Culturally Responsive Negotiation Strategies: Understanding the Impact of Culture on Negotiation

Culturally response negotiation strategy 1
Name:
Course:
Professors name:
Institution:

Culturally response negotiation strategy 2
Culturally response negotiation strategy
Article one
Yu, L. (2016, April 9, p 8). The Shaping of Chinese and American Negotiation Styles: A ...
Accessed on (17th September 2018) available at <http://sites.miis.edu/eappicc/2016/04/09/the-
shaping-of-chinese-and-american-negotiation-styles-a-perspective-of-hofstedes-six-dimension-
model/>
Negotiation is a dialogue carried out formally between two parties, trying to find a
solution. Negotiation is, to a large extent, influenced by culture. In this article, I will look at the
three most relevant and important cultural dimensions in Hofstede’s theory of cultural
dimensions. Which are power distance, individualism, and long-term orientation. Power distance
expresses the degree to which power is unequally distributed and members of a society who are
less powerful expect it and have accepted it. Long term orientation shows whether culture values
are pragmatic or normative. Individualism reflects how individual interests are prioritized in the
group.
From this article, I understand that Chinese society who have a relatively high score
power distance culture, firmly believes that power inequalities are acceptable among people
making the division and status between subordinates and supervisors as clear as day. This makes
it more likely for the Chinese side to choose a negotiating team and assign roles based on the
hierarchy already in place. As for the U.S side who have a low power distance score recognizes
the inequality in the team and they also know that the differences between American side and the
team members based on the hierarchy are bridgeable (Yu 2016, p 8). This also makes them

Culturally response negotiation strategy 3
appoint negotiators or even a leader in the negotiating team due to their ability to solve the
problem.
The culture of the Chinese pays more attention to long term benefits. On the other hand,
U.S focuses on the present moment and short-term interests. For instance, using the San Diego
zoo study, we can see that the zoo loaned pandas from China for a shorter time only to realize
later that the pandas made them lot money and that they would want them for a longer period but
China didn’t want the negotiation details to be rushed. Instead, China started with common value
discussion and general principles and then they would spend most of their time building
relations.
Finally, after an examination on individualism, I learned that China has a culture that
is highly collective where people show their loyalty to the group and act in the interest of the
group. They emphasize the goal of the group and appreciate “relational harmony.” Americans,
on the other hand, prioritize their personal interest in their groups’ interest. The individualistic
negotiators from the U.S prefer to handle divergences with the competitiveness that is rational
and pursue the self-interest while the Chinese would prefer to handle the conflict in ways that are
indirect so as to preserve relationships (Hall 2016, p3). Ultimately, l learned that China and U.S
are still growing accustomed to the negotiation style of each other. However, cultural differences
still largely influence the dynamics and the results of negotiation as seen in the San Diego case
study.