My Ssec Capstone Project Negotia tio n c a n b e d efin e d a s ” a p ro ce ss w here b y tw o o r m ore p artie s – be th ey in div id uals

Negotia tio n c a n b e d efin e d a s ” a p ro ce ss w here b y tw o o r m ore p artie s – be th ey in div id uals

Negotia tio n c a n b e d efin e d a s ” a p ro ce ss w here b y tw o o r m ore p artie s –

be th ey in div id uals , g ro ups, o r la rg e s o cia l u nit s – in te ra ct in d eve lo pin g

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

pote ntia l a gre em ents to p ro vid e g uid ance , a nd r e g ula tio n o f th eir fu tu re

beha vio rs .”

Negotia tio n is th e p ro ce ss o f c o nfe rrin g to a rriv e a t a n a gre e m en t

betw een d if fe re nt p a rtie s,e ach w it h th eir o w n in te re st a nd p re fe re nce s.It

is a g iv e a nd ta ke d ecis io n m akin g p ro ce ss in vo lv in g in te rd ependent

partie s w it h d if fe re nt p re fe re n ce s.

It is a jo in t p ro ce ss o f fin d in g a m utu ally a cce pta ble s o lu tio n to a c o m ple x

co nflic t.

Usefu l u nder t h ese c o ndit io ns:

1.T w o o r m ore p artie s a re in vo lv e d

2.C onflic t o f in te re st b etw ee n th e p artie s

3.P artie s a re w illin g to n eg otia te

4.P artie s p re fe r to w ork to geth er r a th er th an to fig ht o penly ,g iv e in , b re ak

off c o nta ct o r ta ke th e d is p u te t o a h ig her a uth orit y

W hen eve r tw o p artie s n egotia te , th e w hole

pro ce ss o ccu rs u nder tw o u m bre lla c o nte xts , e nvir o nm enta l a nd

im media te . T he e nvir o nm enta l c o nte xt r e fe rs to fo rc e s in th e

envir o nm ent th at a re b eyo nd t h e c o ntr o l o f e it h er p arty in vo lv e d in

th e n egotia tio ns. S eco nd, th e im media te c o nte xt in clu des s u ch

asp ects a s th e r e la tiv e p o w er o f th e n egotia to rs a nd th e n atu re o f

th eir in te rd epen dence – fa cto rs o ve r w hic h th e n egotia to rs h ave

in flu ence a nd s o m e m easu re o f c o ntr o l.

Global Negotiations

? Tw o m ajo r a re a s o f c o nte xt m ust b e d efin ed p rio r to e xa m in in g th e

co untr ie s a nd c u lt u re s. W hene ve r tw o p artie s n egotia te , th e w hole

pro ce ss o ccu rs u nder tw o u m bre lla c o nte xts , e nvir o nm enta l a nd

im media te .

? T he e nvir o nm enta l c o nte xt r e fe rs to fo rc e s in th e e nvir o nm ent

th at a re b eyo nd th e c o n tr o l o f e it h er p arty in vo lv e d in th e

negotia tio ns.

? S eco nd, th e im media te c o nte xt in clu des s u ch a sp ects a s th e

re la tiv e p ow er o f th e n eg otia to rs a nd th e n atu re o f th eir

in te rd ependence – fa cto rs o ve r w hic h th e n egotia to rs h ave

in flu ence a nd s o m e m easu re o f c o ntr o l.

? B elo w is a b u lle te d lis t o f e ach :

Im med ia te C onte xt
? –
?fa cto rs u nder th e d ir e ct in flu en ce o r c o ntr o l o f t h e

partie s

?
?In te rd ep en den ce/B arg ain in g P ow er
?: d epe nden ce o n e a ch

oth er to a tta in r e sp e ctiv e g oals

?
?Im med ia te S ta keh o ld ers
?: g o als o f m an agers , e m plo ye e s, b oard

of d ir e cto rs , a nd c o n stit u ents a ffe ct s tr a te gie s, o ffe rs a nd

co unte ro ffe rs .

?
?Desir e d O utc o m es
?: T w o ty p es – ta ngib le (p ro fit – s h a rin g,

te ch nolo gy tr a n sfe r) a nd in ta n gib le – ( g o odw ill, d esir e fo r w in -w in

outc o m e). G enera ll y m ore c o m pro m is e o n ta ngib le o utc o m es

when lo ng te rm r e la tio n sh ip is d e sir e d .

?
?Rela tio nsh ip
? ? betw een p artie s
?: h a rm onio us p re vio u s

re la tio nsh ip s e nco ura ge fa vo ra ble fu tu re n egotia tio ns.

? ?Conflic t b etw een p artie s
?: L e ve l o f a gre em ent o n k e y is su e s

in flu ence s le ve l o f s u pport f o r e ach o th er.

?Envir o nm en ta l C on te x t
? –
? f o rc e s b eyo nd th e c o ntr o l o f e it h er p arty

? ?Polit ic al P lu ra lis m
?: C onflic tin g f o re ig n p oli c ie s o f d if fe re n t n atio ns

?
?Leg al P lu ra lis m
?: tr a nsa ctio n m ust c o m ply w it h th e a pplic a ble

la w s o f th e n atio ns in vo lv e d.

