Intercultural Communication and Negotiation Skills - Brown Casual Shoes - Case Study Example

Intercultural Communication and Negotiation Skills Name: Institution: Word Count 1525 Intercultural Communication and Negotiation Skills Executive Summary Culture plays an essential role in business negotiations. The difference in cultures in different societies may lead culture shocks among other cultural disagreements concerning the approaches used in business negotiations. Hofstede’s model of national culture presents a view that every society has a dominant culture that defines majority of its operations. China and the U.S are societies that are founded on different cultural backgrounds. China is a society that endeavours to establish long term relationships between partners while the U.S is hasty in forming such a relationship. It is the responsibility of different cultures to understand each other to ensure that there is coherence, compromise and understanding in the negotiation process between divergent cultures. 1.0 Introduction The international platform has become exceedingly complex considering that more business enterprises compete for an expansion of their market share and a differentiation of their products in the global market. Brown Casual Shoes, Inc. is one such company that endeavours to increase its product popularity in Chinese market. The company desires to partner with Chung Sun Manufacturing and the first visit to Shanghai China for business negotiation was met by numerous challenges arising from cultural differences. The main objective of this paper is to analyse Brown Casual Shoes, Inc.’s case in relation to cultural differences. This will be through the identification of intercultural communication problems and relating them to a model in negotiations. The paper will conduct a literature review and provide possible solutions to the problem. 2.0 Identification of problems/issues 2.1 Intercultural issues Differences in the approach given to the negotiation considering that Chinese take longer hours negotiation compared to Americans (Solomon, 1999). The method of persuasion witnessed among the Chinese during the presentation of the proposal was characterized by numerous questions (Solomon, 1999). The process of information sharing among the Chinese is initiated by providing explanations rather than presenting the proposal unlike in the American culture (Solomon, 1999). 2.2 Intercultural verbal communication issues Language barrier between the Chinese and the Americans creating discomfort among American considering that they know very little Chinese (Solomon, 1999) Discussions in the first day of the Americans visit to China were characterized by cultural questions and family issues in the United States instead of business issues (Solomon, 1999). 2.3 Intercultural nonverbal communication issues The mode of reception by Chinese hosts was characterized by handshakes and exchange of business card. However, the Chinese also bow for their guests (Solomon, 1999) Difficulty among Chinese hosts to accept gifts from Americans (Solomon, 1999) The grasping of Chinese forearms by the Americans as a sign of friendship was a weird gesture for the Chinese (Solomon, 1999). 3.0 Literature review Hofstede’s model of national culture is considered outstanding in the explanation of intercultural communication and negotiation skills since it treats culture as implicit, essential, systematically causal, and unique in different countries and it is also has shared aspects across different cultural settings (Titley, 2004). Such an approach is important in explaining the differences between the officials in China and those from the United States. 3.1 Description of the model Through an extensive research, Hofstede found elaborate patterns of similarities and differences that he grouped a long five dimensions. The first dimension is power/distance which makes reference to the degree of inequality that exists and is accepted by a group of people (Titley, 2004). A high score in power and distance is an indication that such people accept unequal distribution of power and they understand their place in the system. A low score is an indication of equal sharing of power in a society where people are equals. Individualism versus collectivism is the second dimension which refers to the strength of communal ties (Titley, 2004). A high individualism score is an indication of lack of interpersonal connection while a low score is a sign of strong cohesion which amounts high levels of respect and loyalty Masculinity versus femininity is another dimension which makes reference to how much a community sticks to its values of traditional gender roles (Titley, 2004). High masculinity score indicates that men are the sole providers of the society while low masculinity score is indicative of the blurred sense of gender roles. Anxiety/ avoidance of index refer to the degree of anxiety that a community experiences when in unfamiliar situations (Titley, 2004). The last dimension is long term orientation which related to the degree of attachment to societal values. 3.2 strengths Hofstede’s model of national culture is applicable and can be evaluated in many ways. This is inclusive of comparing it with other depictions of national cultures especially with the merging cultures (Slavik, 2004). Hofstede’s model uses empirical evidence to arrive at conclusions on national cultures 3.3 Weaknesses Hofstede’s view of natural culture is based on the assumption that every country has one dominant culture (Reiser, 2011). His views are also dismissible on the basis of an erroneous attempt to measure that which is considered unmeasurable ((Slavik, 2004). 3.4 Conclusions Cultural norms are essential determinants of the mechanic of interpersonal relationships in any society. Hofstede’s model provides individuals with a starting point that they can use in evaluating of his or her cultural background. It can also be essential in understanding cultural practices and norms in other countries (Piller, 2011). 4.0 Case analysis 4.1 Negotiation process The notion that different cultures give to a negotiation process in business largely depends on their cultural background. From the perspective of the Brown Casual Shoes Inc. and its negotiation with the Chinese manufacturing company it is realizable that the development of trust among concerned parties is an essential component in the negotiation process (Mead & Andrews, 2009). This explains why the Chinese officials take a relatively longer time to conclude the process. It is in line with long term orientation dimension which refers to the ability of Chinese culture to ensure that essential values such as trust are included due to their essence in business development. 