An Analysis of Intercultural Negotiations between the East and West Essay

Executive SummaryThis report provides an digest and evaluation of an inter heathenish dialogue between USAs brownness occasional post and chinas Chung Sun Manufacturing, provides a literature b knock up of a prominent theory from the demesne and suggests recommendation to improve the growth of inter cultural talk between these two countries and companies.As the Case Study was determine as subpar dialogue, completely issues from the Case Study were some(prenominal)ocated into Intercultural, Verbal and Nonverbal.Following this, Hofstedes Cultural Model was introduced in the literature re sop up and slenderly analysed. This molding included five ratios1. Uncertainty Avoidance2. Power Distance3. maleness vs. Femininity4. Individualism vs. Collectivism5. Short stipulation vs. Long end pointSome strengths of the warning included a large sample sizing, indexes for each(prenominal) nations and easily conjecture hypotheses. Alternatively, some limitations were an allege d(a) sample misrepresentation, non adequately analysing people on an mortal level and a time buy the farm since dimension formulation.Major issues from the talkss were then advertize investigated and includedRushing the negotiations and flunk to form an adequate kinship Causing offence by enceinte a make to the Chinese representative Not respecting the hierarchy of theChinse civilisationFailing to hire an representative for the negotiationsTouching the Chinese associates inappropriately passs suggested preventing further intercultural issues and fixing current issues as noted above includedHiring an interpreter and cultural adviserTranslating all written materials into ChineseCreating transp bency inwardly the negotiations process by asking for a joint strategy1 IntroductionIntercultural communication is becoming increasingly strategic in spite of appearance a global context for assembly linees. In one study within chinaware the country being analyzed, all responde nts to a survey agreed that it is critical to the success of the organization (73.9 potently & 26.1 moderately) (Goodman & Wang, 2007). In the following report, the success of an intercultural negotiation between chinaware and USA will be assessed to ascertain all issues occurring crossways intercultural, verbal and nonverbal and how they underside be fixed. This will be done 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 pertinent prominent theory in the field.2 Identification of Problems/ resignsWithin the negotiations between Brown Casual Shoes and Chung Sun Manufacturing, there were several intercultural communication issues that offended the Chinese finished what appea cherry to be a blatant disregard for their cultural barriers. These issues conf usage been partitioned into iii sections general, verbal and nonverbal.1 Intercultural IssuesThe first faulting in their intercultural interaction was the garner given by MrBrown to Mr Deng. In addition to gift adult in the Chinese moving in acculturation being impossible cod 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 average (Kwintessential, 2013). The fact that Mr. Deng refused the gift troika times before commencement it aligns with the fact that Chinese whitethorn refuse a gift three times before opening it but not a ordinal (Kwintessential, 2013). some other contributing factor is the point that Chinese dont like to say no, and will oftentimes say yes just to still face (World Business Culture, 2013). The following mistake made by Mr. Brown was offering the first toast of the evening. In Chinese cultulre, it should always be the host who makes the first toast of the evening (Kwintessential, 2013).Additionally, Mr Browns lack of knowledge on who should leave the collis ion first may pee caused offence. As per Chinese stopping point, the foreigner should always leave first when a meeting is finished (UONI, 2011). Mr Browns misunderstanding of this could have 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 kick the bucketed to make up that the Chinese often forge family relationships with individuals before partaking in business (Goodman, 2013).2 Intercultural Verbal Communication IssueAlthough Mr Brown and his team participated in piles of small talk with Mr Deng, further small talk could be promote to turn by causing offence and giving the flavor that the negotiators only headache ab give away time and not forging a lasting relationship (UONI, 2011). An additional verbal error made by Mr. Brown was his affliction to hire a interpreter. In China, this is often viewed as a business firm of disrespect f or their nicety (Fang & Faure, 2010). This lack of an interpreter and an oerall lack of recognition of English could have been the reason for the large amount of questions rather than the impression formulated by Mr. Brown that they were not serious ab turn out the business (World Business Culture, 2013). Furthermore, the fact that Mr Brown and his team didnt make the attack to learn each Chinese at all for the negotiation might give off the impression that they argon ethnocentric about their enculturation (Goodman, 2013).3 Intercultural Nonverbal Verbal Communication IssuesAlthough there were not umteen nonverbal communication errors, one fundamental nonverbal communication error made by Mr. Brown was his touching of the arm of Mr. Deng. Culturally, Chinese disfavor being touched by strangers (Gao et al, 1996). As they were only just meeting and not yet properly acquainted, this may have been perceived as offensive.3 books ReviewHofstedes homunculus has been used as it wa s utilized a starting point for many an(prenominal) additional cultural imitates. Below, figure one shows the convergence of this stick with other notable ones from the field of cultural communication studies. It can be deduced from this that Hofstedes model is the closely different and complete manikin as it encompasses all factors of other relevant models and shows evidence for the theoretical relevance. Figure 2 Comparison of Hofstedes cultural framework with other modelsSource Soares, Farhangmehr & Shoham, 2007, p. 281One assumption of this model is define identity through nation. Many scholars (Steenkamn et al, 1999l Hofstede, 1984 Parker, 1994 Ho all over et al., 1978) support this approach.1 Literature ReviewHofstedes cultural dimension is a model crafted to point the key differences across different cultural workplace values. Gert Hofstede formulated this model through complex statistical analysis on more than 100,000 IBM employees across the world. The results of th is suggested that five dimension anchors could be used to describe most important differences among conclusions 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 & Barry, 2011). These anchor points are Individualism/Collectivism, Power Distance, Masculinity/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 edict holds on power inequality and potentiality relations in baseball club. This anchor can influence hierarchy, dependence