Negotiation Skills – Group Assignment 2

Submitted to: Professor Prachi Bhatt

Submitted by: Submitted by: Group 7 – NEGO 2
Members:
1. Rohit Pratap Singh – 301001
2. Ankit Kumar Singh – 301012
3. Ayush Garg – 301016
4. P Maxwell Jubilton – 301033
5. Pallavi Lahiri – 301035
6. Sugandhi Pohani – 301053
i|Page
 Table of Contents

1. Key takeaways from the reading “The hidden challenges of cross-border

negotiations.......................................................................................................................... 1

2. Explain the influence of culture on cross-border negotiations ................................... 2

1. Relationship: ............................................................................................................. 4

2. Communication: ....................................................................................................... 4

3. Time: ......................................................................................................................... 4

4. Space: ........................................................................................................................ 5

3. Role of Trust in claiming and creating value in negotiations ..................................... 5

1. Full disclosure of information that leads to bringing all the issues to the table: .... 5

2. Encourages parties to make unilateral (or otherwise) concessions: ....................... 5

3. Capitalize on value-creating opportunities: ............................................................ 6

4. Helps build long-term relationships among the negotiating parties: ...................... 6

ii | P a g e
1. Key takeaways from the reading “The hidden challenges of cross-
border negotiations
1. Due to cultural, linguistic, and institutional differences as well as the possibility for
misconceptions and misinterpretation, cross-border discussions can be difficult.
2. To minimise misunderstandings and foster trust, negotiators must be aware of the cultural
variations between their own and those of their counterparts.
3. In cross-border discussions, using intermediaries or third parties as facilitators can be useful
since they can assist in communicating by bridging the cultural and linguistic divides.
4. In order to arrive at a deal that benefits both parties, negotiators should be conscious of the
possibility that preconceptions and cultural prejudices may affect how they view the other
side.
5. To successfully conclude cross-border discussions, negotiators should be ready to
participate in innovative problem-solving and take into account a variety of potential
solutions.
6. Because of the many cultural, legal, and economic settings that must be negotiated, cross-
border talks are sometimes more difficult and complicated than domestic negotiations.
7. It's crucial to get to know the other side during cross-border discussions in order to develop
trust and respect.
8. It's critical to identify and resolve any potential cultural differences-related misconceptions
or miscommunications that can occur throughout the negotiation.
9. The participants in cross-border discussions should be mindful of any hidden motives or
power imbalances that could occur.
10. Third-party mediators or negotiators can be useful in settling conflicts and promoting
communication between parties from various cultural backgrounds.
11. Finally, it is important for negotiators to be persistent and patient since cross-border talks
sometimes involve more rounds of discussion and adjustments than domestic negotiations.

Key takeaways from the perspective of the Hofstede model are:

1. Power Distance: In cross-border talks, negotiators need to be conscious of the power

differential between the sides. Negotiators must be cautious not to come out as overly
aggressive or confrontational in high power distance societies where there is a higher

1|Page
 acceptance of unequal power allocation. Negotiators may be more willing to voice
disagreement and question authority in low power distance societies.

2. Individualism vs. Collectivism: The factor of individuality vs. collectivism must also be
considered by negotiators. Negotiators may put their personal interests ahead of those of
the group or organisation in individualistic cultures, but consensus-building and group
cohesion may be more crucial in collectivist societies.

3. Masculinity vs. Femininity: Cross-border discussions may also be impacted by the

masculine vs. femininity factor. Negotiation techniques may be more aggressive and
forceful in cultures that place a strong emphasis on masculinity, whereas in cultures that
place a stronger emphasis on femininity, negotiators may be more cooperative and
relationship-focused.

4. Uncertainty Avoidance: The aspect of avoiding ambiguity must be taken into account
during negotiations. Negotiators may be more risk-averse and prefer more comprehensive
contracts and agreements in cultures with high uncertainty avoidance, whereas
negotiators may be more open to taking chances and more at ease with ambiguity in
cultures with low uncertainty avoidance.

