Cultural Differences and Negotiation - Example

Running Head: Cultural Differences and Negotiation [Insert tutor’s name here] Word Count: 1583 1. Introduction Much of studies have not explained how cultural differences can influence negotiations and negotiating behaviors. In an attempt to find solution, scholars have coined the definition for negotiation in different ways. For instance, it can be, “a process where two parties with differences which they need to resolve are trying to reach agreement through exploring for options and exchanging offers-and an agreement,” (Fells, 2009, p.149)” This definition has been used as it has been considered by many researches as “prominent and culture considerate”. Talking of the culture, it has been realized that the process of negotiation becomes more of a puzzle if personalities involved have multifaceted cultural beliefs. This even becomes a challenging task to deal with if the same people have different behavioural orientation(s). Therefore the purpose of this paper is to critically address two issues; first, how cultural differences influence negotiations and negotiating behaviours. The second focus of the paper will be to analyse strategies that can assist negotiators to overcome cultural differences. 2. How cultural differences influence negotiations and negotiating behaviours To make the point clear, the definition of culture and negotiation is paramount. Culture is people’s behaviors and ways of life. Cultural orientations and dimensions portray different ways many people view the world and importantly, how they relate and take approaches when dealing with tasks. Being the culture of the negotiating parties, it will ultimately impact the outcome of negotiations and the manner to which these results are arrived at. This idea can be concretised by Ralston, Hallinger, Egri and Naothinsuhk, (2005, p. 85) who argued that, “people from certain areas have value systems and influencing patters” Beginning from a very simple example, negotiating behavior is the act of people during negotiation. Defending this act within the premise of cultural difference, I will consider cultural behavior based on time consciousness. As Jameson, (2007, p. 222) puts it, “there are some cultural nuances that may cause misunderstanding among different negotiating parties,” and this different in time attitudes can reveal how we look at life (Hall, 1983 p. 74). The first aspect I will consider is how cultures view time. In this situation, there are those valuing time and those called polychromic cultures—those who place little value on time. The contrasting opinions which should be considered is that while time minded negotiators will be focused on the agenda of the discussion, the polychromic cultured negotiators mind not. To them, there is no need to rush issues as another day will always be there. Hence the negotiating behaviors here are the different belief about time. Conflict interests coming as negotiation process arises because the spirit of commitment in negotiating an agenda will be different. While the latter will tend to relax and hope to fix the problem some other time, the former is committed to getting the result done at that particular time. It is a culture that has really impacted negatively while negotiating because research by Moore et al. (2004 p. 126) found that half the respondents exhibited sensitivity regarding time. The second aspect of cultural difference is high and low context communication. Hall, (1976 p. 284) explains that those said to have low context communication are group of negotiators who when talking, can explicitly express themselves, this being their negotiation behaviour, their explanations are direct and to the point. This eliminates any form of ambiguity and misunderstandings. On contrary, Hall further asserts that those with high context communication communicate physically. In other words, their action speaks louder than words. Therefore, while negotiating, people from low context cultures will be forced to learn more through making decisions based on the physical signs expressed. These conflicting cultures bring a big problem when negotiating since one will be forced to tolerate negotiation behavior of the other. Relevant example of this case regards two royal families based in Birmingham. The families were Mickey and Emile’s. They wanted to auction their homes as they were planning to re-settle elsewhere. As Scandinavian are always known to be low context communicators, when Emile was approached by abider, he said, “no, too low may be around three million will be considered.” On the very same case, Mickey being high context communicator said, “Some other people brought us far much better offers than that. However, I like your offer and further discussion will be vital, please increase your offer.” This case clearly shows that these two people cannot get along well when negotiating over an issue as their cultures do not allow it. Another clear evidence of the case has been discussed by Aldair, (2003 p.273). He explains that low-context negotiators living in United States of America are seen to be stating what they want or prefer without dilly dallying. However, high-context negotiators from the same countries do reveal their needs through offers. In other terms, they depend on how second or third parties infer meaning from the way their offers or interests change. Third cultural difference among people is the decision making, power and the management of conflict. In some societies, respected or senior individuals either by their ranks, age or responsibilities are accorded certain privileges when it comes to decision making. In this kind of situation, it is always clear to state that hierarchical set up of these families surpass the egalitarianism set ups from other societies. When these people are asked to overrule, guide or make decisions regarding certain negotiations, their