Tetsushi Okumura

Inter- and Intracultural Negotiation: U.S. and Japanese Negotiators

In this study, we propose that culture provides scripts and schemas for negotiation. The implications for negotiation of two cultural values, individualism/collectivism and hierarchy/egalitarianism...

Negotiation behavior when cultures collide: the United States and Japan.

This study compared the negotiation behaviors of Japanese and U.S. managers in intra- and intercultural settings. Transcripts from an integrative bargaining task were coded and analyzed with logistic and linear regression. U.S. negotiators exchanged information directly and avoided influence when negotiating intra- and interculturally. Japanese negotiators exchanged information indirectly and used influence when negotiating intraculturally but adapted their behaviors when negotiating interculturally. Culturally normative negotiation behaviors partially account for the lower joint gains generated by intercultural, relative to intracultural, dyads. The behavioral data inform motivational and skill-based explanations for elusive joint gains when cultures clash.

National cultural distance as liability of foreignness: the issue of level of analysis

In this study, we focus on the use of measures of national cultural distance as a proxy for liabilities of foreignness. In particular, we focus on the dominant measure of national cultural distance: a linear combination of the differences between the two countries where the workplaces are located using indices from previously published research. Our question concerns whether measures of distance based on previously published indices at the national level are appropriate measures of cultural distance at the organizational level. Our results suggest that they are not; implications for theory and research are discussed.

The Importance of Who You Meet: Effects of Self- versus Other- Concerns among Negotiators in the United States, the People's Republic of China, and Japan

Abstract This study examines intracultural negotiation within three different cultures—the United States (US), the People’s Republic of China (PRC), and Japan. Within these cultures, we focus on the interactive effects of the self-concerns (operationalized as aspiration level) and other-concerns (operationalized as egoistic vs. prosocial motives) of negotiators in a dyadic setting ( De Dreu, Weingart, & Kwon, 2000 ; Pruitt & Rubin, 1986 ). After allowing negotiators to set their own aspiration levels, we predicted that the positive effect on final individual profit of having a higher aspiration than one’s opponent would be stronger among negotiators with an egoistic social motive orientation. We also hypothesized that egoistic negotiators with higher aspiration levels than their opponents would achieve greater profit in the PRC and Japan, relative to their counterparts in the US. We argue that this effect is due to “who you meet” as a negotiation opponent—there is a higher probability of encountering an egoistic negotiation opponent in the US, but a higher probability of encountering a prosocial negotiation opponent in the PRC and Japan. Our results supported these hypotheses. Implications for the literatures on negotiation and cross-cultural research are discussed.

Cultural Differences in the Function and Meaning of Apologies

One of the most effective means for re-establishing trust in negotiations and disputes is by making an apology. However, the function and meaning of an apology (and thus its effectiveness for negotiators) may differ across cultures. We hypothesized that people from an individual-agency culture (such as the United States) understand apologies as analytic mechanisms for assigning blame and re-establishing personal credibility. In contrast, apologies in collective-agency cultures (such as Japan) are understood to be general expressions of remorse rather than a means to assign culpability. A survey of Japanese and Americans found that, compared to Americans, Japanese apologized more often and were more likely to apologize for actions in which they were not involved; on the other hand, Americans were more likely than Japanese to equate apologizing with personal blame. A subsequent experimental study showed that these cultural differences in the function and meaning of apologies have implications for trust repair in disputes: apologies for integrity violations led to greater trust repair for Japanese than for Americans, but apologies for competence violations were somewhat more effective for Americans than Japanese. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.

Effective Influence in Negotiation: The Role of Culture and Framing

These studies integrate research on social influence and negotiation to predict the effectiveness of influence strategies in the East and the West. Building on prior research documenting cultural differences in preferences for interests, rights, or power arguments (Tinsley 1998, 2001), we propose that framing such arguments as logical versus normative appeals will further explain cultural variation in influence-strategy effectiveness. We present results from a negotiation-vignette study demonstrating Canadian students are more responsive to arguments framed logically, whereas Chinese students are more responsive to arguments framed normatively, depending on the ethnicity of their counterpart. Then we present results from a negotiation simulation conducted by U.S. and Japanese dyads, indicating that these within-culture patterns of influence effectiveness support the social-psychological needs perspective and predict negotiation outcome. These findings offer extensions to existing theory on culture and negotiation and implications for managers in cross-cultural negotiation and conflict settings.