Midterm GTLVH

1
What is Cross-Cultural
Communication?
Summary
Influence of various disciplines on cultural studies

Language and thought debate
Semiotics
Definitions of culture
Corporate culture
Communication styles
Barriers to effective cross-cultural communication
Problems of cross-cultural communication
Perception, reality and stereotypes
What influences our cross-cultural effectiveness?
Introduction
This first chapter looks at the influence of other disciplines on cultural

studies. It examines different definitions of ‘culture’ and ‘communication’
and looks at key areas of cultural diversity in visible behaviour and underlying
values. It analyses strategies for optimizing successful communication
with people of other cultures and overcoming the barriers to cross-cultural
communication.
Many cross-cultural relationships break down because of failures in com-
munication. This is not just due to speaking different languages, although
that is certainly part of the problem; it is also due to different understand-
ings of communication itself. In Chapter 4 we examine the role of the
English language as arguably the prime medium of international commu-
nication worldwide. In this chapter we examine the role of communication
itself in facilitating or hindering international exchange.
1
2 Cross-Cultural Communication
Cross-cultural communication is a multifaceted subject which has

elements from a number of disciplines:
• anthropology;
• linguistics;
• philosophy;
• psychology.
Cross-cultural communication is about the way people from different cul-

tures communicate when they deal with each other either at a distance or
face to face. Communication can involve spoken and written language,
body language and the language of etiquette and protocol.
In essence there are two main schools of research:
a) the Theory and Research (sociology and communications) school;

b) the Theory into Practice school (an interdisciplinary approach using
psychology, anthropology, sociology and linguistics).
How linguistics influences communication
The key influences are the study of semiotics, the study of signs, and the study
of the relationship between language and thought and language and culture.
There are three interrelated questions:
• Does the way we use language influence the way we think?

• Does the way we think influence the language we use?
• Does culture influence language or is it the other way round?
Semiotics
Semiotics was introduced by the Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure

(1857–1913). It is defined as ‘the study of signs and symbols and their use
in interpretation’ (Oxford English Dictionary). Saussure put forward the idea
that language is a cultural phenomenon and that it produces meaning in a
special way. He developed the theory that any linguistic item such as a word
represents a sign. A sign has three basic characteristics: it has a concrete
form, it refers to something other than itself and it is recognized by other
people as a sign. The physical form of a sign he called the ‘signifier’. The
mental association it refers to is the ‘signified’.
To illustrate the concept, we can take the word ‘friend’. A friend may
mean someone who is not hostile to you, someone with whom you have
a friendly association, a close lifelong buddy or someone who opposes the
same things that you do. Similarly, the word ‘boyfriend’ or ‘girlfriend’ may
signify a person you are going out with or in other countries simply a friend
What is Cross-Cultural Communication? 3
with no sexual connotation at all. The point is that ‘friend’ is a common

word in all languages, but has very different connotations according to the
society that uses it. Therefore, part of cultural study is to find out whether
the same words mean the same thing in different cultures.
Language and thought
The first academic cultural studies were carried out by anthropologists in the
mid-nineteenth and early twentieth centuries and were centred in the USA
on the Native Americans. They wanted to understand the cultures of the
rapidly disappearing Native-American tribes and, in particular, the study of
their languages. They attempted to answer the question ‘which came first,
language or thought?’. Was it the cultural features which then gave rise to
the language needed to express them or did the language itself condition
how people thought about their society? If the language came first, did
that limit how people thought about their society? Briefly summarized, the
debate is whether language determines what we experience and how we see
the world or whether our experience of the world determines how we think
about it and how we then express it.
There has been much debate as to which comes first, that is, language or
thought. This debate was continued by the American linguists and anthro-
pologists Edward Sapir and his pupil Benjamin-Lee Whorf, who also had a
special interest in American-Indian languages. They developed the Sapir-
Whorf Hypothesis, which was based on linguistic determinism, in other
words the proposition that language determines the way we think and
speak. Sapir emphasized that the real world is, to a large extent, built upon
the language habits of the group. We see, hear and otherwise experience as
we do because of the language habits of our community, which predispose
us towards certain choices of interpretation.
The cultural anthropologist and ethnologist Franz Boas established the
link between language and behaviour from his studies of native American
communities. He concluded that: ‘The peculiar characteristics of languages
are clearly reflected in the views and customs of the people of the world’
(Boas, 1938: 31). He maintained that it was necessary to view the world
around us through the eyes of other cultures if we really wanted to under-
stand it.
However, Noam Chomsky (1975) supports the existence of linguistic uni-
versals (universal grammar), but rejects the existence of cultural universals.
Chomsky is supported by Steven Pinker, who resists the idea that language
shapes thought.
Modern linguists tend to put the emphasis on the potential for thinking
to be influenced rather than unavoidably determined by language. The
American researcher Lena Boroditsky (2001) also criticizes the polarization
of thought which leads to thinking that one feature influences the other. She
maintains that there is a symbiotic relationship between language and the

way we think about culture, with each constantly influencing the other.
In the language versus culture debate, it is clear that sharing a language
implies sharing a culture; for example, in Belgium, where Flemish and
French are the main shared languages, the scores of the Flemish and French-
speaking regions are on Hofstede’s four dimensions of culture (see Chapter 2)
very similar to each other, but different from those of the Netherlands.
Without knowing the language well, one misses a lot of the subtleties
of a culture, for example, humour, and one is forced to remain a relative
outsider. Therefore, in the cross-cultural encounter, experienced travellers
recognize that it is prudent to avoid jokes and irony until they are sure of
the other culture’s perception of what represents acceptable humour: ‘The
essence of effective cross-cultural communication has more to do with
releasing the right responses than sending the right message’ (Hall and
Hall, 1990: 4).
Definitions of culture
ART? MUSIC?
LITERATURE? HUMOUR?
FOOD? LANGUAGE?
VALUES? ATTITUDES?
CUSTOMS? ETIQUETTE?
Figure 1.1 Culture – what is it?
As we might expect, there are many definitions of culture. Some of these

include the following:
• ‘Culture is man-made, confirmed by others, conventionalized … It provides

people with a meaningful context in which to meet, to think about
themselves and face the other world’ (Trompenaars, 2000: 3).
• ‘A shared system of meanings. It dictates what we pay attention to, how
we act and what we value’ (Trompenaars, 1993: 13).
• ‘Each cultural world operates according to its own internal dynamics,
its own principles and its own laws – written and unwritten. Even time
and space are unique to each culture. There are, however, some common
threads that run through all cultures’ (Hall and Hall, 1990: 3).
It would seem that a comprehensive workable definition of culture is based

on the belief that its value systems lie at its core. These are what defines a
particular culture. It includes its norms of behaviour, beliefs, aesthetic stand-
ards, patterns of thinking and styles of communication which a particular
group of people have developed over time to ensure their survival.
Culture is therefore socially, and not biologically, constructed. Individuals

are socialized into a particular culture and their individuality is developed
within the overall context of that culture. All people carry within them
patterns of thinking, feeling and behavioural responses which have been
learned throughout their lifetime. Much of this is acquired during early
childhood, when a person is most susceptible to learning and assimilating.
We can summarize these definitions to say that culture is a system of
shared beliefs and values which are learned rather than inherited. It is com-
posed of those values and beliefs, norms, symbols and ideologies that make
up the total way of life of a people. Culture has also been defined as a form
of ‘map’ which each of us has implanted in us by the society into which we
are born. This ‘map’ defines reality, sets the guidelines for behaviour, thus
developing our value system, and establishes the rules for problem solving
or explaining events that are not normally encountered.
In most Western languages, ‘culture’ is taken to mean ‘civilization’,
‘education’, ‘art’. This is culture in a narrow sense. However, culture is also
a form of mental programming. As soon as certain patterns of thinking,
feeling and behaviour have been established, for the individual to learn
something different, the old patterns need to be unlearned. These patterns
of thinking, feeling and behaviour can indeed be described as a form of
mental programming, using a computer analogy, and have been called
‘mental software’, extending the analogy. Indeed, Hofstede describes cul-
ture as: ‘The collective programming of the mind, which distinguishes the
members of one group or category of people from another’ (1994: 5). What
we ‘learn’ is, in fact, modified by the influence of ‘collective program-
ming’ (that is, culture) as well as by our own unique personal experiences
throughout life.
A useful method is to divide culture into implicit culture – basic assumptions
which produce norms and values which show in the explicit culture –
observable reality which includes language, food, music, dress, literature,
architecture, public emotion, work ethic, noise, physical contact and so on.
Oberg’s iceberg analogy
The Danish writer Kalvero Oberg (1960) uses the analogy of an iceberg to
describe visible and invisible culture. Visible culture is what appears above
the waves, for example, the explicit culture referred to above. This can be
relatively easily observed, even by those who have only a limited exposure
to a new culture, for example, tourists and infrequent business travellers,
although its significance may not be fully recognized. The invisible culture
is what lies below the waves: the implicit culture. This includes assumptions,
values, attitudes towards authority, risk taking, punctuality, communica-
tion patterns, how status is defined and how power is distributed in society.
The assumptions, at the deepest level, are the most important levels of
culture and the most difficult to understand. We can at least be aware of the
differences that exist and can develop sensitivity so that we are prepared for
any ‘surprises’ when they occur.
Corporate culture
Corporate culture is often described as ‘the way we do things around

here’ or ‘the glue that holds an organization together’. It is the collective
behaviour of people in organizations where they share the same corporate
vision, goals, values, customs and work procedures, a common working
language and symbols. It is to be found in, for example, large multinational
companies (such as Shell and Toyota), the Armed Forces and the
Diplomatic Service. These common values are, in effect, a form of implicit
control mechanism that permeates the ethos of the organization. Therefore,
corporate culture is, to a large extent, how an organization exercises
control over its members and how behaviour is regulated. A further example
of corporate culture is found in professional life, codes of professional
conduct and ethical standards, for example, those relating to lawyers,
teachers and doctors.
Corporate culture within an organization includes the logo, advertising
slogans and the common jargon used; for example, McDonald’s employees
are known as ‘crew members’. Other corporate symbols can include the
myths and stories about the founders, its particular successes, the annual
office party and the company uniform. Corporate culture embodies a cor-
porate ethos, with its own code of ethical conduct and social responsibility
which is communicated to all employees and suppliers, and can cover
such areas as human rights, employment practices and concern for the
environment. Large multinationals further develop their corporate culture
through the setting up of corporate universities, an early example being
the McDonald’s Hamburger University in Illinois, set up in the 1950s. Other
large companies have followed this example and have set up branches of
their corporate universities abroad to train their staff of various cultures in
the corporate culture and strategy of the organization.
Communication styles
In modern cultural studies, the key issue is the way in which different
cultures communicate. Communication is the process by which thoughts,
information and instructions are passed between people. Communication
breaks down into three broad areas:
• verbal communication;
• non-verbal communication (body language);
• written communication.
A fourth area, which is rapidly becoming even more influential, is the

increased use of technology in communication. This covers the use of lan-
guage on the Internet, as well as communication devices such as smartphones
which many argue are changing the way we think and use language.
Tomalin and Nicks (2010) have developed a framework to help identify the
key differentiating features in communication. In doing so, they represent the
ideas put forward by Hall, Hofstede and Trompenaars (see Chapters 2 and 3)
as they relate to communication. Their communication framework is sum-
marized below. In the matrix, the key communication features are presented
in opposition to each other. The contention is that if you, for example,
understand your dominant style and compare it to your interlocutor’s domi-
nant style, you will be well placed to understand how your communication
style might be misunderstood and therefore will adapt it accordingly.
Direct Indirect
Details Suggestions
What/why Why/what
Formal Informal
Emotional Neutral
Fast Slow
Figure 1.2 Communication styles
Direct/indirect
Direct communicators say what they think without adapting the message to
the listener/reader. The result is transparent and clear, but may also be per-
ceived as undiplomatic or even rude. Direct communicators, for example,
North Americans, Scandinavians, Germans and the Dutch, have less sensitivity
about causing offence. They have a reputation for expressing themselves
in a direct manner and for being prepared to say frankly what they think.
This approach may be misconstrued by indirect communicators, whose
primary concern is to protect personal dignity and avoid causing offence. In
extreme cases, this may even lead to the communication of wrong or mis-
leading information to avoid the risk of upsetting the other person. Asian
cultures are generally good examples of indirect communicators.
Details and suggestions communicators
Some societies, in particular the Chinese and the Japanese, believe that it is
important to go into great detail so that everything is clearly understood and
that there can be no misunderstanding. People in these societies will want high
degrees of, for example, technical specifications and will ask many questions to
gain clarification. Such an approach is often perceived by suggestions communi-
cators as time-consuming and overly complicated. Suggestions communicators
like to leave room for interpretation and initiative and may prefer to be more
general in their approach. They may prefer to hint or make suggestions either
to allow the recipient the opportunity to interpret what has been said in his
or her own way or because they assume that the recipient will understand the
context in which they are speaking. However, such an approach can be seen by
detailed communicators as rather too general and lacking in clarity.
What/why – why/what
This is a re-statement of Edward T. Hall’s concise/expressive communication

paradigm, which is discussed in more detail in Chapter 2. A what/why culture
corresponds to Hall’s concise mode of expression. People say what they want
and then why they want it. Tomalin and Nicks (2010) call this group ‘the
What/Why communicators’. The North European culture cluster will nor-
mally prefer this mode of communication. People tend to get to the point
quickly and then provide explanations and context afterwards. A why/what
culture corresponds to Hall’s expressive mode and is exactly the opposite. An
expressive communicator will prefer to provide the context and background
before saying what he or she wants. He or she focuses on context first and
comes to the point at the end. The rationale is: ‘How can you possibly under-
stand what I want unless I have explained the background first?’
Once again, perceptions play a part in miscommunication. What/why
concise communicators tend to feel that why/what expressive communica-
tors waste time in coming to the point. Why/what communicators become
frustrated because they receive too little information from what/why
communicators. They often feel they are being given orders and need more
background information to understand what is required. Once again, simple
linguistic strategies can resolve tensions. A why/what communicator who
needs a little more patience from his or her counterpart simply has to say
‘I’ll answer your question, but I do need to give a bit of background first’.
Formal/informal communicators
This paradigm links into Hofstede’s power distance index (see Chapter 2)
as it indicates how power and status are reinforced by the communication
style. As a rule, high power distance normally requires more formal language,
for example, the use of titles such as Mr and Mrs or their equivalents, the use
of professional titles such as Dr and, above all, a clear distinction between
the familiar and the formal ‘you’, which does not exist in English.
Some societies prefer a relatively formal way of addressing you until they
know you well. This is the case in many European cultures as well as in
Latin America, Africa and Asia. The more informal style of communication
has, to a degree, been adopted in the predominantly English-speaking coun-
tries of the UK, the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. In many other
cultures, formality equates with respect. Formality may be interpreted in
informal communities as a wish to maintain distance, whereas informality
may be interpreted in formal communities as showing a lack of respect for
age or status. The strategy is to find out what is the accepted way of address-
ing people and also the accepted way of communicating with them and to
respond accordingly. Although the UK has a reputation for formality, the
British can be as informal as the Americans when communicating with their
peers and superiors, and this has been increasingly the case in recent years.
An example of the perceived inappropriateness of informality occurred
when former US President George W. Bush welcomed Tony Blair, the former
British Prime Minister, in public before the world’s press in Washington with
the ultra-familiar ‘Yo Blair!’ greeting.
Emotional/neutral communicators
An emotional society considers that an element of communication is to

show one’s emotions. Members of such a society believe that using their
emotions is an important aspect of self-expression, so they use their voice,
eyes and arms in a more demonstrative way. A neutral society is exactly the
opposite because it believes that it is important to control your emotions,
to keep a straight face devoid of expression and to restrict your body
language while using neutral language. The most emotional societies are
the Mediterranean and the Latin American cultures. Examples of neutral
societies include those of Japan and Northern Europe, including the British
with their supposedly famous ‘stiff upper lip’. Once again, the style of com-
munication you use can cause a number of different reactions. To a neutral
communicator, an emotional communicator may possibly convey unreli-
ability, while to an emotional communicator, a neutral communicator may
run the risk of conveying a lack of clarity and even possible dishonesty.
When working with neutrals, a calm, measured approach is usually the most
appropriate. You should keep your voice calm and your gestures minimal.
If your counterpart does not smile, do not assume it is rudeness or anger.
Similarly, if you are working with emotional communicators, be more expres-
sive with your voice and gestures, be prepared to show your more human side
and be ready to share personal stories about yourself and your family.
Fast/slow
This refers to whether the speed of communication is fast or slow and

corresponds to Lewis’ (2004) distinction between ‘ping-pong’ cultures (fast
speaking, interrupting and tolerance of interruptions) and ‘bowling’ cultures
(slower speaking, observing strict turn-taking in conversation and avoiding

interruptions whenever possible). In a ping-pong culture, a conversation is
like a game of table tennis, moving at a fast pace with people interrupting
each other and not minding interruptions. Conversely, a conversation
in a ‘bowling’ culture is like the game of bowls, where players roll a ball
along the ground to see who can get closest to another ball thrown earlier.
‘Bowlers’ pause before speaking, give themselves time to consider and then
speak. They may find interruptions offensive. ‘Ping-pongers’ can be seen as
rather shallow and inconsiderate listeners.
Although all foreign speech probably sounds fast to a non-native speaker,
the speed of delivery of languages like Spanish or Hindi has been found to
be on average significantly faster than, for example, German or English. The
pace of life in large cities, for example, in New York, Los Angeles or Chicago
in the USA, may have an effect on the speed of speech delivery compared
with that in surrounding areas, and the North of the USA is considered to
have a faster speech rhythm than the Midwest or the South. The issue of
speed of speech is probably less important than the significance given to
interruptions. Some cultures accept interruptions called ‘overlapping’, but
others consider it impolite.
Practical implications
The communication framework is a useful tool for identifying key verbal

communication features, but it is important not to over-generalize. Clearly,
the style of communication will vary according to the location, profession
and lifestyle of the individual. The communication style may also vary
between social groups. Nevertheless, it is a useful guide for applying theory
to practice.
Barriers to effective communication
There is a Southeast Asian proverb that says: ‘Misunderstandings don’t exist;

only the failure to communicate exists.’ There is certainly a lot of truth in this.
‘The essence of effective cross-cultural communication has more to do with
releasing the “right” response than with sending the ‘right’ messages’ (Hall
and Hall, 1990: 4). Hall places communication at the heart of all cross-cultural
interaction: ‘Culture is communication – it may be seen as a continuous
process of communicating and reinforcing group norms.’ Communication
involves transmitting messages (verbally or non-verbally) to another person,
who decodes (that is, translates) these messages by giving them meaning.
These messages may be sent by conscious intent or not and may include
information about both the actual content of the message and the relation-
ship between those involved in the communication process. The process is
completed by coding, transmission, decoding and finally feedback.
However, misunderstanding often occurs in the transmission of the

