Article: Rethinking the Culture-Negotiation Link

Rethinking the Culture-Negotiation Link
By Robert J. Janosik
(Summarized by CS)

Practicing negotiators have tended to rely on the concept "culture," or on related notions like national style, to explain behavior encountered at the international bargaining table. Since the notion of culture as an explanatory tool holds such allure for negotiation analysts, this paper will examine the treatment of "culture" with important consequences for the understanding of the culture-negotiation connection. I have identified 4 distinct approaches: culture as learned behavior, culture as shared value, culture as dialectic and culture-in-context.

CULTURE AS LEARNED BEHAVIOR

The notion of culture, and searching for the organizing principles behind it, resorts to generalizations based on the observed typical characteristics and behaviors of the inhabitants of a particular geo location. Therefore, the focus if often on what negotiators do, rather than what they think – with very little analysis of when/why/how the behavior pattern occurs (which relies greatly on the sensitivity of the observer).
• In 1716 de Callieres wrote "On the Manner of Negotiating with Princes" and hypothesized that there is a direct relationship b/w negotiating behavior and place of birth (Spanish diplomats never act in haste and always try to conclude with an advantage).
• In 1963 Harold Nicholson wrote "Diplomacy" and suggests that a nation's diplomacy is a function of the country's norm and values (there are differences in the theory/practice of the Great Powers…caused by variation in national character, etc.).
• The first US Consul General to Japan, Townsend Harris, got increasingly frustrated by long-enduring trade negotiations in 1930 and vented: "the Japanese do not regard the promise they gave me last…to lie, for a Japanese, is simply to speak."
• In 1970, Howard F. Van Zandt's "How to Negotiate in Japan" noted 13 distinctive behavior characteristics commonly encountered by Americans in talks with the Japanese (avoidance of 'no', gift-giving, etc.).
• Flora Lewis' observations of US-Saudi Arabian relations in 1979 continue the theme of experiential observations: "the Arabs nod their heads and listen, but this does not mean that they agree."
These writers, then, view their task in terms of making it possible for others in the same position to successfully manage for others in the same or similar future situations. Although this is very valuable, it's also a very limited approach.

CULTURE AS SHARED VALUE

A second commonly-applied approach is where the analyst will search for a central cultural value or norm that distinguishes each of the groups being compared – assuming that thinking precedes doing and that one's thinking patterns derive from one's cultural context. From the practitioner's point of view, this is quite appealing (much as the first option) because it suggests an almost inevitable (thereby predictable) pattern of negotiating behavior.
• Mushakoji Kinhide in 1976, contrasted US and Japanese negotiating styles. US = erabi culture, Japanese = awase. Erabi = a behavior seqeuence whereby a person sets the objective, develops a plan based on the objective and then acts to change the environment according to the plan (present a clear statement of position and expect the same). Awase = assumes the environment must be adjusted to (prefer infer the other's position, avoid early commitments).
• "Smart Bargaining: Doing Business with the Japanese" (Graham and Sano, 1984) point to a set of cluster values that contribute to the Japanese style: amae (indulgent dependency), wa (the maintenance of harmony), and shinyo (gut feeling). According to the authors, Americans have a tendency to negotiate in "John Wayne Style" – preferring short, informal negotiations that emphasize the quality of the participants.
Another variant of this approach is to regard the nexus of culture/negotiation to a nation's ideology, of which there are 3 recognized: Liberalism, Fascism and Communism.
• In 1968, Kenneth T. Young examined the history of US-Chinese negotiations from the perspective of their ideology: "a Chinese Communist negotiator is an ideologist more than anything else…Maoist ideology has enclosed China w/in a new ideological wall." "Typically, then, this kind of negotiator tried to outflank his opponent and weaken him by every conceivable means at every possible point."
• In 1951, "Negotiating with Russians" finds that Western observers usually ascribe deception, dissimulation, rigidity, non-accommodation, hostility and harassment to both Soviet and Chinese Communist diplomatic representatives.

CULTURE AS DIALECTIC

This is a different model of the makeup of culture in negotiations, based on a proposed identity made up of sets of polar opposites. This model was created in response to criticisms of the other models that offered only simplified single culture values; this one is defined by the tensions/dialectics that exist embedded in every culture. And whereas the other models were static and unchanging, this one allows both individual variation and changes over time. However, this model not deterministic and is therefore more difficult to wield in negotiations with great utility.
• Michael Blaker's "Japanese International Negotiating Style" (1977) cites two forces in Japanese negotiations: "harmonious cooperation" (avoid discord at all costs within the social/business matrix) and "the warrior ethic" (encourages risk-taking in dogged pursuit of a cause). Both have strong grounding in Japanese history, both are legitimate.
• He also describes 5 norms of Japanese bargaining action: overcoming domestic opposition, dispelling western resistance, secrecy, careful deliberations and situational adaptation; and 3 norms of Japanese negotiating tactics – optimism, fatalism and nonmoral pragmatism. (probe/push/panic tactical style of negotiating)

CULTURE–IN–CONTEXT

The fourth approach is the most complex, and suggests that human behavior can only be accounted for by understanding three primary components – the individual's personality, cultural values and the social context in which the individual operates. (Any less than this multi-faceted overview is inadequate, per the proponents of this model.) This model is now greatly favored by analysts, because it holds in common the assumption that though culture is important, it is not the only contributor to an individual's negotiating behavior. Rather, culture is interdependent, interactive. Particularly important are the factors that define the individual negotiator (age, gender, religion and personality) as well as those factors which define the context of the negotiation. In other words, nationality/culture does have in important role to play, but any generalizations about the nationality/culture nexus may require modification to account for the age, religion, gender mentioned above. But
as the complexity of this model increases, its utility for the practitioner decreases (fewer 'do's and don'ts, more complex answers).

OBSERVATIONS

The goals of the scholars and the participant-observers differ somewhat, and so there has been a tendency to dismiss or downplay the problems of definition and conceptualization in the examination of the various 'contributory' factors to the phenomenon of negotiation. Practitioners prefer either the 1st or 2nd model for its high degree of predictability concerning the behavior of the target group; scholars prefer either the 3rd or 4th that are more psychological and make prediction more complex and risky enterprise. So although all the models are important, the 1st and 2nd approaches have more to do with what has been called 'etiquette', and although this is an important conversation, but it must ultimately move on to more complex matters that lie at the heart of understanding if there's some trans-national, trans-cultural understanding of the fundamental nature of negotiation itself.