Module 1 – Journal Article Analysis (Negotiation and Conflict Resolution)

 

Each student will select one of the key terms listed below and conduct a search of Campbellsville University’s online Library resources to find 1 recent peer reviewed article (within the past 3 years) that closely relate to the concept. Your submission must include the following information in the following format:

Key terms:

• Negotiation
• Five phases of negotiation
• Conflict Management
• Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA)

DEFINITION: a brief definition of the key term followed by the APA reference for the term; this does not count in the word requirement.

SUMMARY: Summarize the article in your own words- this should be in the 150-200 word range. Be sure to note the article’s author, note their credentials and why we should put any weight behind his/her opinions, research or findings regarding the key term.

ANALYSIS: Using 300-350 words, write a brief analysis, in your own words of how the article relates to the selected chapter Key Term. An analysis is not rehashing what was already stated in the article, but the opportunity for you to add value by sharing your experiences, thoughts and opinions. This is the most important part of the assignment.

REFERENCES: All references must be listed at the bottom of the submission–in APA format. 

Be sure to use the headers in your submission to ensure that all aspects of the assignment are completed as required.

Any form of plagiarism, including cutting and pasting, will result in zero points for the entire assignment.

Also watch this:

 

 

Definitionof ‘Distributive Bargaining’

Definition: ​Distributive bargaining is a competitive bargaining strategy in which one

party gains only if the other party loses something. It is used as a negotiation strategy to

distribute fixed resources such as money, resources, assets, etc. between both the

parties.

Description: ​Distributive bargaining is also known as zero-sum negotiations because

the assets or the resources which need to be distributed are fixed. So, all the

negotiations will have to happen by taking that into context.

The ultimate aim, under distributive bargaining approach, is not to come to a win-win

kind of situation but that one side wins as much they can. Both parties will try to get the

maximum share from the asset or resource which needs to be distributed.

We end up using distributive bargaining approach in our daily lives as well when we

shop. Usually distributive bargaining approach works well with products which do not

have a fixed price.

For example, if you go to the supermarket and buy some products, you won’t be able to

bargain because they have a fixed price. Either you can buy the product or leave it.

Let’s understand distributive bargaining approach with the help of another example. You

go to Lajpat Nagar market in New Delhi to buy a rug. You are visiting the shop for the

first time and if the rug is of adequate quality, both the parties might not see each other

again. The shopkeeper will quote you one price, rather than any lower rate as

suggested by you.

In distributive bargaining approach, both the parties try to know each other’s

walk-away-value to take a decision. After that, they make a deal in that it is closer to

their own goal rather than adjusting according to the competitors.

In case the rug cost you Rs 1000, and you give a counter offer of Rs 800. The

shopkeeper loses Rs 200. He/she would try to limit the loss and try selling the at around

Rs 900-950.

LEARNINGOBJECTIVES

1. Learn the five phases of negotiation.
2. Learn negotiation strategies.
3. Avoid common mistakes in negotiations.
4. Learn about third-party negotiations.

A common way that parties deal with conflict is via negotiation. Negotiation is a process

whereby two or more parties work toward an agreement. There are five phases of negotiation,

which are described below.

The Five Phases of Negotiation

Figure 10.8 The Five Phases of Negotiation

Phase 1: Investigation

The first step in negotiation is the investigation, or information gathering stage. This is a

key stage that is often ignored. Surprisingly, the first place to begin is with yourself:

What are your goals for the negotiation? What do you want to achieve? What would you

concede? What would you absolutely not concede? Leigh Steinberg, the most powerful

agent in sports (he was the role model for Tom Cruise’s character in ​Jerry Maguire​),

puts it this way: “You need the clearest possible view of your goals. And you need to be

brutally honest with yourself about your priorities” (Webber, 1998).

During the negotiation, you’ll inevitably be faced with making choices. It’s best to know

what you want, so that in the heat of the moment you’re able to make the best decision.

For example, if you’ll be negotiating for a new job, ask yourself, “What do I value most?

Is it the salary level? Working with coworkers whom I like? Working at a prestigious

company? Working in a certain geographic area? Do I want a company that will groom

me for future positions or do I want to change jobs often in pursuit of new challenges?”

Phase 2: Determine Your BATNA

If you don’t know where you’re going, you will probably end up somewhere else.

Lawrence J. Peter

One important part of the investigation and planning phase is to determine your BATNA,

which is an acronym that stands for the “best alternative to a negotiated agreement.”

Roger Fisher and William Ury coined this phrase in their book ​Getting to Yes:

Negotiating without Giving In​.

Thinking through your BATNA is important to helping you decide whether to accept an

offer you receive during the negotiation. You need to know what your alternatives are. If

you have various alternatives, you can look at the proposed deal more critically. Could

you get a better outcome than the proposed deal? Your BATNA will help you reject an

unfavorable deal. On the other hand, if the deal is better than another outcome you

could get (that is, better than your BATNA), then you should accept it.

