Chapter 7 Business Negotiation across Cultures. For now, all business is negotiating, and all negotiating is communicating. —D. A. Foster Bargaining Across.

Chapter 7 Business Negotiation across Cultu

res

For now, all business is negotiating, and all negotiating is communicating. —D. A. Foster Bargaining Across Borders

Objectives

1. To define the intercultural negotiation process

2. To discuss the impact of cultural differences on international negotiation

3. To distinguish negotiation styles and strategies

Differences in ways of thinking, behaving, and in managing conflict have a profound impact on how successfully or unsuccessfully the parties are able to negotiate or conduct business transactions.

Cultural differences can generate misunderstandings, sow the seeds of distrust, and/or generate negative emotions among the negotiators. When managers differ in their basic thought processes, misunderstandings are all but inevitable.

1. Communication in Negotiation

Negotiation is a discussion between two or more disputants

who are trying to work out a solution to their problem.

This interpersonal or inter-group process can occur at a personal level, as well as at a corporate or international (diplomatic) level.

1. 1 Differences in focus

Focus may be positive or negative; it may be explicitor implicit; it may be general or specific.

Cultures that emphasize communication as a tool for articulating specific goals in order to accomplish them tend to look upon negotiations as a series of points to "settle".

Their language in negotiations is explicit and zeroes in on what has yet to be agreed.

E.g. Americans: direct & explicit approach

"What do you still not like about this detail of product design?” --questions and negative points of disagreement

Westerners: specific Focus on particulars, esp. unresolved ones

and address them one by one (sequential)

But cultures that use communication to encourage harmony, preserve face, and develop long-term relationships are not comfortable with direct and explicit talk.

E.g. Japan and China: indirect & implicit approach

getting straight to some point might result in confrontation and negative emotions--even anger.

Asians: general

emphasize the positive side of the agreement not ask pointed questions (not enjoy being

asked such questions) begin with general terms regard unresolved issues as potentially

resolved because of the developing relationship (simultaneous)

The Chinese strategist and philosopher Sun Tzu wrote about diffusing conflicts this way:

Indirect tactics, efficiently applied, are inexhaustible as heaven and earth, unending as the flow of rivers and streams; like the sun and moon they end but to begin again; like the four seasons, they pass away but to return once more.　故善出奇者，无穷如天地，不竭如江河。终而复始，日月是也；死而复生，四时是也。

Honor Group membership, when it is highly

valued, can impact negotiations in a number of ways.

E.g. Arab countries and

Korea may be motivated

to gain the best advantage

for the honor of their group.

Collectivist cultures don’t oft. back down: very much related to a team's decision-making

process (consensus-based process) lengthy discussions of the group before the

negotiations—less able to change

Individualist cultures Individuals have authority to

make decisions flexible and open to change

Emotion In some high-context cultures, public display

of emotion is a sign of immaturity and a potential cause of shame to the group.

Japanese negotiators will close their eyes, or look down, or rest their head against their hand and shade their eyes in order to conceal an emotion such as anger.

Similarly, Thais keep potentially disruptive ( 引起混乱的破坏性的 ) emotions from showing in their faces.

Koreans, Chinese, and other Asians along with Japanese and Thais have earned the descriptor "inscrutable” ( 难以了解的 , 不能预测的 ) from Westerners because of their learned cultural practice of avoiding a facial display of strong and disruptive emotion.

High-context cultures value harmony in human encounters, and members avoid sending any nonverbal messages that could destroy harmony.

Yet other high-context cultures, for example in the Middle East, put a high priority on displays of emotion (although not anger) to emphasize the sincerity of the position being put forward.

In low-context cultures, a deliberate concealment of emotion is considered to be insincere or poker-faced.

Members of low-context cultures have learned and habitually use a large vocabulary of facial expressions that signal the emotion a speaker feels.

Silence

Silence as a nonverbal communication tool can be very effective in negotiations.

In low-context cultures where ideas are explicitly encoded into words and unspoken ideas are more difficult to respond to, silence makes low-context negotiators uneasy.

Silence often means unhappiness in low-context cultures.

Even when no message about unhappiness is intended, silence in low-context cultures indicates a rupture ( 割裂 ) has occurred, a break in the process of communicating.

Negotiators from low-context cultures generally are uncomfortable with silence.

They often feel responsible for starting conversation or keeping it going.

They also use silence as a tactic.

High-context cultures are comfortable with silence.

e.g. Japanese speakers are comfortable with

silence in negotiations and do not hurry to fill it up with speech.

