Effective negotiation skills are vital for positive interactions in multicultural contexts. (Caputo et al. (2019)) define negotiation as an interactive process in which parties engaged in a form of conflict choose to adopt a common action plan to resolve the dispute. The impact of cultural influences on negotiations is vital given that societies are evolving to include people from various social and ethnic backgrounds. The success of cross-cultural negotiations is dependent upon the parties’ understanding of the variations in values and traditions of the people with whom they intend to negotiate. Hofstede’s cultural model presents specific dimensions that highlight the variations in national cultures across the world. The diversity of beliefs and ideas that characterize contemporary negotiations requires an in-depth understanding of how culture impacts the tactics, motives, and skills employed by negotiators as they pursue specific outcomes.
The value of cross-cultural negotiation is highlighted by the increasing need to traverse geographical boundaries in contemporary business and economic environments. However, interactions between cultures are often characterized by communication challenges that may result in a breakdown of relations (Benetti et al., 2021). Cultural dimensions have a significant impact on the effectiveness of negotiation endeavors. Cultural intelligence is a prerequisite for success during interactions and is divided into metacognitive, behavioral, motivational, and cognitive elements (Caputo et al., 2019). It is vital that an individual is conscious of the prevalent cultural interactions and ideas that can be used to generate strategies during deliberations. In addition, negotiators must understand the other party’s values and beliefs in order to appreciate the gravity of specific actions during interactions. The aforementioned traits are necessary for the achievement of set goals when dealing with people from other ethnic and social backgrounds.
Shan et al. (2019) note that a society’s set of beliefs based on ethnic origins serves as a template for how to handle oneself and respond to others during negotiation proceedings. Differences in values and beliefs can present obstacles to the achievement of set goals and objectives, given that they may negatively impact the nature of communication, the roles of negotiators, and specific perceptions (Benetti et al., 2021). It is also worth noting that variations may present unique opportunities through the identification of priorities that the involved parties value differently. Therefore it is critical to avoid focusing on stereotypes and instead work towards the identification of mutually beneficial alternatives. There is an urgent need to explicate how diverse cultural traits impact negotiations and the resultant outcomes. It is essential to understand how the aforementioned features affect the tactics, motives, and skills employed by negotiators from different ethnic backgrounds.
The theory of cultural dimensions is vital in the quest to understand how people from different cultures interact. Geert Hofstede was a Dutch researcher who was determined to explore cultural differences in the 1960s (Carolina, 2019). Hofstede’s theory measures cultural diversity by measuring the degree to which different societies organize themselves in varied locales (Yi & Chen, 2021). He viewed culture as a psychological process that people in specific nations underwent to facilitate their interactions with others. Hofstede posited that six distinct dimensions affected the nature of interactions between culturally diverse parties. The first of these dimensions is the power distance index. Hofstede theorized that the dimension assessed the extent to which individuals of a defined society accented to the existence of a hierarchy of authority and power (Carolina, 2019). Its characteristics include the degree of acceptance of the dominance phenomenon and the interaction between remoteness and power.
The second dimension is collectivism versus individualism. Hofstede sought to assess the degree to which an individual’s freedom and independence regarding their chosen group affected their behavior with regard to the expression of individualistic or collectivist tendencies (Carolina, 2019). Collectivism focuses on an individual’s perceived obligations and desire to depend on a group while individualism highlighted the significance people place on the achievement of personal objectives.
The third dimension is masculinity versus femininity, which assesses the distribution of rights between genders. Hofstede posited that masculinity was demonstrated through the acquisition of money and the expression of exceptional performance, while femininity was demonstrated through the accumulation of social assets and the prioritization of interpersonal relationships (Carolina, 2019). The dominant trait determined the nature of interactions between members of a culture and outsiders.
The fourth of Hofstede’s dimensions are doubt versus confidence. It evaluates the degree to which the expansion of cultural programs determines the level of comfort experienced by members of a given group. Hofstede proposed that in cultures where the avoidance of strong uncertainty is prioritized, there is a prevalence of formal attitudes, leadership, and adherence to rules (Carolina, 2019). He further argued that in cultures in which the avoidance of low uncertainty was the goal, the leadership models applied were often flexible, and informal attitudes were the norm.
Long term orientation versus short term orientation is the fifth dimension in Hofstede’s cultural theory. He surmised that in a society in which resources were allocated for the achievement of long-term objectives, persistence and control would be its predominant features (Carolina, 2019). In instances where resources were primarily used for the achievement of short-term objectives, recognition and tradition were the dominant attributes.
The final dimension in Hofstede’s theory is the interaction of constraint versus indulgence. The former was associated with cultures in which desire was conditioned the people’s lives were often characterized by unhappiness (Carolina, 2019). The latter refers to scenarios in which the populace freely expressed their feelings and urges, as demonstrated by engagement in activities such as marriage and friendship.
