CULTURE AND NEGOTIATION STRATEGY: A FRAMEWORK FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

Citation preview

CULTURE AND NEGOTIATION STRATEGY: A FRAMEWORK FOR FUTURE RESEARCH Author(s): JEANNE M. BRETT, BRIAN C. GUNIA and BROSH M. TEUCHER Source: Academy of Management Perspectives, Vol. 31, No. 4 (November 2017), pp. 288-308 Published by: Academy of Management Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/44645078 Accessed: 03-01-2024 05:12 +00:00 JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at https://about.jstor.org/terms

Academy of Management is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Academy of Management Perspectives

This content downloaded from 182.255.0.242 on Wed, 03 Jan 2024 05:12:01 +00:00 All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

® Academy of Management Perspectives 2017, Vol. 31, No. 4, 288-308.

https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2015.0195

ARTICLES CULTURE AND NEGOTIATION STRATEGY: A FRAMEWORK FOR FUTURE RESEARCH JEANNE M. BRETT Northwestern University BRIAN C. GUNIA

Johns Hopkins University BROSH M. TEUCHER

Saint Michael's College The literature on the use and effectiveness of negotiation strategies reveals intriguing yet unexplained patterns of cultural differences. Negotiators in some regions of the world rely on the questions and answers (Q&A) strategy, typically associated with high trust and high joint gains, while negotiators in other regions of the world rely on the substantiation and offers (S&O) strategy, typically associated with low trust and low joint gains. Yet negotiators from some low-trust cultures use Q&A, negotiators from some high-trust cultures use S&O, and negotiators from some cultures achieve low joint gains through Q&A or high joint gains through S&O. To explain these anomalies, we propose an integrated framework involving three constructs from cultural psychology: cultural levels of trust, tightness-looseness, and holistic versus analytic mindset. Specifically, we propose that the interaction between trust and tightness-looseness can explain cultural differences in the use of negotiation strategies, while the interaction of these strategies with holistic versus analytic mindset can explain cultural differences in the effectiveness of negotiation strategies. In sum, we extend the boundaries of current research to develop a cultural rationale for anomalies in extant research, encouraging negotiation and management researchers to consider new constructs as their research "goes global."

The global economy rests on a bedrock of negotiTwo constraints hinder an understanding of the reasons for these cultural differences in negotiaation, with global deal making hitting an all-time peak of $4.2 trillion in 2015 (Hammond, tion 2015). strategy and outcomes. The first is the plethWhenever interdependent parties interact to work ora of cultural constructs used to explain cultura in negotiation: individualism versus out the terms of their relationship - whether differences they collectivism, high-context versus low-context comrepresent themselves, their businesses, their govmunication, hierarchical versus egalitarian socia ernments, or some other institution - they are

structure, and relational versus transactional motinegotiating. vational orientation, to name a few (see Liigger, Negotiation scholarship dating from Herodotus to Geiger, Neun, & Backhaus, 2015, for a review). The a plethora of recent empirical articles documents national cultural differences in the strategies second, nego- and far more limiting, constraint is the absence of a theoretically grounded framework to tiators use and the effectiveness of those strategies provide an integrated explanation for patterns of for creating value (for a review see Gunia, Brett, & differences in the use of negotiation strateGelfand, 2016). This research generally revealscultural that gies and associated outcomes. negotiators in different cultures systematically use To address these constraints, we propose a framedifferent strategies, and that the strategies that create value in one culture may not do so in another.work that integrates research on culture and negotiation 288 Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder's express

written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only.

This content downloaded from 182.255.0.242 on Wed, 03 Jan 2024 05:12:01 +00:00 All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

2017

Brett,

Gunia,

and

Teucher

289

outcomes in our analysis becausefrom a discuswith emerging include knowledge c sion of cultural differences in strategy naturally resear raises Our framework encourages focus

across

suggested stimulate

the question of what effect the strategies in boundary of used what i differentevidence. cultures will have on negotiators'Our outthe i

the

by

new

comes. Our review of the on literature reveals that in research culture

a

cultures,boundaries high joint gains are associated with of pushes beyond some the the prototypical use of S&O, notand of Q&A as widely regarding the strategies outc documented (Brett & Thompson, 2016). To broad address from around the world. Our a new direction this anomaly, for we propose manageme a theoretical explanation grounded interdependen in the construct of holistic versus analytic vestigating how unfolds across cultures. mindset. Mindset refers to a pattern of attention and We develop our perspective across three sections.reasoning that emphasizes context (holistic mindset) versus content (analytic mindset), and mindset varFirst, we review the theory and existing evidence concerning negotiation strategy and joint gains. Neies systematically with culture (Nisbett, Peng, Choi,

gotiation strategy represents the way that people & Norenzayan, 2001). We propose that the internegotiate - the goal-directed behaviors they use toaction of negotiation strategy and mindset can exreach agreement (Weingart, Thompson, Bazerman,plain & cultural-level differences in the relationship Carroll, 1990). The research we review focuses on the between the use of negotiation strategy and joint use of two strategies: Q&A (questions and answers, gains. an integrative, value-creating negotiation strategy We complete our new perspective by integrating typically associated with high trust) and S&O (subthree cultural constructs - trust, tightness-looseness, stantiation and offers, a distributive, value-claiming and holistic versus analytic mindset - into a theonegotiation strategy typically associated with low retical framework that provides an explanation for cultural differences in the use and effectiveness of trust) (Kong, Dirks, & Ferrin, 2014). The reviewed

research emphasizes the effects of these strategies on negotiation strategy. In proposing our framework, the important outcome of joint gains: a measure of we do notrely onHofstede's (1980) cultural values, the value created in a negotiation (Raiffa, 1982). which have shown a dearth of explanatory power Second, we review the literature documenting in culture and negotiation research (Kirkman, Lowe, & Gibson, 2006). Instead, our framework offers a novel cultural differences in negotiation strategy. This re-

view reveals that, at the cultural level of analysis, yet evidence-based and integrated explanation for cultural differences in the use and effectiveness of Q&A is not always the prototypical negotiation strategy in high-trust cultures, and S&O is not always negotiation strategies. the prototypical negotiation strategy in low-trustWe propose this new framework in the interest of cultures. To address these anomalies, we propose encouraging negotiation researchers to cross knowla new theoretical explanation grounded in the edge boundaries by questioning preconceptions, cultural-level constructs of trust and tightnesschallenging assumptions, and integrating new or diflooseness. Trust is the willingness to make oneferent theory into their research on culture and neself vulnerable to another in social interaction gotiation. Our new framework - based on cultural (Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, & Camerer, 1998). At the levels of trust, tightness-looseness, and holistic vercultural level, it refers to the general belief that others

are trustworthy. Tightness-looseness is the degree to

which cultural norms are strongly endorsed, conformity to those norms is socially monitored, and violations are socially sanctioned (Gelfand, Nishii, & Raver, 2006). We propose that the interaction of trust

and tightness-looseness can explain the culturallevel anomalies associated with the use of the Q&A and S&O strategies.

Third, we turn to the literature documenting cultural differences in the effectiveness of particular

negotiation strategies for producing joint gains. Although it is theoretically possible to consider negotiation strategies or outcomes in isolation, we

sus analytic mindset - offers a fresh perspective with clear, theoretically grounded guidance for future research. In the following sections, as we review the literature and develop the reasoning for our perspective, we seek to distinguish between what the evidence indicates and what it suggests.

