building intercultural alliances: a study of moves and strategies in …234795/uq234795... · 2019....

1860–7330/11/0031–0101 Text & Talk 31–1(2011),pp.101–125Online1860–7349 DOI10.1515/TEXT.2011.005©WalterdeGruyter

Building intercultural alliances: a study of moves and strategies in initial business

negotiation meetings

YUNXIA ZHU

Abstract

This paper proposes a conceptual model to study the discourse of initial nego-tiation meetings between members of New Zealand and Chinese corporations. It attempts to make two contributions to existing cross-cultural negotiation research, especially to rapport management. Firstly, it develops a conceptual position where negotiation meetings require mutual effort for building inter-cultural alliances. Secondly, the application and further division of initial moves (initiating moves-relational [IM-R] and initiating move-transactional [IM-T]), responding moves (responding move-cooperative [RM-C] and re-sponding move-uncooperative [RM-UC]), and strategies into politeness strat-egies (PS) and uncooperative strategies (UC-S) offer an in-depth analysis of the nuances of positioning construction between parties. The findings indicate that a successful negotiation meeting establishes and develops intercultural alliances through appropriate use of moves and strategies. Negotiations, how-ever, derail if inappropriate moves and strategies are used, and potential con-flicts and communication breakdowns are not addressed in time.

Keywords: negotiation meeting; intercultural alliances; moves; strategies; New Zealand; China.

1. Introduction

With the rapiddevelopmentofglobalizationand internationalization,cross-culturalbusinessnegotiationhasbecomeincreasinglyfrequent,hencetheneedto study themanagementofnegotiationbehaviour at an international level.Thispaper aims todevelopa conceptualmodel to analyze thediscourseofinitialcross-culturalnegotiationmeetingsusingNewZealand( NZ)andChi-nesenegotiationsasexemplar.

Brought to you by | University of Queensland - UQ LibraryAuthenticated

Download Date | 12/14/15 3:01 AM

102 Yunxia Zhu

Cross-culturalnegotiationhaslongdrawnresearchers’attention(e.g.,AdairandBrett2005;Graham1983;GrahamandSano1989;Lampi1986;Planken2005;VanZandt1970).Inparticular,extensiveresearchhasbeendoneonne-gotiatingwiththeChinese(e.g.,Spencer-Oatey2000;Spencer-OateyandXing1998,2004;Fang1999;Lietal.2001;Ulijnetal.2005;Zhuetal.2007)asChinaisbecomingthelargestmarketforinternationalbusinessintheworld.Agrowingtrendinsuchresearchistheuseofdiscoursalapproachesinthestudyofcross-culturalnegotiation.AdiscoursalapproachisdefinedbyWiddowson(1983)asaresearchperspectivewhichexaminestheinteractiveprocess.Re-searchers such as Bülow-Møller (1993), Lampi (1986), Charles (1996), Lietal.(2001),Spencer-Oatey(2000),andPlanken(2005)offerinsightsintothenatureofnegotiationbyanalyzingthelinguisticstrategiesused.Alsorelevanttothisstudyisresearchwhichfocusesonmanagingrapportin

negotiationsinlightofBrownandLevinson’s(1987)politenesstheory.SomerepresentativestudiescanbefoundinSpencer-Oatey’s(2000)workonrapportmanagementandinanearlierstudyconductedbyCharles(1996)onbusinessrelationshipbuildingwithsalescontacts.Theircontributionliesinhighlightingtheimportanceofrelationalgoalsincross-culturalnegotiation.AsdiscussedinSection2.1,Spencer-Oatey(2000)hasdevelopedafive-domainframeworkforstudyingrelationalgoalsinnegotiation:theillocutionary,content,partici-pation,stylistic,andnonverbaldomains.Thesefivedomainsallowforamorecomprehensiveconsiderationoffacework,whichsignificantlyextendsthepo-litenesstheoryoftheillocutionarydomain(BrownandLevinson1987).How-ever, while extensive research has been done in the illocutionary domain,therehasonlybeenlimitedresearch(e.g.,Planken2005;Spencer-Oatey2000;Spencer-OateyandXing2004)intheotherfourdomains.Thisisoneareatowhich thispaperendeavors tomakeacontribution.This studyalsoaims toextend Spencer-Oatey’s rapport management to cross-cultural negotiationresearch.Asnotedabove,rapportmanagementresearchersmainlyfocusontherela-

tionalgoal(Planken2005),exploringthediscourserelatingtothesocialrela-tionsofinteractions.Althoughthey(Planken2005;Spencer-Oatey2000)rec-ognizethecoexistenceofrelationalandtransactionalgoals,moreresearchisnecessarytoexplorehowcommongoalsandmutualinterestsareachievedinordertofitthenegotiationcontexts.AsLewickietal.(2007)note,thesecom-monalitiesareessentialforawin–winnegotiationoutcome.Existingresearch(e.g.,Miles2003;Zhuetal.2007)showsthatChinesenegotiatorstendtofocusonlong-termrelationshipsorrelationalgoals,whileWesternnegotiatorstendtofocusontransactionalgoals.Itisthereforeimperativetoappropriatelyad-dress potential conflicts involving different goals and help turn parties intocollaboratorsandalliances.Inordertoaddressthisissue,thispaperproposesculturalalliancestoextendrapportmanagement.Inaddition,thispaperadopts



Moves and strategies in initial business negotiation meetings 103

andclassifiesmovesandstrategiestoextendtheotherdomainsdevelopedbySpencer-Oatey.Specifically,thepaper’saimsareasfollows:

1. Developaframeworkofinterculturalalliances(Collier2003),whichem-braces both transactional and relational goals in negotiation and turnsthemintoalliances(extendingrapportmanagementingeneral).

2. Incorporatenegotiationmoves,includinginitiatingandrespondingmoves(extendingtheparticipationdomain),toexaminethediscourseofnegotia-tionandmanagementofconflicts.

3. Identifystrategies,includingpositivepolitenessstrategiesanduncoopera-tivestrategies(extendingthediscoursecontentdomain),toexaminethemicro-leveldiscourseanditsrelationshipwiththemacro-leveldiscourse(e.g.,movesandthebuildingofinterculturalalliances).

Fromabroaderperspective,thispaperalsocontributestodevelopingnewap-proaches to enhance cross-cultural collaborations. Research on negotiationwiththeChinesetendstofocusonbarriersanddifficultiesofunderstandingChinesenegotiationbehaviorsandstyles(e.g.,Fang1999;JehnandWeigelt1999;SheerandChen2003;Young1994).However,severalresearchers,in-cludingEarley(2006)andHolden(2004),haverealizedthatidentifyingcul-turaldifferencesalonecannotaddressallthecross-culturalissues.Thispapermakesanattempttoshiftthefocusfromculturalbarrierstoculturalcollabora-tions.NewZealandandChinesecultureswerechosensincetheyrepresenttheWesternandEasternculturalclusters,respectively(e.g.,Hofstede1991).NewZealandisbecomingmoreandmoreinvolvedindoingbusinesswithChina,whichisclearlyevidencedinbeingthefirstWesterncountrytosignthefreetradeagreementwithChinain2008.Specifically,thispaperisorganizedasfollows.Firstly,aconceptualframe-

workisdeveloped.Thisoffersanunderpinningguidelinefortheanalysisofnegotiationdiscourse.Secondly,detailsaboutthedataandresearchmethodol-ogyareoutlined.Thirdly,acomparativeanalysisisprovidedforsuccessfulandunsuccessfulnegotiationmeetingstoshowhowappropriatemovesandstrate-giescanhelppromoteinterculturalalliances.Finally,conclusionsandimplica-tionsforfurtherstudyincross-culturalnegotiationsarediscussed.

