影响商务谈判的文化因素

Negotiating: The top ten ways that culturecan affect your negotiation

When Enron was still - and only - a pipeline

company, it lost a major contract in India because

local authorities felt that it was pushing

negotiations too fast. In fact, the loss of the

contract underlines the important role that

cultural differences play in international

negotiation. For one country's negotiators, time

is money; for another's, the slower the

negotiations, the better and more trust in the

other side. This author's advice will help

negotiators bridge the cultural differences in

international negotiation. (This artcle first ran in

the September/October 2004 issue of Ivey

Business Journal)

By Jeswald W. Salacuse

Jeswald W. Salacuse is the Henry J. Braker

Professor of Law, Fletcher School of Law &

Diplomacy, Tufts University. His most recent book

is The Global Negotiator: Making, Managing,

and Mending Deals Around the World in the

Twenty-First Century (Palgrave Macmillan,

20003). The great diversity of the world's cultures makesit impossible for any negotiator, no matter howskilled and experienced, to understand fully all thecultures that may be encountered. How then shouldan executive prepare to cope with culture in makingdeals in Singapore this week and Seoul the next? Inresearching my book The Global Negotiator: Making,Managing, and Mending Deals Around the World in theTwenty-First Century (Palgrave Macmillan, 2003), Ifound that ten particular elements consistently ariseto complicate intercultural negotiations. These "topten" elements of negotiating behavior constitute abasic framework for identifying cultural differencesthat may arise during the negotiation process.Applying this framework in your internationalbusiness negotiations may enable you to understandyour counterpart better and to anticipate possiblemisunderstandings. This article discusses thisframework and how to apply it.1. Negotiating goal: Contract or relationship?

International business deals not only cross borders,

they also cross cultures. Culture profoundly

influences how people think, communicate, and

behave. It also affects the kinds of transactions they

make and the way they negotiate them. Differences

in culture between business executives-- for example,

between a Chinese public sector plant manager in

Shanghai and a Canadian division head of a family

company in Toronto-- can create barriers that impede

or completely stymie the negotiating process.Negotiators from different cultures may tend toview the purpose of a negotiation differently. Fordeal makers from some cultures, the goal of abusiness negotiation, first and foremost, is a signedcontract between the parties. Other cultures tendto consider that the goal of a negotiation is not asigned contract but rather the creation of arelationship between the two sides. Although thewritten contact expresses the relationship, theessence of the deal is the relationship itself. Forexample in my survey of over 400 persons fromtwelve nationalities, reported fully in The GlobalNegotiator , I found that whereas 74 percent of theSpanish respondents claimed their goal in a

negotiation was a contract, only 33 percent of the

Indian executives had a similar view. The difference

in approach may explain why certain Asian3. Personal style: Informal or formal?negotiators, whose negotiating goal is often the

Personal style concerns the way a negotiator talkscreation of a relationship, tend to give more time

to others, uses titles, dresses, speaks, and interactsand effort to negotiation preliminaries, while North

with other persons. Culture strongly influences theAmericans often want to rush through this first phase

personal style of negotiators. It has been observed,of deal making. The preliminaries of negotiation,

for example, that Germans have a more formal stylein which the parties seek to get to know one another

than Americans. A negotiator with a formal stylethoroughly, are a crucial foundation for a good

business relationship. They

may seem less important whenAs a general rule, it is always safer to adopt a formal posture andthe goal is merely a contract.move to an informal stance, if the situation warrants it, than toIt is therefore important toassume an informal style too quickly.

determine how your

counterparts view the purpose of your negotiation.

If relationship negotiators sit on the other side of

the table, merely convincing them of your ability to

deliver on a low-cost contract may not be enough to

land you the deal. You may also have to persuade

them, from the very first meeting, that your two

organizations have the potential to build a rewarding

relationship over the long term. On the other hand,

if the other side is basically a contract deal maker,

trying to build a relationship may be a waste of time

and energy.