Think about it in common sense terms: When you know your opponent is desperate for

a deal, you can demand much more. If it looks like they have a lot of other options

outside the negotiation, you’ll be more likely to make concessions.

As Fisher and Ury said, “The reason you negotiate is to produce something better than

the results you can obtain without negotiating. What are those results? What is that

alternative? What is your BATNA—your Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement?

That is the standard against which any proposed agreement should be measured”

(Fisher & Ury, 1981).

The party with the best BATNA has the best negotiating position, so try to improve your

BATNA whenever possible by exploring possible alternatives (Pinkley, 1995).

Going back to the example of your new job negotiation, consider your options to the

offer you receive. If your pay is lower than what you want, what alternatives do you

have? A job with another company? Looking for another job? Going back to school?

While you’re thinking about your BATNA, take some time to think about the other party’s

BATNA. Do they have an employee who could readily replace you?

Once you’ve gotten a clear understanding of your own goals, investigate the person

you’ll be negotiating with. What does that person (or company) want? Put yourself in the

other party’s shoes. What alternatives could they have? For example, in the job

negotiations, the other side wants a good employee at a fair price. That may lead you to

do research on salary levels: What is the pay rate for the position you’re seeking? What

is the culture of the company?

Greenpeace’s goals are to safeguard the environment by getting large companies and

organizations to adopt more environmentally friendly practices such as using fewer

plastic components. Part of the background research Greenpeace engages in involves

uncovering facts. For instance, medical device makers are using harmful PVCs as a

tubing material because PVCs are inexpensive. But are there alternatives to PVCs that

are also cost-effective? Greenpeace’s research found that yes, there are (Layne, 1999).

Knowing this lets Greenpeace counter those arguments and puts Greenpeace in a

stronger position to achieve its goals.

OB TOOLBOX: BATNA BEST PRACTICES

1. Brainstorm a list of alternatives that you might conceivably take if the negotiation
doesn’t lead to a favorable outcome for you.

2. Improve on some of the more promising ideas and convert them into actionable
alternatives.

3. Identify the most beneficial alternative to be kept in reserve as a fall-back during
the negotiation.

4. Remember that your BATNA may evolve over time, so keep revising it to make
sure it is still accurate.

5. Don’t reveal your BATNA to the other party. If your BATNA turns out to be worse
than what the other party expected, their offer may go down, as PointCast
learned in the opening case.

Sources: Adapted from information in Spangler, B. (2003, June). ​Best Alternative to a

Negotiated Agreement (BATNA)​. Retrieved November 12, 2008, from

http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/batna/​; Conflict Research Consortium,

University of Colorado. (1998). ​Limits to agreement: Better alternatives​. Retrieved

November 12, 2008, from ​http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/pea…blem/batna.htm​;

Venter, D. (2003). ​What is a BATNA​? Retrieved January 14, 2008, from

http://www.negotiationeurope.com/articles/batna.html​.

Phase 3: Presentation

http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/batna/

http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/peace/problem/batna.htm

http://www.negotiationeurope.com/articles/batna.html

Figure 10.9. All phases of the negotiation process are important. The presentation is the
one that normally receives the most attention, but the work done before that point is
equally important.. The Bush Center – ​Negotiations​ – CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.

The third phase of negotiation is presentation. In this phase, you assemble the

information you’ve gathered in a way that supports your position. In a job hiring or salary

negotiation situation, for instance, you can present facts that show what you’ve

contributed to the organization in the past (or in a previous position), which in turn

demonstrates your value. Perhaps you created a blog that brought attention to your

company or got donations or funding for a charity. Perhaps you’re a team player who

brings out the best in a group.

Phase 4: Bargaining

During the bargaining phase, each party discusses their goals and seeks to get an

agreement. A natural part of this process is making concessions, namely, giving up one

thing to get something else in return. Making a concession is not a sign of

https://www.flickr.com/photos/georgewbushcenter/13148006853

weakness—parties expect to give up some of their goals. Rather, concessions

demonstrate cooperativeness and help move the negotiation toward its conclusion.

Making concessions is particularly important in tense union-management disputes,

which can get bogged down by old issues. Making a concession shows forward

movement and process, and it allays concerns about rigidity or closed-mindedness.

What would a typical concession be? Concessions are often in the areas of money,

time, resources, responsibilities, or autonomy. When negotiating for the purchase of

products, for example, you might agree to pay a higher price in exchange for getting the

products sooner. Alternatively, you could ask to pay a lower price in exchange for giving

the manufacturer more time or flexibility in when they deliver the product.

One key to the bargaining phase is to ask questions. Don’t simply take a statement

such as “we can’t do that” at face value. Rather, try to find out why the party has that

constraint. Let’s take a look at an example. Say that you’re a retailer and you want to

buy patio furniture from a manufacturer. You want to have the sets in time for spring

sales. During the negotiations, your goal is to get the lowest price with the earliest

delivery date. The manufacturer, of course, wants to get the highest price with the

longest lead time before delivery. As negotiations stall, you evaluate your options to

decide what’s more important: a slightly lower price or a slightly longer delivery date?