?
?Exte rn al S ta k eh old ers
?: in te re sts o f p artie s n ot d ir e ctly in vo lv e d

in th e n egotia tio n .

?
?In sta b ilit y a n d C han ge
?: n e ed to a ccu ra te ly a sse ss e co nom ic

and p olit ic a l r is k in th e ta rg et c o untr y .

?
?Fore ig n G overn m en t C ontr o l
?: g o ve rn m en ta l in te rfe re n ce o n

te ch nolo gy tr a n sfe rs , c rit ic a l in du str ie s, a nd p ro d uctio n c a pacit y .

?
?Curre n cy F lu ctu atio n s
?: in clu de c o ntin ge ncy c la u se s o r

cu rre ncy h edgin g c o ntr a cts to h ed ge a gain st w id e s w in gs in

exch ange r a te s.

?
?Id eo lo gic al D if fe re n ce s
?: a ttit u de s t o w ard p oli t ic a l fr e e dom ,

pro perty o w ners h ip , g en der e qualit y , a nd fo re ig n in ve stm ent.

?
?Cult u ra l D if fe re n ces
?: fo cu s o f th e a tta ch ed m atr ix .

The a bove m odel s h o uld h e lp in d efin in g th e c o nte xt o f e ach

negotia tio ns. A ls o , t h is s h o uld s e rv e a s a c h eck lis t p rio r to e nte rin g in to

in te rn atio nal n egotia tio n s. T he te xt
?Nego tia tio n
?pro vid es th e fo llo w in g

advic e :

“T he m odel s h ould b e a p plie d fr o m th e o uts id e in . N egotia to rs s h ould

sta rt w it h th e e nvir o n m en ta l c o nte xt a nd s tu dy it s im pa ct o n th e

im media te c o nte xt a nd o n t h e n egotia tio n p ro ce ss a nd o utc o m e. T hen

th e d ir e ct im pact o f th e im med ia te c o nte xt o n n egotia tio ns s h ould b e

stu die d.

The m odel s h ould b e tr e ate d d yn am ic a lly . A ny c h anges in th e

envir o nm ent a nd im media te c o nte xts w ill b rin g s u bse quent c h anges in

th e n egotia tio n p ro ce ss a n d o utc o m e. A s th e n egotia tio n m ove s fr o m

one s ta ge to th e n ext, n eg otia to rs m ust r e e va lu ate th eir in it ia l n eeds,

motiv a tio ns, p osit io n s a nd s tr a te gie s u nder c h angin g c o nte xtu al

cir c u m sta nce s.”

To p ara phra se , w he n o ne c o nducts n egotia tio ns in th e in te rn atio nal

are na, th e fir s t q uestio ns to a nsw er w ould c e rta in ly h ave to d o w it h th ose

is su es th at lie o uts id e th e c o n tr o l o f e it h er p arty . O nce is su es w ere

addre ss in th e e nvir o nm enta l a re a, o ne w ould lo ok to th e a ctu al p eople ,

and is su es d escrib ed in th e im m edia te c o nte xt. A fte r r e se arc h in g

negotia tio n g lo bally , t h e a bove r e pre se nt th e b est s e t o f q uestio ns o ne

co uld c o ve r p rio r to s it t in g a ro und th e ta ble .

Next, th e fo cu s w ill b e o n th e a ctu al s ty le s o f n egotia tio n a nd

org aniz a tio nal s tr u ctu re o f th e fo llo w in g c o untr ie s a nd c u lt u re s:

The U nit e d K in gdom

Medit e rra nean C oun tr ie s

Ara bic C ountr ie s

Chin a

Ja pan

Russia a nd E aste rn E uro pe

A tta ch ed is th e m atr ix fo r e ach c o untr y a nd c u lt u re :

Seve ra l in te re stin g in fe re nce s a nd o bse rv a tio ns c a n b e d ra w n fr o m th e

cu lt u ra l m atr ix .

Different Negotiation Styles and Cultures of 6
Countries

Unit e d

Kin gdom
Med it e rr a ne an /

Centr a l a nd

Sou th A m eric a
Ara b
Chin a
Ja pan
Sovie t

Unio n/E aste rn

Euro pe

Busin ess C lim ate a nd

Pers o nal R ela tio ns
Very k in d,

fr ie ndly

and

hum oro u s
Very im porta n t
Very

hosp it a ble . B e

re sp ectfu l o f

re lig io us a nd

cu lt u ra l

cu sto m s
Gre at

Im porta nce
Gre at Im po rta n ce .

Nee d to b u ild

str o ng

in te rc o nne ctio ns in

esta blis h in g lo ng

te rm r e la tio nsh ip s
Bure au cra tic .

Tru st a nd

ch oic e o f

partn er a re

esse ntia l

Tim e C onstr a in ts

Open
Rela xe d
Rela xe d
Kee p tim e

open
Kee p tim e o p en
Slo w m ovin g.

