0% found this document useful (0 votes)
334 views63 pages

Culture

The document provides an overview of negotiations and discusses cultural differences that can impact cross-cultural negotiations. It summarizes the key elements of a negotiation, including interests, power, and strategies. It then compares Chinese and American negotiating styles based on eight cultural factors and provides recommendations for Chinese negotiators conducting Sino-American business negotiations to help navigate cultural differences.

Uploaded by

M. Khaled Hasan
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
334 views63 pages

Culture

The document provides an overview of negotiations and discusses cultural differences that can impact cross-cultural negotiations. It summarizes the key elements of a negotiation, including interests, power, and strategies. It then compares Chinese and American negotiating styles based on eight cultural factors and provides recommendations for Chinese negotiators conducting Sino-American business negotiations to help navigate cultural differences.

Uploaded by

M. Khaled Hasan
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 63

Abstract

With the emergence of a global economy and Chinas WTO entry, China has witnessed a sharp increase in foreign investment and numerous China-based firms into the international market. So far as Chinese businesspersons are concerned, at no time in history has there been so great a need for international negotiating skills. Nevertheless, what makes one a good negotiator in one culture may not work well in another, because negotiation rules and practices vary notably across cultures. The greater the cultural differences, the larger barriers to communication, and the more likely distortion of the negotiation. To negotiate successfully, cultural differences between the parties concerned must be identified and bridged. The thesis is a comparative study of the different types of Sino-American business negotiating styles. There are many factors contributing to a certain type of negotiating style, but cultural system may be one of the most important. Efforts in the thesis are devoted to exploring the underlying cultural factors behind the distinctions of these negotiating styles. The objective is to improve the knowledge and understanding of negotiation-related cultural differences and furnish some recommendations for Chinese negotiators involved in Sino-American business negotiations. The thesis consists of four parts. With a view to better understanding international business negotiation, Chapter one briefs the fundamental knowledge of negotiations, including its definition, its basic elements and the cross-cultural negotiation process.

To navigate through the minefield of Sino-American business negotiations requires a full apprehension of culture and its relevant factors. In Chapter two, therefore, the major elements of culture, including its concept, its characteristics, cultural orientations and its deep structure are first dealt with, and then the impact of culture on business negotiations. The great diversity of culture makes it difficult for negotiators to fully understand the culture differences between China and America and then an approach that helps Chinese negotiators overcome the differences in making their deal is proposed to identify the specific ways in which cultural traits affect the negotiating process. Eight factors that affect negotiating styles, accordingly, are provided in Chapter Three and then by using these factors as parameters a comparative study between Chinese negotiating style and American negotiating style is made. Moreover, the underlying cultural influence is investigated. The last Chapter points out the potential problems in cross-cultural business negotiations and then provides Chinese negotiators with some recommendations for their entering the business negotiations.

Chapter I How Negotiations Work: An Overview

At the beginning of the twenty-first century, the vision of a global village is no longer considered an abstract idea but a virtual certainty. Technological advances in communication, travel, and transportation have made business increasingly global. This trend is expected to continue in the foreseeable future. As international business relations grow, so does the frequency of business negotiations among people from different countries and cultures. International trade has multiplied twentyfold over the last twenty years; similar increases in the future are not unexpected. The world is definitely shrinking and trade is helping to shrink it. Experts estimate that over fifty percent of an international managers time is spent negotiating. In effect, cross-cultural negotiations have begun to take on increasing importance to the globalizing firms. It is inevitable that they are fast becoming a fact of life for a growing number of Chinabased firms. Since international negotiations play a more and more important role in todays business relations, a general understanding of negotiation is a must to begin with.

1.1 Concept of Negotiation


Negotiation is a basic human activity that most people do at some point every day, to sort out differences with other people, or to get what they want. A housewife with a salesperson over the counter for the price of fruits, a girl with her parent for lifting the night curfew, a driver with a policeman for removing ticket over a traffic violation, a purchasing agent with a supplier for the quality of a product, so on and so forth, all of which involve negotiation. As a matter of fact, negotiation plays an important role in our daily life.

What then is negotiation? A modern definition of negotiation is two or more parties with common and conflicting interests who enter into a process of interaction with the goal of reaching an agreement (preferably of mutual benefit).1[3] Negotiation is a decision-making process that provides opportunities for the parties to exchange commitments or promises through which they will resolve their disagreements and reach a settlement. In brief, a negotiation is two or more parties striving to agree when their objectives do not coincide. This definition indicates that negotiations take place within the context of the four Cs: common interest, conflicting interest, compromise, and criteria.2[4] Common interest considers the fact that each party in the negotiation shares, has, or wants something that the other party has or does. Without a common goal, there would be no need for negotiation. Conflict occurs when people have separate but conflicting interests. For example, in international business negotiations, conflicting interests could include payment, distribution, profits, contractual responsibilities, and quality. Compromise involves resolving areas of disagreement. Although a win-win negotiated settlement would be best for both parties, the parties cannot avoid making compromises during negotiation. The criteria include the conditions under which the negotiations take place.

1.2 Major Elements of Negotiation


All negotiators have interests and power, and all negotiators have strategies. For our purpose, efforts will be focused on dealing with these three negotiation elements.

1.2.1 Interests Interests are defined as the goal each party desires to achieve. It is the motivation that pushes the parties to enter into a negotiation. No party will enter a negotiation without certain interests. Interests are often classified as common, conflicting or complementary. Common interests serve as the impetus for the parties to sit before the negotiating table. A successful transaction is beneficial to both sides. At the same time, their interests may conflict since profit to one can be cost to the other. The parties have complementary interests in cases of many joint ventures: one party is in need of investment or advanced technology and the other wants to enter a particular market and expects to do business with it and possibly the surrounding markets. Common and complementary interests have positive effects on the negotiation process whereas conflicting interests affect the process negatively. When conflicting interests dominate a negotiation, an agreement becomes unlikely; when common and complementary interests dominate, the opportunity for success increases. Interests may take many forms: economic such as profitability, volume, market share, etc., and they may also be more subtle and even intangible such as principles, saving face or establishing/reinforcing a relationship, defending or promoting an image, a reputation, etc. In a commercial negotiation, price is of course a major issue, but the key point lies in how to connect this topic with negotiator interests (preoccupations, expectations, constraints, etc.) and with other issues (e.g. volume, payment terms, deliveries, quality, guarantees, etc.). Identifying interests is of great importance to forming strategies and conducting behaviors. Interests may be easy to figure out (e.g., profitability or long-term relationships) or difficult to decode (e.g., a desire for dominance or for revenge). They may be an attribute of an individual negotiator or they may represent a collective factor (e.g., a firms image). In international business negotiations, the interests of the parties are of a similar variety to domestic negotiations, but they are often complicated by cultural factors.

1.2.2 Power (Bargaining Strength) Generally, the power of a negotiator originates from a number of factors, some of which have association with the negotiation situation; others are linked with the negotiator himself. Considerations for the former are as follows: The available alternatives. The more choices a party have, the greater bargaining strength it enjoys, that is, the party that is confronted with more competitors will be in a disadvantageous position. For example, if the seller is the sole provider of a certain kind of goods the buyer is in urgent need of, the seller definitely enjoys more power. The capacity to reward or punish. This capacity is sometimes used in international business negotiations through the channel of regulatory power. Urgency of the time. If one party is under some deadline pressure, the opponent party benefits from a bargaining strength relative to the other. The above factors are embedded in the negotiating situation. Also some other sources of power are tied to the negotiator. 1. Skill. Effective negotiating skills, either endowed or acquired through training, help build strength in negotiations. Agile mind, Sound judgment, sensitiveness in communication, and resistance to stress can all be sources of bargaining strength. Skill diversity is complex and one skill that works well in some circumstances may not work as well in some others. 2. Credibility and reputation. Both factors are also strengths linked to the negotiation and they can be extended to organizations. This aspect is of particular importance to international business negotiations, for the negotiating parties are generally unfamiliar to each other and have little information about each others credibility, so then there may exist lots of uncertainties

when the two parties begin to do business. Therefore, the credibility and reputation of negotiators exert great impact on the success of international business negotiations. 3. Information. In international business negotiations, it is not exaggerated to say information is power. The collection of valuable information rests on whether or not the negotiator and his organization have an easy access to the relevant data. A good appreciation of your counterparts and their organizations, which involves everything from strength and weakness, to their decision-making mode, to the construction of their team and so forth, is the first step in the initial stage toward the possible forthcoming success. Exploring the sources of power is very important in planning a negotiation. It is worth noting that the balance of power between the negotiating parties is subject to changes during the process of negotiation. To be an effective negotiator, one needs to be alert to these changes.

1.2.3 Strategy Strategy refers to a complete plan regarding problems, the solution available and preferred choices, relative to the other partys choices and preferences. In negotiation, parties try to build up their comparative advantages. They compare the alternatives available, make a checklist and assign arguments for and against these alternatives. Therefore, strategy is both intention and choice. Intention is a matter of will behind objective setting. Choice is the solution of the most effective path to achieve these objectives. In brief, parties apply strategies in negotiation in order to achieve their own goals. The accomplishment of an agreement in international business negotiations is often attributable to the application of tactics or techniques. During the negotiation process, negotiators will undoubtedly decide on their own strategic orientations and then implement them in their negotiations with their counterpart. A negotiators strategic orientation can be predominantly

cooperative (integrative, value creating) or confrontational (distributive, value claiming, competitive), offensive or defensive. As to his strategic orientation towards time, he may act so as to conclude rapidly or he may prefer to develop a negotiation over a longer time. In respect to the type of agreement sought, a negotiator may want partial, comprehensive or conditional agreement. Any given generic strategy as described above is associated with a number of different behaviors, initiatives and decisions, which concern techniques as well as tactics to be privileged. Various factors contribute to a negotiators choices of certain strategic orientation: a negotiators personality, balance of power, level of trust, etc. An understanding of the major elements of negotiation together with its concept is a necessary step to apprehend the negotiation process. But how the negotiation process operates in the cross-cultural context is still a puzzle for us and therefore our endeavor will be made to appreciate it.

