CAILLIER Hugo Master Thesis. International Negotiation

1,383 views

Published on

How do French negotiators should use the following variables" Relationship, team work, leadership, bureaucracy and time" as assets during international negotiations with Mexican

Published in: Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,383
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

CAILLIER Hugo Master Thesis. International Negotiation

  1. 1. CAILLIER Hugo FINAL Master THESIS How do French negotiators should use the following variables “Relationship, team work, leadership, bureaucracy and time” as assets during international negotiation with Mexican? Due Date: 21st of November 2011 Academic Director: Dr. Ian Speakman
  2. 2. CAILLIER Hugo Influence of culture on negotiationCAILLIER Hugo FINAL Master THESIS Academic Director: Dr. Ian Speakman How do French negotiators should use the following variables “Relationship, team work, leadership, bureaucracy and time” as assets during international negotiation with Mexican? Due Date: 21st of November 2011IESEG School of Management Lille - Paris3 Rue de la Digue59000 Lille“IÉSEG do not give any approval or disapproval to the opinions expressed in the thesis and these opinions should be considered as those of the authors”June-December 2011 – IESEG School of Management 2
  3. 3. CAILLIER Hugo Influence of culture on negotiationStatement of confidentiality: Statement of confidentiality: This thesis may be freely available for academic purposes and evaluation. The names of the interviewees have been removed for confidentiality purposes.June-December 2011 – IESEG School of Management 3
  4. 4. CAILLIER Hugo Influence of culture on negotiation Acknowledgement To start this report, I would like to thanks personally all the persons that wereinvolved in this project during all this semester. In fact, this thesis represent a bigamount of time by doing the researches, defining the research methodology, findingcompanies to interview, analyse the data and explaining them. The first person that helped me in this work was my academic director: Dr. IanSpeakman who assisted me to design this research and gave me advices on how toproceed to collect the information I needed during all the semester. I am also grateful for all the time that the French businessmen took to answermy interviews. I know that they had to spend some personal time taking theappointments with me and doing the interview. Furthermore I would like to thanks are the other students that did their thesisduring June-December 2011 and with who we talked a lot about our own thesis andpermitting us to share ideas about our research questions and process to use. They alsohelped a lot for the rereading of the final work we did for each other.June-December 2011 – IESEG School of Management 4
  5. 5. CAILLIER Hugo Influence of culture on negotiation SummaryFINAL Master THESIS .............................................................................................. 2Statement of confidentiality: ................................................................................... 3Acknowledgement ................................................................................................... 4Summary ................................................................................................................. 5Abstract................................................................................................................... 71. Introduction ..................................................................................................... 9 1.1 The research problem statement ........................................................................ 9 1.2 The research objective ...................................................................................... 10 1.3 The main research questions ............................................................................ 102 Literature review ............................................................................................ 13 2.1 Conceptual background .................................................................................... 13 2.2 Limitation of the literature review .................................................................... 483 Research methodology ................................................................................... 50 3.1 Research design................................................................................................ 50 3.2 Research methodology ..................................................................................... 564 Findings ......................................................................................................... 66 4.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 66 4.2 Descriptive statistics ......................................................................................... 66 4.3 The findings...................................................................................................... 70 4.4 Summary of the findings ................................................................................... 875 Discussion ...................................................................................................... 89 5.1 Cultural differences .......................................................................................... 89 5.2 Group dynamic ................................................................................................. 91 5.3 Bureaucracy and Frencheness ........................................................................... 92 5.4 Leadership ....................................................................................................... 94 5.5 Time and relationships ..................................................................................... 96 5.6 Negotiation styles............................................................................................. 986 Conclusion .................................................................................................... 101 6.1 General conclusion ......................................................................................... 101 6.2 Managerial implications ................................................................................. 103June-December 2011 – IESEG School of Management 5
  6. 6. CAILLIER Hugo Influence of culture on negotiation7 Limitations of the research ........................................................................... 1048 Directions for future research ....................................................................... 1069 Personal reflection and key learning ............................................................. 10810 References ................................................................................................... 10911 List of figures................................................................................................ 11212 List of tables ................................................................................................. 11313 Table of content ........................................................................................... 11414 Appendices................................................................................................... 117June-December 2011 – IESEG School of Management 6
  7. 7. CAILLIER Hugo Influence of culture on negotiation Abstract Nowadays, Mexico is a developing country with lots of opportunities for FrenchSME and international groups to enter new markets and create new businessrelationship with Mexican companies. In fact, Mexico is taking a bigger part every dayon the international environment, highlighting two main facts: the year of Mexico inFrance in 2011 and also the general growth of exportations (+9.7 % / Year) andimportations (+5.3% / Year) since Mexico open is borders in 2000 for internationaltrades. But in the same time, Mexico has a culture very different from the French oneeven if they are both Latin. So the remaining barrier in the expansion of Frenchcompanies in Mexico will be the cultural gap that remains. The negotiation process isthe first one to be touched by the cultural differences but then, the outcome will beaffected too. The objective of this work will be to identify and explore the main culturalelements that are responsible of this gap and try to find a way to use them as a toolduring the negotiation and not as a threat. This might end in a change of the negotiationstyle and the way the businessmen prepare their meetings. This report will be composedin four main parts: - The first part will be a literature review about the main subjects of this thesis such as culture, negotiation, France, Mexico and interpersonal communication. - The second part will summarise the technics that have been used for the creation of the research methodology.June-December 2011 – IESEG School of Management 7
  8. 8. CAILLIER Hugo Influence of culture on negotiation - The third part is a recap of all the data that has been collected and analysed. Those data has been collected by doing qualitative research. - And the last part will be a comparison between the literature review and the findings that will permit to see what this work added to the selected topic.June-December 2011 – IESEG School of Management 8
  9. 9. CAILLIER Hugo Influence of culture on negotiation1. Introduction The introduction of this report will present the main topic that will be approachedby the research, its objective and finally the main problematic that we will work on. Wewill finally have an overview of the main research question and sub-questions that willbe asked in order to focus the research on restricted criteria. 1.1 The research problem statement For the last decades, globalization had a growing effect on the quantity ofinternational business interactions. The main problem that affects those interactions isthe cultural differences between two different countries. Of course, globalization resultsin erasing a bit those differences with time creating what we could call an “internationalculture”. But still, the culture of an individual cannot be totally melted or erased. So themain point of this research will be to find a way to deal with those differences in orderto enhance intercultural interactions. The culture itself is the main element that can be manage in order to generate abetter outcome to the negotiation. We can find two main types of culture: the first oneis the organizational culture that defines the strategy of the company; the people thatare involved in it, the history, the way decisions are took. The second one is thecountry’s culture. This report will not talk about company culture because that wouldcreate two much variables to take into account inside the same country or region.Moreover as each country has at least one culture, it would be impossible to talk aboutcomparing all the world cultures together. For being French and spending lots of timein Mexico and with Mexicans, the author chose to focus more specifically onnegotiation between French and Mexicans.June-December 2011 – IESEG School of Management 9
