Additional suggestions for successful experiences as female members of international negotiating teams include behaving professionally with quiet self-assurance and selfconfidence, being patient and compassionate, showing respect for the host culture and their customs, recognizing the importance of humility, demonstrating a cooperative attitude, and having a good sense of humor (Axtell, Briggs, Corcoran, & Lamb, 1997). If women establish their experience, competence, and authority prior to negotiating internationally, they will be given professional treatment by foreign executives, who are aware of the important role that women play in U.S. businesses (Hodge, 2000). Environment The environment in which the negotiations take place is particularly important for intercultural negotiations. If meetings are held at the oNice of one of the parties, then that party has control and responsibility as host to the other party. When one of the parties is at home, they have “home court” advantage—the advantage of access to information and human resources. When negotiators are on their home territory, they are likely to be more assertive than when in the host’s territory. A reason for this may be conditioning. We are taught that it is rude to be impolite to someone in his or her home or oNice. The host negotiators may also have a feeling of superiority because the other team is coming to them (Lewicki et al., 2011). One way to avoid this competitiveness is to choose a neutral site. The neutrality of the site eliminates the psychological advantage of the home ground. A U.S. company was negotiating with a Saudi company. The Saudi company determined all of the environmental factors: messengers were used between the negotiators, lists of questions and points were given for consideration, and the seating chart was dictated by the Saudis. The U.S. company conceded the process; however, they felt that it showed flexibility and interest rather than weakness. It depends on the two cultures. Between two hierarchical cultures it would signal weakness; between egalitarian cultures it signals flexibility. (Brett, 2007) The actual room where the negotiations take place could play an important role if the room makes one of the negotiating teams feel comfortable and the other team uncomfortable. Cultural diNerences need to be considered when choosing the site. Details to consider include the physical arrangement of the room, the distance between people and teams, and the formal or informal atmosphere of the room. The arrangement of the table and chairs can also make a diNerence. Some cultures ascribe a title to people according to the seating arrangement. Those same cultures also would expect the other team to have the same number of negotiators and negotiators of equal rank to theirs. The Japanese particularly have been surprised when the United States sends a younger person of a lower rank to meet with a top oNicial of their company. Because the Japanese conduct side negotiations with their counterpart in the opposing company, it is necessary for everyone to know his or her counterparts. Two ways of arranging seating in a meeting to accomplish this purpose are shown in Figures 11-2 and 11-3 (Funakawa, 1997). Relationship and Substantive Conflicts Being able to identify the conflict in which you are involved is important. Issues form out of substantive and relationship-based diNerences. The substantive issues include use and control of resources. The relationship-based issues center on the long-term friendship or partnership. Negotiations should be conducted in such a way as to protect future relations. The conflict may be seen from the point of view of both negotiators or may be seen from the point of view of only one negotiator. The conflict may involve a deadlock, behavior diNerence, lack of a common goal, communication problems, poor translators, misunderstandings, secrets, lack of feedback, or unfamiliar tactics. Some of these factors may be due to the negotiators’ perceptions of reality and their unconscious ability to block out information that is inconsistent with their cultural beliefs. Negotiation breakdown or deadlock may be identified by the negotiators’ repeating themselves using the same arguments. The negotiators may not be saying anything constructive but merely allowing the passage of time, or nonnegotiation tactics may be used to try to change the attitudes of the other side (Brett, 2007). Jervis (2000) defines cognitive dissonance as follows: “Two elements are in a dissonant relation if, considering these two alone, the obverse of one element would follow from the other” (p. 442). A simpler definition is that cognitive dissonance is the psychological conflict or anxiety that results from inconsistencies between what one does and what one believes. Cognitive dissonance, logic, and reasoning diNerences normally due to cultural diNerences are often the focus of such conflicts because your perspectives are based on your cultural training, and your oppositions’ perspectives are based on their cultural training. Cognitive dissonance may generate the following emotions and actions: frustration, regression, fixation, resignation, repression, projection, and aggression (Cohen, 1998). If you are aware of the possible cultural shocks before entering negotiations, it will be easier to adapt your negotiation style to accommodate both your own and others’ ethnocentrism and maintain your patience while dealing with the diNerences. Part of negotiation is being able to discern what is going on mentally with the negotiators on the other side of the table. By Figure 11-2 Seating Arrangement A Figure 11-3 Seating Arrangement B studying the psychological predisposition of the other culture, you will be familiar with at least some of