How do cultural differences affect negotiations? Abstract: Styles and culture of business negotiations.

Two men entered a meeting room on one of the top floors of a tower overlooking New York's Lexington Avenue. It was a cold, windy January day. The two exchanged friendly but reserved greetings. Sitting on opposite sides of a large table, they prepared to discuss the possibility of merging two giant corporations.

One of these two was Peter Jovanovich, president of the respectable publishing house Harcourt Brace Jovanovich (HBJ), which found itself on the verge of financial collapse. As the son of one of the founders of the company, Jovanovic would like to preserve the family property with all his heart. Opposite was Dick Smith, the assertive and enterprising head of General Cinema, a large and prosperous concern that was trying to stake out territory in the publishing business. Each president was accompanied by a waiting retinue of advisers, lawyers and financiers.

Both sides carefully prepared “scenarios” for the start of negotiations. Smith was to act as the buyer. After spending several months studying the situation, he decided that HBJ was an ideal option for General Cinema. But Dick didn't know if Yovanovitch saw the same possibilities. Smith planned to detail General Cinema's financial strength and reputation. He will say that he sympathizes with the publishing house in its difficulties and is ready to offer hope. However, you need to act carefully so that the other party does not expect too high a price.

The HBJ team, also determined to sell, groomed Jovanovic for the role of “listener.” His advisers agreed that General Cinema's proposal was the best option to save the company, but they also called for caution: it was necessary to show interest, but not determination. Don't reveal your cards, don't show your concerns!

According to the script, Smith began his opening monologue, but after a few seconds Yovanovitch interrupted him - and HBJ's advisers became worried. This was not in the script. What was Peter up to?

Having spoken, Jovanovic took a small box out of his pocket and placed it on the table in front of him. I opened it, and there they were wrist watch with HBJ engraving. Jovanovic moved them towards Smith.

My father always gave such watches to business partners at the beginning of a new relationship, Jovanovic said. “I give these to you as a sign of my sincere belief that General Cinema is exactly the buyer we need.”

A dangerous confession, and both interlocutors understood this. The tension in the room subsided. The two presidents and all the advisers sitting around the table, throwing aside ceremony, began to discuss how best to carry out the deal. The conversation lasted until late evening.

What was said to the mountains

Many years earlier and thousands of miles from New York, in a Tanzanian valley in East Africa, two elders representing different clans of the Arusha tribe met early in the day under the shade of mighty trees. In the distance rose the silhouette of a mountain - the 4500-meter Meru volcano. Each of the elders was surrounded by a group of men: the two parties stood opposite each other in a clearing in the leafy shade.

Negotiations in African villages traditionally take place under the canopy of foliage. Like thousands of similar tree clumps on the outskirts of villages, this one serves as the local Arusha center public life, where you can discuss important matters at your leisure. That day, negotiations took place under the trees.

The elders formally addressed each other, describing a dispute between two neighboring farmers and announcing lists of mutual complaints and grievances subject to monetary compensation. Each of the disputants, accompanied by approving remarks from his companions, loudly rejected the opponent’s accusations and cited the arguments of his elder.

The subject of the dispute between the two families was the escheated land between their plots. The neighbors' litigation led to a whole series of incidents: the son of one broke the valve of an irrigation canal in the other's field; the owner of the field beat him for trespassing. The father of the beaten man went to the elders, demanding an official review of the case.

The process that unfolded under the trees outside the village reflected the African landscape like a mirror. The litigants, to use the Arusha words for the first phase of negotiations, “addressed the mountain.” Everything went as expected. A whole day of debate lay ahead. And no one forgot to bring lunch with them.

The path of negotiations

Different people. Different situations. Different cultures. However, both involve the same familiar process called “negotiation,” an immediately recognizable activity that helps people achieve goals and settle disputes. In both stories, as we will see, the parties successfully reached an agreement. Why and in what ways negotiations come to such a result is the topic of this book.

In almost all cultures, people generally agree with each other in the same way, and they have done this practically since the beginning of time. If an Arusha elder had been in the room where Yovanovitch and Smith met, he probably would not have understood the words that were spoken there, but he would have fully appreciated the meaning and importance of the gift Yovanovitch offered. The African plot is not a deal, but a lawsuit. But, as we will see, it will also end with an exchange of gifts. Gifts are part of the universal language of human relationships. And all negotiations are based on the rule of reciprocity that underlies any relationship.

People think of negotiations as mutually beneficial communication, which involves four stages: preparation, exchange of information, negotiations themselves and completion. In the world of big business and multi-layered deals, lawyers and investment analysts sit around a table and begin conversations based on meticulously written scripts. After discussing all the issues, they usually ask for more and offer less than they expect to give and receive in the end. Tanzanian Arusha establish the subject of the dispute, announce their demands and “speak to the mountains”, putting forward exorbitant requests and counter-requests. They, too, are groping for the boundaries of a possible agreement, taking signals from the other side about what is acceptable to it and what is not. After this, they usually move on to a phase of concessions and commitments. In short, negotiations are a kind of dance of four steps. And these stages succeed one another most successfully when both dancers have decent experience.

We are all negotiators

Each of us enters into negotiations more than once a day. As children, we seek attention from adults, special treatment, and more pocket money. As we grow up, we negotiate more complex sets of desires that, upon closer inspection, often boil down to the same simple things we craved as children. Negotiations are a special and basic form of human communication, but when resorting to it, we do not always realize it. Let's try to define them.

Negotiation is a two-way communication process that can occur when you want something from another person or another person wants something from you. For kitchen table this happens no less often than at the negotiating table. However, due to personal relationships or production functions, the “correct” answer to many requests is often not bargaining, but unquestioning consent or even self-sacrifice. When a winter storm leaves a neighborhood without power and a neighbor calls for help, we don't bargain—we help. If your job is to provide impeccable customer service and the client needs something, you try to please.

However, note: even these seemingly non-negotiable situations are possible only in the context of relationships that have developed between people and are clearly regulated by norms of reciprocity. If a neighbor is known for loud parties past midnight and never responds to requests to be quiet, his cry for help during a thunderstorm will likely be the last to be heard. And the clients we serve bring us more money, the more we please them.

The agent’s plan worked: several channels sent offers with seven-figure figures, but Turner didn’t even bat an eye. The agent played the “other employer” card, saying King might leave for another channel if Turner didn’t outbid his competitors.

Turner had known King for many years and knew that he was not dealing with a tough manipulator, but with a friendly and compliant guy. And while the agent was sitting in his office, Turner picked up the phone and called King. After exchanging memories of old times and how much he liked Larry as a person, Turner bluntly stated: “Stay with me.”

“Okay,” Larry King replied, “I’ll stay.”

The agent was simply killed by this turn of events. And King was happy! He liked the money he got, he liked Turner, and he liked that Turner liked him. After that, Ted raised his fee a little. One nil for Turner! Bottom line: If you're a generally soft-spoken person, you'll have to really work hard to push hard at the negotiating table. This may work, but not for long and not particularly convincing. If you like to compete in life, your “grasping reflex” will still stick out, no matter how hard you try to muffle this facet of your own personality. But even if you hate negotiating with someone about something, having realized this peculiarity of yours and having learned to work with it, you will be able to cope quite successfully with any negotiations.

I once led a seminar for business leaders, among whom was the founder and chairman of the board of directors of one of the world's most successful Internet corporations. After the seminar, he admitted that he feels uneasy almost every time he has to negotiate something, and therefore he tries to avoid such situations by any means, considering himself a bad negotiator. I argued that, given the billions of dollars he earned, he couldn't be that helpless. There is no contradiction, the tycoon replied. He succeeded due to the fact that he came up with an online auction system that completely eliminates any bidding, and delegates all somewhat unpleasant negotiations to other directors who know how to bargain (and do it with pleasure). He himself specializes not in contracts and approvals, but in certain forms of cooperation: developing a strategy, managing the board of directors, improving the unique online community of his company. To win, he didn't overcome his vulnerabilities—he simply accepted them.

Therefore, I advise everyone: before you start studying the science of negotiation, take a look at yourself in the mirror. What comes naturally and easily to you? And how, relying on your individual characteristics, build a strong system of effective skills and strategies that will help you achieve your own goals?

