You are on page 1of 19

Question 1a

Multiparty negotiation is one in which more than two parties are working together to achieve
a collective objective (Lewicki, Barry, & Saunders, 2!!"# $ypically, it involves multiple
parties, each representing his or her own interests or that o% others# &n this sense, it makes
managing the negotiation di%%icult, as the parties will have to present individual views and
come to a collective agreement about the agenda discussed# Moreover, as more parties are
added, the comple'ities also increase e'ponentially# &n the subse(uent paragraphs, we shall
e'plore into the various comple'ities, with re%erence to the case scenario#
Informational and Computational Complexity
$here are ) parties involving in the negotiation# *iven this, more issues, perspectives on
issues as well as total in%ormation are likely to be introduced# +onse(uently, the negotiators
will have to %ormulate solutions that will %it into the e'isting parameters while integrating or
accommodating the various values, interests and perceptions# Below is a list o% issues that the
negotiators will have to address,
a# -ach individual.s interest and desired outcome/
b# $he purchase price/
c# +andidate selection %or representing the investor group as the group spokesperson
during M01 signing and other publicity events/
d# 2epresentatives selection to sit in the Board o% 3irectors o% the +hinese
manu%acturing company/ and
e# +andidate selection to be accorded the right to veto %urther e'pansion o% 4in5hang.s
business, i% it re(uires more %unds to be injected#
Social Complexity
6nother conse(uence o% an increase in the number o% parties in negotiation is a change in
the social environment from a one-on-one dialogue to a small-group discussion.
6ccordingly, the behaviours o% the negotiators will also be a%%ected by this change as they
tend towards the dynamics o% small groups# $his is re%lected in,
Motivational orientation o% the investors towards each other 7 parties with a
cooperative motivational orientation are more likely to attain %avourable outcomes
and are less likely to be involved in argumentation than individualistic ones# $his is
evident in the case between the M3 and the seller# $heir relationship is more
collaborative than con%rontational as both parties adopt a cooperative stance# &n the
end, the result tends to be %avourable %or both parties as they are able to attain the
desired outcome with minimal con%licts#
Social pressures associated with cohesions or con%licts among investors 8 where social
pressures may develop %or a particular sub8group to act cohesively, yet the members
are in con%lict and cannot be cohesive until an acceptable solution can be %ound# $his
is re%lected in the relationship between &nvestor 6 and + as they have been in business
together %or more than !9 years# 6s a result, they are likely to act in tandem as they
speak up %or each other in the group while rejecting others where output they deem to
be unacceptable#
Procedural Complexity
6side %rom the above, the process that parties have to %ollow in multiparty negotiations tends
to be more complicated than two8party ones# $his is because the procedures rules become
increasingly ambiguous as more parties are involved in the negotiation process# $ypically, the
challenges o% procedural comple'ities are,
3uration 8 :egotiations between parties tend to take longer# $his is particularly true in
the initial stage, especially when the negotiators have little knowledge o% each other
and when the level o% trust and rapport are also at their lowest#
&ncreased comple'ity and di%%iculties in process 7 6s negotiation process becomes
increasingly complicated, the parties may have to negotiate a new set o% procedure to
allow better coordination o% their actions# $his may occur between &nvestor 6 and +
as they combine to garner a larger stake o% the company to attain greater decision
making rights#
Strategic Complexity
Multiparty negotiations are strategically more comple' than the two7party ones# &ndeed,
strategic comple'ity increases signi%icantly as the number o% parties involved increases# $his
is because the negotiator will have to monitor the strategies o% the others and adjust his
actions accordingly# 6s a result, this can lead to several conse(uences#
Surveillance and 6udience 3ynamics 7 6ll e'changes are subjected to audience
surveillance# 6s a result, negotiators may %eel the need to adopt distributive strategies