the variations between the two cultures. Communicating adequately is diNicult when the cultural programming of the negotiators diNers. Within a culture, there is normally an internal consistency to the beliefs and values of that culture. In intercultural negotiation, people need to be cognizant of not projecting their cultural thinking onto the other side. Be sure to discuss every point and not attribute motives to the other side that may, in fact, be nonexistent. Cultures are diNerent concerning how they conceptualize information, how they use information, and how they associate causes and eNects. A sales executive who worked in Vietnam had been meeting with a potential customer to gain his business. The Vietnamese person was very diNicult to convince about the advantages of the product, and it did not seem as if a contract would be signed. Later the sales executive was walking with his boss to the tennis court and ran into the potential customer. The customer knew his boss and told him to come to the customer’s oNice the next day to sign the contract. (Verluyten, 2002) To prepare for behavioral diNerences, you must train yourself to perceive the diNerences and adjust your reasoning accordingly. Developing “an eNicient and coherent mental crossreferencing system” (Fisher, 1997, p. 22) that automatically adjusts your reactions saves time and money and avoids problems. Although it is not possible in the international setting, much less in our day-to-day activities, to have a built-in response to all situations, if you build a mechanism to screen, sort, code, and store diNerences, you are able to respond more quickly. In other words, you develop a new mindset. This new cognitive structure allows us to share a defined culture and way of acting and thinking. Because our cognitive structures are programmed to our own cultures, reprogramming disturbs the existing system. Our mind inherently tries to make cognitive dissonance fit our current cognitive system rather than expanding our cognitive system by recognizing the diNerence and developing more storage cognitively (Fisher, 1997). Lifestyles within cultures vary, and so does the vocabulary that develops to explain the culture. When cultures are diNerent, the words that develop are also diNerent. The subjective meaning of the translation can be very important. The United States is a very individual-oriented society. The Japanese equivalent of the word for individual has a negative connotation because the Japanese are a group-oriented culture. Education in the United States means academic achievement and is associated with school attendance. In the Spanish culture, however, education includes being polite, well bred, and sensitive as well as covering school attendance and academic achievement. The idea of “fair play” is an example of a concept that does not exist in any other language, yet is used frequently in U.S. business, sports, and other aspects of life. Because fair play is a culturally bound phrase, other cultures cannot be expected to understand its meaning. Gestures, tone of voice, and cadence further complicate the translation situation (Cohen, 1998). A study by Planken (2005, p. 386) indicates that the areas you can talk about safely during negotiations involve: The initiator—greetings, enquiry about how the other person feels, introductions, business card exchange, and personal work history The business relationship—prenegotiation contract and history of existing corporate relationship Future business—future cooperation and future dealings The business environment—markets, target groups, competitors, and the economy Product information—product characteristics, manufacturing information, product range, and delivery Corporate information—management; company history; core activities such as distribution, promotion, personnel, or pricing policy The invitation—lunch, drinks, coNee, and company/factory visit Nonbusiness topics—travel, sports, news, culture, language, hobbies, holidays, and family Planken (2005) also found that younger, aspiring negotiators used “you” more than the experienced negotiators did (indicates other orientedness); however, both established negotiators and aspiring negotiators used the “we,” which shows inclusiveness. Stereotypes That ANect Intercultural Negotiations The way people of a culture view themselves and the way they are actually viewed by persons of other cultures often have an impact on intercultural negotiations. (A discussion of stereotypes of persons of selected cultures was included in chapter 1.) Schneider and Barsoux (2002) point out the disparities that exist between the way U.S. people think of themselves and the way they are viewed by foreigners. U.S. Persons’ Views Foreign ers’ Views of U.S. Persons • Informal, friendly, casual Undisciplined, too personal, familiar • • Egalitarian Insensitive to status • • Direct, aggressive rude, oppressive • Blunt, • ENicient Obsessed with time, opportunistic • • Goal/achievement oriented Promise more than they deliver • • Profit oriented Materialistic • • Resourceful, ingenious oriented; deals are more important than people • Work • Individualistic, progressive absorbed, equating the “new” with “best” • Self- • Dynamic, find identity in work Driven • • Enthusiastic, prefer hard-sell Deceptive, fearsome • • Open untrustworthy • Weak, Negotiators from the United States should, therefore, take into consideration this disparity in viewpoints and make a concerted eNort to change some of the negative stereotypes, such as being rude and obsessed with time, when interacting during negotiations. Comparative Negotiation Styles Intercultural negotiators need to be selected carefully. People who can negotiate well in their own culture may not be successful at negotiating