1.3 The Cross-cultural Negotiation Process


Negotiations, when taking place in an international context, consist of four major stages: non-task sounding (rapport); task-related exchange of information; persuasion, compromise; concession and agreement.3[5] Non-task sounding focuses on establishing a relationship among the negotiating parties. During this stage, the main aim of the parties is to get to know each other. Parties try to gather as much general information as possible on each other, such as the operating environment, the infrastructure, the involvement of other third parties, competitors, etc. They examine each others

position. Information specific to the issues under negotiation is not considered. Whether the negotiation process can continue to proceed depends on the perceived level of cooperation or conflict, of power or dependence and the expected benefits of the relationship. The process is liable to failure if the other party seems undependable. Non-task sounding is often more important in international business negotiations. Social, informal relationships developed between negotiators at this stage can be very helpful. Trust and confidence gained from these relationships increase the chances of agreement. Task-related exchange of information focuses on providing information directly related to the issues under negotiation. The parties who enter into this stage believe they can work together to find a solution to a joint problem and reach an agreement beneficial to both sides. During this stage, each party explains its needs and expectations. It is natural that each party views the situation, the matter under discussion in its own way. They not only have different perception of the process but also have different expectations for the outcome. It is, therefore, important that each party come to the negotiating table with an open mind and several alternatives. Parties evaluate the alternatives presented by the other party and select those that are compatible with their own expectations. Faced with the issues on which they are at odds, they enter the next stage of the negotiation: persuasion. Persuasion focuses on trying to modify the other partys views and expectations and make them closer to ones own. A balance between firmness and flexibility is important at this stage. This stage of negotiation is often intertwined with other stages (i.e. persuasion goes on while exchanging information and making concession). Concessions and agreement are the culmination of the negotiation process. To reach an agreement that is mutually acceptable, each side must give up some things. At this stage each party revises its former position and expectations to reach a settlement acceptable to both. All terms having been agreed upon, the contract is being drawn up and is ready to be signed.

It is worth mentioning that although all negotiations include these four stages, duration and sequence of the stages, emphasis put on the different stages, and strategies formed at these stages differ across cultures. When business deals take place across the borders, negotiations will be beyond question influenced by the different cultures. Therefore, negotiations can easily break down because of a lack of understanding of the cultural components of the negotiation process. When Negotiators spend time understanding the approach that the other parties are likely to use, and then adapt their own styles to that one, they are likely to be more effective negotiators. Accordingly, it is worth the time to investigate those differences prior to entering into a negotiation situation.

Chapter II Culture and its Impacts on Negotiations

In these days of global communications, rapid transportation, and global markets, when the era of the global village seems just around the corner, it is all too easy to overlook the cultural differences of countries. Yet in practice, cultural differences remain deep and profound. The importance of cross-cultural literacy cannot be overemphasized. Without it, negotiators can make blunders that will jeopardize lucrative opportunities. In Sino-American business negotiations, the Chinese negotiators are also confronted with the same problem. Because an understanding of cultural differences is prerequisite to exploring the impacts of culture on negotiation, it is imperative for us to have a good appreciation of culture.

2.1 Understanding Culture

2.1.1 Definition of Culture Scholars have never been able to agree on a simple definition of culture. As early as 1952, Kroeber and Kluckhohn listed 164 definitions of culture that they found in the anthropology literature. And, of course, many new definitions have appeared since. For our purposes, we are concerned with those definitions that are conductive to our comprehension of the relationship between culture and negotiation.

Geert Hofstede, an expert on management and cross-cultural differences, defined culture as the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one human group from another Culture, in this sense, includes systems of values; and values are among the building blocks of culture. 4[6]Another definition comes from sociologists Zvi Namenwirth and Robert Weber, who considered culture as a system of ideas and argued that these ideas constitute a design for living.5[7] Here we follow both Hofstede and Namenwirth and Weber by viewing culture as a system of values and norms that are shared among a group of people and that when taken together constitute a design for living and negotiating. By values we mean abstract ideas about what a group believes to be good, right, and desirable. Put it differently, values are shared assumptions about how things ought to be.6[8]

2.1.2 Characteristics of Culture Regardless of the differences in defining culture, there is a general agreement on its major characteristics. Exploring these characteristics will help us understand why culture differences exert such a huge impact on international business negotiations, and thus help us adjust our mode of communication to the individual culture in which we are negotiating with our counterparts.

2.1.2.1 Culture is Acquired and Transmitted It can be claimed that learning is the most important of all the characteristics of culture, for without the advantage of learning from those who lived before us, we would not have had culture. Human beings are born with some basic needs ---needs that create and shape behavior, but how we go about meeting those needs and developing behaviors to cope with them are learned. From infancy, members of a culture begin to learn consciously or unconsciously from the behavior patterns and thinking patterns of their community until most of these patterns become internalized and habitual, and as a result, all people have far more of their behaviors programmed by cultural learning than by biology. For a culture to exist and endure, it must be ensured that its crucial message and elements are passed on. It is passed on by other members of a cultural group. It is transmitted by parents, by other adults and institutions such as schools, and by peers. When people find in the process of social evolution certain behaviors and values to be adaptive and helpful, these behaviors and values are often encouraged and preserved. Similarly, non-adaptive and harmful behaviors and values are discouraged and discarded. Over a period of time, useful behaviors, values and artifacts become institutionalized and incorporated as part of cultural traditions. The individual then internalizes these institutionalized practices. Actually, if there are values considered central to a society that have existed for many years, these must be transmitted from one generation to another. Culture is the instrument by which each new generation acquires the capacity to bridge the distance that separates one life from another.

2.1.2.2 Culture is Ethnocentric People everywhere tend to assume their own culture is right and normal, and to assess all other cultures by how closely they resemble their own. Most people, especially those with little experience of other cultures, believe that their own culture is at the centre of human experience

hence ethnocentrism. Summer defined ethnocentric as the technical name for the view of things in which ones own group is the centre of everything, and all others are scaled and rated with reference to it.7[9] Like culture itself, ethnocentrism is usually learned at the unconscious level. For example, schools that teach mainly Chinese history, geography, literature, and government are also, without realizing it, teaching ethnocentrism. When we study only the accomplishment of our Chinese, we are quietly learning ethnocentrism. Exposed to Confucianism as a child, we are learning to judge the world by this standard. Because we learn ethnocentrism so early in life, and primarily on the unconscious level, it might well be the major barrier to intercultural communication. For example, if males in the dominant culture value women who are thin, young, and dark-haired, then they will perceive women who are stout, older and blonde in a less favourable light. If we perceive privacy as a positive trait while another culture values openness, we again have perceptual differences. If we value vagueness in speech and another culture values directness, we might misinterpret what is being said. These three casesand there are countless others---are examples of how perception influences communication. With the characteristic of culture in mind, the negotiator at the negotiating table should be conscious of avoiding the negative influence of his ethnocentric culture, which thus facilitates the negotiation process.

2.1.2.3 Culture is Compelling Our behavior is determined by culture, but sometimes we arent aware of its influence. At every turn of our lives, we are under the control of our culture. The instant we are born in the

world, we, no matter whether we are conscious of it or not, begin to follow the behaviours that other men have created for us. Sometimes we choose our life according to our willingness, sometimes we follow it because there is no other way, and still sometimes we deviate from it for we hate to return. As children, we begin to be moulded by our culture into those who follow the proper manners ranging from following teachers words, never arguing with others, to protecting face for the family and so forth. We adhere to the rules and regulations that are designed for us to carry out all the acts of living, thus we come to feel ourselves linked together by a powerful chain of sentiments. As a matter of fact, it is culture that binds us men together. Assimilating the designed perceptions and behaviours made by the culture, we will display them when entering the negotiating table. Because people from different cultures have distinct ways of life, a cultural clash will break out if one party has no sufficient knowledge of the culture of the other party.

2.1.3 Cultural Orientations Culture is the dominant set of behaviors, values, beliefs, and thinking patterns we learn as we grow and develop in our social groups. Culture determines how we view others and ourselves, how we behave, and how we perceive the world around us. To navigate through an unfamiliar culture, we need to be able to get our bearings by relating ourselves to specific features in the environment the way a sailor uses the sun, the moon, the stars, and the horizon. Cultural orientations are an important aid when we are trying to get our bearings with a new culture. Each culture is built on core value orientations. Value orientations are preferences for certain states of affairs or outcomes over others. To identify a cultures core values, Walker, D. E. and walker T. (2000) outline ten key cultural dimensions. We, to satisfy our requirements of better analyzing negotiating styles in the following chapter, make some adaptation of these dimensions according to the following three

criteria: First of all, each dimension needs to recognize an important aspect of social life. Secondly, each dimension needs to be something to which any socio-cultural environment gives its members a basic orientation as the shared rationale for behavior. Finally, each dimension has practical value to negotiators who need to reconcile, integrate, or transcend cultural difference in order to obtain a desired outcome. Our eight cultural dimensions are as follows: 1. Individualism (individualistic and collectivist): How individuals define their identity 2. Communication (high-context and low-context; direct and indirect): How individuals express themselves 3. Time (fluid time and fixed time): How individuals perceive the nature of time and its use 4. Action (being and doing): How individuals view actions and interactions

5. Power distance (high power distance and low power distance): How individuals view differential power relationships 6. Structure (high uncertainty-avoidance and low uncertainty-avoidance): how individuals approach change, risk, ambiguity, and uncertainty 7. Thinking (linear and systemic): How individuals conceptualize 8. Environment (harmony and control): How individuals view and relate to the people, objects, and issues in their sphere of influence Each of these dimensions contains at least one cultural continuum. Such a continuum is the field of force between cultural orientations. Each continuum allows us to identify the directionality of hidden values, expectations, and drives of social phenomena and behavior patterns. These dimensions provide us with a framework for understanding the characteristics of

different cultures and for adapting our behaviors. In the next chapter we, by using the eight dimensions, will expound the underlying reasons for the differences between Chinese negotiating styles and American negotiating styles.