Applying Hofstede’s Theory in Negotiations
Power Distance Index
Hofstede’s theory has numerous applications in negotiation scenarios. For instance, the power distance index, which highlights the variations in levels of acceptance of power differences determines the effectiveness of a negotiation process. A high power distance means that people are willing to accept the consequences imposed upon them by their leadership, while a low power distance means that the people are less likely to accept policies that are imposed upon society. It is vital to illustrate the above-mentioned theoretical perspective with an example. The United States is undoubtedly a low power distance society. In essence, Americans believe that the pursuit of equality is a critical aspect of social life (Yi & Chen, 2021). The people often revolt against injustice, given that the nation’s cultural values are informed by the principle of fairness. In a negotiation scenario, it would be unwise to ask an institution’s top management to engage in a negotiation process. The Japanese culture is significantly different from America’s, seeing as formality is prioritized. As a high power distance nation, Japanese negotiators seldom employ robust and untested tactics.
The uncertainty avoidance principle, as postulated by Hofstede, assesses the efficiency of a population’s adaptation to changes. It analyzes the extent to which individuals in a given locale tolerate ambiguity and the lack of structure (Caputo et al., 2019). Nations with a high degree of uncertainty avoidance tend to limit unfamiliar scenarios (Yi & Chen, 2021). The members of the aforementioned culture are uncomfortable with change and often express a strong desire for structure and clarity. It is worth noting that an elevated level of uncertainty avoidance is characterized by a desire for trust and confidence in the other party during negotiations to reduce the risk of failure (Caputo et al., 2019). In addition, negotiators from a culture that avoids uncertainty often prefer organized and well-structured negotiations in which formal interactions and transparency are prioritized, as is the case in Japan. Negotiations are, therefore, characterized by clear communication and cooperation in a bid to achieve the desired outcome. In addition, competition is limited or avoided altogether in favor of the adoption of collaborative strategies.
In America, there is a cultural predilection for uncertainty. It is often the case that American negotiators are always interested in trying novel and risky strategies when negotiating with others. In addition, individuals from a culture that prefers uncertainly allow alterations in preset objectives and are willing to incorporate new ideas (Caputo et al., 2019). They also have a healthy disdain for rules and are not afraid of embracing change. As a result, individuals tend to be competitive and aggressive in their negotiations.
Masculinity and Femininity
Masculinity and femininity may serve as aggravating or mitigating factors in a negotiation scenario. The two elements distinguish between the adoption of gender and emotional roles (Caputo et al., 2019). While men are often perceived as ambitious and assertive in masculine cultures, women as usually viewed as caring. Societies with such cultural preferences tend to emphasize the importance of work rather than the relevance of family. Therefore, individuals from a culture that favors masculinity will most likely favor the adoption of an assertive stance during negotiation proceedings. The American society favors masculinity over femininity, meaning that negotiators are often aggressive in their quest to achieve their objectives. In addition, they seldom compromise because concessions are viewed as failures.
Feminine cultures differ significantly from masculine ones on account of the prioritization of equality with regard to emotional and gender roles. In these societies, men and women are caring and modest. In addition, the achievement of balance between family and work is a top priority, and people often demonstrate sympathy for the weak (Caputo et al., 2019). The expression of masculinity during negotiations is commonly associated with competitiveness, while femininity is linked with a preference for cooperation.
A note must be made to findings by Shan et al. (2019), who posit that the social circumstances that allow men to do better than women in negotiation scenarios are dependent on the cultural practices and values in the society in question. The resultant “social conditioning effect” promotes the perception that men are better negotiators than their female counterparts (Shan et al., 2019, p. 652). The spread of gender stereotypes, which are social categorizations that people use to infer behavior as well as responses based on an individual’s gender. Shan et al. (2019) note that negotiations are affected in the aforementioned scenarios because of the prevalence of preconceived notions on how to address others based on their gender.
The differential treatment of men and women results in variations in outcomes as well as expectations. It is also worth noting that women from masculine cultures may fear negotiating like men due to the expected backlash. The guidelines that a given culture provides for the desired behavior during negotiations may reflect inherent gender stereotypes. For instance, evidence suggests that in the Chinese context, women are more likely to set ambitious targets, adopt aggressive tactics and demonstrate assertive tendencies compared to their male counterparts during negotiations (Shan et al., 2019). In western contexts, it is often the men who are allowed to demonstrate aggressive and competitive tendencies when interacting with others, Societies that encourage the adoption of masculine traits are likely to witness a higher success rate among men in view of the fact that women are forced to adopt culturally defined roles.
Individualism and Collectivism
Individualism and collectivism are relevant factors to consider when evaluating a specific culture’s negotiating tendencies. For instance, America is a predominantly individualistic society, meaning that the people are outgoing and passionate about their activities. The extroverted nature of American interactions, which is the direct result of the prioritization of the achievement of personal goals, means that people are often clear in the expression of feelings through vocalization or body language (Yi & Chen, 2021). Individualism also promotes the adoption of competitive negotiation tactics because parties are often concerned with the achievement of personal targets.
