s

n
o
i
t
a
i

t
o
g
e
N

s
s
e
n
i
s
u
B

n
o

s
e
r


u
t s
l a

u v
i k
i
C n
i h
r s
f l
S u
o u
r i a
t a s
K
c
P
a m a
a a
p h
y
i V b
i
m r
I P V VTable of Contents
Table of Contents ...................................................................................................................................... 2
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 3
Project Methodology ..................................................................................................................................... 5
United Kingdom .......................................................................................................................................... 7
Geert Hoefstede Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 7
Negotiating Style .................................................................................................................................... 7
Japan ............................................................................................................................................................ 8
Geert Hoefstede Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 8
Negotiating Style .................................................................................................................................... 8
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................ 8
United States of America .......................................................................................................................... 9
Geert Hoefstede Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 9
Negotiating Style .................................................................................................................................. 10
Australia ..................................................................................................................................................... 11
Geert Hoefstede Analysis ................................................................................................................... 11
Negotiating Style .................................................................................................................................. 11
Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................. 12
Literature Review ........................................................................................................................................ 13
Chinese Approach for Negotiations ........................................................................................................ 13
Germanic Approach to Negotiations....................................................................................................... 13
Indian Approach to Negotiations ............................................................................................................ 14
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................. 16




2Introduction
Negotiation is an interaction of influences. Such interactions, for example, include the process is an interaction of influences. Such interactions, for example, include the process is an interaction of influences. Such interactions, for example, include the process
of resolving disputes, agreeing upon courses of action, bargaining for individual or collective of resolving disputes, agreeing upon courses of action, bargaining for individual or collective of resolving disputes, agreeing upon courses of action, bargaining for individual or collective
advantage, or crafting outcomes to satisfy various interests. Negotiation advantage, or crafting outcomes to satisfy various interests. Negotiation advantage, or crafting outcomes to satisfy various interests. Negotiation is thus a form of
alternative dispute resolution.
Negotiation involves three basic elements: process, behavior and substance. The process Negotiation involves three basic elements: process, behavior and substance. The process Negotiation involves three basic elements: process, behavior and substance. The process
refers to how the parties negotiate: the context of the negotiations, the parties to the refers to how the parties negotiate: the context of the negotiations, the parties to the refers to how the parties negotiate: the context of the negotiations, the parties to the
negotiations, the tactics used by the parties, and the sequence and stages in which all of these d by the parties, and the sequence and stages in which all of these d by the parties, and the sequence and stages in which all of these
play out. Behaviors to the relationships among these parties, the communication between them play out. Behaviors to the relationships among these parties, the communication between them play out. Behaviors to the relationships among these parties, the communication between them
and the styles they adopt. The substance refers to what the parties negotiate over: the agenda,and the styles they adopt. The substance refers to what the parties negotiate over: the agenda,and the styles they adopt. The substance refers to what the parties negotiate over: the agenda,
the issues (positions and - more helpfully - interests), the options, and the agreement(s) interests), the options, and the agreement(s)
i
reached at the end.
Negotiations have widely differed in the way they were carried out in the past. Also, the theory Negotiations have widely differed in the way they were carried out in the past. Also, the theory Negotiations have widely differed in the way they were carried out in the past. Also, the theory
behind what drives a negotiation has changed dbehind what drives a negotiation has changed drastically. The early theoretical models saw rastically. The early theoretical models saw
negotiation or collective bargaining as a means to achieve something that is completely tangible negotiation or collective bargaining as a means to achieve something that is completely tangible negotiation or collective bargaining as a means to achieve something that is completely tangible
and rational.
For instance, the Hick's theory of wage setting saw that the willingness of the employees to For instance, the Hick's theory of wage setting saw that the willingness of the employees to For instance, the Hick's theory of wage setting saw that the willingness of the employees to
undertake a strike and of the management to resist a strike depended upon what is to be gained ake a strike and of the management to resist a strike depended upon what is to be gained ake a strike and of the management to resist a strike depended upon what is to be gained
by such a sacrifice.



The duration of the strike will be governed by the relative return, with the employer willing to The duration of the strike will be governed by the relative return, with the employer willing to The duration of the strike will be governed by the relative return, with the employer willing to
face a longer strike the steeper the wage retface a longer strike the steeper the wage return sought by the union with the union willing to urn sought by the union with the union willing to
undertake a longer strike the greater the potential gain. undertake a longer strike the greater the potential gain.

