by Paul R. Kimmel.
Author's Abstract: COPYRIGHT Society for the Psychological Study of Reporting Service, 1994
The traditional Western diplomatic approach to international negotiation is compared with an intercultural approach. The implicit assumptions underlying the universal "culture" of diplomacy and the American values in which these assumptions are grounded are discussed. Individual levels of cultural awareness including cultural chauvinism, ethnocentrism, tolerance, minimization, and cultural understanding are described, and their influence on the interpersonal processes of international negotiation are illustrated through a consideration of the Iraq/U.S. diplomatic meetings in Geneva in 1991. Finally, the potential of the intercultural approach is discussed.
Full Text: COPYRIGHT Society for the Psychological Study of Reporting Service, 1994. Use of this article is restricted to class use in this Internet course in Conflict Resolution. This article may not otherwise be reproduced or distributed without written permission.
Many misunderstandings and breakdowns in important international meetings and negotiations have resulted from the expectations about negotiation that the representatives brought to these encounters-- expectations that were not shared by representatives from other societies (Adler, 1986; Cohen, 1991, 1992; Fisher, 1972, 1980, 1988; Weiss, 1993).
A variety of implicit assumptions about the processes of negotiation--learned through being reared and educated in different common cultures--affect how individuals will behave in international meetings. One's own assumptions appear to be normal and realistic, because they are familiar and unquestioned when negotiating domestically. Most people believe that other negotiators should share their "common sense" assumptions, so it is natural for them to assume that those who do or say the unexpected in these international meetings are not as committed to and forthright about the negotiations as they are.
To develop a less presumptive, more empathic approach to international negotiation requires insights into one's own and others' subjective cultures (Triandis, 1972), those cognitive, perceptual, and communication habits individuals acquire as a result of their socialization. In essence, improving communication in international negotiations is a process of learning how to learn in intercultural encounters. A good place to begin this process is with an explication of one's own implicit assumptions about negotiations and the common cultural values in which these assumptions are grounded. It is very difficult to improve inter-cultural communication if the communicators remain oblivious to their own cultural assumptions and values. Let us examine some U.S. assumptions and values associated with negotiation.
U.S. Assumptions About Negotiating
Listed below are 11 topic areas that have been used to describe international meetings and negotiations (Weiss & Stripp, 1985). I have used these dimensions to categorize some of my observations of typical U.S. assumptions about negotiation based on my work with international negotiators (Kimmel, 1989) and business persons (Kimmel, in press). While I will allude to other cultural perspectives on negotiation in the latter parts of this section, I prefer to focus primarily on the implicit assumptions and values that I have firsthand (emic) knowledge about as a citizen, trainer, and researcher in the United States. There are pitfalls in any study of cultural variables and their influence (Weiss, 1987, 1993). These are multiplied when trying to describe the assumptions and values of a common culture other than one's own. Throughout this discussion, I will distinguish between common culture--the externalized, mutually shared perceptions of a peoples' symbolic environment-- and subjective culture--the internalized, cognitive, perceptual and communication habits unique to the individual.
Conception of the negotiation process. For the U.S. negotiator, negotiation is a business, not a social activity. The objective of a negotiation is to get a job done which usually requires a mixture of problem-solving and bargaining activities. Most negotiations are adversarial with other parties seen as opponents who are trying to get as much as possible. The flow of a negotiation is from pre-negotiation strategy sessions to opening positions to give and take (bargaining) to final compromises to signing and implementation of agreements. All parties are expected to give up some of their original demands in the process of reaching an agreement. Success can be measured in terms of how much each party achieves its bottom line objectives.
Type of issues. Substantive issues are more important than social and emotional issues. Differences in positions among negotiators are seen as problems to be solved or overcome. The substantive issues that are the basis of each party's position and that are the focus of the negotiation are worked on in the give and take of the negotiation process.
Protocol. Negotiations are scheduled occasions that require face-to-face interactions among the involved parties. Effective use of time (efficiency) on substantive tasks is valued over ceremony and social amenities. During the give and take of formal negotiation processes, standardized procedures such as Robert's Rules of Order should be followed. Other social interactions are informal and should take place outside the scheduled negotiation meetings.
Reliance on verbal behaviors. Communication is direct and verbal. There is little deliberate or intentional use of nonverbal behaviors in the communication process. What is said is more important than how it is said, or what is not said. Honesty and frankness are valued. Communications tend to be spontaneous and reactive after the presentation of initial positions.
Nature of persuasive arguments. Tactics, such as bluffing, are acceptable in the bargaining process. Current information and ideas are more valid than historical or traditional opinions and information. Expert opinions and data are most persuasive; theory is not important. Timing is important in the presentation of positions and concessions.
