CHAPTER 5

Communicating and Negotiating across Cultures

COMMUNICATION FAILURE

Consider these four vignettes of cross-cultural living, all of them authentic experiences.¹

• Brits Clay and Joanne arrive in Auckland, New Zealand, for their holiday—the first time they have ever visited. They are monolingual and like the fact that New Zealand is an English-speaking country. They take an airport bus to the city center. They know their hotel is close by, so as they leave the bus they ask the driver for directions. “That’s easy,” says the driver. “Just follow the footpath a hundred meters and you’re there.” He closes the bus door and drives off. Clay and Joanne look around. There is no footpath in sight. What on earth did the driver mean?

• Stephanie, an American student, shares a dormitory room with Anong from Thailand. They get on well. Then, after they have lived together for several weeks, Anong abruptly announces that she has applied for a transfer to another room. Stephanie is surprised and upset and asks Anong why she wants to move. Anong is reluctant to speak but eventually says that she can’t stand Stephanie’s noisiness, loud stereo, late visitors, and untidiness. Stephanie is even more surprised; all this is new to her. “Couldn’t you have told me this sooner?” she asks. “Maybe I could have done something about it.”

• Ben is serving customers at a Texas drive-in fast-food outlet. It is hot, there are many customers, and Ben is tired. A black man drives up. He has ordered a cheeseburger combo. He pays Ben and takes his change. As Ben reaches for the order, the man inquires whether Ben is having a good day. “Not particularly,” Ben replies honestly. The man looks concerned, says sympathetically, “Me, either,” and inquires after Ben’s health. Ben eyes the line of cars behind and says, “Sorry, sir, could you move on? We have a lot of customers to serve today.” He hands over the order, but the man looks at the food incredulously, almost disgustedly. He glares at Ben and drives off. Ben stares after him in surprise. “What did I do wrong?” he wonders.

• Harry, an American economist, is on a study tour in China. He visits an economic planning institute where a Chinese economist, who is interested in American forecasting techniques, invites him to return to China to give seminars. Harry is very interested in the offer, and says so, but adds that he has to check with his institute to get approval. Back in the United States, he is granted the necessary clearance and sends a message to China indicating that he is definitely available. But the Chinese never contact him again.

These cases, to which we will return, demonstrate communication failures that led to the breakdown of relationships, and all have cultural origins.

Communication is the fundamental building block of social experience. Whether selling, buying, negotiating, leading, or working with others, we communicate. And although the idea of communicating a message seems simple and straightforward—“You just tell it straight. And you listen.”—when it comes to figuring out what goes wrong in life, communication failure is by far the most common explanation.

Communication uses codes, systems of signs in which each sign signifies a particular idea, and conventions, agreed-upon norms about how, when, and in what context codes will be used. If people do not share the same codes and conventions, they will have difficulty communicating with each other. And codes and conventions are determined mainly by cultures. The most obvious example of unshared codes is different languages.

The communication breakdowns in our opening vignettes can be explained by cultural differences:

• In the first case Clay and Joanne are unaware that a “footpath” in New Zealand is what in the UK would be called “pavement” or what Americans call a “sidewalk.” This is an example of different codes.

• In the second case of the student whose Thai roommate moved out, culture and custom interfered with communication. In their upbringing, Americans are encouraged to be active, assertive, and open, and to expect the same in others. In their upbringing, Thais are encouraged to be passive and sensitive, and they too expect the same in others. The Thai expected the American to be sensitive to her feelings; the American expected the Thai to say what her feelings were. When neither behaved as expected, the relationship broke down. This is an example of different conventions.

• In the third case the black man was newly arrived from Ghana. Being from a collective culture, he was naturally being sociable with Ben. But Ben passed the food to him with his left hand, which is considered rude in Ghana. This is an example of different codes AND conventions.

• Harry, whose invitation to return to China was never followed up, failed to appreciate the meaning of his own communication in Chinese culture. A Chinese person saying that he had to check with his office might be communicating that either he is a low-status person who has to check everything with bureaucrats or that he is not really interested in visiting. Here, the Chinese economist may have assumed the same about Harry. Chinese people seldom say no even when that is what they mean. Instead, they have numerous polite ways of indicating it. This is another example of different codes AND conventions.