relationships and organisational context (Soares et al, 2007). A low score is indicative of a society with little respect for unequally distributed power and decisions are often send through the organisation with feedback to bosses appropriate. Alternatively, a luxuriously score shows that the society depends passing on hierarchical structures and may concentrate decision making at the top (Hofstede, 1980). Uncertainty avoidance is the second dimension of this framework. This dictates the extent to which people 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 new situations, they will strive to immediately hold out towards establishing them. Alternatively, those with low scores on this anchor will be less(prenominal) affected by situations that may be ambiguous (Lewicki, Saunders & Barry, 2011).The next dimension individualism vs. collectivism, describes the relationships people have in each culture (Soares et al, 2007). In individualistic societies, people tend to act indep endently and look afterwards only themselves and their direct families. In collectivist societies, members of the society hold a large degree 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 life 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-term vs. Short Term is the dimension, which shows countries preference towards future rewards and patience or towardsshort-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 questionnaires from over 60,000 respondents across seventy countries in various decades (Hofstede, 1984 Hofstede, 1991 Hofstede, 2001). This is the most robust model in terms of sample size and variety (Smith et al., 1996). He colligate his dimensions with various external and internal factors, such as demographic, geographic, economic and political, and assigns indexes to e very nation a feature unmatched by other frameworks (Kale & Barnes, 1992).In addition, the framework is extremely useful in formulating easy hypothesises across a range of purposes and it continues to be the norm used in inter field of study 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 those working at IBM (Lewicki, Saunders & Barry, 2011), they fail to take into account further revisions of the model by Hofstede. At the foreign Institute for Management Development Hofstede administered the sort to international managers from over 30 countries from a variety of both private and public organisations. The results yielded in these prove significantly similar to those in his real sample solidifying 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 class were over represented and education levels were much higher than average (Lewicki, Saunders & Barry, 2011), Additionally, some make do that in the model nation differences only account for 2 to 4 percent of variance in individual values, leaving at least(prenominal) 96 percent- if not more, unexplained.One scholar from the Academy of Management suggested that the model was incongruent with his own knowledge on psychological phenomena and suggests that analternative methodology be drafted (Ailon, 2008) to account for t his 96 percent. Some academics claim 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 set of criteria relevant to cultural legal opinion 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 extended relevant. Others argue that the change in cultures occurs so slow that significant changes would not probable affect the model for a long period (Sivakumar and Nakata, 2001) perhaps until 2100 (Hofstede, 2001).4 Case AnalysisFive 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 last(a)ise the negotiation and his final comment 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 neat disrespect for the Chineses efforts to form a long-term relationship with the company, an aspect commonly necessary 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), implication that deciding on what is right and wrong or acceptable and unacceptable is highly dependant on the exact situation and relationships involved (Trompen aars, 1997) it was a grave issue not to hire a translator to stand by overcome 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 incident could correspond with a clash of this high context. Hall notes that within a high context culture messages are often subterranean and implicit, there is much non-verbal communication and the expression of reaction is frequently uncommunicative and inward. The message that Mr. Deng did not want to accept the gift was most sure as shooting covert and non-verbal and his reaction to the incident chequeed reserved and inward most likely to save face (Goodman, 2013).4 Issue 4Halls theory additionally 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 leaving 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 scornful to the order of the Chinese leadership and their subsequent delegacy.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 sweet to hire a complete agent as it may carry off from the personal 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 theChinese that they care about their culture and to offer priceless advice on the negotiation process to ensure an optimal outcome 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, harvesting 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 we ll as video display respect for their culture and language (Kwintessential, 2013).3 Recommendation 3The final recommendation is to identify whether either parties or both parties will place their trend 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 anterior to negotiation commencement, or if this is not appropriate, they could ask to cover 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 Ref erencesAilon, 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 reputation 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. planetary Journal 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. (1996). The handbook of Chinese Psychology Chinese communication processes. rising York, NY Oxford University Press. Goodman, M. B. (2013). Intercultural Communica tion for Managers. new-sprung(prenominal) 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 foreign Communication. Hamburg, GE Grunder and Jahr. Hofstede, G. (1984). Cultures consequences international differences in work-related values. Newbury Park, CA sage-green Publications. Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations software product 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). United States. Retrieved from http//geert-hofstede.com/uni ted-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). Understanding 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, Negotiation 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 interrogation, 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). travel the waves of culture Understanding Diversity in Global Business. New York, NY Mcgraw-Hill. University of blue 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 eyeball 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.