presumed positions in the society negatively impacts the outcome of the decision since powers bestowed upon them is almost unquestionable. In such circumstances, reactions from other parties will be deemed disagreement. Hence, however negotiating as a team, the team members will always follow the decisions made by the senior member even if they cannot accommodate it. On the same note comes power which has been a very important factor in negotiation. Research by Adair et al. (2004 p.158) shows that in some hierarchical societies, there are people who have been given certain powers by the virtue of their positions in the society. Therefore when it comes to negotiating interests, the expectation will be that the benefits from any agreement should favour parties’ relative status. Adair et al. (2004 p.158) realised that real issue gained through using power arguments can be step favourable to either create communal gain in the case of Japanese negotiators or to enforce a competitive outcome as in the case of Russian negotiators. Another idea to give consideration is uncertainty avoidance. In this case, there are two different cultures; low uncertainty avoidance and high uncertainty avoidance. Low uncertainty avoidance cultured people have some characteristics which conflicts with their counterparts. These people have poor attitude towards risks. Apart from their unwillingness to take risks, they neither encourage change nor want to be innovative. On the other hand, high uncertainty avoidance group of people like to try new things. To them taking risks is another way of discovering new opportunities in life. When negotiating these two conflicting behaviours, it will be paramount to consider the behaviours. Lastly, negotiation processes have been influenced by what is termed as ‘patterns of influencing people.’ Ralston, Hallinger, Egri and Naothinsuhk, (2005, p.85) concur that the outcome of negotiation will be influenced by a culture believing that superior people have a unique way of influencing people. However, other cultures do not believe in any connection between superiority and decision making. In this case, Thailand and U.S cultures clearly represent a typical example. In most cases, U.S has been viewed as low power distance cultures that prefer open negotiation and agreement will be reached by considering everyone’s opinions. On contrary, Thailand is high power distant culture. Much of their decisions do not consider opinions, instead, decisions are made coercively and nobody is supposed to question such decisions. “Different cultures have different opinions on the important issues in life,” (Jameson, 2007, p.222). 3. Strategies for overcoming cultural differences in negotiations The most significant solution to the problem is appreciating both cultures. Even though knowledge of another person’s culture may not be certain, negotiators appreciating them will deal with the effects these cultures have on values, attitudes and decision of negotiators. Hall, (1976, p.53) cements this idea when he revealed that, “Culture hides much more than it reveals, and . . . it hides most effectively from its own participants.” At least there are always some similarities in the conflicting cultures. It has been advised that when there is a possibility of cross cultural conflicts, negotiators must pay much attention to the similarities that the cultures portray. This can be achieved through aspirations, goals and beliefs shared by the cultures. Let us take an example of global warming as a major concern to human kind. There are super-ordinate identities in the name of human being. With their reasoning, they can improve the predicament. However, another smaller ethnic group within societies does not appreciate the significance of controlling global warming. It will therefore be upon negotiators to adopt a new cultural identity as well as maintaining their own culture in order to come up with a solution. 4. Conclusion Cultural differences have the ability to influence the success and failure of a project or deal. It is important for negotiators to understand the culture of their counterparties. It is also useful to pay attention to non-verbal clues such as facial expression in ascertaining the true feelings and sentiments of the other party as in some case, some cannot express themselves well verbally. Thus as long as negotiation procedures will still be deemed as a fundamental way of solving a crisis, if these cultural differences and methods of overcoming them are not considered in advance then the solution will be short lived. References Adair, W. L. and Brett, J. M. (2004) ‘Culture and Negotiation Processes’ in M. J. Gelfand. and J. M. Brett (eds) The Handbook of Negotiation and Culture, Stanford Business Books, Stanford, CA, pp. 158–76. Adair,W. L. (2003) ‘Integrative Sequences and Negotiation Outcome in Same and Mixed-Culture Negotiations’, International Journal of Conflict Management, 14, (3/4), pp. 273–96. Fells, R. 2009. Effective Negotiation. 1st edition, Cambridge Univrsity Press, New York, United States of America Hall, E. T. (1983) The Dance of Life, Doubleday, New York. Hall, E. T. (1976) Beyond Culture, Doubleday, New York. Jameson, D. 2007. Reconceptualizing cultural identity and its role in intercultural business communication, Journal of Business Communication, Vol 44 (3), pp. 199-235 Janosik, R. 1987. Rethinking the Culture-Negotiation Link, Negotiation Journal, 3 (4), 385-395 Kosmitzki, C. 2000. The dynamic nature of cultural identity through culture transition, Social Psychological Review, 4 (7), page 355-373 Moore, D. A. (2004) ‘The Unexpected Benefits of Final Deadlines in Negotiation’, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, (1), pp. 122–7. Ralston, D., Hallinger, P., Egri, C. & Naothinsuhk, S. 2005. The effects of culture on work place strategy of upward influence. University of Bangkok, Elsevier Inc, pp. 81-97 Read More