Cultural Issues That Can Be Anticipated When an American Manager Plans to Negotiate with An Arab Manager

Cultural Issues That Can Be Anticipated When an American Manager Plans to Negotiate with An Arab Manager

1. Introduction

Cultural differences are a very vital factor when negotiating between different nations, and therefore, managers need to have a good understanding of this for a successful negotiation. Managers and management scholars have been battling with cultural disputes principally in the capacity of business negotiations (Trompenaars, 1997). Different business managements and big world companies respond to the issue of cultural differences in different manners helping to explain how firms differ and also their performance difference. Therefore, managers are forced to have a good understanding of culture to cooperate harmoniously with their counterparts in negotiations so that they may come into a mutual agreement.

Therefore, in this paper, we are going to look at how racial dissimilarities may upset business happenstances using a scenario of an American manager negotiating with an Arab counterpart centered on diverse extents of culture.  Managers should be aware of this and the possible problems that may arise so as to have a vivid idea of what will happen. Appreciating the impact of culture in business operations and administrative assessment creation entails clarifying the metamorphoses in the middle of cultures.  Diverse cultures have been put into two primary contexts; low and high culture contexts (Hall, 1959). The cultural context determines intercultural communications. The managers, therefore, should be able to agree without any non-beneficial compromises being made by employing the negotiations process, which has four stages: the preparation phase, opening phase, bargaining phase, and closing phase.

2. Preparation stage

In this stage, the western manager ought to take into consideration the different cultural dimensions of the Arabs and acknowledge the outstanding behavioral characteristics of the Arab manager. Several cultural aspects should be assessed at this stage to ensure that the business encounter would be smooth. Dissimilar cultures converse with a different setting. Hence, cultures can be matched on a scale from low context to high context. High context dialogues are where most of the facts are in the person, and there is very diminutive unequivocal information in the transferred message. In contrast, low context communication has the most top information in the unequivocal and transferred portion of the meaning (Hall, 1976, p. 30). Therefore, as mentioned earlier, keeping in mind that the Americans mostly practice low context communication while the Arabs practice a high context communication, the manager should be able to anticipate how things will unfold during the negotiation. Considering this, the Arab manger tends to place importance on long term relationships, very loyal and follows the rules and the structures implemented. It will be difficult for the American manager to discern in what manner the Arab manager will express himself due to the different communication contexts he may use. The difference will possibly impact the best alternative in the negotiation agreement (BATNA) as well as the range in the zone of possible agreement (ZOPA) from the agreeable point to the reservation point for the American manager. The American manager should there be flexible when defining the ideal location in ZOPA and allow room for adaptation.

The Arab world was not included in the exploration of long term orientation and short term orientations (Hofsted, 1985). Therefore, the earlier dimensions are included (Appendix 1). However, Americans are known to be short term oriented, and they may differ with the Arabs way of perceiving their goals. Therefore, the American manager may not be able to anticipate the vision of the Arab manager correctly. Consequently, this may lead to dire effects during the negotiation, and thus the American manager should consider this during the preparation stage.

Western culture tends to be more individualistic, while the Arab culture is collectivistic. In collectivism, the prerequisites of the group are more important than those of an individual (Shwarts, 1990, pg. 140). In cultures that practice collectivism, folks chaperon their choices in line with the group norms (Hofstede, 1980).  Arab realm as a communist society exhibits close relations and extensive commitments to their group, and loyalty is paramount. The impression of belonging to a group is exceedingly substantial in the Arab culture. Grounded on Hofstede’s (2005) eccentricity measures, the Arab countries recorded the lowest matched to the United States. Arab manager’s attitude to administration and decision making is vastly subjective to culture, and remarkable morals and the American manager should, therefore, consider this while anticipating the cultural effects that he will face during negotiation. Thus, the Americans cannot forestall how long the verdict making will take because of the collective nature of Arabs culture, and hence they should be adaptable about time.

