CAILLIER Hugo Master Thesis. International Negotiation

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

CAILLIER Hugo Influence of culture on negotiation

CAILLIER 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 2011

IESEG School of Management Lille - Paris
3 Rue de la Digue
59000 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


Statement 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.



Acknowledgement

To start this report, I would like to thanks personally all the persons that were

involved in this project during all this semester. In fact, this thesis represent a big

amount of time by doing the researches, defining the research methodology, finding

companies to interview, analyse the data and explaining them.

The first person that helped me in this work was my academic director: Dr. Ian

Speakman who assisted me to design this research and gave me advices on how to

proceed to collect the information I needed during all the semester.

I am also grateful for all the time that the French businessmen took to answer

my interviews. I know that they had to spend some personal time taking the

appointments with me and doing the interview.

Furthermore I would like to thanks are the other students that did their thesis

during June-December 2011 and with who we talked a lot about our own thesis and

permitting us to share ideas about our research questions and process to use. They also

helped a lot for the rereading of the final work we did for each other.



Summary

FINAL Master THESIS .............................................................................................. 2
Statement of confidentiality: ................................................................................... 3
Acknowledgement ................................................................................................... 4
Summary ................................................................................................................. 5
Abstract................................................................................................................... 7
1. Introduction ..................................................................................................... 9
1.1 The research problem statement ........................................................................ 9
1.2 The research objective ...................................................................................... 10
1.3 The main research questions ............................................................................ 10

2 Literature review ............................................................................................ 13
2.1 Conceptual background .................................................................................... 13
2.2 Limitation of the literature review .................................................................... 48

3 Research methodology ................................................................................... 50
3.1 Research design................................................................................................ 50
3.2 Research methodology ..................................................................................... 56

4 Findings ......................................................................................................... 66
4.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 66
4.2 Descriptive statistics ......................................................................................... 66
4.3 The findings...................................................................................................... 70
4.4 Summary of the findings ................................................................................... 87

5 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............................................................................................. 98

6 Conclusion .................................................................................................... 101
6.1 General conclusion ......................................................................................... 101
6.2 Managerial implications ................................................................................. 103



7 Limitations of the research ........................................................................... 104
8 Directions for future research ....................................................................... 106
9 Personal reflection and key learning ............................................................. 108
10 References ................................................................................................... 109
11 List of figures................................................................................................ 112
12 List of tables ................................................................................................. 113
13 Table of content ........................................................................................... 114
14 Appendices................................................................................................... 117



Abstract

Nowadays, Mexico is a developing country with lots of opportunities for French

SME and international groups to enter new markets and create new business

relationship with Mexican companies. In fact, Mexico is taking a bigger part every day

on the international environment, highlighting two main facts: the year of Mexico in

France in 2011 and also the general growth of exportations (+9.7 % / Year) and

importations (+5.3% / Year) since Mexico open is borders in 2000 for international

trades.

But in the same time, Mexico has a culture very different from the French one

even if they are both Latin. So the remaining barrier in the expansion of French

companies in Mexico will be the cultural gap that remains. The negotiation process is

the first one to be touched by the cultural differences but then, the outcome will be

affected too.

The objective of this work will be to identify and explore the main cultural

elements that are responsible of this gap and try to find a way to use them as a tool

during the negotiation and not as a threat. This might end in a change of the negotiation

style and the way the businessmen prepare their meetings. This report will be composed

in 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.



- 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.



1. Introduction

The introduction of this report will present the main topic that will be approached

by the research, its objective and finally the main problematic that we will work on. We

will finally have an overview of the main research question and sub-questions that will

be 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 of

international business interactions. The main problem that affects those interactions is

the cultural differences between two different countries. Of course, globalization results

in erasing a bit those differences with time creating what we could call an “international

culture”. But still, the culture of an individual cannot be totally melted or erased. So the

main point of this research will be to find a way to deal with those differences in order

to enhance intercultural interactions.

The culture itself is the main element that can be manage in order to generate a

better outcome to the negotiation. We can find two main types of culture: the first one

is the organizational culture that defines the strategy of the company; the people that

are involved in it, the history, the way decisions are took. The second one is the

country’s culture. This report will not talk about company culture because that would

create 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 about

comparing all the world cultures together. For being French and spending lots of time

in Mexico and with Mexicans, the author chose to focus more specifically on

negotiation between French and Mexicans.



1.2 The research objective

It has been said that most of the time, when you confront people from different

countries, the culture’s effect will be negative on the interactions that will be created by

this 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 international

transactions but not much people try to explain what to do and how to do to get

smoother intercultural relations. That is the reason why we chose this topic as a study

topic. The objective will be to define and extract the main components of culture and

see how they can be managed in order to get a better relationship and outcome. We

know that those components will be present in all steps of the negotiation process and

will affect the outcome differently depending on the different country involved and on

their preparation for this intercultural interactions have been made. So this research will

focus on Business to Business (B2B) negotiations between French’s and Mexican’s

Small 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 studied

past researches and papers that have been done about it and gathered information about

the 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 French



bureaucracy, the leadership, the time and relationships and their effects on the

negotiation 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 field

between both countries in order to get an advantageous outcome for both of them. Most

of the time, one country will have tendencies to impose his own culture and his way of

approaching the problem they face without taking care of the other culture even if this

is 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 negotiations

with Mexican?

In this part, we will see how the French perceives their own culture and what

describes the best the French’s culture. It will define more explicitly how the French

negotiate 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 the

Mexican 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 culture

and what are the main aspects of it that create problems during the negotiation.



How do French perceive and should manage the Mexican culture in order

to use it as an asset?

The last point will be a crossed view between the French and the Mexican

negotiating style defined by their cultures. It will explore the limits of both negotiation

styles defined by the main cultural aspects that define their behaviour.