NEGOTIATION STRATEGY AND JOINT GAINS Negotiation is the social process by which two or

more interdependent parties make decisions, allocate resources, or resolve disputes (Brett, 2014). In essence, negotiators try to reach an agreement that works out the details of their interdependence while

This content downloaded from 182.255.0.242 on Wed, 03 Jan 2024 05:12:01 +00:00 All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

290 Academy of Management Perspectives November

protecting and advancing S&O their interests. Negotiated to generate high joint gains. Though he did not

agreements produce outcomes thesuggested involved use the term for SćrO, Pruitt that because parties, of which joint gains negotiators are make offers one inparticularly their own interest and important type. Joint gains represent the total substantiate them in accordance with value subjective

created and subsequently divided by the negotiated importance, S&O-like strategies implicitly commuagreement. Because agreements involving high joint nicate information about interests and priorities that

gains tend to create advantageous economic outthe counterpart could use to make trade-offs and

comes for all sides, generate facilicreate satisfaction, joint gains. He conceded and that extracting such tate relationships and agreement information fromimplementation, S&O takes second-order processthey are an important metric ing, and for that the gauging negotiators innegotiation his studies (American effectiveness (Brett, 2014). undergraduate Yet agreements students) did not involving do so.

high joint gains are difficult to achieve, at times because negotiators fail to use optimal strategies CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN THE USE OF (Thompson, 2014). NEGOTIATION STRATEGY

Foundational negotiation theory (Walton & McKersie, 1965) proposes Culture two describes types of strategy: the unique character of a gr

distributive strategy, in which extending the from negotiator's norms (standards goal of appropriate is focused narrowly on claiming havior)value to beliefs for (expectations the self, of others' and behavi integrative strategy, in which the negotiator's is to values (what is more or less goal important to focused more broadly on creating value for both the ple) to behaviors (Lytle, Brett, Barsness, Tinsley Janssens, 1995). In this a section, we review resea self and the other (and then claiming sufficient

portion of the joint value). on negotiations Distributive that is both strategy intracultural, wh

consists of behaviors such means that as negotiations making occur and between subtwo mem stantiating offers. Here, we of the use same the culture, term and S&O comparative, (Gunia, which me Brett, Nandkeolyar, & Kamdar, that the studies 2011) compare to refer the use to of strategy the in in cultural negotiations in two or more cultures. T behaviors underlying distributive strategy. Negotiaresearch tests heavily, for the relative degree of betw tors intent on claiming value rely although versus within-group differences, where groups not exclusively, on distributive strategy (De Dreu, cultures. When significantcondifferences Weingart, & Kwon, 2000). national Integrative strategy sists of behaviors such reported, as asking cultural group questions means reflect and distinct

tral tendencies or cultural prototypes. Note t sharing information about interests (motives un-

a prototype implies not only a a central tendency, derlying a party's requests), priorities (what party also variation trade-offs. around that central tendency. values more or less), and potential Here, we use the term Q&A (Gunia al., 2011) differs to refer meanset that a prototype from a to stereoty which implies no variation. Finally, neither we the behaviors underlying integrative strategy. Negoresearch we review means to suggest that cu tiators intent on creating the value rely heavily, though is the only factor influencing negotiators' not exclusively, on integrative strategy (De Dreu choic strategy - only that it represents a potentially et al., 2000). In general, research (e.g., Kong et al., portant influence.(Q&A) are more 2014) shows integrative strategies With these considerations in mind, we identified conducive to high joint gains than distributive

relevant studies by drawing from a meta-analysi strategies (S&O), as the former facilitate an infornegotiation strategy and joint gains that made c mation exchange that helps negotiators understand turalpriorities comparisons (Vogel, Brett, &is, Ramirez-Mar negotiators' interests and - that to 2017). Please see Appendix A& for details on the m achieve "insight" (Pruitt, 1981; Thompson Hastie, 1990). analysis search process. Appendix B lists t national cultures under investigation in each of Although Walton and McKersie's (1965) conceptualization summarizes much of the research on studies we identified. Appendix C reports the n tiation strategy results from each of the identi negotiation strategy, we also integrate the foundapapers and summarizes the studies' characteristi tional work of Pruitt (1981), who proposed a conceptualization of negotiation strategy that departsWe note that the studies included in our anal from Walton and McKersie's in several ways. Mostspan a number of years. Although we cannot rul important here, Pruitt proposed that, at least the in possibility of changes over time, cultures ch

slowly because they represent collectiv principle, negotiators could use strategies such very as

This content downloaded from 182.255.0.242 on Wed, 03 Jan 2024 05:12:01 +00:00 All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

2017

Brett,

created

Gunia,

and

Teucher

291

social compared environments German and Chinese negotiators. The

t

Chinese again used S&O statistically more often than dictability (Yamagishi & Hashim Germans, newer and the Germans used Q&A statisticonsider older the and studie ble. We did not include intercultural studies because cally more often than the Chinese. Patterns of results the observed strategies could not be attributed to like these, which were remarkably consistent across studies, samples, and simulations, led us to classify a single culture. We reviewed the methods sections of each of the a culture as Q&A or S&O prototypical. Our national included studies to identify the use of Q&A and S&O.culture classifications appear in Appendix C. Indicators of Q&A included information sharing and In classifying a national culture as Q&A (S&O) seeking, collaborating, questions and answers about prototypical, we do not mean that all negotiators in that culture use only Q&A (S&O). We also do not information and priorities, and problem solving. Indicators of S&O included emotional tactics; appeals mean that negotiators in a prototypically Q&A culto logic; influence tactics (putdowns, demands, ture never use S&O. Rather, we mean that the extant threats); punishment; contending, avoiding, forcing,research implies that negotiators from some cultures devote relatively more of their negotiating time to contentious behavior, and concession making; perQ&A (S&O) than to S&O (Q&A). suasive arguments; and undifferentiated offers. We then used the studies' statistical results to Our classification of national cultures as Q&A or S&O prototypical revealed similarities within and classify a culture as Q&A or S&O prototypical. First, differences between four regions of the world: the we collected all of the studies comparing the use of East Asia, "Latin cultures" (including Latin negotiation strategy in a focal culture with the use West, of America, Spain, and Portugal), and the Middle East/ negotiation strategy in other cultures. We then

South Asia. Global organizations like the World reviewed the statistical differences. For example,

three studies reported data comparing Chinese andBank (World Bank Annual Report, 2016) commonly use such regional designations. Recognizing that the U.S. negotiators' use of strategy (Asiani et al., 2016; number of studies available for review is limited, the Dong, 2006; Liu, 2009). In all three studies, the Chiresults of our classification reveal three patterns in nese negotiators used S&O statistically more often the data. Figure 1 shows that Western culture nations than the U.S. negotiators, and the U.S. negotiators (Germany, Israel, Norway, Sweden, the U.S.) were used Q&A statistically more often than the Chinese

classified as Q&A prototypical, while East Asian negotiators. A fourth study (Lügger et al., 2015)

FIGURE 1

Frequency of Cultures by Negotiation Strategy by Region

The data are from Wave 6 (1999-2011) of the World Values Survey for the 33 countries for which there is tightness-loosene See http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSDocumentationWV6.jsp.

This content downloaded from 182.255.0.242 on Wed, 03 Jan 2024 05:12:01 +00:00 All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

292 Academy of Management Perspectives November

(China, Hong Kong, Japan, dependability Thailand) turn up repeatedly and in Middle studies comEastern/South Asian nations (India, Qatar) were paring the conceptualizations of trust across cultures classified as S&O prototypical. (Ferrin & Gillespie, The 2010). limited Appendix D presents studies trust data from the World Values Survey (WVS). reporting on the use of negotiation strategy in the Latin cultures show a mix Theof WVS Q&A trust question (prototypical is "Generally speaking, in Brazil) and S&O (prototypical would you say inthat Mexico most people can and be trusted Spain). or that These intriguing patterns you naturally need to be very careful raise in dealing the with quespeople?" tion of how to explain these (a binary differences choice). Figure 2 aggregates in the the use WVS trust of negotiation strategies. data from the countries in Appendix D to the regional

level, depicting the average percentage of people

within the countries in a region who replied, "Most people can be trusted." Figure 2 shows that trust is generally low in Latin cultures and the Middle East/

A CULTURAL PERSPECTIVE ON THE USE OF NEGOTIATION STRATEGIES

Culture and negotiation studies have used South many Asia, but moderately high in East Asia and different constructs to explain cultural differences, even higher in the West. with limited success. One reason why traditional Looking at Figures 1 and 2 together, it is apparent cultural constructs (e.g., individualism-collectivism) that relationships between trust and negotiation have demonstrated limited explanatory power strategy (Kirkman at the individual level - positive for Q&A, et al., 2006) may be the lack of a theoretically negative grounded for S&O (Kong et al., 2014) - are not suffiframework that links the cultural constructs to the cient to explain the regional cultural differences in context of negotiation. Trust and cultural tightness- trust and the use of negotiation strategy. East Asia looseness are two psychological constructs that vary and Latin cultures are the anomalies. The figures systematically between cultures and have relevance in show that the relatively high-trust East Asians are the context of negotiation. We propose that the in- prone to S&O, which has been associated with low teraction between the two constructs may provide trust in a preponderance of (mostly Western) rea potential explanation, and therefore a theoretically search (Kong et al., 2014). The figures also show that grounded opportunity, for research on cultural dif-negotiators from some low-trust Latin cultures rely ferences in the use of negotiation strategy. The next sections develop our reasoning. FIGURE 2

