The peculiarities of negotiations with the representatives of northeast asian countries

Since today (as, however, in majority of human history) decisions and choices in the international political and commercial relations depend on cultural orientation and values of their members, it is vital to get the basics of understanding the world from different national cultures. Based on certain cultural denominators, it is possible to identify certain behavioral models of the representatives from the East and the West.

Based on a broad theoretical material, this review is a comparative analysis of some key elements of the specifi cs of international negotiations of the Western and Eastern participants.

Empirical studies, dedicated to the systematic analysis of cultural variations in a number of countries, were often not suffi cient. The most serious work, highlighting 12 trends of negotiations was conducted by Weiss and Stripp. [1] The authors of the study set out to create for both theoreticians and practitioners a frame formed by culture of differences in logic, behavior and strategies of the participants of negotiations.

From previous studies four criteria have become canonical, namely, the basic concept of negotiations, the most important task, the basis of trust and consent form.

The basic concept of negotiations means that each party sees the negotiation process. Walton and McKersie in 1965 suggested bipolar scale in orientation of negotiations: it is either distributive or integrative. [2] The fi rst suggests that a benefi t of an agreement is similar to a cake which size does not change. It makes the parties to compete for a share of the pie. Integrative orientation believes that the size of the pie is not defi ned, so the parties are involved in a collaborative process to enlarge them, and in the process of competing for their share.

Proponents of the fi rst orientation, of course, try to dominate the negotiations, as they believe that the interests of the parties are opposed. The result is the admissibility of pressures, threats or false promises in order to force opponents to change their position without changing their own. The situation creates a tough atmosphere, one side has to concede.

Integrative orientation is based on the belief that during the negotiations it is possible to come to a mutually acceptable solution. As a result, the participants of negotiations openly share information in order to fi nd an approach that will lead to mutual benefi t. Sides try to understand each other better, so do not contravene the interests of the other party. They yield less important points to win the more important ones. Negotiators do not come to an agreement through compromise, but through creative solutions that will increase the size of benefi t for everybody.

The second criterion, the most important task, refers to the types of issues for discussion of which negotiators are willing to spend more time. Pinkley in his work «Dimensions of Confl ict Frame: Disputants’ Interpretations of Confl ict» offers a dilemma between the importance of solving the problem and the importance of long-term relationships. [3] Choosing the fi rst way, a side focuses on a detailed analysis of the project and methodically discusses future contract paragraph by paragraph. In this case it is important to reach an agreement on each element of the project: resource allocation, delivery methods, force majeure, risk management, management, etc.

Negotiators, representing the country in which construction of a foundation for long-term relationship is considered more important, spend most of their time to create an atmosphere of friendship and trust between the parties, as well as a discussion of possible future projects. Solution of current problem is harmoniously woven into a discussion of broader scale issues. Establishing trust is the guarantor of confl ict-free project implementation.

The third criterion is a foundation of trust. It is classifi ed into two types: an external to the negotiators and an internal one. The fi rst establishes the credibility to the other side on the fact that the agreement (or contract) was negotiated, agreed, signed and entered into force. [4] The legal system and government agencies are considered as providing relevant, reliable and effective basis for agreements and contracts. Partner will comply with the terms of the contract, because otherwise the legal system imposes its sanctions on him. In this context, a trustworthy partner is simply one who acts within the law.

Inner foundation of trust bases trust on correctly and safely constructed relations, which have stood the test of time. Here friendship is important. Agreement or contract is only a symbolic expression of these links. Consequently, less attention is given to details of a written document. Negotiators leave some details unprescribed in order to change them with circumstances changing.

The fourth criterion, a form of agreement, also has two options: a legally executed contract and a verbal agreement. In the fi rst case, a document signed by both parties clearly defi nes all subsequent actions of partners, as well as sanctions for noncompliance with its obligations. [5], [6].

