From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For other uses, see .
This article needs additional citations for . Please help
by . Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (September 2012)
Situationism is a theory in
that began in 1968 when a
was triggered by the publication of a monograph by .
It refers to an approach to behavior which holds that general traits do not exist (perhaps apart from ). Behavior, then, is seen as being influenced by external, situational factors rather than internal
or . It therefore challenged the position of trait theorists, such as
Situationists based their claims on experiments in which traits such as
were estimated based on behavior in different situations. They found that a particular person's ratings in one situation were not highly predictive of that person's score in another situation. However, in response to such evidence, Hans Eysenck has pointed out that the correlations, while low, are typically still high enough to reach . A midrange position, which holds that personality is best understood as resulting from "subtle interplay" of internal and external factors, is known as "".
Some notable situationist studies include: 's ,
experiments,
experiments like
and heat and
experiments. The term is popularly associated with , although he himself does not appear to like the term.[]
Andrew Colman, What is Psychology?,
Krahe, B. (1993) Personality and Social Psychology: Towards a Synthesis. London: Sage.
This -related article is a . You can help Wikipedia by .
: Hidden categories:温州大学本科毕业设计（论文）商务谈判中的中西文化价值差异及其对策IntroductionWith the further development of economic globalization and integration, increased business activities at various levels amo
ng members of different cultures are becoming an inevitable pattern of human interaction. While intercultural communication takes place at organizational and interpersonal levels in various social and organizational settings, interpersonal and inter-group conflicts as a result of cultural differences are ubiquitous. During this process, cultural differences in terms of values, stereotypes, world views, and so on exert great influence on how businesspersons of different cultures deal with negotiations and how they perceive and manage the conflicts. Since China‘s entry into the WTO, more and more American companies and projects have been flourishing in China, and likewise, Chinese overseas enterprises have been rushing to join the American market. The increased business gives rise to more communication across the two extremely different cultures, especially in the field of business negotiation. However, one common problem that faces most American and Chinese negotiators is the gap between different approaches to conflicts resolution. This always leads to incompatible communication behaviors, misunderstandings, or even the breakdown of negotiations. The knowledge of how cultural values affect conflict resolution styles will help negotiators better understand how members of different cultural backgrounds can communicate effectively with each other and resolve conflicts constructively. This can greatly improve the ability of negotiators to foresee the possible pitfalls of intercultural business negotiations. To investigate the interaction between culture, communication, and conflict styles in intercultural business negotiations, this thesis examines the underlying relationship between conflict styles and cultural values in Sino-US business negotiations. Based on Jeanne M. Brett‘s (2000) Cultural Dimension Model as well as Thomas-Kilmann‘s (1974) Conflict Model, this study endeavors to provide an insightful cultural perspective of conflict styles adopted by American and Chinese negotiators. The five conflict resolution styles in Thomas-Kilmann‘s (1974) Conflict Model will be directly used: competing, collaborating, compromising, avoiding and accommodating. Each style in the Conflict Model is a combination of high and low degrees of assertiveness and cooperativeness. For example, accommodation is a conflict resolution style that reflects a combination of a low degree of the assertiveness and a high degree of the cooperativeness, while competing style is a-1-温州大学本科毕业设计（论文）商务谈判中的中西文化价值差异及其对策conflict resolution style that reflects a combination of a high degree of assertiveness and a low degree of cooperativeness. This study compares Chinese and American negotiating behavior by analyzing these combinations of high and low degree of the assertiveness and high and low degree of the cooperativeness. The preferred styles of Chinese negotiators are hypothesized to be avoiding and accommodating as a function of collectivism, hierarchy and high-context culture, whereas the preferred styles of American negotiators are hypothesized to be competing and compromising as a function of individualism, egalitarianism and low-context culture. Case studies are carried out to serve as a supplementary tool to support the main ideas. In this way, this study will verify the two hypotheses about the conflict resolving preferences of American and Chinese negotiators and indicate how the negotiators of two cultures adopt the styles in the actual business situation, which attitude should be chose.I.Culture Difference and Conflict1. Culture and Culture ValuesIn the international commercial negotiating, these actors are persons, and the more important part is their culture background, which impact persons quietly and strongly. Then what is the culture? Although the definition of culture has evolved from the 1900s to the 2000s, common characteristics of culture do not change. Edward B. Tylor (1871:1), the Dfather‖ of cultural anthropology, defines culture as the Dcomplex whole‖ in his Primitive Culture: DCulture or Civilization, taken in its wide ethnographic sense, is that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society.‖［6］Root (), a specialist in international business strategy, defines culture as D a unique lifestyle‖ in his Entry Strategies for International Markets: DCulture may be defined as the unique life style of a given human society: A distinctive way of thinking, perceiving, feeling, believing, and behaving that is passed on from one generation to another.‖［17］Lee (1995:4), in Spectrum of Chinese Culture, describes culture as involving many Dparts,‖ranging from political institutions to philosophy and life values: DCulture is an institution of life and is a pattern of activities developed from the basic problems of environment. Social-2-温州大学本科毕业设计（论文）商务谈判中的中西文化价值差异及其对策organization, political institutions, economic activities, law, art, science, religion, philosophy and life values are all parts of a culture.