Cross-cultural sales negotiations

International Marketing Review 15,1 10 Received April 1996 Revised May 1997 Accepted September 1997

Cross-cultural sales negotiations A literature review and research propositions Antonis C. Simintiras The Open University Business School, Milton Keynes, UK, and

Andrew H. Thomas European Business Management School, University of Wales, Swansea, UK

International Marketing Review, Vol. 15 No. 1, 1998, pp. 10-28. © MCB University Press, 0265-1335

Introduction International business comprises a large and increasing portion of the world’s total trade (Johnson et al., 1994; Czinkota et al., 1995). The growth of international business has gained momentum faster than previously recorded, outstripping domestic business (Daniels and Radebaugh, 1995). The impact of such growth on many companies is that they are now “rushing to become insiders in international markets they formerly paid little attention to, or ignored completely” (McDaniel, 1990, p. 1). International markets, it is believed, offer companies opportunities to market their products and services on a worldwide scale and reap the benefits of the particularly high stakes involved (Mintu and Calantone, 1991). Companies involved in international business, deal with sales transactions or negotiations which span national and cultural boundaries. That means, sales negotiators interact with individuals from unfamiliar cultures that exhibit different negotiation styles, behaviours and expectations about the normal process of negotiation (Graham and Sano, 1984). This presents several potential culture-related obstacles that confront the international negotiator (Deutsch, 1984; Frank, 1992; Graham and Sano, 1984; Hall and Hall, 1987; Tung, 1984; Zimmerman, 1985) and a failure to anticipate, understand and effectively remove these obstacles can lead to a failure in cross-cultural negotiations. Competence, therefore, in international negotiations is one of the most important and indispensable skills in all kinds of international business (Fayerweather and Kapoor, 1972, 1976; Root, 1987; Wells, 1977). Despite the growth of international business and the importance of international negotiations, the literature relevant to cross-cultural sales negotiations is mainly normative and largely disjointed. In this study, we attempt a synthesis of literature findings relevant to the interactive part of the international sales negotiations process. More specifically, the purpose of this study is three-fold. First, to set the scene by providing a brief overview of the

role of culture on negotiations. Second, to examine the literature pertaining to cross-cultural sales negotiations by using the negotiation process as an integrative and analytical framework. Third, to explore other areas of research and put forward several research propositions which extend the research domain and enrich the theoretical understanding of cross-cultural sales negotiations. The impact of culture on negotiations Negotiation is one of the most important elements of the selling and buying functions, (Neslin and Greenhalgh, 1983). Negotiation is “a process in which two or more entities come together to discuss common and conflicting interests in order to reach an agreement of mutual benefit” (Harris and Moran, 1987, p. 55). The negotiation process is a complex process which is significantly influenced by the culture(s) within which the participants are socialised, educated and reinforced (Graham, 1985a; Hamner, 1980; Harnett and Cummings, 1980; Tung, 1982). For example, an individual’s conduct during a negotiation encounter is influenced by ethnic heritage (Hawrysh and Zaichkowsky, 1989), and the attitudes and customs which are embedded in his/her culture (Shenkar and Ronen, 1987). Individuals having the same cultural backgrounds tend to display common patterns of thinking, feeling and reacting in line with their cultural heritage. As a result, behaviour in negotiation is consistent within cultures and each culture has its own distinctive negotiation “style”. The intra-cultural literature which examines sellers and buyers from the same cultures, provides evidence for this consistency (e.g. French (Dupont, 1982); Mexicans (Fisher, 1980); Brazilians (Graham, 1983, 1985a); Middle Eastern Arabs (Muna, 1973; Wright, 1983); Chinese (Graham and Lin, 1987; Pye, 1982; Shenkar and Ronen, 1987; Tung 1984) and Japanese (Graham, 1984; Tung, 1984; Van Zandt, 1970)). Despite the rather rich literature pertaining to intra-cultural negotiation behaviours, there is little attention paid to inter-cultural or cross-cultural negotiation behaviour (Adler and Graham, 1989; Mintu and Calantone, 1991). International sales negotiations that occur across national boundaries are crosscultural (Adler, 1986), and a negotiation is cross-cultural “when the parties involved belong to different cultures and therefore do not share the same ways of thinking, feeling and behaving” (Casse, 1981, p. 152). Such cultural differences prevalent in cross-cultural negotiations can affect the process and its outcome (Hamner, 1980; Tse et al., 1988). Studies attempting a comparison of the various negotiation behaviours in different countries (Adler, 1986; Adler et al., 1987; Burt, 1989; Cambell et al., 1988; Copeland and Griggs, 1985; Foster, 1992; Graham et al., 1988; Harnett and Cummings, 1980; Hellweg et al., 1991; Herbig and Kramer, 1992; Weiss and Stripp, 1985) have mainly adopted an intra-cultural perspective and demonstrated that negotiation behaviours differ between cultures. Furthermore, a study by Druckman et al. (1976) which attempted to isolate