You do a quick calculation. The manufacturer has offered to deliver the products by

April 30, but you know that some of your customers make their patio furniture selection

early in the spring, and missing those early sales could cost you $1 million. So, you

suggest that you can accept the April 30 delivery date if the manufacturer will agree to

drop the price by $1 million.

“I appreciate the offer,” the manufacturer replies, “but I can’t accommodate such a large

price cut.” Instead of leaving it at that, you ask, “I’m surprised that a 2-month delivery

would be so costly to you. Tell me more about your manufacturing process so that I can

understand why you can’t manufacture the products in that time frame.”

“​Manufacturing the products in that time frame is not the problem,” the manufacturer

replies, “but getting them ​shipped​ from Asia is what’s expensive for us.”

When you hear that, a light bulb goes off. You know that your firm has favorable

contracts with shipping companies because of the high volume of business the firm

gives them. You make the following counteroffer: “Why don’t we agree that my company

will arrange and pay for the shipper, and you agree to have the products ready to ship

on March 30 for $10.5 million instead of $11 million?” The manufacturer accepts the

offer—the biggest expense and constraint (the shipping) has been lifted. You, in turn,

have saved money as well (Malhotra & Bazerman, 2007).

Phase 5: Closure

Closure is an important part of negotiations. At the close of a negotiation, you and the

other party have either come to an agreement on the terms, or one party has decided

that the final offer is unacceptable and therefore must be walked away from. Most

negotiators assume that if their best offer has been rejected, there’s nothing left to do.

You made your best offer and that’s the best you can do. The savviest of negotiators,

however, see the rejection as an opportunity to learn. “What would it have taken for us

to reach an agreement?”

Recently, a CEO had been in negotiations with a customer. After learning the customer

decided to go with the competition, the CEO decided to inquire as to why negotiations

had fallen through. With nothing left to lose, the CEO placed a call to the prospect’s vice

president and asked why the offer had been rejected, explaining that the answer would

help improve future offerings. Surprisingly, the VP explained the deal was given to the

competitor because, despite charging more, the competitor offered after-sales service

on the product. The CEO was taken by surprise, originally assuming that the VP was

most interested in obtaining the lowest price possible. In order accommodate a very low

price, various extras such as after-sales service had been cut from the offer. Having

learned that the VP was seeking service, not the lowest cost, the CEO said, “Knowing

what I know now, I’m confident that I could have beaten the competitor’s bid. Would you

accept a revised offer?” The VP agreed, and a week later the CEO had a signed

contract (Malhotra & Bazerman, 2007).

Sometimes at the end of negotiations, it’s clear why a deal was not reached. But if

you’re confused about why a deal did not happen, consider making a follow-up call.

Even though you may not win the deal back in the end, you might learn something that’s

useful for future negotiations. What’s more, the other party may be more willing to

disclose the information if they don’t think you’re in a “selling” mode.

Should You Negotiate for a Higher Salary?

Yes! According to a survey conducted by CareerBuilder.com, 58% of hiring managers

say they leave some negotiating room when extending initial job offers. The survey also

found that many of the hiring managers agree to a candidate’s request for a higher

salary. “Salary negotiation has become a growing opportunity in the job acquisition

process,” says Bill Hawkins, president and CEO of The Hawkins Company, a

full-service executive search firm with offices in Los Angeles and Atlanta. “Candidates

who fail to make a counteroffer could forfeit significant income.”

Source: Adapted from information in Reed-Woodard, M. (2007, April). Taking money off

the table. ​Black Enterprise​, ​37​(9), 60–61.

We have seen the central role conflict plays in organizational processes. Clearly, there are some
areas where managers would prefer to solve a problem between two parties before it results in high
levels of conflict. This is usually accomplished through negotiation. ​Negotiation​ is the process by
which individuals or groups attempt to realize their goals by bargaining with another party who has at
least some control over goal attainment. Throughout the negotiation process, considerable skill in
communication, decision-making, and the use of power and politics is required in order to succeed.

We will consider several aspects of negotiation, including stages of negotiation, types of negotiation
behavior, and the negotiation process itself. We begin with the reasons why people engage in
negotiation and bargaining in the first place.

Stages of Negotiation

In general, negotiation and bargaining are likely to have four stages. Although the length or
importance of each stage can vary from situation to situation or from one culture to another, the
presence and sequence of these stages are quite common across situations and cultures.​9

1. Non-task time.​ During the first stage, the participants focus on getting to know and become
comfortable with each other and do not focus directly on the task or issue of the negotiation.
In cultures such as ours, this stage is often filled with small talk. However, it is usually not
very long and is not seen as important as other stages. North Americans use phrases such
as “Let’s get down to business,” “I know you’re busy, so let’s get right to it,” and “Let’s not
beat around the bush.” However, in other cultures such as Mexico or South Korea, the
non-task stage is often longer and of more importance because it is during this stage the
relationship is established. In these cultures, it is the relationship more than the contract that
determines the extent to which each party can trust the other to fulfill its obligations.