3Similarly the conflict-choice model proposes that negotiations and their outcome would be
influenced by the maximization of the expected utility, taking into account such factors as the
probability and cost of strike on the one hand, and the cost of paying the rate increase on the
other.
Such models have a common thread of thought - they assume human beings to be completely
rational and driven by the sole desire to maximize their personal or group return at all cost by
negotiating or bargaining with the opposite party in the most efficient manner possible.
However, such an outlook ignores a serious dimension of negotiations that is not completely
rational. This dimension relates to the undercurrents felt in an organization as soon as it
acquired by an MNC of a different nationality. Human beings have a tendency to protect their
own way of thinking and ideology and resist the imposition of an alien way of life. It cannot be
said, if such an attempt would necessarily result in an outcome that is better than its alternative;
however, such attempts are indeed made.
What drives such a behavior? The fact that we come from different cultures across the world
that differ widely in the way they perceive the world around them. The objectives of the
negotiations may be different in different cultures. Also, different cultures may view the mode of
negotiations too in different ways. While it is difficult to characterize any national or cultural
approach to negotiation, generalizations are frequently drawn. These generalizations are helpful
to the extent that the reader remembers that they are only guides, not recipes. Any
generalization holds true or not depending on many contextual factors including time, setting,
situation, stakes, history between the parties, nature of the issue, individual preferences,
interpersonal dynamics and mood.
Cultures are embedded in every conflict because conflicts arise in human relationships.
Cultures affect the ways we name, frame, blame, and attempt to tame conflicts. Whether a
conflict exists at all is a cultural question. Cultures are embedded in every conflict because
conflicts arise in human relationships. Cultures affect the ways we name, frame, blame, and
ii
attempt to tame conflicts. Whether a conflict exists at all is a cultural question.
In this project, we attempt to study how various dimensions of culture affect the way we
negotiate with others. We used the Geert-Hoefstede model to segment 4 countries into 2 pairs
and formulated our hypothesis about the difference in negotiation styles across cultures. We
concluded by a literature study of the cultural aspects of negotiations unique to these countries
to prove or disprove our hypothesis.



4Project Methodology
Our project study starts by a literature review and study of how negotiations are perceived
across various cultures. In particular, we proceed to observe the nature and styles of
negotiations and conflict-resolutions across China, Germany and India. This study showed us
various facets of conflict-resolution that were unique to these respective cultures. We have tried
to link these features to the Geert-Hoefstede model; in particular to the parameters on PDI, IDV,
MAS, UAI and LTO.
We then form our Hypothesis: 'Culture has a bearing on the way conflicts are viewed and
are resolved'. In order to test our hypothesis, we proceed by using the Geert-Hoefstede study
scores of various countries on the above mentioned five parameters. These scores are used as
quantifiable variables defining 'culture'.
If culture indeed has an effect on the way conflicts are dealt with across cultures, the more
(less) distinct two countries are culturally, the more (less) distinct would be their way and
approach to negotiations. We locate two pairs of countries to test our hypothesis - one pair of
countries that are very dissimilar and another pair which are very similar.
In order to find these two pairs of countries, we have followed the following steps (please refer
Appendix):
I. Selection of seven countries for the study. The countries were shortlisted on the basis of
two parameters:
a) Availability of sufficient literature to test our hypothesis
b) Availability of Geert-Hoefstede scores on all 5 parameters
The countries selected by us for this purpose are: Australia, China, Germany, India,
Japan, UK and USA.
II. Listing of the Hoefstede scores on the 5 parameters for the seven countries. Further the
mean and SD of the scores was calculated vertically (parameter-wise). Please refer to
Table 1.
III. Using the SD and mean as calculated above, the individual scores were normalized.
This is to transform the set of measurements so that they may be compared in a
meaningful way. Since normalization involves factoring out the size of the domain when
we wish to compare counts collected over unequal areas or populations, it can be
employed to transform measures of magnitude (counts or weights) into measures of
intensity. Further the mean of these normalized values was calculated for each country.
Please refer to Table 2.
IV. A pair-wise comparison has been done to locate two pairs of countries - one which are
most dissimilar and another which are most similar. The SD of the means of the
normalized Hoefstede scores has been used as a 'proxy' for similarity/dissimilarity. A
higher SD would imply greater dissimilarity and vice-versa. Please refer to Table 3.

