Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 30


Layers of culture…………………………1
Culture and society………………………2
Introduction to culture and negotiation….3

Hofstede’s dimensions of culture………….4

1-Power Distance………………………..4
3-Masculinity/Femininity……….…….. 5
4-Uncertainty Avoidance………………..5
5-Long/short-term orientation…………...5

Hofstede’s dimensions’ table…………….6

Geert Hofstede analysis to Turkey .……...8

Cross-Cultural Negotiation…………………9

Basis of relationship……………………….10
Information of Negotiations……………….10
Negotiation Styles…………………………10

a-) U.S. Approaches to Negotiation………....11

b-) African Approaches to Negotiation….......12

c-)Japanese Styles of Negotiation……….…...12

d-) European Styles of Negotiation……….....13

e-) Latin American Styles of Negotiation…..13

Negotiating Globally………………………..14

Negotiation Contingencies: Characteristics

of the situation leading to success or failure....15

2)Physical arrangements…...…………...16
4)Time Limits…………………………..17
5)Status differences…………………….17

Negotiation Process………………………….18

Negotiation Strategy:A Culturally

Synergistic Approach ………...18

Negotiation Tactics…………………………..19
1)Verbal Tactics…………………………20
2)Nonverbal Tactics……………………..20

Dirty Tricks……………………………………..21

Whose style to use………………………………22

Qualities of a good negotiator …………………24

Build a model……………………………..25



Act accordingly……………………………26

Useful tips…………………………………26


What is Culture?

The word culture has many different meanings. For some it refers to an appreciation
of good literature, music, art, and food. For a biologist, it is likely to be a colony of bacteria
or other microorganisms growing in a nutrient medium in a laboratory Petri dish. However,
for anthropologists and other behavioral scientists, culture is the full range of learned
human behavior patterns. Edward B. Tylor said that culture is "that complex whole which
includes knowledge, belief, art, law, morals, custom, and any other capabilities and habits
acquired by man as a member of society." Of course, it is not limited to men. Women
possess and create it as well. Since Tylor's time, the concept of culture has become the
central focus of anthropology.

Culture is a powerful human tool for survival, but it is a fragile phenomenon. It is

constantly changing and easily lost because it exists only in our minds. Our written
languages, governments, buildings, and other man-made things are merely the products of
culture. They are not culture in themselves. For this reason, archaeologists can not dig up
culture directly in their excavations. The broken pots and other artifacts of ancient people that
they uncover are only material remains that reflect cultural patterns--they are things that were
made and used through cultural knowledge and skills.

Layers of Culture

There are very likely three layers or levels of culture that are part of your learned
behavior patterns and perceptions. Most obviously is the body of cultural traditions that
distinguish your specific society. When people speak of Italian, Samoan, or Japanese culture,
they are referring to the shared language, traditions, and beliefs that set each of these peoples
apart from others. In most cases, those who share your culture do so because they acquired it
as they were raised by parents and other family members who have it.

The second layer of culture that may be part of

your identity is a subculture. In complex, diverse
societies in which people have come from many
different parts of the world, they often retain much of
their original cultural traditions. As a result, they are
likely to be part of an identifiable subculture in their new
society. The shared cultural traits of subcultures set
them apart from the rest of their society. Examples of
easily identifiable subcultures in the United States
include ethnic groups such as Vietnamese Americans,
African Americans, and Mexican Americans. Members

of each of these subcultures share a common identity, food tradition, dialect or language, and
other cultural traits that come from their common ancestral background and experience. As
the cultural differences between members of a subculture and the dominant national culture
blur and eventually disappear, the subculture ceases to exist except as a group of people who
claim a common ancestry. That is generally the case with German Americans and Irish
Americans in the United States today. Most of them identify themselves as Americans first.
They also see themselves as being part of the cultural mainstream of the nation.

The third layer of culture consists of cultural universals. These are learned behavior
patterns that are shared by all of humanity collectively. No matter where people live in the
world, they share these universal traits. Examples of such "human cultural" traits include:

1) Communicating with a verbal language consisting of a limited set of sounds and

grammatical rules for constructing sentences
2) Using age and gender to classify people (e.g., teenager, senior citizen, woman, man)
3) Classifying people based on marriage and descent relationships and having kinship
terms to refer to them (e.g., wife, mother, uncle, cousin)
4) Raising children in some sort of family setting
5) Having a sexual division of labor (e.g., men's work versus women's work)
6) Having a concept of privacy
7) Having rules to regulate sexual behavior
8) Distinguishing between good and bad behavior
9) Having some sort of body ornamentation
10) Making jokes and playing games
11) Having art
12) Having some sort of leadership roles for the implementation of community decisions

While all cultures have these and possibly many other universal traits, different cultures
have developed their own specific ways of carrying out or expressing them. For instance,
people in deaf subcultures frequently use their hands to communicate with sign language
instead of verbal language. However, sign languages have grammatical rules just as verbal
ones do.

Culture and Society

Culture and society are not the same thing. While cultures are complexes of learned
behavior patterns and perceptions, societies are groups of interacting organisms. People
are not the only have societies. Schools of fish, flocks of birds, and hives of bees are
societies. In the case of humans, however, societies are groups of people who directly or
indirectly interact with each other. People in human societies also generally perceive that
their society is distinct from other societies in terms of shared traditions and expectations.

While human societies and cultures are not the same thing, they are inextricably
connected because culture is created and transmitted to others in a society. Cultures are not
the product of lone individuals. They are the continuously evolving products of people
interacting with each other. Cultural patterns such as language and politics make no sense
except in terms of the interaction of people. If you were the only human on earth, there would
be no need for language or government.

When we think of culture we often think of the national cultures reported in the
international media. However, culture is much broader and encompasses the beliefs, attitudes
and behaviors of diverse ethnic groups, clans, tribes, regional subcultures or even
neighborhoods. Culture also differentiates people by religious or ideological persuasions,
professions and educational backgrounds. Families also have cultures, as do the two largest
cultural groups in the world, men and women. Companies, organizations and educational
institutions also demonstrate unique cultures. With all of these cultural variables, and
significant variations within cultures, how can we develop any common understanding,
general hypotheses or conclusions about how a particular person or group from any one
culture might behave in negotiations or conflicts?