Percent Who Agree Others Can Be Trusted by

Proposed Influence #1: Trust

Region

Trust is an important predictor of the use of ne-

gotiation strategy (Kong et al., 2014). Negotiators who trust that their counterpart will not exploit shared information about interests and priorities tend to use Q&A. Trust enables them to accept the vulnerability inherent in exchanging such information. Conversely, negotiators who do not trust tend to use S&O, as they are unwilling to accept the vulnerabilities inherent in exchanging information

and may disbelieve information shared by the

counterpart (Gunia et al., 2011). Building on research that generalizes from the individual to the cultural level of analysis (Gunia et al.,The data are from Wave 6 (1999-2011) of the World 2011), we propose that cultural differences in trust Values Survey for the 33 countries for which there is may partially explain cultural differences in the usetightness-looseness data. See http://www.worldvaluessurvey.

of strategy. Trust varies across cultures (Branzei,org/ W V SDocumentationWV 6 . j sp . Vertinsky, & Camp, 2007; Delhey & Newton, 2005; Yamagishi, Cook, & Watabe, 1998). This variation The data are from the 33 countries in Gelfand et al. (2011).

does not seem to be attributable to differences in

Because cultural tightness-looseness is scaled in a rather complex manner, it is best to just interpret high scores as indicating tight

the core conceptualization of trust. Terms like cultures re- and low scores as indicating loose cultures (personal communication, Michele Gelfand, November 11, 2014). liability, benevolence, responsibility, integrity, and

This content downloaded from 182.255.0.242 on Wed, 03 Jan 2024 05:12:01 +00:00 All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

2017

Brett,

more

on

Gunia,

S&O

and

Teucher

293

FIGURE 3 Mexico

(e.g.,

and

Sp

Cultural Tightness-Looseness by Region tiators from others rely more on Q turn to the cultural construct of ti propose

an

Proposed

explanation

Influence

Cultures

vary

in

for

#2:

these

Tightn

terms

of

tig

(Gelfand et al., 2006; Gelfand et tively tight culture is one in wh

behavior in many situations a pervasive, and reliably impose

(Gelfand

et

al.,

2006;

Pelto,

1968

culture is one in which norm and behavior is less constrain The data are from the 33 countries in Gelfand et al. (2011). for social monitoring and Because cultural tightness-looseness is scaled in a sanc rather developed (Gelfand et al., complex manner, it is best to just interpret high scores 200 as tight cultures and low scores as indicating loose viduals' social indicating psychological pr cultures (personal communication, Michele Gelfand, enced by context, those living November 11, 2014).

become

accustomed

to

basing

th

strong norms and sanctioning round them in situation explainmany cultural differences in the prototypical use of

loose cultures, in contrast, become accustomed to choosing their own behavior from among a range of

normatively acceptable options. In sum, cultural tightness means that people carefully attend and adjust their behavior to a situation's norms and sanctions, while cultural looseness means that

negotiation strategy. That is, cultural differences in negotiation strategy may depend on the negotiators' culturally prototypical level of trust as well as their

culturally prototypical tightness-looseness. The empirical rationale for this proposition lies in the

confluence of the negotiation strategy data in people exercise relatively more behavioral choice Figure 1, trust data in Figure 2, and tightness(Gelfand et al., 2011). Gelfand and colleagues' (2011) cultural tightness-

looseness data in Figure 3. Figures 4 and 5 integrate these patterns. looseness measure has four important qualities. It Figure 4 shows that the West, relative to the other shows high within-nation agreement and betweenregions of the world, is high-trust (Figure 2) and nation variability. It has convergent validity with culturally loose (Figure 3). Latin cultures are lowexpert ratings and unobtrusive measures. It shows trust (Figure 2) and culturally loose (Figure 3). East

predictable correlations with environmental fac- Asian cultures are high-trust (Figure 2) and cultur-

tors such as natural disasters. It is distinct from

other cultural dimensions such as individualism-

ally tight (Figure 3). Middle Eastern and South

Asian cultures are low-trust (Figure 2) and culturcollectivism, and from trust. (The correlation be- ally tight (Figure 3). Figure 5, which classifies cultween cultural tightness-looseness and WVS trust tural negotiation strategy prototypes by trust and

across the 33 countries with data reported in Appendixcultural tightness, shows that Q&A is prototypical in

D is a nonsignificant .04.). Figure 3 organizes Gelfand et al. 's 33-country cultural tightness-looseness data

by region; high scores indicate cultural tightness. Figure 3 shows that the Middle East and South Asia as well as East Asia are culturally tighter than Latin or

FIGURE 4

Regions by Trust and Cultural Tightness

Western cultures.

High Low The Intersection Between Cultural Levels of Trust

and Tightness-Looseness

-pi a • Middle East/

Tight -pi East Asia a • n •» . . Cultural

Tightness

We propose that an interaction between cul-

'

Loose West Latin America

tural levels of trust and tightness-looseness may

This content downloaded from 182.255.0.242 on Wed, 03 Jan 2024 05:12:01 +00:00 All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

294 Academy of Management Perspectives November FIGURE 5

sanctioning system, basing their behavior squarely Cultural Negotiation Prototypes by Trust and on the situation (Gelfand et al., 2011), these inCultural Tightness dividuals should show a sensitivity to negotiation's predominant norm of competition. In other words, they should show a tendency to display S&O stratHighTrust LowTrust Tightness S&O S&O Cultural

Tightness

Looseness Q&A Q&AorS&O

egy. Because Middle Eastern and South Asian cul-

tures are not only tight but relatively low-trust, and

because both factors encourage S&O, this strategy

should be observed in these cultures. It generally is. Conversely, and as noted, individuals from loose cultures have more flexibility with respect to norms Q&A: Questions and Answers; S&O : Substantiation and Offers and choose their behaviors from among a range of options (Gelfand et al., 2011). Thus, although negotiators high-trust, loose cultures. S&O is from prototypical in not both loose cultures will be completely immune low- and high-trust cultures that are also tight. to the negotiation norm of The competition (Bazerman limited data from negotiations in &low-trust, Neale, 1992), weloose expect culthem to have facility in tures shows Q&A to be prototypical in Brazil, whichstrategic options. A experimenting with different is culturally loose, and S&O to strategy be prototypical in to test whether the such as Q&A can be used Mexico, which is loose in absolute terms but relacounterpart will reciprocate a negotiator's information tively tighter than Brazil. Based on this analysis, we sharing about interests and priorities, and thus evalupropose that cultural levels of trust may be one imate whether the counterpart is willing to cooperate portant influence on negotiators' choice of a strategy (Yao, Zhang, & Brett, 2017). If this reasoning is correct, (as suggested by individual-level research; e.g., Kong negotiators in loose cultures should use more Q&A et al., 2014), but cultural tightness-looseness may than negotiatiators in tight cultures. Because Western

moderate this effect.

cultures are not only loose but relatively high-trust, and

We offer the following theoretical rationale for this

perspective: As noted, at a baseline level, low trust tends to encourage S&O in negotiation, while high trust tends to encourage Q&A. Thus, relatively lowtrust Middle Eastern, South Asian, and Latin cultures should show a tendency to display S&O, while relatively high-trust Western and East Asian cultures

should show a tendency to display Q&A. The evi-

dence from the Middle Eastern, South Asian, and Western cultures is largely consistent with this prediction, but the evidence from the Latin and East Asian cultures is less consistent. Tightness-looseness may help to explain both the consistent evidence and the anomalies, for the following reasons. Although negotiations have both competitive and

cooperative elements, the predominant norm in negotiations around the world is thought to be competition (Bazerman, Magliozzi, & Neale, 1985;

because both factors encourage Q&A, this strategy should be observed in these cultures. It generally is.

However, competing cultural cues of trust and tightness-looseness may offer negotiators diverging

situational guidance. In other words, tightnesslooseness may moderate the predicted effects of

trust. Consider Latin cultures, which are relatively low-trust but loose. Low trust would suggest a prototypical use of S&O, but Q&A has been observed in at least one Latin culture (and one of the loosest): Brazil. Given that cultural levels of trust do not ac-

count for this observation, we offer the perspective that looseness may provide a competing cultural cue, affording Latin culture negotiations some facility in experimenting with Q&A. Conversely, consider East Asian cultures, which are relatively high-trust but tight. High trust would suggest a prototypical use of

Q&A, but S&O has been observed in such cultures.

