Word List

cross cultural	межкультурный
inconsequential	неважный, незначительный, не имеющий
	отношение к делу
sincerity	искренность, откровенность
insult	оскорбление, обида
connotation	скрытый смысл, подтекст; то, что
	подразумевается
to rely on	полагаться

fall-back	отступление
fuzziness	размытость, нечеткость
closure	завершение, закрытие, прекращение; итог
open-endedness	незавершенность
to endure	длиться, продолжаться, тянуться
intact	нетронутый, неповрежденный, целый
kinship	родство
lineage [’liniiG]	клан, род
to defer	подчиняться, уступать, считаться с мнением
to invoke	вызывать духов; заклинать, просить
to bewitch	заколдовывать, околдовывать
to curse	причинять страдания, изводить, мучить
resentment	чувство обиды, негодование, возмущение
entangled	запутанный, сложный, переплетенный
literal	дословный, буквальный
rupture	разрыв
holistic	холицистический, глобальный, единый
credential	мандат, рекомендация; диплом об образовании

Test 5

Cross cultural negotiations

Cross cultural negotiation is one of many specialized areas within the wider field of cross cultural communications. There is an argu- ment that proposes that culture is inconsequential to cross cultural ne- gotiation. It maintains that as long as a proposal is financially attrac- tive it will succeed. However, this is a nanve way of approaching inter- national business.

Cross cultural negotiation is about more than just how foreigners close deals. It involves looking at all factors that can influence the pro- ceedings.

Eye Contact: In the US, UK and much of northern Europe, strong, direct eye contact conveys confidence and sincerity. In South America it is a sign of trustworthiness. However, in some cultures such as the Japanese, prolonged eye contact is considered rude and is gen- erally avoided.

Personal Space & Touch: In Europe and North America, business people will usually leave a certain amount of distance between them- selves when interacting. Touching only takes place between friends. In South America or the Middle East, business people are tactile and like to get up close. In Japan or China, it is not uncommon for peo- ple to leave a gap of four feet when conversing. Touching only takes place between close friends and family members.

Time: Western societies are very ‘clock conscious’. Time is money and punctuality is crucial. This is also the case in countries such as Japan or China where being late would be taken as an insult. Howev- er, in South America, southern Europe and the Middle East, being on time for a meeting does not carry the same sense of urgency.

Meeting & Greeting: most international business people meet with a handshake. In some countries this is not appropriate between genders. Some may view a weak handshake as sign of weakness whereas others would perceive a firm handshake as aggressive.

Gift-Giving: In Japan and China gift-giving is an integral part of business protocol; however, in the US or UK it has negative conno- tations.

Doing or saying the wrong thing at the wrong time, poor com- munication and cross cultural misunderstandings can all have harmful consequences.

There are three interconnected aspects that need to be considered before entering into cross cultural negotiation.

The Basis of the Relationship: in much of Europe and North America, business is contractual in nature . Personal relationships are seen as unhealthy as they can cloud objectivity and lead to complica- tions. In South America and much of Asia, business is personal. Part- nerships will only be made with those they know, trust and feel com- fortable with . It is therefore necessary to invest in relationship build- ing before conducting business.

Information at Negotiations: Western business culture places em- phasis on clearly presented and rationally argued business proposals using statistics and facts. Other business cultures rely on similar in- formation but with differences. For example, visual and oral commu- nicators such as the South Americans may prefer information pre- sented through speech or using maps, graphs and charts.

Negotiation Styles: the way in which we approach negotiation differs across cultures.

U.S. negotiators tend to rely on individualist values, imagining self and other as autonomous, independent, and self-reliant. This does not mean that they don’t consult, but the tendency to see self as sep- arate rather than as a member of a web or network means that more independent initiative may be taken. Looking through the eyes of the Japanese negotiator who wrote “Negotiating with Americans,” Amer- ican negotiators tend to:

• be competitive in their approach to negotiations, including coming to the table with a fall-back position but beginning with an unrealistic offer;

• be energetic, confident, and persistent; they enjoy arguing their positions, and see things universally — i.e., they like to talk about broad applications of ideas;

• concentrate on one problem at a time;

• focus on areas of disagreement, not areas of commonality or agreement;

• like closure and certainty rather than open-endedness or fuz- ziness.