2. Negotiating attitude: Win-Lose or Win-Win?

Because of differences in culture, personality, or

both, business persons appear to approach deal

making with one of two basic attitudes: that a

negotiation is either a process in which both can gain

(win-win) or a struggle in which, of necessity, one

side wins and the other side loses (win-lose). Win-

win negotiators see deal making as a collaborative,

problem-solving process; win-lose negotiators view

it as confrontational. As you enter negotiations, it is

important to know which type of negotiator is sitting

across the table from you. Here too, my survey

revealed significant differences among cultures. For

example, whereas 100 percent of the Japanese

respondents claimed that they approached

negotiations as a win-win process, only 33% of the

Spanish executives took that viewinsists on addressing counterparts by their titles,avoids personal anecdotes, and refrains fromquestions touching on the private or family life ofmembers of the other negotiating team. A negotiatorwith an informal style tries to start the discussionon a first-name basis, quickly seeks to develop apersonal, friendly relationship with the other team,and may take off his jacket and roll up his sleeveswhen deal making begins in earnest. Each culturehas its own formalities with their own specialmeanings. They are another means ofcommunication among the persons sharing thatculture, another form of adhesive that binds themtogether as a community. For an American, callingsomeone by the first name is an act of friendshipand therefore a good thing. For a Japanese, the useof the first name at a first meeting is an act ofdisrespect and therefore bad.Negotiators in foreign cultures must respectappropriate formalities. As a general rule, it is alwayssafer to adopt a formal posture and move to aninformal stance, if the situation warrants it, than toassume an informal style too quickly.4. Communication: Direct or indirect?Methods of communication vary among cultures.Some emphasize direct and simple methods ofcommunication; others rely heavily on indirect and

complex methods. The latter may use

circumlocutions, figurative forms of speech, facial

expressions, gestures and other kinds of body

language. In a culture that values directness, such

as the American or the Israeli, you can expect to

receive a clear and definite response to your

proposals and questions. In cultures that rely on

indirect communication, such as the Japanese,

reaction to your proposals may be gained by

interpreting seemingly vague comments, gestures,

and other signs. What you will not receive at a first

meeting is a definite commitment or rejection.

The confrontation of these styles of

communication in the same negotiation can lead to

friction. For example, the indirect ways Japanese

negotiators express disapproval have often led

foreign business executives to believe that their

proposals were still under consideration when in fact

the Japanese side had rejected them. In the Camp

David negotiations that led to a peace treaty between

Egypt and Israel, the Israeli preference for direct

forms of communication and the Egyptian tendency

to favor indirect forms sometimes exacerbated

relations between the two sides. The Egyptians

interpreted Israeli directness as aggressiveness and,

therefore, an insult. The Israelis viewed Egyptian

indirectness with impatience and suspected them of

insincerity, of not saying what they meant.

5. Sensitivity to time: High or low?contract, need to invest time in the negotiatingprocess so that the parties can get to know oneanother well and determine whether they wish toembark on a long-term relationship. They mayconsider aggressive attempts to shorten thenegotiating time as efforts to hide something. Forexample, in one case that received significant mediaattention in the mid-1990's, a long-term electricitysupply contract between an ENRON subsidiary, theDabhol Power Company, and the Maharashtra stategovernment in India, was subject to significantchallenge and was ultimately cancelled on thegrounds that it was concluded in "unseemly haste"and had been subject to "fast track procedures" thatcircumvented established practice for developingsuch projects in the past. Important segments of theIndian public automatically assumed that thegovernment had failed to protect the public interestbecause the negotiations were so quick. In thecompany's defense, Rebecca Mark, chairman andCEO of Enron International, pointed out to thepress: "We were extremely concerned with time,because time is money for us. (Enron's RebeccaMark: 'You Have to be Pushy and Aggressive'"Business Week, February 24, 1997, http://www.businessweek.com/1997/08/b351586.htm.) This difference between the Indian and U.S. attitudestoward time was clearly revealed in my survey.

Among the twelve nationalities surveyed, the Indians

had the largest percentage of persons who

considered themselves to have a low sensitivity to

time

6. Emotionalism: High or low?Discussions of national negotiating stylesinvariably treat a particular culture's attitudes towardtime. It is said that Germans are always punctual,Latins are habitually late, Japanese negotiate slowly,and Americans are quick to make a deal.

