Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing

Emerald Article: Differences in cross-cultural negotiation behavior

betweenindustrial product and consumer product firms
Robert Gulbro, Paul Herbig

Article information:
To cite this document: Robert Gulbro, Paul Herbig, (1995),"Differences in cross-cultural negotiation behavior betweenindustrial
product and consumer product firms", Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 10 Iss: 3 pp. 18 - 28
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/08858629510096193
Downloaded on: 15-01-2013
References: This document contains references to 38 other documents
Citations: This document has been cited by 9 other documents
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
This document has been downloaded 2289 times since 2005. *

Users who downloaded this Article also downloaded: *

Robert Gulbro, Paul Herbig, (1995),"Differences in cross-cultural negotiation behavior betweenindustrial product and consumer
product firms", Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 10 Iss: 3 pp. 18 - 28
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/08858629510096193
Robert Gulbro, Paul Herbig, (1995),"Differences in cross-cultural negotiation behavior betweenindustrial product and consumer
product firms", Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 10 Iss: 3 pp. 18 - 28
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/08858629510096193
Robert Gulbro, Paul Herbig, (1995),"Differences in cross-cultural negotiation behavior betweenindustrial product and consumer
product firms", Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 10 Iss: 3 pp. 18 - 28
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/08858629510096193

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS
For Authors:
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service.
Information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
With over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in
business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as
well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is
a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Differences in cross-cultural
negotiation behavior between
industrial product and consumer
product firms
Robert Gulbro and Paul Herbig

Introduction

The impact of international business to American companies has been

considerably understated. With two-way trade in goods and services
amounting to well over $1 trillion and nearly 20% of the US GDP in 1993
(US Department of Commerce), no part of the economy is sacrosanct and
can avoid the international dimension. Nearly 80% of American firms are
actively competing against foreign-based firms. If an American firm is not
competing against a foreign firm, chances are it is either being supplied by
or selling to foreign-based firms. Foreign direct investment in the US has
reached over $400 billion and continues to increase year by year. In the
decade of the 1990s, the only firms that will be exempt from dealing with
foreign entities, either US-based affiliates or foreign customers, suppliers, or
competitors will be those firms that are out of business or are going out of
business.
The importance of
cross-cultural
negotiations

At the forefront of international business opportunities are the agreements

between firms. Agreements are the most important international documents
that must be negotiated between firms of different nationalities. Every sale
or purchase has its negotiation aspect and every negotiation presents
opportunities and dangers for both parties. As a result of the globalization of
US business, international negotiations are fast becoming a fact of life for a
growing number of US-based firms. Therefore, cross-cultural negotiations
have begun to take on an increasing importance to the globalizing firm.
Failure to negotiate effectively can undo careful prior planning; operating
across national cultures often magnifies negotiation problems.
Cross-cultural negotiations

When two people communicate, they rarely talk about precisely the same
subject, for effective meaning is flavored by each persons own cognitive
world and cultural conditioning. When negotiating internationally, this
translates into anticipating culturally related ideas that are most likely to be
understood by a person of a given culture. Discussions are frequently
impeded because the two sides seem to be pursuing different paths of logic;
in any cross-cultural context, the potential for misunderstanding and talking
past each other is great (Kramer and Herbig, 1991).
Cultural differences

18

Members of one culture may focus on different aspects of an agreement (i.e

legal, financial) than do members of another culture (personal,
relationships). The implementation of a business agreement may be stressed
in one culture, while the range and prevention of practical problems
emphasized in another culture. In some cultures, the attention of people is
directed more towards the specific details of the agreement (documenting
the agreement), while other cultures focus on how the promises can be kept
(process and implementation). Americans negotiate a contract; the Japanese

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & INDUSTRIAL MARKETING VOL. 10 NO. 3 1995 pp. 18-28 MCB UNIVERSITY PRESS. 0855 8624

negotiate a personal relationship (Kramer, 1989). Cultures force people to

view and value differently the many social interactions inherent in
fashioning an agreement.
The negotiation
process