Fig 1 and 2

Yet specific cultures do contain clusters of people with fairly common attitudinal and
behavioral patterns. As indicated in Figure I above, these clusters occupy the middle portion
of a bell-shaped curve (Trompenaars, 1994).

However, every culture includes outliers - people who vary significantly from the
norm. While still contained within the range for their culture, their views and behaviors differ
significantly from that of their peers and may even look similar to other cultures. For instance,
a businessman or engineer from a developing country who was educated in England may have
more in common with his or her peers in Europe than with his fellow countrymen (see Figure

For this reason, we must be wary of generalizations about how people from a specific
culture may think or act. Rigid notions about a group's cultural patterns can result in
inaccurate stereotypes, gross injustice to the group and inaccurate (and possibly disastrous)
assumptions or actions. Common cultural patterns found in a group's central cultural cluster
should be looked upon as possible, or even probable, clues as to the ways a cultural group
may think or respond. But the hypothesis should always be tested and modified after direct
interaction with the group in question. You may well encounter an outlier who seems more
similar to us than we ever expected.

Introduction to Culture and Negotiation

Similarly, people interacting with people from other cultures often feel 'lost'. Lacking
familiar attitudes, beliefs, behaviors, procedures or structures that shape day-to-day
interactions, people in cross-cultural situations often get disoriented, make mistakes and spend
time and energy merely surviving rather than understanding and appreciating the differences
they encounter. They also often fail to negotiate the most favorable agreements possible or to
resolve serious conflicts due to cultural misunderstandings.

Negotiators need general principles to guide their negotiation strategies and a culture 'map'
that helps them to:

• Identify the general 'topography' of cultures - the beliefs, attitudes, behaviors,
procedures and social structures that shape human interactions;
• Identify potential hazards, obstacles and pleasant surprises that negotiators might miss
if they did not have a trusty guide;
• Select responses that will promote successful interactions and outcomes.
Unfortunately, few analytical frameworks identify, interpret and respond to cultural
differences. Few maps describe how different cultures solve problems, negotiate
agreements or resolve disputes.


Although the term culture has taken on many different meanings, we use it to refer to
the shared values and beliefs held by the members of a group. Cultures are considered to be
stable over time. Hofstede conducted the most comprehensive and extensive program of
research identifying and exploring different cultural dimensions in international business.
Hofstede examined data on values that had been gathered from over 100,000 IBM employees
from around the world; to date, over 53 cultures and countries have been included in this
study. Statistical analysis these data suggests that five dimensions could be used to describe
the important differences among the cultures in the study.
These dimensions are:


The power distance dimension describes “the extent to which the less powerful
members of organization and institutions (like the family) accept and expect that power is
distributed unequally. According to Hofstede, cultures with greater power distance will be
more likely to have decisions making concentrated at the top, and all of the important
decisions will have to be finalized by the leader. Cultures with low power distance are more
likely to spread the decision making throughout the organization and while leaders are
respected, it is also possible to question their decisions. The consequences for international
negotiations are that negotiators from comparatively high power distance cultures may need
to seek approval from their supervisors more frequently, and for more issues, leading to
slower negotiations process.
Countries that are high in power distance include Africa, Malaysia, Guatemala and
Panama. Negotiators from these countries tend to be comfortable with :

• Hierarchical structures,
• Clear authority figures,
• The right to use power with discretion.

Countries with a low power distance include Great Britain, Austria, Denmark, USA, New
Zealand, Ireland, Sweden, Switzerland, and Germany. Negotiators from these countries tend
to be comfortable with

• Democratic structures and flat organizational hierarchies,

• Shared authority,
• The right to use power only in limited circumstances and for legitimate purposes.


The individualism/collectivism dimension describes the extent to which the society is

organized around individuals or the group. Individualistic societies encourage their young to
be independent and to look after themselves. Collectivistic societies integrate individuals in to
very cohesive groups that take responsibility for the welfare of each individual. Individualistic
countries include the USA, Great Britain, and Australia, while collectivistic countries include
Indonesia, Pakistan, Africa, Japan and Costa Rica. Hofstede suggest that the focus on
relations in collectivist societies plays a critical role in negotiations- negotiations with the
same party can continue for years, and changing a negotiator changes the relationship, which
may take a long time to rebuild. Contrast with individualistic societies, in which negotiators
are considered interchangeable and competency, rather than relationship, is an important
consideration when choosing a negotiator. The consequences are that negotiators from
collectivist culture will strongly depend on cultivating and sustaining a long term relationship,
whereas negotiators from individualistic cultures may be more likely to swap negotiators,
using whatever short term criteria seem appropriate.


Hofstede found that cultures differed in the extent to which they held values that were
traditionally perceived as masculine or feminine. Masculine cultures were characterized by
“assertiveness, the acquisition of money and things, and not caring for others, the quality of
life or people. Feminine cultures were characterized by concern for relationships, nurturing
and quality of life. Countries that are higher in masculinity include Japan, Austria, and
Venezuela and, USA while countries that are higher in femininity include Costa Rica, Chile,
And Finland. According to Hofstede, this dimension influences negotiation by increasing the
competitiveness when negotiators from masculine cultures meet; negotiators from feminine
cultures are more likely to have empathy for the other party and to seek compromise.


Uncertainty avoidance, the fourth dimension identified by Hofstede, “indicate to what

extent a culture programs it members to few either uncomfortable or comfortable in
unstructured situations.” Unstructured situations are characterized by rapid change and
novelty, whereas structured situations are stable, secure, and absolutist. Countries that are
high in uncertainty avoidance includes Greece, Portugal, and Guatemala, the United States,
Scandinavia, and Singapore while countries that are lower in uncertainty avoidance include
Sweden, Hong Kong, and Ireland. Members of these national cultures tend to value risk-
taking, problem-solving, flat organizational structures, and tolerance for ambiguity. It may be
easier for outsiders to establish trusting relationships with negotiating partners in these
cultural contexts.Negotiators from uncertainty avoidance cultures are not comfortable with
ambiguous situations and are more likely to seek stable rules and procedures when they
negotiate. Negotiators from cultures more comfortable with unstructured situations are likely
to adapt to quickly changing situations and we will be less uncomfortable when they rules of
the negotiations are ambiguous or shifting.