In all of the vignettes, both parties failed to appreciate the codes and conventions of the other. If either one had been more culturally intelligent and had acted accordingly, the bad feelings and/or negative outcomes might have been avoided.

How Cross-Cultural Communication Works

In communication, the communicator transmits meaning through messages to others (“receivers”) who interpret them. The process is shown in Figure 5.1.

When the receiver in turn becomes the communicator, the process is reversed. The channel may be spoken or written words, or nonverbal behavior such as gestures or facial expressions. Face-to-face conversations, meetings, telephone calls, documents, and e-mails may all be used. Successful communication occurs when the meaning encoded in the message is accurately perceived and understood. Skills of communicating and listening, selection of an appropriate channel, and the absence of external interference are all important.

Cultural differences threaten communication by reducing the available codes and conventions shared by sender and receiver. Figure 5.1 represents culturally based elements in the sender’s and receiver’s backgrounds, such as their language, education, and values.² The cultural field creates the relevant codes and conventions.

Language

Language is the most obvious code for communicating. In language, combinations of sounds represent elements of meaning and can be combined to form complex messages. Most languages contain speech conventions, subtleties, and figures of speech apparent only to experienced speakers.

FIGURE 5.1. Cross-cultural communication process Source: Based on Schramm (1980)

The essence of language is that sender and receiver should share the code. But the development and mobility of humankind has created thousands of different languages, plus different dialects and adaptations of many of them.³ Most people have only one language, which they have used since early childhood, and even accomplished linguists are usually fluent in only a few. Moreover, psychologists have determined that the best time to acquire new languages is before age ten, after which we become progressively less able to adapt.⁴

In addition, the everyday use of any language normally goes beyond any simple single code. Languages are living entities that change to accommodate the different groups who use them, and they also change depending on the social circumstances in which they are used. For example, among young speakers of English, language has become more direct and dramatic, so that

“She accused me of breaking the window. I said I hadn’t.” is now

“She’s like, ‘You trashed the window!’ I’m like, ‘No way it was me!’”

Within cultures, different groups have their own vocabularies, slang, accents, and dialects. Technical groups may develop and use their own jargon to communicate with each other while distancing themselves from outsiders. Another common convention is euphemism, where potentially impolite connotations are replaced with less explicit words. An example is the English convention of saying that someone has “passed away” rather than died.

Finally, in everyday conversation most people mindlessly use proverbs, maxims, and even slogans or catchphrases heard on television. For example, “it’s a no-brainer,” “it ain’t over ’til the fat lady sings,” and “it’s not rocket science.” Such expressions may genuinely puzzle outsiders.

Finding Common Language Codes

People seeking to communicate with each other without any overlapping language codes face a major barrier. They can employ interpreters, but this is time-consuming and expensive, and complicates the communication process.

Learning and using a foreign language has benefits beyond simply overcoming the language barrier. Most people appreciate the efforts that others may have made to learn their language. So even though your fluency in another language may be limited, the fact that you have made the effort may generate goodwill.⁵ In addition, language often conveys many subtleties about a culture that a person with high cultural intelligence might notice and use.

However, becoming fluent in another language takes substantial study and practice, particularly if that language is very different from your own. Language learners often find that when using the new language they feel stressed and distracted, and that their lack of fluency may unfairly undermine their credibility. In contrast, fluency may lead to the speaker being perceived, sometimes mistakenly, as being competent in other areas, such as overall cultural intelligence.⁶

A Common Organizational Language

One byproduct of historical Anglo-American economic dominance and the unwillingness of British and American people to learn new languages has been to make English the accepted international language of business, and the learning of English a major global village activity. This change facilitates international business communication, but, as discussed ahead, has some less positive effects when it is adopted as a common organizational language.

In a move to create a mutually accessible language to unite a workforce that speaks different languages many firms have adopted English as a common language for the organization as noted in the following story.