2. Conceptualframework

2.1. Spencer-Oatey’s five domains of cross-cultural negotiation

Asnotedabove,Spencer-Oatey(2000)proposesfivedomainsofrapportman-agement in negotiation.Thefirst is the illocutionary domain (e.g., studyofspeech acts, such as offers and requests in negotiations) where politeness



104 Yunxia Zhu

theoryiscentrallylocated.Thesecondisthediscoursedomain,whichincludessequenceofinteractionaltopic;thethirdistheparticipationdomainconcern-ingturntaking,suchaswhentorespondtoaconversation;thefourthisthestylisticdomainregardingtheregisteroflanguageandchoiceoftone.Thefifthdomainrelatestotheuseofnonverballanguage.Sincetheillocutionarydo-mainhasbeenthemoststudied,Spencer-Oateyhashighlightedtheimperativeformorecasestudiesandforincorporatingmoretheoreticalperspectives.Inresponse,Planken(2005)developedtheotherfourdomainsthroughinvesti-gatingtheinitiationofsafetalks(relationallyorientedtopics)andtheuseofpronounsasindicatorofrelationships,bothofwhichshefoundimportantforbuildingrelationshipsinnegotiations.Thepresentstudyproposesatheoreticalframeworkbasedonintercultural

alliancestoextendnotonlythefourdomainsbutalsotherapportmanagementtheory. This approach incorporates both relational and transactional goals,which is imperativesince themismatchbetween them isoften thecauseofmisunderstandingsinnegotiatingwiththeChinese(seeFang1999;SheerandChen2003;Ulijnetal.2005).

2.2. Intercultural alliances

AccordingtoCollier(2003),interculturalalliancesarealliancesinwhichpar-tiesseekcommongoals,shareresponsibilities,andrecognizetheirdifferencesand interdependenceoneachother.Researchers in thisareagenerallyagreethatalliancescanbeachievedthroughthenegotiationofvalues,identities,andnormsthatincorporateperspectivesfrombothcultures.Tofurtherunderstandculturalalliances,thefollowingthreedimensionsneedtobeconsidered.Firstly,itisessentialtorecognizebothculture-generalandculture-specific

(indigenous)dimensionsofculturaldifferences(Earley2006).Themostcom-monlycitedgeneralculturaldifferencesincludeindividualismandcollectiv-ism(Hofstede1991)andhigh-contextandlow-contextcultures(Hall1976).Theculture-specificorindigenoustheoriesthataremostrelevanttothisstudyincludetheconceptsofguanxior‘connections’andmianzior‘face’.Guanxiisanetworkofrelationships(Fei1985)andisessentialforbuildingrelationships(PaikandTung1999;Zhu2005,2009;Zhuetal.2006).Face,accordingtoTing-Toomey(1999),isanimportantconceptformanaginginterpersonalrela-tions.Spencer-Oatey(2000)furtherprovesthatpublicfaceisevenmoreim-portantfornegotiatingwithChinesepeople.Theseculturalvaluesanddimen-sionshavebeenprovedtoberelevantandusefulforstudyingnegotiationswiththeChinese(e.g.,Fang1999;Spencer-Oatey2000;Ulijnetal.2005).Secondly, interculturalalliancescenteronbuildingempathyand interper-

sonal relations or “relational empathy,” defined byBroome (inAllen et al.




2003:307)as“arelationalprocessthatinvolvesindividualsandgroupswork-ingtogethertobuildacollectiveinterpretationofthesituationtheyfaceandtodevelop a consensus for performing joined action.”Spencer-Oatey’s (2000)pioneeringworkonrapportinnegotiationhasbeennotedearlier.Thispaperwill view these relationally based frameworks as part of the interculturalalliances.Thirdly,interculturalalliancesfocusonseekingcommongoalstoachieve

business objectives, also known as transactional goals (Planken 2005). Toachievethesegoals,negotiatorsneedtobefullyawareoftheirdifferentneedsandwantsand,moreimportantly,understandtheirinterdependenceuponeachother and achieve awin–win common goal (Lewicki et al. 2007). Lewickietal.(2007)callthistypeofnegotiationcooperativeorintegrativenegotiation,while theyrefer to theopposite, i.e., focusingonone’sowninterest,asdis-tributiveorcompetitivenegotiation.

2.3. Stages in cross-cultural negotiations

Negotiationsareoftenseenascomposedofanumberofstages.GrahamandSano(1989)havedevelopedafour-stagemodelbasedontheirextensivestudyofAmericanandJapanesenegotiations,whichtheyclaimarealsoapplicabletointernationalnegotiationsallovertheworld(1989:79).

1. Non-tasksounding:negotiatingpartiesgettoknoweachother.2. Task-relatedexchangeofinformation:parties’subjectiveneedsandpref-

erencesopentodiscussion.3. Persuasion: parties attempt to influence the other side’s needs and

preferences.4. Concessionsandagreement(closing):partiesaccomplishanagreement.

Thefirststageisalsoseenasthebeginningstageandthefinalastheclosingstage.Unsuccessfulnegotiationscanalsohaveaclosing,evenwithoutadeal.These fourstagesareuseful forunderstandingnegotiations ingeneral sincetheyreflectthedevelopmentofrelationshipbuildingandthebusinesstransac-tion.However,thefourstagesmaynotbesufficienttostudyhownegotiatorsactuallyuselanguagetoinitiateandmaintaininterculturalalliances,hencetheneedtointroducetheconceptsofmovesandstrategies.

2.4. Moves

Positioning,definedasthevantagepointonetakesthroughwhichoneseestheworld(DavisandHarre1990:46),underpinsmovesinnegotiation,hencethe



106 Yunxia Zhu

needtodiscusspositioninginthissection.Positioningcanbeseenaspartofthesociocognitiveprocesssimilartoframesorpointofview.However,differ-entfromframes,itfocusesonconstructingaperspectivethroughinteractionsor interactional roles involving the other party (Putnam and Jones 1982;Spencer-Oatey2000).Throughthisinteraction,locationiscreatedformediat-ingsocialrelationsandactionssuchaspositioningcredibilityforone’sfirmandpositioningabottom-linepriceasattractivetotheotherparty.Theterm“move”wasfirstintroducedbyBellacketal.(1966)tostudyclass-

roomdiscourseasaunitofinteractionbasedonWittgenstein’s(1953)gametheory.LaterGoffman(1969)appliedmovetosocialinteraction,anapproachwhichismorerelevanttothispaper.AccordingtoGoffman(1969),amoveisacourseofactionwhichinvolvesrealconsequences,whichofferssomeinsightintoitsgeneralmeaning.Thispaperfurtherdefinesmovesassignificantmo-mentsforpositioningoneselfinanegotiation,suchasadvocatingone’scredi-bilityandneeds.Forexample,commonlyusedmovesinnegotiationsincludemakingthreatsandappealingforsympathy.ThisdefinitionofmovesdiffersfromGoffman’s.Itrelatesmovestonegotiationpositioningratherthanfocus-ingonwhentomakeamoveandtakeaturn.Oneconversationalturncanin-volvemorethanonemovesinceonecanrespondtoanexistingmovewhileinitiatinganewmoveatthesametime.Amovecanalsobecomposedofmorethanone turn (e.g.,using several turns toexpressonemoveofestablishingone’scredibility).Movescanbeusedtoinitiateaposition(aninitiatingmove)orrespondtoan

existingposition(respondingmove).Initiatingmoves(IM)initiateaposition,suchasproposinganeedforoneself.IMcanbefurtherdividedintoinitiativemove-relational(IM-R)andinitiatingmove-transactional(IM-T)basedonthetwotypesofnegotiationgoals(relationalandtransactional).IM-Risusedtoexpressanintentiontobuildrapport,whileIM-Tfocusesonbusiness-relatedissuessuchasgettingajobdone.Respondingmovesplaytwofunctionsinnegotiation:theycaneitherbere-

sponses to initiatingmovesof thesamepositioning,or theycanchange themeanings of the initiatingmoves by repositioning themeanings.The latteroften happens in a negotiation between parties with different interests andneeds(Lewickietal.2007).Withinboth thesefunctions,onecanprovideacooperativeresponsetoaninitiatingmove.“Cooperative”isbasedoncoop-erative negotiation which stresses common goals (Lewicki et al. 2007), asnotedearlier,andalignswithinterculturalalliances.Thiskindofrespondingmoveiscalledrespondingmove-cooperative(RM-C).Incontrast,arespond-ingmove-uncooperative(RM-UC) tends tofocussolelyonone’sownposi-tioning.Anexampleisinterruptingthespeakertogetone’sownviewsacross.RM-UCcanbedamagingtointerculturalalliances(e.g.,imposingatransac-tionalfocusregardlessoftheotherparty’sinterestsinrelationalgoals).




