Why People Don't Ask: Understanding Initiation Behavior in International Negotiations
Abstract
Negotiation is an interactive process that is important to all aspects of organizational success, a process that begins with communicating one's wants or needs. For many individuals, engaging others and asking for what one wants (i.e., initiating a negotiation) is a challenging task, made more difficult in an international context. Yet due to the integration of world markets, this is exactly the type of environment that many organizational representatives are facing with increasing regularity. This article offers an overview of the personal characteristics and situational factors that influence an individual initiating a negotiation (engaging a counterpart, making a request, and optimizing that request), with specific attention to seven cultural factors that must be understood to be most effective in international settings. The ways in which these cultural factors are likely to affect one's decision to engage a counterpart and style of delivery are illustrated for three countries: the United States, China, and Brazil. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Negotiation is the process of communicating one's wants and needs in the hopes of influencing future behavior or outcomes (Volkema, 1999). It is generally considered one of the essential skills necessary for organizational effectiveness and success (Lewicki, Barry, & Saunders, 2009; Mintzberg, 1973). At all organizational levels and in all types of organizations, individuals negotiate on a daily basis—salaries, vacation schedules, budgets, purchases, joint ventures, and so on (Greenhalgh, 2001).
As with most processes involving human interaction (e.g., organizational decision making, group/team development), the early stages of the negotiation process are critical to how succeeding stages will unfold (Wheeler, 2004). Nonetheless, most individuals have at least occasional difficulty initiating negotiations, even in cases where the other party appears amenable to a request. When initiation fails, substantial benefits (money, goods, opportunities) often are “left on the table,” frequently with a corresponding loss of self-confidence if not respect (Babcock & Laschever, 2003; Bowles, Babcock, & Lai, 2007; Gerhart & Rynes, 1991; Rousseau, 2005; Small, Gelfand, Babcock, & Gettman, 2007). Situational reluctance can include everything from a talented employee leaving rather than asking for a raise, to a project team not requesting that the focus of its mission be redefined, to an organization forgoing a joint venture over fear of rejection.
Over the past two decades, negotiation generally and initiation behavior in particular have become more challenging due to the dramatic growth and interdependence of world economies. This growth and interdependence, frequently linked to the opening of markets in the former Soviet bloc and the development of regional trade agreements (e.g., NAFTA, Mercosur, European Union), means that more and more individuals now find themselves in positions where they must represent their organizations in unfamiliar legal and cultural environments (Steers & Nardon, 2005). As a consequence, organizational representatives are less certain about what constitutes acceptable behavior, as well as how to go about most effectively engaging their counterpart(s) (Morrison & Conaway, 2006; Weiss, 1994).
Furthermore, geographic distances and economic considerations have dictated that more efficient forms of communication (e.g., electronic mail) be employed in developing and maintaining those international business linkages, adding to the challenges of negotiating effectively (Hafner, 2001; Smith, 2002). Media with moderate information richness such as electronic mail often are associated with shorter messages (less information sharing), more misunderstandings, a greater likelihood of unpleasant exchanges, less cooperation, a more distributive (win–lose) orientation, more unethical behavior (due in part to the inability of parties to read nonverbal cues), and greater difficulty in reaching an agreement (Maruca & McGinn, 2000; McGinn & Croson, 2004; Munter, Rogers, & Rymer, 2003; Volkema, Fleck, & Hofmeister-Toth, 2004).
Given these realities, how then does one navigate the initiation process in international negotiations? What are the factors or conditions that must be understood in order to be proactive and effective? The purpose of this article is to offer insights into the initiation process, beginning with an overview of the personal and situational factors that can affect initiation behavior, followed by a discussion of seven cultural factors that can influence “asking” in international negotiations. Since effectiveness requires that an individual understand and manage both his/her own cultural tendencies as well as those of his or her counterpart, a broad analysis of cultural differences is pursued. The article concludes with an application of these cultural factors to three prominent and distinct countries/cultures, demonstrating the implications of cultural factors for personal motivation and delivery of a request.