Bazerman & Neale, 1992; Brett, 2014; Fukuno &

Given that cultural levels of trust do not account

Ohbuchi, 1997; Thompson & DeHarpport, 1994;

for this observation, we offer the perspective that

Thompson & Hastie, 1990). That is, many negotiators

tightness may provide a competing cultural cue,

assume that competition is the most normatively

prompting East Asian negotiators to attend closely to

appropriate and sanctioned behavior in a negotiation context. Accordingly, many negotiators display the fixed-pie bias, assuming that their win is the other's loss and vice versa (Bazerman & Neale, 1992).

a negotiation's competitive norms. These "off-diagonal" cases highlight intriguing opportunities for future re-

Because individuals from tight cultures attend closely to a situation's predominant norms and

search into the potentially competing effects of cultural cues of trust and tightness-looseness. In sum, the extant evidence indicates that negotiators from different cultures tend to rely on different

This content downloaded from 182.255.0.242 on Wed, 03 Jan 2024 05:12:01 +00:00 All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

2017

Brett,

Gunia,

and

Teucher

295

Qatari negotiators' joint gains were lower than t strategies. Crossing the boundary known and what can be inferred Americans'). However, the Americans achieved

joint gains through Q&A, while the Chinese achieved the we offer the perspective that joint gainstrust via another, as-yet undocumented cultural levels of andstrategy. tight limited but intriguing patterns of cultural in variexplain culturalThese differences th ance in the effectiveness of negotiation strategy lack an strategy. We fully acknowledge t integrated conclusive, theoretical cultural explanation. is suggestive, not and The evidence suggests that a latent cultural conof trust and tightness-looseness m struct may accountthat for cultural differences in the way cultural constructs explain c that negotiators infer the counterparty's interests and in negotiation strategy. Neverthel priorities to make trade-offs and realize joint gains. for these constructs may account Adair and her colleagues predictabil (2001) offered high- versus in the fundamental low-context communication (Hall, 1976) as an exhavior in negotiation.

In high-context-communication cultures, Insightful as a planation. global examinatio people communicate implicitly and indirectly negotiation strategy is, it address through hints, stories, orindirectly metaphors), so lispicture because (e.g., it only teners must make inferences about theimportan context of the cultural differences are communication detect meaning. In low-contexttion outcomes are a to function of s

of

culture

andcommunication negotiation cultures, people more explicitly stra

state theirconsidering intended messages so listeners do not havecul complete without effectiveness of to "read negotiation between the lines" to detect meaning (Hall, stra with respect to 1976). the important out The

next

sectionsRecent turn research and theorizing to in that psychology,

issue

however, has attributed theseintriguing cultural communicaresearch highlighting variance in the tion effectiveness differences to cognitive differences in the way of n for producing joint gains, then p that people process information - that is, to their ing yet tentative holistic versus explanation: analytic mindsets (Miyamoto, 2013; cul holistic versus Nisbett analytic mindsets et al., 2001; Norenzayan, Smith, Kim, & CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN THE

EFFECTIVENESS OF NEGOTIATION STRATEGY

Nisbett, 2002). Holistic versus analytic mindset seems to explain the information-processing ele-

ment of high- versus low-context communication. Put differently, different styles of thinking manifest

Our review of the research linking culture, negoin different communication styles. Given this logic, tiation strategy, and joint gains raises the intriguing and because mindset has been more thoroughly and possibility that negotiators from different cultures recently developed, we focus on mindset, seeing that focusnegoas a consistent elaboration on Adair and may achieve similar outcomes using different tiation strategies, or different outcomes using the colleagues' (2001) explanation. same negotiation strategy. For example, Japanese A mindset is a system of thought that directs at

and American negotiators reach similartention levels of and reasoning (Nisbett et al., 2001). Peopl insight and joint gains (Brett & Okumura, with 1998),holistic but versus analytic mindsets use funda the Japanese prototypically do so using S&O while mentally different cognitive processes. Those with the Americans prototypically use Q&A (Adair,mindset tend to consider an object's cona holistic Okumura, & Brett, 2001). Subsequent research us- associative reasoning to understand the text, using ing the latter dataset showed that Japanese negotiasituation as a whole. For example, they may rely on tors who made early offers achieved among the and stories to cue associations and, when metaphors highest joint gains, whereas the Americansconfronted who did with contradictory perspectives, try to transcend&the contradictions (Nisbett et al., 2001). so achieved among the lowest (Adair, Weingart, Brett, 2007). These results suggest that offers were Conversely, people with an analytic mindset focu the key to Japanese but not American negotiators' on content, assigning objects to categories based on success. Likewise, a study contrasting Chinese, their attributes. They tend to use linear reasoning t American, and Qatari negotiators found that Amerunderstand each aspect of a situation in turn, an ican and Chinese joint gains were not significantly they may experience discomfort with contradic different (Asiani et al., 2016, though in this study tions. Faced with contradictions, analytic thinkers

This content downloaded from 182.255.0.242 on Wed, 03 Jan 2024 05:12:01 +00:00 All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

296 Academy of Management Perspectives November

often prefer to choose one over another Q&Aperspective or S&O into outcomes such as joint gains nec(Nisbett et al., 2001). essarily involves processing it. Thus, the natural fo-

Mindset varies systematically between Eastern cus in an examination of negotiation outcomes

would be factors such as mindset that influence the and Western cultures, with Easterners often categorized as holistic and Westerners as analytic (Chua, way that people process information. Based on our Boland, & Nisbett, 2005; Ji, Peng, & prior Nisbett, 2000; review of the limited research, we propose that Kitayama, Duffy, Kawamura, Larsen, 2003; negotiators from & holistic mindset cultures may be Masuda, Gonzalez, Kwan, & 2008; & ableNisbett, to generate higher levels ofMasuda insight into each Nisbett, 2006; Nisbett & Masuda, 2003; Nisbett & other's interests and priorities and realize higher

Miyamoto, 2005; Norenzayan et al., 2002). Cultural differences in attention, categorization, and reasoning identified by cultural psychological research are also appearing in neuro-imaging research (see Goh et al., 2007; Gutchess, Welsh, Boduroglu, & Park, 2006; Han & Northoff, 2008; Hedden, Ketay, Aron,

Markus, & Gabrieli, 2008; Jenkins, Yang, Goh, Hong, & Park, 2010; and Miyamoto, 2013, for a recent review of this research). An exemplar study documented the varying brain

activation patterns that occurred when holistic thinkers (Chinese nationals new to a U.S. university)

and analytic thinkers (American university students) processed images in which the background was consistent (e.g., a sheep in a meadow) versus inconsistent (a sheep in a building; Jenkins et al., 2010). Holistic Chinese participants, who were ex-

pected to consider the whole scene, showed significantly greater discomfort with incongruent scenes (sheep in building) than did American participants,

joint gains from S&O than negotiators from analytic mindset cultures. Conversely, we suggest that negotiators from analytic mindset cultures may generate

higher levels of insight and joint gains from Q&A than negotiators from holistic mindset cultures. The rationale for this perspective is that in cultures

that emphasize holistic thinking, negotiators are likely to process information embedded in offers and substantiation the same way they process other information: in context. Thus, a holistic negotiator may infer the counterpart's priorities from an extended

pattern of concessions and substantiation by the counterpart. For example, if a counterpart makes

a small concession on one issue but later makes

a large concession on another issue, a focal negotiator may infer that the large-concession issue is less

important than the small-concession issue. Like-

wise, if a counterpart substantiates one offer but not another, the focal negotiator may infer that the substantiated offer is more important to the counterpart

who tended to fixate on the sheep and ignore its context (the building). The authors concluded that

than the unsubstantiated offer. Since substantia-

Chinese participants were more sensitive to contextual incongruity; if the Americans noticed the in-

throughout a negotiation, negotiators with a holistic mindset may be better able to make sense of the information about interests and priorities embedded in offers and substantiation than negotiators with an analytic mindset, who process information linearly. In sum, by analyzing issues in context, negotiators

congruity, they responded by focusing greater

attention on the object. Interestingly, when the researchers retested their participants at the end of the

first school year, Chinese participants' reactions more closely resembled Americans' reactions, suggesting that the Chinese had acclimated to the American analytic mindset (Jenkins et al., 2010). We propose that holistic versus analytic mindset is an important aspect of culture that may interact with negotiation strategy to produce divergent outcomes. Mindset is relevant for evaluating the effect of strategies on outcomes because it refers to the way that

people process information. Different negotiation strategies produce different kinds of information.