interculturally. Intercultural negotiators need to be able to ascertain where their opposition “is coming from.” The negotiator must be able to grasp the situation and be able to recognize whether the opposition’s negotiators are bound by their culture or are taking on some of the opposing cultural characteristics. Being able to discern role behavior and knowing the proper deference is important in intercultural negotiations (Moran & Stripp, 1991). A brief comparison of the negotiation styles of diNerent cultures is shown in Table 11-1 (Elashmawi & Harris, 1998; Ruch, 1989). Characteristics of ENective Negotiators ENective negotiators are observant, patient, adaptable, and good listeners. They appreciate the humor in a situation but are careful to use humor only when appropriate. Good negotiators are mentally sharp. They think before they speak, and they are careful to speak in an agreeable, civil manner. Businesspeople who negotiate internationally know that negotiations are carried out consistently within a culture but that cultures have their own distinct negotiating styles (Berger, 2006). They do their homework on the countries with which they are negotiating and become knowledgeable about their history, customs, values, and beliefs. ENective negotiators know that in many cultures history is revered, and displaying knowledge of the country’s past can do much to pave the way to smooth negotiations. Good negotiators praise what is praiseworthy and refrain from criticizing anything about the negotiators or their country. They keep their promises and always negotiate in good faith (Sebenius, 2002a). Negotiators, however, cannot escape their own cultural mindsets. Even professional training cannot erase the deep-seated perceptions from childhood (Cohen, 1998). These perceptions must not be vocalized, however, because nothing is to be gained by denouncing the behavior or customs of others simply because they do not fit your cultural mindset. Because such factors as social skills, gender, age, experience in intercultural relations, and background may be important in a specific culture, considering these factors when selecting negotiators is recommended. Noted negotiator Dr. Chester L. Karrass says, “In business, you don’t get what you deserve; you get what you negotiate. Why take ‘no’ for an answer? Successful people don’t. They get what they want by negotiating better deals for both parties.” (Karrass, 1996) Importance of Protocol in Intercultural Negotiations Protocol is important in understanding which negotiation strategy should be followed. Leaptrott (1996) gives three fundamental classifications of protocol: tribal, collective, and pluralist. Tribal involves the family unit, close relationships, and a connection to the past. Collectivism is an extension of tribal and includes larger groups, such as a town, nation, or race. The pluralist society has many diNerent groups and combinations of groups, and individuals are free to join those they want to join. Most countries fit one of these three protocol classifications. Table 11-2 includes a comparison of the three protocol types. Parts of China, Africa, and India are examples of countries that are still basically tribal because they are agrarian societies. A person’s word is more important to building a relationship than anything else in tribal cultures. Collectivistic cultures are also very concerned with relationships; examples can be found in Japan, Greece, Spain, and Indonesia. Examples of pluralist societies include the United States, United Kingdom, and France. The three styles of protocol are very diNerent in some areas and similar in others. This makes the way the variables of policy, interaction, deliberation, and outcome are used vary, depending on the two cultures involved in the negotiation. In addition, remembering to consider the situation from the other culture’s viewpoint yet maintaining your own cultural viewpoint will avoid problems in many instances. Although all cultures share the need for honesty, courage, respect for human dignity, fairness, and love, these values can have very diNerent meanings in diNerent cultures (Samovar, Porter, & McDaniel, 2009). Reality is diNicult to assess when two cultures do not share the same definition of needs. If the expectations are not met and the perceptions are wrong, disastrous business consequences are usually the result (Ping, 2000). Group versus Individual Orientation Group orientation ideally results in a solution that is good for everyone because all points of view are supposedly considered. Negotiations with group-oriented negotiators are detail oriented to determine the proper solution. Your identity belongs to the group of which you are a member. The group has to reach a consensus on any and all decisions, and this probably is not done during the negotiation sessions. The individuals in the group avoid making an individual decision. Individuals who are not group oriented may feel that grouporiented negotiators appear to stall, are not interested in the negotiations, and give ambiguous statements. Group-oriented cultures tend to view contracts as flexible (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005). Japan is one of the most group-oriented cultures in the world, perhaps because of the number of years they were physically secluded from other cultures; however, given the number of years they have now interacted with other cultures, many Japanese have adapted very well to diNerent negotiation strategies. Although the Japanese culture is quite diNerent from that of the United States, Japan and the United States do have a common work ethic—both applaud hard work. Even though the original management styles were very diNerent, as joint ventures and subsidiaries of Japanese companies become