2. Cultural Variations in Conducting Business2.1 Negotiation atmosphere Americans----an attitude of economic gain, expect

others to display “American professionalism”; not interested in long-term relationship; efficiency, compromise; ability; trust counterparts at the onset

French----distrust counterparts in the beginning; see themselves as experienced; formal hospitality

Japanese—socialization, establish long-term relationship; rely on trust between the parties and implicit understanding

Chinese—mutual interests and friendships, socialization; expect favorable terms

Middle Easterners, Brazilians and Mexicans—personal relationship, hospitality; trust and respect; initiated with pre-negotiation social graces

2.2 Detail: Depth vs. Breadth

Americans—impersonal and mission-driven, openly challenged1) I can handle it by myself.

2) Please call me Steve.

3) Pardon my French.

4) Let’s get to the point.

5) Speak up; what do you think?

6) Let’s put our cards on the table.

7) A deal is a deal.

Express individualism Make people feel relaxed by being informal To excuse profanity [prə’fæniti] ( 沾污神圣不敬 )

To speed up decision To avoid silence To convey the expectation of honesty To indicate that the agreement will be honore

d

Chinese: Tea and social talk Slow start to warm up and followed by

tentative suggestions Technical competence, large delegation,

inadequate interpreters, fewer lawyers Intermediary Delay, indecision

2.3 Communication style

Americans:

convey warmth, sincerity and confidence

--ready to bargain & compromise

--English

--employ threats, warnings, pushiness

--express bluntly

--silence as uncomfortable and trouble

The British: kind, friendly, sociable, agreeable, flexible and responsive

( compared with Americans)

--more silence and less egalitarian

--interrupt less

--polite and indistinct style

Japanese: very polite and less aggressive--seemingly accepting and passive →appear

easily persuaded--little reaction except nodding--long pause, not rushed, patient, no

interruption--self-restrained, seek simple symbolic

expression →covert, fragmented expression--silence, harmony

Middle Easterners: intuitive-affective, not based on reasoning

Germans: clear, firm, assertive

--not compromise

--frequently interrupt

--not ask many questions but disclose a lot

Chinese: harmony, save face, relationship

--avoid open conflicts

--avoid losing face

--slow concessions

--refrain from small talk

--not accept hypothetical examples

French: confrontational and competitive

--frequently employ “no”

--insist on the use of French

--long-winded ( 冗长 ) negotiation

--stress on reason

--not easily accept new information

--welcome debate and dissent

Mexicans: rhetoric and deductive

--play the weaker side for sympathy

--compromise=threat to dignity

--emphasis on contemplation and intuition

--stand closer, physical contact to show confidence

Brazilians: aggressive

--a lot of commands, no’s, you’s

--not silent

--frequent touching

--facial gazing

--compete for floor

3. Cultural Variations in Selecting Negotiators

Cultures vary in choosing individuals to send to the negotiating table. These criteria include negotiating experience, status( seniority, political affiliation, sex, ethnic ties, or kinship), knowledge of the subject, and personal attributes( affability, loyalty, and trustworthiness in the eyes of the principal).

American

Typically invoke the ability criterion and choose their negotiators on the basis of their substantive knowledge of the issues at the table and on their negotiating experience; the gender, age or social status of the negotiator can be incidental.

Chinese

Large teams of varied composition tend to be used. They expect to deal with someone of authority and status.

French

Status is the major criterion, although ability is gaining in use. Similarity in personality and background is important.

Japanese

A team of individuals is selected on the basis status (sex, age, seniority) and knowledge.

--leader: at 40, members: late 30, women rarely participating

British

The status and role of the negotiators are crucial.

Iranian

Based on age—oldest: leader

Saudis

In government or business, negotiators tend to be males selected on the basis of status (family and personal ties) and loyalty.

Mexicans

Negotiators are selected on the basis of status (political affiliation, relatives) and personal attributes.

Middle Easterners

Similar to Japanese

4. Cultural Variations in Decision-making

American Made by individuals

Chinese Made authoritatively

French Highly centralized

Japanese

Consensus building is the norm.

Mexicans

Highly centralized

Saudis

Highly centralized but consultative

Problem-solving Process Americans

• view negotiations as problem-solving sessions• preoccupied with the person who makes the

decision and direct their proposals to him • rely on rational thinking and concrete data• persuasion is factual inductive

French• more debate than bargain• less flexible• long-range view• conservative, safe decision maker

Japanese• heavily on level expertise • slow in producing conclusions, fast in

implementation• stick to decisions• decisions based on detailed information rather

than persuasion

Middle Easterners• intuitive-affective, not based on reasoning

5. Form of Agreement

Negotiations are entered into only for the purpose of reaching an agreement.

