The Influence of Culture on Business
\nNegotiations between Danish and
\nJapanese Companies<\/p>\n
Abstract
\nMost of the export from European countries is sold to other European countries. By making trade
\nagreements the European Union works towards expanding the trade conducted with countries
\noutside of Europe. At the moment a free trade agreement between the European Union and Japan
\nis being finalized, meaning that Denmark, among other European countries, will likely see a major
\nincrease in trading with Japan in the years to come. One of the major aspects to determine the
\nsuccess of a company in the context of international business is their ability to negotiate profitable
\ndeals with potential, as well as, current partners. This portends a necessity for Danish companies
\nto research and understand how to negotiate across cultures when they are to initiate business
\nwith Japanese companies.
\nThe purpose of this thesis is to investigate the relation between culture and business negotiations
\nin order to understand how culture will influence negotiations in a business setting between the
\ncompanies of Danish and Japanese origin.
\nThe approach used to figure out how to research and answer the problem statement was first
\nestablished in the methodological framework. A single case research study was selected as the
\nqualitative research approach to collect the empirical data. The case study was conducted by
\ninterviewing an employee about his personal experience in negotiations with numerous of
\nJapanese businesspeople. The theoretical framework contains the theories and concepts used to
\nexecute the empirical research. Besides the theories used to evaluate the important concepts of
\nculture and business negotiation, the theoretical framework contains a review of the country
\nspecific style of negotiation, as well as, an analysis of the cultural differences between Denmark
\nand Japan.
\nThe empirical research found evidence for a significant influence of the cultural values in
\nnegotiations across the cultures of Denmark and Japan. Most noteworthy is the influence of the
\ndirect in contrast to indirect communication patterns, which was found to have an affect on the
\nexchange of information in addition to the techniques used to solve conflicts. The slow decision
\nmaking process in Japan was caused by the collectivistic nature of the society, along with the high
\nuncertainty avoidance. In Denmark the opposite was the case, with an individualistic society with
\nlow uncertainty avoidance, making the decision making instant. Certain theories placed Danish<\/p>\n
Page 2 of 50
\nnegotiators to be more likely to use a distributive strategy. However, the empirical results, along
\nwith other sources reviewed in the theoretical framework, confirmed the integrative strategy to
\nbe the most widely used in Denmark. The integrative strategy was also found to also be widely
\nused in Japan. The similar strategies used by Denmark and Japan especially work well when both
\nparties use the strategy.
\nThe implications of the empirical results serve to help Danish negotiators seeking to carry out
\nbusiness in Japan. While the main purpose of this thesis is to understand how the Japanese and
\nDanish cultures influence the Danish negotiators, it is important to look at the cultural influence
\nfrom both a Danish and Japanese perspective. Knowing how to deal with them may imply the
\ndifference between success and failure in doing business at all with Japanese companies. By
\ninvestigating both the Danish and Japanese experience of the negotiations with the opposing
\nparty, a Danish negotiator can prepare what to expect, as well as, how to avoid any possible pit
\nfalls as a cause of cultural misunderstandings.<\/p>\n
Page 3 of 50<\/p>\n
Table of Contents
\n1. INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………. 5
\n1.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT …………………………………………………………………………….. 6
\n1.2 STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT ……………………………………………………………………….. 6
\n1.3 DELIMITATION ……………………………………………………………………………………… 6
\n2. METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK ……………………………………… 7
\n2.1 RESEARCH DESIGN …………………………………………………………………………………. 7
\n2.2 RESEARCH APPROACH……………………………………………………………………………… 7
\n2.3 CASE STUDY RESEARCH ……………………………………………………………………………. 8
\n2.4 RESEARCH TOPIC …………………………………………………………………………………… 8
\n2.5 RESEARCH QUESTIONS …………………………………………………………………………….. 9
\n2.6 DATA COLLECTION …………………………………………………………………………………. 9
\n2.7 DATA ANALYSIS ………………………………………………………………………………….. 10
\n3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK………………………………………………. 11
\n3.1 CULTURE ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 11
\n3.1.1 Culture Defined……………………………………………………………………………………………11
\n3.1.2 Hofstede\u2019s Cultural Dimensions………………………………………………………………………14
\n3.1.3 Hall\u2019s Dimensions of culture …………………………………………………………………………..24
\n3.2 NEGOTIATION THEORY…………………………………………………………………………… 28
\n3.2.1 The Fundamentals of Negotiation …………………………………………………………………..29
\n3.2.2 Distributive vs. Integrative Strategies………………………………………………………………30
\n3.2.3 The influence of cultural values on negotiation………………………………………………….31
\n3.2.4 Negotiation Style …………………………………………………………………………………………32
\n4. COMPARISON OF DENMARK AND JAPAN…………………………. 37
\n4.1 CULTURAL VALUES ……………………………………………………………………………….. 38
\n4.2 NEGOTIATION STYLE……………………………………………………………………………… 39
\n5. EMPIRICAL RESULTS…………………………………………………………. 40
\n5.1 THE INTERVIEW…………………………………………………………………………………… 40
\n5.2 COMMUNICATION ……………………………………………………………………………….. 41
\n5.3 RELATIONSHIP ……………………………………………………………………………………. 42<\/p>\n
Page 4 of 50
\n5.4 MEETINGS ………………………………………………………………………………………… 42
\n5.5 DECISION MAKING ……………………………………………………………………………….. 43
\n5.6 INFORMATION SHARING…………………………………………………………………………. 43
\n6. CONCLUSION …………………………………………………………………… 44
\n6.1 LIMITATIONS ……………………………………………………………………………………… 46
\n6.2 REFLECTION ………………………………………………………………………………………. 47
\n6.3 IDEAS FOR FUTURE STUDY ……………………………………………………………………….. 47
\n7. REFERENCES………………………………………………………………48
\n8. APPENDIX …………………………………………………………………50<\/p>\n
Page 5 of 50<\/p>\n
1.Introduction
\nA key priority of Denmark, as a member of the European Union, is to open up for more business
\nopportunities outside Europe in the following years. Japan is, as the third largest economy and
\nEU\u2019s second largest trading partner, a very important market for Denmark and the rest of Europe
\n(European Commission, 2013). As one of a few European countries, Denmark has a significant
\ntrade surplus with Japan (https:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/statistikbanken.dk, 2016). While Japan is one of the largest
\neconomies, they are only the 9th largest export market for Denmark, accounting for 2.5% of the
\ntotal Danish export. Moreover there are less than 100 Danish companies established in Japan as of
\n2013 (https:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/japan.um.dk, 2016). Due to the financial crisis in 2008, both economies
\nexperienced several years with a low or even negative economical growth. The import and export
\nbetween the countries has in recent years begun to slowly increase again, after the dramatic
\ndecrease following the financial crisis in 2008. However, the trade between the nations may see a
\nsignificant increase, as the negotiations for a free trade agreement between EU and Japan opened
\nup in 2012, while officially starting in the spring of 2013 (https:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/um.dk, 2012). While no
\nagreement has yet been made, both sides agree on quickly finalizing the scopes of the free trade
\nagreement. According to the ministry of foreign affairs of Denmark (https:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/um.dk, 2012), the
\npotential free trade agreement may lead to an increase of up to 29 billion Euros in annual export
\nfrom Europe to Japan. With the possibility of a significant increase in business relations between
\nDanish and Japanese companies within the following years, followed by the upcoming free trade
\nagreement between EU and Japan, both countries will encounter difficulties when negotiating
\nwith one another.
\nAlthough the finalizing of a free trade agreement may cause a significant increase in business
\nrelations, culture still play a very critical role in the environmental context of international
\nnegotiation (Salacuse, 1988 in Lewicki et al., 2010, p. 445). It is very likely for companies to
\nencounter cultural differences when dealing with foreign cultures. Knowing how to deal with the
\ncultural differences will likely be essential in negotiations between companies of different culture.
\nKnowing how to deal with them may imply the difference between success and failure in doing
\nbusiness at all with foreign companies. This thesis aims to look into the cultural differences
\nbetween Denmark and Japan, in order to gain an insight and understanding of how it may
\ninfluence negotiations between the two nations.<\/p>\n
Page 6 of 50<\/p>\n
1.1 Problem Statement
\nThere are many factors to take into consideration in negotiations between companies of different
\nnationalities. Of the different environmental contextual factors in negotiations between Danish
\nand Japanese companies, culture appears to have the greatest influence (Lewicki et al., 2010).
\nCulture affects not only the communication and behavior of negotiators, but also the entire
\nprocess of the negotiation. This thesis offers an insight into this, with the purpose to answer the
\nfollowing question:
\nHow does culture affect business negotiations between Danish and Japanese companies?
\n1.2 Structure of the report
\nThe first section of the thesis consists of the methodological framework, including the design and
\napproach to the research. Moreover, the collection and techniques used to analyze is described in
\nthe methodological framework. In the second section of the thesis the theoretical framework is
\nestablished. It consists of the definitions of culture and negotiation. Following the definitions is the
\ntheories and concepts used to portray and analyze the country specific culture and negotiation
\nstyle. By using the methodological framework as guideline for the process of the empirical
\nresearch, along with the concepts constructed in the theoretical framework, an empirical study
\nwas conducted. The findings of the empirical research can be found in the third section of the
\nthesis, the empirical results. Lastly, the results will be presented and discussed.
\n1.3 Delimitation
\nAs previously stated, international negotiations are influenced by numerous environmental and
\nimmediate context factors. Of these, only the influence of the cultural factor is analyzed in this
\nthesis. While culture vary on a group or individual level, this thesis work with a simplified approach<\/p>\n
to culture, only looking at culture on a national scale, while disregarding any potential sub-
\ncultures.<\/p>\n
The process and strategies of a negotiation vary depending on the situation for the negotiation.
\nThis thesis will not look into the influence of culture in specific types of negotiation, such as
\nnegotiations within the company or in cases of merger & acquisitions. Instead negotiation theory
\nwill be simplified to the fundamental and general definitions of negotiation.<\/p>\n
Page 7 of 50
\nSince the empirical study consist of a single unique case on the personal experience of only a
\nsingle individual, the results is difficult to generalize to a broader perspective of cross-cultural
\nnegotiation. Rather than seeking to generalize, this thesis aim to provide a deeper understanding
\nof how the national culture of Denmark and Japan influence the interaction in a negotiation.<\/p>\n
2. Methodological Framework
\nPrior to looking into the theories and concepts of culture and negotiation, a methodological
\nframework needs to be established to define the approach to it. Eriksson & Kovalainen (2008)
\nname methodology as the philosophy of methods and describe it as how a given issue or problem
\ncan be studied. Methodology can be defined broadly as quantitative or qualitative methodologies
\n(Silverman, 2005 in Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2008).
\n2.1 Research Design
\nThe following paragraphs will present the research design of the study. It will describe the
\nresearch approach and methods chosen for execute the study before giving an insight into the
\nbroad perspective of the topic (sample nursing essay examples by the best nursing assignment writing service). To narrow the perspective down to a more precise guidance for
\nthe approach to solve the problem statement this thesis will answer; a few research questions
\nhave been created. The last paragraphs will outline the data collection, as well as, the techniques
\nused to analyze the data collected.
\n2.2 Research Approach
\nDepending on the research questions and the resources available, certain approaches can be used
\nto study cultural trends. Due to the very subjective nature of culture certain approaches to culture
\ncan be very resource heavy. Quantitative research approaches, such as those conducted by
\nHofstede (2010) to collect data to create the model for cultural dimensions, can require a lot of
\ndata collected from many different sources over time. According to Silverman (2001 in Eriksson &
\nKovalainen, 2008) quantitative research cannot deal with the social and cultural construction of its
\nown \u2018variables\u2019\u201d. Qualitative researches on the other hand approach to understand the reality of
\nsocial construction as produced and interpreted through cultural meanings (Eriksson &
\nKovalainen, 2008). Based on the exploratory problem statement, with the aim of understanding<\/p>\n
Page 8 of 50
\nthe influence of the socially contracted culture in a business setting, a qualitative research
\napproach has been chosen for this report, as it is found to be the most suitable to answer the
\nproblem statement. According to Tesch (1990 in Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2008) there are four
\ncategories of qualitative research: Those with interest in language, in discovery of regularities, in
\ndiscerning meaning and in reflection. As the thesis aim for a deeper understanding a case study
\nresearch, from Tesch\u2019s discerning meaning category, will be used.
