Cross culture communication and negotiation - Essay Example

? Cross culture communication and negotiation Annotated Bibliography Hurn, B.J. 2007. The influence of culture on international business negotiations. Industrial And Commercial Training. VOL. 39 NO. 7 2007, pp. 354-360, DOI 10.1108/00197850710829058. This article examines the importance of the effect of culture when negotiating in an international business context. It explains the language of negotiation, the need to study the culture of the parties involved, building trust and personal relationships and appropriate training for international managers. It also presents an overview illustrated with examples of the cultural factors involved in international negotiation. 2. Lin, X & Miller, S.J. 2002. Negotiation approaches: direct and indirect effect of national culture. International Marketing Review. Vol. 20 No. 3, 2003. DOI 10.1108/02651330310477602 The major theme of this paper is the direct and indirect effects of national culture on negotiation behavior in international business. It argues that negotiation approach is conditioned primarily by variables, such as relationship commitment and relative power. It also says that national culture exerts direct influence on the preferences for negotiation approaches, and national culture has indirect influence in the choice of negotiation approaches. 3. Kakabadse, N.K. Kouzmin, A. Kakabadse, A.K. and Savery L. 2001. Low- and High-Context Communication Patterns: Towards Mapping Cross-Cultural Encounters. Cross Cultural Management. Volume 8 Number 2 2001 This article argues that the major reasons for difficulties encountered in cross-cultural communication stem from the fact that actors from different cultures have different understandings regarding the interaction process and different styles of dialogue. Moreover, difficulties that arise in cross-cultural face-to-face encounters may resolved with a better understanding of communication styles utilized by different cultures. 4. Fujio, M. 2004. Silence during intercultural communication: a case study. Corporate Communications: An International Journal Vol. 9 No. 4, 2004. pp. 331-339. DOI 10.1108/13563280410564066 In this case study of USA-Japan intercultural communication, the author is analyzing a one-hour meeting between a US manager, a Japanese manager and a Japanese junior staff member of a US company operating in Japan. The author point out how both native and non-native speakers should make their approach in order to understand each other and co-construct the conversation in intercultural communication in an age when English is becoming a global language. 5. Dovidio, J.F., Hebl, M., Richeson, J.A. & Shelton, J.N. 2006. Nonverbal communication, Race, and intergroup Interaction. [Online] Available at: http://www.yale.edu/intergroup/Dovidio_Hebl_Richeson_Shelton_2006.pdf In this article, the authors analyses the importance of nonverbal communication in cross cultural communication and negotiation process. It says that members of majority and minority groups in general may differ in the types of nonverbal behaviors they display regularly. It also analyses Social Identity and Nonverbal Behavior in Intergroup Interaction. 6. Rudlin, P. 2008. Indirect communication: I see what you mean. MultiLingual, Jun2008, Vol. 19 Issue 4, p49-51, This article focuses on the importance of non-verbal communication in Japan. It says that Japanese prefer to use eye contact, teeth sucking and head movements to avoid confrontation and disagreement with others. Listeners and speakers are expected to understand the real meaning of their movement and vague expressions to convey that it is not necessary to talk about it. 7. Mandal, M.K., Harizuka, S., Bhushan, B. & Mishra, K.C. (2001). Cultural variation in hemifacial asymmetry of emotion expressions British Journal of Social Psychology (2 001), 40, 385–398 The authors of this article argues that emotions such as happy, sad, fear , anger, surprise, disgust etc are displayed differently by people of different cultures after analysing the emotions of Japanese, Oriental Indian and North American people in communication and negotiation process. 8. Kirch M. S. 1979. Non-Verbal Communication across Cultures, The Modern Language Journal. Volume 63, issue 8, p. 416-423 In this article the author compares non-verbal communications in the U.S. with other West European cultures. He argues that relationship between language and culture form attributes of non-verbal communication in different cultures. It also explains the differences in similarities and differences between gestures, body language facial expression etc between different cultures. 9. Garette D. E, Meyers RA & West L. 1997. Sex Differences and Consumer Complaints. [Online] Available at: http://lilt.ilstu.edu/staylor/csdcb/articles/volume10/garrett%20et%20al%201997.pdf This article explains the differences exist between males and females while doing cross cultural communication and negotiation processes. It argues that males are more aggressive than females while participating in negotiation process. 10. Stuhlmacher, Alice F.& Citera, Maryalice. 