Individual negotiators' latitude. The representatives at the table have a great deal of latitude in reaching acceptable agreements for their sponsors. Negotiators may not have a firm idea of their final positions (bottom line) until the negotiation process is well along. Whatever is not expressly forbidden by the negotiator's sponsor or the tandardized procedures of the negotiation process is possible. A maximum of options is kept open.
Bases of trust. Negotiators trust the other parties until they prove untrustworthy. Trust is judged by the behaviors of others. Fair play, principled behavior, equity, and objective thinking are valued. Deception, coercion, elitism, unresponsiveness, and bribery are not valued. Past experience with the other parties is an important consideration in trusting.
Risk-taking propensities. Negotiators are open to different or novel approaches to problem issues. Brainstorming is good. Avoiding uncertainty is not important in the negotiation process. Fixed ideological positions and approaches are not acceptable. Negotiators are able to go beyond sponsors' directives on some occasions.
Value of time. Time is very important. Punctuality is expected. A fixed time is allotted for concluding a negotiation. There may be rescheduling and a decision to work longer hours to finish a negotiation on time or the clock may be stopped. Negotiators may skip over difficult points and return to them later to keep a negotiation on schedule.
Decision-making system. Majority voting and/or authoritative decisions are the rule. Certain team members are expected to be authorized to make binding decisions. Those who disagree with major decisions are expected to express themselves at the time (e.g., a minority report), but to abide by the decisions of the majority.
Forms of satisfactory agreement. Oral commitments are not binding. Written contracts that are exact and impersonally worded are binding. There is the expectation of contractual finality. Lawyers and courts are the final arbitrators in any arguments after contracts have been signed.
U.S. Values Related to Negotiation Assumptions
If most of these implicit assumptions about the processes of international negotiation seem familiar and sound reasonable, it is because they reflect dominant procedures in many Western nations and especially within the U.S. These procedures are based on some of our basic values, values that represent our ideals, goals, and norms. Some of the important U.S. values (Stewart, 1972; Stewart & Bennett, 1991) that underlie these implicit assumptions about negotiations include the following:
1. Time is a precious commodity. It should be used efficiently to accomplish goals, make plans, set deadlines, chart progress, and schedule activities. There is an emphasis on the near future.
2. Specialization is desirable in work and social relationships. One has different friends and colleagues for different occasions. There is little emphasis on being harmonious or consistent.
3. Individuals control their destinies. One should do something about their life, environment, and social activities.
4. There are few absolute truths, what works is good. Problems can be solved and differences resolved through compromises.
5. Conflicts should be resolved through democratic processes. Everyone with an interest in an issue should have some say in how things are done.
6. Everyone should have an equal opportunity to develop their abilities.
7. Authority is resisted, independence valued. Everyone has a right to privacy.
8. One must compete with others to get ahead. Achievements are rewarded through upward mobility and income. Nepotism and welfare are disliked.
Table 1 shows the connections between these eight values and the implicit assumptions U.S. negotiators make about international negotiations. Some of the connections between the selected U.S. cultural values and implicit assumptions about negotiations are obvious, such as seeing time as a commodity and the value of time in international negotiations. Precise scheduling of a negotiation and punctuality are more important in a common culture like ours in which time is considered precious than in a common culture in which time is experienced as a natural succession of day and night or the seasons and thus considered plentiful. For those with these more polychronic beliefs and values about time (see Hall, 1959), scheduling and punctuality are not as likely to characterize negotiations. Such negotiators are also likely to have a different temporal focus than the American emphasis on the near future. They may pay more attention to the past with its history, precedents, and traditions, or may think in terms of the more distant future, considering the consequences of a negotiation for their descendents.
Negotiators who value time as a precious commodity are not as likely to "take" the time needed to develop relationships in their negotiations. They will focus instead on substantive issues and tasks. Our norm of different friends for different occasions is also relevant to forming relationships in negotiations. This approach to friendship is part of our time-conscious, fast-paced, and mobile society. U.S. negotiators have too many obligations and other commitments to allow them to "spend" much time socializing or getting acquainted with the other negotiators--especially those they do not need to influence--hence, a general lack of amenities and a more impersonal approach to socializing during negotiations.
The U.S. approach of getting down to business in a negotiation is related to the values of personal control and pragmatism. Believing that it is possible and important to do something about one's situation and that one can affect the near future makes it obligatory for our negotiators to see the job at hand as the reason for the negotiation.
Solving a problem and/or reaching an agreement are why they are there. Knowing that problems are to be solved and differences to be resolved, it is not surprising that our negotiators feel there is little time for anything but the task at hand, which is usually "tackled" with great enthusiasm whether it is to reach a compromise, strike a deal, or find a solution.