‘message’ encoded by the sender and decoded by the receiver. ‘Noise’ or
interference occurs along the way and the result can be distortion or mis-
understanding which is shown in the feedback part of the loop, that is,
in either the reply or the observed behaviour as a result of receiving the
message. It may be dangerous to assume that others will necessarily decode
our message in the way that we intended. It is therefore important to try to
check how our message has been interpreted by the receiver. This is a typical
sequence of events in which noise or interference can impact upon the
correct delivery of the message sent.
Noise/interference
Encode Channel Decode
(Sender) (Receiver)
Message Message
Feedback
Figure 1.3 A typical communication problem
The problem is that whatever our message, we can be sure that it may
often become distorted as it travels across cultures. Accepting this, we
should:
• be aware of the distinct possibility of distortion or misinterpretation;

• understand how a message may, in fact, be misinterpreted;
• modify our behaviour to account for this in order to be prepared to
correct any misinterpretation and, if necessary, remedy the situation.
Face-to face communication has the great advantage of providing instant

feedback. In other forms of communication, particularly electronic com-
munication, such as email, coding and decoding, problems occur when
feedback is delayed.
When we wish to communicate internationally, we rarely see the whole

context. The result is that we often have difficulty in fully understanding
the situation. The outcomes are as follows:
• we have to make decisions about how to behave on the information we

have, which is often incomplete;
• we choose to fill in or ignore contextual information in our attempts to
make decisions;
• we use our own already pre-programmed expectations to do this.
As a result, we often make mistakes in perception, interpretation and

evaluation.
Ideally, communication takes place in a continuous feedback loop:
I communicate, you respond, I reply and so on until the communication is
complete. However, in international conversations, misunderstandings are
frequently liable to occur. We fail to evaluate the message properly, the
result being that we do not give it appropriate importance.
Parochialism Fear of embarrassment, conflict

Ethnocentrism Ignorance of culture of others
Laziness Stereotyping
Figure 1.4 Barriers to communication
Ethnocentrism
We tend to judge other cultures according to the beliefs, values and tradi-
tions of our own group or culture. We then categorize groups other than
ours as bad, weak, immoral, stupid, crazy and so on. Ethnocentrism may be
said to be almost universal. Members of nearly all the world’s cultures regard
their own way of life as being ‘better’ than even closely related neighbours.
We often ascribe generalized, unfounded and negative attributes to other
cultures. Our reactions can be summarized as follows:
• Ignorance: we are often very ignorant of other people’s culture – their

history, religion, art, customs, values and so on.
• Fear and anxiety: we are often afraid of novelty, embarrassment and
conflict. We suffer anxiety and stress because we do not know what to do
in certain situations.
• Laziness: we are often lazy, sometimes for good reasons, such as time
pressures. This makes us reluctant to learn and practise tolerance and
understanding. We also often prefer to take the easy way out by assuming
similarity rather than attempting to understand actual cultural differences.
Our reactions to a cultural situation which differs from our own experience
often follow the sequence given below:
• we observe what is happening;

• we try to communicate;
• we find it difficult to understand;
• we interpret the situation according to our own limited knowledge, our
own values and possibly limited experience;
• we become judgmental and often in exasperation make our prejudices
apparent.
Cultural diversity
Different cultures have different norms and expectations of behaviour in both

formal and informal situations, for example, social interaction, meetings or
negotiations. A lack of awareness and understanding of these differences can
create misunderstandings and, in extreme cases, even offence.
Assuming similarity with one’s own culture
There is often a tendency to assume similarities between the foreign culture

and one’s own, rather than understanding the differences. An example is
the British and American perceptions that there are very few differences
between their cultures, although in reality there are many subtle ways in
which the two cultures differ, and this is only fully recognized when the two
live and work in each other’s culture.
Stereotyping
Stereotypes can be described as a group of beliefs and attitudes towards peo-

ple who are members of another distinct group. People form pre-established
expectations about how members of other groups are likely to behave
and what they believe in. Experiences often do not fit into our preconceived
categories and we are then faced with ambiguity. Our response is to try to
force them into an inaccurate category, thus distorting our perception of
reality, with the result that we feel insecure and uncertain. The danger is
that categorizing can lead to stereotyping and we categorize people of other
cultures in the simplest way possible. The end result is a tendency to often
invest these categories with negative emotions because they constitute the
unknown. Stereotyping provides a quick, simple way of classifying people,
particularly those from other cultures, but it does not allow for variation
and may be positive or negative. Stereotypes are usually harmless if used
only as a general rule of thumb, but can be hurtful, dangerous and racist if
taken to be the whole truth about another group of people. This is because
all stereotypes contain value judgments. They are not based on personal
experience but are often acquired from the media or the prejudices inherent
in our own social group. For example, racial stereotypes reflect racial pre-
judices and when these are repeated in the media, there is the danger that
they may become perpetuated and institutionalized. Another example is the
way in which people are stereotyped or pigeon-holed due to their accent,
dialect, physical appearance or social class and background. The result is the
forming of often inaccurate opinions that have little factual basis and are
grossly over-simplified. The socialization of people into particular cultures
can give rise to distinct cultural values and associated perceptions, for exam-
ple, views on poverty, immigrants, standards of economic development and
so on. Our own group loyalty often encourages us to believe that our group
is ‘better’ and more important than other groups.
Although national barriers are disappearing as a result of globalization and
the Internet, national stereotyping persists. A moderate amount of stereotyping
is inevitable, acceptable and at times even humorous, but displays of deep
ignorance which cause offence are matters of concern. There is therefore a
need for objective and informed knowledge about other cultures.
Common stereotypical categories may be labelled in terms of, for example,
race, age, gender, social class and dress. The danger lies in the speed and
intensity of these generalizations and assumptions about other people,
which are usually based on very thin evidence and knowledge. Stereotyping
can take two different forms:
• traits that we admire – ambition, modesty, cleverness, bravery;

• traits that we deplore or dislike – laziness, stupidity, lack of ambition.
However, there is a place for stereotypes, as our brain tries to sort into
categories, and stereotypes become initially useful pigeon-holes until we
learn more about other people and realize that within any group there are
large individual differences. Stereotypes also play their part in providing a
basis for possible further closer investigation.
Perception
Perception lies at the very heart of cross-cultural communication. We all

tend to categorize our experiences in order to make sense of the world we
live in. The problem is that when we encounter a new world we are not
familiar with, we are faced with ambiguity, which in turn causes insecu-
rity. Faced with insecurity, our natural tendency is to fall back on our own
norms and values and perceive the person we are dealing with as alien and
even hostile. Our negative emotions come to the fore and we stereotype the
person we are dealing with, and these stereotypes are frequently negative.
We assume quite incorrectly that we all think about and perceive the world
in basically the same way. We have a tendency to see things not as they are
but as we are.
Differences in culture are very often because of differences in perception.
The problem is that when we communicate internationally, we often mis-
understand the total context. We make mistakes in perception and we see
things negatively that the speaker in his or her environment would consider
totally non-confrontational. A good example is direct and indirect criticism.
In China, Japan and, to a lesser extent, South Korea, it is important not to
criticize anyone directly in order to save the ‘face’ of the person being criti-
cized. The potential for communication failure is therefore greatly increased
when the sender and receiver do not share the same cultural perceptions.
We often assume other people experience the same physical, intellectual
and emotional reactions as we do. We believe that what is pleasing or dis-
tasteful to us is pleasing or distasteful to others. This is clearly not the case
in reality. We therefore need to understand why this is so and at least to
recognize our differences of perception. Some examples of attitudes regarding
perception are as follows:
• ‘Abroad is unutterably bloody and foreigners are fiends’ (Nancy Mitford,

1945).
• ‘Everybody has the right to pronounce foreign names as he chooses’
(Winston Churchill).
• ‘What is true on one side of the Pyrenees is not on the other’ (Blaise
Pascal, seventeeth-century French philosopher).
Whenever we go to live and work internationally, we all begin our time

abroad with certain preconceived ideas, attitudes and prejudices. These are
rooted in our experiences and our culture, and, as we have seen, they
are coloured and often reinforced by what we read and are told. We look at
Heaven is where: The police are British

The cooks are French
The mechanics are German
The lovers are Italian
It is all organized by the Swiss
Hell is where: The police are German

The cooks are British
The mechanics are French
The lovers are Swiss
It is all organized by the Italians
Figure 1.5 Definitions of heaven and hell (mostly apocryphal!)

the world around us through the filter of our own values, prejudices and the
stereotypes we have built up. The problems occur when we meet other peo-
ple in other cultures who look at the same facts but come up with a different
view. We may find this uncomfortable, even challenging, and perhaps at first
sight somewhat intimidating. Other people’s views may well be different but
not necessarily wrong. If we are to understand their world, we need to under-
stand their perceptions, including their perceived view of us in our culture.
Perception can often play tricks on us as things are not always as they
seem. Perception is usually selective and culture-driven, and works on differ-
ences rather than similarities. Our perception of another culture is relative
and comes from our own set of values in our own culture. Perception is, in
fact, our reality; the ‘facts’ are almost irrelevant until we really understand
the other culture.
The problem is often that, despite all our best efforts to suspend our
judgment as we have been taught to do and to avoid stereotyping and be
tolerant to differences in other cultures, when we are under pressure and
stressed, we often revert to type and reveal our prejudices.
To overcome our perceptions of others, we need to recognize that other
people are not better or worse, just different. To deal with others successfully
and to control our own feelings when faced with ambiguity or insecurity, we
need to do three things:
• Accept difference: we should accept that others are different from us.
• Recognize ignorance: we should recognize that we do not know precisely
how others differ from us. We choose to fill in or ignore contextual
information in attempting to make decisions and use our own pre-
programmed cultural bias.
• Take responsibility: we should accept responsibility for our feelings and
reactions when dealing with others.
One useful procedure for helping us to do this is to take the following five
steps:
• STOP: in situations of ambiguity, our natural tendency is to speed up and

extricate ourselves from the uncomfortable situation. In fact, we need to
do the opposite, that is, slow down and reflect.
• LOOK AND LISTEN: look at the people and listen to how they speak.
What does this tell you about their style and manner?
• FEEL: feel the atmosphere. Is it friendly, hostile or neutral?
• DON’T ASSUME: making assumptions is the most natural thing in the
world, but can be the most dangerous.
• ASK: if you think something may be wrong, ask politely if there is any-
thing you can do. This will not cause offence; in fact, people will be
pleased that you are showing an interest (Tomalin and Nicks, 2010).
STOP
ASK LOOK
DON’T LISTEN
ASSUME FEEL
Figure 1.6 The STAR approach
Example
Mr Soto, a senior Japanese manager, was attending a presentation by

a British company in Tokyo on its plans to open a large retail outlet
there. The presenter, Mr Williams, spoke in English and included a
number of jokes and what he thought were funny anecdotes about the
culture shock he had encountered on his first visit to Japan. He noticed
Mr Soto was not smiling, but sat straight upright with his arms tightly
folded across his chest, a sure sign that the listener did not like what was
going on. As soon as he had the opportunity, he asked Mr Soto whether
everything was OK. Mr Soto looked uncomfortable and said he didn’t
understand English jokes. No doubt he was also surprised at Mr Williams’
self-deprecating approach.
During the coffee break, having realized his approach was not working,
Mr Williams resolved to continue the next stage of his presentation in a
more formal manner. He had, of course, followed the STAR approach.
How then can we reduce these barriers to effective cross-cultural

communication?:
• We can develop our listening skills. This will help us to avoid jumping
to conclusions when we only hear ‘words’ rather than their intrinsic
meaning.
• We should check our perceptions about what others say and do, realizing
that our own perceptions tend to be rooted in our value system.
• We need to seek feedback to check whether other people understand

our message. This may be difficult, for example, in many Asian cultures,
where it is considered impolite to say ‘no’ or to disagree.
• We need at times to take risks in order to open up channels of commu-
nication.
Summary
• The study of cross-cultural communication is influenced by anthropology,

linguistics, philosophy and psychology.
• The key influences are the study of semiotics, the study of signs and the
relationship between language and thought.
• Culture can be divided into implicit and explicit culture.
• The basic obstacles to cross-cultural communication are ethnocentrism,
ignorance, fear and laziness.
• Perception is reality – it is selective and culture-driven. We should check
our perceptions about what others say and do and realize our own
perceptions tend to be rooted in our value systems.
• Our cross-cultural effectiveness is influenced by our own individual
personality, our national characteristics, our corporate culture and our
professional training.
• We can reduce the barriers to effective cross-cultural communication by
developing our listening skills to help us avoid jumping to conclusions
when we only ‘hear’ words rather than their intrinsic meaning.
We can perhaps best summarize by formulating three basic rules to help us

understand the importance of cross-cultural communication:
• We should accept that others are different from us.

• We should accept that we do not know precisely how others differ from us.
• We should accept responsibility for our feelings and reactions when dealing
with people from other cultures.
In addition, we should remember that linguistic fluency does not necessarily

equal conceptual fluency.
References
Boas, F. (1938) General Anthropology (Boston, MA: Heath).
Boroditsky, L. (2002) ‘Linguistic Relativity’, in Galley Article 0056 (Cambridge, MA:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology).
Chomsky, N. (1975) Reflections on Language (New York: Pantheon).
Hall, T. and Hall, M.R. (1990) Understanding Cultural Differences (Maine: Intercultural
Press).
Hofstede, G. (1994) Cultures and Organisations: Software of the Mind. Intercultural

Cooperation and its Importance to Survival (London: HarperCollins).
Lewis, R. (2002) The Cultural Imperative (London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing).
Lewis, R. (2004) When Cultures Collide (London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing).
Oberg, K. (1960) ‘Culture Shock: Adjustment to New Cultural Environments’, Practical
Anthropology 7: 177–82.
Pinker, S. (1994) The Language Instinct: How the Mind Creates Languages (Harmondsworth:
Penguin).
Sapir, E. (1966) Culture, Language and Personality (Berkeley, CA: University of California
Press).
Tomalin, B. and Nicks, M. (2010) The World’s Business Cultures and How to Unlock Them
(London: Thorogood Publishing).
Trompenaars, F. (1993) Riding the Waves of Culture (London: Nicholas Brealey
Publishing).
Trompenaars, F. (2000) Riding the Waves of Culture, 2nd edn (London: Nicholas Brealey
Publishing).
Whorf, B. (1956) Language, Thought and Reality (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).
Further reading
Axtell, R. (1993) Do’s and Taboos Around the World, A Guide to International Behaviour
(New York: John Wiley & Sons).
Bragg, M. (2003) The Adventure of English (London: Hodder & Stoughton).
Crystal, D. (2003) How Language Works (London: Penguin).
Harrison, B. (ed.) (1990) Culture and the Language Classroom (Oxford: Modern English
Publications).
Mehrabian, A. (1981) Silent Messages: Implicit Communication of Emotions and Attitudes
(Belmont, CA: Wadsworth).
Morris, D. (1977) Manwatching: A Field Guide to Human Behaviour (London: Jonathan
Cape).
Morris, D. (1979) Gestures: Their Origins and Distribution (London: Book Club
Associates).
Pease, A. and Pease, B. (2004) The Definitive Book of Body Language (London: Orion
Books).
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2000) Culturally Speaking: Managing Rapport through Talk Across
Cultures (London: Continuum).
Trompenaars, F. and Hampden-Turner, C. (2000) Building Cross-Cultural Competence
(London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing).
Whorf, B. (1998) Science and Linguistics – Basic Concepts of Communication: Selected
Readings (Maine: Intercultural Press).
5
Developing Cross-Cultural
Communication Skills
Summary
Key areas
Written and electronic communication
Presentations to international audiences
Development of listening skills
Networking
Uniting Europe through Cultures (UNEC)
Non-verbal communication
Recommendations for best practice
In Chapter 1, we examined barriers to effective cross-cultural communication.

