Wednesday, April 18, 2012
The "Going International" Video and the First Simulation - Does Culture Matter?
Consider the reading material, video and lecture material, and the first simulation. Is "culture" a significant part of any international negotiation? Do the ideas in the "Going International" video apply today? Did the first simulation include cultural factors?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Culture is a significant part of negotiations, both back in the 80's(as seen in the video) and in current day settings(as seen in our simulation). Our belief systems are founded on the bases of culture, the way we interact with oneanother is grounded on social norms, and communication styles vary between country of origin. For these reasons negotiations can be very difficult. As seen in the video, there are cultures that choose to deal with conflicts indirectly and others, like the US, are more direct. Both the video and the readings exemplified the division between individualistic and collectivist beliefs. That philosophy was acted out during our negotiations, at one point Capitalista achieved all of their goals and so they left the negotiations between everyone's needs had been met. As seen in the video, in the negotiations, and through examples in the reading negotiations can get very emotional, and the underline factor in this is culture. Culture can dictate a person's interests and in dealing with a varied amount of interests, agreements, and rejections can lead to situations that require dispute resolution. In 'Negotiating Globally' it is stated that 'information is the currency of negotiation', and I think that a common ground can be found between different cultures when numbers, policies, and rules are looked at (pg. 14).
ReplyDeleteThis was written by Sarah McRae - I am not sure why it showed up as unknown. I will try to fix my profile settings.
DeleteAbsolutely, Culture is a significant piece of the negotiation puzzle. Culture takes into account the past and how it has shaped perception and worldview in the present. In the simulation, based on each individual country's history and past experiences, shaped the vision of each respective country's direction and future. That dynamic aspect of culture identification within each country is the fact that it changes according to the times. In our simulation, even though Capitalista and Globoland have had power struggles in the past, the negotiators came to the table with the idea of peace in mind. That might not have happened a decade ago, according to their history.
ReplyDeleteDefinitely, culture plays a huge role during negotiations. We saw many American negotiators offend their business partners simply because they did not learn the customs and culture of performing business in these other countries. I noticed that relationships play a huge role in negotiations in foreign countries, and most people wouldn't even consider doing business until they had spend a good deal of time getting to know each other.
ReplyDeleteWe did not see any of this during the simulation however. This can be attributed to a couple factors, mainly the limited time frame and similar culture of all negotiators. The top priority of all the negotiators was to make a deal that would keep their country safe from war and starvation. We didn't take time (not that we really had it) to build relationships or get to know each other first. However it would be important to keep this in mind if these were real negotiations between different countries.
-Bruce Bingham
DeleteIt depends largely on the nature of the negotiation itself. If it is of necessity to one of the parties more than that of the other, appeasement may be pursued. This could mitigate certain cultural factors that may lead to aggressive or passive-aggressive negotiation. Nevertheless, most negotiations occur as transactions of reciprocity. If one commodity can be exchanged fairly for another, then it is important for cultural factors to be met.
ReplyDeleteUltimately, regardless of the negotiation tone and pace, I suspect that good communication and cultural empathy is mostly important for efficiency and not for rapport. In an international market, projects that are optimally cost effective will be pursued. In this sense, I suspect major deals may often be pursued because of the sheer nature of the commodity rather than the negotiator's ability to follow cultural folk ways and morays.
I thought the movie put a little too much emphasis on the small, cultural nuisances like showing the sole of the foot or how to greet someone correctly. I spent hours googling such things before I lived in a different country and my first meeting I was so focused on "do this, do that" that I probably came off as very stressed. After getting to know my co-workers, I eventually asked what would have happened if I hadn't correctly followed those small cultural guidelines. The resounding answer was "you're a foreigner, it wouldn't have mattered." So while many people there appreciated my efforts it wasn't the act of doing those things but rather showing that I had taken the time to try and learn something beforehand. My point is that while learning how business is done (basic power structures, how relationships are formed, etc) is very important, finding a way to show you're taking your job and their culture seriously is more important than the specific little nuisances of different cultures as is stated in some of our readings.
ReplyDeleteI also showed up as unknown. This was post was by Stacey Frederick.
DeleteI feel that as aforementioned by some of my classmates that the importance of culture varies based on the nature of the negotiations. That being said I feel that culture will always have some sort of impact on negotiation as culture is what makes people who they are and no matter what some aspect of culture will shine through in negotiation. Looking at our simulation I felt as though culture played a small role as we were representing fake countries, but it did come through in our individual negotiation methods. Lastly looking at the film I felt as though it was slightly out of date and focused to heavily on the small details of culture. I felt as though the situations presented were all out of date and overblown as well, but the main points they were making about culture were still valid.