Negotiation is the process by which at least two parties try to reach an

agreement on matters of mutual interest. The negotiation process proceeds as
an interplay of perception, information processing and reaction, all of which
turn on images of reality (accurate or not), on implicit assumptions regarding
the issue being negotiated and on an underlying current of wisdom, beliefs
and expectations. When negotiating with someone from another country
with a different cultural background, the process can become a barrier to
achieving success at the negotiating table (Fisher and Ury, 1983).
Negotiations involve two dimensions: a matter of substance (the item being
negotiated such as a contract between channel members to distribute and
market a product) and the negotiating process itself (how the negotiations
are conducted). The latter is rarely a matter of relevance when negotiations
are conducted within the same cultural setting. Only when dealing with
someone from another country with a different cultural background does
process usually becomes a critical barrier to substance; in such settings
process first needs to be established before substantive negotiations can
commence (Herbig and Kramer, 1991).
When one takes the seemingly simple process of negotiations into a crosscultural context, it becomes even more complex and complications tend to
grow exponentially. It is naive indeed to venture into international
negotiation with the belief that after all people are pretty much alike
everywhere and behave much as we do. Even if they wear the same clothes
you do, speak English as well as (or even better than) you, and prefer many
of the comforts and attributes of American life (food, hotels, sports), it
would be foolish to view a member of another culture as a brother in spirit.
That negotiation style you use so effectively at home can be ineffective and
inappropriate when dealing with people from another cultural background;
in fact its use can often result in more harm than gain. Heightened
sensitivity, more attention to detail, and perhaps even changes in basic
behavioral patterns are required when working in another culture (Moran
and Stripp, 1991).

Barriers to
successful
agreement

Over two-thirds of US-Japanese negotiation efforts fail even though both

sides want to reach a successful business agreement (March, 1983). In fact,
these numbers hold true for most cross-cultural meetings. Often barriers to a
successful agreement are of a cultural nature rather than of an economical or
legal basis. Since each side perceives the other from its own ethnocentric
background and experience, often neither side fully comprehends why the
negotiations failed. It is precisely this lack of knowledge concerning the
culture and the alien and unnatural expectations of the other side that
hinders effective negotiation with those from another culture (Kramer,
1989).
Although not accounting for all the differences (political, legal, financial or
economic environmental factors or firm-specific factors can also
dramatically influence results), different countries and differing cultures can
produce divergent negotiating behaviors and styles that are shaped by
geography, history, religion, and politics. Success at this cross-cultural
negotiating table means being able to see through the eyes of the people
across the table, and understanding their cultural values and assumptions

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & INDUSTRIAL MARKETING VOL. 10 NO. 3 1995

19

(Fisher, 1980). No one can usually avoid bringing along his or her cultural
assumptions, images and prejudices or other attitudinal baggage into any
negotiating situation. The way one succeeds in cross-cultural negotiations is
by fully understanding others, using that understanding to ones own
advantage to realize what each party wants from the negotiations, and to turn
the negotiations into a win-win situation for both sides (Herbig and Kramer,
1992a).
Domestically, the study of negotiation tends to encompass business
relationships between parties, tactics, bargaining strategies, contingency
positions, etc. However, in a cross-cultural context, besides the usual rules of
negotiation, one has to be wary of fine nuances in relationships and practices
and how they are perceived and executed by members of the other culture.
The two business negotiators are separated from each other not only by
physical features, a totally different language and business etiquette, but also
by a different way to perceive the world, to define business goals, to express
thinking and feeling, to show or hide motivation and interests (Herbig and
Kramer, 1992b).
National traits

