hand. This type of negotiator is even less likely to apply emotional negotiation methods than business negotiators. The negotiation focus of legalistic negotiators is rather on finalising details and fixating specific legal facts. In essence, this differentiation can be compared to distinguishing dealmakers (completion-oriented negotiators) from real makers (oriented towards a perfectly constructed contract), the mere difference being that the latter differentiation relates more to a personal mentality than being common to a certain group of people.

In rare cases, one can also observe a so-called “moralistic negotiator”. Their behaviour is led by idealism and they often appeal to ideals and emotions whilst being generally sceptical of the opposing side’s moral integrity. This type of negotiator is rarely found in unmitigated B2B-negotiations. This is true despite the fact that even ethical principles in the US are usually conveyed more openly and intensively than for instance in Western Europe. In the US, it is more common than in Europe that companies are based on an organisation with an idealistic purpose.

Even though lawyers in the US are directly involved in a high number of negotiations, there are also negotiations from which lawyers are deliberately excluded. In this context, the primary aim of responsible managers is to achieve an agreement in essential economic points. The second step is to task the responsible lawyer with drafting a signable contract based on these interim results. This basic agreement (deal) is usually sealed with a handshake and often also fixated in writing. This is often done by means of so-called term sheets, where bullet points, i.e. not fully formulated clauses, summarise the current status of the negotiation. Another option is to issue a letter of intent (LOI), which is generally assigned a higher morally binding effect (even though it does not comprise a legally binding effect). Based on the basic agreement, it is generally assumed that the lawyers complete their stipulated tasks swiftly and without the occurrence of any great conflicts.

Insofar, the lawyers involved on both sides are under a great deal of pressure from their principals to achieve an agreement. In classic negotiation structure under the direct involvement of lawyers, differences in the demand clauses are often more conflictual.

4.3.5  Basic Characteristics and Approaches

From the beginning of the twentieth century onwards, the US have been the global economic super power No. 1. In fact, following the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the according union of states in Eastern Europe, the US have been the only political, economic and military super power until the rise of the PRC. This has an enormous influence on the confidence of companies and the agents acting for them and is reflected by the use of the phrase “God’s own country” when referring to the USA.

Since worldwide English is the prioritised negotiation language No. 1, the confidence of US-American negotiators is superior to that of non-native speakers. The opposing party will generally include experienced international negotiators who are

abrupt termination of the negotiation could be imminent due to the lack of respect shown. The actual power of a US negotiator and his/her social behaviour are thus determined by the specific situation and less by formal rank.

The implication for competitive negotiations is that a negotiator would do well to acquire a reputation as being a tough negotiator before entering into negotiations with a US-American company. US-American negotiators are often fully authorised to conclude the agreement, hence, their actions depend less on approval than is the case for other negotiation cultures.

The guiding principle for US-American negotiators is to hold short, intensive negotiations. Missing the chance to conclude a contract is perceived to be much more drastic than agreeing on an imperfect contract. This means that so-called “cold calling” is by no means uncommon. Insofar as no specific approval was regulated beforehand, US-American negotiators usually feel authorised to conclude the contract without any further consultation with their head office (hence they have “full authority”). In comparison with other negotiation styles, this means that the American negotiation style saves time. Similarly, → small talk (see further under point 4.3.8.) is usually also limited time-wise because the focus of US negotiations is most definitely on the actual negotiation object. With this in mind, negotiations typically consist of a linear sequence of phases (pre-negotiations, opening, main part—the individual points, which again follow a linear structure—and the completion of negotiations with the end result). The Germans and the Swiss lead the field in linear negotiations, closely followed by US Americans. Timetables are often incorporated into negotiations due to their highly binding effect on negotiation procedure.

Accordingly, there is often a substantive → agenda, which, as such, is less strict than those used e.g. by German negotiators. Issues are generally negotiated in sequence, i.e. one after the other, if there are no good reasons to do otherwise. In complex negotiations the parties often desire so-called package deals (→ ostensible connexity) which propose solutions linked to non-contentually related issues. The time factor is also important to US-negotiators due to their acute awareness of the dynamics of the negotiation situation and negotiation power (→ BATNA). If the agreement is not finalised quickly, the interim results may become invalid due to the situation changing. Interim results are not usually legally binding and so the interim results are limited both contentand time-wise.

Usually communication between US-negotiators is open and direct (tell it like it is cf. further above) as well as being generally very polite. However, due to the direct tone, negotiators from context-oriented negotiation cultures do not always notice these characteristics as they are often hidden behind a perceived lack of respect towards hierarchies and pressure exerted on negotiation partners. An informal atmosphere is preferable as it is conducive to the main focus of the negotiation, which is on oral (but not written!) communication. The own interests and intentions are not usually fully disclosed to the other side. Although US-Americans are often said to follow the “cards on the table”-approach, closer inspection shows that they point in many different directions, yet—unlike playing poker—not all the cards (i.e. in the context of negotiations, not all interests and positions) are revealed. Proposals

primary goal is to achieve a good deal—not necessarily to build a trustful, permanent relationship. American negotiators thus focus on the present and accordingly pay considerably less attention to the past. Indeed, they primarily focus on the near future, which does not, however, in any way preclude the consideration of strategic aspects during the negotiation on a specific negotiation object. The long-term view on relationships is just not a general goal of negotiations as such (for the situation in China see points 4.2.5. and 4.2.6.). A good deal is measured by economic-rational aspects, and particularly by the ROI (return on investment). The less common view on the strategic future concludes that Americans do not like to conclude smaller trial transactions, which, as such, are not profitable. In consultations however, US-Americans are made aware of how customary these transactions are e.g. in Germany and the great potential of possible follow-up transactions.

Compared to the characteristics of German or Chinese negotiations, figures and dates are only important for the core of the negotiation where precise knowledge of the facts and written documents is expected. For long-term contracts, US-Americans place emphasis on monitoring in this core area. Focusing on the core of the negotiation is seen as a special skill which not only decreases the complexity but also shortens the negotiation time and reduces transaction costs.

By focusing on the core area of the negotiations, US-American negotiators simplify complex issues and problems to be solved. In this regard, they often tend to exaggerate chances and play risks down. Regarding important performance dates, there is a tendency towards a very generous representation for their own purposes. This may partially be due to the drive and optimism which many US-American negotiators exhibit in negotiations. Another reason may be the legal order, since Common law sees contractually fixed promises as essential and does not use statements made pre-contract to interpret the actual content of the contract. In B2B-­ contracts, which comprehensively and finally determine the party’s rights and obligations, there is practically no chance to enforce demands based on statements made during the negotiation, since the contracting parties are aware that only the facts included in the final contract count. The value of the justifications made by US-American negotiators can thus only be assessed with view to the actual contract content. For negotiations with cultures that value the truth of statements during the negotiation phase, American negotiation textbooks suggest limiting the negotiations to attainable performance promises.

Linear compromises, whereby both sides approach each other regarding a topic, are not very popular with American negotiators since this type of compromise requires submission. Making this kind of concession is understood to be a weakness to avoid. Nonetheless, finding a synthesis after both parties have presented their theses and antitheses requires a great sense of creativity and, as such, it is highly regarded by US-Americans. If enabled to find this kind of synthesis, US-American negotiators do not perceive the attained compromise to be an expression of their own weakness. Another exception regarding this point applies to the price, since the first offer is deliberately set far away from the ambitious goal which is actually desired (→ ambitious target price setting). Instead of granting linear compromises, the focus lies on give and take with regard to different questions (→ non-linear