Cross-Cultural Communication in Business Negotiations - Literature review Example

Cross-Cultural Communication in Business Negotiations Introduction Geographical boundaries nowadays are almost gone. Almost everybody has the chanceto communicate with whoever s/he wants to, regardless of the distance. This occurrence results in the emergence of cross-cultural communication. Cross-cultural communication is particularly important to the field of business negotiations. When negotiating cross-culturally, this becomes a process of predicting culturally similar factors that can reduce the likelihood of misunderstandings or conflict (Hendon, Hendon, & Herbig, 1996). Communications are often hampered because the individuals involved seem to be coming from two very different paths. Negotiating cross-culturally most likely suggests having to deal with unfamiliar and incoherent information, often alongside unfamiliar social contexts, behaviour, and other factors. Misunderstandings and communication barriers in business negotiations become greater as cultural differences widen. This essay discusses the implications of cross-cultural communication for business negotiations. The discussion focuses primarily on the impact of verbal and nonverbal forms of cross-cultural communication on business negotiations. An Overview of Cross-Cultural Business Communication Successful cross-cultural business communication is a matter of learning important cultural differences and the different verbal and nonverbal styles of various cultures. For example, it is vital for international managers to have a broad knowledge of cultural diversities in communicative approaches. An international manager has to be informed of cultural practices when choosing, for instance, which marketing strategies to employ in a particular culture. Albers-Miller (1996 as cited in Maude, 2011, p. 126) discovered correlations between different marketing strategies and the cultural dimensions of Hofstede. These correlations have to be recognised in order to develop a successful international marketing strategy. General marketing strategies are likely to fail. For example, in individualist cultures people are more verbally inclined than collectivist countries and as a result a manager employed in an individualist country may choose verbal media as a means to communication. On the contrary, in collectivist cultures individuals have a tendency to be keener on visual aspects and thus a manager working in a collectivist country may choose nonverbal media as a communication channel (Maude, 2011, 126). Basically, the success of any international business depends on the effectiveness of its cross-cultural communication. Culture affects efficiency, motivation, and behaviour at work, and involves principles and practices that determine organisational patterns and approaches (Swaidan, 2007). The expansion of business globalisation has compelled individuals from various cultures to cooperate with each other. In today’s business world, cross-cultural communication necessitates knowledge of cultural differences and heightened cultural sensitivity; however, when it comes to business negotiations cross-cultural communications become highly complicated and challenging. Members of a particular culture may emphasise, for instance, financial aspects of a business negotiation, whilst members of another culture may give more importance to the concept of ‘trust’ (Mayfield et al., 1998). In certain cultures, the focus of people is more on the particulars or fine points of the transaction, whilst other cultures place more emphasis on implementation. Asians generally focus on personal relationship, whilst Westerners tend to focus on the practicalities of an agreement (Mayfield et al., 1998). Culture compels individuals to recognise and treat differently the numerous social factors involved in any negotiation. Negotiations are likely to fail when there is a misunderstanding of the cultural factors involved. Effective negotiators are those that invest time and effort in understanding and adapting to the communicative style of the other parties. Verbal communication in international business is usually used in an ambiguous manner. For example, in cross-cultural business negotiations individuals may employ words or concepts to deceive. At times cues are expressed in a nonverbal way that obscures the consistency and trustworthiness of what is said. At times the verbal message delivered in a foreign language in an international negotiation is misunderstood (Bannon & Mattock, 2003). According to Gesteland (2005), within the context of global business negotiation, unaided verbal communication is ineffective. In cross-cultural communications it is usually the nonverbal approach, within the perspective of the verbal message, that conveys the meaning. In order to negotiate successfully in cross-cultural settings, all forms of communication must be understood precisely. For instance, American negotiators usually view silence and absence of feedback as unfavourable signals. Japanese negotiators, on the other hand, have a tendency