【摘 要】随着经济全球化的趋势、国际商务活动的日益频繁，越来越显示出对多元文化理解的必要性和跨文化谈判能力的重要性。商务谈判中的文化因素引起了人们越来越多的关注。无庸置疑，在跨文化的商务谈判中，除了基本的谈判技巧、理解不同地区的文化因素、认识文化差异外，还要采取相应的策略和不断调整自己的谈判风格，这样将对成功的商务谈判起到至关重要的作用。
【关键词】文化；因素；商务谈判
i. introduction
with the emergence of economic globalization and china’s entry into wto, international business becomes increasingly intercultural. as international business relations grow, so does the frequency of business negotiations among people from different countries and cultures. and that can create considerable challenges for business representatives unfamiliar with the cultures of different groups. so the intercultural approach to international business negotiation has attracted increasing academic attention. negotiations can easily break down because of a lack of understanding of the cultural component in the negotiation process.
therefore, to the successful negotiations, the two sides must first understand the cultural differences. negotiators who take the time to understand the approach that the other parties are likely to use and to adapt their own styles to that one are likely to be more effective negotiators. thus in an intercultural negotiation, in addition to the basic negotiation skills, it is important to understand the cultural differences, and to modify the negotiation style accordingly.
this paper focus on the four dimensions of culture and different negotiating styles to illustrate the importance of the culture factors in business negotiation.
ii. negotiation and culture
the very definition of negotiation, in its modern sense, can vary from culture to culture. what a negotiation is designed to accomplish is seen differently by different groups of people. before one even comes to the table, such differences in the meaning or purpose of the negotiation affect the negotiation, as how one defines the process of negotiating is culturally determined. some cultures see it only as an opportunity to bargain, others as the establishment of a lifetime relationship that goes beyond the occasional meeting, still others as an opportunity to demonstrate their capacity for eloquence and debate. some do not see negotiation as a process at all. for instance, americans and europeans tend to see negotiations as a competitive process; the chinese and the japanese see it as a collaborative endeavor.
so there are many more challenges in an intercultural environment than in a mono-cultural setting. intercultural negotiations are negotiation where the negotiating parties belong to different cultures and do not share the same ways of thinking, feeling, and behavior. the negotiation process is generally more complex because cultural norms may undermine effective communication.
iii. some culture factors in business negotiation
language goes beyond the spoken word, encompassing nonverbal actions and behaviors that reveal hidden clues to culture. in the negotiation process, interpersonal communication is the key activity that takes place at the verbal, nonverbal, situational contextual level, and a total communication system can assist the negotiator to bridge the gap between utterance and felt meaning. three key topics---time, space, body language---offer a starting point from which negotiators can begin to acquire the understanding necessary to do business in foreign countries.
time
two different orientations to time exist across the world: monochronic and polychronic. monochronic approaches to time are linear, sequential and involve focusing on one thing at a time. these approaches are most common in the european-influenced cultures of the united states, germany, switzerland, and the scandinavia. japanese people also tend toward this end of the time continuum. polychronic orientations to time involve working on several activities simultaneously. the time it takes to complete an interaction is elastic, and more important than any schedule. this orientation is most common in mediterranean and latin cultures including france, italy, greece, and mexico, as well as some eastern and african cultures.
space
space orientations differ across cultures. they have to do with territory, divisions between private and public, comfortable personal distance, comfort or lack of comfort with physical touch and contact, and expectations about where and how contact will take place. for example, an american etiquette manual advises this about personal space: “when you meet someone, don’t stand too close. an uncomfortable closeness is very annoying to the other person, so keep your physical distance, or he’ll have to keep backing off from you. a minimum of two feet away from the other person will do it.”
there are large differences in spatial preferences according to gender, age, generation, socioeconomic class, and context. these differences vary by group, but should be considered in any exploration of space as a variable in negotiations.
body language
body language can be telling as it can help one determine the exact meaning of what the other side is saying and also can help you get your own message across. likes and dislikes, tensions, and assessing an argument are shown by numerous signs such as blushing, contraction of facial muscles, giggling, strained laughter or simply silence. wherever a party negotiates, the negotiator must watch and observe the other party. people, when seated, lean forward if they like what you are saying or are interested in listening. they sit back with crossed arms if they do not like the message. nervousness can manifest itself through nonverbal behavior, and blinking can be related to feeling of guilt or fear.