5V. Location of the most dissimilar and the least dissimilar pair - The SD has been found to
be maximum between countries 5 and 6 (Japan and United Kingdom) and has been
found to be lowest between countries 1 and 7 (Australia and US).
Through literature survey, we find out whether Japan and UK really differ in their approach to
conflict resolution and whether the conflict resolution styles of Australia and US is similar. If so,
our initial hypothesis that culture plays an important role in negotiations stands validated.
Further, an extensive literature review of impact of culture on negotiation styles on the
remaining three countries (Germany, China and India) has also been undertaken.



6United Kingdom

Geert Hoefstede Analysis



Negotiating Style
The British approach to negotiating has often been characterized as enthusiastic, friendly and
honest. It is a style that is often commented upon by other nationalities as easy to get along
with, flexible and likely to be responsive to the other side's proposals. However, there has been
criticism that this style can also be over confident, underprepared and naïve, reflecting the more
typical characteristics of a beginner. Perhaps calling this ' the British approach' is no more than
a fair reflection of the long time it has taken many north Europeans to realize that negotiating
skills are actually worth cultivating .
If a negotiator falls into this category, his / her strengths will usually be as a cooperative, rather
than competitive, negotiator. If this should be seen by the other side, the negotiator's case will
appear to them intrinsically weak unless he / she uses power and aspiration well.
If a negotiator should have the opportunity to meet these characteristics in an adversary, he /
she will find a win - win style most likely to be fruitful. He / she will , however , also find a win -
lose prospect very attractive if he / she has the powerbase to back it up or even just higher
aspirations .



7Japan

Geert Hoefstede Analysis



Negotiating Style
The Japanese tend to rely on generating solutions to problems from the information available.
Also, the Japanese emphasize the relationships involved as well as specified goals during
negotiations. They really want to know who they are dealing with, who sent them, and what the
future of this relationship might hold. This is an example of their high score on uncertainty
avoidance. There is far more reliance on non-verbal signals for the Japanese in acquiring
information. The Japanese are usually perceived as pressing for additional information with no
corresponding offering gestures. They are very slow to make concessions (giving too little, and
waiting way too long to do it). This may be construed as their long - term orientation.
It is difficult to get them to reveal who the pivotal person is in the negotiation. They negotiate as
a group. The views of all members are taken into consideration. This is a characteristic of their
low score on individualism which implies higher collectivism. They are also charged with being
iii
'inscrutable', and use 'confusing' tactics when communicating.
In discussions with the Japanese, the following points have to be kept in mind:
v respecting the counterpart's views
v the statements and actions actually heard and seen may be very different from the initial
interpretations and assumptions
v considering intended, as well as, literal information
v recognizing the counterpart's high communicative context, and watch for non-verbal
cues and messages contained in the context
v remembering the translators may have limitations
Conclusion
From the description of the conflict resolution styles of the United Kingdom and Japan, we can
say that the two countries differ in their approach to negotiations. They are a clear contrast of
each other. This is also true for their Hoefstede scores. Thus, we can say with a degree of
certainty that difference in culture causes difference in conflict resolution styles.