Five Negotiation Strategies and Styles: A Thought Experiment

Let's try to find your strengths by performing an imaginary experiment. Imagine that you are one of ten people who do not know each other, sitting at a large round table. A man enters the room and announces, “I will pay $1,000 to the first two people who can convince the person sitting across from you to stand up, walk around the table, and stand behind you.”

Introduced? There are nine strangers at the table with you. You see a person opposite, he is looking at you. The first two people to convince the person sitting across from you to walk around the table and stand behind your chair will each receive $1,000. All others will be left with nothing.

What tactics will you choose to respond to this strange proposal? You need to act quickly: after all, everyone at the table is thinking about what to do.

One possible reaction is to be wary and do nothing, suspecting some kind of prank and imagining how foolish you will look if you rush around the table now, listening to who knows who. “I don’t like to negotiate anything and I won’t until I’m forced,” you tell yourself. This evasion is a tactic that the Internet tycoon I mentioned also uses. Someone might object that this is not a tactic or a strategy, but an ordinary surrender of positions. You don't have to look far for examples to see that in many important negotiations one of the parties stubbornly avoids appearing at the table. North Korea has successfully avoided negotiations over its nuclear programs for years - and during this time has managed to strengthen its position in the dispute. In the United States, presidential candidates leading in public opinion polls often refuse to participate in debates when their opponent proposes to increase their number. In general, self-elimination is a good tactic for those who are satisfied with the current situation, but, apparently, not best model behavior for the participants in our experiment.

Perhaps the most natural instinct would be to offer the person sitting across from you $500 to come and stand behind your chair. It's a compromise. Two people agree to split the prize equally. A simple, fair and fast model that amicably resolves many disputes. However, is it right for you now? You and your counterpart may quickly agree to split the money equally, but who should run and who should sit? In those seconds while you are assigning roles, others are already acting! The question of who should run does not allow for a compromise solution, so you cannot get by with a simple compromise model. Some additional tactics are needed.

This is our third option - adjustment. You can immediately go and stand behind your counterpart. If you do this in response to his offer to share the prize, you can then refer to this promise as the starting point in any further disputes. But there may be no promise! People who decide to use a 100% pure adjustment strategy get up and rush to the opposite chair, barely listening to the conditions, and reach the goal faster than you. But they face a problem. The lucky person who finds himself opposite such a “fixer” wins $1000, while the person who runs up wins nothing. The docile character can only hope that his partner, who has enriched himself with his help, will want to share the prize - and the possible division is not regulated by any preliminary agreement! Don't forget: the people in the room don't know each other and are unlikely to ever see each other again.

The fourth option is competition. The point of this strategy is to get the entire thousand plus the full right to decide how to divide it. One way to achieve this is to offer your partner a 50/50 split, and then go back on your words. This is obviously an unethical act, but some of us may do it. In the end, no one declared that what was said at the table obliged anyone to do anything. An even more aggressive position would be to say that your leg is broken, you cannot walk, and convince your partner to rush to you. Are adversarial strategies always as unethical as these two? No. On the pages of this book we will see many examples of a competitive approach that is impeccably honest from the point of view of any morality. But in this situation, it is difficult to propose tactics that are both competitive and ethical. Moreover, there may simply not be time to apply an adversarial model, as well as a compromise.

Finally, the last strategy is the most creative response to the experimenter's suggestion. Jumping up from your chair, you rush around the table shouting: “We both run! A thousand each!” It might work—if you hurry. This is collaboration, or a strategy for solving a problem. The owner of such a strategy is astute enough not to figure out how to divide $1000 between two people, but to understand that there is a way to get a thousand for both members of the couple.

In many cases, this strategy is more difficult to implement than others. After all, this requires: having carefully analyzed the situation and the interests of both parties, understand main problem; after intensive creative search, find the most elegant solution and eliminate contradictions after introducing fair standards and assessments.

Typically, this is the optimal strategy. It is especially effective in complex negotiations, such as diplomatic or business negotiations, when representatives of giant corporations are discussing possible mergers and acquisitions. It can also play a beneficial role in family disputes, where it is important to resolve the matter so that there are no “winners” and “losers.” However, cooperation can be impeded by a variety of circumstances, such as a lack of trust between the parties, greed, the personal inclinations of the negotiators, cultural differences and simple poverty of imagination.

How many of these five strategies have come to your mind? And - no less important question— which one would be more natural and easier for you to use? Now that we know about these five patterns, we can determine your individual negotiator style.

Individual negotiation styles are nothing more (and nothing less) than inclinations and predispositions to certain actions during negotiations. These inclinations are determined by childhood experience, family, first steps in the profession, mentors, ethical teachings, faith and much more. Over time, if you continue to improve your negotiation skills and expand the range of skills you use, your inclinations may change in some ways. But I am convinced that most people have a set personal characteristics is generally stable and a radical restructuring of negotiation preferences is unlikely to be possible. For example, I was raised by loving parents who were determined to avoid any conflicts both among themselves and in their relationships with their children (I have two sisters). I learned this behavior pattern forever. Thanks to everyday and professional experience, I have learned quite well how to act in conflict situations, but to this day I instinctively and automatically try to avoid discord. Diplomacy is part of my personality as a negotiator, which I bring to any discussion and debate. I have other tendencies that manifest themselves in different cases with different people, but the diplomatic instinct always prevails.

Each style or combination of styles comes with a specific set of talents. A competitive person understands more quickly than others how to gain an advantage and the ability to dictate in given circumstances. Having negotiated a high price, he receives greater satisfaction than people who are not inclined to measure their success by such measures. He sees the potential to take an adversarial approach where others don't.

A clear tendency to adapt means a talent for team play and the ability to help others even in the face of conflicts of interest. Such a person is focused on personal relationships, while others are focused primarily on money. A compromising person automatically searches for a simple and fair way to divide responsibilities or benefits, to resolve the contradictions of the disputants, and finds ways to do this faster than others. Finally, a person who has a predominant desire for cooperation will be able to achieve agreement much faster by asking questions, making suggestions. different points vision and trying to satisfy as many needs as possible, including your own. Such people sincerely enjoy complex and lengthy negotiations, which is inaccessible, for example, to supporters of simple compromises.

As you analyze the situations presented in this book and real-life incidents, note what brings you satisfaction and what depresses you. Those actions and decisions for which you have a talent will bring pleasure. Draw on the knowledge gained from experience, and, as the Danish proverb I quoted at the beginning of this chapter says, “bake with the flour you have.”

Cooperation versus competition

Any personal negotiation style can be classified into one of two types: cooperative and competitive. Depending on the situation, each of them can be effective and pose certain dangers.

Many people wonder whether there is some inherent bias toward competitive or cooperative bidding strategies. The stereotype of a negotiator, replicated by the press, films and mass media, is a person with a strong competitive streak, prone to tough tactics: ultimatums, demonstrative departures, playing to the public, beating the table, etc. This is not surprising given the love that mass taste has for dramas and attractions. In fact, an ordinary professional negotiator, and even just a professional, behaves completely differently in negotiations.

Two groups of specialists who studied the behavior of negotiators built a more accurate and comprehensive model of contractual behavior for some professions. The first group studied American lawyers, the second - British recruitment intermediaries and contract managers.

An American study led by Professor Gerald Williams found that approximately 65% ​​of "test" lawyers selected in two major US cities gravitated towards a collaborative negotiating style and only 24% had a truly adversarial orientation (11% could not definitely be classified as either two types). About half of the focus group participants had a reputation among their colleagues as successful negotiators. The most interesting thing is that 75% of these successful ones consisted of representatives of the collaborative model and only 12% of “competitors”. The remainder were made up of negotiators of both styles.

Williams's findings show that, contrary to stereotype, a cooperative orientation is more common than a competitive one (at least within the sample of American professional negotiators studied). Moreover, it is easier to acquire a reputation as a skillful negotiator (at least among colleagues) if you use cooperative rather than competitive strategies.

The second study was conducted in England by Neil Rackham and John Carlisle over a period of nine years. They studied the behavior of 49 recruitment brokers and contract managers who negotiated actual contracts. Some of the results of this work are analyzed in Chapters 5 and 8 of this book. For now I want to talk only about the styles demonstrated by the objects of study. The most successful of them had the predominant traits of a cooperative negotiator.