ENGLISH ONLY AT RAKUTEN

In 2010, Hiroshi Mikitani, CEO of Japan’s largest online retailer (Rakuten), mandated that English would be the official company language, affecting 7,100 Japanese employees. He believed that this new policy would help Rakuten to become the world’s number one Internet services company. Rakuten had grown through mergers and acquisitions in France, Germany, and the United States, as well as joint ventures throughout Asia. Mikitani demonstrated his seriousness about the change by announcing it to employees in English. By the next day, cafeteria signs, elevator directories, and so on were replaced, and employees were told they must demonstrate competence in English within two years or risk demotion or dismissal. By 2012, half of Rakuten’s Japanese employees could communicate adequately in English, and 25 percent were doing business in English on a regular basis. In 2015, the average score for Rakuten employees on the Test of English for International Communication (TOEIC) indicated advanced fluency. Thus Rakuten has accomplished something that the Japanese education system has been trying to do for years—get Japanese people to speak English competently.⁷

Not every firm is as radical in their approach as Rakuten, but language standardization is being driven by the globalization of tasks and resources, by cross-border mergers and acquisitions, and by competitive pressures.⁸ Advocates of a common language (English) say that it improves coordination and integration, shapes the organizational image and gives organization members a sense of belonging. On the other hand, non-English speakers may feel a loss of status in the organization, resulting in resentment and distrust of native English speakers, more comfort with non-native speakers, anxiety about performing well, and concerns about job advancement. As a result, regardless of organizational attempts at becoming monolingual, the “common language” goal is often not widely shared.

Learning English as an additional language (EAL) is challenging. The language’s richness of vocabulary and numerous synonyms can cause EAL speakers great difficulty. The simple word “fly,” for example, can mean an annoying insect, a means of travel, or an important part of men’s trousers.⁹ Those who speak only English owe a debt to the millions of people around the world who have gone out of their way to learn to understand, read, speak, and write in English.

A person fluent in English who is communicating with a less skilled English speaker should communicate in standard terms and avoid jargon, obscure language, and assumptions about the other person’s comprehension. Culturally intelligent people adapt their language to be in harmony with the other person’s vocabulary and style.

Some EAL speakers, particularly those from cultures that typically avoid losing face, pretend to understand when they really do not. In these situations parties need to be especially aware of barriers and limitations in their sending and receiving, and to check whether messages have gotten through.

The following are some brief guidelines for improving communication with EAL speakers.

SECOND-LANGUAGE STRATEGIES

• Enunciate carefully.

• Avoid colloquial expressions.

• Repeat important points using different words.

• Use active verbs and avoid long compound sentences.

• Use visual restatements such as pictures, graphs, and tables.

• Hand out written summaries of your oral presentation.

• Pause frequently, and do not jump in to fill silences.

• Take frequent breaks, and allow more time.

• Do not attribute poor grammar or mispronunciation to lack of intelligence.

• Check for understanding by encouraging speakers to repeat concepts back to you.

• Don’t embarrass speakers, but encourage and reinforce their participation.¹⁰

EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT COMMUNICATION

There is a Western view that individuals perceive something called the truth and should state it. Convention also prescribes that communication should use explicit, direct, unambiguous verbal massages. But in other cultures—for example, many Middle Eastern and Asian cultures—there is no absolute truth, and politeness and desire to avoid embarrassment often take precedence. This makes communication implicit and indirect. In the direct convention, most of the emphasis is on the content of the communication—the words. In the indirect convention, the context is more important—for example, the physical setting, the previous relationships between the participants, and nonverbal behavior.

The direct convention tends to be the norm in countries with individualist cultures, the indirect in countries with collectivist cultures. Understanding indirect communication in collectivist cultures may sometimes involve learning another code. The following examples show ways of saying no politely and indirectly. In some cases a low-CQ individual would think that the answer might be “yes.”

SAYING “NO” IN RESPONSE TO “HAS MY PROPOSAL BEEN ACCEPTED?”¹¹

Conditional “yes”	If everything proceeds as planned, the proposal will be approved.
Counter-question	Have you submitted a copy of your proposal to the ministry of . . . ?
Criticizing the question	Your question is very difficult to answer.
Refusing the question	We cannot answer this question at this time.
Tangential reply	Will you be staying longer than you had originally planned?
Yes, but	Yes, approval looks likely, but . . .
Delayed answer	You should know shortly.

The problems associated with explicitness of communication extend beyond face-to-face communication. The use of e-mail can increase these problems. E-mail requires turn-taking, that is, one sends a complete message and then awaits a reply. This works for low-context cultures, where the meaning is mostly expressed in the words; but e-mail strips away the context of the communication, making it more difficult to understand implicit meanings because one can’t get clarification or read between the lines.

