An Analysis of Intercultural Negotiations between the East and West Essay

Executive SummaryThis report provides an abridgment and evaluation of an inter heathenish dialog between regular armys cook free-and-easy habilitate and mainland Chinas Chung Sun Manufacturing, provides a books review of a prominent conjecture from the field and suggests recommendation to rectify the function of inter pagan communion between these two countries and companies.As the Case Study was identified as subpar negotiation, every last(predicate) getting evens from the Case Study were eachocated into Interethnical, Verbal and Nonverbal.Fol modesting this, Hofstedes ethnic Model was introduced in the literary works review and critic tout ensembley analysed. This manikin include five ratios1. Uncertainty Avoidance2. Power Distance3. masculinity vs. womanhood4. Individualism vs. Collectivism5. Short Term vs. Long Term well-nigh strengths of the model included a large s deoxyadenosine monophosphatele surface, indexes for all nations and easy stoolulated hyp otheses. Alternatively, some limitations were an assert s angstrom uniterele misrepresentation, not adequately analysing mint on an individual level and a time lapse since place formulation.Major thin outs from the negotiations were then further investigated and includedRushing the negotiations and failing to form an adequate relationship Causing offence by giving a leave to the Chinese representative Not respecting the hierarchy of theChinse shadeimpuissance to have an interpreter for the negotiationsTouching the Chinese associates inappropriatelyRecommendations suggested preventing further intercultural issues and regression current issues as noted above includedHiring an interpreter and cultural adviserTranslating all written materials into ChineseCreating transparency within the negotiations process by carrying for a junction strategy1 ledger entryIntercultural conversation is becoming increasingly important within a world(prenominal) mount for line of merchandis ees. In one study within China the dry land being analyzed, all respondents to a survey agreed that it is critical to the winner of the organization (73.9 strongly & adenine 26.1 moderately) (Goodman &type A Wang, 2007). In the fol impoverisheding report, the mastery of an intercultural negotiation between China and regular army impart be assessed to catch all issues legislatering across intercultural, verbal and communicatory and how they lavatory be fixed. This pull up stakes be mounte by providing recommendations based on current literature in the field. Additionally, The issues of the case will be identified and analysed and a literature view will be undertaken of a relevant prominent theory in the field.2 Identification of Problems/ nationalsWithin the negotiations between embrown Casual Shoes and Chung Sun Manufacturing, in that location were several intercultural conversation issues that offended the Chinese through what appeared to be a blatant disregard for th eir cultural barriers. These issues fork out been partitioned into three sections general, verbal and nonverbal.1 Intercultural IssuesThe firstborn error in their intercultural interaction was the letter given by Mr Brown to Mr Deng. In addition to kick in giving in the Chinese byplay grow being insufferable collect to it being seen as bribery (UONI, 2011), it is especially offensive for a gift to be wrapped in white paper as red is the norm (Kwintessential, 2013). The fact that Mr. Deng ref utilize the gift three times to begin with opening it aligns with the fact that Chinese whitethorn refuse a gift three times before opening it but not a fourth (Kwintessential, 2013). An otherwise contributing factor is the point that Chinese dont like to say no, and will often say yes just to extradite face (World stock Culture, 2013). The following mistake made by Mr. Brown was produceing the first toast of the evening. In Chinese cultulre, it should continuously be the hos t who makes the first toast of the evening (Kwintessential, 2013).Additionally, Mr Browns lack of knowledge on who should leave the meeting first whitethorn shake up caused offence. As per Chinese culture, the foreigner should always leave first when a meeting is finished (UONI, 2011). Mr Browns misunderstanding of this could befool caused discomfort for the Chinese. Mr Browns perception that the initial meetings with the Chinese would have resulted in a negotiation early was a fundamental misunderstanding as he failed to realise that the Chinese often forge relationships with individuals before partaking in business (Goodman, 2013).2 Intercultural Verbal colloquy IssueAlthough Mr Brown and his team participated in lots of small talk with Mr Deng, further small talk could be encouraged to avoid causing offence and giving the impression that the negotiators plainly care about time and not forging a last relationship (UONI, 2011). An additional verbal error made by Mr. Brown wa s his failure to take a interpreter. In China, this is often viewed as a sign of disrespect for their culture (Fang & vitamin A Faure, 2010). This lack of an interpreter and an oerall lack of comprehension of English could have been the reason for the large bill of questions rather than the impression formulated by Mr. Brown that they were not just about the business (World transaction Culture, 2013). Furthermore, the fact that Mr Brown and his team didnt make the effort to learn any Chinese at all for the negotiation might give off the impression that they are ethnocentric about their culture (Goodman, 2013).3 Intercultural Nonverbal