‖［10］Harris and Moran (Harris.P.R. and Moran.R.T., 1996)provide a widely cited definition of culture based on their comprehensive review of a large number of conceptualizations of culture［4］: Culture consists of patterns, explicit and implicit, of and for behavior acquired and transmitted by symbols, constituting the distinctive achievement of human groups, including their embo the essential core of culture consists of traditional (i.e., historically derived and selected) ideas and especially t culture systems may, on the one hand, be considered as products of action, on the other as conditioning elements of future action. Although there is no agreement on the definition of culture, anthropologists generally agree on three common characteristics: (a) Culture is no (b) the various facets of culture are interrelated―if you touch a culture in one place, everyth and (c) culture is shared and, in effect, defines the boundaries of different groups. From the previous definitions of culture, we can find that culture is acquired knowledge shared by a group of people to interpret what is good, right, desirable and generate behavior. So we have the following inferences: Firstly, culture can influence people‘s social behavior. And business negotiation is a kind of communication which is a typical social behavior influenced by people‘s abstract ideas in culture including value, attitudes and perceptions. For example, people from collectivism culture are more group-oriented in communication while people from individualism culture are more self-oriented. Secondly, culture is not instinctive or biologically based. It is acquired by learning and experience. This indicates that on one hand, people from one society share one unique culture different from other societies and the culture is passed on from one generation to anothe on the other hand, since we have mastered our own culture through the process of learning, it is possible (maybe quite difficult) that culture can also be learned, or more precisely, borrowed from other cultures with the increased opportunities for communications between different cultural groups. In short different country and different society produce different culture. Culture includes the-3-温州大学本科毕业设计（论文）商务谈判中的中西文化价值差异及其对策stand to value everything. So people‘s culture value is varied under the different culture.2. Culture Conflict 2.1 Definition of Culture ConflictThe term Dconflict‖ covers different situations from one culture to another. Pruitt and Rubin define it as a Dperceived divergence of interest or a belief that the parties‘ current aspirations cannot be achieved simultaneously.‖ This definition is labeled as any situation in which one actor is perceived as being unable to reach his or her goals because of another. (Pruitt and Rubin, cited inPat K Chew, )［ 14 ］The Chinese understanding of conflict conveys a high level ofantagonism and thus is already quite far from a situation in which there is only a Dperceived divergence.‖ The most common acceptation is Dfighting‖ or Dstruggling.‖ It is an encounter between contrary elements that strongly oppose each other. According to Bai Yuan (2002:4) in International Business Negotiation Theory and Case Simulation, the definition of conflict in the context of business negotiation consists of three points. DFirst, parties in conflicts are interdependent, which means there is a relationship between the parties developed by interrelated interests and concerns. There would be no conflict if the parties were not interrelated and had nothing to do with each other. Second, both different and common interests coexist, because if there were only contradictions and no common interests, negotiations would be groundless and hopeless. Third, parties in a conflict will naturally fight for their own interests and make every effort to gain more as a result it would block each other‘s ability to satisfy their interests.‖［20］The research in this thesis is mostly based on the Western definition of conflict. The basic underlying meaning of conflict in business negotiations is that a conflict is a dispute, disagreement or argument between two or more interdependent parties who have different and common interests.2.2 Culture Conflict StylesAccording to Brett (2000), Dwhen people see themselves as interdependence and in conflict, they naturally negotiate to try to deal with the conflict.‖ People with negative perception of conflicts often view conflict as Da distributive or a win-lose form of negotiation.‖ (Brett 2000, cited-4-温州大学本科毕业设计（论文）商务谈判中的中西文化价值差异及其对策in Kathleen Kelly Reardon,2002:4)［7］This gives the impression that once conflict has begun, thenegotiation is in jeopardy for at least one of the parties. However, the level of conflict on key issues establishes whether the relationship between the negotiators will be supportive or hostile. The more the negotiators agree on key issues--- in other words, the more Dcommon ground‖ both sides share---the less conflict there will be, and thus the more supportive of each other their relationship will be. On the other hand, the more they disagree on the key issues, the greater will be the conflict between them, resulting in a more hostile relationship. The likelihood of a supportive relationship between negotiators is enhanced in so-called win-win situation or integrative bargaining, whereas in so-called win-lose situation or distributive bargaining, the gains of one side come at the expense of the other. It can be inferred that conflicts can bring about favorable as well as unfavorable outcomes at least for one of parties. If the negotiators who integrate can have more value available to distribute and are therefore more likely to claim what they want, conflicts may end up in advancing the profits of both sides. So how to manage conflict carries weight in business bargaining. It requires active efforts on the part of the individual to develop conflict resolution and negotiation skills to resolve various types of challenges. Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Style Mode and Negotiation Modes According to Ting Toomey, conflict style refers to patterned responses to conflict in a variety of conflict situations. Findings in many past studies indicate that people display consistent styles across a variety of conflict situations in different situations in different cultures. Conflict style is learned within the primary socialization process of one‘s own cultural or one‘s own ethic group. Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI) is designed by Kenneth W. Thomas and Ralph H. Kilmann in 1974. It is recognized as the leading measurement tools in this research field. The Conflict Mode Instrument assesses the propensity of subjects to exhibit five different styles of behavior in conflict situations (not necessarily limited to negotiation) by giving subjects 30 pairs of statements and asking them to choose which of each pair best describes the way they approach a conflict. The TKI has been the leader in conflict resolution assessment for more than 25 years. This instrument requires no special qualifications for administration, and it is used by Human Resources (HR) and Organizational Development (OD) consultants as a catalyst to open-5-温州大学本科毕业设计（论文）商务谈判中的中西文化价值差异及其对策discussions and facilitate learning about how conflict handling styles affect personal and group dynamics. Thomas-Kilmann‘s 1974 model classifies conflict management into five distinct styles labeled as collaborating, accommodating, competing, avoiding, and compromising. (a). Competing: High assertiveness and low cooperativeness. The goal is to Dwin.‖ (b). Avoiding: Low assertiveness and low cooperativeness. The goal is to Ddelay.‖ (c). Compromising: Moderate assertiveness and moderate cooperativeness. The goal is to Dfind a middle ground.‖ (d). Collaborating: High assertiveness and high cooperativeness. The goal is to Dfind a win-win solution.‖(e). Accommodating: Low assertiveness and high cooperativeness. The goal is to Dyield.