مذاکره کننده ی هوشمند به لحاظ فرهنگی : تأثیر هوش فرهنگی (CQ) بر توالی و نتایج مذاکره

Although scholars and practitioners have repeatedly touted the importance of negotiating effectively across cultures, paradoxically, little research has addressed what predicts intercultural negotiation effectiveness. In this research, we examined the impact of cultural intelligence (CQ) on intercultural negotiation processes and outcomes, controlling for other types of intelligence (cognitive ability and emotional intelligence), personality (openness and extraversion), and international experience. Transcripts of 124 American and East Asian negotiators were coded for sequences of integrative information behaviors and cooperative relationship management behaviors. CQ measured a week prior to negotiations predicted the extent to which negotiators sequenced integrative information behaviors, which in turn predicted joint profit, over and beyond other individual differences. Additional analyses revealed that the level of integrative sequencing was more a function of the lower-scoring than the higher-scoring negotiator within the dyad. Other individual difference characteristics were not related to effective intercultural negotiation processes. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

The concern for negotiating effectively across cultures is hardly a new phenomenon. Even the world’s first historian, Herodotus (ca. 400BC) observed the “strangeness” of how ancient Egyptians traded with the Greeks (Herodotus, Marincola, & de Selincourt, 2003), and as early as the second century BC, trade began to flourish among people of different cultures along the Silk Road that stretched from Rome to China (Elisseeff, 2000). In the 21st century, with the advent of globalization, being able to negotiate effectively across cultures is a crucial aspect of many inter-organizational relationships, including strategic alliances, joint ventures, mergers and acquisitions, licensing and distribution agreements, and sales of products and services (Adler, 2002). The need to negotiate effectively across cultures is also painfully obvious in today’s geo-political scene, where the source of conflict among humankind is thought to be increasingly cultural in nature (Huntington, 1996). Indeed, in the recent Iraq Study Group Report, the improvement of cultural training for US personnel fighting the war in Iraq was deemed one of the highest priorities by the US secretary of state, secretary of defense, and the director of national intelligence (Baker & Hamilton, 2006). Despite the importance of being able to negotiate effectively across cultures, there is a fundamental paradox in the culture and negotiation literature. That is, even though the practical importance of negotiating across cultural boundaries is often touted to justify cross-cultural theory development, the vast majority of research on culture and negotiation remains comparative (e.g. Gelfand and Realo, 1999 and Tinsley and Pillutla, 1998). With some exceptions ( Adair et al., 2001, Adler and Graham, 1989, Brett and Okumura, 1998 and Natlandsmyr and Rognes, 1995), most research compares and contrasts different negotiation behaviors as they occur in mono-cultural contexts across cultures, instead of directly examining intercultural settings where cultural barriers exist right at the negotiation table. Indeed, in reviewing Gelfand and Brett’s (2004)Handbook of Negotiation and Culture, Kray (2005) aptly lamented that “although researchers have identified a host of cross-cultural differences in styles and preferences, negotiation scholars might consider expanding beyond simple demonstrations of differences…and explore whether awareness of these differences makes a difference…knowledge about factors influencing the effectiveness of intercultural negotiations is sparse” (p. 159). Yet to date, the culture and negotiation literature reveals little as to what characteristics negotiators can be selected and/or trained upon in order to maximize the chances of reaching optimal agreements in intercultural negotiations. The purpose of this research is to examine cultural intelligence (CQ), defined as an individual’s capability to adapt effectively to situations of cultural diversity (Earley & Ang, 2003), as a potential predictor of intercultural negotiation effectiveness. Our main proposition is that negotiators with higher CQ have more cooperative motives and higher epistemic motivation in intercultural contexts (study 1), and will engage in more effective integrative negotiation processes (i.e., reciprocal and complementary sequences of integrative information behaviors and sequences of cooperative relationship management behaviors), which will allow them to achieve higher joint profits than dyads with lower CQ (study 2). We take a conservative approach and examine whether CQ predicts effective sequences of integrative negotiation behaviors over and beyond other forms of individual difference characteristics identified in the negotiation literature to have an impact on integrative negotiation. We also examine the dyad composition of CQ and propose that the level of integrative sequencing achieved among dyads will be no greater than that determined by the lower-scoring negotiator within the dyad. To the