cross cultural sales negotiation

InternationalMarketingReview15,1

10

Cross-cultural salesnegotiations

A literature review and researchpropositions

Antonis C. SimintirasThe Open University Business School, Milton Keynes, UK, and

Andrew H. ThomasEuropean Business Management School, University of Wales,

Swansea, UK

IntroductionInternational business comprises a large and increasing portion of the world’stotal trade (Johnson et al., 1994; Czinkota et al., 1995). The growth ofinternational business has gained momentum faster than previously recorded,outstripping domestic business (Daniels and Radebaugh, 1995). The impact ofsuch growth on many companies is that they are now “rushing to becomeinsiders in international markets they formerly paid little attention to, orignored completely” (McDaniel, 1990, p. 1). International markets, it is believed,offer companies opportunities to market their products and services on a world-wide scale and reap the benefits of the particularly high stakes involved (Mintuand Calantone, 1991).

Companies involved in international business, deal with sales transactionsor negotiations which span national and cultural boundaries. That means, salesnegotiators interact with individuals from unfamiliar cultures that exhibitdifferent negotiation styles, behaviours and expectations about the normalprocess of negotiation (Graham and Sano, 1984). This presents several potentialculture-related obstacles that confront the international negotiator (Deutsch,1984; Frank, 1992; Graham and Sano, 1984; Hall and Hall, 1987; Tung, 1984;Zimmerman, 1985) and a failure to anticipate, understand and effectivelyremove these obstacles can lead to a failure in cross-cultural negotiations.Competence, therefore, in international negotiations is one of the mostimportant and indispensable skills in all kinds of international business(Fayerweather and Kapoor, 1972, 1976; Root, 1987; Wells, 1977).

Despite the growth of international business and the importance ofinternational negotiations, the literature relevant to cross-cultural salesnegotiations is mainly normative and largely disjointed. In this study, weattempt a synthesis of literature findings relevant to the interactive part of theinternational sales negotiations process. More specifically, the purpose of thisstudy is three-fold. First, to set the scene by providing a brief overview of the

International Marketing Review,Vol. 15 No. 1, 1998, pp. 10-28.© MCB University Press, 0265-1335

Received April 1996Revised May 1997Accepted September 1997

Cross-culturalsales

negotiations

11

role of culture on negotiations. Second, to examine the literature pertaining tocross-cultural sales negotiations by using the negotiation process as anintegrative and analytical framework. Third, to explore other areas of researchand put forward several research propositions which extend the researchdomain and enrich the theoretical understanding of cross-cultural salesnegotiations.

The impact of culture on negotiationsNegotiation is one of the most important elements of the selling and buyingfunctions, (Neslin and Greenhalgh, 1983). Negotiation is “a process in which twoor more entities come together to discuss common and conflicting interests inorder to reach an agreement of mutual benefit” (Harris and Moran, 1987, p. 55).

The negotiation process is a complex process which is significantlyinfluenced by the culture(s) within which the participants are socialised,educated and reinforced (Graham, 1985a; Hamner, 1980; Harnett andCummings, 1980; Tung, 1982). For example, an individual’s conduct during anegotiation encounter is influenced by ethnic heritage (Hawrysh andZaichkowsky, 1989), and the attitudes and customs which are embedded inhis/her culture (Shenkar and Ronen, 1987). Individuals having the same culturalbackgrounds tend to display common patterns of thinking, feeling and reactingin line with their cultural heritage. As a result, behaviour in negotiation isconsistent within cultures and each culture has its own distinctive negotiation“style”. The intra-cultural literature which examines sellers and buyers fromthe same cultures, provides evidence for this consistency (e.g. French (Dupont,1982); Mexicans (Fisher, 1980); Brazilians (Graham, 1983, 1985a); MiddleEastern Arabs (Muna, 1973; Wright, 1983); Chinese (Graham and Lin, 1987; Pye,1982; Shenkar and Ronen, 1987; Tung 1984) and Japanese (Graham, 1984; Tung,1984; Van Zandt, 1970)).

Despite the rather rich literature pertaining to intra-cultural negotiationbehaviours, there is little attention paid to inter-cultural or cross-culturalnegotiation behaviour (Adler and Graham, 1989; Mintu and Calantone, 1991).International sales negotiations that occur across national boundaries are cross-cultural (Adler, 1986), and a negotiation is cross-cultural “when the partiesinvolved belong to different cultures and therefore do not share the same waysof thinking, feeling and behaving” (Casse, 1981, p. 152). Such culturaldifferences prevalent in cross-cultural negotiations can affect the process and itsoutcome (Hamner, 1980; Tse et al., 1988).

Studies attempting a comparison of the various negotiation behaviours indifferent countries (Adler, 1986; Adler et al., 1987; Burt, 1989; Cambell et al.,1988; Copeland and Griggs, 1985; Foster, 1992; Graham et al., 1988; Harnett andCummings, 1980; Hellweg et al., 1991; Herbig and Kramer, 1992; Weiss andStripp, 1985) have mainly adopted an intra-cultural perspective anddemonstrated that negotiation behaviours differ between cultures.Furthermore, a study by Druckman et al. (1976) which attempted to isolate


12

differences which could be attributed to culture only but not variables such asage and sex, indicated that negotiator behaviour differs between cultures.

The ability to achieve mutually beneficial outcomes from cross-cultural salesnegotiations is believed to be crucial to sales success internationally (Cohen,1980; Fisher and Ury, 1981; Llich, 1980; Nierenberg, 1963; Raiffa, 1982;Unterman, 1983; Warschaw, 1980). Negotiation outcome is the point in theprocess when the parties reach some form of agreement on the total set ofissues that have been discussed (Dommermuth, 1976). Negotiation outcome canbe measured in terms of sale versus no sale (Pennington, 1968) or profits (Dwyerand Walker, 1981; Lewis and Fry, 1977; Pruitt and Lewis, 1975) and satisfaction(Dwyer and Walker, 1981). The latter have been found to be operationallysuperior to the former (Graham, 1985b, 1985c).