2.1.4. Deep Structure of Culture When people of different cultures are engaged in business negotiations, difficulties and misunderstandings all the time occur between the negotiators. For the Americans, the stage of exchanging task-related information in business negotiations is relatively direct, with clear statements of needs and preferences, whereas in Chinese culture, indirect and vague expression is more acceptable than direct and specific references. Ambiguous terminology is preferred. Germans tend to regard time as something that must be planned for the most efficient use whereas in Kuwait, people view time in a more relaxed way, seeing planning as unwise and unnecessary. These and countless other philosophical, ideological, and metaphysical questions need to be answered if we are to navigate through an unfamiliar culture. It is not enough to know that some people bow whereas others shake hands or that some value silence whereas others value talk. Although these behaviors are significant, we also need to know what motivates them. We believe the source of how a culture views the world can be found in its deep underlying structure that both unifies and makes each culture unique. In nearly all cultures, that structure has its roots deep in the basic institutions of the culture. As Delgado points out, Culture produces and is reproduced by institutions of society, and we can turn to such sites to help recreate and represent the elements of culture.8[10] Our aim is to look at those sites so that we might better understand how and why cultures have different visions of the world.

The how and why behind a cultures collective action can be traced to its (1) world view, (2) family structure, (3) history, and (4) education. Working together, these three social forces create, transmit, maintain, and reinforce the basic elements found in all cultures. They are used to tell each member what to expect from life and how to live that life.

2.1.4.1 World View World view, according to Hobel and Frost, is defined as the human beings inside view of the way things are colored, shaped, and arranged according to personal cultural preconceptions.9[11] World view thus influences all aspects of our perception and consequently affects our beliefs and value systems as well as how we think. A cultures world view can be thought of as its core. Our world view originates in our culture, is transmitted via a multitude of channels, and can take a variety of forms. But the predominant element of culture that gives us our world view is religion. Religion, whether or not one is a believer, plays an important part in shaping ones basic value system. A code of conduct what is right and what is wrong is set out clearly in every religion. There is, for instance, nothing inherently or naturally wrong in stealing your next neighbors belongings; all other animals are doing it all the time. But most people do not go about killing, or stealing, or cheating, or whatever. This is because their upbringing and their societys values, which are in turn heavily influenced by the precepts and dictates of their religion, regard these actions as wrong and immortal.

Christianity and Confucianism, which play an important role in American and Chinese social life respectively, will be discussed concerning how they have shaped peoples perception and behaviour. Christianity, a religion of about a billion people scattered throughout the world, is also the dominant world view found in America. The American concept of the importance of the individual can be linked partially to Christianity. The Christian tradition begins with the assumption that the world is real and meaningful because God created it. Human beings are significant because God created them in his image. God has a special relationship with each person in that God sees and hears, rewards, punishes. Each person is important to him. In a culture that values individualism, Christianity is perhaps the perfect religion. Besides, much of the American doing orientation can be found in the life of Jesus. Anyone who has studied Christianity and knows the lessons of Jesus is aware that he was an active man. The Bible is full of how he travelled from place to place healing the sick and counselling misfits and ordinary. In short, activity and Christianity are bound together. Our comparison between Christianity and Confucianism may lead to some doubts among people, for, generally speaking, Confucianism is not viewed as a religion in Chinese culture. Here we note that what one person might call religion or world view another might call philosophy or something else. For our purposes, the labeling is not nearly as important as the notion that a cultures heritage includes ways of dealing with timeless and fundamental questions. Confucianism, which has become the dominant cultural influence in China for over 2000 years, has a still profound impact on todays Chinese society. Confucianism maintains that the entire complex of moral convention is the cement of society. Convention can be differentiated into five major areas of importance: hierarchy, collectivism, face protection, respect for tradition or age, egalitarianism.10[12] These elements have a huge bearing on the behaviours of

Chinese negotiators and are of great help for us to explore the underlying causes between Chinese and American negotiating styles. Take face protection for instance. In business interaction, no matter how attractive a deal may be to them, many Chinese negotiators and decision-makers may terminate discussions if they feel that their face is hurt. The heavy use of face protection as a social mechanism from the time of early childhood tends to cause feelings of dependency and anxieties about selfesteem, which naturally enough produce self-consciousness about most social relationships. As a result, many Chinese are sensitive about their public image and any affront or slight, no matter how unintended, will lead them to lose face. In Chinese culture, there are numerous common expressions about face, including losing face, hurting face, giving face (elevating someones self-esteem as well as their esteem in the eyes of others), wanting face (desiring esteem within relationships), struggling for face and having face. In all of these expressions, face represents prestige and respect.

2.1.4.2 Family We Chinese say that if you know the family, you do not need to know the individual. Still a Japanese proverb goes that The spirit of a three-year-old lasts a hundred years. These ideas which might differ slightly from culture to culture, both lay emphasis on the importance of family to every human being. The family is among the oldest and most fundamental human institutions. It gives children knowledge about their historical background, information regarding the permanent nature of their culture, and specific behaviors, customs, traditions, and language associated with their ethnic or cultural group. In addition, the family contributes a lot to the manner in which one perceives and interacts with other people.

Take Americans for example, they place great importance on individuality and self-reliance that have much bearing on their family education. Well-known phrases typically used by parents to convey this emphasis on self-reliance include Do your own thing, You made your bed, now lie in it, and Youd better look out for yourself; no one else will. Americans have been conditioned from childhood to think for themselves, to express their ideas and opinions, and to make their own choices; they are taught to consider themselves as individuals who are responsible for their own actions as well as for their own destinies. Parents start training their children early in this way of thinking: they offer them choices of food, clothes, and toys and usually accommodate their preferences. When the choice does not work out, the child then experiences the results of the decision. As time elapses, they Americans cultivate themselves into being individualistic and self-independent. We therefore come to the conclusion that, although a cultures core values and world view derive primarily from its predominant religious views and cultural history, the family is the primary caretaker of these views and values and transmits them to new members of the culture.

2.1.4.3 History The importance of history to the culture can be represented by the assertion of English writer Edmund Burke that history is pact between the dead, the living and the yet unborn. The influence of history is hard to pin down and define. When we are talking about history, we are talking about much more than historical events and specific dates. When we refer to history as one of the deep structures of a culture, we are also talking about a cultures sense of community, its political system, its key history heroes, and even its geography. All of these, working in combination, provide the members of every culture with their identity, values, goals, and expectations. For example, the history of the United States teaches young people that almost anything is possible one can even become president. History books are full of stories about

Abraham Lincolns log-cabin background and the simple clothing-store clerk Harry Truman. Such history is deeply rooted in the American psyche. The penetrating effect of a cultures history on perception and behavior can be seen in countless examples. The collectivism of Chinese culture is a case in point. For some five thousand years, Chinese civilization has been built on agriculture, for peasants from generation to generation were tied to the land on which they lived and worked. Except in times of war and famine, there was little mobility, either socially or geographically. This agrarian lifestyle helps explain a number of Chinese cultural traits and values. For example, the collective nature of Chinese values is largely the product of thousands of years of living and working together on the land. In summary, history is one main gateway to our apprehension of culture. On the one hand, historical events help explain the character of a culture. As the historian Basile noted, For all people, history is the source of the collective consciousness.11[13] From the earliest Western movement across the plains of the United States to explorations of the outer space, Americans have agreed on a history of conquest. On the other hand, what a culture seeks to remember and pass onto the next generation tells us about the character of that culture. American history books and folk tales are running over with examples of how an individual can make a major difference in the world. People have all learned how Martin Luther King, Jr., almost single-handedly shaped the civil rights movement.

2.2 General Impacts of Culture on Business Negotiations


2.2.1 Influences Exerted by Cultural Differences

In international business settings, the progress of the negotiation process and the parties apprehension of their relationship are under the influence of some factors, among which Cultural differences play a crucial role. Culture is a major determinant of strategies and tactics in international business negotiations, because negotiations involve communication, time and power and these variables differ across cultures. Cultural differences create a challenge to the negotiators involved, and demand understanding as well as flexibility. An ability to assess these differences and properly handle the consequences is essential for achieving success in international business negotiations. Culture has influences over all the basic elements of negotiation. It can influence the behavioral predispositions of negotiators. For example, some cultures place group over the individual, some to the contrary. This kind of distinction stemming from their respective cultures will inevitably have different influence on peoples attitude toward power distance among social members, peoples basis for trust, peoples goal orientation, peoples way of making decisions and peoples tendency to take risks, which will be discussed in detail in the next chapter. Culture has impacts on peoples perception of negotiation and consequently the strategies they take. Some cultures regard the negotiation as a problem-solving process and are more likely to adopt an integrative strategy while some others tend to see it as a competition and have a strong aversion to the concept of compromise. People from some cultures are long-term oriented and they can sacrifice short-term profits if they can sense future gains whereas people from some other cultures are short-term oriented and try to get as much as they can in the one-off deal. Culture also influences the structure of the negotiation. Preference for sites and dates differs across cultures. Composition of the negotiating team also varies greatly. Some cultures regard time as money and would like to set fixed agendas, but some feel that time is abundant and humans should not follow blindly the timetable.

During the negotiation process, culture plays an important role, too. People from different cultures may have different ways of handling issues, some preferring sequential approach while others a holistic one. Some may depend more on verbal communications and some more on nonverbal ones. People also have different outcome orientations. People from some cultures look for a contract while others for a relationship. Some prefer a detailed written agreement, others an agreement with general guidelines. According to Hendon et al. (1996), culture impacts negotiation in four ways: by conditioning ones perception of reality; by blocking out information inconsistent or unfamiliar with culturally grounded assumptions; by projecting meaning onto the other partys words and actions; and by impelling the ethnocentric observer to an incorrect attribution of motive. Negotiators bring to the negotiating table the values, beliefs and background interference of their own culture. These elements influence, without their awareness, their conceptualization of the negotiation process, the objectives they seek in the negotiation, the means they adopt to pursue their goals, and the expectations they hold of the behaviors of their partners. Ample evidence exists that negotiation rules and practice differ across cultures.