Tim e w aste d

due t o

bure aucra cy

Str u ctu re

Easy

goin g.

Ensu re t o

use p ro per

tit le s ( L ord ,

Dr.)
Socia liz e f ir s t,

work la te r
Busin ess

tr a nsa ctio ns

are c o nsid e re d

a s o cia l e ve nt
Pro fe ssio n al.

Make u se o f

fo rm al c a ll in g

ca rd s
Pro fe ssio n al. M ake

use o f fo rm al

ca ll in g c a rd s
Lit tle s tr u ctu re

Pre para tio n

More

under-p re p
are d
Focu s m ore o n

th e p ers o n th an

th e p osit io n
Pers o na l

im pre ssio ns

are

su pple m ente d

by fa ct
Metic u lo us
Metic u lo u s
Lack

pre para tio n a nd

unde rs ta n din g

of b usin ess

pro ble m s

Fle xib ilit y

Fle xib le
Open to

ch ang es
May c h a nge

agre em ent

afte r

co m m it tin g to

it
Need t o fo cu s

on e qu alit y ,

mutu a l b ene fit

or r e cip ro cit y
Open. M ay c h ange

agre em ent a fte r

co m m it tin g to it
Nee d to b e v e ry

patie n t

Com munic a tio n

No

co nce rn
Avo id te le ph one

fo r im porta nt

is su es a n d tr y to

ach ie ve

fa ce -to -fa ce
Very r e lu cta nt

to s a y n o
Very d if fic u lt .

Esta blis h

in fo rm al

co m m unic a tio
ns d ue to

poli t ic a l

pre ssu re s
Very r e lu cta nt to

sa y n o
Nee d to e xp la in

ce rta in

eco no m ic a n d

co m m erc ia l

mech anis m s

Ja pan
Sovie t

Unio n/E aste rn

Euro pe

Busin ess C lim ate a nd

Pers o nal R ela tio ns
Very k in d,

fr ie ndly

and

hum oro u s
Very im porta n t
Very

hosp it a ble . B e

re sp ectfu l o f

re lig io us a nd

cu lt u ra l

cu sto m s
Gre at

Im porta nce
Gre at

Im porta nce .

Unit
ed

Kin
gdo
m Medit e rr a n e
/ C entr a l a n
Sou th

Am eric a

Nee d to b u ild

str o ng

in te rc o nne ctio ns

in e sta b lis h in g

lo n g te rm

re la tio n sh ip s
Bure au cra tic .

Tru st a nd

ch oic e o f

partn er a re

esse ntia l

Tim e C onstr a in ts

Open
Rela xe d
Rela xe d
Kee p tim e o p en
Kee p tim e o p en
Slo w m ovin g.

Tim e w aste d

due t o

bure aucra cy

Str u ctu re

Easy

goin g.

Ensu re t o

use p ro per

tit le s ( L ord ,

Dr.)
Socia liz e f ir s t,

work la te r
Busin ess

tr a nsa ctio ns

are c o nsid e re d

a s o cia l e ve nt
Pro fe ssio n al.

Make u se o f

fo rm al c a ll in g

ca rd s
Pro fe ssio n al.

Make u se o f

fo rm al c a ll in g

ca rd s
Lit tle s tr u ctu re

Pre para tio n

More

under-p re p
are d
Focu s m ore o n

th e p ers o n th an

th e p osit io n
Pers o na l

im pre ssio ns

are

su pple m ente d

by fa ct
Metic u lo us
Metic u lo u s
Lack

pre para tio n a nd

unde rs ta n din g

of b usin ess

pro ble m s

Fle xib ilit y

Fle xib le
Open to

ch ang es
May c h a nge

agre em ent

afte r

co m m it tin g to

it
Need t o fo cu s o n

equa lit y , m utu al

bene fit o r

re cip ro cit y
Open. M ay

ch ang e

agre em ent a fte r

co m m it tin g to it
Nee d to b e v e ry

patie n t

Com munic a tio n

No

co nce rn
Avo id te le ph one

fo r im porta nt

is su es a n d tr y to

ach ie ve

fa ce -to -fa ce
Very r e lu cta nt

to s a y n o
Very d if fic u lt .

Esta blis h

in fo rm al

co m m unic a tio ns

due to p olit ic a l

pre ssu re s
Very r e lu cta nt to

sa y n o
Nee d to e xp la in

ce rta in

eco no m ic a n d

co m m erc ia l

mech anis m s

Negotiaion Rules of Arab Countries ?:

? The d ecis io n-m akin g p ro ce ss is c e ntr a liz e d in S au di A ra bia a nd

co nfin ed to v e ry s p ecif ic le ve ls . C ontr o l r e sts w it h m em bers o f th e

House o f S aud, s e nio r g o ve rn m en t o ffic ia ls , a nd th e c o m m erc ia l

elit e . O ld er d ecis io n m ake rs a re la rg e ly in flu ence d b y h ig hly

pers o nal fa cto rs , s u ch a s tr u st a nd th eir im pre ssio ns o f y o u.

