INTERNATIONAL AND CROSS-CULTURAL NEGOTIATION
For many people and organization, international negotiation has become a norm rather than an exotic activity that only occasionally occurs. In the last 20 years, the frequency of international negotiation has increased rapidly bolstering the interests in international communication. However, there has been numerous inputs, from both academic and practitioner perspectives about the complexities of negotiation across borders, be it with a person from different country, culture, or region. Although the term culture has many possible definitions, we will use it to refer to the shared values and beliefs of a group of people. Country can have more than one culture, and culture can span national borders. As we have examined earlier, negotiation is a social process that is embedded in a much lager context. This context increases in complexity when more than one culture or country is involved, making international negotiation a highly complicated process.1
Phatak and Habib suggest that two overall contexts have an influence on international negotiations:
THE ENVIRONMENT CONTEXTS:
Salacuse identified six factors in the environmental context that make international negotiations more challenging than domestic negotiations: and these include the following;
Political and legal pluralism.
International economics.
Foreign government and bureaucracies.
Instability.
Ideology.
Culture.2
Phatak and Habib have suggested additional factor which is:
External stakeholders.3
IMMEDIATE COTEXTS:
At many points in our discussions, we have discussed aspects of negotiation that relate to immediate contexts factors, but without considering their international implications, at this junction we will list the concepts from the Phatak and Habib model of international negotiation. And the immediate contexts are:
Relative bargaining power.
Level of conflict.
Relationship between negotiators.
Desire outcomes.
Immediate stakeholders.
CONCEPTUALIZING CULTURE AND NEGOTIATION.
The most frequently studied aspect of international negotiation is culture and the amount of research on the effects of culture n negotiation has increased substantially in the last 20 years.4 There are many different meanings of the concept of culture, but all definition share two aspects.5 First, culture is a group-level phenomenon. That means that a defined group of people shares beliefs, values, and behavioural expectations. The second common element of culture is that cultural beliefs, values, and behavioural expectations are learned and passed on to new members of the group.
It is also important to remember that negotiation outcomes, both domestically and internationally, are determined by several different factors. While cultural differences are clearly important, negotiators must guard against assigning too much responsibility to cultural factors.6 Dialdin, Brett, Okumura, and Lytle have labelled the tendency to overlook the importance of the situational factors in favour of cultural explanations the cultural attribution error.7 It is important to recognize that even though culture describes group-level characteristics, it doesn’t mean that every member of a culture will share those characteristics equally.8 In fact, there is likely to be a wide of a variety of behavioural differences within cultures as there is between cultures.9 Although knowledge of the other party’s culture may provide an initial clue about what to expect at the bargaining table, negotiators need to be open to adjusting their view very quickly as new information is gathered.10
The two important ways that culture has been conceptualized are:
Culture as shared value
And, culture as dialectic.11
THE INFLUENCE OF CULTURE ON NEGOTIATION:
Managerial perspectives
Cultural differences have been suggested to influence negotiation in several ways. Now let’s examine 10 different ways that culture can influence negotiation.12
Definition of negotiation: the fundamental definition of negotiation, what is negotiable, and what occurs when we negotiate can differ greatly across cultures.13 (i.e.) American way and the Japanese ways of viewing negotiations.
Negotiation opportunity: culture influences the way negotiators perceive an opportunity as distributive versus integrative. Negotiators in North America are predisposed to perceive negotiation as being fundamentally distributive. 14 But this is not the case outside North America.
Selection of negotiators: The criterion used to select who will participate in a negotiation is different across cultures. These criteria can include such subject matter as age, seniority, gender, status, etc.
Protocol: cultures differ in the degree to which protocol, or the formality of the relations between the two negotiating parties, is important.
Communication: cultures influence how people communicate; both verbally and nonverbally. There are also differences in body language across cultures.
Time sensitivity: cultures largely determine what time means and how it affects negotiations.15 For example, comparing North American time consciousness with that of China or Latin Americans.
Risk propensity: Cultures vary in the extent to which they are willing to take risks. Some cultures tend to produce bureaucratic, conservative decision makers who want a great deal of information before making decisions.
Groups versus individuals: cultures differ according to whether they emphasize the individual or the group.eg the United State is very much an individual-oriented culture.
Nature of agreements: culture also has an important effect both on concluding agreements and on what form the negotiated agreement takes.