An agreement is an exchange of conditional promises in which each party declares that it will act in a certain way on condition that the other parties act in accordance with their promises.

Form of agreement varies from culture to culture.

They seem to cluster around 2 categories: explicit and implicit forms. (general or specific)

▼ Explicit forms—detailed, written contracts that cover most contingencies and bind parties legally

▼ Implicit forms—consist of broad, general principles often agreed orally (See Table)

Form of Agreement

American Detailed written agreements which are to be legally binding

Chinese Written agreements that are general

French Detailed, legally binding written agreements Japan-ese

Brief, written agreements that set forth basic principles, but a gentleman’s agreement often has more force than a legal contract

Mexicans Implicit agreement

Nigerians Agreements are written but regarded as flexible

Saudis Bound by words, cement their agreements orally

6. Phases of Negotiation

Development of a relationship--openness and face ( self-respect, esteem in the west)

Information exchange about the topic--ask questions and frame questions

Persuasion--inclusiveness

Concession and agreement--counter-concession using “if” language

In short, Westerners negotiate a contract, most Orientals and Latins negotiate a relationship. The former is task-oriented, direct and to the point, emphasizing the shot-term, while the latter is relationship-oriented, indirect and ambitious, wanting to know what the long-term effects will be.

Main Points

1. Communication in negotiation2. Styles of Negotiating 3. The Influence of Chinese and

western cultural differences on negotiation

4. Negotiations Strategies5. Physical context of negotiation 6. The phases of negotiation

1.1 Differences in focus 1.2 Honor 1.3 Form 1.4 Emotion 1.5 Silence

1. Communication in negotiation

2.1 Unites Sates2.2 Germany2.3 France2.4 Russian States2.5 India2.6 Japan

2. Styles of Negotiating

3.1 Negotiating goal: contract or relationship?3.2 Negotiating attitude: win/lose or win/win? 3.3 Personal style: informal or formal?3.4 Communication: direct or indirect?3.5 Form of agreement: general or specific?

3. The Influence of Chinese and western cultural differences on negotiation

4.1 The aims for negotiation4.2 Making a practical negotiation plan4.3 Strategies of negotiation

4. Negotiations Strategies

5.1 Site and space 5.2 Schedule and agenda 5.3 Use of time

5. Physical context of negotiation

6.1 Development of a relationship6.2 Information exchange about the

topic under negotiation6.3 Persuasion6.4 Concession and Agreement

6. The phases of negotiation

1.1 Differences in focus 1.2 Honor 1.3 Form 1.4 Emotion 1.5 Silence

1. Communication in negotiation

Differences in ways of thinking, behaving, and in managing conflict have a profound impact on how successfully or unsuccessfully the parties are able to negotiate or conduct business transactions.

Cultural differences can generate misunderstandings, sow the seeds of distrust, and/or generate negative emotions among the negotiators. When managers differ in their basic thought processes, misunderstandings are all but inevitable.

Negotiation is a discussion between two or more disputants who are trying to work out a solution to their problem. This interpersonal or inter-group process can occur at a personal level, as well as at a corporate or international (diplomatic) level.

What is negotiation?

Negotiations typically take place because the parties wish to create something new that neither could do on his or her own, or to resolve a problem or dispute between them.

The parties acknowledge that there is some conflict of interest between them and think they can use some form of influence to get a better deal, rather than simply taking what the other side will voluntarily give them.

They prefer to search for agreement rather than fight openly, give in, or break off contact.

1.1 Differences in focus

Focus may be positive or negative; it may be explicitor implicit; it may be general or specific.

Cultures that emphasize communication as a tool for articulatingspecific goals in order to accomplish them tend to look upon negotiations as a series of points to "settle".

Their language in negotiations is explicit and zeroes in on what has yet to be agreed.

These explicit statements may in fact be questions and emphasize negative points of disagreement, such as, "What do you still not like about this detail of product design?" Americans prefer this direct approach because their aim is to solve an issue.

But cultures that use communication to encourage harmony, preserve face, and develop long-term relationships are not comfortable with direct and explicit talk.

For instance, in Japan, getting straight to some point about which agreement has yet to be reached might result in confrontationand emotions--even anger.

