Are you ready for the international negotiation table?

1
© Pernilla Rorso, Hofstede Insights                                                                                                          pernilla.rorso@hofstede‐insights.com
Are You Ready for the International Negotiation Table?
Making or Breaking the Global Supply Chain

Working Paper

Pernilla Rorso

Globalization in the terms of an interdependent global economic systemi
offers enormous potential
for economic and non‐economic valueii
and has facilitated the emergence of global supply chains by
which suppliers, partners and other parties from around the globe are linked and integrated.
Global supply chains have come to play an important role in the implementation of business strategy
in the 21st
century.
At the heart and core of supply chain management lies negotiations; without [successful]
negotiations, there would be no supply chain.iii
The number of yearly business negotiations run into
the millionsiv
and international buyer‐seller transactions, where the parties need to reach an
agreement on the exchange of products, service and informationv
as well as the financials, make up
a significant part of such numbers.1
International business negotiations, however, represent one of
the most challenging international business activities. Not only do laws, regulations, policies as well
as business standards and practices vary across countries, but also international negotiations often
imply conducting critical negotiations in unfamiliar cultural settings.

You’ve Got This...
You yourself are fully aware of the great potential out there. In fact, without the confinement of
national borders your organization has ventured outside its known territories in search of suppliers,
partners and other participants with the most potential to add value to operations. A supplier, which
promises to be an almost perfect match for the organization has been identified. Not only is the
supplier in possession of unique technological capabilities likely to add substantially to your
organizations’ competitive advantage in an industry characterized by intense rivalry, but the
supplier also has a good track record and is believed to be reliable and trust‐worthy.
You have been selected to head up the team of negotiators. While you have never been responsible
for securing a deal of this magnitude and in such an unfamiliar cultural context before you have
excellent negotiation skills and you are confident that you will be successful.

1
The current article does not address the topic of one‐off, arm’s length agreements.

2
Your assignment is to negotiate the most favorable deal, which will allow for effective and efficient
implementation at the same time laying the foundations for a possible extension of the cooperation
into a long‐term strategic partnership and joint value creating activities.
You have taken great care in assembling the best
possible negotiation team, making sure it also includes
several legal representatives.  You and your team have
invested a significant amount of time in doing the
groundwork. You know that several of you competitors
are also interested in getting access to the supplier’s
technology, which substantially adds to the other side’s
negotiation power. To strengthen your own hand, you
have carried out extensive research and gathered as
much information as possible on the other party. You
want to have a good understanding of where they are
coming from, what their interests are, what they stand
to gain and lose from the deal and how important this
particular deal is to them as well as which other alternatives they have. You feel confident that you
have a solid initial understanding of their position, interests, motives, areas of strengths and
weaknesses. Furthermore, a careful analysis of the political, legal and economic environment has
alerted you to any potential restrictions, which could have an influence and need to be factored in.
Based on your own firm’s objectives, initial statements from the supplier, in addition to all the
background information you have gathered, you have carefully designed the negotiation strategy
and laid out a plan of action. All potential problems and issues of conflicts have been identified, all
possible scenarios have been carefully analyzed and the possible solutions identified. You have
decided on the trade‐offs and concessions you are willing to make and you have your BATNA in
place. You are clear on your approach and tactics. Everything is set up for a constructive and
effective negotiation process.
The negotiation will be far from easy, but you are confident that both parties are interested in a
successful business transaction. At the same time, you are fully aware that both sides also have their
own objectives and interests. Two conflicting interests, which must be carefully balanced in order
to reach a mutually beneficial agreement. You are prepared to address any potential issues of
conflict together with your negotiation partner head‐on in order to solve them as quickly and
efficiently as possible and not lose momentum towards the real goal of a legally binding contract
between the parties. You have the mandate and the information needed to conclude the deal.
You are prepared for some small talk to get the negotiations off to a good start, but you are fully
convinced that both parties will want to move on to the task at hand quickly; settling one issue at a
time allowing for efficient progression from one stage to another.
Then reality sets in. What you meet at the negotiation table is nothing like what you have
encountered before.  What you find is a negotiation team, which is not only bigger, but the team
seems to have no clearly identifiable leader. You have a hard time figuring out who is the real

