Unlock document.
This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
CHAPTER 8: CROSS-CULTURAL NEGOTIATIONS
As businesspeople increasingly interact with those of other national and ethnic
cultures, they need to understand the process of negotiation. This chapter is a brief
introduction to this topic, with special attention being devoted to cross-cultural issues.
EXERCISE 8.1: RUG NEGOTIATIONS
of these reactions are spirited and/or negative, for example, the buyer made such an
insulting offer that I would never sell to him.
The instructor should then introduce the two major types of bargaining,
distributive and integrative. Distributive bargaining assumes that there is a fixed number
of points over which the buyer and seller are bargaining. Integrative bargaining makes
trying to satisfy each other and themselves simultaneously represents integrative
bargaining. The other three styles are distributive by definition.
The instructor should also go over Ronald Burke’s classic study of these five styles
among managers and supervisors. He asked a few hundred of them to give examples
when they resolved a problem effectively, and then to give examples when they resolved
Figure 8.1: The Seller
You are the owner of a store in a country of your choice (one that you are familiar with).
You sell rugs, pillow cases and other articles of house wares. You notice on this
particular day that a foreign visitor is interested in a particular rug.
There are many other stores that sell similar rugs for about 700 units. This
particular rug seems to be of much better quality and is a very particular shade of green.
This particular rug costs you 750 units. You normally sell this rug for 1000 to 1200
You are visiting a foreign country and would like to buy a rug as a present for
your spouse.
You are currently in a store that sells rugs, pillow cases, and other articles of
house wares, and have found a very nice rug that would look very nice in the living room.
You have seen similar rugs in this area of the country. Friends tell you that you can buy
Figure 8.3: Strategies and Methods for Resolving Conflict
Win/Lose Win/Win
High Strategy Strategy
(Forcing) (Problem-Solving
or Integrative)
Low Strategy Strategy
(Withdrawal) (Suppression)
Low Medium High
The Individual’s Intention to Satisfy
The Needs of Others
Returning to the rug negotiation, the instructor can usually highlight the following points:
*Most of the dyads negotiated distributively and did not try to satisfy both parties.
*Integrative solutions tend to be more complex and creative, e.g., the buyer will leave a
deposit of 500 units and send additional money to the seller when he returns home, and the seller
will make such concessions as providing an additional small rug.
party attaches to it. One should avoid this problem by seeking information.
The instructor may then want to show the AMA video featuring Ken Thomas as he
explains these five styles in detail (see Chapter 11). He may also want to review the Fisher,
Urey, and Patton book, Getting to Yes (2nd ed., 1991). They compare a soft bargainer (someone
so concerned about satisfying the other party that they fail to satisfy or consider their own
* Focus on Interests of both parties, not their positions;
* Invent Options or complex solutions for mutual gains;
* Use objective Criteria and, if possible, establish them before the bargaining
begins.
They recommend that the negotiator has in mind a BATNA, best alternative to a
negotiator who is an extreme version of the hard bargainer, in which case more extreme
measures need to be taken. Cohen’s model includes three factors:
*Information. The more information a negotiator has, the better off he is.
*Time. E.g., don’t let the other side how when you must quit negotiating, as they then
have both more power and information.
members to identify their key rules for negotiating, after which he can present the following:
• Listen more than you talk, as listening helps to provide information and power.
• In general, do not become emotional, and use an emotional outburst only when you are
employing it as a negotiating tactic, e.g., walking out of the room when you know the
other side will beg you to come back
make it. Be reasonable, but make initial high offers or initial high counter-offers if an
offer has already been made.
• If you face a hard or difficult bargainer, openly bring up this issue.
• Be prepared, and take notes, as you tend to forget what has been said throughout the
negotiations.
• When bargaining cross-culturally, be sensitive to cross-cultural issues, for example, the
need to save face.
• Remember that all negotiations go through stages, and that in the early stages the focus
should be more on processes than outcomes, especially when the other side comes from a
high-context culture.
• Use simple language to avoid misunderstandings.