2. Information exchange.​ The second stage of negotiations involves the exchange of
background and general information. During this stage, participants may, for example,
provide overviews of their company and its history. In Japan, this is an important stage
because specific proposals or agreements must be considered and decided in the larger
context. The information exchanged during the second stage provides this larger context.

3. Influence and persuasion.​ The third stage involves efforts to influence and persuade the
other side. Generally, these efforts are designed to get the other party to reduce its demands
or desires and to increase its acceptance of your demands or desires. There are a wide
variety of influence tactics, including promises, threats, questions, and so on. The use of
these tactics as well as their effectiveness is a function of several factors. First, the perceived
or real power of one party relative to another is an important factor. For example, if one party
is the only available supplier of a critical component, then threatening to go to a new supplier
of that component unless the price is reduced is unlikely to be an effective influence tactic.
Second, the effectiveness of a particular influence tactic is also a function of accepted
industry and cultural norms. For example, if threats are an unacceptable form of influence,
then their use could lead to consequences opposite from what is desired by the initiator of
such tactics.

https://openstax.org/books/organizational-behavior/pages/references#ch14rfin-9

4. Closing.​ The final stage of any negotiation is the closing. The closing may result in an
acceptable agreement between the parties involved or it may result in failure to reach an
agreement. The symbols that represent the close of a negotiation vary across cultures. For
example, in the United States, a signed contract is the symbol of a closed negotiation. At that
point, “a deal is a deal” and failure to abide by the contents of the document is considered a
breach of contract. In China, however, there is not the strong legal history or perspective that
exists in the United States, and a signed document is not necessarily a symbol of the close
of the negotiations. In fact, to some extent it symbolizes the beginning of the final points of
negotiation. The signed document identifies the key issues that still need to be negotiated
despite the fact that it may contain specific obligations for the involved parties concerning
these issues. Quite simply, even though the document may obligate one party to deliver a
product on a certain day and obligate the other party to pay a certain price for delivery, the
document itself does not symbolize that the negotiation concerning these specifics is closed.

Each of these four stages and the sequence described above are common across most situations
and cultures. However, the length of time devoted to each stage, the importance of each stage, and
the specific behaviors associated with each stage can vary by situation and certainly do vary by
culture.

Bargaining Strategies

Within the context of these four stages, both parties must select an appropriate strategy that they
believe will assist them in the attainment of their objectives. In general, two rather distinct
approaches to negotiation can be identified. These are ​distributive bargaining​ and ​integrative
bargaining​.​ A comparison of these two approaches is shown in ​Table 14.2​.

Distributive Bargaining.​ In essence, distributive bargaining is “win-lose” bargaining. That is, the
goals of one party are in fundamental and direct conflict with those of the other party. Resources are
fixed and limited, and each party wants to maximize her share of these resources. Finally, in most
cases, this situation represents a short-term relationship between the two parties. In fact, such
parties may not see each other ever again.

A good example of this can be seen in the relationship between the buyer and seller of a house. If
the buyer gets the house for less money (that is, she “wins”), the seller also gets less (that is, she
“loses”). This win-lose situation can also be seen in classes where the professor insists on grading
on a specified curve. If your friends get an A, there are fewer As to go around, and your chances are
diminished.

Two Approaches to Bargaining

Bargaining
Characteristic Distributive Bargaining Integrative Bargaining

https://openstax.org/books/organizational-behavior/pages/14-4-negotiation-behavior#ch14tab02

Payoff structure Fixed amount of resources to
be divided

Variable amount of resources to
be divided

Primary motivation I win, you lose Mutual benefit

Primary interests Opposed to each other Convergent with each other

Focus of
relationships

Short term Long term

Table14.2​ (Attribution: Copyright Rice University, OpenStax, under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license)

Under such circumstances, each side will probably adopt a course of action as follows. First, each
side to a dispute will attempt to discover just how far the other side is willing to go to reach an
accord. This can be done by offering outrageously low (or high) proposals simply to feel out the
opponent. For example, in selling a house, the seller will typically ask a higher price than she
actually hopes to get (see ​Exhibit 14.6​). The buyer, in turn, typically offers far less than she is willing
to pay. These two prices are put forth to discover the opponent’s resistance price. The ​resistance
price​ is the point beyond which the opponent will not go to reach a settlement. Once the resistance
point has been estimated, each party tries to convince the opponent that the offer on the table is the
best one the opponent is likely to receive and that the opponent should accept it. As both sides
engage in similar tactics, the winner is often determined by who has the best strategic and political
skills to convince the other party that this is the best she can get.