Cross-cultural sales negotiations 11

International Marketing Review 15,1 12

differences which could be attributed to culture only but not variables such as age and sex, indicated that negotiator behaviour differs between cultures. The ability to achieve mutually beneficial outcomes from cross-cultural sales negotiations is believed to be crucial to sales success internationally (Cohen, 1980; Fisher and Ury, 1981; Llich, 1980; Nierenberg, 1963; Raiffa, 1982; Unterman, 1983; Warschaw, 1980). Negotiation outcome is the point in the process when the parties reach some form of agreement on the total set of issues that have been discussed (Dommermuth, 1976). Negotiation outcome can be measured in terms of sale versus no sale (Pennington, 1968) or profits (Dwyer and Walker, 1981; Lewis and Fry, 1977; Pruitt and Lewis, 1975) and satisfaction (Dwyer and Walker, 1981). The latter have been found to be operationally superior to the former (Graham, 1985b, 1985c). High and low-context cultures Hall, (1976, p. 129) states that a crucial dimension of culture that has particular relevance for negotiation situations is the context of communication. More specifically, Hall, (1976) postulates that cultures fall along a high to low-context continuum, according to the role of context in communication. In certain cultures communication uses low-context and explicit messages. These are almost “digital” and could be translated into simple computer units (bits) (Usunier, 1993). Individuals rely on formal communication with information transmission concerning behaviour being chiefly verbally expressed (Cateora, 1983; Foster, 1992; Root, 1987). Such low-context countries include, among others, the USA, Canada, Switzerland and Germany (Graham, 1988; Onkvisit and Shaw, 1993). In high-context cultures, less information is contained in precise verbal expression, since much more is in the context of communication. The context of communication is high because it includes a great deal of additional information, such as the individuals background, associations, values and position in society (Keegan, 1989). As such, a message cannot be understood without its context (Onkvisit, 1993). According to Hawrysh and Zaichkowsky, (1989, p. 35) high-context cultures are “those in which the perception of the individual is inextricably bound to his or her relationship and the context in which they occur”. High-context cultures are characterised by the expressive manner in which the message is delivered (Onkvisit, 1993) (e.g. using non-verbal behaviour, such as facial expressions, gestures and body language (Root, 1987; Usunier, 1993). Individuals unfamiliar with the complexities of non-verbal behaviour may experience difficulty in understanding messages, which leads Hall (1976, p. 127) to suggest that it is “sheer folly” to get seriously involved with high-context cultures unless one is really “contexted”. Such countries include Japan, China, Brazil and Mexico, Spain, Italy and Middle Eastern Arab nations (Graham, 1988; Onkvisit, 1993). In the next section, the literature pertaining to the interactive part of the cross-cultural negotiation process will be reviewed. More specifically, both the non-task related and task-related or endogenous factors influencing

cross-cultural sales negotiations are examined. However, other exogenous factors which also influence the negotiation process and include, among others, the importance of the negotiation, the stakes of the respective negotiators (i.e. “the amount of perceived gain or loss associated with particular results”) (Gladwin and Walter, 1980, p. 66) and the nature and complexity of issues to be negotiated (Tung, 1988), although very important, are beyond the scope of this study. The negotiation process After the initial preparation that precedes a cross-cultural sales negotiation, the interactive part of the process of negotiation can be divided into two different stages: (1) non-task related interaction; and (2) task-related interaction (Adler, 1986; Graham and Sano, 1984, 1986). The first stage, non-task related interaction, describes the process of getting to know each other or of establishing rapport between members of negotiating teams (Adler, 1986; Adler et al., 1987; Hawrysh and Zaichkowsky, 1989). This is the stage of the face-to-face interaction which opens the meeting and excludes those interactions related to the exchange of information regarding the “business” of the meeting. It involves negotiators “getting to know” contacts. Non-task related interaction outcome will be influenced by status distinction (Graham, 1983; Oh, 1984; Tsurami, 1971) impression formation accuracy (Graham, 1985a) and interpersonal attraction (Benton, 1971; Berscheid and Walster, 1978; McGuire, 1968; Morgan and Sawyer, 1967; Swingle, 1966) of the negotiators. The second stage of the negotiation describes the task-related interaction and it is concerned with the “business” of the negotiation. It involves an exchange of information regarding the needs and preferences of negotiators (i.e. the various alternatives open to them). This stage places emphasis on information exchange (Graham, 1987; Graham and Andrews, 1987), persuasion and bargaining strategy (Hawrysh and Zaichkowsky, 1989) and concession making (Anderson, 1995) that culminates in a final agreement. High and low-context cultures (Hall, 1976), it is believed, exert an influence on both the non-task related and task-related factors, which, in turn, influence the outcome of crosscultural sales negotiations (Graham, 1988; Graham and Herberger, 1983; Hall, 1976; Herbig and Kramer, 1992). In this section, we examine the literature pertaining to each stage of the international sales negotiation process and explore areas for further research. More specifically, the study focuses on the role and the likely impact of: (1) importance weighting attached to status distinction; (2) perceived similarities and differences of the negotiators; and (3) degree of reliance on non-verbal communication, at various stages of the negotiation process and its outcome.

Cross-cultural sales negotiations 13

International Marketing Review 15,1 14

The integrative framework which has been used to guide the analysis is diagramatically shown in Figure 1. Non-task interaction Status distinction At the non-task interaction stage of the negotiation process status distinction plays an important role. Status can be defined by interpersonal rank, age, sex, education, the position of an individual in the company and the relative position of one’s company (Graham, 1988; Hawrysh and Zaichkowsky, 1989). In almost any negotiation, there may be differences in the status of bargaining parties (Graham, 1988) that account for the traditional culturally based power plays that are a feature of international negotiation (Herbig and Kramer, 1992). In cross-cultural sales negotiations it is critical that sellers and buyers understand status distinction. Different cultures attach different degrees of importance to status in negotiations (Graham, 1988). High-context cultures are status oriented (Herbig and Kramer, 1992) since meaning and understanding in communication is internalised in the person (Hawkins, 1983). In such cultures interpersonal relationships are vertical in nature (Nakane, 1970; Graham, 1988) and the words used in negotiation are not as important as negotiator status (Hall, 1976). There is little egalitarianism in negotiations (Herbig and Kramer, 1992) which has prompted Schmidt (1979, p. 2) to emphatically state that “in the past as now, a seller was considered little more than a beggar. Yet the buyer (the ‘honoured guest’) was and remains king.” The influence of status distinctions can be so pervasive that status dictates not only what is said but how it is said (i.e. different words are used to express the same idea depending on which person makes the statement). Examples of high-context cultures where status distinctions are pervasive include the Mexicans (Condon, 1985), Brazilians (Harrison, 1983) and Japanese (Graham and Herberger, 1983). In a low-context culture, however, there is little distinction between roles and relatively fewer rules defining what is appropriate behaviour (Hawrysh and Zaichkowsky, 1989). Instead individuals rely on an informal or egalitarian relationship in negotiations (Herbig and Kramer, 1992). According to Graham (1988), status distinction has a considerable impact on cross-cultural sales negotiation and can influence their outcome (Graham, 1988). Furthermore, it has been pointed out by Graham and Herberger (1983) that the relative status of the seller and buyer in negotiation is the single most important factor in explaining negotiation outcome. The differences in status distinctions of negotiators between high and low-context cultures are the source of potential problems. For example, in line with cultural heritage, a seller from a highcontext culture negotiating with a buyer from a high-context culture will hold the buyer in high esteem and display considerable respect. However, a seller from a high-context culture negotiating with a buyer from a low-context culture is likely to attach importance to the status of the buyer. Since the seller expects the buyer to reciprocate this respect, the seller may be taken advantage of to the extent that this has a negative influence on the sales negotiation outcome