Long-Term Orientation is the fifth dimension of Hofstede which was added after the
original four to try to distinguish the difference in thinking between the East and West. From
the original IBM studies, this difference was something that could not be deduced. Therefore,
Hofstede created a Chinese value survey which was distributed across 23 countries. From
these results, and with an understanding of the influence of the teaching of Confucius on the
East, long term vs. short term orientation became the fifth cultural dimension.

Below are some characteristics of the two opposing sides of this dimension:

Long term orientation

-ordering relationships by status and observing this order
-having a sense of shame

Short term orientation

-personal steadiness and stability
-protecting your ‘face’
-respect or tradition
-reciprocation of greetings, favors, and gifts

This table shows some regions/countries’ dimensions according to Hofstede:

North America
(USA) Individualism Low Medium Masculine

Japan Amae (mutual

High and Masculine and authority is
Collectivism High
Low Feminine respected but
superior must be a
warm leader
Europe: Low/
Individualism Low/ medium Masculine

West Slavic
Medium Medium/ high
Low Medium/ high
West Urgic individualism masculine
Near Eastern
Balkanic Medium
Collectivism High High
Nordic Medium/ High
Low Low/ medium Feminine
Latin Europe Medium/ High Medium
High High
individualism masculine
East Slavic Collectivism Low Medium Masculine
China Emphasis on
Masculine and Marxism,
Collectivism Low Low
Feminine Leninism, and
Mao Zedong
Africa Colonial
Collectivism High High Feminine traditions; tribal
Latin America Extroverted,
prefer orderly
Collectivism High High Masculine
customs and


(PDI): Power Distance Index

(IDV): Individualism

(MAS): Masculinity

(UAI): Uncertainty Avoidance Index

(LTO): Long-Term Orientation

Religion in Turkey:

There is a high correlation between the Muslim religion and the Hofstede Dimensions
of Power Distance (PDI) and Uncertainty Avoidance (UAI) scores.

The combination of these two high scores (UAI) and (PDI) create societies that are
highly rule-oriented with laws, rules, regulations, and controls in order to reduce the amount
of uncertainty, while inequalities of power and wealth have been allowed to grow within the
society. These cultures are more likely to follow a caste system that does not allow significant
upward mobility of its citizens.

When these two Dimensions are combined, it creates a situation where leaders have
virtually ultimate power and authority, and the rules, laws and regulations developed by those
in power, reinforce their own leadership and control. It is not unusual for new leadership to
arise from armed insurrection – the ultimate power, rather than from diplomatic or democratic


Cross cultural negotiation is one of many specialized areas within the wider field of
cross cultural communications. By taking cross cultural negotiation training, negotiators and
sales personnel give themselves an advantage over competitors.

There is an argument that proposes that culture is inconsequential to cross cultural

negotiation. It maintains that as long as a proposal is financially attractive it will succeed.
However, this is a naïve way of approaching international business.

Cross cultural negotiations is about more than just how foreigners close deals. It
involves looking at all factors that can influence the proceedings. By way of highlighting this,
a few brief examples of topics covered in cross cultural negotiation training shall be offered.

Eye Contact : In the US, UK and much of northern Europe, strong, direct eye contact
conveys confidence and sincerity. In South America it is a sign of trustworthiness. However,
in some cultures such as the Japanese, prolonged eye contact is considered rude and is
generally avoided.

Personal Space & Touch: In Europe and North America, business people will usually leave
a certain amount of distance between themselves when interacting. Touching only takes place
between friends. In South America or the Middle East, business people are tactile and like to
get up close. In Japan or China, it is not uncommon for people to leave a gap of four feet
when conversing. Touching only takes place between close friends and family members.

Time: Western societies are very ‘clock conscious’. Time is money and punctuality is crucial.
This is also the case in countries such as Japan or China where being late would be taken as
an insult. However, in South America, southern Europe and the Middle East, being on time
for a meeting does not carry the same sense of urgency.

Meeting & Greeting: most international business people meet with a handshake. In some
countries this is not appropriate between genders. Some may view a weak handshake as sign

of weakness whereas others would perceive a firm handshake as aggressive. How should
people be addressed? Is it by first name, surname or title? Is small talk part of the proceedings
or not?

Gift-Giving: In Japan and China gift-giving is an integral part of business protocol; however
in the US or UK, it has negative connotations. Where gifts are exchanged should one give
lavish gifts? Are they always reciprocated? Should they be wrapped? Are there numbers or
colours that should be avoided?

There are three interconnected aspects that need to be considered before entering into
cross cultural negotiation:

The Basis of the Relationship

In much of Europe and North America, business is contractual in nature. Personal

relationships are seen as unhealthy as they can cloud objectivity and lead to complications. In
South America and much of Asia, business is personal. Partnerships will only be made with
those they know, trust and feel comfortable with. It is therefore necessary to invest in
relationship building before conducting business.

Information at Negotiations

Western business culture places emphasis on clearly presented and rationally argued
business proposals using statistics and facts. Other business cultures rely on similar
information but with differences. For example, visual and oral communicators such as the
South Americans may prefer information presented through speech or using maps, graphs and

Negotiation Styles

The way in which we approach negotiation differs across cultures. For example, in the
Middle East rather than approaching topics sequentially negotiators may discuss issues
simultaneously. South Americans can become quite vocal and animated. The Japanese will
negotiate in teams and decisions will be based upon consensual agreement. In Asia, decisions
are usually made by the most senior figure or head of a family. In China, negotiators are
highly trained in the art of gaining concessions. In Germany, decisions can take a long time
due to the need to analyse information and statistics in great depth. In the UK, pressure tactics
and imposing deadlines are ways of closing deals whilst in Greece this would backfire.