In cross-cultural negotiations, many of the rules taught and used

domestically may not apply especially when they may not be culturally
acceptable to the other party. For most Western negotiators this includes the
concepts of give and take, of bargaining, and even of compromise. The
common Western ideal of a persuasive communicator highly skilled in
debate, able to overcome objections with verbal flair, an energetic extrovert
may be regarded by members of other cultures as unnecessarily
aggressive, superficial, insincere, even vulgar and repressive. To other
Americans, the valued American traits of directness and frankness show
evidence of good intentions and personal convictions. To an American it is
complimentary to be called straightforward and aggressive. Not necessarily
so, however, for members of other cultures. To describe a person as
aggressive is a derogatory characterization to a British citizen. To the
Japanese, those very same traits indicate lack of confidence in ones
convictions and insincerity. Instead, terms such as thoughtful, cooperative,
considerate and respectful instill positives in the Japanese and many Asian
cultures (Kramer, 1989).
Literature review

Recent studies

Cross-cultural negotiation is a field of considerable interest in this age of the

global economy. Literally dozens of authors have written books or articles
concerning how to negotiate with another culture. The most popular cultures
to discuss are, not unsurprisingly, Japan (Graham, 1984; Graham and
Andrews, 1987; Kramer, 1989; March, 1983; Tung, 1982a; Van Zandt,
1970), China (Pye, 1982; Samuelson, 1984; Tung, 1982b, 1983), and the
Soviets (now Russians) (Beliaev et al., 1985; Dreyfus and Roberts, 1988;
Graham et al., 1992; Nite, 1985; Smith, 1989). Although many have
discussed those elements in cross-cultural negotiations which are crucial to
business successes (Ghauri, 1986, 1988; Graham, 1983, 1985a, 1985b;
Herbig and Kramer, 1991, 1992a, 1992b; Tung, 1983, to name just a few),
few empirical studies have been conducted.
Negotiation has been an area rich in research with hundreds of studies
having been conducted in the field. However, few studies have been
conducted on cross-cultural negotiations in a business setting. Fewer still
have used non-students. Tung (1982a, 1982b, 1989) found Japanese and

20

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & INDUSTRIAL MARKETING VOL. 10 NO. 3 1995

Chinese bargaining behavior to be considerably different from that of

Americans. Graham (1983) reported differences in business negotiating
styles among American, Brazilian, and Japanese business persons; in other
studies he compared American and Japanese business negotiators (Graham,
1984, 1985a) and American and Soviet business persons (Graham, 1992).
These studies were on the individual level and compared only two or three
cultures directly against each other. Adler et al. (1987) and Adler and Graham
(1989) examined cross-cultural business negotiations from a macro view to
examine if the processes used in cross-cultural negotiations were different
from that used in domestic negotiations. However, we have found no study
which examines the international (cross-cultural) negotiations process itself.
In the study conducted, US firms were queried on the elements of the
negotiating process itself.
The four stages of
the negotiation
process

The classical view of the negotiation process undergoes four stages: non-task,
task, persuasion and agreement (Graham, 1986). The first stage, non-task
sounding, includes all those activities which might be described as
establishing a rapport or getting to know one another, but does not include
information related to the business of the meeting. A fundamental
difference between Americans and Japanese is that the Japanese rely much
more heavily on personal relationships in business and spend a
disproportionately higher amount of time on the rapport (non-task) stage then
do Americans (Graham, 1984). This creates conflict between firms from
these two cultures and heightens the probability of failure.
The second stage, task, concerns the information exchanged regarding the
parties needs and preferences of the parties. For the Japanese firm, this
exchange of information is the main part of the negotiation. Questions and
clarifications abound with the Japanese attempting to obtain a complete
understanding, which, to them, is essential to the ultimate success of the
negotiations. Whereupon to the typical American firm, information, although
important, should have been satisfied prior to the conduct of the negotiations.

Various persuasive
tactics

The persuasion phase and compromise (third) stage of negotiations focusses

on efforts to modify the views of other parties and sway them to our way of
thinking through the use of various persuasive tactics. In Japan, persuasion is
accomplished primarily behind the scenes. Persuasion is typically used to
compromise on certain conditions so that the two sides can close a deal. In
Japan, there is not a clear separation of information seeking and persuasion.
The two stages tend to blend together as each side more clearly defines and
refines its needs and preferences. So much time is spent at this task-related
exchange of information that little is left to discuss during the persuasion
stage. The Japanese believe that little persuasion should be necessary if the
parties have taken the time to understand each other thoroughly. Since the
Japanese have spent a high percentage of their time on the first two phases,
Japanese negotiators often do not feel the need to allocate much time to
persuasion. Most American companies will overcompensate compared to the
Japanese during this stage. If not handled properly, failure becomes almost
certain.
The concessions and agreement (fourth) stage of a negotiation is the
culmination of the negotiating process at which an agreement is reached
which often is the summation of a series of concessions or smaller
agreements. To reach an agreement that is mutually acceptable, each side
must frequently give up some things; therefore concessions by both sides are