\n2.3 Case Study Research
\nYin (2002 in Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2008) define case study research as:
\n\u201can empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context,
\nwhen boundaries between the phenomenon and the context are not clear evident and in which
\nmultiple sources of evidence are used\u201d.
\nThe approach of the case study research can vary depending on the purpose of the research. Most
\nresearchers distinguish case study research as either intensive in single-case studies, or extensive
\nin multiple-case studies. In an extensive case study research it is possible to test several cases and
\ntest them across each other. By replicating cases certain common patterns can be mapped to
\nconstruct generalizable empirical results. On the other hand an intensive case study is able to
\ncreate a deeper understanding of a single unique case (Yin, 2002 in Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2008).
\nDue to the limitations of the thesis, an intensive single-case study was prepared, rather than a
\nmultiple-case study. This allow me to create a more in-depth understanding of the influence of
\nculture.
\n2.4 Research Topic
\nIn the broad perspective the research topic (sample nursing essay examples by the best nursing assignment writing service) for the thesis is cross-cultural business negotiations.
\nCompanies based of the two countries, Denmark and Japan, have been chosen to make a
\nnarrower topic (sample nursing essay examples by the best nursing assignment writing service), thus making the research topic (sample nursing essay examples by the best nursing assignment writing service): cross-culture business negotiations between
\nDanish and Japanese companies. According to Eriksson & Kovalainen (2008) \u201cresearchability\u201d is
\none of the key principles when choosing a research topic (sample nursing essay examples by the best nursing assignment writing service). Even if not all research questions are
\nempirical by nature, it should be possible to make an empirical study based on the research topic (sample nursing essay examples by the best nursing assignment writing service).
\nEriksson & Kovalainen (2008) point out that one can look into the amount of secondary material to
\ndiscover if the research topic (sample nursing essay examples by the best nursing assignment writing service) is researchable or not.<\/p>\n
Page 9 of 50
\nThe first of the two topic (sample nursing essay examples by the best nursing assignment writing service)s, culture, is one of the most researched topic (sample nursing essay examples by the best nursing assignment writing service)s within social science.
\nHundreds of different definitions and models of culture have been created by various authors to
\nexplain the phenomenon (Nardon & Steers, 2009). Among the most famous researchers in the
\nfield of cultural studies are Hofstede (2010) and Hall (1990). The theories and models from Hall
\nand Hofstede are used to explore the Danish and Japanese culture in the theoretical section of the
\nthesis. The models created by these authors differentiate cultures in simplistic dimensions, and
\ncan be used as tools to compare national cultures with each other.<\/p>\n
The second topic (sample nursing essay examples by the best nursing assignment writing service), negotiation theory, is also a well explored topic (sample nursing essay examples by the best nursing assignment writing service), with a vast amount of pre-
\nexisting literature. For this research topic (sample nursing essay examples by the best nursing assignment writing service), the fundamental negotiation theories, based on the<\/p>\n
authors Lewicki et al. (2010) and Cohen (1980), have been used to establish the theoretical
\nframework. The country based negotiation style has been analyzed mainly using academic articles
\nfrom Graham et al. (2009) and Katz (2007), who have been studying international negotiation
\nstyles across more than 50 countries worldwide.
\n2.5 Research Questions
\nThe problem statement defines the broad perspective of what the thesis aim to give an answer to.
\nIn order to make a clearer and more precise direction of the research, two research questions
\nhave been defined:
\n\uf0b7 How does culture influence the negotiation style of Danish and Japanese companies?
\n\uf0b7 How do Danes and Japanese experience business negotiation with one another?
\nAlthough this thesis seeks to gain a better understanding for Danes doing business in Japan, it will
\ndo so by looking at the cultural influence of negotiations from both the Danish and Japanese
\nperspective.
\n2.6 Data Collection
\nThe data collection consists of both primary and secondary data. The primary data is based on a
\nsemi-structured interview with the current project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) manager at ECCO, Wesley Hind. The interview
\nwas conducted in English to avoid any misinterpretations is the translation of the interview. An
\ninterview is a great source to collect practical information on the personal experience from a
\nreliable source. An interview guide was used for the interview, which consisted of open-ended<\/p>\n
Page 10 of 50
\nquestions, mostly based on the personal experience of the interviewee. The informal approach to
\nthe interview, with casual conversation prior to and after the interview, was found effective in
\nmaking a more relaxed and open conversation about the personal experience and point of view of
\nthe interviewee.
\nThe secondary data was gathered from numerous sources. Academic articles and books was used
\nto collect the data needed to establish the theory and concepts used for the methodological and
\ntheoretical framework, while data from academic articles, online databases and websites was
\nused to collect data to analyze the Denmark and Japan.
\n2.7 Data Analysis
\nYin (2002 in Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2008) distinguishes between two main strategies to analyze a
\ncase study. The first strategy is based on pre-formulated theoretical propositions within the
\nresearch topic (sample nursing essay examples by the best nursing assignment writing service). The second strategy is based on the development of a case description, which then
\nform the basis for the research questions and framework used to conduct the study. The second
\nstrategy indicates a more inductive-orientated strategy of case material analysis, based on direct
\ninterpretation of the research material.
\nThe first strategy has been chosen, meaning that I will reply on theoretical positions to gather
\nliterature on the theoretical concepts for the research topic (sample nursing essay examples by the best nursing assignment writing service). These concepts will then be held up
\nagainst the empirical findings to find any relations or contrasts between them.
\nWhereas the strategy is the grand design of how to reach the long-term goal, specific tactics for
\nhow to execute the strategy needs to be established. There are many different techniques to
\nanalyze the data collection, of which some is specifically related to a case study research (Eriksson
\n& Kovalainen, 2008).
\nOf the five different analytic techniques used in case study research, four can be applied to a
\nsingle case study (Yin, 2002 in Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2008). The first technique, pattern<\/p>\n
matching, involves finding and comparing patterns between the empirical data and the pre-
\nexisting propositions. The second technique, explanation building, includes a iterative search<\/p>\n
process for casual links in the empirical data. The third option, time-series analysis, traces events
\nover time. The last model, logic models, focuses on the repeated cause-effect pattern in a complex<\/p>\n
Page 11 of 50
\nchain of events. Due to a limitation in time it was not possible to use the time-series analysis and
\nlogic model techniques.
\nOf the available techniques to analyze the case study research, a pattern matching analysis
\ntechnique was chosen. By using the pattern matching technique, patterns from the empirical data
\nwill be found and compared to the pre-developed propositions based on existing theory.<\/p>\n
3. Theoretical Framework<\/p>\n
3.1 Culture
\nIn order to understand how the national culture affects business negotiations between Danish and
\nJapanese firms, a theoretical framework has to be established. This is to first understand the
\nconcept of culture, in addition to the country specific culture of both Denmark and Japan.
\nUnderstanding the cultural aspects of both countries, a comparison between them will be
\nconstructed.
\n3.1.1 Culture Defined
\nBefore going further into the analysis of the national cultures, the concept of culture will be
\ndefined.
\nCulture is a very complex concept, and there is not any one certain definition of it. Based on
\ncritical reviewed concepts and definitions of culture American anthropologists, Kroeber and
\nKluckhohn (1952, in Spencer-Oatey & Franklin, 2009), compiled a list of more than 164 different
\ndefinitions of it in 1952. Based on the study of the various definitions they came up with a
\ncomprehensive definition of culture:
\n\u201cCulture consists of patterns, explicit and implicit, of and for behavior acquired and transmitted by
\nsymbols, constituting the distinctive achievements of human groups, including their embodiment in
\nartifacts; the essential core of culture consists of traditional (i.e. historically derived and selected)
\nideas and especially their attached values; culture system may, on the one hand, be considered as<\/p>\n
Page 12 of 50
\nproducts of actions, on the other, as conditioning elements of future action\u201d(Kroeber & Kluckhohn,
\n1952 in Spencer-Oatey & Franklin, 2009).
\nAmong some of the most noteworthy and recognized definitions of culture is Matsumoto (1996),
\nwho defined culture as \u201cthe set of attitudes, values, beliefs, and behaviors shared by a group of
\npeople, but different for each individual, communicated from one generation to the next\u201d
\n(Spencer-Oatey & Franklin, 2009). Culture is, according to Matsumoto\u2019s (1996, in Spencer-Oatey &
\nFranklin, 2009) definition, different on an individual basis, while shared between the members of a
\ngroup. For the purpose of this thesis, the two countries will each be defined as a single group, of
\nwhich the members share a common set of attributes, values and behavior. This is also
\nemphasized with Thomas\u2019 (1996, in Spencer-Oatey & Franklin, 2009) definition of culture as a
\nuniversal orientation system typical of a society. Moreover Thomas\u2019 (1996, in Spencer-Oatey &
\nFranklin, 2009, p.15) speaks of the influence culture has on the members of the society, which can
\nbe seen in the perception and acting of its members.
\nIn Hostede\u2019s (1997) book, the software of the mind, he states \u201cculture is the collective
\nprogramming of the mind which distinguishes the members of the group or category of people
\nfrom another\u201d, meaning that culture was learned and partly shared with individuals who live or
\nlived within the same social environment. This belief is shared with Hall (1959), who adds that
\nculture is not only learned, but also reflects the way people learn. Culture is \u201clearned and shared
\nbehavior\u201d (Hall, 1959).Hofstede (1997) argues that it is the universal human nature that is
\ninherited, while the individual personality is partially inherited and partially learned. Below is
\nHofstede\u2019s (1997) model of the three levels of uniqueness in human mental programming:<\/p>\n
Page 13 of 50
\nThe culture of two groups is not similar, and according to Hofstede (1997) the cultural differences
\nmanifest themselves in different levels of depth. The different levels of depth are illustrated in
\nHofstede\u2019s (1997) onion diagram below:<\/p>\n
Figure 1: Three levels of uniqueness in human mental programming<\/p>\n
Figure 2: Onion Diagram<\/p>\n
Page 14 of 50
\nIn the onion diagram, Hofstede (1997) distinguish between practices and values. At the surface of
\nthe culture are the practices, which are the manifestations visible to the outside. The practices
\nconsist of the three levels: symbols, heroes and rituals. At the first level, visible to the external
\nsurroundings, is the symbols special to the culture; the words, gestures or objects that carry a
\nparticular meaning for those who share the same culture. Heroes are the people who serve as
\nmodels of behavior, because of their possessed highly valued characteristics, while rituals are
\ncollective activities considered socially essential to the culture (Hofstede, 1997). At the core of
\nculture are values. They remain unconscious, as they are learned early in our lives, and cannot be
\nobserved from the outside (Hofstede, 1997). Since values cannot be observed, one needs to ask
\nquestions in order to gain a deeper insight into the values of a culture.
\nAccording to Nardon and Steers (2009) six models are utilized in organizational research. These
\nmodels can be used as a tool to highlight various aspects of societal beliefs, norms and values in
\nnational cultures. The six models Nardon and Steers (2009) are created and named after the
\nresearchers: Hofstede, Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck, Hall, Trompenaars, Schwartz and House.
\nIn order to understand the national culture of Denmark and Japan, I will use the models
\nmentioned by Nardon and Steers (2009), that is found the most relevant to highlight the elements
\nof the Danish and Japanese culture which are likely to have an influence in negotiations between
\nDenmark and Japan. For this purpose Hofstede\u2019s model will be used, as the six dimensions show
\nvarious aspects of cultural values that may affect negotiation. Most of Hall\u2019s cultural dimensions
\nmodel will also be used, as the model Help in highlighting differences in communication and the
\napproach to tasks. While Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck\u2019s (Nardon and Steers, 2009) model for cultural
\ndimensions could also have been used, most of the dimensions included in the model are found to
\nnot indicate cultural values that affect negotiations, while those who do is already well presented
\nby Hofstede\u2019s and Hall\u2019s models.
