Inter- and Intra-Cultural Negotiation - Essay Example

Introduction Ikle (1968, 118) defined negotiation as a form of interaction where parties put their efforts in arrangement of a new combination of their common and conflicting positions in order to arrive at a common outcome by joint decision. Thus, negotiation consists of four components: an interaction among parties usually through verbal communication; a collaborative task of solving a problem; both convergent and divergent processes of argument; and generation of discrepancies and differences from these arguments. According to Paik and Ting (1999, 1), international negotiations especially on business involve parties with very dissimilar cultures. It is worth noting that culture plays a significant role in framing of negotiators’ priorities and the dissimilarity can be very challenging. In contemporary organisations, maintaining a competitive advantage requires increasing engagement in international ventures. Japan has been engaging in international business ventures and one of its main partners is the United States. Successful negotiations in international business between these two states have significant implications in both countries’ economies. However, substantial differences in negotiation styles may affect intercultural negotiations (Brett & Okuruma, 1998, 496). This essay compares and contrasts Japanese negotiations characteristics to that of United States. The cultural and language differences as well as negotiation style influence negotiations between Japanese and Americans. Cultural differences Japanese and American cultural values are different and they have a significant effect on negotiations. According to McCreary (1986), Japanese highest social priority is based on harmony. This is because of its geographical characteristics that emphases on isolation as it is surrounded by an ocean, its densely populated making people close to each other and is also a homogenous society. Due to such factors, they avoid conflict between parties in order to maintain harmony. Adair, Okumura, & Brett (2001) add that the Japanese society is referred to as a strong vertical society. Its hierarchical systems control the individual activities and social life of Japanese. They view power in hierarchical context. When they conduct a business negotiation, they are most interested first in finding their position. That is, they want to understand who has higher social status and their position among those who are involved in negotiation. For instance, the size of companies first determines the power of relationship. If there is similar status in the companies or parties, the next point is to know the one with higher rate and who is older. According to Graham & Sano (1989), Japanese culture draws a very clear line in regard to social levels. They feel less comfortable until they find their standings in terms of relative power. This gives them a hard time especially in accepting the concept of equal power between them and other parties. On the other hand, Adachi (1997, 20) add that United States strongly value equality which is a strong horizontal relationship, but this is less valued in Japan. Americans puts more emphasis on equality of power where adherence to hierarchy is less of their concern. This may make rank levels to be bypassed for more effective or efficient performing of work. Weldon & Jehn (1995) found out that the concept of time is a factor that varies from one culture to another. For instance, the CEOs in Japan view companies as external structures and they consider themselves as the companies’ history-makers. They even go to a point of thinking how their companies will be in one hundred years to come. They also think about short-term profit, but they see it as long-term benefit instead of one time only benefit. On the other hand, the Americans view time frame as emphasising the present as well as a short-time future. Such conceptual differences create different perspective between the two parties (Adachi, 1997, 21). Based on social structure, Japanese language is made other-controlled as well as other-controlling language. Grakken (1990) add that Japanese language is cited as an indirect language unlike English used by their partners which is a self-controlled language. Indirectness is important and critical to Japanese because it maintains harmony. Although they usually have strong views, opinions, and issues about a topic, they avoid stating them directly as they prefer using roundabout phrases in order to make their statements softer. This leaves room for other partners to disagree about the issues and to take such disagreements into consideration as they make their own statement. By doing this, the Japanese avoid offense. On the other hand, Americans see this process as spending of more than enough time in exchanging of information. For Americans, the standards for assertiveness and cooperation are not similar as the Japanese. Thus, Japanese do not view the maximum cooperation effort as sufficient based on Japanese levels for acceptance of cooperation. Although they both use collaborative style, the collaboration is usually interpreted as well as handled in different ways based on the two cultures (Paik and Ting, 1999). Negotiation style Yoshimura (1997, 68) noted