Japanese, like negotiators from other Asian cultures, prefer to emphasize the positive points of agreement. They begin with general terms and seek agreement from the other side about general goals.

Then, regardless of the remaining details, the general agreement holds the two sides together in a relationship. They do not ask-and do not enjoy being asked pointed questions.

They want to develop a relationship, because once a relationship exists, each side has an obligation to consider the needs of the other, so the issue resolves itself.

The Chinese strategist and philosopher Sun Tzu wrote about diffusing conflicts this way:

Indirect tactics, efficiently applied, are inexhaustible as heaven and earth, unending as the flow of rivers and streams; like the sun and moon they end but to begin again; like the four seasons, they pass away but to return once more. 　

（故善出奇者，无穷如天地，不竭如江河。终而复始，日月是也；死而复生，四时是也。）

“inexhaustible as heaven and earth ( 无穷如天地 )”

“unending as the flow of rivers and streams ( 不竭如江河 )”

“like the sun and moon they end but to begin again ( 终而复始，日月是也 )”

“like the four seasons, pass away but to return again ( 死而复生，四时是也 )” ．

The approach that focuses on particulars, especially unresolved ones, is typically Western. Negotiators look at the unsettled issues, and one by one address them.

In Asia, unresolved issues are part of the whole web of the relationship being woven by the negotiation process. A simultaneous, not sequential, approach means the negotiators look at unresolved issues as potentially resolved because of the developing relationship between the two sides.

1.2 Honor

Group membership, when it is highly valued, can impact negotiations in a number of ways.

Negotiators whose allegiance is to a family group, such as the ruling household of some Arab countries, or to a nation, such as Korea, may be motivated to gain the best advantage for the honor of their group.

The fact that something bigger than the corporation seems to be at stake can make a negotiating team less flexible.

On the other hand, negotiators who are motivated by a desire to uphold their individual reputations and records can also be inflexible about backing down.

The key is for you to understand what motivates your counterparts. Then you can accommodate the needs of the other side.

If your counterparts are motivated to succeed for the honor of the group, then you need to send messages that show you understand. Your own group membership and loyalty will be important to emphasize.

Not backing down is very much related to a team's decision-making process.

If it is a consensus-based process, then the team's position will have been determined by lengthydiscussions of the group before the negotiations take place.

This makes the team less able to change their position spontaneously. They have to go back and consult the others in the group before they can agree to changes in their initial position.

If individuals have authority to make decisions, the team's position may be flexible and open to change for that reason.

1.3 Form

Form is very important in high-context cultures, and nowhere is form more important than in negotiation sessions.

In Arab cultures, sessions begin with small talk, and communication is indirect.

In some situations, negotiators may sit on cushions on carpets, not on furniture.

In other situations, the negotiations may take place in a restaurant or club owned by someone other than the negotiators.

Visitors should not refuse an offer of hospitality such as a small cup of strong coffee, nor arrange their feet so that the soleis pointing toward anyone.

Proper respect is due older members of the Arab team, and that means not using too much familiarity: don't ask about female family members.

If you ask how many children a businessman has, he may give you the number of his male children.

1.4 Emotion

In some high-context cultures, public display of emotion is a sign of immaturityand a potential cause of shame to the group.

Japanese negotiators will close their eyes, or look down, or rest their head against their hand and shade their eyes in order to conceal an emotion such as anger.

Similarly, Thais keep potentially disruptive emotions from showing in their faces.

Koreans, Chinese, and other Asians along with Japanese and Thais have earned the descriptor "inscrutable"from Westerners because of their learned cultural practice of avoiding a facial display of strong and disruptive emotion.

High-context cultures value harmony in human encounters, and members avoid sending any nonverbal messages that could destroy harmony.

Yet other high-context cultures, for example in the Middle East, put a high priority on displays of emotion (although not anger) to emphasize the sincerity of the position being put forward.

In low-context cultures, a deliberate concealment of emotion is considered to be insincere or cagey--poker-faced.

Members of low-context cultures have learned and habitually use a large vocabulary of facial expressions that signal the emotion a speaker feels.

When they see none of the expected indicators of emotion on faces of negotiators on the opposite side of the table, they may presume emotion is not present.

If this assumption is discovered to be wrong, and the other has indeed been feeling an emotion such as anger, the member of the low-context culture feels deceived.

1.5 Silence

Silence as a nonverbal communication tool can be very effective in negotiations.