For example, scientists have counted what they called negotiating “red rags”: obvious self-serving options for agreement, unmotivated insults, direct attacks on the opponent’s proposed plan - typical elements of adversarial tactics. It turned out that the average negotiator uses 10.8 “rags” per hour of negotiation time; a more qualified one costs on average only 2.3 per hour.

In addition, skilled negotiators avoid so-called defense/attack spirals—emotional comments that blame the other party and deny counter-blames. For them, only 1.9% of remarks spoken at the negotiating table fall into this category, while for the average negotiater - 6.3% of remarks. The image of a successful negotiator emerging from Rackham and Carlisle's data does not reflect an adversarial stereotype, but a recognizable "collaborator."

What is the conclusion from both studies? Contrary to popular belief, it is receptive and accommodating people who have all the qualities of a truly successful negotiator.

Gender and culture

Preferences for certain negotiation strategies are formed under the influence of deep-seated psychological factors, which include habitual schemes for resolving conflicts with parents, childhood experiences of communicating with siblings and friends, lessons learned at the beginning of professional life. In turn, these early formative experiences sometimes bear the imprint of two even more fundamental components of our social identity: gender and culture. These are slippery subjects, and for many, scholarly discussion on this topic quickly descends into destructive (and false) stereotypes. However, scientists have established some solid truths about these two variables, so it makes sense to take a closer look at them.

Gender differences in negotiations

Research shows that communication behavior between men and women may differ, especially at work. Georgetown linguistics professor Deborah Tannen, in her books You Just Don't Understand: Men and Women in Conversation and Talking from 9 to 5: Women and Men at Work, proves that men are generally more assertive, they interrupt others more easily, and are more concerned with maintaining their own status. Women, on the contrary, tend to listen to their interlocutor, care about emotional contact and do not interrupt. And although you have probably heard a lot about emotionally oriented men and status-oriented women, Professor Tannen’s general conclusions are confirmed by statistics. The question arises: how to use or correct these. behavioral patterns so that they become a source of strength rather than weakness in a specific professional environment?

Observations of American women show that gender differences affect the flow of negotiations in two main ways.

Firstly, practice confirms that women, even those who have reached responsible positions in business, are somewhat less likely than men to initiate negotiations on such important issues as salary or promotion. As for negotiation tactics, women in general are a little more likely to behave in a compromising manner.

Carnegie Mellon University business school professor Linda Babcock found that the difference in the amount of the first after receiving an MBA degree wages for men and women (approximately $4,000 in favor of men) is explained by a single behavioral feature: of men, 57% immediately ask for more than the offered amount, and of women only 7% do this. All those who negotiated, both men and women, ended up bargaining for an average of $4,053 more income than those who didn't negotiate. Babcock's research, described in her book Women Don't Ask, confirms a trend noted in other studies. Students of my Wharton seminars added to the list of purely female tactics: women seriously rely on arguments of “fairness”, believing that the opponent should accept them as balanced and non-traumatic approaches for personal relationships. Such tactics, of course, can work, but only if the opponent is equally friendly towards you.

The experience of my student Marcy clearly demonstrates how subtly the gender factor can influence the negotiation process. Before starting her MBA, Marcy worked at a small computer company and was the only woman in her department. In full accordance with Babcock's conclusions, Marcy, when she was offered the job, accepted without discussing the terms. She was glad to get this place. After two years of impeccable work, Marcy headed the area that brought in 30% of the company's revenue, and two men with higher salaries, who joined the company at the same time as her, oversaw projects that brought in 1% each. Marcie decided she deserved a raise.

However, she started talking about this in a classically roundabout way: when she came to her boss, she asked for certification. “I decided that this best way“, without bragging, to draw the attention of my superiors to my successes,” Marcy told me during class. “I didn’t want to look impudent.” But the trick didn't work. The boss was never able to find time to certify her.

Many women would give up here, but not Marcy! She went to the company president and boldly asked for a twenty percent raise, citing the fact that male colleagues were paid 20% more but managed fewer people and projects. That is, a twenty percent increase would be “fair.” However, this move was not successful either. “I kept saying it wasn’t fair,” Marcie told me. “Now I understand that, given my contribution, justice would require something more significant than 20% of the salary, but at that moment I did not have the strength to ask for more. And, of course, this uncertainty was felt. Moreover, given that I stayed late at the office, was passionate about my work and showed no desire to look for another job, there was no urgent need to listen to me.”

In the end, Marcy was given a raise, just long enough for her to refuse. When management learned that she had been accepted into the Wharton School of Business and was leaving, her salary was increased by 35%. But Marcy has already crossed this threshold. She tells her classmates: “Being shy to ask is the most destructive character trait for a woman that ever exists. Don’t be afraid to seem pushy.”

The conclusion about the influence of gender differences on the course of negotiations is confirmed by the existence of stereotypes. Women are considered, on average, to be somewhat more compliant than men, and stereotypes that exploit this difference program negotiators of both sexes to develop events that are not determined by the situation. Such drama can turn out to be either harmful or beneficial for a woman, depending on the qualifications of the disputing parties.

For example, observations have shown that women are less successful in negotiations if they are reminded of a negative stereotype of the “weaker sex” before the discussion itself. The fear of being portrayed as a “passive housewife” can completely block a woman’s self-confidence and, therefore, the ability to effectively use her personal negotiating style, whatever it may be. Attempts to refute this stereotype seem to only do harm, resulting in unnecessary aggressive behavior and leading to not the most brilliant results of negotiations. The opposite psychological effect is observed if, before a discussion, a woman is reminded of the positive stereotype “women get along.” In this case, a false perspective ensures a smooth flow of negotiations and best results. However, because popular perceptions are often negative, women have to suffer from “stereotype threat,” as psychologists call it.

On the other hand, the skillful use of other people's gender clichés can give a woman, if she does everything without error, a noticeable advantage. The ability to defeat an enemy with his own weapon comes with experience. One lady, a highly skilled negotiator, described to our listeners her adventures in “restructuring” negotiations, where she represented failed companies. These are tough negotiations between a company unable to pay its debts and its creditors. The background for such conversations is always the prospect of bankruptcy. Few women feel called to such activities, and our heroine said that in this harsh environment she gender It almost always turns out to be a useful quality. “For example,” she explained, “if some guy on the other side hurts me personally, I never answer him. I wait until one of the men of the same party comes to my defense - and there is always one - and then I have an ally there, and a split occurs in the enemy camp, and this gives an advantage.” Another, a petite lady who was in charge of mergers and acquisitions for a large pharmaceutical company, said that she liked to play with stereotypes. This woman was born in Poland, but ended up in Israel as a child. “Before an acquaintance,” she said, “I always find a way to convey to the other party that I once served as an officer in the army. I create an image of an iron lady in them in advance, but then I enter the room and they all melt. My heart was relieved - and now my opponents are willingly cooperating with me. Of course, if necessary, I can always return to the first image.”

Gender differences should not play a role in negotiations. But skilled negotiators, thoroughly preparing for the debate, calculate every aspect and own behavior, and enemy behavior. They also need to be aware of their own biases. In this sense, gender differences should undoubtedly be taken into account in a detailed analysis of negotiation style.

Cultural differences

If the gender aspect can complicate the course of negotiations, then cultural differences threaten to completely ruin the deal. At one time, Wharton had a small special course in international business. And now the entire MBA program is built around global issues. When cross-cultural transactions are made, the parties' attitudes toward linguistic differences, foreign customs, social norms, and religion can determine whether the parties will enter into a long-term, mutually beneficial business relationship or whether the transaction will be limited to a one-time, non-profit transaction.

Let's look at some examples.

A senior executive from a British company once told me about his first negotiations in Lebanon. At first everything went well, but in response to each of his concessions the other side did not reduce, but only increased their demands. A couple of months later, after several such excesses, our hero gave up, telling his counterparties that he was already sick of their antics and that he no longer wanted to have anything to do with them. Several days passed, the contractors called him and said that they had “serious” offers for him. He did not accept this gesture. A week later, the former partners got in touch again, saying that they were making a number of concessions that they had previously declared absolutely impossible. The Briton repeated that he was not interested in continuing the conversation. Having reached this place, the narrator sighed sadly. “I had only myself to blame for this failure,” he said. “I later learned that in that part of the world, refusing to negotiate further is the most common way to make it clear that you mean business.” If I had slammed the door two months earlier, these guys would have come to their senses sooner, and perhaps I would have been able to complete the deal.”

