Intercultural perspective on negotiations: Russian negotiators American and Spanish counterparts

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

FEDERAL STATE AUTONOMOUS EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION

FOR HIGHER PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION

NATIONAL RESEARCH UNIVERSITY

HIGHER SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS

School of Foreign Languages

Bachelor's degree thesis

Russian negotiators vis-а-vis American and Spanish counterparts

Degree programme: Foreign Languages and Intercultural Communication

Sofia Derkach

Moscow, 2020



Table of contents

Introduction

1. Key notions of intercultural business communication

1.1 Business communication

1.2 Intercultural business communication

1.3 Intercultural perspective on business negotiations

2. Differences between American and Spanish cultures

2.1 6 Hofstede's dimensions

2.2 Concept of time

2.3 Research methods

2.4 Materials

2.5 Results

2.6 Speaking and listening

2.7 Short-term orientation vs. long-term orientation

2.8 Intergroup communication

Conclusion

References

Appendix



Introduction

It is a commonly known fact that communication is the process which accompanies people constantly throughout their lives. This process can be defined as the exchange of the information. If we want to define cross-cultural communication, we should add to the definition of communication the fact that it involves intercultural aspect. Culture plays a significant role in the process of communication and shapes it. According to E.T. Hall (1976), communication is culture and culture is communication.

Nowadays cross-cultural communication occurs increasingly often in various important spheres of life. One such sphere is the realm of business. The need of entering into business relations with counterparts from different cultures has been growing. Consequently, in such a situation business communication (which is the communication which occurs within or outside the company) becomes cross-cultural business communication acquiring intercultural component.

The focus of this work is one of the forms of business communication, namely negotiation process. Negotiation is “the process by which at least two parties try to reach an agreement on matters of mutual interest” (Herbig & Gulbro, 1997). Negotiations play a crucial role in the maintenance of cross-cultural business communication. The topic of cross-cultural negotiations remains on research agenda of the modern world due to the globalization process and, consequently, increased interdependence between cultures. As for the difference between the concepts of negotiations between representatives of one culture and different cultures, I can emphasize that the second concept is tied up at the international level with all the peculiarities of intercultural communication. In particular, those peculiarities are the corporate culture, general business culture, and national culture.

Despite the fact that the first survey of cross-cultural communication was conducted in the middle of the 20th century, the topic of cross-cultural negotiations started becoming central to some studies only during the last two decades of the 20th century. Since then, many researchers have studied and described not only the theoretical framework of the topic but also behavioral patterns of different cultures during negotiations (Bazerman et al., 2000; Huang, 2010; Adler & Aycan, 2018; etc.). So far, however, there has been little discussion about the comparison of the cultures representatives' behavior in negotiations. For instance, little attention has been paid to the analysis of representatives of Spanish and American cultures in comparison with each other. The understanding of Spanish and American negotiators' behavioral patterns during the negotiation is important because Spain and the USA are two of the key players at the world stage. The cases of their collaboration in business sphere become more frequent today. More than that, the partnerships with the companies from these countries are beneficial for Russia. Consequently, the research dedicated to the behavioral features of Spanish and American counterparts during intercultural negotiations should be conducted in order to obtain the better effectiveness of the process of negotiations between Russia and these cultures.

This study aims to contribute to cross-cultural negotiation studies developing a questionnaire which can be used during analyses of the behavioral patterns of different cultures during intercultural negotiations. Moreover, the study explores and formulates behavioral patterns of Spanish and American cultures' representatives during intercultural business negotiations and compares them. In particular, the research explores the behavioral patterns of the representatives of the mentioned cultures with the help of interviews with three Russian companies which agreed to answer questions about negotiations with two American companies and two Spanish ones.

This paper examines three main research questions:

- What are the theoretical aspects which can be used while examining and comparing behavioural features of Spanish and American negotiators in real-life negotiations?

- Which behavioural features of representatives of the mentioned cultures during negotiations have been discovered and described by scholars?

- What are the behavioral patterns and features of these cultures which can be observed in real-life negotiations?

The analysis of existing theory and case studies provided the analytical concepts constituting the main theoretical premises of my work. The comparative analysis of both academic and practical studies is used to identify indicators for comparing the behavioural patterns of different cultures. Further, based on these indicators I created a questionnaire which can be used in the analysis of the cultures representatives' behaviours during negotiations.

It is worth mentioning that the study focuses on non-linguistic aspects and it can be stated that language barrier did not interfere the negotiation process.

However, the study has some limitations. For instance, the developed questionnaire was applied only to the analysis of the representatives of the two cultures. Consequently, it may become necessary to change some questions in it if it is applied to the analysis of the representatives of other cultures.