  10. 10. CAILLIER Hugo Influence of culture on negotiation 1.2 The research objective It has been said that most of the time, when you confront people from differentcountries, the culture’s effect will be negative on the interactions that will be created bythis meeting. «Culture is more often a source of conflict than of synergy. Cultural differences are a nuisance at best and often a disaster." Prof. Geert Hofstede In other words businessmen will face a difficulty while doing internationaltransactions but not much people try to explain what to do and how to do to getsmoother intercultural relations. That is the reason why we chose this topic as a studytopic. The objective will be to define and extract the main components of culture andsee how they can be managed in order to get a better relationship and outcome. Weknow that those components will be present in all steps of the negotiation process andwill affect the outcome differently depending on the different country involved and ontheir preparation for this intercultural interactions have been made. So this research willfocus on Business to Business (B2B) negotiations between French’s and Mexican’sSmall and Medium Sized Enterprises (SMEs). 1.3 The main research questions The topic of this research is still very large to work in. So after having studiedpast researches and papers that have been done about it and gathered information aboutthe two cultures, it has been chose to focus more on the importance of some aspects.The main points that will be studied here will be: the group dynamic, the FrenchJune-December 2011 – IESEG School of Management 10
  11. 11. CAILLIER Hugo Influence of culture on negotiationbureaucracy, the leadership, the time and relationships and their effects on thenegotiation process. By defining those, we obtained the final research question: “How do French negotiators should use the following variables “Relationship, team work, leadership, bureaucracy and time” as assets during international negotiation with Mexican?” We can also understand in this question that it has to be found a common fieldbetween both countries in order to get an advantageous outcome for both of them. Mostof the time, one country will have tendencies to impose his own culture and his way ofapproaching the problem they face without taking care of the other culture even if thisis totally unconscious. 1.3.1 Sub-questions The first statement that will be tested in this thesis will be: How the Frencheness and the bureaucracy can be a barrier for negotiationswith Mexican? In this part, we will see how the French perceives their own culture and whatdescribes the best the French’s culture. It will define more explicitly how the Frenchnegotiate and how they feel the Mexicans react about the way they negotiate. The second sub-question that will be studied is about what describes the best theMexican culture and how it can affect the negotiation styles of Mexican and French.This will be a good way of understanding how French perceives the Mexican cultureand what are the main aspects of it that create problems during the negotiation.June-December 2011 – IESEG School of Management 11
  12. 12. CAILLIER Hugo Influence of culture on negotiation How do French perceive and should manage the Mexican culture in orderto use it as an asset? The last point will be a crossed view between the French and the Mexicannegotiating style defined by their cultures. It will explore the limits of both negotiationstyles defined by the main cultural aspects that define their behaviour. How does culture of one country interfere on the negotiation style of bothcultures?June-December 2011 – IESEG School of Management 12
  13. 13. CAILLIER Hugo Influence of culture on negotiation2 Literature review The literature review is composed in two parts. The first one is an analysis partbased on the previous works that have been made by searchers on the topics that havebeen approached during this research. The second one is the limits of the literature thatwill describe the need of this research in order to answer the research question weasked. 2.1 Conceptual background The conceptual background concern the mains criterion that influence interculturalnegotiations that have been found by reading several articles and comparing works oftwo authors’ Salacuse and Hoftstede (cf appendix 1 and 2) 2.1.1 CultureHofstede Professor Geert Hofstede (2001) has been one of the first researchers to focushis entire work on the description and the effects of culture. So nowadays, it seemslogical to use his work when we are talking about culture as it is the work the most useas reference in all cultural papers. The study he started was at first linked with his workat IBM in 50 different countries. Then he decided to extend it to 74 countries in order tohave more comparisons possible. Each country gets a score about four generaldimensions at the start. Then he added a new dimension few years ago. The fivedimensions will be review here shortly using the website publication of his work. Thosedimensions are a really good way of comparing different cultures between them butalso to understand better what its components are.June-December 2011 – IESEG School of Management 13
  14. 14. CAILLIER Hugo Influence of culture on negotiation Power distance Index (PDI) The power distance index is the first dimension Hofstede used to rank cultureamong countries. The PDI represent the level of acceptation by the person that is downin the hierarchy the power of the person that is at the top. It is can be compared also asinequality. Any society is very reactive to power and inequality like is it wrote in thearticle: “all societies are unequal, but some are more unequal than others”. Individualism (IDV) Individualism is the opposite of collectivism and it shows the level ofintegration of an individual alone into groups. Individual societies are representatives ofthose were there is no relation between individuals and each one has to take care ofhimself. In collectivist societies, individuals are from their birth to their death linkedwith a group which one is able to help him in exchange of loyalty to it and helpingother individuals of the same group. All societies in the world are concerned about thelevel of individualism of their population. Masculinity (MAS) It is the opposite pole of femininity that represents the place each gender willplay in the society. An interesting fact is that women’s value are more similar from aculture to another than men’s value are. From a society to another, a man will becompetitive and assertive (the opposite of woman) in a country and totally modest aswoman in the other society. Feminine countries are the one that are more modest andwhere women have the same values as men. In masculine countries, there is a biggerbreach between both women and men’s values.June-December 2011 – IESEG School of Management 14
  15. 15. CAILLIER Hugo Influence of culture on negotiation Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI) It describes the aversion of a country to ambiguity and uncertainty. In hisextreme, it refers to the research of the truth. The score of the country will show ifeither the individuals will feel confident or not in unstructured situations. Uncertaintyavoiding societies will minimize the possibility of an unexpected outcome of anysituation by putting rules, law, measures. It can be also describing people that are moreemotional and motivated. Uncertainty accepting societies will be more open tooutsiders as ideas or technics and will try new things to see and rank all thepossibilities. They are less emotive and contemplative. Long Term Orientation (LTO) This last dimension was added only few years ago after a study done withstudent of 23 countries using a Chinese scholar questionnaire. The values that arelinked with long term orientation are frugality and perseverance and for short termoriented are respects for traditions, respecting and doing social obligations. Both shortand long term orientation found some equal values in the work of Confucius, a Chinesephilosopher from around 500 BC. So we can now draw a general definition of culture based on Hofstede work andcompleted with the work of Birukou, Blanzieri, Giorgini, Giunchigli (2009): ”Culture is a set of variables that describes all the product of the human workand thought from a group of people or organization from the same geographic place”.June-December 2011 – IESEG School of Management 15
  16. 16. CAILLIER Hugo Influence of culture on negotiation 2.1.2 TimeLebaron The work of Professor Lebaron Michelle (2003) is to understand better culturaldifferences and worldview differences. In her work called “beyond intractability” shestarts with a good warning, take care about generalizations. It says that thosegeneralization are only good to give guidelines to understand the main aspects ofculture, but then, you have lots of other variables (such as time, setting,…) that comeinto account and that you do not only have to add them, but mix them together to havethe real aspect of culture. In fact, the Mexican’s culture is often facing the problem ofgeneralization. They are compared with South American, which are of course Latin aswell and speak Spanish (except Brazil) but are very different in term of negotiation.They are also compared with the Americans as they have 3200 km of border incommon but as this border is very hermetic, the culture are not similar at all.Meanwhile, generalization gives some bounds and gives the common sense tounderstand what is “normal”. As you are into a group, you can see if you are the sameas the other person that compose your group or if you are totally different, that canmean that you belong to another group. Lebaron also explain that most of the time,western tools were applied to eastern cultures so when the time to draw conclusionarrives, eastern culture will be misunderstood and misinterpreted. It is admitted thatthere is no right approach to negotiation but you can only find better way to get a goodnegotiation process than other. Taking this in consideration, negotiators will progress abit more in cross-cultural negotiation.June-December 2011 – IESEG School of Management 16