Emotionalism: culture appears to influence the extent to which negotiators display emotions. 16 These emotions may be use as tactics, or may be a natural response to positive and negative circumstances during negotiation.17
THEN INFLUENCE OF CULTURE ON NEGOTIATION:
Research perspectives
A conceptual model of where culture may influence negotiation has been developed by different scholars, for example Jeanne Brett, suggested that culture will influence, setting of priorities, and strategies, the identification of the potential for integrative agreement, and the pattern of interaction between negotiators. Researchers also explore how intracultural and cross cultural factors will influence the outcome of an agreement. It has also been suggested that overall negotiation process and outcome will be influenced by cultures
CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE NEGOTIATING STRATEGIES
Stephen Weiss has proposed a useful way of thinking about the options we have when negotiating with someone from another culture.18 Weiss observes that negotiators may choose from among up to eight different culturally responsive strategies. These strategies may be used individually or sequentially, and the strategies can be switched as the negotiation progresses. Weiss’s culturally responsive strategies can be arranged into three groups, based on the level of familiarity (.low, moderate, high):
LOW FAMLIARITY:
Employ agents or advisers (unilateral strategy)
Bring in a mediator (joint strategy)
Induce the other negotiator to use your approach (joint strategy)
MODERATE FAMILIARITY:
Adapt to the other negotiator’s approach (unilateral strategy)
Coordinate adjustment (joint strategy)
HIGH FAMILIARITY:
Embrace the other negotiator’s approach (unilateral strategy)
Improvise an approach (joint strategy)
Effect symphony (joint strategy)
Lastly, there has been considerate research on the effects of culture on negotiation in the last decade. Findings suggest that culture has important effects on several aspects of negotiations, including planning, the negotiation process, information exchange, negotiation cognition, and negotiator perception of ethical behaviour.
Endnotes
1. Sebenius, 2002a.
2. Salacuse, 1988.
3. Phatak and Habib, 1996.
4. Brett, 2001, and Gelfand and Dyer, 2002.
5. See Avruch, 2000.
6. Rubin and Sanders, 1991; Sebenius, 2002b; Weiss, 2003.
7. Dialdin, Kopelman, Adair, Brett, Okumura, and Lytle, 1999.
8. Avruch, 2000; Sebenius, 2002b.
9. Rubin and Sander, 1991.
10. Adlar, 2002.
11. Janosik, 1987.
12. Foster, 1992; Hendon and Hendon, 1990; Moran and Stripp, 1991; Salacuse, 1998.
13. See Ohanya, 1999; Yook and Albert, 1998.
14. Thompson, 1990.
15. See Mayfield, Mayfield, Martin, and Herbig, 1997.
16. Salacuse, 1998.
17. See Kumar, 2004.
For many people and organization, international negotiation has become a norm rather than an exotic activity that only occasionally occurs. In the last 20 years, the frequency of international negotiation has increased rapidly bolstering the interests in international communication. However, there has been numerous inputs, from both academic and practitioner perspectives about the complexities of negotiation across borders, be it with a person from different country, culture, or region. Although the term culture has many possible definitions, we will use it to refer to the shared values and beliefs of a group of people. Country can have more than one culture, and culture can span national borders. As we have examined earlier, negotiation is a social process that is embedded in a much lager context. This context increases in complexity when more than one culture or country is involved, making international negotiation a highly complicated process.1
Phatak and Habib suggest that two overall contexts have an influence on international negotiations:
THE ENVIRONMENT CONTEXTS:
Salacuse identified six factors in the environmental context that make international negotiations more challenging than domestic negotiations: and these include the following;
Political and legal pluralism.
International economics.
Foreign government and bureaucracies.
Instability.
Ideology.
Culture.2
Phatak and Habib have suggested additional factor which is:
External stakeholders.3
IMMEDIATE COTEXTS:
At many points in our discussions, we have discussed aspects of negotiation that relate to immediate contexts factors, but without considering their international implications, at this junction we will list the concepts from the Phatak and Habib model of international negotiation. And the immediate contexts are:
Relative bargaining power.
Level of conflict.
Relationship between negotiators.
Desire outcomes.
Immediate stakeholders.
CONCEPTUALIZING CULTURE AND NEGOTIATION.
The most frequently studied aspect of international negotiation is culture and the amount of research on the effects of culture n negotiation has increased substantially in the last 20 years.4 There are many different meanings of the concept of culture, but all definition share two aspects.5 First, culture is a group-level phenomenon. That means that a defined group of people shares beliefs, values, and behavioural expectations. The second common element of culture is that cultural beliefs, values, and behavioural expectations are learned and passed on to new members of the group.