The Arab world is a predominantly Muslims world; the teachings of the Quran guide them in all the aspects of their life.  They use social connections based on their religion in decision making. Mingling with people and acquaintances are a vital part of the Arab’s day-to-day life. They have a habit of employing this in various facets of life by using Wasta, the accurate interpretation of which is mediation. Wasta develops mainly through family ties (Hutchings and Weir, 2006). It also has a chief part in business negotiations. The American manager should comprehend the position of the intermingling idea in the Arab world.

3. Opening process

The second phase involves the opening process for the negotiation. The two managers get to meet face to face. The American manager should try to make an excellent first impression on the Arab manager.  The manager can achieve this by knowing the business etiquette among the Arabs. In the process of knowing each other in this stage, the American manager should avoid the use of humor as this may have a different meaning to the Arab manager (Martin, 2003). In this multiethnic interactions, self-defeating absurdity is dubious about being used as it may propel a deleterious dispatch.  For the reason that the person who is the impact of the hilarity may be alleged as owning an undesirable temperament hence not able to develop sound business relationships. Western manager by cracking a joke wanted to ease the tension, the Arab manager’s elucidation is likely to be increased tension that culminates into a situation not ideal for ethical decision making for the Arabs manager (Cruthirds, Kalliny & Minor, 2006). The manager should anticipate the need to refrain oneself from saying things that may offend the Arab manager or saying anything that may seem to undermine the culture of the Arabs to ensure success in the negotiation.

Uncertainty avoidance one of the Hofstede cultural dimensions in which concerned with society’s tolerance for ambiguity. The Arabs ambiguity tolerance is very low compared to American ambiguity tolerance.  Uncertainty aversion designates to what degree ethos programs its adherents to texture either comfort or discomfort in amorphous circumstances.  Civilizations with a frail vagueness evasion are comfy with opacity and disarray. In contrast, civilizations with resilient vagueness evasion, requisite precision. Therefore, the Arab world is one with a high intolerance ambiguity tends to attempt to lessen the possibility of such circumstances by punitive social norms, acts and rubrics, the disapprobation of unfamiliar sentiments, and a credence truth. The American manager should, therefore, try to avoid being ambiguous in his utterances as much as he possibly can since this is essential to make an excellent impression on the Arab manager. The manager and his team should indicate that they long for long-term relationships with the Arab manager, as this can be an indicator of loyalty. The manager should also anticipate that the Arab manager being from a collectivist society will not be impressed by phrases that may seem to be for personal gains since the Arab culture values more group goals than individual goals. The manager should, therefore, anticipate the collectivism approach of an eastern negotiator.

4. Bargaining

It is the most critical phase of negotiation, which involves coming closer to the objective intended to be achieved by both parties. During this meeting, the American manager can anticipate the ethnic concerns that one may face.  Hofstede, in his model, explained the terms masculinity and femininity to denote the gradation to which a culture price decisiveness and collective sustenance. They also mention to the notch to which the social order alienate work for manhood and womanhood. The virile part of this aspect signifies civilizations that desire accomplishment, valor, insistence and substantial recompenses for triumph; overall, the people are competitive (Hofstede, 2015). In contrast, the feminine aspect exemplifies mutual aid, decorum, considerate about the quality of life, and the fragile.

The American manager should, therefore, contemplate the way sexual role happens in the cultural settings of the Arab manager. The United States tolls greater indecisiveness than the Arabs. Americans are extra confident, strong, and duty oriented, while Arabs are more unassertive, affectionate, and conscious about affiliations. Having this in mind, the American manager should be able to foresee the prospective cultural concerns to anticipate.