‖ (Kenneth W. Thomas and Mohammed M. Habib, 1996:43)［8］These styles are distributed over two dimensions: assertiveness and cooperativeness. In other words, each conflict style is based on a combination of different degrees of assertiveness and cooperativeness. Competing style and accommodating style are at high ends of assertiveness and cooperativeness, and avoiding style is neither assertive nor cooperative. Compromising style, corresponding with its middle position, is inclined to take middle way and seeks balance between different people. Collaborating style combines highest degree of both assertiveness and cooperativeness. (See Figure1)Source: Kenneth W. Thomas and Ralph H. Kilmann, Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode instrument (New York: Xincom, Inc, 1974), 128. Kenneth Thomas, one of the designers of the TKI, has elsewhere described the differences between these five categories of conflict orientation in terms of degree of satisfaction. Thomas-6-温州大学本科毕业设计（论文）商务谈判中的中西文化价值差异及其对策describes the different categories in terms of the extent to which negotiator focuses on satisfying his own desires and the extent to which he focuses on satisfying the desires of the opponent. According to Thomas, collaborating and accommodating orientations evidence Da strong desire to meet the needs of the opponent,‖ a compromising orientation demonstrates Da moderate desire to meet the needs of the opponent,‖ and competing and avoiding orientations reflect Da lack of concern for satisfying the opponent.‖ Collaborating and competing orientations, and to a lesser degree a compromising orientation, demonstrate Da desire to satisfy the negotiator‘s own interest,‖ while accommodating and avoiding orientations evidence Da relative lack of desire on this dimension.‖ Each of the five conflict styles produces different effects on the negotiation process and its outcomes. According to Bai Yuan who combines each of the five styles with a negotiation mode, competing style negotiators tend to use high-pressure method such as deadlines, ultimatums and sanctions. They show little concern to other‘s interests and force the other party to surrender to their demands. As for those who use the collaborating method, cooperation is an outstanding feature in their negotiating activities. They show concerns and understandings to both parties‘ interests, difficulties and satisfactions, which explain the reason why they can share information, trust others and offer assistance to each other. Seeking middle ground is the compromising style. Those who use this style cooperate with others on some items but refuse to collaborate on others. They treat assistance, information and trust as commodities. Hence they look for compromise with others. DI won‘t give you anything unless you can provide me with what I want‖ would be a typical statement if using a compromising style. Those who utilize the avoiding style are never willing to cooperate with others nor do they state their consent or objection openly. Instead they passively resist often by finding excuses, changing topics or leaving conflict unsolved. People who use the accommodating style are the opposite extreme of those who use the competing style. They habitually cater to other‘s desires and requests. Harmony is their motto. They avoid hurting feelings, damaging relationships and disturbing a peaceful atmosphere, and they try to be very helpful and are concerned about the others‘ ideas. 2.3 The Importance of Negotiating in Cross-cultural Business Whether we like it or not, we are often negotiating―with our boss, co-worker, or even family members. When we ask a promotion, more payment, and divide property, we are constantly-7-温州大学本科毕业设计（论文）商务谈判中的中西文化价值差异及其对策engaged in consulting, negotiating or making a deal, strategically or not. Negotiation is needed in a situation where there are two or more people whose interests are not in accordance. (Roy J. Lweicki, David M Sauders and John W. Minton, 2001)［18］DNegotiations take place at various levels―among individuals, groups and states. Negotiations are necessary not only among rivals, opponents and enemies―are they potential or actual―but even between close friends and allies.‖(Peter Berton, Hiroshi Kimura, and I. William Zartman, 1999)［ 15 ］as long as there are people whose objectives and interests are notcompatible completely, negotiation is still necessary for the purpose of adjusting their differences and reaching an agreement satisfying mutually. Obviously, negotiation is a universal human behavior and is a very important part in daily life. Especially for the companies doing business internationally, negotiation is not an easy as it occurs between a husband and wife. It becomes more complex among companies involve a large sum of capital, unexpected cost and risks. Despite this, companies enjoy negotiating because it is a best way to solve conflicting interests, reach a settlement, and to earn money. With the development of society and the fast growth of economy, people have more and more opportunities to communicate and interact in business world. The enhanced interdependence between nations has increased cooperation of companies all around the world. Doing business internationally is not uncommon today. International trade has multiplied twenty fold over the last twenty years and similar increase in the future is expected. Negotiating a contract, a form of successful business deals is in a growing need. As a consequence, opportunities for negotiations dramatically increase. Negotiation has become a very useful way for businesspersons to solve economic conflict and to share common profits. DA typical senior manager in an American business spends at least twenty percent of his or her working day negotiating. The percentage of time spent negotiating by executives involved in international business, is even higher.‖ Experts estimate that managers who take on international business spend over fifty percentage of their time in negotiating each year.‖(W.Hendon, Rebecca Angeles Hendon, and Paul Herbig, 1996)［19］Generally speaking, there are two methods of solving conflicting interests. One is the method of force, such
the other is the peaceful method. In the age of peace and development, people prefer to resort to peaceful means, aiming at a long-term settlement.-8-温州大学本科毕业设计（论文）商务谈判中的中西文化价值差异及其对策Negotiation may be considered a typical way of solving conflicting interests especially those among international business corporations. DEvery sale or purchase has its negotiation aspect and every negotiation presents opportunities and dangers for both parties. International negotiations are fast becoming a fact of life for a growing number of international firms.