\n3.1.2 Hofstede\u2019s Cultural Dimensions
\nBased on a study conducted on employee value scores collected by IBM between 1967 and 1973
\nfrom more than 70 countries, Hofstede (2010) created a model on national culture dimensions.
\nThe original model contained only four dimensions: Power Distance, Individualism, Masculinity
\nand Uncertainty Avoidance. As the studies of the national continued over the years, an additional
\ntwo dimensions were added. The two dimensions added was Long Term Orientation and<\/p>\n
Page 15 of 50
\nIndulgence, which serve to explain the gap in national culture not explained by the original
\ndimensions in Hofstede\u2019s (2010) model for national culture.
\nThe study of how values in the workplace are influenced by culture, was one of the most
\ncomprehensive at the time, and has since then laid ground for subsequent studies in the field
\n(Hofstede, 2010).
\nThe model score the organizational culture of each country based on a scale from zero to hundred
\nin each of the six dimensions. Each dimension represents two contrasting ways of behavior in the
\nculture, and can be used as a tool to compare cultures, while being meaningless on its own. The
\nspecific score in any of the dimensions do not imply a certain type in behavior, but rather an
\nindication of where the country is places between the two contrasting extremes. Below is the
\nHofstede\u2019s model for national culture illustrated, containing a comparison of Denmark and Japan
\nin each of the six cultural dimensions. The scores are based on the results collected by Minkov and
\nHofstede (2010):<\/p>\n
Using the model of Denmark in comparison with Japan, each dimension will be described,
\nfollowing a country specific analysis and comparison the two.
\nFigure 3: Hofstede\u2019s Cultural Dimensions<\/p>\n
Page 16 of 50<\/p>\n
3.1.2.1 Power Distance (PDI)
\nThe power distance dimension expresses the attitude in the culture towards inequalities of
\nindividuals. It is defined as the extent to which the less powerful members of organizations within
\na country expect and accept an inequality in power distribution (Hofstede, 2010). In the power
\ndimension, a low score indicates an organizational culture in which people strive to equalize the
\ndistribution of power in the notion of a more flat organizational structure. A high score in PDI
\nindicates an organizational culture where a hierarchical order is accepted, with an uneven
\ndistribution of power across the hierarchy.
\nWith a score of 18, Denmark is considered to be at the low end of the spectrum, with the lowest
\nrecorded power dimensions score in Europe. \u201cDanes do not lead, they coach and employee
\nautonomy is required\u201d (Hofstede, 2010). With the highest employee autonomy in EU, Danish
\nemployees have the ability to control their work situation to a larger degree (Hofstede, 2010). The
\natmosphere at the workplace is very informal with a direct and involving communication style
\n(Katz, 2007).
\nJapan is known for their collective and slow decision-making process, along with their high social
\nhierarchy in most aspects of the society (Graham & Requejo, 2009). While Japan with a score of 46
\nhas a high power distance compared to most European countries, it scores below most other
\nAsian countries (Hofstede, 2010). The power distance seems great in Japan, with a high social
\nhierarchy. The reasoning for Japan not to score higher in the dimension is due to the distribution
\nof power; there is no one top manager making all the decisions. Instead a consensus agreement is
\nmade by incorporating all members of the team in the decision making (Hofstede, 2010).
\nWhile the difference in power dimension seems rather small in comparison to some of the other
\ndimensions, it is no less significant, as it may lead to certain problems in a negotiation between
\nDanish and Japanese negotiators. From a Danish perspective there is little to no hierarchy in the
\nworkplace, meaning that the negotiator is able make a decision on the spot, without the need to
\ngo through several hierarchical layers to approve it. Pushing for the Japanese to make a decision
\non the spot may make them feel rushed and uncomfortable, as they have to go through the
\nhierarchy before any decisions is made. Rushing the negotiation may offend the Japanese side,<\/p>\n
Page 17 of 50
\nweakening the relationship between the parties by ruining the harmony (Graham & Requejo,
\n2009).
\n3.1.2.2 Individualism vs. Collectivism (IDV)
\nCountries with a high score in the individualism dimension is considered a individualistic society,
\nand can be defined as a social framework in which individuals are expected to take care of only
\nthemselves and their family. In the opposite end of the spectrum is collectivism, which can be
\ndefined as a social framework in which individuals are expected to take care of their relatives and
\nmembers of the particular groups the person identifies him-\/herself with (Hofstede, 2010). The
\ndifferences between the two are whether individuals acts and behave on behalf of themselves or
\non the group they identify themselves to be included in.
\nWith a score of 74 Denmark is ranked as an individualist society. In this social framework
\nindividuals are expected to take care of themselves and their near family (Hofstede, 2010). Danes
\ndo not small talk a lot, but use a very direct form of communication, going straight to the point
\n(Katz, 2007). This style of communication means that you do not need to create a relationship with
\na Dane prior to doing business, but can do business right away by simply calling or arranging a
\nmeeting, making it relatively easy to conduct business with Danes (Katz, 2007). In Denmark there
\nis no significant loyalty towards the company, from the perspective of an employee, which means
\nthat employees switch more often between companies to forward their career, rather than
\nstaying in a company for a lifetime (https:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/jobindsats.dk, 2016). Furthermore, companies
\nprefer to hire employees with experience, rather than hiring an inexperienced person to train
\nthem internally.
\nIn the individualism dimension Japan is positioned as a collectivistic society, though it is close to
\nthe middle with a score of 46, indicating a society with characteristics of both an individualistic and
\ncollectivistic society. In Japan the harmony of the group is above the opinions and expressions of
\nthe individuals (Hostede, 2010). Japanese people avoid actions that may lead to one losing status
\nor respect of the groups they identify with, also known as the concept of losing face. While this is a
\nstrong indication of a collectivistic society, Japan is not nearly as collectivistic as their Asian
\nneighbors South Korea and China (Hofstede, 2010). Hofstede (2010) argues that Japan is less
\ncollectivistic due to the lack of extended family systems, which forms a base of collectivistic<\/p>\n
Page 18 of 50
\nsocieties. Another example of a more individualistic approach to a collectivistic society, is the
\nJapanese individuals own choice of an extreme loyalty towards the company they are employed
\nby. When they are a part of a group, they work together as a group, and are very loyal to it. It has
\nbeen common in the past decades for Japanese companies to hire almost entirely newly
\ngraduated college students in order to train them internally and employ them for lifetime
\n(Pudelko, 2009). The traditional Japanese-style management use a seniority based system, in
\nwhich employees raise in responsibility and wage in connection to their age and time spent within
\nthe company (Pudelko, 2009). This indicates companies to be managed in a very collectivistic
\nsense, as they invest in and protect the employees to a great extend, rather than lying off
\nemployees to save costs in bad times (Pudelko, 2009).
\nIn a negotiation with a Japanese company, one should be very careful to not make them lose face.
\nThe Japanese notion of losing face is similar to the Chinese, which can cause them to not make an
\nagreement and instead do business with the competitor (Graham & Requejo, 2009). For the Danes
\nto avoid making the Japanese party lose face may result in an agreement, rather than a sudden
\nwithdrawal from the Japanese side. In order to save the harmony of the relationship, the Japanese
\nparty will avoid making you lose face, and in doing so, rephrase or avoid saying anything that may
\ncause you to lose face. A Danish negotiator should be very cautious of this, as it may cause a
\nmisunderstanding of what the Japanese are able to complete, rather than what they say they can
\ndo to save face. Another important thing to take into consideration when dealing with Japanese is
\nto emphasize speaking towards the opposing party as a collective unit rather than to focus on an
\nindividual person in power.
\n3.1.2.3 Masculinity vs. Femininity (MAS)
\nHofstede\u2019s (2010) masculinity dimension expresses the characteristics of a masculine society and
\nthe contrasting feminine society. At the higher end of the spectrum is the masculine society,
\ncharacterized by a large degree of competition between both individuals, as well as between
\ngroups (Hofstede, 2010). In a masculine society, people often measure their success in material
\nvalues (Hofstede, 2010). In the feminine society quality of life is the key indicator for the success
\nachieved. People in a feminine society believe in cooperation, modesty and caring for the weak
\n(Hofstede, 2010).<\/p>\n
Page 19 of 50
\nWith a score of 16, Denmark rank as a feminine society. A manager in the Danish society strives to
\nmotivate the employees through a supportive management style, rather than pushing for
\ncompetition between them. Solidarity, equality and quality of the working life are valued over
\nbeing the best in the field. Compromises or trade-offs are often used to solve conflicts and
\nconsensus is reached by long discussions between the involved parties (Hofstede, 2010).
\nJapan ranks as one of the most masculine societies of all the countries studied, with a 95 score in
\nthe masculinity dimension. A masculine society indicates a highly competitive environment. While
\nthe Japanese society is incredibly competitive, it is not on an individual basis, as seen in most other
\nmasculine societies, but rather on a group basis (Hofstede, 2010). The Japanese concept ganbaru,
\nmeaning to do one\u2019s best or never give up, is an achievement orientation that can be seen almost
\neverywhere in Japan (Haghirian, 2010). \u201cIn Japanese society it is considered a weakness to give up
\na plan or look for an easier option\u201d (Haghirian, 2010). As described in the IDV dimension, Japan
\npossesses characteristics of both an individualistic and collectivistic society, with a strong group
\nassociation and a sense of losing face towards their associated groups. Employees fight to win,
\nnot for themselves, but for their team, company or any other group they identify themselves as a
\npart of. They have a strong drive for excellence and perfection in work, as well as in almost every
\nother aspect of their lives (Hofstede, 2010).
\nThere lies a major difference between Denmark and Japan in the MAS dimension, with each of
\nthem at the far end of the spectrum. On one hand, Denmark is a very feminine society with values
\nsuch as quality of life and equality, while Japan is the complete contrast as a masculine society,
\nwith a very strong competitive drive (Hofstede, 2010). As discussed later in the fundamentals of
\nnegotiation, it is important to know both what you want, and what the opponent want (Lewicki et
\nal., 2010). The drive to achieve success is different in Denmark than in Japan, and it is important to
\nlook into this, rather than expecting the other party to have the save goals and drive. This is
\nespecially important within a Danish company in Japan or the opposite, in which case the drive
\nand management style must be universal across all of the company. In negotiations between
\nDanish and Japanese representatives within the company, or between companies working
\ntogether, it is essential to agree and understand each other in order to come to an agreement for
\nthe management style and what the drive for the company is.<\/p>\n
Page 20 of 50<\/p>\n
3.1.2.4 Uncertainty avoidance (UAI)
\nThe dimension uncertainty avoidance is defined as the way a society deals with the uncertainty of
\nthe future. A high score in this dimension indicates a society that try to avoid any uncertainty by
\nattempting to control the future (Hofstede, 2010). Societies with a low score in uncertainty
\navoidance are less prone to desire control over the future, and do not feel threatened by unknown
\nsituations. Instead these societies are more flexible and adjust to changes, rather than attempting
\nto control it (Hofstede, 2010).
\nDenmark has a low score of 23 in uncertainty avoidance. The future is in the Danish society seen
\nas unknown, with little desire to control it. Plans change overnight, and Danes are expected to be
\nflexible and adjust to the changes that happens as time pass. Instead of attempting to predict the
\nfuture, a strong effort is made in the exploration and development of new ideas; it is encouraged
\nto be curious and work to change the future through innovation, rather than hoping for the
\nenvironment to stay the same (Hofstede, 2010). Danes are taught to expect the unexpected, and
\ntry to influence the future rather than trying to control it.