This task-oriented approach to negotiation has ramifications for the processes that take place during the negotiations themselves. With no cultural emphasis on harmony and a belief that all with an interest in an issue should have a voice in the discussion, it is not surprising that U.S. negotiators favor honesty and frankness in their negotiations. They prefer face-to-face interactions among the involved parties and engage in spontaneous and reactive communications. Their preference is for what Hall (1976) calls low-context communication in which what is said (the message) is more important than how it is said or what is not said. The less direct, face-saving approaches characteristic of other negotiators who value harmony and cordial communication in such situations are not well understood by our negotiators. In their efforts to get down to "brass tacks," it is not surprising that they often appear brusque, insensitive, and even arrogant to those who rely more on nonverbal behaviors and paralinguistic signals in their "high-context" (Hall, 1976) communications.
Following impersonal rules of procedure and law, taking votes, working out deals and compromises, and signing contracts are other procedures that our egalitarian, task-oriented negotiators use to facilitate the negotiation processes they favor. These rules ensure that everyone gets heard, that power and influence are tempered by routinized procedures (e.g., one negotiator, one vote), that the majority rules, and that everyone understands what they are agreeing to. The values of equal opportunity and democracy are important to these negotiators. What they would see as elitism, favoritism, nepotism, and injustice may be viewed differently, however, by other negotiators who come from cultures that value differences in rank and status more than equality. These negotiators expect to rely on authority, to honor past debts and acquire new allies, and to follow orders from their superiors. Their values do not predispose them to the legal procedures or the democratic behaviors favored by the U.S. negotiators.
The U.S. negotiators' beliefs in the values of individual control, personal independence, and pragmatism combine to promote risk taking. They are willing, even eager to take responsibility for new ideas and initiatives in negotiations. Rather than avoiding uncertainty, as do other negotiators who are more concerned with authority and tradition, the U.S. negotiators enjoy brainstorming, using tactics such as bluffing, keeping their options open, and trying out novel solutions. These risk-taking behaviors are well served by their spontaneous and reactive communication styles and the individual latitude they expect in the negotiations.
These U.S. values and the implicit assumptions about negotiation that result from them promote a problem-centered, competitive approach to international meetings for U.S. negotiators. Other negotiators are seen as adversaries who are trusted only as long as their behavior merits such trust by Western standards. Behaviors such as honoring commitments, keeping confidences, playing fair, and being reasonable merit trust. Behaviors such as deception, breaking promises, using coercion and bribery, and being unresponsive destroy trust. Negotiators who hold other values and implicit assumptions about negotiating will have different approaches to international negotiations. They may prefer meetings in which the emphasis is on building interpersonal relationships through a more cooperative social approach. They might see other negotiators as strangers who cannot be trusted until they become well known through lasting reciprocal relationships.
The Culture of Diplomacy
Becoming more cognizant of the U.S. values and implicit assumptions that affect communication in international negotiations involving non-Western negotiators is an important first step in facilitating such negotiations. It is also necessary to understand that there are other values and implicit assumptions that influence other international negotiators' perceptions and behaviors in international meetings. A number of Western students and practitioners of negotiation, however, do not believe this. The following statement is typical of their thinking: "cultural factors are peripheral to the understanding of the basic negotiating process" that is "universal" (Zartman & Berman, 1982, p. 226). These scholars believe that a universal, international diplomatic "culture" has been established that supersedes the idiosyncrasies of ethnographic cultures. "It is difficult to maintain . . . that the Western system of diplomacy and negotiation worked out over the centuries is in danger of imminent destruction. . . . To the contrary, the new nations have learned the Western ways well and are using them to their own purposes" (Zartman & Berman, 1982, p. 226). Since these scholars are usually members of the Western societies in which the current rules and traditions of international diplomacy were developed, it is not surprising that they find them to be reasonable and "culture free."
These scholars claim that the Western system of diplomacy, which embodies many of the assumptions about negotiation listed above, is the operative reality in international negotiations. They point out that protocol, diplomatic courtesy, international law, and other Western diplomatic inventions have enabled international negotiators to deal with each other in a variety of bilateral situations over the last century. But these diplomatic procedures and the implicit assumptions and values on which they are based are becoming increasingly less effective in enabling negotiators to reach common ground and creatively problem solve in today's more complex world of multilateral relations (Touval & Rubin, 1987).
Examples of problematic international meetings appear weekly in the U.S. press: a diplomat in a problem-solving workshop on the Palestinian/Israeli conflict who left complaining of being treated like a "guinea pig"; a negotiator in the Iraq/U.S. meetings prior to the Gulf War saying, "I never thought you Americans could be so arrogant"; the Japanese coining the word, kenbei, to express their feelings about the perceived arrogance and self-righteousness of Western negotiators; and the head of the Canadian free-trade negotiation team telling the Toronto Star, "The Americans are bastards. They are behaving like real thugs these days in protecting their interests." The list goes on.
