Introduction
Withtherapiddevelopmentofinternationaltradeandeconomiccooperation,foreigntradeismoreandmorefrequentandbusinessnegotiationhasbecomeoneoftheindispensableroles.However,businessnegotiationisacomplicatedbusinessactivityinwhichpartiesattempttoreachanaccordthatspecifieshowtheywillacttowardoneanother.Inordertomaximizehisinterestsandsatisfytheotherpart,negotiatorusuallyemploystheaccommodatinglanguage.TostudiedthedifferenceoffaceconsiderationsinChinaandAmericacanconductasuccessfulnegotiationortobeanexcellentnegotiator.
Faceconsiderationasapolitenessphenomenon,isanintegrantaspectinsocialcommunication.Scholarsfromhomeandabroadhaveconductedonthefaceconsiderations.
Studiesonface(mien-tzu)inwesterncountriescanbedatedbackto1894s,whenAuthur.H.Smith,anAmericanchurchmanfirstlydiscussesmien-tzuinhisbookChinesecharacteristics.In1950s,Goffmanadvocatesthat“faceisthepositivesocialvalueapersoneffectivelyclaimsforhimselfbythelineothersassumehehastakenduringaparticularcontact”(qtd,inYangShuai,2008:49).Later,Brown&Levinsonpointoutthatfacecanbedividedintopositivefaceandnegativeface.Theyalsoputforwardtheconceptoffacethreateningacts(FTAs)(qtd,inWei&Xi,1998:83).Moreover,Leechbelievesthatfacehastwointerrelatedaspects:involvementandindependenceandthreefacesystemsincludedeferencepolitenesssystem,solidaritypolitenesssystemandhierarchypolitenesssystem(Leech,1983:148).
InChina,HuSien-chin,ananthropologist,isconsideredasthefistpersonproposestheconceptofface.ShestatesthatChinesefacehastwointerrelatedaspects----lienandmien-tzu.“Lienisconcernedwiththeintegrityofaperson’smoralcharacterandmien-tzuisaperson’sreputationgainedfromsocietybyachievements(qtd.inGuYueguo,1990:237).”
AllthesescholarspavedthewayforfurthercomparativestudyonfaceconsiderationbetweenChineseandwesterncountries.
ThisthesisaimstomakeacomparativestudyonfaceconsiderationsinChineseandUSbusinessnegotiation.Thisthesisconsistsofthreechaptersexceptintroductionandconclusion.ChapterItalksaboutdifferentfaceconsiderationsbetweenChineseandAmericansandtherespectivereasons.ChapterIImakesacomparisonofSino-USfacesconsiderationinbusinessnegotiationsthroughcaseanalysis.ChapterIIIdiscussesthesuggestionsforSino-USbusinessnegotiationstodealwithdifferentfaceconsiderations.
ChapterI
DifferentFaceConsiderationsbetweenChineseandAmericansanditsReasons
Indifferentlanguageandculturesystems,“face”hasthesameliteralmeaningthatreferstothefrontpartofahumanbeing’shead,anothernameofcountenance.ButnomatterinChinesecultureorotherculture,thedeepmeaningof“face”iscloselyrelatedtosociallife.Faceistheclaimedsenseoffavorablesocialself-worthandtheestimatedother-worthinaninterpersonalsituation(Roy,2008:37).Itisasymbolicresourcethatcanbethreatened,enhanced,maintained,andbargainedover.Faceisassociatedwithidentityrespect,disrespect,dignity,honor,shame,guilt,status,andcompetenceissues.Generallyspeaking,facecanbeclassifiedasself-face,whichreferstoourownface,andother-face,whichreferstothefaceofpeoplewhomweinteractwith(Ronald,2001:36).
Faceexistsinallhumancommunications.Itisaconceptthatisintuitivelymeaningfultopeople.Butindifferentculturalcontexts,peopleholddifferentideasontheconceptof“face”.
Chinesefaceviewanditsreason
IfyouaskaforeignerwhatimpresseshimmostlyinChina,maybehewilltellyouthatChinesepeoplecaretoomuchaboutface-saving.Thatistrue.FaceisparticularlyimportantinChineseculture.InChina,faceisacomplexconceptwhichhasalonghistory.
Influencedbyculture,personalityandlifestyle,“face”cultureisconsideredtobecomplicated.TheideaofLiisacentralconceptinChineseancientphilosophy.Itdefinesalmostallthenormsorrulesfortheappropriateactionsandbehaviorsforeverysocialmemberaccordingtohisorhersocialposition.Itdefinesthespecificsofobligationsandresponsibilitiesforeverymemberinthesociety(WeiYulan&XiYuhu,1998:67).Ifone’sactionisconsideredtobeinappropriatebyothers,otherswillmakenegativeremarksonthispeople,andheorshewillloseface.Confuciusoncesaid:“Ifterminologyisnotcorrected,thenwhatissaidcannotbefollowed.Ifwhatissaidcannotbefollowed,thenworkcannotbeaccomplished”(YangShuai.,2008:49).Everyonehashisownbehavioralrules.Knowingwhattodoandwhattosayisveryimportant.Ifpeoplesaysomeunsuitablewordsordosomeimproperthings,theywillmakeamistakeontheterminologyandbreaktherules,andleadstolossoftheirface.Sotheso-called“face”actuallyhasaboundary.Oncepeople’sbehaviorcrosstheboundary,theyareconsideredtoloseface.Onthecontrary,ifpeopledosomethingnottocrossthecertainboundary,theyareconsideredtohavesavedfaceandmaintainedface.