How does culture of one country interfere on the negotiation style of both

cultures?



2 Literature review

The literature review is composed in two parts. The first one is an analysis part

based on the previous works that have been made by searchers on the topics that have

been approached during this research. The second one is the limits of the literature that

will describe the need of this research in order to answer the research question we

asked.

2.1 Conceptual background

The conceptual background concern the mains criterion that influence intercultural

negotiations that have been found by reading several articles and comparing works of

two authors’ Salacuse and Hoftstede (cf appendix 1 and 2)

2.1.1 Culture

Hofstede

Professor Geert Hofstede (2001) has been one of the first researchers to focus

his entire work on the description and the effects of culture. So nowadays, it seems

logical to use his work when we are talking about culture as it is the work the most use

as reference in all cultural papers. The study he started was at first linked with his work

at IBM in 50 different countries. Then he decided to extend it to 74 countries in order to

have more comparisons possible. Each country gets a score about four general

dimensions at the start. Then he added a new dimension few years ago. The five

dimensions will be review here shortly using the website publication of his work. Those

dimensions are a really good way of comparing different cultures between them but

also to understand better what its components are.



Power distance Index (PDI)

The power distance index is the first dimension Hofstede used to rank culture

among countries. The PDI represent the level of acceptation by the person that is down

in the hierarchy the power of the person that is at the top. It is can be compared also as

inequality. Any society is very reactive to power and inequality like is it wrote in the

article: “all societies are unequal, but some are more unequal than others”.

Individualism (IDV)

Individualism is the opposite of collectivism and it shows the level of

integration of an individual alone into groups. Individual societies are representatives of

those were there is no relation between individuals and each one has to take care of

himself. In collectivist societies, individuals are from their birth to their death linked

with a group which one is able to help him in exchange of loyalty to it and helping

other individuals of the same group. All societies in the world are concerned about the

level of individualism of their population.

Masculinity (MAS)

It is the opposite pole of femininity that represents the place each gender will

play in the society. An interesting fact is that women’s value are more similar from a

culture to another than men’s value are. From a society to another, a man will be

competitive and assertive (the opposite of woman) in a country and totally modest as

woman in the other society. Feminine countries are the one that are more modest and

where women have the same values as men. In masculine countries, there is a bigger

breach between both women and men’s values.



Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI)

It describes the aversion of a country to ambiguity and uncertainty. In his

extreme, it refers to the research of the truth. The score of the country will show if

either the individuals will feel confident or not in unstructured situations. Uncertainty

avoiding societies will minimize the possibility of an unexpected outcome of any

situation by putting rules, law, measures. It can be also describing people that are more

emotional and motivated. Uncertainty accepting societies will be more open to

outsiders as ideas or technics and will try new things to see and rank all the

possibilities. They are less emotive and contemplative.

Long Term Orientation (LTO)

This last dimension was added only few years ago after a study done with

student of 23 countries using a Chinese scholar questionnaire. The values that are

linked with long term orientation are frugality and perseverance and for short term

oriented are respects for traditions, respecting and doing social obligations. Both short

and long term orientation found some equal values in the work of Confucius, a Chinese

philosopher from around 500 BC.

So we can now draw a general definition of culture based on Hofstede work and

completed with the work of Birukou, Blanzieri, Giorgini, Giunchigli (2009):

”Culture is a set of variables that describes all the product of the human work

and thought from a group of people or organization from the same geographic place”.



2.1.2 Time

Lebaron

The work of Professor Lebaron Michelle (2003) is to understand better cultural

differences and worldview differences. In her work called “beyond intractability” she

starts with a good warning, take care about generalizations. It says that those

generalization are only good to give guidelines to understand the main aspects of

culture, but then, you have lots of other variables (such as time, setting,…) that come

into account and that you do not only have to add them, but mix them together to have

the real aspect of culture. In fact, the Mexican’s culture is often facing the problem of

generalization. They are compared with South American, which are of course Latin as

well 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 in

common but as this border is very hermetic, the culture are not similar at all.

Meanwhile, generalization gives some bounds and gives the common sense to

understand what is “normal”. As you are into a group, you can see if you are the same

as the other person that compose your group or if you are totally different, that can

mean 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 conclusion

arrives, eastern culture will be misunderstood and misinterpreted. It is admitted that

there is no right approach to negotiation but you can only find better way to get a good

negotiation process than other. Taking this in consideration, negotiators will progress a

bit more in cross-cultural negotiation.



Time

It is kind of hard to give general explanations about all the theories that are link

to time. In fact, the time will affect lots of other parties as it is linked with relationship

for example. So Lebaron enunciate time as the first factor that affect cultures. In fact it

exists two different orientations of time. The first one is polychronic that means many

things will happen at the same time whereas monochronic oriented means that things

will happen in order, one after the other. France and Mexico are both polychronic

oriented which means that it might not create trouble during the negotiation process and

for establishing the relationship. Both polychronic and monochronic negotiators have

some 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 personally

Monochronic 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 interventions



- Do not accept other to be late, correspond to disrespect

There is also the relation to past, present and future that negotiators do during

the negotiation process which can play an important role in the final outcome. In

general, Latin America cultures are past and present oriented.

The second variable took into consideration here is the space orientation. In fact

it is much related to cultures. To get a concrete example, northern European countries

are used to have more space than south European country. It is impact also by the

density of the country. In the case of Chinese for example, they are getting more close

during business contact as they are more accustomed to proximity. Some tactile norms

also exist, depending on each culture. In fact Mexicans are much more tactile than

French, they used to hug friends to greet them. Space is also a variable that take into

consideration eye contact or lack of eye contact. In Asia, looking down is a sign of

respect whereas in Europe, it is more common to look directly in the eyes.