Cultural traditions may dictate the composition of the participants at the negotiating table. For example, sometimes the status of a participant matters. In some traditional societies, only people of equal status have the right to negotiate. In more democratic cultures, the criteria for selecting negotiators are the possession of the necessary knowledge and the right to make decisions. Such discrepancies can result in serious misunderstandings and failure of negotiations.

One New York woman lawyer from a reputable law firm went with the president of a large company to complex negotiations in Latin America. The president of the host firm soon called his New York partner to discuss business, and offered the lady lawyer a shopping trip in the company of his wife. The American was indignant: blatant sexism! However, before venting her anger, she called a male colleague in New York, and he explained that the last time he was in that country, he, too, was excluded from participating in preliminary negotiations. The president of the Latin American company was simply looking for a way to diplomatically get rid of the lawyer, not the woman at the negotiating table. It’s their custom, her friend explained to our heroine: lawyers negotiate with lawyers, and businessmen negotiate with businessmen. If the lawyer were to insist on participating in the conversation, she would ruin the case and lose the client’s trust.

Countless examples clearly show that cultural differences are a real minefield for a negotiator. The Tanzanian Arusha, gathering in the shade of the trees, are doing, in general, the same thing as the New York oligarchs, but the tone, rhythm, signs, signals and expected relationships of the participants are completely different. The health of our global economy depends on successfully navigating such cultural boundaries.

First, cultural differences are more about form than substance. That is, they introduce the possibility of misunderstandings in the messages that people exchange, but, no matter what country you are in, the mainsprings of negotiations are most often money, influence and risk. And the best way to avoid misunderstandings is to familiarize yourself with a foreign culture in advance, find a qualified translator, and use cultural connections that will help you navigate dangerous undercurrents.

Secondly, the main barrier for multicultural negotiators (besides language and customs) is the parties’ perception of the existing relationships between the participants. In the chapter on information sharing, I write in detail about how North America and Northern Europe negotiators focus heavily on the mechanics of the deal, and most Asian, Indian, Middle Eastern, African and Latin American negotiators put the social aspect, the relationships of the parties, at the forefront. As a Japanese student of mine once put it, “The Japanese tend to see business negotiations as a marriage arrangement that must end in a wedding. And the participants behave as if they are really organizing a wedding.” Western businessmen entering into negotiations with the Japanese or with representatives of other relationship-oriented cultures should view preliminary meetings and conversations in this context. Traditions of “pre-nuptial celebrations” may vary in the degree of ritualization, but in any culture, families use these events to look at potential relatives and gain their favor. If you want to successfully negotiate in relationship-oriented cultures, be patient and recognize that the deal (if it happens) is only a fragment of a much more complex structure.

From style to efficiency

People at the negotiating table cannot distance themselves from their personal characteristics, but everyone has the same goal: using all their personal qualities and talents, to reach an agreement as successfully as possible. A deft negotiator needs a tenacious memory, a well-spoken tongue, and the ability to cope with stress. However, success in negotiations depends on the position no less than on abilities. The best negotiators have four important ways of thinking that each of us, regardless of personal style, gender, or cultural background, can develop to improve our own negotiation skills. These are the features:

Willingness to do your homework;

High expectations;

Listening skills;

Impeccable honesty.

Let's look briefly at each.

"Homework"

Almost every book on negotiations emphasizes the key importance of the preparatory phase. Here's an example.

Several years ago, a colleague and I were studying negotiations over computer networks. We organized our network, which was supposed to help the parties achieve full agreement, and began testing. Hundreds of MBA students were given the same four-part buying and selling exercise. The group consisted of a "buyer" and a "seller". We familiarized half of the couples with the task and offered to start trading as soon as they were ready, while some had to bargain in person, others by email. These students typically took 10-15 minutes to prepare.

The other half had their task made more difficult: before bidding, they had to spend some time (usually 30-40 minutes) on homework - a series of actions on a computer network. After this, some were also traded face to face, and some were traded using a computer.

The results surprised us. Our advanced electronic communication method had little effect on the outcome of the auction. But the preparation - how! Students who resorted to a formalized preparation procedure, both in personal negotiations and in correspondence electronic ones, achieved better terms of the deal, not only for themselves, but for both parties.

High expectations

It is noteworthy that people with high expectations usually achieve a lot. Great expectations are formed as a combination of specific goals with a strong will to achieve them. Expectations are a consequence of unformulated, sometimes unconscious attitudes about what is fair and reasonable. The lack of clear expectations is an important flaw in the preparation for negotiations.

To be more successful in negotiations, you need to develop the habit of outlining the range of “reasonable and fair” outcomes that are possible for the situation being discussed. Then you should set the expectation that you will be able to move the situation as close to the high end of this spectrum as possible. At the end of any negotiation, you can always say where your expectations actually were. If you are sincerely disappointed that you did not reach a certain level, it means that your expectations met this level. If you are truly satisfied, then the matter ended as you expected, or better than that. A successful negotiator must set expectations high enough to be daring, but realistic enough to create a healthy working relationship between the parties.

Listening skills

The importance of this skill for a negotiator cannot be overestimated. Listening gives information, and information gives power.

People who tend to be cooperative have difficulty setting high expectations. And listening to the interlocutor requires significant effort from speakers of the competitive style. Aggressive negotiators spend most of their time either talking about what they want or thinking of a smart move to make so that the other party has to defend themselves. Masters of deals and agreements take a different tack: they ask questions, check for understanding, summarize discussions, and listen, listen, listen...

Impeccable Honesty

Successful negotiators are reliable people. They keep their word, try not to lie, and do not inspire others with expectations that they do not intend to justify.

This behavior is rational. A sophisticated negotiator values ​​his reputation. This is reasonable. When choosing a partner, will you do business with someone you can trust or someone who might try to cheat you?

Is it beneficial for you to be honest in negotiations? After all, not everyone innocently lays out everything they know. Does honesty mean that you should disclose your position? What if the other side simply forgets to ask an important question? Should you still give an answer? Finally, can you slightly embellish the benefits of your proposal and somewhat tone down the option proposed by your partners, regardless of what you really think?

Honesty in negotiations is more than a set of rules. Like high expectations, this is a special position. And everything plays a role here: personal relationships, social norms, traditions and negotiation etiquette. Thus, when I talk about integrity in negotiations, I mean that a successful negotiator is one who can be expected to behave consistently, dictated by a reasonable set of personal values ​​that that person can explain and defend when necessary. Obviously, this approach leaves a lot of room for personal interpretation of “what is good and what is bad.” But ambiguity certainly accompanies any human communication. The main thing is to maintain your good reputation and self-respect. Be reliable.

From Manhattan to Mount Meru

Before we end this chapter, let's return to our negotiators discussed at the beginning and see how it all ended. Both cases were resolved. We left both the oligarchs and Arusha at the stage of information exchange.

The symbolic gift and Jovanovic's acceptance speech made it clear to Smith that the partner was ready to cooperate and wanted the deal to happen. Smith gratefully accepted both the watch and the tacit recognition of his advantage, and in response made it clear that he was ready to meet him halfway. The first meeting of the businessmen and their advisers lasted until late in the evening. Jovanovic's welcoming gesture ensured good contact, and by listening carefully to each other, the parties immediately made rapid progress. Jovanovic's and Smith's approaches to problem solving complemented each other well. Within days, they had a draft agreement to merge and create a new company: Harcourt General Inc.

In the shadow of Mount Meru, two farmers argued until dusk. Finally, one of the elders proposed dividing the disputed land, demarcating it along a path that formed a natural border. After this, someone in the crowd shouted: “Does anyone have a goat?” There was a roar of approval from both groups. The disputants dispersed to confer with their henchmen. Crowd pressure grew, forcing an agreement.

Finally, a litigator came to the center of the circle and demanded a trial (the one whose son was beaten). “As a sign of friendship,” he said, “I offer my neighbor a kid as a gift.” And he added that he would also help pay for the repair of the damper and that he agreed to comply with the new boundary.

The owner of the damper replied that he would put out “some beer.” He also pledged to abide by the new treaty. The plaintiffs came to an agreement. Their public statements and the subsequent revelry should have cemented this fact. The entire village will remember this event and, if necessary, enforce the treaty.

