论文部分内容阅读
【Abstract】An international business negotiation is a kind of cultural activities and of intercultural communication as well. This paper discusses the importance of cultural factors in an international business negotiation problem through a detailed analysis of a case. Different country has different cultural background and the views to the same problem maybe different. So cultural difference is very important in an international business negotiation.
【Key words】business negotiation cultural difference co-culture communication
【中图分类号】H319 【文献标识码】A【文章编号】1001-4128（2011）05-0047-02
Cultural difference has great influence on co-culture communication. So when analyzing an international business problem, cultural factors should be considered. Let us look at a case.
A ten-year license agreement was signed between North American-based Cummins Engine Company Ltd. and China National Technical Import Corporation. Much of the success of the early negotiations was attributed to the careful selection of the negotiation team. Cummins insisted that its people have the ability to reach across culture lines and close intercultural gaps. It also had at least one member who could understand the language and thinking of his Chinese counterparts. This expertise, along with his ability to listen carefully, saved the negotiations. When misunderstandings occurred because of poor translation, this team member assisted in resolving conflicts. For example, when one Chinese negotiator used the word “strategy”, the Cummins side assumed that far-reaching strategic decisions had been made by the Chinese, when in fact the term was being used more loosely than interpreted. Throughout the negotiations, misunderstandings of mannerisms, habits, and word choice were resolved by attending to culture difference.
This case clearly illustrates how important culture difference is in co-cultural negotiation. A successful negotiation partly depends on different cultural knowledge. Here I will present several cultural factors in negotiation. The first is the pace at which negotiations are conducted. North American, Australian, Swiss, British, and Singapore negotiators value rapid negotiations, whereas other cultures such as China, Japan, much of Latin American, and Africa prefer slower negotiations.
Now look at the pace in detail. In America, there is a motto “He hesitates is lost.” Therefore, most Americans conduct business at lightning speed. It is not uncommon for contracts to be signed during the first business meeting. These rapid contracts are facilitated by the fact that middle managers have the authority to make quick decisions without consulting the boss. Sales forces are taught to “close the deal” as rapidly as possible.
In much of Latin America, business negotiations are conducted at a much slower pace than in the United States. There is even a proverb that states, “To a hurried demand, a leisurely reply.” In Argentina, it may take several trips to accomplish your goal, partly because it takes several people to approve each decision that is made.
In Eastern Europe, such as Poland, Hungary, and Russia, the time it takes to negotiate business usually depends on whether or not the government is involved. When it is, negotiations proceed at an unhurried pace. However, when you deal with entrepreneurs, transactions can progress rapidly.
In Western Europe, such as France and German, business is conducted very formally with great attention to order, planning and schedules. Because of this slow methodical process, it is virtually impossible to speed up a business transaction. Pace is a major different in cross-culture negotiation. There are other differences.
Direct versus indirect communication is often problematic in business negotiations as well. The use of direct and indirect communication is a major difference between North Americans and many Asian cultures, such as Chinese, Japanese and Korean. Asians greatly concern about respecting the individual and preserving dignity. Direct arguments are considered rude. They usually attempt to make every interaction harmonious and in so doing may appear to agree with the other person’s opinion. This indirect politeness is often viewed by North Americans as dishonesty and aloof detachment when in actuality it is a sign of respect and an opportunity for the other person to save face. Most North Americans learn to say yes and no as a means of expressing there individual views. Being a collective culture, the Chinese usually use yes or no to express respect for the feelings of others. In other words, to say yes for no or to say no for yes is largely a reflection of the indirect approach to communication, through which undesirable interpersonal communication can be avoided. The indirect communication is evident in ways other than the use of yes and no. For example, an American host or hostess, when complimented on his or her cooking, is likely to respond, “Oh, I am so glad you like it. I cook it especially for you.” In contrast, the Chinese host or hostess will “instead apologize profusely for giving you nothing even slightly edible and for not showing you enough honor by providing proper dishes.” Another example of the Chinese use of indirect communication is evident in their practice of politely refusing an offer three times before they accept.