\nJapan scores 92 in uncertainty avoidance, ranking among the highest of the countries studied. Due
\nto the constant threat of natural disasters, such as earthquakes and tsunamis, Japan has always
\nhad necessitate to prepare for any uncertain situation they may face (Hofstede, 2010). A high
\npreparation for uncertain situation goes way beyond emergency plans and the construction of
\nbuildings into every other aspects of the Japanese society. There is a long history of traditions with
\nrituals and ceremonies, which all has a very detailed prescribed way of how people should behave,
\nwhat to wear, etc. At the organizational side of the society, a lot of time and effort is invested in
\nstudies of all risk factors to consider, which all must be taken into account before any agreement is
\nmade (Hofstede, 2010). Before meetings within a company, a manager or employee would often
\nhave meetings with individuals, to discuss and address any issue that may rise during the original
\nmeeting, to solve them prior to the meeting with the rest of the team. This is to avoid any
\nuncertainty doing the \u201creal\u201d meeting, and to avoid losing face. Moreover, it is considered too risky
\nto let one individual to make all the decisions, and the responsibility is instead shared for the
\nmembers of the group (Haghirian, 2010). The high uncertainty avoidance is also an essential factor
\nfor the slow decision making process, as any risk and uncertainty must be taken into consideration
\nand addressed before a decision can be processed.<\/p>\n
Page 21 of 50
\nDue to this significant difference in the uncertainty avoidance of the Danish and Japanese society,
\nsome issues may occur if not taking into careful consideration and preparation prior to the
\nnegotiation between the two parties. Where Danes are more flexible for any change and less
\nprone to control the future, Japanese has a high need to address any scenario that may cause
\nuncertain situations. One way for the Danes to address and solve this issue is to make a contingent
\ncontract in the negotiation between the two parties. In a contingent contract the terms are based
\non certain events or conditions. By making a contingent contract the two parties can address any
\nimportant uncertainty in the contract and reduce the risk for both parties through risk sharing. A
\ncontingent contract help to carry out the Japanese need for control, as the contract serve to
\nprotect against future change of plans.
\n3.1.2.5 Long-term vs. short-term orientation (LTO)
\nThe long-term orientation dimension expresses the timeframe of the outlook on work, life and
\nrelationship (Nardon & Steers, 2009). In long-term orientation societies people tend to be
\npersistent and plan far ahead with a sustained effort towards slow results. A very pragmatic
\napproach, with a strong emphasize on preparation for the future through education and a thrifty
\napproach towards consumption (Hofstede, 2010). It is a very family orientation society, with<\/p>\n
mothers taking time off to take care of their children, and a norm to live together with ones in-
\nlaws (Hofstede, 2010). In Short-term orientation societies traditions and social obligations is<\/p>\n
highly valued. Resources is spent in the present, rather than invested for the long-term. Countries
\nwith a short-term orientation often have a strong sense of nationalism and family pride (Hofstede,
\n2010).
\nAccording to Hofstede (2010), Denmark is a short-term orientated society with the low score of
\n35. The low score indicates a normative thinking with a belief of one right way to do things. The
\ntime orientation is on the present and near-future. The short-term orientation can also be seen in
\nthe time employees\u2019 work in any given company, with an increasing job turnover in Denmark. In
\n2014 the job turnover was almost 750 thousand (https:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/jobindsats.dk, 2016). As a rather
\nshort-term orientated society, the short-term growth is often more important than the long-term
\nsurvival. An example of this is stock listed companies in many fields of business that work towards
\nthe annual report, rather than investing heavily in R&D for the long term survival.<\/p>\n
Page 22 of 50
\nJapan is at the opposite end of the scale, ranking as the third most long-term orientated country of
\nthe countries studied, with a score of 88 (Hofstede, 2010). The financial and non-financial
\nobjectives for Japanese companies are to secure long-term survival, independence and growth
\n(Pudelko, 2009). Companies have long-term employment relations, with a large part of employees
\nworking within the same company from graduation and until retirement (Pudelko, 2009). Japanese
\ncompanies invest heavily in the future with one of the highest R&D intensity among major
\ncountries (SuZuki, 1997).
\nThe significant difference in time orientation between the two nations could cause certain issues
\nin a business negotiation. An issue it may cause is the Danes desire for heavy investment into
\nshort-term growth. It is that you have to spend money to earn money, and thus spending a lot of
\nmoney now to grow, which will benefit the company in the near-future. From a Japanese
\nperspective this would seem very frightening, as they work towards a long-term survival of the
\ncompany, saving money to reduce the risk of future economical instability. A negotiator should be
\nvery careful about believing in one right way to do things. Sometimes it can be crucial to adapt to
\nthe local ways of doing business in order to succeed. While Hofstede (2010) indicates Danes to
\nbelieve in one right way to do things, while Gertsen (2010) find the opposite to be true. Gertsen
\n(2010) describe how Danish companies exporting internationally are very proficient in adapting to
\nthe local ways.
\n3.1.2.6 Indulgence vs. Restraints (IVR)
\nThe indulgence dimension describe to which extend the society allow or suppress free gratification
\nof basic human drives related to the contrast of enjoying life and having fun or if it is being
\nregulated by means of strict social norms (Hofstede, 2010). A high score in the indulgence
\ndimension indicates an indulgent society that allow free gratification, while a low score indicate
\nthe contrasting restraining society, in which gratification is suppressed.
\nDenmark is, with a score of 70, classified as an indulgent society. Some characteristics of an
\nindulgent society are a larger degree of happiness among the people in the soceity (Hofstede,
\n2010). This is also the case with Denmark, who ranks as the happiest country in the world
\naccording to a rapport made by the U.N. (Helliwell et al., 2016). People in Denmark do in general
\nhave a positive attitude towards life. Moreover they are more optimistic and have an extroverted<\/p>\n
Page 23 of 50
\npersonality, but lack in moral discipline (Hofstede, 2010). As an indulgent society, Danes view
\nleisure time as a positive thing, and believe they are in control of their personal life. Due to the
\nhigh desire of enjoying life and having fun, the consumption habits in Denmark are more
\nimpulsive.
\nAt a score of 42 Japan is considered a restraint society. As opposed to an indulgent society, Japan
\nhas a lower percentage of happiness among the people (Hofstede, 2010). The result from
\nHofstede (2010) of a somewhat less happy society, matches the result from the U.N. (Helliwell et
\nal., 2016), indicating that Japan is the 53th happiest country in the world. Thriftiness is seen as
\nimportant value due to the larger degree of pessimism and cynicism among people. Most
\nJapanese are greatly disciplined, and doesn\u2019t put too much emphasize on leisure time. Japanese
\nemployees at the lower end of the hierarchy is often expected to spend part of their leisure time
\nat the company or with the colleagues, leaving little time for themselves or their family (Haghirian,
\n2010). These elements is a cause of the strict social norms in the Japanese society, making people
\nfeel that having fun and enjoying themselves is wrong (Hofstede, 2010).
\nThe main points to take into consideration from the indulgence dimension are the Japanese
\nthriftiness in contrast to the Danish impulsiveness. In a negotiation the Japanese may come off as
\ncheap if they give a very low offer due to being thrifty. Danes have a belief in fairness, and expect
\nthe initial offer to be no more than about 20 percent from the final agreement (Katz, 2007). They
\nmay come to believe that the Japanese party lacks the knowledge to know the true value of the
\nnegotiated objective, or that they are trying to take advantages of the Danes by making an
\nincredible low offer. Should the Danes attempt to make an impulsive it may also cause issues in
\ndealing with the Japanese, who prefer to work things through in details (Hofstede, 2010).
\n3.1.2.7 A Critical view on Hofstede\u2019s model
\nWhile Hofstede\u2019s (2010) model for national culture is a great and simplistic tool to analyze and
\ncompare the culture of countries, in addition to being one of the most recognized worldwide, it is
\nnot without flaws.
\nHofstede\u2019s model scores each country in each of six dimensions. The scores for each country is
\nbased on the average recorded score throughout the entire nation. The model can be applied to a
\nlarge part of the companies and organizations within the country, but does not describe the<\/p>\n
Page 24 of 50
\nindividuals that diverge from the average. When using the model, one must be aware that it does
\nnot apply to every individual, but serve as a guideline to understand the national cultures, and the
\ndifference between them. Moreover, a certain score is not equal a certain behavior. Two countries
\nwith the same scores may vary in culture, and should not mistakenly be counted as the exact same
\nculture, but rather the same cultural tendency.
\nAnother issue is the accuracy of the data. The first data from 70 countries was collected back in
\nthe 1970\u2019s, and while new data and analysis is conducting in each country to update the
\ninformation, some data may be outdated.
\nThe data for the analysis has all been collected through questionnaires, which as the only source
\nfor data has limitation. Individuals may answer the same question differently depending on the
\nculture and context in which it was asked. For an example, in a group-oriented culture an
\nindividual may answer the questions as if they were answering on behalf of the group they belong
\nto, rather than an answer based on their individual standpoint, which you would receive in more
\nindividualistic societies.
\nHofstede\u2019s model for cultural dimensions is a great tool to explain the culture of a nation, but is on
\nits own too simplistic to give a well-grounded comprehensive visualization of the culture.
\nHowever, using the model in combination with other of the in Nardon & Steers (2009) mentioned
\nmodels to explain the various aspects of culture, and how they differ from each other.
\n3.1.3 Hall\u2019s Dimensions of culture
\nBased on ethnographic researches across numerous countries, Edward T. Hall proposed a model
\nto enlighten how cultures vary in interpersonal communication, on top of the variations in the
\nview on personal space and sense of time (Nardon and Steers, 2009). The results of the study are
\nsummarized in Hall model, consisting of the cultural dimensions: Context, Space and Time. Of the
\nthree dimensions only context and time will be discussed, as the dimension for space is
\ndetermined to be irrelevant for the purpose of this thesis.
\n3.1.3.1 Context
\nHall (1990) defines context as \u201cthe information that surrounds an event; it is inextricably bound up
\nwith the meaning of the event\u201d. In the dimension of context Hall (1990) distinguish between high<\/p>\n
Page 25 of 50
\nand low context countries. The context of a country is based on the extent to which the context of
\na message is important to the message itself.
\nIn high context countries, a lot of the information in communication is conveyed indirectly through
\nthe context of the message. According to Hall (1990), information in these high context countries
\nis conveyed through common experience, based on shared history and traditions, which change
\nvery little over time. Instead of sharing all information through the usage of verbal
\ncommunication, other sources of communication, such as gestures, use of space and even silence,
\nis used to convey information between individuals or groups. Without knowing and understanding
\nthe context it can become very difficult to communicate in this society, as one without a shared
\nbackground or context may not understand the meaning of the context in which the information is
\nshared.
\nIn countries with a low context the communication is very direct and straight forward. The
\nmessage itself carries its meaning, and does not rely on the context in which the message is
\nexpressed. As less common experience is shared, one cannot efficiently provide information
\nthrough elements such as status, friends or associates, but rely almost entirely on verbal and
\nwritten communication as their main source of information (Hall, 1990). Everything needs to be
\nstated in a low context society.<\/p>\n
Page 26 of 50
\nBelow is a figure of Hall\u2019s high to low context continuum, showing the position of some of the
\ncountries studied:<\/p>\n
As seen in the figure illustrated above, Denmark is positioned as a low context country, together
\nwith the rest of Scandinavia among other Western countries, while Japan is positioned at the very
\ntop as the country with the highest context of those studied by Hall (1990). In the dimension of
\ncontext, Denmark and Japan is at the very opposite end of the spectrum. The major difference in
\ncontext between the countries may pose certain problems in a negotiation between individuals
\nfrom each country. For instance, Danes may be confused by the lack of information provided
\ndirectly, feeling that Japanese are hiding something, or simply don\u2019t understand their message.
\nThis could occur if the Danes are not able to understand the context or intentions of the Japanese,
\nas they may not be able to read between the lines, due to the lack of common experience shared
\nwith Japanese people. An example of this is a Japanese person saying \u201cmaybe\u201d. To a Japanese it
\nmeans \u201cno\u201d in a less direct manner, while it to a Dane means that they are uncertain and either
\nneed more information or in other ways convinced to turn the answer to a \u201cyes\u201d (Haghirian, 2010)
\nFrom the Japanese point of view the excess of information provided by the Danes may seem
\ninsulting and make them feel talked down to, as if they did not know or understand the given
\ncontext. In a negotiation with Japanese people, Danes should spend a lot of time to prepare the
\nFigure 4: Hall\u2019s High to Low Context continuum<\/p>\n
Page 27 of 50
\nway they communicate, as a wrong gesture, use of silence, or any other channel of indirect
\nmessage, may cause the failure in making a deal before the negotiation has even started. It is
\nimportant that they either have a Japanese person to help them understand the context, or have
\nthe experience or training in doing so themselves.