part of the U.S. economy, U.S. corporations are beginning to use some of the Japanese management concepts. Both cultures are gaining an understanding of their diNerences and are learning to cope. Other group-oriented cultures include the Chinese, Polynesians, Native Americans, and Africans (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005). This group approach assumes that the action taken is conservative and well thought out and that all options were considered in the decision (Berger, 2006). Brazilians, although very gregarious, value the group over the individual, believe in saving face, and are indirect in business aNairs. Brazilians also are very flexible; they feel that to be intelligent and imaginative you have to be able to adjust to new developments (Moran et al., 2011). If you are individually oriented, you will be concerned with the best contract for your company and may not be concerned about whether the agreement is good for the other company. If more than one negotiator is on your team, one person will probably control the negotiations and make the final decision concerning the various issues being discussed. Usually, much individual sparring has taken place with members of the other team before the negotiation meeting. The individually oriented person tends to interpret the contract very rigidly. Aramco was losing money on one of its trucking operations in Saudi Arabia. Finally, an Arab was able to buy the franchise and set up his own system. Knowing his own people, he worked out a series of complex reinforcement schedules for each truck and driver. He even penalized them for every valve cap that was missing and rewarded drivers when nothing that was supposed to be there was missing. Oil levels in the crankcase, maintenance schedules, time schedules. everything was examined and recorded. The cost per ton-mile dropped to a third of what it had been under American management. (Weaver, 2000, p. 14) The U.S. culture is probably one of the most individualistic cultures in the world. Another individualistic culture is Latin America. According to Brett (2007), a Latin negotiation is frequently an internal contest of individuals battling for position and power. Other cultures that are very individualistic include the British, French, Australians, and Canadians (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005). Face-to-Face Strategies Face-to-face strategies are concerned with negotiating in person rather than through the mail, fax, telephone, telegraph, lawyers, or other intermediaries. People in many cultures will only negotiate on a face-to-face basis. The Japanese, in particular, do not like to make commitments over the telephone or in writing until after numerous face-to-face meetings have taken place. In many European countries, as well as in India and Japan, contracts are considered an insult to the trust of the partners. They place great importance on face-toface encounters and oral agreements (Moran et al., 2011). Arabs also place a lot of importance on trust and relationship building; most negotiations will be broken into many diNerent meetings (Alon & Brett, 2007). Some of the face-to-face negotiators’ behaviors include the following: Irritators—phrases that are used repeatedly, such as “generous oNer.” Counterproposals —immediate counterproposals made less frequently by skilled negotiators. Argument dilution—using multiple arguments when one is suNicient; a technique used less by skilled negotiators. Reviewing the negotiation—done more often by the more skilled negotiators (Moran et al., 2011). Role of the Media Representatives of the media—television, radio, and newspapers—have a unique position in creating multicultural understanding and misunderstanding. Most of the views you have of other cultures have been gained through the media window. The media have been used in various ways, including supporting and tearing down political candidates and oNiceholders and defining and distorting numerous messages. Media people also represent a culture and have cultural biases. The media tend to have a stereotypical view of business. Media members have generally presented other cultures through the bias of the U.S. perceptual grid. Advertisers make up the largest group of negotiators in the world—they all compete for consumers’ dollars. Advertisers use media extensively and have learned that diNerences in culture necessitate diNerent delivery and content if the ad is to successfully promote a product (Prosser, 1985). Movies are big promoters of stereotypes. Many times, the wrong perception of a culture is gained from the subject matter presented in movies or a television series that is broadcast in foreign countries. Many of the stereotypes foreigners have of U.S. Americans (such as all carry guns) are due to movies and television series. Likewise, U.S. Americans hold views of other cultures (such as the belief that all followers of Islam do not drink alcoholic beverages) based on movie and television messages. Because perceptions of other cultures are often acquired through the media and may be brought to the negotiation table, an awareness of the role of the media is important. An example of media influence in the world today is the CNN (Cable News Network) broadcasts during Operation Desert Storm. The antagonists and protagonists in the battle and everyone else in the world who had access to satellite television broadcasts watched the CNN coverage. Another example of media influence is the number of teenagers worldwide who wear jeans, listen to the same music, and watch the same movies. Still more examples of world coverage were the 9/11 attacks in the United States, the war in Afghanistan against the Taliban, and Operation Iraqi Freedom. 
Purchase answer to see full attachment