Negotiators rely on verbal agreements because detailed document does not allow relationships to develop. It is impossible to foresee and anticipate all possible accidents and perspectives that this randomness opens. In this case, the parties prefer a verbal agreement not to shirk responsibility, but because not the current document, but relationship is the subject of paramount importance. [7]

Today the world is divided by international affairs experts into several cultural axes, circles or “clusters”. One of these “cluster” is Northeast Asia, mainly, such countries as China, Japan and South Korea. Their specific negotiating style clearly emerges in negotiations with the Western European countries and the USA. It is necessary to consider the characteristics of the negotiation process in these countries individually, and then make theoretical generalizations.

China

Fundamental characteristic of Chinese negotiators is an attempt to highlight from the other side people, sympathetic to their purposes, cultivating with them a sense of solidarity and friendship, pursue their goals through a variety of strategies based on the manipulation of feelings of mutual sympathy, obligation or guilt. Along with that the Chinese may tirelessly seek ways to take decisions favorable to them, exhausting their opponents. Negotiation for them is a continuous bargaining, which, according to experienced negotiators, seems to have no end. Fortunately, all talks are limited in time, and when they come to an end and it is necessary to take a specifi c decision, the Chinese representatives make concessions. It should be noted that at the beginning of negotiations the Chinese side formulates their demands in an extremely abstract form, “probing the soil.” Only towards the end their terms and agreements become specifi c and clear — ready to be signed in the fi nal document. However, negotiations on this do not end for the Chinese, as they now impose on the next phase of negotiations under the auspices of the implementation of the decision taken.

The aggressive Chinese negotiating tactics reminds the Soviet tactics of former times. However, it is different from the latter, it is fl exible and specifi c, rather than broad wording of the fi nal decision. Soviet leaders perceived any important international negotiations within the framework of ideological confrontation of “Cold War”. Insuffi - ciently specifi c wording allowed the Soviet leaders to treat them in the most convenient way.

Returning to China, it should be noted that the Chinese representatives, demonstrating traditional Asian hospitality, start their acquaintance with the opposite side with a banquet on the occasion of their arrival and a brief tour that demonstrates the greatness of the country — to the Great Wall and the Forbidden City. Pride and hospitality of this gesture allow seeing a clear strategy — to show visitors not only a long and glorious history of the country, but also to demonstrate its potential.

For the Chinese a policy is associated not with a political institution, which created it, but with a leader, who represents it. Therefore, disagreement and division in the ranks of their opponents puts them in a deadlock. And so they make every effort to show unity in their ranks. So it would be a gross mistake and a big faux pas to touch on so- called “cultural revolution”. The Chinese create an impenetrable veil that hides their political strategy from all, who wants to see. The only thing that is certain is that the more rigid and irrational China’s position, the less agreement between the factions in the government takes place.

Despite this, Chinese offi cials are highly disciplined when it comes to defending the interests of their country. Another of their national characteristics is the inability or unwillingness to negotiate by an impersonal pattern. If the opposite side, as often, is represented by a delegation, where it is impossible to identify the main participant, responsible for the fi nal decision, the Chinese negotiators are trying to determine the opponents, who are sympathetic to their goals. Approaching with them, as has been mentioned above, the Chinese representatives, cultivating feelings of friendship and mutual obligations, confi dently lead their opponents to taking decisions favorable to them, manipulating also with feelings of dependence and guilt. This technique of interpersonal relationship management is called «guanxi». It arose out of the centuries-old relations of interdependence of subordinate type based on collectivism and not individualism.

The Chinese prepare for the upcoming negotiations thoroughly, meticulously and painstakingly collecting information on the participants from the opposite side, starting with information about political beliefs and ending with personal preferences in music and food. Therefore, sightseeing is not just a tribute to the hospitality, not only a demonstration of the greatness of their country, but also the opportunity to collect the information, as well as a comfortable informal environment for tying “friendly relations”.

When Chinaman calls his negotiating partner “an old friend”, it is necessary to remember that this “friendship” means commitments and does not last beyond the signing of the contract (unless it will be useful during the next negotiations).

Japan

Western stereotype of Japanese culture draws an image of Japanese bowing to all sides, whose menu is only rice, and free time is fi lled with karaoke and video games.

Stereotype is a byproduct of the study of national culture. Looking beyond it, it is possible to see the features of the national mentality, deeply rooted in the traditions.