Resume

Any negotiation starts with you. And therefore, the first basis for successful negotiations is your personal style, your own communication strategies. The foundation of your success is an honest assessment of your strengths and weaknesses.

Some people wide range"settings". They easily adapt to different situations and various opponents. Others have a narrower range of effective communication. Some people are strong when they need to compete, but get lost in situations where they have to compromise or adapt. Others are good at cooperating, but give in when they should stick to their line.

Many experts are trying to teach a universal set of negotiation techniques for all occasions. In my opinion, this is both useless and simply frivolous. Both people and situations are too diverse for such a primitive approach to be justified.

The negotiator’s task is to become aware of his style and preferences, to understand how they fit into this situation(we'll talk about this in Chapter 7), plan your actions at each of the four stages that any negotiation goes through, and try to succeed: do your homework, set high expectations, listen to your opponent, and act consistently.

Information theory of negotiations suggests that we achieve best outcome for ourselves and bring more benefits people who depend on us if we constantly seek important information about our partners and the situation. Success depends on correct use this information at different points in the negotiations.

Service for service (lat.).

Warner Communications is one of the stages in the history of the Warner Bros. film company. In 1989, Warner Communications merged with Time Inc. to form Time Warner.

Card game.

CNN - Cable News Network (English) - cable news network.

You Just Don't Understand: Women and Men in Conversation by Deborah Tannen, Ballantine, 1990.

Talking from 9 to 5: Women and Men at Work by Deborah Tannen, Avon, 1994.

In this context, a set of stereotypical reactions.

MBA (Master of Business Administration) is a qualifying degree in management.

Women Don't Ask: Negotiation and the Gender Divide by Linda Babcock, Sara Laschever, Princeton University Press, 2003.

Publishing Corporation.

Since cultural differences exist and can be measured because they operate at different levels, the question arises of how they affect negotiations. Drawing on the work of Weiss and Stripp, Foster, and others, we believe that culture can influence international negotiations in at least eight different ways.

2. Choice of negotiators. The criteria used to select a negotiator vary depending on the culture. These criteria may include knowledge of the subject of the negotiation, seniority, family connections, gender, age, experience and status. Different cultures value these criteria differently, leading to different expectations about what is appropriate for different types of negotiations.

3. Protocol. Cultures vary in the importance of protocol, or the formal relationship between two parties to a negotiation. American culture is one of the least formal cultures in the world. In general, a familiar style of communication is quite common; for example, they address each other by name, ignoring titles. In other cultures the situation is the opposite. Many European countries(France, Germany, England) are very formal, and not using the exact title (Mr., Doctor, Professor, Lord) when addressing someone is considered offensive. Formal business or business cards, common in many Pacific Rim countries (China, Japan), are almost mandatory for presentation there. Negotiators who forget to take business cards or use them for notes often grossly violate protocol and insult the counterparty. Even the manner in which a business card is presented and a handshake is exchanged, or dress requirements are met are subject to interpretation for the negotiator: all this can become the basis for judging the preparation and personality of the counterparty.

4. Communication. Culture influences the style of our communications - both verbal and non-verbal. There are also differences in body language across cultures: the same behavior may be considered offensive in one culture but completely harmless in another. To avoid offending the other party in international negotiations, negotiators must carefully adhere to cultural rules of communication. For example, if a negotiator puts his feet on the table in the US, it signals strength or relaxation; in Thailand this behavior is extremely offensive. There is certainly a lot of information on how to communicate that an international negotiator must keep in mind to avoid offending, angering or embarrassing the other party during negotiations. Cultural books and articles can offer international negotiators valuable advice on how to communicate in different contexts.

cultures; searching for such information is one of the main aspects when planning international negotiations.

5. Time. Different cultures define the meaning of time and its impact on negotiations very differently. In the United States, people tend to be time-conscious: they show up for meetings at the appointed time, try not to take up other people's time, and generally believe that "faster" is better than "slower" because it symbolizes high productivity. Other cultures have a completely different attitude towards time. In more traditional societies, especially in hot countries, the pace of life is slower than in the United States. This reduces time focus, at least in the short term. In other cultures, Americans are considered slaves to their watches because Americans closely monitor time and guard it as a valuable resource. In some cultures, such as China and Latin America, time "per se" is not important. Negotiations focus on the task at hand, no matter how long it takes. During intercultural negotiations, there is a high probability of misunderstanding due to different attitudes to time. Americans may be perceived as always rushing and jumping from one task to another, while Americans may perceive negotiators from China or Latin America as doing nothing and wasting their time.

6. Risk appetite. Cultures vary in their willingness to take risks. Some cultures tend to produce bureaucratic, conservative decision makers who want a lot of information before making a decision. Other cultures produce more adventurous negotiators, more willing to take action and take risks with insufficient information (e.g., “No risk, no champagne”). According to Foster, Americans occupy the risk region of the continuum, as do some Asian cultures (e.g., the “dragon” countries), and some European cultures are quite conservative (Greece). The culture's orientation to risk significantly influences the subject of negotiations and the content of their results. Negotiators in a risk-oriented culture tend to get straight to the point and tend to take more risks. Risk-averse cultures tend to seek additional information and take a wait-and-see approach.

7. Group and personality. Cultures differ in whether they place more importance on the individual or society. United States- Very personality-oriented culture, where they appreciate and approve independence and perseverance . Group-oriented cultures, on the other hand, espouse the supremacy of the group and view the needs of the individual as secondary to the needs of the group. Group-oriented cultures value similarities and reward dedicated team players; those who dare to stand out are ostracized - a high price to pay in a group-oriented society. Such cultural differences can impact negotiations differently. Americans tend to place responsibility for the final decision on one individual, whereas group-oriented cultures - e.g. Chinese- prefer group responsibility for such a decision. Decision making in group-oriented cultures involves consensus and may require significantly more time than is typical for American negotiators. Moreover, since negotiations in group-oriented cultures may involve large number participants and, since their participation may be sequential rather than simultaneous, US negotiators may face a series of discussions on the same issues and materials with multiple different persons. One of the authors of this book, during negotiations in China, met day after day with more than half a dozen different people, discussing the same thing with different negotiators until the negotiations ended.

8. Nature of the agreement . Culture also has an important influence on both the making of an agreement and the form that agreement takes. In the United States, agreements are usually based on logic (for example, a low-budget producer entering into a deal), often formalized, and enforced in the event of a breach of obligation by the legal system. In other cultures, however, making a deal may be based on who you are (for example, your family or political connections) more than on what you can do. Moreover, conventions do not mean the same thing in all cultures. Foster notes that the Chinese often use a memorandum of agreement to formalize the relationship and signal the beginning of negotiations (mutual favor and willingness to compromise). Americans, however, often interpret such a memorandum of agreement as the end of negotiations - an outcome that can be enforced in court. Again, culturally different understandings of how to negotiate an agreement and what exactly an agreement means can lead to confusion and misunderstanding in cross-border negotiations.

Negotiation models.

Negotiation is defined as a discussion between people to reach a conclusion that is acceptable to one and all. A process where people do not fight among themselves, but sit together assessing the pros and cons, and then come out with an alternative that would be acceptable to everyone.

Model win win.- In this model, every person participating in the negotiations wins. No one loses anything in this model and everyone benefits from the negotiations. This is the most acceptable negotiation model.

Model loss win.- In this model, one side wins and the other side loses. In such a model, after several rounds of discussions and negotiations, one party has an advantage while all participants are still dissatisfied.

Model lose lose.- As the name suggests, in this model, the result of negotiations is zero. Neither party benefits from this model.

RADPAC Negotiation Model.

The RADPAC negotiation model is a widely used negotiation model in companies.

Each letter in this model means something:

R - Mutual Understanding: As the name suggests, it means the relationship between the parties involved in the negotiation. The parties involved in negotiations should ideally be comfortable with each other in order to have good relationship with each other.

A - Analysis: One side must understand the other side. It is important that individuals understand each other's needs. The shop owner should understand the needs of the customer and his pocket capacity, in the same way the customer should not ignore the profit of the store owner. People must listen to each other carefully.

