Chapter 6 – The Manager as Negotiator: Communicating and Negotiating Across Cultures

Language

• Definition: Symbolic code comprising sounds with understood meanings and syntactic rules; culturally rooted (Holtgraves & Kashima, 2008)
• Arbitrary word–referent linkage examples
  • Japanese “neko” vs. English “cat”
  • Cantonese homophones: 4 \rightarrow “death” (sei); 8 \rightarrow “prosperity” (faat)
• English as lingua franca of international business
  • Spoken by \approx 25 % of world population
  • Competitive pressures, globalization, M&A drive corporate adoption (Neeley, 2012)
  • Example: Rakuten “English-only” mandate (2010)
  • 7,100 employees affected; 2-year fluency ultimatum; by 2012 → 50 % adequate, 25 % daily use
• Cross-language implications
  • Second-language processing is deliberate & tiring (Smith & Bond, 1999)
  • Fluency ⇒ competence perceptions (Hui & Cheng, 1987)
  • Foreigner Speak: native speakers slow down, simplify, over-enunciate; can appear patronizing (Williams et al., 2004) – see Box 6.2 dialogue
  • Risk of feigned comprehension (Li, 1994) if safe-checking climate absent
• Registers, Formality & Varieties
  • Multiple levels (e.g., Classical Arabic, Modern Standard, local dialects)
  • Slang: playful subgroup lexicon (e.g., Australian “shrapnel” coins)
  • Jargon: technical subgroup lexicon (URL, phishing)
  • Euphemisms: indirect terms for taboo topics (e.g., “passed away”, “interesting condition”)
  • Idioms: culture-specific phrases; translation pitfalls (e.g., “out of sight, out of mind” \rightarrow “invisible things are insane” in Thai brochure)
  • Proverbs/Maxims: concise cultural truths; reveal values (e.g., “eye for an eye” vs. “goat’s hide buys a goat’s hide”)

Communication Styles

• High- vs. Low-Context (Hall, 1976)
  • HC: Meaning embedded in context; words minimal (Japan, China, Arab)
  • LC: Meaning explicit in words (Swiss, German, U.S.)
  • Aligns with Collectivism (HC) & Individualism (LC)
  • Figure 6.2 continuum; parallels Hofstede I–C index
  • Example Box 6.3: Indonesian banana-with-tea metaphor for disapproval
• Direct vs. Indirect
  • Direct ↔ individualist; Indirect ↔ collectivist
  • Box 6.4 illustrates nuanced “no” responses (conditional yes, counter-question, tangential reply…)
  • Motivation: preserve harmony & face; truth situational vs. absolute
• Silence & Verbal Overkill
  • Collectivists (e.g., Japanese) use silence strategically; individualists fill gaps
  • Australians < U.S. in verbal output; Finns use silence as encouragement
  • Arab communication: exaggeration (mubalaqha), repetition, metaphors – simple U.S. warning perceived weak (Prothro, 1955)
• Praise
  • Frequency, targets, response differ
  • U.S.: frequent, toward close relations, praise appearance
  • Japanese: praise strangers more; Arabs praise skill, use elaborate metaphors
  • Response: Chinese deflect (modesty); Australians accept politely
  • Cartoon Figure 6.3 depicts Anglo frustration with modesty

Language Pragmatics & Accommodation

• Language Accommodation Theory
  • Shift speech for similarity; depends on motives, identities, context
  • Ethnolinguistic vitality determines default language; English often default in business
  • Native speakers often poor accommodators (Sweeney & Hua, 2010)
  • Mutual effort appreciated (Giles et al., 1977)
  • Figure 6.4 Cantonese/English vending exchange – bidirectional irritation
• Stylistic Accommodation
  • Based on similarity-attraction hypothesis; moderate convergence optimal
  • Motive attribution crucial (patronizing? ingratiating?)
• Fluency Effects
  • Greater fluency ⇒ assumptions of cultural knowledge; errors judged harshly
  • Language shifts cognitions/attitudes toward L2 culture (Bond & Yang, 1982)

Nonverbal Communication

• Estimated 70 % of intra-cultural message; possibly more cross-culturally
• Categories & Cultural Variations
  • Tone of Voice: dominance signals differ (U.S. loud fast vs. German soft low)
  • Proxemics (Hall, 1966)
  • Intimate 0{-}18 in; Personal 18 in–4 ft; Social 4–12 ft; Public 12–25 ft
  • Colder climates → larger distance; Arabs/Greeks close; Scots farthest
  • Touching: high-touch (Mediterranean, Arab) vs. low-touch (Nordic, Asian)
  • Office space norms (open vs. closed doors; shared Japanese offices)
  • Body Position & Gestures
  • Mirroring culturally moderated (Sanchez-Burks et al., 2009)
  • Bowing in Japan intricately status-based; department-store greeters
  • Emblems: same gesture, varied meaning; avoid unless sure (Box 6.7: Bush “horns” misread as Satan salute in Norway)
  • Facial Expressions
  • Six universal emotions: anger, fear, sadness, disgust, happiness, surprise
  • Display rules modify expression; collectivists suppress public emotion
  • Smiling meanings differ (happiness vs. conceal displeasure vs. lack of control)
  • Eye Contact (Gaze)
  • High gaze = friendliness (U.S.) vs. aggression (East Asia)
  • Arabs high contact; East Asians avert; norms fixed early