In this chapter, we look at how we can develop our cross-cultural skills in
the key areas of:
• language – the words we use;

• medium – the medium by which we communicate (oral, written, aural,
electronic);
• behaviour – the way we use language to convey formality and informal-
ity, power and status, and how we get things done. It also includes non-
verbal communication.
To achieve effective communication across cultures, we need to consider all

three aspects.
Language
Communication is much easier if we all speak the same language or have

equal fluency in a lingua franca. It establishes a rapport, shows openness to
78
Developing Cross-Cultural Communication Skills 79
the culture and increases our own self-esteem, confidence and self-reliance.
It leads to better understanding, demonstrates commitment and, at times,
gives the speaker a competitive edge.
As we saw in Chapter 4, English is becoming widely accepted as the
world’s lingua franca, but there are considerable differences between the
English used by native speakers and the different varieties of English in
use around the world. Even in our own languages, however, a number
of features that we might consider normal or uncontroversial in our own
national, regional or personal style may cause problems for others. These
include speed, accent, volume, timing, silence and even our choice of
words.
Speed
As measured by linguists, different languages are spoken at different speeds
and with different degrees of inflection. For example, many people say that
Indian national languages are spoken at speed and that this affects the speed
of delivery of Indians when speaking English. In Europe, Spanish is generally
accepted as the fastest language. The problem here is of non-understanding:
‘I simply can’t follow you. Slow down.’
Stress
Another important feature is stress. The stress in a word or sentence is
where you place the most important emphasis. The issue is whether the
stress carries meaning; for example, in English, we tend to stress the most
important word in the sentence. However, in both French and Hindi, people
tend to stress the end of the sentence. This means that if we speak a stress-
timed language (in other words, stress carries meaning), the receivers need
to adjust their antennae to focus on our message.
Intonation and volume

Intonation describes how the voice rises and falls in a sentence. We tend to
assume stereotypically that great variations in intonation are a characteristic
of Italians and that the further south you go, the stronger it becomes.
We also tend to associate strong intonation with heightened emotion. In
the same way, a loud voice tends to be associated with dominance and
arrogance, both personally and nationally.
Silence and timing

Most Asian cultures and one European culture (the Finns) are much more com-
fortable with silence than most other nationalities. Sitting silently to reflect
on what has been said and to consider one’s response is particularly important
for the Japanese, who say nothing but who are inwardly uncomfortable with
the ‘instant response’ adopted by many Western nationalities. Alongside

silence is timing. Linguists talk of ‘conversational overlap’, which describes
the practice of interrupting or overlapping with another speaker before he
or she has finished speaking. In countries like Japan, where strict turn-taking
in conversation is observed, conversational overlap may be seen as very
impolite.
Accent
In speech, accent can be a major source of misunderstanding. This is difficult
to resolve, although much work has been done in Indian call and contact
centres on ‘accent neutralization’ to make Indian accents more understand-
able to the overseas clients they are dealing with on the telephone. As a
general rule, it is of course important, whatever your accent, to slow down
and articulate clearly.
False friends
A further problem which influences language is the actual words we use.
This includes ‘false friends’: the transposing of a word from one language
to another, sometimes with embarrassing results. For example, a British
colleague in Spain explained how she was ‘embarrassada’ to be late for a
meeting, not realising that the Spanish word means to be pregnant. In the
same way, a Spanish colleague who used the term ‘constipated’ during a
conference call clearly did not realise that to be ‘constipado’ in Spanish
(‘having a cold’) had a very different meaning in English!
There are a number of examples of ‘faux amis’ in French that cause
problems (see Chapter 4 for more details on these).
Bad language
Other areas of misunderstanding include swearing and the use of insults. In
many countries, particularly those with a strong religious sensitivity, swear-
ing is strongly frowned upon, whereas in other cultures, it may be seen as
the use of emphatic language. We are often insensitive to the shock value
of a particular swear word we use in our mother tongue. What you may
repeat in a foreign language almost as a joke may be a conversation stopper
among your international colleagues and may reflect on your upbringing,
education and general reputation in their eyes. If you are a user of ‘colourful
language’, be especially careful, particularly in mixed company, when in a
foreign cultural environment.
Written communication
It can be argued that written communication or ‘snail mail’ is perhaps

out of date, but in business memoranda (memos), reports and contracts
are still important. It is tempting to think that all written communication
has a common format and style, but this is not the case. The style of
written communication is affected by degrees of formality and informal-
ity. Written communication in the UK, the USA and, indeed, much of
the Western world is brevity- and efficiency-driven. In addition, there is
now a tendency for courteous greetings and sign-offs to be less frequently
used.
A typical email communication might be as follows:
Brian
Am completing Chapter 5. Expect in one hour.
Barry
A more courteous and expansive form of communication might be more

acceptable in Latin and Asian countries, so the communication to these
cultures might read as follows:
Dear Brian
Hope everything is going OK. This is just to let you know that I am just
completing Chapter 5 and will email it to you in about an hour.
Best wishes
Barry
The second communication does exactly the same job as the first, but is more
personal and more courteous, although it takes longer to write and to read.
The advice for such communication is first to be aware of your usual style
and second to consider whether it is necessary to adapt to the other person’s
style. Above all, if you are used to a more courteous and lengthy style of
expression, you should not be upset if you receive a communication that
to you feels quite curt and abrupt. As with memos and messages, different
conventions apply to reports. In Japan, for example, the preferred style for an
executive summary is bullet points, with as much detail as possible attached
as appendices. Other cultures and different companies have different conven-
tions, so it is important to learn what these are and to observe them. Above
all, you should not assume that your style works everywhere else.
Electronic communication
The dramatically rapid increase in electronic communication throughout

the world has brought people of different cultures closer together. This is
demonstrated, for example, in the growth of Facebook, which features over
100 billion entries a day, while in the case of Twitter, more than a billion
tweets a week are generated. The use of mobile phones and text messaging
has increased along with the huge number of emails sent daily, which is
currently estimated at nearly 300 billion. These forms of communication
drastically reduce the effect of time zone differences that used to complicate
international telephone calls. Recipients can read and reply rapidly, and the
transmission of information and decision making is speeded up.
Electronic communication includes written communication, email, voice
communication and Skype, as well as the new social media communication
methods. The latter are introducing new ways of expressing oneself, espe-
cially in Twitter (140-character messages) and using new forms of language
such as texting or acronyms or initials, such as LOL (lots of love or laugh out
loud). Since English still dominates the international media, most texting
is done in English.
As communication channels, in particular those that are electronically
based, are constantly changing, we need to keep up to date regarding the tech-
nological advances in computers, email, mobile phones, video conferencing
and so on. The actual selection of the appropriate technology needs to be com-
patible with the culture with which we are communicating. We should bear
in mind that high-context cultures which place high value on personal trust
tend to prefer oral communication and oral agreements, whereas low-context
cultures tend to place high value on forms of written communication.
Presentations
By definition, a presentation to a multicultural audience means dealing with

local cultural expectations, avoiding embarrassment or offence being caused,
and otherwise being disrespectful. It is important to discover in advance the
expectations of the audience and the presentation style to which they are
accustomed. Such preparation is essential in order to ensure success.
In Asia, Africa and Latin America, as well as the Middle East, respect for
hierarchy and seniority is important. For example, a Westerner delivering a
presentation with his or her sleeves rolled up and no jacket may be seen as
disrespectful to an audience expecting more formal attire. Maintaining eye
contact with the group may be less important than maintaining eye contact
with the senior persons present and addressing the main points to them.
British and American presenters are often less comfortable with the use of
surnames and titles as they prefer greater informality. However, the correct
use of surnames and professional titles in many cultures is necessary to show
the minimum level of respect. The use of jokes in cultures, for example, in
Germany, may suggest that your subject matter is lacking in gravity. In the
UK, in contrast, humour is often used as an ‘ice-breaker’ to reduce formality
and to relax the audience.
It is also important to be aware of the linguistic competence in English
of your audience. Some of the participants may seem not to be paying
attention to the lecture in English. This may be because they are referring
to dictionaries to identify key words. They may also appear to be talk-
ing to each other, but this is usually not because they are bored but
because they are attempting to translate for each other. When presenting
in English, it is essential to keep sentences shorter, to speak clearly and
slightly more slowly than with an all-native English-speaking audience,
avoiding jargon and explaining any acronyms and initials. A strong
local accent may also present a problem to non-native English speakers.
Another consideration in presentations is their actual length. Those
presenting to a multinational group should bear in mind that the concen-
tration levels of the audience may be more limited because of their need
to concentrate on the linguistic aspects as well as the actual information
provided.
A common problem when using PowerPoint in presentations is the use
of excessive detail. As a general rule, Western presenters advocate a maxi-
mum of seven-line slides with considerable white space and bold illustrative
graphics. Many Asian presenters tend to fill their slides with a great deal of
information and point to the parts they wish to emphasize. German audi-
ences are known to prefer much more detail in presentations than American
audiences, and Asian audiences will often comment in feedback that they
would have preferred more slides with more information. In Muslim
countries, cartoons and images tend to be less well received because their
audiences are less used to representational art.
Any presentation needs to meet the expectations of the audience. It
may be that they require facts and figures, a product pitch, a motivational
speech, an analysis of the advantages and disadvantages, or to know how
what they hear may benefit them or their country. A combination of sev-
eral of these factors may of course be required. Lewis (2011) analyses these
key needs and identifies them as part of the ‘listening’ habits of different
cultures. One of his examples is the contrast between the needs of German
and Scandinavian, and British and American audiences. He considers that
German and Scandinavian audiences react adversely to a strong product
pitch or ‘hard sell’ tactics and prefer to listen to a reasoned presentation of
the advantages and disadvantages so that they can decide for themselves.
British and American audiences, on the other hand, tend to respond to
a ‘qualities, costs, and benefits’ approach and a strong ‘what’s in it for
me?’ outcome. Latin countries tend to focus less on the content of the
presentation and the information provided, and more on the personal-
ity of the presenter. The essential question for them is to whether they
can trust you. Latin audiences may prefer eloquence and charisma over
information.
When presenting to multicultural audiences, it is important to structure
carefully your address. Tomalin (2012: 33) offers the three S’s approach to
structuring a presentation: signposting, signalling and summarizing.
Signposting
• State what the main theme of the presentation is going to be.
• Indicate how long the presentation will last.
• Say what your main points will be.
• Say when you will take questions – any time or at the end.
If you imagine a presentation as a journey, the signposting stage will give

the audience a route map, so they will know what is going to happen and
how long the journey will last.
Signalling
• Indicate to the audience when you begin your first point.
• Summarize when you have completed it.
• Signal when you are about to begin the next point.
Summarizing
• When you reach the end of your last point, briefly summarize all the
key points again. This allows your audience to remind themselves of the
journey they have just undertaken and helps them identify any points
they may have missed or of which they may not have fully appreciated
the importance.
• At the end, reiterate the importance of the main theme.
• Finally, invite questions and remember to conclude by thanking
the audience for its attention, thus indicating that the presentation
has ended.
Chapter 15 provides further advice on preparing students to give effective

presentations across cultural borders.
Listening skills
In this section we examine the importance of both passive and active listen-
ing skills. We look at the barriers to effective listening and how these can
be overcome as part of our attempt to develop improved cross-cultural
communication.
Listening has been described as a process of self-denial. It is a vital skill in
assisting us to decode the messages we receive. When we listen, we are usu-
ally paying attention to the message and we attempt to make sense of what
we hear. Research indicates that most of us listen in short 30-second spurts
before our attention tends to wander. Listening tests have also indicated
that, on average, people really remember only some 50 per cent of what
they have heard immediately afterwards. As we saw in Chapter 1, unless we
listen carefully to the message and understand its meaning, there is really
little actual communication, only ‘noise’. The listening process involves five
related activities:
• Receiving: what we hear is often blocked out by external noise, distraction,

our lack of concentration or lack of interest in the subject matter.
• Interpreting: the use of a different, unfamiliar frame of reference, values,
concepts, attitudes and bias may also impede our understanding.
• Remembering: the process of storing for future reference, taking notes and
summarizing.
• Evaluating: making a judgment regarding accuracy of facts, opinions, the
quality of evidence and reliability of data.
• Responding: this involves various types of feedback as a result of what is
heard, which may include verbal response, laughter, silence, applause
and non-verbal responses such as nodding or shaking the head, frowning
and smiling.
Passive listening is as important as active listening. It can show how we

feel about what we are listening to, displaying such emotions ranging from
pleasure and agreement to boredom or even hostility. We can reassure the
speaker in subtle ways by showing empathy and appearing to concentrate
closely, or we can show disagreement by looking angry or indignant.
Barriers to effective listening can include the following:
• Pre-judgment, which involves jumping to conclusions and allowing

prejudice and preconceived ideas to dominate.
• Trying to take control of the conversation by ‘jumping in’ with interrup-
tions. We believe that we should be the centre of attention and attempt to
monopolize the situation. We are always trying to move the conversation
round to a point where we can express our own point of view. We are,
in effect, a ‘shift responder’; the other speaker’s conversation is simply a
hook to allow us to interrupt and continue with our own train of thought:
‘Funny you should say that. It reminds me of my own experience in …!’
This type of listener is sometimes called a ‘marginal listener’.
• Listening selectively, concentrating only on what we want to hear and
agree with.
• Competitive listening occurs when we are listening for what we do not
agree with and we interrupt to correct, modify or criticize what the
speaker is saying. Often described as ‘judgmental listening’, competitive
listening is probably the most common type for professional people
from all walks of life, but it can at times be seen as too aggressive and
attempting to dominate.
• Reaction to emotive words, such as ‘race’ and ‘stereotypes’.
• Interrupting – a tendency to ‘over-talk’ caused by our desire to put across
our views.
• Attempting to take detailed notes and trying to establish what are the key
points, a common mistake made by students.
• Day-dreaming – letting our attention wander to other more important or
more interesting concerns.
• Judging the actual delivery rather than the content by concentrating on
mannerisms, dress and accent.
• The delivery of the speaker – too fast, too complex, too long-winded,
patronizing tone, poor preparation and unclear diction.
• Physical discomfort caused by the location – conditions which are too
hot, too cold, too stuffy or subject to too much external noise. Below is a
simple example encountered by one of the authors.
Example
Radoslaw, a Polish banker attending a top-level conference on the finan-

cial crisis in Europe, was fidgeting in his seat, clearly distracted and not
concentrating on what was being discussed. Eventually, the presenter
noticed him and wondered why he wasn’t getting through to him.
‘Perhaps’, he thought, ‘he disagrees with my argument or maybe I have
offended him in some way.’ When the presenter managed to enquire
whether Radoslaw was feeling well, he was somewhat relieved at the
answer. ‘No’, he replied, ‘I am feeling too cold to concentrate.’ Radoslaw
was right. He was sitting right in front of the air-conditioning vent. Once
it was turned off, he relaxed and paid full attention to the presentation.
Active listening is a training technique devised in 1977 by Thomas Gordon.