Status distinction

Impression formation accuracy Interpersonal attraction

Individual similarities

Exchange of information

Individual differences

Concession making & agreement

Task-related interaction

Persuasion & bargaining strategies

Reliance on non-verbal communication

The interactive part of the cross-cultural sales negotiation process

Non-task related interaction

Attached importance

time

Negotiation outcome

Cross-cultural sales negotiations 15

Figure 1. Diagrammatic representation of the negotiation process and suggested relationships

International Marketing Review 15,1 16

(Graham, 1988). Sellers from high-context cultures are advised to put less emphasis on their status positions to reduce the likelihood of this occurring. A seller from a low-context culture negotiating with a buyer from a highcontext culture expecting to be treated as an equal in negotiations, will display egalitarianism. Since negotiations between equals are seldom found in highcontext cultures this will be regarded as out of place by the buyer (Herbig and Kramer, 1992). This will increase the likelihood that the negotiation will end abruptly because a buyer from a high-context culture will view this as “brash behaviour in a low status seller and lacking in respect” (Graham, 1988, p. 484). According to the previous discussion, the following propositions can be put forward: P1: The lower the degree of importance salespeople from high-context cultures attach to status positions when negotiating with buyers from low-context cultures, the higher the likelihood of positively influencing the negotiation outcome. P2: The higher the degree of importance salespeople from low-context cultures attach to status positions when negotiating with buyers from high-context cultures, the lower the likelihood of positively influencing the negotiation outcome. Impression formation accuracy At the non-task related interaction phase, negotiators tend to form impressions about attitudes and characteristics of others. It is important that accurate perceptions of individuals are formed immediately since initial perceptions may form the basis for the future bargaining strategy. Graham (1985c, p. 134) has stated that “based on this impression, negotiation strategies are formulated, communications transmitted, and strategies evaluated”. Inaccurate impression formation can have negative effects on subsequent stages of negotiation and can be detrimental to future negotiation encounters (Cook and Corey, 1991; Linkemer, 1989; Swan et al., 1984; Weitz et al., 1986). Findings suggest that on meeting someone for the first time, individuals have first impressions that precede rationalised thought processes and typically form instant opinions often based on minimal information (Zajonc, 1980). Individuals categorise others on the basis of these first impressions due to personal factors (LaTour et al., 1989; Wise, 1974). For example, the first impression formed of a culturally dissimilar negotiator may be based on foreign accent or speech style (Foon, 1986). From this first impression a wide range of other personal qualities may be assumed. According to Tsalikis et al. (1991, 1992), a salesperson with an accent that is perceived to be “foreign” is regarded as less intelligent, less knowledgeable and less effective than a salesperson with a local accent. It could be argued, therefore, that individuals from similar cultural contexts displaying communication patterns have a higher likelihood of forming accurate impressions.

Researchers have examined the relationship between impression formation accuracy and the cultural similarity of negotiators (Cook and Corey, 1991; Graham, 1985a; Linkemer, 1989; Swan et al., 1984; Weitz et al., 1986). Findings indicate that negotiators from dissimilar cultures (high versus low-context), who appear “foreign” may have particular difficulty “sizing one another up” (i.e. the impression formation accuracy is reduced) (Graham, 1985a). In contrast, similarities between negotiators facilitate awareness and exploration between negotiating parties (Usunier, 1993). Similarities enable negotiators to form accurate perceptions that become the basis for trust and personal relationships to develop. Prevailing characteristics of high and low-context cultures provide the basis for understanding the relationship between impression formation accuracy and cultural similarities and dissimilarities. Negotiators from similar cultural contexts display a common perceptual framework of the communication process (Hall, 1976) and the likelihood of a negotiator forming an accurate impression of a counterpart is increased. Since the perceptions of individuals from dissimilar cultural contexts differ (Hall, 1976) the likelihood of a negotiator forming accurate impressions of a counterpart is reduced. Therefore, the following propositions can be made: P3: The greater the cultural similarities as perceived by a seller from a lowcontext culture when negotiating with a buyer from a high-context culture, the higher the level of perceived impression formation accuracy. P4: The greater the cultural differences as perceived by a seller from a highcontext culture when negotiating with a buyer from a low-context culture, the lower the level of perceived impression formation accuracy. Interpersonal attraction The immediate face-to-face impression may be influenced by any feelings of interpersonal attraction or liking between negotiators. Feelings of attraction that develop over the course of the negotiation as the personal relationship develops have their roots at the initial contact phase. There is evidence to suggest that there are cross-cultural similarities in perceptions of attractiveness (Zebrowitz-McArthur, 1988) and that individuals tend to like others who are similar to themselves in various ways (e.g. Poppleton, 1981; Vernon, 1964). Similar individuals are more likely to get along than dissimilar ones (Byrne, 1969; Hieder, 1958; Newcombe, 1956) and perceive others whom they like as similar to themselves (Lott and Lott, 1965). Similarity between negotiators can induce trust which leads, in turn, to interpersonal attraction. Generally, researchers have argued that a positive relationship exists between the similarity of bargainers, and interpersonal attraction (Bramel, 1969; Byrne, 1969; Lindzey and Byrne, 1968; Rubin and Brown, 1975). Various dimensions of similarity have been investigated, such as attitudes, interests, values and personality (Davis and Silk, 1972). In addition, Lott and Lott (1965) stated that the positive association between interpersonal attraction and

