Essay Sample on Managing Cross-culture Negotiations

In West Virginia, a customer who was running a family business was involved in a business partnership with a supplier in North Carolina. He arranged a meeting with his partner. In his office, they were three of them including his friend named Carl and his business partner. The three of them started a negotiation about their projects as well as hunting experiences.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

In this case, I will explore factors influencing negotiations like immediate and environmental context in cross-cultural negotiations.

Q 1.What are "Immediate Context ' factors relevant in this case?

In cross-culture negotiations, the immediate context has a significant influence concerning the way people from different firms behave. The negation between individual's talks from one state to another brings the connection between negotiators. According to Phatak and Habib (1996), opines that relationships develop between the principal the parties before the official negotiations affect the procedures and the talk or the results. Lin and Miller (2003), finds the following factor influenced the case 1, they include;

The relationship existing between the three parties.

It is presumed that if people had a past relationship before the actual negotiation, it could lead to a huge influence in the time of the process of negotiation and aftermath (Phatak & Habib, 1996).

The Desired outcome.

All parties in any negotiation have personal interests they want to achieve at the end of their talk. In this case, all parties have interested either sale or take the order thus leading to transactions. This resulted in a different venture when Carl joined them in their talk. For example is a reason for visiting the West Virginia is that he now has two order to deliver.

The next shareholders.

There exist three members in case 1 negotiating and talking about the business venture and lastly their families. Habib and Phatak (1996), finds agents of the principal, employees, negotiators themselves, and board of directors has the impact on the negotiation process and effects.

The interdependency and level of engagement.

The interdependency between the parties across states negotiation, the family set up, and business models can significantly influence the negotiation between the parties involved.

Q 2.How does Hall's Model of Cultural Values explain the process of negotiation in this Case?

Edwin Hall (1959) developed a cultural value model to illustrate how cross-culture negotiations can be distinguished when used in a little as well as great context dialogues. Hall categories culture into two.

Low context culture which refers to a direct communication which has a clear meaning, and openly borne through words themselves. In this case, it's evident on the first trip to West Virginia talks are clearly understood about the single order to his client for a long time.

High context culture it refers to less direct communication involving parties in the negotiation. In the second visit to West, Virginia talk is about hunting tool and family issues of which he doesn't get involved in this discussion on manufacturing until the later time.

Time and space context culture this refers existence of differences between cultures and how they relate to managing and scheduling event. They include polychronic it's occasioned by the simultaneous occurrence of different activities. An example is when at West Virginia and Carl joining the business talk and mixing of family talks with his client. Last it Monochronic which is occasioned by an organization and scheduling things consecutively. He prepares for visits for taking a client order, and when preparing back home, he gets a new client by name Carl. Next time he plans two orders for his clients in his third visit. Hall concludes that difference in cultural practices can cost time if different parties of diverse culture are involved.

Q 3. What can we say about the Negotiation Opportunity, Selection of Negotiators, Protocol, Time Sensitivity, and Risk Propensity of this cross-cultural Negotiation Process?

Different cultural background influences the cross-culture negotiations in a several ways according to their negotiation process.

Negotiation Opportunity and Selection of Negotiator

The different cultural background has influences on how two parties are involved in any negotiation. Cross-culture influences negotiators process and outcome of any negotiation process. The West Virginia client believed that his North Carolina supplier had the best hunting tools for his company. He introduced his friend Carl to him regarding his experience of many years with this enterprise. This led to established contact between him and Carl placing his order next time he travels traveled to West Virginia.

Protocol and Communication

Starting engaging in any negotiation, different cultures have norms that they follow. Every negotiation has their communications protocol when addressing someone either by their name or titles. The client had introduced his friend to his supplier by his name, Carl. Its event that some culture refers to a person by their first name as for the case of introduction of Carl by his client during the talk at the customer's offices at West Virginia. Culture influence how people can communicate verbally, nonverbally and body language. When they paused business talk and engaged on family life and life their respective towns, all participates in the negotiations.

Time Sensitivity and Risk Propensity

Time mismanagement affects negotiations and meeting if attended at an inappropriate time. Different cultures recognize that being complex and keeping time is highly productive. In our case, the supplier would visit his client after a span of few months. Their chit-chats were always after lunch hour; this might have been influenced by their different societies. Cross-culture negotiation misapprehension is caused by various time sensitivity. Societies change in the degree to which they will go out on a risk in negotiations. Some culture tends to create traditionalist leaders who need incredible arrangements of data before making decisions. This relates to the situation where Carl, placed an excellent order after their first negotiation and the supplier compiled to the idea without hesitation. In cross-culture, the introduction of a general public concerning taking the risk highly has an influence what is arranged including the substance of result in a negotiation.