Japan, like any eastern country, is characterized primarily by rigid hierarchy: leaders of a company and non-management employees are worlds apart. Power is autocratic, decisions are made centrally and there is a strict control at all levels, despite the developed informal relations. Climbing the corporate ladder does not depend on personal qualities, but on seniority. This tradition excludes “cult of personality” (except for the person of the emperor, but that’s another story.) “Big Boss” takes decisions not because he is superman, but because he is the “right person”, corresponding to his place.

Individual is valued as part of the community. Individualism gives way to collectivism. Employee is part of a group and is regarded as its representative. Therefore, there is a high level of cooperation between the leaders of the companies and their staff. Hence, the importance of human relationships as well, which ideal is «Wa» — harmony. Mutual commitments are the main element of a Japanese corporation. The organization is considered family for its employees who work 10-12 hours a day.

Quality circles provide both control and «Just In Time» products.

Decision-making is not quick, not because of fear of possible risk, but the need to reach a consensus of all participants in the negotiations from the Japanese side, who must trust each other and their leader. System of involvement of all members of the group into decision-making is called «ringi». It allows bridging the gap between the base of the pyramid and its apex.

In Japan, the status of the individual in society is determined by his education, age, family, profession, place of birth, as well as physical qualities. Therefore, the Americans call Japanese society “feudal”. Titles are extremely important, hence the tradition of exchanging business cards during the fi rst acquaintance, giving and taking the card should be with two hands.

Therefore, in Japanese society competition dominates and achievement is valued. The spirit of competition is cultivated even within the family.

To succeed, it is necessary to control your behavior, actions, and, if possible, the situation. Therefore, the Japanese do not like uncertainty, prefer to plan and be accurate in predicting the next event.

“Saving face” is incomparably more important to the Japanese than for the representative of Western culture, because “loss of face” here means not just a feeling of embarrassment or shame, but the situation of complete isolation when both colleagues and relatives leave the individual forever: he has lost along the way («doh»).

The following concept of “amae” reveals another face of communication. The Japanese would never feel comfortable with the person if there is no amae between them — a feeling of complete trust, confi dence in the relationship. Japanese ignore foreigners as amae can grow only in the long-term relationship.

The following two characteristics grow not from the Japanese rationality, but sensitivity. These are «Chokkan To Ronri» and «Koto To Shidai Ni Wa» — “intuition instead of logic” and “truth in the circumstances”. As the situation and commitment change, the truth changes as well and realizing of it can be intuitively rather than rationally.

In the traditional Japanese society, a conversation partner should hear what he wanted to hear, but not the truth, which was a rule of paramount importance.

Tandem concepts «Tatemae / Honne» play a signifi cant role in all aspects of Japanese life. The fi rst means “face”, “facade” — mask that hides the real intentions. The second is translated as “honest voice” and refers to the actual intention. In all contexts (in everyday life, in business, in politics) these opposing concepts are used to hide the truth or the real situation, which may be inappropriate or embarrassing. For example, someone pretends to be happy with his old machine when he simply cannot afford a new one. Adherence to these principles is very important in the culture in which sincerity is not a more important value than tactful behavior.

Japanese negotiating style is completely different from both the Chinese and the Soviet, as every Japanese knows that negotiation is a form of social confl ict and the confl icts should be avoided. Therefore, formal style is unacceptable. Personal relationships are most valued that drive the inevitable confl ict in the negotiations to a minimum. Japanese negotiators do not allow any assertiveness and ideological pressure of the Soviet style, nor subtle manipulation by the Chinese. They also do not tend to bargain. Their solutions are specifi c and pre-defi ned.

At the preliminary stage, the negotiators get to know each other, talking about family, hobbies, and common interests. To make acquaintance in more relaxed atmosphere, the action can take place during lunch. The Japanese side is trying to create an image of a friend who is not inclined to bargain in order to obtain greater benefi ts. Nevertheless, this does not prevent future negotiator from asking lots of questions, probing the situation, starting with the general, such as: “What do you think about the current situation on the world market?”

At the end of the conversation there is «mei- shi» ritual — an exchange of business cards. It is necessary to take them with both hands, bowing slightly, and then read, determining the rank of each participant in the negotiations. According to the Japanese, this is the most important step, because it creates «Wa» — a harmonious atmosphere.

