Module 6

MODULE 6
CROSS-CULTURAL NEGOTIATION
_________________________________________________
1. INTRODUCTION
In today’s increasingly globalised economy, negotiators need to be aware that much
of their future success will depend on their understanding of cultural differences and
their ability to interact across these divides. It is necessary to appreciate that cross-
cultural knowledge provides a distinct edge, and that it is a fallacy to believe that the
financial attractiveness of a negotiation proposal alone determines its success.
Negotiators, who doubt the importance of cross-cultural sensitivity and knowledge,

need only contemplate a situation where two negotiators dealing with the same
potential client in the East both have identical proposals and packages. The one
shuns the importance of cross-cultural negotiation knowledge, believing that his/her
proposal will speak for itself, whereas the other undertakes a through cross-cultural
investigation and ensures that he/she has the necessary cross-cultural information
and negotiation skills. In 90% of cases, the negotiator who has ensured that he/she
is au fait with the culture, values, beliefs, etiquette and business approaches of the
other party, out-performs any other negotiator who neglects cross-cultural
sensitivities, as he/she is more likely to endear him-/herself to the host negotiation
team, and to succeed in establishing a relationship that optimises a potentially
positive outcome.
Cross-cultural negotiation does not require merely an awareness and understanding

of all factors that could influence negotiation proceedings, but also is also concerned
with how negotiators from other cultures conclude and respond to agreements.
Although there are distinct benefits in identifying patterns of cultural values, attitudes
and behaviours and their impact on negotiation, it is crucially important that
negotiators never lose sight of the fact that change is ongoing. In a global world
where there is ever-increasing corporate mobility, not all cultural approaches will
remain static. Even the current Western negotiation norms and practices are
destined to change on account of increasing exposure to Eastern and Southern
values, attitudes and behaviours.
1
Module 6 - CROSS-CULTURAL NEGOTIATION
2. FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE CROSS-CULTURAL
NEGOTIATION
2.1 Time orientations
There are two different time orientations across the world: monochronic and
polychronic.
 The monochronic orientation sees time as linear and sequential, with the focus
being on one thing at a time. This is the most common approach in the
European-related cultures of the United States, Germany, Switzerland, and
Scandinavia. Japanese people also tend toward this time orientation.
 The polychronic orientation involves the simultaneous occurrence of many things
and the involvement of many people. The time needed to complete an interaction
is flexible. This orientation is prevalent in Mediterranean and Latin cultures,
including France, Italy, Greece, and Mexico, and in some Eastern and African
cultures.
Negotiators from polychronic cultures
 Commence and end meetings at flexible times;

 Take breaks when it seems appropriate;
 Are comfortable with a high flow of information;
 Expect to read each others' thoughts and minds,
 At times talk in an overlapping way;
 Do not hold to starting times as determined; and
 Do not regard punctuality as serious.
Negotiators from monochronic cultures
 Give preference to prompt beginnings and endings;

 Make use of schedule breaks;
 Attend to one agenda item at a time;
 Use specific, detailed, and explicit communication;
 Prefer to talk in sequence; and
 Consider a lack of punctuality as disrespectful.
Another dimension of time relevant to negotiations is the focus on past, present, or

future. The Iranian, Indian, and Far Eastern cultures tend to be past-oriented,
whereas the United States tends towards a present and near-future focus. Latin
America is orientated toward both the present and the past, whereas indigenous
2
North Americans have a combined past and future orientation that extends for seven
generations into the future and into the past.
Negotiators focused on the present, need to remain aware that other negotiators may
have a different perception of the present, in the sense that they may see the past or
the distant future as part of the present. Negotiators, who see time as stretching into
the past or the future, need to be aware that a present orientation approach may be
required if a desired agreement is to be achieved.
Discussion of national negotiating styles invariably refers to particular cultural

attitudes toward time. It is said that Germans generally are always punctual, Latins
are habitually late, Japanese negotiate slowly, and Americans are quick to conclude
an agreement. Although the claim is often made that time is valued more in some
cultures than in others, this is a very simplistic conclusion. Americans, who regard
time as money, instinctively work towards a quick agreement by reducing formalities
to a minimum and getting down to business as quickly as possible. Japanese and
Asians, who have as their goal to create a relationship and not simply sign a contract,
are prepared to invest time in the negotiating process to enable the parties get to
know one another well enough to determine whether a long-term relationship is
viable. When confronted by aggressive attempts to shorten the negotiating time,
Japanese often see this as an attempt to hide something. Major international
contracts have often suffered the fate of cancellation because of the "unseemly
haste" with which they were concluded, and the "fast track procedures" used to
circumvent established practice for such projects.
2.2 Spatial orientations

Spatial orientations differ from culture to culture. They relate to territory, divisions
between private and public space, preferred personal distance, comfort or discomfort
with physical touch and contact, and expectations as to where and how contact
should take place. In Northern European countries (e.g. Germany or Sweden) a
much larger personal space is required than in Southern European countries
(e.g. Italy or Greece). Negotiators need to appreciate that an uncomfortable
closeness is most annoying to the other party, and will result in that party having to
repetitively back off to maintain the physical distance with which it is comfortable.
Certain cultures (e.g. Mediterranean, Arab, and Latin-American) are more tactile and
prone to touching, whereas Asian, indigenous American, Canadian, and US cultures
tend to be averse to touching outside intimate situations. In certain cultures cross-
gender touching is acceptable, e.g. the United States, but in others cross-gender
touching, especially publicly, is frowned upon, e.g. countries with certain orthodox
religious orientations. In Japan, it is acceptable when women hold hands, but not
men, whereas in Mediterranean countries it is common to see men holding hands or
touching in public, but not women. Greeting rituals are aligned to these patterns, and
should be observed by negotiators.
3
Space also relates to the degree of comfort with eye contact and the conclusions
drawn from eye contact or a lack thereof. In United States, the United Kingdom,
much of Europe and many Arab cultures, eye contact is seen as a sign of reliability,
honesty, sincerity and trustworthiness, whereas in North American indigenous
settings and Japanese culture, eye contact, especially prolonged eye contact, may
be regarded as rude and a sign of disrespect. In Asian settings, looking down is
usually interpreted as a sign of respect. A slight movement of the eyes In South
America may be indicative of embarrassment, respect, or disagreement.
The American tendency to seat the other party opposite them, or at an angle, could
in the case of Chinese negotiators, lead to a feeling of alienation and uneasiness as
they generally prefer to interact sitting side by side.
2.3 Method of communication (direct or indirect)