Q&A tends to produce a linear series of direct information about negotiators' interests and priorities. S&O tends to occur in a disjointed fashion throughout a negotiation and thus produces less direct, and less linear, forms of information about priorities and preferences. Turning the information produced by

tion and offers are often disjointed and scattered

with a holistic mindset may be able to apply the

heuristic that Pruitt (1981) first articulated - concede on low-priority issues and hold firm on high-priority issues - to infer the counterpart's interests and priorities. Although Pruitt suggested that generating insight into interests and priorities from S&O strat-

egy requires second-order processing, and he admitted that he had no evidence that negotiators were

doing do, his studies occurred in a prototypically analytic culture: the United States. We propose that negotiators from holistic-mindset cultures are more likely than those from analytic-mindset cultures to engage in the second-order processing required to infer interests and priorities from patterns of offers

and substantiation, simply because they process information holistically on a daily basis. Indeed,

This content downloaded from 182.255.0.242 on Wed, 03 Jan 2024 05:12:01 +00:00 All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

2017

Brett,

Gunia,

and

Teucher

297

data. Although empirical research has considered a holistic mindset is essentially high- versus in low-context communication as a modorder processing that holis erator of a negotiation strategy's effectiveness (Adair matically consider foreground et al., 2001), neither that construct nor the highertandem (Jenkins et al., 2010). level construct of mindset has beenthat tested empiri- e In contrast, in cultures

cally in the negotiation on context. Nevertheless, and in thinking, people focus objects keeping with the mission of AMP, we offer holistic c Having heard their negotiation analytic mindset as a promising perspec-m substantiate anversus offer, analytic tive that theoretically integrates the research that is may process that information available for information: review. We encourage cultural researchers, process any other and negotiationwords, researchers to collabo- a on its content. neuroscientists, In other may

as

an

a

treat

each

discrete

offer

in

rate and explore the possibility mindset moderates attempt at that substant

the effectiveness of particular strategies for generating instance. Thus, they

the

context of joint gains in negotiation.

substanti

have been made on other issues, for them to extract insight into A NEW PERSPECTIVE ON CULTURE AND terests or priorities. NEGOTIATION STRATEGY

However, consider the reactio To summarize, we propose a framework with an analytic mindset tothat ain

tegrates tends mounting evidence of cultural differences Unlike S&O, Q&A to follow the use and effectiveness of negotiation strategie One negotiator asks a question; with emerging focus knowledge from on cultural psycholog These questions can pos Figure 6 presents the overall framework, showin you want?), on interests (e.g. , why culture as manifest in three constructs: or on priorities (e.g., what istrust, more

tightness-looseness, and holistic versus analytic answers then provide direct mindset. The frameworkanalytic proposes that 1) cultural those issues. Because n of trust and tightness-looseness interact to to extracting levels insights from a

The

account for cultural differences in the use of negotiinformation, they should be abl ation strategy, and 2) holistic versus analytic mindset about the counterpart's interests interacts with negotiation strategy to account forinf Q&A. Because Q&A provides cultural differences in therelatively joint gains associated with content of issues in a should fit particularly particular strategies. We hope well that this framework, with In contrast, because by identifying potential sources S&O of culturalprov differscattered bits ofences information in negotiation strategies and outcomes,throu chala negotiation, it lenges may researchersbe to set aside difficult their preconceptions f an analytic mindset extract and assumptions to about culture and negotiation in in favor of new research that tests and broadens our counterpart's interests and prior In sum, a cultural to a framework proclivity - particularly in understudied cultures within Latin America, the Middle East, and Africa. fo holistically may make it easier tract information about interests

S&O,

whereas

formation

a

cultural GENERAL DISCUSSION

analytically

ators to extract information about interests and

procliv

may

make

The intriguing patterns of cultural differences in t

priorities from Q&A. These predictions build on use evi- and effectiveness of negotiation strategy, do dence indicating that negotiators from different mented culin the literature and reviewed in this pap tures generate similar outcomes via the use of underscore the critical role of culture in negotiat

different strategies, as well as different outcomes with research. Our analysis of these patterns helps

the same strategies. We propose that holistic versus integrate the existing research on culture and neg analytic mindset may capture the relevant aspect of ation for specialists and nonspecialists alike. cognition underlying the evidence of cultural differsuggest that less-studied cultural constructs m ences in the effectiveness of negotiation strategy.provide deeper insight and more compelling expl We would be the first to acknowledge that this nation than standard cultural explanations. Specif perspective moves beyond the boundary of current cally, we highlight trust, tightness-looseness,

This content downloaded from 182.255.0.242 on Wed, 03 Jan 2024 05:12:01 +00:00 All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

298 Academy of Management Perspectives November FIGURE 6

A Framework Integrating Cultural Explanations for Differences in Use of Negotiation Strategy and Outc

Tfustx I Strategy Looseness

< Tightness Looseness » (Q&A, S&O) '

^ Joint Gains

Mindset

(Holistic, ^

Analytic)

mindset as promising, yet preliminary, explanations

for cultural differences in the use of negotiation strategies and the relationship between strategy use and outcomes.

This strategy differs from S&O by the multiple issues

in an offer as well as the associated heuristic.

Although Pruitt (1981) offered some evidence of

American undergraduate students using heuristic We now suggest some further implications of our trial and error to create joint gains, the evidence framework for the literature on culture and negotia- was somewhat weak, and the strategy has since

tion as well as for the various management literatures received little attention. The closest strategic focusing on interdependent forms of decision mak- equivalent is negotiation strategy research that

ing. Setting aside traditional cultural explanations measures MIOs separately from substantiation and

may be a useful strategy for management researchers single-issue offers (Liu & Wilson, 2011; Olekalns &

studying interdependent decision making more Smith, 2003a, 2003b; Weingart et al., 1990). This MIO research is currently somewhat sparse, equivocal (e.g., MIO sometimes covaries with S&O and sometimes with Q&A; Weingart et al., 1990; Implications for New Research on Culture Weingart, Brett, Olekalns, & Smith, 2007), and inand Negotiation

generally.

We have already described what we consider to be the most pressing priorities for future research on culture and negotiation: the investigation of trust and tightness-looseness in tandem as an explanation for cultural differences in negotiation strategy use, and the investigation of mindset and strategy in tandem as an explanation for cultural differences in the re-

lationship between negotiation strategy and outcomes. We now turn to the implications of our framework for two areas of emerging research on

culture and negotiation: multi-issue offers (MIOs) and intercultural negotiations. In addition to raising the possibility that negotiators might use S&O to gain insight and create value, Pruitt (1981) identified a strategy that other scholars

complete (e.g., because it is not clear when in a negotiation MIOs are being used).

Although the published empirical evidence of negotiators using MIOs to negotiate joint gains is

limited, this may reflect the fact that studies with Western culture samples dominate the negotiation literature. Indeed, several recent papers and works in progress suggest that East Asian negotiators may use just this strategy to generate joint gains. In comparisons of Chinese and American negotiators, for ex-

ample, Chinese negotiators used proportionally more MIOs than U.S. counterparts but generated comparable gains (Liu & Wilson, 2011; working paper with reference suppressed for blind review). Our framework suggests that negotiators from holistic-

mindset cultures should be more adept than those from analytic-mindset cultures at inferring a counterpart's interests and priorities from a series of processing. This strategy involves making a MIO that incorporates all of the issues and then reciprocallyMIOs. exchanging MIOs using the heuristic: concede on Another important area for future research is low-priority issues and hold firm on high-priorityintercultural negotiations. What might happen when both negotiators in an intercultural negotiaissues until you reach an impasse or agreement. tion come from cultures with the same prototypical Pruitt suggested that this strategy could be used to strategy? Or when one negotiator comes from a Q&Agenerate joint gains, as negotiators might "land" on prototypical culture and the other comes from an a value-creating trade-off out of luck or persistence.

have not often examined: heuristic trial-and-error

This content downloaded from 182.255.0.242 on Wed, 03 Jan 2024 05:12:01 +00:00 All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