2.2.2 Consequences Caused by Cultural Differences Cultural differences have a profound impact on how successfully or unsuccessfully the parties are able to negotiate. They can generate misunderstandings, sow the seeds of distrust, and/or generate negative emotions among the negotiators. When negotiators differ in their basic thought processes, misunderstandings are all but inevitable. For example, Americans are generally not as concerned with building long-term associations as they are with getting their immediate business issues resolved (just as Americans are not as concerned about the long-term business picture as they are about quarterly profits). This means that Americans enter the first meeting expecting an issue-oriented outcome, often through a process of bargaining. For

Chinese, however, bargaining too soon can be a sign of untrustworthiness. In Chinese culture it is customary for the negotiators to strive to establish a relationship prior to dealing with taskrelated issues; resolving a particular issue is simply not the first goal. Their misunderstandings of each other obviously originate from their different thought processes. As a matter of fact, there are a myriad of ways through which conflicting patterns of thinking may impede effective negotiating. The irony is that negotiators might not even be aware of the fact that they are making biased judgments! The inability to recognize the partiality of the judgments made by negotiators has a number of consequences. First, it can slow down the process of any negotiations, if not disrupt them entirely. Second, misunderstandings prevent negotiators from maximizing joint gains from the business interaction. Moreover, cultural differences can also damage trust between sides in a negotiation, or worse, sow the seeds of distrust. When negotiators do not trust each other they are unlikely to share information for fear of being taken advantage of. They are also likely to be overcritical of the positions advanced by the other negotiator. For example, they may look for flaws or errors where none exist and/or invent reasons as to why the deal may not be possible. Finally, the lack of trust lessens the motivation of the negotiators to bridge the differences that exist between them. Cultural clashes also have the potential of generating negative emotional reactions between parties in a transaction. The General Motors-Volkswagen conflict and the Enron-India saga are all examples of situations where emotions ran high among the parties.12[14] The consequences resulting from cultural differences are a great danger for smooth negotiation in the international setting. Therefore, understanding the different cultural environments that exist among nations and considering cultural differences in all facets of business are of great significance to the operation of international business negotiations.

Transcending cultural limits is a formidable but essential task if negotiations with foreign parties are to succeed.

Chapter III Sino-American Negotiating Styles: A Cross-cultural Perspective

Recent research into the processes of negotiation has revealed key aspects of negotiation in which cultures tend to differ. Among others, Geert Hofstede has done much research into cultures effects on business attitudes, for example (which has important implications for negotiations), while Stephen Weiss has done significant studies on cultures effects on the negotiation process proper. In this chapter, we, by adopting the important research in the field, will make detailed analysis and comparison of Chinese negotiating style with American negotiating style and then probe into the source of the differences from a cross-cultural prospective. Salacuse outlined top factors in the negotiation process that seem most likely to be influenced by a person's culture. He further proposed that the culturally different responses would fall on a point on a continuum between polar extremes. We focus on some important factors adapted for our purpose of analysis. Here are the eight factors and associated continuum in Table 3.1. Table 3.1 Top Eight Ways Culture Affects Negotiating Style

Negotiation Factors 1. Goal

Range of Cultural Responses Contract Relationship

2. Protocol 3. Communication 4. Time Sensitivity 5. Emotionalism 6. Agreement Form 7. Decision-making 8. Risk Taking

InformalFormal Direct Indirect High Low HighLow Specific General One leader Consensus High Low

Chinese negotiating style and American negotiating style are compared in detail in this chapter by using these eight factors as parameters. Moreover, the underlying cultural influence is investigated.

3.1 Negotiating Goal


This factor refers to the purpose or intention of the parties in the negotiating process. Chinese negotiators, tending to take a relational approach to negotiation, have a fluid view of contracts and attach great importance to establishing a sustainable business relationship. The Chinese approach to the negotiating process is rather to establish a human relationship, often essentially dependent in nature. Therefore, their primary goal is to create the bonding of friendship. The failure of relationship building often results in the abortion of transaction in the end. The contract, for the Chinese negotiators, does not mean finality but a starting point. American negotiators, on the contrary, generally taking a transactional approach to negotiation, devote their energy and time to the deal itself and attempt at achieving the finalization of the deal. They, viewing the interpersonal relationship as incidental, or in some cases, partly instrumental to the negotiation process, think of the signing of a contract between the parties as their primary negotiating aim. They consider such a contract a binding agreement that outlines the roles, rights and obligations of each party.

This distinction in negotiating goals between Chinese and American negotiators can be illustrated by the description of an American executive for his first business trip to China. You have been waiting months to hear from the Chinese; then when you do, a whole team goes to work helping to prepare your presentation. When you arrive at the hotel, full of anticipation, your Chinese contact says, How about visiting the Great Wall tomorrow? So you agree, but then the next day it is the Ming Tombs, then the Forbidden City, the Temple of Heaven, and so on. You came to do business and you expected them to be in a big hurry, and it turns out that they would rather spend time leisurely sightseeing and chatting.13[15] The American here has a big misunderstanding of his Chinese counterpart. To the Chinese, a business negotiation is a time to develop a business relationship with the goal of long-term mutual benefit. The key issues are the context, instead of the content, of the talks. Settling any issue is not as important as developing a harmonious relationship. Like what happened in the above-mentioned case, the Chinese negotiators demonstrated their hospitality for their guests with an aim to achieving the establishment of good relationship. To Americans, however, a business negotiation is a problem-solving activity, the best deal for both parties being the solution. They, as a result, view the relationship building as unnecessary and unbelievable activities. The collectivism/individualism cultures and being/doing orientation are central to the understanding of this difference in negotiating goals. Chinese culture is a typical collectivist culture. Collectivism implies in-group solidarity, loyalty, and strong perceived interdependence among individuals. Relationships are based on mutual self-interest and dependent on the success of the group. Collective cultures emphasize

face, protecting others self-image and freedom from imposition. Confucianism emphasizes the importance of maintaining harmonious interpersonal relationships. In meeting this requirement a person should act in accordance with external expectations rather than with their own internal wishes or desires. Emphasis on the establishment of relationship in social life is therefore mirrored when Chinese negotiate with their American counterparts. Living in a country with a strong agrarian tradition, Chinese people have heavy reliance on a network of contacts to accomplish tasks ranging from aiding each other in their harvest to defending themselves from the inevitable disasters. This agrarian tradition, still dominant and the primary means to obtain results, has prescribed the importance of interdependence and collaboration among people. Chinese culture displays a being orientation. Being-oriented cultures value affiliations, character, and personal qualities. Building affiliation, trust, rapport, and relationship is a key condition for an effective focus on objectives and task. Therefore, in being-oriented cultures, socializing and getting to know each other are often embedded expectations and ritualized elements (i.e., they are associated with specific etiquette and protocol) of business social engagement. In such cultural environments, emphasis is placed on quality of life, on nurturing, caring, and relationships. Because Chinese are being-oriented, they believe that it is important to build and maintain solid relationships. They believe that this provides a stronger guarantee that agreements will be followed. For the Chinese, a firmly established relationship means more than a written contract. In China, little business is conducted around the negotiating table. Instead, it is done in a more relaxed, even social, setting. It is highly unlikely that Chinese will proceed with a business contact if they have been unable to build a relationship with their foreign counterparts. With the idea in his mind, the American executive mentioned above will not suffer from the shock and frustration as a result of his Chinese counterpart invitation to various scenic spots.

The preoccupation with social harmony and being-oriented culture necessarily suggest that the establishment of relationships or friendships is of great importance in Chinese culture. American culture, on the other hand, is a typical individualistic culture. The concept of individualism puts the self above all other else. Individuals in individualistic cultures are expected to take care of themselves, to attach greater importance to the individual identity over group identity, and individual rights over group obligations, the needs of the individual over that of the collectivethe group, community, or society. Society is but a larger self. In individualistic cultures, a tendency exists to put task before relationship and to value independence highly. Individualism, according to the research of Geert Hofstede, seemingly has close connection with national wealth, that is, the wealthy, urbanized, and industrialized societies have a tendency to individualist. As an economic power, American society abounds in individualism. Most Americans feel that individualism is good, and at the root of their countrys greatness. Although supported in the IBM case, the result that Geert Hofstede has provided requires further research for its plausibility. Because there are some obvious exceptions, especially in East Asia, where Japan and the newly industrializing countries such as South Korea and Singapore seem to have retained considerable collectivism in spite of their industrialization. Historical factors, apart from economic ones, can also account for the extreme individualism of the United States. The United States after all was born out of revolution and pioneering. Individual ruggedness and self-sufficiency were required if pioneers, pushing the frontier while crossing a continent, taming nature, facing uncertainty, and overcoming adversity, were to succeed. Ingenuity, self-initiative, and taking responsibility are all tied to the history and are highly respected personal traits. The United States is a highly doing-oriented culture. In this culture, emphasis is placed on external, measurable accomplishments----achieving goals and completing tasks. Activity-or task-

focusedness defines value, both social and professional. In doing-oriented organizations, motivation is achievement-based, i.e. performance objectives are given, performance is measured against set standards, and rewards such as bonuses, recognition, promotions, etc., are given on the basis of goal achievement. The U.S. American, who comes from a highly doing-oriented culture, assumes that the primary focus of a business trip is business. Other than a bit of small talk before meetings or perhaps a lunch or dinner unconnected to business, he does not expect much in the way of social events. Therefore, the above-mentioned American executive is surprised that during his first visit to China, most of the time is spent not in doing business but on getting acquainted, for spending time in establishing a good rapport is central to a being-oriented cultures way of conducting business. People of an individualistic culture tend to be self-oriented, action-oriented, and presentoriented. They desire an outcome in a particular transaction that yields a result most pleasing to them and hence gives them sense of self-fulfillment without worrying about long-term links. For them, a contract represents the culmination of a series of negotiations, the result of an arrangement. A Westerner would not hesitate to sign a contract with his worst enemy, if it were sufficiently endowed in legal terms and offered him sufficient profit potential. In summary, the Americans negotiate a contract while the Chinese a relationship. For the Chinese, emotion and personal relations are more important than cold facts in business relations. Chinese do not separate personal feelings from business relationships.