It describes a way of focusing on the speaker so that the listener absorbs
not only the meaning that the speaker wants to communicate, but also the
meaning behind the meaning, that is, emotions and feelings. As a listening
technique, it comprises three stages:
• Repeating: in the repeating stage, we listen and show interest. We may

nod or make verbal signals to show we are listening. We pay attention
and establish eye contact and we may show we are listening by giving
feedback, using exactly the same words used by the speaker. Above all, we
try not to interrupt the speaker’s train of thought.
• Paraphrasing: when it comes to responding, we enter the paraphrase stage.
This involves the same processes as repeating, but it is also important to
give feedback by using similar phrases to the speaker. This shows that we
have listened, have taken time to reflect and have reformulated what the
speaker has said in a way that he or she can agree with.
• Reflecting: the final stage occurs when we give feedback to the speaker
using our own words and approach.
Active listeners often complain about the strain of remaining silent while
someone else talks. The speakers themselves often talk of the tension of
speaking when the listener just concentrates and gives no response. There is
therefore a need in networking to demonstrate active empathy. The way to
do this is to use FACE, which stands for:
• Focus
• Acknowledge
• Clarify
• Empathize
First, you need to focus on the speaker by maintaining good eye contact,
whilst always remembering that in some cultures strong eye contact may
be seen as challenging. Acknowledge means using verbal or non-verbal cues
to show you are listening, for example, nodding or saying ‘uh huh’. Clarify
means asking what happened next or repeating to the speaker what has
been said. Empathize means showing appreciation or sympathy by using
such phrases as ‘great’, ‘that must have been difficult’, etc.
Silence
What is immediately obvious about active listening is that it is a much more
reflective, quieter and calmer process. It allows us to absorb how the speaker
feels as well as the actual message. It allows time for us to reflect and to
formulate in our turn a reasoned response which agrees common ground,
but also allows us to state our own point of view. Silence is much more of a
tradition in countries like Japan, China and Finland. For many of the rest of
us, the urge to jump in and interrupt is too strong as we are uncomfortable
with periods of silence.
All of us probably engage in many of these approaches to listening for
different reasons and at different times. The challenge is to listen actively
and to focus on the thoughts and feelings of the person we are listening to.
In that way, we show interest, we acquire more cooperation and we learn
more about the speaker.
Networking
In her book Dinner with Churchill, Cita Stelzer emphasizes how important
meals were in Churchill’s wartime diplomacy when he said in 1944: ‘If only
I could dine with Stalin [the Second World War Russian leader] once a week
there would be no trouble at all.’ Networking is a very useful way of gain-
ing information, researching a problem and opinion making. It is often the
key to successful business relationships, and the conversation around the

water-cooler, the formal banquet and the coffee break are all networking
opportunities to get to know people personally. One hedge fund manager
once said that the best way to get to know his investment partners on brief
visits to London was on the way to the lift after the meeting, so he always
made a point of seeing his guests out himself.
Three qualities are essential to effective networking:
• the ability to listen, which we have covered earlier in this chapter;

• the ability to empathize;
• the ability to ask questions.
The ability to ask questions

There are two skills involved when networking: ‘how to break the ice’ and
how to avoid embarrassing subjects, as the latter could be an ‘ice-maker’.
Many political subjects may be taboo, for example, comments on human
rights, pollution or changes of government, all of which may be unwel-
come, as may questions about wives, partners and families, which might be
intrusive in some cultures but welcomed in others such as Latin cultures. In
many parts of the world, the use of football as an ice-breaker may not go
down well in countries whose national sport is ice-hockey or some other less
widely played sport. Useful ice-breakers could include asking people where
they come from, what they did in their previous job and whether they have
travelled abroad much before. Such questions provide opportunities in a
neutral, non-threatening way to find out more about people without touch-
ing on any controversial topics and giving them the opportunity to speak
about themselves.
The UNEC project
In 2008, the EU Uniting Europe through Culture (UNEC) project provided a

formula for analysing cultural differences. It identified five steps for dealing
with cultural communication misunderstanding and behavioural differ-
ences by analysing cultural experience:
(1) Know your own culture. Understand what happens in your own culture.
This can often happen only by confronting step 2.
(2) Identify difference. Examine what is different in the foreign culture
from the expected communication style or behaviour in your own
culture.
(3) Empathize. Attempt to understand why people in the foreign culture
communicate or behave in different ways from what you expect. Try to
ascertain what expectations and values these signify.
(4) Use your cross-cultural skills to manage the difference. Analyse what you
need to do to adapt in order to achieve a successful outcome.
(5) Reflect on what you have learned from the experience and how it will
influence future behaviour. Analyse what you will do, say and think
when you next face a similar situation.
Non-verbal communication (NVC)
‘We speak with our vocal organs, but we converse with our whole body’
(Abercrombie, 1970). This quote gives a very apposite description of what
we generally call body language. Albert Mehrabian, the Emeritus Professor
of Linguistics at UCLA, has studied the communication of American high
school students. From his studies, he concluded the following points
(Mehrabian, 1981):
• Words account for seven per cent of a message as far as feelings and
attitudes are concerned.
• NVC or body language account for 38 per cent of a message as far as feel-
ings and attitudes are concerned.
• Facial expressions account for 55 per cent of a message.
In other words, the actual words we use are less important than the way in
which we say things and our body language.
People convey meaning in NVC through their posture, gestures, eye
contact, the physical distance they keep when communicating and how
they dress. NVC is very often extremely subtle and subconscious. It is deeply
embedded in one’s own cultural background and when communicating with
people of another culture, the wider the differences between the two cultures,
the more difficult it is to read the meaning of the non-verbal messages.
NVC, often loosely called ‘body language’, should not be considered
as something separate from speech, but rather as existing simultaneously
with verbal communication. It gives out messages all the time. The verbal
component of a face-to-face conversation is less than 35 per cent and over
65 per cent of communication is done non-verbally (Mehrabian, 1981).
We communicate so much of our message non-verbally in conversation
that, in many cases, the actual words we use are not so important. How we
communicate (our tone, pitch, loudness, speed, dialect, etc.) is often more
important than our NVC signals.
However, it should be emphasized that ‘body language’ is a rather loose
term and is really inaccurate as an alternative to NVC, as the latter is
more varied, covers a range of behaviour and often indicates the way we
behave in response to the communication process.
NVC can be divided up as follows.
Gestures Timing (chronemics)

Posture Use of personal space
(proxemics)
Facial expression (oculesics) Manner (haptics)
Eye contact Body movement (kinesics)
Appearance (including Patterns of speech and silence
clothing)
Use of colour (chromatics) Use of smells (olfactics)
Figure 5.1 Non-verbal communication
It is often said that actions speak louder than words and often say all
the wrong things. It is important to remember that with NVC, you need to
maintain a high level of awareness as you cannot ask for it to be repeated.
It is also less controllable than the spoken word and may therefore be more
reliable as it is very often an instinctive reaction. Non-verbal signals will
inevitably be interpreted by the receiver or an observer in the context of the
situation and their own culture.
Gestures include any action that sends a visual signal to others. They are
often described as ‘talking with the hands’ – in particular, the use of hand
gestures aids understanding. In most cultures, the head nod signals agree-
ment and reassurance to the speaker, and is used by good, attentive listeners.
Gestures have three main functions – silent requests, expressing opinions
and expressing moods or states of mind. The way in which the French stroke
the face with one hand as if shaving is a signal saying ‘I am bored’. Italians
stroke the underside of their chin with the outstretched fingers to say
‘I don’t believe you’. There are several different ways of inviting someone
to have a drink, from rocking one palm with outstretched fingers at mouth
level, often used in the UK, to extending finger and thumb and bunching
the middle fingers in Spain. For many cultures, gestures are an indispensable
part of any conversation. For Arabs of all social levels, gestures are particu-
larly important: ‘To tie an Arab’s hands while he is speaking is tantamount
to tying his tongue’ (Barakat, 1993).
Gestures vary not only between nationalities but also in the amount of
gesturing employed. Italians, especially in the south of the country, are
noted for the richness and variety of the gestures they use, whereas in
Japan and China, gestures are much more restrained. In Southern Europe,
gesturing is more marked than in Northern Europe, where people tend to
be more reserved. In many African and Latin American countries, gestures
are also more intense, with vivid facial expressions, hand gestures and often
a display of emotions.
Some gestures in certain cultures have completely different meanings
from those in others, such as the V sign, the nose tap and the eyebrow raise.
These can cause serious misunderstandings and need to be studied in order

not to give inadvertent offence. For example, when President George Bush
Sr. visited Australia in 1993, he intended to give the V for Victory sign from
the back of his limousine, but unfortunately did it in reverse form. The
result was that Australian newspapers reported that the US President had
insulted Australia.
More examples of gestures and how they differ in their meaning are as
follows:
• Nose tap: in the UK, this implies secrecy, confidentiality, ‘keeping it dark’.
In Italy, it means a friendly warning, ‘take care’. In the Middle East, ‘ala
hashmi’ (literally ‘on my nose’) means ‘I will do the favour you ask’.
• Head nod: in Bulgaria and parts of Greece this means ‘no’. In some states
in southern India, it means simply ‘I am listening’, whereas in most
other countries, it means ‘yes’. In Japan, smiling and nodding imply
understanding, but not necessarily agreement.
• OK sign: this must be used with caution. In many parts of Latin America,
it is a sign of insult. In parts of southern France, people will consider
it means ‘zero’, that something is worthless. In Japan, the thumb and
forefinger are used for money, the fingers creating the round outline of a
coin. In some Arab countries, it can mean a curse.
Facial expressions are the ones that we can best control and these can be
deliberately false. The face is the most important source of non-verbal
signalling. It is highly expressive and can send much information. The
use and meaning of eye contact, for example, looking at people directly
while you are speaking to them or not, varies between cultures. Eye
movements can give powerful messages, which include showing interest,
boredom or disbelief. In many cultures, make-up accentuates the impact
of the eyes. There is an Arab saying that ‘the eyes are the mirrors of the
soul’. In some cultures, direct eye contact can be seen as intimidating, for
example, in Thailand and South Korea. In Japan, a person who looks a
subordinate in the eye can be felt to be judgmental, while someone who
looks his or her superior in the eye is assumed to be hostile. As a result,
the Japanese prefer to make glancing rather than direct eye contact. In
most Western countries, eye contact is considered necessary and appropri-
ate, and people are more likely to trust and like someone who looks them
straight in the eye.
Another important facial expression is the way you smile, showing good
humour, empathy, sincerity or sneering or sarcasm. ‘Smile and the world
smiles with you’ is an English expression, but it is not necessarily true.
Smiling at strangers on first meeting may be regarded as strange or inap-
propriate. In many Eastern cultures, smiling may often be used as a way to
cover embarrassment.
Posture involves a number of potential pitfalls. How you stand can often
have an influence on how you are perceived abroad. A common way of relax-
ing in North America for men is to stand legs apart and hands on hips. This
is known as ‘arms akimbo’ and can be seen as a posture of defiance and even
aggression in parts of Asia, especially in Japan. Standing up straight and ‘walk-
ing tall’ is a sign of confidence and self-respect in the West, but may be seen
as a sign of arrogance and lack of respect in the East. In some cultures, such
as Thailand and the Middle East, showing the soles of your shoes is consid-
ered disrespectful as they are seen as the lowest and dirtiest part of the body.
An example of this was after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein: his statue in
Baghdad was toppled in April 2003 and the mob beat the statue’s face with
the soles of their shoes as a sign of insult. Respect should be shown by sitting
properly, not slouching or putting your feet up on a seat. The over-relaxed-
looking Westerner who is trying to appear friendly is not respected, as in most
cultures one’s appearance reflects one’s self-image. The issue of how we sit and
who sits where, for example, at meetings is also different in different cultures.
There are social conventions about posture and these can have symbolic
meanings, for example, kneeling in church and bowing to senior people.
Handshakes vary in terms of their usage in different cultures. In some
cultures, especially those involving Arab males, the handshake is prolonged
and men may hold hands while walking together. The Japanese make a
concession of shaking hands with Westerners, but many still prefer to bow.
The degree of the bow shows the degree of seniority. The junior person may
make a bow from the waist, whereas a more senior person may just give a
nod of the head. Increasingly, young Westerners now greet each other with
the ‘high-five’, but the firm handshake on meeting is still widely used. In
most Latin cultures, the ‘abrazo’ (the hug) is as commonplace as the hand-
shake, both between men and between women.
A classic example of confusion regarding the choice of greeting is given
below.
Example
When President Obama made his first visit to Japan and met the Emperor
Akhihito and his wife, he surprised the Western world by making a low
bow before the Emperor, and commentators wondered how the most
powerful man in the world could bow low before a Japanese emperor.
However, the same body language impressed the Asian world by Obama’s
respect for etiquette and convention. In reality, Obama was using the
occasion to affirm his commitment to building links between the USA
and Asia. As he said at the time: ‘I am a Pacific president.’ Cultural
commentators, however, were less impressed by his shaking hands and
bowing at the same time. They felt he should do one or the other, but
not both and certainly not at the same time.
Appearance/what we wear: it is often said that ‘clothes maketh the man’.

Clothes can signal a person’s sense of self-esteem, status, group member-
ship, socio-economic class and general character. In Italy, for example, ‘fare
la bella figura’, that is, looking good and making a good impression, is very
important, but in all cultures, dressing appropriately for meetings or for
particular environments is also imperative. Jewellery often also conveys
certain messages, as do spectacles, handbags, cigarettes, watches and pens,
and the way they are handled also says something about their users. In
Latin America, how you look is an important part of your self-presentation.
Among the veil-wearing Tuareg, the veil covering the lower part of the face
is raised or lowered slightly according to the seniority of the person join-
ing the gathering. According to strict Islamic law and convention, Muslim
women are expected to cover their ankles, their forearms and their hair. The
dress code can vary from the full burqa (a full-length veil that covers the
body with a mask that hides the face) to the niqab, a full veil or headscarf
with a veil that hides the mouth but not the eyes, to the hijab, a much more
common headscarf that covers the hair and neck but reveals the face. In
Saudi Arabia, foreign women are expected to wear an abaya, a dress which
covers their arms and ankles but leaves their face and hair uncovered. In all
cultures, it is most important to wear the appropriate clothes when visiting
a place of worship. When entering a mosque, it is important to remove
your shoes or put on the provided cloth shoes. In a Christian church, it is
considered respectful for men to remove their hat and in Roman Catholic
countries for a woman to wear a head covering such as a scarf.
Haptics describes the amount of touching people do when they com-
municate. A knowledge of the accepted norms of behaviour in certain
cultures is extremely important. How, when and where we touch others is
sometimes the most misunderstood aspect of NVC. In some cultures, touch-
ing indicates a very intimate or personal relationship, while in others, it is
just commonplace. Examples include Brazil, where people embrace each
other spontaneously and cry together, or France and other Mediterranean
countries, where young people kiss each other on the cheek when saying
‘hello’. In the Middle East, it is very often the custom for men to shake
hands on meeting, always with the right hand. One may shake hands sev-
eral times with the same person during the course of the day. In Russia, it
is not uncommon for men to embrace each other on meeting. However,
the British are more reserved and tend to avoid intimate touching apart
from the handshake, although this attitude is undergoing change as people
experience other cultures. The Japanese generally have an aversion to any
form of casual body contact, although most Japanese who come to the West
make the concession of shaking hands rather than the traditional bow from
the waist.
The most common area of touch is the handshake on greeting and leave
taking. This is now regarded as an international gesture in business and
diplomacy. However, the first-time visitor to another culture is still left with
a number of questions. Do you shake hands when you first meet (France/
Germany) or only when you have been introduced (the UK)?
Kissing friends of the opposite sex on the cheek or both cheeks is
increasingly common. Do you offer one kiss, two or even three? It is not
uncommon in Spain to kiss complete strangers when you first meet them.
Showing expressions of love, such as kissing in public, is considered inde-
cent in Japan and can result in punishment in some Arab countries, but it
is common in both Italy and France and, indeed, in many other Western
countries.
As the recent HSBC TV advertisements graphically emphasize, ‘never
underestimate the importance of local knowledge’. Understanding the cul-
ture of the country where you find yourself is so important and the best
way to do this is to take local advice, as there is no global, universal behav-
ioural etiquette. The style of handshake can be culturally misleading. In the
Middle East and the Far East, a soft clasp of the hand is often preferred. This
can be seen as ‘weak’ by West Europeans and Americans, who often prefer
a strong, firm handshake. This in turn can be seen as dominant and even
aggressive by ‘soft hand-shakers’. In India and Thailand, for example, people
greet each other by joining the hands together as if in prayer, either at chest
level (India) or at forehead level (Thailand), often accompanied by a slight
bow of the head.
Proxemics (distance): closely related to touching is distance, that is, how
close people stand to each other, which will determine the degree of per-
sonal comfort people have. In the Arab world, people prefer to stand closer
together, as a sign of trust and friendship. This may be accompanied by arm
or hand holding between men. In the USA, the UK or Japan, for example,
where greater physical distance is preferred, a distance of about a metre (an
arm’s length) is acceptable. People from North European cultures prefer more
personal space and touch each other less frequently to indicate agreement and
friendship than, for example, Latin American and Mediterranean cultures.
In Latin countries, people prefer to stand between 50 and 70 centimetres
apart. This can seem very intimate and even threatening to many Westerners.
At the same time, an ‘arm’s length’ contact can be seen as far too distant and
potentially unfriendly to a Latin. In most cultures, however, we are usually
prepared to allow much greater close physical contact than normal when
we are travelling with complete strangers in a crowded train or bus than we
would do in a less congested situation.
Olfactics refer to smells. Different cultures have established different
dimensions for olfactory communication. Various types of perfume, lotions,
creams, powders and so on are accepted in most cultures. In some cultures,
these fragrances are rather aggressive, while in others, they are more delicate
and subtle. There are also societies that prefer natural human odours and
even consider them attractive. Some examples of olfactics occur in American
city streets with the smell of hamburgers, hotdogs and pizzas, and the use
of anti-perspirants; in the UK, the smell of mown grass, fish and chips, and
tea; and in France, coffee, fresh bread and garlic. In India, there is the very
specific smell of fuel that comes from dried cows’ dung competing with the
smell of curry.
Use of silence: this is very often used, particularly in Japan, for inner
reflection and to gain time, for example, in negotiations. It can also cover
awkwardness, embarrassment and, at times, misunderstanding. In Greece,
silence can be seen as refusal, whereas in Egypt, it can mean consent. In
most Western countries, silence is considered awkward, possibly signifying
a breakdown in communication and is therefore seen as a vacuum to be
filled.
Paralinguistics includes elements of speech, such as pitch, tone, loudness,
quality and rate of speaking. These interrupt or temporarily take the place
of speech and affect the meaning of the message. We tend to pick up the
meaning behind paralanguage rather than the actual meaning of the words
spoken, for example, ‘it is not what he says but the way he says it’. We are
very often unaware of our own NVC signals, but we are usually very aware
of the signals put out by others.
Chromatics refers to the significance of colours in a culture. In many
Western cultures, for example, the UK and the USA, mourners wear black at
funerals and brides wear white at weddings. In Japan, however, white is the
colour of death. In Mexico, purple flowers are used at funerals and in Korea,
red ink is used to record death.
Speech: Emotive/Neutral
Language: Speed, Accent,
Volume, Disclosure/Timing/Silence
Eye Contact:
Too much/Too little
Gestures/
Touching
Personal
Space
Figure 5.2 The culture gap