Nicholas(1997:57)oncesaidthat“face”isalsodefinedasakindofrepresentationofsocialstatus,identityandprestige.Thisreputationisgainedandaccumulatedthroughone’ssuccessfulcareerandsocialexperience.Itfocusesontheadmirationandacknowledgementfromsociety.
“Face”hassomethingtodowiththeimageorcredibilityofthepersonyouaredealingwith.Peopleshouldneverinsult,embarrass,shame,yellatorotherwisedemeananotherperson.Ifyoudo,theywilllose“face”.DeeplyinfluencedbyConfucianism,Chinesepeoplefocusmuchmoreoncollectivism.Peopleshouldfollowtheprincipleofcollectivismandarenotallowedtodoanythingharmfultothereputationofotherpeople,theirfamily,societyandcountry.Theyshouldprotectandsavefacefortheunion.SoChinesewillnevershowfamilydisharmonyordisgracestooutsidersfortheydonotwanttolosethefaceoftheirfamily.ThisphenomenonillustratesthatfaceinChinaisnotjustanindividualconcernbutratheraconcernforthein-group.Inaword,Chinesepeopleconcernmoreaboutother-face.
1.2FacetheoryofAmericans
Theconceptof“face”wasfirstintroducedtothewestbyChineseanthropologistHuHsienChin.Inthelate1950s,thefamousAmericansociologistErvingGoffmanputforwardtheworldknown“facetheory”.Basedonwesternculture,hedefined“face”as“thepositivesocialvalueapersoneffectivelyclaimsforhimselforherself.Faceisanimageofselfdelineatedintermsofapprovedsocialattributes”(Goffman,1955:213).Itisakindofpublicimagewhichissupportedbythecommentsfromotherpeople.Hesaidthatfaceworkisneededineveryone’scommunicationsandeveryoccasion.Goffmanagreedthat“facework”cannotbefinishedalone;itrequireseveryoneinthesocialsituationtoworkincoordination.Hearguesthatfacecanbelost,saved,orgivenanddrawsadistinctionbetweenself-faceandother-face.Goffmansuggeststhatwedefendourself-faceandprotectother-faceduringinteractionsandthatintheflowofeventsinourcommunicationswecaneasilyfindout“face”perceptions.Whetherpeoplecouldmaintaintheirfaceornotdependsonothers.Thus,inordertosaveface,peopleshouldpayspecialattentionsnottothreatothers’face.
AsLimpointsout,theclaimforfacerelatestopositivesocialvalues:“peopledonotclaimfaceforwhattheythinkarenegative”(1994:210).In1987,onthebasisofGoffman’s“face”theory,BrownandLevinsonproposedthatfaceisthekeymotivatingforceforpoliteness,andviewedfaceasindividual’spublicself-images.ThisisthefamousFaceSavingTheory.Accordingtothetheory,peoplewhotakepartinapublicactivityarecalledModelPerson.Everymodelpersongainsapublicselfimage,whichequalsto“face”perception.Itcanbedividedintonegativefaceandpositiveface.Negativefaceisaperson’swanttonotbeinterferedbyothers,thedesiretobefreetoactandnotbeimposedupon;andpositivefaceisaperson’swanttobeappreciatedandapprovedofbyothermodelpersoninsomecertainaspects,suchaspersonality,behavior,values,andsoon.Inaword,negativefacerepresentsadesireforautonomy,andpositivefacerepresentsadesireforapproval.Bothofthetwoaspectshavesomethingtodowiththeindividualdesire.Obviously,westernpeopleconcernmoreaboutself-faces.
ChapterII
TheComparisonofsino-usfaceconsiderationsinbusinessnegotiations
2.1DifferentFaceconsideration
“Face”or“mianzi”inChinesecultureistotallydifferentfrom“face”researchedinwesternculture.InAmericanculture,thepurposeofpolitecommunicationistopreservefaceofbothparties,andmitigatethethreateningextentcausedbysomeone’slanguageandbehavior.“Face”or“mianzi”inChineseculturemainlyreferstothepositivesocialvaluematchingwithaperson’ssocialstatus.Whenthepersonalbehavioraccordswithorenhancethepositivesocialvalue,wethinkonehasobtained
hisface.Viceversa,hisfaceislost.WhileBrownandLevinsonview“face”aspersonaldesire,thatistosay,thefreedomofone’spersonalbehaviorneedstoberecognizedandrespected.However,inChineseculture,personaldesireshouldnotexceedone’ssocialstatusgivenbythesociety.Toputitinanotherway,“face”inAmericanculturerepresentsthesocialvalueofself-centered,butinChinesecultureitrepresentsthesocialvaluethatindividualissubjecttosociety.