In low-context cultures where ideas are explicitly encodedinto words and unspoken ideas are more difficult to respond to, silence makes low-context negotiators uneasy.

Silence often means unhappiness in low-context cultures.

Even when no message about unhappiness is intended, silence in low-context cultures indicates a rupturehas occurred, a break in the process of communicating.

For these reasons, negotiators from low-context cultures generally are uncomfortable with silence.

They often feel responsible for starting conversation or keeping it going.

Japanese speakers are comfortable with silence in negotiations and do not hurry to fill it up with speech.

After a speaker from one side has finished, Japanese listeners pause in silence to reflect on what has been said out of consideration for the speaker's feelings and point of view.

This is how Japanese show respect for others in oral communication, to interrupt a negotiator who is speaking is to show disrespect.

Because of this protocol and the value the Japanese place on silence, negotiators with Japanese counterparts must be careful not to speak too hastily or too much.

2.1 Unites Sates 2.2 Germany 2.3 France 2.4 Russian States 2.5 India 2.6 Japan

2. Styles of Negotiating

2. Styles of Negotiating

Negotiation styles vary with the persons, their beliefs and skills, as well as the general context in which they occur. Negotiation styles can also vary dramatically due to cultural differences in areas like communication styles and decision-making patterns. Actually, every negotiator has a negotiation style. From competing to avoiding to compromising to accommodating and finally to collaborating, people naturally default to one of these styles.

2..1 Unites Sates

U.S. negotiators tend to rely on individualist values, imagining self and other as autonomous, independent, and self-reliant.

This does not mean that they don't consult, but the tendency to see self as separate rather than as a member of a web or network means that more independent initiative may be taken.

In negotiation, firstly, American negotiators tend to be competitive in their approach to negotiations, including coming to the table with a fallback position but beginning with an unrealistic offer.

Secondly, they tend to be energetic, confident, and persistent; they enjoy arguing their positions, and see things universally -- i.e., they like to talk about broad applications of ideas.

Thirdly, they tend to focus on areas of disagreement, not areas of commonality or agreement.

Finally, they tend to like closure and certainty rather than open-endedness or fuzziness.

2.2 Germany

People in Germany have strong mind of thinking, they are thoughtful when considering a transaction. They like to adopt a plan before starting a business.

Meanwhile, the Germany negotiators focus on efficiency, when prepare negotiation with business men from other countries, the first thing they do is to fix a plan, then according to the plan they arrange their negotiating schedule.

Germany business men are very proud, and have strong self-confidence, they attach great importance to the contract, they make it very clear what the prices, conditions and ways of acting are.

In addition, Germany businessmen have serious principles about interpersonal relationship and they focus on personal credit.

2.3 France

It is known to all that people in France take great pride about their nations and mostly their language French. Therefore, during the negotiation, they persist in speaking French, meanwhile the accuracy of French often help them a lot.

French businessmen consider meeting is a formal and serious occasion; they will reach the meeting in very formal clothes.

At the very beginning, French negotiators tend to make effort to find what their counterparts demands and request are, and only at the very end of negotiation they show their cards, which makes negotiators who are from other countries, especially Americans consider French businessman to be sly.

French negotiators usually raise their opinion in a logical way and they can catch their counterparts when they think them not logical.

In the meeting, French business men like to conduct logical analysis about all the subjects, so the negotiation often went on redundantly.

French men never believe in the "friendship" built up in the early period, and they don't like to call people's name straightly, take off coat or listen to people talking about their personal or family affair.

They are proud of their quick mind, when they come across deadlockin negotiations.

They never compromise, but they can always keep gentle and calm, and state their opinion or stand repeatedly.

Apart from that, French businessmen like to spend their leisure time on holiday. So they have no strong sense of time, they don't like to be asked to give quick decision, to them, negotiation is not a hasty affair.

2.4 Russia

Because Russian people have taken slow step in the development of foreign trade, Russian businessmen lack flexibility in trade negotiations.

However they are good at bargaining, and they lay store on the technological content and claim clause in the negotiation subject, meanwhile, they prefer to adopt the way of barter trade.

Political and economic changes have occurred rapidly. The Russians want to learn and take part in western management practices.

Currently there is a lot of opportunity for joint ventures that include industrial modernization.

Russia has had no business schools. People were formally trained as specialists (in engineering or the sciences) rather than as generalists.

Some negotiation tactics may remain the same, but many tactics will probably change as other management practices are initiated.

In the past, negotiation sessions with the Russians have been long with the Russians controlling the agenda.