ReplyDeleteObviously culture can be extremely important. But defining culture and placing cultural characteristics in neat little compartments is a significant error. The dated film shown in class conveyed some good ideas, but clearly it was a bit comical in it's portrayal of situations. While this was intentional, it did seem to limit to usefulness of the video by portraying some unfavorable stereotypes both of Americans and other nationalities represented. It is silly to make assumptions about culture, but some basic cultural expectations of behavior are not only helpful, but likely required if one wants to be well received in an international environment.
ReplyDeleteCulture is a significant part of any negotiation. It's crucial to know and truly understand the culture of all negotiators taking part in the negotiation. The culture of the negotiator affects their negotiation style which in turn should have an impact on your own style for that negotiation. As the video demonstrated it is easy to offend someone when you are ignorant of their culture. In some instances the person may be so offended you lose their business or don't get full cooperation from them. Although the video, in my opinion, over dramatized the situations the ideas still apply today and show it's vital to know and understand people's cultures. The culture of negotiators can predict their true interest in the negotiation. From the simulation Agrarion was more focused about getting military bases in their country to provide security rather than to straight trade resources. The simulation also demonstrated that past interactions between countries can affect the culture and possibly affect the willingness or hesitation to work together in the negotiation.
ReplyDeleteIn the Video, "On International Assignment - Managing the overseas Assignment," I noted how the 6 aspects of Kluckhohn and Strodbeck's Cultural Values Theory really helped to describe the relational interactivity (within the national level) of the subjects in the video.
ReplyDelete1) Human Nature
2) People Nature
3) Person to Person
4) Activity Orientation
5) Space
6) Time
Using these 6 aspects of the Cultural Values Theory, we as the audience to the negotiations taking place in the video, can begin to catagorize the reasons for the successful or unsuccessful negotiations that we are witnessing.
The video showed us Low Context vs. High Context negotiations, Polychronic vs. Monochronic negotiations, as well as, negotiations featuring multiple focuses vs. singular focused negotiations.
In all cases shown in the video, the negotiations hit significant snags when the aspects of the Cultural Values Theory and the contexts, time aspects, and focuses of the negotiation, were unequally yoked between the negotiating parties.
I took away from the video, and the corresponding notes from class, that there must be a measured effort from both parties to familiarize yourselves with the culture norms of your negotiating partner, in order to allow the desired negotiated agreement, the best possible opportunity to be defined as successful.
As both parties attempt to understand each other's culture norms and adjust, the greater the willingness for flexible accommodation becomes, for each negotiating party.
Culture is very important in negotiations in the past and perhaps even more in the world today. As globalization spreads, more and more people are being introduced to new nations and peoples. This creates a great need for understanding the changing cultural influences of older developed nations, along with identifying the cultural influences of new developing nations. As seen in the video, a simple misunderstanding of culture can severely damage negotiations with that country and can be perceived as a lack of caring on our part. The cultural factors to consider are not only those present influences, but also the history, location, and political system of differing nations. In the simulation the main cultural influence that played a part in the negotiations was the history between the three nations. Certain measures, or there lack of, were taken in accordance to how things had occurred in the past.
ReplyDeleteCulture is a significant part of an international negotiation. As seen in the video, culture was a huge part of bilateral negotiation. The video portrayed the get-r-done stereotype of Americans as well as persistence we are known to have when it comes to sticking to our own method and not straying far from the path (the uncomfortable feeling the American felt in the Arabian office when he attempted to be polite). Also, it showed blindness: where in almost all cases there were plenty of obvious signs that culture was being ignored and plenty of opportunities to correct it, but the Americans did not. The negotiators from other countries in the video were more interested in culture than money or price, and the Americans did not recognize that and lost their business and respect. Ignorance of culture is no way to hold a negotiation. In our first simulation we worked a multilateral negotiation, and culture was very much apparent in the negotiations. The history of each country played a role during the official conference as well as the backwoods walks. Tensions rose between countries not solely due to the negotiations not progressing, but I believe from cultural aspects of each country. For even larger multilateral negotiations, it is key that everyone come to a consensus, and that may take years in some cases where negotiations become a complete stalemate at some point. It may be a cultural issue that is holding up the negotiations, or even a translation error. As discussed in lecture, the word collaboration has a different meaning to European countries affected by WWII. Use of this term may hold back countries from cooperating in the negotiations. There are many cultural issues that may show up during negotiations, and because there are so many, it is definitely a significant part.
ReplyDeleteCulture is an important part of all negotiations. As seen in the video, the man had his own method of culture that the other nation did not agree with because his method of culture was not one that the man was familar with because what he was doing in his mind was correct- that is why it is so important to understand culture because this could affect ALL interaction that takes place with this party. Some countries rely on the understanding of culture so much and the goal of understanding culture is the relationship, while others simply understand the culture just so they can come to an agreement on the negotiation and be done with it. There are so many issues with culture and that is why it is important to at least respect it and understand where people are coming from at the least when working with other nations and trying to negotiate.