High and low-context culturesHall, (1976, p. 129) states that a crucial dimension of culture that has particularrelevance for negotiation situations is the context of communication. Morespecifically, Hall, (1976) postulates that cultures fall along a high to low-contextcontinuum, according to the role of context in communication. In certaincultures communication uses low-context and explicit messages. These arealmost “digital” and could be translated into simple computer units (bits)(Usunier, 1993). Individuals rely on formal communication with informationtransmission concerning behaviour being chiefly verbally expressed (Cateora,1983; Foster, 1992; Root, 1987). Such low-context countries include, amongothers, the USA, Canada, Switzerland and Germany (Graham, 1988; Onkvisitand Shaw, 1993).

In high-context cultures, less information is contained in precise verbalexpression, since much more is in the context of communication. The context ofcommunication is high because it includes a great deal of additionalinformation, such as the individuals background, associations, values andposition in society (Keegan, 1989). As such, a message cannot be understoodwithout its context (Onkvisit, 1993). According to Hawrysh and Zaichkowsky,(1989, p. 35) high-context cultures are “those in which the perception of theindividual is inextricably bound to his or her relationship and the context inwhich they occur”. High-context cultures are characterised by the expressivemanner in which the message is delivered (Onkvisit, 1993) (e.g. using non-verbalbehaviour, such as facial expressions, gestures and body language (Root, 1987;Usunier, 1993). Individuals unfamiliar with the complexities of non-verbalbehaviour may experience difficulty in understanding messages, which leadsHall (1976, p. 127) to suggest that it is “sheer folly” to get seriously involved withhigh-context cultures unless one is really “contexted”. Such countries includeJapan, China, Brazil and Mexico, Spain, Italy and Middle Eastern Arab nations(Graham, 1988; Onkvisit, 1993).

In the next section, the literature pertaining to the interactive part of thecross-cultural negotiation process will be reviewed. More specifically, both thenon-task related and task-related or endogenous factors influencing

Cross-culturalsales

negotiations

13

cross-cultural sales negotiations are examined. However, other exogenousfactors which also influence the negotiation process and include, among others,the importance of the negotiation, the stakes of the respective negotiators (i.e.“the amount of perceived gain or loss associated with particular results”)(Gladwin and Walter, 1980, p. 66) and the nature and complexity of issues to benegotiated (Tung, 1988), although very important, are beyond the scope of thisstudy.

The negotiation processAfter the initial preparation that precedes a cross-cultural sales negotiation, theinteractive part of the process of negotiation can be divided into two differentstages:

(1) non-task related interaction; and (2) task-related interaction (Adler, 1986; Graham and Sano, 1984, 1986).

The first stage, non-task related interaction, describes the process of getting toknow each other or of establishing rapport between members of negotiatingteams (Adler, 1986; Adler et al., 1987; Hawrysh and Zaichkowsky, 1989). This isthe stage of the face-to-face interaction which opens the meeting and excludesthose interactions related to the exchange of information regarding the“business” of the meeting. It involves negotiators “getting to know” contacts.Non-task related interaction outcome will be influenced by status distinction(Graham, 1983; Oh, 1984; Tsurami, 1971) impression formation accuracy(Graham, 1985a) and interpersonal attraction (Benton, 1971; Berscheid andWalster, 1978; McGuire, 1968; Morgan and Sawyer, 1967; Swingle, 1966) of thenegotiators.

The second stage of the negotiation describes the task-related interaction andit is concerned with the “business” of the negotiation. It involves an exchange ofinformation regarding the needs and preferences of negotiators (i.e. the variousalternatives open to them). This stage places emphasis on informationexchange (Graham, 1987; Graham and Andrews, 1987), persuasion andbargaining strategy (Hawrysh and Zaichkowsky, 1989) and concession making(Anderson, 1995) that culminates in a final agreement. High and low-contextcultures (Hall, 1976), it is believed, exert an influence on both the non-taskrelated and task-related factors, which, in turn, influence the outcome of cross-cultural sales negotiations (Graham, 1988; Graham and Herberger, 1983; Hall,1976; Herbig and Kramer, 1992).

In this section, we examine the literature pertaining to each stage of theinternational sales negotiation process and explore areas for further research.More specifically, the study focuses on the role and the likely impact of:

(1) importance weighting attached to status distinction;(2) perceived similarities and differences of the negotiators; and (3) degree of reliance on non-verbal communication, at various stages of the

negotiation process and its outcome.


14

The integrative framework which has been used to guide the analysis isdiagramatically shown in Figure 1.

Non-task interactionStatus distinctionAt the non-task interaction stage of the negotiation process status distinctionplays an important role. Status can be defined by interpersonal rank, age, sex,education, the position of an individual in the company and the relative positionof one’s company (Graham, 1988; Hawrysh and Zaichkowsky, 1989). In almostany negotiation, there may be differences in the status of bargaining parties(Graham, 1988) that account for the traditional culturally based power playsthat are a feature of international negotiation (Herbig and Kramer, 1992).

In cross-cultural sales negotiations it is critical that sellers and buyersunderstand status distinction. Different cultures attach different degrees ofimportance to status in negotiations (Graham, 1988). High-context cultures arestatus oriented (Herbig and Kramer, 1992) since meaning and understanding incommunication is internalised in the person (Hawkins, 1983). In such culturesinterpersonal relationships are vertical in nature (Nakane, 1970; Graham, 1988)and the words used in negotiation are not as important as negotiator status(Hall, 1976). There is little egalitarianism in negotiations (Herbig and Kramer,1992) which has prompted Schmidt (1979, p. 2) to emphatically state that “in thepast as now, a seller was considered little more than a beggar. Yet the buyer (the‘honoured guest’) was and remains king.” The influence of status distinctionscan be so pervasive that status dictates not only what is said but how it is said(i.e. different words are used to express the same idea depending on whichperson makes the statement).

Examples of high-context cultures where status distinctions are pervasiveinclude the Mexicans (Condon, 1985), Brazilians (Harrison, 1983) and Japanese(Graham and Herberger, 1983). In a low-context culture, however, there is littledistinction between roles and relatively fewer rules defining what is appropriatebehaviour (Hawrysh and Zaichkowsky, 1989). Instead individuals rely on aninformal or egalitarian relationship in negotiations (Herbig and Kramer, 1992).