  17. 17. CAILLIER Hugo Influence of culture on negotiationTime It is kind of hard to give general explanations about all the theories that are linkto time. In fact, the time will affect lots of other parties as it is linked with relationshipfor example. So Lebaron enunciate time as the first factor that affect cultures. In fact itexists two different orientations of time. The first one is polychronic that means manythings will happen at the same time whereas monochronic oriented means that thingswill happen in order, one after the other. France and Mexico are both polychronicoriented which means that it might not create trouble during the negotiation process andfor establishing the relationship. Both polychronic and monochronic negotiators havesome particularity.Polychronic oriented can be defined by: - Starting the meetings at different time, - Make several break when it seems necessary, - Can manage lots of information at the same time, - Can talk too much during the meetings, - Do not care about a specific hour to start the meeting and do not take the fact of being late personallyMonochronic oriented will be defined by: - Better have their beginnings and endings written - Prepare break to be at a certain time, - Take the agenda line by line. - Rely on specific, detailed, and explicit communication, - Sequence his interventionsJune-December 2011 – IESEG School of Management 17
  18. 18. CAILLIER Hugo Influence of culture on negotiation - Do not accept other to be late, correspond to disrespect There is also the relation to past, present and future that negotiators do duringthe negotiation process which can play an important role in the final outcome. Ingeneral, Latin America cultures are past and present oriented. The second variable took into consideration here is the space orientation. In factit is much related to cultures. To get a concrete example, northern European countriesare used to have more space than south European country. It is impact also by thedensity of the country. In the case of Chinese for example, they are getting more closeduring business contact as they are more accustomed to proximity. Some tactile normsalso exist, depending on each culture. In fact Mexicans are much more tactile thanFrench, they used to hug friends to greet them. Space is also a variable that take intoconsideration eye contact or lack of eye contact. In Asia, looking down is a sign ofrespect whereas in Europe, it is more common to look directly in the eyes. Then close to space, Lebaron worked on the theme of non-verbalcommunication. When Japanese use a lot silence time during negotiation, American useonly a few and Brazilian nearly none, like this we can see the huge disparity aboutnonverbal communication. Then, the author took the 3 of the 5 dimensions of Hofstede to give a quickoverview of the culture. She will only pick Power distance, uncertainty avoidance andmasculinity. Those will be explained further in a review of the work of Hofstede. Thecross cultural negotiator is someone that need an adaptive skill as culture is all the timemoving and influenced by other cultures and behaviors. Then Lebaron used a study ofAdler (1997) that compared American, Japanese, Taiwan and Brazilian negotiators. Onthe characteristic they identified, American and Brazilian were very close, JapaneseJune-December 2011 – IESEG School of Management 18
  19. 19. CAILLIER Hugo Influence of culture on negotiationfocused more on interpersonal negotiation style and Taiwan, being persistent anddeterminate. Then the author describes a little bit further each on the approaches tonegotiation. We will not go further on the US, Japanese and African approach as wewill not need it for my research but then, the European style is described and the Frenchone is gave as the most aggressive one with threats, warnings and interruption in orderto get the best outcome as they can. And the Latin American style description is prettycomplete. In fact, the time and task accomplishment is not valued as it is in America orEurope. They give more importance to the person. Negotiations are most of the timedone inside a network that already existed before the negotiation starts. In this case, anyrupture or walk away is avoided. It also has a lot to see with the “confianza” (trust). It istrue that a Latin American will start a negotiation with you only if he knows you well.That is why they use the small talks to learn a bit more about each other, their family,hobbies, … Nowadays, cross-cultural negotiation tends to be more and more focusedon the western approach focused on problem solving using a list of tasks and directcommunication. 2.1.3 Group dynamicFiona Beddoes-Jones The first person to talk about the modern evolutionary theory was CharlesDarwin (1871) and he explained that the way of living in a group is an adaptive tacticfor all kind of species include Human. Then the study of the group dynamic startedafter the Second World War. Beddoes-Jones (2005) says “the dynamics of a group arethe constantly changing relationships and influences that occur between the peoplewithin the group”. This relationship status is changing among some external andinternal variables such as time, mood of the person inside the team, budgetaryJune-December 2011 – IESEG School of Management 19
  20. 20. CAILLIER Hugo Influence of culture on negotiationconstraints... The Tuckman’s 1965 process model of group dynamics gave thefollowing 5 steps: Figure 1 Tuckmans model of group dynamics Source: Beddoes-Jones - Train the trainer – 2005 This model represents the basis of the theory about group dynamic. The firststage is the forming stage where the members of the group will meet and might createsome conflict in order to know the limits of the relationship and establish a certainhierarchy between them. Then start the storming stage when people have theirboundaries well define and start to feel more comfortable. That take us to the normingstage where people start to work together but it’s only on the perform stage where thegroup will obtain a certain productivity and will reach the objectives they had. The laststage called mourning was added by Beddoes-Jones herself. This one represent the timeafter the team achieved their first objectives and will have a global feedback about howthey get there. Some changes in the group dynamic might be done (like the role of eachperson) in order to mourn the old group or group dynamic and start a new one. Thepeople in a team might stay the same within different rounds but the dynamic canJune-December 2011 – IESEG School of Management 20
  21. 21. CAILLIER Hugo Influence of culture on negotiationchange at every round. A risk can be carry around this process: the group might staystuck in some stage of the group dynamic depending on the subject or the peopleinvolved for example.In order to have a group that is efficient, 4 team roles models have been invented. - Belbin’s Team roles This one is the most known of all the models and the most used also. Itcomports 9 roles founded on people’s behavior: “shaper, team-worker, resourceinvestigator, monitor evaluator, plant, completer-finisher, implementer, coordinator andspecialist”. - Cognitive Team roles This role model based his roles repartition on the thinking of each person of theteam focused on the achievement of the objective. The roles are divided into three maincategories: “a sensory, a people and a task focus.” - The Team Management Wheel This one is more focused on the preferences of the person that compose theteam: “creator, promoter, developer, organizer, concluder, inspector and maintainer”. - Myers’s MTR-i For this model, they used the Myers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) to define 8main roles in the dynamic group: “coach, campaigner, explorer, innovator, sculptor,curator, conductor and scientist.” So Beddoes-Jones gave us an overview of what a group dynamic is, how it iscreated and processed and the risks that can appear during the group interaction.June-December 2011 – IESEG School of Management 21
  22. 22. CAILLIER Hugo Influence of culture on negotiation 2.1.4 Defining and exploring French and Mexican cultures In this part we will explore the studies that have been made about both Frenchand Mexican cultures. We will focus on specificities of both cultures and also on theirB2B’s cultures. 2.1.4.1 France 2.1.4.1.1 French cultureThe Frenchs and their country France is a very homogenous country reuniting lots of different cultures giving avery eclectic French culture (Katz 2007). This culture is made from one part by thehistory of the country that is heavy and created lots of differences with other Europeancultures. The second part of this culture has been made by the melting pot operatedduring the year in all Europe. So in most of cases, French already had internationalinteractions with persons from other cultures inside their own country. Misconduct,trust and misunderstanding will be keys success for people that want to be wellintegrated in France.The Frencheness French are very proud of their history and their nation. So any kind of disrespectwill be highlighted and will be a source of conflict. The Frencheness is defined asfollow: all products, institutions and other symbols linked to France and making theproud of the country in the world. France has a very global culture but at the same timea regional culture that might be very different from one to another. In fact food, danceand even language might be different from a region to another so that might be a factorto take into account also to not frustrate French when planning to negotiate in France.June-December 2011 – IESEG School of Management 22
