Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Language of Negotiations Home Assignment
Language of Negotiations Home Assignment
Spencer Shaw
Name of student :
CBS Number: S148479
Date of Submission: 13/06/2022
Although persuasion is widely seen as a skill that is only reserved for selling products and
closing deals, one would be surprised as to how frequently persuasion techniques are used in
our language on a day-to-day basis. Indeed, as Conger states, “effective persuasion becomes a
negotiating and learning process through which a persuader leads colleagues to a problem’s
shared solution” (Conger, 1998) — affirming that persuasion is hence an essential part of all
positive outcome for both parties. Persuasion is commonly known to have four vital steps,
that if used effectively, can engender a practical negotiation. The first step would be to
establish credibility. In the workplace for example, credibility tends to be a result of one’s
professional expertise and their relationship with other colleagues, which means that someone
would have a better chance at persuading a business plan to their peers if they prove to have
solid knowledge of what they are talking about, as well as being a trustworthy source that
works in the best interest of others. The second step of the persuasion journey is to find a
frame for common ground, as in identifying common benefits; a parent can do this for
example, by convincing their child to do their chores and reward them afterwards with some
candy. In a professional space, finding a frame for common ground can only be achieved if
one has a strong understanding of their audience and is aware of the issues that matter to
them. Using personal stories and vivid language are also relevant in this step. The third pillar
storylines, metaphors and analogies can make positions come alive — a marketing manager
looking for investors in a new product, for example, could reference similar investments that
provided a generous profit as a means of persuasion. The fourth and final step to persuasion,
being to provide an emotional connection, is also very crucial. One must demonstrate their
emotional attachment to the position they are trying to persuade as a means of appearing
believable, as well as acknowledge the emotional state of their audience; the latter which can
be achieved through strong, forceful points. All in all, persuasion can be a force of good in a
business environment, as it can bring people together, engender change, push new ideas
forward and eventually lead to a constructive solution. But for this to occur, one must
Bearing in mind that persuasion in the negotiation process does truly involve a lot of
convincing, it is necessary to consider just how ethical such negotiations can be. Although
Plato argues that persuasion can be unethical, in the sense that it will only add to the reserve
of misleading tactics of dishonourable individuals, Aristotle, his student, claims that more is
be aware of when others are attempting to coerce them and how to resist such malevolence
(Robinson, 1995). In other words, this means that we cannot stop instructing how to
persuasively negotiate because some people will use it in devious ways. As a result, when
does one draw the line at ethical negotiation? The answer could be a result of the context
misrepresenting information or bluffing, are sometimes deemed acceptable when mutual gain
is not the goal and can be justified when there is an emergency and a power imbalance of
some sort. In the context of negotiating with terrorists for the release of hostages for example,
terrorists are highly likely to engage in questionable behaviour because of the power and
opportunity they possess by holding said hostages against their will. Indeed, ethics
significantly impacts the negotiation process, merely because deception is very common —
many would argue that in order to release those hostages, deception is necessary when
serving the greater good as it could potentially save their lives. Professional labour
negotiators, for example, expect deception whilst negotiation, considering that opponents are
likely to withhold information and attempt to build up false perceptions surrounding their
private setting rather than across a negotiating table. In the long run however, the use of
hurry, hiding one’s bottom line, although they may be deemed tolerable in such contexts,
undermines positive relationships with colleagues and can lead to resentment, simply because
a skilful negotiator will know that most people are intelligent enough to realize when they are
being manipulated. As Aristotle states, the most effective way to respond is to “take the next
best course” (Rapp, 2022), which would mean to be aware of the errors into which we are
liable whilst negotiating, and then to drag ourselves into the opposite direction. Indeed, when
negotiators have uncertainty and lack information, they are more likely to engage in
deceptive discussions — but this flaw lies hand in hand with the importance of persuasion
and can hence negatively impact negotiation — as people will refuse to trust, respect, and
When speaking of ethics in negotiations, one must also consider how ethics may play a
totally different role when it comes to intercultural business relations, mainly because cultural
limiting the validity of the findings (Stewart & Bennett, 1991). As a matter of fact, cross-
cultural negotiations are very relevant in today’s world and heavily impact negotiation
exchanges —Japanese businesses for example, seek to know how Danish businesses operate
and how communication patterns differ from their own in order to understand what they need
important because all cultures look at themselves through their self-reference criteria: in the
United States for example, individualism, directness, and achievement orientation are seen as
positive values; but in Asian cultures however, there is heavy emphasis on the group,
indirectness and reciprocity when communicating, and thus negotiating (Lowe, 2001).