‖(W.Hendon, Rebecca Angeles Hendon, and Paul Herbig, 1996)［11］Negotiation is at the core of every deal-making. To reach the satisfaction of two sides, negotiation cannot be separated from any transaction. Negotiation is a process that provides opportunities for companies to solve their disagreements and reach a mutual beneficial agreement. In a word, negotiation is not only a basic business activity but also a common means for solving conflicting interests. Negotiating cross-culturally is taking on increasing importance to the global business, serving as an indispensable tool of business diplomacy. International commercial negotiating has to involve two or more different countries parties. Culture and cultural values are always affected by social and historical facts. They have various culture backgrounds, which lead to much conflict and misunderstand, because of cultural values are difficult to learn. For a win-win result, negotiating is a better choose. In a successful negotiating, it the most important is that to find more both sides‘ common and focus to solve the bifurcation in a peaceful atmosphere.II. Culture Conflict in Business Negotiating between Chinese and American1. Difference between Chinese and American Culture ValuesPrior to the comparative research on conflict resolution of American and Chinese negotiators, it traces back to the different roots of Chinese and American cultural values First, in contrast to the U.S. population, w two-thirds of the Chinese people still live in rural areas, laboring primarily in rice or wheat cultivation. Traditional Chinese agriculture is peasant farming. It is communal, survival depends on group cooperation and harmony. Loyalty and obedience to familial hierarchy binds laboring groups together. Many of China‘s city dwellers were born and raised in the country and have retained-9-温州大学本科毕业设计（论文）商务谈判中的中西文化价值差异及其对策their agrarian values. (A.Smith,)［2］As compared with the most modern Chinese affected by millennia of living close to the soil, the most urbane Americans are influenced by the country‘s cowboy roots―Dshoot first and ask questions later,‖ Dlay your cards on the table,‖ and so on. The frontier experience and the settlement of a vast raw land embedded the directness and independence in American national characters.(Dean Allen Foster, )［3］Second, the writings of Confucius served as the foundation of Chinese education for some 2,000 years. During those two millennia, knowledge of Confucian texts was the primary requisite for appointment to government offices. Confucius maintained that a society organized under a benevolent moral code would be prosperous and politically stable and therefore safe from attack. He also taught reverence for scholarship and kinship. Confucius defined five cardinal relationships: between ruler and ruled, husband and wife, parents and children, older and younger brothers, and friend and friend. Except for the last, all the relationships were strictly hierarchical. The ruled―wives, children, and younger brothers―were counseled to trade obedience and loyalty for the benevolence of their rulers―husbands, parents, and older brothers. Rigorous adherence to these hierarchical relationships yielded social harmony, the antidote for the violence and civil war of Confucius‘s time.(Lin Yutang,)［12］Roughly contemporary with Confucius was Lao Tsu, the inspiration for Taoism, whose fundamental notions involve the relationship of yin (the feminine, dark, and passive force) to yang (the masculine, light, and active force). The two forces oppose and complement one another simultaneously. They cannot be separated but must be considered as a whole. The implications of the collision and collusion of yin and yang are pervasive, affecting every aspects of life from traditional medicine to economic cycles. According to Lao Tsu, the key to life was to find the Tao―Dthe way‖ between the two forces, the middle ground, a compromise.35Both Lao Tsu and Confucius were less concerned about finding the truth and more concerned about finding the way. These moral values express themselves in the Chinese negotiating style. Chinese negotiators are more concerned with the means than the end, with the process more than the goal. The best compromises are derived only through the ritual back-and-forth of haggling. This process cannot be cut short. And a compromise allows the two sides to hold equally valid positions.- 10 -温州大学本科毕业设计（论文）商务谈判中的中西文化价值差异及其对策In contrast, Americans are influenced by the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle. Plato conceived of an early world that is merely the unclear mirror of the unknowable higher world of perfect ideals and Aristotle provided a system of scientific observation and generalization.36 So Americans give weight to perceptions to categorize as facts, which are empirical and measurable. Americans are also given to pragmatism whereby when they face a problem the solutions are evaluated, weighed, and then they decide upon the solution that will work best. Americans focus on solutions to problems in this way because they believe there is an implied agent who is removed from the immediate act of perceiving and can evaluate the different options. The cultural assumption that is prevalent in U.S. is that the external, physical world is what is real. So they tend to believe that the truth, as they see it, is worth arguing over and even getting angry about. Third, the different language system also attributes to the gap between American and Chinese culture value. American children learn to read Roman letters and numbers at an early age, whereas Chinese children learn to memorize thousands of pictorial characters. In China, words are pictures rather than sequences of letters and Chinese thinking tends toward a more holistic processing of information. Michael Harris Bond, a psychology professor at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, found that Chinese children are better at seeing the big picture, while American children have an easier time focusing on the details.2. Collectivism vs. IndividualismGenerally speaking, cultures are thought to differ along dimension labeled individualism versus collectivism.(Michael Harris Bond,1986:65)［13］Chinese people are consideredcollectivists because they see themselves as part of a large whole and place high priority on their in-groups. These collectivistic values have been hypothesized to lead to valuing harmony and relationships. Chinese people are expected to avoid conflicts and aggressive methods of dealing with them for the collectivist reasons of protecting social face and maintaining relationships. In comparison, individualistic values, common in the US, lead people to discuss conflicts openly and directly. Compared to American negotiators, the fact that Chinese negotiators endorse and rely upon conflict avoidance methods supports the argument that collectivist values have a goal of maintaining harmony and avoiding open, aggressive conflict management.- 11 -温州大学本科毕业设计（论文）商务谈判中的中西文化价值差异及其对策There are a variety of implications for the conduct of negotiation regarding individualism versus collectivism. Two of them are outlined as follows.3. Different Attitudes toward Counterpart in Conflicts: In-group vs. Out-groupIn collectivist cultures, Dself-identity is interdependent with in-group members, but in individualistic cultures self-identity consists of attributes that are independent of in-group membership.‖(R. M. Marcues and Kitayama,) ［16］ Perhaps because collectivists identify more strongly with their in-groups, they are said to be more attuned to the needs of others than individualists and to make stronger in-group and out-group distinctions than individualists. Since they are identified with in-groups, collectivists‘ goals should be aligned with their in-groups‘ goals. If the other negotiator is an in-group member, goal alignment should generate cooperative behavior in negotiations, whereby parties search together for a mutually satisfying agreement. However, if the other negotiator is an out-group member, as is likely in any inter-cultural negotiation, goals is unlikely to be aligned and doesn‘t seem to fit perfectly. Generally speaking, the negotiators with individualistic motivational orientations do not change their behavior depending on whom they are interacting with. However, negotiators with cooperative motivational orientations vary their behavior depending on the orientation of the other negotiator. They cooperate when they are dealing with other cooperative negotiators, it in some cases will compete when dealing with negotiators with individualistic or competitive orientations. A western researcher described the Chinese as Dextremely hospitable, cooperative and helpful to the in group, but rude, exploitative and even hostile to out groups.