Cross-cultural sales negotiations 17

International Marketing Review 15,1 18

similarity could reflect causation in either direction (i.e. persons tend to perceive others whom they are interpersonally attracted to as similar to themselves). Based on the above findings, it could be argued that sellers and buyers from similar cultural contexts, who share common personality characteristics and elements of communication, have a higher likelihood of being interpersonally attracted than those from dissimilar cultural contexts. Therefore, the following proposition can be put forward: P5: The higher the level of individual differences between a salesperson and a buyer from similar cultural contexts, the lower the level of interpersonal attraction. Other findings suggest that the relationship between similarity and interpersonal attraction is not as simple as it has been described above. For example, Graham (1985a) points out that negotiators from similar cultures are not attracted to each other any more than individuals from dissimilar cultures. Such findings offer some support for the theory of interpersonal congruency which suggests that under certain conditions interpersonal attraction will be facilitated by dissimilarities as well as similarities (Lott and Lott, 1965). Thus the following proposition is made: P6: The higher the level of individual similarities between a seller and a buyer from dissimilar cultural contexts, the higher the level of interpersonal attraction. Interpersonal attraction can have positive or negative influences on the negotiation outcome. First, it can enhance the satisfaction an individual derives from the negotiation (Benton, 1971; Berscheid and Walster, 1978; Graham, 1985a; Graham, 1988; Morgan and Sawyer, 1967; Swingle, 1966). Second, it can have a detrimental effect on negotiation outcome (McGuire, 1968). Sellers and buyers eager to preserve gratifying personal relationships may sacrifice economic rewards in the sales encounter. Individuals who are attracted are likely to make concessions in bargaining. Thus an individual negotiator may give up economic rewards (in terms of achieved profits) for the rewards of the satisfaction derived from the relationship with an attractive partner (Graham, 1985a). Task-related interaction Exchange of information The second stage of the negotiation process describes the task-related interaction. During this stage, there is an exchange of information that defines the participants’ needs and expectations. More specifically, there is an emphasis on “the parties’ expected utilities of the various alternatives open to them” (Graham, 1987, p. 417). Negotiators must clarify their situation and needs and understand their opponents situation and needs. The effectiveness of communication between negotiators is of particular interest at this stage where a clear understanding of participants needs and expectations is essential. A study by Triandis (1960) that focused on the similarity of communicators found that greater communication similarity leads to more effective

interactions between negotiating parties. It has been shown that communication effectiveness is reduced even between individuals from the same cultural background who have cognitive dissimilarities (Stening, 1979). According to Stening (1979) it would be reasonable to expect that this problem is exacerbated in cross-cultural interactions where the likelihood of cognitive dissimilarities is greater. With thousands of languages and local dialects in the world (Onkvisit and Shaw, 1993), communication through verbal means is complex. Even in instances where participants understand each other and are mutually fluent, the meaning of the information exchanged can be lost as a result of connotative and denotative differences in meanings cross-culturally (D’Anglejan and Tucker, 1973). In addition to complexities with regard to verbal communication, cross-cultural sales negotiations are subject to non-verbal communication problems. Such problems reduce the likelihood that the parties involved in negotiation will accurately understand their differences as well as their similarities (Bass, 1971). This, in turn, can lead to a breakdown in the negotiation process and a failure to achieve a desired outcome. Researchers have isolated certain problems in exchanging information crossculturally at the negotiation table that fall into a non-verbal category. For example, it has been found that culturally determined behaviour with respect to gaze, facial expression and the use of time and space can produce adverse effects upon cross-cultural exchange of information (Collett, 1971; Furnham, 1989; Hall, 1959; Yousef, 1974). Concerning time, information flow may never begin if the differing time perceptions in various cultures prevent negotiations between participants who do not share identical attitudes to time (Limaye and Victor, 1991). In a holistic study of cross-cultural sales negotiations, Graham and Andrews (1987) provide an in-depth analysis of the difficulties experienced. A series of focal points in the course of the negotiation between American and Japanese participants revealed that the exchange of information defining the participants’ needs and expectations was the subject of cultural variation. For example, the Japanese buyer in the negotiation simulation asked the American seller to describe his situation first and did not anticipate the aggressive opening of the American. In contrast, in negotiations between two Japanese participants it was the buyer who took control of the interaction and described “his” situation first. Throughout the discourse of the interaction there were verbal and non-verbal communication problems. The cultural context of an individual is manifest in the communication used in negotiation. An individual from a low-context culture will focus on explicit messages and display a great deal of precision in the verbal aspect of communication (Cateora, 1983; Hall, 1976). Meanwhile, communication between members of high-context cultures is implicit and features expressive non-verbal behaviour (Gudykunst and Ting-Toomey, 1988). This can include body language, gestures and facial expressions. Given the preceding analysis of the problems experienced in the exchange of information, it can be argued that

