Negotiating across Cultures - Coursework Example

NEGOTIATING ACROSS CULTURES By (Name) Name of Class (Course) Professor (Tutor) Name of Institution (University) City and State The Date In the past five or so decades, culture was much less important in the international relations conduct than it is today. In the subsequent years, the world experienced a fast growing and deep networks of political, social and economic and cultural interdependence and interconnections at an exceptional level. This forced scholars and experienced diplomats to realize and appreciate the importance of cultural norms and their influence on global negotiations and their outcomes (Cohen, 2007). International business scholars widely agree that culture, more so cultural differences are very significant when it comes to international relations. More organizations are expanding to the global markets and most of them are seeking joint ventures in these markets. One thing that is common and prevalent in these ventures is the different forms of negotiations. Cultural and communication differences can lead to missed trade-off opportunities and unfavorable outcomes (Hooper, Pesantez & Rizvi, 2005). As the world becomes a global village, different nations and cultures are brought together and this emphasizes the importance of cultural literacy in the different types of diplomacy that are used nowadays. Understanding differences in culture and consequently different communication strategies is very important for a cross cultural manager as it plays a vital role in the outcomes of global negotiations. Global organizations and those intending to expand internationally have now realized the importance of cross-cultural literacy in order to facilitate cooperation and avoid conflicts and misunderstandings and eventually ensure their access to the economic benefits offered and fostered by globalization. Taking culture into account on the negotiations table is very crucial especially when there is more contrast between the cultures. There is higher potential of misunderstandings in negotiations between western and Arab or African countries than there would be between two Western countries or two already developed countries (LeBaron, 2008). People from different cultures behave differently during negotiations. According to Adler and Graham (1997), people behave differently when negotiating across cultures than when they are negotiating between familiar or similar cultures. These differences are identified through a range of variables that include outcomes, satisfaction levels, cooperation, processes, joint profit results acculturation and obstinacy. Understanding the host cultures is vital for a cross cultural manager to be able to come up with culture specific bargaining tactics and strategies In order to appreciate the importance of culture on negotiating global agreements, some aspects of negotiation according to the Western theory have to be outlined. The first one is direct confrontation; most Westerners perceive negotiations as a direct confrontation (Brett, 2000). The other aspects are based on the type of negotiations as either dispute resolutions or transactional i.e. with customers and sellers. There are two possible agreement outcomes from these types of negotiations which are either a deadlock or distributive/integrative. Direct confrontation can be either electronic or face-to-face (Brett, 2000). Face-to-face negotiations are however the best when the two cultures are new to each other since they offer less understandings and foster rapport where cultural attitudes, facial expressions and body language are still unfamiliar to the other parties. Phone or email negotiations would be relevant where the negotiators are already familiar with each other; these methods could also be used when tensions are already high between the two parties. Most cultures prefer indirect methods of negotiations. Here, there could be agents as third parties that represent either of the sides or be neutral and try to facilitate an agreement between the two parties. These third parties could also be go-between communicators to take information from one side to another. Negotiations are based on the fact that the goals of the negotiating parties are incompatible or mismatched; the negotiations are aimed at bringing the two parties to an agreement (Drake, 2001). The negotiating parties therefore strive to get a better deal with the existing negotiation or figure out whether they have to look elsewhere. This is mostly for the transaction negotiations mostly between buyers and sellers. Conflict or dispute resolution on the other hand means there is an interference with the goals of the parties and therefore, the parties are seeking solutions to the interference. The results of these two types of negotiations can be an integrative agreement, a distributive agreement or a stalemate. For negotiations to result in a distributive agreement, the negotiators divide a precise amount of resources or assets and the negotiations mostly turn into rivalry and competition (Lewicki et. al., 2004). Integrative agreements on the other hand are as a result of negotiations where new factors are brought to the table in order to enhance the existing resources. Here the two negotiators mainly focus on what they have in common rather than their differences. The exchange of ideas and information is more open since the parties are more interested in their issues of interest as opposed to their market position. Distributive bargaining methods are mostly used because most negotiators have not realized the potential for integrative negotiations. Most of them believe that the best outcome of a negotiation is to get the most benefit from it, if not more benefits than the other party, thus leading to competition (Drake, 2001). In this case, the two parties fight for the scarce resources without considering the mutual benefits. Integrative methods help prevent stalemates and ensures that resources are utilized efficiently and nothing is left untouched. All the above-mentioned types of negotiations have to take culture into account as a very crucial aspect of global agreements. Multinational corporations have to comprehend how the norms and values that culture entails can affect global negotiations (Drake, 2001). Cultural values outline what cultures deem important while cultural norms establish what the different cultures consider proper or improper behaviors. These two put together influence how different people perceive situations and how they react to what others do. When it comes to negotiating across cultures, countries can be classified into individualistic cultures and those that are highly collectivistic. Individualistic cultures are those whose institutions, customs and norms support the self-sufficiency of the individual and individual rights. Such countries include Australia, United States and The United Kingdom (Stevens & Greer, 1995). Collective cultures on the other hand support the mutual dependence of people. Individual needs are less important than the needs of the group; the greater good of the whole is more important than individual needs (Stevens & Greer, 1995). Such cultures encourage teamwork and include countries like China, Japan and Korea. These two cultural perspectives indicate the main preferences of different cultures and understanding them would help multinational corporations when negotiating with corporations in such countries. Collectivist culture would more likely seek win-win outcomes and here the integrative bargaining methods are most likely to work. Individualists however are competitive and treat all