Understanding Reluctance to Initiate
Initiation behavior in negotiation can be defined as engaging another party for the purpose of achieving a desired outcome, an act that might include asking for what one wants or needs, in whole or in part. When an individual decides not to engage his or her counterpart altogether, directly or indirectly (e.g., through a third party), the chances of getting what he/she wants are remote at best. Alternatively, a negotiator who engages his/her counterpart physically and conversationally (small talk), even if the negotiator does not verbalize a specific request or need, leaves open at least the possibility that the other party will recognize the initiator's desire or intent and make an offer or gesture. It is also possible, of course, for an individual to engage a counterpart and make a request, but to ask for less than what is truly desired (i.e., to suboptimize). For example, rather than asking for a 20 percent volume-based discount on the purchase price, an individual asks for only a 10 or 15 percent discount.1
Unfortunately, many individuals routinely do not initiate negotiations (failing to engage, engaging but not requesting, or requesting but suboptimizing), and virtually everyone hesitates at one time or another, consciously or subconsciously, in pursuing a preferred outcome (Babcock & Laschever, 2003; Small et al., 2007; Wheeler, 2004). Why does this happen? What are the sources of this hesitation? And how do these sources relate to the degree of engagement a negotiator pursues?
There is a long history of research examining the linkages between attitudes, intentions, and behavior, generally showing significant correlations between these elements (cf. Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Kim & Hunter, 1993). That is, an individual's attitude toward an event or action (e.g., voting, eating, buying) has been found to predict intentionality, with intentions correlated with actual behavior. These linkages, of course, presume that the individual has the discretionary power to act on his or her intentions. This same model offers a framework for understanding initiation behavior in international negotiations (Figure 1).
Model of Negotiation Engagement/Initiation
There are two broad categories of factors that influence intentionality toward initiating a negotiation: personal characteristics and situational factors. The personal characteristics that are related to an individual's reluctance to ask for what he/she wants are (1) the individual's belief in the impropriety or inappropriateness of engaging in specific initiation behavior, and (2) the individual's lack of confidence in his/her ability to function in a certain manner or attain certain goals when acting on his or her interests (i.e., self-efficacy) (Bandura, 2001; Huppertz, 2003). The former—perceived propriety/appropriateness of initiating a request—relates to the culture or socialization of an individual, which is discussed in detail in the next section. The latter—self-efficacy—is derived primarily from an individual's success rate in personal and vicarious negotiations (i.e., successes and failures experienced firsthand, or through observations of others initiating negotiations). Research suggests that individuals with high self-efficacy are more likely to view a situation as low in risk, and to take action (e.g., initiate) rather than pursue risk-reducing strategies such as information search or a reduction of stakes/investment (Cho & Lee, 2006).
The situational factors that can influence initiation behavior include one's clarity of purpose, the importance or salience of an outcome, perceived time constraints, available alternatives, one's role definition (e.g., buyer, seller), the venue or setting (familiar or unfamiliar, favorable or unfavorable), and one's counterpart (Bowles et al., 2007; Brett, Pinkley, & Jackofsky, 1996; Festinger & Carlsmith, 1959; Pinkley, Neale, & Bennett, 1994). These factors often moderate the effects of an individual's attitude/personality on intentions to initiate. For example, a situation in which the environment is unfamiliar, the outcome is of marginal importance, one's counterpart has a reputation for being difficult and uncompromising, and the negotiator has clear alternatives to dealing with this particular counterpart is more likely to lead to a reluctance to engage and ask for what one wants or needs than a situation with exactly the opposite conditions. Indeed, the situational factors of many international negotiations—an unfamiliar environment, a counterpart with presumed negotiating skills, the role of buyer/initiator (which suggests less power or leverage), and the availability of alternatives associated with a global marketplace—can inhibit initiating behavior (Volkema, 2006).
Situational factors, therefore, are likely to affect an individual's episodic reluctance to initiate a negotiation (e.g., the affect of the reputation or demeanor of a counterpart on an individual's intentionality), while personal characteristics (e.g., culture, socialization) are more likely associated with a chronic inability to initiate a negotiation. Given the latter's more enduring quality, it is important to understand the role that culture plays in determining social interactions. More specifically, what cultural factors or dimensions are most likely to influence initiation behavior (i.e., who will most likely engage a counterpart, whether or not a verbal request will be made, the nature of that request)? A discussion of seven cultural factors and their effects on initiation behavior follows.
Culture and Initiation Behavior
According to Kluckhohn (1951), culture consists of patterned ways of thinking, feeling, and reacting, acquired and transmitted mainly through symbols, constituting the distinctive achievements of human groups, including their embodiments in artifacts; the essential core of culture consists of traditional ideas (i.e., historically derived and selected) and especially their attached values. Culture influences most aspects of the negotiation process, beginning with if and how the process is initiated (Adair & Brett, 2005). Specifically, culture comes into play in both categories of factors that influence the initiation process—personal characteristics (i.e., attitudes or beliefs as to the appropriateness of a behavior, which are grounded in culture and socialization) and situational factors (e.g., role definition, venue or setting, and one's counterpart).