The cultural dimension of neutral and affective cultures can be considered in the bargaining phase of the negotiation. The continuum neutral and emotional cultures refer to the way people handle and exhibit their reactions (Gesteland, 1999). The Arabs are emotionally oriented society, while Americans seem to show emotions freely even in public. The American manager should hence try to be emotionally neutral when bargaining with the Arab manager. In addition, the American manager should also refrain from using direct communication with the Arab manager. American traditional predilection is for flawless and straight forward communication as it is apparent from their everyday terminologies (Levine, 1985, p.29). The Arabs, however, are more affiliated with the use of indirect non-verbal communication. Therefore, having this in mind, the American manager is duty-bound to unmistakably ascertain the cultural concerns to anticipate during the bargaining phase of the negotiation.

The Arab word being predominantly Islamic follows all the Laws of their religion. The value to a very high degree, not “losing face,” which to them means a sign of shame or embarrassment. Their explanation of affirmative and delightful encounter will be that it “whitened their face.” In case the meeting was deleterious, and one felt demeaned, it denotes that one will “lose face” (Patai, 1983, p. 102).  Common ways in which foreigners tend to lose face while interacting with the Arabs is when they display impatience, anger, frustration, and complaining about local conditions. The American manager should hence take this into consideration while identifying the issues that are likely to be anticipated during the encounter with the Arab manager.

Another exciting and sometimes very confusing result of the importance attached to the issue of losing face is the aversion of the Arabs to saying no. It is, therefore, an essential aspect, especially during the decision-making process. An Arab who desires to express sanction and settlement would say, “Yes.” Conversely, it is griming for an Arab to say “No” if somebody did something to him/her since the word may lead to the loss of the worth of face. To evade this offense, and to move proprietorship outside yourself, it’s common to say, “Insha Allah” implicating, “If God wills.” (Hutchings and Weir, 2006, p.279)

Consequently, this would enable the associates in a dialog from losing face. The American manager should, therefore, always be optimistic and don’t rush into conclusions that they have reached into an agreement with the Arab manager whenever he seems to be agreeing with his conditions as he could be possibly trying to avoid loss of face in the process.  The Arab manager’s “yes” could mean a “no,” and the American manager should, therefore, identify this issue during the encounter.

Finally, at this stage, it is essential for the American manager to discern that the Arabs value trust and loyalty (AI-Sheikh, 1996). In their journal, Samuel Passow and Mohammed AI-Sheikh said that rationality, upright deeds, parity, and unbiased thinking are cherished. Dishonesty, intimidation, snobbery, insensitivity, and suborned are not appreciated. Previous involvement with other people is a vital contemplation building trust. It is the main problem that utmost distress the result of the mediation, according to Al-Sheikh and Samuel’s studies of 1996. The American manager should hence anticipate this issue. In the attempt to deliberate and before closing the bargain, together, the two groups are considering for best alternative to the negotiation agreement; hence the American manager should ensure clarity of points and make sure that all questions are answered. Flexibility is paramount at this stage since, by doing so, the range of ZOPA will be within the American manager’s expectations (Schneider et al., 2014).

5. Closing

It is the stage of settlement for both parties after the bargaining is over. The American manager is more acquainted with the usual formal way the westerners settle an agreement whereby they quickly summarize the whole issues spoken about and promptly making a final decision about finalizing the contract. To the Arabs, this may seem individualism to them by Hofstede’s model. The Arabs are collectivist, and they prefer making consultations with the group to ensure that the group’s needs are catered for (Yousef, 1998). Immediate decision making will not, therefore, be a good sign from the American manager; hence the manager should anticipate the issue and refrain as much as possible from making hasty decisions during the closure of the negotiation process. The American manager should, therefore, figure out that the Arab manager will employ a collectivism-oriented approach before making a decision. In the process, the Arab manager will need more time to decide due to the consultations he has to make.

The American manager should, therefore, be patient. He should not show frustration as this may be an indication of losing face for the Arab manager, which will end with the negotiation not proceeding successfully. He should also be supple about period decision making will take since it will foster loyalty and long-term relationship with the Arab manager, and this will be ideal in this situation, having in mind the collectivist orientation of the Arab manager. The Arabs world does not give much attention to both time eras and promptness, for they associate the span of the interval with the seriousness of exploring interactions, and this will eventually decide the extent of the mediation. The American manager should, therefore, have this in mind as they approach the end of the negotiation process.