According to Graham (1988), status distinction has a considerable impact oncross-cultural sales negotiation and can influence their outcome (Graham, 1988).Furthermore, it has been pointed out by Graham and Herberger (1983) that therelative status of the seller and buyer in negotiation is the single most importantfactor in explaining negotiation outcome. The differences in status distinctionsof negotiators between high and low-context cultures are the source of potentialproblems. For example, in line with cultural heritage, a seller from a high-context culture negotiating with a buyer from a high-context culture will holdthe buyer in high esteem and display considerable respect. However, a sellerfrom a high-context culture negotiating with a buyer from a low-context cultureis likely to attach importance to the status of the buyer. Since the seller expectsthe buyer to reciprocate this respect, the seller may be taken advantage of to theextent that this has a negative influence on the sales negotiation outcome

Cross-culturalsales

negotiations

15

Sta

tus

dist

inct

ion

Impr

essi

onfo

rmat

ion

accu

racy

Inte

rper

sona

lat

trac

tion

Exc

hang

eof

info

rmat

ion

Per

suas

ion

&ba

rgai

ning

stra

tegi

es

Con

cess

ion

mak

ing

&ag

reem

ent

Neg

otia

tion

outc

ome

Atta

ched

impo

rtan

ceIn

divi

dual

sim

ilarit

ies

Indi

vidu

aldi

ffere

nces

Rel

ianc

e on

non-

verb

alco

mm

unic

atio

n

The

inte

ract

ive

part

of t

he c

ross

-cul

tura

l sal

es n

egot

iatio

n pr

oces

s

Task

-rel

ated

inte

ract

ion

Non

-tas

k re

late

d in

tera

ctio

n

time

Figure 1.Diagrammatic

representation of thenegotiation process andsuggested relationships


16

(Graham, 1988). Sellers from high-context cultures are advised to put lessemphasis on their status positions to reduce the likelihood of this occurring.

A seller from a low-context culture negotiating with a buyer from a high-context culture expecting to be treated as an equal in negotiations, will displayegalitarianism. Since negotiations between equals are seldom found in high-context cultures this will be regarded as out of place by the buyer (Herbig andKramer, 1992). This will increase the likelihood that the negotiation will endabruptly because a buyer from a high-context culture will view this as “brashbehaviour in a low status seller and lacking in respect” (Graham, 1988, p. 484).According to the previous discussion, the following propositions can be putforward:

P1: The lower the degree of importance salespeople from high-contextcultures attach to status positions when negotiating with buyers fromlow-context cultures, the higher the likelihood of positively influencingthe negotiation outcome.

P2: The higher the degree of importance salespeople from low-contextcultures attach to status positions when negotiating with buyers fromhigh-context cultures, the lower the likelihood of positively influencingthe negotiation outcome.

Impression formation accuracyAt the non-task related interaction phase, negotiators tend to form impressionsabout attitudes and characteristics of others. It is important that accurateperceptions of individuals are formed immediately since initial perceptions mayform the basis for the future bargaining strategy. Graham (1985c, p. 134) hasstated that “based on this impression, negotiation strategies are formulated,communications transmitted, and strategies evaluated”. Inaccurate impressionformation can have negative effects on subsequent stages of negotiation andcan be detrimental to future negotiation encounters (Cook and Corey, 1991;Linkemer, 1989; Swan et al., 1984; Weitz et al., 1986).

Findings suggest that on meeting someone for the first time, individualshave first impressions that precede rationalised thought processes and typicallyform instant opinions often based on minimal information (Zajonc, 1980).Individuals categorise others on the basis of these first impressions due topersonal factors (LaTour et al., 1989; Wise, 1974). For example, the firstimpression formed of a culturally dissimilar negotiator may be based on foreignaccent or speech style (Foon, 1986). From this first impression a wide range ofother personal qualities may be assumed. According to Tsalikis et al. (1991,1992), a salesperson with an accent that is perceived to be “foreign” is regardedas less intelligent, less knowledgeable and less effective than a salesperson witha local accent. It could be argued, therefore, that individuals from similarcultural contexts displaying communication patterns have a higher likelihoodof forming accurate impressions.

Cross-culturalsales

negotiations

17

Researchers have examined the relationship between impression formationaccuracy and the cultural similarity of negotiators (Cook and Corey, 1991;Graham, 1985a; Linkemer, 1989; Swan et al., 1984; Weitz et al., 1986). Findingsindicate that negotiators from dissimilar cultures (high versus low-context),who appear “foreign” may have particular difficulty “sizing one another up” (i.e.the impression formation accuracy is reduced) (Graham, 1985a). In contrast,similarities between negotiators facilitate awareness and exploration betweennegotiating parties (Usunier, 1993). Similarities enable negotiators to formaccurate perceptions that become the basis for trust and personal relationshipsto develop.

Prevailing characteristics of high and low-context cultures provide the basisfor understanding the relationship between impression formation accuracy andcultural similarities and dissimilarities. Negotiators from similar culturalcontexts display a common perceptual framework of the communicationprocess (Hall, 1976) and the likelihood of a negotiator forming an accurateimpression of a counterpart is increased. Since the perceptions of individualsfrom dissimilar cultural contexts differ (Hall, 1976) the likelihood of a negotiatorforming accurate impressions of a counterpart is reduced. Therefore, thefollowing propositions can be made:

P3: The greater the cultural similarities as perceived by a seller from a low-context culture when negotiating with a buyer from a high-contextculture, the higher the level of perceived impression formation accuracy.

P4: The greater the cultural differences as perceived by a seller from a high-context culture when negotiating with a buyer from a low-contextculture, the lower the level of perceived impression formation accuracy.

Interpersonal attractionThe immediate face-to-face impression may be influenced by any feelings ofinterpersonal attraction or liking between negotiators. Feelings of attractionthat develop over the course of the negotiation as the personal relationshipdevelops have their roots at the initial contact phase. There is evidence tosuggest that there are cross-cultural similarities in perceptions of attractiveness(Zebrowitz-McArthur, 1988) and that individuals tend to like others who aresimilar to themselves in various ways (e.g. Poppleton, 1981; Vernon, 1964).Similar individuals are more likely to get along than dissimilar ones (Byrne,1969; Hieder, 1958; Newcombe, 1956) and perceive others whom they like assimilar to themselves (Lott and Lott, 1965). Similarity between negotiators caninduce trust which leads, in turn, to interpersonal attraction.

