Japanese Negotiation Styles - Essay Example

FINAL ESSAY Student’s name Course code + name Professor’s name University name City, State Date of submission Introduction Cultural sensitivity suffices to be one of the most important pillars for negotiators in the endeavor to lure customers in a foreign market to purchase the products of a multinational company that has entered the market. With the Japanese culture having the greatest influence on the culture of the region, it is apparent that the pertinent observable features of the culture encompass interdependence, hierarchical composition and focusing on group goals (LeBaron 2003). The attributes have a significant influence on the bargaining position held by a negotiator. For instance, the negotiator should be aware of the goals and needs of the group rather than focusing on individual needs and goals as is the case in most of the Western markets. As a result, a negotiator in such markets should express politeness, and focus on the indirect use of power and the establishment of relationships. The essay relates the bargaining experiences in Southeast Asia with the Australian bargaining position. It also includes the cultural assumptions associated with the negotiation including the style of negotiation posed a challenge to the usual style of bargaining applied in Australia and other Western countries. Japanese Negotiation Styles As mentioned above, the Japanese individuals; just like the other people in the Southeast Asian market consider politeness to be an important attribute of any negotiator that intends to convince them to make purchases of certain products or use particular services (Adair et al. 2001). The significance of politeness emanates from the fact that the individuals in the market prefer face to face communications as opposed to the Western markets such as Australia that are shifting towards virtual communication. In such cases, it is imperative that the negotiator should be polite while engaging in the face to face communications with the individuals in the market. The negotiator should also strive to avoid confrontation as much as possible since direct confrontation dissuades the individuals from responding to the needs of the marketers. From the experience gained while dealing with the individuals in the Southeast Asian market, it was evident that the Japanese; just like the other individuals in the market use power in a muted and indirect manner to conform to their norms of calmness and harmony (Dragon 2010). As a result, Japanese negotiators always disclose less about themselves as compared to the level of disclosure exhibited by their counterparts from Western markets such as the USA and Australia. It is also evident that a Japanese negotiator should emphasize more on the relationships established prior to the onset of the negotiation rather than focusing on the literal meanings of the individuals as is the case with their counterparts from Australia and the USA (Brett & Okumura 1998). Since Japanese negotiators exhibit reduced tendency to make procedural suggestions as is the case with the bargainers in the Western countries, it is important that foreign bargainers that emanate from Western states should also embrace the Japanese mode of bargaining to attain conformance to the region’s culture. Considering the main negotiation behaviors of direct information sharing, influence and indirect sharing of information, it is proper to state that the behaviors have an influence on the intracultural negotiations that may exist between negotiators from the Southeast Asian market such as Japan and the USA. The most important thing for a foreign negotiator emanating from the Western countries is to engage in a culturally normative negotiation behavior that generates mutual gains for both parties during the negotiations (LeBaron 2003). Relating the experience gained in the Southeast Asian market regarding negotiation behavior, it is evident that negotiators from the market are more likely to exhibit indirect information sharing behavior. This is different from the case of negotiators emanating from Western countries since they exhibit a greater tendency of sharing information directly to their clients. However, the use of culturally normative behaviors by the negotiators of the culturally diverse markets is imperative as a guarantee for joint gains. It is also proper for a foreign negotiator that targets to interact with the Japanese market to identify integrative solutions through the exchange of information so as to guarantee joint gains for both parties. For a negotiator in the American or Australian market, the direct exchange of information is normal. However, a negotiator in Southeast Asia considers the indirect exchange of information to be normal and rational as opposed to the direct information exchange. For instance, the Japanese refer to negotiation as kosho (Benoliel 2013). In the Southeast Asian market, negotiation implies a conflict of interests that encompasses the use of all possible strategies to attain one’s interests. As outsider having totally different cultural norms and beliefs, it is imperative to understand the style of negotiation exhibited by the individuals in the Southeast Asian market. The individuals in the market trust in the in-group network besides appraising harmony in their affairs. In reference to the Japanese culture that dominates the Southeast Asian region, it is evident that all negotiations involving the Japanese are ‘give and take’ negotiations (Smolinski 2006). In essence, the negotiations emphasize harmony and unity of the