8United States of America

Geert Hoefstede Analysis



There are only seven (7) countries in the Geert Hoefstede research that have Individualism
(IDV) as their highest Dimension: USA (91), Australia (90), United Kingdom (89), Netherlands
and Canada (80), and Italy (76).
The high Individualism (IDV) ranking for the United States indicates a society with a more
individualistic attitude and relatively loose bonds with others. The populace is more self-reliant
and looks out for themselves and their close family members.
The next highest Hoefstede Dimension is Masculinity (MAS) with a ranking of 62, compared
with a world average of 50. This indicates the country experiences a higher degree of gender
differentiation of roles. The male dominates a significant portion of the society and power
structure. This situation generates a female population that becomes more assertive and
competitive, with women shifting toward the male role model and away from their female role.
The United States was included in the group of countries that had the Long Term Orientation
(LTO) Dimension added. The LTO is the lowest Dimension for the US at 29, compared to the
world average of 45. This low LTO ranking is indicative of the societies' belief in meeting its
obligations and tends to reflect an appreciation for cultural traditions.
The next lowest ranking Dimension for the United States is Power Distance (PDI) at 40,
compared to the world Average of 55. This is indicative of a greater equality between societal
levels, including government, organizations, and even within families. This orientation reinforces
a cooperative interaction across power levels and creates a more stable cultural environment.
The last Geert Hoefstede Dimension for the US is Uncertainty Avoidance (UAI), with a ranking
of 46, compared to the world average of 64. A low ranking in the Uncertainty Avoidance
Dimension is indicative of a society that has fewer rules and does not attempt to control all
outcomes and results. It also has a greater level of tolerance for a variety of ideas, thoughts,
and beliefs.


9Negotiating Style
The US approach is seen by others to reflect the popular image of the indigenous population:
good at 'wheeler - dealing', generally confident & with high aspirations for success. It is also
often regarded as a warm & sincere approach. In general, the American is seen to regard
simplicity of both thought and action particularly highly.
When it comes to contractual matters, there are two highly contrasting US approaches. One,
indeed, is 'simple'. the overall ' big picture' is most highly valued , to the extent that side -
issues may be underplayed and there will be little relish for long , detailed ' nit - picking' debate
, or even formal agreements . Rather, there may be much greater reliance on the spirit of an
agreement.
There is another approach which is quite the opposite, however. Legal agreements may be
elaborate, sometimes verbose and always expensive, to a degree that makes them exceptional.
Perhaps it was this latter approach that inspired the former.
The American approach is recognized to very strong in face - to - face communications but
often less so with the written word. Most foreigners find that Americans are often good
bargainers, well prepared to say what they feel and what they want.
In general, while very professional they while negotiating; Americans are also noted for
respecting professionalism in the other side.
If a negotiator meets this style, he / she expects an enjoyable experience. He / she will need to
be fully prepared, however, and ready to move quickly with new lines of thought and discussion.
If he / she wants repeatable deals, he / she has to be sure to come through with whatever he /
she has promised. He / she will be lucky to be given a second chance if he / she fails the first
time. Great emphasis is laid on personal integrity and the keeping of promises.



10Australia

Geert Hoefstede Analysis



The Geert Hoefstede analysis for Australia reflects the high level of individuality Australian's
hold dear. The Individualism (IDV) index for Australia is 90, the second highest score of any
country in the Hoefstede survey, behind the United States' ranking of 91.
This individuality is reinforced in Australian's daily lives and must be considered when traveling
and doing business in their Country. Privacy is considered the cultural norm and attempts at
personal ingratiating may meet with rebuff.
Power Distance (PDI) is relatively low, with an index of 36, compared to the world average of
55. This is indicative of a greater equality between societal levels, including government,
organizations, and even within families. This orientation reinforces a cooperative interaction
iv
across power levels and creates a more stable cultural environment.

Negotiating Style
The Australian approach is robust but open. There is a very polished variety, tough and 'no -
nonsense' which may owe its origins to the characteristics of North American negotiating
influences. There is, however, another equally 'no - nonsense' approach, which is overtly more
aggressive and rough. Judged by the outcomes that many report , this particular style has merit
, in that it is open and usually very ' fair' - a concept that is not a characteristic of all parts of the
v
world .
Negotiating with Australians, who generally show Small Power Distance and high Individualism,
tend to be quicker and have full authority from the decision-makers. Thus, it is more direct and
focused on the outcome, rather than focused on establishing friendships, and it would avoid
'going around the bush'. Because smaller teams are preferred, people tend not to hesitate in
directly confronting each other in a negotiation situation. This is evident in their having less
reluctance to say 'no'.

11Australian negotiators, who show Small Power Distance and a Feminine aspect, tend not only to
be less hierarchical and expect to have a smaller deal but also to gain more in terms of quality.
An Australian negotiating team, which tends to have weak UAI and a Feminine aspect, tend to
exhibit more tolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity, less bureaucracy in making decisions, and
they aim for smaller deals but often of higher quality. They exhibit more flexibility in making
decisions.
Negotiating with Australians, who have weaker UAI and Individualist characteristics, reveals
more tolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity, and less bureaucracy in making decisions,
vi
leading to quicker decision-making.