  23. 23. CAILLIER Hugo Influence of culture on negotiation The level of Frencheness will depend on four major elements: - The age of the person - The history of his family - His level of education - And the degree of practice of Catholicism (dominant religion in France)B2B French culture Business To Business relationships in France are quite different from othercountries by the fact that there is a high level of respect of several rules due to historyand habits. In order to have a business relationship in France, it is not necessary tocome in team. Also, English is now spoke by most French businessmen so to hire atranslator might not be useful. Meetings might start late in France after a smallconversation time but you should arrive on time or not more than 10 to 15 minutes late.Also, French will gather lots of information about the other person they are interactingwith in order to be able to know more about the history and personality of the personbefore they meet them. The use of Monsieur/Madame is also a convention that has tobe respected (or replaced by the title if any) and should be directly followed by thefamily name. This title should appear on your business card but as most of French areEnglish speakers, you can leave them in English or traduce them in French but in theMexican case, Spanish should not appear on it as very few persons speaks fluentlyspanish in France. Personal comments and private life of the persons involved in themeetings should not be given in the small talks or the business interactions itself. Thepresentations materials should be light and concise. French prefer to focus on the mainpoints without paying attention to the small details or any other flashy or exaggeratedJune-December 2011 – IESEG School of Management 23
  24. 24. CAILLIER Hugo Influence of culture on negotiationpresentations. Also as bureaucracy plays a very important place in French society, it ispreferable to keep a trace of any kind of agreement you should have by oral. This willpermit to have a legal issue of the agreement but also it will show your commitment inthe relationship. As we will see on the next part, women are well accepted in thebusiness word as the equality between genders is growing. 2.1.4.1.2 Hofstede 5 forces applied to France Following the work that did Hofstede about all the culture he studied, wenoticed that France has only four dimensions tested among the five of the currentmodel. The last Long Term Orientation has no grade and so will not be used in thispart. The score France has for each dimension is the follow: Dimension Score Power Distance Index 68 Individualism 71 Masculinity 43 Uncertainty Avoidance Index 86 Table 1 French’s scores of Hofstedes model France has a level of Power Distance that is quit high but stay moderated. So itmeans that in France you expect to have inequalities and that they are accepted. Theless powerful will be expecting to be led by a more powerful person. In fact French areused to show more respect for person that are older for example. It is normal to seethem above in the company even if sometimes they are not as qualified as the own theyJune-December 2011 – IESEG School of Management 24
  25. 25. CAILLIER Hugo Influence of culture on negotiationare managing. However, some points counterbalance like for example the range ofsalaries is quite restraint and that created a middle class very important. The Power Distance also is amplified by the second dimension studied. Francehas a very high level of individualism. The identity of French citizen is based on theindividual itself. Lots of importance is put into the importance of the getting graduated,sign of self-esteem and economic success. Another point that is important into thenegotiation context is that in individualistic societies, the business to deal with is moreimportant than the relation with the other part. In France, masculinity is low, scoring only 43 over 100 points. A femininesociety will affect work, studies, family, politic and ideas. In France, the balancebetween Male and Female tends to be the more equal as it is possible. Both partnerswill play the same role in the couple and in the education of the children. The educationis important but the success itself is not the keyword. Also, some point of attention inthe French society is the preservation of the environment, and equity and liberations ofwomen in all levels of the societies are also component of a feminine society. Uncertainty avoidance is the preference for the people to know what willhappen in the future. France has a high level of uncertainty avoidance. This took Frenchcitizen to adopt a lifestyle based on security where people have a high level of stress.This will also be a barrier to any kind of change. A good effect of this high level ofuncertainty avoidance will be the level of study that young reach in order to reduce therisk of unemployment and get economical securities for their future. An economiceffect of this high rate will also be a high confidence in banks as they are a good way tosave money for future, better than investing in the share market. Meanwhile, anacceptance of familiar risks will be created for people that are looking for constancy.June-December 2011 – IESEG School of Management 25
  26. 26. CAILLIER Hugo Influence of culture on negotiation We can notice in the graphic below that two important categories arehighlighted for France: Individualism that is very high and combined with a moderatedlevel of power distance index. The second one masculinity is the result of the years offight for human and woman rights in France that is an example for several countries inthe world. France Power Distance Index 100 80 60 40 20 Uncertainty 0 Individualism Avoidance index Masculinity Figure 2 French’s Scores of Hofstedes model 2.1.4.2 Mexico 2.1.4.2.1 Mexican cultureThe Mexican and their country According to the Communicaid group (2009), specialized in culture among theword, the United Mexican States are a melting pot of several cultures that made of theculture of this country a very rich one combining history and external influences. Thehistory of Mexico has as roots the indigenous tribes as Aztecs, Mayas, Zapotec… Then,Spanish brought their culture when invading the country and bringing also the AfricanJune-December 2011 – IESEG School of Management 26
  27. 27. CAILLIER Hugo Influence of culture on negotiationcivilization through the slaves they used to exploit the country’s resources. Finally, bytheir proximity with United States of America, they also have a high influence ofnorthern cultures. So in order to interact in Mexico environment, a good understandingof this mix is primordial. The communication style used by Mexican might tend to be very different thanthe one of French for example. They use indirect style in order to be more diplomaticand avoid any types of confrontations. So using this kind of communication mightenforce the relationship you will create with your business partner. Family also has avery important place in the Mexican culture. As Mexico is a collectivist culture, thefamily is first group of affiliation of all the individuals. Also, it will be a current fact tofind relatives of the same family working for the same company in Mexico or whocreated a business together. Time is also a very important criteria of Mexican’s culture.The Mexican uses both words “manana” (tomorrow) and “ahorita” (later) in the sameobjective, to delay something from some minutes to a day or more. This will create apace of work and of meeting that can be slower than in European culture.B2B Mexican culture Since 2000, the president of Mexico is no more from the InstitutionalRevolutionary Party and permitted to open more largely his borders to transatlanticbusiness. Since there, the number of international trading with Mexico is in net gross aswe said in introduction. In the meantime, Mexicans are less used to negotiate with otherculture and will not adapt their habits to foreign ones. So when negotiating with them,you should take care of not being brusque and respect their habits and customs. As wejust saw, the relation to time is very important in the Mexican culture as it is inbusiness. So Mexican meetings might be longer than what businessmen are used to, butJune-December 2011 – IESEG School of Management 27
  28. 28. CAILLIER Hugo Influence of culture on negotiationthe principal aim of Mexicans is not the contract itself but more how the relationship isdeveloped among time. However, even if the Mexicans might arrive late at meetings(up to 30 minutes normally), they give lots of importance to the planning of the meetingand you sure will have to confirm that you are coming or not to it. The meetings mightbe organized during the lunch time that can last several hours sometimes. The breakfastcan also be a good way of creating and improving the relationship with your partners.The meals are important into the relationship construction as it might be a good way oftesting Mexican specialities and showing interest for their food and their culture. The hierarchy of the companies is also very well defined between the employeesand should be treated with care in order to respect the boundaries between the differentscales of the company. If you are negotiating with a team, try to talk with the personthat has the same place in the company as yours or with the person that will be directlyconcerned by the matter. And therefore, the use of the appropriate title will be welcomeas it reflects most of the time the hierarchy. You might need to be introducing by acontact to your business associates in order to help the relationship’s creation as yourcontact already knew the person you wanted to meet. 2.1.4.2.2 Hofstede 5 forces applied to Mexico As for France, Mexico only has four of the five dimensions that are normallytested for all countries. Mexico was one of the first countries to be studied by Hofstedebecause of his proximity with the United States of America. Here are summed up thescores of Mexico for the four main Hofstede dimensions:June-December 2011 – IESEG School of Management 28