individuals since the people exhibit a collectivist culture. This explains the reason why a Manager in a Japanese institution will not introduce himself or herself as the Manager of the institution in question while representing the views of the other members of the organization. Instead, the individual will use the collective pronoun ‘we’ in addressing outsiders or other individuals thereby revealing the harmony attribute of the Japanese culture. With the idea in mind, a foreign investor emanating from A Western country such as USA, UK or Australia should understand that the Japanese culture does not favor individualistic negotiations. On the other hand, it favors collectivist negotiations as the negotiators speak on behalf of the other members of the organization. In the case of informal contacts, negotiators in Southeast Asia like to negotiate without negotiating. They also prefer engaging in negotiations that meet the long-term interests of the society to negotiations that only meet short term interests. In the event that the foreign investor is arrogant and aggressive, the Japanese investor uses the kosho style of negotiating since it enables them to negotiate defensively. Kosho refers to a fighting negotiation style (Benoliel 2013). There are other negotiators in the Southeast Asian market that use mobile warfare while negotiating with foreign investors. The negotiation strategy averts incidences of being tricked by the foreign investors that intend to stablish capitalist enterprises in markets dominated by communism. The use of the strategy enables the Asians to win competition in the negotiations thereby guaranteeing the successful entry of their products in the international market. There is historical evidence that attributes the backdrop of negotiations to the failure and negative intentions of foreign investors towards engaging in business negotiations with the Asians (Sarkar 2010). For instance, the Westerners delayed their promise to transfer modern technology to China. It was not until the advent of the new technology that the Westerners decided to transfer the outdated technology to China. In a nutshell, Asians believe that the negotiations fostered by the Westerners do not guarantee mutual benefits for both parties. Instead, the Westerners tend to benefit more from the negotiations as compared to the Asians. The assumption provides an explanation for the decision of the Asians to implement the mobile warfare strategy in dealing with foreign negotiators. While negotiating with Westerners, Asians believe that foreigners establish enterprises in Asia with the objective of exploiting the available cheap labor in the market. The Asians also believe that the Westerners enter into business negotiations with them to meet their short term interests. Reviewing on the second incentive for negotiating with the Asians, it is apparent that the incentive contracts with the Asian requirement for negotiations. According to the Asians, all negotiations should endeavor to serve the long term interests of both parties. Therefore, negotiators in Asia have endeavored to handle the negotiations with extreme care and caution using mobile warfare to prevent the Westerners from reaping their capitalistic interests at the expense of exploiting them. As a result, the Asians feel morally justified to implement the strategy in dealing with foreign negotiators. The incentives behind the use of the strategy include “plucking the chicken”, exploiting the exploiters and taking revenge (Benoliel 2013). To the Asians, the chickens are the powerful and rich Western corporations. Having the understanding in mind, it is necessary for foreign investors from the West to consider the understanding of the Asians regarding the negotiations prior to entering into contracts with them. Moreover, Westerners should ensure that the negotiations meet the long-term interests of the Asians to guarantee a positive response from the Asians. Moreover, the foreign investor should have a long-term commitment of doing business in the Asian country to guarantee positive response from the locals. The failure of the negotiation to yield a long-term investment in the country will imply that the Western investor intends to exploit the available cheap labor of the locals as well as gain short-term financial interests then vacate the market. As a strategy towards being on the safe side in the negotiations, Asian negotiators use the value claiming style as opposed to the value creation style used by Western negotiators. It is also worth noting that the Asians also use negotiation styles that are more soft and kind to the foreign investors provided that the investor is trustworthy. Trustworthy investors include those that have global reputation of yielding mutual benefits rather than entering into a foreign market for selfish gains. From the argument, it is evident that the Asian do not use the kosho, mobile warfare and Art of War negotiation styles always. On the other hand, they use the benevolent and magnanimous negotiation style while dealing with trustworthy negotiators (Benoliel 2013). The Asian negotiators are friendly especially when dealing with low status countries as opposed to high status individualistic states. Therefore, in such cases, the Asian negotiators adhere to the Confucian teaching that reclines on the principles of cooperation and accommodation that ensure that the emerging social relationships are harmonious. Therefore, provided that the investor has a positive record in the book of good companies of the target Asian country, Asian negotiators emphasize