Cross-Cultural Negotiations: A Must for Successful Outcomes - Essay Sample

Introduction

Cross-cultural negotiations require proper and detailed preparations, particularly in terms of cultural differences. According to a majority of negotiations between nations for instance in this case between China and United States negotiating teams, many negotiations have failed not because of the lack of common ground but rather as a result of ignorance of cultural differences. When negotiating with China teams, it is critical not to consider negotiation actions are important social events that should foster relationships since China teams negotiate confidently (Barthelmess, Enzmann, Settelen, & Scharmeli, 2018). However, in the negotiating dynamics, the team's strategy will be a mixture of distributive and integrative both overall and concerning any arising specific issues.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

The distributive negotiation strategy also termed as the claiming value, or win-lose bargaining is a negotiation strategy that is used to decide on the different ways to distribute a fixed resource like money. In the distributive negotiation, the involved parties assume that the resource is scarce, and there are no possibilities of expanding the pie. It means that the pie needs slicing whereby, the more one side acquires, the less the other side gets. In the negotiation, the team considers distributive negotiations as an option since various disputes could render difficulties in the attempt to solve them. In many cases, when the stakes are high, conflicts can present significant resistance to resolution (Brett & Thompson, 2016). Moreover, this implies that, in every negotiation, there is a need for an equal share to ensure that the other party does not feel exploited. Thus, the distributive negotiation strategy would aid in providing that teams distribute the value created as negotiated.

Furthermore, the integrative strategy is a tactic that the team will use as well. Integrative negotiation involves more than skirmishing and has more basis on mutual collaboration, which seeks to result in a beneficial outcome for the involved teams. In this strategy, it creates a win-win situation for the involved parties. Moreover, in the utilization of integrative negotiation, it is meant to work effectively, particularly in talks involving splitting up a known collection of resources. Between the involved parties or teams, in this case, China and the United States, the teams ought to share common goals meant to compel the sides to ensure proper collaboration that is likely to foster mutual benefits. Also, in various situations where the teams feel like it cannot win, the integrative negotiation could be the best approach since it would be significant to acquire a substantial share of the negotiation rather than lose everything. In integrative negotiation, the common goal is not the only prerequisite since there are other vital aspects such as; commitment to the action plan, open communication, flexibility to accommodate negotiable interests, and a goal-oriented approach.

Since the team will be using a mixture of both integrative and distributive negotiation strategies, it is critical to note that both approaches will be used differently depending on the involved negotiations and interest. However, the integrative negotiation will be an essential strategy since distributive bargaining requires thorough preparation. In integrative bargaining, there is more than one issue available to be negotiated. It means that whenever multiple variables are present such as benefits, and salaries, the teams have the potential to make proper tradeoffs across the involved occurrence and create value (Thompson, Peterson, & Brodt, 1996). Since the team will be utilizing a mixture of both strategies, there are likely to deliver an overall benefit, especially with the specific issues involved.

Differences in Negotiating Strategy and My Team's Actions

There are possibilities that the other team could have a similar strategy to ours or a different one. In case the other teams are using the same approach, this gives my team's ability to use a mixture of both strategies meaning that we can easily adjust to the situation at hand. For example, in conditions of a price negotiation, and the different team adopts distributive bargaining, the team is likely considering gaining more than my team. Thus, one of the actions the team would take is to negotiate in such a manner that will enhance the teams reach an agreement and ensure that the other side gives up something as well since, in distributive bargaining, it is critical to consider winning. Similar, since in integrative negotiations, the involved parties ought to observe the idea that they gain something in the deal, there is a possibility that this strategy will ensure proper consultation. In case both teams are using this strategy, my team will consider negotiating in such a manner that will take the other party's fears, concerns, needs, and equate them to the outcomes of the final deal and ensure an equal win.

Regardless of the involved negotiation assumed by other teams, there are actions that my team will take to ensure maximum productivity in the talks. For instance, in distributive bargaining, the team will consider other team's need and place the necessities into consideration when developing or agreeing to a deal. Through this, it concerns ensuring that the team loses less than the other and maintain all the focus on getting a better deal than the other involved teams. Moreover, since distributive bargaining is fragile to conflict because no party wants to lose more than the other, it is essential for the team to maintain an intractable position. On the other hand, during the integrative negotiation, the teams will commence the negotiations with the assumption that the other part feels that the team is giving up an equal amount to the end of the deal. Often, the integrative negotiation is less fraught with tension since both sides are in talks with each other and are willing to compromise to ensure the achievement of a consensus (Lewicki et al., 2011).

If the other team's negotiation strategy were different, the team will use the different approaches necessary. For example, in case the team needs to use distributive negotiation, some ways would ensure a more significant claim of the pie. First, the team would work to improve the BATNA (best alternative to a negotiated agreement). Next, the team would determine the reservation point since it indicated the indifferent between accepting the deal and turning back to the team's BATNA. Naturally, no team wants to aim higher than their reservation point. As a result, the next approach would be to assess the other party's BATNA as well as the reservation point. It will aid in deciding on what to settle for since the team can determine how far the other teams are willing to go. Finally, the team would consider and determine the ZOPA (zone of possible agreement) existing in the distributive negotiation, which is essential to winning in distributive bargaining.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Primarily, integrative negotiations deliver a win-win situation; thus, utilizing the strategy is based on the likelihood that the other team would be using a similar approach.

References

Barthelmess, P. Y., Enzmann, P., Settelen, M., & Scharmeli, N. (2018). Navigating Ambiguity: Distributive and Integrative Negotiation Tactics in China. Central European Business Review, 7(2), 21.

Brett, J., & Thompson, L. (2016). Negotiation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 136, 68-79.

Lewicki, R. J., Saunders, D. M., Minton, J. W., Roy, J., & Lewicki, N. (2011). Essentials of negotiation. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

Thompson, L., Peterson, E., & Brodt, S. E. (1996). Team negotiation: An examination of integrative and distributive bargaining. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(1), 66.