2017

Brett,

Gunia,

and

Teucher

299

they offer intriguing signposts for intercultural reS&O-prototypical culture? Giv wondering where to start. search on the searchers dynamics of neg these settings, any prediction Nevertheless, given the impo Implications for Management Research tural negotiations for global ec Our framework addressing the cultural influences wish to encourage intercultur on negotiation behaviors and thethat relationship be- t search and so propose tween negotiation strategy and outcomes may haveou tural explanations underlying implications for the research of organizational provide important insights in scholars who study interdependent decisions that intercultural negotiations. To unfold in multiple cultures of or across cultures. Our f about this application our framework may be particularly relevant for studies of cultural negotiations, we prop decision making that focus occur under the rubric of topics t possibilities, which on such as leadership and teamwork, creativity, prothat intercultural negotiators m ductivity, and collaboration. The constraints of too serve at the bargaining table. many cultural constructs and toofrom few integrating When two negotiators cultures or two frameworks negotiators to explain cultural differencesfro may research in these areas, just as it does in the cultures meethinder at the bargaining is unlikely to change domain of negotiation. very Addressing much. cultural differ- G ences in interdependent decision making through negotiators' behavior (e.g., Brett the lens of trust, tightness-looseness, and mindset 1998b), the two negotiators are each other's behavior, may open up new arenas producing for management research. a to their behavior We illustrate in intracultural this potential by exploring some im- n When a negotiator plications of our analysis from for interdependent an de- S culture meetscision with a negotiat making at several levels of analysis. Although prototypical culture, however our examples are illustrative and preliminary, they the strategies that likely to highlight theare wide range of managerial research nuanced. Based questions onthat our framewor our perspective might inform. negotiators'

the

flexibility in strateg In the domain of negotiation strategy, we proposed

particular combin thatcultural a combination of high trust and cultural loose-

tightness-looseness ness, prototypical that of the Unitedgave States and Western ris tendencies. AsEurope, examples, the can generate Q&A strategy. More broadly,S tor's behavioral tendency could Q&A represents an open and direct form of in- s and cultural looseness or low trust and cultural formation exchange in which the parties reciprocally tightness. If the tendency stems from low trust and and collectively engage in a process that systematicultural looseness, the negotiator might show a willcally works through the information in a linear ingness to reciprocate the counterpart's Q&A,fashion. as One analog for decision-making research is negotiators from Latin cultures seem to do inthat an executives from high-trust, loose cultures may intercultural setting (Ramirez-Marin, 2016). If the be more likely than managers from low-trust, tight tendency stems from low trust and cultural tightness, cultures to engage in open and direct information the negotiator seems unlikely to reciprocate Q&A exchange when making decisions. For an organizagiven the intracultural findings from South Asia tion keen on accelerating innovation by using mul(Gunia et al., 2011). ticultural teams, a predominance of team members A Q&A culture negotiator's behavioral tendency, from high-trust, loose cultures might surface a relastemming from cultural high trust and looseness, tively large set of ideas, though open questioning of may show some (albeit limited) resilience: This nethose ideas may cause production blocking, particgotiator may persist in the use of Q&A despite the ularly among team members from low-trust, tight counterpart's S&O, as Q&A negotiators sometimescultures. do (Adair et al., 2001; Lügger et al., 2015). However, the At the other end of the spectrum, we proposed that intercultural research suggests a more likely scea combination of low trust and cultural tightness, nario: that the Q&A culture negotiator will switchprototypical to of the Middle East and South Asia, can S&O rather quickly (Lügger et al., 2015). These pregenerate S&O strategy. S&O is a competitive yet dictions are tentative and require more research, but guarded form of information exchange in which the

This content downloaded from 182.255.0.242 on Wed, 03 Jan 2024 05:12:01 +00:00 All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

300 Academy of Management Perspectives November

parties compete for dominance. Individual decision (originally holistic) start to resemble Americans' makers from such cultures might guard their analytic patterns (Jenkins et al., 2010). Wouldinthe tentions during decision making, neither sharing nor opposite pattern of differences emerge among

seeking as much information as decision makers Americans studying (or working/managing) in

from cultures in other trust by istightness-looseness China? What the effect of deep and broad global quadrants. Strong hierarchy or relationship building experience spanning many holistically and analytimay be required to reign in competitive behavior cally minded cultures? To the extent that mindset

when top management teams are management dominated links to important processes,by these

members whose culturally prototypical represent critical questionsnegotiation for future research, strategy is S&O. which we hope our framework will help to stimulate. In negotiations, we argued that a combination of high trust and cultural tightness (prototypical of East CONCLUSION

Asia) could also generate S&O strategy. The pre-

dictions for behavior of people from this quadrant in exResearch on culture and negotiation strategy

interdependent decision-making situations, howposes evidence of intriguing patterns of cultura ever, may depend not only on in the cultural backdifferences the use and effectiveness of negotiagrounds of the decision tion makers but the also on thebeyond strategy around world. Moving structure of the decision-making the boundary of the situation, extant research and parthe cultura ticularly whether these situations have salient explanations in individual studies, we propose an cooperative versus competitive norms. Because integrated framework consisting of three nonindividual and group decision is common traditionalmaking constructs from cultural psychology and relatively routinizedtrust, in organizations, we sustightness-looseness, and holistic versus ana pect that these situations feature relatively lyticwill mindset. Specifically, our framework proposes

the interactionthat between cultural-level trust and strong norms. This would that suggest the members of top management teamstightness-looseness from tight may cultures at least partiallywith explain strong norms of harmony cultural(e.g., differencesTaiwan; in the strategiesGelfand that negotiators et al., 2013), for example, use. would behave rather coThe interaction between these strategies and operatively toward one another. their culturally prototypical holistic versus analytic With respect to our thinking mindset, inabout turn, may mindset, partially explain the one effecclear opportunity for management tiveness of those strategies research for creating joint is gains. to develop and test hypotheses These about constructs the are based relationship on suggestive evidence between holistic versus analytic and help to make mindset sense of the documented and creacultural tivity, as well as its downstream effects patterns. Our perspective is that testingon them inreprenovation. In part, a person's sents an important or group's priority for future creativity research. depends on integrative complexity: Our intent in offering willingness this framework was threefold: and capacity to acknowledgeFirst, and for negotiation consider specialistsdiffering and nonspecialists views on the same issue (known as differentiation) alike, we hoped to bring some measure of order to the and to forge conceptual links fragmented among but intriguing these literature perspecon culture and tives (known as integration; negotiation. Suedfeld, Second, we sought Tetlock, to give current re-& searchers both a reason and a foundation facilifor moving Streufert, 1992). A holistic mindset might beyond boundaries of cultural constructsthat traditate integrative complexity - the or, alternatively, tionally used for explanation, instead mindset and integrative complexity mightconsidering separately whether three constructs from cultural psychology contribute to creativity and innovation. Additionmay account for important differences in negotiation ally, for those putting together multicultural teams, it would be worthwhile to understand whether a hostrategies and outcomes. Third, we sought to motivate negotiation and management researchers to "go listic mindset might be best suited to creativity and global" with their research, studying their constructs innovation, whereas an analytic mindset might be best suited to execution. in cultures studied less extensively or not at all. Our Additionally, the management literature in gen- framework should help them to do so. More broadly, eral would benefit from a deeper understanding of we challenge management scholars to seek a deeper the ways that global experience may affect mindset. understanding of the cultural factors that might inAs noted, research shows that after a year of study fluence interdependent decision making in the conin the United States, East Asians' neural patterns text of an increasingly global world.

This content downloaded from 182.255.0.242 on Wed, 03 Jan 2024 05:12:01 +00:00 All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

2017

Brett,

Gunia,

REFERENCES

and

Teucher

301

Chua, H. F., Boland, J. E., & Nisbett, R. E. (2005). Cultural

variation in eye movements during scene percep-

Adair, W. L., & Brett, }. M. (2005). The negotiation dance: tion. Proceedings of the National Academy of SciTime, culture, and behavioral sequences in negotia- ences of the United States of America, 102{ 35), tion. Organization Science , 16[ 1), 33-51. 12629-12633.