  29. 29. CAILLIER Hugo Influence of culture on negotiation Dimension Score Power Distance Index 81 Individualism 30 Masculinity 69 Uncertainty Avoidance Index 82 Table 2 Mexicans scores Hofstedes model The Power Distance Index of Mexico is very high. In fact, in this country, itexist lots of inequalities. It is very common to show your economical health by living inprestigious house with numerous cars and domestics. Even if in the same time the otherpart of the population lives in precarious situation. The range of salaries is very largestarting at 300 dollars per month for the minimal salary47. Contrary to France, Mexico has a very high level of collectivism. They aremuch more family-based than France. When an individualistic society will try to sayalways the truth about what they think, a collectivist’s one will try to avoid conflict andkeep a general harmony. The management also is very large; it does not take the personitself personally but take all employees as a group. As we also noticed above, forMexican the relationship is much more important than the contract itself. Mexico recorded the second highest score (after Venezuela) of masculinity ofHofstede’s dimensions in South America. This means that this country is highlyoriented among Males. The men decide of most of important decisions in the societyand other power structures (politic, family, companies). This situation will create morecompetiveness among the women in the society between them, but not with males. Infact in Mexico, persons give lots of importance to money and things that you own.June-December 2011 – IESEG School of Management 29
  30. 30. CAILLIER Hugo Influence of culture on negotiationOpposite to feminine societies, Mexican will be waiting for feelings coming fromwomen and men will be responsible for the facts and will take decisions. The last dimension that has been given by Hofstede about Mexico is theuncertainty avoidance index. The score of Mexico is nearly the same as the French one(82 and 86 for France) but is high compared to the other Latin cultures. The effects onthe society are nearly the same as the ones in France. The big difference might be aboutthe level of stress suffered by Mexican compared with French. In fact, only 15% ofMexican said that they found themselves frequently stress in their daily life (CBSNews, 2009). But the will of knowing what the future reserves to the Mexicans create amore controlled life with more rules and laws even if the corruption present in thiscountry reduce the efficiency of those regulations. The last of the five dimensions (Long Term Orientation) has not be done for theMexican culture so the Hofstede model of Mexico will only be described with the fourdimensions above. The collectivism of the country is the most remarkable fact of thisculture that makes them very supportive among his citizens.June-December 2011 – IESEG School of Management 30
  31. 31. CAILLIER Hugo Influence of culture on negotiation Mexico Power Distance Index 100 80 60 40 20 Uncertainty Avoidance 0 Individualism index Masculinity Figure 3 : Mexican’s Scores of Hofstedes model 2.1.5 Cultural negotiation 2.1.5.1 Blake and Mouton With the increasing flow of business interactions since the last 60 years, thenegotiation has been a field that have been improved a lot by scholars but the ones thatcreated the basement of negotiation styles were Blake and Mouton (1964). Theycreated the main model that was a two axis based model. The first Y axis isassertiveness and the X axis is cooperativeness.June-December 2011 – IESEG School of Management 31
  32. 32. CAILLIER Hugo Influence of culture on negotiation Assertiveness is the will that a person will provide in order to satisfy his ownneeds while cooperativeness is how a person is interested in satisfying the needs of theother part. So managing those two variables you will obtain 5 different negotiationstyles that are presented on the figure below. Figure 4 Five negotiation behavioral styles Source: Slides of Dr. Ian Speakman’s class - Avoidance style: (unassertive and uncooperative) It is the first negotiation style where the person is not interested neither in fillinghis own needs or the ones of the other person who he is negotiating with. This can haveas outcome to postpone the meeting, or just running away from any form of interaction.June-December 2011 – IESEG School of Management 32
  33. 33. CAILLIER Hugo Influence of culture on negotiation - Competition style: (assertive and uncooperative) This style is used by people that are just interested in meeting their own needswithout taking care of what the other want. You will adopt a competitive style whenyou are trying to defend some point you are sure is correct or when you are trying towin. - Accommodation style (unassertive and cooperative) The accommodating style is the opposite of the competing style. When adoptingthis style, the person will forget about trying to fulfill his own needs in order to focusentirely on the other’s needs. He will agree to do a sacrifice about it. Charity is the mostknown example of accommodation. You can also observe this kind of style whensomeone obeys to another person without wanting it really. - Collaboration style (assertive and cooperative) When collaborating, both parts are working together in order to reach theobjective of both. The process to reach this outcome is to explain the problem of eachpart, explore all the solutions that exist and find an alternative way to find anagreement. The exploration part of the aim why the other part does not agree is the keyto resolve this problem. The main point to think about in order to reach an agreement inthis case is the creativeness. - Compromise style (midway between assertive and cooperative) This style is the one that is in the middle of the model, so it uses a small amountof all the other negotiation style. In this case you will try to find a mutually acceptablesolution that satisfies the most both parties. But in this case, both parties will have to dosome sacrifices in order to both fit in the Zone of Potential Agreement (ZOPA).June-December 2011 – IESEG School of Management 33
  34. 34. CAILLIER Hugo Influence of culture on negotiation 2.1.5.2 Horst Paul R. Horst is a Lieutenant Colonel at the United States Air Force. Asgraduation requirements, he wrote a research report on the link between culture andnegotiation. In his research, he first describes culture and how it impact the humanbeing, then negotiation and in the last part, how culture impact negotiation. Aboutculture, Horst (2007) agreed with Cohen (1997) to say that “culture is societal (notindividualistic), acquired (not genetic) and his attributes cover the entire array of sociallife”. The first attribute means that a person depends on the society around him, on the“clan” he is part of. The second attributes is more linked to where and how the personwill live his life. So lifestyle in general (school, family, friends and work) is creatingthe acquired attribute of culture. And the last of the three attributes is given byintangibles that are not wrote or visible as relationships, etiquettes, conventions…Usingthe figure above: three levels of uniqueness in human mental programming of Hofstede(1997), Horst explain that human nature is inherited, while culture is learned andpersonality is both learned and inherited. This explains better why two countries thatare separated by thousands of kilometres and an ocean can develop a very differentculture. So culture is influenced by the collective pressure of the society you live in.June-December 2011 – IESEG School of Management 34
  35. 35. CAILLIER Hugo Influence of culture on negotiation Figure 5: Three levels of uniqueness in Human Mental Programming – Hofstede Source: Horst - Cross-Cultural Negotiations – 2007 Horst defines negotiation as follow: “when two or more parties reach a positionwhere their interests or values come in conflict with one another”. He explains that tohim, it exists several ways to resolve this conflict: the first case is when a party is morepowerful than the other one, then when both party are equal in power (here we accedeto a pure negotiation case). The use of mediator or arbitrator can be used as a facilitatorfor resolving the conflict. Then he gave an overview of the three negotiation styles that are used most ofthe time: competitive, collaborative and concession. The style used will also depend ofthe balance of power during the negotiation. Negotiation is a skill and not a knowledgearea. Negotiators are the key actors in negotiation. The five attributes given tonegotiators by Rubin (2002) are: flexibility, sensitive to social clue, inventiveness,tenacious and patience. Three main skills are used among the phases of the negotiationJune-December 2011 – IESEG School of Management 35
  36. 36. CAILLIER Hugo Influence of culture on negotiation(given here at the number of 3): Procedural interests, substantive interests andpsychological interests. Those skills are used in all parts without distinction dependingon how the negotiation is going on and the nature of the negotiators. In the last part, Horst gave an explanation about how culture and negotiation arecrossed. The relation between both aspects will be done toward the four main aspects ofnegotiation: actors, structure, strategy and process. The culture will play a major role onhow is perceived the other party by the actors of the negotiation. The structure of thenegotiation will also be affected by culture for example on the size of the team chose bythe party. A party that come from a collectivist culture may be more efficient than ateam from an individualistic country. The strategy can be different within differentcultures. For example, a person that comes from a country where they are more often inconfrontational style in every day’s life will be more able to choose a hard bargainingstyle during negotiation. Culture also plays a big part during the negotiation process“the actual interaction between parties” (Faure 2002). A party with a highindividualistic index will speak less than a collectivist one. The way they communicatein an individualistic society will also be more direct and shorter. Then Horst useSalacuse’s (1998) work to see how culture affects 10 general negotiation factors. AsHofstede’s work, we will review a specific academic paper about this work as it is amain research in this field. Then, Horst looks for how to develop a strategy for a crosscultural negotiation. He asked the question if cultural difference could be a drivinginfluence during a negotiation. He said that the preparation step is the first and thebiggest step for a negotiator into a cross-cultural negotiation. Then four strategies canbe used: adhering, avoiding/contending, adapting and advancing in order to get apositive outcome during this kind of negotiation. It says in this paper that strategy ofJune-December 2011 – IESEG School of Management 36