Integrative Bargaining.​ Integrative bargaining is often described as the “win-win” approach. That is,
with this technique, both parties try to reach a settlement that benefits both parties. Such an
approach is often predicated on the belief that if people mutually try to solve the problem, they can
identify some creative solutions that help everyone. A good example can be seen in bilateral trade
negotiations between two nations. In such negotiations, participants usually agree that a trade war
would hurt both sides; therefore, both sides attempt to achieve a balance of outcomes that are
preferable to a trade war for both sides. In doing so, however, the trick is to give away as little as
possible to achieve the balance.​10

https://openstax.org/books/organizational-behavior/pages/14-4-negotiation-behavior#ch14fig06

https://openstax.org/books/organizational-behavior/pages/references#ch14rfin-10

Exhibit 14.6​ ​Distributive Bargaining in Buying a Home​ (Attribution: Copyright Rice University,
OpenStax, under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license)

As shown previously in ​Table 14.2​, this approach is characterized by the existence of variable
resources to be divided, efforts to maximize joint outcomes, and the desire to establish or maintain a
long-term relationship. The interests of the two parties may be convergent (noncompetitive, such as
preventing a trade war between two countries) or congruent (mutually supportive, as when two
countries reach a mutual defense pact).

In both cases, bargaining tactics are quite different from those typically found in distributive
bargaining. Here, both sides must be able and willing to understand the viewpoints of the other
party. Otherwise, they will not know where possible consensus lies. Moreover, the free flow of
information is required. Obviously, some degree of trust is required here too. In discussions,
emphasis is placed on identifying communalities between the two parties; the differences are played
down. And, finally, the search for a solution focuses on selecting those courses of action that meet
the goals and objectives of both sides. This approach requires considerably more time and energy
than distributive bargaining, yet, under certain circumstances, it has the potential to lead to far more
creative and long-lasting solutions.

The Negotiation Process

The negotiation process consists of identifying one’s desired goals—that is, what you are trying to
get out of the exchange—and then developing suitable strategies aimed at reaching those goals. A
key feature of one’s strategy is knowing one’s relative position in the bargaining process. That is,
depending upon your relative position or strength, you may want to negotiate seriously or you may
want to tell your opponent to “take it or leave it.” The dynamics of bargaining power can be

https://openstax.org/books/organizational-behavior/pages/14-4-negotiation-behavior#ch14tab02

extrapolated directly from the discussion of power ​Table 14.3​ and indicate several conditions
affecting this choice. For example, you may wish to negotiate when you value the exchange, when
you value the relationship, and when commitment to the issue is high. In the opposite situation, you
may be indifferent to serious bargaining.

When to Negotiate

Bargaining Strategies

Characteristics of the Situation Negotiate “Take It or Leave It”

*​ Indicates relative power distribution between the two parties; “low” indicates that one has little

power in the situation, whereas “high” indicates that one has considerable power.

Value of exchange High Low

Commitment to a decision High Low

Trust Level High Low

Time Ample Pressing

Power distribution​* Low or balanced High

Relationship between two parties Important Unimportant

Table14.3​ (Attribution: Copyright Rice University, OpenStax, under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license)

Once goals and objectives have been clearly established and the bargaining strategy is set, time is
required to develop a suitable plan of action. Planning for negotiation requires a clear assessment of
your own strengths and weaknesses as well as those of your opponents. Roy Lewicki and Joseph
Litterer have suggested a format for preparation for negotiation.​11​ According to this format, planning
for negotiation should proceed through the following phases:

1. Understand the basic nature of the conflict. What are the primary areas of agreement and
disagreement?

https://openstax.org/books/organizational-behavior/pages/14-4-negotiation-behavior#ch14tab03

https://openstax.org/books/organizational-behavior/pages/14-4-negotiation-behavior#ch19tab03fn-1

https://openstax.org/books/organizational-behavior/pages/references#ch14rfin-11

2. What exactly do you want out of this negotiation? What are your goals?
3. How will you manage the negotiation process? Here, several issues should be recognized:

1. Identify the primary issues to negotiate.
2. Prioritize these issues.
3. Develop a desirable package including these important issues.
4. Establish an agenda.

4. Do you understand your opponent?
1. What are your opponent’s current resources and needs?
2. What is the history of your opponent’s bargaining behavior? What patterns can you

see that can help you predict her moves?

Exhibit 14.7​ ​Negotiating with the Referee​ Minnesota Gophers coach, Lindsay Whalen talks to a
referee during a University of Minnesota Gophers game against Cornell University. Is this
negotiation or persuasion? (Attribution: Laurie Schaul/ flickr/ Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0))

Research indicates that following such procedures does, in fact, lead to more successful bargaining.
In ​Table 14.4​, for example, we can see differences in both the planning approaches and the actual
behaviors of successful and average negotiators. Preparation clearly makes a difference, as does
interpersonal style during the actual negotiation.

Differences Between Successful and Average Negotiations

https://openstax.org/books/organizational-behavior/pages/14-4-negotiation-behavior#ch14tab04

Negotiation Behavior
Skilled
Negotiators

Average
Negotiators

Source:​ Based on data reported in N. J. Adler and A. Gunderson, ​International Dimensions of

Organizational Behavior​ 5​th​ edition (Mason, OH: Cengage Learning, 2008), pp. 165–181.