Clearly there are many factors that need to be considered when approaching cross
cultural negotiation. Through cross cultural negotiation training, business personnel are given
the appropriate knowledge that can help them prepare their presentations and sales pitches
effectively. By tailoring your behaviour and the way you approach the negotiation you will
succeed in maximising your potential (yorum olarak).

It is difficult to track the myriad starting points used by negotiators from different
national settings, especially as cultures are in constant flux, and context influences behavior in
multiple ways. Another complication is that much of the cross-cultural negotiation literature
comes from the organizational area. While it cannot be applied wholesale to the realm of
intractable conflicts, this literature may provide some hints about approaches to negotiation in

various national settings. Dr. Nancy Adler compares key indicators of success as reported by
negotiators from four national backgrounds.Her table is reproduced here, ranking
characteristics of negotiators in order of importance as reported by managers in each national

Preparation and Persistence and Preparation and
Dedication to job
planning skill determination planning skill
Thinking under Perceive and exploit Win respect and Thinking under
pressure power confidence pressure
Judgment and Win respect and Preparation and Judgment and
intelligence confidence planning skill intelligence
Integrity Product knowledge Verbal expressiveness
Product knowledge Interesting Product knowledge
listening skill
Perceive and exploit Judgment and Perceive and exploit
Broad perspective
power intelligence power
Integrity Competitiveness

As Adler points out, for instance; Brazilians and Americans were almost identical in
the characteristics they identified, except for the final category. The Japanese tended to
emphasize an interpersonal negotiating style, stressing verbal expressiveness, and listening
ability, while their American and Brazilian counterparts focused more on verbal ability,
planning, and judgment. To the Chinese in Taiwan, it was important that the negotiator be an
interesting person who shows persistence and determination.

Negotiators also vary in the styles of persuasion they rely upon and their comfort with
emotionality. In American settings, appeals tend to be made to logic, relying on "objective"
facts. Emotional sensitivity is not highly valued, and dealings may seem straightforward and
impersonal. Japanese negotiators value emotional sensitivity highly, and tend to hide
emotions behind calm exteriors. Latin American negotiators tend to share the Japanese
appreciation of emotional sensitivity, and express themselves passionately about their points
of view. Arab negotiators may appeal to emotions and subjective feelings in an effort to
persuade others. Russians, in contrast, tend to appeal to ideals, drawing everyone's attention to
overarching principles.

a-)U.S. Approaches to Negotiation

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. Looking through the eyes of the Japanese negotiator who
wrote "Negotiating With Americans", American negotiators tend to:

• Be competitive in their approach to negotiations, including coming to the table
with a fall-back position but beginning with an unrealistic offer;
• 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;
• Concentrate on one problem at a time;
• Focus on areas of disagreement, not areas of commonality or agreement;
• Like closure and certainty rather than open-endedness or fuzziness.

Do these generalizations ring true? Clearly, it depends which Americans you are
talking about, which sector they represent, and the context surrounding the negotiations. Is
this a family matter or a commercial one? Is it about community issues, national policy, or a
large public conflict? Strategies change according to context and many other factors.

b-)African Approaches to Negotiation

Many African nations have indigenous systems of conflict resolution that have
endured into the present, sometimes quite intact and sometimes fragmented by rapid social
change. These systems rely on particular approaches to negotiation that respect kinship ties
and elder roles, and the structures of local society generally. In Nigeria, for example, people
are organized in extended families (nnu'), village (idu' or obio), lineage ('duk), and lineage
groups (iman). A belief in the continuing ability of ancestors to affect people's lives maintains
social control, and makes the need to have formal laws or regulations minimal. Negotiation
happens within social networks, following prescribed roles. Women in conflict with
husbands, for example, are to defer and apologize, preparing a ritual meal to symbolize the
restoration of harmony.

In the Nigerian Ibibio context, the goal of restoring social networks is paramount, and
individual differences are expected to be subsumed in the interest of the group. To ensure that
progress or an agreement in a negotiation is preserved, parties must promise not to invoke the
power of ancestors to bewitch or curse the other in the future. The aim of any process, formal
or informal, is to affect a positive outcome without a "residue of bitterness or resentment."
Elders have substantial power, and when they intervene in a conflict or a negotiation, their
words are respected. This is partly because certain elders are believed to have access to
supernatural powers that can remove protective shields at best and cause personal disaster at

In other African contexts, a range of indigenous processes exist in which relationships

and hierarchies tend to be emphasized.

c-)Japanese Styles of Negotiation

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 hierarchical
orientation. In negotiations, these values manifest themselves in awareness of group needs
and goals, and deference to 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 negotiating
begins.They are also less likely than their U.S. counterparts to make procedural suggestions.

d-)European Styles of Negotiation

European styles of negotiation vary according to region, nationality, language spoken,

and many other contextual factors. One study found the French to be very aggressive
negotiators, using threats, warnings, and interruptions to achieve their goals. German and
British negotiators were rated as moderately aggressive in the same study.

e-)Latin American Styles of Negotiation

Role expectations influence negotiation in Latin American contexts. Responsibility to

others is generally considered more important than schedules and task accomplishment. Their
negotiation approach relates to the polychronic orientation to time and patterns of high-
context communication and communitarianism, described earlier. Lederach reports that a
common term for conflict in Central America is enredo, meaning "entangled" or "caught in a
net." He explains that enredo signifies the way conflict is part of an intimate net of relations in
Guatemala and elsewhere in Central America. Thus, negotiation is done within networks,
relationships are emphasized, and open ruptures are avoided.

In Central America, people think about and respond to conflict holistically. Lederach
contrasts his natural (American) inclination to "make a list, to break a story down into parts
such as issues and concerns" with his Central American experience, where people tended to
respond to requests for naming issues to be negotiated with "yet another story." They
preferred a storied, holistic approach to conflict and negotiation, rather than a linear,
analytical one. When Central Americans needed help with negotiations, they tended to look to
insider partials rather than outsider neutrals, preferring the trust and confidence of established
relationships and cultural insight to other credentials or expertise. They referred to the concept
of confianza to explain this preference. Confianza means "trustworthiness," that "they know
us" and "we know them" and they will "keep our confidences."


