A Comparison of Dominant Negation Styles between Malaysian and Japanese Cultures - Case Study Example

Running Head: NATIONALITY Nationality/Culture (Name) (Course) (University) Date of presentation: Lecturer: A Comparison of Dominant Negation Styles between Malaysian and Japanese Cultures Introduction In the modern era of globalization, the aspect of intercultural interactions and communications is becoming more and more pronounced. Today, people have attained the capability to travel between countries and large businesses can hardly survive without establishing presence in foreign markets. Therefore, having adequate knowledge of at least one foreign culture is a crucial skill. The purpose of this paper is to investigate differences in negations characteristics among different nationalities/cultures. In particular, the paper evaluates and compares the dominant negotiations characteristics of Malaysians and Japanese (Kennedy, 2002). In South East Asia, Japan is the most developed economy and Malaysia is one of its most important regional trading partners. In the last few years, most of Japan and Malaysia’s industries have transformed fundamentally to become service industry oriented. In fact, much of the trade (hence negotiations) between the two countries is based on manufacturing, although there has been a boom in tourism as well as consulting services between the two countries. Comparison of Dominant Negation Styles between Malaysian and Japanese Cultures In order to remain profitable and competitive, most business organizations are increasingly engaging in transnational ventures. Essentially, inter-cultural trade negotiations and joint ventures between organizations have grown exponentially since 1990s. This has brought numerous smaller companies into international ventures for the first time (Vargo & Lusch, 2004). Effective management of these intercultural transactions requires an understanding of not juts how to negotiate successfully with traders from one’s own culture but also how to negotiate with traders from other cultures (Hofstede, 2001). Accordingly, numerous researchers have documented substantial research on the increasing importance of cross-cultural negotiations over the past few decades. Like many countries in the Asia-pacific, Malaysia is a multiracial and multi-ethnic country, with a population of about 30 million people. Three of the most important ethnic groups in Malaysia are the Malays, Chinese and Indians. Malays are the largest ethnic community and comprise about two thirds of the country’s population. In addition to being multi-racial and multi-ethnic, Malaysia is also a multi-religious country and has large followers of Islam, Hindu, Buddhism and other religions. Islam is the state religion and hence Islamic laws are observed in most interactions and routine practices. Generally, the Malaysian culture depicts a strong sense of responsibility and communal spirit to help relatives, friends and neighbors (Kennedy, 2002). Japan is an island nation found in the Far East and is one of the few ancient states that exist to date. Its geographical territory comprises of four major islands and thousands of smaller islands. With a population of about 130 million people, Japan is one of the most populous countries in the world. Unlike Malaysia where Islam is the predominant religion, Japans’ main religions are Taoism and Buddhism (Brett, 2000). Malaysia and Japan are important business and diplomatic partners (Chu, 2006). Successful negotiations between Malaysian and Japanese companies have fundamental implications for the economies of both countries. Nevertheless, descriptions of Malaysian and Japanese negotiations styles indicate wide differences in approach and effectiveness, which may affect intercultural negotiations between the two cultures. For Japanese, negotiation is a medium for reaching a point that is acceptable to both parties. On the other hand, Malaysians view negotiations as a competitive tool for drawing the distinction between losers and winners (Hunt, 2000). The people of Malaysia are concerned about the effects of their actions on others and take great care not to upset the feelings of others. Additionally, Malaysians are concerned more about their behaviours and actions being assessed and judged by people in their networks and circles. In the workplace, Malaysian business managers, more especially the Muslims seem to be more socio-centric than their Japanese counterparts. This is because of the former’s strong preference for affiliation needs, hospitable culture and concern with social issues (Fan, 2002). Unlike the Malaysians, the Japanese have developed a distinct culture and like doing business differently than other people. The first thing that one notes about the Japanese is their strong focus on the welfare of a group or an organization. Although Japanese are highly mindful of hierarchy, they recognize the independence and dignity that each person has in the society. When engaging in negotiations, these core differences are displayed by the Japanese who fondly put group goals above individual interests and goals (Kennedy, 2002). Culturally, saving a face is of utmost importance among the Japanese people who are always respective and polite to faults. In Japan, relationships are highly cherished and are required to formally begin business relationships. Both Japanese and Malaysians are low in terms of individualism, meaning that both cultures tend to be concerned more about the interests of others as well as their individual interests. Japanese tend to be less acceptable of risks than Malaysians. As such, the Malaysians are more likely to go out to the market and look for new business partners. However, since Japanese have stronger long-term orientations, they depict more value in giving up on current but unproductive deals and finding new partners with whom they can work in longer relationships (Srivastava, Liana & Kurt, 2001). Throughput the Asia-pacific region, Japan is distinct in that it is a very bureaucratic society with many rules, procedures and regulations. In many cases, decisions never come easily and no deals are ever completed in the initial meetings. In business negotiations, consensus is paramount and usually requires negotiators to seek approval from senior management and hence negotiations take a lot of time (Liu, 2002). This need for approval from the senior management is a normal practice although stalling is a usual negotiation tactic employed by the Japanese. In addition, silence at negotiations is an appreciated and common practice in Japan. When negotiating, Japanese speaks less than most other cultures especially the Malaysians, who they perceive as unpredictable and selfish. Interestingly, when Japanese speak during negotiations, it is most likely in the form of a question with the hope of getting the other party to reveal some information. This approach is one of the reasons why it is hard to negotiate with the Japanese and nearly impossible to