Moreover, there are only four cases of negotiations with American and Spanish cultures which were analysed. This fact may thus make the derived behavioral patterns in some aspects inaccurate or unrepresentative due to individual differences and situational peculiarities.

This study shed a light on the Spanish and American cultures representatives' behaviours during intercultural negotiations. It strived to contain both the theoretical basis and confirmation, or refutation of the indicators found in theory. Consequently, specialists in cross-cultural communications will be able to apply it while preparing to the negotiations with the representatives of these cultures.

The overall structure of the study takes the form of six chapters including the introduction chapter. It proceeds as follows: the key notions of intercultural business communication, research methods, results, discussion, and conclusion. The references and appendices may be found at the end of the paper.



1. Key notions of intercultural business communication

1.1 Business communication

One of the earliest works devoted to the topic of business communication is the work of O.W. Phelps (1942). It is called “A Theory of Business Communication”. The aut hor defines business communication stating that it includes three main categories. The first one refers to all the messages transmitted within economic organizations. The second one is the messages which are transmitted within other types of organizations (e.g. military, religious, political, etc.) if those messages are of an economic character. Finally, the third category relates to the messages of an economic character of private individuals. Further, the author distinguishes external and internal business communication.

According to the work, the forms of internal business communication are reports, orders, administrative memorandums, manuals, etc. The forms of external business communication are letters, published advertisements, radio broadcasts, articles, folders, etc.

However, many researches have been conducted on the topic since 1942 and the point of view on the topic has changed. Waldeck et al. studied business communication from the modern point of view. They listed the six communication competencies which they consider to be crucial in the realm of modern business communication.

The authors stress that these competencies create the contemporary workplace. The first competence is “relationship and interpersonal communication”. It refers to the communicative skills which include the ability to resolve conflicts and establish interorganizational relationships. The second competence is “mediated communication”. It is dedicated to the use of technologies during the process of communications and to the willingness of employees to increase their skills in online interaction etiquette. The next competence is “intergroup communication”. It refers to the influence of intergroup communication on the relationships within a group. Further, the competence of “the ability to communicate enthusiasm, creativity, and an entrepreneurial spirit” reflects the ability to generate new ideas, to motivate people and to have positive attitude towards innovations. The next competence is called “nonverbal communication”. It consists of the attitude towards time, the workplace, the attitude towards dress code, the use of gestures during the process of communication, the usage of humor and so on. Finally, the last competence is “speaking and listening”. It reflects the ability to give public speeches, active listening and making one's ideas heard.

This work is of an utmost importance for the current study because I use the listed competencies in the comparative analysis of the two chosen cultures, namely American and Spanish cultures. Moreover, all the listed competencies can be observed in the behavior of the participants of negotiations. These competencies create the modern workplace, as it was stated by the authors. However, the understanding of these competencies and the way they are realized by the representatives of cultures may differ significantly. As a consequence, I was able to see the differences in the understanding of business communication, workplace, and negotiation process through the differences observed in the realization of these competencies.

Further, moving to the Russian authors who covered the topic of business communication in their works, I would like to mention the works of E. F. Roslyakova (2013) and N. F. Azimova (2018). Both authors proposed different categories from those distinguished by Phelps. In particular, the categories they proposed are written communication, oral communication, and nonverbal communication focusing on the way the messages are transmitted during negotiations while Phelps in his division focused on those who transmit the messages and the places where the messages are transmitted.

According to Roslyakova, the main components of the communication process are “context” (it may be physical, social, chronological, cultural, etc.), “sender” (the individual or a group of individuals which sends a message); “message” (the key idea which is transmitted); “medium” (there exist a written medium and an oral medium); recipient (meaning the individual or a group of individuals for which the message is sent); “ feedback” (meaning the reaction of a receiver, it may be verbal or nonverbal).

Furthermore, Roslyakova lists the barriers which may interfere with the process of communication. These barriers are perceptual and language differences, information overload, inattention, time pressures, distraction or noise, emotions involved, inappropriate medium, complexity in organizational structure, and poor retention.

However, the study lacks possible solutions and strategies which may be used to mitigate the impact of these barriers. At the same time, Azimova included the rules which should be followed during business communication. The compliance with the listed rules does not let the barriers lead to misunderstandings. These rules are the necessity of being in contact with all the participants of the communication regardless of their sympathies and antipathies; the communication should be substantive; the compliance of formal role-based principles of interaction; the interdependence of all participants in achieving the final result; communicative control of the participants' interaction; the compliance of business etiquette.