As shown in table below Russians typically use an axiomatic approach to negotiating-
they base their arguments on asserted ideals.

Russians generally don’t expect to develop a continuing relationship with their

bargaining partners and so see little need for relationship building.As a negotiation progress
Russians make few, if any, concessions a view their counterparts’ concessions as signs of
weakness.Russians often start with extreme positions, ignore deadlines and due to their very
limited authority, frequently check back with headquarters.

By contrast, Arabs typically use an effective approach to negotiating- they counter to

other side’s arguments with emotional appeals based on subjective feelings. Arabs generally
want to build long term relationships with their bargaining partners. Therefore, they are often
willing to make concessions throughout the bargaining process and almost always reciprocate
their opponents’ concessions. Most Arabs do not feel limited by time or authority; they
frequently approach deadlines very causally and rarely lack the broad authority necessarry to
discuss and to agree on all issues pertinent to the negotiation.

Americans differ from both Russians and Arabs. Americans typically use a factual
approach to negotiating; they attempt to counter the other sides’ arguments with logical
appeals base on objective facts.Americans make small concessions early in the negotiation in
an attempt to establish a relationship , and they generally expect their bargaining partners to
do likewise. Americans, far from casual about time and authority, genrally take deadlines very
seriously and have broad authority.

What happens when Russians begin negotiating with Arabs or Americans? Who
persuades whom when styles of negotiating differ? Who wins when bargainers from each
culture define the process negotiating, the rules of the game, differently? How can I get what
my company and I want from them while maintaning a good relationship? To succeed in
global business, negotiator must continually solve this dilemmas.

TABLE: Styles of Persuasion Vary Across Cultures

Styles of Persuasion Vary Across Cultures
Primary Negotiation Factual appeals made to Affective appeals made appeals made to
Styles Process logic to emotions ideals
’ Arguments
Countered With… Objective fact Subjective feelings Asserted ideals
Small concessions made Concessions made Few, if
early to establish a throughout as a part of any,concessions
Making Concessions relationship bargaining process made
Almost always concesions as
Response to Usually reciprocate reciprocate weakness and
Counterparts’ counterparts’ counterparts’ almost never
Concessions concessions concessions reciprocate

No continuing
Relationship Short term Long term relationship

Authority Broad Broad Limited

Initial Position Moderate Extreme Extreme

Deadline Very important Casual Ignored

Negotiation Contingencies: Characteristics of the situation leading to

success or failure

Situations in which negotiators find themselves very widely.Situational contingency

influence success just as do individual characteristics, but they are rarely as critical success as
a strategy and tactics used.


Should you meet at their office, your office or at a neutral location? Negotiation
wisdom generally advises teams to meet at their own or a neutral location. Meeting in another
country disadvantages negotiators because it reduces their access to information and increases
travel-related stres and costs. Meeting at home allows a team to control the situation more
Many negotiators select neutral locations. Business entertainment remains a common
type of neutral location used primarily to get to know and improve relations with members of
the opposing team. Heavy users of business entertainment Japanese spend almost 2% of their

GNP on entertaining clients-even more than they spend on national defense. Americans
generally consider such high business entertainment costs absurd, but perhaps Americans’
extraordinarily high legal expenses reflect the cost of insufficient relationship building.

In choosing neutral locations, business negotiators often select resorts geographically

located somewhere between each company’s headquarters. Asian and North American
negotiators, for example, have traditionally selected Hawaii for business meetings; both sides
travel, both ideas have reduced access information, and as a consequence, the incentive
increases for both sides to conclude the negotiation as quickly as possible. The opportunity
cost of executives’ time, along with the cost of travel and hotels, usually, but not always,
increases pressure to conclude negotiations expeditiously. In one negotiation between an
American and a Russian company , negotiators, conducted the sessions at a resort in the south
of France. The Russian bargainers made it clear that they did not want to end their ‘vacation’
early by concluding the negotiation prematurely.


In traditional American negotiatons, the two teams face each other, often sitting on
opposite sides of a boardroom table. Unfortunately, this arrangement maximizes competition.
By contrast, sitting at right angle facilitates cooperation. If negotiators view the process as a
collaborative search for mutually beneficial outcomes(win-win solutions), the physical
arrangements support cooperation, not competition. As an alternative to the boardroom table,
negotiators from both teams may choose to sit on the same side of the table, “facing the
problem”. In this way they compete with the problem not with the people. The Japanese, in
posting all information related to a negotiation on the walls, structure the environment so that
all parties involved “face the problem” holistically.


Who should attend the formal negotiationg sessions? Americans tend to want to “go it
alone”- they consider extra team members an unneccessary expense. This strategy is usually
ineffective in global negotiations, where more team members tends to be better. Why? Firstly,
the physical presence of more people communicates greater power and importance- an
essential nonverbal message. Second, as discussed earlier, communicating cross-culturally is
complex and difficult. Giving some team members primary responsibility for listening to the
discussion and observing nonverbal cues while other members focus primarily on conducting
substantive negotiations has repeatedly prove to be an extremely effective strategy.

Who should present at a negotiation? Should the press be present? Will public opinion
make it easier or more difficult to develop mutuallly beneficial soutions? Should the union
have direct representation? Should bargainers keep government agencies informed during the
negotiation or only present them with final agreement? The power that government, unions
and public opinion have over business negotiators varies considerably across cultures.
Negotiating with government officials from such open democracies as Australia, Canada and
New Zeland, for example, requires broader public debate than is generaly necessary in the
more tightly controlled governments of Iran and Kenya, or in communist and quasi-
communist countries such as Albania, Cuba, and North Korea. Effective global negotiators,
carefully manage access to the proceedings.