Case 2: The Chen Guangcheng Crisis International Negotiation

The United States and the Chinese government entered into a negotiation concerning the crisis of a Chinese civil rights activist Chen Guangcheng in May 2012.

Q 1. What are Environmental Context factors evident in this case?

The negotiations between the Chinese government and the United States officials appeared to produce positive, substantial outcomes in spite of the massive political diversion. The following are factor influenced this negotiation.

The place of negotiation

In case 2 all talk were held in U.S embassy in Beijing China. This mainly affected the negotiation process for Chen case because of delays and hardline from the Chinese officials since they felt in control of the negotiation.

Ideology

Countries have different beliefs on a political solution, human rights, and the rule of law and treatment of international negotiations. It's apparent that the U.S view on free space to air one's views like human rights is allowed to air other group's grievances but while observing the law. In China, its opposite since the still practice communism which limits human rights activities on creating the government is unwelcome as in the case of Chen championing human rights.

Culture

Culture is how every different community of country carry their activities ranging from the government duties to people's daily lives and how they negotiate with each other. It's evident in Chen's negotiations process Chinese official that they first agree to allow Chen to be allowed to get the travel document to enable her to join to a University in the U.S, but later the change to allow Chen travel until talks with Hilary Clinton and government take place.

External Stakeholders

The U.S negotiators on Chen's negotiation were being briefed by their embassy officials in Beijing who understood the Chinese behavior to outsiders in the negotiations. This help was striking Chen's negotiation deal after several round table talks. The familiarity of the negotiators to counterparts reactions to the conflict in any negotiation reduces time and resources.

Q2 What Immediate Context Factors are evident in this case?

They include factors that the negotiators in Chen's case were able to control during the negotiation process they include.

Immediate stakeholders

China government representatives led by Cui and his team while the U.S government was represented by seven officials led by Ambassador Locke. The both parties maintained hardline naturally to the interest of their principals. This hardiness by both negotiators delayed Chen's travel documents to join a university in Florida.

Desired outcome

The results of this negotiation were to pursue the China government to process Chen travel documents to join a law university in Florida. The government was also to give Chen's family protection when finally leaves American embassy for the hospital. The government was to ensure Chen that family and close friends would be allowed to visit him in the hospital.

Relative bargaining power

It's evident that both China and U.S negotiator equally had power in influencing this case.The Chinese government had more bargaining power to release Chen's travel document to join a university. The delays from Cui team lead to several breaks up talks but the end the Cui side gave in and allowed Chen to travel to the U.S

Q3.Ten ways that culture can influence Negotiations. Discuss how these factors worked for or

Against the eventual outcome the "Cheng Crisis?"

Time Sensitivity and Risk Propensity

Time is precious in every planned eventuality. In this case timing of the negotiation to arrive at Chen's resolution. The Locke group didn't risk to let Chen out of the embassy with proper planning of security details. The last seating and a visit to China by Secretary Hilary brought to end of this crisis.

Communication and Protocol

The Cui's side of negotiators keeps mom indication that only Cui who responded to the other counterparties and briefing the government official. Later in the last round negotiations, it worked against since the talk with Hilary lead to the release of Chen document and travel to the US.

Negotiation Opportunity and Selection of Negotiator

The China and U.S governments both were represented by senior officials who led in the Chen case release. The both team worked to ending Chen standoff, but at the end the convinced the Chinese counterpart which ends the standoff and free of Chen.

Groups versus Individual

The negotiation for both groups failed to bring to the end of Chen crisis until a visit by and meeting by Hillary and Premier Wen Jiabao which led to the last negotiation which broke the heard lines from the groups.

Emotionalism and Nature of the Negotiation

The Chen crisis involved two states which each country had its emotions in the case. At the start of the negotiation, every team expresses its emotions. Since the level of this instance involved the international relationship. The difference in emotions like Cui group only listening in consultation process led endless talks in this process costing time and resources.

Q4. In what ways did low, moderate and high Familiarity affect this negotiation? "Which strategy did U.S team use to encounter this Familiarity?"

Low Familiarity

The two governments employed negotiator (Unilateral Strategy) in Chen's case. Later they employed joint stra...