Verbal Communication IssuesAlthough there were not some(prenominal) nonverbal communication errors, one fundamental nonverbal communication error made by Mr. Brown was his affecting of the lace of Mr. Deng. Culturally, Chinese dislike being touched by st stretchrs (Gao et al, 1996). As they were however just meeting and not yet properly acqua inted, this whitethorn have been perceived as offensive.3 Literature ReviewHofstedes model has been used as it was utilized a starting point for many additional cultural models. Below, figure one shows the convergence of this model with other notable ones from the field of cultural communication studies. It can be deduced from this that Hofstedes model is the most diverse and complete cloth as it encompasses all factors of other relevant models and shows evidence for the theoretical relevance. Figure 2 parity of Hofstedes cultural modeling with other modelsSource Soares, Farhangmehr & vitamin A Shoham, 2007, p. 281 matchless assumption of this model is defining identity through nation. Many scholars (Steenkamn et al, 1999l Hofstede, 1984 Parker, 1994 vacuum-clean et al., 1978) support this approach.1 Literature ReviewHofstedes cultural proportionality is a model crafted to identify the key differences across different cultural workplace determine. Gert Hofstede formulated this model through complex statistical analysis on more than 100,000 IBM employees across the world. The results of this suggested that five dimension spinal columns could be used to describe most important differences among cultures worldwide. These anchors provide points of comparison for each culture and allow different nations cultures to be contrasted and their disposition measured based on key traits (Lewicki, Saunders & ampere Barry, 2011). These anchor points are Individualism/Collectivism, Power Distance, maleness/Femininity, Uncertainty Avoidance and Short Term/Long Term. Figure 1 below shows how this is commonly measured.Figure 1Source Hofstede, 2001The first dimension of the model is Power Distance. Power distance reflects the attitude a purchase revisal holds on power ine prime(a) and authority relations in society. This anchor can influence hierarchy, dependence relationships and organizational context (Soares et al, 2007). A low score is indicative of a society with lit tle respect for unequally distributed power and decisions are often spread through the organisation with feedback to bosses appropriate. Alternatively, a postgraduate score shows that the society depends highly on hierarchical structures and may concentrate decision making at the top (Hofstede, 1980). Uncertainty shunning is the second dimension of this framework. This dictates the extent to which volume feel threatened by uncertainty and ambiguity and due to this avoid situations that may cause these feelings to occur (Hofstede, 1991). People with high uncertainty avoidance often have well defined rules for prescribed behaviours (Soares et al, 2007) and if these are not in place for wise situations, they will strive to immediately move towards establishing them. Alternatively, those with low scores on this anchor will be less affected by situations that may be ambiguous (Lewicki, Saunders & Barry, 2011).The next dimension individualism vs. collectivism, describes the relat ionships mountain have in each culture (Soares et al, 2007). In individualistic societies, people tend to act independently and look after only themselves and their signal families. In collectivist societies, members of the society hold a large power point of interdependence (Hofstede, 1980) and take care of their group in exchange for loyalty.Masculinity vs. Feminity is the scale anchor that differentiates societies where achievement and success is paramount (high masculine) and those where caring for others and quality of vitality is more important (low feminine) (Hofstede, 1994). Feminine societies are ones where quality of life is often more desirable than standing out from the crowd (Hofstede, 2014). Lastly, long-run vs. Short Term is the dimension, which shows countries preference towards future rewards and perseverance or towards short-term gain and fulfilling past or present traditions (Hofstede and Bond, 1988).2 StrengthsSome strengths of Hofstedes model is the thoroughness and time points of his research which includes 116,000 empirical questionn railway linees from over 60,000 respondents across lxx countries in various decades (Hofstede, 1984 Hofstede, 1991 Hofstede, 2001). This is the most robust model in wrong of sample size and variety (Smith et al., 1996). He links his dimensions with various extraneous and internal factors, such as demographic, geographic, economic and political, and assigns indexes to every nation a feature unmatched by other frameworks (Kale & Barnes, 1992).In addition, the framework is highly useful in formulating easy hypothesises across a range of purposes and it continues to be the norm used in inter matter marketing, psychology, management and sociology studies (Engel, Blackwell & Miniard, 1995 Sondergaard, 1994).3 WeaknessesAlthough some critique Hofstedes research due to its alleged sample bias and its lack of inclusivity of the richness of cultures due to its sample size being based only on thos e working at IBM (Lewicki, Saunders & Barry, 2011), they fail to take into tarradiddle further revisions of the model by Hofstede. At the foreign Institute for Management Development Hofstede administered the test to international managers from over 30 countries from a variety of both private and public organisations. The results