‖(H.C. Triandis,1989:68)［5］Chinese negotiators hold a cautious attitude toward the business transactions with the outsiders. They ay present a competing style or delay and renegotiate what has already been agreed on, which the American negotiators take as signs of the stonewalling, typifying a society where strong distinctions are made between insiders and outsiders. In this case, the individualists among American negotiators, who go their own way regardless the behavior of the other, may be affected by the structure of the situation and vary their strategy or styles depending on the different conflict situations.- 12 -温州大学本科毕业设计（论文）商务谈判中的中西文化价值差异及其对策4. Different Attribution Tendencies to Conflicts: Situationalism vs. DispositionalismDispositionalism is the tendency to Dascribe the cause of a person‘s behavior to his or her character or underlying personality‖. Situationalism is the tendency to Dascribe the cause of a person‘s behavior to factors and forces that are outside of a person‘s control‖. (Aldo Di Luzio, )［1］For example, suppose that a negotiator is in the midst of high-stake negotiation,and he places an urgent call to his negotiation partner. The partner does not return his call, yet he knows she is in town because he has contacted her secretary. What is causing his partner‘s behavior? It is possible that his partner is irresponsible (dispositionalism); similarly, it is possible that his partner never got his message (situationalism). Depending on what he thinks the true cause is, his behavior toward his partner is going to be very different--- anger versus forgiveness. People from individualistic cultures view causality differently than do members of collectivist cultures. DDispositionalism is more widespread in individualistic than in collectivist cultures.‖ So Americans, as members of individualistic cultures, perceive more influence of internal factors (dispositionalism), whereas Chinese people as member of collectivist cultures perceive more external factors (situationalism). Specifically, when negotiators encounter a disagreeable person across the bargaining table, individualists attribute that person‘s behavior to underlying disposition and desire more formal conflict r in contrast, collectivists are more likely to ascribe behavior to situational factors and prefer informal procedures.(Leung M. Morris and Iyengar,2004)［15］It implies that Chinese negotiators tend to remain the amicable atmosphere, whereas American negotiators tend to frame the negotiation issues in a formally legal way to separate people from the problems and avoid the subjective elements involved in negotiations. Thus, when faced with conflict, Chinese negotiators tend to disengage from an embarrassing situation and they may not seek control of the agenda or to frame the issues. Rather, they deflect efforts to focus on solutions or rely on the third party, appearing detached, unenthusiastic, or uninterested. Concerned with good relationship on balance, Chinese negotiators might also attempt to create a less stressful atmosphere for the negotiation, presenting an accommodating conflict style. In contrast, Americans tend to rely on law and typically seek to control the agenda and frame the- 13 -温州大学本科毕业设计（论文）商务谈判中的中西文化价值差异及其对策issue. They may view the behaviors of Chinese counterparts as a manifestation of their personality rather than as a manifestation of cultural and situational norms. So the different attribution tendencies of Chinese negotiators and American negotiators may provide a bias for interpreting behaviors and misreading the messages transmitted by counterparts. On the other hand, dispositionalism affects biases: people from individualistic cultures, such as United States, are more likely to fall prey to the Dfixed-pie‖ bias than are people from collectivistic cultures, such as China. This suggests that American negotiators might be less oriented toward integrative bargaining than Chinese negotiators. This is because they view negotiations as Dwin-lose‖ rather than Dwin-win‖ situations and seek to maximize the difference between their own and the other‘s outcomes. In terms of handling incompatible interests, American negotiators are more likely to employ a competing style and fight hard to get the largest slice of the pie.5. Different Concerns about FaceAnother cultural difference between America and China, which has implications at the negotiating table, is the concept of Dface‖. Chinese people, as they put a strong emphasis on maintaining relationships, are expected to be particularly motivated to protect face of others as well as be concerned that their own face be accepted. Given this sensitivity, they seek harmony and communicate that they respect partners as capable and worthy. Their collectivism in general and their understanding of social face lead them to be hesitant about engaging in aggressive interaction that may challenge the face of others. They want to avoid conflict and, once engaged, use compromise and accommodation to deal with conflict. In contrast, people in the United States, like those in EnglishCspeaking societies, value frankness, freedom of expression, independence and the traditions of debate as the way to foster direct and straightforward expression. During negotiation, if conflict arises, aggressive behavior from either party can damage the face of the other. Since not giving face to a person is perceived as denying that person‘s pride and dignity, the Chinese are mindful about the implications of antagonism and aggression and will normally be hesitant about engaging in such behavior. In addition, the adoption of Dface-giving‖ and Dface-saving‖ behaviors in conflict situations is valued as a means to maintain- 14 -温州大学本科毕业设计（论文）商务谈判中的中西文化价值差异及其对策a sense of harmony. Although social science researchers have emphasized the Confucian approach to social face in China, business researchers have argued that Chinese people can also take a highly strategic approach to conflict and face in particular. Faure found that Chinese negotiators, taking a Dzero-sum‖ perspective, employed Dmobile warfare‖ in which they alternatively harassed, de-stabilized, and squashed one opposing partner. Ancient and modern Chinese texts have urged negotiators to use strategy to transform opponents‘ strengths into weakness and to take advantage of other‘s misfortune in search for total victory.