【经济类文献翻译】国际商务谈判

【经济类文献翻译】国际商务谈判

外文文献翻译

International Business Negotiations

Pervez Ghauri & Jean-Claude Usunier

When two people communicate, they rarely talk about

precisely the same subject, for effective meaning is flavored by

each person’s own cognitive world and cultural conditioning.

Negotiation is the process by which at least two parties try to

reach an agreement on matters of mutual interest. The

negotiation process proceeds as an interplay of perception,

information processing, and reaction, all of which turn on images

of reality (accurate or not), on implicit assumptions regarding the

issue being negotiated, and on an underlying matrix of

conventional wisdom, beliefs, and social expectations.

Negotiations involve two dimensions: a matter of substance and

the process. The latter is rarely a matter of relevance when

negotiations are conducted within the same cultural setting. Only

when dealing with someone from another country with a

different cultural background does process usually become a

critical barrier to substance; in such settings process first needs

to be established before substantive negotiations can commence.

This becomes more apparent when the negotiation process is

international, when cultural differences must be bridged.

When negotiating internationally, this translates into

anticipating culturally related ideas that are most likely to be

understood by a person of a given culture. Discussions are

frequently impeded because the two sides seem to be pursuing

different paths of logic; in any cross cultural context, the potential

for misunderstanding and talking past each other is great.

Negotiating internationally almost certainly means having to

cope with new and inconsistent information, usually

accompanied by new behavior, social environments, and even

sights and smells. The greater the cultural differences, the more

likely barriers to communication and misunderstandings become.

When one takes the seemingly simple process of negotiations

into a cross-cultural context, it becomes even more complex and

complications tend to grow exponentially. It is naive indeed to

venture into international negotiation with the belief that “after

all, people are pretty much alike everywhere and behave much

as we do.” Even if they wear the same clothes you do, speak

English as well as (or even better than) you, and prefer many of

the comforts and attributes of American life (food, hotels, sports),

it would be foolish to view a

member of another culture as a brother in spirit. That

negotiation style you use so effectively at home can be

ineffective and inappropriate when dealing with people from

another cultural background; in fact its use can often result in

more harm than gain. Heightened sensitivity, more attention to

detail, and perhaps even changes in basic behavioral patterns are

required when working in another culture.

Members of one culture may focus on different aspects of an

agreement (e.g., legal, financial) than may members of another

culture (personal, relationships). The implementation of a

business agreement may be stressed in one culture, while the

range and prevention of practical problems may be emphasized

in another culture. In some cultures, the attention of people is

directed more toward the specific details of the agreement

(documenting the agreement), while other cultures may focus on

how the promises can be kept (process and implementation).

Americans negotiate a contract; the Japanese negotiate a

personal relationship. Culture forces people to view and value

differently the many social interactions inherent in fashioning any

agreement. Negotiations can easily break down because of a lack

of understanding of the cultural component of the negotiation

process. Negotiators who take the time to understand the

approach that the other parties are likely to use and to adapt

their own styles to that one are likely to be more effective

negotiators.

American and Russian people are not similar; their ethical

attitudes do not coincide: they evaluate behavior differently.

What an American may consider normative, positive behavior

(negotiating and reaching a compromise with an enemy), a

Russian perceives as showing cowardice, weakness, and

unworthiness; the word “deal”has a strong negative

connotation, even today in contemporary Russia. Similarly, for

Russians, compromise has negative connotation; principles are

supposed to be inviolable and compromise is a matter of

integrity (The Russians are not alone here: a Mexican will not

compromise as a matter of honor, dignity, and integrity; likewise,

an Arab fears loss of manliness if he compromises.) A negotiation

is treated as a whole without concessions. At the Strategic Arms

Limitation Talks (SALT) talks, the Americans thought they had an

agreement (meaning conclusive commitment), while the

Russians said it was an understanding (meaning an expression of

mutual viewpoint or attitude). When the Americans thought they

had an understanding, the Russians said it was a procedural

matter, meaning they had agreed to a process for conducting the

negotiation. Different cultural systems can produce divergent

negotiating styles--styles shaped by each nation’s culture,

geography, history, and political system. Unless you see the

world through the other’s eyes (no

matter how similar they appear to you), you may not be

seeing or hearing the same. No one can usually avoid bringing

along his or her own cultural assumptions, images, and

prejudices or other attitudinal baggage into any negotiating

situation. The way one succeeds in cross cultural negotiations is

by fully understanding others, using that understanding to

one’s own advantage to realize what each party wants from the

negotiations, and to turn the negotiations into a win-win

situation for both sides. A few potential problems often

encountered during a cross-cultural negotiation include ( Frank,

1992):

Insufficient understanding of different ways of thinking.

Insufficient attention to the necessity to save face.

Insufficient knowledge of the host country--including history,

culture, government, status of business, image of foreigners.

Insufficient recognition of political or other criteria.

Insufficient recognition of the decision-making process.

Insufficient understanding of the role of personal relations

and personalities.

Insufficient allocation of time for negotiations.