Russians seem to be concerned with age, rank, and protocol. They are addressed by their full name and tend to be somewhat formal.

Like U.S. people, Russians see time as money, and friendships are not crucial to business.

Russians are not concerned with equality between business partners but are concerned with maximizing their own profits. Contracts are interpreted rigidly.

2.5 India

India is the second most populous country and tenth most industrialized country in the world.

India has been influenced by Britain which ruled that country until 1947. The British ruled India for nearly 300 years.

Although the educated people speak English, Hindi is spoken by 30 percent of the population. Besides English and Hindi, there are 14 other Indian languages. Indians are family oriented and religious.

Business is conducted in a formal yet relaxed manner. Having connectionsis important.

Remember to avoid using the left hand in greetings and eating

Request permission before smoking, entering the room, or sitting

Building relationships is important, and an introduction is necessary.

Since people of India place importance on building relationships, the negotiation process can be rather long by U.S. standards.

Indian management is paternalistictoward subordinates.

Due to status differences, group orientations are generally not used by the Indians.

Indians, in an effort to maintain harmony, may tell the other part what it would like to hear.

People of India do not approve of displays of emotion, and negotiators must use patience and allow the Indians to take the lead in the negotiations.

2.6 Japan

There is a great deal written about Japanese approaches to negotiation, and collisions between American and Japanese approaches are legendary.

The following values tend to influence Japanese communication: focus on group goals, interdependence, and a hierarchicalorientation.

In negotiations, these values manifest themselves in awareness of group needs and goals, and deferenceto those of higher status.

Japanese negotiators are known for their politeness, their emphasis on establishing relationships, and their indirect use of power.

Japanese concern with face and face-saving is one reason that politeness is so important and confrontation is avoided.

They tend to use power in muted, indirect ways consistent with their preference for harmony and calm.

In comparative studies, Japanese negotiators were found to disclose considerably less about themselves and their goals than French or American counterparts.

Japanese negotiators tend to put less emphasis on the literal meanings of words used in negotiation and more emphasis on the relationships established before negotiation begins.

They are also less likely than their U.S. counterparts to make procedural suggestions.

3.1 Negotiating goal: contract or relationship?3.2 Negotiating attitude: win/lose or win/win? 3.3 Personal style: informal or formal?3.4 Communication: direct or indirect?3.5 Form of agreement: general or specific?

3. The Influence of Chinese and western cultural differences on negotiation

3.1 Negotiating goal: contract or relationship?

Different cultures may view the very purpose of a business negotiation differently. For many American executives, the goal of a negotiation, first and foremost, is to arrive at a signed contract between the parties.

Americans consider a signed contract as a definitive set of rights and duties that strictly binds the two sides and determines their interaction thereafter.

Chinese often consider that the goal of a negotiation is not a signed contract, but the creation of a relationship between the two sides.

Although the written contact describes the relationship, the essence of the deal is the relationship itself.

3.2 Negotiating attitude: win/lose or win/win?

Because of differences in culture or personality, or both, persons appear to approach deal making with one of two basic attitudes: that a negotiation is either a process in which both can gain (win/win) or a struggle in which, of necessity, one side wins and the other side loses (win/lose).

Win/win negotiators see deal making as a collaborative and problem-solving process

Win/lose negotiators see it as confrontational.

In a reflection of this dichotomy, negotiation scholars have concluded that these approaches represented two basic paradigms of the negotiation process

1) Distributive bargaining (i.e. win/lose). The parties see their goals as incompatible.

2) Integrative bargaining or problem-solving (i.e. win/win). they consider themselves to have compatible goals.

The difference between a win-win outcome and compromise lies in the negotiator's focus.

If the negotiator primarily thinks of his or her own team's outcome, the attitude will probably be to expect compromise: what we will gain in return for what we will have to give up. The focus is on our loss as well as our gain.

If the negotiator looks at both his or her own team and the other team, then the attitude will probably be to expect each side to gain. The focus is on mutual gain.

Negotiators usually expect movement toward agreement. However, when one side gains everything without giving up anything, and the other side simply agrees, no negotiation takes place.

This is a simple agreement without conflicting interests. Without common interests there is nothing to negotiate for, and without conflict there is nothing to negotiate about.

3.3 Personal style: informal or formal?

Personal style concerns the forms a negotiator uses to interact with counterparts at the table. Culture strongly influences the personal style of negotiators. It has been observed, for example, that Germans have a more formal style than Americans.