VERBOSITY AND SILENCE

Cultures vary in their conventions about how much and how loudly one should talk. Americans are notorious for talking a lot and loudly. But silence can be used deliberately and strategically. Japanese negotiators use silence as a means of controlling negotiating processes, whereas Finns use it as a way of encouraging a speaker to continue. In some cultures silence can show respect. Interpreting silence accurately is important.

Nonverbal Communication

RAY MOVES TO GREECE

The café in Athens was picture-perfect: checkered tablecloths, white walls, Mediterranean atmosphere. It was morning, so there were no customers. Behind the counter was Dimitri’s mother. I’d seen her in Dimitri’s photos.

“Mrs. Theodoridis?”

She turned toward me, puzzled.

“I’m Ray. From Australia. Your son Dimitri . . .”

She smiled broadly. “Oh, Ray! Yes! You Ray! Oh yes, Dimitri write me that you come to Greece. Oh, come, come! Sit! I bring you some coffee.”

She motioned me to a table. Suddenly she frowned. “Oh! Maybe you no like Greek coffee? Maybe you want ouzo?”

She was fussing over me. We Australians can’t stand being fussed over. But I stayed polite.

“Coffee would be great, thank you.”

She nodded and went into the kitchen. I sat at the table. She came back with the coffee and stood opposite me. She was speaking to me warmly.

“Dimitri tell me you so help him when he move to Australia, with his English and everything.” She put the coffee on the table and sat down opposite me, leaning toward me. She seemed too close. I could smell her perfume. I leaned back a little. We Australians like to keep our distance.

“So.” Suddenly she placed both her hands over one of mine. “How you like Athens?” Before I could answer, she moved her right hand, took a gentle hold of my cheek, and shook it affectionately. “You find girlfriend, yes?”

This was not what I had expected. I had envisaged a more formal conversation, at a respectable distance, about Dimitri. Instead she had her hands all over me. Her eyes seemed to be staring right through me. And she was asking about my love life! What business was it of hers?

“Well, Mrs. Theodoridis,” I managed, “I . . . er . . . um . . .” She was leaning toward me, close, intense. “I’ve only been here a couple of months.”

“Yes, Ray, that’s right.” She was speaking to me as to a child. Now she put both her hands on my face, and leaned even closer. “You find nice Greek girl, settle down.” She released me and leaned back, considering. “Some nice Greek girls. You have good salary at Constantine Shipping, yes?” She sipped her coffee. I was thinking, what is it with this woman? She is altogether too familiar. Better be polite, though.

“Well, Mrs. Theodoridis, I . . . er . . . haven’t really thought about settling down.”

“Yes, Ray, that’s right.” Why was she agreeing with everything I said? “Better be careful. Some of these Greek girls, they want big diamond ring, or fancy church wedding.” Again she leaned toward me, put her hand under my chin, and looked at me intensely. “Are you religious, Ray?”

Bugger me, I thought, I’ve just met her, and already she’s asking about my personal life, my money, and my religion! I felt confused, embarrassed, and hot. What to do?

Then I had a brainwave. Play for time! “Ah, well, Mrs. Theodoridis. Maybe I will have that ouzo after all.”

“Aah!” She smiled, grasped my hand again, then stood up, ruffled my hair, and went into the kitchen.

I looked after her, shaking my head involuntarily. Why was she so personal and intimate to a stranger? What did she want?

This case is a good example of poor communication due to cultural differences in conventions and body language. Greece is a collectivist culture, with much emphasis on the extended family. Mrs. Theodoridis is treating Ray like a family member because of his close relationship to her son—indeed she is treating him as if he is her son. And like many people in Southern Europe, Greek people have a low interpersonal distance, and touching of the type Mrs. Theodoridis is doing is not uncommon, particularly between members of the extended family. But Ray, from the more reserved, higher-distance Australian culture, sees all this as intrusive; in his culture, touching between men and women often has sexual connotations. No wonder he is confused! In failing to notice Ray’s embarrassment Mrs. Theodoridis shows low cultural intelligence.

The topic of body language is popular, and most of us now realize that we communicate, often inadvertently, by such means as physical proximity and orientation to another person, body movements, gestures, facial expression, eye contact, and tone of voice. Thus, nonverbal communication supplements verbal communication.