Methods of communication vary from culture to culture. In some cultures, the
emphasis is on direct and simple methods of communication, whereas in others it is
on indirect and complex methods, involving the use of figurative forms of speech,
facial expressions, gestures and other kinds of body language. Direct and simple
communication is valued in cultures such as in America, where negotiators can
expect to receive clear and definite responses to their proposals and questions. In
cultures that rely on indirect communication, such as in Japan, seemingly vague
comments, gestures, and other signs need to be interpreted to ascertain their
reaction to a proposal.
The clash of these different styles of communication in a negotiation can cause

friction, e.g. when Japanese negotiators express disapproval in an indirect way that
leads foreign negotiators to believe that their proposals are still under consideration
whereas the Japanese have in fact rejected them.
Non-verbal communication is an extremely important and much neglected aspect of

negotiation. The following are but a few important observations regarding non-verbal
communication in cross-cultural negotiation:
 Japanese negotiators use the most silence, Americans a moderate amount, and
Brazilians almost no silence at all.
 Chinese and Japanese negotiators rely far more than North Americans on non-
verbal signals to acquire information during a negotiation.
 Whereas touching may indicate closeness in some contexts, it could be offensive
in others, e.g. in Mexico a hug may communicate a trusting relationship, and
while in Germany it could be seen as inappropriately intimate.
 Gazing directly into the face of a negotiating party is more common In Brazil than
the United States, but highly infrequent in Japan.
4
 A high percentage of non-verbal signals denotes a highly complex society;
strongly context orientated.
 There is far more reliance on non-verbal signals in acquiring information for the
Chinese and Japanese than for the North Americans.
2.4 Power Distance

Geert Hofstede, an organisational anthropologist from the Netherlands, has
concluded that in cultures with a high power distance, where some people are
considered superior to others due to their social status, gender, race, age, education,
birth or personal achievements, there generally is an acceptance of a power disparity
between people. In those cultures where a low power distance exists, he found the
opposite, namely an assumption of equality among people, and a focus on earned
rather than ascribed status.
Where there was an unequal wealth distribution (eg. the Arab countries, Guatemala,
Malaysia, the Philippines, Mexico, Indonesia and India) a high power distance exists
and negotiators from these countries tended to be comfortable with:
 Hierarchical structures;
 Clear authority figures; and
 The right to use power with discretion.
In countries with a low power distance (eg. Austria, Denmark, Israel, New Zealand,
Ireland, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Switzerland, Britain, and Germany) negotiators
tended to be comfortable with:
 Democratic and flat organisational structures;

 Shared authority; and
 The right to use power only in limited circumstances and for legitimate purposes.
Hofstede (1980) assumes that the larger the power distance, the more centralised
the control and decision-making structure becomes.
2.5 Avoidance of uncertainty

Hofstede has found that in countries that show the most discomfort with ambiguity
and uncertainty (Arab, Muslim, and traditional African countries) a high value is
placed on conformity and safety, risk avoidance, and reliance on formal rules and
rituals. Trust tends to be reserved for close family and friends, making it difficult for
outside negotiators to establish a relationship of confidence and trust with members
from these cultures. According to his findings the United States, Scandinavia, and
Singapore have a high tolerance for uncertainty, tending to place a high value on
risk-taking, problem-solving, flat organisational structures, and tolerance for
5
ambiguity. This may therefore make it relatively easy for outsiders to establish
trusting relationships with negotiators in these cultures.
2.6 Masculinity/femininity
Hofstede used the terms masculinity and femininity to refer to the degree to which
cultures value assertiveness or nurturing and social support, and socially prescribed
roles operate for men and women. According to him, countries and regions such as
Japan and Latin America tend towards being masculine, preferring assertiveness,
task-orientation, and achievement, and tending to have more rigid gender roles and a
"live to work" orientation. In Scandinavia, Thailand, and Portugal, which he rates as
feminine, the values of co-operation, nurturing, and solidarity with the less fortunate
prevail, and the ethic tends towards "work to live."
Associations with gender vary greatly across cultures. What is considered masculine
in one culture might be considered feminine in another.
2.7 Characteristics of negotiators

Dr Nancy Adler has compared the key indicators of success reported by negotiators
from four national backgrounds, ranking the characteristics of negotiators in order of
importance as reported in each national setting.
6
CHARACTERISTICS OF NEGOTIATIORS
AMERICAN JAPANESE CHINESE BRAZILIAN
Preparation & Persistence & Preparation &

Task dedication
planning skill determination planning skill
Thinking under Perceive & exploit Win respect & Thinking under
pressure power confidence pressure
Judgment & Win respect & Preparation & Judgment &

intelligence confidence planning skill intelligence
Verbal Verbal
Integrity Product knowledge
expressiveness expressiveness
Demonstrate listening
Product knowledge Interesting Product knowledge
skill
Perceive & exploit Judgment & Perceive & exploit

Broad perspective
power intelligence power
Verbal
Integrity Competitiveness
expressiveness
Figure 6.1
As is evident, Brazilians and Americans were almost identical in the characteristics

they identified, except for the final category. The Japanese tended to emphasise an
interpersonal negotiating style, verbal expressiveness, and listening ability, whereas
the Americans and Brazilians focused more on verbal ability, planning, and judgment.
The Chinese and Taiwanese placed the emphasis on the negotiator being an
interesting person with persistence and determination.
Negotiators also rely on different styles of persuasion and have different degrees of
comfort with emotionality. Americans tend to appeal to logic, relying on "objective"
facts. They do not highly value emotional sensitivity, rather opting to deal in a rather
straightforward and impersonal manner. Although Japanese negotiators highly value
emotional sensitivity, they tend to hide emotions behind calm exteriors. Latin-
American negotiators tend to share the Japanese appreciation of emotional
sensitivity, but are more inclined to express themselves passionately. Arab
negotiators often appeal to emotions and subjective feelings to persuade the other
party. Russians appeal to ideals, focusing the attention on over-arching principles.
3. OTHER IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS

3.1 Meeting & greeting
Most international negotiators shake hands when they meet. This is, however, not
appropriate in some countries, especially between persons of different gender.
7
In some cultures, a weak handshake is seen as sign of weakness, whereas in other
cultures a firm handshake is regarded as a sign of aggression.
Negotiators also need to ensure that they know what form of address people in
different cultures prefer - first name, surname or title, and whether small talk is
appropriate.
3.2 Gift giving

In Japan and China, gifts are an integral part of the business protocol. However, in
the America ’s and the United Kingdom gifts could have negative connotations.
Negotiators must ascertain:
 Whether gifts should be given;

 How extravagant gifts should be;
 Whether gifts are reciprocated;
 Whether gifts should be wrapped; and
 What number of gifts and what colours are acceptable?
3.3 The basis of the relationship

