Cross Cultural Styles of Negotiation - Essay Example

Cross Cultural Styles of Negotiation

The growth of economies, businesses and individuals in the contemporary world depends on how good they are at negotiating for efficient terms of performing various activities. For example, economies achieve success when they negotiate for terms of trade that lead to mutual benefit. This means that each economy that wishes to succeed has to master the art of negotiating. This also applies to both individuals and businesses. The negotiating parties have to be aware of the cultural differences that exist between them if any so that they may select the most appropriate style of bargaining. This is because various cultures utilize different styles of negotiations and it is essential to recognize what each culture prefers so as to achieve a consensus at the end of the negotiation talks. This paper aims at analyzing the various cross cultural styles of negotiation that interested parties may utilize to achieve successful talks. The styles that are discussed include uncertainty avoidance, masculinity VS femininity and individualism VS collectivism.

Geerd Hofstede argues that there are five dimensions of culture that must be considered during cross cultural interactions with negotiations being one of them. The dimensions are based on the cultural values that differentiate communities and that are critical to the understanding and the success of cross cultural interactions (Horst, 2007). The dimensions are discussed below.

Uncertainty Avoidance

This is one of the dimensions of culture identified by Hofstede and it analyzes how various cultures relate with uncertainty. Different cultures treat uncertainty in various ways while at the negotiating table. For example, the low uncertainty cultures are those that are tolerant to uncertainty and they welcome new ideas and techniques even if they were not aware of them earlier (Sorge, Noorderhaven & Koen, 2015). These groups are willing to take risk and they connect easily with members of other cultures, thus making it easy to negotiate with anyone. Denmark, Singapore, United Kingdom, United States and Sweden are oriented towards low uncertainty avoidance (Gelfand, 2007); they are easy to negotiate with using any technique as long as they analyze it and find that it will lead to mutual gains.

High uncertainty cultures, on the other hand, are highly sensitive to tentative situations and they aim at avoiding them at all costs. These groups place their trust on family and close allies making it difficult for them to trust individuals from other cultures. However, the high uncertainty avoidance groups may negotiate successfully with other communities by creating rules that guide the negotiations. The rules determine when the negotiations start, how they are conducted and how to end up with an agreement that minimizes risk. Therefore, an individual who wants to negotiate with these groups has to take care of risks to make sure that they are low; because high uncertainty cultures prefer a less rewarding strategy as long as it does not involve a lot of risks. According to Hofstede, Greece, Mexico, Portugal and Japan are some of the high uncertainty avoidance states (Brett, 2014).

Masculinity VS Femininity

The masculinity VS femininity dimension is based on the assertiveness preferences of a culture. Some cultures prefer assertion and aggression characteristics that are mainly possessed by males; thus making them masculine. Others are supportive and they prefer mutually agreed solutions meaning they are feminine because these values are mostly possessed by females. When negotiating with an individual, it is critical to identify their background to determine whether it is masculine or feminine. When negotiators are from a masculine culture, they prefer to negotiate with males because this is the dominant gender in their community. These cultures also prefer aggression during negotiations and they are more oriented to the win-lose strategy because they believe that the stronger party has to win (Silverthorne, 2005). These cultures are also loud at the negotiating desk and their main aim is to compete. Therefore, one has to be careful during discussions because they present ideas that maximize their gains without caring about the other party’s outcome. The Japanese are well known for this behavior during negotiations although they do not unveil their aggression to the other party.

Feminine states, on the other hand, aim at supporting their own ideas as well as those of the other party. They are cooperative, supportive and caring during negotiations because they care about the other party. These cultures adopt the win-win strategy because it is the most efficient in maximizing the benefits of all members. Denmark, Norway and Sweden are some of the nations with low masculinity based on the research conducted by Hofstede (Horst, 2007).

Individualism VS Collectivism

This dimension determines whether negotiators prefer working individually or in groups. The individualistic cultures are more concerned about individual interests more than those of the group. Negotiators from these groups, therefore maximize their own personal gains during discussions instead of acting on behalf of the groups to which they belong (Brett, 2014). However, they may be motivated by gifts and rewards to act on behalf of the others because the rewards maximize their personal interests. Therefore, any other party that aims at negotiating with members of the individualistic cultures has to show the individual the personal gains that they will derive by undertaking various strategies. The western states such as the UK, US and Netherlands are highly individualistic.

Collectivism, on the other hand, is mostly associated with the eastern cultures such as China, South Korea, Indonesia and Singapore. Negotiators from these countries aim at maximizing the benefits of the group as a whole. This means that these parties are likely to select strategies that produce maximum benefits to the society even if there were other options that would lead to high personal gains. These groups are also skeptical when negotiating with individualistic nations, for example, in case a negotiator from the individualistic nations is unable to continue with the talks, they have to take time to develop a new relationship with the new person who replaces the one they had understood. This consumes a lot of time but it is a precaution to the collectivist culture (Silverthorne, 2005).

Power Distance

This is another style of negotiating across cultures and it involves determining the distance that exists between powerful and less powerful members of the society. High power distance cultures are those that prefer a high distance between the powerful and less powerful individuals. This means that they prefer hierarchies and they are aware that equality is not attainable; thus, the powerful members who are mainly elites control resources and make major decisions (Sorge, Noorderhaven & Koen, 2015). Negotiators from these cultures cannot make decisions without consulting the powerful members of their society. The states where negotiations take this form include China, India and Indonesia.

However, there are other states where negotiators are considered equal to the powerful members of their communities. In these cultures, negotiators have the power to make decisions because they are considered to be equal with everyone else in the group. Thus, it is easier to convince members of these groups because they do not have to consult anyone when making major decisions for their organizations. Germany, Israel and the US are low power distance economies (Horst, 2007). Negotiators from these states are considered fit and they are trusted to make efficient decisions. The freedom that negotiators from these states have makes them flexible and easy to interact with and they waste less time compared to the high power distance negotiators.

Long term VS Short term Orientation

Long term style of negotiating is common in Asian states where they place high value on long term benefits. Negotiators from these states make sacrifices that they believe will lead to high benefits in the future even if it means incurring high costs. These negotiators may not be interested in strategies that have no future gains. However, negotiators from short term oriented states are flexible and they can pursue strategies whose short term benefits are higher than the long term gains (Gelfand, 2007). This is because according to these negotiators, changes take place every now and then meaning that what may work today may not be beneficial tomorrow or in the future.

Conclusion

Negotiating parties have to understand one another so that they may select the best technique to use to arrive at a conclusion. It is often challenging for negotiators from various cultures to reach a consensus especially when they do not understand each other. However, there are numerous techniques that the parties may use to reach a conclusion and they are based on the behavior and values of various cultures. For example, negotiators may use the five dimensions of Hofstede that include long term VS short term, individualistic VS collectivism, power distance and uncertainty avoidance. When dealing with negotiators from individualistic culture, it is essential to point out personal benefits to the other party; however, when negotiating with a member of a collectivist culture, it is critical to identify the benefits of various strategies to the community. Negotiating with member of high uncertainty avoidance cultures require an individual to avoid risks while high risks may be taken when dealing with low uncertainty avoidance negotiators. Therefore, it is critical to understand the culture and values of the other negotiating party in order to select the best style to use during the discussions.