D - Debate: Nothing can be achieved without discussion. This round involves discussion of issues between stakeholders during negotiations. This round evaluates the pros and cons of ideas. People debating with each other are trying to convince the other. You don't need to lose your temper this round, you need to stay calm.

P - Suggestions: Everyone offers their own best ideas in this round. Everyone tries their best to come up with the best presentation and reach a conclusion that is acceptable to everyone.

A - Agreement: At this stage, people come to a conclusion and agree with the best alternative.

C - Closing: The negotiations are over and the persons return satisfied.

Introduction………………………………………………………………………………….....3

1. Business communication general provisions……………………………..…..4

2.Styles of business negotiations…………………………………….…….7

3.Culture of business negotiations…………………………………….13

4. The importance of business communication……………………………………………………17

Conclusion……………………………………………………………19

List of references………………………………….….20

Introduction

Business negotiations can be defined as an exchange of views for the purpose of reaching a mutually acceptable agreement. Negotiations as a phenomenon of business life should include not only coordinated and organized contacts of interested parties in a certain way, but also a meeting, conversation, telephone conversation (telephone conversations).

Negotiations are usually started when there is a mutual desire to find a mutually beneficial solution to the problem, to maintain business contacts and friendly relations, when there is no clear and precise regulation for solving the problems that have arisen, when for one reason or another a legal solution is not possible, when the parties realize that any Unilateral action becomes unacceptable or impossible.

Business negotiations are not only an area of ​​business expansion, but also the most important part, forming and effectively supporting its image. Successful and professional negotiations expand the positive information field about the company and help attract the attention of potential clients and partners to it.

Unfortunately, the role of business negotiations in modern domestic entrepreneurship is not yet high. It is also obvious that in the business community there is a growing awareness of the importance of negotiations in the development of any business and an understanding of the role and importance of improving the culture of negotiations.

1. Business communication general provisions.

The ability to behave appropriately with people is one of the most important, if not the most important, factor determining the chances of achieving success in business, employment or entrepreneurial activity. Dale Carnegie noted back in the 30s that the success of a person in his financial affairs, even in the technical field or engineering, depends by fifteen percent on his professional knowledge and eighty-five percent on his ability to communicate with people in this context The attempts of many researchers to formulate and substantiate the basic principles of ethics of business communication or, as they are more often called in the West, the commandments of personal public relation (can be very roughly translated as “business etiquette”) are easily explained. Jen Yager, in her book Business Etiquette: How to Survive and Thrive in the World of Business, outlines the following six basic principles:

Punctuality (do everything on time). Only the behavior of a person who does everything on time is normative. Being late interferes with work and is a sign that the person cannot be relied upon. The principle of doing everything on time applies to all work assignments. Experts who study the organization and distribution of working time recommend adding an extra 25 percent to the time that, in your opinion, is required to complete the assigned work.

Confidentiality (don't talk too much). Secrets of an institution, corporation, or specific transaction must be kept as carefully as secrets of a personal nature. There is also no need to retell to anyone what you heard from a colleague, manager or subordinate about their work activities or personal life.

Courtesy, friendliness and friendliness. In any situation, it is necessary to behave with clients, clients, customers and co-workers politely, affably and kindly. This, however, does not mean the need to be friends with everyone with whom you have to communicate on duty.

Consideration for others (think about others, not just yourself). Attention to others should extend to colleagues, superiors and subordinates. Respect the opinions of others, try to understand why they have a particular point of view. Always listen to criticism and advice from colleagues, superiors and subordinates. When someone questions the quality of your work, show that you value other people's thoughts and experiences. Self-confidence shouldn't stop you from being humble.

Appearance. The main approach is to fit into your work environment, and within this environment - into the contingent of workers at your level. You need to look your best, that is, dress with taste, choosing colors that suit your face. Important have carefully selected accessories.

Literacy (speak and write in good language). Internal documents or letters sent outside the institution must be written in good language, and all proper names must be conveyed without errors. You cannot use swear words. Even if you just quote another person’s words, others will perceive them as part of your own vocabulary.

Business (official, official) communication, depending on the circumstances, can be direct or indirect. In the first case, it takes place through direct contact between the subjects of communication, and in the second, through correspondence or technical means.

Both in the process of direct and indirect communication are used various methods influence or impact on people. Among the most common of them are the following: persuasion, suggestion, coercion.

Persuasion is influence through evidence, logical ordering of facts and conclusions. It implies confidence in the correctness of one’s position, in the truth of one’s knowledge, and in the ethical justification of one’s actions. Persuasion is a non-violent, and therefore morally preferable, method of influencing communication partners.

Suggestion, as a rule, does not require evidence and logical analysis of facts and phenomena to influence people. It is based on a person’s faith, which develops under the influence of authority, social status, charm, intellectual and volitional superiority of one of the subjects of communication. The power of example plays a major role in suggestion, causing conscious copying of behavior, as well as unconscious imitation.

Coercion is the most violent method of influencing people. It involves the desire to force a person to behave contrary to his wishes and beliefs, using the threat of punishment or other influence that can lead to undesirable consequences for the individual. Coercion can only be ethically justified in exceptional cases.

The choice of method of influencing people is influenced by a variety of factors, including the nature, content and situation of communication (usual, extreme), social or official position (powers) and personal qualities of the subjects of communication.

2.Styles of business negotiations.

It is well known that speech is a form of communication based on certain rules through linguistic constructions. Modern speech did not appear at one moment, it was formed over a huge period of time and continues to form now.

IN modern world Speech plays a huge role in the life of any person. Through speech, we learn about the world around us, pass on our knowledge and experience to each other, and accumulate them for transmission to future generations.

One of the most widespread types of communication in the world is business communication, in which people exchange business information and work experience. As a rule, the goal of business communication is to achieve a specific result, solve a specific problem.

Business communication can be divided into direct (immediate contact) and indirect (there is a certain spatio-temporal distance in the communication process). Direct communication is a type of oral form of communication, whereas indirect communication is a type of written communication.

Direct communication is undoubtedly more effective due to the possibility of emotional influence and suggestion, but indirect communication cannot have such a strong result, certain socio-psychological mechanisms operate in it. Direct communication usually occurs in the form of a conversation, negotiation, meeting, visit, public speaking. Such communication can be either dialogical or monological. Indirect communication typically includes external business correspondence and internal or internal business correspondence.

The most important distinctive feature The difference between business communication and informal communication is the fact that in the process of business communication certain tasks and certain goals are set that require appropriate permission. It is this circumstance that does not allow stopping business communication (for example, the negotiation process) at any time, at least this cannot be done without losses in obtaining information for both parties. Whereas in ordinary friendly communication there is almost never a goal to achieve certain results, therefore such communication can be stopped (at the request of both parties) at any time. Fears of the impossibility of restoring the communication process again are minimal.

Difficulties in negotiations are often caused by differences in national cultures. It is common to distinguish cultures in which spoken words are perceived with little or no regard for possible hidden meaning. These are the so-called cultures with low level context. These include, for example, American and German. In other cultures, in particular Persian, French, Japanese, the importance of context is very high. Sometimes the meaning hidden in words can change what is said to the exact opposite.

It is a fairly common opinion that it is easier to negotiate with representatives of the same race, and even more so of the same nationality. However, this is not always the case. Scientists have come to the conclusion that the closer the peoples are to each other ethnically, the more significant the differences in views on this or that problem seem to them (note how difficult Russian-Ukrainian negotiations are). But the more different peoples are ethnically, the more significant will be the differences of opinion for their representatives.

It is necessary to take into account where the negotiator was born, educated, lives and currently works. So a Japanese person living in the USA and negotiating on behalf of American company, to a certain extent, can retain the features inherent in the Japanese national character, and this will influence his behavior in negotiations. However, in general, his negotiating style will be more American, since the formation of his personality was greatly influenced by the environment in which he was raised. All of the above and below can help predict the behavior of your business partner.

1 American style of business negotiations.

American culture is relatively young when compared to many European, Asian, or Middle Eastern cultures. Americans have introduced a significant element of democracy and pragmatism into the practice of business communication. From early childhood, Americans rely only on themselves. They are self-sufficient and independent.