1.2 Intercultural business communication

The concept of intercultural business communication is described in the paper written by I. L. Varner (2000). The author focuses on the fact that all the researchers in the realm of intercultural issues can be divided into two groups: those who focus on intercultural communication (missing the issues of business context) and those who focus on international business (missing the process of everyday communication).

On the contrary, Varner manages to define intercultural business communication without missing important parts.

In particular, Varner indicates that it is not only the sum of its components (namely, culture, communication, and business), but it is also the formation of a new construct which is called “transactional culture”. Varner uses the concept of transactional culture to explain the distinctive feature of cross-cultural communication. Transactional culture may be defined as the context which occurs during intercultural business communication because the participants not only bring their cultural background to the communication but also step outside their cultures. Varner connects this concept with the approach which should be used while examining cross-cultural communication. In particular, special attention should be paid to the examination of a new construct which is created during intercultural business communication without focusing on business or cultural peculiarities separately.

This concept is important for my work because the examination of intercultural business negotiations requires the examination of a construct which is formed by business, culture, communication, and negotiations.

Then, the author lists the findings in the sphere of intercultural communication which can be useful during the process of intercultural business interaction. In particular, such findings are social behavior, attitudes towards morality, self-perception, and the role of hierarchy.

Furthermore, the author demonstrates the differences between intercultural communication and intercultural business communication. These differences are the context of business and the fact that the business strategies and objectives are a part of the communication process in the case of intercultural business communication. Finally, the author enumerates the factors which should be known by the participants of intercultural business communication about the other party. These factors are national culture, general business culture, the specific corporate culture, and individual communication styles.

However, the author does not list the problems which may occur during the process of intercultural business communication if any of the factors varies significantly from culture to culture and participants are not aware of the differences.

However, the example of the description of the issue of the problems which intercultural business communication may face may be found in the work of Waner, Karen K., Winter & Janet K (1992). Primarily, the need of the understanding of a business counterpart's background is complicated in the process of intercultural business communication due to the fact that the process of understanding of another culture's background may take weeks or even months. Moreover, the authors consider logic and rationality to be the two basic components of each successful communication. However, the authors admit that the understanding of logic and rationality may differ and complicate the process of communication.

Moreover, the authors list the principles of intercultural business communication which, according to this work, will make it more effective. Firstly, they recommend considering the context of communication and transmitting the message using respect for the culture and beliefs of counterparts. Next, you should make the message precise and stick to the topic but it is important to be able to give the explanations if they are needed. More than that, as for the clarifications, you should be patient and be ready to repeat the message or to explain it another way. It is preferable to use simple sentences, active voice, simple language, and logical emphasis techniques while transmitting message. Further, the authors recommend using graphical aids to strengthen and to clarify the verbal message. Moreover, showing respect is important, consequently, you should use positive wording and avoid wording which may seem stereotyping. Finally, it is recommendable to engage the receivers of the message and to provoke their interaction with the use of questions and invitations to respond.

The possible problems which may arise during intercultural business communication and the most effective solutions are also covered in the work of dr. Pranee Chitakornkijsil (2010) which is dedicated to the concepts of cross-cultural and intercultural communication and their influence on the work in organizations. The problems are speaking different languages, incorrect perception of non-verbal behavior, inappropriate use of communication channels while transmitting a message, and different attitude towards time. Further, the author mentions trust and openness as the essential factors of an effective work in organizations. The author states that the consensus may be achieved only in the case of distributing responsibilities between workers in advance, having no problems in asking for help and willingness to understand and meet other people's needs.

Apart from that, the author outlines difference between cross-cultural and intercultural communication. As for cross-cultural communication, it may be observed during the interaction between people from different cultures and it implies comparing two cultural groups. As for intercultural communication, it implies interaction with people of another cultural background whose aim is communication. The author mentions the importance of understanding cultural differences and acknowledging them for modern employees. The reason is the fact that all countries are bound to each other and it is impossible to work separately in the modern world. The complication is that management is perceived differently in various cultures and it possesses different characteristics.

It may be concluded that the examination of intercultural business communication should imply the examination of cultural peculiarities, business peculiarities, and individual differences jointly. Moreover, it should be understood that business communication may face misunderstandings which occur because of cultural or individual differences. However, there are rules and patterns of behavior which should be used to avoid the occurrence of misunderstandings.