Negotiation Across Cultures

• Universal characteristics: ≥2 parties, conflicting interests, need agreement, undefined content
• Culture influences via people, process, situational factors (Brett, 2014)

Descriptive Models

• Graham Four-Stage Model
  1. Non-task sounding / relationship building
  2. Task-related information exchange
  3. Persuasion
  4. Concessions & agreement
  • Emphasis varies: Japanese spend more time in Stage 1 & 2; U.S. emphasize persuasion
• Negotiating Styles & Tactics
  • Persuasion Types: rational (U.S.), affective (Syrian), ideological (Russian)
  • Conflict resolution preferences: competitive (France, Brazil, U.S.) vs. polite/restraint (Japan, Malaysia)
  • Initial offers: extreme (Russian, Arab, Chinese) vs. moderate (U.S.)
  • Concession patterns: Russians reluctant; North Americans reciprocal
  • Graham et al. study (Table 6.1) – Japanese, American, Brazilian tactic frequencies
  • Example: word “no” usage (JP ≈5.7, US ≈9, BR ≈83!!); Brazilian high overlaps & touching

Cultural Dimensions Approach

• Individualism–Collectivism, Power Distance, Uncertainty Avoidance, Masculinity
  • Collectivists prefer harmony-preserving methods; bargaining/mediation > adversarial
  • Large power-distance & unstable hierarchies ⇒ aggressive, honor-sensitive behavior (Arab, Latin America, parts of Africa)
  • Low-context negotiators share info continuously; High-context early only
  • Integrative vs. distributive outcomes linked to national profiles (e.g., Norway > Mexico for integrative gains)
  • Hierarchical cultures (Japan) achieve lower joint gains in intercultural dyads (Brett & Okumura, 1998)

Contextual / Holistic Perspectives

• Behavior shifts with accountability, need for closure, hierarchical roles
  • Accountability ⇒ competitiveness but also cultural conformity (Gelfand & Realo, 1999)
  • High need for closure ⇒ more culturally prototypical tactics (Fu et al., 2007)
  • Superior vs. peer status affects norm adherence differently across cultures (Brett et al., 2007)
• Metaphor Framework (Gelfand & McCusker, 2002)
  • U.S.: negotiation as “sports” – discrete, rule-based, winning satisfaction
  • Japan: negotiation as “household” – continuous, relationship, role fulfillment
  • Shared metaphors aid mutual understanding & adjustment

Practical Implications for Managers

• Communication
  • Choose common language consciously; provide translation/support but beware accommodation pitfalls
  • Encourage clarification, check understanding; legitimize questions
  • Avoid idioms, slang, culturally bound humor
  • Observe silence norms; tolerate pauses
• Nonverbal Awareness
  • Study proxemic & touch norms before meetings
  • Monitor own gestures; restrict emblem use
  • Adapt eye-contact, vocal qualities to counterpart norms
• Negotiation Preparation
  • Assess counterpart’s cultural context (I–C, power distance, HC/LC)
  • Decide stage emphasis (relationship building vs. persuasion)
  • Calibrate initial offers & concession strategy
  • Anticipate display rule differences (e.g., suppressed emotion ≠ disinterest)
  • Consider metaphors & framing to bridge perspectives

Ethical & Philosophical Notes

• Language mandates (e.g., Rakuten) raise fairness vs. competitiveness debate
• Truth vs. harmony: collectivist indirectness challenges absolutist ethics of honesty
• Display-rule suppression may conceal genuine dissent; managers must foster safe expression channels

Key Statistics & Facts

• English users online: >550 million
• English spoken by \approx 25 % world population
• Rakuten post-policy: 50 % employees proficient in 2 years
• Negotiation study: Brazilian “no” instances \approx 83 per 30 min vs. Japanese 6

Connections to Prior Concepts

• Similarity-Attraction hypothesis (Chapter 4) underpins stylistic accommodation
• Hofstede dimensions & Self-concept frameworks integrate with HC/LC model
• Power distance links to nonverbal dominance cues & bowing

Summary

• Language, style, and nonverbal systems are culturally patterned; misalignment causes friction & cognitive load
• High-/Low-context, Direct/Indirect, Silence, Praise patterns flow from Individualism–Collectivism values
• Nonverbal cues (proxemics, gaze, gestures) are potent yet culturally variant; awareness essential
• Negotiation processes, tactics, and outcomes are mediated by cultural values, contextual variables, and adaptive flexibility
• Holistic, metaphor-based understanding and mutual accommodation enhance cross-cultural negotiation effectiveness