Cross-cultural sales negotiations 19

International Marketing Review 15,1 20

when sellers and buyers from similar cultural contexts negotiate they instinctively exchange common elements of verbal and non-verbal communication. However, in negotiations between sellers and buyers from dissimilar cultural contexts there is an increased likelihood that the information exchange will be adversely affected by the complexities with regard to verbal and non-verbal communication. As a result, there is an increased likelihood that the performance outcomes of cross-cultural negotiations between culturally dissimilar sellers and buyers will be negatively influenced. This leads to the following propositions: P7: In negotiations between salespeople and buyers from dissimilar contextcultures, the lower the degree of reliance on non-verbal behaviours, the higher the level of communication effectiveness. P8: In negotiations between salespeople and buyers from similar contextcultures, the higher the degree of reliance on non-verbal communication, the higher the level of communication effectiveness. Persuasion and bargaining strategy The persuasion phase of the negotiation process involves the parties’ attempts to modify one another’s performance expectations through the use of various persuasive tactics (Hawrysh and Zaichkowsky, 1989). Intra-cultural studies suggest that each country has its own cultural style of persuasion. This suggestion has been empirically tested and dominant styles of persuasion have been found to be prevalent in different countries (Glenn et al., 1977). The literature suggests that there are three basic styles of persuasion: the factualinductive, the axiomatic-deductive and the affective-intuitive. The weight of each style varies by country. The factual-inductive style has persuasive appeals made to logic (e.g. typical in North American negotiations), the axiomaticdeductive style appeals to ideals (e.g. typical in the former USSR) and the affective-intuitive style focuses on emotional appeals (e.g. typical in Arab countries). Other studies have shown that persuasive tactics are consistent across countries, such as the use of aggressive tactics present in US negotiation behaviour (Graham and Sano, 1984; Van Zandt, 1970). The persuasion stage emphasises the importance of the bargaining strategy that can affect the outcome of the negotiation process. From a managerial standpoint, the important question concerning the negotiation process is, of course, how bargaining strategy affects the outcome. According to Anglemar and Stern (1978), the bargaining strategy used in negotiations depends on the function of communication during negotiation. There are essentially two strategies to bargaining, namely representational and instrumental strategies. When representational strategies are used communication is based on the identification of problems, a search for solutions and the selection of the most appropriate course of action; for example, the salesperson may co-operate with the buyer and seek information on the buyers views of the situation. When instrumental strategies are used, communication involves affecting the other

party’s behaviour and attitudes (Anglemar and Stern, 1978); for example, a salesperson may influence the buyer with persuasive promises, commitments, rewards and punishments. It has been suggested that sellers should refrain from using instrumental strategies (Graham, 1985a) and should use representational bargaining strategies where negotiation outcomes prove more favourable (Rubin and Brown, 1975). A co-operative negotiation environment increases the likelihood of a mutually beneficial agreement from the negotiation because of the mutual recognition of the need and potential benefit to the parties (Derleda and Grzelak, 1982). Since both the representational and instrumental strategies are based on communication, they can be linked to cultural contexts. On the one hand, for example, Rubin and Brown (1975) have suggested that communication between culturally similar individuals is co-operative (i.e. sellers and buyers from similar cultural contexts use more representational strategies). This suggestion is supported by Graham (1985a) who posits that negotiators from similar cultures use more representational bargaining strategies and achieve more favourable negotiation outcomes accordingly (i.e. higher levels of satisfaction and profits). On the other hand, a cross-cultural empirical analysis has revealed that culturally dissimilar negotiating parties (i.e. those from dissimilar cultural contexts) tend to use instrumental bargaining strategies but do not achieve such desired outcomes of negotiation (Graham, 1985a). Therefore the following propositions are made: P9: The higher the degree of individual dissimilarities as perceived by a salesperson when negotiating with a buyer from a different cultural context, the higher the likelihood of him/her using an instrumental bargaining strategy. P10: The higher the degree of individual dissimilarities as perceived by a salesperson when negotiating with a buyer from a similar cultural context, the higher the likelihood of him/her using an instrumental bargaining strategy. Concession making and agreement Negotiators can make concessions at any stage of the negotiation process. Concession making behaviour represents the manoeuvring of negotiators on the issues being negotiated (Rinehart and Page, 1992). It reflects the negotiators attempts to move the negotiation process from a point of initial position on each discussion issue to a point of agreement (Rinehart and Page, 1992). Although research is not definitive, it appears that individuals from different cultures have different approaches to concession making (Anderson, 1995). In many Asian cultures, participants discuss all issues prior to making any concessions; concessions are made when they believe the end of the negotiation is in sight (Adler, 1986). In contrast US bargainers tend to make small concessions throughout the negotiation process (Van Zandt, 1970) which they expect their opponents to reciprocate (Adler, 1986).

Cross-cultural sales negotiations 21

International Marketing Review 15,1 22

The final stage of the negotiation involves reaching an agreement based on the performance of the parties involved. According to Ghauri, (1986, p. 81) “the agreement should foster the development of the relationship and be flexible to deal with expected or unexpected changes which can occur in the future”. The final agreement of a negotiation may take the form of a gentleman’s agreement as is common in Japan (Oh, 1984), or a more formal Western-style contract. Conclusion The intra-cultural and inter-cultural sales negotiation literature suggests that culture has an important influence on sales negotiations. By focusing on the interactive part of the cross-cultural sales negotiation, several key variables such as status distinction, impression formation accuracy, interpersonal attraction, information exchange, persuasion and bargaining strategy, and concession making have been identified and examined. The propositions put forward in this study cover only limited aspects of the interactive part of the cross-cultural sales negotiations process. However, they build on existing knowledge and provide the basis for some further theoretical development concerning the role and impact of the perceived importance of status distinction, the similarities and differences of the individuals and the degree of reliance on non-verbal communications, on the task and non-task related stages of the negotiation process. From the preceding literature review, it becomes evident that additional research in the area of cross-cultural negotiations is needed. For example, additional research should examine the influence of personality characteristics of the seller on the endogenous factors and the negotiation outcome. Furthermore, the impact of exogenous variables (such as the importance of the negotiation, the stakes of the respective negotiators and organisational culture) on the negotiation behaviour of the seller and the outcome of the negotiation need to be examined. Due primarily to the fact that most of the experimental settings studying cross-cultural negotiation deal with individuals bargaining for themselves, research efforts using negotiating teams from each country, collectively bargaining for their companies, might reveal greater inter-cultural differences that influence the outcome of sales negotiations. In future investigations, an attempt should be made to quantify the influence of the endogenous variables and examine their impact on sales negotiation outcomes. For practical purposes, it is not enough to suggest that sales negotiations will be positively or negatively influenced by endogenous variables. According to Rinehart and Page, (1992, p. 28) this is a potentially fruitful area for additional research, “investigating different outcome measures can enhance our knowledge of the negotiation process by linking the impact of the economic outcomes and the negotiator’s perception of the success of the outcome”. Additional research that deals specifically with cross-cultural sales negotiations should address the relationship between exogenous and endogenous factors and their combined effect on negotiation outcome.