In large parts of Europe and North America, business is, by its very nature,
contractual and therefore somewhat clinical. Personal relationships are discouraged,
as they could harm objectivity and create costly complications. However, in South
America and much of Asia business is strongly personal. Partnerships are often
limited to well-known, trustworthy parties with whom business executives feel
comfortable. Relationship-building is seen to be an essential precursor to conducting
business.
3.4 The negotiating goal (contract or relationship)

Negotiators from different cultures may view the purpose of a negotiation differently.
In some cultures, the primary negotiating goal may be to achieve a signed contract
between the parties, whereas in other cultures the primary goal may be the
establishment of a relationship between the two parties that goes beyond a written
contract. A survey of Spanish and Indian executives found the 74% of Spanish
respondents described their primary negotiating goal as being a contract, whereas
only 33% of Indian executives had a similar goal. This seems to explain why certain
Asian negotiators tend to devote more time and effort to negotiation preliminaries,
whilst Americans often prefer to rush through the early phases of a negotiation.
When confronted by a strongly relationship-orientated negotiator, it serves little

purpose for a party to argue primarily in favour of a low-cost contract when the
negotiator first wants to establish whether the two organisations possess the
potential to build a mutually rewarding long-term relationship. Naturally, it would be
8
equally non-productive to hammer away at relationship-building when the other party
is essentially contract-orientated.
3.5 The negotiating attitude (Win-win or Win-lose)

Differences in culture, personality, or both, result in negotiators adopting one of two
basic attitudes:
 That a negotiation is a collaborative, opportunity-finding process in which both

parties can create value for each other (Win-win); or
 That negotiation is a confrontational process in which one party wins and the
other loses (Win-lose).
Negotiators must, before entering a negotiation, know what type of negotiator is

across the table from them – Win-win or Win-lose.
3.6 The negotiating style (formal or informal)

A negotiator’s personal style refers to the way he/she communicates with others,
interacts with them, uses titles, dresses and speaks. Culture strongly influences the
personal style of negotiators. Germans, for example, have a more formal style than
Americans, often insisting on addressing the other parties by their titles, avoiding
personal anecdotes, and staying away from questions relating to the private or family
life of the other party. By contrast, negotiators with an informal style attempt to
commence the negotiation on a first-name basis, seek to quickly develop a personal,
friendly relationship with the other party, and are inclined to take off their jackets and
roll up their sleeves when the negotiation moves into a more serious phase.
As a rule, it is always safer for negotiators operating in foreign cultures to initially

adopt a formal posture and to gradually move towards an informal stance when the
situation warrants it.
3.7 Emotionalism (high or low)

Evaluations of the negotiating behaviour in certain cultures tend to point to particular
cultures being more susceptible to emotionality than others. According to popular
stereotypes, Latin-Americans are said to show their emotions at the negotiating table,
whereas the Japanese and many other Asians tend to hide their feelings. Obviously,
this is a generalisation, as there are passive Latinos and hot-headed Japanese.
Nevertheless, various cultures do have different rules regarding the appropriateness
and the ways of displaying emotions; rules that are brought to the negotiating table.
In a survey of cultural dispositions to emotionalism, Latin-Americans and the Spanish

ranked the highest, with the Germans and English ranked the least emotional in
Europe and the Japanese the least emotional amongst Asian nations.
9
3.8 The form of the agreement (general or specific)
Whether the goal of a negotiation is a contract or a relationship, the agreement will
almost always be cast in some sort of written agreement that is influenced by the
culture of the parties involved. Americans tend to prefer very detailed contracts that
provide for all possible likely and unlikely circumstances and eventualities. For them
the deal is the contract. Other cultures, such as the Chinese, prefer contracts that
set out general principles, not detailed rules. For them the essence of the deal is the
relationship between the parties. Unexpected circumstances should be dealt with
based on the relationship, not on the contract. Chinese negotiators may interpret the
American concern to stipulate all contingencies as an indication of a lack of
confidence and a weak underlying relationship.
In a survey of executives, 78% expressed a preference for specific agreements,

while only 22% preferred general agreements. Some respondents suggested that
differences over the form of an agreement related more to unequal bargaining power
between the parties than to culture. They saw the stronger team using its greater
bargaining power to achieve a detailed agreement that would lock in all possible
dimensions, whilst the weaker party preferred a general agreement to allow it the
opportunity of "wiggling out of" unacceptable circumstances that may arise.
3.9 Building the agreement (building top-down or bottom-up)

An important question relates to whether negotiating an agreement is an inductive or
a deductive process. Should an agreement begin with general principles and
proceed to specific items, or should it begin with specifics (such as price, delivery
date and quality) and eventually tie these specifics together in a contract?
Different cultures tend to emphasise different approaches. Whereas the French are
said to prefer beginning with securing agreement on general principles, the
Americans tend to seek agreement on specifics first. Americans see negotiating an
agreement as making a series of compromises and trade-offs, whilst the French
place the emphasis on agreeing basic principles – a framework – that will guide and
determine the negotiation process thereafter. Essentially the one approach involves
a building-down approach (where the negotiator starts out by proposing a maximum
agreement that is dependent on the other party accepting all the stipulated
conditions) whereas the building-up approach, starts out by proposing a minimum
agreement that can be broadened and increased as the other party accepts
additional conditions. Americans tend to favor the building-down approach, and
Japanese the building-up approach of negotiating a contract.
Surveys of negotiating styles have found that the French, Argentineans, and Indians
are inclined to view deal-making as a top-down, deductive process; whereas the
Japanese, Mexicans and Brazilians see it as a bottom-up, inductive process.
Americans favour the building-down approach, whilst Japanese are inclined to prefer
the building-up style of negotiating a contract.
10
3.10 Team organisation (one leader or group consensus)
In any negotiation, the negotiator must know how the other side is organised,
whether it has the authority to make commitments, and how decisions are made. In
some cultures, the individual is most important, whereas in others the emphasis is on
the group. Understandably, this may influence the organisation of each side in a
negotiation. An extreme situation is where a negotiating team has a leader with
complete authority to decide all matters, e.g. in many American teams. In other
cultures, particularly the Japanese and Chinese cultures, the accent on team
negotiation and consensus decision-making, creates a difficulty in knowing who the
leader is and who has the authority to commit to an agreement. In the American-type
negotiation where the leader comes to the negotiation prepared to expeditiously
make commitments, the negotiating team is usually small, whereas in the time
consuming Chinese type of consensus negotiation, it is not uncommon to find very
large teams that have an over-bearing effect on their counterpart.
In a survey, 59% of the respondents preferred a one-leader team, while 41%

preferred a more consensual type of team organisation. The French had the
strongest preference for a consensus type of team organisation, which appeared
rather strange given the strong views the French have on individualism. A possible
reason could be that a consensual arrangement was seen as the best way to protect
individualism. Despite the Japanese reputation for consensus arrangements, only
45% of the Japanese respondents preferred a team based on a consensus
approach. The Brazilians, Chinese, and Mexicans showed a much greater
preference than any other groups for one-person leadership, which could possibly be
a reflection of the historical political traditions in those countries.
The criteria according to which negotiators are selected differ, and include such
variables as professional status, hierarchical status, negotiating ability, knowledge of
opponents, and experience. Age can be an important factor in Asian communities.
3.11 Risk taking (high or low)