  37. 37. CAILLIER Hugo Influence of culture on negotiationboth party will evolved depending on the level of ability and willingness to adapt(AWA). 2.1.5.3 Andrew Boughton Andrew Boughton (2009) is a contemporaneous businessman that worked asnegotiators for companies all around the world. He also did a big research about culturethat has been done among more than 1500 businesspeople in 21 cultures. The researchfound that it exists two kind of prejudges that are normally done about culture: regionalgeneralization and that Japan has “normal” negotiation strategy. Those two affirmationsare most of the time wrong. In fact, some culture leaving very close as Japan and SouthKorea are, can use the opposite negotiation strategy. And the second one is that Japan isall the time in the extreme of each criterion used to describe their strategy. It is alsogiven that cultural differences create problem on four variables of the actors as given byBoughton: - “Language - Nonverbal behaviors - Values - Thinking and decision-making process.” Also taking into account that the first problem listed here is the one that will bethe more obvious and the last one the harder to determine. The language is the most obvious because you can know or notice that you donot speak the same language at first sight. Something important here is that Boughtonexplains that “exact translations in international interactions are a goal almost neverJune-December 2011 – IESEG School of Management 37
  38. 38. CAILLIER Hugo Influence of culture on negotiationattained”. And that the case when they do have to traduce but the language problem canalso be faced in case of an American with a native speaker from England will speak thesame language but there is still a risk of misunderstanding between them. That is why you can easily imagine negotiation strategy based on the language.The example given here is a Russian that speaks English but still use an interpreter tonegotiate with an American. This way, when he speaks, the attention of the American isfocused on the interpreter and cannot see the non-verbal behaviors of the Russian. Andwhen it is the turn of the American to speak, the Russian can focus on the non-verbalcommunication of the American and then get another translation of what he heard tovalidate the answer he understood on the first time. It is also given that it is lessfrequent to find an American that speaks another language so the other party during thenegotiation might get an advantage from this. About nonverbal behaviour, all the researches take us to the same results:nonverbal communication is crucial in any exchange process as negotiation is or otherkind of communication. The research used here show that the difference between twocultures is higher when you compare both nonverbal and the verbal content of thenegotiation. Then follow a description of the behaviour of the 15 cultural groups thatwere studied. We will only focus on both Mexican and French behaviour as we choseto work on those two even if other cultures are very interesting in the way they behaveas Japan for example.France: They have the most aggressive style among all the culture that was studied inthis survey with a very high level of threats. Another specification about French that wefind in lots of survey is that they are very used to interrupt the other party and use a lotthe “no”. They were using a competing style in most of the casesJune-December 2011 – IESEG School of Management 38
  39. 39. CAILLIER Hugo Influence of culture on negotiationMexico: The biggest point that was noticed about Mexicans is that this culture is lots oftime victim of regional generalization even if, at the end, Mexicans are very differentfrom other country of South-America or their Spanish cousins. Finally, Mexicanbehaviour is closer to the American negotiation behaviour than any other one. Theprefer negotiation styles of the Mexicans are the collaboration and accommodationstyles In another part, the paper talks about the influence of some managerial valueson the negotiations as objectivity, competitiveness, equality and punctuality. Thosevalues are most of the time used by Americans and can create an unfavourable situationfor any international negotiation. The book “getting to yes” (Ury, Fisher and Patton1991) is used here as a reference for all people that have to negotiate with Americans tounderstand what and how do they see the negotiation process. For example, the mostimportant for an American is the substance and the relationship whereas in othercountries, those two variables will be attached. Anyway, lots of ideas that have beenexplored in this book can be applied to other cultures. Then a study about a negotiation case applied to businessman show that inMexico, Japan and Korea, the buyer is seen as more powerful than the seller. Incontrary, Americans are seeing more often the buyer as powerful as the seller. Thisfinding is confirmed by the work of Hofstede that show that Americans scored thehighest score in the scale individualism. It also confirm the proverb “Just make themwait” when you are negotiating with Americans. In fact Americans is the culture thatvalue the more time whereas Japan value it totally differently and have not the feelingof losing time when they are negotiating as they are preparing a future relationship.June-December 2011 – IESEG School of Management 39
  40. 40. CAILLIER Hugo Influence of culture on negotiation About the decision-making process, it shows that eastern and western process isnot very compatible because in western countries, they use to separate the allnegotiation in several smaller tasks when Eastern countries prefer to negotiate thecontract as a whole. They will also take the negotiation time to create the relationshipas western will take this time to try to resolve the problem finding a good deal for bothparties. 2.1.6 Interpersonal communication 2.1.6.1 Tim Borchers Tim Borchers (1999) gave a good first description of what is interpersonalcommunication. To define it, they used a comparison method with all the other way ofcommunication. Interpersonal communication will be based on the study of how manypersons are involved in the communication process, they distance between them, thechannel they use to communicate and the feedback that will be gave by the receptor tothe emitter. Some particularities of this kind of communication are that it will not takethe relationship into consideration and that the interactants are physically present.Another way of describing interpersonal communication was gave by Nora C. Quebral(2001) calling it the developmental view and was first defined by her in 1972 as "The art and science of human communication linked to a societys planned transformation from a state of poverty to one of dynamic socio-economic growth that makes for greater equity and the larger unfolding of individual potential." Nora QuebralJune-December 2011 – IESEG School of Management 40
  41. 41. CAILLIER Hugo Influence of culture on negotiation The main function of interpersonal communication as described by Borchers isthe gain of knowledge about another person or matter. The more you collectinformation about a person, the better you will communicate with him. This theory iscalled Social Penetration and was created in 1973 by professors Taylor Dalmas andAltman Irwin in order to describe better the link between relationship and the outcomeof the communication process. There is three main ways of collecting informationabout your interlocutor: passively by working out the elements you observed during theinteraction, actively by observing another person talking with your interlocutor andfinally interactively by interacting directly with him. There is also to take into account the content message. In fact a same word canbe understood differently depending on the context, the way they are said, and themeaning in your own culture. The second variable that describes a message is therelationship message which defines how the message has been said. Those twocomponents are transmitted at the same time but will affect the way the message hasbeen understood. Then we have to describe the identity of the communicants. The firstcomponent of the identity is the role each person plays in the society. This will becompleted by “the face” that the person will show during public interactions. Andfinally we need to engage interpersonal communication in order to fulfill some needs.The professor William Schutz (1958) gave three main kinds of needs that will make usinteract with other people: - Inclusion: it is the need of creating his identity by interacting with other people; - Control: is the need of creating a certain leadership among other persons or of being managed by other for the persons that do not likeJune-December 2011 – IESEG School of Management 41
  42. 42. CAILLIER Hugo Influence of culture on negotiation being leaders. The group formation is the best way to see this kind of communication; - Affection: it represents the need of being accepted by others. Groups are also the best way for creating this kind of relationships. Figure 6 Knapp’s Relationship Model Source: http://gracescribbles.blogspot.com Then, come the time for relationship development that will be the main tool tomanage in order to get a positive outcome to the communication process. This phasehas been studied by Knap Mark (1984) in his relational stage model (above). Thismodel called Knap relationship model is composed of three main stages; each stage iscomposed of several steps coming from the initiating to the terminating step passing bymaintenance of the relationship. Self-disclosure is the best way to get more intimate with the other interlocutors.It is based on sharing information that other people should not know or discover bythem in a normal time. A good way of having a great overview about what others knowabout you, what you know about you is the Johari window done by Luft (1969).June-December 2011 – IESEG School of Management 42