Often, nonverbal communication is a good guide to the truth; for example, if athletes are sitting in the dressing room after the match with shoulders slumped, arms folded, and faces glum, you do not need to ask, whatever their culture, whether their team won or lost. Sometimes nonverbal behavior reveals the opposite of verbal, for example, when someone making a visible effort to control himself, shouts, “No, I’m not angry!”

However, many nonverbal signals are similar between different cultures. For example, smiling universally expresses positive feelings. But there are also subtle variations. Asians often smile to conceal nervousness or embarrassment. Shaking the head means disagreement in Western cultures but agreement in some parts of India. The codes that tell us the meanings of postures or gestures, or where to stand or whether to bow, sometimes agree across cultures but sometimes disagree.

DISTANCE

How close should you stand when communicating with others? Should you face them directly? The answer can vary according to the characteristics of the other person, for example, their authority, age, or gender. But there are also cultural differences. For example, in casual conversation, Greeks stand closer than Americans, who stand closer than Norwegians. A culturally intelligent person will be mindful of the comfort of others and will modify his or her social distance.¹²

TOUCHING

Should you ever touch the other person? If so, where, and how much? Who can touch whom, and on what part of the body, is explicit in most cultures. Touching another person symbolizes various emotions and relationships. The most obvious example is the handshake, which in many cultures denotes a friendly relationship—“I’m pleased to meet you” or “Goodbye for now.” In France, kissing another person’s cheek is common between men as well as women. In some cultures, approval or support is shown by a slap on the back or a squeeze of the arm.

There are low-touch cultures (predominantly in North America, Northern Europe, and Asia) and high-touch cultures (predominantly in Latin America, Southern and Eastern Europe, and the Middle East). A touch that is meant to be meaningful in the United States, such as a pat on the back, might not even be noticed in a high-touch culture like Brazil. Because of the sexual connotations of touching, conventions are often different for men and women.

BODY POSITION

In a case in Chapter 1, a Samoan job applicant showed respect by positioning himself at a physically lower level than the HR manager, but the gesture misfired because to Americans sitting down when others are standing shows disrespect. Polite Americans wait for others to sit down first, and show respect by rising from their seats when others enter the room. The way people position themselves has meaning in all cultures, but there are no hard-and-fast rules.

Another common body-position issue is the adoption of a particular body shape—for example a rigid, angular stance denoting aggression or a curled-up, cowering posture indicating submissiveness.¹³ Bowing to show deference is common, but in some cultures its use is extreme. In Japan, the (unwritten) rules about who should bow to whom and how they should do it are complex, subtle, and difficult to master. Indeed, foreigners attempting Japanese bowing are at best humorous and at worst offensive, making bowing in Japan a custom best reserved for native Japanese.

GESTURES

Hand and arm movements are often used as physical accompaniments to words, to supplement them or to provide a visual illustration. Often gestures are meaningless without the verbal commentary, other than as a general statement of the person’s state of mind. But other gestures have established meanings, including pointing to indicate direction, hands held up with the palms facing upward and outward to indicate defensiveness, and a shrug of the shoulders to indicate incomprehension or lack of interest. Other signals vary across cultures. Some gestures (for example, the thumbs-up sign) are positive, humorous, or harmless in some cultures but are considered hostile, offensive, or obscene in others. High-CQ people tend to avoid explicit gestures until they know exactly what they mean.

FACIAL EXPRESSION

Facial expressions indicate the basic human emotions: happiness: surprise, disgust, fear, anger, and sadness. These facial expressions are instinctive and common.¹⁴ However, in many cultures people have learned how to disguise their emotions by adopting an expression that does not represent how they really feel. For example, is the flight attendant beaming happily at every passenger truly happy to meet each one? In some Asian cultures, smiling is often used to hide displeasure, sadness, or anger.

Emotions can also be concealed behind a neutral expression. Every negotiator and card player knows the value of being able to sit with a face devoid of expression. Thus, while natural facial expressions provide a cross-cultural code to others’ emotions, conventions can mean that facial cues are either absent or misleading. In collectivist cultures, the open expression of individual emotion is often suppressed because it may threaten group harmony. This is one reason for Westerners characterizing Chinese and Japanese people as inscrutable.