At the stage of negotiations the Japanese try to keep created atmosphere of harmony, therefore aggressive strategy with them is inappropriate. They use several tactics of the famous treatise by Sun Tzu “The Art of War”. The aim is to subdue the enemy without fi ghting, using wisdom. The highest strategy is to subdue the enemy by a psychological advantage, not pressure. Therefore, during the discussion it is naturally for the Japanese negotiators to keep silence from time to time, before bombarding opponents with questions again.

The Japanese do not discuss future contract incrementally, but just prefer to conclude an agreement, while discussing all the details. Japan also traditionally gives a discount — «sabitsu» — as a sign of friendship and sincere intentions.

Knowing the importance of “saving face” for the Japanese, a focus on a verbal agreement is easily understood. Japanese can verbally enter into contracts for millions of dollars, without legal basis of a written document, because a written document for them — it is only the recognition of the existence of the partnership. They also refer to the latter quite fl exible, because, if the situation changes, the terms of the contract are revised.

South Korea

Korea, as it is known, is one of the four “Asian tigers” of East Asia. The country has shown an incredible record of growth and integration into the modern world economy of high technology. Moderate infl ation index, relatively low unemployment, high profi ts from exports and a quite fair income distribution characterize its economy. Gross domestic product per capita is equal to some member countries of the European Union, but only fi ve decades ago, it was comparable to GDP of some poor countries of Asia and Africa. This success was achieved by the system of close relations between government and business, including government loans, the restriction on the import of goods, sponsoring individual industries and the high level of labor discipline.

Korean business is characterized by a clear vision of the goals and objectives, as well as prospects, strong commitment, quick decisions and their implementation and adherence to national interests. The main difference between Korea from Japan is the speed in decision making and execution.

To begin negotiations punctually at the appointed time is considered as an important element of successful negotiation. Careful preparations, clear vision of goals and objectives, consent to additional measures are also their key elements.

Korean negotiators use more direct language than the Japanese, and when they consider it necessary, do not hesitate to resort to threats. They use the word “no” three times as often and interrupt their opponent more than three times as often than the Japanese. Not always, however, they are so straightforward. In other cases, Koreans express disagreement nonverbally: noisy sucking air through teeth. It also means a problem or deadlock. In such situations, they can also look not directly, but sideways, and throw back their heads. Although, if an opponent hears “yes”, it is too early to celebrate: as Japanese, Korean etiquette prescribes to say what an opponent wants to hear in order to favour him. After all, preserving the atmosphere of harmony is more important than saying truth. In such cases, “yes” can mean simply “will think”. Silence means that the position of the opponent is not clear. As soon as in this culture it is very important to save face, issues are avoided.

The fi rst claim determines the fi eld for negotiations. Starting positions of the Korean negotiators may seem unrealistic, but they are ready to make concessions. It also means that the Korean side is ready for an extensive and calm discussion. American rush would lead negotiations to failure. Conservative manner of discussion, based on the inviolability of business ethics is preferred to innovation and experimentation. However, the Korean side can be very assertive and fast in expressing of dissatisfaction and disappointment. Serious facial expression in any case is a norm in a culture where it is very important to keep it at any cost. If a Korean smiles or laughs, so he is embarrassed and confused, ashamed, has fear, anger or surprise. In general, it means that he feels uncomfortable. Seriousness is as natural in negotiations with the Korean representatives as pauses and silence — time for guesswork instead of direct clarifying questions.

Conclusions from a comparative analysis
of the East and the West

(by the example of the countries of Northeast
Asia and the U.S.)

Generalizing the strategy specifi cs of international negotiations of the Northeast Asian countries, it is necessary to enter the terminological basis. The following concepts will become a theoretical framework for future generalizations: representatives of monochronal culture, representatives of polychronal culture, high content culture, low content culture. These concepts were introduced in the second half of the 20th century and have now become part of the academic community.

Edward Hall, who proposed these concepts, defi ned culture as a high type in which most of the information is expressed either physically or in non-verbal form, or is hidden in a human, and only a minimal part of the information is expressed in a coded form as possible. [8] On the contrary, low content culture reveals most of the information, usually in the words to make it possibly more clear and full.