yielded in these proved significantly similar to those in his original sample curing his original hypothesis (Geert, 2008). Another prominent critique is the fact that in both of these cases, there was a disproportionate level of males, members of the middle sort out were over represented and education levels were much higher than average (Lewicki, Saunders & Barry, 2011), Additionally, some argue that in the model nation differences only account for 2 to 4 percent of variance in individual values, release at least 96 percent- if not more, unexplained.One scholar from the honorary society of Management suggested that the model was incongruent wi th his own knowledge on mental phenomena and suggests that an alternative methodology be drafted (Ailon, 2008) to account for this 96 percent. Some academics take on that Hofstedes culture dimensions are flawed due to their categorizations of people into national stereotypes rather than individual character. This is especially applicable for people living in ethnically diverse countries. (Venaik & Brewer, 2013). Lenartowicz and Roth (1999), however, contend that no single methodology across any model is able to address the inclusive adjust of criteria relevant to cultural assessment in business studies. Lastly, it could be suggested that due to the time that the initial dimensions were formulated was so long ago they may be out-dated and no eight-day relevant. Others argue that the change in cultures occurs so slow that significant changes would not likely affect the model for a long period (Sivakumar and Nakata, 2001) perhaps until 2100 (Hofstede, 2001).4 Case Analysis basketball team issues have been chosen out of the initial ones identified and have been linked up with their relevant theories.1 Issue 1The first issue is Mr Browns rush to finalise the negotiation and his final chin wag suggesting impatience with the negotiations. As Chinas culture is predominantly long-term orientated (87 vs USAs 26) the Chinese representatives may take longer to finalise the negotiations due to having a disposition towards long term relationships (Zhang & Toomey, 2009). In addition to this, Chinese negotiators often need to form a relationship due to their low temperament to individualism 20 vs USAs 91 (Hofstede, 2014). This haste showed great disrespect for the Chineses efforts to form a long-term relationship with the company, an aspect commonly demand for business arrangements to succeed in China (Fang & Faure, 2010).2 Issue 2As China is a highly particular culture on Trompenaars seven dimensions of culture model (Luthans & Doh, 2009), meaning th at decision making on what is right and wrong or acceptable and unacceptable is highly dependant on the exact situation and relationships involved (Trompenaars, 1997) it was a sober issue not to hire a translator to help submerge this barrier. Hofstede provides support for this theory by ranking China very low on the uncertainty avoidance scale (30), meaning that their rules may be very flexible and unique culturally (Hofstede, 2014).3 Issue 3As China is a high context society (Hall, 1985), the failed gift-giving mishap could correspond with a clash of this high context. Hall notes that within a high context culture sums are often sub-rosa and implicit, there is much non-verbal communication and the expression of reaction is frequently reserved and inward. The message that Mr. Deng did not want to accept the gift was most certainly covert and non-verbal and his reaction to the incident stayed reserved and inward most likely to save face (Goodman, 2013).4 Issue 4Halls theory a dditionally links to an important issue within the negotiation process. As Mr. Brown continually touched Mr. Dengs arm during negotiations, this may have been perceived as breach of Space (Hall, 1985). The proxemics of the Chinese culture dictates that touching is rarely acceptable (Communication Studies, 2014).5 Issue 5Another issue arising from the negotiations is both Mr. Brown toasting first at the dinner and him not go forth the dinner first. What he failed to consider when doing this was Chinas high power distance (80 vs USAs 40) (Hofstede, 2014). This suggests that China strongly values hierarchical institutions. Toasting first and disrespecting the Chinese cultural norm of the guests leaving dinner first could be perceive as disrespectful to the order of the Chinese leadership and their subsequent authority.5 RecommendationsThree recommendations have been suggested to improve Browns Casual Shoes negotiation with China in analysis of the Case Study1 Recommendation 1The first and most important recommendation for Mr. Brown would be to hire a corporate communicator or interpreter. Although it would not be wise to hire a complete agent as it may detract from the individual(prenominal) relationship needing to be crafted between both parties for successful business undertakings, USA negotiators should hire an interpreter at the least or a cultural adviser at best to cut through the high context culture of the Chinese, show the Chinese that they care about their culture and to offer priceless advice on the negotiation process to ensure an optimal burden for both parties (Lewicki, Saunders & Barry, 2011).2 Recommendation 2The USA negotiators should in future hire a translator to succinctly translate all of their written material including business cards, marketing presentations, business proposals, company history, harvest-feast information and anything else relevant to the trip to Chinese using simplified characters (Fang & Faure, 2010, p. 138) . This takes away room for