There are several theories or dimensions of culture that have been put forward that can help a negotiator better understand the initiation process in an international context. These include Hofstede's (1997, 2001) five dimensions of culture (power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism–collectivism, masculinity–femininity, and long-term vs. short-term orientation), which were also identified in the GLOBE study (House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004); cultural context (high-context, low-context) (Hall, 1976); and time management (monochronic, polychronic) (Gesteland, 1996). Each is described below, along with a discussion of the implications of that dimension for initiation behavior.2
Power Distance
Power distance refers to the presumed power, influence, or status of some individuals within a culture, based on gender, age, family background, social grouping, and so on. It is typical for cultures with high power distance to have unequal distributions of wealth, and to some extent these differences have come to be accepted by individuals. Examples of high-power-distance countries include Malaysia, Guatemala, the Philippines, Mexico, and India, while most Scandinavian countries have low power distance (Hofstede, 1997).
Countries with high power distance generally are comfortable with hierarchical structure, clear lines of authority, and the right to use power with discretion. Power generally is not delegated to lower levels, so an individual in a high-power-distance culture may not have the authority to make a decision (i.e., they need to check with a superior). This can influence their willingness to initiate a request, and most certainly their ability to grant a favor. Because individuals in high-power-distance cultures are more likely to respond positively to hierarchical structures and the use of power or authority, an individual may be less inclined to pursue a negative response from a counterpart, particularly if that counterpart is seen to be a legitimate authority. However, an individual may feel more comfortable exercising assertiveness with subordinates (i.e., initiating a negotiation with someone over whom he/she has legitimate authority) (Brass & Burkhardt, 1993).
In many cases, high power differences are signaled by nonverbal indicators such as one's office (size, location, trappings), support staff, dress, and titles. These can make approaching someone from a high-power-distance culture more intimidating, as well as give pause when contemplating turning down the request of someone from such a culture who has perceived power. Since someone with power will have not only the means to exercise his/her will but also the tacit right to do so, an individual in an inferior position also could be concerned that his/her request might bring to the fore other issues (i.e., other issues or concerns that a more powerful counterpart would want to introduce, or reintroduce, to the negotiation). Thus, an individual in an inferior position may be reluctant to optimize if not make a request (engage, request).3
Uncertainty Avoidance
Uncertainty avoidance concerns how a culture relates to uncertainty or ambiguity. Some countries, such as Portugal, Belgium, and Chile, place a high value on conformity and risk aversion, and institute policies, procedures, and rules to minimize uncertainty. What is different is considered perilous, and so typically there is an emphasis on commitments, planning, and the future. Religious ceremonies/rituals may play a more prominent role in high uncertainty avoidance cultures (Hofstede, 1997, 2001).
Low uncertainty avoidance cultures, in contrast, tend to exhibit more tolerance for ambiguity and risk taking. Individuals from these cultures are more comfortable with unstructured situations and generally believe that aggression and emotions should not be shown. Furthermore, there may be fewer roles defined by gender. Examples of countries with low uncertainty avoidance include Singapore, Denmark, and Jamaica.
Given that asking for what one wants in a negotiation requires some risk taking, we might expect individuals from a high uncertainty avoidance culture to have more difficulty initiating negotiations. Indeed, Fu et al. (2004) found that individuals from high uncertainty avoidance cultures were less likely to perceive that a persuasive strategy would be effective. There also was less experimentation and innovation, along with less rational argumentation, since it was assumed that one's counterpart in a high-uncertainty-avoidance culture could adequately determine whether a request was legitimate (and thus would neither require an explanation of reasoning nor be positively influenced by such behavior). Instead, individuals from a high-uncertainty-avoidance culture were more likely to endorse a relationship-oriented strategy (rapport building, gift giving) than an assertive strategy. This is generally consistent with the findings of Liu, Furrer, and Sudharshan (2001), who found that individuals from a high-uncertainty-avoidance culture were less likely than individuals from a low-uncertainty-avoidance culture to take action (engage, request) when they experienced poor service quality.
Individualism–Collectivism
A social system with an individualistic culture emphasizes independence, initiative, privacy, and self-reliance (Hofstede, 1997, 2001). The United States, Australia, and Great Britain are countries that are generally considered high on individualism. A collectivist culture, however, favors loyalty to the group (extended family, organization, community). The emphasis is on belonging, as individual needs are sacrificed for the benefit of the collective good. Countries known for their collectivist cultures include most Latin American and East Asian countries (Acuff, 2006).