Unlike the U.S., Japan is a largely collectivist society, where the greater good is prioritized over personal needs. In addition, the members of society prioritize the maintenance of harmony over all else. Collectivism is also characterized by favoritism towards in-group as opposed to out-group members, and the prevalence of strong interpersonal ties among affiliates (Caputo et al., 2019). The negotiation process is, therefore, guided by the achievement of benefits intended to address the needs of an entire group or community. In addition, negotiating parties tend to prefer ethical and collaborative techniques in their quest to achieve set goals. These behaviors are attributed to Hofstede’s proposal that collectivist cultures tend to possess strong group consciousness (Caputo et al., 2019). Therefore, the people’s needs are a top priority during integrative interactions.
Long and Short-Term Orientation
Cultures that adopt long-term orientation place great value on links to the past in order to address challenges in the present as well as the future. It is often the case that individuals in these societies place a premium on expected events in the hope that their greatest moments are yet to be experienced (Caputo et al., 2019). This means that they are more likely to alter their traditions and beliefs depending on the prevailing conditions. They also tend to demonstrate heightened perseverance and addition to a preference for hard work in a bid to achieve set objectives. Short-term-oriented cultures tend to demonstrate skepticism towards social change (Caputo et al., 2019). They believe that holding on to their traditions is the only way to survive.
Long and short-term orientations have a significant impact on the choice of negotiation styles adopted by specific parties. Long-term-oriented cultures favor cooperation because the aim is to secure the future by prioritizing the relationship rather than the outcome. Therefore, they will ensure that all available opportunities for cooperation are exhausted in order to secure forthcoming relationships. Short-term-oriented cultures tend to favor competitive strategies seeing as they are focused on immediate gains.
Hofstede’s cultural dimensions are integral to understanding the techniques required to facilitate successful negotiations. Hofstede theorized that culture is a shared phenomenon that resides in a society’s conscious norms and values (Caputo et al., 2019). The popularity of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions is attributed to the fact that the proposed framework includes major theories on culture. Caputo et al. (2019) note that studies conducted after Hofstede’s findings were published maintained and extended his findings, with very few contradictions reported. In addition, the framework proposed by Hofstede is derived empirically in a field where a majority of the proposed theories are largely theoretical. Hofstede’s research, unlike a majority of his compatriots at the time, provided quantitative data on cultural values, thus allowing practitioners in the field to differentiate various aspects of the cultures they choose to examine (Caputo et al., 2019). Researchers from various fields have studied and validated Hofstede’s cultural dimensions framework, which is considered to be one of the most influential theories on culture.
Even though Hofstede’s cultural model offers valuable insight into the negotiation styles adopted by various cultures, there are some issues that need to be addressed. The fact that the model uses national traits raises some concerns. National cultural traits are a reflection of generalized beliefs and values that may not accurately reflect individual traits. The use of the aforementioned features is, in many ways, similar to stereotyping (Caputo et al., 2019). Hofstede’s model does not account for the potential variations in cultural practices between individuals from the same locale. Therefore it is vital to account for specific ethnic differences in behavior before making conclusions or inferences regarding behavioral expectations.
Hofstede’s findings should be used with caution, owing to the fact that the data informing his studies were collected in the past. Evidence indicates that in the past, organizational contexts mirrored national practices (Caputo et al., 2019). The situation today is markedly different, given that globalization and cultural integration policies have had an immense impact on the composition of communities and work environments. There is a need to conduct individual cultural studies that account for the evolution of a society’s practices and beliefs since Hofstede conducted his groundbreaking studies. It is necessary to develop individual-level measures of specific cultural dimensions in order to avoid the limitations associated with making assumptions based on national findings.
Hofstede’s cultural model offers vital insight into the techniques and skills that individuals apply when engaged in cross-cultural negotiations. An individual’s ability to achieve set objectives is dependent on the degree to which they understand the other party’s culture and the extent to which beliefs and values impact behavior in a negotiation context. The dimensions provided in Hofstede’s theory offer guidance on how to approach individuals from different nationalities. However, while the proposed model is useful, it fails to address the evolution in societal functioning occasioned by globalization. In addition, it does not account for the individual variations in values and beliefs in a defined geographical area. Therefore, the diversity of viewpoints and ideas in contemporary negotiation scenarios demands an exhaustive assessment of the degree to which individual cultural expressions influence outcomes.
Benetti, S., Ogliastri, E., & Caputo, A. (2021). Distributive/integrative negotiation strategies in cross-cultural contexts: A comparative study of the USA and Italy. Journal of Management & Organization, 27, 786–808.
Caputo, A., Ayoko, O. B., Amoo, N., & Menke, C. (2019). The relationship between cultural values, cultural intelligence, and negotiation styles. Journal of Business Research, 99, 23–36.
Carolina, T. (2019). Dimensions of national culture-cross-cultural theories. Studies in Business and Economics, 14(3), 220–230.
Shan, W., Keller, J., & Joseph, D. (2019). Are men better negotiators everywhere? A meta-analysis of how gender differences in negotiation performance vary across cultures. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(6), 651–675.
Yi, Y., & Chen, X. (2021). Comparison of the formality of business negotiations in the United States and Japan. Proceedings of the 2021 International Conference on Public Relations and Social Sciences (ICPRSS 2021), 586, 1073–1077.