? They d o n ot h a ve a s m uch e duca tio n a nd te ch nic a l k n ow le dge a s

th e y o unger m em bers o f th e e li t e , a lt h ough th e S au di g ove rn m ent

bure aucra cy is g ettin g b ig ge r, o nly a fe w k e y o ffic ia ls a re

sig nif ic a nt in te rm s o f d ecis io n-m akin g. M in is te rs a nd le sse r

te ch nocra ts a re v it a lly im porta nt to th e k in g a nd h is a dvis e rs .

? In o rd er to s ta rt t h e n egotia tio ns p ro ce ss e ffic ie ntly , o ne m ust

enlis t th e s u pp ort o f o ne 's a gen t to id entif y w ho h old s th e

decis io n-m akin g p ow er in m atte rs th at c o nce rn o ne's b usin ess.

? One o f th e d if fic u lt ie s o f d oin g b usin ess in S au di A ra bia is fin din g

th e p re cis e p eo ple w ho m ake t h e se d ecis io ns. A lt h ough th ere is a

gro w in g n um be r o f te ch no cra ts w ho o ccu py m anagem ent p osit io ns

in b oth th e g ove rn m en t a n d p riv a te s e cto r, o ne w ill h ave to m ake

su re th at th eir a ctu al a uth orit y c o rre sp onds w it h th eir tit le o r

fu nctio n in th e c o m pa ny. I t m ay o r m ay n ot.

? S audi A ra bia ns in d ic a te th at a fir m a gre e m ent h as b een r e ach ed

wit h a h andsh ake o r o ra l c o m mit m en t. A s a r u le , th ey d o n ot lik e

le ngth y a nd te dio us c o ntr a cts , w hic h th ey fe el o nly , im ply m is tr u st.

This d oes n ot m ea n, t h o ugh, th at th ey w ill n ot b e v e ry c a re fu l in

dra ftin g a tig ht c o ntr a ct w it h d eta ile d, s p ecif ic te rm s.

? T he le gal c o nsu lt a nts o f b oth s id es u su ally d ra ft th e a ctu al

co ntr a ct. O nce th e c o ntr a ct is s ig ned a nd b usin ess a ctiv it ie s b egin ,

th e fo re ig n p arty m ust r e g is te r w it h th e M in is tr y o f C om merc e .

? ?One s h ould b e a w are o f th e u n iq ue s o cia l s e nsit iv it ie s o ne w ill fin d

in S audi A ra bia . D o n ot p ut th e o th er s id e o n th e s p ot b y p ush in g

fo r a nsw ers , c la rif ic a tio ns, a nd d ecis io ns w hen th ey a re n ot r e ady.

? S how d efe re n ce a nd r e sp e ct, a nd r e sp ond p osit iv e ly to th eir n eed

to p re se rv e a g o od s o cia l im age

? Saudi A ra bia ns v a lu e d oin g b usin ess th ro u gh p eople th ey k n ow

and r e sp ect. T heir c u lt u re r e vo lv e s a ro u nd fa m ily tie s a nd

exte nded fa m il y c o nnectio ns.

? Saudis a ppre cia te th e v a lu e o f in ve stin g in fr ie ndsh ip s to fa cilit a te

th eir b usin ess t r a nsa ctio ns.S ucce ss in b usin ess d epends a lo t o n

th e c o nnectio ns th ey m ake w it h in th eir o w n fa m ily a nd in stit u tio nal

netw ork s.

? When it c o m es t o g o ve rn m en t c o n tr a ct p ro je cts , th e S au dis a re

to ugh n egotia to rs . T he g ove rn m ent p re fe rs to fix th e p ric e o f th e

co ntr a ct e ve n fo r p ro je cts th at w ill ta ke y e ars to c o m ple te .

? Gove rn m ent n e gotia to rs , w ho a re e xp erie nce d p ro je ct m anagers

and e stim ato rs , m ake s u re th at th e c o ntr a ct is tig htly w rit te n w it h

ve ry e xa ct s p ecif ic a tio n s a nd th at th e m arg in fo r in fla tio n a llo w s fo r

about th re e to fiv e p erc e nta ge p oin ts b elo w th e a ctu al in fla tio n

ra te .

? Make s u re th at a ll w rit te n m ate ria ls a nd d ocu m en ts a re tr a n sla te d

in to b oth A ra bic a nd E ngli s h .T his c a n b e d one to day w it h c o m pute r

gra phic s, s o ftw are , a nd th e la te st a udio -v is u al e quip m en t. T he

Saudis r e sp ond b ette r to ta ngib le v is u al m ate ria ls r a th er th an to

abstr a ct w ord s.

Negotiation Rules of Japan:

T he J a panese a re w orld c la ss n egotia to rs a nd d o b usin ess v e ry

dif fe re ntly th an th eir o th er c o unte rp a rts .

? The fir s t th in g to n ote a bou t th e J a panese is th eir fo cu s o n th e

welf a re o f th e g ro up o r o rg a niz a tio n. A lt h ough th ey a re v e ry

min dfu l o f h ie ra rc h y, t h e y r e co g niz e th e in te rd e pendence th at e ach

in div id ual h as w it h a n oth er.