Best practice for successful cross-cultural communication
The following are suggested as examples of best practice when faced with
the potential problems we have discussed so far:
• Suspend your judgment of the other culture despite your prejudices and
stereotypical images; try to keep an open mind.
• Emphasize the positive aspects of the foreign culture and celebrate
cultural diversity.
• Adapt your own English style and tone to the situation by avoiding
complicated words or expressions, unfamiliar jargon and slang. Develop
a simple, clear and unambiguous communication style with appropriate
body language.
• Accept that your perception of other cultures and their perception of
your culture are very often reality.
• Where necessary, use a skilled interpreter who is thoroughly briefed in
advance. Allow the interpreter time to translate by building in appro-
priate pauses into your delivery.
• Develop your listening skills, both active and passive, and the appropriate
reaction while attempting to understand the differences in the other
culture.
• Prepare in advance by learning about the other culture with which you
will be communicating.
• Develop your own confidence to discuss cultural issues and differences
openly, and show that you are keen to learn more about the other culture.
• Above all, develop trust and personal relationships whenever possible.
Summary
• Communication provides one of the biggest pitfalls in cross-cultural deal-

ings, as we are faced with differences between cultures not only in terms
of what we say (words, choice of language), but also in the communica-
tion media we use (spoken, print, electronic) as well as in our behaviour
and body language.
• One of the keys to successful development of cross-cultural communica-
tion skills is to show empathy by developing both effective active and
passive listening skills. This requires awareness as to how the barriers to
effective listening can be overcome.
• The widespread use of electronic means of communication has the
advantages of speed, brevity and immediacy, but there still remains the
need for a more personal approach in cultures where personal relation-
ships are considered to be important.
• The EU UNEC project was designed to identify ways of improving
cross-cultural communication by developing the appropriate ways of
avoiding misunderstanding and potential conflict.
• In cross-cultural communication, one should always be careful to ensure

that non-verbal clues are appropriate to the culture.
References
Abercrombie, D. (1970) Problems and Principles in Language Study (London: Longman
Group Ltd.).
Barakat, H. (1993) The Arab World: Society, Culture and the State (Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press).
Gordon, T. (1977) Leader Effectiveness Training (New York: Wyden Books).
Lewis, R. (2011) When Cultures Collide (London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing).
Mehrabian, A. (1981) Silent Messages: Implicit Communication, Emotions and Attitudes
(Belmont, CA: Wadsworth).
Stelzer, C. (2011) Dinner with Churchill (London: Short Books).
Tomalin, B. (2012) Key Business Skills (London: HarperCollins).
Further reading
Axtell, R. (1991) Gestures (New York: John Wiley & Sons).
Axtell, R. (ed.) (1993) Do’s and Taboos Around the World, 3rd edn (New York: John
Wiley & Sons).
Hofstede, G. (1994) Cultures and Organisations (London: HarperCollins).
Hurn, B. (1998) ‘Cultural Fluency for Business’, Corporate Structures, Business and the
Management of Values 4: 25–9.
Morris, D. (1967) The Naked Ape (London: Jonathan Cape).
Morris, D. (1977) Man Watching: A Field Guide to Human Behaviour (London: Jonathan
Cape).
Pease, A. and Pease, B. (2004) The Definitive Book of Body Language (London: Orion
Publishing).
Scheflen, A. (1981) Body Language and the Social Order (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall).
9
The Effect of Culture on
International Negotiations
Summary
Definitions
Cultural aspects
Protocol
Shared experiences
Use of humour
Choice of language
Use of interpreters and translators
Gift-giving and hospitality
Importance of ‘face’
Assessment of cultural influences
Listening skills
Agents and mediators
Qualities of an international negotiator
Selected national negotiating styles
Training
Introduction
This chapter examines the impact of culture on the parties concerned in

international negotiations, including diplomacy and business. Such nego-
tiations can be heavily influenced by differing cultural conventions, values,
assumptions and perceptions. The discussion here looks at the advantages
to be gained by carrying out some form of cultural assessment of the parties
involved as a vital part of pre-negotiation preparation, in particular assess-
ing the importance of communicating style, choice of working language,
decision making, etiquette and cultural values. Examples are included from
international relations and the world of business.
162
The Effect of Culture on International Negotiations 163
The chapter also highlights the key cross-cultural skills required in

international negotiations and international business, and provides exam-
ples of good practice from a range of cultures. People working in the
international community, whether with multinational companies, in joint
ventures, mergers, as members of trade missions, with the UN, the EU, NATO,
the WHO and other regional organizations, with NGOs or in embassies,
consulates or High Commissions, will inevitably be involved in some form
of negotiation with people of other cultures.
Definitions
The Charter of the UN states that: ‘All members should settle their inter-
national disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international
peace and security and justice are not endangered.’
A practical definition of international negotiating is the process whereby
people of different nationalities resolve actual or potential conflicts or
disputes by considered dialogue on an approved agenda. Parties with
different interests are brought together in the hope of finding common
ground.
Cohen refers to negotiations in international relations as: ‘Diplomatic
negotiations in its strictest sense consist of a process of communication
between states seeking to arrive at a mutually acceptable outcome on some
issue or issues of shared concern’ (1999: 9). Regarding international rela-
tions, negotiation has been described as: ‘Getting to “yes” without going
to war’ (Fisher and Ury, 2003: 21–2). This form of negotiation is a low-
context problem-solving approach developed in the Harvard Program on
Negotiation. Relationships tend to become entangled with the problem.
Fisher and Ury advocate separating relationships from the problem and
dealing directly with the people, focusing on interests, not positions and
whenever possible going for a ‘win/win’ approach.
Negotiating across national borders differs greatly from negotiating
within one’s own culture in the domestic marketplace. A number of new
factors have to be considered:
• different national negotiating styles influenced by culture;

• changes in ideology (for example, the collapse of the Soviet Union) and
the moves from a command economy to a market economy in Eastern
Europe;
• the reduction in trade barriers encouraged by the WTO and the expansion
of regional groupings, in particular the EU;
• cross-border differences, including taxation, currency, labour relations
and the conduct of business;
• changes of government, international terrorism and concern for security
and the environment.
This chapter will concentrate mainly on the first point mentioned in the
above list. In particular, negotiators need to be aware of the negotiating style
of people of other cultures, while at the same time developing a style appro-
priate to their own personal strengths and those of their own culture.
Building relationships and trust Communication styles

Gaining consensus Decision making
Time sensitivity Setting agenda
Face-saving issues Power distance
Status and hierarchy Level of participation
Figure 9.1 Cultural aspects affecting negotiating
Protocol
The observance of protocol and agreed procedures is an essential factor for

successful meetings and negotiations. It gives a recognized structure to the
proceedings and provides an agreed code of conduct which should help
reduce intercultural friction and misunderstanding. Aspects of protocol
can include correct seating arrangements with due respect for seniority,
the presentation of business cards and appropriate dress. It also includes
procedures such as methods of voting, addressing remarks through the
chair, the composition of committees, any limitations on the times allotted
to speakers and the production of the minutes at the conclusion, as well as
any official communiqués.
Although there are generally recognized standards of official protocol in
international meetings, for example, within the UN, there is no standard-
ized international etiquette. In British culture, our traditions and values
have produced an accepted code of behaviour. This is not, however, neces-
sarily transferable to another culture, and cultural mistakes are inevitable for
the culturally unwary. Such areas include degrees of punctuality, politeness,
informality or formality and exchanging gifts, as the same occasion will
require a different code of behaviour depending on the cultural situation.
This is discussed later in the chapter.
Shared experiences
Cohen contends that cultural strangers cannot rely on shared experiences of

family values, religion, education, national history, traditions or beliefs as:
‘Cultural meanings are basically subjective meanings shared by members
of a particular cultural group’ (1999: 27). Shared experiences can include
formal discussions at lunches, dinners, receptions and tour invitations,
which provide opportunities for developing interpersonal relationships.
People who operate in the international community may have a number

of shared interests or experiences, for example, hobbies, sport and children
studying abroad. These can be researched as part of the preparation for
negotiations and can be seen as a form of ‘cultural shorthand’. They are
extremely useful in preliminary, informal discussions, as ‘small talk’ or as
an ‘ice-breaker’. They can therefore be used to advantage, particularly in
the ‘getting to know you’ phase, and are most suitable when dealing with
cultures where business is considered personal.
In certain cultures where building relationships and mutual trust are
initially more important in the early stages of a negotiating process than
decisions about agreeing a deal or obtaining a satisfactory outcome, such
experiences are invaluable in helping to develop good working relation-
ships. However, the attempt to use shared experiences should be conducted
with great care, as it is important to check the appropriateness and relevance
of these experiences and whether they are fully understood. Once trust is
established, it is easier to discuss openly if cultural differences might be
affecting the issues.
The family and, indeed, the extended family are highly valued in many
cultures (for example, in Africa and the Middle East), and therefore show-
ing interest in the well-being of one’s counterpart’s family is important
when developing successful relationships and mutual trust. These examples
of the value of shared experiences are useful in high-context cultures where
the emphasis is initially more on developing personal relationships and
less on the detail of the desired agreement. In low-context cultures, in
contrast, creating relationships is less important in the initial stages and
only becomes more important when final agreement is made and contracts
are signed.
Heads of state often meet in an informal, relaxed venue before the main
negotiations commence. The President of the USA often takes VIP visitors
to Camp David. In July 2004, when President Vladimir Putin visited George
W. Bush at the Bush family compound in Kennebunkport, they went fish-
ing, a sport enjoyed by both men. This was designed to help thaw relations
between Russia and the USA over the US plans for a European missile shield.
President Putin said that he had enjoyed ‘the warm and homely atmosphere’
at Kennebunkport that ‘went way beyond’ what he had expected.
Humour
The use of humour as an ‘ice-breaker’, particularly at the beginning of

negotiations, can often be useful. It is designed to help people relax, but is
effective only if it is clearly understood and does not cause any embarrass-
ment or offence. It is therefore important to be fully aware of which subjects
are taboo, particularly cultural and politically sensitive areas. Gaffes made in
public at the beginning of a session can be difficult to overcome and their
residual effect can be longlasting. It is therefore essential to research this

area carefully and avoid any jokes that may not translate into the desired
meaning or that are culturally unacceptable. It is always worth remembering
the old adage that ‘Humour is usually what gets lost in translation’.
As we have seen in Chapter 8, the use of humour in the more formal part
of meetings is not always acceptable. There is a fine balance between making
people laugh and relaxed and sharing the humour, and for all this to appear
to some as lacking seriousness of purpose.
Language
Language is a matter of custom, courtesy and taboo as well as meaning.

A concept that appears simple to one mentality can cause confusion in
another. (Binyon, 2001)
As discussed in Chapter 4, English is practically universally accepted as the

foremost working international language, although it faces challenges in
this respect from Mandarin and Spanish. Difficulties with language and
interpretation can cause problems in negotiation – see, for example, the
exchange between the former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and
the then President of France, Francois Mitterrand, who appeared not fully
to understand a point, when Thatcher said at an EU meeting: ‘We are using
the same words, so why do we have so much misunderstanding?’ The gist of
Mitterrand’s reply was that he was French, but that Thatcher always insisted
on speaking English. Not everyone speaks English fluently or indeed neces-
sarily wants to speak English.
Cohen (1999) emphasizes that cross-cultural differences occur in the
meaning of such words as ‘justice’, ‘sovereignty’, ‘leader’, ‘corruption’,
‘democracy’ and ‘intervention’. A word or phrase meaning one thing in
one culture can mean something very different in another culture. A classic
example is the emotive word ‘crusade’, used by many in the West without
any historical significance – for example, ‘a crusade against poverty’. In a
very different context, namely the war in Iraq, the word ‘crusade’ was seen
as extremely provocative because of its historical connotation by Arab coun-
tries. As Szaly states: ‘The idea itself does not really travel, only the code – the
meaning that a person attributes to the words received will come from his
own mind. His interpretation is determined by his own frame of reference,
his ideas, interests, past experiences, etc.’ (1981: 135).
Michael Binyon (2001) quotes the case of a fast and essentially literal
translation of the new use of an everyday word which has become a political
cliché. He refers to the US proposal to use new ‘smart sanctions’ against
Saddam Hussein. However, the Arabic translation was that ‘smart’ meant
‘intelligent’ and ‘clever’ rather than ‘technically more accurately targeted’.
This gave rise to the implication that the existing sanctions were stupid.
Diplomacy is said to be the art of linguistic invention. In diplomacy,

language is sometimes referred to as ‘diplomatspeak’. This is an interna-
tional code of language perfected over centuries. It is very often deliberately
opaque, using jargon and words such as ‘appropriate’, ‘apposite’, ‘full and
frank discussion’, ‘matters of mutual interest’ and recently ‘coalition of the
willing’. Often ‘yes’ may mean ‘perhaps’ and ‘perhaps’ may mean ‘no’, but
to say ‘no’ is undiplomatic.
The word ‘sorry’ is associated in some Eastern cultures with blame, loss of
‘face’ and even humiliation and guilt. As a result, the Japanese have found
difficulty in finding a phrase that expresses an apology for some of the
events in the Second World War which does not convey humiliation when
used in Japanese.
It should be emphasized that when we are using English as native speakers,
we should make every effort to use clear, simple and unambiguous English,
remembering to:
• avoid slang, jargon, metaphors and acronyms;

• speak more slowly than usual without appearing patronizing;
• avoid complex sentence structure and the use of double negatives;
• use both verbal and written summaries as appropriate;
• use simple visual aids to reinforce key points and have copies available
for distribution.
The use of interpreters and translators
As discussed in Chapter 8, in international meetings it may be necessary

to use interpreters and translators. It is essential to use individuals who
are well qualified, with experience in similar negotiations, particularly if
the subject matter is highly technical. In all cases, the interpreters should
be fully briefed in advance of the actual negotiations and given sufficient
background information to help them ‘read into the situation’. They should
understand the business culture and, in particular, the corporate culture
of the organization with which they are working. In addition, they must
fully respect commercial confidentiality. Both interpreters and translators
should also be fully familiar with regional dialects if they are used. In all
cases when using interpreters, speakers should always address counterparts
directly (that is, face to face) rather than the interpreter. Failure to do so
shows disrespect.
When using interpreters, there is always the danger of mistranslation and
loss of personal impact, particularly when the speaker has a high standard of
rhetoric and personal charisma. Victor (1992: 141) cautions that as interpreta-
tion is often hard work, speakers should do all they can to lessen the burden
on the interpreter by having frequent breaks in the proceedings, keeping the
dialogue as simple as possible and injecting pauses at appropriate intervals.
Interpreters should also be available during both informal and formal

social gatherings. Translators will be required as part of the negotiation’s
secretariat to prepare translations at key points during the negotiations,
either as summaries of action taken at various points or to translate extracts
from legal documents and technical data if this has not been done in
advance. Cohen (1999) stresses the problems, both linguistic and cultural,
that can arise when translating from one language to another, in particular
in the case of subtle cultural nuances.
Gift-giving and hospitality
This area can be a cultural minefield. In the British culture, expensive gift-
giving is less used than in many other cultures and there are often corporate
company guidelines as to what is ethically acceptable. In many cases,
companies require all gifts to be reported and approval must be given before
acceptance if they are over a certain value. However, in many cultures,
gift-giving is standard practice. Failure to either accept or reciprocate is
considered at least as bad manners and at worst as an insult.
It is therefore essential to know the customs of a country, especially the
social etiquette. In some countries, there are strict anti-corruption laws
and to offer gifts to local nationals could potentially cause trouble for
both parties. However, gifts that symbolize the status of your company
and the importance of the impending deal, preferably an item charac-
teristic of your local area or one that displays your logo, may well be
permissible.
In certain cultures, before gifts are considered, it is necessary to check
which are acceptable. This is particularly important if flowers are to be given
because, for example, in France and Italy, chrysanthemums are given only
for funerals. It is advisable not to give a clock in China as it gives the impres-
sion you wish to end the relationship. In cultures where ‘face’ is a sensitive
issue, one should not give a lavish or expensive gift if it may cause a problem
for the receiver to reciprocate in value. In Japan there are etiquette books
that detail the suitable gifts for a variety of occasions. In any case, in Japan
gifts are never opened in public. In other cultures, for example, Arab and
many Western cultures, gifts can be opened in public, thus providing the
opportunity for the recipient to graciously thank the giver. There are also
social conventions as to whether gifts should be wrapped or unwrapped,
and the colour of the wrapping paper can be significant.
Cultural sensitivities also apply to hospitality, although it is customary in
all cultures to entertain business clients as part of the overall programme for
the negotiations. This provides the opportunity to build closer relationships.
Age and seniority should be taken into account when organizing social occa-
sions, in particular the seating arrangements at formal meals.
The importance of ‘face’
‘Face’ is a very important factor to be considered in international negotia-

tions. Vic Feather, when General Secretary of the Trades Union Congress
(TUC) in the UK, considered that a means of saving ‘face’ should be
preserved in defeat. He is quoted as saying: ‘Always leave the other fellow
the bus fare home.’
‘Face’ is valued in all cultures, but its particular importance as a prime
cause of cultural sensitivity has already been stressed. In many Eastern
cultures, for example, Thai, Chinese and Japanese cultures, ‘face’ is the way
in which one is regarded by others. It assumes central importance in Asian
cultures and has a major effect on behaviour. In the case of the Chinese,
‘face’ (‘mianzi’) relates to a person’s image and status within the social
structure. ‘Face’ is also closely associated with trust, loyalty, reputation,
competence and obligation issues. The Chinese have two dimensions of
‘face’. The first, ‘lien’, is normally ascribed. Cardon and Scott (2003) state
that a person who has no ‘lien’ is a social outcast. The second, ‘mien tzu’,
is more achieved than ascribed. A person who lacks ‘mien tzu’ is considered
to have low status.
Not giving ‘face’ to a person is seen by the Chinese as denying the person
pride and dignity, and, as a result, the Chinese will usually refrain from
an aggressive stance in negotiating. Indeed, the adoption of ‘face-saving’
or ‘face-giving’ behaviour in conflict situations is valued as an important
means of maintaining group harmony. Restoring ‘face’ is very important in
‘face’-related situations in order to restore a person’s lost self-esteem. Fisher
and Ury consider that: ‘Face-saving reflects a person’s need to reconcile the
stand he takes on a negotiation or agreement with his principles and with
his past words and deeds’ (Fisher and Ury 2003: 29).
Those who have difficulty understanding the working language chosen
for the negotiations may lose the sense of the point being dealt with, but
will not admit this, nor will they ask for elucidation in order to retain ‘face’.
The situation can be compounded if other people think they have in fact
understood and that their silence implies agreement.
In order to avoid cultural problems that involve ‘face’, the skilled inter-
national negotiator should follow these guidelines:
• check the importance of hierarchy and status in the other culture;

