How the Chinese really negotiate: observations from an Australian-Chinese trade negotiation

Abstract

Purpose Previous research suggests that negotiation style and conflict management strategies are influenced heavily by cultural factors. In the case of the Chinese, findings have largely produced stereotypical views about their behavior, but the authors argue that this position is becoming increasingly blurred in the global economy. Design/methodology/approach Data were collected using participant observation during negotiations of a free-trade agreement between China and Australia followed by in-depth interviews with Chinese delegates. Findings Consistent with Confucianism and a Taoism-based value system, there was evidence of strong cultural influence on conflict management approaches. Two a priori Chinese strategies were evident – avoidance and accommodating, with five tactics. However, contrary to previous research, the authors found use of two conflict management strategies normally associated with a western approach – competing and compromising, with five associated tactics. Practical implications Chinese negotiators are knowledgeable and capable of adopting western negotiation strategies and tactics. The authors advise managers involved in international negotiations with Chinese managers to be cautious when relying on historical stereotypical assessments and to think differently about the emerging Chinese negotiator. Originality/value Few published negotiation studies involve real negotiations based on actual observations, particularly in an international setting. Contrary to many published studies, we demonstrate that conflict management approaches used by Chinese negotiators have evolved into a blend of traditional Chinese and western styles.

The role of trade liberalization in promoting regional integration and sustainability: The case of regional comprehensive economic partnership

“…This simulation sample includes almost all types of economies, the samples this study use with horizontal representativity of RCEP members, and they are all intra-regional economies with relatively developed, large populations or rapid development. Therefore, analyzing them has important guiding significance for studying the economic impact of RCEP: China Mainland and Japan is the two largest economies in Asia and is also full-industry chain economy (e.g., References [ 18 , 21 ]), South Korea, Indonesia, Thailand, Vietnam, and Singapore are typical export-oriented economies (e.g., References [ 21 , 27 , 53 ]), and Australia and New Zealand are resource-based economies (e.g., References [ 31 , 32 ]).…”

“…Simultaneous, due to the lack of cooperation within the Asia-Pacific region and the low degree of industrial integration, there is a severe relationship between intra-regional industrial countries and resource countries. With the lack of consensus and common interests, unnecessary internal conflicts occur from time to time (e.g., References [ 31 , 32 ]). For example, since 2018, as an industrial country, China has taken the initiative to sanction Australian coal due to international political disputes, which has exacerbated the shortage of domestic thermal coal for power generation (e.g., References [ 33 ]).…”