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & INDUSTRIAL MARKETING VOL. 10 NO. 3 1995

21

usually necessary to reach an agreement. Japanese negotiators tend to take

all concessions at the end of the negotiations process and expect that these
will lead immediately to the conclusion of the agreement; a holistic approach
to decision making. The Japanese do not make any concessions until all
issues and interests have been exposed and fully discussed.
Industrial product firms versus consumer product firms

Probably as long as marketing has been studied, scholars have debated the
merits of conducting separate disciplines for both industrial product markets
and consumer product markets. Fern and Brown (1984) discussed this
dichotomy in considerable detail and drew the conclusion that there is no
significant difference between industrial marketing and consumer marketing
and that it is a mistake to differentiate between them. Cooke (1986), in the
inaugural issue of this journal, drew the opposite conclusion and indicated
that it is not feasible to say that industrial marketing and consumer
marketing are the same. Many scholars have weighed in on one side of the
debate or the other. It is not our intent to enter into this debate. It is, though,
our intent to examine this dichotomy, not from the perspective of should it
even be compared (our basic assumption must be that, like Cooke,
substantial differences do exist), but to postulate and test differences in
negotiating behavior between industrial product firms and consumer product
firms. Others (e.g. Day and Herbig, 1990; Herbig et al., 1994) have
compared this dichotomy in various subsegments of the marketing discipline
(innovation, forecasting).
Review differences
between industrial
and consumer
product markets

The basic differences between the two segments have been well
documented. However, in our pursuit of a priori differences and hypotheses,
it is necessary to review them. Without going into elaborate detail (which is
not necessary for a journal on the subject), these are (industrial versus
consumer):

concentrated versus mass markets;

rational versus emotional buying;

multiple buying influences versus predominantly self-motivated buying;

long-term, stable buying relationships versus short-term perspectives;

expensive, complex, technical items versus inexpensive, simple items;

major concern with after-market versus minor concern;

relatively few buyers versus mass market;

customized products versus standardized products;

personal selling emphasis versus mass media;

trade show and trade journal promotion predominates versus mass

media;

typically short channels versus long channels; and

reciprocity versus non-reciprocal relationships.

This is far from an exhaustive list but should provide a solid starting point.
Another point to consider in discussing this dichotomy and its relationship to
negotiations is that, although consumer product firms by definition market to
the mass consumer market, negotiations are typically not entered into with
their primary market, the consumer. Rather, negotiations, and by
extrapolation, cross-cultural negotiations, will usually be with suppliers or
22

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & INDUSTRIAL MARKETING VOL. 10 NO. 3 1995

channel members (wholesalers, retailers) in what in reality amounts to

industrial transactions. Notwithstanding this, our major presumption is that
the fundamental attitudes formed by consumer product firms by marketing
to consumers and their reliance on the consumer marketplace will carry over
to their behavior at the negotiating table.
Research
hypotheses