Then close to space, Lebaron worked on the theme of non-verbal

communication. When Japanese use a lot silence time during negotiation, American use

only a few and Brazilian nearly none, like this we can see the huge disparity about

nonverbal communication.

Then, the author took the 3 of the 5 dimensions of Hofstede to give a quick

overview of the culture. She will only pick Power distance, uncertainty avoidance and

masculinity. Those will be explained further in a review of the work of Hofstede. The

cross cultural negotiator is someone that need an adaptive skill as culture is all the time

moving and influenced by other cultures and behaviors. Then Lebaron used a study of

Adler (1997) that compared American, Japanese, Taiwan and Brazilian negotiators. On

the characteristic they identified, American and Brazilian were very close, Japanese



focused more on interpersonal negotiation style and Taiwan, being persistent and

determinate. Then the author describes a little bit further each on the approaches to

negotiation. We will not go further on the US, Japanese and African approach as we

will not need it for my research but then, the European style is described and the French

one is gave as the most aggressive one with threats, warnings and interruption in order

to get the best outcome as they can. And the Latin American style description is pretty

complete. In fact, the time and task accomplishment is not valued as it is in America or

Europe. They give more importance to the person. Negotiations are most of the time

done inside a network that already existed before the negotiation starts. In this case, any

rupture or walk away is avoided. It also has a lot to see with the “confianza” (trust). It is

true 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 focused

on the western approach focused on problem solving using a list of tasks and direct

communication.

2.1.3 Group dynamic

Fiona Beddoes-Jones

The first person to talk about the modern evolutionary theory was Charles

Darwin (1871) and he explained that the way of living in a group is an adaptive tactic

for all kind of species include Human. Then the study of the group dynamic started

after the Second World War. Beddoes-Jones (2005) says “the dynamics of a group are

the constantly changing relationships and influences that occur between the people

within the group”. This relationship status is changing among some external and

internal variables such as time, mood of the person inside the team, budgetary



constraints... The Tuckman’s 1965 process model of group dynamics gave the

following 5 steps:

Figure 1 Tuckman's model of group dynamics

Source: Beddoes-Jones - Train the trainer – 2005

This model represents the basis of the theory about group dynamic. The first

stage is the forming stage where the members of the group will meet and might create

some conflict in order to know the limits of the relationship and establish a certain

hierarchy between them. Then start the storming stage when people have their

boundaries well define and start to feel more comfortable. That take us to the norming

stage where people start to work together but it’s only on the perform stage where the

group will obtain a certain productivity and will reach the objectives they had. The last

stage called mourning was added by Beddoes-Jones herself. This one represent the time

after the team achieved their first objectives and will have a global feedback about how

they get there. Some changes in the group dynamic might be done (like the role of each

person) in order to mourn the old group or group dynamic and start a new one. The

people in a team might stay the same within different rounds but the dynamic can



change at every round. A risk can be carry around this process: the group might stay

stuck in some stage of the group dynamic depending on the subject or the people

involved 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. It

comports 9 roles founded on people’s behavior: “shaper, team-worker, resource

investigator, monitor evaluator, plant, completer-finisher, implementer, coordinator and

specialist”.

- Cognitive Team roles

This role model based his roles repartition on the thinking of each person of the

team focused on the achievement of the objective. The roles are divided into three main

categories: “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 the

team: “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 8

main 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 is

created and processed and the risks that can appear during the group interaction.



2.1.4 Defining and exploring French and Mexican cultures

In this part we will explore the studies that have been made about both French

and Mexican cultures. We will focus on specificities of both cultures and also on their

B2B’s cultures.

2.1.4.1 France

2.1.4.1.1 French culture

The Frenchs and their country

France is a very homogenous country reuniting lots of different cultures giving a

very eclectic French culture (Katz 2007). This culture is made from one part by the

history of the country that is heavy and created lots of differences with other European

cultures. The second part of this culture has been made by the melting pot operated

during the year in all Europe. So in most of cases, French already had international

interactions with persons from other cultures inside their own country. Misconduct,

trust and misunderstanding will be keys success for people that want to be well

integrated in France.

The Frencheness

French are very proud of their history and their nation. So any kind of disrespect

will be highlighted and will be a source of conflict. The Frencheness is defined as

follow: all products, institutions and other symbols linked to France and making the

proud of the country in the world. France has a very global culture but at the same time

a regional culture that might be very different from one to another. In fact food, dance

and even language might be different from a region to another so that might be a factor

to take into account also to not frustrate French when planning to negotiate in France.



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 other

countries by the fact that there is a high level of respect of several rules due to history

and habits. In order to have a business relationship in France, it is not necessary to

come in team. Also, English is now spoke by most French businessmen so to hire a

translator might not be useful. Meetings might start late in France after a small

conversation 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 interacting

with in order to be able to know more about the history and personality of the person

before they meet them. The use of Monsieur/Madame is also a convention that has to

be respected (or replaced by the title if any) and should be directly followed by the

family name. This title should appear on your business card but as most of French are

English speakers, you can leave them in English or traduce them in French but in the

Mexican case, Spanish should not appear on it as very few persons speaks fluently

spanish in France. Personal comments and private life of the persons involved in the

meetings should not be given in the small talks or the business interactions itself. The

presentations materials should be light and concise. French prefer to focus on the main

points without paying attention to the small details or any other flashy or exaggerated



presentations. Also as bureaucracy plays a very important place in French society, it is

preferable to keep a trace of any kind of agreement you should have by oral. This will

permit to have a legal issue of the agreement but also it will show your commitment in

the relationship. As we will see on the next part, women are well accepted in the

business 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, we

noticed that France has only four dimensions tested among the five of the current

model. The last Long Term Orientation has no grade and so will not be used in this

part. 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 Hofstede's model

France has a level of Power Distance that is quit high but stay moderated. So it

means that in France you expect to have inequalities and that they are accepted. The

less powerful will be expecting to be led by a more powerful person. In fact French are

used to show more respect for person that are older for example. It is normal to see

them above in the company even if sometimes they are not as qualified as the own they



are managing. However, some points counterbalance like for example the range of

salaries is quite restraint and that created a middle class very important.

