Presentation

On
International negotiation

By
Siddhartha
Banafshe
Sharora
 Definition
The process of structured communication
between two or more parties in order to reach
an contractual agreement or for solving a
dispute or in general a common problem
where in the parties are usually from different
countries
With different cultural backgrounds is called
International negotiation.
 Examples
 Regarding Environmental Issues
Ex: Copenhagen Summit
 Trade negotiations
Ex: Doha Summit
 Nuclear deals
Ex: Indo-US nuclear deal
 International Disputes
Ex: Oslo Talks
 Concept
Bargaining

## It is a limited process that suggests a

competitive exchange process.
## It usually results in win-lose situations.
Negotiation
## It is a comprehensive concept that
suggests a joint effort by two or more
parties to find a mutually acceptable
solution to a problem.
## It often results in win-win situations.
Conflict
!!! In its simplest form implies
disagreement or opposition
!!! But precisely here it refers to
interference by individuals engaged
in pursuing individual goals that
cannot be achieved simultaneously
Intercultural Negotiation Environment
 Economic conditions
 Political priorities
 Social Environment
 Legal environtment
 most importantly “ The cultural
Differences ”
 Cultural Differences
 Culture is the most pervasive issue because
people differ in their priorities about why they
are negotiating and what they want to achieve
in the process.
 It has a lasting impact on the line of reasoning.
 Innumerable things can be attributed to culture
such as language, tastes, rituals, thinking,
behavior, rituals etc.
 Examples
!!! Historically French follow the Cartesian logic which is
similar to that of a deductive approach where as Americans
follow inductive approach
!!! Japanese give more importance to emotions whereas
Americans are pragmatic
!!! Silence. The Japanese consider long pauses quite normal,
while Americans and Europeans get uncomfortable in such a
situation. They abhor the “communication vacuum” and often
say exactly the wrong thing at such times.
!!! Differences in language ,Misinterpretation, Non –verbal
Communication, Hand shake etc.
 Comparison of Negotiating Styles
North Americans Arabs Russians

Primary negotiating Factual Affective Axiomatic

styles

Conflict: arguments Objective facts Subjective feelings Asserted Ideals

countered with

Making concessions Small made early to Part of process Few, if any, small
establish a concessions made
relationship

Relationship Short-term Long-term No continuing

relationship
Deadline Very important Casual Ignored

Authority Broad Broad Limited

Initial Position Moderate Extreme Extreme

 Concessions and Agreement
Element US Japan Arabs Russian

First offer Moderate Fair Extreme Extreme

Making Concessions Small, early Small Part of bargaining Few, if any

process

Response to Reciprocate Reciprocate Usually reciprocate Sign of

Concession weakness

Exchange of Documented; Extensive; More emphasis on Very factual

information step-by-step; concentrate on relationship and detailed
multimedia receiving side
Comparison of Exchange of Information
Styles

U.S. American Straightforward, objective, and efficient

Mexico Typically suspicious and indirect, presenting little substantive material

and more lengthy, evasive conversation

France Enjoy debate and conflict; will often interrupt presentations to argue
about issue even if it has little relevance to what is being presented

Chinese Asks many questions, delve specifically and repeatedly into details;
Chinese presentations contain vague and ambiguous material

Russia Emphasis on protocol, deal only with top executives, enter negotiations
well prepared, bring expert to deal with grueling technical questions
 Translator (documents) and/or
Interpreter (speaking)
 Local languages play an important role bcause
of legal jurisdiction.
 Sound bites rather that monologues.
 It is not an Mechanical process.
 He should be clearly aware of every aspect of
the deal so as to avoid individual
interpretations.
 Nature of Negotiation
Distributive Negotiation
## It is a zero-sum model in which parties are in
competition to maximize their share of
outcomes, and the total outcome pool is fixed.
## Information is deliberately withheld.
##Effective Negotiators will have a good mental
picture of their target outcomes and a clear
idea of their resistance points, zone of
potential agreement and the bargaining
mix.
 Example
International Negotiations to create a joint
venture, for example, involve percentage
ownership or equity contribution, value based
on assets or share distribution or profits.
Integrative Negotiation
##It is a process in which the parties jointly
work towards goals that are not mutually
exclusive, one party does not necessarily gain
at the others expense.
## Substantive and intrinsic.
## Seek to identify alternative solutions that
benefit both the parties.
## Requires willingness to share information.
## Should not try to balance the scorecard.
## Relationship-building equities
Thank you