and tactics to show their %irmness and resolve, even i% it is not their intention to do so#
-ventually, the negotiators may have to %ind satis%actory ways to e'plain their
modi%ied positions when the parties have become strongly positional# $his can be
done by means o% o%%ering compromises and consensus to their constituencies to
avoid jeopardising %urther negotiations#
1sing control to achieve objectives 7 negotiators who have some way to control the
number o% negotiators may begin to act strategically to achieve their objectives#
$ypically, they may engage additional parties to provide support or credence to their
positions# 6n e'ample o% this will be the use o% auditors or consultants who may be
present at the table to veri%y investment or %inancial related data# &n this manner, they
can either enhance their perceived power via sheer numbers or prestige o% the
supporters or to present some credible threats about the conse(uences i% they do not
manage to achieve the desired outcome#
+oalition Building 7 ;arties may engage in coalition building to gather support to
dominate the negotiation process or achieve the desired settlement# <rom the case, i%
the negotiator could garner support through %orming coalition with both &nvestor 6
and +, it will be considerably easier %or him to achieve certain desired outcome or
agenda#
2elationship Building 8 2elationship building presents the greatest bene%it %or all
parties since it is o%ten long term with elements o% trust and respect# =hile coalition
building stems mainly %rom business relationship, relationship building encompasses
various elements which o%ten will lead to a more constructive joint venture#
&n summary, multiparty negotiation is highly challenging given the varied background o%
each &nvestor# +onse(uently, it will re(uire a conscious commitment %rom the parties as they
work towards achieving a collective decision or consensus#
Question 1b
6ll success%ul negotiations would re(uire the parties to engage in care%ul planning and
preparatory work, particularly so in multi8partite negotiations# &n order to manage the
negotiation between the investors and >enry e%%ectively, we will need to %ormulate a plan that
will address the initial two key stages o% the multiparty negotiation, namely,
;re8negotiation stage
<ormal negotiation stage
Pre-negotiation stage
$his stage is characterised by a great deal o% in%ormal contact among the parties as they tend
to work on a number o% important issues (Lewicki, Barry, & Saunders, 2!!"# &t includes the
%ollowing elements,
(a" &denti%ying o% ;articipants and +oalitions 8 0ne o% the main issues in the pre8
negotiation stage includes identi%ying the participants to be present during the negotiation
with >enry# $his can be particularly challenging as all o% them, while o% varied background,
would probably want to have a voice in this joint venture# Since ?uniper holds the highest
stake in this joint venture, we would already have secured ourselves a place to the talks# =e
are especially wary o% &nvestors 6 and + as they have been in business together %or more than
!9 years# *iven this, it is apparent that they would have %ormed coalition among themselves
and in this sense, they might dominate the entire negotiation process since their combined
stake would have been @A, as compared to &nvestor B who will be holding 2A and
&nvestor 3 o% 9A# =hile &nvestor B may hold the highest individual stake, he has no
manu%acturing e'perience# >ence any suggestions proposed by him may not be well received
among all parties# 6dditionally, &nvestor 3 holds the lowest stake in this joint venture, he is
thus unlikely to cause any issues to the negotiation#
;rior to the negotiation, our %oremost priority to get everyone to come to an agreed position
on the various issues on the agenda to be discussed at the table# =hile a considerable amount
o% time may be spent, we will be able to identi%y those investors whose interest complements
our companyBs objective and interest as we also help to achieve theirs#
(b" 3e%ining *roup Member 2ole >aving understood our investors. pro%ile, we may
proceed to de%ine their individual roles at the table# &n this sense, our negotiating %ront will be
well rounded as each individual can help shape the negotiation to the desired outcome#
$ask roles 7 $his role is likely to be taken by the chairperson %rom our negotiation team as he
guides the group towards a decision or conclusion#
2elationship roles 7 $his role is best taken by &nvestor B as he is a well8respected