3
decision‐maker on the team and who else might be involved and have
a say behind the scenes and the extent of their influence. Right from
the outset, the team members seem more interested in non‐task
activities rather than getting the ball rolling and getting down to the
business at hand. They seem friendly enough, but they also seem
somewhat guarded and suspicious although you cannot really put your
finger on why you feel that way. You are quick to inquiry into their
objectives and expectations, making sure to phrase your questions very
clearly to avoid any potential misunderstandings, but you receive only
vague answers in return. When task‐related issues are finally addressed
everything seems to be dealt with in no apparent order and repeatedly issues that have already
been settled keep being brought back up. Although you have already exchanged a vast amount of
information, the other party keeps requesting additional information from you. The process seems
to be dragging out forever. Trivial matters seem to be given a lot of attention at the expense of areas
of great concern and conflict, which continuously are bypassed. When you try to address areas of
disagreement, the other side seems to take personal offence rather than handling the issue in a
constructive, hands‐on fashion. You feel dumbstruck by the seemingly relaxed attitude to time, and
the apparent ineffectiveness leaves you wondering if the supplier is even such a good match for
your organization to begin with. Furthermore, the unclear communication style of your negotiation
partner interspersed by long periods of silence leaves you unable to understand what the other side
is really saying not alone thinking. Unable to get a feel for the signals sent by the other side and to
pick up on what is really going on, you start to question your next move. You also start wondering if
they were even all that interested in the deal to being with. For all you know, when it really comes
down to it, they could just be taking you for a ride, leveraging the interest you have shown to
negotiate a better deal with any of your competitors.       Just as you are ready to jump ship, however,
everything seems to be falling into place and a draft agreement shows up. The document can hardly
be called a contract and would never stand up in a court of law. You assign your legal representatives
to get to work on it immediately, clearly specifying the rights and obligations of the parties and all
the technicalities and economics in detail. Then the negotiations stop.
The above example is a good illustration of the fact that negotiators from different countries come
to the negotiation table with different rules, which in turn originate in the “the collective
programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of one group or category from others”,
commonly referred to as culture.vi


“The seeds of
success or
failure are
often sown at
the negotiation
table.”1

4
Culture Matters
Negotiators often assume, that “cross‐cultural negotiations are
just like ‘local’ negotiations”vii
however, and take for granted
what works at home also works in a different cultural setting.
When negotiators have different cultural value systems, it is not
uncommon for negotiation partners to misunderstand each
other’s intentions, expectations and interests as well as to
misinterpret each other’s statements and actions.viii
Something
which in turn leads to faulty assumptions, judgment errorsix
and
inaccurate conclusions, e.g., believing that an agreement has
been finalized, when in reality it has not, or falsely assuming
that an offer has been rejected when it is still under
consideration. Perception of the existence of a conflict without
the existence of real conflict is also not uncommon.x

Communicaton and interaction between negotiation partners
with diverse cultural backgrounds substantially increase the risk
and frequency of misunderstandings, disputes, deadlocks,
postponements and failed business deals. When cultural
differences are not properly accessed and handled effectively,
organizations are exposed to higher transaction costs, a lower
sum of individual profits realized by the two negotiation partiesxi

as well as lower financial performance of the overall global supply chain. Not to mention the risk of
being subject to opportunistic behavior by negotiation partners. Negotiating and making deals
across cultures successfully requires bringing differences in national cultural values to light,
obtaining a solid understanding of their practical implications and truly mastering the art of
managing and bridging them.
World‐renowned Professor Geert Hofstede has been instrumental in advancing our understanding
when it comes to cultural differences in relation to a range of management disciplines, including
negotiations. His dimensional framework captures the largely unconscious values held by different
national cultures. Values, which in turn influence the different patterns of thinking, feeling and
acting among negotiation partners in international negotiations.xii
Power Distance (PDI) determines
the extent to which the less powerful members of institutions and organizations within a country
expect and accept that power is distributed unequally. Individualism vs. Collectivism (IDV) addresses
the degree of interdependence a society maintains among its members. It has to do with whether
people’s self‐image is defined in terms of ‘I’ or ‘We’. A Masculine society (MAS) indicates that a
society is driven by competition, achievement and success, with success being defined by the winner
/ best in field, while a Feminine society (FEM) means that the dominant values in society are caring
for others and quality of life. Uncertainty Avoidance (UAI) determines the extent to which members
feel threatened by ambiguous or unknown situations and have created beliefs and institutions to
avoid it. Long‐Term Orientation (LTO) stands for the fostering of virtues oriented towards future
“Americans often respond to
silence by assuming that the
other team disagrees or has not
accepted the offer...While the
Japanese silently consider the
Americans’ offer, the Americans
interpret the silence as rejection
and respond by making
concessions (e.g., by lowering
the price).”3

