Search results

Culture profoundly influences how people think, communicate, and behave. Successful cross‐cultural negotiations require an understanding of the negotiation style of those on the other side of the table, and the acceptance and respect of their cultural beliefs and norms. The focus of this paper is to identify the styles of negotiation that tend to be adopted by Brazilian negotiators. Participants were 683 experienced negotiators from 22 Brazilian states. The Brazilian style of negotiation is described based on seven culturally sensitive dimensions that are present in negotiations: the nature of the activity, the role of the individual, uncertainty and time, communication, trust, protocol, and outcomes.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the implicitly assumed universality of the best seller negotiation literature Getting to Yes by Roger Fisher and William Ury.

Existing cross-cultural negotiation literature was systematically searched for findings indicating either a higher or lower likelihood of successfully applying the authors’ advice in different cultural environments, as defined in the Hofstede framework or The Globe Study. The findings were aggregated, categorized into a matrix, synthesized and analyzed.

This paper finds that the assumed universality of the method of Getting to Yes and its single principles is not supported by research. Instead, a dichotomy of the four principles’ applicability along the Individuality dimension of Hofstede was found. Hence, the western orientation of Getting to Yes is reality, inhibiting its use in non-western cultures. However, in one principle – Invent options for mutual gain – the findings refute a successful application in western cultures. Additional findings and research gaps are presented.

Practitioners should apply Getting to Yes with caution, if at all, in a non-western environment. For the teaching of negotiations, alternative approaches for conducting negotiations in the non-western world are needed.

Although widely used in research, scholars only addressed sporadic comments concerning the limitations of Getting to Yes across cultures. Often the universality of Getting to Yes is either implicitly or explicitly assumed in research and practice. This paper approaches this topic systematically by providing evidence that Getting to Yes is not universal and conceptually sees negotiations through a western shaped perspective that provides considerable implications for research, practice and teaching.

The purpose of this paper is to explore possible changes in national culture for generations X and Y members from selected Asian national cultures and the impact on cross‐cultural negotiations.

An interpretivist epistemology is combined with an ontology of subjectivism for this exploratory study which does not seek generalization. Emphasis is placed on the development of new survey items by members of generations X and Y for Hofstede's dimensions. An online survey yielded n=224 responses. Data were collected from members of generations X and Y, but also Baby Boomers as the control group, to test differences.

For national culture dimensions, only individualism/collectivism tests for significant differences between Asian GenY and Baby Boomers. GenX and GenY show little interest in pre‐opening relationship building and focus on positioning and compromising.

The study is exploratory in nature and future studies should revisit this topic. The items developed to measure national culture might be biased by the 39 focus group participants. Future studies should consider differentiating Asian groups.

Western negotiators need to prepare for multiple scenarios when entering negotiations with Asian partners. Depending on the age of the Asian negotiator, emphasis on different phases of the negotiation process needs to be reevaluated.

This research holds immediate lessons for cross‐cultural negotiations. Results support that generations X and Y members in some Asian cultures do not differ from their elders across all Hofstede dimensions, however they display different negotiation behaviors.

This study aims to address three important but under-researched questions in the trust and negotiation literature: What do negotiators do to determine the trustworthiness of a potential business partner? What trust criteria motivate their search and help them interpret the information their search reveals? Whether there are systematic cultural differences in search and criteria, and if different, why?

This study used qualitative methodology. The data are from interviews with 82 managers from 33 different national cultures in four regions of the world identified by cultural levels of trust in negotiation and tightness-looseness. Interviews focused on how negotiators determined the trustworthiness of potential business partners in intracultural negotiations.

Analyses revealed four search activities negotiators use to gather information about a potential business partner: due diligence, brokerage, good will building and testing; and five criteria for determining the trustworthiness of a new business partner: respect, mutual values, competence, openness and professionalism. Quotes illustrate how these search activities and criteria manifest in different cultures.

This study used multiple cases to build a longitudinal picture of the process. It did not follow a single case in depth. The study focused on identifying cultural central tendencies at the same time recognizing that there is always variability within a culture.

Knowing what is culturally normative allows negotiators to anticipate, interpret and respect their counterpart’s behavior. Such knowledge should facilitate trust development.

This study provides an in-depth understanding of cultural similarities and differences in the process of trust development in negotiating new business relationships.

This paper discusses national differences in the interpretation of time in mixed motive decision contexts, such as negotiation. Specifically, we consider how members of different national cultures (Portugal, Turkey, and the United States) experience temporality in these situations. We argue that cultural temporality such as polychronicity, future orientation, and uncertainty avoidance form part of a broader national environment. The national environment is also expressed in national stability factors such as legal systems, family ties, and homogeneity of populations. We propose that temporality and stability aspects of national environment determine negotiation paradigms, which subsequently influence temporality in negotiations. We conclude by suggesting that inclusion of complex and interdependent national environment factors in the study of negotiation has the potential to substantially advance our understanding of mixed motive decision situations.

Negotiators from Asia are increasingly confronted with exchange partners from other regions, particularly Europe. The European culture differs from the Asian culture in many regards, one major aspect being distinct levels of power distance (hierarchy versus egalitarianism). The purpose of this paper is to analyze the impact of power distance in electronic negotiations between Asia and Europe.

