文化因素与成功的商务谈判(1)

【摘 要】随着经济全球化的趋势、国际商务活动的日益频繁，越来越显示出对多元文化理解的必要性和跨文化谈判能力的重要性。商务谈判中的文化因素引起了人们越来越多的关注。无庸置疑，在跨文化的商务谈判中，除了基本的谈判技巧、理解不同地区的文化因素、认识文化差异外，还要采取相应的策略和不断调整自己的谈判风格，这样将对成功的商务谈判起到至关重要的作用。

【关键词】文化；因素；商务谈判

I. Introduction

With the emergence of economic globalization and China’s entry into WTO, international business becomes increasingly intercultural. As international business relations grow, so does the frequency of business negotiations among people from different countries and cultures. And that can create considerable challenges for business representatives unfamiliar with the cultures of different groups. So the intercultural approach to international business negotiation has attracted increasing academic attention. Negotiations can easily break down because of a lack of understanding of the cultural component in the negotiation process.

Therefore, to the successful negotiations, the two sides must first understand the cultural differences. Negotiators who take the time to understand the approach that the other parties are likely to use and to adapt their own styles to that one are likely to be more effective negotiators. Thus in an intercultural negotiation, in addition to the basic negotiation skills, it is important to understand the cultural differences, and to modify the negotiation style accordingly.

This paper focus on the four dimensions of culture and different negotiating styles to illustrate the importance of the culture factors in business negotiation.

II. Negotiation and Culture

The very definition of negotiation, in its modern sense, can vary from culture to culture. What a negotiation is designed to accomplish is seen differently by different groups of people. Before one even comes to the table, such differences in the meaning or purpose of the negotiation affect the negotiation, as how one defines the process of negotiating is culturally determined. Some cultures see it only as an opportunity to bargain, others as the establishment of a lifetime relationship that goes beyond the occasional meeting, still others as an opportunity to demonstrate their capacity for eloquence and debate. Some do not see negotiation as a process at all. For instance, Americans and Europeans tend to see negotiations as a competitive process; the Chinese and the Japanese see it as a collaborative endeavor.

So there are many more challenges in an intercultural environment than in a mono-cultural setting. Intercultural negotiations are negotiation where the negotiating parties belong to different cultures and do not share the same ways of thinking, feeling, and behavior. The negotiation process is generally more complex because cultural norms may undermine effective communication.

III. Some Culture Factors in Business Negotiation

Language goes beyond the spoken word, encompassing nonverbal actions and behaviors that reveal hidden clues to culture. In the negotiation process, interpersonal communication is the key activity that takes place at the verbal, nonverbal, situational contextual level, and a total communication system can assist the negotiator to bridge the gap between utterance and felt meaning. Three key topics---time, space, body language---offer a starting point from which negotiators can begin to acquire the understanding necessary to do business in foreign countries.

Time

Two different orientations to time exist across the world: monochronic and polychronic. Monochronic approaches to time are linear, sequential and involve focusing on one thing at a time. These approaches are most common in the European-influenced cultures of the United States, Germany, Switzerland, and the Scandinavia. Japanese people also tend toward this end of the time continuum. Polychronic orientations to time involve working on several activities simultaneously. The time it takes to complete an interaction is elastic, and more important than any schedule. This orientation is most common in Mediterranean and Latin cultures including France, Italy, Greece, and Mexico, as well as some Eastern and African cultures.

Space

Space orientations differ across cultures. They have to do with territory, pisions between private and public, comfortable personal distance, comfort or lack of comfort with physical touch and contact, and expectations about where and how contact will take place. For example, an American etiquette manual advises this about personal space: “When you meet someone, don’t stand too close. An uncomfortable closeness is very annoying to the other person, so keep your physical distance, or he’ll have to keep backing off from you. A minimum of two feet away from the other person will do it.”

There are large differences in spatial preferences according to gender, age, generation, socioeconomic class, and context. These differences vary by group, but should be considered in any exploration of space as a variable in negotiations.

Body Language

Body Language can be telling as it can help one determine the exact meaning of what the other side is saying and also can help you get your own message across. Likes and dislikes, tensions, and assessing an argument are shown by numerous signs such as blushing, contraction of facial muscles, giggling, strained laughter or simply silence. Wherever a party negotiates, the negotiator must watch and observe the other party. People, when seated, lean forward if they like what you are saying or are interested in listening. They sit back with crossed arms if they do not like the message. Nervousness can manifest itself through nonverbal behavior, and blinking can be related to feeling of guilt or fear.

IV. Four Dimensions of Culture

Any analysis of culture is incomplete without the basic recognition of cultural differences. It has been argued that differences among cultures can be explained according to four dimensions of culture.

Inpidualism-Collectivism

In inpidualistic cultures the focus of one’s behavior can be unashamedly self-centered. The inpidual can make objections, state his feelings and be openly judgmental. Success or failure is left to the inpidual and does not cause the same degree of shame among the group. In inpidualistic cultures, people tend to put tasks before relationships and to value independence highly. People in these cultures are expected to take care of themselves and to value the needs of the inpidual over those of the groups, community, or society. Inpidualistic cultures prefer linear logic and tend to value open conflict.

Members from inpidualistic societies expect the other side’s negotiators to have the ability to make decisions unilaterally.

Collectivist negotiators tend to assume that details can be worked out if the negotiators can agree on generalities. Collectivist societies show more concern for the needs of the other party and focus more on group goals than inpidualistic societies. Members of collectivist societies chafe when members from inpidualistic societies promote their own positions and ideas during negotiations.

Power Differential

The idea of power differential describes the degree of deference and acceptance of unequal power between people. Cultures where there is a comfort with high power differential are those where some people are considered superior to others because of their social status, gender, race, age, education, birthright, personal achievements, family background or other factors. Cultures with low power differential tend to assume equality among people, and focus more on earned status than ascribed status. Generally speaking, the more unequally wealth is distributed, the bigger will be the power differential in any national setting. National cultures with a high power differential include Arabian countries, Malaysia, the Philippines, Mexico, Indonesia, and India. Negotiators from these countries tend to be comfortable with: hierarchical structures; clear authority figures; the right to use power with discretion. Countries with a low power differential include U.S., Austria, Denmark, Israel, New Zealand, Ireland, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Switzerland, Britain, and Germany. Negotiators from these countries tend to be comfortable with: democratic structures and flat organizational hierarchies; shared authority; the right to use power only in limited circumstances and for legitimate purposes.