H e may have no technical competence, but represents the weighty consensus which backs his authority. The French view the setting of the negotiation both as a social occasion and a forum for their own cleverness. T heir sense of history primes them for the traditional French role of international mediator. T.
heir leader will be their best speaker, usually highly-educated and self-assured. I t will require a skillful American, Briton or Japanese to best him or her in debate. T he leader will be unimpressed by American aggressive ploys and Cartesian logic will reduce 'muddling-through' Englishmen and belly-talking Japanese to temporary incoherence.
T his is not a session for give and take, but for presenting well-formulated solutions. L avish French hospitality will compensate for sitting through lengthy speeches. Scandinavians, while relatively at home with Americans and Anglo-Saxons and familiar enough with German bluntness and protocol, have little feel for the social nuances displayed by Latins and Japanese. I.
n their straightforward egalitarian cultures, a business meeting is for business to be conducted without regard to social status. W ho the other negotiators are, their class, their connections, who they are related to — all these things are irrelevant to Finns and Swedes. Although more polite than Americans, Scandinavians have difficulty in settling down to a role in meetings where social competence dominates technical know-how.
3.3. High-Context Vs Low-Context CommunicationEdward T. H all, a Foreign Service veteran, identified the concepts of high-context and low-context in the 1960's to categorize differences in communication styles. I n his Beyond Culture, published in 1976 by Anchor Press/Doubleday, in New York, Hall states: High context transactions feature pre-programmed information that is in the receiver and in the setting, with only minimal information in the transmitted message. L ow context transactions are the reverse. M.
ost of the information must be in the transmitted message in order to make up for what is missing in the context. U sing the high-context/low-context classification, Japan and most Asian countries are classified as high-context cultures. T he US and Canada, along with northern European countries, are classified as low-context. T his is, of course, an oversimplification. W.
ithin a low-context culture, you’ll find yourself in high-context situations and vice-versa. F or example, within a low-context American culture, communications among family members are generally high-context because of the high level of shared experience. F or our purposes, though, we’ll rely on the broad-brush definition. L et’s say you’re an American, overhearing a conversation between two Japanese persons. E.
ven though you can clearly hear them, the words passed between the two Japanese may lack clarity and definition. Y ou have no idea what’s really being said. T hat’s because the Japanese rely on long-term and underlying meanings known by both because of their shared cultural background. T hey are also highly attuned to non-verbal communications and derive meaning from the speaker’s facial expressions and body language.
T he Japanese person learns as much from the way you sit and whether or not you smile as from your words. In contrast, conversations between two businesspersons from a low-context culture will be direct and structured, specific. S hared background is not assumed. T he person from the low-context culture will place a much higher value on the words spoken than on the non-verbal aspect of communications.
I t’s easy to see how these very different styles can cause misunderstandings and even complete failures in the communications process. I t’s also easy to see how problems can result when you’re trying to land a job and your interviewer is from a different context culture than you are. 3.
4. Decision makingNegotiations lead to decisions. H ow these are made, how long they take to be made and how final they are once made are all factors, which will depend on the cultural group involved. Americans love making decisions as these usually lead to action and they are primarily action oriented. T he French love talking about decisions, which may or may not be made in the future.
I f their reasoned arguments do not produce what in their eyes is a logical solution, then they will delay decisions for days or weeks if necessary. Japanese hate making decisions and prefer to let decisions be made for them by gradually building up a weighty consensus. I n their case, a decision may take months. T.
his exasperates Americans and many northern Europeans, but the Japanese insist that big decisions take time. T hey see American negotiators as technicians making a series of small decisions to expedite one (perhaps relatively unimportant) deal. O nce the Japanese have made their decisions, however, they expect their American partner to move like lightning towards implementation. T his leads to further exasperation. What westerners fail to understand is that Japanese, during the long, painstaking process of building a consensus, are simultaneously making preparations for the implementation of the business. T.
he famous ringi-sho system of Japanese decision making is one of the most democratic procedures of an otherwise autocratic structure. I n many western countries action is usually initiated at the top. I n Japan younger or lower-ranking people often propose ideas which are developed by middle management and ultimately shown to the president.