businessman and his views will still be taken seriously by group members despite him
lacking e'tensive manu%acturing e'perience# Moreover, his 2A stake in the joint venture
would have also accorded him to a certain e'tent some weights to in%luence decisions#
6nother suitable candidate well suited %or this role is the Managing 3irector# Simply, he
holds a large stake in the joint venture o% C9A and also, he is in good terms with the seller#
*iven this, he will be able to smoothen out any di%%erences between the parties towards
integrative gains#
Sel%8oriented roles 7 $hese roles are best played by both &nvestor 6 and + as they have been
in business together %or more than !9 years and tend to be more outspoken# &n this sense, they
are able to dominate the discussion, as they manipulate the group towards their pre%erred
outcome#
=e also see &nvestor 3 playing the sel%8orientated role in the joint venture negotiation# >e is
seemingly cautious over the investment amount# Moreover, given that it is his %irst overseas
investment, he is unlikely to remain side8lined i% things are progressing in a manner that is
going against his own interest#
(c" -stablishing o% &ssues and 6genda 7 $he ne't critical task in pre8negotiation stage is
to establish the issues and agenda %or the discussion# $hrough this process, the investment
group will be able to maintain %ocus on the issues to be discussed, their relative importance,
and also the smooth transition %rom one issue to another in the entire negotiating process as a
well8planned agenda would also include responses and decision rules to guide the negotiators
in the event o% stagnation at the table#
Formal Negotiation Stage
$he ne't stage o% the multiparty negotiation process is the %ormal negotiation stage, as it
involves managing the group process and outcome# &t also incorporates many commonly used
approaches on how to structure a group discussion so as to achieve optimal results# @ o% these
approaches will be discussed and they are as %ollows,
(a" 6ppoint an 6ppropriate +hair 7 Multiparty negotiations will progress smoothly when
all members at the table are clear o% the individual who will chair or %acilitate the process# &n
all likelihood, &nvestor 3 is identi%ied as the most appropriate candidate to be appointed the
chairperson# $his is due to the %ollowing reasons,
&nvestor 3 holds the lowest stake o% the joint venture and hence will be least a%%ected
in the speci%ic outcome
2elative to the rest o% the investors, he is seemingly more cautious about the
investment amount re(uired# Moreover, as this is his %irst overseas investment, we
have good reasons to believe that he will have a strong interest to ensure that the
group works towards achieving the best outcome#
(b" -nsure a 3iversity o% &n%ormation and ;erspectives 7 6nother way to %acilitate the
negotiation process is to provide investors with a range o% di%%erent perspectives and sources
o% in%ormation about the issues to be discussed# $his will ensure that all participants are well
e(uipped with a wide array o% related in%ormation so as to ensure that every issue on the
agenda may be thoroughly reviewed#
$o ensure diversity o% in%ormation and perspective, we need to gather as much in%ormation as
possible %rom the investors and >enry# $hrough this, we will be able to cover more angles,
and create more opportunities to integrate all parties. underlying interests#
(c" Manage +on%lict -%%ectively 7 +on%licts tend to occur while groups attempt to
generate as many ideas and approaches to a problem# *iven this, care should be taken to
ensure that they do not interrupt with the in%ormation %low or create personal enmity# <urther,
the approaches to dealing with con%licts are important# $his is because i% they are not resolved
duly, they may ultimately a%%ect the morale and coalition o% the entire negotiation team#
2e%erring to the case, all investors must understand that they should not attach any element o%
resentment %or any ideas and suggestions that are rejected by others# &n any case, the idea o%
re8visiting rejected ideas and proposals could possibly aid in lowering the level o% con%lict
among the parties# Similarly, the motivation and commitment to work together in
collaborative e%%ort to achieve a common goal must be inculcated into every participant in the
team# &n the end, both methods will help to reduce the likelihood o% internal con%licts#