2.5. Negotiation strategies

Tofurtherexplorehowmovesareconstructedthroughlanguageitisessentialtolookatstrategies.Twosetsofstrategiesarerelevant:cooperativestrategiesanduncooperativestrategies.Theformerpromotecooperationwhilethelatterfocusonone’sownneedsandinterests.Comparedtomoves,strategiesfunc-tionatamicrodiscoursallevel,whichtendstooverlapwithspeechactsintheillocutionarydomainsuchasmakingapromise.BrownandLevinson’s (1987)positivepolitenessstrategiescanprovidea

basisforcooperativestrategiesastheyareusefulforbuildingrapport(Planken2005;Spencer-Oatey2000),which isalsoacomponentof interculturalalli-ances.Inaddition,politenessstrategiesarerelatedtoface,whichisanessentialvalueforChineseculture(Ting-Toomey1999).VanderWijstandUlijn(1995)showed the validity of using politeness strategies in cross-cultural negotia-tions.Viewingpolitenessstrategiesascooperativecanalsobejustifiedthroughtheirfocusonincorporatingtheperspectivesofbothspeakerandhearer.Thisdualperspectivecoincideswithtwo-sidedmessages,definedasmessagesin-corporatingtheotherparties’perspectives,akeyfeatureofcooperativenego-tiation(Lewickietal.2007).Incontrast,one-sidedmessages,whichtendtoignoretheotherparty’sargu-

mentsandimposeone’sownargumentas theonlyrightargument(Lewickietal.2007),frequentlyoccurinlesscooperativenegotiations.Thesearenotcovered by politeness strategies so this paper proposes two uncooperativestrategies:(i)ignoringtheotherparty(asUncooperativeStrategy1orUC-S1)and(ii)interruptingtheotherpartywhenhisorherinterestisnotaddressed(UncooperativeStrategy2orUC-S2).Toexaminecooperativenegotiation,thispaperadoptsninerelevantpolite-

nessstrategiesfromBrownandLevinson(1987):politenessstrategy1(PS1)attend tohearer; (PS2)seekagreement; (PS3)exaggerate interest,approval,sympathy; (PS4) avoid disagreement; (PS5) assert common ground; (PS6)offerandpromise;(PS7)assumeorassertreciprocity;(PS8)providereasons;and(PS9)makejokes.Thesearechosenastheyclearlyreflectinteraction,lis-teningskills,makinganoffer,andpersuadingothers,whichareessentialforcooperativenegotiation(Lewickietal.2007).This paper excludes the following six strategies proposed byBrown and

Levinson(1987):(i)intensifyinterest,(ii)usein-groupidentitymarkers,(iii)assert concernofS’sknowledgeofandconcern forH’swants, (iv) includebothSandH,(v)beoptimistic,and(vi)givegiftsforthefollowingreasons.Firstly,intensifyinginterestmergeswithPS3(exaggeratinginterest)sincebothcoverthesameaspectofinteraction.Secondly,strategies(ii)–(v)areallrelatedtocooperativeinitiativeswhichhavealreadybeencoveredbyseekingagree-mentandseekingcommonground,whichshouldsufficefor thenegotiation



108 Yunxia Zhu

contextsasawhole.Finally,giftgivingisnotsignificantsinceitistreatedasaritualisticpracticeinallnegotiationmeetingswehaveobserved.

2.6. Proposing a theoretical framework for analyzing negotiation meetings

Drawingontheaboveconceptualoverview,thispaperproposesaframeworkforunderstandingcross-culturalnegotiationsdiscourse(SeeFigure1).Abriefexplanationisgivenheresinceextensivetheoreticalbackgroundhas

alreadybeenprovided.AsshowninFigure1,contextualfactors(e.g.,cultural,group,interpersonal)playanimportantroleforunderstandingcross-culturalnegotiations.Buildinginterculturalalliancesfocusesonbothtransactionalandrelationalgoals.Thenon-tasksoundingstageisrelatedtoinitiatingintercul-turalalliances.Appropriatemovesandstrategiesshouldbeusedtoidentifyandseekcommonground.Thesecondstageaimsatdevelopinginterculturalalli-ances.Conflictsatthisstagetendtooccursincebothpartieshavestartedex-ploringeachother’swantsandneeds(Zhuetal.2007).Thethirdstageofper-suasion should be seen as part ofmaintaining intercultural alliances as the

Figure1. Model of intercultural alliances for cross-cultural negotiations




negotiationprogressestowardmoreessentialissuessuchasprices.Thefourthstageofconcessionandagreementisimportantforconsolidatinginterculturalalliances.Appropriatemovesandstrategiesrelatingtooffersandpromisescanberelevant.

3. Researchmethodology

3.1. Data

Two initial negotiationmeetings (one successful and one unsuccessful) areanalyzedinthispaper.1Asuccessfulnegotiationmeetingisdefinedasameet-ingthathasapromisingoutcomeaboutabusinessdeal.BothmeetingstookplaceinAucklandandareinitialnegotiationsbetweennewcontacts.Thesetwomeetingswerechosenfollowingtheseselectioncriteria:(i)the

negotiationswerebetweenChineseandNewZealanders.Inthisresearchthelatterreferstopeople(excludingthosefromChina)whohavebeenNZresi-dentsformorethantenyears.TheChinesenegotiatorswereofChinesenation-ality;(ii)themeetingswereconductedinNZculturalcontexts;(iii)thecontentofthenegotiationsfocusedonbusinesstopicsinvolvingtwopartiesinterestedin exploring business opportunities; and (iv) the meetings indicated clearstagesofnegotiation.WiththehelpofHongdaConsulting,2thetwonegotiationswererecorded

andtranscribed.Theywerethencodedbythreecoders(includingtheauthor),allofwhomhaveadiscourse-analyticbackground,followedbyextensivedis-cussiontoreachagreementaboutthecodingofmovesandstrategies.

3.2. Background information about the two meetings

BothinitialnegotiationmeetingswereconductedinAuckland,NewZealand,withinterpretersastheChinesegrouppreferstospeakChineseanduseinter-preters.OnlytheEnglishtranslationisgivenintheextractsforanalysisinthispapersincethefocusofanalysisisonthecontentofthetext.InMeeting1(successful), theChinesepeoplepresent(fourintotal)were

Mr.WangandMs.LifromHongdaConsulting(asuccessfulagencyforsettingupbusinesslinkswithChina)andoneinterpreter,Ms.Liu.InDecember2004,Mr.Wang,thegeneralmanagerofaChineseagriculturalcorporation,cametoNewZealand to look forbusinessopportunities.Oneofhismajorduties inNewZealandwas tomeetJohn — generalmanagerofaNZ tradecompany,whowantedtopurchasesunflowerandsesameseedsfromMr.Wang’scom-pany for a company in Macedonia. Before this meeting, with the help of



110 Yunxia Zhu

HongdaConsulting, John had sent a fax toMr.Wang to indicate his basicrequirements.Meeting2(unsuccessful)wasalsoorganizedthroughHongdaConsulting.