EYE CONTACT

Making, or avoiding, eye contact is another form of nonverbal communication. In Western countries moderate eye contact during conversation communicates friendliness or interest, whereas excessive eye contact (staring) is considered rude, and lack of eye contact as hostile. Eye contact can also be used as a signal: for example, making eye contact with the other person as you finish a sentence often means “Now it’s your turn to speak.” But Arabs, Latinos, Indians, and Pakistanis all have conventions of longer eye contact, whereas Africans and East Asians interpret eye contact as conveying anger or insubordination. Also, most cultures have different conventions about eye contact depending on the gender, status, and so on of those involved.

In all areas of nonverbal communication, the ability to observe the behavior of others, to be mindful of it, and to be skilled at modifying one’s own behavior are key components of cultural intelligence.

Negotiating across Cultures

In negotiation the objective is to overcome sometimes conflicting interests and reach an agreement that is advantageous to all. The tools of negotiation include threats and promises, persuasion, the signaling of concessions, and the development of compromises and creative solutions. Again, cross-cultural differences cause complications. Most international tourists know, for example, that in some countries it is accepted custom to haggle in shops, while in others one is expected to pay the marked price.

WHEN IS IT TIME TO DO BUSINESS?

Bill Miller, an American salesman with a major IT company, sits in his Mexico City hotel room, head bowed, feeling totally frustrated. Two days into his trip and with only tomorrow left, he feels as far from closing the sale he is trying to make as he was when he arrived.

It’s not that his Mexican hosts are hostile. They smile broadly at him, take a personal interest in him, and certainly look after all his physical needs: the hotel, for example, is excellent. But they show little interest in talking business. The manager who has been assigned to look after Bill is a good host but is not party to the deal Bill wants to negotiate. On the first day, when Bill talked about his prepared sales presentation, the manager seemed surprised. “Plenty of time for that later,” he advised. “Why not relax for a day or two and do some sightseeing first? I can look after you.”

So Bill spent his first two days being shown around Mexico City. On the second day, however, his host invited him to an after-work meeting with the senior managers of the company. Bill prepared carefully and arrived promptly at the meeting room with his PowerPoint display. No presentation space or projector was available, and no one was there, only some drinks and nibbles. Gradually the Mexicans drifted in, got themselves drinks, and stood around chatting. They engaged Bill conversationally in English and asked questions. But the questions were not about the equipment Bill wanted to sell but about his company—its history, its plans, and its future expansion in Latin America. And they asked about Bill himself—his history in the company, his view of the industry, even his wife, family, and hobbies.

Bill wanted to get on with his presentation, but he did not want to offend his hosts. Eventually, during a pause, he said, “Thanks—I am grateful for your hospitality. Now, can we sit down and let me go through my presentation. I think we have a good deal here for your company.”

There was an embarrassed silence. Then the deputy CEO said slowly, “Unfortunately, I think Mr. Alvarez may already have gone home.” Alvarez was the CEO, whose signature to the deal was imperative. “Maybe . . . tomorrow? In the meantime, why not come out to dinner so we can get to know each other better?” This time, Bill pleaded fatigue.

How on earth, he wondered, did these people ever sell anything to each other or buy anything from each other, let alone from him?

Back at his home, Juan Alvarez lit a cigarette thoughtfully. The American had looked so ill at ease that Juan just hadn’t felt like sticking around. He had wanted to try to build a long-term business relationship, but Miller didn’t seem interested. Alvarez had seen it before with Americans.

How on earth, he wondered, did these people ever learn to really trust each other in business?

The reflections of Miller and Alvarez reveal different outlooks on business relationships. Bill, like most Americans, is concerned with the short-term, with reaching a conclusion and not wasting time on social trivia. Juan and his staff, like members of most Latin cultures and many others, believe that good business is the result of good relationships. Therefore, the initial effort must go into building a relationship: it is worth spending time to do so.

The result is that both Bill and Juan endanger what they value most—Bill endangers the immediate transaction, and Juan endangers the long-term business relationship. If each (or even either) had been willing to accommodate, at least in part, the other’s customs, a worthwhile business relationship could by now be under way and each could secure exactly what he wants.