As might be expected, people from more individualist cultures are inclined to view negotiations from a fixed-pie (distributive) perspective, which affects their competitiveness (Gelfand & Christakopoulou, 1999). This competitiveness not only can spur initiating behavior (engaging, requesting, optimizing), but the manner in which a request is made (e.g., direct versus indirect). Liu et al. (2001), for example, found that customers from higher individualist cultures were more likely to take action when they received poor service quality.
In general, individuals in collectivist cultures are concerned with both self-face (i.e., self-identity, respect) and other-face (i.e., a counterpart's sense of self), the latter concern leading to more avoidance behavior (Oetzel & Ting-Toomey, 2003; Watkins & Liu, 1996). However, because collectivism embodies social unity and cohesion, we might expect behavior to be differentiated by one's social identity, with more assertive behavior occurring when one's counterpart is perceived to belong to an out-group rather than an in-group (Gudykunst, 2003; Kim & Shapiro, 2008; Triandis, 1988). In either case, individuals from collectivist cultures would feel more comfortable making requests for the collective good than for one's individual (self) benefit.
Due to this in-group/out-group phenomenon, collectivist cultures generally prefer a network-entry approach in negotiations (as opposed to an open-entry or cold-calling approach, which is more accepted in individualist cultures such as the United States). Network entry means that the initiator is introduced or connected to his/her counterpart through a shared social network, such as a common friend or associate. To some extent, the initiation process could be viewed as promoted or launched, implicitly or explicitly, once the common third party (friend, associate) engages the counterpart with the initiator's interests in mind.
Masculinity–Femininity
A masculine culture has several characteristics with implications for initiation behavior. In general, a masculine culture is seen as valuing assertiveness and competitiveness, whereas a feminine culture is more cooperative, nurturing, and relational. Austria, Germany, Great Britain, and Venezuela are seen as highly masculine countries, while most Scandinavian countries would be seen as having feminine cultures (Hofstede, 2001).
Almost by definition, we would expect individuals from masculine cultures to have less inhibition in engaging others and asking for what they want, as well as optimizing a request. Engaging is an act of assertiveness, which initiation behavior requires. However, individuals from feminine cultures might be more concerned about relational issues, and therefore be more likely to hesitate due to concerns for the other party and the relationship.
As the name suggests, the masculinity–femininity dimension of culture also has to do with gender. More specifically, this dimension concerns rigidity in gender roles, with masculine cultures adhering to a separation of roles (e.g., especially in the workplace) and feminine cultures believing that these roles should be less differentiated. As a consequence, women in particular could find themselves hesitating to ask for what they want in a masculine culture out of concern for what might be considered inappropriate behavior (Metcalfe, 2006). This would be especially true in mixed-gender negotiations. At the same time, men in a masculine culture might harbor some latent resentment of a woman taking on a traditionally male role in negotiations, even if she is from a feminine culture.
In the United States, for example, a country with moderately high masculinity, women have been found to be more apprehensive about negotiations than have men, and consequently they appear less likely to initiate a negotiation. And when they do negotiate, women have been found to ask for and receive considerably less than have men (e.g., in salary negotiations) (Babcock & Laschever, 2003).
Long-Term vs. Short-Term Orientation
Following his seminal study of country culture, Hofstede added a fifth dimension that differentiates between cultures of the East and West. This dimension is referred to as long-term versus short-term orientation. Cultures with a long-term orientation, such as China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Japan, foster virtues oriented toward future rewards, with a particular emphasis on perseverance and thrift. Relationships are important, and are ordered by status. Personal adaptability also is valued. Countries with a short-term orientation, such as Nigeria, the Philippines, and Great Britain, are more oriented toward the past and present. There is an emphasis on the bottom line and quick results (Hofstede, 2001).
Given these differences, we might expect individuals from cultures with a short-term orientation to feel more comfortable making a request (engaging, requesting). In contrast, someone from a culture with a long-term orientation would be more inclined to respond to his/her personal need by deferring action to another time (i.e., thinking longer term, bigger picture), and making the necessary changes personally to adapt to the situation (Cooper-Chen & Tanaka, 2008). This includes waiting for the other party to broach the subject once engaged, if not deferring physical engagement.
Also, since business may take longer to develop in a long-term oriented culture, particularly for an “outsider,” we might expect someone who has not had previous dealings with his/her counterpart to require more time to successfully complete a request. Long-term traditions and commitments would be more likely to support the status quo and impede change.