\nWhile the difference in context between Japan and Denmark is the very opposite of each other,
\nDanes, as a rather small country, is quite good at adapting to the local conditions of a foreign
\nnation.On the topic (sample nursing essay examples by the best nursing assignment writing service) of Danish born global SME\u2019s Gertsen (2010) says that \u201cAttitudes towards
\nadaptation to the local context are linked to the type of commitment …. Firms that are mainly
\nexporting generally accept local conditions and to try to fit in as much as possible\u201d. As the quote
\nstate, Danish exporting firms are fairly good at adapting to the local conditions, while larger firms
\noften demand to do business on their terms, though they tend to often use a local agent to
\nmanage certain markets.
\n3.1.3.2 Monochronic vs. Polychronic time
\nIn the dimension of time Hall (1966) portrays two contrasting ways of handling time; monochronic
\nand polychronic. It is an indication to which extend people in the given culture approach one or
\nmore task at any given time (Nardon & Steers, 2009).
\nPeople in a culture with a monochronic time tend to give individual goals a sequential attention,
\nscheduling one thing at a time with a clear separation of work and personal life (Nardon & Steers,
\n2009). Monochrome people are characterized as having low-involvement and to become
\ndisoriented when dealing with too many activities at once (Hall, 1966). In a culture with a
\npolychronic time, people tend to keep several activities going at once, meaning that attention is
\ndivided to several goals simultaneously (Nardon & Steers, 2009). Polychrome people often tend to
\nsee the order in which things occur as not important (Hall, 1966). There is no clear separation of
\nwork and personal life, but rather integration (Nardon & Steers, 2009). This may cause polychrome
\npeople to work in their leisure time, and to take personal calls or in other ways take actions
\nrelated to the personal life during office hours.
\nAccording to Nardon & Steers (2009), Denmark has, along with the rest of Scandinavia, a
\nmonochronic time. One thing is scheduled at a time, with the time being very important. A busy
\nDane will have a plan for where to be and what to do in a certain time slot, without the possibility<\/p>\n
Page 28 of 50
\nof scheduling other activities in the same time period. Being even just a few minutes late is
\nconsidered rude for a Dane, as it may delay their plans for the entire day, or force them to cut the
\ndelay of somewhere else, such as their leisure time (Katz, 2007). It is a very organized approach to
\nthe management of time.
\nAs many other relationship orientated cultures, Japan is considered having a polychronic time.
\nThere is a well-built integration of work and personal life, with Japanese employees spending
\nleisure time on work or with colleagues (Haghirian, 2010). Furthermore, a lot of the working time
\nis invested into building an interpersonal relationship with those they do or consider to do
\nbusiness with (Hofstede, 2010). In negotiations they do not make an agreement on one objective
\nat a time, but consider it open until a final agreement has been made for all objectives included in
\nthe negotiation.
\nIn negotiations between Danes and Japanese, the Danes may feel stuck, as if they negotiation
\ndoes not proceed forward, since the Japanese will go back and forth between the objectives, with
\nnothing settled during the first couple of meetings. The issue is impatience, as once everything has
\nbeen covered, the negotiation process rather quickly. Another issue is going back and forth
\nbetween objectives. The Japanese may offend the Danes, when they suddenly move back to an
\nobjective already discussed, which from a Danish perspective would be considered settled when
\nmoving on to the next topic (sample nursing essay examples by the best nursing assignment writing service), unless otherwise agreed.<\/p>\n
3.2 Negotiation Theory
\nIn order to discuss negotiations between Danish and Japanese companies and how culture
\ninfluences it, one needs to first understand the fundamentals of negotiation theory. It is important
\nto know the theoretical framework for negotiation, as well as, the steps in the process of how to
\nnegotiate. Some of the most recognized strategies in negotiation theory will be outlined and
\ndiscussed in the context of intercultural negotiations between Danish and Japanese companies.
\nUsing the established theoretical framework of negotiation, the Danish and Japanese negotiation
\nstyle will be presented in the subsequent section.<\/p>\n
Page 29 of 50<\/p>\n
3.2.1 The Fundamentals of Negotiation
\nNegotiation is \u201ca form of decision making in which two or more parties talks with one another in
\nan effort to resolve their opposing interests\u201d (Pruitt, 1981 in Lewicki et al., 2010). Negotiations are
\na part of everybody\u2019s daily life. Without thinking of it or realizing it you are negotiating throughout
\nyour day. Simple daily interactions with acquaintances or the clerk can be considered negotiations.
\nPeople believe that the price at a super market is nonnegotiable, which in many cases is not the
\nreality (https:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/wisebread.com, 2015). While it is overlooked in most aspects of the daily life,
\nit is a crucial part of doing business with companies of any size or nationality.
\nBefore going into a negotiation one should make the necessary preparation ahead of it. As Lewicki
\net al. (2010) express it \u201cplanning and preparation are the most important steps in negotiation\u201d.
\nFirst of all, you need to understand your own goals and interests (Lewicki et al., 2010). Knowing,
\nbut not understanding your goal makes it difficult to claim the value to achieve it, especially if it is
\nattempt solved in alternative ways, such as making trade-offs for mutual benefits. Information is a
\ngreat source of power and can gain a negotiator several advantages in a negotiation. The
\nadvantages include the ability to analyze the other party\u2019s offer to understand their interests and
\nthe goals they wish to achieve (Lewicki et al., 2010). Cohen, H (1980) noted the importance of
\ninformation with the statement that \u201cit would give you a big advantage if you could learn what the
\nother side really wants, their limit, and their deadline\u201d. Because of this, it can be hard to gather the
\ninformation of the other side both prior and doing the negotiation. \u201c…it is often common strategy
\nfor one or both sides to conceal their true interests, needs, and priorities\u201d (Cohen, 1980).
\nWhether the two parties work together or against each other, both parties enter the negotiation
\nwith the purpose of making a deal. However, one should not attempt to make a deal if it leaves
\nyou worse off than before. For that reason it is important to know your best alternative to a
\nnegotiation agreement, also known as BATNA. Lewicki et al (2010) describe the alternatives if an
\nagreement is not reached, as one of the most important sources of power in a negotiation. The
\nBATNA gives a negotiator the ability to walk away from the negotiation, should the deal not be
\nbetter than the alternatives. By improving your BATNA you can improve the possible outcome of
\nthe negotiation. Without a strong BATNA it may be very difficult to negotiate with someone who
\nhas a good alternative to an agreement, as they may negotiate very aggressively, making you take
\nan unsatisfying deal, due to the lack of alternatives (Lewicki et al., 2010). While your BATNA is a<\/p>\n
Page 30 of 50
\nsource of power, it should never be revealed, as it turn the power of it to the opponent, allowing
\nhim to make a matching or slightly better closing offer.
\n3.2.2 Distributive vs. Integrative Strategies
\nIn business negotiations two strategies are mainly used: Integrative and distributive strategies.
\nA negotiator using a distributive strategy looks at the total value of the negotiation as fixed. There
\nis no way to expand the value of the negotiation, and the negotiation has a clear winner and a
\nloser, making it a win\/lose situation (Lewicki et al., 2010). A negotiator using this strategy will view
\none party\u2019s gain is the loss of the other. In general they have a low concern for the outcome of the
\nother party, as they focus on \u201cwinning\u201d the negotiation by claiming all the value for themselves.
\nUsing a distributive strategy, one is to expect the other party to act in the same way and try to
\n\u201cwin\u201d the negotiation, creating a reactive dAssessment towards any offers made by the other party
\n(Lewicki et al., 2010).
\nTactics used in the distributive strategy includes alternating sympathetic with threatening
\nbehavior. By making a large bluff with a threatened action they try to either force the other party
\nto chicken out and give them what they want, or making a non negotiable ultimatum (Lewicki et
\nal., 2010).
\nThe distributive strategy is by Cohen (1980) brought up as the Sovjet style of negotiation, in which
\nthe negotiator try to win at all costs. It is describes as a competitive style of negotiation used to
\nwin in a win\/lose negotiation, in which you do not expect a long lasting relationship that need to
\nbe cared for.
\nUsing the integrative negotiation strategy a negotiator attempts to make a joint problem solving,
\nbenefiting both parties by creating a win\/win situation. By not assuming a fixed pie, the integrative
\nstrategy is used to expand the total value of the negotiation by inventing options for mutual gain.
\nA key principle for integrative negotiations is to separate the people from the problem and to use
\nobjective criteria to solve conflicts (Lewicki et al., 2010). Trade-offs is made across various
\nelements in the negotiation to find differences in valuation between the two parties. A different
\nvaluation between different objectives can be used to expand the total value and achieve a mutual
\ngain. Furthermore, rather than trying to \u201cwin\u201d against the other party, both parties attempt to
\ncreate a bridging solution, for which the interest of both parties is met.<\/p>\n
Page 31 of 50
\nThe negotiation strategy is by Herb Cohen (1980) mentioned as a Negotiating for mutual
\nsatisfaction style of negotiating, where all parties work together in a collaborative process to
\ncreate an outcome of acceptable gain for all parties.
\nThere is no obvious best strategy for every negotiation situation, as both strategies has some
\nadvantages and disadvantages. The best strategy can depend on the context of the negotiation.
\nMoreover, most negotiators are not using a complete version of either of these, but rather a
\nmixed version of the two strategies (Lewicki et al., 2010). Where the integrative strategy focus on
\ncreating value and finding a mutual beneficial solution, the distributive strategy focus on claiming
\nvalue. To be an effective negotiator one need to both create and claim value (Lewicki et al., 2010).
\nAnother important attribute to master is the ability to build trust and achieve commitment, which
\naccording to Cohen, H (1980) are some of the most important activities in a collaborative style of
\nnegotiation. This is especially the case when dealing with continuing relationships, trade partners,
\nor relationship focused societies. \u201cIn a continuing relationship, the more trust you place in others,
\nthe more they will justify your faith\u201d (Cohen, 1980). There are several types of ways to build trust
\nin negotiations. One of these is known as calculated trust, which is described by Lewicki et al.
\n(2010) as impersonal transactions with anticipated benefits that outweigh the anticipated costs of
\nthe relationship. Trust does not necessary have to be based on anticipated positive outcome, but
\ncan also be pulled from another entity. This is known as swift trust, and is based off a third party,
\nsuch as a common friend or business partner. Trust between two parties is a result of the history
\nbetween them. The most effective type of trust, though also the hardest to build, is genuine trust,
\nwhich is built on an exchange relationship with both parties meeting each other\u2019s interest. Lewiki
\net al. (2010) define this type of trust as identification-based trust based on \u201ccompatibility in values,
\ncommon goals and positive attachment to the other\u201d.
\n3.2.3 The influence of cultural values on negotiation
\nNegotiation fluctuates from culture to culture and can be exceedingly complex cross two cultures
\n(Lewicki et al., 2010). Negotiation can, as a cause of the cultural values, diverge from the general
\nconcepts in the very fundamentals of negotiation. \u201cThe fundamental definition of negotiation,
\nwhat is negotiable, and what occurs when we negotiate, can differ greatly across cultures\u201d (Yook &
\nAlbert, 1999 in Lewicki et al., 2010). Besides the fundamentals, cultural values have an influence in<\/p>\n
Page 32 of 50
\nthe process of the negotiation. It is the differences between achieving a profit by making the
\nopponent comfortable or uncomfortable. Countries with more long-term orientated goals are
\nmore prone to use tactics that make the opponent comfortable, with the opposite being the case
\nfor cultures valuing short-term orientated goals (Lewicki et al., 2010).
\nBrett (2001 in Lewicki et al., 2010) found a cultural influence to the strategies used in negotiations,
\nalong with a different setting of priorities and interests. Whereas an integrative strategy is the
\nnorm in some cultures, a distributive strategy is the norm in others. A correlation was found
\nbetween the most common strategy used, as well as, the size of the joint outcome of the
\nnegotiation, and whether the country had an individualistic or collectivistic culture. Moreover, a
\nstudy found that communication was influenced, with a difference in the patterns of interactions
\nthroughout the negotiations (Brett, 2001 in Lewicki et al., 2010).