to suppose that their silence can encourage American negotiators to favourably modify the agreement (Johnston & Burton, 2009). A plain transaction in the Middle East may remain in the negotiation table for several days because the Arab negotiations may prefer to discuss other matters or take a break from the negotiation for a time. The forceful technique of Russian negotiations and their sometimes confusing decisions may bewilder inexperienced negotiators. Specific cases may additionally demonstrate how cultural misunderstandings negatively affect international business negotiations (Samovar et al., 2012). Take for instance the following examples. During a negotiation, an American business negotiator saw the Korean manager nodding his head after hearing his proposal, thus he assumed the Korean manager approved his proposal, and he presented the contract, expecting to wrap up the negotiation. However, to his surprise, the Korean manager did not give any interest in signing the agreement. The American negotiator then felt insulted. He assumed the Korean manager was taking him for granted or was not taking him seriously (Hendon et al., 1996). As a result, the negotiation failed. The negotiation process, as well as the decision-making process is diverse. The duration of these processes will rely on whether the authority is completely entrusted to the negotiator, directed through a set of connections, delegated to a team of experts, or centralised (Ghauri & Usunier, 2003). For instance, it also involves the process of negotiation between American and Japanese managers. After the American manager presented the cost, the Japanese manager consistently stayed silent for a while. Thus the American manager assumed that the cost he had presented might be too high. Hence he lowered the suggested cost, which astonished and deeply satisfied the Japanese manager (Ghauri & Usunier, 2003). Businesspeople from Western and Eastern countries are culturally diverse. Even among people of European countries whose cultural traditions are more related to one another, the outcome of a negotiation between them could be an utter failure (Johnston & Burton, 2009). Take for instance this case in point. A French manager of a manufacturing firm visited a Dutch company to negotiate a plan. He started the negotiation with a report of the accomplishments of his firm. The Dutch managers appeared amazed at the outset, and then they left the negotiation table without even hearing the proposal. The French manager was not mistaken in his actions. On the contrary, the Dutch managers were not intentionally discourteous by abandoning the negotiation without even hearing the proposal (Maude, 2011). Cultural misunderstanding was the culprit. The Dutch managers thought the French manager was casually bragging about his firm, and they felt offended. But the French manager assumed that he was involved in a vague introductory to the actual negotiation. As much as the French manager knows, the actual negotiation would begin after a day or two. Cultural misunderstanding impedes cross-cultural business negotiations even between negotiators whose cultural backgrounds are fairly related. Only when the process of negotiation is carried out within the cultural perspective of all the parties involved does agreement become achievable (Jameson, 2007). This pursuit is still in progress because negotiation is a persistent venture. Moreover, it is not the transaction but what takes place later on that decides whether the negotiating parties will meet their goals. At this point, the creation of cultural unity not simply facilitates the transaction but also protects it (Metcalf et al., 2007). Hence, the skill of cross-cultural business negotiation should not merely be acquired and discarded. Cross-Cultural Verbal Communication in Business Negotiations Verbal communication, particularly language, is very essential. When individuals from various cultures interact or communicate, culturally based aspects determine how they deliver and interpret their messages. Business negotiators must ensure correct delivery and interpretation of messages regularly, speak carefully, employ questions freely, and prevent the use of ambiguous or technical terms (Ghauri & Usunier, 2003). Different cultures also have different meanings for the terms agreement and negotiation. In the American culture, individuals who decline to negotiate are seen as indifferent, guarded, and not really decided or sincere about conducting business. Swedish negotiators are thorough, systematic people. Negotiation is not viewed with much importance in Swedish culture; individuals who negotiate, who try to bargain by bidding a higher price so as to give in to a lower price, can be seen as incompetent, unreliable, or probably merely concerned about his/her self-interest (Ghauri & Usunier, 2003). The linguistic model can be derived from three aspects: ‘(1) topic allocation, (2) verbal immediacy of speaker and listener references, and topic progression’ (Ghauri & Usunier, 2003, p. 44). Topic allocation has been defined as a person’s right to