A major difference between industrial product firms and consumer product

firms in the international marketplace tends to the concept of cultural
grounding (how deeply rooted in a culture is a particular product or
practice). Consumer products, by definition, tend to be culturally grounded
more heavily than industrial products. Consumer goods companies have
either prospered or failed overseas depending upon adapting to the culture.
By their very nature, they must be more culturally sensitive. Industrial
product firms must still contend with cultural elements (particularly with
personal selling) but to a far lesser concern. One could surmise that the
consumer product firms greater understanding of cultural differences would
make them aware of the need to be better briefed and prepared and thus
would be more likely to use country or cultural experts in the briefing
process. Hence the following hypotheses appear reasonable:
H1. Substantial and significant differences will exist between industrial
product firms and consumer product firms as regards cross-cultural
negotiating behavior.
H2. Consumer product firms should be more culturally sensitive than
industrial product firms.
Consumer product firms are well grounded in consumer behavior and
consumer requirements and tend to instinctively realize that not all countries
or cultures think the same way as Americans and that contracts in some
countries are not the final outcome, but only a starting point. They should
naturally tend to spend much more time at both the beginning and the end of
the negotiating process, creating the necessary relationship while making
certain that what was agreed on was what both sides perceived to be agreed
on, as well as putting forth the next step for the implementation process.
Industrial product firms should spend more time on the compromise
activities due to their lack of cultural sensitivity propelled by an overreliance
on technical aspects. In addition, if cultural understanding is a requirement
for success, then if consumer product firms have a higher degree of cultural
sensitivity, then those firms should have a higher level of success
(proportionally) than did industrial product firms at cross-cultural
negotiations. Hence the following hypotheses appear reasonable:
H3. Consumer product firms should spend more time in the non-task and
agreement stages whereas industrial product firms should spend
proportionally more time in the compromise stage.
H4. Consumer product firms should report a higher success rate at crosscultural negotiations than do industrial product firms.
Methodology

The data

Data for this study was collected by mail survey. One thousand surveys were
sent; 200 to each of five geographically dispersed states within the US, State
industrial directories were obtained from the international trade section of
each states economic development group. Survey participants were selected
randomly. Surveys were addressed to the CEO/President or the designated
international official (if provided in the directory) for the firm. A cover letter
with university letterhead was utilized to provide legitimacy. This letter

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & INDUSTRIAL MARKETING VOL. 10 NO. 3 1995

23

asked the recipients to guide the survey to the most relevant respondent
within the company. One-hundred-and-seventy-five responses were
received, of which 161 were usable, for a response rate of slightly above
16%. Many of the unusable responses indicated they had not yet entered into
exporting and so had no cross-cultural negotiating experience (but most
wished us well). The number of respondents was substantial and provided us
with the capability to do the analyses. The recipients were asked numerous
questions about their latest cross-cultural negotiation. Organizational
characteristics and recipient demographics (age, experience, language) were
also queried. 2 analysis was used to analyze differences across
organizations for each question. Subsequent analysis used t-tests and
M(ANOVA) statistical tests to assess mean differences. Table I shows
respondent profiles.
Results
Significant
differences

t-test and 2 analysis were used to determine significant differences in crosscultural negotiating behavior between industrial product firms and consumer
firms. Significant differences were as follows:

Industrial product firms had more members on their negotiating team

(2.3 versus 1.4 on average, t = 3.785, p < 0.001) than did consumer
products firms.

No.

Type of business
Manufacturing
Services

140
20

87.5
12.5

Customer type
Industrial
Consumer

106
54

66.0
33.0

Geographic area served

Domestic
Worldwide

53
82

% revenue from foreign sources

Little (<10)
Moderate (10-30)
Heavy (>30)

53
65
34

Years in business
New (1-10)
Mid (11-20)
Older (20-50)
Mature (50+)

24
38
70
29

Size of company
Small (<$50M)
Large (>$50M)

87
64

Respondent profiles
Age
Years business experience
Years experience in current industry
Years negotiating experience
% speak another language
% US citizen

Means

34.0
42.0
22.0

47
25
19
15
34.6
87

Table I. Organizational profile of respondents

24

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & INDUSTRIAL MARKETING VOL. 10 NO. 3 1995

Cross-cultural
negotiating
behaviour

Greater cultural
sensitivity

Five stages

Industrial product firms tended to have a longer overall period of time

involved in a cross-cultural negotiation (3.3 months versus 1.25 months,
t = 3.663, p < 0.001) than did consumer products firms.

Industrial product firms tended to spend more time in prenegotiating

briefings (3.6 days compared to two days, t = 2.5, p < 0.016) than did
consumer product firms acknowledged.