best of our knowledge, this research is of the first to directly address the question of what predicts intercultural negotiation effectiveness. Intercultural challenges to effective integrative negotiation processes and outcomes The culture and negotiation literature has consistently found that negotiators achieve significantly less joint profit when negotiating across the cultural divide than when negotiating within their own culture. This effect has been found among various samples (e.g., Adler and Graham, 1989, Brett and Okumura, 1998 and Natlandsmyr and Rognes, 1995), and the robustness of this intercultural disadvantage is not surprising when considering the number of psychological and behavioral challenges that face negotiators in intercultural contexts (see Adair & Brett, 2004). In terms of psychological challenges, negotiators in intercultural contexts are less likely to have cooperative motives (i.e., have equal and high concerns for both the outcomes of self and other) than negotiators in intracultural contexts. For example, the intergroup bias literature has long established that individuals are less willing to extend cooperation towards outgroup members compared to ingroup members (Hewstone, Rubin, & Willis, 2002). Indeed, an early negotiation study by Graham (1985) found that intercultural negotiators are more competitive than intracultural negotiators (see also George et al., 1999 and Kumar, 2004). Intercultural negotiations are also more challenging in that they have the potential to promote negative intergroup dynamics that lead to the closing of the mind among negotiators. For example, negative moods such as anxiety and fear that commonly arise in intercultural situations (Stephan & Stephan, 1985) have been shown to lower cognitive flexibility (Baas, De Dreu, & Nijstad, 2008). Similarly, ethnocentrism has been found to be associated with rigidity in thinking (Cunningham, Nezlek, & Banaji, 2004). Together, these findings suggest that in intercultural contexts, negotiators may have a more difficult time sustaining epistemic motivation (i.e., the need to develop an accurate understanding of the world through deliberate and systematic information processing (De Dreu, 2004) than in intracultural contexts. The fact that both cooperative motives and epistemic motivation are difficult to maintain in intercultural contexts is problematic, as the broader literature shows that both are necessary for negotiators to engage in effective integrative behaviors that lead to joint profit (De Dreu, Beersma, Stroebe, & Euwema, 2006; see also Beersma and De Dreu, 1999, De Dreu and Van Lange, 1995, De Dreu et al., 2000, Olekalns et al., 1996 and Weingart et al., 1993). Furthermore, behavioral challenges such as coordination problems and communication mismatches are more likely to afflict intercultural negotiators. Research suggests that negotiators from different cultures bring culture-specific schemas (Brett and Okumura, 1998 and Gelfand et al., 2001) and behavioral strategies (Adair et al., 2001) to the negotiation table. For example, Adair et al. (2001) found that while negotiators from a low context culture such as the US exchange information directly through stating issue priorities, negotiators from a high context culture such as Japan exchange information indirectly by implying their own issue priorities through the use of multi-issue offers. Such cultural differences in normative negotiation behaviors suggest that in intercultural contexts, negotiators may have a more difficult time engaging in effective, coordinated sequences of integrative negotiation behaviors than in intracultural contexts. This particular intercultural challenge is problematic given the broader negotiation literature shows that sequencing of integrative negotiation behaviors, whether it is reciprocal sequencing of integrative tactics (i.e., matching identical negotiation tactics; Adair, 2003, Olekalns and Smith, 2000, Weingart et al., 1999 and Weingart et al., 1990) or complementary sequencing of integrative tactics (i.e., pairing non-identical integrative tactics; Olekalns & Smith, 2003), is a critical predictor of high joint profit. In summary, the lack of cooperativeness and epistemic motivation associated with interacting with culturally unfamiliar others and the coordination problems that result from clashing behavioral styles make intercultural negotiators less likely to engage in integrative negotiation processes that lead to joint profit. A natural question that arises then is: how can negotiators overcome such obstacles? What individual difference characteristic might best predict intercultural negotiation effectiveness?

This research moved beyond cross-cultural comparisons of negotiation behaviors to directly examine negotiation behaviors as they occur in intercultural contexts. This study illustrates that CQ is a key predictor of intercultural negotiation effectiveness. Practically speaking, employees should be selected on CQ to maximize the chances of optimal agreements in intercultural negotiations. In a world where there is increasing opportunities for cooperation as well as threats of conflict at the global level for managers and political leaders alike, CQ holds the promise for helping us manage our global interdependence