  43. 43. CAILLIER Hugo Influence of culture on negotiation Table 3 Johari’s Window Source : http://www.abacon.com Self-disclosure has a primary function to gain information about the otherperson in order to predict the more as we can their thoughts and acts. This informationis normally given in exchange of the same type of information from your part: that isknown as a norm of reciprocity. This exchange of information will create a betterrelationship adding more trust into it. However, self-disclosure might be risky for bothparties. The first risk is that the person might not take the information as a good thingabout you; self-disclosure can be about matters that your interlocutor does not likeabout you. It can also be risky by the fact that the other person should use thisinformation to damage your reputation or the relationship by disclosing it to otherpersons. The last way is the fact that the self-disclosure can damage the relationship if itis done too early in the relationship process or if too much information is disclosed atthe same time.June-December 2011 – IESEG School of Management 43
  44. 44. CAILLIER Hugo Influence of culture on negotiation 2.1.6.2 Shanon Claude Shannon and Warren Weaver (1975) studied communication but as a verylarge theme. They started to base their work on the communication process betweenmachines and saw that it could be applied to human. So they define communication asall the process used by a spirit to influence another one using words, behaving but alsoall sort of human work (music, theatre, painting…). They defined three main problemsthat can be observed in the communication process and that can damage the quality ofit: - Technical problem This one describes the problems that are linked with the exactitude of the symbols that are used to transmit the message. This message can be written with character but can also be a sound (words or song). - Semantic problem The semantic problem describes the difference between the intention of the transmitter and the interpretation of the receiver. This misunderstanding might be hard to find or to detect because sometimes you can ask if the other person gets what you said, he can answer yes even if he did not have it. A good way to avoid that is to talk more with the other person about the same subject until being sure that you gave all the details or the other person gets it. - Efficiency problem The efficiency problem is the last level of problem that can be noticed because even if until here there was no problem, this one can change entirely the outcome of the communication. In fact it defines the success which with theJune-December 2011 – IESEG School of Management 44
  45. 45. CAILLIER Hugo Influence of culture on negotiation message that have been transmitted will make the receptor act as desired when the message was sent.The global model that Shannon designed is the one presented below: Figure 7 Shannon’s Model (1948) Source: http://davis.foulger.info/research/unifiedModelOfCommunication.htm In this model we can easily identify the main process of communication withthe interactants and the way the message will have to do from the source to thedestination. The easiest and shortest way to understand this model is to see how theemitter will transform the message in a signal that will be transmitted to the receiverthrough a communication’s canal and transformed again in a message to a destination.In this schema we can add the main elements of this research paper. The culture will betook most of the time as a noise source in the negotiation. That is where we are lookingfor a way to have it more than a facilitator than a barrier. And then during thetransmission of the message, the negotiation styles will take some part into the way theJune-December 2011 – IESEG School of Management 45
  46. 46. CAILLIER Hugo Influence of culture on negotiationmessage is sent and also how it is understood by the receiver. Then another researcher(Weiner, 1986) added a small contribution to the model of Shannon but that made themodel interactive. This contribution was the addition of the element “feedback” fromthe destination back to the information source. 2.1.7 LeadershipAdair John Adair (2005) is one of the referent persons in the leadership field. He wrotemore than 62 books about leadership and several academic papers with other searchers.In his work, Adair found a global model that describes the interactions between thethree mains functions of leadership. Those elements: task, individual and group arerepresented in three circles that overlap describing the interaction of each of the threefunctions on the other one. So if the individual is weak, it will affect the performance ofthe group to complete the task. Task Individual Group Figure 8 Action centered leadership model of Adair Source: www.learnmanagement2.comJune-December 2011 – IESEG School of Management 46
  47. 47. CAILLIER Hugo Influence of culture on negotiation So those three functions are described by the development of the individual, thebuilding and maintain of the group and the accomplishment of a task. This model helpsto understand the differences between management and leadership. Then a leader has 8main functions. The first one is to create SMART objective that are Specific,Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and timed constrained in order to establish a definedobjective. The second objective of a leader is the planning of the achievement of thistask. In order to achieve it, the leader must brief his team to get the adequateatmosphere. The need for control and evaluation among the team and the individuals isalso essential as it is a way of questioning the efficiency of the plan and the team. Thenthe motivation gave to the team is essential. In his book Effective Motivation, Adair(1987) found and described 8 different ways of motivating people. Here are the heightrules that are recommended to motivate your team: 1. “Be motivated yourself. 2. Select motivated people. 3. Treat each person as an individual. 4. Set realistic but challenging targets. 5. Understand that progress itself motivates. 6. Create a motivating environment. 7. Provide relevant rewards. 8. Recognise success.” Adair JohnJune-December 2011 – IESEG School of Management 47
  48. 48. CAILLIER Hugo Influence of culture on negotiation To conclude, Adair show that the leadership works as a whole and if onecomponent is failing, the all system will not work efficiently. So he highlighted theimportance of the team building and team enforcement. Some tools has then have beencreated to evaluate the leadership’s aptitude of each person such as the MBTI of MyersBriggs that is also used in the group dynamic theories and was first published by Jungin 1923. We can briefly define it as the ways that an individual will use to have the helpor support of other person in order to accomplish a common work. 2.2 Limitation of the literature review This literature review has been made using the papers that were the most close tothe topics we will study in this research. But anyway, they are not explaining exactlywhat we are looking for. That is the main point of conducting this research, to applymore precisely the theory that has been made about culture to France and Mexico andto confirm the statements that have been made about those cultures. Then, the studiesthat have been made about French or Mexican culture nearly never take into accountthe point of view of the other country. In fact, most of the time, the paper is focused ina specific culture but from the point of view of the author or with a neutral mind-set.What will be added here is to understand the Mexican and French cultures but fromFrench point of view. In continuation with this idea, we will see how this one-way pointof view can also be a barrier for intercultural negotiations. Another point that limit the literature review is the fact that the references that welooked for is very limited among the entire amount of papers published. This will alsooblige us to pick up some papers that might not be the most relevant for the study of aspecific topic. We can also ask ourselves about the obsolescence of those works. Infact, several documents are used as references for specific topic. For example, the workJune-December 2011 – IESEG School of Management 48
  49. 49. CAILLIER Hugo Influence of culture on negotiationof Hofstede (1997) has been used as reference by several searchers because he is theone that worked the most on this subject but it is possible that if someone else do thesame amount of work on the same topic find something totally different from whatHofstede found. So it is possible that the tools used here to start to answer the researchare not the most appropriate and might have taken the propositions in a bad path. Wecould also add specific limitations about some of the topics that have been approached.For example, in the last part, we said that leadership is essential for the wellness of agroup. But in an article, Dr. Spates Jennifer (2008) explained her theory aboutcommitted sardines that are all going in the same direction, without touching the otherssardines of the shoal. So the reasons of this might be also by the total lack of leadershipinside this organisation. If one sardine had even a little bit of leadership, this mightcreate some disturbances in the smooth functioning of a shoal.June-December 2011 – IESEG School of Management 49
  50. 50. CAILLIER Hugo Influence of culture on negotiation3 Research methodology The research methodology explain what research design we chosen and the reasonswe chose this one and not another type. It will also present the hypotheses that will betested by the method and the kind of data that have been chose: quantitative orqualitative. 3.1 Research design 3.1.1 Design The research has been established to understand why variables such as time,leadership, and group dynamic do can be hurtful to a negotiation and how should it bemanaged. As said De Vaus (2001), the aim of an explanatory research is to answer thequestion: “Why is it going on?” So at the end of the research we will have to find thecausal explanations of why those variables are hurting the negotiations between Franceand Mexico. Causal explanations are a way of showing how the phenomenon“intercultural negotiations” is affected by the factors “time, leadership, group dynamic,Frencheness”. So in first sight, we will predict that culture effectively affect thenegotiation process and outcome. Then we have to find the correlation between theculture and the outcome of the negotiation. This correlation is given by the differentfactors that made the essence of culture. Then we can finally find the cause of thiseffect that is not coincidental. Here the cause might be the essential differences betweenboth cultures that are negotiating together. The cause here studied is a probabilistic one.Wesley Salmon (1980) explained that the probabilistic causality is opposed to thedeterministically causality. The last one is the description of the case where inevitably,a variable X will affect the same way a variable Y. But here, we cannot state that eachtime an international negotiation take place, the outcome will be bad because of culture.June-December 2011 – IESEG School of Management 50