When solving a problem, the Americans strive to discuss not only general approaches, but also details related to the implementation of agreements. They value openness and honesty in people, and quickly get to the point without wasting time on formalities. They often show egocentrism, believing that the negotiating partner must certainly be guided by the same rules as themselves. They do not like interruptions in conversation, they value punctuality in people, they always come to the appointed meeting on time and believe that lateness is unacceptable and cannot be justified in any way, and therefore is perceived especially sharply by them. Often, a representative of a given nationality perceives being late as a personal insult.

Their usual duration of negotiations is from half an hour to an hour and preferably one on one.

The American delegation always exerts tough pressure and persistently tries to realize its goals.

2 Chinese style of business negotiations.

The Chinese are very attentive to two things during business meetings: collecting information related to the subject of negotiations and creating a “spirit of friendship.” In fact, they simply identify it with good personal relations between negotiating partners.

The Chinese tend to clearly distinguish between the individual stages of business meetings: the initial clarification of positions, their discussion and the final stage of negotiations.

When negotiating with them, you can hardly expect them to be the first to “reveal their cards.” They usually make concessions only at the very end of the meeting. Moreover, this happens at a time when it seems that the negotiations have reached a dead end. The Chinese finally come to an agreement with their partner not at the negotiating table, but at home. At the same time, it should not be ruled out that at the very last moment they will try to introduce amendments and reservations that are beneficial to themselves into the already initialed agreements.

It should be borne in mind that the Chinese are big fans of delaying negotiations and this process can last from several days to several months.

During greetings in China, it is customary to shake hands. They pay great attention to the appearance of partners, their manner of behavior, and relationships within the delegation. The Chinese attach great importance to establishing informal, personal relationships with partners. It is better to give gifts not to a specific person, but to the entire organization, because... local regulations may prohibit the acceptance of personal gifts.

3 German style of business negotiations.

Germans prefer to start negotiations if they are firmly confident that they will come to some kind of agreement with their partner. They value punctuality very much and are known for their pedantry, therefore, when negotiating with them, it is necessary to strictly adhere to protocol. They work out their position very carefully, preferring to discuss issues sequentially: without finishing one, they are unlikely to agree to move on to the next.

At the same time, they love neatness and precision in everything, so everything should be neatly laid out on the negotiating table. Questions must be carefully prepared, written in advance on special paper.

Germans value honesty and directness. They love to give facts and examples. They are partial to numbers, to diagrams, to diagrams. When negotiating with them, you must be logical in your argumentation and accurate in your presentation of facts.

Business connections with German companies can be established by exchanging letters with proposals for cooperation.

When concluding deals, they will insist on strict fulfillment of accepted obligations, as well as payment of high fines in case of non-fulfillment.

It is advisable to take into account the Germans' commitment to titles. To do this, you need to clarify all the titles of business partners before the start of negotiations. You should address them by their last name, for example, “Mr. Bauer,” and not by their first name, as is customary among Americans. In Germany, it is very rare to invite business partners home. If you receive such an invitation, then do not forget a bouquet of flowers for the hostess of the house.

4. Japanese style of business negotiations.

The Japanese are hardworking, traditional, disciplined, polite and neat. From childhood, they are brought up in the spirit of “group solidarity”, they learn to suppress their individualistic impulses, restrain their ambitions, and not show off their strong qualities. Japanese morality considers bonds of mutual dependence to be the basis of relationships between people. Therefore, Japanese entrepreneurs are accustomed to judging a partner primarily by his membership in a particular group or faction.

The Japanese are punctual and are almost never late for a meeting. They are extremely scrupulous and take their obligations very seriously. Preliminary negotiations are considered as a mandatory step and are not inclined to do it without receiving comprehensive information about the partner and his proposals. Patience in Japan is considered one of the main virtues, so discussions of business issues often begin with minor details and proceed very, very slowly.

It is the tradition of Japanese business people to listen carefully to the point of view of the interlocutor to the end, without interrupting him or making any comments. As a result, at the first stages of negotiations it is often impossible to predict what opinion Japanese businessmen will hold on the substance of the issue during subsequent discussions. A Japanese representative may nod his head several times during a conversation, but this does not mean that he agrees with you, but only indicates that he understood the meaning of what was said.

When the Japanese are faced with an obvious concession from their partners, they often respond in kind. Their morality divides actions not into good and bad, but into those that are appropriate and inappropriate for the moment, so the Japanese take it for granted that an agreement with a partner is valid only as long as the conditions under which it was reached remain.

No pressure is acceptable when negotiating with the Japanese. Physical contact must be avoided - a handshake is not advisable.
The most important element of the rules of good manners is bowing. Upon presentation they will be awarded business cards. They must be received with both hands and must be read as a sign of respect.

3.Culture of business negotiations.

During the same day, a person changes many roles: he is a leader and a subordinate, an employee and a passenger, a husband and a father, a brother and a son. Each of these roles involves its own style of behavior; in each of them, a person chooses special gestures, postures, words, intonations, i.e. in other words - politeness.

Politeness begins where expediency ends, although politeness undoubtedly contains expediency of a higher order. Etiquette behavior always presupposes a certain redundancy, and its artistic and aesthetic character is largely connected with this. Strictly speaking, only behavior that involves the possibility of choice can be recognized as etiquette. We can draw the following parallel: if a car driver waits for us to cross the street when the light is green, it is absurd to call his behavior etiquette, he is simply following the rules of the street; but if a driver stops his car in the middle of the street, inviting a pedestrian to cross the road in front of him, then his action can be called etiquette.

During a conversation, the main rule is unconditional respect for the interlocutor. In most cases, good manners do not allow discussing money matters, physical defects, or illness of the interlocutor or others. As a rule, the conversation should not concern others; topics that could give rise to accusations of slander should be avoided. It is unacceptable to make personal attacks or hostile remarks towards the interlocutor.

You should avoid speaking in a raised voice, and tactfully avoid topics and questions during the discussion of which you or your interlocutor may “flare up.” In a conversation, try to avoid being edifying, showing inattention to what the interlocutor said, or trying to hastily “evaluate” what he said. At the same time, those who are always ready to immediately agree with any statement leave a bad impression.

A skillful interlocutor will always find the opportunity to let someone speak, directing the essence of the conversation with short remarks. The ability to listen and pause is highly valued in society. A skillful interlocutor will not argue, speak in an orderly or threatening tone, and will try not to give intrusive advice.

It is advisable to concentrate your attention as much as possible on the interlocutor, to respond to what he said with an interjection or remark. Inattention can be seen as arrogance and tactlessness.

In most cases of communication in protocol situations, you should not hold the interlocutor’s attention for more than ten minutes - otherwise you may be considered an annoying person. Try to gradually update the circle of interlocutors, involving them in the conversation and switching to new topics that interest them.

A protracted conversation can, in most cases, be stopped under the pretext of pouring a glass of water, replenishing the supply of snacks on the plate, making a phone call, etc. In this work, after introductory information, we will look at the latter in more detail - talking on the phone.

Based on the method of information exchange, a distinction is made between oral and written business communication.

Oral types of business communication, in turn, are divided into monological and dialogical.

Monologue types include:

Welcome speech;

Information speech;

Report (at a meeting, meeting).

Dialogical types:

A business conversation is a short-term contact, mainly on one topic.

A business conversation is a lengthy exchange of information and points of view, often accompanied by decision-making.

Negotiations are discussions with the aim of concluding an agreement on any issue.

An interview is a conversation with a journalist intended for print, radio, and television.

Discussion;

Meeting (meeting);

Press conference.

Contact business conversation- direct, “live” dialogue.

Telephone conversation (distant), excluding non-verbal communication.

In direct contact and direct conversation highest value have oral and non-verbal communication.

Conversation or sending messages by telephone are the most common forms of communication; they are distinguished by direct contact and a wide variety of communication methods, which makes it possible to easily combine the business (formal) and personal (informal) parts of any message.

Material - exchange of objects and products of activity;

Cognitive - knowledge sharing;

Motivational - exchange of motivations, goals, interests, motives, needs;

Activity - exchange of actions, operations, skills.

By means of communication it is possible to divide into the following four types:

Direct - carried out with the help of natural organs given to a living being: arms, head, torso, vocal cords, etc.;

Indirect - related to use special means and guns;

Direct - involves personal contacts and direct perception of communicating people by each other in the very act of communication;

Indirect - carried out through intermediaries, who may be other people.

