Scholars argue that negotiators deal differently with local populations compared to individuals from other countries. Therefore, it is beneficial to focus on cross-cultural comparisons as elements for predicting intercultural negotiation practices (Drake, 1995). The idea of cross-cultural negotiations is an essential element in international management and business. Cross-cultural contrasts are highlighted by distinct multiple, and notable differences within the cultural values and traditions that significantly influence the associated negotiation styles that are unique in each culture. This is indicated in the cultural exchanges that possess distinct differences that this paper will analyze with a comparative study between Australia and China. The rationale behind selecting these countries is personal interests and exposure to both cultures. Therefore, I have a diverse knowledge of the cultural differences and discrepancies between the two nations. Instrumental theories, including Hofstede’s cultural dimension and Hall’s construct of context, are often used to illustrate the impacts of cultural differences during negotiation procedures and provide insights into the possible solutions to avoid conflicts arising due to the difference (Mohammad Ayub Khan and Ebner, 2019).
Notably, significant comparisons in behaviors and attitudes towards international negotiations often divert from conflicting business ideas or notions to communication approaches. Hall’s construct of context emphasizes these concepts. According to Kim, Pan and Park (1998), China is a high context culture (HC), and the nation’s populations tend to exhibit tendencies that align with Hall’s description of HC cultures. These populations are often socially oriented, are more conformational-avoiding, and have difficulties dealing with new situations. Avoiding direct confrontations enhance these subjects to maintain social harmony and initiate bonds between individual, mainly through self-repressing. China’s business model of guanxi as an imperative connection based on solid familial networks is therefore characterized by the HC culture, which significantly describes their responsibilities, social orientations, confrontations, and communication approaches with their negotiators (Kim, Pan and Park, 1998).
Over the years, China has often relied on guanxi defined as relationships between negotiating parties with equal status. In China, guanxi is an integral element within the culture and has been regarded as has been an essential principle since the Confucian era. The Chinese often suggest that negotiations are not all about getting through and done but rather building and maintaining long-term relationships through multiple negotiations. Therefore, guanxi in China influences an individual’s negotiation behavior, especially in negotiation processes. Thus, the HC culture type of China is significantly correlated with Hofstede’s cultural dimension elements of collectivism and individualism (McKay‐Semmler, 2017). In this case, an HC culture primarily translates to using communication channels to develop and foster individualistic relationships under a collective approach. Australia is explicitly defined as a low context culture (LC) and is an individualistic community fostered by nature. This type of culture tends to foster societal relationships which are loosely structured., in contrast with the Chinese cultural society that is dependent and conformed. Therefore, the Australian approach to communication is clear and direct compared to the Chinese, as the Australians have increased opportunities and encouragement to explore and express individuality (Zhao, Chen and Li, 2019).
Cultural differences
The different approaches to business and organizational relationships intrinsically influence the negation process in these countries. China’s HC type of culture suggests a conflict-avoidance and harmonious kind of culture that is in accord with the concepts of guanxi. Therefore, this indicates a culture determined to relationship-building during negotiations. On the other hand, Australia’s approach to the negotiation process is associated with short-term individual interests and goals rather than societal harmony. Notably, this catalyzes mistrust and friction at the initial stages of the negotiation process (McColl, Descubes and Elahee, 2017). Australia’s HC culture is also characterized by recurrent silences, expressive body language, and recognition of ranks which often fuel potential conflict. However, LC cultures often disregard these characteristics and, in turn, favor direct and explicit communication (Halcrow, 2020). In this case, from an HC culture perspective, the expression of silence is viewed as a display of thought and engagement in discussions. In such cases, LC cultures tend to perceive silence as an indicator of confusion, discontentment, or disregard.
Hofstede’s individualism element indicates the significant differences in individualism between Australia and China, limiting any negotiation processes through the apparent disparities in communication practices. While an individualistic culture is expected to demonstrate initiative and self-reliance, the collective culture perceives itself as a common society pursuing harmonious interpersonal relationships, and in such cases, conflicts can arise from the expected level of dependence on each nation
According to McKay‐Semmler (2017), Australia being an HC culture, communication is practically devoted to culture-specific programming. Therefore, the cultural knowledge is highly shared among individuals making this culture type communication process fast, economic, efficient sustaining cultural traditions that are long-lived and slow to transition. In contrast, cultural knowledge within China’s LC culture is less shared, but geographical mobility is emphasized. Therefore, cultural-specific programming is not necessarily necessitated, but Hall argues that these culture types are less unified and often at risk of change and instability. Furthermore, individuals from the LC culture must communicate in patterns consistent with their perspectives, while such acts in HC cultures are characterized as threats to maintaining harmony among individuals. This often-necessitated HC negotiators to convey messages that are inconsistent with their perspectives.