Cultural Context
Societies also are characterized in terms of their cultural context, as described by Hall (1976). A high-context culture, such as that found in many East Asian countries (China, Japan, Korea), is typically a culture in which individuals are very familiar with one another, having shared similar experiences and expectations. Consequently, in a high-context culture, communication can be more implicit—based on context, relational development, and nonverbal cues.
In low-context cultures, such as those found in the United States, Israel, Germany, and Sweden, there is generally more diversity and, as a result, less reliance on situational familiarity to communicate. There is likely to be more fluidity across generations in terms of styles, traditions, and the like. As a consequence of this diversity, communication is typically more precise, direct, and verbal than in a high-context culture. For example, where a negotiator from a low-context culture might make direct statements of preferences or priorities, a negotiator from a high-context culture might use offers as a means of gathering information about a counterpart (Adair, Weingart, & Brett, 2007). (Note: It is possible to find subcultures within a low-context culture that exhibit high-context qualities, and vice versa. Within a low-context culture, for example, a religious congregation or family gathering might be considered high-context.)
It is reasonable to expect someone from a low-context culture to be less concerned than someone from a high-context culture about the social ramifications of initiating a request (engaging, requesting, optimizing). In addition, this individual would probably be more direct and vocal in stating his/her needs, preferences, or priorities (Adair, Okumura, & Brett, 2001; Adair et al., 2007). When dealing with someone from a similar culture, this low-context directness may work quite well. In a cross-cultural context, however, a low-context approach may appear too bold or intrusive. To illustrate, a colleague related a story of a company from a low-context culture that brought a lawyer to an initial meeting with a Southeast Asia company (high-context culture), which was interpreted as an insensitive gesture early in the negotiation process. It resulted not only in the company's proposal being rejected, but a loss of opportunity for that company in that region for years to come.
Because individuals in high-context cultures are more likely to internalize messages, often communicating through subtle, nonverbal means, it is possible that someone outside a high-context culture might not recognize the rejection of an advance. The Japanese, for example, are well known for not wanting to say “No” in a social encounter. They will use any number of different approaches to avoid this word, including saying “Yes” or changing the subject (Morrison & Conaway, 2006).However, individuals from low-context cultures often are more visible, external, and outward in their reaction to a request, which could come as a surprise to a novice initiator from a high-context culture.
Monochronic–Polychronic Time Management
Cultures not only have different perceptions or values of time, but also different ways in which they manage time (Macduff, 2006). The terms monochronic and polychronic refer to two different lifestyles, particularly as related to time management. In a monochronic culture, time is viewed as a commodity—something to be saved, spent, lost, and so on. Consequently, meetings follow a linear or sequential pattern, generally beginning and ending on time, and individuals like to focus on one thing at a time. The United States, Germany, and Switzerland generally are thought to have monochronic cultures. A polychronic culture, however, views time as more multifaceted, relational, and elastic. Meetings are less likely to adhere to a schedule (conforming instead to relational demands), and there may be many things happening simultaneously. Most Mediterranean and Latin American cultures, as well as Middle Eastern and African countries, are polychronic (Gesteland, 1996; Hall, 1959; Kaufman-Scarborough & Lindquist, 1999).
Due to the importance of time, and staying on time, in a monochronic culture, it is more likely that these individuals would hesitate in initiating a request. Negotiations, by definition, involve one or more additional parties, which generally introduce uncertainty and added time pressure (as other planned activities could be adversely affected) (Huppertz, 2003). The more parties involved, the more an individual from a monochronic culture could lose control of the process, schedule, and outcome. (Individuals in a monochronic culture tend to be less active borrowers and lenders, for example.) If an activity could be done at a later time, they are likely to schedule it for later (although once a negotiation commences, they would prefer to complete the activity as planned) (Kaufman-Scarborough & Lindquist, 1999).
Individuals from a polychronic culture, in contrast, are generally more comfortable with the uncertainty of adding another activity to their day. As noted, they are comfortable with multitasking, and typically believe that they can perform well under pressure (Kaufman-Scarborough & Lindquist, 1999). They generally do whatever is most important for the moment, which would include initiating a request, if necessary. Individuals from polychronic cultures also tend to be more creative in intellectually intensive venues than are individuals from monochronic cultures (Persing, 1999), which initiation requires in many situations.
To the extent that individuals project their own frames of reference on others (Epley, Keysar, Van Boven, & Gilovich, 2004), someone from a monochronic culture might well believe that his or her counterpart also has a structured lifestyle and tight schedule to maintain, and therefore refrain from initiating a request. An individual from a polychronic culture, however, may view his or her counterpart as equally open to interruptions, conversational overlaps, and multitasking (Graham, 1985). Thus, in general, we might expect individuals from polychronic cultures to feel more comfortable engaging a counterpart and making a request, particularly in an unplanned, spontaneous situation.