TheChinesepresentatthemeetingincludedabusinessdelegationoftenpeo-ple(onebusinessmanandninegovernmentofficersfromacommerceofficeofTProvince),oneinterpreter,andonerepresentativefromHongdaConsulting.OnlyoneNZbusinessman,Michael,ispresent,whoistheCEOofalargetradefirm.SimilartoMeeting1,theChineseteamleaderalsohadfaxcontactpriorto themeetingwith thehelpofHongdaConsultingmainly toprovidesomebackgroundinformationabouttheirvisit.Thetwomajorobjectivesofthedel-egationweretofindabusinesspartnerforthebusinessmenandtopromotetheproductsandtradeofTProvince.ComparedtoMeeting1,Meeting2involvesa largeChinesegroupandthuspublicfacemoreevidently. Italsohasclearbusinessgoals.Follow-upmeetingstobothmeetingswereorganizedwithHongdaConsult-

ingtoconfirmtheobjectivesofeachparty.AccordingtoHongda,Meeting1achieveditsobjectivewithanoralagreement.However,Meeting2derailed:theChinesegrouppreparedspecificquestionstoexplorebusinessopportunitiesasthegovernmentofficershadextensivecontactsandinfluenceinstate-ownedcompanies,buttheynevergottheopportunitytoexchangethisinformation.

4. Analysisofthetwonegotiationmeetings

4.1. Overview of negotiation meetings

Table1providesanoverviewofthemovesandstrategiesusedbythetwone-gotiationmeetings.AsshowninTable1,Meeting1hascompletedthefournegotiationstages

andthedurationofthemeetingis72minutes.Incontrast,Meeting2doesnotfallintothenormalfour-stagemodelasitisderailedinStage2andsplitsintoanegotiationbetweentwoparties,hencethe15-minuteinterlude.Inaddition,meeting 2 also encounters significant communication barriers.Appendix Bprovidesspecificdetailsaboutthemoves(includingIMsandRMs)usedforpositioning each party’s needs and stances.Although the twomeetings aresimilarinlength(66vs.72minutes),morethanhalfofthetime(38/72min-utes)was spent onStage 1 in building relationship and trust inMeeting 1,whileMeeting2spendsmoretimeonsortingoutissuesandcommunicationbreakdownsinStage2(30/66).Inaddition,Meeting1showsanappropriateuseofIMsandRMs,andmore

PSwithineachstage,whichfinallyleadstoaverbalagreementbetweenthetwoparties(seeAppendixB).Incontrast,Meeting2hasexperiencedinterrup-tionsusingmoreUC-Sand,asaresult,itisderailedatthesecondstage.




4.2. Comparing the strategies used in the two negotiation meetings

4.2.1. Comparative analysis of Stage 1. Table 2 details all the strategiesusedandshowsthateachpartyfocusesonPSinMeeting1whileUC-SoccursinMeeting2.Thefollowingcomparesthestrategiesofthesetwomeetingsinrelationto

movesofthisstage.NegotiationMeeting1spendsalongtimeonthenon-tasksoundingstage.Thisstageiscomposedofthefollowingmoves(seealsoAp-pendixA):

– IM1-RandRM1-C:JohnandMr.Wanggreeteachother.– IM2-R:Mr.Wangseeksinformationabouttheotherparty.– IRM2-C:Johnintroduceshimselfandhisbusiness.– RM3-C:Mr.WangstopsJohnfromtalkingaboutTaiwan.– RM4-C:Johnswitchestofriendshipandcollaboration.

Table1. Overall structure of the two negotiation meetings

Meeting1 Meeting2

Stage1 IMRMPSUC-STime

2 438—38minutes

3 425 415minutes

Stage2 PMNPMPSUC-STime

3 323 1 8minutes

3 419 630minutes

Interlude IMRMPSTime

— 1 2 915minutes

Stage3 IMPMPSTime

2 43810minutes

—

Stage4 IMRMPSTime

2 44214minutes

2 1 7 6minutes

Totaltime 72minutes 66minutes



112 Yunxia Zhu

ThisstagestartswithgreetingsandJohn’sexperienceinDalian,China,andhisfriendshipwiththeChinesepeople.Bydoingthis,Johnshowsthathehaspre-viousexperienceofestablishingformalandinformalrelationshipswithChi-nese,whichisobviouslyrelevantforhismeetingwithMr.Wang.Mr.Wangstartstheirnegotiationtopicaftertheabovewarming-up:

(1) Mr.Wang: Couldyouexplainfirstyourbackground,andwhyyouwanttodobusinesswithourcompany?

John: Thankyou.IamfirstverysurprisedandpleasedthatIcouldmakecontactwiththerepresentativefromChineseagricul-turalcorporation.

Mr.Wang’squestionclearlystresseshis interest in thepersonand theotherparty’spointofview(PS1),whichisalsoessentialforbuildingrelationalem-pathy.Mr.Wang’squestionseemstooccurattherightmomentaftertheyhaveboth established a friendly relationship or some common ground (PS5) bysharingeachother’sbackground.JohnrespondstoMr.Wang’squestionusingemotiveexpressions“Iamverysurprisedandpleased”(PS3,exaggeratein-terestandapproval),whichshowshispositiveattitudestowardhiscontactwithMr.Wang.John then introduces himself and speaks about how he started business

inNewZealand.His response at this point focuses on his past experience.However, it is communicative since this iswhatMr.Wang is interested in(PS1).Johnskillfullyunfoldshisinternationalbackgroundasabusinessrep-resentative forNewZealand andMacedonia, addressingMr.Wang’s querygradually:

Table2. Strategies used in Stage 1 (non-tasking)

Meeting1 Meeting2

John Wang Mike Lu Feng Ye

PS1 9 11 3 — — —PS2 — 2 4 6 1 1PS3 1 2 1 — — —PS4 1 — —PS5 2 2 —PS7 1 — 1PS8 1 5 6 1PS9 1 — 1 — — —UC-S1 — — 3 — — —UC-S2 — — — 1 — —

Subtotal 38PS 25PSand4UCS




(2) John: It isvery important formeandmyassociates inMacedonia tosee, to talk, and to work with Mr. Wang [speaking to theinterpreter] — the representative of a very big country.... Forme,todayisaverybigdaytomakecontacts.

Here,JohnreferstoMr.Wangasarepresentativefrom“averybigcountry”,whichgivesface(PS3)toMr.Wang.Johnthenquicklymovesontoemphasizethe friendship between China and Macedonia (PS5 relating to commonground),whichalsopointstoanadditionalreasonfordoingbusinesswithMr.Wang.AsJohnclearlyindicateshere,thisreasonembracesbothbusinessdealsandfriendship.However,hislongintroductioniscutshortbyMr.Wangwhenhemakesajoke(PS9)aboutTaiwan:

(3) Mr.Wang: (laughs)Forgetaboutit.

Mr.Wangmaintainsanattentivesilence(PS1)untilherespondswiththeaboveinterruption.Bothpartiesseemtounderstandwhatisneededtoestablishtheiralliances.Mr.Wang interrupts John’s joke toavoidpotentialconflictoverasensitivetopicaboutTaiwan(PS4,avoidingdisagreement).ThejokedoesnotseemtobefunnytoMr.Wangandinsteaditthreatensthepublicfacebecauseofthepresenceofothers.JohnthenflexiblyadaptshistopictofocusonthepositiverelationshipwithChina(hence,PS5,seekingcommonground).Johnseemstohavehandledwellthecultural,political,andpersonalcontextsatthesametime,thusdevelopingrelationalempathy.Incontrast,Meeting2doesnothaveasmoothstart.Communicationbreak-

downoccursattheverybeginningofStage1(moredetailsinAppendixB):

– IM1-RandRM1-C:MichaelandtheChinesegroupgreeteachother.– IM2-RandIM3-T:Michael’sintroductionandindicationtostartinforma-

tionexchange– RM2-C:Luexpressesgratitude.– RM3-UC:Michaelinterruptswithspecificquestions.– RM 4-UC: Lu ignores this and continues the introduction to Feng, the

groupleader.