Further research is needed in order to examine the exact nature and determinants of each endogenous factor in cross-cultural sales negotiations. For example, what are the antecedents of interpersonal attraction (Graham, 1985a) and the thought processes that underlie interpersonal attraction in a sales negotiation context? The degree of inner conflict experienced by sales representatives faced with attractive clients who make bargaining concessions should also be investigated. According to Rinehart and Page, (1992) one approach to additional research designs would be to study cross-cultural sales negotiations that do not result in a successful outcome. Findings from failed negotiations will enable researchers to determine when the cross-cultural negotiation process is most likely to break down and why. They suggest that further research should take a longitudinal approach to reflect the repeated nature of negotiations and the building of longlasting relationships. Longitudinal research can yield better results than can be drawn from isolated sales encounter experiments. The literature suggests that what goes on at the negotiation table is critical to the outcome of cross-cultural sales negotiations. It may not be enough to select the best sales representatives possible unless efforts are devoted to training them to manage the process of negotiations more effectively (Graham, 1985a). Central to this training should be the development of cultural awareness skills for salespeople so that they can anticipate and understand behaviours in the international environment and be aware of the cultural “tool kit” of culturally dissimilar buyers. References Adler, N.J. (1986), International Dimensions of Organisational Behaviour, Kent Publishing, Boston, MA. Adler, N.J. and Graham, J.L. (1989), “Cross-cultural interaction: the international comparison fallacy?”, Journal of International Business Studies, Fall, pp. 515-37. Adler, N.J., Graham, J.L. and Gehrke, T.S. (1987), “Business negotiations in Canada, Mexico, and the United States”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 15, pp. 411-29. Anderson, R. (1995), “Essentials of personal selling – the new professionalism”, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Anglemar, R. and Stern, L.W. (1978), “Development of a content analytical system for analysis of bargaining communication in marketing”, Journal of Marketing Research, February, pp. 93-102. Bass, B.M. (1971), “The American advisor abroad”, Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 285-308. Benton, A.A. (1971), “Productivity, distributive justice, and bargaining among children”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 18, pp. 68-78. Berscheid, E. and Walster, E.H. (1978), Interpersonal Attraction, 2nd ed., Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA. Bramel, D. (1969), “Interpersonal attraction, hostility, and perception”, in Mills, J. (Ed.), Experimental Social Psychology, Macmillan, New York, NY, pp. 1-120. Burt, D.N. (1989), “The nuances of negotiating overseas”, Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management, 25th anniversary edition.