Certain cultures are more averse to risk than others. The risk taking profile of a
culture can affect the willingness of a party to taking risks in divulging information,
trying out new approaches and tolerating uncertainties in a suggested course of
action.
In a survey, it was found that the Japanese, with their emphasis on large amounts of
information, and their intricate group decision-making process, are strongly averse to
risk, whereas 70% of Americans are risk-takers. The French, British, and Indians
also showed a tendency towards being risk takers.
The following steps could be considered by a negotiator faced with a party averse to
risk-taking:
11
 Not to rush the negotiating process, since moving too rapidly for one of the parties
only serves to increase that party’s perception of the risk related to the proposed
agreement.
 Devoting attention to suggesting rules and mechanisms that will reduce the
apparent risks the proposed agreement has for the other side.
 Making sure that the other party has sufficient information about the negotiator,
his/her company, and the proposed agreement.
 Focusing on building a relationship of trust between the parties.
 Considering the possibility of restructuring the agreement so that it unfolds
systematically in an incremental manner, rather than all at once.
3.12 Information provided during negotiations

In Western business culture, rationally prepared and presented business proposals
based on statistics and facts, usually receive preference and are deemed most
convincing. Although similar information is also important in other business cultures,
it is differently perceived. South Americans prefer a combination of visual and oral
communication, presented by way of speeches, maps, graphs and charts.
The Japanese usually give the impression of pressing for additional information with
no corresponding gestures. They are very slow to make concessions (giving too
little, and waiting way too long to do it). They are often accused of being 'deadpan',
and of using 'confusing' tactics when negotiating.
Chinese negotiators tend to be vague about their personal role or position and their
specific responsibilities in any given situation. They appear to the North American
sensibility, to be 'manipulative', using conflicting feelings, including: friendship,
obligation, guilt and a form of dependence. The overt appearance is that they are
trying to shame North Americans into making concessions. The Chinese often, on
the surface, look as if they will not take risks, are evasive, use what appears to be
delaying tactics, and claim 'ignorance' as a vehicle for gaining information.
3.13 Negotiation preferences

Different cultures approach negotiation differently. In the Middle East, negotiators
prefer to discuss issues simultaneously and not sequentially. South Americans tend
to become very vocal and animated. The Japanese will negotiate in teams, taking
decisions upon the basis of consensual agreement. In Asia, the most senior figure or
head of the family usually makes the decisions. In China, negotiators are highly
trained in the art of obtaining concessions.In Germany, negotiators analyse
information and statistics in great depth, often causing long delays in reaching
decisions. Negotiators in the UK often use pressure tactics and deadlines to hasten
the closing of deals, whereas in Greece such an approach would result in a backlash.
12
3.14 Avoiding misunderstandings in cross-border negotiations
Although a negotiator in America and a counterpart in Tokyo may both prefer Armani
suits, baseball, Springsteen, and good Californian wine, they may not have
converging views on the negotiation process and may have differing views about
each other’s negotiation behaviour. The American negotiator’s wish to push through
the deal as quickly as possible could necessitate very forceful arguments that the
Japanese negotiator may see as disrespectful.
When negotiators sit down at the negotiating table without understanding each
other’s assumptions about the negotiation process, an impasse is highly likely.
Dealing with a cross-cultural negotiation is a particular challenge in determination

and diplomacy.
3.15 Understanding the expectations of all the parties

Expectations of a negotiation often differ markedly. Although both parties aspire to
succeed, success may have different meanings to them and to other members of
their culture.
Decision-making styles differ from culture to culture. Whereas American managers

usually make decisions by themselves, Japanese managers tend to make decisions
by consensus, thereby considerably extending the duration of the negotiation
process. They hold to decisions once made, as they consider it shameful to change
a decision.
3.16 Establishing common ground & a negotiating style

The challenge negotiators face is to find anything that the other party can share with
them, as a means of getting beyond the “people” problems that often plague
negotiations – ego wars, face-saving etc.
13
Once a positive climate is set, negotiators need to choose whether they wish to adopt
a distributive or problem-solving style of negotiation. In a small percentage of very
specific circumstances, the distributive, win/lose style that precludes a conditional
agreement – tough and demanding with few compromises – can be effective. By
contrast, the problem-solving, step-by-step approach provides for common ground to
be identified wherever possible, and for the negotiator to try to gain as much as
possible without destroying the negotiation.
Although the problem-solving approach generally avoids serious blunders in cross-

cultural negotiations, it is not always applicable to cultures where negotiation is
ritualised, especially in the initial stages of the negotiation. Germans, for example,
often spend a large part of the initial negotiations in number-crunching and agreeing
all the facts and figures as a means of building confidence and establishing
trustworthiness. Trying to find common ground too quickly could threaten their ritual.
Where cultural differences manifest in different negotiating styles, Willem

Mastenbroek cautions negotiators to be aware of the potentially detrimental effects a
flexible style of negotiation could have, as flexibility could be perceived as mere
smooth and suave behaviour, and may therefore be distrusted and resented. Where
the other party feels unable to counter such flexibility, this could result in a feeling of
clumsiness and even inferiority.
3.17 Managing the negotiation