• use correct names, titles and formal greetings;
• remember one’s obligations if acting as the host;
• always show pride in one’s company and nationality, and extend this
respect to one’s counterpart;
• avoid backing the other party into a corner or situation from which it will
lose ‘face’ by trying to extricate itself.
Assessment of cultural influences
Those preparing for international negotiations should carry out a cultural

review (a form of cultural audit of the other cultures involved in negotiating)
in order to help increase one’s options. This aims to help avoid any pitfalls
which might be caused by the lack of awareness of cultural sensitivities,
customs and values, and improves the participant’s ability to understand
any cultural nuances in communication. Such an audit is useful in high-
lighting potential areas of conflict or cultural misunderstanding and helps
build up a picture of likely behaviour and reactions. It should consider the
following from the viewpoint of one’s own culture and those of the other
people with whom one is negotiating.
Communication style – direct/indirect Level of assertiveness

Chosen working language Risk taking
Attitude towards time – punctuality Relationship building – trust, confidence
Customs and habits Work style – formal/informal
Non-verbal signals – gestures, silence Socializing – food, drink, visits
Attitude towards status, age, hierarchy Protocol – titles, greeting, seating,
business cards, gift-giving
Decision-making style ‘Face’ – giving and receiving
Figure 9.2 Assessment of cultural influences
Listening skills
As discussed in Chapter 5, listening has been rightly described as a ‘process

of self-denial’. In international negotiations, good listening skills are of vital
importance. The participants in complex negotiations, often in a foreign
language, need to concentrate to detect the subtle nuances. This requires
focusing on the speakers without interruption and interpreting the different
frames of reference, as well as evaluating what is said. Careful listening and
observation of the other party’s views and body language require much
patience and tolerance. It is important to adopt a non-judgmental approach
and concentrate on any signals being passed by hand gesture, body move-
ment or facial expression. If you have carried out your cultural assessment,
you will be more able to understand their significance.
The Japanese listen very attentively and they use periods of controlled
silence to good effect for both business and social interaction. Like the
Chinese, the Japanese follow the virtues of silence: those who know do
not speak – those who speak do not know. This silence is used for contem-
plation, but it can be mistaken, particularly by Westerners, as showing a lack
of understanding. This silence often makes Westerners feel uncomfortable
and produces a tendency for them to break the silence and even unwittingly
to make concessions. There is a Russian proverb that says that ‘one should not
hurry to reply, but hurry to listen’. This was discussed in detail in Chapter 8.
Use of agents and mediators
In some cultures (for example, Arab cultures), negotiations are very often
conducted through agents or mediators. Arabs following Islamic traditions
often use mediators to settle disputes. Mediation is also valued in the col-
lectivist cultures of Southeast Asia, for example, in Singapore and Indonesia.
The use of mediators helps protect the honour, dignity and self-respect of all
parties and aims to avoid any direct confrontation between the parties. In
addition, it avoids placing either party in a situation in which it has to show
weakness, lose ‘face’ or admit defeat. When there is little familiarity with
the other culture, negotiators may use an agent or advisor who is suitably
familiar with the cultures of both parties involved in the negotiations.
Mediators may be most helpful when they are able to encourage one party
in the negotiations to agree to adopt the cultural approach of the other party
or (which can also be of mutual benefit) to follow the cultural approach of
the mediator’s own home culture. Mediation has the advantages of generally
being less costly, less time-consuming and less adversarial than arbitration,
and is more likely to produce greater satisfaction for both parties. It is based
on procedural rules, requires the willingness of both parties to a dispute to
receive help and may resolve the root causes of an ongoing dispute by focus-
ing on basic issues rather than on positions. (Lewicki, 2008: 473–84).
The following list provides examples of mediation:
• The US Senator George Mitchell and the Canadian General Chatelaine

mediated in the protracted discussions regarding the decommissioning of
IRA weapons and the resulting peace process in Northern Ireland.
• The Dayton Peace Accords of 14 December 1995, signed after negotiations
in Dayton, Ohio lasting almost a month, which created the Federation
of Bosnia-Herzegovina and the Serbian Republic (Republika Srpska), an
example of multitrack diplomacy with the USA acting as the mediator.
• The Camp David Accords in 1978 between Egypt and Israel, again with
the USA acting as mediator.
• The warring political factions in Kenya in 2007 finally resolved their
differences after Kofi Annan, the former UN Secretary-General, acted as
the mediator assisted by the Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue (CHD),
a Swiss-based organization of mediators.
The agenda
As in meetings, an agenda listing the points that have been agreed to be
discussed should be issued to all concerned before the actual negotiations
begin. This provides a structure to proceedings and helps signpost the

stages in the negotiating process. It is also valuable when there are possible
language difficulties and, above all, should contain no surprises if trust is to
be maintained.
Qualities of an international negotiator
The fundamental requirement in an international negotiator remains

proven technical and professional expertise. The following additional skills
go across cultures. They include:
• listening skills – the need for patience, tolerance and a non-judgmental

attitude;
• sensitivity to cultural differences – development of adaptability;
• orientation towards people – development of interpersonal skills;
• a willingness to use team assistance – team skills, consensus and synergy;
• high levels of self-esteem – professional competence, integrity and con-
fidence;
• high aspirations and ethical standards (Adler, 1999: 197).
International negotiating fundamentals

If we are seeking fundamental guidelines for international negotiating,
those given in Figure 9.3 below are considered highly desirable.
Hard on issues
Soft on people
If possible, go for win/win result
Figure 9.3 Fundamentals of negotiating
Characteristics of selected national negotiating styles
Much of the following is derived from the authors’ own experiences in

working with business people from the cultures concerned and from discus-
sions with international business postgraduates and with colleagues from
overseas.
The British negotiating style

British business culture is individualist, generally masculine and competitive.
It often displays initial resistance to change and is by nature conservative in
outlook, with a sense of restraint and dislike of the ostentatious. The British
prefer to negotiate in English as the working language as relatively few man-
agers are fluent in other languages. This may make them complacent and
less inclined to make an effort to learn about other cultures, as many foreign
business people speak English fluently.
Because English is an extremely flexible language, verbal subtlety has a high
social value. Business communication relies on extensive use of email and the
telephone, but discussions are often followed up by a written summary which
becomes the record of the points agreed upon and of further action.
The British express a willingness to be flexible in negotiations and are
prepared to make some compromises if necessary in an attempt to produce
a mutually acceptable agreement. If meetings cannot reach agreement on
a particular point, the task may be given to a specially formed committee
to resolve matters. Indeed, the British liking for committees can appear in
contrast to their undoubted individualist outlook. They are less comfortable
with concepts, but prefer to be pragmatic doers, asking practical questions
like ‘how exactly are we going to do this?’ rather than ‘what should be our
final objective?’.
The British generally show little emotion and often appear rather reserved,
with relatively little use of body language, although they place importance
on direct eye contact. However, experience in the global economy has
changed their approach and they are now more expressive, although many
of them are still uncomfortable with outward displays of emotion and value
their personal space.
Despite the apparent reserve of the British, humour is widely used, both
as a business and a social lubricant, and is employed as an ‘ice-breaker’ to
reduce potential confrontation or to speed up discussion when excessive
formality is in danger of slowing things down. Humour often includes self-
deprecation, which is puzzling to many foreigners and is often specific to
British society, and therefore does not translate well.
The British, although less impatient than the Americans, see meetings
as a process whereby decisions can be made. All participants are free to
express an opinion, even on matters outside their own particular sphere of
knowledge. Negotiating team members are chosen as much for their ability
to work as members of a team as for their specialist expertise. They often
use deliberate understatement as a negotiating ploy. They may attempt to
extend an agenda by adding ‘any other business’ (AOB) at the end, which is
not always appreciated by other cultures, particularly those who are adverse
to any surprises while a meeting is being conducted.
The British, although themselves law-abiding, dislike excessive regula-
tions, central control and bureaucracy, and remain strong advocates of free
trade. They have a strong sense of history and civic commitment. This is
reflected in their negotiating style.
Business titles are often not used in conversation and first names are used
frequently, although less so than by Americans. Business meetings begin
and end with brief, light conversation and meetings are generally conducted
in a relatively relaxed manner.
The British culture is still mainly masculine in most professions, although

women do reach high positions in some sectors, for example, education,
health care, fashion and social services. Legally women in business have
equal opportunities, but there is still a ‘glass ceiling’ as a barrier to advance-
ment in some professions.
Socializing in British business includes having an informal lunch together
or, more formally, a dinner. It also includes corporate hospitality, often
provided at sporting events, for example, the races at Ascot, tennis at
Wimbledon and football at Wembley Stadium. Business discussions may
also take place informally, such as on the golf course. The British tend to
work longer hours than their European counterparts and often commute
long distances to work. However, they usually try to have high levels of
separation between their work and their private family life.
The American negotiating style

The USA is an example of the ‘melting pot’ of cultures, with its core culture
rooted in Anglo-Saxon and predominantly North European cultures.
However, there is an increasing Hispanic influence, particularly in the
southern states. American culture is mainly monochronic, individualist and
low context.
The USA remains a strong ‘can-do’ culture, which is action-orientated,
dynamic, competitive and optimistic. The culture is backed by high techno-
logy and is risk taking in nature, where anything is considered possible and
is accepted as a challenge to be overcome.
Communication style is direct, straightforward and to the point, all
of which can at times be seen by others as blunt, abrupt and impolite.
What has to be said is clearly stated – it is ‘straight from the shoulder’ and
Americans do not ‘beat about the bush’. They will disagree firmly and this
can cause embarrassment to other cultures. American presentations are con-
fident, highly focused and professionally delivered with the aim of making
the maximum impact. Negotiators are well prepared and see meetings as a
process whereby decisions are made.
Humour is often used by Americans as an ‘ice-breaker’ to reduce tension,
but at times it is not always appreciated by other cultures as it is very much
American culture-based. It is, however, direct and lighthearted, without the
irony and innuendo so frequently encountered in British humour.
Negotiations are carried out in a relatively informal manner, with any
member able to express a view, but when the time comes for decision
making, such members will tend to defer to the senior members in their
team. Americans see negotiations as an exercise in problem solving, usually
through a process of ‘give-and-take’, based on respective strengths rather
than as a process for sounding out views and gathering information. They
are basically task-oriented, negotiate hard in the belief that there is always a
solution and will explore all options in order to overcome an impasse. They
do not show much emotion, but put a high value on direct eye contact.
They show respect for deadlines and schedules, and performance is meas-
ured by ‘getting the job done’. They see time as a resource to be maximized.
As a result, they are often risk takers and are therefore more prepared to
move early on a deal.
Americans prefer agreements to be confirmed in writing, although when
negotiating, they will accept a ‘yes in principle’, providing there is a clear
action plan to work out the details later. They are generally uncomfortable
with lulls or silences during negotiations, often become impatient and do
not have good listening skills themselves. They are also uncomfortable
with ambiguity and at times lack cross-cultural awareness and sensitivity.
However, with the spread of globalization, they have learned to develop
their cross-cultural fluency.
‘Americans usually attack a complex negotiation task sequentially – that
is they separate the issues and settle them one at a time’ (Graham and
Herberger, 1983: 164). As a result, they are prone to make concessions at
intermediate stages before the final agreement.
For Americans in business, entertaining and socializing are often informal.
Unlike many cultures, they will invite their counterparts to their homes, but
in general they tend to separate their work life and their social life.
The French negotiating style

The French business negotiating style is founded to a large extent on a
strong, intellectual Cartesian tradition that prizes rational and logical think-
ing. The French thinking process is therefore often deductive, beginning
with an idea or a theory and proceeding from the general to particular cases,
in contrast to the opposite, inductive approach. This means that at times
French negotiators appear to place too much emphasis on abstract concepts
at the expense of facts and upon principles at the expense of interests.
Intelligent discussion on issues is valued for its own sake. The French see no
reason to compromise if their logic is undefeated.
French culture is individualistic, tending to be feminine by Hofstede’s
definition, with relatively strong power distance and fairly high uncertainty
avoidance. They have a strong tendency to create hierarchies, bureaucracy
and systems to help avoid uncertainty.
The education system places great store on higher education, the ‘grandes
écoles’ and the ‘polytechniques’. There is fierce competition for entry to
these elite institutions and this elite membership provides the opportunity
to gain authority and advantage in the bureaucratic hierarchies, particularly
the civil service.
The French are always well briefed and prepared for meetings and nego-
tiations. They consider that decision making should be concentrated in
the hands of competent, professionally qualified individuals. They prefer a
recognized hierarchy and see a team as a collection of specialists chosen for
their proven competence in a certain area, under the overall direction of an

accepted leader. They prefer to establish early on the underlying principles
and structure and then proceed to the relevant facts. As regards coming to
an agreement, the French will strive to adopt the best idea and will persist
in upholding their views; as a result, they are unwilling to make major con-
cessions. The use of humour is not actively encouraged in formal business
meetings, unless it displays clever wit.
As regards language, French negotiators will often speak English well. It
is important, however, to recognize that both English and French are truly
international languages and both nations feel strongly about the impor-
tance of their own language. The French are particularly sensitive about
the anglicizing of French words. If possible, foreigners should at least be
prepared to conduct part of the proceedings in French, as this will be much
appreciated and might help gain an advantage over English-only speakers.
French business meetings are less frequent than in the UK. They are formal
in nature, with strict rules of procedure and an established chairperson. At
less formal meetings, it is quite usual for people to leave in the middle, make
telephone calls and talk among themselves.
As regards business socializing, the French take meals in good-quality
restaurants very seriously. If you are invited, it indicates that business is
progressing well and should be similarly reciprocated. The British approach
of coffee and sandwiches at the conference table and their apparent enthus-
iasm to press on with the meeting may give quite different signals compared
to the French, for whom wining and dining are very much part of the busi-
ness process. There is a clear distinction between personal and professional
relationships and employees generally do not meet after work to socialize.
The German negotiating style

The Germans are meticulous in their preparation for meetings and negotia-
tions. They are well briefed and expect the same from their counterparts.
They also believe that objectives should be clear before the meeting.
Business meetings run to a strict agenda agreed before the meeting with
relatively little small talk. They are often scheduled well in advance in order
to permit careful preparation. The Germans like to come straight to the
point, rely on a structured approach and attempt to resolve, if possible, any
differences before the actual meeting. Senior people will tend to dominate
the proceedings and members are reluctant to make a contribution unless
they are well prepared and well versed in the particular topic at hand. Their
negotiators are well qualified in their area of expertise and expect the same
status from those with whom they are negotiating. Most managers have
degrees from a university or ‘Fachschule’ (technical high school) and many
are qualified engineers who have higher professional status and visibility
than, for example, their counterparts in the UK. Professional rank and
status is usually based on an individual’s achievement and expertise in a
given field. Academic titles and background are important and should also
be given due recognition. A Herr Doktor or Frau Doktor (not medical) is a
person of distinction and should be formally addressed as such.
One of the most important values is order (Ordnung). The Germans have
a very structured way of working, which is supported by rules and proce-
dures. This approach does not always leave room for flexibility. They have
a linear approach to work, with the aim of completing one set of actions
before starting another. This marks them as much more monochronic than
polychronic. Their business approach is cautious and they require detailed
information and facts as a basis for decision making. These are critically and
logically analysed before decisions are made. For a German, for an argument
to be convincing, it must be schlüssig, that is, complete and logical. They are
tough negotiators and will have thought in advance of counter-arguments
and prepared second lines of attack.
The German business culture, like that of the Americans, is efficient and
task-related, with the aim of achieving the task in the minimum amount
of time possible. The adherence to timetables, schedules and deadlines
is important. Personal networks assume a lesser role in German business
culture than in some other cultures. The German communication style
is direct, sometimes appearing rather blunt, and at times can be seen as
confrontational. This is not intended to cause offence, but is basically an
expression of their desire to solve problems relatively quickly and efficiently.
They place more emphasis on written than oral communication, and infor-
mation tends to be ‘top-down’, often on a ‘need-to-know’ basis.
The German attitude to time is certainly monochronic. Punctuality
is considered an essential virtue and Germans will arrive well before a
meeting in order to start on time. On arrival, Germans will shake hands
with each other, and those attending from other countries should follow
this approach.
Germans tend to work long hours and to separate their social life from
their work life. It can therefore often take more time to build personal
relationships than in other more open cultures. On the other hand, relation-
ships that are made tend to be longlasting. Germans generally have a high
regard for privacy and personal space. It is wrong to say that they do not
have a sense of humour, as German humour can often be more subtle than,
for example, British or American humour. However, they treat business seri-
ously and humour is far less frequently used as an ‘ice-breaker’. Germans do
not appreciate self-deprecation and flippancy, but in social occasions after
work is over, they enjoy humour as much as other cultures.
German culture is masculine and individualist with high uncertainty
avoidance and is at the lower end of the power-distance scale. Their culture
values reliability, dependability and quality. Theirs is a results-oriented
approach, based to a large extent on a strong work ethic and good indus-
trial relations. They operate within a well-defined hierarchy, with clear
responsibilities and distinctions between personal positions and roles.