Concept of negotiations

The history of the studies and main discoveries in the field of negotiation is covered by the authors of the article “Negotiation”. The authors begin with the period of 1960s and 1970s. The main feature of the works on this topic of the mentioned period was the focus on individual differences of negotiations and situational characteristics. As for the individual differences of negotiator, the authors point out that the scientists are divided into two camps. The first camp consists of those who consider that individual differences have crucial limitations in predicting the outcomes of negotiations because they do not explain much variance in negotiator behavior (Ross & Nisbett 1991) and because the changes in situational features have a more influencing impact which outweighs the impact of individual differences. (Ross & Nisbett 1991, Thompson 1998). The second camp consists of those who can be considered to be “true believers” in individual differences. For instance, such believers are Bruce Barry and Randy L. Friedman. Next, the authors emphasize situational or structural variables. For instance, those are parties' incentives and payoffs (Axelrod & May 1968), power (Marwell et al 1969), deadlines (Pruitt & Drews 1969), the number of people on each side (Marwell & Schmitt 1972), and the presence of third parties (Pruitt & Johnson 1972).

Further, the authors move to the period of 1980s and 1990s. They state that the researches of that period were predominately focused on the behavioral decision perspective on negotiation (BDR). One of the most crucial points in negotiation research was the work of Howard Raiffa in 1982. In his paper, “the art and science of negotiation”, he covered such main points as the importance of the elaboration of precise descriptions of the opponents and the need to descriptively understand how negotiations make decisions.

Moving to the 1990s the authors paid attention to the importance of relationships in negotiation. Moreover, they described researches focused on the influence of egocentrism, motivated illusions, and emotions on negotiation.

Next, the authors inform readers about some important research areas, namely mental models in negotiation; the impact of ethics, fairness, and values on negotiation; the impact of the communication medium on negotiation; the peculiarities of cross-cultural negotiation.

I would like to describe in more detail the realm which focuses on the findings which concern the field of my research. In particular, I would like to focus on the cross-cultural issues of negotiation. The authors enumerate the most important researchers who studied how the process of negotiation differs from culture to culture. For instance, those researchers are Raymond Cohen, Kwok Leung, Edward T. Hall, etc. The authors point out such important factors as communication context and the concept of time. As for the communication context, according to E. Hall, there are high-context cultures (those who use implicit and indirect language) and low-context cultures (those who use explicit and direct language). As for the concept of time, there are cultures with polychronic concept of time (those who consider time to be plentiful and who prefer doing performing several tasks simultaneously) and cultures with monochronic concept of time (those who, vice versa, consider time to be scarce and who tend to perform only one task at a time).

And finally, the authors describe how to deal with the changes which can be observed in the process of negotiation across cultures. Many scholars recommend (e.g. Corne 1992, Morrison et al 1994, etc.) that the parties agree on a cultural norm which is understandable and close to both of them and to conduct their business by it. However, it is emphasized that this advice is limited by the fact that it is difficult for a representative of any culture to transcend their cultural background.

To sum it up, it can be stated that the outcome of negotiations can be influenced by many factors. The most important and decisive factors are individual differences, situational features, ethics, fairness, values, communication medium, and cultural differences.

1.3 Intercultural perspective on business negotiations

Everyone acknowledges the importance of the knowledge in the sphere of cross-cultural communication while conducting business negotiations with the participants with different cultural background. I would like to provide an example of the work which examines different cultural variables. In particular, the work of Liangguang Huang (2010) outlines that cultural variables have a crucial impact on the outcome of cross-cultural communications.

Firstly, Huang introduces the term “cultural universals”. According to Huang, cultural universals are general features which are equal in all cultures. For example, cultural universals help representatives of different cultures find more or less equivalent expressions for greetings. Despite this fact obstacles still may arise because of the fact that there are differences in the ways people from different countries greet each other.

Other cultural variables examined by the author are negotiation styles, attitudes towards time, meaning of numbers, and gift-giving customs. Finally, the significance of gestures should be mentioned. Huang pays attention to the fact that one of the most important points here are the gestures which are similar in the majority of cultures. Despite the similarities in many gestures, their significance varies significantly from culture to culture.

In conclusion, the author stresses that knowledge is the key to the successful outcomes of cross-cultural negotiations. He gives advice to the specialists who are going to conduct cross-cultural negotiation. For instance, one should always remember about respect for the other party and for their cultural background. More than that, there is always a chance of misunderstandings which may arise because of cultural differences. Negotiators should know how to behave in such cases. In particular, the recommendation for heated conflicts is to listen, not to jump into the conclusions, to be patient and attentive to the words of the opponent, think every word through, and “go to the balcony” if the situation continues getting tense. According to the author, it is necessary to ask yourself whether you could have been misinterpreted or whether you could have misinterpreted the words or actions of the other party. Huang states that the presence of intermediates who are familiar with both cultures may be beneficial. The role of intermediates is in making strong or even aggressive statements sound more appropriate and non-aggressive, in adjusting the timing of what is said and done, and in translating both the substance and the matter of that has been said.