A negotiator with a formal style insists on addressing counterparts by their titles, avoids personal anecdotes, and refrains from questions touching on the private or family life of members of the other negotiating team.

An informal style negotiator tries to start the discussion on a first-name basis, quickly seeks to develop a personal, friendly relationship with the other team, and may take off his jacket and roll up his sleeves when deal making begins in earnest.

While nearly 83 % of the Americans, 80% of the French and 78% of Germans consider themselves to have an informal negotiating style

Only 54% of the Chinese, 52% of the Spanish, and 58% of the Mexicans were similarly inclined.

3.4 Communication: direct or indirect?

Methods of communication vary among cultures. Some groups place emphasis on direct and simple methods of communication; others rely heavily on indirect and complex methods. It has been observed, for example, that whereas Germans, Americans and Spanish are direct, the French and the Chinese are indirect.

Persons with an indirect style of communication often make assumptions about the level of knowledge possessed by their counterparts and to a significant extent communicate with the following characteristics:

1) oblique ( 间接的，无诚意的 ) references, circumlocutions ( 委婉曲折的 )

3) figurative forms of speech

2) vague allusions ( 暗示 )

4) facial expressions, gestures and other kinds of body language.

In a culture that values directness such as the American, one can expect to receive a clear and definite response to proposals and questions.

In cultures that rely on indirect communication, such as the Chinese, reaction to proposals may be gained by interpreting seemly indefinite comments, gestures, and other signs.

3.5 Form of agreement: general or specific?

Cultural factors may also influence the form of the written agreement that parties try to make. Generally speaking, a majority of negotiators in each cultural group prefer specific agreements to general agreements.

Americans prefer very detailed contracts that attempt to anticipate all possible circumstances and eventualities, no matter how unlikely.

Because the "deal" is the contract itself, and one must refer to the contract to handle new situations that may arise in the future.

Other cultures, such as the Chinese, prefer a contract in the form of general principles rather than detailed rules.

Because, it is claimed, the essence of the deal is the relationship between the parties. If unexpected circumstances arise, the parties should look to their relationship, not the details of the contract, to solve the problem.

4. Negotiations Strategies

Main Points4.1 The aims for negotiation4.2 Making a practical negotiation plan4.3 Strategies of negotiation

We know that there are various negotiating goals, attitudes, personal and communication styles etc, in different culture groups. Therefore, we can make certain negotiation strategies to a country with a certain culture. International business negotiations involve different respects and the contents are very complicated.

4.1 The aims for negotiation

Defining the aims for negotiations means that the negotiators should know well their desired results according to their own practical conditions so as to avoid manipulation by their counterparts.

Before business negotiations, there are three different aims to be decided:

1) the best aim 2) the satisfactory aim 3) the acceptable aim.

The best aim is the ideal aim that will benefit you best and help you achieve all desired results planned at the beginning of the negotiation.

The second aim is the satisfactory aim, which is fair for both parties, although it provides you with lower interests than the best aim.

The third aim is the aim that you have to take: the acceptable aim when you find that it is difficult to achieve the first and second aims.

4.2 Making a practical negotiation plan

It is very important to make a practical negotiation plan after establishing the aim for negotiation. It is quite advisable that you should have a practical and effective plan before we go for a negotiation. Effective planning is crucial to meeting negotiation objectives. If the parties are to each a stable agreement, specific events must take place before the parties ever come to the table.

1) Designing your own agenda most suitable to you and letting all the negotiators be very familiar with the plan.

2) Comparing your own agenda with your counterpart’s when you have got his agenda and considering how to adopt the new strategies and tactics which should be used with caution.

3) Anticipating different ways of packaging issues. You can balance the issues you regard as most important by being more flexible about items you deem less important.

4) Involving the development of supporting arguments.

5) Choosing the location of negotiation which is favorable to you.

4.3 Strategies of negotiation

International business negotiation is a process that is complicated, arduous, and of course interesting in international business activities. You will have both difficulties and joy as well.

1) the foreign trade policies of various countries

2) the language barrier3) the life styles of customers coming

from every part of the negotiation and different negotiation styles and tactics

4) great joy5) great satisfaction

Many difficulties center on pricing problems. In order to achieve a favorable outcome from the negotiation, the following points should be paid attention to:

1) Making a high offer at the beginning of negotiation.

2) Making no compromise in the matter of prices at beginning of negotiation.

3) Rejecting an exporter’s price at the outset ( 开始 ) of the negotiation.

5) Constituting the price package.