After the initial search for common ground, the negotiation moves to the next phase
where the actual issues are determined and prioritised by the parties. From this point
onwards, awareness of the negotiating behavior that is typical of the culture of the
other party becomes very important.
Italian negotiators often attempt to rush through this stage, repetitively insisting on
their interests to wear down their opponents. When a foreign negotiator becomes
aware of this tactic, the best counter-tactic is to deliberately slow down the
negotiation, change the subject, digress etc.
During the phase of dealing with the issues, Chinese negotiators usually make one
offer after another as a way of determining the limits of a possible deal. They tend to
rely heavily on nonverbal communication, saying as little as possible in response to
questions, expecting the other party to conclude what it needs to know from gestures
and the context of what is said. The most effective answer to such a tactic is
patience and deductive reasoning.
Contrary to most Europeans who will not walk away from a negotiation unless they
are deeply offended, Asian negotiators often happily walk away from a project when
they are uncomfortable with one or other characteristic of the negotiations. Should
this happen, negotiators should try to backtrack and fix the problem.
14
When negotiators focus on a party’s culture, there is the danger that they can lose
sight of that party as an individual. Winters correctly suggests that culture be seen
as a background to the capabilities of the specific individuals at the negotiating table
thereby circumventing this danger.
3.18 Language
When negotiating in a foreign language, knowledge of that language is but a point of
departure. A negotiator must have the ability to clearly understand how the other
party sees the negotiation and what its negotiating behaviour is likely to be.
Where negotiators from different countries meet and do not have an adequate
command of each others language, the language in which the negotiation is to take
place should be carefully considered, taking into consideration that:
 A party showing its willingness to communicate in the language of the other party
is normally positively perceived;
 If translators are used, the communication is often less accurate and may result in
translators adding their interpretations to the negotiation without the negotiators
being able to detect such distortions. Key phrases could become totally
misunderstood during back-and-forth translations;
 Within a negotiation team, there may be more than one native language, thus
complicating communication within the team;
 Unless negotiators are conversant in the language in which they interact, they will
not understand the overall negotiation process, the influencing behaviours, and
be able to communicate genuine empathy for the other party’s culture;
 The communication process will be more demanding as they may not share the
same codes used in communication, and will therefore experience problems in
establishing credibility and trust.
In cross-cultural situations where negotiators with different first languages meet, non-
verbal messages are very important, but are unfortunately very easily misinterpreted
which can lead to hostility and a strained relationship.
Successful negotiation depends on negotiators having the ability to connect with one
another, and therefore trust one other, understand one another and together develop
common goals with one another.
15
4. APPROACHES TO NEGOTIATION – CULTURAL
DIFFERENCES
4.1 United States of America
US negotiators rely on individualistic values, seeing themselves and others as being
autonomous, independent, and self-reliant. Although they do consult others, they
tend to see themselves as separate rather than as a member of a team, and are
inclined to act independently.
Japanese negotiators see Americans negotiators as:
 Competitive in their approach, coming to the table with a fall-back position but
starting out with an unrealistic offer;
 Energetic, confident, and persistent; enjoying to argue their positions, and to
adopt a universal perspective – ie. to talk about broad applications of ideas;
 Tending to concentrate on one problem at a time;
 Focusing on areas of disagreement, not areas of commonality or agreement; and
 Preferring closure and certainty, not open-endedness or fuzziness.
4.2 Africa
Many African nations have indigenous systems of conflict resolution that have
historically endured to some degree or other. These systems respect kinship ties
and elder roles, and the structures of local society generally.
In Nigeria, for example, people are organised in extended families (nnu), villages (idu
or obio), lineages (duk), and lineage groups (iman). Social control is strongly related
to the continuing belief in the ability of ancestors to affect people's lives, thus making
the need for formal laws or regulations minimal. Negotiation happens within the
social context, according to prescribed roles. Women in conflict with their husbands,
for example, are required to defer and apologise, and to prepare a ritual meal to
symbolise the restoration of harmony.
In the Nigerian Ibibio context, the restoration of social networks is sufficiently

important to require that individual differences are compromised in the interests of
the group. Progress or an agreement in a negotiation is preserved by requiring the
parties to promise not to invoke the power of ancestors to undo the progress or the
agreement. The formal or informal aim is to effect a positive outcome without any
bitterness or resentment.
Elders have extensive power, and their word is highly respected when they arbitrate
in a conflict or a negotiation. This is due in part to the belief that they have access to
16
supernatural powers which can result in vulnerability and lead to potential
punishment.
Many other African contexts in which a range of indigenous processes exist

emphasise relationships and hierarchies.
4.3 Japan
A great deal has been written about the Japanese approach to negotiation.
Japanese communication tends to be affected by the following values:
 A focus on group goals;

 Interdependence; and
 A hierarchical orientation.
In a negotiation, these values manifest themselves in an awareness of group needs

and goals, and deference to persons of higher status.
Japanese negotiators are known for:
 Politeness;
 Their emphasis on building relationships; and
 Their indirect use of power.
Their politeness is primarily motivated by a desire to save face and to avoid

confrontation. They therefore also tend to use power in low-key, indirect ways that
are consistent with their preference for harmony and tranquillity.
Studies have revealed that Japanese negotiators tend to disclose far less about
themselves and their goals than for example French or American negotiators.
Japanese negotiators place less emphasis on the literal meanings of words and more
on the relationships before the commencement of the negotiation. They are less
likely than American negotiators to make suggestions about the process or
procedure.
4.4 Europe
European styles of negotiation vary considerably according to region, nationality,
language spoken and many other contextual factors. For example, one study found
the French to be very aggressive negotiators who use threats, warnings, and
interruptions to achieve their goals, whereas German and British negotiators were
only moderately aggressive.
17
4.5 Latin America
Role expectations are very important determinants of negotiation in Latin America
where responsibility to others is generally considered more important than schedules
and the accomplishment of tasks. Their approach to time is polychronic and their
patterns of communication are strongly context-orientated. In Central America,
negotiation is heavily influenced by the entanglement of conflict that is part of daily
life on this continent. Negotiators therefore need to negotiate in such a manner that
networks and relationships are not disturbed to the point of enredo (entanglement).
In Central America, there is a preference for a storied, holistic approach to conflict

and negotiation, rather than a linear, analytical approach. When Central Americans
need assistance with negotiations, they prefer insider participants rather than
outsider neutrals, placing their trust and confidence in established relationships and
cultural insight rather than in the credentials or expertise of outsiders. Confianza,
meaning "trustworthiness" (based on "they know us" and "we know them") is very
important to them.
5. FACTORS INFLUENCING THE WAYS DIFFERENT

CULTURES REACH AGREEMENT
The way people from different cultures come to agreement, and the processes
involved in negotiations require careful consideration. Decision-making and
governance processes can differ widely from culture to culture, in terms of legal
technicalities, behaviours and core beliefs.
5.1 Informal influences