Germany is a Technik-oriented culture; note the slogan ‘Vorsprung durch
Technik’, which means advancement through technology, as befits the
leading manufacturing country in Europe. A high value is therefore placed
on technical skills, both at university and technical schools and in training.
Managers, although appearing to be somewhat paternalistic, have good
working relationships with their workers. As a result of good employee
welfare and social responsibility, trust and cooperation are reciprocated.
Many German managers have a good grasp of English. However, German
is the most widely spoken first language in the EU at present. It is also the
official language in Austria and is widely used in Switzerland. Germans have
great respect for foreigners who speak good German.
The Russian negotiating style

Churchill described Russia as: ‘A riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an
enigma.’ To some extent, this remains true. Russia has a business culture
that differs from the Western pattern and is, in some respects, more Asian in
its origin than European, though since the collapse of communism and the
Soviet Empire, it has been increasingly exposed to Western business influ-
ence. However, many of Russia’s differences are rooted in its historical past
and the wide diversity of its peoples. Although Russia has espoused some
of the aspects of the market economy, central government and residual
bureaucracy still retain a major influence on Russia’s business practices.
‘Dusha’ or ‘soul’ still remains central to everyday behaviour, which means
that personal relationships and mutual trust form a strong basis for success-
ful business. However, in recent years, renewed national confidence and the
economic strength of Russia’s energy resources have given the Russians an
increased economic advantage and have contributed to a tough negotiating
stance that aims to gain concessions. This is particularly apparent in the
negotiations over the exploitation of natural resources such as oil and gas
reserves.
The Russian Federation remains a relatively collectivist rather than an
individualist culture and this is still reflected in current business practices.
There is a generally relaxed attitude towards time, although it is on balance
more monochronic than polychronic, and a few minutes’ delay or lateness
is of relatively little importance. Business cards are essential, usually with
one side in English and the other in Russian. Small talk and shared experi-
ences, which normally involve talking about the family, personal matters
and sport, are customary before getting down to business and are much
appreciated. Gifts are exchanged and usually represent the status of the
company and the importance of the impending business.
There is a definite hierarchical structure in Russian business practices,
with the result that actual decision making is often made at a high level.
Showing respect for seniority and acknowledging this hierarchical structure
is vital for establishing and maintaining strong business relationships. Much

value is placed on written documents, including memoranda of understand-
ing, technical specifications and contracts. Presentations are well prepared
and negotiating positions are carefully planned and orchestrated.
Russians favour good eye contact. They prefer to have a degree of
informality in negotiations which aims to produce a relaxed atmosphere.
Physical contact during business meetings, such as a hand on the arm, is
taken as a positive sign. There is no word for ‘privacy’ in Russian, so Russians
do not require so much social space. However, their communication style
can at times appear rather blunt and direct. They have respect for counter-
parts who are well prepared and who show evidence of their professional
experience. Meetings are often protracted and seating is usually hierarchical.
They can be subject to interruptions and often do not keep strictly to time.
Patience is important as Russians may vary their tactics in an attempt to win
concessions before considering any form of compromise.
The Indian negotiating style

It must be emphasized that regionalism, religion, language and caste are
all factors that must be taken into account when doing business in India.
English is widely used as the main working language, although the govern-
ment recognizes Hindi as the official language of India and, in addition,
some states have different official languages. Translators are seldom required,
but it can be very useful to have the support of an intermediary to ease a
way through both local and government bureaucracy. Although there are
many regional dialects, educated Indians mostly speak very good English.
However, their use of English contains in places a mixture of English and
Hindi, sometimes called ‘Hinglish’ (as discussed in Chapter 4), where words
have different meanings. India is a multicultural, multiethnic and multilin-
gual society, and its large cities are truly a ‘melting pot’ of cultures.
Building relationships is a vital part of Indian business culture as Indians
prefer to deal with those they know and trust. It is therefore essential to form
a good personal and working relationship with any prospective partner.
Hindus themselves are very tolerant of diversity, both within their own
traditions and outside them, as it is part of the Hindu belief that all religions
are different paths towards the same goal. They are prepared to take risks
in order to be innovative and display considerable business acumen, which
have made them successful entrepreneurs both in Asia and in the European
market, an example of the latter being the global giant Tata Group.
Hierarchy plays a key role in Indian business culture, as Indian society
still operates within a framework of strict hierarchy that defines a person’s
role and status in the social order. Names indicate an Indian’s background –
for example, a Singh will always be a Sikh, while the suffix ‘jee’ (as in, for
example, Banerjee) is a sign of a high caste. Although the caste system was
officially abolished in 1947, it still exists at different levels. Women are
now to be seen in more senior appointments in companies, although the

position of women in the economy is still relatively weak. Indians like titles
and status, and due deference is given to those in authority.
Punctuality is expected, although Indians are not truly monochronic.
However, the responsibilities of the extended family may take precedence, so
last-minute changes of personnel are possible. Meetings should be arranged
well in advance and, if possible, should avoid the heat by scheduling
between October and March. Excessive bureaucracy can make life difficult
for business, particularly regarding taxation and labour laws. Business
negotiations are often protracted and decisions may have to be made at the
highest level.
Indians dislike high-pressure negotiating tactics and usually try to avoid
any form of confrontation. Wherever possible, they seek outcomes which
will please all parties and therefore will often be prepared to accept compro-
mises. Criticism and disagreement should always be expressed only in the
most diplomatic language. Indians have a dislike of saying ‘no’ as it may be
considered impolite and cause offence. However, it is always important to
listen to their response to your question. If expressions such as ‘we’ll see’
or ‘I will try’ are used, it may be that they are actually saying ‘no’. Indian
negotiators exercise control over their outward emotions and show respect
for the other party. However, they are patient but tenacious negotiators and
are prepared to put their position both eloquently and persistently.
When doing business in India, etiquette at meetings requires a handshake,
although many Indians themselves use the ‘namaste’. This occurs when the
palms of the hand are brought together at chest level with a slight bow of
the head. Using the ‘namaste’ is a sign that a foreigner is making an attempt
to show an understanding of Indian etiquette. Business cards are exchanged
at the first meeting and should be translated on one side into Hindi, more
as a sign of respect than of linguistic necessity. One should receive and give
a business card with the right hand.
The Japanese negotiating style

The Japanese are a high-context culture, with many specific rules for
social and business situations. They depend on extensive information net-
works and place high value on close personal relationships. In Hofstede’s
definition, they are collectivist, with the emphasis on group values rather
than the individual. Their culture is high in masculinity and uncertainty
avoidance, and medium in power distance terms. Women are usually
only minor members of a negotiating team, if at all. The Japanese may at
times appear to ignore women in Western negotiating teams, irrespective
of their seniority. Japan is an essentially masculine society and it is there-
fore rare to see women in high positions in business, and the traditional
nature of their culture does not encourage them to have the power to
negotiate.
Many older and senior Japanese managers may not speak fluent English
and will therefore need the aid of an interpreter. In general, the Japanese
see their own language as creating the right mood and atmosphere for busi-
ness, whereas they see English as more direct and used mainly to exchange
information.
Relationships are more formally negotiated rather than spontaneous or
casual and once established are assumed to be longstanding, with consider-
able ongoing personal involvement. The Japanese want to be certain that by
doing business with someone, their network of contacts will be reinforced
and not impaired in any way.
The Japanese are cautious negotiators with a long-term perspective. They
are always well prepared and spend time on building relationships and
mutual trust. Business is therefore personal. The Japanese see relationships
as a constant process of interpersonal discussion that builds trust with their
counterparts. In the early stages, there may be several preliminary meet-
ings, lunches and dinners at which relatively little business is discussed.
Foreigners must be prepared for every stage of the negotiating process to
be longer than that to which they are accustomed. Loyalty, a strong work
ethic, respect for seniority and effective teamwork are traditional Japanese
values.
As a high-context culture, there is much emphasis on non-verbal, implicit
and indirect communication and less on written, legalistic contracts. The
Japanese negotiating style can appear to be impersonal and unemotional,
but in fact emotion is important for the Japanese as logical and intellectual
argument cannot alone convince them. Japanese negotiators often exploit
‘haragei’ (literally ‘belly talk’), the value of silence in meetings and nego-
tiations. Silence that creates a ‘verbal vacuum’ is considered as a time for
reflection and is not seen as showing a lack of understanding or rudeness.
Westerners often find such silence embarrassing and feel obliged to say
something to reduce the perceived tension. If the silence arises from some
difficulty in solving a particular problem, the Japanese may postpone
proceedings to give everyone the opportunity for further discussion in
an attempt to reach agreement. Body language clues are very important,
particularly regarding eye contact. Smiling can at times be a cover for
embarrassment. The Japanese do not traditionally shake hands, but have
become accustomed to doing this. It is still normal, particularly for the older
generation, for many Japanese to bow.
Japan is an ascriptive culture according to Trompenaars’ definition. It is
therefore important to bear in mind that achievement cultures such as the
USA and the Netherlands would often have younger members in their nego-
tiating team. The Japanese, however, may have more senior people briefed
by a number of subordinates and may be surprised at the comparatively
younger representatives of achievement-oriented cultures (Trompenaars,
1994: 98).
The Japanese are sensitive regarding status and seniority, in line with
Confucian principles. Senior managers attend negotiations, but leave their
juniors to do most of the talking while they listen carefully. They may con-
sult at all levels within a group before they reach the decision-making stage.
Decision making is therefore usually undertaken by consensus after many
questions are posed in order to gain more information. However strong
their negotiating team is, the Japanese may feel obliged to refer back to their
headquarters for approval of any agreement. As such, it is often unlikely that
decisions will be made at the first or even the second meeting. The second
meeting may cover similar ground to the first, but the questions are likely
to be more searching as the Japanese are anxious to achieve clarity, thereby
avoiding later misunderstandings. However, once they have made a deci-
sion, their negotiating team expects quick action.
In an attempt to avoid controversy, Japanese negotiators are also anxious
to save ‘face’ and dislike being pushed into a corner with little apparent
escape or alternative options. The Japanese ‘hai’ (‘yes’) does not always mean
‘I agree with you’; it can often mean ‘I hear what you say’. They are reluctant
directly to say ‘no’ as it may cause embarrassment and a loss of ‘face’, and
will strive for harmony throughout negotiations. They hesitate to challenge
arguments entirely or break off the negotiations while the harmony exists.
There is a tradition (‘naniwabushi’) of being flexible to cope with changed
circumstances and Japanese negotiators may appeal to outsiders to work
with them in order to change a deal after it has been formally approved.
Negotiations and meetings are formally conducted and formal intro-
ductions are of great importance. This etiquette is part of a strict ritual
(‘jikoshokai’) and the Japanese place great significance on both verbal
introductions and the presentation and receiving of the business card
(‘meishi’), which is presented with much formality and respect. It should
be offered with both hands with the Japanese translation side upwards.
Their card should also be received with both hands and it shows respect
to take a few moments to peruse it carefully. Foreigners should be aware of
this ritual and should be seen to reciprocate and show they understand the
Japanese etiquette.
The Japanese are always patient and polite, but do not always readily
appreciate the informal Western approach. They also do not appreciate
the British sense of humour, particularly self-deprecation, which they feel
is misplaced, even demeaning, and is not understood. The use of humour
may well give the wrong impression and indicate a lack of seriousness about
the business in hand. However, on informal and private occasions, when
everyone knows each other, there can be a great deal of joking and humour.
Examples of this are karaoke sessions, which are normally for men only and
are held after work.
As regards their attitude towards time, the Japanese are basically mono-
chronic and punctual. However, they do not like to be rushed and need
considerable time to weigh up all the implications of a business proposal.

There is a long consultation process both upwards and downwards within
their organizations. It is also important not to introduce deadlines in the
early stages of negotiations.
Gift-giving and hospitality play an important part in Japanese business
and follow a strict etiquette. Indeed, most business and social life in Japan is
to a large extent ritualistic and is an expression of the Japanese need to con-
sider carefully by observing you to decide whether you and your company
show signs of potential for a long and fruitful business based on a strong
enduring friendship. The appearance of a gift is very important; indeed, the
container in which the gift comes and its packaging are considered almost as
important as the gift itself. The Japanese avoid using black or bright colours
for wrapping paper. Black and white are reserved for funerals.
Case study: who shall be sent to Japan?
A European multinational company is about to select a manager to lead

the negotiations for a new joint venture in Japan. The nominee will have
to be acceptable to the Japanese partners.
The obvious choice for the position is Deborah Ransome, an able
colleague with many years’ experience and a proven track record as a
project manager. There are two other male possibilities for the post, but
neither is ideally suited. One of the men is considered too young and
the other does not have sufficient experience with the product intended
for the Japanese market. As the senior management European selection
committee meets to discuss and then confirm who will represent the
company in Japan, one member of the committee points out that, given
certain cultural features of the Japanese business scene, sending a woman
to Tokyo might present some difficulties. The selection committee now
has to decide what to do.
The following points should be considered:
(1) What are the known features of the Japanese business scene with
respect to women as a member of a negotiating team?
(2) Should the chairman advise the committee to take account of the
cultural concerns of the Japanese or just do what is best for the
company?
(3) Should the company send Deborah Ransome?
The Chinese negotiating style

Chinese culture is essentially collectivist, with cultural attitudes and values
greatly influenced by Confucianism. Confucius was a moral philosopher
whose aim was to establish a practical philosophy based on criteria for the
right way to live. He was concerned with conformity to the values and
behaviour which underpinned the stability of the established order and
moral behaviour. In the ideal world, everyone knows his or her place. The
duty of humans in Confucian ethics may be summed up as reciprocity. This
is closely associated with loyalty to others and this principle is exemplified
in the five relationships of the family and the state in society.
Ruler – Subject
Father – Son
Husband – Wife
Elder Brother – Younger Brother
Elder Friend – Younger Friend
Figure 9.4 Confucian loyalties