Conclusion
From the description of the conflict resolution styles of the United States of America and
Australia, we can say that the two countries are similar in their approach to negotiations. They
are a clear resemblance of each other. This is also true for their Hoefstede scores. Thus, we
can say with a degree of certainty that similarity in culture causes similarity in conflict resolution
styles.



12Literature Review
Chinese Approach for Negotiations
v In China, protocol that should be followed during the negotiation process would include
giving small, inexpensive presents. As the Chinese do not like to be touched, a short
bow and brief handshake should be used during the introductions. Last names are used
in conversation and printed first when written. Business cards may or may not be used
by the Chinese.
v The Chinese consider mutual relationships and trust very important. Therefore, in the
beginning time will be spent enjoying tea and social talk. However, they are some of the
toughest negotiators in the world. Technical competence of the negotiators is necessary,
and a non-condescending attitude is important because the Chinese research their
opponents thoroughly to gain a competitive advantage during negotiation.
v The Chinese delegation is generally large. They rarely use lawyers, and interpreters may
behave inadequate language skills and experience. The Chinese focus on practicality,
they deal in the concrete and particular. The Chinese approach is rather to negotiating
process to establish a human relationship, often essentially dependent nature, and
therefore, their prime create the bonding of "friendship".
v Chinese believe that nothing is final until it is signed. During negotiations, they prefer to
use an intermediary. The Chinese are quick to probe for and then exploit, in jujitsu
fashion, and any compelling interests of the other party. In particular they feel they have
the advantage whenever the other party exudes enthusiasm and seems to be single -
mindedly pursuing a particular objective. Chinese respondents in various studies have
vii
indicated that understanding of their culture is necessary but insufficient.

Germanic Approach to Negotiations
Germanic negotiator will generally be very controlled and inclined to be assertive, having
planned formally and systematically in advance a view of exactly how things should be run.
v Less flexibility in position and reluctance to compromise.
v Protocol is important and formal in Germany. Dress is conservative; correct posture and
manners are required. Seriousness of purpose goes hand in hand with serious dress.
Germans tend to use a handshake at the beginning and end of meetings. Titles should
be used when addressing members of the negotiating.
v Germans believe friendships and personal relationships can complicate negotiations,
and hence they prefer to keep a distance between themselves and the other team of
negotiators.
v Germans tend to be detail oriented, and hence having technical people as part of the
negotiation team is important. Being punctual is expected. German negotiations are
planned and well organized, direct in their approach. German protocol is formal.
Germans tend to be very conservative. Correct posture is a sign of inner discipline.
Manners are of utmost importance to Germans. The society is quite paternalistic.
Corporate decisions are made at the top but with a great deal of detail from workers.
Quality is important, and decisions are pondered and carefully scrutinized to be sure
such quality exists in any projects they undertake.

13v Germans may seem pessimistic due to their ability to entertain every perceivable
negative point possible. Once they accept a project, however, they give hundred
percent to its successful implementation. Negotiators are distant and impersonal.
German culture is low context; therefore specific terms and concepts are very important.
They balance between their own profit and the satisfaction of their client.
v Germans are high on sincerity and hence a handshake is as good as a written contract.
However, they are very concerned with the precision of the written word. The Germans
do accommodate logic and thoroughness. Care should be exercised in avoiding open
disagreements when staff people are present. Germans are prompt, prepared and have
done their homework thoroughly. Germans view potential partners on German values of
qualifications, power and authority.
v Foreigners find this style tough and occasionally very low on trust. Negotiator needs to
be equally well prepared, and able to make maximum use of exploration time.