Although it is necessary for negotiators to understand which persons are required to
sign a contract to finalise an agreement, this is not sufficient. In many countries there
are intricate webs of influence more powerful than the parties concluding the
agreement, despite the fact that such webs do not have the standing of something
such as a government agency. In Japan, the keiretsu – industrial groups linked by a
web of business ties, lending, and cross-company shareholding – wield considerable
power. In Italy, the ultimate power might reside in very influential families, whereas in
Russia, it might be the Russian mafia.
When the United States company, Stone Container Corporation, was negotiating the
terms of a major forest project in Honduras, its executives assumed that the
Honduran president and the relevant ministries would have the power to pass the
final judgment on the project. Although the president had the legal authority to
conclude the agreement and approve it, the proposal and negotiating strategy
seemed to signal the possibility of a corrupt deal involving members of the elite. This
brought about the involvement of the Honduran Congress, labour unions, political
parties, potential business competitors, indigenous people in the affected region and
18
domestic and international environmental groups. Stone Container had not taken
into account the strained relationships between Honduras and the United States
government and multinationals, as they had failed to appreciate the fragile status of
the presidency. Had the company developed a strategy that accommodated this
informal web of potential influences, it would not have become enmeshed in a highly
adversarial multiparty process that was doomed to fail.
Companies often fall into the trap of assuming that foreign legal systems are robust
enough to enforce formal contracts. Often when it is too late, they discover that the
dispute resolution mechanisms are very different from those they know in their own
culture. Japan, for example, has a relatively small legal system with few legal
specialists since the companies in that country rely on relationships and negotiation
to solve most commercial disputes. In present-day Russia there is practically no
proper functioning judiciary, and in many other countries the legal systems are so
corrupt or controlled by local politicians that they are of little or no value.
There is often a large divide between the law and how things work in practice, as
many a company has discovered to its detriment in countries like China, where there
are for example requirements such as that all parties must agree before a joint
venture can be dissolved and a disgruntled partner allowed to recoup his investment.
5.2 Negotiation-specific expectations

Different cultures influence the expectations regarding the specific process and
outcome of a negotiation. These expectations concern four key areas:
 Views underlying the process;

 Approaches to creating an agreement;
 Form of the agreement; and
 Implementation of the agreement.
5.2.1 Views underlying the process

The negotiation may be seen as a co-operative (win-win) process or a competitive
(win-lose) process. Some cultures may be inclined towards mutual gain, whereas
others may not.
5.2.2 Approaches to creating an agreement

In the United States negotiators often first seek agreement on specifics, gradually
building up toward an overall agreement. In China, the initial focus is the
development of a very general, historical and national framework for discussion.
Thereafter an agreement on general principles is sought, followed by the details of
the agreement. In their thought processes, many Chinese tend to start out by
focusing on the whole, whereas Westerners often start out by breaking the whole into
its constituent parts and then reasoning incrementally.
19
Chinese negotiators frequently let it be known that they are negotiating with the
competition, and, the most irritating of all, is when they sign an agreement but do not
exhibit any behaviour indicating that they are bound by such an agreement.
5.2.3 Form of the agreement

It is necessary for negotiators to be clear on what level of detail is required. In many
parts of East Asia, negotiators prefer a broad-based agreement that focuses on
general principles, rather than an agreement with detailed terms and conditions.
North Americans and Europeans, by contrast, often insist on detailed contracts in
which as many contingencies as possible are foreseen.
5.2.4 Implementation of the agreement

An important question is whether adherence to an agreement is expected or
contingent? United States negotiators generally expect to stick to the letter of a
contract, treating renegotiation as a very rare event. In many other cultures, however,
an agreement is seen as a starting point in terms of what is expected to be an
evolving relationship. Renegotiation is seen as a likelihood, as it is assumed that not
all contingencies can possibly be foreseen. They believe that the precise terms will
unfold as the implementation proceeds. In contrast to the United States where a
negotiator can rely on the legal system to serve as a fairly reliable enforcer of
contracts, there is very little such possibility in many other parts of the world.
5.2.5 Consequences of the influencing factors

The business etiquette in other cultures can result in managers being genuinely
cautious of dealing with their counterparts from other cultures. Although correct
etiquette may help a business transaction, bad etiquette will not necessarily destroy
it, providing that the parties understand the subtle cultural influences that could affect
the negotiation.
Jim Sebenius, a professor at Harvard Business School, points out that anyone
approaching a negotiation with a Chinese company, for example, should know it will
need to work with the government at some point about widely differing matters. It
may be necessary to get the approval of a leading official and to comply with local
labour laws. A Russian group dealing with a British company might not be aware of
the role of shareholders and local environmental activists, whilst the British negotiator
might not be aware of the Russian mafia lurking in the wings.
Jeanne Brett, director of the Dispute Resolution Research Centre at Kellogg School
of Management, North-western University, points to the sharing of information as one
of the many ways in which culture influences negotiation, citing the example of
Japanese and Chinese negotiators who are inclined to be far more reluctant to put
information on the table than their Western counterparts, and to use preliminary
proposals much earlier and more frequently in the negotiating process than
Westerners. Negotiators need to understand cultural cues to decipher the
20
information implicit in these proposals. “We tend to look at other parties through the
lens of our own culture, and then we make mistakes,” says Brett.
In theory, the number of cross-cultural errors should decrease as global business

contacts increase. Negotiators can prevent some cross-cultural misunderstandings
by conducting research into the culture in question, or by inclusion in the negotiation
team of members who are familiar with the culture. However, merely knowing that an
Asian manager will rarely give a direct ‘No’ might be of limited value, as there are
other hidden influences not directly related to culture, such as in-company or outside
political motivations.
Sebenius advocates a “3-D” approach to negotiations. He argues that the table

bargaining is but one of the three dimensions of creating an agreement. The second
relates to knowing what agreement will create sustainable value, and the third
concerns setting up the negotiation situation in such a way that your negotiator is at
an advantage even before the negotiation begins.
Some aspects of cross-cultural negotiating correlate with those inherent to any other
deal-making. The potential still exists for social relationships to develop, and for
partnerships to work across cultures. Behind-the-scenes forces can, however, play
their part: as alliances evolve, necessitating that a negotiator must not only take into
account the needs of the other party, but also of parties to which that party is aligned.
Differences in ways of thinking, behaving, and in dealing with conflict could have a
large impact on how successfully or unsuccessfully parties are able to negotiate.
Cultural differences could create misunderstandings, a climate conducive to distrust,
and/or inspire negative emotions amongst negotiators. When negotiators differ in
their basic thought processes, misunderstandings often result, e.g. when negotiators
misunderstand the commitment of the other party to a specific deal.
The irony about cross-cultural negotiation is that negotiators are often unaware that
they are making biased judgments which can slow down, or entirely disrupt, the
negotiation process, or prevent negotiators from maximising joint gains.
Cultural differences can also prevent trust from developing between parties or even
sow distrust that will prevent negotiators from sharing information for fear that they
may be taken advantage of. Such differences are also likely to make them
overcritical of the positions put forward by the other party, causing them to
deliberately look for errors of flaws where errors or flaws do not exist, and may de-
motivate them to work towards bridging the differences that exist between them.
Cultural clashes could potentially also result in negative emotional reactions between
parties.
21
6. AVOIDING THE CULTURE TRAP
Negotiators need to remain aware at all times that there are potentially serious traps
inherent in dealing with cultural differences, particularly that of stereotyping which
should be consciously avoided. The assumption that any individual will of necessity
reflect the group, or the group norm, often leads to dangerous misunderstandings.
Negotiators need to appreciate that culture is dynamic and ever-changing and may
manifest itself differently in different environments.
When negotiators are sensitive to dealing with all aspects of a negotiation in ways
that visibly recognise the interests of the other party, culture need not be an
insurmountable hurdle.
7. CROSS-CULTURAL ANALYSIS
As a means of entrenching the importance of cultural sensitivity in negotiation,
course participants will be divided into groups and requested to complete a Cross-
cultural Analysis Template with reference to different countries/regions.
An example of a Cross-cultural Analysis Template completed for Germany is