It is also important to remember that negotiation outcomes, both domestically and internationally, are determined by several different factors. While cultural differences are clearly important, negotiators must guard against assigning too much responsibility to cultural factors.6 Dialdin, Brett, Okumura, and Lytle have labelled the tendency to overlook the importance of the situational factors in favour of cultural explanations the cultural attribution error.7 It is important to recognize that even though culture describes group-level characteristics, it doesn’t mean that every member of a culture will share those characteristics equally.8 In fact, there is likely to be a wide of a variety of behavioural differences within cultures as there is between cultures.9 Although knowledge of the other party’s culture may provide an initial clue about what to expect at the bargaining table, negotiators need to be open to adjusting their view very quickly as new information is gathered.10
The two important ways that culture has been conceptualized are:
Culture as shared value
And, culture as dialectic.11
THE INFLUENCE OF CULTURE ON NEGOTIATION:
Managerial perspectives
Cultural differences have been suggested to influence negotiation in several ways. Now let’s examine 10 different ways that culture can influence negotiation.12
Definition of negotiation: the fundamental definition of negotiation, what is negotiable, and what occurs when we negotiate can differ greatly across cultures.13 (i.e.) American way and the Japanese ways of viewing negotiations.
Negotiation opportunity: culture influences the way negotiators perceive an opportunity as distributive versus integrative. Negotiators in North America are predisposed to perceive negotiation as being fundamentally distributive. 14 But this is not the case outside North America.
Selection of negotiators: The criterion used to select who will participate in a negotiation is different across cultures. These criteria can include such subject matter as age, seniority, gender, status, etc.
Protocol: cultures differ in the degree to which protocol, or the formality of the relations between the two negotiating parties, is important.
Communication: cultures influence how people communicate; both verbally and nonverbally. There are also differences in body language across cultures.
Time sensitivity: cultures largely determine what time means and how it affects negotiations.15 For example, comparing North American time consciousness with that of China or Latin Americans.
Risk propensity: Cultures vary in the extent to which they are willing to take risks. Some cultures tend to produce bureaucratic, conservative decision makers who want a great deal of information before making decisions.
Groups versus individuals: cultures differ according to whether they emphasize the individual or the group.eg the United State is very much an individual-oriented culture.
Nature of agreements: culture also has an important effect both on concluding agreements and on what form the negotiated agreement takes.
Emotionalism: culture appears to influence the extent to which negotiators display emotions. 16 These emotions may be use as tactics, or may be a natural response to positive and negative circumstances during negotiation.17
THEN INFLUENCE OF CULTURE ON NEGOTIATION:
Research perspectives
A conceptual model of where culture may influence negotiation has been developed by different scholars, for example Jeanne Brett, suggested that culture will influence, setting of priorities, and strategies, the identification of the potential for integrative agreement, and the pattern of interaction between negotiators. Researchers also explore how intracultural and cross cultural factors will influence the outcome of an agreement. It has also been suggested that overall negotiation process and outcome will be influenced by cultures
CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE NEGOTIATING STRATEGIES
Stephen Weiss has proposed a useful way of thinking about the options we have when negotiating with someone from another culture.18 Weiss observes that negotiators may choose from among up to eight different culturally responsive strategies. These strategies may be used individually or sequentially, and the strategies can be switched as the negotiation progresses. Weiss’s culturally responsive strategies can be arranged into three groups, based on the level of familiarity (.low, moderate, high):
LOW FAMLIARITY:
Employ agents or advisers (unilateral strategy)
Bring in a mediator (joint strategy)
Induce the other negotiator to use your approach (joint strategy)
MODERATE FAMILIARITY:
Adapt to the other negotiator’s approach (unilateral strategy)
Coordinate adjustment (joint strategy)
HIGH FAMILIARITY:
Embrace the other negotiator’s approach (unilateral strategy)
Improvise an approach (joint strategy)
Effect symphony (joint strategy)
Lastly, there has been considerate research on the effects of culture on negotiation in the last decade. Findings suggest that culture has important effects on several aspects of negotiations, including planning, the negotiation process, information exchange, negotiation cognition, and negotiator perception of ethical behaviour.
Endnotes
1. Sebenius, 2002a.
2. Salacuse, 1988.
3. Phatak and Habib, 1996.
4. Brett, 2001, and Gelfand and Dyer, 2002.
5. See Avruch, 2000.
6. Rubin and Sanders, 1991; Sebenius, 2002b; Weiss, 2003.
7. Dialdin, Kopelman, Adair, Brett, Okumura, and Lytle, 1999.
8. Avruch, 2000; Sebenius, 2002b.
9. Rubin and Sander, 1991.
10. Adlar, 2002.
11. Janosik, 1987.
12. Foster, 1992; Hendon and Hendon, 1990; Moran and Stripp, 1991; Salacuse, 1998.
13. See Ohanya, 1999; Yook and Albert, 1998.
14. Thompson, 1990.
15. See Mayfield, Mayfield, Martin, and Herbig, 1997.
16. Salacuse, 1998.
17. See Kumar, 2004.
No comments:
Post a Comment