T here is a long, slow process during which many meetings are held to digest the new idea and at length a draft will be made to be passed round for all to see. E ach person is invited to attach his or her seal of approval so that unanimity of agreement is already assumed before the president confirms it. H e will not do this lightly since he, not middle management, will have to resign if there is a catastrophe. T.
o ask a Japanese negotiator during a meeting to take βanother direction' is quite unacceptable. N o hunches or sudden change-abouts here. D.
rastic swings of intent would force the Japanese team to go right back to the drawing board. Mediterranean and Latin-American teams look to their leader to make decisions and do not question his personal authority. H is decision-making, however, will not be as impromptu or arbitrary as it seems. L atins, like Japanese, tend to bring a cemented-in position to the negotiating table, which is that of the power structure back home. T.
his contrasts strongly with the Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian willingness to modify stances continuously during the talk if new openings are perceived. French negotiators seldom reach a decision on the first day. M any a British negotiator has asked (in vain) French colleagues at 4 pm, βWell, can we summarize what we have agreed so far?' French dislike such interim summaries, since every item on the agenda may be affected by later discussion. O nly at the end can everything fit into the Grand Design.
S hort-term decisions are seen as of little consequence. ConclusionCross-cultural factors will continue to influence international negotiation and there is no general panacea of strategies, which ensure quick understanding. T he only possible solutions lie in a close analysis of the likely problems. T hese will vary in the case of each negotiation, therefore the combination of strategies required to facilitate the discussions will be specific on each occasion. A culture’s orientation to communication is often very subtle. D ifferences in communication preferences can cause a multitude of problems in sales, negotiations and management. For low-context cultures, little contextual information is needed about an individual before business is transacted.
B usiness tends to be impersonal. C ommunication of information is primarily in words, and meaning is expressed explicitly. For high-context cultures, a great deal of contextual information about an individual is needed before business can be trans-acted. B usiness is done through relationships.
I nformation is transmitted not just in words, but through a variety of contexts, such as voice tone, body language, facial expressions, eye contact, speech patterns, use of silence, past interactions, status, common friends, etc. T he verbal message in communication is more implicit. Formal cultures place high emphasis on following business protocol and social customs. P.
eople from informal cultures feel more comfortable dispensing with ceremony and conducting business more casually. ReferencesBeard A. 2014. L eading with Humor. H arvard Business Review, P.
21−29Foley, W. A. 1997. A nthropological Linguistics: An Introduction. B lackwellHall E.T. 1976.
Beyond Culture, New York: Anchor Press/DoubledayHere's The Trick To Negotiating With The French,.
http://www.businessinsider.com/negotiating-with-the-french-2014;6Labov W. 2012. D ialect diversity in America: the politics of language change. C harlottesville: University of Virginia Press. L ewis R.D. 2000.
W hen cultures collide. M anaging successfully across cultures. N icholas Brealey Publishing, London. Lyttle J.
2007 The judicious use and management of humor in the workplace, Business Horizons, 50, P. 239−245Negotiation across cultures,.
https://www.skillsyouneed.com/rhubarb/negotiation-across-cultures.htmlNegotiation: skills vol.1 advantage principles of influence,.
https://www.udemy.com/how-to-negotiate-how-to-influence-people-consultant-coaching-money/Principles and tactics of negotiation. 2007. J OncolPract. 3(2): 102−105Solomon R.H. and Quinney N. 2010. American negotiating behavior: wheeler-dealers, legal eagles, bullies, and preachers. USIP Press BooksTips for Negotiations with Latin American Business Partners,.
http://www.inbel.eu/download/Local%20Global%20Interview%20Inbel%20M%C3%BCller%20Alban.pdfVygotsky L.S. 1986. Thought and language. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. What You Should Know About Negotiating With Japanese,.
http://www.businessinsider.com/negotiating-with-japanese-2014;5.