Country Profiles
It is conceivable, of course, for a social system to exhibit a mix of characteristics, some of which favor initiating negotiations and some of which do not. What is the likelihood of initiation behavior for specific countries/cultures when all these characteristics are considered?
Figure 2 shows the results of combining these seven cultural factors numerically, to create initiation probabilities for individuals from a cross-section of countries.4 Of the ten countries shown, Chile has the lowest probability (33.8%), while the highest probability for initiating a negotiation is in the United Kingdom (68.8%). At 36.2%, the probability of initiating a negotiation for individuals from China is only slightly higher than in Chile. The probability for individuals in the United States is 66.1%, close to that of the United Kingdom. Of the four prominent Latin American countries shown, the likelihood of asking is highest in Argentina (51.3%) and lowest in Chile. Thus, the likelihood of someone from Germany, the United States, or the United Kingdom initiating a negotiation is approximately twice that of someone from Chile doing so, based on these seven cultural dimensions.5
Probability of Initiating a Negotiation Based on Cultural Values (Normalized)
(CL = Chile, CH = China, JA = Japan, MX = Mexico, BR = Brazil, AR = Argentina, IN = India, GR = Germany, US = United States, UK = United Kingdom; Values for AR, CL, and MX exclude Hofstede's Long-term Orientation.)
To get a better sense of the nuances of these differences and their impact on initiation behavior, let's examine more closely the characteristics of three countries with significantly different initiation likelihoods—the United States, China, and Brazil. Each country represents a different region of the world, and each is currently prominent in discussions of international business and trade. The normalized values (0 to 100 scale) for the seven cultural dimensions for each of these three countries are shown in Table 1.
The United States, for example, has medium-low power distance (31.2 on a 0 to 100 scale), medium-low uncertainty avoidance, high individualism, medium-high masculinity, a short-term to medium-term orientation, a low-context culture, and a monochronic time orientation. The medium-low power distance and medium-low uncertainty avoidance suggest that individuals from the United States would be, for the most part, unrestrained by social structures (i.e., status) in pursuing a request, including in unstructured situations. Negotiators from an individualistic culture are comfortable approaching a new counterpart without introduction or recommendation (i.e., open network, or cold calling), often believing that their persuasive powers or logic will be sufficient to carry their efforts (an artifact of medium-low uncertainty avoidance) (Morrison & Conaway, 2006). The medium-high masculinity also suggests general comfort with assertive behavior. The short-term to medium-term orientation and low-context culture imply that an immediate and direct, verbal approach would be employed in asking for a favor. As a monochronic culture, individuals from the United States would likely prefer making a request in situations where there is less of an opportunity for others to observe and interruptions to occur.
In contrast, China has medium-high power distance, medium-low uncertainty avoidance, low individualism, medium-high masculinity, a long-term orientation, a high-context culture, and a moderately polychronic time orientation. The medium-high power distance suggests that the Chinese are comfortable with hierarchal structures, clear lines of authority, and the right to use power with discretion. These structures are generally rooted in organizational hierarchies or social status (gender, age, etc.). Consequently, confidence and assertiveness in initiating a request would be a function of where one stands hierarchically, with individuals in an inferior position likely to demonstrate more reluctance than those individuals in a superior position. Given the long-term orientation, someone in an inferior position would be more inclined to wait for his/her counterpart to make the first move.
Since China has a high-context culture, an individual would expect that social familiarity, context, and nonverbal cues would dictate how the situation would unfold, rather than direct verbalization. The low individualism (i.e., high collectivism) of China means that an individual would have concerns both for self-face and other-face (relational concerns also being a feature of polychronic cultures), which would further support the use of subtle, nonthreatening cues to initiate a negotiation. Because the Chinese are concerned with face, they often look for ways to avoid saying “no” directly (Li, Chalmer, & Labig, 2001). As previously noted, a medium-low uncertainty avoidance culture generally believes that aggression and emotion should not be shown. Finally, any assertiveness associated with medium-high masculinity would more likely be manifest in the form of quiet persistence or patient waiting than a direct, verbal confrontation.