negotiations as win or lose and here distributive bargaining methods are more likely to take place (Erez & Early, 2001). These differences in negotiations are as a result of social norms and values that contrast and as such it is vital for cross cultural manager to understand the connections between different cultures and the strategies used for negotiations in order to achieve the best outcomes. The literature on negotiations across cultures is however conflicting as different scholars have different perspectives on the impact of culture on negotiating global agreements. According to Zartman and Berman (1993), culture has a minor role to play on the process and results of negotiations. They state that it is only important to know the different cultures but this becomes irrelevant during the negotiation process on the table. This is because the negotiating parties already have similarities in actions according to an existing international diplomatic culture that has already been developed and spread by the universal setting through bilateral organizations and establishments like the United Nations. Cohen (1997) and Fisher (1980), on the other hand have a different view where they emphasize the importance of cultural differences in negotiating global agreements. They assert that the greater the contrast between the cultures of the negotiating parties the higher the risk of disagreements and misunderstandings there is. Fisher offers three main arguments in response to Berman and Zartman’s assertions; firstly, he states that since negotiations are collective in character, they are subject to group norms. Secondly, he states that since the negotiating parties are not free agents, they cannot possibly go beyond the limits of what the organization or country they represent have set and lastly that the original mindset is already too deeply rooted into the nature of the negotiators to be easily changed by any diplomatic training. These conflicting perspectives can however be used to emphasize the fact that globalization has helped reduce the problems that arise with negotiations across cultures. Berman and Zartman focus on the changes brought about by globalization and the development of a diplomatic culture through multinational establishments. They suggest that internationalization makes the negotiation process easier in that culture becomes less relevant as a result of the security or economic interests that states are now able to follow at international levels. Cohen and Fisher on the other hand emphasize that negotiations or diplomatic relations that fail due to cultural conflicts and misunderstandings have led to increased efforts by countries to reduce them as a result of comprehending their importance. Therefore, as much as these two literatures are conflicting, they are complementary in their analysis. Negotiations are not easy especially because they consist of two sides trying to outdo each other and get the maximum outcomes from them. Being a manager across cultures makes it even harder since negotiating across different cultures would require more skills and knowledge about the different cultures that the organization I am working for intends to negotiate with. This topic is very important since for me as a prospective cross cultural manager since it helps me comprehend the different communication styles of different cultures. I am able to understand their values and norms and I can use this information to my advantage. Every action I take or make can have an impact on the outcome of the negotiations. If we get off from the wrong foot or working from extremely different cultural perspectives, there will be a very high potential for things to go wrong. For this reason, it is very crucial to start such negotiations with prior knowledge and preparation in order to get the best possible outcomes. From this topic, I have learnt that different cultures have different world perspectives and therefore have different negotiating methods. I have learnt that most Asian countries are collectivists meaning that teamwork is very important to them. I have also learnt that Americans, Australians and Europeans are more individualistic in nature. The individualist cultures would mostly use integrative bargaining methods since they are competitive in nature and would want to get the most, if not better outcome than the other party this would help me negotiate effectively with such cultures. This also holds true for what I have learnt about the collectivist cultures, they tend to value teamwork and prefer growing together than individually, as such, distributive bargaining methods would work better and the outcomes would be beneficial to both parties. I find this to be the best negotiation method so far. This knowledge would go a long way in helping me in my career as a cross cultural manager to handle people from different cultures in the organization I will be working for or be able to effectively carry out negotiations. To my advantage, globalization has to a large extent standardized issues like body language and etiquette in the corporate world and this may not pose a big problem when it comes to negotiations, this topic has helped me comprehend the deeper cultural issues when it comes to negotiating across cultures. Culture is the basis for all ethical behavior and decides what is considered ethical or unethical. Within these contexts there are expectations and different levels of trust. Most Asian countries would rely on the context within which the negotiations were carried out and the relationship between the two parties as opposed to most western countries that take most importance on the contents of the negotiation and how they will benefit. As much as cultural differences can be obstacles to successful business negotiations, the problems can be overcome using public diplomacy. Having this information is very crucial for any individual or organization that wants to transact internationally. Reference List Adler, N. & Graham, S., 1997. International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior. Journal of Management Science, 40(1), pp 234-288. Brett, J. M., 2000. Culture and Negotiation. International Journal of Psychology, 35 (2), pp 97- 104. Cohen, R., 2007. Negotiating across cultures: International Communication in an interdependent world. (2nd Edn). Washington: United States Institute of Peace press. Drake, L. E., 2001. The culture-negotiation link: Integrative and distributive bargaining through an intercultural communication lens. Human Communication Research, 27 (3), pp. 317- 349. Erez, M. & Early, C.P., 1993. Culture, self-identity and work. (4th Edn). Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press. Fisher, G., 1980. International Negotiation: A Cross-Cultural Perspective. (1st Edn). Yarmouth: Intercultural Press. Hooper, C., Pesantez, M. & Rizvi, S., 2005. Cross-Cultural Communication and Negotiation. [Online]. Available at: http://www.hooper.cc/pdfs/cross-culture_negotiation.pdf. [Accessed 19 Apr 2017]. LeBaron, M., 2008. Culture-Based Negotiation Styles. [Online]. Available at: http://gevim.co.il/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Culture-Based-Negotiation-Styles.pdf. [Accessed 19 Apr 2017]. Lewicki, J.R., Saunders, D.M., Barry, B. & Minton, M.W., 2004. Essentials of negotiation. New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin Press. Stevens, G. K. & Greer, C. R., 1995. Doing business in Mexico: Understanding cultural differences. Organizational Dynamics, 24 (1), pp. 39-55. Zartman, I. & Berman, W., 1993. A Sceptics View: Culture and Negotiation. (2nd Edn). Newbury Park: Sage Publications. Read More