&n spite o% the above suggestions, integrative negotiation is never easily achieved# Simply it
re(uires more e%%ort on the part the negotiators to make it work as they need to
conscientiously seek out each other.s priorities and help to satis%y them# Diewed in this light,
many would pre%er to adopt the distributive approach where it is less demanding#
:onetheless, we cannot deny the %act that the integrative approach is bene%icial over the
longer term and it dependent on both parties to %ind values in this approach and to start
adopting them#
Question 2a
<undamentally, in any integrative negotiation, the establishment o% the appropriate
environment and conte't is critical %or achieving integrative results# &ndeed, it is only a%ter
setting the right conte't, would we then manage the steps in the integrative negotiation
process#
$o create an environment conducive %or collaborative bargaining, we need to ensure that the
%our key conte'tual %actors are %ul%illed so as to allow parties to achieve optimal integrative
agreements#
Creating a Free Flo of Information
$he %irst %actor involves creating an environment that encourages e%%ective in%ormation
e'change, where all parties are %ree to discuss and debate on all related issues and concerns
that will ultimately allow them to develop good integrative solutions# $his may be achieved
through in%ormal gatherings, where the Managing 3irector and investors are gathered
together at a location o% casual setting %or meet8up sessions# $hese may be held in restaurants,
ca%es or pubs# 1ltimately, it is not about the venue, but rather it is about creating
opportunities to allow the parties to know and share their concerns# &ndeed, when the parties
are more rela'ed in such casual settings, they tend to be more receptive towards sharing their
views on matters concerning the joint venture# Sensitive issues like the purchase price and the
candidates to be chosen %or the various positions will be better resolved and they are better
able to discuss an agreed position to negotiate with >enry#
!ttempting to "nderstand t#e $t#er Negotiator%s &eal Needs and $b'ecti(es
6s negotiators di%%er in their views, pre%erences, thoughts as well as behaviours, all parties
should attempt to understand the other.s needs be%ore helping to %ul%il them# =hen the parties
are aware that the other.s priorities di%%er %rom their own, this can stimulate them to engage in
in%ormation e'changing to understand each other better so as to achieve better joint gains#
$hroughout the process o% e'changing in%ormation, all parties must conscientiously try to
%ully understand the other.s real needs and objectives such that a truly integrative agreement
may be achieved#
&n this regard, the Managing 3irector should be %orthright in his discussion with the %our
investors on the various issues in the agenda# $hroughout the meeting, he may attempt to lend
his suggestions to the investors/ on what could be a good purchase price or who would make
the better candidate %or any o% the appointments# :onetheless, he should also encourage
%eedback %rom the investors, as he makes a true e%%ort to understand what the latter is really
trying to achieve# $he same goes %or the &nvestors, as they should also try to %ully understand
each other.s priorities# Such active in%ormation e'change can %acilitate integrative
agreements, as they actively seek to satis%y the other.s priorities#
)mp#asising t#e Commonalities beteen t#e Parties and *inimising t#e +ifferences
&ndividual goals may need to be re%ined through collaborative e%%orts directed towards a
collective goal (Lewicki, Barry, & Saunders, 2!!"# $his is because o%ten, the parties lose
sight o% the larger goal, and it is only through constant emphasising on this larger goal that
the parties are able to %ocus on the commonalities that eventually lead them to the solution#
$he Managing 3irector should constantly remind the %our &nvestors o% the need to %ocus on
the larger goal %or the joint venture, which is to pro%it %rom the investment# $his is to ensure
that the latter is not overly indulged in trying to achieve the smaller goals, such as vying %or
the position as the group spokesperson %or the M01 signing and other publicity events, or the
two representatives to sit on Board o% 3irectors o% the +hinese manu%acturing company, and
in doing so, lose sight o% the larger one#
Searc#ing For Solutions ,#at *eet t#e Needs and $b'ecti(es of -ot# Sides
-ventually, the success o% interactive negotiations hinges on the seeking out resolutions that