  51. 51. CAILLIER Hugo Influence of culture on negotiationSometimes the culture might improve the outcome. So we are in the second case wherea fact X might affect a variable Y as it already happened this way before. The theory that has been chose here is giving us the different propositions thatwill be tested. So the theory testing approach has been chose in order to test that in fact,that some cultural aspects affects international negotiation. The different propositionshave been found using a deductive approach from the main research question. In the figure below, we can understand how does this work has been establishedin order to find the propositions, the way information will be collected, the collection ofthe data, the analysis of those and the comparison between the propositions and theresults of the analysis with a final feedback on the theory itself that was the startingpoint of this work. Figure 9 The logic of the research process Source: David de Vaus Research design in social research (1980)June-December 2011 – IESEG School of Management 51
  52. 52. CAILLIER Hugo Influence of culture on negotiation Then came the time to choose the type of research we should conduce in orderto answer the best as we can to this theory and propositions. Here two options exists;quantitative or qualitative research. Quantitative research are using a bigger sample andasking closed question. In this case, the aim was to gather information that might benew for the subject. Furthermore, qualitative research has the possibility to bedescriptive that is a very important point. This is the best way to describe effectively aperson, an event or a situation (Robson 2002). Figure 7 Qualitative VS Quantitative Research Source: Abdur-Rahman 2010June-December 2011 – IESEG School of Management 52
  53. 53. CAILLIER Hugo Influence of culture on negotiation 3.1.2 Propositions and Model Thanks to the literature review, several components of culture have beenhighlighted between the entire set that constitute the culture. The works of Hofstede(2001) and Salacuse (1998) have been the ones that were the more useful in order toidentify those components. The results of those works can be found in the annexe at theend of this work (appendix 1 and 2). Then three main propositions that are aboutFrench culture, Mexican culture and the confrontation of both cultures and the effect onthe negotiation style adopted. Then each proposition will be detailed in two morepropositions that will focus on specific variables of each culture.Proposition A: The French culture is based on group dynamic, bureaucracy andFrencheness. • P1a French will refer to a team work expecting each person of the team to bring something before and during the negotiation. So the first proposition is about the French culture. The sub-proposition is aboutunderstanding how is managed the team work in a French team and what does thatimplies to each of the coworkers. • P2a French will follow their home rules in order to achieve the signature of the contract. The second proposition of the French culture is a little bit more complex. In factthe French are very proud of their culture. This “Frencheness” combined with the usualbureaucracy of French might be a big barrier for countries as Mexico that are more usedto negotiate in general because a bureaucratic state will tend to have a specific person incharge of each area (Fisher 1980).June-December 2011 – IESEG School of Management 53
  54. 54. CAILLIER Hugo Influence of culture on negotiationProposition B: Mexican’s culture refers a lot to leadership, time and relationship. The proposition B deals with the Mexican’ culture specificity. In deed we justsaw in the literature review that this country is collectivist and that give importance tothe relations between his citizens and also to the hierarchy. The time also plays a majorplace in this culture as it is a variable that can easily be managed by everybody. • P1b Mexican prefer to refer to one person that will take the main decisions and will conduct the negotiation As Dickson (2003) said, “directive leadership only had positives outcomes interms of satisfaction and commitment in Mexico”. This is due in fact with a high powerdistance and quit high Uncertainty avoidance that will cause people to trust in theirchief as they think they are the more qualified to deal with the problem they are facing. • P2b:Mexican use time as a tool to create a better relationship between the two negotiators As we saw on the literature review, all the searchers accord to say that time inMexico might be the most important tool in order to improve the outcome. The timemight be used directly as to get some more time to think for an offer for example. But itcan also be managed as a way of upgrading the relationship by having a longer periodof interaction with your business partner.Proposition C: The confrontation of the cultural differences will create anegotiation style proper to each culture. In order to analyze a negotiation, we have to understand better both teams’culture and habits and also the way they negotiate. We make a proposition that culturehas a direct effect on negotiation style. Salacuse (1998) found at least ten ways inJune-December 2011 – IESEG School of Management 54
  55. 55. CAILLIER Hugo Influence of culture on negotiationwhich the negotiation style will be different among the cultures. If a country is pushingtoo much in order to reach an agreement, the other country might feel that it will not beenough in order to get a good and trustable relationship. That is for example why thewell-known company Enron lost a huge contract because the negotiation style ofAmerican was too pushy for Indians. • P1c: The Mexican team will try to create a good relationship with one person to negotiate with him using an accommodation style. Mexican will try to avoid as much as they can the conflict. As we saw on theliterature review, this will be traduced in negotiation by the way they use time to reportthe taking of decision to later. It will be also observed in the words they use, like“maybe” or “we will see”. (Katz 2006). • P2c: The French team will feel under pressure thinking Mexican are using stratagem with time and will use a competition style. The last proposition is about the way the French will perceive the negotiation.As their level of Frencheness is very high, they might get uncomfortable. As French arevery used to do the things the way they want, they might feel insulted or hurt whenMexicans use some basic tool as time to get more time to though about the subject or toconsult the other team members. On the following figure, the research question, propositions and main researchdesign is represented as a conceptual model. This conceptual model starts with theresearch question. This research question will need the qualitative research in order toanswer the six propositions and finally draw a global conclusion about how cultureaffects intercultural negotiations.June-December 2011 – IESEG School of Management 55
  56. 56. CAILLIER Hugo Influence of culture on negotiation Research question Sample: French B2B companyies Perception on F/M Perceived differences M/F negotiation between F/M andFrench culture Mexican culture behaviour depending potential differences on Pa and Pb opp/threat P1a P1b P1c=P1a+P1bGroup Dynamic Leadership Accomodation style P2a P2b P2c=P2a+P2b Frencheness/rules Time Competition Style Figure 11 Theorical Research Model 3.2 Research methodology 3.2.1 Research procedures How? The research procedure chosen in this work is the semi structured in depth interviews. So the first element of this research procedure is the interview. We chose interview because they are the best way to have exploratory and qualitative answers. This tool is the best way in order to have open answers that will give more components of the cultural differences that exists in international negotiation. However, the June-December 2011 – IESEG School of Management 56
  57. 57. CAILLIER Hugo Influence of culture on negotiationinterviews will be semi structured in order to stick with the main research question andidentify the details of the main variables time, leadership…Who? In order to answer the interviews, we had to choose a sample. A sample isdefined as a part of a group that will be representative of a whole. The sample chosenhere was at first B2B companies from both countries: Mexico and France. Eachcompany had to be negotiating with the other one about selling, or contracts. During theresearch of the Mexican companies negotiating with French ones, we quickly saw thatfindings those contacts were very hard to found. So we definitely chose to onlyinterview French businessman doing business with Mexican in SME’s because theywere more accessible than negotiators of international groups. But anyway, the resultscan be applied to all kinds of cultural interactions that will be done between those twocountries.When? The available time to do those interviews was very limited. And as there wasnot enough time to travel to interview each of the interviewee in person; another wayhad to be found explained in the next part. The interviews have been made morespecifically during the second part of the semester when the methodology was moredefined. This lack of time was also a reason for not interviewing Mexicansbusinessman.Where? So as it was hard because of time and space restrictions to do all the interviewsin person, it has been chose to do them via video-conferences. Using this method, theJune-December 2011 – IESEG School of Management 57

×