Negotiating Styles

Negotiation processes typically go through different phases:

• building a relationship

• exchanging information

• trying to persuade each other

• making concessions and reaching agreement¹⁵

There are cultural differences in the emphasis on each phase. Generally, people in Western cultures take a relatively transactional approach to negotiation, focusing mainly on the last two stages. Many other cultures focus on creating a background relationship and emphasize the social side of the situation. In this case, Bill Miller and Juan Alvarez couldn’t negotiate with each other because each was stuck in a different part of the process. Culturally intelligent Americans learn to be sociable and patient in negotiation, and culturally intelligent Asians and Latinos learn to get to the point more quickly.

Styles of persuasion may also differ. In Western societies, rational argument is favored, whereas in some other countries, appeals to emotion or ideology may be used. Western negotiators, having individualist values, have a competitive negotiating style, whereas Asians tend to be more polite, more obscure, and more restrained.

A key cultural variable in negotiation is power distance (see Chapter 2), the extent to which people expect to see power and authority invoked to solve problems. The arbitration model of negotiation supposes that whenever differences of interest have to be negotiated, there should be a higher-level authority figure making decisions and imposing it on all parties. This is often observed in Japan. Another model is the bureaucratic one, which attempts to reduce the need for negotiation by specifying in advance rules and procedures for solving disagreements. This model is often observed in Germany.

There are also differences in the details of negotiating: for example, the level at which initial offers are made and the willingness of negotiators to make concessions. An American negotiator might be surprised by a Chinese, Arab, or Russian counterpart because these groups often start off with extreme positions. Russians are also reluctant to make concessions, seeing this as a sign of weakness, whereas other groups, such as North Americans and Arabs, will make concessions and respond to others’ concessions. Finally, of course, the generalizations made above are subject to substantial individual differences.

One way of thinking about the negotiation process is in terms of metaphors. The very different culturally based metaphors of sports and households can explain American and Japanese negotiations. Individualist Americans are task-oriented, accept conflict as normal, and try to conduct an orderly process with rules within which they have the chance to excel and win, much in the same way that athletes do. The household symbolizes the more collectivist Japanese, who, in contrast, are focused on relationships, want to avoid conflict and save face, and get satisfaction from performing their roles rather than from winning.¹⁶ Understanding your own negotiation metaphor and the culturally based metaphors of others can give you insight into how to achieve a mutually satisfactory outcome.

Principles for Cross-Cultural Communication and Negotiation

There is plenty of information available on cross-cultural communication and negotiation, from both everyday observation and systematic research, but spelling out hard-and-fast rules is difficult. However, here are some broad principles.

• Gain the knowledge to anticipate differences. Learn about the codes and conventions of groups you deal with. Be aware of the various areas of difference we have noted in this chapter—for example, verbal versus nonverbal, contextual versus non-contextual, different negotiating styles. Learn the prevailing cultural values of the country—for example, individualist versus collectivist—and think about how these may influence the process. What might be their metaphor for negotiation?

• Practice mindfulness. Pay attention not just to the code and content of messages but also to the context and the conventions of communication. By attending to how messages are delivered you can acquire additional information. Question attributions. In Chapter 3 we discussed how we can go behind the surface behavior of others to attribute motivation and meaning. As we have seen, the meaning we usually attribute is based on a familiar understanding of our own behavior and that of our cultural group. Practicing mindfulness helps us to see new possibilities of meanings in the behavior of other cultural groups.

• Develop cross-cultural skills. How much should you adapt your behavior to accommodate the codes, conventions, and style of another culture? Should you try to imitate them or just be yourself? Some adaptation seems to improve relationships by making the other party more comfortable, but too much adaptation can cause suspicion and distrust. Finding the optimal point of adaptation is an art. By improving your cultural intelligence, you can gain a repertoire of adaptive skills and the knowledge of when they are appropriate.

Summary

Communication is fundamental to social interactions and relationships. Because of differences in background, codes, or conventions, cross-cultural communication faces many barriers to shared understanding. Language skills are important, but cross-cultural communication involves additional abilities. Culturally based codes and conventions also involve nonverbal signals and communication styles. Negotiation is a special communication situation involving conflicting goals. While all negotiations follow a similar process, the emphasis placed on each stage varies across cultures. The challenging nature of negotiations makes high cultural intelligence a prerequisite for knowing when, how, and how much to adapt one’s behavior to achieve the most successful outcome.