get them disclose their motivations or interests (Abdullah & Lim, 2001). Unlike Japan, Malaysia is a multiracial country and most of Malaysia’s negotiations styles reflect a close interaction between the three main cultural groups in the country (Malays, Chinese and Indians). When negotiating, Malaysians generally tend to be less direct about requests and therefore it would look impolite to make a request outright (Chu, 2006). In fact, Malaysians tend to talk around the message they want to convey in the hope that their message is understood. Besides business deals, indirectness in Malaysian negotiation styles can also be seen in social settings such as marriage. When a Malaysian man wants to marry, the man’s parents are the ones who take the proposal to the woman’s parents. In some cases, the woman may not even know about the proposal until the man’s parents come to their home. For Malaysian negotiators, no much information can be gathered from just speaking. A lot of hidden messages, thoughts and feelings are often conveyed through non-verbal signals and body languages. Malaysians hardly answer a question with the usual ‘no’ response since politeness discourages disagreeing openly. A polite but insincere affirmation is a typical tactic employed by the Malaysian negotiators to avoid being perceived as being offensive. As such, ‘yes’ may mean ‘may be’ (Abegglen, 2006). In Japan, business deals are valued as much as social relationships and are strictly based on reliability and mutual trust. Therefore, when negotiating with Japanese, it is imperative to invest in time in building long-lasting relationships before asking personal or business questions. Repeated and sustained conversations are often necessary before a Japanese negotiator feels comfortable raising personal concerns (Fan, 2002). Because the Japanese culture esteems both group and individual honor and dignity, a non-Japanese negotiator should be careful not to publicly embarrass or criticize a Japanese fellow in front of others. Sensitive issues especially those that talk about personal issues should be discussed privately and with discretion. Because Japanese desire to please, one should be careful on how they frame questions. A verbal ‘yes’ is often a form of politeness and there is no guarantee that the ‘yes’ is contractually binding. Therefore, negotiations of important concern should be based not on the other party’s verbal affirmation but on trust, mutual benefits and mutual cooperation. According to Abdullah and Lim (2001), an emotional approach is usually more successful in Japan than giving details or facts. Since Malaysia is a multicultural society, the issue of diversity is of paramount importance in negotiations. In negotiations, Malaysians value diversity so much and therefore, everyone does not have to agree when making decisions. Nevertheless, efforts are relentlessly made to accommodate divergent opinions such as attempting to make the other party change their mind. However, such attempts to make the other party change their mind can be interpreted as aggressiveness and argumentative by Japanese. When Malaysians sense a ‘no’ response to their questions or offers, they quickly change their mind (Kennedy, 2002). In both Japan and Malaysia, honesty and quality are highly respected. Both societies believe that when there is a problem, it should be discussed and solved in an open manner. Unless told otherwise, Japanese tend to assume that everything is satisfactory. Therefore, when a problem occurs, one should be prepared to explain the problem clearly, with no emotion and in detail. However, the Japanese culture greatly values flexibility and compromise. When negotiating an issue, Japanese will often expect the other person to understand and discuss the bigger dimension of the issue at all times. Related issues are not handled sequentially and as such, extraneous details may be brought over and over a negotiation severally (Brett, Okumura & Tetsushi, 2002). Because personal relationships are crucial to both the Malaysians and Japanese in issues relating to trust, negotiators from these cultures may often seem vague, indirect and suspicious during initial conversations. This is especially the case with issues that are considered to be highly important. Overcoming this consideration often requires patience and time, which is also necessary to learn and understand the other party’s feelings, thoughts and emotions. Conclusion Cultural differences between countries can have a significant impact on the success of negotiations involving parties from different countries. Quite often, culture defines and reinforces the interaction and communication styles that people exhibit. It is, therefore, imperative for one to be aware of the other party’s culture when negotiating and discussing issues. This paper has evaluated the differences and similarities between the dormant negotiation styles of the Malaysians and the Japanese. Although both countries are found in Asia, their negotiation styles exhibit immense differences, which are in turn related to each country’s social and religious cultures. In both countries, honesty, politeness, respect and transparency are highly valued when negotiating. References Abdullah, A. and Lim, L. (2001). Cultural Dimensions of Anglos, Australians and Malaysians, Malaysian Management Review, 36(2), p. 9-17. Abegglen, J. C. (2006). 21st-century Japanese management : new systems& lasting values, New York : Palgrave Macmillan Brett, J. M. and Okumura, Tetsushi, D. (2002). Inter and intra-cultural Negotiations: US and Japanese negotiators. The Academy of Management Journal, 41(5), p. 495-510. Brett, J. (2000). Culture and Negotiation. International Journal of Psychology, 35(2), p. 97-104. Chu, A. (2006). From the cultural differences viewpoint to discuss the procedure and strategy of cross-cultural business negotiation. Market modernization, 6(1), p.35-36. Fan, C. (2002). Corporate Business Negotiations. New York: Hsin Lu Bookshop. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's Consequences, Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage Publications. Hunt, S. (2000). A General Theory of Competition: Resources, Competences, Productivity, Economic Growth. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Kennedy, J. (2002). Leadership in Malaysia: Traditional Values, International Outlook, Academy of Management Executive, 16(3), p. 15-26. Liu, K. (2002). Study on the relationships between administrative culture and operational performance ~ Comparisons of operational performance of the electronic industry among Taiwan, Japan and America., Chinese Culture University, Institute of International Business Administration. Srivastava, R., Liana, F. and Kurt, C. (2001). "The Resource-Based View and Marketing: The Role of Market-Based Assets in Gaining Competitive Advantage," Journal of Management, 27(6), p. 777-802. Vargo, S. and Lusch, R. (2004). Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), p. 1-17. Read More