\nA considerable difference in information sharing was found across cultures. In addition to the
\nchoice of strategy used, a strong correlation was found between the certain cultural values and
\nhow information was exchanged. Countries with a low-contextual culture are more likely to share
\ninformation about preferences and priorities directly. This allows them to draw similarities and
\ncontrasts that can be used to invent better options. The opposite is the case in high context
\ncountries, where information on preference was found to be sharing indirectly. A tactic used is to
\ncommunicate preferences and limitations by making multiple offers simultaneously (Lewicki et al.,
\n2010).
\nOther areas of negotiation influenced by the cultural values include conflict resolution. High
\ncontext countries were found to solve conflicts based on rules or by avoiding the existence of the
\nissues. Low context countries in contrast solved conflicts by using the knowledge gathered from
\ntraining or personal experience, which in a position of power included the usage of direct
\nconfrontations (Lewicki et al., 2010).
\n3.2.4 Negotiation Style
\nKnowing the fundamentals of negotiation, in addition to some of the various important strategies
\nused in negotiations, an insight into the Danish and Japanese negotiation style is created with the
\npurpose of holding it up against the empirical results.<\/p>\n
Page 33 of 50<\/p>\n
3.2.4.1 Danish style of negotiation
\nAccording to Hofstede (2010), Denmark is positioned as an individualistic country. While Lituchy
\n(1997 in Lewicki et al., 2010) found individualistic societies to use the integrative strategy to a
\nlesser extent, Katz (2007) found Denmark to not follow this trend. \u201cTo the Danes, negotiating is
\nusually a joint problem-solving process … both own the responsibility to reach agreement.\u201d (Katz,
\n2007). Danes has a very cooperative style of negotiation, with the belief of the win-win concept
\nand an expectation for the other parties to reciprocate (Katz, 2007). Disputes are solved by the
\nusage of logical reasoning and facts, with an open mind to make compromises in order to precede
\nthe negotiation. The style is comparable to the integrative strategy described by Lewicki et al.
\n(2010), in which the negotiator work together with the other party for a joint problem-solving and
\nan agreement of mutual gain.
\nThe tactics preferred by the Danes are very honest and straightforward, putting pressure on the
\nopponent by opening the negotiation with their best offer or by making final offers further in the
\nbargaining stage. The bargaining stage is usually rather brief in Denmark, with only little
\nmovement from the anchoring offer to the final agreement (Katz, 2007). Opening with the great
\noffer close to the expected result or making a final offer is common practice to speed up the
\nnegotiation process. Opening with an extreme offer is viewed as either a lack of knowledge or an
\nunfriendly act, as it does not reciprocating the expected respect and honesty. A desired and
\neffective tactic to reduce the bargaining stage in a negotiation with Danes is to open with a
\nwritten offer. The offer should include all the terms and conditions (Katz, 2007). While the initial
\noffer won\u2019t be the final in most cases, it helps to clearly state the expectations and preferences of
\nthe opposing party.
\nDanes prefer a monochronic style of work, pursuing actions and goals systematically one at a time.
\nIn negotiations objectives is worked at sequentially, bargaining each item separately, as also
\ndescribed by Hall (1966) as characteristics of a culture with a monochronic approach to time.
\nRelationships
\nIn general Danes are more concerned about the interest of an opposing group, rather than the
\nindividual desires. In Denmark, the establishment of a business relationship is not considered a
\nnecessity prior to making the initial contact. A business relationship is only considered moderately<\/p>\n
Page 34 of 50
\nimportant for the purpose of doing business (Katz, 2007). Upon conduction business with a Dane
\nfor the first time, they may seem cautious, appear reserved with a slow procedure until trust is
\nestablished. When trust is established, the respected partner will receive a sense of loyalty.
\nBusiness relationships do not only exist between individuals, but also between groups, such as a
\ncompany (Katz, 2007). This means that a Danish negotiator will trust the individual representing a
\ntrusted company, even if no business relationship is established between the specific individuals in
\nthe negotiating, like in the case of a replaced or introduced negotiator in the negotiation between
\nthe two parties. In the Danish culture, people are treated with an equal respect regardless of their
\nstatus or other assessment that may otherwise cause a preferential treatment. People are
\nrespected primarily based on the individual accomplishments (Katz, 2007).
\nCommunication
\nDanes have a very direct style of communication. They do not have any issue saying \u201cno\u201d or asking
\nfor clarifications to a request or proposal. Moreover, they do not look for an indirect message
\nwhen communicating by mail or letter, due to the very straightforward style of communication
\n(Katz, 2007). Information is used as a tool to build trust. As most of the information is provided
\nverbally or in writing, body language is used sparingly, with only minor signs of dislike or approval.
\nWhile Danish is the official language, Denmark rank as the number 3 in ETS\u2019 (https:\/\/www.ets.org
\n,2012) TOEFL test on English language proficiency for countries in which English in not the official
\nlanguage. Danish businesspeople are expected to have high English language proficiency, making
\nany translation from English to the native language redundant. It is considered rude to interrupt
\nothers in a conversation, and should even at a business meeting in a restaurant be kept at a quiet
\nlevel (Katz, 2007). When doing business emotions are not shown openly, and are together with
\nopenly shared opinions and concerns, disliked in conversations (Katz, 2007).
\nMeetings
\nIn Denmark it is required to schedule meetings in advance. Punctuality is expected and it is
\nconsidered rude to be late to a meeting (Katz, 2007). Moreover, Katz (2007) states it with the
\nquote: \u201cIt is viral to come well prepared as the Danes hate wasting time\u201d. Introductions are made
\nwith a firm handshake, with the highest ranking people introduced first, using their surname
\nunless introduced by or offered otherwise. Giving gifts at a meeting is very abnormal in Denmark,<\/p>\n
Page 35 of 50
\nand may raise suspicion. During the initial meeting business cards is exchanged. It is considered as
\nan essential step in doing business (Katz, 2007). Business meeting can be very formal, and not
\nmuch small talk is done if any at all, even at a business lunch or dinner. Danes keep it straight to
\nthe point, focusing on the discussing business. The meetings are usually rather short, with
\ndecisions made during the meeting after an agreement is finalized, following the discussion of the
\nissues at hand. Verbal agreements are considered binding, but not final. Only a signed contract by
\nboth parties is considered a binding agreement. Post agreement changes to the signed contract
\nare considered bad faith (Katz, 2007).
\nDecision making
\nIn Denmark the decision is mostly rather fast, with the decision maker participating in the
\nnegotiation, allowing them to make the decisions during the meeting. It is not required to check in
\nwith the top executives, as they have the responsibility to meet in goals set by them. The
\nexception to this is deals of a size that require approval of the top management within the firm
\n(Katz, 2007).
\n3.2.4.2 Japanese style of negotiation
\nBased on a study of the various negotiation styles across cultures, Graham & Requejo (2009) found
\nthat \u201cJapanese approach to business negotiations is, by nature, best in incorporating tools of
\ncreativity\u201d. The tools of creativity mentioned by Graham & Requejo, in which ways to expand the
\ntotal value of the negotiation is explored, is very similar to the integrative negotiation strategy
\ndescribed by Lewicki et al. (2010). Lituchy (1977 in Lewicki et al., 2010) also found this to be the
\ncase, reporting that negotiators from Japan made integrative solutions more often than
\nnegotiators from more individualistic societies.
\nJapanese have a polychronic style of work. In negotiations they will discuss and make trade-offs
\nacross the various issues in the negotiation, and dealing with several or all at once, rather than
\ntaking them one at a time. This means that during the negotiation, no agreement on a certain
\nobject is settled until the final agreement is made, as they can jump back and forth between the
\ndifferent objects throughout most of the negotiation (Graham & Requejo, 2009). This approach is
\nhow they are able to be creative in a negotiation, as they can seek differences in valuation across
\nthe objectives and make compromises or trade-offs to create mutual beneficial options. As the<\/p>\n
Page 36 of 50
\nnegotiation proceeds forward executives will be included in the meetings, and the questions start
\nto narrow into specific areas of the deal (Graham & Requejo, 2009).
\nRespect and relationships
\nJapan is considered to be a relationship-orientation culture, in which trust and connections is an
\nessential part of doing business (Graham & Requejo, 2009). Prior to doing business, a good
\ninterpersonal relationship needs to be established through investing both time and money until
\nmutual trust is built (Graham & Requejo, 2009). There is no certain time limit for the non-task
\nsounding; it takes the time that is needed to establish a good relationship, even if it takes weeks or
\nmonths to do so (Graham & Requejo, 2009). Once the relationship is established, they are very
\ncareful to not harm it by making you lose face. They believe this to occur if they gave a negative
\nanswer, such as an error or correction in a statement. \u201cExecutives in many relationship-orientated
\ncultures want to maintain your face and interpersonal harmony … the negative would disrupt the
\nharmony established\u201d (Graham & Requejo, 2009). Furthermore, they do not want to lose face
\nthemselves, and will avoid any direct rejection to save face (Graham & Requejo, 2009).
\nCommunication
\nWhile most people in the business world speak English, misunderstandings may occur in the
\ntranslation. In ETS\u2019 (https:\/\/www.ets.org, 2012) TOEFL test for English language proficiency, Japan
\nrank below the worldwide average. In terms of listening skills they lie at the bottom third in
\nranking. To avoid misunderstandings visual media and\/ or a translation to the local language
\nshould be used. This also include the business cards exchanged (Graham & Requejo, 2009). In
\norder to gather information, Japanese businesspeople ask many questions. Some questions may
\nbe repeated several times, either due to a need for more information, or there is a conflicting
\nissue with the addressed objective. In some instances it can simply be used as a persuasive tactic
\nagainst the other negotiator (Graham & Requejo, 2009). During business meetings Japanese
\nnegotiators will attempt to make more eye contact when dealing with foreigners, but avoid
\nshowing any negative emotions. From the perspective of the foreigner, this may make them
\nappear without reactions throughout the negotiation. They will remain calm, control their
\nemotions and not raise their voice when they get angry. Doing so is believed to disturb the
\nlongstanding interpersonal harmony of the relationship. The best way to get feedback from<\/p>\n
Page 37 of 50
\nJapanese is often to use the intermediary used to contact and build the relationship in the first
\nplace.
\nMeetings
\nThe appropriate behavior during a meeting can vary from culture to culture. Graham & Requejo
\n(2009) wrote on possible behavior of a comfortable Japanese executive during a meeting:
\n\u201cperhaps even the senior executive is listening while doing other things or listening with his eyes
\nshut\u201d. Prior to specific proposals, time is invested in long descriptions of the context and
\nbackground of the proposal, along with detailed discussions to cover every aspect of the
\nobjectives it include (Graham & Requejo, 2009). The exchange of business cards is essential at the
\ninitial meeting, and small gifts should be gifted before leaving (Graham & Requejo, 2009).
\nDecision making
\nIn Japan lower level executives settle the issues in the negotiation, while the top level executives
\nare brought in as the decision makers to sign the agreement. In some cases the higher level
\nexecutives are also brought into the meeting early on to show commitment and importance
\n(Graham & Requejo, 2009). While the top level executives may join the negotiation to sign the
\nagreement, they are not the ones to bargain with. The decisions is not made by a single individual,
\nbut is made as a consensus agreement with the approval of every member of the team before a
\ndeal can be signed by the executives. It is a management style based of the idea that \u201cno person
\nalone cannot be cleverer than all members of a team combined\u201d (Haghirian, 2010).<\/p>\n
4. Comparison of Denmark and Japan
\nIn order make a cross-cultural comparison of how two different cultures influence the negotiation
\nbetween them, one has to first understand the important norms and values that distinguish the
\ncultures from one another (Lewicki et al., 2010). Based on the norms and values discovered and
\nanalyzed in the theoretical framework, as well as, of the style of negotiation for each of the two
\ncultures, a comparison of the two cultures can be created to understand how the negotiation is
\ninfluences by the cultural differences (Lewicki et al., 2010).<\/p>\n
Page 38 of 50<\/p>\n
4.1 Cultural values
\nThe significant difference in almost all of Hofstede\u2019s (2010) dimensional scores for Denmark and
\nJapan illustrate some of the many cultural differences between them. The Danish organizational
\nstructure is quite flat, with few layers of hierarchy to go through, when one wants to reach
\nsomeone at the top management. The Japanese value a hierarchical organizational structure, with
\na clear division of power between each layer. While the hierarchical structure in Japan means that
\ninformation goes through several layers before reaching the top management, it does not mean
\nthat decisions are made by a single individual at the top, but rather as a collective team effort.