? When n egotia tin g , th ese c o re d if fe re n ce s a re d em on str a te d b y

th eJa panese p u tt in g g ro up g oa ls a bove in div id ual w ants a nd

needs.

? T he J a panese p a y g re a t h o m ag e to s ta tu s a nd tit le , b oth fo r th eir

sid e a nd th e o ppo sin g s id e.

? At a ll tim es, th e y a re r e sp ectfu l a n d p olit e to a fa ult . C ult u ra lly ,

“s a vin g fa ce ” is o f u tm ost im po rta nce . O ne w ho lo se s fa ce in fr o nt

of h is o r h er p ee rs is p olit ic a ll y in ju re d o r d estr o ye d. It is n eve r

pro per to c rit ic iz e o r h um ilia te a noth er in p ublic . C onflic t is a vo id ed

at a ll c o sts . T he p riv a cy o f a n o ffic e is th e o nly p la ce fo r s u ch a

dis cu ssio n.

? Rela tio nsh ip s a re c h eris h ed a n d a re r e q uir e d to b egin a b usin ess

re la tio nsh ip . T he le gend s o f la te n ig hts a t th e K ara o ke b ar a re a ll

tr u e; if y o u w an t to d o b u sin ess w it h th em , y o u m ust g et to k n ow

so cia lly . It is u nde rs to od t h a t th is is ju st a b usin ess r e la tio nsh ip , b ut

it is a n ece ssit y n on eth ele ss.

? Sile nce a t a n eg otia tio n is c o m mon a nd a ppre cia te d b y th e

Ja panese . S ile nce is a tim e fo r th ought a nd r e fle ctio n. A s

negotia to rs , th e J a pa nese s p e ak le ss th an m ost c u lt u re s a nd in th e

fo rm o f q uestio ns to g et th e o th er p arty to r e ve al in fo rm atio n. T his

appro ach is a ls o w hy it s o h ard to n egotia te w it h th em ; it is n early

im possib le to g et t h e m to d is clo se th eir in te re sts o r e sp ecia lly le ss

th an th e A m eric a ns, w ho t h e y v ie w h as b la bberm outh s,

unpre dic ta ble , a nd s e lf is h .

? W hen th e J a pan ese d o s p e ak in a n egotia tio n, it is a lm ost a lw ays

motiv a tio ns.

? Ja pan is a v e ry b ure au cra tic s o cie ty w it h m an y p ro ce dure s,

re gula tio ns, a n d r u le s. D ecis io ns d on’t c o m e q uic kly a nd d eals a re

alm ost n eve r c o m ple te d in th e in it ia l m ee tin gs.

? Conse nsu s is p ara m ount a nd w ill r e q uir e th e n egotia to rs to s e ek

appro va l fr o m m anag em ent, s o n egotia tio n w ill ta ke tim e. T his

need fo r a ppro va l is a n orm al p ra ctic e , b ut s ta llin g is a ls o a

co m mon n egotia tio n ta ctic b y t h e J a panese .

Business with the Japanese:
? Very fe w J a pan ese p eo ple s p e ak E ng lis h ; I h ave s e en e stim ate s

as lo w a s o nly 3 -5 % o f th e p op ula tio n s p eaks E ng lis h . It is lik e ly

th at a n in te rp re te r w il l b e n ee ded.

? Seatin g a t d in n ers a n d in m eetin gs is v e ry im porta nt in J a pan. T he

se atin g p ro to co l d epe nds o n s e n io rit y , r e la tio nsh ip , th e lo ca tio n o f

th e d oor, a nd o bje cts in th e r o o m . It is b est to d efe r to th e lo ca l

cu sto m .

? No k is sin g o r h u ggin g. T his c a n b e v e ry e m ba rr a ssin g to th e

Ja panese r e cip ie nt.

? Neve r b lo w y o u r n o se in p ub lic ; y o u c a n s n if fle a nd s n ort, b ut

neve r b lo w .

? Busin ess c a rd s a re p re se nte d a nd r e ce iv e d w it h tw o h ands.

Alw ays p ause a nd r e fle ct o n th e b usin ess c a rd ; lo ok a t th e b ack o f

th e c a rd .

? Dre ss fo rm ally d re sse d w it h d ark b lu e b usin ess s u it s , w hit e s h ir ts ,

dark tie , a nd p oli s h ed b la ck s h oes.

?
? Don’t b ow s in ce y o u w on’t d o it r ig ht.

Negotiation Rules of China:

? Befo re in it ia tin g b u sin ess n e gotia tio ns in C hin a, it is a dva nta geous

to id entif y a nd e ngag e a lo ca l in te rm edia ry . T his p ers o n w ill h elp

brid ge th e c u lt u ra l a nd c o m mun ic a tio ns g ap, a llo w in g y o u to

co nduct b usin ess w it h g re a te r e
? e ctiv e ness.