Indian Approach to Negotiations
v The negotiation process often does not admit of an easy conclusion. Indian negotiators
require a lot of information and will subject this information to extensive analysis. Their
high aspirations, belief in hierarchy and inability to work well as a team will combine to
make sure that any negotiation will not be quick. As a Western negotiator once
commented, "When you start negotiating they will never accept your proposal and they
will try to squeeze as much as possible. They will negotiate for weeks trying to get the
best deal. And eventually you get so tired of negotiating for the last 5 per cent that you
eventually agree to their price." The length of the process can most certainly be
unsettling for the North American negotiator who views time as money and would like to
move on to the next project once the ongoing one is completed. A good illustration of
this is also provided by the experience of independent power producers who sought to
develop new power projects in India in the 1990s. Many of these projects encountered
severe delays and many firms developing them chose to exit the country.
v Social relationships are not that important at the outset. In India, an ingrained streak of
individualism precludes the necessity to develop relationships at the beginning of
negotiations. It has the critical implication that business negotiations are not constrained,
at least initially, by the lack of a relationship. There is less of a need for lavish banquets
or after-hours drinking, as is often the case in Japan or China. But the fact that
relationships are less important at the onset of negotiations does not necessarily imply
that the time required to complete the negotiation will be shortened. Further, while
relationships may be less important at the negotiation phase of the proposed venture,
their importance is likely to increase during the operational stage of the venture.
Relationships are important at this stage because they may help to align the
expectations of all of the parties more accurately and further signal the sincerity of the
foreign investor to the Indian partner.
v Contractual obligations do not have so much sanctity. The Indian businessperson has
traditionally had to operate in a chaotic environment. Infrastructural weaknesses such as
a lack of an adequate, reliable supply of electricity, political instability, nationalistic
concerns, judicial delays, a cultural bias that favors flexibility, and a fear of being taken
advantage of are likely contributors to the Indian preference for open-ended obligations.
v The Indian penchant for searching for the ideal solution only aggravates this problem, in
as much as changed circumstances imply that the negotiated contract may not have
been the optimal one. For example, the Indian can continually insist that the foreign

14partner assist them on a long-term basis without getting any equivalent concessions. If
this expectation of generosity is not met, Indians will come to resent their foreign
colleagues. The general tendency to renegotiate does not sit well with some foreign
negotiators. It undermines their sense of control and confidence and may lower their
perceptions of the trustworthiness of their Indian counterparts.
v Perceptions of fairness: Fairness is an important element of negotiations and India is no
exception. That said, what constitutes fairness in India, and the factors that influence
such perceptions, are clearly different in India than many other cultures. In India,
outcome concerns are more important. The greater importance of outcome-based
fairness issues vis-à-vis process-based fairness issues may be attributable to a number
of different factors. First, given the widespread perception that past colonialist powers
have robbed India of its wealth, any allocation that is perceived as benefiting the foreign
investor more than the locals will be strongly critiqued. Secondly, the perception of
equity bases on the fact that equity in India is more need-based. There is the implicit
expectation that the partner who is wealthier should make greater concessions.
v Negotiating with Indians is an exercise in ingenuity management. The foreign negotiator
needs to be patient but firm. An ample supply of patience is an essential ingredient for
negotiating in India. Lack of patience will only create frustration and anger, adding to the
stress of conducting negotiations in a faraway land. Frustration and anger may, in turn,
lead the foreign negotiator to become aggressive, and this may not go down well in a
culture where nationalistic sentiments are high. The foreign negotiator will do well to
work with the Indian's high aspiration levels rather than against it. Unrestrained
imagination may be a problem in a business setting, but a focused imagination may well
work to the advantage of everyone. It allows negotiators to be creative and exploratory
but in a disciplined way. When a foreign negotiator is confronted with highly idealized
thinking on the part of the Indians, he or she can either reject it outright or seek to
channel it in ways that might be mutually beneficial. Outright rejection may cause the
Indian negotiator to become bitter and resentful. The Indians are highly sensitive people
which, when combined with the legacy of imperialism, makes it easy for them to dismiss
suggestions made by Western counterparts. An alternative might be to work with the
Indian negotiator to reframe the problem in ways that may be mutually beneficial. This
would have to be done in a subtle way and will take time, but in the long run it will be
beneficial for the project and allow the party to earn the trust of the Indian negotiator.
v The foreign negotiator should also recognize the virtues of flexibility. The idea of a
legally binding contract will not advance the cause in doing business in India. In an
imperfect and ever changing institutional environment, the best guarantor of success is
his or her willingness to be flexible. This flexibility must be made manifest in cultural,
political and social spheres. Contractual provisions are the starting point of a process
that, by definition, will entail changes as situations evolve. Thus the need for changes
viii
should not be rejected in a reflexive way.