Next, both the works of Paul Herbig and Robert Gulbro (1997) who dedicated many of their works to the topic of cross-cultural business negotiations and Adler N.J. & Aycan Z. (2018) are worth mentioning because they are dedicated to the external influences in the cross-cultural negotiations.

Adler & Aycan put an emphasis on factors which interfere cross-cultural communication. As for psychological factors, these are experiencing more negative moods than during culturally homogeneous negotiations (e.g. anxiety, tension), and exercising less cognitive flexibility. Moreover, there are such factors as language and communication style differences, prejudiced attitudes to other cultures connected with, for example, historically hostile relationships between cultures.

It is stated by the authors that the majority of researchers tend to consider that cross-cultural negotiators have two options: to impose one's own approach or to adjust to the counterpart's approach. The authors consider that such a point of view is narrow, and it should be expanded. They propose an approach which implies the combination of the use of normative features of the one's own culture and the use of normative features of the other party's culture. According to their opinion, this approach is beneficial for the outcome of negotiations because attraction between parties and willingness to cooperate stem from the similarities between the values and attitudes of cultures. Negotiators should focus on normative features of both cultures because it is probably to find similarities between them.

Herbig & Gulbro focus on the differences in the understanding of the image of ideal negotiator. The authors point out that the negotiation process consists of two dimensions: a matter of substance and the process. The last point has a significant impact in the cases of negotiations in which parties possess different cultural background. One of the main reasons of the failure of cross-cultural negotiations, according to the article, is the misunderstandings of a cultural nature. The example of the image of the US negotiators is provided. In particular, they may seem to be aggressive and rude to representatives of other culture. This fact stems from the ideal image of a negotiator (from representatives of the USA culture's point of view). An ideal negotiator is an energetic extrovert who is able to dismiss all the objections and to convince other people. Such a person is sometimes perceived by representatives of other cultures as an aggressive, non-listening, and disrespectful.

As for the Russian scientists who dedicated their works to the topic of intercultural communication, I would like to mention the work of N. P. Gromova et al (2013). The authors describe the differences which should be taken into account by the participants of cross-cultural communication. The first difference is the use of the third party which can be mediator, arbitrator, conciliator, or a consultant. Representatives of some cultures (for example, Japanese culture) are not prone to showing their disagreement openly. They tend to use the third party in order to resolve conflict situations efficiently. Next, the confidence in the interlocutors should also be considered. Some cultures tend to trust the other party if the insincerity is not proven (e.g. the USA) while other cultures do not trust the other party until good will is proven. Thirdly, the authors mention the choice of negotiators. The difference in this point refers to the criteria on which representatives of different cultures rely while choosing negotiators. For instance, in the USA negotiators are chosen based mostly on the criterion of their technical competence. However, the main criterion for this choice in some cultures is the degree of authority of the negotiators.

Finally, the authors provide readers with a list of competences which are necessary for the participants of cross-cultural negotiators. The first important competence is an insight into the behavior and attitudes of the other party. This understanding may be achieved through the knowledge in the realm of cross-cultural communication. The next competence is the ability to prove the advantage of a proposal and to persuade interlocutors to accept the proposal you made. Moreover, the ability to manage stress and to maintain balance in ambiguous and unexpected situations is a crucial competence too. The final competence is the ability to demonstrate respect of another culture and to accept the differences from one's own cultural background. In conclusion, the authors describe the best way, from their point of view, teaching the skill of conducting cross-cultural negotiations implies the following:

Teaching to develop negotiation scenarios in which a trainee can imagine a number of strategic plans and various approaches;

Coaching negotiators in the analysis of obstacles and in the use of appropriate ways to overcome them (e.g. gestures, special behavior, etc.);

Practicing voice training, selection of appropriate terms, listening, the ability to deal with emotional reactions, dealing with stress, and the ability to come to an agreement.

The above studies on the topic of intercultural business negotiations can contribute to the understanding of the essence of this process. More than that, this literature may help to understand the difficulties they may face and the aspects in which they may face these differences while negotiating with the representatives of other cultures. However, the studies lack a description of the behavioral patterns of particular cultures during negotiations. Consequently, negotiators may understand which aspects may differ among different cultures based on the theory. However, the theory does not contain the description of the features of different cultures' behavior which should be considered while negotiating with the representatives of particular cultures. The absence of such a description aggravates the process of preparation to intercultural negotiations and makes it time-consuming and inconvenient. The reason is that specialists in intercultural communication have to look for the information in different sources. Moreover, some information is not proved by the cases of real-life negotiations.