Indeed, effective intercultural negotiation requires active negotiation on both sides. Clausen
(2007) references a “negotiated culture”, an ideal negotiations outcome in which two cultures
come together, neither dominates, gradually leading to the emergence of a new culture as a
result of the negotiation. Bearing in mind that most cultures are different, it is helpful to
categorize them based on their ways of interacting. Degrees of affectivity in different regions
are opposite: in the United States for example, individuals exhibit emotion to newcomers,
whereas in Scandinavian countries, people tend to keep to themselves and find no need in
being effusive with relative strangers (Trompenaars, 2012). There is actually nothing “good”
or “bad” about these differences, nonetheless it is very important to acknowledge them whilst
negotiating. If an American marketing manager wished to look for Swedish investors for
example, they would need to understand that in such a neutrally cultural society, cool and
self-possessed conduct is admired, rather than being animated and overly enthusiastic, values
that are more appreciated in the United States. Undeniably, said Swedish investors would be
more focused on the object being negotiated by said American marketing manager, rather
than the person they are communicating with. It is therefore also needed to differentiate
cultures based on how the people view themselves and apply this to negotiation. Universalist
countries, such as the United Kingdom, Switzerland, the Netherlands, and Scandinavia, are
such as Indonesia, China, and South Korea, in which people regard themselves as part of a
society, they would need to withdraw their no-nonsense, “get down to business” rhetoric
whilst negotiating, instead opting for a more personal, emotional outlook on communication
that involves getting to know the person who which they would be negotiating with. It is also
important to remember the impact of non-verbal communication. Research indicates that 75%
of communication is made through body language, with elements such as eye contact, as well
as respecting boundaries and keeping space being essential whilst communicating. (Stouffer
& Toby, 1951). The importance of recognising difference also applies the other way round:
let’s assume a United Kingdom-based firm wished to appeal to an Asian market. Whilst
negotiating, this British organization would need to focus more on rules and regulations,
rather than seeking a relationship with its Asian counterparts, as in such regions, a deal is a
Although everyone simply wants to make the best deal possible, it is important to remember
that many will not hesitate to mislead the other party in order to obtain a better deal; this
tactic is often used when people know for certain that they will never see the party ever again.
In the long run however, when one wishes to build a long-term relationship with a business
partner for example, honesty and ethical behaviour is vital. An individual that marks their
words and builds a respectable reputation has a far better chance of maintaining beneficial
business relations with their opponents. With that in mind, it is safe to say that the more
trustworthy, truthful, and well-informed a person is, the higher are their chances at effectively
persuading another party to abide with their negotiation. Again, this rule also applies when
respective ways of handling discussion, as well as how people in such societies perceive
themselves. All in all, the more respectable a person is of their other party’s best interest, the
beneficial to both.
References:
3. Friedman, R., Shapiro, D. (1995). Deception and mutual gains bargaining: are they
mutually exclusive?. Negotiation Journal, Volume 11, pages 243–253
7. Lowe, S. (2001). In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. International
Journal of Cross-Cultural Management, 1, 313–332. doi:10.1177/147059580113004
9. Stouffer, S., & Toby, J. (1951). Role Conflict and Personality. American Journal of
Sociology. LUI-5. Pages 395-406.