CULTURE AND NEGOTIATION

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

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

 

GEERT HOFSTEDE ANALYSIS TO TURKEY

 (PDI): Power Distance Index

 (IDV): Individualism

 (MAS): Masculinity

 (UAI): Uncertainty Avoidance Index

 (LTO): Long-Term Orientation

Religion in Turkey:

         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.

CROSS CULTURAL NEGOTIATION

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.

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 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 at 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:

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.

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 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."

               

NEGOTIATING GLOBALLY

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

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.

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, 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.

NEGOTIATION PROCESS

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 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

NEGOTIATION TACTICS

        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

NONVERBAL TACTICS

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

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.

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.

WHOSE 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.

                     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 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?

CONCLUSION

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!

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

REFERENCES

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