\nDanes value the \u201cI\u201d over the \u201cwe\u201d and make the decisions in the same sense on their own, without
\nthe need to ask everybody else for consensus. Decisions are made collectively in Japan, due to the
\nvery risk aversive nature of the culture, with the opposite being true in the Danish culture. In
\nDenmark the unknown potential of future change are seen as opportunities for improvement,
\nwhereas it in Japan is seen as a unnecessary risk if they cannot control the outcome. Due to the
\nvery nature of reducing risk, Japanese people are thriftier and save money for bad times, while
\nDanes are more impulsive in consumption and save less.
\nLosing face is a concept that is not used in Denmark, but something that is very fundamental in
\nJapan. Japanese people will attempt to save both their own face, as well as try to avoid making
\nothers lose face. Losing face will to a Japanese person mean losing respect and\/or status of the
\ngroup, whereas Danes deal with respect and status on an individual level. With the chance of
\nlosing face, a Japanese person will avoid saying \u201cno\u201d directly in a disagreement, but rather saying
\n\u201cmaybe\u201d or otherwise indicate that they are not convinced and have to withdraw from the
\nmeeting to discuss it in details. Danes on the other hand see no issue in stating a disagreement if
\nthey cannot meet the asked requirements or find the offer unsatisfying. Instead they will likely
\ndirectly decline it with a \u201cno\u201d or make a counteroffer. This is due to the very high contextual
\nculture in Japan, for which communication is very indirect, with most of the information collected
\nand communicated through the context. Denmark is the complete contrast to Japan in context,
\nwhere information is communicated through a very direct verbal or written style of
\ncommunication.
\nThe cultural values in the societies that lead the drive to achieve success in both is different in the
\nway they are achieved, as well as how it is measured. In Japan success is measured in material<\/p>\n
Page 39 of 50
\nrewards. It is achieved through extreme competition between groups, whereas it is achieved
\nthrough cooperation and a supportive management style in Denmark, with the success being
\nmeasured in quality of life. The intensive competitive environment in Japan is not between
\nindividuals, but between groups, and does see similarities to the Danish cultural value of working
\ntogether as a team to achieve a common goal.
\n4.2 Negotiation Style
\nSimilarities can be found in the overall negotiation strategy, for which both styles of negotiation
\nare build on an integrative strategy. Both the Danes and the Japanese approach negotiation as a
\nteam effort to create and claim value in a joint problem-solving process.
\nOne major difference between the Danish and Japanese way of doing business can be found in the
\nprocess of initiating business. The initial contact prior to doing business is done by simply calling or
\nsending an e-mail to arranging a meeting with a Danish company, whereas the Japanese do it
\nthrough goodwill or an intermediate connection to the company you would like to do business
\nwith. Once the initial contact has been made and the two parties meet, the Dane would usually
\nmake a few minutes of small talk before moving on to discussing business. The difference
\ncompared to the Japanese style of negotiation is that small talk will not be enough to move on to
\ndoing business. An interpersonal relationship needs to be established before business can be
\ndone. This cannot be done with a few minutes of small talk, but may take several months of
\nconversation and meetings.
\nAn essential part of a negotiation for both Danes and Japanese is the exchange of business cards.
\nThe exchange of gifts on the other hand is very abnormal in Denmark, while important for
\nmeetings in Japan.
\nDanes do in general hold shorter meetings, going straight to the point in an attempt to speed up
\nthe process. The Japanese style is more detailed, with countless questions being asked to explain
\nand discuss everything very thoroughly. When discussing the various objectives and issues, the
\nDanes will in many cases have a natural approach to work down the list of objectives in the
\nnegotiation, discussing and making an agreement on each of them, one at a time, before moving
\non to the next objective on the list. The Japanese approach to work on the objectives in the
\nnegotiation is a contrast to the Danish, working on several objectives at a time, going back and<\/p>\n
Page 40 of 50
\nforth between them. When negotiating the various objectives, the Danes and Japanese have a
\ndifferent perspective of time. It is the difference between the Danish style of short-term growth<\/p>\n
through spending, and the Japanese long-term orientated approach to save and invest in long-
\nterm survival.<\/p>\n
As mentioned in the cultural values, Japanese people make decisions collectively as a team. In
\nnegotiations this result in a very slow decision making process, as all team members have to agree
\nbefore a consensus agreement can be completed, as opposed to the Danes who are able to make
\na swift individual decision on the spot.
\nThe formality of the business meetings is somewhat similar. In Denmark the meetings do not have
\na strict structure, and while they often are very formal, it is not always the case. In Japan the rules
\nfor the meeting are stricter, and the language is strictly formal doing negotiations. While meetings
\nin Denmark are not always formal, emotions are not shown openly. Sharing personal concerns is
\ndisliked. In order to save face the Japanese negotiators will not show any negative emotions,
\nresulting in them not showing any emotions at all with an inexpressive face and body language.
\nLosing face would from a Japanese point of view cause a disharmony in the relationship. The
\nreasoning behind the emotionless style communication doing negotiations is different, though the
\nresult is somewhat similar. The Danes are however a bit easier to read based on their tone and
\nbody language.<\/p>\n
5. Empirical Results
\nThe following segment present the results of the empirical study carried out. To begin with, an
\noverview of the interview is submitted. Following the brief overview, the empirical results is
\npresented.
\n5.1 The Interview
\nAn interview was conducted with the current project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) manager in group value chain at ECCO Sko
\nA\/S, Wesley Hind. ECCO Sko A\/S is a global company, manufacturing and selling shoes worldwide.
\nFollowed by a three years trainee program at ECCO, Wesley Hind has worked at ECCO for eight
\nyears, of which four was spend in Tokyo, Japan. During his time in Japan, Wesley Hind held the<\/p>\n
Page 41 of 50
\nposition as the operations manager and worked with the logistics, merchandising, customer
\nservice and IT at ECCO\u2019s Japanese department. The interview was conducted at ECCO Sko A\/S in
\nBredebro. The recorded interview file is attached to the thesis and can be found in the appendix,
\nnamed: Interview with Wesley Hind.
\n5.2 Communication
\nOn the topic (sample nursing essay examples by the best nursing assignment writing service) of the Japanese style of communication, Wesley Hind explains that the
\ncommunication in Japan is very detailed and thorough. Adding to this he says that Japan is \u201ca
\ncountry of engineers, with a very detailed approach to everything\u201d. Everything is taking into
\nconsideration, with every detail of the negotiation discussed. This makes it very easy for everyone
\nto commit once the details are finalized, as there are no risk for them doing so once everything
\nhas been taking into consideration. The risk aversively Japanese society is by Hostede (2010)
\nexplained as having a high uncertainty avoidance, in which they do not like to leave the future
\nunknown, but attempt to control it by reducing the risk of failure as much as possible. In addition,
\nWesley Hind adds that the Japanese focus on \u201cHow not to lose\u201d rather than \u201cHow to win\u201d in their
\norientation towards the future. The focus lies on reducing the risk, rather than creating solutions
\nfor an increased short-term profit.
\nAccording to Wesley Hind, confrontation is seen as a sign of power in the West, but do not get you
\nanywhere in Japan. He explains how Japanese do not try to stand out, but try to be a part of and
\nwork together as a team. A Japanese saying is mentioned, \u201cThe one who jumps out gets
\nhammered down\u201d, meaning that if someone acts out of line they will be closed down immediately.
\nThe cultural way of dealing with it is to disregard those who stand out. Should a foreigner use
\nconfrontation in the negotiation with a Japanese, one of two things is likely to happen: either the
\nJapanese will believe that you as a foreigner simply does not understand the Japanese culture and
\nhow it work in Japan, or the Japanese will disregard you and stop listening at all. Either way, it
\ndoes no good, but may very likely have a negative effect, and should be avoided at all costs in
\nnegotiations with Japanese.
\nGraham & Requejo (2009) talk about the importance of using material in the native language
\nwhen doing business in a foreign country. While English is not the native language of Denmark,
\nthere is no need for translations from English to Danish. Wesley Hind experienced, doing his time<\/p>\n
Page 42 of 50
\nin Japan, negotiations of many variations. The negotiations were conducted mainly in either
\nEnglish or Japanese, depending on the nationality of ECCO\u2019s president present at the meeting:
\nEnglish was spoken when a Danish president was present, while Japanese when the president
\npresent from ECCO was from Japan. At meetings completed in English, a professional translator
\nwas used to translate everything into Japanese, while a staff member from within the company
\nwas used to translate into English during meetings completed in Japanese. Furthermore, Wesley
\nHind mention that even though the main language spoken in the negotiations varied, every single
\npresentation was completed in English. According to Wesley Hind, a reason for this is that ECCO
\nmainly deal with international companies. However, even domestic companies did prepare
\nmaterial in English when doing business with ECCO.
\n5.3 Relationship
\nDoing business in Japan can be rather difficult if you do not understand how it works. As explained
\nby Wesley Hind, you cannot do it like in Denmark and simply take up a phonebook and call
\nsomeone you would like to do business with. Business in Japan is more than a one-time profitable
\ntransaction between two companies. It is considered a long-term investment in a relationship
\nbetween two companies. Establishing an interpersonal relationship is crucial to doing business in
\nJapan. As opposed to Denmark, or other Western countries, Japanese companies do not regularly
\nvendor for cheaper options on an annual basis. The most efficient and easiest way to initiate a
\nbusiness relationship is, according to Wesley Hind, through an intermediate from within the target
\ncompany, or a mutual trusted connection. Graham & Requejo (2009) mention this option as well,
\nand goes on to explain that the link between the companies do not necessary have to be an
\nemployee within the target company, but may very well be the banker for the company, and old
\nhigh school friend, or any other trusted person.
\n5.4 Meetings
\nWhile Wesley Hind mostly negotiated internally, he did experience when ECCO looked for other
\npossible vendors towards the end of their current contract at the time. In his experience, the
\nvendors were contacted through a manager\u2019s connections in the industry. These connections then
\narranged the initial meetings with the possible new vendors. Before any meetings with the new
\nvendors could be arranged, the intermediate meet with the representatives from the company
\nseeking to initiate business. They do so to get a feel out for what the company seeking a new<\/p>\n
Page 43 of 50
\nbusiness relation was actually after in a new collaboration. This is very common in Japan, as also
\nexplained by Graham & Requejo (2009). Following meetings with the intermediate, a more formal
\nscripted meeting is scheduled with the new vendors. In the initial meeting the more senior
\nmembers of the Japanese organization is included. They do however expect any foreign
\ncompanies to mirror this approach. At the initial meeting the more senior members of the
\norganization is present, including the president. This is to communicate importance and
\ninvolvement in the relationship between the two companies or organizations. In Wesley Hind\u2019s
\nexperience the president were excluded in the follow up meetings if a deal was made. They are
\nmainly present during the beginning of the negotiation, and towards in end when decisions is
\nmade, and an agreement is made. While the president is present at the meeting they do not talk a
\nlot, but are there more as a ceremonial gesture and sign of respect. The negotiators possess the
\nknowledge to bargain on behalf of the company in order to reach their desired outcome and goal
\nfor the negotiation.
\n5.5 Decision making
\nAs mentioned by Katz (2007) it is the norm to make the decision during the meetings in Denmark,
\nwith the negotiators being the decision makers, without the top executives being present in most
\ncases. Wesley Hind also talk about this as the autocratic business style of the West, where
\nsomeone can make a decision on the spot. The negotiators know the desired goals and interests of
\nthe top management. It is their responsibility to make an agreement that fulfill these. However,
\naccording to Wesley Hind, decisions are never made on the spot throughout a meeting in Japan.
\nInstead they go back to discuss it after the meeting, and then formally announce the decisions
\nlater when the entire group comes to a consensus agreement.