Brazil is similar to China in several ways, with medium-high power distance, medium-low individualism, a high-context culture, and a polychronic time orientation. However, Brazil has medium-high uncertainty avoidance, medium masculinity, and a medium-term orientation. The medium-high power distance and medium-high uncertainty avoidance suggest that there are differences in wealth and power in Brazil that are maintained in part by the policies, procedures, and rules of society. For someone at the powerful end of that spectrum, asking for what one wants is more natural and expected than for someone with little or no power. For others, working with or through those with power can enhance the chances of achieving one's goal (Volkema & Chang, 1998).
The medium-low individualism (i.e., relatively high collectivism) in Brazil suggests that there are strong social networks, which provide a means of gaining confidence and entry in negotiations. Consequently, one's family name and who one knows are important, since negotiations function primarily through a system of network entry. As a high-context and polychronic culture, relationships are particularly important in Brazilian negotiations. While context also is important in China, there is typically more physical contact in Brazil as a means of signaling affiliations and intentions. In addition, the polychronic culture of Brazil is characterized by more overlapping conversations and interruptions (Graham, 1985). With a medium-term orientation and medium masculinity, Brazilians generally are neither as impulsive, proactive, or assertive as individuals from the United States nor as patient and accommodating as the Chinese. Assertiveness is moderated by where one stands in social hierarchies.
These country profiles illustrate some of the differences that can be found in international negotiations. What actually happens when an individual from one culture approaches someone from another culture, of course, is much more complicated. Will an individual maintain his/her own orientation, or change his/her approach? Does it matter what the other culture is, and does it matter if the potential initiator is familiar with the other culture or even aware of the potential for differences? If the initiator is not alert to these differences, what role can a counterpart who is familiar with these differences play in the initiation process?
Adair, Taylor, and Tinsley (2009) suggest that an individual with knowledge of a counterpart's culture often takes the other party's intracultural frame of reference prior to negotiation, a tendency that likely would only increase with a counterpart's perceived power or leverage (Volkema, 2006). Under other circumstances (e.g., operating in a new context, lacking cultural awareness), it is not uncommon for individuals to work from their own frame of reference and values, presuming that others will think and respond similarly to the ways that they do (Epley et al., 2004). This, of course, can lead to inefficiencies if not outright conflict and impasse. Imagine, for example, an ill-informed negotiator from the United States presuming that his/her counterpart from Brazil follows the same patterns of engagement in negotiation—cold-calling by a midlevel manager, delivering a direct request perhaps using a medium such as electronic mail or the telephone. Or, in the other direction, a negotiator from Brazil who requests a face-to-face meeting with the head of an organization, only to be turned over to a subordinate who wants him/her to get to the point because there is another meeting scheduled in 15 minutes. These scenarios illustrate what could transpire when individuals are faced with initiating negotiations in a cross-cultural environment, with confusion a likely consequence at minimum and frustration, distrust, and disengagement possible.
Managing Initiation
Managing initiation in a cross-cultural environment can be addressed in a number of ways. First and foremost, familiarity with one's own culture (and its reputation) as well as a counterpart's culture is recommended (Weiss, 1994). This can limit much of the surprise, confusion, and frustration of an encounter, and also allow for better contingency planning if one's counterpart does or does not follow his/her cultural script. Where are the similarities in cultural factors? Where are the differences? Which differences might one expect to be most problematic? Understanding subtle differences in verbal versus nonverbal communication, for example, or the importance of indirect (informal) communication networks can be critical to negotiation success.
Generally, it is important to recognize who has perceived advantage or leverage in a negotiation, particularly a crosscultural negotiation, as this can influence intentionality and outcome. While power distance signals a degree of intracultural social leverage, there may be negotiating situations where one party needs the other party more than vice versa (as reflected in several of the situational factors shown in Figure 1: clarity and importance of desire, and perceived alternatives). Particularly in international negotiations, it is likely that demand (desire) and supply (alternatives) will be more potent to a party with advantage than intracultural dynamics.
Leverage is generally signaled through a variety of behavioral indicators, including who contacts or pursues whom (the pursued party thought to have more leverage). Thus, meeting on the other party's turf often means that that individual will expect his or her cultural preferences to be honored, including how requests are initiated. Altering these expectations can be challenging, and generally requires re-focusing perceptions by managing the indicators (e.g., wait time, seating arrangements, titles, etc.) or the sources of leverage—wants/demands and alternatives (Volkema, 2006).
Also, consider how one might manage several of the other situational factors shown in Figure 1 that can influence initiation. For example, a public venue often can increase one's anxiety when engaging, requesting, and optimizing (Festinger & Carlsmith, 1959). Think about how the environment in which a negotiation occurs can be managed to one's advantage. Similarly, recognize that being under a time constraint can make the initiation process more challenging. How can this be managed? As noted previously (and illustrated in Figure 1), situational factors can moderate the effects of culture/socialization on intentions and, ultimately, behavior.