Adair, W. L., Okumura, T., & Brett, J. M. (2001). NegotiDe Dreu, C. K. W., Weingart, L. R., & Kwon, S. (2000). ation behavior when cultures collide: The United fluence of social motives on integrative negotiation States and Japan. Journal of Applied Psychology , A meta-analytic review and test of two theories. Jo 06(3), 371-385. nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 889-90 Adair, W., Weingart, L., & Brett, J. (2004). Culture and Delhey, J., & Newton, K. (2005). Predicting cross-nati

negotiation strategy. Negotiation Journal , 20(1),

levels of social trust: Global pattern or Nordic exceptio

87-111.

alism? European Sociological Review, 21(4), 311-327.

Adair, W. L., Weingart, L., & Brett, J. (2007). The timing and

Dong, R. (2006). Joint gains in Chinese and U.S. n

function of offers in U.S. and Japanese negotiations. gotiations. Undergraduate thesis, Northwester Journal of Applied Psychology, 02(4), 1056-1068. Universitv. Adler, N., & Graham, J. (1989). Cross-cultural interaction: Elahee, M. N., Kirby, S. L., & Nasif, E. (2002). National The international comparison fallacy? Journal of Inculture, trust, and perceptions about ethical behavior ternational Business, 20(3), 515-537. in intra- and cross-cultural negotiations: An analysis

of NAFTA countries. Thunderbird International BusiAsiani, S., Ramirez-Marin, J., Brett, J. M., Yao, J. J., Semnani-

ness Beview, 44(6), 799-818. Azad, Z., Zhang, Z., et al. (2016). Dignity, face, and honor cultures: A study of negotiation strategy and Ferrin, D. L., & Gillespie, N. (2010). Trust differences across outcomes in three cultures. Journal of Organizational national-societal cultures: Much to do, or much ado Behavior, 37(8), 1178-1201. about nothing? In M. Saunders, D. Skinner, G. Dietz, Bazerman, M., Magliozzi, H. T., & Neale, M. A. (1985). InN. Gillespie, & R. Lewicki (Eds.), Trust across cultures: tegrative bargaining in a competitive market. OrganiTheory and practice (pp. 42-86). Cambridge, UK: zational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Cambridge University Press. 35(3), 294-313.

Bazerman, M., & Neale, M. A. (1992). Negotiating rationally. New York: Free Press. Branzei, O., Vertinsky, I., & Camp, R. D. (2007). Culturecontingent signs of trust in emergent relationships.

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Pro-

Fukuno, M., & Ohbuchi, K. I. (1997). Cognitive biases in negotiation: The determinants of fixed-pie assumption and fairness bias. Japanese Journal of Social Psychology, 13(1), 43-52.

Gelfand, M. J., Brett, J., Gunia, B. C., Imai, L., Huang, T. J., &

cesses, 104(1), 61-82.

Brett, J. M. (2014). Negotiating globally: How to negotiate

deals, resolve disputes, and make decisions across

Hsu, B. F. (2013). Toward a culture-by-context per-

spective on negotiation: Negotiating teams in the United States and Taiwan. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(3), 504-513.

cultural boundaries (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-

Gelfand, M. J., Nishii, L. H., & Raver, J. L. (2006). On the nature and importance of cultural tightness-looseness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(6), 1225-1244. Brett, J. M. (2016). Culture and negotiation norms survey report. Available from negotiationandteamresources. Gelfand, M. J., Raver, J. L., Nishii, L. H., Leslie, L. M, Lun, J., Bass.

com

Lim, B. C., et al. (2011). Differences between tight and

loose cultures: A 3 3 -nation study. Science, 6033, Brett, J. M., Adair, W, Lempereur, A., Okumura, T., 1100-1104. Shikhirev, P., Tinsley, C., & Lytle, A. (1998a). Cul-

ture and joint gains in negotiation. Negotiation Journal, Goh, J. O., Chee, M. W., Tan, J. C., Venkatraman,

14, 55-80.

Hebrank, A., Leshikar, E. D., et al. (2007). Age a

Brett, J. M., & Okumura, T. (1998). Inter- and intracultural

negotiation: U.S. and Japanese negotiators. Academy of Management Journal, 41(5), 495-510.

culture modulate object processing and object-scen binding in the ventral visual area. Cognitive, Affect & Behavioral Neuroscience, 7(1), 44-52.

Brett, JĒ M., Shapiro, D., & Lytle, A. (1998b). Breaking the Graham, J. L. (1985). The influence of culture on the pro bonds of reciprocity in negotiation. Academy of Manof business negotiations: An exploratory study. Journ agement Journal, 41(4), 410-424. of International Business Studies, 16(1), 81-96.

Brett, J. M., & Thompson, L. (2016). Negotiation. Organi- Gunia, B. C., Brett, J. M., & Gelfand, M. (2016). The sci zational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, of culture and negotiation. Current Opinion in Ps 136(1), 68-79. chology, 8, 78-83.

This content downloaded from 182.255.0.242 on Wed, 03 Jan 2024 05:12:01 +00:00 All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

302 Academy of Management Perspectives November

Liu, M., & Wilson, S.A., R. (2011). The effects of D. interaction Gunia, B. C., Brett, J. M., Nandkeolyar, & Kamdar, (2011). Paying a price: Culture, trust, and tactics negotiation goals on negotiation and outcomes: A dyadconsequences. Journal of Applied level analysis Psychology, across two cultures. 96[Communication 4), 774-789. Research, 36(2), 248-277.

Gutchess, A. H., Welsh, R. C., Boduroglu, A., & Park, D. C. K., Geiger, I., Neun, H., & Backhaus, K. (2015) Lügger, (2006). Cultural differences in neural function assoWhen East meets West at the bargaining table: Adaptation, behavior and outcomes in intra- and interculciated with object processing. Cognitive, Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience, 6(2), 102-109. tural German-Chinese business negotiations. Journal of Business Economics, 85, 15-43. Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. Garden City, NY: Anchor. Lytle, A. L., Brett, J. M., Barsness, Z. I., Tinsley, C. H., & Hammond, E. (2015). Global dealmaking hits all-time peak

Janssens, M. (1995). A paradigm for confirmatory in 2015 at $4.2 trillion. Bloomberg.com. Retrieved cross-cultural research in organizational behavior. firam http :/ /www.bloomberg.com/ news/articles/201 5-1 2-

Research in Organizational Behavior, 17, 167-214. 22/global-dealmaking-hits-all-time-peak-in-2015-atMasuda, T., Gonzalez, R., Kwan, L., & Nisbett, R. E. (2008). Culture and aesthetic preference: Comparing the atHan, S., & Northoff, G. (2008). Culture-sensitive neural 4-2-trillion

substrates of human cognition: A transcultural neu-

roimaging approach. Nature Beviews Neuroscience, 6(8), 646-654.

Hedden, T., Ketay, S., Aron, A., Markus, H. R., & Gabrieli, J. D.

(2008). Cultural influences on neural substrates of attentional control. Psychological Science, 16(1), 12-17.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International difference in work-related values. Beverly Hills: Sage. Jenkins, L. J., Yang, Y. J., Goh, J., Hong, Y. Y., & Park, D. C. (2010). Cultural differences in the lateral oc-

cipital complex while viewing incongruent scenes. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 5(2-3), 236-241.

tention to context of East Asians and Americans.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(9), 1260-1275.

Masuda, T., & Nisbett, R. E. (2006). Culture and ch blindness. Cognitive Science, 30(2), 381-399.

Medrano, J. D. (2017). Interpersonal trust. Madrid, S ASEP/JDS. Retrieved from http://www.jdsurvey.

jds/jdsurveyMaps.jsp?Idioma=I&SeccionTexto

0404&NOID = 104

Miyamoto, Y. (2013). Culture and analytic versus holistic cognition: Toward multilevel analyses of cultural in-

fluences. Advances in Experimental Social Psychol-

02V. 47. 131-188.

Natlandsmyr, J. H., & Rognes, J. (1995). Culture, behavior an

negotiation outcomes: A comparative and cross-cultural Ji, L., Peng, K., & Nisbett, R. E. (2000). Culture, control and study of Mexican and Norwegian negotiators. Internaperception of relationship in the environment. Journal tional Journal of Conflict Management, 6(1), 5-29. of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 943-955. Nisbett, Johnson, N. D., & Mislin, A. (2012). How much should we R. E., & Masuda, T. (2003). Culture and point of view. Proceedings of the National Academy of Scitrust the World Values Survey trust question? Ecoences of the United States of America, 100, 11163nomics Letters, 116(2), 210-212.