included.
8. REFERENCES
Kimmel, P. Cultural Perspectives on International Negotiations. Journal of Social
Issues, 50, (1), 1994.
Weldon, E & Jehn K. A. Examining Cross-Cultural Differences in Conflict

Management Behavior: A Strategy for Future Research. The International Journal of
Conflict Management, 6, (4), 1995.
Baldrige, L. Letitia Baldrige's New Complete Gudie to Executive Manners.

New York Macmillan, 1993.
Adler, N. International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior (3rd Ed.). South-

Western College Publishing, Cincinnati, 1997.
Offiong, D A. Conflict Resolution Among the Ibibio of Nigeria. Journal of

Anthropological Research, 53, 4, Winter 1997.
Hall E. T. Understanding Cultural Difference. Yarmouth. Intercultural Press, 1990.
Adair et al. Negotiating Behavior When Cultures Collide: The United States and
Japan. Journal of Applied Psychology. Vol 86(3), June 2001.
22
Wiseman, R L & Koester J. Intercultural Communication Competence. Sage
Publications, Newbury Park, 1993.
Graham, S & March. Negotiating Behaviors in Ten Foreign Cultures. Management

Science. Vol. 40(1), January 1994.
Le Baron M. Culture Based Negotiation Styles. Conflict Knowledge Based Project.

Conflict Research Consortium. University of Colorado, 2003.
Rosenbaum, A. Tips for Avoiding Misunderstandings When Negotiating Cross-

Border Deals. Working Knowledge. March 2003.
Sebenius J. K. The Hidden Challenge of Cross-border Negotiations. Harvard

Business Review. Vol. 80, No 3, March, 2002.
Winters E. Across the Pacific Pond. Global Talk. 1994.
http://www.usp.org/pubs/specialreport/sr94.html
http;//www.wright.edu/~lisa.crawford/mgt485w04s02.doc
http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/peace/example/jano7534.htm - 6k
http://eco.ittralee.ie/personal/presentation.php
http://www.sideroad.com/Cross_Cultural_Communication/cross-cultural-
negotiation.html
http://www.geerthofstede.com/
http://www.NegotiationSkills.com
23
MODULE 6
CROSS-CULTURAL NEGOTIATION
___________________________________________________________________
SUMMARY
 In a global economy, the ability to understand and deal with cultural differences is
a key determinant of business success.
 Cross-cultural negotiation does not merely imply an awareness and
understanding of all the factors that could influence negotiation proceedings, it
also concerns how negotiators from other cultures conclude and respond to
agreements.
 The following culture-related factors that potentially have a profound impact on
the negotiating process and the negotiation outcomes, should be carefully
considered prior to any cross-cultural negotiation:
 Time orientation;
 Spatial orientation;
 Language;
 Communication: direct or indirect;
 Power distance;
 Avoidance of uncertainty;
 Masculinity-femininity;
 Meeting and greeting;
 Gifts;
 The relationship;
 The overall negotiation goal: a contract or a relationship;
 The negotiation attitude: win/win or win/lose;
 The negotiation style: formal or informal;
 Emotionalism: high or low;
 The form of the agreement: general or specific;
 Constructing the agreement: top down or bottom up;
 Team organisation: one leader or group consensus;
 Risk taking: high or low;
 Provision of information during the negotiation;
 Negotiation preferences;
 Preventing possible misunderstandings;
 Expectations;
 Establishing common ground and a negotiation style; and
24
 Managing the negotiation.
 Culture is dynamic and ever-changing. Negotiators need to remain aware of the
dangers of assumptions and stereotyping.
 When negotiators are sensitive to dealing with all aspects of a negotiation in ways
that visibly recognise the interests of the other party, culture need not be an
insurmountable hurdle.
25
CROSS-CULTURAL ANALYSIS TEMPLATE
CULTURAL AREA ANALYSIS
HISTORICAL
BACKGROUND
CULTURAL
ORIENTATION
26
COGNITIVE
ORIENTATION
NEGOTIATION
STRATEGIES
VALUE SYSTEMS
27
SOCIAL & BUSINESS

PROTOCOL
Dress Code
Greetings &
Introductions
Titles & Forms of

Address
Gestures
Gift Giving
28
Food
BUSINESS PRACTICES
Appointments
Negotiating Prior to the negotiation
Negotiating During the negotiation
Business Entertaining
29
GENERAL
PRECAUTIONS
30
CROSS-CULTURAL ANALYSIS
TEMPLATE WITH EXAMPLE COMPLETED FOR GERMANY
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
 Germanic tribes date back to 3500 BC.
 Otto Von Bismarck united Prussia and Austria in the 19th century.
 In 1871, Prussian King, William I was crowned Kaiser, and modern

Germany was born.
 The 20th century brought World Wars I and II, Nazi Germany, and the
cold war division of East and West Germany.
 In 1990, East and West Germany were reunited.
 Today, Germany has one of Europe’s strongest economies, despite

former East Germany’s struggle to catch up with its western
counterpart.
CULTURAL ORIENTATION
Cognitive Styles:
 How Germans organise and process information.
Negotiation Strategies:
 What Germans expect as evidence.
Value Systems:
 The basis for their behaviour.
31
COGNITIVE ORIENTATION
 Analytical and conceptual.
 Committed to universals of their culture.
 Closed to outside information and reluctant to share information.
 Friendships are difficult to develop.
 Objective facts are the basis for truth statistics, reports, and tests.
 Feelings are not accepted in negotiation – no “gut” reaction/ decision.
VALUE SYSTEM
 Strongly individualistic but consider cultural history in making

decisions.
 Slow decision-making process, unalterable decisions.
 Rules and regulations + strong internal discipline = stability and reduced

uncertainty.
 Hierarchical society.
 Classes
 Some biases to foreigners, refugees, East Germans
 Biases to women regarding power and pay
32
SOCIAL AND BUSINESS PROTOCOL
Dress Code
Men: Dark, white shirts, neutral ties, no khakis

Women: Dark suits, white blouses
Greetings & Introductions
 Greet with a brief, but firm handshake.