4. The importance of business communication.

Business communication these days penetrates into all spheres of public life. Enterprises of all types and forms of ownership, as well as individuals as private entrepreneurs, enter commercial and business spheres of life. Competence in the field of business communication is directly related to success or failure in every field: science, art, production, trade. As for managers, businessmen, production organizers, people involved in management, private entrepreneurs, communicative competence, that is, the ability to respond adequately in any situation during communication for representatives of these professions, is one of the most important components of their professional appearance.

A manager is a professional communicator, i.e. a person for whom speech activity is the most important component professional activity. Communications in a manager’s activity occupy more than 60% of working time. Therefore, a sufficient degree of communicative competence is necessary condition successful activities of a manager in any direction. Moreover, we are talking about a special type of communication, controlled communication.

“Business is the ability to talk to people,” say enterprising Americans. One of the outstanding US managers, president of the world's largest auto giant, Ford and Chrysler, Lee Iacocca, in his book “Manager's Career” writes: “Management is nothing more than setting people up to work. The only way to get people excited about activity is to communicate with them.”

The ability to behave appropriately with people is one of the most important, if not the most important, factor determining the chances of achieving success in business, employment or entrepreneurial activity. Dale Carnegie noted back in the 30s that the success of a person in his financial affairs, even in the technical field or engineering, depends by fifteen percent on his professional knowledge and eighty-five percent on his ability to communicate with people.

In this context, the attempts of many researchers to formulate and substantiate the basic principles of business communication ethics or, as they are more often called in the West, the commandments of personal public relation (can be very roughly translated as “business etiquette”) are easily understandable.

Conclusion

So, having completed this work, we came to the conclusion that business communication is a process of verbal interaction between people in which activities, information and experience are exchanged in order to achieve a certain result. It is an integral part of our life and has its own rules and techniques.

And we can distinguish three forms of business communication:

1. Business conversation - oral contact between interlocutors. Its participants must have the authority to accept and consolidate the positions developed. The functions of a business conversation include: solving problems facing the participants, communication between employees of the same business environment, maintaining and developing business contacts.

2. Business correspondence - a business letter (an official message in the form of an official document, as well as in the form of requests, proposals, claims, congratulations and responses to them).

When composing a business letter, you need it to be relevant, concise, logical, persuasive and without being too overbearing.

3. A business meeting is a discussion with the aim of resolving organizational problems, including the collection and analysis of information, as well as decision-making.

List of used literature

1. Business communication: training manual. Korobeynikova L.S., Kupryushina O.M. - Voronezh: VSU Business School, 2004

2. Corporate culture: training manual. I.N. Kuznetsov-Minsk: Book House, Misanta, 2006

3. Business communication culture: practical guide. Kuzin F.A. - M.: Os-89, 2002

4. Preparation for negotiations. Fischer R., Ertel D. - M.: Filin, 1996

By clicking on the "Download archive" button, you will download the file you need completely free of charge.
Before downloading this file, think about those good essays, tests, term papers, dissertations, articles and other documents that are lying unclaimed on your computer. This is your work, it should participate in the development of society and benefit people. Find these works and submit them to the knowledge base.
We and all students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

To download an archive with a document, enter a five-digit number in the field below and click the "Download archive" button

##### ## ### #### ###
# # # # # # #
# # # #### ### # #
# ##### # # # # #
# # ### #### ###

Enter the number shown above:

Similar documents

Rules for constructing a business conversation. Written types of business communication. Classification, planning of meetings. Abstract types of interlocutors. Stages and phases of business communication. Telephone conversation technique. Ethical standards for telephone conversation.

course work, added 02/17/2010


History of the development of the principles of ethics in business communication. Factors accompanying a successful business conversation. Rules regarding clothing and appearance, verbal etiquette. Greetings during official introductions. Culture of business communication over the phone.

course work, added 12/09/2009


Patterns and tactics of business communication. Socio-psychological analysis of communication. Etiquette and culture of behavior of a business person. Business etiquette. Modern views on the place of ethics in business communication. Ethical principles of business communication.

course work, added 12/12/2006


History of etiquette. Principles of business etiquette. Features of business communication as a special form of communication. Norms, methods, techniques for conducting business negotiations. Etiquette observed in letters. Business communication culture. Basic provisions of telephone conversations.

thesis, added 10/31/2010


Ethics is a philosophical science whose object of study is morality. Business communication. Influence personal qualities for communication. Ethics and psychology business conversations and negotiations. Communication styles in business. Ethics of struggle and competition.

course of lectures, added 09/07/2007


Significance and components business culture, its external and internal signs. The main categories of ethics, the essence of morality as a regulator of business relations. Norms professional ethics and business etiquette. Rules of conduct in the process of business communication.

abstract, added 12/10/2013


Etiquette - important side professional behavior. Basic rules and principles of modern business etiquette. Suit as most suitable shape business clothes for men and women. Rules for communicating by phone. Moral content of communication techniques.

test, added 01/23/2011

Negotiations are more formal, specific in nature and, as a rule, involve the signing of documents defining the mutual obligations of the parties (agreements, contracts, etc.).

The main elements of preparation for negotiations: determining the subject (problems) of negotiations, searching for partners to solve them, understanding your interests and the interests of partners, developing a plan and program for negotiations, selecting specialists for the delegation, resolving organizational issues and registration necessary materials- documents, drawings, tables, diagrams, samples of offered products, etc.).

The course of negotiations fits into the following scheme: beginning of a conversation - exchange of information - argumentation and counter-argumentation - development and adoption of decisions - completion of negotiations.

The first stage of the negotiation process can be an introductory meeting (conversation), during which the subject of negotiations is clarified, organizational issues are resolved, or a meeting of experts that precedes negotiations with the participation of leaders and members of delegations. The success of negotiations as a whole largely depends on the results of such preliminary contacts. Six basic rules for establishing relations between partners in preliminary negotiations and recommendations for their implementation, offered by American experts, deserve attention. These rules, by the way, retain their significance during negotiations.

• 1. Rationality. It is necessary to behave with restraint. Uncontrolled emotions negatively affect the negotiation process and the ability to make reasonable decisions.
• 2. Understanding. Inattention to the partner's point of view limits the possibility of developing mutually acceptable solutions.
• 3. Communication. If your partners do not show much interest, still try to consult with them. This will help maintain and improve relationships.
• 4. Credibility. False information weakens the strength of argumentation and also adversely affects reputation.
• 5. Avoid a mentoring tone. It is unacceptable to lecture your partner. The main method is persuasion.
• 6. Acceptance. Try to accept the other side and be open to learning something new from your partner.

The most optimal days for negotiations are Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday. The most favorable time of the day is half an hour to an hour after lunch, when thoughts about food do not distract from solving business issues. A favorable environment for negotiations can be created, depending on the circumstances, in your office, a partner’s representative office or on a neutral territory (conference room, hotel room suitable for negotiations, restaurant hall, etc.).

The success of negotiations is largely determined by the ability to ask questions and receive comprehensive answers to them. Questions are used to control the progress of negotiations and clarify the opponent's point of view. Asking the right questions helps you make the decision you want. Successful conduct of business conversations and negotiations largely depends on partners’ compliance with such ethical standards and principles as accuracy, honesty, correctness and tact, the ability to listen (attention to other people’s opinions), and specificity.

Accuracy. One of the most important ethical standards inherent in a business person. The terms of the agreement must be observed to the minute. Any delay indicates your unreliability in business.

Honesty. It includes not only fidelity to accepted obligations, but also openness in communication with a partner, direct business answers to his questions.

Correctness and tact. Does not exclude persistence and energy in negotiations while maintaining correctness. Factors that interfere with the flow of the conversation should be avoided: irritation, mutual attacks, incorrect statements, etc.

The ability to listen. Listen carefully and with concentration. Don't interrupt the speaker.

Specificity. The conversation should be specific, not abstract, and include facts, figures and necessary details. Concepts and categories must be agreed upon and understandable to partners. The speech must be supported by diagrams and documents.

The farewell should be such that, with a view to the future, it allows you to maintain contact and business ties. An important point in negotiations are emotions that need to be suppressed using the so-called “blowing off steam” method, which allows you to free yourself from feelings of anger and fear that arise in disputes. In addition, apologies, expressions of regret, handshakes, and inexpensive gifts relieve a hostile situation.