15Conclusion
In a globalizing world, companies operate in a multicultural environment. While people from
other nations may seem to present a perspective similar, they are different in many ways,
defined by their cultures. Business goals are perceived differently, as much as expressed in
different ways. It is very likely that a negotiation can proceed without bringing of the parties'
cultural assumptions, images, prejudices, and other behavioral traits into a negotiating situation.
For successful business negotiations, the selection of negotiators, protocol, communication,
time, risk propensity, group versus individual emphasis, and the nature of agreement play
important role. Protocols and deportment deal with greetings, degree of formality, gift giving,
touching, eye contact, deportment, emotions, silence, eating, body language and punctuality.
Culture affects by conditioning one's perception of reality, by blocking out information
inconsistent or unfamiliar with culturally grounded assumptions, by projecting meaning onto the
other party's words and actions or by impelling the ethnocentric observer to an incorrect
attribution of motive. In international negotiations, parties bring to the negotiating table the
values, beliefs and background interference of their culture and normally will unconsciously use
those elements in both the presentation and interpretation of the data, interpreting and judging
the other culture by their own standards. Thus, negotiation rules and practices often vary widely
across cultures.
Thus cross-cultural negotiators bring into contact unfamiliar and potentially conflicting sets of
categories, rules, plans, and behaviors. The cross-cultural negotiator cannot take common
knowledge and practices for granted. Difficulties sometimes arise from the different expectations
negotiators have regarding the social setting of the negotiation. These patterns can extend to
styles of decision making (the way officials and executives structure their negotiation
communication systems and reach institutional decisions) and logical reasoning (way issues are
conceptualized, the way evidence and new information are used or the way one point seems to
lead to the next, paying more attention to some arguments than others, different weight to legal,
technical, or personal relations). Negotiation strategy and impact of culture on various
negotiating styles hence form an important part of cross-cultural management.

16Appendix
Table 1: Hoefstede Scores
Country Number Country PDI IDV MAS UAI LTO
1 Australia 36 90 61 51 31
2 China 80 20 66 30 118
3 Germany 35 67 66 65 31
4 India 77 48 56 40 61
5 Japan 54 46 95 92 80
6 United Kingdom 35 89 66 35 25
7 United States 40 91 62 46 29
Mean 51 64.42857 67.42857 51.28571 53.57143
SD 19.93322 27.54909 12.69983 21.28939 34.98503

Table 2: Normalized Hoefstede Scores
Country Number PDI IDV MAS UAI LTO Mean
1 -0.75251264 0.928213 -0.50619 -0.01342 -0.64517 -0.19782
2 1.45485777 -1.61271 -0.11249 -0.99983 1.841604 0.114288
3 -0.802680149 0.09334 -0.11249 0.644184 -0.64517 -0.16456
4 1.304355242 -0.59634 -0.8999 -0.53011 0.212336 -0.10193
5 0.150502528 -0.66894 2.171008 1.912422 0.755425 0.864084
6 -0.802680149 0.891914 -0.11249 -0.76497 -0.81668 -0.32098
7 -0.551842602 0.964512 -0.42745 -0.24828 -0.70234 -0.19308

Table 3: SD of Means of Normalized Hoefstede Scores
Country 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Number
1 NA 0.220692094 0.023514 0.067802 0.750878 0.087089 0.003349
2 NA 0.197178 0.15289 0.530186 0.307781 0.217343
3 NA 0.044288 0.727364 0.110603 0.020165
4 NA 0.683076 0.15489 0.064452
5 NA 0.837967 0.747528
6 NA 0.090438
7 NA


i
en.wikipedia.org
ii
www.beyondintractability.org
iii
www.ewinters.com
iv
www.geert-hofstede.com
v
How to negotiate better deals by Jeremy Thorn , IBH Publishers Pvt. Ltd. , 1992
vi
www.seameo.org
vii
The Incredible Shrinking World: Culture in Negotiations", www.herbigandsons.com/lecture/pahccne.doc
viii
Negotiating with the complex, imaginative Indian by Rajesh Kumar, Ivy business Journal, March - April 2005

17