4.2 Information sharing Information sharing is considered essential in different cultures. In the American culture from the case is based on the presentation of the intended idea. This is unlike the Chinese culture which requires more information not only concerning the company in question but also about the people and their (Pearson & Leahy, 2007). This explains why the visit to China was characterized by cultural discussions, refreshments and a banquet prior to the presentation of the proposal. Information sharing reveals the universal nature of Chinese culture and the individualistic culture of the Americans. 4.3 Development of personal relationships Upon landing at the airport, the officials from the American company were received by the Chinese officials who welcomed them with handshakes and exchange of business cards. It is important to note that the purpose of negotiations varies across cultures. In the American culture, the main objective is to reach a deal and sign a contract as a demonstration of power difference (Kotthoff & Spencer-Oatey, 2007). However, in China the main objective is to establish long term relationships between the concerned parties and as witnessed from the perceptive of the managing director of Brown Casual Shoes Inc. it takes more than one trip to China to fully negotiate and sign a contract. The handshakes were symbolizing friendship and the willingness among the Chinese to work with Americans. 4.4 Difficulty in accepting gifts and compliments on the first day of meeting Cultural background among the Chinese is based on the development of a winning attitude. The giving of awards and complements prior to the discussion of a business proposal is considered as a strategy by the other party to bribe the Chinese into accepting the requirements of the contract (Hodgetts & Hegar, 2008). Both cultures often approach the negotiating table with a win-win attitude. This explains why the Chinese official was hesitant in receiving the gifts provided by the Americans. It is important to note that the Hofstede’s dimension of anxiety/avoidance index focuses on the level of anxiety among individuals in different societies when handling issues in unfamiliar circumstances. The high levels of anxiety among the Chinese and Americans were an indication of insufficient trust between the parties. 4.5 Grasping of Chinese hands by the Americans Culture plays an essential role in determining the personal styles of the negotiators. American culture is relatively informal and this enables them to hastily attempt to establish friendly relationships with foreigners (Jones, 2007). However, in the context of China, business meetings are considered formal and individuals address each other in formal ways as an indication of respect. Informal communication is allowed among acquaintances (De, 2011). This explains why the Chinese official felt relatively uncomfortable when the American official was grasping his forearm as a sign of friendship. This is in line with the anxiety dimension which relates behaviour to the surrounding. 5.0 Recommendation 5.1 Gaining cultural knowledge of the other party Culture plays an essential role in guiding the relationships between individuals in a society. This is especially on the norms and values that are definitive of the roles and responsibilities of every member of the society (Hendon, Hendon, & Herbig, 1996). Intercultural communication can only be ensured if the negotiating skills include knowledge of the cultural beliefs and practices of the other culture (Gelfand & Brett, 2004). In the case of Brown Casual Shoes Inc. it would be important for the Americans to understand the Chinese culture to minimize anxiety. 5.2 Respecting existing guidelines of the other party This would be essential in ensuring that both parties feel as equal partners in the negotiating process. It also minimizes the chances of culture shocks and insufficient trust between different cultures (De, 2011). 5.3 Eradicate cultural stereotypes This will not only minimize chances of confusion but it will also ensure that the perception that the Americans have about the Chinese is a replica of the exact practices in China (Cellich & Jain, 2012). 6.0 References Cellich, C., & Jain, S. C. (2012). Practical solutions to global business negotiations. New York, N.Y.] (222 East 46th Street, New York, NY 10017: Business Expert Press. Chen, G.-M. (2002). Chinese conflict management and resolution. Westport, Conn. [u.a.: Ablex Publ. De, B. S. (2011). Managing cultural diversity. Maidenhead: Meyer & Meyer. Gelfand, M. J., & Brett, J. M. (2004). The Handbook of Negotiation and Culture. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Hendon, D. W., Hendon, R. A., & Herbig, P. A. (1996). Cross cultural business negotiations. Westport, Conn. [u.a.: Quorum Books. Hodgetts, R. M., & Hegar, K. W. (2008). Modern human relations at work. Mason, OH: Thomson/Southwestern. Jones, J. (2007). Negotiating change: The new politics of the Middle East. London: I.B. Tauris. Kotthoff, H., & Spencer-Oatey, H. (2007). Handbook of intercultural communication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Mead, R., & Andrews, T. G. (2009). International management: Culture and beyond. Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons. Pearson-Evans, A., & Leahy, A. (2007). Intercultural spaces: Language, culture, identity. New York: P. Lang. Piller, I. (2011). Intercultural communication: A critical introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Reiser, D. (2011). Analysis of Cultural Differences in Asia. BWV Berliner Wissenschafts- Verlag. Samovar, L. A., Porter, R. E., McDaniel, E. R., & Roy, C. S. (2013). Communication between cultures. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning. Slavik, H. (2004). Intercultural communication and diplomacy. Malta ;Geneva: DiploFoundation. Solomon, R. H. (1999). Chinese negotiating behavior: Pursuing interests through "old friends". Washington, DC: United States Inst. of Peace Press. Titley, G. (2004). Resituating culture. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publ. Read More