BothpartiesseemtofocusontherelationalaspectofthenegotiationtostartwithusingPS1andPS2(seeTable1).However,beforethegroupleaderMr.Fengisintroduced,MichaelmovesonquicklytobusinessbyinterruptingMr.Lu:

(4) Michael: Thisisabriefintroduction,andIwelcomeyoutoAuckland,NewZealand.AndIwelcomequestionsifyouhaveforme.IhopeIcananswersomething.

Intheaboveexcerpt,MichaelfinishesrelationshipbuildingbywelcomingtheChinesetoNewZealand(PS3),buthealsoinitiatesanothermovetoindicate



114 Yunxia Zhu

thestartofbusinesstalk.Thereisaclearlackofrelationalempathybecausethetwopartieshavenotreachedconsensusaboutwhentheyshouldstartthenextstage,andhowlongthenon-taskstageshouldbe,hencetheclashbetweenre-lationalandtransactionalgoals.Neitherpartyseemstounderstandtheneedsoftheother.Eventuallytheyfail toestablishaninterculturalalliance,whichisessentialfortheinitialmeeting.Thefollowingexcerptshowsthedifferentpo-sitionsofthetwoparties:

(5) Lu: Althoughwehavebeenhereforonlytwodays,thebeautifulviewofNewZealandhasimpressedusdeeply.Here,I’dliketo thank Hongda Consulting for their arrangement of thismeetingandthankMr.Chairmanforcomingtothismeeting...

Michael: Well,Ihopeyoucanaskmesomespecificquestions.Itwillbeeasiertostartfromthatpointofview.

Mr.Lusignalshis intentiontodevelopinterpersonalrelationshipwithade-scriptionofhis impressionofNewZealandandhisgratitude towardothers(PS3).However,hisresponsedoesnotseemtobesharedbyMichael,whotriestochangeMr.Lu’spositioningbyinsistingonspecificquestions(usingUC-S2)evenbeforeMr.Fenghasbeenintroduced.Michael’sinterruptionnotonlythreatensMr.Lu’sfacebutalsocausesthegrouptolosefaceaswell,asMr.Fengisthemostseniorpersoninthegroup.ComparedwithMeeting1,whichestablishesinterculturalalliancessuccess-

fully,Meeting2endsStage1withconflict,failingtomanagetheclashbetweenbusinesstalkandrelationalneeds.

4.2.2. Comparative analysis of Stage 2: task-related exchange of informa-tion. Table3comparesthespecificmovesusedinthetwomeetings.Meeting1continueswithPSstrategiesandonlyadoptsoneUC-Sstrategy.Incontrast,Meeting2appliesfewerPSstrategiesbutmoreUCstrategies.ThesecondstageofMeeting1 iscomposedof the followingmoves (see

AppendixA):

– IM1-Tand IM1-R: Johnexpressesaneed for1,000 tonsof sunflowerseeds.

– RM1-UC:Mr.Wangasksforspecifications.– RM2-C:JohnoffersambiguousexplanationstoMr.Wang’srequest.– RM3-C:Mr.WangdropshisrequestandpraisesJohn’sknowledgeabout

theChinesemarket.

Exchangeof information is an important stage todevelop intercultural alli-ancesinbusinesstransactions.Johnstartsthisstagebyindicatinghisneedfor1,000tonsofsunflowerseeds,followedbyarequesttoMr.Wangforproduct




specifications. Some conflict occurswhenMr.Wang tries to change John’spositioning:

(6) Mr.Wang: Butcanyouofferusfirstyourrequirementsfortheseitems,justroughly.Forexample,whatisyourrequirementforthepercentageofthepurity?

John: Thepercentofthepurityis....Inthisbusiness,thepeopleknowverywellwhatthatis.

Mr.Wang: Butthereshouldbeapercentage. John: Yes,shouldbe. Mr.Wang: Sohowmanypercentdoyouwantittobe? John: Youknow,youknowhowmany. ... Mr.Wang: (laughs)Iunderstand.Youneedmetotellyoutheoilper-

centfirst,andthenyouoffermetheprice. John: Ireallydon’tknowwhatpercentageitshouldbe. Mr.Wang: (laughs) So you know Chinese and Chinese market very

well.

InsteadofaddressingJohn’srequest,Mr.WangasksJohntoprovidespecifica-tionsinRM1-UCusinganinterruptionstrategy(UC-S2).Asshownabove,exchangeofinformationaboutthespecificationoftheproducttakesplaceandbothpartiesexploretheirbusinessneeds.JohndoesnotseemtobepreparedforMr.Wang’squestion.Heeitherdoesnothavethespecificinformationordoesnotwant toprovide it (usingavoiding strategies,PS4).Bydoing this,Johnprotectshisownface(notbeingabletoproviderequiredinformation)infrontofhisChinesecounterpart.Eventually,Mr.Wangdropshisquestionby

Table3. Strategies used in Stage 2 (information exchange)

Meeting1 Meeting2

John Wang Michael Feng

PS1 2 4 1 3PS3 — 2 0 3PS4 4 2 — —PS5 1 1 — —PS6 1 — — —PS7 1 2 4 2PS8 1 2 4 2UC-S1 — 1 1 3UC-S2 — — 2 —

Subtotal 23PSand1UC-S 19PSand6UC-S



116 Yunxia Zhu

saying“SoyouknowChineseandChinesemarketverywell.”Insayingthis,Mr.Wangswitchestorelationships,closingthisstagecooperatively(RM2-C),usingapproval(PS3)toeasethetensionbetweenthetwoparties.Inthisstage,limitedinformationseemstohavebeenexchanged.Thetwo

partieshaveexploredeachother’sneeds,whichisusefulfor thenextstage.WhatisimportantisthewayMr.WangandJohnhandleconflictwellbygivingeachotherface(PS3),whichisessentialhereforfurtherdevelopingintercul-turalalliances.Meeting 2, in contrast, involves a series of communication breakdowns

whichleadstothecollapseofinterculturalalliancesasshownbythefollowingmoves(moredetailsinAppendixB):

– IM1-RandIM2-T:Mr.FangasksgeneralquestionsaboutNZtrade.– RM1-UC:Michaelinterruptsforspecificquestions.– RM2-UC:Mr.FengcontinueswithgeneralquestionsaboutNZexports.– RM3-UCandIM3-R:Michaelquestionstherelevancewithajoke.– RM4-UCandIM4-T:Mr.Fengdefendstherelevanceofhisquestions.– RM5-CandIM5-R:MichaelanswersthequestionandstressesChina–

NewZealandrelationship.

Themovesofthisstagebecomemorecomplexaseachpartytendstousemorethanonemoveatthesametime(Michael,forexample,combinesaquestionwithajoke)toaddresstheongoingconflictbetweenbusinessandrelationalgoals.Insteadofdevelopingalliances,thepartieshavetodealwiththeissueofwhatcanbeconsideredanappropriatequestion.WhenMr.Fengasksageneralquestion,MichaeltriestochangeMr.Feng’spositioningbyinterruptinghim(UC-S2)formorespecificinformation.Mr.FengignoresMichael’sinterrup-tion(UC-S1)andsimplycontinueswithhispositioning:

(7) Feng: IwanttoknowthegrossvalueandthestructureofimportsinNewZealand.

Michael: What’sthesituationofexportsfromChina?Everything(withalaugh)!

Michael’s response toMr. Feng’s question represents an RM-UCwhich iscomposedof twostrategies: thefirst isUC-S2, interrupting thespeakerandevenchallengingtheappropriatenessof thespeaker’sview.Thesecondisapolitenessstrategyofusingajoke(PS9)tominimizethenegativeimpactofquestioning.However,jokescanbeverysensitiveinsuchsituationsandmayinvolve face, in particular the public face (Spencer-Oatey 2000).Michael’shumorous rhetoricalquestionaboutChina isnot interpretedas suchbyMr.Feng.Instead,itisseenasasatireaboutMr.Feng’slackofknowledge,whichisfacethreateningandalsoaddstothetensionbetweenthetwoparties.SoMr.Feng,insteadofchanginghispositioning,challengesMichael:




(8) Mr.Feng: LetmeexplainwhyIaskthisquestion...IfeelthemarketofNewZealandissosmallcomparedtotheChinesemarket.ThegrossvalueofimportsandexportsinChinaisover800billionUSdollars,butNewZealandonlyhas1.8billionUSdollars.Eventoourprovince,1.8billionUSdollarsisstillasmallfigure.