that information is seen as an important source of power by both Japan and United States in negotiations. Negotiators from United States usually exercise power of information through disclosure. By doing this, they in turn obtain information from their partners. However, the Japanese exercise the power of information is by hiding it. This leads to fundamental difference in term of negotiating styles. That is, the negotiation used by Japanese is a process of coming to a point which will be acceptable by both parties. In contrast, Americans view it as a competition that divides winners and losers. Kato & Kato (1992) add that Americans usually open negotiations at a totally unacceptable level to the Japanese viewing the opening offer as a point of starting, but on the other hand, the Japanese cannot view trust in such behaviour. Adachi (1997, 22) noted that the process of making decision in Japanese is group oriented where each member prefers a mode of decision making that is more pervasive. Thus, members try to avoid making decision on the spot. This is in contrast with the Americans who try as quickly as possible to get to the point (Stewart et al. 1986). According to Graham (1993, 123) the effort of Japanese to study other parties continues at the negotiation table. Based on the Japanese negotiators, the crucial aspect of meeting with their partners at the opening stage is to know the partners. In contrast, the Americans are very anxious to accomplish the predetermined agenda. For instance, the Japanese like to test the knowledge, conviction, and sincerity of their partners through asking numerous probing questions. They partners who are sincere, serious, honest and informed in regard to their work. Before involving into any substantive issues, they need to have a feeling and understanding of the type of partners they are dealing with. This means that they usually have a great deal of socialising at the initial stages of negotiation. They view business and entertainment to go hand in hand and believe that after socialising, the exchange of information will be real given that their partners will be at ease and less bound by the constraints of organisations. On the other hand he noted that Americans usually separate work from pleasure. Brett & Okuruma (1998) noted that Japanese view a deal as an intention based on a long-term relationship. A relationship is more important to them and it takes precedence over the terms involved in the deal. Americans perceive Japanese as people who people who make the negotiation so ambiguous because they are not willing jeopardise their relationship with their partners just because of one deal. Thus, for Japanese, it is not necessary that they have to reach to an agreement as they end their discussions. Due to this, they opt to change the subject or just ignore the matter if they fail to reach to an agreement. Thus, at the end of negotiation, they want their interpersonal relationship to remain uninterrupted by an issue. In contrast, Adachi (1997, 23) ascertain that Americans usually recognise a deal as a deal and they really consider as a commitment of the firm. Their negotiation strategies and process focus on the issues rather than positions and they separate people from the issues. They feel that Japanese do not necessarily come with details on the negotiation table thus leaving an opportunity for negotiations behind the table. While Americans bring issues and negotiate them on the table point by point then reach an overall agreement, their partners first reach an overall agreement then go into details. March (1990, 168) argues that in the process of negotiations, complications may occur. He summarizes the reactions of both partners during negotiations. While discussing, Japanese show less concern in regard to pressures related to the deadline and they either retreat to silence or vogue statements. In addition they require making frequent referrals to their seniors and appear to slow down in case complication start to develop. Finally, they feel victimized or threatened quickly by a stressful situation or aggressive tactics. The Americans on the other hand are more time conscious and feel pressure in regard to deadlines and express frustrations and become aggressive sooner. They usually have more authority in matters of making decisions on the spot and misinterpret or fail to understand the non-verbal behaviour of Japanese. Finally, they experience breakdown in the organisation of the team where members compete to our-argue their partners and at the same time control the team. However, if the partners understand the reactions of their counterparts in terms of complications, a positive result will be produced. With basic knowledge of the culture of every side, the cross-cultural negotiations become successful. Language of negotiation Adachi (1997, 24) argues that since language is used in business as a communication tool, its effects on negotiation process are essential. In cross-cultural negotiations one side of the language of negotiators is normally adapted as the main tool of communication. It is worth noting that concepts and words are to some extent bound culturally and learning a language does not necessarily involve the surface meaning only but also the word’s notion. Bloch (1996, 27) noted that some of the words in Japanese can be translated to mean differently in English. For instance, a word “Muzukashii” can be translated in English to mean “difficult”. Japanese business people use it to mean “out of question” but the American businessmen use it to mean “a hard bargain”. In addition, the definition of customer in the two parties is not the same. Americans take the word customer to mean “final customer” while the Japanese use it to imply a buyer on the other negotiation side but it does not necessarily mean a customer. Thus, even if a word has an actual meaning, different languages and cultures may handle it in a divergent way. In another situation, Japanese do not use “yes” to really mean “yes” as the Americans know it. In addition, Graham & Sano (1989) noted that Japanese try not to use “no” to the best they can in order to maintain harmony as well as avoid conflict in any situation. Thus, instead of saying “no” directly they use various ways to avoid it. They can simply and naturally interpret these signals that indicate “no” correctly, but these signals become difficult to understand for non-native speakers such as Americans. This is because they are completely bicultural and linguistically competent. Such nuances indicating “no” include silence, exiting, and vague “no”, counter question, apology, and delaying answers among others. On the other hand, Americans are very direct in what they mean and if they interpret that their partners also means the same, there will be difficulties. The main challenge posed by Japanese when they speak English is that they use the signals that mean “no”. Thus, even if the negotiation is done in English, the secret is to understand the signals that are frequently applied during when negotiations are conducted in English. This will make the negotiation successful (Adachi, 1997, 27). However, Paik and Ting (1999, 7), add that one of the main difference occurs in the final stage of negotiation where Japanese take as a presentation of the beginning of relationship that is long and productive. In contrast, the Americans view final stage as for agreement signing with no room for renegotiation. Conclusion The negotiation style, cultural and language differences influence negotiations between Japanese and Americans. Based on culture, Japanese highest social priority is focused on harmony. While Japanese focus on relative power, their partners prefer equity. Based on the concept of time, Japanese take less concern while their counterparts are more time conscious. Power of information is exercised in different ways. While Japanese exercise it by holding it, the Americans exercise it by disclosing it. Japanese negotiation process is aimed at reaching an acceptable point to both parties while Americans view it as a competition that divides winners and losers. However, negotiations differs from situation to situation but in order to make the process successful, it is important to learn the general rules of your counterparts in order to understand the way they think and act. Language is cross-cultural negotiation differs and understanding of cultural connotations is very essential aspect of conversation. Japanese use indirect language through ambiguous expressions in order to express their stand. This is done to maintain harmony and prevent conflicts between them and their partners. In contrast, Americans use direct language to convey their message. The best way to improve communication and ensure successful in negotiations is for Japanese counterparts to be aware of the signals. References Adachi, Y. (1997). Business negotiations between the Americans and the japanese, Global Languages, 2(4), 19-30 Adair, W.L., Okumura, T., & Brett, J.M. (2001). Negotiation behaviour when cultures collide: the United States and Japan, Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 371-385 Bloch, B. (1996). The language-culture connection in international business, Foreign Language Annals, 29, 27-36 Brett, J.M., & Okuruma, T. (1998). Inter- and Intra-cultural negotiation: U.S. and Japanese negotiators, The Academy of Management Journal, 41(5), 495-510 Graham, J.L. (1989). Smart bargaining: doing business with the japanese, Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Graham, J.L. (1993). The Japanese negotiation style: characteristics of a distinct approach, Negotiation Journal, 9, 123-140. Ikle, F.D. (1968). Negotiation, International Encyclopaedia of Social science, 2, 117-120 March, R.M. (1990). The Japanese negotiator, New York: Kodansha International McCreary, D.R. (1986). Japanese- US business negotiations: a cross-cultural study, New York: Praeger Paik, Y., & Tung, R.L. (1999). Negotiating with East Asians: how to attain “win-win” outcomes, Management International Review, 39(2), 1-11 Stewart, L.P., William, B.G., Stella, T., & Tsukasha, N. (1986). The effect of decision-making style on openness and satisfaction within Japanese organisations, Communication Monographs, 53, 236-251 Weldon, E., & Jehn, K.A. (1995). Examining cross-cultural differences in conflict management behaviour: a strategy for future research, International Journal of Conflict Management , 6, 387-403 Yoshimura, N. (1997). Interview with Norobu Yoshimura, New York imes Magazine, june 8, 68 Read More