ReplyDeleteCulture is one of the most significant factors involved in productive negotiation. The video we watched in class was an example of how cultural practices can effect the outcome of negotiations. Each culture had specific expectations and motives for negotiations. By not respecting the cultural practices of the country which, you desire to do business, you are setting yourself up for failure. It does not take much effort to learn, and respect the practices of other cultures. By doing a little research before a negotiation with a foreign country, you can increase the productivity, and the overall effectiveness of your negotiation. The ideas from the video still apply to the world today. Even more importantly now that we have the internet, there is no reason someone should enter a situation that unprepared. The first simulation also, included these cultural factors. Each country in the simulation had specific needs. Each country also, had a different way of going about the negotiation. Even though it was only a simulation it is important to respect other peoples requests. These examples are just support for the need to research before entering a situation like this
ReplyDeleteYou have provided a variety of thoughtful comments. Continue the conversation. The second simulation includes a number of cultural variables. Did they matter?
ReplyDeleteThe authors of Deadlocks in Multilateral Negotiations base a hypothesis on the likelihood of deadlocks to occur because of diverse culture. Culture itself has great impacts on balance of power. There are identifiable similarities in cultural values between international powers, such as, competitive nature, future orientation, directness, and material acquisition. Value that motivate decision making in negotiations will stem from our cultural heritage.
ReplyDeleteMoreover, culture shapes our belief system and worldview. Aspects of our culture are not easily explainable, but we hold a firm attachment to them. If they are brought into question, we often react more strongly than in instances of purely logical concern. Because many cultural values are ingrained in us we do not realize that our actions or words might be opposing to someone else. If we are nieve to think that all beliefs are shared across cultures then we will be offended or offensive at some point.
I would agree that culture is indeed an important part of negotiations. However, I don't know if its any more important during bargaining and negotiations than it is in simply communicating. Culture is extremely important when it comes to communication with others. If one struggles or has difficulties communicating with someone from another country, then that person really has no place negotiating.
ReplyDeleteThere are so many little parts that make up each culture, and within that culture there are subcultures and so on. It just keeps going. The movie shown in class did a good job emphasizing those little details. Although, the film may have been a little exaggerated on the emphasis, it still got the point across. Culture is complex and people are socialized from birth to know their culture to the core. That's why, negotiating with other cultures needs so much preparation. Something that may seem normal to us may be very offensive in another culture. People don't like to negotiate when they've been offended. That's why the culture in which you will be negotiating should be studied so that you at least know the basics before trying to make an agreement and embarrassing yourself and maybe even your own country.
I agree that culture plays a large role in negotiations and in any case of communication. In order to effectively communicate, one must understand the various cultures and the values that each person or society hold to themselves. Without a clear understanding, you're creating barriers and complications between the communication and negotiations could experience difficulties.
ReplyDeleteWhen a decision is in directly connected with the values of our culture, we have a close tie to the result and that has a large impact on the negotiation process. In the second simulation, Good Grains Inc. was a baking company that was planning to move their headquarters and take over the current company, Deotho Baking Co in Inamlia. There were multiple cultural aspects that needed to be addressed in order to reach a conclusion and Good Grains Inc. found out quickly that they needed to take these cultural values seriously. For example, when it was suggested to no longer have the month of celebration, GG saw it as a decision that needed to be made from a production perspective but the citizens of Inamlia felt that you couldn't completely take away something that important without trying to reach some sort of middle ground.
I believe that culture and negotiation should go hand in hand with one another. Negotiation occurs every where in the world on a daily basis, however, the means in which it is done differs based on the culture doing the negotiaion. The reason behind this is communication because communication dictates the talks behind the matter of interest. Communication is decided by the culture involved so yet again another reason of why they are so similar.
ReplyDeleteThis theme became apparent mostly in the Inamlia simulation we partook in during the course. An outside company was attempting to buy out another company and rework the system to better maximize profits. This meant a direct change in cultural norms to suit the company's needs. Citizens of Inamlia overtly protested these changes and were a matter of the most lengthy negotiations during the simulation.