2005. Hostile behavior and profit In virtual negotiation: a meta-analysis, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 20, No. 1, Fall 2005. This paper reviews studies that compared face-to-face negotiation with virtual negotiation. It argues that face-to-face negotiations are better than virtual negotiations. It explains that anonymity is the problem associated with virtual negotiation. Introduction Globalization and liberalization brought huge changes in international business circles. Cross cultural business or international business have been increased a lot in recent past. Outsourcing and offshoring like modern business strategies are getting so much popularity nowadays. All these developments result in increased cross cultural communication and business negotiation processes. Cross cultural communication and negotiation are vital in determining the success and failures of international business. Stuhlmacher & Citera (2005) pointed out that “Negotiations are often categorized as distributive (win-lose) and integrative (win-win)” (p.24). Even though everybody wants to conduct negotiations to yield a win-win result, in most of the cases, it results in win-lose results. Both the parties argue their points strongly while doing negotiations. Such arguments often end up in conflicts. The success of business negotiation rests in the abilities of the parties in solving such crisis. While doing international business, the negotiators belong to different cultures, and hence it is quite possible that the ideas conveyed by one by one person may not be perceived properly by the other person. It should be noted that verbal as well as nonverbal communication are important in communicating the ideas of one person to another. In cross cultural business negotiations, the negotiators are from different cultures and hence their verbal as well as the nonverbal means of communication could be entirely different. It is important for such negotiators to know each other before the start of negotiation so that the negotiation process could be conducted on a positive note. This paper analyses the elements of cross cultural communication and negotiation process. Cross culture communication and negotiation According to Lewicki et al.(2006), “Negotiation occurs for one of two reasons: 1) to create something new that neither party could do on his or her own or 2) to resolve a problem or dispute between the parties” (p.3). Mutual understanding is important for the success of cross cultural business negotiations. Mutual understanding develops only when the ideas of both the parties are conveyed effectively each other. In order to convey the ideas properly, language plays an important role. However, there are many other parameters which can influence the business communication and negotiation processes. The cultural dimensions of international business negotiations are well defined by former professor of Eastern Michigan University, David A. Victor in his famous LESCANT model of cultural variables. They are Language, Environment, Social organization, Contexting, Authority, Nonverbal behavior, and Temporal conception (Kelm, N.d., p.2). Language is the most important entity in the communication and negotiation process. Even though English is an international language it is not necessary that the negotiators of Asian or African countries have better knowledge in this language. For example, knowledge of English is poor for Chinese people. Many of the prominent American and European countries are currently trying to establish business units in China. Americans and Europeans have less knowledge in Chinese language. In short, language barrier often cause problems in international business negotiations. It is necessary for the negotiators to understand the languages properly to take decisions based on it. “Whenever two parties negotiate, the entire process occurs under two umbrella contexts, environmental and immediate. The environmental context refers to forces in the environment that are beyond the control of either party involved in the negotiations” (Phatak & Habib, 1996, p.30). For example, it is impossible for a Chinese negotiator to offer freedom of expression right to the American companies operating in China. It should be noted that Chinese environment has less respect towards human right issues and freedom of expression rights. All the information passing through the Chinese media are censored by the government authorities. Any information which may act against the interests of communist administration in China will be censored in China. Google forced to withdraw its operations in China recently because of the tight control or censoring of information in China. In short, it is impossible for a Chinese negotiator to make compromise on such environmental contexts. The opposite parties should realize such environmental parameters properly before going for a cross cultural business negotiation process. “Social context influences information exchange through perception, cognitive interpretation, and communication behavior. Social context barriers, such as status differences, will not constrain communication if senders and receivers are unaware of them” (Sproull and Kiesler , p.1495). While doing cross cultural negotiations, negotiators often try to take upper hand in the negotiation process. Some people are more authoritative in nature compared to other people. For example, Americans and Europeans are generally dominant in nature. They ruled the world once and many of the White people believe that they have more privileges in this world than the black communities. They will try to establish their dominance over others in while conducting cross cultural negotiations. Asians or Africans should take extreme care while negotiating with Americans or Europeans. “The immediate context includes such aspects as the relative power of the negotiators and the nature of their interdependence factors over which the negotiators have influence and some measure of control” (Phatak & Habib, 1996, p.30). The level of knowledge possessed by one party could be more than the other party in a negotiation process. The negotiator with better knowledge may try to take advantage in the negotiation process. Normally middle level managers are going for business negotiations. They may not have enough power to take critical decisions without the knowledge of their superiors. Both the parties should understand such parameters properly while doing international business negotiations. Many people have the belief that communication occurs only through verbal means. However, many studies have proved that more than 60% of the ideas communicated in a business negotiation process are through nonverbal means. Eye contacts, body languages, body movements, gestures facial expressions etc are some of the