? The p ers o n m ay b e a b le to le ve ra g e e xis tin g r e la tio nsh ip s, w hic h

co uld s ig ni? c a n tly s h orte n t h e t im e it ta ke s u ntil y o ur p ote ntia l

partn er is r e ady to d o b u sin ess w it h y o u. It is m uch b ett e r to

co nduct n egotia tio ns in C hin a w it h a te am o f n egotia to rs th an to

re ly o n a s in gle in div id ua l. T his s ig nals im po rta nce , fa cilit a te s

str o nger r e la tio nsh ip b uild in g, a nd m ay s p eed u p th e o ve ra ll

pro ce ss.

? C hin ese te am s u su ally in clu de h ig hly s kille d n egotia to rs w ho k n ow

how to o utm aneu ve r e ve n w ell p re p are d in div id ual c o unte rp arts .

? Facin g th em a s a te am w ill s ig ni? c a ntly s tr e n gth en y o ur p osit io n. It

is v it a l th at te a m s b e w ell a lig ne d, w it h r o le s c le arly a ssig ned to

each m em ber.

? The C hin ese c a n b e v e ry g ood a t e xp lo it in g d is a gre e m en ts

betw een m em bers o f t h e o th er te am to th eir a dva nta ge.

? Changin g a te a m m em be r m ay r e q uir e th e r e la tio nsh ip b uild in g

pro ce ss to s ta rt o ve r a n d s h ould b e a vo id ed. W ors t c a se , s u ch a

ch ange c a n b rin g n e gotia tio ns to a c o m ple te h alt .

? Giv e n th e s tr o n g e m phasis o n h ie ra rc h y in th e c o untr y ‘s b usin ess

cu lt u re , a s e n io r e xe cu tiv e s h ould le ad m ajo r n egotia tio ns fo r y o ur

co m pany a nd y o ur n e gotia tin g te am s h ould in clu de s e nio r le aders

who k n ow y o ur c o m pa ny w ell .

? In a cco rd ance w it h b usin e ss p ro to co l, p eople s h ould e nte r th e

meetin g r o om in h ie ra rc h ic a l o rd er. T he C hin ese m ay a ssu m e th at

th e ? rs t fo re ig ner to e nte r th e r o om is th e h ead o f y o ur d ele gatio n.

Negotiation Rules of Russia and Eastern Europe

? The R ussia n n e gotia tio n s ty le is c o nte xtu al . W here th e R ussia ns

are in a d epen den t p o sit io n, th ey w ill b e m ore a cco m m odativ e ,

where as in a n in de pend ent p osit io n, th ey w ill b e c o m pe tit iv e .

? They tr y to a vo id th ose is su e s t h a t c a nnot b e d ealt w it h

im media te ly a nd t h re ate n t h e s e cu rit y o f th e s ta te .

? Com pro m is e w ill o n ly b e m ade if a ny o th er s tr a te gy c a nnot b e

effe ctiv e .

? C olla bora tio n, o r a w in /w in in te gra tiv e r e la tio nsh ip , is p ro b ably th e

EU ‘s p re fe rre d o utc o m e o f a n ew P artn ers h ip a nd C oopera tio n

Agre em ent w it h th e R ussia ns. H ow eve r, th is p oin t c a n o nly b e

re ach ed if th e E U a ppro ach e s R ussia , a nd R ussia a ppro a ch es th e

EU , p acka gin g t h e m ain in te rd ependencie s o n a b ro a d fr o n t.

? A s R ussia ‘s h is to ric s tr a te gy s e em s to b e a s a uta rc h ic a s

possib le – g iv e n tr a um as fr o m th e p ast – th e n egotia tio n r o ad

ahead w ill b e b um py a t le ast. F or th e E U it is th ere fo re a dvis a ble to

ta ke a c o m pe tit iv e s ta nce a t th e s ta rt o f th ese n egotia tio ns a nd

work it s w ay to w ard s c o lla b ora tiv e b ehavio ur, th ough c o m pro m is e

will p ro bably b e t h e f in al o utc o m e.

? In a ny c a se , R ussia w ill h ave t o b e m ore o f a p rio rit y in E U

polic y-m akin g t h a n b efo re , a nd a vo id ance c a nnot p ossib ly b e th e

answ er. A cco m mod atio n is n o t th e a nsw er e it h er, a s th e R ussia ns

will s e e th is a s w eakn ess a nd th ey w ill th ere fo re d is re sp ect th e

Euro pean U nio n.

? To b e r e sp ecte d b y t h e R ussia n s is , g iv e n th eir e xp erie nce s in th e

past, a n a bso lu te p re co ndit io n fo r fr u it fu l n egotia tio ns in th e fu tu re .

One m ig ht h o pe th at th ese n e gotia tio n p ro ce sse s w ill, in th e e nd,

so cia lis e R ussia in to ‘E uro pean ‘ n egotia tio n c u lt u re : in te gra tiv e

in ste ad o f d is tr ib u tiv e b arg ain in g. B ut it is im po rta nt fo r E U

negotia to rs to s h ow s tr e ngth a t th e s a m e tim e a s ” n egotia to rs w ho

are p erc e iv e d a s c o n fu se d, w eak, v a cilla tin g, o r u nce rta in w ill b e

both e xp lo it e d a n d s co rn ed”.