［9］The strategic and Confucian perspectives present quite a paradox. On one hand, the Chinese genuinely value giving and protecting face but they can also use face manipulatively. These perspectives result in varying predications about the effects of losing social face. For having a good negotiating result, negotiators should know the both sides‘ attitude to the conflict and how they think of. After researching and reading a lot of information, I think the biggest different attitude between Chinese and American is that the way to regard Collectivism vs. Individualism, In-group vs. Out-group, Situationalism vs. Dispositionalism. The difference makes them choose the different method.III. Analyze Cases1 Analyze CasesSince negotiation is a complex and dynamic process bounded with a lot of variables, careful case studies are carried out as a necessary supplement to further illustrate the analysis on the conflict resolution preferences of American and Chinese negotiators under the specific negotiating situations. These cases are an illustration of different conflict resolving styles and approaches adopted by both Chinese and American negotiators. They show the contrast between the different cultural values reflected by the two cultures during the conflict resolution of business negotiations. All the four cases are taken from the second hand descriptions of actual Sino-U.S. business negotiations, each followed by a brief analysis of the author.2. Case 1 Exhibition Insurance NegotiationIn the 1980s, Chinese Ministry of Culture negotiated a contract for an exhibition of China‘s- 15 -温州大学本科毕业设计（论文）商务谈判中的中西文化价值差异及其对策archaeological treasures that was to tour a number of US cities. The treasures needed to be insured, but the companies from China and U.S. wanted to do it. For a long time, they could not decide which company the Americans would insure the exhibition with. The Chinese insisted that they should insure with the Chinese People‘s Insurance Company, which was quite happy to provide insurance at $2 million, but it would not cover the exhibits in the event of malicious damage, which was a key consideration. Thus the two sides reached an impasse in the negotiation. The Chinese negotiators said that they would be waiting for the instructions of higher authorities and suggested that the two sides put this issue aside for a time and shifted to minor items. Since there was no other way to break a deadlock, the American side agreed to delay discussing about the exhibition insurance. During this time, American negotiators went through all the related documents, contacted their colleagues at home for information about the insurance premium, and passed on the details of every conversation with the Chinese. A few days later, the American side got international brokers to give a quote on the insurance. Then the American said, DSo-and-so‘s insurance policy is $1.5 million, whereas the People‘s Insurance Company wants $2 million, and so-and-so‘s covers malicious damage and yours does not.‖ The Chinese rejected the less costly policies, saying it was mandatory that national treasure be insured with the People‘s Insurance Company. The American said they were happy for that company to do it, provided it could match the international broker‘s premium and terms. In the end, despite the Dregulations,‖ the exhibition was insured by an American company. But the American side conceded some points. They paid a handsome charge for preserving archaeological sites and treasures on top of the insurance. The American chief negotiator later commented on the negotiation, DWhen we came to a contentious issue, we dropped it. In the west, if you have a bone like that, you want to chew it to death, have that meeting and get it resolved then and there. In China, you don‘t do that. You say, ?OK, we agree to disagree on that. Let‘s leave it.‘ Provided you give the impression that you too have all the time in the world, they know you have to resolve a given problem eventually. So they will come back to it. You can come back to it yourself at the next meeting and say, ?OK, we had a problem last time, what are your views?‘ And you see if there has been a bit of ground given. You try to give something yourself, so you can make progress. So there is give and take.‖ Source: Carolyn Blackman, Negotiating China: Case Studies and Strategies (St. Leonards, NSW,- 16 -温州大学本科毕业设计（论文）商务谈判中的中西文化价值差异及其对策Australia: Allen & Unwin, 1997), 160-161. Analysis of Case 1 This case demonstrates the contrast between the conflict resolution styles adopted by Americans and Chinese. The Chinese negotiators employed the typical avoiding style by delaying and the American negotiators directly faced the conflict issues first and then made a compromise. When the conflict about the insurance arose, Chinese side delayed by appealing to higher authority and shifting to minor items. That is to say they were avoiding the conflicts. Two possible reasons explain why Chinese negotiators adopted an avoidance stance. Firstly, in a collectivistic and hierarchical culture, group discussion and asking a superior for a decision is the preferred way to resolve the key issues. Generally speaking, during the negotiations involving Chinese bureaucracy, the Chinese negotiators are concerned about the approval of superiors and their fellow team members. Furthermore, because of the mandate of bureaucracy, it takes time to locate the exact person for making the final decisions. In this case, when the exhibition insurance greatly concerned China‘s national treasures, it was more serious. Chinese negotiators would all the more depend on the authorities at the crucial moments instead of making decisions themselves. The higher authorities also took time to weigh the alternatives: if the exhibition was insured with an American company, the Chinese insurance company would lose a good opportunity to gain a considerable amount of premium and the national treasures would be under the safeguard of the A if the Chinese People‘s Insurance Company provided the insurance covering the exhibits in the event of malicious damage, it would suffer a loss once the malicious damage did occur. So in view of decision making system and great concerns about national treasures, the delay on the Chinese side was inevitable. Secondly, delaying was employed as a negotiating strategy or tactic on the part of the Chinese. Though collectivism greatly influences Chinese negotiating behaviors, it doesn‘t mean that we have no individual wisdom. Innately Chinese negotiators were following Sun Tzu‘s thinking of Dsubduing one‘s enemy without fighting‖, which provides an indirect Chinese way of contending. To the thought of a Chinese negotiator, patience carries weight both at the battlefield and at the negotiating table. When it is hard to make a breakthrough, they wait until the good timing shows up. In this case, if the American side could not bear the time pressure, Chinese negotiators would- 17 -温州大学本科毕业设计（论文）商务谈判中的中西文化价值差异及其对策take advantage of their impatience and press the counterpart to make concessions. In the end, to the surprise of many people, the Chinese side made a compromise and agreed that the exhibition be insured with the American insurance company. The concession on the side of the Chinese was a disguised gesture to attract the American side into making further real concessions. They made the American agree to pay a handsome charge for preserving the archaeological sites and treasures on top of the insurance policy. In contrast to the avoidance of Chinese negotiators, American negotiators presented more direct gestures toward the conflict. They laid the problems out on the table so that they could do the deal quickly and efficiently. Faced with Chinese negotiators‘ avoidance, they showed a firm belief that every problem had a solution. From the American standpoint, a conflict resolution process is guided by accepted rules and involves give and take. To them, facts and figures rather than emotions, traditions, and aspirations carry weight. So when two parties reached an impasse on the insurance issue, American side did meticulous homework and returned to the negotiation well briefed and armed with a sheaf of data and arguments. In this way, Americans finally persuaded the Chinese side to insure the exhibit with an American company. This case also illustrates that the negotiation or conflict resolution is a dynamic process during which the two sides interact and obtain the information from the feedback of the other party and finally find out the compatible point in the conflict issues. In this case, both sides made a strategic change on their respective conflict resolving styles from the assertiveness to the cooperativeness. This shift led to the win-win situation, in which the American side got the insurance policy of the exhibition and the Chinese side got the financial support for preserving archeological sites and treasures.3. Case 2 the Lesson of the “Jinbi Minutes”One American company negotiated a joint-venture contract with a Chinese company. Following their first real negotiation, the two sides signed a set of minutes at the Jinbi Hotel in Shenzhen, which was named as the DJinbi Minutes.