on friendship and the establishment of relationships. As a result, they invest substantively in building dependable social networks and creating interpersonal connections. The name given to the social network of colleagues and friends is guanxi. The Japanese refer the group to as kankei (Benoliel 2013). The Asians transform the group from being friends to being their trusted network of business partners. The implication on foreign investors is that the success of the foreign investor is dependent on the ability of the investor to become a member of the social groups of colleagues and friends. The necessity of being in the trusted network business partners in the endeavor to negotiate in the Asian market emanates from the fact that Asians work with “known entities” that qualify to be part of their trusted network of good investors or corporations. It is proper to state that globalization and the emergence of the international society has resulted in a global culture that defines the unique attributes of firms that intend to attain competitive advantage in the international market (Kim 2004). Therefore, regardless of the culture of the mother country of the corporation, an entity that intends to succeed in the international market has to adopt the global culture; with specific synchronization to the culture of the target market. To the Asians, they believe that reputation is void without familiarity. Therefore, a firm or investor should have the necessary reputation as well as the familiarity. Reputation markets the name of the corporation to the consumers. On the other hand, familiarity ensures that the consumers are familiar with the products and services of the company as well as preferring the product offerings of the firm to those of its competitors in the market. The foreign investor should also focus on developing positive personal relationships since Asians place significant emphasis on personal relationships (Benoliel 2013). It is through these relationships that the Asians gain trust in the investors. The relationships also provide assurances that minimize business risk. The other different area with regard to doing business between the West and Asia is the legal system. The frequent manipulation of the law by authorities in Asia implies that it provides little protection. In essence, it is proper to state that the law is unstable. Asians have also mastered the arts of real friendship, flattery and hospitality so as to foster relationships. Asians also fake friendship on certain occasions to foster relationships. As a result, the relationship-focused cultures in Asia require the investor to establish a relationship prior to negotiating with the locals. The guanxi network is the baseline of negotiations in the Asian market. As a result, all deals pass through the guanxi networks (Benoliel 2013). The Asians consider foreigners to be strangers. As a result, before the strangers can negotiate with the Asians, it is imperative that they should pass through the social networks of colleagues and friends. Since relationships are on the forefront in contract negotiations, Asians will take as much time as possible to create the relationship with the foreigners before entering into negotiations. Conclusion Negotiations in Asia are relationship-focused as opposed to the contract-focused negotiations in the USA. Asians form social networks referred to as guanxi in China and kankei in Japan that introduce strangers to the locals before they can enter into contract negotiations with the locals. Being contract-focused, the Westerners enter into contract negotiations from a personal perspective rather than the collectivist perspective observed among the Asians. To the Westerners, deals precede relationships and friendships. On the other hand, Asians consider the creation of friendly relationships as a prerequisite for contract negotiations. The Westerners create relationships after entering into the contract negotiation whereas the Asians create relationships before entering into deals. Asians consider the relationships to be an avenue of guaranteeing joint benefits between the contracting parties. The understanding of the Asian way of negotiating transformed the initial understanding that I had with regard to contract negotiations in Australia. Currently, I acknowledge and understand the significance of adjusting my cultural norms to suit the Asian market in a bid to suit successfully in the market. Reference List Adair, W.L., Okumura, T. and Brett, J.M., 2001. Negotiation behavior when cultures collide: the United States and Japan. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), p.371. Benoliel, M., 2013. Negotiating Successfully in Asia. Eurasian Journal of Social Sciences, 1(1), p.1. Brett, J.M. and Okumura, T., 1998. Inter-and intracultural negotiation: US and Japanese negotiators. Academy of Management Journal, 41(5), pp.495-510. Dragons, A.F.L., 2010. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, pp.189. Kim, R.K., 2004. Intercultural communication competence (Doctoral dissertation, University of Hawai'i). LeBaron, M., 2003. Culture-based negotiation styles. Guy & Heidi Burgess (eds.). Beyond Intractability. Conflict Research Consortium. U. of Colorado. Sarkar, A.N., 2010. Navigating the rough seas of global business negotiation: Reflection on cross-cultural issues and some corporate experiences. Journal of Business Insights & Transformation, 3(2), pp.47-61. Smolinski, R., 2006. Fundamentals of international negotiation. Negocjacje: wsrod jawnych zagrozen i ukrytych mozliwosci. Poznan, Rebis, pp.175-189. Read More