meet the needs and objectives o% both parties (Lewicki, Barry, & Saunders, 2!!"# &n this
regard, both parties must realise that besides trying to %ul%il individual priorities, they must
also be mind%ul o% the other.s needs and objectives and to search %or solutions that satis%y
both sides# 1ltimately, the aim is not merely to satis%y one.s needs, but to get both parties to
collaborate and work towards achieving collective goals# $o achieve this, the negotiators will
have to be unyielding on the primary interests and needs, but %le'ible about how to go about
achieving it during the process o% negotiation#
&n summary, integrative negotiation will re(uire a process that is essentially di%%erent %rom
that o% distributive bargaining# :egotiators must try to probe beyond the sur%ace o% the other.s
position to uncover their underlying priorities# <inally there must a %ree and open
conversation between the negotiators as they use their desires to satis%y both sides as a guide
to structure their dialogue# &% the negotiators do not have this mindset, integrative negotiation
cannot occur#
Question 2b
By power, we mean Ethe ability o% people to bring about outcomes they desireE or Ethe ability
to get things done the way they want them to be done (Lewicki, Barry, & Saunders, 2!!"#
<or our Managing 3irector, he possesses 2 major sources o% power, namely,
2e%erent ;ower/ and
Legitimate ;ower#
2e%erent ;ower is derived %rom the respect or admiration one commands because o% attributes
like personality, integrity, interpersonal style and the like (Lewicki, Barry, & Saunders, 2!!"#
$his source o% power is essentially relationship8based and is positive in this scenario#
0%ten, high prestige persons are better accepted that those assigned to low prestige roles# 0ur
M3 has been in the investment circle %or 2 years# :aturally, he would have a high degree o%
re%erent power and tends to be better liked by others around him# $his is evident in the
manner e'pressed in >enry.s attitude towards the M3# &ndeed, the %ormer would always
respond very %avourably towards the latter, a huge contrast in the manner he treats the rest o%
the &nvestors# *iven this, it is thus unsurprising that the M3 is unable to empathise with his
subordinates on the amount o% stress that they are going through#
6nother indicator o% the M3.s high degree o% re%erent power is his ability to attract &nvestor
B, who is himsel% a well8respected businessman but with no prior manu%acturing e'perience,
to invest in the joint venture# &n %act, the latter.s willingness to hold a 2A stake in the joint
venture clearly re%lects his con%idence %or the M3# 6side %rom &nvestor B, the other &nvestors
too are probably lured by the M3.s re%erent power# <rom &nvestor 6 and +.s willingness to
invest substantive amount o% !9A each to the joint venture, to &nvestor 3 who has chosen to
invest with ?uniper on his %irst overseas investment/ all these are positive indicators o% the
amount o% con%idence they have %or the M3#
Legitimate ;ower is derived %rom holding an o%%ice or %ormal title in some organisation and
using the powers that are associated with that (Lewicki, Barry, & Saunders, 2!!"# $his
source o% power is essentially position8based and is linked to the authority vested in the
individual#
<rom the case, ?uniper is the largest shareholder with a C9A stake in total investment o% the
joint venture# +onse(uently, the M3 will thus be vested the legitimate right to re(uire and
demand compliance as it stems %rom his %ormal authority over activities# 6lso, unless stated
otherwise, he will be the de %acto group spokesperson to represent the &nvestor group during
the M01 signing and other publicity events# <urther, he is able to e'ert his in%luence over the
rest in any negotiations# Simply, i% issues do not present in ways that he e'pects them to be,
he can e'ert his in%luence to get them going his way, albeit grudgingly#
&n summary, our M3 enjoys both re%erent and legitimate power in this joint venture, in part
due to his e'perience and in part due to his position in the company# >owever, while he
generally has the authority to demand compliance %rom his sta%%, he must, as %ar as possible,
try to do so in a way that is perceived to be %air and respect%ul, and this o%ten would involve
the use o% re%erent power# So, while the position itsel% is able to grant him some legitimate
power, e'ercising it e'clusively is unlikely to be bene%icial over time#
Question .