Thecaseistrueinthecauseofabusinessnegotiation.Thereexistsacontrastingphenomenon.Whenitcomestosomecrucialissuestobediscussedandresolved,Chinesenegotiatorafterexpressingorevenduringhisaddressingistendtopausetoaskhispartners“whatdoyouthinkofthis?”“Doyouacceptthisopinion?”Questionssuchasthiskindaretogetfeedbackortakeadvicesfromothermembers,forthatheismoreconfidenttocontinueonthebasisthathisopinionissupportedbyothers.WhileanegotiatorsuchasanAmerican,whenitishisaddressingtime,heseemssoeagerandeloquenttoexpresshimselfthatnooneelsehavethechancetodisturbbeforehefinishes.
Toexplainthisphenomenonmorespecifically,itisbecauseChinesepeoplecareaboutother’sattitudetowardthemselves,sotheytendtoconsiderother’sopinionbeforetakingaction,andoftentakeotherpeople’sevaluationasstandardtoformalizeselfbehavior.WhileAmericanpeopleemphasizeoncompetition,freedomandindependence,andinthecommunicationtheyoftenexpresstheirpersonalopinionsdirectlywithouttoomuchconsiderationofotherpeople’sfeeling.SoitisunnecessarytobesurprisedfortheChinesewhenseeinganAmericanexpressinghisideaswithintenseemotioninbusinessnegotiation.Heisnotintendtooffend,itisjustbecauseofthedifferentunderstandingsofthenotion“face”.
ThefacetheoryisdevelopedbyBrown&Levinson.Theyproposethateveryonehasafacewantinconversations.Faceis“thepublicself-imagethateverymemberwantstoclaimforhim.Itisemotionallyinvestedandthatcanbelost,maintained,orenhancedandmustbeconstantlyattendedtoininteraction”(BrownandLevinson1987).Therearetwoaspectstotheface:PositiveFaceandNegativeFace.
Aperson’spositivefaceindicatestheneedtobeaccepted,evenliked,byothers,tobetreatedasamemberofthesamegroup,andtoknowthatotherssharehis/herwants,whileaperson’snegativefacereferstotheneedtobeindependent,tohavefreedomofactions,andnottobeimposedonbyothers.Generallyspeaking,allthepartiesinvolvedincommunicationsshouldtrytheirbesttosaveeachother’sfaces,forthelossoffaceofonepartymayresultinthelossoftheother.
BrownandLevinsonconsideredthatallthespeechactsareface–threateningacts(FTA).That’stosay,aperson’sspeechcanbeinterpretedasathreattoanother’sfaceorhisownface.
Theface-threateningactalwayspresentsathreattopeople’sspeechcommunication.Thereforepeoplemusthandleitappropriatelybyusingsomeeffectivemeasuresandstrategies.Thepolitelanguageisthebestpragmaticstrategies.ItcandealwithFTAmuchbetterthananythingelsesothatpeoplewouldbeabletocommunicatesuccessfully,especiallyincommercialcommunication.HowtoapplyFTAtheoryproperlywillbenefitalotinbusinessnegotiation.
H.P.Griceisawell-knownlinguistandphilosopherinUSA.In1967,heputforwardthecooperativeprinciple.
Itiscommonthatpeopledonotalwaysfollowthecooperativeprinciple,thespeakermaydeliberatelyviolateoneofthemaxims,orfailtofulfillit.Thecooperativeprinciplecannotgiveresponsetothisphenomenon.Leechholdsthatactismotivatedbythedesiretogivesomeattentiontopoliteness.Inhiseyes,politenessisnotseentohaveanythingtodowithpragmaticinferenceprocesses,butwith“theattainmentofsocialgoals”(Nicholas，1997:7),suchasachievingthemaximumbenefitforthespeakerandhearerattheminimumcost,theultimategoalofcomity.
Politenessprinciplemaybeformulatedinageneralwayfromtwoaspects:Tominimize(otherthingsbeingequal)theexpressionofimpolitebeliefsandmaximize(otherthingsbeingequal)theexpressionofpolitebeliefs.LikeGrice,Leech(1983b)dividesthepolitenessprincipleintoanumberofmaxims.
TactMaxim
a:Minimizecosttoother.
b:Maximizebenefittoother.
GenerosityMaxim
a:Minimizebenefittoself.
b:Maximizecosttoself.
ApprobationMaxim
a:Minimizedispraiseofother
b:Maximizepraiseofother.
ModestyMaxim
a;Minimizepraiseofself.
b;Maximizedispraiseofself.
AgreementMaxim
a;Minimizedisagreementbetweenselfandother.
b;Maximizeagreementbetweenselfandother.
SympathyMaxim
a;Minimizeantipathybetweenselfandother.
b;Maximizesympathybetweenselfandother.
Eachmaximhastwosidesofaproblem,Theformerisother-centered,whereas,thelatterisself-centered.Tactmaximisapplicabletoothers’requires;generositymaximisabouthowtohelpothers.Forexample,Haveanothersandwich?ismorepolitethanHandmethenewspaper.