Monochronal culture of negotiation is western style, which can also be characterized as low content culture. Polychronic culture of negotiation is a type of non-Western countries, such as Asia and Latin America, which can also be characterized as a high content culture.

The principal difference between the two types of negotiation cultures is as follows. Trend of Northeast Asia is to express themselves implicitly, indirectly, ambiguous, monologue, while the tendency of Western negotiators is clarity, directness and openness of judgments and sentences in the dialogue form. In Confucian culture of the East openness is considered indecent statements and may be perceived by others as being rude. So instead of “no” opponents hear: “We will consider this question,” “We will deliver this to the relevant ministry”.

The next obvious difference is the way of communicating at the negotiating table. Representatives of Anglo-American culture use dialogue as a way of verbal interaction, while Far Eastern culture uses monologue. First clearly express their intentions (even aggressive enough) and the exchange of views and ideas, covering the other side with a dense layer of words. Usually, they ask many questions, respond quickly to changing situations and analyze their thoughts aloud. Asians, in contrast, have a strong tendency to lecture on the subject, thoroughly prepared in advance, and only then wait for the reaction of the opponent. This is because China, Japan and Korea brought up their culture based on or strongly infl uenced by Confucianism, which is not characterized by openness to debate. Each paragraph of the book “Lun Yu” begins with the words: “The Master said,” which is followed by Confucius quote that is not discussed, and, moreover, is not disputed. Therefore, if someone talks to pose serious counterarguments against the proposal or opinions of the opposite side, the latter feels insulted, or even that he had “lost face”. Therefore, representatives of the Far Eastern countries are trying to understand without question. They also think that keeping peace and harmony and to give opponents time is very important. Therefore, pauses in the discussion do not confuse them.

Chinese, Japanese and Korean negotiators are sure that listening to the views of representatives of the opposite side is very important. They have the ability to listen, because it means to pay attention, and therefore respect. Westerners, on the contrary, believe that the most important thing is clearly and precisely as possible to express their reasoned proposals and demands. Therefore, until they speak out, they cannot listen. Besides, they do not tolerate silence and prolonged pause, maybe that’s why they everywhere insert words like “great”, “wonderful”, “okay”. But this in no way implies consent. Representatives of the Northeast Asia prefer to express respect not in words and compliments, but in actions: they feel that a slight bow or offering a place of honor at the table is more signifi cant.

Thus, the following features are in nonverbal behavior at the negotiating table. Nonverbal behavior includes expression of emotions, smiles, gestures, hugs, eye contact, a long silence, and so on. Representatives of Latin America and Russia, for example, express serious intentions about negotiations by cuddles before the beginning. Representatives of Western culture are naturally open in expressing their feelings: they gesticulate, can sit back. Representatives of Northeast Asia rarely reveal their feelings, and rarely use broad gestures. Latter is considered as the rudeness, besides such revealing of information cannot play a positive role.

It is of interest that for the negotiators from Northeast Asia, especially for the Chinese, silence plays a special role in non-verbal behavior. It may be a tactic in negotiations, to which Westerners are not used to. Typically, there are two reasons for the sudden silence: either Chinese side plunged in thoughts or a special strategy. Even experts in the negotiations feel uncomfortable when negotiating partners suddenly keep silence. The situation is compounded by their disadvantageous position. Due to feelings of anxiety Chinese partners may become talkative, just to fi ll unnatural verbal vacuum, thereby revealing confi dential information.

On the other hand, representatives of the East side are experts in deciphering nonverbal information. If an opponent shows unusual behavior, his intentions can be “read”. For example, if an opponent smiles irrelevantly, shakes his leg or is looking at his colleague in the midst of negotiations — it means a loss of control over the situation.

Visual interpretation of various cultural contacts is also of interest. For the representative of the West it is essential, as it means a serious and honest approach to the negotiations. For the representatives of the East — “staring” at the opponent is extremely indecent. Rather, they show respect by deferential silence or a slight bow.

