Communication Between Cultures

the possibility of future collaborations. To achieve their goal of a cooperative relation-

ship, the Chinese spend considerable time discussing issues, examining data, and

engaging in social entertainment.

In contrast, U.S. negotiators, driven by the value of individualism and self-

reliance, normally prefer a logical, linear procedure, where points are examined and

bargained over individually and sequentially. Due to the cultural value placed on

time, U.S. negotiations move through the bargaining sessions as quickly as possible.

They are focused on the immediate end result of a contractually based agreement

and are much less concerned about relationships and future collaborative projects

than are their Chinese counterparts. The shorter time horizon among U.S. business

representatives is also due to the importance given to quarterly earnings statements,

stockholder expectations, and bonus agreements. In contrast to the Chinese, negotia-

tions for the U.S. team are between organizations, and personal relationships are a

separate, unrelated entity.

The Chinese prefer negotiations that develop through a holistic process rather

than a linear advance. Intraorganizational and governmental oversight considerations,

coupled with cultural concerns for face, hierarchy, and group consensus, tend to

lessen the ability to make quick decisions. Considerable time must be spent in discus-

sions with colleagues and gathering data to respond to actual and anticipated ques-

tions. As a result, negotiation topics may be discussed in random order, and

previously concluded topics may be reopened due to Chinese deliberations with

the greater work group. This slower pace may be perceived as a delaying tactic by

U.S. negotiators, who regularly exercise considerable autonomy in decision making.

U.S. delegates usually have little concern for the thoughts and opinions of their

general employees and would seldom see a need to consult them. Employee turnover

is normal in the United States, and the greater concern is for the well-being of the

organization.

Chinese and U.S. representatives approach the establishment of trust, instrumental

to almost any negotiation, differently. Despite its long history, China has never had a

comprehensive legal system that protected the rights of all its citizens. This helps

explain the importance of interpersonal relations and social networks (guanxi).

Unable to rely on an established legal framework, the Chinese turned to a network

of family, clan, and close friends. Today, trust is extended only after a period of social

interaction that, if successful, leads to a positive, dependable interpersonal relation-

ship. The U.S. view is to immediately extend a degree of initial trust to others, a

“hail fellow, well met”attitude arising from the cultural preference of egalitarianism

and universalism. For U.S. negotiators, long-term trust will be guaranteed by a highly

detailed, legally binding contract that clearly specifies requirements for each side.

Moreover, contracts in the United States are considered static, and any proposed

change requires renegotiation. The Chinese view contracts as a dynamic agreement

among friends that is subject to adjustment as conditions change. These different

views of contracts once again illustrate the inclination by the United States toward

universalism and the Chinese preference for particularism.

Their varied approaches to conflict management can also conflate relations

between Chinese and U.S. negotiators when problems or differences occur during

the bargaining sessions. Chinese negotiators may endeavor to promote and maintain

positive relations with the U.S. side and employ an indirect communication style to

avoid confrontation when discussing differences. U.S. representatives, accustomed to

dealing with negative information in a direct manner, may be confused by the

Intercultural Communication in Globalized Business 353

Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).