Generally, researchers have argued that a positive relationship existsbetween the similarity of bargainers, and interpersonal attraction (Bramel,1969; Byrne, 1969; Lindzey and Byrne, 1968; Rubin and Brown, 1975). Variousdimensions of similarity have been investigated, such as attitudes, interests,values and personality (Davis and Silk, 1972). In addition, Lott and Lott (1965)stated that the positive association between interpersonal attraction and


18

similarity could reflect causation in either direction (i.e. persons tend to perceiveothers whom they are interpersonally attracted to as similar to themselves).Based on the above findings, it could be argued that sellers and buyers fromsimilar cultural contexts, who share common personality characteristics andelements of communication, have a higher likelihood of being interpersonallyattracted than those from dissimilar cultural contexts. Therefore, the followingproposition can be put forward:

P5: The higher the level of individual differences between a salesperson anda buyer from similar cultural contexts, the lower the level ofinterpersonal attraction.

Other findings suggest that the relationship between similarity andinterpersonal attraction is not as simple as it has been described above. Forexample, Graham (1985a) points out that negotiators from similar cultures arenot attracted to each other any more than individuals from dissimilar cultures.Such findings offer some support for the theory of interpersonal congruencywhich suggests that under certain conditions interpersonal attraction will befacilitated by dissimilarities as well as similarities (Lott and Lott, 1965). Thusthe following proposition is made:

P6: The higher the level of individual similarities between a seller and abuyer from dissimilar cultural contexts, the higher the level ofinterpersonal attraction.

Interpersonal attraction can have positive or negative influences on thenegotiation outcome. First, it can enhance the satisfaction an individual derivesfrom the negotiation (Benton, 1971; Berscheid and Walster, 1978; Graham, 1985a;Graham, 1988; Morgan and Sawyer, 1967; Swingle, 1966). Second, it can have adetrimental effect on negotiation outcome (McGuire, 1968). Sellers and buyerseager to preserve gratifying personal relationships may sacrifice economicrewards in the sales encounter. Individuals who are attracted are likely to makeconcessions in bargaining. Thus an individual negotiator may give up economicrewards (in terms of achieved profits) for the rewards of the satisfaction derivedfrom the relationship with an attractive partner (Graham, 1985a).

Task-related interactionExchange of informationThe second stage of the negotiation process describes the task-relatedinteraction. During this stage, there is an exchange of information that definesthe participants’ needs and expectations. More specifically, there is an emphasison “the parties’ expected utilities of the various alternatives open to them”(Graham, 1987, p. 417). Negotiators must clarify their situation and needs andunderstand their opponents situation and needs. The effectiveness ofcommunication between negotiators is of particular interest at this stage wherea clear understanding of participants needs and expectations is essential.

A study by Triandis (1960) that focused on the similarity of communicatorsfound that greater communication similarity leads to more effective

Cross-culturalsales

negotiations

19

interactions between negotiating parties. It has been shown thatcommunication effectiveness is reduced even between individuals from thesame cultural background who have cognitive dissimilarities (Stening, 1979).According to Stening (1979) it would be reasonable to expect that this problemis exacerbated in cross-cultural interactions where the likelihood of cognitivedissimilarities is greater.

With thousands of languages and local dialects in the world (Onkvisit andShaw, 1993), communication through verbal means is complex. Even ininstances where participants understand each other and are mutually fluent,the meaning of the information exchanged can be lost as a result of connotativeand denotative differences in meanings cross-culturally (D’Anglejan andTucker, 1973). In addition to complexities with regard to verbal communication,cross-cultural sales negotiations are subject to non-verbal communicationproblems. Such problems reduce the likelihood that the parties involved innegotiation will accurately understand their differences as well as theirsimilarities (Bass, 1971). This, in turn, can lead to a breakdown in thenegotiation process and a failure to achieve a desired outcome.

Researchers have isolated certain problems in exchanging information cross-culturally at the negotiation table that fall into a non-verbal category. Forexample, it has been found that culturally determined behaviour with respect togaze, facial expression and the use of time and space can produce adverseeffects upon cross-cultural exchange of information (Collett, 1971; Furnham,1989; Hall, 1959; Yousef, 1974). Concerning time, information flow may neverbegin if the differing time perceptions in various cultures prevent negotiationsbetween participants who do not share identical attitudes to time (Limaye andVictor, 1991).

In a holistic study of cross-cultural sales negotiations, Graham and Andrews(1987) provide an in-depth analysis of the difficulties experienced. A series offocal points in the course of the negotiation between American and Japaneseparticipants revealed that the exchange of information defining theparticipants’ needs and expectations was the subject of cultural variation. Forexample, the Japanese buyer in the negotiation simulation asked the Americanseller to describe his situation first and did not anticipate the aggressiveopening of the American. In contrast, in negotiations between two Japaneseparticipants it was the buyer who took control of the interaction and described“his” situation first. Throughout the discourse of the interaction there wereverbal and non-verbal communication problems.

The cultural context of an individual is manifest in the communication usedin negotiation. An individual from a low-context culture will focus on explicitmessages and display a great deal of precision in the verbal aspect ofcommunication (Cateora, 1983; Hall, 1976). Meanwhile, communication betweenmembers of high-context cultures is implicit and features expressive non-verbalbehaviour (Gudykunst and Ting-Toomey, 1988). This can include bodylanguage, gestures and facial expressions. Given the preceding analysis of theproblems experienced in the exchange of information, it can be argued that


20

when sellers and buyers from similar cultural contexts negotiate theyinstinctively exchange common elements of verbal and non-verbalcommunication. However, in negotiations between sellers and buyers fromdissimilar cultural contexts there is an increased likelihood that the informationexchange will be adversely affected by the complexities with regard to verbaland non-verbal communication. As a result, there is an increased likelihood thatthe performance outcomes of cross-cultural negotiations between culturallydissimilar sellers and buyers will be negatively influenced. This leads to thefollowing propositions:

P7: In negotiations between salespeople and buyers from dissimilar context-cultures, the lower the degree of reliance on non-verbal behaviours, thehigher the level of communication effectiveness.

P8: In negotiations between salespeople and buyers from similar context-cultures, the higher the degree of reliance on non-verbal communication,the higher the level of communication effectiveness.