Over two-thirds of U.S.-Japanese negotiation efforts fail even

though both sides want to reach a successful business agreement

(The U.S. Department of Commerce is even more pessimistic; it

estimates that for every successful American negotiation with the

Japanese, there are twenty-five failures.) In fact, these numbers

hold true for most cross-cultural meetings. Often barriers to a

successful agreement are of a cultural nature rather than of an

economical or legal nature. Since each side perceives the other

from its own ethnocentric background and experience, often

neither side fully comprehends why the negotiations failed. It is

precisely this lack of knowledge concerning the culture and the

“alien” and “unnatural” expectations of the other side that

hinders effective negotiation with those from another culture.

In cross-cultural negotiations, many of the rules taught and

used domestically may not apply--especially when they may not

be culturally acceptable to the other party. For most Western

negotiators this includes the concepts of give and take, of

bargaining, and even of compromise. The stereotypical, common

Western ideal of a persuasive communicator--highly skilled in

debate, able to overcome objections with verbal flair, an

energetic extrovert--may be regarded by members of other

cultures as unnecessarily aggressive, superficial, insincere, even

vulgar and repressive. To other Americans, the valued American

traits of directness and frankness show evidence of good

intentions and personal convictions. To an American it is

complimentary to be

called straightforward and aggressive. This is not necessarily

so, however, for members of other cultures. To describe a person

as “aggressive”is a derogatory characterization to a British

citizen. To the Japanese, those very same traits indicate lack of

confidence in one’s convictions and insincerity. Instead, terms

such as thoughtful, cooperative, considerate, and respectful

instill positives in the Japanese and many Asian cultures.

Domestically, the study of negotiation tends to encompass

business relationships between parties, tactics, bargaining

strategies, contingency positions, and so on. However, in a cross-cultural context, besides the usual rules of negotiation, one has

to be wary of fine nuances in relationships and practices and how

they are perceived and executed by members of the other culture.

The two business negotiators are separated from each other not

only by physical features, a totally different language, and

business etiquette, but also by a different way to perceive the

world, to define business goals, to express thinking and feeling,

to show or hide motivation and interests. From the other party’s

perspective, for example, to some cultures Americans may

appear aggressive and rude, while to others, those very same

Americans appear calm and uninterested.

1 The Art of Negotiations

The word “negotiations”stems from the Roman word

negotiari meaning “to carry on business” and is derived from

the Latin root words neg (not) and otium (ease or leisure).

Obviously it was as true for the ancient Romans as it is for most

businesspersons of today that negotiations and business

involves hard work. A modern definition of negotiation is two or

more parties with common (and conflicting) interests who enter

into a process of interaction with the goal of reaching an

agreement (preferably of mutual benefit). John Kenneth

Galbraith said “Sex apart, negotiation is the most common and

problematic involvement of one person with another, and the

two activities are not unrelated.” Negotiations are a decision-making process that provides opportunities for the parties to

exchange commitments or promises through which they will

resolve their disagreements and reach a settlement.

A negotiation is two or more parties striving to agree when

their objectives do not coincide.

Negotiation consists of two distinct processes: creating value

and claiming value. Creating value is a cooperative process

whereby the parties in the negotiation seek to realize the full

potential benefit of the relationship. Claiming value is essentially

a competitive process. The key to creating value is finding

interests that the parties have

in common or that complement each other, then reconciling

and expanding upon these interests to create a win-win situation.

Parties at the negotiating table are interdependent. Their goals

are locked together. A seller cannot exist without a buyer. The

purpose of a negotiation is a joint decision-making process

through which the parties create a mutually acceptable

settlement. The objective is to pursue a win-win situation for

both parties.

Negotiations take place within the context of the four Cs:

common interest, conflicting interests, compromise, and criteria

(Moran and Stripp, 1991). Common interest considers the fact

that each party in the negotiation shares, has, or wants

something that the other party has or does. Without a common

goal, there would be no need for negotiation. Conflict occurs

when people have separate but conflicting interests. Areas of

conflicting interests could include payment, distribution, profits,

contractual responsibilities, and quality. Compromise involves

resolving areas of disagreement. Although a win-win negotiated

settlement would be best for both parties, the compromises that

are negotiated may not produce the result. The criteria include

the conditions under which the negotiations take place. The

negotiation process has few rules of procedure. Rules of

procedure are as much a product of negotiation as the issues.

Over time, the four Cs change and the information, know-how,

and alternatives available to the negotiating international

company and the host country also change, resulting in a fresh

interpretation of the four Cs, the environment, and the

perspective. In essence, negotiation takes place within the

context of the political, economic, social, and cultural systems of

a country. The theory of the negotiation process includes the

following dimensions: (1) bargainer characteristics, (2) situational

constraints, (3) the process of bargaining, and (4) negotiation

outcomes. This theory is based on actors who share certain

values and beliefs based on their culture. These actors function

in business and economic situations that also have cultural

influences, and they act in certain culturally inscribed ways. We

bargain when:

1. A conflict of interest exists between two or more parties;

that is, what is, what

one wants is not necessarily what the other one wants.

2. A fixed or set of rules or procedures for resolving the

conflict does not exist,

or the parties prefer to work outside of a set of rules to invent

their own solution to the conflict.