Human Resource Management and Culture Question The negotiation team that Canada Timber CEO selected to be part of his delegation in Japan to broker a deal with Bonsai indeed lacked in terms of inclusivity. To begin with the team was only composed of four members that include; Mr Tim who was the CEO of Canada Timber, Bill Hudak the production supervisor of the company, Johnny Sharkey an attorney who was to serve as the legal representative of the company and finally, Kevin Peterson a regional sales representative of Canada Timber Company.
Since this particular business deal that was supposed to be brokered, was an international deal, Mr Tim needed to look for a more professional and inclusive negotiation team to help in bargaining for a better deal (Andersson & Holm, 2010). To begin with, it was a good idea including Kevin Peterson who acted as a regional sales person for Canada Timber. Although he only understood the regional market characteristics and dynamism with a little or no knowledge on international market issues, he had a better understanding of the Japanese culture hence, the probable negotiating strategies that the Japanese negotiators would use during the negotiations.
For instance, he was able to pinpoint the acting dumb or being silence strategy that the Japanese negotiators employed during the negotiations. In addition, he understood the Japanese language although to a small extent. Communication is important in any negotiations and thus, he acted as an interpreter making the negotiations possible. Therefore, it is evident that Kelvin was an impossible to dispense with. In addition, I think the production supervisor was wrongly included in the negotiating team because this was not a mere business trip, but an important business trip, which required a tactful and skilled negotiating team that would engage the opposing negotiating Japanese team that would manage to convince them to make concession to Canada Timber’s terms of the deal.
Therefore, I believe Mr Bill Hudak would not serve any meaningful purpose in the team because he lacked the background knowledge concerning international negotiations and contracts. Further, the trip had nothing to deal with production processes and mechanisms. Since Johnny Sharkey who was to serve as the legal representative to the signing of the deal, I believe it was imperative to include him in the negotiating team to provide advice from a legal perspective and help the team in examining the contract document in case the opposing side drafted the contract terms and conditions.
Often negotiating parties that draft the contract document include clauses in the document that favour them during the negotiations. Therefore, Johnny Sharkey inclusion was important to help detect and pinpoint such clauses before the teams engage in negotiations.
Question 2 From the case study the Canadians and Japanese depicted major differences in their cultures. Japan is a collectivist and large power distance, where decisions and actions are done collectively while Canada is a an individualistic and low power distance country, where individual make decisions as opposed to collective decision making. Therefore, like any other collectivist or individualistic culture, the negotiating parties in the case study have portrayed attributes of their cultures in the negotiations, through their actions and negotiating strategies they employ before and after engaging in the negotiations. For instance, Japanese being a large power distance culturelike and value interpersonal relationships unlike the low power distance cultures of the Canadians before they engage in any negotiations.
Thus, this is evident in the way they receive the Canadian company negotiators from the time of arrival. Firstly, they presented business cards to the Canadians, bowed to them; Mr Kusushi the president of the company presented a gift to the Canadian negotiating team, etc. On the other side, the Canadian team either had no business cards or presented any gift to the Japanese team as a way of fostering interpersonal relationships or showing appreciation between the two to the Japanese team.
In addition, the Japanese do a little talking or negotiate with less details while engaging their opposing negotiators as it is evident in the case study as the Japanese act dumb, unlike Canadians who value and like negotiating with a lot of details or do more talking in the negotiations. Large distance cultures like the Japanese culture do not maintain eye contact with their opposing negotiators as it is evident in the case study, unlike low power distance cultures of the Canadians who maintain strong eye contact to persuade the opposing negotiators into making concessions. Further, in collectivist cultures like the Japanese culture, decisions are made collectively by members of the family; team or senior members of the team have to be consulted before decisions are made as it is depicted by the team refusing to sign the deal before Mr Kusushi is consulted even although the relationship between the group members is open.
On the other hand, individualistic cultures like that of the Canadians individual members make decisions like it is evidenced by the CanadianTimber company CEO who makes impulse decisions without any consultation from the negotiating members. In addition, unlike the Japanese who were always composed and relaxed as they listened to their counterparts, the Canadians were impatient and thus on a hurry to make decisions.
This is elaborated by the nature Mr Tim handled the whole negotiation process to the point of storming out of a meeting when the deal was delayed. Therefore, it is evident that there are wide differences in culture by the way the teams negotiate, which are the fundamental differences that exist between the larger cultures i. e.
collectivist and individualistic cultures. When it came to business strategy the two teams displayed a difference in culture as each acted differently from the other (Andersson & Holm, 2010). For instance the Japanese would just listen to the Canadians as they made their presentation without making any comments, observation or responding to questions asked in a bid to force them to come up with a better offer. Again they demonstrated cohesiveness of the highest degree in the sense that they would even ask to be excused to meet privately in order to come up with a decision.
The Canadians on the other hand were not strategic in their business dealings as they were just negotiating without any particular business strategy in mind. Further, whenever Mr Tim was presented with something from the Japanese he seemed uninterested as he would not take time to study them but instead quickly stuff them in his pockets. Unlike the Japanese who presented the Canadians with a gift most probably one of the products that they manufacture.
The Canadians on the other hand came empty handed not even with a sample of the products that they intended to supply to Bonsai. Finally, from the case study the Canadians and Japanese depicted a major difference in their cultures through their actions and behaviour in the entire period of engagement between the two parties. For example, the Japanese, unlike the Canadians prepared in advance for the negotiations. Before the Canadian company would send their negotiating team to Japan the Japanese had furnished them with enough details concerning the nature of products they required and the course of action once they arrive in Japan.
They even prepared business card to give the Canadians once they arrive in their company. That notwithstanding they demonstrated to be very friendly people as they treated the Canadians with utmost courtesy not only as business associates but also as friends as they went on to present them with a gift. The Japanese were also very much concerned on the manner in which their visitors perceived their stay in their country, this elaborate as that was the first question the delegation from Canada was asked even before the business talks commenced (Andersson & Holm, 2010). Question 3 To ensure that the trip was successful first the composition of the negotiating team need to have been reconstructed to include relevant and viable members only.
Then the group should have first held a meeting discussing what they intended negotiating and all deliverables involving the deal before travelling to Japan. On top of that, the negotiating team was supposed to implement collective agreement strategy whereby no single member would make a binding decision without engaging the others, which would have promoted quality decisions being taken.
Finally, they would have sent a sales representative first to conduct a feasibility study in Japan before embarking on a trip to seal the deal. This would have ensured the company had important information beforehand thus; enable it makes informed decisions once in Japan (Andersson & Holm, 2010). For instance, the Canadian Timber Company team should have consulted Kevin before travelling to Japan on the negotiating strategies that they would anticipate the Japanese negotiating team to employ to help them prepare counter measure strategies to avoid losing the negotiations to the Japanese company.
For example, if the negotiating team had known that silence was a negotiating strategy, they would have played a long as a counter measure strategy to avoid making concessions, like how the CEO did. Ultimately, before engaging in any negotiations, preparations are imperative to determine in advance the strategies and the roles to be play by each team member. Therefore, it is evident that advance preparations are imperative prior to any negotiations if winning the negotiations is anything to by or procuring a better deal is anything to go by. Works Cited Andersson, Ulf, and Ulf Holm.
Managing the Contemporary Multinational: The Role of Headquarters. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Pub, 2010.Pdf.