Persuasion and bargaining strategyThe persuasion phase of the negotiation process involves the parties’ attemptsto modify one another’s performance expectations through the use of variouspersuasive tactics (Hawrysh and Zaichkowsky, 1989). Intra-cultural studiessuggest that each country has its own cultural style of persuasion. Thissuggestion has been empirically tested and dominant styles of persuasion havebeen found to be prevalent in different countries (Glenn et al., 1977). Theliterature suggests that there are three basic styles of persuasion: the factual-inductive, the axiomatic-deductive and the affective-intuitive. The weight ofeach style varies by country. The factual-inductive style has persuasive appealsmade to logic (e.g. typical in North American negotiations), the axiomatic-deductive style appeals to ideals (e.g. typical in the former USSR) and theaffective-intuitive style focuses on emotional appeals (e.g. typical in Arabcountries). Other studies have shown that persuasive tactics are consistentacross countries, such as the use of aggressive tactics present in US negotiationbehaviour (Graham and Sano, 1984; Van Zandt, 1970).

The persuasion stage emphasises the importance of the bargaining strategythat can affect the outcome of the negotiation process. From a managerialstandpoint, the important question concerning the negotiation process is, ofcourse, how bargaining strategy affects the outcome. According to Anglemarand Stern (1978), the bargaining strategy used in negotiations depends on thefunction of communication during negotiation. There are essentially twostrategies to bargaining, namely representational and instrumental strategies.When representational strategies are used communication is based on theidentification of problems, a search for solutions and the selection of the mostappropriate course of action; for example, the salesperson may co-operate withthe buyer and seek information on the buyers views of the situation. Wheninstrumental strategies are used, communication involves affecting the other

Cross-culturalsales

negotiations

21

party’s behaviour and attitudes (Anglemar and Stern, 1978); for example, asalesperson may influence the buyer with persuasive promises, commitments,rewards and punishments. It has been suggested that sellers should refrainfrom using instrumental strategies (Graham, 1985a) and should userepresentational bargaining strategies where negotiation outcomes prove morefavourable (Rubin and Brown, 1975). A co-operative negotiation environmentincreases the likelihood of a mutually beneficial agreement from the negotiationbecause of the mutual recognition of the need and potential benefit to theparties (Derleda and Grzelak, 1982).

Since both the representational and instrumental strategies are based oncommunication, they can be linked to cultural contexts. On the one hand, forexample, Rubin and Brown (1975) have suggested that communication betweenculturally similar individuals is co-operative (i.e. sellers and buyers from similarcultural contexts use more representational strategies). This suggestion issupported by Graham (1985a) who posits that negotiators from similar culturesuse more representational bargaining strategies and achieve more favourablenegotiation outcomes accordingly (i.e. higher levels of satisfaction and profits).On the other hand, a cross-cultural empirical analysis has revealed thatculturally dissimilar negotiating parties (i.e. those from dissimilar culturalcontexts) tend to use instrumental bargaining strategies but do not achievesuch desired outcomes of negotiation (Graham, 1985a). Therefore the followingpropositions are made:

P9: The higher the degree of individual dissimilarities as perceived by asalesperson when negotiating with a buyer from a different culturalcontext, the higher the likelihood of him/her using an instrumentalbargaining strategy.

P10: The higher the degree of individual dissimilarities as perceived by asalesperson when negotiating with a buyer from a similar culturalcontext, the higher the likelihood of him/her using an instrumentalbargaining strategy.

Concession making and agreementNegotiators can make concessions at any stage of the negotiation process.Concession making behaviour represents the manoeuvring of negotiators onthe issues being negotiated (Rinehart and Page, 1992). It reflects the negotiatorsattempts to move the negotiation process from a point of initial position on eachdiscussion issue to a point of agreement (Rinehart and Page, 1992). Althoughresearch is not definitive, it appears that individuals from different cultureshave different approaches to concession making (Anderson, 1995). In manyAsian cultures, participants discuss all issues prior to making any concessions;concessions are made when they believe the end of the negotiation is in sight(Adler, 1986). In contrast US bargainers tend to make small concessionsthroughout the negotiation process (Van Zandt, 1970) which they expect theiropponents to reciprocate (Adler, 1986).


22

The final stage of the negotiation involves reaching an agreement based onthe performance of the parties involved. According to Ghauri, (1986, p. 81) “theagreement should foster the development of the relationship and be flexible todeal with expected or unexpected changes which can occur in the future”. Thefinal agreement of a negotiation may take the form of a gentleman’s agreementas is common in Japan (Oh, 1984), or a more formal Western-style contract.

ConclusionThe intra-cultural and inter-cultural sales negotiation literature suggests thatculture has an important influence on sales negotiations. By focusing on theinteractive part of the cross-cultural sales negotiation, several key variablessuch as status distinction, impression formation accuracy, interpersonalattraction, information exchange, persuasion and bargaining strategy, andconcession making have been identified and examined.

The propositions put forward in this study cover only limited aspects of theinteractive part of the cross-cultural sales negotiations process. However, theybuild on existing knowledge and provide the basis for some further theoreticaldevelopment concerning the role and impact of the perceived importance ofstatus distinction, the similarities and differences of the individuals and thedegree of reliance on non-verbal communications, on the task and non-taskrelated stages of the negotiation process.

From the preceding literature review, it becomes evident that additionalresearch in the area of cross-cultural negotiations is needed. For example,additional research should examine the influence of personality characteristicsof the seller on the endogenous factors and the negotiation outcome.Furthermore, the impact of exogenous variables (such as the importance of thenegotiation, the stakes of the respective negotiators and organisational culture)on the negotiation behaviour of the seller and the outcome of the negotiationneed to be examined. Due primarily to the fact that most of the experimentalsettings studying cross-cultural negotiation deal with individuals bargainingfor themselves, research efforts using negotiating teams from each country,collectively bargaining for their companies, might reveal greater inter-culturaldifferences that influence the outcome of sales negotiations.

In future investigations, an attempt should be made to quantify the influenceof the endogenous variables and examine their impact on sales negotiationoutcomes. For practical purposes, it is not enough to suggest that salesnegotiations will be positively or negatively influenced by endogenousvariables. According to Rinehart and Page, (1992, p. 28) this is a potentiallyfruitful area for additional research, “investigating different outcome measurescan enhance our knowledge of the negotiation process by linking the impact ofthe economic outcomes and the negotiator’s perception of the success of theoutcome”. Additional research that deals specifically with cross-cultural salesnegotiations should address the relationship between exogenous andendogenous factors and their combined effect on negotiation outcome.