It is my belief that by the nature of international negotiations, yes, culture is a major part of it. Much of what I have enjoyed reading throughout this term has been Jeanne Brett’s thoughts on communication and culture. Compared to more simple discussions of possible outcomes from proper/improper cultural techniques, Brett is able to apply them. The great analogy she uses of the cultural ice berg, has always fascinated me. This is an analogy that is often used, but it is her thoughts on how to react to these underwater aspects of “institutions and behaviors” that I have seen apparent in our own class. Brett points out the fact that no matter how much one can study a culture, you must always remember you are still an outsider, “…It is not always necessary to engage in them when negotiating cross culturally. You are after all a cultural outsider.” (Brett 28) Rules like this remind us that negotiation is a balancing act! This proved true with my experiences in the last simulation without even knowing it, at the time. While negotiating via back channels, outside large group meetings, I attempted to spend “casual” time meeting with groups trying to be understanding of what they wanted. In reality I was trying to get what I wanted. This was a LOUD group that used the volume of their voice rather than hand raising or passing a speaking item. Me being me, yelling is not my first instinct when I need to get someone’s attention. Wanting to appear like I knew what I was talking about, specifically knew what they were talking about I jumped into the conversation. I left thinking I had them convinced them of my point and we would get what we wanted. Later when trading resource cards I was shocked when “Globoland” looked me in the face and said “You don’t know what we want or need. You worry about you.” By forcing my words in on others groups meetings about what they need I was insulting them. This group of “yellers and cutter offers” had not appreciated me mimicking their actions. These action were normal for them and is how they communicated the whole three hours.
ReplyDeleteIt is easy to classify a culture, not matter what one, by what we think is important to them. Just as I thought yelling was a way to fit in, Brett warns of the negotiating traps we can get into when we assume things. Particularly the second warning she offers, “failing to understand that culture is characterized by features measured at the individual level but then aggregated to create a cultural prototype .”(Brett 31) Again a technique to not over step your boundaries, if with the best intentions in mind. Assuming that a whole group is the same, likes to yell to communicate does not make it so. Especially when upon my own look back, I became aware that I was yelling not as the group was but rather their leader; adding to the insult by “undermining” the group’s leader appearing as if I wanted total control.
Culture must always be accounted for in some respect when attempting to negotiate. Culture can come in all shapes and sizes and thus is usually unique in and of its self. Respecting people’s experiences is important ESPECIALLY when trying to understand culture. Jumping in, thinking you are knowledgeable has the potential to be just as offensive as ignoring someone culture.
-Michael Ryan Fashana
Culture plays a very critical role in international negotiations. Varying nations cultural backgrounds will cause there to be vastly different negotiating practices throughout the parties. There are high context and low context cultures that place different value on human nature, the relationship of people and nature, person to person relationships, activity orientation, space orientation, and time orientation. Through seeing what is important to a country with their cultural context, the negotiators can find common standing points in which they can build on to achieve successful negotiations.
ReplyDeleteWhile cultural differences will play an important role in all international negotiations, I believe they will have more significance with bilateral negotiations, as opposed to multilateral. Multilateral negotiations will take significance off of the power differences between nations, seeing that there are more intricate relationships when taking all the parties into account. Bilateral negotiations place a heavy emphasis on cultural differences between the two participating parties. When there are only two nations every dimension within their cultures that do not align with the other will be seen as a glaring barrier.
With the first simulation there was room for cultural values to come through by providing the background relationships and practices of the fictional nations. It proved difficult for these to hold much consideration in the negotiating process, as they were not directly correlated with the final outcome.
Even though it is amusing how the video, "Going International" is apparently older than many of the students in this particular class, I feel like the information presented in it is still extremely relevant. Even though people of the 21st century, especially Americans, like to think that we are so very progresses and like to think that everyone around the world is similar, that after all we're all just people, the truth is that the world is made up of an endless amount of very different people from very different cultures. The video showed how just because one action is viewed one way in one culture it doesn't automatically translate the same to another culture. Even though people might not consciously think about it, one of the biggest things that makes us who we are is our culture. If someone intentionally or unintentionally offends our culture it is often very hard to get pass. In the scenarios showed in the video in the middle east, India, and England, the American business person offended the person from the host country's culture and that person found it very hard to work with the American after that. The first simulation also demonstrated how important a culture is to a nation. The issues that took the most time to discuss, the issues that turned into the most heated arguments were ones concerning culture.
ReplyDeleteI agree with most of what everybody else has said on this topic so far. The video was very dated, however the points it tries to make are timeless because Culture will always be a major factor when doing any type of work between two countries with their own distinct culture. American business people are taught to keep their eye on the prize and to make the best deal as fast as they can and as inexpensively they can. This often means you get one shot because your company might not want you to make multiple trips or stay more than a day or two because it would cost them a lot of money to send you. With that in mind i can see how our somewhat fast paced this is business not a social visit attitude can get us into trouble over seas. The other factor that was shown in the video that probably rings true still today is that Americans think they are better than other countries and that they don't have to submit to their customs but they should submit to ours. This probably makes the rest of the world see Americans as rude and lead to trade problems later on because they simply don't want to deal with people who won't take the time to learn their ways.
ReplyDelete