The Power Distance also is amplified by the second dimension studied. France

has a very high level of individualism. The identity of French citizen is based on the

individual 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 the

negotiation context is that in individualistic societies, the business to deal with is more

important than the relation with the other part.

In France, masculinity is low, scoring only 43 over 100 points. A feminine

society will affect work, studies, family, politic and ideas. In France, the balance

between Male and Female tends to be the more equal as it is possible. Both partners

will play the same role in the couple and in the education of the children. The education

is important but the success itself is not the keyword. Also, some point of attention in

the French society is the preservation of the environment, and equity and liberations of

women in all levels of the societies are also component of a feminine society.

Uncertainty avoidance is the preference for the people to know what will

happen in the future. France has a high level of uncertainty avoidance. This took French

citizen 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 of

uncertainty avoidance will be the level of study that young reach in order to reduce the

risk of unemployment and get economical securities for their future. An economic

effect of this high rate will also be a high confidence in banks as they are a good way to

save money for future, better than investing in the share market. Meanwhile, an

acceptance of familiar risks will be created for people that are looking for constancy.



We can notice in the graphic below that two important categories are

highlighted for France: Individualism that is very high and combined with a moderated

level of power distance index. The second one masculinity is the result of the years of

fight for human and woman rights in France that is an example for several countries in

the world.

France
Power Distance Index
100
80
60
40
20
Uncertainty
0 Individualism
Avoidance index

Masculinity

Figure 2 French’s Scores of Hofstede's model

2.1.4.2 Mexico

2.1.4.2.1 Mexican culture

The Mexican and their country

According to the Communicaid group (2009), specialized in culture among the

word, the United Mexican States are a melting pot of several cultures that made of the

culture of this country a very rich one combining history and external influences. The

history 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 African



civilization through the slaves they used to exploit the country’s resources. Finally, by

their proximity with United States of America, they also have a high influence of

northern cultures. So in order to interact in Mexico environment, a good understanding

of this mix is primordial.

The communication style used by Mexican might tend to be very different than

the one of French for example. They use indirect style in order to be more diplomatic

and avoid any types of confrontations. So using this kind of communication might

enforce the relationship you will create with your business partner. Family also has a

very important place in the Mexican culture. As Mexico is a collectivist culture, the

family is first group of affiliation of all the individuals. Also, it will be a current fact to

find relatives of the same family working for the same company in Mexico or who

created 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 same

objective, to delay something from some minutes to a day or more. This will create a

pace 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 Institutional

Revolutionary Party and permitted to open more largely his borders to transatlantic

business. Since there, the number of international trading with Mexico is in net gross as

we said in introduction. In the meantime, Mexicans are less used to negotiate with other

culture 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 we

just saw, the relation to time is very important in the Mexican culture as it is in

business. So Mexican meetings might be longer than what businessmen are used to, but



the principal aim of Mexicans is not the contract itself but more how the relationship is

developed 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 meeting

and you sure will have to confirm that you are coming or not to it. The meetings might

be organized during the lunch time that can last several hours sometimes. The breakfast

can 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 of

testing Mexican specialities and showing interest for their food and their culture.

The hierarchy of the companies is also very well defined between the employees

and should be treated with care in order to respect the boundaries between the different

scales of the company. If you are negotiating with a team, try to talk with the person

that has the same place in the company as yours or with the person that will be directly

concerned by the matter. And therefore, the use of the appropriate title will be welcome

as it reflects most of the time the hierarchy. You might need to be introducing by a

contact to your business associates in order to help the relationship’s creation as your

contact 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 normally

tested for all countries. Mexico was one of the first countries to be studied by Hofstede

because of his proximity with the United States of America. Here are summed up the

scores of Mexico for the four main Hofstede dimensions:



Dimension Score

Power Distance Index 81

Individualism 30

Masculinity 69

Uncertainty Avoidance Index 82

Table 2 Mexican's scores Hofstede's model

The Power Distance Index of Mexico is very high. In fact, in this country, it

exist lots of inequalities. It is very common to show your economical health by living in

prestigious house with numerous cars and domestics. Even if in the same time the other

part of the population lives in precarious situation. The range of salaries is very large

starting at 300 dollars per month for the minimal salary47.

Contrary to France, Mexico has a very high level of collectivism. They are

much more family-based than France. When an individualistic society will try to say

always the truth about what they think, a collectivist’s one will try to avoid conflict and

keep a general harmony. The management also is very large; it does not take the person

itself personally but take all employees as a group. As we also noticed above, for

Mexican the relationship is much more important than the contract itself.

Mexico recorded the second highest score (after Venezuela) of masculinity of

Hofstede’s dimensions in South America. This means that this country is highly

oriented among Males. The men decide of most of important decisions in the society

and other power structures (politic, family, companies). This situation will create more

competiveness among the women in the society between them, but not with males. In

fact in Mexico, persons give lots of importance to money and things that you own.



Opposite to feminine societies, Mexican will be waiting for feelings coming from

women and men will be responsible for the facts and will take decisions.

The last dimension that has been given by Hofstede about Mexico is the

uncertainty 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 on

the society are nearly the same as the ones in France. The big difference might be about

the level of stress suffered by Mexican compared with French. In fact, only 15% of

Mexican said that they found themselves frequently stress in their daily life (CBS

News, 2009). But the will of knowing what the future reserves to the Mexicans create a

more controlled life with more rules and laws even if the corruption present in this

country reduce the efficiency of those regulations.