3.2 Emphasis on Protocol


The emphasis of protocol refers to attitudes of negotiators towards etiquettes, protocol and ceremony and how they interact with their counterparts at the table. Chinese negotiators generally have a formal style of interaction. In China, honorifics, title, and status are extremely important. Chinese people expect leaders to behave like leaders and to be treated like

leaders. The Chinese address their counterparts by their proper title. They do not believe in using first names unless it is between the very best of personal relationship. For the Chinese, the use of a first name at a first meeting is an act of disrespect and therefore a bad thing. Chinese people expect to build relationship based on the acknowledgement of differences, on respect for status, and on deference to title. Americans, comparatively speaking, have a more informal style. Americans believe that an informal, casual style of communication demonstrates sincerity and credibility. They often feel uncomfortable in situations in which it is necessary to follow prescribed etiquette and decorum. Americans are notoriously casual about their use of first name, physical contact, dress, disregard for titles, use (or lack) of business cards, invitations, conduct at social events, etc. For an American, calling someone by his first name is an act of friendship and goodwill. The differences in the emphasis of protocol between Chinese and American negotiators can be illustrated by their own power-distance culture. Power distance refers to the acceptance of authority differences between people, the difference between those who hold power and those affected by power. Chinese society is one with high power distance, or in other words, a vertical society. In high power-distance cultures, a high value is placed on etiquette, protocol, and ritualistic exchanges. People in these environments tend to believe that theres a proper way to do things, and an improper way. Often, inferences concerning ones credibility, learnedness, and trustworthiness are made from the degree to which one knows and conforms to rules of etiquette, protocol, and customs. Such cultures tend to have a strong sense of history, culturedness, and tradition combined with a class or hierarchy consciousness. It is often the understanding of formal rules of conduct that set apart the upper and educated classes. Confucianism is one of the most important origins for the appearance of high-power culture. In order to provide a particular ruler with a basic theory of how to govern a troubled nation,

Confucianism maintains that only a distinct hierarchy, in which each lower level gives obedience to a higher level, can guarantee the steadiness of a country and ultimately safeguard the power of a particular ruler. Confucianism uses family hierarchy to support societal hierarchy. Confucius used the term li to represent a comprehensive range of social obligations, imposed by the highest order of courtesy and moral duty, which was tested against a range of discrete relationships. He subsequently identified five basic human relationship categories, which he called wu lun: Emperor -- Subject; Father -- Son; Husband -- Wife; Older brother --Younger brother and finally Friends or Friendship.14[16] A traditional Chinese principle maintains that if an emperor asks a subject to forfeit his life, then the subject must do so without question; and a son must sacrifice himself, if his father asks him to do so. American, on the contrary, is in the low power-distance culture. Low power-distance cultures tend to value the absence of strict prescriptions for communicative behaviors and to view etiquette and protocol as a barrier to communication and relationship building. The horizontal distribution of power contributes to people's informal behavior. Social convention is egalitarian, and differences between people, groups, classes, ranks or sexes are acknowledged but not emphasized. The absence of clear rules and guidelines for conduct is a key feature of informal environments. There is often a shared belief in getting rid of the red tape or being oneself, indications that an informal communication style is associated with a sense of interpersonal authenticity. The low power-distance in American culture has close connection with egalitarianism, which has its roots deep in the history of the United States. First and foremost, of course, it is inscribed in the Declaration of Independence. In this sense, egalitarianism began in America as a reflection of eighteenth-century European history: revolutions against aristocracy, the tearing down of the last forms of feudalism, the rising up of free and independent individuals in charge

of their own lives, in charge of their own fate, in control of their own government. But the great migrations of the next century, which ultimately populated the country, added a new dimension of meaning to the original, constitutionally enshrined notions of political equality. Now egalitarianism became a deeply embedded version of how individuals should behave in regard to each other.

3.3 Communication
Methods of communication vary among cultures. Chinese people rely heavily on indirect, more complex methods of communication, while Americans place emphasis on direct and simple methods. According to Salacuse, in a culture that values directness, one can expect to receive a clear and definite response to proposals and questions; in a culture that relies on indirect communication, on the other hand, reaction to proposals may be gained by interpreting seemly indefinite comments, gestures and other signs. Chinese culture is a high-context culture. In high-context cultures, information about an individual (and, consequently, about both individual and group behavior in that culture) is provided through words, gestures, body language, and the use of silence and personal space. It is also conveyed through status, friends, and associates. Information flows relatively freely within the culture, although outsiders who are not members of the culture may have difficulty reading the information because they are not plugged into the required informal networks and do not know the formal and informal language of the culture. A high-context communication is one in which most of the information is either in the physical context or internalized in the person, while little is in the explicitly transmitted part of the message. In high-context cultures, the external environment, situation, and nonverbal behavior are crucial in creating and interpreting communications. People depend heavily upon covert clues to interpret a message given under certain context. In Chinese language, subtlety is

valued and much meaning is conveyed by inference. One of the often-mentioned expressions of indirect communications is the reluctance of Chinese to say "no" directly. Indicators such as maybe, perhaps, rather, "inconvenient", "difficult" and "I'll consider it" can mean "impossible" in Chinese culture. Sometimes "yes" only means "maybe". American culture, by contrast, is a low-context culture. A low-context communication transmits information about behavior chiefly through words. In low-context cultures, the environment, situation, and nonverbal behavior are relatively less important and more explicit information has to be given. A direct style of communications is valued and ambiguity is not well regarded. Therefore, in low-context culture, things often need to be spelled out quite explicitly, and information is available only through particular lines of communication, although easily readable by cultural members and nonmembers alike. Americans trust words and trust that they can make their facts, feelings, and beliefs known if only they choose the right word. The United States is extremely explicit and verbal, and they believe that understanding can occur with the true, direct, and proper use of words. High-context cultures contain and rely on many elements of non-verbal behavior, while low-context cultures rely more on verbal communication. When people from a high-context culture are communicating with people from a low-context culture, misunderstanding at the negotiating table will likely occur, for the former are seeking information on many levels in addition to the spoken word, but for the latter, the spoken word is all they get. Examples of this kind are very common when negotiations take place between Chinese and American businesspersons. An American complained: "Honesty in China is not the same as in the West. The Chinese often tell white lies and when caught in doing so, they stick out their tongue at you.15[17] An

expatriate in a Sino-American joint venture commented about his Chinese subordinates: The Chinese are not trying to bend the rules, but they ignore those they do not like, or forget them. They say yes and ignore them.16[18] It is very likely that Chinese people have not really lied. It is just that they did not mean what they said. In other words, the foreigners mainly depended on the words Chinese people said and disregarded the context. As a result, they mistakenly interpreted the message conveyed. Due to their tendency to protect the face of each side and avoid open conflict, Chinese people hate to say "no" openly to the other party's face. Nevertheless, they will send the signal of "refusal" through various channels, but unfortunately, as their low-context partners are not "programmed" to decode this signal, misunderstanding will generally occur.

3.4 Sensitivity to Time


Discussions of negotiating styles invariably treat a particular culture's attitude toward time. Differences in values over the concept of time exist between Chinese and American negotiators. The Chinese people generally believe that a considerable amount of time should be invested in establishing a general climate of understanding, trust, and willingness to help, in matters quite apart from the specific business issues brought to the table. Producing a satisfactory agreement in as short a time as possible may be one of their least concerns. Therefore, the non-task sounding stage of negotiation often witnesses much time spending in establishing rapport and getting to know their partners. To Americans at the negotiating table, time is money, a commodity in limited supply. Americans might expect a meeting to begin and end at a certain time, with a series of important points discussed in between. American culture often makes reference to time when planning

activities, scheduling appointments, traveling from one point to another, meeting deadlines, and fulfilling commitments. American negotiators expect their counterparts to adhere to schedules and to arrive promptly for appointments and meetings. Delays or postponements cause them to express their irritation, both verbally and nonverbally, and they quickly take action to get things back on schedule. The sensitivity of both Chinese and American negotiators toward time originates from their quite distinct time orientation. Chinese culture displays a fluid time orientation. Cultures with a fluid time orientation tend to see the requirements of relationships and their associated activities as driving their use of time. According to this perspective, a responsible person and good professional takes care of the requirements of a situation or an important relationship without making time the main consideration. As a result of their fluid time orientation, Chinese people do not place much emphasis on getting tasks accomplished quickly and within a limited time frame. The Chinese do not mind going over the same point repeatedly, to the frustration of Americans. Time is simply not the pressing consideration for the Chinese as it is for so many Americans. In American culture, however, there is a strong fixed-time orientation. Fixed-time cultural environments see time as the driver of activities. According to this perspective, the chronological passing of time structures the sequence of activity. These cultures rely on the measurement and tracking of time and regard good time management and punctuality as a key ingredient of propriety and, in a business context, professional behavior. Edward T. Hall explains, People of the western world tend to think of time as something fixed in nature, something around us from which we cannot escape.1 Time is sliced into fixed increments, like seconds, minutes, and hours, and is scheduled and managed in great detail. Americans schedule; the clock runs for them; everything must be organized, compartmentalized, and have a beginning and an end. Their whole life often appears to be dominated by time and they are in a constant hurry to make use of it. Time is a commodity that must not be wasted; it must be maximized. Seen through foreign

eyes, Americans always seem to be in a hurry, suffering extreme pressure for results. With time running out on self-imposed and frequently arbitrary deadlines, Americans tend to give away more than planned in order to finish on time and move on to the next deal. The different time orientations between Chinese and American negotiators may be exactly illustrated in the following case. The sales manager of WCG, an American high-technology service company was in China to present a new process-control software to a Tanjin electronics company and convey come particulars of the "new product options" to his potential customer. Introductions were made. The talk began with the usual "How do you like Tianjin? questions. They also talked about the flight from the U. S. After about five minutes of this chatting, the American quite conspicuously looked at his watch, and then asked the Chinese manager of the Tanjin Company what he knew about the company's new service. "A little, answered the Chinese. The American quickly took out a brochure from his briefcase, opened it on the desk in front of the client, and began his sales pitch. Armed with charts and figures, the American tried to illustrate how the introduction of WCG 's process-control software would reduce the maintenance budget of the Chinese company. After several minutes of this introduction, the Chinese jumped back in, "Yes, that should make us more efficient and competitive... and competition is important here in China... in fact, have you been following the Women World Cup football matches recently? That one between the Chinese team and the American team was really a bitter battle...

So they talked for a few minutes on the World Cup, why football was not popular in the US, and how the Chinese team could be improved. Then the American tried to change the subject back to WCG 's software. The first signal was a long look at his watch, then the interruption, Maybe we can get back to the new software we have developed The Chinese did get back to the software for a few minutes, but then he went from the advantages of advanced process-control technology to the current state of Chinas electronics industry to the changes the open-door policy has brought about in China's economic life.17[20] The American in this case never got to the second page of his brochure. What he just did not understand is that the Chinese was not interested in talking business with someone he did not know pretty well. He did not realize how rude his American "let's-get-down-to-business attitude could appear to the Chinese. Different attitudes towards time are the root of misunderstanding between the American and Chinese negotiator. As we have just discussed, Americans at the negotiating table, regarding time as money, tend to get down to business. However, such approach in Chinese culture is considered brash or too aggressive, and Chinese people feel uncomfortable with the American urgency. In effect, they seldom embark on their business negotiations before their relationship building.

