Secretarial knowledge > negotiation skills

How to conduct cross-cultural negotiations

After China's accession to the WTO, negotiations on international commerce and trade are increasing day by day. The proposition of how to conduct effective cross-cultural negotiations is mentioned on the agenda. Cultural differences are extremely important and cumbersome variables for cross-border negotiations. As a US representative of the former Sino-US joint venture Tianjin Otis Elevator Company said, “Chinese partners show different cultural values ​​at the negotiating table, Chinese views on contracts or agreements, choices for partners. Standards, perceptions of knowledge and software, etc., are different from ours, and negotiations sometimes get into trouble...". In this regard, a senior US entrepreneur even asserted: "If we can effectively overcome cultural barriers, the amount of US investment and trade with China can be doubled." From the perspective of transaction costs, like any business, multinational companies need the following costs to engage in business activities in the host country. Information costs, negotiation costs, contracting costs, performance costs and arbitration costs into the market. However, effective cross-cultural communication negotiations can greatly reduce the cost of international transactions. Jenny M. Bright, the director and founding member of the Graduate Center for Dispute Resolution Research at the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University, is committed to research, lectures, and consulting strategies in the global environment. DeWitt W. Bachanan Distinguished Professor of Dispute Resolution and Organization. Her new book, Global Negotiations: Intercultural Trading Negotiations, Dispute Resolution, and Decision Making, provides a clear, versatile analytical framework to help negotiators manage cultural differences when there are cultural differences at the negotiating table. Deep thoughts are often simple. For the sake of understanding, here, Brett's content and characteristics of the theory and operation system of cross-cultural negotiation are summarized as “one core concept”, “two negotiation results”, “three pairs of cultural categories” and “four. Negotiation strategy." A core concept: a culture of cross-cultural negotiations that covers the broad aspects of human life. According to the usual definition, culture refers to and is limited to the existence of substances that play a substantial role in common life, such as housing, tools and machinery in industrial and agricultural production, transportation methods, war instruments, etc., which constitute substances in social life. At the same time, culture is a kind of accumulation, which is knowledge, experience, beliefs, values, attitudes, methods of representation, structure of social classes, social roles, religion, time concept, spatial relationship concept, cosmology and material wealth. The accumulation of the same is obtained by a large group of individuals and groups through several generations of efforts. These words and deeds and communication styles, which are accepted and adopted, enable us to live in a society with certain technical skills and limited geographical environment in a certain period of time. The culture that Brett discussed in the book belongs to this category of national culture and mainly refers to the unique characteristics of social groups, including psychological elements, that is, the values ​​and norms shared by group members, as well as social structural elements: as a society. The economic, social, political, and religious systems of the background of communication. When the two sides negotiated across cultures, both sides put their respective cultures on the negotiating table. In this process, culture often influences people's negotiating attitudes and negotiating behavior in a subtle way. This kind of effect is like “watering with stone”. The stone provokes the ripples and rushes to the entire pool. The culture permeates the entire surface of the water and permeates all aspects of the negotiations. Brett believes that based on the starting point, there are three types of cross-cultural negotiations: negotiation of negotiation and buying and selling; negotiation of negotiation, that is, the process of reaching an agreement when there are multiple possible and conflicting options; dispute settlement negotiations, Negotiations for conflicts arising from the rejection of claims. Brett believes that these three kinds of negotiations require different cross-cultural negotiation strategies, which goes beyond the traditional discussion, because in the traditional literature on cross-cultural negotiations, these three are often confused. Brett also believes that no matter what kind of negotiation, there are three widely studied cultural characteristics and negotiation strategies related to the variation between different cultures: cultural values ​​of individualism and team spirit; cultural values ​​of egalitarianism and hierarchicalism; communication Low background norms and high background specifications – three aspects are the source of confusion in cross-cultural negotiations. Effective cross-cultural negotiations can not only resolve conflicts, but also move toward synergy. Two Negotiations: Distributive and Integral Agreements Brett believes that the essence of negotiations can be both value-seeking and value-creating. Thus, there are two outcomes of negotiation: a distributive and an integrated agreement. The so-called distributive agreement refers to a negotiating agreement that allocates a certain amount of resources; an integrated agreement refers to the expansion of the distributable resources beyond the resources that one party possesses all resources or when both parties compromise on all issues. Brett believes that the negotiations that are satisfactory to both parties lie in the evaluation of the agreement, not the classification of the agreement. Negotiators who cannot expect or find an integrated agreement may be quite satisfied with a distribution agreement. However, as a result of the most successful cross-cultural negotiations, the agreement reached is generally an integrated and distributive agreement that allocates the total amount of resources allocated to the negotiating parties. Therefore, cross-cultural negotiations are not only value-seeking negotiations, but also value-creation negotiations. This depends on the cultural concerns and treatment of cross-cultural negotiators and the extent to which cross-cultural negotiation strategies are applied. Three pairs of cultural categories: interests, rights and powers In the book Global Negotiations, Brett focuses on the impact of the three cultural categories of interests, rights, and powers on negotiations: First, the interests and cultures are related to interests and priorities. Benefits are the needs