The duration of a negotiation can vary markedly across cultures . Americans being
particularly impatient, often expect negotiations to take a minimum amount of time. During
the Paris Peace Talks, designed to negotiate an end to the Vietnam War, the U.S. team arrived
in Paris and made hotel reservations for a week. Their Vietnamese counterparts leased a
château for a year.As the negotiations proceed, timing forced the frustrated Americans to
continually renew their weekly reservations to accommodate the more measured pace of the

Negotiators generally make more concessions as their deadline approaches .

Americans’ sense of urgency put them at a disadvantage with respect to their less hurried
bargaining partners. Negotiators from outside the United States often recognize Americans’
time consciousness, achievement orientation, and impatience. They know that Americans
make more concessions close to their deadline( Time consciousness) in order to get a signed
contract( Achievement orientation). One Brazilian company, for example invited a group of
Americans to Brazil to negotiate a contract the week before Christmas. The Brazilians aware
that the Americans would want to return to the United States by Christmas with a signed
contract, knew that they could push hard for concessions and an early agreement. The final
agreement definitely favored the Brazilians.
Some negotiators attempt to discover their opponents’ deadline and refuse to make
major concessions until after that deadline has passed. The local team may determine their
opponents’ deadlines by checking hotel reservations or politely offering to reconfirm return
airline tickets. Effective global negotiators determine the best alternative to not meeting their
deadline. If they find the best alternative acceptable, they may choose a less hurried pace than
they had originally planned or than they typically use at home.


The United States prides itself on its egalitarian, informal approach to life, in which
titles do not seem particularly important and ceremonies are often considered a waste of time.
Americans often attempt to minimize status differences during negotiations; for example, they
use first names to promote equality and informality. Unfortunately this approach, which
succeeds at putting Americans at ease, often makes people from other cultures uncomfortable.
Most countries respect hierarchy and formality more than does the United States; and most
negotiators from these countries feel more comfortable in formal situations with explicit
status differences. The Japanese, for example, must know the other person’s company and
position before being able to select the grammatically correct form of address. For this reason
Japanese always exchange business cards- meishi- before a business conversation begins.. For
similar reasons, German negotiators would almost never address colleagues on their own
team, let alone those from another team, by first name. Such informality would severely insult
their sense of propriety, hierarchy, and respect.

Age, like title, connotes seniority and demands respect in most countries of the world.
Sending a young, albeit brillant, North American expert to Indonesia to lead a negotiation
team is more likely to insult senior Indonesian officials than facilitate a successful exchange
of technical information. In almost all cases, North Americans need to increase formality in
dress, vocabulary, behavior and style when working outside of the United States.


Negotiation Strategy: A Culturally Synergistic Approach

In “Getting to Yes” based on the work of the Harvard International Negotiation

Process Fisher and Ury propose a principled approach to negotiating. As shown in table, this
approach includes 4 steps:

1.Seperating the people from the problem.

2.Focusing on interests, not on positions.
3.Insisting on objective criteria(and never yielding to pressure)
4.Inventing options for mutual gain.

Does this principle approach become easier or harder when negotiating globally? Let’s
analyze the principled approach from a cross cultural prospective. Cultural differences make
communicating more difficult. Steps 1, 2 and 3 therefore become more difficult.
Understanding opponents their interests and their assessments, ciriteria becomes more
complex and fraught with cross cultural communication pitfalls. By contrast step 4 can
become easier. Inventing options for mutual gain requires recognizing and using
indifferences. The fewer identical options sought by both negotiating teams, the greater
chance of simultaneously satisfying each teams needs. If teams recognize, clearly
communicate, and understand cross culture differences (i.e. Step 1, 2, 3 ), They can become
the basis for constracting win-win solutions. Western European countries that import
Indonesian batiks, for example exchange an economically develop market for a labor
intensive good.The Europans could not afford to hand make batiks in Europe, and the
Indonesians could not comment as high price in stable currencies within their own country.
This culture synergistic approach which uses cultural differences as a resource rather than a
hindrance to organizational functiating, allows global negotiators to maximize benefits to all

TABLE: 3 Approaches to Each of Negotiatiating Globally

3 Approaches to Each Stage of Negotiating Globally

Traditional Approach Principled Approach Synergistic Approach

Preparation Preparation Preparation

-Define economic issues -Define interests -Cross Cultural training
-Define Interest
Relationship Building Relationship Building Relationship Building
-Assess counterparts -Seperate the people from -Seperate the people from
the problem the problem
-Adjust to their styles and
Information Exchange Information Exchange Information Exchange
-Exchange task related -Exchange task and -Exchange task and
information participant related participant related
information information
-Clarify positions -Clarify interests -Clarify Interests and
customary approach

Persuasion Inventing options for Inventing options for

mutual gain mutual gain appropriate
to both cultures
Concessions Choice of best option Choice of best option

-Insist of using objective -Insist on using criteria

criteria appropriate to both
-Never yield to pressure -Never yield to pressure
Agreement Agreement Agreement
-Translate and back-
translate agreement
-If necessary re-negotiate

As you know, there are verbal and nonverbal tactics in negotiation. These are
changing across cultures.


Some of the more common tactics used in negotiating include promises, threat,
recommendatitons, warnings, rewards, punishments, normative appeals, commitmence, self-
disclosure, questions and commons. The use and meaning of these tactics change accrross
cultures as shown in table. Negotiators from Asia(Japanese), North America (Americans),
South America(Brazilians) use different verbal tactics in negotiating. Brazilians for instance,
say “no” nine times more frequently than do Americans and almost 15 times more frequently
than do Japanese. Similarly, Brazilians make more initial concessions than do Americans,
who in turn make more than Japanese.

TABLE: Verbal Negotiating Behaviors Vary Across Cultures

Average Number of Times Tactics Was Used In Half Hour Negotiation


Promise 7 8 3
Threat 4 4 2
REcommendatiton 7 4 5
Warning 2 1 1
Reward 1 2 2
Punishment 1 3 3
Normative Appeal 4 2 1
Commitment 15 13 8
Self-disclosure 34 36 39
Question 20 20 22
Command 8 6 14
No’s (per 30 5,7 9 83,4
Profit Level of first 61,5 57,3 75,2
offers(80 max)
Initial Concessions 6,5 7,1 9,4


Nonverbal behavior refers to what negotiators do rather than what they say. It involves
how they say their words, rather than the words themselves. Nonverbal behavior includes ton
of voice, facial expressions, body distance, dress, gestures, timing, silence and symbols.
Nonverbal behavior is complex, it sense multiple messages, many of which are responded to
subconsequencly. Negotiators frequently respond more emtionaly and powerfully to the
nonverbal than the verbal message, often leading to positive or negative spirals, which
directly affect the outcome of negotiation.