misinterpretation on any element of business and eliminates any concept of ethnocentricity that could have been perceived as well as showing respect for their culture and language (Kwintessential, 2013).3 Recommendation 3The final recommendation is to identify whether either parties or both parties will adjust their style of negotiation to the other parties cultural style. Confusion can sometimes arise when both parties are trying to adjust to the others negotiation style (Lewicki, Saunders & Barry, 2011, p. 245). A simple affirmation of whether this will be done can save much confusion and create an air of transparency. In many cases a secure middle ground (sometimes called joint strategy) can be agreed upon. This could be asked through an email or letter prior to negotiation commencement, or if this is not appropriate, they could ask to direct privately with the highest authority of the Chinese party to respect their hierarchical institutions. To do this, you could simply stay around after a meeting and ask personally to speak with the leader to help him save face (Goodman, 2013, p. 177).6 ReferencesAilon, G. (2008). Mirror, mirror on the wall cultures consequences in a value test of its own design. The Academy of Management Review, 33(4), 885-904. Communication Studies (2014). Proxemics. Retrieved from http//www.communicationstudies.com/communication-theories/proxemics Dawar, N., & Parker, P. (1994). Marketing universals consumers use of brand, name, price, physical appearance and retailer composition as signals of product quality. J Mark, 58(April), 81-95. Engel, J., Blackwell, R., &Miniard, P. (1995). Consumer Behaviour. n.p. The Dryden Press. Fang, T., & Faure, G. O. (2011). Chinese communication characteristics A Yin Yang perspective. international diary of Intercultural Relations, 35(3), 320-333. Doi http//dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2010.06.005. Gao, G., Toomey, T. S., Gudykunst, W. B., & Bond, M. H. (19 96). The Handbook of Chinese Psychology Chinese communication processes. New York, NY Oxford University Press. Goodman, M. B. (2013). Intercultural Communication for Managers. New York, NY Business expert press. Goodman, M. B., & Wang, J. (2007). Tradition and innovation the china business communication study. The Journal of Business Strategy, 28(3), 34-41. Doi http//dx.doi.org/10.1108/02756660710746256 Hall, E. T. (1985). Hidden Differences Studies in internationalistic Communication. Hamburg, GE Grunder and Jahr. Hofstede, G. (1984). Cultures consequences international differences in work-related values. Newbury Park, CA Sage Publications. Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations software package of the mind. New York, NY Mcgraw-Hill. Hofstede, G. (2001). Cultures Consequences Comparing Values, Behaviours, Institutions & Organizations Across Nations. Thousand Oaks, CA Sage. Hofstede, G. (2014). China. Retrieved from http//geert-hofstede.com/china.html Hofstede, G. (2014). Geert. Retrieved from http//www.geerthofstede.com/geert.aspx Hofstede, G. (2014). coupled States. Retrieved from http//geert-hofstede.com/united-states.html Hoover, R., Green, R., & Saegert, J. (1978). A cross-national study of perceived risk. J Mark, (July), 102-108. Kale, S., & Barnes, J. (1992). discretion the domain of cross-national buyer-seller instructions. Journal of International Business Studies, 23(1), 101-109. Kwintessential. (2013). China language, culture, customs and etiquette. Retrieved from http//www.kwintessential.co.uk/resources/global-etiquette/china-country-profile.html. Lewicki, R. J., Saunders, D. M., & Barry, B. (2011). Essentials of negotiation (5th ed). New York, NY Mcgraw-Hill. Luthans, F., & Doh, J. (2009). International Management. New York, NY McGraw-Hill Rubin, J. Z., & Sander, F. E. A. (1991). Culture, duologue and the Eye of the Beholder. Negotiation Journal, 7(1), 249-254. Doi 10.1111/j.1571-9979.1991.tb00620.x Sivakumar, K., & Nakata, C. (2001). The stampede toward Hofstedes framework avoiding the sample design pit in cross-cultural research. The Journal of International Business Studies, 32(3), 555-574. Smith, P., Dugan,S., & Trompenaars, F. (1996). National culture and the values of organizational employees a dimensional analysis across 43 nations. The Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 27(2), 231-264. Soares, A. M., Farhangmehr, M., & Shoham, A. (2007). Hofstedes dimensions of culture in international marketing studies. Journal of Business Research, 60(3), 227-284. Doi http//dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.10.018. Sondergaard, M. (1994). Research note Hofstedes consequences a study of reviews, citations and replications. Journal of Organisational Studies, 15(3), 447-456. Steenkamp, J. (2001). The role of national culture in international marketing research. International Market Review, 18(1), 30-44. Trompenaars, F., & Hampden Turner, C. (1997). Riding the waves of culture Under standing Diversity in Global Business. New York, NY Mcgraw-Hill. University of Northern Iowa. (2011). Business Communication with China. Retrieved from http//business.uni.edu/buscomm/internationalbuscomm/world/asia/china/china.html Venaik, S., & Brewer, P. (2013). Critical issues in the Hofstede and GLOBE national culture models. International Marketing Review, 30(5), 469-482. World Business Culture. (2013). Chinese business communication style. Retrieved from http//www.worldbusinessculture.com/Chinese-Business-Communication-Style.html Zhang, H., & Toomey, S. T. (1998). Communicating Effectively with the Chinese. Thousand Oaks, CA Sage Publishing.