What Makes Some Intercultural Negotiations More Difficult Than Others? Power Distance and Culture-Role Combinations

Abstract

This study examines whether and how intercultural negotiation dyads that vary in culture-role combinations experience different negotiation processes and outcomes. Participants completed an employment contract negotiation with a culturally different counterpart. Results indicated that high-status, high-power distance negotiators paired with low-status, low-power distance negotiators experienced more anger, placed less emphasis on cooperative goals, used less priority information exchange, and, consequently, gained less joint profits than high-status, low-power distance negotiators paired with low-status, high-power distance negotiators. Theoretical and practical implications of the study are discussed.

Normatively Speaking: Do Cultural Norms Influence Negotiation, Conflict Management, and Communication?

“…Clear, unimpeded communication is challenging in cross‐cultural negotiation, where negotiators typically have distinct negotiation schemas (Adair, Taylor, & Tinsley, ; Liu et al., ) and scripts (Adair et al., ; Brett & Okumura, ; Liu, ), that can result in misunderstanding. Communication quality differences in inter‐ and intracultural negotiation suggest that accurately communicating needs and intentions is more challenging in intercultural negotiations (Liu, Chua, & Stahl, ; Liu, Zhu, & Cionea, ). In part, the challenge occurs, as in the opening example, because norms governing politeness and other aspects of communication put negotiators from different cultures at risk of violating their counterparts’ expectations about social interactions.…”

How Power Distance Interacts with Culture and Status to Explain Intra‐ and Intercultural Negotiation Behaviors: A Multilevel Analysis

“…To control for extraneous factors that may generate power difference, such as BATNAs, participants in 1 The intracultural data were used by Liu (2009) to examine cultural variations in the effect of anger on negotiation performance and were used by Liu and Wilson (2011) to assess how interaction goals influenced individual and joint gains through dyad members' bargaining tactics. The intercultural data were used by Liu et al (2016) to examine whether dyadic composition of intercultural dyads affected negotiators' emotions, goals, bargaining tactics, and negotiation outcomes. The current study for the first time (a) compared intercultural and intracultural negotiations, and (b) examined the effects of power distance on bargaining tactics in negotiations that involve status-based distinguishable roles.…”

“…For example, Liu et al. () found that when negotiating inter‐culturally, negotiators vary significantly in their emotions, goal pursuit, and bargaining strategies depending on dyadic role composition, suggesting that intercultural negotiations can be more effective when dyad members’ culture‐role combinations are more conducive to empathy and perspective taking.…”

“…The intercultural data were used by Liu et al. () to examine whether dyadic composition of intercultural dyads affected negotiators’ emotions, goals, bargaining tactics, and negotiation outcomes. The current study for the first time (a) compared intercultural and intracultural negotiations, and (b) examined the effects of power distance on bargaining tactics in negotiations that involve status‐based distinguishable roles.…”

“…In recent years, negotiation scholars have sought to understand both psychological and contextual obstacles of intercultural negotiations so as to provide practitioners with practical advice to improve intercultural negotiation effectiveness, ranging from negotiating parties’ beliefs and trust (Kung et al., ), cultural intelligence (Imai & Gelfand, ), epistemic and social motives (Liu, Friedman, Barry, Gelfand, & Zhang, ), to their dyadic composition (Liu, Zhu, & Cionea, ). For example, Liu et al.…”