“The ability to assess
[cultural differences] and
properly handle the
consequences is essential for
success in international
business negotiations.”4

5
rewards, while Short‐Term Orientation (STO) stands for the fostering of virtues related to the past
and present. Finally, Indulgence vs. Restraint (IVR) determines the extent to which a society allows
for relatively free gratification of basic and natural human desires related to enjoying life and having
fun as opposed to regulating such gratification by strict norms.
Together the cultural dimensions make up the very ‘gestalt’ of
a specific national culture, also referred to as a ‘mental image’
(conceptualized by Drs. Huib Wursten). So‐called because it
captures a society’s underlying implicit view on what society
and organizations are all about.xiii
Countries, which share a
similar pattern in terms of the cultural dimensions, also share
the same ‘mental image’ and thereby the same fundamental
view on for instance decision‐making, negotiation and
leadership to name but a few. Today, six main mental images
have been identified, i.e. the ‘Contest Cluster’, the ‘Network
Cluster’, the ‘Machine  Cluster’, the ‘Solar System Cluster’, the
‘Pyramid Cluster’, and the ‘Family Cluster’.xiv
As an example, take an important aspect of
negotiations, i.e. the mental image people hold of decision‐making in a given culture cluster. In the
‘Contest Cluster’, decision‐making is seen as an activity where empowered action‐oriented people
make pragmatic decisions based on facts and strong arguments, which in turn will lead to effective
and speedy implementation. In the ‘Network Cluster’, the essence of decision‐making is to let
empowered people, who through dialogue and compromise, make flexible and pragmatic‐oriented
consensus decisions. In the ‘Machine Cluster’, decision‐making is a highly structured process where
disciplined, empowered stakeholders, based on extensive information, exchange arguments with
the purpose of making accurate, precise decisions. In the ‘Solar System Cluster’, decision‐making is
limited to a few real power‐holders, who emphasize honor and base their decision‐making on strong
principles, but nevertheless make sure that people can identify themselves with the decision made
by anchoring the decision in the ‘common good for all’. In the ‘Pyramid Cluster’ decisions are made
by the top power‐holder who, while emphasizing in‐group harmony, base decisions on own wisdom
and experience. In the ‘Family Cluster’, the top power holder makes the decision based on wisdom
and experience while at the same time emphasizing in‐group harmony and long‐term pragmatic
concerns. An understanding of the six cultural dimensions (6‐D Model©) and their joint effects
(Mental Images©) is essential for successful international business negotiations.
For instance, if we look at three main and interlinked negotiation components: the players, the
process and the outcome,xv
we recognize subtle, yet powerful influences of the cultural values,
which distinguish different national cultures.2



2
The following sections highlight some of the cultural differences, which influence international business negotiations.
The essence of
negotiations
“is not the reality
but the party’s
perception of
reality.”2

6
The Negotiators
Negotiations require negotiators and while negotiators are influenced by their personality,
occupational as well as corporate background, they are also influenced by their national cultural
values.xvi
All negotiators are linked to a control and decision‐making structure.xvii
Cultural values
influence who are allowed to make which decisions, under which circumstances and who are
allowed to finalize and sign the agreement.xviii
For instance, in the US and Scandinavia, negotiators
tend to have a clear mandate and the information required to conclude a deal.xix
In cultures, such
as China, India or Latin America, on the other hand, negotiation partners do not always have the
mandate to make the final decision, nor the necessary information.xx
Not only is it important fully
to understand the status of counterparts and which level of mandate they hold, it is also important
to understand how a negotiator’s own status, rank, functional role as well as qualifications are
perceived in a different cultural setting. Addressing such issues in beforehand, allows an
organization to assemble the right representatives and decide upon the configuration of the team
for a specific international negotiation.