Mr.Feng’sexplanationshowsheactuallyknowsthegrossvaluesofNZim-ports.ThemessagebehindhisquestionsseemstoberelatedtohisdoubtaboutdoingbusinessthroughMichael’scompany.Comparedtothefirstnegotiationmeeting,whichuseshedgesandavoidssaying“no”,Mr.FengisverydirectinchallengingMichael’spositioning.Apparently,thiswasnottheoriginalinten-tionofhisvisit,andclearlyshowsthelackofinterculturalalliances.Michaelnowfeelsthetensionandhislongresponsefocusesonrepairing

trust.HeexplainstheimportsaswellasthespecificexportingproductsinNewZealand.Inaddition,hemakesthefollowingcomment:

(9) Michael: ...IthinkmostChinesemightfinditiseasierdoingbusinesswithNewZealand.MostNewZealand people involved intrade,or thesaleandpurchaseofservicesarehonest,openandveryfrankpeople.

Bydoingtheabove,MichaeltriestoidentifysomecommongroundwiththeChinesegroup(PS5)showinghiswillingnesstobuildtrustwiththeChinesedelegates.However, thecommongrounddoesnotseemtohavebeenestab-lishedsinceMr.FenggoesontoasktwomoregeneralquestionsaboutNZandChinatraderelations,whichdonotseemtoexpandonthecommongroundMichaelistryingtoestablish.Itcanbeseenfromtheaboveanalysisthat,likeMeeting1,Meeting2in-

volves more conflicts. However, unlike Meeting 1, in which conflicts areaddressedpositivelyandcooperatively,Meeting2addsfurthertension,result-ingincommunicationbreakdown.TheclashbetweenthetwopartiesinMeet-ing2canalsobeexplainedintermsofdifferentcommunicationstylesinhigh-andlow-contextcultures.Previousresearch(e.g.,PaikandTung1999;Young1994)indicatesthattheChinesetendtofollowaninformationsequencefromgeneraltospecific,whiletheoppositeistrueofsomeofthelow-contextcul-tures.Asneitherpartyispreparedtoaccepttheother’scommunicationstyleinMeeting2,Stage2fallsapart.

4.2.3. Comparative analysis of strategies of the rest of moves. AsummaryofmovesandstrategiesusedfortherestofthenegotiationforbothmeetingsispresentedinTable4(moredetailscanbefoundinAppendicesAandB).



118 Yunxia Zhu

Meeting1progressesintothepersuasionstage,althoughitalsodealswithasensitiveissueaboutprice.Bothpartiesseemtomanagethisstagewell.Thefinal stage is then reachedwithanoralagreementaddressing theirbusinessneeds(e.g.,productspecificationsandquoteofprice).Meeting2,however,isderailedintoaninterludeduringwhichMr.YemakessomebusinessqueriesofMichael,andtherestoftheChinesechatinsmallgroups.Acomparisonofthetwomeetingsisdiscussedbelow.Meeting1actuallystartswithadifficultquestioninMr.Wang’sIM-T:

(10) Mr.Wang: Following your style of business negotiation, I’d like toaskonemorequestion:Canyouoffermethelowestpriceyoucanaccept?

Thisisanessentialquestionforbothpartiessinceitdealswiththebottom-lineprice.Additionally,itisnotasafetopic(Planken2005)andispotentiallyfacethreateningifJohnoffersapricetooloworfailstoofferaprice.Toolowanoffermaythrowbothpartiesintoastateofdistributivebargaining.FailuretoofferapricewillnotsatisfyMr.Wang’squestion.JohnseemstobefullyawareofthechallengeashecarefullyaddressesMr.Wang’squestion:

(11) John: Honestly,butdon’tbesurprised,Ireallyexpectedthisquestion.Ifyouarehereforafewdays,Iwillorganizetofindwhatthat

Table4. Strategies used for Stages 3 and 4

Meeting1 Meeting2

John Wang Michael Feng Ye

Stage3 PS1 4 4 Interlude PS1 3 — 1PS2 1 1 PS3 — — 2PS3 2 1 PS6 1 — —PS5 — 3 PS7 — — 2PS6 1 1PS7 1 5PS8 10 4

Subtotal:38PS Subtotal:9PS

Stage4Dealandclosing

PS1 10 8 Stage4Closing

PS1 3 — 2PS2 2 3 PS3 1 1 —PS3 1 3PS5 1 1PS6 2 —PS7 3 —PS8 — 8

Subtotal:42PS Subtotal:7PS




limit is. But I am not sure, because this is my first time in-volvedwith these seeds. If you discusswheat seeds, I know.Butforthisone,Idon’tknow.ButIreallybelievethatweshoulddo something,we really have an opportunity to do this busi-ness,becauseItrustintheopportunitiesforChinatohavethisquantity,...

ThisindicatesJohnispreparedforthequestion.HetriestoconvinceMr.Wangbyindicatingthathewouldknowthebottom-linepriceofwheatseedsbutnotofsunflowerseeds.ThisknowledgeaboutthepricesofothersimilarproductsgivesfacetobothhimselfandtoMr.Wang(PS3).Evenmorepersuasiveishisstressoncollaborationwhenhesays“Ireallybelievethatweshoulddosome-thing,wereallyhaveanopportunitytodothisbusiness,...”,whichassumesorassertsreciprocalrightsfordoingbusinesstogether(PS7).JohnalsohelpstomaintainhisallianceswithMr.Wangwho,inturn,de-

cidestodrophisquestionandmovesontointroducinghiscompanyinmoredetail, which is also an indication of goodwill for cooperation. John con-tinuesbeingcooperative through theuseof a seriesof attending (PS1) andapproval strategies (PS3) to show appreciation aboutMr.Wang’s informa-tion. Each party addresses their business needs for “more information andmoredetailedrequirements”followedbyJohn’s reassuringresponse topro-videtheinformationlaterafterfurtherconsultationwithhisbusinesspartnerinMacedonia. Eventually John successfully persuadesMr.Wang,which isalso the climax formaintaining intercultural alliances.However, thewholeprocessofmakingthisacceptableisverychallenging,anditwouldnothavebeen possible without shared understanding and trust (relational empathy)from thenegotiatingparties andwithout thedetailed information Johnpro-vided about his connection with his Macedonian colleagues (transactionalinformation).Having managed the most challenging part of negotiating a price, the

final stage becomesmuch easier for both parties. Stage 4 is predominantlytransactional, and both parties use a series of politeness strategies (such asPS1,PS2,PS3),agreeingonmethodofpaymentandsomeshipping issues.ThepartiesswitchbacktoarelationalfocusattheclosingwhenMr.Wangin-vitesJohntolunch,andbothpartieswishthebestfortheirfuturecollabora-tions(PS5).Incontrast,thedeadlockinStage2,descendsintochaosinMeeting2.There

wassilenceandanxietyintheroom.SomemembersevenbegantomurmuraboutMichaelandMr.Feng’sdialogueinChinese.Duringthisbreakofaboutfifteenminutes,Mr.Ye,thegeneralmanagerofasyntheticchemicalcompanyandalsothebusinessmaninthegroup,approachedMichael.Mr.YeshowedMichaelabrochureabouthistoothpasteproductandexpressedaneedtofind



120 Yunxia Zhu

atradingpartnertosellthetoothpasteinNewZealand.MichaelhelpedMr.YebyringingoneofhisNZcolleagues,Jonathan,andgaveMr.YeinformationaboutfuturecommunicationswithJonathan.So,althoughMichaelseemstobepreparedforthemeetinginsomeway,therestoftheChinesegroupappearstohavelostinterest.Thisinterludeclearlyindicateshowanegotiationcanderailifitisnotmanagedappropriately.Intheend,Meeting2drawstoaclosewithbothpartiesexchanginggiftsbut

withnorealoutcomeachieved.Ironically,thegifttheChinesegrouppresentedtoMichaelwasanintroductionpackageaboutthebusinessopportunitiesthegrouphadbeenprepared topromote.Asnotedearlier, theyseemed tohavechangedtheiroriginalobjectivetoanon-substantialnegotiation.Thisinterpre-tationwasalsoconfirmedbyHongdaConsulting.Theabovecomparisonsharplycontraststheoutcomesofthetwomeetings.