ApprobationMaximandModestyMaximarethesame,too.Payingnocomplimentswhileothersshouldbepraisediscertainlycriticism,whichviolatesapprobationmaxim.Underthelimitofmodestymaxim,devaluingoneselfispoliteasself-praiseisimpolite.
Chinesecultureholdsadifferentviewonpolitenessprinciple.SinceChinaisacountrywithlonghistoryandcivilization,Chinesepeoplealwayslayemphasisontheuseofpolitenesslanguage.Inrecentyears,theuseofpolitenesslanguagehasbeenregardedasanimportantresearchfieldforlinguisticsinChina.GuYueGuohasstudiedtheoriginsandthemeaningsofpolitenessdeeplyinChinesecultureandhehaspointedoutthefiveprinciplesofpolitenessinhisbookofPoliteness,PragmaticsandCulture.ThefirstisTheMaximofSelf-denigrationandOther’sElevation.Itmeansthatweshouldbelittleourselvesorsomethingwhichisrelatedtousandshowourmodestytoothers.Tolistenersandthethingswhicharerelatedtothem,weshouldrespectthelistenersandthethingsrelatedtothem(GuYueGuo,1990:246).ThesecondisTheMaximofSalutation.Modernpolitenessbehaviorsarestillfollowedbysomemaximstosomeextent;therearedifferencesbetweenmenandwomen,eldersandjuniorsinthosebehaviors.ThethirdisTheMaximofbeingelegant.Itmeansthatweshouldusepolitelanguagetoreplaceuncouthwordsanduseeuphemismswheneverpossible.Thismaximreflectspeople’saccomplishmentoflanguagesandcultures.ThefourthisTheMaximofHarmony.Thatis,peopleshouldbesatisfiedwitheachotherandthetwosidesshouldbeinperfectharmonyinmanyaspectsofcommunication.ThelastisTheMaximofEthics,SpeechandBehavior.Itmeansthatpeopleshouldminimizethecostofothersandmaximizethebenefitsofothersasmuchaspossible(WeiYulan&XiYuhu,1998:83).
2.2TheImpactofDifferentFaceConsiderationsontheThreeStagesofSino-AmericanBusinessNegotiation
Inthispart,theimpactofdifferentfaceconsiderationsismainlyshowninthethreephaseofbusinessnegotiation.
2.2.1ImpactonthePre-negotiationPhase
Pre-negotiationphase,thebeginningstageofnegotiationisastageinwhichallinitialactivitiesaredescribedandforChinesenegotiatorsitisalsoastageofdevelopinggoodrelationship.However,ChineseandAmericannegotiatorsalwaysholddifferentopinionsaboutthebeginningstageduetodifferentfaceconsideration.Thedifferencesaremainlyshowninfouraspects:ceremoniesinnegotiation,addressing,exchangingbusinesscardandmembersofthenegotiationteam.
AsisfamiliartoallofusthatChinaisacountrywhoemphasizesceremoniesverymuch.Atthebeginningofnegotiation,theywillalwaysspendmuchtimeandmoneytoentertaintheircounterparts.Thehightheotherparties’position,thebettertherestaurantwillbechosen.Whenseated,itisalwaysthememberswithhighstatushavetherighttotakeseatfirstlyandpeopleshouldsitaccordingtotheirdifferentstatus.Peoplewithhighstatusoftentaketheseatwhichisconsideredasthemostimportantandpeoplewithlowerstatussitinlessimportantseats.Besides,exchangingbusinesscardisalsostartedfromthepeoplewithhighstatus.Exchangingbusinesscardisacommonphenomenoninbusinessactivities.IttakesplaceinamorerelaxedmannerinAmericanthaninChina.ForAmericans,itisacceptabletopresentandreceiveabusinesscardwithonehand,anditisnotconsideredbadmannersforonetoputacardinapocketwithjustacursoryglance.InChina,however,oneshouldusebothhandswhenpresentingitandcardshouldalsobereceivedwithbothhands.Therecipientshouldnotimmediatelyputthecardinhispocketorbag.Notlookingatabusinesscardbeforeputtingawayisconsideredrude.
Theimpactofdifferentfaceconsiderationsisalsoshowninaddressing.Americansalwaystrytoreducethedifferenceinstatus,andlikeaddressingeachotherbygivenname.InAmericas’opinion,callingsomebodybygivennamemaymakepeoplefeelabitmorecomfortable.However,inChineseculture,theself-denigrationmaximiffullyexpressedinaddressing.Chinesefinditisnecessarytoaddresshimorherbysurnameplusthetitle,suchas“ManagerChen”,“DirectorWang”,soastoshowrespectandonlyinthisway,theotherparties’positivefacecanbeprotected.Innegotiation,theyseldomcalltheircounterpartsbytheirgivennamesbecausetheybelievethatcallingothersbygivennameisabehaviorofgreatdisrespect.
