Page 254 - DMGT547_INTERNATIONAL_MARKETING

Unit 14: Global E-Marketing and EDI

Informal: Negotiators with a relatively low concern for protocol adhere to a much smaller, Notes
more loosely defined set of rules. Team members may believe there are multiple ways to
behave appropriately in a particular situation and may even have conflicting ideas about what
is appropriate.

14.4.9 Style of Communication: High Context versus Low Context

This dimension refers to the degree to which people rely on verbal statements to communicate
their primary message. Two culturally derived styles of communication are important to
international business.
Low Context: Low-context communicators believe that clarity is critical for effective
communication, and they perceive direct requests to be the most effective strategy for
accomplishing their goals. The onus is on the communicator to make sure that the other party
understands what is being said. Low-context communicators are less likely to pick up on hints,
particularly if the parties do not know each other well. Frank, open communication is perceived
as the best way to resolve differences. It is possible to offer criticism without having the other
person take offense.
High Context: High-context communicators perceive direct requests to be the least effective
strategy for accomplishing their goals. Directness is often considered rude and offensive; hence
high-context communicators tend to be tactful, use qualifying words, and listen carefully. High-
context communicators often hide their true feelings in order to maintain harmony in a
relationship. It is very difficult to offer criticism without having the other person take offense.
Importantly, people cannot be separated from the message, which means that reaching agreement
with someone is completely dependent on liking that person.

14.4.10 Nature of Persuasion: Factual-Inductive versus Affective

This dimension refers to the type of evidence negotiators use to develop persuasive arguments.
After an extensive review of the literature on philosophy, culture, and argumentation, we
synthesized the variety of persuasive arguments in a bipolar dimension, with factual-inductive
and affective as endpoints.

Factual-Inductive: Factual-inductive negotiators base their arguments on empirical facts and
use linear logic (if-then statements) to persuade the other party.
Proof used to support persuasive arguments includes such things as scientific evidence,
professional standards, expert opinion, costs, market value, and other hard data. Moreover,
factual-inductive negotiators believe the strongest case is made by presenting their best arguments
first.
Affective: Affective negotiators may base their arguments on abstract theory, ideals, references
to status and relationships, and/or appeals to sympathy. Evidence used to support persuasive
arguments includes such things as moral standards, equal treatment, tradition, and reciprocity.
Affective negotiators develop their arguments indirectly. They may start with peripheral
arguments and present their best arguments last, after the other party has reacted.
14.4.10 Form of Agreement: Explicit Contract versus Implicit Agreement

This dimension refers to the preferred form of agreement between the parties: either formal
written contracts or informal oral agreements. Formal written contracts clearly specify desired
partner actions, the degree to which both companies of the agreement will cooperate and conform
to each other’s expectations, as well as the penalties that one party can extract should the other
party fail to perform.

LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY 249