As with verbal behavior, nonverbal behavior changes markedly across cultures. As

shown in table, extent to which Americans, Brazilians and Japanese use silence,
conversational overlaps, facial gazing and touching during a negotiation varies consideraly.

TABLE: Nonverbal Negotiaing Behaviors Vary Accross Cultures


Silence Periods: 3,5 0 5,5
number of silence
perod greater than 10
seconds per 30
Conversational 10,3 28,6 12,6
number of overlaps
per 10 minutes
Facial Gazing: 3,3 5,2 1,3
minutes of gazing per
10 minutes
Touching: 0 4,7 0
not including
handshaking per 30


Neither all domestic nor all global negotiators search for mutually beneficial
agreements. In attempting to gain the most for themselves, some negotiators resort to “dirty
tricks,” tactics designed to pressure opponents into undesirable concessions and agreements.
Negotiators can reduce the use of dirty tricks in the following ways:

1. Not using them themselves.

2. Recognizing them when their counterparts use them explicitly pointing them out,
and negotiating about their use (i.e. establishing the “rules of the game”)
3. Knowing what the cost of walking out is if the other party refuses to use principled
negotiation (i.e. knowing what the best alternative is to a negotiated solution)
4. Realizing that tactics that appear “dirty” to people from another culture may be
acceptable to your team.

Avoiding dirty tricks is more complex internationally than domestically. Effective
negotiators systematically question their own interpretations of their counterparts’ tactics
rather than naively assuming that others’ tactics have the same intended meanings as they
would within the negotiators’ home culture.

Reviewing the range of dirty tricks from a cross-cultural perspective reveals some of
the possible misinterpretations global negotiators face. Brazilians, for example, expect more
deception among negotiators who do not know each other than do Americans. Brazilians are
therefore more likely to use “ phony facts” during the initial a stages of a global negotiator
than are some of their counterparts. the recommendation therefore is: “unless you have good
reason to trust someone, don’t”.

A negotiating team’s discretion ( the extent of its authority) varies across cultures.

Under communist regimes, Russians and Easterm Europeans traditionally had very
limited authority; they had to check with their superiors if they wanted to deviate at all from
the planned agenda. American, by contrast, generally have extensive authority they expect to
make the most important decisions at the negotiating table. When the other team has limited
authority, experts recommend making all commitment tentative and conditional on the ability
of other party to accept and commit to their side of the deal. In cross cultural business
situations, negotiators must remember that the other party may not be using limited authority
as a form of deliberate deception; they may simply come from cultures where the authorities
delegate very little discretion to individual team members.

Psychological warfare (tactics design to maket he other person feel uncomfortable) has
different meanings in different cultures. a common psychological trick, for example, involves
too much touching or too little eye contact. As discussed earlier, both extremes make people
uncomfortable; both make them want to get out of the situations quickly (and therefore
conclude the negotiation as soon as possible). Problems arise in defining appropriate versus
extreme amounts of touching and eye contact across cultures. Latins touch much more than
Canadians, who in term touch more than Swedes, Arabs maintain much greater eye contact
than do Americans, who in turn use more than the Japanese. What appears to be a dirty trick
from a domestic perspective may simple express another cultures typical behavior. As with
other potantially inappropriate tactics, negotiators must differentiate intended psychological
warfare from unintended expressions of a cultures normal behavior patterns.


When should global negotiators continue to use their own cultural style of negotiating
and when should they adopt the style of their counterparts? Global negotiation experts suggest
that negotiators have five options, depending on the nature of the negotiation and level of
cross cultural knowledge of each negotiating team has. As outlined in table, if neither team is
familiar with the others culture, it would be best to consider employing agents to represent the
teams. If your team has a high knowledge of their culture, but their team has a limited
knowledge of your teams culture, you have the option of embracing their cultural approach if
the opposite is true, they have a high knowledge of your culture while you only have a limited

knowledge of their culture, you can attempt to induce your counterparts to follow your
cultures approach to negotiating. If both teams have a moderate knowledge of their
counterparts culture, both teams can adapt somewhat to each others style. In the ideal
situation, in which both teams have an in-depth knowledge of other’s culture, the two teams
can improvise an approach that works for them both, that is, they can create a culturally
synergistic approach to the negotiation. Although no option quarantees a positive outcome,
the higher the cross cultural knowledge on the part of both negotiatings, the more options
open to them and the greater their chance of reaching a satisfactory agreement.

TABLE: When to Use Their Style -- When to Use Your Style Culturally Responsive
Negotiating Strategies.


Induce Counterpart to Improvise an Approach

Following One’s Own Approach [Effect Synergy]

Counterpart’s Adapt to the Counterpart’s Approach

Familiarity with [Coordinated Adjustment of Both Parties]

Employ an Agent or Advisor Embrace the

[Involve a Mediator] Counterpart’s Approach

Low High
Negotiator’s Familiarity with Counterpart’s Culture

Brackets indicates a joint strategy requiring deliberate consultation with one’s

counterpart. At each level of cultural familiarity negotiators can consider as feasible
the strategies at that level or any lower level.