Before the Negotiation

Number of options considered per issue 5.1 2.6

Portion of time spent focusing on anticipated areas of
agreement instead of conflict

39% 11%

During Negotiation

Portion of time spent asking questions of opponent 21% 10%

Portion of time spent in active listening 10% 4%

Portion of time spent attacking opponent 1% 6%

Table14.4​ (Attribution: Copyright Rice University, OpenStax, under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license)

Cultural Differences in International Negotiations

In view of the increased emphasis on international industrial competitiveness, it is important to
understand what happens when the two parties to a negotiation come from different cultures or
countries. A knowledge of cultural differences can assist the manager both in understanding the
other party’s position and in striking the best possible deal given the circumstances.

A good way to start this analysis is by recognizing how different cultures approach the art of
persuasion; that is, how do people in different countries try to win you over to their side in a dispute?
Although we cannot possibly examine all cultures, consider the results of a study of differences in
persuasion techniques​ for North America, the Middle East, and the former Soviet Union.​12​ As can be
seen in ​Table 14.5​, Americans, Arabs, and Russians have significantly different approaches to

https://openstax.org/books/organizational-behavior/pages/references#ch14rfin-12

https://openstax.org/books/organizational-behavior/pages/14-4-negotiation-behavior#ch14tab05

persuasion. Americans tend to enter into a discussion emphasizing facts and figures, whereas Arabs
may focus on emotions. The Russians may talk about ideals.

Moreover, in a negotiation situation, the American is ever-conscious of deadlines, whereas the Arab
takes a more casual approach, and the Russian is often unconcerned about time. Americans make
small concessions early in the bargaining process to establish a relationship. Arabs, on the other
hand, make concessions throughout the bargaining process, and the Russians try not to make any
concessions at all. Clearly, this study has only highlighted trends, and exceptions can be easily
found. Even so, a knowledge of such differences, however general, can greatly facilitate improved
interpersonal relations and bargaining success for both parties.

National Styles of Persuasion

North Americans Arabs Russians

Source:​ Adapted from J. S. Martin, ​Intercultural Business Communication,​ (Englewood Cliffs,

N.J.: Pearson, 2005).

Primary
negotiating
style and
process

Factual: appeals
made to logic

Affective: appeals
made to emotions

Axiomatic: appeals made
to Ideals

Conflict:
opponent’s
arguments
countered with

Objective facts Subjective feelings Asserted ideals

Making
concessions

Small
concessions
made early to
establish a
relationship

Concessions made
throughout as a part
of the bargaining
process

Few, if any, small
concessions made

Response to
opponent’s
concessions

Usually
reciprocate
opponent’s
concessions

Almost always
reciprocate
opponent’s
concessions

Opponent’s concessions
viewed as weakness and
almost never
reciprocated

Relationship Short-term Long-term No continuing
relationship

Authority Broad Broad Limited

Initial position Moderate Extreme Extreme

Deadline Very important Casual Ignored

Table14.5​ (Attribution: Copyright Rice University, OpenStax, under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license)

We can also examine the personal characteristics of negotiators from different countries. A study by
John Graham focused on the key characteristics of negotiators from different countries, in this case
the United States, Japan, Taiwan, and Brazil. Results of the study are shown in ​Table 14.6​, which
shows the rank order of the defining characteristics.​13​ Again, we can see major differences in
negotiators from around the world. Each has certain strengths, yet these strengths vary considerably
from country to country. Americans are seen as prepared and organized, thinking well under
pressure, whereas Japanese are seen as more dedicated and shrewd. Taiwanese negotiators were
found in the study to be highly persistent and determined, working hard to win the opponent’s
respect, and the Brazilians were amazingly similar to the Americans.

Key Individual Characteristics of Negotiators (Rank Order)

American
Managers

Japanese
Managers

Chinese Managers
(Taiwan) Brazilian Managers

Source:​ “Key Individual Characteristics of Negotiators” by John Graham, Graduate School of

Management, University of California, Irvine.

Preparation and
planning skill

Dedication to job Persistence and
determination

Preparation and
planning skill

Thinking under
pressure

Perceive and
exploit power

Win respect and
confidence

Thinking under
pressure

https://openstax.org/books/organizational-behavior/pages/14-4-negotiation-behavior#ch14tab06

https://openstax.org/books/organizational-behavior/pages/references#ch14rfin-13

Judgment and
intelligence

Win respect and
confidence
Preparation and
planning skill
Judgment and
intelligence

Verbal
expressiveness

Integrity Product knowledge Verbal
expressiveness

Product knowledge Listening skill Interesting Product knowledge

Perceive and exploit
power

Broad perspective Judgment and
intelligence

Perceive and exploit
power

Integrity Verbal
expressiveness

Competition

Table14.6​ (Attribution: Copyright Rice University, OpenStax, under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license)