Americans prefer direct communication. A direct person is thought as honest. To be direct is a kind of virtue. There are deep cultural reasons. Firstly, America is low-context culture. In low-context cultures, the verbal message contains most of the information and very little is embedded in the context or the participants. So American communication tends to be direct and explicit. Almost everything needs to be stated. Secondly, in American culture individualism is highly valued. It is a culture that has a long history of valuing nonconformity, individualism, competition, and freedom of expression is bound to encourage assertive behavior. People are expected to take the initiative in advancing their personal interests and well-being and to be direct in interacting with others. High social and geographic mobility and the comparatively superficial nature of many personal attachments create a climate where interpersonal competition and a modest level of abrasiveness are tolerated and even expected.
Culture modifies the amount of eye contact in which we engage and who is the recipient of the eye contact. In different cultures, the messages sent with eye contact are different. People in Western societies expect the person with whom they are interacting to “look them in the eye.” If their communication partners do not look them directly in the eye, they will be looked as dishonest. Arabs also look directly into the eye of their communication partner, and do so for long periods. They believe such contact shows interest in the other person and help them assess the truthfulness of the other person’s words. In America, the prolonged stare is often a part of the nonverbal code that the co-culture of the male homosexual employs. An extended stare at a member of the same sex is often perceived as a signal of interest and sexual suggestion. However direct eye-to-eye contact is not a custom throughout the world. In Japan, for example, prolonged eye contact is considered rude, threatening, and disrespectful. Japanese value indirect communication face saving, and so when discussing a problem they prefer non-word behavior rather than the direct words conflict. They do not look into the other’s eye but look at other’s breast, trying to avoid direct eye-to-eye contact. People from Latin America and Caribbean cultures also avoid eye contacts as a sign of respect. They believe it is a sign of impertinence to make prolonged eye contact with their communication partners. The Hopi interprets direct eye contact as offensive and usually will avoid any type of staring. The Navajos dislike unbroken eye contact so strongly that they have incorporated it into their creation myth. The myth, which tells the story of a “terrible monster called He-Who-Kills-With-His Eyes,” teaches the Navajo child that “a stare is literally an evil eye and implies a sexual and aggressive assault.”
Differences in the use of eye contact also characterize communication between African Americans and white Americans. When speaking, African Americans use much more continuous eye contact than do whites, yet the reverse is true when they are listening. That is, whites make more continuous eye contact when they are listening than do African Americans. There are also gender variations in how people use their eye to communicate. A summary of the research on the subject indicates that in most instances, women maintain more eye contact than do men women look at the other women more and hold eye contact longer with one another than men do. So delicate is our use of eye contact that we seldom realize the modifications we make. But when analyzing a negotiation problem, we must have to pay attention to the cultural modifications.
Smile is a major non-verbal communication behavior. Different culture conveys different messages. . In some cultures, smile can represent dread, can also mean friendship, and, may be a way to slake the potential attack. In other cultures, smile indicates nervous and embarrassment. In American culture, smile has a number of meanings, such as pleasure, friendship and happiness, which are different from Asian culture where smile represents dread and embarrassment sometimes.
In order to get success in co-cultural communication, it is important to know the different meaning which smile indicates in different cultures. That can help people avoid misunderstanding to communicate more efficiently. When negotiating with American people should know “yes” and “no” are lined clearly. If you cannot accept your partner’s items, you had better express it clearly, but not smile vaguely, which may produce ambiguity or even conflict. In case conflict happens, your attitude should be honest, serious and never smile. Because Americans think when disputing two sides are both in low spirit. At this situation, smile must be pretended, which makes Americans angrier. They even believe you are in the wrong.
Bibliography
[1] Larry A. Samovar, Richard E. Porter, Lisa A. Stefani Communications Between Cultures Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, Brooks/Thomson Learning Asia, 2006.6
[2] 杜学增.中英文化习俗比较［M］.北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1999
[3] 何兆熊. 新编语用学概要［M］. 上海：上海外语教育出版社，2000
[4] 金正昆.涉外礼仪教程［M］.北京:中国人民大学出版社,1999
[5] 毕继万.跨文化非语言交际［M］.北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1999
[6] 理查德·刘易斯著.关世杰译.文化的冲突与共融［M］.北京:新华出版社,2002
【Key words】business negotiation cultural difference co-culture communication
【中图分类号】H319 【文献标识码】A【文章编号】1001-4128（2011）05-0047-02
Cultural difference has great influence on co-culture communication. So when analyzing an international business problem, cultural factors should be considered. Let us look at a case.