My research aims to create such a list of the significant features of the behavior during negotiations of Spanish and American cultures. Thus, this study contributes to the field of cross-cultural business negotiations helping specialists to understand and get ready for business negotiations with American and Spanish cultures.



2. Differences between American and Spanish cultures

2.1 6 Hofstede's dimensions

Geert Hofstede et al. (2010) developed a framework for cross-cultural communication called “Hofstede's cultural dimensions theory”. The theory implies the existence of six dimensions which differ among cultures: power distance, individualism vs. collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity vs. femininity, long- term orientation vs. short- term orientation, and indulgence vs. restraint.

The first one is power distance (PD). It expresses the attitude of representatives of a culture towards inequalities in the society.

Further, according to Hofstede, societies can be individualistic or collectivistic. This dimension demonstrates the degree to which representatives of the society are integrated into groups (the emphasis on “we”), or, vice versa, isolated (the emphasis on “I”).

The next dimension, namely masculinity vs. femininity, indicates the drivers of the society. So, if the index is high (consequently, the society is masculine), the society is driven by success, achievements, competitions, and the division “winner-looser”. If the index is low (feminine society), it means that the society is driven by a preference for cooperation, modesty, caring for the weak and quality of life.

The fourth dimension is uncertainty avoidance which refers to the degree to which representatives of a culture feel threatened by unclear, uncertain, and dubious situations.

The next dimension is long-term orientation vs. short-term orientation. This dimension refers to the connection of the past with the present or future actions. Finally, indulgence vs. restraint dimension demonstrates the degree of freedom which the social and moral norms leave to representatives of the culture.

The differences in cultural values of representatives of different cultures can be analyzed based on these six dimensions.

As for Spanish and American cultures, the analysis posted at Hofstede's website is presented in the diagram below:

Power distance

According to the Hofstede's theory Spain scores 57 in the first dimension. A relatively high index shows that Spanish people are prone to living in a hierarchical society, in which people accept that each person has their place in the structure. The United States score 40 in this dimension. This score reminds us of an American pillar “liberty and justice for all”. American people tend to fight for the equal rights for all people paying less attention to the status and position than Spanish people. Despite the fact that in the USA hierarchy exists in the organizations (subordinates, managers, etc.), the communication between the subordinates and managers is more of an informal character. The evidence of the fact that the “barriers” between the people who possess power and those who do not are more transparent in the USA than in Spain is the existence of the pronouns which people use to address someone respectfully in Spanish (“usted, ustedes”-respectfully instead of “tъ” which equals to “you” in English) and the absence of such pronouns in English (“you” always).

Individualism vs. collectivism

The indexes in the next dimension differ significantly. As for Americans, they score 91 in this dimension. Such a high number indicates the fact that the United States is a highly- individualistic country, the self-image of this culture's representatives is defined in terms of “I”, consequently their society can be defined as a loosely- knit society. As for Spaniards, they got 51 in this dimension occupying the position in the middle between the collectivistic and individualistic society. That means that their society is more collectivistic in comparison with the society of the United States, their feeling of the belongingness to the community is stronger. However, their society is more individualistic than, for instance, Chinese society which scores only 20 in this dimension.

Masculinity vs. femininity

In this dimension the United States scores more than Spain. This fact means that Americans tend to stick to the moto “the winner takes it all” to the more extent than Spaniards.

Uncertainty avoidance

As for this dimension, the index of Spain is twice as high as the index of the United States. Representatives of an American culture, who got 46 in this dimension, tend to accept innovations, changing or ambiguous situations and try new things more than to be skeptical and threatened by them as representatives of the Spanish culture who got the score of 86.

Long -term orientation vs. short-term orientation

Both cultures got the scores below the average in the fifth dimension. However, considering that Spain got 48 while the USA got 26, it can be stated that, according to Hofstede, Spain can be considered to be a less pragmatic culture than the USA. The USA is orientated to fast results and to rapid changes. However, both cultures respect traditions.

Indulgence vs. restraint

The indexes of the cultures differ in the final dimension. In particular, Spain got 44 and the USA got 68. These scores refer to the fact that Spanish society is a restraint one in comparison with American society which is considered to be prone to giving freedom to their desires and impulses.