‖ During the course of three years of negotiations, the DJinbi Minutes‖ were recalled over and over again by the leader of the Chinese negotiation team. As the negotiation didn‘t move smoothly and the Chinese side insisted on observing the principles of the DJinbi Minutes‖, the head of the American negotiation team, who- 18 -温州大学本科毕业设计（论文）商务谈判中的中西文化价值差异及其对策was on the verge of a nervous breakdown, screamed, DDamn it! Those Jinbi Minutes were signed three years ago and we didn‘t even know what the situation was then. Over these three years, this deal has changed. Over these three years, the capital required has changed. Over these three years, the technology had changed. Over these three years, the market in China has changed. So why can‘t you stop insisting on those Jinbi Minutes?‖ The head of the Chinese negotiation team said to him in anger DAre you betraying what you‘ve promised?‖ the American retorted, DIt‘s not a contract. It is only a letter of intent!‖ The atmosphere at the negotiating table turned to be stressful and neither of the two sides was willing to make a concession. The negotiation came to a breakdown.. After that, considering the mutual foundation of cooperation, the American side accepted Chinese advice to ask a third party for resolution. Through the third party‘s conciliation and mediation, the two parties returned to the negotiating table and finally reached an agreement. Later when the deal was finally done, the contract signed, and business license issued, the leader of the Chinese party‘s negotiation team personally wrote the character of DJinbi Minutes‖ in calligraphy, had the calligraphy mounted on a Chinese scroll, and presented the scroll as a gift to the head of the American negotiation team, to humorously remind him of the tough negotiating process. Source: Laurence J. Brahm, Doing Business in China: The Sun Tzu Way (Boston: Tuttle, 2004), 154-156. Analysis of Case 2 This DJinbi Minutes‖ case illustrates how differently Chinese negotiators and American negotiators frame conflict issues or view the minutes or the letter of intent. For the high-context Chinese, the minutes of a meeting meant much more than technology change, capital change or the market change. Influenced by Confucian values, the Chinese think that the moral issue or the ethical standard should never change. It provides the unchangeable norms for framing all the conflict issues. So the Chinese negotiators tried to establish their own ground rules at the early stage of negotiation. They did this by pressing their American counterparts to agree to certain initial principles agreed by both sides in the form of the DJinbi Minutes‖. The DJinbi Minutes‖ was only a letter of intent. It had not legally binding. But in the Chinese negotiators‘ opinion, it had strong moral binding. Once a conflict arose during a- 19 -温州大学本科毕业设计（论文）商务谈判中的中西文化价值差异及其对策negotiation, they were entitled to invoke the principles to suggest that the American side had not lived up to the spirit of Dmutual cooperation and benefit‖ initially agreed upon. However, the low-context Americans couldn‘t understand why the seemingly ritual statements could play such an important role in the negotiation. In the American negotiators‘ opinion, the DJinbi Minutes‖ lacked any kind of specific detail. Signing it didn‘t mean making a commitment. Business is just business, which should be separated from the subjective elements. They didn‘t realize the moral influence of these minutes until Chinese negotiators pointed it out as a moral issue. When the conflict about the DJinbi Minutes‖ arose, the Americans showed their typical competing style. They stepped right up and explicitly expressed their dissatisfaction. In low-context American culture, such straightforward expressions are thought to be the efficient way to disclose the problem, whereas for high- context Chinese, it would be extremely rude and cause a loss of face. Thus the incremental effect of mutual misunderstandings finally led the negotiation to a deadlock The turning point in the interminable negotiation was the third party‘s mediation, which was advised by the Chinese side. It showed that Chinese culture places a premium on harmony and the Chinese negotiator tried to avoid any further confrontation with the Americans through a roundabout way. According to Article 37 of the Foreign Economic Contract Law of PRC, in the case of a dispute, contracting parties will do everything possible to settle disputes through consultation or mediation by a third party. So for the Chinese negotiators, the mediation by the third party is the preferred way to resolve conflicts. Especially in a tense situation, the potential damage of confronting a conflict outweighs the benefits of its resolution. After the unpleasant negotiation, the Chinese negotiators proposed the third party‘s mediation, which let both sides cool down and reduced tensions to a productive level.4. Case 3 Rattling BicyclesA U.S. company had a contract from a German buyer to sell Chinese bicycles in Germany. When the first shipment was ready, there was a problem. The bikes rattled. The American buyer did not want to accept the shipment, knowing that with the rattle, the bicycles would not be acceptable to the German customer, whose high-end market niche was dominated by bikes that were whisper-quiet. In American culture, the normal approach would be to tell the manufacturer- 20 -温州大学本科毕业设计（论文）商务谈判中的中西文化价值差异及其对策that the rattling bikes were unacceptable and that the problem had to be fixed. In China, such a direct confrontation would be extremely rude and cause much loss of face. He was put in a difficult situation, knowing in Chinese culture face-saving was very important in conflict resolving process. But if he did nothing, his Chinese partner would ship the rattling bicycles and his German buyer would reject them. Finally he decided to adopt the Chinese high-context strategy to point out the problems in an indirect way. The American manager went to the Chinese plant, inspected the bicycles, and rode round and round. The bicycle rattled. The assembly workers could not hear the rattles after they finished the products. Now they got a chance to hear it and they frowned, looking at each other. At this moment the American buyer asked bout the rattle. DIs this rattle normal? Do all the bikes rattle? Do you think the German buyer will think there is something wrong with the bike if it rattles?