Cross-culturalsales

negotiations

23

Further research is needed in order to examine the exact nature anddeterminants of each endogenous factor in cross-cultural sales negotiations. Forexample, what are the antecedents of interpersonal attraction (Graham, 1985a)and the thought processes that underlie interpersonal attraction in a salesnegotiation context? The degree of inner conflict experienced by salesrepresentatives faced with attractive clients who make bargaining concessionsshould also be investigated.

According to Rinehart and Page, (1992) one approach to additional researchdesigns would be to study cross-cultural sales negotiations that do not result ina successful outcome. Findings from failed negotiations will enable researchersto determine when the cross-cultural negotiation process is most likely to breakdown and why. They suggest that further research should take a longitudinalapproach to reflect the repeated nature of negotiations and the building of long-lasting relationships. Longitudinal research can yield better results than can bedrawn from isolated sales encounter experiments.

The literature suggests that what goes on at the negotiation table is criticalto the outcome of cross-cultural sales negotiations. It may not be enough toselect the best sales representatives possible unless efforts are devoted totraining them to manage the process of negotiations more effectively (Graham,1985a). Central to this training should be the development of cultural awarenessskills for salespeople so that they can anticipate and understand behaviours inthe international environment and be aware of the cultural “tool kit” ofculturally dissimilar buyers.

ReferencesAdler, N.J. (1986), International Dimensions of Organisational Behaviour, Kent Publishing,

Boston, MA.Adler, N.J. and Graham, J.L. (1989), “Cross-cultural interaction: the international comparison

fallacy?”, Journal of International Business Studies, Fall, pp. 515-37.Adler, N.J., Graham, J.L. and Gehrke, T.S. (1987), “Business negotiations in Canada, Mexico, and

the United States”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 15, pp. 411-29.Anderson, R. (1995), “Essentials of personal selling – the new professionalism”, Prentice-Hall,

Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Anglemar, R. and Stern, L.W. (1978), “Development of a content analytical system for analysis of

bargaining communication in marketing”, Journal of Marketing Research, February,pp. 93-102.

Bass, B.M. (1971), “The American advisor abroad”, Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, Vol. 7No. 3, pp. 285-308.

Benton, A.A. (1971), “Productivity, distributive justice, and bargaining among children”, Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 18, pp. 68-78.

Berscheid, E. and Walster, E.H. (1978), Interpersonal Attraction, 2nd ed., Addison-Wesley,Reading, MA.

Bramel, D. (1969), “Interpersonal attraction, hostility, and perception”, in Mills, J. (Ed.),Experimental Social Psychology, Macmillan, New York, NY, pp. 1-120.

Burt, D.N. (1989), “The nuances of negotiating overseas”, Journal of Purchasing and MaterialsManagement, 25th anniversary edition.


24

Byrne, D. (1969), “Attitudes and attraction”, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 4,Academic Press, New York, NY.

Cambell, N.C.G., Graham, J.L., Jolibert, A. and H. G. Meissner (1988), “Marketing negotiations inFrance, Germany, the United Kingdom, and United States”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52,pp. 49-62.

Casse, P. (1981), Training for the Cross Cultural Mind, 2nd ed., Society for Inter-culturalEducation, Training and Research, Intercultural Press, Washington, DC.

Cateora, P.R. (1983), International Marketing, 5th ed., Richard D. Irwin, Homewood, IL.Cohen, H. (1980), You Can Negotiate Anything, New York, NY.Collett, P. (1971), “Training Englishmen in the non-verbal behaviour of Arabs: an experiment on

intercultural communication”, International Journal of Psychology, Vol. 6, pp. 209-15.Condon, J.C. (1985), Good Neighbours, Communicating with the Mexican, Intercultural Press.Cook, R.W. and Corey, R.J. (1991), “A confirmatory investigation of industrial buyer image of the

saleswomen”, Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 19, Summer, pp. 199-208.Copeland, L. and Griggs, L. (1985), Going International, Random House, New York, NY.Czinkota, M.R., Ronkainen, I.A., Moffett, M.H. and Moynihan, E.O. (1995), Global Business, The

Dryden Press, Chicago, IL.D’Anglejan, A. and Tucker, G.R. (1973), “Communicating across cultures: an empirical

investigation”, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 121-30.Daniels, J.D. and Radebaugh, L.H. (1995), International Business: Environments and Operations,

7th ed., Addison-Wesley World Student Series.Davis, H.L. and Silk, A.J. (1972), “Interaction and influence processes in personal selling”, Sloan

Management Review, Vol. 13, Winter, pp. 59-76.Derleda, V.J. and Grzelak, J. (1982), Cooperation and Helping Behaviour: Theories and Research,

Academic Press Inc.Deutsch, M.F. (1984), Doing Business with the Japanese, The American Library Inc PR (1994),

New York, NY.Deutsch, M.F. (1994), Marketing Management, international edition, The Dryden Press, Chicago,

IL.Dommermuth, W. (1976), “Profiting from distribution conflicts”, Business Horizons, December,

pp. 4-13.Druckman, D., Benton, A., Ali, F. and Bagur, J.S. (1976), “Cultural differences in bargaining

behaviour”, Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 413-49.Dupont, C. (1982), La Negociation: Conduite, Theorie, Applications, Dalloz, Paris.Dwyer, F.R. and Walker, O.C. (1981), “Bargaining in an asymmetrical power structure”, Journal of

Marketing, Winter, pp. 104-15.Fayerweather, J. and Kapoor, A. (1972), “Simulated international business negotiations”, Journal

of International Business Studies, Vol. 3, Spring, pp. 19-31.Fayerweather, J. and Kapoor, A. (1976), “Introduction to international business negotiations”, in

Strategy and Negotiation for the International Corporation, Ballinger Publishing, Cambridge,MA, pp. 29-50.

Fischer, R. and Ury, W. (1981), Getting to Yes, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA.Fisher, G. (1980), International Negotiation, Intercultural Press, Yarmouth, ME.Foon, A.E. (1986), “A social structural approach to speech evaluation”, The Journal of Social

Psychology, Vol. 126 No. 4, pp. 521-30.Foster, D.A. (1992), Bargaining Across Borders – How to Negotiate Business Successfully

Anywhere in the World, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Cross-culturalsales

negotiations

25

Frank, S. (1992), “Avoiding the pitfalls of business abroad”, Sales and Marketing Management,March.

Furnham, A. (1989), “Communicating across cultures: a social skills perspective”, CounsellingPsychology Quarterly, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 205-22.