Qualities of a good negotiator

What qualities does a good negotiator possess? According to negotitators’ extensive
research the answer depends on the cultures as shown on table, American managers believe
that effective negotiators at highly rationally. Brazilian managers to the surprise of many
Americans hold an almost identical view, differing only in replacing integrity with
competitiveness as one of the seven most important qualities of effective negotiators. By
contrast the opinions of Japanese negotiators differ quite makedly from those of both
Americans and Brazilians. Japanese see an interpersonal, rather than national, negotiating
style as leading to success. Japanese differ from Americans in stressing both verbal
expressiveness and listening ability, whereas Americans only emphasise verbal ability. In
contrast to Americans, Brazilians, Chinese and Japanese managers. In Taiwan emphasise
negotiators’ rational skills and, to a lesser extent, their interpersonal skills. To the Chinese, a
successful negotiator must be an interesting person and should show persistance and
determination, the ability to win respect and confidence, preperation, and planning skills,
product knowledge, good judgement and intelligence.

The role that individual qualities play varies accross cultures. Favorable outcomes are
most strongly influenced by negotiators’ own characteristics in Brazil, opponents’
characteristics in the USA, the negotiators role in Japan( the buyer always does better.) and
the mixture of negotiators’ and their counterparts’ characteristics in Taiwan. Spesifically,
Brazilian negotiators achieve higher profit when they act more deceptively and in their own
self-interst, when they Express higher self-esteem, when their bargaining partners act wtih
more honesty. American negotiators achieve greater success when theşr counterparts are
honest not self .nterested, introverted, not particularly interesting as people and made to feel
uncomfertable by the negotiators’ actions. By contrast Japanese buyers always do beter than
sellers. Both Japanese buyers and sellers can improve their positions by making their
bargaining partners feel moe comfortable. In Taiwan, negotiators do beter when they act
deceptively and when their counterpart are neither self-interested nor have particularly
attractive personalities.

TABLE: Which Indıvidual Characteristics Do Negotiators See as Most Important for

Negotiating Succesfully?

Which Individual Characteristic Do Negotiators See as Most Important for
Negotiating Succesfully? The Answer Varies by Culture

American Japanese Chinese(Taiwan) Brazilian

Negotiators Negotiators Negotiators Negotiators
Preparation and Dedication to job Persistence and Preparation and
planing skill determination planing skill
Thinking under Perceive and Win respect and Thinking under
pressure exploit power confidence pressure
Judgement and Win respect and Preparation and Judgement and
intelligence confidence planing skill intelligence
Verbal Integrity Product knowledge Verbal
expressiveness expressiveness
Product Demonstrate Interesting Product
Knowledge listening skill Knowledge
Perceive and Broad perspective Judgement and Perceive and
exploit power intelligent exploit power
Integrity Verbal Competitiveness

Different nationalities have different values and ways of behaving. You need to
understand ritual and culture in order to make people of other nationalities more comfortable
when negotiating with you. You may not even have to deal abroad to need to understand the
ritual and culture of another society - many companies in the UK have settled here from
overseas and strive to maintain their native beliefs and traditions.

Build a model

In order to understand a different culture, you need information. Simply mimicking a

few rituals that you have observed is unlikely to be enough of a basis on which to found a
lasting business relationship. A good way to approach a new culture is to follow a three stage,
cyclical process; observe, analyse, and act accordingly.


Step one in observation might be to conduct some research into the country of origin
of the people with whom you will be dealing. Check out the basics, such as size, population,
religion, economic situation and so on. The fact that you can converse intelligently regarding
the homeland of your counterparts shows that you have done your homework and wish to
make the business relationship a success. You can also pick up ‘cross-culture’ books that will
warn you off making some of the more obvious errors, such as not putting money directly into
the hand of a Korean, for example (it’s considered to be rude).

It is also a good idea to learn a few words of the language. You may not be expected to
be fluent, but if you can greet people and say ‘please’ and ‘thank you’ in their language, then
your efforts will be noted and appreciated. The British are notoriously bad at learning other
languages in order to do business within other countries; with the advent and widespread use
of the Internet, this may be an issue that is largely resolved for us as other cultures learn
English in order that they may make the most of the unique advantages offered. However, you
would be wise to remember that the Germans have a saying: ‘We will sell to you in any
language, but we will only buy from you in German’.

The next stage of observation takes place when you meet and begin to develop a
relationship. Observe how people behave. Are they very formal, or very relaxed? Do they
touch or avoid touching? These are all valuable insights into how to fit in with the culture.

Remember that we like people who are like ourselves. Everyone has experience, either
personally or through observation, of the fact that opposites attract. Despite this, the norm is
for similarities to attract. People in long-term relationships often look quite alike, too - they
take the desire to see a mirror image a step further than would be the case in a friendship or
business relationship. Consequently your efforts to understand and emulate another culture
are likely to pay off handsomely in a business relationship.


It is a good idea not only to know how people behave, but also why they behave in
certain ways. Understanding the underlying reason for something both helps you to get it right
and enhances your relationship with others. Think about someone observing our culture;
things they might notice include:

• We suffer poor service in silence;

• On meeting someone, we smile, shake hands and make eye contact;
• Despite this, we rarely make eye contact on a crowded bus or train;
• Touch can make people uncomfortable, with the exception of an expected handshake;
• Everything stops for football!

Knowing what to expect guides people’s behaviour. Remember also that people are often
very flattered to be asked about their country’s culture and traditions. Most people enjoy
talking about themselves and will appreciate your showing an interest.

Act accordingly

Once you have observed and understood something, amend your own behaviour to
suit and assimilate your new habits into your everyday ritual. Don’t become a mimic
overnight - little by little should encourage and impress. It is arguably better to show
improvement in your understanding over a period of time, so demonstrating that this is a long-
term commitment and something that you are prepared to work at. Once you have taken on
board everything you have learned, it is time once more to observe.

By following the cycle you become, by degrees, more comfortable with the culture in
which you are working. You do not need to lose your essential British ways or subsume your

own personality, just act in a way that makes people more comfortable when doing business
with you.

Useful tips

• Accept that different cultures have different values and behaviours

• Make an effort to understand alternative cultures
• Pick up a bit of the language
Do not be afraid to try speaking a few words of the language; people will appreciate
your efforts and may even find it endearing if your pronunciation is less than perfect.
It gives them a chance to correct you, which begins to develop a bond, and at the very
least you tried.
• Show an interest in what is happening and why
• Be respectful


ADLER, N.J. “International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior”, fourth edition, pp 208-