Many African nations have indigenous systems of conflict resolu- tion that have endured into the present, sometimes quite intact and sometimes fragmented by rapid social change. These systems rely on particular approaches to negotiation that respect kinship ties and elder roles, and the structures of local society generally. In Nigeria, for example, people are organized in extended families, village, line- age, and lineage groups. A belief in the continuing ability of ancestors to affect people’s lives maintains social control, and makes the need to have formal laws or regulations minimal. Negotiation happens within social networks, following prescribed roles. Women in conflict with husbands, for example, are to defer and apologize, preparing a ritual meal to symbolize the restoration of harmony.

To ensure that progress or an agreement in a negotiation is pre- served, parties must promise not to invoke the power of ancestors to bewitch or curse the other in the future. The aim of any process, for- mal or informal, is to affect a positive outcome without a “residue of bitterness or resentment.” Elders have substantial power, and when they intervene in a conflict or a negotiation, their words are respected.

In other African contexts, a range of indigenous processes exist in which relationships and hierarchies tend to be emphasized.

There is a great deal written about Japanese approaches to negoti- ation, and collisions between American and Japanese approaches are legendary. The following values tend to influence Japanese communi- cation: focus on group goals, interdependence, and a hierarchical ori- entation. In negotiations, these values manifest themselves in aware- ness of group needs and goals, and deference to those of higher sta- tus. Japanese negotiators are known for their politeness, their emphasis on establishing relationships, and their indirect use of pow- er. Japanese concern with face and face-saving is one reason that po- liteness is so important and confrontation is avoided. They tend to use found to disclose considerably less about themselves and their goals than French or American counterparts.

Japanese negotiators tend to put less emphasis on the literal mean- ings of words used in negotiation and more emphasis on the relation- ships established before negotiating begins . They are also less likely than their U.S. counterparts to make procedural suggestions.

European styles of negotiation vary according to region, nation- ality, language spoken, and many other contextual factors. One study found the French to be very aggressive negotiators, using threats, warnings, and interruptions to achieve their goals. German and British negotiators were rated as moderately aggressive in the same study.

Role expectations influence negotiation in Latin American con- texts. Responsibility to others is generally considered more important than schedules and task accomplishment. Their negotiation approach relates to the polychronic orientation to time and patterns of high- context communication and communitarianism, described earlier. Lederach reports that a common term for conflict in Central America is enredo, meaning “entangled” or “caught in a net.” He explains that enredo signifies the way conflict is part of an intimate net of relations in Guatemala and elsewhere in Central America. Thus, negotiation is done within networks, relationships are emphasized, and open rup- tures are avoided.

In Central America, people think about and respond to conflict holistically. Lederach contrasts his natural (American) inclination to “make a list, to break [a] story down into parts such as issues and con- cerns” with his Central American experience, where people tended to respond to requests for naming issues to be negotiated with “yet an- other story.” They preferred a storied, holistic approach to conflict and negotiation, rather than a linear, analytical one. When Central Americans needed help with negotiations, they tended to look to in- sider partials rather than outsider neutrals, preferring the trust and confidence of established relationships and cultural insight to other credentials or expertise. They referred to the concept of confianza to explain this preference. Confianza means “trustworthiness,” that “they know us” and “we know them” and they will “keep our confidences,” power in muted, indirect ways consistent with their preference for harmony and calm.

Even as different approaches to negotiation across national cul- tures are identified, change is constant. International business culture tends to privilege Western approaches to negotiation, centered in problem-solving and linear communication, as do many settings. As Western norms are balanced with Eastern and Southern values, and local traditions are balanced with regional

EXERCISES