Duetotheinfluenceofdifferentfaceconsiderations,attitudetowardsmembersofthenegotiationteamisalsodifferent.InChina,theteamofnegotiationismadeupbymemberswithhighstatusandspecialexpertise.Thepresenceofmemberswithhighstatusontheteamindicatestheorganizationisseriousaboutconcludingnegotiationsuccessfully.InChina,manyfirmsfollowthepracticeofhavinglowerlevelnegotiatorsdothegroundworkandthensendingintoplevelpeopletoclosethedeal.Considerable“face”canbegainedbythetoplevelpeoplewhenanegotiationreachesasuccessfulconclusion.Chinesethinktheemphasisofmemberscanalsoshowrespecttotheothersideanditisalsoabehaviorofshowingface.However,inAmerica,themembersinnegotiationteamarerelativelyequalinpositionandtheyseldomcareabouttheageorpositionwhichmaymakeChinesenegotiatorfeelextremelyuncomfortablewhentheynegotiatewiththosewhoareyoungerthanthemselvesorlowerinposition.Thepersonwhoisseniorinagewillconsiderthatheisnotrespectedbytheotherside.
2.2.2ImpactontheFace-to-FaceNegotiation
Face-to-FaceNegotiationisthemainstageofbusinessinwhichinformationisexchangedandpersuasionismade.Inthisstage,differentfaceconsiderationshaveimpactsonattitudetowarddebateandconflict,makingconcessionandmakingdecision.
Firstly,differentfaceconsiderationshaveadeepimpressionontheirattitudetowarddebateandconflict.Inbusinessnegotiation,Americannegotiatorsliketopubliclyputforwardtheiropinion,expresstheirsuggestionsandopendebate.Whattheypreferisdirectcommunication.Thereisadistinctivedemarcationbetween“yes”and“no”.Iftheycannotacceptthesuggestionsorrequirements,theywillrespondtoitdirectlywithoutvaguewordsandtheyarenotinfavorofequivocalanswer.Whencomesacrossconflicts,theyusuallyliketodealwiththeproblemdirectly,criticizing,discussingthecontroversialissuesandadheringtotheopiniontheyconsiderasfact.Intheiropinion,thepurposeofbeingstraightforwardorstatingdebateismakingtheefficiencyofnegotiationanditwillnothurttheotherside’sface.
However,asmanypeoplemightknowthatmanagingconflictinpublicoropenmeetingislargelyavoidinChina.Lossoffaceisamajortabooandlosingfaceisviewedassomethingquiteshameful.Thus,Chinesenegotiatorspaymuchattentiontosavetheotherperson’sfaceandtheytrytoavoidopendebate.Intheiropinion,opendebatewillcreateconfrontationofthetwosides.Theyconsiderthatthosewhoareatadisadvantagewilllosefaceanditwillresultinanadverseeffectonthenegotiation.Facedwithconflicts,Chinesetendtoshrinkfromitandmayskipfromoneissuetoanotherandevencomebacktothepointswhichintheeyesoftheirpartnershavealreadybeensettled.Protectingtheotherperson’sfaceisconsideredasaskillfulandwiseactionduringconflicts.
Secondly,differentfaceconsiderationshaveadeepimpressiononmakingdecision.InAmerican,decisionisoftenmadebyanindividualwithefficiency.Thereasonforthisisthatitistheindividualthatwhoshouldshouldertheresponsibilityanditisalsotheindividualwhowillbehighlyappreciated.However,inChina,thedecisionisoftenmadebyacollectiveratherthananindividualforitisthegroupwhoareresponsibleforthedecisionanditisthegroupwhocangainpraise.FormostChinesenegotiators,theywillpaymuchattentiontotheirownbehaviorinnegotiationhopingthattheywillnotlosethecollectivefaceandtheyaremoreconcernedwithpreservinggroupharmony.
Thefollowingcaseisatypicalexampletothispoint.
Inthe1980s,ChineseMinistryofCulturenegotiatedacontractforanexhibitionofChina’sarchaeologicaltreasuresthatwastotouranumberofUScities.Thetreasuresneededtobeinsured,butthecompaniesfromChinaandU.S.wantedtodoit.Foralongtime,theycouldnotdecidewhichcompanytheAmericanswouldinsuretheexhibitionwith.TheChineseinsistedthattheyshouldinsurewiththeChinesePeople’sInsuranceCompany,whichwasquitehappytoprovideinsuranceat$2million,butitwouldnotcovertheexhibitsintheeventofmaliciousdamage,whichwasakeyconsideration.Thusthetwosidesreachedanimpasseinthenegotiation.TheChinesenegotiatorssaidthattheywouldbewaitingfortheinstructionsofhigherauthoritiesandsuggestedthatthetwosidesputthisissueasideforatimeandshiftedtominoritems.Sincetherewasnootherwaytobreakadeadlock,theAmericansideagreedtodelaydiscussingabouttheexhibitioninsurance.Duringthistime,Americannegotiatorswentthroughalltherelateddocuments,contactedtheircolleaguesathomeforinformationabouttheinsurancepremium,andpassedonthedetailsofeveryconversationwiththeChinese.Afewdayslater,theAmericansidegotinternationalbrokerstogiveaquoteontheinsurance.ThentheAmericansaid,“So-and-so’sinsurancepolicyis$1.5million,whereasthePeople’sinsuranceCompanywants$2million,andso-and-so’scoversmaliciousdamageandyoursdoesnot.”TheChineserejectedthelesscostlypolicies,sayingitwasmandatorythatnationaltreasurebeinsuredwiththePeople’sInsuranceCompany.TheAmericansaidtheywerehappyforthatcompanytodoit,provideditcouldmatchtheinternationalbroker’spremiumandterms.Intheend,despitethe“regulations,”theexhibitionwasinsuredbyanAmericancompany.ButtheAmericansideconcededsomepoints.Theypaidahandsomechargeforpreservingarchaeologicalsitesandtreasuresontopoftheinsurance.