A ten-year license agreement was signed between North American-based Cummins Engine Company Ltd. and China National Technical Import Corporation. Much of the success of the early negotiations was attributed to the careful selection of the negotiation team. Cummins insisted that its people have the ability to reach across culture lines and close intercultural gaps. It also had at least one member who could understand the language and thinking of his Chinese counterparts. This expertise, along with his ability to listen carefully, saved the negotiations. When misunderstandings occurred because of poor translation, this team member assisted in resolving conflicts. For example, when one Chinese negotiator used the word “strategy”, the Cummins side assumed that far-reaching strategic decisions had been made by the Chinese, when in fact the term was being used more loosely than interpreted. Throughout the negotiations, misunderstandings of mannerisms, habits, and word choice were resolved by attending to culture difference.
This case clearly illustrates how important culture difference is in co-cultural negotiation. A successful negotiation partly depends on different cultural knowledge. Here I will present several cultural factors in negotiation. The first is the pace at which negotiations are conducted. North American, Australian, Swiss, British, and Singapore negotiators value rapid negotiations, whereas other cultures such as China, Japan, much of Latin American, and Africa prefer slower negotiations.
Now look at the pace in detail. In America, there is a motto “He hesitates is lost.” Therefore, most Americans conduct business at lightning speed. It is not uncommon for contracts to be signed during the first business meeting. These rapid contracts are facilitated by the fact that middle managers have the authority to make quick decisions without consulting the boss. Sales forces are taught to “close the deal” as rapidly as possible.
In much of Latin America, business negotiations are conducted at a much slower pace than in the United States. There is even a proverb that states, “To a hurried demand, a leisurely reply.” In Argentina, it may take several trips to accomplish your goal, partly because it takes several people to approve each decision that is made.
In Eastern Europe, such as Poland, Hungary, and Russia, the time it takes to negotiate business usually depends on whether or not the government is involved. When it is, negotiations proceed at an unhurried pace. However, when you deal with entrepreneurs, transactions can progress rapidly.
In Western Europe, such as France and German, business is conducted very formally with great attention to order, planning and schedules. Because of this slow methodical process, it is virtually impossible to speed up a business transaction. Pace is a major different in cross-culture negotiation. There are other differences.
Direct versus indirect communication is often problematic in business negotiations as well. The use of direct and indirect communication is a major difference between North Americans and many Asian cultures, such as Chinese, Japanese and Korean. Asians greatly concern about respecting the individual and preserving dignity. Direct arguments are considered rude. They usually attempt to make every interaction harmonious and in so doing may appear to agree with the other person’s opinion. This indirect politeness is often viewed by North Americans as dishonesty and aloof detachment when in actuality it is a sign of respect and an opportunity for the other person to save face. Most North Americans learn to say yes and no as a means of expressing there individual views. Being a collective culture, the Chinese usually use yes or no to express respect for the feelings of others. In other words, to say yes for no or to say no for yes is largely a reflection of the indirect approach to communication, through which undesirable interpersonal communication can be avoided. The indirect communication is evident in ways other than the use of yes and no. For example, an American host or hostess, when complimented on his or her cooking, is likely to respond, “Oh, I am so glad you like it. I cook it especially for you.” In contrast, the Chinese host or hostess will “instead apologize profusely for giving you nothing even slightly edible and for not showing you enough honor by providing proper dishes.” Another example of the Chinese use of indirect communication is evident in their practice of politely refusing an offer three times before they accept.
