International Negotiation and Cross-Cultural Realities

International Negotiation and Cross-Cultural Realities

Globalization has had a direct bearing on the way that we conduct business, not just by expanding the geographical and logistical realities with which a multinational corporation must concern itself but also by altering the landscape of human interaction by immersing infinite cultures and identities into a single economic scheme. The result is the set of challenges unique to this new era of commercial enterprising, particularly as they relate to the initiation of negotiation. To an extent that the research on this subject reveals, negotiation in the international environment is driven by the interaction of business cultures and the mutual respect adhered to the rules of these respective cultures. Indeed, managing a negotiation is a process often more inclined by the semantic framework of the proceedings than what either side has at stake. It is not a matter of imbalance, necessarily, that determines one's ultimate decision. Rather, it is the reference point that either side uses to assess exactly what it stands to gain or lose. A consideration of the process of negotiation on the international level reveals a broad spectrum of negotiation circumstances and outcomes, including the navigation of global trade laws, the establishment of geopolitical compromises, the mediation of labor disputes and the navigation of currency exchange. With this complex set of conditions, negotiations must be facilitated by a clear sense of the differing interests, cultures and economic agendas which have been brought to the table.

Content

This means that first and foremost, partners in a negotiation must be conscientious of the needs and expectations of all actors and stakeholders invested in the process. These parties are often expansive and varied. Though it is perhaps a tendency for most people to picture negotiations as a tense engagement of just a small handful of decision-makers in a boardroom, there is typically far too much at stake in international negotation to allow for such a modest set of actors. For instance, in cases where two firms from different nations might be negotiating the terms of a corporate merger, it is likely that many thousands of people will be impacted by the outcome. If an American firm seeks to negotiate the purchase of a production and factory operation in India, the outcome of negotiations will have a bearing on the scores of employees both at the American company and the Indian production facilities, on the environment and communities surrounding the facilities and even on the broader economies and political conditions in both countries. This means, as the text by Changing Minds (2002) reports, the number of actors in representation of these stakeholders will sometimes be rather significant. Accordingly, text article notes that "international negotiation is often not just between individual people, but between large delegations, each of which is well organized and where every person has specialized and skilled work. There may be cultural experts, linguists and subject specialists as well as a chief negotiator and support negotiators. In a complex negotiation, there may be multiple and interlined sub-negotiations going on at the same time, for example where a trade negotiation includes deal involving various industries and interests." (Changing Minds, 1)

This denotes that negotiations are typically an extremely complex and nuanced process. Such mediation may occur over an extended period of time and require multiple face-to-face encounters and the constant recasting of terms and conditions. This is because such negotiation is confounded by the true challenge of establishing an equilibrium between parties. Ideally, a negotiation will produce a compromise that is viewed as essentially favorable to the interests of both sides, even where some sacrifice may be necessary. As noted above, this equilibrium is particularly challenging to establish because 'both sides' is something of an oversimplification of the countless stakeholders with interest in the final outcome.

An example of this that is particularly layered and complex is the ongoing process of negotiation for a shared compromise on climate change and global warming. As McMahon (2008) notes, "In 2012, the first phase of the Kyoto Protocol will be concluded. In the next two years a follow-on treaty will be negotiated. This process was started in earnest in Bali in 2007, with the agreement of the Bali Action Plan. . . The Plan also adds that developed countries will provide technology, finance, and capacity to support their mitigation actions. Determining how these actions and support will be measured, reported and verified is a key part of the current negotiations." (McMahon, 1)