Finally, we should note that negotiators from different countries differ markedly in their verbal and
nonverbal ​communication patterns.​ In one study (again among Americans, representing North
America; Japanese, representing East Asia; and Brazilians, representing South America), observers
counted the number of times each negotiator did certain things within a given time limit.​14​ The
results are shown in ​Table 14.7​. As can be seen, these negotiators use both verbal and nonverbal
communication in very different ways. Note, for example, that Brazilians on average said “no” 83
times within a 30-minute segment, compared to 5 times for Japanese and 9 times for Americans. On
the other hand, Japanese appealed to ideals and societal norms and simply sat in silence more than
the others. Such differences affect not only the negotiation process but also, in many cases, the
outcomes. That is, if a negotiator from one culture has annoyed or insulted the opponent
(intentionally or unintentionally), the opponent may resist doing business with that person or may fail
to offer attractive terms. Hence, again we see the value of better understanding cultural variations in
negotiations, as in other matters.

Communication Patterns during Negotiations for Three Cultures

Tactic Japan United States Brazil

Source:​ Based on data reported in J. Graham, “The Influence of Culture on Business

Negotiations,” ​Journal of International Business Studies,​ Spring 1985, pp. 81–96.

https://openstax.org/books/organizational-behavior/pages/references#ch14rfin-14

https://openstax.org/books/organizational-behavior/pages/14-4-negotiation-behavior#ch14tab07

Verbal Communication

Making promises 7 8 3

Making threats 4 4 2

Making recommendations 7 4 5

Appealing to ideals and norms 4 2 1

Giving a command 8 6 14

Saying “no” 5 9 83

Making initial concessions 6 7 9

Nonverbal Communication

Periods of silence 6 3 0

Interrupting opponent 12 10 29

Looking directly into opponent’s eyes 1 3 5

Touching opponent 0 0 5

Table14.7​ (Attribution: Copyright Rice University, OpenStax, under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license)

Concluding Thoughts about Conflict and Negotiations

One of the classic negotiations approaches that you might encounter is the book, Getting to Yes.
This book expound the authors favored method of conflict resolution, which they term ​principled
negotiation​. This method attempts to find an objective standard, typically based on existing

precedents, for reaching an agreement that will be acceptable to both interested parties. Principled
negotiation emphasizes the parties’ enduring interests, objectively existing resources, and available
alternatives, rather than transient positions that the parties may choose to take during the
negotiation. The outcome of a principled negotiation ultimately depends on the relative
attractiveness of each party’s so-called ​BATNA​: the “Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement”,
which can be taken as a measure of the objective strength of a party’s bargaining stance. In general,
the party with the more attractive BATNA gets the better of the deal. If both parties have attractive
BATNAs, the best course of action may be not to reach an agreement at all.​15

Conflict is most likely to occur when the goals, expectations, and/or behaviors of at least two parties
differ and when those differences are difficult to avoid (such as when interdependence among the
parties involved is high). Conflict itself is neither good nor bad, productive nor destructive. The key to
the outcome of conflict is the manner in which it is managed. Negotiation, as a key means of
managing conflict, has four distinct stages. However, the length, importance, and norms for each
stage can vary by situation and especially by culture.

EXPANDING AROUND THE GLOBE

Negotiating Styles in Malaysia and America

One of the emerging countries in Southeast Asia is Malaysia, whose natural resources and stable
economic growth are allowing it to develop as an important manufacturing center in the region along
with Singapore, Indonesia, and Thailand. What happens when American businesspeople visit
Malaysia to do business? In the following example, cross-cultural researcher George Renwick
describes major differences between the two cultures as they approach a negotiation.

Americans’ patterns of negotiation, like all of their patterns, differ somewhat depending upon their
context. The negotiating patterns of government officials working out a treaty, for example, are
somewhat different from those of a business executive “hammering out” a contract. The pattern
portrayed here will be that of the business executive.

The American businessperson usually begins a series of negotiating sessions in a cordial manner,
but he is intent on getting things under way. He is very clear as to what he and his company want,
when it is wanted, and how he will go about getting it; he has planned his strategy carefully. And he
has done what he could to “psyche out” his counterpart, with whom he will be negotiating. From the
outset, the American negotiator urges everyone to “dispense with the formalities” and get on with the
business at hand. As soon as possible, he expresses his determination, saying something like,
“Okay, let’s get down to brass tacks.”

The American usually states his position (at least his first position) early and definitely. He plans
before long to “really get down to the nitty gritty.” He wants to “zero in” on the knotty problems and
get to the point where “the rubber meets the road” (the point, that is, where “the action” begins).
Once the negotiations are “really rolling,” the American usually deals directly with obstacles as they
come up, tries to clear them away in quick order, and becomes impatient and frustrated if he cannot.

https://openstax.org/books/organizational-behavior/pages/references#ch14rfin-15

Most of what the American wants to convey, of course, he puts into words—often many of them. His
approach is highly verbal and quite visible—and thoroughly planned. He has outlined his alternative
ahead of time and prepared his counterproposals, contingencies, backup positions, bluffs,
guarantees, and tests of compliance, all carefully calculated, and including, of course, lots of
numbers. Toward the end, he sees that some bailout provisions are included, but he usually doesn’t
worry too much about them; making and meeting business commitments “on schedule” is what his
life is all about—he is not too concerned about getting out. If he has to get out, then he has to, and
he will find a way when the time comes.

