1、 1 中文 4495 字 外文文献翻译 International Business Negotiations Pervez Ghauri & Jean-Claude Usunier When two people communicate, they rarely talk about precisely the same subject, for effective meaning is flavored by each persons own cognitive world and cultural conditioning. Negotiation is the process by w
2、hich at least two parties try to reach an agreement on matters of mutual interest. The negotiation process proceeds as an interplay of perception, information processing, and reaction, all of which turn on images of reality (accurate or not), on implicit assumptions regarding the issue being negotia
3、ted, and on an underlying matrix of conventional wisdom, beliefs, and social expectations. Negotiations involve two dimensions: a matter of substance and the process. The latter is rarely a matter of relevance when negotiations are conducted within the same cultural setting. Only when dealing with s
4、omeone from another country with a different cultural background does process usually become a critical barrier to substance； in such settings process first needs to be established before substantive negotiations can commence. This becomes more apparent when the negotiation process is international,
5、 when cultural differences must be bridged. When negotiating internationally, this translates into anticipating culturally related ideas that are most likely to be understood by a person of a given culture. Discussions are frequently impeded because the two sides seem to be pursuing different paths
6、of logic； in any cross cultural context, the potential for misunderstanding and talking past each other is great. Negotiating internationally almost certainly means having to cope with new and inconsistent information, usually accompanied by new behavior, social environments, and even sights and sme
7、lls. The greater the cultural differences, the more likely barriers to communication and misunderstandings become. When one takes the seemingly simple process of negotiations into a cross-cultural context, it becomes even more complex and complications tend to grow exponentially. It is naive indeed
8、to venture into international negotiation with the belief that “after all, people are pretty much alike everywhere and behave much as we do.” Even if they wear the same clothes you do, 2 speak English as well as (or even better than) you, and prefer many of the comforts and attributes of American li
9、fe (food, hotels, sports), it would be foolish to view a member of another culture as a brother in spirit. That negotiation style you use so effectively at home can be ineffective and inappropriate when dealing with people from another cultural background； in fact its use can often result in more ha
10、rm than gain. Heightened sensitivity, more attention to detail, and perhaps even changes in basic behavioral patterns are required when working in another culture. Members of one culture may focus on different aspects of an agreement (e.g., legal, financial) than may members of another culture (pers
11、onal, relationships). The implementation of a business agreement may be stressed in one culture, while the range and prevention of practical problems may be emphasized in another culture. In some cultures, the attention of people is directed more toward the specific details of the agreement (documen
12、ting the agreement), while other cultures may focus on how the promises can be kept (process and implementation). Americans negotiate a contract； the Japanese negotiate a personal relationship. Culture forces people to view and value differently the many social interactions inherent in fashioning an
13、y agreement. Negotiations can easily break down because of a lack of understanding of the cultural component of the negotiation process. Negotiators who take the time to understand the approach that the other parties are likely to use and to adapt their own styles to that one are likely to be more e
14、ffective negotiators. American and Russian people are not similar； their ethical attitudes do not coincide: they evaluate behavior differently. What an American may consider normative, positive behavior (negotiating and reaching a compromise with an enemy), a Russian perceives as showing cowardice,
15、weakness, and unworthiness； the word “deal” has a strong negative connotation, even today in contemporary Russia. Similarly, for Russians, compromise has negative connotation； principles are supposed to be inviolable and compromise is a matter of integrity (The Russians are not alone here: a Mexican
16、 will not compromise as a matter of honor, dignity, and integrity； likewise, an Arab fears loss of manliness if he compromises.) A negotiation is treated as a whole without concessions. At the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) talks, the Americans thought they had an agreement (meaning conclusi
17、ve commitment), while the Russians said it was an understanding (meaning an expression of mutual viewpoint or attitude). When the Americans thought they had an understanding, the Russians said it was a procedural matter, meaning they had agreed to a process for conducting the negotiation. Different
18、cultural systems can produce 3 divergent negotiating styles-styles shaped by each nations culture, geography, history, and political system. Unless you see the world through the others eyes (no matter how similar they appear to you), you may not be seeing or hearing the same. No one can usually avoi
19、d bringing along his or her own cultural assumptions, images, and prejudices or other attitudinal baggage into any negotiating situation. The way one succeeds in cross cultural negotiations is by fully understanding others, using that understanding to ones own advantage to realize what each party wa
20、nts from the negotiations, and to turn the negotiations into a win-win situation for both sides. A few potential problems often encountered during a cross-cultural negotiation include ( Frank, 1992): Insufficient understanding of different ways of thinking. Insufficient attention to the necessity to
21、 save face. Insufficient knowledge of the host country-including history, culture, government, status of business, image of foreigners. Insufficient recognition of political or other criteria. Insufficient recognition of the decision-making process. Insufficient understanding of the role of personal
22、 relations and personalities. Insufficient allocation of time for negotiations. Over two-thirds of U.S.-Japanese negotiation efforts fail even though both sides want to reach a successful business agreement (The U.S. Department of Commerce is even more pessimistic； it estimates that for every succes
23、sful American negotiation with the Japanese, there are twenty-five failures.) In fact, these numbers hold true for most cross-cultural meetings. Often barriers to a successful agreement are of a cultural nature rather than of an economical or legal nature. Since each side perceives the other from it
24、s own ethnocentric background and experience, often neither side fully comprehends why the negotiations failed. It is precisely this lack of knowledge concerning the culture and the “alien” and “unnatural” expectations of the other side that hinders effective negotiation with those from another cult
25、ure. In cross-cultural negotiations, many of the rules taught and used domestically may not apply-especially when they may not be culturally acceptable to the other party. For most Western negotiators this includes the concepts of give and take, of bargaining, and even of compromise. The stereotypical, common Western ideal of a persuasive communicator-highly skilled in debate, able to overcome objections with verbal flair, an energetic extrovert-may be regarded by members of other cultures as unnecessarily aggressive, superficial, insincere, even vulgar and repressive. To other
