In international negotiation, cultural preparation to understand different worlds is central to successful strategy and tactics. Many questions come to mind in business negotiation across cultures. Some of them include: Is your counterpart persuaded by logic or force of personality? Is price the key issue, or is there a broader more long-term view? Are they more likely to paint a rosy picture of the deal, and expect you to do so, or do they prefer to err on the side of caution, even pessimism? What is their reaction to concessions? How do they see you, and how do your assumptions color your view of them? What is their notion of truth? Of ethics? And, most important of all, what builds trust in their eyes – the glue without which any negotiation is truly going to succeed?

Lustig (2010) makes a comparative approach of negotiation dimensions in Finland, India, Mexico, Turkey and the United States. The essential criteria in negotiation dimensions are having a goal, contract or relationship; attitudes of win lose or win-win personal style: informal or formal; communication: direct or indirect, time sensitivity: high or low; team organization; leadership style of decision making by one leader or consensus and risk taking: high or low. Specific cultural examples are: Fins are direct and begin business right away, without small talk. They use objective facts rather than subjective feelings and are serious and reserved. The leadership style indicates individuals are responsible for decision making.

In India business is personal. Negotiations follow formal procedures, but the atmosphere is friendly and relaxed. Indians conduct businesses at a leisurely pace. "Time is money" is an alien concept. In terms of emotionalism, facts to Indians are less persuasive than feelings and decisions are made at the top. Mexicans seek long term relationships with a win-win attitude. They follow established etiquette. In negotiations, Mexicans may seem indirect and avoid saying "no". The business atmosphere is easy and going with emotional argument is more effective than logic. Authority for Mexicans is vested at the top with a preference for consensus. They avoid risk implications for managers and negotiators.

In Turkey, relationships are established before negotiating and politeness is important. Turks show emotion and feelings carry more weight than objective facts. In the United States, rapport is established quickly then a move to negotiating. Americans look for mutual gains whenever possible. Lustig (2010) further adds that Americans do not like formality or rituals in business interactions and are direct and to the point. Subjective feelings are not considered "facts". Points are made by accumulating facts and individuals with relevant knowledge and skills make decisions.

Considering all the potential problems in cross-cultural negotiations, particularly when you mix managers from relationship-oriented cultures with those from information-oriented ones, it is a wonder that any international business gets done at all. Obviously, the economic imperatives of global trade make much of it happen despite the potential pitfalls. But an appreciation of cultural differences can lead to even better international commercial transactions—it is not just business deals but creative and highly profitable business relationships that are the real goal of international business negotiations. Greater understanding of the cultural implications of negotiating across cultures includes; the ability to adapt your existing negotiation skills for an international context, awareness of the linguistic challenges using your negotiation skills internationally and practical strategies for preparing for and achieving successful negotiations across cultures.

Reference:

Lustig, M.W. and Koester, J. (2010). Intercultural Competence: Interpersonal Communication across Cultures, 6th ed. New York: Allyn and Bacon.