$he culture8as8shared8value approach %ocuses on understanding the in%luence o% cultural
tendencies have on negotiations within that culture# &n this aspect, ;ro%essor *eert >o%stede,
a 3utch social psychologist who is well known %or his development o% the cultural
dimensions theory, suggests that the %undamental cultural di%%erences among countries can be
described in %our dimensions, individualismFcollectivism, power distance, career
successF(uality o% li%e, and uncertainty avoidance#
Indi(idualism/Collecti(ism
Figure 3.1 - Individualism Scores (The Hofstede entre! "#1$%
$his dimension describes the e&tent to 'hich a societ( is organised around individuals or
the group (Lewicki, Barry, & Saunders, 2!!"# 6ccordingly, 1nited States ranks highest in
this category, making it the most individualistic country out o% the C countries in study# &n
terms o% negotiations, the 6mericans are less likely to %ocus on building deep relationships as
they ascribe greater importance to competency than relationship when choosing a negotiator#
*iven this, they are more inclined to switch negotiators, using whatever short8term criteria
where appropriate# Both &ndonesia and +hina, on the other hand, score low on this dimension#
&n this regard, personal relationships are prioritised over task and company, as they are likely
to act in the interests o% the group with closer in8groups o%ten getting pre%erential treatment#
>o%stede suggests that countries high in collectivist culture are more likely to cultivate and
sustain long8term relationships, as contrast to countries that are highly individualistic#
Poer +istance
Figure 3." - )o'er *istance Scores (The Hofstede entre! "#1$%
$his dimension describes the e&tent to 'hich the less po'erful mem+ers of institutions and
organisations 'ithin a countr( e&pect and accept that po'er is distri+uted une,uall( ($he
>o%stede +entre, 2!2"# +hina sits in the highest ranking o% ;ower 3istance, %ollowed by
&ndonesia which also scores high on this dimension# $ypically, countries with greater power
distance believe that ine(ualities amongst people are acceptable# $he subordinate8superior
relationship tends towards a more autocratic style which emphasises greatly on the top down
approach and all important decisions are taken at the top level# +onse(uently, the negotiation
process would be slower %or these countries, as negotiators would %re(uently need to seek
consensus %rom their superiors on the various issues discussed# +ontrarily, the 6mericans and
*ermans score low on power distance, resulting in greater autonomy and independence being
accorded to the negotiators in the decision making process across organisations# >ence, the
duration o% negotiation is greatly shortened as a result#
Career Success/Quality of 0ife
Figure 3.3 - -asculinit( Scores (The Hofstede entre! "#1$%
+ultures! as discovered by >o%stede! di%%er in value to the degree in which the parties attach
greater importance to career success over (uality o% li%e# 6 high score (masculine" on this
dimension re%lects a society that is driven by competition, attainment and success#
+onversely, a low score (%eminine" would mean that the dominating societal values are
towards relationships building and nurturing# 1ltimately, the underlying issue is the societal
motivation that drives people, through material success or (uality o% li%e# 1nited States,
*ermany and +hina all score high on the masculinity scale# &t essentially means that these
countries are highly geared towards achievements in li%e and material gain# Surprisingly,
&ndonesia scores remarkably low on this dimension, a re%lection o% its people perceiving
(uality o% li%e as the sign o% success and being outstanding is not admirable# &n the conte't o%
cross8cultural negotiation, countries i#e# 1nited States, *ermany and +hina that are high on
masculinity will tend to take a more distributive approach when it comes to negotiating#
&ndonesia, in contrast, is likely to assume a more collaborative stance as it tends to empathise
with the other party and is more likely to seek win8win situations#
"ncertainty !(oidance
Figure 3.$ - .ncertaint( /voidance Scores (The Hofstede entre! "#1$%
$he dimension 1ncertainty 6voidance deals with the way that society handles unstructured