 Wait for a woman to initiate a handshake.
 Do not keep one hand in a pocket while greeting with the other!
 Lower-ranking individual are always introduced first.

 Men stand when a woman enters a room and remain standing until she is
seated.
Titles & Forms of Address
 Only close friends and family members are on a first name basis
 Business colleagues are addressed Mr. or Mrs. + surname:
 Mr. = Herr
 Mrs. (Ms.) = Frau
 Miss = Fraulein
 Professional titles are always included:
 Ex. Herr (or Frau) + Dr. + surname
 Business cards should include any degree above the Bachelor level
33
Gestures
 Speak in complete sentences

 Get someone’s attention by raising a hand, palm out, only extending the index finger
 Never beckon
 When sitting, have one knee over the other not an ankle over the opposite knee
 Eldest/highest-ranking official enters the room first
 Men enter rooms before women
 Germans usually do not display emotion or affection publicly, and tend to stand at a
considerable distance from each other during business negotiations
Gift Giving
 Quality but not expensive gifts should be given.

 Appropriate Gifts: quality pens, pocket calculators, imported liquor.
 When invited to a home, an unwrapped bouquet consisting of an odd number of

flowers is appropriate.
 Germans often enjoy odd facets of Americana such as music and cowboy novels.
34
BUSINESS PRACTICES
A. Appointments
 Punctual: BE ON TIME!!!
 Making an appointment:
 Via fax or telephone: one to two weeks prior to the meeting
 Via mail: at least one month prior to the meeting
 Appointment times:
 Mon. through Thurs. - 11:00 am to 1:00 pm and 3:00 pm to 5:00 pm
 Not after 2:00 pm or 3:00pm Fri. afternoons.
 July, August, and December popular vacation months
 Little work done during regional festivals, such as the Oktoberfest
 Inquire about the language used during the negotiation. There may be a need for a
translator
 Inquire about the language used during the negotiation. There may be a need for a
translator
35
NEGOTIATING IN GERMANY
A. Prior to the negotiation

 Germans usually begin talking business immediately
 If small talk occurs, it must be good conversation topics that include:
 sports (soccer, hiking, skiing)
 German beer
 German cars
 Although Germans protect their privacy, they do open up when trust is established
 Do not ask personal questions at the outset of the negotiation.
B. During the negotiation

 Be prepared! Have data and technical expertise to support your claims.
 Avoid compliment/ complaint juxtaposition.
 Be aware of “hidden” series of advisors and decision-makers.
 Emphasize your product’s superiority, and downplay glamour.
 Germans HATE hype and exaggeration.
 Keep humour out.
 Hold some negotiable offers in reserve.
 Germans are notorious for requesting last minute concessions.
 Contracts are usually very detailed.
 A warranty for quality assurance is often included.
BUSINESS ENTERTAINING
 Breakfast meetings never occur in Germany.

 Luncheons are commonplace
 Discuss business before or after the meal but never during.
 Use utensils at all times.
 An invitation to someone’s home is a rare honour.
 Bring an appropriate gift to show your appreciation.
36
GENERAL PRECAUTIONS
 Punctuality
 Recording decisions in writing
 Cut out glitz
 Respect hierarchy
 Allow the other party to set the pace of the negotiation

37

Module 6

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Module 6

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MODULE 6

Negotiators, who doubt the importance of cross-cultural sensitivity and knowledge,

Cross-cultural negotiation does not require merely an awareness and understanding

 Commence and end meetings at flexible times;

Negotiators from monochronic cultures

 Give preference to prompt beginnings and endings;

Another dimension of time relevant to negotiations is the focus on past, present, or

Discussion of national negotiating styles invariably refers to particular cultural

2.2 Spatial orientations

2.3 Method of communication (direct or indirect)

The clash of these different styles of communication in a negotiation can cause

Non-verbal communication is an extremely important and much neglected aspect of

2.4 Power Distance

 Democratic and flat organisational structures;

2.5 Avoidance of uncertainty

2.7 Characteristics of negotiators

AMERICAN JAPANESE CHINESE BRAZILIAN

Preparation & Persistence & Preparation &

Judgment & Win respect & Preparation & Judgment &

Perceive & exploit Judgment & Perceive & exploit

As is evident, Brazilians and Americans were almost identical in the characteristics

3. OTHER IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS

3.2 Gift giving

 Whether gifts should be given;

3.3 The basis of the relationship

3.4 The negotiating goal (contract or relationship)

When confronted by a strongly relationship-orientated negotiator, it serves little

3.5 The negotiating attitude (Win-win or Win-lose)

 That a negotiation is a collaborative, opportunity-finding process in which both

Negotiators must, before entering a negotiation, know what type of negotiator is

3.6 The negotiating style (formal or informal)

As a rule, it is always safer for negotiators operating in foreign cultures to initially

3.7 Emotionalism (high or low)

In a survey of cultural dispositions to emotionalism, Latin-Americans and the Spanish

In a survey of executives, 78% expressed a preference for specific agreements,

3.9 Building the agreement (building top-down or bottom-up)

In a survey, 59% of the respondents preferred a one-leader team, while 41%

3.11 Risk taking (high or low)

3.12 Information provided during negotiations

3.13 Negotiation preferences

Dealing with a cross-cultural negotiation is a particular challenge in determination

3.15 Understanding the expectations of all the parties

Decision-making styles differ from culture to culture. Whereas American managers

3.16 Establishing common ground & a negotiating style

Although the problem-solving approach generally avoids serious blunders in cross-

Where cultural differences manifest in different negotiating styles, Willem

3.17 Managing the negotiation

Japanese negotiators see Americans negotiators as:

In the Nigerian Ibibio context, the restoration of social networks is sufficiently

Many other African contexts in which a range of indigenous processes exist

 A focus on group goals;

In a negotiation, these values manifest themselves in an awareness of group needs

Japanese negotiators are known for:

Their politeness is primarily motivated by a desire to save face and to avoid

In Central America, there is a preference for a storied, holistic approach to conflict

5. FACTORS INFLUENCING THE WAYS DIFFERENT

5.1 Informal influences

5.2 Negotiation-specific expectations

 Views underlying the process;

5.2.1 Views underlying the process

5.2.2 Approaches to creating an agreement

5.2.3 Form of the agreement

5.2.4 Implementation of the agreement

5.2.5 Consequences of the influencing factors