The last of the five dimensions (Long Term Orientation) has not be done for the

Mexican culture so the Hofstede model of Mexico will only be described with the four

dimensions above. The collectivism of the country is the most remarkable fact of this

culture that makes them very supportive among his citizens.



Mexico
Power Distance Index
100
80
60
40
20
Uncertainty Avoidance
0 Individualism
index

Masculinity

Figure 3 : Mexican’s Scores of Hofstede's 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, the

negotiation has been a field that have been improved a lot by scholars but the ones that

created the basement of negotiation styles were Blake and Mouton (1964). They

created the main model that was a two axis based model. The first Y axis is

assertiveness and the X axis is cooperativeness.



Assertiveness is the will that a person will provide in order to satisfy his own

needs while cooperativeness is how a person is interested in satisfying the needs of the

other part. So managing those two variables you will obtain 5 different negotiation

styles 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 filling

his own needs or the ones of the other person who he is negotiating with. This can have

as outcome to postpone the meeting, or just running away from any form of interaction.



- Competition style: (assertive and uncooperative)

This style is used by people that are just interested in meeting their own needs

without taking care of what the other want. You will adopt a competitive style when

you are trying to defend some point you are sure is correct or when you are trying to

win.

- Accommodation style (unassertive and cooperative)

The accommodating style is the opposite of the competing style. When adopting

this style, the person will forget about trying to fulfill his own needs in order to focus

entirely on the other’s needs. He will agree to do a sacrifice about it. Charity is the most

known example of accommodation. You can also observe this kind of style when

someone obeys to another person without wanting it really.

- Collaboration style (assertive and cooperative)

When collaborating, both parts are working together in order to reach the

objective of both. The process to reach this outcome is to explain the problem of each

part, explore all the solutions that exist and find an alternative way to find an

agreement. The exploration part of the aim why the other part does not agree is the key

to resolve this problem. The main point to think about in order to reach an agreement in

this 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 amount

of all the other negotiation style. In this case you will try to find a mutually acceptable

solution that satisfies the most both parties. But in this case, both parties will have to do

some sacrifices in order to both fit in the Zone of Potential Agreement (ZOPA).



2.1.5.2 Horst

Paul R. Horst is a Lieutenant Colonel at the United States Air Force. As

graduation requirements, he wrote a research report on the link between culture and

negotiation. In his research, he first describes culture and how it impact the human

being, then negotiation and in the last part, how culture impact negotiation. About

culture, Horst (2007) agreed with Cohen (1997) to say that “culture is societal (not

individualistic), acquired (not genetic) and his attributes cover the entire array of social

life”. 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 person

will live his life. So lifestyle in general (school, family, friends and work) is creating

the acquired attribute of culture. And the last of the three attributes is given by

intangibles that are not wrote or visible as relationships, etiquettes, conventions…Using

the figure above: three levels of uniqueness in human mental programming of Hofstede

(1997), Horst explain that human nature is inherited, while culture is learned and

personality is both learned and inherited. This explains better why two countries that

are separated by thousands of kilometres and an ocean can develop a very different

culture. So culture is influenced by the collective pressure of the society you live in.



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 position

where their interests or values come in conflict with one another”. He explains that to

him, it exists several ways to resolve this conflict: the first case is when a party is more

powerful than the other one, then when both party are equal in power (here we accede

to a pure negotiation case). The use of mediator or arbitrator can be used as a facilitator

for resolving the conflict.

Then he gave an overview of the three negotiation styles that are used most of

the time: competitive, collaborative and concession. The style used will also depend of

the balance of power during the negotiation. Negotiation is a skill and not a knowledge

area. Negotiators are the key actors in negotiation. The five attributes given to

negotiators by Rubin (2002) are: flexibility, sensitive to social clue, inventiveness,

tenacious and patience. Three main skills are used among the phases of the negotiation



(given here at the number of 3): Procedural interests, substantive interests and

psychological interests. Those skills are used in all parts without distinction depending

on 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 are

crossed. The relation between both aspects will be done toward the four main aspects of

negotiation: actors, structure, strategy and process. The culture will play a major role on

how is perceived the other party by the actors of the negotiation. The structure of the

negotiation will also be affected by culture for example on the size of the team chose by

the party. A party that come from a collectivist culture may be more efficient than a

team from an individualistic country. The strategy can be different within different

cultures. For example, a person that comes from a country where they are more often in

confrontational style in every day’s life will be more able to choose a hard bargaining

style during negotiation. Culture also plays a big part during the negotiation process

“the actual interaction between parties” (Faure 2002). A party with a high

individualistic index will speak less than a collectivist one. The way they communicate

in an individualistic society will also be more direct and shorter. Then Horst use

Salacuse’s (1998) work to see how culture affects 10 general negotiation factors. As

Hofstede’s work, we will review a specific academic paper about this work as it is a

main research in this field. Then, Horst looks for how to develop a strategy for a cross

cultural negotiation. He asked the question if cultural difference could be a driving

influence during a negotiation. He said that the preparation step is the first and the

biggest step for a negotiator into a cross-cultural negotiation. Then four strategies can

be used: adhering, avoiding/contending, adapting and advancing in order to get a

positive outcome during this kind of negotiation. It says in this paper that strategy of



both 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 as

negotiators for companies all around the world. He also did a big research about culture

that has been done among more than 1500 businesspeople in 21 cultures. The research

found that it exists two kind of prejudges that are normally done about culture: regional

generalization and that Japan has “normal” negotiation strategy. Those two affirmations

are most of the time wrong. In fact, some culture leaving very close as Japan and South

Korea are, can use the opposite negotiation strategy. And the second one is that Japan is

all the time in the extreme of each criterion used to describe their strategy. It is also

given that cultural differences create problem on four variables of the actors as given by

Boughton:

- “Language

- Nonverbal behaviors

- Values

- Thinking and decision-making process.”