InMeeting1,thenegotiationcouldhavegonewrongatseveralpointsiftherehadnotbeensufficientbusinessknowledgeorrelationalempathyandtrust.IthastobenotedthatcomparedtothecontextualfactorsofMeeting1,Meeting2posesmorechallengesofdealingwithpublicfaceofalargergroup.Yetpar-tiesinMeeting2seemtoexertmuchlessefforttobuildinterculturalalliances;instead,theyinsistontheirownpositioningandonusinguncooperativestrate-gies.Meeting2thusisanexampleabouthowpartiescanabandonanexplora-tionofbuildinginterculturalallianceswhenconfrontedwithcommunicationbarriersandbreakdown.

5. Summaryandconclusion

Thispaperhasdevelopedatheoreticalframeworkbasedoninterculturalalli-anceswhichextendsSpencer-Oatey’s(2000)rapportmanagement.ThefurtherdivisionofmovesintoIM-RversusIR-TandRM-CversusRM-UC,andstrat-egies intoPS andUC-S, offers insight for understanding how alliances arebuiltincomplexcross-culturalnegotiationsinvolvingdifferenttypesofposi-tioningandconflict.Thefindingsdrawnfromacomparativestudyoftwoini-tialbusinessmeetingsbetweenChineseandNZfirmshaveconfirmedtheva-lidityofthisframework.ThestudyshowsthatappropriatemovesandstrategieswereusedinMeeting

1,whileMeeting2failedtousethemappropriately.Forexample,Meeting1ischaracterizedbyuseofattendingskills,givingfacetoeachother,andseekingconsensus,whichestablishescommongroundbetweenthetwopartiesinthefirst stage.WhereasMeeting2didnotcomplete thefirst stagesuccessfully,confrontedwiththreattopublicface,whichapparentlyledtocommunicationbreakdown.Bothmeetingssuggesttheimportanceofusingpolitenessstrate-




giesandthepotentialdangerofusinguncooperativestrategies.ThefailureofMeeting2alsohighlights thechallengesofdealingwithcontextual factors:whennegotiatingwithlargergroupsthepublicfaceisevenmoreparamount.Inaddition,bothmeetingsalsodemonstratethatjokesarenotaneasystrategytousesincetheyinvolvepublicfaceandcancausemisinterpretationsacrosscultures.Thefindingsalsohighlightthattherelationshipbetweeninterculturalalliances,moves,strategies,andeffectivenegotiationswalksa tightropebe-tweentransactionalandrelationalneedsofbothparties,whileineffectivene-gotiatorstendtoimposetheirownpositioninganddisregardtheothers’needsandwants.Onthebasisoftheabovefindings,thefollowingconclusionscanbedrawn.

Firstly, it isessential todevelop interculturalalliances.Anemphasison thisaspectwillhelpnegotiatorstofocusonbuildingrelationalempathyand,moreimportantly, onworking on how to incorporate both relational and transac-tionalgoals.Secondly,communicatingempathy(PS3)andassertingcommonground (PS5) are important strategies for both parties in the first stage tofacilitateasmoothmovetothesecondstage.Further,itisimportanttogivefaceandstresscommonground,especiallyatcriticalmomentssuchasdeal-ingwithjokesorsensitivequestionsaboutthebottom-lineprice.Lastbutnotleast,itisessentialtopromptlyaddressdifferentialpositioningbeforethesitu-ationsnowballsintoconflict,asshowninMeeting2.Managingconflictseemsto be essential for Stage 2, and the different approaches (e.g., focusing onalliances or on own positioning) tomanaging conflict can lead to differentoutcomes.This studyhas implications for future researchon cross-cultural negotia-

tions.More research is needed to explore intercultural alliancesbuilding invariousconflict-relatedsituations.Morestrategiesalsoneedtobeexploredatthediscourselevelsincethisresearchisbasedonalimitedcomparisonoftwonegotiationmeetings.Furthermore,morenegotiationdatabasesacrossculturesshouldbeestablishedtotestsomeofthefindingsofthisstudyandtofurthersubstantiate and investigate the relationship between micro-level discourseandmacroissuesofpromotinginterculturalalliances.



122 Yunxia Zhu

AppendixA.OverallstructureofNegotiationMeeting1

John Mr.Wang

Stage1 IM1-R:Greeting(alsochatsabouthisexperienceinDalian)

RM2-C:Respondswithbackgroundinformation

RM4-C:Changestopictofriendship

RM1-C:Greeting(showsinterestandagreement)

IM2-R:AskswhyJohnisdoingbusinesswithhim

RM3-C:InterruptstostopthesensitivetopicofTaiwan

Stage2 IM1-TandIM2-R:Explainsproductneeds(10,000tonsofsunflowerseeds)andasksforspecifications

RM2-C:Providessomeambiguousexplanations

RM1-UC:AsksJohnforhisspecificationsaboutproduct

RM3-C:DropshisquestionaboutspecificationsandpraisesJohn

Stage3RM1-C:Givesindirectresponsetoindicatecompetitivemarketprice

RM3-C:Showsinterestandagreement

RM4-C:Agreesandstressescollaboration

IM1-T:AsksJohntomakeanofferofprice

RM2-C:Dropshisquestiontointroducecompanyinformationandcredentials

IM2-T:AsksJohntogivemoreinformationlater

Stage4RM1-C:Respondstothequerieswithhispreferencebackedupwithreasons

IM2:Requestforchemicalanalysis

RM4-C:Thanksandacceptstheinvitation

IM-T1:Asksaboutmethodofpayment,shipping,etc.

RM2-C:Promisestosendaquoteandsamplereport

RM3-CandIM3-R:Agreesandexpresseshiswishforcollaborationsfollowedbyalunchinvitation

——►

▼|—————————

–————►

———————————▼|

▼|—————————

———————▼|

▼|———————

▼|—————————

———————▼|

▼|—————————

————————▼|

▼|——————————–

▼|——————————

————————▼|

▼|———————————

—–——————————▼|

▼|——————————



Moves and strategies in initial business negotiation meetings 123AppendixB.O

verallstructureofNegotiationMeetin

g2

Michael

Mr.Lu

Mr.Feng

Mr.Ye

Stage1

IM1-R:G

reeting

IM2-RandIM

3-T:Introduces

companyandinvitesq

uestions

RM3-UC:Interruptsfor

specificquestions

RM1-C:G

reeting

RM3-C:E

xpresses

thanks

RM4-UC:Ignoresand

beginsintroducingFeng,

thegroupleader

Greeting

Greeting

Stage2

RM1-UC:Interruptsforsp

ecific

questions

RM3-UCandIM

3-R:Q

uestions

therelevancewithajoke

RM5-CandIM

5-R:A

nswers

thequestionandstressesChina–

NZrelationship

IM1-RandIM

2-T:A

sks

generalquestionaboutN

Ztrade

RM2-UC:C

ontinuesw

ith

generalquestionaboutN

Zexports

RM4-UCandIM

4-T:D

efends

relevanceofquestion

Interlude

RM1-C:R

espondsandringsh

is

colleagueJo

nathan

IM1-R:A

sksabout

sellinghistoothpaste

RM2-C:Thanks

Michael

Closing

RM1-C:E

xchangesgifts

IM1-RandIM

1-T:Presentsg

ifts

(com

panyinformation)andthanks

Michael

————–—

—►

———

►——————–—

———

►——————— ▼|

▼|———————————

———————— ▼|

▼|—————————————————————

————–—

————————— ▼|

▼|—————————————————————

——————–—

——————— ▼|

▼|—————————–—

—————————

▼|———————————————————————————————

————————————————————————————— ▼|

▼|—————————–—

—————————



124 Yunxia Zhu

Notes

1. ThanksaregiventoSandraSun,whocollectedandtranscribedthetwonegotiationmeetingsandalsohelpedwiththeinterviewswiththeHongdaConsultinginAuckland,NewZealand.ThanksarealsoextendedtoDrMandyScottwhohasproof-readthispapermeticulouslyandhasprovidedvaluablefeedbacktotheearlierversionofthispaper.