Cross-cultural sales negotiations 23

International Marketing Review 15,1 24

Byrne, D. (1969), “Attitudes and attraction”, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 4, Academic Press, New York, NY. Cambell, N.C.G., Graham, J.L., Jolibert, A. and H. G. Meissner (1988), “Marketing negotiations in France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and United States”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52, pp. 49-62. Casse, P. (1981), Training for the Cross Cultural Mind, 2nd ed., Society for Inter-cultural Education, Training and Research, Intercultural Press, Washington, DC. Cateora, P.R. (1983), International Marketing, 5th ed., Richard D. Irwin, Homewood, IL. Cohen, H. (1980), You Can Negotiate Anything, New York, NY. Collett, P. (1971), “Training Englishmen in the non-verbal behaviour of Arabs: an experiment on intercultural communication”, International Journal of Psychology, Vol. 6, pp. 209-15. Condon, J.C. (1985), Good Neighbours, Communicating with the Mexican, Intercultural Press. Cook, R.W. and Corey, R.J. (1991), “A confirmatory investigation of industrial buyer image of the saleswomen”, Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 19, Summer, pp. 199-208. Copeland, L. and Griggs, L. (1985), Going International, Random House, New York, NY. Czinkota, M.R., Ronkainen, I.A., Moffett, M.H. and Moynihan, E.O. (1995), Global Business, The Dryden Press, Chicago, IL. D’Anglejan, A. and Tucker, G.R. (1973), “Communicating across cultures: an empirical investigation”, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 121-30. Daniels, J.D. and Radebaugh, L.H. (1995), International Business: Environments and Operations, 7th ed., Addison-Wesley World Student Series. Davis, H.L. and Silk, A.J. (1972), “Interaction and influence processes in personal selling”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 13, Winter, pp. 59-76. Derleda, V.J. and Grzelak, J. (1982), Cooperation and Helping Behaviour: Theories and Research, Academic Press Inc. Deutsch, M.F. (1984), Doing Business with the Japanese, The American Library Inc PR (1994), New York, NY. Deutsch, M.F. (1994), Marketing Management, international edition, The Dryden Press, Chicago, IL. Dommermuth, W. (1976), “Profiting from distribution conflicts”, Business Horizons, December, pp. 4-13. Druckman, D., Benton, A., Ali, F. and Bagur, J.S. (1976), “Cultural differences in bargaining behaviour”, Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 413-49. Dupont, C. (1982), La Negociation: Conduite, Theorie, Applications, Dalloz, Paris. Dwyer, F.R. and Walker, O.C. (1981), “Bargaining in an asymmetrical power structure”, Journal of Marketing, Winter, pp. 104-15. Fayerweather, J. and Kapoor, A. (1972), “Simulated international business negotiations”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 3, Spring, pp. 19-31. Fayerweather, J. and Kapoor, A. (1976), “Introduction to international business negotiations”, in Strategy and Negotiation for the International Corporation, Ballinger Publishing, Cambridge, MA, pp. 29-50. Fischer, R. and Ury, W. (1981), Getting to Yes, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA. Fisher, G. (1980), International Negotiation, Intercultural Press, Yarmouth, ME. Foon, A.E. (1986), “A social structural approach to speech evaluation”, The Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 126 No. 4, pp. 521-30. Foster, D.A. (1992), Bargaining Across Borders – How to Negotiate Business Successfully Anywhere in the World, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Frank, S. (1992), “Avoiding the pitfalls of business abroad”, Sales and Marketing Management, March. Furnham, A. (1989), “Communicating across cultures: a social skills perspective”, Counselling Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 205-22. Ghauri, P.N. (1986), “Guidelines for international business negotiations”, International Marketing Review, Autumn, Vol. 4, pp. 72-82. Gladwin, T.N. and Walter, O.C. (1980), Multinationals Under Fire: Lessons from the Management of Conflict, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY. Glenn, E.S., Witmeyer, G. and Stevenson, K.A. (1977), “Cultural styles of persuasion”, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 52-66. Graham, J.L. (1983), “Brazilian, Japanese, and American Business Negotiations”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 14, Spring/Summer, pp. 47-62. Graham, J.L. (1984), “A comparison of Japanese and American business negotiations”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 51-68. Graham, J.L. (1985a), “Cross-cultural marketing negotiations: a laboratory experiment”, Marketing Science, Vol. 4 No. 2, Spring, pp. 130-46. Graham, J.L. (1985b), “The influence of culture on the process of business negotiations: an exploratory study”, Journal of International Business, Spring, pp. 81-96. Graham, J.L. (1985c) “Cross-cultural marketing negotiations: a laboratory experiment”, Marketing Science, Vol. 4 No. 2, Spring, pp. 130-46. Graham, J.L. (1988), “Deference given the buyer: variations across twelve cultures”, in Contractor, F.J. and Lorange, P. (Eds), Co-operative Strategies in International Business, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA, pp. 473-85. Graham, J.L. and Andrews, J.D. (1987), “A holistic analysis of Japanese and American business negotiations”, Journal of Business Communications, Vol. 24, Fall, pp. 63-77. Graham, J.L. and Herberger R.A. (1983), “Negotiators don’t shoot from the hip”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 61, May/June, pp. 160-8. Graham, J.L. and Lin, C. (1987), “Negotiations in the Republic of China (Taiwan) and the United States”, in Cavusgil, S.T. (Ed.), Advances in International Marketing, Vol. 2, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT and New York, NY. Graham, J.L. and Sano, Y. (1984), Smart Bargaining: Doing Business with the Japanese, Ballinger Publishing, Cambridge, MA. Graham, J.L. and Sano, Y. (1986), “Across the negotiation table from the Japanese”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 3 No. 3, Autumn, pp. 58-71. Graham, J.L., Kim, D.K., Lin, C. and Robinson, M. (1988), “Buyer-seller negotiations around the Pacific Rim: differences in fundamental exchange processes”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15, June, pp. 48-54. Gudykunst, W.B. and Ting-Toomey, S. (1988), Culture and Interpersonal Communication, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA. Hall, E.T. (1959), The Silent Language, Doubleday, New York, NY. Hall, E.T. (1976), Beyond Culture, Doubleday, New York, NY. Hall, E.T. and Hall, M.R. (1987), “Selling to a Japanese”, Sales and Marketing Management, Vol. 139, July, pp. 58-60. Hamner, C. (1980), “The influences of structural, individual, and strategic differences”, in Harnett, D. and Cummings, L. (Eds), Bargaining Behaviour: An International Study, Dame Publications, Inc., Houston, TX. Harris, P.R. and Moran, R.T. (1987), Managing Cultural Differences, 2nd ed., Gulf Publishing Company, Houston, TX. Harrison, P.A. (1983), Behaving Brazilian, Newbury House, Rowley, MA.

Cross-cultural sales negotiations 25

International Marketing Review 15,1 26

Hawkins, S. (1983), “How to understand your partner’s cultural baggage”, International Management Journal, Vol. 38, September, pp. 48-50. Hawrysh, B.M. and Zaichkowsky, J.L. (1989), “Cultural approaches to negotiations: understanding the Japanese”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 28-42. Hellweg, S.A., Samovar, L.A. and Skow, L. (1991), in Samovar, L.A and Porter, R.E., Cultural Variations in Negotiating Styles in Intercultural Communication – A Reader, 6th ed., Wadsworth Publishing, Belmont, CA. Herbig, P.A. and Kramer, H.E. (1992), “Do’s and don’ts of cross-cultural negotiations”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 21, pp. 287-98 Hieder, F. (1958), The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations, Wiley, New York, NY. Johnson, E.M., Kurtz, D.L. and Scheuing, E.E. (1994), Sales Management Concepts, Practices and Cases, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill International Editions, New York, NY and London. Keegan, W. J. (1989), Global Marketing Management, Prentice-Hall International Editions, Englewood Cliffs, NJ and Hemel Hempstead. LaTour, M.S., Henthorne, T.L. and Williams, A.J. (1989), “Initial impressions in the retail environment: a comparison of black and white perceptions”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 329-47. Lewis, S.A. and Fry, W.R. (1977), “Effects of visual access and orientation on the discovery of integrative bargaining alternatives”, Organisational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 20, pp. 75-92. Limaye, M. and Victor, D.A. (1991), “Cross-cultural business communication research: state of the art and hypotheses for the 1990s”, The Journal of Business Communication, Vol. 28 No. 3, Summer, pp. 277-99. Lindzey, G. and Byrne, D. (1968), “Measurement of social choice and interpersonal attractiveness”, in Aronson, E. and Lindzey, G. (Eds), Handbook of Social Psychology, 2nd ed., Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA. Linkemer, B. (1989), “Women in sales: what do they really want?”, Sales and Marketing Management, Vol. 141, January, pp. 61-5. Llich, J. (1980), Power Negotiating, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA. Lott, A.J. and Lott, B.E. (1965), “Group cohesiveness as interpersonal attractiveness: a review of relationships with antecedent and consequent variables”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 64 No. 4, October, pp. 259-309. McDaniel, O.E. (1990), “The new name of the game: global account marketing”, The Journal of the National Account Marketing Association, Fall, pp. 4-5. McGuire, W.J. (1968), “The nature of attitudes and attitude change”, in Gardner, L. and Aronson, G. (Eds), The Handbook of Social Psychology, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA. Mintu, A.T. and Calantone, R.J. (1991), “A comparative approach to international marketing negotiations”, Journal of Applied Business Research, Vol. 7 No. 4, Fall, pp. 90-7. Morgan, W.R. and Sawyer, J. (1967), “Bargaining, expectations, and the preference for equality over equity”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 6, pp. 139-49. Muna, F.A. (1973), The Arab Mind, Scribners, New York, NY. Nakane, C. (1970), Japanese Society, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. Neslin, S. and Greenhalgh, L. (1983), “Nash’s theory of co-operative games as a predictor of the outcomes of buyer-seller negotiations: an experiment in media purchasing”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 20 , November, pp. 368-79. Newcombe, T.M. (1956), “The prediction of interpersonal attraction”, American Psychologist, Vol. 11, pp. 575-86. Nierenberg. J.S. (1963), Getting Through to People, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Oh, T.K. (1984), “Selling to the Japanese”, Nation’s Business, October, pp. 36-8.

