[Why can cultural stereotypes be dangerous? Give some examples.

]
Cultural stereotypes are generally incorrect, making reliance on them a
dangerous tactic. Negotiations occur between individuals, not their
stereotypes, and a proper understanding of cultural influence (rather than a
vague stereotype knowledge) is key to success. Cultural stereotypes pose
a danger to how a negotiator views the other party's offers. If a negotiator
relies on a stereotype that paints the other party as hard and shrewd in
bargaining, he will be very skeptical of any offers. If that stereotype is
incorrect (whether culturally or regarding the individuals negotiating), the
skeptical negotiator may well offend the other party, who was making a
true offer in good faith, and possibly lose the negotiations. A key aspect of
successful negotiation is preparedness. If a negotiator were to rely on
cultural stereotypes regarding Canadians as 1) a singular "Canadian"
group -- mixing French- and English-Canadians, and 2) painfully polite, he
would be caught off-guard by the French-Canadian's use of threats.
Preparing for the exceptionally kind negotiations that could be expected
from stereotypes would leave a negotiator in shock and without a plan
when the negotiations take a threatening turn.
Cultural stereotypes can also be dangerous when a negotiator lumps
several cultures into one idea and prepares on such a basis. For example,
Korea is often stereotyped in with other Asian cultures, which includes
"Asian" characteristics such as showing high respect and refraining from
commands. Were a negotiator to operate on this assumption, he would
find himself in trouble once he began negotiations with a Korean party.
Koreans tend to interrupt almost four times as much as the Japanese, and
iterate punishment statements (statements with consequences thought to
be unpleasant) five percent more than do the Japanese (**CITE from
textbook**). This stark contrast to Asian stereotypes would render the
negotiator's preparations useless and possibly leave him with the short end
of the stick once negotiations conclude. Cultural stereotypes are a risky
base for understanding another culture; conducting focused study into a
culture's history, speaking with peers who possess experience with the
culture, and evaluating the negotiating party's individuals are much better
methods for preparing for negotiations.
[Describe the kinds of problems that usually come up during international
business negotiations.]
The most obvious problems in international negotiations are due to
language-level differences and nonverbal behaviors. Problems with
language can be due to one party taking offense at the other party
speaking their native tongue and thus shutting out non-speakers.
Translation errors might cause issues, too. Nonverbal cues and habits also
differ from culture to culture, and problem-causing miscommunications

abound. Additional problems will often come up in international

negotiations that are caused by differences in thinking and decisionmaking processes. Cultures can differ with regard to how negotiations are
carried out -- some (many Westerners) prefer a sequential approach that
works each issue out to solution, then moves onto the next issue. Asian
approaches, on the other hand, lean toward approaches that mingle all the
issues together in discussion and then resolve them all nearly at once.
Such differences can translate into miscommunication of progress and
create intense problems.
Other problems that arise in international business negotiations can be
traced back to four values to which Americans hold fiercely. First,
Americans place heavy emphasis on objectivity -- separating out the
personalities and the problem in negotiations. Other cultures, especially
those with strong relationship foundations, find such a practice to be
problematic. In relationship-minded cultures the negotiators are personally
involved in the negotiation outcomes, making it nigh impossible to draw a
line between the substance and the people as the Americans will.
International negotiations between relationship cultures and objective
cultures can best be smoothed by both parties attempting to understand
the differences of the other regarding "bottom lines." The second and third
values of competitiveness and equality pose negotiation problems as well.
Americans consider the buyers to be equals, while other cultures split
profits in such a way that the buyer becomes the priority. This can create
challenges when buyers who are used to being the priority find themselves
brought back to the competitive equality level of Americans and other likeminded cultures. The fourth value, time, can create serious international
negotiation problems. Complications range from punctuality for meetings
(i.e. the differences in P-time and M-time cultures) to the overall time taken
to complete an agreement.Although it is virtually impossible to iron out
every wrinkle in international negotiation, the negotiating parties can
lessen the problems by fully researching the other culture(s) to learn as
much as possible before the negotiations take place.
[Describe three cultural differences in nonverbal behaviors, and explain
how they might cause problems in international business negotiations.]
One nonverbal behavior that differs across cultures is the use of silent
periods -- conversational gaps lasting ten or more seconds. Russia wields
this tactic proficiently, nearly thrice as much as Americans, Mexicans, and
Spaniards. Japanese and English-speaking Canadian negotiators also use
silent periods, but not as often as Russians (**CITE TEXTBOOK**). A
problem that arises between negotiating parties' use of silent periods is
information sharing. Cultures who rarely use silent periods fell pressured to
fill the space and later express feeling as though the opposing party