TheAmericanchiefnegotiatorlatercommentedonthenegotiation,“Whenwecametoacontentiousissue,wedroppedit.Inthewest,ifyouhaveabonelikethat,youwanttochewittodeath,havethatmeetingandgetitresolvedthenandthere.InChina,youdon’tdothat.Yousay,‘OK,weagreetodisagreeonthat.Let’sleaveit.’Providedyougivetheimpressionthatyoutoohaveallthetimeintheworld,theyknowyouhavetoresolveagivenproblemeventually.Sotheywillcomebacktoit.Youcancomebacktoityourselfatthenextmeetingandsay,‘OK,wehadaproblemlasttime,whatareyourviews?’Andyouseeiftherehasbeenabitofgroundgiven.Youtrytogivesomethingyourself,soyoucanmakeprogress.Sothereisgiveandtake.”ThiscasewastakenfromCarolynBlackman,NegotiatingChina:CaseStudiesandStrategies(St.Leonards,NSW,Australia:Allen&Unwin,1997),160-161.
ThiscaseillustratesthecontrastbetweenthedisagreementresolutionsadoptedbyAmericanandChinesenegotiators.InAmericaindividualscanmakedecisionsonbehalfofthecompany.Thismeansthattheycanmakedecisionsinthenegotiationsdirectly.TheyexpecttheChineserepresentativehavesimilarpower.However,sometimesChinesenegotiatorsarenotdecisionmakers.InChinanegotiatinggroupshavetogiveareporttosuperiorateachstageofthenegotiation.Theleadershipneedsaperiodoftimetoexamineandapprove.Andthen,theseopinionswillbeconveyedtonegotiatinggroups.Thisdecision-makingstylewillprolongthenegotiation,sotheUSnegotiatorscannotunderstand.
Whenthedisagreementabouttheinsurancearose,Chinesesidewillrelayonhigherauthorityandshifttominoritems.Thatistosaytheywereavoidingthedisagreements.Inacollectivisticculture,groupdiscussionandaskingasuperiorforadecisionisthepreferredwaytoresolvethekeyissues.Inthiscase,whentheexhibitioninsurancegreatlyconcernedChinesenationaltreasures,itwasmoreserious.Chinesenegotiatorswoulddependontheauthoritiesatthecrucialmomentsinsteadofmakingdecisionsthemselves.Thehigherauthoritiesalsotooktimetoweighthealternatives.
IncontrasttotheChinesenegotiators,Americannegotiatorspresentedmoredirectgesturestowardtheconflict.Theylaidtheproblemsoutonthetablesothattheycoulddothedealquicklyandefficiently.
Attheendofthiscase,bothsidesmadeastrategicchangeontheirrespectivedisagreementresolvingstylesfromtheassertivenesstothecooperativeness.Thisshiftledtothewin-winsituation,inwhichtheAmericansidegottheinsurancepolicyoftheexhibitionandtheChinesesidegotthefinancialsupportforpreservingarcheologicalsitesandtreasures.
2.2.3ImpactonthePost-negotiationPhase
Post-negotiationphase,astheconclusionstageofnegotiation,isimportantforwhethernegotiationcanreachanagreementorstalemate.Inthisstage,bothpartieswilltrytheirbesttonarrowdownthedisagreementtoclosethesaleandsignagreement.However,affectedbydifferentfaceconsiderations,formofagreementisalsopreferreddifferent.
FormanyAmericans,thepurposeofnegotiationistosignadetailedcontractbetweenthepartieswithclearanddefinitetermsofrightsandobligationsthatstrictlybindthetwosides.Americanshighlyvaluelawandcontract.Whennegotiating,theywouldtaketheirownlawyersandletthemparticipateinthedraftingofcontracts.Theirtrustisbasedonlegaltermsratherthanrelationship.However,Chinesearequitedifferent.Theyconsidercreatingthebondingoffriendshipastheprimarygoalofnegotiation.Chinesebelievethattheparticipationoflawyersshowsadistrustoftheothersideanditisdifficultforbusinesstogoonwithouttrust.Trustisregardedasaprerequisitetothenegotiationofwrittenagreements.
