When an Intercultural Business Negotiation Fails: Comparing the Emotions and Behavioural Tendencies of Individualistic and Collectivistic Negotiators

Luomala, Harri T.; Kumar, Rajesh; Singh, Jasjit; Jaakkola, Matti

doi:10.1007/s10726-014-9420-8

Cited by 15 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 87 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Emotional intelligence is an important social skill for life, but it does not produce higher economic results for a negotiator unless both counterparts demonstrate a certain ability to handle and identify emotions (Der Foo et al, 2004). The pending question is the relative economic benefit of dealing with emotions in negotiations, especially distinguishing between positive and negative ones (e.g., Luomala et al, 2015;Wong, 2020).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Distributive/integrative negotiation strategies in cross-cultural contexts: a comparative study of the USA and Italy

Benetti

Ogliastri

Caputo

2021

Journal of Management & Organization

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Integrative and distributive negotiation strategies are a key paradigm of practice, teaching, and research. Are these US-formulated negotiation prototypes valid in the rest of the world? Adopting a cross-cultural view, we analyze a sample of 214 foreigners who detailed the negotiation behavior they faced in Italy (134) and in the United States (80). Implementing latent class analysis, we identify three clusters of negotiation prototypes. Our findings show how the Country is a predictor for cluster membership, and peculiar cultural traits of the two groups contribute to explain the differences in negotiation strategies. Three prototypes emerged: a typically distributive, an emotional integrative (mostly Italian), and an impersonal integrative (mostly American). Results show how the handling of emotions is a crucial part of the interaction for Italian negotiators, regardless of their orientation toward negotiation strategies, implying a cultural influence toward handling emotions in negotiations.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Distributive/integrative negotiation strategies in cross-cultural contexts: a comparative study of the USA and Italy

Benetti

Ogliastri

Caputo

2021

Journal of Management & Organization

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Second, emotions are not only a social but also a cultural phenomenon (Markus & Kitayama 1991), with different emotions being salient in different cultures and cultures differing also in terms of the degree to which various emotions are deemed acceptable. This article does not address how key alliance decision makers manner of dealing with any specific emotion might vary across cultures (Kumar, 2004;Luomala, Kumar, Singh, & Jaakkola, 2015), such as possibly being different in collectivistic than individualistic cultures or cultures characterized by high versus low power distance. Our analysis might pertain most directly to alliances involving individualistic cultures where personal goals are given priority over group goals (Chen, Chen, & Meindl, 1998).…”

Section: Limitations and Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

How emotions influence alliance relationships: The potential functionality of negative emotions

Kumar¹,

Kleef

Higgins

2019

Organizational Psychology Review

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article utilizes a motivational perspective on emotions to reconceptualize the impact of negative emotions on relationship dynamics between alliance partners. Alliance failure is endemic and yet we know little about how alliance partners manage the interface between them. We draw upon the alliance discrepancy model, self-discrepancy theory, appraisal theory, emotions as social information theory, and Horney’s behavioral typology of moving toward, moving against, or moving away to analyze the emotional, motivational, and behavioral dynamics among alliance decision makers. We propose that process discrepancies predominantly produce agitation-related emotions such as anger and anxiety, whereas outcome discrepancies predominantly produce dejection-related emotions such as sadness and disappointment. We analyze the impact of emotions at both the intrapersonal and the interpersonal levels. The intrapersonal level captures the impact of alliance decision makers’ experienced emotions on their own behavior, whereas the interpersonal level captures the impact of alliance decision makers’ expressed emotions on their partners’ behavior. At the intrapersonal level, agitation-related emotions lead alliance decision makers to move against (or away from) their partner, whereas dejection-related emotions lead them to move toward their partner. At the interpersonal level, the expression of dejection-related emotions leads alliance decision makers to move toward their partner, whereas the expression of agitation-related emotions leads alliance partners to either move toward or against their partner depending upon the relative power of the parties and the specific agitation emotion that is expressed. We develop a series of propositions linking discrepancies with emotions and alliance management, which highlight a different way of thinking about emotions in alliances. Rather than treating negative emotions as destructive forces, our model points to the potential functionality of the experience and expression of negative emotions in alliances. We conclude by outlining some boundary conditions of our model and discussing implications for research and practice.

show abstract

“…Finns represents HI specific cultural characteristics such as uniqueness, independence, self-reliance and equality (Khatri et al, 2006). Finns show positive attitude to products with promoting health claims and experience emotions having positive outcomes (Grunert et al, 2009;Luomala et al, 2015), whereas the characteristics of Pakistanis are relatively obligatory, show status or power distance, group orientation, and hierarchy (Sivadas et al, 2008), which shows their VC cultural orientations (Imam, 2013). Moreover, Pakistanis have also been characterised as prevention focused consumers (Ashraf et al, 2016).…”

Section: Horizontal Individualism Vs Vertical Collectivism Differencmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differences in horizontally individualist and vertically collectivist consumers' environmental behaviour: a regulatory focus perspective

Rahman

2019

IJBEM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Building on horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism (HV I-C) typology and regulatory focus theory (RFT), this study aims to examine cross-cultural environmental behaviour differences between HI-Finnish and VC-Pakistani consumers. In regards to consumers' attitude towards environmentally friendly products, the results demonstrated predominantly HI-promotion-focused regulatory fit effect in Finland and VC-prevention-focused regulatory fit effect in Pakistan. Consequently, consumers' environmentally friendly products' attitude positively affect their purchase intentions. This study contributes to the sustainability literature by examining the overlooked appropriateness of RFT and HV I-C in cross-cultural environmental behaviour. Managers can use the insights of this study to market their environmentally friendly products more effectively across different cultures.

show abstract

When an Intercultural Business Negotiation Fails: Comparing the Emotions and Behavioural Tendencies of Individualistic and Collectivistic Negotiators

Cited by 15 publications

References 87 publications

Distributive/integrative negotiation strategies in cross-cultural contexts: a comparative study of the USA and Italy

Distributive/integrative negotiation strategies in cross-cultural contexts: a comparative study of the USA and Italy

How emotions influence alliance relationships: The potential functionality of negative emotions

Differences in horizontally individualist and vertically collectivist consumers' environmental behaviour: a regulatory focus perspective

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About