The Negotiation Process
Negotiators in turn directly influence the negotiation process. Negotiation itself can be seen as a
dynamic and interactive process where parties to a negotiation give and take as well as modify offers
and expectations in order to come closer to each other with the purpose of finding a solution to a
common problem.xxi
The negotiation process is commonly singled out as one of, if not, the most
important factor for success or failure when it comes to international business negotiations.xxii

Not only does it have a direct influence on the relationship between the parties and the agreement
itself, but it also has a significant effect on the subsequent implementation of the agreement.
The negotiation process includes “all the actions and
communications by any party”xxiii
, many of which are
culturally contingent. For instance, while all negotiations
entail communication between the parties and the exchange
of task related information,xxiv
negotiation partners’
preferred (as well as actual) communication styles are largely
culturally determined.xxv
In some cultures, e.g. the US and
Germany, communication tends to be direct, explicit and
focused on words, while less reliance is put on non‐verbal
contextual cues and signals.xxvi
Most of the meaning is found
in ‘what’ is said.xxvii
In cultures such as the Indian or Chinese,
however, communication tends to be indirect, implicit and
most of the meaning is found in non‐verbal contextual cues
and the setting.xxviii
The meaning is extracted from “’who’ said
it, ‘when’ was it said, ‘how’ was it said, ‘where’ was it said, and ‘why’”.xxix
At the heart of successful
”A negotiator from a high‐context
culture might offer a non‐verbal
signal to indicate a willingness to be
cooperative and anticipate a
reciprocal cooperative signal.  If the
negotiation partner were from a low‐
context culture, the non‐verbal signal
could well be missed and therefore
elicit no response. The originator of
the signal could interpret the lack of
reciprocity as a rejection of a
cooperative overture, and the
negotiation could turn combative.” 5

7
international negotiations therefore lies effective intercultural communication.xxx

The right communication skills to guarantee that the message communicated to the other party or
parties will be interpreted in the way it was meant by the sender is vital in an international setting.xxxi

Getting to know negotiation partners and determining if a negotiating partner is trust‐worthy is
important for all negotiators.xxxii
All successful negotiations require a certain amount of trust.xxxiii

However, cultures differ in terms of the initial ‘willingness to have confidence in a partner’.xxxiv

In contrast to the US and the UK, in cultures such as the Japanese or Chinese, significant time needs
to be invested in non‐task activities, in order to enable the parties to become familiar with one
another and to establish feelings of trust‐worthiness and mutual respect.xxxv

Across cultures, the duration of a negotiation can vary
significantly. In order to make a realistic estimate of the time (and
implied costs) required to reach an agreement it is vital to know
negotiation partners’ perspective on time. In cultures, which are
monochronic, e.g., the US and Canada, time is seen as something
objective, tangible and finite.xxxvi
Negotiators tend to negotiate
one issue at a time and adhere strictly to schedules and
agendas.xxxvii
In such cultures, an efficient use of time, getting to
the point and quickly closing the deal takes precedence.  On the
other hand, in cultures, which are polychronic, such as the
Japanese or Chinese, time considerations play less of a role. Time
is seen as cyclical, fluid, and flexible.xxxviii
Negotiators tend to consider many things simultaneously
and strict observance of schedules is of less importance.xxxix
Instead, relationships and patience are
emphasized. Culturally differentiated views on time also means that in some cultures, e.g. India or
the Arab world, negotiation partners are more inclined to drag out negotiations and persevere in
order to bargain for best possible prices or conditions.xl

Different cultures also approach disagreements and disputes between partners in different ways.
In the US, for instance, problem solving is approached in a direct, objective fashion and by relying
on a legally binding contract, once an agreement has been signed. In a culture, such as the Japanese,
however, open disagreement is avoided and a conflict is handled by relying on the relationship and
adopting a spirit geared towards maintaining harmony avoiding a loss of face for all parties and
damaging the relationship.xli

All cultures have also developed their own acceptable rules related to protocol and appropriate
behavior, such as greeting the other party, addressing the other party, exchanging business cards,
the importance of gift‐giving, eye contact, body language and emotions.xlii
For instance, while Anglo
and Scandinavian cultures are relatively more informal and relaxed, protocol and formality in Japan
follow a ritualistic process and in Latin America and Italy, one finds a greater tendency to show
emotions, both verbally and non‐verbally.xliii