Negotiation Rules of Central and South America

? ?when L atin A m eric a ns e n te r in to n egotia tio ns, th ey o fte n s e em to

fo cu s o n m axim iz in g th eir o w n s h ort- te rm g ain s a t th e e xp ense o f

build in g lo ng-te rm r e la tio nsh ip s.

? A v e ry c o m mon n eg otia tio n t a ctic in L atin A m eric a is to a ct a s

th ough th ey a re d o in g y o u a f a vo r b y ta lk in g to y o u. L atin os w ill

ofte n s ta rt n ego tia tio ns b y s a yin g, ” I d on’t n eed th e m on ey, b ut I’ll

help y o u o ut,” o r e ve n o utr ig ht, ” Y ou u nders ta nd th at I a m d oin g

yo u a fa vo r, r ig ht? ”

? Try g ettin g a w ay w it h t h a t in a n egotia tio n in th e U SSA — it ‘s a

good w ay to e n d th e m eetin g e ve n b efo re it s ta rts !

? It is a ls o fa ir ly c o m mon to t r y t o p re ssu re th e o th er s id e to r u sh in to

a d is a dva nta ge ous a gre em ent. W hen y o u a re h anded a c o ntr a ct,

ig nore th e a nn oye d s ig hs a nd w atc h – ta ppin g c o m in g fr o m y o ur

Latin o c o unte rp art a s y o u r e ad o ve r it .

? A L atin s e lle r w ill a lw ays m entio n th at th ere ‘s s o m e ( m yste rio usly

anonym ous) o th er b uye r w ho is a ls o in te re ste d in th e p ro p erty ( b ut

he is w illin g s e ll to y o u in ste a d, if y o u b uy n ow … a t a bove -m ark e t

pric e s, o f c o urs e ).

? At fir s t, y o u m ay fe el v e ry fr u str a te d b y th ese s e em in gly

sh ort- s ig hte d m an euve rs a nd w onder if e ve ry o n e in L atin A m eric a

is d is h onest a nd g re ed y. B ut k e ep in m in d th at L atin c u lt u re is v e ry

mach o a nd p la ce s a lo t o f im porta nce o n d is p la ys o f to ughness.

? In o th er w ord s, y o u’r e n o t b e in g c h eate d; y o u’r e b ein g te ste d.

? When y o u e nco unte r th ese ta ctic s, d on’t g et o ffe nded — b e

fla tte re d th at t h e L a tin o s it tin g a cro ss fr o m y o u th in ks th at y o u

mig ht b e w orth d oin g b usin e ss w it h ; h e’s ju st c h eckin g to s e e if h is

hyp oth esis is c o rr e ct. I t’s a ll p art o f n egotia tin g in L atin A m eric a .

? Spanis h is a v e ry c o m ple x la n guage, a nd m an y w ord s a nd

co nce pts c a n o nly r e ally b e u nders to od in c o nte xt. T his is

esp ecia lly tr u e w hen y o u c o nsid er s la ng a nd o th er c u lt u ra l

in flu ence s.

? That’s w hen n o o n e w ill t e ll y o u ” n o ” w hile y o u a re n egotia tin g in

Latin A m eric a .

? One o f th e m ost fa m ou s e xa m ple s o f th is p henom enon is th e

Chile an w ord
?weón
?, w hic h c a n m ea n… w ell , ju st a bout a nyth in g,

re ally . D ependin g o n th e s it u atio n a nd th e w ay it is s a id , it m ig ht

re fe r to a g ood fr ie nd, a c o m ple te je rk , a m an ner o f d oin g th in gs, o r

ju st a w ay to s a y, ” C oo l! ”

? For p eople w ho h a ve g ro w n u p im mers e d in C hile an c u lt u re , th is

is n ‘t v e ry c o nfu sin g ; y o u ju st g et u se d to it a nd le arn h ow to

unders ta nd w hat th e s p eake r m eans — e ve n if it d oesn ‘t a lw ays

matc h w hat h e s a ys!

? Unfo rtu nate ly f o r p eople w ho a re n’t in tim ate ly fa m il ia r w it h th e

cu lt u re , th is c a n c a use a lo t o f fr u str a tio n, e sp ecia lly w hen tr y in g to

fig ure o ut w hy a L atin o w ho e n th usia stic a lly a gre ed to a p ro posa l

la st w eek is n ow a bse n t fr o m fo llo w -u p m ee tin gs a nd ig norin g

em ails a nd p h one c a lls .

? It is v e ry c o m mon fo r L a tin b usin essp eople to g o to g re a t le ngth s

to a vo id h avin g to s a y ” n o”. T he y m ay p re te nd to a gre e w it h y o u, o r

th ey m ig ht th ro w u p e ndle ss o bje ctio ns, o r s o m etim es th ey w ill a sk

fo r a fo llo w -u p m ee tin g th at th ey h ave n o in te ntio n o f s h ow in g u p

fo r. In s o m e c u lt u re s, it ‘s e ve n c o nsid ere d a cce pta ble to lie o utr ig ht

to a vo id a ppearin g n egativ e o r u nin fo rm ed!

