Culture has not always been seen as an important component of international business negotiations. In fact, it has even been seen for a period of time as something not important in negotiation. The argument was that when one knows how to handle negotiation, it is the same, more or less, every time and in every context. Nevertheless, the field was studied extensively and researches have revealed the crucial importance of culture in international business negotiation.
In this context, Usunier have presented the key components of culture that impact international business negotiations.
3.3.1.! Important cultural components
The first component of culture that has an impact on international business negotiations is communication and language. This seems obvious but tends to be forgotten. When two people from different cultures are negotiating, the language is rarely the same (unless for some exceptions). Often, at least one of the negotiator has to speak a different language than his native one. This has consequences over the negotiating process as it might be a source of
misunderstandings. Moreover, this is just when one of the negotiator has to speak in a foreign language. Often, both negotiators have to speak a foreign language that is English. Moreover, speaking a foreign language might also be very confusing in a negotiation as communication aspects might also differ from one culture to another. For example, in some cultures, it is normal to not be explicit and left some things unsaid but that are implicit, while in other cultures, it is the custom to say things explicitly and if they are not said, they are not taking into account. This might lead to misunderstandings between two different cultures.
An other component that influences international business negotiations is the institutional and legal system. This factor has influence more on the context of the negotiation process than on the process itself. At this level it shows how societies are organized regarding the rules and the decision-making process. For example, in some cultures, giving one’s word is enough and it is considered as a commitment. But in other countries, a written contract is necessary.
The value system has also an important influence as it affects important negotiation aspects. For instance, it indicates to what extent a negotiator can take some risks, or to what extent leadership is important in a specific culture. It could also indicate what is a typical relation between a superior and his subordinate.
All those particularities are helpful in a negotiation as they help to understand the other side.
The relation to time is different between cultures. It is crucial in negotiation because it shapes the structure of actions that a negotiator has. The most significant example of differences between cultures regarding time is punctuality. But it is not as important in negotiations as differences in time orientations, especially toward the future. The relationship between time and negotiation is developed further due to its importance.
Mindsets are the way people reflect on issues (Usunier: 101). What is the preference of the negotiator: data, ideas or speech? On what does he prefer to
rely on and in what combination? The logic of functioning of people is very important in negotiations.
The last component is relationship pattern. The way that people relate to the group and what relationship are framed in a particular culture are very important in the negotiation process as they may be helpful in resolving some conflicts for example.
3.3.2.! Important factors of negotiation influenced by culture
Usunier (2010) have also presented the main negotiation factors that are influenced by culture. The first negotiation aspect on which culture has influence is credibility. This might seem surprising but the first impression is very important especially in negotiation. The first impression negotiators gave is the basis on which credibility is judged. Of course, it happens only during the initial building of credibility and therefore the importance is relative. But signs as age, sex, height, tone of the voice, perceived activity, self-esteem, etc. are signs that can determine a priori a credibility. Culture has an impact on those criteria as for instance in some countries, it is positive to be fat because of the malnutrition.
Interpersonal orientation is also a component of the negotiation process that is influenced by culture. There is for instance a huge difference between Western countries and Japan concerning this matter. In Japan, ningensei is a very important concept that shapes the Japanese society. This concept places human beings as the first concern in society and it has great consequences over the negotiation process. Indeed, Japanese negotiators spend lot of time and money during the first stage of negotiation in order to know better the persons they are negotiating with. The goal here is to build a relation of trust and confidence. This philosophy is a sign of a collectivist society and is different of the individualist Westerns countries.
The relation between persons and the concern for the other party have then a crucial importance in order to understand people from different cultures during
negotiations, but in-group orientation also needs to be understood. Foster have developed the concept of “limited good”. He states that when there is a clear distinction between the in-group and the out-group, the interests of both groups are perceived as diametrically opposite. This point of view is a typical zero sum game orientated as the benefits for the in-group are perceived as disadvantages for the out-group. Any action or concession in favor of one group means its opposite for the other group. It is for example quiet common to find this kind of thinking among Mediterranean countries.
Power orientation is of course very important when it comes to negotiation. But there is a difference between the formal power orientation and the real decision-making. The first one is about status that one can have as for example be a member of certain clubs that give him a certain power status. Nevertheless, the real power/decision-making is entirely different. It is about persons that actually have the power of decision. It is not always the persons with a formal power orientation who have the power of decision. Three aspects need to be taken into account when negotiating: status can be shown differently according to culture;
individual influence is exerted differently according to culture; the decision-process making differs from culture to culture. The power orientation aspect developed by Hofstede demonstrates that a larger power distance implies a more centralized control and thus a decision-making structure. However, Fischer (1980), through an example, demonstrated that this relation is not systematic.
Negotiation is a risk associated business activity. Risks are not perceived the same way according to culture. Weber and Hsee (1998) have shown that the attitudes toward risk are shared but that the perception of risk differ. This dimension can be related to the Hofstede theory explained earlier and its dimension of uncertainty avoidance.