It took
Volkswagen 9
years to negotiate
the opening of a
car factory in
China.6

8
The Negotiation Outcome
The negotiators and the negotiation process affect the outcome, i.e., “the end stage each party
desires to achieve”.xliv
All negotiators have two conflicting interests, which need to be carefully
balanced and managed in order to reach an agreement. On the one hand, negotiators have in
common a need for reaching an agreement because of an expected gain from such an agreement
which requires taking the other party’s interests into consideration and looking for common ground
in order to be able to expand cooperation among the parties.xlv
At the same time, negotiation
partners seek to maximize and protect their own interests to ensure an agreement valuable to
themselves.xlvi
For instance, both a buyer and seller are interested in the best possible offer from
the other party,xlvii
but what constitutes the best possible offer differ between the parties.xlviii

What parties see as the very essence of international business negotiations is largely culturally
conditioned, however. In the US, for instance, negotiation is a seen as vehicle towards the goal of a
legally binding contract.xlix
The buyer‐seller relationship subsequently builds out of the deal.l
In
cultures, such as China or Saudi Arabia, however, the objective of a negotiation is to establish a
stable buyer–seller relationship.li
The negotiation therefore is seen as a vehicle to establish a
relationship from which the deal subsequently growslii
and all technicalities and economics fall into
place. In China, for instance, a contract takes the format of a general framework and may only be a
signal of the beginning of real negotiations.liii
The different interests and objectives of negotiation
partners mean that complication, disagreements and even conflicts are likely to occur during
negotiations,liv
and their resolution requires careful intercultural management.

Checklist
According to Saee, “negotiation today is considered one of
the single most important global business skills.”lv
High
performing negotiators are key assets and constitute a
significant competitive advantage in international business
negotiations. However, more than ever negotiators have to
be able to adapt to a variety of national business
environments. Not only do negotiators with highly
developed intercultural negotiation and communication
skills negotiate better international deals, they also lay the
foundation for successful post‐negotiation imple‐
mentation. Guaranteeing a win‐win outcome and
a solution, which is mutually acceptable to all parties and
subsequently better joint financial performance in a global
economy, where negotiators are exposed to a range of cultural value differences, requires
negotiators, who possess cultural awareness, cultural intelligence and intercultural competency.
Intercultural negotiation competency, in turn, requires the right knowledge, skills as well as ability.

9
Knowledge is the basic building block, but when it really comes down to it, it is the ability to put that
knowledge into action and actually doing it, which is going to make or break the deal.
It is easy however for negotiators to overestimate their
own negotiation skills in a different cultural setting, as
well as their level of familiarity with the negotiation
partner’s culture.lvi
The checklist below lets you evaluate
to which extent you are ready for the international
negotiation table. If you can check off the statements
listed, you are all set to go.
1. You have a solid understanding of the extent to
which your cultural values differ from those of your
negotiation partner and in what way.
2. You are willing to put yourself in the other party’s
position and look past the differences in order to
find mutually‐beneficially solutions.
3. You understand where the key points of diversity lie and what really matters in a given culture,
e.g. stable relationship, consensus, avoidance of ambiguity etc.
4. You know in which way the deeper underlying cultural values of both sides affect all aspects of
negotiations, e.g., decision‐making structure, negotiation process, negotiation style,
relationship between the parties etc.
5. You not only know how your own culturally conditioned behavior as well as negotiation style
are perceived in a given culture, but you also know when and how to adapt.
6. You are able correctly to interpret the meaning of the other side’s behavior.
7. You are able to both send and interpret messages and signals (both verbal and non‐verbal)
when it comes to a given culture correctly. You are able to ‘read the air’ in a given culture.
8. You know when and how to adapt your negotiation strategy to a given culture.
9. You know the meaning specific negotiation tactics have in a given culture and you are able to
identify to which extent to your own tactics are purposeful and appropriate.
10. You are able realistically to estimate the duration (and costs) of the negotiation when it comes
to a given culture.
11. You understand the role culture plays in the negotiation outcome, how to finalize the
agreement as well as making the agreement work post‐negotiations with respect to a given
culture.
12. You are able to secure commitment to the agreement as opposed to mere compliance.lvii

13. You know how to handle conflict effectively in a given culture.
14. You know the protocol and formalities of a given culture and the implications for breach.