shared far less. Sentiments of unfairness caused by this nonverbal

behavior can multiply into serious negotiation challenges.
A second cultural difference regarding nonverbal behavior is
interrupting. Negotiators from cultures where interruptions are considered
rude can be offended by negotiators hailing from cultures in which
interruptions are normal conversational aspects. For example, an
American negotiator might have trouble with a negotiator from Spain. A
Spaniard's interruptions show genuine interest in the conversation, but this
is a direct opposite from interruptions in America, which convey blunt
disinterest in the person speaking and disrespect. The differing cultural
meanings behind conversational overlaps could be problematic in
negotiations without proper understanding of the other culture.
A third nonverbal cultural difference is that of touching outside of
handshakes. While many cultures refrain from any other touching,
Brazilian negotiators are quite aggressive and reflect such in repeatedly
touching the other negotiator's arm during talks. Such behavior can
translate as offensive to negotiators from cultures with large personal
"bubbles" where touching is uncommon. Conversely, Brazilian and likecultured negotiators could view negotiators who refrain from touching each
other on the arm, for example, as aloof or cold. Once again, study of the
other cultures can help keep differences from escalating into problems.
[What kinds of training would be most useful for international
business negotiators?]
Training in other cultures and their histories and business strategies is
incredibly useful. While language skills, diplomatic skills, and professionspecific knowledge are important, cross-cultural training cannot be
forgotten. Cultural training prepares negotiators to deal with aspect of
cultures and business practices that are vastly different from their own.
This enables to diagnose the problems as they arise, instead of stagnating
in shock or offense, and hopefully reduce their contributions to challenges.
Knowledge gained from training in cultures and foreign business strategies
additionally equips negotiators to appreciate and properly respond to
problems from a position of understanding.
As an example, in the late 1900s Volkswagen negotiated a joint-venture
agreement with China. The negotiations took six years in all, due in part to
the Chinese business practice noted by a Volkswagen negotiator of solving
problems step by step. Understanding this process enabled the
Volkswagen negotiators to respond with patience, instead of angrily setting
deadlines as they might have done if they had not been trained. The
Volkswagen negotiators also recognized the many questions from the
Chinese as true inquiries, not a manipulative tactic. Once again,

knowledge from training allowed a proper response that did not endanger
the negotiations.
[Name three aspects of negotiation that might be manipulated before talks
begin. Suggest how this manipulation might be done.]
There are several aspects of negotiation that may be manipulated
before negotiations even begin. One is the location. Location can be
manipulated into an equal playing ground by choosing a neutral meeting
place -- especially one with equal travel time and thus even amounts of jet
lag among negotiating parties. if this is not possible and the other party
maintains their home turf, a negotiator can attempt to gain some
advantage by choosing a specific location within the foreign country.
Depending on the time value of the other negotiators, amenities such as
golf or restaurant options might need to be considered in the location
manipulation. Heading up research and identifying ideal meeting places is
one way negotiators can control location.
A second manipulable aspect of negotiation is the physical
arrangements. Careful attention to how a room is set up is key when
dealing with high-context cultures. Evaluations of prior negotiations
involving the other party can reveal their expectations for arrangements
and help negotiators avoid offence and embarrassment. Manipulation of
physical arrangements can cross the line into unethical territory -purposefully situating the other negotiator's seat so that the sun will be in
his eyes, or intentionally choosing lower seats for the opposing negotiating
party to subtly display dominance. Negotiators looking for longer sessions
might appreciate cushioned chairs or even couches, while those focused
on speed would find such arrangements exasperating.
A third aspect is that of the number of participants. Individualistic
cultures may tend to send fewer negotiators, but the numbers should be
matched between negotiating parties. If talks are happening between
collectivist and individualist cultures, the individualistic negotiators must
manipulate the numbers until they can match the collectivists. For
example, preliminary talks to determine negotiator participation could be
set. Negotiators may also look into cultural norms for negotiations to find
clues as to how many negotiators to expect the other party to send.