3.5 Emotionalism
The display and accentuation of emotions are key components of communication process. At the negotiating table, there exist distinct differences in the expression of emotions between Chinese and American negotiators. Chinese people hide their feelings at the negotiating table, while Americans show their emotions.

This tendency or lack thereof to display emotions at the negotiating table has a close connection with the indirect and direct cultures. Chinese live in indirect culture while Americans are in direct cultures. Indirect cultures value conflict avoidance in interpersonal communication and are careful not to bring contentious issues out into the open or to bring tensions into a relationship. Avoiding giving the impression of disrespect or causing embarrassment, avoiding shame (sometimes referred to as loss of face), and preserving honor and dignity can be prime drivers of communicative behavior by indirect communicators or within indirect cultural environments. Chinese people have a low self-concept and tend to be self-effacing. Assertive or aggressive behavior is interpreted as being rude and offensive. To show one's emotion, especially for men, is considered superficial and immature, resulting in losing face. Public expression of anger or other negative emotions is considered in bad taste and poor conduct. The Chinese tendency toward hiding their emotions is a result of the importance the Chinese people place on saving face. The Chinese concept of face represents an individuals entire being----body, soul, and spirit. Saving face is important not just for the individual concerned, but also for his family, tribe, or clan and the entire community to which he belongs. Chinese indirect orientation is therefore linked to the importance they place on preserving harmony and hierarchy. Arguments or overt expressions of frustration or anger are considered detrimental to the spirit of friendship that should surround any interpersonal interaction; these are considered major character flaws and not appropriate behavior. Direct cultures, on the contrary, value open handling and resolution of conflict and tension. They say things like Lets deal with this right now, Say what you mean, mean what you say, or Give it to me straight. Cultures that value direct communication also tend to view many forms of conflict, tension, and frank feedback as constructive and important. Within such cultural environments, the ability to speak ones mind in a straightforward way tends to be valued and regarded as a sign of honesty and trustworthiness. American negotiators favor a direct display of

their emotions. They feel that it is beneficial to express their thoughts and feelings directly and impersonally when sharing information, reaching agreements, or resolving conflicts, and they encourage frank dialogue to create consensus. The American preference for direct display of their emotion does not, of course, mean that personal attacks or disrespectful language or behavior is considered appropriate; feedback should be confined to professional matters. Americans view open discussion and resolution of conflict as signs of honesty and trust. They soon become suspicious of behavior or speech that seems hesitant or reticent, especially if they suspect that someone is trying to hide something (even though that person may simply have an indirect style of communication). Chinese indirect orientation can generate conflict and embarrassment when they meet with more direct negotiators. The following example may serve well as demonstrations of the differences between the two cultures in showing emotions. I know of an American manager who was admired back home for his blunt and forthright manner. Soon after his transfer to Hong Kong, he was involved in some price negotiations in China. He told a Chinese official in Guangzhou to his face that he was lying about the lower price of plastic from a competitive source. Two horrified Hong Kong Chinese employees who were present later told top management that one sentence had wiped out months of hard work.18[21] It should be noted here that when we say Chinese dislike displaying their emotions, this by no means suggests that they do not have intense emotions. It only means that it is not their way to show it publicly. Chinese people are as emotional as any other peoples. They value emotions but hide them.

3.6 Form of Agreement


Negotiations are entered into only for the purpose of reaching an agreement. Generally, Chinese negotiators prefer an implicit, broad, oral contract in the form of general principles, expressing mutual cooperation and trust between the concerned parties. The contract leaves room for the parties to deal with the problems and begins the formation of personal relationships. The implicit contract assumes that the importance of the relationship overrides substantive concerns. Implicit agreements depend heavily on relationship. Obligations are unlimited and immeasurable. American negotiators, on the other hand, prefer an explicit, detailed, written contract that attempt to anticipate all possible circumstance, no matter how unlikely. The explicit contract assumes that no relationship exists between the parties apart from the exchange (personal relationships are unnecessary and friendship may be a hindrance). Obligations are limited to those specific, detailed actions provided in the contract. Although circumstances may change, obligations do not, and each is bound to his explicit commitment. Chinese and American negotiators preference for the form of agreement is to a great extent linked with their way of thinking. Thinking as a cultural dimension concerns the cultures propensities for conceptualization. Two kinds of thinking patterns exist: systematic thinking and linear thinking. Chinese are systemic thinkers. When faced with a problem, systemic-oriented culture stresses an integrated approach, sometimes called holistic or synthetic. This integrated viewpoint focuses on the relationships and connections between parts. Chinese emphasize that specific issues are intricately interwoven with more complex ideas. They display a holistic way of thinking, preferring to understand how the overall picture fits together before getting into

specific details. As a result of their systematic tendency, it is important for them to see how a decision affects not only immediate issues but also those outside the matter at hand. Americans, on the other hand, are linear thinkers. Linear-oriented cultures tend to dissect a problem or an issue into small chunks that can be linked in chains of cause and effect. The emphasis tends to be on detail, precision, and pragmatic results. Peter Senge comments on the U.S. thinking pattern as follows: From a very early age, we are taught to break apart, we are taught to break apart problems, to fragment the world. This apparently makes complex tasks and subjects more manageable, but we pay a hidden, enormous price. We can no longer see the consequences of our actions; we lose our intrinsic sense of connection to a large whole.19[22] Their thinking patterns which they achieve from their early days and develop in their daily life are embedded in their mind, and thus these thinking will be naturally demonstrated at their negotiating tables when they embark on business deals. Chinese preference for an implicit, broad, oral contract is also attributed to their highcontext culture. Chinese are high-context communicators. Relationships between individuals in high-context cultures are relatively long lasting and individuals feel deep personal involvement with each other. These cultures place great importance on personal relationships. In the case of international business negotiations, since people generally are strangers to each other, trust needs to be formed before the negotiation starts. So Chinese people tend to spend much time at the non-task sounding stage, making informal contacts, discussing general topics. They test their partners through these activities. For them, only when convinced of the others integrity,

reliability, and sincerity, will a member of a high-context culture negotiate in earnest. The basis for trust is not the written contractual documents, but the relationship. The reason that Chinese people place so much importance on relationship and less security on written words as their basis of trust may be found partly in their attitude to litigation. Chinese people have a strong aversion to litigation, for it results in face losing and a threat to social harmony. Litigation, which is viewed as the pursuit of personal interests at the expense of others, runs counter to the Confucian spirit of self-criticism. According to the spirit, whenever one is unreasonably treated by another, it is advisable to handle the situation in a delicate way, for Chinese people prefer to minimize interpersonal conflict and observe social harmony. When confronted with the settlement of disputes, mediation (through informal means such as village elders, clan chiefs, community leaders or other trusted relations) and conciliation are the preferred methods. A lawsuit, which implies that one does not command sufficient respect from the other to arrive at mutual concessions, is the last resort for the Chinese. Due to their strong aversion to litigation, the Chinese negotiators dont feel much secure with written agreements, while relationship is much more reliable for them. Their goal for negotiation is to create the bonding of friendship. A written agreement is perceived as an expression of the relationship and signing of the contract as only opening the relationship. The agreement should primarily contain comments on the principles, enabling both the parties to respond to any changes that may occur in the future. Americans, however, are low-context communicators. In low-context cultures, documentation and a narrow interpretation of the written words are invested with great value. Specificity and accuracy in word usage are highly valued, and comprehensiveness in verbal and written communication is a hallmark of education, status, and professionalism. In low-context business cultures, trust and compatibility are assessed on the basis of documentation and abstract and explicit criteria. Americans greatly prefer explicit, detailed communication to ambiguous or brief messages. For them, trust is deprived of its personal aspects. The parties can trust each

other in business even if they do not trust each other as people. Instead of a prerequisite for negotiation, trust is seen to be constructed by the negotiation process. It is taken to the highest point when the parties sign a written agreement. The basis of the trust is placed on the contract itself, which will be protected by law if infringed. Under the terms of the developed contract, there can be no variation unless so indicated and agreed within the contract. Although circumstances may change, obligations should not. The contract is all that they will refer to should any new situations arise in the future. If any disagreement occurs later, their first resort will be "to go to the court." Hundreds of thousands of lawyers help people negotiate written agreements and litigate within the framework of these written agreements. Generally, the Chinese view this use of legal documents as evidence of mistrust. If the partners have mutual trust, then it is unnecessary to cover all contingencies through formal legal contracts. Sometimes the effect of using lawyers can be very negative when dealing with the Chinese. The executive of a Chinese township enterprise, after entertaining his American guest, offered him join partnership in a business venture. The American businessman is very keen to enter into an agreement with the Chinese. He then suggested that they meet again the next day with their respective lawyers to fill in the details. The Chinese executive's tone suddenly became hesitant. Later that day the American was informed that the Chinese side needs more consideration on their cooperation.20[23] In this case, the perceived meaning of inviting lawyers was different for the American and the Chinese. The American saw the lawyer's presence as facilitating the successful completion of the negotiation, while the Chinese interpreted it as signal of mistrust of his commitment. The harmony of the relationship was ruined.