10
On you journey towards the global supply chain; best intentions are far from enough to guarantee
successful outcomes. International business negotiations are complex and expose negotiators to a
range of different cultural values around the world.lviii
Deriving the most value from international
negotiations and maximizing negotiation outcomes requires setting up the table for the most
promising situation,lix
which in turn requires intercultural negotiation competency. Only
intercultural communication and negotiation competencies can turn cultural differences from a
liability into an asset. When stakes are high, the importance of a skilled and knowledgeable
negotiator cannot be emphasized enough; “culture may be a soft factor, but is has a very hard effect
on the bottom‐line.”lx


Disclaimer: When it comes to culture, one can never say never and never say always.

References
Adler, N. (1997). International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior (3rd
ed.). Cincinnati, Ohio: South‐Western College
Publishing.
Buell, B. (2007, January 15). Negotiation Strategy: Seven Common Pitfalls to Avoid. Stanford Business Insights: Career &
Success, Management. Retrieved from https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/negotiation‐strategy‐seven‐common‐
pitfalls‐avoid
Cateora, P. R., & Graham, J. L. (2007). International Marketing (13th
ed.) United States: McGraw‐Hill/Irwin.
Cavusgil, S. T., Knight, G., & Riesenberger, J. (2017). International Business: The New Realities (4th
ed.). Harlow, England:
Pearson Education Limited.
Chen, M. (2008). Negotiating a Supply Contract in China. Thunderbird International Business Review, 50(4), 271‐281.
Gelfand, M. J., & Christakopoulou, S. (1999). Culture and negotiator cognition: Judgement accuracy and negotiation
processes in individualistic and collectivistic cultures. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 79(3),
248‐269.
Ghauri, P. N. (2003). A Framework for International Business Negotiations. In P. N. Ghauri & J‐C. Usunier (Eds.),
International Business Negotiations (2nd
ed.), (pp. 3‐22). Oxford, United Kingdom: Elsevier Ltd.
Goldman, A. L. (1991). Setting for More. Washington, DC: The Bureau of National Affairs.
Graham, J. L. (2003). Vis‐à‐vis: International Business Negotiations. In P. N. Ghauri & J‐C. Usunier (Eds.), International
Business Negotiations (2nd
ed.), (pp. 23‐50). Oxford, United Kingdom: Elsevier Ltd.
Hall, E. T. (1960). The Silent Language in Overseas Business. Harvard Business Review, May‐June.
Hall. E. T, (1976). Beyond Culture. Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor Books.
Hofstede, G., & Usunier, J‐C. (2003). Hofstede’s Dimensions of Culture and their Influence on International Business
Negotiations. In P. N. Ghauri & J‐C. Usunier (Eds.), International Business Negotiations (2nd
ed.), (pp. 138‐153). Oxford,
United Kingdom: Elsevier Ltd.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind: Intercultural
Cooperation and its Importance for Survival (3rd
ed.). United States: McGraw‐Hill.

