Q & A Table of Contents
Does Cross Cultural Negotiation Have To Mean Conflict"
From: Jaclyn, Melbourne, Australia
Question: When it comes to cross-cultural negotiation, it is is seldom seems to be a collaborative mutual learning experience; rather it is seems to be considered solely as a means for resolving conflict. What is your opinion on that? I would love to find or understand some strong arguments on both sides of the problem.
Response: Virtually every negotiation can be viewed as cross-cultural -- whether it is between parties from different national backgrounds, different 'tribes' within a business organization, or even different generations within a family.
Calling a negotiation cross-cultural does not detract from the fundamental nature of the activity. Successful negotiation is a process by which parties reach an agreement each is committed to fulfill. Different kinds of people have different styles of getting to agreement -- whether the styles are derived from the market for raw materials, different ways men and women communicate, or the reality that people in sales and people working as purchasing agents have very different ways of looking at issues.
If we regard negotiation as an activity that brings parties together in a process that helps bridge cultural gaps it can be used to resolve conflicts, develop collaborative solutions to shared problems, or find common ground for taking whatever next steps make sense for the parties. There is not a conflict between cross-cultural negotiation as a collaborative mechanism for learning about another party's needs or a civilized mechanism for resolving disagreements. Each of these analyses applies.
Don't worry about finding a single definition for cross-cultural negotiation. Instead use the process to help yourself or your team make progress towards agreements that work.
Good luck,
Steve
| 