situations# &t indicates the e'tent to which members o% the society %eel threatened by
ambiguous or unusual circumstances and tries to minimise uncertainties# 1nited States, +hina
and &ndonesia are low in uncertainty avoidance# 6s a result, they tend to be more receptive
and tolerant towards uncertainties, and are more able to adjust swi%tly to rapidly changing
circumstances# +onversely, *ermany is among one o% the countries high in uncertainty
avoidance# <or this reason, its people are tend to avoid unstructured situations, and would
seek stable rules and procedures wherever possible# &n negotiating situations, 1nited States,
+hina and &ndonesia are less uncom%ortable when %acing situations that are highly dynamic
with the rules o% negotiation that are unclear and shi%ting# $he opposite is true %or *ermany,
as it people would pre%er to negotiate in a stable and secure environment#
=hile most %indings imply positive connotations to making adjustments to the negotiation
strategies to suit the e%%ects o% cultural di%%erences between di%%erent nations, it simply is not
advisable %or one party to make large modi%ications to hisFher approach when negotiating
cross8culturally# $his is because there are signi%icant risks involved when parties engage
themselves to being too culturally responsive to such characteristics# $wo o% such risks are,
Negotiators *ay Not -e !ble ,o *odify ,#eir !pproac# )ffecti(ely
Simply, it re(uires an e'tended period be%ore one can %ully understand another.s culture and
negotiators typically do not have the time to deeply understand the other parties. prior to any
negotiation# =hile it is clearly more advantageous %or the parties to have at least a little
understanding o% the other.s culture, it may not su%%icient %or them to carry out e%%ective
modi%ications to their negotiation strategies#
People Negotiate *ore Naturally 1#en ,#ey !re 1it# ,#eir $n 2ind
2esearch has shown that people tend to negotiate di%%erently when they are with people who
share similar culture than those %rom di%%erent cultural backgrounds# Diewed in this light,
having deep understanding o% another.s culture may not be as bene%icial in the negotiation
process# 6s a case in point, having in depth understanding o% how +osta 2icans negotiate
with each other may not bene%it an 6merican trying to negotiate with the %ormer#
$o mitigate the above risks, negotiators may wish to adapt their negotiation strategies based
on the level o% %amiliarity they have on the other parties. culture#
-mploy 6gents or 6dvisers (1nilateral Strategy" 7 $he negotiators who have little knowledge
o% the other party.s culture may wish to hire an agent or adviser who will serve to guide them,
si5e up the situation, coach them as needed, and even interject i% heFshe %eels the negotiators
have made an error or misinterpretation# =hile they may pose other issues, they are actually
(uite use%ul when negotiators lack in%ormation o% the other party.s culture and do not have
su%%icient time to prepare#
Bring in a Mediator (?oint Strategy" 7 $he negotiators may engage the help o% a mediator to
bridge the cultural gaps between both parties, as they help manage the entire negotiation
process# $ypically, interpreters will assume this role, providing both parties with more
in%ormation during negotiations#
&n summary, although various %indings somewhat endorse certain national stereotypes, it
would be erroneous to assume that group tendencies can reliably %oretell the other parties.
behaviour# =hat is important is that cultural di%%erences in negotiation do not solely depend
on a negotiator.s country o% birth# 2ather, they rely on what heFshe actually does during the
negotiation process# &n other words, the ability to engage in constructive communication
between parties matters much more than a negotiator.s passport#
1or3s Cited
!# >o%stede, *# (2!C, March !"# 0eert 1 0ert 2an Hofstede# 2etrieved March !, 2!C,
%rom *eert & *ert ?an >o%stede, http,FFgeertho%stede#nlFinde'
2# Lewicki, 2#, Barry, B#, & Saunders, 3# (2!!"# 3ssentials of 4egotiation! fifth edition.
Singapore, Mc*raw8>ill -ducation#
@# $he >o%stede +entre# (2!2, <ebruary 2G"# The Hofstede entre# 2etrieved March @,
2!C, %rom $he >o%stede +entre, http,FFgeert8ho%stede#comFinde'#php