5. Long-term vs. Short-term Orientation: Finally, cross-border talks may also be impacted
by the long-term vs. short-term oriented component. While in cultures with a short-term
orientation, negotiators may prioritise immediate results and may be more concerned with
the bottom line, cultures with a long-term orientation may have negotiators who are more
willing to invest in long-term relationships and more patient in coming to an agreement.

2. Explain the influence of culture on cross-border negotiations

The Hidden Challenge of Cross-Border Negotiations by James K. Sebenius states various
factors of culture that influence cross-border negotiations.

1. Cultural norms and values can influence the communication methods, expectations, and
behaviours of negotiators as well as how they approach the negotiating process.
2. The ways in which various cultures see hierarchy, authority, and power can have an effect on
how negotiators engage with one another and make choices.
3. Cultural variations might result in misunderstandings or miscommunications, which can cause
negotiations to fail.

2|Page
 4. Cross-border negotiators must be conscious of cultural differences and make an effort to
understand the traditions and culture of the opposing party.
5. Depending on the cultural setting of the negotiation, negotiators may need to modify their
strategy. Negotiators from high-context cultures, for instance, could depend more on nonverbal
cues, whereas those from low-context cultures might favour more overt cues.
6. Cross-border negotiators must respect the cultural norms of the other party and refrain from any
acts that can be construed as disrespectful or derogatory.
7. In order to promote communication between persons from various cultures, interpreters or
translators may be required.
8. In cross-border talks, cultural differences might result in misunderstandings and poor
communication. For instance, various cultures may use language in different ways or with distinct
communication methods, which can cause misunderstandings and confusion.
9. Negotiators must respect the cultural differences and be aware of the other party's cultural norms
and values. For instance, while some cultures value efficiency and getting to the point more than
others, certain cultures may place a larger importance on interpersonal interactions and the
development of trust.
10. Culture may also affect how offers and counteroffers are made and how important compromises
are in the negotiation process. For instance, while making compromises may be seen as vital
during negotiations in some cultures, it may also be seen as a show of weakness in others.
11. Negotiators must be mindful of any cultural taboos or sensitivities that may exist, especially in
relation to topics like politics, gender, and religious beliefs.
12. In some cultures, nonverbal cues like body language and facial expressions may be more
significant than verbal cues. These nonverbal indications must be recognised by negotiators in
order to modify their communication style.

Overall, cultural differences may significantly affect cross-border negotiations, and in order to
successfully conclude a negotiation, negotiators must be aware of these differences and take action
to resolve them.

Furthermore, according to Edward T hall’s 1960 HBR article “Silent Language”, there can be four major
cultural factors or characteristics that can have a significant influence on the cross border Negotiation
namely:

3|Page
1. Relationship: In Relationships, there are mainly 2 types of culture one being “Deal focused” and
the other being “Relationship Focused”. In the deal-focused culture, the major focus of both the
parties is Deal focused the talk mostly revolves around the technical aspects like Targets and
Reservation price of the parties in Negotiation. The negotiators are more focused on the outcome
due to several reasons like having the pressure to close the deal from the higher ups etc. So in this
less focus is placed on the relationship-building aspect which might make future negotiations
difficult. Whereas in a relationship-focused cultural setting, more importance is placed on
relationships, and efforts are made in the negotiation talks to strengthen these relationships so that
they can be leveraged for future deals. The relationship-focused cultural setting takes into account
the Long term aspect whereas the deal-focused cultural setting takes into consideration the short-
term aspect.

2. Communication: Communication can be of nature one having short and concise information and
the other being detailed information. For example, it has been researched that Americans like to
negotiate in short and concise communication whereas they mainly talk about the negotiation and
are to the point. Whereas a Japanese person would want to have a more detailed conversation on
the deal as they would like to have as much information and data points as possible before making
an informed first offer. So if and when being an opposite party from either of these types of
negotiators one should be wary of this cultural aspect and prepare their negotiations accordingly.