According to Harvard University Professors Fischer and Ury, the most important thing in the negotiations is to separate the people from the problems. [9] The representatives of the Anglo-American side of negotiations are focused on immediate results and economic impact. Therefore long and fruitful partnership does not affect the course of negotiations: relation is one, negotiation — another. In fact, Americans, for example, want to maintain friendly relations with representatives of business circles of Korea and Japan, however, coming to the table, they ignore all personal relationships and are struggling to fi nd ways to optimal results.

Eastern mentality dictates the opposite priorities: no matter how important was the subject of negotiations, partnerships and saving face are more important. Whether there are political or business negotiations, establishing a personal relationship with even one of its participants on the opposite side benefi ts to all. For example, if the buyer having a long-term relationship with a Korean or Japanese company asks for a deal, which will not have any economic benefi ts for the company, the latter agrees. Instead, it is expected that when a representative of the company asks the above mentioned buyer for a personal favour, “Please, this time help me to save face”, he will reply: “OK”. This culture builds relationships on a tacit agreement: “If I can help you to save face this time, you will help me the next time”.

Thus, the international negotiation with representatives of Asia is a gradual process of building the trust and good relations. Therefore, the fi rst meeting devoted mainly to get acquainted with each other and build the trust between the partners. During the talks with Chinese or Japanese offi cials they always give dinner. It is important to remember that it is a part of the negotiations dedicated to the establishment of the trust or a demonstration of friendly relations. For the Western negotiator lunch means nothing more than entertainment, ineffi cient, unproductive waste of time. Therefore, if the dinner is given by the Western partner, it looks like sandwiches with coffee served straight to the table — without interruption, so to speak, of the production. If at the dinner they establish good relations, so for Western partners there is no connection between them and problem solving. Eastern partners are disappointed: dinner for them is as important as the negotiations themselves.

Next generally accepted distinction — “individualism vs collectivism” — is manifested not only in wording (“I think» vs «We think”), but mainly in the fact that in the case of Asian partners, it is not enough to convince the main person, but you it is necessary to convince the entire team of negotiators.

Westerners work in accordance with the established schedule, being very punctual. They have a clear idea of working hours and that they should spend them at the negotiating table. They also do not like to change the approved schedule.

People of Eastern culture are suited to the time more fl exibly: planning time depends on changes in the situation. Consequently, they relatively easy change the initial date and time of the negotiations, as well as making changes and additions to the plan. Also, as mentioned above, the place of negotiation can be both an offi ce and a restaurant, a tour that introduces the sights, and even a golf course.

This difference in emphasis often leads to confusion and misunderstanding. Western partners take eastern fl exibility as frivolity and do not know how to behave.

Referring not so seriously to the time, eastern negotiators can afford to postpone them several times, which confuses their Western colleagues.

Today, in the infi nite invisible cyberspace of the world economy, cultural competence is a necessary quality for commercial success and prosperity. Cultural competence means understanding the cultural dynamics of international cooperation and corporate strategies, adapted to different regions. Until the world gathers elements of different cultures in a single global cultural symbiosis, any kind of international cooperation should be considered a cultural identity of its participants.

One of the tasks of theoretical and practical research in the fi eld of international cooperation concerning political and commercial activities is to identify points of convergence between Eastern and Western cultural paradigm, such as in the above mentioned study: American individualism and collectivism of the representatives of Northeast Asia. These paradigms may seem contradictory and mutually exclusive, but they are not hopelessly incompatible. The moral basis of two paradigms is one, but expressed differently. In the Western terms: do something useful for yourself — and your company will benefi t from this. In the Eastern: do something useful for society — and you will benefi t from it, since you are a part of it. Since both systems “work”, that is, successfully move their societies forward to prosperity, it is quite realistic to fi nd the optimal theoretical and practical approaches to their common prosperity.

Aristotelian and Confucian “golden mean” converge here at one point.

In light of this, it is possible to hope that the world business, carried by the East-West line can only benefi t from adding in a diffi cult puzzle of both systems strengths, for example, such as security and stability control, risk allocation, improved productivity, classifi cation of working tasks of Korean business system and reduction of operational costs, availability of capital, the wage system, innovative incentives of American business system.