These five basic relationships (‘wu lun’) are based on mutual and comple-
mentary obligations – for example, the senior owes the junior protection,
guidance and consideration, and the junior owes the senior respect and
obedience. Confucianism symbolizes social stability, national decorum and
retention of the ‘status quo’ (Stockman, 2000: 71).
These characteristics have survived for centuries and have withstood the
actions of the communist government since 1948. Despite greatly increased
contact with other cultures in recent years and the spread of globalization,
they still have a considerable effect on Chinese business. For the Chinese,
Hofstede’s power distance is large because of many years of centralized
control, which has promoted a tradition of obedience in which inequalities
are more readily expected and accepted.
Hofstede (1994: 165–8) refers to a fifth dimension, which he calls
‘Confucian dynamism’, in his subsequent study of Chinese culture, identified
in the CVS. He suggests that there is a correlation between certain Confucian
values and the economic growth of Asia in recent years. In particular,
the CVS results indicate the value of a long-term perspective in business,
supported by hard work and perseverance. This was discussed in more detail
in Chapter 2.
The other influence on Chinese behaviour is Taoism, created by Lao
Tzu (born in 604 BC). Its main philosophy is described in the book Tao Te
Ching, meaning ‘The Way and the Power’. Taoism has three main teach-
ings, which overlap each other. The first can only be understood through
mystical insight, while the second refers to the principle of order behind
the universe and represents the rhythm and driving force of nature. The
third advocates that people should live their lives in order to be in balance
and harmony with the universe. For many Chinese, Taoism, Confucianism
and Buddhism are seen as being complementary and are considered to be
‘the three faiths in one’. As a result, many Chinese accept Confucianism as
a guide to the way in which they should conduct their daily life. They also
often use Taoist practitioners for ritual purification and employ Buddhist
priest for funerals.
Chinese negotiations are formal, highly structured and often protracted,
with frequent breaks in the proceedings. They usually begin with ‘small talk’
and put great value on including ‘shared experiences’ between themselves
and the other nationalities involved in the negotiations. They begin the
negotiating process by gathering information and assessing trustworthiness.
They are anxious to obtain as much technical and commercial data about
the company’s product as possible (Mead, 1998: 236).
The Chinese place an initial emphasis on detailed technical aspects
before price and terms of the contract, and they prefer to receive detailed
background information in advance. Chinese negotiators look for a commit-
ment to work together rather than a water-tight contract. The signing of a
contract is often not the end of the negotiations, but simply a continuation
of the negotiating process.
By nature, the Chinese seek to avoid confrontation in negotiations. They
are pragmatists and, whenever possible, prefer to ‘bend with the wind’. They
believe that patience is a virtue in negotiating and do not openly show
frustration, anger or impatience. Patience is also considered a demonstra-
tion of superior inner strength and the preservation of dignity or ‘face’, that
is, self-respect, particularly in the eyes of others. They are reluctant to say
‘no’, but will hint at various difficulties. In this case, ‘yes’ may mean ‘I hear
you’, but not necessarily ‘I agree’. They are likely to delegate only limited
authority to their negotiators and may well require them to refer to higher
authority for important decisions. Their tactics are often to extract as many
concessions as possible from their counterparts before making any them-
selves. They dislike surprises and will insist on an agreed agenda before the
start of negotiations.
The Chinese are basically monochronic, but do not like being rushed
in negotiations. They value time for reflection and further consideration.
However, they do appreciate the value of time and are punctual both for
business and social occasions.
The Chinese place great store on the importance of ‘face’, as it is of signifi-
cance to a person’s image and status in the eyes of business associates. They
use various communication strategies in order to save ‘face’ and to give ‘face’,
including indirectness and the use of intermediaries. Counterparts should
avoid wherever possible backing a Chinese negotiator into a situation which
provides little room for manoeuvre. The Chinese conceptualization of ‘face’
is much more complex than that of Westerners and is viewed as an essential
component of communication (Cardon and Scott, 2003).
Names are very important to the Chinese. They are seldom called by their
given names except by close relatives or friends. Surnames come first. They
place importance on titles and these should be used if known. The Chinese
are far more comfortable with silence than Westerners are. What is left
unsaid can be as important as what is expressed directly. Silence can be a
sign of politeness or a ploy to find out more information.
Chinese negotiations are often lengthy and a signed agreement is seen
as only an important milestone on a long journey. Their negotiating team
will include a number of specialists (for example, in finance or technology)
and their input will often lead to long, drawn-out negotiations. One of the
important ways of reaching agreement is the use of ‘guanxi’ (connections),
the importance of knowing people in high places or simply in the right
place and motivating them to help you by granting a favour. The Chinese
will often deliberately cultivate such people in the anticipation that a favour
might be needed in the future. The right connections do much to help lubri-
cate the Chinese system, providing access and clearing the path through
bureaucracy.
‘Feng shui’ (literally ‘fire and water’) plays an important part in Chinese
business and social life. It is concerned with the importance of preserving
harmony between people and the environment. Good ‘feng shui’ is syno-
nymous with good luck and involves harnessing the natural energy of
the environment to bring good fortune. This ancient philosophy is based
on the benefits of the positive influences of life forces and is concerned,
for example, with the correct positioning of buildings, office design and
positioning of plants, favouring those with rounded rather than pointed
leaves. All this is an attempt to enhance the chance of successful business.
‘Feng shui’ experts, who have a combination of the skills of the geomancer,
astrologer and soothsayer, are regularly consulted.
The Arab negotiating style

The Arab world extends from Mauritania on the Atlantic coast to Oman
on the Indian Ocean and includes Sudan and Somalia. It is the dominant
culture of the Middle East and the Mahgreb. It contains the heartland of
Islam and its culture and customs are built upon Islamic teachings. Islam
is both a religion and a way of life, and provides an ethical framework for
business. Negotiations are therefore greatly influenced by Islamic teachings
and traditions. Unlike most Western cultures, there is no separation of state
and religion.
Being an Arab has less to do with ethnic origins and more to do with
language, thought systems, values and, above all, a sense of pride in Arab
history. Islam is shaped both by history and Arab thought. The Arab lan-
guage is spoken throughout the Arab world, providing a unified concept,
although there are regional variations. Some attempt by foreigners to use
Arabic, however faltering, is usually much appreciated, even if one gets no
further than the ritual greetings.
In the Arab world, all business negotiations develop from personal rela-
tionships and meeting the ‘right people’. The first meeting with an Arab
businessman is used to build trust and subsequently to establish a working

personal relationship before getting down to the real business. Time spent
on developing close personal relationships and mutual trust is therefore a
prerequisite for success. Foreigners should, for their part, always adopt a
dignified approach and not press hard for quick decisions. Personal intro-
ductions and networking play a large part in business. Once close relations
are established, the expectation is that the parties will continue to nurture
these relationships. Care should be taken when shaking hands as it is
considered disrespectful for a man to offer his hand to a woman unless she
extends hers first.
Arabs are a high-context culture; they communicate less directly and are
less adversarial. Combative, confrontational negotiations are not tactics
followed by Arabs out of choice as they prefer to place emphasis on harmony
and the avoidance of confrontation. Their style of communication is more
circular than the Western linear approach. They prefer face-to-face com-
munication, followed by telephoning, followed by email and then written
documentation. Many Arabs tend to develop their business alongside social
relationships, so socializing with clients and agents after working hours is
common practice.
Arab culture is essentially a polite culture, but it is usually advisable not
to discuss religion or politics unless encouraged to do so. When negotiating,
one should expect verbal interruptions by the other party, but rudeness is
not intended as interruption. To an Arab, it indicates the interaction of ideas
and evidence of a continuous exchange of information.
Silence is not welcomed during negotiations and is perceived as an
awkward sign that may indicate that communication has, for some reason,
broken down and that therefore the relationship must be rebuilt. Arabs
welcome eye contact during negotiations, but too much eye contact may
cause them some discomfort. Note-taking at meetings is seen as interfering
with personal contact and should therefore, where possible, be delegated to
junior personnel, thus raising the profile of senior negotiators.
Emphasizing common ground (‘shared experiences’) is particularly effec-
tive in the Arab world. This is well liked by Arabs as it assists in getting to
know the members of the other negotiating team, thus establishing trust
and helping to break the ice. When approaching a potential problem in
negotiations, it is considered advantageous to emphasize the mutual bene-
fits that are likely to result from working together to achieve a solution. The
Arab management style is paternalistic and visiting business people need to
demonstrate they have the appropriate level of authority if they are to be
given any credibility.
Prayers are said five times a day, and in some parts of the Arab world,
especially in Saudi Arabia, meetings will often stop and businesses will close
during the time of prayer. During the month of Ramadan, government
offices and businesses may close their offices at midday. It is therefore
preferable to avoid business visits if at all possible during Ramadan. If

non-Muslims do visit during that time, they should, out of respect, refrain
from eating, drinking and smoking in public. Friday is the weekly day of
rest. Care must be taken about gift-giving. All alcohol is strictly forbidden
and gifts should always be presented using the right hand. It is common
practice in the Arab world to exchange small gifts to establish an initial
bond of friendship. Failure to do so would be considered bad manners.
It is important to understand the expression ‘Inshallah’ (if God wills),
which is much misunderstood by Westerners. Intentions may not readily
materialize into acts, so the expression can mean several things:
• I should like this to happen.

• I will try my best.
• I cannot be sure about this proposal/plan.
• I need time to think about this.
• I don’t really want to respond to your proposal.
• The answer will be ‘no’, but let us observe the normal courtesies.
‘Ma fi mushkilleh’ is another Arab phrase which may cause problems for for-
eigners. Literally translated, it means ‘there is no problem’. However, this phrase
may actually hide the fact that there is an obstacle. Effective communication
derived from personal relationships with your Arab counterparts will usually
help indicate which of these meanings applies to the current situation.
Arabs will strive to avoid breaking off negotiations and will attempt,
wherever possible, to build long-term relationships for future business. In
many negotiating situations, Arabs, following Islamic teaching and tradi-
tions, may decide to use a mediator to settle situations where there is real or
potential conflict. The mediator is considered neutral, has the trust of both
parties, understands their respective positions and will strive to bring about
an honourable solution for all parties involved.
Training
Training for the cross-cultural aspects of international negotiations should

follow much of that suggested for building and sustaining multicultural
teams. It should include cultural sensitivity training and briefing as part
of the preparation phase. In addition, simulation exercises using role play
based on real-life scenarios should be used. The use of cultural assimilators
which develop critical incidents in a particular culture provide another
training alternative. Critical incident scenarios are best written by nationals
or by expatriates with wide experience of the particular culture, and the
responses are first tested among others with similar experience to ensure
that the solutions are valid. Such training, apart from being of value to indi-
viduals, helps develop the group dynamics.
Language training, as has been emphasized earlier, is effective only if it

is begun early enough and should, if at all possible, involve time in the
relevant country. It should always involve nationals, preferably with busi-
ness experience. Language training is best undertaken intensively on a
one-to-one basis, with the main emphasis on oral fluency and a gradual
build-up of vocabulary to acquire sufficient fluency to take part in negotia-
tions. If circumstances permit, language training should be continued in the
country where negotiations are likely to take place.
Summary
International negotiators need to:
• attempt to establish personal relationships before negotiations begin;

• appreciate the importance of building mutual trust;
• prepare well in advance and study the culture and history of the other
nationality;
• establish what is to be the working language and, if necessary, decide
whether translators are required;
• build on ‘shared experiences’;
• appreciate that the other party will interpret your input in the light of
their own cultural and linguistic background;
• be alert to non-verbal gestures and the use of silence;
• keep emotions under control and show patience and tolerance;
• avoid anything that might lead to loss of ‘face’;
• appreciate the importance attached to status and seniority;
• be prepared for negotiations to continue beyond the apparent conclusion
of an agreement.
A word of caution is necessary when attempting to comment on the key

characteristics of the negotiation style of different cultures. As the world
becomes increasingly globalized, interdependent and interconnected, there
is inevitably a degree of cultural convergence. As a result, these characteris-
tics will modify and we must be careful not to ascribe stereotypical values
to individual cultures.
References
Adler, N. (1991) International Dimensions of Organizational Behaviour (Boston, MA:
PWS-Kent Publishing Company).
Binyon, M. (2001) ‘A Sorry Business’, The Times, 13 August.
Cardon, P. and Scott, J. (2003) ‘Chinese Business Face: Communication, Behaviour
and Teaching Approaches’, Business Communication Quarterly 66(4): 9–22.
Cohen, R. (1999) Negotiating Across Cultures: International Communication in the
Independent World (Washington DC: US Institute of Peace Press).
Fisher, R. and Ury, W. (2003) Getting to Yes (London: Random House).

Graham, J. and Herberger Jr., R. (1983) ‘Negotiations Abroad – Don’t Shoot from the
Hip’, Harvard Business Review: 160–8.
Hofstede, G. (1994) Cultures and Organisations. Software of the Mind. Intercultural
Organisation and its Importance for Survival (London: HarperCollins).
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G.J. and Minkov, M. (2010) Cultures and Organizations. Software
of the Mind. Intercultural Organization and its Importance for Survival (New York:
McGraw-Hill).
Lewicki, R. (2008) Negotiation (New York: McGraw-Hill).
Mead, R. (1998) International Management (Oxford: Blackwell).
Stockman, N. (2000) Understanding Chinese Society (Oxford: Blackwell).
Szaly, L. (1981) ‘Intercultural Communication: A Process Model’, International Journal
of International Relations 5: 133–46.
Trompenaars, F. (1994) Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding Cultural Diversity in
Business (London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing).
Victor, D. (1992) International Business Communication (London: HarperCollins).
Further reading
Axtell, R. (ed.) (1985) Do’s and Taboos Around the World (New York: John Wiley &
Sons).
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. (1987) Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use
(Cambridge University Press).
Buttery, E. and Leung, T. (1998) ‘The Difference between Chinese and Western
Negotiation’, European Journal of Marketing 32(3/4): 374–89.
Daniels, J., Radebaugh, L. and Sullivan, D. (2007) International Business: Environments
and Orientations, 11th edn (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall).
Davies, P. (2004) What’s This India Business? (London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing).
Fowler, A. (1999) Negotiation Skills and Strategies, 2nd edn (London: Institute of
Personal Development).
Hall, E. and Hall, M. (1990) Understanding Cultural Differences: Germans, French and
Americans (Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press).
Harris, P. and Moran, R. (2000) Managing Cultural Differences, 5th edn (Houston, TX:
Gulf Publishing).
Hurn, B. (2007) ‘The Influence of Culture on International Business Negotiations’,
Industrial and Commercial Training 39(7): 354–60.
Lewis, R. (2011) When Cultures Collide, 3rd edn (London: Nicholas Brealey
Publishing).
Marshall, Sir Peter (1997) Positive Diplomacy (Basingstoke: Macmillan).
Richmond, Y. (1992) From Nyet to Da: Understanding the Russians (Yarmouth, ME:
Intercultural Press).
Richmond, Y. (1995) From Da to Yes: Understanding the East Europeans (Yarmouth, ME:
Intercultural Press).
Tan, T. (1992) Culture Shock! Britain (London: Kuperard).

Midterm GTLVH

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Midterm GTLVH

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Midterm GTLVH

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

Influence of various disciplines on cultural studies

This first chapter looks at the influence of other disciplines on cultural

Cross-cultural communication is a multifaceted subject which has

Cross-cultural communication is about the way people from different cul-

a) the Theory and Research (sociology and communications) school;

How linguistics influences communication

• Does the way we use language influence the way we think?

Semiotics was introduced by the Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure

with no sexual connotation at all. The point is that ‘friend’ is a common

Language and thought

maintains that there is a symbiotic relationship between language and the

Figure 1.1 Culture – what is it?

As we might expect, there are many definitions of culture. Some of these

• ‘Culture is man-made, confirmed by others, conventionalized … It provides

It would seem that a comprehensive workable definition of culture is based

Culture is therefore socially, and not biologically, constructed. Individuals

Oberg’s iceberg analogy

Corporate culture is often described as ‘the way we do things around

A fourth area, which is rapidly becoming even more influential, is the

Figure 1.2 Communication styles

Details and suggestions communicators

This is a re-statement of Edward T. Hall’s concise/expressive communication

An emotional society considers that an element of communication is to

This refers to whether the speed of communication is fast or slow and

(slower speaking, observing strict turn-taking in conversation and avoiding

The communication framework is a useful tool for identifying key verbal

Barriers to effective communication

There is a Southeast Asian proverb that says: ‘Misunderstandings don’t exist;

However, misunderstanding often occurs in the transmission of the

Encode Channel Decode

Figure 1.3 A typical communication problem

• be aware of the distinct possibility of distortion or misinterpretation;

Face-to face communication has the great advantage of providing instant

When we wish to communicate internationally, we rarely see the whole

• we have to make decisions about how to behave on the information we

As a result, we often make mistakes in perception, interpretation and

Parochialism Fear of embarrassment, conflict

Figure 1.4 Barriers to communication

• Ignorance: we are often very ignorant of other people’s culture – their

• we observe what is happening;

Different cultures have different norms and expectations of behaviour in both

Assuming similarity with one’s own culture

There is often a tendency to assume similarities between the foreign culture

Stereotypes can be described as a group of beliefs and attitudes towards peo-

• traits that we admire – ambition, modesty, cleverness, bravery;

Perception lies at the very heart of cross-cultural communication. We all

• ‘Abroad is unutterably bloody and foreigners are fiends’ (Nancy Mitford,

Whenever we go to live and work internationally, we all begin our time

Heaven is where: The police are British

Hell is where: The police are German

Figure 1.5 Definitions of heaven and hell (mostly apocryphal!)

• STOP: in situations of ambiguity, our natural tendency is to speed up and

Figure 1.6 The STAR approach

Mr Soto, a senior Japanese manager, was attending a presentation by

How then can we reduce these barriers to effective cross-cultural

• We need to seek feedback to check whether other people understand

• The study of cross-cultural communication is influenced by anthropology,

We can perhaps best summarize by formulating three basic rules to help us

• We should accept that others are different from us.