Also taking into account that the first problem listed here is the one that will be

the more obvious and the last one the harder to determine.

The language is the most obvious because you can know or notice that you do

not speak the same language at first sight. Something important here is that Boughton

explains that “exact translations in international interactions are a goal almost never



attained”. And that the case when they do have to traduce but the language problem can

also be faced in case of an American with a native speaker from England will speak the

same 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 to

negotiate with an American. This way, when he speaks, the attention of the American is

focused on the interpreter and cannot see the non-verbal behaviors of the Russian. And

when it is the turn of the American to speak, the Russian can focus on the non-verbal

communication of the American and then get another translation of what he heard to

validate the answer he understood on the first time. It is also given that it is less

frequent to find an American that speaks another language so the other party during the

negotiation 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 other

kind of communication. The research used here show that the difference between two

cultures is higher when you compare both nonverbal and the verbal content of the

negotiation. Then follow a description of the behaviour of the 15 cultural groups that

were studied. We will only focus on both Mexican and French behaviour as we chose

to work on those two even if other cultures are very interesting in the way they behave

as Japan for example.

France: They have the most aggressive style among all the culture that was studied in

this survey with a very high level of threats. Another specification about French that we

find in lots of survey is that they are very used to interrupt the other party and use a lot

the “no”. They were using a competing style in most of the cases



Mexico: The biggest point that was noticed about Mexicans is that this culture is lots of

time victim of regional generalization even if, at the end, Mexicans are very different

from other country of South-America or their Spanish cousins. Finally, Mexican

behaviour is closer to the American negotiation behaviour than any other one. The

prefer negotiation styles of the Mexicans are the collaboration and accommodation

styles

In another part, the paper talks about the influence of some managerial values

on the negotiations as objectivity, competitiveness, equality and punctuality. Those

values are most of the time used by Americans and can create an unfavourable situation

for any international negotiation. The book “getting to yes” (Ury, Fisher and Patton

1991) is used here as a reference for all people that have to negotiate with Americans to

understand what and how do they see the negotiation process. For example, the most

important for an American is the substance and the relationship whereas in other

countries, those two variables will be attached. Anyway, lots of ideas that have been

explored in this book can be applied to other cultures.

Then a study about a negotiation case applied to businessman show that in

Mexico, Japan and Korea, the buyer is seen as more powerful than the seller. In

contrary, Americans are seeing more often the buyer as powerful as the seller. This

finding is confirmed by the work of Hofstede that show that Americans scored the

highest score in the scale individualism. It also confirm the proverb “Just make them

wait” when you are negotiating with Americans. In fact Americans is the culture that

value the more time whereas Japan value it totally differently and have not the feeling

of losing time when they are negotiating as they are preparing a future relationship.



About the decision-making process, it shows that eastern and western process is

not very compatible because in western countries, they use to separate the all

negotiation in several smaller tasks when Eastern countries prefer to negotiate the

contract as a whole. They will also take the negotiation time to create the relationship

as western will take this time to try to resolve the problem finding a good deal for both

parties.

2.1.6 Interpersonal communication

2.1.6.1 Tim Borchers

Tim Borchers (1999) gave a good first description of what is interpersonal

communication. To define it, they used a comparison method with all the other way of

communication. Interpersonal communication will be based on the study of how many

persons are involved in the communication process, they distance between them, the

channel they use to communicate and the feedback that will be gave by the receptor to

the emitter. Some particularities of this kind of communication are that it will not take

the 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 society's 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 Quebral



The main function of interpersonal communication as described by Borchers is

the gain of knowledge about another person or matter. The more you collect

information about a person, the better you will communicate with him. This theory is

called Social Penetration and was created in 1973 by professors Taylor Dalmas and

Altman Irwin in order to describe better the link between relationship and the outcome

of the communication process. There is three main ways of collecting information

about your interlocutor: passively by working out the elements you observed during the

interaction, actively by observing another person talking with your interlocutor and

finally interactively by interacting directly with him.

There is also to take into account the content message. In fact a same word can

be understood differently depending on the context, the way they are said, and the

meaning in your own culture. The second variable that describes a message is the

relationship message which defines how the message has been said. Those two

components are transmitted at the same time but will affect the way the message has

been understood. Then we have to describe the identity of the communicants. The first

component of the identity is the role each person plays in the society. This will be

completed by “the face” that the person will show during public interactions. And

finally 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 us

interact 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 like



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 to

manage in order to get a positive outcome to the communication process. This phase

has been studied by Knap Mark (1984) in his relational stage model (above). This

model called Knap relationship model is composed of three main stages; each stage is

composed of several steps coming from the initiating to the terminating step passing by

maintenance 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 by

them in a normal time. A good way of having a great overview about what others know

about you, what you know about you is the Johari window done by Luft (1969).



Table 3 Johari’s Window
Source : http://www.abacon.com

Self-disclosure has a primary function to gain information about the other

person in order to predict the more as we can their thoughts and acts. This information

is normally given in exchange of the same type of information from your part: that is

known as a norm of reciprocity. This exchange of information will create a better

relationship adding more trust into it. However, self-disclosure might be risky for both

parties. The first risk is that the person might not take the information as a good thing

about you; self-disclosure can be about matters that your interlocutor does not like

about you. It can also be risky by the fact that the other person should use this

information to damage your reputation or the relationship by disclosing it to other

persons. The last way is the fact that the self-disclosure can damage the relationship if it

is done too early in the relationship process or if too much information is disclosed at

the same time.