‖ Then he left. The American buyer knew that he had drawn enough attention of the rattling to the Chinese manufacturers and they would immediately solve the problem. Surely, the next shipment of bikes had no rattles. Source: Jeanne M. Brett, Negotiating globally: How to negotiate deals, resolve disputes, and make decisions across cultural boundaries (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2000), 10-11. Analysis of Case 3 In this case, the American manager attached much attention to the cultural differences in a conflict-resolving negotiation. He used the high-context communication, which was opposed to his own American direct approach to conflict resolution. Suppose the American buyer directly pointed out the problems as usual, the outcome would vary. Conflict is weighed against the face-threat incurred in the conflict negotiation process, especially in China‘s high-context culture. However, indirect approach to conflict resolution doesn‘t mean non-confrontation. In this case, the U.S. buyer feared that if he did nothing, his Chinese partner would not even notice the issue, and there would be no chance to fix the rattling bicycles. The U.S. manager judged the cost of doing nothing as greater than the value of the likely outcome of doing something. His reference to German buyer (a third party) was aiming at pointing out the faults of the Chinese side. This face-saving way was perfectly acceptable in Chinese culture, and the manufacturers immediately fixed the bicycles. This case also indicates that American negotiators doing business with China has fully aware of the sensitivity to cultural differences when handling cross-cultural conflicts. This requires- 21 -温州大学本科毕业设计（论文）商务谈判中的中西文化价值差异及其对策them to make a change on their conflict resolving strategy. So in actual business negotiation, sometimes competing- style Americans may present the conflict resolving style completely different from their usual ones. This chapter analyze three cases, in which these negotiators chose different method ,under the different culture background .Their chose lead the different result .It show that there are no right method ,just fitting method .The negotiator should consider the factor of the event and the people involved, then find the relationship ,choose the better method negotiating mode.IV. ConclusionThe challenges of globalization and complexity of cultural differences mean that international negotiation skills will be of increasing relevance and importance for international management and cross-cultural interactions. Understanding how culture shapes the goals and strategic preferences of negotiators is critical to resolve such conflicts. This research furthers the understanding of how culture influences conflict resolution preferences. In particular, this study provides a comparison between Chinese and American negotiators. Based on the literature review about the cultural value and conflict style, the theoretical framework incorporating cultural value orientation and conflict resolution style is one of the contributions of this study. Through the theoretical analysis, two hypotheses concerning conflict resolution choose of American negotiators and Chinese negotiators are proposed. These cases verified the hypotheses. After the above research, the conclusions are drawn as follows. First, negotiators should change your resolution when you meet different person, according their character. The distinct differences on conflict resolution of American and Chinese negotiators do exist in business negotiations. The divergence of cultural values exerts influence on their adoption of conflict resolution styles. Generally speaking, American negotiators are more likely to adopt a direct approach to conflict resolution. They tend to lay the problems out at the negotiating table, frame the conflict issues from the specifics and pursue the negotiating goals in an expeditious and legalistic way. It is closely related to their individualistic, egalitarian and low context culture. In contrast, Chinese negotiators are more likely to present an avoiding stance when faced with the conflict, which is attributed to the cultural values of group harmony- 22 -温州大学本科毕业设计（论文）商务谈判中的中西文化价值差异及其对策and amicable relationship. Second, it is important for negotiators that learn how to choose which profit is the biggest we can‘t loss, and which is less important we can abnegate. Negotiating dose not just means fight with each other, while negotiators should give up the less profit for the important aim. Despite the distinct differences on conflict resolution preferences, the case indicates that both American negotiators and Chinese negotiators show the preference to a compromising style and American negotiators do not show a strong preference of competing. It implies that in interest-oriented business negotiations, the two sides pay more and more attention to desired outcome of negotiations. The necessary concession to the other side is taken as the effective and prevalent way to conflict resolution.- 23 -温州大学本科毕业设计（论文）商务谈判中的中西文化价值差异及其对策Bibliography［1］ Aldo Di Luzio, Susanne Gü nthner and Franca Orletti Culture in Communication: Analysis of Intercultural Situations (Philadelphia : J. Benjamins, 2001), 227. ［2］ A.Smith, Chinese Characteristics [M], Singapore: Graham Brash Ltd., . ［3］ Dean Allen Foster, Bargaining Across Cultures: How to Negotiate Business Successfully Anywhere in the World [M], U.S.A.: McGraw-Hill, inc, . ［4］ Edward B. Tylor. Primitive Culture: Researches into the Development of Mythology, Philosophy, Religion, art, and Custom[M]. London: Murray, 1871. ［5］ H.C. Triandis, DCross-cultural studies of individualism and collectivism‖ [J], Nebraska Symposium onMotivation, ed. J. Berman 1989, 68. ［6］ Harris. P. R. & Moran. R. T. Managing Cultural Differences. [M]. Houston: Gulf, 1996. ［7］ Kathleen Kelly Reardon, The Skilled Negotiator: mastering the language of engagement [M]. San Francisco: CA: Jossey-Bass, . ［8］ Kenneth W. Thomas and Ralph H. Kilmann, Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode instrument (New York: Xincom,Inc, 1974), 128. ［9］ Laurence J.Brahm, Doing Business in China: The Sun Tzu Way(Boston: Tuttle, 2004), 135. ［10］ Lee.S. M. Spectrum of Chinese Culture. [M]. Selangor Darul Ehsan: Pelanduk, 1995. ［11］ Leung M. Morris and Iyengar, S.S. DPerson perception in th e heat of conflict: Negative trait attributions affect procedural preferences and account for situational and cultural differences‖ Asian Journal of Social Psychology,(June,2004), on -line, available from www.columbia.edu/~ss957/Person%20and%20Procedures.pdf ［12］ Lin Yutang, My Country and My People[M],(Singapore: Heinemann Aisa, . ［13］ Michael Harris Bond, The psychology of the Chinese people[M],(Hong Kong: Oxford Univ. Pr., 1986, 65. ［14］ Pat K.Chew, the Conflict and Culture Reader [J]. New York University Press,
［15］ Peter Berton, Hiroshi Kimura, & I. William Zartman. International Negotiation: Actors, Structure/Process, Value. [M] New York: St. Martin‘s Press, 1999. ［ 16 ］ R. M. Marcus and Kitayama, S. DCulture and self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation‖ [J],Psychological Review ,. ［17］ Root. F. R. Entry Strategies for International Markets. Lexington, [M]: Lexington Books, 1987. ［18］ Roy J.Lewicki, David M.Sauders & John W.Minton. Essentials of Negotiation. [M] New York: McGraw-Hill Companies.- 24 -温州大学本科毕业设计（论文）商务谈判中的中西文化价值差异及其对策Inc, 2001. ［19］ W. Hendon, Rebecca Angeles Hendon, & Paul Herbig. Cross-cultural[M], 1996. ［20］ 白远. 国际商务谈判: 理论案例分析与实践[M].北京: 中国人民大学出版社,2002:14 ［21］ 诚夫.各国商务文化的差异[J]， 《商业文化》,2001，第 2 期。 ［22］ 管晓静.论价值观差异对中美商务谈判的影响[J]， 《广东理工大学学报》,2003，第 6 期。 ［23］ 庄恩平.东西方文化差异与对外交流[M]. 上海：华东理工大学出版社,1998- 25 -
商务谈判中的中西文化价值差异及对策3―汇集和整理大量word文档,专业文献,应用文书,考试资料,教学教材,办公文档,教程攻略,文档搜索下载下载,拥有海量中文文档库,关注高价值的实用信息,我们一直在努力,争取提供更多下载资源。