Commentators sometimes claim that some cultures

value time more than others, but this observation

may not be an accurate characterization of the

situation. Rather, negotiators may value differently

the amount of time devoted to and measured against

the goal pursued. For Americans, the deal is a signed

contract and time is money, so they want to make a

deal quickly. Americans therefore try to reduce

formalities to a minimum and get down to business

quickly. Japanese and other Asians, whose goal is

to create a relationship rather than simply sign aAccounts of negotiating behavior in other culturesalmost always point to a particular group's tendencyto act emotionally. According to the stereotype,Latin Americans show their emotions at thenegotiating table, while the Japanese and many otherAsians hide their feelings. Obviously, individualpersonality plays a role here. There are passiveLatins and hot-headed Japanese. Nonetheless,various cultures have different rules as to theappropriateness and form of displaying emotions,

and these rules are brought to the negotiating table

as well. Deal makers should seek to learn them.agreements, 45.5 percent of the Japanese and of theGermans claimed to do so.

In the author's survey, Latin Americans and theSome experienced executives argue that differencesSpanish were the cultural groups that rankedover the form of an agreement are caused more bythemselves highest with respect to emotionalism inunequal bargaining power between the parties thana clearly statistically significant fashion. Amongby culture. In a situation of unequal bargainingEuropeans, the Germans and

English ranked as least

emotional, while among AsiansIn the building down approach, the negotiator begins bythe Japanese held that position,presenting the maximum deal if the other side accepts all thebut to a lesser degree.stated conditions. In the building-up approach, one side begins

7. Form of agreement:

General or specific?

Whether a negotiator's goal is

a contract or a relationship, the

negotiated transaction in

almost all cases will be

encapsulated in some sort of written agreement.

Cultural factors influence the form of the written

agreement that the parties make. Generally,

Americans prefer very detailed contracts that attempt

to anticipate all possible circumstances and

eventualities, no matter how unlikely. Why? Because

the deal is the contract itself, and one must refer to

the contract to handle new situations that may arise.

Other cultures, such as the Chinese, prefer a contract

in the form of general principles rather than detailed

rules. Why? Because, it is claimed, that the essence

of the deal is the relationship between the parties.

If unexpected circumstances arise, the parties should

look primarily to their relationship, not the contract,

to solve the problem. So, in some cases, a Chinese

negotiator may interpret the American drive to

stipulate all contingencies as evidence of a lack of

confidence in the stability of the underlying

relationship.

Among all respondents in my survey, 78 percent

preferred specific agreements, while only 22 percent

preferred general agreements. On the other hand,

the degree of intensity of responses on the question

varied considerably among cultural groups. While

only 11 percent of the English favored generalby proposing a minimum deal that can be broadened andincreased as the other party accepts additional conditions.According to many observers, Americans tend to favor thebuilding-down approach, while the Japanese tend to prefer thebuilding-up style of negotiating a contract.power, the stronger party always seeks a detailedagreement to "lock up the deal" in all its possibledimensions, while the weaker party prefers a generalagreement to give it room to "wiggle out" of adversecircumstances that are bound to occur. Accordingto this view, it is context, not culture that determinesthis negotiating trait.8. Building an agreement: Bottom up or topdown? Related to the form of the agreement is thequestion of whether negotiating a business deal isan inductive or a deductive process. Does it startfrom an agreement on general principles and proceedto specific items, or does it begin with an agreementon specifics, such as price, delivery date, and productquality, the sum total of which becomes the contract?Different cultures tend to emphasize one approachover the other. Some observers believe that theFrench prefer to begin with agreement on generalprinciples, while Americans tend to seek agreementfirst on specifics. For Americans, negotiating a dealis basically making a series of compromises andtrade-offs on a long list of particulars. For the French,the essence is to agree on basic principles that will

guide and indeed determine the negotiation process

afterward. The agreed-upon general principles

become the framework, the skeleton, upon which

the contract is built.

My survey of negotiating styles found that the

French, the Argentineans, and the Indians tended

to view deal making as a top down (deductive

process); while the Japanese, the Mexicans and the

Brazilians tended to see it as a bottom up (inductive)

process. A further difference in negotiating style is

seen in the dichotomy between the "building-down"

approach and the "building-up approach." In the

building down approach, the negotiator begins by

presenting the maximum deal if the other side

accepts all the stated conditions. In the building-up

approach, one side begins by proposing a minimum

deal that can be broadened and increased as the other

party accepts additional conditions. According to

many observers, Americans tend to favor the

building-down approach, while the Japanese tend to

prefer the building-up style of negotiating a contract.