Kirkman, B. L., Lowe, K. B., & Gibson, C. B. (2006). A quarter century of culture's consequences: A review of empirical research incorporating Hofstede 's cultural values framework. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(3), 285-320.

Kitayama, S., Duffy, S., Kawamura, T., & Larsen, J. T. (2003). Perceiving an object and its context in different

cultures: A cultural look at new look. Psychological Science, 14(3), 201-206.

Kong, D. T., Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2014). Interpersonal trust within negotiations: Meta-analytic

evidence, critical contingencies, and directions for future research. Academy of Management Journal, 57(5), 1235-1255.

Nisbett, R. E., & Miyamoto, Y. (2005). The influence of culture: Holistic versus analytic perception. Trends in

Cognitive Sciences, 6(10), 467-473. Nisbett, R. E., Peng, K., Choi, I., & Norenzayan, A. (2001). Culture and systems of thought: Holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychological Review, 108, 291-310. Norenzayan, A., Smith, E. E., Kim, B. J., & Nisbett, R. E.

(2002). Cultural preferences for formal versus intuitive reasoning. Cognitive Science, 26, 653-684. Olekalns, M., & Smith, P. L. (2003a). Social motives in negotiation: The relationships between dyad composition,

negotiation processes and outcomes. International Journal of Conflict Management, 14(3/4), 233-254.

Liu, M. (2009). The intrapersonal and interpersonal effects of anger on negotiation strategies: A cross-cultural investigation. Human Communication Besearch, 35(1), 148-169.

11170.

Olekalns, M., & Smith, P. L. (2003b). Testing the relationships among negotiators' motivational orientations, strategy choices, and outcomes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36(2), 101-117.

This content downloaded from 182.255.0.242 on Wed, 03 Jan 2024 05:12:01 +00:00 All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

2017

Brett,

Gunia,

and

Teucher

303

L. R., Thompson, L. L., Bazerman, M. H., betw & P. J. (1968). Weingart, The differences J. S. (1990). 37-40. Tactical behavior and negotiation societies. Society,Carroll, 5(5), outcomes. International Journal of Conflict ManagePruitt, D. G. (1981). Negotiation beh ment, 1(1), 7-31. ademic Press.

Pelto,

Raiffa, H. (1982). The art and science of negotiation.World Bank Annual Report. (2016). Retrieved from http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/ Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 782691475489708512/World-Bank-annual-reportRamirez-Marin, J. Y. (2016). Strategic adaptation in inter2016-organizational-information-and-lending-datacultural negotiation: Spanish honor and U.S. dignity appendixes negotiations (Working Paper). Puteaux, France: IESEG Yamagishi, T., Cook, K. S., & Watabe, M. (1998). UnSchool of Management. certainty, trust, and commitment formation in the Rheault, M. (2007, October 25). Many world citizens United States and Japan. American Journal of Socioltrust neighbors more than police. Washington, DC: ogy, 104{ 1), 165-194. Gallup. Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/poll/ Yamagishi, T., & Hashimoto, H. (2016). Social niche con1 02 346/many-world-citizens-trust-neighbors-morestruction. Current Opinion in Psychology, 8(1), 119than-police.aspx 124.

Rosette, A. S., Brett, J. M., Barsness, Z., & Lytle, A. L. (2011). Yang, G. (2003). The impact of computer-mediated comWhen cultures clash electronically: The impact of email munication in the process and outcomes of buyerand social norms on negotiation behavior and outcomes. seller negotiations. Doctoral dissertation, University Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43( 4), 628-643.

of Michigan.

Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Yao, J. J., Zhang, Z-X., & Brett, J. M. (2017). Understanding Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust.

Academy of Management Review, 23{ 3), 393-404.

Suedfeld, P., Tetlock, P. E., & Streufert, S. (1992).

trust development in negotiations: An interdependent approach. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(5), 712-729.

Conceptual/integrative complexity. In C. P. Smith, Yao, J. J., Ramirez-Marin, J., Brett, J. M., Asiani, S., J. W. Atkinson, D. C. McClelland, & J. Veroff (Eds.), Semnani-Azad, Z. (in press). A measurement mod Motivation and personality: Handbook of thematic for dignity, face, and honor cultural norms. Manage content analysis (pp. 393-400). New York: Cambridge ment and Organization Review. Manuscript sub University Press. Thompson, L. (2014). The mind and heart of the negotiator. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

mitted for publication.

Thompson, L., & DeHarpport, T. (1994). Social judgment, feedback, and interpersonal learning in negotiation.

Jean DeWi

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Pro-

cesses, 58(3), 327-345.

Reso

Thompson, L., & Hastie, R. (1990). Social perception in negotiation. Organizational Behavior and Human

Mana on cu agem She i

Decision Processes, 47(1), 98-123.

Vogel, S., Brett, J. M., & Ramirez-Marin, J. (2017). A metaanalysis of three methods of measuring negotiation strategy. Paper presented at the International Association for Conflict Management conference, Berlin.

Brian fesso resea them nego

Van de Vijver, F., & Leung, K. (1997). Methods and data analysis of comparative research. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Walton, R. E., & McKersie, R. B. (1965). A behavioral theory of

labor negotiations: An analysis of a social interaction system. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Weingart, L. R., Brett, J. M., Olekalns, M., & Smith, P. L.

(2007). Conflicting social motives in negotiating

Brosh M. Teucher ([email protected]) is an assistant professor of business administration and accounting at Saint Michael's College. His research focuses on management effectiveness and on negotiations in international settings.

groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(6), 994-1010.

This content downloaded from 182.255.0.242 on Wed, 03 Jan 2024 05:12:01 +00:00 All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

304 Academy of Management Perspectives November APPENDIX A

METHODS AND CRITERIA FOR IDENTIFYING

STUDIES DOCUMENTING CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN THE USE OF

NEGOTIATION STRATEGY

were three criteria for inclusion: 1) At least two parti

completed a simulated multi-issue negotiation task person or virtually. Studies that used confederates

computer simulations as half of a negotiation dyad we excluded. 2) Integrative and/or distributive strategies w coded using behavioral coding, self-report, or electron

coding (e.g., LIWC). 3) Data were available to compu

a correlation between integrative or distributive strateg Standard meta-analysis techniques were used to iden-

and joint gains or satisfaction. We, the authors of tify and classify relevant studies, including searching

current paper, reviewed the 80 papers identified in th Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Proquest; contacting

meta-analysis for two additional inclusion criteria: authors for unpublished papers; and reviewing unIntracultural mean-level data were reported on the use published dissertations. Key search terms in the meta-

negotiation strategy, and 2) results from at least two c analysis were negotiation, integrative strategy, integrative tures were compared statistically. tactics, distributive strategy, and distributive tactics. There

This content downloaded from 182.255.0.242 on Wed, 03 Jan 2024 05:12:01 +00:00 All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

2017

Brett,

Gunia,

and

Teucher

'en

- a i

J « |ī

"•«Is ,N

DÔ M

g

§

>H

se e« --

^

M

o

a

£ .S «

s S N

X

M

X

*

i

X

«

as

X

xx

M

fcS

1 5.

■2

P

C/3

P

O

& p-S W

S8 « g xx 3«" - 05

■j i-J - § CM X X

•p

o;

Z 0

X

h

■■S

o 00

*

Is

Šo

09

*3

8

1I

i-J CM

■S -ř ^ oî g «

O

Ü « N - 2

I

=3

X

X

09 Vi

S in

D

"5

09

•a

BQ g

ÖS

Q u

Z

WS

st

3

U

# J N

■g

09

u

o

Q Vi

•2

*3

B

en

«

w « N on co

Q

Q N

X

X

g

X

§

X

X

X

X

"3 a

0

« £ "-S

IM

1

00

I

X

v

13

1

C3

O

g

«

W « 3

1

X

XXX

X

S -r 2

j«s S -r 2 * xx

i ig

l-s

»

< ü

*

*

*

»8 .

«

5«N

g

g

XX

XX

•fcs _i rs

-gag

X

< a> N

ig

«

< "S N ■ä - J **

-g

< M N

-

«

g

§ X

X

X

XX

X

XXX

X

X X

X

.2 °

Ö

00 ö

Cg

op

.2 < fe >, ^ ed ed e w q

ge -a c3

^

ä N cd cd £ ļ-t H £P 5 Œ> S*e > m e/a .£3 ;ř; •«-