2.3.Sectionalsummary:theimpactsofdifferentFaceviewsontheinternationalbusinessnegotiations
ThedifferencesbetweentheFaceviewsofChineseandAmericanpeoplecaninfluencethedevelopmentofthetwo-sidebusinessactivitiessinceitcanseriouslyaffectthecommunicationbetweentheChineseandAmericanpeople,breakoffameeting,andleadthenegotiationtoadeadlockorevenafailure.Inordertomaintainthefineinterpersonalrelationship,theChinesenegotiatorsprefertoadoptthenon-advansersarialmannerandthenon-directconfrontationstrategytosolvetheproblems,sotheywillobliquelybutpolitelystatetheirownopinionsandavoiddirectrefusalorrebuttalevenwhentheydisagreewiththeotherside’sopinion.Onthecontrary,theAmericannegotiatorsalwaystrytoclarifytheirstandpointswithdirectlanguageandclearattitude,sotheyoftenseemstronglyoffensiveandargumentative.ThefrankwayofexpressionoftheAmericannegotiatorswillhurttheprideoftheChinesenegotiatorssinceAmericansareinterpretedas“don’tgiveface”whiletheindirectwayofexpressionofChinesenegotiatorsmakestheAmericansconfusedsincetheAmericanscanhardlyrecognizetherealattitudeoftheChinese.ThedifferentFaceviewsmakethenegotiationsdifficultandevenleadtothefailend.Besides,duetothedifferentFaceviewsinChinaandAmerica,somebehaviorsmaybenotoffensiveinAmericawhilebeveryinappropriateinChina.SuchbehaviorswillevenbeconsideredbyChineseas“don’tgiveface”andviceversa.Forexample,therearedifferenttimesensebetweentheChineseandAmericans,i.e.,theChinesedon’tthinkitimpolitethatnotnegotiateinrigidaccordancewiththeplannedschedual,whiletheAmericanshavestrongtimesense,andtheyconsidertheChinese’sbehaviorasseriousbreachofetiquette.Thereforethedifferenttimesenseswillleadtothebreakdownofthenegotiations.TheChinesepeoplethinkhighlyoffriendshipandwillflexiblyalterthecontracttermswhennecessary,whiletheAmericansemphasizethefinancialbenefit,sotheybegintothinkofthelegalityofthecontractassoonastheyhassignedit.Intheirview,ifonesidecannotperformthecontract,theyshouldpaythecompensationandpenaltyaccordingtothecontract,andthereisnoroomfornegotiating.Thedifferentattitudestowardsthecontractwilldefinitelybringdifficultytotheperforationofthecontractsandwillprobablybringeviltothenegotiations
ChapterⅢ
SuggestionsforSino-usbusinessnegotiation
3.1.ToflexiblyapplytheessenceofChineseculture
IntheprofoundandextensiveChineseculture,whoseessencewecanabsorbtoservethenegotiationsbetter,theConfucianismideathat“harmonyismostprecious”holdsanoverwhelmingplaceinthetraditionalChinesecultureandisgreetedbythemodernsocietysincetheConfucianismhasbecomemoreandmorepopularintheinternationalacademicstudy.ItisworthyofemphasizingandstudyinghowtoapplytheConfucianismideastothenegotiationswiththepurposeofsettlingdowntheconflicts.Intheabovecases,theChinesenegotiators,whohavebeendeeplycultivatedbytheConfucianism,couldchoosepropernegotiatingstrategytogainconcessionsandachievetheiridealresult.
3.2.Toavoidtheredtape
Toapplytheconciseconvenancestrategy.Inaccordancewiththepragmatic
negotiatingideasofAmericans,theChinesenegotiatorscanapplytheconciseconvenancestrategy,i.e.,toutilizethesimplebutpragmaticconvenanceinthecommunicationtoreachthegoalofshowingfriendshipandrespect.Specifically,inlanguage,thenegotiatorcanusethepoliteaddresseswhiletheyshouldnotover-humblethemselves;inbehavior,thenegotiatorcanberefinedandcultured;inclothing,thegentlemencanwearthesuitwhiletheladiescanwearthesuitdress;inmanner,thenegotiatorscanbesimpleandrelaxed.
3.3Toovercomethe“face”prejudices
Comparingwiththenegotiationsinthemono-culturesituation,thecross-culturenegotiationsarealwaysmorechallengingsincethelatteroneinvolvingdifferentwaysofthinking,feeling,andacting.Thecross-culturenegotiationsarecomplicated,becausetheunrealizedpowerstreamsindifferentculturesaretouchedinnegotiatingprocess.Itissuchpowerstreamsunderlyingintheculturalregulationsthathaveweakenedtheeffectivecommunication.PeopleshouldovercometheFaceprejudiceinthebusinessnegotiation.First,thenegotiatorsshouldbetoleranttothedifferentculturalbehaviors.Itdoesn’tmeanthatonesidejustadapttotheotherside,ormechanicallycopytheculturalformandmethodoftheotherside.Itmeansthatthenegotiatorshouldlearntoempathizewhenunderstandingtheothersideandtreatingtheproblems.Weshouldbeawarethattheforeignersaredifferentfromourselvesinfeeling,motivation,beliefandstandpoints.Weshouldalsoknowthatsomeprinciplesrecognizedinourcountrymaynotworkintheothercountries.Therefore,weshouldadjustourstepsandbesynchronoustothecounterparts.Inthecross-countrybusinessnegotiations,itisthethefinancialbenefitbutnotthewaysofthinkingorvaluesthatshouldbeconcentrated.Thenegotiatorsshouldrememberitandavoidcontradictionslaunchedbysuchaspects.Second,thenegotiatorsshouldsubtlyobservetheculturalprinciplesandsocialcustoms.Beforecommunicatingwiththeforeignbusinessworkers,theyshouldknowasmorecustomsandtaboosoftheothersideaspossible.Thenegotiatorsshouldtrytheirbesttogetinformationaboutthequestionslike“whatkindofpersonarethey”and“howdotheybehave”topreventunhappysituationsresultedbyourinnocenceofsomespecialcasesoftheotherside,oreventhesituationofput-offorfailednegotiations.Theessenceofthecommunicationbetweendifferentculturesistogenerateinterest,tolearnabout,torespectandtoappreciatethecultureoftheircounterparts.Ifyoutakeakeeninterestinthecultureofyourrivals,youwillfindthattheircultureisofgreatimportanceandworthyoflearning.Thusthenegotiatorsofcross-culturetalksshouldrespecteachothers’culturaldifferencesasmuchaspossiblesincethetalkswillbefullofenjoymentsonlywhenthecommonpointsofthetwoculturesarediscovered.Thecontractssignedinsuchcasewillnotonlybringmutualbenefit,butwillalsobuilduplong-termpartnershipbetweenthecompaniesundertwodifferentculturalbackground.