2. Allpersonalandcompanynamesinthepaperarefictitiousforthesakeofconfidentiality.

References

Adair,WendiL.&JeanneM.Brett.2005.Thenegotiationdance:Time,culture,andbehaviouralsequencesinnegotiation.Organisation Science16(1). 33–51.

Allen,BrendaJ.,BenjaminJ.Broome,TriciaS.Jones,VictoriaChen&MaryJ.Collier.2003.Intercultural alliances:A cyberdialogue among scholars–practitioners. InM. J.Collier (ed.),Intercultural alliances: Critical transformation,249–319.NewYork:Sage.

Bellack,ArnoA.,HerbertM.Kliebard,RonaldT.Hyman&FrankL.Smith.1966.The language of the classroom. NewYork:TeachersCollegePress.

Brown,Penelope&StephenC.Levinson.1987.Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Bülow-Møller,AnneM.1993.Negotiatinginaforeignlanguage.Hermes, Journal of Linguistics11.11–25.

Charles,Mirjaliisa.1996.Businessnegotiations:Interdependencebetweendiscourseandthebusi-nessrelationship.English for Specific Purposes15(1).19–36.

Collier,MaryJ.(ed.).2003.Intercultural alliances: Critical transformation.NewYork:Sage.Davis,Bronwyn&RomHarre.1990.Positioning:Thediscursiveproductionofselves.Journal for

the Theory of Social Behaviour20(1).43– 63.Earley,ChristopherP.2006.Leadingculturalresearchinthefuture:Amatterofparadigmsandtaste.Journal of International Business Studies 37.922–931.

Fang,Tony.1999.Chinese business negotiation style.ThousandOaks:Sage.Fei,Xiaotong.1985.Shihui diaocha zibai [Statementregardingsocialinvestigations].Shanghai:ZhishiChubanShe.

Goffman,Erving.1969.Forms of talk.Philadelphia:UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress.Graham,JohnL.1983.Brazilian,Japanese,andAmericanbusinessnegotiations.Journal of Inter-

national Business Studies14(1).47– 61.Graham,JohnL.&YoshihiroSano.1989.Smart bargaining: Doing business with the Japanese.NewYork:HarperBusiness.

Hall,Edward.T.1976.Beyond culture.GardenCity,NY:Anchor.Hofstede,GeertH.1991.Cultures and organisations: Software of the mind. NewYork:McGraw-Hill.

Holden,NigelJ.2004.Whymarketersneedanewconceptofculturefortheglobalknowledgeeconomy.International Marketing Review 21(6).563–572.

Jehn,Karen,A.&KeithWeigelt.1999.Chinesethought,gametheory,andstrategicinternationalnegotiations.International Negotiations4(1).79–93.

Lampi,Mirjaliisa. 1986.Linguistic components of strategy in business negotiations.Helsinki:HelsinkiSchoolofEconomics,StudiesB-85.

Lewicki,RoyJ.,DavidM.Sunders&BruceBarry.2007.Negotiation.London:McGraw-Hill.Li,Wei,HuaZhu&YueLi. 2001.Conversationalmanagement and involvement inChinese–Englishbusinesstalk.Language and Intercultural Communication 1(2).135–150.




Miles,Michael.2003.NegotiatingwiththeChinese:Lessonsfromthefield.Journal of Applied Behavioural Science39(4).453– 472.

Paik,Yongsun&RosalieTungL.1999.NegotiatingwithEastAsians:Howtoattain“win–win”outcomes.Management International Review39(2).103–122.

Planken,Brigitte.2005.Managingrapportinlinguafrancasalesnegotiations:Acomparisonofprofessionalandaspiringnegotiators.English for Specific Purposes15(1).381– 400.

Putnam,LindaL.&TriciaJones.1982.Reciprocity innegotiations:Ananalysisofbargaininginteractions.Communication Monograph49(3).171–191.

Sheer,VivianC.&LingChen.2003.SuccessfulSino–Westernbusinessnegotiation:Participants’accountsofnationalandprofessionalcultures.The Journal of Business Communication40(1).50 –85.

Spencer-Oatey,Helen.2000.Face,(im)politenessandrapport.InH.Spencer-Oatey(ed.),Cultur-ally speaking: Culture, communication and politeness theory,11– 47.London:Continuum.

Spencer-Oatey,Helen&JianyuXing.1998.RelationalmanagementinChinese–Britishbusinessmeetings.InS.Hunston(ed.),Language at work,31– 46.Clevedon:BritishAssociationforAp-pliedLinguisticsinassociationwithMultilingualMatters.

Spencer-Oatey,Helen&JianyuXing.2004.RapportmanagementproblemsinChinese–Britishbusinessinteractions:Acasestudy.InJ.House&J.Rehbein(eds.),Multilingual communica-tion,197–221.Amsterdam&Philadelphia:JohnBenjamins.

Ting-Toomey,Stella.1999.Communicating across cultures.NewYork:TheGuilfordPress.Ulijn,JanM.,AnneF.Rutkowski,RajeshKumar&YunxiaZhu.2005.Patternsoffeelingsinface-to-facenegotiation:ASino–Dutchpilotstudy.Cross-cultural Management: An International Journal15(3).103–118.

VanderWijst,Per&JanM.Ulijn.1995.PolitenessinFrench/ Dutchnegotiations.InK.Ehlich&J.Wagner(eds.),The discourse of business negotiation,313–348.Berlin&NewYork:MoutondeGruyter.

Widdowson,HenryG.1983.Language purpose and language use.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Wittgenstein,Ludwig.1953.Philosophical investigations.London:OxfordUniversityPress.Young,LindaW.L.1994.Crosstalk and culture in Sino–American communication.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Zhu,Yunxia.2005.Written communication across cultures: A sociocognitive perspective on busi-ness genres.Amsterdam&Philadelphia:JohnBenjamins.

Zhu,Yunxia.2009.ManagingbusinessrelationshipsinNewZealandandChina:Asemanticper-spective.Management International Review 49(2).225–248.

Zhu,Yunxia,BernardMcKenner&ZhuSun.2007.NegotiatingwiththeChinese:Successofini-tialmeetingsisthekey.Cross-cultural Management: An International Journal 14(4).354 –364.

Zhu,Yunxia,PieterNel&RaviBhat.2006.Acrossculturalstudyofcommunicationstrategiesforbuilding business relationships. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 6(3).319–341.

YunxiaZhu receivedherPh.D. in linguistics andbusiness communication from theAustralianNationalUniversity(ANU)andiscurrentlyseniorlecturerintheUniversityofQueenslandBusi-nessSchool.Herresearchinterestsincludebusinessandorganizationaldiscourse,cross-culturalcommunication,andcross-culturalmanagement.Shehaspublishedtwobooksonbusinesscom-municationandherworkappearsinjournalssuchasText,Discourse Studies,Management Inter-national Review,andAcademy of Management Learning and Education.Addressforcorrespon-dence:UQBusinessSchool,UniversityofQueensland,4072QLD,Australia<[email protected]>.



building intercultural alliances: a study of moves and strategies in …234795/uq234795... · 2019....

Documents