Individuals who lack the knowledge or confidence to initiate a negotiation might identify a colleague skilled in such encounters to join them in a team effort. Even with a team of only two individuals this can create significant advantages in planning and executing the initiation (Zack, 1994). In terms of execution, a team approach allows other team members to observe nuances of the initiation process (often remaining more detached) while the primary negotiator engages the other party, with the option of teammates providing back-up support during an encounter. Ideally, of course, a team should include an individual(s) with some familiarity with the counterpart's culture. Overall, the result is likely to be more confidence and focus during initiation, leading to more effective and efficient outcomes.
Many organizations will go one step further and employ an agent when negotiating out of culture, particularly if the negotiation is very important, there is no in-house expertise, or there is little time to adapt one's style. Organizations seeking to penetrate foreign markets, for example, frequently will employ an agent from a counterpart's culture to ensure that the company is represented by someone with firsthand knowledge of the nuances of engagement initiation (directness, entry, pace, etc.), confidence, and credibility (Rubin & Sander, 1988). A Brazilian company named Celma illustrates this point. A company with a local reputation for rebuilding jet engines, Celma was having trouble getting contracts in the United States. Eventually, they hired a US agent to represent their interests, and ultimately they gained a foothold in the North American market. As a duly authorized representative, Celma's agent was playing a role that called for initiation behavior at all levels and stages.
Another way to manage the initiation process is by employing a medium with lower information richness, such as electronic mail (Maruca & McGinn, 2000; McGinn & Croson, 2004). E-mail removes one of the most debilitating situational factors with respect to initiating negotiations—the venue. At the same time, it potentially reduces the effects of an intimidating counterpart by allowing one's favor, request, or demand to be constructed away from the eye of an unfamiliar or imposing individual. The choice of medium, however, must be made with the procedural expectations of the party with the greater leverage in mind.
Many of these ideas and suggestions may appear most appropriate for the negotiator trying to maintain or overcome the personal/cultural challenges associated with initiating a negotiation. However, they also can be useful for a negotiator who wants to support and encourage a counterpart who might otherwise be reluctant to ask for what he or she wants. That is, rather than have a valuable counterpart avoid or withdraw from a mutually beneficial business relationship due to hesitations about asking, a negotiator might look for ways to make it easier for this individual to initiate ideas, suggestions, or requests.
Final Thoughts
While the negotiation process is something that everyone has experienced, it remains a challenging endeavor in many situations. For some, those challenges begin with initiating the negotiation process. All too often, individuals will fail to approach a counterpart with a request, engage but not ask, or ask but suboptimize a request. For an important negotiation, these failures can be costly.
With the opening of world markets over the past two decades, this process has undoubtedly become more complex. To be effective, an international negotiator needs to understand not only the role that his or her culture plays in the initiation process, but the culture of his/her counterpart as well. Then, this individual must adapt accordingly.
To bring some clarity to this challenge, this paper focused on seven dimensions of culture that can have a bearing on negotiation generally and the initiation process specifically. These factors—power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism–collectivism, masculinity–femininity, temporal orientation, cultural context, and time management—can influence who is most likely to initiate a request (and under what conditions), the manner in which they will deliver their request, and the nature of the request.
In assessing potential differences, it is important to keep in mind that this paper has focused primarily on countries as the social unit of analysis, and the general tendencies therein as reported by other researchers. There are, without question, exceptions to these generalizations, as found in subcultures within many countries. Lenartowicz and Roth (2001), for example, argue that within Brazil there are at least four distinct regional subcultures that define motivational and performance differences. To the extent possible, these also should be taken into consideration in any analysis of the role of culture in understanding initiation behavior.
Like many processes involving social interaction, the initiation phase of negotiation will influence how succeeding stages unfold (Wheeler, 2004). The more knowledgeable and facile an individual can become in international negotiations, the more satisfying and effective his or her outcomes are likely to be.
Biographical Information
Roger J. Volkema is an emeritus associate professor of management at the Kogod School of Business, American University, Washington, D.C., and an associate professor at IAG-PUC in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. His research focuses on negotiation, conflict management, ethics, decision making, problem formulation, and group processes. He has published two books on bargaining and negotiation for the American Management Association: The Negotiation Toolkit (1999) and Leverage (2006). Roger has an MS and PhD from the University of Wisconsin–Madison. He was a Fulbright Fellow at IAG-PUC in 1988.