\n5.6 Information Sharing
\nIn Denmark, trust in a negotiation is built by sharing information (Katz, 2007). According to Wesley
\nHind, the Japanese does not give a lot of information away at a time. The decision making is one
\nexample of not giving to much information away at once. Instead of giving information away on
\nthe spot, they draw back and discuss the issues between meetings, which according to Wesley is
\nannounced at a later time, revealing very little information.<\/p>\n
Page 44 of 50
\nWhile Japanese do not give a lot of information directly, a lot of information is provided indirectly
\nthrough the context of the message. This is also explained by Hall (2010) as one of the
\ncharacteristics of a high context culture. Wesley Hind mention doing the interview how
\nnegotiations in Japan are very strict and formal; there is a guideline for how things are suppose to
\nbe done. Small details, such as the position of a person at the table communicate information
\nabout the importance of the person. Knowing that the more senior executives are the one to
\nmake the decisions, one could customize the communication towards the individual in charge.
\nHowever, the Japanese society is very much consensus driven, meaning that no decision is made
\nuntil a consensus agreement can be made. By asking indirect questions, one can gather more
\ninformation from Japanese businesspeople, than asking directly for a yes or no can. By
\nunderstanding the context, one can share more information with the Japanese opponents.<\/p>\n
6. Conclusion
\nThe purpose of this thesis was to investigate the different ways culture influence cross-cultural
\nbusiness negotiations between Danish and Japanese companies. Moreover, it seeks to explore the
\nexperience of the negotiators and how they can counter the potential issues that may rise due to
\nthe affect culture has on negotiations.
\nFrom Lewicki et al. (2010) I found that the fundamentals of negotiation can vary depending on the
\nculture. Moreover, based on the theoretical framework, the country specific cultural values found
\nin Hofstede\u2019s (2010) and Hall\u2019s (1990) models for cultural dimensions, indicated an influence to
\ncertain characteristics in the strategy and process used in negotiation, in addition to how
\ninformation was shared and conflicts were solved as a cause of a difference in communication
\npatterns.
\nFrom Katz (2007) and Graham & Requejo (2009) I found that both Danes and Japanese negotiators
\nuse an integrative strategy in negotiations. According to Brett (2001 in Lewicki et al., 2010),
\ncollectivistic cultures mostly use an integrative strategy, while individualistic cultures are more
\nprone to use a distributive strategy. The empirical results for Japan are consistent with the results
\nbased on Brett\u2019s (2001 in Lewicki et al., 2010) findings, while Denmark diverges from this as an<\/p>\n
Page 45 of 50
\nindividualistic society. The empirical findings suggest this to be because of the very consensus
\ndriven society in Japan. People do not make decisions individually, but work and make decisions
\ntogether as a team. This claim is backed up by the theoretical framework, which indicates that
\nJapan is very creative by nature. Their creative approach to negotiation includes making trade-offs
\nand compromises across objectives to leave both parties better off. The reasoning for the Danes to
\ndiverge from the norm of an individualistic society is partly due to the belief in honesty and
\nfairness. They believe that if both parties work together they can generate a better overall
\noutcome than if one party attempts to claim all the value.
\nBased on the empirical results, Danes were found to experience Japanese as very detail oriented
\npeople. The uncertainty avoidance of the Japanese makes them cover every detail in a negotiation
\nto reduce the amount of risks they take. By including all members in the decision making, they can
\nhave more sets of eyes looking over the details of the negotiation to find any potential risk the
\nothers might have missed. If even just one member of the team has an issue with the agreement,
\nno agreement is made. Instead they continue to discuss to figure out what risks they might have
\nfailed to notice.
\nThe methods used in Danish and Japanese companies to solve conflicts are similar, yet different in
\ncertain aspects. In Japan conflicts are solving by collaboration or by avoiding it to save the
\nharmony of the relationship. This also applies to negotiations, which in Japan is seen as a
\nrelationship between companies. They experience the direct confrontation used by Danish
\nnegotiators as offending or even disrespectful. In Denmark confrontation is seen as a sign of
\npower that can be used to claim value in a negotiation. Due to the collectivistic mindset of
\nJapanese people, where people try to be a part of a team, Danes must avoid standing out by
\nconfronting them directly. The empirical findings confirmed no instance where a Japanese person
\nconfronted another. From a Danish perspective, the experience will be positive when a Japanese
\nnegotiator attempts to solve a conflict by collaborating, as the Danish negotiation style relies on
\nworking together for a joint-problem solving, with an expectation for the other party to
\nreciprocate.
\nNegotiators from Denmark and Japan communicate in different ways. From the empirical results I
\nfound a difference the communication patterns, which influence how information was shared.<\/p>\n
Page 46 of 50
\nWhile Japanese negotiators are very detail oriented and discuss details very thoroughly, not much
\ninformation is shared at any given time. It takes a long time to learn about the preferences and
\ninterests of Japanese businesspeople. Danish negotiators are likely to experience them to hold
\nback information until it is absolutely necessary to share. In Denmark a direct communication style
\nis highly valued. In a negotiation this means directly stating the information on their desired
\noutcome and goals. Japan is a high context culture and most of the information is provided
\nthrough the context. The Japanese company will not ask directly, but will through the
\nintermediate, who arranged the contact between the companies, have some information on the
\nforeign company\u2019s interests and goals. The Danish negotiators experience of too little information
\nprovided may be due to not understanding the Japanese context.
\nTo conclude the problem statement, culture was found to have a significant influence on
\nnegotiations between Danish and Japanese companies. The most noteworthy effect was found in
\nthe difference between the Danish direct communication patterns as oppose to the Japanese
\nindirect communication patterns. The difference in communication patterns influenced the
\nexchange of information and how conflicts were solved. The slow decision making process in
\nJapan was influenced by the uncertainty avoidance and collectivistic cultural values in contrast to
\nthe individualistic society of Denmark. While the culture was different in almost aspect, with a
\nsignificant influence on negotiation, both cultures were found to use an integrative negotiation
\nstrategy.
\n6.1 Limitations
\nThe most significant limitations in this thesis, which also shaped other limitations, are the limited
\ntime and resources available to complete the research. Only a single case was completed from the
\nDanish part, while none was made from the Japanese counterpart. This is not enough data to
\ngeneralize neither Danish nor Japanese behavior in negotiations. For the purpose of the thesis, the<\/p>\n
complexity of both negotiation and culture was greatly simplified, excluding the notions of sub-
\ncultures and different types of negotiation.<\/p>\n
Page 47 of 50<\/p>\n
6.2 Reflection
\nMy initial approach to the data analysis, in which I aimed to make the theoretical framework prior
\nto collecting the empirical data through interviews, caused some significant limitations in my
\nstudy. My aim was to research what data I needed to collect from the empirical research by first
\nlooking into the theoretical framework. However, due to a cancellation from an interviewee along
\nwith multiple delays in going through my networking channels to reach another employee with
\nexperience in Japanese negotiation, it was not possible to conduct follow-up interviews.
\nMoreover, I was not able to change the approach to research several cases. Due to my initial
\napproach, only a limited time was scheduled for the first interview, which left me with less data
\nfor the empirical research. A better management of the data collection for the empirical research
\nwould allow me to base the research primarily on the case study, rather than relying on the
\ntheoretical framework with a single case study to back it up.
\n6.3 Ideas for future study
\nFor further research into the study of how culture influence negotiations between Danish and
\nJapanese companies, certain other approaches to the study can be taken to create more reliable
\nand valid results. By studying multiple cases from both the Danish and Japanese perspective, an
\nexternal valid and consistent result can be made of the cultural influence on negotiation.
\nBy studying multiple cases, a cross-case analysis technique can be used to compare the similarities
\nand differences between how the Japanese and Danish negotiator experience negotiation with
\neach other.
\nInstead of, or in combination with, collecting data through interviews, more reliable empirical data
\ncan be collection through direct observations can be made by being present at negotiations
\nbetween Danish and Japanese companies. This would allow the researcher to gain a deeper insight
\ninto what happen doing the negotiation.<\/p>\n
Page 48 of 50<\/p>\n
7. References Page 49 of 50<\/p>\n Jobindsats, 2015, Ledigheds- og jobindikatorer. Joboms\u00e6tning, viewed 30 April, The Influence of Culture on Business Negotiations between Danish and Japanese Companies Abstract Most of the export from European countries is sold to other European\u2026<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[8827,10099,10540,10536,10892,10538,10539,10537,10891],"tags":[10549,10616,10615,7687,10627,8857,10552,10295,10548,10622,8907],"class_list":["post-130961","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-australia-essays","category-buy-essay","category-cheap-essay-writers","category-get-assignments-done","category-page-paper","category-phd-essay-writers","category-research-paper-writing-service-for-any-topic","category-study-bay-essay","category-write-my-assignment-ireland","tag-ai-plagiarism-free-essay-writing-tool","tag-australian-best-tutors","tag-best-trans-tutors","tag-buy-essay-uk","tag-cheap-dissertation-writer","tag-help-with-writing-an-essay","tag-help-write-my-paper-ai-free","tag-homework-for-you","tag-online-essay-writers","tag-phd-essays","tag-write-my-essay-for-me"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/130961","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=130961"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/130961\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=130961"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=130961"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=130961"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\nCohen, H. (1980).You Can Negotiate Anything. United States: Lyle Stuart Inc.
\nEriksson & Kovalainen. (2008). Qualitative Methods in Business Research. Great Britain: Sage
\nEuropean Commission, 2013, The EU\u2019s free trade agreements \u2013 where are we?, 25 March,
\nEuropean Commission, viewed 30 April 2016,
\n
\nFelter, M, 2016, Information om Japan, Udenrigsministeriet, viewed 30 April,
\n
\nGertsen, M. (2010). Learning from Difference: Born Global SMEs and Their Approaches to
\nIntercultural Collaboration in Asia. In: Global Collaboration: Intercultural Experiences and learning
\nPp. 207-220. Great Britain: Palgrave Macmillan
\nGraham, J. L. & Requejo, W. H. (2009). Managing Face-To-Face International Negotiations. In:
\nOrganizational Dynamics. Pp. 167-177. United States: Elsevier Inc.
\nHaghirian, P. (2010). Understanding Japanese Management Practices. pp. 75-89. United States:
\nBusiness Expert Press
\nHall, E. T. (1959). The Silent Language: Doubleday & Company, Inc., New York
\nHall, E. T. (1990). Understanding Cultural Differences. United States: Intercultural Press.
\nHelliwell, J., Layard, G. & Sachs, J.(2016). World happiness report 2016. United States: Sustainable
\nDevelopment Solutions Network
\nHofstede, G. (1997). Culture and Organizations: Software of the Mind. United States: McGraw-Hill.
\nHofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Culture and Organizations: Software of the
\nMind. United States: McGraw-Hill.<\/http:><\/http:><\/p>\n
\n
\nKatz, L. (2007). Negotiating International Business- Denmark. United States: Booksurge
\nLewicki, R. J., Barry, B., & Saunders, D. M. (2010). Negotiation. United States: McGraw-Hill
\nMichael, P, 2015, 11 Retailers Where You Can Negotiate a Lower Price, 30 April, viewed 1 May,
\n
\nNardon and Steers. (2009). The culture theory jungle: divergence and convergence in models of
\nnational culture. pp 3-22. Great Britain: Cambridge University Press
\nPudelko, M. (2009). The end of Japanese-Style management?. Pp 439-462. London: Routledge
\nSpencer-Oatey and Franklin. 2009. Unpacking Culture. Pp. 13-17. Great Britain: Palgrave
\nMacmillan
\nStatistikbanken, 2016, SITC2R4Y: V\u00e6rdi af import og eksport (1000 kr) efter SITC-hovedgrupper,
\nland og im- og eksport, 8 April, Statistikbanken, viewed 30 April 2016,
\n
\nSuzuki, K. (1997). Production technology and productivity growth in the Japanese electrical
\nmachinery industry. pp. 100-120. Japan, Oxford: Clarendon Press
\nTOEFL, 2016, Test and Score Data Summary for TOEFL iBT Tests,
\n
\nUdenrigsministeriet, 2012, Strong push for EU-Japan Free Trade Agreement by Danish EU
\nPresidency, 22 February, Udenrigsministeriet,
\n