Industrial product firms disproportionately used translators more than

did consumer product firms (2 = 13.4, p < 0.001).

Industrial product firms used cultural experts (2 = 5.0,

p < 0.008) and business experts (2 = 1.5, p < 0.001) in their briefing
process to a much greater extent than did consumer product firms.

Hypothesis 1
Industrial product firms had more members on their negotiating team (2.3
versus 1.4, t = 3.785, p < 0.001) than did consumer product firms. Industrial
product firms tended to have a longer overall period of time involved in a
cross-cultural negotiation (3.3 months versus 1.25 months, t = 3.663,
p < 0.001) than did consumer product firms. Industrial product firms tended
to spend more time in prenegotiating briefings (3.6 days compared to two
days, t = 2.5, p < 0.016) than did consumer product firms acknowledged. No
significant differences were found for either being the buyer or seller or the
number of negotiations opportunities involved in either buying or selling.
Nonetheless, substantial differences exist between the two groups in their
cross-cultural negotiating behaviors; H1 is confirmed.
Hypothesis 2
The second hypothesis indicates greater cultural sensitivity should exist for
consumer product firms. This should be seen in the use of country and
cultural brokers and briefers. No differences were observed in the usage of
country or technical experts between the two groups. Surprisingly, industrial
product firms used disproportionately more translators than did consumer
product firms (2 = 13.4, p < 0.001); no differences in usage of bicultural
brokers were found between the two groups. Industrial product firms also
used cultural experts (2 = 5.0, p< 0.008) and business experts (2 = 11.5, p
< 0.001) in their briefing process to a much greater extent than did consumer
product firms. Explanation for both the Industrial product firms greater use
of translators and country experts than consumer product firms could result
from one of two possible scenarios: either the consumer product firms had
ready available talent within the firm (i.e. language fluency and country
proficiency with their current staff) and did not need to go outside for such
expertise or that complacency and overconfidence existed per their
consumer behavior expertise. Let us hope it would be the first and not the
second. Thus, H2 must be disconfirmed. The results would seem to indicate
the consumer product firms do not exhibit the greater cultural sensitivity
postulated.
Hypothesis 3
Table II shows a comparison in the negotiating process behavior of industrial
product firms versus consumer product firms. Note that five stages exist
instead of the four which Graham discussed; the authors subdivided one of
the stages to result in what they felt were more accurate depictions of the
negotiation phenomena. Three significant differences were found. Industrial
product firms, as predicted, spend significantly greater time (proportionally)

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & INDUSTRIAL MARKETING VOL. 10 NO. 3 1995

25

Own

Mean values
The other side

Establishing rapport

15.9/19.3

14.9/9.8*

Positioning

15.3/17.1

16.0/15.0

Reflection, evaluation and persuasion

27.0/30.3

19.1/17.6

Compromise

22.5/16.7*

11.3/10.0

Agreement, review, revision

14.7/21.2*

14.5/18.2

Note:
Values represent respondent perceptions of time spent on each activity during the cross-cultural
negotiation process
Key:
/ denotes mean % score for industrial product firms/ consumer product firms
* significant at p < 0.05 level

Table II. Proportion of time spent in various negotiation activities: a comparison

between industrial product and consumer product firms

during the compromise stage than did consumer product firms. On the other
hand, consumer product firms, as also surmised, tend to spend a higher
proportion of the negotiating process itself in the agreement, review and
revision stage. The third significant difference was in the two groups
perception of the time the other side spent on establishing rapport, with
industrial product firms perceiving that a significantly greater amount
(proportionally) was being spent by the other side, compared to the amount
perceived by consumer product firms. This too may well be related to the
greater cultural sensitivity of consumer product firms and the other side may
believe less time may be necessary upfront when dealing with consumer
product firms as compared to what may be required for rapport and
establishing the necessary baselines with industrial product firms. While the
time spent in the non-task stage was not significantly higher for consumer
product firms than industrial product firms, the number was greater and in
the correct direction postulated. Thus, H3 is confirmed.