or reasons that form the basis of the negotiator’s position. Priorities reflect the relative importance of various interests or positions. Brett suggests that when considering interests and culture, it is important to bear in mind the notion that culture affects the relative importance of self-interest to collective interests, and that the relative importance of these two different interests leads to different outcomes; Don't underestimate the importance of collective interests when negotiating cultural disputes. Don't underestimate the importance of self-interest when negotiating with disputed parties from individualistic culture; "why" is the basic problem of discovering cross-cultural interests. Negotiators from a high-context culture may feel uncomfortable with direct problems, and it is better for you to make suggestions to find out where the benefits are; when you understand the benefits, you can achieve many, in addition to giving up low-priority benefits to get high-priority benefits. The type is consistent. Rights are standards of justice, contract, law or precedent. Brett suggested that when considering rights and culture, it is important to remember the notion that culture affects the extent to which disputed parties rely on rights standards and the standards of rights they prefer to adopt; because there are many different standards of rights and because of culture Different aspects support different standards, so it is difficult to know which standard will be accepted by the other party to the dispute; since the party to the dispute is unlikely to propose a rights standard that is unprofitable for itself, the rights standard is not credible; The key to resolving the success of a dispute is to either propose that the other party to the dispute agrees to the criteria for fairness or provide new and reliable information to make the proposed criteria appear fair. Power refers to the ability to influence others to accept their wishes. When Brett suggested considering power and culture, it should be borne in mind that the power in the dispute differs from the power in the transaction in one important aspect: it is linked to the BATNA of the disputed party. The so-called BATNA refers to the best alternative to negotiating agreements. If you can't reach an integration agreement, it's important to consider what the other party might do to you, rather than considering BATNAD considering your WATNA, not BATNA. Culture affects the extent to which status is used as a basis for power, and third parties may be called to solve problems. Four negotiating strategies: confrontation, information, influence, and incentives Dealing with cultural differences in negotiating strategies requires making decisions about whether to adjust your strategy to favor the other party or to stick to your own opinion. Sometimes there is no chance of choice. And sometimes maintaining your preferred strategy will put you at a disadvantage in the negotiations. There are four basic strategies: Confrontation. The confrontation between negotiators is either direct or indirect. In the dispute settlement negotiations, think about what kind of third party may stand on his side. Consider other third parties that may be more helpful to your interests. When dealing with decisions in a multinational team, dealing with procedural conflicts and interpersonal conflicts may be more effective than direct confrontation. However, if this task requires the knowledge, skills, and commitment of all members of the team, then the conflicts that arise need to be addressed directly. information. Information is as important to negotiation as money. Information about BATNA, status and other fair standards affects the distribution agreement. Information about benefits and priorities affects integrated agreements. When the negotiator does not understand the message conveyed by the other party, the integration potential almost always stays at the negotiating table, and sometimes the negotiation will be deadlocked. If you prefer to share information directly, then when you're negotiating with someone who likes indirect information sharing or other risk-taking, be careful to adjust your strategy. The benefit of sharing information directly is that when it works as we expected, the so-called fast trust is built. When the negotiating parties showed their respective interests, and those interests were respected, the two conveniences began to develop mutual relations on the basis of mutual reciprocity. If there is no reciprocity, then the negotiator who has leaked the most information is likely to get the worst results. Recommendations do not quickly build trust because the process does not require the primary sensitive step of revealing information. But the advice is extremely useful. They relate integration to distributed outcomes. If the negotiating parties are willing to be open and honest about their preferences and priorities, it is easy to negotiate an integrated agreement. influences. Influence is the ability to influence the other side of the negotiation to accept your wishes. There are many different influential foundations in social interaction, but there are two foundations that seem to be particularly important for negotiations: BATNA and fair standards. The worse the negotiator's BATNA, the greater the negotiator's reliance on reaching an agreement, and the less influence the forcing the other party to concede. The standard of fairness is the decision-making rule of a fair coat. Rules can be precedents, either contracts or laws, or social status or social ideology. If you come from a country with a hierarchical culture, it tends to influence other negotiators, it is negotiating with a person from an equal culture country, and they want to minimize influence in the negotiations, pay attention to the possibility of negotiations. A stalemate in the conflict. If the negotiating parties focus their attention on who is right or who is wrong or who has the greatest power, whether this power is related to status, the conflict will intensify. excitation. Incentives are all related to the interests of the negotiators. Negotiators may be concerned with self-interest, negotiating each other's interests, or extending to the collective interests outside the current negotiating table. If you come from a country with a team spirit culture and tend to work with members of the circle and compete with foreign members, then when you cross-cultural negotiations, if you do not make strategic adjustments, you are likely to be at a disadvantage. The negotiators of the cooperation are good at integration, but they are in danger of making concessions and can only reach a distribution agreement. High self-goal, a sense of rights, and good alternatives encourage negotiators to find alternative solutions that may lead to an integrated agreement.

recommended article

popular articles