Economic paradigm is the inevitable product of historical and cultural heritage. Since each culture has its own strengths and weaknesses, its institutions cannot be quickly and easily changed. Culture, ideology, values are formed and long changed.

Consequently, the success or failure in the economy cannot be determined even with fullness of its national culture. Build or change the economic system on the basis of the progressive elements of culture — it is the task of any society. Here, the determining factor is not culture, but people’s desire to transform their society into a prosperous. In a globalizing world, it is impossible to do not by isolation from other cultures, nor by the expense of other cultures. Therefore it is very important in international negotiations to understand partners correctly, no matter how exotic it seems. Exemption from ethnocentrism here is rewarded by the fact that the result of the negotiations will not be a compromise, impairing both sides, but consensus, enriching both sides.

QUOTES:

  1. Weiss, S.E. and Stripp, W. ‘Negotiating with Foreign Businesspersons: An Introduction for Americans with Propositions on Six Cultures’, in S. Niemeier, C.P. Campbell and R. Dirven, The Cultural Context in Business Communication, pp. 51–118. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1998.
  2. Walton and McKersie, A Behavioral Theory of Labor Negotiations, Liverpool University Press, volume 1, № 8, р. 137, 1965.
  3. Pinkley, R.L., ‘Dimensions of Confl ict Frame: Disputants’ Interpretations of Confl ict’, Journal of Applied Psychology 75(2): 117–27, 1990.
  4. Fukuyama, F., Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity. New York: The Free Press, 1995.
  5. Weiss, S.E. and Stripp, W., ‘Negotiating with Foreign Businesspersons: An Introduction for Americans with Propositions on Six Cultures’, Working Paper No. 85–86. New York: New York University Graduate School of Business Administration, 1985.
  6. Trompenaars, F., Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding Diversity in Global Business. Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin Professional Publishing, 1993, 234 р.
  7. Frankel, R., Schmitz Whipple, J. and Frayer, D .J., ‘Formal versus Informal Contracts: Achieving Alliance Success’, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management 26(3): 47–63, 1996.
  8. Edward Twitchell Hall, The Hidden Dimention, Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1966, 201 p.
  9. Roger Fisher and William L. Ury, Getting to YES: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In, Penguin Group, 1981, 200 р.

SOURCES:

  1. Adler, N. J., International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior, 4th edition. Cincinnati: South-Western/Thomson, 2002, 205 p.
  2. Benedict Ruth, The Chrysanthemum and the Sword: Patterns of Japanese Culture, Houghton Miffl in Harcourt, 1967, 178 p.
  3. Everett M. Rogers, William B. Hart, Yoshitaka Miike, Edward T. Hall and The History of Intercultural Communication: The United States and Japan, Keio Communication Review No. 24, 2002, 24 р.
  4. Faure, G.O., The Cultural Dimension of Negotiation: The Chinese Case, 8 GDN, 1999, 145 p.
  5. Graham, J.L., and Lam, M.N., The Chinese Negotiation, 81 HBR 10, 2003, 125 p. http://www.globalnegotiationbook.com/John- Graham-research/negotiation-v1.pdf
  6. Ndapwilapo Shimutwikeni, The Impact of Culture in International Business Negotiations: Special Reference to China and United Stated States of America, University of Dundee, 2004, 154 p.
  7. Salacuse, J.W., Negotiating: The Top Ten Ways That Culture Can Affect Your Negotiation, IBJ, 2004, 241 p.
  8. Nishiyama Kazuo, “A New Challenge to Intercultural Communication Scholars and Researchers.” Newsletter: Intercultural Communication, 2001, 39 p.
  9. Ohmae, K., The next global stage: The Challenges and Opportunities in Our Borderless World. Wharton School Publishing, 2005, 205 p.
  10. Richard E. Nisbett, The Geography of Thought How Asians and Westerners Think Differently…and Why, New York, NY: The Free Press, 2003, 263 p.
  11. Tohyama Yasuko, “Aspects of Japanese Nonverbal Behavior in Relation to Traditional Culture.” In Yoshihiko Ikegami (ed.), The Empire of Signs: Semiotic Essays on Japanese Culture. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2001, pp. 181-218.
Year: 2014
City: Almaty