independence as regards privacy and free-will. Usually, if the message is communicated openly or frankly, it will be viewed as aggressive and self-assured. If communicated slowly or thoroughly, it will more likely make the listener comfortable and is generally viewed as less intimidating. Communicating implicitly may lessen unfavourable impacts, hence facilitating later changes. However, if communicated in an explicit manner, this can result in suspicion and doubts. Some cultures are more explicit whilst others are more implicit (Gesteland, 2005). Danish negotiators, for instance, are more focused on practicalities whilst Spanish negotiators are more oriented towards personal relationships. The Danish negotiators favour methods where in the subject matter of the discussion does not openly involve people, and where in people and issues do not overlap; when they feel the need to discuss issues within the perspective of the other party, they carry on by using implicit questions, rarely remarking about the actions or behaviour of each other (Ulijn & Verweij, 2000). Verbal immediacy is defined as the extent or degree speakers relate themselves in a verbal way to the communication, to the issues they raise, and to the own remarks of their listener; this can vary from distant to personal (Ghauri & Usunier, 2003, pp. 44-45). Spanish negotiators favour a high level of immediacy to the current discussion; they do not have a tendency to detach the task from the individual but favour making their individuals the focus of the communication and allowing the opposite party to infiltrate deeper into their personal space. On the other hand, Danish negotiators favour a low level of immediacy, progressing in an uncertain, synchronised, and compromise-oriented way (Ulijn & Verweij, 2000). Topic progression is defined as the composition, flow, and progression innate in a communication. A case in point is the findings of Grindsted’s (1994) research (as cited in Ghauri & Usunier, 2003, p. 45): The Spanish negotiators explicitly made an opening move while implicitly making the closing move; the Danish negotiators took the opposite sequence. Their opening move was tentative and nonconfrontational while the closing move was expressed explicitly when an agreement was reached. As a result of differences between the two groups, the Spanish negotiators would interpret Danish negotiators as emotionally uninvolved and impersonal, afraid of intimacy, and too concerned with doing business. Danish negotiators would interpret Spanish negotiators as self-assertive, confrontational, and uncooperative, consuming more time and energy in the negotiations than necessary. Both view the events from their own perspective, which is entirely logical but entirely incorrect when viewed cross-culturally. The process of argumentation in cross-cultural business negotiations includes a combination of beliefs, sentiments, and reason. Negotiators who exercise reason attempt to convince the opposite party with factual or substantive evidence based on financial reports or statistics (Zhu, Nel, & Bhat, 2006). Negotiators who employ sentiments attempt to convince the opposite party with inspirational evidence by presenting proofs from cultural practices and historical knowledge. Negotiators who employ a set of beliefs attempt to convince the other party with reliable evidence by presenting a testimonial from an authority figure or expert. This last group of negotiators is less successful in negotiations (Liu & Lee, 2008). Sentiments are given more importance than reason by Mexican negotiators. French negotiators, on the other hand, highly value reason and logic (Maude, 2011). They have high regard for their verbal proficiency. In summary, effective communication is very important to business negotiations particularly in the global business setting. And the ability to persuade is a central element of this cross-cultural communication. Arguments or messages trying to convince another are determined by both personal approach and cultural background. Gaining accurate knowledge of the role of characteristics that affect the preference for a particular method of persuasion must be an essential factor in international business negotiations. Cross-Cultural Non-Verbal Communication in Business Negotiations The main advantage of non-verbal communication is its flexibility. For example, although some individuals in an international business negotiation are unable to communicate their messages proficiently in a foreign language, they can often express themselves effectively by using non-verbal components like gestures. In numerous cross-cultural settings the emotions, outlooks, and behaviours of individuals are expressed in a non-verbal manner without being consciously aware of it (Chu et al., 2005). In international business negotiations, non-verbal cues, like eye contact, can provide important ideas about the preferences and attitudes of the people involved in the negotiation. According to Chu and colleagues (2005), in the edgy ambience of an international negotiation, body movements, facial expressions, and