11
Hofstede, G. J., Jonker, C. M., & Verwaart, T. (2012). Cultural Differentiation of Negotiating Agents. Group Decis Negot.
21(79), 80‐97.
Lagace, M. (2006). Negotiating in Three Dimensions: Q&A with James Sebenious. Harvard Business School: Working
Knowledge, 1‐6.
Lenarčič, B., & Brcar, F. (2014). Analysis of Influence on Buyer‐Seller Relationship Negotiation. Innovative Issues and
Approaches in Social Sciences, 7(2), 81‐98.
Leung, K. (1997). Negotiation and reward allocation. In P. C. Earley & M. Erez (Eds.), New directions in cross‐cultural
industrial/organizational psychology. Oxford: Jossey–Bass.
Manrai, L. A., & Manrai, A. K. (2010). The Influence of Culture in International Business Negotiations: A New Conceptual
Framework and Managerial Implications. Journal of Transnational Management, 15(1), 69‐100.
Meertens, J. V., (2017), How to Close a Deal, Hofstede Insights.
Moorman, C., Zaltman, & Deshpandé, R. (1992). Relationships between providers and users of market research: The
dynamics of trust within and between organizations. Journal of Marketing Research, 29(3), 314‐329.
Ribbink, D., & Grimm, C. M. (2014).  The Impact of cultural differences on buyer‐seller negotiations: An experimental
study. Journal of Operations Management 32, 114‐126.
Rorso, P. (2013), Hofstede Insights, Hofstede Insights.
Saee, J. (2008). Best practices in global negotiations strategies for leaders and managers in the 21st
century. Journal of
Business Economics and Management, 9(4), 309‐318.
Salacuse, J. (2005). Negotiating: The top ten ways that culture can affect negotiation. Ivey Business Journal, (March‐
April 2005), 1‐6.
Sebenious, J. K. (2002). The Hidden Challenge of Cross‐Border Negotiations. Harvard Business Review, 80(3), 76‐85.
Wursten, H. Mental Images©, Hofstede Insights.
Zachariassen, F. (2008). Negotiation strategies in supply chain management. International Journal of Physical
Distribution & Logistics Management, 38(10), 764‐781.
End Notes
i
Saee (2005).
ii
Sebenious in Lagace (2006).
iii
Zachariassen (2008).
iv
Saee (2008).
v Ribbink and Grimm (2014).
vi Hofstede et al. (2010, p. 6).
vii
Buell (2007) (retrieved online).
viii
Sebenious (2002); Salacuse (1998).
ix
Gelfand and Christakopoulou (1999).
x
Ghauri (2003).
xi
Ribbink and Grimm (2014, p. 115).
xii
Hofstede et al. (2010).
xiii
Wursten (2018).
xiv
Wursten (2018).
xv
Saee (2008).
xvi
Hofstede et al. (2010); Hofstede and Usunier (2003).

12

xvii
xviii
Hofstede et al. (2010); Sebenious (2002).
xix
Meertens (2018).
xx
Meertens, (2018).
xxi
Ghauri (2003).
xxii
e.g., Saee (2008); Ghauri (2003).
xxiii
Ghauri (2003, p. 7).
xxiv
Saee (2008).
xxv
xxvi
Hall (1960).
xxvii
Manrai and Manrai (2010).
xxviii
Sebenious (2002); Hall (1960).
xxix
Manrai and Manrai (2010, p. 75).
xxx
Saee (2008).
xxxi
Hofstede et al. (2010).
xxxii
Saee (2008).
xxxiii
Hofstede and Usunier (2003).
xxxiv
Moorman et al. (1992).
xxxv
Saee (2008).
xxxvi
Hall (1976).
xxxvii
Manrai and Manrai (2010); Saee (2008).
xxxviii
Hall (1976).
xxxix
xl
Saee (2008).
xli
Manrai and Manrai (2010); Saee (2008); Sebenious (2002); Leung (1997).
xlii
xliii
Hofstede et al. (2012); Hofstede et al. (2010).
xliv
Ghauri (2003, p. 5).
xlv
  Hofstede et al. (2010); Hofstede and Usunier (2003); Ghauri (2003).
xlvi
Ghauri (2003).
xlvii
Lenarčič and Brcar (2014).
xlviii
Ghauri (2003, p. 5).
xlix
Saee (2008); Sebenious (2002).
l
Sebenious (2002).
li
Hofstede et al. (2010); Sebenious (2002).
lii
Saee (2008); Sebenious (2002).
liii
Chen (2008); Hofstede et al. (2010).
liv
Saee (2008); Lenarčič and Brcar (2014).
lv
Saee (2008, p. 310).
lvi
Saee (2008).
lvii
Adler (1997).
lviii
Hofstede and Usunier (2003).
lix
Sebenious in Lagace (2006).

‐‐‐‐
1
Cateora and Graham (2007, p. 558).
2
Goldman (1991) in Saee (2008, p. 313).
3
Adler (1997) in Saee (2008, p. 316).
4
Ghauri (2003, p. 5).
5
Ribbink and Grimm (2014, p. 117).
6
Cavusgil et al. (2017).
lx
Rorso (2013).

Are you ready for the international negotiation table?

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Are you ready for the international negotiation table?

Similar to Are you ready for the international negotiation table? (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Are you ready for the international negotiation table?