Greater likelihood of
success

Hypothesis 4
H4 suspects that, based on the consumer product firms greater
understanding of cultural differences, consumer product firms should have a
greater likelihood of success than industrial product firms in a cross-cultural
negotiation. Table III shows the analysis comparing negotiation success or
failure to industrial product versus consumer product firms. Surprisingly, the

Success

Failure

Total
107

Industrial

85

22

Consumer

32

22

54

117

44

161

Total
Note:

2 = 7.39, p. < 0.007

Table III. Success versus failure during cross-cultural negotiations: industrial

product versus consumer product firms
26

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & INDUSTRIAL MARKETING VOL. 10 NO. 3 1995

analysis indicates industrial product firms, not consumer product firms as

postulated, had a greater likelihood of success and consumer product firms
had disproportionately more failures (2 = 7.3, p < 0.007). Perhaps the
consumer products firms greater knowledge of human behavior acted as a
impediment at the bargaining table. Certainly, one has to presume the
(relative) lack of usage of translators and country/cultural briefing experts by
consumer product firms would aid in explaining their larger number of
failures. Thus, H4 is disconfirmed.
Management implications/conclusions/analysis

Consumer product firms indicated a greater percentages of failures at the

negotiating table. Even though the consumer products firms spent greater
amounts of time in building rapport and solidifying agreements (than did
industrial product firms), consumer firms spent more time in the persuasion
stage and significantly less time in the compromise stage. Perhaps they were
too confident in their understanding of the humanistic aspect, that is their
understanding of the other countrys culture, and they entered the negotiation
process with too many preconceived ideas and with their minds already
made up. The consumer firms then opted for failure rather than compromise.
Industrial products
firms have a higher
likelihood of success

Industrial products firms are often stereotyped as technically driven with

little marketing expertise. The results of this study indicate that it is the
industrial product firms and not the consumer product firms which have
learned many of the international marketing lessons. Industrial product firms
indicated greater use of translators, external experts (especially
cultural/country briefers), more prenegotiating briefing time, and having
sufficient number of members on ones negotiating team to counterbalance
the other sides expected numbers. These tactics have resulted in industrial
product firms having a higher likelihood of success in cross-cultural
negotiations than did consumer product firms. Perhaps the consumer-product
firms ought to take lessons from industrial product firms, not vice-versa.
References and further reading
Adler, N.J. and Graham, J.L. (1989), Cross cultural interaction: the international comparison
fallacy, The Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 20 No. 3, Fall, pp. 515-37.
Adler, N.J., Gehrke, T.S. and Graham, J.L. (1987), Business negotiations in Canada, Mexico,
and the United States, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 15, October, pp. 411-30.
Beliaev, E., Mullen, T. and Punnett, B.J. (1985), Understanding the cultural environment: USUSSR trade negotiations, California Management Review, Vol. XXVII No. 2, Winter,
pp. 100-10.
Cooke, E. (1986), What is business and industrial marketing?, Journal of Business and
Industrial Marketing, Vol. 1 No. 1, Fall, pp. 9-17.
Day, R. and Herbig, P. (1990), How the diffusion of industrial innovations is different from
new retail products, Industrial Marketing Management , Vol. 19 No. 3, August, pp. 26166.
Dreyfus, P. and Roberts, A. (1988), Negotiating the Kremlin maze, Business Month, Vol.
132, November, pp. 55-62.
Fern, E. and Brown, J. (1984), The industrial/consumer dichotomy: a case of insufficient
justification, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 48, Spring, pp. 68-77
Fisher, G. (1980), International Negotiations: A Cross-Cultural Perspective, Intercultural
Press, Inc., Chicago, IL.
Fisher, R. and Ury, W. (1983), Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement without Giving In,
Penguin Books, New York, NY.
Ghauri, P. (1986), Guidelines for international business negotiations, International
Marketing Review, Autumn, pp. 72-82.
Ghauri, P. (1988), Negotiating with firms in developing countries: two case studies,
Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 49-53.