2.1.6.2 Shanon

Claude Shannon and Warren Weaver (1975) studied communication but as a very

large theme. They started to base their work on the communication process between

machines and saw that it could be applied to human. So they define communication as

all the process used by a spirit to influence another one using words, behaving but also

all sort of human work (music, theatre, painting…). They defined three main problems

that can be observed in the communication process and that can damage the quality of

it:

- 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 the



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 with

the interactants and the way the message will have to do from the source to the

destination. The easiest and shortest way to understand this model is to see how the

emitter will transform the message in a signal that will be transmitted to the receiver

through 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 be

took most of the time as a noise source in the negotiation. That is where we are looking

for a way to have it more than a facilitator than a barrier. And then during the

transmission of the message, the negotiation styles will take some part into the way the



message 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 the

model interactive. This contribution was the addition of the element “feedback” from

the destination back to the information source.

2.1.7 Leadership

Adair

John Adair (2005) is one of the referent persons in the leadership field. He wrote

more 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 the

three mains functions of leadership. Those elements: task, individual and group are

represented in three circles that overlap describing the interaction of each of the three

functions on the other one. So if the individual is weak, it will affect the performance of

the group to complete the task.

Task

Individual Group

Figure 8 Action centered leadership model of Adair
Source: www.learnmanagement2.com



So those three functions are described by the development of the individual, the

building and maintain of the group and the accomplishment of a task. This model helps

to understand the differences between management and leadership. Then a leader has 8

main functions. The first one is to create SMART objective that are Specific,

Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and timed constrained in order to establish a defined

objective. The second objective of a leader is the planning of the achievement of this

task. In order to achieve it, the leader must brief his team to get the adequate

atmosphere. The need for control and evaluation among the team and the individuals is

also essential as it is a way of questioning the efficiency of the plan and the team. Then

the 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 height

rules 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 John



To conclude, Adair show that the leadership works as a whole and if one

component is failing, the all system will not work efficiently. So he highlighted the

importance of the team building and team enforcement. Some tools has then have been

created to evaluate the leadership’s aptitude of each person such as the MBTI of Myers

Briggs that is also used in the group dynamic theories and was first published by Jung

in 1923. We can briefly define it as the ways that an individual will use to have the help

or 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 to

the topics we will study in this research. But anyway, they are not explaining exactly

what we are looking for. That is the main point of conducting this research, to apply

more precisely the theory that has been made about culture to France and Mexico and

to confirm the statements that have been made about those cultures. Then, the studies

that have been made about French or Mexican culture nearly never take into account

the point of view of the other country. In fact, most of the time, the paper is focused in

a 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 from

French point of view. In continuation with this idea, we will see how this one-way point

of view can also be a barrier for intercultural negotiations.

Another point that limit the literature review is the fact that the references that we

looked for is very limited among the entire amount of papers published. This will also

oblige us to pick up some papers that might not be the most relevant for the study of a

specific topic. We can also ask ourselves about the obsolescence of those works. In

fact, several documents are used as references for specific topic. For example, the work



of Hofstede (1997) has been used as reference by several searchers because he is the

one that worked the most on this subject but it is possible that if someone else do the

same amount of work on the same topic find something totally different from what

Hofstede found. So it is possible that the tools used here to start to answer the research

are not the most appropriate and might have taken the propositions in a bad path. We

could 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 a

group. But in an article, Dr. Spates Jennifer (2008) explained her theory about

committed sardines that are all going in the same direction, without touching the others

sardines of the shoal. So the reasons of this might be also by the total lack of leadership

inside this organisation. If one sardine had even a little bit of leadership, this might

create some disturbances in the smooth functioning of a shoal.



3 Research methodology

The research methodology explain what research design we chosen and the reasons

we chose this one and not another type. It will also present the hypotheses that will be

tested by the method and the kind of data that have been chose: quantitative or

qualitative.

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 be

managed. As said De Vaus (2001), the aim of an explanatory research is to answer the

question: “Why is it going on?” So at the end of the research we will have to find the

causal explanations of why those variables are hurting the negotiations between France

and 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 the

negotiation process and outcome. Then we have to find the correlation between the

culture and the outcome of the negotiation. This correlation is given by the different

factors that made the essence of culture. Then we can finally find the cause of this

effect that is not coincidental. Here the cause might be the essential differences between

both cultures that are negotiating together. The cause here studied is a probabilistic one.

Wesley Salmon (1980) explained that the probabilistic causality is opposed to the

deterministically 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 each

time an international negotiation take place, the outcome will be bad because of culture.



Sometimes the culture might improve the outcome. So we are in the second case where

a 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 that

will 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 propositions

have been found using a deductive approach from the main research question.

In the figure below, we can understand how does this work has been established

in order to find the propositions, the way information will be collected, the collection of

the data, the analysis of those and the comparison between the propositions and the

results of the analysis with a final feedback on the theory itself that was the starting

point of this work.

Figure 9 The logic of the research process
Source: David de Vaus Research design in social research (1980)



Then came the time to choose the type of research we should conduce in order

to 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 and

asking closed question. In this case, the aim was to gather information that might be

new for the subject. Furthermore, qualitative research has the possibility to be

descriptive that is a very important point. This is the best way to describe effectively a

person, an event or a situation (Robson 2002).

Figure 7 Qualitative VS Quantitative Research
Source: Abdur-Rahman 2010



3.1.2 Propositions and Model

Thanks to the literature review, several components of culture have been

highlighted 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 to

identify those components. The results of those works can be found in the annexe at the

end of this work (appendix 1 and 2). Then three main propositions that are about

French culture, Mexican culture and the confrontation of both cultures and the effect on

the negotiation style adopted. Then each proposition will be detailed in two more

propositions that will focus on specific variables of each culture.

Proposition A: The French culture is based on group dynamic, bureaucracy and

Frencheness.