Despite the fact that Hofstede did not relate the dimensions to the negotiation process, I believe they can be utilized in the current research as one of the aspects of comparison because cultural differences lead to the differences in the behavioral patterns during intercultural negotiations. Consequently, the understanding of the cultural differences expressed in terms of the differences in Hofstede's dimensions contribute to a significant reduction of the chance of a conflict occurrence during negotiations.

2.2 Concept of time

The notion of the concept of time was introduced by E.T. Hall (1983) in his work “The Dance of Life: The Other Dimension of Time”.

The concept of time is different in Spain and the USA. According to Hall, this dimension indicates the attitudes of cultures towards time. In this dimension the cultures fall into the following groups: polychronic cultures and monochronic cultures. Spanish culture is considered to be a polychronic culture. Consequently, Spaniards tend to do several things at once, to be late and to change plans rapidly. The USA is a monochronic culture. Representatives of monochronic cultures are more organized, they do one thing at a time, they are punctual, stick to plans, facts and commitments. More than that, the representatives of monochronic cultures are more likely to write memoranda and to stick to the topic during communication than polychronic cultures. I included this concept into the aspects which I used in the comparison of cultures in the current research due to the importance of the attitude towards time as one of the parameters which differs significantly among cultures. Both the competencies introduced by Waldeck et al. and the six dimensions introduced by Hofstede et al. do not contain the aspect of time. However, attitude towards time is important during negotiations because of the fact that the differences in this attitude may lead to conflict situations or misunderstandings.



2.3 Research methods

The first theoretical method used in the current paper is theoretical analysis and it is used here as a technique of analyzing previous studies. This research method is used to identify the constituent elements of the key studies dedicated to cross-cultural communication and negotiations.

Some of the chosen works contribute to my research providing it with the necessary definitions. For instance, the works of Roslyakova, Azimova, and Phelps contain the explanation of the concept of business communication, while the works of Adler & Aycan, Herbig & Gulbro, and Huang describe the concept of cross-cultural negotiation.

Moreover, theoretical analysis allows the current study to find crucial aspects of comparison of the behavioral patterns of different cultures during negotiations in the works of Hall, Hofstede et al., and Waldeck et al. The identified aspects are the basis of the questionnaire which I conducted.

The second research method used in the study is the method of questionnaire.

The current research provides comparative analysis of the behavioral patterns of Spanish and American negotiators in cross-cultural negotiations. The conducted questionnaire is aimed at collecting the data for the survey. The questionnaire contains both closed questions and multiple-choice questions. I avoided questions with the ranking scale due to the possible ambiguity which may be faced by the respondents while answering questions. Moreover, open and closed questions make the respondents opt for a specific answer to each question and not for a vague one. However, I added an option “Another answer. Please, write it.” to all the multiple questions in case the respondents could not relate to any of the options and had a completely different point of view.

Participants

The questionnaire was given to the participants of intercultural negotiations from three companies. The first and the second companies negotiated with the representatives of Spanish culture. The company two and three had American counterparts and negotiated with them. The participants of the negotiations from these companies were asked to fill the questionnaire.

The activities of the chosen companies are dedicated to different realms. This fact contributes to versatility and credibility of the research. In particular, the first company is the typography, the second company is the law firm, and the third company is a high-tech manufacturing company.

Moreover, in order to exclude the fact that the pattern of communication can be more informal and friendly because business partnership has been lasting for a long time, the participants were asked to describe the first experience of negotiations with the counterparts. This approach is aimed at minimizing the influence of the history of the relationships between Russian companies and their foreign counterparts on the behavioral patterns they demonstrate during negotiations.

2.4 Materials

The analysis of the studies in the field of intercultural business communication and intercultural business negotiations let me create the list of the aspects which can be used to compare the behaviors of the parties during intercultural negotiations.

There are three aspects on which I focused while conducting my research.

The first aspect is dedicated to the communication competencies which were introduced by Waldeck et al. (2012). These competencies are:

relationship and interpersonal communication;

mediated communication;

intergroup communication;

ability to communicate enthusiasm, creativity, and entrepreneurial spirit;

nonverbal communication;

speaking and listening.

Secondly, I analyzed the six dimensions introduced by G. Hofstede et al. (2010). These dimensions are:

Power distance;

Individualism vs. collectivism;

Masculinity vs. femininity;

Uncertainty avoidance;

Short-term orientation vs. long-term orientation;

Indulgence vs. restraint.

Finally, I utilized the concept of time which was introduced by E.T. Hall (1983). This aspect complements the second aspect, namely, the six dimensions.