3. Time: When tackling the aspect of time, in the context of Culture this element can be broken down
into 2 categories namely Monochronic & Polychronic. Monochronic cultures view time as a
commodity that should be used efficiently and scheduled linearly, while polychronic cultures view
time as more fluid and flexible, with a focus on relationships and activities. In a monochronic
culture, punctuality and strict adherence to schedules are highly valued, while in a polychronic
culture, schedules may be more flexible and relationships may be prioritized over schedules.
Furthermore, in monochronic culture, direct communication and clear, concise language are often
preferred, while in a polychronic culture, communication may be more indirect and rely on
nonverbal cues. For example, imagine a negotiator from a monochronic culture such as Germany
or Switzerland negotiating with a negotiator from a polychronic culture like India or Mexico, then
the monochronic negotiator may become frustrated with the polychronic negotiator's perceived lack
of punctuality or adherence to schedules, while the polychronic negotiator may feel rushed or
pressured by the monochronic negotiator's sense of urgency.

4|Page
 4. Space: This element speaks about how certain individuals might prefer to occupy a lot of personal
space in comparison to their counterparts who might not. For instance, according to an article by
The Washington Post, individuals in Argentina and other South American nations do, by and large,
require less private space than individuals from Asia. Furthermore, in Saudi Arabia, individuals
stand farther from their companions than Argentinians do with outsiders. As this element plays a
huge role in negotiation, negotiators must try to gather as much information as possible about the
counterparty, especially when they are from a different culture, before entering into negotiations.

3. Role of Trust in claiming and creating value in negotiations

Trust, as a negotiation element, is very important to the fulfillment of predetermined goals. If the
negotiating parties trust each other, they believe that the other party will be acting in good faith which is
very important since every negotiation involves a certain level of risk. For example: In absence of a mutual
feeling of trust, parties might hesitate to disclose confidential information or make unilateral concessions
based on the preconceived notion that the other party will just take advantage of the same without budging
from their solitary position. Particularly in the context of claiming and creating value, trust plays the
following role: -
1. Full disclosure of information that leads to bringing all the issues to the table: One of the
foremost steps involved in claiming & creating value is the identification of all the interests and
issues impacting the negotiating parties. In absence of trust, parties might sit at the negotiating table
with a “narrow mindset” with their sole focus on grabbing as big a share of the “fixed pie” as
possible. On the other hand, promoting a sense of mutual trust helps the negotiating parties to
expand the size of the pie in the first place. This not only ensures the fulfillment of tangible goals
(such as a larger share for all the entities involved) but also of intangible ones (such as fostering
communal relationships). Hence, the presence of trust allows the parties to consider the interest of
their counterparts and reduces the chances of an impasse in the deal.

2. Encourages parties to make unilateral (or otherwise) concessions: Negotiations, especially the
ones with strangers, require an element of trust to inculcate a friendly environment that maximizes
the chances of a deal happening with mutual gains for all the parties involved. Having trust allows
parties to concede, unilaterally (in some cases) their interests and issues which shows they truly
value what their counterparts desire out of the negotiation. Such deals have a higher chance of

5|Page
 creating value because they focus more on mutual benefits than competing for higher wins.
However, such concessions should be made only after carefully ranking the issues and interests of
both self and the other party, so that they do not cost much for the conceding party but be highly
beneficial for the other party.

3. Capitalize on value-creating opportunities: Having trust allows the negotiating parties to

brainstorm together and come up with value-creating opportunities together, thus creating win-win
situations. When parties can mutually decide on the trade-offs to create more value, the requirement
of haggling over issues such as price and percentages is reduced considerably, if not eliminated.
For example, in the example of Deb Weidenhamer (CEO, Auction Systems Auctioneers, and
Appraisers) in the HBR reading “Manage the tension between claiming and creating value”, a
win-win settlement was only possible because the company and the owner of the watch company
had a feeling of mutual trust among them since that latter had been the client of the former for a
long time.

4. Helps build long-term relationships among the negotiating parties: Trust as a factor can
transform any negotiation into an integrative one, creating solutions favored by all the parties and
establishing a strong long-term communal relationship. We all know, claiming & creating value is
a continuous process and not a one-time goal. The only factor that can ensure it perpetually is a
strong connection between the parties resulting from a mutual feeling of respect and trust. For
instance, in the example of RLX and Impress (HBR – Six ways to build trust in negotiation),
Kristen was successful in winning back Impress as a client only because of her focus on repairing
the trust relationship between the two organizations.

6|Page