The instructor can also use Figure 8.4 at this point.
Weiss (1994) has provided some additional suggestions for negotiating cross-culturally.
If you have low familiarity with the counterpart’s culture: Employ an agent or advisor; involve a
mediator; induce the counterpart to follow your script; or adapt to the counterpart’s script. If you
Two general types of bargaining:
Distributive: assumes only a fixed number of points or a fixed pie
Integrative: assumes that the fixed nature of the bargaining process can be changed through
meeting the needs of both parties.
Conditions for the success of integrative bargaining include:
Understanding one another
Listening
Controlling emotions
EXERCISE 8.3: METAPHORS FOR NEGOTIATIONS
Michele Gelfand of the Psychology Department at the University of Maryland at College
written exercise, the instructor can use think-pair-share, asking class members to identify their
metaphors and to have discussions in pairs, after which there is a class discussion. Some popular
metaphors are: poker, chess, dancing, school yard first fight, tennis match, volleyball, and
football.
EXERCISE 8.4: COLLECTING NOS CROSS-CULTURALLY
why you are making the request; the request involves something that the person can really do,
even if it seems unreasonable; each request must be different; and a minimum of 10 different
people must be asked.
This is a powerful exercise, as people are frequently very surprised at the outcomes. For
example, one student asked people at work for $20 but indicated that she was not planning to pay
Please include this information in your two journal entries, in addition to the information
specified in the syllabus
We are interested in finding out about the contexts to which people compare their
negotiation experiences. In order to describe their negotiation experiences, people often compare
them to other domains of their lives. This mapping of one domain onto another is known as a
would you use to describe these experiences? That is, we would like you to answer the question
“Negotiation is like _______________________________”, and why the two domains are
related. When responding, please consider the goals, rules, and activities that you think are
involved in negotiation, and then think of a domain in which such goals, rules, and activities are
also operating. Feel free to come up with more than one metaphor if you wish.
EXERCISE 8.5: ALPHA AND BETA STYLES
Lewicki, Saunders, and Minton (3rd ed., 1999) have developed an excellent bargaining
simulation involving one party using the high-context, process approach while the other party
employs the low-context, outcome-focused approach. More than one individual can be a
member of each negotiating group. Please consult this book and its accompanying Instructor’s
Manual for details.
EXERCISE 8.6: AMERICAN, JAPANESE, AND GERMAN STYLES OF
NEGOTIATING
This new study is based on information found in "Side by Side," The Wall Street Journal,
May 3, 1994, A1 and A8.
In 1993, IBM established a joint venture research team to develop a revolutionary new
chip design for the next century. The other companies in the group were Siemens AG of
Germany and Toshiba Corp. of Japan. Engineers from all three companies were set up in Long
Island at one of IBM's research affiliates. The project was expected to last several years.
People who initially were worried that the over 100 scientists from the three countries
would have difficulties working together proved to be correct. Problems began almost
immediately. Individuals only wanted to associate with fellow country members, thus
jeopardizing the project's success. An observer noted that the Japanese disliked the office setup,
which consisted of many small offices and few open spaces, and they had difficulty conversing
in English. The Germans covered the glass walls of their offices to maintain privacy, thus
offending both the Japanese and Americans. The Japanese liked to go out drinking after work,
during which time they tended to develop strong group norms. The Americans, however,
preferred to go home to their families. Further, the Americans complained that the Germans
planned too much and that the Japanese would not make decisions.
Solution Note: The article continues to discuss some solutions that IBM utilized, including a
plan to stress cooperative efforts through joint training among the three companies. This method
would make each group more aware of the management and working styles in the other two
countries. Also, they instituted more work teams consisting of culturally mixed groups, and
encouraged more socialization outside of the work environment. The buddy system was also
used to assign each foreign worker a local “buddy” to help show him or her the ropes. The idea
was to create an environment where creativity was enhanced rather than stifled. It is believed
that this is extremely important in a development environment, where a creative breakthrough is
as likely to occur in the lunchroom as in the laboratory. IBM hoped that these changes would
further that cause.