Ghauri, P.N. (1986), “Guidelines for international business negotiations”, International MarketingReview, Autumn, Vol. 4, pp. 72-82.

Gladwin, T.N. and Walter, O.C. (1980), Multinationals Under Fire: Lessons from the Managementof Conflict, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.

Glenn, E.S., Witmeyer, G. and Stevenson, K.A. (1977), “Cultural styles of persuasion”,International Journal of Intercultural Relations, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 52-66.

Graham, J.L. (1983), “Brazilian, Japanese, and American Business Negotiations”, Journal ofInternational Business Studies, Vol. 14, Spring/Summer, pp. 47-62.

Graham, J.L. (1984), “A comparison of Japanese and American business negotiations”,International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 51-68.

Graham, J.L. (1985a), “Cross-cultural marketing negotiations: a laboratory experiment”,Marketing Science, Vol. 4 No. 2, Spring, pp. 130-46.

Graham, J.L. (1985b), “The influence of culture on the process of business negotiations: anexploratory study”, Journal of International Business, Spring, pp. 81-96.

Graham, J.L. (1985c) “Cross-cultural marketing negotiations: a laboratory experiment”, MarketingScience, Vol. 4 No. 2, Spring, pp. 130-46.

Graham, J.L. (1988), “Deference given the buyer: variations across twelve cultures”, in Contractor,F.J. and Lorange, P. (Eds), Co-operative Strategies in International Business, Lexington Books,Lexington, MA, pp. 473-85.

Graham, J.L. and Andrews, J.D. (1987), “A holistic analysis of Japanese and American businessnegotiations”, Journal of Business Communications, Vol. 24, Fall, pp. 63-77.

Graham, J.L. and Herberger R.A. (1983), “Negotiators don’t shoot from the hip”, Harvard BusinessReview, Vol. 61, May/June, pp. 160-8.

Graham, J.L. and Lin, C. (1987), “Negotiations in the Republic of China (Taiwan) and the UnitedStates”, in Cavusgil, S.T. (Ed.), Advances in International Marketing, Vol. 2, JAI Press,Greenwich, CT and New York, NY.

Graham, J.L. and Sano, Y. (1984), Smart Bargaining: Doing Business with the Japanese, BallingerPublishing, Cambridge, MA.

Graham, J.L. and Sano, Y. (1986), “Across the negotiation table from the Japanese”, InternationalMarketing Review, Vol. 3 No. 3, Autumn, pp. 58-71.

Graham, J.L., Kim, D.K., Lin, C. and Robinson, M. (1988), “Buyer-seller negotiations around thePacific Rim: differences in fundamental exchange processes”, Journal of Consumer Research,Vol. 15, June, pp. 48-54.

Gudykunst, W.B. and Ting-Toomey, S. (1988), Culture and Interpersonal Communication, SagePublications, Newbury Park, CA.

Hall, E.T. (1959), The Silent Language, Doubleday, New York, NY.Hall, E.T. (1976), Beyond Culture, Doubleday, New York, NY.Hall, E.T. and Hall, M.R. (1987), “Selling to a Japanese”, Sales and Marketing Management,

Vol. 139, July, pp. 58-60.Hamner, C. (1980), “The influences of structural, individual, and strategic differences”, in Harnett,

D. and Cummings, L. (Eds), Bargaining Behaviour: An International Study, DamePublications, Inc., Houston, TX.

Harris, P.R. and Moran, R.T. (1987), Managing Cultural Differences, 2nd ed., Gulf PublishingCompany, Houston, TX.

Harrison, P.A. (1983), Behaving Brazilian, Newbury House, Rowley, MA.


26

Hawkins, S. (1983), “How to understand your partner’s cultural baggage”, InternationalManagement Journal, Vol. 38, September, pp. 48-50.

Hawrysh, B.M. and Zaichkowsky, J.L. (1989), “Cultural approaches to negotiations: understandingthe Japanese”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 28-42.

Hellweg, S.A., Samovar, L.A. and Skow, L. (1991), in Samovar, L.A and Porter, R.E., CulturalVariations in Negotiating Styles in Intercultural Communication – A Reader , 6th ed.,Wadsworth Publishing, Belmont, CA.

Herbig, P.A. and Kramer, H.E. (1992), “Do’s and don’ts of cross-cultural negotiations”, IndustrialMarketing Management, Vol. 21, pp. 287-98

Hieder, F. (1958), The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations, Wiley, New York, NY.Johnson, E.M., Kurtz, D.L. and Scheuing, E.E. (1994), Sales Management Concepts, Practices and

Cases, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill International Editions, New York, NY and London.Keegan, W. J. (1989), Global Marketing Management, Prentice-Hall International Editions,

Englewood Cliffs, NJ and Hemel Hempstead.LaTour, M.S., Henthorne, T.L. and Williams, A.J. (1989), “Initial impressions in the retail

environment: a comparison of black and white perceptions”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 6No. 4, pp. 329-47.

Lewis, S.A. and Fry, W.R. (1977), “Effects of visual access and orientation on the discovery ofintegrative bargaining alternatives”, Organisational Behavior and Human Performance,Vol. 20, pp. 75-92.

Limaye, M. and Victor, D.A. (1991), “Cross-cultural business communication research: state of theart and hypotheses for the 1990s”, The Journal of Business Communication, Vol. 28 No. 3,Summer, pp. 277-99.

Lindzey, G. and Byrne, D. (1968), “Measurement of social choice and interpersonal attractiveness”,in Aronson, E. and Lindzey, G. (Eds), Handbook of Social Psychology, 2nd ed., Addison-Wesley,Reading, MA.

Linkemer, B. (1989), “Women in sales: what do they really want?”, Sales and MarketingManagement, Vol. 141, January, pp. 61-5.

Llich, J. (1980), Power Negotiating, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.Lott, A.J. and Lott, B.E. (1965), “Group cohesiveness as interpersonal attractiveness: a review of

relationships with antecedent and consequent variables”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 64 No. 4,October, pp. 259-309.

McDaniel, O.E. (1990), “The new name of the game: global account marketing”, The Journal of theNational Account Marketing Association, Fall, pp. 4-5.