Lastly, to finalize the negotiation and come to an agreement, the American manager should anticipate what will be satisfactory for both parties. The western world generally believes that verbalized assurances are not obligatory. On paper, agreements that are meticulous and measuredly phrased are required. A third party, mostly the legal organizations, are the ultimate intermediaries in any quarrels after treaties have been signed to conclude negotiations. However, for the Arabs, the uttered word is more vital and obligatory than an on-paper contract. The legal contract is merely a confirmation of the agreement for the Arabs since the verbal promises are more cherished. The American manager should, therefore, anticipate this and, thus, should not rush into bringing forward the idea of signing the contract and quickly finish the other legal procedures associated with it. Instead, the manager should make clear his intentions to the Arab manager and assure him through word of mouth that he will see to it that whatever they agreed will be fulfilled and promise to keep his word. Therefore, this way, the Arab manager will feel a sense of trust, and he will now go-ahead to sign the agreement, and the negotiation is terminated.

6. Conclusion

In conclusion, it is, therefore, evident that cross-cultural negotiations are affected by many cultural issues. The parties involved should be aware of all the problems and identify the issues to anticipate during the encounter with their counterparts. As illustrated, in each stage of the negotiation process, the American manager had to plan any cultural problem that he may face during the negotiation and find how he may counter the issues using illustrations on cultural dimensions from different scholars. The American manager understands many cultural aspects of the Arab world for a successful negotiation with the Arab, and failure to do this may lead to broken deals.

References.

Cunningham, R.B. and Sarayrah, Y.K. (1993), Wasta: The Hidden Force in Middle Eastern Society, Praeger, Westport, CT.

Hall, Edward T., 1976. Beyond Culture. New York, NY: Anchor Books.

Hampden-Turner, C. & Trompenaars, A. (1997) Response to Geert Hofstede. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 21(1): 149- 159.

Hofstede, G. (1986). Cultural Differences in Teaching and Learning. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 301-320.

Hofstede, G. & Bond, M. (1988) The Confucius connection: From cultural roots to economic growth. Organizational Dynamics, 16(4): 5-21.

Hofstede, G. (1980a) Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills and London: Sage Publications.

Hofstede, G. (1980b) Motivation, leadership, and organization: Do American theories apply abroad? Organizational Dynamics, 9: 42–63.

Hofstede, G. & Hofstede, G. J. (2005). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. New York. McGraw-Hill

Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 1-26.

Hutchings, Author’s first name initial, & Weir, D (2006). Understanding networking in. Journal of European Industrial. 30, 272-290.

Schwartz, S.H. & Bilsky, W. (1990). Toward a theory of the universal content and structure of values: Extensions and cross-cultural replications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 58 (5), 878-891.

Yousef, D. A. (1998). Satisfaction with job security as a predictor of organizational commitment and job performance in a multicultural environment. International Journal of Manpower, 184-194.

APPENDIX

APPENDIX 1

Arab and American GLOBE cultural dimensions

PD (P)   IC (V)   IGC (P)   AO (P)    UA (V)

Arab       4.92      5.04     5.38       3.88        4.98

USA       4.88       4.17     4.25       4.55        4.00

Mean    5.17      4.73     5.13       4.14         4.62

Low       3.89      3.83      3.25       3.38         3.16

High      5.80      5.65      6.36       4.89       5.61

STDEV   0.41     0.49       0.73       0.37       0.61

Arab       L           H            H            L             H

USA         L            L            L*           H*          L*

Notes: AO = Assertiveness Orientation, IC = Individual Collectivism, IGC = In-Group Collectivism, PD = Power Distance, UA = Uncertainty Avoidance, P = Practice, V = Value.

APPENDIX 2