The paper describes an experimental study with a sample of 126 participants investigating the impact of power distance on strategies applied by Asian and European buyers and sellers in computer‐mediated negotiations.

Significant effects of power distance in electronic negotiations were identified. Culture confirms to play a significant role in negotiations. The results indicate that negotiation schemes differ depending on the cultural dimension power distance in Asia and Europe. In the hierarchical (Asian) culture, sellers show more efforts in negotiations, while buyers apply more power‐related negotiation strategies but also tend to take more responsibility. In contrast, in the egalitarian (European) culture, buyers prefer negotiation behavior spreading power.

First, use of a student sample engaging in a negotiation simulation might restrain the generalizability of the findings. Second, the authors investigated only two cultures in Asia and Europe.

The paper describes an experimental study comparing negotiators from Asia and Europe in order to analyze whether culture plays a significant role in electronic negotiations between Asia and Europe. The authors focus on power distance as the main cultural dimension.

Previous research on international negotiations has primarily examined cross‐cultural differences in behavioral styles. Supplementing this prior research, we focused on outcome in negotiations. The study examined relationships between culture and outcome in contract negotiations, and analyzed how negotiation behavior mediates between culture and outcome. Sixty Mexican and Norwegian subjects participated in a negotiation simulation with potentially integrative outcomes. The study included 12 Mexican dyads, 12 Norwegian dyads, and 6 cross‐cultural dyads. Two aspects of outcome: joint benefit and distribution of benefit between negotiators, and two aspects of process: progression of offers and verbal communication, were examined Results indicated an effect of culture on integrative results, but not on distribution of benefit. Process differences found were related to the progression of offers over time, and not to verbal communication. Managerial implications are discussed and directions for future research indicated.

The focus of the study is on direct and indirect effects of national culture on negotiation behavior in international business. It argues that negotiation approach is conditioned primarily by relational contextual variables, e.g. relationship commitment and relative power, that national culture exerts direct influence on the preferences for negotiation approaches, and that national culture also has indirect influence in the choice of negotiation approaches while interacting with relational contexts. The hypotheses are tested among samples of American and Chinese joint venture managers in China. The study findings, especially those on the interaction between national culture and relational contextual variables, afford important theoretical and managerial implications.

Drawing from the emotions as social information theory, this paper aims to investigate the differential effects of emotions in inter vs intracultural negotiations.

The authors used one face-to-face negotiation and two experimental scenario studies to investigate the influence of emotions (anger vs happiness) and negotiation type (intercultural vs intracultural) on concession behavior.

Across the three studies, the results consistently show that angry opponents from a different national culture obtain larger concessions from negotiators. A face-to-face negotiation shows that happy opponents from the same culture are able to obtain larger concessions from negotiators. Additionally, the negotiator’s intentions to compromise and yield mediate the relationship between the interaction of emotions and counterpart’s culture on concessions.

Two limitations are that the studies were conducted in a single country and that they use different types of role-playing designs. The empirical implications provide evidence of the moderating effect of the counterpart’s culture on the effect of anger on concessions. Then, providing two different mechanisms for concessions.

The research helps global negotiators who face counterparts from different nationalities. It suggests that these negotiators should be mindful of their counterpart’s emotions in intercultural negotiation as anger seems to generate more concessions in this setting.

The article is among the first studies to show that the combination of the counterpart’s culture and emotions has an effect on concessions in negotiation. Compromising and yielding are mediating mechanisms for this moderated effect. As opposed to previous studies that use one type of research design, the research combines face-to-face and scenario methodologies to test the predictions.

The purpose of this study is to refine theory of negotiation by empirically investigating the extent to which national-, societal- and individual-level cultures relate to negotiators' tendency to endorse questionable negotiation tactics.

To assess the hypothesized relationships between culture and ethically questionable negotiation tactics at three cultural levels of analysis, the authors collected data from Turks who reside in Turkey and in Germany and from Greeks who reside in Greece and in Cyprus. Respondents' national-level cultural values were inferred from their nationality, respondents' societal-level cultural values were inferred from their country of residency, and respondents' individual-level cultural values were inferred from their discrete and unique individuality.

At the national level, the authors found that Turks in Turkey and Germany scored significantly higher than Greeks in Greece and Cyprus on the endorsement of pretending negotiation tactics. At the societal level, the authors found that Turkish negotiators in Germany displayed higher levels of lying negotiation tactics and lower levels of pretending negotiation tactics than Turkish negotiators in Turkey. Greek negotiators in Greece endorsed deceiving and lying tactics more than Greek negotiators in Cyprus. At the individual level, the authors found that negotiators who score high on vertical individualism and collectivism endorse questionable negotiation tactics significantly more than negotiators who score high on horizontal individualism and collectivism.

The authors empirically demonstrate how national-, societal- and individual-level cultures differentially influence negotiators' tendency to endorse questionable negotiation tactics. The study's trilevel analysis allows for integrating the societal-level theories of negotiators' acculturation and cultural adjustment to a host culture, highlighting the importance of bicultural identity.