? It v a rie s a lit tle fr o m c o un tr y to c o untr y , b ut y o u w ill n eed to b e

re ady to d eal w it h it in y o ur n e gotia tio ns.

? Unfo rtu nate ly , th e s u re st w ay to o ve rc o m e th is c h alle nge is to g et

accu sto m ed to it — o r in vo lv e a tr u ste d c o nta ct w ho is . A fte r

yo u’v e b een d o in g b u sin ess in a c o untr y fo r s e ve ra l y e ars , y o u w ill

sta rt to g et a h a ndle o n w he n a ” y e s” is r e a lly a ” n o ” a nd v ic e

ve rs a . M ost o f th e tim e, a nyw ay.

? Until th en, a pp ro ach y o ur n ego tia tio ns w it h p atie nce a nd

pers is te nce , a nd a bove a ll, t r y r e ally h ard n ot to ta ke th in gs

pers o nally .

Negotiation Outcomes

Win-Win
In a W in -W in s ce na rio , b oth p artie s e nd u p, a t m in im um , w it h in th eir

ta rg et r a nges. T his c o uld s im ply b e r e a ch in g a fa ir m id dle g ro und th at

both p artie s b enefit f r o m , o r it c o u ld m ea n fin din g a c re a tiv e n ew s o lu tio n

th at im pro ve s th e p osit io n o f b oth p artie s.

If b oth p artie s c o m e to th e ta ble w it h g oals th at a re m utu ally c o m patib le ,

th ere is a g ood c h an ce th at th e n egotia tio n c a n r e su lt in a w in fo r b oth

sid es. O f c o urs e , th ere is n oth in g th at p re ve nts a n egotia to r fr o m tr y in g

to p re ss a n a dva nta g e a nd p u sh th e o th er s id e in to a lo sin g p osit io n, b ut

th ere is a r is k in th at c a se th at th e o th er s id e w ill w alk a w ay fr o m th e

negotia tio n.

Win -w in r e su lt s a re t h e m ost s ta ble o utc o m es o f n egotia tio ns; s in ce b oth

partie s a re h appy w it h t h e r e su lt , th ey h ave lit tle r e a so n to b ack o ut a t a

la te r tim e. B oth p artie s h a ve a n in ce ntiv e to n egotia te w it h e ach o th er

again , la yin g th e fo un datio n fo r a m utu ally b enefic ia l w ork in g

re la tio nsh ip .

Win-Lose
Fre quently in a w in -lo se s ce nario s, b oth s id es h ave a tte m pte d to w in ,

wit h out m uch r e gard fo r th e o utc o m e o f th e o th er p arty . B oth p artie s m ay

have c o m e in to th e t h e n e gotia tio n w it h a d esir e d g oal a nd a " w alk

aw ay" p oin t. In a w in -lo se s ce n ario , o ne p arty fa lls w it h in th is ta rg et

ra nge ( o r e ve n e xce eds it ) a nd th e o th er p arty fa lls b elo w th eir ta rg et

ra nge.

Notic e th at w in -lo se o utc o m es o ccu r w hen th e lo sin g s id e c a n b e p ush ed

belo w th eir ” w alk a w ay” p oin t. T his c a n h appen w hen th e lo sin g s id e

doesn ‘t k n ow w hat t h eir b est a lt e rn a tiv e is to r e a ch in g a n o utc o m e in th e

negotia tio n, o r w here th ey k e ep n egotia tin g a gain st th eir o w n in te re st.

Many o th er fa cto rs , li k e c o erc io n a nd a sym metr ic in fo rm atio n c a n a ls o

le ad to w in -lo se o utc o m es.

Lose-Lose
In a L ose -L ose s ce na rio e it h er b oth p artie s c o nce de b arg a in in g p osit io ns

outs id e th eir ta rg et r a n ges. If th e n egotia to rs fa il to r e ach a n a gre em ent,

both p artie s m ay e n d u p in w ors e p osit io ns th an w hen th ey s ta rte d th e

negotia tio ns, th is is o fte n in clu ded a s a lo se -lo se o utc o m e.

If o ne o r b oth p artie s c a n ‘t w alk a w ay fr o m a n egotia tio n, b ut a re

unw illin g to m ake c o n ce ssio n s, b oth w ill b e fo rc e d to d eal w it h th e p oor

co nse quence s o f n ot r e ach in g a n a gre e m en t.

Alt e rn ativ e ly , b oth p artie s c o uld b e to o q uic k to m ake c o nce ssio ns,

re ach in g a c o m pro m is e th at is fa ir , b ut d etr im en ta l to b oth s id es.

Lik e w is e , if b oth p artie s a re m is ta ke n a bout th e b enefit s o f w hat th e

oth er s id e is o ffe rin g, th ey m ay r e ach a n a gre e m en t th ey la te r c o m e to

re gre t.

x

Hi!
I'm Ava

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out