Conclusion
Businessnegotiationisacomplexhumanactivity,whichplaysanimportantroleineconomicinteraction.Actually,itisakindofeconomicactivitythroughlanguage.Inbusinessnegotiation,itimprovesthesuccessfulproportiontoattachtheimportancetotheorganiccombinationoflanguageexpressionswithstrategypractice.Bothpartieshavetocooperatewitheachotheraswellascompeteagainsteachother.Eitherpartywillstrivetomaximizeownbenefitwhilemaintainingcooperationwiththeother.Thereforeitisindispensableforonesidetochooseeffectivenegotiatingstrategiesandlanguageingainingadvantagesovertheother.Amongthosestrategies,facetheoryanditsrelevantlanguageareofgreatimportanceinbusinessnegotiation.
Inmanylanguageactivities,peopleusepolitelanguageformaintainingfaceeachother.Thepurposeistokeepthegoodsocialrelations,haveapeacefulandfriendlyatmosphereandcommunicatesuccessfullyincommunication.Thus，inbusinessnegotiation,inordertomakebusinesstransactiongowithaswing,maintainingfaceisalsooneofthepolitelanguage’sfunctions.Inbusinessnegotiation,theresearchsuggeststhatthenegotiator''sknowledgeandtheemotionsometimesisnotidentical,soitisdifficulttoacceptalthoughsomewordsarecorrectly.Then，negotiatorscanadoptpolitenessstrategiestomaketheothersidetoacceptyouropiniondelightfully.Obviously,usingpolitenessstrategiestomaintainfaceexistwidelyinbusinessnegotiation.
Reference
Grice,P.LogicandConversation[M].P.ColeandJ.Morgan,1975.
GuYueguo，“PolitenessPhenomenainModernChinese”[J].JournalofPragmatics,1990(14)
YangShuai，“AnApproachtoPolitenessDifferencesinChineseandEnglishLanguages”2008(3)
Leech,G.N.，PrinciplesofPragmatics[M].London:LongmanPress,1983.
NicholasReidSchaffzin,Negotiatesmart,thesecretsofsuccessfulnegotiation,NEWYork:RandomHouse,1997
RonaldM.ShapiroandMarkA.JankowskiwithJamesDale,Thepowerofnice,Howtonegotiatesoeveryonewins-especiallyyou!,NewYork,2001
RoyJ.Lewicki,InternationalBusinessNegotiation[M],北京:中国人民大学出版社2008.
黄卫平，董丽丽.《国际商务谈判[M]》，北京：机械工业出版社，2007.
刘园.《国际贸易谈判[M]》，上海：复旦大学出版社，2007.
孙庆和，张福春.《实用商务谈判大全[M]》，北京：企业管理出版社，2005.
王海云.《商务谈判[M]》，北京：北京航天航空大学出版社，2003.
魏玉兰.席玉虎．《礼貌准则与语用失误[J]》．山西师大学报，1998，(4)：83-85．
Acknowledgements
FirstIwouldliketoexpressmyheartfeltgratitudetomysupervisorZhangLiforherpatienceandinspiration.Shehasgivenmevaluablesuggestionsandhasalwaysbeenpatientwithme.Withoutherencouragement,mythesiswouldnothavebeencompletedsuccessfully.
MyindebtednessandgratitudeshouldgotoalltheotherprofessorsintheEnglishDepartmentofCollegeofArts,HebeiUniversityofEngineering.Thoseprofessorshavenotonlyhelpedmeinmyacademicstudies,butalsohaveenlightenedmymindduringmyfour-yearstudies.Ifeelthankfulandgratefulforthetimebeingherewiththem.
Lastbutnottheleast,Iwouldliketothankmyclassmateswhoareoftenengagedintheheateddiscussionwithmeandprovidetheirsupportduringmywritingofthisthesis.
河北工程大学科信学院学士论文
18
|
|