Procedure

The resulting questionnaire is based on the aspects of comparison derived from literature. The questions are divided into three sections (as there are three aspects). Each section has sub-sections (the number of sub-sections corresponds to the number of points in each aspect). This questionnaire is aimed to reveal the behavioral patterns of American and Spanish cultures during the negotiations with Russian partners.

The questionnaire is presented below:

Section 1

Communication competencies

Relationship and interpersonal communication

The questions in this sub-section are aimed to reveal the behavior of the participants of negotiation during conflicts and the way they establish interpersonal relationship. Questions number 1.1 and 1.2 concern the behavior during conflict situations, question number 1.3 is devoted to the pattern of communication which is demonstrated during negotiations.

Was there a conflict situation during the negotiation process?

Possible answers:

Yes;

No.

The other party's behavior during the conflict situation was:

Possible answers:

Aggressive: the other party tended to forget about the respect, started being rude, started raising the voice, started insisting on their point of view without listening to the arguments;

Neutral: the other party did not change their behavior and tone of their voice, they were behaving as if the conflict had not occurred, they continued negotiating calmly and rationally;

Strived for a resolution: the other party paid attention to the occurred conflict, explained their point of view, asked for the point of view of your party, provided arguments, outlined the outcomes of the conflict when it was resolved;

There were no conflict situations;

Another answer (please, write it).

How could you describe your relationships with the other party?

Possible answers:

Hostile;

Strictly formal and distant;

Neutral: formal but with the pattern of friendliness;

Friendly: informal and close;

Another answer (please, write it).

Mediated communication

The questions in this sub-section are aimed to reveal the attitude of the participants of negotiation towards the use of technologies during negotiation process. Question number 2.1 concerns the tendency to use technological devices. Question number 2.2 is an open question which asks to list the devices which were used if there were any.

Did the other party use technologies during the process of communication (e.g. laptops, tape recorders, alarm clocks, Skype, etc.)?

Possible answers:

Yes;

No.

Which technologies did they use and how?

Possible answers:

Please, write the answer;

They did not use technologies.

Intergroup communication

The questions in this sub-section are aimed to reveal the influence of intergroup communication on the relationships within a group. In particular, question number 3.1 is aimed to reveal if the representatives of a culture relate themselves to the company or whether they perceive themselves individually, while question number 3.2 focuses on whether they functioned as a team or as separate units during negotiations.

How did the other party refer to itself most frequently?

Possible answers:

I/my company: negotiators present interests using the pronouns “I”, “my”;

We/our company: negotiators present interests using the pronouns “We”, “our”;

Another answer (please, write it).

Could you call the other party “a team”? Were they united?

Possible answers:

Yes, I could. They were united;

No, I could not. They were not united;

Another answer (please, write it).

The ability to communicate enthusiasm, creativity, and entrepreneurial spirit

The questions in this sub-section are aimed to reveal the ability to generate new ideas, to motivate people and to have positive attitude towards innovations. Question number 4.1 concerns the attitude of the representatives of a culture towards innovations, question number 4.3 is devoted to whether they opted for familiar strategies and decisions or offered creative and innovative ones, and question number 4.2 concerns their engagement to the negotiation process.

Could you tell that the other party had positive attitude towards innovations?

Possible answers:

Yes, the other party had positive attitude towards innovations;

No, the other party did not have positive attitude towards innovations;

There were no situations where the attitude towards innovations could have been observed;

Another answer (please, write it).

The members of the other party during the negotiation process were:

Possible answers:

Passive and uninterested;

Enthusiastic;

Another answer (please, write it).

Did the other party propose any creative suggestions?

Possible answers:

Yes, they did. (Please, give a brief example);

No, they did not;

Another answer (please, write it).

Nonverbal communication

The questions in this sub-section are aimed to reveal the importance of the use of nonverbal communication during the negotiation process. The questions in this sub-section are devoted to different types of nonverbal communication. Question number 5.1 concerns facial expressions, question number 5.2 is about the use of gestures, question number 5.3 reveals whether they tended to transmit hidden messages to each other during negotiations (eye contact, gestures, touch), and question 5.4 concerns the use of space and distance.

Could you assume the thoughts and feelings of the members of the other party looking at their facial expressions (e.g. happiness, satisfaction, fear, anger, etc.)?

Possible answers:

Yes, facial expressions were clear;

No, their faces were neutral all the time;

Another answer (please, write it).

Did the members of the other party tend to use gestures?

Possible answers:

Yes, they tended to use a lot of gestures;

They used gestures sometimes;

No, they did not use gestures at all;

Were there situations when the members of the other party started giving signals to each other with the use of nonverbal communication (e.g. eye play, touches, gestures, postures) without explaining you their thoughts and purposes of the signals?