iv. four dimensions of culture
any analysis of culture is incomplete without the basic recognition of cultural differences. it has been argued that differences among cultures can be explained according to four dimensions of culture.
individualism-collectivism
in individualistic cultures the focus of one’s behavior can be unashamedly self-centered. the individual can make objections, state his feelings and be openly judgmental. success or failure is left to the individual and does not cause the same degree of shame among the group. in individualistic cultures, people tend to put tasks before relationships and to value independence highly. people in these cultures are expected to take care of themselves and to value the needs of the individual over those of the groups, community, or society. individualistic cultures prefer linear logic and tend to value open conflict.
members from individualistic societies expect the other side’s negotiators to have the ability to make decisions unilaterally.
collectivist negotiators tend to assume that details can be worked out if the negotiators can agree on generalities. collectivist societies show more concern for the needs of the other party and focus more on group goals than individualistic societies. members of collectivist societies chafe when members from individualistic societies promote their own positions and ideas during negotiations.
power differential
the idea of power differential describes the degree of deference and acceptance of unequal power between people. cultures where there is a comfort with high power differential are those where some people are considered superior to others because of their social status, gender, race, age, education, birthright, personal achievements, family background or other factors. cultures with low power differential tend to assume equality among people, and focus more on earned status than ascribed status. generally speaking, the more unequally wealth is distributed, the bigger will be the power differential in any national setting. national cultures with a high power differential include arabian countries, malaysia, the philippines, mexico, indonesia, and india. negotiators from these countries tend to be comfortable with: hierarchical structures; clear authority figures; the right to use power with discretion. countries with a low power differential include u.s., austria, denmark, israel, new zealand, ireland, sweden, norway, finland, switzerland, britain, and germany. negotiators from these countries tend to be comfortable with: democratic structures and flat organizational hierarchies; shared authority; the right to use power only in limited circumstances and for legitimate purposes.
uncertainty avoidance
the idea of uncertainty avoidance has to do with the way cultures relate to uncertainty and ambiguity, and, how well they may adapt to changes. in general, countries that show the most discomfort with ambiguity and uncertainty include muslim countries and traditional african countries, where high value is placed on conformity and safety, risk avoidance, and reliance on formal rules and rituals. trust tends to be vested only in family and close friends. it may be difficult for outside negotiators to establish relationships of confidence and trust with members of these cultures. the united states, scandinavia, and singapore are identified as having a higher tolerance for uncertainty. members of these cultures tend to value risk-taking, problem-solving, flat organizational structures, and tolerance for ambiguity. it may be easier for outsiders to establish trusting relationships with negotiating partners in these cultural contexts.
masculinity-femininity
the terms masculinity and femininity are used to refer to the degree to which a culture values assertiveness or nurturing and social support. the terms also refer to the degree to which socially prescribed roles operate for men and women. countries and regions such as japan and latin america are rated as preferring values of assertiveness, task-orientation, and achievement. in these cultures, there tend to be more rigid gender roles and “live to work” orientations. in countries and regions rated feminine, such as scandinavia, thailand, and portugal, values of cooperation, nurturing, relationship and solidarity with those less fortunate prevail, and the moral belief is more one of “work to live”. of course, it is important to remember that associations with gender vary greatly across cultures, so that elements considered masculine in one culture might be considered feminine in another. negotiators may find it useful to consider the way gender roles play out in the cultural contexts of their negotiating partners.
v. negotiating style
it must be emphasized that there is no one right approach to negotiations. there are only effective and less effective approaches and these vary according to many contextual factors. as negotiators understand that their counterparts may be seeing things very differently, they will be less likely to make negative judgments and more likely to make progress in negotiations. the research and observations by most scholars indicate fairly clearly that negotiation practices differ from culture to culture and that culture can influence “negotiating style”--the way persons from different cultures conduct themselves in negotiating sessions.