McGuire, W.J. (1968), “The nature of attitudes and attitude change”, in Gardner, L. and Aronson,G. (Eds), The Handbook of Social Psychology, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

Mintu, A.T. and Calantone, R.J. (1991), “A comparative approach to international marketingnegotiations”, Journal of Applied Business Research, Vol. 7 No. 4, Fall, pp. 90-7.

Morgan, W.R. and Sawyer, J. (1967), “Bargaining, expectations, and the preference for equalityover equity”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 6, pp. 139-49.

Muna, F.A. (1973), The Arab Mind, Scribners, New York, NY.Nakane, C. (1970), Japanese Society, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.Neslin, S. and Greenhalgh, L. (1983), “Nash’s theory of co-operative games as a predictor of the

outcomes of buyer-seller negotiations: an experiment in media purchasing”, Journal ofMarketing Research, Vol. 20 , November, pp. 368-79.

Newcombe, T.M. (1956), “The prediction of interpersonal attraction”, American Psychologist,Vol. 11, pp. 575-86.

Nierenberg. J.S. (1963), Getting Through to People, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Oh, T.K. (1984), “Selling to the Japanese”, Nation’s Business, October, pp. 36-8.

Cross-culturalsales

negotiations

27

Onkvisit, S. and Shaw, J.J. (1993), International Marketing, Macmillan, Basingstoke.Pennington, A.L. (1968), “Customer-salesman bargaining behaviour in retail transactions”,

Journal of Marketing Research, February, pp. 103-5.Poppleton, S.E. (1981), “The social skills of selling”, in Argyle, M. (Ed.), Social Skills and Work,

Methuen, pp. 59-84.Pruitt, D.G. and Lewis, S.A. (1975), “Development of integrative solutions in bilateral negotiation”,

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 621-33.Pye, L. (1982), Chinese Commercial Negotiation Style, Oelgeschlager, Gunn, and Hain, Cambridge,

MA.Raiffa, H. (1982), The Art and Science of Negotiation, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Rinehart, L.M. and Page, T.J. (1992), “The development and test of a model of transaction

negotiation”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56, October, pp. 18-32.Root, F.R. (1987), Entry Strategies for International Markets, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA.Rubin, J.Z. and Brown, B.R. (1975), The Social Psychology of Bargaining and Negotiation,

Academic Press, New York, NY.Schmidt, K.D. (1979), “Doing business in Taiwan and doing business in Japan”, pamphlets,

Business Intelligence Program, SRI International, Menlo Park, CA.Shenkar, O. and Ronen, S. (1987), “The cultural context of negotiations: the implications of

Chinese interpersonal norms”, Journal of Appl ied Behavioural Science, Vol. 23 No. 2,pp. 263-75.

Stening, B.W. (1979), “Problems in cross-cultural contact: a literature review”, InternationalJournal of Intercultural Relations, Vol. 3, pp. 269-313.

Swan, J.E., Rink, D.R., Kiser, G.E. and Martin, W.S. (1984), “Industrial buyer image of thesaleswoman”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 48, Winter, pp. 110-16.

Swingle, P.G. (1966), “Effects of emotional relationship between protagonists in a two-persongame”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 4, pp. 270-9.

Triandis, H.C. (1960), “Cognitive similarity and communication in the dyad”, Human Relations,Vol. 13, pp. 175-83.

Tsalikis, J., Deshields, O.W. and LaTour, M.L. (1991), “The role of accent on the credibility andeffectiveness of the salesperson”, Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, Vol. 9No. 1, Winter, pp. 31-41.

Tsalikis, J., Ortiz-Buonafina, M. and LaTour, M.S. (1992), “The role of accent on credibility andeffectiveness of the international business person: the case of Guatemala”, InternationalMarketing Review, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 57-72.

Tse, D.K., Lee, K., Vertinsky, I. and Wehrung, D.A. (1988), “Does culture matter? A cross-culturalstudy of executives’ choice, decisiveness, and risk adjustment in international marketing”,Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52, October, pp. 81-95.

Tsurami, Y. (1971), “Ten myths that mislead managers in Japan”, Harvard Business Review,Vol. 48 No. 6, pp. 118-27.

Tung, R.L. (1982), “US/China trade negotiations, procedures and outcomes”, Journal ofInternational Business Studies, Fall, pp. 25-37.

Tung, R.L. (1984), “How to negotiate with the Japanese”, California Management Review,Vol. XXVI No. 4, Summer.

Tung, R.L. (1988), “Toward a conceptual paradigm of international business negotiations”,Advances in International Comparative Management, Vol. 3, pp. 203-19.

Unterman, I. (1983), “Negotiators are to be diplomatic”, The San Diego Union, 6 August.Usunier, J. (1993), International Marketing, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Van Zandt, H.F. (1970), “How to negotiate in Japan”, Harvard Business Review, November/

December, pp. 45-56.


28

Vernon, P.E. (1964), Personality Assessment, Methuen, London.Warschaw, T.A. (1980), Winning by Negotiation, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.Weiss, S.E. and Stripp, W. (1985) “Negotiating with foreign businesspersons: an introduction for

Americans with propositions on six cultures”, Working Paper No. 1, Graduate School ofBusiness Administration, New York University, New York, NY.

Weitz, B.A., Sujan, H. and Sujan, M. (1986), “Knowledge, motivation, and adaptive behaviour: aframework for improving selling effectiveness”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 50, October,pp. 174-91.

Wells, L.T. (1977), “Negotiating with Third World governments”, Harvard Business Review,January/February, pp. 72-80.

Wise, G.L. (1974), “Differential pricing and treatment by new car salesmen: the effect of theprospect’s race, sex, and dress”, Journal of Business, Vol. 47, pp. 218-30.

Wright, P. (1983), “Doing business in Islamic markets”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 59 No. 1,p. 34ff.

Yousef, F.S. (1974), “Cross-cultural communication: aspects of contrastive and social valuesbetween North Americans and Middle Easterners”, Human Organisation, Vol. 33 No. 4,pp. 383-7.

Zajonc, R.B. (1980), “Feeling and thinking: preferences need no inferences”, AmericanPsychologist, Vol. 35, pp. 151-75.

Zebrowitz-McArthur, L. (1988), in M. Harris Bond (Ed.), The Cross Cultural Challenge to SocialPsychology, Sage Publications,

Zimmerman, M. (1985), How to Do Business with the Japanese, Random House, New York, NY.

cross cultural sales negotiation

Documents