Culture and Joint Gains in Negotiation

Abstract

What effect does culture have on the achievement of joint gains in negotiation? Prior research has identified a number of strategies, for example sharing information about preferences and priorities, eschewing power, that lead to the development of joint gains when both negotiators are from the U.S. Are these same strategies used in other cultures? Are other strategies used? How effective are negotiators from different cultures in realizing joint gains? These are among the questions considered by the authors, whose research is based on data collected from negotiators from six different cultural backgrounds: France, Russia, Japan, Hong Kong, Brazil, and the U.S.The creation of joint gains in negotiations makes eminent sense. It can mean the difference between settlement and no settlement or between a settlement that leaves value on the negotiating table and one that does not. Research with U.S. participants has identified a variety of factors contributing to the achievement of joint gains in negotiation (Pruitt and Carnevale 1993). However, comparative cross-cultural research on negotiation (for example, that done by Harnett and Cummings [1980] and Graham and colleagues [1994], has focused on individual, not joint gains. In this research note, we share the results of our investigation into the relationship between culture and the generation of joint gains in negotiation.Our project investigates the cross-cultural generalizability of the factors found in the U.S. research to generate joint gains in negotiations (Pruitt

A Comparison of American and Russian Patterns of Behavior in Buyer-Seller Negotiations Using Observational Measures

“…Brett et al explain that the collectivist, high-context communication style of the Russians leads to "indirect and implicit information sharing" in negotiations which apparently might not be captured in their attitudinal measures of that construct. The findings of both the Brett et al (1998) and Graham et al (1992) studies are consistent with regard to lower joint profits for the Russians. The differences between the two studies regarding information sharing may have more to do with the nature of the data collection.…”

“…The differences between the two studies regarding information sharing may have more to do with the nature of the data collection. The Brett et al (1998) study used attitudinal measures of information sharing, thus being more susceptible to Wilson's et al (1995: 213) criticism about "perceived social appropriateness." The Graham et al (1992) study compares observed behaviors (i.e., self-reported and third-party observations) and finds the collectivist Russians to use a more cooperative style than the individualistic Americans.…”

“…That is, the survey and observational data again are inconsistent with the anecdotal descriptions of Russian behavior in the pre-1990s literature, but the reader needs to recall again the difference in contexts of the studies -intracultural vs. intercultural. Brett et al (1998) also used an intracultural simulation to compare negotiation behaviors (i.e., joint gains) and attitudes (i.e., norms about negotiations) across six cultural groups, including Russians and Americans. They also classified Russian culture as collectivist, yet they found the Russians to score lower than Americans on information sharing and joint profits and higher on distributive tactics.…”

“…While much has been written about Russian negotiation styles and approaches (see, for example, Volume 1(3) of this journal), few empirical studies of Russian negotiation behavior have been conducted (e.g., Brett et al 1998, andGraham et al 1992). Both the Brett et al and Graham et al studies employed intracultural negotiation simulations and questionnaires and both reported statistically significant differences between Russian and American outcomes and self-report strategy measures.…”

Lost in translation? The effect of cultural values on mergers around the world

“…More generally, our paper contributes to a growing field of research that considers the role of culture in economics. Experimental evidence shows that deep-seated values of fairness, trust, and individualism affect fundamental economic decisions (Oosterbeek, Sloof, and Van de Kuilen, 2004;Brett, Adair, Lempereur, Okumura, Shikhirev, Tinsley, and Lytle, 1998;Adair, Brett, Lempereur, Okumura, Shikhirev, Tinsley, and Lytle, 2004;Barr, Wallace, Ensminger, Henrich, Barrett, Bolyanatz, Cardenas, Gurven, Gwako, Lesorogol, Marlowe, McElreath, Tracer, and Ziker, 2009). Evidence from nonexperimental settings also confirms the importance of culture on economic decision-making (Guiso, Sapienza, and Zingales, 2006, 2008, 2009Chui, Titman, and Wei, 2010;Li, Griffin, Yue, and Zhao, 2011;Giannetti and Yafeh, 2012;Gorodnichenko and Roland, 2010).…”