4) Making no concession on price at once when the importer doesn’t accept the offer.

5. Physical context of negotiation

Where the negotiation takes place, the physical context of the communication has an impact on the outcome. For example, if the negotiation takes place by telephone or fax, the nonverbal messages have a diminished impact compared with face-to-face negotiation. Indeed, most negotiation involves meetings between parties. The host team for the negotiations has an advantage because the environment is in their control. The guest team doesn't have the same degree of control.

5.1 Site and space

The hosts can determine what city and what building and what room the meetings will be held in. If it's the boardroom of the building where the host organization members work, all the resources of that organization are at the disposal of the host team--photocopiers, telecommunications, files, and assistants. So the hosts have an advantage of convenience.

5.2 Schedule and agenda

Jet lag can prevent the visiting team from adapting and performing well to the hosts' schedule. People whose internal clock says it's midnight find it difficult to stay alert even if the clock on the wall says it's 11 in the morning.

Control of the schedule often carries over to control of the negotiating agenda. Hosts may suggest postponing certain discussions until guests are more rested, with the result that the hosts control the order in which issues are addressed.

The power of the keeper of the agenda is considerable in determining when meetings take place and what amount of time is allotted to discuss which issues. An issue that isn't on the agenda may never be discussed. The visiting team has to be alert when it comes to setting the agenda.

5.3 Use of time

Use of time is related to the agenda. Russians often use time to their advantage as part of the nonverbal communication in negotiations. They may delay negotiations in order to make the other side anxious.

Negotiators from the United States are well known for their impatience.

Decades of negotiations have taught Japanese that Westerners and especially delegates from the United States are not patient. If the Japanese prolong the negotiations sufficiently, the Westerners will probably agree to whatever the Japanese want.

In Japan, however, to take time is to show maturity and wisdom. Haste shows poor judgment and lack of genuine commitment.

In Asia, foreign negotiators complain they do too much sightseeing and not enough negotiating.

In the United States, foreign negotiators complain they feel rushed.

6. The phases of negotiation

The foregoing aspects of communication style are employed in specific phases of negotiation. Exchanges proceed according to the four phases of negotiation in all cultures; the emphasis and time spent on any one phase are really what differ.

6.1 Development of a relationship

In the first phase, where the relationship between negotiating teams is being established, trust is the goal and the critical factor.

Sight-seeing and a welcome banquet are two typical activities in Chinese business interactions with foreigners.

In order to develop trust, you need openness in your communication and to experience openness from the other side.

Face is an important consideration in developing a relationship with someone from a high-context culture.

Confucian societies will go to extremes to avoid pointing out errors, faux pas, or indiscretions that would cause themselves or another to lose face--to be embarrassed--in front of a group.

In Western cultures, the loss of face really means "personal" failure and is limited to the individual.

6.2 Information exchange about the topic under negotiation

One way to obtain information is to ask questions rather than wait for disclosure. You can ask questions

1)To determine common ground. 2) To clarify information.3) To call bluffs. 4) To show you are

listening.5) To show your interest. 6) To control the direction of the

discussion.7) To broach or discuss potentially

controversial issues (rather than by statement).

Items 1, 4, and 5 particularly have to do with developing relationships; item 2 has to do with understanding facts; items 3, 6, and 7 have to do with managing the negotiation process.

6.3 Persuasion

At this point you have established the items you need to focus on in order to reach an agreement. In other words, you have a clear idea where the conflicts lie as well as the concord. Now you will attempt to persuade your counterparts to accept a settlement that ensures you what you need and perhaps more. They will do the same.

Persuasion in low-context cultures' negotiation tactics includes

1) Supporting your argument with data.2) Offering counter-proposals 3) Ceasing communication (silence). 4) Disagreeing.5) Threatening the opposing side.6) Attacking the characters of the other side. 7) Avoiding and dodging ( 闪开 , 避开 ) certain

issues.8) Expressing emotion.9) Insisting on a final position.10) Making a final offer.

6.4 Concession and Agreement

When making a concession, skilled negotiators link that to a counter-concession, using "if" language. "We'll accept your shipment dates if you'll agree to a discount on future orders"

Many experienced negotiators warn that you can't come back and ask for a counter-concession after your concession has been granted and the discussion has moved to another issue.

Sometimes the final agreement arrives more quickly than you expect.

Some cultures are not interested in settling the negotiations in a way that terminates them.

Negotiators from Western cultures, on the other hand, are keen to sign agreements.

The End