The American experiences real satisfaction when all the problems have been “worked out,”
especially if he has been able to get provisions very favorable to his company—and to his own
reputation as a “tough negotiator.” He rests securely when everything is “down in black and white”
and the contract is initialed or signed.

Afterward, the American enjoys himself; he relaxes “over some drinks” and carries on some “small
talk” and “jokes around” with his team and their counterparts.

Malay patterns of negotiation, as might be expected, differ considerably. When they are buying
something, Malays bargain with the merchant, and when they are working, they socialize with their
boss and coworkers. Their purpose is to develop some sense of relationship with the other person.
The relationship then provides the basis, or context, for the exchange. Malays take the same
patterns and preferences into their negotiating sessions. When all is said and done, it is not the
piece of paper they trust, it is the person—and their relationship with the person.

A Malay negotiator begins to develop the context for negotiations through the interaction routines
appropriate to this and similar occasions. These routines are as complicated and subtle as
customary American routines; they are cordial but quite formal. Like Americans and their own
routines, Malays understand the Malay routines but are seldom consciously aware of them. Neither
Malays nor Americans understand very clearly the routines of the other.

As the preliminary context is formed, it is important to the Malay that the proper forms of address be
known beforehand and used and that a variety of topics be talked about that are unrelated to the
business to be transacted. This may continue for quite a while. A Malay negotiator wants his
counterpart to participate comfortably, patiently, and with interest. As in other interaction, it is not the
particular words spoken which are of most importance to the Malay; rather he listens primarily to the
attitudes which the words convey—attitudes toward the Malay himself and toward the matter being
negotiated. Attitudes are important to the relationship. At this point and throughout the negotiations,
the Malay is as much concerned about the quality of the relationship as the quantity of the work
accomplished. Motivation is more important to the Malay than momentum.

The Malay negotiator, as in other situations, is also aware of feelings—his own and those of his
counterpart, and the effects of the exchanges upon both. He is also aware of, and concerned about,
how he looks in the eyes of his team, how his counterpart looks in the eyes of the other team, and
how both he and his counterpart will look after the negotiations in the eyes of their respective
superiors.

The Malay is alert to style, both his own and that of his counterpart. Displaying manners is more
important than scoring points. The way one negotiates is as important as what one negotiates.
Grace and finesse show respect for the other and for the matter under consideration. Negotiating,
like other interaction, is something of an art form. Balance and restraint are therefore essential.

The agenda that the Malay works through in the course of the negotiation is usually quite flexible.
His strategy is usually rather simple. His positions are expressed in more general terms than the
American’s, but no less strongly held. His proposals are more offered than argued: they are offered
to the other party rather than argued with him. Malays do not enjoy sparring. They deeply dislike
combat.

In response to a strong assertion, the Malay negotiator usually expresses his respect directly by
replying indirectly. The stronger the assertion and the more direct the demands, the more indirect
the reply—at least the verbal reply.

The Malay and his team usually formulate their positions gradually and carefully. By the time they
present their position, they usually have quite a lot of themselves invested in it. Direct rejection of the
position, therefore, is sometimes felt to be a rejection of the person. Negotiating for the Malay is not
quite the game that it is for some Americans.

If the Malay and his team have arrived at a position from which they and those whom they represent
cannot move, they will not move. If this requires a concession from the counterpart, the Malays will
not try to force the concession. If the counterpart sees that a concession from him is necessary, and
makes it, the Malays, as gentlemen, recognize the move and respect the man who made it. A
concession, therefore, is not usually considered by the Malay team to be a sign that they can press
harder and extract further concessions. Instead, a concession by either side is considered as
evidence of strength and a basis for subsequent reconciliation and cooperation.

What about getting out a contract? Making and meeting business commitments is ​not​ what a
Malay’s life is all about. He has other, often prior, commitments. He therefore enters into contracts
cautiously and prefers to have an exit provided.

In addition, Malays are certain of their control over the future (even their control of their own country)
than are Americans. Therefore, promising specific kinds of performance in the future by specific
dates in a contract, especially in a long-term contract where the stakes are high, is often difficult for
Malays. It is even more difficult, of course, if they are not certain whether they can trust the persons
to whom they are making the commitment and from whom they are accepting commitments. Malays
therefore give a great deal of thought to a contract and to the contracting party before signing it. And
they are uneasy if provisions have not been made for a respectable withdrawal should future
circumstances make their compliance impossible.
Questions:

1. What are the differences between an American and Malay approach to business
relationships?

2. How are the different approaches important to understanding negotiations and cultural
differences?

Source: G. Renwick, ​Malays and Americans: Definite Differences, Unique Opportunities​ (Yarmouth,
Maine: Intercultural Press, 1985), pp. 51–54.