9. Team organization: One leader or group

consensus? be uncommon for the Americans to arrive at thetable with three people and for the Chinese to showup with ten. Similarly, the one-leader team is usuallyprepared to make commitments more quickly thana negotiating team organized on the basis ofconsensus. As a result, the consensus type oforganization usually takes more time to negotiate adeal. Among all respondents in my survey, 59 percenttended to prefer one leader while 41 percentpreferred a more consensual form of organization.On the other hand, the various cultural groupsshowed a wide variety of preferences on the questionof team organization. The group with the strongestpreference for consensus organization was theFrench. Many studies have noted Frenchindividualism. (Edward T. Hall and M. Reed Hall,Understanding Cultural Difference, Yarmouth, Maine:Intercultural Press, 1990.)Perhaps a consensual arrangement in theindividual French person's eyes is the best way toprotect that individualism. Despite the Japanese

reputation for consensus arrangements, only 45

percent of the Japanese respondents claimed to

prefer a negotiating team based on consensus. The

Brazilians, the Chinese, and the Mexicans to a far

greater degree than any other groups preferred one-

person leadership, a reflection perhaps of the

political traditions of those countries.

10. Risk taking: High or low?In any negotiation, it is important to know howthe other side is organized, who has the authority tomake commitments, and how decisions are made.Culture is one important factor that affects howexecutives organize themselves to negotiate a deal.Some cultures emphasize the individual while othersstress the group. These values may influence the

organization of each side in a negotiation.

One extreme is the negotiating team with a

supreme leader who has complete authority to decide

all matters. Many American teams tend to follow

this approach. Other cultures, notably the Japanese

and the Chinese, stress team negotiation and

consensus decision making. When you negotiate with

such a team, it may not be apparent who the leader

is and who has the authority to commit the side. In

the first type, the negotiating team is usually small;

in the second it is often large. For example, in

negotiations in China on a major deal, it would notResearch supports the conclusion that certaincultures are more risk averse than others. (GeertHofstede, Culture's Consequences: InternationalDifferences in Work-related Values (Newbury Park, CA:Sage Publications, 1980)In deal making, the negotiators' cultures can affectthe willingness of one side to take risks-- to divulgeinformation, try new approaches, and tolerateuncertainties in a proposed course of action. TheJapanese, with their emphasis on requiring large

amount of information and their intricate group

decision-making process, tend to be risk averse.

Americans, by comparison, are risk takers.

Among all respondents in the author's survey,

approximately 70 percent claimed a tendency toward

risk taking while only 30 percent characterized

themselves as low risk takers. Among cultures, the

responses to this question showed significant

variations. The Japanese are said to be highly risk

averse in negotiations, and this tendency was

affirmed by the survey which found Japanese

respondents to be the most risk averse of the twelve

cultures. Americans in the survey, by comparison,

considered themselves to be risk takers, but an even

higher percentage of the French, the British, and

the Indians claimed to be risk takers.

Faced with a risk-averse counterpart, how should

a deal maker proceed? The following are a few steps

to consider:

1Don't rush the negotiating process. A

negotiation that is moving too fast for oneof the parties only heightens that person'sperception of the risks in the proposed deal.2Devote attention to proposing rules andmechanisms that will reduce the apparentrisks in the deal for the other side.3Make sure that your counterpart hassufficient information about you, yourcompany, and the proposed deal.4Focus your efforts on building a relationshipand fostering trust between the parties.5Consider restructuring the deal so that thedeal proceeds step by step in a series ofincrements, rather than all at once.Negotiating styles, like personalities, have a widerange of variation. The ten negotiating traitsdiscussed above can be placed on a spectrum orcontinuum, as illustrated in the chart below. Itspurpose is to identify specific negotiating traitsaffected by culture and to show the possible variationthat each trait or factor may take. With thisknowledge, you may be better able to understandthe negotiating styles and approaches ofcounterparts from other cultures. Equally important,

it may help you to determine how your own