for example, u.s. negotiators tend to rely on individualist values, imagining self and other as autonomous, independent, and self-reliant. this does not mean that they don’t consult, but the tendency to see self as separate rather than as a member of a web or network means that more independent initiatives may be taken. american negotiators tend to be competitive in their approach to negotiations, including coming to the table with a fallback position but beginning with an unrealistic offer.
therefore，american negotiators often act in an impersonal way--“business is business” is their maxim. besides, american negotiators are always mission-driven--anxious to bring parties concerned into agreement, and they have little interest in building up any relationship. furthermore, american negotiators like to be openly challenged for the negotiation, and they think it is quite normal if they run into any conflict with any party concerned.
chinese negotiators also look forward to long-term partnership. unlike america negotiators, they are not in a hurry to push for an agreement. generally there is a slow start to “warm up”, and then it is followed by some tentative suggestions. like their japanese counterparts, chinese negotiators do not expect any open conflict for whatever reasons, and they are trying to “save face” for both sides.
the chinese are reserved and known for their hospitality and good manners. the chinese consider mutual relationships and trust very important. therefore, time will be spent in the beginning enjoying tea and social talk. however, they are some of the toughest negotiators in the eyes of foreign negotiators. technical competence of negotiators is necessary, and a non-condescending attitude is important because the chinese research their opponents thoroughly to gain a competitive advantage during negotiation. nothing is final until it is signed; and they prefer to use an intermediary. the chinese delegation will be large. they rarely use lawyers, and interpreters may have inadequate language skills and experience. although chinese negotiators imply that there is no compromise or third choice, in reality there is ample room for compromise.
even as different approaches to negotiation across national cultures are identified, change is constant. international business culture tends to privilege western approaches to negotiation, centering on problem-solving and linear communication, as do many settings. as western norms are balanced with eastern values, and local traditions are balanced with regional and national approaches, negotiation practices continue their global evolution. culture can influence the way in which persons perceive and approach certain key elements in the negotiating process. knowledge of these cultural differences may help negotiators to better understand and interpret their counterpart’s negotiating behavior and to find ways to bridge gaps created by cultural differences. equally important, professional and occupational culture may be as important as national culture in shaping a person’s negotiating style and attitudes toward the negotiation process. if true, negotiators should at least note two important implications. first, practitioners need to take into account professional culture, as well as national culture, in their studies and analysis of the impact of culture on negotiating table, negotiators from different cultures but with similar occupational or professional backgrounds might seek to the elements of their professional culture in trying to bridge the cultural gap between them.
vi. conclusion
there has been much research in the field of negotiation, and there is fortunately now a good deal of information around that can guide us in our quest to become better negotiators. most likely, as with many of the other skills mentioned in the paper, we have to learn how to negotiate through trial and error. most likely, we have developed particular individual styles that we are comfortable with. however, research has shown that there are certain ways of negotiating that are simply more productive than others. most important to us here, perhaps, is the fact that the research on effective versus less effective international negotiation styles seems to support certain aspects of the way some cultures negotiate, while discouraging other aspects.
negotiators as members of society are led easily into attitudes of cultural bias. the only way to overcome that bias is to create awareness of one’s own cultural system by understanding how other people behave in another system. the negotiator, from his knowledge of his opponent’s culture and his sensitivity to it, can adapt his behavior to the situation and serve the interests of the interaction. the more and better the communication, the greater the amount of information shared or extracted, and the greater the build-up of trust, the more likely is the possibility of creating the satisfaction that negotiators are exchanging at the end of the day. in order to be effective the negotiators operate as detectives searching for clues to the values and interests of their counterparts. they avoid assumptions about partner concerns; they look for what does matter to the partner rather than what should matter. in short, they must be careful not to allow cultural stereotypes to determine his or her relations with local businesspersons.
notes
[1]graham.j.& herberger,r.(1983). negotiators abroad—don’t shoot from the hip. harvard business
review, 61, 160-169
【references】
[1]william stallings; with a contribution by richard van slyke.business data communications [m].prentice hall, c2001.
[2]behrouz a. forouzan with sophia chung fegan. business data communications [m].mcgraw-hill, c2003.