• 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 about

understanding how is managed the team work in a French team and what does that

implies 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 fact

the French are very proud of their culture. This “Frencheness” combined with the usual

bureaucracy of French might be a big barrier for countries as Mexico that are more used

to negotiate in general because a bureaucratic state will tend to have a specific person in

charge of each area (Fisher 1980).



Proposition B: Mexican’s culture refers a lot to leadership, time and relationship.

The proposition B deals with the Mexican’ culture specificity. In deed we just

saw in the literature review that this country is collectivist and that give importance to

the relations between his citizens and also to the hierarchy. The time also plays a major

place 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 in

terms of satisfaction and commitment in Mexico”. This is due in fact with a high power

distance and quit high Uncertainty avoidance that will cause people to trust in their

chief 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 in

Mexico might be the most important tool in order to improve the outcome. The time

might be used directly as to get some more time to think for an offer for example. But it

can also be managed as a way of upgrading the relationship by having a longer period

of interaction with your business partner.

Proposition C: The confrontation of the cultural differences will create a

negotiation 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 culture

has a direct effect on negotiation style. Salacuse (1998) found at least ten ways in



which the negotiation style will be different among the cultures. If a country is pushing

too much in order to reach an agreement, the other country might feel that it will not be

enough in order to get a good and trustable relationship. That is for example why the

well-known company Enron lost a huge contract because the negotiation style of

American 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 the

literature review, this will be traduced in negotiation by the way they use time to report

the 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 are

very used to do the things the way they want, they might feel insulted or hurt when

Mexicans use some basic tool as time to get more time to though about the subject or to

consult the other team members.

On the following figure, the research question, propositions and main research

design is represented as a conceptual model. This conceptual model starts with the

research question. This research question will need the qualitative research in order to

answer the six propositions and finally draw a global conclusion about how culture

affects intercultural negotiations.



Research question

Sample: French B2B
companyies
Perception on F/M

Perceived differences
M/F negotiation
between F/M and
French culture Mexican culture behaviour depending
potential differences
on Pa and Pb
opp/threat

P1a P1b P1c=P1a+P1b
Group 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



interviews will be semi structured in order to stick with the main research question and

identify the details of the main variables time, leadership…

Who?

In order to answer the interviews, we had to choose a sample. A sample is

defined as a part of a group that will be representative of a whole. The sample chosen

here was at first B2B companies from both countries: Mexico and France. Each

company had to be negotiating with the other one about selling, or contracts. During the

research of the Mexican companies negotiating with French ones, we quickly saw that

findings those contacts were very hard to found. So we definitely chose to only

interview French businessman doing business with Mexican in SME’s because they

were more accessible than negotiators of international groups. But anyway, the results

can be applied to all kinds of cultural interactions that will be done between those two

countries.

When?

The available time to do those interviews was very limited. And as there was

not enough time to travel to interview each of the interviewee in person; another way

had to be found explained in the next part. The interviews have been made more

specifically during the second part of the semester when the methodology was more

defined. This lack of time was also a reason for not interviewing Mexicans

businessman.

Where?

So as it was hard because of time and space restrictions to do all the interviews

in person, it has been chose to do them via video-conferences. Using this method, the



interviews could not be more than 40 minutes because it is harder to concentrate lots of

time in front of a laptop and also business man have overbooked schedule.

3.2.2 Design of the interviews

The interviews will be designed following the propositions that have been made.

Each proposition will be the source for two questions about this subject. The questions

will be answered based on the experience of the businessman that knows about

intercultural negotiations.

Some basics information will be collected at the start of each interview. That

information is interesting in term of statistics to understand the demography of the

sample. The information about the company will be asked in order to understand better

the history of the company. And information about the person will be collected to

understand better what she is used to do in term of international negotiation and also

how much time the person spent in the company and how much she has been

influenced by the corporate culture. Some general information will also be asked as

gender, age… This information sheet can be found in appendix 3.

3.2.2.1 First question of the interview:

What makes you so French?

The first question that will be asked during the interview will be very straight. It

will be useful in term of determining how the French perceive themselves. This will be

needed in order to determine the level of Frencheness of each interviewee. The

particularity of this question is to get answers as wide as possible to get the largest

panel of how French describes their own culture.



3.2.2.2 Questions about the first proposition:

For the first proposition, it has been choose to ask about the group dynamic, the

bureaucracy and the Frencheness. This proposition is based on understanding the

French culture as it is seen by French.

What is your preparation process before negotiating?

In this question, we expect to collect more information about the way the

businessmen prepare themselves for the negotiation. By giving details about the dress

code, the documentation they prepare, the language they learn, it will permit us to

observe the way French want to be perceived by Mexican. But this will also be a way to

confirm that having a high level of uncertainty avoidance (Hofstede 2001); French do

not want to be caught short by Mexican during the negotiation and want to give a good

first impression.

How the number of person in your team can affect the way you negotiate?

This question is relative to utility of the group dynamic for French in

negotiation. In order to confirm or refute the theory of Salacuse (1998) that French

businessman are not used to follow one leader (appendix 2).

What big differences you can point between the negotiation process with French or

with Mexicans?

For French, the negotiation process is very formal and should take you to the

signature of the contract. So in order to do so, they might follow some agenda for

example. For Mexican, the negotiation process is more based on the way to get a good

relationship with the other team. So it should be interesting to understand how French

see the interaction with another culture when they are used to negotiate with French.


CAILLIER Hugo Master Thesis. International Negotiation

CAILLIER Hugo Master Thesis. International Negotiation

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to CAILLIER Hugo Master Thesis. International Negotiation

Similar to CAILLIER Hugo Master Thesis. International Negotiation (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

CAILLIER Hugo Master Thesis. International Negotiation