3.7 Decision-making
This factor refers to the culturally specific ways different groups organize themselves and how decisions are made within the group. For the Chinese negotiators, authority rests with the group and decision-making occurs through consensus. In this case, the negotiating team is comparatively larger due to the greater number of personnel involved in the decision-making process. For the American negotiators, the negotiating team with a supreme leader has complete authority to decide all matters. The negotiating team now tends to be small. Culture is one important factor that affects the way groups are organized and the way organizations function. For the Chinese, a consensus-based process is necessary. In Chinese culture that places more emphasis on hierarchy, which has already been discussed, individuals are expected to follow the order of their superiors and the superiors are expected to make decisions in the interests of their followers. Communication patterns by individuals other than the central figure are less decisive, less action-oriented, less risk-taking and more other-oriented. As Worm (1997) commented, The tendency toward group identification is apparent in the decision-making process. No single Chinese is willing to take the responsibility for a given decision. Historically, status and responsibility have been separated. In many cases, the individual with high status and great influence on decision making was not the one held responsible for the decisions. High status implied that one had subordinates to blame, which is still widely the case in China. So decision-making is collective formally, but in reality authoritarian, which is explicable in terms of the collective responsibility for decisions made by the individual person. When the negotiations occur, a visible leader or "boss" is usually among the Chinese team members. This, however, does not mean that he had final say on all decisions. He may need to seek higher authority or final approval from someone else not party to the negotiations. In China, because usually quite a number of interested parties, many external to the company, are involved

in the negotiation, a consensus-based process is extremely important. This also partly explains why the pace of negotiation with the Chinese tends to be slow. Due to lack of understanding of the decision-making process of their Chinese partners, many Americans, however, are often annoyed by the pace of negotiation. They doubt that the Chinese play the restricted authority tactic to gain negotiation advantages, for example, gaining more time for reaction or pressing for more concessions by protracting the negotiation process. In America where individualistic culture dominates, however, the role of the individual is emphasized and the sense of personal freedom is very strong. Individuals are not necessarily constrained to a particular social unit by birth (except the family). As a result, individuals strive to achieve personal goals, seek personal autonomy and often prefer to act as individuals rather than a member of a group. In an age that facilitates competitiveness and commands efficiency, individuals are being empowered as decision-makers for their departments, divisions and companies. The negotiating team therefore tends to be small and generally a certain individual is fully authorized for decision making.

3.8 Willingness to Take Risks


This factor focuses on peoples attitudes towards risk. Cultures can be highly risk-avoidant: slow to make decisions, apparently always in need of more information, dependent on rules and regulations, heavily bureaucratic and hierarchical. On the opposite side, cultures can be very low risk-avoidant: entrepreneurial, making quick decisions based on little information, tending to disregard or find ways to work through or around hierarchy and bureaucracy. The Chinese, with their emphasis on requiring enormous amounts of information and on their intricate group decision-making process, tend to be risk avoiders. Americans, by comparison, are risk takers.

This factor is closely allied to structure dimension. The cultural dimension of structure refers to the degree to which one feels uncomfortable in risky and ambiguous (uncertain, unpredictable) situations. It favors conformity and safe behavior, and tolerates deviant ideas. Chinese people live in high uncertainty-avoidance cultures. In the culture, people tend to avoid uncertain situations. They generally prefer their roles and responsibilities to be delineated in a straightforward manner. And they like the parameters of their superiors expectations to be clearly defined. Also high risk-avoidance cultures tend to have many formal bureaucratic rules, rely on rituals, standards, and formulas, and trust only family and friends. Chinese high risk-avoidance culture is greatly related to the Confucianism, which maintains that the entire complex of moral convention is the cement of society. Convention can be differentiated into five major areas of importance: hierarchy, collectivism, face protection, respect for tradition or age, egalitarianism. Among them respect for the past exerts an important influence on the establishment of Chinese high risk-avoidance culture. Chinese people have a strong orientation towards the past. In traditional China, first-order preference is given to both the study of history and ancestor veneration. This means that the ideas of elders and predecessors are thought of as practically imperial edicts. The young generation must follow regulations established by the aged, more often than not identified as the older generation. In the veneration of elders, both the strength and weakness of the Chinese social system is revealed. In this culture, authority is synonymous with tradition, and tradition then dictates automatic deference to hierarchy a form of circular logic. In traditional China this reluctance to change was practically a religious value. This belief that making any changes is a challenge to respect for tradition and authority has refrained Chinese negotiators from taking risks. As a result of low risk-avoiders, Americans, however, are generally more comfortable with ambiguous uncertain situations and are more accepting of risk. They require much less

information, have fewer people involved in the decision making, and can act quickly. And they dislike hierarchy and typically find it inefficient and destructive. American low risk-avoidance culture originates from its individualistic orientation. In individualistic cultures, value is placed on individual decisions rather than on those arrived at by a committee or other group. Individuals are expected to make their views known when plans are being developed and implemented, and impersonal standards of performance measurement will usually be used to view to distinguish among individuals. In individualistic organizations, task assignments, resource allocation, performance appraisals, and rewards are focused on the individual. American culture stresses self-realization and self-creativity. Independence and nonconformity are greatly valued. In such an egocentric environment, competition among individuals is fierce and the ends justify the means. The individual learns early in his life to get ahead. One must take charge of one's own life and destiny. The goal of an individual is to find true self-creativity in the enhancement of material welfare. The purpose of human association is to increase one's material comfort in a utilitarian fashion. In such a social environment, individuals are likely to take risks for self-fulfillment. For our further understanding of risk-taking propensity, more attention should be paid to the environment dimension. The environment dimension recognizes a field of force among three distinct orientations, that is, harmony orientation, control orientation, and constraint orientation, each giving us a way in which to view and relate to the people, objects, and issues in our sphere of influence. Harmony orientation and control orientation will be dealt with next. In a harmony-oriented culture like China, saying like Dont make waves, Go with the flow, We will need to adjust are often heard. In this view, people are an integral part (as opposed to masters) of nature and the social environment. Balance, harmony, order, and the establishment of relationships are all values that are of deep significance in China. The high value that Chinese place on the preservation of harmony dictates that they avoid confrontation. Where differences do occur, they try to find a mutually acceptable way to handle them.

Traditional Chinese cultures packed with such embedded belief systems as the Confucian, Taoist, and Buddhist religions stress harmonious relations with the world, the belief systems has been playing a dominant role in the long history of China, thus exerting a widespread and significant impact on Chinese people. As the Tao Te Ching, written in China in the sixth century B.C., says: Attain the highest openness, Maintain the deepest harmony. Become a part of all things, In this way I perceive the cycles.21[24] In a control-oriented culture like America, the environment is viewed as something to be controlled and shaped in accordance with human needs and concerns. There is a driving belief that goals and desired transformations can be achieved if only the right tools are applied. The future can be planned for, and organizational structures and systems can be put in place and controlled in order to achieve objectives. Problems are seen as a challenge and as an opportunity to try something new. In the U.S.-American mindset, there is no problem without a solution. As a matter of fact, American control-oriented culture is somewhat concerned with their education. American children are taught at a very early age to be self-reliant. It is expected that they achieve on their own. For instance, when grouped around a table and provided with paper, paints, and brushes and then asked to make a painting, American nursery school children usually will each individually produce a painting and will keep a keen eye on the work of their colleagues at the table as they produce theirs. Often being the first one to produce a painting

turns out to be a source of great pride. As these schoolchildren grow up, many will enter business. Someday they might actually sit opposite each other at the negotiating table. And when they do, the Americans will each ask his or her own questions, will not be uncomfortable about displaying differences openly, and will each make individual decisions at the table. To some extent, it is the early education they accept that has cultivated their risk-taking propensity.

Chapter IV Conclusion and Recommendations for Chinese Negotiators

The issues addressed in this thesis attempt to elicit culturally specific characteristics concerned with international business negotiations. Culture can influence negotiating styles in numerous ways and it is impossible to be exhaustive here. We, therefore, focus on the eight factors that are generally agreed among scholars and are very representative. By means of our comparative study, we come to the conclusion that there are great differences between Chinese negotiating style and American negotiating style, and that culture can influence the way in which people perceive and approach certain key elements in the negotiation process. A good knowledge of these differences in the two cultures may help negotiators to better understand and interpret their counterpart's negotiating behavior and to find ways to bridge gaps created by these differences. It should be recognized, however, that the characteristics relating to international business negotiations discussed are generalizations and may not be applicable to all members of these communities. Within any given culture, there are likely to be people at every point on each dimension. So it needs to be clarified that it is the tendencies within cultures that are being referred to when culturally specific issues are raised, not behavior universally applicable within that culture.

4.1 Potential Problems in Intercultural Business Negotiations

When dealing with people from other cultures, we more often are inclined to lose our tempers --- we assume all other cultures share our own value system; and our value systems are buried in our subconscious. In effect, international business negotiators are separated from each other not only by physical features, a totally different language and business etiquettes, but also by a different way to perceive the world, to define business goals, to express thinking and feeling, to show or hide motivation and interests. As a result of these differences, every intercultural business encounter contains the elements for both success and failure. For our Chinese negotiators to navigate the minefields in Sino-American business negotiations, several problems that seem to afflict many intercultural business encounters are provided in the following paragraphs.

4.1.1 Stereotypes We tend to have stereotypes of people from other cultures. Stereotyping is a complex form of categorization that mentally organizes our experiences and guides our behaviour toward a particular group of people. Stereotyping is found in nearly every intercultural situation. We tend to have strong ideas or carry pictures about other people without either having met them or known them personally. Consequently, these pictures tend to be very inaccurate. For instance, many Chinese perceive that most American people are aggressive and individualistic; and that most British people are so rigid and disciplines in their ways that minor changes or deviations from the norm must throw us into confusion. Snapshot impressions such as these are formed from many sources: what our parents and family have taught us, what our teachers and classmates have told us, what TV, newspapers, and magazines have said, together with personal encounters, ethnic jokes, and so forth. Such mental pictures are formed quickly (almost instantaneously), with very little thought or objective analysis involved. This, then, is why they are dangerous; but these unexamined impressions are what business negotiators largely rely upon when they judge foreign negotiators and make decisions concerning their mutual welfare.

There are a number of reasons why stereotypes hamper intercultural communication. For one thing, stereotypes fail to specify individual characteristics. They assume that all members of a group have exactly the same traits. As Atkinson, Morten and sue note, They are rigid preconceptions which are applied to all members of a group of a group or to an individual over a period of time, regardless of individual variations.22[25] For another thing, stereotypes also keep us from being successful as communicators because they are oversimplified, overgeneralized, and/or exaggerated. They are based on half-truths, distortions, and often untrue premises. Therefore, they create inaccurate pictures of the people with whom we are interacting. Finally, stereotypes tend to impede intercultural communication in that they repeat and reinforce beliefs until they often become taken for truth. The stereotype of women as homemakers often keeps women from advancing in the workplace.