Americans prefer direct communication. A direct person is thought as honest. To be direct is a kind of virtue. There are deep cultural reasons. Firstly, America is low-context culture. In low-context cultures, the verbal message contains most of the information and very little is embedded in the context or the participants. So American communication tends to be direct and explicit. Almost everything needs to be stated. Secondly, in American culture individualism is highly valued. It is a culture that has a long history of valuing nonconformity, individualism, competition, and freedom of expression is bound to encourage assertive behavior. People are expected to take the initiative in advancing their personal interests and well-being and to be direct in interacting with others. High social and geographic mobility and the comparatively superficial nature of many personal attachments create a climate where interpersonal competition and a modest level of abrasiveness are tolerated and even expected.
Culture modifies the amount of eye contact in which we engage and who is the recipient of the eye contact. In different cultures, the messages sent with eye contact are different. People in Western societies expect the person with whom they are interacting to “look them in the eye.” If their communication partners do not look them directly in the eye, they will be looked as dishonest. Arabs also look directly into the eye of their communication partner, and do so for long periods. They believe such contact shows interest in the other person and help them assess the truthfulness of the other person’s words. In America, the prolonged stare is often a part of the nonverbal code that the co-culture of the male homosexual employs. An extended stare at a member of the same sex is often perceived as a signal of interest and sexual suggestion. However direct eye-to-eye contact is not a custom throughout the world. In Japan, for example, prolonged eye contact is considered rude, threatening, and disrespectful. Japanese value indirect communication face saving, and so when discussing a problem they prefer non-word behavior rather than the direct words conflict. They do not look into the other’s eye but look at other’s breast, trying to avoid direct eye-to-eye contact. People from Latin America and Caribbean cultures also avoid eye contacts as a sign of respect. They believe it is a sign of impertinence to make prolonged eye contact with their communication partners. The Hopi interprets direct eye contact as offensive and usually will avoid any type of staring. The Navajos dislike unbroken eye contact so strongly that they have incorporated it into their creation myth. The myth, which tells the story of a “terrible monster called He-Who-Kills-With-His Eyes,” teaches the Navajo child that “a stare is literally an evil eye and implies a sexual and aggressive assault.”
Differences in the use of eye contact also characterize communication between African Americans and white Americans. When speaking, African Americans use much more continuous eye contact than do whites, yet the reverse is true when they are listening. That is, whites make more continuous eye contact when they are listening than do African Americans. There are also gender variations in how people use their eye to communicate. A summary of the research on the subject indicates that in most instances, women maintain more eye contact than do men women look at the other women more and hold eye contact longer with one another than men do. So delicate is our use of eye contact that we seldom realize the modifications we make. But when analyzing a negotiation problem, we must have to pay attention to the cultural modifications.
Smile is a major non-verbal communication behavior. Different culture conveys different messages. . In some cultures, smile can represent dread, can also mean friendship, and, may be a way to slake the potential attack. In other cultures, smile indicates nervous and embarrassment. In American culture, smile has a number of meanings, such as pleasure, friendship and happiness, which are different from Asian culture where smile represents dread and embarrassment sometimes.
In order to get success in co-cultural communication, it is important to know the different meaning which smile indicates in different cultures. That can help people avoid misunderstanding to communicate more efficiently. When negotiating with American people should know “yes” and “no” are lined clearly. If you cannot accept your partner’s items, you had better express it clearly, but not smile vaguely, which may produce ambiguity or even conflict. In case conflict happens, your attitude should be honest, serious and never smile. Because Americans think when disputing two sides are both in low spirit. At this situation, smile must be pretended, which makes Americans angrier. They even believe you are in the wrong.
Bibliography
[1] Larry A. Samovar, Richard E. Porter, Lisa A. Stefani Communications Between Cultures Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, Brooks/Thomson Learning Asia, 2006.6
[2] 杜学增.中英文化习俗比较［M］.北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1999
[3] 何兆熊. 新编语用学概要［M］. 上海：上海外语教育出版社，2000
[4] 金正昆.涉外礼仪教程［M］.北京:中国人民大学出版社,1999
[5] 毕继万.跨文化非语言交际［M］.北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1999
[6] 理查德·刘易斯著.关世杰译.文化的冲突与共融［M］.北京:新华出版社,2002