prominent means of nonverbal communication. While doing business negotiations cross culturally, negotiators should make sure that they understand the body languages of the opposite parties properly. Japanese prefer to use eye contact, teeth sucking and head movements to avoid confrontation and disagreement with others. Listeners and speakers are expected to understand the real meaning of their movement and vague expressions to convey that it is not necessary to talk about it (Rudlin, 2008, p.49). In fact Japanese people use more nonverbal means to express their satisfaction and anger. They normally speak less and express their opinions and views through body languages. They always like to speak politely with others even if they feel displeasure over the activities of the other party. They don’t have belief in shouting at others like the Americans or Europeans for expressing displeasure. Teeth sucking and irregular movements of head are other nonverbal means of communication used by Japanese people to show their anger or displeasure over something. They do believe that exhibition of displeasure through nonverbal means is better than saying something verbally while conducting a cross cultural negotiation process. According to Mandal et al. (2001), Japanese show a right hemifacial bias for positive and left hemifacial bias for negative emotions; Indians and North Americans show left hemifacial bias for all emotions” (p.385). This observation clearly explains why Japanese people communicate differently while doing business negotiations. Some people reflect their positive and negative emotions on the right side of the face whereas some others use the left side of the faces to show positive and negative emotions. A third, segment of people uses the same side of their face for showing both positive and negative expressions. Japanese people uses right side of their face for revealing positive expressions and left side of the face for revealing displeasure. It is important for a negotiator to know these changes while doing negotiations with people of Japan or other countries. According to Kirch (1979), “The most obvious form of non-verbal communication is gestures”( p. 417). Americans and Europeans use lot of gestures to substantiate their verbal arguments whereas Asians normally show fewer gestures while speaking to others. Genetically, Americans and Europeans are dominating type compared to other cultures and the thirst for domination is evident in their communication means. On the other hand, black people are less aggressive while talking to others. Dovidio et al. (2006) pointed out that “Blacks’ cultural orientation, reflected in five dimensions: time, rhythm, improvisation, oral expression, and spirituality. These cultural values guide a range of nonverbal Behaviours. Black culture, relative to that of Whites, reflects a closer and more “sensorially involved” orientation” (p.483). The memories of slavery and oppression are still in the minds of black community. Compared to white people, black people faced more oppression in the history. The memories of the past, made black people less aggressive in their attitude which is reflected in their communication means. In short, while communicating with the Whites, Blacks often exhibit different body languages. It is not necessary that the black people exhibit same flexibility and easiness while communicating with the whites and blacks. According to Yuan et al. (2003), “Negotiations may involve several stages, such as greeting, background information exchange, agenda setting, issue discussion, and final agreement formulation, and different media may be used by negotiators to perform different tasks”( p.107). Indians greet others with a folded hand and words like Namaste whereas Japanese people and Chinese people are interested in greeting others by bowing their head. On the other hand, Americans and Europeans are interested in shaking hands with others to convey their respect and also to greet others. Arabs and Muslims normally embrace each other to mark their respect towards others. In short, different cultures have different means of greeting and negotiators should recognize such things before going for a cross cultural or international business negotiation. It should be noted that some people move their head and hands while speaking something with others. In other words, people use body movements to substantiate their verbal arguments. In international business negotiation process such body movements and nonverbal means of communication is very much important. Temporal perceptions or Time concepts could be entirely different for different cultures. People from some cultures try to do many things at a time (polychromic) whereas people from other cultures try to do one thing (monoclinic) at a time. For example, Chinese are known to be polychromic in their dealings while monochronic in their approaches whereas Australians are believed to be monochronic in their dealings and polychromic in their approaches. Moreover, people who are polychromic in nature, gives more emphasize to human relationship and long term relationship whereas monoclinic people gives more emphasize to short term relationships. Since relationship building is one of the core aspects of negotiation and business communication, it is necessary for the negotiators to know these parameters properly before going for a cross cultural negotiation process. Some people argue that the communication styles of males and females are different even if they happen to be belonging to the same culture. According to Garette et al (1997), there are not much differences existing in the communication styles of males and females of the same culture. They pointed out that both males and females use almost similar languages while dealing with others (p.116). At the same time, it should not be forgotten that men may use more aggressive languages than females since they are of dominating type compared to females. On the other hand, females