Onkvisit, S. and Shaw, J.J. (1993), International Marketing, Macmillan, Basingstoke. Pennington, A.L. (1968), “Customer-salesman bargaining behaviour in retail transactions”, Journal of Marketing Research, February, pp. 103-5. Poppleton, S.E. (1981), “The social skills of selling”, in Argyle, M. (Ed.), Social Skills and Work, Methuen, pp. 59-84. Pruitt, D.G. and Lewis, S.A. (1975), “Development of integrative solutions in bilateral negotiation”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 621-33. Pye, L. (1982), Chinese Commercial Negotiation Style, Oelgeschlager, Gunn, and Hain, Cambridge, MA. Raiffa, H. (1982), The Art and Science of Negotiation, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Rinehart, L.M. and Page, T.J. (1992), “The development and test of a model of transaction negotiation”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56, October, pp. 18-32. Root, F.R. (1987), Entry Strategies for International Markets, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA. Rubin, J.Z. and Brown, B.R. (1975), The Social Psychology of Bargaining and Negotiation, Academic Press, New York, NY. Schmidt, K.D. (1979), “Doing business in Taiwan and doing business in Japan”, pamphlets, Business Intelligence Program, SRI International, Menlo Park, CA. Shenkar, O. and Ronen, S. (1987), “The cultural context of negotiations: the implications of Chinese interpersonal norms”, Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 263-75. Stening, B.W. (1979), “Problems in cross-cultural contact: a literature review”, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, Vol. 3, pp. 269-313. Swan, J.E., Rink, D.R., Kiser, G.E. and Martin, W.S. (1984), “Industrial buyer image of the saleswoman”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 48, Winter, pp. 110-16. Swingle, P.G. (1966), “Effects of emotional relationship between protagonists in a two-person game”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 4, pp. 270-9. Triandis, H.C. (1960), “Cognitive similarity and communication in the dyad”, Human Relations, Vol. 13, pp. 175-83. Tsalikis, J., Deshields, O.W. and LaTour, M.L. (1991), “The role of accent on the credibility and effectiveness of the salesperson”, Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, Vol. 9 No. 1, Winter, pp. 31-41. Tsalikis, J., Ortiz-Buonafina, M. and LaTour, M.S. (1992), “The role of accent on credibility and effectiveness of the international business person: the case of Guatemala”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 57-72. Tse, D.K., Lee, K., Vertinsky, I. and Wehrung, D.A. (1988), “Does culture matter? A cross-cultural study of executives’ choice, decisiveness, and risk adjustment in international marketing”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52, October, pp. 81-95. Tsurami, Y. (1971), “Ten myths that mislead managers in Japan”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 48 No. 6, pp. 118-27. Tung, R.L. (1982), “US/China trade negotiations, procedures and outcomes”, Journal of International Business Studies, Fall, pp. 25-37. Tung, R.L. (1984), “How to negotiate with the Japanese”, California Management Review, Vol. XXVI No. 4, Summer. Tung, R.L. (1988), “Toward a conceptual paradigm of international business negotiations”, Advances in International Comparative Management, Vol. 3, pp. 203-19. Unterman, I. (1983), “Negotiators are to be diplomatic”, The San Diego Union, 6 August. Usunier, J. (1993), International Marketing, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Van Zandt, H.F. (1970), “How to negotiate in Japan”, Harvard Business Review, November/ December, pp. 45-56.

Cross-cultural sales negotiations 27

International Marketing Review 15,1 28

Vernon, P.E. (1964), Personality Assessment, Methuen, London. Warschaw, T.A. (1980), Winning by Negotiation, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Weiss, S.E. and Stripp, W. (1985) “Negotiating with foreign businesspersons: an introduction for Americans with propositions on six cultures”, Working Paper No. 1, Graduate School of Business Administration, New York University, New York, NY. Weitz, B.A., Sujan, H. and Sujan, M. (1986), “Knowledge, motivation, and adaptive behaviour: a framework for improving selling effectiveness”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 50, October, pp. 174-91. Wells, L.T. (1977), “Negotiating with Third World governments”, Harvard Business Review, January/February, pp. 72-80. Wise, G.L. (1974), “Differential pricing and treatment by new car salesmen: the effect of the prospect’s race, sex, and dress”, Journal of Business, Vol. 47, pp. 218-30. Wright, P. (1983), “Doing business in Islamic markets”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 59 No. 1, p. 34ff. Yousef, F.S. (1974), “Cross-cultural communication: aspects of contrastive and social values between North Americans and Middle Easterners”, Human Organisation, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 383-7. Zajonc, R.B. (1980), “Feeling and thinking: preferences need no inferences”, American Psychologist, Vol. 35, pp. 151-75. Zebrowitz-McArthur, L. (1988), in M. Harris Bond (Ed.), The Cross Cultural Challenge to Social Psychology, Sage Publications, Zimmerman, M. (1985), How to Do Business with the Japanese, Random House, New York, NY.