gestures are more difficult to regulate than verbal aspects and are more dependable markers of motive and sentiment. Former secretary-general of the United Nations Dag Hammarskjold summed up the fundamental role non-verbal communication play in the process of negotiation: “The unspoken dialog between two people can never be put right by anything they say” (Ghauri & Usunier, 2003, p. 62). Expert negotiators are especially skilled at controlling their non-verbal cues, whether unconsciously or consciously, while coping with the numerous non-verbal cues they will receive from the other party. It is essential to be conscious of non-verbal signals because the negotiator may accidentally communicate wrong or ambiguous messages to the opposite side, the negotiator may fail adjust to or may misunderstand the non-verbal signals being communicated by the opposite party, or successful communications may entail the use of non-verbal cues (Chu et al., 2005). Primarily, according to Woods and colleagues (2012), emotional arguments in negotiations are communicated in a non-verbal way by facial expressions and gestures. The interpretation of the opposite party of the statement of the other party focuses more on non-verbal cues than on verbal communication (Ghauri & Usunier, 2003). When a disagreement arises between non-verbal and verbal communication, the former must be prioritised. Every time a negotiator is to take part in a cross-cultural business negotiation, s/he should understand and study the opposite party. It is hard to assess non-verbal cues, as all components are emotionally and subconsciously related. The more straightforward and easier the language, the more accurately an argument is communicated and interpreted, the greater the commitment is expected to be. Conclusions Cross-cultural communications skills have currently become one of the most essential attributes of managers and businesspeople. To achieve the desired outcome, particularly in cross-cultural business negotiations, it is vital to communicate with a broad cultural knowledge and understanding; otherwise, negotiators may communicate with their own cultural perspectives, which could not produce any desirable outcomes. Therefore, for successful cross-cultural business negotiation, it is vital to be informed of the cultural practices and preferences of the negotiating countries, and develop the negotiating methods afterwards. This essay has discussed the implications of cross-cultural communication for business negotiations and the components of verbal and non-verbal communication. It has been demonstrated in the literature that non-verbal communication is more favoured, even though more difficult to control, in business negotiations than verbal communication. References Bannon, G. & Mattock, J., 2003. Cross-Cultural Communication: The Essential Guide to International Business. London: Kogan Page Publishers. Chu, Y. et al., 2005. Silent Messages in Negotiations: The Role of Nonverbal Communication in Cross-Cultural Business Negotiations. Journal of Organisational Culture, Communications and Conflict, 9(2), pp. 113+ Gesteland, R., 2005. Cross-cultural business behaviour: negotiating, selling, sourcing and managing across cultures. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School Press. Ghauri, P. & Usunier, J., 2003. International Business Negotiation. UK: Emerald Group Publishing. Hendon, D., Hendon, R., & Herbig, P., 1996. Cross-Cultural Business Negotiations. Westport, CT: Praeger. Jameson, D., 2007. Reconceptualising Cultural Identity and Its Role in Intercultural Business Communication. Journal of Business Communication, 44(3), pp. 199-235. Johnston, T. & Burton, J., 2009. International Exercise to Increase Awareness of Cross-Cultural Issues by U.S. Negotiators. Journal of International Business Research, 8(1), pp. 79+ Liu, C. & Lee, H., 2008. Cross-Cultural Communication. Review of Business Research, 8(6), pp. 138+ Maude, B., 2011. Managing Cross-Cultural Communication: Principles and Practice. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Mayfield, J. et al., 1998. How Location Impacts International Business Negotiations. Review of Business, 19(2), pp. 21+ Metcalf, L. et al., 2007. Cultural Influences in Negotiations: A Four Country Comparative Analysis. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 7(2), pp. 147-168. Samovar, L. et al., 2012. Communication between Cultures. Mason, OH: Cengage Learning. Swaidan, Z., 2007. Culture and Negotiation Ethics. Review of Business Research, 7(5), pp. 163+ Ulijn, J. & Verweij, M., 2000. Questioning Behaviour in Monocultural and Intercultural Technical Business Negotiations: The Dutch-Spanish Connection. Discourse Studies, 2(2), pp. 217-248. Woods, P., Barker, M., & Troth, A., 2012. Cross-Cultural Management Performance Elements in the Expatriate Context. International Journal of Business Research, 12(3), pp. 95+ Zhu, Y., Nel, P., & Bhat, R., 2006. A Cross Cultural Study of Communication Strategies for Building Business Relationships. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 6(3), pp. 319-341. Read More