generally avoid aggressive words while dealing with others. That is why majority of the international companies appoint females at positions which require extensive customer interactions. Based on the outcomes, negotiation process can be divided into two broad categories; distributive (win-lose) and integrative (win-win). Integrative negotiations are useful in building long term relationships between the parties involved in the cross cultural negotiation process whereas distributive negotiations may damage the mutual relationships between the parties. So it is better for international negotiators to work hard and make the negotiation an integrative one. “Each party in the negotiation will have its own individual objectives or goals, involving values for each issue being negotiated, which need not be revealed to others and need not be quantified” (Thiessen et al, 1998, p.114). Even if the negotiators work hard for conducting the negotiations in an integrative (win-win) manner, it is impossible for them to do so always. There could be some stalemate occurs in the negotiation process. In other words, because of poor communication or some other problems, negotiators mat find it extremely difficult to move forward. In such situations, international negotiators may use 'Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA). There is no point in continuing a negotiation if both the parties are stick with their points or demands. In order to break the stalemate, something has to be done. BATNA is used in such situations to break the stalemate. “The point beyond which you will not accept a deal and will turn to your BATNA. The reservation point is the quantification of BATNA, the trigger point where you will take your next best alternative instead of negotiating” (Beer, 2003). Conclusions Effective communication is necessary to conduct international business negotiations in a fruitful manner. Because of the barriers such as language, environment, social organizations, context, authority, nonverbal communication and temporal conceptions, cross cultural negotiation process often face problems. International negotiators should realize these cultural peculiarities properly before going for the negotiation process. Distributive (win - win) negotiation is necessary to establish long term relationships. However, negotiators often face problems in conducting the negotiation process in the distributive context. When stalemate occurs, negotiators often go for the 'Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement to break the stalemate. References 1. Beer J.F. 2003. Negotiation. Online] Available at: http://www.culture-at-work.com/distribute.html[Accessed 05 December 2012] 2. Dovidio, J.F., Hebl, M., Richeson, J.A. & Shelton, J.N. 2006. Nonverbal communication, Race, and intergroup Interaction. [Online] Available at: http://www.yale.edu/intergroup/Dovidio_Hebl_Richeson_Shelton_2006.pdf[Accessed 05 December 2012] 3. Fujio, M. 2004. Silence during intercultural communication: a case study. Corporate Communications: An International Journal Vol. 9 No. 4, 2004. pp. 331-339. DOI 10.1108/13563280410564066 4. Garette D. E, Meyers RA & West L. 1997. Sex Differences and Consumer Complaints. [Online] Available at: http://lilt.ilstu.edu/staylor/csdcb/articles/volume10/garrett%20et%20al%201997.pdf[Accessed 05 December 2012] 5. Hurn, B.J. 2007. The influence of culture on international business negotiations. Industrial And Commercial Training. VOL. 39 NO. 7 2007, pp. 354-360, DOI 10.1108/00197850710829058. 6. Kakabadse, N.K. Kouzmin, A. Kakabadse, A.K. and Savery L. 2001. Low- and High-Context Communication Patterns: Towards Mapping Cross-Cultural Encounters. Cross Cultural Management. Volume 8 Number 2 2001 7. Kirch M. S. 1979. Non-Verbal Communication across Cultures, The Modern Language Journal. Volume 63, issue 8, p. 416-423 8. Kelm O.R. N.d. Overview of David Victor’s LESCANT Model: International Business Communication.[Online] Available at: http://www.laits.utexas.edu/orkelm/culture/lescantkelm.pdf [Accessed 05 December 2012] 9. Lin, X & Miller, S.J. 2002. Negotiation approaches: direct and indirect effect of national culture. International Marketing Review. Vol. 20 No. 3, 2003. DOI 10.1108/02651330310477602 10. Lewicki, R J., Barry, Roy J. Lewicki (Author) › Visit Amazon’s Roy J. Lewicki Page Find all the books, read about the author, and more. See search results for this author Are you an author? Learn about Author Central B & Saunders Bruce Barry (Author) › Visit Amazon’s Bruce Barry Page Find all the books, read about the author, and more. See search results for this author Are you an author? Learn about Author Central D. M . 2006. Essentials of Negotiation, Publisher: McGraw Hill Higher Education; 4th edition (September 1, 2006) 11. Mandal, M.K., Harizuka, S., Bhushan, B. & Mishra, K.C. 2001. Cultural variation in hemifacial asymmetry of emotion expressions British Journal of Social Psychology (2001), 40, 385–398 12. Phatak A V. & Habib M.M. 1996, The dynamics of international business negotiations, Business Horizons, 1996, vol. 39, issue 3, pages 30-38 13. Rudlin, P. 2008. Indirect communication: I see what you mean. MultiLingual, Jun2008, Vol. 19 Issue 4, p49-51, 14. Stuhlmacher, A F.& Citera, M. 2005. Hostile behavior and profit In virtual negotiation: a meta-analysis, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 20, No. 1, Fall 2005. 15. Sproull, L and Kiesler, S. 1986. Reducing Social Context Cues: Electronic Mail in Organizational Communications, [Online] Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2631506 [Accessed 05December 2012 16. Thiessen E.M., Loucks D.P., & Stedinger J.R. 1998.Group Decision and Negotiation Computer-Assisted Negotiations of Water Resources Conflicts, Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands 17. Yuan Y, Head M & Du M. 2003. The Effects of Multimedia Communication on Web-Based Negotiation, Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands Read More