4.1.2 Ethnocentrism We tend to think that our culture is the best in the world. The technical term for such cultural narcissism is ethnocentrism, or the belief that ones own culture is superior to all others. Ethnocentrism is the evaluation of another culture according to the norms, standards, practices, and expectations of our own culture. Negative ethnocentrism is the belief in the inherent superiority and naturalness of ones own culture and the inferiority of another. The negative impact of ethnocentrism on intercultural communication is clearly highlighted by Steward and Bennet: First, ethnocentric beliefs about ones own culture shape a social sense of identity which is narrow and defensive. Second, ethnocentrism normally involves the perception of members of

other cultures in terms of stereotypes. Third, the dynamic of ethnocentrism is such that comparative under the assumption that ones own is normal and natural. As a consequence, ethnocentric judgements usually involve invidious comparisons that ennoble ones culture while degrading those of others.23[26]

4.1.3 Prejudice We tend to attribute causes to the way other people behave. We cant let actions go unexplained. Whenever someone does something, we want to make judgements about that persons motivations, without knowing all the facts of the situation. In intercultural interactions we may tend to assign bad motives to strangers, instead of taking the objective circumstances into consideration before making our judgements. Studies have shown that when it comes to strangers, or people whom we consider to be members of the out-group--i.e. strangers, foreigners and enemies, very often we assign bad motives or undesirable qualities. On the other hand, when were looking at our own behaviour, or the behaviour of members of our in-group--i.e. our family, friends and fellow countrymen, we will more readily take objective situational factors into consideration. It is hard indeed to get rid of these kinds of cultural prejudice. Negotiators will need to deal with this whenever different people get together. So the better choice for us to overcome these cultural limits requires broadening our perspective on different cultures and changing whatever prejudiced cultural assumptions we may have. The following are some recommendations for Chinese negotiators:

4.2 Recommendations for Chinese Negotiators


4.2.1 Cultivating Cultural Awareness and Sensitivity A prominent Chinese tactician maintains that, know yourself and your enemies, and you may win one hundred victories in one hundred battles. With an aim to accomplishing the success in their business, Chinese negotiators need, first of all, to have a reflection upon their own cultural system. They need to be aware of their own values, beliefs and social norms and how these influence their way of thinking and their behavior, trying to avoid the impact of stereotypes and ethnocentrism. Chinese negotiators, in the meantime, should be culture sensitive and try to learn as much as possible about the other sides culture. Although suffering discomfort or emotional stress, Chinese negotiators should try to understand what their counterparts are and how their behaviour may impact their counterparts. They should always bear in mind that their foreign counterparts are different from themselves, not only in physical features, motivations, but also in beliefs and values. Once differences are understood, negotiators should seek ways of accommodating them. However, there is no need trying to fully adapt themselves to the other side's culture and casting judgment on the other partys cultural system should be avoided. For a wise negotiator, one way to bridge cultural differences is to demonstrate interest in, knowledge of, respect for, and appreciation of the other side's culture. Failure to do so can easily be interpreted as an act of cultural superiority and arrogance, a statement that the other sides culture is not significant or important. Business etiquette and taboos are not mentioned in this thesis, as they belong to the superficial part of a cultural system, i.e., the part that can be learned by outsiders, easily or with minor efforts. However, this by no means implies that they are not important. Many business blunders result from ignorance of the social norms and taboos of other cultures. Today, just like Americans no longer present a clock to Chinese, have Japanese Sushi cooked, or show their soles to an Arabian, Chinese people know that Americans do not like to be asked about their income or to be arranged to live in a room with number 13. But there still leaves much to learn and prepare.

4.2.2 Making sufficient preparations The path to success in negotiations is prepare, prepare, and prepare. Preparation is difficult enough in domestic negotiations, but when the many multifaceted cross-cultural aspects are added the problems and time necessary for adequate planning rise exponentially. Planning means coming prepared technically as well as culturally. Many foreigners come to the negotiating table well prepared technically and operationally and expect you to be likewise. Poor preparations, in addition to being a major obstacle to the success in achieving an agreement, can also have adverse cultural considerations---in American culture asking a woman her marriage or age may lead to an embarrassment. Any sloppiness in the preparation of their opponent will be used against them. Therefore, Chinese negotiators need to get well prepared both technically and culturally. Before their entering negotiations, it is appropriate and demanding for Chinese negotiators to spend time learning about the customs and culture of their negotiation partners. Knowing about information about their team composition, their personal background, their decision-making process, their expectations and constraints, their competitors, etc. will greatly facilitate the atmosphere, smooth the negotiation process and enhance bargaining power.

4.2.3 Having a Good Command of the Target Language Messages are carried out through the language. In cross-cultural negotiations, it is of much advantage to know the language of the other side. A good knowledge of the local language can help Chinese negotiators in four ways. First, it permits a clearer understanding of the situation. With a direct knowledge of the language, a businessperson does not have to rely on someone else to interpret or explain. Second, language provides direct access to local people who are

frequently more open in their communication when dealing with someone who speaks their language. Third, an understanding of the language allows the person to pick up nuances, implied meanings, and other information that is not being stated outright. Finally, language helps the person to understand the culture better. It can therefore come to the conclusion that having a good commander of the target language will be greatly beneficial to the successful business negotiations. However, not everyone who enters into the cross-cultural business has a good command of the language of his or her counterparts. One of the most common ways of dealing with language barriers is through the use of interpreters. Nowadays there is a tendency for an organization to employ local employees who are bilingual professionals, and this tends to be more and more popular for those international companies. For the Chinese negotiators, using the opponents interpreter may be unwise. It is clearly a much better strategy to employ our own bicultural advisor and interpreter, for he can alert us on the peculiarities of the foreign culture before we commit embarrassing mistakes on a seemingly innocent matter. And also he can provide some useful suggestions for accomplishing the successful negotiations.

4.2.4 Laying Great Emphasis on Non-verbal Communications It is studied that about sixty to seventy percent of the meaning in social interactions is derived from nonverbal cues. In business negotiations, what is not said is in many cases more important that what is openly expressed by the parties involved. Emotional messages at the negotiating table are expressed nonverbally by gestures, tone of voice, or facial expressions. The other sides interpretation of your statement depends on the nonverbal more than what was actually said. Nonverbal communication is significant. What cannot be conveyed through words

is sent through gestures and body movements. When negotiating parties do not speak the same language and share the same value system, non-verbal communication becomes more important. Effective negotiators are particularly good at controlling their body language and at the same time adjusting to the many nonverbal signals they will receive from the opposite negotiators. Chinese negotiators should be aware of the significance of non-verbal communications and be careful about their own body language and the meaning attached to the other party's gestures, tone of voice, silences and facial expressions. Visual aids like photographs, diagrams, drawings, catalogs, books and samples of products often worth more than words in a cross-cultural context. Try to use them to facilitate communication. The increasing incidence of the global economic cooperation between business entities from China and America greatly need to identify strategies that can maximize the probability of positive outcomes in a negotiation situation. The findings in the thesis have highlighted the significant role that different value systems can play in influencing the negotiation party's perception of what are the important issues in a negotiation, how decisions are usually made and negotiations proceed. As would be expected with most exploratory studies, the results outlined are only indicative of what appears to be the case; they should not be interpreted as a definitive description of reality or a prescription on how to carry out international business negotiations. The knowledge of cultural differences is a necessary but not sufficient condition for success. In other words, while the ability to bridge cultural differences is not predominantly important in explaining for the success of business negotiations, its absence is perceived as a major contributing factor for failure.

Bibliography: Bai, y. (2002) International Business Negotiation. Peoples University Press. Beamer, L and Varner, I (1999) Intercultural Communication in the Global Workplace (2nd ed.) McGraw-Hill. Brake, D and Walker, D. (1995) Doing Business Internationally: the Workbook to Cross-cultural Success. Princeton Training Press. Cao, L. (ed.) (2001) Business English for Negotiation. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. Foster, D.A. (1992) Bargaining Across Borders: How to Negotiate Business Successfully Anywhere in the World. McGraw-Hill. Griffin, T. J. and Daggatt, W. R. (1990) The Global Negotiator. HarperBusiness. Hendon, Donald, Hendon, R.A., and Herbig, P. (1996). Cross-Cultural Business Negotiations. Westpost, CT: Quorum. Hendon, D. W. (1989) How to Negotiate Worldwide. Grower. Hill, Charles W. L. (1994) International Business: Competing in the Global Marketplace. Richard D. Irwin. Hofstede, G. (1980) Cultures Consequences, Sage Publications, London. Hofstede, G. (1991) Cultures and Organizations: Software of Mind. McGraw-Hill.

Jiang, C. (ed.) (2000) English in Economics and Business. Capital University of Economics and Trade Press. Lafayette, B. (1993) How to Do Business with the Japanese. NTC Publishing Group. Lesikar, R.V., et al. (1999) Lesikars Basic Business Communication (8th ed.) Von Hoffmann Press. Locker, K.D. and Kaczmarck, S.K. (2001) Business Communication: Building Critical Skills. Von Hoffmann Press. Pye, Lucian W (1992). Chinese Negotiating Style-Commercial Approaches and Cultural Principles, New York: Quorum Books. Salacuse, J. W. (1991) Making Global Deals: What Every Executive Should Know About Negotiating Abroad. Random House. Samovar, L.A., et al. (2000) Communication Between Cultures. (3rd ed.) Thomas Learning Asian. Smith, A. (1986). Chinese Characteristics. Singapore: Graham Brash Ltd. Tayeb, M.H. (1992) the Global Business Environment: Introduction. Sage Publications. Tung, R.L. (1984) Business Negotiation with the Japanese. Heath and Company. Walker, D.E. and walker, T. (2000) Doing Business Internationally: the Guide to Cross-cultural Success. (2nd ed.) McGraw-Hill. Wang, Z.Y. (2001) International Business Culture. Liaoning Education Press.

Wang, y., Zhang, X.S. and Goodfellow, R. (1998) Business Culture in China. ButterworthHeinemann. Weiss, S.E. (1985) Negotiations with Foreign Businesspersons: An introduction for Americans with Propositions for Six Cultures. New York University. Wu, W.Z. (1999) General Overview on International Communication. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. Wu, W.Z. (1990) Selected Readings in International Communication. Hunan Education Press. Xu, X.G. (2001) Business Communications. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. 2002

You might also like