Lewis (2006) presents a model that can be used to contrast communication styles between China and Australia in this case. Notably, elements of collectivism, individualism, and Hall’s construct of contexts can be utilized in these countries. According to Lewis (2006), the Chinese communication style possesses clear elements and usage of power and position associated with the collectivist team, negotiating behind the scenes and often looking for benefits at the bottom line. In addition, the Chinese utilize their “go-betweens” during compromise, while the Australians prefer more direct contact and, in some cases, confrontation to seek clarity. General outlines of deals initiate the Australian communication style before proceedings into frank and jocular exchanges supported by creativity, cynicism, and direct contact confrontations, often leading to cozy, ending with clarity. These prominent distinctions in communication styles imply a likelihood of consequential conflict in any case the Chinese and Australian firms are to engage in negotiations.
Recommendations and future implications
While the apparent differences in negotiation and communication styles, strategic and holistic frameworks are necessary to bridge the cultural gaps between China and Australia effectively. In recent years, the Chinese adopted a “Mianzi,” a conflict avoidance strategy that emphasizes maintaining harmony, embracing mutually respectful relations, and avoiding confrontations. In addition, scholars suggest that the “Mianzi” adopts three key conflict avoidance tactics, including avoidance, accommodating, and compromising (McColl, Descubes, and Elahee, 2017). In this case, avoidance is characterized by fewer individual success concerns focusing on maintaining social relationships. Accommodation is where a negotiator downplays the differences and emphasizes commonalities. Although western countries also use these strategies, maintaining harmony and lasting interpersonal relationship is often characterized by the Chinese culture. On the other hand, Australia’s approach to negotiations is usually based on short-term and individual interests rather than realizing long-term harmony. In this case, the competing strategy is characterized by concern for increased concerns for personal goals while concerns for developing lasting relationships are few (win-lose mentality).
Therefore, given the Chinese “Mianzi” type of negotiation characterized by low concerns for individual goals and high regard for “face” representation of the social culture rather than personal success and gains, the Australian negotiation term should always consider this perspective through respecting the Chinese way of negotiation as it is deeply embedded in their culture before engaging in negotiations. In addition, both countries must embrace cultural diversity and cultural awareness and equip themselves culturally before negotiation processes to mitigate potential conflict that may arise during the negotiation process. These countries should also acknowledge possible differences within the negotiation styles and the various differences in values and traditions of each culture that influence a nation’s communication practice. The current negotiations should also be based on compromising and competing, as Chinese negotiators have already embraced and implemented these elements, and the Australian negotiators are familiar with a process involving such aspects. When these recommendations are implemented, they would be instrumental in mitigating any potential misunderstanding through clear comprehension of cultural differences and lead to responses that accelerate proper conflict resolutions.
Reference List
Drake, L.E. (1995). Negotiation Styles In Intercultural Communication. International Journal of Conflict Management, 6(1), pp.72–90.
Halcrow, A. (2020). Conversational Silence: The ‘Modern Art’ of Cross-Culture Business Communication. [online] www.rw-3.com. Available at: https://www.rw-3.com/blog/conversational-silence-the-modern-art-of-cross-culture-business-communication.
Kim, D., Pan, Y. and Park, H.S. (1998). High-versus low-Context culture: A comparison of Chinese, Korean, and American cultures. Psychology and Marketing, 15(6), pp.507–521.
Lewis, R.D. (2006). When cultures collide : leading across cultures. Boston: Nicholas Brealey.
McColl, R., Descubes, I. and Elahee, M. (2017). How the Chinese really negotiate: observations from an Australian-Chinese trade negotiation. Journal of Business Strategy, 38(6), pp.38–46.
McKay‐Semmler, K.L. (2017). High‐ and Low‐Context Cultures. The International Encyclopedia of Intercultural Communication, pp.1–5.
Mohammad Ayub Khan and Ebner, N. (2019). The Palgrave Handbook of Cross-Cultural Business Negotiation. Cham Springer International Publishing.
Zhao, Z.-J., Chen, H.-H. and Li, KW (2019). Management of Interpersonal Conflict in Negotiation with Chinese: A Perceived Face Threat Perspective. Group Decision and Negotiation, 29(1), pp.75–102.
write