The key to success in any negotiation, and especially in international negotiations, lies in the successful exchange of meanings among the negotiators. At the international level, both verbal and nonverbal exchanges become increasingly complex as intended (and unintended) and perceived meaning varies, sometimes in highly subtle ways. International negotiators who are unaware of (or unconcerned about) the influence of their own cultural values and implicit assumptions in negotiating situations are prone to expect all other qualified negotiators to share their values and assumptions about negotiations and international meetings. When the communications and behaviors of these other negotiators overtly belie this assumption, untutored parties usually attribute these "inappropriate" acts and messages to undesirable character traits (such as arrogance) and motivations (such as protecting interests) of the "misbehaving" or "unreasonable" negotiators, instead of attributing them to cultural differences (Jones et al., 1972).
The Intercultural Approach to Negotiation
I believe that a more intercultural, less ethnocentric approach to negotiation, especially by the more powerful Western nations is crucial in today's multicultural, multilateral world of business and politics where the communication contexts and the cognitions of negotiators vary more widely than they do in domestic situations. "Multilateral negotiation is more difficult than domestic policy making because the relevant actors come from very different backgrounds, and they represent nations that have occasionally worked out very different procedures for handling similar problems" (Winham, 1979, p. 196). An intercultural approach to negotiation is more relevant to multilateral negotiations than the traditional bargaining approach. In such negotiations, situations are more likely to be new (without familiar meanings), complex (with a great number of meanings to be taken into account), and contradictory (with different actors having different interpretations).
Multilateral negotiations put a premium on the ability to find integrative solutions by defining situations in ways that include and are responsive to the perspectives and needs of all the parties. Verbal persuasion replaces bargaining from strength, and consensus supplements compromise. Negotiators who can mutually define and redefine the problems being dealt with, overcome enmity and misunderstandings among themselves and their constituencies, and create interpersonal relationships and procedures that lead to creative solutions of their problems are most successful in such multilateral negotiations. To facilitate this process, Saunders (1987) recommends that nations focus on their relationships. He advocates a change in the perceptions of policymakers in bilateral situations from "us and them" to "we." To make such changes requires that policymakers and negotiators have the experience and training to achieve a level of cultural awareness and skill in intercultural communication that allows them to collaborate effectively, developing what Saunders calls mature relationships.
Those who have developed such awareness and skills can take account of their cultural assumptions and values in their interactions and communications with other negotiators. They have learned how to learn in international meetings. I have suggested that the process of intercultural exploration (Kimmel, 1989) is particularly effective for such negotiators. In this process the negotiators consciously identify the major cultural assumptions and values that are affecting their own perceptions and behaviors in the negotiations; communicate these assumptions and values clearly as an explicit part of their negotiations; encourage and help other negotiators identify and communicate clearly their major cultural assumptions and values; and then move toward creative and collaborative problem solving. Intercultural exploration will avert or clarify misunderstandings and misperceptions by creating new meanings and relationships. It is possible that the intercultural exploration process can also help produce solutions to problems that combine the ideas and approaches of individuals with different subjective cultures into something new that none of them could have conceived alone.
Negotiations involving intercultural exploration are better suited to a world in which longer term relationships and multicultural problem solving are becoming increasingly important (Fisher, 1989; Winham, 1977). To use this intercultural approach effectively requires special training and experience to discover and get beyond one's own cultural blinders (Kimmel, 1989, in press). Without such training, international negotiators are likely to rely on their own subjective cultural assumptions and the culture of diplomacy. They will minimize rather than take account of cultural differences, attribute motivations typical in their common culture rather than empathizing with other cultures, ignore rather than explore values and assumptions, and essentially "negotiate with themselves."
Cultural awareness is one measure of the level of intercultural skills an individual has available. I have observed several different levels of individual subjective cultural awareness in working with thousands of international business people in intercultural training programs, ranging from the ethnocentric balance of power approach typified by a trainee who told me, "I'm representing America, I'll just tell them what to do," to very perceptive and sophisticated intercultural negotiators.
Individual Levels of Cultural Awareness
We are born culturally illiterate. We learn our folk psychology and our common sense from those who socialize us. The subjective cultures of individuals are constructions based on their history of symbolic exchanges with others and with their environment (Stryker & Gottlieb, 1981). Through these exchanges, individuals develop deep-seated implicit assumptions about human beings that underlie their understanding of and behavior in future exchanges (Avruch & Black, 1991). The wider the variety of symbolic exchanges we have in our lives, the richer our subjective cultures become. Our subjective cultures provide a highly selective screen between us and our environment, which enables us to interpret our world and act purposefully in it (Hall, 1976). Subjective cultures characterize both the participants in a negotiation and the analysts and mediators who try to understand them.