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & INDUSTRIAL MARKETING VOL. 10 NO. 3 1995

27

Graham, J.L. (1981), A hidden cause of Americas trade deficit with Japan, Columbia
Journal of World Business, Fall, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 5-15.
Graham, J.L. (1983), Business negotiations in Japan, Brazil, and the United States, Journal
of International Business Studies, Vol. 14, Spring-Summer, pp. 47-62.
Graham, J.L. (1984), A comparison of Japanese and American business negotiations,
International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 51-68.
Graham, J.L. (1985a), The influence of culture on the process of business negotiations, an
exploratory study, Journal of International Business Studies, Spring, pp. 81-96.
Graham, J.L. (1985b), Cross cultural marketing negotiations: a laboratory experiment,
Marketing Science, Spring, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 130-46.
Graham, J.L. (1986), Across the negotiating table from the Japanese, International
Marketing Review, Autumn, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 58-70.
Graham J.L. and Andrews, J. (1987), A holistic analysis of Japanese and American business
negotiations, Journal of Business Communications, Vol. 24 No. 4, Fall, pp. 63-73.
Graham, J.L. and Sano, Y. (1989), Smart Bargaining: Doing Business with the Japanese,
Harper Business, New York, NY.
Graham, J.L., Evenko, L. and Rajan, M. (1992), An empirical comparison of Soviet and
American business, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 387-418.
Graham, J.L., Kim, D., Lin, C. and Robinson, M. (1988), Buyer-seller negotiations around the
Pacific Rim: differences in fundamental exchange processes, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 15 No. 2, June, pp. 48-54.
Herbig, P. and Kramer, H. (1991), Cross-cultural negotiations: success through
understanding, Management Decision, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 19-31.
Herbig, P. and Kramer, H. (1992a), The role of cross-cultural negotiations in international
marketing, Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 10-13.
Herbig, P. and Kramer, H. (1992b), The dos and donts of cross-cultural negotiations,
Industrial Marketing Management, February, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 49-57.
Herbig, P., Milewicz, J. and Golden, J. (1994), Differences in forecasting behavior between
industrial product firms and consumer product firms, Journal of Business and Industrial
Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 60-9.
Kramer, H. (1989), Cross-cultural negotiations: the Western Japanese interface, Singapore
Marketing Review, Vol. IV, No. 1, pp. 31-7.
March, R. (1983), Japanese Negotiations, Kodansha International, New York, NY.
March, R. (1985), NoNos in negotiating with the Japanese, Across The Board, April, Vol. 20
No. 4, pp. 44-50.
Moran, R. and Stripp, W. (1991), Successful International Business Negotations, Gulf
Publishing Company, Houston, TX.
Nite, M. (1985), Business negotiation with the Soviet Union, Global Trade Executive, Vol.
104, June, pp. 27-38.
Pye, L. (1982), Chinese Commercial Negotiating Style, Oelgeschlager, Gunn and Hain
Publishers Inc., Cambridge, MA.
Samuelson, L. (1984), Soviet and Chinese Negotiating Behavior, Sage Publications, London.
Smith, R. (1989), Negotiating with Soviets, Institute for Study of Diplomacy, Georgetown
University.
Tung, R. (1982a), Business Negotiations with the Japanese, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA.
Tung, R. (1982b), US China trade negotiations: practices, procedures and outcomes, Journal
of International Business Studies, Fall, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 25-37.
Tung, R. (1983), How to negotiate with the Japanese, California Management Review, Vol.
26 No. 4, pp. 52-77.
Tung, R. (1989), A longitudinal study of United States-China business negotiations, China
Economic Review, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 57-71.
Van Zandt, H. (1970), How to negotiate in Japan, Harvard Business Review,
November/December, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 45-56.

Robert Gulbro is Professor of Management at Athens State College, Athens,

Alabama, USA and Paul Herbig is Professor of Marketing at the Graduate School of
International Trade and Business Administration, Texas A&M International
University, Texas, USA.

28

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & INDUSTRIAL MARKETING VOL. 10 NO. 3 1995